Bert Campaneris

[Cowtipper]

Should he be in the Hall of Fame? Although he hit only .259 in his career, Baseball-Reference says three out of the 10 most similar players to him statistically are in the Hall of Fame: Luis Aparicio, Ozzie Smith and Red Schoendienst. What do you think?

[Dodgerfan1]

No way. Smith and Aparicio mostly got in because of their great defense, and Campy was only an above average fielder, for the most part. His offense surely isn't enough to give him a sniff of the Hall, IMO, stolen bases and all. Schoendienst is enshrined mostly for his managerial success, IMO, but also as a very good player. Neither Schoendienst or Aparicio belong, either, so comparing Campy to them doesn't help his chances, as far as I'm concerned.

[PVNICK]

No. He was a good to very good ballplayer who was an above average-shortstop for a mini dynasty who was one of the to basestealers in his league ove rthe course of a 10-15 run. He deserves to be remembered and spoken of with fondness and appreciation for how good he was, nothing more.

[KHenry14]

I must have seen Campy play 50 times in Oakland over his career, including the three WS he played in, and even I can't support this. He was a big part of a great team, but no way does he stack up to the other great SS's. He was an igniter on the basepath's, and a feisty competitor, but that's about it

[MadHatter]

No, no. If he gets in you need to make room for guys like Templeton. I just don't want to see it get watered down that much.

[Dodgerfan1]

No, no. If he gets in you need to make room for guys like Templeton. I just don't want to see it get watered down that much.

Yep. It's already too watered down...

[Cougar]

Campy is very comparable to a number of SS in the Hall who were key players on dynasties. He was arguably the second best position player on those A's teams (him or Bando). He holds A's franchise records for career games played (1795), hits (1882) and at bats (7180); he's second in steals to Rickey.

He was a plus defender at a key position; demeriting him for being merely a very good defender rather than a transcendent one seems petty.

He was a good hitter who once led the league in hits and another time led in triples); he finished with 2249 hits. Recall, he spent his entire career in an offense-poor environment, with the deepest trough being in the heart of his prime. Neutralizing his stats using the tool on Baseball-Reference.com gives him career totals of 2497 hits and a .278 BA.

And, of course, he was a historically good base stealer, 14th all time with 649 (724 neutralized), with a percentage in excess of 76%. The only middle infielders who stole more bases were Honus Wagner (SS), Eddie Collins (2b), and Joe Morgan (2b).

Minor extra credit for playing all 9 positions in one game; while it's something of a stunt, Campaneris was the first player to do it in the major leagues, and the only All-Star caliber player I know of who's done it; when he pitched, he threw lefty to left handers and righty to right handers.

I think people are really missing the boat on Bert Campaneris. He's a HOFer.

[538280]

No. He was a good player, almost a dead league average offensive player with his excellent speed on the bases, if he was an Ozzie Smith level SS (Ozzie has a similar rate of offensive production) I could say he would go in, but he wasn't that great defensively, more just like above average. I would take him over Aparicio, though. Aparicio was just not a good hitter at all who was many, many runs below average offensively even with his running. Even giving Aparicio a good defensive advantage, I'd take Campaneris.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Campy is very comparable to a number of SS in the Hall who were key players on dynasties. He was arguably the second best position player on those A's teams (him or Bando). He holds A's franchise records for career games played (1795), hits (1882) and at bats (7180); he's second in steals to Rickey.

He was a plus defender at a key position; demeriting him for being merely a very good defender rather than a transcendent one seems petty.

He was a good hitter who once led the league in hits and another time led in triples); he finished with 2249 hits. Recall, he spent his entire career in an offense-poor environment, with the deepest trough being in the heart of his prime. Neutralizing his stats using the tool on Baseball-Reference.com gives him career totals of 2497 hits and a .278 BA.

And, of course, he was a historically good base stealer, 14th all time with 649 (724 neutralized), with a percentage in excess of 76%. The only middle infielders who stole more bases were Honus Wagner (SS), Eddie Collins (2b), and Joe Morgan (2b).

