Top 10 poll #10: #10 player in history - Runoff

[MilkSpiller22]

This makes it seem like you value the walk MORE than you value the single. And I can’t agree with that. He was an OBP guy, and you seem to be allowing BA hatred to bleed over to influence you.

i dont hate BA at all... i actually like it... but i also acknowledge the fact that BA was different back then... rewarding him for having a great BA, before BA got deflated is not really fair to anyone who came after...

 

[calsnowskier]

i understand the controversy... and agree with it... but we did vote bonds in already... so Steroids is not the reason... if you want to call him a cheater, thats fine, but how does that change his numbers??

i understand the difference between Bonds and ARod... i just dont think the accuracy of the term cheating matters here...

Am I living in an alternate universe? Does no one understand the difference between Bonds and ARod?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Am I living in an alternate universe? Does no one understand the difference between Bonds and ARod?

we get that it is not cheating until after it becomes illegal... i said that in my post if you really read that....

My point is the semantics of cheating doesnt matter... its steroids or not steroids... and if you say steroids is fine... then does it matter if you were caught cheating??

 

[Clayton]

I respect that you have not gone overboard with your stumping of Schmidt, but I wonder if that has been detrimental. Musial is so strong at this point because he has had a serious stumper for him for multiple rounds now. Schmidt deserves more love, imho. Not that I would vote for him here, but I think he needs a stumper.

I think I'm considering Schmidt around 17 or 18. So im probably not the stumper

 

[Cedrique]

I respect that you have not gone overboard with your stumping of Schmidt, but I wonder if that has been detrimental. Musial is so strong at this point because he has had a serious stumper for him for multiple rounds now. Schmidt deserves more love, imho. Not that I would vote for him here, but I think he needs a stumper.

The things that Schmidt has going for him is that he was probably top 10 offensively and defensively at his position and is almost universally regarded as best all around all time at third base. His raw home run totals are not eye catching when compared to the 1990's or today's game but he led the league in homers 8 times, which I believe is second only to Babe Ruth. As an extreme example, in 1980, when he won the MVP the Phillies team hit 117 Home Runs. Schmidt hit 48.

On defense he played in an era there were stadiums were bigger and having an athletic guy that could anticipate a bunt and bare hand it off the astro turf and throw the guy out was a huge benefit. So he was very well regarded and won 10 Gold Gloves.

I'll save some more stumping for later. (I swear I'm not related to the guy, I just saw him play a lot....)

 

[Clayton]

Schmidt before or after pitcher 2? Good argument for before imo

 

[calsnowskier]

The things that Schmidt has going for him is that he was probably top 10 offensively and defensively at his position and is almost universally regarded as best all around all time at third base. His raw home run totals are not eye catching when compared to the 1990's or today's game but he led the league in homers 8 times, which I believe is second only to Babe Ruth. As an extreme example, in 1980, when he won the MVP the Phillies team hit 117 Home Runs. Schmidt hit 48.

On defense he played in an era there were stadiums were bigger and having an athletic guy that could anticipate a bunt and bare hand it off the astro turf and throw the guy out was a huge benefit. So he was very well regarded and won 10 Gold Gloves.

I'll save some more stumping for later. (I swear I'm not related to the guy, I just saw him play a lot....)

If you went crazy stumper for him at this point, I don’t think anyone would accuse you of being a blind homer. Schmidt is a legit stud, whom I stink deserve BEING IN THE DISCUSSION at about this point.

Like I said, he wouldn’t get my vote yet in the nom portion, but he is a guy I look at as someone who deserves consideration.

 

[calsnowskier]

we get that it is not cheating until after it becomes illegal... i said that in my post if you really read that....

My point is the semantics of cheating doesnt matter... its steroids or not steroids... and if you say steroids is fine... then does it matter if you were caught cheating??

Bonds played the game that was put in front of him. ARod pushed that game aside and did what he was expressly told not to do. Bonds can be era-attacked, and I totally get that. ARod played a different game than he was supposed to be playing.

 

[calsnowskier]

One of the reasons I like + stats so much is because it TRIES to take era into account. The players of the 70s and 80s played in HUGE parks, so their power numbers were retarded. Looking at Schmidt and seeing that he lead the league in HRs 8 times is more telling than the fact that he retired with only 548. He was an elite HR hitter with 38 HRs. In most other eras, 38 HRs would hardly garner attention.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

The things that Schmidt has going for him is that he was probably top 10 offensively and defensively at his position and is almost universally regarded as best all around all time at third base. His raw home run totals are not eye catching when compared to the 1990's or today's game but he led the league in homers 8 times, which I believe is second only to Babe Ruth. As an extreme example, in 1980, when he won the MVP the Phillies team hit 117 Home Runs. Schmidt hit 48.

On defense he played in an era there were stadiums were bigger and having an athletic guy that could anticipate a bunt and bare hand it off the astro turf and throw the guy out was a huge benefit. So he was very well regarded and won 10 Gold Gloves.

I'll save some more stumping for later. (I swear I'm not related to the guy, I just saw him play a lot....)

the only negative i see with him is that he was not good in the post season... but that is only going to hurt him if he faces someone who was good in the post season in a 1vs1...

and there are not many good post season players coming up soon... except Pujols... but Schmidt should go well before Pujols makes it to a runoff...

