|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Monday, November 09, 2009
As environmentalist turned professional homer, Paul Hawken Harrelson, once noted…“Baseball is connected ... no one thing can change by itself.”
Posnanski goes on to say that he doesn’t think Martinez will make it, and I don’t either—not the first time around. But articles like this by prominent national writers like Posnanski could begin to change the perception of Martinez as just a DH with good numbers. He’s a DH with great numbers—brilliant numbers, ones that I sense will be illuminated more brightly than I had previously imagined by the legion of great baseball thinkers that populate the writing world these days..
Some work for newspapers, and some are the 10-year members of the Baseball Writers Association of America who will make the ultimate call on Martinez. Many are not; they’re the so-called citizen-journalists and bloggers who are changing our world (the world of journalism; my world) so dramatically. I’m not ashamed to say that I’ve learned a whole bunch by opening my mind and realizing that there are newer, and better, ways to evaluate performance than the ones I adhered to, stubbornly, for so long. I’m not the only one. This statistical and analytical revolution, of sorts, should aid candidates like Martinez as it slowly takes hold and filters into the mainstream, as is already happening.
The Mariners are preparing a packet of information on Martinez’s credentials to send to national writers and potential Hall of Fame voters. It all helps. I’m more convinced now than I used to be that Edgar Martinez will, indeed, one day be voted into the Hall of Fame. And that day might be sooner than we had dared hope
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Hall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1983 Discussion (35 - 2:42am, Jun 18)Last: David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R)Newsblog: [OTP-June] Economic Times: Hope politics, sports don’t get mixed up: Manmohan Singh (2048 - 2:40am, Jun 18)Last: The Yankee ClapperNewsblog: Numbers For Dodgers Do Not Add Up As Baseball Takes More Of Team's TV Money (12 - 2:15am, Jun 18)Last: drdrNewsblog: OMNICHATTER for 6/17/2013 (117 - 1:47am, Jun 18)Last: DanNewsblog: OT: NHL is finally back thread (1005 - 1:39am, Jun 18)Last: zackNewsblog: Gackle: A's pitcher Bartolo Colon becoming Bud Selig's worst nightmare (41 - 12:59am, Jun 18)Last: Walt DavisNewsblog: LATimes: Microsoft unveils new Xbox One console (176 - 12:54am, Jun 18)Last: Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered CastleNewsblog: Berg: Rumored trivia legend Nick Swisher bats .429 in pub trivia (24 - 12:54am, Jun 18)Last: Cooper NielsonNewsblog: Calcaterra - You can thank Major League Baseball for the sewage mess in the Oakland Coliseum (5 - 12:51am, Jun 18)Last: Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered CastleNewsblog: Mark Appel signs under slot deal with Astros (97 - 11:59pm, Jun 17)Last: Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered CastleNewsblog: Keidel: Bob Costas Blurs Line Between Illuminating And Illuminati (44 - 11:39pm, Jun 17)Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Done Jumped The ShipNewsblog: WSJ: Well That Was an Unlikely Mets Comeback (65 - 11:36pm, Jun 17)Last: Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered CastleNewsblog: Wil Myers promoted by the Tampa Bay Rays (44 - 11:17pm, Jun 17)Last: catomi01Newsblog: With defensive shifts on the rise in baseball, Orioles among leading proponents (10 - 11:00pm, Jun 17)Last: ellsbury my heart at wounded kneeNewsblog: WaPo - Sheinin | For Angels' Mike Trout, no ceiling applies (1 - 10:59pm, Jun 17)Last: Walt Davis
|
|
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.
Last big Edgar thread here. More here.
The famed Edgar thread.
But if you back up a step and look at all of the players who are on the outside looking in, is Edgar really in the top 25 of those guys? I can't imagine how you make that argument.
Though I guess I'm about to find out.
As Pos says, he is arguably the best hitter of anyone not in the HOF. He had a short but not overwhelmingly so career and is #22 all time in on base percentage.
It doesn't require cherry-picking of players. He's got the same career OPS+ as Willie McCovey, A-Rod, Schmidt, and Stargell.
Of course, YMMV on all the details of the Edgar-HOF argument (how short was his career, how little defensive credit he gets, etc.), but that's a pretty strong place to start.
