PDA

View Full Version : Ozzie Smith--HOF


Paulwny
01-08-2002, 01:39 PM
Only player selected


http://www.canoe.ca/Slam020108/mlb_smith-ap.html

czalgosz
01-08-2002, 01:48 PM
Ozzie Smith was a class ballplayer. He deserves it - probably the best defensive shortstop ever.

MarqSox
01-08-2002, 05:25 PM
I know it isn't a popular opinion, but I would NOT have voted for Ozzie Smith, and so I'm obviously appalled that he got 92% of the vote. Don't get me wrong, I have a great respect for what he did on the field and I think he was a fine player. If the Cardinals wanted to retire his number, I think they would be completely justified. Having said that, I've always felt that he was overrated. He was very fun to watch field, but so are Kenny Lofton and Jim Edmonds. What do they have in common? They all make tricky plays look spectacular.

In addition, Smith had absolutely ZERO bat. Why is this significant? Think of it like this -- Harold Baines, Frank Thomas and Sammy Sosa all have offensive numbers that should get them into the HOF -- but all were awful defensively fore most of their careers. Sosa will go anyway because everyone just loves the Cubbies, but Thomas is iffy and I don't think Baines has a shot. The same voters who will chide Thomas and Baines as being incomplete players and therefore will keep them out of the Hall are the same voters who fawn over the "Wizard of Oz."

czalgosz
01-08-2002, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
I know it isn't a popular opinion, but I would NOT have voted for Ozzie Smith, and so I'm obviously appalled that he got 92% of the vote. Don't get me wrong, I have a great respect for what he did on the field and I think he was a fine player. If the Cardinals wanted to retire his number, I think they would be completely justified. Having said that, I've always felt that he was overrated. He was very fun to watch field, but so are Kenny Lofton and Jim Edmonds. What do they have in common? They all make tricky plays look spectacular.

In addition, Smith had absolutely ZERO bat. Why is this significant? Think of it like this -- Harold Baines, Frank Thomas and Sammy Sosa all have offensive numbers that should get them into the HOF -- but all were awful defensively fore most of their careers. Sosa will go anyway because everyone just loves the Cubbies, but Thomas is iffy and I don't think Baines has a shot. The same voters who will chide Thomas and Baines as being incomplete players and therefore will keep them out of the Hall are the same voters who fawn over the "Wizard of Oz."

Actually, Smith had a very underrated bat, especially late in his career. He just didn't hit for any power (career .328 SLG). He had good speed though, and most seasons had a fairly high OBP. But that's not why he's in the hall. Not only did he have incredible range, he rarely made errors. If you didn't see him playing in the early-to-mid '80s, you missed out. He was something.

Daver
01-08-2002, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


Actually, Smith had a very underrated bat, especially late in his career. He just didn't hit for any power (career .328 SLG). He had good speed though, and most seasons had a fairly high OBP. But that's not why he's in the hall. Not only did he have incredible range, he rarely made errors. If you didn't see him playing in the early-to-mid '80s, you missed out. He was something.

He was the best SS I have ever seen.

FarmerAndy
01-08-2002, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
I know it isn't a popular opinion, but I would NOT have voted for Ozzie Smith, and so I'm obviously appalled that he got 92% of the vote. Don't get me wrong, I have a great respect for what he did on the field and I think he was a fine player. If the Cardinals wanted to retire his number, I think they would be completely justified. Having said that, I've always felt that he was overrated. He was very fun to watch field, but so are Kenny Lofton and Jim Edmonds. What do they have in common? They all make tricky plays look spectacular.

In addition, Smith had absolutely ZERO bat. Why is this significant? Think of it like this -- Harold Baines, Frank Thomas and Sammy Sosa all have offensive numbers that should get them into the HOF -- but all were awful defensively fore most of their careers. Sosa will go anyway because everyone just loves the Cubbies, but Thomas is iffy and I don't think Baines has a shot. The same voters who will chide Thomas and Baines as being incomplete players and therefore will keep them out of the Hall are the same voters who fawn over the "Wizard of Oz."

Ozzie didn't just make tricky plays look spectacular, but he always made the plays, period. I think it's about time that someone got the nod because of his amazing defensive ability.

I really don't think Frank is that iffy. He's in.

You can debate that Baines was better than alot of other players who have made it into the hall, but if Hall of Fame standards were where they should be, Baines isn't a Hall of Famer. If he'd reached the 3,000 hits mark, it might be a different story, but he didn't.

czalgosz
01-08-2002, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by FarmerAndy


Ozzie didn't just make tricky plays look spectacular, but he always made the plays, period. I think it's about time that someone got the nod because of his amazing defensive ability.

I really don't think Frank is that iffy. He's in.

You can debate that Baines was better than alot of other players who have made it into the hall, but if Hall of Fame standards were where they should be, Baines isn't a Hall of Famer. If he'd reached the 3,000 hits mark, it might be a different story, but he didn't.

You know, it's that quest for raw numbers that keep guys in uniform way longer than they should be. If 3000 hits wasn't considered so damn important, Harold Baines wouldn't be making himself look so stupid trying to find a job right now. We would have been spared Tom Seaver embarrassing himself if 300 wins wasn't a big deal.

Why can't we set a new benchmark - say, minimum .950 OPS (minimum 5000 plate appearances)? Wouldn't that be a better indication?

Fisk Fan
01-09-2002, 01:41 PM
Did Andre Dawson really get "snubbed" out of a HOF spot or does he deserve to be on the outside looking in? I would assume that if Dawson gets elected, then players like Baines and Rice should get in as well, even though they might not deserve it. Am I wrong?

Paulwny
01-09-2002, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Fisk Fan
Did Andre Dawson really get "snubbed" out of a HOF spot or does he deserve to be on the outside looking in? I would assume that if Dawson gets elected, then players like Baines and Rice should get in as well, even though they might not deserve it. Am I wrong?

Some feel Gary Carter was snubbed.


http://cbs.sportsline.com/u/wire/stories/0,1169,4816701_52,00.html

RichH55
01-09-2002, 04:00 PM
Garry Carter was definately snubbed, and Ozzie deserved his place.....Mazeroski made it in based on D and Ozzie played better D, plus relative to the SS's of the era Ozzie's hitting wasnt as bad as some make it out to be....Cant just assign a 950 OBS as the cutoff, doesn't take into account enough things......Its just a shame its so hard to get stats relative to the era the guys played in....500 HRs in 1950 is huge, but if Thome or Karros hits 500 in their career are they HOFers? Nope.....the Era is key to Hall of Fame voting always has been