MLB Overrated or Note v2: Ozzie Smith
 

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Guuuuuuuh.

Note.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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

Hell yes.

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?

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.

ditto

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.

Nope

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

It's a waste of time ;).

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

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.

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.

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)

I'd put Vizquel in as well.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.