Ernie Banks vs Ozzie Smith

[Yilan Dai]

Average: Banks
Power: Banks
Defense: Smith
Speed: Smith

[chicagowhitesox1173]

I went with Banks because of the big offensive difference.

[Bothrops Atrox]

Banks based on his peak. But the fact that Ozzie played all of his career at SS makes it closer than many may think upon first glance. For those who want to ride the WAR train, Ozzie has 73 (42 WAA) and Banks has on 62, but his top 4-5 seasons beat up Ozzie's pretty easily.

[chicagowhitesox1173]

Ozzie probably will make my top 10 shortstops when Tyrus does his yearly rankings. I've really started to look at Ozzie alot differently lately.

[filihok]

I went with Banks because of the big offensive difference.

And the defensive difference?


You guys are pretty good at selecting equal players.

I'll take Ozzie because I'll have the SS position locked up for the next 2 decades and he's the Wizard of Oz

[JR Hart]

All i know is this; I was stationed in San Diego in 1978 and 79. Ozzie was freaking AMAZING to watch play. And that was on an infield that looked like a minefield.

[chicagowhitesox1173]

And the defensive difference?


You guys are pretty good at selecting equal players.

I'll take Ozzie because I'll have the SS position locked up for the next 2 decades and he's the Wizard of Oz

Where do you rank Ozzie all time? Banks is usually a top 6 or 7 shortstop. Ozzie played on turf most of his career letting him play so far back his range looks like Brett Lawries 2012 season.

[willshad]

Not close. Would you rather have a guy who could man the shortstop position, while hitting as well as anyone in the league, or a guy who is great in the field, but is hurting you offensively?

What's next, A-rod vs Omar Vizquel?

[PVNICK]

Banks kills Ozzie on peak. But those pesky next ten years make the overall careers, as noted above, closer than one would think. Also Ozzie was a cut, not much of one, but a cut above nonetheless offensively from the Aparicio, Maranville, Vizquel grouping.

[GiambiJuice]

I know Ozzie was a great fielder but I can't accept that he saved enough runs with his glove to overcome his putrid hitting. I'll take Ernie.

[Bothrops Atrox]

I know Ozzie was a great fielder but I can't accept that he saved enough runs with his glove to overcome his putrid hitting. I'll take Ernie.

Including baserunning, Ozzie was -15 runs created for his career and was actually plus 50 or so after 1983. So Ozzie was actually league average offensively, and well above average for a league average SS. His career OB% was actually higher than league average. Certainly not "putrid". And from 1984-1993, he was helping the team offensively every year (minus 1990) - even compared to average. In his prime, from 1984-1993, Ozzie was +75 runs created.

As far as shortchanging the impact of defense. Ozzie +239 defensive runs saved means that he saved a hit an average of once every nine games. Not so hard to believe for the games best defensive player. I'd still take Banks, but lets not shortchange Ozzie too much here. Ozzie was a 1st ballot HOFer with 15 AS games and 13 GGs. Ozzie usually finishes in the top 5 in traditionalist SS polls. Ozzie is also 41st all-time in position player WAR and 6th all-time for SS.

Traditionalists and sabermetrics are in total agreement with how good he was.

[Herr28]

Good post Matthew C.!

Ozzie was a much better hitter than he is being given credit for. I would hardly call him "putrid," and perhaps his stellar defense has overshadowed his decent hitting for those who never paid any attention to him or his team while he was playing. He gets knocked because he didn't hit for power like Ripken, Trammell, or Larkin, but he could get on base and run like the wind! I too would take Banks due to his peak years and power advantage, but I would have no problem if I got stuck building my INF around the Wizard!

[BigRon]

Tougher call than it may seem. Banks was far and away the greatest hitting shortstop of his time- terrific power, good BA, not a big walker- but still a tremendous offensive force through about 1960 or so. He was just an okay defender at SS- didn't have exceptional range, not a real natural there. His knees kept getting worse and he switched to 1B around 1961 or 1962- I didn't look it up. Unfortunately for him and the Cubs, as he moved to a less demanding defensive position his batting skills also started to erode. He had several good season at the plate at 1B, but for the most part was not much more than an average 1Ber, offensively. But, this allowed him to build his counting stat totals.

Smith was an amazing SS except for his arm. He was pretty poor offensively early in his career, but improved over time. As mentioned, overall he was a bit above average offensively for SS. Plus, he was an excellent baserunner. And, he held his skills for a long time.

If Banks had been able to hold on at SS and continue to hit well for 2- 3 more seasons it would be a no-brainer.

I have Banks somewhere in the 65-70 range alltime among position players, Smith 10 or so spots lower. So, I guess I go with Banks, but it's sort of weird- they have 2 almost diametrically opposite careers- Banks' value was almost completely created in his first 8 or 9 seasons- and mostly on offense, Smith spread his out over many years- and far more on defense than Banks.

[toomanyhatz]

Mainly because I grew up seeing him play there, but also because he has more total games there (which is how I judge), Banks is a 1B to me.

While Ozzie got better offensively late in his career- and his speed was an asset from the beginning- Banks' offensive advantage is just too huge. It's sort of close, but still basically a no-brainer.

SS is a very important defensive position, but even the best ever, which Ozzie might be- is worth a lot less runs in the grand scheme of things than an above-average hitter at the position can gain you. And Banks is far above average.

[westsidegrounds]

Banks was an excellent shortstop until knee injuries - not lack of defensive talent - forced the move to 1B (the same injuries seriously damaged his offensive skills too).

With Banks you've got a Gold Glove (1960), workhorse (from 1954 through 1960 he played every game of the season, except in '56 when he missed 20-odd games due to injury) shortstop who hits 40 home runs a year. (And there's no telling what his batting stats would have been with a good team.)

I value defense more than most posters here, and Ozzie was certainly a great defensive SS, but there's really no contest here.