PDA

View Full Version : Ozzie Guillen on HOF ballot


doublem23
11-28-2005, 03:07 PM
The big story is that Pete Rose is not on the BBWAA ballot, but Ozzie is.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2239369

4th Gen. Sox Fan
11-28-2005, 03:08 PM
http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20051128&content_id=1272601&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
EDIT: Sorry I see its already been posted, remove if necessary

Frater Perdurabo
11-28-2005, 03:20 PM
I don't think Ozzie merits induction on the basis of his playing career, but should he lead the Sox to a few more World Series (not necessarily deeppink), one would have to think that someday he could be inducted as a manager....

:supernana:

doublem23
11-28-2005, 03:22 PM
I don't think Ozzie merits induction on the basis of his playing career, but should he lead the Sox to a few more World Series (not necessarily deeppink), one would have to think that someday he could be inducted as a manager....



I agree, which gets me wondering; what are the rules for inducting former players into the HOF as managers? Say Ozzie doesn't get the votes needed to stay on the ballot this year, but, oh in 15 years when he steps down, how could he get back into the HOF on the merit of his .600 career winning percentage and 5 World Series rings? :cool:

Madvora
11-28-2005, 03:27 PM
Wait a second... why is it news that Pete Rose isn't on the hall of fame ballot?

Frater Perdurabo
11-28-2005, 03:33 PM
I agree, which gets me wondering; what are the rules for inducting former players into the HOF as managers? Say Ozzie doesn't get the votes needed to stay on the ballot this year, but, oh in 15 years when he steps down, how could he get back into the HOF on the merit of his .600 career winning percentage and 5 World Series rings? :cool:

IIRC, I do not believe there is a "five-year rule" for managers. If he was to be placed on the ballot as a manager after securing that .600 winning percentage and 5 WS rings, then whether or not he was a player should make no difference.

Taking the long-term view, simply winning one or several World Series wouldn't necessarily be the biggest reason for inducting him into the HOF as a manager, but more importantly to recognize his role in elevating one of the original AL franchises that had fallen on decades of hard times back to the upper ecehlon of AL teams, as a player and a manager and a fan favorite throughout.

Look at how beloved the 1959 White Sox are - and how Sox fans revered Al Lopez. Now think about how, in 50 years time, those of us who are still alive can tell our children and grandchildren about the 2005 World Champs, how we rooted for Ozzie as a player and how he came back to manage the team and in his second season won the World Series! (Makes me a little teary-eyed all over again just thinking about it!)

:supernana:

fquaye149
11-28-2005, 03:42 PM
IIRC, I do not believe there is a "five-year rule" for managers. If he was to be placed on the ballot as a manager after securing that .600 winning percentage and 5 WS rings, then whether or not he was a player should make no difference.

Taking the long-term view, simply winning one or several World Series wouldn't necessarily be the biggest reason for inducting him into the HOF as a manager, but more importantly to recognize his role in elevating one of the original AL franchises that had fallen on decades of hard times back to the upper ecehlon of AL teams, as a player and a manager and a fan favorite throughout.

Look at how beloved the 1959 White Sox are - and how Sox fans revered Al Lopez. Now think about how, in 50 years time, those of us who are still alive can tell our children and grandchildren about the 2005 World Champs, how we rooted for Ozzie as a player and how he came back to manage the team and in his second season won the World Series! (Makes me a little teary-eyed all over again just thinking about it!)

:supernana:

But isn't Frank Chance in the HOF as a PLAYER partially on the basis of being an HOF manager (never mind the little ditty :wink: )

WestSox
11-28-2005, 03:43 PM
Interesting. Ozzie definitely won't get in as a player and will have to be very successful for another decade or so to get in as a manager.

Albert Belle definitely won't get in, so being on the ballot apparently doesn't mean much.

Palehose13
11-28-2005, 03:44 PM
I don't have the time right now to look up the numbers, but I wonder how Ozzie's numbers as a player hold up against current HOF SS's. I thought he was one hell of a fielding SS with decent hitting numbers(when he was around it was practically unheard of for a SS to hit .300 AND have power), but he's my all time favorite player so I could be biased.

