Uhh…when the riot that just broke out within the Campy Campaneris camp is quelled?
The question
Questions started coming up: he’s never been anyone’s idea of a sabermetric darling—just the opposite—but at some point do we have to start taking Omar Vizquel’s Hall of Fame candidacy seriously?
Could he be a shortstop version of Nolan Ryan? In Bill James’ original Historical Baseball Abstract he wrote, “I may get kicked out of the sabermetricians union for saying this, but it seems to me that we’ve got to start taking Ryan a little more seriously as a great pitcher.” Is Vizquel, like Ryan, someone widely overrated by the masses but who is good enough long enough to become great?
Vizquel’s fundamental uniqueness
The above really makes two things clear. First is the fundamental weakness of Vizquel’s case. Should we take his Cooperstown case seriously? Nah.
However, there’s a second, subtler point to be filtered out from the info. There is really no good comparable for Vizquel’s Hall of Fame candidacy or indeed for his career.
Oh, there are plenty of gloves that are better regarded by the general public than the Big Defensive Metrics. Many long careers are stronger at quantity than quality. Numerous infielders survived for a long time on primarily on the strength of their glove. But who does all three?
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Juan V Posted: November 29, 2010 at 12:21 PM (#3698523)The closest guys in value are probably those who had an inordinate number of games at a key position, with excellent defensive reputations and not much (relative) case with their bats: Bob Boone, Steve Finley, Frank White. Gaetti or Nettles, perhaps, given that they played 3B well and forever but didn't have overwhelming offensive careers. Larry Bowa. Vizquel is that type of player; he's just had an even longer career. Aparicio is very much that type of player, with the caveat that he's actually in the Hall of Fame. Though he's not in the HOM if I remember correctly, and generally considered by statheads not to have compensated for a weak bat with his glove and his running.
My tendency would be to say that just as a few extra years of mediocrity can't hurt a candidate with a great peak, it can't help someone without it. If Frank White had hit .240 until he was 43 years old, he'd be the Vizquel of second basemen and his career would still be pretty underwhelming in Hall of Fame terms.
As Chris notes, fielding percentage doesn't tell one a great deal, but it's interesting to see Vizquel, even after all those games, second all-time (to Troy Tulowitzki, who has many years left to drop behind Vizquel). The career record for SS fielding percentage has behaved like a high-water-mark since the game began. When I was a kid, it seems to have been held by Lou Boudreau, and then (just barely) by Dal Maxvill; for many years by Larry Bowa and then by Mike Bordick, perhaps, yielding to Vizquel recently (and temporarily now, perhaps, to Tulo). When someone sets that high-water mark, he's on the leading edge of a development that (to maintain the metaphor) lifts all boats; but he's lifting himself a bit higher. Interesting, is all.
I don't recall Aparicio ever getting a single vote on our 'must vote for 15 players' ballot, but I could be barely wrong.
That's quite a stretch. Ryan: Leading the league in strikeouts and throwing no-hitters into his early 40's. Vizquel: Useful utility infielder and still strong with the glove into his early 40's.
The Bob Boone of middle infielders? Seems about right. Boone had a 110 OPS+ at 40 (only 5 off his career high) and won gold gloves each year from ages 38 to 41. Ozzie at 43: 82 OPS+, just 1 point off his career number.
This record might wind up being Tulo's eventually. As shortstops age, their range decreases but they generally make fewer, not more errors.
But at his best he wasn't a Hall of Famer so what value is there in not being a Hall of Fame quality player for a long time?
Oh, there are plenty of gloves that are better regarded by the general public than the Big Defensive Metrics. Many long careers are stronger at quantity than quality. Numerous infielders survived for a long time on primarily on the strength of their glove. But who does all three?
I don't get this. Isn't Aparicio the perfect comp? Vizquel's got a couple hundred more games, but their careers look very, very similar.
