This is our old blog. It hasn't been active since 2011. Please see the link above for our current blog or click the logo above to see all of the great data and content on this site.
«
»

POLL: Does Omar Vizquel belong in the Hall of Fame?

Posted by Andy on May 19, 2010

Omar Vizquel, considered by many to be the best defensive shortstop of the last 30 years, is in the twilight of a great career. Let's take a look at his career accomplishments and vote on his Hall of Fame chances.

Let's start with a little perspective.

First, here are his career rankings among active players:

  • 1st in games played, at-bats, and plate appearances
  • 8th in runs scored
  • 4th in hits
  • 14th in total bases
  • 12th in doubles
  • 7th in triples
  • 11th in walks, 31st in strikeouts
  • 2nd in stolen bases
  • 1st in sacrifice hits
  • 1st in outs made
  • 1st in fielding percentage as shortstop (a nearly meaningless stat)

This set of stats tells a pretty clear story, I think. Vizquel has had a very long career and is decent with the bat but nothing special. He's first in PAs and first in outs, but just 4th in hits among active players. Derek Jeter is the opposite: 3rd in PAs, 4th in outs, but first in hits. That's the difference between a guy who hits well above league average to a guy who hits well-below league average.

So, much like with Jamie Moyer, for Vizquel I think the line gets blurred between which achievements are talent-based and which ones are longevity-based. That's clearly a very blurry line to begin with because players don't stick around for 20+ years unless they are bringing a lot to the table beyond what's on the stat sheet.

Let's look at some other numbers. With RAR and WAR data recently being added to the site, these are a nice place to start.

For his career, Vizquel has earned 432 Runs Above Replacement and 42.7 Wins Above Replacement.

Here are the top 20 players with at least 50% of their games at shortstop (1960-2010):

Rk Player Rfield From To Age
1 Alex Rodriguez 100.3 1994 2010 18-34
2 Cal Ripken 89.9 1981 2001 20-40
3 Robin Yount 76.9 1974 1993 18-37
4 Derek Jeter 68.9 1995 2010 21-36
5 Barry Larkin 68.9 1986 2004 22-40
6 Alan Trammell 66.9 1977 1996 19-38
7 Ozzie Smith 64.6 1978 1996 23-41
8 Bert Campaneris 45.3 1964 1983 22-41
9 Jim Fregosi 45.2 1961 1978 19-36
10 Omar Vizquel 42.7 1989 2010 22-43
11 Nomar Garciaparra 41.7 1996 2009 22-35
12 Miguel Tejada 41.0 1997 2010 23-36
13 Luis Aparicio 39.4 1960 1973 26-39
14 Tony Fernandez 37.3 1983 2001 21-39
15 Jay Bell 34.8 1986 2003 20-37
16 Jose Valentin 33.7 1992 2007 22-37
17 Dave Concepcion 33.6 1970 1988 22-40
18 Mark Belanger 32.5 1965 1982 21-38
19 Edgar Renteria 31.2 1996 2010 19-33
20 John Valentin 30.9 1992 2002 25-35
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 5/18/2010.

That's interesting, huh? Vizquel slots in the middle, right below a pack of HOF shortstops at the top of the list. (Note that HOFer Aparicio should rank higher but his years before 1960 aren't counted here. His career total WAR was 49.9.)

Anyway, Vizquel is in really good company among players with lots of All-Star appearances but clearly not in the same league as the HOF group. For all intents and purposes I am counting A-rod, Larkin, and Trammell as HOFers even though none of them is in. Trammell is a fairly long shot to get in averaging right around 16% of the vote each of the 8 years he's been on the ballot.)

Let's look at his Rfield, which is runs above average from all fielding contributions:

Rk Player Rfield From To Age G
1 Mark Belanger 241 1965 1982 21-38 2016
2 Ozzie Smith 239 1978 1996 23-41 2573
3 Cal Ripken 181 1981 2001 20-40 3001
4 Omar Vizquel 143 1989 2010 22-43 2753
5 Rey Sanchez 116 1991 2005 23-37 1490
6 Luis Aparicio 109 1960 1973 26-39 2007
7 Scott Fletcher 106 1981 1995 22-36 1612
8 Ozzie Guillen 105 1985 2000 21-36 1993
9 Greg Gagne 86 1983 1997 21-35 1798
10 Ron Hansen 83 1960 1972 22-34 1370
11 Ed Brinkman 81 1961 1975 19-33 1846
12 Mike Bordick 80 1990 2003 24-37 1720
13 John Valentin 78 1992 2002 25-35 1105
14 Alan Trammell 76 1977 1996 19-38 2293
15 Jose Valentin 74 1992 2007 22-37 1678
16 Bill Russell 74 1969 1986 20-37 2181
17 Adam Everett 73 2001 2010 24-33 837
18 Bert Campaneris 65 1964 1983 22-41 2328
19 Royce Clayton 64 1991 2007 21-37 2108
20 Gary Disarcina 64 1989 2000 21-32 1086
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 5/18/2010.

Vizquel is aided here by longevity, but only because he has been such a good fielder. In other words, if his defense had tailed off, he could have earned negative fielding runs and lowered his total. (In fact he is at -1 so far this season.) The list above shows what I think many fans have suspected--over the last 40 years, Mark Belanger and Ozzie Smith were far and away the best defensive shortstops. Vizquel and Cal Ripken are in the next tier down, followed by everyone else.

The corollary to Vizquel's great placement on the fielding chart is how bad he is on the batting runs chart. I won't post the details, but let me summarize by saying that he has -209 career batting runs with only 9 shortstops in history having worse totals, including Neifi Perez, Mark Belanger, Ozzie Guillen, Alfredo Griffin, and the worst of all time, Larry Bowa.

Ozzie Smith has -140 career batting runs. So he was bad but he also played in an era when no teams expected (or got) any significant offensive contributors from their middle infielders. Even then, Smith wasn't nearly as bad as Vizquel and also had way more fielding runs.

I think comparisons between and Omar Vizquel and Ozzie Smith are ill-founded. It would appear that Vizquel might be the "best of the rest" of shortstops who do not belong in the Hall of Fame.

But what do you think? Please vote below.


Related posts:

    Sign of the apocalypse: Omar Vizquel makes an error in two straight games
    Omar Vizquel and 20 seasons under 100 OPS+
    POLL: Johnny Damon and the Hall of Fame
    POLL: Roy Halladay and the Hall of Fame
    POLL: Jim Thome and the Hall of Fame

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 19th, 2010 at 7:28 am and is filed under Polls. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

30 Responses to “POLL: Does Omar Vizquel belong in the Hall of Fame?”

  1. Chris Says:
    May 19th, 2010 at 8:09 am

    Trammell has been horribly overlooked by the voters so I don't see how Vizquel even gets in a conversation. I'm not certain the voters will be smart enough to elect Larkin who should be a slam dunk.

  2. Johnny Twisto Says:
    May 19th, 2010 at 8:29 am

    I think Larkin got about 50% of the vote last year. He'll make it in a couple more years.

  3. Mets Maven Says:
    May 19th, 2010 at 8:51 am

    Vizquel is the classic shortstop Hall Of Famer. He stands shoulder to shoulder with Ozzie Smith (the only shortstop in history with more Gold Gloves than Omar) and Pee Wee Reese, not to mention Luis Aparicio and Luke Appling. Perhaps overshadowed in this era of power shortstops, Visquel and his 11 Gold Gloves deserve a plaque in Cooperstown.

  4. Charles Saeger Says:
    May 19th, 2010 at 9:09 am

    He'll get in eventually. I have some quibbles with Sean Smith's fielding numbers, but it's more ammo for the argument: I've never seen any good proof that Vizquel was quite as good as folks have raved. I wonder if the Gold Glove voters have had a lack of candidates on whom to home in, and settled on Vizquel, boosting him.

  5. Jeff J. Says:
    May 19th, 2010 at 9:22 am

    Too many concentrate on undeserved Gold Gloves. There are plenty of other candidates who should have won.

  6. JeffW Says:
    May 19th, 2010 at 9:52 am

    Is there a clear-cut advantage to playing all/most of your games on turf (Smith), as opposed to grass (Vizquel)?

    I remember all those times I read that it was easier to play on turf, because of the truer, more consistent, hop.

    If so, then Vizquel deserves his nod as number-one defensively. To compile those numbers on grass, even as late in his career as he did (4 errors in 152 games at age 39), is nothing less than astounding.

