MLB Overrated or Note v2: Ozzie Smith

[DeToxRox]

The Wizard of Oz, perhaps the greatest defensive player ever in baseball, but an average to above average hitter. His inclusion to the hall of fame was based on the premise he was the games best defender ..

So using the basis he is a Hall of Famer, is Ozzie Smith overrated?

[st.cronin]

Tremendously under-rated, imo. He was one of the best players of his generation.

[Schmidty]

Very overrated imo. If a guy like Smith gets into the HoF, how in the hell do they continue to vote no for Alan Trammell. And even though I'm a huge Tram fan, he doesn't deserve to be there either.

[rowech]

One of the most overrated players of all-time. Great defensive player who had little to no offense whatsoever. His stolen bases helped him out in offensive terms. I'd take Barry Larkin over him any day of the week. Tons better offensively and every bit as good defensively.

[st.cronin]

One of the most overrated players of all-time. Great defensive player who had little to no offense whatsoever. His stolen bases helped him out in offensive terms. I'd take Barry Larkin over him any day of the week. Tons better offensively and every bit as good defensively.

How do you write that with a straight face.

[rowech]

How do you write that with a straight face.

Very easily. I watched both play. Smith added flair that Larkin didn't...that's why people remember him and sadly, that's why he's overrated. Flair from players almost inevitably enhances how they're remembered. The backflips, etc. were all a show. He was better than Larkin defensively but not even close to enough to overcome the difference in bat.

[st.cronin]

Alan Trammell played 3 seasons where he appeared in more than 150 games. Barry Larkin played 4 seasons where he appeared in more than 150 games. Ozzie Smith? Ten.

I can understand thinking that Trammell or Larkin had better strat-o-matic cards than Ozzie Smith, but no way did either one of them provide the same value Ozzie did.

[Schmidty]

Alan Trammell played 3 seasons where he appeared in more than 150 games. Barry Larkin played 4 seasons where he appeared in more than 150 games. Ozzie Smith? Ten.

I can understand thinking that Trammell or Larkin had better strat-o-matic cards than Ozzie Smith, but no way did either one of them provide the same value Ozzie did.

You're just wrong (at least regarding Tram).

While not as good defensively, Trammell did win 4 Gold Gloves, and was always very, very good defensively. And value-wise, I guarantee you that if Tram wasn't on those Tigers teams, especially '84 and '87, the team would have never won nearly as many games. He was the best player on the team for a decade. I would argue that he was as, or more, valuable to his team than Ozzie.

[TroyF]

Larkin was good defensively early in his career and then dropped off. Oz pretty much stayed a point above the league range factor every year of his career.

No question who the better hitter was.

I think Ozzie belongs in the hall. A gread defensive player for a long length of time, a below average hitter who still racked up over 2300 career hits, 580 steals, etc.

I don't think he's the best of all time by any stretch, but he's a guy who belongs in the Hall and had a solid career. It's REALLY tough for me to say a Hall of Famer is overrated though, so maybe I'm not the one to ask.

[st.cronin]

You're just wrong (at least regarding Tram).

While not as good defensively, Trammell did win 4 Gold Gloves, and was always very, very good defensively. And value-wise, I guarantee you that if Tram wasn't on those Tigers teams, especially '84 and '87, the team would have never won nearly as many games. He was the best player on the team for a decade. I would argue that he was as, or more, valuable to his team than Ozzie.

I definitely agree that Trammell was very good, both offensively and defensively.

[Chief Rum]

I ended up voting overrated. But I do like Ozzie a whole lot.

[RendeR]

If you believe Ozzie Smith was overrated you know jack shit about baseball.

Best defensive player ever, period, no-one had his range, his hands or his accuracy throwing the ball.

His hitting, while less than superior overall was always clutch, when he HAD to get something, he got it.

Leadership means more on a baseball team than any stat-generating hitter. Ozzie was the general on those Cardinal teams for damn near his entire career.

I love Larkin but he wasn't half the leader or defensive player Ozzie was. (Red's fan speaking, keep in mind) And while trammel was a leader and he could hit better, he wasn't a great hitter nor was he a great defensive player.

Overrated? Get a freaking clue.

[Schmidty]

If you believe Ozzie Smith was overrated you know jack shit about baseball.

Overrated? Get a freaking clue.

Guuuuuuuh.

[twothree]

Note.

[Brillig]

If you think that Ozzie was overrated then that means the steroids have won.

[dime]

I'm not real big on one-dimensional players. If Ozzie had stayed in San Diego or some other small/medium baseball market, I don't think he would be revered the way he is now. St. Louis is such a great baseball city that it will make all of its stars bigger, better players than they actually are.

Ozzie also benefitted greatly from the video highlight era of sports...backflips, spectacular throws, barehanded double plays and so on fit perfectly into the soundbite media culture we've become.

Ozzie made a lot of great plays, but because he was such a poor hitter he was very limited in how he could affect the game. He posted an OPS+ over 100 (average) just 4 times in his 19 seasons.

A great defensive player but not a difference-maker, and while I can listen to the HOF argument for him, I don't understand why he was a first ballot induction.

[clintl]

He was a first ballot inductee because most of the shortstops in the Hall of Fame are there because of defense, and he was the greatest defensive shortstop of all time.

[dime]

He was a first ballot inductee because most of the shortstops in the Hall of Fame are there because of defense

I can't agree with that...almost every guy in there can hit, and the ones who can't are generally agreed to be the worst/undeserving members of the HOF (rabbit maranville, luis aparicio, phil rizzuto, joe tinker, etc.)

There are millions of good glove, no bat shortstops in baseball's history. The ones that are in the HOF (excepting smith and the aforementioned) are there because they can hit and impact the game.

[Buccaneer]

Tremendously under-rated, imo. He was one of the best players of his generation.

Odd statement. How does a player who was a first-ballot HOFer get to be tremendously under-rated?

[larrymcg421]

Odd statement. How does a player who was a first-ballot HOFer get to be tremendously under-rated?

Maybe if enough people think he didn't deserve to be a 1st ballot HOFer?