Minor extra credit for playing all 9 positions in one game; while it's something of a stunt, Campaneris was the first player to do it in the major leagues, and the only All-Star caliber player I know of who's done it; when he pitched, he threw lefty to left handers and righty to right handers.

I think people are really missing the boat on Bert Campaneris. He's a HOFer.

Campy stole more bases and grounded into fewer DPs than Aparicio over his career. These are his advantages. Other than that, they were the same kind of hitter.

I don't agree with the assessment that Aparicio is below Campy. That's giving too much a devaluation of Looie's defense. But let's say, for a moment, that I buy into that; let's give Campy the edge. Is he THEN a HOFer?

Well, maybe, in that he would not be the worst SS in the HOF, but he would not be the best SS outside the Hall, either. It's ridiculous to compare Campy to Templeton; Campy was clearly the better player. But what about Davey Concepcion? Davey CLEARLY ranks ahead of Campy; he was a better hitter AND fielder. Alan Trammell is far ahead of Campy. Maury Wills has a better case than Campy. Tony Fernandez has a better case than Campy.

That's my argument against Campy; there are too many guys better than him that are not in. I wouldn't consider Campy seriously until Trammell and Concepcion, at the least, were in.

[Dodgerfan1]

Campy is very comparable to a number of SS in the Hall who were key players on dynasties. He was arguably the second best position player on those A's teams (him or Bando). He holds A's franchise records for career games played (1795), hits (1882) and at bats (7180); he's second in steals to Rickey.

He was a plus defender at a key position; demeriting him for being merely a very good defender rather than a transcendent one seems petty.

He was a good hitter who once led the league in hits and another time led in triples); he finished with 2249 hits. Recall, he spent his entire career in an offense-poor environment, with the deepest trough being in the heart of his prime. Neutralizing his stats using the tool on Baseball-Reference.com gives him career totals of 2497 hits and a .278 BA.

And, of course, he was a historically good base stealer, 14th all time with 649 (724 neutralized), with a percentage in excess of 76%. The only middle infielders who stole more bases were Honus Wagner (SS), Eddie Collins (2b), and Joe Morgan (2b).

Minor extra credit for playing all 9 positions in one game; while it's something of a stunt, Campaneris was the first player to do it in the major leagues, and the only All-Star caliber player I know of who's done it; when he pitched, he threw lefty to left handers and righty to right handers.

I think people are really missing the boat on Bert Campaneris. He's a HOFer.

Cougar, while I respect your opinion, I think it's flawed. First of all, as I mentioned before, comparing Campaneris to shortstops in the HOF who don't deserve to be there in the first place doesn't give me any impetus to change my vote. Nor does being the second best player on a team, nor career statistics for ABs or games played. Those are nice to know, and certainly commendable achievements, but they are not HOF criteria, IMHO. Hits, now that's another story. 2,249 is a fair amount of hits in the big leagues, and on the face of it, quite impressive. Unfortunately, those hits were made in 8684 at-bats, which equates to a batting average of .259. While it may be higher than a couple of players in the HOF, it hardly looks impressive enough for me to believe he belongs, given the type of hitter he was. An OBP of .311 is pretty poor for a lead-off hitter, especially one you are touting as Hall-worthy.

I am also not demeriting him for his fielding. I said he was above-average, which is a pretty good rating. Given that he wasn't a HOFer as a hitter, however, that leaves us to take a look at his defense to see whether it may help compensate for an ordinary offensive output and, unfortunately, 'above average' doesn't put him over the top, in my book. I don't see what's petty about that, at all.

He does get points for being a very good base stealer, but as good as he was, it still doesn't make up for his good, but not great, fielding and his very ordinary hitting.

No, Campy was a good, scrappy, exciting player, but there is no doubt in my mind that he wasn't great, and a player should be at least that to make it into the Hall, IMO. The fact that there are many players in the HOF that weren't great, and didn't deserve induction, does not mean that it should also open it's doors to players like Campy as a result.

[Cougar]

Campy stole more bases and grounded into fewer DPs than Aparicio over his career. These are his advantages. Other than that, they were the same kind of hitter.

