Edmonds in HOF?
by JWO on Oct 12, 2010 2:04 PM EDT
Email
Print
A friend and I are constantly arguing over whether Jim Edmonds, former Cardinal and Centerfielder extraordinaire, is deserving of a place in the Hall of Fame. My friend argues (reasonably), that while his numbers were great, they simply weren’t good enough. He didn’t have enough distinguishing peak years, and didn’t amass the necessary statistics to take the prize. I remain unconvinced. As such, I decided to put together a quick and dirty comparison of Edmonds against existing centerfielders in the Hall of Fame…
Before beginning, let me offer a few quick observations. I limited myself to individuals who were listed as centerfielders, not the entire outfield. Corner outfielders have an entirely different skill-set, one that is based more on offense and power. Centerfielders in contrast (usually) need some strong combination of offensive prowess and defensive capability.
Second, I only examined centerfielders voted into the HOF by the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA). Negro League Candidates and individuals elected by the Veterans Committee (e.g. Cool Papa Bell and Hack Wilson) fall outside the scope of this study.
Finally, I tried to use metrics and measurements that allowed comparison across the broadest number of players. Certain categories could not be applied easily to certain players because the awards and categories didn’t exist when those men played the game. That meant occasionally using metrics that were imperfect, but the best I could find. And here was the result.
| Player | Vote | Avg. | HR | OBP | SLG | OPS+ | RF/G | FP | TZ | GG | AS | WAR | T-10 MVP | Years |
| Cobb, Ty | 98.23% | 0.366 | 117 | 0.433 | 0.512 | 168 | 2.30 | 0.961 | 0.0 | NA | NA | 159.4 | 2 | 24 |
| DiMaggio, Joe | 88.84% | 0.325 | 361 | 0.398 | 0.579 | 155 | 2.71 | 0.978 | 49.0 | NA | 13 | 83.6 | 10 | 13 |
| Mantle, Mickey | 88.22% | 0.298 | 536 | 0.421 | 0.557 | 172 | 2.31 | 0.986 | -26.0 | 1 | 16 | 120.2 | 9 | 18 |
| Mays, Willie | 94.68% | 0.302 | 660 | 0.384 | 0.557 | 155 | 2.53 | 0.981 | 148.0 | 12 | 20 | 154.7 | 12 | 22 |
| Puckett, Kirby | 82.14% | 0.318 | 207 | 0.360 | 0.477 | 124 | 2.77 | 0.989 | -12.0 | 6 | 10 | 44.8 | 7 | 12 |
| Snider, Duke | 86.49% | 0.295 | 407 | 0.380 | 0.540 | 140 | 2.20 | 0.982 | -20.0 | NA | 8 | 67.5 | 6 | 18 |
| Speaker, Tris | 82.09% | 0.345 | 117 | 0.428 | 0.500 | 157 | 2.49 | 0.970 | 91.0 | NA | NA | 133.0 | 3 | 22 |
| EDMONDS, JIM | TBD | 0.284 | 393 | 0.376 | 0.527 | 132 | 2.52 | 0.988 | 87.0 | 8 | 4 | 68.3 | 2 | 16 |
The first thing that jumps out at me with this analysis is there are three general tiers of Centerfielders to grace Major League Baseball. Tier 1 is one guy – Willie Mays. His offensive numbers were virtually unassailable. If you throw out the aberration that is Barry Bonds, we may not see another outfielder ring up these kind of stats for a hundred years. His fielding was similarly insanely good. He owns virtually every category I could identify.
While Mays may stand alone, the second tier is no less worthy. I generally ranked three men in this group. Ty Cobb’s offensive numbers more than compensated for so-so defense, and there’s a reason that people feared and hated him. DiMaggio and Mantle were Yankee legends who played on lots of incredible teams, but repeatedly demonstrated their prowess with the bat as well as the glove. Edmonds does not belong in Tier 1 or Tier 2. However,
A case could be made that Jim Edmonds belongs with the legends in Tier 3. This group is composed of great centerfielders like Kirby Puckett, Duke Snider, and Tris Speaker. All were incredible baseball players in their day, and made the HOF. So how does Edmonds match up against this final group of luminaries? Let’s see.
Offensively, Edmonds numbers compare very well. His average is a bit low at .284, but his power output easily surpasses Puckett and Speaker, and basically matches Snider. OBP, SLG, and OPS+ are all similarly within that general groove, with Edmonds approximately matching all three men. By most of the common offensive metrics, therefore, Edmonds seems to belong in this group.
What about defense? Let us all acknowledge first that these categories are harder to quantify and a bit sticky. But if you look at a few examples, Edmonds is also right there. His range factor per game (RF/G) is the number of put-outs plus assists, divided by games played. Edmonds is in the Top 40 players ever in terms of this statistic. Trust me when I say his 2.52 career is very good. I felt guilty including fielding percentage, but decided to throw it in there, simply to demonstrate his career numbers are as good, if not a little better than most. His .988 career numbers is better than most of the HOF centerfielders, and if you stop to consider its over a sixteen year career with thousands of play opportunities, that number becomes a bit more statistically significant.
