Omar Vizquel- HOF worthy?

[LBJ]

Omar Vizquel has quietly had a HOF career. Here is why. Ozzie Smith was a 1st ballot inductee to the HOF in 2002. I will compare Ozzie's numbers to Omar Vizquels. Since Ozzie had around 9,300 at bats, and Vizquel only has 8,220 I will project Omar's statistics out to 9,300 At bats. Is this fair? Yes. Omar, at the age of 38, is having yet another productive season on the SF Giants. Because he is not on the decline, it is fair to project Omar's stats out to 9,300 at bats.

OMAR OZZIE

Avg.- .275 .262
Hits- 2,559 2,460
RBI- 848 793
2B- 418 402
3B- 66 69
SB- 381 580
OBP%- .341 .337
SLG%- .359 .328
HR- 77 28
Runs- 1,336 1,257
SO- 941 589


Clearly, Vizquel was the better offensive player. I don't think that is the debate. Ozzie Smith was known for his GREAT defense. But, as you look at the numbers, Vizquel has better defensive numbers too. These stats are projected out to 2,500 games each.

OMAR OZZIE
Fielding%- .984 .978
DPs- 1,635 1,590
Errors- 183 281

Overall, it's pretty damn clear that Vizquel was the better ball player. The only argument left is "Did Ozzie Smith deserve to go to the HOF?" If you answered yes, then your vote should be yes for Vizquel too. But when it comes down to it, the only vote that matters is of the HOF. Will they choose to put in Vizquel?

[B00T]

No.

Ozzie Smith, whether fair or not, lays a claim to revolutionizing the position and set the bar where it is today. Vizquel will never have that, and thats the difference in the media's eyes.

[New001]

I don't think he'll get in, but I'd love to see it, especially in an era where offensive numbers are so inflated. Plus, from my brief conversations with him, he's a cool guy. That's got to count for something, right?

[Jack of Arcades]

The gaping hole in your analysis is your lack of context.

Taking in context, Ozzie Smith was a better hitter than Omar Vizquel.

Also taking in context, of course Omar turned more DPs than Ozzie - there were more baserunners.

To call Omar Vizquel a better ballplayer than Ozzie Smith is ridiculous.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

i'm sorry but this is insanely bad analysis.

1) in context, ozzie was a better hitter and thats not really debatable.

2) your defensive analysis is flawed. fiedling % and errors aren't actually the most important defensive stats to look at. ozzie smith by far reached more balls over his career than any other shortstop, so when you reach that many balls, naturally you're going to have a lot more chances to make plays (hence the more errors) and a lot more chances to make tougher plays (hence having a lower fielding %).

oh yah, you really can't just add in 1000+ more at bats on a 38 year old's career and assume he's not going to decline.

[Sluss]

No, and it's not even close. Vizquel was never in the top five shortstops in his entire career. While Vizquel was/is a great defensive player he was never the leader of a World Series team. He was just never great. To steal the line, "It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Pretty Good." And Omar was pretty good.

[AriesRam]

<i> Ozzie Smith, whether fair or not, lays a claim to revolutionizing the position and set the bar where it is today. </i>

While I agree with the general point, that Vizquel is not HOF worthy, this statement is not really correct. I think it is more fair to say that Ozzie was the last of his breed, ie the banjo-hitting, slick-fielding physically unimposing shortstop. Look at the "top" shortstops in the game today, Jeter, A-Rod (still a SS in my book), Nomar (when healthy), Tejada. None of these guys are known for their defense.

I think it is more accurate to say that Cal Ripken revolutionized and influenced the modern shortstop much more than Ozzie did.

[BWebb]

I don't know about HOF, but watching him this year as a Giants fan has been one of the few highlights. I never realized how good he actually was, especially because he didn't put up the huge power numbers or play in NY (and therefore all the incessant knobslobbing like Jeter gets). He has to be one of the most underrated players over the last decade.

[Clarkmeister]

I've always thought he was worthy of discussion for the HoF.

Though it's fair to note that Ozzie's hitting got significantly better as his career progressed.

[PTjvs]

No. Ozzie only got into the hall of fame because he was "The Wizard of Oz". Take away the backflips & put him in KC and no one today would even know who he was. Larkin has a better HOF resume than Vizquel does, and he's not going to come close to getting in either.

jvs

[adios]

I don't understand the in context part of why Ozzie Smith was a better hitter (perhaps players around him and bigger ballpark). I've watch Omar play a lot of games over the years and he was/is an excellent SS IMO, I think every bit as good out in the field as any SS I've seen overall. One thing about Ozzie that I think people should keep in mind, he also played alot of games on the carpet which in my mind has to make things tougher. Ozzie was more widely publicized than Omar. Don't think Omar will get in.

