Edgar’s HOF Vote Totals Increases Slightly

Dave · January 9, 2012 at 12:12 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

It’s Hall of Fame voting results day. Barry Larkin gets to celebrate while everyone else gets to wait another year, including Edgar. I’m not planning on writing a ton about this, because we’re probably a decade away from Edgar having any real shot of getting elected. It’s good news that his vote total rebounded from 32.9% to 36.5% after declining last year, but with the big wave of guys coming on the ballot beginning next year, he could very well drop back again in a year. He’s going to need those guys to all get out of his way before he has any real serious chance of election, so we’re probably looking at a 10+ year wait.

I think he deserves to get in. I hope he gets in someday. It just won’t be any time soon.


27 Responses to “Edgar’s HOF Vote Totals Increases Slightly”

  1. Mariners35 on January 9th, 2012 12:20 pm

    Any merit to trying to advance Edgar as an alternative or statement vote for people who don’t want to vote for players from the “steroid era”?

    Doesn’t get him in any quicker, of course, but I do wonder if it could be a talking point starting next year, since all credible accounts point to Edgar playing clean.

  2. lesch2k on January 9th, 2012 12:21 pm


    i hope that in ten years you are able to vote for Edgar. (if he’s on the ballot)

  3. Dave on January 9th, 2012 12:23 pm

    Any merit to trying to advance Edgar as an alternative or statement vote for people who don’t want to vote for players from the “steroid era”?

    Not really – in talking with several voters who are no on Edgar, they actually see him as a potential user. His late career development and post-30 power spike make him suspicious in their eyes. It’s kinda sad.

  4. Mariners35 on January 9th, 2012 12:27 pm

    Ugh, that’s really too bad. (The voters’ opinions, I mean.)

  5. CCW on January 9th, 2012 1:04 pm

    I think he deserves to get in, but not because I assume he’s clean. I don’t see how we can assume that. Many players were taking steroids during that time period, including a lot Mariners. Many weren’t. Maybe Edgar was. Maybe some of the other guys a lot of people assume were clean also took steroids (e.g. Griffey, Frank Thomas). We don’t know and never will. In my mind, the fairest approach is just to treat it as a high-offense era, and leave it at that. And even relative to the high-offense era in which he played, Edgar probably deserves induction (though I think it’s close).

  6. kinbote on January 9th, 2012 1:17 pm

    When I was growing up, the best RH hitters in baseball were Frank Thomas, Manny Ramirez, Mike Piazza, & Edgar. I think he belongs in the HOF.

  7. Paul B on January 9th, 2012 2:16 pm

    The depressing part is that the players who were new to the ballot this year were all clearly not HOF level players. And next year, I seem to recall that there are a whole bunch of first timers who will probably make it.

    Which is what Dave already said.

    I’ve never understood the changes over the years, how a player who is clearly good enough to be in the HOF doesn’t get enough votes for 10 years or so and then suddenly make it. I guess that says that a lot of the voters don’t do their homework.

  8. Evan on January 9th, 2012 3:02 pm

    Looking at the results, I think Edgar has a really good shot. Trammell is going to drop off before too long, Raines will make it, Morris will either get in or go away soon. There aren’t that many people left in front of Edgar.

  9. Jamison_M on January 9th, 2012 3:13 pm

    There aren’t that many people left in front of Edgar.

    But, in the next three years there will be some huge names showing up on the ballot so guys like Roger Clemens, Tom Glavine, Ken Griffey Jr. will jump ahead of Edgar and probably make it before him.

  10. Coolalvin206 on January 9th, 2012 3:14 pm

    Edgar has more HR’s,RBI’s and better batting average than Larkin.

    Just saying…

  11. Breadbaker on January 9th, 2012 3:50 pm

    A tad less defensive value than a lifetime shortstop, I’d say. Not a useful argument.

  12. IwearMsHats on January 9th, 2012 4:29 pm

    I have no idea how the veteran’s committee voting works, but is there a chance they might circumvent the BBWAA to get Gar in?

  13. Westside guy on January 9th, 2012 5:04 pm

    I have no idea how the veteran’s committee voting works, but is there a chance they might circumvent the BBWAA to get Gar in?

    I don’t think the veteran’s committee can evaluate a player unless they’ve fallen off the BBWAA ballot after 15 years – and then only if the overview committee chooses to include said player on the ballot they’ll give to the veterans committee.

