Edgar Martinez in the Hall??

[TXRangerFan]

You know what though? If MLB has named an award after him then that it a strong endorsement for the Hall...I don't agree with it, it seems to me he is getting for his OBP, and he has far poorer career numbers than anyone ranked around him in career OBP...but I guess BB inflation is the way of the future...so if MLB endorses him then there's not much anyone else can say about his worthiness...

But if they really want to be fair then they need to let some other guys in, that right now have no shot at getting in, that did as much or more to help their team, year in and year out, as Edgar Martinez did.

This means Jim Rice, Don Mattingly, Keith Hernandez, etc...I know Edgar has better averages than most of them...but most of them have better cumulatives, and helped their team defensively, in a similar number of years.

If we are now going to change the standard for Edgar, then we need to go back and admit a lot of guys that were unjustly shut out, who have better numbers than Martinez in just about every category.

[Edgartohof]

The time has come, Edgar's career is now over. With his final at bat, and the game ending, we shall no longer see Edgar play another game. It has been amazing being able to watch this man play the game of baseball for the past 18 years.

He was there when I first started watching the game, he was the one who drew me in, and no matter what happened, he was always there. And for that I thank him.

For what this man has accomplished on and off the field, creating a legend that goes beyond the field, he deserves no less than the Hall of Fame.

But now is not the time for debate and argument over that, as we have had enough already, and there will be plenty to come, now is a time to remember, thank, and honor a great man and a great ball player.

[Cougar]

But now is not the time for debate and argument over that, as we have had enough already, and there will be plenty to come, now is a time to remember, thank, and honor a great man and a great ball player.

I think we can all agree with this fine sentiment.

[nightal]

But now is not the time for debate and argument over that, as we have had enough already, and there will be plenty to come, now is a time to remember, thank, and honor a great man and a great ball player.

Count me as one who agrees with this statement :)

[jasonwt1977]

My problem is this. Is Edgar Martinez a Ted Williams, Babe Ruth or Ty Cobb? No. This is exactly what he would have to be to deserve in the hall. What he is doing is playing golf from the ladies tee or with a golf cart. He only plays half the game and it has been that way for most of his career. He has been allowed to play off an exemption. If he would have been a regular his whole career he would have never seen the 2000's. The only way I can tolerate a full time DH in the hall is if he is the greatest hitter of his generation. Edgar isnt. The DH is a greed position. It is unique amongst sports. It is a position that doesnt serve a needed purpose. It is unfair. It is the same reason that in sports like Diving you incorporate difficulty. You cannot hold a DH to standards set by full-time players. He is a great guy but he does not belong.

Since I continue to see people making comparisons to very early baseball stats I wanted to toss this out.

Back in the days of Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, George Sisler, etc how many mop up relievers, middle relievers, set up men, closers, etc did they see? How many at bats did they get against each pitcher? Isn't it true at that most pitchers went complete games or close to it? I don't know about you but in my limited baseball career in high school and city leagues, the more I saw a pitcher the easier it was to pick up his pitches and have a idea of what he was capable of or thinking. I know there are exceptions to this rule with pitchers that are totally dominating.

I just read somewhere that the most pitches in a game by a starter was a little over 200. 200 pitches!!?? Now i know that was way above the average at that time but 130+ pitches was not that uncommon. Do you think a "tired" factor would make the leagues best hitters even better in some situations?

How about the change in the gear? Do you think todays Nike/Rebok/Whatever "hi tech" shoes give the fielders a better jump or shot at the ball? More likely how about the gloves? I have no idea how they even played with the gloves they had back then. If nothing else the new gloves give the fielders better range and the ability to take away more hits.

I feel all of the above would play a roll in better offensive production when you look at a long period of time but I think a huge advantage that Ruth/Sisler enjoyed was a limited amount of quality pitchers they faced. I know there were some very good pitchers, but just think of the amount of raw talent there is today. You have to be that much better at the plate to even stay par. I think the minor league and its improvements have added a lot of talent and depth to the game.

Now I may be way off base here (I am by no means a baseball historian) but all in all I think that baseball as made considerable advancements/changes over the years that makes it hard to compare stats straight across the board between the multiple eras.

As for Edgar making the HOF, I for one really thinks he has earned it but don't think the majority of folks outside the PNW would agree. Edgar brings so much more to the team then his bat. Sure he's not a good solution for any defensive position anymore but offensively the respect he has from his piers to this day should tell you something. And dont kid your self, he is one of the best right handed hitters in the last 15 years. Not to mention he has always been someone the young Seattle talent could look up to and learn from. I have also never seen such a good clutch hitter. I would not say this for the last couple years but in most of his previous 7 year straight run of .300+ avg, I feel that statement is very accurate.

