Replies

Is the Wizard of Oz a first ballot HOF'er?

This question shouldn't even need asking, assuming that the HOF voters are going to be voting with their brains. Now, that won't stop some nimrod whose brains have gone to bed from voting against the idea, but Ozzie Smith was the greatest defencive shortstop of his generation and several more, and that should say plenty enough on his behalf. (If you're talking about the greatest shortstop in terms of the balance between his glove and hands and his bat, then Cal Ripken, Jr. obviously pulls up a shard ahead of Ozzie, particularly since Ripken defied a stereotype and actualised what only one man previously - Ernie Banks - suggested possible in baseball: that a big man could play shortstop with authority and hit for higher-than-expected figures for his position over a consistent spread of his career. Smith was obviously a better glove man than Ripken, but for a two-way shortstop Ripken has the edge - and, needless to say, he will be a first-ballot Hall of Famer when his time comes.)

When enough players are getting in who sell lots and lotsa offence but played the field like dump trucks with broken hydraulics, I think there's no need to justify putting a man in who hit only so-so but whose glove and field work may well have saved his teams a couple of runs a game. From a man who believes it was unconscionable that Bill Mazeroski should have waited as long as he did to get into Cooperstown (he had, and still has, believe it or not, the best defencive statistics of any player period), Ozzie Smith should be a first ballot Hall of Famer.

Since a lot of this discussion revolves around Smith and Santo (and even Kingman), I think I have pretty good credentials to render evaluations. I was born (in 1953) and raised in Chicago (just a few miles from Wrigley Field), and followed the Cubs closely, in person (have been to close to 1000 games) and on TV (via local WGN broadcasts--and they used to broadcast about all the games, home and away), from about 1961 to 1984, when I moved. I saw most all the games Ron Santo ever played. (I also saw most of Kingman's games with the Cubs). In addition, I have lived in the St. Louis area for about 10 of the last 15 years and saw a lot of Smith.

Ron Santo was the best third baseman--both offensively and defensively--in the National League during his 13 years in the league. The only third baseman better in baseball during the same period was Brooks Robinson. Santo belongs in the Hall of Fame. You cannot compare offensive stats from that era (one of the most pitching-dominant) to the recent era (one of the most slugging-dominant). You see how players compared within their own era. Santo was the best, on the field and at the bat, in the NL.

Dave Kingman, everyone agrees, is no HOFer. The only thing he did well was hit a lot of towering home runs. He certainly hit one of the most monster dingers in have ever seen in person. (I saw R. Jackson and F. Howard hit a couple of monsters at Comiskey Park. Of course, Big Mac puts them all to shame.) Kingman hit a hiiigh, looong--I mean looong--home run over my head, across Waveland, and down Kenmore Avenue, several houses down the block. Off Tom Detorre, I think. Unbelievable.

As to Ozzie Smith: He belongs in the Hall of Fame, but not like a Bench, Schmidt, Mays, Speaker, or Clemente, all of whom were able to combine great defense with great offense. Smith is sort of like Mazeroski: Great glove, not much offense. Hit one dramatic home run. Smith could steal bases, which is a plus. He's more deserving than Maz (who probably belongs), but nowhere near as deserving as Ripken is or A-Rod (and maybe Jeter) will be. BTW, Vizquel may be as good defensively as Smith was--maybe not quite the range but a better throwing arm. Smith did not have a particularly strong throwing arm--this was especially the case for the second half of his career.