SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 29, 2009 0:09:03 GMT -5
Jim Rice: 77 over 9058 career PAs. Brian Giles: 114 over 7385 career PAs. The problem with your logic is that people also intentionally walk you when you're the only player on your team who hits at the league average because the other players on your team suck. 69 of Giles' IBB came as a Pirate - he was walked less than Rice the rest of his career. Nice selective quoting. Did you read the rest of the post where I addressed that?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 29, 2009 0:21:27 GMT -5
My point was simply that Manny was feared. There's really no evidence that Rice was feared anymore than Giles was, at least by opposing players. As for Giles, I don't think he's a HOF. That's kind of my point. There's a lot of players along that spectrum -- Players like Belle with a short career and great peak, and people like Rice with good career length but a lesser peak. Giles is in that group, and so are a bunch of other players. And when you've got a big group of players who are about the same, they aren't HOF to me. I get it. You grew up with Rice so you are happy he's a HOF. He was not a better player than Albert Belle. He was different -- longer career, lower peak. But he and players like Giles are all sort of the same All-Star but not quite great corner outfielders. To me, if I put one in, I should be putting them all in. Then the HOF gets huge. (BTW, Rice does get credit for tailoring his swing. But some of his home stats are that EVERYONE hits well in Fenway, and his accomplishments should be adjusted for that). It's not even that I'm so happy he's in. I'm just fine that he's in. There's so many worse guys in. Joe Gordon just this year or Phil Rizzuto who isn't even the Money Store spokesperson baseball HoF (Palmer is the only member). I mean there are so many worse guys. Borderline guys from that expansion tweener era when pitching ruled, I don't mind at all. Let's face it if we went OPS+ for the hitters in the 80s Mike Schmidt is the only Hall of Famer in there. Mike Schmidt's the greatest third baseman ever. Surely that's not the standard for that entire era; greatest at your position ever or out. Where have I said OPS+ is the only thing? I suspect you don't read any of my posts. Aside from Schmidt, off the top of my head, there's Brett, Gwynn, Gary Carter, Rickey Henderson, Tim Raines, Ozzie Smith, Boggs, Winfield, Sandberg, Rudolph, Fisk (does he count as 80s?), Ripken, Yount, etc. Trammell, Molitor. I'm sure I'm missing a lot. The reason why I shorthand Rice with OPS+ is that he's a corner outfielder with not so special fielding skills -- his case rests in his bat.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 29, 2009 13:07:36 GMT -5
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,858
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jul 29, 2009 14:50:53 GMT -5
1. Brooks Robinson 2. Pie Traynor 3. Eddie Mathews 4. George Brett 5. Mike Schmidt
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 29, 2009 14:52:38 GMT -5
1. Brooks Robinson 2. Pie Traynor 3. Eddie Mathews 4. George Brett 5. Mike Schmidt That's not a defensive ranking, right? Because I don't think Matthews would belong there. Assuming it is not a defensive list, I think you are overrating Pie Traynor and Robinson for that matter. Schmidt'd be my pick, but Matthews and Brett are right there. The weird thing about third base is that players like Traynor are caught in a middle zone (and a player like Home Run Baker is more like a 2B). In the old days, 3B was a fielding position, not a hitting position. 2B was a hitter's position -- there weren't many double plays and a lot of balls were hit at third. Over the years, they kind of switched. Traynor was sort of in the transition, but given how good a defender Schmidt was, its hard for me to give him any extra credit for that.
|
|
FormerHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,262
|
Post by FormerHoya on Jul 29, 2009 15:30:56 GMT -5
Ooh, sorry you're all wrong. Ron Santo.
Stone.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 29, 2009 15:31:13 GMT -5
Brooks Robinson would be at the top defensively for sure, but if you rate the overall player, both offensively and defensively, then I think it would have to be Brett and Schmidt although I know very little about Traynor.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jul 29, 2009 16:47:00 GMT -5
Let me just say that I am biased here as a Phillies fan but I think DFW acted stupidly when he made that list. I don't know how he came up with that list. But separate from that list, there's a history amongst baseball fans of Phillies profiling. I don't know if that's what's going on here. But I hope we can use this as a teaching moment about the greatness of Michael Jack Schmidt.
