PDA

View Full Version : Is Omar Visquel a HoFer?



Lord_of_Dogtown
10-04-2012, 05:49 PM
Played his last game the other day? I dont think he'll make it into the HoF but what do you think?

Jeffy25
10-04-2012, 05:51 PM
No.

And before someone says if Ozzie is....then he is.


He isn't anywhere close to Ozzie defensively.

teddygreen17
10-04-2012, 05:55 PM
Almost 3000 hits and one of the greatest fielders of all time...you have to give it too him for longevity as well. Yeah, he is in.

Rylinkus
10-04-2012, 05:56 PM
Almost 3000 hits and one of the greatest fielders of all time...you have to give it too him for longevity as well. Yeah, he is in.

Compiled by being a below average hitter for a very long time. No, he doesn't belong in the Hall.

Jeffy25
10-04-2012, 05:56 PM
Here is your information

Omar
.272/.336/.352 - 82 OPS+ - .311 wOBA, 84 wRC+ - 1291 wRC
27.8 oWAR, 28.4 dWAR, 40.5 rWAR, 129.7 UZR, 47.4 fWAR
(over 100 less SB as well)

Ozzie
.262/.337/.328 - 87 OPS+ - .311 wOBA, 94 wRC+ - 1154 wRC
44.5 oWAR, 43.4 dWAR, 73.0 rWAR, 239 UZR, 70.3 fWAR


The reason I brought up Ozzie proactively is because people like to make that comparaison every time we have a thread about Omar as a hall of famer. And he pales in comparaison.

Lord_of_Dogtown
10-04-2012, 06:00 PM
Here is your information

Omar
.272/.336/.352 - 82 OPS+ - .311 wOBA, 84 wRC+ - 1291 wRC
27.8 oWAR, 28.4 dWAR, 40.5 rWAR, 129.7 UZR, 47.4 fWAR
(over 100 less SB as well)

Ozzie
.262/.337/.328 - 87 OPS+ - .311 wOBA, 94 wRC+ - 1154 wRC
44.5 oWAR, 43.4 dWAR, 73.0 rWAR, 239 UZR, 70.3 fWAR


The reason I brought up Ozzie proactively is because people like to make that comparaison every time we have a thread about Omar as a hall of famer. And he pales in comparaison.

We havnt had a thread about Omar and HoF in like 2 years

beldugo
10-04-2012, 06:00 PM
You can compare Vizquel with Luis Aparicio...

Vizquel AVG .272 OBP .336 SLG .352 wOBA .311 wRC+ 84

Aparicio AVG .262 OBP .311 SLG .343 wOBA .302 wRC+ 88

Both of them played great defense at short.

Vizquel 129.7 UZR

Aparicio 149 UZR

thrice4
10-04-2012, 06:05 PM
Loved watching him play. I hope so. One of the best shortstops ever.

Twitchy
10-04-2012, 06:07 PM
I'm fine with Vizquel getting in on "longevity" as long as baseball is consistent and does the same with Moyer.

I just don't think Vizquel matches up as a HoF SS considering that his peers include:

A-Rod, Ripken, Jeter, Larkin, Trammell, Ozzie Smith and Yount.

Solid player, not a HoF.

bagwell368
10-04-2012, 06:07 PM
Big debate about 18 months ago. Vizquel is about the 14th best SS of all time and Smith is about 6th-7th. Not very close and Vizquel doesn't belong. His hitting rate stats are quite meh.

Jeffy25
10-04-2012, 06:09 PM
We havnt had a thread about Omar and HoF in like 2 years

Yeah, it just happens on other forums too though.

It would be brought up.


Aparacio is an interesting comparision

.262/.311/.343 - 82 OPS+, .302 wOBA, 88 wRC+ - 1130 wRC
37.8 oWAR, 31.6 dWAR, 51.7 rWAR, 149 UZR, 63.6 fWAR



He compares a lot more closely to Aparacio, but Aparacio arguably shouldn't be in either.

