If Edmonds' decline were to accelerate from here on...

[Radio Clash 84]

...would he have done enough to at least remain on the HOF ballot for a while? I personally have my doubts, especially when you consider how much his commitment has been questioned over the years.

[Westlake]

If Edmonds has a normal decline, he's a HOF in my book. Even if he were to retire today, he'd come pretty close.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If Edmonds has a normal decline, he's a HOF in my book. Even if he were to retire today, he'd come pretty close.

I think Edmonds is in an accelerated decline right now.

If Edmonds can hang on to get 400 HRs, he has a chance. If he doesn't he won't get in. That's what it comes down to now.

I've been rooting for Edmonds, but I don't think he's gonna do it. I think the concussions have taken their toll, and it's a big toll.

[Sockeye]

I think Edmonds is in an accelerated decline right now.

If Edmonds can hang on to get 400 HRs, he has a chance. If he doesn't he won't get in. That's what it comes down to now.

I've been rooting for Edmonds, but I don't think he's gonna do it. I think the concussions have taken their toll, and it's a big toll.

Sadly I'm starting to take the same point of view. Edmonds will need 400 homers to make the HOF. I'm not sure he has another 50 in him. But as for the question will he last on the ballot? No question about it. He'll last the full 15 years.

[John Shoemaker]

Sadly I'm starting to take the same point of view. Edmonds will need 400 homers to make the HOF. I'm not sure he has another 50 in him. But as for the question will he last on the ballot? No question about it. He'll last the full 15 years.

I have to agree with you - but it's too bad - there are players that are in the HOF that don't have the stats that Jim has.

[KCGHOST]

I tend to lean agains this candidacy, but I may be underestimating his offensive contributions. This has been such a homer happy era that 350 HR's just seem very good rather than special. His 8 GG's are noteworthy, but hey Derek Jeter has 3 of them.

[Pine Tar]

I don't know. He reminds me of Matt Williams, just one or two peak years away from making a strong case for the hall. Unfortunately, Williams performance dropped severely and the 1994 strike stopped him from challenging Maris' record. Edmonds has just stopped hitting. I tend to think that Edmonds was better overall but not by enough to make a case for the hall. I mean if Andre Dawson and Dale Murphy can't get in then I don't see Edmonds getting in any time soon.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't know. He reminds me of Matt Williams, just one or two peak years away from making a strong case for the hall. Unfortunately, Williams performance dropped severely and the 1994 strike stopped him from challenging Maris' record. Edmonds has just stopped hitting. I tend to think that Edmonds was better overall but not by enough to make a case for the hall. I mean if Andre Dawson and Dale Murphy can't get in then I don't see Edmonds getting in any time soon.

The season's still young. Edmonds may hit enough to hold his job, but he's lost POWER. That's disastrous for Edmonds; he needs 400 HRs to have a shot.

I agree with the above assessment. The edge that Edmonds has over Dawson and Murphy is that he has more career value as a defensive CF. Dawson moved to RF in his early 30s due to injuries and a loss of speed, and Murphy moved to RF in his early 30s. Edmonds has logged far more games in CF than either of these guys, and he had played CF almost exclusively (Murphy didn't play 60 percent of his games in CF and Dawson played 200 more games in RF than in CF.) Edmonds is also a better hitter than Dawson, and arguably as good a hitter as Murphy. I clearly rate Edmonds as a superior player to Dawson, and I think that he is in a position to where he will not lose any ground on that score. I'm not sure that these conclusions are shared by the writers, however. The other guys won the MVP awards, and while Dawson's was kind of bogus, he still won it, and it's still part of the record. Short of a renaissance, what Edmonds has done is probably not enough.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Sadly I'm starting to take the same point of view. Edmonds will need 400 homers to make the HOF. I'm not sure he has another 50 in him. But as for the question will he last on the ballot? No question about it. He'll last the full 15 years.

I agree that he'll last on the ballot. He's a memorable player, a "Web Gems" guy. He'll always have his ideosyncratic boosters.

