Jump to content

Is Omar Vizquel a HOFer?


Sanfran327

Vizquel to the Hall?  

47 members have voted

  1. 1. Vizquel to the Hall?

    • Yeah, are you crazy?
      3
    • Umm... probably.
      13
    • Ehh... gotta leave him out
      22
    • No, are you crazy?
      9


Recommended Posts

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.:confused: 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.:confused: 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • I'm still waiting to see what they do with him in the outfield. If he can be the backup CF that might make it easier for Kjerstad to beat out Cowser for first crack at an OF job.
    • No, they can’t fit them both in all likelihood, unless they do the smart thing and make some trades, which they should have done already.
    • A lot good they did 😛 Off topic that was the excuse used when the team wasn't hitting the last 2 weeks of the regular season. It wasnt true considered it continued in the playoffs..    Hopefully the Mateo PAs is under. With Felix gone and Bradish and Means missing time they are going to win as many of those games where they only score 1 or 2 runs that seemed to go through a lot last year
    • The problem is you only get 13 spots. Right now it's hard to see how you could fit both Kjerstad and Cowser on the roster without an injury or trade. As it is, for either of them to make the roster, Mateo has to be the defensive OF guy (which is OK, since Hays and it seems Cowser could also be adequate defensive subs, as well as Westburg). Adley McCann Mountcastle O'Hearn Gunnar Urias Westburg Mateo = 8 spots  Mullins Hays Santander = 3 spots That leaves two spots. Holliday or Maton/Wong gets one.  I just don't see a way to fit both Kjerstad and Cowser without an injury or move. Still, one of Kjerstad/Cowser can play the Hicks 3-4x per week role with the other being the next man up. There will be struggles and there will be injuries and both will get to play that role at times, maybe more. If Kjerstad and Cowser have success in their opportunities, they may well push Hays to the 5th OF spot, or O'Hearn to AAA, but I don't think we make those moves prematurely. I think both get 300+ AB's this year but they don't have to make the opening day roster for that to happen. Will be interesting to compare the end of year AB's for Cowser, Kjerstad, O'Hearn, and Mountcastle.   
    • If Buck O’Neil were there yesterday, he’d tell Roch about how he heard a sound that he’d never heard before. And it was Babe Ruth hitting that ball. And then he didn’t hear it again until a few years later, and it was Josh Gibson hitting that ball. Then he didn’t hear it again until it was Bo Jackson hitting that ball. And then he didn’t hear it again until it was Kyle Stowers hitting that ball. 
    • Updated through leap year game. - Mateo keeps getting SS starts but no outfield time. - Basallo takes BP - Yennier Cano has been put on a milk carton - McKenna hitless while battling for a spot - Holliday has first good game at the plate - Burnes struggles - Kimbrel, Coulombe and Webb all scored upon. (Bullpen not looking strong in early going)  
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...