Jeffy25
10-04-2012, 06:10 PM
We need to put Alan Trammel in before we consider Vizquel, most certainly.

jon32
10-04-2012, 06:11 PM
No.

And before someone says if Ozzie is....then he is.


He isn't anywhere close to Ozzie defensively.

rrrriiiighhhtttt.....

whitesoxfan83
10-04-2012, 06:12 PM
I say he's a borderliner. I'm certainly not going to complain if he gets in.

bagwell368
10-04-2012, 06:12 PM
We need to put Alan Trammel in before we consider Vizquel, most certainly.

Beat me to it. One of the 6-7 most ignored living players. Pretty much the "Santo" of SS's.

RTL
10-04-2012, 06:13 PM
I think he is close but falls short.

Nick O
10-04-2012, 06:34 PM
his 11 gold gloves say yes..... 11.... that right there gets him in... he was an average to above average hitter almost his entire career... and he was an all around great guy... yes.. hof for sure

Rylinkus
10-04-2012, 06:41 PM
his 11 gold gloves say yes..... 11.... that right there gets him in... he was an average to above average hitter almost his entire career... and he was an all around great guy... yes.. hof for sure

He was a below average hitter his entire career. I believe he had 2 seasons where he was above league average as a hitter.

MetsFanatic19
10-04-2012, 06:47 PM
One of the best fielding short stops of all time, 2500+ hits, played until he was 45. He gets my vote.

conway429
10-04-2012, 06:48 PM
He was a below average hitter his entire career. I believe he had 2 seasons where he was above league average as a hitter.

?? 8 years .280+, career .272 - he was solid for a shortstop
almost 1500 runs and 3000 hits, 400+ SBs, 11 GGs

It's close, but I'd put him in

Rylinkus
10-04-2012, 06:58 PM
?? 8 years .280+, career .272 - he was solid for a shortstop
almost 1500 runs and 3000 hits, 400+ SBs, 11 GGs

It's close, but I'd put him in

Was he an above average hitter, or an above average hitter for a SS?
There's a difference. He was not an above average MLB hitter.

Even by SS standards, he's far from amazing
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=ss&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2012&month=0&season1=1990&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=16,d

Let's not confused being a great hitter with lingering around long enough to compile some nice counting totals.

mark1125
10-04-2012, 07:09 PM
We need to put Alan Trammel in before we consider Vizquel, most certainly.

This this this!!!!! If Larkin got in, why is Trammell not in. And if Vizquesl is even mentioned, Trammell needs to be in.

As for the question at hand, NO I don't feel Vizquel should be in. He was a very good player, but not HOF calibur. Personally, I feel way too many very good players have gotten in the HOF as is.

KingPosey
10-04-2012, 07:13 PM
Here is your information

Omar
.272/.336/.352 - 82 OPS+ - .311 wOBA, 84 wRC+ - 1291 wRC
27.8 oWAR, 28.4 dWAR, 40.5 rWAR, 129.7 UZR, 47.4 fWAR
(over 100 less SB as well)

Ozzie
.262/.337/.328 - 87 OPS+ - .311 wOBA, 94 wRC+ - 1154 wRC
44.5 oWAR, 43.4 dWAR, 73.0 rWAR, 239 UZR, 70.3 fWAR


The reason I brought up Ozzie proactively is because people like to make that comparaison every time we have a thread about Omar as a hall of famer. And he pales in comparaison.
I do believe Ozzie was better. but defensive metric stats arent worth a **** imo.

Jeffy25
10-04-2012, 07:14 PM
Hell, throw out the defensive metrics, Ozzie was a beats defensively

How many times do you have to have the most putouts and assists as a shortstop?

Dude rocked. And he made the highlight plays to boot.


My first favorite player growing up.

Rylinkus
10-04-2012, 07:27 PM
Hell, throw out the defensive metrics, Ozzie was a beats defensively

How many times do you have to have the most putouts and assists as a shortstop?

Dude rocked. And he made the highlight plays to boot.


