Edgar Martinez

[ThaSaltCracka]

Calls it quits today...... end of an era here in Seattle /images/graemlins/frown.gif. The debate will start soon though, HoF worthy??? I say yeah but I am obviously biased.....

[Zeno]

Too bad that it had to end on the downward spiral for him and the team. This is probably the best move but I'm disappointed he did not get another shot at, at least, the playoffs.

So long Edgar.
You will be missed.

-Zeno

[B-Man]

He was an outstanding hitter, a much better hitter than Paul Molitor (whose primary position was DH). His avg. is very good, and his OPS is outstanding, even factoring in today's Nintendo-like numbers.

However, his totals are short of typical 1B/OF/DH (Molitor) HOF standards, and will probably prevent him from being elected, rightly or wrongly.

[ThaSaltCracka]

you think his numbers are just to low?

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

I doubt he gets in, at least first ballot.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
you think his numbers are just to low?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably. I'm not saying that he's not worthy, I'm saying that more than 25% of the voters will think he is not worthy (I believe you need 75% for election). The voters give a lot of weight to totals, too much weight, IMO (which is one reason I think players like Ripken and Rose, among others, are overrated). I looked a few hours ago, and IIRC Edgar has about 2200 hits, 305 home runs, and 1250 RBIs--those numbers are not impressive for someone who played a power position (can't compare him to other DHs in the Hall because there aren't any, except Molitor, who had 3,319 hits and whose other totals are much better than Edgar's (except HR)(Molitor also had 500+ stolen bases). I don't think Edgar will get enough credit for his Avg/OBP/Slg.

I would give him a lot of consideration if I had a vote, but I think he's a pretty significant underdog to get elected.

[wayabvpar]

Sad to see him go, but I am glad it wasn't immediate (which is how ESPN originally posted it). At least I will have the chance to see him play again (I have tickets to two games coming up that I purchased, at great cost, before the season. Little did I know they would be so terrible).

As for the HOF- I think he is borderline. I really hope he makes it, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he doesn't.

[ThaSaltCracka]

yeah, I am probably being overly optimistic. I think he deserves it, but probably won't get it.

[ThaSaltCracka]

just saw on ESPN.com.
Would Edgar get your vote to the HoF?
65% yes
35% No
Maybe its a good think the average fan doesn't vote /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[mikeyvegas]

DHs do not belong in the Hall of Fame. Period. I do think that Edgar was a great hitter though.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe its a good think the average fan doesn't vote

[/ QUOTE ]

It's definitely a good thing. When you poll the uninformed, you can get some pretty absurd results (like Nolan Ryan getting the most votes for the All Century team).

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
DHs do not belong in the Hall of Fame. Period. I do think that Edgar was a great hitter though.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about Molitor? He played 43% of his games at DH, far more than he played at any other position (29% at 3B, 15% at 2B and the rest at 1B/SS/OF).

[Uston]

Why not? They play baseball. Ergo, they should be considered for the Hall Of Fame. I do think it's only fair to expect their offensive stats to be at least 20% better than everyone else in order to get in, though.

[mikeyvegas]

Paul Molitor: 57% position player/43% DH
Edgar Martinez: 31.5% position player/68.5 DH

I think that there is a distinction. Don't get me wrong though, I hate everything about the DH and it's institution in 1973.

[andyfox]

Why not? Why shouldn't they be judged as players, complete, like anybody else? Add up their contributions as hitters, as runners, and as fielders (which would be zero) and make a judgment.

[mikeyvegas]

[ QUOTE ]
...and as fielders (which would be zero) and make a judgment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy,

I have the highest respect for your poker posts, but are you F-ing kidding me on this one. Baseball is not just a hitters game. Fox, ESPN, and Bud Selig would want you to beleive that it is but fielding your position(in my opinion) is a huge part of the game. And just to let you know I grew up in Michigan as a Detroit Tigers fan so this is not NL bias speaking.

Are you of the mindset that Ozzie Smith should not be in the HOF?

[andyfox]

The best players are those that conbtribute most to their team winning. A team wins by ending up with more runs than the team they're playing. They do this by scoring and preventing runs.

Each action a player takes on the field contributes. There's more to the game than pitching too. Should pitchers not be eligible because they don't contribute anything as hitters or baserunners? Or if they're poor fielders?