[philipthegreat]

Think of it this way. Say he's traded to the AL and plays as a DH it would give him another 4 or 5 seasons no. 15 HR in 4 seasons is sixty home runs giving him at least 400 home runs. Playing like this I suspect maybe 412 home runs by the end of his carrer?

[Rose4theHall]

He's close, but sadly he is 37 now and has been in a steep decline since 04. He wont have enough numbers of a 15-20 year guy to get in. Hanging around might even hurt his chances.

[Freakshow]

This is not the career stat line of a hall of famer:

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG SB CS
+----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--
1710 5948 1117 1717 381 21 350 1070 883 1521 .289 .382 .536 63 48
Jim Edmonds has almost no chance of being elected to the Hall of Fame. Even if he plays another three year at the level of 2006, giving him 400 HR and 2000 hits, he still completely lacks the sort of numbers that impress the voters. With his weak career totals he needs a period of dominance, which he lacks: ZERO Black Ink, never close to MVP, only four all-star years. Look at the lack of HOFers in his list of "similar" batters; Edmonds is actually worse than most of them due to the hitters' era in which he compiled his numbers.

Yes, Edmonds does deserve more consideration than he's likely to get from the voters. Unless statistical analysis really gains traction with the HOF electorate, Edmonds will be lucky to get the 5% support to continue on the ballot.

[lollar]

I have never in my life considered Edmonds a Hall of Famer...not even worth discussing to me.

[hubkittel]

[Freakshow;874074]This is not the career stat line of a hall of famer:

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG SB CS
+----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--
1710 5948 1117 1717 381 21 350 1070 883 1521 .289 .382 .536 63 48

i'm not sold on edmonds' HoF case but his top ten comps are guys like dick allen, jason giambi, chipper, tim salmon, albert belle, andruw jones, shawn green, fred lynn, reggie smith, and moises alou. not a HoFer in the bunch (yet) but a lot of borderline guys. i think that sums up edmonds' chances for the HoF-a borderline guy on the wrong side of the border.

Jim Edmonds has almost no chance of being elected to the Hall of Fame.

'no chance' states the case a little too strongly. the bbwaa most likely won't put him in and his case will get thrown to the veterans commitee. and who knows what the veterans commitee will be doing 20 years from now.

[hubkittel]

I have never in my life considered Edmonds a Hall of Famer...not even worth discussing to me.

i used to think along the same lines until i started reading some posts on BBF by people who's opinion i respect that made a decent case for him. just looking at the keltner list, you could begin building a decent arguement for edmonds.

[lollar]

I'm not sure who was on the Keltner list, but Ken Keltner's not a HOFer either, and I'm an Indians fan.

[hubkittel]

I'm not sure who was on the Keltner list, but Ken Keltner's not a HOFer either, and I'm an Indians fan.

from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keltner_list): "The Keltner list is a systematic but non-numerical method for determining whether a baseball player is deserving of election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY[1]. It makes use of an inventory of questions (mostly yes-or-no format) regarding the merit of players relative to their peers...(Bill) James created the eponymous list in order to evaluate the qualifications of players who have not been elected to the Hall, but nonetheless merit consideration. As a subjective method, the Keltner list is not designed to yield an undeniable answer about a player's worthiness; for instance, as James says, "you can't total up the score and say that everybody who is at eight or above should be in, or anything like that.[1]"

[digglahhh]

I have never in my life considered Edmonds a Hall of Famer...not even worth discussing to me.

I doubt I'd vote for him if given the chance, but he is, in fact, one of the most worthy of discussion of all current players. He is nearing the end of his career and he has something of a case.

Alex Rodriguez is not worth discussion, neither is Sidney Ponson, for the simple fact that there is nothing to discuss for either of them. Yes. No. Next.

Jim Edmonds is the exact type of player TO DISCUSS.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I doubt I'd vote for him if given the chance, but he is, in fact, one of the most worthy of discussion of all current players. He is nearing the end of his career and he has something of a case.