    Perhaps Giants fans can shed some light on whether or not he seemed to get any untoward boost from the official scorers.

    I feel it's fine to honor the standard-bearers in defensive excellence. In fact, I would charge that Omar suffered from the reverse-prejudice that often robs deserving players of Gold Gloves because of the other players' offensive numbers.

    Having said that, Chris and Johnny Twisto are both right, in that Trammell and Larkin should be slam dunks for the Hall. It's a crime that Trammell is seldom mentioned among the top candidates. He suffered unfairly during Ripken's reign.

  7. Len Says:
    May 19th, 2010 at 10:28 am

    I'm still shocked that Trammell hasn't done better in HOF voting. During the early 90's he was looked upon as a virtual lock HOF. Maybe if he had retired in '91 or '93, he may have gotten in the HOF. He retired in '96 and was eligible in 2001, right in the middle of the SS offensive explosion.

    Fregosi would be in the HOF if he played in any other time period besides 1962-1968. I would put Campaneris next and then Tony Fernandez

    I can't see Vizquel being remotely a HOF caliber player. He only had 1 year over 4-War, (1999-6.6). He only had that one year, 1999, where you could say he was a legitimate MVP candidate. I think it's telling that that's also the only year he received any MVP votes. He was a terrific fielder but more of a complimentary player than a player you would build your team around.

    The voters like to look at something simple like Gold Gloves so he probably will do well in HOF voting. I can think of any HOF who was voted in by the writers who only received MVP votes one time and finished 16th.

  8. Len Says:
    May 19th, 2010 at 10:44 am

    I forgot about Nomar.

    Unbelievable peak but not enough career value. Only 6000 p.a would make it tough for him to get in. I would put him with Fregosi with Campaneris a tick lower.

    I would put Omar in the Tony Fernadez, Dave Concepcion category, a notch or two lower.

  9. Frank Clingenpeel Says:
    May 19th, 2010 at 11:15 am

    While I respect Vizquel and his accomplishments, he fits best in that gray area between All-Star and Hall of Famer -- the same class into whih players like Petrocelli and Maloney {just to mention two} belong.

  10. JDV Says:
    May 19th, 2010 at 11:44 am

    I'm amazed that this is a question. Omar Vizquel should be and will be voted into the Hall Of Fame on the first ballot. He absolutely is the best shortstop in the past 30 (probably 35) years. He has also been a very good offensive player.

  11. Chipmaker Says:
    May 19th, 2010 at 11:57 am

    I don't see a Hall plaque of Vizquel in the future. Defense-base candidates tend to need a touch of the legendary to win over the voters. Ozzie had it. Omar doesn't, really.

  12. Jeff J. Says:
    May 19th, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    JDV Says:
    "I'm amazed that this is a question. Omar Vizquel should be and will be voted into the Hall Of Fame on the first ballot. He absolutely is the best shortstop in the past 30 (probably 35) years."

    So you're saying he was BETTER than Ripken & Ozzie, but not as good as, um, Aparicio? Or who?

    "He has also been a very good offensive player."

    83 OPS+ and falling

  13. Djibouti Says:
    May 19th, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    As someone who lived in Cleveland throughout the 90's, I'm heavily biased in this discussion. A few things I can point out while trying to be neutral:

    1. His postseason numbers are pretty bad...but not as bad as Ozzie
    2. Defensive ability is almost impossible to capture in stats. I'd say he passes the "eye test" but that's probably a worse way to quantify ability
    3. 9 consecutive GGs is impressive, but that's one award that suffers greatly from inertia
    4. How many guys could play SS competently at 42? In other words, while a lot of HoF discussions hinge on how a player did in their prime and the trailing years are mostly ignored, the fact that he's still playing one of the harder defensive positions at such an advanced age should be a bonus
    5. I'm not sure it's fair, but I feel he should get extra credit for being one of the best defensive shortstops ever (ok, so that's a heavy opinion) in an era when shortstop was a hitting position
    6. If elected, he would probably be the only HoFer ever with a pet kangaroo...shouldn't that alone be enough?

  14. Len Says:
    May 19th, 2010 at 1:19 pm

    Luis Apparicio is an odd HOF pick. After 3 years on the ballot, he was down to 12% in 1981. Then 3 years later he got elected with 84% of the vote. Try and figure out the logic of baseball writers.