Indeed. Among HOF 1B, 23, or OF, Edgar's career PA is right smack at the median. About the same (+/- 500) as Jim Rice, Willie Stargell, Orlando Cepeda, Joe Medwick, and Duke Snider
He gets negative defensive credit, IMHO, if he couldn't stick as a 1B. Whatever the worst comparable defensive slugger is at 1B (-10 R/150, -15?) that's what you have to tag the DHs with. Even if the argument is he couldn't stay healthy, he still needs to take the defensive hit, b/c he got the offensive benefit.
I don't see a whole lot distinguishing Edgar from Jason Giambi, and Giambi won't (and shouldn't) sniff the HoF. 147 career OPS+ vs. 144 in about 600 more PAs, and Giambi was probably an averagish defensive 1B for most of his career.
Rank Player ABW OW% RC22 Jeff Bagwell 58.4 0.721 1788
23 Mike Schmidt+ 57.9 0.727 1757
24 Roger Connor+ 57.2 0.739 1498
25 Willie McCovey+ 55.6 0.718 1638
28 Mark McGwire 54.9 0.737 1529
31 Eddie Mathews+ 53.5 0.704 1716
33 Sam Crawford+ 52.9 0.738 1566
36 Edgar Martinez 52.1 0.711 1631
38 Harmon Killebrew+ 52.0 0.706 1606
39 Harry Heilmann+ 51.3 0.742 1663
40 Chipper Jones(37) 50.8 0.716 1772
42 Willie Stargell+ 50.4 0.717 1531
48 Jesse Burkett+ 48.8 0.728 1566
50 Paul Waner+ 47.1 0.699 1817
53 Wade Boggs+ 45.9 0.677 1750
But he's not a CI/COF type he's a DH. He had less defensive value than all those guys, by a fair amount.
As a side note, it should be pointed out that Edgar had to move to DH because he couldn't stay healthy while playing in the field. If the DH wasn't available to him, the odds of him actually putting together an offensive resume at all similar to the one he ended his career with.
Show me how he's enough better than Jason Giambi that he should be in the hall when Giambi should be one and done on the ballot. Is it just steroids?
Are unknowable. Edgar had trouble staying healthy. They moved him to DH because that was the most sensible decision to wring maximum mileage out of his bat while limiting his opportunities for injury. In a no-DH league, he is moved to first base. We don't know what happens in that non-DH league.
I don't see why the second part of that statement is a given.
You think Giambi has a legitimate HoF case? Cause I never hear him talked about that way.
To me Giambi and Edgar are poster boys for the HofVG.
2) No rings.
3) Edgar who?
Game, set, match.
Would he have had been more valuable to the Ms all those years playing a really bad 1b? By playing DH, doesn't he allow his team to find a better defensive 1b, but still keep his premium bat in the lineup?
BTW, I don't believe he's a HOFer, but I'm a small hall guy. Just throwing that this out there for conversation.
By DH-ing he prevents his team from removing the worst fielder from the field, or acquiring a good bat who can't field.
The best example is David Ortiz' inability to field 1B forced Manny Ramirez to play LF. Should Manny get the -15 defensive hit, and Ortiz get zero, when Manny was the better (less awful?) fielder?
A DH has to have less defensive value than the worst fielder otherwise you'd get paradoxes.
If DH is defensively neutral, Derek Jeter would be more valuable if he was a career DH.
Based on the somewhat get-off-my-lawnish nature of many of the people who will be voting on the VC ballot, how are they likely to view a DH candidate?
Player Bat Bsr GIDP ROE TZ ifDP OFarm Pos Rep RAR WARWhitaker 209 33 17 -10 70 7 0 51 310 687 69.6
Larkin 189 85 8 -2 37 -10 0 114 251 672 68.8
Grich 267 3 -11 0 59 24 0 53 259 654 67.6
Martinez 559 -14 -20 2 16 0 0 -140 284 687 67.2
Trammell 124 21 19 12 59 17 0 118 291 661 66.8
Santo 271 -3 -31 16 30 -7 -1 50 302 627 66.4
Raines 306 121 8 -18 -13 -2 7 -105 312 616 64.9
*GASP*
And with the Yankees, that worst fielder was often Giambi. But Jason didn't like to DH because he thought it hurt him at the plate, so the team intenionally played an inferior player in the field to keep from hurting his feelings.
