In twelve years Edgar Martinez had as much on base value as Pete Rose did playing ten more years.

“In my book he is one of the twenty-five best hitters who’s ever played the game...."

If you take away questions about the position and the years played and look at the accomplishment and the raw numbers what you have in front of you according to Blengino is one of the best hitters in the history of baseball.

In twelve years Edgar Martinez had as much on base value as Pete Rose did playing ten more years.

What exactly does this mean?

If Edgar doesn't go into the HOF, I suspect one should argue that no DH should ever.

Edgar was a very good hitter, but not nearly on that level.

If Edgar doesn't go into the HOF, I suspect one should argue that no DH should ever.

I looked at him against HOF hitters/position players whose careers ended after 1910 (wanted to cut out 19th C and Dead Ballers, but keep in Wagner; arbitrary on Wagner, I know) and he's just a touch below average in terms of games played and PA's, as well as most other counting stats, but in rate stats he really is WAY above average.

The methodology isn't listed here, obviously, but my guess is that it's some variant of "on base value added above replacement". Depending on what replacement level is used, it's very relevant.

If Edgar doesn't go into the HOF, I suspect one should argue that no DH should ever. Molitor might have to give back his admission card.

If Edgar doesn't go into the HOF, I suspect one should argue that no DH should ever.

The vote against Edgar can only represent one of two things: an extreme career over peak bias that is almost never applied to any other player; or a de facto jury nullification vote against any DH who doesn't match the offensive production of Williams, Bonds or Ruth. It's little more than a crude way of expressing a protest vote against the whole idea of the DH, and taking it out on Edgar Martinez. If you don't like the DH, fine. But don't take it out on a player who only did what he was told to do, and who did it with such distinction. Career 147 OPS+ hitters are not exactly a dime a dozen.

It wasn't just that he was (mostly) a DH and therefore had little defensive value, but that his career was relatively short as well. Yes, his offense was great, but it's not clear to me that his offense outweighs his lack of defensive value and his short career.

Did Molitor have a better career than Edgar?

Martinez's peak is not historically great to sail in on just that level, too.

Right; he wasn't settling in at 170-180 OPS+s in his best seasons, as Frank Thomas was; he was generally settling in at 150-160.

Edgar had a 147 OPS+ in 2055 games. If we penalize him ~10 points of OPS+ for not being a great defensive 1B -- which to me would be a penalty favorable to Edgar -- he's Will Clark. Clark had a 137 OPS+ in 1976 games. There are those who think Clark is a HOFer (he's on the border for me), but few people think Clark is so overqualified that he should sail in.

That's considerably better than 150-160.

If the DH had not existed, could Martinez have played 1B or LF (or something)?

Zonk, off the top of my head I think ARod and Schmidt ring in at about the same OPS+ (147). Manny is a tick better now, I think.

McGwire's better (163), and Aaron comes in at around 155. FRobinson breaks the 150 mark as well. Then aside from the early guys like Brouthers you've got DiMaggio and Allen. Shoeless Joe is up there as well.

That's about as far as my memory of the OPS+ leader board takes me. Plenty of hitters to choose from, is the point.

Regarding the career length issue, were you comparing him to all HOFers, or only those elected by the BBWAA? I'm just wondering, as I would guess that his career would probably be easily on the short side, if compared only to the BBWAA selections (and probably slightly on the high side when compared to the VC selections).

To me, the availability of the DH is the only thing that allowed him to compile the offensive stats he did.

Edgar is in a 6 way tie for 39th all-time -- though, just eyeballing the list -- about a half dozen of the names in front of him played less than he did and two players in that 6 way tie (Berkman and A-Rod) seem likely to slip below him.

But then there's also some just behind him who played more. Where would you rate Eddie Collins, 5 points behind in OPS+, but with 3500 more PA? Or Sam Crawford, 3 points behind but with 2000 more PA? Or Jim Thome, 1 point behind but with 800 more PA?

Berkman and A-Rod) seem likely to slip below him.

Edgar doesn't have a dreadfully short career for a Hall of Famer, but he does have a very short career for someone being argued as one of the 25-40 best hitters ever.

From ages 20-24, Clemente had 2560 PA at an OPS+ of 89. From ages 20-24, Edgar was in the minors. From 25 on, Clemente had 7652 PA at 144. Not as good as Edgar. He falls just short in quality and quantity, but it's a hell of a lot closer than 147-130.

I'll throw out an off the wall for instance. Roberto Clemente. Sure, on the surface 147 vs 130 seems like a slam dunk. But, where Edgar's late start hurts him WRT counting stats, it helps his rate stats. Edgar came to the majors as a fully formed great hitter. His developmental phase was in the minors, and thus doesn't impact his rate stats. Clemente was the opposite.

Sort of tangentially related to Martinez, I saw a recent comment here noting that players with 60-70 WAR were roughly even-money to be elected, and so the logic went that this defined the border.

That was probably one of mine, and it was from 60 to 65, since McGwire (63.1 WAR) was the topic of discussion. It was also noted that it was only an evaluation based on career, and ignored any considerations of peak/prime cases (which would obviously be important in a McGwire discussion), or future VC selections. It wasn't a matter of intending to define a border.

