Wayne: Edmonds a Hall of Famer?

Yes

Jim Edmonds is arguably the single greatest defensive player at any position in MLB history.

No

Jim Edmonds isn't even the best defensive player to play for the Cardinals since 1980. Or the best defensive center fielder in Cardinal history. And so on.

But I'd vote for him for the Hall in a heartbeat.

But all those diving catches! He must be great!

So long as he wears a Cubs cap, fine by me.

About the only knock on Edmonds is a relatively short career. Because of all the injuries, he's got fewer plate appearances than Kirby Puckett.

And while there's no chance he's the greatest defensive player in MLB history, he's been a fine defender at a difficult position.

Right now I'd vote yes for the HOF, but the short career gives me a little pause.

Did Edmonds even get an offer this off-season? I guess his defensive numbers were pretty bad, but at least he can still hit.

About the only knock on Edmonds is a relatively short career. Because of all the injuries, he's got fewer plate appearances than Kirby Puckett.

Agreed. As was discussed in the Ramon Castro thread, rate stats quickly lose their comparability when playing time diverges. While the difference with Edmonds and his peers is not as great as Castro and Carter, it's sufficient to where one has to discount his HOF-worthy rate stats on account to his below HOF-caliber playing time. But with outstanding defense, I still think he gets there.

To throw out another name, I think that he's pretty much the equal to Bernie Williams (125 OPS+ in 9053 PA over 16 seasons to Edmonds' 132 OPS+ in 7708 PA over 16 seasons). Edmonds' better rate stats and defense are balanced out by Williams' advantage in playing time and postseason (and for the first 2/3rds of his career, Williams was above-average defensively as well). I'm pretty sure that most people see Williams as HOVG, not HOF. Denying Williams is possibly a mistake, but it's not clear to me that the dividing line between a HOF-worthy CF runs between the two.

It's funny how it seems like all the HOF arguments on BTF wind up going in the same direction.

If the guy plays forever, it's all about the counting stats, no matter how fungible those last 5-6 seasons are.

If the guy had a good prime but doesn't last that long, it's all about the rate stats, no matter how short the career.

Also either a favorable hitting/pitching park or playing a favorable hitting/pitching era - ignore that part.

Edmonds does have a reasonable case, the bizarre hyperbole of that one comment aside, and he doesn't hit all of those remarks, but the point remains.

It's funny how it seems like all the HOF arguments on BTF wind up going in the same direction.

If the guy plays forever, it's all about the counting stats, no matter how fungible those last 5-6 seasons are.

If the guy had a good prime but doesn't last that long, it's all about the rate stats, no matter how short the career.

Doesn't it have to move in that way? After all, only the true inner-circle candidates manage to combine both the big counting totals and rate stats. The remainder have to make their case with either the ability to hang around forever, or for insane greatness over a shorter peak.

Besides, these are just a starting point for conversation since, if a player doesn't offer either, he's obviously not a candidate for the Hall.

In an upcoming article for THT that Matthew Namee and I are partnering on, we do some comparisons between modern players and old-timers, to try and find some matched pairs we'd never thought of before. And I stumbled upon Edmonds and Edd Roush. Despite their obvious differences in offensive approach, in career offensive effectiveness they turn out to be nearly identical, with careers of almost exactly the same length, while both being regarded as among the finest defensive center fielders of their day.

Roush is hardly an inner-circle guy, but he's a solid Hall of Famer that no one except the smallest-Hall proponent has a problem with.

Doesn't it have to move in that way? After all, only the true inner-circle candidates manage to combine both the big counting totals and rate stats. The remainder have to make their case with either the ability to hang around forever, or for insane greatness over a shorter peak.

Yes.


Besides, these are just a starting point for conversation since, if a player doesn't offer either, he's obviously not a candidate for the Hall.

Yes, for the most part.

Occasionally there will be a hybrid player that's not an inner-circle HOF. For example, Ryne Sandberg exhibited both peak characteristics (1984-85, 1989-92) as well as a career characteristics (most HR ever by a 2B when he retired). Taken in isolation, I'm pretty sure that neither qualifies him as a HOF-worthy, but together they establish him as a worthy (but non-inner circle) HOFer. But I agree that for the most part, HOFers can usually be subdivided into inner circle-, career-, or peak-based groups.

