Ohio State Buckeyes to Serve 5 Game Suspension Next Season. Eligible for Sugar Bowl
December 23, 2010While We’re Waiting… Where the Grinch has Stolen OSU’s Christmas
December 24, 2010
This time of year, there’s really not much going on in Major League baseball. There’s obviously no game-action to peruse. The winter meetings have concluded, meaning most big-name free agents have already signed or will hold out until Spring Training. And pitchers and catchers don’t report for another six weeks (!), so really baseball writers as a group don’t have much to do these days.
Perhaps as a result, the one topic that does get bandied about quite a bit in late December and early January is Hall of Fame balloting. I should say upfront that I think a large part of these debates are waste of good e-ink. People get so bent out of shape either because their favorite player might not get in or that an undeserving player will get in that the conversations quickly become personal and mean. Things are painted in black and white, with very few shades of gray allowed. You’re either a “homer” or “heartless”. You really can’t win, and this continues for months. Isn’t baseball fun?
On the other hand, I think it would be good for Cleveland fans to get a feel for some of the contention that goes into this process, considering that a good number of Indians from the late 1990s and early 2000s will soon be coming up for a vote. I thought I’d take a look at Omar Vizquel’s case today—not only whether he should or shouldn’t get in once he’s eligible, but what the arguments look like on both sides from people who’ve dedicated a lot of time to the issue.
Omar’s case for the HOF is not necessarily typical, especially for a player of his generation. So much of his value came from his glove, and for a good deal of his career, fielding metrics weren’t refined enough to capture with any sense of accuracy exactly how many wins he created. Furthering the problem, Omar played the bulk of his most productive years in the steroid era, when it wasn’t uncommon for shortstops to hit 30 to 40 HR. We all know that Omar wasn’t that sort of hitter, but when he gets compared to them for the purposes of HOF voting, his offensive numbers look pretty impotent.
Luckily, there is what I consider to be a reasonable comparison player for Omar: Ozzie Smith of the St. Louis Cardinals. We’ll address why they’re not perfect comps in a second, but let’s start with some numbers. First the offense:
| BA | OBP | SLG | OPS | |
| O. Vizquel | 0.273 | 0.338 | 0.354 | 0.692 |
| O. Smith | 0.262 | 0.337 | 0.328 | 0.665 |
Pretty similar, no? Within a thousandth of a point in OBP, with Omar getting the nod in OPS. If anything, we’d say that Omar has probably been the better offensive player of the two considering his 30 point edge in OPS. At least for the time being.
Now let’s look at defense. Unfortunately, to get an apples-to-apples comparison, we’re going to have to use some pretty crude tools. During Ozzie’s career (and a good deal of Omar’s), the best fielding-metric available was something called “Total Zone Rating” which incorporates retrosheet data to calculate runs-saved (rather than batted-ball data, like “Ultimate Zone Rating” uses). It’s not perfect, but it allows us to try to get a wins created metric on the defensive side of the ball. Both Baseball-Reference.org and Fangraphs.com use slightly different ways to incorporate the data, but they’re both pulling from similar (faulty) sources. Anyway, here’s the data:
| FP | TZ | dfWAR | drWAR | |
| O. Vizquel | 0.985 | 137 | 13.2 | 13.8 |
| O. Smith | 0.978 | 239 | 23.9 | 21.6 |
* ‘dfWAR’ is the defensive component of Fangraphs “wins above replacement” metric; ‘drWAR’ is Baseball-Reference’s. The numbers above are for both guys’ entire careers. You’ll notice that Omar’s dfWAR is NOT just his total zone divided by 10 whereas Ozzie’s is. The difference is that Omar has played part of his career in the UZR era, and so the better data has been incorporated to refine the number.
So Omar has a higher fielding percentage than Ozzie, but Ozzie kills him in Total Zone. This is the first big problem for Omar. How good of a fielder was he? Take this with a pound and half of salt, but I’ve seen both guys play in person, quite a lot actually. No one played short stop like Ozzie Smith: he was the best I’ve ever seen. But was he twice as good as Omar? That’s hard for me to say with any sense of reliability—especially considering how flawed we know fielding metrics from the 1980s to be.
Anyway, if you’re still following here, we have hopefully established something like the following: Omar was better than Ozzie offensively by a fairly quantifiable (if small) amount, and Ozzie was better than Omar defensively by a fairly unquantifiable (but probably considerable) amount. In my eyes, they’re still looking fairly similar. Not a perfect match, but similar.
