Ozzie Smith best SS ever?

[Cubsfan97]

I was watching the Sports List on FSN the other day and they said Smith was the best SS ever. Can he really be the best? I would think at least Honus Wagner would beat him out. Also A-Rod and Ernie BAnks. I can see him better than a lot of SS but better than all?

[DoubleX]

I saw that list also. Fox always butchers whatever rankings they have on those shows. I have Ozzie Smith outside my top 10, usually around 11-13, and behind five players that Ozzie's career overlapped: Rodriguez, Ripken, Larkin, Yount, and Trammell (Jeter will probably pass him by in a few years as well).

[Blackout]

maybe after Pop Lloyd, Wagner, Arod, Banks, Ripken and arguebly Jeter, Larkin, Yount etc

[csh19792001]

If you mean "SS" as in fielding the position, than he very well might be the greatest ever. He was the best I ever saw, and I certainly wouldn't be in the minority among those surveyed in that estimation, either.

[SABR Matt]

Defensively...yes.

Overall...I have him 9th.

[538280]

I personally have him 14th on my SS list. The highest I could possilby see an argument for him is about 8th. Let's go down the line:

1.Honus Wagner
2.Pop Lloyd
3.Arky Vaughan
4.Alex Rodriguez
5.Robin Yount
6.Barry Larkin
7.Cal Ripken
Not better than any of those guys. The rest I suppose there could be an argument for:
8.Luke Appling
9.Willie Wells
10.Joe Cronin
11.Alan Trammell
12.Ernie Banks
13.Lou Boudreau
Then comes Ozzie. The next five or so behind him I could see ahead too
14.Ozzie Smith
15.Bill Dahlen
16.Hughie Jennings
17.Jim Fregosi
18.George Davis
19.Derek Jeter
20.Pee Wee Reese

[SABR Matt]

1) Honus Wagner
2) Robin Yount
3) Arky Vaughan
4) Luke Appling
5) Ernie Banks
6) Ozzie Smith
7) George Davis
8) Alex Rodriguez
9) Cal Ripken Jr.
10) Barry Larkin
11) Joe Cronin
12) Bill Dahlen
13) Allan Trammell
14) Lou Boudreau
15) Herman Long

I was remembering wrong...I have him 6th.

I didn't rate Lloyd and he'd be ahead of Smith...so you could say I have him 7th.

I disagree with Chris on the notion that there can be no argument for Smith being better than Ripken and Larkin...Rpiken was overall...an average defensive SS and not all that astounding with the bat for most of his career either...Smith was the greatest fielder of all time. I could see Larkin ending up ahead os Smith...but...I don't think it's the blowout Chris does.

And BTW...I find it laughable that he has Trammall ahead of Smith and Boudreau twice...LOL

[SABR Matt]

One other thing...people are jumping A-Rod out front too soon. He's had a great start to a career...but he's only halfway through it. Can we let him play a few more years before we crown him king of the diamond?

[538280]

1I disagree with Chris on the notion that there can be no argument for Smith being better than Ripken and Larkin...Rpiken was overall...an average defensive SS and not all that astounding with the bat for most of his career either...Smith was the greatest fielder of all time. I could see Larkin ending up ahead os Smith...but...I don't think it's the blowout Chris does.

Ripken was the best player in the league for about three years right when he came up, dominated more than Ozzie ever did. He lasted a lot longer. He is an overrated hitter, but he is a lot better than Ozzie, especially at his peak. The only real edge Ozzie has is in the field, and of course he was the best ever there, but Ripken was pretty good. I don't think he was an average shortstop, everything I've ever seen and heard about him suggests he was a very good and solid shortstop.

Larkin was a great fielder and hitter, a much more complete player than Smith. His peak is better, his career value is better. I don't think him and Ozzie are that close.

And BTW...I find it laughable that he has Trammall ahead of Smith and Boudreau twice...LOL

I fixed the thing with Boudreau. I was copying from my ratings file and I guess I listed him twice.

Trammell....I find it hard to believe Ozzie has a peak anywhere near him. Trammell had one year (1987) when he really should have won the MVP beyond question (writers love RBI!), and about four more years when he was at least top 5 in his league. Ozzie was great, certainly, but I don't see how his value in any year adds up to that. Ozzie only has two years WS over 25, Trammell has five. They're about the same for career value. Maybe I'm wrong, though. It is close. Maybe Ozzie deserves even more fielding credit than I'm giving him.

