2008 Baseball HOF

[jk1245]

We had a thread on this about a month ago. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=445655&highlight=baseball+hall+fame)

And the results are in (http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080108&content_id=6013&vkey=hof_news)

Gossage goes in alone. Rice just missed (by 17 votes) and has one year left.
Dawson was 49 votes short.

Raines was the only first year eligible player who will stay on the ballot.

McGwire got 128 votes (23.5%), exact same number as last year.

Gossage got a surprisingly high number of votes (85.6%). Thought he'd get in this year, but not by much.

I also thought Tim Raines would get more support. Didn't think he'd get in first ballot, but thought he'd be in the 50% range.

[RancidYakButterTeaParty]

I think it sucks that McGwire got more votes than Allan Trammell. Trammell was a World Series MVP, runner up for AL MVP, was definitely one of the guys who started the transformation of shortstops to offensive players--and was incredibly good with the glove.

McGwire hit home runs.

[Marley23]

I also thought Tim Raines would get more support. Didn't think he'd get in first ballot, but thought he'd be in the 50% range.
Yeah, wow... 24 percent? I didn't see that coming.

I figured two or even three "wait listed" guys would get in this year, with Rice and Dawson the most likely to go in with Gossage. I was way off.

[Southern Yankee]

Way to go Goose! On a side note, Todd Stottlemyre got 1 vote. That voter should lose their privileges immediately!

[Southern Yankee]

Also, Gossage will be inducted alongside Dick Williams. Two of the best baseball mustaches ever.

[What Exit?]

I'll repeat what I posted in the other thread (http://208.100.26.199/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9345472). Hooray for Goose.

It really is about time he made it.

He was the only one that I thought would make it. So, I am not really disappointed by anyone else missing.

Jim

[Skammer]

I'm disappointed that Rice missed it again. I hope he makes it next year, for goodness' sake.

But good for Goose; he deserves it.

[What Exit?]

I'm disappointed that Rice missed it again. I hope he makes it next year, for goodness' sake.

But good for Goose; he deserves it.
That brings up a good point. Are there any big names next year. If it is a strong new class, it diminishes his chance. If it is another weak freshman class, he'll go in.

From the HOF itself (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/visit/hof_weekend/):
2009: Steve Avery, Jay Bell, Mike Bordick, John Burkett, David Cone, Ron Gant, Mark Grace, Rickey Henderson, Charles Nagy, Denny Neagle, Jesse Orosco, Dean Palmer, Dan Plesac, Rick Reed, Greg Vaughn, Mo Vaughn, Matt Williams, Mike Williams (HOF Weekend will be July 24-27, with Induction Ceremonies on Sunday, July 26)

2010: Roberto Alomar, Kevin Appier, Andy Ashby, Ellis Burks, Andres Galarraga, Pat Hentgen, Mike Jackson, Eric Karros, Ray Lankford, Barry Larkin, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Shane Reynolds, Robin Ventura, Todd Zeile (HOF Weekend will be July 23-26, with Induction Ceremonies on Sunday, July 25)

2011: Wilson Alvarez, Carlos Baerga, Jeff Bagwell, Bret Boone, Kevin Brown, John Franco, Juan Gonzalez, Marquis Grissom, Mike Hampton, Al Leiter, Tino Martinez, Raul Mondesi, Hideo Nomo, John Olerud, Rafael Palmeiro, Benito Santiago, Ugueth Urbina, Larry Walker

2012: Vinny Castilla, Bill Mueller, Brad Radke, Tim Salmon, Ruben Sierra, Bernie Williams, Tim Worrell

[Marley23]

Rickey Henderson is up next year, for one. The most impressive first-timer after him is probably David Cone, so based on his totals, I think Rice should make it. The others will have to keep waiting, I guess.

[Gadarene]

Goose deserves it, but I'm amazed at the lack of support and continued lack of support, respectively, shown for Raines and Trammell. Both seem like they should be locks to me.

And Blyleven, of course.

[What Exit?]

Rickey Henderson is up next year, for one.
He is a first ballot easily. No question.

David Cone is unlikely.
Mark Grace is unlikely.
Mo Vaughn is unlikely.

It could be Rice's chance, going in with the Rickey.

[Southern Yankee]

If anyone deserves to go in alone, it's Rickey.....

[Gadarene]

If anyone doesn't deserve to go in, it's Rice. :)

(Have you folks seen his home/road splits? He was average at best outside Fenway.)

[EsotericEnigma]

Goose deserves it, but I'm amazed at the lack of support and continued lack of support, respectively, shown for Raines and Trammell. Both seem like they should be locks to me.

I don't think Trammell is anywhere near a lock. The numbers just aren't there. In fact, looking at these numbers, he doesn't even look very good.

He played from '77-'96 (with 5 shortened years) and only hit above .300 seven times. He was a six time All-Star (in 19 seasons), and a Gold Glove winner only four times. He never led the league in any major offensive category! So what exactly is the argument for him? You can't say he was the best at his position for any period longer than maybe a single season. He was second in MVP voting once (hardly an accolade), and he was World Series MVP once. Here are the last three World Series MVPs:

Mike Lowell, David Eckstein, Jermaine Dye.

Clearly not a list that guarantees Hall of Fame status. Trammell isn't even borderline Hall-worthy.

[cmkeller]

Good for Goose.

I was hoping for Bert Blyleven to finally go over the top this year, and I'm disappointed that Lee Smith continues to get so little support.

[John DiFool]

I don't think Trammell is anywhere near a lock. The numbers just aren't there. In fact, looking at these numbers, he doesn't even look very good.

He played from '77-'96 (with 5 shortened years) and only hit above .300 seven times. He was a six time All-Star (in 19 seasons), and a Gold Glove winner only four times. He never led the league in any major offensive category! So what exactly is the argument for him? You can't say he was the best at his position for any period longer than maybe a single season. He was second in MVP voting once (hardly an accolade), and he was World Series MVP once. Here are the last three World Series MVPs:

Mike Lowell, David Eckstein, Jermaine Dye.

Clearly not a list that guarantees Hall of Fame status. Trammell isn't even borderline Hall-worthy.

You are making the same error that many voters have made, not adjusting for position (and I am specifically arguing against the "not even borderline" tag). First of all, it is true that he had Yount and Ripken to compete against. Career OPS+:

Yount: 115
Ripken: 112
Trammell: 110

Looking at year to year, from the time that both Trammell and Yount were full time SS, I'd peg the best of the two (three when Ripken comes on board) as:

1978: Yount
1979: Yount
1980: Yount (Trammell's first good season)
1981: Yount
1982: Yount (MVP)
1983: Yount/Ripken (too close to call, tho Cal won the MVP)
1984: Ripken
1985: Ripken (Yount is now a CF)
1986: Ripken
1987: Trammell
1988: Trammell
1989: Ripken (Yount''s 2nd MVP, as a CFer)
1990: Trammell
1991: Ripken (his 2nd MVP)
1992: Ripken
1993: Trammell

After that point Alan no longer has any more 400+ AB seasons. Not too bad really, tho I will agree that Cal and Robin are better. The problem is that the SS wing of the HoF has never been just about 3000 hit guys with multiple MVPs, but includes the likes of Luke Appling, Lou Boudreau, Joe Cronin, Luis Aparicio, and (not to mention) Phil Rizzuto and Pee Wee Reese. Ripken is the only full time SS with 3,000 hits (Wagner played 3B quite a bit and I already mentioned Yount's switch). Trammell probably rates about 10th all time on the SS list and fits quite comfortably with the other guys I mentioned above.

If you are a Small Hall type of person you need to make that clear up front.

[gonzomax]

http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080105&content_id=5978&vkey=hof_news
Trammel is very close. If you watched him and Lou turn double plays for 19 years ,you would be impressed. They made the pitchers more successful. They won games.

[drm]

He is a first ballot easily. No question.

David Cone is unlikely.
Mark Grace is unlikely.
Mo Vaughn is unlikely.

It could be Rice's chance, going in with the Rickey.

Even ignoring the Mitchell Report, Mo Vaughn isn't in. Not with a 328 career HR's and 1620 career hits. I guess the MVP makes it a little closer than it otherwise would be, but even still, no way. The only guy that goes in next year for me is Rickey (including those already on all of the ballot).

As for this year, meh, it was a pretty weak year but I'm happy with just Gossage getting in. My overall opinion of the hall is that it should be a one and done situation (either you get in on the first ballot or you aren't ever getting in) all this, "well he isn't a first ballot hall of famer, but he'll get in eventually" nonsense just doesn't compute with me. Either you're a hall of famer or you aren't?

2010 is a pretty interesting year though...

[EsotericEnigma]

You are making the same error that many voters have made, not adjusting for position (and I am specifically arguing against the "not even borderline" tag). First of all, it is true that he had Yount and Ripken to compete against.

I am not making such a mistake, I said specifically that he wasn't the best at his position for much more than a season at any given time. You exclude the NL, but I think that in cases like these, you have to compare all players at that position, for that time period. With everything you said, it's fair to say that Trammell was among the top five or so shortstops during his career, but clearly isn't in the top two. I'm not a "small hall" kind of guy, but I do like maintaining the sanctity of the Hall by including only players who were the best of their peers during their time and deserve to be remembered. Fifty years from now, when I ask someone who the best shortstops of the eighties and nineties were, will Trammell's name even come up? I think the answer is no. That's a good indication, to me, if someone is Hall worthy.

Career OPS+:
Yount: 115
Ripken: 112
Trammell: 110

In the interest of fairness, I think Larkin deserves to be mentioned here, despite playing in the NL. He has a 116 career OPS+, by the way. There's at least one other SS that played during this time with a higher career OPS+ than Trammell, for what it's worth. That makes him at best 5th in that category amongst his peers. Hardly eye-opening.

As for your listing year by year, I can accept your conclusions for the most part. I think it's debatable that Trammell was the best during '88, but I'll accept it. He was arguably the best at his position for roughly four years out of his career, and I find it interesting that he happened to be his best during an odd time in which the great players of the 70s and early 80s were winding down, but before the players of the late 80s and early 90s got really started. I think that's important.

After that point Alan no longer has any more 400+ AB seasons. Not too bad really, tho I will agree that Cal and Robin are better. The problem is that the SS wing of the HoF has never been just about 3000 hit guys with multiple MVPs, but includes the likes of Luke Appling, Lou Boudreau, Joe Cronin, Luis Aparicio, and (not to mention) Phil Rizzuto and Pee Wee Reese. Ripken is the only full time SS with 3,000 hits (Wagner played 3B quite a bit and I already mentioned Yount's switch). Trammell probably rates about 10th all time on the SS list and fits quite comfortably with the other guys I mentioned above.

There isn't a single possible way Trammell rates in the top 10 of his position all time, especially not with the current crop of shortstops in the league. I understand that the Hall isn't about hitting primarily, and that players, especially shortstops, are judged by other qualities. But Trammell isn't even memorable for those other qualities. Ozzie Smith was a better fielder. Several others were better runners. Others had more power. This goes on and on. For someone to be in the Hall, don't they have to be the best at something?
Again, not a "small Hall" type of person, but I want to make it so that the Hall is reserved for the very best, not every player who was good. It's said often, and I believe it myself (though I find it annoying); it's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Very Good.

Essentially this boils down to a fundamental difference in opinion. Is the Hall reserved for the top x players of an era, from a position? Or is it reserved for the BEST of an era, from a position? Either way, I don't think Trammell is even close to a lock. I'll surrender that he is borderline, but that's at best. And his case becomes worse and worse as the current shortstops start retiring.

[Jonathan Chance]

Given the way the position breakdown works for the HoF (count the 3B) I'd say it has to be 'best of the era' and not by position.

2009:
Steve Avery - No
Jay Bell - No
Mike Bordick - No
John Burkett - No
David Cone - Maybe
Ron Gant - No
Mark Grace - No
Rickey Henderson - Yes
Charles Nagy - No
Denny Neagle - No
Jesse Orosco - No
Dean Palmer - No
Dan Plesac - No
Rick Reed - No
Greg Vaughn - No
Mo Vaughn - No
Matt Williams - No
Mike Williams - No

2010:
Roberto Alomar - Maybe
Kevin Appier - No
Andy Ashby - No
Ellis Burks - No
Andres Galarraga - No
Pat Hentgen - No
Mike Jackson - No
Eric Karros - No
Ray Lankford - No
Barry Larkin - Maybe
Edgar Martinez - Maybe
Fred McGriff - Maybe (Best case of the year)
Shane Reynolds - No
Robin Ventura - No
Todd Zeile - No

After that the only lock to me looks like Bagwell.

Oh, and FREE THE BLYLEVEN ONE!

[Lute Skywatcher]

Todd Stottlemyre got 1 vote. That voter should lose their privileges immediately!That was likely a "no way in hell are you getting inducted but you done good, kid" vote. Same for Dunston and, a few years ago, Deshaies.

[RancidYakButterTeaParty]

I'm not a "small hall" kind of guy, but I do like maintaining the sanctity of the Hall by including only players who were the best of their peers during their time and deserve to be remembered. Fifty years from now, when I ask someone who the best shortstops of the eighties and nineties were, will Trammell's name even come up? I think the answer is no. That's a good indication, to me, if someone is Hall worthy.




So you can name all of the best shorstops in the game from the 50's? If you can without looking it up, I would say that you are the exception not the rule. Ozzie Smith was not much better in the field that Allan Trammell, btw, he just did it with more flair--which made him a marketable kinda guy.

[RickJay]

Roberto Alomar - Maybe
Fred McGriff - Maybe (Best case of the year)
Alomar is an absolute, no-doubt-about-it Hall of Famer. He may have to wait one or two years but it would be insane not to elect him. It would be quite unprecedented for a man with his credentials to be left out.

Alomar was a much greater player than McGriff, and I say that as a big McGriff fan. McGriff was superficially a better hitter, but the difference in defensive value is monstrous.

For what it's worth Baseball Prospectus rates Alomar as being 134 wins above a replacement player for his career, McGriff as 100 on the nose. That's a pretty significant difference, and crosses the range of HoF standards among position players; most players at 100 are marginal picks, and most at 134 are in.

Larkin and Edgar are interesting cases. Larkin's credentials are about the same as Trammell's, though his career had a different shape. Martinez is more in line with McGriff; a better hitter, but a shorter career and, of course, very little defensive contribution. I would rank them as:

Alomar - No doubt
Larkin - Probably
Trammell - Probably
Martinez - Wouldn't mind if he got in, wouldn't mind if he didn't
McGriff - Wouldn't mind either way
Cone - A very good player but not HoF standard

[lieu]

I believe there's better HOF commentary to be found here than with ESPN or SI online. As we're looking on down the road, it'll be interesting to see what shakes out with current investigations and in what regard Clemens will be held. I've searched each day and am consistently amazed no one's started a thread yet on his plight, what with all the passionate and knowledgable posters we've here.

[Marley23]

I've searched each day and am consistently amazed no one's started a thread yet on his plight, what with all the passionate and knowledgable posters we've here.
Wee Bairn did have a thread called something like "Why won't everyone stop lying on Roger Clemens?" a few weeks ago. I thought about bumping it after his press conference the other day, but I didn't.

[Gadarene]

I believe there's better HOF commentary to be found here than with ESPN or SI online. As we're looking on down the road, it'll be interesting to see what shakes out with current investigations and in what regard Clemens will be held. I've searched each day and am consistently amazed no one's started a thread yet on his plight, what with all the passionate and knowledgable posters we've here.

Obligatory Baseball Primer (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer) plug.

Best baseball discussion on the Net, bar none.

