OT: Hall of Fame - Edgar Martinez?

[packs]

Originally Posted by mr2686

Not sure if we're looking at different stats, but I see that Vizquel was 5th career in TZR at SS. Only Ozzie, Ripken, Aparicio, and Belanger are ahead...all in the HOF except Belanger who was a poor hitter. I saw Vizquel play several games, and I definitely wouldn't say he had average range.

As for Martinez (mentioned a few posts previously), I don't buy that he wouldn't have hit as well if he had to play defense. Some players don't hit as well if they're sitting on the bench, but they do hit if they're more "in" the game by playing the field. On the other side of the coin, are we assuming that Aaron would have hit 900 homeruns if he could have DH'd his whole career?
Guys, DH is part of the game...has been for many years. Why not put the very best in the Hall?

It's just an insane way to view Vizquel. He played during the peak of ESPN and Sportscenter. I saw him daily. No one who ever watched him play thought he was just an average guy. That viewpoint makes no sense to me.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by mr2686

Not sure if we're looking at different stats, but I see that Vizquel was 5th career in TZR at SS. Only Ozzie, Ripken, Aparicio, and Belanger are ahead...all in the HOF except Belanger who was a poor hitter. I saw Vizquel play several games, and I definitely wouldn't say he had average range.

As for Martinez (mentioned a few posts previously), I don't buy that he wouldn't have hit as well if he had to play defense. Some players don't hit as well if they're sitting on the bench, but they do hit if they're more "in" the game by playing the field. On the other side of the coin, are we assuming that Aaron would have hit 900 homeruns if he could have DH'd his whole career?
Guys, DH is part of the game...has been for many years. Why not put the very best in the Hall?

Far more chance of him getting hurt if he plays the field as well. That by itself would dampen his offensive stats. And if the injury was career threatening...

And anyone who thinks Omar Vizquel had bad range is off his rocker. Vizquel got to balls 99% of shortstops wouldn't even try to get to.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

That would be a fine analysis unless you saw the guy play. You're going to tell me that anyone watching Vizquel play thought he was anything other than the best fielder in the game? There are two shortstops all time who have won at least 10 gold gloves. Those shortstops Ozzie Smith and Omar Vizquel.

Fielding stats are all misleading IMO. From all the Indians Red Sox games I saw, Vizquel was sensational.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Nice Cherry-Picking, Bill.

When I look at just his stats, however, I see a DH with less than 2300 hits and only 309 HRs...in the time he played, IMO, that doesn't add up to HOF, just a tier and a tear below. Being in the top TWO Percent is still pretty damn good!

He didn't really play a full season until he was 27, I wonder why. With a few more early years his career numbers would be a lot higher.

[mr2686]

On baseballs, I only collect hall of famers. With that said, I'm so sure that Visquel is Hall worth and will make it to the Hall, that I'll be getting a signed ball long before he's elected.

[Baseball Rarities]

Originally Posted by timn1

That's a pretty big aside!


Walker:
Home .348 .431 .637
Away .278 .370 .495

Martinez
Home .311 .423 .517
Away .312 .412 .514

I agree that this is hard to overlook. I think that in Walker's case it is fair to judge him more on is away stats, which I do not think are HOF worthy.

[BeanTown]

Chipper Jones joins Babe Ruth, Stan Musial, Lou Gehrig, Mel Ott and Ted Williams as one of only six players in MLB history to record a .300 batting average, a .400 on-base percentage, a .500 slugging percentage, 450 home runs, 1,500 walks, 1,600 RBIs and 1,600 runs.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Baseball Rarities

I agree that this is hard to overlook. I think that in Walker's case it is fair to judge him more on is away stats, which I do not think are HOF worthy.

It is impossible to look at the stats of Walker or Todd Helton without taking ballpark into extreme consideration. Although Walker's career OPS+ of 140 takes ballpark into account, so he was still a very good hitter. Almost as good as Edgar. Then you throw in his outstanding defense...

