WARP places Edmonds' peak right there with Snider, as you can see in BP 2005. I have no problem with him in the Hall - he is the 2nd best center fielder of his era, I think.

Edmonds' biggest weakness as a candidate is probably his hit total, which stands at 1,619. His .927 career on-base/slugging percentage, while impressive, ranks only 18th among active players.

Wow, only 18th, for a great defensive center fielder. Yeah, he sucks.

(Of the 17 players ahead of Edmonds, 14 have played corner positions for most of their careers. The exceptions are A-Rod [10], Griffey [16] and Piazza [17].)

WARP places Edmonds' peak right there with Snider, as you can see in BP 2005

...and well ahead of the great Pie Traynor.

You won't find a bigger Edmonds critic on this board than I am.

He is a no-doubt HoFer. A phenomenal player.

He is a no-doubt HoFer. A phenomenal player.

I assume you mean a HoF in terms of deserving it, not necessarily in terms of if he'll get in. I'd say his odds are a bit long right now. How many HoF position players don't break 100 games in a year until they turn 25? Same Rice, and . . . . anyone else? Career counting stats won't be on his side. Combine that with only 4 ASGs, never finishing in the top 3 in MVP voting (and only twice in the top ten), his dreadful performance in the '04 Series, being part of that epic Angels collapse in '95 . . . he needs to last well into his 40s to get in.

The Cardinals traded Kent Bottenfield and Adam Kennedy for Edmonds. A little one-sided.

his dreadful performance in the '04 Series,

Edmonds should be an easy HoF choice, but I think he's going to have a very hard time getting in, unfortunately. However, I don't think anyone's going to hold that particular bit of info against him, considering that the entire team shut down in that series, that Edmonds had been a postseason monster prior to that, and that he'd had that insanely clutch home run in the NLCS to help get the Cardinals to the Series in the first place.

Edmonds is not a certain HOFer. He's played in fewer than 1600 games. Kiner, DiMaggio, and Puckett are the only OFs elected with fewer than 1984 games (Medwick who barely made it). Edmonds deserves it more than Puckett, but Puckett clearly got extra credit for the career-ending injury. He might already deserve it more than Kiner as well, but that was a long time ago.

Edmonds needs at least 2-3 pretty healthy (and reasonably productive) years to be a certain HOFer.

Edmonds _might_ benefit from the steroids backlash as, for whatever reason, his huge improvement for ages 30-34 never (to my knowledge) raised the suspicion that other players' 30+ breakouts did.

Oh yeah, unless Edmonds gets hurt or drops off a cliff, there's no way the Cards don't pick up his $10 M option.

I've already recommended not picking up his option.

Just kidding! He is one of the few FA's worth their money over the last few years. He ought to be worth the 10 mil next year even with the typical dropoff associated with age. Should be around 5.5 WARP next year.

Of course, you never know if and when a player like Edmonds will be part of a major trade. In order to stay competetive, we will eventually (soon) need to replace him in CF with either another great player (and presumably pay through the nose) or replace him with someone good (and underrated) and then upgrade at the corners and at second, and of course eventually at SS again (which is another difficult position to find bargains). We have very few, if any, position player prospects ready for the majors anytime soon (I don't think).

One scout thinks the competition between Curtis Granderson and Nook Logan for the Tigers’ center-field job will not even be close.

What a genius! Granderson's offensive lwts were -1 and -2 in 04 and 05 as a 23 and 24 yo, with excellent UZR's.

Logan was -4, -42, AND -15 FOR 03-05, also with excellent defense, and is now 27. IOW, he can't hit a lick and is basically a defensive specialist.

Whom do you think has the better overall projection by a country mile?

In other news, one unnamed NL scout said that So Taguchi will not give Edmonds a run for his money for the CF job in STL this year...

we will eventually (soon) need to replace him in CF with either another great player

Melky Cabrera is now available. New and improved, for a limited time!

The Cardinals traded Kent Bottenfield and Adam Kennedy for Edmonds. A little one-sided.

Who's Adam Kennedy? You mean Home Run Kennedy, who hit 3 homers in game 5 of the 2002 ALCS?

Edmonds has made 10+ million each year for the Cardinals. He's been worth even more. But Kennedy Gives you average offense for 2B, has been well above average on defense every year, is a good baserunner, and the Angels have had him during the low salary part of his career.