[battschr]

Omar- No.....Larkin-Yes.

[battschr]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand the in context part of why Ozzie Smith was a better hitter (perhaps players around him and bigger ballpark). I've watch Omar play a lot of games over the years and he was/is an excellent SS IMO, I think every bit as good out in the field as any SS I've seen overall. One thing about Ozzie that I think people should keep in mind, he also played alot of games on the carpet which in my mind has to make things tougher. Ozzie was more widely publicized than Omar. Don't think Omar will get in.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ozzie hit in an era when nubers weren't inflated by steroids/bandbox ballparks/whatever the cause may be. Omar is playing in a time where there are shortstops that are hitting 40 HR a year (well, when Arod was still a SS), or putting up similarly striking numbers (Tejada, Nomar, Jeter, etc.) I'm a Cubs fan and hate the Cards, but Ozzie is a no doubt HOFer, and Omar is a no doubt non-HOFer, in my opinion.

[hoyaboy1]

I'd like to see your case for Ozzie being a much better hitter "in context." OPS+ doesn't bear that out.

[battschr]

OPS+ isn't ballpark adjusted, is it?

[PTjvs]

Checking out the numbers, Larkin actually is interesting.

In his favor, Larkin has:

an NL MVP
12 all-star appearances
3 gold gloves (and probably should have had 2-3 more)
379 SB (a lot in the era in which he played
9 Silver Sluggers
198 HR in an era where SS didn't hit HR
career .295 BA

and was one of the best 2-3 SS for at least a 19 year stretch.

However, he only ended up with 2180 hits in 19 seasons, and was hurt a lot at times.

Larkin = HOFer?

jvs

[andyfox]

Hasn't Omar played in an eraa when more runs are being scored as well? Ozzie's numbers, in context, might prove that Omar is not clearly the better offensive player.

Jack?

[battschr]

Also, Omar's reputation defensively is over-inflated. He was a plus defender for many years that won Gold Gloves on a few spectacular plays. Ozzie was an all-time elite defender....maybe the best ever.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, Omar's reputation defensively is over-inflated. He was a plus defender for many years that won Gold Gloves on a few spectacular plays.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man that is sooooooooooooooo wrong. I'll play the Bill James card here though, defense is probably overrated in that an excellent fielding shortstop vs. a decent fielding shortstop who hits a ton better than the excellent fielding shortstop prefers the latter.

[battschr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, Omar's reputation defensively is over-inflated. He was a plus defender for many years that won Gold Gloves on a few spectacular plays.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man that is sooooooooooooooo wrong. I'll play the Bill James card here though, defense is probably overrated in that an excellent fielding shortstop vs. a decent fielding shortstop who hits a ton better than the excellent fielding shortstop prefers the latter.


[/ QUOTE ]
Your second sentence is certainly correct. Maybe I didn't frame my statement as well as I could have. Omar was a very, very good defender, and worthy of several of the gold gloves he has. He just wasn't always head and shoulders above everyone else like Ozzie was defensively. There were years in his prime where there were other SS who fielded roughly as well as Omar.

[LBJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, Omar's reputation defensively is over-inflated. He was a plus defender for many years that won Gold Gloves on a few spectacular plays. Ozzie was an all-time elite defender....maybe the best ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is easily the dumbest statement I've heard of yet in this thread. I was a season-tickets holder for the Cleveland Indians from 1994-2002 and I can tell you first-hand that Omar's reputation as a SS was because of his endurance at defense. Even the numbers can prove you wrong. If Omar has less errors and a better FEILD%, then he consistently played better and made less mistakes.

[LBJ]

[ QUOTE ]

oh yah, you really can't just add in 1000+ more at bats on a 38 year old's career and assume he's not going to decline.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already explained why you can. I am adding 1,070 at bats. Thats a little more than the rest of this season and next season. Omar is not declining right now. He's one of the best hitters and the best fielder on the Giants. It's perfectly fair to project Omar's numbers because he has stayed amazingly consistent throughout his career and shows almost no signs of slowing down. If anything, I should be the one arguing that Omar should have even better numbers than Ozzie because he will get more than 9,300 at bats. It's totally possible he will play another 3 years.

[battschr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, Omar's reputation defensively is over-inflated. He was a plus defender for many years that won Gold Gloves on a few spectacular plays. Ozzie was an all-time elite defender....maybe the best ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is easily the dumbest statement I've heard of yet in this thread. I was a season-tickets holder for the Cleveland Indians from 1994-2002 and I can tell you first-hand that Omar's reputation as a SS was because of his endurance at defense. Even the numbers can prove you wrong. If Omar has less errors and a better FEILD%, then he consistently played better and made less mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]
I found UZR ratings for 2000-2003 and Omar was 15th in UZR runs..errors and fielding % are not good metrics for measuring defensive performance.

