OT - Best 3B ever?

[KCRfan1]

Brett is the only PLAYER to exceed 3000 hits, 600 doubles, 100 triples, 300 home runs, and 200 stolen bases. Add in his rbi's, walks, runs scored, and a post season batting average of .337 ( 10 hr's and 23 rbi's ), while winning a batting title in three different decades. Ended his career hitting over .300. Brett was far more of a complete offensive force than Schmidt ever was, and Brett was easily the better performer in post season play. I'll take Brett over Schmidt every time.

[almostdone]

It seems to me there are two different questions here trying yo be answered at the same time.
1. Who was the greatest 3rd baseman of all time? Or,
2. Who was the greatest hitter who played 3rd base?

Two very different categories IMO.
Drew

[KCRfan1]

Originally Posted by almostdone

It seems to me there are two different questions here trying yo be answered at the same time.
1. Who was the greatest 3rd baseman of all time? Or,
2. Who was the greatest hitter who played 3rd base?

Two very different categories IMO.
Drew

Well, based on offense Brett would be the clear winner here. Many have talked about Schmidts defense, but he is not the best defensive 3rd baseman as that title belongs to Brooks. So how Schmidt is viewed as the best 3rd baseman is beyond me, since Schmidt is neither the best in offense or defense at 3rd base. Brett would be the easy choice as the best hitter, and best ever at the position.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

Well, based on offense Brett would be the clear winner here. Many have talked about Schmidts defense, but he is not the best defensive 3rd baseman as that title belongs to Brooks. So how Schmidt is viewed as the best 3rd baseman is beyond me, since Schmidt is neither the best in offense or defense at 3rd base. Brett would be the easy choice as the best hitter, and best ever at the position.

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.

[25801wv]

Only Babe Ruth led his league in Home Runs more times than Mike Schmidt. Just think about that stat.

Ray Dandridge

[Iron Horse]

Schmidt was the complete all around 3rd baseman of all time. Glad i was able to see him play while i was growing up.
Peter, now you do need to get the rookie

[UnVme7]

Best pure hitter- Brett, Chipper
Best power- Schmidt
Best defense- Brooks, Beltre

I've been able to watch every game Beltre has played in the last 4 yrs and his defensive ability is unbelievable, and extremely underrated. I don't care how many GG's he has.

[Mark70Z]

Originally Posted by almostdone

It seems to me there are two different questions here trying yo be answered at the same time.
1. Who was the greatest 3rd baseman of all time? Or,
2. Who was the greatest hitter who played 3rd base?

Two very different categories IMO.
Drew

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?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark70Z

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.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

Brett is the only PLAYER to exceed 3000 hits, 600 doubles, 100 triples, 300 home runs, and 200 stolen bases. Add in his rbi's, walks, runs scored, and a post season batting average of .337 ( 10 hr's and 23 rbi's ), while winning a batting title in three different decades. Ended his career hitting over .300. Brett was far more of a complete offensive force than Schmidt ever was, and Brett was easily the better performer in post season play. I'll take Brett over Schmidt every time.

Brett is another bad example of average over OBP. Schmidt had a .380 OBP and .527 slugging. Brett was .369 and .487, so no, he was not a better hitter. His slugging was worse and he didn't get on base as much as Schmidt. Defensively Schmidt was better, so he was the better hitter and fielder. He also played over 2200 games at third base, while Brett played 1692, with over 1000 games started elsewhere besides third base. That is a good chunk of his career not at the position you're ranking him at.

[Harliduck]

I would say Schmidt as well...BUT if I was a GM starting a team and could have anyone I wanted to build around, I would choose Brett for many reasons. Honestly, and maybe because I am on the west coast, I would never have thought to even put Chipper Jones in any "greatest" player argument. Nothing stands out to me.

[glynparson]

Schmidt first Brett second

For the record I hate Schmidt and I love Brett but to pretend it's even a discussion is an injustice to Schmidt. He was an amazing fielder. He need not be brooks Robinson to be an amazing fielder. He also hit for a ton of power in an era with huge stadiums and un juiced baseballs. Brett was great Schmidt is one of a handful of greatest to ever play.

