Rizzuto and the HoF

[EvanAparra]

Im sure this has been covered before, but can someone explain to me why Rizzuto (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=rizzuph01) was inducted? Was it popularity? Defense? What am i missing here?

[JimAbbott]

The guy don't belong that is for certain

[oscargamblesfro]

Well basically he played for the most successful team at a time when even if they didn't win the whole thing they were at the very worst in the hunt. He had lots of famous teammates, and was very well known himself, and a likeable fellow. He stayed in the limelight as their announcer, did commercials, showed up at old timer things. He was a good player, even a very good player, but clearly not true HOF material. Had he played for the Browns or Senators or some team like that he'd never have been inducted. He was a fine defensive shortstop, had a great year in '50, but I think it's the popularity and serious lobbying by some influential and powerful figures that got him in...

[KCGHOST]

He stayed visible in the game for 40+ years after he retired as a Yankees broadcaster. Even, then he had no chance, until Pee Wee Reese got elected. So many people link those two inextricably in their minds that there was something of a "whatthehell" when Reese was elected and not Rizzuto. Even Rizzuto publicly complained about it.

Then Ted Williams, a member of the VC, spoke out in Rizzuto's favor, and that was that.

I am not a big fan of Rizzuto's and I strongly disagree when his fans argue that he was as good as Reese. However, Rizzuto had a fine career and was a very good player.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He stayed visible in the game for 40+ years after he retired as a Yankees broadcaster. Even, then he had no chance, until Pee Wee Reese got elected. So many people link those two inextricably in their minds that there was something of a "whatthehell" when Reese was elected and not Rizzuto. Even Rizzuto publicly complained about it.

Then Ted Williams, a member of the VC, spoke out in Rizzuto's favor, and that was that.

I am not a big fan of Rizzuto's and I strongly disagree when his fans argue that he was as good as Reese. However, Rizzuto had a fine career and was a very good player.

Because Reese and Rizzuto played in the same city and were covered by the same sportswriters; because they played against each other in the WS more than once, because they were both short shortstops, they were linked together in the public mind as two players of the same type. Reese, however, hit 126 career HRs to Rizzuto's 38. Rizzuto was also a more patient hitter. Although the Scooter and Pee Wee were often mentioned in the same sentence, sabermetrics has brought to light the fact that Reese is a clearly superior player to Rizzuto and the two are not truly comparable.

In addition, Rizzuto's totals are bulked up by his remarkable 1950 season. In truth, 1950 stands out as a fluke season; it is clearly out of context with the rest of Rizzuto's career. Reese's 1949 and 1954 seasons are probably his best and second best seasons, and they are recognizable as such, but neither stand out in the context of his career as flukes.

Rizzuto was not a good pick for the HOF. Rizzuto, IMO, ranks below Concepcion, Trammell, Travis, Campeneris, Chapman, Stephens, and maybe Fletcher and Bartell. I wouldn't put all of those guys in the HOF, but it goes to show that Rizzuto was hardly at the front of the line.

Still, Rizzuto is hardly the worst player in the HOF. He's in the lower 25 percent, but he's not at the bottom. I doubt he's the worst SS in the HOF; Bancroft and Jackson loom as worse, maybe Maranville. (Maranville had a lifetime OWP of .439; Rizzuto's was an even .500.)

He shouldn't be there, but he's there, and I'm not aching to rip out his plaque.

[oscargamblesfro]

Because Reese and Rizzuto played in the same city and were covered by the same sportswriters; because they played against each other in the WS more than once, because they were both short shortstops, they were linked together in the public mind as two players of the same type. Reese, however, hit 126 career HRs to Rizzuto's 38. Rizzuto was also a more patient hitter. Although the Scooter and Pee Wee were often mentioned in the same sentence, sabermetrics has brought to light the fact that Reese is a clearly superior player to Rizzuto and the two are not truly comparable.

In addition, Rizzuto's totals are bulked up by his remarkable 1950 season. In truth, 1950 stands out as a fluke season; it is clearly out of context with the rest of Rizzuto's career. Reese's 1949 and 1954 seasons are probably his best and second best seasons, and they are recognizable as such, but neither stand out in the context of his career as flukes.

Rizzuto was not a good pick for the HOF. Rizzuto, IMO, ranks below Concepcion, Trammell, Travis, Campeneris, Chapman, Stephens, and maybe Fletcher and Bartell. I wouldn't put all of those guys in the HOF, but it goes to show that Rizzuto was hardly at the front of the line.

Still, Rizzuto is hardly the worst player in the HOF. He's in the lower 25 percent, but he's not at the bottom. I doubt he's the worst SS in the HOF; Bancroft and Jackson loom as worse, maybe Maranville. (Maranville had a lifetime OWP of .439; Rizzuto's was an even .500.)

He shouldn't be there, but he's there, and I'm not aching to rip out his plaque.
The 5 'worst' MLB shortstops in no particular order in the Hall appear to be Bancroft, Jackson, Rizzuto, Maranville , Tinker and then who...? Wallace? Somebody else?

[Fuzzy Bear]

The 5 'worst' MLB shortstops in no particular order in the Hall appear to be Bancroft, Jackson, Rizzuto, Maranville , Tinker and then who...? Wallace? Somebody else?

I rate Tinker and Wallace ahead of Rizzuto. I go back and forth on Maranville; he may have been the best defensive shortstop of all time. His offensive winning percentage was a mere .439, so if he's really a HOFer, his glove had to be something else.

Rizzuto had a good glove, but there is some question as to whether or not he was a real Gold Glove shortstop. Marion was the best defensive shortstop of his era, and Boudreau and Reese were arguably better as well.

[ElHalo]

The 5 'worst' MLB shortstops in no particular order in the Hall appear to be Bancroft, Jackson, Rizzuto, Maranville , Tinker and then who...? Wallace? Somebody else?

I'm so confused that people put guys like Bobby Wallace and Luis Aparicio ahead of Rabbit Maranville. Why? Maranville was Ozzie Smith before there was Ozzie Smith, was one of the most popular players of his time, and was genuinely considered a true "superstar" despite his offense (seriously, check his MVP votes). The guy's defense was literally awe-inspiring to people who watched him play. Leave him alone. The best way I can describe it is this: Remember how, a few years ago, people used to come to the ballpark early just to watch Mark McGwire take batting practice? People used to come out to the games early just to watch Rabbit Maranville take infield grounders. And he wasn't on 'roids.

Secondarily, the whole Rizzuto thing is tired. Yes, he's not really a deserving pick, but no, he's not the worst player in the Hall, and no, he's not one of the ten worst. He was a fantastic, phenomenal defensive player who had a few good offensive seasons, and contributed to the game as one of the top announcers ever for decades. He's not Honus Wagner, but he's not a glaringly awful choice either.

In my view, ranking HoF SS's:

1. Wagner
2. Vaughan
3. Cronin
4. Jennings
5. Appling
6. Banks
7. Davis
8. Boudreau
9. Smith
10. Maranville
11. Sewell
12. Rizzuto
13. Reese
14. Wallace
15. Tinker
16. Jackson
17. Bancroft

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why would anyone rate Rizzuto ahead of Reese?

Reese's power stats are SO MUCH BETTER than Rizzuto's that they really can't be eliminated by giving Rizzuto credit for his ballpark, etc.

[EvanAparra]

I'm so confused that people put guys like Bobby Wallace and Luis Aparicio ahead of Rabbit Maranville. Why? Maranville was Ozzie Smith before there was Ozzie Smith, was one of the most popular players of his time, and was genuinely considered a true "superstar" despite his offense (seriously, check his MVP votes). The guy's defense was literally awe-inspiring to people who watched him play. Leave him alone. The best way I can describe it is this: Remember how, a few years ago, people used to come to the ballpark early just to watch Mark McGwire take batting practice? People used to come out to the games early just to watch Rabbit Maranville take infield grounders. And he wasn't on 'roids.

Secondarily, the whole Rizzuto thing is tired. Yes, he's not really a deserving pick, but no, he's not the worst player in the Hall, and no, he's not one of the ten worst. He was a fantastic, phenomenal defensive player who had a few good offensive seasons, and contributed to the game as one of the top announcers ever for decades. He's not Honus Wagner, but he's not a glaringly awful choice either.

In my view, ranking HoF SS's:

1. Wagner
2. Vaughan
3. Cronin
4. Jennings
5. Appling
6. Banks
7. Davis
8. Boudreau
9. Smith
10. Maranville
11. Sewell
12. Rizzuto
13. Reese
14. Wallace
15. Tinker
16. Jackson
17. Bancroft


Yeah, Rizzuto ahead of Reese? Why?

[ElHalo]

Yeah, Rizzuto ahead of Reese? Why?

Reese was the better offensive player, clearly, but not by a lot. 93 vs. 99 OPS+ isn't a ginormous difference; sizable, sure, but it's not the world. But while Reese was a very good defender, Rizzuto was, by all accounts, an absolutely outstanding defender, one of the best around. I'm not saying it's a walk, but I give the edge to Rizzuto on the D, since the offense isn't a chasm.

[538280]

How exactly is Rabbit Maranville even close to the offensive equal of Ozzie Smith? Let's just say I don't get that at all. Maranville basically did nothing good offensively. HIs BA/OBP/SLG are all well below league average (82 OPS+). He was not a particularly fast runner nor did he steal many bases for his time.

Then we got to Ozzie Smith. Ozzie actually could be a very useful offensive player, especially in his better years. His OBP is above average for his career (.337 versus .326 league), and he had some years (1986, 1987, 1988, 1991, 1992), when his OBP was actually very good. He stole 580 career bases, and did this at a very good percentage (79%). To me at least, Ozzie Smith is a slightly above average offensive performer, and well above average in his best years, including EVERYTHING he did.

