Most Overrated Pre-War Player is...

[FrankWakefield]

Mr. Schoendienst was a pretty solid baseball player, and baseball man. He played in a lot of ballgames, got a bunch of hits. He helped winning teams win. Would have been likely to have contributed more, but for some serious health matters. And then he coached. Then he managed. Then he coached some more. I figure he would rank among the top in major league ball games seen... as a player, coach, manager, and spectator.

Some folks here are aware I'm a Cardinal fan. Notwithstanding that, Mr. James' fine book about the Hall opened my eyes to what 'politics' did to the Hall. And Mr. Frisch had a hand in that... I still think Mr. Schoendienst is a sound choice. I didn't see Kell play, but I've talked with people who saw him, he deserves to be in. I've read what Traynor's contemporaries said, and I'm satisfied that he deserves to be in. Hooper should be in. Combs should be in. I do think that some players got in years ago that really lowered what I considered to be the standards for admission. Now that Puckett and Carter are in it really doesn't matter much any more... reminds me of that Queen song.

[Kenny Cole]

All the dissin' on Maz indicates that great defensive players get no love when it comes to the hof. His range factor was nearly a point above the leage average for his career. He won lots of games with his glove -- which, for reasons I don't fully understand, gets very little credit here. As the Rangers have repeatedly proven, you still lose when you score 10 runs and the other side scores 11.

No one is saying Ozzie Smith doesn't belong, but lots of people on this forum, most of whom I suspect never saw Maz play, have no issue with Ozzie but feel differently about Maz. I haven't sat down and put a pencil to it, but I suspect that Ozzie's numbers, in the context of the time he played, aren't much, if any, better than Maz's.

Ozzie is a great example of the recency/primacy concept. Voters saw him play, whereas most of them didn't see Maz play. They were blown away by Ozzie's defense, whereas Maz's defense was much less important because most of the voters never saw it. Ozzie wasn't much of a hitter in a hitter's era, but his qualifications for the HOF have yet to be questioned here. Maz, who was every bit the fielder Ozzie was,and probably as good a hitter in the context of his time, gets no love at all. Go figure.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think it's the position, not when they played, at least in part. Right or wrong, a great fielding shortstop is valued much more highly than a great fielding second baseman.

[FrankWakefield]

I saw Mr. Mazeroski play, in person and on tv. Same for Ozzie. There is no reasonable comparison. Maz was a good, steady fielder. Oz was outstanding, exceptional... after watching him play a game I frequently felt that he was good for one run after he'd gotten a hit or walked, then scored; AND that he'd probably taken a hit or two away from the opposition, and frequently a run. I don't discount the recency / primacy idea.... but to throw the Mazersoki comparison in there is an injustice to Ozzie.

[Kenny Cole]

I understand why you say you don't discount the recency/primacy theory, since you seem to have fallen victim to it.

No less a personage than Bill James has stated that Maz's fielding statistics are probably the best of ANY player at ANY position. His fielding avg beats Ozzie by quite a bit, as does his range factor. Therefore, you can't reasonably argue that Ozzie's numbers are hurt by the fact that he was
trying to make plays on balls that other fielders wouldn't have gotten to. Maz got to those same balls and when he did, he made the play. Double plays? Maz has about 200 more in two less years. To be fair, Ozzie had more assists, but that's about it. There is no question that Ozzie was a great fielder, but Maz has numbers that are at least as good.

Unfortunately, you are right when you say that Maz was a good, steady fielder. He made the hard plays look easy. He wasn't flashy. He didn't to backflips when he ran out to his spot but, of course, backflips don't prevent runs or win games. There is no question that Ozzie has Maz beat when it comes to showmanship. Moreover, Ozzie had the benefit of much more television exposure than Maz did. More people saw his great plays, by an exponential factor, than saw those of Maz.

