Rizzuto?

[NOMAR22]

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.

[2Chance]

Re: Rizzuto?

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.

[J W]

Originally posted by TrueDodgerFan
Politics, plain and simple.

There ya go, Appling .

[Appling]

Rizzuto vs. Stephens

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?

[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".

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.

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
























In the announcer's wing....

...right next to Andre Baruch.

[Eddie Collins]

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
























In the announcer's wing....

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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]

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]

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?