Options
OT: Masturbarory (In the literary sense) Rehash thread
LarkinCollector
Posts: 8,975 ✭✭✭✭✭
Anyone who posts more than "." after this agrees that their personal favorite album of the 70s is ...
0
LarkinCollector
Posts: 8,975 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
you made a big leap from His estranged wife is alleging up to confirmed to have abused from a single story.
while I understand what you're trying to say, I don't see any connection between what he did 15-20 years ago in his MLB playing days and something he might have done now that he's out.
.
He shouldn't be anywhere near the HoF anyway. Many players much better didn't even get a second chance on the ballot
Vizquel is very similar to Ozzie Smith, so why not?
i am not a fan of letting off field actions effect hof voting. I can assure you, none of the hof are full of choir boys. meanwhile, i am far from convinced Vizquel is deserved of Cooperstown.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I don't think he is HOF worthy on the field. He was a very good player but not a true HOF contender IMO.
They are similar in that they both played shortstop, but that's about where the similarity ends. Smith towers over all of them, too, but Campaneris and Fregosi would also be insulted to be compared to Vizquel.
I can't think of anyone who does make a very good comparison for Vizquel, but the closest I can think of are Concepcion, except Concepcion didn't field quite as well, and Belanger, who fielded much better.
Ozzie's offense was not good overall with 131 batter runs less than an average hitter, but he was much better in clutch situations and actually has a positive Win Probability Added (better than average) at 0.9. Vizquel's offense was simply atrocious; his negative batter runs are double Ozzie's, and his WPA is -17.5. Those numbers are down close to Belanger territory, but Belanger fielded rings around Vizquel (and was maybe even as good as Smith). I'd put Belanger in the HOF before Vizquel, based entirely on his GOAT level fielding; other than that, neither one is remotely close.
They skipped over 100 more deserving players to put Jim Rice in the HOF, 100 pitchers to enshrine Jack Morris, and then they doubled down by skipping over 200 more deserving players and elected Harold Baines. That's how we got to the ridiculous point where Omar Vizquel's name can even come up in a HOF discussion. Stop the madness!
i think people get dazzled by vizquels near 3000 hits at SS. what they fail to take into consideration is that it took him 25 years to get there
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Never heard of him. Until now.
Belanger fielded rings around Vizquel
Vizquel seems to get a lot of criticism regarding his fielding and I'm not sure where that comes from. I watched him play almost daily during almost half of his career which was longer than Belanger and shorter than Smith.
overall he had a better fielding percentage than both. granted, it's only by percentage points but that equates to a lot of plays over 25 years.
if you don't like the guy, that's OK. if others had better Offensive Batting stats, that OK. just stop with the criticism based on highlight reel footage and media hype. the three mentioned by me were all quite exceptional fielders at the top of the game during a long stretch of time. their play doesn't need to frowned on just cause you don't like the player.
its because they are trying to look at various ¨stats¨ that attempt to reflect range for fielders. the idea being that the more balls a fielder gets to, the better they are, and the more chance to make an error. there is, however, no stat that can accurately take range into account. there just isnt. it is folly. dont worry about omars fielding haters, he was very good on defense.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
.
Agreed
The MLB HOF is watered down already, it lost its luster with me a long time ago. There should be about half of the members in their already
I should have been more clear; Vizquel was a fine shortstop, but Belanger was a legitimate GOAT candidate. This wasn't criticism of Vizquel, but high praise for Belanger.
Vizquel is similar to a lot of others in that he was a great shortstop when he was young, and then kept winning Gold Gloves every year because Gold Gloves go to the player who won one in the prior year about 3 times more often than they go to the actual best fielder. Over the course of his career, Vizquel was about an average shortstop.
Vizquel's "average" fielding percentage was better than Belanger's, and he played for seven more years.
Vizquel played 25 seasons and made 183 errors, 7.3/year. DP's, 69.36/year. balls fielded, 307.04/year.