I just don't see how Maranville is even close to Smith offensively, and defensively, while Rabbit was certainly one of the all time greats, Ozzie Smith is #1. Not really comparable players IMO. The comparison I hear every once in a while that if Ozzie is in how can you keep out Rabbit is invalid.

I would consider Maranville just about equal in value to Aparicio. Neither was really good at anything offensively (well Luis was MUCH better at BA, 102 relative to 92). Their OPS+ is the same though, Maranville does better in isolated plate discipline and power. Aparicio was the much better baserunner, Maranville the better fielder, though Aparicio was no slouch. Fielding is more important than baserunning, so I'd call them about equal, I'm not really sold that either truly belongs in the HOF.

[538280]

Reese was the better offensive player, clearly, but not by a lot. 93 vs. 99 OPS+ isn't a ginormous difference; sizable, sure, but it's not the world. But while Reese was a very good defender, Rizzuto was, by all accounts, an absolutely outstanding defender, one of the best around. I'm not saying it's a walk, but I give the edge to Rizzuto on the D, since the offense isn't a chasm.

Uhh....ignoring longevity in the Reese/Rizzuto comparison is kind of like ignoring the elephant in the room. Reese played about 500 more games, and they both missed the war years. Not to mention the effect playing more games has on Reese's rate stats. I'd call Rizzuto the better defender, but that not really close to offsetting Reese' longevity and offensive advantage.

[EvanAparra]

How exactly is Rabbit Maranville even close to the offensive equal of Ozzie Smith? Let's just say I don't get that at all. Maranville basically did nothing good offensively. HIs BA/OBP/SLG are all well below league average (82 OPS+). He was not a particularly fast runner nor did he steal many bases for his time.

Then we got to Ozzie Smith. Ozzie actually could be a very useful offensive player, especially in his better years. His OBP is above average for his career (.337 versus .326 league), and he had some years (1986, 1987, 1988, 1991, 1992), when his OBP was actually very good. He stole 580 career bases, and did this at a very good percentage (79%). To me at least, Ozzie Smith is a slightly above average offensive performer, and well above average in his best years, including EVERYTHING he did.

I just don't see how Maranville is even close to Smith offensively, and defensively, while Rabbit was certainly one of the all time greats, Ozzie Smith is #1. Not really comparable players IMO. The comparison I hear every once in a while that if Ozzie is in how can you keep out Rabbit is invalid.

I would consider Maranville just about equal in value to Aparicio. Neither was really good at anything offensively (well Luis was MUCH better at BA, 102 relative to 92). Their OPS+ is the same though, Maranville does better in isolated plate discipline and power. Aparicio was the much better baserunner, Maranville the better fielder, though Aparicio was no slouch. Fielding is more important than baserunning, so I'd call them about equal, I'm not really sold that either truly belongs in the HOF.

I didnt see where he compared the two offensively...i think he meant soley defense.

[538280]

1.Honus Wagner
2.Pop Lloyd
3.Cal Ripken
4.Alex Rodriguez
5.Arky Vaughan
6.Robin Yount
7.Barry Larkin
8.Luke Appling
9.Willie Wells
10.Joe Cronin
11.Alan Trammell
12.Ozzie Smith
13.Ernie Banks
14.Lou Boudreau
15.Bill Dahlen
16.Jim Fregosi
17.George Davis
18.Derek Jeter
19.Hughie Jennings
20.Dobie Moore
21.Tony Fernandez
22.Pee Wee Reese
23.Dave Concepcion
24.Bert Campaneris
25.Vern Stephens

To me at least Tony Fernandez and Pee Wee Reese are dead ringers. Reese was thought to be better, but looking at their records it's hard to say why...probably Fernandez being a hard to connect with Latino in Toronto had a lot to do with that. Reese lasted longer, but Fernandez played against tougher competition, was probably better defenisvely, and had a much better BA. Reese walked more, but I'd say Fernandez was probably more valuable offensively.

[538280]

I didnt see where he compared the two offensively...i think he meant soley defense.

He said Maranville was Ozzie Smith before Ozzie Smith, which implies he thinks their value is just about the same. I don't see how that's true, even if you think their defense is equal.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Maranville's OWP was .443 lifetime, or something like that. It was under .450. His BA was 21 points under league for his career, and it wasn't that good in his best years. He was a tremendous defensive shortstop, and if he was the best glove ever, well, he has a case. He was also traded frequently, and often WITH another player. There was never a HOFer in any trade involving Maranville. He also spent most of 1927 in the minors. That's not something I normally associate with a HOFer who's not coming back from an injury; a mid-career return to the minor leagues.

Maranville was a unique character, one of a kind. He was famous, and he had a following. He had a lot of real advantages that were outside the stats, starting with his defense, evaluation of which is more subjective than evaluation of offense. I like Maranville, and he may well deserve the HOF. He was elected by the WRITERS, on top of it all, and not the VC. I will say, however, that most players with Maranville's qualifications have to buy a ticket to get into the HOF.

[leecemark]

--Maranville was probably the most famous defensive player in history, at least up to Ozzie Smith. Defense got more attention in Maranville's day and Rabbit was a major star.
--I don't know that I'd call his minor league season in 1927 mid-career either. Maranville was 35 and his heavy drinking had taken a toll. Getting sober got him back to the bigs where he was able to hold down a regular job for several more years in spite of being a terrible hitter, which is quite a tribute to his glove.
--Its also fair to point out that many stars (including a fair number of Hall of Famers) when back to the minors and continued their career back in the day (with 35 not being too young to have that happen). Maranville is unusual in that respect because he returned to the majors, not because he went down to the minors.

[jalbright]

Maranville's OBP was .443 lifetime, or something like that. It was under .450. His BA was 21 points under league for his career, and it wasn't that good in his best years.

Maranville's OBP was .318, which, according to baseball-reference.com was 20 points below the average for his career. His slugging was .340, 47 points below the average according to that same source. His career OPS+ is 82. He had to have been one heck of a glove man to get 11,256 plate appearances with that bat. The only real question in my mind is whether or not he was good enough with the glove to make him a HOF caliber shortstop.

However, he's definitely in the top six in plate appearances while playing short. He loses out to Aparicio, who never played the field anywhere but short. But Wagner and Yount played even more at positions other than short than Maranville, probably enough to drop them behind his PA as a shortstop. Ozzie might catch him, and I think Ripken is far enough ahead to keep the lead. However, he's obviously in an elite group of shortstops in terms of longevity.

Jim Albright

[SABR Matt]

A guy like Maranville (or Rizzuto for that matter) would not be able to keep his job today...the comparables to Maranville these days are guys like Neifi Perez and Rey Ordonez...all glove minimal hit SSs become utility infielders...they don't start. Maranville and to a lesser extent Rizzuto hint at the weakness of the leagues in which they played...when talent was more scarce, you took what you could get...if that means you had a brilliant fielder who couldn't hit a lick, you were doing better than most.

[jalbright]

A guy like Maranville (or Rizzuto for that matter) would not be able to keep his job today...the comparables to Maranville these days are guys like Neifi Perez and Rey Ordonez...all glove minimal hit SSs become utility infielders...they don't start. Maranville and to a lesser extent Rizzuto hint at the weakness of the leagues in which they played...when talent was more scarce, you took what you could get...if that means you had a brilliant fielder who couldn't hit a lick, you were doing better than most.

I wouldn't argue he would have had nearly as long a career today, but I think Maranville would indeed have had a decent career. He came up at age 20 and was unproductive in a little over 100 AB. Nothing unusual there. He became a regular the next year and had an 81 OPS+, not bad for a developing gloveman. From age 22 to 32, he played regularly in every year but 1918 (I'd guess WW I) and posted only one year under an OPS+ of 86, and two full time seasons over 100 in OPS+. He slipped into a part time role in 1925 at age 33, apparently due to his drinking. It took him a couple of years to tame that problem, and that may have been the end for him in today's game. Really, Ozzie Smith's career path isn't exactly overwhelmingly better than Maranville's until about age 33. Ozzie aged far better, surely in no small part because Maranville was an alcoholic and Ozzie wasn't.

Jim Albright

[64Cards]

I'd like to think Phil made it for his voice-over contribution to the classic Meatloaf tune from about 1978, "Paradise By the Dashboard Light." Using baseball as a metaphor for teeanage sex, the Scooter describes a player getting to 1B, 2nd, 3rd base before getting stopped before making it home...Phil claims he just read the script, didn't understand what it was about.

Does he think we're all a bunch of huckleberries?:rolleyes:

[ElHalo]

He said Maranville was Ozzie Smith before Ozzie Smith, which implies he thinks their value is just about the same. I don't see how that's true, even if you think their defense is equal.

Maranville wasn't much of a hitter at all; my point was that Maranville, as Mark said, was the biggest defensive star in baseball history. He was a superstar based on defense, much like Smith.

[SABR Matt]

I wouldn't argue he would have had nearly as long a career today, but I think Maranville would indeed have had a decent career. He came up at age 20 and was unproductive in a little over 100 AB. Nothing unusual there. He became a regular the next year and had an 81 OPS+, not bad for a developing gloveman. From age 22 to 32, he played regularly in every year but 1918 (I'd guess WW I) and posted only one year under an OPS+ of 86, and two full time seasons over 100 in OPS+. He slipped into a part time role in 1925 at age 33, apparently due to his drinking. It took him a couple of years to tame that problem, and that may have been the end for him in today's game. Really, Ozzie Smith's career path isn't exactly overwhelmingly better than Maranville's until about age 33. Ozzie aged far better, surely in no small part because Maranville was an alcoholic and Ozzie wasn't.

Jim Albright

Also because Ozzie had some hitting talent and he worked very hard no cultivating it.

[ElHalo]

A guy like Maranville (or Rizzuto for that matter) would not be able to keep his job today...the comparables to Maranville these days are guys like Neifi Perez and Rey Ordonez...all glove minimal hit SSs become utility infielders...they don't start. Maranville and to a lesser extent Rizzuto hint at the weakness of the leagues in which they played...when talent was more scarce, you took what you could get...if that means you had a brilliant fielder who couldn't hit a lick, you were doing better than most.