Also, you rarely hear anyone talk about how much better Sandy Koufax was at Dodger Stadium than he was away from it. Starting in 1962 when Dodger Stadium opened, his home ERA was an unreal 1.37. That is over a five year span. His away ERA over that same span was 2.57.

[SteveMitchell]

Yes, in my view Edgar clearly belongs with baseball's best. He was the finest right-handed hitter I ever saw and, according to many, a hitter no pitcher wanted to face in clutch situations. Professional all the way. Not a hint of steroids. Men of character and excellence like Edgar made baseball the great institution it became and he continues to contribute to the community as well as serving as hitting coach for the Seattle Mariners.

[SteveMitchell]

Bill Gregory posted some impressive names and their numbers (alongside Edgar's) and received a "cherry-picking" award; possibly other knocks, too, as I have not read much beyond Bill's post. When mentioning some of the all-time, all-time greats in the same breath as Edgar Martinez is considered "cherry-picking", I say: Pick away! Edgar has been criticized for being a DH. Let's just add that he had no speed, batted right-handed and hardly ever beat out a hit. I like the company in which Bill (and Edgar's stats) place him.

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Martinez is a Hall of Famer. Toss out his last season, when he was 41, and he's got a career 151 OPS +.

This article from Ryan Spaeder of The Sporting News makes the case quite well.

Here are some numbers to mull over:



And I thought this was pretty eye opening:

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by SteveMitchell

Yes, in my view Edgar clearly belongs with baseball's best. He was the finest right-handed hitter I ever saw and, according to many, a hitter no pitcher wanted to face in clutch situations.

I can think of at least one team that currently has two players on its roster that I'd rank ahead of Edgar on the list of finest right-handed hitters I ever saw.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I can think of at least one team that currently has two players on its roster that I'd rank ahead of Edgar on the list of finest right-handed hitters I ever saw.

The Angels (Pujols and Trout?) would be my guess as to what you're suggesting.

That said, I knew this would be a great debate. Have not counted up the "yays and nays" but it seems to be a near-perfect split. One factor not discussed much was Edgar's clutch hitting and his ability to get the key hit when they needed it most. Tough to measure that factor statistically, but having watched him throughout his career, I can say he was one of the best.

Great guy as well... I personally hope Edgar gets in on his last ballot.

[kailes2872]

Originally Posted by SteveMitchell

Yes, in my view Edgar clearly belongs with baseball's best. He was the finest right-handed hitter I ever saw and, according to many, a hitter no pitcher wanted to face in clutch situations. Professional all the way. Not a hint of steroids. Men of character and excellence like Edgar made baseball the great institution it became and he continues to contribute to the community as well as serving as hitting coach for the Seattle Mariners.

When we use our eyeball test to determine if the person used steroids or not is where it falls apart for me. It seems that Seattle had somewhat of a steroid culture as referred to in Rookiemonster's post above. Bret Boone comes to mind with his outlier season and many whispers. Never proven, only innuendo, but if it was in the locker room and part of the culture, what makes us think that other Mariners were not involved? Was it because we witnessed no acne on their back? Apparently that doesn't even matter because we will put Piazza in and there were rumblings about his need for benzoil peroxide on his back. Is it because there was never a report of a request for a larger hat size? Because we know that is the tipping point for hall of fame support.


Is Martinez a HOFer? I don't think so, but I don't want a DH in before Papi because I am eagerly awaiting the selective outrage and pearl clutching with Ortiz from the same media that didn't like Bonds or Clemens because Papi was a "nice, fun, guy" and we want to brush is accusation and innuendo under the rug.

I have never been a fan of closers and their made up save stat getting in. Most are failed starters. Do we think that a number 3 or 4 starter with an out pitch that would work for 3 outs a game but not for 27 outs a game could rack up saves and get in? Probably a lot of rebuttal against that, but the Reds proved in the 90's/early 2000's that person X could be put in and get 40 saves.

Bonds was a 3 time MVP before even the biggest of critics even suggested there was anything going on. Clemens won 192 games in Boston, struck out 20 two times and won 3 Cy Young awards and was only in his mid-30's. Roger went so far as to put his life on the line criminally and stand in front of congress and still walks as a free man. Technicality? maybe, but they refused to convict him - yet the BBWAA sure will

Until those two get in, the rest of the debate and conversation is just fodder and arguing about the skinniest fat guy or the tallest little person or something like that.

