I know no one sees Beltre in high regard, but here is a good video of some of his highlights that I like to watch every so often. (Horrible song tho)

And yes, I'm a sucker for Beltre.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2HsPE8f8h4

Me too...he was well loved here in Seattle...I miss watching him play. When Seattle plays Texas, his and Felix's interactions are priceless...

mike schmidt overrated

LOL Of course I pulled it out of the air. :D This is fun and friendly banter, and we enjoy the sport. In our own minds we can justify why one player is better / the best than another. We look for different qualities and we are all correct in what we believe because of that.

It's funny how this thread evolved from how good was Chipper into a battle between Schmidt and Brett.

Top 3:

Gary Gaetti
Scott Leius
Corey Koskie

To say one is better or the best all time in baseball is like comparing apples to oranges ignoring the different eras of baseball. To you all Bless Your Hearts on This Matter

Who is saying Brett is the career winner?? Sure, he was a doubles machine. But is that really more important than the Schmidt bombs? Schmidt's OPB, Slugging, OPS, and offensive WAR are noticeably higher, plus he even won more Silver Sluggers! I think "easy choice" is too much of a reach.

This guy...
 

Why?

Ron Cey?

NO!!! Duh...John Hilton of course

Nice...

While on topic of homer picks, I've named my team "The Bill Muellers" for every fantasy pool or league. That guy played a clean 3rd base.

What's up Pete? Why no love for Harmon Killebrew?

Cey and Ted Simmons are overlooked because they played at the same time as arguably the best ever at their position.

While Schmidt would be my pick, I think it is very fair to say the Brett never had nearly the same pieces around him. Never had a Carlton pitching at the top of his staff, though Saberhagen was good...Al Cowens or Willie Aiken were the guys who generally protected Brett, which Luzinski was a far more feared threat...

How many post seasons

Mike Schmidt's post season not impressive

'76 NL East Champs
'77 NL East Champs
'78 NL East Champs
'80 World Series Champs
'81 Playoff Appearance
'83 NL Champs

Not as good as Pete Rose 5 hr to Schmidts 4 hr Phillies won with Rose in 1980 and as I remember Reds swept Phillies in 75 and 76

Mike was terrible in post season play.

I guess you have to look at the whole package - offense and defense.

Schmidt had both, the only drawback was the low BA and the Ks but hey, 10 GGs would make up for the BA and Ks. If it were only based on either offense OR defense then you could make a case for others.

Actually they only swept Phillies in '76.
Swept the Pirates in '75

The Yost Post
 

Eddie walked more than all of the above!!!:):p

Brooks Robinson is the beginning and end as the greatest third baseman of all-time. It amazes me that when speaking of a POSITION that only offense is brought up. Of course, Brooks has defense won by a mile. Very clutch postseason performer and a leader on some of the greatest teams in modern baseball history. Manny Machado of the Orioles is going to be very, very special at that position.

No one mentions Graig Nettles' defense?? He was Robinsonesque at third!!!

Oliver Marcelle!

The gap in how much better Robinson was on defense is smaller then the gap Schmidt was better on offense.

Brooks' offense came when it mattered the most!

Id like to put a poll with just stats snd no names and see how just the hitting poll turns out

Stats are irrelevant without considering era.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That would be fun, get 6 or 7 players and provide stats.

I'm a huge Brooks guy, just from those WS highlights alone... And know he was a clutch hitter as well.

Still think Schmidt is probably it, but don't necessarily agree with later post about Brooks/Schmidt gap in offense vs gap in defense... Brooks is to 3rd base what Ozzie was to SS, if not more. He was an all time defensive player.. And when you're that on the corner, you're robbing doubles and triples on those lines, not just hits.

I see Killer at a 1 sacker half of his career. Gaetti "The Rat" was the man

I'm sorry, but this whole exercise is silly. Chipper Jones was a great player in his day, and is a worthy Hall of Famer. That being said, anybody claiming he is a better third baseman than Michael Jack Schmidt needs to take off their rose colored glasses.

