 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » ICHIRO AND THE HALL
ironhorse
June 26, 2005 at 06:27PM View BBCode
Actually, Moses Fleetwood Walker broke the color line in the 1880's. The biggest knock against him is that he didn't have the tools that Jackie had as a player, and was nowhere close, and he is not in the hall. And honestly, Jackie's career in the negro leagues was not that spectacular, an dthere were many such as Cool Papa Bell that would agree.
FuriousGiorge
How about you just go ahead and shut up anyway, chief.
June 26, 2005 at 09:26PM View BBCode
Originally posted by ironhorse
On a different note, I would like to say that earlier I mentioned that if someone can name a player "IN THE AL, NOT NL" that can match Ichiro's abilites, then I will shut up.
How about you just go ahead and shut up anyway, chief.
Meathead44
June 26, 2005 at 09:56PM View BBCode
Ichiro's Japan accomplishments count for nothing when it comes to the Hall. Just as a player's college or minor league numbers count for nothing. You can't compare it to Negro League players, the situation has no similarities.
FuriousGiorge
And Moses Fleetwood Walker is an historical oddity, not the person who broke the color barrier. He had 152 at-bats in 1884 in the American Association, before there really was an unspoken agreement to keep blacks out of the majors.
June 26, 2005 at 10:12PM View BBCode
You're obviously not going to shut up because you've decided that Ichiro is above any sort of reproach. But if you want to talk about 5 tools, then how the hell is Ichiro even in the discussion considering the fact that he hits for NO power. Isn't that one of the "tools" you're supposed to have? There are several players in the AL who are better and more valuable than Ichiro on a consistent basis- ARod, Tejada, Vlad, and several more who can arguably be called better like Manny and Jeter. I'm sure you'll find a way to place them outside of your criteria, and therefore won't actually shut up.And Moses Fleetwood Walker is an historical oddity, not the person who broke the color barrier. He had 152 at-bats in 1884 in the American Association, before there really was an unspoken agreement to keep blacks out of the majors.
skierdude44
Albert Pujols isn't a serious challenge to your claim? Are you kidding me? Pujols may be the best pure hitter (not Ichiro) in the game today. The offensive numbers that he has put up over the first four years of his career are comparable to those that alltime greats like Joe Dimaggio and Ted Williams put up over the first four years of their careers. In fact, let's take a look at the numbers those three put up over the first four years of their careers.
Pujols: .333/.413/.624 160 homers
Dimaggio: .344/.400/.625 137 homers
Williams: .358/.483/.625 127 homers
As you can see they all have phenominal numbers over the first four years of their careers and with the exception of Williams' insanely high OBP Pujols is right up there with two of the best pure hitters the game has ever seen. You call the fact that Pujols has played three different positions over his career a lack of defensive ability, I call it versatility. Prove me wrong. The only advantage Ichiro has on Pujols is speed but Pujols is as good if not better in every other category.
As someone stated before, Ichiro is not a five-tool player. His career high in homers is 13. He does a lot of things well but clearly one of the five tools is power. There are only a handful of five-tool players in the league. Alex Rodriguez and Vladimir Guerrero are the only two that really come to mind. Carlos Beltran is borderline (and the way that he has played this year doesn't help his case) and people tend to overrate his value a bit because of his play in the postseason last year.
Ichiro is a fine player and has put up nice stats from age 27-31, but it takes more than that to get into the Hall. A lot of players have put up nice stats during that point in their career but it doesn't mean that they are HOFers. Players SHOULD be putting up their best stats between that age range because that is the prime of their career. The Hall is about sustained excellence over a substantial period of time. Ichiro has put up great numbers over the past 4 and a half seasons but let's see him continue to produce at that rate for another 4 and a half seasons before we start inducting him.
June 26, 2005 at 11:30PM View BBCode
Originally posted by ironhorse
skierdude, if you wanted to make a serious challenge to my claim, then you should have gone with Carlos Beltron, whom (actually) has the five tools and can rival Ichiro.
Albert Pujols isn't a serious challenge to your claim? Are you kidding me? Pujols may be the best pure hitter (not Ichiro) in the game today. The offensive numbers that he has put up over the first four years of his career are comparable to those that alltime greats like Joe Dimaggio and Ted Williams put up over the first four years of their careers. In fact, let's take a look at the numbers those three put up over the first four years of their careers.