 

[Clayton]

One of the reasons I like + stats so much is because it TRIES to take era into account. The players of the 70s and 80s played in HUGE parks, so their power numbers were retarded. Looking at Schmidt and seeing that he lead the league in HRs 8 times is more telling than the fact that he retired with only 548. He was an elite HR hitter with 38 HRs. In most other eras, 38 HRs would hardly garner attention.

The one real knock on him is batting average, right?

 

[MilkSpiller22]

One of the reasons I like + stats so much is because it TRIES to take era into account. The players of the 70s and 80s played in HUGE parks, so their power numbers were retarded. Looking at Schmidt and seeing that he lead the league in HRs 8 times is more telling than the fact that he retired with only 548. He was an elite HR hitter with 38 HRs. In most other eras, 38 HRs would hardly garner attention.

it tries... but league average gets stronger the larger the pool of players you have... pre1962, the pool is not very big... and the league average is not as strong... especially in the days where some stats were inflated...

 

[Clayton]

ESPN has Mike Schmidt 18th. Ahead of Hornsby. Everyone has a different list, I guess

 

[calsnowskier]

it tries... but league average gets stronger the larger the pool of players you have... pre1962, the pool is not very big... and the league average is not as strong... especially in the days where some stats were inflated...

Good argument.

But is it accurate? Is a 200 OPS+ in 2004 really stronger than a 200 OPS+ in 1962?

 

[calsnowskier]

ESPN has Mike Schmidt 18th. Ahead of Hornsby. Everyone has a different list, I guess

ESPN wants clicks. A “recent” player from a tri-state team will garner more clicks than a player from flyover country from over 100 years ago.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Good argument.

But is it accurate? Is a 200 OPS+ in 2004 really stronger than a 200 OPS+ in 1962?

What I like to do is compare the tenth best with the league average. Just to see how skewed it is.

You need inflation proof before trusting adjusted numbers.

But steroid era all stats were inflated as well.

Also no matter what if your stats are good your adjusted numbers will be good. Even if the league average is closer to your numbers. So inflation really is a huge factor.

 

[calsnowskier]

What I like to do is compare the tenth best with the league average. Just to see how skewed it is.

You need inflation proof before trusting adjusted numbers.

But steroid era all stats were inflated as well.

Also no matter what if your stats are good your adjusted numbers will be good. Even if the league average is closer to your numbers. So inflation really is a huge factor.

The #10 value from a pool of 1000 will be different from the #10 value from a pool of 10,000,000.

In order to compare apples to apples, you should be looking at the top 10% vs the top 10%.

but if the average value of the 1000 pool sits at approx #500, and the average value of the 10,000,000 pool sits at approx #5,000,000, than the + value of the #1 sample of both pools should be approx equal. But if there is a Babe Ruth sample, than his + value would be expected to be higher, no matter the size of the pool.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

The #10 value from a pool of 1000 will be different from the #10 value from a pool of 10,000,000.

In order to compare apples to apples, you should be looking at the top 10% vs the top 10%.

Not what I said. Look at the #10 and compare it to the league average.

There you can see how skewed it is.

Just a quick way.
Sure. If you want to check the 90th percentile that would work better. But it’s also kind of unnecessary.


Also the players that skew things the most are always going to be the studs and scrubs.

 

[Cedrique]

If you went crazy stumper for him at this point, I don’t think anyone would accuse you of being a blind homer. Schmidt is a legit stud, whom I stink deserve BEING IN THE DISCUSSION at about this point.

Like I said, he wouldn’t get my vote yet in the nom portion, but he is a guy I look at as someone who deserves consideration.

Yeah I'm trying to be objective but it's impossible to do the same amount of due diligence with a guy I never saw play vs someone that was on my tv screen 100 times a year for a decade (plus I saw him in person 40-50 times). Especially in regards to defense, where I'm not sure how accurate the Baseball Reference Defensive WAR stat really is. I saw Schmidt but I really don't know if some of these other guys were a plus or minus on defense.

Anyway, with that disclaimer let me continue stumping--When you look at Schmidt's WAR7 number you need to consider that one of his 7 best years (arguably his best) was the truncated season of 1981, where he put up a 7.7 WAR in 107 team games. I'm not saying he should be given extra points for what he might have done, but I would say that it shows that he was more dominant in that season than people might think at first glance. Breaking up a career into seasons is a good tool but there can still be nuances.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Yeah I'm trying to be objective but it's impossible to do the same amount of due diligence with a guy I never saw play vs someone that was on my tv screen 100 times a year for a decade (plus I saw him in person 40-50 times). Especially in regards to defense, where I'm not sure how accurate the Baseball Reference Defensive WAR stat really is. I saw Schmidt but I really don't know if some of these other guys were a plus or minus on defense.

Anyway, with that disclaimer let me continue stumping--When you look at Schmidt's WAR7 number you need to consider that one of his 7 best years (arguably his best) was the truncated season of 1981, where he put up a 7.7 WAR in 107 team games. I'm not saying he should be given extra points for what he might have done, but I would say that it shows that he was more dominant in that season than people might think at first glance. Breaking up a career into seasons is a good tool but there can still be nuances.

I give that a C- You can do better selling.

Like how he hit homers with his moustach.