Rizzuto?

[tearforamariner]

Right now I'm bored. And when I get bored, I start trivial threads. This is one of them. I was just wondering if anyone out there can offer a rational argument as to why Scooter is in the Hall of Fame. If you have one, please, let me hear it. I know, I know, he missed time because of the war, but should he be in the Hall because of that? I mean the guy had only 1588 hits in his career, of which only 339 were extra base hits. And, despite playing for a great Yankee team, managed to score just 877 career runs and batted in just 563. Even his averages don't make up for his weak career stats. A .273 career BA, .351 OB%, and a .355 SLG%? How is this guy in the Hall of Fame?

[Jose Tartabul]

Uh .... lets see.... well he has been around and in the public eye for about 164 years. That means he's a survivor and survivors usually get recognition just because they hang on.

[tearforamariner]

Originally posted by Jose Tartabul
Uh .... lets see.... well he has been around and in the public eye for about 164 years. That means he's a survivor and survivors usually get recognition just because they hang on.

How do you figure 164 years?

[Jose Tartabul]

Originally posted by tearforamariner
How do you figure 164 years?

Hyperbole. I took his age (97) and added it to the number of years he has been in the Yankee organization (67).

[JACKIE42]

Originally posted by Jose Tartabul
Hyperbole. I took his age (97) and added it to the number of years he has been in the Yankee organization (67).

I believe his good buddy PeeWee Reese had a lot to do with him getting into the HOF. PeeWee was on the Veterans Committee with other old timers and out of pity and love voted him in. The argument can be made for PeeWee, why is he in the HOF, same reason.

[TrueDodgerFan]

Politics, plain and simple. His Yankee cronies got him in nearly 40 years after he retired, and it was based on the fact that he's a beloved personality who's announcing helped him stay in the public eye long after his career. If he'd have played for the Cardinals, the Cubs, the White Sox, the Indians, or ANYONE else, no one would have given him a second thought.

[J W]

Well, first let's start with Reese. He didn't participate in MLB from '43-'45 for obvious reasons... so discounting that, he was elected to 10 straight all-star games, and in those ten years he finished in the top ten in MVP voting eight times. And the biggest key is, he played shortstop. Among HOF shortstops, he has a better OBP than well over half of them.

It can be argued that in the decade after the war, between the primes of Arky Vaughan and Ernie Banks, he was the best SS in the majors. He was an "undisputed" championship team leader, a "sparkling defender", and a "great leadoff man", scoring over 1300 runs back before hitting leadoff became an artform. He was also one of the better base stealers of his day.

So, while he wasn't one of the handful of greatest players even to man the shortstop position, you might find it hard to name any more who had a better career. With that, it depends on where you draw the cutoff line, but I don't have any problems seeing him enshrined.

Now despite winning the AL MVP in 1950, Rizzuto's resume contains a lot less. He was a five time All-Star, and finished in the top ten in MVP voting three times (though Reese never finished higher than fifth; Rizzuto's win in '50 followed up a second place in '49). I don't believe Rizzuto was a team captain.

Rizzuto had a shorter career than Reese. He had only 5816 career ABs (to Reese's 8058; that's 72%)... but he scored only 66% as many runs, drove in 64% as many runs, hit 30% as many HR, and stole 64% as many bases. His OPS is a full 37 points lower. So, despite Rizzuto being another leadoff-hitting shortstop type, he wasn't as productive as Reese.

But, Rizzuto has the privelage of participating in nine World Series, playing a total of 52 games, and he won accolades showcasing his defensive skills under pressure. And this is the only edge Phil has, that his defensive reputation I would say was a bit better.

At Rizzuto's level... there may be a few shortstops in the Hall that had worse careers (for some that's up for dispute), but you have to ask; if he's in, why not Maury Wills? Bert Campaneris? Vern Stephens? (TrueDodgerFan answered that). Rizzuto is definitely in a grey area even for people such as myself.

[Eddie Collins]

PHIL RIZZUTO SHOULD BE IN THE HALL OF FAME!!!!
























In the announcer's wing....

Originally posted by Eddie Collins
PHIL RIZZUTO SHOULD BE IN THE HALL OF FAME!!!!
























In the announcer's wing....

...right next to Andre Baruch.

Originally posted by J W
Well, first let's start with Reese. He didn't participate in MLB from '43-'45 for obvious reasons... so discounting that, he was elected to 10 straight all-star games, and in those ten years he finished in the top ten in MVP voting eight times. And the biggest key is, he played shortstop. Among HOF shortstops, he has a better OBP than well over half of them.

