Concepcion -- HOF?

[wskksw]

very well written post. my largest wonder about this discussion strand, is the blind acceptance of ozzie smith as a hall-of-famer. yes, he has been annointed, but can't anyone ask, WHY?
folks are fixed on 'runs above replacement', an asinine belief.
'runs above replacement' on defense. pretty darned low. a glove for a glove, back flips notwithstanding. smith, very replaceable, on defense. felix could carry smith's glove; ozzie wasn't able to that for templeton.
trammel for smith...who is smoking what? a really good player v. a position that, as a manager, you don't have to worry about.

Oh.

Huh?

[wskksw]

my point was just that trammel was a baseball player, one that a manager could rely on. smith was a character that a manager could slot into the eight hole, and know that ozzie would show up.
smith's glove? good. great. much better than anything else that could be found on the bench, in the minors, in the carribean? no. he was a really, really, good player. most of his hof was smoke--not an embarassment, but it smacks of rabbit's run.

[SmedIndy]

Except for the years that Ozzie did well on offense, then you could have batted him one or two and he'd be tremendous. From 1984 - 92 (save 1990) he was a good enough offensive player to have real value.

[wskksw]

without question--he was a nearly-subadequate offensive player. he hit/walked well. and wore leather well. if ozzie were hitting second on team, it was apt to be either a) a really bad offensive team, or b) a bad team.
he is not a complete loss on offense, but anyone believing him an offensive gift, well

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by wskksw
without question--he was a nearly-subadequate offensive player. he hit/walked well. and wore leather well. if ozzie were hitting second on team, it was apt to be either a) a really bad offensive team, or b) a bad team.
he is not a complete loss on offense, but anyone believing him an offensive gift, well

Even when he hit .303, scored 104 runs, stole 43 bases for a team that won the NL pennant, that was sub-adequate?

Ozzie was horrid in his early years, but the light whent on in 1984 where he could contribue, and while not a slugger, his OBP and speed could enhance any offense.

Davey C. never scored 100 runs, and didn't steal as many bases, though that may have been where he hit in the lineup.

[Xanadu Dragon]

Reminder - this thread is about Davey C.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by Baudib
.

A friend of mine raises an interesting point about the Hall of Fame:

It's not called the Hall of Really Good Players Who Had Long Careers, or the Hall of Guys Who Were Dominant Players For A While. It's called the Hall of Fame. Fame is something hard to define, but whatever it is, Concepcion has more of it than Fernandez.

If it's the Hall-of-Fame, than it must have something to do with being "Famous", does it not?

So are we recognizing players who are already famous, or elevating to fame players who were talented, but played in the absence of limelight (e.g. Washington Senators and St. Louis Browns)?

I wonder where my friend who I quoted stood on the issue of Steve Garvey in another thread. Lord knows, he was FAMOUS.

Concepcion is more worthy of enshrinement than Fernandez not because he is more famous, but because his play was an integral part of a great team winning back-to-back World Championships. I don't think the Reds would have won BACK-TO-BACK without Concepcion. In addition, Fernandez was not a career-long SS, and was not always a positive in the clubhouse. (Maybe that's why he never played on a winner.)

The All-Famous Team

1B Steve Garvey
2B Bill Mazeroski
SS Phil Rizzuto
3B Brooks Robinson
LF Joe Rudi
CF Dale Murphy
RF Carl Furillo
DH Gil Hodges
C Joe Garagiola/Tim McCarver
P Don Drysdale
P Don Newcombe
P Don Larsen
P Johnny Vander Meer
P Sparky Lyle

Some are in the HOF, some ain't. But they're all famous, aren't they?