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

[shag773]

:buck:

His character can be brought into question, that's fair. But the fact remains he didn't take steroids, and A-Rod and Bonds did. Not sure what your point is.

 

[FirstTimer]

: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.

Good for Schmidt I guess?

Also, Schmidt did play in an era when steroids were being used. Hell, down the road in Pittsburgh the Steelers were juiced out of their minds.


Schmidt played in a time when roids were more than available if he wanted to use them. Him acting as though he played in an era when they weren't is rather dubious

 

[FedEx227]

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".

Totally acknowledge their steroid use. Those are steroid guys, the 80s and 90s was littered with steroid guys. It's a steroid era to me. I don't want to ignore it and act like it didn't happen and we shouldn't consider it an era of baseball because it absolutely is and it was extremely important to the history of the game.

As NAHSTE mentioned, Bonds talent was already there for years before he became a lab experiment, ditto in my mind for Rodriguez and Ramirez. How do we properly judge them? Only take their numbers from when we THINK they started taking steroids or just wipe them clean? What about pitchers like Clemens? Do we not acknowledge 10 years of awesome pitching because we think he started using steroids in 1998? Just seems too arbitrary and speculative. I'm fine with just straight up saying "Bonds is one of the top five players of all times, even though he took steroids." I honestly don't have a problem with that.

 

[FirstTimer]

Totally acknowledge their steroid use. Those are steroid guys, the 80s and 90s was littered with steroid guys. It's a steroid era to me.

Then how can Schmidt say that if he played in that era(which he did)..he would have taken them......but he didn't.

As NAHSTE mentioned, Bonds talent was already there for years before he became a lab experiment, ditto in my mind for Rodriguez and Ramirez. How do we properly judge them? Only take their numbers from when we THINK they started taking steroids or just wipe them clean? What about pitchers like Clemens? Do we not acknowledge 10 years of awesome pitching because we think he started using steroids in 1998? Just seems too arbitrary and speculative. I'm fine with just straight up saying "Bonds is one of the top five players of all times, even though he took steroids." I honestly don't have a problem with that.

This.

 

[FedEx227]

That's fine. I'm not comfortable doing that.

 

[Senser81]

As NAHSTE mentioned, Bonds talent was already there for years before he became a lab experiment, ditto in my mind for Rodriguez and Ramirez. How do we properly judge them? Only take their numbers from when we THINK they started taking steroids or just wipe them clean? What about pitchers like Clemens? Do we not acknowledge 10 years of awesome pitching because we think he started using steroids in 1998? Just seems too arbitrary and speculative. I'm fine with just straight up saying "Bonds is one of the top five players of all times, even though he took steroids." I honestly don't have a problem with that.

It makes it difficult to judge them relative to all-time players. You can judge them against their peers of the steroid era, but its in a way even more "arbitrary and speculative" to say that Alex Rodriguez was a better player than Mike Schmidt, because not only did they play in different eras, but one guy took steroids and the other didn't.

 

[NAHSTE]

So basically, the question is "is Mike Schmidt the greatest player named to the MLB All-Time team who played post-1970?"

In which case, sure?

 

[FedEx227]

Without the ability to add or replace anybody put on that team in 1997.

 

[Senser81]

So basically, the question is "is Mike Schmidt the greatest player named to the MLB All-Time team who played post-1970?"

In which case, sure?

Would you have Griffey and Bonds on the MLB All-Time Team? If so, who would you replace?

 

[FedEx227]

Can I put Bonds at DH or do we have to put them at their true positions?

 

[NAHSTE]

Would you have Griffey and Bonds on the MLB All-Time Team? If so, who would you replace?

No, but I would still say each is a better player than Mike Schmidt.

 

[Senser81]

Can I put Bonds at DH or do we have to put them at their true positions?

Can I have Cy Young as my reliever? This thread has gone into the toilet, and quickly.

 

[jms493]

Can I have Cy Young as my reliever? This thread has gone into the toilet, and quickly.

considering it came out your ass.....tis not surprising.:jay:

 

[NAHSTE]

Can I have Cy Young as my reliever? This thread has gone into the toilet, and quickly.

I think your question was vague. Do you want to know who the greatest player of the last 40 years is, or do you want to determine whether or not Mike Schmidt is the best member of the MLB All-Time team who played after 1970?

The answer to the first question is Barry Bonds, or several other players not named Mike Schmidt. The answer to the second is who fucking cares ...

 

[Senser81]

I think your question was vague. Do you want to know who the greatest player of the last 40 years is, or do you want to determine whether or not Mike Schmidt is the best member of the MLB All-Time team who played after 1970?

The answer to the first question is Barry Bonds, or several other players not named Mike Schmidt. The answer to the second is who fucking cares ...

Mods, please rename this thread "Wasn't Mike Schmidt Awesome?!".
TY

 

[Senser81]

considering it came out your ass.....tis not surprising.:jay:

But sometimes at my age it will linger in sort of a toilet limbo...not quite detached from my ass and not quite in the toilet bowl water. At that point, you have to check to see if you are really done shitting, or if you still have a dangling turd. Kind of like an extra step you have to take when you get older. Be forewarned.

 

[NAHSTE]

To sum this all up:

Mike Schmidt is the best baseball player of the last 40 years, excluding every player who played in the steroid era and anyone not named to an all-time team that is now 15 years out of date. Got it.

 

[jms493]

Mods, please rename this thread "Wasn't Mike Schmidt Awesome?!".
TY

oh the lost art of the stache!:eeecheeerow:

 

[Senser81]

To sum this all up:

Mike Schmidt is the best baseball player of the last 40 years, excluding every player who played in the steroid era and anyone not named to an all-time team that is now 15 years out of date. Got it.

If you made an MLB all-time team right now, what modern players would be on it? Would Schmidt be the only first team member? That was basically all I was asking.

Someone mentioned that A-Rod would replace Schmidt. Thats fine, but what about the affect of steroids on A-Rod's career...considering he's been on steroids his entire MLB career. I didn't know these were "head in the sand" issues.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

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.

You wont find a bigger Pete Rose fan than me. But there is no way he's the best player of the last 40 years. He probably wouldnt crack the top 20. He was rarely the best player on his own team. He was the third best player on the Reds. Some years fourth or fifth when Foster or Perez had big seasons.