Thnak you.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Jul 29, 2009 17:27:22 GMT -5
If we look at GIGA's favorite stat, OPS+, Schmidt is the best with Matthews and Brett very strong (but clearly still inferior) competitors. And given that he was also a Gold Glover, even if Brooks Robinson was as sensational defensively as everyone believes he was, Schmidt shouldn't lose too much in that comparison. Pie Traynor was, well, a strange nomination by DFW- why not Home Run Baker if you want to go back pre-integration?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jul 29, 2009 17:27:55 GMT -5
I don't say this often, but DFW is crazy. Brett at #4? Unless you're Tim McClelland's cousin, or the mere mention of hemorrhoids gives you the serious heebie jeebies, you have to admit he's higher than that.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jul 29, 2009 18:15:34 GMT -5
If we look at GIGA's favorite stat, OPS+, Schmidt is the best with Matthews and Brett very strong (but clearly still inferior) competitors. And given that he was also a Gold Glover, even if Brooks Robinson was as sensational defensively as everyone believes he was, Schmidt shouldn't lose too much in that comparison. Pie Traynor was, well, a strange nomination by DFW- why not Home Run Baker if you want to go back pre-integration? And that's the best thing about Schmidt. You can ask stat nerds, baseball card collectors, media, fans, and fellow players and this is as close as you'll get to a consensus. When someone votes Brooks Robinson #1, I often think "I never saw him play, but what exactly did he do at third?" Mike Schmidt is clearly the best fielding third baseman I've seen. Now maybe Brooks is better, and let's assume he is for this argument. How much better does he have to be to make up for Schmidt's slugging? Did it allow the Orioles to just play without a shortstop? Brooks is an average hitter and Schmidt lead the league in homers 8 times. I think the only guy who did it more was nicknamed "Babe." Sure I guess it's possible Robinson's fielding makes up for that. Maybe he distracted hitters with lasers shooting from his eyes or something.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jul 29, 2009 18:39:15 GMT -5
There's a good chance that Schmidt was as good as Robinson was at fielding. Brooks was undoubtedly a great fielder, but he also played in an era where the vast majority of baseball people saw was the World Series. He had an incredible series in whatever year it was defensively, making an amazing number of sick plays, and that's most people's memory of Brooks.
That makes him the best fielder of all time at third in most people's minds, because the Brooks they saw probably was. That said, it was good timing for his reputation and players like Schmidt, Boyer, etc., were probably darn good too and maybe just as good.
As Giga says, once you factor in the bat, it isn't close to me.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,858
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jul 29, 2009 19:14:44 GMT -5
Ok, You can put the top five in any order as far as I'm concerned--growing up with the worst franchise in the AL, if not baseball itself, Rangers fans didn't have much to crow about on infielders. After all, the "Mendoza Line" was born in Arlington, and coined by George Brett.
It was also the Rangers who traded Jim Sundberg for a seriously nearsighted Ned Yost (career BA: .212), shopped Ron Darling and Walt Terrell for a fading Lee Mazzilli, and, yes, dumped Sammy Sosa, Wilson Alvarez, and Scott Fletcher to the White Sox for Harold Baines and Fred Manrique.
FWIW, I never saw Schmidt play in person and in the days of the NBC Game of the Week, not often enough on TV, so others have more direct appreciation of his skills. I did see George Brett and he was a solid player all around. (If Schmidt played for the Rangers he would have probably been traded to the Cubs for the rights to Pat Tabler.)
(On another topic, I know Jim Rice was not a popular HOF selection but he ended his career with the Sox and made it to Cooperstown, so number 14 righfully belongs in right field of Fenway. Messrs. Boggs and Clemens will never have such an honor.)
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,441
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyarooter on Jul 29, 2009 19:15:45 GMT -5
I saw both B. Robby and Schmidt play a number of times. Brooks was the better fielder, and that is no knock on Schmidt. Brooks at third was like Ozzie Smith at short.
However, all around, I think Schmidt is clearly the best third baseman ever.
Back on point, I have found this HOF discussion fascinating. I've stayed out of it because while I think the new stats are extremely valuable, I just don't have time to keep up with them (I know I would have 30/40 years ago if they had been around, but that's a completely different issue), so I don't have a lot to contribute. My personal view on Jim Rice is that he's borderline, which seems to pretty much be the consensus. I do recall him being one of the most dominant hitters in baseball for a decade (albeit clearly Fenway influenced), and I was in Boston for three of those years, so I can appreciate him, and his admission doesn't offend me.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jul 30, 2009 6:55:34 GMT -5
(On another topic, I know Jim Rice was not a popular HOF selection but he ended his career with the Sox and made it to Cooperstown, so number 14 righfully belongs in right field of Fenway. Messrs. Boggs and Clemens will never have such an honor.) Is it because they ended their career with another team? Because that's clearly not a disqualification: www.baseball-reference.com/players/f/fiskca01.shtml
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,858
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jul 30, 2009 7:04:20 GMT -5
Is it because they ended their career with another team? I talked with someone who worked at Fenway and while their jersey numbers aren't in the active rotation, Boggs and Clemens' tenure with the Yankees seem to go a long way in preventing any future recognition and he said as much. As to Pudge, Fisk made his peace with Boston (actually signing to finish his career there, if only ceremonially) and both the Red Sox and White Sox consider him one of their own.
|
|