Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot

[AKCheesehead]

Omar was especially special to watch in the field for a long time. When he was playing, I remember always hoping for a tough play to ss just to see him make the play. I think it’s erroneous to fail to recognize what a talent he was defensively. He was pretty good to mediocre with the bat. But he was other worldly on the diamond and that’s half the game. There have been plenty of great hitters who were bad defensively who got in. Were they as good of a baseball player? Vizquel established himself in another way. He is the gold standard for Venezuelan shortstops, is basically a livings legend. He did something that an entire generation from a country aspires to and nobody has touched his level of play for that amount of the time ever since.

[AKCheesehead]

I’d consider Vizquel to be just an accumulator and never had a stretch of elite play. For the vets committee, I hope Dwight Evans gets in. I’d be OK with Ted Simmons too

 

Does 9 consecutive gold gloves count as a stretch of elite play?

[Baldkin]

I’d consider Vizquel to be just an accumulator and never had a stretch of elite play. For the vets committee, I hope Dwight Evans gets in. I’d be OK with Ted Simmons too

 

Does 9 consecutive gold gloves count as a stretch of elite play?

 

Elite defensive play, maybe. Not elite play. He had two (two) seasons with an OPS+ over 100. He had 5 full seasons where he had an OPS+ under 70.

 

If Arcia won 9 gold gloves hitting the way he hit this season, would you think he was a hall of famer?

[JimH5]

If Arcia amassed 2877 hits and played more games at SS than anyone in history, then he'd be a Hall of Famer.

 

Did Vizquel have lots of "Hall of Fame" seasons? No. But the sum of his career puts him in elite company on the all time hits list, and #1 in games played at a key defensive position. There are more than 300 guys in the Hall. It can't just be about power hitters and power pitchers.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

If Ozzie Smith and his lifetime .666 OPS deserves a spot in the hall, so does Vizquel.

[Baldkin]

If Ozzie Smith and his lifetime .666 OPS deserves a spot in the hall, so does Vizquel.

 

Ozzie was so much better than Vizquel.

 

Ozzie put up 60 WAR from 1982 until 1992 and had 10 seasons over 5 WAR in his career. Vizquel had 1.

[StearnsFTW]

If Ozzie Smith and his lifetime .666 OPS deserves a spot in the hall, so does Vizquel.

 

Very similar players. Ozzie was better offensively though, as a hitter and a baserunner. Defensively you can argue either way, but I think Ozzie was better there too, although I'll admit that's purely anecdotal.

[A Swing and A Drive]

If people argue that Vizquel should get in on his elite defense, then Scott Rolen should be a shoe in. He won 8 Gold Gloves at the Hot Corner and has a pretty nice offensive resume to go along with it.

 

Can't say I'm in this camp of voters though.

[StearnsFTW]

Rolen is an easy yes for me. He's a top 10 3b of all time.

[Baldkin]

There are more than 300 guys in the Hall. It can't just be about power hitters and power pitchers.

 

It's still the Hall of Fame. It shouldn't be about mediocre hitters who played forever.

 

He substantially lowers the bar if he gets in (the same way Harold Baines did), there are 20 other SS's who should get in before him. Here's where he stands in the JAWS list:

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_SS.shtml

 

38 Hanley Ramirez

39 Donie Bush

40 Mark Belanger

41 Rico Petrocelli

42 Omar Vizquel

43 Andrelton Simmons

44 Rafael Furcal

45 Dick Bartell

46 Dave Concepcion

[JohnBriggs12]

If Ozzie Smith and his lifetime .666 OPS deserves a spot in the hall, so does Vizquel.

 

Exactly. Vizquel was not as flashy but has a better career fielding percentage, an unheard of .985 for a SS. In this strikeout era, infield defense is less valuable but in Vizquel's prime it was still valuable. Ozzie did steal 580 bases, but Vizquel was no slouch either with over 400 himself. Keep in mind though that Ozzie played in the NL when teams ran a lot more than they did in the AL. Vizquel's best offensive year (.333/.397/.436) blows away Smith's best (.303/.392/.383) too.

[StearnsFTW]

Different eras. Ozzie was the better all-around hitter. It's pretty clear. Fielding percentage is an irrelevant statistic to this discusison.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

If Ozzie Smith and his lifetime .666 OPS deserves a spot in the hall, so does Vizquel.

 

Ozzie was so much better than Vizquel.

 

Ozzie put up 60 WAR from 1982 until 1992 and had 10 seasons over 5 WAR in his career. Vizquel had 1.

 

I think "so much better" is an over exaggeration. Vizquel has a better career OPS, had better power, and was also a good base runner while playing in an era when teams just ran less. Teams are never going to put up the kind of stolen base numbers they did in the 70s and 80s, and Smith's WAR is likely propped up by gaudy stolen base numbers early in his career. He got more hype for the crazy defensive plays and the "Wizard of Oz" stuff, but the two of them are probably as similar as you're going to find overall stat wise.