ChiFabulous1
11-28-2005, 03:46 PM
Interesting. Ozzie definitely won't get in as a player and will have to be very successful for another decade or so to get in as a manager.

Albert Belle definitely won't get in, so being on the ballot apparently doesn't mean much.

I think he is a shoe in as manager because (Correct me if I'm wrong) he was the first Latino manager to win a world series. They love that kinda stuff in the hall of fame.

miker
11-28-2005, 03:48 PM
If Phil Rizzuto made it into the HOF, why not Ozzie?

Palehose13
11-28-2005, 04:09 PM
Ok, I lied, I made time. Here are some stats:

Career Stats:

Aparicio .262BA, 83HR, 506SB, .972 Field %
O. Smith .262BA, 28HR, 580SB, .978 Field %
Rizzuto .273BA, 38HR, 149SB, .968 Field %
Guillen .264BA, 28HR, 169SB, .974 Field %

So...why not? Especially, like miker pointed out, is Rizzuto is in there.

Frater Perdurabo
11-28-2005, 04:14 PM
I don't have the time right now to look up the numbers, but I wonder how Ozzie's numbers as a player hold up against current HOF SS's. I thought he was one hell of a fielding SS with decent hitting numbers(when he was around it was practically unheard of for a SS to hit .300 AND have power), but he's my all time favorite player so I could be biased.

Don't get me wrong, because I loved Guillen as a player too, but I'm not sure he was quite as good defensively as Ozzie Smith (13 Gold Gloves to Guillen's one, even given that Gold Gloves often can be a political popularity contest).

Even if he was Smith's equal with the glove, though, he didn't have the "bonsues" of having played for a World Series-winning team. He's also nowhere near Cal Ripken offensively (over 3000 hits and 431 homers). Even Smith's 2,460 hits dwarf Guillen's 1,764 hits (in 580 fewer games and 3,645 fewer plate appearances), although their averages are similar (.262 for Smith to .264 for Guillen, while Ripken batted .276 for his career). Ripken also won two Gold Gloves - and eight Silver Sluggers.

Most shocking is that Ozzie Smith's career OBP is 50 points higher than Guillen's OBP (.337 to .287). No wonder - Smith walked 1,072 times, while Guillen never saw a pitch he didn't like, walking a mere 239(!) times in his career. (Barry Bonds walked 232 times in the 2004 season alone!)

Also, although it too is a popularity contest, Ripken and Smith were absolute locks for the All-Star game; Ripken appeared 19 times, Smith made it 15 times, while Guillen made it thrice (88, 90, 91).

While in a different generation Guillen might have merited consideration, he's certainly not a "tallest midget" (best of his era), since both the AL and NL had contemporary, dominant, transcendent shortstops that overshadowed him. (I personally think the "tallest midget" argument is lame; it is what got Ryne Sandberg into the HOF when I think he wouldn't have made it if he had played on another team.) Rizzuto may have been the "best" shortstop of his generation and therefore enough writers felt he belonged (although he probably doesn't on the basis on his stats alone.) I don't think our Ozzie has the individual stats or enough team accomplishments to get in as a player, as he's clearly a notch below Ripken and Smith.

Frater Perdurabo
11-28-2005, 04:21 PM
Ok, I lied, I made time. Here are some stats:

Career Stats:

Aparicio .262BA, 83HR, 506SB, .972 Field %
O. Smith .262BA, 28HR, 580SB, .978 Field %
Rizzuto .273BA, 38HR, 149SB, .968 Field %
Guillen .264BA, 28HR, 169SB, .974 Field %

So...why not? Especially, like miker pointed out, is Rizzuto is in there.

Ripken's career FP was .979 at SS and .977 overall. Rizzuto clearly doesn't belong on the basis of his individual accomplishments. He must have gotten in on the "Tallest Midget" clause (which is what got Sandberg in as well).

Palehose13
11-28-2005, 04:21 PM
Don't get me wrong, because I loved Guillen as a player too, but I'm not sure he was quite as good defensively as Ozzie Smith (13 Gold Gloves to Guillen's one, even given that Gold Gloves often can be a political popularity contest).

