Informal Hall of Fame Opinion Poll

[Peter_Spaeth]

About 1/3 of the current members out, Joe Jackson and Pete Rose in.

[BradH]

"Ozzie-one dimensional- great fielder who couldn't hit even on the astro-concrete field in St Louis"

Ummm...I'm certainly not a Cardinals fan or an Ozzie fan, but calling Ozzie Smith one dimensional is just mis-informed...Nearly 2,500 hits and almost 600 stolen bases, PLUS 13 (?) Gold Gloves.

If we're taking guys who were one dimensional, don't you have to start the conversation with someone like Ray Schalk (.253 hitter with fewer than 250 extra-base hits in 18 seasons)?

Originally Posted by BradH

"Ozzie-one dimensional- great fielder who couldn't hit even on the astro-concrete field in St Louis"

Ummm...I'm certainly not a Cardinals fan or an Ozzie fan, but calling Ozzie Smith one dimensional is just mis-informed...Nearly 2,500 hits and almost 600 stolen bases, PLUS 13 (?) Gold Gloves.

If we're taking guys who were one dimensional, don't you have to start the conversation with someone like Ray Schalk (.253 hitter with fewer than 250 extra-base hits in 18 seasons)?

You beat me to it. My thoughts exactly.

[munsonman]

Originally Posted by BradH

"Ozzie-one dimensional- great fielder who couldn't hit even on the astro-concrete field in St Louis"

Ummm...I'm certainly not a Cardinals fan or an Ozzie fan, but calling Ozzie Smith one dimensional is just mis-informed...Nearly 2,500 hits and almost 600 stolen bases, PLUS 13 (?) Gold Gloves.

If we're taking guys who were one dimensional, don't you have to start the conversation with someone like Ray Schalk (.253 hitter with fewer than 250 extra-base hits in 18 seasons)?

i knew the ozzie smith apologists would jump on this. (i know you state that you are not an ozzie fan) my point was that he is only known for his defense-hence one dimensional. a statement agreed with by your INCLUSION of the gold glove awards in your statement. 2500 hits or thereabouts has been accomplished by plenty of major leaguers who are deemed UNWORTHY of the HOF. If that is a milestone then Garvey, Oliver, Baines, etc should be in the HOF. Personally, i have no regard for the stolen base as a stat but that is just me. I just see Ozzie as the most overrated position player of all time. he only garnered admirers through his ability to make those stupid back flips on This Week In Baseball in every 80's episode and the media lapdogs eating it up and shoving it down our throats. this is seen in his unbelievable induction on the first ballot. the voting on the first ballot should be reserved for immortals like cobb. ruth, mantle, ted williams etc. it is not for players like Ozzie Smith. i still contend that both Trammell and Larkin deserve HOF induction and Smith should be OUT.

[Jewish-collector]

The Baseball HOF is a joke. It's supposed to be for the very best of the best. I'd probably would take more than 1/3 out.

[SteveMitchell]

The Baseball HOF is a joke. It's supposed to be for the very best of the best. I'd probably add at least 1/3 more (all players). Then I would remove most of the executives and umps and add another 1/6. Then we might have 1-2% of all who played major league ball representing the very best of the best.

[packs]

There are some people saying Bill Maz and Rabbit Maranville should be out and then other people not understanding how Ozzie could ever be out. Ozzie was a 262 career hitter. But, he was an incredible short stop. If it weren't for his fielding he wouldn't be in. I don't have a problem with that, but I don't think calling him a one dimensional player is blown out of proportion. Omar Vizquel is most likely retiring after this season. In my opinion Vizquel is an elite player and it isn't just due to his defense. However, I'm not sure he's a lock to get in on the first ballot whereas Smith for some reason was.

[terjung]

Originally Posted by packs

Omar Vizquel is most likely retiring after this season. In my opinion Vizquel is an elite player and it isn't just due to his defense. However, I'm not sure he's a lock to get in on the first ballot whereas Smith for some reason was.

I watched Omar a ton when he was in Cleveland. Fantastic short-stop who made amazing plays. In short, I am a fan of his, but I don't think he is a HOFer... let alone a first ballot HOFer.

[obcbobd]

Originally Posted by munsonman

i knew the ozzie smith apologists would jump on this

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.

Originally Posted by munsonman

i knew the ozzie smith apologists would jump on this
he is only known for his defense-hence one dimensional

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.

Originally Posted by munsonman

he only garnered admirers through his ability to make those stupid back flips on This Week In Baseball in every 80's episode and the media lapdogs eating it up and shoving it down our throats.

You can't really believe that, can you?

To the original question, I'd remove Comiskey (Yawkey a close second) and add Blyleven.

[paul]

Whenever people say that Mazeroski should be one of the first to go, I always respond by saying that I guess Ozzie Smith should go too. Usually, that makes people think twice about kicking out Mazeroski. But now people want to kick Ozzie out too. So, I guess all I can say is that Brooks Robinson must be next.

