Most overated HOFers

[Moot]

It depends entirely on what that part of the game is and how good you are it.

Ozzie Smith was a league-average player offensively (once you include his baserunning), which is above average for a shortstop. For a shortstop of his time, Ozzie Smith was a good offensive player. He was a fantastic defender at the key defensive position of shortstop, and fantastic understates just how good he was.

Overall, it adds up to an incredibly valuable player.

Just give up HGM. It's like pissing into an ocean of piss.

[HoustonGM]

Just give up HGM. It's like pissing into an ocean of piss.

You claimed Ozzie Smith too...

[Arctic Blast]

All I know is, I love the name Turkey Stearnes.

That might be the greatest name of all time!

[Wassit3]

That might be the greatest name of all time!

i agree!

[ragecage]

Defense is always overlooked in baseball, Ozzie Smith might not have been the greatest player on the field in his time with St. Louis, but he was the face of that franchise during his tenure.

I have no problem with him in the Hall, im sure his pitchers that played with him felt the same way.

[Pavelb1]

At least no one said "Cal Ripken jr. is only in because of his streak". That, along with "Tommy John belongs in because of the surgery", are automatic ejections.

[dps]

But being good at one part of the game doesn't make you a good player. It makes you wildly unbalanced and unuseful.

A smart manager can get a lot of use out of a guy who is good at one thing, but sub-par otherwise.

Smith wasn't outstanding defensively and sub-par offensively; rather he was outstanding defensively and average (or maybe a tiny bit above average) offensively. If he had been great defensively, but sub-par offensively, he would have been Rafeal Belliard.

[ohms_law]

Tommy John belongs in because of the surgery

[Pavelb1]

Tommy John belongs in because of the surgery

Hit the showers.

[Pavelb1]

But being good at one part of the game doesn't make you a good player. It makes you wildly unbalanced and unuseful.

There's a Big Papi on the phone for you.

[ohms_law]

lol

I'd like to see a defense of why that's a bad stance to take, though. The Hall Of Fame isn't just "These are the best players in the history of baseball", it's intended to be about the history of baseball itself. Tommy John, a notable pitcher of his time, undergoing a revolutionary surgical procedure and being able to return and continue his career is certainly historical. To deny that can only be described as narrow minded.

[Pavelb1]

lol

I'd like to see a defense of why that's a bad stance to take, though. The Hall Of Fame isn't just "These are the best players in the history of baseball", it's intended to be about the history of baseball itself. Tommy John, a notable pitcher of his time, undergoing a revolutionary surgical procedure and being able to return and continue his career is certainly historical. To deny that can only be described as narrow minded.

Had Tommy John actually invented the procedure or performed it himself....then we may have something to talk about.

[ohms_law]

What does that have to do with him coming back and continuing to perform?

Regardless, he had the procedure. "Tommy John Surgery" is part of the lexicon of baseball now, so what sort of sense does it make to not put the namesake into the hall?

[Pavelb1]

What does that have to do with him coming back and continuing to perform?

Regardless, he had the procedure. "Tommy John Surgery" is part of the lexicon of baseball now, so what sort of sense does it make to not put the namesake into the hall?

??????

[ohms_law]

That's what I'm saying to:

Had Tommy John actually invented the procedure or performed it himself....then we may have something to talk about.