Even if he was Smith's equal with the glove, though, he didn't have the "bonsues" of having played for a World Series-winning team. He's also nowhere near Cal Ripken offensively (over 3000 hits and 431 homers). Even Smith's 2,460 hits dwarf Guillen's 1,764 hits (in 580 fewer games and 3,645 fewer plate appearances), although their averages are similar (.262 for Smith to .264 for Guillen, while Ripken batted .276 for his career). Ripken also won two Gold Gloves - and eight Silver Sluggers.

Most shocking is that Ozzie Smith's career OBP is 50 points higher than Guillen's OBP (.337 to .287). No wonder - Smith walked 1,072 times, while Guillen never saw a pitch he didn't like, walking a mere 239(!) times in his career. (Barry Bonds walked 232 times in the 2004 season alone!)

Also, although it too is a popularity contest, Ripken and Smith were absolute locks for the All-Star game; Ripken appeared 19 times, Smith made it 15 times, while Guillen made it thrice (88, 90, 91).

While in a different generation he might have merited consideration, he's certainly not a "tallest midget," since both the AL and NL had dominant, transcendent shortstops that overshadowed him. So, I don't think our Ozzie has the numbers to get in as a player, as he's clearly a notch below Ripken and Smith.

Is it fair to say that because Montana, Elway, and Marino played in the same era that only the two best should be in...Montana for the NFC and Elway or Marino only for the AFC or do you vote all threee in?

Looking at his numbers against other HOF SS's, I don't think you can automatically dismiss him. OTOH, I don't think he's an automatic first ballot either. All I think is that he merits serious consideration. However, he did win the WS his second year as a manager...that's pretty damn special.

Frater Perdurabo
11-28-2005, 04:30 PM
Is it fair to say that because Montana, Elway, and Marino played in the same era that only the two best should be in...Montana for the NFC and Elway or Marino only for the AFC or do you vote all threee in?

Of course not. All three were "transcendent" players and should be first-ballot HOFers.

Looking at his numbers against other HOF SS's, I don't think you can automatically dismiss him. OTOH, I don't think he's an automatic first ballot either. However, he did win the WS his second year as a manager...that's pretty damn special.

Often times some apologists will say "player X deserves to be inducted because he was the greatest at his position in the era in which he played." I think that argument is BS. That's what got Ryne Sandberg into Cooperstown. That's why I call it "tallest midget."

What I'm saying, though, is that even his fiercest apologists can't claim he's the "best of his generation" because Smith and Ripken were a level above. Clearly Ripken is a first ballot HOF-er. But even Smith is iffy. So if Guillen is a notch below Smith (and I argue that he defintely is), he doesn't belong as a player.

However, I do believe that one more World Series championship and/or a sustained run of excellence as Sox manager merits Guillen getting inducted as a manager.

But IMHO the "player" and "manager" categories are separate. Joe Torre's case as manager shouldn't be helped or hurt by what he did as a player. Same with Ozzie. His playing career should have no effect on whether or not he gets in as a manager, and his managerial career should have no effect on whether or not he gets in as a player. I'd argue that the only exception should be someone who was a player and a manager at the same time.

Palehose13
11-28-2005, 04:40 PM
Of course not. All three were "transcendent" players and should be first-ballot HOFers.



Often times some apologists will say "player X deserves to be inducted because he was the greatest at his position in the era in which he played." I think that argument is BS. That's what got Ryne Sandberg into Cooperstown. That's why I call it "tallest midget."

What I'm saying, though, is that even his fiercest apologists can't claim he's the "best of his generation" because Smith and Ripken were a level above. Clearly Ripken is a first ballot HOF-er. But even Smith is iffy. So if Guillen is a notch below Smith (and I argue that he defintely is), he doesn't belong as a player.

However, I do believe that one more World Series championship and/or a sustained run of excellence as Sox manager merits Guillen getting inducted as a manager.

But IMHO the "player" and "manager" categories are separate. Joe Torre's case as manager shouldn't be helped or hurt by what he did as a player. Same with Ozzie. His playing career should have no effect on whether or not he gets in as a manager, and his managerial career should have no effect on whether or not he gets in as a player. I'd argue that the only exception should be someone who was a player and a manager at the same time.