Maz has been retired for 40 years so memories have faded. People simply don't remember how great a fielder he actually was. However, if you base your evaluations even in part upon the assumption that fielding statistics actually mean something, it is pretty difficult to say with any degree of certainty that Ozzie was a better fielder than Maz was. The statistics simply do not support that assertion.

[Shoeless Moe]

Traynor - what kind of third basemen averages 3 HRs a year over 14 years. He'd never make it in todays game. He'd be lucky to make Team Korea.

Just givin' you a hard time Rheatt

[nolemmings]

I'll admit to having only seen Mazerozki play a time or three. Still, you'd think the writers of the time, the guys that vote for the HOF, saw him regularly. His first five years on the ballot he did not even garner 10%. His first year on the ballot, when presumably memories were fresh, he finished 23rd, behind Roy Face, Don Larsen, Lew Burdette, Al Dark and Ted Klu. He only finished with half the necessary votes once. While the baseball writers were far from perfect, it's hard to believe that they'd be that far off on a guy for enshrinement.

[Kenny Cole]

Todd,

I'm not necessarily advocating Maz for the HOF. I don't know whether he belongs or not. I suppose the answer to that question depends in large part upon how you view the value of defense in baseball. In that regard, it seems rather clear to me that, at least historically, the HOF voters didn't put much of a premium on defense. They were much more moved by the big hitters. Kiner was a terrible defensive outfielder and my 9 year old probably has a better arm than Kiner ever did. Kiner was, to be kind, a defensive liabilty. He also had a short career. However, he got in because of the monster numbers he put up during tha short career. I don't have a big problem with that.

However, Kiner is proof that gaudy offensive numbers are what get a position player into the Hall. Great defense has never been the stepping stone to immortality. IMO, that's a large part of the reason why Maz got no love from the BBWAA. The things he was really good at weren't the things they cared about. That's the whole point about the Ozzie/Maz comparison. For some reason, its different for Ozzie. Why is that?

If you look at Ozzie's offensive numbers, he hit .262, had an OBP of .337, averaged 2 HR a year, and drove in 50 rbis a year. He stole a lot of bases in an era when lots of people stole a lot of bases. Although he scored a fair number of runs, he is comfortably outside of the top 100 in that category. Maz' had more pop, drove in more runs per year, scored a lot fewer runs, had a .299 OBP, and didn't steal bases in an era when no one besides Maury Wills stole bases. I don't think either one of them has a reasonable case for the Hall if you look only at their offensive performances.

The thing that put Ozzie over the top was, obviously, his defense. It was sterling, remarkable, awesome, whatever adjective you want to use. The Cardinals were on TV alot so his wonderful defense was often on display and often seen by a lot of people. That wasn't ever true for Maz. In fact, I sort of wonder if Ozzie would have been a first ballot HOFer had he stayed a Padre and lost all that face time on TV.

Defense got Ozzie in. However, at least if you believe what the numbers say, Maz was in Ozzie's class as a defender. No one ever seems to consider that when they talk about how bad a choice for the Hall Maz is. Why is Ozzie a first ballot HOFer based on his defense while Maz, who was equally adept, should have to pay to get in? Since it was great defense that got both of them in, I frankly don't understand why they are treated so disparately.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Bill James rates Mazeroski as the 29th best 2nd baseman of all time. He rates Ozzie as the 7th best shortstop.

[oldjudge]

I never thought Ozzie Smith was a Hall of Famer, let alone a first ballot HOFer. However, since he is, Omar Vizquel should also be a first ballot HOFer. He is Ozzie's equal in the field and a better hitter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Vizquel is going to end up pretty close to 3000 hits, although at age 43 I don't think he has enough gas in the tank to get 200 more. In the late 90s when the Indians had such great lineups, it seemed Vizquel was always the toughest out for the Red Sox.

[tedzan]

Given that Maz and the "Wizard of Oz" are in the HOF due to their defensive performances, then why isn't Marty Marion in the HOF ?

A great defensive SS with great range, Marty was an important "cog" in those great St Louis Cardinals teams from 1940 thru 1950.