[SABR Matt]

Ripken's career in the field by PCA:

Age	Yr	ADWC	PRG
20	1981	0.19	10
21	1982	2.33	162
22	1983	3.45	162
23	1984	4.38	162
24	1985	2.47	161
25	1986	2.70	162
26	1987	2.06	160
27	1988	2.40	161
28	1989	3.90	162
29	1990	2.51	158
30	1991	2.51	159
31	1992	3.03	162
32	1993	3.03	162
33	1994	2.32	112
34	1995	4.53	144
35	1996	1.73	160
36	1997	2.55	155
37	1998	0.64	158
38	1999	0.67	73
39	2000	0.60	72
40	2001	1.69	114

Overall, it looks like Ripken was very solid for a long time, but certainly not a great fielder. Great fielders AVERAGE what Ripken did in his best seasons over their whole careers.

By Comparison...here's Ozzie Smith:

Age	Yr	ADWC	PRG
23	1978	4.98	150
24	1979	4.61	148
25	1980	6.48	158
26	1981	3.82	109
27	1982	8.62	139
28	1983	4.38	151
29	1984	4.53	122
30	1985	5.73	157
31	1986	5.21	143
32	1987	5.28	150
33	1988	6.14	146
34	1989	3.90	151
35	1990	1.76	134
36	1991	1.99	146
37	1992	4.31	132
38	1993	3.71	127
39	1994	1.20	98
40	1995	1.05	41
41	1996	1.50	53

When Ozzie Smith was 34 and older...he was about as good a fielder as Ripken was in his PRIME...before 34, Smith was a LEGEND on defense. Stand back and MARVEL at the unparalleled consistancy as Ozzie posts near-5 and greater win seasons almost every single year from when he was 23 to when he was 33...an ELEVEN year run. That isn't just great...that's MIND BOGGLING.

I don't think some of you realize how large the difference is between being a great fielder and being a good one...Ripken was a good solid SS for years...nothing spectacular...but he wasn't costing the Orioles games really. Ozzie Smith was a GREAT fielder...so great that in his best years he produced more wins on defense than 99% of the position players in the game produced on offense while he was playing...I don't think words can quite express just how important he was in the field.

Now...there is this contention that Smith was a bad enough offensive player that Ripken...an admittedly overrated hitter...could overtake this difference in glovework with his hitting...

Here's Smith on offense:

Age	Yr	OWC	PA
23	1978	3.75	668
24	1979	0.49	649
25	1980	3.45	712
26	1981	0.75	507
27	1982	3.03	567
28	1983	3.45	626
29	1984	4.68	484
30	1985	4.65	615
31	1986	4.80	609
32	1987	8.92	706
33	1988	4.87	669
34	1989	4.50	664
35	1990	2.29	592
36	1991	7.34	641
37	1992	3.78	590
38	1993	4.20	603
39	1994	2.29	433
40	1995	-0.60	182
41	1996	1.72	261

Certainly not a hall of fame offensive career, but 4-5 offensive wins in the bank for your #1 or #2 hitter who also happens to be the greatest infielder in the game's history...yeah...I'll take that. By comparison, here's Ripken:

Age	Yr	OWC	PA
20	1981	-0.90	40
21	1982	5.39	655
22	1983	8.84	726
23	1984	9.89	716
24	1985	7.01	718
25	1986	8.17	707
26	1987	6.41	717
27	1988	7.75	689
28	1989	4.68	712
29	1990	6.11	695
30	1991	12.47	717
31	1992	3.15	715
32	1993	3.75	718
33	1994	3.63	484
34	1995	3.37	613
35	1996	4.91	707
36	1997	3.22	686
37	1998	3.48	659
38	1999	4.16	354
39	2000	2.17	339
40	2001	0.90	516

Granted, Ripken played longer and thus has more career wins when you combine offense and defense than Smith, but from age 31 on, Ripken was actually a WORSE hitter than Smith (or I should say...offensive player...Smith got some value from stolen bases and the like as well)...yes he was a great hitter in his youth, but was he really so great that you can say without a shadow of a doubt that he should be considered a greater SS?

I think not.