I think the fact that he has played DH most his career should have nothing to do with keeping him out of the HOF. Like a poster before said, should we keep AL pitchers out now since they no longer bat? You cant tell me that having a pitcher that bats 100 compared to one that bats 200 would not make a difference in a lot of games.

Any ways thats my two cents. I'm interested in hearing your guys opinions on the differences in the game.

Thanks for the years Edgar. You will be missed.

[fiftyseven]

The man had a higher OBP than Hall of Famers Mickey Mantle, Mickey Cochrane, Stan Musial, Jesse Burkett, Rod Carew, Met Ott, Hank Greenberg, Joe DiMaggio, Hughie Jennings, Ed Delahanty, Harry Heilmann, Arky Vaughan, Honus Wagner, Paul Waner, Charlie Gehringer, Joe Kelly, Luke Appling, Ross Young, Ralph Kiner, Roger Connor, Earle Combs, Richie Ashburn, Hack Wilson, Frank Chance, Earl Averill, Bill Terry, Joe Morgan, and Cap Anson, and a guy not in the Hall who you might have heard of named Joe Jackson.

Not only that, but how would Edgar have been better if he played poorly throughout his career in a field position instead of just hitting and not hurting the club defensively? I often hear from Red Sox fans that Ted Williams would have been a DH in today's era. The DH is a position created, and it's time that it be a dignified one.

IMO, Edgar certainly gets in the Hall.

[Edgartohof]

The man had a higher OBP than Hall of Famers Mickey Mantle, Mickey Cochrane, Stan Musial, Jesse Burkett, Rod Carew, Met Ott, Hank Greenberg, Joe DiMaggio, Hughie Jennings, Ed Delahanty, Harry Heilmann, Arky Vaughan, Honus Wagner, Paul Waner, Charlie Gehringer, Joe Kelly, Luke Appling, Ross Young, Ralph Kiner, Roger Connor, Earle Combs, Richie Ashburn, Hack Wilson, Frank Chance, Earl Averill, Bill Terry, Joe Morgan, and Cap Anson, and a guy not in the Hall who you might have heard of named Joe Jackson.

Not only that, but how would Edgar have been better if he played poorly throughout his career in a field position instead of just hitting and not hurting the club defensively? I often hear from Red Sox fans that Ted Williams would have been a DH in today's era. The DH is a position created, and it's time that it be a dignified one.

IMO, Edgar certainly gets in the Hall.


First off, welcome to this site, and I hope you stay a while.

Second, thank you for the support. As you will find by staying here, there is a very split group here on this decision (those for him getting in the Hall being the minority). I am one of his biggest supporters (as you can probably tell from the name) - most of those opposed to it are because he is a DH - the rest have any number of reasons to disagree, such as saying a player with a:

.300/.400/.500, 300 HR, 500 2B, 1200 RBI, 1200 BB, 145+ OPS+, does not belong in the HOF

Anyways, do not let the lack of support here, keep you away, in fact think of it as more reason for you to be here, to convert these people to Edgar fans - who are in support of his induction.


Also, here is a site that you and everyone else should take a look at - another fans site for edgar - pretty well put together

http://www.abarim.com/edgar.htm

[Clemente21]

Edgar Martinex SHOULD NEVER be elected into Cooperstown and YES you can hold the fact that he only bats against him and I do. He essentially plays only half the game and if you only play half the game you better be twice as good as anybody else at it or you aren't all that special.

The DH is the most abhorent rule in all of professional sports. I mean it is such a ludicrous notion I am not sure how or why it was ever instituted in the first place. Aside from baseball's exclussionary practices of yesteryear the DH is single worst thing about the game??? really what excitement does it really add??? I would much rather see Roger Clemens have to pick up a bat and step in the batters box then to see some mediocre DH. Now Edgar is an exceptional DH but he is also the exception and being a GREAT DH doesn't amount to a hell of a lot anyway...I mean at present at Edgar is the ONLY DH with an average of more then .276 do people really hate seeing pitchers hit to the point they want Josh Phelps and Brad Fullmer in the line-up so badly???

If we want excitement hos about a Designated Runner... i mean that way we could all be spared being forced to watch benji Molina run the bases...instead the Angels could hire Rickey Henderson and he could run f or Benji??/ i mean imagine all the close plays at home...the added runs it could generate the reintroduction of the stolen base into today's game??? time Raines might still be playing same too with Vince Coleman and Otis Nixon....Would Davey Lopes have been able to extend his career and get into Cooperstown??? What about Brett Butler???