Pujols: .333/.413/.624 160 homers
Dimaggio: .344/.400/.625 137 homers
Williams: .358/.483/.625 127 homers
As you can see they all have phenominal numbers over the first four years of their careers and with the exception of Williams' insanely high OBP Pujols is right up there with two of the best pure hitters the game has ever seen. You call the fact that Pujols has played three different positions over his career a lack of defensive ability, I call it versatility. Prove me wrong. The only advantage Ichiro has on Pujols is speed but Pujols is as good if not better in every other category.
As someone stated before, Ichiro is not a five-tool player. His career high in homers is 13. He does a lot of things well but clearly one of the five tools is power. There are only a handful of five-tool players in the league. Alex Rodriguez and Vladimir Guerrero are the only two that really come to mind. Carlos Beltran is borderline (and the way that he has played this year doesn't help his case) and people tend to overrate his value a bit because of his play in the postseason last year.
Ichiro is a fine player and has put up nice stats from age 27-31, but it takes more than that to get into the Hall. A lot of players have put up nice stats during that point in their career but it doesn't mean that they are HOFers. Players SHOULD be putting up their best stats between that age range because that is the prime of their career. The Hall is about sustained excellence over a substantial period of time. Ichiro has put up great numbers over the past 4 and a half seasons but let's see him continue to produce at that rate for another 4 and a half seasons before we start inducting him.
barterer2002
Also with regards to Griffey, he's a hall of famer. He's over 500 HR, he was on the all-century team, he was voted player of the decade (although it should have been Bonds). His career image has been hit by his time in Cincy but he's still a HOF member when all is said and done.
June 27, 2005 at 12:33PM View BBCode
If you are looking at the poster child for injuries derailing a career that might have otherwise been HOF worthy, the obvious one is Eric Davis.Also with regards to Griffey, he's a hall of famer. He's over 500 HR, he was on the all-century team, he was voted player of the decade (although it should have been Bonds). His career image has been hit by his time in Cincy but he's still a HOF member when all is said and done.
Maul725
I'll name a playing in the AL, not the NL
June 27, 2005 at 01:32PM View BBCode
Carl Crawford of the D-Rays. He's younger, hits for more power, and steals just as many bases. The only real knock against him compared to Suzuki is the average. Give him time though, he's quite a bit younger and still learning, but one day could have all the skills and more than Ichiro.
FuriousGiorge
Edgar was not pretty good. Edgar was great. Haven't we run all the counting stats suckers off by now? Edgar's career line is .312/.418/.515 (that's a tremendously cool line, by the way - I love .3/.4/.5 guys, because they're not just bruisers who take a lot of walks because no one will throw to them - they're good hitters who never waste an at-bat and are often doubles machines, like Edgar). Setting aside the fact that Edgar was a DH, that is the career line of a Hall of Famer.
The M's of the late-80's, early-90's were an absolute mess, a laughingstock. Then they drafted a couple can't-miss prospects with the first overall picks, acquired a big lanky fireballer with dubious control from the Expos, and turned themselves into a model franchise. Where does Edgar fit into all of this? Edgar was a prospect who did nothing but hit at every level he was at. Unfortunately he played for a Mickey Mouse organization that couldn't look past the fact that he had balky knees and probably wasn't going to stick at the hot corner, and as a result he didn't have a full season in the majors until he was 27 years old. Put him in an organization who knows how to use him and he's a major leaguer by 22, 23 and accumulating stats - give him those 4 or 5 years and he quite possibly clears 3000 hits and 400 home runs.
Edgar unquestionably belongs in the Hall as a hitter - whether DH's belong in the Hall is not for me to decide. But Paul Molitor is now a Hall of Famer, and Edgar was better than Molitor.
June 27, 2005 at 03:57PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Isaiah4110
My knock against E. Martinez is not so much that he was a full time DH, although this could certainly be a knock against him in his case. I'll discuss that one leter on in this post. The biggest thing that will/should keep martinez out of the hall are his numbers. Yes, he had a pretty good career. Sure, he put up some pretty good numbersm but that's it. They are just good numbers. They are not HOF worthy. How many major milestones did he reach? He had 2247 career hits, 309 career HRs, 1261 career RBIs, 1219 career Runs, 2055 career games, and 7213 career ABs. His career simply wasn't long enough. He hit the 300 HR mark, but Rickey Henderson, a LEADOFF HITTER (albeit one of the best of all time) is 3 HRs short of having 300. Edgar Martinez = a good career, but not a Hall of Famer.