I don't think either team regrets this trade.

Edmonds _might_ benefit from the steroids backlash as, for whatever reason, his huge improvement for ages 30-34 never (to my knowledge) raised the suspicion that other players' 30+ breakouts did.

I don't follow Edmonds much, but it sure is one helluva coincidence that he showed up on a LaRussa team and turned into a different player if he is clean.

It's interesting to compare Edmonds and Bernie Williams. Williams would probably have an easier time getting into the HOF because of his association as one of the founding members of the current Yankee dynasty, but Edmonds has a clear edge in the rate stats (60 points of SLG, the same career OBP, +11 in OPS+) and was a better defender.

But Williams has almost 600 more hits, 250 more runs, 200 more RBIs, 550 more total bases (Edmonds has 60 more HRs). If Edmonds doesn't get his counting stats up with some more solid seasons in his late 30s, voters will have a hard time putting him ahead of Williams (and Williams is a borderline candidate as it is, even with credit for all the Yankee team accomplishments).

Bernie has 2000 PA on Edmonds, which is pretty substantial. Edmonds' lack of counting stats and black ink will be hard to overcome without a few more productive years.

I think I would rank Edmonds above Bernie (I am a peak guy) but career rate stats are misleading. Edmonds has yet to really reach his decline phase while Bernie is at the end of his decline phase. Career rate stats tend to overrate players who have short careers without a long decline phase.

Best CFers of the 90's/00's

1. Griffey
2. Edmonds
3. Bernie
4. Lofton

I think two of this group makes the HOF.

How many HoF position players don't break 100 games in a year until they turn 25?

This is true, but his age-24 season was in 1994.

He is one of the few FA's worth their money over the last few years.

Edmonds wasn't a free agent. He signed an extension early in the 2000 season.

I don't follow Edmonds much, but it sure is one helluva coincidence that he showed up on a LaRussa team and turned into a different player if he is clean.

FWIW Edmonds had a nice uptick in walk rates after joining LaRussa (or maybe it's "joining Chad Blair"). That's not a complete surprise, considering he came from Mickey Hatcher's Angels.

I think i'd put andruw jones above kenny lofton! By the end of his career, he could easily pass bernie and edmonds too.

I'm a huge Bernie Williams fan, but I think that at this point Edmonds has surpassed him. I think Edmonds may now be the 10th-best centerfielder in MLB history. But given his lack of Black Ink, I agree with Walt that Edmonds may need two or three more very good years (perhaps like 2005) to get into Cooperstown. Because his peak hasn't been seen as dominant (as indicated by MVP voting), partly because he's been overshadowed by Pujols, he's going to have to boost those career counting stats. He certainly needs to get over 2,000 hits and probably needs to top 400 HR.

Yeah, great, Surhoff... why get a 21 year old to do a 42 year old's job?

Friggin' BARF!

I think Edmonds may now be the 10th-best centerfielder in MLB history.

I count seven.

The top five (in alpha order): Cobb, DiMaggio, Mantle, Mays, and Speaker.

The next two: Griffey and Snider.

I think a strong case can be made for Edmonds being ranked next as the 8th best CF since 1900.

I count seven.

Oops. I meant to say "I (only) count seven who are better than Edmonds."

The Cardinals traded Kent Bottenfield and Adam Kennedy for Edmonds. A little one-sided.

The Angels have saved about $35 million in salary over the past six years; that'll be north of $40 million after 2006. They also stabilized a position that was a revolving-door mess in the 1990s, changed the culture of the clubhouse, squeezed some good defensive value out of Erstad for a couple years in CF, and launched a pretty successful run.

"One-sided" is J.T. Snow for Allen Watson, or Chili Davis for Mark Gubicza, or Kimera Bartee for Chone Figgins. This wasn't so one-sided.

I think a strong case can be made for Edmonds being ranked next as the 8th best CF since 1900.

Of course your description perhaps excludes Bell, Charleston and Hamilton, which is fine. He would still be arguably behind Bernie, Jones and Lofton as well as the guys below, and there may be others i'm not thinking of. A reasonable person could easily have him out of the top 15 (I would). CF is not a strong a HoF position. If he retired today I think Edmonds would be a mistake if included in the Hall. 1619 hits in today's environment doesn't quite cut it.