Fielding one's position is a part of the game, of course. You say it's a huge part of the game. There are ways, with the advent of sabermetrics, of measuring just how important that is. In Edgar's case, of course, it doesn't really matter, since he doesn't field. So we give Edgar a zero for his fielding contribution, measure his other contributions, and determine whether or not he's worthy.

Rogers Hornsby was, by all contemporary accounts, a miserable fielder. Couldn't go out on a pop-up. .356 lifetime average. Should he not be eligible for the Hall of Fame because he didn't pull his weight in the field? No, we give him credit for his offensive contributions, subtract his defensive shortcomings (and other shortcomings he might have had; by all accounts, he was a first-class jerk), and make a judgment on his worthiness for the Hall

Ozzie's numbers, his total contribution at the plate, on the basepaths and in the field, convince me he should indeed be in the Hall of Fame. I haven't studied Edgar's numbers. But if they show he should (or shouldn't) what difference would it make where his contributions were made on the baseball field?

BTW, thanks for the poker compliment. I consider myself a "B" poker player and an A-minus baseball analyst. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Edgar deserved the MVP in '95

[NoPeak]

He has had a very nice career. He has a little over 2100 hits, around 300 hr's,1200 rbi's, and a very good avg., however IMO thats not good enough to get him into HOF.

[Randy_Refeld]

Are you of the mindset that Ozzie Smith should not be in the HOF?

I believe he should not be. I have often thought if you could have the worst fielder at each position you might have a shot at the pennant. That would be painful to watch.

Randy Refeld

[Sooga]

A catcher or SS with those stats is probably a HOF lock. A DH? You gotta be kidding me. For a DH to get into the hall, he should have in the neighborhood of a .320 BA, 600+ homers, 1800+ rbi, and 3000+ hits.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
For a DH to get into the hall, he should have in the neighborhood of a .320 BA, 600+ homers, 1800+ rbi, and 3000+ hits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having met you I find it hard to imagine that you've ever said anything dumber in your whole life.

[Sooga]

Perhaps those minimum numbers are a bit of an exaggeration, but how is it absurd to expect that a player with basically ZERO defensive contribution (let's face it, Edgar was no gold glover) would need to put up BETTER than 'typical' HOF numbers to be considered?

[Clarkmeister]

I agree with that. And I don't think Edgar is a HoFer looking at his numbers. My post was simply to point out how absurd your statement was. "If he's not like the 3rd best offensive player ever, no DH can get into the Hall". Since I can't beat you in poker I need to point out when you say totally ridiculous [censored]. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Sooga]

[ QUOTE ]
Since I can't beat you in poker I need to point out when you say totally ridiculous [censored]. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't be so humble... you just need more practice identifying the Sooga Factor.

[The Dude]

Question:
Does the fact that Edgar was like 28 his rookie year change anything? (Meaning his career totals numbers, although smaller than the typical HOFer's, were accomplished in fewer years.)

[ThaSaltCracka]

he needs to be a career .320 hitter????
He is a career .315 hitter, you know how many other players in the historty of the game have a higher career avg? 73, that may seem like a lot until you realize just how many players have played the game. There are 24 people ahead of him who are not in the HoF, 6 of which are active and a few others who aren't HoF, but will be (Gwynn, Boggs) or who should be in (Joe Jackson).
He is 25th all time in OPS

Please point out some DH who were better than him? Because the point here is you have to compare him to his fellow players and take into account the era he played in.

600+ HR's is completely absurd. He averaged 25 HR's, and that may not be a lot, but he was consistent, he hit atleast 20 HR's every season he played 130 games except for 4 seasons. I really think the only offensive category he is lacking in is RBI's, the rest numbers are impressive IMO.

Compare his season avergage's to Molitor. He kills him in almost every meaningful category except hits and runs. Look at his HR, RBI's, BA, OBP, SLG.

[Clarkmeister]

At the end of the day, if you are going to only have 10 real productive years, they damn well better be freaking brilliant. His weren't, and that coupled with the lack of overwhelming career numbers means it's a no-go for him.

[Sooga]

Like I pointed out to Clark earlier, my numbers were perhaps exaggerating, but my point is that Edgar's numbers would have to be overwhelming to get into the Hall, given that his defensive contributions were as low as you can get. Molitor was one of the greatest all-around hitters in the past half century. You can't even compare Molly and Edgar. You say Molly had more hits as an aside, but he had over ONE THOUSAND more hits than Edgar. He had (a lot) more doubles, more triples, and more runs, not to mention he had over 500 steals, a number Edgar couldn't get to if he played 500 years.