Among guys who played up-the-middle defensive positions and have similar career length and career OPS+ to Edmonds, most of the HOFers are catchers (Bench, Berra, Hartnett). But Puckett, Snider, and Averill are also on the list, meaning that Edmonds fits in OK with that sort of second-tier HOF center fielder.

1B and corner OF who hit like Edmonds over a similar career length, OTOH, include Don Mattingly, Moises Alou, Norm Cash, Rocky Colavito, Joe Adcock, Boog Powell. (Bobby Abreu, to date, is very similar.) HOFers at those positions whose career stats are closely similar to Edmonds are Medwick, Klein, and Terry, all three of whom had an amazing peak season or two that Edmonds failed to have.

Which only goes to support the idea that yes, CF defense is what makes Edmonds's case, not his hitting per se.

Will the BBWAA actually vote for Edmonds? I wonder ... if they vote in Larkin and Alomar easily enough, it means that they are paying some attention to position and defense in ways that bode well for Edmonds. Otherwise he may find a tough road to Cooperstown.

Edmonds isn't going to "feel" like a Hall of Famer partly because of the way he left the game. No milestone celebrations (400 HR, 3000 hits), no victory lap, no last shot at a title. Only 4 all-star appearances doesn't help the "feel" factor either.

The 262 solid postseason plate appearances help make up for some of the time lost to injury. The recognition of defensive value is what he has to hang his hat on. I think Edmonds and Larry Walker (also injury prone and good with the glove) are going to end up both in the HoM right at the borderline. Good comparison to Edd Roush who also had playing time issues.

Is Edmonds done? It seems like the Braves, at least, could use him.

Will the BBWAA actually vote for Edmonds? I wonder ... if they vote in Larkin and Alomar easily enough, it means that they are paying some attention to position and defense in ways that bode well for Edmonds.

I thought there was a general impression that the BBWAA hadn't done a great job of separating CFs from corner OFs, whereas they'd done a decent job of separating 2B/SS from 1B/3B (with the screwing shifting to the 3B who always get compared to 1B).

In the case of Larkin and Alomar, both are likely to get in, but both have much stronger conventional cases than Edmonds:
Alomar - 12 ASG, 10 GG, 4 SS, 5 top 10 MVP finishes
Larkin - 12 ASG, 3 GG, 9 SS, 1 MVP
Edmonds - 4 ASG, 8 GG, 1 SS, 2 top 10 MVP finishes

I'm not really sure if Alomar and Larkin will have any predictive value for Edmonds. Really, I'd say Bernie would be a much better case, and I don't think he's going to get much support.

Now, as to whether Edmonds should get in, I'm inclined to say he should, although I tend to be more of a career voter (or would be, if I had a vote).

I agree on Roush - whose HOM experience doesn't bode well for Edmonds.
Edd got after 61 "years," in 1997, placing 3rd among 3 electees - none of whom got more than 43 pct of the vote (but we were electing 3 that year).

For point of reference, first-place finisher Dwight Evans gained an "elect-me" slot - top 3 on anyone's ballot - on only 11 of the 34 voting ballots. Roush was top 3 on only 7.

Top 10 that year was: DwEvans, NFox, ROUSH, JBeckley, BWalters, DRedding, PBrowning, Fingers, Bresnahan, BJohnson.
We still haven't elected Walters, Redding or Johnson.

Jimbo puts the "border" in borderline - maybe just above in 'deserves it' and a bit below in 'I bet he makes it.'

Is Edmonds done? It seems like the Braves, at least, could use him.

Currently, the Braves could use anyone out there, possibly including me.

1B and corner OF who hit like Edmonds over a similar career length, OTOH, include Don Mattingly, Moises Alou, Norm Cash, Rocky Colavito, Joe Adcock, Boog Powell. (Bobby Abreu, to date, is very similar.)

I'd add Will Clark to that list. A bit more playing time than Edmonds (~500 PA more in 1 less season), but era-adjusted I'd say the two were very similar except for Clark had his peak in his mid-20s and Edmonds in his early 30s. Both also finished their careers with a surprising late surge for an NL Central team with whom they didn't begin the season.