It can be argued that in the decade after the war, between the primes of Arky Vaughan and Ernie Banks, he was the best SS in the majors. He was an "undisputed" championship team leader, a "sparkling defender", and a "great leadoff man", scoring over 1300 runs back before hitting leadoff became an artform. He was also one of the better base stealers of his day.

So, while he wasn't one of the handful of greatest players even to man the shortstop position, you might find it hard to name any more who had a better career. With that, it depends on where you draw the cutoff line, but I don't have any problems seeing him enshrined.

Now despite winning the AL MVP in 1950, Rizzuto's resume contains a lot less. He was a five time All-Star, and finished in the top ten in MVP voting three times (though Reese never finished higher than fifth; Rizzuto's win in '50 followed up a second place in '49). I don't believe Rizzuto was a team captain.

Rizzuto had a shorter career than Reese. He had only 5816 career ABs (to Reese's 8058; that's 72%)... but he scored only 66% as many runs, drove in 64% as many runs, hit 30% as many HR, and stole 64% as many bases. His OPS is a full 37 points lower. So, despite Rizzuto being another leadoff-hitting shortstop type, he wasn't as productive as Reese.

But, Rizzuto has the privelage of participating in nine World Series, playing a total of 52 games, and he won accolades showcasing his defensive skills under pressure. And this is the only edge Phil has, that his defensive reputation I would say was a bit better.

At Rizzuto's level... there may be a few shortstops in the Hall that had worse careers (for some that's up for dispute), but you have to ask; if he's in, why not Maury Wills? Bert Campaneris? Vern Stephens? (TrueDodgerFan answered that). Rizzuto is definitely in a grey area even for people such as myself.

Reese and Rizzuto both benefitted from "the New York factor" that plays a prominent role in HOF voting.

I'm partial to Pee Wee, of course; his leadership was an integral part of the Dodgers' success, and his courage and decency in befriending (and defending) Robinson made him a hero to all Brooklyn fans and a member of our personal Hall of Fame.

But Cooperstown? Not if you believe it should be a place for only the very best.

And Rizzuto? No way.

As noted above, if both had played in any other city, they wouldn't even have appeared on the ballot.

[westsidegrounds]

If anyone's REALLY interested, Bill James goes over the case for the Scooter in minute detail (including comparisons to Reese) in "Politics of Glory" aka "Whatever Happened to the HOF".

[Appling]

In the late 1940's my favorite MLB players were Ted Williams and Junior Stephens -- and for some reason BOTH these Red Sox stars were usually passed over for BBWAA awards.

I was upset that Rizzuto was voted to the Hall of Fame while Stephens was not. In fact, I believe Stephens has never received a SINGLE VOTE for the HOF.

In his early writings I recall Bill James rating Stephens and Rizzuto about even as shortstops. Rizzuto had more range but Stephens had the stronger arm. Both had steady gloves.

Of course Phil became known as a fine leadoff hitter, while Vern batted cleanup in that awsome Boston lineup.

Compare some of their career totals:
dept. / Rizzuto / Stephens
Years/ 13 / 15
Games/1661 /1720
Runs / 877 / 1001
RBI / 563 / 1174
BA / .273 / .286
OBP / .351 / .355
Slg% / .355 / .460
Hits / 1588 / 1859

Both played at the same time, for about the same number of years. Even in Rizzuto's MVP year of 1950, Stephens had better hitting numbers: both scored 125 runs (although Phil batted leadoff); Vern had 144 RBI (cleanup hitter) vs. 66 RBI for Phil.
Phil had higher BA in 1950 (his career-best .324) versus .295 for Stephens (typical BA for him). Phil had a few more hits (200 vs. 185 for Vern) but Vern had much higher Slugging %: .511 vs. .439 for Phil). With Ted Williams injured for half the 1950 season, Stephens carried a big part of the hitting load.

I realize that Stephens was not always pleasant to deal with, and he may have had a drinking problem, but on the field he was the best RBI-hitting shortstop before A-Rod. Perhaps his RBI numbers were too high to be appreciated -- like Barry Bonds' HR and Slg. % in 2001.

Why is Phil in the HOF while Vern has never received a vote?

[J W]

Originally posted by TrueDodgerFan
Politics, plain and simple.

There ya go, Appling .