I really think it's more a matter of changing theories as to what makes a great baseball team. Some guys who would have been superstars today never got a sniff because the attitudes of the day were different. George Stone was a superstar hitter who couldn't hold a major league gig because teams didn't like his defense; today he'd been tolerated in left field to get his bat in the lineup, Manny Ramirez style (though of course he was nowhere near the hitter Manny is). People talk a good game about defense and fundamentals today, but if a guy can hit, he's getting in the lineup. That wasn't the case in previous generations. Managers and owners cared about getting guys who were good bunters, who could field their positions, who could put the ball in play, and didn't focus as much on guys who could walk and hit homers. Today the pendulum has shifted in terms of focus, but that in and of itself says nothing about the quality of play.

Remember that Ty Cobb, in the 50's, said that Phil Rizzuto was one of only two "modern" players who could have hacked it in his day. When managers genuinely, honestly focus on fundamentals, guys who are great at fundamentals are going to get roster spots. That doesn't happen so much these days.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Maranville's OBP was .318, which, according to baseball-reference.com was 20 points below the average for his career. His slugging was .340, 47 points below the average according to that same source. His career OPS+ is 82. He had to have been one heck of a glove man to get 11,256 plate appearances with that bat. The only real question in my mind is whether or not he was good enough with the glove to make him a HOF caliber shortstop.

I meant to say OWP, for Offensive Winning Percentage. I've edited the previous post.

Maranville's OBP was mediocre, and not something that compensated for his BA. He's in the HOF almost entirely on the strength of his glove and his uniqueness. If he were any less memorable than he was, for various reasons, he well might not even be a guy people would start a thread here about.

[ElHalo]

Maranville's OBP was mediocre, and not something that compensated for his BA. He's in the HOF almost entirely on the strength of his glove and his uniqueness. If he were any less memorable than he was, for various reasons, he well might not even be a guy people would start a thread here about.

He is in the HoF almost solely on the strength of his defense... the same can be said for Bill Mazeroski, Ray Schalk, perhaps Max Carey. With so many players in the Hall solely on strength of their offense, is that necessarily a bad thing?

[538280]

He is in the HoF almost solely on the strength of his defense... the same can be said for Bill Mazeroski, Ray Schalk, perhaps Max Carey. With so many players in the Hall solely on strength of their offense, is that necessarily a bad thing?

Yes. Offense is MUCH more important than defense and you know that, that is even true for key defensive positions. Guys like McCovey, in there solely for offense, did much more for their teams than guys like Maz, in there solely for defense and shouldn't even be in there. Max Carey actually made a solid offensive contribution, plenty enough along with his defense to make him a HOFer. I don't think the same can be said for Maranville.

[jalbright]

Yes. Offense is MUCH more important than defense and you know that, that is even true for key defensive positions.

If you're saying that for HOF caliber players, I can buy it. But even if Maz wasn't HOF caliber because of his offense, he was still worth at least as much as an average second baseman due to his defense. The Pirates didn't have a hole at second when he was with them, and that certainly is quite important.

Jim Albright

[ChrisLDuncan]

Well Rizzuto was a likeable player who played on a lot of great teams he "was in the group" the writers liked him...played hard. They inducted him so that he could enjoy it while he was alive.

[AlecBoy006]

Defense > Offense.

Offense may get you runs, but what good is it if defense doesn't prevent it?

[VIBaseball]

Defense > Offense.

Offense may get you runs, but what good is it if defense doesn't prevent it?

That strikes me as a simplistic generalization -- unless you're extending the definition of defense to include pitching.

If you'll now permit me a generalization that I hope is more accurate, good defense is about not giving away runs. It's a factor at the margin that can make the difference in winning or losing several games a year -- whereas offensive production wins or loses a lot more than that. The ratio of earned runs to unearned runs tells us a lot.

[538280]

If you're saying that for HOF caliber players, I can buy it. But even if Maz wasn't HOF caliber because of his offense, he was still worth at least as much as an average second baseman due to his defense. The Pirates didn't have a hole at second when he was with them, and that certainly is quite important.

Jim Albright

I am just saying that for HOF caliber players. Maz was a very good player, above average for sure, and his teams definitely weren't huritng with him. He just isn't quite a HOFer IMO.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

--Maranville was probably the most famous defensive player in history, at least up to Ozzie Smith. Defense got more attention in Maranville's day and Rabbit was a major star.
--I don't know that I'd call his minor league season in 1927 mid-career either. Maranville was 35 and his heavy drinking had taken a toll. Getting sober got him back to the bigs where he was able to hold down a regular job for several more years in spite of being a terrible hitter, which is quite a tribute to his glove.
--Its also fair to point out that many stars (including a fair number of Hall of Famers) when back to the minors and continued their career back in the day (with 35 not being too young to have that happen). Maranville is unusual in that respect because he returned to the majors, not because he went down to the minors.
Didn't Marty Marion have a big time reputation as a great glove as well?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Didn't Marty Marion have a big time reputation as a great glove as well?

Marion won an MVP, almost entirely with his glove. He's not in the HOF because he had a relatively short career, espcecially compared to Maranville, and some of his career transcended the war years, when the competition was less strenuous.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Rizzuto is another ridiculous selection by the old Veteran's Committee. Rizzuto never got close to be elected by the baseball writers. :rolleyes:

[Fuzzy Bear]

Rizzuto is another ridiculous selection by the old Veteran's Committee. Rizzuto never got close to be elected by the baseball writers. :rolleyes:

I would have rather have seen the VC tap Cecil Travis or Vern Stephens, but Rizzuto was famous to begin with. Pre-existing fame is considered a qualification by some, and has some effect on the process.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I would have rather have seen the VC tap Cecil Travis or Vern Stephens, but Rizzuto was famous to begin with. Pre-existing fame is considered a qualification by some, and has some effect on the process.
Rizzuto got in to the HoF because he has enough buddies on the Verteran's Committee to vote him in.

[ElHalo]

I would have rather have seen the VC tap Cecil Travis or Vern Stephens, but Rizzuto was famous to begin with. Pre-existing fame is considered a qualification by some, and has some effect on the process.

And in a kind of overall-outlook, his 40 years as a tremendous broadcaster certainly didn't hurt... kind of like the way that an almost-HoF'er like Joe Torre could be pushed over the edge by a solid career as a manager; take the two in tandem and you've got a HoF'er.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

And in a kind of overall-outlook, his 40 years as a tremendous broadcaster certainly didn't hurt... kind of like the way that an almost-HoF'er like Joe Torre could be pushed over the edge by a solid career as a manager; take the two in tandem and you've got a HoF'er.
I think Torre has done enough just as a manager to merit HoF induction. I just checked and I didn't realize that Torre is only 27 wins short of 2,000. He would be just the 10th manager to do so. With two and a half good seasons he could be as high as 5th on the all-time list.

1) Connie Mack 3731
2) John McGraw 2763
3) Tony LaRussa 2297
4) Sparky Anderson 2194
5) Bobby Cox 2171
6) Bucky Harris 2157
7) Joe McCarthy 2125
8) Walter Alston 2040
9) Leo Durocher 2008
10) Joe Torre 1973

[DoubleX]

I think Torre has done enough just as a manager to merit HoF induction. I just checked and I didn't realize that Torre is only 27 wins short of 2,000. He would be just the 10th manager to do so. With two and a half good seasons he could be as high as 5th on the all-time list.

1) Connie Mack 3731
2) John McGraw 2763
3) Tony LaRussa 2297
4) Sparky Anderson 2194
5) Bobby Cox 2171
6) Bucky Harris 2157
7) Joe McCarthy 2125
8) Walter Alston 2040
9) Leo Durocher 2008
10) Joe Torre 1973

He probably wouldn't be able to get as high as 5th because the no. 5 guy, Bobby Cox, is still managing and moving up the chart as well. By early next year, the no. 5 guy will almost certainly be Sparky Anderson. Torre is currently 221 wins behind Anderson, so it would take two amazing seasons to get there in two years. I don't think it's going to happen.

[plask_stirlac]

Defense > Offense.

Offense may get you runs, but what good is it if defense doesn't prevent it?

Offense gets the team runs, it's the only way. Defense, once the ball is in play, is not the only way to prevent runs. Defense may prevent some runs, or it could make very little difference if the pitcher is wild and hanging balls for homers or frozen ropes.

The 2003 Mariners are noted for their defense anchoring a 93 win season, but it still would have been a boost to get Thome for his offense.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

He probably wouldn't be able to get as high as 5th because the no. 5 guy, Bobby Cox, is still managing and moving up the chart as well. By early next year, the no. 5 guy will almost certainly be Sparky Anderson. Torre is currently 221 wins behind Anderson, so it would take two amazing seasons to get there in two years. I don't think it's going to happen.
I did say 2 and a half seasons which would be a .546 winning percentage over 405 games to catch Sparky. You don't think Torre will be managing much longer? Do you think he's done enough as a manager to merit HoF induction?

[AlecBoy006]

2005 Chicago White Sux- not alot of hitting but dropdead pitching.

[ElHalo]

I did say 2 and a half seasons which would be a .546 winning percentage over 405 games to catch Sparky. You don't think Torre will be managing much longer? Do you think he's done enough as a manager to merit HoF induction?

I think he's absolutely done enough to be a HoF manager. He's signed for one more season, and I do believe the Yanks will have a new manager in 2008 (Don Mattingly had the inside track for the last few years, but all signs are currently pointing towards Joe Girardi).

[DoubleX]

I did say 2 and a half seasons which would be a .546 winning percentage over 405 games to catch Sparky. You don't think Torre will be managing much longer? Do you think he's done enough as a manager to merit HoF induction?

