Brooks, Ozzie, and Nolan: Overrated, every one!

[Fuzzy Bear]

I consider the following players to be worthy Hall-of-Famers. Nevertheless, I consider them to be the most overrated in the HOF. Some of these players are spoken of as the greatest at their position, even. NONE OF THEM ARE!!!

Most Overrated List:

1. Brooks Robinson. The most overrated HOFer in history. He deserves enshrinement, but he has often been spoken of as the greatest 3B in history. He never was! He wasn't as good as two of his NL contemporaries, Santo and Matthews (who is mega-underrated). He's really not much better than a slew of guys who aren't in the HOF (Nettles, Cey, Gaetti, Buddy Bell, Darrell Evans),

2. Ozzie Smith. Please!!! He is not the greatest SS of all time, not the second, nor the third. It's a case of overrating the spectacular, and underrating players who were steady fielders and much better hitters.

3. Nolan Ryan. There is too much emphasis on his Ks. The Ks are important, in that they reflect that he was a power pitcher, and, therefore, more likely to last a long time. His W-L was no great shakes, and his walks . . .Let's stop comparing him to Seaver.

There are others; I hope other NetShriners will list similar players. One theme of all of these guys is that they were overrated because they were spectacular; they did things that made announcers say "WOW". But baseball is not a spectacle, and these three are not the "inner circle" HOFers that they are often made out to be.

[Fritz Buelow]

I agree some on Brooks. He was good. Not great. Just played a long time.

Disagree on Ryan. Seven no-hitters. You have to respect that.

Disagree on Ozzie too. Best fielding SS ever - see Bill James' NBHA if you don't believe me. Plus, see this list:

RUNS CREATED/GAME SS 7500+ PA
1 Honus Wagner 8.26
2 George Davis 7.19
3 Joe Cronin 6.91
4 Barry Larkin 6.65
5 Arlie Latham 6.34
6 Luke Appling 6.27
7 Herman Long 5.95
8 Bill Dahlen 5.61
9 Cal Ripken 5.40
10 Alan Trammell 5.34
11 Pee Wee Reese 5.24
12 Bobby Wallace 4.82
13 Dave Bancroft 4.62
14 Ozzie Smith 4.24

Ozzie produced more at the plate than people gave him credit for...........IMHO.

[JamesI]

While I agree the three players have been overrated by the media, I have to argue with the players you compared to Brooks Robinson, other than Evans. While Brooks was still a good offensive third baseman in his prime, most of his value was defensive. There aren't many players that could be compared to Brooks at third defensivly, mainly Schmidt. Without his defense, Brooks would not have been a first ballot hall of famer, but would still have been enshrined.

[Fritz Buelow]

Re: Brooks - - something I once used elsewhere:

Robinson is a man of exemplary character and was a splendid fielding third baseman. However, his offensive ability was somewhat ordinary.

Brooks played from 1955 to 1977 and had a career .325 On Base Average (OBA) and .401 Slugging Percentage (SLG%). During this same time, the average Major League OBA was .322 and the average Major League SLG% was .377. As a hitter, Robinson was slightly above average.

Perform the comparison in a smaller box. From '55 to '77, Brooks' team (the Orioles) had an OBA of .323 with a .373 SLG%. Again, Robinson was just a shade over the norm. (Note that during 1961 to 1977, Boog Powell - who played along side Brooks - had a .364 OBA along with a .462 SLG%.)

Actually, Robinson's closest contemporary offensive match was Vada Pinson (who was also a fine glove man - albeit in the outfield).

Pinson played from 1958 to 1977 - during which time he had a career .330 OBA and .442 SLG%. These levels actually exceed Brooks' output. Additionally, for their career, there is less than a 10% variance between Robinson's and Pinson's AB, hits, doubles, and HR totals. (Pinson has an 11% advantage in runs scored - while Robinson has a 14% advantage in RBI. A virtual push.)

It's not a stretch to argue that Pinson was just as talented as Robinson. Is Pinson in the HOF?