Yes, I'm tempted to say something like "he isn't even the best Venezuelan shortstop to play 2,500 games!" :)
Aparicio, in his day, was seen as a much more valuable player than Vizquel; he got a lot more MVP votes over the years. And perhaps with some reason. In a lower-offense context, lots of writers and fans could remember a game where Aparicio had stolen a base or made a great play that was the turning point in a victory. (They'd tend to forget the caught-stealings and weak ground-outs.) By contrast, Vizquel was surrounded by those huge sluggers, and his contributions to the Indians champions were never salient.
That's quite a stretch.
Agree completely. Actually, the article largely makes that point shortly after that question.
What you're getting right there is my thought process when writing the article. Vizquel's been a guy who has always been in the background for me. I've had little more than a hazy sense that sabermetrics thinks he's overrated, and assumed that he'd decline and be out of baseball soon. Any year now. It's gonna happen, I tell you. But he keeps on going on and on and on and on and on . .. ..
This year, Vizquel made himself much more prominent in my consciousness by going to Chicago and winning defensive raves from all my White Sox fans relatives. Can this guy really be career-ing his way into a legitimate Cooperstown argument? This summer, I attended a baseball game at The Cell w/ some THTrs. During one point in the game, I asked somewhat randomly to Studes: At what point do we start taking Vizquel's Cooperstown candidacy seriously? He thought that was a good question. I put it down on my list of articles to write when I get around to it, and that happened to be this week.
I don't get this. Isn't Aparicio the perfect comp? Vizquel's got a couple hundred more games, but their careers look very, very similar.
Hmmmm.. . . . To me, the career length issue sets Vizquel apart. I know they both played very long careers and Vizquel is "only" 250 games ahead, but when you start getting that high up on the list of games played, having a 250 game edge (with at least one more year for Vizquel to play) is pretty impressive. This might be a personal fixation I'm overblowing, but I find Vizquel's career length to be the most impressive thing about him.
I definately should've mentioned that comparison in the article, or at least explained why I thought Vizquel was unique despite their similarities. Actually, looking at Aparicio's numbers right now, he seems a lot closer to Vizquel now than when I glanced at him last week when researching the article. I still find Vizquel unique for the rationale mentioned above, but Aparicio should definately be in the article.
What's interesting is that Vizquel has 2,799 hits. If he can duplicate his 2010 season in 2011 (obviously he won't replicate it exactly), that would put him at just 106 hits away from 3,000. Then, if Vizquel can drag his body out to the infield for 140 games -- and that's a big IF -- it's possible that some mediocre team might make him a starter in 2012 just to have a genuine 3000-watch bringing some attention to the franchise (besides the likely 60-70 OPS+ that would bring attention from BTFers). I'm not sure Omar has roughly 250 games left in him. But a Vizquel with 3,000 hits to go with his 11 gold gloves would spark some interesting BBWA voting.
I think he will be inducted. And while I wouldn't necessarily vote for him, I don't have a problem with him going in. If he put up the exact same career he did but it started in 1969 instead of 1989, he'd be an easy choice.
Aparicio received Hall of Merit votes as recently as 2008, when he finished 75th. I don't know what his best finish is but he's certainly received a few votes here and there.
Vizquel's career advantage isn't as great as you make it seem. Yes, Vizquel currently leads Aparicio by 250 games (2850 to 2599). However, the advantage is only 438 by plate attempts (11,668 to 11,230) which isn't even a full season's worth (Aparicio had more than that in every season except '72 when he had 436). Vizquel played in more games than Aparicio, but he also spent much of that time as a part-timer or a defensive replacement.