[battschr]

Here's the link to those numbers for those interested:

http://www.tangotiger.net/UZR0003.html

[LBJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the link to those numbers for those interested:

http://www.tangotiger.net/UZR0003.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the numbers. Please tell me what the hell they mean. In all honesty, there are a million different stats out there that can be used for each sides of arguments. You see this in the NBA all the time. Theres a million different sites with a bunch of different stats, and many times you can use one stat to prove a player is the best and another stat to prove a player is the worst.

[battschr]

It's ultimate zone rating..it measures fielding based on how much range a fielder has and how well they field balls they get to. It's a good metrice for measuring defense, imo. However, these numbers are from 2000-2003, Vizquel's numbers would most likely be better earlier in his career. FWIW, Jeter is consistently horrible, although I think last year he had a decent defensive year.

[LBJ]

[ QUOTE ]
It's ultimate zone rating..it measures fielding based on how much range a fielder has and how well they field balls they get to. It's a good metrice for measuring defense, imo. However, these numbers are from 2000-2003, Vizquel's numbers would most likely be better earlier in his career. FWIW, Jeter is consistently horrible, although I think last year he had a decent defensive year.

[/ QUOTE ]

But how are they rated? Is it by pure numbers? My point is there really are a huge amount of different statistics you can use to illustrate your point. Some statistics can be used to help a person point and another statistic can be used go completely against a persons point. There is a reason the MLB and the public use the different set of main stats they do, so I would say stick with them.

[battschr]

The only stats MLB uses is fielding on plays where a fielder reaches a ball...they don't account for range at all. UZR uses extensive play-by-play studies.

[LBJ]

Do you have a site with Ozzie Smith's UZR for him and other shortstops during his career?

[battschr]

Nope, can't find one...have been looking though. I'm quitting now though, because when the going gets tough, quit. However, I did find an interesting article stating that Omar is the most over-rated fielder in history. I don't really agree, but it may be worth a look.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/main/article/humphreys_2003-11-19_0

[LBJ]

When creating this thread I decided to compare both Omar Vizquel and Ozzie Smith because I felt it was a fair comparison. I believe the stats I compiled showed Omar was a better ball player or even on the same level Ozzie Smith.

Without anything to compare, the UZR rating is useless. Like I said there is a huge amount of different stats, and MLB and the public choose to use the most important, so let's stick with them. That way we can compare both Omar and Ozzie without going through too much trouble.

[battschr]

The MLB certainly does not use the most important. For instance, they always use AVG./HR/RBI on TV broadcasts when these certainly aren't the most important offensive statistics. Anyway, I don't think Vizquel is a HOFer, so agree to disagree then. I don't want to argue w/ you, why don't we talk about something we would agree upon? Judging by your avatar, I think Lebron would be a good choice.

[battschr]

Ok, found one more.

http://baseball-analysis.com/article.php?articleid=1337

[LBJ]

[ QUOTE ]
The MLB certainly does not use the most important. For instance, they always use AVG./HR/RBI on TV broadcasts when these certainly aren't the most important offensive statistics. Anyway, I don't think Vizquel is a HOFer, so agree to disagree then. I don't want to argue w/ you, why don't we talk about something we would agree upon? Judging by your avatar, I think Lebron would be a good choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

The MLB can't fit all 15+ offensive stats they use for a player on to the screen and those 3 stats are the most recognized by the public. But if you go to a MLB players page and look at their statistics, you'll see all the stats needed to make an accurate judgment of a player.

[Victor]

oh man. i cant wait for tolbiny to see this thread. we had this same conversations last night. he was adamant that omar was better than ozzie. i say no freakin way. however, i think a strong case can be made for omar in the HOF.

[battschr]

EQA, VORP, etc are better measures of a player's offensive performance than any one of BA, OBP, etc. UZR is a better measure of a player's defensive performance than Fielding % or errors made. The reason MLB and the public use the other states is not because they are better, but because they are traditional, people are used to them.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

[ QUOTE ]
This is easily the dumbest statement I've heard of yet in this thread. I was a season-tickets holder for the Cleveland Indians from 1994-2002 and I can tell you first-hand that Omar's reputation as a SS was because of his endurance at defense. Even the numbers can prove you wrong. If Omar has less errors and a better FEILD%, then he consistently played better and made less mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is like a mom telling everybody that her baby is the cutest baby in the whole world. She's not really saying it with a objective opinion in things. New York fans over the years insist that Derek Jeter is in fact a good defensive short stop because they see him play every day when all other evidence suggest otherwise.