[2Chance]

Originally posted by tearforamariner
I was just wondering if anyone out there can offer a rational argument as to why Scooter is in the Hall of Fame. If you have one, please, let me hear it.

Well, he was one of the best shortstops and leadoff hitters of his era. He had a couple of really good seasons that must have stuck out in the voters' minds. In 1949, Ted Williams nearly captured the Triple Crown (.343, which was percentage points short of George Kell - 43 - 159) and Rizzuto finished second in the MVP voting. That year he scored 110 runs, drew 72 walks and finished second in the league with 18 stolen bases. The point can be argued that Vern Stephens had an even better year that year.

The following year was Scooter's MVP season. He went nuts that year, with 200 hits for a .324 average, added to 92 walks and 125 runs scored.

But he was never known for his offense. He seldom struck out (398 times in his 5,816 at bats, or one K per 14.6 AB). He was known for his speed and defense. This was a golden age of shortstops, such as we are in now, and he got to balls that a lot of shortstops wouldn't. At one point he went 289 straight chances without an error, and finished with a .968 FA.

He was also one of those who is just known as a winner. In his 13 year career, the Yankees won 9 pennants and 7 World Championships. His number 10 is retired

Just please don't make me defend him or any other Yankees. It goes against my grain. These are just some things that might have been going through the voters' minds when he came up for election.

[NOMAR22]

Originally Posted by J W

Well, first let's start with Reese. He didn't participate in MLB from '43-'45 for obvious reasons... so discounting that, he was elected to 10 straight all-star games, and in those ten years he finished in the top ten in MVP voting eight times. And the biggest key is, he played shortstop. Among HOF shortstops, he has a better OBP than well over half of them.

It can be argued that in the decade after the war, between the primes of Arky Vaughan and Ernie Banks, he was the best SS in the majors. He was an "undisputed" championship team leader, a "sparkling defender", and a "great leadoff man", scoring over 1300 runs back before hitting leadoff became an artform. He was also one of the better base stealers of his day.

So, while he wasn't one of the handful of greatest players even to man the shortstop position, you might find it hard to name any more who had a better career. With that, it depends on where you draw the cutoff line, but I don't have any problems seeing him enshrined.

Now despite winning the AL MVP in 1950, Rizzuto's resume contains a lot less. He was a five time All-Star, and finished in the top ten in MVP voting three times (though Reese never finished higher than fifth; Rizzuto's win in '50 followed up a second place in '49). I don't believe Rizzuto was a team captain.

Rizzuto had a shorter career than Reese. He had only 5816 career ABs (to Reese's 8058; that's 72%)... but he scored only 66% as many runs, drove in 64% as many runs, hit 30% as many HR, and stole 64% as many bases. His OPS is a full 37 points lower. So, despite Rizzuto being another leadoff-hitting shortstop type, he wasn't as productive as Reese.

But, Rizzuto has the privelage of participating in nine World Series, playing a total of 52 games, and he won accolades showcasing his defensive skills under pressure. And this is the only edge Phil has, that his defensive reputation I would say was a bit better.

At Rizzuto's level... there may be a few shortstops in the Hall that had worse careers (for some that's up for dispute), but you have to ask; if he's in, why not Maury Wills? Bert Campaneris? Vern Stephens? (TrueDodgerFan answered that). Rizzuto is definitely in a grey area even for people such as myself.

I would think Maury Wills by now would be in the HOF.He changed the game in the 1960's. He also came up old ,he was 27 years old.

[iPod]

stop Dragging Old Threads To The Front Page

[Tigerfan1974]

Originally Posted by JACKIE42

I believe his good buddy PeeWee Reese had a lot to do with him getting into the HOF. PeeWee was on the Veterans Committee with other old timers and out of pity and love voted him in. The argument can be made for PeeWee, why is he in the HOF, same reason.

I've heard a similar story. I think Yogi was on the committee at that time too.
It was all part of the Old Boys Network!
I don't think he necessarily should have got in.
But now he is so what can ya' do?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally Posted by Appling

In the late 1940's my favorite MLB players were Ted Williams and Junior Stephens -- and for some reason BOTH these Red Sox stars were usually passed over for BBWAA awards.

I was upset that Rizzuto was voted to the Hall of Fame while Stephens was not. In fact, I believe Stephens has never received a SINGLE VOTE for the HOF.

In his early writings I recall Bill James rating Stephens and Rizzuto about even as shortstops. Rizzuto had more range but Stephens had the stronger arm. Both had steady gloves.

