If you don't want to read the whole article, Neyer makes an argument about MVP votes: basically, that the Hall of Fame is proof of greatness and that the MVP award is a certain standard of greatness that should be taken into account. But an argument about MVP voting misses the point in Hall of Fame discussion regarding Omar Vizquel because a player like Vizquel rarely even receives a vote. He's the archetype slick-fielding, bat-handling shortstop.
If you're the guy who starts the double play and moves the runner from first to second, the people who are going to get the most credit are the pitcher who threw the slider and the guy behind you who knocks the runner in from second with a single. The principal question for Hall of Fame voters is whether this type of player deserves to be in the Hall of Fame--your prototypical #2 hitter if you will.
It's also a judge of the value of the glove. It's a hard thing to quantify but if the general wisdom is that Ozzie Smith and Omar are the two "greatest fielding shortstops of all time" and that the shortstop is the most difficult defensive position one then has to evaluate Omar with Ozzie. Batting-wise, Omar wins in almost every category (Ozzie gets him in stolen bases, which isn't surprising considering he played on Whitey Herzog's Cardinals). Supremacy in the field is debatable. So head-to-head, Omar should be elected.
But I'm not an advocate of pure numbers. I'm an advocate for more than that, in that a player needs to transcend the numbers in some way. This is the same reason I don't think Rafael Palmiero should be in the Hall...he has all kinds of numbers, but he didn't transcend them. Think of it this way, in 20 career seasons, Palmiero only made four All-Star teams. Despite having 569 home runs, he never led the league. The only things Palmiero ever led the league in were runs, hits, and doubles. He only won each of those categories once. A very good hitter, sure, but not great. And NOT a Hall of Famer.
Vizquel, on the other hand, played in a way that transcended his numbers. He was often the emotional soul of his team. He might be the best defensive shortstop ever. But now that I've claimed that I won't do research to back up my post I will break that promise and throw some numbers at you.
He only hit over .300 once in his career. He is only 8th among active players in runs scored despite being first in plate appearances. He did lead the league in sacrifices four times (mad credit, Omar) but he NEVER led the league in any other offensive category. Defensively, he is third all-time in SS assists, despite having played more games at short than anyone else. Eleventh in putouts at SS.
And, in a 22 year career, Omar only made 3 All-Star teams. On top of that, I only found one year (1993) in which Omar spent the majority of his at-bats hitting leadoff. And that year he hit almost as often (275 times) in the 9-hole as he did hitting leadoff (283). I would guess that he spent more games in the 9-hole that season, considering how many more at-bats a leadoff hitter generally gets than a 9th-place guy. Omar was never a middle-of-the-order guy and spent his best years in the 2-hole.
It pains me to say it (I have always thought of myself as a #2 hitter) but #2 hitters are not your Hall of Fame guys. The Hall is for the stars. It's for guys who bring everybody home or for the rare leadoff hitter dynamic enough to transcend that role.
In my penultimate point, I will bring up Willie McGee. Willie was a much better hitter, leading the league in batting twice and hitting .300 seven times. He was fast on the basepaths and a very good outfielder. He won an MVP award (1985) But nobody claims he's a Hall of Famer.
Think of it this way, Maury Wills is not in the Hall of Fame. Pee Wee Reese had to wait until the Veterans Committee. Omar was a very good player but I can't justifiably say that he was a better shortstop than Maury Wills or Pee Wee Reese. Can you?
No comments:
Post a Comment