Better shortstop Dave Concepcion or Ozzie Smith?

[10xWSChamps]

Originally Posted by couch_manager

Have you heard of the Big Red Machine, the team that Davey played on? They got plenty of media attention during the '70's. Is there an equivalent Cardinals team that generated that much buzz when Ozzie played? Sorry, I'm sure you'd like to rewrite history, but the Cardinals weren't the team of the '80's.

Just forget I said it. Honestly it wasn't meant to be a chest-thumping thing... sorry

[couch_manager]

Originally Posted by 10xWSChamps

This probably won't be a popular opinion, but I think you have to include Derek Jeter in the discussion for best ever.

Without question, when his career is over, he'll probably be considered the best all-around shortstop ever to play the game. But...he's had a great supporting cast his entire career.

Just forget I said it. Honestly it wasn't meant to be a chest-thumping thing... sorry

Well, that's what I've come to expect from Cardinals fans. If that was not your intent, sorry.

[Defacto]

Originally Posted by couch_manager

Have you heard of the Big Red Machine, the team that Davey played on? They got plenty of media attention during the '70's. Is there an equivalent Cardinals team that generated that much buzz when Ozzie played? Sorry, I'm sure you'd like to rewrite history, but the Cardinals weren't the team of the '80's.

The A's also had attention in the 70's. Anyways, the Cardinals were the team of the 80's for most of the decade. Then, in 1988, the A's went on a similar tear as the Cardinals did, except their threepeat went into 1990.

[couch_manager]

Originally Posted by Defacto

The A's also had attention in the 70's. Anyways, the Cardinals were the team of the 80's for most of the decade. Then, in 1988, the A's went on a similar tear as the Cardinals did, except their threepeat went into 1990.

The Cardinals went on a tear? They lost 2 of the 3 World Series they were in. If you really want to compare the Cardinals to the A's, they were a disappointment, much like the Buffalo Bills in football.

The team of the '80's were the Dodgers, not the Cardinals.

[Krawhitham]

For defense Davy, hands down, by a mile, if the man could back flip he'd be in the HOF

[Defacto]

Originally Posted by couch_manager

The Cardinals went on a tear? They lost 2 of the 3 World Series they were in. If you really want to compare the Cardinals to the A's, they were a disappointment, much like the Buffalo Bills in football.

The team of the '80's were the Dodgers, not the Cardinals.

I can except that. I was just saying the Cardinals were like the A's due to the fact they won three pennants and only won one WS once.

[ian_madden]

1. The Big Red Machine is considered by many, not just Reds fans as the greatest team ever.

2. Ozzie Might have been the Wizard, but Barry Larkin is GOD!

[DocRed]

Hard to compare offensive worth vs defensive worth, even with today's sabremetrics. That being said Concepcion was certainly no slouch defensively, he was a 5 time GG'er. Overall though Ozzie was better, but the difference was not a large as some here would lead you to believe, Ozzie had some extremely bad offensive years early in his career. It was only until he turned 30 that he somehow began to hit the ball with any kind of consistency. Ozzie's BA was somewhere in the .230's before he hit 30.

[scott91575]

Originally Posted by Yadi for Mayor

I personally don't believe in players being "clutch". There are some players who choke in pressure situations and there are many money who just have skewed numbers because of a small sample size.

However if you want to believe in things like players being clutch and overvaluing small sample sizes, Ozzie Smith's famous "go crazy folks" homerun in the 1985 NLCS was pretty clutch.

So you downplay it due to sample size, and then go to a 1 time example. Good logic.

[scott91575]

Originally Posted by 10xWSChamps

I think Ozzie's popularity and celebrity was probably helped by playing on the Cardinals

The Big Red Machine was more popular than your Cardinals ever were or ever will be.

[scott91575]

Originally Posted by 10xWSChamps

I'm not trying to brag or anything, I'm just saying the Cardinals were a more popular team and got more national media exposure.. that was even more important back then then it is these days with the internet, ESPN and the MLB network where you can see more then just the select national coverage.

Seriously, the more I read the more I wonder where you are coming from. What was different in the 80's vs. the 70's? Nintendo?

The Big Red Machine of the 70's had as much if not more exposure nationally than the Cardinals in the 80's.

If you want to make any kind of comparison you could say the Cardinals did not have the star power of a Bench, Rose, or Morgan and therefore did not overshadow Ozzie like the stars of the Reds overshadowed Concepcion.

Seriously, how can you compare exposure of the Reds of the 70's vs. the Cardinals of the 80's? The Reds of the 70's are compared to the greatest teams of all time. The Cardinals of the 80's? Also rans.

[Caveman Techie]

Sorry, but Ozzie had the better glove for a longer time than Davey did. Not saying that Davey didn't have some seasons where he would have rivaled Ozzie defensively, just Ozzie had more seasons of better defense.

Also, Larkin was better than both. The whole package defense and offense. He was the one who changed what SS were supposed to be on a team.

[Reds]

I'm too young to offer an type of real analysis. Ozzie Smith's rookie card is worth more, tho.

[Orodle]

The Wizard.....

However, I would say Larkin was a lot more valuable player.

[PhatHead]

Both have comparable offensive numbers.

It's bottom of the 9th. 2 outs, runner on third. A sharp ground ball hit deep in the hole between SS and 3rd. Who do you want fielding it?