Aparicio then has an advantage that Vizquel does not. Both of them were great defensive players (Baseball Reference has Aparicio with +149 fielding runs, Vizquel with +138). But Aparicio was also a great baserunner while Vizquel is not. I know that baserunning is generally derided in sabermetric/thinkfactory circles. However, baseball ref again gives Aparicio +95 runs for baserunning (plus another +28 for reaching on error or avoiding double plays). Vizquel is even in those categories (+7 baserunning, -18 reaching on error, +11 avoiding double plays). That distinction might be missed by traditional counting stats (Aparicio leads Vizquel in stolen bases by 506 to 400, with 27 fewer times caught) but it shows up in systematic stats (where Aparicio leads Vizquel in WAR 49.9 to 43.1).
Aparicio is ahead of Vizquel by a small margin, but still clearly ahead. They both have long careers and great defense. But Aparicio also has his baserunning.
The difference is in the expectations people have for corner OF vs SS. LF can be a feared slugger (like Rice) or something else (Lou Brock or Rickey Henderson or Marty Cordova) who may or may not field well but contributes something. SS comes down to fielding and whatever else you bring to the table, but you pretty much have to play defense. There's some agreed upon ground here, so when someone brings the defense for a really long time most people can agree on what they see.
Also, a lot of that 250 game gap between Aparicio and Vizquel is due to the 154 vs 162 game schedule. They're pretty darn close in a lot of respects. That said, he won't get in any time soon due to HoF traffic. There will be a lot of much clearer cases on the ballot for most of the coming years, and a case like his feels like something that comes in a lull year or from the veterans. Aparicio went in through the writers' door, but he had to wait seven years while his betters passed before him (Aaron, Robinson, Gibson, etc). Even after the "obvious" cases are handled in the next ten years, how's Omar going to fare when paired with names like Mussina or Sosa or even Jorge Posada? Count the Winzz, Homerzz, Ringzz and, um, gold glovezz? It might be a hard slog for Vizquel.. That said, he's no worse than Mazeroski or Aparicio or any other glove-first choices.
BB-REF lists the games played leaders. The non-HOFers excluding Pete Rose among the top 51 in games played are:
10. Barry Bonds 2986
12. Rusty Staub 2951
15. Craig Biggio 2850
15. Omar Vizquel (43) 2850
18. Rafael Palmeiro 2831
19. Harold Baines 2830
28. Graig Nettles 2700
29. Darrell Evans 2687
31. Ken Griffey (40) 2671
36. Dwight Evans 2606
38. Luis Gonzalez 2591
40. Steve Finley 2583
41. Gary Sheffield 2576
45. Julio Franco 2527
47. Bill Buckner 2517
49. Gary Gaetti 2507
51. Tim Raines 2502
80%+ of the top 51 in games played today will probably be in the HoF when eligible and voted on. It's a good indicator, but not support for a candidacy in and of itself. Vizquel probably will fare better than Harold Baines, IMO a similarly one-dimensional player (with a different skill obviously).
After Barry Larkin gets in?
Sorry, Vizquel is nowhere near the best available candidate. You can argue anyone you want in isolation. But is he the best available guy? No.
On the other hand, if you look at the "slick-fielding shortstops" who have made the Hall-of-Fame - Rabbit Maranville, Luis Aparicio, Ozzie Smith, I think what they have in common is that, at the time of their election, they were viewed (by many people) as THE BEST fielding SS of all time. In other words, if Ozzie came before Aparicio, I wonder if Aparicio would have been viewed a little bit worse (as it was, he was only elected with just under 85% of the vote on his 6th try). And NOBODY thinks that Vizquel was a better fielder than Ozzie Smith, NOBODY.
I will take Omar Vizquel's Hall of Fame case seriously, when he has a second season where he is actually a star player. The only RULE I have when considering Hall of Famers, I need to see multiple seasons where the player was a STAR. Omar, has one. 1999.
I will consider all types of cases. Including cases where "extra credit" in the eyes of sabrists is given out. However, the to be even considered beyond a glance on my imagainary ballot is two seasons where the player is a star.