[clintl]

I can't agree with that...almost every guy in there can hit, and the ones who can't are generally agreed to be the worst/undeserving members of the HOF (rabbit maranville, luis aparicio, phil rizzuto, joe tinker, etc.)

There are millions of good glove, no bat shortstops in baseball's history. The ones that are in the HOF (excepting smith and the aforementioned) are there because they can hit and impact the game.

There are other ways to impact the game than hitting, and Smith certainly impacted the game. And while he was a bad hitter early in his career, he got to be a pretty good hitter over time.

[dime]

ozzie got 92% of the votes (was a weak year, he was the only selection).

that 92% approval is higher than a host of superior players received, including:

joe morgan
frank robinson
carlton fisk
al kaline
bob gibson
robin yount
billy williams
willie stargell
willie mccovey
sandy koufax
duke snider
mickey mantle(!)
yogi berra
jackie robinson

[dime]

There are other ways to impact the game than hitting, and Smith certainly impacted the game. And while he was a bad hitter early in his career, he got to be a pretty good hitter over time.

we'll have to agree to disagree. the only way a defensive player can impact the game is by making a play on a ball hit to him. ozzie was never a pretty good hitter, but he did improve from being terrible to being just below average. he batted 8th most of his career, doing so on teams that weren't particularly good hitting teams anyway.

[rowech]

So then you guys are going to put Vizquel into the HOF as well?

[Brillig]

Hell yes.

[Pumpy Tudors]

He's my favorite player of all time, but looking at his offensive numbers, I had really forgotten just how bad he was with the bat. He very rarely struck out, so as the #2 hitter in the lineup (which is where he mostly hit), it's good that he was able to make contact. He wasn't the greatest at getting on base, though, which is why I assume that he wasn't asked to bat leadoff.

Anyway, I don't want to vote in the poll because my judgment is clouded by the fact that he's my favorite player. I can see the arguments on both sides. I don't know much about sabermetrics, particularly as far as which stats are the "best" to evaluate a player's offense vs. defense, but there's got to be something out there to clear this up. How much did his defense balance out his obvious offensive shortcomings? Did he save more runs with his glove than he sacrificed with his bat? With all the stats flying around these days, there must be something to measure this, right?

Right?

[clintl]

About this notion that Ozzie Smith was a bad hitter - if you compare him to all hitters, yes, he doesn't look that great. However, if you compare him to his contemporaries at shortstop, he was probably at least average, and probably above. Once you get past guys like Ripken, Yount, Larkin, and Trammell, it's pretty hard to find shortstops with a career of any length that were better hitters than Ozzie. Jay Bell and Tony Fernandez were really the only two others I found, looking through who were the starting shortstops during Ozzie's career.

[st.cronin]

About this notion that Ozzie Smith was a bad hitter - if you compare him to all hitters, yes, he doesn't look that great. However, if you compare him to his contemporaries at shortstop, he was probably at least average, and probably above. Once you get past guys like Ripken, Yount, Larkin, and Trammell, it's pretty hard to find shortstops with a career of any length that were better hitters than Ozzie. Jay Bell and Tony Fernandez were really the only two others I found, looking through who were the starting shortstops during Ozzie's career.

Plus, none of those guys (other than Ripken) were as consistent or durable as the Wizard. Lots of people like to pretend that doesn't count, but it does.

[EagleFan]

Note.

ditto

[EagleFan]

Hell yes.

I guess we can't argue with that...


As for anyoen talking about his hitting, look at the era he played in and compare him to the other shortstops of that time. He was not bad when you view it in that light plus he was clutch when it counted by eitther getting the runner into scoring position or getting on base when absolutely needed. Add the number of runs he saved on the defensive side and he is definitely not overrated.

I can still see that barehanded diving play he made early in his career on that ball up the middle that he was diving for but then it kicked back with one of the worst hops I have seen but he adjusted by reaching out barehanded (since that was the only hand that had a chance to get to the ball after that hop) and making the play.

[EagleFan]

So then you guys are going to put Vizquel into the HOF as well?

Nope

[primelord]

he batted 8th most of his career, doing so on teams that weren't particularly good hitting teams anyway.

Are we just making shit up now? He didn't hit 8th most of his career. Not even 20% of his plate appearances were from the 8 spot. He hit 2nd the vast majority of his career.

Anyone saying that Ozzie's defensive reputation was built just on flash, simply didn't watch the Cardinals play very much. For the range factor fans his career range factor is considerably higher than Larkin, Vizquel, Ripken, Concepcion. He was the only one I could find with a career rating over 5.

If you watched him play you don't need those stats though. Forget his own diving plays, he used to routinely get in front of balls that guys can't dive to get today. If you were reduced to only seeing his highlight plays through the years then you truely missed out on something special.

I won't argue the hitting side of things with anyone. He wasn't a great hitter, but we were perfectly happy with him hitting in the #2 hole all those years. He hit well enough and did all the little things exceptionally well. He virtually never struck out, was a fantastic bunter. A very solid #2 hitter.

I don't think he is over or under rated. He is generally considered to be the greatest defensive shortstop ever. That alone is worthy of the hall of fame as far as I am concerned so I think he is rated perfectly.

[Schmidty]

Where did the word "Soccer" come from?

Sorry for randomness. I just didn't want to start a new thread or put forth any effort. Even Google.

[Brillig]

Nope

Why not? Vizquel is a better hitter than Ozzie (admittedly by a slim margin), and is a comparable fielder.

Yes, Ozzie blows Vizquel away in range factor. At the same time, over the same number of years and an amazingly similar number of games, Ozzie committed over 100 more errors than Omar. Not surprisingly, Omar has the highest career fielding percentage among shortstops. Omar has the highest number of double plays turned at shortstop. Sure, Omar has 'only' eleven Gold Gloves.

At this point, I'd rank Ozzie and Omar about equal.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't think he is over or under rated. He is generally considered to be the greatest defensive shortstop ever. That alone is worthy of the hall of fame as far as I am concerned so I think he is rated perfectly.

For better or for worse, people divide Hall of Famers into 1st ballot and everyone else (and even "everyone else" can be divided up into sportswriter voted and veteran's committee voted at times). It may be dumb, but that's the way it is.