I don't agree with the assessment that Aparicio is below Campy. That's giving too much a devaluation of Looie's defense. But let's say, for a moment, that I buy into that; let's give Campy the edge. Is he THEN a HOFer?

Well, maybe, in that he would not be the worst SS in the HOF, but he would not be the best SS outside the Hall, either. It's ridiculous to compare Campy to Templeton; Campy was clearly the better player. But what about Davey Concepcion? Davey CLEARLY ranks ahead of Campy; he was a better hitter AND fielder. Alan Trammell is far ahead of Campy. Maury Wills has a better case than Campy. Tony Fernandez has a better case than Campy.

That's my argument against Campy; there are too many guys better than him that are not in. I wouldn't consider Campy seriously until Trammell and Concepcion, at the least, were in.

Going off memory, Trammell, Dahlen, and Concepcion are the three unenshrined eligible SS I've got ranked as more worthy than Campy, in that order, with Tony Fernandez just behind. I've got Concepcion, Campaneris, and Fernandez just about even...if you want to argue that Fernandez is better, I won't really argue. Don't know about Wills...much shorter peak than the other guys; he's further down my queue.

I see your logic, but the Hall's too flawed already to start keeping guys behind the velvet rope until they can be enshrined in the optimum order. Campy's over my line; if I can get him in, I shall. In a perfect world, Trammell would go first; alas, we are fallen.

[Cougar]

Cougar, while I respect your opinion, I think it's flawed. First of all, as I mentioned before, comparing Campaneris to shortstops in the HOF who don't deserve to be there in the first place doesn't give me any impetus to change my vote. Nor does being the second best player on a team, nor career statistics for ABs or games played. Those are nice to know, and certainly commendable achievements, but they are not HOF criteria, IMHO. Hits, now that's another story. 2,249 is a fair amount of hits in the big leagues, and on the face of it, quite impressive. Unfortunately, those hits were made in 8684 at-bats, which equates to a batting average of .259. While it may be higher than a couple of players in the HOF, it hardly looks impressive enough for me to believe he belongs, given the type of hitter he was. An OBP of .311 is pretty poor for a lead-off hitter, especially one you are touting as Hall-worthy.

I am also not demeriting him for his fielding. I said he was above-average, which is a pretty good rating. Given that he wasn't a HOFer as a hitter, however, that leaves us to take a look at his defense to see whether it may help compensate for an ordinary offensive output and, unfortunately, 'above average' doesn't put him over the top, in my book. I don't see what's petty about that, at all.

He does get points for being a very good base stealer, but as good as he was, it still doesn't make up for his good, but not great, fielding and his very ordinary hitting.

No, Campy was a good, scrappy, exciting player, but there is no doubt in my mind that he wasn't great, and a player should be at least that to make it into the Hall, IMO. The fact that there are many players in the HOF that weren't great, and didn't deserve induction, does not mean that it should also open it's doors to players like Campy as a result.

I respect yours as well (thanks). Two things tip the scales for me:

(1) Campy was better than an ordinary hitter...he was indeed pretty good, especially for his position. This is heavily masked by his playing in the 1960's and 1970's, primarily in pitcher-friendly ballparks, and for lousy, lousy teams in his Kansas City years (arguably his best). I'll refer you to his neutralized stats again -- in a normal offensive environment he hits .278 with 2500 hits. That's easily comparable to the median HOF SS.

(2) The 1970's A's dynasty is one of the truly unappreciated great teams in history. Campaneris was utterly integral to the success of that team. This is an important (if hard to quantify) part of his case.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I see your logic, but the Hall's too flawed already to start keeping guys behind the velvet rope until they can be enshrined in the optimum order. Campy's over my line; if I can get him in, I shall. In a perfect world, Trammell would go first; alas, we are fallen.

I agree with this to a point, but Trammell and Concepcion are SO MUCH better than Campy that they really should go in first.

I don't see where Campy is a clear cut HOFer. He's a borderliner in the sense that he wouldn't be the worst SS in the HOF, but the guys he'd be considered clearly better than would all be considered HOF mistakes.