Edmonds TZ score may be the best comparable metric. While the number isn’t perfect, it shows Jimmy managed a career 87. That’s better than anyone except Speaker and Mays. Interestingly, some players like Puckett and Mantle suggest they may have been a bit overrated in their fielding based on their numbers. But I’ll leave that discussion to brighter minds and another day. Finally, I threw the Gold Glove awards in there, despite the fact they’ve only been around for about half a century. That means that some of these guys never had a chance at them. I just felt Jim’s 8 awards ought to mean something in the scope of things.
Third, and last, I looked at the big picture intangibles. Here, Jim doesn’t fare quite as well. It is hard to believe that Edmonds was only in four All Star Games. Some of that must be due to competition of the time, but a HOF player should rise above that competition. Puckett managed to play in 10 games in a twelve game career, for example (which I find a little BIZARRE). And the great ones like Mays were an All Star virtually every year they played.
Then there was WAR. Jim slides in here, albeit barely. While a career 68.3 WAR is fantastic for a centerfielder, it pales to most of the existing HOF CFs. Only Snider matches up closely at 67.5. Puckett produced a skimpy 44 WAR, but let’s remember he had a shortened career at twelve years. Another five or so and he’d be right there with Edmonds, I think.
Perhaps saddest for me was the number of appearances Edmonds enjoyed as a Top-10 MVP vote-getter. He managed it only two times. I created this category as a way to measure whether a player was recognized as "great" among all his contemporaries at the time. Virtually every player on this list performed better, all things being equal.
>>>>>>>>
So what is my conclusion? Unfortunately, I think the jury is still out. Jim won’t make a first-ballot HOF. But I do think his power is comparable to Snider and his fielding contrasts very well with Speaker. As for Puckett, I’m still not certain how that man made it into the Hall. He was a great player, but his career and accomplishments see far too short.
What say you, Bird Brethren? What have I missed?
100 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Jimmy ballgame...
is probably not in the HOF if he retires this offseason. If he plays another year and picks up enough hits (51) and HR’s (7) to reach major milestones of 2,000 and 400 his chances skyrocket.
All that said how ‘bout Jimmy coming on as the primary RFer for 2011? I’d like to see him pick up HR 400 and hit 2000 wearing the BOB. He could even reach both in the same AB!
Do you and your friend ever have a similar discussion about ScoRo?
If you see a guy open the car door for his girlfriend, either the car is new or the girlfriend is.
We do, actually
And its a heated discussion. He’s the kind of guy that is very reluctant to allow folks into the HOF, and I respect that. In some ways, I think Rolen has an even better opportunity than Edmonds. Rolen also has the advantage that he will probably squeeze out another 2-4 years of stats, and that should help him with final tally.
But Rolen might be hurt by the fact that he has no big milestones to hit (he won’t reach 400 HR), and he’s unlikely to tally up any more fielding accolades. Still, time will tell.
I've changed my mind on both of them
and they’re two of my favourite Cardinals ever (I think Jimmy is probably my all-time favourite, albeit in a very short Cards-watching career). I’d have said “no” to both a year or two ago, but I think I’ve been convinced through the more modern stats (plus, in particular, their defensive excellence and positional scarcity) that both belong in the hall.
Still bitching to contact.
by Felonius_Monk on Oct 28, 2010 8:50 AM EDT up reply actions
A very interesting look
Thanks. I’ve heard that some people look at on-the-fence guys as “Were they the best at their position in their generation?” (I think I remember a similar Rolen post on here that brought that up) While you looked at Top 10 MVP years, I don’t know how that translates into the perception of his elite center-fieldedness. I think it comes down to him being an elite defensive center fielder with solid offensive numbers to make him the best overall center fielder in his time, and IMO, a Hall of Famer.
Same here...
I don’t always subscribe to comparing players with existing HOFers as a yardstick for belonging.
Nor do I necessarily think there should be
necessary statisticsrequired. In fact, I don’t think stats should be the only criteria used.
Era’s in baseball change pretty often, and I think the original idea of a HOFer is to compare him with his peers, within his playing days.
I don’t think it should matter as much how he stacks up against former HOFers.
I have a tendency to be a little more relaxed about letting great players in…like Ted Simmons and Ken Boyer. I’d let Jimmy in because he’s among the best centerfielders I’ve seen in my 50+ years of watching baseball and is on a shorter list of those in the last 15 years.
Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.
by Dave Pendleton on Oct 13, 2010 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions
i don't necessarily agree with the stats should be the only criteria
only because, what else can you go on?
Era’s in baseball change pretty often, and I think the original idea of a HOFer is to compare him with his peers, within his playing days.
I don’t think it should matter as much how he stacks up against former HOFers.
i 100% on that point however the precedent HOFs set is somewhat important…
by stlcardsfan4 on Oct 13, 2010 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions
yea, somewhat.
But I think there’s room for a little expansion.