He played every day and there's value in that...afterall, who could the Os replace Ripken with that would do as well if he wasn't in there? But Smith wasn't exactly fragile, nor did his career seem truncated to me...he too "lasted a long time."

BTW...here's Allan Trammall's offense:

Age	Yr	OWC	PA
19	1977	-0.37	48
20	1978	1.84	504
21	1979	3.45	520
22	1980	6.71	652
23	1981	2.29	463
24	1982	4.72	556
25	1983	9.40	581
26	1984	8.13	626
27	1985	3.71	677
28	1986	7.57	653
29	1987	14.5	668
30	1988	7.12	523
31	1989	2.88	506
32	1990	7.27	637
33	1991	2.58	421
34	1992	0.86	120
35	1993	5.81	447
36	1994	1.65	311
37	1995	1.05	255
38	1996	-0.37	207

Yeah he had one really REALLY good year in 1987, but he was certainly not consistantly a great hitter. It was up and down his whole career...mostly centered on a figure that while above average was not anything worth writing home about.

Don't get me wrong...I love both Whitaker and Trammell and consider them both underrated...but it's hard to make any kind of a case that Trammell is a better shortstop than Smith...especially when you see his defensive line:

Age	Yr	ADWC	PRG
19	1977	0.15	10
20	1978	2.77	134
21	1979	1.61	137
22	1980	1.69	140
23	1981	4.50	101
24	1982	2.66	149
25	1983	1.65	132
26	1984	1.65	107
27	1985	1.91	148
28	1986	3.75	147
29	1987	1.72	147
30	1988	2.17	122
31	1989	1.57	122
32	1990	3.78	136
33	1991	1.42	86
34	1992	0.37	26
35	1993	0.86	95
36	1994	0.49	68
37	1995	0.60	52
38	1996	0.30	49

BLAH...now maybe PCA is missing something here...maybe Tram is better in the field than he's getting credit for here, but he's almost certainly LIGHT YEARS behind Smith in the field...not to mention HERE is a player you could legitimately call breakable...look at those low game counts! Not *once* did he play 150 full games in a season (bearing in mind that I'm calling them FULl games...he have had 150 appearances in a season, but he didn't stay in all of those games for the entire duration...unlike Ripken and Smith), and he was out of baseball by age 38!

Come on now...Trammell...ahead of Smith? REALLY?

[The Commissioner]

I was watching the Sports List on FSN the other day and they said Smith was the best SS ever. Can he really be the best? I would think at least Honus Wagner would beat him out. Also A-Rod and Ernie BAnks. I can see him better than a lot of SS but better than all?

It's nice to see that people can have a TV show despite their obvious cognitive shortcomings.

[KCGHOST]

I don't have a great quarrel with him maybe being the best defensive SS ever, but he was so poor offensively that there are a dozen SS's ahead of him.

[Zito75]

Defensively...yes.

Overall...I have him 9th.

I could go along with that. Is fielding alone enough to get you in the hall? After looking at Oz's lifetime stats, that batting average sticks out like a sore thumb. It's nothing to write home, IMO.

[ElHalo]

One other thing...people are jumping A-Rod out front too soon. He's had a great start to a career...but he's only halfway through it. Can we let him play a few more years before we crown him king of the diamond?

I hate ARod... I hate ARod... I'll say it again: I HATE AROD. That being said, it'd be pretty hard to justify saying that he's not as good as Ozzie Smith or George Davis. Sure, he's only had a short career so far. But ARod in his ten full seasons thus far has accomplished a bunch more than Davis did in his 18. Sure, if we're just calculating total value, other guys might have more. But that's not really much of an argument. What would you rather have... a Ferrari for one year or an Accord for ten?

[SABR Matt]

I hate ARod... I hate ARod... I'll say it again: I HATE AROD. That being said, it'd be pretty hard to justify saying that he's not as good as Ozzie Smith or George Davis. Sure, he's only had a short career so far. But ARod in his ten full seasons thus far has accomplished a bunch more than Davis did in his 18. Sure, if we're just calculating total value, other guys might have more. But that's not really much of an argument. What would you rather have... a Ferrari for one year or an Accord for ten?

My rankings are based on a compilation of efficiency, endurance, peak performance and volatility...and yet I still wind up with A-Rod behind Davis and Smith...