Is Mike Schmidt the greatest player of the last 40 years, relative to the all-timers?

[Senser81]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Baseball_All-Time_Team

Looking at the composition of the MLB All-Time team, there are very few players of recent vintage. I'm going to throw out the DH's (Harold Baines??) and the relief pitchers, because they are specialists that don't really compare to regular players and don't really have any comparable players from previous eras.

The pitchers are all from eras prior to the 70's. You have some relatively recent second team selections like Joe Morgan, Cal Ripken Jr., and Brooks Robinson. Willie Mays played a few years in the 1970's (which were a joke), but he was really a 1950's-60's era player.

The only two recent guys who measure up to the all-time greats are Johnny Bench and Mike Schmidt. I would argue that Bench's selection to the first team over Yogi Berra is highly questionable, and at the very least Berra is on the same level as Bench.

But I think Mike Schmidt is the clear choice for 3B. Brooks Robinson was a great fielder and a clutch hitter, but he didn't have the power or production of Mike Schmidt.

 

[NAHSTE]

Barry Bonds?

 

[Irish]

Alex Rodriquez is a better 3rd baseman all time than Mike Schmidt. So no.

 

[ThomasTomasz]

I'll take Robinson over Schmidt by a close margin. Granted, Schmidt's offensive numbers are better, but he played in a different time than Robinson where offensive numbers were starting to take off. Robinson also has yet to have an equal as a defensive player.

 

[Senser81]

Barry Bonds?

Steroids?

 

[Senser81]

Alex Rodriquez is a better 3rd baseman all time than Mike Schmidt. So no.

Steroids?

 

[EmpireWF]

With the exception of the two years he played under 100 games, Paul Molitor was consistently awesome for two decades.

 

[NAHSTE]

Steroids?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/bondsba01.shtml#1986-1998-sum:batting_standard

Barry's (presumed) pre-roid years still poop down the mouth of Mike Schmidt's peak numbers. Schmidt was the better power hitter but in terms of all-around skills give me Bonds every time. And I hate the guy.

 

[FedEx227]

I don't understand why we aren't allowed to count the steroid guys? It happened, they played, there wasn't a plan in place to avoid them so why put your head in the sand and act like it didn't happen.

With that said Schmidt is a beast but Bonds, Rodriguez and Griffey in my mind were better players.

 

[NAHSTE]

I don't understand why we aren't allowed to count the steroid guys? It happened, they played, there wasn't a plan in place to avoid them so why put your head in the sand and act like it didn't happen.

With that said Schmidt is a beast but Bonds, Rodriguez and Griffey in my mind were better players.

Cue the w2b bitch fest in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ...

 

[Leftwich]

I can't say Mike Schmidt is the GOAT because of my disdain for the Phillies.

 

[Senser81]

I don't understand why we aren't allowed to count the steroid guys?

You can count them, and I can ask "steroids?" when you do.

 

[jms493]

pete rose? :toddfather:

 

[FedEx227]

You can count them, and I can ask "steroids?" when you do.

No doubt and that's fine but I'd chose all three of those over Schmidt.

 

[Senser81]

No doubt and that's fine but I'd chose all three of those over Schmidt.

Really? What about the steroids?

 

[shag773]

He's the greatest third baseman of all time. But the best player of the last 40 years? I would also say Pete Rose. But Schmidt is in the conversation.

 

[FedEx227]

Really? What about the steroids?

What about them? I'm not understanding why we can't count those guys as good players.

Trust me, I'm glad they are out of the game but we can't put our head in the sand and not acknowledge great players that may or may not have used. Like NAHSTE said, you can set a date on Bonds' steroid beginnings, you can't really do it with A-Rod but it's still arbitrary. I'm not defending these guys but there was nothing in place to stop them, so they did it. I don't feel comfortable just ignoring them.

 

[FirstTimer]

I don't understand why we aren't allowed to count the steroid guys?

Because they cheated.

It happened, they played, there wasn't a plan in place to avoid them

US Law>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.MLB rules.

 

[FedEx227]

In July 2005, Schmidt appeared on Bob Costas' HBO show Costas Now to discuss steroids, and said, "Let me go out on a limb and say that if I had played during that era I would have taken steroids... We all have these things we deal with in life, and I'm surely not going to sit here and say to you guys, 'I wouldn't have done that.'"

:buck:

Look, I'm not defending them or starting steroid argument #2902001 but if you want to just ignore an entire era and discount anything a player did because you thought they were on steroids or tested positive later in their career that's fine, I'm not saying they are clean, I just hate the entire argument.

It happened. Cheating has been apart of baseball forever. Steroids are the highest level of cheating but there were guys on greenies (and still are), it's not the same level but I just don't feel comfortable ignoring everything done by players from 1987-2008.

 

[Senser81]

What about them? I'm not understanding why we can't count those guys as good players.

Trust me, I'm glad they are out of the game but we can't put our head in the sand and not acknowledge great players that may or may not have used. Like NAHSTE said, you can set a date on Bonds' steroid beginnings, you can't really do it with A-Rod but it's still arbitrary. I'm not defending these guys but there was nothing in place to stop them, so they did it. I don't feel comfortable just ignoring them.

Not singling you out, but its kind of an "about face". When the players were on steroids, people buried their heads in the sand and did not acknowledge it. Now that all this information (albeit some of it is speculative) comes out, and we're told "you can't put your head in the sand and not acknowledge these great steroid players".

So, which is it? Should we acknowledge their greatness but also acknowledge their steroid use...or not acknowledge their greatness and not acknowledge their steroid use? You make it seem as if we should acknowledge their greatness but not acknowledge their steroid use. Hence "about face".