2008 Baseball HOF

[jk1245]

We had a thread on this about a month ago.

And the results are in

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]

Originally Posted by jk1245

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. 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?]

Originally Posted by 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.

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:
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?]

Originally Posted by Marley23

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by EsotericEnigma

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/ne...&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]

Originally Posted by What Exit?

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]

Originally Posted by John DiFool

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.

Originally Posted by John DiFool

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.

Originally Posted by John DiFool

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]

Originally Posted by Southern Yankee

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]

Originally Posted by EsotericEnigma

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]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance

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]

Originally Posted by lieu

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 plug.

Best baseball discussion on the Net, bar none.

[Wee Bairn]

Originally Posted by Marley23

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]

Originally Posted by EsotericEnigma

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?]

Originally Posted by storyteller0910

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]

Originally Posted by EsotericEnigma

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]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

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]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

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]

Originally Posted by RancidYakButterTeaParty

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]

Originally Posted by RancidYakButterTeaParty

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]

Originally Posted by RickJay

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]

Originally Posted by Yookeroo

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?]

Originally Posted by RancidYakButterTeaParty

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]

Originally Posted by What Exit?

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?]

Originally Posted by storyteller0910

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]

Originally Posted by What Exit?

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?]

Originally Posted by RancidYakButterTeaParty

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]

Originally Posted by RickJay

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/ar...-back-to-1956/
Good timing they just did a story on this very subject. He is rated 3rd.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Originally Posted by storyteller0910

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, who I believe relies heavily on the database created by the database created by Sean Lahman 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]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

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?]

Originally Posted by RickJay

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 )