Marion, Maz, and Oz all Batted about .262....and, they all have approx. the same range of Fielding % (.95 to .98).

I saw Marion play in the late 1940's, he made some unbelievable plays at SS. He deserves to be in the HOF. And, if he was a HOFer,
he would now be the oldest living HOFer at age 93.


TED Z

[Touch'EmAll]

How about the guys who honestly had a few fabulous years that are not in the HOF ? They are surely the equal of many names you folks are throwing out.

Just hard to believe the HOF voters put TOO MUCH stock on longevity. I always thought, "if a player was great, the player was great."

For starters:
Pete Reiser (Reesor)
Roger Maris
Bo Jackson

These players would blow away many actual HOF inductees. They captures the hearts of our nation when they played. They could do things not many others could do. And they held big time records (Maris).

Hands down the finest defensive outfield throw of any man ever to play baseball - All Star game - Bo Jackson throws out Harold Reynolds at the plate - from the warning track - on the fly !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Absolutely incredible defensive arm. Yet they let Ozzie Smith in for his defensive merits.

Pete Reiser made the all-star game in 1941, 1942 & 1946 - throw in the war years - he would have been an All-Star for 6 consecutive years. Way better than a lot of the names I have heard here.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Marty Marion had 1448 lifetime hits. I don't think so.

[CMIZ5290]

How about rabbit maranville? Life time batting average of .256!

[D. Bergin]

Regarding the Ozzie vs. Maz debate.

We are still comparing a SS to a 2nd Baseman.

As far as fielding and getting to balls/range. Ozzie played on artificial turf for a large portion of his career. Maz played on grass.

[tedzan]

To quote Tina Turner...." What does hits (love) have to do with it ? "

We were told that Maz & Oz were elected to the HOF because of their great "defensive play".

Marty Marion's defensive stats and performance were equivalent to Maz and Oz. And, Marion
contributed enormously to the success of the St Louis Cardinals during their great years from
1942 to 1949.


TED Z

[Rob D.]

I saw Mark Belanger make some great defensive plays (on TV and in person), and he was a key defensive cog at shortstop on a string of really good Orioles team. Plus, he was a good baseball man. Better save a place for him.

[Robextend]

Ozzie Smith still had almost 2,500 hits and over 1,250 runs scored and 580 stolen bases. I mean even if you argue longevity, you have to hit a little bit to get in the HOF these days.

Mazeroski also had 2,000 hits and 138 HRs

Marion only had 1,448 hits and 36 HRs with a 323 OBP. He might have been a very good player and instrumental to his teams success, but not a HOFer at all by any standards.

[tbob]

Pete Reiser and Tony Oliva are the two "what could have been" players who would easily have been in the HOF except for injuries. Both great players, both acclaimed by their contemporaries as stars, yet both star-crossed.

[tbob]

If old Casey hadn't blown a gasket in 1960 and had started Whitey Ford in Game 1, we wouldn't even be takling about Maz' Game 7. As great a manager as the Old Perfessor was, this was the strangest and stupidest move he ever made. Ford goes in Game 7 and the Yanks are world champs and Maz is recognized as a very good defensive player but never gets a sniff of the HOF. This was why Stengel was fired and Ralph Houk hired as manager of the Yankees in 1961.

[RGold]

Who's that pipsqueak next to Marty Marion?

From my Cardinal wire photo collection.

[tedzan]

Hey guys......Miller Huggins has only 1474 hits and a BA comparable to Marty Marion's BA.

Also, there are other HOFer's that have less than 2000 hits.....Huggins instantly came to mind.
Of course Huggins is in for other reasons.

So, I repeat Tina Turner's......" What does hits have to do with it ? "

Recall, the HOF said that Maz and Oz were inducted due to their defensive play (not their HITS).
I was there at the ceremonies and well remember this statement.


TED Z

[Peter_Spaeth]

was elected as a manager, not a player.