  14. Paul L on January 9th, 2012 7:21 pm

    Has Baker written an article explaining why this means we need to sign Prince Fielder yet?

  15. henryv on January 9th, 2012 7:53 pm

    I’ve utterly given up on considering the BBWAA’s group opinion as anything less than the ramblings of a old, drunken village idiot, (Cue Grampa Simpson here) who remembers about the “good old days” when the road were made of gold, and 37 foot tall gorillas held up traffic lights. (Present company excluded.)

    Had Sandy Koufax played in the 90s and 00s, he would NOT have been a Hall of Famer.

    Meh, ignore the old drunks, and let’s enjoy who we know Edgar is.

  16. make_dave_proud on January 9th, 2012 11:28 pm

    > Roger Clemens

    If Clemens goes in, and Edgar doesn’t, the Hall will lose any sense of dignity. Maybe not for everyone else, but certainly for me.

  17. ppl on January 10th, 2012 1:58 am

    A genuine shame that it has to be an uphill climb for such a terrific hitter to get into the Hall.

    Everytime I look at his numbers careerwise I am in awe of them, especially the splits.

    But among Mariner fans he holds the truest fame in the game: fond memories among the fans.

    And that is something that is not determined by a vote.

  18. smb on January 10th, 2012 8:52 am

    “But among Mariner fans he holds the truest fame in the game: fond memories among the fans.

    And that is something that is not determined by a vote.”

    Couldn’t agree more. I think HOF criteria has to be about more than just numbers, to some limitedd extent. If you have a guy who’s arguably borderline numbers-wise, or due to his position (DH) or whatever, I feel like all that he did to be a good citizen and be a positive representative of the league in his community should count for something. Edgar is already in the World Sports Humanitarian Hall of Fame, won the Clemente award, started his own charitable foundation…in an era where there’s so much ego, selfishness, and greed in pro sports, a guy like Edgar should be enshrined. Is he now the only player or coach or owner to have a league award named after him, yet not be in the HOF himself?

  19. egreenlaw9 on January 10th, 2012 12:28 pm

    Before you guys go hauling off on the BBWAA too much, remember that they were at least smart enough to recently invite Dave to join their club…

  20. Pete Livengood on January 10th, 2012 1:25 pm

    I believe Edgar was clean (and there really is ZERO evidence to suggest that he wasn’t, other than the fact that his playing career coincided with the steroid era), and I believe his numbers and status would have been enhanced but for KNOWN PED use by some of the players who occupy higher spots of the lists of accomplishments in that era. BUT, unfortunately, there is no way to ever know for sure that he didn’t, and the better argument is to argue that the best of the era should be in the Hall regardless of PEDs and that Edgar is deserving when measured against his peers. Period.

    The thing we’re starting to see raised by Edgar “No” voters is something akin to what Dave responded to on Fangraphs. This idea that Edgar doesn’t have a “sustained peak” argument. You see this kind of comment, often, from even typically smart guys like Verducci, who said on MLB TV yesterday that Edgar “doesn’t have that long peak” and then touts Fred McGriff as some kind of lost superstar! That argument is simply false and HAS to be rebutted by Edgar supporters.

    Edgar had a great, Hall-worthy “short” and “”long” peak.

    At his absolute best, in 1995, he had a 185 OPS+ and accumulated 7.7 rWAR in a strike-shortened 145-game season. That rWAR that year projects to 8.6 over 162 games – as a DH! – and the 78 WAR batting runs he posted that year has only been bettered by six players anywhere close to his era: Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Thome, Pujols, and Giambi (four known PED users).

    In the three years from 1995 to 1997, he averaged .338/.466/.591, a 172 OPS+, with 20.1 rWAR produced (7.2 WAR/162 games), 225 XBH, 909 times on base, 346 runs score and 324 RBI, while playing in 94% of the Mariners’ games during that time. While not “inner circle” HoF quality, that peak FAR exceeds that of the average Hall of Famer.

    But he also sustained it well. His 7-year peak (1995-2001): .329/.446/.574, 163 OPS+, 40.9 rWAR (6.4 WAR/162 games), with 493 XBH, 1996 times on base, 698 runs scored and 773 RBI. Again, a 7-year stretch that matches or betters all but the most inner-circle Hall of Famers.

    His 10-year peak (1992-2001): .325/.435/.558, 159 OPS+, 49.8 rWAR (6.3 rWAR/162 games), 608 XBH, 2444 times on base, 865 runs scored, and 910 RBI.

