George Brett Supremo

The MLB network recently aired a biography of George Brett—a dynamic player of the first order whose exploits dim with the passing of time.  On a baseball channel that oft repeats programs, there appears to be no re-run scheduled anytime soon of the star who performed in the Midwest hinterlands.

Factoring in his ability to excel in the clutch, along with his exemplary play in 21 seasons in baseball, George Brett should be remembered as the best player of his era. Today, he is not even recognized as the best third basement of his time.

Regrettably, sabermaticians have redefined the measure of baseball greatness.  Armed with numeric formulas that result in ‘objective’ findings, they and their adherents bestowed the title of greatest all time third baseman to Mike Schmidt. 

The bean counters are wrong.  So-called objective statistical formulas contain subjective scaling, and more important, do not factor the essential element of greatness—performance when it counts most— in the clutch, especially in the heated crucible of championship play.. Using this standard, George Brett stands above his peers.

Brett vs. Schmidt

Baseball endures as a game awash in wondrous numbers.  Both Brett and Schmidt excelled in their sport as highlighted by their career statistics.  The Philadelphia Phillie led his league in home runs eight times, and RBIs four times; the third basement retired with ten gold gloves for defensive excellence along with the home run record for players manning his position with 548.

His Kansas City Royal counterpart provided his own set of ample numbers, especially in 1980, when he hit .390—winning one of his three batting crowns— with 118 RBIs amassed in just 117 games played. Playing in a park averse to home runs, Brett drove the ball into the alleys, less frequently over the fence. In 1979, he was one of the few players in baseball history to achieve a ‘twenty or more rarity’ in doubles (42), triples (20) and home runs (23).  In 1985, he led an offensively challenged Royals team to the title when he hit .335 with 30 Home Runs while leading the league in slugging percentage. 

The duo’s careers paralleled the other so no need to compare different eras. By any measure, they were the two best to play their position.  But who was the ‘best’?  Armed with numbers, the sabermaticians conclude that it was Mike Schmidt.  

Number Crunching

“Statistical figures sure don’t lie; but statisticians sure do figure.”   Like grocers, sabermaticians constantly weigh things.  So, let’s look at what they put in their scales to determine a numerical answer to the best third baseman question.

The sabermetric folks employ objective numbers to determine the overall offensive strength of a given hitter, to-wit: “on base percentage plus slugging percentage” = “OPS”.  Using this formula, the career OPS for each player reads as follows: 

                  On Base %    Slugging %          OPS

Schmidt.       .380              .527                 .908

Brett              .369             .487                  .857

But something seems amiss given Brett’s career average was .305, as compared to Schmidt’s more pedestrian .267.  Schmidt hit far more home runs than Brett, which boosts Schmidt’s edge in slugging percentage, but the questionable OPS ‘booster’ lies in base on balls, which negates Brett’s advantage as a hitter.

Mike Schmidt walked a lot more than George Brett.  Enough so that his walks yielded a higher ‘on base percentage’, which in turn boosts his OPS.  Implicit in the use of the OPS formula lies in the assumption that walks equate the same as a hit.  But those two statistics are not ‘equal’.

Walks do not advance runners on base more than one base; base on balls do not advance runners from first to third, nor do walks score runners from second base.  Despite this essential difference, sabermaticians weigh walks with their thumb on the scale.  Perhaps some pencil pushers were poor hitters as lads and took solace when their coaches encouraged them with ‘a walk is as good as a hit’ refrain.

Conversely, Schmidt struck out far more frequently than Brett—more than twice as often.   Yet, a hitter’s excessive strikeouts do not register as a negative for stat crunchers who conclude that an out by any other name is still an out.  But not all outs are equal. 

Strikeouts kill rallies.  Whiffs mean no ball in play, so runners do not advance; no runs scored from third base; no chance of errors or defensive mishaps.  If strikeouts are ‘just another out’, why tabulate strikeouts as a part of a pitcher’s statistical triple crown along with wins and ERA?  Indeed, a pitcher’s ability to blow a hitter away in a game’s key moment demonstrates a real strength.  If K’s stand as a positive for pitchers, the converse negative surely applies to hitters.  

In summary, while OPS provides a useful tool to evaluate a hitter’s offensive prowess, that statistical number both over-weighs walks, and under-weighs strikeouts, which ‘advantages’ Schmidt over Brett in OPS numerical comparisons.

A Word on “WAR”

Wins above replacement or “WAR”, purports to determine how many wins in a season a player gains for his team above and beyond the expected number of games his team would win if he were replaced by an ‘average’ player at his position. WAR has secured a near sacrosanct level for many as the ultimate scale when comparing players. 

Something more than a slide rule or an abacus is required to calculate the final number per the formula below:

“Wins Above Replacement, or WAR is a sabermetric statistic that attempts to roll into one number a given players value. The WAR ‘value’, is estimated by sabermiticians:  WAR = (Batting Runs + Base Running Runs +Fielding Runs + Positional Adjustment + League Adjustment +Replacement Runs) / (Runs Per Win).”                           

Piper Slowinski, FansGraph.

                           WAR

(War, huh!) Good God y’all
(What is it good for?) Absolutely nothing,
say it again
(War, huh) Lord, lord, lord, lord
(What is it good for?) Absolutely nothing
Listen to me!

(lyrics by Norman Whitfield/Barrett Strong; sung by Edwin Starr)

All jest aside, formulistic WAR numbers possess value, but are far from absolutes.   Indeed, the equations employ subjective values—particularly when weighing defensive and base running aspects of a given player—that can only be considered a proximation of a player’s ‘value’. 