500 HR’s is magic, almost automatic, but I don’t think a guy should be left out with 400.
It’s all relative to the era. Pitching changes, hitting changes, ballparks change, all kinds of things change.
400 HR’s in one era might be as good as 500 in another, there’s no real way to tell, so why have a benchmark at all.
I mentioned Ted Simmons and Ken Boyer (both of which has been discussed here at VEB) and I think they’re pretty good examples of comparing them to their peers. They seem to fall a bit short of Johnny Bench or Eddie Mathews or Brooks Robinson, but you can still make a dandy case for admitting them, and a lot of people have. It comes up now and then. That in itself is an argument for admission. Lots of people think they should be in, so let ‘em in!
Players like Pete Rose…betting aside…how do you handle that? What position would you put him in for and who would you compare him to? How would he stack up? Would you put him in at all?
If it was intended to be stat based then it should been named the Hall of Stats, bot it’s the Hall of Fame. Eddie Goedell should be in the Hall of Fame.
I’m for expansion.
Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.
by Dave Pendleton on Oct 14, 2010 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions
well betting aside
pete rose should be in the HOF… no question….
now if we are including betting…. he deserves to be in the HOF… i refer to cheating throughout baseball and betting has never directly impacted a game (i suppose it could if you bet against your team, but proof?)
and my dad whose in his lower 50s thinks simmons deserves to be (boyer… he’s not strong one way or the other)
and you have a precedent because it determines what exactly greatness is… your precedent is comparing to other players in same era… (and a good question: if a guy is an automatic HOF by the numbers, but is the 4th best at his position over a certain decade (meaning 3 others are also automatic) does he go in? – hypothetically of course…)
by stlcardsfan4 on Oct 14, 2010 6:51 PM EDT up reply actions
(and a good question: if a guy is an automatic HOF by the numbers, but is the 4th best at his position over a certain decade (meaning 3 others are also automatic) does he go in? – hypothetically of course…)
I wonder how this would apply to the league’s current crop of first basemen? By my count, we may have as many as EIGHT guys who have viable candidacies. And yes, I know some of these guys are still young. And some may fall by the wayside. But we could also see a big crop of boppers becoming eligible around the same period of time, all from the same position.
- Pujols
- Howard
- Fielder
- Gonzalez
- Dunn
- Helton
- Teixeira
- Votto
That's a pretty good question.
Maybe we have to see when their careers end and that might narrow the field a little. By then maybe there will be something more that sets sets them apart from each other. Also, they don’t all have to be inducted at once. They could all make it over time…it’s possible.
Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.
by Dave Pendleton on Oct 15, 2010 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I unfortunately forgot
Jim Thome. He faked me out because he’s been a DH the past three years. But he WAS a 1B for most of his career, and his batting has been pretty darn sick.
Lance Berkman
kinda fits in this category too
"...football games always make me thankful for two things:
1. Teams that pass the ball downfield.
2. Baseball games. "
--DanUpBaby
56.2 WAR and counting
I agree, he could fit this group. Dang, a lot of good players. How will Albert ever compete with that? ;-)
hmmmm... interesting
honestly, i would use the comparing other players… which of these players dominated their peers at one time or another and how long….
the only player who might deserve it but i don’t think dominated is texeira (positionally) – reason being is that before the yankees contract, i didn’t put him in the discussion of best 1B, now i think i do but that 22.5 million contract has got something to do with it not his elevated play
this is where nitpicking could leave some guys out of the HOF by necessity otherwise you dimish the accomplishment
by stlcardsfan4 on Oct 16, 2010 4:45 AM EDT up reply actions
I think Howard is too old to have any sort of HOF shot
he’s about to turn 31 next month and he’s only played 5 full seasons. With his body type I don’t see him lasting much beyond his current (awful) contract.
You could probably add Jim Thome to the above list, having played 1B/DH in the last decade, and he really has to be a lock for the hall I’d have thought. Berkmann too, and possibly even Justin Morneau if he has another couple of seasons like 2010 in him.
I’m also guessing Helton retires a long time before the other guys on that list (heck, Votto could retire more than a decade after Helton, theoretically) and so he won’t really factor into it.
Fielder, Gonzalez, Dunn and even Teixeira have all been good, but you’d not set the HOF likelihood on any of those guys above 10-20% IMO. None of them have had
If I had to guess, I’d say that only one guy from your list above is likely to make it. The current first basemen I’d consider to be likely to make the hall are Pujols, Cabrera and possibly one of Berkman/Teixeira, depending on the next couple of years. Pujols (who’s in now) and Cabrera (who will make it if he stays healthy and keeps the weight off through, say, age 33-35) are the only locks IMO.
Still bitching to contact.
by Felonius_Monk on Oct 28, 2010 8:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Just to offer a minor defense of these guys
Adam Dunn’s numbers are surprising. He has hit 354 HRs, at the age of 30. I’m sorry, but that demands respect, even in the steroid era. If he continues to hit about 40 HRs for the next six or so years (reasonable, given his HR consistency), then he will finish his career north of 600 HRs. Do you really keep someone out of the HoF like that?