[Wee Bairn]

Wee Bairn did have a thread called something like "Why won't everyone stop lying on Roger Clemens?" a few weeks ago. I thought about bumping it after his press conference the other day, but I didn't.

I just did a new one.

[storyteller0910]

I don't think Trammell is anywhere near a lock. The numbers just aren't there. In fact, looking at these numbers, he doesn't even look very good.


That's what happens when you cherry-pick numbers, especially when the numbers you're cherry-picking have relatively little to do with a player's actual performance.


He played from '77-'96 (with 5 shortened years) and only hit above .300 seven times.


How many times should a player hit .300 to be Hall-worthy, in your mind? The following list indicates how many times each of the players mentioned hit .300 in their careers (all are shortstops, and all are either post 1950-Hall of Famers or certan to become them, when they retire):

Derek Jeter: 9*
Alex Rodriguez: 8*
Robin Yount: 6
Cal Ripken, Jr: 5
Ernie Banks: 2
Phil Rizzuto: 2
Luis Aparicio: 1
Pee Wee Reese: 1
Ozzie Smith: 1

So, according to your own statistic - Trammell hit over .300 "only" seven times in his career - Alan Trammell "only" outperformed every single post-1950 shortstop who is currently in the Hall of Fame, and performed on par with two first ballot Hall of Famers whose numbers were compiled in the offensive boom of the last decade and a half.

Incidentally, Trammell's career OBP was .352. Not a single one of those post-1950 Hall of Famers did better. So Alan Trammell was better at getting on base than anyone who has been elected to the Hall of Fame at his position in more than five decades. Banks, Ripken, and Yount all outperformed Trammell in terms of slugging percentage (Banks by a considerable margin), but none of the others did. His 185 career home runs would make him fourth on the all-time HoF list (behind those same guys).


He was a six time All-Star (in 19 seasons),


The fans vote for the All-Stars. The argument here is that the fans, and the writers, are wrong about Trammell. Citing popular opinion in a discussion about whether popular opinion is correct is a bit circular.


and a Gold Glove winner only four times.


The Gold Glove is the most meaningless award, quite possibly, of all time.


He never led the league in any major offensive category! So what exactly is the argument for him?


Here it is: "Over the course of a very lengthy career in which he played well-above-average defense at the second-most-challenging position in baseball, Alan Trammell was better at getting on base than literally any other player elected to the Hall of Fame at shortstop since 1950, including Ripken and Yount (his primary competition in his prime years). He also hit for substantial power given his position, and was emphatically the best player at that position for several years in the 1980's and early 1990's."

Look, Ripken was obviously a better hitter, though not a better fielder. Was Yount demonstrably better as a hitter? A bit, perhaps, over the course of a long career - Trammell a bit better at getting on base, Yount with a bit more power. But of course, Yount was only a shortstop for about half of his career, and built up a lot of his best stats playing much easier defensive positions. And Trammell was a much better defensive shortstop than Yount. They were three great players. Should Derek Jeter be left out of the Hall of Fame just because he can't carry Alex Rodriguez's jock?

[What Exit?]

That's what happens when you cherry-pick numbers, especially when the numbers you're cherry-picking have relatively little to do with a player's actual performance.
...
So, according to your own statistic - Trammell hit over .300 "only" seven times in his career - Alan Trammell "only" outperformed every single post-1950 shortstop who is currently in the Hall of Fame, and performed on par with two first ballot Hall of Famers whose numbers were compiled in the offensive boom of the last decade and a half.

Incidentally, Trammell's career OBP was .352. Not a single one of those post-1950 Hall of Famers did better. So Alan Trammell was better at getting on base than anyone who has been elected to the Hall of Fame at his position in more than five decades. Banks, Ripken, and Yount all outperformed Trammell in terms of slugging percentage (Banks by a considerable margin), but none of the others did. His 185 career home runs would make him fourth on the all-time HoF list (behind those same guys).

The fans vote for the All-Stars. The argument here is that the fans, and the writers, are wrong about Trammell. Citing popular opinion in a discussion about whether popular opinion is correct is a bit circular.

The Gold Glove is the most meaningless award, quite possibly, of all time.
...
Good post and good argument, two quibbles.
The All Stars are half vote and half picked by managers. They are of a little more value then I think you are according them. I agree on the GG though.

If you are going to argue about today's inflated offense, then comparing Trammell to a list of short stops where Ernie Banks was the only true offensive threat seems a little odd. No shortstops in the 40s through 70s had really great offensive numbers except Ernie, then in the 80s we suddenly had bigger stronger Shortstops. Ernie was truly exceptional and put up his best power years as a Shortstop. One of the greatest players of all time in my opinion. You know that top 100 of all time concept. Scooter & Pee Wee were all about defense and making things happen on the bases. A different role and a different game.

BTW: Little Scooter did manager a .351 OBA without any power at all. Pee Wee had a .366 which beats Trammel. I didn't check the others, these are the three I know best.

Jim

[RTFirefly]

Since the HoF is a private entity that's supposedly not part of MLB (yeah, right - they're just accidentally joined at the hip), maybe some baseball fans with money to spare should create a rival Hall of Baseball Heroes or something.

At least before they admitted Bowie Kuhn (with or without Marvin - who cares?), I could kinda sorta believe they weren't totally a joke. Now the matter's pretty much settled.

[John DiFool]

There isn't a single possible way Trammell rates in the top 10 of his position all time, especially not with the current crop of shortstops in the league. I understand that the Hall isn't about hitting primarily, and that players, especially shortstops, are judged by other qualities. But Trammell isn't even memorable for those other qualities. Ozzie Smith was a better fielder. Several others were better runners. Others had more power. This goes on and on. For someone to be in the Hall, don't they have to be the best at something?

What if he is very good at everything, which is arguably true? Solid average, good power, stole some bases, drew some walks. There's been plenty of such players ("Generalists") who have been elected and who have deserved to be elected, but history tends to underrate such players, as you have done. It's a silly argument.

I excluded the NL guys (Ozzie, Larkin) because it is harder to be the #1 player at a position over 28-30 teams than it was when we had 16 teams. So he was the 3rd/4th best guy-so what? Many HoFers, not all mistakes or borderline, weren't the best at their positions when active. The 50's by my count had FIVE HoF CFers, in a league half the size.

Again, not a "small Hall" type of person, but I want to make it so that the Hall is reserved for the very best, not every player who was good. It's said often, and I believe it myself (though I find it annoying); it's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Very Good.

Essentially this boils down to a fundamental difference in opinion. Is the Hall reserved for the top x players of an era, from a position? Or is it reserved for the BEST of an era, from a position? Either way, I don't think Trammell is even close to a lock. I'll surrender that he is borderline, but that's at best. And his case becomes worse and worse as the current shortstops start retiring.

He's not top 10 now, once we start including ARod, Jeter, or even Tejada, but he was when he retired. I just think he's "high borderline", vs. low borderline. Explain how he is worse than the guys I mentioned, all comfortably HoFers in my book (not going to bring up the names of Joe Tinker, Bobby Wallace, Dave Bancroft, Travis Jackson, or Rabbit Maranville).

If you exclude Trammell then the Hall should, according to your unstated standards, have about 8 SS, not 22, and that is the essence of my position. Me, I'm comfortable electing about the top 13-15 (All Time) or so at a given position, but I start to get a little uncomfortable beyond that, partly because it becomes progressively harder to differentiate each candidate from the pack. Trammell IMHO is right in that tail end group, arguably a bit better than them. [The real Hall has about 20 per position (including Negro Leaguers).]

[gonzomax]

Then justify Ozzie Smith lifetime 262 hitter with 28 hrs. He does not belong.

[NDP]

Then justify Ozzie Smith lifetime 262 hitter with 28 hrs. He does not belong.

Ozzie Smith was elected primarily on the strength of his defense. Likewise, Luis Aparicio and 2B Bill Mazeroski.

[RancidYakButterTeaParty]

Then justify Ozzie Smith lifetime 262 hitter with 28 hrs. He does not belong.

I won't justify it, because I don't think he belongs. He had a .978 career fielding percentage, while Trammell had a .976--but he was no where near the offensive player that Trammell was.

To me, Ozzie is comparable to someone like Omar Vizquel. Definitely not a hall of famer, in my opinion. I guess if Vizquel would have turned backflips on the field--he would have a chance to get in the Hall.

[Yookeroo]

I won't justify it, because I don't think he belongs. He had a .978 career fielding percentage, while Trammell had a .976--but he was no where near the offensive player that Trammell was.

Fielding percentage is useless. Win Shares has Ozzie as the best defensive SS ever.

[RickJay]

I won't justify it, because I don't think he belongs. He had a .978 career fielding percentage, while Trammell had a .976--but he was no where near the offensive player that Trammell was.
Suggesting that they were defensively close because they had similar fielding percentages is like saying Mike Schmidt was a worse hitter than Garry Maddox because he had a lower batting average. Shortstops are great because they take away hits with their range, not because of their fielding percentage.

Ozzie Smith was the greatest defensive shortstop in the entire history of baseball. He was absolutely incredible; in some years he was stopping one hundred to one hundred and fifty more grounders than the average shortstop. I'd guess, conservatively, that his defense robbed the opposition of at least six hundred hits over the course of his career. So imagine if instead of Ozzie Smith you had a shortstop who batted .306 with over 3000 hits and played major league average defense at shortstop. You'd put that guy into the Hall, right? Well, that's basically equivalent to Ozzie.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Shortstops are great because they take away hits with their range, not because of their fielding percentage.And the two most recent shortstops inducted prior to Smith, not counting verterans, had less range.

[RancidYakButterTeaParty]

Fielding percentage is useless. Win Shares has Ozzie as the best defensive SS ever.


I'll admit he was a better defensive shortstop than Trammell--no problem. So now let's start the HOF campaign for Omar Vizquel--who is an incredible defensive shortstop.

[What Exit?]

I'll admit he was a better defensive shortstop than Trammell--no problem. So now let's start the HOF campaign for Omar Vizquel--who is an incredible defensive shortstop.
Actually, I find Omar at least as deserving as Trammell. He would get my vote before Trammell. This is strictly having watch both play and being unimpressed by Trammell as anything special defensively and watching Omar play and believing him to be almost as good as Ozzie without the flash. Omar was a better offensive player than Ozzie to help boost him a bit.

Overall, I think both Omar & Trammell belong in the category of not quite Hall of Famers.

I would be interested in RickJay providing the saberstats to compare the three defensively. where do you get those? I rely on baseball-reference.com of course for most of my stats.

Jim

[storyteller0910]

I rely on baseball-reference.com of course for most of my stats.

Jim

How awesome is that site, by the way? It's fast, and the extensive linking between pages makes it easy to research whatever weird arcane thing you want to research. No registration, no fee... and near as I can tell, it's pretty much the brainchild and work of one guy (with a lot of help, of course, but still).

[What Exit?]

How awesome is that site, by the way? It's fast, and the extensive linking between pages makes it easy to research whatever weird arcane thing you want to research. No registration, no fee... and near as I can tell, it's pretty much the brainchild and work of one guy (with a lot of help, of course, but still).
I have been using it for years and it keeps getting better. Early on, I contributed a few things to it and a little money, but now it is so far beyond me. It might be the best website for stats of any kind anywhere when you consider the speed and clean interface. The associated wiki is pretty decent.

The site is very well supported at this point. It is truly remarkable.

Sunday, while watching the Giants game, I was trying to use a variety of sites, including the NFL, football-reference.com and CBSsportsline, and I kept cursing how clueless the NFL & football is on stats and the Internet.

Jim

[RancidYakButterTeaParty]

Actually, I find Omar at least as deserving as Trammell. He would get my vote before Trammell. This is strictly having watch both play and being unimpressed by Trammell as anything special defensively and watching Omar play and believing him to be almost as good as Ozzie without the flash. Omar was a better offensive player than Ozzie to help boost him a bit.

Overall, I think both Omar & Trammell belong in the category of not quite Hall of Famers.

I would be interested in RickJay providing the saberstats to compare the three defensively. where do you get those? I rely on baseball-reference.com of course for most of my stats.

Jim

I'm hard pressed to argue with anything you've said--except that I feel that Trammell's offensive prowess should merit more consideration.

Omar is underrated, I would say. I do really feel that even though Ozzie was a great defensive shortstop--that most of his appeal came from his flash.

[What Exit?]

I'm hard pressed to argue with anything you've said--except that I feel that Trammell's offensive prowess should merit more consideration.

Omar is underrated, I would say. I do really feel that even though Ozzie was a great defensive shortstop--that most of his appeal came from his flash.
Ozzie did get in because of his “Flash”. However, I really believe he deserved to go. He was clearly the best defensive shortstop in my life and by statistics I have seen here, the best ever. Shortstop is ultimately a defensive position he deserved the recognition. He was a good hitting shortstop as a bonus. He deserved his plaque.

Omar is underrated from what I can see. He was the second best human vacuum cleaner I have seen. He has been a very good “hitting shortstop” at least by the measurements used before Ripken, A-Rod, Jeter, Garciapara, Tejada et al. He was not flashy, he was not a great offensive player and so he will likely be overlooked. Unless RickJay, comes back with stats showing Omar as the second best of all time, I would still say he was not a Hall of Famer. On the other hand, I won’t be upset if he makes it. Additionally, I won’t be upset if Trammel does. I just don’t think either is really deserving and I don’t expect them to get the votes.

Jim

[gonzomax]

Suggesting that they were defensively close because they had similar fielding percentages is like saying Mike Schmidt was a worse hitter than Garry Maddox because he had a lower batting average. Shortstops are great because they take away hits with their range, not because of their fielding percentage.

Ozzie Smith was the greatest defensive shortstop in the entire history of baseball. He was absolutely incredible; in some years he was stopping one hundred to one hundred and fifty more grounders than the average shortstop. I'd guess, conservatively, that his defense robbed the opposition of at least six hundred hits over the course of his career. So imagine if instead of Ozzie Smith you had a shortstop who batted .306 with over 3000 hits and played major league average defense at shortstop. You'd put that guy into the Hall, right? Well, that's basically equivalent to Ozzie.
Artificial turf shortstop. he could play deep and count on bounces.

[gonzomax]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/ This site gets into the game with numbers and evaluations. It can take a lot of time reading. Kind like Bill James abstract statistics too.

[gonzomax]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/measuring-defense-for-players-back-to-1956/
Good timing they just did a story on this very subject. He is rated 3rd.

[Lute Skywatcher]

How awesome is that site, by the way? It's fast, and the extensive linking between pages makes it easy to research whatever weird arcane thing you want to research. No registration, no fee... and near as I can tell, it's pretty much the brainchild and work of one guy (with a lot of help, of course, but still).Sean Forman (http://www.sports-reference.com/about.shtml), who I believe relies heavily on the database created by the database created by Sean Lahman (http://www.baseball1.com/) with a few minor differences.

[gonzomax]

Trammel was a very good defensive shortstop. The difference between him and Ozzie is not very large. You can argue Ozzie was a better fielder. But ,to imply he was so good that he deserves the hall with horrible offense is ridiculous. If he was better it is just a little. Do you think all the really good shortstops were fence posts. Trammel and Whitaker were great to watch. They were together a long time and turned marvelous double plays. They assisted the pitchers greatly.

[RickJay]

Artificial turf shortstop. he could play deep and count on bounces.
But lots of shortstops played on artificial turf. None of them did what Smith did. And Smith played just as well in Jack Murphy Stadium, a grass field.