From baseball reference.com
Inducted into the Hall of Fame by Veteran's Committee as Manager in 1964.

[tedzan]

Doooaaah ! ....No kidding ! 1

However, Peter how come you are ignoring the argument.....Maz and Oz are in due to their DEFENSE ?

Marion was as good an infielder as they were.

Look, I cannot argue with someone who thinks George Sisler is "overrated". That tells me we live in two different worlds.
And, do not cite Bill James again. He has been known to have had lapses in judgment. At times, James gets too carried
away trying to analyze BB strictly from a mathematical standpoint.


TED Z

[Rob D.]

Bill James has said and written on more than one occasion that -- I'm paraphrasing here -- one of the worst cases that can be made for a player being inducted into the Hall of Fame is the "If Player A is in, then Player B should be in" argument.

Common sense should tell you that if this method of reasoning were valid, then eventually every player would be inducted into the Hall of Fame, because there would be no end. Heck, even managers of company softball teams would end up giving speeches in Cooperstown. Of course, because fans are so passionate about players they saw play or spoke to at an autograph signing, common sense often goes out the window when it comes to Hall of Fame debates.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ted: sure defense is the primary reason why they are in, but I think to make it principally on defense you at least have to meet a certain threshold of offensive production, and with 1400 hits Marty Marion just isn't there. With nearly 2500, plus the steals, Ozzie is. Personally I would not have elected Mazeroski. To illustrate my point if the undisputed greatest shortstop of all time hit .188, he wouldn't make it. Ted your perceptions of some of the 40s players like Terry Moore, Tommy Henrich, and others who (if memory serves) you have pronounced Hall-worthy just do not seem objective to me but seem tinged with nostalgia.

Edit I agree Bill James is not perfect.... For example I think he is insane to rate Arky Vaughan in the top 40 players of all time.

[tedzan]

Peter

I fully agree with you that Mazeroski should not be in. And, I don't think anyone would deny Ozzie HOF status.
My understanding is that a Pittsburgh Pirate guy (who had a lot of pull) was on the Veterans Committee that
elected Maz.

Perhaps you're right that my subjective feelings enter into my preferences on guys like Tommy Henrich, Marty
Marion, Terry Moore, Gil Hodges, etc. I grew up seeing these guys (on TV or in a ballpark) play the game; and,
I was at the very impressionable age of a 10 year old to a teenager then. And, when you reach my age, your
mind starts to regress back to 1947 - 1960. And, believe me those memory's are as clear as if they were just
yesterday.

Regards,

TED Z

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ted I think it's human nature to be biased towards the older players, particularly where today's players are largely so inaccesible and unappealing.

[Mark]

Maz isn't in the Hall solely because of the homerun. He was in because he played second base like he belonged in a higher league. Back in the day when only a few games were on national tv, you had to follow the NL to notice. Thus, there might be some American League fans out there who aren't fully wise to all of Maz's accomplishments in the field. I never saw Marty Marion, so I would have to defer to people who followed the National League back in the 40's.

[familytoad]

I love the HOF debate...I could read through the rationale from all of our perspectives all night. This thread veered toward the hallowed halls pretty quickly.
The OP didn't mention that the most overrated pre-war player had to be a Hall of Famer, so I went with Chase.

But Jeff...as I assumed you might respond, the fascination w/Chase is indeed the irony that if he wanted to be among the heroes instead of villians, by most accounts he likely could have been. And while any of the banned players make good copy...they might be a better fit for the purer definition of over-rated. Chase may be rated about right...a good player and a very bad man.

Fred McMullin? Chick Gandil?


Reflecting on debatable HOFers is also a bit ironic. When discussing Maranville, Haines or Geo. Kelly for example...none of us "rate" them high at all. In fact they could be considered overrated by the HOF, but not by us, the readers of this forum!