[MrTPlush]

Ozzie Smith amassed 77 WAR in his career (60 is usually a magic number for the HOF)...Omar Vizquel amassed 45.5 WAR.

 

Not sure why the disparity, but something tells me these individuals should not be compared on the same level, especially when Smith did what he did in like 10% less ABs worth of playing time.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Different eras. Ozzie was the better all-around hitter. It's pretty clear. Fielding percentage is an irrelevant statistic to this discusison.

 

I think you need to define this, because when you look at the numbers, I'm just not seeing it. Ozzie got more fanfare, and had some timely hits in his career, but he was pretty pedestrian overall with the bat.

[JimH5]

There are more than 300 guys in the Hall. It can't just be about power hitters and power pitchers.

 

It's still the Hall of Fame. It shouldn't be about mediocre hitters who played forever.

 

He substantially lowers the bar if he gets in (the same way Harold Baines did), there are 20 other SS's who should get in before him. Here's where he stands in the JAWS list:

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_SS.shtml

 

38 Hanley Ramirez

39 Donie Bush

40 Mark Belanger

41 Rico Petrocelli

42 Omar Vizquel

43 Andrelton Simmons

44 Rafael Furcal

45 Dick Bartell

46 Dave Concepcion

 

JAWS rewards peak excellence. And Vizquel didn't offer much peak. But he accomplished something that no other player in history did over the course of his/their careers. Nobody played more at shortstop than he did. Not Ripken or Ozzie or Aparicio or Wagner.

 

I'm not sure that you need to dive deep into advanced stats after knowing that. He's #1 at a defensive position of importance.

 

And he has more hits than everyone not in the Hall (with PED and Gambling exceptions). And he has more hits than lots of guys in the Hall.

 

Because he played so long, his career looks different than a lot of players. Had he retired at 36, he wouldn't have compiled such impressive career stats, and wouldn't be a strong candidate.

 

But because of his ability, and fitness and leadership and the character stuff that the voters use to keep some guys out, he kept getting roster spots long after age 40. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. But for some reason, we like to discredit compilers as somehow not earning their stats as much as other players. Baseball thought it was good to have him on teams in those later days, why not give him credit for it?

[StearnsFTW]

Different eras. Ozzie was the better all-around hitter. It's pretty clear. Fielding percentage is an irrelevant statistic to this discusison.

 

I think you need to define this, because when you look at the numbers, I'm just not seeing it. Ozzie got more fanfare, and had some timely hits in his career, but he was pretty pedestrian overall with the bat.

 

OPS+. Baserunning. It's close, but it's clear.

 

Also, just based on WAR, I'm guessing (and I admit it's a guess) that Ozzie was a significantly better defender according to metrics than Omar was.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Different eras. Ozzie was the better all-around hitter. It's pretty clear. Fielding percentage is an irrelevant statistic to this discusison.

 

I think you need to define this, because when you look at the numbers, I'm just not seeing it. Ozzie got more fanfare, and had some timely hits in his career, but he was pretty pedestrian overall with the bat.

 

OPS+. Baserunning. It's close, but it's clear.

 

Also, just based on WAR, I'm guessing (and I admit it's a guess) that Ozzie was a significantly better defender according to metrics than Omar was.

 

You point out that it was different eras, but then use baserunning as your proof that Ozzie was "clearly" better. That doesn't jive. Teams ran more in Ozzie's day. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your use of the word "clearly". I read that is "substantially", which it's really marginal at best.

 

If you feel like reading a deep dive on Omar's HOF credentials, this is a good, objective read: https://www.cooperstowncred.com/the-polarizing-hall-of-fame-case-of-omar-vizquel/

[Baldkin]

There are more than 300 guys in the Hall. It can't just be about power hitters and power pitchers.

 

It's still the Hall of Fame. It shouldn't be about mediocre hitters who played forever.

 

He substantially lowers the bar if he gets in (the same way Harold Baines did), there are 20 other SS's who should get in before him. Here's where he stands in the JAWS list:

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_SS.shtml

 

38 Hanley Ramirez

39 Donie Bush

40 Mark Belanger

41 Rico Petrocelli

42 Omar Vizquel

43 Andrelton Simmons

44 Rafael Furcal

45 Dick Bartell

46 Dave Concepcion

 

JAWS rewards peak excellence. And Vizquel didn't offer much peak. But he accomplished something that no other player in history did over the course of his/their careers. Nobody played more at shortstop than he did. Not Ripken or Ozzie or Aparicio or Wagner.

 

I'm not sure that you need to dive deep into advanced stats after knowing that. He's #1 at a defensive position of importance.

 

And he has more hits than everyone not in the Hall (with PED and Gambling exceptions). And he has more hits than lots of guys in the Hall.

 

Because he played so long, his career looks different than a lot of players. Had he retired at 36, he wouldn't have compiled such impressive career stats, and wouldn't be a strong candidate.

 

But because of his ability, and fitness and leadership and the character stuff that the voters use to keep some guys out, he kept getting roster spots long after age 40. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. But for some reason, we like to discredit compilers as somehow not earning their stats as much as other players. Baseball thought it was good to have him on teams in those later days, why not give him credit for it?