Even adjusting for park effects, Smith is so far ahead of his contemporaries that it's difficult to believe he was actually playing the same sport. There's a lot of different ways to count defensive contribution, so I'll default to the eggheads and go with runs-over-average, using just FIELDING runs, and just using numbers as a shortstop (so Cal Ripken's number does not include games he played as a third baseman)

Ozzie Smith - 287
Alan Trammell - 123
Tony Fernandez - 121
Dave Concepcion - 114
Omar Vizquel - 109
Cal Ripken - 90
Barry Larkin - 78

287 runs versus 123 is a LOT of runs. 164 runs is a full game in the standings every full year you play; it's the equivalent of hundreds and hundreds of outs.

Furthermore, saying Ozzie Smith had "Horrible" offense is ridiculous; he wasn't a horrible offensive player at all. He had no power, but got on base reasonably well and ran the bases extremely well. He was about an average offensive player (if you believe BP.)

[What Exit?]

But lots of shortstops played on artificial turf. None of them did what Smith did. And Smith played just as well in Jack Murphy Stadium, a grass field.

Even adjusting for park effects, Smith is so far ahead of his contemporaries that it's difficult to believe he was actually playing the same sport. There's a lot of different ways to count defensive contribution, so I'll default to the eggheads and go with runs-over-average, using just FIELDING runs, and just using numbers as a shortstop (so Cal Ripken's number does not include games he played as a third baseman)

Ozzie Smith - 287
Alan Trammell - 123
Tony Fernandez - 121
Dave Concepcion - 114
Omar Vizquel - 109
Cal Ripken - 90
Barry Larkin - 78

287 runs versus 123 is a LOT of runs. 164 runs is a full game in the standings every full year you play; it's the equivalent of hundreds and hundreds of outs.

Furthermore, saying Ozzie Smith had "Horrible" offense is ridiculous; he wasn't a horrible offensive player at all. He had no power, but got on base reasonably well and ran the bases extremely well. He was about an average offensive player (if you believe BP.)
RickJay, can you please explain these numbers better?
How do they calculate?
Also, from where do you pull them?

It's hard to agree or disagree with you, when I have no clue what your numbers are. I "know" Ozzie was the best SS in my life. I "know" he was much better than Trammell defensively, but I can't put any of this into numbers and I am surprised by how low Omar is.

Jim (Please teach us to fish ;) )

[gonzomax]

Hardball Times put Ozzie 3rd behind Belanger and Aparicio. since 1956 Slightly different times but Where do you dig this exalted position from.?You are dreaming if you believe his defense was so great. There are a lot of great shortstops. He may be slightly better. he might not.
Good field no hit=bench

[RickJay]

Hardball Times put Ozzie 3rd behind Belanger and Aparicio. since 1956 Slightly different times but Where do you dig this exalted position from.?You are dreaming if you believe his defense was so great. There are a lot of great shortstops. He may be slightly better. he might not.
Good field no hit=bench
So why was he a regular player?

And actually, Gonzomax, you don't even understand what Hardball Times said. Hardball Times's numbers were only from 1956 to 1986. Read the study a little more carefully. That's how Smith compares to the others after only about half of his career!

What Exit?, my numbers are from Baseball Prospectus, and their methodologies for determining fielding runs are, well, really freakin' complicated and probably best explained by them.

Pick your methodology. Win Shares? Ranks Ozzie first. RAR? Ozzie's first. Just eyeballing his numbers? They're amazing. Who holds the record for most assists in a season by a shortstop? Ozzie Smith. Ozzie has 621 assists in one season (and that was on grass, Gonzo.) Omar Vizquel's career high in assists is 475. Ozzie beat that total nine times, and when he was 38, he got 451 in a year when he missed thirty games.

Ozzie Smith made 5.03 outs per game in a time when the average shortstop made 4.1. He was making a hundred and fifty more plays a season than the average National League shortstop. That's unhead of; no other shortstop you can name can say such a thing, or in fact is even CLOSE to that number. I mean, if it's one year maybe you say it was a ground ball staff or something, but this is something he did over a career of 2511 games.

[gonzomax]

Less than one per game. If it is true.
I do not accept that a great fielder wins a bunch more games than a really good fielder. Its never the total but the difference.
How much difference does artificial turf make. He played short left. Fast true hops . Easy.
Gimme me a good hitting third baseman over a good fielder every time.
In 1968 the Tigers had a very good fielding shortstop. Ray Oyler. But he hit slightly below the Mendoza line. When the World Series came he shifted Micky Stanley our center fielder to short. He gave away his defense for a better hitter. Stanley was no blaster either. A modest difference in hitting and power convinced him to give up his fielder.

[Martin Hyde]

I really, really, really, really hope that Jim Rice does not get into the Hall of Fame. He is quite simply NOT a Hall of Fame caliber player.

The simplest argument is just this, "If Jim Rice played for any team other than the Boston Red Sex, no one would even suggest him for the Hall of Fame."

Look at Rice's splits:

Fenway:

2B - 207
3B - 44
HR - 208
OBP - .374
Slug - .546
OPS - .920

Outside Fenway:

2B - 166
3B - 35
HR - 174
OBP - .330
Slug - .459
OPS - .789

Keep in mind that rice had 4075 ABs at Fenway and 4150 outside of Fenway. He loses .044 off his OBP, .087 off his Slug, and .131 off his OPS.

Do you know how many outfielders in the history of baseball have gotten into the Hall of Fame with a .330 OBP? A .459 Slug? Or a .789 OPS?

NO outfielder has ever gotten in with an OBP as low as .330.

It's not that Rice is the only guy who has ever benefited from his home park, he isn't. But he's a very clear case of a guy who benefited from his home park so much, that he is just genuinely not a Hall of Famer if he players anywhere else. Someone shouldn't get into the Hall of Fame just because of a ballpark.

Babe Ruth was aided immensely by the Polo Grounds and Yankee Stadium, however even Ruth's "diminished" away splits are still out of this world. Ruth also set home run distance records in every ballpark he played in during his career--something which shows he had genuine power (he definitely earned a lot of home runs because he pulled them, but he had genuine power and could knock balls out of any park in either league.)

It's one thing if a genuine Hall of Famer is getting a boost from his home ballpark, but Rice's entire HoF credentials are entirely based on the fact that his home ballpark produced a ton of offensive statistics for him. In neutral parks he is just an average player--and average doesn't cut it for the Hall of Fame.

Also factor in that Rice was very popular and played for a big media team, even WITH his numbers, he'd probably NOT get into the Hall of Fame if he had spent his entire career playing for a midwestern team. Even when you give him all the credit from his production at Fenway, he's still not a Hall of Famer. He's not even a borderline Hall of Famer, he's rather, someone who is about 80% of the way to being a HoFer but never got that last 20%. He would lessen, not enhance, the average quality of HoF players if inducted. He would not be the worst Hall of Famer (especially since the VC has inducted some very, very questionable players on top of a few of the extremely questionable players the BBWAA has inducted.)

Rice was known as a power hitter, but his power numbers are relatively mediocre. He had three really good season, and then a lot of average ones (even with the boost from Fenway.) Several other power hitters of his era put Rice to shame. It's honestly disgusting how some people in the media have been campaigning for Rice for so many years. I think a huge part of it is based on Rice's reputation as the "most feared batter" in baseball. I remember hearing people say that at the time, I also remember thinking it was bullshit then and I still think it is bullshit now.

There's no way to quantify that kind of claim, we can look at intentional walks, but those are somewhat situational (Rice was nowhere near the leader in IBBs in his era, nor did he really get many IBBs at all.)

I think of Jim Rice like I do Dale Earnhardt, the media labeled Earnhardt the "intimidator." But when asked about that stuff most NASCAR drivers that competed against Earnhardt said "no one out there is afraid or intimidated by Dale Earnhardt." It was a gimmick created entirely by the media with no basis in reality, just like the persona of Jim Rice as an "intimidating" hitter.

About the ONLY thing Rice has going for him is power. He was not a good fielder, he wasn't a particularly productive batter aside from a few nice season where he put out good power numbers (his OBP was nowhere near HoF caliber.) But even as a power hitter we're talking about a guy who has under 400 career home runs.

[John DiFool]

Pick your methodology. Win Shares? Ranks Ozzie first. RAR? Ozzie's first. Just eyeballing his numbers? They're amazing. Who holds the record for most assists in a season by a shortstop? Ozzie Smith. Ozzie has 621 assists in one season (and that was on grass, Gonzo.) Omar Vizquel's career high in assists is 475. Ozzie beat that total nine times, and when he was 38, he got 451 in a year when he missed thirty games.

It gets better than that. Traditionally a SS will have about 28% of his team's assists, this number is very stable over time, and it is very hard to drive that percentage up (or down, if you like). Ozzie was routinely getting over 30% of his team's assists during his defensive heyday (1979-1987 or thereabouts).

[John DiFool]

I agree about Rice, but just wanted to point out that players traditionally hit better in their home park, even if it is neutral, so his road numbers need to be bumped up a bit if you are comparing him to other primo outfielders. Plus his performance in Fenway did in fact lead to real runs and real wins, even if each run in Boston was worth less than a run scored in say Oakland.

[RickJay]

Less than one per game. If it is true.
I do not accept that a great fielder wins a bunch more games than a really good fielder. Its never the total but the difference.
How much difference does artificial turf make. He played short left. Fast true hops . Easy.
gonzomax, I've said it twice already. I'll say it a little more clearly:

OZZIE SMITH PLAYED THE FIRST PART OF HIS CAREER IN A STADIUM WITH GRASS.

HIS DEFENSIVE PERFORMANCE WAS JUST AS GOOD THERE AS IT WAS WHEN HE MOVED TO A STADIUM WITH TURF.

He was just as amazing on grass as he was on turf. There is no difference. If you have a counterargument by all means present it, but don't keep repeating the same thing in opposition to a stated fact.

In 1968 the Tigers had a very good fielding shortstop. Ray Oyler. But he hit slightly below the Mendoza line.
So what does that have to do with Ozzie Smith, who wasn't a terrible hitter? Ozzie Smith was better than Ray Oyler by the same margin that Jim Rice was better than Ozzie Smith:

Runs Created Per 27 Outs:

Jim Rice - 6.0
Ozzie Smith - 4.1
Ray Oyler - 2.0

Oyler was a ridiculously bad hitter, which is why they stopped playing him in the World Series. Ozzie smith's team made it to the World Series three times and he played every game, because he was a great player and it would have been stupid to bench him.

[gonzomax]

Ozzie averaged 41 RBI s per season. he had 28 career homers. 262 life time batting ave. yep a real plus to the offense.

[RickJay]

Ozzie averaged 41 RBI s per season. he had 28 career homers. 262 life time batting ave. yep a real plus to the offense.
Nobody's saying he was a great hitter. You're arguing against things nobody is saying.

Ozzie may not have had power, but he DID get on base slightly more often than the average guy; he got on base more than Andre Dawson, to use an example. Getting on base is the most important offensive skill there is; heck, it's pretty much the central feature of major league offense. He also ran the bases exceptionally well. On balance, he was roughly an average hitter as shortstops go, maybe a touch better; his getting on base and stolen bases more or less outweighed the lack of power.

That's Ozzie Smith; average offensive player, greatest fielding shortstop in modern baseball, if not the greatest fielding player at any position. On the whole, it made him a great player. Some players were great because they had lots of offense but not a lot of defense, like Harmon Killebrew. Ozzie was the reverse.

[Marley23]

Ozzie averaged 41 RBI s per season. he had 28 career homers. 262 life time batting ave. yep a real plus to the offense.
It's not the Hall of Slugging.

[gonzomax]

I understand your argument ,I just do not agree with it. I do not think a defensive player should be awarded hall of fame. There are some great defensive outfielders that do not belong for the same logic.
My Hall of Fame requirements are different than yours.
I have seen statistics manipulated in sports many times. I remember when Notre Dame came up with all purpose yards to push a possible Heisman for what was primarily a punt returner. I was amazed people bought it.
These cooked up defensive stats for Ozzie dont work for me. I need more and he does not reach.

[Raygun99]

What, strong punt and kickoff returns don't help football teams? Start every possession on the 40 and you're going to have a hell of a lot better result than starting on the 20.

And a world class defensive shortstop matters more than a world class defensive outfielder because they handle by far the most plays in a baseball game.

[Yookeroo]

I understand your argument ,I just do not agree with it. I do not think a defensive player should be awarded hall of fame. There are some great defensive outfielders that do not belong for the same logic.
My Hall of Fame requirements are different than yours.

My Hall of Fame logic would be to reward players who helped win the most games. Like Ozzy.

And almost one out per game over the average SS is a huge difference.

I have seen statistics manipulated in sports many times. I remember when Notre Dame came up with all purpose yards to push a possible Heisman for what was primarily a punt returner. I was amazed people bought it.
These cooked up defensive stats for Ozzie dont work for me. I need more and he does not reach.

"Cooked up"? Any more "cooked up" than "41 RBI s per season. he had 28 career homers. 262 life time batting ave."?

[gonzomax]

By todays standards he could not hold a shortstop job. Arod ,Yount ,Jetr,Tejada, would you bench them for Ozzie. NO WAY. He was an offensive liability.

[pricciar]

By todays standards he could not hold a shortstop job. Arod ,Yount ,Jetr,Tejada, would you bench them for Ozzie. NO WAY. He was an offensive liability.


Today's standard? Every player you mentioned, aside from Tejada, had careers that overlapped Ozzie's. In fact, Yount retired 3 years before Ozzie Smith.

Disregarding that, what would I do if I had ARod and Ozzie Smith on the same team? I would move A Rod to third base and enjoy the show Ozzie puts on out on the field.

[Raygun99]

The Boston Red Sox just won the World Series with a shortstop that batted .237 for the season.

[drm]

Today's standard? Every player you mentioned, aside from Tejada, had careers that overlapped Ozzie's. In fact, Yount retired 3 years before Ozzie Smith.

Disregarding that, what would I do if I had ARod and Ozzie Smith on the same team? I would move A Rod to third base and enjoy the show Ozzie puts on out on the field.

Why you even responded to that, i have no idea.

[Marley23]

gonzomax, have you noticed who actually started at short for the Cardinals the last few years? You think he could hold down a job, but Ozzie Smith couldn't?

[Yookeroo]

By todays standards he could not hold a shortstop job. Arod ,Yount ,Jetr,Tejada, would you bench them for Ozzie. NO WAY. He was an offensive liability.

If Vizquel, a worse hitter and fielder, can start today, so can Ozzie.

[NDP]

If Vizquel, a worse hitter and fielder, can start today, so can Ozzie.

Actually, Vizquel is a better hitter in terms of average (.274) (http://www.baseball-reference.com/v/vizquom01.shtml) than Ozzie was (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/smithoz01.shtml). Ozzie still has the advantage in defense though.

Also, gonzomax's argument against the inclusion of Ozzie Smith in the HOF might be stronger if Ozzie continued to hit in the .220-.230 range throughout his career. His batting average improved considerably after his first few seasons.

[RickJay]

Actually, Vizquel is a better hitter in terms of average (.274) (http://www.baseball-reference.com/v/vizquom01.shtml) than Ozzie was (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/smithoz01.shtml). Ozzie still has the advantage in defense though.
Vizquel's numbers are superficially better, but because he played in a different offensive context (yes, his career overlaps Ozzie's, but obviously the bulk of it was in the high-offense era.)

Omar's career OBP is .340, whereas the average player in the leagues he's played in is at .339; Ozzie, by comparison, was at .337 in a .328 context. Omar's batting average IS slighty better, but Ozzie drew more walks. Same thing with slugging; if you compare them in context, Ozzie's slugging is 62 points below average, Omar's is 77 points below average. Omar also isn't nearly the baserunner Ozzie was; Ozzie stole 200 more bases and was actually caught stealing fewer times. Taken as a whole, Omar created 4.3 runs per game to Ozzie's 4.1, but in a context where a LOT more runs were scored. Overall, Ozzie was actually a slightly better offensive player than Omar.

