Who is the greatest player of all time by position?

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Or for third base if you want a great 3rd baseman that also won 16 Gold Gloves how about Brooks Robinson

18-time All-Star (1960-74*), 16 Gold Gloves ('60-75), MVP (1964), All-Star MVP ('66), World Series MVP ('70), Hall of Fame ('83)

*Played in two All-Star Games in '60, '61 and '62

Championships
2 -- Baltimore (1966, '70)

Career stats
.267/.322/.401, OPS -- .723, Hits -- 2,848, HRs -- 268, RBIs -- 1,357


Cannot go wrong with him if you want to skip over Schmidt

I'm not sure why you would take Brooks Robinson over Schmidt. Schmidt's numbers are better in almost every category except for gold gloves and hits, and Robinson had around 1600 more plate appearances to get to his hit total while having the same career batting average and a much lower OBP and OPS. Schmidt is also way ahead in WAR and had 3 MVPs and a WS MVP in 1980.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by jayshum

I'm not sure why you would take Brooks Robinson over Schmidt. Schmidt's numbers are better in almost every category except for gold gloves and hits, and Robinson had around 1600 more plate appearances to get to his hit total while having the same career batting average and a much lower OBP and OPS. Schmidt is also way ahead in WAR and had 3 MVPs and a WS MVP in 1980.

Hi

I did not pick Robinson over Schmidt. One someone said that defense was so important and it is not all about offense first I said Schmidt had ten gold gloves and then I said if you did not want Schmidt then Robinson would be a good pick based on them wanting a combo of offense and defense if Schmidt did not meet their criteria.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

Hi

I did not pick Robinson over Schmidt. One someone said that defense was so important and it is not all about offense first I said Schmidt had ten gold gloves and then I said if you did not want Schmidt then Robinson would be a good pick based on them wanting a combo of offense and defense if Schmidt did not meet their criteria.

I didn’t say defense was so important in any argument against Schmidt and he’s my pick. What I was saying is that it’s surprising to me that third base has not produced a true icon of the game like OF or 1B or 2B. Schmidt is a ridiculously good player but he’s not a Ted Williams or Hornsby level guy in my humble opinion.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I didn’t say defense was so important in any argument against Schmidt and he’s my pick. What I was saying is that it’s surprising to me that third base has not produced a true icon of the game like OF or 1B or 2B. Schmidt is a ridiculously good player but he’s not a Ted Williams or Hornsby level guy in my humble opinion.

understood I misunderstood and you are 100% right on your point.

But on the flip side it was good for me to misunderstand it made me dig into third baseman and I learned alot more.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by jayshum

I'm not sure why you would take Brooks Robinson over Schmidt. Schmidt's numbers are better in almost every category except for gold gloves and hits, and Robinson had around 1600 more plate appearances to get to his hit total while having the same career batting average and a much lower OBP and OPS. Schmidt is also way ahead in WAR and had 3 MVPs and a WS MVP in 1980.

It surprises me how many people either overlook, or are unaware of, Schmidt's 10 Gold Gloves.

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by Eric72

It surprises me how many people either overlook, or are unaware of, Schmidt's 10 Gold Gloves.

Count me as one of them. I'm actually a bit surprised on how far ahead Schmidt is of the competition. He's not "blowing them out of the water", but he's the clear pick for GOAT 3B.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard

Count me as one of them. I'm actually a bit surprised on how far ahead Schmidt is of the competition. He's not "blowing them out of the water", but he's the clear pick for GOAT 3B.

I agree. He’s the clear pick, but also possibly the weakest player on the all-time team. C and 3B seem to be the weakest positions that it would be easiest for a player to come along and dethrone. Boggs, Brett, Baker, Brooks, Mathews, Chipper, all are well below Schmidt. 3B skews pretty modern.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by G1911

I agree. He’s the clear pick, but also possibly the weakest player on the all-time team. C and 3B seem to be the weakest positions that it would be easiest for a player to come along and dethrone. Boggs, Brett, Baker, Brooks, Mathews, Chipper, all are well below Schmidt. 3B skews pretty modern.

I agree that Schmidt is not considered to be at the same level of all-time greats like Ruth, Aaron and Mays, but I was surprised to see that he is currently 19th in WAR all time for position players with a WAR of 106.8 on Baseball Reference. Eddie Mathews is at 23rd with a WAR of 96.1.

Third base has historically been the least represented position in the HoF, and as you said, more modern players tend to be thought of as the best at the position.

[Touch'EmAll]

Growing up in the 70's, I was a huge into baseball. Johnny Bench was the man. And there also was Lou Brock - perhaps the most fun player of the decade - amazing base stealer. Brock didn't run much against Bench. Of all the catchers, he knew the odds were against him.

My dad, a Yankee fan, always touted Yogi Berra as the best.

Well, now I am leaning towards Yogi as greatest.

In 1986, Bill James ranked Berra the #1 catcher of all time in career value. In peak value he ranked Berra behind Campanella, Cochrane, & Bench. "Yogi Berra was more valuable to his teams, over the course of his career, than any other catcher. He was never as great at any moment as Bench was in his best years. But Yogi's record of sustained excellence over a period of a decade is without parallel by any catcher in the history of baseball."

Yogi was the most winningest baseball player in the history of MLB. The multiple MVP's, Near MVP's, All star games, World Series rings, have heard it said he was a walking baseball encyclopedia. I go with Yogi at catcher.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

Growing up in the 70's, I was a huge into baseball. Johnny Bench was the man. And there also was Lou Brock - perhaps the most fun player of the decade - amazing base stealer. Brock didn't run much against Bench. Of all the catchers, he knew the odds were against him.

My dad, a Yankee fan, always touted Yogi Berra as the best.

Well, now I am leaning towards Yogi as greatest.

In 1986, Bill James ranked Berra the #1 catcher of all time in career value. In peak value he ranked Berra behind Campanella, Cochrane, & Bench. "Yogi Berra was more valuable to his teams, over the course of his career, than any other catcher. He was never as great at any moment as Bench was in his best years. But Yogi's record of sustained excellence over a period of a decade is without parallel by any catcher in the history of baseball."

Yogi was the most winningest baseball player in the history of MLB. The multiple MVP's, Near MVP's, All star games, World Series rings, have heard it said he was a walking baseball encyclopedia. I go with Yogi at catcher.

Yogi's consistency is why I pick him too. Bench was incredible, every other year or so. Wins the MVP in 1970, in 1971 he has an OBP under .300. Wins the MVP in 1972, slashes .253/.345/.429 the next year, which isn't terrible but not that impressive. 1974 and 1975 he's excellent, super star seasons, and in 1976 he's just a hair over the league average. Bench has huge up and down spikes through his prime years, which the Bench argument tends to simply ignore instead of arguing that centralizing performance in certain years is more valuable to winning championships. Berra was consistently excellent, picking Berra you know what you are getting. Bench, he might be better but he might be worse too. Campanella had a similar trajectory, a lot of catchers have.