Is Omar Vizquel a HOFer?

[Old#5fan]

What TGO said. His stealing bases and bunting are already accounted for in the numbers I posted. Without credit for his base stealing Aparicio would be about 50 runs worse than an average shortstop for his era.

Don't be so quick to eviscerate numbers you know nothing about.

It's strange that your prior posts seem to indicate that you're a tiny HOF advocate - that only the very, very, very best of all time should be in Cooperstown. But now you're strongly advocating the credentials of someone who quite clearly doesn't fit that mold.

Edit: one other thing. Aparicio was his era's Rickey Henderson like Manute Bol was his era's Wilt Chamberlin. Or like Dick Stuart was the 1960s version of Albert Pujols. In other words, only in the most superficial way. Henderson scored 100 runs in a season more times his first full year in the majors than Aparicio did in his whole 18 year career. Henderson reached based nearly 2000 times more than Aparicio.

Terrible comparisons you just made. Totally incomparable. Niether Bol nor Stuart ever sniffed the HOF. If you are going to make comparisons at least compare a strong and a weaker HOF player. :rolleyestf:Again you are also comparing different eras. Had Ricky Henderson had to face pitchers throwing off the higher mound in larger parks when pitching was dominant I doubt he puts up numbers like that. I am not saying Henderson wasn't a much better offensive player than Aparicio but you need to put him in context to the era he played in. You are severely handicapped in making any kind of correct judgment of Aparicio being HOF worthy because of never seeing him play and witnessing the impact he had on the game he was in. His presence defensively and offensively (mainly due to his speed and bunting ability) made him a force to be reckoned with and not some mediocre player like you suggest who somehow reached the HOF mysteriously. And it is not strange how I judge a player being HOF worthy. I judge them from what I have personally witnessed or in the case of guys like Ruth and Gehrig, what I have read.

[Icterus galbula]

Oldfan, your arguments are pretty much that you saw Aparicio play and you know a hall of fame player when you see one.

If you are 53 years old, as you claimed in some other thread, that would make you between the ages of 8 and 12 when Aparicio played in Baltimore. Though you may wish us to think of you as some ancient seer who has seen it all in professional sports, I'm not ready to buy the 10-year-old version of you's analysis of a player's hall of fame credentials.

Having Aparacio in the hall is fine with me, but I think the numbers show its clear that he is on the lower end of the spectrum.

[ElToro75]

He had one season in his career with an OPS over .800

He used his stellar glove to make up for his anemic bat.

Definiltey not Hall worthy.

There's a bunch of middle infielders in the Hall that Omar could compare himself to, but they played in much different eras when middle infielders walked softly and carried a small stick.

Omar has been a steady player for his generation who never would have made anyone's top 50 lists of current players. That said, he absolutely is not Hall worthy.

Had he played 30-50 years earlier, he might have made it, at least eventually thru the Veteran's Committee.

Like Bill Mazerosky. I think he has the lowest batting average of all HOF'ers. And if he strikes out in the WS against the Yankees he most likely doesn't get in. They altered the Veterans Committee (again) after his induction.

I forgot to vote, but I say no.

[DrungoHazewood]

Terrible comparisons you just made. Totally incomparable. Niether Bol nor Stuart ever sniffed the HOF. If you are going to make comparisons at least compare a strong and a weaker HOF player. :rolleyestf:Again you are also comparing different eras. Had Ricky Henderson had to face pitchers throwing off the higher mound in larger parks when pitching was dominant I doubt he puts up numbers like that. I am not saying Henderson wasn't a much better offensive player than Aparicio but you need to put him in context to the era he played in. You are severely handicapped in making any kind of correct judgment of Aparicio being HOF worthy because of never seeing him play and witnessing the impact he had on the game he was in. His presence defensively and offensively (mainly due to his speed and bunting ability) made him a force to be reckoned with and not some mediocre player like you suggest who somehow reached the HOF mysteriously. And it is not strange how I judge a player being HOF worthy. I judge them from what I have personally witnessed or in the case of guys like Ruth and Gehrig, what I have read.