If Edgar wants in Cooperstown he can buy a ticket in order for me to even consider a DH worthy he would have to achieve some monster numbers for not only individual seasons but a career as well..

I am talking 700HR 2000RBI 4000Hits or a .350+ lifetime batting average......

Even a DH with 3000Hits and 5000 HR wouldn't be a Hall of Famer IMO as when you don't play the field you miss half the game..

Frank Thomas is also IMO as full time a DH as it gets...his career numbers have always been better when he plays 1B as opposed to when he DH's but he has also desired to NOT play the field??? I mean Edgar and Frank actually LIKE sitting on the bench??? If I was a big league ball player I want to be out there for EVERY PLAY and anyone with the attitude of if they abolished the DH I woudl retire (Something Edgar has said.) is a disgrace to the game.
you are retarded .........
you cant hold it against the guy that he got hurt and couldnt field like he fielded when he first entered the league.
If you were a DH and you wanted to get into the hall of fame you would be hoping for his numbers. (700HR 2000RBI 4000Hits or a .350+ ) yeah thats not likely even for a fielder. Your comments were some of the most ignorant i have ever heard and your a disgrace to baseball fans all across the globe.

[Captain Cold Nose]

you are retarded .........
you cant hold it against the guy that he got hurt and couldnt field like he fielded when he first entered the league.
If you were a DH and you wanted to get into the hall of fame you would be hoping for his numbers. (700HR 2000RBI 4000Hits or a .350+ ) yeah thats not likely even for a fielder. Your comments were some of the most ignorant i have ever heard and your a disgrace to baseball fans all across the globe.

Name calling is not acceptable on this site, regardless of how you view someone else's opinion. Arguments are won by making valid points, not by attacking with nothing to back it up.

[Clemente21]

Name calling is not acceptable on this site, regardless of how you view someone else's opinion. Arguments are won by making valid points, not by attacking with nothing to back it up.
I apologize for the name calling..
All i am trying to say is that I Believe Edgar Martinez Should be in the HOF. The has been as consistant as consistant can get. To bat .300 in a career is not an easy feat to accomplish. DH is a rule since it is a legitimate position in the American League You should not fault the guy for using it to his advantage. His numbers are pretty solid up and down the line(except for 3B's) and he deserves a shot. On the other Hand i would like to see santo in before edgar.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I apologize for the name calling..
All i am trying to say is that I Believe Edgar Martinez Should be in the HOF. The has been as consistant as consistant can get. To bat .300 in a career is not an easy feat to accomplish. DH is a rule since it is a legitimate position in the American League You should not fault the guy for using it to his advantage. His numbers are pretty solid up and down the line(except for 3B's) and he deserves a shot. On the other Hand i would like to see santo in before edgar.

It's alright, since you're new and probably haven't gotten too much of a feel for this site yet. Welcome aboard.

A lot of people's problems with Martinez is he hasn't posted incredible numbers for someone who has been little more than a full time hitter. If all you have to worry about is one aspect of the game, you should be able to post eye-popping numbers without the use of calculators. I don't think anyone would say Martinez was not a great hitter. I don't hold the fact he was a DH against him, you can't detract from someone working within a system they did not create (easy!), but the overall numbers, based on counting stats, are not overwhelming to me.

[DoubleX]

For some reason my post got posted twice, so see the next post for my post. Yay post.

[DoubleX]

Having thought this over some since the end of the season and Edgar retired, I've already grown to greater appreciate Edgar's contributions and skill with the bat. That being said, I still don't feel that he should be elected to the Hall.

In the end, it all comes down to numbers. Edgar's career numbers aren't all that impressive for a guy who was thought to be a hitting specialist and whose career was dedicated to nothing else but hitting. As for individual seasons - Edgar did have plenty of good to great ones, but so do a ton of other guys who are perennial All-Stars but will likely come up short for the Hall. What's the difference between Edgar and these other players? Most of these other players play the field everyday and can run the bases at least adequately (whereas Edgar was arguably the worst baserunner in baseball for the past decade). So in the end, for Edgar to be a Hall of Famer in my mind, he has to hit unlike anyone else in the game outside of Barry Bonds. In my mind, there are several guys who contributed at the plate at a level consumate with Edgar's, but could also play the field and run, meaning Edgar did not do enough with the bat to make up for doing absolutely nothing with the glove or on the bases for most of his career.

