I was reading "Hey Bill" on Bill James' website and came across this...

Hey Bill, I seem to recall you once writing that Ken Brett could've been as good a hitter as George. Does that sound right? I could be mistaken. Do you have any reason for thinking he could've been? Or couldn't have been?
Asked by: manhattanhi

Answered: 6/30/2020
Neither one. I doubt that I wrote that. Ken Brett obviously had real talent as a hitter, and obviously could have been a very good major league first baseman or outfielder. To say that he could have been as great as his brother is a big step. George was much more driven than Ken was, I think. I mean, they both liked to drink and carouse until 4 o'clock in the morning, but George had that peculiar nagging fear of failure; he just could not STAND to not be as good as he was supposed to be. He had both a great drive to succeed and a great drive to party; the two may be in conflict, but an individual may have both. I never saw the signs that Ken had that NEED to be successful on the field, to the same degree.

******
(A couple of days later).

Here's the quote I should have remembered to give you. Whitey Herzog said that George Brett was the only player he ever had who didn't need a manager. What he meant by that was that his job, as a manager, was to push his players, needle them, reward them, get under their skin and make them keep working, keep working, keep working to be as good as they could be. George pushed himself harder than anybody else could push him, so the manager was superfluous. I think that all great players have that; I don't think you can be a great player without it. Some players it is obvious, some it isn't, but it has to be there.

No disrespect to Ken Brett if he didn't have that; 99% of us don't. But I never saw the evidence that Ken was going to push himself hard enough to reach that level.

...which led me to look up Ken Brett's page at b-r.com. I saw something that surprised me. Brett was an 18 year old rookie with the Red Sox in 1967, and got into one regular season game. He went on to pitch in two World Series games against the Cardinals (he did well, too, giving up no runs, no hits, one walk and striking out one while getting four outs). Anyway, my question is this: Has any other player, at any point in his career, ever appeared in more World Series games than regular season games?

I thought 2002 Francisco Rodriguez might have but no, 5 Reg Season and 4 WS .... on the other hand he had 5 post season wins that year after only appearing in 5 regular season games which is a cool thing too

K-Rod, forgot about him. 5 regular season games, then 3 in the ALDS, 4 in the ALCS, 4 in the World Series, including as you mentioned 5 post-seasons wins. Technically doesn't top Ken Brett on the narrow regular season/World Series games question, but a more impressive feat to be sure.

i saw ken brett play and yes he was great hitter to bad he was pitcher
he would have had lots of home runs

There are a couple of players in MLB history at that debuted in the World Series or in a championship series:

Adalbeto Modesi and Bug Holliday.

I find James' answer right based on common sense, but his explanation is entirely subjective. No basis in hard data, just the kind of pop psychology that the scouts in Moneyball try to use to convince Billy Beane. "Looking for Fabio".

Posted by contrarian23 on 7/1/2020 9:08:00 AM (view original):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Kiger

Thanks, I knew I was forgetting someone.