PDA

View Full Version : Mike Schmidt vs. Brooks Robinson



baseball4ever
12-26-2008, 09:11 AM
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 !!!!:clap:

baseball4ever
12-26-2008, 09:29 AM
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.

bagwell368
12-26-2008, 02:24 PM
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.

baseball4ever
12-26-2008, 04:11 PM
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.

baseball4ever
12-26-2008, 06:38 PM
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.

bagwell368
12-26-2008, 08:20 PM
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.

bagwell368
12-26-2008, 11:27 PM
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.

todu82
12-27-2008, 10:14 AM
Mike Schmidt.

bagwell368
12-27-2008, 12:08 PM
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.

Sportfan
12-27-2008, 12:14 PM
schmidt

yaowowrocket11
12-27-2008, 01:03 PM
Mike Schmidt has the advantage at pretty much every single aspect of the game.

bagwell368
12-27-2008, 01:15 PM
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.

Old Sweater
12-28-2008, 09:58 AM
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.

bagwell368
12-28-2008, 01:48 PM
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.

championmets
12-28-2008, 02:02 PM
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

bagwell368
12-28-2008, 03:29 PM
thanks!

I forgot to seal the point on the NL being better in Schmidt's time. That means he may have posted better numbers in the AL.

Back to OPS+ being a reliable stat, here are the guys with 6 or more times leading the league since 1900:

Ruth 13
Hornsby 12
Cobb 11
Williams 9
Bonds 9 (5 with an *)
Mantle 8
Musial 6
Mays 6
Schmidt 6

Schmidt is one of 9 guys to do this in 108 years. Brooks had zero.

Old Sweater
12-28-2008, 05:48 PM
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.

Thanks for your reply.

The only reason I brought it up is because you said you may not have Brooks in your top 10. Historical researchers and sabers that use the league quality adjustments and league average adjustments in their formulas, still have Brooks in their top 10's as a whole. You have to admit that the pitching in the 63-68 years was as tough if not more dominant then any in MLB history.

One of the sites top young sabers that is creating his own formulas who seems to have made a lifetime hobby out of it has Brooks at 13 though. The only thing I have against him is that he goes by his numbers only without a lick of common sense throw in. I believe that he is deceiving himself at times with his own numbers.

I agree with you about the years before 1930. Along comes Ruth and the live ball(changed more often/no trick pitches except for a few pitchers/Australian yarn) in 1920 and MLB just ran with it as the league averages rose to .300 in 1930 before MLB done something about it.

As far as the historical researchers go....IMO..... they give way to much credit to the numbers for the 19th century players and the dead ball 1900-1920 players, where the gap between the star players and the average players was as wide as the Grand Canyon.

I've always enjoyed the hell out of reading comparisons and enjoy your posts.

Is their a PSD poster who spars with you pretty well here?

Seamhead
12-28-2008, 06:56 PM
What's the site? (seems to me like it's baseball-fever)

bagwell368
12-28-2008, 09:58 PM
Thanks for your reply.

The only reason I brought it up is because you said you may not have Brooks in your top 10. Historical researchers and sabers that use the league quality adjustments and league average adjustments in their formulas, still have Brooks in their top 10's as a whole. You have to admit that the pitching in the 63-68 years was as tough if not more dominant then any in MLB history.

One of the sites top young sabers that is creating his own formulas who seems to have made a lifetime hobby out of it has Brooks at 13 though. The only thing I have against him is that he goes by his numbers only without a lick of common sense throw in. I believe that he is deceiving himself at times with his own numbers.

I agree with you about the years before 1930. Along comes Ruth and the live ball(changed more often/no trick pitches except for a few pitchers/Australian yarn) in 1920 and MLB just ran with it as the league averages rose to .300 in 1930 before MLB done something about it.

As far as the historical researchers go....IMO..... they give way to much credit to the numbers for the 19th century players and the dead ball 1900-1920 players, where the gap between the star players and the average players was as wide as the Grand Canyon.

I've always enjoyed the hell out of reading comparisons and enjoy your posts.

Is their a PSD poster who spars with you pretty well here?