Belanger played 18 seasons and made 210 errors, 11.66/year. DP's, 58.55/year. balls fielded, 321.44/year.
the above quick data tells me that, yes, maybe Belanger had better range and fielded more balls than Vizquel, but it should be clear that Vizquel did more with the balls he got to, committed less errors and turned more DP's.
this is really a stupid discussion because all a ball player can do is field his position. he can't determine where the ball is hit, how many men might be on base or what the ball does as it's coming towards him. all I can say is that I watched/listened to the Indians for the 11 years while Omar Vizquel played with them and followed him when I could after he left. he was the match of any SS in the Major's during those years. I wonder, absent highlight reels and archived footage of their best performances how much day-to-day did you see of Ozzie Smith and Mark Belanger??
you can trust your stats, the stats favor me and I trust my eyes.
Judging fielders based on their fielding percentage is just about the stupidest thing to do as a baseball analyst.
I agree with that, daltex, but for younger people that's about all they can do. it also provides a benchmark for comparison from different eras. the stats I looked at say nothing more to me then XXXX balls were hit towards a player and this is what happened, it's the same with batting and pitching but to a certain degree it's the best we have.
as I said, I saw Vizquel play many, many games, that's the basis of my opinion of him. that opinion is only bolstered by the stats that are available.
using assists as a measure of range is nonsensical to me. there are far too many variables in place to have that be an accurate measure. how do we know player A didnt field behind a staff of sinker ball pitchers and batters rolled over a bunch of ground balls to the SS? What if player B played behind high strikeout pitchers and there just werent enough grounders to go around. what about the speed of the runners? the condition of the infield? turf or grass? shifts or no shifts?
trying to compare defensive players with current defensive stats is far far from conclusive. I honestly wonder if anecdotes and memory is just as accurate for assessing defense
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Vizquel did play forever, apparently because none of the numerous teams he played for after he turned 40 cared whether he could hit a baseball with a bat. He also didn't play much shortstop those last several years either, instead playing all the infield positions horrendously. So yes, he played forever, but I am no fan of giving players credit for cashing a paycheck while taking a roster spot from someone who is actually able to play baseball at a major league level (paging Mr. Suzuki).
If you were watching Vizquel on Cleveland, and if you were watching him when he was in his 20's, then you did see a very good shortstop. Not as good as Belanger, but very good. After that, you were watching him get worse every year, but it happened slowly and you probably just didn't notice. By the time Cleveland was finished with him, and when he should have retired, you'd seen him become ordinary, at best, and if you watched him play after that it must have been painful.
Like hitting, fielding is easier and harder in different eras. Yes, Vizquel led in fielding % six times, compared to three times for Belanger. But if you look at all the fielding stats, the ones on baseball reference anyway, Belanger led in those 31 times compared to 12 for Vizquel. In the context of his time - which is the single only correct way to evaluate anything in baseball - Belanger was better than Vizquel, and it isn't close at all. Belanger never did learn how to hit a baseball with a bat, he didn't play nearly as long as Vizquel, and he still ranks a spot above Vizquel on the JAWS list for shortstops (Belanger is 40, Vizquel is 41). That gives you some idea of just how great the fielding gap is between them.
To answer the OP's question, these allegations seemed to have been cleared up years ago.
Belanger was a great fielder as was Aparicio, who might get a couple of GOAT votes!
The bigger question seems to be was he good enough to get in?
He's certainly better than some players already in, and most great fielding shortstops can't hit much anyway. I think he played about 4-5 years too long, but it's hard to hold that against him.
Pretty good 15 year run from 1992-2006.
Even better if you look at 1996-2006, only had one year where he missed some games. Averaged about 80 runs scored, walked a fair amount for someone with no power, had some nice years stealing bases. 11 GG can't really be meaningless, I'm sure he deserved most of them.
14 seasons where he played at least 140 games.
I think he's "deserving" a spot in the HOF, but wouldn't be upset if he didn't make it.