This should not be taken as a shot against Omar Vizquel, who has been a very fine player indeed, but he's not as good as Ozzie Smith with the glove OR the bat.

[gonzomax]

The Boston Red Sox just won the World Series with a shortstop that batted .237 for the season.
He wont be offered as a hall of fame candidate which is the subject we are discussing. You play the best you have at that position ,no matter how flawed that player may be.Then you trade or bring a minor leaguer up replace him.

[Windwalker]

Ozzie's backflips also brought in fans and probably raised player morale. Take that, Steroid Shortstop Sluggers!


;)

[Marley23]

He wont be offered as a hall of fame candidate which is the subject we are discussing.
The topic was your pronouncement that he couldn't play in the majors today because of his offense. I'd say that he would probably still be better than most shortstops, if well behind the top few.

[gonzomax]

Ozzie appeared in 3 World Series which put him in the big picture. Announcers need something to talk about
Craig Nettles was a very good 3rd baseman. He had a spectacular World Series. He then became the best in the game. He was not. He was very good though. If Ozzie did not get in the series he would have been a footnote.

[RickJay]

Ozzie appeared in 3 World Series which put him in the big picture. Announcers need something to talk about
Craig Nettles was a very good 3rd baseman. He had a spectacular World Series. He then became the best in the game. He was not. He was very good though. If Ozzie did not get in the series he would have been a footnote.
I wonder how many other guys played in fifteen All-Star games and just ended up as "footnotes." I also wonder how many 13-time Gold Glove winners were "footnotes." Heck, I'm curious as to how many people just played over 2500 games and were mere "footnotes."

I would guess none.

Since I've provided a huge amount of evidence and argument supporting Ozzie's greatness, none of which has been refuted, I guess I can't say much more.

BTW, it's "Graig," not Craig, Nettles. And isn't it interesting that Nettles also played in many World Series (five, in fact) and played as long as Ozzie did, but DIDN'T make the Hall of Fame. You know why? He wasn't as good.

[gonzomax]

You brought no evidence. It is opinion. Mine is different than yours.
Gold Glove is a bullshit award. Citing that is a waste.
Nettles did not have the hitting credentials, just like Ozzie. Yet he hit 390 hrs. Smith 28. Fielders do not belong in the hall. My opinion,I would take Ozzie out and put Nettles in to bat for him during a game.

[Marley23]

You brought no evidence. It is opinion. Mine is different than yours.
I'm seeing a ton of evidence in the last few dozen posts. Is your position that batting average and home runs are the only stats that count?

[NDP]

Nettles did not have the hitting credentials, just like Ozzie. Yet he hit 390 hrs. Smith 28. Fielders do not belong in the hall. My opinion,I would take Ozzie out and put Nettles in to bat for him during a game.

You are correct in saying Nettles' hitting (i.e., his low batting average) is what's keeping him out of the HOF. However, I'm not sure Nettles is the best example to cite since there are some distinctions that have to be made between him and Ozzie. For one thing, Nettles was a third basemen and their comparitive offensive/defensive skills are evaluated differently than shortstops. In my view, it seems a third baseman's offensive stats are graded tougher than a shortstop's. Nettles was also a power hitter (hence the 390 home runs) and Ozzie definitely was not. Finally, would your statement that "(f)ielders do not belong in the hall" apply in Brooks Robinson? His lifetime .267 batting average ranks near the lower end of HOF members. (http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/robinbr01.shtml)

[What Exit?]

Finally, would your statement that "(f)ielders do not belong in the hall" apply in Brooks Robinson? His lifetime .267 batting average ranks near the lower end of HOF members. (http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/robinbr01.shtml)
I fear for the answer we might get. ;)

[RickJay]

You brought no evidence. It is opinion. Mine is different than yours.
Gold Glove is a bullshit award. Citing that is a waste.
Nettles did not have the hitting credentials, just like Ozzie. Yet he hit 390 hrs. Smith 28. Fielders do not belong in the hall. My opinion,I would take Ozzie out and put Nettles in to bat for him during a game.
You're not allowed to use a DH for the shortstop. So is Nettles going to play shortstop? Gee, that would be a silly waste of a good third baseman.

Graig Nettles - not "Craig" - isn't in the Hall of Fame because he wasn't as good a player as Ozzie Smith. He was a very good fielder, but not as good as Smith.

As for the claim I have provided no evidence, sorry, but I have. I have cited fielding statistics, awards, various analytical measurements, and compared Smith statistically with a number of contemporaries. I have even corrected your own evidence, which you misunderstood.

Furthermore, my citing of Gold Gloves -0 I agree it's a bullshit award - was merely in response to your claim that Ozzie Smith would be a footnote had his team not made the World Series. That is obviously a ridioculous claim, since no player in the entire history of baseball who did the individual things that Ozzie Smith did - be it Gold Gloves, 16 All-Star games, or 2500 games played - could be considered a "Footnote."

[gonzomax]

I was referring to pinch hitting him. Your HOF player taken out because he can not hit for a non qualifying HOF player to bat for him. That is fundamental. He was no hitting threat.
When I looked up Nettles I became convinced he has a good case for inclusion. He was a good power hitter AND a very good fielder. Ozzie was a one trick pony.

[What Exit?]

I was referring to pinch hitting him. Your HOF player taken out because he can not hit for a non qualifying HOF player to bat for him. That is fundamental. He was no hitting threat.
When I looked up Nettles I became convinced he has a good case for inclusion. He was a good power hitter AND a very good fielder. Ozzie was a one trick pony.
I love Graig Nettles, he was one of my favorite players of my youth. His batting average and OBA were just to darn low for him to get in.

BTW: He really was the second best fielding 3b of the time after Brooks. Brett was not as good.

[gonzomax]

In Detroit we loved Aurelio Rodriguez. Local favorites are always remembered fondly. He made great plays and had a rocket arm.
When a players range is estimated, it is done by a persons opinion. Errors are assigned by a local writer or appointee .It is a system fraught with bias and guess. Someones evaluation that Ozzie was worth so much can never go beyond opinion.
Then to go the next step and claim that these numbers make it obvious that Ozzie is a famer stretches the case far beyond logic.

[gonzomax]

Shortstops seem to get a free ride. The best defensive shortstop gets in. I suggest undeservedly.
EX. Travis Jackson
Aparicio
Rizutto
Bancroft
Maranville
Ozzie Smith
None qualify by my standards and shortstop is what they have in common. That and they were weak hitters.

[brianjedi]

My opinion,I would take Ozzie out and put Nettles in to bat for him during a game.

And this would be why you are not currently managing a professional baseball team. (Are you possibly Bob Brenly? Because I could believe that.)

As long as we're discussing relatively light-hitting shortstops, anyone want to make a case for Dave Concepcion being in the Hall? I don't think he belongs, personally, but I've heard several Big Red Machine fans proclaim him.

[What Exit?]

And this would be why you are not currently managing a professional baseball team. (Are you possibly Bob Brenly? Because I could believe that.)

As long as we're discussing relatively light-hitting shortstops, anyone want to make a case for Dave Concepcion being in the Hall? I don't think he belongs, personally, but I've heard several Big Red Machine fans proclaim him.
That's crazy talk. Joe Morgan is the moron that got this started.

[brianjedi]

That's crazy talk. Joe Morgan is the moron that got this started.

Joe... Morgan? Never heard of him. :D

[RickJay]

That's crazy talk. Joe Morgan is the moron that got this started.
There are worse players than Dave Concepcion in the Hall of Fame. He was just as good a player as Luis Aparicio, who's in, and was at least as good as Red Schoendienst, also in. He was a terrific defensive shortstop. He was darned near the equal of Phil Rizzuto percentages-wise and played nine hundred more games. He was the starting shortstop on one of the best teams of all time.

I'm not saying Concepcion should be elected, but his case is a long way from crazy.

[What Exit?]

There are worse players than Dave Concepcion in the Hall of Fame. He was just as good a player as Luis Aparicio, who's in, and was at least as good as Red Schoendienst, also in. He was a terrific defensive shortstop. He was darned near the equal of Phil Rizzuto percentages-wise and played nine hundred more games. He was the starting shortstop on one of the best teams of all time.

I'm not saying Concepcion should be elected, but his case is a long way from crazy.
Trick is, part of what put Scooter over the top was the MVP and the 9 rings.

Last I checked 29 points of lifetime OBA is pretty major. We know Scooter lost some prime years to WWII.

Additionally, most people cite Scooter of an example of the bar being set too low by the Vets committee and Concepcion is not as good. Scooter also had an additional 35 years of service before electioned as the beloved homer Yankee Announcer.

Jim

[CJJ*]

Numbers aside, Ozzie Smith was elected by nearly 92% of writers on the first ballot. And this was in 2002, long after Bill James and other SABR gurus had established the value of statistical analysis.

Smith was no doubt a colorful ballplayer; he was certainly the best-known Cardinal player of his era, and if you asked a casual fan in the 1980's to name five professional ballplayers, they'd probably include Ozzie Smith on that list. I grant that none of that speaks to his ballplaying ability as measured by statistics, but it is called the "Hall of Fame", not the "Hall of Players Selected by an Objective Formulation of Statistical Criteria." Hey, I'm a Cub fan, so I have no love for the Cardinals. But Smith clearly belongs.

Tim Raines IMO is going to be the vote that either legitimizes or discards pure statistical evaluation of talent for the HoF. Do an analysis of the numbers and his inclusion is obvious. Nevertheless Raines' candidacy is hindered because (1) he played a lot of his career in the small media market of Montreal (a fact that is hurting former Pirate/Twin hurler Bert Blylevin), (2) he admitted to using cocaine while playing (early in his career, and he did rehab for it), (3) Rickey Henderson casts a big shadow over his SB totals, and (4) quick, other than Montreal, name four of the five other teams Raines played for. Three maybe? Two? See what I mean; he doesn't exactly stir up a lot of baseball memories, and as I said above it's a "Hall of Fame".

IMO Raines should get in; ~25% on this ballot was a joke. But lets face facts: The HoF--like the game itself--isn't won on paper.

[What Exit?]

and (4) quick, other than Montreal, name four of the five other teams Raines played for. Three maybe? Two? See what I mean; he doesn't exactly stir up a lot of baseball memories, and as I said above it's a "Hall of Fame".
Whitesox, Yankees, O's with hopes of playing with his son and one of the Florida teams.

But, I am a Yankees fan so I remember where he was before the Yanks and when he went to the O's.

Looking it up, I see Oak & Fla were the other teams.

[gonzomax]

Conception should be in he is a short stop. Pete Rose no. Mark McGwire no. The guy with the most hits in baseball ...no. Mark over 500 hrs. Punch and judy shortstops get in. I do not buy it.

[What Exit?]

Conception should be in he is a short stop. Pete Rose no. Mark McGwire no. The guy with the most hits in baseball ...no. Mark over 500 hrs. Punch and judy shortstops get in. I do not buy it.
Rose not being in has nothing to do with his stats and you know. Don't play dumb. He gambled on baseball, he gambled on his team. Baseball had one golden rule, don't bet on baseball.

As to Big Mac, wait and see, but currently the idea seems to be that he was not a Hall of Famer except for the homers and the homers were from steroid usage. I think he will eventually go in, but will be left dangling for several more years.

Jim

[RickJay]

Conception should be in he is a short stop.
You're the only one saying it, dude. Nobody else here has said Dave Concepcion should be in the Hall of Fame, and he's never been close in the voting.

As for Pete Rose, I'd rather they induct every other player in the entire history of baseball before they induct any player who bet on his own games. I don't care if he got seven thousand hits and hit 100 home runs a year.

[gonzomax]

Ozzies also have little to do with his stats. He was a fan favorite and writers and announcers pushed him. Given enough time someone will come up with a statistical method to back who they want. Plus he did backflips.

[Lute Skywatcher]

When a players range is estimated, it is done by a persons opinion.Not entirely. There's something called Range Factor (RF) that is calculated by adding Put Outs & Assists then dividing by Innings. Ozzie's career RF is 5.03; league average over the years he played is 4.10. He's the first shortstop to retire with a career RF above 5 in nearly a decade, the last had been Rick Burleson (5.05; final game in '87). They joined the likes of:Dave Bancroft (5.97; '30) Rabbit Maranville (5.80; '35) Bobby Wallace (5.72; '18) Travis Jackson (5.67; '36) Dick Bartell (5.64; '46) Art Fletcher (5.50; '22) George McBride (5.45; '20) Donie Bush (5.44; '23) Ivy Olson (5.41; '24) Doc Lavan (5.40; '24) Joe Sewell (5.37; '33) Glenn Wright (5.36; '35) Eddie Miller (5.36; '50) Billy Jurges (5.25; '47) Arky Vaughn (5.24;'48) Luke Appling (5.24; '50) Roger Peckinpaugh (5.17; '27) Joe Cronin (5.16; '45) Lou Boudreau (5.13; '52) Evertt Scott (5.12; '26) Eddie Joost (5.09; '55) Johnny Logan (5.08; '63) Billy Rogell (5.06; '40) Lyn Lary (5.06; '40) Marty Marion (5.05; '53) Johnny Pesky (5.05; '54) Wally Gerber (5.03; '29)As you can see, SS RF tends to decrease as years increase and those with a career RF above five become quite rare after the '50s. The highest career RF for an active SS belongs to Rafael Furcal (4.67).

[gonzomax]

I can not believe how you guys accept these conjured up methodologies as actually relevant.
If you were going to determine range ,you would have to grid the field and make accurate measurement of the where the balls were caught. Then you would need to grade how hard the ball was hit. Then factor in weather and temperature .
I do not accept any range method as more relevant than opinion. Ozzie had great range. Watching him showed that. Of course playing short left field on artificial turf helped. Even though I reject the range stats as true,I do not dispute he was a great defensive shortstop. But , by my standards that is not enough. He was at best an average hitter who does not belong in the Hall.

[Mullinator]

I can not believe how you guys accept these conjured up methodologies as actually relevant.
If you were going to determine range ,you would have to grid the field and make accurate measurement of the where the balls were caught. Then you would need to grade how hard the ball was hit. Then factor in weather and temperature .
I do not accept any range method as more relevant than opinion. Ozzie had great range. Watching him showed that. Of course playing short left field on artificial turf helped. Even though I reject the range stats as true,I do not dispute he was a great defensive shortstop. But , by my standards that is not enough. He was at best an average hitter who does not belong in the Hall.

I think the phrase conjured up methodologies is a bit much. Most of the new (last couple of decades) stats, are essentially built from using existing statistical measures, greater understanding of the game, and expanded use of accepted mathematical and statistical methods.

Short of there being an actual way to measure range as you mention, what's wrong with using the best available measure at the time? How is this different from using batting average in the past when that was thought to be the best indicator of skill to the shift to OBP, etc? As we learn more, it makes sense to use improved tools. Shoot, it's commonly accepted that players use better training techniques that have improved their abilities to heal and play longer. Well, baseball fans are using improved analysis to better understand a player's true worth on the field.

20 years from now, we'll probably have a way to measure defensive impact that blows range factor out of the water and we'll then have a bunch of 80 year old writers decrying the new-fangled stats.

As for Range Factor and it's measure of Ozzie's impact, I get you think it's flawed. But, put forth something better. And, even if flawed, it's a measure that treats all players the same. If that's the case and it still shows Ozzie as performing demonstrably better defensively, even the most hardened skeptic has to admit that the measure shows Ozzie's value is great. It's not as if some stat was created simply to prove one player looked good. A stat exists that a player happens to be great at.