Though baseball lends itself to statistical analysis more than any other professional sport, it is folly, in my opinion, to merely compare career numbers when attempting to make an argument for or against any particular player's greatness. Why? Because doing so eliminates context. The context of the eras the players under consideration played in cannot be overlooked, and it too often is. There is no logic in saying "player x got more total bases than player y, therefore they were a better player". Ah, no.

When I gauge a player's greatness, I compare them against their peers. Because while Mike Schmidt and Home Run Baker both played third base, and both are in Cooperstown, dismissing Baker's accomplishments merely based on a look at his career numbers would be a disservice to the game.

I will post a more in depth analysis a little later.

Hard to leave John Castino off this list!

3rd Baseman - Brooks Robinson
 

I agree totally with Drew; what question are you asking? Most of you guys are giving all types of stats for hitting...why don't you just compare these players with the best offensive players to ever play.

If you're talking 3rd baseman...then Brooks Robinson is the best ever. All around I think it would be Brooks or Schmidt (in my view). Brett and/or Chipper were not the best defensive players, even in their prime. Brooks changed the way teams played against them. As an example view the '66 WS where the Dodgers liked to bunt, but rarely went Brooks' way in the series.

My question would be how can the best defensive third baseman of all time, not be #1 or #2?

Because as Bill James has explained offense makes much more difference to winning games than defense.

Tell that to the 1970s Reds. Since was are talking about POSITION which is defensive in nature....have to go with Brooks Robinson. You can pitch around sluggers.

+ 100, especially Schmidt ;)

Getting back to the Mike Schmidt vs Chipper Jones debate (if you can even call it that). Compare the two players against their peers. Schmidt was one of the dominant players in baseball in his day. Jones, though a great player, was not.

Schmidt won three MVP Awards. Jones won one. Schmidt finished third in the MVP another two times, sixth twice, and seventh once. In all, he finished in the top ten in MVP nine times. Jones finished fourth in the MVP once, sixth once, eighth once, and ninth twice. Six top ten MVP finishes in all for Jones. But only one top three MVP finish compared to five for Schmidt.

Look then at their individual seasons, and leading the league in major offensive categories. In the triple crown statistics, home runs, RBI and average, Mike Schmidt won eight home run titles. In the history of Major League Baseball, only Babe Ruth has won more home run titles (twelve) than Schmidt. Schmidt also led the National League in RBIs four times. That's twelve times Schmidt led the National League in one of the "big three".

Chipper Jones never led the National League in home runs, never led the National League in RBI, and he won one batting title.

What about other statistics?

OBP? Jones led the NL once. Schmidt three times.
Runs scored? Schmidt once. Jones never led the NL in runs scored.
Walks? Three times to none for Schmidt.
Slugging? Schmidt led four times, Jones none.
OPS? Schmidt led the NL in on base plus slugging five times. Jones once.
OPS+, which adjusts for the stadiums played in. Jones led the NL with an OPS + of 165 in 2007. Schmidt led six times in seven seasons between 1980 and 1986.

In total, Mike Schmidt led, or tied for the league lead in major statistical categories 38 times in his career. Chipper Jones, in 19 seasons, led the NL in four major statistical categories: OPS and OPS + in 2007, and batting average and OBP in 2008.

Schmidt not only won more MVP awards (three to one), had more top five MVP finishes (five to one), he also dominated the league statistically in a way that Jones never did.

Offensively, Schmidt was clearly the more dominant player in his era. And in the context of baseball history, again, only Babe Ruth has led his league in home runs more times than Mike Schmidt.

The black ink metric, which tracks how a player leads their league in important statistical categories, shows a huge gap between these two players. The average Hall of Famer has a black ink score of 27. Chipper Jones has a score of 4, 426th best of all-time. Mike Schmidt's score is 74, 11th best all-time.

