Pedro A Hall Of Famer?

[PMJackson21 0]

Never really thought about it. Immediately, I say yes. But I have no idea what his stats are off the top of my head. You alluded to the fact that Visquel has better stats, let me go look.

Higher career BA, SLG %, OB %, more hrs, more rbis, higher fielding percentage...and like I said earlier, the most games played at SS ever. That kind of stat is something the voters love I'd think.I haven't looked at the comparison directly, but I'm sure his numbers are much better then Pee Wee Reese, Phil Rizzuto, and a few other SSs from the era when all teams wanted out of the their SS was good defense and leadership on the infield.

[PMJackson21 0]

I did a Smith vs. Vizquel comparison here a little over a year ago:http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...t&p=1955469I'd go about it a little differently now (less reliance on BP's fielding metrics for starters), but I think the conclusion is valid.EDIT: Since you edited yours...read my post and come back. Omar was WORSE in just about everything when you adjust for context...(postseason excepted...I didn't look at that)

Good read, tyty. I agree with the points about adjusting for era, but not so much in regards to how they were percieved by the league. At the time when Ozzie was thought so highly of, people viewed the SS position (especially offensively) a lot different then they did when Omar was in his prime. Like you pointed out in that thread, Omar's contemporaries were Nomar, Arod, Jeter etc. It only makes sense that people wouldn't appreciate Omar as much as they do the high offensive guys. If Omar played in the mid 80s in the NL his whole career, I'm sure he would have garnered the type of attention Ozzie did. Until Omar hits a HR in the NLCS to kill my team's chances, I'll dislike him a little bit less then Smith.

[El Guapo 8]

I did a Smith vs. Vizquel comparison here a little over a year ago:http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...t&p=1955469I'd go about it a little differently now (less reliance on BP's fielding metrics for starters), but I think the conclusion is valid.EDIT: Since you edited yours...read my post and come back. Omar was WORSE in just about everything when you adjust for context...(postseason excepted...I didn't look at that)

OK, I looked at your post. Are you saying that Ozzie got to more balls than Omar so his few more errors are negligible?Also, I am not sure how you calculated the adjustment for the eras, they kind of flowed together, they played 7 season at the same time.I don't really thing comparing Omar to Arod/Nomar/Jeter/Chipper is pertinent either, they are different players all of whom besides Jeter has gone to play different positions.

[MDXS 0]

Good read, tyty. I agree with the points about adjusting for era, but not so much in regards to how they were percieved by the league. At the time when Ozzie was thought so highly of, people viewed the SS position (especially offensively) a lot different then they did when Omar was in his prime. Like you pointed out in that thread, Omar's contemporaries were Nomar, Arod, Jeter etc. It only makes sense that people wouldn't appreciate Omar as much as they do the high offensive guys. If Omar played in the mid 80s in the NL his whole career, I'm sure he would have garnered the type of attention Ozzie did.

To this I would say that people didn't appreciate Omar as much because he wasn't contributing as much. During his career, shortstop was more of an offensive position and because he wasn't a great hitter, did less to help his team win. I don't think his defense (which I tend to think is a little overstated and not in the same league as Ozzie) makes up for the offensive deficit. So to me, I don't want the 5th best (or so...) shortstop of the era, whose main qualifications come from sticking around, who was never dominant and never the best player on his team (and usually not second), getting elected.Kind of a tangential point, but when Ozzie was at his best, the Cardinals were a smallball team. Lots of stealing, bunting, baserunning, and defense. These were all Smith's strong suits. He exemplified their style of play, was their star, and they won with it. By comparison, when I think back to those sick, sick Indians teams of the 90's, I'm not thinking Vizquel, I'm thinking Ramirez, Thome, Belle, and Alomar first...I think the key to my argument is demonstrating how much better Ozzie's defense was than Vizquel's. I don't have a snappy analysis sitting around, but if I come up with that, I'll be back.

[MDXS 0]

OK, I looked at your post. Are you saying that Ozzie got to more balls than Omar so his few more errors are negligible?Also, I am not sure how you calculated the adjustment for the eras, they kind of flowed together, they played 7 season at the same time.I don't really thing comparing Omar to Arod/Nomar/Jeter/Chipper is pertinent either, they are different players all of whom besides Jeter has gone to play different positions.

Baseball in the 80's was a lot different than baseball in the 90's. There's some overlap in their careers, but not at their peaks.Comparing Omar to other players at his position is essential to understanding his value as a player. When those other players move to less demanding positions, Omar certainly gains an edge in our considerations. On the whole though, if we're trying to figure out is Vizquel is a Hall of Famer, you must start by comparing him to his peers in position and his peers by era. ARod, Tejada, Nomar and the rest as the best place to start because they fit both categories.EDIT: Missed the errors question. Yes, I am saying that. Those balls that Vizquel didn't get to are hits, whereas Ozzie turned them into outs (with a couple more errors). Taken all together, you'd rather have the guy that generates more outs. Range factors aren't perfect, but when they're consistently disparate, they do tell a story.

[PMJackson21 0]

I think the key to my argument is demonstrating how much better Ozzie's defense was than Vizquel's. I don't have a snappy analysis sitting around, but if I come up with that, I'll be back.

Yeah, that would be key, at least for me. I look forward to reading it if you get the time to put something together. :)And on a side note, if you put Ozzie Smith in the Indians lineup from that time, he would be overshadowed as well. They were both marginal hitting/great fielding SSs, comparing their eras and teams they played on isn't that important from my perspective. After all, in a way Omar came in at the end of Ozzie's era, and Ozzie played into Omar's era, so it's not like we are comparing the 30's to now. In other words, if you switch their birthdays and put them in the league at different times, I'm sure they both would have similar careers to what they ended up having.

[MDXS 0]

Yeah, that would be key, at least for me. I look forward to reading it if you get the time to put something together. :)And on a side note, if you put Ozzie Smith in the Indians lineup from that time, he would be overshadowed as well. They were both marginal hitting/great fielding SSs, comparing their eras and teams they played on isn't that important from my perspective. After all, in a way Omar came in at the end of Ozzie's era, and Ozzie played into Omar's era, so it's not like we are comparing the 30's to now. In other words, if you switch their birthdays and put them in the league at different times, I'm sure they both would have similar careers to what they ended up having.

Cool. Yeah, I don't want to give the impression that I'm pulling it out of my ass regarding their respective defense. I have seen a number of comparisons that I found compelling, I just didn't save them. Oh well...burden of proof's on me. Switching Omar and Ozzie is an interesting thought experiment and I think you're largely correct. There would be some visible differences. 1994 marked the beginning of the offensive explosion. Omar had 80% of his ABs after that. Smith was already part-timing it by then. If you switched them, and using OPS+ as a measurement stick, Ozzie's stats would likely look better than Vizquel's do now and Vizquel's would look worse than Ozzie's. Anyway, for Hall of Fame purposes, we have to go by what actually happened...which brings me back to quantifying their defense. It's been like a month since I last posted here (came back to see if people were rightfully bitching about Varitek being an All-Star), so I may be a bit...we'll see...

[AmScray 355]

Ron Santo?Bill James says yes, big time.

[aadams_22 3]

as to smoltz, he SHOULD be a first ballot guy, but i'd expect it to take 2-3 go rounds for him to get the place in the hall that he deserves.

I honestly believe that if Maddux, Smoltz, and Glavine all retire at the end of the year they will all go in at the same time.

[El Guapo 8]

I honestly believe that if Maddux, Smoltz, and Glavine all retire at the end of the year they will all go in at the same time.

That would be awesome.

[slink 1]

moved to hall of fame thread