[gonzomax]

I don not need something better. I grant he was a very good shortstop. His offense was too weak to qualify by my standards. He played on powerful teams and drove in few runs. He hit 28 hrs in a career. Batting average was average . He does noi meet HOF level.

[Mullinator]

I don not need something better. I grant he was a very good shortstop. His offense was too weak to qualify by my standards. He played on powerful teams and drove in few runs. He hit 28 hrs in a career. Batting average was average . He does noi meet HOF level.

If something better exists, and you choose not to use it, then I think it says a lot more about you than it does about the statistical measures available.

[Lute Skywatcher]

I can not believe how you guys accept these conjured up methodologies as actually relevant. Range Factor has been in use for 30 years and was created as a better way than Fielding Average to measure fielding ability. It's very relevant.He hit 28 hrs in a career. Batting average was average . He does noi meet HOF level.As someone astutely pointed out earlier, the HoF isn't limited to offense. Perhaps you'd be happier if it was?

[storyteller0910]

gonzomax, for the record, I don't believe you have any interest in developing or refining your opinion; I believe that you have made your decision and will reject any evidence, no matter how compelling, that suggests you might be wrong. But, in the same spirit with which I still try to tell my dad that Barack Obama's middle name does not mean that he is a sleeper terrorist sent to infiltrate the White House (an actual opinion held by my actual father, who is probably the most intelligent person I know), I will wade in here again.

Mostly because of this:

I can not believe how you guys accept these conjured up methodologies as actually relevant.


First: AAAAAAAUUUUGGGGGHHHHH!!!!

Of all the things that drive me crazy in sport, the tendency of people to refer to statistics that don't support their pet theory as "conjured up" or "invented" is the most frustrating. It is particularly infuriating that you refer to Range Factor as "conjured up" while relying heavily on batting average to make your own points.

Other than the length of time for which it has been in use, batting average is absolutely no different from Range Factor. They are both incredibly simple rate statistics. Batting average is calculated by dividing hits (singles + doubles + triples + home runs ) by opportunities to get a hit (At Bats). The result is a simple rate stat that describes the number of hits a player may be expected to get in a given at bat.

Range factor is just as simple. You divide outs (assists + putouts) by opportunities to get an out (innings), to achieve an "outs per inning" ratio, then multiply by nine to get number of outs per game. This is a perfectly reasonable way to measure fielding range, as long as your sample size is large. Sure, in the short term, playing surface, pitching staff, weather, and how hard the ball was hit will affect the number of outs a particular player will record. But over time, these factors will balance out.

A player with good range is likely to record more outs than a player with less range. Is this really such a difficult observation? The balls that Derek Jeter dives for, Ozzie Smith was picking up on a run - they both record the out. The balls that Ozzie Smith has to dive for, Derek Jeter watches roll into centerfield. Ozzie gets the out, Jeter doesn't. Over time, because he has more range, Ozzie gets more assists than Derek, resulting in a higher range factor if they play a similar number of innings. What on earth is wrong with this approach?

And it's particularly frustrating that you point out the confounding factors that apply to Range Factor, but don't seem to realize that batting average - which you are relying upon to judge Ozzie Smith's offensive contributions - is subject to the same factors. Weather, field dimensions and conditions, playing surface, the quality of pitchers faced, the quality of opposing defense: all of these substantially affect the likelihood that a player will get a hit. But you don't dismiss batting average as a "conjured statistic" because of it. Why not?

----------------------

More broadly, you're undervaluing defense. Defensive play can lead to huge run swings. If the bases are loaded with two outs, and Joe Slugger hits a ball up the middle and Derek Jeter can't get to it, two runs score, and the inning continues with a runner on third base. If Ozzie Smith is sufficiently better than Jeter and gets to that ball, he records the out. Smith has just changed the run differential by two runs. If, in the bottom of the same inning, Smith strikes out with a guy on first, and Jeter hits a two-run homer, then in that inning their respective contributions to the final score are identical. Defense contributes to the final score of the game. Now, there are statistics that calculate the degree to which a given player's defensive contribution affects actual run scoring, but I have no doubt you'll dismiss them as "conjured" so I won't bother. But knocking Ozzie Smith for not hitting 20 home runs a season is missing the point, the same way knocking Randy Johnson for hitting .176 is - they contribute to the final score in other ways.

----------------------

Also, you're under-rating Ozzie's offensive ability. You've fetishized batting average, the worst statistic ever, so you're ignoring that, for most of his career, Smith was a pretty patient hitter who drew a fair share of walks. His on-base percentage was above .350 in many years. He had good speed and was an 80% basestealer for his career with 580 steals (generally, 80% is the point where basestealing becomes a net benefit to the team). He didn't hit home runs, but neither was he a "Punch and Judy" hitter; he hit a good number of doubles and had a respectable slugging percentage for a shortstop most years. He also didn't strike out much.

Now, look, I know you have disdain for modern statistics, but still, let's look at one: OPS+, which basically combines slugging percentage and on-base percentage, then adjusts them against the rest of the league. An OPS+ of 100 for a given year means that you are at exactly the league average (for all hitters). For most of Ozzie Smith's career, his OPS+ varied between 90 and 105, with outliers in either direction.

So that means, in most seasons, Ozzie Smith was a league-average offensive player (not including his basestealing and contributions as a baserunner in general, which almost surely increased his overall offensive value to above average). Now, remember, that's not "league-average for a shortstop," that's league average period; it includes the first basemen, third basemen, and outfielders who are generally expected to be far superior offensive players. Knowign that shortstops usually are bad offensive players, you can deduce from that that Smith was very likely a better offensive player than most shortstops of his time.

Let's see. In 1985, when the Cardinals went to the World Series, Ozzie Smith hit .275/.355/.361, with an OPS+ of 101. Here are the other starting shortstops in the National League that year.

[B]Rafael Santana (.257/.295/.302, OPS+ = 62)
Hubie Brooks (.269/.310/.413, OPS+ = 106)
Shawn Dunston (.260/.310/.388, OPS+ = 87)
Steve Jeltz (.189/.283/.219, OPS+ = 41)
Sam Khalifa (.238/.307/.319, OPS+ = 77)
Mariano Duncan (.244/.293/.340, OPS+ = 79)
Dave Concepcion (.252/.314/.330, OPS+ = 78)
Craig Reynolds (.272/.293/.393, OPS+ = 93)
Garry Templeton (.282/.332/.377, OPS+ = 99)
Rafael Ramirez (.248/.272/.333, OPS+ = 65)
Jose Uribe (.237/.285/.315, OPS+ = 72)

So, purely as a hitter - without regard to defense or baserunning - Ozzie Smith had the second-highest batting average among shortstops in the National League. He blew away the field in terms of actually getting on base; his OBP is more than 20 points higher than the next highest shortstop. Ah, but he's a Punch and Judy hitter, right, with no power? Well, his slugging percentage ranks fifth among 12 - not exactly Alex Rodriguez, but that's still a bit of pop, given the positional comparisons. OPS+ rates him as the second best hitter at this position in the National League in 1985. Of course, OBP is probably a bit more important than slugging percentage, so you could make an argument that Ozzie was a more useful hitter than Hubie Brooks, too. Throw in baserunning, and Ozzie was clearly the best offensive player at shortstop in the National League.

So, he's the best at his position in his league offensively, and he's the best of all time defensively. If that isn't a Hall of Fame resume, than no shortstop deserves induction anywhere, ever, except for Honus Wagner, I guess.

[gonzomax]

40 rbi per season on a run scoring offense. 28 life time hrs. Those are not just his ave. stats. he lacks more than that. Plus I would not vote for the other shortstops to enter the HOF.

[Marley23]

40 rbi per season on a run scoring offense.
Didn't he usually hit second? That's not exactly a prime RBI position.

[Marley23]

A quick check of box scores lead me to think he did usually hit second. The role of the #2 hitter is to set the table. The numbers show that Ozzie was better than average at getting on base and running the bases, so he did his job on that offense. Relying that heavily on his RBI total is like saying McGwire isn't a Hall of Famer because he didn't steal enough bases.

[gonzomax]

Better than average. That is your level for the hall. Not mine.
His teams scored a lot of runs. Ozzie batted 2nd once. After that he came up when it was his at bat. So 20 % of his abs were in 2nd.
What is it that makes you think I have to agree with you ? He did not hit well enough to make the HOF in my opinion. His defense was very good. I need more.

[Yookeroo]

More broadly, you're undervaluing defense. Defensive play can lead to huge run swings. If the bases are loaded with two outs, and Joe Slugger hits a ball up the middle and Derek Jeter can't get to it, two runs score, and the inning continues with a runner on third base. If Ozzie Smith is sufficiently better than Jeter and gets to that ball, he records the out. Smith has just changed the run differential by two runs. If, in the bottom of the same inning, Smith strikes out with a guy on first, and Jeter hits a two-run homer, then in that inning their respective contributions to the final score are identical. Defense contributes to the final score of the game.

I think that he's also undervaluing defense in a different way. He doesn't seem to understand that SS is a very hard position to play well making the for a smaller pool of players to choose from. This means that offensive standards a very different (i.e. lower) for a SS than for a, say, first baseman.

His defense was very good. I need more.

OK. His defense was the best ever. How's that for "more"?

[Lute Skywatcher]

Better than average. That is your level for the hall.No, offense and defense is the Hall of Fame's level for the Hall. From their mission statement: "Honoring, by enshrinement, those individuals who had exceptional careers, and recognizing others for their significant achievements." Notice it doesn't state any exceptions for those "exceptional careers"?

[Moriarty]

I was referring to pinch hitting him. Your HOF player taken out because he can not hit for a non qualifying HOF player to bat for him. That is fundamental. He was no hitting threat.
When I looked up Nettles I became convinced he has a good case for inclusion. He was a good power hitter AND a very good fielder. Ozzie was a one trick pony.

[Bolding mine]

Don't tell that to Tom Niedenfuer (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=LCSmoments/071008) and the rest of the 1985 L.A. Dodgers!

[gonzomax]

Mickey Lolich hit a home run in the world series. Therefore he should be considered a batting threat. I think not. Bumping into a fast ball does not a hall of famer make.

[Moriarty]

Mickey Lolich hit a home run in the world series. Therefore he should be considered a batting threat. I think not. Bumping into a fast ball does not a hall of famer make.

I figured you'd dismiss my quote, but I just wanted to point out that your blanket attitude that Ozzie was a "one trick pony" isn't particularly well-founded, since he did hit one of the most famous homeruns of the 1980's.

I also realize that you've made up your mind, so this wouldn't change your opinion. However, please recognize that nobody here has claimed that Mickey Lolich was the statistically greatest pitcher of all time, which undermines your analogy to the offensive output of the statistically greatest defensive shortstop of all time.

Quite honestly, this thread has opened my eyes to the statistical support for Ozzie's defensive supremacy. Prior to seeing these stats, I figured that all the kudos for Ozzier were hyperbole (when he was elected to the Hall, my first reaction was :dubious: , too). Thanks for encouraging this thread to combat (my) ignorance as to how good Ozzie really was.

ETA: Gonzomax, what is your opinion of the HOF credentials of Rod Carew (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/carewro01.shtml)? 92 career homeruns for a guy who played most of his career at 1B? Pffffttt!!

[gonzomax]

I suppose you all are pushing for Dwight Evans for the hall. He was recognized as the best defensive fielder of his time and unlike Ozzie he could hit. He has much better credentials yet he is not in.
You do understand I agree that Ozzie was a great fielder. It is not enough for me. Yankees get special consideration for being Yankees. The pets of the sportwriters get extra consideration. Those that played for teams with lots of World Series get special treatment.
The Ozzie fielding bandwagon is full. But, he was the pet of announcers and sports writers. His hitting keeps him from making it in my opinion.

[RickJay]

I suppose you all are pushing for Dwight Evans for the hall. He was recognized as the best defensive fielder of his time...
Dwight Evans was a heck of a player and he wouldn't be too had as a Hall of Famer, actually, but there are lots of outfielders with more or less the same credentials.

Blah blah blah, you don't like Ozzie Smith. Everyone else is convinced, because of the EVIDENCE, not because he was the sportswriters' pet, that he's a Hall of Famer. You're not. It's a free country. The thread is hopelessly full of the same useless evidence-denial-evidence-denial pattern.

[gonzomax]

It is mired in what you claim as evidence. Yet I agree he was a fine fielder. You see defense as enough to qualify. I do not. You feel his hitting was adequate to deserve the hall. I do not. You simply think i have to agree with your analysis or I am wrong. I just have a greater level for the hall than you guys do. I would probably have less people in it. You would fill it with the unqualified.

[Lute Skywatcher]

You see defense as enough to qualify.I see a lack of "except average hitters" in the Hall of Fame's mission statement.I just have a greater level for the hall than you guys do.And the Hall itself.I would probably have less people in it.Yeah, those you feel can't hit. It's still not the Hall of Sluggers.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Make that "Yeah, you'd leave out those you feel can't hit." Missed the edit window to fix that.

[gonzomax]

May I retort. It is more a hitters hall than a fielders hall. My hall would require more. If you field you must hit too. When the time comes and a DH is voted on ,we can start all over.
If you hit 600 hrs ,you are assured a spot in the hall. If you hit 3000 hits ,you have a very good chance. If your lifetime batting ave exceeds 300 ,the door may be open. Hit 260 with 28 career homers, you do not qualify. Fielding does not compensate for that dismal a batter.

[Lute Skywatcher]

It should be more a hitters hall than a fielders hall.Fixed that for ya. :)

[Lute Skywatcher]

Not counting pitchers:
116 inductees (83%) have fewer than 3000 hits.
119 (86%) have fewer than 400 homers.
61 (44%) hit lower than .300.

Of those who retired after 1950, 26 inductees have fewer than 3000 hits, fewer than 400 homers, and hit lower than .300. No, they're not all shortstops.

[RickJay]

May I retort. It is more a hitters hall than a fielders hall.
Why should that necessarily be so? If a fielder wins as many games with his glove as a slugger does with his bat, isn't he just as good a player?

That strikes me as being a perfectly logical position to take. It's about how much you helped your team win as a player; it doesn't matter if you did it with bat more than glove, or glove more than bat, or as a pitcher. Randy Johnson can't hit OR field, but should be a Hall of Famer, shouldn't he?

Fielding does not compensate for that dismal a batter.
He wasn't a dismal batter, as I have exhaustively explained to you, but this has gone on long enough. You've made your point. You don't like Ozzie Smith. Evidence has been presented that his defensive accomplishments were uniquely remarkable and make him a valid Hall of Famer; you don't care, and that's your right. I've considered your arguments, such as they are, and concluded that you're wrong and the great majority of people who have examined Smith's credentials and deemed him a worthy Hall of Famer are right. You're going to automatically contradict or ignore all evidence to the contrary, and you're free to do so.

There's really no point in anyone continuing the Ozzie Smith issue. Maybe we could argue about Jim Rice.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Turns out I miscounted. Of those who retired after 1950, 22 inductees (37%) have fewer than 3000 hits, fewer than 400 homers, and hit lower than .300.

[gonzomax]

Two thirds were either 3000 hits,400 homers or hit higher than 300 and you find that a counter argument.
Rick Jay ,I have exhaustively explained that I do not share your thoughts on weak hitters in the hall. You find his fielding good enough to overcome his hitting. I do not. Slowly get the idea that your thoughts are not written in stone. The whole hall is voted on ,which makes it both opinion and politics. I think half the shortstops in the hall should be removed.
When owners, announcers and sportwriters get in the hall it becomes a joke. Toss in commissioners and the whole thing is watered down. I fight watering it down. I have higher standards. Wait til Selig gets in.