[SmedIndy]

Actually, 3B is an important defensive position, so I can see Brooks in the HOF based on his defensive prowess and average offense. He meets my standard of greatness. If you have exceptional offensive players who were lousy defenders, you need exceptional defenders who were average offensive players.

Same for Ozzie. His OFFENSE helped the Cards a lot in the halcyon days of the 1980's. His defense, incredible, of course.

And Ryan should be enshrined. He did a lot of good things outside the no-hitters. Plus he spent a lot of his career with little offensive support in Cali and Houston.

They're all HOF worthy, IMHO, and I'm one of the advocates for taking crowbars in and throwing guys out.

[JamesI]

Differences between Pinson and Robinson.
Pinson 1 Gold Glove Brooks 16
Pinson no M.V.P's Brooks 1.
Pinson played in 1 postseason Brooks 6
Pinson did not play in a World Series his team won, Brooks twice.
Pinson Allstar 1959, 1960 Brooks 1960-1974

Now I admit they have similiar career stats, but there are some major differences.

[Fritz Buelow]

Originally posted by JamesI
Differences between Pinson and Robinson.
Pinson 1 Gold Glove Brooks 16
Pinson no M.V.P's Brooks 1.
Pinson played in 1 postseason Brooks 6
Pinson did not play in a World Series his team won, Brooks twice.
Pinson Allstar 1959, 1960 Brooks 1960-1974

I'll give you the MVP. But, Gold Gloves are awarded - not always earned. Same as All-Stars. That's a big issue. Plus, OFers have more competition for GG and AS than a 3B - there's more of them. Also, as far as the WS appearances, that has more to do with supporting cast than the player.

Luis Sojo has been in more WS and won more WS than Brooks Robinson.

Well, there's more outfielders, but there's more Gold Gloves awarded, too.

As for Evans...this was brought up before, but Evans is a pure sabermetric fluke.

He was a good third baseman, but he wasn't much of a hitter. He was usually no better than the fourth- or fifth-best offensive player at third base in the league, except for two years, and usually he was no better than the third- or fourth-best defensive player in the league. He played a long time, and he put up good offensive numbers as a first baseman/DH. But as a first baseman/DH, he didn't have much defensive value, and at those positions, he wasn't that great a hitter.

Robinson was generally the best hitter at his position, and the best fielder.

For the sake of easy comparison, Brooks' top OPS+ vs. Evans, at third:

Brooks
145
125
125
124
124
117
114
113

Evans
156
150
121
121
121
118
118
118

Evans had one more year at an elite level, but they were pretty close over a four or five-year period. Brooks was certainly a better fielder, and he played twice as many games at third as Evans.

[KCBOOMER]

I have always had problems when someone says a player is "overrated". Overrated by whom? It all turns out to be the nameless "they".

As for the three guys under discussion, no there aren't the creme de la creme of the HoF, but they are certainly, as we all agreed, solid members.

Considering all his K's, no-hitters, and low OPA's you would think he would have a higher winning percentage. And it was rather late in his career before his winning percentage exceeded that of his teams without him. 5,000 K's and 7 no-hitters are eye popping numbers.

Loved to watch Ozzie Smith play and didn't really think of him as an HoFer until late in his career. I do agree that he got too much defensive credit because he was "flashy" and being on ESPN.

Brooks was simply phenomenal around third. To me Clete Boyer was the only 3B in his class and even he lagged a hair.

Fritz, you going to blow off a 16-1 advantage in GG's to "awarded not earned"? At least the voting is conducted by qualified people as opposed to the all-star ballot box stuffing.

[Fritz Buelow]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
Fritz, you going to blow off a 16-1 advantage in GG's to "awarded not earned"? At least the voting is conducted by qualified people as opposed to the all-star ballot box stuffing.

Palmeiro won one - the year he played the whole year at DH. It's pretty accepted that you usually have to hit to win a GG, and, once you win one, it's almost a lock that you'll win it for a few years.

Bernie Williams has won a few for CF - - not fair. There are many better CF in the AL than him.

The "awarding" of these is not a good process.