[DoubleX]

Here is a list of active players and recent retirees with a career OPS+ either above or within 10 points of Edgar's +147 (min. 4,000 AB):

Barry Bonds +184
Frank Thomas +162
Manny Ramirez +156
Jim Thome +151
Jeff Bagwell +150
Mike Piazza +150
Jason Giambi +149
Vladimir Guerrero +147
Gary Sheffield +147
Todd Helton +146
Brian Giles +146
Ken Griffey +144
Alex Rodriguez +143
Albert Belle +143
Chipper Jones +141
Carlos Delgado +140
Larry Walker +140
Bobby Abreu +140
Jim Edmonds +138
Will Clark +138
Darryl Strawberry +138

So that's 21 players, whose careers have overlapped Edgar's, and whose OPS+ either surpasses are comes close to Edgar's.

First Point: All of these 21 players have spent several seasons in the field, and many, many more games than Edgar.

Second Point: How many of these names stand out as clear Hall of Famers? Half, maybe? Maybe less?

Third Point: These 21 players are either beyond or near Edgar's career OPS+ without having the advantage of dedicating themselves entirely to hitting for the vast majority of their careers. Imagine how doing nothing but hitting might inflate many of these guys statistics (not to mention the slew of Edgar's peers not mentioned here but that have a career OPS+ of around +130). It's likely that many of these players, and several others, would leave Edgar in the dust if they played entirely DH for the majority of their careers.

Final Point: The question to me is why is Edgar so special when there are 21 other guys (plus several more in the +130-137 range) who could hit better or about as well as Edgar but also contributed in the other facets of the game? Most of these multi-faceted players are not Hall of Famers, so why is Edgar? It's pretty clear to me, that as nothing but a hitter, Edgar did not do enough to distinguish himself from his good hitting peers that also played the field.

[TheUnknownBandit]

Here is a list of active players and recent retirees with a career OPS+ either above or within 10 points of Edgar's +147 (min. 4,000 AB):

Barry Bonds +184
Frank Thomas +162
Manny Ramirez +156
Jim Thome +151
Jeff Bagwell +150
Mike Piazza +150
Jason Giambi +149
Vladimir Guerrero +147
Gary Sheffield +147
Todd Helton +146
Brian Giles +146
Ken Griffey +144
Alex Rodriguez +143
Albert Belle +143
Chipper Jones +141
Carlos Delgado +140
Larry Walker +140
Bobby Abreu +140
Jim Edmonds +138
Will Clark +138
Darryl Strawberry +138

So that's 21 players, whose careers have overlapped Edgar's, and whose OPS+ either surpasses are comes close to Edgar's.

First Point: All of these 21 players have spent several seasons in the field, and many, many more games than Edgar.

Second Point: How many of these names stand out as clear Hall of Famers? Half, maybe? Maybe less?

Third Point: These 21 players are either beyond or near Edgar's career OPS+ without having the advantage of dedicating themselves entirely to hitting for the vast majority of their careers. Imagine how doing nothing but hitting might inflate many of these guys statistics (not to mention the slew of Edgar's peers not mentioned here but that have a career OPS+ of around +130). It's likely that many of these players, and several others, would leave Edgar in the dust if they played entirely DH for the majority of their careers.

Final Point: The question to me is why is Edgar so special when there are 21 other guys (plus several more in the +130-137 range) who could hit better or about as well as Edgar but also contributed in the other facets of the game? Most of these multi-faceted players are not Hall of Famers, so why is Edgar? It's pretty clear to me, that as nothing but a hitter, Edgar did not do enough to distinguish himself from his good hitting peers that also played the field.

I'm just wondering, where does Paul Molitor stand on this list? Arguably, he could be considered the first DH to be admitted to the Hall, so I think his numbers could be a good comparison for other DH's. As well, if we are going to argue for Edgar Martinez, what about Harold Baines?

[DoubleX]

I'm just wondering, where does Paul Molitor stand on this list? Arguably, he could be considered the first DH to be admitted to the Hall, so I think his numbers could be a good comparison for other DH's. As well, if we are going to argue for Edgar Martinez, what about Harold Baines?

Molitor (122 OPS+) and Baines (120 OPS+) don't register on that list. Both have better career statistics (Molitor is well into the 3,000 hit club and Baines finished near 2,900 hits), but Edgar's 147+ is clearly the best hitter of the three (though Molitor's and Baines' power stats are depressed from playing in the 80's while Edgar gets a boost from having is prime in the mid-late 90's).

Here are some other statistics to compare the three:

Games in the Field
Molitor: 1495 (at 5 different positions)
Baines: 1061
Martinez: 591

Stolen Bases
Molitor: 504
Martinez: 49
Baines: 34

Throw in all the hits, runs, SBs, and a similar BA to league as Edgar, and I think it's pretty clear that Molitor was a much more valuable player than Edgar, though I would take Edgar's superior hitting over Baines any day.