*His generation meaning post-1996, of course.
b) Without 3,000 hits, I think he goes in during the fifth or sixth year anyway, as his defensive rep will increase the longer he's away.
c) I wouldn't vote for him, although he'd be a prime Hall Of Very Good candidate.
d) But I'm not going to get my panties in a wad when he does get elected in.
You wear woman's undergarments??
Others have noted this is closer than it looks. It's also really about games at SS, not elsewhere. Aparicio had the record until Vizquel broke it so you really can't get more similar than that. Aparicio never played a game outside of SS, he played 2581, 2539 starts. 130-140 of those 250 games for Vizquel are at non-SS. He's got a 109 game, 53 start edge at SS and that's not a big gap. (On the 162 vs. 154, Aparicio only played 5 seasons in the 154-game schedule so that's a relatively small part of the overall game gap ... but potentially a substantial chunk of the gap in starts at SS.)
As others note, Aparicio had the steals and, because of that, the MVP support (late 50s, early 60s voters loved SBs). Aparicio was 2nd in MVP voting in 1959 -- the Sox took the top 3 spots! Aparicio also had 10 AS games (not double-counting any of the years).
Still and all, I'm not sure you could find two closer HoF comps than Aparicio and Vizquel. Maranville and Ozzie fit in there quite well too. Concepcion isn't far off. For non-SS comps, Maz at 2B fits fine. Brooks fits too -- he had some good offensive years so the fit isn't perfect, but add up his career and he's not much above-average as a hitter for a 3B.
In the end, I don't think Vizquel will make it. Kiko makes a point I've made several times these last few years -- Vizquel is not viewed as the greatest defensive SS of all-time while Aparicio and Ozzie were. The lack of AS games hurts him. But I see no reason to think he won't do fairly well in the voting. Ozzie breezed in, Concepcion and Maz stayed on the ballot all 15 years and Maz peaked around 40%. Aparicio had one of the strangest patterns of HoF voting ever -- 28, 32, 12, 42, 67, 85 percent of the votes -- but was clearly gonna stay on the ballot for 15 years with solid vote totals if he hadn't been elected. If, by some miracle, Vizquel gets to 3,000 hits, he's in for sure.
What intrigues me is how differently we might view Vizquel had he been in the NL all those years. He made the AL all-star team only 3 times thanks to ARod, Jeter, Nomar and Tejada while he probably would have made the team for 10 straight years in the NL (b-r is not good at this). Ozzie's GG reign ended in 92 and Vizquel's AL reign began in 93 -- I suppose it's possible that Larkin or Rey Ordonez might have beaten out Vizquel in the NL but I doubt it (Ordonez's defensive rep was partly so strong because there wasn't much NL competition; if Vizquel had established himself with 5 straight NL GG, Ordonez wouldn't have gotten as much hype -- which is not to say Ordonez didn't deserve it).
Anyway, Vizquel with 11+ GG, a dozen or so AS games and "best SS in the NL for a decade" is a much stronger candidate than the equally good player he was in the AL.
What intrigues me is wondering is what kind of impact the era he played in had on his numbers. With only 80 career homers, it doesn't appear he benefited much from the homer-happy years he played in (though he undoubtedly suffered in terms of OPS+). But did he benefit at all? Would he have been closer to his .273/.338/.355 line in a previous era, at which point he's an obvious Hall of Famer, or is it a case of rising tides and he'd have put up actual Luis-like numbers if he played in Aparicio's era?
Aparicio's offensive impact on the AL game is quite similar to NL'er Maury Wills' in that respect. Wills, although not renowned for glovework, still has his HOF backers, and Omar will likely have his no matter what happens.
I think that Vizquel will get noticeable support for the Hall of Fame, but probably not enough to get him in. I suspect it will look like Aparicio's early years on the ballot- 28, 32, 12, 42%. Maybe not the same amount of deviation. But I doubt it will be enough to get him in.
Larkin should get in by 2012 (after Blyleven and Alomar go in this coming year) so that shouldn't be a complaint by the time Vizquel is eligible.