Did it hurt Edgar that he didn't really get established until he was 27? Obviously it did. But that doesn't take away from the fact that he's only been an excellent hitter for a few years. Look at his '02 and '03 seasons. Good, but nothing to write home about. He was only excellent from about '95 to about '01. And certainly not SO excellent that that by itself should put him in the hall.

As someone pointed out in a earlier post, Molly spent less than half of his career as a DH, and the rest as a position player. Edgar spent over TWO-THIRDS of his (rather short) career as DH.

When you talk about career stats, you can't just say 'Oh, well Edgar put up so and so and it is way better than Molly's so and so. Thus Edgar is a better hitter.' You have to look at how they played compared to their peers. And if you look at their career stats, Molitor's OPS is 122 points higher than the league, Edgar's is 151 (both park adjusted). Does a 29 point difference really make Edgar THAT much better of a hitter? No. When you add in his smallish career totals and his zero on defense, he's just not a hall of fame player.

[B-Man]

on ESPN Insider, for those who subscribe.

It's a good column by a good writer.

[kerssens]

[ QUOTE ]
He was only excellent from about '95 to about '01

[/ QUOTE ]

He did win a batting title in '92 (.343 avg) and hit over .300 in '91 and '90

[Garbonzo]

I think he has a chance to get in, despite the low numbers. I mean, how do you quantify "clutch"?? Fer darn darn, Barry Bonds was on the road to not making it for a while just by being the most unclutch player ever, of course now his numbers have crossed all plains of of greatness.

If there are two outs in the ninth, name another righty batting in his prime you would rather have at the plate. Edgar has to be top 3.

I think there are quite a few crap players in the HOF, Edgar should get in, as should Shoeless Joe and Pete....

[ThaSaltCracka]

Dude, lets get a few things straight here.
Molitor essentially played 19 seasons, I am not counting 81 or 84, way to few games, and Edgar essentially played 13 seasons, not counting 87-89, and 93, because again not enough games. So basically Molitor had 6 more season than him(and 4000 more AB's). Its not surprising then that Molitor has more hits than him.

[ QUOTE ]
You have to look at how they played compared to their peers. And if you look at their career stats, Molitor's OPS is 122 points higher than the league, Edgar's is 151 (both park adjusted). Does a 29 point difference really make Edgar

[/ QUOTE ] This is so stupid, you just compared him to his peers, and you don't seem to think a 151 point difference in OPS is meaningful????

[ QUOTE ]
When you talk about career stats, you can't just say 'Oh, well Edgar put up so and so and it is way better than Molly's so and so. Thus Edgar is a better hitter.'

[/ QUOTE ] Wait, so you can do this with Molitor in regards to having more hits than him and make the assumption that Molitor was a better hitter?? IMO they are both good hitters, but different type of hitters.

One other thing to consider here is, the DH is not going anywhere. Those of you who hate it need to just accept that, so there will come a time when some player who spends a majority of his career at DH will get voted in, and what are they going to base his career off? Edgar is argueably the best DH to ever play, and one of the best hitters ever, so that wouldn't be a bad place to start. I agree that his lack of defensive playing time really hurts his chances, but I still think he has good enough numbers to get in.

[ThaSaltCracka]

hook it up man, I don't have a subscription!!!!! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[B-Man]

It wont let me copy any of the text.

Neyer basically comes to the same conclusion I did--Edgar was an excellent hitter, but in the end his totals probably are short of what he would need to be elected (the voters like "counting stats," as Neyer calls them). Especially when you compare him to other great hitters who made limited defensive contributions--such as Manny, the Big Hurt, Palmiero, Bagwell, Thome, and Helton (big asterisk there)--his numbers just wont look very impressive, even though he has a better OPS than some of those guys.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
If there are two outs in the ninth, name another righty batting in his prime you would rather have at the plate. Edgar has to be top 3.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you referring to? Top 3 righties of all-time? Certainly not, because that is absurd. Top 3 righties from the 90s? Less absurd, but still not true. There might a season or two when this was the case... but probably not more than that.

[ QUOTE ]
I think there are quite a few crap players in the HOF, Edgar should get in, as should Shoeless Joe and Pete....

[/ QUOTE ]

Shoeless Joe and Rose aren't excluded because of their performance, you know that. Their issues are completely irrelevant to this discussion.