Richie Ashburn
Max Carey
Reggie Smith
Jim Wynn
Dawson (mostly a CF)

I think Jimbo's got Bernie beat, and will be worthy of the Hall. Here's some Win Shares seasons, adjusted to 162, of those two, plus Puckett, Doby, Averill, Roush and Ashburn:

XX: 01/02/03/04/05/06/07/08/09/10/11/12/13/14/15/16/17
JE: 36/30/29/29/28/24/24/22/19/18/10/05/01
BW: 33/30/30/27/26/26/24/24/20/16/15/13/11/10/07
KP: 32/31/29/29/27/26/23/22/21/19/16
LD: 36/35/32/31/27/25/24/23/19/19/11/01
EA: 35/32/32/28/28/28/28/25/25/23/12/01
ER: 38/35/32/29/28/24/23/22/21/19/17/16/11/09/06/05/03
RA: 31/29/29/29/27/27/27/24/23/22/22/20/15/12/06

They should be commended, however, for having the (apparent) sight to figure out that Bottenfield was a one-year wonder and trading him before the rest of baseball was smart enough to figure it out.

"...one of the founding members of the current Yankee dynasty..."

Current? Shouldn't that read former?

I could see Griffey, Bernie and Edmonds all making the Hall. I imagine that in the public's eyes Bernie is still ahead of Edmonds, but that could change over the next couple of years-- for one thing, Edmonds has been a poster boy of the "Web Gem" era. He'll be remembered as an excellent CF who laid himself out again and again and again. That will count for a good deal with the voters, I suspect.

Sorry Kyle I forgot about Jones, probably because he is so much younger than those guys. I guess one could throw Damon in there as well.

So far...

1.Griffey
2. Edmonds
3. Bernie
4. Jones
5. Lofton
6. Damon

probably forgetting someone else, but I am not sure that a guy like Cameron, Erstad, or Grissom desrves to be on that list.

Also,

I dont think I would ptu Edmonds at #8 right now though it could be a possibility in time. I like Jimmy Wynn a lot and Billy Hamilton was magnificent. Charleston, Torriente, and maybe Bell are were better as NeL players as well, though MLB was all the above list included. Ashburn, Averill, Puckett, Bernie, all have arguments. In the 19th century there have been Duffy and Browning who I may rank above him. Van Haltren, Ryan, and Charley Jones may also get some support for being better than Edmonds.

Current? Shouldn't that read former?

It's like the Braves - until they actually fail to make the playoffs, the dynasty lives on.

Maybe when the phone call comes from the Hall of Fame, Edmonds can lay back 8 feet away then wait for one ring, then a second ring and then dive and pick up the phone at the last split second before the machine would start to answer.

Frigging drama queen.

One scout thinks the competition between Curtis Granderson and Nook Logan for the Tigers’ center-field job will not even be close.

What a genius!

I don't understand why this unnamed scout should be denigrated for coming to the conclusion that your projection system suggests is correct. Jim Leyland hasn't figured it out, and as a result, there is a Spring Training competition (unless Leyland is solely trying to motivate Granderson, but if he is, I'm unaware of any evidence of that explanation, although I haven't gone looking for it, either). Given that, I can see why Rosenthal would find it interesting to report the scout's opinion.

It's also the case that Logan could win the job in Spring Training, despite Granderson's much better projection, for no reason other than small sample sizes. Logan gets hot, Granderson struggles, and Logan gets named the starter. That makes the scout's opinion worth noting before Spring Training, to me, anyway.

I'm one of Edmonds biggest supporters and I don't really see how he could make the hof. I love the rate stats, but his counting stats, in season and career just doesn't cut it. He would need a fairly slow decline phase, and maintain health to play in over 140 games a year and probably not change teams to have a real chance of making the HOF in my opinion.

Of course if he bounces back from 2005 and posts a season like 2004 and a strong post season then that alone may boost him over the hump(then normal decline phase of course) He has to play until he is 40 to get his counting numbers at the level that he needs to garner serious attention though.