[mac195]

Well, I don't know if Edgar will go into the HOF, or if he deserves it, but I'd say his chances are better than 50-50. OPS+ underrates him somewhat, because his OBP is so good. Aside from Bonds and Thomas he has the highest career On Base Percentage since Mickey Mantle. On the other hand, he was a very slow runner, so a .450 OBP from him isn't quite as valuable as when someone like Mantle does it.

[csh19792001]

I'm just wondering, where does Paul Molitor stand on this list? Arguably, he could be considered the first DH to be admitted to the Hall, so I think his numbers could be a good comparison for other DH's. As well, if we are going to argue for Edgar Martinez, what about Harold Baines?

Molitor does not fare well in OPS+, but so what? It's just another stat replete with flaws.

Molitor was only the third player, along with Ty Cobb and Honus Wagner, to reach 3,000 hits, 600 doubles and 500 stolen bases. Pretty select company.

Also, (I found this) in baseball history, Molitor holds these distinctions-

Only one to 500 2B, 200 HR, 500 SB (Barry has since joined him)
Only one to 3000 H, 200 HR, 500 SB
Only one to .300 AVG, 200 HR, 400 SB
Fifth one to 3000 H, 500 SB (T.Cobb, H.Wagner, E.Collins, L.Brock)

Molitor was better than Martinez, overall (baserunning, basestealing), and as a fielder (when they were actually fielders.) As hitters they are fairly close- Molitor's cumulative numbers dwarf Edgar's, although Edgar has the edge on rate stats.

Player's alltime rank in parentheses.

Molitor
Black Ink: Batting - 24 (78) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 145 (95) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 59.1 (27) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 165.5 (58) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Win Shares: 414 (33)
TPR- 35.4 (74)

Edgar
Black Ink: Batting - 20 (103) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 107 (193) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 49.9 (73) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 131.5 (95) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Win Shares- 297 (not close to the top 100 alltime)
TPR- 45.4 (35th)

Molitor is a much more legit HOFer than Edgar, who is iffy.

[csh19792001]

Well, I don't know if Edgar will go into the HOF, or if he deserves it, but I'd say his chances are better than 50-50. OPS+ underrates him somewhat, because his OBP is so good. Aside from Bonds and Thomas he has the highest career On Base Percentage since Mickey Mantle. On the other hand, he was a very slow runner, so a .450 OBP from him isn't quite as valuable as when someone like Mantle does it.

Good point.

I'd say, not NEARLY as valuable, though- besides the basestealing, you've got thousands of times on base where you've either got a guy who can fly, prevents outs on the basepaths because of his speed, and scores when other players wouldn't have had a CHANCE (Mantle) or a guy who clogs up the bases and isn't deft at the intricacies of baserunning (Edgar). Over 3500-4500 hundreds times on base, that amounts to a HUGE disparity in value.

[Edgartohof]

For sure, Edgar was ONE of the worst basestealers of his time, maybe even of all time, but not the worst, no where near the worst.

I could name several players who were worse base stealers during this same time.
............................SB...........CS....... ..PCT.....Single Season High
Edgar Martinez..........49..........30..........62...... .........14
Wade Boggs.............24...........35..........40..... ..........3
John Olerud..............11...........14..........44... ............3
Frank Thomas............32..........23..........58...... .........7

Well now, his base running doesn't look so bad, does it.

Well actually it still looks bad, just not AS bad, not AS bad as people are making him out to be.

[leecemark]

--Edgar was a lean guy and, if not exactly fast, could run okay when he first came into the league. As he bulked up and got injury prone through his career he got slower and slower. For at least the last five years of his career he was not just the slowest guy in the league, he was the slowest guy I've ever seen in 35 years of watching baseball.
-- :D Although Olerud and Dan Wilson have been pretty good base cloggers for the Mariners too. I'm pretty sure we could have fielded the slowest relay team in sports the past couple years - behind even NFL offensive linemen. :D

[BoSox Rule]

Only one to 500 2B, 200 HR, 500 SB (Barry has since joined him)
Only one to 3000 H, 200 HR, 500 SB
Only one to .300 AVG, 200 HR, 400 SB
Fifth one to 3000 H, 500 SB (T.Cobb, H.Wagner, E.Collins, L.Brock)



Barry is also a .300/200/400 guy, but maybe you're just talking Designated Hitters.

[HDH]

Who else retired this year that will be eligible for the HOF when Edar is eligible? The HOF voters won't let a single year go by witout inducting at least one player. If Edgar's that player, I won't have a problem with it considering how watered down the HOF has become.

[Edgartohof]

I don't know...why didn't Edgar hit as many HR as Kingman?

What's more impressive without going into detail?

A 300% avg?