My first favorite player growing up.

Ozzie passes the test whether by stats and metrics or the eyeball test. The guy was incredible.

jmaest
10-04-2012, 07:41 PM
Ozzie passes the test whether by stats and metrics or the eyeball test. The guy was incredible.

The guy was incredible defensively. Offensively he couldn't hit a softball. I'm personally not convinced Ozzie was a HoF'er. I think he was a great guy and very well liked which helped his case...

I'd like an option for "pretty close" instead of "maybe". He almost has 3K hits and he was pretty awesome defensively. I think he's "pretty close".

Yankees90.
10-04-2012, 08:00 PM
I want to say yes, but I'm just not 100% sure yet....

Havoc Wreaker
10-04-2012, 08:04 PM
We need to put Alan Trammel in before we consider Vizquel, most certainly.
I remember during an All Time Redraft checking Alan Tramell and going :speechless:

conway429
10-04-2012, 08:43 PM
Was he an above average hitter, or an above average hitter for a SS?
There's a difference. He was not an above average MLB hitter.

Even by SS standards, he's far from amazing
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=ss&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2012&month=0&season1=1990&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=16,d

Let's not confused being a great hitter with lingering around long enough to compile some nice counting totals.

I'm not saying he was a great hitter, I was just referring to your comment of him only hitting above the league average twice. I said he was a solid hitter for a shortstop, certainly not amazing, but an above average SS.


Hell, throw out the defensive metrics, Ozzie was a beats defensively

How many times do you have to have the most putouts and assists as a shortstop?

Dude rocked. And he made the highlight plays to boot.


My first favorite player growing up.

I think Ozzie is a HOFer without question, not a fringe HOFer. So I don't think he should be compared to as the cut-off.
All I'm saying is, the HOF isn't as elite as it should be, and being one of the best defensive players ever, along with some very impressive offensive numbers (totals or not) should have him in.

SACNYY
10-04-2012, 08:53 PM
Why not? He was a great player. Jeffy25 loves to hate guys.

jmaest
10-04-2012, 08:58 PM
I think if we take a step back we'll see that this discussion is only occurring for two reasons:

1- Ozzie Smith is in the HoF for his defense and Vizquel is similarly compared.
2- Vizquel is close to 3K hits.

When I think about that I realize that if it wasn't for those two reasons, we'd not be having this discussion.

I'd like to change my vote to "no". Vizquel really isn't a HoF'er...

Pierzynski4Prez
10-04-2012, 09:00 PM
What does Vizquel getting into the HOF have to do with Ozzie Smith? Smith is in. If Smith wasn't, then I get the comparisons and people saying Vizquel doesn't belong. But Smith is in, so why does Vizquel have to be better to get in? He should get in or not get in based off his own merit, not that of another person already voted in.

Rylinkus
10-04-2012, 09:26 PM
I'm not saying he was a great hitter, I was just referring to your comment of him only hitting above the league average twice. I said he was a solid hitter for a shortstop, certainly not amazing, but an above average SS.


Which is true, until you add the caveat "far a shortstop"

rockbottom2010
10-04-2012, 09:28 PM
ozzie smith made it to the hall of fame...and i think that vizquel is better ....nuff said

Rylinkus
10-04-2012, 09:29 PM
What does Vizquel getting into the HOF have to do with Ozzie Smith? Smith is in. If Smith wasn't, then I get the comparisons and people saying Vizquel doesn't belong. But Smith is in, so why does Vizquel have to be better to get in? He should get in or not get in based off his own merit, not that of another person already voted in.

