Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 36
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    73
    vCash
    1500

    Mike Schmidt vs. Brooks Robinson

    This subject is bound to get it's share of responses; usually does. I guess the question is if you had to choose between the two, who would you have as your third baseman?

    There is no doubt Schmidt was a true slugger. 548 Homers is evidence of that. On the other hand Schmidt was a clean-up hitter. Robinson batted third and set the table for Frank Robinson. Robinson was widely regarded as a clutch hitter. Also, some years ago a sports writer for the Philadelphia Enquirer pointed out that approx. 50% of Schmidt's homers came when the team was already ahead by three runs or more.

    That's why I wish the stat Game winning rbi's were included in all offensive career stats. As it is it's not. probably too much work for the Elias Sports Bureau I guess.

    Given his offensive stats: Home Runs, etc. I'd have to give a slight edge to Schmidt offensively. Having said that, that doesn't mean Robinson was a slouch in that department either.Robbie had more base hits 2848 to 2234.

    He also had more doubles 482 to 408. More triples 68 to 59.

    Of course Schmidt has a clean-up hitter hit more Home Runs 548 to 268 and RBI's 1595 to 1357 but strangely enough both Schmidt and Robinson ended their careers with the same lifetime batting average .268 !

    Since there is no question that Brooks played a few years too long it would suffice to say that his career batting average would have probably been in the 270's but that's pure conjecture.

    Offensively and defensively it is important to note that Robinson played his career on natural turf while Schmidt played his on that darn plastic ping-pong table.

    Both achieved M.V.P. status. Schmidt as N.L. MVP three times.
    Robinson was league MVP in '64, All-Star MVP in 66 and W.S. MVP in 70.

    Defensively, Robinson is usually regarded as the best defensive third baseman of all time. Let's compare both players stats in that regard.

    Robinson was awarded 16 [U]consectutive[U] gold gloves.
    Schmidt was awarded 10; though not consectutive. (does that matter?)

    Robinson had 2,697 put outs at third. Schmidt: 1,591
    Assists: Robinson 6205, Schmidt 5045
    Errors: Robinson 263, Schmidt 313
    Double plays: Robinson 618, Schmidt 450
    Fielding Pct. Robinson .963, Schmidt .949


    All-Star Games; Robinson 18 consectutive
    Schmidt 12

    All-Star Batting Average Robinson .289/Schmidt .278
    A.L.C.S. Batting Average Robinson .348 Slugging Pct. 522
    N.L.C.S. Batting Average Schmidt .241 Slugging Pct. .361
    World Series(4) Batting Average Robinson 263/Slugging Pct. 408
    World Series(2) Batting Average Schmidt 220/Slugging Pct. 390

    Total Post-Season Stats: (8 total for each player)

    Robinson: Robinson batting AVG. .303 SLG. .462
    Schmidt batting AVG. .236 SLG. .386



    So there you go. My choice with all factors considered (i.e., place in batting order, natural turf vs. artificial, defensive stats, gold gloves, post-season, all-star, world series. VERY reluctantly it would have to be Brooks Robinson. Plus from a strictly fan's viewpoint. How classic is a baseball name than that !!!!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    73
    vCash
    1500
    OH, I forgot On base Percentange. Both Robinson and Schmidt were in the 300's I believe.

    I would have lOVED to see them face off in an all-star game but Robinson's career was ending as Mike's was begining. A.L. had better Pitchers in the 70's though IMO.

    Coming up All-Star wins and W.S. wins through history N.L. vs. A.L. If someone doesn't beat me to it first Hint. That's a challenge. (God this is fun).

    Hope everyone had a great Christmas and have a hellufa New Years.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    39,910
    vCash
    1500
    It's not even close. Schmidt is far and away the greatest 3B of all time. He's probably one of the 25 greatest players of all time. Brooks due to the glove and longevity might be in the top 100 - maybe.