Didn't see the 2 and a half, so my apologies. I have my doubts whether he'll stick around past next year. Another poor postseason showing, or no postseason at all, and I think that will be the end of Torre's run as manager of the Yankees. Last October, here in New York, it really did seem like Torre was done in the days after the ALDS loss. Even if he does come back, I wonder how much longer he wants to keep managing. He's said at times in the past that the desire isn't what it once was, but he also seemed reinvigorated in the past couple of years, perhaps due to the rare influx of younger players on the Yankees. For a manager, I would think it's got to be more fun managing young guys who bring energy and enthusiasm and athleticism, rather than a lineup of surly veterans with big egos all trying to be the superstar. But Torre turns 67 this year and he does have a young child at home that he would probably like to spend more time with. So I don't really see him managing the Yankees for much longer and I think the team is already planning for the future as it has both Don Mattingly and Joe Girardi nearby to take the reins when the time comes.

As for whether he's a Hall of Famer based on his managing career, I think so. Granted, he's been fortunate to manage high payroll teams, but the Yankees during their four championship years didn't spend nearly like they're spending now, as they were very close to the pack every year back then and were even behind the Orioles in '98 when they won all those games. Of course, it helps to have a high payroll, but that doesn't always mean success - look at the New York Rangers and Knicks in recent years, and even the Yankees since 2001 when their spending really started getting out of control.

Nevertheless, if it were up to me, I'd probably have put him in as a player by now anyway. He's borderline, but I think he did just enough, consider he played C and 3B, to just get over the line.

[538280]

And in a kind of overall-outlook, his 40 years as a tremendous broadcaster certainly didn't hurt... kind of like the way that an almost-HoF'er like Joe Torre could be pushed over the edge by a solid career as a manager; take the two in tandem and you've got a HoF'er.

I don't get how those two cases (Rizzuto and Torre) are really parallel. Yeah, Rizzuto was a pretty good player, but aside from the fame he garnered from being the guy who "did the little things" on great Yankee teams, I just don't see what makes him anywhere near the player Joe Torre was. Yeah, he was an awesome defensive shortstop, but Torre was a catcher for much of his career, even if he wasn't a good one, so he's not really hurting defensively. Rizzuto has a big defensive advantage still, but for position players hitting is still the most important part of the game, and Torre was a really good hitter, a MUCH better one than Rizzuto. Torre hit for a high average, had power, and walked a decent amount. Torre was considered a big star in his day too. He was one of the best power hitting catchers of all time when he first came up with the Braves (his 36 HR season with Milwaukee was one of the best power seasons from a catcher to that point). Seriously, how many primary catchers can you think of up to then who hit 20 HRs in 4 striaght seasons like Torre did 1964-1967? I'd bet Torre was the first (EDIT: I looked into it a bit more and I found Bill Dickey did it 1936-1939, though that was undoubtedly with a lot of help from YS's short right field porch, Dickey was perhaps helped by that more than any player in history).

Seriously, though, I think Torre, even if he never managed a game, should really be in the HOF. With his managing he should be a no questions asked lock IMO. As far as the managing to broadcasting parallel, I just don't see how it's the same. Perhaps Rizzuto deserves a little extra credit for being an annoucer for so long, but how can you claim that that's the same as another guy managing a very successful team? Which is harder? Which really does more for the game/his team? I think broadcasting may be a nice little extra note on the resume but if you've managed and especially done it as successfully as Torre has I think that's a MUCH biggger credential than any broadcasting can ever be.

[DoubleX]

Seriously, though, I think Torre, even if he never managed a game, should really be in the HOF. With his managing he should be a no questions asked lock IMO. As far as the managing to broadcasting parallel, I just don't see how it's the same. Perhaps Rizzuto deserves a little extra credit for being an annoucer for so long, but how can you claim that that's the same as another guy managing a very successful team? Which is harder? Which really does more for the game/his team? I think broadcasting may be a nice little extra note on the resume but if you've managed and especially done it as successfully as Torre has I think that's a MUCH biggger credential than any broadcasting can ever be.

Plus, the Hall has a separate award for broadcasting anyway - the Frick Award, and it has acknowledged several ex-players that spent decades in the announcing booth (Joe Garagiola, Bob Uecker, Jerry Coleman).

[ElHalo]

Plus, the Hall has a separate award for broadcasting anyway - the Frick Award, and it has acknowledged several ex-players that spent decades in the announcing booth (Joe Garagiola, Bob Uecker, Jerry Coleman).

Garagiola was a decent backup catcher for a few years; the other guys were pretty terrible. Phil Rizzuto was a five time all star who probably deserved it every time; while not a surefire lock HoF'er, or anything close, he was still a very good player (call him roughly equal to Omar Vizquel... bit better defense and better hitter, not as much longevity). Omar's not a HoF'er, but he's at least got an argument, and if Omar spent forty years after he retired as a beloved announcer, I could definitely see giving him enough of an extra credit boost from that to put him in the Hall.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

Phil Rizzuto is in the HoF. He was a good player, but was he good enough for the HoF? That's what this thread is about.

What are our thoughts on this?

[iPod]

Good player, better than his numbers. Not a Hall of Famer.

[RockinDaBronx]

I love the scooter, but no. Do they have broadcasters in the HOF? If so he could have gone in by that route.

[Dodgerfan1]

Nope. If Rizzuto plays for just about ANY other team, fuhgedaboudit!

[vtred]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/stephve01.shtml

Vern Stephens played almost year for year with Rizzuto...if Rizzuto is a HOFer, then Stephens should have been a first ballot inductee...blows Rizzuto away in every category except triples/stolen bases...

[D6+]

Though I'm not a Yankees fan, I believe Phil Rizzuto belongs in the HOF. Rizzuto's stats might not stand out but his contribution to the Yankees was a major reason why the Yankees won so many Championships during the years of his playing career. Rizzuto was one of those players who did the little things that added up to wins.

[cbenson5]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/stephve01.shtml

Vern Stephens played almost year for year with Rizzuto...if Rizzuto is a HOFer, then Stephens should have been a first ballot inductee...blows Rizzuto away in every category except triples/stolen bases...

Welcome to Baseball Fever vtred.

I think you assessment is absolutely right. Had Rizzuto played for the Browns, it is unlikely that he would have made the Hall. Playing for the juggernaut that was the New York Yankees certainly helped him to make the Hall. However, I do not believe that Rizzuto's value is fully illustrated by statistics.

Here are a couple of quotes taken from Summer of 49 by Mr. Halberstam (pg. 244, 245):

"McCarthy had been known to say, 'We don't win on power, we win on defense.' The key to that defense was Rizzuto. 'You want to know the key to our team,' Billy Johnson , the third baseman, once told Ted Williams, 'it's that little guy there. Without him we're just another team. You have to be with us to know, because what you see once in a while we see every day.'

And Johnny Pesky said Rizzuto was:

"the best shortstop I've ever seen. He was so quick, with extraordinarily quick feet, he could always make the plays. He was the best shortstop of his era- he held that team together the way Pee Wee Reese held the Dodgers together."

"Those who watched the Yankees and Boston everyday thought him the most valuable player in the American League."

The people that watched him play everyday seemed to think very highly of Mr. Rizzuto. I'm not sure that I would put him in the Hall of Fame, but I don't think his election was a terrible choice.

Charles

[Fuzzy Bear]

An incredibly poor selection, one made on the basis of Rizzuto's celebrity.

Rizzuto had an MVP season, arguably deserved, but his 1950 season stands out from the rest of his career. He gets a break from missing time due to the war; I'll give him that.

There's no way, however, that Rizzuto is the equal of Alan Trammell, Buddy Myer, Joe Gordon or Cecil Travis. It's hard to justify his selection over Vern Stephens or Johnny Pesky. Truthfully, Julio Franco's career as a middle infielder is more valuable than Rizzuto's. Gil McDougald was a better player. Dave Concepcion was better, and Rizzuto was probably not as good as Larry Bowa or Bert Campaneris. Rizzuto was little more than a minor star, and would be no more than a quality regular had he not had the monster 1950, and had he not been a regular on the dominant Yankee teams.

He's just wasn't that good.

[KCGHOST]

In another city we would have never heard of Rizzuto. Likewise as a NYer he wouldn't have made it except for the perceived similarity to Reese. Of course the telling factor was Ted Williams staunch support while onthe VC.

[mwb]

I was at the induction ceremony. I think he was inducted because of his long association with baseball. I don't think they have a dual category for players & announcers. For that reason, I don't have a problem with it.

Rizzuto's induction opened the door for Rich Ashburn in 1995. They were both players & long time announcers, except Ashburn was a better player.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I was at the induction ceremony. I think he was inducted because of his long association with baseball. I don't think they have a dual category for players & announcers. For that reason, I don't have a problem with it.

Rizzuto's induction opened the door for Rich Ashburn in 1995. They were both players & long time announcers, except Ashburn was a better player.

An interesting assessment.

While it is true that Rizzuto had a campaign going for him to put him in the HOF, there was also persistent opposition to his election. Perhaps, sub-consciously, this was part of the motivation to put him over the top.

There are so many shortstops I can name that have equal or better cases than Phil Rizzuto that are NOT in the HOF. Johnny Pesky has a better case. Alan Trammell is so far ahead of Rizzuto it isn't funny. Cecil Travis has a better case. Maury Wills was a superior offensive player; why isn't he in?

If the issue is defense, Rizzuto was certainly NOT the best defensive shortstop of his day. That distinction went to Marty Marion, who won the 1944 NL MVP award almost totally with his defensive play. In the fifties, the best defensive shortstop was, arguably, Roy McMillan. Concepcion, I've mentioned, but, really, why was Rizzuto so much better than Concepcion? Omar Vizquel is a far better shortstop than Rizzuto; does that mean that everyone here needs to drop their opposition to Viz making the Hall?

He's just not that special. His selection isn't as outrageous as some, but there are so many outside the HOF that are comparable that one is correct to wonder why the Scooter and not the other guys.