(I'm glad to hear MGL feel that picking up Edmonds option is a good thing, I was thinking that it was a bad thing or at least from the front office point of view. Personally I like some continuity in my team and since Edmonds is my current favorite Cardinal, I would like him to stay as long as possible)

FWIW Edmonds had a nice uptick in walk rates after joining LaRussa (or maybe it's "joining Chad Blair"). That's not a complete surprise, considering he came from Mickey Hatcher's Angels.

Yeah, except that his slugging also jumped from over fifty points, from an average of .528 during his four full-ish years with the Angels ('95-'98, ages 25-28) to .583 during the last six years with the Cards.

I think that was part of his point, the uptick in walks leads to an uptick in power numbers. walks mean you are willing to not swing at borderline pitches, so when you do swing you are swinging at balls that you have a better chance of damaging.

I think if that was his point he would have said it, and it's not even necessarily true.

Do the Phillies have interest in any on under the age of 35?? They hire an old man for a GM, I guess that's what they get. The trend is towards younger GM's with fresh ideas. Not guys like Gillick trying to get 42 yr old BJ Surhoff!!

since Edmonds is my current favorite Cardinal, I would like him to stay as long as possible)

I'm a Cubs fan, but I can't imagine how any Cards fan could not have Albert Pujols as their favorite Cardinal. Albert is my favorite Cardinal, and that category never existed until he came along.

Well, I guess the one exception would be if you loved David Eckstein, because he's so teeny-weeny and cute. Barry Bonds could carry him around on his show in a little man-bag, like Paris Hilton.

The Last Night Of The Yankee Dynasty was Game 7 of the 2003 World Series. Buster Olney said so. Surprised you didn't know that.

I can't imagine how any Cards fan could not have Albert Pujols as their favorite Cardinal.

I can. When Michael Jordan was on the Bulls, he was truly my favorite player, but it kind of short-circuits the discussion if you don't adopt another player as your "favorite" who is actually your second-favorite. I wouldn't be surprised if Cardinals fans feel that way about Pujols, too. I felt that way about Frank Thomas in the 1990s, too.

I think that was part of his point, the uptick in walks leads to an uptick in power numbers. walks mean you are willing to not swing at borderline pitches, so when you do swing you are swinging at balls that you have a better chance of damaging.

Which began the same season he hit 42 home runs. And that doesn't explain why he got so much healthier out of nowhere at age 30, either.

Maybe when the phone call comes from the Hall of Fame, Edmonds can lay back 8 feet away then wait for one ring, then a second ring and then dive and pick up the phone at the last split second before the machine would start to answer.

Frigging drama queen.

Primey.

I'm a Cubs fan, but I can't imagine how any Cards fan could not have Albert Pujols as their favorite Cardinal. Albert is my favorite Cardinal, and that category never existed until he came along.

Edmonds is definitely my favorite Cardinal, for two reasons:

First, everyone basically understands how good Pujols is. But Edmonds is a legitimate superstar, one of the very best players in baseball and a guy who should be headed to the Hall of Fame, but he's never been thought of that way, not even in St. Louis. I like to root for guys who don't get the appreciation they deserve.

Second, and more importantly, the guy is so godd*mn fun to watch, whether in the batter's box or in the outfield. He takes a lot of flack for stuff like timing his dives--which he unquestionably does--but you know what? In six years of watching him, I have never, not once, seen him botch a play by diving unnecessarily. Maybe #31 is right in calling him a "drama queen," but I prefer to think of him as an entertainer.

And, with the steroid thing, keep in mind that Edmonds was a singles hitter in the minors, and turned into a major power hitter once he reached the majors, a bigger jump than most prospects take. I very much hope he's not on anything, but if he is, he probably started before he came to St. Louis.

I believe there are a whole generation (maybe not for that long a time period) of players who have benefited from the positive (in perforfance) effects of PED's. How many, I don't know. I think it is signifciantly more players than the number based on the ones we strongly suspect (the Sosas, Boones, Palmeiros, etc.).

Anecdotally, we have seen evidence that when you (presumably) stop taking steroids that your performance takes a sudden (and perhaps temporary - see Giambi) dip.