Sure Ozzie is arguably the greatest defensive SS ever, but he was voted in by 92% in his first year of eligibility. On the other hand, Bill Mazeroski is arguably the greatest defense 2B ever (in the same way Smith is 'arguably' the best), but it took the Veteran's Committee to get him in.

Perhaps that may lead to ideas of overratedness, or maybe Maz was underrated. Whichever.

[sterlingice]

I'm kindof surprised as the rabidly sabermetric lot hasn't weighed on in Ozzie yet. We're 35 posts in and nothing on how fielding statistics are in their infancy, people calling him clutch are crazy, or anyone reminding people how he only had 4 OPS+ seasons above 100(!!!).

SI

[ISiddiqui]

It's a waste of time ;).

Though I said it inside my head (calling him 'clutch' is crazy), if that counts ;).

[Pumpy Tudors]

I'm kindof surprised as the rabidly sabermetric lot hasn't weighed on in Ozzie yet. We're 35 posts in and nothing on how fielding statistics are in their infancy, people calling him clutch are crazy, or anyone reminding people how he only had 4 OPS+ seasons above 100(!!!).
Oh, dime made sure to point out the OPS+ thing, but I have to say that I'm completely shocked that nobody has argued with the word "clutch" yet.

I was a big fan of the Cardinals during Ozzie's years with them. He and Willie McGee ("He and Willie McGee" sounds funny) were the major reasons that I became a Cardinals fan. I agree with primelord that Ozzie definitely made a lot of plays look routine that would just eat up many other shortstops. The flashy stuff is what got on "This Week in Baseball" each week, but it was his everyday glovework that made him one of the best defensive players of the past 30 years at least.

I just looked at Omar Vizquel's stats, though, and... um... well, I don't know how he could be considered a worse player than Ozzie. The only real knock I could see against Vizquel is durability because he had 3 seasons in which he played under 100 games. Ozzie played over 100 games every year until he turned 39. Still, Vizquel was and is an everyday player, even now at age 40.

I've got to admit it. If Omar Vizquel's name had never come up in this thread, I never would have thought of him as even a possible Hall of Famer. Comparing his numbers to Ozzie's, though, it's a far from laughable thought.

[dime]

Are we just making shit up now? He didn't hit 8th most of his career. Not even 20% of his plate appearances were from the 8 spot. He hit 2nd the vast majority of his career.

Anyone saying that Ozzie's defensive reputation was built just on flash, simply didn't watch the Cardinals play very much. For the range factor fans his career range factor is considerably higher than Larkin, Vizquel, Ripken, Concepcion. He was the only one I could find with a career rating over 5.

If you watched him play you don't need those stats though. Forget his own diving plays, he used to routinely get in front of balls that guys can't dive to get today. If you were reduced to only seeing his highlight plays through the years then you truely missed out on something special.

I won't argue the hitting side of things with anyone. He wasn't a great hitter, but we were perfectly happy with him hitting in the #2 hole all those years. He hit well enough and did all the little things exceptionally well. He virtually never struck out, was a fantastic bunter. A very solid #2 hitter.

I don't think he is over or under rated. He is generally considered to be the greatest defensive shortstop ever. That alone is worthy of the hall of fame as far as I am concerned so I think he is rated perfectly.

I did some research, and ozzie was the #2 hitter (thanks, tom pagnozzi!) from 87 through the end of his career. I assumed that he batted 8th for san diego (making him #8 from 78-87), but apparently they had him in the leadoff spot quite a bit...there's a reason those teams were so terrible, and this would be one of them. In any event, I was wrong to suggest he spent more time hitting 8th, but hardly "making shit up".

However, Ozzie was never close to being the best player on his team. Due to his poor bat he could only impact the game when a ball was hit to him. No coaching staff ever sat down before a playoff series and said "man, what are we gonna do about ozzie smith?!?"

Unlike basketball or football, in baseball defense is not half of the game. You're not directly defending a player or changing a play, you're just reacting to ball after it is hit. Your skill has no bearing on where the ball goes, no one is changing their swing to avoid your area, etc.

[Poli]

If Alan gets in to the Hall of Fame on 4 gold gloves and being very good defensively (thank you, SoM), we want in as well.

Signed,

Tony Fernandez (4 gold gloves), Dave Concepcion (5 gold gloves), and Mark Belanger (7 gold glvoes)

[Poli]

I'd put Vizquel in as well.

[Brillig]

Unlike basketball or football, in baseball defense is not half of the game. You're not directly defending a player or changing a play, you're just reacting to ball after it is hit. Your skill has no bearing on where the ball goes, no one is changing their swing to avoid your area, etc.

Well, actually I'd say defense is half the game. It's just that in baseball, defense is further sub-divided into fielding and pitching.

At the same time, fielding is far from negligible. Even the best pitchers can't win without some help from their fielders. And the average pitchers need quite a lot of help.

If we split it 25-25... then if a pitcher can get into Cooperstown as a starter, being great at once every five days at that 25% (call it a 5% team contribution), then why can't a shortstop (call it a fifth of the defense every day) get in by being great at that same 5%?

Or are we going to start throwing pitchers out of the hall for poor batting?

[Pumpy Tudors]

Fun fact (grabbed from baseball-reference.com): Dan Schatzeder was the only pitcher in MLB history to allow more than one home run to Ozzie Smith.

[rowech]

I've got to admit it. If Omar Vizquel's name had never come up in this thread, I never would have thought of him as even a possible Hall of Famer. Comparing his numbers to Ozzie's, though, it's a far from laughable thought.

I think that's my problem as well. I really don't think Vizquel will get into the HOF. He might...but I don't think he will. The era he and Ozzie played in are different but realistically, you can't put one in and not the other. Aparacio also fits in with these two guys. I personally never saw Aparacio play. I would not put Vizquel in but I would put Ozzie in. I think Vizquel will have a tougher time because of the way Ripken, Larkin, Jeter, ARod, and Nomar changed the position a bit.

[MikeVic]

If Alan gets in to the Hall of Fame on 4 gold gloves and being very good defensively (thank you, SoM), we want in as well.