Here’s where I start to disagree from some of the SABR-types out there. Remember when I said that Ozzie’s OPS was about thirty points below Omar’s for their careers? Well, there’s a bit more to the story than that, and we’ll use “adjusted OPS” (OPS+) to tell it.
| OPS+ | |
| O. Vizquel | 83 |
| O. Smith | 87 |
*A quick reminder. OPS just adds together the two most important skills of a hitter: not making outs and hitting for power. OPS+ does a bit more. It adjusts for the era and ballpark the player played in, to “adjust” his OPS so that it can be compared across eras. An OPS+ of 100 is exactly average for one’s given years of playing time, after adjusting for ballpark effects and level of competition. More on this in a second. Back to the story.
What this chart tells us is that, offensively, Ozzie was 13% worse than the average hitter over his career and Omar was 17% worse than the average hitter over his career. So basically, Ozzie’s numbers were worse, but compared to his peers, he did better. Make sense?
This is why the sabermetric community thinks that Ozzie and Omar are NOT comparable players. While their offense looks similar, that comparison goes out the window once you adjust for eras.
I happen to disagree with this stance, or at least a large part of it. And yes, some of my disagreement has to do with how we think about the steroid era. Bear with me here.
Ozzie had the great fortune to play in an era when all shortstops (and a good deal of other players) were twigs who couldn’t really hit. Sure, Barry Larkin showed up in the second half of Ozzie’s career, but until then, most “up-the-middle” players were expected to play stellar defense and take walks and steal bases. Ozzie did all of that pretty well, and was elected to the HOF in his first year of eligibility.
Omar had the misfortune to play during an era where shortstops like Ozzie no longer existed. Shortstops now hit for power and average. They were routinely the most valuable players for their teams (think Nomar, Jeter, A-Rod, Tejada, etc.). On top of the change at the SS position, players everywhere were now routinely hitting 45 HR. And I don’t think it’s completely unfair to say that some of that production was pharmaceutically enhanced. I’m not saying that every player in the 1990s juiced, but we know for a fact that many of them did. If you don’t think that hurt other people’s OPS+, then you’re not thinking about it hard enough. Maybe all these guys would’ve put up the same numbers if they had played in the eighties, but I have to say: I’m a bit skeptical.
On the other hand, had Omar been born ten years earlier, I believe he likely would have been the same player: a contact hitter with great defense. The fact that Jacobs Field was a hitters park actually lowers his OPS+, even though it probably shouldn’t (he wasn’t a power hitter and would’ve likely gotten on base with the same frequency in Municipal Stadium). In other words, I believe that Omar gets punished in OPS+ more than he should.
So I would make the argument that Omar’s edge in actual OPS is, at least in large part, real and not an effect of era. I believe* Omar would’ve put up similar numbers had he played in the eighties in a cavernous stadium. He just wasn’t the sort of hitter to take advantage of the offensive explosion of the nineties.**
*This is a belief that I know many stat-guys don’t hold. They will accuse me of having an agenda or trusting “my gut” or “beliefs”. Keep in mind, what they are saying is also a belief. It is a belief that steroids didn’t matter, and that Omar’s production should have been lifted just like everyone else’s in the 1990s. Remember that we all have beliefs, whether we admit to them or not.
**And by saying he “wasn’t the sort of hitter…” I’m actually not making a point about steroids. I’m making a point about slap hitters with speed and plate discipline, in case you were about to freak out on me. This is not a “he was a good person” argument. Would a good person do this? No. No he would not.
So yeah, I think that Ozzie is a pretty decent comparison for Omar. Yes, Ozzie was a better fielder—by how much we don’t know for sure. But I think Omar was a better hitter, and not by the inconsiderable (or non-existent) margin that OPS+ suggests. Was Ozzie better overall? Yes. I’m pretty sure of that. He was the best defensive shortstop who ever lived. But was he so much better that the comparison is rendered useless, as some suggest? I don’t think so, actually.
So does that mean I would want Omar in the Hall of Fame when he’s eligible? Well…no. Not exactly.
This is where things get even more subjective. I’m a “Small Hall” guy. Always have been. I like the Hall of Fame to be fairly exclusive; it’s just a matter of taste. I don’t think Joe DiMaggio should be in the Hall of Fame, so it’s a bit weird to suggest that Omar get in. To be honest with you—and this will not go over well with my family in St. Louis—I didn’t think Ozzie was a no-doubt, sure-fire Hall of Famer, even if the Cardinal fan in me was happy for him.
So I hope you understand that it’s hard for me to get behind the already percolating campaign for Omar.
But if I was a “Big Hall” guy? Yeah, I might support him. And you can too. I got your back.