[THE OX]

IMO Campy was a versatile and very productive player, and had a long career, but HOF is a bit of a stretch.......

[Cougar]

I agree with this to a point, but Trammell and Concepcion are SO MUCH better than Campy that they really should go in first.

I don't see where Campy is a clear cut HOFer. He's a borderliner in the sense that he wouldn't be the worst SS in the HOF, but the guys he'd be considered clearly better than would all be considered HOF mistakes.

Trammell was far better than either Davey or Campy.

However, if you're right that Davey was a better hitter than Campy, it wasn't by much, and Campy's baserunning cuts into that offensive advantage quite a bit. The comparison is complicated because they were different types of offensive players.

Concepcion also got a lot more help from his lineup; he was the 6th or 7th biggest offensive threat on the Big Red Machine teams (Rose, Bench, Morgan, Foster, Perez, Griffey). Campaneris was leading off in a lineup that got pretty weak in the bottom half.

Concepcion was a better fielder, no question.

[538280]

Campy stole more bases and grounded into fewer DPs than Aparicio over his career. These are his advantages. Other than that, they were the same kind of hitter.


Same type of hitter-but not of the same quality. They have just about the same rates (.311/.343 OBP/SLG for Aparicio, .311/.342), but Campaneris played a few years later when league offense was quite a bit lower and in tougher run scoring parks as well. In context of league and park, Campaneris was clearly quite a bit superior as a hitter. They were both outstanding baserunners, but Campaneris did a lot more damage as a hitter. Based on runs above or below average, Campaneris is clearly a better player. Palmer's batting runs have Campaneris about 130 runs below average and Aparicio almost 220 below. With basrunning added in Campaneris is only slightly below average while Aparicio is still nealry 100 runs under. BP's BRAA (includes basestealing) has Campaneris at 4 runs above average and Aparicio 144 runs below. Campaneris was clearly a better offensive player IMO, and while Aparicio was better on defense I would easily rather have Campy on my team.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Trammell was far better than either Davey or Campy.

However, if you're right that Davey was a better hitter than Campy, it wasn't by much, and Campy's baserunning cuts into that offensive advantage quite a bit. The comparison is complicated because they were different types of offensive players.

Concepcion also got a lot more help from his lineup; he was the 6th or 7th biggest offensive threat on the Big Red Machine teams (Rose, Bench, Morgan, Foster, Perez, Griffey). Campaneris was leading off in a lineup that got pretty weak in the bottom half.

Concepcion was a better fielder, no question.

Concepcion was better offensively and defensively. His defensive edge was greater than his offensive edge, but he still had edges both ways.

[Cougar]

Fuzzy,

Concepcion had the edge on defense; Campaneris on baserunning. All in all, I'd rather have the A+ glove than a basestealer, so I rate Davey higher. They both were key players on historic dynasties, and maintained a high level of play for a long time past their prime.

On offense, though, you're just asserting, and not backing it up. Davey's got better triple crown stats, but Campy scored many more runs. Plus, Campy was severely hampered by his home parks and by the 1960's in ways that Davey just wasn't.

I'm presenting these neutralized statistics in a Word file, with the caveat that "neutralizing" is a bit of a parlor trick. But the similarity in their career lines is astounding. It's hard to look at that and conclude any differences in their offensive output is anything but white noise.

And, these figures credit Concepcion with a full season in the strike year of 1981, when it might be a stretch to assume he'd maintain that production through 162 games, since he never had before. (Campy played that year too but he was a utility guy by then)

[538280]

Cougar, you don't even have to use the neutralizing, you can just compare them to league averages. Campaneris has a relative BA/OBP/SLG of 103/97/91, Concepcion 101/97/92. They're pretty much the exact same hitter, but Campaneris is actually a superior overall offensive player because of his basestealing. Campaneris is essentially a league average offensive player over his career and Concepcion is a little below average. The difference between them offensively is about 40-50 runs vs. average. Even giving Concepcion a good defensive edge, I'd take Campaneris. But, I woudn't put either in the HOF.