And needless to say, a great defensive CFer with Will Clarks batting stats is a HOFer.

I'd say HOVG for Edmonds. I like the Puckett and Bernie comps, and I don't think any of the three belong in the HoF.

And I stumbled upon Edmonds and Edd Roush. Despite their obvious differences in offensive approach, in career offensive effectiveness they turn out to be nearly identical, with careers of almost exactly the same length, while both being regarded as among the finest defensive center fielders of their day.

Did not know that about Roush. I could really use that kind of perspective here:

simple_zone_rating_discussion/

I'm one of Edmonds biggest fans. I've never hid my like for the guy, but he has too short of a career for me to really think of him as a hofer. Yes he is better than Puckett in my opinion, but that is comparing to one of the weaker hofers. I understand that centerfield is underrepresented and seems to have a too high of a standard for the hof, but really what is the difference between Bernie, Edmonds, Dawson, Beltran etc. that makes Edmonds a better choice than the others?

not to mention the other players listed in other comments.(and of course there is steroid rumors surrounding Edmonds, not actual accusations, just some innuendo)


During one of the Cardinal games, Edmonds was there (with his kid in a Cardinal cap) and Al and Dan said that Edmonds had informed teams that he could be ready in two weeks if they called. Heck he isn't even asking for a big contract, so I'm kinda surprised that the Braves or White Sox etc haven't called yet.

If we look at what the actual voters will do, I strongly suspect he won't make the 5% cut. HoF Monitor is at 88, which means he didn't do much to impress the garden-variety BBWAA voter. We've seen luminaries like Lou Whitaker (92) and Will Clark (83) not make the rookie cut, and I see nothing in Edmonds' line which will impress them. Not to mention how "stricter" the voters have become lately. So his only chance is the VC.

I'm kinda surprised that the Braves or White Sox etc haven't called yet.

The Braves could use him, but the White Sox really couldn't, not unless Carlos Quentin's injury keeps him sidelined for most of the year.

If we look at what the actual voters will do, I strongly suspect he won't make the 5% cut. HoF Monitor is at 88, which means he didn't do much to impress the garden-variety BBWAA voter. We've seen luminaries like Lou Whitaker (92) and Will Clark (83) not make the rookie cut, and I see nothing in Edmonds' line which will impress them. Not to mention how "stricter" the voters have become lately. So his only chance is the VC.

The BBWAA has also always held incredibly high standards for CF candidates - it's basically inner circle guys. As near as I can tell, the list elected by the BBWAA is as follows:
- Cobb
- Speaker
- Dimaggio
- Mantle
- Mays
- Snider
- Puckett

Also, as Dag Nabbit has previously noted, the BBWAA has actually cast more votes for relief pitchers than it has for CFs, over the full voting history of the hall. Edmonds is someone who deserves serious hall consideration, but he's unlikely to get it from the BBWAA.

- Cobb
- Speaker
- Dimaggio
- Mantle
- Mays
- Snider
- Puckett

One of these things is not like the others...

One of these things is not like the others...

Most definitely. However, he got the "special consideration - would have had 3000 hits and we thought he was a nice guy (whoops!)" bonus. Had his career played out without the sudden onset of glaucoma, the odds are fairly good that he would have belonged.

As an aside, Puckett's career (even the truncated version) fits in respectably with several of the VC CF selections - he shouldn't have gone in as easily as he did, but he did deserve entry.

If Jim had done what most guys do in their 20's this wouldn't be a debate. He had as good a six year stretch as a player could want in his early to mid-30's.

But 768 hits and 121 homers in your 20's doesn't help. Bobby Higginson had more hits and home runs in his 20's for heaven's sake.

He had the finish.

Will the BBWAA actually vote for Edmonds?

No, and it's because of this from the excerpt: "Speaking of Rice, Edmonds’ career compares favorably with the new Hall of Famer. Rice and Edmonds both blasted 382 homers during their storied careers, with roughly the same numbers of doubles as well as runs scored. Rice had 570 more hits and 280 more runs driven in, but it took him nearly 2,500 more at bats to get those totals.