Todd Helton has a career average of .324 and a career OPS of .979. Those numbers are very, very impressive, even with all those years at Coors. I’d argue that his production has been if not a certain HoF candidacy, a competitive one.
And though Jim Thome wasn’t on my original list, I caught myself on that and I would put him as an almost GUARANTEED first ballot hall of famer. Nineteen years, 589 HRs, and a career OPS of .963. My personal opinion, he is a lock.
The others I won’t fight quite so hard for. No major love for Fielder, Howard or Berkman. But they are all young enough that they could produce eye-popping numbers if they have a strong mid to late career peak. Time will tell.
Yessir!
pete rose should be in the HOF… no question….
now if we are including betting…. he deserves to be in the HOF…
No argument from me. I want Pete in, no questions.
He wasn’t the best at any one position but his overall performance (for me) warrants his induction because he was an impact player who found ways to beat you and gave 100% 100% of the time. I’m generous that way.
I’ve always said “give me 8 Pete Rose’s and good pitching and I’ll beat you most of the time”.
I’m also in favor of a serious look at Jose Oquendo for the Hall. Although he doesn’t have the numbers package, he has few peers when it comes to being an effective bench/utility player…and there’s no category for that….and that type of player wouldn’t rack up “the numbers”. There should be consideration for those types of players who’s career can be “best of their field” but not produce big numbers.
It’s only recently that relief pitchers got any consideration. Why not consider utility players? Baseball is a team sport and it requires players that have defined roles. Not all roles produce the same types of numbers but they are equally important in order to win. I don’t think that’s taken into consideration when it comes to HOF selection. The Big Name actor wins the award while the supporting cast is forgotten, having delivered a superb performance, making the winner look good.
I wouldn’t mind a tier system in the HOF. That way a lot more players would get their just due and their accomplishments remembered.
Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.
by Dave Pendleton on Oct 15, 2010 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Utility players are utility players...
…because they’re not good enough to have a permanent position. Chone Figgins and Mark DeRosa have been kind of an exception, but those kind of guys are really rare. The reason UT guys aren’t in the HOF is because they’re just not good enough players.
Oquendo would have been the starting 2nd baseman or 3rd baseman if he’d been good enough to be… but he wasn’t. Hence he should never even be mentioned as HOF player.
VivaElBirdos: Celebrating glorious mustaches since 2009
by redbirdnation8206 on Oct 16, 2010 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions
we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
I’m taking a different slant on it.
How many hall of famers could do what they do and do it well?
Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.
by Dave Pendleton on Oct 16, 2010 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions
What about relief pitchers?
most of them are relief pitchers because they’re not good enough or don’t have the stamina to be starters. There are relief pitchers in the Hall.
As far as a permanent position, what was Pete Rose’s permanent position?
I think the role of UT is a permanent position, or at least a specialty.
However, I do get what you’re saying about most of them being a UT guy because they’re not starter material, and I agree. But in a case like Oquendo or a Phil Gagliano, these guys aren’t your everyday UT guys, they stand out among UT players. There may only be 2 or three worth consideration over 3 or 4 decades, nothing wrong with that.
There’s something to be said about a guy who can show up everyday, not knowing what position he may find himself in and yet still do a good job consistently.
A reliable utility man can be just as valuable as a reliable reliever, and he usually puts in more innings.
I guess I’m just saying that it sucks that a player can have a entire career as a utility player and excel at it, and be the best at it and have no chance at the Hall because he’s not a starter. If you’re the best at what you do then you should have a chance.
Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.
by Dave Pendleton on Oct 16, 2010 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions
If someone wants to conduct an analysis of MLBs best utility players
I’d be very interested. But unless you set some strict parameters, that’s a daunting task…
I’ve always said "give me 8 Pete Rose’s and good pitching and I’ll beat you most of the time".
No shit?
Still bitching to contact.
by Felonius_Monk on Oct 28, 2010 8:48 AM EDT up reply actions
No shit!
Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.
by Dave Pendleton on Oct 28, 2010 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes...
… CF are very underrepresented in the Hall. Jimmy Ballgame had an incredible peak of power + defense from 2000-2006 or so. He has the 4th-most HR for a CF, plus 2nd-most GG? That should be enough.
I think Jimmy belongs in the hall of fame
Based on his career performance. I don’t really look at accolades and voted-upon-honors because they so often reflect silly biases and ignorance. Based on the numbers I think Edmonds is a Hall of Famer. Not a top tier guy, but solid.
Albert Pujols does not have "down" years. He has "~6 WAR" years.
That was my vote too
Kirby Puckett, to me, seems like a step ahead of Ray Lankford. Very very good, but I don’t get the HOF case.
Albert Pujols does not have "down" years. He has "~6 WAR" years.
he should be a HOVG poster child.
i think it has a lot to do with The Home Run.
"We were men - flesh and blood - and we played baseball in the sunshine. We hit doubles off the wall, slid hard into second base. We had fights, and we made love. We sang songs and prayed on Sundays. . . . We felt pain. And we felt joy. There was a lot wrong with the world. But we weren't sad, man. We had the times of our lives." Buck O'Neil, from "The Soul of Baseball: A Road Trip Through Buck O'Neil's America."
