Shortstop Omar Vizquel belongs in the Hall of Fame
On Jan. 26, the Baseball Writers of America Association will announce the results of its 2021 Hall of Fame live from Cooperstown on MLB Network. Electees will be inducted during Hall of Fame Weekend on Sunday, July 25, in Cooperstown.
In this writer’s opinion, Omar Vizquel should be making his acceptance speech in July. But he probably won’t.
As writer Chris Bodig notes, “Vizquel is on the Hall of Fame ballot for the fourth year and is at the center of the debate between the community of sabermetricians and people who follow their instincts when evaluating a player’s Hall of Fame candidacy… He may run into a sabermetric wall of detractors that keep him under the magic number (75 percent of the votes) and thus force his case to be considered years later by the ‘ Today’s Game’ Eras Committee, the modern version of the Veterans Committee.”
Vizquel played more games at shortstop than any other man in the history of baseball. His career spanned four decades and 24 seasons, over which he won 11 Gold Gloves (two with the Giants). His career fielding percentage of .9847 is the best ever for all Major League shortstops.
He had 2,877 career hits and a career batting average of .272, ten points better than the .262 of Ozzie Smith, who is in the Hall. Statistics guru Bill James came up with what he calls a “similarity score.” The players most similar to Vizquel in offensive production are Luis Aparicio, Rabbit Maranville, Smith, Bill Dahlen, Dave Concepcion, Luke Appling, Pee Wee Reese and Nellie Fox. Of those, only Concepcion and Dahlen are not in the Hall of Fame.
Sabermetricians who make the case against Vizquel claim that some of the defensive metrics don’t back up Vizquel’s reputation as an all-time premier defender. But, as Bodig points out, defense is more difficult to quantify than offense.
Vizquel’s detractors point to a statistic called range factor, which is computed this way: 9 times (putouts plus assists) divided by innings played. In his
career, Vizquel’s range factor per 9 innings was 4.62. The league average over those 24 seasons was 4.61.
The idea behind range factor is that a player who is involved in a lot of plays must be able to cover a wider portion of the field. But, as an article on pennantchase.com points out, “Anyone who has watched a lot of baseball knows that a fielder involved in a lot of plays doesn’t necessarily have good range. Maybe he’s an infielder playing behind a lot of ground-ball pitchers. Maybe he’s an outfielder playing in a large ballpark. There are so many reasons why one player might accumulate more opportunities than his peers.”
Detractors make the case that Vizquel was not a big help to his teams offensively, primarily on the basis of his career wins above replacement ( WAR) score. WAR is a difficult statistic to describe. It seeks to answer the question: “If this player got
injured and their team had to replace him with a freely available minor leaguer, how much value would the team lose?”
But WAR is another controversial statistic, so much so that in 2016 the MLB Players association scheduled a meeting after the MVP and Cy Young winners were announced because they believed that WAR was weighted too heavily in the decisionmaking process.
A more meaningful statistic is OPS-plus, which combines on-base percentage with slugging percentage, adjusted for ballparks and seasons. Vizquel’s score of 82 equals that of Hall of Famers Aparicio and Maranville and is just below that of Smith.
Also, Vizquel was a master at handling the bat. With 256 sacrifice hits (bunts) and 94 sacrifice flies, he has the most combined sacrifices (350) since 1954, the first year Baseball-Reference measured sacrifice flies.
So, should Vizquel be in the Hall of Fame? As Pudig writes, “Essentially, it’s an eye test vs a WAR test.”
Let’s hear from some who actually saw Vizquel
play:
Andrew Baggarly, The Athletic Bay Area: “Yes, my small Hall includes Vizquel. Go ahead and torch me for that, but I believe that longevity matters — especially at the most grueling position on the infield — and there aren’t metrics that can adequately assess the transcendent joy he brought to anyone who watched him play.”
Henry Schulman, San Francisco Chronicle: “Face it, Vizquel’s was his generation’s Ozzie Smith, or the closest facsimile… Stats are important, and newer metrics that better compare players through different eras are valuable. But they are the sum of a player’s career. If you use numbers alone to shunt Vizquel into that mythical Hall of the Very Good, it’s a fair bet you did not see him play. Sometimes a man is a Hall of Famer because, well, he just is.”
Bill Madden, New York Daily News: “I have two very simple Hall of Fame criteria: The first is the ‘see’ test. In watching a player for 10 or more years, did I say to myself: ‘I’m looking at a Hall of Famer?’ The four greatest
fielding shortstops I ever saw were Vizquel, Ozzie, Luis Aparicio and Mark Belanger. Ozzie had the flair and the backflips, but Vizquel, for me, was the best. Made every play look easy.”
Bob Ryan, Boston Globe: “A consummate fielder — I said consummate — fielder, and teamed with Hall of Famer Roberto Alomar to form the best DP combo I ever saw. Yes, I am partial to defensive whizzes, and I refuse to apologize for it.”
Those of us who had the pleasure of watching Vizquel play shortstop for the Giants for four years knew we were seeing greatness. Recent claims during divorce proceedings by his wife of domestic abuse (which Vizquel vehemently denies) could hurt his chances of Hall election.
But as far as his on-field performance, here’s hoping the baseball writers trust their eyes as much as their calculators when they cast their votes this time around.