Yeah I do consider that Brooks played in a tough era. I think the placement on 3B is interesting - pre 1950 it was a defensive position. Now it is an offensive position. And in the past 60 years he's been eclipsed over and over. Depends on how many games you need to be a 3B. If you start counting guys like Killebrew (791), Martinez (563), Allen (652), Molitor (791) - he seems to fall out quickly. If you wait a couple of years Rolen might have him too - maybe already. Chavez was on the way, but probably not. Wright is moving up fast.

hoggin88
12-28-2008, 10:47 PM
Yeah I do consider that Brooks played in a tough era. I think the placement on 3B is interesting - pre 1950 it was a defensive position. Now it is an offensive position. And in the past 60 years he's been eclipsed over and over. Depends on how many games you need to be a 3B. If you start counting guys like Killebrew (791), Martinez (563), Allen (652), Molitor (791) - he seems to fall out quickly. If you wait a couple of years Rolen might have him too - maybe already. Chavez was on the way, but probably not. Wright is moving up fast.

ARod has 752 games at 3b as well.

bagwell368
12-28-2008, 11:21 PM
ARod has 752 games at 3b as well.

yeah thanks! I knew I was forgetting someone. I think he won't get 1500 at 3B myself.

He's got 1272 at SS, and I think he might be headed to DH land in 3-4 years.

So it could be:

1272 SS
1225 3B
470 DH

Given that everyone knows he was moved to 3B to protect the frail ego of Mr. Jeter, he will be considered a SS for historical purposes even if he plays more games at 3B.

baseball4ever
12-29-2008, 12:42 AM
Point well taken in regards to Schmidt. However there are always intangibles that the stats don't always reveal. Having seen both of them play, I'd still have to go with Brooks given his defensive play; it was nothing short of brilliant given the natural turf he played on and his throws to first base from deep to the left of the foul line. Once again he was a set-up man for the clean up batter. Darn Now I REALLY wish they kept the gwrbi stat.

Believe me. I'm taking nothing away from Mikey when it comes to the power that game from his lumber but I can assure you, Brooks was the best defensive third baseman of all time. Even his plaque at the HOF recognizes that If you had the opportunity to watch him play (with the glove) your response would have been a loud and boisterious WOW.

What you witnessed in the 1970 world series B'more fans saw that on a daily basis; that's why he was awarded 16 consectutive gold gloves.

By the way, kudos to the Babe for placing first in the category you cited. He truely was the Sulton of Swat and literally saved the game after the 1919 Black Sox Scandal.

Happy New Year.

hoggin88
12-29-2008, 01:15 AM
I probably shouldn't just butt in like this but...


Point well taken in regards to Schmidt. However there are always intangibles that the stats don't always reveal. Having seen both of them play, I'd still have to go with Brooks given his defensive play; it was nothing short of brilliant given the natural turf he played on and his throws to first base from deep to the left of the foul line.
You might be overestimating the importance of defense here, especially when Schmidt was no slouch either.


Once again he was a set-up man for the clean up batter. Darn Now I REALLY wish they kept the gwrbi stat.
Bagwell provided the numbers showing that the majority of Robinson's AB's came at the 4-7 spot. He had very few AB's at the 1,2, or 3 spot. Not sure why you keep bringing this up. Also, he didn't have a very good OBP, so it's not like he would have been an amazing setup man, even if he was batting third.


Believe me. I'm taking nothing away from Mikey when it comes to the power that game from his lumber but I can assure you, Brooks was the best defensive third baseman of all time. Even his plaque at the HOF recognizes that If you had the opportunity to watch him play (with the glove) your response would have been a loud and boisterious WOW.
He said he saw Brooks play about 15 times. Plus, I really don't think the human eye is a very reliable tool of assessing a player's ability.

I just don't see any real reason why you're picking Brooks except for his better defense which doesn't come anywhere close to making up for his inferiority offensively. And...intangibles? That would have to be a hell of a lot of intangibles. :p

Old Sweater
12-29-2008, 01:16 AM
What's the site? (seems to me like it's baseball-fever)


Thats the one. I didn't think I should mention it here at PSD.

I go over there and read the history section all the time. There is a poster called SavoyBG that is giving the little clique club of BBF all they want in the history section with his winning shares system. Most of the comparisons are unbiased unless one of the main posters "player" is the matter of discussion. Very informative but also humorous in the way some of them defend their favorite player by bending some numbers to favor them. Or them showing quotes of other players that is pertinent to there points when you know dam good and well that there is a ton of quotes that say the opposite for racist issues about Cobb.

Seamhead
12-29-2008, 01:31 AM
Thats the one. I didn't think I should mention it here at PSD.

