OT: Hall of Fame - Edgar Martinez?

[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."

[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 ?

[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.

[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?

[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 ?

[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]

Yeah not many cards in this thread. No Hoffman here.

[Robextend]