Of course Phil became known as a fine leadoff hitter, while Vern batted cleanup in that awsome Boston lineup.

Compare some of their career totals:
dept. / Rizzuto / Stephens
Years/ 13 / 15
Games/1661 /1720
Runs / 877 / 1001
RBI / 563 / 1174
BA / .273 / .286
OBP / .351 / .355
Slg% / .355 / .460
Hits / 1588 / 1859

Both played at the same time, for about the same number of years. Even in Rizzuto's MVP year of 1950, Stephens had better hitting numbers: both scored 125 runs (although Phil batted leadoff); Vern had 144 RBI (cleanup hitter) vs. 66 RBI for Phil.
Phil had higher BA in 1950 (his career-best .324) versus .295 for Stephens (typical BA for him). Phil had a few more hits (200 vs. 185 for Vern) but Vern had much higher Slugging %: .511 vs. .439 for Phil). With Ted Williams injured for half the 1950 season, Stephens carried a big part of the hitting load.

I realize that Stephens was not always pleasant to deal with, and he may have had a drinking problem, but on the field he was the best RBI-hitting shortstop before A-Rod. Perhaps his RBI numbers were too high to be appreciated -- like Barry Bonds' HR and Slg. % in 2001.

Why is Phil in the HOF while Vern has never received a vote?

Bill James lists several reasons in The Politics of Glory.

(A) Tendency to discount fielding skills of slugging shortstops.

(B) Rizzuto's MVP award, and the after-the-fact image of Rizzuto as a star.

(C) Stephens had an early decline.

(D) Stephens' decline, was, in no small part, fueled by his drinking. He was a drinker, and a leader of one of the cliques of the divided Red Sox clubhouse. It was no accident that the Sox always seem to fall short to the Yanks; the clubhouse chemistry was a big reason.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Bear

Bill James lists several reasons in The Politics of Glory.

(A) Tendency to discount fielding skills of slugging shortstops.

(B) Rizzuto's MVP award, and the after-the-fact image of Rizzuto as a star.

(C) Stephens had an early decline.

(D) Stephens' decline, was, in no small part, fueled by his drinking. He was a drinker, and a leader of one of the cliques of the divided Red Sox clubhouse. It was no accident that the Sox always seem to fall short to the Yanks; the clubhouse chemistry was a big reason.

Don't forget the war credit James said probably went Scooter's way.

[Yankwood]

Not for nothing, but I remember Ted Williams saying in an interview once that the biggest reason why the Yankees always bested the Red Sox back then was the presence of Rizzuto in the middle of the infield. He said that was the biggest difference between the two teams. Not necessarily agreeing with that but I thought I would mention it. It was an interesting statement from Williams, who always shot from the hip.

[Seattle1]

HOLY COW!!

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally Posted by Yankwood

Not for nothing, but I remember Ted Williams saying in an interview once that the biggest reason why the Yankees always bested the Red Sox back then was the presence of Rizzuto in the middle of the infield. He said that was the biggest difference between the two teams. Not necessarily agreeing with that but I thought I would mention it. It was an interesting statement from Williams, who always shot from the hip.

I believe Williams and Stephens were rivals in the Red Sox clubhouse, which was historically divided into cliques.

There is no reason to believe Rizzuto was a better shortstop than Stephens, unless you discount Stephens' fielding far beyond the level where it needs to be discounted. Rizzuto was a good player, and a sometime all star, but not a HOFer. The only thing he brought to the Hall of Fame that made it better was fame; he was famous before he was inducted.

[538280]

Rizzuto's entire case as a HOF player rests on the full ride war credit he should get because he served in WWII. Even with it he's at best a borderline case. A very good player who was a great fielder and a truly great player in 1950, but a short career even with war credit and not a great hitter. Shouldn't be in the HOF IMO.

[538280]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Bear

There is no reason to believe Rizzuto was a better shortstop than Stephens, unless you discount Stephens' fielding far beyond the level where it needs to be discounted.

This is not true at all. For a few seaosns, their raw fielding numbers may look similar, but Rizzuto was great over a period of time and played being a fly ball staff. Defensive metrics adjust for these things, they see Rizzuto as being a much, much, much superior shortstop. That was consistent with the belief at the time, so there is no reason to reject it just because the raw fielding data may suggest otherwise.

When you make adjustments and figure how many DPs they could be expected to turn, the Rizzuto era Yankees were consistently among the best teams at turning the DP of all time.