I go over there and read the history section all the time. There is a poster called SavoyBG that is giving the little clique club of BBF all they want in the history section with his winning shares system. Most of the comparisons are unbiased unless one of the main posters "player" is the matter of discussion. Very informative but also humorous in the way some of them defend their favorite player by bending some numbers to favor them. Or them showing quotes of other players that is pertinent to there points when you know dam good and well that there is a ton of quotes that say the opposite for racist issues about Cobb.

Haha. I used to read B-R and posted a couple of times. I thought you were referring to SABRMatt, who has his PCA system, which is confusing as hell.

Old Sweater
12-29-2008, 01:33 AM
hoggin88>>He said he saw Brooks play about 15 times. Plus, I really don't think the human eye is a very reliable tool of assessing a player's ability.


That depends on who is running the eye. It is also how every player that makes it out of high school is accessed and every player in the MLB except for a few saber finds that was also accessed with the help of a scout with a trained eye. Ping bats provide lousy and deceiving stats for the college players and pitchers.

If I remember right Branch Rickey had a guy that used stats to some degree for the Cards to acquire some players from his minor league system.

The eye of baseball people is also the best assessment of a players D over any stat. I watched BJ Upton go back on a few ball over his head in CF and knew that no outfielder had the talent that Upton had who played for the Rockies. The only one close is Cory Sullivan who swings a weak bat.

Old Sweater
12-29-2008, 01:43 AM
Haha. I used to read B-R and posted a couple of times. I thought you were referring to SABRMatt, who has his PCA system, which is confusing as hell.


He is the young saber I was talking about. I think he got banned for getting on SavoyBG's case. I ain't sure though. As I said before, I think he confuses himself with that PCA system. Bright young man though. But takes some numbers to seriously at face value. He's going to spend years tinkering with that system that is no better or worse then the other systems that get a player into the same ballpark.

baseball4ever
12-29-2008, 02:00 AM
As far as watching a player perform with the naked eye; one player that comes to my attention was Willie Mays and that over the shoulder basket catch he made which made him famous. Not long ago he admitted that the spinning around while making the thow into the infield and then falling to the ground after doing so waspure theatrics. In his own words he said, "I thought I'd might as well make it look good".

Taking nothing away from the say-hey kid; especially with the bat I can't help but think of Jim Edmonds and the dozens of over the shoulder catches he made without the theatrics. No wonder he is a shadow of himself what with all the slaming into the outfild walls. Fred Lynn was the same way; sla,ing into walls making dramatic catches; and it was only April. I was like, "C'mon Fred" it's only April and sure enough he would be on the D.L. by June !

Seamhead
12-29-2008, 02:04 AM
He is the young saber I was talking about. I think he got banned for getting on SavoyBG's case. I ain't sure though. As I said before, I think he confuses himself with that PCA system. Bright young man though. But takes some numbers to seriously at face value. He's going to spend years tinkering with that system that is no better or worse then the other systems that get a player into the same ballpark.

I don't like the PCA system, at all, either. And I agree with the latter part, too.

hoggin88
12-29-2008, 02:27 AM
That depends on who is running the eye. It is also how every player that makes it out of high school is accessed and every player in the MLB except for a few saber finds that was also accessed with the help of a scout with a trained eye. Ping bats provide lousy and deceiving stats for the college players and pitchers.

If I remember right Branch Rickey had a guy that used stats to some degree for the Cards to acquire some players from his minor league system.

The eye of baseball people is also the best assessment of a players D over any stat. I watched BJ Upton go back on a few ball over his head in CF and knew that no outfielder had the talent that Upton had who played for the Rockies. The only one close is Cory Sullivan who swings a weak bat.

Well I can only assume that the people writing in this thread are not professional scouts. If one of them was, they definitely would have said so here. I just don't think some memories of watching some games 30 or 40 years ago should have much say in a debate like this. There is so much flaw in that it's ridiculous.

Old Sweater
12-29-2008, 04:53 AM
Well I can only assume that the people writing in this thread are not professional scouts. If one of them was, they definitely would have said so here. I just don't think some memories of watching some games 30 or 40 years ago should have much say in a debate like this. There is so much flaw in that it's ridiculous.


I hear what you're saying but it has been going on for 30 or 40 years and will go on for another 30 or 40 years. I least I hope that there will remain fans of baseball, that value their opinion more then numbers at certain times.