    His 12-year peak (1990-2001): .321/.429/.537, 155 OPS+, 61.1 rWAR (6.3 WAR/162 games), 698 XBH, 2929 times on base, 1034 runs scored, and 1011 RBI.

    His 14-year peak (1990-2003, essentially everything but the time before he because a regular, and his last season): .317/.426/.531, 153 OPS+, 67.4 rWAR (6.1 rWAR/162 games), 3338 times on base, 1148 runs scored and 1168 RBI.

    During his 7-year peak, Edgar was in the top 10 (min 3500 PA) in all of MLB in hits (10th), times on base (2nd), XBH (8th), rWAR runs batting (2nd), AVG (2nd), OBP (2nd), OPS+ (3rd), rWAR (6th – as a DH!), wRC+ (3rd), and WPA (5th). He was just outside the top ten in SLG (12th). And during this period he made fewer outs than any hitter that appeared in any of these lists, at a rate (outs/PA) less frequent than anybody except Bonds and Frank Thomas (barely Thomas .588 to Edgar’s .590).

    During his 10-year peak (min 4500 PA), Edgar was in the top 10 in all of MLB in times on base (9th), AVG (4th), OBP (3rd), OPS+ (4th), rWAR (7th), rWAR Runs Batting (4th), wRC+ (4th), and WPA (8th). He was just outside of the top ten in SLG, and was 24th in hits.

    In his 12-year peak (min 6000 PA), Edgar was in the top 10 in all of MLB in hits (10th), times on base (7th), XBH (10th), AVG (1st), OBP (3rd), SLG (10th), OPS+ (4th), rWAR (4th), rWAR Runs Batting (4th), wRC+ (4th), and WPA (4th).

    And so on….

    Edgar was no flash in the pan. He had a very high peak, and sustained in very well and very consistently for a very long time. There is no way to argue objectively that he was anything but one of the top five or so hitters of his generation (all of whom will or would waltz into the HoF sans PED implications), and one of the best hitters of all time.

    This should be more than enough for the HoF, even for those who would argue that for a DH to be enshrined, he needs to be an elite hitter and one of the very best of his generation. Edgar WAS that.

  21. Mariners35 on January 10th, 2012 1:59 pm

    Before you guys go hauling off on the BBWAA too much, remember that they were at least smart enough to recently invite Dave to join their club…

    Small sample size.

  22. ppl on January 10th, 2012 4:20 pm

    “Before you guys go hauling off on the BBWAA too much, remember that they were at least smart enough to recently invite Dave to join their club…”

    Yes, there is an old proverb that goes:

    “A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step.”

  23. Paul B on January 10th, 2012 4:36 pm

    “Small sample size”

    Token stat nerd.

  24. GripS on January 10th, 2012 4:45 pm

    Very disappointing to hear that Dave. I would think unless the guy is proven guilty of using that it shouldn’t be a factor to consider when voting. What a shame.

  25. MrZDevotee on January 11th, 2012 9:19 am

    The REAL thing Edgar has going against him is in what he represents, not what his numbers are. Edgar represents a position half of baseball (or more, probably) doesn’t like, that is an affront to the history and tradition of the game, in the old school guy’s hearts and minds.

    I don’t think a lot of writers see Edgar as an individual, as much as the crumbling lock to a Pandora’s box of nouveau baseball and what it’s place is in the history of the game. We’ll see this again next year, when folks are forced to decide what to do with the first onslaught of PED nominees (Bonds, Sosa, Clemens, etc.).

    Looking at those numbers that Mr.Livengood posted above, if all things were equal, Edgar– as an individual player– is most likely a pretty easy vote into the Hall. I mean, if he was even a league average 1B (or worse) with those numbers he’d be in the Hall already, most likely.

    That’s what frustrates me the MOST about the Edgar situation. It’s not about him, as an individual player, it’s about what he “represents” if they allow him into the Hall of Fame.

    Edgar has become sort of accidently “The Jackie Robinson of DH’s”.

    (Thanks to Livengood for putting those numbers together, they are even greater than perhaps I thought I was “over-estimating” in my own mind, having watched him play for so many years.)

    ((I also can never get over the irony- when knocking DH’s- that most position players will tell you it’s MORE DIFFICULT to just bat, and not be involved in the rest of the game, when you DH.))

