Another example of the Hall of Fame getting watered down

[OleMissCub]

Is Smith's defense THAT much better than the assortment of role players above?

 

Yes.

 

Smith was the greatest defensive player this game has ever known

[treebird]

Jim Edmonds is better than Andre Dawson.

 

Sorry.

 

The only thing Edmonds has over Andre is that he wears eye makeup. My Jimmy, you look so cute.

 

Andre was an MVP of the NL. Edmonds hasn't been close.

Andre has far more HR, RBI, etc.. than Edmonds.

Andre had more speed and used it for more SB.

Andre was a feared OF who would throw you out with his great arm.

Andre was selected for 8 All-Star Games, Edmonds a mere 4.

Andre's teammates NEVER accused him of showboating flyballs or being a cancer in the clubhouse. Edmonds wore both lables quite well. Little wonder the Angels won the WS after Edmonds was dealt.

 

I don't know if Andre deserves the Hall of Fame, but Edmonds is clearly not the premier CF in the NL..let alone HOF material.

 

Not sorry.

 

-Andre's MVP year was for a last place team, and while his season was good, it wasn't MVP worthy. He only got it because of RBI. Stastically, Edmonds' 2004 was a hell of a lot better than Dawson's MVP season.

-Edmonds has a far better career OBP, AVG, SLG, and obviously OPS. Please further elaborate your "etc." you used in that post.

-Uh oh! More stolen bases! Who cares?

-Edmonds has a great arm too. His arm is "feared" too.

-And up until now, Abreu's been in 2 all star games. I'm not impressed by number of All Star appearances.

-I guess you were in the clubhouse for all of Dawson's teams then. Talk about your meaningless points, Jesus.

-The Marlins won the World Series the year after Dawson retired. Coincidence? Yes. Just like it's a coincidence the Angels won after Edmonds left.

 

Sorry.

 

you have yet to rebuke the eyeliner accusations LOLOL I HEARD HE FANCIES MEN lolololol

[treebird]

Is Smith's defense THAT much better than the assortment of role players above?

 

Yes.

 

Smith was the greatest defensive player this game has ever known

 

i think it's pretty hard to say that with any certainty

[Nobody youd want to know]

Let's be careful with the Ozzie Smith knocks--you can use the same arguments against Sandberg. Sure, he was a much better hitter relative to the league than Smith, but he wasn't by any stretch as good a defensive player vs. his contemporaries.

 

Phil Rogers did a column a few days ago that subtly questioned Ryno's qualifications. In fact, among non-HoF 2Bmen, Sandberg's adjusted OPS (career: +114) isn't as impressive as my memory led me to believe:

 

As productive a hitter as Sandberg was for the Cubs, helping his teams win division titles in 1984 and '89, he barely makes the list of the 10 best offensive second basemen—and falls further when you include players not yet in the Hall.

 

That list includes:

 

Cupid Chiles +126 Larry Doyle +117

 

Bobby Grich + 125 Roberto Alomar +116

 

Kent* +125 Craig Biggio* +116

 

Joe Gordon +120

 

Now, granted, Ryno wasn't much of a walker, and comparisons using slugging pct. only would probably place him higher. But the point is, defense, baserunning and all-around baseball smarts played a big role in Ryno's induction; why shouldn't it also for Ozzie?

[Tim]

Is Smith's defense THAT much better than the assortment of role players above?

 

Yes.

 

Smith was the greatest defensive player this game has ever known

I've seen quite a few arguments that Honus Wagner was a better defensive shortstop than Ozzie.

 

I also feel pretty safe in saying that throughout the long years of baseball history, there was probably at least one other shortstop who played defense even better than Ozzie, but couldn't hit well enough to hold down a job as a major league regular. Saying that Ozzie was the greatest defensive shortstop ever is a rather unprovable and, imo, unlikely assertion. Saying that due to his outstanding talent and longevity that he accrued more defensive value than any other player might be true, however.