Baseball researchers, historians and sabers may change someones rankings(once in a blue moon) in a fans top ten list but they may not change the impression that a player made on a fan when it comes down to choosing which player he would rather have on his team. Often the heart will win out over the numbers.

When it comes down to players who make many fans top ten lists, none of the players you choose isn't going to matter that much. IMO, it makes for good reading and discussion more, then who would win in a match up of top ten teams.

bagwell368
12-29-2008, 07:30 AM
Point well taken in regards to Schmidt. However there are always intangibles that the stats don't always reveal. Having seen both of them play, I'd still have to go with Brooks given his defensive play; it was nothing short of brilliant given the natural turf he played on and his throws to first base from deep to the left of the foul line. Once again he was a set-up man for the clean up batter. Darn Now I REALLY wish they kept the gwrbi stat.

Believe me. I'm taking nothing away from Mikey when it comes to the power that game from his lumber but I can assure you, Brooks was the best defensive third baseman of all time. Even his plaque at the HOF recognizes that If you had the opportunity to watch him play (with the glove) your response would have been a loud and boisterious WOW.

What you witnessed in the 1970 world series B'more fans saw that on a daily basis; that's why he was awarded 16 consectutive gold gloves.

By the way, kudos to the Babe for placing first in the category you cited. He truely was the Sulton of Swat and literally saved the game after the 1919 Black Sox Scandal.

Happy New Year.

At 3B Offense >>> Defense when rating players.

Emotions blind the mind to reason, and thus make it worthless to argue with such a mind. Zealots are certain that their beliefs are the only truth that matters.

The fact you didn't notice that Brooks batted mostly 5-7 and not 3rd means you didn't take the time the read carefully because your mind was made up already. Afraid of the truth? Or just sure of your own?

I remember vividly the heroics of Brock and Gibson in '67 and '68, Clemente in '71, Brooks in '70. Brooks was the reigning #1 3B when I was growing up and I was a fan of the AL, so...

So, I was aware of Santo, Mathews, Cey, Torre, Boyer, etc. and thought of Brooks as the best of them - except for HR which was Mathews. But he has been outstripped totally by: Brett, Mathews, Boggs, Santo, Jones, Schmidt, Molitor in fairly short order.

I Stole Home
01-04-2009, 11:19 PM
Im going to say Brookes Robinson

bagwell368
01-04-2009, 11:22 PM
12 year olds should not be allowed to vote.

Five4One
01-05-2009, 10:59 PM
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...



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



Schmidt has 3 MVP's, and a WS MVP. An AS MVP is about as usefull as **** on a bull.



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.



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..


End of thread.

Brendan
01-09-2009, 07:52 PM
I got a headache reading this

Don Rockwell
03-14-2018, 02:37 PM
A little light reading for you:

http://www.donrockwell.com/topic/50696-brooks-robinson-the-greatest-defensive-player-in-baseball-history-at-any-position-1-of-7/

Cheers,
DR

Dugmet
03-16-2018, 11:11 AM
Schmidt.

Saw Brooks last 4 or 5 years of his career. Stats clearly point to Schmidt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

thawv
03-18-2018, 04:16 PM
Unless your an avid Orioles fan, and can't be objective about it, it's not even close who the better third baseman was. Schmidt was substantially better.

Bags pretty much summed it up.

Don Rockwell
09-24-2018, 12:31 AM
Unless your an avid Orioles fan, and can't be objective about it, it's not even close who the better third baseman was. Schmidt was substantially better.

Bags pretty much summed it up.

If you value offense - in particular, power - more than defense, stats clearly point to Schmidt; if you don't, then it becomes much more complicated.

Only an avid Orioles fan, who watched Robinson daily, would actually know just how supernal his play was at third base.

Jeffy25
09-24-2018, 12:46 AM
If you value offense - in particular, power - more than defense, stats clearly point to Schmidt; if you don't, then it becomes much more complicated.

Only an avid Orioles fan, who watched Robinson daily, would actually know just how supernal his play was at third base.

Being flashy and sure handed isn't enough to erase their offensive differences, not to mention that Schmidt was also durable and also a great defender.

flips333
09-25-2018, 08:23 PM
I forgot about the epic breakdowns Bagwell used to unleash.

I love how he ended up ranking Santo in front of Robinson... not that I agree.