Now since Edgar was a full time DH, his offensive stats are really all that there is to look at. Let's ask WHY he was a DH though. He was a fairly well rounded hitter, but why not put him in the field? Because he was an outright LIABILITY in the field. He simply couldn't field.
Now let me ask you: Why should a pretty good hitter who couldn't field be accepted into the HOF?
Edgar was not pretty good. Edgar was great. Haven't we run all the counting stats suckers off by now? Edgar's career line is .312/.418/.515 (that's a tremendously cool line, by the way - I love .3/.4/.5 guys, because they're not just bruisers who take a lot of walks because no one will throw to them - they're good hitters who never waste an at-bat and are often doubles machines, like Edgar). Setting aside the fact that Edgar was a DH, that is the career line of a Hall of Famer.
The M's of the late-80's, early-90's were an absolute mess, a laughingstock. Then they drafted a couple can't-miss prospects with the first overall picks, acquired a big lanky fireballer with dubious control from the Expos, and turned themselves into a model franchise. Where does Edgar fit into all of this? Edgar was a prospect who did nothing but hit at every level he was at. Unfortunately he played for a Mickey Mouse organization that couldn't look past the fact that he had balky knees and probably wasn't going to stick at the hot corner, and as a result he didn't have a full season in the majors until he was 27 years old. Put him in an organization who knows how to use him and he's a major leaguer by 22, 23 and accumulating stats - give him those 4 or 5 years and he quite possibly clears 3000 hits and 400 home runs.
Edgar unquestionably belongs in the Hall as a hitter - whether DH's belong in the Hall is not for me to decide. But Paul Molitor is now a Hall of Famer, and Edgar was better than Molitor.
FuriousGiorge
June 27, 2005 at 07:07PM View BBCode
Except he doesn't need those years to make his Hall of Fame case. He had a Hall of Fame career regardless. I was simply showing you the reason for why he wasn't adding to his career totals at that time, and why relying on milestone counting totals is stupid. If I did rely on those 4-5 years to make his Hall of Fame case, it would be the exact same situation as when you deny him the Hall of Fame basically based on those years. If he's awful and injury prone he still gets 100 hits in each of those 4 years, edging him up north of 2600 hits, and you start having to make all sorts of excuses for why a .300/.400/.500 hitter with 2600 hits and 350 home runs isn't a Hall of Famer. If you're going to use counting stats as your benchmark, then you'd better understand their limitations in rating players.
barterer2002
June 27, 2005 at 09:16PM View BBCode
Here's my thought on Edgar and let me start by saying that in my mind, he's a better hitter than Harold Baines ever was but in the minds of HOF voters, they're going to look at the career numbers where Baines has more of almost everything and they're going to remember hearing over and over how Harold Baines was one of the most underrated players of his generation. I think that in five years, HOF voters will have looked at Harold for a couple of seasons and rejected him (rightly so imo) and will then look at Edgar and see career numbers that are less than Harold's and will think that Harold should get in before Edgar. Because of this mentality I don't think Edgar will get into the HOF. I also want to reiterate that I do think that Edgar was better than Baines.
FuriousGiorge
By the way, discussing Edgar's shot at the Hall is a lot more interesting than talking about Ichiro's.
June 27, 2005 at 09:23PM View BBCode
I hope that I'm right in thinking that you are underestimating the intelligence of the Hall of Fame voters. I think that most voters will be able to see past the career totals and understand the value that Edgar brought. Baines was a good player for a long time and his career isn't diminished by the fact that he's not quite a Hall of Fame caliber player. But he's not, and Edgar is. If a voter says that he won't vote for Edgar because he was a DH and brought no value to the table defensively then I understand that. I don't agree, but I understand. But to leave him out because he didn't reach career milestones that lesser players like Baines and Andre Dawson got to is absurd.By the way, discussing Edgar's shot at the Hall is a lot more interesting than talking about Ichiro's.