[packs]

Mariano Rivera was an elite closer for 18 years. You're going to say he's nothing more than a failed starter? His ERA in 96 career postseason games is 0.70. Come on. Hyperbole is the death of your argument.

Your other argument is that Edgar might have decided to cheat in 2001 at 38 years old?

[kailes2872]

According to Rivera bio, he, himself, was a failed starter.

After being called up to the major leagues on May 16, 1995,[29] Rivera made his debut for the New York Yankees on May 23 against the California Angels.[4] Starting in place of injured pitcher Jimmy Key,[30] Rivera allowed five earned runs in ​3 1⁄3 innings pitched in a 10–0 loss.[4] He struggled through his first four major league starts, posting a 10.20 ERA, and as a result, he was demoted to Columbus on June 11.[4] As a 25-year-old rookie just three years removed from major arm surgery, his spot on the team was not guaranteed. Management considered trading him to the Detroit Tigers for starter David Wells.[31] While recovering from a sore shoulder in the minor leagues, Rivera pitched a no-hit shutout in a rain-shortened five-inning start.[32] Reports from the game indicated that his pitches had reached 95–96 mph (153–154 km/h), about 6 mph (9.7 km/h) faster than his previous average velocity; Rivera attributes his inexplicable improvement to God. Yankees general manager Gene Michael was skeptical of the reports until verifying that Columbus' radar gun was not faulty and that another team's scout had taken the same measurements. Afterwards, he ended any trade negotiations involving Rivera.[27] On July 4, in his first start back in the major leagues, Rivera pitched eight scoreless innings against the Chicago White Sox, allowing just two hits while striking out 11 batters.[33] In five subsequent starts, he was unable to match his success from that game.[33] After a brief demotion to Columbus in August, Rivera made one last start in the major leagues in September before he was moved to the Yankees' bullpen.[27] Overall, he finished his first major league season with a 5–3 record and a 5.51 ERA in ten starts and nine relief outings.[34] His performance in the 1995 American League Division Series, in which he pitched ​5 1⁄3 scoreless innings of relief, convinced Yankees management to keep him and convert him to a relief pitcher the following season.[35]

PS - I will stop the argument now and concede that Rivera will be a walk in into the HOF. I am going to take a deep breath and relax as this HOF discussion drives me crazy every year as we try to parse out who did and didn't do steroids and where our line of morality stops and starts.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by perezfan

The Angels (Pujols and Trout?) would be my guess as to what you're suggesting.

That said, I knew this would be a great debate. Have not counted up the "yays and nays" but it seems to be a near-perfect split. One factor not discussed much was Edgar's clutch hitting and his ability to get the key hit when they needed it most. Tough to measure that factor statistically, but having watched him throughout his career, I can say he was one of the best.

Great guy as well... I personally hope Edgar gets in on his last ballot.

Statistics say he wasn't a clutch hitter. He was a better hitter with the bases empty than with RISP. .263 hitter with 2 outs and RISP. Let's just throw out all stats and just elect the guys we watched and thought they did things that they really didn't.

[packs]

That would ignore his 375 average and 20 RBIs in 17 ALDS games. Sounds clutch to me. I remember the series against the Yankees in 1995. You wanted anyone up besides Edgar. He had 10 RBIs in 5 games.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

Statistics say he wasn't a clutch hitter. He was a better hitter with the bases empty than with RISP. .263 hitter with 2 outs and RISP. Let's just throw out all stats and just elect the guys we watched and thought they did things that they really didn't.

Yeah I am guessing most of the legendary clutch hitters of subjective memory would not stand up to the stats.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by kailes2872

According to Rivera bio, he, himself, was a failed starter.





PS - I will stop the argument now and concede that Rivera will be a walk in into the HOF. I am going to take a deep breath and relax as this HOF discussion drives me crazy every year as we try to parse out who did and didn't do steroids and where our line of morality stops and starts.