While I appreciate the idea of giving the DH a defensive hit, I hate even even more the idea that selfish acts should be rewarded over doing what's in the best interest of the team, even if it hurts the perception of you as a ballplayer. One thing that many of the successful, longtime DHs have in common is a pretty good reputation as leaders/respected vets. Edgar, Papi, Baines, Molitor, Baylor, McRae were all viewed that way. Only Canseco, really, stands out as a guy who spent a lot of time at DH who wasn't viewed positively around the league. I don't think it's an accident.
Well first of all you have to throw out the 3BS (yes Edgar played some, but the majority of his time was a DH)
He was a regular from 1990-2004, 15 years
During that span the median everyday DH (360+ PAs in a year) had a 120 OPS+
The median 3b had a 104
The median 1B had a 118
The median corner OF was 113
So yes, maybe you can compare him directly to 1Bs, and a small discount when comapred to corner OFs, but you can't compare him directly to a 3B
The best example is David Ortiz' inability to field 1B forced Manny Ramirez to play LF
Well, that was certainly a disaster for the Red Sox :)
You're worrying too much. Your main man has an MVP trophy sitting on his mantelpiece. Those other guys are lacking that.
EDIT: The MVP. I have no idea whether or not they have mantelpieces.
If you believe UZR, Giambi's defesne wasn't really a problem until 2005, and only in 2008 did he start more than half the team's games at 1B, so you're overstating the issue quite a bit.
Also, many of those Yankee teams had plenty of other guys that needed to be DH-ing as much or more: Bernie Williams, Matsui, Sheffield, Soriano, Abreu, etc. They were among the worst defensive teams of modern times. When Giambi played 1B they were almost never using a good glove at DH.
Wasn't Nick Johnson a better glove? That was certainly his reputation, even if UZR didn't back it up. Jason Giambi, like many players, didn't like being seen as a half-player. I can't say I blame him, though I'd much prefer having guys like Edgar to pencil into the lineup.
Probably, but that was only 2002-3 and Giambi only started 92 and 85 games at 1B those years. Johnson did play a lot at 1B.
Who's the best LOOGY in the Hall of Fame? Or the best pinch runner?
That argument would resonate a hell of a lot more with me if Fingers, Sutter and Goose weren't already taking up undeserved space in Cooperstown.
I don't really know anything about that last part of it, but the point is, they already do get dinged for DHing vis-a-vis playing any other position, and if you're a full-time DH for ten years, it's a pretty significant dinging. And Edgar still comes out comfortably in HOF territory.
I know. But Dan was citing pure offensive stats and comparing Edgar to 3Bs/1Bs/OFs, some of them damned good defensive players. That's what I was responding to.
I personally would ding a DH a little more than WAR (closer to 10 runs vs. 1B than 5) but it does the positional adjustments pretty well.
If you can't ignore the mistakes that the Hall's already made, then we might as well induct everyone better than Ross Youngs en masse and then call it a day.
This isn't a better than the worst guy argument. The Hall of Fame is electing reserve pitchers, and will continue to do so.
The Hall will elect AL pitchers, and I don't think you have an objection to that, even though following your logic, if Edgar wasn't playing an actual position, then neither was Mussina.
In any case, I believe it takes unreasonable statistical gyrations to knock Edgar out of the HOF circle. He is certainly one of the 45 most valuable players eligible for the HOF.
> 65 WAR: almost certainly deserving
between 60 and 65: probably deserving
between 55 and 60: probably undeserving
< 55: almost certainly undeserving
Of course this is ignoring peak performance, years lost due to strike or military service, and all that.
In addition to the players in #22, there's Larry Walker (67.1 WAR), Jim Edmonds (66.6 WAR), and Kenny Lofton (65.1 WAR). All three are boosted by their fielding. Even if you discount TotalZone, though, they still seem worthy of strong consideration.
Here's a couple of guys I'm starting from in an attempt to get perspective: Frank Howard and Jack Clark. There's no doubt that Edgar has more bat than either of them - in particular, neither of them can match Edgar's 1995 for a top offensive season. But Clark and Howard did each put up some pretty nice offensive numbers (Howard's numbers being partly hidden by the offensive context of the "little dead ball days" of the 60's.) Clark was a passable corner outfielder before becoming a below-average first baseman and then finishing as a DH - but his offense while he was an outfielder wasn't what it would be later. Howard was always an outfielder, but a pretty bad one. But even as bad an outfielder as Howard was, he probably contributed more on defense than Martinez.