And also the having his career cut short by a medical conditon.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
I like Lankford as much as the next guy but...
jeez…Pucket made 10 All-Star games and won 6 Silver Sluggers. He also finished in the top 10 in MVP voting 7 times. He had 2300+ hits in only 12 seasons (2 of which were strike-shortened). And while he was 35 when injury haulted his career, he certainly wasn’t showing any signs of slowing down. His final season he hit .314/.379/.514.
Lankford on the other hand….made an all-star game before….so yeah, I guess Puckett was about a step ahead of him.
by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Oct 17, 2010 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions
i agree with all that except
that I don’t put any stock in the All Star thing. It looks good on a resume but it’s just a popularity contest…..but…..he did deserve to be on those All Star teams.
Given the choice of Pucket or Lankford, I’ll take Pucket..
Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.
by Dave Pendleton on Oct 17, 2010 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Omar Infante:
ALL-STAR.
Still bitching to contact.
by Felonius_Monk on Oct 28, 2010 8:32 AM EDT up reply actions
The worst part is
Its now in the history books. No one can take it away from him.
He’s a very nice player. An All-Star? No.
Compare their wOBA, OBP, and SLG graphs by age...
…Keeping in mind one of them played in the HomerDome. They’re a lot closer than one would think, in fact their careers each have a peak, then a bunch of very similar seasons around them.
The ASG is a popularity and reputation contest. Puckett was seen as a star b/c he was good with fans and had a big smile and won a couple rings early in his career. And he was genuinely a fine player. But he wasn’t that much better of a hitter than Mr. Lankford.
VivaElBirdos: Celebrating glorious mustaches since 2009
by redbirdnation8206 on Oct 17, 2010 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Holy crap...
will somebody please go back in time and kill Bill James.
by The Ghost of Todd Burns on Oct 17, 2010 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Wow
I’m blown away by the astuteness of this comment.
VivaElBirdos: Celebrating glorious mustaches since 2009
by redbirdnation8206 on Oct 18, 2010 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions
Though, I would say
it was more that Lankford was, to non-St. Louis fans, an anonymous second fiddle to Ozzie Smith and then Mark McGwire on some horrible, horrible teams. Puckett was, for the reasons you cite, the big star on some great teams. The discrepancy is more Lankford being underrated than Puckett being overrated.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
Or at least a little of both
Lankford played on some godawful teams and was perceived as surly and a guy who K’d too much while Puckett was, well, Kirby Puckett!
VivaElBirdos: Celebrating glorious mustaches since 2009
by redbirdnation8206 on Oct 18, 2010 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions
Well, he was perceived as surly because he was the face of a losing team
You have to be effing Ernie Banks to overcome that.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
Thank God!!!
I was too young to care whether or not the Cards were good in the early ’90’s! I just loved the team and any opportunity to watch them play.
Jimmy Ballgame for 2011 RFer!!!
Thank you
They were very similar players. I never said Lankford was as good as Puckett. Puckett was better over a shorter period of time. But Lankford stacks up surprisingly well to him.
And I don’t think Lankford belongs in the Hall of Fame, so at best I think Puckett barely does.
Albert Pujols does not have "down" years. He has "~6 WAR" years.
Bear in mind, too...
… that the rules of the ASG require at least one player from every team. Kirby, it seems to me, got in as the token Twins’ representative (who else were they gonna take? Greg Gagne?). Edmonds, OTOH, suffered because there were so many Cards to choose from during his time here.
In that same regard, Edmonds suffered by being considered, for the most part, only the second- or third-best player on the team – overshadowed by Pujols and occasionally Rolen. That doesn’t mean, however, that he was not HOF-worthy; that’d be like arguing that Snider doesn’t belong in the HOF because he was only the third-best player on his team, behind Robinson and Campanella, or that Cepeda doesn’t belong in the HOF because he trailed Mays, McCovey, and Marichal on the Giants. Bernie Williams will have a similar problem; his HOF candidacy is overshadowed by the presence of guys like Jeter ahead of him in the pecking order.
Bernie Williams problem
will be that he isn’t a HOFer. No single outstanding year, and a very short career. Guys who only play about 10 good seasons (his last four years he was pretty hopeless) need to be pretty incredible throughout that timespan. Williams was merely very good. Mind you, a lot depends on how you value defense – he was a pretty terrible defender for more or less all his career. As a hitter he’s maybe borderline, but he was some way short of Edmonds, both at his peak and for his whole career.
Still bitching to contact.
by Felonius_Monk on Oct 28, 2010 8:30 AM EDT up reply actions
if you add his player link (if sbn still has it)
it’ll generate sidebars to all the other Jimmy HOF articles on sbn.
Lick that shoulder—you're in the doghouse now.
"But listen, and understand: more Molinas are out there..." - THT
tag, rather
Lick that shoulder—you're in the doghouse now.