Any player in whom we do not see the usual decline with age should be an automatic suspect. Of course that means, by definition, you will falsely suspect players who for one reason or another genuinely had an increase n performance late in their careers. Another "nail in the coffin" or piece of anecdotal evidence that a player has talen PED's is a precipitous decline in performance in 05 - more so than what we would expect from the typical effects of age and regression. IOW, if a player significantly underperformed his projection in 05 AND has an atypical increase in performance (for several years at least) late in his career, we could easily be justified in suspecting PED's. Guys like Sosa and Boone are obvious examples. However, guys like Finley, who is not generally regarding as one of the "usual suspects," AFAIK, could just as easily fall under that veil of suspicion. Edmonds did in fact underperform his 05 projection, by about 9 runs in lwts, which was only around 8% though in total runs created - not a lot. So who knows. I do think that all of us forecasters will probably have to re-examine the aging curves we currently use, assuming they are largely based on data from the last 15 years or so (which mine are).

Vince, I did not mean that fact that Granderson is likely the much better player is not valuable information. Of course it is. I meant that anyone could easily see that just by looking at both players' offensive stats over the last few years. IOW, it took/takes no special skills that a scout or a stathead would have to come to that conclusion. I agree with you that one of the egregious errors that a "stupid" manager/team makes is to even have a "competition" in ST between players who are not even close in talent (and projection). Only bad things can come out of that, as you point out. That is, the lesser of the players having a great spring and/or the better player having a terrible one. ST should never be about "seeing how players do," for those at least with established projections (unless a player has been injured or a pitcher has learned a new pitch or something like that). As a tie-breaker for players who have around the same talent/projections, that's OK of course, although even then, it is not really of any value (using the actual ST stats only to determine a player's status that is). Then again, lots of managers like to use 10 or 15 PA versus a particular pitcher to make decisions. Heck, in their minds, why not 50 or 75 PA in ST? To them, that is a gigantic sample!

That's not a complete surprise, considering he came from Mickey Hatcher's Angels.

Edmonds never played for "Mickey Hatcher's Angels." His was the Rod Carew version. And he certainly wasn't the only hitter to be reborn after leaving Rodney (Snow, Easley, Gaetti, Nevin, Polonia, etc.).

For what it's worth, ballplayers have said that walk rates are apt to improve after using PEDs, because a hitter's bat speed increases and he can wait longer on the pitch. It's also said that, for similar reasons, hitters are more apt to hit opposite field home runs (which are far, far more frequent than before steroids became the rage). Improved bat speed allows the batter to hit the ball deeper in the zone, providing the impetus for the opposite-field HR. Along these lines, the likes of Piazza and McGwire, among many others, became Vitamins S suspects within the industry. Then you have theories that HGH improves eye sight, which would also improve walk rates and overall performance.

Well, I'll say that I can see these points about Edmonds being a favorite. I just think that Albert is so damned cool.

"The Last Night Of The Yankee Dynasty was Game 7 of the 2003 World Series. Buster Olney said so. Surprised you didn't know that."

2001, actually. But that was probably a typo, since the 2003 Series only went 6 games. (Boy, I can't wait to see Beckett pitch with a B on his cap.)

"It's like the Braves - until they actually fail to make the playoffs, the dynasty lives on."

Fair enough-- though the Braves dynasty is all about making the playoffs, it seems to me, with a bunch of new players under Schuerholz and Bobby Cox, whereas the Yankee dynasty used to be about winning the whole thing.

You could certainly argue that as long as Jeter, Rivera and Posada are contributing, that's enough continuity-- but the Captain himself said "that was a different team."

Anyway, carry on...

Albert is unnaturally good. Yes, he works as hard as anyone to get the most out of his natural talents, but I sort of prefer watching Edmonds, who has obvious and exploitable weaknesses but still manages to overwhelm them with his strengths and be one of the best ballplayers on the planet.

Edmonds never played for "Mickey Hatcher's Angels." His was the Rod Carew version. And he certainly wasn't the only hitter to be reborn after leaving Rodney (Snow, Easley, Gaetti, Nevin, Polonia, etc.).

Uh, even better.

I think if that was his point he would have said it, and it's not even necessarily true.

I think take-n-rake is pretty well understood here.

For what it's worth, ballplayers have said that walk rates are apt to improve after using PEDs, because a hitter's bat speed increases and he can wait longer on the pitch.