[byrone]

Anybody who thinks Gary Carter doesn't belong in the HOF must have missed his decade in Montreal.

[munsonman]

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.

[obcbobd]

Originally Posted by munsonman

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

Agreed. He does not deserve HOF based on his hitting.

Originally Posted by munsonman

While Smith did post a .978 fielding average for his career, i still do not see how feilding % can overcome his offensive "accomplishments".

Defensive metrics lag behind offensive for comparison of players, but to judge a shortstop solely by fielding percentage, which totally ignores range, is not very useful.

Originally Posted by munsonman

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.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree. Although I agree with you that offensive numbers (Ruth, Williamss etc) bring more to the table. To say that the greatest defender at the most important fielding position, does not merit the HOF totally dumbfounds me.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by obcbobd

Defensive metrics lag behind offensive for comparison of players, but to judge a shortstop solely by fielding percentage, which totally ignores range, is not very useful.

Jeez, I was waiting for somebody to finally mention this. Cal Ripken has a .979 Fielding % at Shortstop. I've yet to find anybody who rates Ripken ahead of Ozzie defensively.

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by munsonman

Personally, i have no regard for the stolen base as a stat but that is just me.

Really? This probably says a lot for why you don't think Ozzie should be in.

You don't see the value in turning 600 singles into doubles? For putting yourself into scoring position 600 extra times when you play for a relatively light-hitting team?

Yes, I acknowledge that a proper assessment of stolen bases ought to consider caught stealing...the rally-killing effect may, in some cases, outweigh the positive effects of the steal. Of course, it is impossible to measure some of the other positive effects of speed, like distracting opposing pitchers and forcing fielding errors by opponents.

But if you have no regard for the stolen base, that gives me a pretty good indication of why you don't appreciate Ozzie as a player.

(And BTW, I am not a Cards fan either...nor an Ozzie fan.)

Cheers,
Blair

[packs]

There is a lot of talk about defense and how it relates to the HOF. Vizquel has the best fielding percentage of all time. Statistically, he is the best short stop to ever play the game and was still active when Ozzie retired. And remains active today. He leads or is in the top 5 All Time for most defensive catagories. I don't know why people never bring his name up as the greatest ever. He has better offensive career numbers than Smith, Mazeroski, Maranville and Pee Wee Reese.

[tbob]

Rube Marquard out, Bert Blyleven in.

[bigtrain]

Originally Posted by packs

There is a lot of talk about defense and how it relates to the HOF. Vizquel has the best fielding percentage of all time. Statistically, he is the best short stop to ever play the game and was still active when Ozzie retired. And remains active today. He leads or is in the top 5 All Time for most defensive catagories. I don't know why people never bring his name up as the greatest ever. He has better offensive career numbers than Smith, Mazeroski, Maranville and Pee Wee Reese.

One reason his name is not brought up as greatest ever: Honus Wagner. But, no question, defensively Vizquel was as good as anybody who played the position.

[Theoldprofessor]

Originally Posted by packs
There is a lot of talk about defense and how it relates to the HOF. Vizquel has the best fielding percentage of all time. Statistically, he is the best short stop to ever play the game and was still active when Ozzie retired. And remains active today. He leads or is in the top 5 All Time for most defensive catagories. I don't know why people never bring his name up as the greatest ever. He has better offensive career numbers than Smith, Mazeroski, Maranville and Pee Wee Reese.

The players listed here -- Omar Vizquel, Ozzie Smith, Rabbit Maranville and Pee Wee Reese, all played the vast majority of their careers at short. After all, that's what at issue here.

But fellas, Maz played second. Maybe some of the reason he gets no love in the forum is because fewer people know this than should.

By the way, is a ptcher primarily an offensive or a defensive player?

[howard38]

"i have no regard for the stolen base as a stat"

I agree with this to an extent. I feel that some players get too much credit for piling up stolen bases without considering the negative effects of their many times caught stealing. Ty Cobb and Eddie Collins come to mind and more recently Brett Butler. Ozzie was different though as he had a success rate around 80% which certainly has a positive effect on an offense.

[GaryPassamonte]

I don't know who I would remove, but I, like Rhett, agree that baseball's pioneers have been neglected for too long. Many early stars started their playing careers before professional leagues were started and are still held to the 10 year rule. Also, in the early professional game, the number of games played was much fewer than today, yet the statistics are compared to the numbers of today. I could go on and on. If the HOF can induct deserving Negro Leaguers in one sweep, it would seem similar provisions could be made for baseball's pioneers. This would require forming a committee comprised of those knowlegeable in the 19th century game, similar to the committee formed to choose the Negro Leaguers inducted. There was a HOF "pioneer commitee" in 1936 that never came close to doing what it was intended to do. If not now,when?

[3-2-count]

Kirby Puckett out....
Mark Mcgwire in......

[dstraate]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

About 1/3 of the current members out, Joe Jackson and Pete Rose in.

Couldn't possibly agree more.

[skybar]

Eppa Rixey OUT, Pete Browning IN.