Alex Rodriguez is not worth discussion, neither is Sidney Ponson, for the simple fact that there is nothing to discuss for either of them. Yes. No. Next.

Jim Edmonds is the exact type of player TO DISCUSS.

If Sidney Ponson developed a Niekro-esque knuckleball in his 30s, he might give us something to discuss. :dance :dance :dance :dance :dance

Edmonds is STILL off to a terrible start.

[lollar]

I don't think there is anything to discuss with Edmonds. Nice player, good postseason numbers, not HOF..just my opinion.

[starkeeper]

As I read the opinions posted I saw very little reference to 8 Gold Gloves as a center fielder. This has to got to give some credibility to at least the discussion of his merit to the HOF. Agreed, his offensive numbers may be on the bubble but his stellar defense must be a strong consideration.

[John Shoemaker]

As I read the opinions posted I saw very little reference to 8 Gold Gloves as a center fielder. This has to got to give some credibility to at least the discussion of his merit to the HOF. Agreed, his offensive numbers may be on the bubble but his stellar defense must be a strong consideration.

I completely agree - we have to look at the whole package. Even tho his offensive statistics might be borderline HOF his defense should get him a lot of consideration for the HOF. I hope he has several more good seasons to erase all doubt.

[Freakshow]

As I read the opinions posted I saw very little reference to 8 Gold Gloves as a center fielder. This has to got to give some credibility to at least the discussion of his merit to the HOF. Agreed, his offensive numbers may be on the bubble but his stellar defense must be a strong consideration.
This isn't quite as imressive as it sounds. If each OF position was given its own GG, Edmonds would be lucky to have any, as Andruw Jones would've won over him most years. So Edmonds can win a GG if he is the 2nd (or even 3rd) best at his position in his league.

Also, as fielding metrics develop, becoming more indicative of actual performance, GG will continue to diminish in importance. As we know, many have been awarded more for a player's fame and offense than for his fielding.

Lastly, I see little indication that HOF voters place any importance on GG awards for OF. Maybe at a defense-first position like SS or C, but not OF.

[Chisox]

Just wondering? How much difference is there between these two CFs?
Player Seas G AB PA Bases BPO* BA CS 2B XBH XB GIDP H HBP HR OB OBP OPS OPS+ Outs R RBI RP SF SH Slug SB SBP TB 3B BB
PlayerA 18 2,143 7,161 8,185 4,935 0.923 0.295 50 358 850 1,749 166 2,116 21 407 3,108 0.380 0.919 140 5,345 1,259 1,333 2,185 32 52 0.540 99 0.664 3,865 85 971
Edmonds 15 1,716 5,970 6,959 4,148 0.928 0.288 48 381 754 1,478 107 1,722 46 351 2,653 0.381 0.917 136 4,469 1,119 1,073 1,841 58 8 0.536 63 0.568 3,200 22 885
*BPO = Bases/Outs

Both played in the same run environment and are considered even defensivly.

[Chisox]

I doubt I'd vote for him if given the chance, but he is, in fact, one of the most worthy of discussion of all current players. He is nearing the end of his career and he has something of a case.

Alex Rodriguez is not worth discussion, neither is Sidney Ponson, for the simple fact that there is nothing to discuss for either of them. Yes. No. Next.

Jim Edmonds is the exact type of player TO DISCUSS.
Exactly.:thumbsup: :clapping

[digglahhh]

Just wondering? How much difference is there between these two CFs?
Player Seas G AB PA Bases BPO* BA CS 2B XBH XB GIDP H HBP HR OB OBP OPS OPS+ Outs R RBI RP SF SH Slug SB SBP TB 3B BB
PlayerA 18 2,143 7,161 8,185 4,935 0.923 0.295 50 358 850 1,749 166 2,116 21 407 3,108 0.380 0.919 140 5,345 1,259 1,333 2,185 32 52 0.540 99 0.664 3,865 85 971
Edmonds 15 1,716 5,970 6,959 4,148 0.928 0.288 48 381 754 1,478 107 1,722 46 351 2,653 0.381 0.917 136 4,469 1,119 1,073 1,841 58 8 0.536 63 0.568 3,200 22 885
*BPO = Bases/Outs

Both played in the same run environment and are considered even defensivly.

