Omar Vizquel- HOF worthy?

LBJ · #1 08-12-2005, 04:25 AM

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 · #2 08-12-2005, 04:46 AM

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.

AriesRam · #3 08-12-2005, 09:32 AM

<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.

New001 · #4 08-12-2005, 04:59 AM

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 · #5 08-12-2005, 05:22 AM

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.

hoyaboy1 · #6 08-12-2005, 12:59 PM

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

battschr · #7 08-12-2005, 01:00 PM

OPS+ isn't ballpark adjusted, is it?

Jack of Arcades · #8 08-12-2005, 07:48 PM

[ 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.

hoyaboy1 · #9 08-12-2005, 11:41 PM

[ 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 · #10 08-13-2005, 01:09 AM

[ 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?