[KCGHOST]

I just can't see Campy having any real case for the HoF. I suppose you could torture the numbers in some sort of Jamesian dance of death in which you him the benefit of the doubt in every instance. Maybe then you might think of him as a marginal candidate for the HoF.

[Fuzzy Bear]

To my surprise, Campy's career OWP is .465, while Concepcion's is .459.

I still rate Davey ahead of Campy, mainly because of defense.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

demeriting him for being merely a very good defender rather than a transcendent one seems petty.

I don't think it's petty. It's actually quite relevant here, given that the cutoff for the HOF lies somewhere in between very good and transcendent. Though Bert Campaneris was a very good ballplayer, he was not a HOF in my opinion. His offensive contributions, while decent for a middle-infielder, need desperately to be offset by historically good defense to make him a HOF candidate (see Ozzie Smith). I can't endorse him.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Going off memory, Trammell, Dahlen, and Concepcion are the three unenshrined eligible SS I've got ranked as more worthy than Campy, in that order, with Tony Fernandez just behind. I've got Concepcion, Campaneris, and Fernandez just about even...if you want to argue that Fernandez is better, I won't really argue. Don't know about Wills...much shorter peak than the other guys; he's further down my queue.

I see your logic, but the Hall's too flawed already to start keeping guys behind the velvet rope until they can be enshrined in the optimum order. Campy's over my line; if I can get him in, I shall. In a perfect world, Trammell would go first; alas, we are fallen.

I see this logic too.

It's one thing to apply this logic to Tony Oliva. Oliva is not the top RF eligible, but he has, IMO, put up numbers that would, under at least some circumstances, get a guy into the HOF.

In the case of shortstops, no one with Campy's numbers ever gets in the HOF unless there is/are some kind of outside-the-stats kicker(s) that separates him from the rest of the .259 career BA shortstops. (I'm not being sarcastic here; that's where Campy is, and the question is "What lifts him above his numbers?".)

I'm pretty much persuaded that his base stealing doesn't elevate him enough, by itself. If you start with Ozzie, you have a combination of stellar defense, plate discipline, and base stealing. If you drop down to Looie, you have stellar defense, base stealing, but impatience at the plate. If you drop further to Campy, you have good-but-not-Gold-Glove defense, and base stealing.

Concepcion, I believe, would have had more SBs if he had played on a weaker team and had (unwisely) batted leadoff. How much to credit him for this is subjective. Concepcion did have transcendent defense. How much you want to credit him for this is also very subjective.

If I'm not really sold on Looie, how can I be sold on Davey? And if I'm not sold on Davey, how can I be sold on Campy? I loved Campy, but he's not a HOF-caliber SS, and I wish I could say otherwise.

[leecemark]

--I think Campaneris was at least as good and maybe better a player than Aparicio. Bert was a little better with the bat and Luis a little better with the glove. I think Aparicio was a mistake though so being on a par with him doesn't do much for me. Dahlen and Trammell are the serious omissions. Conception, Campaneris, Wills, Stephens, Pesky, Long, Fernandez, etc are all guys with cases worth discussing. If you are a big Hall guys maybe some of them make it for you. If you are a REALLY big Hall guy maybe all of them and a few more. I can't get worked up about the gray area guys - especially a lower gray area guy like Campaneris is IMO - while Dahlen and Trammell remain outside though.

[Cougar]

I see this logic too.

In the case of shortstops, no one with Campy's numbers ever gets in the HOF unless there is/are some kind of outside-the-stats kicker(s) that separates him from the rest of the .259 career BA shortstops. (I'm not being sarcastic here; that's where Campy is, and the question is "What lifts him above his numbers?".)

I'm pretty much persuaded that his base stealing doesn't elevate him enough, by itself. If you start with Ozzie, you have a combination of stellar defense, plate discipline, and base stealing. If you drop down to Looie, you have stellar defense, base stealing, but impatience at the plate. If you drop further to Campy, you have good-but-not-Gold-Glove defense, and base stealing.