In short, it took Rice two decades to be recognized for his achievements, and statistically, Edmonds is in the same offensive ball park."

BBWAA voters understand offensive context well enough to recognize that having similar raw counting totals to Jim Rice means that Edmonds was a worse hitter than Rice (although Edmonds beats Rice on OPS+ because he had a better OBP and because Rice's context (Fenway) is higher than BBWAA voters realize).

BBWAA voters don't, however, understand positional adjustments between a CF and a LF/DH, so being a worse hitter than Rice is sufficient to disqualify Edmonds.

As for whether he's deserving, I agree with the consensus: he's as good as or better than the lower-tier of deserving HOF centerfielders: Roush, Ashburn, Averill, Puckett.

If we look at what the actual voters will do, I strongly suspect he won't make the 5% cut. HoF Monitor is at 88, which means he didn't do much to impress the garden-variety BBWAA voter. We've seen luminaries like Lou Whitaker (92) and Will Clark (83) not make the rookie cut, and I see nothing in Edmonds' line which will impress them. Not to mention how "stricter" the voters have become lately. So his only chance is the VC.

agree with posts 24 also. But HOF monitor may not really apply as much to Edmonds as Whitaker and Clark. Edmonds, along with Griffey, Vizquel and Andruw Jones have the non-hof monitor advantage of Web Gems. And of course the advantage of playing in both leagues for a good amount of time, meaning writers from both leagues have gotten a chance to see more of him.

Rice and Edmonds both blasted 382 homers during their storied careers,

Is there a mischievous anagram in that sentence?

agree with posts 24 also. But HOF monitor may not really apply as much to Edmonds as Whitaker and Clark. Edmonds, along with Griffey, Vizquel and Andruw Jones have the non-hof monitor advantage of Web Gems. And of course the advantage of playing in both leagues for a good amount of time, meaning writers from both leagues have gotten a chance to see more of him.

The biggest problem for Edmunds is the number of better players who will be appearing on the ballot when he makes his debut. I suspect he'll get less than 5 percent of the vote pretty quickly, though he'd have lasted longer had his career happened to end at a more fortuitous time.

I'm really surprised Edmonds wasn't signed in the offseason. I guess it speaks to how well teams are starting to evaluate defense, because you can't look at Edmond's 4 months with the Cubs and decide he can't hit anymore. I figured his reputation would be enough to get some team to throw him out in CF again.

The biggest problem for Edmunds is the number of better players who will be appearing on the ballot when he makes his debut.

Not only that, but he'll be sharing the ballot with Griffey before too long.

How does Edmonds compare to Kenny Lofton?

I'm really surprised Edmonds wasn't signed in the offseason. I guess it speaks to how well teams are starting to evaluate defense

I think it's beyond bizarre that the Braves wanted Garret Anderson and Ken Griffey for LF, but passed on Edmonds.

The Braves could use him, but the White Sox really couldn't, not unless Carlos Quentin's injury keeps him sidelined for most of the year

Edmonds would be the 2nd best OFer on the roster right now, and 3rd best when Quentin comes back, including defense, IMO. He would be a perfect platoon partner for Brian Anderson in CF, just like he was platooned effectively with Reed Johnson last season. He didn't require full time play last season to sign with the Cubs, I don't think he would require that this season either. Maybe he's friends with Peavy and Oswalt though.

no last shot at a title

Had the Cubs won the title last year with Edmonds in CF, it probably would have put him over the top with a lot of writers.

For me, the interesting comp has always been Jim Edmonds and Brian Giles. Exact contemporaries, very close in both peak and career offensive value, played head-to-head during their respective heydays as divisional opponents. Giles only spent about 300 games of his career in CF, but otherwise it's pretty close.

Won't help Edmonds get into the Hall, though, because nobody ever thinks that Pirates are deserving.

he's as good as or better than the lower-tier of deserving HOF centerfielders: Roush, Ashburn, Averill, Puckett

He's as good as or better than the lower tier in the HoM: Alejandro Oms, Jim Wynn, Willard Brown, Andre Dawson

He would be a perfect platoon partner for Brian Anderson in CF

I wouldn't want Jim Edmonds to ever play center field for the White Sox. The White Sox pitching staff doesn't strike out enough batters to endure a Quentin-Edmonds-Dye outfield.

