Is Maz a hof'er?

[AlecBoy006]

TFAM and I are going back and fourth on AIM about this.

I feel Maz should be in for the following reason.

1) I am a huge fan of GG's, but he played at arguably the third hardest position in the game.

2) If he was a first baseman, I'd say no. Now, I can support Hernandez, but he had some offense too.

3) People say no Maz because of his offense. Ok, I dare you to tell me Robinson and Smith are HOF'ers without their defense.

[iPod]

TFAM and I are going back and fourth on AIM about this.

I feel Maz should be in for the following reason.

1) I am a huge fan of GG's, but he played at arguably the third hardest position in the game.

2) If he was a first baseman, I'd say no. Now, I can support Hernandez, but he had some offense too.

3) People say no Maz because of his offense. Ok, I dare you to tell me Robinson and Smith are HOF'ers without their defense.

You need to add at least a little bit of subtlety to your arguments. It's never, ever as blunt as "Ozzie = all defense, Maz = all defense, so Ozzie = Maz." Until you can grasp this, people are going to continue to attack your arguments.

But since you like lists:

1) Ozzie was named to more than twice as many all-star teams, 15 to 7.
2) Ozzie did better in MVP voting, being named in the top 20 in his league 4 times (2nd, 13th, 18th, 20th). Mazeroski was in the top 20 only once (8th place).
3) While neither was a good hitter, Ozzie had individual years where he was above average, including 1987 when he hit .303 with an OBP near .400. Mazeroski was only average in his best seasons, and still arguably below average.
4) Ozzie drew walks roughly twice as often as Mazeroski (67 per 592 AB for Ozzie, 33 per 581 AB for Mazeroski). This is especially significant because...
5) ...Ozzie had a great deal more baserunning value than Mazeroski, stealing 580 bases for his career at a 79% success rate. Ozzie had 13 individual seasons where his SB total exceeded Mazeroski's career SB total.
6) Ozzie won 13 GG's for his career, while Mazeroski won only 8. I don't think this proves anything, but you said yourself you love GG's.

I'm personally convinced that Ozzie Smith was a much better, much more valuable player than Bill Mazeroski. Smith accumulated 326 WS in his career, while Mazeroski managed only 219. Or, put another way, Smith averaged 20.5 WS per season to Mazeroski's 16.4... in a career that was longer by over 2000 plate appearances. I won't go to win shares when the numbers are close, since the debate will inevitably devolve into one about the merits of the win share formula, but this is a chasm. The fact that they share a vague similarity as players (light bats, all-time gloves at key positions), and that Ozzie is in the Hall, proves absolutely nothing to me about whether or not Mazeroski should also be in the Hall. We shouldn't let a guy into the Hall because another guy better than him got in.

[AlecBoy006]

If you take away gold gloves, Maz is not a HOF'er, but neither is Ozzie.

And, Campaneris was a better baserunner. Is he in the hall?

[iPod]

If you take away gold gloves, Maz is not a HOF'er, but neither is Ozzie.

And, Campaneris was a better baserunner. Is he in the hall?

What did I just write? It's never that simple. You have to recalibrate everything as soon as you change the comparison. Camapaneris stole more bases and was roughly equal as a hitter, but wasn't the defensive player that Ozzie was.

Nice job ignoring all my points about Smith vs Mazeroski by the way. The fact that Ozzie stole 580 bases to Mazeroski's 27, the all-star games, the MVP voting, everything. It's all irrelevant, because you say it is. But since I actually respond to other people's points: no, neither would be a Hall of Famer if you took away all their defensive value, but if you did that, Smith would still be better than Mazeroski.

[Westlake]

Yes, Maz is in the HOF.

[JamesWest]

Mazeroski is a HOFer and has the plaque to prove it.

[AlecBoy006]

No. My question is should he be in?

[SamtheBravesFan]

Yes, he is, he has the plaque.

I believe that his superstar-level defense is Hall of Fame enough; and isn't it true that in his era, his offense was excellent for a second baseman?

