Frank
I understand why you say you don't discount the recency/primacy theory, since you seem to have fallen victim to it.
No less a personage than Bill James has stated that Maz's fielding statistics are probably the best of ANY player at ANY position. His fielding avg beats Ozzie by quite a bit, as does his range factor. Therefore, you can't reasonably argue that Ozzie's numbers are hurt by the fact that he was
trying to make plays on balls that other fielders wouldn't have gotten to. Maz got to those same balls and when he did, he made the play. Double plays? Maz has about 200 more in two less years. To be fair, Ozzie had more assists, but that's about it. There is no question that Ozzie was a great fielder, but Maz has numbers that are at least as good.
Unfortunately, you are right when you say that Maz was a good, steady fielder. He made the hard plays look easy. He wasn't flashy. He didn't to backflips when he ran out to his spot but, of course, backflips don't prevent runs or win games. There is no question that Ozzie has Maz beat when it comes to showmanship. Moreover, Ozzie had the benefit of much more television exposure than Maz did. More people saw his great plays, by an exponential factor, than saw those of Maz.
Maz has been retired for 40 years so memories have faded. People simply don't remember how great a fielder he actually was. However, if you base your evaluations even in part upon the assumption that fielding statistics actually mean something, it is pretty difficult to say with any degree of certainty that Ozzie was a better fielder than Maz was. The statistics simply do not support that assertion.
|