All innings in theory should count the same, right? All runs count the same. Shutting a team down in the first should be as important as shutting them down in the ninth. The most active of closers are throwing what, 80 innings a year? What is your average starter throwing? Who's more important? If Rivera is really good enough to be a starter, don't you want him throwing twice as many innings for you?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by packs

That would ignore his 375 average and 20 RBIs in 17 ALDS games. Sounds clutch to me. I remember the series against the Yankees in 1995. You wanted anyone up besides Edgar. He had 10 RBIs in 5 games.

So let's ignore 1175 at bats since he had 17 good games in the ALDS. Let's also ignore the 17 ALCS games too since he only hit .156 in those. You know I would think ALCS games would be important than ALDS games, but what do I know? Let's just ignore all stats. I saw Edgar get a big hit once against the Yankees. He must be clutch and a Hofer.

[packs]

Originally Posted by rats60

So let's ignore 1175 at bats since he had 17 good games in the ALDS. Let's also ignore the 17 ALCS games too since he only hit .156 in those. You know I would think ALCS games would be important than ALDS games, but what do I know? Let's just ignore all stats. I saw Edgar get a big hit once against the Yankees. He must be clutch and a Hofer.

One thing has nothing to do with the other. You said he wasn't a clutch hitter. I'm saying he was because I saw him do it. You just put out numbers and totally ignore life. That's no way to evaluate a player you've seen play. If you want to do that with Babe Ruth, go ahead. But why would you ignore life with a modern player? You reduced Vizquel to a shortstop with an average range because of some stat you chose. That is not something anyone who ever watched him play would agree with.

[kailes2872]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

All innings in theory should count the same, right? Shutting a team down in the first should be as important as shutting them down in the ninth. The most active of closers are throwing what, 80 innings a year? What is your average starter throwing? Who's more important?

Something that I was thinking about during the World Series... As we move to this craze where starters do not go more than 2x through the lineup, will this eventually evolve to "starters" who only go 1 time through the lineup. So, the goal will be 3 innings with one guy, 3 innings with the next guy and then someone for the 7th, 8th, and 9th. Wins will no longer be relevant because the "starter" doesn't go 5 innings. We begin a stat of "opens" for the starter that goes 3 clean innings and that guy gets to the hall based upon successful "opens". Will they rotation change to 6 or 7 pitchers but they pitching every 3rd or 4th game because they are only pitching 40-50 pitches per open. Again, hyperbole is where the argument falls apart, but it feels that it is where it is evolving to...

[rats60]

Originally Posted by packs

One thing has nothing to do with the other. You said he wasn't a clutch hitter. I'm saying he was because I saw him do it. You just put out numbers and totally ignore life. That's no way to evaluate a player you've seen play. If you want to do that with Babe Ruth, go ahead. But why would you ignore life with a modern player? You reduced Vizquel to a shortstop with an average range because of some stat you chose. That is not something anyone who ever watched him play would agree with.

Well, I saw Edgar go 2 for 23 with 0 RBI in the 1995 ALCS. So why should we ignore that and act like he was some great clutch hitter because he had a big series against the Yankees? He stunk against the Indians and the Mariners lost the series.

I saw Vizquel play, he wasn't some great shortstop. He was reliable, but he didn't have great range. Ozzie Smith had great range. That is why he led NL SS in assists 8 times in 11 seasons. Vizquel never led the league, ever. He finished top 3 once. I guess we just have different memories, but mine are backed by stats. I would rather have a guy with great range than a high fielding percentage. That produces more outs and saves more runs. We will just have to agree to disagree.

[jbbama]

to me I say no........ I admit I feel im pretty tough on players, there are several recently that I would say no, they don't belong, others have echoed similar sentiments. Lets leave the HOF for the best of the very best... if everyone is special, no one is special.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by perezfan

The Angels (Pujols and Trout?) would be my guess as to what you're suggesting.

That is correct.

[packs]

Originally Posted by rats60

Well, I saw Edgar go 2 for 23 with 0 RBI in the 1995 ALCS. So why should we ignore that and act like he was some great clutch hitter because he had a big series against the Yankees? He stunk against the Indians and the Mariners lost the series.