    Offense - Schmidt wipes Brooks out:

    Stat - Schmidt - Brooks

    OPS+ 147 ----- 104 (45th all time vs. 840th all time)
    OBP - .380 ---- .322 (.380 is very good, .322 is weak, even by the standards of Brooks's time)
    SLG - .527 ---- .401
    RC/G - 7.3 ----- 4.4 (almost twice the offensive force)
    OWP% .727 --- .523 (47th vs. 932nd all time)
    HR --- 548 ---- 268
    Runs - 1506 --- 1232 (1700 more PA's for Brooks, and still 275 back)
    RBI -- 1595 ---- 1357

    Schmidt - 8 out 10 Comps HOF + Sosa & Thome
    Brooks - 1 out 10 comps HOF, nobody else w/ chance

    Baserunning:

    Brooks was a station to station guy the sometimes took 3B on a single from 1st. 28 SB and 22 CS all time. Schmidt is probably the best baserunner 3B since at least 1920: 174 SB, 92 CS

    Defense:

    GG -- 10 ---- 16 - Brooks is the best, but Schmidt was probably one of the 5-10 best of all time himself with the glove.
    Last edited by bagwell368; 12-26-2008 at 02:30 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    73
    vCash
    1500
    C'mon bags. Not even close???????? I was really lucky enough to see both of them play (in person) I already admitted that Schmidt has the edge offensively but I also saw him play on that plastic field and i often wonder how well he would done on natural turf. Dozens of times I saw him turn a hard single into a triple with that ball shooting all over the field at old veterans Stadium like a stone skipping on water.

    I would NEVER take away his prowess on the home run but as i said, he was a clean-up hitter. Whereas Robby batted third (sometimes 5th). He was a table setter. you simply
    have to take that as it is.

    OPS, OBP OWP is a very fine (and accurate) but it's one thing to read the numbers and quite another to see both of them play in person.

    Yes I give it to Schmidt offensively but I bet on my parent's grave that Robinson had many more GWRBI than Mikey.

    Defensively its my contention there is no comparison. Schmidt was fair when it came to going to a full extension over the left fielss foul line to snag a line-drive or through a runner out at first base. brooks made it an art-form. Sparkey Anderson didn't call Robby a human vacuum cleaner for nothing.

    It's one thing to field a ball on a plastic field where you get a true bounce every time and quite another to field it on natural turf and dirt where you get all the crazy bounces.

    How can one argue with 16 CONSECTUTIVE gold gloves?

    Then to recieve mvp awards in three different categories, League, All-Star & World Series.

    Then there is the post-season where Robinson outshined Mikey.

    In any event we can disagree without being disagreeable. I respect your posts more than any one else's and I love stats as much as you do but it's quite different seeing the game and the players live and up personal.

    If I want to see moon shots than Schmidt's my man but if I want to see nine full innings of all-star defense and offense that wins games (gwrbi) than I take the human vacuum cleaner.

    Isn't it great to have two players of their caliber playing in basically the same era and in different league. BTW I have never bought into the Senior/Junior league garbage. i usually hear that among expansion team fans; not the ones who have a century of maor league ball behind them.


    Happy New Year.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    73
    vCash
    1500
    Just adding a few points in re; to Schmidt/Robinson. Schmidts job was to be a clean-up hitter. Robinson's wasn't. All too often Schmidt was called upon to be a one-man team; offensively speaking. Robinson had players like Don Buford, Davey Johnson, Boog Powell and Frank Robinson to help produce runs. Schmidt did not. If Robinson had to carry the weight as Schmidt did I or bat fourth I imagine he would have had 100 more Home runs.

    As a #3 (or even #5) hitter he hit 600 more singles, 80 more doubles and 10 more triples. Robinson was smaller in stature as Schmidt was a pretty big guy.

    Defensively, Robinson never played back on the ball as Schmidt did. he charged every single ball that came his way. Over a thousand more put-outs, 1,200 more assists, almost two-hundred more double plays initiated and nearly 100 fewer errors.

    But the proof in the pudding so to speak was on the national stage; i.e., alds, alcs and world series.

    He topped Schmidt in all three forums. In total post-season stats he batted .303 vs. Schmidts .236 and in slugging pct. he hit .462 vs. Schmidts .386

    Damn where is that game winning r.b.i. stat. C'mon Elias. get with it.

    Finally how many third baseman have worn the #5 in tribute to Robinson? Quite a few.

    If I were to chose a third baseman strictly on home-run power it would certaainly be Schmidt but playing the hot corner involves so much more; regular season and post-season. In that regard Brooks Robinson is the man.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    39,910
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by baseball4ever View Post
    C'mon bags. Not even close???????? I was really lucky enough to see both of them play (in person) I already admitted that Schmidt has the edge offensively but I also saw him play on that plastic field and i often wonder how well he would done on natural turf.
    I too saw them. Schmidt twice live, Brooks at least 15 times live. Plenty of both on TV.

