Most overrated baseball player of all time

Jose Canseco did not define his era. He was the joke of his era. But I'd put him in the Hall before Mazeroski. Second base is an offense position, pure and simple. One cannot field his way into the Hall of Fame from second base (now that the Vets committee is gone). You most certainly can from shortstop. And Ozzie sure in the hell didn't need anyone as a precursor to get into the Hall; his spectacular defense did it all on its own. And the World Series homer...so I guess you're ready to put Gene Tenace in the Hall.

Bill Mazeroski, the killer of the Veterans Committee, in the Hall of Fame = fraud.

 

One ought to be able to field his way into the Hall of Fame from any position on the field. Excellence is excellence. Why is it valued with the bat more than with the glove? Why are the feats of some fielders (shortstop) valued more than those of others (second base)?

I'm too young to have seen Mazeroski play. But the numbers and the facts don't lie -- he was as outstanding at his position as Ozzie Smith was at his, if not more so. Perhaps the "cronyism" BYH cites was simply a case of veterans who had played with and against him deciding it was a crime that he wasn't where he rightfully should be. I mean, if anyone truly ever knows a player's value, it's the people who compete alongside him.

Bill Mazeroski was the best second baseman of his era and one of the top second basemen of all time -- fact. And, because of that, if you don't have him in the Hall of Fame, the hall is a joke.

 

I just blew chunks on my keyboard. I don't care if he went into the Hall of Fame as Jesus. It's not the Hall of Above Average.

 

One more time -- they played different positions and Smith played the one that was more difficult.

Players are some of the worst judges of who should be in the Hall of Fame. They figure a guy they could never hit should be in. If it were up to the players, there would be 30 inductees every year.

The fact they blew up the Veterans Committee after Mazeroski's selection speaks volumes.

 

As an announcer? Definitely.

dimwit

 

One of the biggest problems with the HOF is that we get into this mode of thinking where we compare the guys that are up for election to guys that are already in. And there are too many legitimately undeserving guys -- and I don't mean Maz -- already in through cronyism and a sham system. Examples include: Travis Jackson, Chick Hafey (the most egregious error), Fred Lindstrom, George Kelly, Ray Schalk, Jesse Haines, Ross Youngs ... even Dizzy Dean, IMO, is undeserving.

We can blame Frankie Frisch (an actual deserving HOFer) for many of these selections, because he was the chair of the Veterans Committee for a couple decades when most of these guys were elected. That's why there's an abnormally large number of 1920s and '30s Cardinals and Giants in the Hall of Fame, when there shouldn't be.

But when you get a borderline guy like a Mazeroski or a Dale Murphy or a Blyleven or (famously) Tony Perez ... the mistake is to compare them to the guys that are already in the Hall. That inevitably cheapens the standards little by little. The problem is, the standards are already cheap because of Frisch's cronyism. It already IS the Hall of Very, Very Good (and in the above cases, just the Very Good.) So let's throw that out.

Just because Ozzie Smith was a better shortstop than Travis Jackson, the "worst" shortstop in the HOF, doesn't mean Ozzie should or shouldn't be in the Hall, too. But the Wizard IS a Hall of Famer -- and rightfully so -- but for different reasons.

A better criterion, as JJ said, is to compare the guy to his era. Because those are the conditions he had to play under. Just as Babe Ruth couldn't help the fact that he didn't pitch against Satchel Paige and Rube Foster and the great black players of the 1920s, Bob Gibson can't help the fact that he pitched on a high mound and with larger strike zones, in an expansion period. But each thorougly dominated their eras, and that's a higher standard than a strict basis on numbers or a strict comparison to guys already in the Hall.

So, to answer the current debate ... Mazeroski was, without a doubt, the greatest second baseman of his era. He also happens to be arguably the greatest fielder at his position of all time, which makes up for offensive numbers that were almost exactly middle-of-the-pack for the low-scoring era that he played in. And yes, Dools, fielding does count. Hitting is not the only part of a position player's game. And if we're going to elect a Harmon Killebrew or an Ernie Banks for being an exceptional hitter when both were average fielders at their positions (although Banks did win a GG at short in 1960, but he played 1B for most of his career and he was average there), then we have to credit Maz and Ozzie for being exceptional fielders at their positions, too, and average hitters.

Maz also hit the most famous and dramatic home run in World Series history, and as BYH said a long time ago on this thread, it is the Hall of Fame, so famous moments must be considered. Maz was admired by his contemporaries (as evidenced by the Gold Gloves and All-Star selections), which is also an important factor in considering his era, and his record stands up over time.

That's why I hate seeing all these 1980s superstars get neglected because their numbers don't look like much 20 years later, in this era of a three-time 60-home run hitter and two other guys with 70-plus home runs. Jim Rice, Dale Murphy, Andre Dawson, Ryne Sandberg, Dave Winfield (who got in) ... those guys were feared, man, for a long time. Tony Perez (who also got in) is another. Jack Morris, on the other end, holy fuck. An ace for 15 years. Hall of Famers, all of them.

They clearly dominated their eras, and most anybody that watched them play, day-in and day-out, will tell you that. Even if the numbers don't stack up well (and they don't), compared to, say, the 1930s or the late 1990s. You can't fault them for that, because they didn't play that game 60 years ago or the game they play today. They played their game, and they were far and above their peers, at their game. And that what makes a Hall of Famer.

Anyway, my $0.02.

 

Just for the record ...