WAR, which I am not a huge proponent of, clearly favors Schmidt, too. Schmidt's 106.5 career WAR is #1 all-time for third basemen. Chipper Jones has an 85.2 WAR, 5th best all-time for third basemen. Schmidt has a 7-year peak WAR of 58.6, while Jones has a best 7-year WAR of 46.6.

After looking at the offensive numbers, and how Schmidt dominated his league in both the MVP vote, and individual statistical categories, we come to defense. And there's really no debate to be had here. For his career as a third basemen, Chipper Jones has a dWAR of -1.6. Schmidt's dWAR for his career is 17.6. Mike Schmidt won 10 Gold Glove Awards. Since the Gold Glove Award was first handed out in 1957, only one third baseman, Brooks Robinson, has ever been recognized more often, winning 16 while playing third for the Baltimore Orioles. And since 1957, only seven other positional players across both leagues have won more Gold Gloves than Schmidt's ten: outfielders Roberto Clemente and Willie Mays (12 each), shortstops Ozzie Smith (13) and Omar Vizquel (11), the aforementioned Brooks Robinson (16), first baseman Keith Hernandez (11) and catcher Ivan Rodriguez (13). And of all those players, only Willie Mays offered the level of power that Mike Schmidt displayed.

I again want to make the point that I think Chipper Jones was a tremendous player, and he will be a worthy Hall of Famer. But when the different methods of comparing these two third basemen, Mike Schmidt and Chipper Jones, are employed, it is clear that Schmidt was the more dominant of the two.

Jones was an outstanding player in an era of offensive baseball. There's something to be said, of course, that Jones was able to perform at such a consistently high level in an era when many players cheated. And certainly, had those players not used performance enhancing drugs, the likelihood that Jones leads his league in more statistical categories goes up. Maybe he leads the league in home runs a time or two. Maybe he wins another batting title.

But Schmidt was clearly the premier power hitter of his era, and not only that, he is one of the game's all-time great power hitters. If the only thing he brought to the table was his power, he'd be a no brainer Hall of Famer, and would merit inclusion in the discussion of all-time greatest third basemen. But that was not the extent of his on field contributions. He was an on base machine. Though Jones has a higher career OBP, more of this component derives from Jones' batting average. Though Jones had a career batting average 33 points higher than Schmidt, his lifetime OBP is only 21 points higher. This means though Schmidt was one of the elite power hitters in baseball history, he also had a good eye at the plate, and was willing to take a walk. Jones averaged 98 walks per 162 games played for his career, an outstanding number. Schmidt was even better at 102 walks per 162 games played. And, as mentioned, Schmidt was one of the very best defensive third basemen to ever play the game. He won ten Gold Glove awards in an eleven year span. Chipper Jones could not win one though there was no clear dominant third baseman during his playing time, as nine different players won the Gold Glove at third during his career.

Chipper Jones was great. But Mike Schmidt was better.

I like Schmidt, but I think Brett should be in the discussion

I agree with this comment. I think it's tough (often silly) to use only offense centric analysis when rating players by position. Aside from catcher (where defensive wear and tear definitely affects career longevity and offensive output), maybe historically the middle infield (though this doesn't seem to matter so much anymore) a position shouldn't have a huge effect on limiting offensive output.

By categorizing this rating by position, I think by default you need to assign a fair amount of emphasis on defense... and when someone asks who's the greatest "3rd baseman" I'll always think first of guys like Schmidt, Brooks Robinson, etc as players who distinguished themselves and were identified as "3rd basemen". Conversely, take a guy like Miguel Carbrera. His offensive stats are amazing, and if he continues to hit and plays a few more years at 3rd, he'll likely have the greatest offensive totals for a 3rd baseman... but after seeing him up close in the 2012 WS, he's kind of a dog at 3rd and I wouldn't really identify him as a 3rd baseman. He may as well be a 1st baseman, crappy corner outfielder, or DH. Another example, Jeff Kent may have some of the best offensive totals for a 2nd baseman.. but really who cares? He was a 3rd baseman originally, and I think mainly moved to 2nd due to deficiencies at 3rd. Guys like him (and probably Hornsby) are/were far more offensively driven players and I think taking their positions into account is almost irrelevent when rating them.