[philliesfiend55]

Bill James wrote a couple of chapters on Rizzuto's election, in fact Rizzuto's election is the climax of his book , "Cooperstown: The Politics Of Glory or Whatever Happened To The Hall Of Fame". The book reviewed all elections to the Hall Of Fame to that point, and James details who he thought were the best, as yet unelected candidates. It was completed in 1994, the year when Rizzuto was elected. He must have had a deadline with his publisher to complete it that year. He strongly disagreed with Rizzuto's election. If he had been able to wait one more year he could have included Richie Ashburn's 1995 Vets Committee election to the Hall. Ashburn had been rated as among the best players not yet elected to the Hall in James's "Politics Of Glory" the previous year. If I remember correctly he rated Ashburn as the best Centerfielder not currently enshrined.
If he had completed and published his book a year later he could have finished the book with a comparative chapter on why one borderline candidate (Ashburn) merited election while another borderliner (Rizzuto) did not (glowing comments from his Yankees teammates aside).
Personally, I see no reason to dispute his viewpoint and find no fault with Mr. James's assessments of these two contemporaries. They are both pretty close to the dividing line of what makes players either Hall Of Famers or perpetually unsuccessful candidates. Ashburn's fielding records and status as the best leadoff hitter of his generation deserved enshrinement and his recognition was perhaps even a bit overdue. Rizzuto may have gotten a break in the vets committee's judgement. They may have been overly generous in his case.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Though I'm not a Yankees fan, I believe Phil Rizzuto belongs in the HOF. Rizzuto's stats might not stand out but his contribution to the Yankees was a major reason why the Yankees won so many Championships during the years of his playing career. Rizzuto was one of those players who did the little things that added up to wins.

I don't mean to sound critical, but if you are going to say that Phil Rizzuto should be in the HOF because he "did the little things that added up to wins", then you should be able to discuss what those "little things" were, specifically, how they added up to wins, and how these things compensated for offensive stats that are well below the HOF average, and below average even for middle infielders.

By little things, do you mean defense? Yes, Rizzuto was an above-average defensive shortstop; possibly deserving of more than one Gold Glove if they had that award while he was active. But Rizzuto was never the best defensive shortstop in baseball; that honor went to Marty Marion, then, probably, to Roy McMillian. Pee Wee Reese was a better defensive shortstop. Rizzuto was a very good defensive shortstop, and may have been the best in the AL for a few years, but he was never the best in the sense that Looie or Ozzie were the best. Never, and it's revisionist history to say that he was.

Even if we are going to say he was the best defensive shortstop of his generation, is that enough to put him into the HOF with his batting stats? Bill James, in The Politics of Glory, compares Rizzuto to Bobby Richardson. Richardson hit .266 lifetime in a tougher hitters' era and won 5 straight Gold Gloves; he was CLEARLY the best defensive second baseman in the AL. Richardson retired at a young age; he had a lot left in the tank. He's not going into the HOF, and he did a lot of little things to help. He was also more highly regarded while active; he played in seven (7) All-Star games to Rizzuto's five. The same things can be said of Clete Boyer to a lesser degree. Boyer was, in the estimation of some, the greatest defensive third baseman of his time; even greater than Brooks Robinson, who monopolized the Gold Glove. Had Robinson not been in the AL, Boyer probably would have monopolized the Gold Glove. Both of these guys did no less, defensively, for the Yankees than did Rizzuto.

Okay, then, what other "little things" did Rizzuto do? Scoring runs? Rizzuto was 2nd in the AL in runs scored in 1950, his big season; he was 6th in 1949 and 9th in 1952. This is NOT a HOF level of performance for a guy whose BA, power stats, and OBP are not overwhelming. Walks? Rizzuto was not particularly patient at the plate. He wasn't a liability in that regard, but his BA was seven points above league and his OBP was five points above league for his career; if he had unusual plate discipline, his OBP would have been 20-30 points above league. Baserunning? Rizzuto's was a good baserunner for most of his career, as evidenced by his base stealing, but he also played in an era where the stolen base was rarely utilized. (Rizzuto was second in steals in 1950 with TWELVE (12) steals!) Giving Rizzuto credit for steals (he NEVER lead the league in steals) is like giving Gavy Cravath credit for leading the league in HRs. (Cravath lead the NL in HRs FIVE (5) times in the deadball era, and set the single season record Ruth broke in 1919 with 29.)

What little things, then, did Rizzuto do to add up to wins? Making out on purpose; hitting behind the runner? These things might be situationally helpful, but how can you do enough of that to overcome the fact that you made an out? Rizzuto led the league in Sacrifice hits from 1949-52 and is 89th all-time in Sac Hits, but most of those hits were sac bunts. This is the only statistical evidence of "little things" that might add up to wins, but the value of leading the league in sac bunts doesn't even rise to the level of Black Ink.

The "little things" Rizzuto did do not a HOFer make. Not even in conjunction with Gold Glove defense below the level of Omar Vizquel. They just don't; they are things common to many, many players, including other All-Star shortstops who are NOT in the HOF. Dave Concepcion did as many little things as Rizzuto and he's not in the HOF. Bert Campaneris stole far more bases and had a longer career; he's not in the HOF. Larry Bowa was Concepcion's rival for the best defensive SS in the NL during the 1970s; he's not in in the HOF. Tony Fernandez is an extremely comparable player, offensively and defensively, and he's not going to the HOF.

Rizzuto did miss three (3) prime seasons due to WWII; that's relevant here. If Rizzuto got those seasons back, and if they were under normal conditions, we might be able to give Rizzuto 525 more hits (175 a season). That would move him to 2,113 career hits. That MIGHT bring his BA up to .280 lifetime; it would probably bring it up to less than that. But those lost seasons have to be balanced against the fact that Rizzuto's 1950 season was far above anything he ever did before or since; if 1950 was a mere normal season for Rizzuto, his lifetime BA would be under .270.

Where did Rizzuto stand on his teams? Prior to WWII, he was the number 5 star, behind DiMaggio, Dickey, Joe Gordon, and King Kong Keller; maybe even with Red Ruffing and Lefty Gomez (in 1941). In Rizzuto's 3 best years, he still ranks behind Berra and Vic Raschi. He was never better than the number three star on his team, and that was only in his very best years, outside of 1950. (One can argue that even in Rizzuto's very best year, DiMag and Berra had more valuable seasons.)

Phil Rizzuto was a good player; a very good player, perhaps. He was a celebrity, but it is questionable as to whether or not he was really a "star". He was NOT the team leader of the Yankees, never, and his best season was far, far out of context with the rest of his career. A number of guys have had the career Rizzuto had; some have had the career Rizzuto would have had if WWII never came. Few are in the HOF, and the ones that are (Dave Bancroft, Travis Jackson) are considered mistakes. The evidence that Rizzuto was a great player is not supported by statistical evidence. It just isn't.

[D6+]

Fuzzy Bear, though I respect your point of view and the amount of tangible info you provided, we likely will continue to disagree.

The so called little things that you mentioned all contributed to the sum of Phil Rizzuto's contribution being greater than it's parts. Rizzuto not only did a great job of bunting for singles but he did the same in moving bases runners over when bunting. Rizzuto may not have been as flashy as the likes of Ozzie Smith. However, Rizzuto was very efficient.


Regarding the amount of All-Star games a player appears in, the competition during the time frame of a player's career is a major part of the equation.


Phil Rizzuto's contribution as a leader was a key factor in the Yankees reaching and winning a multitude of World Series Titles. The Yankees of Rizzuto's time were arguably the most consistent group in the history of MLB. They rarely beat themselves but often took advantage of the other team's mistakes or set of circumstances, such as injuries. During Rizzuto's 13 years in MLB, the Yankees won 8 World Championships. There have been many great SS' in the History of MLB. Yet, I seriously doubt that any of the others who played at least 10 seasons came close to equalling the % of World Championships that Rizzuto won.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Fuzzy Bear, though I respect your point of view and the amount of tangible info you provided, we likely will continue to disagree.

The so called little things that you mentioned all contributed to the sum of Phil Rizzuto's contribution being greater than it's parts. Rizzuto not only did a great job of bunting for singles but he did the same in moving bases runners over when bunting. Rizzuto may not have been as flashy as the likes of Ozzie Smith. However, Rizzuto was very efficient.


Regarding the amount of All-Star games a player appears in, the competition during the time frame of a player's career is a major part of the equation.


Phil Rizzuto's contribution as a leader was a key factor in the Yankees reaching and winning a multitude of World Series Titles. The Yankees of Rizzuto's time were arguably the most consistent group in the history of MLB. They rarely beat themselves but often took advantage of the other team's mistakes or set of circumstances, such as injuries. During Rizzuto's 13 years in MLB, the Yankees won 8 World Championships. There have been many great SS' in the History of MLB. Yet, I seriously doubt that any of the others who played at least 10 seasons came close to equalling the % of World Championships that Rizzuto won.


Your overall assessment of Rizzuto is actually quite accurate. It just doesn't add up to a HOFer, IMO. And I'm one of the more liberal guys around here in terms of my definition of what a HOFer is.

If you want to say Phil Rizzzuto is a worthy HOFer because he's not the worst player in the HOF, well, then, he's worthy, if that's your criteria. The criteria of the guy meeting the "lowest common denominator" standard, if applied universally, would result in a HOF with 3,000 inductees. Kevin Seitzer would be a HOFer. Leo Cardenas would be a HOFer; hey, if Rizzuto, why not Cardenas?

I think you will agree that being better than the worst HOFer is no way to pick a HOFer. Some guys are there by mistake. To be fair to history, we eat that and go on.

Do most guys who do what Phil Rizzuto did go into the HOF? That's a tougher standard, but I think the answer is pretty much a "no". The shortstops who hit .260-.270 that make the Hall are guys with longer careers than Rizzuto and FAR greater defensive contributions. Concepcion isn't there. Lord, Trammell isn't there. Maury Wills isn't there. Why Rizzuto and not these guys?