Signed,

Tony Fernandez (4 gold gloves), Dave Concepcion (5 gold gloves), and Mark Belanger (7 gold glvoes)


Hey Tony! You should be in the Hall! All ex-Blue Jay players should be.

[Poli]

Or are we going to start throwing pitchers out of the hall for poor batting?

No wonder Bert never got in. Dude couldn't hit .150.

[Poli]

The real question is, why isn't Buddy Biancalana in?

[Pumpy Tudors]

I think that's my problem as well. I really don't think Vizquel will get into the HOF. He might...but I don't think he will. The era he and Ozzie played in are different but realistically, you can't put one in and not the other. Aparacio also fits in with these two guys. I personally never saw Aparacio play. I would not put Vizquel in but I would put Ozzie in. I think Vizquel will have a tougher time because of the way Ripken, Larkin, Jeter, ARod, and Nomar changed the position a bit.
I don't think Omar Vizquel will get into the Hall of Fame either, and that's because of what you say about how the position has changed. In Ozzie's years, very few shortstops could hit. I had forgotten this when I said that Ozzie was bad with the bat. These days, I guess everybody's expected to be able to hit, and since Vizquel could never approach any of those guys you mentioned, he doesn't stand a chance at the HOF. I don't think he'll even be seriously considered, and I think that's the shame of it all.

Another fun fact: Of all players who were primarily shortstops since 1876 (!), Garry Templeton drew the most intentional walks. About 61% of those IBB were when he was hitting 8th in the batting order. I subscribed to the Baseball Reference Play Index today just for stuff like this. This kind of fun may consume the rest of my life.

[Poli]

Spike Owen says Gary Templeton is weak.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Spike Owen says Gary Templeton is weak.
Do you think Tom Foley and Spike Owen ever fought over Montreal locker room supremacy?

Damn. Deja vu. (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1195903&postcount=57)

[oykib]

Omar Vizquel is not, and has not in his career, been close to the defender Ozzie was. Ozzie also added to his offensive performance with more speed than Omar.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Omar Vizquel is not, and has not in his career, been close to the defender Ozzie was. Ozzie also added to his offensive performance with more speed than Omar.
What makes you say that Vizquel isn't even close defensively?

[Brillig]

Omar Vizquel is not, and has not in his career, been close to the defender Ozzie was.

I disagree. But then I get to see Omar every day. And the stats back me up :p

Ozzie also added to his offensive performance with more speed than Omar.

Yep, Ozzie had about 200 more stolen bases than Omar. On the other hand, Omar has hit for 200 more total bases than Ozzie.

[clintl]

Omar Vizquel is not, and has not in his career, been close to the defender Ozzie was. Ozzie also added to his offensive performance with more speed than Omar.

Ozzie had more range, but Omar makes fewer errors. I'd put Ozzie above Omar, but the gap isn't huge. They are really pretty similar players.

We'll see how Omar fares when he retires, but I disagree that he won't get serious consideration. I think he will.

[MikeVic]

Wow, I never really considered Omar a Hall of Famer. He was always just... there. I agree he was a good defensive SS though. Maybe I should change how I view potential Hall of Famers.

I always hear about Ozzie, so I assumed he was a really good player (on both sides, but exceptional on defence). Looking at his stats, his offensive numbers aren't too great, but the speed is something that is evident. I'd consider Ozzie above Omar definitely, but I'm not sure whether that makes Ozzie overrated or not in my book. Based on my initial perception of Ozzie, I'd have to say his offensive numbers were worse than I thought. But i never watched his play either, so maybe he was clutch.

[Poli]

Nothing Will Cordero couldn't handle.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I'm not really sure where all the clutch talk about Ozzie is coming from. With 2 outs and runners in scoring position, his OBP was .347, and that's driven up by his 50 (!) intentional walks in those situations, likely because the pitcher was on deck. In "late and close" situations, his strikeout rate was (slightly) higher than average for him, but generally, he was the same hitter then as always.

Again, he's my favorite player, but his offense was about average for shortstops in his era. I was under the impression that he was in the Hall of Fame almost entirely for defense. Due to his speed and bunting ability, he wasn't a liability on offense, so he was still a great player overall. His hitting skills were just never anything to write home about.

[nilodor]

One of the most overrated players of all-time. Great defensive player who had little to no offense whatsoever. His stolen bases helped him out in offensive terms. I'd take Barry Larkin over him any day of the week. Tons better offensively and every bit as good defensively.

I think the big difference between Larkin and Smith defensively was Smith had a better understanding of where to position himself. I think Smith had a little more range then him and a better arm, but was way better at positioning himself. Smith basically positioned himself like Cal Ripken, who had to out of necessity cheat, because he didn't have as much range as faster players.

[Poli]

I'm not really sure where all the clutch talk about Ozzie is coming from. With 2 outs and runners in scoring position, his OBP was .347, and that's driven up by his 50 (!) intentional walks in those situations, likely because the pitcher was on deck. In "late and close" situations, his strikeout rate was (slightly) higher than average for him, but generally, he was the same hitter then as always.

Again, he's my favorite player, but his offense was about average for shortstops in his era. I was under the impression that he was in the Hall of Fame almost entirely for defense. Due to his speed and bunting ability, he wasn't a liability on offense, so he was still a great player overall. His hitting skills were just never anything to write home about.

Come on kid. Ozzie batted at the top of the order once or twice.

[johnnyshaka]

I think we've missed a big part of Ozzie Smith in that he is one of the best personalities in baseball and as much as some of you don't like to factor that in...it does count. He always had a grin from ear to ear and he always looked like he was having as much fun out there as we did while watching him play. I think there are a select few players out there in every sport that everybody likes to watch, whether he's on your team or not, and Ozzie was definitely one of them.

[oykib]

I disagree. But then I get to see Omar every day. And the stats back me up :p



Yep, Ozzie had about 200 more stolen bases than Omar. On the other hand, Omar has hit for 200 more total bases than Ozzie.

The stats do not back you up. Ozzie had a career OPS+ of 87, Omar has 84.