That's Snider right?

Identifying players by their career stats is a fun* game to play



* pronounced, dorky:)

[Fuzzy Bear]

Just wondering? How much difference is there between these two CFs?
Player Seas G AB PA Bases BPO* BA CS 2B XBH XB GIDP H HBP HR OB OBP OPS OPS+ Outs R RBI RP SF SH Slug SB SBP TB 3B BB
PlayerA 18 2,143 7,161 8,185 4,935 0.923 0.295 50 358 850 1,749 166 2,116 21 407 3,108 0.380 0.919 140 5,345 1,259 1,333 2,185 32 52 0.540 99 0.664 3,865 85 971
Edmonds 15 1,716 5,970 6,959 4,148 0.928 0.288 48 381 754 1,478 107 1,722 46 351 2,653 0.381 0.917 136 4,469 1,119 1,073 1,841 58 8 0.536 63 0.568 3,200 22 885
*BPO = Bases/Outs

Both played in the same run environment and are considered even defensivly.

Interesting point.

Snider was considered a more pivitol player while active, but he also was a beneficiary of the most influential press around.

After his retirement, Snider faded in comparision to Willie and Mickey. Snider had a higher peak than Edmonds, however, and accomplished what he did in a shorter window. They are surprisingly similar players, however.

I can't see how one can rate Edmonds even with Snider, let alone ahead of him, when Edmonds is behind Snider in most offensive categories, and just about all of the important ones. Snider clearly had a higher peak, and, really, a better career. How can you truly rate Edmonds ahead of, or, for that matter, even with Snider (if you are).

[Dodgerfan1]

Interesting point.

Snider was considered a more pivitol player while active, but he also was a beneficiary of the most influential press around.

After his retirement, Snider faded in comparision to Willie and Mickey. Snider had a higher peak than Edmonds, however, and accomplished what he did in a shorter window. They are surprisingly similar players, however.

I can't see how one can rate Edmonds even with Snider, let alone ahead of him, when Edmonds is behind Snider in most offensive categories, and just about all of the important ones. Snider clearly had a higher peak, and, really, a better career. How can you truly rate Edmonds ahead of, or, for that matter, even with Snider (if you are).

I believe that Snider gets more points for being on so many great teams that went to the WS. Plus, Snider was an 8-time All-Star to Edmunds' 4 (for what that's worth...), Snider was in the MVP voters' top ten 6 times to Edmonds' 2, Snider had four times as many triples as Edmonds and the Duke was a much better RBI guy, although I realize that many of you don't care much for RBIs.

Other than that, they do appear pretty similar. I don't think Edmonds belongs in the HOF. Despite the fact that Snider did play in a relatively free-swinging era, it was still nowhere near the slugging era of today, so their similar slugging numbers are misleading, IMO. If Snider played today, I believe he would have a much higher slugging rating.

[Freakshow]

Just wondering? How much difference is there between these two CFs?

The short answer is, a lot. Two prime seasons worth of difference.

[Chisox]

Interesting point.

Snider was considered a more pivitol player while active, but he also was a beneficiary of the most influential press around.

After his retirement, Snider faded in comparision to Willie and Mickey. Snider had a higher peak than Edmonds, however, and accomplished what he did in a shorter window. They are surprisingly similar players, however.

I can't see how one can rate Edmonds even with Snider, let alone ahead of him, when Edmonds is behind Snider in most offensive categories, and just about all of the important ones. Snider clearly had a higher peak, and, really, a better career. How can you truly rate Edmonds ahead of, or, for that matter, even with Snider (if you are).


I'm not rating Edmonds even. I simply noticed how similar their career numbers are. Most people have Snider easily in the top 10 CF and Edmonds not a HOFer. I really don't know if Edmonds would make my HOF; it was just something to think about.

[Westlake]

If Edmonds had the romanticism that some players of the past have enjoyed, I think he would be a HOFer. Give it some time, maybe he'll get it.

