Quote:
Originally Posted by obcbobd
I'm a life long Red Sox fan. Never a big Cardinals of the 80's fan, but am dumbfounded that any knowledgeable fan could say Ozzie should not be in the HOF.
Does the fact that he is pretty much regarded as the greatest fielder at his position not mean anything to you? While I agree with the premise that I'd rather a one dimensional offensive player (i.e. Ted Williams). I just can't see how the greatest fielder (or at least one of the greatest) at the most important fielding position (outside of P/C) would not merit the HOF. Do you belive that one dimensional hitters, such as Ted Williams, should not be in the HOF? If so, I'll at least give you points for consistency.
You can't really believe that, can you?
To the original question, I'd remove Comiskey (Yawkey a close second) and add Blyleven.
|
i'll just post these anemic Ozzie Smith offensive stats and see if any body here will go out on a limb and say that this player's stats deserves HOF inclusion:
regular season
hits 2460
highest hit total in a year 182
career average .262
years over .300 batting average-1 (.303)
HR 28
RBI 793
never led league in ANY significant offensive category
post season
average .236
HR 1
RBI 10
AB's 144
While Smith did post a .978 fielding average for his career, i still do not see how feilding % can overcome his offensive "accomplishments". If i said in a post that these stats are first ballot HOF worthy I'd be laughed out of the building.
In answer to your question-yes i am saying that Smith being the "greatest" defender at his position should not overcome his pedestrian at best offensive stats for inclusion into the HOF. At least to me, offensive numbers mean much more to the overall perception of a player than any defensive accomplishments as well as his value to his team. More to the point, Smith's career fielding percentage of .978 isn't so far above Dave Concepcion's .971 career mark. Concepcion was a better hitter for average .267, power 101 HR, and RBI's 950. Trammell's career fielding % is .977 Larkin's is .975 and i will not even dignify a comparison of offensive #'s of these two players versus Smith. So maybe Smith's defensive accomplishments weren't so great after all. The percentages don't lie. Gold Glove Awards are a popularity contest (see Rapael Palmiero) Moreover, i do believe that the constant media fawning over "the wizard of oz" and his stupid gimmick i.e. the back flips did and still do skew fans perceptions as to Smith's greatness and worthiness for the HOF. How exactly is he better or more worthy than Trammell, Larkin, or even Concepcion when looking at the numbers? The question originally asked was who would you remove from the Hall and replace that player with and why. You may agree or disagree with my choice but please don't make it seem as if i am advocating the removal of Ruth for Kevin Maas.