Hell, Larkin may be in before Omar is retired.
Rk Player OPS+ SB WAR PA From To G15 Omar Vizquel 83 400 43.1 11668 1989 2010 2850
16 Luis Aparicio 82 506 49.9 11230 1956 1973 2599
17 Rabbit Maranville 82 291 38.2 11256 1912 1935 2670
One thing I will say in response to post #28: yes, the time at SS matters most of all, but that doesn't mean the rest of Vizquel's career should be marginalized into non-existence, which you seemingly do there.
1957-73 (Aparcio's career), SSs (35%+ of games)
WAR:
Banks 53.3
Aparicio 49.9
Fregosi 44.4
1960-69:
Fregosi 35.8
Wills: 31.7
Aparicio: 30.3
McAuliffe: 28.3
no one ever brings up Dick McAuliffe or Jim Fregosi for that matter- but if either man had just a handful more productive years they'd likely be stathead faves...
Aparicio is in, and in someways his selection is like the impending selection of Jack Morris-
Aparicio was seen as the best SS in baseball for a goodly span of time- just as many in the MSM perceive Morris as having been the best MLB starting pitcher for a good stretch of time (The 80s)
Both men had very weak competition for the "best man of his generation" title- and Aparicio really was in the running for that "title"- Morris really wasn't- but his MSM fanboys think he was.
Except for that minor difference that Morris is unlikely to get elected by the BBWAA.
I would almost go as far as saying Vizquel is the shortstop version of Jamie Moyer, although perhaps Tim Wakefield might be a better comp. But if Moyer were to approach 300 (which seems less and less likely now), there would be another interesting discussion.
And again, don't forget: Vizquel is only 201 hits away from 3,000 - I'd say there's about a 15% chance he gets it. But those listed above him who aren't in the HOF are getting fewer and fewer...
52.3%
how many players get that high and don't eventually make it? He's slightly behind where Jim Rice was at the same point- Rice didn't make it until his last year - plus Blyleven is the only pitcher outpolling him and Bly looks likely to go in real soon...
I also don't see his momentum getting derailed like Bunning's was at the end by the entrance of a wave of 300 game winners- though I suppose Glavine will get on the ballot before Morris'
eligibility is up...
The BBWAA HOF electorate is VERY different beat than those who vote on CY and MVP awards- it is changing- but at a very slow pace
So, I'm curious, what is the 'Rosetta Stone' of defensive translation that reveals how Vizquel is lacking with the glove?
And how confident are we in valuing a player by contemporary 'uberstats' that boil value down to one number given all the extended talks of how unreliable they can be for defense that have occurred all over the webs but also a lot here on BBTF?
I'm not asking with any snark at all. I'm honestly a bit perplexed. I was a huge fan of those Indians teams that featured Vizquel at Short-Stop and I gotta say that I saw him make an awful lot of slick plays as well as rarely ever botching the routine ones. To me, he's a HOFer, though more on the margins and certainly not inner circle, so I'm curious to learn why it's such a unanimous and unquestioned notion that he isn't.
201 hits 2008-2010
next 3 years he'll be 44/45/46
how many players had 201 or more hits after 44?
1- Julio Franco- a significantly better hitter than Viz
Viz may get the PT, but simply be unable to get the hits, I think Moyer's chance at 300 wins is higher
52.3%
how many players get that high and don't eventually make it?
Well, there's two different things going on here - going in via the BBWAA and going at all.
A bunch get to 52.3% but don't go in the BBWAA, but only ONE player not currently on the ballot has EVER gotten over 50% and not gone in: Gil Hodges. The Vets Committee historically shuttles in the highest voted of the BBWAA backlog and then random guys.
With the BBWAA voting itself, the trick is to get over 50%. A lot of players blunder around at 40-50% marker (as Rice and Morris both have done) but once they go over 50% they usually start moving upwards.
