Most Overrated Pre-War Player is...

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think it's the position, not when they played, at least in part. Right or wrong, a great fielding shortstop is valued much more highly than a great fielding second baseman.

[FrankWakefield]

I saw Mr. Mazeroski play, in person and on tv. Same for Ozzie. There is no reasonable comparison. Maz was a good, steady fielder. Oz was outstanding, exceptional... after watching him play a game I frequently felt that he was good for one run after he'd gotten a hit or walked, then scored; AND that he'd probably taken a hit or two away from the opposition, and frequently a run. I don't discount the recency / primacy idea.... but to throw the Mazersoki comparison in there is an injustice to Ozzie.

[Kenny Cole]

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.

[Shoeless Moe]

Traynor - what kind of third basemen averages 3 HRs a year over 14 years. He'd never make it in todays game. He'd be lucky to make Team Korea.

Just givin' you a hard time Rheatt

[nolemmings]

I'll admit to having only seen Mazerozki play a time or three. Still, you'd think the writers of the time, the guys that vote for the HOF, saw him regularly. His first five years on the ballot he did not even garner 10%. His first year on the ballot, when presumably memories were fresh, he finished 23rd, behind Roy Face, Don Larsen, Lew Burdette, Al Dark and Ted Klu. He only finished with half the necessary votes once. While the baseball writers were far from perfect, it's hard to believe that they'd be that far off on a guy for enshrinement.

[Kenny Cole]

Todd,

I'm not necessarily advocating Maz for the HOF. I don't know whether he belongs or not. I suppose the answer to that question depends in large part upon how you view the value of defense in baseball. In that regard, it seems rather clear to me that, at least historically, the HOF voters didn't put much of a premium on defense. They were much more moved by the big hitters. Kiner was a terrible defensive outfielder and my 9 year old probably has a better arm than Kiner ever did. Kiner was, to be kind, a defensive liabilty. He also had a short career. However, he got in because of the monster numbers he put up during tha short career. I don't have a big problem with that.

However, Kiner is proof that gaudy offensive numbers are what get a position player into the Hall. Great defense has never been the stepping stone to immortality. IMO, that's a large part of the reason why Maz got no love from the BBWAA. The things he was really good at weren't the things they cared about. That's the whole point about the Ozzie/Maz comparison. For some reason, its different for Ozzie. Why is that?

If you look at Ozzie's offensive numbers, he hit .262, had an OBP of .337, averaged 2 HR a year, and drove in 50 rbis a year. He stole a lot of bases in an era when lots of people stole a lot of bases. Although he scored a fair number of runs, he is comfortably outside of the top 100 in that category. Maz' had more pop, drove in more runs per year, scored a lot fewer runs, had a .299 OBP, and didn't steal bases in an era when no one besides Maury Wills stole bases. I don't think either one of them has a reasonable case for the Hall if you look only at their offensive performances.

The thing that put Ozzie over the top was, obviously, his defense. It was sterling, remarkable, awesome, whatever adjective you want to use. The Cardinals were on TV alot so his wonderful defense was often on display and often seen by a lot of people. That wasn't ever true for Maz. In fact, I sort of wonder if Ozzie would have been a first ballot HOFer had he stayed a Padre and lost all that face time on TV.

Defense got Ozzie in. However, at least if you believe what the numbers say, Maz was in Ozzie's class as a defender. No one ever seems to consider that when they talk about how bad a choice for the Hall Maz is. Why is Ozzie a first ballot HOFer based on his defense while Maz, who was equally adept, should have to pay to get in? Since it was great defense that got both of them in, I frankly don't understand why they are treated so disparately.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Bill James rates Mazeroski as the 29th best 2nd baseman of all time. He rates Ozzie as the 7th best shortstop.