barterer2002
Here's what I'm looking at. Over the past 15 seasons the voters have elected the following hitters:
Wade Boggs
Ryne Sandberg
Paul Molitor
Eddie Murray
Gary Carter
Ozzie Smith
Dave Winfield
Kirby Puckett
Carlton Fisk
Tony Perez
George Brett
Robin Yount
Mike Schmidt
Reggie Jackson
Rod Carew
Joe Morgan
Thats 16 hitters elected since 1990. Of those 16 seven of them are member of the 3000 hit club (Boggs, Molitor, Murray, Winfield, Brett, Yount and Carew). Of the remaining 9 two are members of the 500 home run club (Schmidt and Jackson). That leaves seven players (Sandberg, Carter, Smith, Puckett, Fisk, Perez, and Morgan). Of those seven, two are catchers who are both in the top five all time in most offensive stats by catchers (Fisk and Carter), and two are second basemen who are in the top five in most rankings of second basemsen (Morgan and Sandberg). Ozzie Smith was obviously inducted for his defensive prowess at shortstop which leaves Perez and Puckett. Perez got in because 1) he played on lots of good teams and 2) played a long time, ranking in the top 25 in RBIs and got over 2700 hits and 350 home runs. Basically producing the stat counting numbers that we're talking about here. Thus, the only hope is Puckett who got in because he's a nice guy (like Edgar) who had his career cut short by injury/illness and didn't get to pad his numbers with his decline phase. Edgar on the other hand, did get to have his decline phase so won't get the same leeway that was given to Puckett. Thus, based on the history of the voters over the past decade and a half, I don't see Edgar garnering any more support than Goose Gossage or Jim Rice. Some, but not enough. I'm not saying its right or that I agree with it, merely that I don't expect more from the HOF voters.
June 27, 2005 at 09:56PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
I hope that I'm right in thinking that you are underestimating the intelligence of the Hall of Fame voters. I think that most voters will be able to see past the career totals and understand the value that Edgar brought.
Here's what I'm looking at. Over the past 15 seasons the voters have elected the following hitters:
Wade Boggs
Ryne Sandberg
Paul Molitor
Eddie Murray
Gary Carter
Ozzie Smith
Dave Winfield
Kirby Puckett
Carlton Fisk
Tony Perez
George Brett
Robin Yount
Mike Schmidt
Reggie Jackson
Rod Carew
Joe Morgan
Thats 16 hitters elected since 1990. Of those 16 seven of them are member of the 3000 hit club (Boggs, Molitor, Murray, Winfield, Brett, Yount and Carew). Of the remaining 9 two are members of the 500 home run club (Schmidt and Jackson). That leaves seven players (Sandberg, Carter, Smith, Puckett, Fisk, Perez, and Morgan). Of those seven, two are catchers who are both in the top five all time in most offensive stats by catchers (Fisk and Carter), and two are second basemen who are in the top five in most rankings of second basemsen (Morgan and Sandberg). Ozzie Smith was obviously inducted for his defensive prowess at shortstop which leaves Perez and Puckett. Perez got in because 1) he played on lots of good teams and 2) played a long time, ranking in the top 25 in RBIs and got over 2700 hits and 350 home runs. Basically producing the stat counting numbers that we're talking about here. Thus, the only hope is Puckett who got in because he's a nice guy (like Edgar) who had his career cut short by injury/illness and didn't get to pad his numbers with his decline phase. Edgar on the other hand, did get to have his decline phase so won't get the same leeway that was given to Puckett. Thus, based on the history of the voters over the past decade and a half, I don't see Edgar garnering any more support than Goose Gossage or Jim Rice. Some, but not enough. I'm not saying its right or that I agree with it, merely that I don't expect more from the HOF voters.
FuriousGiorge
Actually, the two 2nd basemen probably give Edgar the most hope for being elected - both were outstanding players who were quite a bit more valuable than their career totals might lead someone to believe. Of course both of those players were good defensive players, something you can't say about Edgar.
June 27, 2005 at 10:11PM View BBCode
There is only one real clunker on that list (Perez), and he didn't get in on career milestones but on being a member of the fabled Big Red Machine (mostly - he was a good player, but not really a Hall of Fame quality player). All of the career milestone players on there are deserving Hall of Famers, something that cannot be said about, say, Jim Rice or Andre Dawson. The thing that people may not realize is that the BBWAA does a fairly good job of electing worthy Hall of Famers, and an excellent job of leaving out popular but less-deserving choices. Pretty much all of the really awful Hall of Fame choices have been products of the Veteran's Committee in its former "favor trading" crony configuration. Edgar isn't a slam-dunk choice because you have to deduct him for his inability to play defense, but he's a good choice and would make a worthy induction. He may not make it, but I'd be willing to bet he will get a much higher percentage of the vote than Baines.Actually, the two 2nd basemen probably give Edgar the most hope for being elected - both were outstanding players who were quite a bit more valuable than their career totals might lead someone to believe. Of course both of those players were good defensive players, something you can't say about Edgar.
barterer2002
June 27, 2005 at 10:26PM View BBCode
I wasn't really arguing that these guys were clunkers but rather saying that they were often elected because they had the career numbers to back up what everybody knew about them.