[NDP]

There's really no point in anyone continuing the Ozzie Smith issue. Maybe we could argue about Jim Rice.

Well, since you brought the subject up, what's hurt Jim Rice is the fact his productivity ended suddenly. It didn't just gradually level off over the course of several seasons so he could build up his career stats to the point where they'd be hard for HOF voters to ignore. Instead, he had his last good offensive season when he was 33 and was out of baseball by the time he was 36.

[gonzomax]

Part of Rices problem is he was a jerk to sports writers. That should not be part of the calculus but in this HOF it is. Rice was not the most qualified outfielder on his own team, Evans was.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Two thirds were either 3000 hits,400 homers or hit higher than 300 and you find that a counter argument.No, 56% hit .300 or higher, 14% have at least 400 homers, and 17% have at least 3000 hits. Of those who hit .300 or higher, 25 (36%) have at least either 3000 hits or 400 homers; 7 (10%) did all three.When owners, announcers and sportwriters get in the hall it becomes a joke.Then it's been a joke since (http://www.baseball-reference.com/nonmlbpa/johnsba99.shtml) 1937 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/nonmlbpa/bulkemo99.shtml).

[gonzomax]

I agree it has become a joke and Ozzie makes it weaker not stronger. It has become a watered down hall. Players like Bonds (not discussing steroids) have the credentials to make the hall. Who can debate his numbers.
Cal Ripkin made the hall. You can debate the numbers. He just played a long time in a row. The press loved it and made a huge deal about it.
Ozzzie was a good fielder. So. Fred Lynn was a great outfielder with a terrific arm. he is not in.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12916343/ Ozzie is not universally loved.

[Lute Skywatcher]

I agree it has become a jokeNo, according to you it's been a joke since its second year in existence.

Hey, let's make gonzo happy: erase the Baseball Hall of Fame and start all over! Cal Ripkin made the hall. You can debate the numbers. Like his 3184 hits and 431 homers?

[gonzomax]

Ok. Ripkin is in but a huge amount of at bats distorts career numbers. Pete Rose has the most career hits due to a zillion at bats. Pete had the most all time hits yet batted 303 lifetime. He beat Cobb who averaged a mere 366. A distortion due to at bats to be sure.

[gonzomax]

If something better exists, and you choose not to use it, then I think it says a lot more about you than it does about the statistical measures available.
Add a few more to your trogladyte list. Nearly 10 percent of the voters did not vote for Ozzie. Can you possibly understand disagreeing with your analysis does not make us wrong. There are no absolutes in opinion. The hall is opinion.and politics.
Every invention of stat nerds does not merit acclimation. Statistical analysis of defense is in my opinion flawed and inexact. Even if it were not ,I find Ozzie too weak a hitter for my opinion of who to belong in the hall.

[Yookeroo]

Ozzzie was a good fielder.

You keep understating his defense.

Here's a question. Is a player who creates 100 runs/year offensively a more valuable than a player who creates 60 runs/year offensively and saves 40 runs/year defensively?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12916343/ Ozzie is not universally loved.

How.....irrelevant.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Ok. Ripkin is in but a huge amount of at bats distorts career numbers. Hank Aaron had 800 more at bats than Ripken, how did distortion affect his numbers? Or Dave Winfield, who put up offensive numbers similar to Ripken's with 500 fewer at bats?

[gonzomax]

Someone is comparing AAron and Ripkin. Not I. Want to compare AArons at bats ,do it with Ruth. AAron 755 in 12,364 abs Ruth 714 in 8396.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Someone is comparing AAron and Ripkin.An indirect comparison regarding the effect of "a huge amount of at bats" on numbers. There is, however, a direct comparison of Winfield and Ripken on the table, you going to address it?

[gonzomax]

I was surprised when Winfield made it. I would not have voted for him. (even though he hit Detroit pitching like Tball.)
Ripken has the games played in a row record which counts big for some people. I do recall a lot of negative sports stories when his name came up. But, the games in a row was made such a big deal that I knew he would get in.
My hall might have Ripken ,after a lot of thought. No Winfield.

[Lute Skywatcher]

My hall might have Ripken ,after a lot of thought. No Winfield.Why? Winfield hit a bit better than Ripken with fewer at bats.

It's becoming clear that "your" Hall is being pulled out of your ass.

[gonzomax]

Don't be silly. Their numbers are comparable. But Ripken has the longevity record which unless you were in a coma for 16 years you know was made a huge deal. What sports writer could vote no on Cal after writing a story every day about him for several years.? He beats Gehrigs unreachable record. Twas a big thing you know.

[Yookeroo]

I'm still waiting for an answer to this question:
Is a player who creates 100 runs/year offensively a more valuable than a player who creates 60 runs/year offensively and saves 40 runs/year defensively?

[gonzomax]

It does not happen unless you conjure up a way to make it work. If some one saves 40 ,I am sure someone else is saving 37. You would have to prove that a person actually did t and prove it is unique.
Ozzie would have to save 60 since he only knocked in 40.
After the fact analysis is substantially flawed. Win Shares which some one mentioned earlier ,was a Bill James invention. He bases shares for a player in games that were won. Apparently good defense does not happen in lost games.
According to Wiki the formula contains arbitrary numbers and educated guesses. All baseball analysis suffers from non exactitude. Who can say how hard it was to catch a ground ball. And can you prove no one else could have made the play. nope

[Yookeroo]

It does not happen unless you conjure up a way to make it work. If some one saves 40 ,I am sure someone else is saving 37. You would have to prove that a person actually did t and prove it is unique.
Ozzie would have to save 60 since he only knocked in 40.


1. You didn't answer the question.

2. I didn't say anything about "knocked in". I'm talking about the whole a player's offensive output. But if you're talking RBIs, then you have to consider Runs (I think Ozzie scored 60/year).

3. If someone is creating 100 runs/year, then someone else is creating 95. Not suer what your point is with that.

4. You didn't answer the question.

Seriously, should defense count at all? Even if it helps win games? And if not, why not?

[gonzomax]

The point is that a team says they will bring in a star and he will bring 50 hrs to 1st base. Not true ,he brings in the difference between what the former player got and what he will hit. You must keep the other players as part of the evaluation. If you tell me Ozzie is fameworthy then give me the difference of other SS and him. To yank the combination out of your sphincter is incomplete as an argument. probably every ss in baseball scored 60 runs or more. That does not make me want to jam the hall with them.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Don't be silly. Their numbers are comparable. Winfield had 3110 hits, more runs, more runs batted in, more triples, more homeruns, and a higher batting average with fewer at bats yet you won't let him in. Sounds like you weren't going to let Ripken in until I mentioned that he met your 3000 hit requirement.

If anyone's being silly here it ain't me.

[gonzomax]

Winfield had 3110 hits, more runs, more runs batted in, more triples, more homeruns, and a higher batting average with fewer at bats yet you won't let him in. Sounds like you weren't going to let Ripken in until I mentioned that he met your 3000 hit requirement.

If anyone's being silly here it ain't me.
Unless you have forgotten ,Ripkin beat the record which was unbreakable.
They made a HUGE deal over that. It made him unique. Winfield did not break the Gehrig record. That distinction should not be lost.

[Mullinator]

Unless you have forgotten ,Ripkin beat the record which was unbreakable.
They made a HUGE deal over that. It made him unique. Winfield did not break the Gehrig record. That distinction should not be lost.


So, based on what you've posted, to get into (or be considered close) to the HOF, the following criteria need to be met:
1. Make pitchers more successful (Post 17)
2. Win games (Post 17)
3. Don't be an artificial turf shortstop (Post 44)
4. Partner with a 2nd baseman for a long time (Post 48)
5. Turn marvelous double plays (Post 48)
6. Assist pitchers greatly (Post 48)
7. Don't be a good field, no hit shortstop (Post 51)
8. Don't make offensive contributions outside of the classical 3 stats (Post 58)
9. Don't worry about defense (Post 61)
10. be good at things that aren't measured by cooked up statistics (Post 61)
11. Be capable of holding a job by today's standards (Post 64)
12. Do something in a World Series to get in the discussion (Post 75)
13. Don't be a fielder (Post 77)
14. Don't be a one trick pony (Post 82)
15. Meet gonzomax's standards (Post 85)
16. Some random point? (Post 93)
17. Don't do backflips to make yourself a fan favorite (Post 96)
18. Do something that doesn't need new-fangled stats (Post 96)
19. Don't use better methods of evaluation (Post 100)
20. Be powerful on powerful teams with lots of runners on base ahead of you (Post 100)
21. Again, excel at Avg/HR/RBI. (Post 104)
22. Don't be a shortstop (Post 104)
23. Be better than better than average (Post 107)
24. If you are an announcer's pet, a sportswriter's pet, or a Yankee, you better be a really, really good player (Post 113)
25. Meet gonzomax's level again (Post 115)
26. Hit 600 homers (Post 118)
27. Get 300 hits (Post 118)
28. Bat .300 (Post 118)
29. If not, don't bring your silly fielding up to me! (Post 118)
30. Don't play an historically weaker hitting position defined by other aspects of the game outside of Avg/HR/RBI (Post 123)
31. Don't be an owner, announcer, sportswriter, or commissioner. None of them ever had an RBI or HR (Post 123)
32. Be named Barry Bonds (Post 127)
33. It's OK if you accumulate a huge amount of at bats (post 129)
34. Don't use stats gonzomax deems flawed and inexact (Post 130)
35. Be good at things that stat geeks can't tout (Post 130)
36. Even if defensive worth could be measured perfectly, it doesn't really matter (Post 130)
37. Don't be named Dave Winfield (Post 135)
38. Play a lot of games in a row (Post 135)
39. Don't revisit history (Post 139)
40. No educated guessing (Post 139)
41. Even if you are named Dave Winfield and get 3000+ hits, you need to break an unbreakable record (Post 143).

Granted, I think this oversimplifies your arguements, but it does a pretty good job of summing up the thread to this point.

[gonzomax]

Make it simple for you. He was too weak a hitter to qualify for the hall IN MY OPINION. I think the hall is too easy to get into. By my standards he would fail. The hall would be much smaller if I ran it.
You think he belongs. He meets your level. Therefore mine is wrong.

[Mullinator]

No, it's not that at all. It's more driven by your intransigence to give weight to defensive accomplishments, newer and more informative metrics on both sides of the ball, and your ill-defined and nearly incomprehensible view of what makes a HOFer.

I doubt there's a single poster in here that disagrees with you that the Hall has too many dicey inductees. It's clear that this is the case. Where the vast majority of people in here have taken issue is with your lack of willingness or clarity when it comes to what you really think makes an induction worthy candidate.

Defense is clearly something that needs to be considered when looking at a candidate. It's no different in a sport like basketball. Sure, I can have Vince Carter on my team because he scores points in bunches, but if he gives up just as many on the other end either directly or indirectly through poor help side defense, then he needs to be dinged accordingly.

Ozzie Smith's hitting alone does not make him Hall worthy and I bet you can't find anyone that says it does. But, he was a better than average hitter at his position, did some fine work on the basepaths, and played astonishingly good defense at one of the most important positions on the field. He did this for a very long time for some very good teams. And yes, his love from fans and writers alike certainly played a role in his high vote total, but that's just something that happens.

It's fairly clear that while he exhibits a pretty unique mix of skills that make judging his case more difficult than most, it also seems to make some sense to accept the general thinking that he is worthy of election when a vast amount of baseball lifers, instinct driven writers, and nerds in love with their stats all reach the conclusion that yeah, he sure seems like a HOFer.

[RickJay]

Unless you have forgotten ,Ripkin beat the record which was unbreakable.
RIPKEN. For God's sake, thye man's name was in the paper or on the Sportscenter ticker every day for twenty years.

They made a HUGE deal over that. It made him unique. Winfield did not break the Gehrig record. That distinction should not be lost.
Well, except for Ripken, no other Hall of Famers broke that record either.

Let me ask an honest question: Why shouldn't Dave Winfield be in the Hall of Fame? What is your argument with respect to his candidacy? I've never bothered to really analyze him and don't have the time to now, but superficially, he does look like a Hall of Famer; over 3000 hits, lots of homers, lots of RBI, Gold Gloves, a multitalented player, had the winning hit in a World Series. Why in your estimation should be not be in?

[gonzomax]

Because he ( I heard)tire ironed a guys head in college?
Actually he is pretty close. 3000 hits was always considered a milestone that insured the hall. He made it before the steroid era . I never looked at him but other than a 276 lifetime batting ave ,his stats are pretty good. I suppose I can understand his inclusion.

[RickJay]

Because he ( I heard)tire ironed a guys head in college?
Actually he is pretty close. 3000 hits was always considered a milestone that insured the hall. He made it before the steroid era . I never looked at him but other than a 276 lifetime batting ave ,his stats are pretty good. I suppose I can understand his inclusion.
Whose career batting average was .276? That was Cal Ripken. Dave Winfield's career batting average was .283.

[Yookeroo]

The point is that a team says they will bring in a star and he will bring 50 hrs to 1st base. Not true ,he brings in the difference between what the former player got and what he will hit. You must keep the other players as part of the evaluation. If you tell me Ozzie is fameworthy then give me the difference of other SS and him. To yank the combination out of your sphincter is incomplete as an argument.

I'm not quite sure what you're going on about here (you're kind of babbling). But it wasn't an argument, I was asking a question. I'll try to make it easier. Is a run saved defensively as valuable as a run created offensively?

Make it simple for you. He was too weak a hitter to qualify for the hall IN MY OPINION.

Does defense not count as all? Why not? It does help his team win games. How about his base running? Worth nothing? Is there no amount of defense that can make up for his weaknesses as a hitter?

[gonzomax]

Defense IN MY OPINION is not enough. How damn simple do I have to make it. We have no need to discuss Ozzies defense. I think is puny bat disqualifies him.
He did not hit well enough to qualify for the hall. IN MY OPINION
You think he did. I am not claiming you are obdurate. I simply say he did not qualify to me. If we both voted ,you would vote yes. I would vote no. Get over it.

[Mullinator]

Defense IN MY OPINION is not enough. How damn simple do I have to make it. We have no need to discuss Ozzies defense. I think is puny bat disqualifies him.
He did not hit well enough to qualify for the hall. IN MY OPINION
You think he did. I am not claiming you are obdurate. I simply say he did not qualify to me. If we both voted ,you would vote yes. I would vote no. Get over it.


But, based on the way you phrase the above, you only seem to consider a portion of a player's skill set in a vacuum. No one has said anything about Ozzie's offense alone being HOF worthy. If he played defense like Ryan Theriot, he would have been viewed as an OK player that hung around a long time.

A non-pitcher impacts a game on the field with his hitting, defense, and baserunning (we'll ignore things like leadership, etc). To pretend that 2 of the 3 can be overlooked when judging a player's full body of work is what has so many people continually questioning why you have judged Ozzie the way you have.

He played clearly superior defense, he was a pretty darn good baserunner. He was an above average hitting shortstop. There are all sorts of contexts that need to be addressed. A shortstop shouldn't be judged against a 1st baseman against a catcher. Positional demands lead to differing skill sets.

I think we all get why you think Ozzie shouldn't be in. His offense at the plate was limited. But, I can't understand why you seem to only judge that based on Avg/HR/RBI when a bunch of conventional and new-fangled measures provide greater insight. I can't understand why you don't seem to compare his numbers in a positional context - shortstops (mostly until the mid-90's) were some of the weaker hitters which makes his numbers look a lot stronger. I can't understand why you don't give equal weight to defensive prowess. I can't understand why you never mention anything about baserunning.

Look, completely ignore the above. Please provide an answer to this question:

Is a run saved as valuable as a run scored in the outcome of a game?

