Edgar Martinez to Retire...In An Hour [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

Ksyrup

08-09-2004, 03:20 PM

ESPN is reporting that Edgar Martinez has decided to retire, effective immediately.

A 5:30 ET press conference has been scheduled for the announcement. Since the alternatives were Scott Spiezio and Bucky Jacobsen, it's a shame that the Mariners wouldn't keep playing Martinez regularly and allow him to finish his career in style. Aug. 9 - 4:11 pm et

Also, to throw some more baseball stuff in the mix:

Phillies acquired RHP Cory Lidle from the Reds for outfielder Javon Moran, LHP Joe Wilson and a player to be named.

The Phillies needed this. Lidle hasn't had a great season, but he's a clear upgrade over Paul Abbott. He'll probably be sent to the pen if the rest of the Philadelphia's starting pitchers get healthy. However, the odds of that happening aren't great. Lidle's value remains unchanged. In return for Lidle, the Reds are getting a decent young outfield prospect in Moran, who is batting .285/.340/.385 with 39 steals for Single-A Lakewood. Wilson has a chance to be a major league reliever, but like Moran, he's a few years away. Aug. 9 - 4:07 pm et

WSUCougar

08-09-2004, 03:22 PM

Tip of the cap to Edgar, a classy career Mariner and the prototypical DH if ever there was one. MLB will be lesser for his retirement.

korme

08-09-2004, 03:22 PM

dammit, i liked lidle. stupid reds

VPI97

08-09-2004, 03:26 PM

Just what the Reds need...another outfielder.

Huckleberry

08-09-2004, 03:32 PM

Edgar seems like a great guy, but I find it hard to get all worked up about a mid-season retirement (why now? Playing time? He's had 333 at-bats and he sucks) by a guy who made a living playing a position that shouldn't exist.

Congratulations on a nice career are in order, though.

Ksyrup

08-09-2004, 03:33 PM

I bet they were going to can him like Olerud and Aurilia, so he just retired.

Crapshoot

08-09-2004, 03:38 PM

nah- they wouldnt do that. Edgar should be a HOF - one of the greatest pure hitters we'll ever see.

Huckleberry

08-09-2004, 03:39 PM

What does "pure hitter" mean to you? Honest question. It's used all the time but nobody has ever told me what it means.

Crapshoot

08-09-2004, 03:41 PM

What does "pure hitter" mean to you? Honest question. It's used all the time but nobody has ever told me what it means.

Good question- I might have fallen into the cliche trap, but by that I mean someone who looked good hitting, did it very well for a long time, and who seemed to exemplify the art of hitting- its not the greatest definition in the world, but I think you get my intent.

Huckleberry

08-09-2004, 03:45 PM

That's as good an explanation as I've received. He definitely fits that description more than Tony Gwynn.

hhiipp

08-09-2004, 03:48 PM

By pure hitter he meant a guy who made a living only swinging his bat and rarely playing defense.

Since we're mentioning Abbotts in this thread, what ever happened to Jim? I lost track of him about 10 years ago and he had actually slipped my mind until Paul was mentioned in this thread.

WSUCougar

08-09-2004, 03:49 PM

That's as good an explanation as I've received. He definitely fits that description more than Tony Gwynn.
How do you figure? Gwynn was an artist and a student of hitting.

Ksyrup

08-09-2004, 03:50 PM

nah- they wouldnt do that. Edgar should be a HOF - one of the greatest pure hitters we'll ever see.
Perhaps they told him they were benching him for the younger guys, and he decided he'd rather retire than ride the pine. I know he only came back because he was playing at such a high level last year. This year he's been nothing like he was last year, and that combined with losing his everyday position probably made this an easy decision for him.

I'm really not sure I consder him a HOF'er, though.

WSUCougar

08-09-2004, 03:54 PM

Strange thing is TSN had a blurb indicating Edgar might get some time at 1B since Jacobsen was banged up a bit (sore hammy or ankle or something).

Sun Tzu

08-09-2004, 03:58 PM

Since we're mentioning Abbotts in this thread, what ever happened to Jim?

He played for the Brewers in 1999 after bouncing around for a bit, went 2-8, and then retired.

Huckleberry

08-09-2004, 04:11 PM

How do you figure? Gwynn was an artist and a student of hitting.

Well, it's my opinion that Gwynn didn't "look good" hitting. And while Gwynn was a very good hitter, he was also the most overrated hitter of my lifetime. Possibly ever.

Suicane75

08-09-2004, 04:13 PM

Well, it's my opinion that Gwynn didn't "look good" hitting. And while Gwynn was a very good hitter, he was also the most overrated hitter of my lifetime. Possibly ever.

Pass some of what it is you're smoking.

sterlingice

08-09-2004, 04:16 PM

I have always understood "pure hitter" as a term to describe a contact hitter rather than a power hitter. Typically a line drive guy with a nice swing who is always above .300 but never has more than, say, 20 or 25 homers in a season.

Also, I always thought the term "pure hitter" is fielding independent: you could be a good or bad one. Tho, I suppose it does end up tagged on guys who are better hitters than fielders, otherwise they'd be a "complete player" or something.

SI

WSUCougar

08-09-2004, 04:17 PM

Well, it's my opinion that Gwynn didn't "look good" hitting. And while Gwynn was a very good hitter, he was also the most overrated hitter of my lifetime. Possibly ever.
Curious thing to say about an 8-time batting champion with a .338 career average, but of course you're entitled to your opinion.

korme

08-09-2004, 04:18 PM

sean casey, pure hitter

Suicane75

08-09-2004, 04:18 PM

Huckleberry

08-09-2004, 04:22 PM

I never denied he was very good. In fact, he can probably be classified as great. And he did always hit for a high average. But I just don't think that a .338 singles hitter is as valuable, or even close, as Gwynn was made out to be. Add to that the fact that he was a singles hitter without speed by 30, and you have my opinion.

Overrated does not mean not great. In fact, it's hard to call a really shitty player overrated isn't it? Generally the shitty ones aren't rated really high.

As an example to throw out there, Bobby Abreu. If he follows a typical career path from here on out, he will end up with a better career than Tony Gwynn. Why isn't the media on his jock?

Ksyrup

08-09-2004, 04:29 PM

IMO, Edgar Martinez was a great hitter, but he doesn't deserve to be in the Hall Of Fame because he spent the majority of his career, ya know, not fielding, which I think is a pretty integral part of the game.
He also only had 11 seasons of 450 or more ABs. And considering that he only had 3 of those seasons in which he actually played a position, that means more to me than simply arguing that he was a DH. I have no problem letting a DH in, but he'd have to have a much longer career than Martinez did, or at least spend less time as a full-time DH than Martinez.

grdawg

08-09-2004, 04:32 PM

Since we're mentioning Abbotts in this thread, what ever happened to Jim? I lost track of him about 10 years ago and he had actually slipped my mind until Paul was mentioned in this thread.

He actually played in the Yankees old timers game a few weeks ago. He pitched an inning, it was nice to see him again

Ksyrup

08-09-2004, 04:32 PM

Travis

08-09-2004, 04:32 PM

Ironically, I've always thought John Olerud was a great pure hitter with one of the smoothest swings, he and Ken Griffey have two of the easiest looking swings I've ever seen.

Tony Gwynn on the other hand, was one of the greatest pure hitters of our time because not only was he nearly impossible to strike out, he was able to hit the ball where he wanted it to go with a level of control that very few in baseball today can match. Mostly because they're all trying to hit it 500 feet in the glorified home run derby that baseball is turning into, but I digress.

Edgar though, will be hurt hugely by not having played a regular position, and probably won't make it into the hall, which I'm torn about, as he was an absolutely fantastic hitter for a lot of years and probably could have played first if there was no DH rule. That's where it gets hard to argue against putting him into the hall, as you know very well that he would have been around just as long had teams been forced to use him in the field and not as a DH.

sterlingice

08-09-2004, 04:37 PM

I was curious about his HoF merits as I didn't think he was anywhere near it. Good player but not great so I went over the baseball-reference.com to check out the comparison stats:

Black Ink (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#black_ink): Batting - 20 (102) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#gray_ink): Batting - 107 (190) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_standards): Batting - 48.1 (79) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_monitor): Batting - 128.5 (96) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Similar Batters
Will Clark (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/clarkwi02.shtml) (907)
Chuck Klein (http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/kleinch01.shtml) (882) *
John Olerud (http://www.baseball-reference.com/o/olerujo01.shtml) (876)
Bob Johnson (http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/johnsbo01.shtml) (870)
Larry Walker (http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/walkela01.shtml) (857)
Luis Gonzalez (http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/gonzalu01.shtml) (855)
Ellis Burks (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/burksel01.shtml) (854)
Paul O'Neill (http://www.baseball-reference.com/o/o%27neipa01.shtml) (851)
Gary Sheffield (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/sheffga01.shtml) (850)
Fred Lynn (http://www.baseball-reference.com/l/lynnfr01.shtml) (843)
The only metric he's close on is the HoF monitor but James's formula doesn't take into account that there will be an inherent bias towards a DH because, frankly, it's too new. There are very few "career DHs". Plus, his career compares aren't that great, either. Good players but not great. So, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting to get in because Edgar won't be in Cooperstown.

SI

Ksyrup

08-09-2004, 04:37 PM

Edgar though, will be hurt hugely by not having played a regular position, and probably won't make it into the hall, which I'm torn about, as he was an absolutely fantastic hitter for a lot of years and probably could have played first if there was no DH rule. That's where it gets hard to argue against putting him into the hall, as you know very well that he would have been around just as long had teams been forced to use him in the field and not as a DH.
But again, he wasn't around long enough, I don't think. He wasn't full-time until age 27, had several partial seasons lost due to injury, and here's the biggest thing, to me - his best seasons came when he was only DH'ing. Maybe it just suddenly clicked for him at age 32, but there's also the argument that had he been a regular first baseman, maybe he wouldn't have had the power/RBI numbers he had late in his career.

WSUCougar

08-09-2004, 04:38 PM

I'm not the baseball statistician that some of you guys are, but I did a quick search on some of the other "pure" hitters off the top of my head, and Gwynn compares very favorably. His average is significantly higher, and his .459 career slugging percentage is better than Carew, Boggs, Molitor, and Rose. George Brett's is .487, but his career BA is .305.

I understand what you are saying Huckleberry, but the hitting consistency of a guy like Gwynn is pretty astonishing. He wasn't a power hitter, but to say he was overrated still strikes me as a questionable stance. Maybe you heard some things about him that I didn't.

WSUCougar

08-09-2004, 04:42 PM

I'm still not sure where I personally stand on the Edgar/DH/HOF issue, but I think to penalize a player for being a DH is kind of a false approach. I personally despise the DH, but the fact of the matter is that it is a legitimate position in the AL, and Edgar Martinez is widely regarded as one of the best - if not THE best - there has been at it. If that's not the definition of "fame" I'm not sure what is.

sterlingice

08-09-2004, 04:42 PM

Because the idea of a pure hitter is someone who hits for average. Abreu can't sniff Gwynn's batting average.

Now, in terms of OPS, Abreu is better. But that's not the issue.
You do have to take era into account. Abreu hit in the 90's while Gwynn played a lot of games in the deadball 80's. Abreu's career OPS is 19.4% over the league average during his career (.772) whereas Gwynn was "only" 16.0% over (.730). So, the difference is there but it's not nearly as great as it looks when you just compare their .922 to .847. Gwynn's OPS would have been .896 if he had played in the years Abreu played.

SI

Huckleberry

08-09-2004, 04:44 PM

You can't compare his career slugging percentage as a straight value. League slugging percentage fluctuated drastically between Carew and Gwynn. It's nice that you selected Carew, because they were basically the same hitter after adjusting for the times in which they played. Both great. But both overrated as a hitter.

Obviously I'm not saying Gwynn was overrated as a batting average hitter.

The_herd

08-09-2004, 04:45 PM

Unless my personal standards for the hall are too high, I just can't see how there could be HOF talk with Edgar Martinez. Yes he was a good hitter, but why can't his career be left at that? Why does every good hitter have to be considered for the hall. His career stats, and to some extent his single season stats, don't add up to HOF consideration. Martinez is a player that should be remembered as a guy that could hit pretty well, but it should stop there.

Ksyrup

08-09-2004, 04:45 PM

Huckleberry

08-09-2004, 04:46 PM

What misconception?

Ksyrup

08-09-2004, 04:47 PM

But both overrated as a hitter.

Obviously I'm not saying Gwynn was overrated as a batting average hitter.
And that's where this dovetails with the "pure hitter" discussion. Pure hitters get hits, regardless of what kind they are. Obviously, some hitters are more productive because they hit doubles, triples, and/or HRs, but a "pure hitter" simpyl reaches base via the hit more often than any other hitters.

sterlingice

08-09-2004, 04:48 PM

Looks like he is retiring at the end of the season, not immediately.

SI, I only threw Abreu out there because he had been mentioned earlier. THere's clearly a mis-conception about Gwynn that is 'largely' based on the size of his ass. Actually Huck did, but I just recopied your post addressing him.

Speaking of Huck, are you a big believer in Three True Outcomes or just not big on guys who hit for average with no power?

SI

Ksyrup

08-09-2004, 04:49 PM

What misconception?
That he's not a good hitter. Look at my last post. He's not overrated as a hitter, if being a hitter means reaching base via the hit. He might not have the slugging percentage of some guys who hit well, but they don't have the batting average he did, either. All that means is that a larger percentage of his value was dervied from base hits. Doesn't make his a bad hitter. But that is where the argument about him being a great pure hitter" comes from.

The_herd

08-09-2004, 04:51 PM

My opinion is that the ability to get on base is underrated. So I can't see how Gwynn would be overrated. He's considered a great hitter. Not a great power hitter. And he's never mentioned as one of the great OFers to play. I think Gwynn is "rated" properly.

Huckleberry

08-09-2004, 04:57 PM

That he's not a good hitter. Look at my last post. He's not overrated as a hitter, if being a hitter means reaching base via the hit.

Well, that's pretty clearly not how I'm defining it. I'm defining it based on your value to the team as a hitter.

He might not have the slugging percentage of some guys who hit well, but they don't have the batting average he did, either. All that means is that a larger percentage of his value was dervied from base hits. Doesn't make his a bad hitter. But that is where the argument about him being a great pure hitter" comes from.

Understood. He is a great "pure hitter" by your definition. But I don't find that particularly useful in the mindset of a baseball GM. And, for the record, nobody has called him a bad hitter. I called him a great hitter. But an overrated great hitter.

Speaking of Huck, are you a big believer in Three True Outcomes or just not big on guys who hit for average with no power?

SI

TTO seems to be a statistic that is entertaining only. Batters should not be judged by it other than for entertainment value, regardless of the validity or invalidity of DIPS. Batters clearly can control the results outside of the TTO. I just don't value singles hitters.

My opinion is that the ability to get on base is underrated. So I can't see how Gwynn would be overrated. He's considered a great hitter. Not a great power hitter. And he's never mentioned as one of the great OFers to play. I think Gwynn is "rated" properly.

I consider the ability to get on base underrated as well. That's why Gwynn's career .388 OBP strikes me as unimpressive within the context of Gwynn as a great hitter. The guy didn't walk enough for me to be wowed by his on-base ability. While clearly one of the great contact hitters of all time, he had to hit .350 or greater to achieve a .400 OBP.

sterlingice

08-09-2004, 05:10 PM

I consider the ability to get on base underrated as well. That's why Gwynn's career .388 OBP strikes me as unimpressive within the context of Gwynn as a great hitter. The guy didn't walk enough for me to be wowed by his on-base ability. While clearly one of the great contact hitters of all time, he had to hit .350 or greater to achieve a .400 OBP.
That fact always made me wonder about Gwynn. He had tremendous control of the strike zone (as evidenced by his miniscule strikeout numbers) yet I rarely saw him walk. I never understood how a guy who got so few strikeouts also got so few walks.

SI

Crapshoot

08-09-2004, 07:19 PM

Ksyrup

08-09-2004, 07:29 PM

151 career OPS+ - 17th all time in career OBP, 32nd all time in career OPS+. What's exactly is not to like here ?
Too short a career, particularly since he was a DH. I haven't heard a decent argument for him that takes into account the length of his career.

Crapshoot

08-09-2004, 07:29 PM

From me primer post:
Meh, I think he is a HOF- Career OPS+ of 151 (which undervalues him because of the OBP weighting), 2100 hits, retires with the 17th best OBP of all time, and and ranks 32nd overall in OPS+. From 1995-2001 in the AL, he finished outside the top 2 in OBP once- (he finished 6th), and was in the top 8 of OPS every year. A 7 time all-star, and he probably deserved to be on a couple more teams. I think there are a lot worse players than Edgar in the hall, and I certainly see no problem with putting him in

Crapshoot

08-09-2004, 07:33 PM

Too short a career, particularly since he was a DH. I haven't heard a decent argument for him that takes into account the length of his career.

he had 2119 hits- more than Duke Snider, approximately as many as Will McCovey, more than Billy Hamilton, about a 100 less than Willie Stargell and a few more than Hack Wilson- all HOF's with a lower OPS+ than him (Which underweights him, since his OBP was fairly high). Jeff Bagwell, a no question asked HOF right now , has less hits. Punishing Edgar for getting his hits more efficiently and faster seems asinine.

bigbadraidersfan

08-09-2004, 07:33 PM

What are Edgar's career numbers (HRs, hits, RBIs, AVG, etc)? I think it's tough to put a DH in the call. Dave Kingman isn't there and isn't he 500 HR club? Or at least pretty close.

Too bad Edgar's days are finished though. The Mariners hit a brick wall this year and the AL West is almost upside down, with the Rangers at the wrong end of where they normally are. Swap them with the Mariners and you'd have the normal looking AL West, with A's, M's and Halos battling it for the West and perhaps the WC.

Crapshoot

08-09-2004, 07:36 PM

Crapshoot

08-09-2004, 07:41 PM

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/OBP_career.shtml

the list of players with a higher OBP- when you consider those who have as many PA's and have played modern day baseball (post 1900) they are all first ballot no questions asked HOF's- Ruth, Williams, Bonds, Gehrig, Hornsby, Thomas, Speaker, and Foxx. that's mighty impressive company.

Buccaneer

08-09-2004, 07:41 PM

Well, it's my opinion that Gwynn didn't "look good" hitting. And while Gwynn was a very good hitter, he was also the most overrated hitter of my lifetime. Possibly ever.
You are now my enemy. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

ISiddiqui

08-09-2004, 08:04 PM

On Gwynn, if we look at Win Shares per 162 games, Gwynn (26.94) was better than Reggie Jackson, Roberto Clemente, Harry Heilmann, Sammy Sosa, Duke Snider, Kirby Puckett, Tim Raines, Willie Stargell, Carl Yaztrzemski, etc... and that's just outfielders :D. If anything, he may be underrated.

bigbadraidersfan

08-09-2004, 08:49 PM

Turns out, according to ESPN, that Edgar is hanging them up at season's end.

While referred to as one of the great DH of all time, I don't think he has true HOF numbers. 2,205 hits, 305 HRs aren't that grand. .312 career average is nice, as are 510 doubles.

The_herd

08-09-2004, 09:01 PM

he had 2119 hits- more than Duke Snider, approximately as many as Will McCovey, more than Billy Hamilton, about a 100 less than Willie Stargell and a few more than Hack Wilson- all HOF's with a lower OPS+ than him (Which underweights him, since his OBP was fairly high). Jeff Bagwell, a no question asked HOF right now , has less hits. Punishing Edgar for getting his hits more efficiently and faster seems asinine.

2200 hits isn't a lot for a guy that played 18 years and whose sole purpose was to hit a baseball. Only 1 year of 30+ homers and never got 200 hits.

Don't compare his hits to Snyder, McCovey, Stargell, or any other power hitter from the '60s and '70s. Those guys were power hitters in an era that wasn't anywhere near as homer friendly as today. His 2200 hits may be more than those guys, but each has at least 100 homers more than Edgar.

Bagwell has 419 homers and is a career .300 hitter. He'll also probably pass Martinez in hits before its all said and done. But still wouldn't call Bagwell and "no question asked HOF" right now. If his career ended today, he wouldn't get in. His biggest stat is the homers, and they don't mean as much today as they did 20 years ago.

sterlingice

08-09-2004, 09:13 PM

151 career OPS+ - 17th all time in career OBP, 32nd all time in career OPS+. What's exactly is not to like here ?
The HOF is not about "would we want him on our team or not?" Sure, we'd like almost half of the players in the league on our team. But, HOF isn't just for above average players or good players. And just because some mistakes have been made in the past doesn't mean we need to keep repeating them. If there aren't some standards, then it just becomes the NFL Hall of Fame.

SI

The_herd

08-09-2004, 09:18 PM

The HOF is not about "would we want him on our team or not?" Sure, we'd like almost half of the players in the league on our team. But, HOF isn't just for above average players or good players. And just because some mistakes have been made in the past doesn't mean we need to keep repeating them. If there aren't some standards, then it just becomes the NFL Hall of Fame.

SI

This is the point I was trying to make earlier. Good players don't deserve to be in the hall. Very good players don't deserve to be in the hall. The HOF is for the very best to ever play the game. Edgar Martinez certainly isn't one of the greats, and I know some Astros fans will eat me up for this, but neither is Bagwell. Todays power numbers are different. So throwing OPS and homers around isn't all that impressive.

Crapshoot

08-09-2004, 09:21 PM

2200 hits isn't a lot for a guy that played 18 years and whose sole purpose was to hit a baseball. Only 1 year of 30+ homers and never got 200 hits.

Don't compare his hits to Snyder, McCovey, Stargell, or any other power hitter from the '60s and '70s. Those guys were power hitters in an era that wasn't anywhere near as homer friendly as today. His 2200 hits may be more than those guys, but each has at least 100 homers more than Edgar.

Bagwell has 419 homers and is a career .300 hitter. He'll also probably pass Martinez in hits before its all said and done. But still wouldn't call Bagwell and "no question asked HOF" right now. If his career ended today, he wouldn't get in. His biggest stat is the homers, and they don't mean as much today as they did 20 years ago.

Roflfle! Bagwell is one of the top 10 1b of all time- as it stands- now. As for the Snyder, McCovey, Stargell point- I refer you to OPS+, which adjusts for league context, although it slightly underwights OBP - Martinez was better than any of them offensively, 100 hrs more or not- OPS incorporates slugging. Simply put, he got to 2100 hits a lot faster than any of those guys did.
Bagwell is a first ballot HOF, no questions asked- the only better 1b (and a couple are debatable) were Gehrig, McGuire, Thomas (another slam dunk in a rational world) and Jimmy Fox . If Jeff Bagwell isnt a HOF, there arent many outside of Mays, Ruth, Bonds, Aaron, Williams, Johnson, Grove, Maddux, Clemens.

Ksyrup

08-09-2004, 09:24 PM

RBI's = absolutely bloody irrelelvant. Avg has a so-so correlation with runs scored, unlike OBP- in which Edgar ranks 17th all time. Think about that- only 16 hitters in the history of baseball have higher OBP"s - and 5 of those have as many PA's as Edgar or less. That's pretty damn amazing.
You know, you would do well to accept the fact that most people do not consider RBIs and Runs to be irrelevant. Again, baseball is not an individual sport, so a player's career has to be evaluated in the context of the teams he played for. They can be considered, but in perspective. With someone on the fence, they can be meaningful. Two guys with identical numbers but one with more RBIs - sorry, that pushes him over the other guy, whether you want to accept that statistic as valid or not.

I don't consider Bagwell a "no questions asked" HoF'er.

I also don't buy the "look at these undeserving players who made the HoF, so Edgar should get in" argument, either. Choosing the HoF is not about comparing potential inductees to the weakest link.

Crapshoot

08-09-2004, 09:24 PM

The HOF is not about "would we want him on our team or not?" Sure, we'd like almost half of the players in the league on our team. But, HOF isn't just for above average players or good players. And just because some mistakes have been made in the past doesn't mean we need to keep repeating them. If there aren't some standards, then it just becomes the NFL Hall of Fame.

SI

Where do you get this stuff ? Martinez ranks 17th all time- think about that. Since 1900, given 8000 or so pA, only 10 or so players have had a higher OBP, and only 25 or so players have had a higher OPS+ (OPS adjusted for league context). If youre making a case regarding defense- that's another point, but on offensive value, Martinez is better than a lot of what is already in the HOF- hell, as a hitter, he's better than 40-50% of them. Dont ignore the evidence- we are in an era where we are seeing 3 of the greatest pitchers of all time (Maddux, Clemens, and Pedro), the second greatest or greatest player of all time (Bonds), and some of the best talent baseball has ever seen- there has never been an era quite as plentiful.

Crapshoot

08-09-2004, 09:27 PM

This is the point I was trying to make earlier. Good players don't deserve to be in the hall. Very good players don't deserve to be in the hall. The HOF is for the very best to ever play the game. Edgar Martinez certainly isn't one of the greats, and I know some Astros fans will eat me up for this, but neither is Bagwell. Todays power numbers are different. So throwing OPS and homers around isn't all that impressive.

Like I said- by any rational numberic measure, Bagwell is a top 5 1b- all time. That's great. OPS+, for what seems like the 100th time, is adjusted for league context- it is your performance relative to league performance. Thus, if the league has an OPS of 1000 and you have an OPS of 1200, you're OPS+ is equivalent to a guy who has an OPS of 600 when the league average is 500. BAgwell has been, over his career, turning in a performance 53% better than the average hitter- that's damn impressive. Martinez has been 51% bete. Your unwillingness to recognize this does not change the factuality of it.

jetpunk2000

08-09-2004, 09:29 PM

Like I said- by any rational numberic measure, Bagwell is a top 5 1b- all time. That's great. OPS+, for what seems like the 100th time, is adjusted for league context- it is your performance relative to league performance. Thus, if the league has an OPS of 1000 and you have an OPS of 1200, you're OPS+ is equivalent to a guy who has an OPS of 600 when the league average is 500. BAgwell has been, over his career, turning in a performance 53% better than the average hitter- that's damn impressive. Martinez has been 51% bete. Your unwillingness to recognize this does not change the factuality of it.

Are you Billy Beane's agent or something?

Crapshoot

08-09-2004, 09:31 PM

You know, you would do well to accept the fact that most people do not consider RBIs and Runs to be irrelevant. Again, baseball is not an individual sport, so a player's career has to be evaluated in the context of the teams he played for. They can be considered, but in perspective. With someone on the fence, they can be meaningful. Two guys with identical numbers but one with more RBIs - sorry, that pushes him over the other guy, whether you want to accept that statistic as valid or not.

I don't consider Bagwell a "no questions asked" HoF'er.

I also don't buy the "look at these undeserving players who made the HoF, so Edgar should get in" argument, either. Choosing the HoF is not about comparing potential inductees to the weakest link.

Ksyrup, people believed that the earth was the center of the universe- does that make it true ? Look, if everyone decided that the sky was green, they can delude themself into thinking just that- but factuality exists independently of perception. RBi's are context-dependant- that means someone who gets more opportunities with runners on base is more likely to have more RBI- it is not an evaluative measure of a player's skill, as god knows how many studies have shown.

As for Edgar, Im not repeating this again- 32nd best OPS+ in the history of baseball- one of the 25 in modern baseball. Fact. Penalize him for lack of defensive value, but that has no bearing on his offensive value to his team.

The_herd

08-09-2004, 09:32 PM

Roflfle! Bagwell is one of the top 10 1b of all time- as it stands- now. As for the Snyder, McCovey, Stargell point- I refer you to OPS+, which adjusts for league context, although it slightly underwights OBP - Martinez was better than any of them offensively, 100 hrs more or not- OPS incorporates slugging. Simply put, he got to 2100 hits a lot faster than any of those guys did.
Bagwell is a first ballot HOF, no questions asked- the only better 1b (and a couple are debatable) were Gehrig, McGuire, Thomas (another slam dunk in a rational world) and Jimmy Fox . If Jeff Bagwell isnt a HOF, there arent many outside of Mays, Ruth, Bonds, Aaron, Williams, Johnson, Grove, Maddux, Clemens.

Bagwell lives in that age of offense and has 2100 hits and 400 homers. Numbers that impress noone today. Bagwell needs 500 homers to be a "sure thing". Even then to call him a 1st ballot HOFer is a stretch. I'm not saying he won't get in, or even that he shouldn't get in, he's just not anywhere near a sure thing yet.

I'm sorry but voters aren't too keen on OPS and a lot of other statictics that many current fans look at. Thats a fact, sorry. Martinez is a very good hitter. But he just wasn't a HOF hitter. The fact that he really doesn't have a position isn't going to help. Look at his stats year by year and they in no way look like the stats of someone that should be in the hall.

Crapshoot

08-09-2004, 09:32 PM

Are you Billy Beane's agent or something?

No- are you Joe Morgan's personal secretary ? Dood- believe it or not, some of us like this stuff, because it gets past the cliche ridded crap and gets at the facts.

clintl

08-09-2004, 09:33 PM

2200 hits isn't a lot for a guy that played 18 years and whose sole purpose was to hit a baseball. Only 1 year of 30+ homers and never got 200 hits.

Edgar Martinez didn't have 18 years in the majors. 1990 was his first real season - before that, he was a September call-up. So now you're down to 15 years. 2200 hits what is really a 15-year career is tremendous, especially when you consider that he lost the equivalent of about another season-and-a-half to injury.

I think he's a borderline guy, but there is a reasonable case that can be made for him. I think he's more deserving than Tony Perez, who got in a couple of years ago.

Ksyrup

08-09-2004, 09:33 PM

The_herd

08-09-2004, 09:35 PM

I think he's more deserving than Tony Perez, who got in a couple of years ago.

Has no bearing on whether or not Martinez should get in.

clintl

08-09-2004, 09:35 PM

Why should OPS+, which is park and era adjusted, count against him? That should never count against anyone from any era.

Hammer755

08-09-2004, 09:37 PM

Edgar still didn't play long enough, given the fact that he played in the field for only 3 complete seasons. Sorry, but the fact that he was a DH has to count against him, in terms of his total HoF package. The fact is, his best seasons just happened to coincide with the post-strike, juiced ball era. I don't care what his OPS+ was, that works against him as well.
Why are you so quick to dismiss OPS+? It's almost as if you're saying, 'I don't care what the facts are, I know the answer'. You keep saying that Edgar's performance is not impressive when compared to his peers, but that is exactly what OPS+ measures - how he performed against the league average.

The fact that he performed more than 50% better than the average player is pretty impressive, regardless whether you want to recognize it or not.

clintl

08-09-2004, 09:37 PM

Has no bearing on whether or not Martinez should get in.

Sure, it does. Whether you like it or not, whether you think it's fair or not, who is already in the Hall of Fame establishes a benchmark for voters.

Crapshoot

08-09-2004, 09:38 PM

Bagwell lives in that age of offense and has 2100 hits and 400 homers. Numbers that impress noone today. Bagwell needs 500 homers to be a "sure thing". Even then to call him a 1st ballot HOFer is a stretch. I'm not saying he won't get in, or even that he shouldn't get in, he's just not anywhere near a sure thing yet.

I'm sorry but voters aren't too keen on OPS and a lot of other statictics that many current fans look at. Thats a fact, sorry. Martinez is a very good hitter. But he just wasn't a HOF hitter. The fact that he really doesn't have a position isn't going to help. Look at his stats year by year and they in no way look like the stats of someone that should be in the hall.

Look- the facts do not change. You have made no arguement other than repeatedly stating "he was a very good hitter, but not a HOF." If we are debating whether he will get in the HOF, I would be inclined to agree with you, if only because a vast portion of reporters are dyed in the wool luddites who think of no statistic beyond the Triple Crown categories- but the debate if whether he should be.

The_herd

08-09-2004, 09:39 PM

Sure, it does. Whether you like it or not, whether you think it's fair or not, who is already in the Hall of Fame establishes a benchmark for voters.

Not really. Perez got in for the teams he played on and the fact that he had people like Joe Morgan complaining every year that he wasn't in.

Martinez won't have such things.

Hammer755

08-09-2004, 09:40 PM

Sure, it does. Whether you like it or not, whether you think it's fair or not, who is already in the Hall of Fame establishes a benchmark for voters.
I disagree, I don't think the worst players should establish the benchmark. However, Aadik wasn't using borderline HOF'ers in his example. He was using bona fide Hall of Famers to compare Martinez to, and Edgar stacked up pretty well to them.

And count me in the 'Bagwell on First Ballot' debate. He had 2 or 3 of the most impressive park-adjusted offensive seasons of all-time and put up phenomenal numbers considering he played the majority of his career in the Astrodome.

Crapshoot

08-09-2004, 09:41 PM

Edgar still didn't play long enough, given the fact that he played in the field for only 3 complete seasons. Sorry, but the fact that he was a DH has to count against him, in terms of his total HoF package. The fact is, his best seasons just happened to coincide with the post-strike, juiced ball era. I don't care what his OPS+ was, that works against him as well.

Examine this statement rationally: you are here arguing that evaluating Edgar MArtinez against his league is flawed because it was the juiced ball era. If eDgar martinez was 50% better than the league before the "juiced ball" (extremely debatable as it is , but that's a side point) era, he's liable to be %50 better after the goddamn thing- which is exacly what OPS+ is measuring ! Hell, given that he was less of a power hitter, one could even argue that if juiced ball allegations are true, it hurt Edgar more in his context vis-a-vis the league.

Closing your ears and dismissing the methodolgy out of hand does not make sense to me- give me a rational arguement with some backup as to why OPS+ is not a good measure- I'll gladly listen.

The_herd

08-09-2004, 09:42 PM

Look- the facts do not change. You have made no arguement other than repeatedly stating "he was a very good hitter, but not a HOF." If we are debating whether he will get in the HOF, I would be inclined to agree with you, if only because a vast portion of reporters are dyed in the wool luddites who think of no statistic beyond the Triple Crown categories- but the debate if whether he should be.

I'm a fan of OPS, but I don't use it as the only stick to measure whether or not someone should be in the HOF. You have to look at the entire picture, and the Triple Crown stats are part of it. He won't get in and I don't think its because sports writers don't look at OPS, its because he just wasn't good enough to get into the hall.

jetpunk2000

08-09-2004, 09:43 PM

clintl

08-09-2004, 09:45 PM

I disagree, I don't think the worst players should establish the benchmark. However, Aadik wasn't using borderline HOF'ers in his example. He was using bona fide Hall of Famers to compare Martinez to, and Edgar stacked up pretty well to them.

And count me in the 'Bagwell on First Ballot' debate. He had 2 or 3 of the most impressive park-adjusted offensive seasons of all-time and put up phenomenal numbers considering he played the majority of his career in the Astrodome.

I agree with you about Edgar. I'm just saying that here's what voters are going to do somewhere down the line - maybe not until his eligibility is almost up, but at some point, and say, look, Edgar really was a better player than Tony Perez, and he really was better than Orlando Cepeda. If they belong, he belongs. Or, they're not going to come to that conclusion, and not elect him. It's not necessarily what should establish the benchmark, but it is what in reality does establish the benchmark.

The_herd

08-09-2004, 09:45 PM

By the way, just checked Jeremy Brown's stats the other day...hitting about .259 at AA.

WAAAAYYYYY off topic here, just wanted to say I'm going to watch his fat ass play against the San Antonio Missions this friday. If I hadn't read moneyball I probably would be skipping this series. :D

Ksyrup

08-09-2004, 09:45 PM

Why are you so quick to dismiss OPS+? It's almost as if you're saying, 'I don't care what the facts are, I know the answer'. You keep saying that Edgar's performance is not impressive when compared to his peers, but that is exactly what OPS+ measures - how he performed against the league average.

The fact that he performed more than 50% better than the average player is pretty impressive, regardless whether you want to recognize it or not.I'm saying that his OPS+ doesn't outweigh the fact that he was a full-time DH who played only 11 full seasons. Not enough, IMO, OPS+ notwithstanding. A player should be dominant for a period of years, and those who get to completely ignore one facet of the game should be held to a higher standard.

I think Bagwell has a good chance of getting in, but I don't know if it'll be first-ballot. Depends on who he's up against 5 years after his retirement. I also doubt sports writers will look at much more than the fact that he may end up with fewer HRs than Jose Canseco. Not that I think that matters, but look at the Fred McGriff articles.

Crapshoot

08-09-2004, 09:47 PM

OK, I'm not totally old school nor do I have a tremendous hatred for Sabermetrics or Billy Beane and "Moneyball", but can anyone tell me how many playoff series have been won by these "Moneyball" teams, and how many teams following this blueprint that don't employ pitchers named Mulder, Zito and Hudson have actually made the playoffs? Sorry to threadjack, but it seems like all the new age stat followers are trying to make a point here. By the way, just checked Jeremy Brown's stats the other day...hitting about .259 at AA.

I simply do not know how to respond to this. I could attempt to explain the point "Moneyball" was trying to make, but I doubt Mr Punk has read the book. I could explain the idea that evaluating a team without 3 of its best players is like evaluating the Giants without Bonds and Schmidt, or the Yankees without Sheffield, Vasquez , and A-rod. I could explain the rate at which minor leaguers make the majors in general (1 to 14). I could explain the fact that a 5 game series is essentialy a crapshoot. Somehow, I doubt, despite all that, that Mr PUnk would listen.

Buccaneer

08-09-2004, 09:50 PM

The_herd is reiterating a long-standing opinion of mine. When forums talk about who should go in the Hall, they come up with a laundry list of marginal eligible players. The argument I have seen centers around that player X is better than some of those in the Hall and such. I believe the Hall has too many non-great players. Gross mistakes were made in the past and I guess we can't throw anyone out if they're already in. But in all that is holy, please do not continue to add to the list of marginal (yet, below great) players. Edgar is a perfect example, along with Sandberg, Santo, etc. To me, a player much have at least 10 great seasons. If that only allows a handful of players to be inducted per decade, that would be perfect. To drive home the point - I can count only 4 current players who should be in the HoF. I don't want to encourage diluting the HoF even more.

Crapshoot

08-09-2004, 09:51 PM

I'm saying that his OPS+ doesn't outweigh the fact that he was a full-time DH who played only 11 full seasons. Not enough, IMO, OPS+ notwithstanding. A player should be dominant for a period of years, and those who get to completely ignore one facet of the game should be held to a higher standard.

I think Bagwell has a good chance of getting in, but I don't know if it'll be first-ballot. Depends on who he's up against 5 years after his retirement. I also doubt sports writers will look at much more than the fact that he may end up with fewer HRs than Jose Canseco. Not that I think that matters, but look at the Fred McGriff articles.

That is a different arguement than arguing he wasnt a good enough hitter- and a legitimate one, IMO. My counter arguement is to point out just how dominant he was offensively (look at the career OPS+ list, and look and see how many HOF of little or no defensive value are below him
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/OPSplus_career.shtml)
and you see where Im coming from.

Again, with bagwell, whether he will get in is entirely different from if the writers will vote him in- we are to my knowledge, only debating the former.

Hammer755

08-09-2004, 09:51 PM

I'm saying that his OPS+ doesn't outweigh the fact that he was a full-time DH who played only 11 full seasons. Not enough, IMO, OPS+ notwithstanding. A player should be dominant for a period of years, and those who get to completely ignore one facet of the game should be held to a higher standard.

I think Bagwell has a good chance of getting in, but I don't know if it'll be first-ballot. Depends on who he's up against 5 years after his retirement. I also doubt sports writers will look at much more than the fact that he may end up with fewer HRs than Jose Canseco. Not that I think that matters, but look at the Fred McGriff articles.
OK, thanks for explaining your position on Edgar's numbers. I can understand the viewpoint that his numbers don't overcome the fact that he was a DH, and it really is a judgement call.

As for Bagwell, I think you're right and he will not go in on the first ballot. That fact goes right along with what clintl said - a lot of times (especially when dealing with sportswriters) what should happen and what actually happen are entirely different things.

clintl

08-09-2004, 09:51 PM

Not really. Perez got in for the teams he played on and the fact that he had people like Joe Morgan complaining every year that he wasn't in.

Martinez won't have such things.

It would not surprise me to see fifteen years from now some combination of A-Rod, Griffey, and Randy Johnson (all of whom will be slam-dunk first ballot electees) campaigning to get Edgar in if he hasn't been elected by then.

Ksyrup

08-09-2004, 09:51 PM

Examine this statement rationally: you are here arguing that evaluating Edgar MArtinez against his league is flawed because it was the juiced ball era. If eDgar martinez was 50% better than the league before the "juiced ball" (extremely debatable as it is , but that's a side point) era, he's liable to be %50 better after the goddamn thing- which is exacly what OPS+ is measuring ! Hell, given that he was less of a power hitter, one could even argue that if juiced ball allegations are true, it hurt Edgar more in his context vis-a-vis the league.

Closing your ears and dismissing the methodolgy out of hand does not make sense to me- give me a rational arguement with some backup as to why OPS+ is not a good measure- I'll gladly listen.
As I've repeatedly indicated - longevity.

I also think you simply cannot dismiss certain stats, even though they are context-specific. Two pitchers with similar "secondary stats," but one of whom had 50-100 more career wins, should get in while the other one either shouldn't, or is borderline. That's the way it should work. Guys get the benefit of the teams they played on. If Greg Maddux played on shitty teams for his whole career and ended up with 200 wins instead of 300, do you think he'd get in?

Those numbers should be looked at secondarily, but they should matter. A guy with more RBIs should get in, all things being equal.

Ksyrup

08-09-2004, 10:00 PM

That is a different arguement than arguing he wasnt a good enough hitter- and a legitimate one, IMO. My counter arguement is to point out just how dominant he was offensively (look at the career OPS+ list, and look and see how many HOF of little or no defensive value are below him
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/OPSplus_career.shtml)
and you see where Im coming from.

Again, with bagwell, whether he will get in is entirely different from if the writers will vote him in- we are to my knowledge, only debating the former.Even if we acknowledge how dominant he was, though, it was only for about 7 years, and again, he was a DH. Let's just put Edgar in context, compared with a guy who definnitely isn't getting in, at least any time soon - Dale Murphy. OPS+ of 121, not up to Edgar's numbers, sure. But they had about the same number of complete seasons, and Murphy won 2 MVP awards (something you may discount, but you cannot deny that they mean something in determining who should get into the HoF). Plus, the guy was a Gold Glove CF.

Comparing the two, I'd consider them at worst even. Clearly, Murphy wasn't the hitter that Edgar was (they had about the same number of hits, but Murphy had 1000 more ABs), but all things considered, you could argue Murphy is the better candidate, given his MVP awards and defense. And even if you consider Edgar the better candidate, extrapolating Murphy's HoF vote totals wouldn't get Edgar anywhere near the Hall.

Crapshoot

08-09-2004, 10:02 PM

As I've repeatedly indicated - longevity.

I also think you simply cannot dismiss certain stats, even though they are context-specific. Two pitchers with similar "secondary stats," but one of whom had 50-100 more career wins, should get in while the other one either shouldn't, or is borderline. That's the way it should work. Guys get the benefit of the teams they played on. If Greg Maddux played on shitty teams for his whole career and ended up with 200 wins instead of 300, do you think he'd get in?

Those numbers should be looked at secondarily, but they should matter. A guy with more RBIs should get in, all things being equal.

All things being equal- yes. Equal opportunities, an equal rate of conversion, and then I would agree with you wholeheartedly. I think for fans of RBI, a better way to measure it is to total the number of runners on base for a hitter cumulatively, divided by the amount of AB (not PA's- important), to get his opportunity rate- then take his RBI's and divide by AB's (minus those achieved by being walked in) - and divide the latter by the former. You have to drop the situations where he is walked to get the result you're looking for- even if its a bit of a junk stat, its more useful than plain RBI's.

To simplify:

(No of RBI by hitter in AB's/ Cumulative No of Runner on Base for hitters AB's) * a fixed Ab number - like say 500. Would provide a better context of who drives in who.

Crapshoot

08-09-2004, 10:04 PM

Ksyrup

08-09-2004, 10:06 PM

VPI97

08-09-2004, 10:12 PM

I believe the Hall has too many non-great players. Gross mistakes were made in the past and I guess we can't throw anyone out if they're already in.Ditto. The mere fact that people are even discussing Edgar Martinez to the HOF should be an indicator that the HOF isn't about the upper echelon of players anymore.

Crapshoot

08-09-2004, 10:14 PM

Even if we acknowledge how dominant he was, though, it was only for about 7 years, and again, he was a DH. Let's just put Edgar in context, compared with a guy who definnitely isn't getting in, at least any time soon - Dale Murphy. OPS+ of 121, not up to Edgar's numbers, sure. But they had about the same number of complete seasons, and Murphy won 2 MVP awards (something you may discount, but you cannot deny that they mean something in determining who should get into the HoF). Plus, the guy was a Gold Glove CF.

Comparing the two, I'd consider them at worst even. Clearly, Murphy wasn't the hitter that Edgar was (they had about the same number of hits, but Murphy had 1000 more ABs), but all things considered, you could argue Murphy is the better candidate, given his MVP awards and defense. And even if you consider Edgar the better candidate, extrapolating Murphy's HoF vote totals wouldn't get Edgar anywhere near the Hall.

In 1983, Murhpy probably deserved the award- but he finished with an OPS+ of 150- thus his best year, he was about as much better than the league as Edgar was on average. In 1982 , he finished 7th in OPS, 10th in OBP, but won a gold glove (albeit from the same group that gave Rafeal Palmerio a GG for playing 28 games) - he was pretty damn good, but its hard pressed to declare him a clear cut MVP. His OPS+ of 142 indicated that he was 42% better than the league- again, well below Edgar'd average performance.

Edgar martinez' peak years were 95, 96, and 97 - when he had OPS+ 0f 183, 166, and 167 respectively- He led the league in OPS in 1995 when the far less deserving Mo Vaughan won. A writers mistake then should not be used as evidence for a mistake now. In those 3 years, he was on average, 70 percent better than the league- that's pretty damn amazing.

btw, where do you get 7 years ? From 1990 to 2001, he had exactly one seaon where his OPS+ was below 120 (thus below Murphy's average) which was one in which he was injured most of the season- in the relatively full seasons he played during that period, his lowest OPS+ was 121- in the season immdediately after, where he missed a good part of the season. Every other season had an OPS+ of at least 130. That's 9 years by my count of dominanace - hell, even his 2002 and 2003 (OPS+ of 144 and 139 respectively) were better than all but 1 of Murhpy's career years. The difference between Edgar was closer to Ted Williams offensively than Murphy was to him.

The_herd

08-09-2004, 10:17 PM

The difference between Edgar was closer to Ted Williams offensively than Murphy was to him.

Excuse me, my heart just about exploded.

Crapshoot

08-09-2004, 10:17 PM

I was looking for a stat like that, but couldn't readily find it. I do remember reading in ESPN the Mag last year RBI % rates for MVP candidates. I think that would be a useful stat - % of runners driven in above league norm. Then, you could account for who is better at driving in runs, rather than simply looking at the raw number - an OPS+ of sorts for traditional stat fans.

na- what you would need is something that looks at the conversion rate of runners on base to RBI's, subtracting the situations where the hitter gets walked or HBP- that would give you the measure closest to what you're apparently looking for.

Crapshoot

08-09-2004, 10:19 PM

Excuse me, my heart just about exploded.

Im sorry - I hope you feel better. without taking defensive value into account- that's what we're looking at.

Ksyrup

08-09-2004, 10:20 PM

Crapshoot

08-09-2004, 10:23 PM

The 7 years I'm counting are the 7 full years he played as a DH. H had 3 or 4 additional full years (depending on how you count the strike year) as a 3B.

And again, I think you have to give guys credit for being voted MVP, deserving or not. Edgar was never considered a real MVP candidate in any year - I think he finished third one year, and only one other time was in the top 10 in voting. Even Rob Neyer and Bill James look ar those kinds of things in evaluating players. I agree that Edgar should have been considered more often, but the fact that he wasn't has to be taken into consideration.

K, think about this- is the HOF for the players who were the best, or who were percieved as the best ? Fundementally, you're arguing that two wrongs make a right -the writers didnt consider him properly before, and they wont consider him now because they didnt consider him before- that's seems flawed. a more rational way to measure it would be to correct for that flaw, would'nt you think ?

Ksyrup

08-09-2004, 10:44 PM

No, because I believe perception properly plays a role in determining who were the best players in baseball. And like I said, this isn't some off-the-wall argument, Neyer and James look at times voted for top 10 in MVP in determining whether a guy was dominant during his career.

It's only a piece of the puzzle, anyway, so it doesn't serve to automatically disqualify a guy, but again, in comparing players, I believe history matters. And when looking at history, Dale Murphy won 2 MVP awards and Edgar Martinez barely got within sniffing distance of 1. That should matter. Otherwise, you're arguing that what occurred is irrelevant, and that's just not right, regardless of what the pure numbers suggest.

Like it or not, it matters how many MVP award were won, how many times voted an All-Star, etc. You can't ignore a league's stars simply because their numbers don't mathematically justify where history places them in comparison with their peers. That's where you have to make an allowance for what history says about a particular player. You can argue for or against a guy based on the numbers, but ultimately, the secondary issues have to be weighed in favor or against a guy. If the numbers are enough to justify including or leaving someone out, even factoring in the human biases, fine.

Teddyballgame

08-09-2004, 10:55 PM

I have yet to see a qualified argument against OPS+. It' an adjusted stat, it is compared to a league average. Therefore, we are comparing Martinez to players with the similar advantage of him, playing in the current era, if you want to define it as an advantage. He is at the top of OPS+ lists when compared to similarly modern day players. Therefore, if we want to use the juiced ball era as evidence against Martinez, we must be prepared to tread a slippery slope.

The DH argument may have its merits to some, I suppose I can understand the argument slightly. But what do we do with a similar hitter to Martinez who plays RF with zero range? Does he get bonus points for "simply trying" or is horrible fielding held against him as much as being a DH?

oykib

08-09-2004, 11:32 PM

The DH argument and the longevity/durability argument are the only things that can be used against Edgar. As a hitter, his numbers clearly put him in the upper tier of the HoF. Of course those two arguments are pretty compelling.

I'm a pretty big believer in OPS+, particularly the OBP part of it. But the truth is that a .300 hitter with a .350 OBP is probably worth more than a .285 hitter with a .360 OBP-- assuming that you could count on the BA to remain consistant, which you can't. Putting the ball in play succesfully is more valuable than getting walks. NOt much more valuable, but somwhat more valuable.

Bucc-- only four Hall of Famers? Which Baseball league have you been watching?!
1. Bonds
2. Clemens
3. Maddux
4. Piazza
5. Johnson
5. A-Rod
6. Griffey
7. Sosa
8. Glavine
9. Pudge
10. Pedro Martinez

That's if they retire tomorrow.
If we included a normal career progression:

11. Mariano Rivera
12. Frank Thomas
13. Jeff Bagwell
14. Vladimir Guerrero
15. Roberto Alomar

That's just off the top of my head.

clintl

08-09-2004, 11:38 PM

15. Roberto Alomar

That's just off the top of my head.

I'd move Alomar up to your first list. He was by far the best 2B in the game for a long, long time, and has easily done enough to make it from the position he played.

Suicane75

08-10-2004, 01:04 AM

I'd move Alomar up to your first list. He was by far the best 2B in the game for a long, long time, and has easily done enough to make it from the position he played.

No he hasn't.

Hammer755

08-10-2004, 01:17 AM

No he hasn't.
That's a convincing argument, but I'll have to disagree.

Lifetime OPS+ of 117, nearly 500 SB at an 80% success rate, 10 Gold Gloves, 12 All-Star appearances. Pretty much the best all-around 2B in the game for around 10 years, and (should-be) cinch 1st Ballot HOF'er.

A couple of comparators that I like to use at BBRef (http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/alomaro01.shtml):

HOF Standards: Batting - 54.9 (44) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 193.5 (37) (Likely HOFer > 100)

oykib

08-10-2004, 04:21 AM

I think Alomar has done enough. But the spitting incident and his time with the Mets need to be washed out of the mouth of many of the writers. If he were to end this year well, it would probably clear that up some.

Reasonably, Frank Thomas should be on the first list, too. If he gets to 500 homers it'd be impossible to keep him out. Everyone on both of my lists is a HoFer AFAIC. I'd include Bernie Williams on the second list if he didn't seem to have fallen off the Earth since last year. He's the obvious example for why Jeter's not on my list also. Both he and Jeter have been slightly better in the postseason as opposed to the regular season. Considering how many games that they've played in the postseason, the core Yankees all have essentially an extra season each. Williams is one good season out. Jeter is about two. In that vein, here's my list of guys that are one or two good seasons away:

1. Jim Thome
2. Kevin Brown
3. Rafael Palmiero (only his immense amount of time as a DH keeps him out now, if anything)
4. Chipper Jones
5. Brian Giles
6. Manny Ramirez
7. Curt Schilling
8. John Smotz (2 yrs. as a starter or 4 as a closer)
9. Craig Biggio

And I somehow left out Barry Larkin from my original list of active guys who are already in.

Ragone

08-10-2004, 04:55 AM

Scratch Giles.. playing for low profile teams will probably keep him out..

k0ruptr

08-10-2004, 05:43 AM

big frank for sure...

Ksyrup

08-10-2004, 07:02 AM

The DH argument may have its merits to some, I suppose I can understand the argument slightly. But what do we do with a similar hitter to Martinez who plays RF with zero range? Does he get bonus points for "simply trying" or is horrible fielding held against him as much as being a DH?Generally speaking, I'd look at it like this:

Bonus points for good-to-great fielders
Status quo for marginal/average fielders
Negative points for bad/non-fielders

The exact number of points I'd give or take away would be dependent on the position and how good/bad the fielder was. A good CF might be worth as much as a very good RF, for example. OR SS and C would rate higher than 1B or 2B.

Edgar loses points for sitting on his ass for 8 years while others played the field. Who knows, maybe playing 1B or 3B every day during the 90's would have worn him down, and we would have seen him retire 2 years earlier. Then what would his career numbers look like? I think that's a valid concern, and one that should be taken into consideration.

I'm not saying DHs shouldn't make the HoF - it is a legit position, and qualified players should be eligible for the HoF. Like in football, I can't believe there's never been a punter elected - that's bullshit. But at the same time, I'm not allowing in someone who played a "speciality position" who put up career numbers similar to regular players. A DH would have to make up for that with an extended period of greatness and a long career. Even assuming Edgar was great for about 8 or so years, that just doesn't cut it for me.

Look at Jim Rice - longer career than Edgar (14 seasons of 400 or more ABs vs. 11), 128 career OPS+, rates favorably on 3 of the 4 Hall tests, only one year where he was primarily the DH, so he played the field the vast majority of the time...not in. If he isn't in, Edgar shouldn't be in.

Or put another way, they're both marginal cases, and I don't see an argument that Edgar is clearly a HoF. Edgar had several HoF-worthy seasons, but that doesn't make him an automatic entry into the HoF.

oykib

08-10-2004, 07:44 AM

Scratch Giles.. playing for low profile teams will probably keep him out..

That's why I say two more good seasons. After time passes, numbers win out. Playing on Bad teams didn't keep Ralph Kiner out.

If he has a couple more like the seasons that he put up between 1998 and 2002, we're going to be looking at a guy who retires with an OPS in the mid to high 900s and heavily weighted with OBP-- while being 50% better than the league average. His counting stats won't look all that great. But by the time he's voted on, the mindset of the voters will changed some (becoming more sabermetrically inclined).

Ksyrup

08-10-2004, 07:52 AM

Giles better hope they do something with Petco Park, then. He's got an .820 OPS this year.

WSUCougar

08-10-2004, 08:26 AM

I agree with the point about not diluting the HOF, but I find it interesting that virtually every argument being made about Edgar is penalizing him for being a DH. I think it should benefit him. Why is it that most people insist on measuring him exclusively as a "hitter" and not by position? In other words, why compare players hitting stats as if they are all in the same category?

My point is that he is THE dominant DH of his era. I think if you asked players, managers, baseball writers, and fans who the best DH is ever, a vast majority would say Edgar Martinez (Don Baylor being the other likely answer). As I said earlier, I despise the DH rule, but it exists, and he is/was the best one around. And that is a definition of fame.

Perhaps there should be a wing of the HOF for things that don't fall into cookie-cutter player molds. Mention Edgar as a player who dominated a position that isn't really a position like the rest.

I dunno.

oykib

08-10-2004, 08:26 AM

Interesting note on the BR Jim Edmonds page. The sponsor didcation goes:

"As much as I loved Willie McGee, here's to the best Cardinal outfielder in history! Please click on my E-Bay link for historical Cardinals memorabilia or vintage auto parts. I love both cars and Cards !!GOD BLESS THE USA!!"

I guess this is one of those cardinals fans that has never heard of Stan Musial.

Unless, of course, he's talking about defense. In which case Curt Flood and Andy Van Slyke have also played for the Cards.

WSUCougar

08-10-2004, 08:52 AM

ISiddiqui

08-10-2004, 09:02 AM

Let's look at the HOF standards on baseball reference for old Edgar:

Black Ink: Batting - 20 (102) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 107 (190) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 48.1 (79) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 128.5 (96) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Except for the HOF Monitor he's below the average HOFer in every other measure. Seeing as how we agree there are plenty of players who we don't think should be in a Hall of Fame, I'd imagine anyone new should be 'above average' of who is in the HoF.

sterlingice

08-10-2004, 10:13 AM

Where do you get this stuff ? Martinez ranks 17th all time- think about that. Since 1900, given 8000 or so pA, only 10 or so players have had a higher OBP, and only 25 or so players have had a higher OPS+ (OPS adjusted for league context). If youre making a case regarding defense- that's another point, but on offensive value, Martinez is better than a lot of what is already in the HOF- hell, as a hitter, he's better than 40-50% of them. Dont ignore the evidence- we are in an era where we are seeing 3 of the greatest pitchers of all time (Maddux, Clemens, and Pedro), the second greatest or greatest player of all time (Bonds), and some of the best talent baseball has ever seen- there has never been an era quite as plentiful.
Where do I get this stuff? It's simple, you're only using one metric and there is no one metric that ensure entry into the Hall of Fame. Yes, he has great rate statistics. However, his counting statics are well below HoF standards. He just didn't play long enough. Your other "no doubt" HoFer, Bagwell, as much as I love him is no lock for the Hall by any stretch right now for the same reason. While they both have high rate stats, they are lacking longevity.

Let's look at Edgar first. He only has 14 seasons and 3 of those were marred by injury so he played under 100 games. Dismiss this as "the longevity argument" all you want, but that is going to be at the heart of any non-DH argument out there and you don't have a good counter for it. Except for very special cases, you have to put in 15 good years or 10 really good years. He has neither of these.

Also, you can't casually omit RBIs or any other stat as you and others have in trying to defend him just using one single statistic. Sabermetrics are a wonderful tool but they aren't the only thing. No, you don't have to have have 500 homers and 3000 hits and, hell, I couldn't even tell you some limit to RBIs. However, you are talking about a player who had a short career and so he barely has 2000 hits, 1200 RBIs, 500 doubles, and 300 homers. None of these are HoF numbers by themself or even together.

He didn't play long enough so he needed to have historically great seasons to make up for a lack of longevity and he only had very good seasons. He doesn't have one of the top 100 OPS+ seasons. The threshold for that is 190 and his best season was 183, a really good season but I'm guessing that's at least the 200th or 300th best season of all time, at least. Beyond that, he has 5 in the 160s and those are down in the thousands. That's 7 really good seasons but falls well short of the requisite 10 I was using for a measure.

Look- the facts do not change. You have made no arguement other than repeatedly stating "he was a very good hitter, but not a HOF." If we are debating whether he will get in the HOF, I would be inclined to agree with you, if only because a vast portion of reporters are dyed in the wool luddites who think of no statistic beyond the Triple Crown categories- but the debate if whether he should be.
Derek Zumsteg wrote a wonderful article on BP last year making a case for Edgar to be in the HoF, but even he had to warp quite a few of the Keltner List questions to accept Edgar. Again, not that the Keltner test is anywhere near a complete list or hard and fast rules but it's another black mark against him that he can't pass many of the questions without bending the rules.

Speaking of good articles on the matter, if someone has ESPNInsider and accidentally PMs me the Rob Neyer article from today on the topic, that would not be a tragedy. ;) But back to the topic at hand, even without reading the article, I don't think Rob Neyer is what you would call a "dyed in the wool luddite" and particularly not one "who think[s] of no statistic beyond the Triple Crown categories". Yet he's written an article defending his "no" decision.

Notice nowhere I've talked about his defense or lack thereof. Even if we are looking at his hitting alone, he just doesn't add up.

I'd really like to tackle the Bagwell question but I don't have time for that at the moment and want to get this out there for comsumption and ridicule. Maybe later tonight or tomorrow (maybe).

SI

Huckleberry

08-10-2004, 10:22 AM

Defensively, in my opinion, Edmonds is superior to all of the guys you mentioned.

Edmonds is the most overrated defensive outfielder in baseball.

:D

I'm serious about his defense and it dovetailed nicely with my earlier comments on Gwynn. Edmonds is great at highlight reel catches. Unfortunately, those are catches that Andruw Jones, Mike Cameron, Carlos Beltran, and others would have made in a standing position.

Easy Mac

08-10-2004, 10:44 AM

I don't really think Jeter has performed better in the postseason, I just think thats a reputation. He's performed almost exactly the same:

<table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 626pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="835"> <col style="width: 48pt;" width="64"> <col style="width: 50pt;" width="67"> <col span="11" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"> <tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt; width: 48pt;" height="17" width="64">
</td> <td class="xl26" style="width: 50pt;" width="67">PA/R</td> <td class="xl26" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">Avg</td> <td class="xl26" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">PA/HR</td> <td class="xl26" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">PA/RBI</td> <td class="xl26" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">PA/BB</td> <td class="xl26" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">PA/2B</td> <td class="xl26" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">PA/3B</td> <td class="xl26" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">PA/SB</td> <td class="xl26" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">PA/K</td> <td class="xl26" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">OBP</td> <td class="xl26" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">SLG</td> <td class="xl26" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">OPS</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl24" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Season</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="5.9643628509719226" x:fmla="=5523/926" align="right">5.964</td> <td x:num="0.317" align="right">0.317</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="43.488188976377955" x:fmla="=5523/127" align="right">43.488</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="8.9804878048780488" x:fmla="=5523/615" align="right">8.980</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="10.76608187134503" x:fmla="=5523/513" align="right">10.766</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="23.10878661087866" x:fmla="=5523/239" align="right">23.109</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="134.70731707317074" x:fmla="=5523/41" align="right">134.707</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="31.028089887640448" x:fmla="=5523/178" align="right">31.028</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="6.3264604810996561" x:fmla="=5523/873" align="right">6.326</td> <td x:num="0.38900000000000001" align="right">0.389</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="0.46200000000000002" align="right">0.462</td> <td x:num="0.85099999999999998" align="right">0.851</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl24" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">P-Season</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="6.4782608695652177" x:fmla="=447/69" align="right">6.478</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="0.314" align="right">0.314</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="34.384615384615387" x:fmla="=447/13" align="right">34.385</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="13.545454545454545" x:fmla="=447/33" align="right">13.545</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="10.642857142857142" x:fmla="=447/42" align="right">10.643</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="27.9375" x:fmla="=447/16" align="right">27.938</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="" align="right">149.000</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="34.384615384615387" x:fmla="=447/13" align="right">34.385</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="5.6582278481012658" align="right">5.658</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="0.38500000000000001" align="right">0.385</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="0.46899999999999997" align="right">0.469</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="0.85399999999999998" align="right">0.854</td> </tr></tbody> </table>

He performs almost exactly the same. He scores less, gets on base less, strikes out more, hits for a lower average, doubles less, steals less, triples less and drives in runs less. He walks almost the same amount and hits home runs a lot better. I can't find his postseason fielding, but offensively, all he does is turn up the power, but he isn't a noticeably better hitter.

oykib

08-10-2004, 10:54 AM

I don't really think Jeter has performed better in the postseason, I just think thats a reputation. He's performed almost exactly the same:

He performs almost exactly the same. He scores less, gets on base less, strikes out more, hits for a lower average, doubles less, steals less, triples less and drives in runs less. He walks almost the same amount and hits home runs a lot better. I can't find his postseason fielding, but offensively, all he does is turn up the power, but he isn't a noticeably better hitter.

Both he and Williams' rate stats in the postseason are marginally below their regular season stats. But these are from a sample group in which they only face the top three starters and top three relievers of the other top three teams from the AL or rhe best team in the NL. That makes them somewhat better IMO.

WSUCougar

08-10-2004, 11:02 AM

Edmonds is the most overrated defensive outfielder in baseball.

:D

I'm serious about his defense and it dovetailed nicely with my earlier comments on Gwynn. Edmonds is great at highlight reel catches. Unfortunately, those are catches that Andruw Jones, Mike Cameron, Carlos Beltran, and others would have made in a standing position.
Everyone says that about Edmonds regarding his "highlight" catches, but don't dismiss him for that. As someone who watches him on a regular basis I think that the guy is a phenomenal centerfielder. I agree that sometimes he dives for balls in a manner that appears "highlight" driven, but he's so good at it I think that he's doing it in a controlled manner as just another way to catch the ball. He tracks balls going back as well as anyone I've seen, and plays very shallow as a result. His ability to go up and over the fence to get balls is undeniable. His arm is vastly underrated...not only is it strong, but it's deadly accurate. He led the NL in assists last I'd heard. He also dekes baserunners very well. His only relative weakness, IMO, is that sometimes he gets non-chalant coming in on grounders and kicks them.

Huckleberry

08-10-2004, 11:04 AM

I agree that his arm is very good. And I don't mean to imply that he intentionally dives too much. It's merely the fact that he has to dive for balls that others can reach with much less effort. The ones that those guys dive for would have been well out of Edmonds' range.

sterlingice

08-10-2004, 11:20 AM

Unfortunately fielding stats are still in their relative infancy compared to pitching and, in particular, batting stats so all we really have as major stats are fielding percentage, zone rating, and range factor.

I checked the last 4 years in all 3 stats and he only appears in the top 5 of centerfielders once (2003 RF: 4th) This year he's not even in the top 10 in any of the three categories. While not definitive, it tends to bear out the assertion the many of the faster CFs approach balls on the trot and make routine catches on ones he has to dive for.

SI

WSUCougar

08-10-2004, 11:27 AM

Please give me a definition of zone rating and range factor. I know the terms and their general application, but what exactly do they measure (and how)?

sterlingice

08-10-2004, 11:52 AM

Please give me a definition of zone rating and range factor. I know the terms and their general application, but what exactly do they measure (and how)?
You'll quickly notice how these are flawed but they are good simple metrics.

Range Factor is (putouts + assisits)/(9 innings). The theory is that the higher a range factor, the more balls a player gets to and thus he is either faster or gets better reads on balls or both. Sounds good, but there's a lot of noise in a statistic like that (i.e. is your team comprised of mostly ground ball pitchers so the outfielders don't get as much work, etc).

Zone Rating is one I don't entirely understand. From what I do gather, STATS Inc divides the field into "zones" and keeps track of the percentage a fielder catches in that zone (i.e. a typical center fielder should catch balls between point X and point Y in a park and player Z caught 90% of the ones hit there so he has a .900 ZR)

SI

Hammer755

08-10-2004, 12:13 PM

Also, you can't casually omit RBIs or any other stat as you and others have in trying to defend him just using one single statistic.

I always find it funny when somebody resorts to this argument - You only look at a single stat!!! That is simply not true since OPS, & OPS+ especially, cannot rationally be considered a single stat. It is a combination of two statistics (OBP & SLG) that encompass virtually every single way a player can produce a run. It includes BB, HBP, 1B, 2B, 3B, & HR. The only thing that OPS does not capture is a player's ability to steal bases, and that is becoming less and less important in the modern game. OPS is just not a single statistic. And OPS+ is even better, as it is both park-adjusted and era-adjusted, which means you can more accurately compare players, both from the same era and different eras, against each other.

clintl

08-10-2004, 12:28 PM

I think OPS and OPS+ have some defects as stats, in that there are redundant components built into it, but among the easily comprenhensible stats, they are the two most comprehensive and useful in determining a player's overall offensive value.

HornedFrog Purple

08-10-2004, 12:31 PM

3. Rafael Palmiero (only his immense amount of time as a DH keeps him out now, if anything)

eh?

sterlingice

08-10-2004, 12:35 PM

I always find it funny when somebody resorts to this argument - You only look at a single stat!!! That is simply not true since OPS, & OPS+ especially, cannot rationally be considered a single stat. It is a combination of two statistics (OBP & SLG) that encompass virtually every single way a player can produce a run. It includes BB, HBP, 1B, 2B, 3B, & HR. The only thing that OPS does not capture is a player's ability to steal bases, and that is becoming less and less important in the modern game. OPS is just not a single statistic. And OPS+ is even better, as it is both park-adjusted and era-adjusted, which means you can more accurately compare players, both from the same era and different eras, against each other.
But it is only one stat. You are running all of those stats through one filter and coming up with a number. And it's not a be-all-end-all stat even if it does take a lot of things into account, it isn't a perfect weight. You could be using OPS+ or Win Shares or Runs Created or some other sabermetric and you still wouldn't convince me just by using one of those (tho WS is pretty darn good).

And there's still the problem that it's still a rate stat.

SI

Hammer755

08-10-2004, 12:41 PM

But it is only one stat. You are running all of those stats through one filter and coming up with a number. And it's not a be-all-end-all stat even if it does take a lot of things into account, it isn't a perfect weight. You could be using OPS+ or Win Shares or Runs Created or some other sabermetric and you still wouldn't convince me just by using one of those (tho WS is pretty darn good).

And there's still the problem that it's still a rate stat.

SI
I never said that it was the only stat that should be considered, just the best. Like clintl said, there are some holes in it, but it's the most comprehensive stat there is.

And why is the fact that it's a rate stat a problem? I think rate stats are far more accurate than cumulative stats.

clintl

08-10-2004, 12:54 PM

And why is the fact that it's a rate stat a problem? I think rate stats are far more accurate than cumulative stats.

Ah, the old "longetivity vs. peak value" debate.

Hammer755

08-10-2004, 01:08 PM

Ah, the old "longetivity vs. peak value" debate.
That's not necessarily what I was referring to. I was thinking more along the lines of single-season rather than career. Reading my post again, I can understand how it was misleading. I wholly think a player needs to have both solid cumulative stats and rate stats for a career to be considered a Hall of Famer. Where the cut-off line is for either is wholly subjective.

clintl

08-10-2004, 01:26 PM

Basically, I agree with you, Hammer, and you're right about the subjectivity, too. The reality is that the cutoff is wherever 75% of the voting members of the Baseball Writers of America say it is in a given year, and it's not entirely stats-based.

sterlingice

08-10-2004, 01:40 PM

I never said that it was the only stat that should be considered, just the best. Like clintl said, there are some holes in it, but it's the most comprehensive stat there is.

And why is the fact that it's a rate stat a problem? I think rate stats are far more accurate than cumulative stats. That's not necessarily what I was referring to. I was thinking more along the lines of single-season rather than career. Reading my post again, I can understand how it was misleading. I wholly think a player needs to have both solid cumulative stats and rate stats for a career to be considered a Hall of Famer. Where the cut-off line is for either is wholly subjective. Well, I'll agree with you on a lot of points. But these two posts answer each other. Why do I think OPS+ being a rate stats is a problem? It's not- you are correct in saying rate stats are better than cumulative stats for the most part. But both are important- you can't just look at rate stats.

So let's turn this around: the case for his HoF entry is based on two pillars: rate stats and the claim that he's the best DH ever and that's where I have problems. His cumulative stats are well below HoF level and he has no fielding or speed to augment his case. Even the claim that he's the best ever at his position is debateable (Frank Thomas, depending on how the rest of his career goes). But I think we can all agree on the fact that DH's have a different measure than the other positions just as closers are rated differently than starting pitchers.

SI

oykib

08-10-2004, 01:47 PM

eh?

Since he was 35 he's averaged 50 games a year as a DH. He's hit pretty close to 200 of his 550 homers in that stretch. People are going to remember that, as well as his salad days in Baltimore and Texas. I think he's a HoFer. But, he doesn't seem to be too sexy to the writers.

HornedFrog Purple

08-10-2004, 03:04 PM

He also won Gold Gloves at 1st base before the age of 35. It wasn't like he was chopped liver in the field ala Frank Thomas, his knees were just wearing down. Painting Palmeiro as a DH his entire career is a disservice.

There are many players who went to DH later in their career and couldn't hit their weight.

Hammer755

08-10-2004, 04:09 PM

Suicane75

08-10-2004, 04:16 PM

Does anyone have a problem with with things being reduced to numbers? I mean in a broad sense, obviously baseball is numbers oriented game when it comes to comparing players but when I see people saying this guy did this and this guy has that I sort of just shake my head. Jeff Bagwell had some great seasons, but no matter what numbers you throw at me, he isn't HOF in my book. I may have jumped on Alomar, so i went and looked at his numbers, and while I may have overreacted i saying he wasn't a HOF, he never once had 200 hits in a season, to me that puts him on the No side. And as for Brian Giles? WTF, why not just let Ron Gant and Brian Jordan in.

Hammer755

08-10-2004, 04:25 PM

stevew

08-10-2004, 04:32 PM

I think Martinez is being severely punished for being a DH in this thread. Being a full time DH has got to be hard. While other players get "in sync" with the game by playing in the field, the DH is essentially a full time PH.

clintl

08-10-2004, 04:33 PM

Alomar is a 12-time All-Star and 10-time Gold Glove winner. Although he doesn't look quite as good on some of the other standards, but he looks great on the Hall of Fame Monitor Standards with a score of 193, which puts him 5th or 6th all time among 2B, depending on how you classify Carew (behind Hornsby, Gehringer, Lajoie, Collins, Carew, and ahead of Frankie Frisch and Joe Morgan). No eligible player at ANY position with that high a score is not in the Hall of Fame. The highest Hall of Fame Monitor score for an eligible player not in the Hall is Ryne Sandberg's 157.

Put everything together, and I think you really have to search for a reason not to induct Alomar. Alomar is not even a close call - he will get at least 85% on the first ballot, and if he can hang around long enough for his 3000th hit (and he's well within range), he'll get well over 90%.