And when the SABR-community starts coming out of the woodwork and telling you you’re just a stupid homer for supporting Omar, feel free to print off this piece, and wave it around like you just don’t care.
–Happy Holidays, gang. Can you believe it’s been nearly a year since I cordoned off your Thursday afternoons with boring stats articles here at WFNY? It’s been a good year, and thanks for making it so.
30 Comments
OK- I read the whole article – then you lost me with the line “I don’t think Joe DiMaggio should be in the Hall of Fame”.
All credibility went out the window with that sentence.
Great piece. It’s good to see a comparison of the two with some actual facts tied to it. Not sure if he’ll get in, but I feel the same as you do about Ozzie. If he gets in I’ll be happy, but not sure if he should.
Agree with Logan…would love to hear the reasoning for Joe D not being in the Hall…
DiMaggio is so often quoted as “one of the greats”, but he has very little to back him up, statistically. He has quite a collection of awards (3 MVPs, 13 all star games), but those awards are obviously subjective and are easily scrutinized. Especially when you consider that nobody was really looking at stats that heavily “back in the day”.
DiMaggio didn’t really hit a lot of the milestones you’d expect him to have hit, only having totaled 361 HRs, 1537 RBIs and 2214 hits. You have to remember, though, that he had several of what would have been his prime years (1943-45, he would have been 29-31) taken away by his service in WW2. He’s also got a career OPS of .977 (which is pretty good, that’s usually good for a top 10 finish), OPS+ of 155 and a career BA of .325. So its reasonable to think that he was really good for a long time.
That all being said, good write-up, Jon. Small hall/big hall thoughts aside, I think you lay out the bare bones for any good argument to be made with regards to Omar. Ultimately, hall of fame discussions are a philosophical thing. The thing with Omar is that he’s likely a hall of famer if he plays 20 years before he does, as he would have been considered one of the top SS of his era. Unfortunately for him, a lot of voters tend to want to only vote in guys who are the best at their position (or at least very close) for a given period of time. Omar was a pretty darn good SS, but it’s arguable that he’s never even been in the top 3 in all his time. And that’s going to be a huge strike against him in voting.
Great article, we will just have to agree to disagree about the small/big hall argumement.
Keep up the good work, i’ve enjoyed reading your stuff this last year!
I didn’t mean to bad mouth Joltin Joe. He was very good. And he, well, he ‘knew’ Marilyn Monroe, so there’s that.
I don’t think anyone is wrong for wanting him in either: by most standards, he should be. I just like a smaller Hall.
With that said, is Joe DiMaggio one of the 10 best outfielders of all time? 15 best? I don’t think so. Off the top of my head, these guys were all better, and by a somewhat significant margin:
Babe Ruth
Hank Aaron
Barry Bonds
Ty Cobb
Willie Mays
Ted Williams
Stan Musial
Mickey Mantle
Rickey Henderson
Tris Speaker
Mel Ott
Frank Robinson
Al Kaline
Roberto Clemente
I’m sure I’m missing some, but you get the point. IMO, DiMaggio is an icon, and that iconic status (along with the historic hitting streak) makes people believe that he’s one of the greatest of all time, when he was actually just a very, very good player.
Now let’s get back to Omar.
The problem with the small hall people is that the game has been around for a long time and last time I checked we are not voting people out of the hall. Now that would make for great TV…limit it to 200 people only and in order to vote in you must vote someone out…
Omar will fall short and let’s just be honest with each other. If the prime if his career was in NY we would not even be having this discussion.
I’m biased but certainly think Omar is Hall-worthy. Which leads me to a real bone of contention with the Dolans. It kills me to see Omar in a White Sox jersey – of all teams. Wouldn’t it be good PR to bring back Omar to the Tribe? They actually need a backup shortstop. And from a mercenary point of view (if I was Dolan), Omar might even sell a few tickets. It’s a real shame, because Omar should retire as a Cleveland Indian.
Omar is the best fielding middle infielder of all time, imho. The way he dealt with ground balls was a thing of beauty. He deserves to be in the HOF purely for his infield play.
Also, Omar and Thome would have sold a decent amount of tickets, however Dolan has yet to remove his head from his anus.
Jon- great article, as usual.
I am one who has wondered (maybe hoped is a better word) that perhaps the realization of the prevalence of PEDs in MLB over the past 20 some odd years would actually strengthen Omars case as a Hall of Fame worthy SS. After all, it was apparent during the time that he wasn’t considered on the same tier as guys like Tejada, Renteria and Nomar in the day, due to their considerable sedge in offensive production, even though he could run circles around any of them in the field.