Also agree with what Bill says, you need to take era into context. 60's/70's/80's saw suppressed offensive numbers. Schmidt's hitting stood out far more in his era than Jones in his.. or someone like Fred Lindstrom did in his. These guys are all great and HOFers, so I'd be happy with any.

Very well stated, and to be honest this is pretty much the exact thing I've been stating about DH's the whole time(usually in discussions about Edgar). That you really need to compare a DH to EVERYONE, due to the lack of any sort of defensive metric.. And I'm surprised that it's never dawned on me to apply that same theory to the Ho-hum guys on defense. The guys that weren't necessarily at a premium position due to their defensive prowess, but because it made more sense offensively to just give a little on defense. It makes plenty of sense.. Although, while not great at a defensive position, something could be said for these less that stellar defensive guys, that they were at least competent enough to not be a complete and total liability at a premium position.. It's not like Cecil Fielder would've been a great fit at SS, just because his bat made up for it...

I'm sorry
 

but the gap between Brooks and Schmidt as fielders is MUCH closer than the gap between them as hitters. Brooks is great just not Schmidt. As for the argument how can the greatest fielder not be top 2 it is easy Ozzie smith not a top 2 shortstop, and many will tell you Bob Boone was the greatest defensive catcher they ever saw, I have NEVER heard him considered a top 2 catcher of all time. Bill james is right Offense does win more than defense in Baseball, and are we really gonna pretend those 70's Reds teams couldn't hit?

There is the possibility that Brooks may just be the tiniest bit overrated as a fielder. He played in an era where you didn't see people on TV every day. He made some awesome plays on the biggest stage. Great fielder for sure, but you didn't see near as much of him as you did more recent guys.

Yeah you don't see Bill Mazeroski (considered my many to be the greatest fielding 2nd baseman ever) in the discussion with Hornsby and Collins etc. If his name comes up at all it's usually to say it's a joke he is in the Hall.

How about Keith Hernandez in the first base discussion? Let's be consistent, Brooks fans.

For me...Brooks Robinson was the greatest fielding 3rd baseman of all time...and I "stole" his nickname for myself at yankee fantasy camp as I was the best fielding 3rd baseman there!!!!!!:D

Growing up a yankees fan...I followed George Brett's career more closely than Schmidt's...as he was more a direct adversary...and I had a love hate relationship with him...as I had infinite respect for him...but hated when he played well against the yankees.

In light of this...I feel Schmidt is the greatest 3rd baseman of all time.

Brooks fan
 

Can we agree that Brooks was the best defensive 3rd baseman of all time? Or we can go with what Frank Robinson stated, "He was the best defensive player at any position." The problem you have is Brooks could hit, was a clutch hitter at that, a leader,...AND...look at his post season performance as well.

I'm not taking anything away from his fielding ability -- and he was a very good hitter but nowhere near the level of Schmidt, Brett or Mathews. I would rate him 4th or at best 3rd. Bill James rates him 7th which seems harsh. He surely belongs ahead of Santo. James also rates Boggs and Home Run Baker higher. As a long time Sox fan I feel Boggs is the most overrated player in history, or at least the one with the most deceptive stats.

Glyn...you stated, "Bill james is right Offense does win more than defense in Baseball, and are we really gonna pretend those 70's Reds teams couldn't hit?"

The late 60's early 70's O's built their team around defense (fundamentals) and pitching. They had a couple of power hitters (F. Robby, Powell), but they were good defensive players as well. The 70's Reds could hit, but the O's beat them in the '70 WS!:D

I believe a defense can change the way a team plays, as I mentioned earlier the '66 Dodgers in the WS.