For some reason we like to use players in the HOF to make the case for other guys. The comparison game works both ways. Perhaps Omar compares favorably when stacked up against other HOFers, like Aparacio. Then again, you could also compare him to a guy whose not in like Trammell and see he's inferior. So if he's worse than a guy not in the HOF, but better than a guy in the HOF, what do you do? :rolleyes:



ozzie smith made it to the hall of fame...and i think that vizquel is better ....nuff said

Based on what?

bagwell368
10-04-2012, 09:31 PM
Another way to look at Smith v Vizquel:

Defense:

Smith saved 239 runs above average > Vizquel 128 - according to Sean Smiths metrics

Era/park adjusted slash:

Smith: .270/.347/.337 OPS+ 87

Vizquel: .267/.331/.345 OPS+ 82

Smith is somewhat better batting, the edge due to his advantage in OBP

Base stealing:

Smith: SB: 580 CS: 148 (79.7%)

Vizquel: SB: 404 CS: 167 (70.6%)

Smith was much better.

rWAR seasons over 4.0

Smith: 7.1, 6.3, 6.2, 6.1, 5.3, 5.0, 4.9, 4.8, 4.8, 4.8

Vizquel: 5.8

There you go, peak seasons Smith crushes Vizquel

Career WAR: Smith 73.0 > 40.5

Vizquel played 13 seasons after his peak offensive year, good for totals, bad for percentages. 2968 games in 24 years (age 45).

Smith played 2573 games and played until he was 41.

Smith beats Vizquel like a rug - nuff said

SACNYY
10-04-2012, 09:32 PM
Why does Vizquel have to be better than Ozzie to get in? That doesn't make sense to me.

ciaban
10-04-2012, 09:33 PM
maybe nether vizquel or trammel are worthy, ozzie is in so there is really nothing we can do about it now, though i don't think he deserves to be in either. A glove is nice, but the Bat pays the bills.

sexicano31
10-04-2012, 09:34 PM
If he makes it then Jamie Moyer and Julio Franco need to be voted in as well

sexicano31
10-04-2012, 09:35 PM
maybe nether vizquel or trammel are worthy, ozzie is in so there is really nothing we can do about it now, though i don't think he deserves to be in either. A glove is nice, but the Bat pays the bills.

A run saved is a run created

ciaban
10-04-2012, 09:35 PM
Why does Vizquel have to be better than Ozzie to get in? That doesn't make sense to me.

because Ozzie is the bench mark of a player with an outstanding glove and a average to bellow average bat for his position.

2009mvp
10-04-2012, 09:35 PM
I get why the newer generations don't fully appreciate how great Ozzie was, but I'm really confused as to why they rate Vizquel so highly considering his peers.

ciaban
10-04-2012, 09:37 PM
If he makes it then Jamie Moyer and Julio Franco need to be voted in as well
do you mean John Franco? cause he deserves to go in, so does lee smith

A run saved is a run created

i know, but no one gets the big bucks for a good glove, other wise Macier Izturez would be the hottest commodity on the market.

ReJo
10-04-2012, 09:41 PM
It's a no brainer IMO.
Is their any question when a top 20 all time hitter gets in?
Vizquel is one of the best defensive players of all time at the hardest position to play in baseball. Who cares if he was somewhat average with the bat? I'm sure a lot of the hitters in the Hall of Fame played easier positions and were below average defensively

Twitchy
10-04-2012, 09:45 PM
A run saved is a run created

I disagree. Your team saves a run, mine scores a run, and I win 1-0.

Always, always go with the run scored.

rocket
10-04-2012, 09:46 PM
Maybe. It depends on how the voters view his long *** career

ReJo
10-04-2012, 09:59 PM
I disagree. Your team saves a run, mine scores a run, and I win 1-0.

Always, always go with the run scored.

You're gonna need to save some runs if you plan on pitching a shutout. Unless you plan on striking everybody out

beldugo
10-04-2012, 10:18 PM
I don't get the comparison with Smith, Like i said in the first page Luis Aparicio is the most comparable player in the HOF. Aparicio was elected in the 6th year of elegibility, i think something like that will happen to Vizquel.

Twitchy
10-04-2012, 10:31 PM
You're gonna need to save some runs if you plan on pitching a shutout. Unless you plan on striking everybody out

The point is that a run saved is not equal to a run scored as many are led to believe. A good play may score you a defensive run, but it may not actually lead to a run saved.