    Schmidt had higher SLG in Wrigley, Fulton, Montreal then he did at home, so much for the big advantage playing at home theory. Plus his overall home/road splits are less then an average gap. His park was about a 103/104 bias park, which fits in nicely with his home/road split. There is also OPS+ ready to help as well, in which Schmidt wipes Brooks out in. Schmidt had 13 seasons of 140 or over OPS+, Brooks had 1. That ought to end it right there, but for the doubters amongst us...

    I would NEVER take away his prowess on the home run but as i said, he was a clean-up hitter. Whereas Robby batted third (sometimes 5th). He was a table setter. you simply have to take that as it is.
    With all due respect that is just false. Schmidt had a much higher OBP which means he was a much better table setter. He also hit for a much higher SLG which means he is a much better slugger.

    pos brooks - schmidt (games)

    1st - 104 --- 020
    2nd - 010 --- 013
    3rd - 276 --- 876
    4th - 548 --- 1027
    5th - 675 --- 120
    6th - 702 --- 221
    7th - 400 --- 069
    8th - 150 --- 026
    9th - 025 --- 032

    So, Brooks hit 6th most, then 5th, then 4th, then 7th, and very little in the top 3. Not seen as very impressive on his own team much of time it would seem. I most often remember 5th and 6th. Once Frank showed up he never hit 3rd.

    Schmidt hit mostly 4th, but a lot of 3rd as well (more then any position Brooks hit in), and a smattering of everything else.

    OPS, OBP OWP is a very fine (and accurate) but it's one thing to read the numbers and quite another to see both of them play in person.
    Please... even if I never saw them the numbers don't lie. So what if you claim to have seen Ruth and Joe Jackson and that Jackson blew him off the field. Its the same sort of the claim, there is no foundation for it. There is also MVP voting which rewarded Brooks better IMO then he should have been, but Schmidt still tops him.

    Yes I give it to Schmidt offensively but I bet on my parent's grave that Robinson had many more GWRBI than Mikey.
    You don't have to "give" anything, Schmidt blows him away hitting, baserunning, and as an overall as a baseplayer manning 3B. He blows away every other 3B of all time, never mind just Brooks.

    As for clutch, as could be expected, Schmidt outdoes Brooks handily no matter what the metric except RBI for 2 men out RISP which he is virtually tied - good for Brooks, but far too few to battle against Schmidt.

    Late & Close:

    Schmt .267/.386/.504 255 RBI (1702 PA)
    Brooks .270/.326/.396 221 RBI (2136 PA)

    Schmidt handily ahead in this metric

    2 outs/RISP:

    Schmt .251/.410/.495 377 (1309 PA)
    Brooks .250/.340/.378 448 (1539 PA)

    do the math, they are even in RBI per PA, but Schmidt continues to lead in OPB/SLG

    7th - 9th Inning career:

    Scmdt 2929 PA 420 RBI .268/.382/.511
    Brooks 3588 PA 366 RBI .270/.321/.398

    So with 659 less PA's, he has 54 more RBI the last 3 innings of a game. So much for moon shots and clutch RBI.... and much better OBP/SLG with that. That is an absolute crunch to the claims of Brooks being more clutch. In your memory he might be, but not in reality.

    Defensively its my contention there is no comparison. Schmidt was fair when it came to going to a full extension over the left fielss foul line to snag a line-drive or through a runner out at first base. brooks made it an art-form. Sparkey Anderson didn't call Robby a human vacuum cleaner for nothing.
    It is my contention that you are a fan of Brooks, and unable to clearly see where he fits compared to Schmidt. That is OK, but you shouldn't purport to be honest about it. Nor be surprised at my reaction.

    How can one argue with 16 CONSECTUTIVE gold gloves?
    Easily. Look at all the consecutive awards for pitchers, or the criminality of giving Jeter any sort of GG since the year 2000.

    It is also my contention that a player that wins 10 GG's and is acclaimed at what he does is not some carny joke that should drop down and thank god for being on such a field. It's not his fault or that of anyone else that the NL went turf in those days. Better throw Joe Morgan and some other guys out of Cooperstown too if you have your way. He had great range, and sure hands and a gun for an arm. He wasn't Dean Palmer you know. In fact he was better then Santo, Brett, Boggs, Jones, and all manner of players that are better then Brooks Robinson.

    Then to recieve mvp awards in three different categories, League, All-Star & World Series.
    Schmidt has 3 MVP's, and a WS MVP. An AS MVP is about as usefull as **** on a bull.

