2008 Baseball HOF

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

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

Artificial turf shortstop. he could play deep and count on bounces.

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.

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.

Sean Forman, who I believe relies heavily on the database created by the database created by Sean Lahman with a few minor differences.

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.

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 :wink: )

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

It’s not the Hall of Slugging.