[Chisox]

I believe that Snider gets more points for being on so many great teams that went to the WS. Plus, Snider was an 8-time All-Star to Edmunds' 4 (for what that's worth...), Snider was in the MVP voters' top ten 6 times to Edmonds' 2, Snider had four times as many triples as Edmonds and the Duke was a much better RBI guy, although I realize that many of you don't care much for RBIs.

Other than that, they do appear pretty similar. I don't think Edmonds belongs in the HOF. Despite the fact that Snider did play in a relatively free-swinging era, it was still nowhere near the slugging era of today, so their similar slugging numbers are misleading, IMO. If Snider played today, I believe he would have a much higher slugging rating.
Their OPS+ are just four points off. What's so misleading about that? The park adjusted OPS for Snider is .761 compared to.773 for Edmonds. That's not much of a difference. I believe Edmonds would get bonus points for playing in a tougher league, as well.
As for as MVP voting, Jim Rice was in the top 10 6 times to Yaz's 4. What does that prove? He was more popular.

[jpenrod]

Just wondering? How much difference is there between these two CFs?
Player Seas G AB PA Bases BPO* BA CS 2B XBH XB GIDP H HBP HR OB OBP OPS OPS+ Outs R RBI RP SF SH Slug SB SBP TB 3B BB
PlayerA 18 2,143 7,161 8,185 4,935 0.923 0.295 50 358 850 1,749 166 2,116 21 407 3,108 0.380 0.919 140 5,345 1,259 1,333 2,185 32 52 0.540 99 0.664 3,865 85 971
Edmonds 15 1,716 5,970 6,959 4,148 0.928 0.288 48 381 754 1,478 107 1,722 46 351 2,653 0.381 0.917 136 4,469 1,119 1,073 1,841 58 8 0.536 63 0.568 3,200 22 885
*BPO = Bases/Outs

Both played in the same run environment and are considered even defensivly.


You really think Snider and Edmonds played in the same type of offensive eras?

[Westlake]

You really think Snider and Edmonds played in the same type of offensive eras?

Considering their offensive stats are very similar, and the stat that measures that with the rest of their league is very similar, why not? Do you disagree?

[Dodgerfan1]

Their OPS+ are just four points off. What's so misleading about that? The park adjusted OPS for Snider is .761 compared to.773 for Edmonds. That's not much of a difference. I believe Edmonds would get bonus points for playing in a tougher league, as well.
As for as MVP voting, Jim Rice was in the top 10 6 times to Yaz's 4. What does that prove? He was more popular.

All I know is that if there has to be a discussion as to whether a player belongs in the Hall or not, he probably doesn't. :twocents:

[Westlake]

All I know is that if there has to be a discussion as to whether a player belongs in the Hall or not, he probably doesn't. :twocents:

I disagree. I'm sure there was plenty of discussion about former players and their HOF candidacy before they were elected. A lot of people that seem like no brainer HOFers to us right now, probably didn't seem that way in their time.

[Dodgerfan1]

I disagree. I'm sure there was plenty of discussion about former players and their HOF candidacy before they were elected. A lot of people that seem like no brainer HOFers to us right now, probably didn't seem that way in their time.

Ah yes, that is true, of course, my friend, but then you should know that I am one of those baseball fans who happen to think there are FAR too many players in the HOF already and to me, the Hall of Fame is for baseball legends. The immortals. With them, there is no debate, IMO. They belong. I won't go into my usual speil about "it's not called the Hall of Very Good", etc.

The opinion I have is surely a minority one, but it's how I feel.

[jalbright]

All I know is that if there has to be a discussion as to whether a player belongs in the Hall or not, he probably doesn't. :twocents:

Actually, this statement is illogical, because it all depends upon the standard used. As the standard moves, the question of whether a player belongs moves with it. Therefore, the question never goes away. If we apply the above logic, the Hall would be for no one, because if we took this logic to its extreme, when we got down to one guy in the Hall, and there wasn't a consensus on that point, no one would belong in. That's not what a Hall of Fame is for.