First of all, you can't trust writers any more than you can trust oldtime players to get this voting shit right. After all, 17 of you schmucks thought Bartolo Colon was better than Johan Santana last year.

Maz was on the BBWAA ballot from 1978-92. In those years, here were the guys elected (75% needed; runners-up in parentheses):

1978: Eddie Mathews, 79% (Slaughter 68%, Snider 67%)
1979: Willie Mays, 94% (Snider 71, Slaughter 68)
1980: Al Kaline, 88%; Duke Snider 86% (Drysdale 61, Hodges 59)
1981: Bob Gibson, 84% (Drysdale 60, Hodges 60)
1982: Hank Aaron, 97%; Frank Robinson, 89% (Marichal 73, Killebrew 59)
1983: Brooks Robinson, 91%; Juan Marichal, 83% (Killer 71, Aparicio 67)
1984: Luis Aparicio, 84%, Harmon Killebrew, 83%; Don Drysdale, 78% (Wilhelm 71, N. Fox 61)
1985: Hoyt Wilhelm, 83%; Lou Brock, 79% (N. Fox 74, B. Williams 63)
1986: Willie McCovey, 81% (B. Williams 74, Catfish 78)
1987: Billy Williams, 85%; Catfish Hunter, 76% (Bunning 69, Cepeda 43)
1988: Willie Stargell, 82% (Bunning 74, Oliva 47)
1989: Johnny Bench, 96%; Carl Yastrzemski, 94% (Gaylord 68, Bunning 63)
1990: Jim Palmer, 92%; firejoemorgan.com, 81% (Gaylord 72, F. Jenkins 66)
1991: Rod Carew, 90%; Gaylord Perry, 77%; Ferguson Jenkins, 75% (Fingers 65, Bunning 63)
1992: Tom Seaver1, 98.84%; Rollie Fingers, 81% (Cepeda 57, Perez 50, Mazeroski 42 -- his highest total)

1 Highest voting percentage of all time

Just like today, when you have a dominating first-ballot selection(s), not many returning players stand a chance at election that year. That's why Tony Perez fell short in 1999, when you had Ryan, Brett and Yount on the ballot for the first time, and why there's no way Rice or Dawson or Goose (all deserving selections) get in next year, when Ripken and Gwynn (and the very intriguing McGwire) are on the ballot for the first time.

So that hurts Maz -- who I readily admit is a borderline selection -- in the 1979, '80, '81 '82, '83, '86, '88, '89, '90,' 91 and '92 elections. Meanwhile, he was steadily gaining ground from the low teens in 1978 to right around 30% from 1985-91 (pushing him into the top 10 each of those years), and then 42% (now top 5) in 1992, his final year on the ballot.

The Hall of Fame elections are a funny thing, but somewhat predictable by now. And momentum plays a huge part in the process, for whatever reason. (Every one of those runners-up have been selected by now, except Hodges and Oliva.) ... Maz didn't have mo' to start because of all the top-notch choices on the ballot in his early years, and the writers, for whatever reason, don't like to elect more than 1 or 2 players in a single year. But if a guy's a Hall of Famer, he's a Hall of Famer. And it doesn't really matter if he's a first- or 15th-ballot selection.

This business of "he doesn't deserve a first ballot" or "we're going to punish a guy (this means you, Big Mac!) and make him wait" is ridiculous, and it's a junior-high ego trip for somebody, a damn popularity contest. (Does anybody truly believe Tom Seaver is the greatest pitcher of all time? Honestly? 98.84%? C'mon now.) ...

... And it takes away from the true question: who deserves to be a Hall of Famer.

 

Not surprising you'd try to rework your argument once you're called out, BYA.
If you weren't trying to indict Maz with the Gold Glove comment, why bring it up in the middle of a discussion about, you know, Maz?
As for Ozzie being first ballot and Maz not, I'd say this: I've known enough baseball writers to know they're not infallible.
You wouldn't be one of them, would you?

 

No shit.

Baseball writers are absolutely the worst.

 

Guess who one of the best offensive catchers of all-time is?

Ted Simmons. Primarily for his 70s years with the Cardinals, with his first three years with the Brewers thrown in for good measure.

NEYER thinks Simmons should be in the Hall. I don't know if I agree, but if Carter is in -- and it doesn't bother me as much as it does others -- than Simmons should definitely be in.

I still need to start my hallofgreat website ...

 

I would make the argument that not one guy in the league now would field their way into Cooperstown from shortstop. Not one. They could hit their way in, though.

As for second base being an offensive position, only Roberto Alomar, Craig Biggio and Jeff Kent could make it to Cooperstown from this era with their bats.

I would be curious to get casty's take on this debate.

 

Alomar is a lock. He always was. Eligible in 2010, I believe. Should get in then.

With Biggio on the verge of 3,000 hits, he will get in, too. Maybe not first ballot. But he's in. His popularity helps. Viewed as a good guy, and loyal to Houston.

Kent, ehhh, not so sure at this point. If he sticks around to hit 400 HRs, then his chances are better. He's an average fielder with respect to his league, just a five-time All-Star (his first wasn't until he was 31), and only once was he top-5 in MVP voting (2000, when he won). I think his numbers are more a product of the era he's playing in, kind of like a Steve Finley or Luis Gonzalez, and when he finally became good in his 30s, he played second fiddle to Bonds on his own team for so long. To me, he's not a Hall of Famer. But he's still playing, so we'll see.