[538280]

The HOF is for the best 150-175 or so position players of all time (at this point in history). Being the best at one singular part of the game doesn't make you, in of itself, in that group. It is a credential towards being in that group, a pretty big one in fact, but it doesn't get you there on its own. I think Maz is probably the best defensive 2B of all time, but I don't see how this puts him in that group with the rest of his game. He was a bad offensive player all around, he wasn't a particularly fast runner and didn't steal bases. I totally agree with Ipod that the Smith comparison is just not valid. Smith, with the added bases from his SBs as well as having actually an above average OBP (and being an asset there in some years like 1987), was actually an average to slightly above offensive player over his career. Maz was FAR below average offensively.

Basically, to be a HOFer to me the sum of your parts have to be within that range, and while Maz is subperb in that one area, better than anyone else, the sum of his parts just don't add up. He is great at one area of the game but is not a great player.

[AlecBoy006]

My point is saying, Ozzie is NOT a HOF'er if you take away the defense, and neither is Maz.

There are better base runners than Ozzie out there not in the HOF.

My point being, is that the defense put them above.

[iPod]

My point is saying, Ozzie is NOT a HOF'er if you take away the defense, and neither is Maz.

There are better base runners than Ozzie out there not in the HOF.

My point being, is that the defense put them above.

But Ozzie needed less of a push upward to get him into the Hall of Fame, because he has better numbers than Mazeroski.

[AlecBoy006]

I'm not denying that. I have Ozzie ahead of Maz.

But answer me this. Is Ozzie Smith a HOF'er without his defense?

[hartman74]

I think that all of you should be comparing Bill Mazeroski to Nellie Fox instead of Ozzie Smith.
Fox should have been in the hall of fame 20 years ago. His numbers are better than Maz. They both played in the same position and same era.

[Dodgerfan1]

Yes, he is, he has the plaque.

There are many others who have a plaque but don't belong, too, just like Maz doesn't belong, IMHO. Yes, great fielder and a home run. That's Maz's legacy. In my opinion, he is still better than some other second basemen in the HOF. Better than Doerr and better than Evers, neither of whom belong either. Schoendienst and Fox are borderline to me, but I wouldn't have them in my HOF. Bid McPhee was another great fielder who played 2B mostly without a glove. But he doesn't look like a HOFer to me, either. Not so sure about Frank Grant, who was voted in by special committee in 2006. From all accounts I've seen, he was great, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt (besides, his full name was Ulysses F. Grant! What's not to love??)

So, my list of second basemen who are in the Hall that Mazeroski was better than are Evers, Doerr, Schoendienst, Fox and McPhee. Maz doesn't make the HOF if I have a say, so it stands to reason neither do any of these others.

[Erik Bedard]

If you think Mazeroski is a HoFer, then comparing him to Ozzie Smith won't help one bit. To me, Ozzie Smith is a clear-cut HoFer, not a no-questions-asked, even-the-small-hall-guys-agree type of guy, but a guy who, generally, people don't have a big problem with as a HoFer. Maz is the best defensive 2Bman ever, but if he was just average there, this thread would be deleted as a joke. IMO, his defensive prowess is just enough to push him into the "gray area", and the fact that he had a little pop (better than other "good field, no hit" guys) makes him a HoFer to me. And his HR in the 1960 WS doesn't hurt either, since without it, he probably wouldn't be in Cooperstown in the first place, and would be talked about here in the same breath as Bobby Grich, and other guys of that caliber.

[rockin500]

is he? yep. of course he is.

should he? very debatable. his otherworldly defense is certainly noteworthy, but his very lack of offense is noteworthy as well and he falls into that nether regions where people will debate his worthiness to be in for eons. Certainly not the worst to be in the HOF but is definitely worse than many who are left out.

[iPod]

I'm not denying that. I have Ozzie ahead of Maz.

But answer me this. Is Ozzie Smith a HOF'er without his defense?

No, but exactly because of the fact that Ozzie is better, that's an irrelevant question.

[CTaka]

I'm not denying that. I have Ozzie ahead of Maz.

But answer me this. Is Ozzie Smith a HOF'er without his defense?

The point of Ozzie being a better player than Maz was made very nicely by iPod. Thus I don't understand this point, Alec. Would Ozzie be in the hall without his defense? No, but that doesn't change the fact that Ozzie is a more deserving hall of famer than Maz. Would McCovey be in the Hall without his homers? How about Greenberg? Foxx? Ott? Probably not. So what, they are all deserving hall of famers.