FuriousGiorge
It's not a sure thing that he would have kept the .300/.400/.500 line if he had been in the majors at that time. Your error comes in assuming that he still would have hit .300/.400/.500 in each of those years. What if he had only hit .250/.325/.440 those years? [/quote]
What does that matter? When he WAS in the majors, that's what he hit. I'm not playing what-if games - Edgar is a Hall of Fame hitter based on what he accomplished in the majors, not based on what he might have done if he had played 5 more years. The what-if games are only used to (hopefully) show you how stupid it is to judge a player solely by his counting stat totals. Edgar had no control over whether he was brought up at 22 or 27, so by relying on his counting stats to make or break his Hall of Fame case you're essentially punishing him for being stupid enough to be drafted by a lousy organization.
June 28, 2005 at 02:20PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
[quote][i]Originally posted by Isaiah4110[/i]
It's not a sure thing that he would have kept the .300/.400/.500 line if he had been in the majors at that time. Your error comes in assuming that he still would have hit .300/.400/.500 in each of those years. What if he had only hit .250/.325/.440 those years? [/quote]
What does that matter? When he WAS in the majors, that's what he hit. I'm not playing what-if games - Edgar is a Hall of Fame hitter based on what he accomplished in the majors, not based on what he might have done if he had played 5 more years. The what-if games are only used to (hopefully) show you how stupid it is to judge a player solely by his counting stat totals. Edgar had no control over whether he was brought up at 22 or 27, so by relying on his counting stats to make or break his Hall of Fame case you're essentially punishing him for being stupid enough to be drafted by a lousy organization.
FuriousGiorge
Here's a way to look at Edgar's career - look at his 10 best seasons. 10 years is a long time in the majors, and it's the bottom-line requirement for a Hall of Famer. 10 great years should, in theory, get you into the Hall if you simply surround those years with 5-10 league-average ones. Edgar's 10 are probably 91, 92, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 2000, 01 and 03. Those are 10 phenomenal years any way you slice it - comparable to Reggie Jackson, who was a slam dunk Hall of Famer who also was a non-factor on defense.
Hall of Famers too often make their mark based on their "playing out the string" years. Ernie Banks is a good example. Ernie Banks was a great player for about 7 or 8 years near the beginning of his career, and then a mediocre one for another 7-8 years at the end before he hung it up. But in those mediocre years he hit about 200 home runs, bringing his total above 500 and making himself a lock for the Hall. He contributed very little to the Cubs in those years, yet made his Hall of Fame case during them. Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with Ernie Banks as a Hall of Famer, but it's bothersome that so much of his legacy depends on him contributing nothing to the Cubs for years as a mediocre-hitting, poorly-defending 1st baseman. He had less great years than Edgar did, contributing less to his team's pennant chances, yet because he tacked on enough mediocre years he's a Hall of Famer and Edgar isn't? Yes consistency matters, and counting totals can give us a sense of that consistency, but they don't tell the whole story. Edgar's consistency as a great player over his best 10 seasons makes him at least as valuable as a league-average player who bangs out 20 home runs a year for 25 years and gets into the Hall of Fame for his so-called "magic number".
June 28, 2005 at 06:30PM View BBCode
Now we're getting somewhere. You're right of course, Edgar didn't have the long career that one might like to see from a Hall of Famer. He only really had 12 full seasons as a major leaguer (along with a few shorter seasons) - a lot for an average player, but not a lot for a Hall of Famer. And his comp list is pretty unimpressive; a lot of good but not great players. Even the HOFers on the list are lower-tier ones - Bottomley is a bottom-feeder in the Hall, not really deserving his spot, and Cepeda was rarely great in his career and no one's idea of a slam dunk Hall of Famer. Those are knocks against Edgar, and they matter.Here's a way to look at Edgar's career - look at his 10 best seasons. 10 years is a long time in the majors, and it's the bottom-line requirement for a Hall of Famer. 10 great years should, in theory, get you into the Hall if you simply surround those years with 5-10 league-average ones. Edgar's 10 are probably 91, 92, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 2000, 01 and 03. Those are 10 phenomenal years any way you slice it - comparable to Reggie Jackson, who was a slam dunk Hall of Famer who also was a non-factor on defense.