Rizzuto is 89th on the career list for Sac Hits, and did well in that category for several years, but that is meaningless in the HOF debate. It is meaningless because there is no correlation between greatness and accumulating sac hits. Look here (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/SH_career.shtml) for the list of guys with the most lifetime sac hits, and you will find that there is no correlation between being great and being near the top of the list. It's not like the list for career hits; that's a list with a correlation between ability and accumulation. Sac hits measure a common skill; indeed, having a high number of sac hits indicates that a player may not have been good enough to swing the bat.

Let's look at Rizzuto's best comps:

Jose Offerman (954)
Claude Ritchey (942)
Hughie Critz (940)
Lonny Frey (939)
Jim Gantner (935)
Tom Herr (933)
Johnny Evers (929) *
Bill Hallman (928)
Delino DeShields (928)
Billy Rogell (925)

What you have said about Rizzuto can be said for Jim Gantner and Tom Herr. Are THEY HOFers? Evers is the only HOFer in Rizzuto's top 10 comps, and he's there, in no small part, because of his defensive excellence. (Even Evers gets grief; many think he's in only because of the Franklin P. Adams Poem.) Gantner and Herr were good players, but they had a skill base common to a good many regular players. Rizzuto was a little better than these guys, but was he really THAT much better to where he's a clear-cut HOFer?

Rizzuto's ultimately in because he's a Yankee, and a member of the Yankees during their most successful run. He was a key regular; there's no doubt about it, but the real leaders of that team were DiMaggio and Berra. I have never read where Rizzuto was the "leader" of the Yankee teams he played on; not in the sense that Ozzie led the Cardinals or Looie and Nellie led the Chisox. He was a second-tier star, a minor star, whom no one really viewed as a HOFer until long after his career was over.

D6, I would ask you why Rizzuto should be in the HOF before Alan Trammell and Dave Concepcion. That's the issue. In picking a HOFer, one should consider who's outside the HOF, but eligible, and pick from the BEST of that group. Trammell and Concepcion are not the best of that group, but Trammell is near the best, and both of these guys were better than Rizzuto. How do you justify Rizzuto being in and them being out?

[D6+]

Fuzzy Bear, IMO, Alan Trammell belongs in the HOF. Trammell was a diffential player from an Offensive, Defensive, and intangible standpoint. That combined with him helping the Tigers win a World Series should ( from my point of view , not necessarily the voters ) be more than enough to get " Tram" into the HOF. It's a close call in terms of who is more deserving, Phil Rizzuto or Alan Trammell. Rizzuto accomplished much more from a team perspective. Trammell's numbers are clearly better though and he was a very good Defensive SS in his own right. Though I'm glad that Rizzuto and of course Pee Wee Reese are in the HOF, I'm very disappointed that Alan Trammell isn't getting more support from the HOF voters.


Though I wouldn't have a problem with Dave Concepcion being voted into the HOF, I don't think he deserves to be in the HOF over Rizzuto and Trammell. Concepcion is probably one notch below HOF level.

[Naliamegod]

The Yankees won before Rizzuto, with him, and after he left. Putting him in just because he was on the team during one of their most dominating runs is just silly.

[Brad Harris]

The Yankees won before Rizzuto, with him, and after he left. Putting him in just because he was on the team during one of their most dominating runs is just silly.

Nonsense. How else are we supposed to induct Bobby Richardson? :laugh

[D6+]

The Yankees won before Rizzuto, with him, and after he left. Putting him in just because he was on the team during one of their most dominating runs is just silly.


By no means do I think that being a starter on a baseball dynasty by itself should be enough for a player to be voted into the HOF. It's a very significant factor though.


One other thought about Phil Rizzuto. Like Pee Wee Reese, Rizzuto had an outstanding BB to K Ratio. IMO, Rizzuto accomplished enough from a tangible standpoint to warrant being selected into the HOF, when factoring in the intangibles and of course the tremendous team performance by the Yankees, in Rizzuto's 13 year career.

[honus14]

One other thought about Phil Rizzuto. Like Pee Wee Reese, Rizzuto had an outstanding BB to K Ratio.

Not really. Taking some 50's NL guys and doing the math myself (I can't find a leaderboard), here are some career BB/K ratios:



Ted Kluszewski 1.34
Pee Wee 1.36
Puddin' Head Jones 1.39
Whitey Lockman 1.44
Hank Thompson 1.46
Monte Irvin 1.57
Scooter 1.63
Red Schoendienst 1.75
Smokey Burgess 1.76
*****
Sid Gordon 2.05
Richie Ashburn 2.09
Stan Musial 2.29
Jackie Robinson 2.54
Junior Gilliam 2.49
The outstanding guys are the ones below the stars, Ashburn and Musial and Jackie and Junior, and Sid Gordon, whoever the hell he was. :) Scooter's was good (and, it should be noted, significantly better than Pee Wee's), but not what I'd call outstanding.

Parenthetically, as Bill James also pointed out, Pee Wee and Scooter weren't really comparable players at all, they just played the same position in the same city at the same time, and both led off.

[Fuzzy Bear]

By no means do I think that being a starter on a baseball dynasty by itself should be enough for a player to be voted into the HOF. It's a very significant factor though.


One other thought about Phil Rizzuto. Like Pee Wee Reese, Rizzuto had an outstanding BB to K Ratio. IMO, Rizzuto accomplished enough from a tangible standpoint to warrant being selected into the HOF, when factoring in the intangibles and of course the tremendous team performance by the Yankees, in Rizzuto's 13 year career.

But Reese had MUCH more power than Rizzuto, AND he was more patient at the plate. Reese had 11 selections to the All-Star game; Rizzuto had 5. Rizzuto had almost 600 fewer hits, despite Pee Wee coming up only one season earlier. Rizzuto had the big season in 1950 and won an MVP award, but his career MVP vote share lead over Reese is small (1.89 to 1.76), and Reese has far more top ten finishes in MVP voting. Reese is a far, far superior player to Rizzuto; how can he not be. They are EXACT contemporaries, and yet Reese had more power, was on base more, and had a longer career.

I DON'T agree that Rizzuto did enough in the tangibles department to warrant selection to the HOF, and I really want to know what, specifically, were the intangibles that make up the gap.

[Freakshow]

Let's look at Rizzuto's best comps:

Jose Offerman (954)
Claude Ritchey (942)
Hughie Critz (940)
Lonny Frey (939)
Jim Gantner (935)
Tom Herr (933)
Johnny Evers (929) *
Bill Hallman (928)
Delino DeShields (928)
Billy Rogell (925)

Of course, you realize these comps have zero validity because they fail to account for Rizzuto's three prime years lost to miltary service. Giving him reasonable credit for those makes his career look a lot more HOF worthy. For instance, his hits increase to 2047; his runs scored increase to 1123; even his BA increases a couple points to .275.

[Chisox]

Of course, you realize these comps have zero validity because they fail to account for Rizzuto's three prime years lost to miltary service. Giving him reasonable credit for those makes his career look a lot more HOF worthy. For instance, his hits increase to 2047; his runs scored increase to 1123; even his BA increases a couple points to .275.
Exactly how much is it going to take to turn those players into HOFers?

[honus14]

Of course, you realize these comps have zero validity because they fail to account for Rizzuto's three prime years lost to miltary service. Giving him reasonable credit for those makes his career look a lot more HOF worthy. For instance, his hits increase to 2047; his runs scored increase to 1123; even his BA increases a couple points to .275.

I don't know how you got your numbers, but taking them as true:

Players with 1115-1129 runs scored were Toby Harrah, Jake Daubert, Johnny Mize, Jack Clark, Bill Terry, Hardy Richardson, Reggie Smith, Jay Bell, Wally Moses, Keith Hernandez, Devon White, Ken Griffey (Sr.), and Buck Ewing.

Players (retired) with BA of .275 were Willie Monanez, Billy Nash, Bernard Gilkey, Ray Boone, Ed McFarland, Jose Cardenal, Fred Snodgrass, Irv Noren, Jimmy Williams, Marv Owen, Cliff Heathcote, John Ward, Muddy Ruel, Rudy York, Jerry Remy, Wally Backman, and Duke Farrell.

That's still not exactly rarified company.

Added: Rizzuto's stats, upgraded as above, are somewhat similar to, but not as good as, Omar Vizquel's (1312 runs, .274 BA, 2539 hits). And Vizquel is a far superior fielder to Rizzuto.

[Freakshow]

Exactly how much is it going to take to turn those players into HOFers?
It's different in every case, of course. For Rizzuto, whose career was longer than any of those "comps", his case IMO comes down to whether or not you believe he was a historically great fielding shortstop, since his offense is only a little above average in his prime.

[Freakshow]

I don't know how you got your numbers,
Added the three year average from his prime 1941-42, 46-50.
Players with 1115-1129 runs scored were Toby Harrah, Jake Daubert, Johnny Mize, Jack Clark, Bill Terry, Hardy Richardson, Reggie Smith, Jay Bell, Wally Moses, Keith Hernandez, Devon White, Ken Griffey (Sr.), and Buck Ewing.
Three hall of famers and two more from the Hall of Merit. Yeah, that IS pretty good company.
Players (retired) with BA of .275 were Willie Monanez, Billy Nash, Bernard Gilkey, Ray Boone, Ed McFarland, Jose Cardenal, Fred Snodgrass, Irv Noren, Jimmy Williams, Marv Owen, Cliff Heathcote, John Ward, Muddy Ruel, Rudy York, Jerry Remy, Wally Backman, and Duke Farrell.

Restrict your comparison to shortstops and you'll get meaningful comparisons. For instance, six HOF shortstops have a lower BA than Rizzuto.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Restrict your comparison to shortstops and you'll get meaningful comparisons. For instance, six HOF shortstops have a lower BA than Rizzuto.

