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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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
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).
If someone is creating 100 runs/year, then someone else is creating 95. Not suer what your point is with that.
You didn’t answer the question.
Seriously, should defense count at all? Even if it helps win games? And if not, why not?