I don't have either Clark or Howard on my HoM ballot now, but I have had Howard on the lower part of it in the past, and Clark isn't very far off it. I think I put Martinez ahead of both of them, but how far ahead?
And that argument would make more sense to me if it could be shown that a guy creating 140 runs a year had the net impact of a LOOGY or a pinch runner.
So does Zoilo Versalles.
Against that, hitters as a group hit a fair amount worse while DHing. Yes, some of this is due to the frequency that players with injuries are stuffed in at DH, but not all of it.
In any case, I believe it takes unreasonable statistical gyrations to knock Edgar out of the HOF circle. He is certainly one of the 45 most valuable players eligible for the HOF.
I think you're wrong. All of those guys had long careers in the field. Besides McGwire and maybe Stargell I don't think any of them were even poor defensive players, much less butchers.
Schmidt, Mathews, Jones and Boggs were 3Bs ranging from excellent to at worst average, they have a huge defensive value edge on Edgar, just huge.
Bagwell was a fine defensive 1B, strongly positive in UZR even in his last years. Wahoo Sam Crawford played a fair bit of CF and had a good reputation defensively from what I know. Killebrew played almost 800 games at 3B. There are not too many defensive slugs on your list.
As for Edgar being one of the most 45 valuable players elligible for the HoF, I can't see how you can believe that without completely disregarding position and defense, which is a huge mistake.
I think it's appropriate to give AL pitchers a debit for not providing any offensive value over their careers. The barrier is smaller for them, since the typical pitcher provides less with the bat than the typical non-pitcher provides with the glove, but it's a legitimate factor in the evaluation.
I'm not saying that a DH should never be elected. If you came up with the DH equivalent of Robo-Punter, for example, a guy who hit a home run every time up, then he'd pretty clearly be deserving even after taking a big whack for not playing the field.
Edgar played 563 games at 3B, and if I'm reading the fielding stats right on BB-Ref, he was an above-average fielder when he was there (+17.7 career RTot at 3B, +17.2 including his time at 1B). Killebrew, on the other hand, was a butcher (-50.3 RTot @ 3B, -77.8 at all positions combined). I'm not exactly an expert on how you combine these things with your positional adjustments (including DH), but it's not obvious to me that Edgar has less defensive value for his career than Killebrew. To be fair, I do think that Killebrew has more career offensive value than Edgar, though.
Not to cast aspersions, but that has to be one of the dumbest statements I've seen on this site. NL pitchers elected to the HoF (or any pitcher prior to 1973) are not being recognized for their efforts offensively. A few like Bob Lemon or Bob Gibson may have had a decent hitter (for a pitcher) reputation, but that wasn't why they made the HoF. Also, pitcher is a position. DH is not a position it denotes the absence of a position.
I'm not 100% opposed to the election of a DH. I am opposed to some of the arguments made on Martinez' or Baines' behalf. Don't throw out that so & so had the most homers or whatever as a DH. That argument works somewhat on the behalf of a shortstop, second baseman or catcher where sometimes offense is sacrificed to man that position defensively.
I really don't know enough about pre-play-by-play defensive stats to comment.
Indifferent to whether this casts aspersions, but blow me. :-)
The point is pretty simple, if DH isn't a position, then the guy he's batting for isn't playing a full one either. No one in his right mind actually believes the latter.
Zoilo is dead.
Enough with the reductio ad absurdum already.
I haven't seen any "better than the worst guy" arguments, but I've seen pretty much nothing but "better than this HoFer or that HoFer" arguments. Was he better than other candidates? That is the question.
Look, I think Larkin should go in, and I hope that he does. My point is that I don't think the BBWAA will be that into him, even with the MVP. As I said, that list in Post 22 is more or less why I think that will be the case.
How many Pirates' fans are?
Larkin
Grich
Martinez
Trammell
Santo
Raines
I'm a big hall guy, I'd be happy to see all of these guys get in.
EDIT: The closest person I can think of to get in was Tony Gwynn -- corner OF, not thought of in the Rickey!-type "speedster" category, no HR power -- but he had 900 more hits than Edgar. I guess another person who fits this mold and got some HoF votes is Mark Grace, but there is a big difference between 4.1% and in, and of course Grace had the defensive reputation and the gimmick stat of most hits in the 90s. Will Clark maybe, same type of player as Grace (though much better.) Perhaps unsurprisingly, most 1B who aren't "true sluggers" have a good defensive rep (looking at Edgar's comps, there's John Olerud, and still-in-progress Todd Helton.)