I already admitted that I was biased toward Guillen. I also never claimed that he was better than Ozzie Smith or Ripken. I just think he merits consideration. I can't say if he belongs or not. I think arguments can be made both ways, but I don't think there is a definitive answer as to if he belongs or not.

In regards to separate categories, IMO, the man is the same...as player and as manager.

Frater Perdurabo
11-28-2005, 04:57 PM
I already admitted that I was biased toward Guillen. I also never claimed that he was better than Ozzie Smith or Ripken. I just think he merits consideration. I can't say if he belongs or not. I think arguments can be made both ways, but I don't think there is a definitive answer as to if he belongs or not.

In regards to separate categories, IMO, the man is the same...as player and as manager.

Hey, I'm biased towards Guillen as well! One of my greatest childhood memories centers on Guillen and the cap and ball he autographed for me in 1987. The World Series victory cements his place in my heart. I love him as much as one straight man can love another straight man!
:redface:

Just to be sure, though, I never claimed you said he was better than Smith or Ripken. I'm sure he'll get some votes, especially in the afterglow of the Sox World Series win. You definitely raise some good arguments for including him. So I earnestly considered the idea and researched the stats. He's nowhere near Ripken but is closer to Smith, who IMHO is a "borderline" case who did make it. Guillen's stats are not quite as good as Smith's, and as a player Smith had many more "intangibles" like World Series appearances, Gold Gloves and All-Star appearances.

Bottom line is I don't think he'll get voted in as a player, and I don't think it will be a great injustice. However, I do think that if he wins another World Series and/or sustains a long run of division championships with the Sox, he definitely will deserve to get in, and moreover SHOULD get in to the HOF.

:supernana:

In the meantime, the Sox need to have a ceremony in 2006 in which they erect a statue of him on the concourse and retire his number (even though he is still wearing it)! No White Sox player or coach should ever wear #13 again!

TheVulture
11-28-2005, 07:30 PM
Aparicio and Smith aren't in the HOF for their stats - an analytic comparison of numbers in this case is pointless.

Palehose13
11-28-2005, 07:46 PM
Aparicio and Smith aren't in the HOF for their stats - an analytic comparison of numbers in this case is pointless.

So then how do you suggest to evaluate this?

A. Cavatica
11-28-2005, 07:52 PM
I thought he was one hell of a fielding SS with decent hitting numbers(when he was around it was practically unheard of for a SS to hit .300 AND have power), but he's my all time favorite player so I could be biased.

You're biased. :D:

He was a good fielding SS until his injury, but even then he was no Ozzie Smith. And after his injury he was a pedestrian shortstop. Plus he was a complete offensive millstone -- no power, no strike zone judgment, and a poor baserunner. He was a pretty awful player for the second half of his career, actually.

As for the competition, don't forget Yount, Trammell, & Ripken.

TDog
11-28-2005, 09:21 PM
I don't think Ozzie merits induction on the basis of his playing career, but should he lead the Sox to a few more World Series (not necessarily deeppink), one would have to think that someday he could be inducted as a manager....

:supernana:

Leo Durocher had a .247 career batting average, hit 24 home runs in 17 (post-dead-ball-era) seasons, was labeled "the all-American out" by Babe Ruth and was elected to the Hall of Fame. He got in as a manager, having won more than 2,000 games between 1939 and 1973.

He was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1994. He died in 1991.

lostletters
11-29-2005, 11:07 AM
I can say without a doubt Ozzie will be inducted as a manager.

For one reason and one reason alone.

First foriegn born manager to win the world series.

Like it or not, he is going to be in the HOF.


While he probably will not make it as a player, he is already a lock as a manager, and it was only his second year.

A. Cavatica
11-29-2005, 12:36 PM
I can say without a doubt Ozzie will be inducted as a manager.

For one reason and one reason alone.

First foriegn born manager to win the world series.

:bong:

WestSox
11-29-2005, 12:42 PM
I think he is a shoe in as manager because (Correct me if I'm wrong) he was the first Latino manager to win a world series. They love that kinda stuff in the hall of fame.

Ethnicity should never get anybody into any Hall of Fame.

miker
11-29-2005, 12:47 PM
Ethnicity should never get anybody into any Hall of Fame.
What if its the Polish-American or Italian-American Sports Hall of Fame? Or the Negro League Museum?