Again, you've completely missed the point. And I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain this to someone who'll obviously never even try to understand.

[Old#5fan]

Again, you've completely missed the point. And I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain this to someone who'll obviously never even try to understand.

Sorry you feel that way, but I think you are ignoring my point or missing it as well. I see your side of the argument that stats would make Aparicio suspect as deserving a place in the hallowed HOF. However, you don't see my side that when you watched him on the field performing and his impact on a game he was something very special as a player during his hey day. That is why he made it.

[TGO]

Oldfan, your arguments are pretty much that you saw Aparicio play and you know a hall of fame player when you see one.

If you are 53 years old, as you claimed in some other thread, that would make you between the ages of 8 and 12 when Aparicio played in Baltimore. Though you may wish us to think of you as some ancient seer who has seen it all in professional sports, I'm not ready to buy the 10-year-old version of you's analysis of a player's hall of fame credentials.

Having Aparacio in the hall is fine with me, but I think the numbers show its clear that he is on the lower end of the spectrum.

lol, busted. I hadn't even thought to do the math on his age. When I was 8 I thought Pete Harnisch was a potential Cy Young winner and that Bill Ripken would probably learn how to hit eventually and be an All Star. I also thought Bob Milacki was pretty good. D'oh!

[DrungoHazewood]

Sorry you feel that way, but I think you are ignoring my point or missing it as well. I see your side of the argument that stats would make Aparicio suspect as deserving a place in the hallowed HOF. However, you don't see my side that when you watched him on the field performing and his impact on a game he was something very special as a player during his hey day. That is why he made it.

I completely understand your point. You thought Aparicio was cool when you were 11, so he's a HOFer. You don't think Omar Vizquel is cool when you're 53-going-on-120, so he's not. Even though they're basically the same player.

[Old#5fan]

I completely understand your point. You thought Aparicio was cool when you were 11, so he's a HOFer. You don't think Omar Vizquel is cool when you're 53-going-on-120, so he's not. Even though they're basically the same player.

Actually Aparicio was around til I was well into my teens. I am no doubt biased because he was an Oriole, I will admit to that. No doubt the age thing does have a huge impact as well. I could be wrong but I think Aparicio may have been an all-star more often than Vizquel, which I think most HOF players have as a common trait. I know he was a key part of the Go-Go White Sox WS team as he was of the Orioles 66 team.

I just think everyone views the same players differently. I for one unlike you don't over-rate Mike Mussina but put him in the same class as Blyleven, and Dennis Martinez. Exceptionally good pitchers who were around a long time but not necessarily dominant enough to merit the HOF. However, if Blyleven and Martinez are admitted, I could see Mussina squeaking in as well.

[DrungoHazewood]

I could be wrong but I think Aparicio may have been an all-star more often than Vizquel, which I think most HOF players have as a common trait.

Yes Aparicio was in 11 All Star games, versus only three for Vizquel. But that only tells a small part of that story - Aparicio never played in a 30-team MLB, so he was competing against fewer players. In some years he only had to beat out maybe six other shortstops to be an All Star, in an eight-team league. Much of Vizquel's career has been in a 16-team NL.

And for part of his career there were two All Star games a year. In 1960 and 1962 he played in two AS games.

And we all know of the *ahem* inconsistent ways of picking All Stars.

All we can really tell from AS voting with these two players is that Aparicio was probably more popular than Vizquel.

[Old#5fan]

Yes Aparicio was in 11 All Star games, versus only three for Vizquel. But that only tells a small part of that story - Aparicio never played in a 30-team MLB, so he was competing against fewer players. In some years he only had to beat out maybe six other shortstops to be an All Star, in an eight-team league. Much of Vizquel's career has been in a 16-team NL.

And for part of his career there were two All Star games a year. In 1960 and 1962 he played in two AS games.

And we all know of the *ahem* inconsistent ways of picking All Stars.

All we can really tell from AS voting with these two players is that Aparicio was probably more popular than Vizquel.