[storyteller0910]

But, based on the way you phrase the above, you only seem to consider a portion of a player's skill set in a vacuum. No one has said anything about Ozzie's offense alone being HOF worthy. If he played defense like Ryan Theriot, he would have been viewed as an OK player that hung around a long time.

A non-pitcher impacts a game on the field with his hitting, defense, and baserunning (we'll ignore things like leadership, etc). To pretend that 2 of the 3 can be overlooked when judging a player's full body of work is what has so many people continually questioning why you have judged Ozzie the way you have.

He played clearly superior defense, he was a pretty darn good baserunner. He was an above average hitting shortstop. There are all sorts of contexts that need to be addressed. A shortstop shouldn't be judged against a 1st baseman against a catcher. Positional demands lead to differing skill sets.

I think we all get why you think Ozzie shouldn't be in. His offense at the plate was limited. But, I can't understand why you seem to only judge that based on Avg/HR/RBI when a bunch of conventional and new-fangled measures provide greater insight. I can't understand why you don't seem to compare his numbers in a positional context - shortstops (mostly until the mid-90's) were some of the weaker hitters which makes his numbers look a lot stronger. I can't understand why you don't give equal weight to defensive prowess. I can't understand why you never mention anything about baserunning.

Look, completely ignore the above. Please provide an answer to this question:

Is a run saved as valuable as a run scored in the outcome of a game?

Dude, say hi to Dulcinea for me, will you?

[gonzomax]

I want it all. Sometimes you can not have it. Fielders are a dime a dozen. There are lots of fielders with great gloves that live on in the minors.Why? Because they do not have enough bat to make it to the majors. Ozzie had enough bat to make it to the majors and have a long career. He does not have enough bat to make it to the hall.
Windmills for everyone.

[Yookeroo]

I want it all. Sometimes you can not have it. Fielders are a dime a dozen.

Not fielders like Ozzie.

There are lots of fielders with great gloves that live on in the minors.Why? Because they do not have enough bat to make it to the majors. Ozzie had enough bat to make it to the majors and have a long career. He does not have enough bat to make it to the hall.

Shouldn't all his contributions be considered? Shouldn't enshrinement be based on how much you helped win games for your team?

And is a run saved as valuable as a run scored in the outcome of a game?

[gonzomax]

Not quite. A run saved that another fielder could not, would be a consideration and very difficult to prove. Someone says Ozzie saves 40 runs a year, Does that mean other SS save none. No they save 35 or so. Is the Ozzie difference worth the hall. Of course not.

[CJJ*]

Discussions like this convince me the best way to judge a HoF'er (at least prior to the Veteran's committee) is to just have people vote on it using whatever skewed criteria they want; in short, pretty much the system in place now.

Ozzie Smith isn't a HoF'er because of his fielding, hitting, or personality: He's a HoF'er because over 90% of writers voted for him to be a HoF'er. If you want a different HoF, go build it yourself.

[gonzomax]

And 10 % said no. Does that make them wrong or do they have a different opinion than you. ? My mistake,I realize a different opinion on the hall is wrong. I laud the writers that have a higher standard for the hall. They are correct. It is being cheapened.

[storyteller0910]

And 10 % said no. Does that make them wrong or do they have a different opinion than you. ? My mistake,I realize a different opinion on the hall is wrong. I laud the writers that have a higher standard for the hall. They are correct. It is being cheapened.

Do you realize that this paragraph contains a pretty glaring and substantial hypocrisy?

[Lute Skywatcher]

If you want a different HoF, go build it yourself.Some members of a sports-related forum are doing just that. They're up to 1949 so far.

[CJJ*]

And 10 % said no. Does that make them wrong or do they have a different opinion than you. ? My mistake,I realize a different opinion on the hall is wrong. I laud the writers that have a higher standard for the hall. They are correct. It is being cheapened.
This is a bait and switch. I'll say less than 10% of voters had a different opinion at the time of the vote, but that does not mean that same <10% is today stamping their feet and insisting that, despite the opinion of their colleagues, Ozzie Smith doesn't belong in the HoF. A few perhaps, but that's why unanimous voting is never required. So if it's simply a matter of opinion, why not take the opinon of 90+% of voters more seriously?

I might understand your argument better if you could provide the names of players eligible for induction who have not been enshrined because of prevailing attitudes toward the evaluation of candidates. To put it glibly, does the "wrong" criteria (e.g. over-emphasis on defense) that worked in favor of Ozzie Smith's candidacy work against player X's candidacy?

To be blunt, my suspicion is you won't be able to come up with one; in general you simply feel that the line for "the best" is too low, and that the number of writer-voted-in candidates (averages about three every two years) is just too high for your taste. I'm not sure why that would be--the figures work out to about 30 clear HoF'ers playing over a 20 year period. That's one for every team in the league, and I think if you look at any MLB team over the past two decades you'll find at least one legitimate HoF candidate.

[gonzomax]

Pete Rose.

[Yookeroo]

Not quite.
Wow. What makes an offensive run more valuable? I'm dying to see the logic here. They count the same on the scorecard.

A run saved that another fielder could not, would be a consideration and very difficult to prove.

Individual runs? Maybe. But there are some pretty great tools out there that can measure this over the course of seasons and careers.

Someone says Ozzie saves 40 runs a year, Does that mean other SS save none. No they save 35 or so.

Are you sure? What if they're only saving 30? Or 25? And are below average (for a SS) hitter? Doesn't this open up enough of a gap for Ozzie?

Just how many shortstops belong in the Hall? Fewer than other positions since shortstops as a whole are weaker hitters? Which shortstops do you think are more worthy than Smith?

(No one actually did claim that Ozzie saves 40. That was a hypothetical)

[gonzomax]

Will you quit giving defensive opinion on Ozzie. He played great defense. Hit like a girl.
Above addition
Shoeless Joe out
should not be in
Bowie Kuhn
Morgan Bulkeley

[storyteller0910]

Will you quit giving defensive opinion on Ozzie. He played great defense. Hit like a girl.


The last sentence is ridiculous and has been debunked repeatedly in this thread. You don't care about discussion or conversation, and you have no interest in evidence. The man was provably a better hitter than 10 of the other 11 shortstops in the National League during the year I detailed earlier in this thread, and arguably a better all around offensive player than the eleventh. "Hit like a girl" is just an absurd characterization, and it shows how blinded to actual fact you are.

[gonzomax]

It has been debunked according to you. It has been upheld repeatedly according to me. Sounds like opinion doesn't it?
28 life time homers. I bet they were pitching around him a lot.
I just wasted time looking a t a site that gives the top 120 batter every year. Many times the great wizard of Oz was not even in it, Yount and Trammel were ahead of him endlessly and so were many others. He was a crappy hitter.

[Mullinator]

It has been debunked according to you. It has been upheld repeatedly according to me. Sounds like opinion doesn't it?
28 life time homers. I bet they were pitching around him a lot.
I just wasted time looking a t a site that gives the top 120 batter every year. Many times the great wizard of Oz was not even in it, Yount and Trammel were ahead of him endlessly and so were many others. He was a crappy hitter.

What's the site? What's the metric they use? I'm not looking to bash on it, but if it's helpful, it's good to learn. I'm not afraid of revising opinion in the face of improved information.

Have you ever read the Baseball Prospectus book "Baseball Between the Numbers"?

[gonzomax]

The metric was simple. It listed batters in order of average and showed rbis and hrs. It did not find a "metric' to make a position. It did not twist the numbers .it listed them.
I have been a fan of Bill James since abstract. I do reserve the right to disagree with him. I read the hardball times on line everyday .They really get into numbers. I do not always agree with them either. Not baseball by the numbers.
James thinks bunting a man to second is a statistically positive play. I do not agree. In the day when games were lower scoring ,playing for a run was more significant than it is now. That however is distorted by the Tigers who have been so bad at it the last few years.

[RickJay]

The metric was simple. It listed batters in order of average and showed rbis and hrs. It did not find a "metric' to make a position. It did not twist the numbers .it listed them.
Well, I'm going to list all the shortstops by the numbers of runs they saved.

Hey look! Ozzie's first.

Now Im going to list ALL players in my lifetime by runs saved as fielders. Oh look. Ozzie's first again. How about that.

You still haven't explained why a run scored is more valuable than a run saved. Until you do, your argument, such as it is - it pretty much amounts to just "I don't think he's a Hall of Famer," which isn't really a convincing argument, and "He hit like a girl," which is false.

[gonzomax]

You have not realized a bad hitter does not belong in the hall. When I went through the list year after year a bunch of SS appeared way ahead of him in hitting ave and rbis. He was a poor hitter. Way down on the list. THAT DQS HIM FOR THE HALL.

You say he saved a ton of runs with his incredible fielding. I say he lost games with his shitty hitting and inability to drive in runs. If you want to say its a wash ,he becomes a middle of the road hall applicant.

[storyteller0910]

You have not realized a bad hitter does not belong in the hall. When I went through the list year after year a bunch of SS appeared way ahead of him in hitting ave and rbis. He was a poor hitter. Way down on the list. THAT DQS HIM FOR THE HALL.


...and... scene. If you are going to continue to argue that Ozzie Smith was a poor hitter, and base your opinion on the two worst statistics available for judging hitting - batting average and RBIs - then talking baseball with you is officially and utterly pointless, because you don't understand the game and don't want to.

And now for something completely different, for anyone still watching this train wreck at this point. Here are Ozzie Smith's top 5 single-season fielding runs above average (RAA) scores for his career: 29, 27, 25, 24, 21.

Now here are the top 10 single-season FRAA for another player: 27, 24, 22, 16, 16. Not quite equal to Ozzie's, of course, but still pretty impressive. But for his career, this second player had an OBP of .384, a career batting average near .300, and a career OPS+ of 128 including seven seasons above 140. Player two falls short of Ozzie's defensive utter defensive dominance, but not by much; the statistics indicate that he was saving very nearly as many runs as Ozzie when compared to an average defensive player at his position. And he was obviously an exponentially better offensive player.

Player Two is not in the Hall of Fame, nor has he ever received more than token consideration. How does this fit in with the discussion so far?

[gonzomax]

Well, I'm going to list all the shortstops by the numbers of runs they saved.

Hey look! Ozzie's first.

Now Im going to list ALL players in my lifetime by runs saved as fielders. Oh look. Ozzie's first again. How about that.

You still haven't explained why a run scored is more valuable than a run saved. Until you do, your argument, such as it is - it pretty much amounts to just "I don't think he's a Hall of Famer," which isn't really a convincing argument, and "He hit like a girl," which is false.
Only if you make up the numbers.

[gonzomax]

...and... scene. If you are going to continue to argue that Ozzie Smith was a poor hitter, and base your opinion on the two worst statistics available for judging hitting - batting average and RBIs - then talking baseball with you is officially and utterly pointless, because you don't understand the game and don't want to.

And now for something completely different, for anyone still watching this train wreck at this point. Here are Ozzie Smith's top 5 single-season fielding runs above average (RAA) scores for his career: 29, 27, 25, 24, 21.

Now here are the top 10 single-season FRAA for another player: 27, 24, 22, 16, 16. Not quite equal to Ozzie's, of course, but still pretty impressive. But for his career, this second player had an OBP of .384, a career batting average near .300, and a career OPS+ of 128 including seven seasons above 140. Player two falls short of Ozzie's defensive utter defensive dominance, but not by much; the statistics indicate that he was saving very nearly as many runs as Ozzie when compared to an average defensive player at his position. And he was obviously an exponentially better offensive player.

Player Two is not in the Hall of Fame, nor has he ever received more than token consideration. How does this fit in with the discussion so far?
Proves it. If the difference is 2-33-3-8-6 the difference is minimal. Which is what I keep telling you.

[Yookeroo]

You have not realized a bad hitter does not belong in the hall.

We put bad hitters in the Hall all the time. Far worse than Ozzie. Lefty Grove had an OPS of 416 and he's one of the greatest players in the Hall.

I know....he was a pitcher! But we use different offensive standards because pitchers make up for it with their defense (and by defense I mean preventing runs from scoring). Why shouldn't field players get the same consideration? If a shortstop prevents enough runs from scoring to make up for his offense, why shouldn't he be considered?

When I went through the list year after year a bunch of SS appeared way ahead of him in hitting ave and rbis.
:rolleyes:

Again, why is an offensive run created more valuable than a defensive run saved?

And now for something completely different, for anyone still watching this train wreck at this point. Here are Ozzie Smith's top 5 single-season fielding runs above average (RAA) scores for his career: 29, 27, 25, 24, 21.

Now here are the top 10 single-season FRAA for another player: 27, 24, 22, 16, 16. Not quite equal to Ozzie's, of course, but still pretty impressive. But for his career, this second player had an OBP of .384, a career batting average near .300, and a career OPS+ of 128 including seven seasons above 140. Player two falls short of Ozzie's defensive utter defensive dominance, but not by much; the statistics indicate that he was saving very nearly as many runs as Ozzie when compared to an average defensive player at his position. And he was obviously an exponentially better offensive player.

Player Two is not in the Hall of Fame, nor has he ever received more than token consideration. How does this fit in with the discussion so far?
Another shortstop?

[gonzomax]

By the numbers offered to me above, Ozzie saved a little bit more runs than the second and 3rd SS. But he was a much worse hitter. I looked through the batting averages year after year and he was behind other short stops by a wide margin. If I found him competitive or at least a reasonable hitter I might have acquiesced. However he did not even make the list most years and was way down as a rule. Other shortstops were way ahead of him. I am more convinced than ever you guys have bought a myth perpetrated by TV,

[storyteller0910]

Another shortstop?

No. But hypothetically, the fact that shortstop is a more "valuable" position than the position played by Player Two isn't relevant, in light of the fact that the runs above average figure is so close - the defense of these two players theoretically had approximately the same impact on the final score of the games in which they played.

[storyteller0910]

By the numbers offered to me above, Ozzie saved a little bit more runs than the second and 3rd SS. But he was a much worse hitter. I looked through the batting averages year after year and he was behind other short stops by a wide margin.

Batting average is a terrible measure of a player's overall ability as an offensive player. Yet you persist in using it as if it is the only available measure. Also, you just ignored my post in this thread, where I showed that in 1985 Smith had the second-best batting average among shortstops in the entire NL, and a much better OBP than any. Are you choosing to ignore these facts?

[gonzomax]

Batting average,homeruns and rbis are the measures I judge hitting by. If they are close I go to OBP and others . He was so weak in the first THREE that there is no need to go farther.
Its good that so many people buy the hype of major league baseball. a dead spot like Ozzie is actually two dead spots. They will not give the hitter ahead of him anything to hit because they know the ever fabulous defensive SS will not drive in runs. His girlie girl hitting hurt the team.

[storyteller0910]

Batting average,homeruns and rbis are the measures I judge hitting by.

OK. Terrible stats to judge by, and they lead you to terrible and factually incorrect conclusions, but if you're happy watching baseball from this standpoint than who I am to ruin it for you? Have fun. Meaning absolutely no offense, I personally am not going to continue this conversation with you. If you consider batting average a useful measure of hitting ability, than you and I have no common ground whatsoever.

[Moriarty]

Player Two is not in the Hall of Fame, nor has he ever received more than token consideration.

You're killing me! Who is this Player Two of which you speak?

[gonzomax]

Not me. see 174.
Ozzie did not appear in the top 120 batters for many years of his career. Several shortstops were. Yount and Trammel beat him to a pulp in offense. Many less than inspiring SS were way ahead of him. Many of them were fine fielders too. His greatest that ever heard of the game defensive skills did not IN MY OPINION overcome his crappy bat. If you think it does vote for him. He will not get in my hall.