Or 40 homers?

I think picking blind most would say the 40 homers are more valuable. You'd have to see the real numbers behind that 300 AVG to judge it's value...40 homers is going to be pretty valuable no matter what other numbers go along with it.


I was just perusing through some old threads, and I just felt like saying something, so here goes:

First, as to why Edgar did not hit as many HR's as Dave Kingman? Who knows, and who cares? He just didn't. In fact, only 28 other people in all of baseball can say they have done just that.

Secondly, as to which is better, a .300 BA, or 40 HR's, so you are saying you would pick the 40HR's over the .300 BA, well you go right ahead, you go and pick.

You go and pick from one of Dave Kingman's 40 HR years (of which there was only one), and I will go and pick one of Edgar's .300 BA years, and we will see who comes out ahead.

I can tell you right now, I will, just plain and simple. Not that you were nessecarily comparing the two of them, but I saw these two things so close together, it was just so inviting.

So just because someone has 40 HR's, doesn't make them a great player, it means that they can hit HR's very well, but it does not make them great - maybe even good, but not great.

Even Jay Buhner was better than Kingman. He did not last as long, but he had a better peak, and had 3 (consecutive) 40+ HR season's - but even then, Edgar's offense far outweigh Buhner's HR's AND glove - the same goes with Kingman.

Of course by saying this, by associating Edgar with the likes of Buhner and Kingman (my apologies Buhner), it does bring him down, so now I will stop. :D

[Edgartohof]

I was just wanting to compare, offensively, who was the best on the Mariner's for each year.

For this I used Runs Created (as posted at baseball-reference.com, so due to the more simplistic calculations used, these numbers may vary from different sources, but since this is not meant to be some end-all, comprehensive study here, it doesn't matter, this is just another look at things, a more visual way to see the differences.

.................Papi.........Jr.............ARod. .....Leader
1990..........000..........105..........000....... ...Griffey
1991..........000..........116..........000....... ...Griffey
1992..........115..........108..........000....... ...Martinez
1993..........000..........146..........000....... ...Griffey
1994..........000..........117..........000....... ...Griffey
1995..........152..........000..........000....... ...Martinez
1996..........136..........133..........157....... ...Rodriguez
1997..........135..........150..........100....... ...Griffey
1998..........135..........139..........135....... ...Griffey
1999..........123..........132..........104....... ...Griffey
2000..........136..........000..........141....... ...Rodriguez

000 - stands for either not playing/not playing for the team/numbers too low to be considered (i.e. under 100)

in 1993, Buhner had 103, in '96 and '97, he had 114 and 103 respectively, but never led.

2001 was Edgar's last year w/100+ Runs Created, but he lost out with 107 to Ichiro (119) and Boone (133).

So while one may say that this shows that Edgar was not as good, it in reality, just shows what kind of competition he put up with, just on his own team, and if Yankee fans do not mind the comparison, he was the "Gherig" to the Mariner's "Ruth" (Griffey). Good, but because of one person, could not shine as bright, but in reality, there were two players Griffey and later A-rod who he had to contend with, both of whom are considered among the greatest (top 50/25) by many, so just because he wasn't the best doesn't mean he wasn't good, he just was being compared to even brighter flames.

Also, while one looks at all of this, you wonder, how the Mariner's did not go further than they did, I mean over a 10 year period, there were 4 players who had 24, 100+Runs Created Seasons between them. That is an average of 6 each (brought down by Buhner's 3 - otherwise it would be 21 total out of 3 players, for an average of 7 each).

Of these 24 (or 21 depending if you don't count Buhner), there were 13 seasons with 130+ Runs Created, 5 with 140+ RC, and 3 with 150+ RC (one put up be each - again, no Buhner). I am not sure on the numbers, but I doubt that there are many teams out there that can claim the same thing.

[Luke]

OK, I just read through this entire thread and decided that I should (and, in some way, deserved) to post, even though I probably don't have much of value to say.

1. Re: Selig naming the DH award after Edgar. I was at the game that night, and (just like everyone else) went nuts when the announcement was made. When I was thinking it over after the game my first reaction was "Selig's saying he wants Edgar in," but then I thought about it a bit and came to a different conclusion. By naming the DH award after Edgar, in some ways Selig may be giving the writers a nice excuse not vote for 'Gar. They can say that his number aren't up to whatever bar they have set for career DH's, justifying his exclusion from the HoF by saying that the recognition inherent in having the DH award named after him is enough reward for a player who defined a position but "didn't quite have what it takes to get into the HoF."