I think the extra ballast in Campy's case (much as in Davey C's case) is from his role as the shortstop on a historically great dynasty, the A's of 1971-1975. The HOF has typically given extra weight to key defensive players on these great teams...until the 1970's, it seems.

This is in addition to the base running & stealing that Campy excelled in, and the fact that his bat is very underrated -- he played his peak seasons in the neo-dead ball era, in horrific ballparks for hitters (Municipal Stadium in KC and the Oakland Coliseum).

Of the shortstops we're discussing, how many ever led their leagues in hits? In triples? In any category? And that's setting aside the six league leaderships in stolen bases and the seven 50+ stolen base seasons. I had a typo above -- Campy's BA in a neutral setting would have been .287, instead of the .259 he did post. (I typed .278, transposing the numbers.) That context has to be taken into account.

I also think we're underselling Campy's defense. It was better than just good, it was Gold Glove quality. It just didn't rise to the level of Aparicio and Belanger, who won the AL Gold Glove in almost all of Campy's full seasons. Aparicio and Belanger were transcendent, rising above the mere Gold Glove quality of Campaneris' defense.

Place a prime Bert Campaneris in today's AL, and he's a multiple GG winner, probably unanimously. (Michael Young? Please...)

[Cowtipper]

Offensively, I rank Campaneris between Dave Bancroft and Hughie Jennings among shortstops. When I factor in defense, I rank him between Travis Jackson and Ozzie Smith.

[Cougar]

Offensively, I rank Campaneris between Dave Bancroft and Hughie Jennings among shortstops. When I factor in defense, I rank him between Travis Jackson and Ozzie Smith.

I want to understand what you mean by this...can you elaborate, please?

[Cowtipper]

I want to understand what you mean by this...can you elaborate, please?
I made an effort to rank the members of the Hall of Fame by position (and by position, I mean people who played a considerable amount at a spot - so I also have Jennings ranked with the first basemen). I ranked them using just their offensive output, and I also ranked them with offense and defense mixed (I looked at range factors mostly when ranking defense) to figure out how they were as a "whole" player. It's an amateur effort, yes, but I think it works sufficiently.

When just looking at offense, I rank Campaneris between Bancroft and Jennings - and on my list, they are in the lower half of the players. When I factor defense into it, I find that he's between Jackson and Smith.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If you are a REALLY big Hall guy maybe all of them and a few more. I can't get worked up about the gray area guys - especially a lower gray area guy like Campaneris is IMO - while Dahlen and Trammell remain outside though.

I agree that Trammell and Dahlen are at the head of the SS line. They are in a different class than these other guys.

I also rate Vern Stephens ahead of the gray area guys we've talked about here, although he's behind Trammell and Dahlen, IMO.

[Paul Wendt]

Dave Concepcion was about average as a batter during his prime. For example, Pete Palmer's measure "batting wins" --reported under "BtWin" in the Batting table at baseball-reference-- shows -5.8 in his first three seasons (1000+ PA) and -8.6 in his last six seasons (about 2700 PA). In ten prime seasons 1973-1982, therefore, average in almost 6000 PA. That is very good for a shortstop and super for a transcendant fielder.

Dave Bancroft (*) was about average as a batter for his full career. By the same Pete Palmer measure, in ten prime seasons 1917-1926, about +7 wins in almost 5600 PA. Relative to playing opportunities Bancroft played a little less than Concepcion during his prime and he played only five 'fore and aft' seasons compared to Concepcion's nine.

Ozzie Smith was about average during his batting prime but he enjoyed that at a later age. Considering his batting and fielding, he was a very good or great player for a longer time than Bancroft or Concepcion, maybe 16 seasons, but his fielding and batting peaks (or primes) do not match. Pete Palmer gives him -12.1 BtWin in six opening seasons with more than 3700 PA and -2.6 in three closing seasons, almost 900 PA. That leaves +1.2 in about 6200 PA during his ten prime batting seasons 1984-1993.