A run scored is always more valuable.

rockbottom2010
10-04-2012, 10:48 PM
For some reason we like to use players in the HOF to make the case for other guys. The comparison game works both ways. Perhaps Omar compares favorably when stacked up against other HOFers, like Aparacio. Then again, you could also compare him to a guy whose not in like Trammell and see he's inferior. So if he's worse than a guy not in the HOF, but better than a guy in the HOF, what do you do? :rolleyes:




Based on what?

ok maybe a little better..he should be as equivalent as ozzie smith......remember this...during vizquel's prime...he had competed w/ derek jeter, nomar garciaparra, alex rodriguez, cal ripkin jr. miguel tejada....remember this..alll of them are in the AL....who was Ozzie's competition...like really....larkin?

bagwell368
10-04-2012, 10:50 PM
Why does Vizquel have to be better than Ozzie to get in? That doesn't make sense to me.

Me neither. But since people are...

He's not nearly as good as Alan Trammell, and Trammell isn't in. Why are we talking about Vizquel at all for the HOF?

bagwell368
10-04-2012, 11:10 PM
It's a no brainer IMO.
Is their any question when a top 20 all time hitter gets in?
Vizquel is one of the best defensive players of all time at the hardest position to play in baseball.

Catchers would beg to differ, and 3B would beg to differ when the issues of wear and tear are brought up.


Who cares if he was somewhat average with the bat? I'm sure a lot of the hitters in the Hall of Fame played easier positions and were below average defensively

The basic equation of baseball is (off the top of my head):

offense (hitting (~90%) + base running (~10%)) =
defense (pitching (~65%) + fielding defense (~35%))

So the hierarchy is:

hitting
pitching
fielding
base running

Vizquel was a lesser hitter then Smith

Vizquel didn't pitch, nor did Smith

Vizquel's D was great, but not as great as Smith (and Belanger, Ripken, Aparicio too)

Vizquel's base running was great but lesser then Smith's.

Vizquel played more games and had more plate appearances and did less with them then Smith did with his.

That's why Smith >> Vizquel

These guys:

Banks
Trammell
Fregosi
Wagner
AROD
Yount
Appling
Smith
Jeter
Larkin
Reese
Boudreau
Stephens
Campy
Sewell
Tejada
Nomar

are all better than Vizquel, and a good amount are not in the HOF.

Can we stop hearing about this at best very very low tier candidate for the HOF? Thank you.

rockbottom2010
10-04-2012, 11:34 PM
Catchers would beg to differ, and 3B would beg to differ when the issues of wear and tear are brought up.



The basic equation of baseball is (off the top of my head):

offense (hitting (~90%) + base running (~10%)) =
defense (pitching (~65%) + fielding defense (~35%))

So the hierarchy is:

hitting
pitching
fielding
base running

Vizquel was a lesser hitter then Smith

Vizquel didn't pitch, nor did Smith

Vizquel's D was great, but not as great as Smith (and Belanger, Ripken, Aparicio too)

Vizquel's base running was great but lesser then Smith's.

Vizquel played more games and had more plate appearances and did less with them then Smith did with his.

That's why Smith >> Vizquel

These guys:

Banks
Trammell
Fregosi
Wagner
AROD
Yount
Appling
Smith
Jeter
Larkin
Reese
Boudreau
Stephens
Campy
Sewell
Tejada
Nomar

are all better than Vizquel, and a good amount are not in the HOF.

Can we stop hearing about this at best very very low tier candidate for the HOF? Thank you.

buddy....check your stats again with hits, hrs, BA, and RBIs......im off to bed...good night.....

sexicano31
10-04-2012, 11:38 PM
God damn. This guy and Mr. LA must be brothers

beldugo
10-05-2012, 12:14 AM
Me neither. But since people are...

He's not nearly as good as Alan Trammell, and Trammell isn't in. Why are we talking about Vizquel at all for the HOF?