[The Dude]

People seem to be missing the point on Mazeroski. All I ever see is "A bad offensive 2nd baseman". Think about that statement. At Mazeroski's point in time, what 2nd baseman was a good offensive 2nd baseman?

Mazeroski wasn't horrible. He was only 3 points below the league AVG, and 28 points in OBP. It mainly looks that bad because of his sharp decline. Take out his last 4 seasons, and he batted better than the league in 7 seasons and worse in 6. However, we have to include those seasons. However, at his peak, Mazeroski was about average for the league, and at that time period, that's all almost any team was asking from their 2B. Add to the fact that Mazeroski is arguably the best 2B in the league for, say a little over half a decade, plus being the greatest Defensive 2B of All-Time, and being a SLIGHTLY below average offensive force if you take away his sharp decline years, Mazeroski clears the bar for me easily.

Or maybe I just really like him because he's Polish.

[Los Bravos]

At Mazeroski's point in time, what 2nd baseman was a good offensive 2nd baseman?An extraordinarily important point. You should always be judged against your peers, in time and at your position. That's one of the most basic considerations, for me.

[four tool]

His dfense was so overwhelming that he should be in. No one questions Ted Williams despite his lack of defense, so why overrate offensive contributuions or focus mostly on offense?

[jalbright]

An extraordinarily important point. You should always be judged against your peers, in time and at your position. That's one of the most basic considerations, for me.

So, if for some strange reason a position is quite weak at a given time, that justifies enshrining an average or merely good player? This is the Hall of Fame, which at least has a pretense of honoring the great rather than the merely good much less the average. Pardon me, but I find this argument wholly unpersuasive.

Jim Albright

[tearforamariner]

So, if for some strange reason a position is quite weak at a given time, that justifies enshrining an average or merely good player? This is the Hall of Fame, which at least has a pretense of honoring the great rather than the merely good much less the average. Pardon me, but I find this argument wholly unpersuasive.

Jim Albright

Ah yes, a very good argument Mr. Albright. One point however: If a player is good at a position that, at that time and place, is a weak, does this not usually bring that player a great deal of Fame? With the Hall of Fame, would that play any part at all?

[jalbright]

Ah yes, a very good argument Mr. Albright. One point however: If a player is good at a position that, at that time and place, is a weak, does this not usually bring that player a great deal of Fame? With the Hall of Fame, would that play any part at all?

Not nearly enough for me. After all, Eddie Gaedel (Veeck's midget) is actually rather famous, but he certainly doesn't deserve a plaque. If a guy is truly borderline in my opinion, maybe "fame" can boost him over the line, but that's about all in my book. I just don't see Maz as being that close to what I want to see in a HOFer in terms of overall contribution, despite his wonderful glove.

Jim Albright

[Los Bravos]

So, if for some strange reason a position is quite weak at a given time, that justifies enshrining an average or merely good player? This is the Hall of Fame, which at least has a pretense of honoring the great rather than the merely good much less the average. Pardon me, but I find this argument wholly unpersuasive.Had I made such a stupid, reductionist argument, you would be justified in that opinion.

I'm not suggesting that whatever guy tops out a weak crop at any given time get HOF consideration solely on that basis.

All I mean is that you should be judged against the standards at your position (i.e, Mike Piazza should be measured against other Catchers), but also by the standards of the era (i.e., Shortstops in the post-Ripken era are expected to provide more power than in the Aparacio-Concepcion-Smith period.)

[MSUlaxer27]

Now a days we hear that Joe Morgan is "arguably" the greatest second baseman of all time( which I know is probably a function of his offensive numbers), but when I became a baseball fan toward the end of his career, I don't remember any announcers making that claim. I do believe however that Mr. Morgan belongs in the hall. That being said, I think that Maz was probably the worst selection in my lifetime (right after Tony Perez, and if Morgan ever succeeds in pushing Concepcion in, then Perez slips to third, barely). Not to compare apples to oranges, I think Maz is in the Hall because he's still alive and could politic the Vets committee, I don't believe Gil Hodges belongs, but had he lived past 48 he'd have gone in before Maz...although neither deserve the honor.

[Fuzzy Bear]

So, if for some strange reason a position is quite weak at a given time, that justifies enshrining an average or merely good player? This is the Hall of Fame, which at least has a pretense of honoring the great rather than the merely good much less the average. Pardon me, but I find this argument wholly unpersuasive.