Ozzie stole 200 more bases better steal percentage. Omar's more total bases is misleading. There are more total bases to be had in the higher offensive environment.

Ozzie's Range Factor was 5.03 for his career. Omar's is 4.40. That's 90 more balls Ozzie get' to per year than Omar. I'd rather have my shortstop get to that many more balls if all I have to pay is 5 or 6 errors for it.

[DanGarion]

I think we've missed a big part of Ozzie Smith in that he is one of the best personalities in baseball and as much as some of you don't like to factor that in...it does count. He always had a grin from ear to ear and he always looked like he was having as much fun out there as we did while watching him play. I think there are a select few players out there in every sport that everybody likes to watch, whether he's on your team or not, and Ozzie was definitely one of them.
Unfortunately some people think players should only be ranked on stats alone and there should be no character involved.

Probably the same people that think W-L record is an important stat for pitchers.

[Brillig]

200 bases is 200 bases. Did they increase the number of bases on the field in the higher offensive environment? You make it sound like Ozzie played in the dead-ball era.

[MikeVic]

I'd rather have my shortstop get to that many more balls if all I have to pay is 5 or 6 errors for it.

If only John Amaechi played SS. And baseball.

[johnnyshaka]

You make it sound like Ozzie played in the dead-ball era.

No, but Omar did play in the juiced-ball era.

[Hammer755]

200 bases is 200 bases. Did they increase the number of bases on the field in the higher offensive environment? You make it sound like Ozzie played in the dead-ball era.

You do realize what makes up total bases, right? Stuff like hits, HR, etc. The league and park adjusted OPS (from B-R) for Ozzie's career was 0.718, while for Omar it has been 0.765. That's a pretty large difference for players with overlapping careers - of course you have to remember that Ozzie played his entire career in the NL, while Vizquel's time was spent primarily in the AL.

[Hammer755]

Dola

I really don't know where Ozzie's reputation and actual on-field play converge. Sure he played in a relatively offense-depressed era at a position where not much was expected at the plate, but a 0.328 SLG is still a 0.328 SLG - even his 0.337 career OBP was only slightly above average when corrected for league and park effects. Does his obvious defensive wizardry and stolen base acumen (600 SB @ an 80% success rate is pretty darn valuable) justify his elite status? I honestly don't know.

FTR, the subject of these first few Overrated/Underrated polls have been brilliant, IMO. Might I suggest Tony Gwynn or Mark McGwire for the next baseball version?

[MikeVic]

I agree that the players chosen have been good discussion.

[st.cronin]

Tom Niedenfuer told me that Ozzie Smith was underrated.

[johnnyshaka]

I liken Tony Gwynn to Ozzie Smith in that they are two of the best personalities to have ever played the game. Easily two of my favorite players all-time just because they seem like the type of guys that would gladly shake your hand and shoot the shit with you at the drop of a hat.

In fact, a buddy of mine is a high school baseball coach in Virginia and this past winter he took the team to San Diego for a week where they were fortunate enough to get a tour of the San Diego State baseball facilities and even workout there for the afternoon. Gwynn spent the entire day with the kids and coaches just hanging out and even spent some time in the cage with a couple of the boys. My buddy said he and Tony talked about everything from fishing to golf and everything in between and said he had to pinch himself every once in a while because he was talking to a Hall of Famer!!!!

[MikeVic]

I liken Tony Gwynn to Ozzie Smith in that they are two of the best personalities to have ever played the game. Easily two of my favorite players all-time just because they seem like the type of guys that would gladly shake your hand and shoot the shit with you at the drop of a hat.

In fact, a buddy of mine is a high school baseball coach in Virginia and this past winter he took the team to San Diego for a week where they were fortunate enough to get a tour of the San Diego State baseball facilities and even workout there for the afternoon. Gwynn spent the entire day with the kids and coaches just hanging out and even spent some time in the cage with a couple of the boys. My buddy said he and Tony talked about everything from fishing to golf and everything in between and said he had to pinch himself every once in a while because he was talking to a Hall of Famer!!!!

Gwynn is a player that I always liked, even though he's not really a favourite or anything. Just seemed like a good guy.

I think the difference though is that Gwynn was a lot better offensively than Ozzie, plus he was a good (gold glover) defensive OF, plus he has good character.

[Poli]

Royce Clayton told me Ozzie was a joke. He laughed when he took over for Ozzie.

[MikeVic]

Royce Clayton told me Ozzie was a joke. He laughed when he took over for Ozzie.

Rolls Royce should be in the Hall of Fame too! He's on the Blue Jays right now!

[st.cronin]

I remember when Royce Clayton played for the Brewers. My girlfriend called him "the homeless guy living out at shortstop."

[Pumpy Tudors]

I remember when Royce Clayton played for the Brewers. My girlfriend called him "the homeless guy living out at shortstop."
You sure that wasn't Pat Listach?

[MikeVic]

You sure that wasn't Pat Listach?

Did he get injured or something? It looks like his rookie year was BY FAR his best, and then he never even finished a full season after that... lasting only a few more years. Or did he jsut really suck. I don't remember much of him. Just had a card.

[st.cronin]

Listach had a very serious leg injury, iirc. I think it was something like what happened to Culpepper.

[Poli]

Bill Spiers thinks Listach was a joke.

[st.cronin]

Ernest Riles thinks Bill Speirs was a joke.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Greg Brock thinks Alvin Davis is a joke.

[Poli]

Greg Brock, come on now. Willie Upshaw was twice the man.

[st.cronin]

Brad Ausmus thinks Shawn Green is a joke.

[MikeVic]

Brad Ausmus thinks Shawn Green is a joke.

Brad Fulmer will rebutle.

[Poli]

If you mention Garth Iorg...

[st.cronin]

Sorry, I prefer Dane.

[st.cronin]

By the way.

The 1982 St. Louis Cardinals hit 67 home runs. The 1983 Cardinals hit 83 home runs. In 1984 they hit 75 home runs, led by David Green with 15. In 1985 they went nuts, hitting 87 home runs. In 1986 they hit 58 home runs.

[Poli]

That's clearly why Ozzie is overrated.