Jim Albright

[digglahhh]

Actually, this statement is illogical, because it all depends upon the standard used. As the standard moves, the question of whether a player belongs moves with it. Therefore, the question never goes away. If we apply the above logic, the Hall would be for no one, because if we took this logic to its extreme, when we got down to one guy in the Hall, and there wasn't a consensus on that point, no one would belong in. That's not what a Hall of Fame is for.

Jim Albright

Thank you.

Moving the borderline from Jim Edmonds to Willie McCovey doesn't change the fact that a borderline must still exist.

[Westlake]

Ah yes, that is true, of course, my friend, but then you should know that I am one of those baseball fans who happen to think there are FAR too many players in the HOF already and to me, the Hall of Fame is for baseball legends. The immortals. With them, there is no debate, IMO. They belong. I won't go into my usual speil about "it's not called the Hall of Very Good", etc.

The opinion I have is surely a minority one, but it's how I feel.

I'm of the same opinion... FAR too many players in the HOF... yet, I still find myself believing that Jim Edmonds would get my vote in the future if I were to have one. I dont know... I still debate with myself whether or not the Hall should be for the immortals, or if I should just conform to what it already is and go from there. Arg...

[538280]

Ah yes, that is true, of course, my friend, but then you should know that I am one of those baseball fans who happen to think there are FAR too many players in the HOF already and to me, the Hall of Fame is for baseball legends. The immortals. With them, there is no debate, IMO. They belong. I won't go into my usual speil about "it's not called the Hall of Very Good", etc.

The opinion I have is surely a minority one, but it's how I feel.

It's okay if you have that opinion, but when asked if a player should be in the real HOF, you can't go by your own standard, you have to go by the standard of the real HOF. We can't raise the standard of the HOF when the standard has already been set. If you want to make a personal HOF with 50 players in it or however many that's okay, but I still think you should be held to recognizing the actual standard if you're voting for the actual HOF.

[Westlake]

It's okay if you have that opinion, but when asked if a player should be in the real HOF, you can't go by your own standard, you have to go by the standard of the real HOF. We can't raise the standard of the HOF when the standard has already been set. If you want to make a personal HOF with 50 players in it or however many that's okay, but I still think you should be held to recognizing the actual standard if you're voting for the actual HOF.

I dont agree with this. Who is to say what the real standard of the HOF is? As long as the player in question is better than the worst player in? What is the 'actual' standard?

When i'm asked if I think a certain player should be in the Hall, I usually dont think about what standard has been set by previous elections to make my decision.

[digglahhh]

I dont agree with this. Who is to stay what the real standard of the HOF is? As long as the player in question is better than the worst player in? What is the 'actual' standard?

When i'm asked if I think a certain player should be in the Hall, I usually dont think about what standard has been set by previous elections to make my decision.

Yeah, this is a tough balance.

On the one hand, the voters themselves vote based upon their own standard, not some predetermined demarcation. It is not like it is defined that the HOF is reserved for the top 1% or 3% or .01% of players.

Since the standard itself is subjective, so are all the words we use around it, "lock," "deserving," "borderline," "test case," "immortal" and so forth.

So, in that sense I agree with you.

I think what Chris is touching on is that for purposes of these types of discussions, we should be taking into account the past voting histories, patterns and attempting to define the existing abstract standard to the best of our ability.

If your HOF consists of 50 players, you probably can't add much to this discussion because there is obviously a huge rift between your line and what we interpret the voting body's line.

There are really a couple of ways to approach these questions.

Do you think he is a HOFer?
How likely do you think it is that he will be a HOFer?
Given the standard of player that seems to be the cutoff, which side of the cutoff should the player land on?

If your conception of the HOF is vastly different than the real one, you should probably be answering along the lines of the second and third questions for the purposes of these discussions.

And, we should probably remove the top and bottom 10-15% of HOFers for comparison purposes.

[Dodgerfan1]

Yeah, this is a tough balance.