Yes, this is a good point. Kinda changes the Pentland-Sosa story, doesn't it?

the rumors about Edmonds has been around for a while, not nearly as strong as say Boone, McGwire or others, but the thought has been there.

about Edmonds being my favorite current cardinal, I don't understand why a player has to be the best on the team to be a favorite, other cardinals in the past that have been my favorite include the superstars(Ted Simmons) the average (willie mcgee, bob forsch) or even guys that people hardly know (john fulgham/joe boever) A favorite is just a guy you root for for whatever reason, they don't have to be good for you to root for them. Pujols is a great player, but I prefer Edmonds(heck he is only one month older than me) as mentioned by others, he is underespected in st louis, he is one of the 15 best overall position players of this century and yet he hardly ever gets mentioned by those other elite players like Ichiro, Andruw, Jeter (or other guys he is clearly better than)

one of the very best players in baseball and a guy who should be headed to the Hall of Fame

Let's not go crazy - we're talking about a hitter with less than 6500 plate appearances. He has work to do.

Woolsey - One can tell that you are a Cub fan.

Let's not go crazy - we're talking about a hitter with less than 6500 plate appearances. He has work to do.

There are not a lot of players with the sort of peak Edmonds has had who are not in the Hall of Fame.

I have to agree
Gregg Zaun is my favourite Jay
and Peter Zezel my favourite Leaf

If your favourite had to be the best on the team, then where's the indiviuality in that?

Isn't that the definition of YOUR favourite?

There are not a lot of players with the sort of peak Edmonds has had who are not in the Hall of Fame.

The sort of *sustained* peak, I probably should have said.

One-sided" is J.T. Snow for Allen Watson

No kidding; I'm still shocked we got as much as Watson for a weak-hitting first baseman with almost no range (despite his rep) and no footspeed, all while getting Darin Erstad (back when he could hit) into the lineup. He, of course, did improve once he left the team ... but he would still make my All Time Team of Guys I'm Glad My Team Got Rid Of.

Since trading for Edmonds, the Cardinals have been rewarded with a total of 55.5 WARP1 from BPro, and have paid out $46.17M -- $.83M per WARP.

The Angels have received 26.4 WARP1 from Adam Kennedy, and have paid him $8.6275M, or $.33M per WARP.

Of course, Kennedy was pre-arb and pre-free agent for much of that time. Another way of looking at it: the Angels saved $37M or so, but also lost out on 29 wins. So it's not the catastrophe for the Angels it's often painted as, though I'd still consider Jocketty to have won the trade.

the Angels saved $37M or so, but also lost out on 29 wins.

That's the better way to look at it, I think. That said, if anyone suggests the Edmonds trade was a catastrophe for the Angels, then I suggest you program your mechanical Rally Monkey to beat that person over the head with Thunder Stix.

If your favourite had to be the best on the team, then where's the indiviuality in that?

Isn't that the definition of YOUR favourite?

No, whoever has the highest combined OPS+ and SNARP* for their career who is wearing the pinstripes that week is my favorite player. I see no reason to deviate from this for any reason.

*look in my Profile

I'm still shocked we got as much as Watson for a weak-hitting first baseman with almost no range (despite his rep) and no footspeed, all while getting Darin Erstad (back when he could hit) into the lineup.

The Chili Davis trade is what got Erstad in the lineup; trading Snow made room for Eddie Murray, Cokey Phillips, Rickey Henderson, Cecil Fielder, Gregg Jeffries, Mark Johnson, and Mo Vaughn, among other value-subtracting entities.

Snow sucked as an Angel for three of four years, sure, but his blossoming into a very good platoon player suggests that either he was one of those rare birds who only learns how to hit after age 28, or maybe the Angels weren't very good at coaching him. Regardless, there is very little to applaud about trading a regular position player for a number-5 starter with nothing stuff.

I admit that it's close, but I'd have to rank Jim Edmonds ahead of Jimmy Wynn and Bernie Williams at this point.

So, the top 10 centerfielders of MLB (not the Negro Leagues) would be in my humble opinion: Mays, Mantle, Cobb, Speaker, DiMaggio, Snider, Griffey, Ashburn, Roush, and Edmonds. Just missing out are Bernie, Wynn, Averill and Puckett. This acknowledges that Edmonds hasn't really entered his decline phase yet (unless you count 2005).

Whether Edmonds's terrific peak is enough to offset his relatively short career in HoF voters' eyes is another question. Which is why he does need a slow, graceful decline that allows him to keep playing until age 40.