    In any event we can disagree without being disagreeable. I respect your posts more than any one else's and I love stats as much as you do but it's quite different seeing the game and the players live and up personal.
    I went to my first game in 1966. I am no spring chicken. I had already seen games in 5 different parks by 1970, and over 20 to date. So you know... enough on what I saw or didn't see.

    If I want to see moon shots than Schmidt's my man but if I want to see nine full innings of all-star defense and offense that wins games (gwrbi) than I take the human vacuum cleaner.
    No way, will not buy this. BS alert.

    First of all - 3B is the most important unimportant defensive position, or the least important important defensive position. Only about 6% of batted balls go there. One need not have a huge arm to play it, just quick reflexes and nerves to get in front of batted balls. Therefore batting is much more important at 3B then fielding. It is not equal. Also as you seem to have left it out, Schmidt was a vastly better baserunner then Brooks.


    The order I have for 3B is:

    Schmidt
    Mathews
    Brett
    Jones * could get to #2, but never pass Schmidt
    Boggs
    Baker
    Santo
    Brooks

    Also if one looks at all the positions from top to bottom, Schmidt at 3B probably has a bigger qualitative/quanatative lead over the #2 player then any other #1 over any other #2 for the other positions. Ponder on that.
    Last edited by bagwell368; 12-27-2008 at 01:28 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    39,910
    vCash
    1500
    and yeah, I have Santo in front of Brooks due to his much higher offensive peak, and his very solid fielding as well. it's fairly close and I won't argue over long with anyone that insists Brooks is better, but it stops there, a 104 OPS+ hitter with 1 season over 140 and not many over 120 is simply not a great offensive force. Even if he is the greatest defender of all time at any position - quite possible - 3B is simply not the equal of 2B, SS, C - and the best fielders all time at those positions saved more runs then he did for sure.

    I found a quote on Brooks being considered for the HOF: "Greatly overrated, but still a worthy. Best AL third baseman for 1960, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1967, and 1968. "

    If Molitor and Edgar played another 950 games at 3B I'd have them over Brooks as well.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,761
    vCash
    1500
    Mike Schmidt.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    39,910
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by baseball4ever View Post
    This subject is bound to get it's share of responses; usually does. I guess the question is if you had to choose between the two, who would you have as your third baseman?

    There is no doubt Schmidt was a true slugger. 548 Homers is evidence of that. On the other hand Schmidt was a clean-up hitter. Robinson batted third and set the table for Frank Robinson. Robinson was widely regarded as a clutch hitter. Also, some years ago a sports writer for the Philadelphia Enquirer pointed out that approx. 50% of Schmidt's homers came when the team was already ahead by three runs or more.
    Poppycock.

    As I demonstrated before, Brooks did not hit 3rd, but instead mostly batted 5th, 6th and 7th.

    Your Philly writer was an idiot, Schmidt hit 452 of his HR when the margin was 3 runs or less. And only 58 when the margin was more then 4.

    That's why I wish the stat Game winning rbi's were included in all offensive career stats. As it is it's not. probably too much work for the Elias Sports Bureau I guess.
    game winning RBI's are easily available, but a very flawed stat.

    Given his offensive stats: Home Runs, etc. I'd have to give a slight edge to Schmidt offensively. Having said that, that doesn't mean Robinson was a slouch in that department either.Robbie had more base hits 2848 to 2234.
    Well considering that Schmidt had 1507 BB's because he was a more selective and dangerous hitter then the paltry 860 Brooks collected, it would make sense Brooks had more hits. Considering the 1720 additional PA Brooks had over Schmidt your point is what? Brooks took less walks and had 3 seaons more plate apperances? OK, fine.

    He also had more doubles 482 to 408. More triples 68 to 59.
    If you use PA's the percentage is practically a tie for both, but just AB's? Schmidt wins handily.

    Since there is no question that Brooks played a few years too long it would suffice to say that his career batting average would have probably been in the 270's but that's pure conjecture.
    BA is nothing compared to OPS+, calling Brooks a near equal on offense is a total and fatal misreading of the facts and realities of those two players. It's like saying Tony Gwynn was almost as good as Stan Musial, when that is totally untrue.

    Offensively and defensively it is important to note that Robinson played his career on natural turf while Schmidt played his on that darn plastic ping-pong table.
    Oh? I already mentioned 3 grass parks where Schmidt had better stats then home. What was he supposed to do - retire or move to the AL in protest? He took what he found and played the game as hard as any man I have ever seen.