2. Edgar's final stats (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/stats_historical/mlb_individual_stats_player.jsp?playerID=118365) are interpreted to mean this: (http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/martied01.shtml)
HoF Standards (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_standards): Batting - 49.9 (73) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
Hof Monitor: (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_monitor): Batting - 131.5 (96) (Likely HOFer > 100)

3. I'm in my mid 20's so, you know, I can't remember a time without a DH. My impression, just from how people on this board have reacted is that Edgar is going to have the "pleasure" of being used as a whipping boy by the writers that hate the idea of the DH. And knowing the kind of person that Edgar is, I think he'll take it with his usual class.

4. To the Cards fan who quit posting after the second or third page, Can you link me to an article that quotes Edgar saying he'd quit if the DH was abolished? It's not that I doubt you, I'd just like to see it.

5. I think the only player that arguably was more important than Edgar (.356/.479/.628 in his first of seven consecutive .300+ seasons) on the 1995 team was Randy Johnson (18-2, 2.48 ERA 294 K). A-Rod was a non-factor (.232/.264/.408 5 HR) and the team came to life only after Griffey (.258/.379/.481) shattered his wrist. What did Edgar bat in the series against the Yankees, anyway?

6. I'm also curious to see who else is on his first ballot. At this point, I hope it's a soft group, but hopefully time will help people to appreciate Edgar a bit more.

7. Does this site not work right with FireFox? I was able to read the thread fine in FF, but had to fire up IE to be able to post.

Edit: Two other things
Alan Schwartz being skeptical (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3848287), callers being, well, callers.
Derek Zumsteg on Edgar (http://www.baseball-analysis.com/article.php?articleid=1980)

[Aegis]

6. I'm also curious to see who else is on his first ballot. At this point, I hope it's a soft group, but hopefully time will help people to appreciate Edgar a bit more.

Robin Ventura. I don't think he deserves induction, but they should enshrine a constantly-running tape of him getting the tar beaten out of him by Nolan Ryan in '93.

[Edgartohof]

Just read this from another site - here are a few more things to add to his resume...

He is one of only 7 righties with at least two batting crowns ever.

His six consecutive seasons with at least a .320 avg., 20 HR and 80 RBI is something that only Ted Williams has also done.

[Edgartohof]

I may have posted this elsewhere as well, but I wasn't sure.

I was going through some of bb-ref.com's new features, and I found that Edgar is 3rd all-time for RBI from age 31 on (and 32 on, and 33, etc...)

What this feature shows, is how good he is compared to other players, from the point he was allowed to play, considering that he was not given the opportunity to play full time until age 27.

[four tool]

Edgar Martinex SHOULD NEVER be elected into Cooperstown and YES you can hold the fact that he only bats against him and I do. He essentially plays only half the game and if you only play half the game you better be twice as good as anybody else at it or you aren't all that special.

The DH is the most abhorent rule in all of professional sports. I mean it is such a ludicrous notion I am not sure how or why it was ever instituted in the first place. Aside from baseball's exclussionary practices of yesteryear the DH is single worst thing about the game??? really what excitement does it really add??? I would much rather see Roger Clemens have to pick up a bat and step in the batters box then to see some mediocre DH. Now Edgar is an exceptional DH but he is also the exception and being a GREAT DH doesn't amount to a hell of a lot anyway...I mean at present at Edgar is the ONLY DH with an average of more then .276 do people really hate seeing pitchers hit to the point they want Josh Phelps and Brad Fullmer in the line-up so badly???

If we want excitement hos about a Designated Runner... i mean that way we could all be spared being forced to watch benji Molina run the bases...instead the Angels could hire Rickey Henderson and he could run f or Benji??/ i mean imagine all the close plays at home...the added runs it could generate the reintroduction of the stolen base into today's game??? time Raines might still be playing same too with Vince Coleman and Otis Nixon....Would Davey Lopes have been able to extend his career and get into Cooperstown??? What about Brett Butler???

If Edgar wants in Cooperstown he can buy a ticket in order for me to even consider a DH worthy he would have to achieve some monster numbers for not only individual seasons but a career as well..

I am talking 700HR 2000RBI 4000Hits or a .350+ lifetime batting average......

Even a DH with 3000Hits and 5000 HR wouldn't be a Hall of Famer IMO as when you don't play the field you miss half the game..

Frank Thomas is also IMO as full time a DH as it gets...his career numbers have always been better when he plays 1B as opposed to when he DH's but he has also desired to NOT play the field??? I mean Edgar and Frank actually LIKE sitting on the bench??? If I was a big league ball player I want to be out there for EVERY PLAY and anyone with the attitude of if they abolished the DH I woudl retire (Something Edgar has said.) is a disgrace to the game.