On the one hand, the voters themselves vote based upon their own standard, not some predetermined demarcation. It is not like it is defined that the HOF is reserved for the top 1% or 3% or .01% of players.

Since the standard itself is subjective, so are all the words we use around it, "lock," "deserving," "borderline," "test case," "immortal" and so forth.

So, in that sense I agree with you.

I think what Chris is touching on is that for purposes of these types of discussions, we should be taking into account the past voting histories, patterns and attempting to define the existing abstract standard to the best of our ability.

If your HOF consists of 50 players, you probably can't add much to this discussion because there is obviously a huge rift between your line and what we interpret the voting body's line.

There are really a couple of ways to approach these questions.

Do you think he is a HOFer?
How likely do you think it is that he will be a HOFer?
Given the standard of player that seems to be the cutoff, which side of the cutoff should the player land on?

If your conception of the HOF is vastly different than the real one, you should probably be answering along the lines of the second and third questions for the purposes of these discussions.

And, we should probably remove the top and bottom 10-15% of HOFers for comparison purposes.

All I can say in my own defense is that perhaps I'm taking the intent of the Hall of Fame too literally, although I don't think that should even be possible. Many things have been dumbed down throughout history, and I believe the HOF is one of them. I used superlatives like 'legends' and 'immortals' to describe the players I think belong in the Hall, and maybe those words are a bit too polarizing, but I don't think it's a stretch by ANY means to say that I believe the Hall was intended for great players, in fact the greatest of the greats. There are far too many players in the Hall that were, in my humble opinion, NOT great. There are even a few that I would put in the 'above average' category.

I also realize some players are in the Hall for reasons other than their playing ability. Yes, maybe the HOF should have only 50 or so players, using my standards, but I don't like changing the criteria of HOF induction merely to allow others a shot at it. The way players have been voted into the Hall just about every year, it almost seems like the voters feel like they have to vote for someone, so they choose the best of an undeserving lot, just to get someone else in. To me, that's like settling for the notorious 'best available athlete' in a draft or choosing an undeserving player as an All-Star just because at least one person from every team has to be chosen. It's just settling on something I don't believe should even be a viable option.

Again, I know all this is pretty arbitrary, in some ways, but I also believe the intent of the HOF has been dumbed down to include players whom the original founders would never have considered worthy. What 'worthy' means is, of course, open to interpretation, and perhaps that's the problem.

[jpenrod]

Considering their offensive stats are very similar, and the stat that measures that with the rest of their league is very similar, why not? Do you disagree?


My gut says no they are not playing in the same type of offensive era; however, I have not done any real comparisons between the two. My reaction is probably due as much to the media hype of the inflated offensive era we are seeing now as to any actual facts (that is meant as a knock on me not as any sort of argument). If in fact the era from '47-'64 is comparable offensively to the era from '93-'07 then I am not sure what everyone is complaining about with all of the homerun hitters now.

This does raise another question, if we are making the argument that Edmonds belong because he has similar stats to Snider in similar offensive eras where does this leave another center fielder, Dale Murphy. I do not believe the '80's were the offensive years the '60, '90's were or the 2000's have been. with that said his stats are right in line with Edmonds and Snider with the exception of BA and OBP (He has as much drop off from Edmonds as Edmonds has to Snider. Both Murphy and Edmonds have multiple GG's in the OF (yes Edmonds has more), but the thing that Murp has that Edmonds does not have is 2 MVP awards and multiple (5) Silver Slugger Awards. Snider does not have any GG, no MVP's and the Silver Slugger was not around when he played. This type of argument could go on and on, but if we are just comparing stats and era's I think that Murph should be included in the discuaaion and as such you are right back where you stated One guy in the HOF, one guy out and one guy everyone is trying to figure out.

[Chisox]

My gut says no they are not playing in the same type of offensive era; however, I have not done any real comparisons between the two. My reaction is probably due as much to the media hype of the inflated offensive era we are seeing now as to any actual facts (that is meant as a knock on me not as any sort of argument). If in fact the era from '47-'64 is comparable offensively to the era from '93-'07 then I am not sure what everyone is complaining about with all of the homerun hitters now.