 

But I don't think the difference between his defensive value and, as someone else pointed out, Omar Vizquel's is enough to justify Smith as a HOF player over Omar, though. Or Pokey Reese, who is one heck of a defender out there.

[danonwaveland]

I had argued that Frank Thomas is not a HOFer because he is not a total ball player -- no defense. Then someone pointed out that the one-dimensional Ozzie Smith is in the HOF and that shot my argument down. The problem is that, while Frank is a designated hitter and, in that role, does all that is asked of him, there ain't no designated shortstop -- they're asked to provide offense, as well -- and Smith didn't.

 

Best regards,

DanOnWaveland

[XZero771679666304]

Like Tim said, I think Smith's longevity is the key to his legacy. I know I have seen some SS play better defense than Ozzie, but not for a protracted period of time. One example I would use is Rey Ordonez, who for one or two seasons with the Mets, played as good a defensive SS as I have ever seen. Rey couldn't sustain that, his defense declined, and he faded into oblivion.

 

Ozzie played upper top tier defense for the vast majority of his career, which was fairly long. The last couple of years however, he was just above average. Which brings me to Omar Vizquel, who is a mirror of Smith, IMO. The only difference is the Omar was just a bit better with the bat. If Ozzie is a HOF'er, so is Vizquel.

[treebird]

Like Tim said, I think Smith's longevity is the key to his legacy. I know I have seen some SS play better defense than Ozzie, but not for a protracted period of time. One example I would use is Rey Ordonez, who for one or two seasons with the Mets, played as good a defensive SS as I have ever seen. Rey couldn't sustain that, his defense declined, and he faded into oblivion.

 

Ozzie played upper top tier defense for the vast majority of his career, which was fairly long. The last couple of years however, he was just above average. Which brings me to Omar Vizquel, who is a mirror of Smith, IMO. The only difference is the Omar was just a bit better with the bat. If Ozzie is a HOF'er, so is Vizquel.

 

plus ozzie did backflips

[XZero771679666304]

Like Tim said, I think Smith's longevity is the key to his legacy. I know I have seen some SS play better defense than Ozzie, but not for a protracted period of time. One example I would use is Rey Ordonez, who for one or two seasons with the Mets, played as good a defensive SS as I have ever seen. Rey couldn't sustain that, his defense declined, and he faded into oblivion.

 

Ozzie played upper top tier defense for the vast majority of his career, which was fairly long. The last couple of years however, he was just above average. Which brings me to Omar Vizquel, who is a mirror of Smith, IMO. The only difference is the Omar was just a bit better with the bat. If Ozzie is a HOF'er, so is Vizquel.

 

plus ozzie did backflips

 

Thos backflips just put him over the top. Maybe Omar has to do a few to get inducted.

[CoolHandLuke]

Can anyone find any defensive metrics that estimate how many runs ozzies defense saved over his career?

[UK1679666180]

Ozzie saved 236 runs over an avg. SS and 753 runs over a replacement level SS during his career.

[XZero771679666304]

Ozzie saved 236 runs over an avg. SS and 753 runs over a replacement level SS during his career.

 

And how many did he cost with his bat?

[UK1679666180]

He created 29 more runs than an avg. player would have during his career and created 364 more runs than a replacement level would have.

[XZero771679666304]

He created 29 more runs than an avg. player would have during his career and created 364 more runs than a replacement level would have.

 

Really? I could have sworn someone else on this board quoted a substantial loss in runs for Ozzie.

 

Not that I disagree, but that's what I remember hearing.

 

BTW, what calculations do you use to come up with these numbers?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

He created 29 more runs than an avg. player would have during his career and created 364 more runs than a replacement level would have.

 

Really? I could have sworn someone else on this board quoted a substantial loss in runs for Ozzie.

 

Not that I disagree, but that's what I remember hearing.

 

BTW, what calculations do you use to come up with these numbers?

 

His career OPS+ is 82, I'm pretty sure an average OPS+ is around 100.