  26. nvn8vbryce on January 11th, 2012 9:19 pm

    Last time I checked, the BBWAA sponsored the Edgar Martinez Designated Hitter Award. I would think that any time a player that had an impact upon a position as Edgar did being a DH, hence having the award named after him, he would be an automatic shoo-in for the HoF. What a shame that he can’t get in.

  27. Pete Livengood on January 12th, 2012 5:49 pm

    I mentioned in my post that Tom Verducci knocked Edgar for not having a long enough peak while simultaneously touting Fred McGriff’s candidacy. I don’t mean to pick on Verducci, because he is far from the only voter to vote for McGriff but not Edgar (others, by my far from exhaustive count: Bob Brookover, Ron Chimelis, Chris Elsberry, Richard Justice, Terrence Moore, Bob Nightengale, Tom Powers, Bob Sansevere, Jeff Schultz, Lyle Spencer, Barry Stanton, Mark Topkin, David Willheim, Joe Christensen, Jay Dunn, John Erardi, Garry D. Howard, Fred Mitchell, Mike Pettica, and Ed Price; and you could also add these guys, who voted for Don Mattingly, but not Edgar: Rick Carpinello, Teddy Greenstein, Jon Heyman, Tony Jackson, and Jack McCaffery). I also don’t mean to pick on Fred McGriff, who I think is a borderline candidate who falls a bit below Edgar, but is a guy I very well might still vote for if I had a vote. Or Mattingly, who I don’t think measures up to either one, but would be FAR from the worst choice for the Hall if he were elected.

    To rebut Verducci, I thought it would be fun to compare both length peaks and height of peaks between Edgar and Fred McGriff. I already did Edgar above, but I’ll post them side-by-side here.

    McGriff’s best season was probably 1994, though you could make a case for 1989 or 1982 as well. By more traditional numbers (rate stats, as well as counting numbers that I can adjust to a 162-game season, since 1994 was strike-shortened), 1994 looks best to me.

    Fred McGriff, in 1994, hit .318/.389/.623, with a 1.012 OPS and a 157 OPS+ (again, in both 1989 and 1992 he had a higher OPS+ – 166 in each season – but the traditional numbers in 1994 “look” better so I’ll use them to appeal to these apparently traditional voters). He posted a 4.7 rWAR that year, which projects to 6.7 rWAR had that been a 162-game season. He had 135 H, 60 XBH (including 34 HR), with 81 R and 94 RBI while playing in 113 of 115 games that year.

    An impressive year, but Edgar’s absolute peak was much better. Since both peaked in strike years, here they are, adjusted to 162 games:

    EM, 1995 adjusted: .356/.479/.628 203 H, 342 Times On Base, 90 XBH, 135 R, 126 RBI, 8.6 rWAR, 185 OPS+, 184 wRC+

    FM, 1994 adjusted: .318/.389/.623 191 H, 262 Times On Base, 85 XBH, 115 R, 133 RBI, 6.7 rWAR, 157 OPS+, 157 wRC+

    Quite a bit higher/better absolute peak for Edgar. McGriff has a slight advantage in RBI, and a bigger one in HR (48-35), but Edgar smashes him in every other offensive category, including enough of an edge in 2B to more than make up for McGriff’s edge in HR). Still, impressive high points for both players.

    Over each player’s best 3-year stretch:

    EM, 1995-97: .338/.466/.591 439 G (94%), 1951 PA, 524 H, 225 XBH, 918 TB, 909 Times On Base, 346 R, 324 RBI, 358/257 BB/K, 1099 outs made; 20.1 rWAR (7.2 rWAR/162), 172 OPS+

    FM, 1988-1990: .283/.392/.535 468 G (96%), 1961 PA, 466 H, 196 XBH, 880 TB, 768 Times On Base, 289 R, 262 RBI, 292/389 BB/K, 1237 outs made; 17.6 rWAR (6.3 rWAR/162), 159 OPS+

    Again, DECIDED edge to Edgar, across the board, in a very similar number of PA. Take note of the fact that it would take an extra half year for McGriff to catch up to Edgar’s Times On Base total, but he would need to have stop at a little after 2 years to avoid making more outs than Edgar made while reaching base that many times. THAT’S WHERE THE EXTRA VALUE LIES.