"But listen, and understand: more Molinas are out there..." - THT
idk
to me is the definition of borderline HOF… Cardinals bias has to force me to say yes however…
as for Scotty, simply look at his offensive numbers next to Brooks Robinson… acknowledging that he is probably the 2nd best defensive 3B of all time (or close enough), his offensive numbers destroy Robinson…. i could probably argue fuller, but the quick synopsis is…
Robinson mediocre offense + otherworldy defense = HOF so Rolen great offense + amazing D = HOF…
Does Adrian Beltre have a shot?
come the end of his career, it’s going to look quite a lot like Robinson’s.
Still bitching to contact.
by Felonius_Monk on Oct 28, 2010 8:23 AM EDT up reply actions
Bear in mind he's also ridiculously young for the amount of service time he has.
I don’t think there’s any way he gets in, but he’s one of those guys who’s you could probably argue into being a contender in a few years.
Still bitching to contact.
by Felonius_Monk on Oct 28, 2010 8:23 AM EDT up reply actions
Jimmy belongs
in the Hall. Here’s how he ranks against some recent inductees:
WAR
Edmonds 68.3
Murray 66.7
Carter 66.3
Dawson 57.0
Perez 50.5
Puckett 44.8
Rice 41.5
On-Base Pct.
Edmonds .376
Puckett .360
Murray .359
Rice .352
Perez .341
Carter .335
Dawson .323
Slugging Pct.
Edmonds .527
Rice .502
Dawson .482
Puckett .477
Murray .476
Perez .463
Carter .439
OPS+
Edmonds 132
Murray 129
Rice 128
Puckett 124
Perez 122
Dawson 119
Carter 115
Whether he’ll ever get in or not is another story.
"The Detroit Tigers' biggest obstacle to a championship will be keeping a straight face. The Tigers in three. (OK, make it four.)"
- Bob Nightengale's World Series prediction in USA Today, Oct. 20, 2006
by StLouisSwifties on Oct 13, 2010 12:11 AM EDT reply actions
A small part of me occasionally wonders
If the BBWAA votes for people just to have someone in that year. The last time the BBWAA elected no one to the HOF was in 1996. Before that, the last vacant year was 1971. Remarkable how they always seem to find somebody worthy…
In that case...
… assuming Jimmy retires this year he’s got a good shot. Nobody notable is retiring this year, except for (maybe) Hoffman.
oh ya, that guy
who happens to be a centerfielder. Probably in JEd’s best interest to wait a year.
Asshattery: it's an epidemic.
Second base….I’ve played second base, how hard can it be? -TLR
Also, Dave Concepcion.
Honestly, I don't see it hurting him if he retires this year,
as there is no way he gets in on the first ballot anyway. Griffey goes straight in, but if JEd gets in, I think it will take a few years on the ballot.
Asshattery: it's an epidemic.
Second base….I’ve played second base, how hard can it be? -TLR
Also, Dave Concepcion.
And somehow that "somebody" isn't allowed to be Bert Blyleven
Albert Pujols does not have "down" years. He has "~6 WAR" years.
this is the problem with letting sub-HOF players into the Hall
others then start to look like HOF’s by comparsion. I never thought Rice, Puckett, Dawson should have been in the Hall. Carter was a catcher, so I evaluae him differently.
Just win
Steroids really messing up all of the voting
His lack of All star games and MVP votes are deminished by playing in a time where the numbers were skewed. His play would be more respected in a different era. As far as I know he has never been linked to PEDs, which could help his case. But like most players from the bud selig era we will never know if he did or didn’t.
Also I if he is healthy enough I wouldn’t mind seeing him in the randy winn spot next year. I dont know if tlr could resist overplaying him, but a start a week in the OF and once a month at first, plus he is still a power lefty PH that will play for cheap. Also veteran leadership, and is he a good outfield coach?
by I miss Jack Buck on Oct 13, 2010 12:56 PM EDT reply actions
Why not primary RFer...
instead of the “Randy Winn spot”? I think he’s likely to put up better numbers than Jay and play better D than Craig. He should get plenty of rest, with Craig starting against most lefties. Jay would be your three position sub and late inning defensive replacement for Craig. Seeing him hit the milestones I mentioned above (very likely if healthy) in a Cards uni would make 2011 magical no matter what else happens. Is he more or less likely to come back if TLR does?
If you see a guy open the car door for his girlfriend, either the car is new or the girlfriend is.
Do Jimmy and TLR exchange Christmas cards?
What exactly is their relationship?
I’m all for Jimmy on this team. He might be useful.
Baseball is only a game. And the Grand Canyon is only a hole.
by Dave Pendleton on Oct 13, 2010 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions
He could be one of those 15HR...
guys that Mo was talking ’bout a couple of weeks back.
Jimmy Ballgame for 2011 RFer!!!
I find it interesting
that nearly as many people voted that Jimmy isn’t in the hall of fame, yet all the comments are pro HoF.