Sabermaticians concede as much:  “Using WAR properly is difficult because it requires you to think more abstractly than some other aspects of life. The exact number is not as important as the basic range, but this isn’t just true of WAR.  This is the case with all statistics in all parts of the game.”  Piper Slowinski, FansGraph.

For what it is worth, the career WAR numbers for the two players: Schmidt: 106.8; George Brett: 84.8.  Dividing the difference of those two numbers by 20—basically the length of their careers— equates to an average of one WAR or ‘win’ per season difference between the two.   But as noted above, such numbers are not absolute indicators of who was the better player.  ‘War numbers’ that close created in the abstract—particularly when weighting base running and defense—should not be conceded as determinative.  

It remains doubtful that Schmidt was a better base runner than Brett, a player who hit far more double and triples and ran the bases aggressively.   As to defense, the consensus was that Schmidt was better than Brett (who was no slouch defensively; he won a gold glove in 1985)—but third base is not a middle of the diamond defensive position.  Roberto Clemente was a better defender that Henry Aaron, but few if any believe that the former was the better player.

Clutch Performances

Ultimately, greatness for any given player in any sport must be defined by great performances in great moments.  In Baseball, no one bestows Mr. April monikers to anyone unless in derision.  Brett’s consistent clutch performances require that he too should be deemed Mr. October.  The Royal third baseman’s feats overshadow his Phillie counterpart.

Fortunately, the two men in question played in enough post season games for an adequate sample size comparison.  In a twist of fate, both played on teams that coincidentally won division crowns in 1976, 1977, 1978, where each endured tough playoff losses.  Both of their teams finally reached the World Series in 1980, with the Phillies winning in six games.  The Phillies would again reach the World Series, losing to Baltimore; the Royals won the World Series in 1985. 

In the time before interleague play, the 1980 World Series was the only time that the two played against the other.   Their excellent performances proved a wash, their stat lines nearly identical:  both hit two home runs, with Schmidt’s razor thin edge in Series’ average of .381 vs. 375, and OPS 1.176 vs. 1.090. 

However, Schmidt’s collective post season performances fall far short of his 1980 World Series heroics.  Ironically, OPS numbers employed by sabermetric devotees to support their contention that the Phillie third basement was the better player hoist them by their own numerical petards when reviewing the duo’s post season stat sheets:

           Games   Average    On Base %    Slugging %.     OPS

Brett       43         .337          .397             .627             1.023    

Schmidt  36         .236          .306            .386                .690                 .

Unfortunately, many fans remain unaware of Brett’s post season prowess, but know him instead from YouTube footage of the ‘pine tar’ game when he went apoplectic after being called out after slugging a home run because the pine tar extended too far up his bat.  League officials recognized how ridiculously wrong the call was, and reinstated the home run after the fact and sent the two teams back to New York to finish the 9^th inning of that game. 

Forgotten in the recorded brouhaha: That dramatic ninth inning, two-out, two run shot came off baseball’s best relief pitcher Goose Gossage, which put the Royals out in front 5 to 4.

His post season feats are replete with such heroics.  The epic battles between Kansas City and New York in the American League playoffs in 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1980 gave Bronx Bomber fans reason to mutter: ‘Time to fret, here comes Brett.’   In four playoff rounds versus the Yankees, Brett hit .358, knocking the ball all over the park with 3 doubles, 2 triples and 6 home runs for a slugging percentage of .761. 

His post season highlights are many:   In 1976, his three-run homer in the 8th inning to tie the score in the decisive fifth game–unfortunately forgotten due to Chris Chambliss’ series winning home run in the ninth inning; Brett’s three home runs in a game vs. the Yankees in the 1978 playoffs; his shot over Mickey Rivers head, a run-scoring triple that ended in an exclamation point when Craig Nettles kicked the sliding runner and the fiery Royal popped up and punched his offender; and his 1980 late inning upper-deck moon shot, a dagger in the heart three run blast against Gossage that put the Royals in the lead at 4 to 2, which sealed the Royals triumph over the Yankees to finally advance to the World Series.

Memorable performances continued in 1985.  Brett closed out the regular season hitting .450 with 5 Home Runs in his last six regular season games that propelled his team past the California Angles to win the Division crown.  In the ALS against the Blue Jays, the Royal juggernaut revived his sagging team down 2 games to 0, when he went 4 for 4 with two home runs and three runs batted and scored four times himself in a series shifting 5 to 4 victory. His home run in Game 6 put the Royals ahead to stay. Kansas City defeated Toronto in seven games. The Royals went on to win the World Series against St. Louis where Brett batted .370, a fitting denouement underscoring true greatness in his incredible post season career. 

Brett, Zen and Motorcycle Maintenance

In the book,  Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, the story’s protagonist Phaedrus attempts to define “Quality”—you know what it is, yet you don’t know what it is.  But for all practical purposes it really does exist.  This is not because Quality is so mysterious but because Quality is so simple, immediate and direct.

The same can be said about Brett.  His career—and those few others of his class—demonstrated a simple, immediate and direct ability to perform in the clutch, by elevating his play to an even higher level when it counted most.   Combining this rare quality with his well-established excellence during the regular season demonstrates the truest form of greatness, and validates the contention that George Brett is indeed the greatest third basement in the history of major league baseball, as well as the best player of his era. 

It remains unfortunate that those who push pencils or the media on the coasts fail to fully recognize this monumental figure.

{The author, a St. Louis native, lived in Kansas City from 1978 to 1991.  However, he remained a Cardinal fan who suffered greatly after his team’s 1985 World Series loss to the Royals.  Ergo, he has no inherent bias in favor of the Kansas City Royals but saw enough of George Brett and his heroics to recognize true greatness.}