[Sooga]

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, lets get a few things straight here.
Molitor essentially played 19 seasons, I am not counting 81 or 84, way to few games, and Edgar essentially played 13 seasons, not counting 87-89, and 93, because again not enough games. So basically Molitor had 6 more season than him(and 4000 more AB's). Its not surprising then that Molitor has more hits than him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, Edgar getting started at 27 certainly hurt him. If he had the longevity of Molitor and put up anything close to big-time numbers, he'd be a lock. But he didn't. So he's not. He had a great 8 year run or so. But was it a Sandy-Koufax type run? No.

[ QUOTE ]
This is so stupid, you just compared him to his peers, and you don't seem to think a 151 point difference in OPS is meaningful????

[/ QUOTE ]

Um... when did I ever say a 151 point difference is not meaningful? I said a 29 point difference is hardly meaningful. Certainly not meaningful enough to throw someone into the hall with very low career numbers (for a hall of famer). And 29 points is hardly enough to say 'yup, Edgar was hands down a better hitter than Molitor', especially when you add in everything else Molitor did on the field.

[ QUOTE ]
Wait, so you can do this with Molitor in regards to having more hits than him and make the assumption that Molitor was a better hitter?? IMO they are both good hitters, but different type of hitters.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be under the impression that I think Edgar is not a good hitter. Well he is. He was a great hitter. Fantastic. Just not long enough. Molitor was a good-great hitter for a long time. You don't put up 3319 hits by accident.

And Edgar one of the best hitters ever? Of all-time? He wouldn't even crack my top 20. Best hitters of his generation? If you're talking righties and lefties, he probably wouldn't even be in my top 10. Just righties? Even then, I'd stick Albert Belle, Manny Ramirez, Juan Gonzalez, and Frank Thomas in front of him.

See, the thing is, I think this whole "Edgar Martinez is a 'professional hitter'" hype has caught up with everyone. I mean, if you think about it, if some CF or 1B put up these numbers, I don't think there'd be much of a discussion. But you're comparing him to the very few career DH's, and since he's the best out of those, then he should get in? That's a bad argument.

[Fnord]

Is the HoF all about numbers? Also, consider the impact he's had on his team and the game. Eddie has been a huge part of baseball in Seattle through the best and worst. Over the years he's been among the best players to DH and PH day to day. A benchmark for the job. It's the hall of fame, not the hall of accumulated lifetime stats and Edgar belongs in it.

...btw, it will be interesting to see how this discussion plays out with Ichiro a few years from now...

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Is the HoF all about numbers? Also, consider the impact he's had on his team and the game. Eddie has been a huge part of baseball in Seattle through the best and worst. Over the years he's been among the best players to DH and PH day to day. A benchmark for the job. It's the hall of fame, not the hall of accumulated lifetime stats and Edgar belongs in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of it is about the numbers, yes. As for the impact he's had on the game... what impact has he had? He's been a nice player, an excellent hitter. But you don't get elected to the HOF because you are a good guy, or because you are a fan favorite.

Edgar just doesn't have the numbers. He needed a couple of more good years.

As for Ichiro, he's a long way from even being in the discussion. He's only in his 4th year, and he's 30. He's probably going to need another 7 or 8 years like his first 3, and the odds are against that. Also, his numbers had been in a downward trend the last couple of years, until this year. We'll see how he finishes up this year...

[Uston]

I've been a huge American League fan for Edgar's entire career and I can recall the details of exactly one of his hits, and that's only because it beat the MFY in the playoffs. He may be big in Seattle but on a national scale, his impact on the game isn't exactly in the same stratosphere as McGwire or Ripken.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Paul Molitor: 57% position player/43% DH
Edgar Martinez: 31.5% position player/68.5 DH

[/ QUOTE ]
your numbers are misleading. Molitor played DH more than any other posistion, so therefor he is a DH, and in fact is enshrined as a DH as well. His combined time at other posistions may be more than the total amount of time he DH, but he didn't play any other posistion more than DH.
HoF Molitor (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/molitor_paul.htm)

[ThaSaltCracka]

B-Man,
Take a look at his averages per year and tell me what you think. FWIW, he may very well be the second best DH of all time after Molitor. There is some considerarion here IMO, for him to be in there. Take a look at the numbers of some of the other HoF'ers at there respective posistions, and you can tell me where you think Edgar is in comparison as a DH.
I was surpised to see Molitor listed under DH and in fact I was surprised it was even listed on their website. Like I said, he has to be compared to other DH's.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
He may be big in Seattle but on a national scale, his impact on the game isn't exactly in the same stratosphere as McGwire or Ripken.