I’d be afraid to bring up a dissension too after reading tpg’s Pagnozzi thread…
"...football games always make me thankful for two things:
1. Teams that pass the ball downfield.
2. Baseball games. "
--DanUpBaby
A great point
Frankly, I don’t mind some argument in this thread. I don’t think that Jim’s stats are a slam-dunk HOF candidacy, myself. I think he SHOULD probably get in, eventually. But he is definitely within the grey area of the game. One of the nice thing about the Baseball HOF is that it is very selective.
All that said, Jim might be JUST good enough…
I see him much like Rice or Dawson
I agree with you. It will take several years, but he will probably eventually get in.
"...football games always make me thankful for two things:
1. Teams that pass the ball downfield.
2. Baseball games. "
--DanUpBaby
I can see the comparison the Dawson, but not Rice
Jim Rice seems closer to Ray Lankford to me.
Albert Pujols does not have "down" years. He has "~6 WAR" years.
i think i agree
curious, i look up the numbers and really his career is unimpressive by HOF standards
56.1 WAR (a little less than 4 WAR per season) – he only had 5 seasons above 5 WAR, two above 6, and one directly at 8 WAR….
.298/.352/.502 and .375 wOBA and +1.5 (on average) on fielding sounds a lot to me like the Hall of Very Good… mighty impressive but not quite enough….
Dawson didn’t deserve it at all and I don’t think we should start letting people in because so and so got in or the HOF will be much less impressive players…. if Rice deserves it, Jimmy Ballgame should be a slamdunk – i’ll leave it at that
by stlcardsfan4 on Oct 14, 2010 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions
That last part is the main point, yeah
If Dawson is a HOFer, then Edmonds clearly is. If Rice is a HOFer… well, it would be an outright crime to keep Jimmy out.
Albert Pujols does not have "down" years. He has "~6 WAR" years.
if Rice deserves it, Jimmy Ballgame should be a slamdunk – i’ll leave it at that
I’m not sure we should be compounding errors in HOF voting by admitting people who’ve had somewhat better careers than the least deserving, wrongly-admitted types. If the criteria for HOF is “better career than Jim Rice” then there’s probably about a dozen active outfielders who’d be in.
Still bitching to contact.
by Felonius_Monk on Oct 28, 2010 8:21 AM EDT up reply actions
I see that comment differently
It could be a sly jab at the fact that Rice is in the Hall in the first place as much as arguing for Jimmy’s worthiness.
And it is still true that it would be a sham for Jimmy not to get in while lesser players benefit from clever writers’ tricks (he was so feared! FEARED I tell you! Disprove that with your VORP and your yoo-zee-arr!).
Albert Pujols does not have "down" years. He has "~6 WAR" years.
But I largely agree with you
In fact, using the logic you attack would almost be like admitting defeat, since it sort of legitimizes people like Rice in the Hall.
Albert Pujols does not have "down" years. He has "~6 WAR" years.
He does have a point.
In baseball the object is to go home! And to be safe! "I hope I'll be safe at home!"
-George Carlin (RIP)
You mean if you put out a ridiculous and contrary opinion you are going to face disagreement?
I would say so.
by vivaelpujols on Oct 13, 2010 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Or for getting blasted for arguments you aren't even making, precisely what happened to TPG
Something like that. Soon enough someone will claim the guy hates Jim Edmonds, and maybe even the Cardinals!
In baseball the object is to go home! And to be safe! "I hope I'll be safe at home!"
-George Carlin (RIP)
Speaking of TPG...
Did Jimmy really have the "prettiest swing in baseball?"
i remain almost totally agnostic on close-case HOF issues.
i buy into obvious oversights, like blyleven. i see the HOVG guys. but the criteria is so fuzzy, i really find it hard to get exercised one way or another about whether borderline cases get in or not.
"We were men - flesh and blood - and we played baseball in the sunshine. We hit doubles off the wall, slid hard into second base. We had fights, and we made love. We sang songs and prayed on Sundays. . . . We felt pain. And we felt joy. There was a lot wrong with the world. But we weren't sad, man. We had the times of our lives." Buck O'Neil, from "The Soul of Baseball: A Road Trip Through Buck O'Neil's America."
Well, then,
you sir, are a communist and a traitor to America.
by SouthsideCardsFan on Oct 20, 2010 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I almost wish there WERE a 'hall of very good'
or at least a ‘hall of guys with awesome peaks’. Call it the Roger Maris hall of fame.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
i just want to say i really love that pic of Jimmy
there’s no doubt he’s a HOF’er for the sexy MLB HOF
wow, i’m having such a gay day
not that there’s anything wrong with that
All I've got is a broken heart, memories & dreams that I can't drink away
Edmonds is HOFer in my book
The idea that Jim Rice can get in and Jimmy wouldn’t is preposterous (but probably will happen). Here is a Fan Post I did two years ago talking about Rice and the people he was similar to. When you use WAR as a guide, it is not even close: Jimmy is 92nd all-time with 68.3, Rice is tied for 388th with 41.5. There are roughly100 outfielders with a higher career WAR than Jim Rice; Edmonds is 28th. If you average that over all three outfield positions, that means Jimmy is Top 10.
