True. But I wanted to bring that point up since everyone seemed to be focusing on FPC when measuring relative defense in the thread. That’s all. Yours just happened to be the last post I saw on the subject.
So, do you think that Ozzie should be in the hall?
Maz was apparently, by far, the best defensive second baseman of his era (Ozzie Smith good from what I hear) and he was also one of the top offensive second baseman in the league, too.
And statistics relative to position are what you should be measured on!
Actually some people do say he was a bad hitter. I referenced Jonathan Chance for a reason. He said Maz was below average.
I posted the (admittedly incomplete) stats to disprove that. Furthermore, I think he was a good hitter for his position. Look again at the chart. He is almost 30 points better in BA than the average, he is about 25 points better in OBP, and he is 55 points better at Slugging. That means he is about 80 points better in OPS. He is the league’s leading homerun hitter among 2B, with almost three times as many HR as average. Those are significant improvements. The best argument made is that those numbers aren’t big compared to league averages for all positions. I think that is unfair. An HOF player should be dominant at his position, not necessarily dominant compared to the league. If that kind of thinking prevailed, a successful team would play eight (heavy-hitting) outfielders and a pitcher. No one does, because the positions are different. Different positions mean different standards. Maz was a dominant 2B in his era, more defensively than offensively, but still pretty dominant at the plate.
Actually some people do say he was a bad hitter. I referenced Jonathan Chance for a reason. He said Maz was below average.
I posted the (admittedly incomplete) stats to disprove that. Furthermore, I think he was a good hitter for his position. Look again at the chart. He is almost 30 points better in BA than the average, he is about 25 points better in OBP, and he is 55 points better at Slugging. That means he is about 80 points better in OPS. He is the league’s leading homerun hitter among 2B, with almost three times as many HR as average. Those are significant improvements. The best argument made is that those numbers aren’t big compared to league averages for all positions. I think that is unfair. An HOF player should be dominant at his position, not necessarily dominant compared to the league. If that kind of thinking prevailed, a successful team would play eight (heavy-hitting) outfielders and a pitcher. No one does, because the positions are different. Different positions mean different standards. Maz was a dominant 2B in his era, more defensively than offensively, but still pretty dominant at the plate.
Well, you certainly can’t consider bringing just one year in and make a HoF case from it. By that standard Kevin Mitchell would be in for 1989 and Darin Erstad would be in for 2000. I think we can all agree that’s invalid.
By choosing only 1960 you’re skewing the data in your arguments favor. Suppose I selected…1963. Suddenly he’s scraping for time again.
I don’t have my copy of Win Shares available yet (it’s still in boxes) but I’d be interested in seeing what sort of WS he put up over his career.
I don’t know, probably not. He was a little bit better hitter than Mazeroski, though. Anyway, I agree with your premise- if Ozzie’s in, Maz should probably be, too. I also agree that you should be judged in relation to others at your position, to some extent. You still have to take into account the possibility that the other NL second basemen weren’t Hall of Famers either. Historically speaking, Mazeroski was a very forgettable hitter, whether he was a pretty good option at second base in 1960 or a very good option at second base in 1960. I can certainly see the case for Mazeroski defensively, don’t get me wrong, but I’m not sure that a very forgettable hitter deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.
That’s because he was below average. He never had an OPS+ over 100. His career BA, SLG, and OBP are below the league averages for that time period. Jonathan Chance was referring to the league average for all players, not by position. He was a better than average batting 2nd baseman, and a worse than average batter disregarding position.
Sure, pick 1963, Jonathan Chance. Maz led the league in double plays that year.
He was in a streak then, running from 1960 to 1967, where he led the league in double plays.
Maybe you all don’t remember how much an injustice it was seen that Mazaroski wasn’t in the hall. It was seen as a slight against great fielders. George Will campaigned hard for his induction. Brooks Robinson called himself Mazeroski’s biggest fan.
And now you want to kick him out? Good thing ya can’t
Right, but double plays, like RBI are context dependent and therefore limited in their usefullness as an evaluational tool. That’s why I prefer Range and FPct (as limited as those two are)(defensive metrics still have some serious distance to come).
And with all respect to Brooks…he’s everyone’s best friend. One of the true saints in the world. Take his positive comments about someone with that in mind.
All of Mazeroski’s batting stats were racked up in an era dominated by great pitching, and he worked all of his home games in a field that was huge.
The Veterans Committee took all of this into account, I’m sure.
Was he a balanced player? Not as much as some, no. But keeping runs off the scoreboard helps your team win too. Any team in the majors would have been glad to have Mazeroski.
The election of Bill Mazeroski didn’t outrage me (actually, NOBODY in the Hall outrages me… it just doesn’t seem that important to me, really. Twenty years ago, I’d have been ready to fight over this, but I have a hard time taking the issue that seriously any more), but I still find him undeserving.
Look at Frank White’s numbers. They’re quite comparable to Mazeroski’s in most categhories, and a little BETTER in the rest. Does anybody think Frank White is a Hall of Famer?
Mr. Moto, care to explain why Maz is more deserving than Frank White?
You’ll have to forgive me. I’m not as comfortable with some of the fielding statistics as others are.
I’m looking up articles on Frank White, and they all describe him as a competent fielder. Mazeroski, by contrast, was considered the finest fielding second baseman of his era.
Some baseball writers go further and call him the finest fielding second baseman of all time.
I think that cinched the deal for the Veterans Committee.
