2017 MLB Thread - The Astros' Ascension

[Samsara]

P,

Regarding Rizzuto - I just don't know. The Vets committee put him in, and I forget who came first, him or Ozzie Smith, but here's the deal. Rizzuto was a lifetime .278 hitter, with a .968 fielding percentage. Smith was a career .262 hitter, but sported a .978 fielding percentage. I throw out the Gold Gloves in this comparison, because the award didn't exist when Rizzuto played. So by those comparisons, if you put one in, the other should be in, particularly since both played their careers where generally speaking, shortstops weren't offensive players (Cal aside, in the case of Ozzie).

Was Ozzie the best defensive shortstop of his era - of course. He was also, particularly in his 20s, a liability on offense. He put up respectable offensive stats in his 30s when the game started to trend toward offense. Rizzuto, I assume was one of the best defenders at SS in his era. He missed three years (in his mid-20s), where I think he could have hit .275/.280 if you look at the numbers, and a few more seasons to improve that fielding percentage. Offensively, I think he was average, even in that era.

So if you put Ozzie in, I think you gotta put in Phil. And that's probably what the Vets committee looked at. But I think Ozzie was voted in, in large part because we started paying so much attention to defensive metrics (which is good), but also because of his athleticism and all the highlight stuff. Not that that is wrong, but if you compare those two guys, I think Rizzuto deserves the honor too.

If it were me, I think both are borderline. Ozzie's fielding percentage at ss is 21st all time - hardly the best. Rizzuto's is 117 all time. So Ozzy is better, but looking JUST at that metric. With Ozzie being lauded for his defense, at least fielding percentage wise, plenty of guys are better who won't be Hall of Famers. So why is Ozzie?

I just really don't think either should be in. Ozzie got the benefit of highlights at GG awards, whereas Phil got the sympathy of the veterans committee. The whole Hall of FAME is now the Hall of VERY GOOD. Its no longer the best to ever play, its been changed to the best of certain time periods. And I think that takes away something in a sport where the game has been played pretty similarly over the course of its existence (relatively speaking in comparison to other sports).

[Cool Chris]

However, regarding Martinez I would like to point out that he was kept in the minors for no good reason, and was already a HOF-worthy hitter at that age. So his counting stats suffered through no fault of this own. Actually the "no good reason" was they didn't want to mess with Jim Presley  .

[pg1067]

Regarding Rizzuto - I just don't know. The Vets committee put him in, and I forget who came first, him or Ozzie Smith

Rizzuto was elected by the Vets Committee while Ozzie was still an active player (1994).  Ozzie was elected on the first ballot in 2002.  I have no strong quibble with your "neither should be in" argument.

Back in 2013, no one was elected (other than three guys, only one of whom was a player, voted in by the Vets Committee).  In the years since, I think the writers have gone a little far in the opposite direction, with some rather questionable elections (especially this year and last year).  That's not to say there weren't some questionable elections before then:  all due respect to him, and I haven't looked at his numbers, but I never thought of Barry Larkin (class of 2012) as a HOF'er.

[Samsara]

Rizzuto was elected by the Vets Committee while Ozzie was still an active player (1994).  Ozzie was elected on the first ballot in 2002.  I have no strong quibble with your "neither should be in" argument.

Back in 2013, no one was elected (other than three guys, only one of whom was a player, voted in by the Vets Committee).  In the years since, I think the writers have gone a little far in the opposite direction, with some rather questionable elections (especially this year and last year).  That's not to say there weren't some questionable elections before then:  all due respect to him, and I haven't looked at his numbers, but I never thought of Barry Larkin (class of 2012) as a HOF'er.

Thanks on the timeline.

I am 1000 percent with you on Larkin. I don't get it. I could see it if he hit some milestone like 3,000 hits (sorta like Biggio, who I think is the first to hit 3,000 hits that I would deem questionable, and Biggio grew up about 15 minutes from my house - I rooted for that guy). But there is nothing about Larkin that jumps out as a HOFer. People argued that Larkin was a 12-time all star. So what? Popularity contest. People liked him. *I* liked him. But that doesn't make him a HOF. I really do think HOF should be a statistical thing, and you throw out All Star appearances, along with post-season stats (since not every player played in the post season -- look at poor Joey Votto).

[pg1067]

Thanks on the timeline.

I am 1000 percent with you on Larkin. I don't get it. I could see it if he hit some milestone like 3,000 hits (sorta like Biggio, who I think is the first to hit 3,000 hits that I would deem questionable, and Biggio grew up about 15 minutes from my house - I rooted for that guy). But there is nothing about Larkin that jumps out as a HOFer. People argued that Larkin was a 12-time all star. So what? Popularity contest. People liked him. *I* liked him. But that doesn't make him a HOF. I really do think HOF should be a statistical thing, and you throw out All Star appearances, along with post-season stats (since not every player played in the post season -- look at poor Joey Votto).

I took a quick look.

Larkin played parts of 19 seasons.  Career .295 hitter, which is very good.  In 1989, he hit .342, but that was only in 97 games, so he didn't have anything else to go along with it.  Other than that season, his batting average ranged from .245 - .317, and he had a 13 season stretch in which he hit over .300 nine times and never hit less than .279.  Notwithstanding the length of his career and the solid batting average, he only managed 2,340 hits (along with less than 200 HR and 1,000 RBI).  His most notable stat is 441 doubles.  He was, in fact, a 12 time all-star (although I suspect his election in his final season was nothing more than a ballot stuffing election).  He was the NL MVP in 1995, with a .319 BA, 29 doubles, 15 HR, 66 RBI.  His next best placement in MVP voting was 7th place in 1990.  He struck out very little (high of 69 in 1998) and only struck out more than he walked in 7 of 19 seasons.  I don't have a good sense of him as a fielder (.975 career fielding percentage, but I don't know how that compares to other shortstops - Ozzie Smith had a .978).  He was excellent in the postseason (17 total games), including the 1990 World Series.

I think Larkin is the ultimate example of a really good player but not an HOF-worthy guy.  I don't recall ever fearing him as an opposing hitter.