But now that many of these same “Nexct Generation” Shortstops get clipped for using the cream and the clear, I’d hope that many HOF voters would see Omar’s brilliance in the field, remeber that that is what Shortstopos are SUPPOSED to do, and at the very least, no longer detract from their overall opinion of his candiacy based on his lower offensive numbers.
On the other hand, I’ve heard some people say he unecessarily made “glitzy” plays (i.e barehanders, flipping from glove without hands for relay on DP) in order to make himself look better, and that this risky behavior blah blah blah blah…so, the Omar bashers are out there
I hope he makes it. It kills me to see him on the ChiSox.
(and I know Nomar never got caught using PEDs, but IMHO he was right there with Manny and Papi…lots of ligament and tendon injuries. BTW, you see that shirtless SI cover he did some years back? he looked like Lou freakingFerrigno. Thats a shortstop?)
oops, I mean Rodriguez, not Renteria. Thats 1997 Marlins hate making a command appearance.
Yeah, I agree with some of the other guys that it’s ludicrous to think Joe D doesn’t deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. To be fair though he was elected on his third ballot (fourth if you count votes he got when he was in the war). It took Hank Greenberg 10 times to get into the Hall.
And remember Joe D only played 13 seasons, so his averages are a little more impressive. You look at comparable players by age on Baseball Reference and this guy named Albert Pujols is listed five times then there are some other hall of famers named Chuck Klein, Henry Aaron and Theodore Williams. The only guy that he is compared to that probably won’t make the Hall is Larry Walker (a lot of Canadians would probably argue that fact)
at age 36, Joe D’s last year.
Fair points all Chad. In retrospect, I should have left that line out; it doesn’t add much to the analysis and just served to stir people up.
Your comments about fielding metrics are right on, Jon, and I would hope all those who have HOF voting privileges will be careful if they are using them. At the heart of my concern is the belief that in the schemes that utilize the “in zone” and “out-of-zone” dichotomy are very weak. IMHO ideally, the best metric would base the definitions of “in zone” and “out of zone” on the Normal Distribution around a mean, the mean defined to be the exact location where the SS is positioned when the ball is hit, and such things as the speed of the ball and the field conditions are quantified to help define the sigma from the mean. Sure .. I understand that this is beyond reality! I also understand that almost all BB metrics could be improved if this kind of variable definition and data collection is established. But I post it here to reinforce your comments and that it seems to me fielding metrics are particularly far from sophisticated and should be used very, very carefully in HOF voting.
Slow sports days…..
“shortstops like Ozzie no longer existed” – this is quite the understatement. No one since has played like Ozzie did. Even Omar. The standard for shortstops started changing before Omar’s rookie year, and when Ozzie was still around with Ripken and Larkin. And if you’re going to start throwing around the steroid accusations, you better be damn well certain who used and how much it helped them. I know the Heyman-types are trying to convince us that only the guys with big HR numbers are the ones who used steroids, but the likes of Alex Sanchez and Raffy Betancourt were busted too. We really have no reason to believe that Omar was any cleaner than most other guys of the era. That’s the sad case that we are presented with. Not to mention that Ozzie played in an era with a incredibly high usage of amphetamines. They weren’t any cleaner in his era than they were for Omar’s. I loved watching Omar play, and if you think the HoF enshrinement should be about how much a player entertained on the field, then he should be in, no doubt about it, but his overall performance, when put in the proper context, just doesn’t match up with the established precedent (Jim Rice being in and Bert Blyleven being out notwithstanding).
Did Ozzie benefit from playing a majority of his career on astroturf?-he sure did. There are not enough “O”‘s in the word “smooth” to describe Omar’s career in the field.
Let’s take the Ozzie comparisons out for a moment, and just look at the following:
Highest fielding percentage at SS in history (.985)
2800 hits
11 gold gloves
Not many shortstops in history can claim anywhere close to those stats…and most that can are in the HOF. Sorry if I don’t put a lot of stock into the range factor, zone rating and defensive WAR and all that stuff. In my mind, Omar is a top 5 all time defensive SS, and is very close to 3000 hits. 3000 hits gets almost anyone in, regardless of defense. Add in the defense, and it’s clear to me that Omar deserves to be in. Not first ballot by any means, but eventually Omar should be in Cooperstown.
Considering that the mid 90’s are now totally in question when it comes to hitting HR’s
The HOF voters really need to put guys in who played the game well. Omar is at the top of my list.
There will be a cloud of doubt over everyone else from this era.
I’m on the fence about Omar in the HOF, but anyone suggesting he was a better fielder than Ozzie is folly. Ozzie was ridiculously good in the field. I can’t imagine anyone ever being better than he was at defense.