Still, I guess they are rated higher than guys like Lou Criger, Bill Bergen or Freddy Parent...those are real bums

[ElCabron]

I'd like to submit Andy Cooper as the Negro League entry.

But this thread loses credibility by the fact that Sisler was even mentioned in it. I don't care that his career OBP was .379, which is not as horrible as some are trying to argue it is. If that was the only category careers were judged by, then I would agree that he should not be in the Hall. Fortunately, it is not. His career BA was .340. Three-freakin-forty! He batted over .400 twice. He also led the league in stolen bases 4 times.

It's true that he didn't walk a lot, because he was too busy hitting the ball. For those who actually watch the game of baseball, there are many situations where a hit is infinitely better than a walk. With less than two outs and a runner on first, would you rather have the next batter be a guy who walks a lot or a guy who hits .340? Runners don't advance from first to third on walks. Unless they are Rickey Henderson.

I'm a statistics nerd as much as anyone here, but baseball is not a home run derby. Offensive statistics should not be the only measure of a player's worth. Most board members would make the absolute worst general managers in the world because they'd assemble teams without ever considering defense. Their ace pitchers would have horrible stats from all the balls that would drop behind them due to lack of range in the outfield instead of being caught. Plus all the singles that good infielders would have turned into outs. Not to mention all the inning-ending double plays that would instead result in 3 or 4 run rallies.

Defense matters. What is it that wins in the playoffs? Is it pitching and on-base percentage?

Bill Mazeroski was the best defensive second baseman of all-time. Unless his career average was under .180, anyone who is considered the best ever at his position means he's a legit HOFer to me. In the 1960s Maz led the league in assists 9 times! Think of how many of those outs might have been hits. Turning hits into outs helps you win games.

Along those lines, Omar Vizquel should absolutely be a HOFer as well. Forget about his 2,800 hits and 400 stolen bases. No one has ever played more games at shortstop and he has the highest fielding percentage in history outside of future HOFer, Troy Tulowitzki who has played 2,000 fewer games.

Also, for you guys who only judge players by stats, why does Dizzy Dean never get brought up in these discussions? Go look at his career stats. You'll be shocked.

-Ryan

[Peter_Spaeth]

Dean and Koufax are two anomalies -- stretches of five or so dominant years but way short on career wins. Ed Walsh is sort of similar, his career win total wasn't that impressive. Interestingly, Dwight Gooden was sort of Koufax in reverse, starting with a run of five or so great years and then falling off a cliff, but nobody thinks of him as a HOFer.

As to Sisler, I never suggested he did not belong in the HOF, and neither did Bill James, my only suggestion was that he was overrated in the sense some consider him one of the very few best players ever.

[quinnsryche]

Was just going thru the Baseball Encyclopedia and never noticed how pathetic Tommy McCarthy's stats were. Why is he a HOF'er? 2 spots lower on the page is Tim McCarver and he beats him in EVERY category but 1 and no one even sniffs McCarver for the HOF (and at a tougher position too, catcher over OF)???

[Bridwell]

There are a lot of intangibles that go into somebody getting into the HOF. You just don't see it in the stats, that's why I'm not a big fan of the Bill James statistical analysis.

Some players were great fielders. Some had 3-4 huge seasons which made them famous. Some guys were good, not great, but played 20 years. Some were great leaders of men, who elevated the level of play around them.

It's hard to look back and really understand exactly what made them great, but it's fun to try.

[tbob]

Everyone's dissing the HOFers from Arkansas Lou Brock, Dizzy Dean, Arky Vaughn, etc. Who's next, Bill Dickey? Brooks Robinson?

[Anthony S.]

Bill Dickey and Brooks Robinson

[Kawika]

Originally Posted by Anthony S.

Bill Dickey and Brooks Robinson

The real Anthony would never make a comment like that.

[Anthony S.]

Originally Posted by Kawika

The real Anthony would never make a comment like that.

Yeah, in retrospect I think that clothing line I launched with my social security number woven into the insignia may have been a mistake.