 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » ICHIRO AND THE HALL
folifan19
And, I never said that being well rounded was a prereq, it just strengthens your case.
June 29, 2005 at 07:25PM View BBCode
And it took Ted Williams' death to get Maz over the top, and Scooter took forever to get in. I don't think anyone that takes so long to get in really deserves to be there. Being a HOFer should pretty much be a no-brainer in the eyes of the voters.And, I never said that being well rounded was a prereq, it just strengthens your case.
barterer2002
Thus for me, he's not a member I think.
June 29, 2005 at 10:16PM View BBCode
I'm certainly not disparaging Edgar as a hitter, he can hit for my team anytime but it seems to me that there are two things that generally qualify a player for the Hall of Fame. First is the Luis approach to the SDHOF which says long careers with high totals of numbers get in. Second is the kind of player that has a shorter career but who is one of the best in the league during his career, maybe not winning lots of MVPs but at least in the discussion for best player in the league for 4-5 peak seasons and on the outskirts of the discussion for another 4-5. With Edgar, I really think he was in the discussion only once and on the outskirts 3-4 times.Thus for me, he's not a member I think.
folifan19
June 30, 2005 at 12:47AM View BBCode
Going with that thought, you gotta talk about Mattingly, Dale Murphy and Jim Rice. Three dominant players, that either didn't play long enough (Mattingly) or pile up the numbers (the other 2). I believe all 3 won atleast 1 MVP, and Murph had 2. So, getting back to the original post, Ich is gonna need 10 years and 2000 hit minimun to get in. And a World Series ring would certainly help his cause. Having the ring, MVP and ROY, with 2000 certainly will look nice to the voters. And who better to be the first Japaneese player in the Hall?
skierdude44
Martinez was a great hitter and I think his skills are somewhat overlooked because of the players he played with. Ken Griffey Jr and Alex Rodriguez are two outstanding players in their own right. Most teams aren't fortunate to have three hitters of that caliber on their rosters. Griffey and Rodriguez were more complete players as they also had tremendous defensive ability and speed and I think because of that people sort of forgot about Edgar Martinez when all three of them were in Seattle. But as a pure hitter Edgar is one of the best of his era. He could hit for average, power, draw walks, knock in runs, and score runs all with the best of them. He has the offensive ability to be in the Hall, but his biggest obstacle is the fact that he was almost exclusively a DH. It's one thing to be a bad defensive player but an offensive monster and get in but to be SOLELY a one dimensional player may be a stretch. The length of his career should not be a factor because Edgar was one of the top hitters of his era and that alone should qualify him offensively for the Hall.
June 30, 2005 at 02:12AM View BBCode
As much as I love Don Mattingly I don't think that it is fair to compare Edgar Martinez to him. Martinez is a .312/.418/.515 guy and Mattingly is only a .307/.358/.471 guy. Mattingly's career was cut short but still he only missed the decline phase of his career which more than likely would have made those numbers less impressive. Rice is a guy who went .298/.352/.502. The slugging percentage is impressive but his OBP is pretty mediocre. Edgar should be in before Rice is as well because he was a more complete hitter. Murphy is a .265/.346/.469 guy. He hit 89 more homers than Edgar but only drove in 5 more runs. Murphy also struck out over 500 times more than Martinez.Martinez was a great hitter and I think his skills are somewhat overlooked because of the players he played with. Ken Griffey Jr and Alex Rodriguez are two outstanding players in their own right. Most teams aren't fortunate to have three hitters of that caliber on their rosters. Griffey and Rodriguez were more complete players as they also had tremendous defensive ability and speed and I think because of that people sort of forgot about Edgar Martinez when all three of them were in Seattle. But as a pure hitter Edgar is one of the best of his era. He could hit for average, power, draw walks, knock in runs, and score runs all with the best of them. He has the offensive ability to be in the Hall, but his biggest obstacle is the fact that he was almost exclusively a DH. It's one thing to be a bad defensive player but an offensive monster and get in but to be SOLELY a one dimensional player may be a stretch. The length of his career should not be a factor because Edgar was one of the top hitters of his era and that alone should qualify him offensively for the Hall.
whiskybear
The moment was like a microcosm of Edgar's career---coolly and calmly producing for his team, while his obvious gifts are overlooked by the media because 1. he was teammates with the most marketable superstar in baseball, and 2. because he's a wallflower who'd just as soon deflect the attention to someone else, invariably less deserving.
June 30, 2005 at 02:42AM View BBCode
Recently, Fox Sports NW replayed the telecast of the ALDS Game 5, with Edgar's screaming double to left field scoring Joey Cora and Ken Griffey, Jr. to absolutely murder the Yankees in 11 innings. After Griffey scored the game-winner -- and the camera spent a good 10 seconds zeroed in on Griffey's grinning mug -- the ABC TV crew fell all over itself to interview Junior. Edgar's interview was shorter, and slightly awkward because while his English is good, he seemed to be uncomfortable using it.The moment was like a microcosm of Edgar's career---coolly and calmly producing for his team, while his obvious gifts are overlooked by the media because 1. he was teammates with the most marketable superstar in baseball, and 2. because he's a wallflower who'd just as soon deflect the attention to someone else, invariably less deserving.
FuriousGiorge
This has to be a first - a Yankee fan who talks reasonably and objectively about Don Mattingly's career and his unworthiness for the Hall of Fame.
June 30, 2005 at 03:10AM View BBCode
Originally posted by skierdude44
As much as I love Don Mattingly I don't think that it is fair to compare Edgar Martinez to him. Martinez is a .312/.418/.515 guy and Mattingly is only a .307/.358/.471 guy. Mattingly's career was cut short but still he only missed the decline phase of his career which more than likely would have made those numbers less impressive.
This has to be a first - a Yankee fan who talks reasonably and objectively about Don Mattingly's career and his unworthiness for the Hall of Fame.
folifan19
June 30, 2005 at 03:41PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
I don't think any of the four deserve to be HOFers. But I think the three with MVP awards should get the nod before a guy with no MVP's should. Not that i'm saying it's a prereq, but it shows that you were judged to be the best in your league for that season.
FuriousGiorge
June 30, 2005 at 03:49PM View BBCode
Now you have to realize how poor that argument is. Jeff Burroughs won an MVP, Eddie Matthews never did. One of those players was a no-brainer Hall of Famer, the other was a doughy-faced doofus who managed to lead the league in RBI one year.
folifan19
I guess what I should have said for clairity sake was, if you are being discussed for HOF induction, if you have an MVP award,that would strengthen your case, as would a division, league or World Championship. they aren't necessary, but help you get a more serious look.
Jeff Burroughs has no business being considered for the HOF. same with 1965 AL winner, Zoilo Versalles. A player that no one would know if he hadn't won an MVP. Joe Torre, Denny McLain, Boog Powell and Fred Lynn.
As far as Mathews goes, 500+ HRs is an automatic entry. Just happens his best seasons came when someone else had a little bit better season. Doesn't mean he wasn't dominant. Playing with Henry Aaron likely put him in a bit of a shadow too. Eddie was runner up twice for MVP.
June 30, 2005 at 04:18PM View BBCode
You certainly know how to put a spin on things Furious. I never said you had to be an MVP to become a HOFer, nor did I say all non MVP winners should not be HOF eligable.I guess what I should have said for clairity sake was, if you are being discussed for HOF induction, if you have an MVP award,that would strengthen your case, as would a division, league or World Championship. they aren't necessary, but help you get a more serious look.
Jeff Burroughs has no business being considered for the HOF. same with 1965 AL winner, Zoilo Versalles. A player that no one would know if he hadn't won an MVP. Joe Torre, Denny McLain, Boog Powell and Fred Lynn.
As far as Mathews goes, 500+ HRs is an automatic entry. Just happens his best seasons came when someone else had a little bit better season. Doesn't mean he wasn't dominant. Playing with Henry Aaron likely put him in a bit of a shadow too. Eddie was runner up twice for MVP.
FuriousGiorge
You don't have to say the specific words for that to be the gist of your argument. I'm not pulling it out of my ass, you basically said in not so many words that MVP winners are inherently better HOF candidates than non MVP winners.
MVP's are nice, and you're right, they make a nice addition to your resume when you are applying to the Hall of Fame (speaking metaphorically, of course). But being the best player in your league for one season is much less impressive than being among the 5 best hitters in your league for an entire decade, which is what Edgar was.
June 30, 2005 at 04:32PM View BBCode
Originally posted by folifan19
I never said you had to be an MVP to become a HOFer, nor did I say all non MVP winners should not be HOF eligable.
Originally posted by folifan19
I don't think any of the four deserve to be HOFers. But I think the three with MVP awards should get the nod before a guy with no MVP's should.
You don't have to say the specific words for that to be the gist of your argument. I'm not pulling it out of my ass, you basically said in not so many words that MVP winners are inherently better HOF candidates than non MVP winners.
MVP's are nice, and you're right, they make a nice addition to your resume when you are applying to the Hall of Fame (speaking metaphorically, of course). But being the best player in your league for one season is much less impressive than being among the 5 best hitters in your league for an entire decade, which is what Edgar was.
krusecontrol
In no way was he saying that you NEED to win an MVP, he was simply making the point that if someone has won an MVP, he should get more consideration than a player of similar ability/stats who has not won an MVP
June 30, 2005 at 05:38PM View BBCode
Hey Furious, I've been reading along here for a while and just wanted to say that you definitely took FoliFan's comment about MVP's out of context.In no way was he saying that you NEED to win an MVP, he was simply making the point that if someone has won an MVP, he should get more consideration than a player of similar ability/stats who has not won an MVP
barterer2002
(trying to find hitters who played only in the AL over a 10 year stretch close to Edgars best ten year stretch)
Roberto Alomar 1992-2001
Carlos Delgado 1995-2004
Jason Giambi 1995-2004
Juan Gonzalez 1992-2001
Ken Griffey Jr 1990-99
Edgar Martinez 1995-2004
Manny Ramirez 1995-2004
Alex Rodriguez 1995-2004
Ivan Rodriguez 1994-2003
Frank Thomas 1991-2000
I've probably missed some here but these were all AL only guys for ten consecutive seasons overlapping much of Edgar's career.
Personally I'd put Edgar in the bottom half of this grouping, without looking too deeply into the numbers at this point my inclination is to rank the ten as follows:
Griffey
A-Rod
Thomas
Alomar
Ramirez
Gonzalez
Martinez
I-Rod
Giambi
Delgado
June 30, 2005 at 05:50PM View BBCode
Top ten hitters in the AL circa approx 1995-2004 (ranked alphabetically)(trying to find hitters who played only in the AL over a 10 year stretch close to Edgars best ten year stretch)
Roberto Alomar 1992-2001
Carlos Delgado 1995-2004
Jason Giambi 1995-2004
Juan Gonzalez 1992-2001
Ken Griffey Jr 1990-99
Edgar Martinez 1995-2004
Manny Ramirez 1995-2004
Alex Rodriguez 1995-2004
Ivan Rodriguez 1994-2003
Frank Thomas 1991-2000
I've probably missed some here but these were all AL only guys for ten consecutive seasons overlapping much of Edgar's career.
Personally I'd put Edgar in the bottom half of this grouping, without looking too deeply into the numbers at this point my inclination is to rank the ten as follows:
Griffey
A-Rod
Thomas
Alomar
Ramirez
Gonzalez
Martinez
I-Rod
Giambi
Delgado
folifan19
[Edited on 6-30-2005 by folifan19]
June 30, 2005 at 06:27PM View BBCode
In my opinion, Junior is a lock, with 500+ bombs. A-Rod, Pudge, Hurt, Manny and Delgado have deffinately got a shot. As for the rest, I'm not liking their chances. I'd take Ich over the rest, but only if he keeps on the way he is.[Edited on 6-30-2005 by folifan19]
FuriousGiorge
Edgar was clearly a better hitter over the long-term than Alomar, Gonzalez, Pudge, Giambi and Delgado. Thomas and Ramirez were both better at their peaks, but also just as defensively-challenged as Edgar and Thomas wasn't quite as consistent over the entire decade. A-Rod and Griffey were also better hitters, and also better players. That puts him in the top 5, unless there's a big one that's not on the list and that I have forgotten.
June 30, 2005 at 06:37PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
Personally I'd put Edgar in the bottom half of this grouping, without looking too deeply into the numbers at this point my inclination is to rank the ten as follows:
Griffey
A-Rod
Thomas
Alomar
Ramirez
Gonzalez
Martinez
I-Rod
Giambi
Delgado
Edgar was clearly a better hitter over the long-term than Alomar, Gonzalez, Pudge, Giambi and Delgado. Thomas and Ramirez were both better at their peaks, but also just as defensively-challenged as Edgar and Thomas wasn't quite as consistent over the entire decade. A-Rod and Griffey were also better hitters, and also better players. That puts him in the top 5, unless there's a big one that's not on the list and that I have forgotten.
krusecontrol
you pass off E.M. as "clearly" being a better hitter than Alomar.
It's not as clear-cut as you may think, whether you want to admit it or not.
EM has about 100 more HR, 200 more BB, 130 more RBI and a slight edge in BA.
BUT, Alomar had 65 more triples, almost exactly the same # of doubles, 420 MORE SB!, and almost 300 more runs scored. oh ya, and about 450 more hits, fewer Ks and more total bases.
EM has 5 silver slugger awards, Alomar 4.
Alomar - 12-time All-Star. EM - just 7.
EM was top 10 MVP voting twice.
Alomar was top 10 - THREE STRAIGHT years, then 2 more times
PLUS - Alomar had, how many Gold Gloves ... how about TEN
Finally, baseball-ref has Alomar much more likely to be a HOFer than EM ....
So you can't say EM was "clearly" better. He was a little better, but Alomar did some things EM could never dream of doing (400+ more SB!!!)
June 30, 2005 at 08:31PM View BBCode
hold on there big guy (that's you, Furious) -you pass off E.M. as "clearly" being a better hitter than Alomar.
It's not as clear-cut as you may think, whether you want to admit it or not.
EM has about 100 more HR, 200 more BB, 130 more RBI and a slight edge in BA.
BUT, Alomar had 65 more triples, almost exactly the same # of doubles, 420 MORE SB!, and almost 300 more runs scored. oh ya, and about 450 more hits, fewer Ks and more total bases.
EM has 5 silver slugger awards, Alomar 4.
Alomar - 12-time All-Star. EM - just 7.
EM was top 10 MVP voting twice.
Alomar was top 10 - THREE STRAIGHT years, then 2 more times
PLUS - Alomar had, how many Gold Gloves ... how about TEN
Finally, baseball-ref has Alomar much more likely to be a HOFer than EM ....
So you can't say EM was "clearly" better. He was a little better, but Alomar did some things EM could never dream of doing (400+ more SB!!!)
youngallstar
[Edited on 6-30-2005 by youngallstar]
June 30, 2005 at 08:37PM View BBCode
If you'll notice Furious's post, hitter is emboldened. So you'r SB, gold glove, and runs scored argument goes by the wayside[Edited on 6-30-2005 by youngallstar]
FuriousGiorge
June 30, 2005 at 08:38PM View BBCode
I didn't say Edgar was a better player. He wasn't - Alomar should be a HOF lock, whereas Edgar is somewhat more borderline. I said Edgar was a better hitter and he was. Compared to position norms Alomar stacks up well with Edgar but that's not what I was talking about. In absolute terms, Edgar was a better hitter than Robbie and it's not close - .312/.418/.515 vs. .300/.371/.443 Robbie's best season with the bat (probably 1999, when he went .323/.422/.533) is basically identical to an average Edgar season.
krusecontrol
June 30, 2005 at 08:46PM View BBCode
I realize that Gold Gloves and All-Star Games aren't really related to hitting, but how on earth can you say scoring runs (which is the ENTIRE point of the game) and stealing bases (which puts you in position to score those runs), don't apply in overall hitting?????
FuriousGiorge
Offense is anything a person does to help score runs. This includes micellaneous crap like base running, base stealing and jumping up and down and making funny faces to distract the pitcher while you're in the dugout.
Hitting is what you do with the bat in your hand. That's it. If you carry the bat with you on to the base paths and use it to smack the shortstop over the head on a steal attempt, you can count stealing bases as hitting. Otherwise, not so much.
June 30, 2005 at 08:51PM View BBCode
Your definition of hitting doesn't make sense.Offense is anything a person does to help score runs. This includes micellaneous crap like base running, base stealing and jumping up and down and making funny faces to distract the pitcher while you're in the dugout.
Hitting is what you do with the bat in your hand. That's it. If you carry the bat with you on to the base paths and use it to smack the shortstop over the head on a steal attempt, you can count stealing bases as hitting. Otherwise, not so much.
krusecontrol
But the more you narrow the definition, the more it highlights the fact that Mr. Martinez was so 1-dimentional.
I'm outta here in a minute, so my final thought is this:
I simply don't believe Edgar Martinez has done enough to merit admittance to the HOF. He didn't field. He didn't run very well. He has some nice offensive numbers, but nothing earth-shattering. If you let him in, you better clear way for a LOT of guys from the 80s, like Dale Murhpy and Jim Rice, who deserve it much more than Martinez
June 30, 2005 at 08:57PM View BBCode
fine, if you want to look at it like that.But the more you narrow the definition, the more it highlights the fact that Mr. Martinez was so 1-dimentional.
I'm outta here in a minute, so my final thought is this:
I simply don't believe Edgar Martinez has done enough to merit admittance to the HOF. He didn't field. He didn't run very well. He has some nice offensive numbers, but nothing earth-shattering. If you let him in, you better clear way for a LOT of guys from the 80s, like Dale Murhpy and Jim Rice, who deserve it much more than Martinez
barterer2002
Over the peak 10 year period we're talking about (Edgar 95-04, Alomar 92-01)
AB Edgar 4947 high of 556 in 98 and 00, Alomar 5405 high of 610 in 00
H Edgar 1561 high of 182 in 95, Alomar 1704 high of 193 in 96 and 01
AVG Edgar .316, high of .356 in 95, Alomar .315, high of .336 in 01
2B Edgar 362 high of 52 in 95 and 96, Alomar 327, high of 43 in 96
3B Edgar 6 high of 2 in 96, Alomar 49, high of 12 in 02
HR Edgar 247 high of 37 in 00, Alomar 159 high of 22 in 96
SLG Edgar .541 high of .628 in 95, Alomar .482 high of .541 in 01
BB Edgar 967 high of 123 in 96, Alomar 697 high of 99 in 99
OBA Edgar .427 high of .479 in 95, Alomar .393 high of .422 99
SB Edgar 26 high of 7 in 99, Alomar 303 high of 55 in 93.
Edgar has advantages with more home run power, leading to a higher slugging average, as well as drawing more walks as shown in his OBA.
Now, the baseball writers will induct the 101st and 101nd players this season which basically means that about 7.8 players per ten year period will be inducted into the hall of fame by the writers. Thats for both leagues. For Marinez I'd rank A-Rod, Griffey, Bonds, Piazza, Maddux, Johnson, Clemens, Alomar, and maybe Thomas, Ramirez, I-Rod, Ramirez and Rivera as getting into the Hall before Martinez. It seems unlikely that the Hall will be inducting that many players, essentially from the nineties, from the writers vote. It is possible that Edgar will get in through the veteran committee but I'm not thinking that its likely with the BBWA voters.
June 30, 2005 at 09:33PM View BBCode
Well to be fair, I think ALomar was clearly a better overall player when including his defense but for purposes of this discussion we were talking only about hitting so its close. If you want to argue that Edgar is a better hitter than Alomar you can but I certainly don't think its clear cut.Over the peak 10 year period we're talking about (Edgar 95-04, Alomar 92-01)
AB Edgar 4947 high of 556 in 98 and 00, Alomar 5405 high of 610 in 00
H Edgar 1561 high of 182 in 95, Alomar 1704 high of 193 in 96 and 01
AVG Edgar .316, high of .356 in 95, Alomar .315, high of .336 in 01
2B Edgar 362 high of 52 in 95 and 96, Alomar 327, high of 43 in 96
3B Edgar 6 high of 2 in 96, Alomar 49, high of 12 in 02
HR Edgar 247 high of 37 in 00, Alomar 159 high of 22 in 96
SLG Edgar .541 high of .628 in 95, Alomar .482 high of .541 in 01
BB Edgar 967 high of 123 in 96, Alomar 697 high of 99 in 99
OBA Edgar .427 high of .479 in 95, Alomar .393 high of .422 99
SB Edgar 26 high of 7 in 99, Alomar 303 high of 55 in 93.
Edgar has advantages with more home run power, leading to a higher slugging average, as well as drawing more walks as shown in his OBA.
Now, the baseball writers will induct the 101st and 101nd players this season which basically means that about 7.8 players per ten year period will be inducted into the hall of fame by the writers. Thats for both leagues. For Marinez I'd rank A-Rod, Griffey, Bonds, Piazza, Maddux, Johnson, Clemens, Alomar, and maybe Thomas, Ramirez, I-Rod, Ramirez and Rivera as getting into the Hall before Martinez. It seems unlikely that the Hall will be inducting that many players, essentially from the nineties, from the writers vote. It is possible that Edgar will get in through the veteran committee but I'm not thinking that its likely with the BBWA voters.
FuriousGiorge
I think that the baseball writers will PROBABLY not vote Edgar in, and I understand their reasoning. There were better hitters than Edgar during his career, and he doesn't have anything else on his resume to make up for that. But he was a great player, an outstanding hitter, and he would make a worthy addition to the Hall. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
June 30, 2005 at 09:49PM View BBCode
The Hall of Fame is most decidedly not about well-rounded players or "5-tool" guys. All facets of the game are not created equal. Hitting is THE most important thing a position player does, and it's not close. Add up everything else a position player does and the total is still not as important as his hitting. Everyone intuitively knows this, too. It's why Ted Williams, an atrocious fielder, awful base runner and divisive influence in the clubhouse is a first-ballot Hall of Famer, and why Richie Ashburn, who did pretty much everything but hit home runs, had to wait for the Veterans Committee. Sure it'd be nice if everyone was Willie Mays but they're not. Sometimes you have to accept one-dimensional players, or two-dimensional players, or whatever number of dimensions is less than "all of them".I think that the baseball writers will PROBABLY not vote Edgar in, and I understand their reasoning. There were better hitters than Edgar during his career, and he doesn't have anything else on his resume to make up for that. But he was a great player, an outstanding hitter, and he would make a worthy addition to the Hall. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
whiskybear
I haven't read every word that's been spewed by the raving masses who are falling over themselves to divorce the best DH from the Hall of Fame because he was too 1-dimensional---I don't think I NEED to read every word, for that matter, because you keep repeating yourselves.
Edgar had two of baseball's tools---the good ones, if you're counting. Hitting for power and hitting for average. He didn't have a strong arm, he didn't have speed, and he didn't play any defense.
When he retired, only three hitters boasted better career OBPs than Edgar's .4178. Two of them, Barry Bonds and Todd Helton--.4426 and .4316--were lefties. Frank Thomas--.4286--was the only righty with a better number. In other words, when Edgar Martinez retired, there was only one active player who was a better, more reliable right-handed hitter than Edgar. On-base percentage is the most important statistic when considering a team's offensive production---about 3 times more important than slugging percentage. And Edgar's SLG is 64th on the career list--not extraordinary, but better than Willie McCovey, Eddie Matthews, Ty Cobb, Harmon Killebrew, Ernie Banks and Tris Speaker, among others.
He is a much better hitter than almost all of you are giving him credit for. Yes, I point an accusatory finger at you, owners of generic avatars.
June 30, 2005 at 11:04PM View BBCode
Ahem....what the fuck is it with all these impossibly lame baseball card avatars?I haven't read every word that's been spewed by the raving masses who are falling over themselves to divorce the best DH from the Hall of Fame because he was too 1-dimensional---I don't think I NEED to read every word, for that matter, because you keep repeating yourselves.
Edgar had two of baseball's tools---the good ones, if you're counting. Hitting for power and hitting for average. He didn't have a strong arm, he didn't have speed, and he didn't play any defense.
When he retired, only three hitters boasted better career OBPs than Edgar's .4178. Two of them, Barry Bonds and Todd Helton--.4426 and .4316--were lefties. Frank Thomas--.4286--was the only righty with a better number. In other words, when Edgar Martinez retired, there was only one active player who was a better, more reliable right-handed hitter than Edgar. On-base percentage is the most important statistic when considering a team's offensive production---about 3 times more important than slugging percentage. And Edgar's SLG is 64th on the career list--not extraordinary, but better than Willie McCovey, Eddie Matthews, Ty Cobb, Harmon Killebrew, Ernie Banks and Tris Speaker, among others.
He is a much better hitter than almost all of you are giving him credit for. Yes, I point an accusatory finger at you, owners of generic avatars.
skierdude44
Dale Murphy and Jim Rice do not deserve it more than Martinez. I compared their offensive numbers to Edgar's before and Edgar is a much better hitter. Neither of those guys were burners on the basepaths or masters with the glove either so what you have hear is a couple of inferior hitters with more speed and defense than Martinez but were not masters in the other categories either.
He's right, Edgar probably is the best DH that we've ever seen. Now most of you have argued that that proves that he is one dimensional and while it's true that he is not a complete player that's missing the point. The DH is a part of baseball (granted their is none in the NL, but interleague games played at AL parks have DHs on both sides and they have it in the WS) so why keep the best DH ever out of the Hall... you wouldn't keep the best first baseman out? I'm not saying that that makes him an automatic in because he's not. He's a very good hitter- for both average and power, but not much more. At best his a fringe HOFer. But my point is instead of looking at the fact that he was a basically a career DH and saying "well he's only a one dimensional player" look at him and see THE BEST DH.
Edgar was a flat out fantastic pure hitter. Yes he never hit an astronomical amount of homers but that career line of .312/.418/.515 is fantastic. During his career the league average was .267 and Edgar batted .312. The league OBP was .336, Edgar's was .418. Finally the league SLG was .419, Edgar's was .515. Looking at that you can see how great of a hitter he actually was.
July 01, 2005 at 12:17AM View BBCode
Originally posted by krusecontrol
If you let him in, you better clear way for a LOT of guys from the 80s, like Dale Murhpy and Jim Rice, who deserve it much more than Martinez
Dale Murphy and Jim Rice do not deserve it more than Martinez. I compared their offensive numbers to Edgar's before and Edgar is a much better hitter. Neither of those guys were burners on the basepaths or masters with the glove either so what you have hear is a couple of inferior hitters with more speed and defense than Martinez but were not masters in the other categories either.
Originally posted by whiskybear
I haven't read every word that's been spewed by the raving masses who are falling over themselves to divorce the best DH from the Hall of Fame because he was too 1-dimensional.
He's right, Edgar probably is the best DH that we've ever seen. Now most of you have argued that that proves that he is one dimensional and while it's true that he is not a complete player that's missing the point. The DH is a part of baseball (granted their is none in the NL, but interleague games played at AL parks have DHs on both sides and they have it in the WS) so why keep the best DH ever out of the Hall... you wouldn't keep the best first baseman out? I'm not saying that that makes him an automatic in because he's not. He's a very good hitter- for both average and power, but not much more. At best his a fringe HOFer. But my point is instead of looking at the fact that he was a basically a career DH and saying "well he's only a one dimensional player" look at him and see THE BEST DH.
Edgar was a flat out fantastic pure hitter. Yes he never hit an astronomical amount of homers but that career line of .312/.418/.515 is fantastic. During his career the league average was .267 and Edgar batted .312. The league OBP was .336, Edgar's was .418. Finally the league SLG was .419, Edgar's was .515. Looking at that you can see how great of a hitter he actually was.