[Mullinator]

Batting average,homeruns and rbis are the measures I judge hitting by. If they are close I go to OBP and others . He was so weak in the first THREE that there is no need to go farther.
Its good that so many people buy the hype of major league baseball. a dead spot like Ozzie is actually two dead spots. They will not give the hitter ahead of him anything to hit because they know the ever fabulous defensive SS will not drive in runs. His girlie girl hitting hurt the team.

I think like everybody else, this is the post that officially kills this thread. A vast majority of our efforts have been spent under this board's banner of "Fighting Ignorance", but if your basis of judging baseball ability is by three stats that most teams now view as anachronistic then we can't even begin to discuss the merits of Ozzie Smith as a viable candidate. So, here's an idea.

Should we start a completely new thread (because this is a pretty big trainwreck at this point) in which we can start discussing and comparing the merits of your main stats vs. the merits of the stats a lot of the rest of us are building our opinions off of?

[gonzomax]

Your stats are stats of number junkies trying to prove a case they already believe and are trying to convince others of. My numbers have been followed for a century and are what baseball players success or failure is determined by. When someone digs up a new methodology .it requires some time to be evaluated and to be refined. The numbers I use are not concoctions of a stat junkie.
Then when we are done . It will come to whether I believe your evaluations qualify . Mine are time tested and universally accepted. Try to tell me I should have equal weight for a after the fact range evaluation system and should not think range is largely a component of opinion.

[CJJ*]

Shoeless Joe out
should not be in
Bowie Kuhn
Morgan Bulkeley
You also thru Pete Rose in earlier as a player who does not merit HoF consideration because of standards that let in "girly hitters" like Ozzie Smith. There names tell me all I need to know about your argument. You know very well the reasons why Jackson and Rose are not in the hall, and it has nothing to do with their statistics.

Why do you cite Bowie Kuhn and Morgan Bulkeley (first president of the NL)? There are good reasons to question thier credentials (especially in Kuhn's case), but they have little bearing on whether or not Ozzie Smith gets in; you might as well cite Henry Chadwick and Cal Hubbard.

Your position is more relevant if you're talking about players (and please, let's stick with players here) included via the Veteran's committee. For years Frankie Frisch sat on the committee--himself an obvious HoF'er--and used it to get his playing-day pals into the Hall, immortals like Dave Bancroft, George Kelly, Travis Jackson and Fred Lindstrom. Bill Mazeroski's election smelled so much of cronyism, the comittee process was radically altered because of it.

Again though, Ozzie was elected by over 90% of writers (not the Vet. com.), I believe on the first ballot. Don't you take their opinion seriously?

[Yookeroo]

No. But hypothetically, the fact that shortstop is a more "valuable" position than the position played by Player Two isn't relevant, in light of the fact that the runs above average figure is so close - the defense of these two players theoretically had approximately the same impact on the final score of the games in which they played.

The position is relevant to their offensive stats. And what about the non top 5 defensive seasons for these players? How do their to 10 seasons match up?

But even with incomplete information, it sounds like there might be a case to be made for Player Two.

Batting average,homeruns and rbis are the measures I judge hitting by.

Because...?

And I'm still waiting to hear why offensive runs and defensive runs don't have equal value. You do realize that an offensive run for one team is a defensive run for the opponent, right?

[Governor Quinn]

You're killing me! Who is this Player Two of which you speak?

It appears to be Keith Hernandez (http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hernake01.shtml)

[gonzomax]

Defensive statistics are not like offensive stats. !40 rbis is 140 rbis and everybody knows what it means. Saying Ozzie had a great range and saved some made up number of games is not really measurable. Do you think shortstops for every team are not terrific fielders. Do you think they are revolving doors for ground ball. I have seen a lot of very good SSs. QI do not think Ozzie was so great that he was head and shoulders above them all and his lack of hitting still qualifies him. -
How does a range measurement compensate for ,artificial turf,how hard each ground ball was hit. How hard a catch a liner was. The wind or any number of variables . ? It can not. .It is so obviously an opinion measurement disguised as some new and great system. I do not accept it is possible to rate a players defense stastically on any given day let alone a season. Then to say the ground ball Yount caught was easier than the ground ball that Ozzie caught another day and another time. It is dumb. Show a little skepicism when someone says I can tell you numerically how many runs Ozzie was worth defensively and how it compares to Yount or some other SS.

[storyteller0910]

It appears to be Keith Hernandez (http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hernake01.shtml)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be all coy. It is indeed "I'm Keith Hernandez." Given the statistics quoted, and now that his identity is clear, how many of those who support Ozzie Smith's candidacy for the Hall would support a "Keith Hernandez for HoF" push as well? He's my absolute favorite player of all time, so to say I am biased is to understate the case, but the numbers would appear to suggest that his contributions as a defensive player approach Ozzie's (FRAA and similar statistics would appear to figure in the relative value of the two positions; if a 1B and a SS have equal FRAA, then they are providing equal defensive value in terms of runs saved, yes?). He was obviously a much better hitter, and a career OBP of .380+ is really not so bad. He clearly had a Hall-of-Fame caliber mustache.

Thoughts?

[gonzomax]

He suffers from what permeates the hall. Good press ,much love ,you get in. Bad press,you are out.Hernandez had a coke problem. He has been nailed for sexist remarks and his stupid Hair Club commercials all taint his image. Should they count. Maybe not but a backflip would have enshrined him. He had the hitting credentials and a pile of gold gloves.

[NDP]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be all coy. It is indeed "I'm Keith Hernandez." Given the statistics quoted, and now that his identity is clear, how many of those who support Ozzie Smith's candidacy for the Hall would support a "Keith Hernandez for HoF" push as well? He's my absolute favorite player of all time, so to say I am biased is to understate the case, but the numbers would appear to suggest that his contributions as a defensive player approach Ozzie's (FRAA and similar statistics would appear to figure in the relative value of the two positions; if a 1B and a SS have equal FRAA, then they are providing equal defensive value in terms of runs saved, yes?). He was obviously a much better hitter, and a career OBP of .380+ is really not so bad. He clearly had a Hall-of-Fame caliber mustache.

Thoughts?

Keith Hernandez isn't in for some of the same reasons why Jim Rice isn't in: his offensive productivity ended suddenly and at a relatively early age and he was out of baseball by the time he was 36. As for comparing defense with Ozzie Smith, it's really a case of apples and oranges. Shortstop is regarded as a position where one's defensive skills are important since you're basically in the middle infield firing line. You can't really say the same about first base. That's why when you evaluate the worth of a player, defense doen't play as big a role (and offensive stats are more significant) with a first basemen than it does with a shortstop.

[RickJay]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be all coy. It is indeed "I'm Keith Hernandez." Given the statistics quoted, and now that his identity is clear, how many of those who support Ozzie Smith's candidacy for the Hall would support a "Keith Hernandez for HoF" push as well? He's my absolute favorite player of all time, so to say I am biased is to understate the case, but the numbers would appear to suggest that his contributions as a defensive player approach Ozzie's (FRAA and similar statistics would appear to figure in the relative value of the two positions; if a 1B and a SS have equal FRAA, then they are providing equal defensive value in terms of runs saved, yes?). He was obviously a much better hitter, and a career OBP of .380+ is really not so bad. He clearly had a Hall-of-Fame caliber mustache.
Hernandez is an interesting case to say the least. I was always really surprised he polled so low in the voting; he was a huge star when he was active, won an MVP Award, was as good a defensive first baseman as I ever saw.

If I can say two things; first, the reason he's not is is that nobody who has ever has similar batting numbers is in. Guys with similar stats include Wally Joyner, Mark Grace, and Chris Chambliss, none of whom you'd think of as being a Hall of Famer. John Olerud was exactly as good a hitter as Hernandez is a career about 10% longer, and was just as good a defensive player (according to most metrics; he never got the credit for it he deserved, but he's got all the same FRAA numbers as Hernandez.)

So, let me put it this way; Keith Hernandez wouldn't be a bad choice, but John Olerud would probably be better, and Will Clark's probably right with those guys as well. Hernandez's case is, I think, watered down a bit by the ease with which you can find essentially smiliar players of equal credentials.

Just for fun I looked up the Wn Shares for variosu first basemen, and interestingly enough it ranked Hernandez very high, but not above Grace, Garvey, and a few others. Now, I'm not sure how much credit to give to that, but it's interesting.

[storyteller0910]

Shortstop is regarded as a position where one's defensive skills are important since you're basically in the middle infield firing line. You can't really say the same about first base. That's why when you evaluate the worth of a player, defense doen't play as big a role (and offensive stats are more significant) with a first basemen than it does with a shortstop.

Well, but that's really the point of using FRAA as a way of evaluating fielding, isn't it? Shortstop is a "more important" defensive position, and so likely the number of runs saved, total, will be higher at shortstop than at first. But if Ozzie Smith saved 25 runs more than the average shortstop in a given year, and Keith Hernandez saved 25 more than the average first baseman in the same year, their defensive contributions - assuming for the moment that FRAA is a good statistic, of course - are identical. The degree of difficulty involved in their respective positions is already figured into the stat.

[gonzomax]

What you guys are saying ,is you can understand why some people might think Hernandez qualifies ,but you don't quite agree. About that we can respectfully agree. But I am in the same spot about Ozzie and see him outside. This disagreement can not be allowed, Strange.
Often the centerfielder is the guy who saves games. A great range and arm are a huge asset to a team. Yet who thinks a slap hitting CF der should get in.?

[Mullinator]

What you guys are saying ,is you can understand why some people might think Hernandez qualifies ,but you don't quite agree. About that we can respectfully agree. But I am in the same spot about Ozzie and see him outside. This disagreement can not be allowed, Strange.
Often the centerfielder is the guy who saves games. A great range and arm are a huge asset to a team. Yet who thinks a slap hitting CF der should get in.?


For me, it's not even so much about Ozzie. Heck, I'm a lifelong Cubs fan so I'm genetically predisposed to despise Ozzie. It's more about how you are making your determination. There's a vast catalog of simple and complex measures out there to analyze a player's worth. Avg/HR/RBI are way down at the bottom of that list. The goal of the game as a batter is to not make an out. Average simply overlooks a huge portion of a player's ability to get on base. Not every batter is a homerun hitter, nor do they need to be. Not every park, era, or condition is set up to allow for homeruns to be a major part of a game. Slugging percentage, + comparisons, VORP (etc) all do a better job of measuring offensive prowess. RBI is absolutely dependent on playing with good players and where you are in the batting order that it doesn't make sense to use it to determine a player's ability to create runs. An awful player can hit behind guys that get on base and have 100 RBI while a great player can bat behind 2 Neifi Perezes and end up with 70 RBI but neither number gives you a true answer to who the better hitter is.

I fully believe Ozzie is an OK choice as a HOFer. Certainly, if there were levels of greatness in there, I'd have him on a lower tier away from true immortals of the game. But, since there's not, I can only base my opinion as a pure yes/no. Based on his hitting ability as compared to other shortstops, his defensive prowess, and other aspects of his game I have to give a grudging yes vote.

[gonzomax]

Batting average is not an indicator of your ability to get on base? Wrong.,It is a huge indicator for OBP. Hit 300 and you are on base 300 times out of a thou. That means you move runners along at that rate too.
You can not dismiss batting average as an unimportant statistic.
RBIs are easier to achieve on a good team. Therefore the amount of RBIs is not important? Knock in a hundred and watch your pay check grow.You win by knocking in runs.
An awful player can only get RBIs by moving them across the plate. A good team will give you more opportunities ,but you still have to perform.
I am a skeptic. When a new system comes along I read what it is about and watch . I do not dismiss the old methodology just because a new statistical toy has come along.

[Mullinator]

From reading this:
Average simply overlooks a huge portion of a player's ability to get on base.QUOTE]

How did you get this?
[QUOTE=gonzomax]Batting average is not an indicator of your ability to get on base?

No kidding. The ability to get hits is usually the main driver of your ability to get on base. But, using batting average gives such an incomplete picture, it’s only a matter of time before OBP completely replaces it in the normal baseball fan’s lexicon. Who’s doing a better job of creating offense? A player that, in 680 at bats, gets 200 hits and 30 walks or a player that gets 190 hits and 80 walks? By taking the higher batting average, you’re essentially saying you are OK with taking the player that makes 40 more outs over the course of the season.

You can not dismiss batting average as an unimportant statistic.
I’m really not. I’m giving it the relevance it deserves since there are much better statistics that give a fuller view. It’s nice to know how often a guy tends to get a hit. It’s nicer to know how often a guy ends up on base since doing that avoids bringing a game 1/27th closer to it’s end.

An awful player can only get RBIs by moving them across the plate. A good team will give you more opportunities ,but you still have to perform.
Having more opportunities masks the possibility that a player is really sucky at those opportunities. He just might rack up good counting stats based on opportunity. Who’s the better player. A guy with 100 RBI who came up with 300 runners on base or the guy with 70 RBI who came up with 140 runners on base?

[Yookeroo]

No kidding. The ability to get hits is usually the main driver of your ability to get on base. But, using batting average gives such an incomplete picture, it’s only a matter of time before OBP completely replaces it in the normal baseball fan’s lexicon.
I don't know why it hasn't yet. Why would anyone use batting average when OBP is just as available? That's like being offered a Gamecube & Wii at the same price and picking the Gamecube. Same with HRs vs. SLG.

I wonder if gonzomax would prefer a singles percentage over BA since singles are a huge part of BA.

[gonzomax]

Babe Ruth lifetime batting average 342
Bonds 298
Ted Williams 344
Willie Mays 302 I want them both.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Isn't the horse dead yet?

[gonzomax]

Its spring.; Baseball season is just starting.

[John DiFool]

The points are frozen, the beast is dead.

[astorian]

Batting average is not an indicator of your ability to get on base? Wrong.,It is a huge indicator for OBP. Hit 300 and you are on base 300 times out of a thou. That means you move runners along at that rate too.
You can not dismiss batting average as an unimportant statistic.
RBIs are easier to achieve on a good team. Therefore the amount of RBIs is not important? Knock in a hundred and watch your pay check grow.You win by knocking in runs.
An awful player can only get RBIs by moving them across the plate. A good team will give you more opportunities ,but you still have to perform.
I am a skeptic. When a new system comes along I read what it is about and watch . I do not dismiss the old methodology just because a new statistical toy has come along.


On Base Percentage if NOT really a new stat.

Heck, when you were a kid playing little league baseball, didn't your coach yell constantly "A walk's as good as a hit, a walk's as good as a hit"? Even your little league coach knew that! How is it that most fans and sportswriters forget it?

Okay, that's not ALWAYS true. In the bottom on the ninth, with two outs, a man on 3rd and your team down by one run, a walk ISN'T as good as a hit. But for a leadoff man, it's every bit as good.

A speedy guy who bats .300 but almost never walks is frequently made the leadoff hitter. But you know what? A guy who bats .270 but works the count and gets a lot of walks may be a much BETTER choice as your leadoff hitter.

I agree that SOME of the "newfangled" stats used by sabremetricians are too complicated and don't really prove what they're supposed to. But the value of walks and the superiority of OBP to batting average is pretty simple, and ought to be obvious even to casual fans.

[RickJay]

To really illustrate the point:

Two Hall of Fame third basemen, George Brett and Mike Schmidt.

George Brett batted .305. Mike Schmidt batted .267.

Which one was better at getting on base?

[Yookeroo]

To really illustrate the point:

Two Hall of Fame third basemen, George Brett and Mike Schmidt.

George Brett batted .305. Mike Schmidt batted .267.

Which one was better at getting on base?

I prefer to phrase it as who was better at not making outs? Nothing is more important offensively.