Another example of the Hall of Fame getting watered down

[Tim]

1980's shortstops who should merit hall consideration if Ozzie was a 95% first ballot guy (41 career batting runs above averge, 241 fielding runs above average) (career 1978 - 1996):

 

Allan Trammell (247, 102) 1977 - 1996: A direct peer of Ozzie's who is clearly ahead of him in career value

 

Tony Fernandez (132, 120) 1983 -2001: A bit later than Ozzie, but only 30 runs short of him in career value

 

Cal Ripken (366, 132) 1981 - 2001: Most of their careers overlapped and Cal absolutely blows Ozzie away in value. Of course, that's why he's a no-doubt HOF guy next year.

 

 

 

So, after looking around a bit, I'd say that Ozzie was the third best SS in his era. The first is a lock for the hall, the second never even sniffed the required vote and Ozzie came close to, if not receiving, the record vote on the first ballot.

 

Not bad for a guy with only 30 runs more career value than Tony Fernandez.

[rocket]

I'd also like to add that Barry Larkin better get in the HOF since Ozzie is in. (and to be fair, he should also get in since Ryno got in)

[Tim]

I'd also like to add that Barry Larkin better get in the HOF since Ozzie is in. (and to be fair, he should also get in since Ryno got in)

Yeah, I didn't include Larkin since he's not a direct peer, but he's clearly a better player than Ozzie (312, 85).

[Tim]

Also, if Nomar never swings the bat again, he'll be close to eclipsing Ozzie (255, -19).

 

for another perspective, ARod's three best seasons created more value than Ozzie's whole career (1996 - 67, 14; 2000 - 88, 15; 2001 - 88, 5).

[J.R.]

I'd also like to add that Barry Larkin better get in the HOF since Ozzie is in. (and to be fair, he should also get in since Ryno got in)

 

Yes.

 

And Dawson was awesome. You had to be there.

[rocket]

I'd also like to add that Barry Larkin better get in the HOF since Ozzie is in. (and to be fair, he should also get in since Ryno got in)

 

Yes.

 

And Dawson was awesome. You had to be there.

 

I did see him play, though I was a lad at the time. Believe me, at the time I thought he was amazing. Looking at his career stats, he was still very good, but the stats show he wasn't as awesome as I remembered.

 

It's funny, too. When I was a kid, for whatever reason, I thought Shawon Dunston was absolutely awesome. Now when I look at his stats, I realize he was pretty terrible. I'm talking even worse than Neifi levels of bad. But as a kid, I thought he was the best shortstop in the world. If I had the baseball knowledge I have now while watching in those days, I would have hated Dunston a lot.

[cbbryan]

I'd also like to add that Barry Larkin better get in the HOF since Ozzie is in. (and to be fair, he should also get in since Ryno got in)

 

Yes.

 

And Dawson was awesome. You had to be there.

 

I did see him play, though I was a lad at the time. Believe me, at the time I thought he was amazing. Looking at his career stats, he was still very good, but the stats show he wasn't as awesome as I remembered.

 

It's funny, too. When I was a kid, for whatever reason, I thought Shawon Dunston was absolutely awesome. Now when I look at his stats, I realize he was pretty terrible. I'm talking even worse than Neifi levels of bad. But as a kid, I thought he was the best shortstop in the world. If I had the baseball knowledge I have now while watching in those days, I would have hated Dunston a lot.

 

 

http://www.sperts.net/editorials/images/marg_shawnometer.JPG

 

Those were the days!!!!!!

Edited August 2, 2005 by cbbryan

[CuseCubFan69]

Dawson had a lot of problems with his knees and that really kept his numbers down IMO. Granted, being healthy is something that you need to do to put up good HOF numbers and that will hurt the Hawk in the voting. Tony Olivia suffers from the same fate.

[Knightlife_in_Lubbock]

My prediction for the HOF is that after Maddux and Clemens there will be very few "steriod era" players to get in. I think the writers are going to be very tough on all of the current players when it comes their time.

 

Rickey says "Rickey will get in. Did you forget about Rickey?"

[J.R.]

I did see him play, though I was a lad at the time. Believe me, at the time I thought he was amazing. Looking at his career stats, he was still very good, but the stats show he wasn't as awesome as I remembered.

 

Hawk's numbers are what they are, maybe not HoF-worthy, but overall he's plenty amazing in my book. I think his career has to be looked at with his character, fire and pain threshold taken into account.

 

Stuff like the blank check, the time he threw the bat rack at the Reds and the fact he did what he did on 85-year-old knees won't show up on baseball-reference, but it's all part of the reason people liked him so much.

 

It's funny, too. When I was a kid, for whatever reason, I thought Shawon Dunston was absolutely awesome. Now when I look at his stats, I realize he was pretty terrible. I'm talking even worse than Neifi levels of bad. But as a kid, I thought he was the best shortstop in the world. If I had the baseball knowledge I have now while watching in those days, I would have hated Dunston a lot.

 

Shawon was one of Dusty's boys in the end ...

[CubinNY]

The Hawk is in my Hall of Fame. Who knows what kind of a carreer he would have had if he didn't play on the concrete like surface of Olympic Stadium for all those years.

[CoolHandLuke]

The HOF isn't a place for what ifs.

[SouthSideRyan]

The HOF isn't a place for what ifs.

 

Tell it to Sandy Koufax.

[GaryWoods]

My prediction for the HOF is that after Maddux and Clemens there will be very few "steriod era" players to get in. I think the writers are going to be very tough on all of the current players when it comes their time.

 

Rickey says "Rickey will get in. Did you forget about Rickey?"