That said, I don't think Morris goes in via the BBWAA. Rice had a louder constitnuency arguing on his behalf (Boston sportswriters, giving talking pionts the BoSox put out for them), and the added bonus of some weak crops emerge at the end of his 15 year cycle. Morris's end time on the BBWAA coincides with more impressive crops of newbies on the ballot, IIRC.
I dunno. A hall which tries to take the same number of guys from each position (with possible exceptions for the corner outfield spots, I.E. RF>LF) definitely helps guys like Vizquel, but then it also helps guys like Trammell and Garciaparra who have stronger cases at the same position.
I'm not even sure what I'm asking. I guess I'd think that it's utterly justified to take Vizquel's case for the HOF seriously.
My position has nothing to do with the changing/unchanging nature of the electorates and all to do with what Dag mentioned. To summarize, he's only got four ballots left, a lot of ground to cover, he's still got a better pitcher ahead of him who will take up the attention on the upcoming ballot and his last two years on the ballot will be absolutely choked with much better players with varying stories to pull support away from what remains a player who doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame.
It's possible he gets in by the writers, but I still find it incredibly unlikely that he'll make up the remaining 23 percent over the next four years. It took him 5 years just to climb from 41 percent to 52, so it's not like his momentum is runaway freight trainesque.
All that being said, I firmly believe that Morris will ultimately be ushered into Cooperstown by some future functioning Vet's Committee.
Haven't really looked too closely at this, just thinking out loud.
From memory, basically everything Vizquel did, Ozzie did better, running, fielding, hitting value relative to position. They are similar but one was clearly better than the other.
Yeah, it's semantics. And the object is raised constantly on this site.
Example:
Person A: I think Jared Weaver deserves some consideration for AL Cy Young.
Person B: Why? King Felix beats him handily in every category.
Person A: I didn't say he should win it.
Persons A and B might have exactly the same evaluation of Weaver. They just have different ideas about what "consideration" means.
The biggest difference between Omar's general reputation and the view in this thread is that many fans and media people consider him an Ozzie-level defender, while the people here (and all useful defensive metrics) consider him a very good defender but not in Ozzie's league. BRef has Ozzie as a 64 WAR player and Omar at 43, with the 20 win difference split between offense and defense.
I try to avoid MSM opinions, but my impression of the baseball watching public is that almost no one old enough to watch and appreciate Ozzie Smith in his prime thinks Viz is in the same zip code.
ditto, clearly the same "type" of player, much as Ichiro and Juan Pierre are the same "type" of players- except Ichiro does everything Pierre does as well or better.
Viz is/was a much better player than Pierre of course
My impression was that prime Vizquel was considered if not Ozzie's equal, then just a breath below. Which just goes to show the folly of trying to determine the general perception of large swaths of people we have no actual contact with.
I kind of suspect his actual defensive ability fits somewhere in between his multiple Gold Glove-winning reputation and one his lesser advanced metric numbers would suggest.
Well, that was sort of the consensus with the most rabid, but senseless Indians' fan boy types, but sionce Vizquel didn't do back flips, he couldn't have been as good as Ozzie. Of course, most of those fan boy types also thought that Vizquel was a scrappy, white player who just happened to be born in another country.
I'm old enough to have watched both in their primes, and I'd agree with this consideration, personally. I think it's reasonable to consider Viz to be a near-equal if far less-flashy fielder.
I have to disagree, both were plenty of flashy in their prime, Ozzie just had better range. Omar was a fantastic fielder, but in their respective primes Ozzie was pretty clearly better. Omar had the bare handed grab thing down to a science, but Ozzie covered more ground, got a better jump on the ball than pretty much anyone.
Well, not everybody is going to consider this a valid part of a Hall of Fame case, but shortstops for most of Ozzie's career were much, much worse hitters than they were during Omar's, so that 87 OPS+ looks a lot more valuable compared to what other teams were running out.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main