From 25 on, Clemente had 7652 PA at 144. Not as good as Edgar. He falls just short in quality and quantity, but it's a hell of a lot closer than 147-130.

Based on a combination of rate and quantity, I'd take Clemente slightly over Gar, FWIW.

There's that pesky defensive value issue as well

But then there's also some just behind him who played more. Where would you rate Eddie Collins, 5 points behind in OPS+, but with 3500 more PA?

At the same time, being better than Kiner isn't exactly a rousing HOF endorsement, given that it took the BBWAA 15 tries to decide that he was worth inducting.

Edgar wouldn't diminish the Hall, but it's not like he's some crazy-great inner-circle no-brainer.

Sure, but there's a difference between the top 50 in OPS+ and the top 50 hitters ever.

Okay, all HoF selections then. Edgar would place 79th amongst all HoFers, about half-a-season's worth of PAs below the mean (I assume BBRef uses mean on their list). Sadly, BBRef doesn't allow me to sort out the pitchers and managers (they used to be able to be sorted by position, but that's not there anymore).

But fundamentally, this inquiry is the same as saying that someone like Willie McCovey would not have been able to compile his numbers "but for the availability of first base." The question as always for me is value, whether we're talking about a DH, a 1B, or a SS. The charge that Edgar was a "half player," while true as far as it goes, is utterly irrelevant to me. This isn't a triathlon where the competitor needs to be able to participate in all of the skills competitions; it's about value. We don't think it's relevant whether Mickey Mantle could have been able to play catcher if he'd needed to. I don't see why it's relevant whether Edgar could have played the field and stayed healthy if he'd needed to. The question may be interesting, but is nevertheless irrelevant.

I find the idea that a fielding statue like Kiner or Williams has any real "advantage" over a DH of comparable offensive value to be of little practical significance, since it means assigning an absurdly exaggerated value to that 25th man on the roster that the statue leaves room for. Look at the "added value" of the 25th man on the typical roster, and you'll see the actual "added value" of a fielding statue over a DH. How many games does the typical 25th man ever get in to begin with, and how many 25th players have any real "value" at all?

Again, it has been, and will probably continue for some time to be, the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Sabremetric Measurement.

If Edgar doesn't go into the HOF, I suspect one should argue that no DH should ever.

That might be stretching it a bit. If there were a DH who had a Bonds/Ruth-type offensive career, I'd probably vote him in, and I hate the DH like poison.

I get what you're saying here, but Ruth isn't the example you want to use

The writers are looking at stats too. Maybe not "sabermetric" ones, but I fail to see the distinction.

A DH doesn't play defense. His contribution to a team's wins is exclusively measured in offense. That, in my opinion, is how to measure his value.

But I don't get why a DH has to be given a defensive grade for not playing defense when no one else does. In 1996, Ozzie Smith played 82 games. He wasn't contributing to the team's defense for the other 80 games, so how come no one says that he was the equivalent of a bad 1B for them?

Somebody out there dropping fly balls, tripping over his feet, and throwing balls into the crowd is hurting the team. Somebody relaxing on the bench and spitting sunflower seeds is not.

Is it reasonable that Manny should suffer a penalty to his value as punishment for being a more capable in the field than Ortiz, while Ortiz effectively gets a bonus to his value because of a lack of skill?

Nice analysis, JPWF.

I'll second Chris' comment. That was a nice quick way to present where Edgar fits against other candidates, and their Hall success.

Which is perfectly fine, providing that you're using a metric that provides only zero or positive ratings for defense (for example, win shares) when determining overall value. In other words, as long as your measuring stick has a floor of zero for defense, then giving a DH a defensive rating of zero would be the way to go.

The problem, however, is that there are quite a few metrics (for example, WAR) that actually assign negative values to the defensive contributions of many players; in order words, zero is not the worst rating a player can receive for defensive value. So if you are using one of those metrics and assign a flat zero to someone who never plays the field, you're saying that a player who never put on a glove provided more defensive value than many who did. Hence the need to establish a true floor.

Whoever got assigned to be DH got lucky, sure, but I don't think I actually care about that.

You might try pointing out that two of Larkin's healthiest years were strike seasons - he really played 5 full seasons, plus a 131-game 1995 that won him an MVP despite the missed time.

you're saying that a player who never put on a glove provided more defensive value than many who did

That line of reasoning makes some sense, if there is any evidence that the writers applied that kind of haircut to Killebrew, Kiner, and other poor fielders.

Is he a no-doubt-about-it-crime-against-baseball-if-he's-not-97%-on-first ballot HOFer?

The writers were obviously holding something against them, and it most likely wasn't their offense.

We say that Manny "can" play LF because Manny does play LF, a managerial decision that's clearly based 99% on his offensive abilities, and not his "added" defensive skills. Put Ortiz on 1B, as the Red Sox have done on many past occasions, and we could say the same thing about him.

Put Edgar in his prime in the National League and he'd find a spot in just about any team's lineup, defense notwithstanding. He wouldn't be the first statue ever to man a position.

A DH, by its very nature, does not impact the game through fielding. People can continue to cast about for things that didn't happen in fictional games, but we should remain quite pleased to focus on what actually happened in real games.(**) And in real games, Edgar Martinez did not hurt his team with poor defense. The beef of people who don't agree is with the DH rule -- which I'm not overly fond of myself.