Jim Albright

What sometimes seems to be a "weak field" of players is a result of the conditions of the time. Pitchers of the sixties, hitters of the twenties, all are somewhat overrated due to the conditions of each era.

Maz didn't walk much, but he had some home run pop. He would have hit over 200 HRs had he played in Wrigley Field; instead, he played in Forbes Field, the worst hitter's park in the NL. There were years when he was the best OFFENSIVE second baseman in baseball, and was one of the better OFFENSIVE second basemen in his best years. His low walk rate was, in no small matter, due to the expanded strike zone in his best years.

Joe Gordon has a better case than Maz, by a lot, as does Larry Doyle, Del Pratt, and Buddy Myer. But Maz's defense, coupled with his offense in the context of his time, makes a valid case for Maz. He is an ideosyncratic selection, to be sure, but a defensible one, IMO.

[Mad Guru]

I get frustrated by arguments such as these that treat defense as if it is some minor aspect of the game. You get "Would Maz or Ozzie be in the HOF if they weren't great on defense" but you would never hear "Would Harmon Killebrew be in the HOF if he hadn't hit so many HR".

We can count home runs and we have nice little milestones for them and hits and batting average and wins but none of that exists for defensive totals. We can't say Maz had 6000 assists and that makes him a Hall of Famer. I think it is the lack of comparative measurements for fielding that makes people treat defense as if it is a skill only important for flash and not actually winning ballgames.

[Los Bravos]

I get frustrated by arguments such as these that treat defense as if it is some minor aspect of the game.

We can count home runs and we have nice little milestones for them and hits and batting average and wins but none of that exists for defensive totals. We can't say Maz had 6000 assists and that makes him a Hall of Famer. I think it is the lack of comparative measurements for fielding that makes people treat defense as if it is a skill only important for flash and not actually winning ballgames.Agreed.

But just to forestall anyone...I don't think Mario Mendoza belongs in the Hall of Fame.

[Colorado Express]

Yes he is, but probably shouldn't be. I was at his election ceremony and couldn't have been happier for anyone more than him, though.

[538280]

I get frustrated by arguments such as these that treat defense as if it is some minor aspect of the game. You get "Would Maz or Ozzie be in the HOF if they weren't great on defense" but you would never hear "Would Harmon Killebrew be in the HOF if he hadn't hit so many HR".

We can count home runs and we have nice little milestones for them and hits and batting average and wins but none of that exists for defensive totals. We can't say Maz had 6000 assists and that makes him a Hall of Famer. I think it is the lack of comparative measurements for fielding that makes people treat defense as if it is a skill only important for flash and not actually winning ballgames.

Defense is clearly not as important as hitting when it comes to winning the game. This isn't to say defense is important, but for most position players it does not make up even 20% of their total value. The game is half scoring rusn and half preventing runs. Just about the entire half of scoring runs is made up from the offensive numbers by position players, but when it comes to preventing runs, fielding is not even the most important part of that, pitching is. Fielding is probalby about one third of preventing runs, with pitching being two thirds. Thus if you were to make up a model of the game, what percent each factor is, hitting would be nearly 50%, with baserunning also being in there, but that is also part of position players' offensive numbers. Fielding would be slightly less than 15%. It just doesn't make any sense that fielding is as important, or even close to as important as, hitting.

[AlecBoy006]

Actually, when it comes to winning the game, I'd say Offense and Defense are equally important.

Offense: Puts you ahead to take the lead in a game.

Defense: Stops your opponent in its tracks.

Both of these are key elements to winning.

[Mad Guru]

Defense is clearly not as important as hitting when it comes to winning the game. This isn't to say defense is important, but for most position players it does not make up even 20% of their total value. The game is half scoring rusn and half preventing runs. Just about the entire half of scoring runs is made up from the offensive numbers by position players, but when it comes to preventing runs, fielding is not even the most important part of that, pitching is. Fielding is probalby about one third of preventing runs, with pitching being two thirds. Thus if you were to make up a model of the game, what percent each factor is, hitting would be nearly 50%, with baserunning also being in there, but that is also part of position players' offensive numbers. Fielding would be slightly less than 15%. It just doesn't make any sense that fielding is as important, or even close to as important as, hitting.