    [You could make an argument for McGriff’s 1992-94 being a better 3-year stretch, when he hit .297/.386/.572, but it was with fewer GP and PA because of the strike year, and even though he had better counting numbers then (especially if you adjust for time lost to the strike), his OPS+ (155) and rWAR/162 (5.6) were a fair bit worse during this period. Either way, though, Edgar was better.]

    I won’t do the full breakdown of their best 5-year peaks (1995-99 for Edgar; 1988-1992 for McGriff). Suffice ot to say that Edgar had a good edge in OPS+ (165-158), rWAR (29.7 – 26.5), and rWAR/62 (6.5 to 5.8) while playing just as much (93% of his team’s games and 3231 PA, to McGriff’s 95% and 3234 PA) with across the board better counting numbers (with the exception of HR even though Edgar had 45 more XBH). Again, BIG edge to Edgar.

    Same goes for the best 7-year peaks (1995-2001 for Edgar, 1988-1994 for McGriff), other than to again note Edgar’s good edge in OPS+ (163 to 155), rWAR (40.9 to 35.4), rWAR/162 (6.4 to 5.8) in similar playing time (4477 PA for Edgar, 4353 for McGriff), while posting significantly better counting numbers across the board – again save for HR, but made up for with more XBH.

    I’ll move on to the longer periods, because McGriff’s perceived value edge over Edgar is in his durability and steady peak over a supposedly longer period of time.

    EM, 1992-2001 (10 years): .325/.435/.558 1286 G (83%), 5621 PA, 1502 H, 608 XBH, 2582 TB, 2444 Times On Base, 865 R, 910 RBI, 885/759 BB/K, 3314 outs made; 49.8 rWAR (6.3 rWAR/162), 159 OPS+

    FM, 1987-96: .286/.383/.530 1447 G (93%), 6004 PA, 1465 H, 601 XBH, 2718 TB, 2301 Times On Base, 868 R, 910 RBI, 812/1133 BB/K, 3863 outs made; 39.8 rWAR (4.8 rWAR/162), 145 OPS+

    Even though McGriff has a half season’s worth more PA during his best 10 years than Edgar does in his, Edgar still has a HUGE edge in value, as judged by both OPS+ and rWAR. The playing time edge is not enough for McGriff to catch or significantly pass him in virtually any of the counting stats (again, with the exception of HR, and total bases, though if you add in the difference in BB to TB that isn’t signficant either). Edgar’s huge edge in the rate of outs made (.590 outs/PA to McGriff’s .643) and OBP are a hugely signficant advantage.

    Again, even with the advantage of half a season’s worth of extra PA, at the rate McGriff reached base, he would have needed another half season to reach the total Edgar got to in 383 fewer PA, but he would have made more outs than Edgar did by halfway through just the eighth of those 10(+) seasons. That adds up to a huge difference in value, and one that even annual Gold Glove defense (which of course we know McGriff didn’t provide; he never won a GG and was -32 runs as a defender over his career) at 1B could NEVER make up – and rWAR correctly tells us exactly that, as Edgar was worth a full TEN WINS more than McGriff over their best 10-year periods.

    And so on it goes. I won’t belabor the comparison, except to note that as you add years (best 12, best 14), McGriff’s edge in playing time starts to give him an edge in counting stats, but not one that is ever really overcome by Edgar’s big edge in outs, and times on base. For best 12 years Edgar (1990-2001; McGriff 1988-1999) has a big edge in OPS+ (155-139), rWAR (61.1 to 44.4), and rWAR/162 (6.3 to 4.3); for the best 14 years (1990-2003 for Edgar, 1998-2001 for McGriff), Edgar again has a big edge in OPS+ (153-137), rWAR (67.4 to 48.4) and rWAR/162 (6.1 to 4.1).

    Now, maybe if you are a McGriff supporter you’d argue against looking at consecutive seasons, and argue for looking at the 10 best regardless of whether they came consecutively, because McGriff had some down years mixed in and that drags down these averages. I’d respond that (a) Edgar’s 1993 and 1994 injury-plagued years do the same for him, and (b) you’re abdicating the supposed pillar of McGriff’s HoF case – that he was a model of consistency. But, OK.

    That favors Edgar even MORE significantly. Looking at rWAR, the total of Edgar’s best to 10th best seasons is 58.1 rWAR; McGriff’s 10-best total is 40.7. Edgar has 1 season over 7 rWAR (over 8.0 if adjusted for lost strike time), another 3 over 6.0, and five more over 5.0 (9 seasons total of 5.0 or better rWAR). McGriff has 2 seasons over 6.0 rWAR (3 if adjusted for lost strike time), one more over 5.0, and two more after than over 4.0 (3 seasons total over 5.0 rWAR). It’s not close.

    Same with OPS+, or the better (similar) metric, wRC+. Edgar’s best season is almost 25 points higher than McGriff’s best, and Edgar’s TOP FIVE wRC+ seasons are ALL better than McGriff’s best. Not close.

    Of course, to a guy like Verducci, there are a couple elephants in the room.

    The first one he’s mentioned in his articles explaining his votes is Edgar’s “trouble going to the post” and we do see decided playing time advantages for McGriff once you get out past the 7-year time frame. But is Edgar’s huge edge in value when he WAS playing enough to overcome the fact that McGriff played more often?

    YES. Fortunately, this isn’t all that hard to show. OPS+ is already league and park adjusted, so all we have to do is adjust for playing time. Since OPS+ measures a hitter as a percentage over an average player (100 OPS+ by definition), you can adjust for and measure the extra value added with extra playing time by subtracting 100 (average) from each player’s OPS+ for any given period, and then multiply it by his PA during that PA, and you will have a comparable measure of each player’s value that is adjusted for league, park, AND playing time.

    If you do that for both Edgar and McGriff at the 12 and 14 year peak periods – the periods that are supposedly Edgar’s weakness and the strength of a guy like McGriff – you’ll find that Edgar STILL provided over 20% added offensive value over and above what Fred McGriff did. Even if you give McGriff 16 years to Edgar’s 14 (and that is pretty much the full extent of McGriff’s productive time – you’re excluding only a 5 PA cup of coffee at the beginning, worth 8 OPS+, and two seasons at the end worth 410 PA of 90 OPS+ performance), Edgar is STILL better than 15% more valuable that McGriff. The value of his performance while ON THE FIELD was so much higher than McGriff’s that the extra career length does not make up for it.

    And that brings up the other elephant in the room – the DH rule, and Edgar’s lack of defensive value added.

    There is no amount of defensive value that Fred McGriff could have provided that would overcome this HUGE difference in offensive value. McGriff was a negative value defender at 1B (though not hugely so); Edgar was 3B primarily for five seasons, and was a plus value defender at that far more difficult defensive position during that time (though not hugely so). Edgar was a career +17 in the field, McGriff a career -32.

    But hey, he went out there, right? That’s worth something, right? Yes, but not as much as you’d think. 1B is the second “easiest” defensive position, and McGriff didn’t play it particularly well. Even if Edgar had been forced to play at that position (because of no DH) and he had been historically bad (Frank Thomas bad), the difference in the positional adjustment he received as a DH (-17.5 IIRC) versus what he would receive as a 1B (-10 IIRC, somebody correct me if I’m off) would mean that he’d have to be WORSE THAN a -7.5/year defender to see any downward effect on his rWAR. That’s pretty bad, and nothing about Edgar’s performance at 3B, or at 1B in the few times he actually played there, indicates he would have been that bad. Certainly not enough to get anywhere close to making up the difference in his rWAR and somebody like McGriff’s.

    And it isn’t as though Fred McGriff (or any number of other guys who’ll be coming though and probably sailing into the Hall in the next few years, like Frank Thomas) didn’t play some DH. McGriff had 660 PA – almost a full season’s worth, even though he spent most of his career in the NL – as a DH. And he wasn’t very good at it. He hit .250/.350/.461 as a DH, with an OPS+ at that position that was 17 points worse than his overall OPS+. Anti-DH people always say that a “full-time” DH like Edgar, the exception who could hit and excel as a DH, limited teams’ options. To me, the reality is that negative defenders like McGriff (or more obviously, Thomas or Manny or Sheffield) who could not hit as well as a DH (and more or less refused to do it) were the guys who REALLY limited their teams’ options, by forcing them to play a BAD defender in the field. Why they should get credit for that, and Edgar should be penalized, is beyond my comprehension.

    Anyway, book over. Hopefully I’ve used more traditional stats to show that a guy like Edgar can and did have a great short AND long peak, and that he didn’t have to be a 500 HR guy or a 3000 hits guy to provide comparable or better value than a guy who achieved those kinds of numbers. And hopefully, those guys who vote McGriff but not Edgar will think about this…..

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.