    Robinson had 2,697 put outs at third. Schmidt: 1,591
    Assists: Robinson 6205, Schmidt 5045
    Errors: Robinson 263, Schmidt 313
    Double plays: Robinson 618, Schmidt 450
    Fielding Pct. Robinson .963, Schmidt .949
    Wrong. As a 3B Schmidt was a .955 % - .006 ahead of league average

    Offering raw numbers for a guy that played 2212 games at 3B (77% of Brooks's) vs a guy that played 2870 games is worthless without biasing the numbers to even for a fair comparison

    I guess your memory fails you because it was an inside joke that Brooks never made errors at home (hint: the scorekeepers never gave him any) which could have biased his numbers a lot.

    So there you go. My choice with all factors considered (i.e., place in batting order, natural turf vs. artificial, defensive stats, gold gloves, post-season, all-star, world series. VERY reluctantly it would have to be Brooks Robinson. Plus from a strictly fan's viewpoint. How classic is a baseball name than that
    All Star results in a worthless way to compare anything. How about HOF voting percentage? When Schmidt was elected - he had the 4th highest percentage of all time - 95.52 - Brooks went in at a respectable, but much lower in the pile 91-92%.

    I am amazed that anybody but a biased fan could take Brooks over Schmidt. Not even in the same zip code.

    If I could take 3B with 500 or more games played, Brooks wouldn't even crack my top 10.

    Think of the D this way, even if Brooks saved 15 runs a game (which is about right), and Schmidt saved 5-6 which about right) and add that to the offensive production of both, how does that unseat this one fact?

    Brooks created 1355 runs in 19 full seasons and Schmidt created 1757 in 16 full seasons.

    071.3 + 15 = 086.3 per season
    109.8 + 06 = 115.8 per season

    A guy who is 24.5% more productive for 16 years over another guy even if the other guy has 3 more years is vastly superior. Period.

    Please, anyone else show me different.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    31,215
    vCash
    1500
    schmidt

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    11,115
    vCash
    1500
    Mike Schmidt has the advantage at pretty much every single aspect of the game.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    39,910
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by bagwell368 View Post

    071.3 + 15 = 086.3 per season
    109.8 + 06 = 115.8 per season

    A guy who is 24.5% more productive for 16 years over another guy even if the other guy has 3 more years is vastly superior.
    Oh yes, let's throw in another 1.5 runs per year for superior foot speed and base running accumen Schmidt enjoyed, bringing it to:

    117.3 runs per season vs. 86.3 runs per season - that would take us over 25% better every year on average.

    Brooks was the Bill Mazeroski of 3B, except his OPS+ was about 15 points higher, nice nice player, but well short of all time top of the heap greatness.

    Oh yeah, this ought to be a poll.

    More on clutch hitting:

    Brooks had 132 HR's that were game winning, go ahead or tie - for a total of 49% of his HR's
    Schmid had 258 HR's that were game winning, go ahead or tie - for a total of 47% of his HR's

    so besides the statistical insignificance of that percentage, Schmidt made a lot more happen because he hit 126 more HR's when it mattered then Brooks, and in 1720 less PA's.

    Have I bludgeoned the horse enough yet, or is anyone game for more?

    It isn't an opinion, it is a fact. Schmidt is the greatest 3B of all time so far. Brooks is not a close #2, or any kind of #2. He is at best #7, and maybe not better then #10.
    Last edited by bagwell368; 12-27-2008 at 02:05 PM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Littleton, Colorado
    Posts
    860
    vCash
    1500
    Hey Bagwell, does the relative stats of the different era's close the gap much for league average in the years played?

    You've made valid points but not to rate Brooks in the top 10?

    The historic section of a board where the top posters have a rating system(varies) have Brooks between 6-8 spots in thier "top 3rd basemen lists"......without much bias thrown in. That is of the posters that I value their opinion and work most. They all have Schmidt at the top and hagle a lot over Eddie Mathews vs George Brett at the 2 spot.
    Last edited by Old Sweater; 12-28-2008 at 10:41 AM.


    Batboy: Get a hit, Crash.
    Crash: Shut Up!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    39,910
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Sweater View Post
    Hey Bagwell, does the relative stats of the different era's close the gap much for league average in the years played?

    You've made valid points but not to rate Brooks in the top 10?