I didn't say fielding was either as important or close to as important. As you said, it is an ASPECT of preventing runs, just like hitting home runs is an ASPECT of hitting. Take away Killebrew's home runs, what do you have left? But you never hear that argument because we can say HR have the value of x runs produced or x win shares or x whatever "model" you want to use but we don't have the means of assessing the impact of fielding...yet. Once we do, it will be a lot easier to make arguments for or against someone's greatness (which never accomplishes anything other than arguing anyway).

Until then, Maz is great and Germany Smith should be inducted next. :)

[538280]

Actually, when it comes to winning the game, I'd say Offense and Defense are equally important.

Offense: Puts you ahead to take the lead in a game.

Defense: Stops your opponent in its tracks.

Both of these are key elements to winning.

We're not talking offense vs. defense, Alec, we're talking fielding vs. hitting. I would agree that offense and defense are of equal importance, scoring runs (offense) and preventing runs (defense) are of equal importance. But hitting makes up nearly all of scoring runs, while fielding is only part (and not even the most important part of) preventing runs.

[iPod]

Actually, when it comes to winning the game, I'd say Offense and Defense are equally important.

Offense: Puts you ahead to take the lead in a game.

Defense: Stops your opponent in its tracks.

Both of these are key elements to winning.

But there's a pitcher on defense, who saps a lot of the defensive credit the team gets away from the fielders.

[brett]

The point of Ozzie being a better player than Maz was made very nicely by iPod. Thus I don't understand this point, Alec. Would Ozzie be in the hall without his defense? No, but that doesn't change the fact that Ozzie is a more deserving hall of famer than Maz. Would McCovey be in the Hall without his homers? How about Greenberg? Foxx? Ott? Probably not. So what, they are all deserving hall of famers.

Ozzie is probably a totally average offensive player independent of his position given his OPS+ of 89, plus his steals, and baserunning, and the fact that he was also good in situations where he needed to sacrifice, and that, in my opinion, for mid level offensive players relative on base% is a little more important that slugging%.

That being said, Ozzie would probably statistically be a borderline hall of famer even if he had never won a gold glove, but just been omong the top 3-5 fielding shortstops every year.

I don't have a problem with Maz. His fielding stats are insane compared to others, and I think that second base was much more important in his time than today. His double play rate was incredible. The hall of fame does say that a player shouldn't get in based on a single event or season, but it certainly doesn't say that a single event can't be a factor, and his home run is one of the biggest in history. From a HO"F" point of view, it counts.

[OOSL]

Absolutely not, easily the worst HOF'er.

Nice guy, great glove, big homer, not a HOF'er.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Absolutely not, easily the worst HOF'er.

Nice guy, great glove, big homer, not a HOF'er.

Maz is nowhere near the "worst" HOFer.

George Kelly, Freddie Lindstrom, Chick Hafey, Jesse Haines, and Rube Marquard all roll over Maz for the contest of being the worst HOFer.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Let's Keltner List Maz:

Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

Of course not.

Was he the best player on his team?

Clemente and Stargell were better. Maz vied for the 3rd best player on the Pirates with various players. I'll give Maz 3rd billing; the guy who COULD have become possibly the BIGGEST star on the Pirates was shortstop Gene Alley, who had two super years, but never recovered from a 1967 shoulder injury.

Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

Mazeroski was probably the best second baseman in the NL from the time Robinson retired and Schoendienst faded. There were other guys that may have had better years than Maz, but none of them could sustain success.

Maz' real competition for best in the NL when he first came into baseball was from Johnny Temple. Temple was better in 1959; Maz probably better in 1958 if you give him credit for defense. (Temple was an excellent offensive second baseman who, if he had been less foul-tempered, and more focused, MIGHT have been a HOFer.)

There may have been years when Maz was the best second baseman in baseball, but he did not enjoy that distinction for an extended period of time. Fox was clearly the best when Maz came up. Maz MAY have been the best second baseman in baseball for a few years in the early sixties. It was a weak field, but I'll give him that.

Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

Yes, he did. Maz' best season was 1958. The Pirates, a perennial loser, finished in second place, making a huge leap forward.

Maz tended to have his better seasons when the Pirates were in contention. The Pirates returned to contention in 1965-66. Maz had a good season in 1965 and one of his best seasons in 1966.

Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

No, not really. Maz was unable to play regularly after age 32, due to injuries. He was clearly a backup player his last two years with the Bucs.

Is he the very best baseball player in history who was not in the Hall of Fame when he was inducted?

Of course not.

Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

No, they are not. Guys like Maz need extreme outside-the-books advantages to make the HOF (unusual defensive prowess, unique role as a team leader). Maz does have these qualifications, however. His case is much like Aparicio's and Maranville's.

Do the player’s numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

Maz meets 15.9 of the HOF standards; that would put him at the bottom of the HOF. HOF standards, however, are OFFENSIVELY driven, and the basis of Maz' enshrinement is overwhelming defense.

Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

There is evidence that Maz is the greatest defensive second baseman of all time. There is some evidence that Maz is the greatest defensive player at any position of all time. The evidence is based on fielding stats that are far more subjective than offensive stats.

At the time of his induction, was he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

No, he's not. Second base has more of a gray area than any other position. I would rate Grich, Doyle, Whitaker, Myer, and some others ahead of Maz.

How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

Maz never won an MVP award; the closest he got was 8th, in 1958. That was, IMO, his best season, but there were guys better.

How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?

Maz was an All-Star in 7 seasons. His all star selections do not correspond exactly to his best seasons, but that's about as many All Star seasons he really had. This was one of his stronger qualifications.

If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

Probably not, unless his defense counts for far more than I've valued it.

What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

Not that I know of.

Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider.

Yes. Maz was graceful in his fading away; he worked with young Dave Cash when he recognized that his legs would never again allow him to play regularly.

Maz' HOF election can only be justified if one can show the kind of extraordinary value for his defense that is hard to imagine. Maz would need to be the greatest defensive player ever, at any position, to be even a justifiable pick, upon closer examination.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Maz' real problem with the HOF is that a strong case can be made for Bobby Richardson for the HOF, if Maz is a HOFer. Check out the stats, the GG awards, and see if I'm wrong. Richardson retired in his prime while healthy; had he stayed in the game, his career would have had more value than Maz'. Richardson had much less power than Maz, but he left the game healthier, and had more left in the tank at age 31 than Maz did.

[Yankwood]

Let's face it. Without that one swing, he's just another good field-no hit 2nd baseman. Of course, that one swing is what legends are made of, so who knows? Perhaps that one swing, along with all the fielding accolades, is enough.

[nerfan]

Mazeroski is 760 FRAR- that's 76 wins above a replacement second baseman. By comparison, Nellie Fox is 59.2 wins above a replacement second baseman- and had a MUCH longer career (10349 PA to 8379 PA)

[AlecBoy006]

I agree Fox was better, but that doesn't mean Maz shouldn't be in.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Let's face it. Without that one swing, he's just another good field-no hit 2nd baseman. Of course, that one swing is what legends are made of, so who knows? Perhaps that one swing, along with all the fielding accolades, is enough.

I really don't think the "one swing" had much to do with Maz' selection. Bobby Thomson isn't in the HOF, and he had an even bigger HR. Joe Carter isn't going in any time soon, either.

Maz is in the HOF because of his standing as the greatest defensive player in the history of baseball (in the opinion of many). He always had his advocates, and he always had oodles of defense to sell. He was also a good guy, always, and that always helps. If you need every vote you can get, it's better not to be a jerk.

[Yankwood]

I really don't think the "one swing" had much to do with Maz' selection. Bobby Thomson isn't in the HOF, and he had an even bigger HR. Joe Carter isn't going in any time soon, either.

Maz is in the HOF because of his standing as the greatest defensive player in the history of baseball (in the opinion of many). He always had his advocates, and he always had oodles of defense to sell. He was also a good guy, always, and that always helps. If you need every vote you can get, it's better not to be a jerk.The Thomson- Mazeroski comparison makes no sense here since Maz had the clearly better career. The one swing was enough to put him in. Thomson's was not.

[HDH]

Its fair to say that Bill Mazeroski is in the HOF for his defense. He along with Bid McPhee are considered the greatest defensive 2B ever. I have no problem giving consideration for defensive greatness. That's why I agree with the election of SS Rabbitt Maranville, SS Ozzie Smith, and C Ray Schalk. However, if "defense only "is recognized for some players, why aren't great defensive players such as 3B Graig Nettles, Buddy Bell, Aurelio Rodriguez, and Doug DeCinces or 1B Kieth Hernandez, Ferris Fain, Joe Kuhel, and Vic Powers or even LP Jim Kaat also there? Certainly, there are many "offense only" type players in the HOF.