[erik316wttn]

I agree but Ozzie Smith is in so the door is now wide open.

 

Ozzie is in because he is the best defensive shortstop ever.

 

Defense is only part of the game, though, and a smaller part than offense.

 

Ozzie was an average to below average hitter for most of his career. The ONLY reason he's in is because of his glove.

[CoolHandLuke]

He created 29 more runs than an avg. player would have during his career and created 364 more runs than a replacement level would have.

 

Really? I could have sworn someone else on this board quoted a substantial loss in runs for Ozzie.

 

Not that I disagree, but that's what I remember hearing.

 

BTW, what calculations do you use to come up with these numbers?

 

His career OPS+ is 82, I'm pretty sure an average OPS+ is around 100.

 

It sounds like overall he was below average, but compared to other shortstops in the the league he was slightly above average.

[UK1679666180]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/smithoz01.shtml

 

Batting Runs Above Avg./Batting Runs Above Replacement

[erik316wttn]

Is Smith's defense THAT much better than the assortment of role players above?

 

Yes.

 

Smith was the greatest defensive player this game has ever known

 

But was his defense good enough to make a Devi Cruz-esque hitter a HOF'er?

 

Big whoop.

 

Am I taking anything away from his D? No. He was awesome. But he's only getting in on a small part of his game.

 

All things considered, if a guy is a phenomenal hitter and a lousy fielder over the course of his career, he should be HOF bound (like Manny Ramirez). But if he's a phenominal fielder and a lousy hitter (or average hitter), he shouldn't be in. Period. End of story.

[GaryWoods]

Jim Edmonds is better than Andre Dawson.

 

Sorry.

 

The only thing Edmonds has over Andre is that he wears eye makeup. My Jimmy, you look so cute.

 

Dawson wore it, too, as did pretty much everybody who played in the 1970s and '80s.

 

So I guess Edmonds doesn't have anything over Dawson. :wink:

[vaball]

If Ozzie had been a Cub there is no way anyone on this board would say he doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

 

Are Sandberg's numbers really Hall worthy? I think if he was voted in then he deserves to be there. But if people are criticizing Ozzie for not having enough offense they should be saying the same thing about Sandberg.

[treebird]

If Ozzie had been a Cub there is no way anyone on this board would say he doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

 

i dont know how you can say that with any certainty

 

i dont think dawson should be in the hall, and i couldve sworn he was a cub

[vaball]

If Ozzie had been a Cub there is no way anyone on this board would say he doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

 

i dont know how you can say that with any certainty

 

i dont think dawson should be in the hall, and i couldve sworn he was a cub

 

Well you can apply most of their arguments against Ozzie's worthiness to Sandberg and see that they fit him pretty well too. Yet they don't seem to have a problem with him in the Hall.

[rocket]

If Ozzie had been a Cub there is no way anyone on this board would say he doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

 

i dont know how you can say that with any certainty

 

i dont think dawson should be in the hall, and i couldve sworn he was a cub

 

Well you can apply most of their arguments against Ozzie's worthiness to Sandberg and see that they fit him pretty well too. Yet they don't seem to have a problem with him in the Hall.

 

Except Ozzie never put up offensive numbers like Ryno did.

[XZero771679666304]

If Ozzie had been a Cub there is no way anyone on this board would say he doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

 

i dont know how you can say that with any certainty

 

i dont think dawson should be in the hall, and i couldve sworn he was a cub

 

Well you can apply most of their arguments against Ozzie's worthiness to Sandberg and see that they fit him pretty well too. Yet they don't seem to have a problem with him in the Hall.

 

Yeah, but Sandberg was 10 times the hitter Ozzie was, but Ozzie was not 10 times the fielder Sandberg was. As an all around player, Ozzie was a quite a few rungs down from Sandberg. Ryno was the best offensive and defensive 2B for nearly a decade. Ozzie was the best defensive SS for similar period, but he was a offensive non-entity, really. Even so, Ryno is a marginal HOF'er, barely good enough to get in, IMO.