Hall of Famers too often make their mark based on their "playing out the string" years. Ernie Banks is a good example. Ernie Banks was a great player for about 7 or 8 years near the beginning of his career, and then a mediocre one for another 7-8 years at the end before he hung it up. But in those mediocre years he hit about 200 home runs, bringing his total above 500 and making himself a lock for the Hall. He contributed very little to the Cubs in those years, yet made his Hall of Fame case during them. Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with Ernie Banks as a Hall of Famer, but it's bothersome that so much of his legacy depends on him contributing nothing to the Cubs for years as a mediocre-hitting, poorly-defending 1st baseman. He had less great years than Edgar did, contributing less to his team's pennant chances, yet because he tacked on enough mediocre years he's a Hall of Famer and Edgar isn't? Yes consistency matters, and counting totals can give us a sense of that consistency, but they don't tell the whole story. Edgar's consistency as a great player over his best 10 seasons makes him at least as valuable as a league-average player who bangs out 20 home runs a year for 25 years and gets into the Hall of Fame for his so-called "magic number".
FuriousGiorge
But look, I'm not going to convince you that Edgar belongs in the Hall. I've blown my load. Maybe someone else wants to weigh in.
June 28, 2005 at 07:58PM View BBCode
Edgar did a lot of things well but nothing spectacularly, which also hurts his public perception. Guys who have breadth of skill are often underrated versus guys who do one or two things great (Edgar was a much better hitter than, say, Pete Rose, but Pete is probably generally considered better because he did one thing better than anyone else, which was to hit singles. Edgar doesn't have that sort of single-skill calling card). You, like most people, underrate Edgar because of his lack of an eye-popping ability in one area. Edgar WAS special as a hitter, but in a Mike Bibby way (good at everything, seldom the most important player on the floor) rather than a Shaquille O'Neal way (transcendent inside game, good defender when he wants to be, basically useless outside of 10 feet). That coupled to his lack of defensive ability (which of course is where the Mike Bibby analogy breaks down) makes it easy for people to dismiss Edgar as a "not quite" guy.But look, I'm not going to convince you that Edgar belongs in the Hall. I've blown my load. Maybe someone else wants to weigh in.
ME
The top 25:
+ is HOF (age) for active players
Rank Player (age) On-base % Bats
1. Ted Williams+* .4817 L
2. Babe Ruth+* .4739 L
3. John McGraw+* .4657 L
4. Billy Hamilton+* .4552 L
5. Lou Gehrig+* .4474 L
6. Barry Bonds* (39) .4426 L
7. Bill Joyce* .4349 L - played 3 full seasons, parts of 4 more in the late 1890s, .467 SLG
8. Rogers Hornsby+ .4337 R
9. Ty Cobb+* .4330 L
10. Todd Helton* (30) .4316 L
11. Frank Thomas (36) .4286 R
12. Jimmie Foxx+ .4283 R
13. Tris Speaker+* .4280 L
14. Eddie Collins+* .4244 L
15. Ferris Fain* .4241 L - slugged .396, played 9 seasons
16. Dan Brouthers+* .4233 L
17. Max Bishop* .4227 L 13 seasons (9 over 100G), slugged .366
Joe Jackson* .4227 L
19. Mickey Mantle+# .4205 B
20. Mickey Cochrane+* .4192 L
21. Edgar Martinez .4178 R
22. Stan Musial+* .4167 L
23. Lance Berkman# (28) .4164 B - too young to know
24. Cupid Childs* .4158 L - 11 seasons of 100+ games, slugged .389, dead-ball player.
25. Jesse Burkett+* .4151 L
The 4 retired players there not in the hall of fame either had poor slugging %s or did not play for long. Every other one (except Berkman, and possibly Helton) is either a hall of famer or a future hall of famer. Edgar was a great hitter, and hitting is the most important part of the game for hitters. Not defence, not baserunning. Anyone who reaches base 2 of every 5 times is contributing a lot of runs to his team.