In truth, my opinion is that there should now be a defensive HOF.

[sonofkirby]

TFAM and I are going back and fourth on AIM about this.

I feel Maz should be in for the following reason.

1) I am a huge fan of GG's, but he played at arguably the third hardest position in the game.

2) If he was a first baseman, I'd say no. Now, I can support Hernandez, but he had some offense too.

3) People say no Maz because of his offense. Ok, I dare you to tell me Robinson and Smith are HOF'ers without their defense.

If Maz is a HOF worthy inductee, then so is my favorite 2B Frank White!

Frank vs Maz
G-2324/2163
H- 2006/2016
2B- 407/294
3B- 58/62
HR- 160/138
RBI- 886/853
R- 912/769
SB- 178/27
BA- .255/.260
OBP- .293/.299
SLG- .383/.367
TB- 3009/2848
GG- 8/8
AS- 5/7
SS- 1/0
Top 10 Lg. MVP- 0/1
Other- White has an ALCS MVP, Maz has a very famous postseason HR

NOW, do I really think that Maz (or Frank) is a HOF worthy candidate? NO, not really. White was one of my favorite players growing up, was a big part of those great Royals teams of the 70's and 80's, was a great fielder, and a class act, much like Maz was to the Pirates in the 50's and 60's. But they are not HOF guys. The standards have been lowered often by the VC with guys campaigning for their fellow cronies to get in. Is Maz in the same level as Hornsby, Morgan, Sandberg ? We should have very high expectation for the HOF. There a ton of guys out there that had great, long careers but shouldn't get into the HOF. Like you, I love Gold Gloves. Fielding is a great skill and important to a success of a ballclub. No doubts there. But when there have been other players that had great fielding and great offense for their posistion, then the bar has been raised and others playing that posistion need to be closer to that bar.

[Yankwood]

If Maz is a HOF worthy inductee, then so is my favorite 2B Frank White!

Frank vs Maz
G-2324/2163
H- 2006/2016
2B- 407/294
3B- 58/62
HR- 160/138
RBI- 886/853
R- 912/769
SB- 178/27
BA- .255/.260
OBP- .293/.299
SLG- .383/.367
TB- 3009/2848
GG- 8/8
AS- 5/7
SS- 1/0
Top 10 Lg. MVP- 0/1
Other- White has an ALCS MVP, Maz has a very famous postseason HR

NOW, do I really think that Maz (or Frank) is a HOF worthy candidate? NO, not really. White was one of my favorite players growing up, was a big part of those great Royals teams of the 70's and 80's, was a great fielder, and a class act, much like Maz was to the Pirates in the 50's and 60's. But they are not HOF guys. The standards have been lowered often by the VC with guys campaigning for their fellow cronies to get in. Is Maz in the same level as Hornsby, Morgan, Sandberg ? We should have very high expectation for the HOF. There a ton of guys out there that had great, long careers but shouldn't get into the HOF. Like you, I love Gold Gloves. Fielding is a great skill and important to a success of a ballclub. No doubts there. But when there have been other players that had great fielding and great offense for their posistion, then the bar has been raised and others playing that posistion need to be closer to that bar.If Frank White hit "the home run" instead of Maz, he's probably in the Hall and Maz is out. It's the legendary capper to the very good career.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If Maz is a HOF worthy inductee, then so is my favorite 2B Frank White!

Frank vs Maz
G-2324/2163
H- 2006/2016
2B- 407/294
3B- 58/62
HR- 160/138
RBI- 886/853
R- 912/769
SB- 178/27
BA- .255/.260
OBP- .293/.299
SLG- .383/.367
TB- 3009/2848
GG- 8/8
AS- 5/7
SS- 1/0
Top 10 Lg. MVP- 0/1
Other- White has an ALCS MVP, Maz has a very famous postseason HR

I rate White higher on career value; Maz higher on peak.

White was able to stay in the game much longer than Maz. White got a later start, however, although some of that was due to playing behind Cookie Rojas, who had some good years with the Royals.