That's sadly how Sasha Mitchell lost his Cody Lambert role in the 90s sitcom Step By Step...even though it turned out he was totally innocent (in fact it was his wife who was abusive as well as alcoholic). And in his place we got that stupid French sounding guy who wasn't even really French and was not the least bit funny or likeable like Cody was
Technically the show ran for seven seasons but you might as well not count the last two :P
Dimes: 54S, 53P, 50P, 49S, 45D+S, 44S, 43D, 41S, 40D+S, 39D+S, 38D+S, 37D+S, 36S, 35D+S, all 16-34's
Quarters: 52S, 47S, 46S, 40S, 39S, 38S, 37D+S, 36D+S, 35D, 34D, 32D+S
74 Topps: 37,38,46,47,48,138,151,193,210,214,223,241,256,264,268,277,289,316,435,552,570,577,592,602,610,654,655
1997 Finest silver: 115, 135, 139, 145, 310
1995 Ultra Gold Medallion Sets: Golden Prospects, HR Kings, On-Base Leaders, Power Plus, RBI Kings, Rising Stars
Has anyone looked at the Kevin Spacey allegations? Seems like a lot of people were lying about him and one person waited 30 years to come forward. All charges have been dropped/dismissed as far as I can tell.
I get the feeling that Spacey is a complete jerk, but not a criminal. I also really enjoy(ed) watching his work. He has been effectively banned from doing his job.
Very talented person, maybe not a nice guy.
Sort of similar to the allegations against Omar. Apparently no big deal at the time they happened and being brought up YEARS later in an attempt to harm his reputation.
Innocent until proven guilty? Or do we just wait until it's too late to charge someone with a crime and announce it anyway?
"AVERAGE'....did someone say Vizquel was an average defensive player. My goodness that is crazy. He made some of the most breathtaking plays I had ever seen. Him and Alomar turning DPs was just marvelous. Vizquel was as sure handed as it gets. And trust me I was not a Cleveland fan at all during that time.
The difference between Smith and Vizquel - besides Smith being better offensively and defensively - is that the role of shortstop had changed by the time Vizquel had his prime. Who were Vizquel's contemporaries? ARod, Nomar, Ripken, Tejada, and multiple other guys. Guys who could field the position and who could go 0 for half a season and still be better offensively than Vizquel. So now you're talking about a guy who was the 6th, 7th, 10th? best shortstop of his era. An offensive era. And he's a guy who couldn't hit.
He's not even remotely close to a HOFer.
I could not agree with this more.
Oops. You forgot Jeter.
There are about a dozen shortstops who would have to go in, if we're using a "best at his position not yet enshrined" criterion before I'd begin to consider Vizquel. Three-time all-star doesn't scream Hall of Fame to me.
Very true these guys were better hitters.
Arod=juicer.
Nomar, only 6 seasons of over 135 games played.
Ripken=Awesome.
Tejada=pled guilty of lying to congress about PEDs.
One out of your 4 more deserving imo.
Yeah, that was me who said that, and I said it because it was true. For a short time in the early 90's, Vizquel was very good; in 1993, he led the league in DPs (the only year he did that), and if you are remembering him from around that time, then you are remembering him correctly. And Vizquel led the league in fielding percentage once in that era (1992), so we've pinpointed the few years when Vizquel was good enough to be worth remembering. All the other times Vizquel led the league in fielding percentage came later, between 1998 and 2006, and those were the years when Vizquel wasn't very good anymore. He was still sure-handed, so he didn't make many errors, but he had become old and slow and wasn't fielding anything that wasn't hit right at him.
Total Zone Runs is one stat that tries to combine all the fielding elements into a single stat; it's a long way from perfect, but comparing players at the same position it is directionally accurate. We all agree that Vizquel played forever, and over the length of that far too long career, he amassed 130 Total Zone Runs. In his much shorter career, Belanger amassed 238, second only to Ozzie. Per inning, I believe Belanger is #1 all-time; I have no idea where Vizquel may rank, but it sure as hell isn't in the top 20, and may not be in the top 100.
Vizquel was a great SS for a few years, a very good shortstop for a few more, a good shortstop for another few more. That's half his career. For the other half, he ranged from fair to among the worst ever (although still impressive for a senior citizen who could no longer bend his knees). Overall, he was about average. Being average for a really long time makes him above average in a sense, but it no more makes him a HOFer than it makes Charlie Hough a HOFer.
I doubt there were "about a dozen" shortstops who would go in before Vizquel, but I would love to see the list.
Aroid, Tejada and Nomar have already been mentioned.