Okay, but let's look at those six shortstops:

PEE WEE REESE had a .269 lifetime BA, but a higher OBP and 88 more lifetime HRs.

LUIS APARICIO, OZZIE SMITH, and RABBIT MARANVILLE are all candidates for the greatest defensive shortstop of all time. All of them played until age 39 or older, and all of them have over 2,400 career hits. Even if we give Rizzuto back the three years he missed due to the war, he's still only at about 2,100ish hits.

BOBBY WALLACE played for part of 25 years in the major leagues. His BA was only 5 points lower than Rizzuto's, and that was during the deadball era.

Five of the six HOF shortstops with lower BAs than Rizzuto were, IMO, superior ballplayers, and this does not seem to be a hard conclusion to come by. The only shortstop that I would rate Rizzuto ahead of in this group is Joe Tinker, another short career guy.

I would agree that Rizzuto's comps aren't the best possible list of truly comparable players, due to Rizzuto's missing three years to WWII. But for Rizzuto to be truly comparable to the shortstops that were truly great, he'd have had to have played at his peak during those years. By "peak", I mean hitting in the .290s for that period. I doubt he could have done that; Rizzuto barely hit .290 over the 1949-51 period that encompassed his very best year. That period is so far out of context with the rest of his career that it is hard to justify an argument stating that Rizzuto would have hit .290 or better from 1943-45 under non-wartime conditions.

The case for Rizzuto as a bonafide HOFer rests on two questions: (A) Would Rizzuto's offensive stats have been significantly better, or just more of the same, had he not lost three prime years to WWII, and (B) was Rizzuto really a Rolls Royce defensive shortstop, or was he just a Crown Vic?

This article is interesting. (http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~rickert/BB/avgSScompare.html)

Rizzuto would, IMO, be at least a borderline HOFer if he were truly in the class of Ozzie and Looie as a defensive shortstop, but the statistical evidence does not support this. I noted some of the kudos for Rizzuto in one of the posts, but some came from Rizzuto's teammates, and some came from the Red Sox who (A) kept losing to the Yankees, and (B) were a clique-ridden team whose shortstop, Vern Stephens, was a drinker and a leader of one of the factions in the Boston clubhouse. Johnny Pesky, who praises Rizzuto, was moved off of SS to 3B to accomodate Stephens; I doubt that he was happy about that.

It takes a lot of "buts" to make Rizzuto a HOFer. I can buy some of them, but I can't buy the idea that he was a premier defensive shortstop. An excellent defensive player, maybe, but not in the class of Ozzie or Looie or Rabbit, and that's where he'd have to be, IMO, for me to get excited about his HOF case.

[Chisox]

Let's look at all the HOF shortstops
Aparacio-.313OBP/.343Slug, 506SB in 2,599G in offensive-deprived era. Possibly best fielder ever. Probably the best SS between Banks and Yount. Every bit the offense and better defense. Definitely not upper half HOF
Appling-.399OBP/.398Slug in 2,422 G in high offensive era, many years in common. Not as good a fielder, but Clearly better. Probably not upper half, anyway.
Bancroft-.355OBP/.358Slug in 1,913G in high offensive era. Bottom fourth of HOF and similar.
Banks-.330OBP/.500Slug in 2,528G (half at first) in low offensive era and low fielding value. Actually in mid-level HOF. Clearly better.
Boudreau-.380OBP/.415Slug in 1,646G at similar time as Appling. Great fielder. Similar value as Appling. Clearly better.
Cronin-.390OBP/.468OBP in 2,145G in high offensive environment. Clearly much better.
George Davis-.361OBP/.405Slug and 616SB in 2,368G and great fielder in deadball era. Clearly much greater.
Jackson-.337OBP/.433Slug in 1,656G in HOF. Very low end of HOF.
Jennings-.390OBP/.406Slug and 359SB in 1,285G in 1890s. Bottom half of HOF.
Maranville-.318OBP/.340Slug and 291SB in 2,670G from 1912-1935. Great fielder, long career, and I believe most consider a mistake.
Reese-.366OBP/.377Slug and 232SB in 2,166G in comparable era. Clearly better.
Ripken-.340OBP/.477Slug in 3,001G. Good glove. High-end HOFer. Clearly far better.
Rizzuto-.351OBP/.355Slug and 149SB in 1,661G. Great glove. Very low HOF.
Sewell-.391OBP/.413Slug in 1,903G. Good glove. Mid-level HOF. Clearly better.
Smith-.337OBP/.328Slug and 580SB in 2,573G. Neutral era. Probably the best glove ever. Considering longevity, far better.
Tinker-.308/.353Slug and 336SB in 1,804G. Probably the worst HOF SS. Most consider mistake.
Vaughan-.406OBP/.453Slug in 1,817G. Last half coincincides with Rizzuto's first half. Good fielder. Far better. Upper-tier HOF.
Wagner-.391OBP/.466Slug in 2,792G in deadball era. Possibly the greatest fielder ever. Simply stated, the greatest SS ever.
Bobby Wallace-.332OBP/.358Slug in 2,388G in deadball era. Great fielder. Clearly better and bottom-level HOFer.
John Ward-.314OBP/.341Slug and 540SB in 1,825G in premodern era. Great fielder. Comparable just as SS, but pitched 2,462.2IP with 2.10ERA. Clearly greater package.
Yount-.342OBP/.430Slug in 2,856G. Good glove, but moved to CF for last 1/3of career. Clearly much better, upper-tier HOF.

Of those above, those that are clearly better are
01.Aparicio-82OPS+ with tons of base-running value and longevity
02.Appling-112
03.Banks-122
04.Boudreau-120
05.Cronin-119
06.Davis-121
07.Reese-99
08.Ripken-112
09.Sewell-109
10.Smith-87 (similar to Aparicio)
11.Vaughan-136
12.Wagner-150
13.Ward-93
14.Wallace-105
15.Yount-115

That does not include Rodriguez (147), Larkin (116), and Jeter (123) who are not eligible yet, nor does it include Dahlen (110) or Long (94) who are not it, but clearly better candidates.
Bancroft, Jennings, Jackson, Tinker, and Maranville are similar, all have arguments of being greater. Jennings case of similarites soley depends on league quality adjustments. His OPS+ is 117 compared to Rizzuto's 93. Maranville's OPS+ is 82. Bancroft's OPS+ is 98. Jackson's is 102. Tinker's is 96, higher than Rizzuto's. Rizzuto has an arguement as the worst HOF shortstop. Is that still good company?

[Freakshow]

I'm not gonna argue too hard for Rizzuto. I think he's definitely a borderline HOFer and it's not hard to make an argument against his inclusion. It's just that too often I see him run down unfairly, such as his list of "comps" in the earlier post.

Of course, it is the hall of FAME, and Rizzuto certainly gets high marks in that aspect. And as Bill James wrote in TPOG, he's not the worst player in the Hall. So by that standard he easily qualifies.

[jalbright]

I'm not gonna argue too hard for Rizzuto. I think he's definitely a borderline HOFer and it's not hard to make an argument against his inclusion. It's just that too often I see him run down unfairly, such as his list of "comps" in the earlier post.

Of course, it is the hall of FAME, and Rizzuto certainly gets high marks in that aspect. And as Bill James wrote in TPOG, he's not the worst player in the Hall. So by that standard he easily qualifies.

I understand where you're coming from, but I believe I can recall you decrying the "worst player in the HOF" standard somewhere on this board, and rightly so. Rizzuto has to do significantly better than that, fame or not, to deserve his place there, and IMO it's very questionable at best whether he does so.

Jim Albright

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm not gonna argue too hard for Rizzuto. I think he's definitely a borderline HOFer and it's not hard to make an argument against his inclusion. It's just that too often I see him run down unfairly, such as his list of "comps" in the earlier post.

Of course, it is the hall of FAME, and Rizzuto certainly gets high marks in that aspect. And as Bill James wrote in TPOG, he's not the worst player in the Hall. So by that standard he easily qualifies.

Let's revisit Rizzuto's comps:

Jose Offerman (954)
Claude Ritchey (942)
Hughie Critz (940)
Lonny Frey (939)
Jim Gantner (935)
Tom Herr (933)
Johnny Evers (929) *
Bill Hallman (928)
Delino DeShields (928)
Billy Rogell (925)

Rizzuto is better than most of his comps because he was a career shortstop; many of these comps were primarily second basemen.

What is troubling is that Johnny Evers is clearly better than Rizzuto; he put more runs on the scoreboard, and was the premier defensive second baseman of the first decade. Even more troubling is the comparision between Lonny Frey and Rizzuto; and Frey missed two years to WWII himself. Frey's stats are pretty close to Rizzuto's, and while Rizzuto is better than Frey, it begs the question of how much better than Lonny Frey does one have to be to be a HOF caliber player.

How much better was Rizzuto than Lonny Frey?

[Matt1901]

Nope. If Rizzuto plays for just about ANY other team, fuhgedaboudit!Ted Williams held a different opinion than you.

[philipthegreat]

I would argue for Rizzuto because of his contributions to a yankees dynasty.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I would argue for Rizzuto because of his contributions to a yankees dynasty.

Of all weeks for RMB to be on his ballpark tour.

Rizzuto was inarguably a key component for those teams. But so was Charlie Keller, Tommy Heinrich, Allie Reynolds and others. That it and of itself does not warrant election. The last thing the HOF should ever be is biased towards one team for the sake of being so. Rizzuto was a very good player lucky enough to play for Yankees during that era.

As much as I like Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame Bill James does have his agenda. He did point out what almost seemed like coercion on the part of the Yankee brass and New York press, but there is always more than one side to every story, and speaking of such actions doesn't necessarily make them so. James wasn't in the room each time something happened.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Of course, it is the hall of FAME, and Rizzuto certainly gets high marks in that aspect. And as Bill James wrote in TPOG, he's not the worst player in the Hall. So by that standard he easily qualifies.