Again, I could be wrong but I think at least for a good part of Aparicio's career the players voted and not the fans. If the players were voting him in that carries much more weight in my estimation, as I am sure it would yours.

[DrungoHazewood]

Again, I could be wrong but I think at least for a good part of Aparicio's career the players voted and not the fans. If the players were voting him in that carries much more weight in my estimation, as I am sure it would yours.

From 1958-69 the rosters were voted on by managers, coaches and fans.

I have little more faith in their ability to pick players than the fans. Coaches and managers pick the Gold Gloves, too, and we can see what a farce that process is. If anything I'd look at Aparicio making the team every year and see a comparison to how the same players win the Gold Glove every season until it's blatantly obvious that the guy doesn't deserve it any more.

Managers and coaches are paid to manage and coach, and players are paid to play. None of them are paid to objectively analyze the best players in the league.

[Old#5fan]

From 1958-69 the rosters were voted on by managers, coaches and fans.

I have little more faith in their ability to pick players than the fans. Coaches and managers pick the Gold Gloves, too, and we can see what a farce that process is. If anything I'd look at Aparicio making the team every year and see a comparison to how the same players win the Gold Glove every season until it's blatantly obvious that the guy doesn't deserve it any more.

Managers and coaches are paid to manage and coach, and players are paid to play. None of them are paid to objectively analyze the best players in the league.

So let me get this right. You don't believe that peers in a highly respected professional occupation that requires the greatest talent at something in the world are going to be any better judge than a bunch of fans or novices who favor certain teams and players or people or workers?:scratchchinhmm: BTW, it seems fair to state that the period where the seemingly more knowledgeable and less biased fellow players and coaches voted for the all-star team pretty much coincided with the most successful part of Aparicio's career.

[Eight]

And calling Luis Aparicio one of the worst HOF'ers is just more evidence that you like OPS more than you like baseball. The guy was ROY, a many-times AS, and while he never was MVP, he was 2nd in the voting one year, and showed up in the MVP voting 10 different years, which is just as many as Cal did. He also helped lead 2 teams to the WS. He was the prototype SS of his generation, honored and respected by his peers, just like Cal was for his generation. Calling Luis Aparicio unworthy reflects a lack of understanding on your part. Plus, it might start a war with Venezuela, and they've got oil, remember..

Where did I use the phrase "unworthy"? I don't recall that. What I did say is that he was one of the worst HOF selections. And that, I think, is fairly certain. Among his peers at SS, none were as poor a hitter as Aparicio. Certainly many, perhaps most, were superlative defenders, as was Aparicio. Almost assuredly, a good many of them were at least as good as Aparicio.

I know you don't like OPS; do you like guys that can hit? Because I do. And Aparicio couldn't, even compared to his HOF peers at SS.

[RShack]

I know you don't like OPS;

I like OPS just fine. It's just a number. I just don't like what some people do with it.

There's lots of numbers, and none of them tell you everything you need to know.

OPS overstates SLG, so it was the perfect number for the Roids Era.

do you like guys that can hit? Because I do. And Aparicio couldn't, even compared to his HOF peers at SS.

I like good baseball players. Aparacio was the prototype SS for his generation. He was honored and respected by his peers, which is how Bill James says you're supposed to value players, and it's why he's in the HOF, which is exactly where he belongs. Sorry you don't like his OPS.

[Old#5fan]

I like OPS just fine. It's just a number. I just don't like what some people do with it.

There's lots of numbers, and none of them tell you everything you need to know.

OPS overstates SLG, so it was the perfect number for the Roids Era.

I like good baseball players. Aparacio was the prototype SS for his generation. He was honored and respected by his peers, which is how Bill James says you're supposed to value players, and it's why he's in the HOF, which is exactly where he belongs. Sorry you don't like his OPS.

Spot on. Even if you weren't around then to see and appreciate his talent like we were the fact that 11 times his peers voted him as the best at his position should speak for itself. Its not like today where it at times is just a popularity contest.