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.
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.
So, based on what you’ve posted, to get into (or be considered close) to the HOF, the following criteria need to be met:
- Make pitchers more successful (Post 17)
- Win games (Post 17)
- Don’t be an artificial turf shortstop (Post 44)
- Partner with a 2nd baseman for a long time (Post 48)
- Turn marvelous double plays (Post 48)
- Assist pitchers greatly (Post 48)
- Don’t be a good field, no hit shortstop (Post 51)
- Don’t make offensive contributions outside of the classical 3 stats (Post 58)
- Don’t worry about defense (Post 61)
- be good at things that aren’t measured by cooked up statistics (Post 61)
- Be capable of holding a job by today’s standards (Post 64)
- Do something in a World Series to get in the discussion (Post 75)
- Don’t be a fielder (Post 77)
- Don’t be a one trick pony (Post 82)
- Meet gonzomax’s standards (Post 85)
- Some random point? (Post 93)
- Don’t do backflips to make yourself a fan favorite (Post 96)
- Do something that doesn’t need new-fangled stats (Post 96)
- Don’t use better methods of evaluation (Post 100)
- Be powerful on powerful teams with lots of runners on base ahead of you (Post 100)
- Again, excel at Avg/HR/RBI. (Post 104)
- Don’t be a shortstop (Post 104)
- Be better than better than average (Post 107)
- If you are an announcer’s pet, a sportswriter’s pet, or a Yankee, you better be a really, really good player (Post 113)
- Meet gonzomax’s level again (Post 115)
- Hit 600 homers (Post 118)
- Get 300 hits (Post 118)
- Bat .300 (Post 118)
- If not, don’t bring your silly fielding up to me! (Post 118)
- Don’t play an historically weaker hitting position defined by other aspects of the game outside of Avg/HR/RBI (Post 123)
- Don’t be an owner, announcer, sportswriter, or commissioner. None of them ever had an RBI or HR (Post 123)
- Be named Barry Bonds (Post 127)
- It’s OK if you accumulate a huge amount of at bats (post 129)
- Don’t use stats gonzomax deems flawed and inexact (Post 130)
- Be good at things that stat geeks can’t tout (Post 130)
- Even if defensive worth could be measured perfectly, it doesn’t really matter (Post 130)
- Don’t be named Dave Winfield (Post 135)
- Play a lot of games in a row (Post 135)
- Don’t revisit history (Post 139)
- No educated guessing (Post 139)
- 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.
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.
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.
RIPKEN. For God’s sake, thye man’s name was in the paper or on the Sportscenter ticker every day for twenty years.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
Dude, say hi to Dulcinea for me, will you?
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.
Not fielders like Ozzie.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Some members of a sports-related forum are doing just that. They’re up to 1949 so far.