Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Robin Yount vs. George Brett

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • leecemark
    replied
    --Yount developed back problems that forced his move out of the IF.

    Leave a comment:


  • Honus Wagner Rules
    replied
    Originally posted by iPod
    Brett not quite by a mile, but at least three-quarters of a mile. He was a much better hitter and even though Yount has versatility, there's such a scarcity of centerpiece players that were career third basemen that you really can't afford to pass up on arguably the best one ever and certainly one of the top 3.
    I never understood the "versatility" argument? Brett was a fine defensive third baseman. What was to be gained by moving him to another position? Wasn't Bobbly Bonilla more "versatile" than Ozzie Smith since he played more defensive positions that Ozzie did? Why did Yount move to CF? I don't remember the story. Did the Brewers actually think that Ernest Riles was a better defensive SS than Yount?
    Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 03-13-2006, 07:41 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • iPod
    replied
    Brett not quite by a mile, but at least three-quarters of a mile. He was a much better hitter and even though Yount has versatility, there's such a scarcity of centerpiece players that were career third basemen that you really can't afford to pass up on arguably the best one ever and certainly one of the top 3.

    Leave a comment:


  • Appling
    replied
    Really close, isn't it? I would rate Yount slightly ahead of Brett as a fielder:while at shortstop, Robin was among the best; and then he was a good centerfielder later in his career. Brett was a good third-baseman, but not in the league of Mike Schmidt or several others.

    Brett was clearly the better hitter: .305/.369/.487 compared with .285/.342/.430 for Yount. Both had long careers and both are members of the 3000-hit club.
    (Yount had 3142 career hits; Brett had 3154.) Both were elected to the Hall of Fame on the first ballot -- and in the same year (1999)!

    IMO the HOF voting is the ultimate judge. Brett was elected on 98.2% of the ballots, versus only 77.5% for Yount. And that was by the same group of voters!

    Leave a comment:


  • leecemark
    replied
    --Yount by a mile over Molitor.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    I'd go with Yount over Molitor in a heartbeat. Molitor is very underrated IMO, but he didn't really have much of a peak. He never was a truly dominant player like Yount was in 1982 and 1989. Plus, Yount played the field his whole career, giving him way more defensive value.

    Leave a comment:


  • Edgartohof
    replied
    Originally posted by torez77
    I'll go with Brett here.

    I've always thought a very interesting comparison was between two fellow Brewers - Robin Yount vs. Paul Molitor. Worthy of another thread maybe?
    Actually, that is another good comparison.

    Molitor has a better BA, is .300+ for his career, and hit over .320 SIX times, and had good decent doubles power (10th all-time), and had some HR pop, and was an overall good hitter, and was a little monster on the bases, averaging 30 SB's per 162 games over his 21 year career (504 career stolen bases), at a great 79%. He led in hits 3 times (9th all-time with 3319), and led in Runs 3 times as well. He never won an MVP, but he was 2nd in MVP voting in 1993, and 5th in 1987. He also never won a BA title, but he was top 10 ELEVEN times.

    Yount was also a very good hitter, especially as a SS, not as dominant with the bat, but had better power, and he did win 2 MVP's. Molitor's OPS+ may be 7 points higher (122-115), but those 7 points are easily made up by positional adjustments (though Molitor did play both 2B and 3B).

    So I would still have to go with Yount, but Molitor isn't too far behind.

    Leave a comment:


  • torez77
    replied
    I'll go with Brett here.

    I've always thought a very interesting comparison was between two fellow Brewers - Robin Yount vs. Paul Molitor. Worthy of another thread maybe?

    Leave a comment:


  • RedSoxVT92
    replied
    Both were very good players, but George Brett was the better of the two. He leads in almost every offensive statistical catagory, but yount was very versitle (1479 games at SS, and 1218 games in OF). A bit close but George Brett had a better career.

    Leave a comment:


  • 1doug
    replied
    Brett all the way.

    Leave a comment:


  • hbinways
    replied
    Originally posted by futurehalloffamer
    Both had very similar careers and are very good friends. But who was the better player?
    not even close. brett is way, way better at everything!

    Leave a comment:


  • George Vedros
    replied
    Originally posted by futurehalloffamer
    Both had very similar careers and are very good friends. But who was the better player?
    I'd have to go with Brett. His post-season dominance puts him in another league. Yount was a great player though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    Originally posted by DoubleX
    It's kind of mind-boggling that Yount was only a 3-time All-Star, and none in his last 10 seasons, including his second MVP year.
    As if we need more proof that GG and All-Star selections are rather meaningless.

    Leave a comment:


  • DoubleX
    replied
    It's kind of mind-boggling that Yount was only a 3-time All-Star, and none in his last 10 seasons, including his second MVP year.

    Leave a comment:


  • KCGHOST
    replied
    Hmmm, Brett by a good margin. He was one of those guys who could carry a club and always showed up big in big games.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X