[/ QUOTE ] I agree, but does it need to be to consider a HoF'er?

[B-Man]

If you look at his 162-game average, there's no question he is better than Molitor (I think in my first post in this thread I said he was a better hitter than Molitor). But while the voters may look at this, they'll probably be a lot more interested in his career numbers--excellent average, OBP and slugging, but only 2200 hits, 305 HR and 1250 RBIs (plus whatver he gets the rest of this year, now that we know he is going to finish the season).

Molitor's career totals blow away Edgar's (except HR), and Molitor had 500 SB. Molitor had 3,300 hits--that alone pretty much made his election a sure thing.

I think Edgar will be compared to Molitor, but I think he'll also be compared to other one-dimensional (i.e. not good fielders) players from his era--Manny, Frank Thomas, Bagwell, Palmiero, etc. His totals wont come close to any of those guys.

In a way, this reminds me of Jim Rice. Look at Rice's stats from 1975-1986, when he was the best hitter in the AL (if not all of baseball). He hit about 350 home runs in that 12-year stretch with a .300+ average and excellent slugging. But he lost it overnight, ended up with only 382 HR and a .298 average, and isn't in the HOF yet (and it looks like he's not going to make it). Edgar's averages are better than JR's, but his totals aren't as good as JR, who had 2400+ hits, 382 HR and 1450 RBIs, with a .298 average and .502 slg. Also, Rice won the MVP and finished in the top 10 6 times. Edgar only finished in the top 10 twice (which tells you something about how valuable the writers think he was--and a lot of the MVP voters are also HOF voters).

I predict he'll be one of those guys that gets 30-40% of the vote every year, but never gets elected.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I think an argument can be made for players like Rice, Edgar, etc... to be in the HoF, certainly they had very good careers. But it really makes me wonder what kind of numbers players need to have to be in the HoF. You know, whats the benchmark stats wise, is it different at every posistion. Because there are some career .250ish hitters in there, and then there are career .280+ guys that aren't in there. I mean look at Dave Winfield, he has 3000 hits and he's not in (edit oops, my bad, he's there, /images/graemlins/cool.gif). It doesn't look like 400+ HR makes you autmotic anymore. I still think it has to be consitency.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
I think an argument can be made for players like Rice, Edgar, etc... to be in the HoF, certainly they had very good careers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree solid arguments can be made for both of them... I just don't think they are strong enough to convince 75% of the voters.

[ QUOTE ]
But it really makes me wonder what kind of numbers players need to have to be in the HoF. You know, whats the benchmark stats wise, is it different at every posistion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is in flux. Obviously 3,000 hits is automatic, but like you said, 400 HRs is no longer going to be automatic (Canseco has 462 and I don't think anyone thinks he is HOF material; McGriff has 491 and he will be interesting--he's borderline at best, though if his other numbers were better he might have a strong case). The benchmarks have to be adjusted to reflect the state of the game today.

[ QUOTE ]
I still think it has to be consitency.

[/ QUOTE ]

Consistency and longevity. Generally speaking, I think you have to be dominating/excellent for a minimum of 10 years (I'm thinking of guys like Koufax and Pedro), excellent for about 15 years (McGwire, though actually he was dominating for a bunch of years and sucked for several others due to injuries), or very good for close to 20 (Yount, Molitor, etc.) to be elected. Guys who are dominating/excellent for 20+ years are few and far between (Ted Williams, Ruth, Clemens).

[Uston]

I agree, but does it need to be to consider a HoF'er?

Definitely not. I was just responding to the poster that claimed Edgar's impact on baseball would make up for his shortcomings in certain stats.

[Boris]

Why do you automatically discount Ichiro's Japan numbers? His success in the US IMO validates alot of what he did in Japan.

[offTopic]

[ QUOTE ]
Calls it quits today...... end of an era here in Seattle /images/graemlins/frown.gif. The debate will start soon though, HoF worthy??? I say yeah but I am obviously biased.....

[/ QUOTE ]

I always liked watching him hit, despite not being a Mariners fan, but I think he comes up short. Too late a start and too many injuries.

I don't think there's any shame in being a very good hitter that wasn't quite worthy of the HoF. Who else goes if he gets in? Andres Galarraga? Bill Madlock? Al Oliver?

[Clarkmeister]

Andre Dawson, Will Clark, Dale Murphy? Tim Raines? Harold Baines?