To start, I agree with the negative defensive credit argument 100%. However, your last sentence worries me. What do you mean by "he got the offensive benefit"? Is this about staying healthy by staying off the field, or is it about positional adjustments? If the former, carry on, if the latter, plz to esplane.
This argument is beyond silly. A DH has far, far more of an impact on a game than a pinch hitter, LOOGY, or pinch runner.
What I'm referring to is the situation where someone tries to explain away the positional adjustment by saying the DH in question (say Paul Molitor) was only DH'ed for health reasons, and was really a good fielder, so shouldn't get the "demerit". I'd answer that he got the "benefit" of DH-ing (in this case more PAs rather than hiding his glove) so he still has to take the "demerit".
I'd say that why a player DH'd (he was a bad fielder, he was avoiding injury, his management was idiotic, whatever) is irrelevant to his HOF consideration. The fact is he did DH. What else he might have done doesn't count.
Moreover, the "benefit" he got from DH'ing is similarly not relevant; whether he would or wouldn't have gotten as many PA's as he did if he wasn't DH'ing, the fact is that he did get those PAs. That offensive contribution counts. Whether he might not have been able to make it under different circumstances doesn't count.
For HOF purposes, it doesn't matter why a player's career turned out as it did, and it doesn't matter how it might have turned out differently. It was what it was. We assess that.
I'm not saying anything different. I'm in favor of a DH position adjustment like the one in WAR, but a little more punitive.
For HOF purposes, it doesn't matter why a player's career turned out as it did, and it doesn't matter how it might have turned out differently. It was what it was. We assess that.
Ah, this takes me back to discussing John DiFool2's adjustment method for HOM in the Mussina thread...
The best example is David Ortiz' inability to field 1B forced Manny Ramirez to play LF. Should Manny get the -15 defensive hit, and Ortiz get zero, when Manny was the better (less awful?) fielder?
A DH has to have less defensive value than the worst fielder otherwise you'd get paradoxes.
If DH is defensively neutral, Derek Jeter would be more valuable if he was a career DH.
seriously, totally awesome point. Agreed 100% with that. I have no problem with a DH for the hall of fame, but he has to be as good or better hitter than the average poor defensive firstbaseman/corner outfielders in the hall to even sniff my support.
I don't get this. That list would make sense to, what, 5% of the HOF voters? They don't get Winshares or WAR or RAR or whatever.
They get All Star Games, and Gold Gloves, MVPs, and how they were looked at when they played.
Larkin has 12 All Star Games, an MVP, 3 Gold Gloves, a World Series Ring (batting .353/.421/.529), a good reputation and a lot of supporters. I think he gets around 40% on the first ballot, and builds from there.
If I'm following you correctly, you're talking about debiting Martinez for, what is referred to in economics as, the Opportunity Cost. It's the theoretical value lost by being "forced" to play Martinez at DH rather than the typical worst fielder on a team.
In your Ortiz example, you err by calculating the cost using the actual negative value of Manny Ramirez playing in the field, because the Red Sox had the choice of not playing Manny, but instead someone who could field better. You have to use the average worst fielder in order to compare all DH's equally.
This being the case, what leads you to believe that WAR's adjustment isn't "punitive" enough?
In fact, I suspect that this sort of punishment is mostly inappropriate. "The notion of opportunity cost plays a crucial part in ensuring that scarce resources are used efficiently" says Wiki. So, if you have Edgar Martinez on your team, how do you maximize his value, his efficiency? You play him at DH, of course, while constructing your team knowing you don't have the option of playing anyone else at DH. I don't think this is really that burdensome a situation for the GM to configure. As you wrote: "By DH-ing he prevents his team from removing the worst fielder from the field, or acquiring a good bat who can't field." Well, that's what the M's did; they removed their worst fielder (Edgar) and thereby got a good (no, great!) bat to DH. I don't see this as extracting any great opportunity cost for the team.
Finally, in saying a DH has neutral fielding value, this is in relation to replacement level, not to average fielding level. Jeter's fielding has nearly always been much better than replacement level SS, so he does have greater value there than he would at DH.
Hell no. I have no idea what a couple of those are. There's no way 1 in 20 HOF voters know every single one. What the hell are "TZ ifDP OFarm Pos Rep"?