[KCBOOMER]

Originally posted by Fritz Buelow
It's pretty accepted that you usually have to hit to win a GG.

Oh, Pshaw! Frank White was a sub .260 hitter for his career and won 8 of the damn things. Jim Sundberg won a closet full of the things and never hit a loud foul. I do agree that if you are pretty good defensively and can hit it helps your chances.

The rule of thumb on the Gold Glove is you get it one year later than you should have got it and get to keep it for one year more than you should have.

Bernie Williams won because ESPN runs Yankee highlights every night.

[JamesI]

While sometimes it seems that you need to hit to get a gold glove, like McGwire winning one, but how about players like Belanger. Belanger would hit .270 in an incredible year for him, but still managed 8 gold gloves.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
I have always had problems when someone says a player is "overrated". Overrated by whom? It all turns out to be the nameless "they".

"They" are the writers, announcers, and observers who trumpeted these three not just as Hall-of-Famers, but as the greatest players of all time at their positions.

It never ceased to amaze me, as a young man, how it was Brooks Robinson, the greatest 3Bman ever, surpassingPie Trainor!!!!! Eddie Mathews, who had just retired after hitting 512 HRs, was hardly ever mentioned. This nonsense got worse after the 1970 World Series.

The same thing with Ozzie Smith. He made stellar defensive plays that make for good copy with newspapermen, and give announcers something to be excited about. That doesn't put him past Honus Wagner; frankly, it doesn't put him past Barry Larkin!

As for Nolan Ryan, he's little more than a .500 pitcher. He has one of the lowest winning percentages of any HOF pitcher. Yes, he has all those no-hitters. They are spectacular. He also has all those losses. What good did it do him to strike out 10-plus when his team lost (probably because of his walks).

These guys are B-Hall of Famers who are spoken of as the greatest ever because they did things that could be caught on camera, or evoke excitement. Eddie Mathews was not spectacular as Brooks Robinson, BUT HE WAS A BETTER PLAYER!!!
Barry Larkin does not evoke the "ooohs" and "aahhhs" of Ozzie Smith, BUT HE IS A BETTER PLAYER THAN OZZIE WAS!!! Don Sutton and Phil Niekro didn't amaze us with Ks and no-hitters, BUT I DEFY ANYONE TO STATISTICALLY DEMONSTRATE JUST HOW MUCH MORE VALUBLE RYAN'S CAREER REALLY WAS, COMPARED TO NIEKRO AND SUTTON (especially Sutton)!!!

To wit: A spectacular ballplayer is not necessarily a better ballplayer because BASEBALL IS NOT A SPECTACLE!!!

[KCBOOMER]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear
It never ceased to amaze me, as a young man, how it was Brooks Robinson, the greatest 3Bman ever, surpassingPie Trainor!!!!! Eddie Mathews, who had just retired after hitting 512 HRs, was hardly ever mentioned. This nonsense got worse after the 1970 World Series.

Fuzzy, calm down man, life will go on. Brooks is not the player Eddie Mathews was. He wasn't quite the fielder Brooks was but on the whole nobody in their right mind would select Brooks over him. Whenever I heard one of the "talking heads" (visions of Brent Musberger come to mind) describe Robinson as the best third baseman I always put that in the context of playing the position (i.e. fielding) and with the added remark of "that I have ever seen".

Very few of today's talking heads were alive when Eddie was in his prime and even if they were they sure didn't see him a lot.

The same comments apply to Ozzie. He isn't remotely in the same league as Honus Wagner. And yes, Barry Larkin is/was better.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally posted by KCBOOMER


Fuzzy, calm down man, life will go on. Brooks is not the player Eddie Mathews was.

I'm calm, man, absolutely chillin'. What I do find amazing, though, is how rarely Eddie Mathews was mentioned as the greatest 3Bman of all time, even before Mike Schmidt (who has probably supplanted him). Eddie Matthews may be the most underrated HOFer in Cooperstown. He certainly became one of the most anonymous.

Isn't an anonymous Hall-of-Famer an oxymoron?