Better is still better. I didn't say all those guys were HOFers, just that they were Vizquel's contemporaries. And they were A LOT better. However many games he played, Nomar was a lot better than Vizquel. As was Jeter and so on.
And what makes you so certain Vizquel wasn't juicing? I mean, sure, it's perfectly normal for a guy to from 2 homers to 14 and then back to 2 - at age 35.
Alright, lessee, 12 shortstops better than Vizquel not already in the Hall:
That's 10 with a couple others - Jack Glasscock, Dave Concepcion, Maury Wills - that are a little debatable.
That's not counting guys still playing who are already better than Omar was - Francisco Lindor, Xander Bogaerts, Trevor Story, etc.
NOTE: The above is not an endorsement of any one player as a HOFer.
That list is a fine start, but you left off Campaneris and Al Dark who were both much better than Vizquel. And then we get into the issue of what "better than" means: does it mean only the sum total of their careers, or does it also mean how good they were at their peaks (and how long should that peak be)? I think peak ought to count for something, and I think Rico Petrocelli and Dick Groat, among others, were better than Vizquel despite playing shorter careers.
And compare Vizquel to Marty Marion. Marion only played 13 years and hit about the same as Vizquel, but he also fielded rings around Vizquel. Does Vizquel hanging around for another decade as a below-average player add to his value or subtract from it? I have no problem saying Marion was better than Vizquel. And Marion has an MVP and would have as many Gold Gloves as Vizquel (and would, unlike Vizquel, actually deserve them) if they existed when Marion played. I could make a case that Marion should be in the HOF that would be a lot more compelling than any case that could be cobbled together for Vizquel.
Well......better isn't what the OP was getting at. He specifically was referring to HOF chances. I TOTALLY agree that those four were superior players. I especially like Nomar, but he did have a somewhat shortened career.
Was Omar juicing as well? Possible, but him and Nomar never got caught.
First off, that's only 7 or 8, Arod and Tejada were juicers, and already eliminated, but you added two more I like in Cocepcion and Wills. let's take a look.
Nomar=Agree was better, but way too short of a career.
Johnny Pesky=Short career, missed time because of WWll. Seven full seasons.
Edgar Renteria=A couple of GG, shorter career. A little better hitter.
Vern Stephens=HELLUVA hitter, played only 8 full seasons though.
Tony Fernandez=Under rated. Had a great streak from 1986-89 with 4 GG. Better hitter than Omar.
Bill Dahlen=A better hitter. Now we're going back a little too far, but he was a better hitter and had a nice long career.
Jay Bell=Better hitter, less SB. I remember this guy, he was not a great fielder, but he was pretty good.
Jim Fregosi=Had an awesome run for eight years and then became a part time player. Injuries ruined his chances.
Jack Glasscock=Huh? Not even a 1900's player, but he did have 2 great seasons.
Dave Concepcion=I like him better than any on your list. I would put him in in a heartbeat.
Maury Wills=I like him as well, but really only a 10 year career, but an awfully good 10 years.
All of these SS were_ arguably_ "better" though most for a MUCH shorter period of time. "Better" isn't what the question is/was.
I would mention Bert Campenaris as pretty deserving. Belanger just couldn't hit at all.
None of "your guys" comes anywhere close to Omars longevity, although they were ALL better hitters for 10(?) years or so. I don't see any of them being a "dominant" defensive player.
I'm not really on the Omar bandwagon, but I'll give him a lot of credit for being a top defender and a decent hitter for a very long period. Playing the most games at SS all time has to count too.
Like it or not, agree with it or not, the HOF really "punishes" players like most of whom are on your list.
Not a Shortstop of course, but Tony Oliva is a great example of a "better" player not in the HOF because of a short(er) career, even though he played long enough to qualify at a very high level.
Let's please not bring up guys who are still playing, that's just silly.
But of course he WASN'T a top defender and a decent hitter for a "very long period". He was a top-ish defender for a few seasons, and a decent hitter for two. An OK hitter for five more. He just hung around for a very long time,not being particularly good. Like I say, three-time all star.
I don't give Vizquel much credit for longevity. Hanging around forever is only a credit when you're not putting up 50, 60, 70 for your OPS+. Who cares if you play 1000 years if you're terrible for a bunch of them?