I saw Vizquel play, he wasn't some great shortstop. He was reliable, but he didn't have great range. Ozzie Smith had great range. That is why he led NL SS in assists 8 times in 11 seasons. Vizquel never led the league, ever. He finished top 3 once. I guess we just have different memories, but mine are backed by stats. I would rather have a guy with great range than a high fielding percentage. That produces more outs and saves more runs. We will just have to agree to disagree.

If he wasn't some great shortstop then why is he one of only two ever with 10 or more gold gloves? Why did he win gold gloves in both leagues? Why was he out there at short as a 45 year old? Why did he stick around for 24 seasons as a defensive specialist if he was just so-so?

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by rats60

I saw Vizquel play, he wasn't some great shortstop. He was reliable, but he didn't have great range. Ozzie Smith had great range.

"I saw Gehrig play, he wasn't some great hitter. He was reliable, but he didn't have great power. Babe Ruth had great power."

[Orioles1954]

Can't believe no one is discussing Rick Reuschel's candidacy yet?

[hysell]

Ozzie smith vrs O. Vizquel ? Omar had a much better arm, that is a fact ! Bare handed throw , he made it a art form ? Also i would have to say Ozzie's got a few of Barry Larkin's gold gloves in his house ? I seen 3 games & Larkin out fielded & out hit Ozzie in all of those games, I also watched most of there games , through out there whole careers , Barry's arm was much better, then Ozzie"s was . But , yet Ozzie was a 1st ballet HOFer & Barry had to wait a couple of years ? If Ozzie was a 1st ballet HOFer , why did Ryne Sandberg , also have to wait a couple of years to get in ? {THAT } is the problem with the { VOTERS } of the Hall Of Fame ! PERIOD ! Look we all will never agree on all players, just like life problems ? Here"s 1 for you, if Gary Carter is a HOFer, then were is Lance Parrish ? Both were the KEY catchers in the 1980"s, both had good arms & won gold gloves & both hit 324 HRS ?

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by rats60

Well, I saw Edgar go 2 for 23 with 0 RBI in the 1995 ALCS. So why should we ignore that and act like he was some great clutch hitter because he had a big series against the Yankees? He stunk against the Indians and the Mariners lost the series.

I saw Vizquel play, he wasn't some great shortstop. He was reliable, but he didn't have great range. Ozzie Smith had great range. That is why he led NL SS in assists 8 times in 11 seasons. Vizquel never led the league, ever. He finished top 3 once. I guess we just have different memories, but mine are backed by stats. I would rather have a guy with great range than a high fielding percentage. That produces more outs and saves more runs. We will just have to agree to disagree.

The comment made concerning Omar V is totally out to lunch. I must of seen more than a hundred of his games, and regarded him, like most, as one of the very best if not THE BEST fielding shortstops in the game in his era. Dan O'Dowd, Cleveland's GM at the time agreed completely with that assessment on MLB Now just yesterday, as does Jim Thome, who was there with Omar in Cleveland. What the defensive stats (which have never been as reliable as those on the offensive side) do not show is what percentage of balls hit in Omar's area he successfully fielded. The absolute number of those balls is influenced by several factors beyond his control, including whether the Indians' pitching staff threw more flyballs than groundballs versus the league average, or struck out a greater percentage of hitters, as well as the dimensions of the foul territory versus that in other parks (obviously, a park which has significantly larger foul territory will produce a higher number of foul outs, thereby reducing the number of other forms of outs that can potentially occur). Watching him, along with probably hundreds of other games during that period, there was no question whatsoever concerning his tremendous range, sure-handedness and throwing arm.

As to Edgar, he may have been one-dimensional, but don't kid yourselves--that one dimension--hitting--is substantially more important with regard to runs than base running or defense. Exhibit A: Ted Williams, a slow to average baserunner, led the league in runs scored six times (due to his tremendous hitting and enormous number of walks--his lifetime on base percentage of .482 is the highest of all time). Joe DiMaggio, also a great hitter (though not matching Williams in this respect) and a substantially faster base runner, led the league in runs scored once.

