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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 [del]homer[/del] Yankee Announcer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:[ul]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)[/ul]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).
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.
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.