Mmm, no.
Against which group? BBWAA selections to the Hall of Fame are very different than VC selections to the Hall of Fame. I'd say Edgar compares well to the second group, but not so well to the first group. For 1B, consists of Foxx, Gehrig, Greenberg, Sisler, Terry, Perez, Killebrew, Murray, and McCovey). For 3B, that group is Traynor, Matthews, Brooks, Schmidt, Molitor, Brett, and Boggs.
In both cases, once the defensive contributions and career lengths are included, I'd say that Edgar is near to or at the bottom of both lists.
In both cases, once the defensive contributions and career lengths are included, I'd say that Edgar is near to or at the bottom of both lists.
What? What am I missing? "The average poor defensive first baseman/corner outfielder in the hall"?
If that's the case, then none of these 3B apply, at all; they all offer vastly more defensive value than we're talking about.
And among the 1B listed, only Greenberg, Perez, Killebrew, and McCovey would qualify as "poor" defensively ... clearly Perez is a joke HOFer, but the others dwarf Edgar in career offensive value.
haven't looked at it in a few years, but last few times I checked I thought he was a little bit short. I'm a career guy, and I also like complete seasons (I'm sorry but I just can't for the life of me justify Dick Allen type of seasonal careers for the hof) Edgar had roughly 8 complete seasons, 10 if you stretch it out, 130 games in a non-strike season has to be considered detriment, especially from a dh. Again I haven't really loooked at it, but cursory glance and I see too many partial seasons, see no defensive value, see lack of gray ink for a professional bat(I don't really judge black ink in the modern game, too tough to be honest in comparison to the past) He's a heck of a hitter when he is in the lineup, but like Dick Allen and others he's just not in the lineup enough, and his career doesn't have the counting numbers.
Numbers for both sides of the arguments
OBP .418, 22nd career
SLG .515 69th career
OPS .933 34th
OPS+ 147 43rd
(by rate numbers he has a strong case)
Runs Created 1631 55th (This is a strong argument for me personally as it effectively combines rate with career, just not seasonal rate)
Again I have to look at it deeper, but a quick glance and those missing complete seasons hurts my view on him for a guy who effectively rides the pine all but four times a game. It also hurts Larkins case, but at least he has a stronger reasoning for missing so much time.
What you're missing is my mistake in reading the original comment as corner infielder/corner outfielder, rather than just 1B/corner outfielder.
B-R has Perez as basically average over his career at both 1B and 3B. Having never seen him play, I have no idea whether those numbers reflect his reputation at those positions. If he's only average, however, those 21000 average innings in the field add up to a lot of value.
These guys too. I don't really consider myself a big hall guy, but the Hall is already big, might as well let in the guys who deserve it.
I saw him play a whole, whole hell of a lot, and since you ask, I'd assess him as a poor-to-adequate third baseman, and an average-to-poor first baseman, over the course of his very long career. Certainly at his best he was better than that, and at his worst he was worse. Overall Perez (who, by the way, was one of my very, very favorite players) has no business in the Hall of Fame, but what business he might have there must absolutely have everything to do with his offense, not his defense.
If that's the case, then none of these 3B apply, at all; they all offer vastly more defensive value than we're talking about.
And among the 1B listed, only Greenberg, Perez, Killebrew, and McCovey would qualify as "poor" defensively ... clearly Perez is a joke HOFer, but the others dwarf Edgar in career offensive value.
agreed, I guess I could get more inclusive and just list firstbaseman/corner outfielders and start from there, eliminate all the debateable position guys (Banks, etc) include the list of incoming firstbaseman (McGwire, Bagwell) and go from there, but I really don't see Edgar comparing favorably to these guys, Offensive first hofers are pretty big shoes to fill, Edgar is a great hitter when compared to the whole of baseball, but when compared to the best he is a rung short before making defensive adjustments.
I understand that he'll be vastly superior to guys like Lou Brock and Jim Rice and Perez, but falls short of even Bagwell and McGwire. Not even close to Williams, Ruth, Robinson or Aaron.
just used play index, (probably didn't do it right--need to learn to navigate it better I think)
List of HOFers who primarily played corners, 1b or DH, sorted by plate appearances
and most pure bats in the hof have had more than 8600 plate appearances.
has anyone argued differently on DH's? I don't think anyone is saying that a DH shouldn't go in because they were just DH's, but that they shouldn't be compared to DH's, but instead to other bats and the standards that the HOF has set for hitters.
the if relief pitchers go in argument is a different argument than any I would imagine being thrown out on these boards.
