If Ozzie Smith retired today...

gregmo32

... with the exact same career, and exact same career numbers, in what year would he be elected into the HOF, in your opinion?

JoeBanzai

How about Fran Tarkenton?

markj111

<< <i>... with the exact same career, and exact same career numbers, in what year would he be elected into the HOF, in your opinion? >>






In five years.

1985fan

Not a chance. If Edgar Martinez can't make it in despite being an all time top 3 at his position then no way does ozzie make it in for only playing defense.

digicat

If Ozzie Smith took home 13 straight Gold Gloves at shortstop from 1997 through 2009, a premium defensive position, I say he'd get in just like did in the current time-line.

1985fan

<< <i>If Ozzie Smith took home 13 straight Gold Gloves at shortstop from 1997 through 2009, a premium defensive position, I say he'd get in just like did in the current time-line. >>



Defense simply doesn't get the respect it once did. If it did, Brenden Ryan would be revered for the defensive god that he is, at the exact same position.

digicat

<< <i>

<< <i>If Ozzie Smith took home 13 straight Gold Gloves at shortstop from 1997 through 2009, a premium defensive position, I say he'd get in just like did in the current time-line. >>



Defense simply doesn't get the respect it once did. If it did, Brenden Ryan would be revered for the defensive god that he is, at the exact same position. >>



Ozzie was flashy, and flashy gets attention.



The ultimate test of this will be to see how Omar Vizquel does in the HoF voting in a few years.

thehallmark

I dunno. Is Brandon Phillips a HOFer?

NVbaseball

<< <i>The ultimate test of this will be to see how Omar Vizquel does in the HoF voting in a few years. >>



Why? Smith was far better

Better tests have already happened: Barry Larkin took longer than five years, Craig Biggio is still waiting. Much closer to Smith (and possibly ahead of Ozzie) than Vizquel.

Sort of silly question, because we are trying to guess on the idiocy of the voters, which seems to know no bounds

Taking Smith over Martinez is reasonable

WeekendHacker

<< <i>trying to guess on the idiocy of the voters, which seems to know no bounds >>

By far the best line in this thread so-far. The election process needs to change - cause it seems that the BBWAA is very biased and very inconsistent. I am not a believer that a member needs to be inducted each and every year, and there has not been a unaminous selection to date - but how does someone not vote for - someone like
Cal Ripken
Henry Aaron
Willie Mays
Rickey Henderson
Tom Seaver
And the list goes on.........................

As for the OP question, it's already been answered - 5 years after retirement.

digicat

<< <i>

<< <i>The ultimate test of this will be to see how Omar Vizquel does in the HoF voting in a few years. >>



Why? Smith was far better >>



Smith was better, yes. I don't dispute that. But since we will never know what would change in the voters' minds if Smith he had been a shortstop in the late 90s to present, Omar Vizquel and his collection of Gold Gloves is the best comp we can use. He recently retired and played in an era where his peers at shortstop were middle-of-the-order sluggers, unlike Smith who played in an era where most shortstops were light hitters.

NVbaseball

<< <i> He recently retired and played in an era where his peers at shortstop were middle-of-the-order sluggers, unlike Smith who played in an era where most shortstops were light hitters. >>



Of course, if we were to recreate Smith's career so that it ended in 2013, that would mean his career starts around 1995 and peaks around 04-05. A subtle but not insignificant shift from Vizquel who started in 89 and peaked around 99

I see where you're going and think it's a good point. Had he come along in a later decade, he might have gone from a top offensive short stop to an average one, which would put him below even Jeff Kent for middle infielders. But had started his career in the 90s, those differences that helped the middle-of-the order slugging shortstops also would have helped Smith: with so many extra games in Colorado, different equipment, strike zones and everything, have to believe there is a good chance his ops would have been above .700 -- which would keep him solidly ahead of Vizquel

I had interpreted the question as to how the voting standards have change over 20 years. Everything Smith did for the Cardinals put him over the standards the writers have set; Vizquel is not all that close to that standards the Hall-of-Fame writers have set

NVbaseball

<< <i>In five years. >>



Imagine this 2018 Hall-of-Fame ballot:
Marinao Rivera, Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Curt Schilling, Frank Thomas, John Smoltz, Mike Mussina, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Larry Walker. Not sure how Smith could earn 75% of the votes among all those players

Skin2

<< <i>

<< <i> He recently retired and played in an era where his peers at shortstop were middle-of-the-order sluggers, unlike Smith who played in an era where most shortstops were light hitters. >>



Of course, if we were to recreate Smith's career so that it ended in 2013, that would mean his career starts around 1995 and peaks around 04-05. A subtle but not insignificant shift from Vizquel who started in 89 and peaked around 99

I see where you're going and think it's a good point. Had he come along in a later decade, he might have gone from a top offensive short stop to an average one, which would put him below even Jeff Kent for middle infielders. But had started his career in the 90s, those differences that helped the middle-of-the order slugging shortstops also would have helped Smith: with so many extra games in Colorado, different equipment, strike zones and everything, have to believe there is a good chance his ops would have been above .700 -- which would keep him solidly ahead of Vizquel

I had interpreted the question as to how the voting standards have change over 20 years. Everything Smith did for the Cardinals put him over the standards the writers have set; Vizquel is not all that close to that standards the Hall-of-Fame writers have set >>




Very solid analysis. It wasn't just power hitters that received a benefit during the juiced ball era.

However, I do always have a concern on players getting elected to the HOF based almost solely on their defensive contributions...because defensive contributions are much harder to pinpoint than offensive contributions. Sometimes a guy can be getting lots of assists and putouts in the field simply because of his pitching staff tendencies, and/or other factors that have nothing to do with his defensive ability.

Then the eye test is used on defense...and we already know how unreliable the 'eye' is when it comes to baseball evaluation...and no, I'm not talking about scouting 18 year olds...I'm talking about evaluating performances. Guys can look fantastic in the field, but that doesn't mean they are better than a 'vanilla' looking guy who gets to the balls in a less flashy manner.

Nowadays, with video evaluation, defense can be measured more accurately, but still has grey to it.