[Harliduck]

A quick google and found this statistical breakdown from Scott Kendrick and he ranked the Top 10 in his opinion...I agree with it -

1. Mike Schmidt
2. George Brett
3. Eddie Mathews
4. Brooks Robinson
5. Wade Boggs
6. Chipper Jones
7. Pie Traynor
8. Frank "Home Run" Baker
9. Ron Santo
10. Scott Rolen



Ok...maybe not the Scott Rolen selection...haha

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by z28jd

Brett is another bad example of average over OBP. Schmidt had a .380 OBP and .527 slugging. Brett was .369 and .487, so no, he was not a better hitter. His slugging was worse and he didn't get on base as much as Schmidt. Defensively Schmidt was better, so he was the better hitter and fielder.

That post echoes my thoughts. Schmidt was not just slightly better OPS; he was somewhat better than Brett on base wise and was significantly bettter than Brett in slugging.

I am actually surprised by the case being made for players other than Schmidt. IMO, third base is one of the "settled" positions where there is not much real debate to be had. The baseball-reference.com metrics list (which take emotion out of the equation) on that site show Schmidt as clearly the best of all-time at the position.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_3B.shtml

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by Bored5000

I am actually surprised by the case being made for players other than Schmidt. IMO, third base is one of the "settled" positions where there is not much real debate to be had.

I agree. I think the only player who has a stronger hold on a position is Rogers Hornsby.

[KCRfan1]

Originally Posted by z28jd

Brett is another bad example of average over OBP. Schmidt had a .380 OBP and .527 slugging. Brett was .369 and .487, so no, he was not a better hitter. His slugging was worse and he didn't get on base as much as Schmidt. Defensively Schmidt was better, so he was the better hitter and fielder. He also played over 2200 games at third base, while Brett played 1692, with over 1000 games started elsewhere besides third base. That is a good chunk of his career not at the position you're ranking him at.

You take a team of Schmidt and I'll take a team of Brett and I will beat you more often than I lose. I appreciate OBP, and both players excelled at getting on base. Schmidt struck out twice as much as Brett, and Brett walked more than he struck out. I'll take a .300 hitter with a great OBP because he could move runners and produce runs, starting a rally or keep rallys going. Schmidt might walk, he's on base ( which you highly value ) but not really moving runners, more likely to strike out.

[Sean]

It's Schmidt, easily. Brett is probably second, but not a close second, then Mathews and Boggs. Chipper is in the top ten, but not near these guys.

And for the best pre-war 3rd baseman, Home Run Baker is well ahead of Traynor.

Mike Schimdt not the best could not do it during the 70's against the Reds with Pete Rose at third base , what about Eddie Matthews

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

You take a team of Schmidt and I'll take a team of Brett and I will beat you more often than I lose.

I am not trying to be a smart ass in any fashion, but where is the evidence to back up that claim? Is that just a made up claim pulled out of the air?

People have cited hard numbers in this thread, and you argue that a team of Bretts would beat a team of Schmidts. Where is the "proof" or analysis of such a claim? That doesn't seem at all possible when Schmidt has superior numbers. The baseball-reference.com metrics take emotion out of the equation and say it is not real close between the two players.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Bored5000

I am not trying to be a smart ass in any fashion, but where is the evidence to back up that claim? Is that just a made up claim pulled out of the air?

People have cited hard numbers in this thread, and you argue that a team of Bretts would beat a team of Schmidts. Where is the "proof" or analysis of such a claim. That doesn't seem at all possible when Schmidt has superior numbers. The baseball-reference.com metrics take emotion out of the equation and say it is not real close between the two players.

+1

[UnVme7]

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

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by UnVme7

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...

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Evil - Why don't you put a poll in the original post. That way people can vote. I am curious to see who would receive the most votes.

mike schmidt overrated

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by rgpete

mike schmidt overrated

Why?

[Sean]

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

[sycks22]

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

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by I Only Smoke 4 the Cards

Evil - Why don't you put a poll in the original post. That way people can vote. I am curious to see who would receive the most votes.

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

[brewing]

Originally Posted by EvilKing00

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

[KCRfan1]

Originally Posted by EvilKing00

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

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

[KCRfan1]

Originally Posted by Bored5000

I am not trying to be a smart ass in any fashion, but where is the evidence to back up that claim? Is that just a made up claim pulled out of the air?

People have cited hard numbers in this thread, and you argue that a team of Bretts would beat a team of Schmidts. Where is the "proof" or analysis of such a claim? That doesn't seem at all possible when Schmidt has superior numbers. The baseball-reference.com metrics take emotion out of the equation and say it is not real close between the two players.

LOL Of course I pulled it out of the air. 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.