Really, Brian Anderson has been just fine in center field. Why they're scratching for alternatives (DeWayne Wise starting last night and the day before just pisses me off) is beyond me.

Now, if they want to put Edmonds in left field instead of Podsednik, I'd be fine with that.

- Cobb
- Speaker
- Dimaggio
- Mantle
- Mays
- Snider
- Puckett

That group was the MLB network's "Prime 9" in the early weeks of the network. Edmonds and Griffey rounded the group out, with Edmonds ranking ahead of Puckett.

Had the Cubs won the title last year with Edmonds in CF, it probably would have put him over the top with a lot of writers.

definately. If he could have help bring that team to the World Series and played an average post season even if they lose I think that would have been the bump. From the writers he gets a lot of credit for helping that team. That would have been the cherry on top.

The whole CF HOF problem is likely created and perpetuated by the All Star Game not requiring a real CF. Which has been pointed out a number of times on BBTF. Lots of voters will see 4 ASG and go no further, when Edmonds probably deserved more, without even looking at it.

I'm really surprised Edmonds wasn't signed in the offseason. I guess it speaks to how well teams are starting to evaluate defense

Strange, in that just because Edmonds can't play center anymore, he should be fine in a corner. There has never been a time when he wasn't better than Garret Anderson.

The whole CF HOF problem is likely created and perpetuated by the All Star Game not requiring a real CF. Which has been pointed out a number of times on BBTF. Lots of voters will see 4 ASG and go no further, when Edmonds probably deserved more, without even looking at it.

Of course, that's somewhat mitigated by the equally stupid no-positional requirement for Gold Gloves, so 2-3 CFers in each league walk off with them every year.

APBA rates players as outfielders, and not by LF/CF/RF position, has been a similar longstanding problem for the league I'm in. We limit CF games played to MLB CF games played, a limitation we don't have for any other position.

During one of the Cardinal games, Edmonds was there (with his kid in a Cardinal cap) and Al and Dan said that Edmonds had informed teams that he could be ready in two weeks if they called.

I hear Paul Kilgus is also ready to go if anyone needs him. And Mike Crudale.

To throw out another name, I think that he's pretty much the equal to Bernie Williams

From 1992-2004 Bernie Williams had 7671 PAs of a 131 OPS+. That's pretty much Jim Edmonds' career.

I don't agree that a different ending to the Cubs season helps Jim.

His rate stats are excellent. He has lots of Gold Gloves and did play fine defense. He was a key member to many winning teams.

But he doesn't have any career totals of note. He didn't lead the league in anything. He didn't win an MVP nor finish high in the voting on a regular basis.

Edmonds was a REALLY GOOD player. But there wasn't quite enough there....................

The BBWAA has also always held incredibly high standards for CF candidates - it's basically inner circle guys. As near as I can tell, the list elected by the BBWAA is as follows:

I'm talking about the BBWAA being more strict as of late. There was an entry here before the voting this year pointing out that the returning candidate pool for '09 was the smallest it's ever been. We've seen not only Sweet Lou and Will the Thrill bumped out after 1-3 years, but also Cone, Hershiser, Belle, K. Hernandez etc. But if you go back to c. 1980, you'll see a whole bunch of comparable players hanging on above 5%: Kluszewski, Elston Howard, Newcombe. Hell Mickey Vernon got 24% that year, Harvey Kuenn 21%, Lew Burdette 17%.

I don't know if the voters have already made a downward blanket adjustment for roids, even for players who played "before" the roid era (like Whitaker), or what. But it makes it that much harder for a borderline candidate like Edmonds to start out low and work his way up before his 15 years are out.

I think Edmonds has at least as good of a case as Sosa (in terms of merit, not likely inclusion). Edmonds had a better prime and a similar peak, and I think their career values are pretty comparable.

Dewey says, "Now, if they want to put Edmonds in left field instead of Podsednik, I'd be fine with that."

