OT: Hall of Fame - Edgar Martinez?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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."

[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

[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.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by perezfan

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

That is correct.