June 28, 2005 at 08:13PM View BBCode
Edgar Martinez is 21st in career OBPThe top 25:
+ is HOF (age) for active players
Rank Player (age) On-base % Bats
1. Ted Williams+* .4817 L
2. Babe Ruth+* .4739 L
3. John McGraw+* .4657 L
4. Billy Hamilton+* .4552 L
5. Lou Gehrig+* .4474 L
6. Barry Bonds* (39) .4426 L
7. Bill Joyce* .4349 L - played 3 full seasons, parts of 4 more in the late 1890s, .467 SLG
8. Rogers Hornsby+ .4337 R
9. Ty Cobb+* .4330 L
10. Todd Helton* (30) .4316 L
11. Frank Thomas (36) .4286 R
12. Jimmie Foxx+ .4283 R
13. Tris Speaker+* .4280 L
14. Eddie Collins+* .4244 L
15. Ferris Fain* .4241 L - slugged .396, played 9 seasons
16. Dan Brouthers+* .4233 L
17. Max Bishop* .4227 L 13 seasons (9 over 100G), slugged .366
Joe Jackson* .4227 L
19. Mickey Mantle+# .4205 B
20. Mickey Cochrane+* .4192 L
21. Edgar Martinez .4178 R
22. Stan Musial+* .4167 L
23. Lance Berkman# (28) .4164 B - too young to know
24. Cupid Childs* .4158 L - 11 seasons of 100+ games, slugged .389, dead-ball player.
25. Jesse Burkett+* .4151 L
The 4 retired players there not in the hall of fame either had poor slugging %s or did not play for long. Every other one (except Berkman, and possibly Helton) is either a hall of famer or a future hall of famer. Edgar was a great hitter, and hitting is the most important part of the game for hitters. Not defence, not baserunning. Anyone who reaches base 2 of every 5 times is contributing a lot of runs to his team.
FuriousGiorge
Compare Edgar to [url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/averiea01.shtml]this guy[/url], a good inductee but not an upper tier guy. He only played in 13 seasons in all, only 10 of those full seasons. He has no milestone numbers but great batting stats nonetheless. He, like Edgar, didn't start until he was 27. He was obviously a much better fielder than Edgar, but that's not your argument. Your argument is "Edgar was not a good enough hitter for long enough to be in the Hall" but you seem to not realize that there are a number of shorter career guys in the Hall, guys like Chuck Klein, Sam Thompson and Hank Greenberg, all worthy Hall of Famers but all of whom would basically have no shot to be inducted if your long-career criteria was used. 10 full seasons is all you need to be eligible for the Hall, and the voters have used that as a guideline to elect worthy candidates who had shorter careers.
[Edited on 6-29-2005 by FuriousGiorge]
June 29, 2005 at 02:13PM View BBCode
None of those guys are the standard for the Hall. If everyone had to meet that standard there'd be about one new electee every 10 years or so.Compare Edgar to [url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/averiea01.shtml]this guy[/url], a good inductee but not an upper tier guy. He only played in 13 seasons in all, only 10 of those full seasons. He has no milestone numbers but great batting stats nonetheless. He, like Edgar, didn't start until he was 27. He was obviously a much better fielder than Edgar, but that's not your argument. Your argument is "Edgar was not a good enough hitter for long enough to be in the Hall" but you seem to not realize that there are a number of shorter career guys in the Hall, guys like Chuck Klein, Sam Thompson and Hank Greenberg, all worthy Hall of Famers but all of whom would basically have no shot to be inducted if your long-career criteria was used. 10 full seasons is all you need to be eligible for the Hall, and the voters have used that as a guideline to elect worthy candidates who had shorter careers.
[Edited on 6-29-2005 by FuriousGiorge]
folifan19
how on earth can you say Hose deserves to be HOFer! How many players are in the Hall that have had a ball bounce off their head for a home run? He whiffed too much, and his BA is sub-par. .266 BA. He didn't have 2000 hits, but did have almost 2000 whiffs. Plus he's a moron.