[st.cronin]

The 1994 Cleveland Indians hit 167 home runs. In 1995 they hit 207 home runs. In 1996 they hit 218 home runs. In 1997 they hit 220 home runs. In 1998 they managed only 198 home runs.

[st.cronin]

David Green, now he was underrated.

[Poli]

Only in a "not as good as Tito Landrum, Curt Ford, or Jim Lindeman" sorta way.

[Pumpy Tudors]

During the 1982 World Series, my mother developed a crush on Darrell Porter.

[MikeVic]

During the 1982 World Series, my mother developed a crush on Darrell Porter.

During the 1982 World Series, I developed a crush on your mother. Wait, I wasn't even born yet.

[Poli]

During the 1982 World Series a commercial ran for Frankenberry. Cronin was the young boy in the commercial.

[Pumpy Tudors]

During the 1982 World Series, I developed a crush on your mother. Wait, I wasn't even born yet.
Well, now I feel old.

[Arles]

So then you guys are going to put Vizquel into the HOF as well?
I suggest this reading for those who feel this way:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1337&mode=print&nocache=1143657004

How does Ozzie Smith compare to Omar Vizquel? Smith was a below average hitter in relation to the NL over his career. (NL: .257/.321/.382. Smith: .262/.337/.328; Smith was 5.4% worse than the league average.) Vizquel for his career (.276/.342/.353) is 7.7% worse than the AL (.268/.336/.417). Two quick points: one, Smith played in better pitchers' parks (Qualcomm Stadium/Busch Stadium) than Vizquel has (Kingdome/Jacobs Field). Two, Smith enjoyed a seven-year stretch from 1985-91 in which he was better than the league average, batting .278/.361/.350 in a league that was hitting .253/.318/.377.

How do Vizquel and Smith compare? We'll examine that using Lee Sinins's brainchild, Runs Created Against Position. Smith has 188 RCAP, which means that over the course of his career, he created 188 runs more than an average shortstop. Vizquel weighs in at five more runs than an average SS, so Smith created 183 more runs over the course of his career than Vizquel has.

What about peak value? We saw Vizquel's percentages since the strike, which have coincided with his best years. What's Vizquel's RCAP since the strike? Fifty-three. Over his seven best seasons, Smith had a RCAP of 164--hardly comparable.

Yes, you can argue that Vizquel suffers from playing in the same league as Rodriguez, Jeter, Nomar Garciaparra, and Miguel Tejada, but isn't the Hall of Fame about dominance at a position? Who was more dominant offensively in relation to his peers: Smith or Vizquel?

"Dominance at position for a prolonged period," is a vague term, so at the risk of offending Bill James, I'll use the following qualifiers for Ozzie Smith's career. Here they are with explanations:

1. National League (because of different parks)

2. 9,000+ plate appearances (to show "prolonged period" of dominance. For the record, Smith is well over the 9,000 qualifier--he had 10,778 PA)

3. From 1961-present (expansion era, also to show how he stacked up against his contemporaries)

4. Use my favorite stat (RCAP)--using strictly offense as the guideline.

Smith's RCAP is #1 at shortstop in the National League and fourth overall in MLB from 1961-2001. The three players ahead of him--Robin Yount, Cal Ripken, and Alan Trammell--padded their totals at other positions. Smith was a full-time shortstop.

The top three offensive shortstops in the NL in the expansion era using RCAP are Ozzie Smith (188), Dave Concepcion (136), and Larry Bowa (-8). Smith is also second in OPS, just behind Concepcion (679 to 666).

Let's do a quick check on Vizquel. We'll have to lower the plate-appearance standard to evaluate him according to his peers, because he has just over 7,000 PA:

1. American League (because of different parks)

2. 7,000+ PA

3. From 1961-present

4. Again, use RCAP as the guideline.

Vizquel ranks 22nd according to this standard, with 24 RCAP, behind such luminaries as Freddie Patek, U.L. Washington, and Woodie Held. Remember when we said Smith was second in OPS using the above qualifiers? Vizquel's career OPS is ninth among his peers.

In short, although Vizquel's stats look superficially comparable to Smith's, they're really not. Stated another way, a .300, 30 HR, 100 RBI season is a lot more impressive in 1968 in Dodger Stadium than it would be in 1930 at Fenway Park. Ozzie Smith was a more dominant hitter than Vizquel has been.

Thanks to the good folks at baseball-reference.com we can do another comparison. Ozzie Smith scores a 35 on the HOF Standards Test (where an average HoFer score at 50; he scores 142 on the HOF Monitor, where 100 indicates a likely Hall of Famer.

Vizquel is at 24.9 and 52, respectively.

As we've mentioned, "dominance at his position over a prolonged period" is a good Hall of Fame criteria. Smith was regarded as the finest National League shortstop from 1980-92 as evidenced by his 12 straight Gold Gloves (13 overall) and All-Star selections (15 overall) from 1981-92. Can Omar Vizquel, with nine Gold Gloves and two All-Star selections, make such a claim? Ozzie Smith was the greatest all-around NL shortstop in the expansion era. We can't say that about Vizquel in the AL, not with a straight face.

To compare Smith to Vizquel is insulting to the Wizard of Oz, and when that comparison falls apart, so does Vizquel's argument for being a Hall of Famer.

[Poli]

I'd have thought this was cool until he contributed Alan's stats to playing another position. The dude was a shortstop for 95% of his career.

While I love the Oz, people that toot their horn and say, "look at all the research and fancy stats I've put together, you're dead wrong if you believe otherwise," make me sick when they gloss over stuff.

[Poli]

It reminds me of that goob instructor I had to deal with in 2003. Oh, he knew the Cardinals, alright. He swore up and down the Cardinals needed to move Pujols to 3rd, which was his "natural" position and trade Rolen for Vladimir.

Misquoted stats like he was a walking encyclopedia of baseball knowledge. "Herr had 100 some odd RBIs in 1982." The man could play some second base. Nice try, big guy. That was '85.

Oh, what do you know, you were 3 years old. You might be right there. I'm younger than you, but I'm right and you're old.