    The historic section of a board where the top posters have a rating system(varies) have Brooks between 6-8 spots in thier "top 3rd basemen lists"......without much bias thrown in. That is of the posters that I value their opinion and work most. They all have Schmidt at the top and hagle a lot over Eddie Mathews vs George Brett at the 2 spot.
    Well stats have to be relative to the time, the good thing about OPS+ for instance is it makes the parks vanish a bit, and it tells you who was good in a given year or span of years.

    The beef I have with say the game in 1922 vs. 1991 is that the difficulty is not as great, so if Ruth had a 240 OPS+ year its 240 against much weaker competition. In fact I have a hard time taking anything at all before 1930 seriously.

    Now on to Brooks. Look at film of the guy - Mr. Everyman build, fairly slow bat speed, had an off season job like 98.7% of the guys back then. Plow horse on the bases. But with a glove in his hand, he was no doubt a wizard, fast, great range, very accurate arm. Brooks's AL was a good deal weaker then NL of his time - so if he played in the NL his OPS+ might be down 2-3 points career wise. But still you had Mantle, Kaline, Yaz, Howard, Reggie Smith, Cash, Jackson, Powell, Killebrew, Oliva, Grich, Carew, Rudi, Fisk, Freehand, Berra, Allen, Murcer, FRob - so the AL was pretty tough, and everyone of them were significantly better with the stick then Brooks. In fact, even in his MVP season he wasn't a top 5 hitter in the AL.

    Look at Schmidt - the best ML player of the 80's. Led the NL 6 times in OPS+ in the 80's, and won 3 MVP's. Fast bat, fast on the bases, played fast in a fast league. His reaction time was also very good to the batted ball, and his range was also very good. His arm was probably stronger Brooks. He made somewhat more mistakes - about 5 in 1000. In his time the NL was also stronger then the AL, and dominated it in a way Brooks could never dream of.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    New york
    Posts
    1,984
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by bagwell368 View Post
    Poppycock.

    As I demonstrated before, Brooks did not hit 3rd, but instead mostly batted 5th, 6th and 7th.

    Your Philly writer was an idiot, Schmidt hit 452 of his HR when the margin was 3 runs or less. And only 58 when the margin was more then 4.



    game winning RBI's are easily available, but a very flawed stat.



    Well considering that Schmidt had 1507 BB's because he was a more selective and dangerous hitter then the paltry 860 Brooks collected, it would make sense Brooks had more hits. Considering the 1720 additional PA Brooks had over Schmidt your point is what? Brooks took less walks and had 3 seaons more plate apperances? OK, fine.



    If you use PA's the percentage is practically a tie for both, but just AB's? Schmidt wins handily.



    BA is nothing compared to OPS+, calling Brooks a near equal on offense is a total and fatal misreading of the facts and realities of those two players. It's like saying Tony Gwynn was almost as good as Stan Musial, when that is totally untrue.



    Oh? I already mentioned 3 grass parks where Schmidt had better stats then home. What was he supposed to do - retire or move to the AL in protest? He took what he found and played the game as hard as any man I have ever seen.



    Wrong. As a 3B Schmidt was a .955 % - .006 ahead of league average

    Offering raw numbers for a guy that played 2212 games at 3B (77% of Brooks's) vs a guy that played 2870 games is worthless without biasing the numbers to even for a fair comparison

    I guess your memory fails you because it was an inside joke that Brooks never made errors at home (hint: the scorekeepers never gave him any) which could have biased his numbers a lot.



    All Star results in a worthless way to compare anything. How about HOF voting percentage? When Schmidt was elected - he had the 4th highest percentage of all time - 95.52 - Brooks went in at a respectable, but much lower in the pile 91-92%.

    I am amazed that anybody but a biased fan could take Brooks over Schmidt. Not even in the same zip code.

    If I could take 3B with 500 or more games played, Brooks wouldn't even crack my top 10.

    Think of the D this way, even if Brooks saved 15 runs a game (which is about right), and Schmidt saved 5-6 which about right) and add that to the offensive production of both, how does that unseat this one fact?

    Brooks created 1355 runs in 19 full seasons and Schmidt created 1757 in 16 full seasons.

    071.3 + 15 = 086.3 per season
    109.8 + 06 = 115.8 per season

    A guy who is 24.5% more productive for 16 years over another guy even if the other guy has 3 more years is vastly superior. Period.

    Please, anyone else show me different.
    Man I thought I knew a lot about baseball, but WOW, thats amazing research, damn

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •