Stone on Edgar’s HOF credentials

Dave · January 19, 2009 at 7:10 am · Filed Under Mariners 

Larry Stone has a piece on Edgar’s candidacy for the Hall of Fame – he’ll be eligible for the first time next year. Edgar seems destined to be the new Tim Raines/Bert Blyleven – the guy who has significant support from rabid supporters online, but not enough support from sports writers to get in. He’s definitely not getting in next year, and I have a feeling this will be a long process to get him to Cooperstown.

Comments

77 Responses to “Stone on Edgar’s HOF credentials”

  1. Mat on January 19th, 2009 3:24 pm

    True, but on the other hand McGwire was basically the best hitter in baseball his peak.

    Absolutely. I lean towards McGwire’s peak outweighing his lack of durability, but only three full seasons after the age of 28 doesn’t exactly scream HOF. You don’t need to be flawless to make the Hall, though.

  2. rick m on January 19th, 2009 3:24 pm

    I count the following retired players who have a lifetime OPS greater than Edgar’s and are not in the HOF:

    Mark McGwire
    Larry Walker
    Jeff Bagwell
    Lefty O’Doul
    Joe Jackson
    Albert Belle

    It seems to me that a lifetime OPS of .933 merits HOF. In fact, there are only 64 players with a lifetime OPS at or above .900. Edgar is at #34 all time OPS.

    It’s interesting that all of those on the list, except for Bagwell are “questionable”: McGwire, Walker (Coors field), Jackson (gambling, shortened career), Belle (unlikeable, shortened career), O’Doul (shortened career). And then Edgar (DH).

  3. Mat on January 19th, 2009 3:31 pm

    Edgar’s problem is not was not as good as Jim Thome, he was not as good as Frank Thomas, and he certainly was not as good as Jeff Bagwell, and he will be sharing the ballot with those players.

    Also Gary Sheffield, who was nearly as good a hitter, played longer, and had a lot more positional value. And I can’t really see arguing for Edgar and then against Jason Giambi.

  4. Pete Livengood on January 19th, 2009 4:22 pm

    JI wrote:

    “Edgar’s problem is not was not as good as Jim Thome, he was not as good as Frank Thomas, and he certainly was not as good as Jeff Bagwell…”

    These players should all make the HoF, so what’s the problem? Their inclusion is not an argument for Edgar’s exclusion. In fact, these players are all similar enough as to be good comps for each other.

    The reality is that these players all had better power than Edgar did, Edgar was a more well-rounded offensive player than any of them. All of them struck out more than Edgar (Thome signifcantly more – nearly 1000 more Ks) and (with the exception of Thome, whose Ks more than make up the difference) grounded into signficantly more double plays. Of this group, only Edgar appears in the Top 100 all-time in every major career rate stat – AVG, OBP, SLG, OPS+, Off Win % (although admittedly each of them appears in 4 of 5). By B-R’s new “AIR” measure (which attempts to measure the historical offensive environment – era, league, and ballpark – a player played in relative to others), Thome was also significantly helped by when and where he played relative to the others (who also played in better than average settings). Most of these guys had either home/road, or platoon splits that revealed some weakness as a hitter. Not Edgar.

    Bottom line is, approximately 17,000 men have played MLB. Being in the top 100 career in any stat means you are in the top one-half of one percent or so of all players who’ve ever played. Do you know how rare it is to appear in the top 100 of all five of the important (and adjusted) rate stats? Among all hitters with at least 3000 PA, only 23 have done that. Of those, 15 are already in the HoF, one (Joe Jackson) is ineligible, three are active but probably locks to be in the HoF when eligible (Pujols, Helton, Manny), one is retired but will get at least strong consideration (Larry Walker), and two are not in (Lefty O’Doul – who because of injuries and position change played less than 1000 games and had fewer than 1150 hits; and Ken Williams, who had less than 5000 AB, and fewer than 1550 hits and 550 XBH).

    The only other player on that list is Edgar. that is extremely elite company.

    It really comes down to what kind of a HoF you believe we should have. Many people seem to think only the Ruths, Gehrigs, Aarons, and Mays’ of the world are deserving of enshrinement (to exaggerate a bit). Advocating for a very exclusive HoF is a defensibile position – but it isn’t reality (as Jim Rice’s induction should prove once again). In the HoF as it is actually comprised, there is no doubt that Edgar’s numbers make him an extremely worthy candidate.

    And Mat wrote:

    DH’s give their team even less defensive value than first basemen or corner outfielders.

    Really? How is that so – DHs by defninition give their teams no defensive value, while some players (including two I’ve already mentioned who are almost certainly HoF bound – Manny, and the Big Hurt) have actually had negative defensive value to their teams. In other words, had they been able to DH (and Thomas was famously unable to do so well, or at least as well as he hit while playing the field), that would have been the only way they could have provided “defensive value” to their teams. And yet, we give them a boost over a DH because they played the field? That makes no sense.

  5. Coolalvin206 on January 19th, 2009 4:28 pm

    Edgar joins 5 other players with a lifetime BA of .300 or better,OBP of over .400 ,SLG of over .500,2000 hits, 300 HR’s, 500 doubles and 1000 walks.

    The other 5? All HOF’s. Williams,Ruth,Musial,Hornsby and Musial.

    Nuff said! Good luck Edgar!

  6. Coolalvin206 on January 19th, 2009 4:30 pm

    That last one is supposed to be Gehrig

  7. Mat on January 19th, 2009 4:52 pm

    Really? How is that so – DHs by defninition give their teams no defensive value, while some players (including two I’ve already mentioned who are almost certainly HoF bound – Manny, and the Big Hurt) have actually had negative defensive value to their teams.

    There is an opportunity cost involved in putting a player at DH. The root of Boston’s problem with Manny the last few years wasn’t Manny–it was David Ortiz, the player who they were even less willing to let wear a glove than Manny. Given equal offensive performance, a DH is worth less to his team than a left fielder or first baseman is, even poor-fielding left fielders or first basemen.

    The offensive bar should absolutely be higher at DH than it is for any other position. (And for that matter, the bar for HOF first basemen is already probably lower than it should be.)

  8. Pete Livengood on January 19th, 2009 5:03 pm

    Mat, that is more a problem of roster construction than it is an opportunity cost (can you think of another team with a Manny-Ortiz situation? I can’t), but OK. I don’t disagree that the bar should be higher for a DH, generally – but only a little higher, and judged within proper context rather than as a black-white rule.

    We can now measure defensive value reasonably well. If two guys are equal offensive players, and one is a DH and the other is a LF with negative defensive value, I think it is a poor idea to make that DH’s “bar” much higher than that LF. And there are PLENTY of those types, with little to no defensive value, in the HoF already.

    Besides, the main point of my earlier post was to focus on the elite company Edgar keeps offensively. If the bar must be higher for him, take a closer look. He’s cleared it.

  9. rick m on January 19th, 2009 5:26 pm

    One stat I find real impressive regarding Edgar is that he’s constantly compared to players with “old player skills” but hitting over .300 every year from age 32-38 (and .294 at age 40, as a righty in Safeco field) doesn’t suggest “old player” does it? Guys can get old and slug and walk their way to a .900 OPS. But how often at that age do they hit .300 in the meantime.? By comparison, Mickey Mantle last hit .300 at age 32.

    It suggests to me that Edgar was not only a great hitter, but is underappreciated as a great hitter.

  10. wabbles on January 19th, 2009 5:27 pm

    Well, it could be argued that DHs have as difficult a task as relief pitchers (which also were frowned upon for HOF induction until the uber-closers). Since they aren’t in the game full-time (relief pitchers aren’t in a regular rotation), maintaining their timing and eye for the ball arguably is more difficult. So despite not playing the field they have a challenge at their position. Also, it’s good to remember that the position was created to address pitchers’ inability to hit, not position players’ inability to field. The latter was just gravy, allowing the Paul Molitors of the world to extend their careers. If Edgar had been in the NL, he would have played first base. Edgar didn’t become a full-time DH until he screwed up his hamstring in a Vancouver B.C. exhibition game prior to the 1993 season, Mike Blowers emerged at third base and Jim O’Brien flamed out as DH.

  11. Mat on January 19th, 2009 5:43 pm

    If the bar must be higher for him, take a closer look. He’s cleared it.

    I don’t think that is entirely obvious given his lack of longevity. I would be interested to see where Jay Jaffe’s JAWS puts Edgar, but I don’t think he’ll wind up as a no-doubter by that measure.

    I would lean towards including Edgar, but in general, I think there are already too many no-glove sluggers in the Hall and that the bar for first basemen and left fielders has been set too low relative to other positions.

  12. JMHawkins on January 19th, 2009 6:00 pm

    The offensive bar should be higher for a DH, but that’s fine. Edgar’s stats clear any reasonable bar you want to set. If you want to look beyond stats, he’s a man of outstanding character, one of the best hitters of his generation, and a big part of the “face of a franchise” for a decade.

    About the only reasons you can have for not including him are: you don’t like the DH, he never won a WS, he never won and MVP, or you think five mediocre seasons of padding counting stats are more important than eight exceptional years as one of the best players in the league. Is there a reason that doesn’t fall into one of those categories?

  13. JerBear on January 19th, 2009 6:09 pm

    [it’s been dealt with]

  14. TomTuttle on January 19th, 2009 6:58 pm

    What ticks me off about the whole thing is the main #1 reason why Edgar will not get votes for the HOF is only because he was a DH.

    Even though everybody who saw him play knows that when he was healthy, he was the greatest right handed hitter of his time. Plain and simple.

    If closers can get in the Hall of Fame, I sure as hell don’t know why a designated hitter can’t get in the Hall of Fame.

    I won’t be offended if people don’t vote for him on the first ballot, or even the second, third, or fourth ballots because of how long his HEALTHY career lasted, but I just can’t understand how you can’t elect designated hitters to the Hall of Fame.

    I guess this means we shouldn’t elect the best career American League pitchers to the Hall of Fame either since they didn’t bat in games except for interleague play

    And we shouldn’t elect Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine into the Hall of Fame because their numbers at the plate stunk and weren’t as good as Mike Hampton’s.

    C’mon guys. . .

  15. bookbook on January 19th, 2009 6:59 pm

    Edgar’s not as deserving as Santo, Raines, Blyleven, Grich, and Trammell IMHO, none of whom are getting in.

    He’s more deserving (by far) than Rice and Puckett, who are in.

    Will he get in? Probably not. Though it must be disconcerting how easy it is to make a team of non-HOFers who can beat several teams made up of folks on the inside.

  16. JI on January 19th, 2009 9:50 pm

    Re: Pete Livengood on January 19th, 2009 4:22 pm

    Whether or not it’s fair or logical, voters are going to compare him directly to his peers, and a crowded ballot is never a good thing, especially when you are up against 4 players at the same position.

    Edgar was certainly not a more well rounded hitter than Frank Thomas, at least until Frank’s bad body gave out on him, and it’s questionable whether he was a better offensive player than Bagwell; remember Bagwell played in the Astrodome for a long time and was good at stealing bases.

    Do you know how rare it is to appear in the top 100 of all five of the important (and adjusted) rate stats?

    It doesn’t really matter where he places on what list, all that matters is the sum of the value he added to his teams.


    Really? How is that so – DHs by defninition give their teams no defensive value, while some players (including two I’ve already mentioned who are almost certainly HoF bound – Manny, and the Big Hurt) have actually had negative defensive value

    A guy who can’t do anything but DH has even less defensive value than Manny Ramirez.

  17. Adam S on January 19th, 2009 10:26 pm

    While it’s possible Martinez could get 35% of the vote his first year, pick up 3-4% a year and eventually make it in, I don’t think it will happen. I think he’ll start in the teens or 20s and peak at 50%.

    It’s not the DH thing, it’s that his rate stats are very good, but not awesome given that he played a premium offensive position, and career is too short to have impressive totals. And in an offensive era, he falls short of his peers. And players like Edgar who were statistically good but not famous — Raines, Trammell, Blyleven, and others — have fared very poorly with HoF voters.

    I expect to take flak for this, but personally I don’t think Edgar was good enough overall to belong in the Hall of Fame when you compare him to his peers — 80s and 90s 1B/DH.

  18. Breadbaker on January 19th, 2009 10:38 pm

    A DH is a position on an American League (and every other non-NL league) team. If you have a DH who can play against righties and lefties and hit in the middle of the lineup and stay healthy and is capable of dealing with the mental difference between playing in the field and not (Frank Thomas never liked to DH), then you have a slot in the lineup you don’t have to worry about. The M’s struggles finding a fulltime DH after Edgar are not atypical; not many teams have solved the DH dilemma. The fact that Edgar could do it so well for so long was an advantage to the Mariners except during Interleague play in NL parks.

  19. dchappelle on January 20th, 2009 9:38 am

    Adam S… blasphemy! off with your head!

    Blasphemy – n. A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God or a sacred entity.

  20. Graham on January 20th, 2009 9:56 am

    It’s not the DH thing, it’s that his rate stats are very good, but not awesome given that he played a premium offensive position

    As a good friend of mine would say: Wizzle wozzle?

  21. Broadcast James on January 20th, 2009 10:43 am

    A guy who can’t do anything but DH has even less defensive value than Manny Ramirez.

    Did you watch any Mariners games this year??

    Also: 3-5=X… 3-0=Y… A.) X>Y B.) X=Y C.) X<Y

  22. JI on January 20th, 2009 10:59 am

    No, but I giffed a few key moments, such as:

    http://i27.tinypic.com/28akex2.jpg

  23. JMHawkins on January 20th, 2009 11:36 am

    Greg Maddux is a shoe-in for the HoF, we can all agree on that, right? First-ballot with people shaking their heads that it wasn’t unanimous.

    23 seasons, 355 wins, 3371 K, lifetime 3.16 ERA (132 ERA+), 4 Cy Youngs (plus 1 2nd place and 2 3rd places), 8 All-star games, a ring, 7 straight seasons with an ERA+ over 150, one of the great hurlers to play the game.

    But he’s been a slighly above-average pitcher since he turned 37. His last eight years were sans Cy Young consideration or All-Star appearances. In post-season appearances since 2000, he’s 1-3 with 3 NDs. Suppose he retired after 2002 when he was clearly no longer an elite pitcher but just a good one?

    17 years, 273 wins, 2748 Ks, still has the 4 Cy Youngs and the 7 straight years of ERA+ over 150. His counting stats are just barely better than Jamie Moyer’s (246 W, 2248 K), but clearly if Maddux had retired after 2002 he’d have been inducted last year based on those 7 years of dominance.

    Edgar likewise had seven straight years with an OPS+ over 150, and had only one less All-star appearance than Maddux. Now, I’m not claiming that Edgar in his prime was as dominant a DH as Maddux was a pitcher in his prime, but it was close, and Maddux in his prime was good enough to be a 1st Ballot guy even if he retired before his counting stats hit the magic 300 wins. Longevitiy doesn’t matter if you dominate the league for 7 years.

    Edgar perhaps isn’t a first-ballot HoF, but he’s definitely a HoF.

    Don’t like the Maddux comparison? Okay, Sandy Koufax. Six years as a dominant pitcher, solid rate stats, poor counting stats because his career was cut short. Does it count more for Koufax that his career was cut short on the back end than it does for Edgar that his was cut short on the front end?

  24. JI on January 20th, 2009 12:04 pm

    The problems here is you’re comparing Edgar to other DHs. You have to compare him to other great hitters and then adjust for defense.

  25. TranquilPsychosis on January 20th, 2009 12:21 pm

    And players like Edgar who were statistically good but not famous — Raines, Trammell, Blyleven, and others — have fared very poorly with HoF voters

    You can’t seriously be comparing Edgar’s career stats(.312 .418 .515 309hr) to Trammel’s (.285 .352 .415 185hr) and Raines’ (.294 .385 .425 170hr)can you?

    I’ll grant you that they were good, but significantly lower in all 4 stats than Edgar. So I’m not sure I see your arguement here.

  26. MKT on January 20th, 2009 3:02 pm

    What ticks me off about the whole thing is the main #1 reason why Edgar will not get votes for the HOF is only because he was a DH.

    No. His short career (and the consequent low counting stats) will be the main #1 reason why he will not get votes.

    Personally, I’m undecided but somewhat in favor of voting him in. But my guess is that the HoF voter won’t vote him in.

  27. bookbook on January 21st, 2009 5:44 am

    +And players like Edgar who were statistically good but not famous — Raines, Trammell, Blyleven, and others — have fared very poorly with HoF voters
    You can’t seriously be comparing Edgar’s career stats(.312 .418 .515 309hr) to Trammel’s (.285 .352 .415 185hr) and Raines’ (.294 .385 .425 170hr)can you?
    I’ll grant you that they were good, but significantly lower in all 4 stats than Edgar. So I’m not sure I see your arguement here.+
    Edgar would win a HR contest against both gentlemen. Trammell and Raines did at least as much to win their teams’ games as Edgar, probably more. You’re talking about a solid defensive SS and a speedy LF stolen base machine. You can’t just compare HR’s and OBP and say Edgar’s better. Edgar had much better hitting stats than Blyleven too!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.