[Poli]

Omar's latest HOF rating, for those interested:

HOF Monitor (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_monitor): Batting - 104.5 (137) (Likely HOFer > 100)

[Poli]

And I don't really like the guy. He's just a Hoover at short.

[Crapshoot]

I'm kindof surprised as the rabidly sabermetric lot hasn't weighed on in Ozzie yet. We're 35 posts in and nothing on how fielding statistics are in their infancy, people calling him clutch are crazy, or anyone reminding people how he only had 4 OPS+ seasons above 100(!!!).

SI

You're right - we need more of the "he knew how to win" and "he was clutch" crowd. :rolleyes:

[Crapshoot]

Dola,
I think Ozzie's rated pretty well - he was a slightly below average hitter for his time, but his defense was exemplary. In fact, if I had to pick a comp for Ozzie today, I'd probably say its Adam Everett - who IMO (and I'm a Giants fan!) is the best defensive SS in baseball. He's a lot worse as a hitter, however ( relatively speaking) than Ozzie was.

[Arles]

I think it shows three things that many people forget when talking about Ozzie:

1. The national league's hitting numbers were horrid in the 1980s. So, when Smith hit .280 with a .360 OBP from 1985 to 1993, that was very good for the era (phenominal for a SS).

2. He played in one of the league's biggest ballparks (and a pitcher's park). As was stated above, St. Louis was a top team in the NL hitting between 55 and 90 HRs a season. So, the value of a good defensive infield was very high.

3. Ozzie had a very good batting eye and played small ball to perfection. For his career he had 1072 walks and 589 Ks. In his prime, he averaged 70 walks and 30 strikeouts a season. He was also a phenominal bunter, averaged 75 runs in his prime (again, good for a poor hitting NL) and stole 580 bases in his career (80% success rate).

[st.cronin]

I know that there's no predicting clutch behavior - but Ozzie Smith did hit a home run off Tom Niedenfuer that was incredibly clutch. That's something that happened, and he deserves credit for it.

Using clutch to predict future performance - stupid.
Dismissing clutch performance that's already happened - just as stupid.

[clintl]

This part of the article is either inaccurate or out of date.

Posted by Arles

Thanks to the good folks at baseball-reference.com we can do another comparison. Ozzie Smith scores a 35 on the HOF Standards Test (where an average HoFer score at 50; he scores 142 on the HOF Monitor, where 100 indicates a likely Hall of Famer.

Vizquel is at 24.9 and 52, respectively.

Vizquel is at 32.9 and 104.5 on the HOF Standards and HOF Monitor tests. That's below Ozzie's numbers, as they should be, but the gap is much narrower than the article tries to argue.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/v/vizquom01.shtml

EDIT: Actually, these guys don't have Ozzie's numbers quite right, either. He's at 30.9 on HOF Standards (which is slightly below Omar) and 142.5 for HOF Monitor. I wonder if they wrote the article right around the time of Ozzie's retirement (which would mean mid-career for Vizquel).

[Atocep]

I think Ozzie is rated about right. Probably the best defensive shortstop ever and an average-ish hitter. He was a much better defender than Vizquel has ever been.

Ozzie's (and a lot of shortstops from the 80s and prior) biggest problem is the position has developed into more of an offensive position. Guys like ARod, Jeter, Reyes, Nomar, and Hanley Ramirez are changing the perception of past shortstops.

Vizquel shouldn't get anywhere near the hall of fame. He's been overrated as a defender his entire career and he's a below average hitter. He probably doesn't belong among the top 40-50 shortstops.

[Pumpy Tudors]

OK, a preface here: I'm not one to put down people who are big into sabermetrics, but I admit that I don't understand some of the sabermetric arguments. I understand that wins aren't a good measure of a pitcher's ability, and I understand that RBI really doesn't say very much about a hitter's ability. What I don't understand is which "traditional" stats are useful for evaluating a player. So here's where I'm going with this...

Is fielding percentage "out" as a useful statistic? Obviously, I'm asking this because of Omar Vizquel. I mean, for the past several years, people say to look at OPS (or OPS+) instead of batting average. People say to look at ERA+ instead of ERA. So what are we looking at instead of fielding percentage now? I'm not trying to ridicule. Like I said, I just don't understand.

I almost want to hit myself for taking a thread about my favorite player and using it to argue a case for Omar Vizquel. It was my choice to do it, though. :)

[rowech]

OK, a preface here: I'm not one to put down people who are big into sabermetrics, but I admit that I don't understand some of the sabermetric arguments. I understand that wins aren't a good measure of a pitcher's ability, and I understand that RBI really doesn't say very much about a hitter's ability. What I don't understand is which "traditional" stats are useful for evaluating a player. So here's where I'm going with this...

Is fielding percentage "out" as a useful statistic? Obviously, I'm asking this because of Omar Vizquel. I mean, for the past several years, people say to look at OPS (or OPS+) instead of batting average. People say to look at ERA+ instead of ERA. So what are we looking at instead of fielding percentage now? I'm not trying to ridicule. Like I said, I just don't understand.

I almost want to hit myself for taking a thread about my favorite player and using it to argue a case for Omar Vizquel. It was my choice to do it, though. :)

Most people will probably tell you to look at range factor and compare it to the league average. Range Factor is assists and putouts compared to the league average at a particular position basically. The theory is it represents how much extra stuff a guy gets to.

[clintl]

Is fielding percentage "out" as a useful statistic? Obviously, I'm asking this because of Omar Vizquel. I mean, for the past several years, people say to look at OPS (or OPS+) instead of batting average. People say to look at ERA+ instead of ERA. So what are we looking at instead of fielding percentage now? I'm not trying to ridicule. Like I said, I just don't understand.


I don't think fielding percentage is out, but where Ozzie beats Omar defensively is in range factor. The stats say that Ozzie got to a lot more balls than anyone else (Omar included).

[MikeVic]

Most people will probably tell you to look at range factor and compare it to the league average. Range Factor is assists and putouts compared to the league average at a particular position basically. The theory is it represents how much extra stuff a guy gets to.

But this doesn't say how good the guy is at actually fielding normally, does it?