The only problem I have with Edgar is that while his qualitative stats are very impressive, the quantitative stats fall a bit short. 309 HR's--where are the other 150 or so? 1200-some RBI's--seems like 300 or more are missing in action.

Good thread and interesting, thought-provoking posts,

Larry

[Mark70Z]

I love the defensive part of the game of Baseball and Belanger > Vizquel w/o a doubt in my mind. He’s not even mentioned in the HOF discussion, but was one, if not the best to ever play the game @ SS. Omar was an above average SS.

Don’t think Hoffman should be in, but there’s a lot of players I don’t think should be in the HOF.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Mark70Z

I love the defensive part of the game of Baseball and Belanger > Vizquel w/o a doubt in my mind. He’s not even mentioned in the HOF discussion, but was one, if not the best to ever play the game @ SS. Omar was an above average SS.

Don’t think Hoffman should be in, but there’s a lot of players I don’t think should be in the HOF.

Agree completely that Mark Belanger was one of the elite fielding shortstops. I grew up watching he and his Orioles consistently frustrating my Tigers from 1969 on. But except for one year that I can remember (1969?), when he hit .287, his bat was MIA. He might as well have gone up to the plate with a dowel rod. Vizquel was considerably better from an offensive standpoint.

Again, interesting post,

Larry

[JollyElm]

The beauty (and, to be completely honest, the ridiculousness) of this thread is that every single one of us saw these 4 new HOF'ers (and Edgar) play throughout their entire careers. I doubt anyone here is young enough to have missed watching these guys from their early MLB beginnings. We all have a ton of first-hand knowledge regarding everyone (through ESPN and other cable stations, daily internet highlight videos, etc.), and that is beautiful!!! Since the all time greats (Cobb, Ruth, Robinson, etc., etc.) are held up almost as mythological figures by us these days, it's funny to think how many arguments swirled around each of them when they were up for induction.

[Mark70Z]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Agree completely that Mark Belanger was one of the elite fielding shortstops. I grew up watching he and his Orioles consistently frustrating my Tigers from 1969 on. But except for one year that I can remember (1969?), when he hit .287, his bat was MIA. He might as well have gone up to the plate with a dowel rod. Vizquel was considerably better from an offensive standpoint.

Again, interesting post,

Larry

Larry,

I agree that Vizquel was a better offensive player for sure. Pretty much after Aparicio (which was a great shortstop as well) Belanger, even though a weak hitter, started for the Orioles in their heyday and beyond. The way I think about it is if Vizquel was on the O’s at the same time he’d have been playing a different position.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

The beauty (and, to be completely honest, the ridiculousness) of this thread is that every single one of us saw these 4 new HOF'ers (and Edgar) play throughout their entire careers. I doubt anyone here is young enough to have missed watching these guys from their early MLB beginnings. We all have a ton of first-hand knowledge regarding everyone (through ESPN and other cable stations, daily internet highlight videos, etc.), and that is beautiful!!! Since the all time greats (Cobb, Ruth, Robinson, etc., etc.) are held up almost as mythological figures by us these days, it's funny to think how many arguments swirled around each of them when they were up for induction.

I doubt there were arguments about those guys, just as there were no real arguments about guys like Griffey, Ripken, Maddux, Schmidt, whoever. I suspect players on the cusp have always been the subject of some controversy.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Agree completely that Mark Belanger was one of the elite fielding shortstops. I grew up watching he and his Orioles consistently frustrating my Tigers from 1969 on. But except for one year that I can remember (1969?), when he hit .287, his bat was MIA. He might as well have gone up to the plate with a dowel rod. Vizquel was considerably better from an offensive standpoint.

Again, interesting post,

Larry

Maybe he was on roids that year lol. In context it really made no sense that he would suddenly be flirting with .300.

[Mark70Z]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Maybe he was on roids that year lol. In context it really made no sense that he would suddenly be flirting with .300.

Peter,

What people don’t recall is that Belanger hit .333 in the 1965 season. He was definitely juicing that particular year...