This does raise another question, if we are making the argument that Edmonds belong because he has similar stats to Snider in similar offensive eras where does this leave another center fielder, Dale Murphy. I do not believe the '80's were the offensive years the '60, '90's were or the 2000's have been. with that said his stats are right in line with Edmonds and Snider with the exception of BA and OBP (He has as much drop off from Edmonds as Edmonds has to Snider. Both Murphy and Edmonds have multiple GG's in the OF (yes Edmonds has more), but the thing that Murp has that Edmonds does not have is 2 MVP awards and multiple (5) Silver Slugger Awards. Snider does not have any GG, no MVP's and the Silver Slugger was not around when he played. This type of argument could go on and on, but if we are just comparing stats and era's I think that Murph should be included in the discuaaion and as such you are right back where you stated One guy in the HOF, one guy out and one guy everyone is trying to figure out.

And I do advocate Murphy for the HOF, and I think he is better than Edmonds. Again, I don't think Edmonds is equal to, let alone better than, Snider. I've got Snider a low-end top 10 CF, Edmonds a possible top 15. However, the numbers are remarkably similar, with the only real difference the longevity on Snider's side.

I would like to point something out, though. Regarding offensive environments, Snider played in a VERY friendly hitting park for lefties throughout his prime. Any park factor adjusting probably over-rates Snider because of this because it under-rates how much Ebbets increased lefties performances. http://www.baseball-almanac.com/stadium/stadiume.shtml is a link to Ebbet's Field. RF was only 297' down the line and 352' in the power alley when Snider played. Center was only about 390'. I wouldn't exactly assume that Edmonds automatically gets more of an advantage from is park.

[Robin Yount]

Edmonds is no hall of famer anymore than Tim Salmon is

[John Shoemaker]

I think reports of Jim Edmonds decline are premature. This past week he is batting .333 with 4 homeruns. He's only 36 and is at 355 career homeruns. I think he will get to 400 homeruns and with his great defense he is certainly worthy of HOF induction IMO.

[jalbright]

I think reports of Jim Edmonds decline are premature. This past week he is batting .333 with 4 homeruns. He's only 36 and is at 355 career homeruns. I think he will get to 400 homeruns and with his great defense he is certainly worthy of HOF induction IMO.

He may be .333 with 4 homers in the past 10 games, but for the season, he's hitting .245 with an OBP of .314 and slugging .392. While I understand your suggestion we shouldn't get carried away with the first 1/4 of the season, neither should we get carried away with a 10 game hot streak. Let's see where he finishes.

Jim Albright

[Fuzzy Bear]

He may be .333 with 4 homers in the past 10 games, but for the season, he's hitting .245 with an OBP of .314 and slugging .392. While I understand your suggestion we shouldn't get carried away with the first 1/4 of the season, neither should we get carried away with a 10 game hot streak. Let's see where he finishes.

Jim Albright

Agreed. I can't emphasize enough that the 400 HR mark is pivotal to Edmonds chances, given the TYPE of player that he is.

[Cougar]

Just wondering? How much difference is there between these two CFs?
Player Seas G AB PA Bases BPO* BA CS 2B XBH XB GIDP H HBP HR OB OBP OPS OPS+ Outs R RBI RP SF SH Slug SB SBP TB 3B BB
PlayerA 18 2,143 7,161 8,185 4,935 0.923 0.295 50 358 850 1,749 166 2,116 21 407 3,108 0.380 0.919 140 5,345 1,259 1,333 2,185 32 52 0.540 99 0.664 3,865 85 971
Edmonds 15 1,716 5,970 6,959 4,148 0.928 0.288 48 381 754 1,478 107 1,722 46 351 2,653 0.381 0.917 136 4,469 1,119 1,073 1,841 58 8 0.536 63 0.568 3,200 22 885
*BPO = Bases/Outs

Both played in the same run environment and are considered even defensivly.

Duke Snider? Same environment as Edmonds?