Because Luis Aparicio.

bagwell368
10-05-2012, 07:03 AM
buddy....check your stats again with hits, hrs, BA, and RBIs......im off to bed...good night.....

I'm not your buddy. I did check my stats. I also checked them with park and era corrections. I also included fielding and base running. I also looked at peak and career value.

What about runs scored? OBP? RC?

If you have specific names to bandy about, let's see them.

bagwell368
10-05-2012, 07:05 AM
Because Luis Aparicio.

Aparicio in his time was a better player, but it's fairly close.

Getting guys in the HOF because of players that don't belong "bootstrapping" isn't something I like at all. Phil rizzuto, Jim rice, Fred lindstrom and others have o business in the HOF. We don't need more.

MJL80
10-05-2012, 07:28 AM
Yes he's def deserving of the HOF

bagwell368
10-05-2012, 09:10 AM
Yes he's def deserving of the HOF

OK, then you believe a player that:

1. Was a great fielder at a key position (about #5 all time at SS)
2. Was a fine base stealer (but not great because of his CS%)
3. Was a below average hitter for his position
4. Had at best ONE (1) excellent season
5. Had a very long career - but his value per PA was low

In fact looking at Aparicio v Vizquel, Fregosi, and Trammell and rWAR / PA you get this:

Aparicio 1.365x better
Fregosi 1.825x better
Trammell 2.215x better

Only Aparicio of these 4 is in the HOF. Fregosi's career was shortish - that's his flaw (like Nomar). Only Trammell of the 4 is a resounding yes for the HOF. Vizquel doesn't come close to him, and not that close to the other 2.

Texas Holders
10-05-2012, 09:15 AM
The point is that a run saved is not equal to a run scored as many are led to believe. A good play may score you a defensive run, but it may not actually lead to a run saved.

A run scored is always more valuable.

I think your terminology is off a bit. A run saved is equal to a run created. A good play on offensive may create a run, but may not actually lead to a run scored.

getfoul
10-05-2012, 02:14 PM
Raise your hand if you just don't care who does or who does not get in Hall of Fame anymore....

What used to be a positive thing that honored the greats of the game, is now a steaming pile of negativity, injected with HGH and steroids. These elections over the next 10-20 years are going to be the death of the Hall as we know it, and I don't care anymore.

The players and owners are equally responsible for the "Steroid Era". It was inevitable without testing. So now that the majority of players from that era are now up for the Hall, I'm done with it. Let them in...don't let them in...I don't care.

Twitchy
10-05-2012, 03:49 PM
I think your terminology is off a bit. A run saved is equal to a run created. A good play on offensive may create a run, but may not actually lead to a run scored.

No, I was very specific with my terminology. A lot of people are under the false impression that a defensive run saved is = to a run scored. An offensive run is always more valuable.

Defensive stats aren't accurate enough to effectively argue that a run scored = a run saved. Not yet anyways. If two players had similar WAR for instance, I'd always go with the player who had the better offensive season.

RTL
10-05-2012, 05:36 PM
No, I was very specific with my terminology. A lot of people are under the false impression that a defensive run saved is = to a run scored. An offensive run is always more valuable.

Defensive stats aren't accurate enough to effectively argue that a run scored = a run saved. Not yet anyways. If two players had similar WAR for instance, I'd always go with the player who had the better offensive season.

So glad I'm not the only one who feels this way!

Texas Holders
10-05-2012, 07:09 PM
No, I was very specific with my terminology. A lot of people are under the false impression that a defensive run saved is = to a run scored. An offensive run is always more valuable.

Defensive stats aren't accurate enough to effectively argue that a run scored = a run saved. Not yet anyways. If two players had similar WAR for instance, I'd always go with the player who had the better offensive season.

Well, yeah, that is pretty obvious, but you are comparing apples to oranges. One is something that has actually happened vs something calculated. A defensive run saved is equal to a run created, but not to a run scored.

Lakers + Giants
10-05-2012, 07:24 PM
My 2nd favorite player ever, but I don't think so.