The above is how people use stats to make things go their way.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by packs

This is an instance where similarity score means very little if you ask me. Edgar put up an OPS over 1.000 5 times in his career, including a stretch of 3 seasons in a row. Will Clark never had an OPS over 1.000 over a full season. Neither did Holliday, Johnson, Bernie, or Berkman.

???

Berkman had three seasons of 1.000 OPS - 2001, 2004, 2006. He also had a .982 and a .986.

Matt Holliday had one season over 1.000 - 2007.

Correct that Bernie Williams never had a 1.000 but he did have a .997.


Personally, I think Edgar should be in the Hall. Two batting titles, career OPS+ of 147. Yes, he hit "only" 309 homers. So what? Rogers Hornsby hit 301. Rickey Henderson hit 297 and is renowned for his OBP but his OBP was lower than Edgar's.

Yep, 'gar was one-dimensional. But when that one dimension is SO good, you can overlook it. And, let's be real - he could have played 1B if needed. But the Mariners had an all-time elite defensive 1B (who could also hit) in John Olerud, so Edgar played DH.

[parker1b2]

If we are going to go by OPS what about a guy like Fred McGriff who seems to get no love or the HOF.

McGriff: led the league once in OPS

2 times over 1.000
9 other times over .900

Martinez : led the league once in OPS

5 times over 1.000
3 other times over .900

[rats60]

Originally Posted by hysell

Ozzie smith vrs O. Vizquel ? Omar had a much better arm, that is a fact ! Bare handed throw , he made it a art form ? Also i would have to say Ozzie's got a few of Barry Larkin's gold gloves in his house ? I seen 3 games & Larkin out fielded & out hit Ozzie in all of those games, I also watched most of there games , through out there whole careers , Barry's arm was much better, then Ozzie"s was . But , yet Ozzie was a 1st ballet HOFer & Barry had to wait a couple of years ? If Ozzie was a 1st ballet HOFer , why did Ryne Sandberg , also have to wait a couple of years to get in ? {THAT } is the problem with the { VOTERS } of the Hall Of Fame ! PERIOD ! Look we all will never agree on all players, just like life problems ? Here"s 1 for you, if Gary Carter is a HOFer, then were is Lance Parrish ? Both were the KEY catchers in the 1980"s, both had good arms & won gold gloves & both hit 324 HRS ?

During Ozzie Smith's top 8 seasons, he averaged 545 assists. During Omar Visquel's top 8 seasons, he averaged 440 assists. That is 105 hits per season that got by Omar that Ozzie Smith turned into outs. Strong arm or bare handing balls are irrelevant when you can't catch the ball. The fact is that Omar had average range. Being the best at making routine plays doesn't make you a Hofer. Saving your team over 100 outs per season and the runs those hits would have produced is deserving of Hof.

There is one guy on the Hof ballot who deserves Hof for his defense, Andrew Jones. Jones saved his team 243 runs in 15 seasons compared to Omar Vizquel saving only 133 runs over 24 seasons. Jones was 11% above league average offensively, not 18% below average like Vizquel. The only advantage Vizquel has is sticking around for 24 years. Are we going to elect Jaime Moyer and Charlie Hough to the Hof too? They played longer than Vizquel.

[Throttlesteer]

We change the rules, we change the statistics, and we try to compare players across generations. Does Jim Bunning get in today? How about Joe Tinker? The HOF is really a generational popularity game. Sure, the case can be made using stats and comparisons. But, players have made it into the hall for being the best at their position for the generation, being a multi-tool talent, being a great defensive player, having longevity, or even being part of a famous poem. Does Edgar belong, I think so if the DH is considered an important part of the game. Hoffman, without a doubt. The hard part is trying to crack the top of the list when you come up a year where the talent runs deep. I wouldn't try to justify why a previous turn-of-the-century hitter shouldn't be in the HOF because their HR numbers aren't on par with Pujols or Thome. Nor would I compare Cy Young to Greg Maddux. WAR might provide a perspective that helps normalize some of the bias, but I'm hesitant to use it across the board. We would be kicking a lot of great players out of the Hall if that were the case.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

During Ozzie Smith's top 8 seasons, he averaged 545 assists. During Omar Visquel's top 8 seasons, he averaged 440 assists. That is 105 hits per season that got by Omar that Ozzie Smith turned into outs. Strong arm or bare handing balls are irrelevant when you can't catch the ball. The fact is that Omar had average range. Being the best at making routine plays doesn't make you a Hofer. Saving your team over 100 outs per season and the runs those hits would have produced is deserving of Hof.