 

I'm guessing Gwynn and Ripken won't have any trouble, either.

[CubinNY]

My prediction for the HOF is that after Maddux and Clemens there will be very few "steriod era" players to get in. I think the writers are going to be very tough on all of the current players when it comes their time.

 

Rickey says "Rickey will get in. Did you forget about Rickey?"

 

I'm guessing Gwynn and Ripken won't have any trouble, either.

 

Gwynn and Ripken will be up next year. Maduux and Clemens won't be up for another 6 years at least.

 

Ripken and Gwynn played the bulk of their games pre-strike. I think that is how baseball writers will break it down 1994-2005 will be known as the "steriod era".

[wolf stansson]

Ozzie's first ballot landslide is more a direct result of his image and highlight reels than his actual value as a player. His backflips, the HR in the '85 NLCS (Go crazy folks), and his defensive "wizardry" got him in. He was far from a great player (ducks flying objects from fellow Cards fans).

[gus_dog]

I'd also like to add that Barry Larkin better get in the HOF since Ozzie is in. (and to be fair, he should also get in since Ryno got in)

 

Yes.

 

And Dawson was awesome. You had to be there.

 

I did see him play, though I was a lad at the time. Believe me, at the time I thought he was amazing. Looking at his career stats, he was still very good, but the stats show he wasn't as awesome as I remembered.

 

It's funny, too. When I was a kid, for whatever reason, I thought Shawon Dunston was absolutely awesome. Now when I look at his stats, I realize he was pretty terrible. I'm talking even worse than Neifi levels of bad. But as a kid, I thought he was the best shortstop in the world. If I had the baseball knowledge I have now while watching in those days, I would have hated Dunston a lot.

 

Dawson had a span of a few years there (MVP year was in there) where he was just absolutely money, and everyone knew it. =P~ It was really fun to watch. Too bad he was a no-show in the playoffs against the Giants, they could have used his bat!

 

Dunston had the best arm (pure power) of any fielder I've ever seen, and really, there were few pitchers that could throw the ball as hard or harder than Dunston. Trouble was, he was a tad wild sometimes. :mrgreen:

[gus_dog]

Ozzie's first ballot landslide is more a direct result of his image and highlight reels than his actual value as a player. His backflips, the HR in the '85 NLCS (Go crazy folks), and his defensive "wizardry" got him in. He was far from a great player (ducks flying objects from fellow Cards fans).

 

IMO, Smith was far and away the best defencive SS I've seen. Better than Larkin, and yes, better than Ripkin.

 

Early in Smith's career, he could even hit his weight, and he was a little guy.

 

He was popular, had endurance, and continued to play great defence for almost all of his career.

 

He got in the HOF as much because of his popularity, as anything else. It is called a Hall of Fame, not a Hall of Stats.

 

He was a famous player, and played defence better than most everyone.

 

I don't have a problem with him there.

 

Oh yeah..., Santo belongs, most assuredly.

[wolf stansson]

He was a famous player, and played defence better than most everyone.

 

I don't have a problem with him there.

Oh I agree completely. I hope no one thought by my post that I was saying Ozzie shouldn't be there because he should. I was just admitting as a Cards fan that he wasn't the best all around SS of his generation.

[vaball]

The Sports List just declared Ozzie the #1 shortstop of all time, so I think this matter is settled.

[wastra]

Based upon other people who are in the Hall, Ozzie should be in. And also based upon one of the factors I personally feel is most important-

 

was he the dominant player at his position in his league for a decade? The answer is easily "yes." then you go to stats. The answer there is clearly "no."

 

Good/great Defense and Average defense are not that far apart in actual benefit to a team. So when we say defense is overrated, we're not sayign it's unimportant, because a BAD defenseive player is definitely a liability. But compared to the value a great offensive player gives you over an average one, defense just isn't that important.

 

So if you have a choice of taking a great defensive, average offensive player or a great offensive, average defensive player, you don't go with the glove.

 

 

So when compared in that light, Ozzie isn't even a solid shortstop compared to otehrs of his generation and after. I am saying that right now, I'd have taken Allan Trammell over Ozzie Smith if I were building a team. I'd take Larkin, Vizquel (whose defense is SO CLOSE to ozzie's that the defense argument should be set aside for the two of them), and a handful of others over the past 20 years as well.

 

In ozzie's case, he's one of the rare guys who were defensive wizzes who wasn't canned due to his bat. There are TONS of those guys. they're called backups and utility players, and they usually become Cubs just before they're out of the league. Ozzie was one of those glove specialists who was never dropped in favor of a better hitter. It was rare, but IMO, there could have been a ton more Ozzie Smiths (defensively) if their teams ignored their largely unimpressive offensive abilities as well.

 

Is Keith Hernandez a HoFer? The best defensive 1B of all time? Hardly.

 

If it's just about "fame," then where's Roger Maris?

 

Don't get me wrong- Ozzie WAS the best defensive SS of all time. I do not dispute that. But I can't call him one of the top 100-150 players ever, or even mention his name in the same breath as them because of his bat.

 

So, frankly, I don't think he shoudl be a HoFer. But keep in mind, I think 65% of the guys elected in the past decade are borderline at best. Kirby Puckett?!? Gimme a break. I don't personally beleive that there SHOULD be an inductee every year.

 

Interestingly- Ozzie had a pretty weak arm for a SS, he even says so himself. But he had phenominal range, and his hands were so quick he got rid of the ball almost the instant it hit his mitt. He also perfected that skip-throw off the turf that helped him make up for slightly weaker arm strength on long throws. He also rarely missed his target. defensively, he was astounding.