Posted on 01/01/2002 5:54:14 AM PST by jmccoy1252
As for Maranvilleand Marion vs. Smith, I think that the fielding statistics bears Smith out, most glaringly in fielding percentage, assists and double plays. Same thing goes for Reese, Rizzuto, Wagner, Aparicio, Boudreau, or Appling, just to name a few. Even Mark Belanger can't measure up. Yes, gloves and playing fields are much better today, but the assist and double play numbers demonstrate convincingly Smith's ability to get people out, while his .978 fielding average shows that when he got his hands on the ball, he made the play. And the fact that he got his hands on the ball more than anyone, shows his superior range.
In spite of this, and when also comparing Smith to Speaker, I acknowledge that it is difficult to compare when going beyond the mere numbers, but can you really imagine any of these named shortstops being as athletic and making the plays Smith did? I don't recall ever reading about any of the others doing so. DiMaggio and Mays, whom many people did get to see, where always compared very favorably to Speaker. Thus, since I think we can agree that Smith was a better fielder than DiMaggio or Mays, we can say he is than Speaker as well (although I always like to hear the anecdote that Speaker was so fast that he would always play a shallow centerfield, daring the batters to try to hit it over his head).
Hey, we should be able to agree that this more fun than arguing politics, ain't it? Go Twins!
Uh, not to flame you, but the shortstop for the Gas House Gang (1930s St. Louis Cardinals) was Leo Durocher. Maranville played for St. Louis for only two years in 1927 (12 games) and 1928 (112 games).
But he also hit the hardest HR I have ever seen.
We were sitting in left field near Chief Nocahoma's teepee when the ball came towards us.
My buddy says, "Catch the ball!"
I said, "ARE YOU CRAZY!"
A fellow a row up stands up to catch it and it tears through his hands as if the were made of butter.
It goes on to SLAM into the thigh of a woman sitting behind him who immediately bursts into tears and had to be helped out of the stadium by attendents.
My buddy then acknowledged me as a wise man.
I really don't know - is the push for Santo primarily for his tremendous fielding? His fielding ptc. is lower than that of the 5 primary HOF 3rd baseman except Traynor, who by all accounts made spectacular plays using lesser equipment on poorer fields (and was a superior hitter).
I don't put much stock in fielding pct. It doesn't account for range.
I don't think that the Hall should be made up of only outfielders and 1st baseman, who are generally the players that put up bigger career numbers offensively. Is Santo As good as Robinson, Brett, or Schmidt? No, but so what?
I keep going back to this... If a player is dominant at his position for a decade, as Santo was, he should go into the Hall.
I have been a baseball fan since 1972, pouring over stat books from decades before I was born, and I swear, I don't remember even hearing of George Kell before he was voted into the Hall.
I completely disagree with your assessment. If you look at their respective lifetime stats, Smith had a higher fielding pct. (.978 vs. .971), and even though he played in 333 more games at shortstop, he had 579 more putouts, 1781 more assists, 30 less errors, and was involved in 300 more double plays. And yes, Smith's per game averages is superior to Concepcion in each of these categories.
Smith got to more balls, made more plays, and made the spectacular plays. No question of his credentials. Not so for Dave Concepcion. Even comparing offensive numbers, Smith is only bested in home runs and rbi's.
Thanks :)
As for Maranvilleand Marion vs. Smith, I think that the fielding statistics bears Smith out, most glaringly in fielding percentage, assists and double plays. Same thing goes for Reese, Rizzuto, Wagner, Aparicio, Boudreau, or Appling, just to name a few. Even Mark Belanger can't measure up. Yes, gloves and playing fields are much better today, but the assist and double play numbers demonstrate convincingly Smith's ability to get people out, while his .978 fielding average shows that when he got his hands on the ball, he made the play. And the fact that he got his hands on the ball more than anyone, shows his superior range.
I think when comparing eras, fielding percentage is like comparing apples to oranges. To use the extreme example, Pearce didn't even wear a glove, and now you have guys who can catch small private planes in theirs. That gives guys like Smith and the modern shortstops a big advantage over the old-timers. Maranville played in the small-glove days and Marion's era wasn't much better.
In spite of this, and when also comparing Smith to Speaker, I acknowledge that it is difficult to compare when going beyond the mere numbers, but can you really imagine any of these named shortstops being as athletic and making the plays Smith did? I don't recall ever reading about any of the others doing so. DiMaggio and Mays, whom many people did get to see, where always compared very favorably to Speaker. Thus, since I think we can agree that Smith was a better fielder than DiMaggio or Mays, we can say he is than Speaker as well (although I always like to hear the anecdote that Speaker was so fast that he would always play a shallow centerfield, daring the batters to try to hit it over his head).
Speaker had a ton of outfield assists for a reason .. that's no anecdote. He played a very shallow centerfield from most every account I have read. As for athleticism, you could argue that there aren't any old players who were as athletic as the players of today. I'd expect that Reggie Sanders, for example, is probably a better pure athlete than most of the players in the 30s, 40s and 50s. I don't see that making him a better player, necessarily.
Hey, we should be able to agree that this more fun than arguing politics, ain't it? Go Twins!
You got that right! Give me a good baseball chat any day! I'm not flaming -- but I love to talk baseball as a pure seamhead :)
In fact, Lou Whitaker should be in the HOF before Ozzie Smith. Sweet Lou played second but was an outstanding fielder and very good hitter. Last year was Lou's first year of eligibility, and he did not fare well. He was not a gregarious guy in public, was not media savvy so the press liked to pick on him.
I believe next year is his partner (the other half of one of the best double play combinations in history), Alan Trammell's first year of eligibility. Their career stats were almost identical. I'll bet that Trammell gets in while Lou will be ignored, probably until he gets in as an Old-Timer.
Based upon that, I would agree with you. My biggest problem with the HOF is that even though some players were the dominant person, they were clearly not the best of the best all time. I.e., Bill Freehan. Absolutely no way should he be in the HOF. Santo's numbers, I concede, I borderline. Freehan's are nowhere near other catcher's numbers (and the same goes for Bresnahan, Schalk, and even Lombardi).
The HOF is for the best, not just for the good. Dickey, Berra, Campanella, Fisk, and Gary Carter all match up to players at other positions. That's my criteria. Otherwise, you get players who really don't belong, IMHO.
Several years ago, I was out in the field working when a car pulled up and the driver asked me how to get to the Harley Hotel. I just stammered and stared because I recognized the wonderful gentleman, the TV voice and face of the Detroit Tigers for many years--George Kell. Kell, by the way, was very active in the Arkansas Republican Party--if that didn't qualify him for the Hall, well his career batting average did.
I think Lou Whitaker is worthy of much more consideration than I think he's going to get. In the end I'd probably vote no, but he's pretty close.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.