But, again, that's PERCEPTION. And where do you get the idea? From SportsCenter highlights and media hype. It's from all the press reports *telling* you that Ozzie is the greatest.
**This might irritate you, but I don't think that Tony Perez should be in the HOF. Perez was solid, and had solid stats. But, as I stated earlier, the HOF is for the best of the best. He's very similar to Steve Garvey, but not in the same category of Cepeda, Stargell, or McCovey. Perez, IMHO, is the hitting equivalent to Don Sutton, Tommy John, Bert Blyleven, and Jim Kaat - consistent over a long period of time, racking up the numbers. If Perez is in, why not Gil Hodges, or even George Foster?**
I actually agree with you. The question isn't why Concepcion should not be in. The burden of proof is on you and the starter of this thread as to why Ozzie not only should be in but on the first ballot when, offensively, he's no better than Concepcion. Again I ask, is defense alone the difference between first-ballot HOFer and no induction at all? If so, maybe we should make room for Ordonez in Cooperstown?
If you look at Ozzie's fielding stats, he had the best range of any shortstop I could find. Couple this with his great playmaking ability, and I say he is the best. Ordonez has nowhere near the statistical range of Smith, although he has similar athleticism. I actually got to see Ozzie play many, many games on t.v., so my exposure to him was not just ESPN highlighsts. If I did not believe that Ozzie was the best fielding shortstop of all time, I would agree that he may not belong in the HOF. But I can't say anyone was a better fielder.