User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 1.2806 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Yes
Jim Edmonds is arguably the single greatest defensive player at any position in MLB history.
No
But I'd vote for him for the Hall in a heartbeat.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.'
Currently, the Braves could use anyone out there, possibly including me.
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.
Did not know that about Roush. I could really use that kind of perspective here:
simple_zone_rating_discussion/
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.
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.
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.
- Speaker
- Dimaggio
- Mantle
- Mays
- Snider
- Puckett
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is there a mischievous anagram in that sentence?
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.
Not only that, but he'll be sharing the ballot with Griffey before too long.
How does Edmonds compare to Kenny Lofton?
I think it's beyond bizarre that the Braves wanted Garret Anderson and Ken Griffey for LF, but passed on Edmonds.
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.
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 in the HoM: Alejandro Oms, Jim Wynn, Willard Brown, Andre Dawson
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I hear Paul Kilgus is also ready to go if anyone needs him. And Mike Crudale.
From 1992-2004 Bernie Williams had 7671 PAs of a 131 OPS+. That's pretty much Jim Edmonds' career.
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....................
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 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
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.
Edmonds put up a 823 OPS on the road last year. He had an 11-8 HR split in his time with the Cubs.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main