Bert Campaneris?
The "ten-year prime" fits Bancroft and Concepcion very well, and fits Smith as a batter. It doesn't fit Campaneris at all, in my opinion. His batting record makes the other three look consistent. In sum he is a good match for Concepcion but there was no period so long as ten years when he was reliably so good as Concepcion and Smith in their prime seasons. On the other hand, he was a fair batter from the beginning of his career.

At this distance it is easy to conclude with confidence that Concepcion (and Bancroft from a higher level) suffered severe decline with age and that Ozzie Smith learned batting in the majors, then enjoyed remarkable longevity. At this distance it is tempting to guess that Campaneris was simply better than C or S when healthy but he suffered injuries.

Tony Fernandez is another matter entirely. He was much superior to the others the moderns as a batter, in Bancroft's class at least. But he wasn't able to complete even his ten-year batting prime as a major league shortstop, only 9 at short and one at third. The last was the strike season, his only season in Cincinnati, which enjoyed the services of Barry Larkin. With a generous interpretation of that one, the ten-year prime is a good fit for Fernandez too.

--
I don't recall that anyone praised Campaneris or Fernandez for his work in the field. --not as they praised Cal Ripken. On the other hand, they were good batters, so no one would have presumed that they were good fielders, a la Dal Maxvill, Ray Oyler or Eddie Brinkman (three contemporary to Campaneris).

* Dave Bancroft? How did he get in this mix? Maybe because he is in the Hall of Fame and commonly dubbed a "mistake".

[henrich]

I guess I'm one of the few, but I have him scoring at 9572, which is near Ozzie Smith's 9874. I would vote for him.

[Cougar]

I guess I'm one of the few, but I have him scoring at 9572, which is near Ozzie Smith's 9874. I would vote for him.

Your pronoun has no antecedent...who's "him"?

[Cougar]

I made an effort to rank the members of the Hall of Fame by position (and by position, I mean people who played a considerable amount at a spot - so I also have Jennings ranked with the first basemen). I ranked them using just their offensive output, and I also ranked them with offense and defense mixed (I looked at range factors mostly when ranking defense) to figure out how they were as a "whole" player. It's an amateur effort, yes, but I think it works sufficiently.

When just looking at offense, I rank Campaneris between Bancroft and Jennings - and on my list, they are in the lower half of the players. When I factor defense into it, I find that he's between Jackson and Smith.

OK, that's clearer...it's your system.

I was thrown because to me, there is a chasm between Jackson and Smith. Ozzie is one of the better SS in the HOF (although not nearly the best); Jackson is among the poorest (in my opinion).

[Cowtipper]

I know, the defensive thing is experimental and gives results like that. I'm going to have to tweak it.

[henrich]

Sorry Cougar. Campaneris is at 9572 15th all-time, just ahead of Cronin 9499 and Larkin 9450. He's just behind Smith at 9874, Dahlan 9794, Vizquel 9663, just to give some people who score around him.

[Paul Wendt]

Tony Fernandez is another matter entirely. He was much superior to the others the moderns as a batter, in Bancroft's class at least. But he wasn't able to complete even his ten-year batting prime as a major league shortstop, only 9 at short and one at third. The last was the strike season, his only season in Cincinnati, which enjoyed the services of Barry Larkin. With a generous interpretation of that one, the ten-year prime is a good fit for Fernandez too.
Let me return after a visiting Tony Fernandez, DT card (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/fernato01.php).

Fernandez was a regular shortstop for 9-1/2 seasons beginning with half of 1984, then regular 3B one season and regular SS again in 1995 (about 70% time). After one year away in Japan he played three more mlb seasons (about 80% time) at 2B, then 3B.

Clay Davenport rates him at least very good at shortstop thru 1995 except 1992, probably letter grade A. Also very bad at shortstop in '92; at second, mediocre in '97-98; at third, excellent in '94 and very bad in '98-99.

The '94 strike season at thirdbase alone would be merely a wrinkle in the "ten-year prime" model. The fielding collapse in '92 and a poor batting season with 10% drop in playing time in '93 (now literally a journeyman) underly a big overall shortcoming in '92-94, in contrast to '85-91.