"Fame" is not a criteria for the Hall of Fame. "Fame" is one element of the honor the Hall of Fame bestows upon a member upon induction. The Hall of Fame exists, in part, to establish and preserve the fame of baseball's finest and most significant players throughout history.

I agree that Bill James has his agendas, but one thing he cites in The Politics of Glory is the fact (according to James) that upon retirement, there were some newspaper tributes to Phil Rizzuto, but nobody suggested that he was bound for the HOF. That's a little odd for a great player. Most players who get into the HOF are recognized as potential HOFers at the time of their retirement. I can think of NO player, with the exception of Bruce Sutter, who was selected by the writers despite the fact that at the time of his retirement, no one thought the player a HOFer.

Now there may be some reasons for that. The HOF was less than 20 years old when Phil Rizzuto retired, and while the standards of the HOF were lowered less than 10 years into the establishment of the HOF, perhaps people still had the idea that the HOF was for the Ruths and Cobbs and Walter Johnsons. That may be true, but Rizzuto retired less than two years after the writers inducted Rabbit Maranville and Bobby Wallace had been inducted a year before Maranville. Maybe the HOF just wasn't as high in the public consciousness then as it is now.

But it could also be that at that the time of his retirement, Rizzuto would have been at the bottom of the HOF. Who was below Rizzuto in 1956? Joe Tinker, maybe. Jack Chesbro, probably, and Herb Pennock, maybe, maybe not. Rizzuto isn't at the bottom of the HOF now only because Frankie Frisch outdid himself in the late sixties and early seventies and packed the HOF with his cronies, while serving as the chairman of the Vets Committee. Rizzuto looks more like a HOFer to some now because (A) the standards for induction dropped in the first decade, and have remained at that level ever since, and (B) there are many more players that meet the 1946 standards for the HOF inducted now; the idea that the HOF was for the Ruths and Cobbs, etc., was something of a fleeting moment in baseball history. Rizzuto didn't have a case for the HOF based on 1939 criteria; he had a weak case in 1956, but his case grew, in part, because of the growing number of HOF mistakes.

Perhaps I'm all wet on this. Perhaps Rizzuto is well within the norms for selection to the HOF. But there are so many ballplayers BETTER than Rizzuto that are outside the HOF, that it is somewhat offensive that he gets to cut ahead in line.

[zahavasdad]

While one should not speak evil of the recently department, It makes you look at his record a little closer.

Phil Rizzuto was a GREAT ANNOUNCER and likely one of the best broadcasters of all time , however the Hall of Fame is not really for Broadcasters or Sportswriters even though I think they belong.

If Phil Rizzuto was not a great announcer FOR THE YANKEES would he really have made the Hall of Fame. I mean was his records really much better than Joe Gordon who was basically forgotten.

If one wants to say someone contribution to baseball as a whole, then he belongs but he was not elected as a broadcaster but as a player

[jalbright]

combined three Rizzuto threads into just this one.

[Imapotato]

I love it when a bunch of non athletic stat monkeys sit here and discuss who they shouldn't look up to

How's this in favor of Scooter

During his time, he was one of the best players at SS if not the best
He was a key cog in a Yankee Juggernaught
He won a MVP with Dimaggio and Ted Williams in the league
Speaking of Ted Williams, he is the one who pushed for Rizzuto to be in the HOF, stating that if Scooter was on the Red Sox, they would have won all those titles

Now, weighing the nah opinions against a man who knew more about baseball then I could forget...I think I will say Ted knew what he was talking about

Phil Rizzuto is a HOFer

It is also quite insensitive to dig a man's grave before it has even been dug...pathetic.
This denouncing couldn't wait a month? Or do you want the meat when it's still warm?

[SBBL]

This doesn't feel like the best thing to do.

This man is still being waked. Are Yankee haters so loathsome that they are unable to tip their hat and respect the recently departed ?

Again - This man is still being waked. He was a good, honorable man who served when his country called. He was a husband, father and grandfather.

This is not the time for petty Yankee haters to belittle his career.

Leave it alone for a few weeks.

[AG2004]

By little things, do you mean defense? Yes, Rizzuto was an above-average defensive shortstop; possibly deserving of more than one Gold Glove if they had that award while he was active. But Rizzuto was never the best defensive shortstop in baseball; that honor went to Marty Marion, then, probably, to Roy McMillian. Pee Wee Reese was a better defensive shortstop. Rizzuto was a very good defensive shortstop, and may have been the best in the AL for a few years, but he was never the best in the sense that Looie or Ozzie were the best. Never, and it's revisionist history to say that he was.



The following is a list of the top defensive shortstops, according to defensive win shares per 1000 innings, among those who played at least 10000 innings at the position.

1) Marty Marion 7.32
2) Joe Tinker 7.28
3) Rick Burleson 7.17
4) Phil Rizzuto 7.14
5) Art Fletcher 7.04
6) Everett Scott 6.98
7) Honus Wagner 6.89
8) Germany Smith 6.86
8) Mickey Doolan 6.86
10) Bill Dahlen 6.82

Ozzie Smith and Rabbit Maranville both come out at 6.42 DWS/1000 innings at shortstop; Reese is at 6.04 DWS/1000 innings, and Aparicio finishes with 5.47 DWS/1000 innings.

Rizzuto's high ranking comes, in part, from his ability to turn the double play. His 89 DPs per 1000 innings is the highest of all time at the position. This wasn't merely due to his having more opportunities than other shortstops. The 1942 Yankees recorded 57 more double plays than expected, given the opportunities they had; that's the highest figure of all time. The 1941 Yankees are second, with 52 more DPs than expected. The Yankees turned 37 more DPs than expected in 1952, and turned at least 15 more DPs than expected a total of ten times during Rizzuto's tenure with the team. Rizzuto seems to have been the best shortstop ever at turning the double play, and that's a point in his credit.

I don't know if Rizzuto is deserving of the Hall of Fame, but he was better than Aparicio, Bancroft, Tinker, Maranville, and Jackson, and may have been better than Wallace and Sewell. I'll have to make a Keltner List for Rizzuto soon.

[rdonahue]

This doesn't feel like the best thing to do.

This man is still being waked. Are Yankee haters so loathsome that they are unable to tip their hat and respect the recently departed ?

Again - This man is still being waked. He was a good, honorable man who served when his country called. He was a husband, father and grandfather.

This is not the time for petty Yankee haters to belittle his career.

Leave it alone for a few weeks.

This thread started long before he died...

[Los Bravos]

But it only got called back up, after a month of inactivity, because of his recent death.

[Captain Cold Nose]

But it only got called back up, after a month of inactivity, because of his recent death.

By one poster. It's unfair to decry the majority of those whose opinion on Rizzuto as a HOF candidate were posted while the man was alive. Look at the date of the post before you attack, please.

I don't have a problem with him being in the HOF, there are good arguments for him being in as there are arguments for him being outside. A most honorable man has passed, and I think the point to take the opportunity to honor such a man, which has been done here in the CE and Yankees forum, at this time is what should be going on.

[stejay]

He should be there because he is a Yankees legend. In my view that is.

[Captain Cold Nose]

He should be there because he is a Yankees legend. In my view that is.

He is. My problem with that is it is the basest of arguments and a HOF-argument should not be about the team they played for. Rizzuto was a fine shortstop in the field and at the plate, as he would have been for whichever team he played for. A catalyst who would have put up far better career numbers save a little event that was a little more important than playing baseball.

Not a Yankee-hater. Just not a populist-fawner.

[Los Bravos]

By one poster. It's unfair to decry the majority of those whose opinion on Rizzuto as a HOF candidate were posted while the man was alive. Look at the date of the post before you attack, please.That wasn't an attack, it was a note. I don't have a strong opinion either way on this question, but it seems at least a touch unseemly to be bringing this back up at this moment. A couple of other posters made that case far more forcefully than I did.

The discussion is fine, as is the opinion that he doesn't merit inclusion, but dragging it back up now, after a month of inactivity, seems a little iffy, to me. That is all I was objecting to. I can read dates just fine.

[Captain Cold Nose]

That wasn't an attack, it was a note. I don't have a strong opinion either way on this question, but it seems at least a touch unseemly to be bringing this back up at this moment. A couple of other posters made that case far more forcefully than I did.

The discussion is fine, as is the opinion that he doesn't merit inclusion, but dragging it back up now, after a month of inactivity, seems a little iffy, to me. That is all I was objecting to. I can read dates just fine.

Yours wasn't an attack, and wasn't what I was referring to. Perhaps I should not have added my general point to my response to your post, but I don't like double posting, and I did want to address you about the good point you made. No, I'm not happy one poster chose to respond in a very untimely fashion, I agree with you there. Some other posters just seem hot to find things to complain about regardless of what actually happened.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Rizzuto was beloved by Yankee fans as an announcer. He was the voice of the Yankees when I was growing up, and I'm 50 now.

Rizzuto's passing will, I predict, bring about a re-evaluation of his place in baseball history. He was too famous, and his HOF selection SO controversial that this is almost inevitable.

What the end result of this will be, I don't know, but I do think it will occur.

[Los Bravos]

Yours wasn't an attack, and wasn't what I was referring to. Perhaps I should not have added my general point to my response to your post, but I don't like double posting, and I did want to address you about the good point you made.Fair enough. I've done the same thing on other boards and had people respond exactly as I did to you, so I understand perfectly.

[mwb]

Like I said, probably in page 1, I have no problem with PR being in the HOF. He was a good player but he also was good for the game after he retired as a result of his long broadcasting career.

I would say the same for Rich Ashburn, who's already in & Joe Torre. I know statistically Torre is a borderline HOFer but he should get some credit for his success as a manager. Maybe he'll be voted in when he retires from managing.

[Los Bravos]

I think Joe's inclusion as a Manager is a given.