There is one guy on the Hof ballot who deserves Hof for his defense, Andrew Jones. Jones saved his team 243 runs in 15 seasons compared to Omar Vizquel saving only 133 runs over 24 seasons. Jones was 11% above league average offensively, not 18% below average like Vizquel. The only advantage Vizquel has is sticking around for 24 years. Are we going to elect Jaime Moyer and Charlie Hough to the Hof too? They played longer than Vizquel.

Who made more errors on average? Also I'm not quite sure having X more assists than the next guy automatically translates into the next guy let X more balls by him for hits. By that logic why didn't Tejada, who led the league in assists 7 times during his career, ever win a gold glove?

[packs]

I didn't realize you could penalize a guy because a batter didn't hit a ball to him. Great next gen stats.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by packs

I didn't realize you could penalize a guy because a batter didn't hit a ball to him. Great next gen stats.

Yes and no. You can't penalize a guy because another guy didn't hit the ball to him. But in the aggregate, it is VERY LIKELY that as many balls were hit in the same area, making it statistically similar. And that's the comparison. A 20% difference is pretty significant.

[packs]

He's talking about assists. You can't get an assist without a ball hit to you. Assuming the difference in assists figures is based on base hits seems presumptuous.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by packs

I didn't realize you could penalize a guy because a batter didn't hit a ball to him. Great next gen stats.

That is the whole point of playing shortstop. When the ball isn't hit directly to you, you have the ability to go get the ball and make a play. Ozzie Smith fielded balls that other shortstops, including Vizquel couldn't get to.

If Vizquel was some great shortstop, you would think he would lead the league in assists once, just from some random variance. Derek Jeter was a statue and he led once and finished second once. Your idea that balls were never hit close to Vizquel is absurd. I took an 8 year sample because there is going to be some variance, but when Vizquel is never close to Smith, even one single season, it just confirms what I saw. Smith had great range, Vizquel had average range.

You keep bringing up Gold Gloves. Gold Gloves are a popularity contest, voted on by managers. How else do you explain Derek Jeter winning 5? He is universally regarded as a bad defensive shortstop.

[packs]

That's a really poor argument. You said before that the difference in assists must be because Vizquel let base hits through. There's no way to know that. Bringing Jeter into things doesn't seem to fit either. There hasn't only been 2 shortstops to ever win 5 gold gloves. Vizquel won 11.

[hysell]

:1" st, I would also point out that the Cardinals pitchers WERE NOT a strikeout staff ? Were Omar's teams did have some players who could do that ? So with that said , he would have lost a few more outs / chances per year & Omar had a few more injuries then Ozzie did also ? Same could be said for sure on Barry's career ?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by tschock

Yes and no. You can't penalize a guy because another guy didn't hit the ball to him. But in the aggregate, it is VERY LIKELY that as many balls were hit in the same area, making it statistically similar. And that's the comparison. A 20% difference is pretty significant.

That assumption may or may not be true. If it is, then range factor should be the be all and end all, no? But obviously people think it isn't because newer metrics keep getting invented.

[hysell]

RATS60 ? Andrew Jones , are you for real ?After he signed with the Dodgers & other teams , he was more or less a back up player & went to play in Japan at age 35 & was done by age 36 ? I all ways had thoughts on him juicing up ?Was even benched 2 time I think by Bobby for dogging it out on the field ? Good ball player & I seen his whole career , too . How can you be washed up by the 2009 season , when he was mainly a DH for the Rangers ? Still was in his early 30's at that time & was done by 2013 , some thing there is not right ?