His lack of career length is really striking when you start comparing him to "bats" in the Hall of Fame. At first glance, I thought Willie McCovey was a pretty decent comp. They both had career OPS+ of 147 and Edgar's was probably a bit more OBP-intensive. But McCovey had an extra 1,014 plate appearances on Edgar.
I think going way back to sunnyday's comment #2 in this thread, he gets it just about right. If you do a Hall-of-Merit style - who are the 250 best players of all time? - Edgar definitely belongs in the conversation. But it's damn hard to find a deserving Hall-of-Famer that Edgar really stacks up with when you take into account his relative lack of defensive contribution and his very short career by Hall-of-Fame standards.
I don't get this. Based on Adjusted Batting Wins, Edgar is way behind Gehrig and Foxx (no insult there), within shouting distance of McCovey, and ahead of the rest. He also is ahead of Giambi by a decent margin, though behind Thomas, Bagwell, McGwire and Thome:
7. Lou Gehrig+ 90.30 L15. Jimmie Foxx+ 72.00 R
16. Frank Thomas 69.50 R
20. Manny Ramirez 60.40 R
22. Jeff Bagwell 58.40 R
25. McCovey+ 55.60 L
26. Yastrzemski+ 55.30 L
27. Mark McGwire 54.90 R
28. Gary Sheffield 54.50 R
32. Jim Thome (38) 52.50 L
33. Reggie Jackson+ 52.40 L
34. Edgar Martinez 52.10 R
36. Killebrew+ 52.00 R
39. Johnny Mize+ 50.70 L
40. Willie Stargell+ 50.40 L
42. Al Kaline+ 50.00 R
49. Paul Waner+ 47.10 L
51. Albert Pujols 46.40 R
52. Rafael Palmeiro 46.10 L
54. Eddie Murray+ 45.40 B
55. Jason Giambi 44.90 L
56. Dave Winfield+ 43.90 R
58. Fred McGriff 43.40 L
60. Hank Greenberg+ 42.50 R
106. Bill Terry+ 31.30 L
129. Tony Perez+ 28.40 R
152. George Sisler+ 26.00 L
What am I missing?
How about Willie Stargell?
Traditional stats
Name PA AVG OBP SLG OPS+
Stargell 9026 .282 .360 .529 147
Martinez 8672 .312 .418 .515 147
AROM's WAR stats
BRAA = batting runs above average (plus baserunning)
Fld = fielding runs above average, including positional adjustment
Rep = difference in runs between average and replacement
RAR = runs above replacement (sum of previous three columns)
WAR = wins above replacement
Name BRAA Fld Rep RAR WAR
Stargell 431 -193 285 523 57.5
Martinez 527 -124 284 687 67.2
Even if you think the -124 is too generous to Edgar, he has a sizable lead. As for in-season durability, Stargell never played 150 games in a season and had only three 600 PA seasons. Edgar had six straight 600 PA seasons (plus two others). Not much difference in their peak performance either.
This is a kind of tricky argument, since by my own criteria in #39, Stargell is a marginal HOFer. The BBWAA doesn't think so, but that's because of HR, RBI, and the 1979 Pirates. Still I think he meets Kiko's requirements.
Traditional stats
Name PA AVG OBP SLG OPS+Heilmann 8960 .342 .410 .520 148
Martinez 8672 .312 .418 .515 147
AROM's WAR stats
Name BRAA Fld Rep RAR WARHeilmann 549 -134 284 699 69.3
Martinez 527 -124 284 687 67.2
Traditional stats
Name PA AVG OBP SLG OPS+Killebrew 9831 .256 .376 .509 143
Martinez 8672 .312 .418 .515 147
AROM's WAR stats
Name BRAA Fld Rep RAR WARKillebrew 438 -162 282 558 61.2
Martinez 527 -124 284 687 67.2
Stats like WARP are in part a function of durability and counting stats, as well as rate stats. HoF voters seem to "get" milestones, specialists, magic numbers and "impact", among other things. Larkin is, as the list shows, exactly the type of guy really-good-at-everything guy who seems to get short-sheeted. He wasn't Ozzie with the leather, or Cal or Yount with the bat. No 3000 hits. No streak, not a lifetime .300 hitter.