[offTopic]

[ QUOTE ]
Andre Dawson, Will Clark, Dale Murphy? Tim Raines? Harold Baines?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. See? Sorry, Edgar.*

* - and I was a big Will Clark fan, all the way back to college.

[Sooga]

Raines, along with Bert Blyleven, are a couple of the most notable omissions from the HoF. Raines was a fantastic player for a long time. He's on the short list of the greatest lead off hitters in the past 50 years. He did everything you want out of the 1-hole. Great OBP, stole a boatload of bases, made great contact, and was just an altogether great fundamental player. Everyone nowadays just cares about the longball, that it's easy to forget about a player like Rock.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you automatically discount Ichiro's Japan numbers? His success in the US IMO validates alot of what he did in Japan.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said anything about discounting his Japanese stats. There is no reason to--they are completely irrelevant to him getting into the National Baseball Hall of Fame.

[Boris]

yea you're right. I though it the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown was for all of baseball.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For a DH to get into the hall, he should have in the neighborhood of a .320 BA, 600+ homers, 1800+ rbi, and 3000+ hits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having met you I find it hard to imagine that you've ever said anything dumber in your whole life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can neither confirm nor deny...

aw, screwit. He's said a lot of dumber stuff. A LOT. If he denies it, I'll have to go to the webcam...

Josh

[miamikid]

Cecil Fielder?

[Sooga]

are you serious?

[I am fish]

I looked up his stats for fun and was surprised to see 2 stolen bases for his career and he was caught stealing 6 times.

[B-Man]

He was the first (and may still be the only) member of the 0, 50, 100, 150 club.



(0 stolen bases, 50 HR, 100 RBIs, 150 strikeouts)

[DonWaade]

OK, I am going to weigh in. I was lurking for several days and thus dont think too many people will read this. Like many people in this thread, I am a die hard Mariner's fan. At all times. Even Chuck Cottier years. So my opinion will be at least perceived as biased and I did not want to respond for that reason. But there are things that I have not seen pointed out in this thread. Only 6 players in MLB history have at least 300 HRs, 500 doubles, 1,000 walks, career batting average above .300, and an OBS above .400. Any guesses who those six might be. . . ? Stan Musial, Rogers Hornsby, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Ted Williams, and Edgar. Pretty elite company. I know that almost any player can be put on a list of a "truly HOF worthy" players and appear comprable, so I am not naive enough to think that that single piece of evidence should be compelling enough to get him into the Hall. However, it made me want to ponder some more. His lifetime stats will say that he played 18 years. But that is not entirely acurate. He missed almost two years due to injury, and like him or not, there is no arguing that he was ALWAYS in shape. He also rode the bench off and on because of the Mariner's incessant love of Jim Pressley. If you campare Edgar's AT BATS/plate appearances to other 18 year players, one will find that his numbers are substantially less than that of the latter. True, his defense was never stellar, probably not even average. But here is the most intruiging thing that I dont think most people have taken into account: We "expert pundits" and yes, even the HOF voting commitee, spend so much time NOT voting in players that have good numbers but were not quality people. I.E. Pete Rose, Tony Perez, Shoeless Joe etc. But what we dont think about is the other side of that proverbial coin. What if we said, "well, you know Edgar has decent HOF numbers. . . . what kind of person was he. . . . ? Oh, he was a great person!!??? Well then, that sways my vote." In short, if his numbers are not worthy, than his character should be. If anyone reading this is not well informed about the type of person Edgar is, I would submit to you that he can put his name the Govenor's ballot the NIGHT BEFORE election and would win in a walk. He is great for Seattle, and always has been. He has been and still is great for baseball, and we as fans should be greatfull that he is what should be the embodiment of Major League Baseball, in fact all professional sports.

So, here is one "expert pundits" vote for Edgar.

[goofball]

and it hit's one out in his first game since the annoucement.

bittersweet

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Only 6 players in MLB history have at least 300 HRs, 500 doubles, 1,000 walks, career batting average above .300, and an OBS above .400.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you pointed out, it's a nice stat, but certainly not a reason anyone should be considered HOF-worthy. There are all kinds of weird stats you can come up with. Edgar is not in a class with any of those guys, so the stat doesn't mean too much.