I would expect that if any team does pick him up, it will be either for center or, more likely, for right. Last I saw him with the Cardinals, his range had gone way way down, but he still had the cannon arm. I consider him now to be a right fielder whose batting average has gotten too low for anyone to take him unless they're pretty desperate. Not that BA is everything, but you have to sell your owner and your fans on the guy, too. Also, it's very possible that the only real offensive value he had left last year was hitting homers in Wrigley. On top of that, he is known to be a bit dicey to deal with, as the Angels and Cards can tell you. Not horrible, but a bit cranky.

I also don't think that any current outfielder is likely to get into the HoF without even one piece of black ink.

- Brock Hanke

Edmonds was better with the glove than Bernie but yeah, offensively they're very similar.

I'm talking about the BBWAA being more strict as of late.

So, consequently, Edmonds is likely to get squeezed in two ways:
- by the incredibly high historical standards for Hall of Fame CFs, as enforced by the BBWAA
- by the increasing restricted voting habits of the BBWAA toward all players.

Sounds to me like he's going to have to wait until the VC gets their turn.

Also, it's very possible that the only real offensive value he had left last year was hitting homers in Wrigley.

Edmonds put up a 823 OPS on the road last year. He had an 11-8 HR split in his time with the Cubs.

I'm willing to bet that the VC of ~2030 will be spending a great deal of time addressing the mistakes of the modern BBWAA for underappreciating hitters of the 1980s whose post-peak careers stretched into the bandbox era of the 1990s (Whitaker, McGriff, W Clark, etc) and players whose contributions were tarnished by steroid allegations.

I am pretty confident that if a manager played Jimmy 110-115 games he would put up a line of .270/.360/.500

APBA rates players as outfielders, and not by LF/CF/RF position, has been a similar longstanding problem for the league I'm in. We limit CF games played to MLB CF games played, a limitation we don't have for any other position.

What I do is have most CF's rated as 3, and most corners as 2 with the bad ones as 1. The supply of "3" OF defenders is limited, so almost all of them find their way into center. I do have 2 plus defenders on my team, traded for 1 guy who was a CF on another team and put him in right. Very few OF who rate as "1" start in the outfield, they are mostly DH's but maybe 3-4 teams play a guy like that because the bat is too much to ignore.

There is no such thing in my league as a "1" defender playing center field. If I was doing this for MLB players I'd have even a Bernie Williams (2002 on) rated as 2 (still below averge since 75% of teams will play a "3" there) with about a 24 arm.

I'm willing to bet that the VC of ~2030 will be spending a great deal of time addressing the mistakes of the modern BBWAA for underappreciating hitters of the 1980s whose post-peak careers stretched into the bandbox era of the 1990s (Whitaker, McGriff, W Clark, etc) and players whose contributions were tarnished by steroid allegations.

By then, you can probably add guys like Trammell and Raines to the list, since I doubt that either will mount enough support to get elected - especially Trammell.

I am pretty confident that if a manager played Jimmy 110-115 games he would put up a line of .270/.360/.500

He's another year older so I'd say closer to .250/.350/.450. But still a lot better than what some teams are running out there.

By then, you can probably add guys like Trammell and Raines to the list, since I doubt that either will mount enough support to get elected - especially Trammell.

Possibly, but I'm holding out hope that the sabermetric literature will be able to convince HOF voters. I'm cautiously optimistic that the 21st century media revolution will result in a major cultural shock to remaining members of the established media institutions, in which case the problem will be getting elected the players who were already prematurely disqualified. Although some backlash is occurring, for the most part if nothing other than an instinct for survival is driving BBWAA veterans to at least consider sabermetrics as they cling to the hope of remaining quasi-relevant.

HOFers at those positions whose career stats are closely similar to Edmonds are Medwick, Klein, and Terry, all three of whom had an amazing peak season or two that Edmonds failed to have.

Top 3 OPS+

Medwick: 180, 156, 151
Klein: 176, 165, 159
Terry: 158, 156, 149
Edmonds: 170, 160, 158

Each of these runs were accomplished in consecutive seasons except for Klein, whose highs occurred within a four-year run.

The older guys' season lines may look more impressive because they all had much higher BA, but none of the three walked much---40 to 60 times, typically. At his peak, Edmonds had the huge power and decent average (.298 from 2000-2004) and supplemented that with 90-100 walks a year.