2010 HoF Ballot

[bonny]

If you were picking a team playground style, Ozzie would get SS everytime. Slide all those other fuckers over to 3B.

[ultimate7]

first play, try to watch it in slow motion

[Shooty]

there are probably 25 shortstops i could think of off the top of my head that i'd rather have than ozzie.

You are retarded.

[TempoGL]

Running in circles, I'm letting this one go.  I would say that if there was a HOF for baseball instructional videos, McGriff gets in first ballot.  

as long as Harold Reynolds is inducted at the same time.  i've been looking for the video on youtube for a while now, with no success.

COACHING IS SO IMPORTANT!

found it!

[nomaaa]

there are probably 25 shortstops i could think of off the top of my head that i'd rather have than ozzie.

You are retarded.

really? am i?

[Shooty]

there are probably 25 shortstops i could think of off the top of my head that i'd rather have than ozzie.

You are retarded.

really? am i?

yes

[ryno]

first play, try to watch it in slow motion

i posted that one, damnit!!!

[Nacho]

first play, try to watch it in slow motion

i posted that one, damnit!!!

But it was a LOT better when ultimate posted it.  Sorry ryno.

[nomaaa]

there are probably 25 shortstops i could think of off the top of my head that i'd rather have than ozzie.

You are retarded.

really? am i?

yes

word

[Darky]

My point being
1.  im a complete idiot.
2.  No one in their right mind would choose Smith over Larkin based on those numbers.  1 putout every 3 games for all those better batting numbers?
3.  Profit.

Yes, not only are you an idiot, but a fuckin' retard as well. What, you know baseball now? Pfffff....give.me.a.break.

Any moran that claims Larkin is better than Smith deserves to be gang raped by well endowed gorillas. That's just nonsense coming from a guy who never played baseball and generally is retarded in life.

Sorry, I just read the recent posts and that kind of nonsense infuriates me. Great defense at SS heavily outweighs the offensive numbers. Who in the fuck wants a SS that can rake but can't field? And within the context of this debate, Ozzie is far more deserving than Larkin, Conception, or anyone else. He redefined the position.

Holy shit the nonsense in this thread coming out of Reds and nomaaaa.

[Darky]

Ozzie also had 1300 more assists, which probably demonstrates that he had a LOT more range.

Maybe not every one.  Maybe the 2b grabs a few.  But the vast majority of those are hits if he doesn't grab them, and that doesn't count the extra putouts that he also gets to.

Great points Nacho. You always make much better sense when you speak baseball.

You guys have to understand how huge that is to take hits away from the hitters....and doing things that nobody else can on a consistent basis. It takes a lot of pressure off the pitcher, changes momentum, and it saves a lot of potential runs and kills or prevents rallies.

What Ozzie did was alter many games with his range and wizardry. Being a baseball player, I know how important this is. Fuck, we lost the final game of the Swedish Championships because the shortstop from Stockholm robbed two hits in two different innings with two outs and runners in scoring position...all because of his range. That was the difference.

SS (catcher as well) is the most important position out in the field. I've played with Shortstops and catchers who couldn't hit jackshit, but they still get drafted high or low because they could ball defensively. Great defense is the better offense in baseball. And hitting numbers that were in the range of Ozzie bears no significance because nobody could play SS like Ozzie could.

Discussion mediated by Darky...case closed.

[Clambutt]

the shortstop from Stockholm belongs in the Hall

[BDawk]

there are probably 25 shortstops i could think of off the top of my head that i'd rather have than ozzie.

You are retarded.

really? am i?

yes

word

If this is true, check with your school.  I'm sure you're eligible for some additional scholarship money reserved only for retarded people. 

If they want proof, just show them this thread

[Reds]

I've certainly never coached football.

[edfan]

Ozzie is far more deserving than Larkin, Conception, or anyone else. He redefined the position.

If anyone redefined (whether for good or for bad) the position of SS, it was probably Cal Ripken.  Ozzie did what most SS did historically.  He fielded his position well and, if he could hit that was a bonus.  Ripken put a premium on offense and was a big guy rather than being a wiry, light-hitting/slick fielding Ozzie Smith, Mark Belanger, Luis Aparicio, or Dave Concepcion. 

Credit for this should/could probably go to Ernie Banks for this had he played more of his career at SS.

I don't think that Ozzie redefined SS by any means.  He was just an outstanding example of what was expected at SS in his time. 

[Nacho]

I think EDF is right.  He served as the prototype of the position and was maybe the last great SS of that type (save for Vizquel).  Ripken really ushered in an era of the big offensive-minded shortstop.  We really don't have many like Ozzie left.

[Darky]

Good points, you two.

Ozzie is still the better SS defensively. He was what you call a shutdown SS. Ripken could hit, no doubt about that, but he was nowhere near Ozzie's stratosphere as far as fielding the ball with that kind of exceptional range. We disagree, no big deal. As long as you two don't bring up Larkin into this or say that you'd take 25 SS over Ozzie.

As a player, I'd want Ozzie in the field with me. His defense more than compensates for all the offensive output Ripken produced.

[bonny]

He was what you call a shutdown SS.

Keep your football bullshit out of this.
Who calls it that? Nobody.

[Darky]

Please come up with a better term Bonny to strengthen this case for Ozzie...

He was a shutdown SS though...just saying. And shut the fuck up btw. Don't address me like that in a baseball thread, I STOLE TWO BASES OFF CUBA!!!111

[edfan]

Good points, you two.

Ozzie is still the better SS defensively. He was what you call a shutdown SS. Ripken could hit, no doubt about that, but he was nowhere near Ozzie's stratosphere as far as fielding the ball with that kind of exceptional range. We disagree, no big deal. As long as you two don't bring up Larkin into this or say that you'd take 25 SS over Ozzie.

As a player, I'd want Ozzie in the field with me. His defense more than compensates for all the offensive output Ripken produced.

That is basically what we were saying.  The position of SS was for a strong defensive player and the bat was icing on the cake.  Ozzie was exceptional and really became the bar by which other defensive SS were measured.  Ripken was a great offensive SS while still decent with the glove.  I am not saying one is better than the other, but more that Ripken changed what is expected of a SS.  People expect offensive production out of a SS now