[ QUOTE ]
His lifetime stats will say that he played 18 years. But that is not entirely acurate. He missed almost two years due to injury, and like him or not, there is no arguing that he was ALWAYS in shape. He also rode the bench off and on because of the Mariner's incessant love of Jim Pressley. If you campare Edgar's AT BATS/plate appearances to other 18 year players, one will find that his numbers are substantially less than that of the latter.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a reason to put him in the Hall of Fame. Those are negatives, not positives. Lots of players have injuries, etc. It seems you are trying to use the points listed above as "excuses," but I am not sure why. His record speaks for itself--as Bill Parcells would say, "You are what you are."

[ QUOTE ]
But here is the most intruiging thing that I dont think most people have taken into account: We "expert pundits" and yes, even the HOF voting commitee, spend so much time NOT voting in players that have good numbers but were not quality people. I.E. Pete Rose, Tony Perez, Shoeless Joe etc. But what we dont think about is the other side of that proverbial coin. What if we said, "well, you know Edgar has decent HOF numbers. . . . what kind of person was he. . . . ? Oh, he was a great person!!??? Well then, that sways my vote." In short, if his numbers are not worthy, than his character should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Tony Perez is in the Hall of Fame.
2. Pete Rose isn't excluded because he doesn't get enough votes, he's excluded because he's not eligible to be on the ballot.
3. Most importantly, being a "good guy" is not a reason to be voted into the HOF. There have been a lot of good guys in the history of baseball. I think the good guy rep. helped Kirby Puckett (who turned out to be not such a good guy), but I think this was a HUGE mistake.

Edgar was an excellent hitter and by all accounts a good guy. But that is not necessarily enough to justify election to the HOF (and in this case, I think it is not quite enough).

[andyfox]

Sammy Sosa, 2001.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
3. Most importantly, being a "good guy" is not a reason to be voted into the HOF. There have been a lot of good guys in the history of baseball. I think the good guy rep. helped Kirby Puckett (who turned out to be not such a good guy), but I think this was a HUGE mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]
You may or may not find this interesting B-Man.
From the HoF website (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/rules.htm)
5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

BTW, good post DonWade

[B-Man]

So you think somebody should get in because they have good integrity, sportsmanship and character? You're going to have a lot of mediocre and bad players in the Hall of Fame if that's what you want to base it on.

Whether Don Wade likes it or not, the character issues are generally only used as a negative, not a positive, and even then they hardly ever are a factor (look at all the scumbags in the HOF, like Ty Cobb). Of course someone who commits a major offense like Rose or Shoeless Joe is automatically out, but that goes far beyond character--they committed the cardinal sin, as far as baseball is concerned.

Looking at Kirby Puckett's numbers, I don't think he should be in the HOF. Lots of guys have their careers cut short by injury--you don't see Tony C., Lyman Bostock or J.R. Richard in the HOF, do you?

[B-Man]

I should have known you would be the one to find another member of this exclusive club.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I don't think they should get in just because they have integrity and good sportsmanship. Obviously you have to have been a good player. But I do think it should def be a part of the equation. I am not sure if that means Edgar goes in or not, but in a more general sense.

[ QUOTE ]
Looking at Kirby Puckett's numbers, I don't think he should be in the HOF

[/ QUOTE ] I am not quite sure how you can say this. He was an all-star from 86-95, a 6 time gold glove winner, career .318 hitter. His career certainly warrants HoF status, and one can only imagine how much better it would have been if it hadn't been cut short. The others players you mentioned aren't even in the same startospere as Kirby.

[andyfox]

And 50% of its members are going intothe HOF.

[andyfox]

There was a good piece on J.R. Richard on, I think, ESPN recently. He ended up homeless at one point, but now seems to be in better shape. Sad story.

What a pitcher he was.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Yeah I saw the same story. I had never heard of him until then either, but J.R. is not even close to being Kirby Puckett, career-wise.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]



Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looking at Kirby Puckett's numbers, I don't think he should be in the HOF


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not quite sure how you can say this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Player A's career stats:

2300 hits, 414 2b, 57 3b, 207 HR, 1085 RBI, .318/.360/.477, 10-time all-star, 6 gold gloves, black ink 22, grey ink 122

Player B:

2450 hits, 373 2b, 79 3b, 382 HR, 1451 RBIs, .298/.352/.502, 8 time all-star, 1 MVP, black ink 33, grey ink 176

Which one is in the Hall of Fame?

As for your statement that the players I mentioned were not in Puckett's class, I don't think you have a clue about any of those players, or the stories about what happened to them. Tony C. would have been a much better player than Puckett had he not been beaned, and J.R. Richard was a dominating pitcher (back-to-back 300 strikeout seasons) just in his prime when he had a stroke. They just had the misfortune of having their major injuries occur in the beginning or their career (Tony C), or right in their prime (Richard), rather than late in their career (like Puckett).