The MVP and the GGs/ASGs may be enough to separate him from Alan Trammell, but again, I am skeptical. Plus, Trammell was on the 1984 Tigers, so he does have the WS ring, and AFAIK, is pretty well-liked in spite of his lack of success as a manager.
On BB-REF, Larkin's top comp is Trammell.
Of course, it's so close that I could look again and change my mind.
And far, far less impact on a game than someone who plays in the field.
In comparison, how much does a DH impact a game with his fielding? Slightly less, not "far, far less."
None of the guys Edgar is being compared to is close to a "replacement level" defensive 1B. That would be like Giambi at the end, a -15/150 type.
The point is, in terms of contribution, a DH is a lot closer to any other member of the starting lineup than he is to a LOOGY or pinch-hitter.
Of course.
Eligible players with Highest OPS+ minimum 8300 PA and 2000 G
Cnt Player OPS+ RC PA G From To+--+-----------------+----+----+-----+----+----+----+
1 Edgar Martinez 147 1631 8672 2055 1987 2004
2 Sherry Magee 136 1136 8546 2087 1904 1919
3 Fred McGriff 134 1704 10174 2460 1986 2004
4 Ken Singleton 132 1247 8558 2082 1970 1984
5 Keith Hernandez 128 1281 8553 2088 1974 1990
6 Joe Torre 128 1259 8801 2209 1960 1977
7 Dwight Evans 127 1612 10569 2606 1972 1991
8 Ron Santo 125 1379 9396 2243 1960 1974
9 Rusty Staub 124 1533 11229 2951 1963 1985
10 Tim Raines 123 1636 10359 2502 1979 2002
11 Jimmy Ryan 123 1341 9106 2012 1885 1903
Just as an experiment, the next time you play a game of baseball, have your team's first baseman spend all the defensive halves of innings sitting on the bench instead of playing in the field.
Eligible players with Highest OPS+ minimum 8300 PA and 2000 G
Cnt Player OPS+ RC PA G From To
+--+-----------------+----+----+-----+----+----+----+
1 Edgar Martinez 147 1631 8672 2055 1987 2004
2 Sherry Magee 136 1136 8546 2087 1904 1919
3 Fred McGriff 134 1704 10174 2460 1986 2004
4 Ken Singleton 132 1247 8558 2082 1970 1984
5 Keith Hernandez 128 1281 8553 2088 1974 1990
6 Joe Torre 128 1259 8801 2209 1960 1977
7 Dwight Evans 127 1612 10569 2606 1972 1991
8 Ron Santo 125 1379 9396 2243 1960 1974
9 Rusty Staub 124 1533 11229 2951 1963 1985
10 Tim Raines 123 1636 10359 2502 1979 2002
11 Jimmy Ryan 123 1341 9106 2012 1885 1903
That list doesn't exactly help Edgar's cause. The only guys with a real HoF shot are Raines and Santo (excluding Torre as a manager), and both have tons of defensive (and baserunning in Raines' case) value over Edgar.
FWIW, Casey Stengel would agree with that line of reasoning: "You have to have a catcher because if you don't you're likely to have a lot of passed balls."
But the Hall of Merit doesn't split the voting based on a BBWAA/VC structure. They've just got the single entry method.
Since, at this point, Edgar is only up against the BBWAA, then his performance should be compared against the standards enforced by the BBWAA, rather than the overall members of the Hall of Fame.
For a rough equivalent, drop out the bottom half of those elected by the HOM and re-run the list, or add all the candidates who were only added to the HOF by the VC back to your comparison set (and don't forget to consider war credit, to balance the appearance of short careers for some candidates).
You want to frame the question as "Should Edgar be elected by the BBWAA?", and recognize a separate standard used by the BBWAA. I don't adopt this approach because I don't see it as valid. When the question is asked "Should Edgar be elected to the Hall of Fame?", I take that to be the valid query, comparing him to all the players in the Hall to determine his worthiness. The reason is that the BBWAA standard isn't really much higher than the VC's. When you look at the worst players the BBWAA has elected (Rice, Hunter, Pennock, Sutter, et al) and set that as the "true" minimum standard, it establishes a level just above the VC's true mistakes. It is a level I see Edgar as clearly exceeding.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main