Edmonds had 6 seasons with a WAR of at least 6.0 – six in a row. Here is a selection of outfielders and first basemen that have at least 4 such seasons (outside of the Top 50 all-time; comparing Jimmy against the Inner Circle isn’t fair):
4 seasons – Richie Ashburn, Lance Berkman, Andre Dawson, Elmer Flick, Ralph Kiner, Dale Murphy, Pete Rose, Gary Sheffield, Duke Snider, Bill Terry, Paul Waner
5 seasons – Jeff Bagwell, Harry Heilmann, Todd Helton, Reggie Jackson, Willie McCovey, Jim Wynn
6 seasons – Jim Edmonds, Hank Greenberg, Ken Griffey Jr, Andruw Jones, Johnny Mize, Frank Thomas
7 seasons – Joe Jackson
(For comparison’s sake, Jim Rice has 1, Ichiro has 2, and Gwynn has 3.) I didn’t grab everybody, but it gives you a pretty good idea of what you’re looking at.
The only “active” outfielder with a higher career WAR is Griffey. The only ones to leave the game in the last five years with a higher number are Griffey and Bonds. The only ones in the last 15 years are Griffey, Bonds, Gwynn, & Henderson. Aren’t we setting the bar a little too high if we can’t let in the 2nd best center fielder and 5th best outfielder in the last 15 years?
I was reading about how countless species are being pushed toward extinction by man's destruction of forests. Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us. - Calvin, Scientific Progress Goes "Boink", Watterson
I did a quick count
The BBWAA has voted in a total of 107 players into the HOF. That’s since the Hall was formed in 1936, 74 years ago.
I’m not saying you’re wrong. You make some very solid arguments. But the HOF is very, VERY selective. 5th best OF in the last 15 years might not be good enough.
and since we all know that the BBWAA gets it right ALL the time.....
/sarcasm against a group of collective know-it-all peckerheads….with a few exceptions.
You're the fail to my win?
"There is not a better feeling in the whole world than knowing that you are the best team in both leagues."- Bob Forsch on winning the 1982 World Series.
by MaytheForschbewithyou on Oct 16, 2010 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't really think CFers should be compared to corner OFers...
for the obvious reasons. Back when Edmonds was posting 1000+ ops the league average for his position was 760-780 – not the 840 that corner outfielders were posting. Seems like that gets lost…
Fire La Russa!
I think he should be in the Hall
he has a lot going for him, he was very entertaining to watch, his defense was at times stupendous, and if nothing else, consistently above average, he could hit home runs like most center fielders couldn’t, I think that in a nutshell sums it up: plus defense and power, fan favorite. why not HOF?
"I'm not aware of what I'm doing. It's only after a get acquainted period that I see what I've been about. I've no fears about making changes for the painting has a life of its own." -Jackson Pollock
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Oct 20, 2010 2:06 AM EDT reply actions
Don't forget the on-base ability
Especially during his peak with the Cardinals. Elite during that time, let alone for a center fielder. Very good during his good-but-not-peak years.
Albert Pujols does not have "down" years. He has "~6 WAR" years.
nice point
on-base skills are always underrated.
"I'm not aware of what I'm doing. It's only after a get acquainted period that I see what I've been about. I've no fears about making changes for the painting has a life of its own." -Jackson Pollock
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Oct 20, 2010 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Jimmy Ballgame's peak years...
were his first six with the Cards…2000-2005 his average year during this span looked like this:
.292/.405/.584 – good for a .988 OPS
35 HR’s 100 Runs and 98 RBI’s
He also (deservedly) won six GG’s during this span.
I wonder how that peak stacks up against history for premium defensive players at premium defensive positions…?
Jimmy Ballgame for 2011 RFer!!!
by cardzfanbub on Oct 21, 2010 1:56 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Not sure I'd rank Mays in a group ahead of Cobb
whilst it’s very hard to compare eras, I’d say Cobb was pretty clearly the better hitter for his era (being perhaps one of the top 5 or so of all time). I’d say comparing defense from the two eras must be nigh on impossible. Those two would be in the top group all alone, for me.
It’s pretty clear (looking at number of inductees vs corner outfielders) that HOF voters have traditionally under-rated the scarcity and defensive difficulty of playing CF over the years – it’s a really under-represented position. I’d say Edmonds is in, personally, but only just, and I’m more of a small-hall guy (as much as I care about the HOF, which probably isn’t as much as some tbh).
And, otherwise, what Solanus said re: Edmonds. It’s a shame he couldn’t have had two more peak years (though maybe another 2 years like this one will get him in), because then he’d be a shoe-in. And good post, btw. Rec’d.
Still bitching to contact.
That's the wild card
If Jimmy puts up two more seasons like like last year, it might change the calculus. Let’s hope. How about a platoon with A. Craig next year.
Just win
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
- The Juice: Mesoraco’s grand slam helps Reds complete four-game sweep of Braves
- Please hold: Indians’ Joe Smith jumps the gun on relief appearance