[B-Man]

Obviously Puckett's career, on its face, was better, but if J.R. had stayed healthy, how do you know what his career would have looked like?

Why is it o.k. to extrapolate Puckett's career but not anyone else? Puckett's career totals are very weak for a HOF outfielder. Sure he would have accumulated more stats if he hadn't been injured, but so would have a lot of guys.

[ThaSaltCracka]

um, lets see here....
Kirby in HoF
Jim Rice not.
Yeah blah blah blah blah blah blah, get over it. He's not in, and thats why your pissed Kirby is in. Listen, there is much more to being a posistion player than just hitting. Puckett has 6 gold gloves, and he probably would have had more if a guy named Griffey didn't come along. Rice also played 4 more seasons than Puckett.

[ QUOTE ]
As for your statement that the players I mentioned were not in Puckett's class, I don't think you have a clue about any of those players, or the stories about what happened to them

[/ QUOTE ] Their story is completely and utterly irrelevant. They did not play anywhere near as many seasons as Puckett(or for that matter Rice) and did not put up anywhere near as many career numbers. You want to talk about amazing careers ending to early, two words ROBERTO CLEMENTE.

[ QUOTE ]
They just had the misfortune of having their major injuries occur in the beginning or their career (Tony C), or right in their prime (Richard), rather than late in their career (like Puckett).

[/ QUOTE ] This is the token sob story for all the greats that never got a chance to be great. You (and I) have no idea what kind of career they would have had, so speculating is futile.

[B-Man]

LOL. You are the one who said about Puckett's career, "one can only imagine how much better it would have been if it hadn't been cut short." Funny how that reasoning only applies when you are applying it to guys you like.

Also, "and he probably would have had more if a guy named Griffey didn't come along."

OK, so he was really good until someone better came along... uhm, explain to me why that makes him better?

By HOF outfielder standards, Puckett's numbers are pathetic. There are a lot of guys NOT in the HOF--Jim Rice is just one of many--with better numbers than Puckett. He got voted in because people projected what he would have done if he hadn't gotten injured. I don't think that's right, and I don't see how you do that with Puckett, but not other players with similar circumstances.

By the way, Puckett turned out to be a scumbag, so I wonder if the people who voted him in part based on his character regret it...

[ QUOTE ]
You (and I) have no idea what kind of career they would have had, so speculating is futile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Just apply that reasoning to all players, not selective players as you have been.

[ThaSaltCracka]

HoF CF'ers
Richie Ashburn
2574 H, 317 2B, 29 HR's, 586 RBI's, .308 BA, .382 SLG, 2 batting titles.
Earl Averill
2019 H, 401 2B, 238 HR's, 1164 RBI, .318 AVG, .534 SLG
Larry Doby
1515 H, 243 2B, 253 HR, 970 RBI, .283 BA, .490 SLG
These are just a few, obviously Puckett doesn't compare to players like Cobb, Dimaggio, or Mayes, but he is definitely comparable to some of these guys, especially Doby and Ashburn.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL. You are the one who said about Puckett's career, "one can only imagine how much better it would have been if it hadn't been cut short." Funny how that reasoning only applies when you are applying it to guys you like.

[/ QUOTE ] I concede to you here, although I think it is resonable to say based upon the length of his career(12 seasons) he would have put together a few more good season. What kind of numbers, I don't know, but still good.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, "and he probably would have had more if a guy named Griffey didn't come along."

OK, so he was really good until someone better came along... uhm, explain to me why that makes him better?


[/ QUOTE ] This is laughable man, Griffey could very easily be one of the best defensive CF ever, maybe even the best.

[kerssens]

Going further than the perception of character that we get on the outside, what about the players perception of the guy? You know, the people that are in the game.....Edgar is revered by the players, the younger Dominican players idolize the guy.

[B-Man]

How about comparing him to HOF outfielders (and future HOFers) who played in the same era?

You know, guys like Tony Gwynn, Griffey, Jr., Sosa, Dave Winfield, even Robin Yount (though he played a lot of years at SS). His numbers don't stack up.

Have a good weekend.

[ThaSaltCracka]

How about I compare him to other CF'ers? and not to huge power number left and right fielders (except Gwynn).

[Jim Kuhn]

Edgar will not make it to the Hall of Fame. In the past ten years the standards have been raised.