    I see Larkin and Trammell as lock HOF.

    I see Nomar, Fregosi, Campy and Apparicio on the next level.

    Vizquel, Fernandez and Concepcion a notch or two lower

  15. Andy Says:
    May 19th, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    I just realized that I forgot to credit Johnny Twisto. We had some discussions about Vizquel in advance of this post that helped me in my research and writing.

  16. edward almada Says:
    May 19th, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    THIS IS A QUESTION REGARDING PITCHING:

    What is the average of games won when the starter goes at least 6 innings, compared to when he goes 7 or more? There must be a big diference, which at the same time puts into perspective the manager´s pacience, don't you think so?

  17. inspector ryan Says:
    May 19th, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    Does not deserve it.
    On the other hand, if you want to bring up the issue of GG's, then why is not Jim Kaat in the HOF?

  18. Johnny Twisto Says:
    May 19th, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    Inspector, most observers consider shortstop defense slightly more important than pitcher defense.

    Edward, in 2009 teams won 61% of the time when their starter went at least 6 IP, and 69% when they went at least 7. I expect those numbers vary quite a bit if you look at different seasons.

  19. JeffW Says:
    May 19th, 2010 at 2:45 pm

    I'd like to see Kitty in the Hall, too. For his win total and overall package (quite a hitter, as well).

    But fielding skill for a pitcher has never been considered a prime requisite. Nice, but, "Get out of the way and let the real glove men handle it," is probably what any manager or middle infielder would say.

    Shortstop was always one of the positions where exceptional defense was more valued than offensive output. Catcher, keystone combo, center field. Anything less than a league-average defender at those positions has to be an exceptional hitter to make up for the difference in extra runners allowed and runs yielded.

    Where's the middle ground, where defense intersects with offense to create an acceptable comparison for Hall validation? How much offense does an Omar Vizquel have to provide, to go with his defensive contributions?

  20. JDV Says:
    May 19th, 2010 at 4:41 pm

    Yes...better than Ripken by a mile (I'm a life-long Oriole fan) and better than Ozzie, who was awesome, but who benefitted from playing mostly on turf...and yes, Aparicio was the guy I had in mind. On offense, I still have no idea what OPS+ means, but he's an offensive asset. He gets on base; he runs the bases extremely well; he makes his outs count; he has enough pop to be an extra-base threat. He is a great baseball player. I'm not assessing his value as a 43-year-old reserve.

  21. Andy Says:
    May 19th, 2010 at 4:45 pm

    Wow JDV. I could not possibly disagree more with every single point in your comment. In particular, there is no possible defense to support the notion that Vizquel is an asset on offense. One could possibly argue that his extremely poor offensive production might be worth it due to his excellent defense (I think his overall positive WAR despite the very large negative Rbatter supports thus). But that's about as far as any reasonable argument could go.

  22. Gregory Koch Says:
    May 19th, 2010 at 5:35 pm

    The fact is, with the exception of fielding, Vizquel has stats which are roughly comparable to Bill Buckner. Buckner actually has the edge in most of them. Yes, Buckner was a first baseman and Vizquel was a shortstop, but the only way that is remotely relevant is that it downplays Buckner's lack of fielding ability. Now I'm not saying Buckner deserves to be in the HOF. And he never will, that's for sure, after 1986 what happened. But I don't think Vizquel deserves to be either. He is one of the best fielding shortstops ever to play the game, but I don't think that alone merits induction.

  23. BSK Says:
    May 19th, 2010 at 7:51 pm

    I'm generally not a fan of using MVPs or MVP shares as a major criteria in these conversations, since largely the same flawed (failed?) ideology that screws with the HoF vote infects those awards. That being said, Vizquel received a single MVP vote (8th) place. Note: This was in 1999, which was a rather screwy year for MVP voting given the whole Pedro-for-MVP fiasco. (This is not to serve as a lead-in to debate on his, or any modern pitcher's, candidacy, BUT, I do think it's fair to say that there was at least a bit of screwiness in the voting that year or, at least, more than is normal.)

  24. JeffW Says:
    May 19th, 2010 at 9:14 pm

    You do raise a valid point about win shares...especially when those may be tainted by player-writer relationships, or a player's popularity, as opposed to his true value.