Omar’s best chance to get into the HOF will be if voters have doubts or confirmations of suspicions on the other ‘worthy’ SS’s of his era (Nomar, A-Rod, Jeter). Otherwise, he will be waiting awhile and his numbers aren’t the type that generally get in eventually, so I think he will be left out.
@20,
I watched both. Omar was WAY better in the field. by far. not even close.
One of the best comparisons I found other than Ozzie Smith is Luis Aparicio.
http://baseballhall.org/hof/aparicio-luis
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/v/vizquom01.shtml
Omar’s numbers exceed Aparicio’s in every major offensive statistic except stolen bases (506 to 400) and HR (83 to 80…basically even). Add in Omar’s all time best fielding percentage at SS and 11 gold gloves, and I don’t see how anyone could make a case for Aparicio and not include Omar as well.
I would also like to throw out that Omar was the best I’ve ever seen at fielding bare-hand and making the throw, as well as the best SS to turn the double plays. Omar’s leaping double play turns were/are a thing of beauty.
I don’t think it really matters if the stats show that a player deserves to be in the HOF. The voters decide based on who the other candidates are at that time and Omar is surely a HOF candidate. Is he gonna be better than the other candidates? Not sure, but if those candidates were known roiders, then yes he’ll be voted in over someone who might have better stats.
Beyond the statistics and fielding genius several things point in favor of Omar being elected eventually. 1) He played in both leagues and won Golden Gloves in both leagues. That means most all of the available pool of voters will have seen him regularly, and advantage over a player who only performed in one league.
2 In the end I think his size and lesser hitting stats will be in his favor as I suspect voters are going to be looking for worthy players who clearly were not juicing, esp in years that present no obvious 1st year candidates.
And dont overlook the value of charecter and work ethic….its in the criteria for the hall of fame voter after all.
He wont be a first time choice, but I think he will get in.
@20 its truly apples to apples (turf or no turf)…. both were great in the field…. neither were a “lack of leather”, but Ozzie did benefit from playing on turf a majority of his career
Coincidentally, I’m currently reading a good DiMaggio biography. I urge you to do the same. His total numbers are not eye popping. However, if you do some research you’ll get a better sense of the player’s greatness. Small Hall or not DiMaggio belongs. You asked if he was one of the 10 or 15 best outfielders. Outfielders are one third of the players. Do you think we should only have a Hall of Fame with 45 players? Regardless of that answer he is better than at least a couple of the players you listed (Clemente, Ott, etc). As the sport ages the Hall of Fame has to grow with it.
My guess is Omar will appear on the ballot in 6 or 7 years and garner 15 to 20% of the vote. He will eventually gain support. However, the voting process is about to run into a glut of great players which will all hover well short of the 75% needed due to steroid suspicion and the crowded ballot. Omar would do well to continue playing as long as he can so his 15 years will extend past the point where the confusion is sorted out.
Not to pile on, but I would strongly suggest that you reconsider DiMaggio. I actually had to read that sentence three times before I was convinced you were serious. Unless you want a Hall of Fame with fewer than 50 players, he’s a slam dunk. And you could argue he belongs even if you made it smaller than that. For instance, Bill James ranked him the #13 best player of all-time (any position) in his New Historical Abstract.
I’ve been an Indians fan since the early 60’s and I’ve seen all the great shortstops from Aparicio through the present. I’d rank Omar the equal of any of them defensively, including Ozzie.
I’d also rate Joe D. higher than Clemente. You want to know an outfielder who doesn’t belong in the Hall? Check out Richie Ashburn.
Another thing about Joe D…..his stats were greatly hurt by playing in Yankee Stadium. His OPS was 77 points higher on the road than at home. Also, he was a centerfielder…comparing him to all other outfielders makes no sense…..he should be compared to the centerfielders. There are different expectations/requirements for playing centerfield than there are for the corner outfield positions.
@ 7
I completely agree. If Omar had been a Yankee all those years they would already be sculpting his bust.
Jon makes the argument that DiMaggio was just a very good player, and I tend to agree. The same argument can be made for Derek Jeter. Jeter has always put up good offensive numbers, but never overwhelming. His defense is certainly above average, but hes not going to make anyone forget about Ozzie Smith. If Jeter had played for the Kansas City Royals he would be considered just another good player, not a Hall Of Famer.
As for Omar, I think hes the best defensive shortstop of his generation. I think hes borderline, but I dont think the overall package was quite good enough. If he had Jeters offensive numbers along with the 11 gold gloves, he would be a shoo-in.