[Edited on 6-29-2005 by folifan19]
Jose Canseco
June 29, 2005 at 05:12PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Isaiah4110
... was the first player to do 40-40! He created an entirely new milestone that no one had thought of before!It's outrageous that he's not already in the HOF! I demand that he be admitted immediately!
how on earth can you say Hose deserves to be HOFer! How many players are in the Hall that have had a ball bounce off their head for a home run? He whiffed too much, and his BA is sub-par. .266 BA. He didn't have 2000 hits, but did have almost 2000 whiffs. Plus he's a moron.
[Edited on 6-29-2005 by folifan19]
ME
[Edited on 6-29-2005 by ME]
June 29, 2005 at 05:19PM View BBCode
Jose Canseco destroyed whatever chance he had by being a huge dickhead.[Edited on 6-29-2005 by ME]
barterer2002
June 29, 2005 at 05:22PM View BBCode
To play a little devils advocate here Furious, the difference between Edgar and the guys you mentioned Klein, Greenberg and Thompson is that Klein Greenberg and Thompson all had seasons where they were the best player in the league. Klein for instance won the NL MVP and then the next year won the triple crown (although not the MVP because of a bias against electing the same guy twice-not to mention how valuable did you have to be on those Phillies teams of the 1930s). Greenberg won 2 MVPs, Thompson obviously played before the era of the MVP award but probably would have been in 1887, and possibly 1894, 1895 and 1893. Edgar, for all his attributes, was rarely the best player on his team and pretty much never the best player in the AL. He finished in the top five in MVP voting just once and in the top ten twice. Now having good teammates certainly doesn't preclude Martinez from being one of the top players in the league (such as Lou Gehrig, Harry Heilmann, Billy Hamilton, Eddie Matthews and Jeff Kent to name a few) but picking any season in Martinez's career you would be hard pressed to include him in a conversation of the top five players in the AL for that season. You could do it once maybe twice but more than that I just don't see. Also in your comparison to Reggie Jackson you need to compare the eras in which they played. 40 Home runs in 1977 would lead the league. 40 home runs in 2000 would rank eighth, they were simply different eras.
FuriousGiorge
The case against Edgar as a Hall of Famer is not insubstantial. As you say, he was never the best player in the league and he only finished in the top-10 of the MVP vote twice. He played no defense for most of his career. But he WAS a great hitter despite his inability to reach any of the sexy career milestones, and the argument that he doesn't belong in the Hall because he wasn't a good hitter for long enough doesn't hold much water to me.
June 29, 2005 at 06:25PM View BBCode
I'm not trying to make the case that Edgar is better than those players. I don't believe that he is. My only point in mentioning them was that the Hall has plenty of shorter career players, so keeping him out based on that isn't really in the spirit of what a Hall of Famer is. Any time you make an argument to keep a player out of the Hall because he doesn't stack up to Cobb and Mantle and Foxx, you're not really fairly judging him versus the average Hall of Famer.The case against Edgar as a Hall of Famer is not insubstantial. As you say, he was never the best player in the league and he only finished in the top-10 of the MVP vote twice. He played no defense for most of his career. But he WAS a great hitter despite his inability to reach any of the sexy career milestones, and the argument that he doesn't belong in the Hall because he wasn't a good hitter for long enough doesn't hold much water to me.
folifan19
June 29, 2005 at 06:50PM View BBCode
Good point Furious about comparing to Foxx, Cobb and Mantle. However, you must have a "standard" to compare to, or everyone that a group such as this has ever wondered about would be in the HOF, and that wouldn't be good. I am a huge Ryne Sandberg fan, and looking at his hitting #'s alone, question his Hall worthiness. You have to take his fielding into account too, which is what ultimately pushed him over the top. You may not need to be a 5 tool player to get in, but being "well rounded" sure seems important, unless you're Ozzie Smith, one of the greates fielders ever.
FuriousGiorge
June 29, 2005 at 07:05PM View BBCode
Or Bill Mazeroski, or Phil Rizzuto. Or Nellie Fox, who hit with about as much power as my grandma. Or George Kell, who did exactly one thing (hit singles - granted, he was one of the worst HOF choices ever). Or, for that matter, Rogers Hornsby, who played 2nd and ran the bases with the grace of an elk. That had one leg. The fact is, there are plenty of one-dimensional players in the Hall. Edgar had one dimension to his game, but it was the most important dimension, and within that he was actually quite well-rounded. He could hit for average, hit for power, smack doubles, take walks. He drove in guys and scored runs. Well-rounded is nice, but well-rounded is not a prerequisite to get into the Hall.