I guess he sucked. I'll move on.
Never heard of him.
So you're in favor of Pete Rose being inducted, yes?
As far as Viqzuel, he should no sniff the hall and if your best argument is "so-and-so is in" then you really do no belong.
Agreed, but just to be clear, there is nobody in the HOF less deserving than Vizquel so he doesn't even have this weak argument available to him.
Ooh, challenge accepted. Lemme see...
Maybe Ray Schalk.
absolutely in favor of letting Rose into the hall. absolutely.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
not sure if you are referencing me with the best argument line? I didnt compare omar to anyone else.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
No sorry, I should have been more clear. I was speaking in generality to some in this thread using Ozzie to argue for Omar.
My apologies for the confusion.
Vizquel-Schalk creates a definite apples-oranges situation, but I think Schalk is a deserving HOFer. At the time he retired, and still at the time the HOF was created and possibly until Johnny Bench came along, Schalk was arguably the GOAT fielding catcher. The problem Schalk faces today is that it is becoming lost to history just how different the job of catcher used to be. Schalk led the league in games caught most every year he played, and doing that and hitting well were simply contradictory. Nobody did it because it was not possible to do it. In our lifetimes, we tend to think of catcher as a hitter's position, but Mike Piazza was the first catcher in history to lead the league in OPS+; neither Bench nor Berra ever did better than 6th, and Bill Dickey was the only one who had ever come close.
I don't know that there's any meaningful way to compare Schalk and Vizquel, but if I were building a team from scratch in Schalk's era, I know I would have him at #1 or #2 on my list of catchers, and that's a whole lot higher than I'd have Vizquel on my list of shortstops if I were building a team in his era. Vizquel's HOF wothiness seems to rest on hanging around as an average and eventually terrible player for years and years and years. Schalk's rests on being among the greatest ever at his position, even if that position no longer exists in any meaningful way. I think Schalk is more deserving than Vizquel.
Hilarious. The guy wins 9 straight GG and goes to the NL and promptly wins 2 more and he's a crappy fielder, had maybe 1 or 2 good years and they just kept giving it to him.
Looks to me like every other multiple GG winner (Belanger, Smith, Aparicio and Concepcion for example) were all considered stellar defenders.
I can see ripping him for being a guy who had a bad SLG, I can see arguing against him being in the HOF, but some of you guys are just unbelievable with knocking his defense.
The argument that "he won multiple gold gloves!" is effectively meaningless. Derek Jeter won FIVE of those things, for goodness' sake.
No, it's not really meaningless because there have been mistakes made. That's why I listed the players I did. When you win 11 and win them in both leagues.
You really think he was just an average fielder, or only good for a couple years?
So because someone won one (or five) they didn't deserve, Omar didn't deserve ANY? Great hitters over the years have won them unfairly. Omar was never a great hitter.
I am not a big Omar guy, even if it looks that way, but give him SOME credit.
Pitcher: Greg Maddux - 18 Gold Gloves
Catcher: Ivan Rodriguez - 13 Gold Gloves
First Baseman: Keith Hernandez - 11 Gold Gloves
Second Baseman: Roberto Alomar - 10 Gold Gloves
Third Baseman: Brooks Robinson - 16 Gold Gloves
Shortstop: Ozzie Smith - 13 Gold Gloves
Left Fielder: Alex Gordon - 7 Gold Gloves
Center Fielder: Willie Mays - 12 Gold Gloves
Right Fielder: Roberto Clemente - 12 Gold Gloves
Other than Maddux and Brooks, Omar is right there with everybody on this list.
If your opinion is that he's not a good enough player to merit the HOF, that's one thing, to say he wasn't a great fielder, I would disagree strongly.
That's a fair point. The level of protection for catchers back then basically made it impossible to be a hitter.
No one has claimed that Vizquel was a terrible fielder. He was very good with Seattle and they kept giving him gold gloves based on his reputation. He would occasionally have a really good year after that, but there is no shame in being an average shortstop in your thirties or a bad one in your forties. Number of gold gloves is only about ten times as good a way to measure defense as fielding percentage.