 

So if Jason Kendall plays 3 more seasons he is a Hall of Famer? He would've passed Rodriguez for most games ever as a C.

 

I'll give Vizquel all the credit in the world, but was he ever great? Truly? No. He wasn't. Not even for a season. He simply doesn't belong, the same way Jaime Moyer doesn't belong.

[MrTPlush]

JAWS rewards peak excellence. And Vizquel didn't offer much peak. But he accomplished something that no other player in history did over the course of his/their careers. Nobody played more at shortstop than he did. Not Ripken or Ozzie or Aparicio or Wagner.

 

Peak performance is incredibly important in HOF cases and I am not sure "most innings at "insert position" means anything to voters. His good defense definitively does...but not number of innings at SS.

[sveumrules]

The Ozzie/Omar comparison is a pretty straightforward WAR breakdown.

 

Ozzie = 10,778 PAs @ 87 OPS+ = -117 batting runs

Omar = 12,013 PAs @ 82 OPS+ = -244 batting runs

 

Ozzie was a slightly better (less bad?) hitter, over many fewer plate appearances, so his WAR is not penalized as much as Omar's, because he made considerably less outs at the plate.

 

Base running Ozzie comes in at +102 compared to only +8 for Vizquel, this seems fairly intuitive considering Ozzie went (580 SB / 148 CS, 167 GDP) compared to (404 SB / 167 CS, 207 GDP) for Omar.

 

Fielding metrics from those days are obviously far from perfect, but based on the best estimates available we have Ozzie saving 239 runs on defense compared to only 129 for Omar.

 

Even if you think they were closer in value as fielders, Ozzie was a far superior offensive player across the board, which accounts for double the WAR difference (+221 runs on offense) than does the fielding element (+110 runs).

[StearnsFTW]

Different eras. Ozzie was the better all-around hitter. It's pretty clear. Fielding percentage is an irrelevant statistic to this discusison.

OPS+. Baserunning. It's close, but it's clear.

 

Also, just based on WAR, I'm guessing (and I admit it's a guess) that Ozzie was a significantly better defender according to metrics than Omar was.

 

You point out that it was different eras, but then use baserunning as your proof that Ozzie was "clearly" better. That doesn't jive. Teams ran more in Ozzie's day. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your use of the word "clearly". I read that is "substantially", which it's really marginal at best.

 

If you feel like reading a deep dive on Omar's HOF credentials, this is a good, objective read: https://www.cooperstowncred.com/the-polarizing-hall-of-fame-case-of-omar-vizquel/

 

Edit: nevermind. Sveumrules did the heavy lifting for me

.

[JimH5]

JAWS rewards peak excellence. And Vizquel didn't offer much peak. But he accomplished something that no other player in history did over the course of his/their careers. Nobody played more at shortstop than he did. Not Ripken or Ozzie or Aparicio or Wagner.

 

Peak performance is incredibly important in HOF cases and I am not sure "most innings at "insert position" means anything to voters. His good defense definitively does...but not number of innings at SS.

 

It has been important, for sure. But most Hall of Famers have 15-ish year careers. Vizquel played 24 seasons.

 

He's clearly an outlier, so I think using JAWS doesn't really do justice to Vizquel's candidacy.

 

The Hall of Fame is basically a lifetime achievement award. And over the course of Vizquel's baseball life, he did something that nobody else did. Whether that means something to voters or not will be seen.

[JimH5]

As for Jason Kendall, he finished with more than 20 percent fewer games caught than Ivan Rodriguez. So it's really a moot point.

 

We could "what if..." lots of scenarios, but Vizquel actually completed the task. Also finished 1st all time in double plays turned, and 1st in lifetime fielding pct, which is a flawed stat for sure, but it shows error prevention.

[DuWayne Steurer]

If Ozzie Smith and his lifetime .666 OPS deserves a spot in the hall, so does Vizquel.

 

Ozzie was so much better than Vizquel.

 

Ozzie put up 60 WAR from 1982 until 1992 and had 10 seasons over 5 WAR in his career. Vizquel had 1.

 

I think "so much better" is an over exaggeration. Vizquel has a better career OPS, had better power, and was also a good base runner while playing in an era when teams just ran less. Teams are never going to put up the kind of stolen base numbers they did in the 70s and 80s, and Smith's WAR is likely propped up by gaudy stolen base numbers early in his career. He got more hype for the crazy defensive plays and the "Wizard of Oz" stuff, but the two of them are probably as similar as you're going to find overall stat wise.

 

Vizquel was 2.5 war per 162 and ozzie was 4.9 war per 162. He definitely wasnt hype. As someone else pointed out, Smith had 8 seasons of 5+ war, Vizquel had one. Smith had a couple very legitimate mvp caliber seasons.

 

I can understand the arguments for Vizquel in the HOF such as his longevity and 2900 hits, even if I ultimately disagree with them, but I really disagree with the notion that he's super comparable to Ozzie.