    Also, remember back to the era when a winner was removed from consideration on future ballots, which is a big reason that Babe Ruth only one once (and not for 1927).

    One player's dominance in the MVP vote in a given year may only reflect a weak field. Then there's the eternal debate as to how the MVP should be awarded (pure stats vs. perceived actual value to a winning club).

    There are many MVP winners who will never get near a Hall vote...and many who never won (or even got close) who are in.

    Case in point: Bob Elliot, the MVP in 1947 and a top-10 finisher on three other occasions. He garnered 0.7% of the Hall vote in 1960, 0.6% in '62, and 2.0% in 1964.

    He hasn't been heard from since.

    Maz had one eighth-place MVP finish (1958) and a 23rd-place finish in '66. Nothing the year they actually won.

    Look who's in the Hall.

  25. groundball Says:
    May 20th, 2010 at 3:02 am

    I would still rate Vizquel as 2nd best of the last 30 years. Ozzie SMith was better. As far as Astroturf, it does give truer hops as I understand, but it also offers less resistance, if I remember so range is more required of an Astroturf player than a grass player. So, it probably nullifies each other. I think Vizquel just misses, he just played in the wrong era. If he put the numbers he did just a decade earlier (Ozzie SMith's era) then yes, I think he would. I love the Belanger/Smith/Vizquel mold SS, so I really hope he does.

  26. WilsonC Says:
    May 20th, 2010 at 9:29 am

    It's important not to underrate the offensive contributions on a player like Vizquel. He wasn't a good hitter, or even an average one, but for most of his career he was a perfectly adequate hitter for his position. His -209 batting runs is for a testament to a long career as a below average hitter as opposed to being a bad hitter. Outside of the beginning and end of his career, he's been an average to slightly above average hitting shortstop, and he rates well above a replacement level hitter over the course of his career. His glove is obviously his selling point, but he's certainly not of the no-hit-all-field variety of SS like Guillen or Belanger.

  27. Zachary Says:
    May 20th, 2010 at 12:57 pm

    @25 - I'd actually go the other way. The voters would love to vote for a guy who wasn't even vaguely involved with steroids (or at least, that's the assumption since he had all the power of a worn-out AA battery). He's considered the premier defensive shortstop since Ozzie, and from everything I can tell people like him. Considering that he can be held up as an example of "great baseball sans power", I think that he gets in within his first five times on the ballot.

  28. Barry Says:
    May 22nd, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    Looking at Vizquel's career adjusted OPS (that is, a 1.5 to 1 ratio of OB% to SL%) puts him at 7.67% worse than the average hitter in baseball for all those with 7,000 plate appearances or more. Of the 47 shortstops in history who meet that plate appearance minimum, Vizquel is 37th in adjusted OPS. Of the 47 shortstops, 20 (led by Honus Wagner at 23.97% above average hitting via adj-OPS) were above average hitters. Of the 27 below average hitting shortstops - several are in the Hall of Fame - Dave Bancroft (barely below average hitter), Joe Tinker, Ozzie Smith, Luis Aparicio, and Rabbit Maranville. Of these, only Aparicio and Maranville were lesser hitters than Vizquel - and if you compute Omar's bad hitting (7.67% below average) over his career there are only 8 shortstops in history who were more damaging to their own club with a bat in hands. They are, in addition to Aparicio and Maranville, Royce Clayton, Don Kessinger, Roy McMillian, Larry Bowa, Ozzie Guillen and Alfredo Griffin. Griffin was absolutely the worst, but Bowa was really bad longer. Of course, none of this includes fielding or running - but it's hard to make a Hall of Fame case for a guy who couldn't hit.

  29. Barry Says:
    May 22nd, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    I should add that Vizquel's adjusted OPS of -7.67% means he was that much worse than the average hitter for the years he played. I compared all player's adj-OPS to league adj-OPS only for the years they played in. That way a player is judged only against his contemporaries - which paradoxically enables comparison across eras.

  30. rootbeersoup Says:
    May 23rd, 2010 at 1:01 am

    You can throw all the numbers you want at me and normally I am very much swayed by statistics, but all I know is that when I watched him play for the Giants, he was absolutely incredible in the field. He did things you just can't put on a box score. Even at his age, he put me in awe. Even in his last year in SF, he was a gold glove caliber shortstop in my opinion.

    I think he gets in

«
»