Also I already pointed out to you why Fielding% and Errors aren't the most important defensive statistic. It doesnt' account for how many balls a player gets to. Generally, a person who has more range will have more errors because he's getting to more balls (thus making harder players and more chance of errors). He may make a few more errors but thats because he gets to so many more balls. If you check the stats, Ozzie Smith by far had the best range factor for shortstops in history.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see your case for Ozzie being a much better hitter "in context." OPS+ doesn't bear that out.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) OBP is not weighted properly by OPS. More of Ozzie's OPS came from OBP, and he was better in relation to the league.
2) Ozzie was a much better baserunner.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's the link to those numbers for those interested:

http://www.tangotiger.net/UZR0003.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the numbers. Please tell me what the hell they mean. In all honesty, there are a million different stats out there that can be used for each sides of arguments. You see this in the NBA all the time. Theres a million different sites with a bunch of different stats, and many times you can use one stat to prove a player is the best and another stat to prove a player is the worst.

[/ QUOTE ]

UZR is, essentially, the propietary stat the Cardinals use to measure defense. It's similar to what LA and OAK use, as well.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
Larkin = HOFer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh god yes. Alan Trammell, too.

[hoyaboy1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see your case for Ozzie being a much better hitter "in context." OPS+ doesn't bear that out.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) OBP is not weighted properly by OPS. More of Ozzie's OPS came from OBP, and he was better in relation to the league.
2) Ozzie was a much better baserunner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh. The baserunning is true, but Omar has a higher career OBP (although Smith's was a tad bit better compared to the league). Smith has an edge, but it is much smaller than you made it sound.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see your case for Ozzie being a much better hitter "in context." OPS+ doesn't bear that out.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) OBP is not weighted properly by OPS. More of Ozzie's OPS came from OBP, and he was better in relation to the league.
2) Ozzie was a much better baserunner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh. The baserunning is true, but Omar has a higher career OBP (although Smith's was a tad bit better compared to the league). Smith has an edge, but it is much smaller than you made it sound.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ozzie: .337 vs .328
Omar: .341 vs .340

Also, in Ozzie's time shortstops were anemic hitters. Shortstops actually hit worse than catchers. He was worth more relative to other SSes in his time than Omar was. It'd reasonable to suggest that Ozzie was among the top shortstops hitting-wise many times during his career... Omar Vizquel? Maybe 1999?

[andyfox]

1999 OPS:

Nomar 1021
Jeter 990
A Rod 943
Omar 833

[LBJ]

[ QUOTE ]
1999 OPS:

Nomar 1021
Jeter 990
A Rod 943
Omar 833

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont mind me asking, but what the hell does that have to do with anything. I'm sure Ozzie Smith and some of the other non-power hitting greats of the game are not up there in OPS either.

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1999 OPS:

Nomar 1021
Jeter 990
A Rod 943
Omar 833

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont mind me asking, but what the hell does that have to do with anything. I'm sure Ozzie Smith and some of the other non-power hitting greats of the game are not up there in OPS either.

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

But Ozzie was arguably the greatest defensive shortstop of all time. Vizquel..... no. Look at Ozzie's Range Factor, it's sooo good.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1999 OPS:

Nomar 1021
Jeter 990
A Rod 943
Omar 833

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont mind me asking, but what the hell does that have to do with anything. I'm sure Ozzie Smith and some of the other non-power hitting greats of the game are not up there in OPS either.

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

It shows that Omar, even in his best year, couldn't even come close to being the best SS in the game, when you could argue that Ozzie was, at his peak, the best.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]

Also, in Ozzie's time shortstops were anemic hitters. Shortstops actually hit worse than catchers. He was worth more relative to other SSes in his time than Omar was. It'd reasonable to suggest that Ozzie was among the top shortstops hitting-wise many times during his career... Omar Vizquel? Maybe 1999?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most important difference IMO. However, it's quite possible that Ozzie's offensive numbers benefit from managers inefficiently using their players. Lately they've started to realize that it's not worth playing your best defensive player at SS if he can't hit worth crap.

However, this makes his defensive numbers even more spectacular. In a time when great defense was all that was needed to play SS in the majors, he still managed to dominate his peers. If Ozzie played during Vizquel's career, his offensive numbers may have been roughly the same - but he would have been even more awesome defensively compared to the average SS. Conversely, Vizquel probably would have been an average defensive SS in the late 70's/early 80's.