[clintl]

One thing about range factor - I think it's a good measure, but I think it doesn't take into account some factors that the fielders have no control over. For instance, if you're shortstop on a team with a bunch of strikeout pitchers or a bunch of fly ball pitchers, you might not have as many opportunities to make plays as you would playing on a team with a lot of ground ball pitchers.

Does anyone know for sure?

[Pumpy Tudors]

One thing about range factor - I think it's a good measure, but I think it doesn't take into account some factors that the fielders have no control over. For instance, if you're shortstop on a team with a bunch of strikeout pitchers or a bunch of fly ball pitchers, you might not have as many opportunities to make plays as you would playing on a team with a lot of ground ball pitchers.

Does anyone know for sure?
See, that's what I think about range factor. A shortstop can't control how many opportunities he gets (at least not to any significant degree). Is this one of those stats that just pretty much "evens itself out" because of the large number of balls put into play each year?

[Crapshoot]

One thing about range factor - I think it's a good measure, but I think it doesn't take into account some factors that the fielders have no control over. For instance, if you're shortstop on a team with a bunch of strikeout pitchers or a bunch of fly ball pitchers, you might not have as many opportunities to make plays as you would playing on a team with a lot of ground ball pitchers.

Does anyone know for sure?

Yup. Essentially, the best way to measure fielding (in an ideal world) is this - of the balls in his area, how many did he get to - ie, measure his skill as a function of his opportunity. Range Factor doesn't properly account for the situation you described above. Its a useful number, but a SS playing all his games behind Derek Lowe would look substantially better than one playing behind Curt Schilling, to take one example.

[Crapshoot]

Dola,
Range Factor is almost like the RBI of fielding in that sense, but the distortion between it and the "true performance" level is a lot less than with RBI.

[rowech]

But this doesn't say how good the guy is at actually fielding normally, does it?

Nope...just says if he gets more putouts or assists more than the average guy so in theory then, he has better range. As clintl points out though, it doesn't take a lot of things into account. Bill James, makes a point in his book, not about this stat but a similar one, that the 1971 Cardinals I think it was had the biggest difference between assist chances compared to the average shortstop and it was because they had a bunch of LH pitchers. Then you obviously have GB vs. FB pitchers into it as well.

[clintl]

Yeah, but in Ozzie's case, the range factor is so much higher relative to the league average than anyone's else's I've looked at that there's no way those things could possibly make that much of difference. His career range factor is 5.03 compared to a league average of 4.10. That's just a huge difference.

[DeToxRox]

Dola

I really don't know where Ozzie's reputation and actual on-field play converge. Sure he played in a relatively offense-depressed era at a position where not much was expected at the plate, but a 0.328 SLG is still a 0.328 SLG - even his 0.337 career OBP was only slightly above average when corrected for league and park effects. Does his obvious defensive wizardry and stolen base acumen (600 SB @ an 80% success rate is pretty darn valuable) justify his elite status? I honestly don't know.

FTR, the subject of these first few Overrated/Underrated polls have been brilliant, IMO. Might I suggest Tony Gwynn or Mark McGwire for the next baseball version?

McGwire and Gwynn were my next two thoughts actually ha. Football one coming up shortly tho, I think could be the most fun one yet.

[Arles]

Dola

I really don't know where Ozzie's reputation and actual on-field play converge. Sure he played in a relatively offense-depressed era at a position where not much was expected at the plate, but a 0.328 SLG is still a 0.328 SLG - even his 0.337 career OBP was only slightly above average when corrected for league and park effects.
Here's a site with average NL shortstop numbers:

http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~rickert/BB/avgSS.html


year BA OBP SLG R
NL 1984 .243 .298 .314 40
NL 1985 .256 .306 .347 50
NL 1986 .254 .317 .336 43
NL 1987 .256 .312 .355 46
NL 1988 .246 .296 .335 51
NL 1989 .253 .303 .353 48
NL 1990 .253 .309 .352 55
NL 1991 .262 .321 .368 53
NL 1992 .256 .323 .345 49

So, in that light, a .280 AVG, .360 OBP, 75 runs and 30-40 SBs at 80% is very good offensively. Throw in his defense and he was a dominating presence at SS (which is why he was a yearly all-star).

[twothree]

Here's a site with average NL shortstop numbers:

http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~rickert/BB/avgSS.html


Off-topic Post

Ack, I am getting old. Links from that page eventually led me to the Mathematics department. Kind of weird seeing almost every math professor that I had, all listed under the Retired and Emeritus Faculty section.

[Honolulu Blue]

Is fielding percentage "out" as a useful statistic?

Fielding percentage isn't very useful because the difference between player errors at every position is swamped by the differences in their range.

Range factors are better, but the state-of-the-art these days is zone ratings or similar, where the path of each ball is plotted and fielders are given credit for successfully fielding balls in their zone, or not if they don't. This requires advanced scoresheets, which probably don't exist for most of the Ozzie era.

On topic, as one of the best defensive shortstops ever and not a complete offensive millstone, Ozzie seems like a Hall of Famer to me, and therefore, not overrated.

[cougarfreak]

No, but Omar did play in the juiced-ball era.

And Oz played in the stolen base era.

[cougarfreak]

Yup. Essentially, the best way to measure fielding (in an ideal world) is this - of the balls in his area, how many did he get to - ie, measure his skill as a function of his opportunity. Range Factor doesn't properly account for the situation you described above. Its a useful number, but a SS playing all his games behind Derek Lowe would look substantially better than one playing behind Curt Schilling, to take one example.

Exactly true. I wonder how Ken Oberkfell, and Tom Herr looked in relation to other 2b and 3b in that time frame. That might give you a pretty decent indication of if St. Louis' pitchers got a disproportionate amount of GB's.

[sterlingice]

If we split it 25-25... then if a pitcher can get into Cooperstown as a starter, being great at once every five days at that 25% (call it a 5% team contribution), then why can't a shortstop (call it a fifth of the defense every day) get in by being great at that same 5%?

?!?!?!? There's just something about this calculation that makes my head explode and I can't place my finger on what it is...

SI