Do you want to take non hitters like Maz out--a lot of people didn't want him in the hall because of his low BA. Many, many said his election was lowering the standards.

And how about AL pitchers since the DH? They aren't hitting at all.

How aboutr pitchers that can't hit but made the hall for their one and only baseball talent?

[Edgartohof]

Hey, sorry to bring up such an old thread, but I didn't want to start a whole new one, for just one little thing.

I was a little bored and all, and since I'm a huge Edgar fan, I was just looking at some of his numbers. One thing that hurts Edgar (and several other players), is strike shortened seasons (1981, '94, '95). Now he was injured in '94, so he wasn't really hurt too much by that season, but the shorened 1995 season, was his career year, but because it was shortened by 17 games, his numbers do not compare as well to other great seasons.

Don't get me wrong, they are great as is, and he put up a good showing ink wise, leading in several categories (BA, OBP, OPS, OPS+, R, 2B, RC, TOB, and was top 3 in: Slg, H, TB, BB, XBH, IBB) and had a legitimate shot at the MVP that season.

What I ended up doing, just to see what would come of it is to extrapolate his numbers from the 145 game season to 162 games. But before I do, I thought I would address one issue some may have. Edgar never even played 160 games any other season before in his career, so how could we assume he could then? Well, to that point, he had played in every single game that season, and by the fact that he continued to play in all of the Mariner's post-season games that year leads me to believe that he could have played the final 17 games. So here are his extrapolated numbers:

G AB R H 2B HR RBI TB BB IBB RC TOB BA OBP SLG OPS
145 511 121 182 52 29 113 321 116 19 153 306 .356 .479 .628 1.107

162 571 135 203 58 32 126 359 130 21 171 342 .356 .479 .628
1.107

What this allows if for a better comparison to other players who were allowed to play in full seasons. The biggest things you notice, are the 200+ hits - a very noticeable accomplishment - he would have past 30 HR's - a long time plateau he was caught on, the Runs/RBI totals obviously look better (as do the walks), the RC, would also jump nearly 20 points, from just plain great (153!), to an asstounding 171! But the biggest thing that jumps out to me is the number of Times On Base (TOB). He had 306 TOB in 1995, but when extrapolated, it goes out to 342!!! Not only is that good, but that is amazing!!! If he had accomplished that, that would be tied for the 9th highest single season total in MLB history, tied with Boggs, Bonds, and Gherig- would have been 7th then (bonds surpasses that total in '02, '04, and tied it in '01). That would definitely give him some more recognition he deserves.

[Edgartohof]

I'm never gonna let this die, but at this point, I'm posting more for myself than to change someones opinion (which is a very hard task to do I might add).

A recent thread involving Griffey, got me to thinking, and I almost posted some of this over there (just with a different spin), but I'm hoping it will die soon, but we'll see.

One thing that helped Griffey in his heyday, was that he had an excellent hitter behind him at times, by the name of Edgar Martinez (I'm sure this has already been mentioned, but I'm mentioning it again). Edgar in a way helped make Griffey who he is - and I'm not taking anything away from him. It was mentioned in this "other" thread how Griffey didn't walk a lot (or at least not as much as you-know-who), and I was looking at it, and that's right - he didn't. But then again that wasn't his job, his job was to sit and hit. But part of what made this possible was that one of the top hitters in game batted behind him. And this is something that Edgar doesn't get a lot of credit for. Now this may sound strange, and I have to research to back this up, but he may have gotten more RBI if he was not as good of a hitter!

I know what you are thinking - I'm crazy, well, just work with me for a moment, as I said, this is a theory that just came to me, and I haven't done any work on it (and it could be total bologne for all I know). Pitchers didn't want to pitch to Griffey. They knew he had power, and if they made a mistake and left it over the plate, it was gone. So their natural reaction may be to walk him, but then they are reminded that Edgar is batting right behind him and they don't want to pitch to him either. And to an extent, what this leads to is them pitching to Griffey more instead of walking him and facing Edgar (with Griffey on base). So because they don't want to walk Griffey, he gets better pitches, more in the strikezone, and in the end, because he's Griffey, he ends up hitting a boatload of HR's, and all the RBI that go with them. Because if they walk him, then Griffey becomes another potential run, and with Edgar's potent bat, that is a definite possibility, so they walk Griffey a lot less than iff Edgar was there.

I could imagine that Griffey would have been seeing another 20-25+ walks a season if he didn't have Edgar there. You can see the problem magnified with Bonds. The last several years, he has been walked an extrordinary amount of times, as he has not had the protection in the lineup. He didn't have that big bat behind him that might make the pitcher think twice about waking him.

It really comes down to, in the end, will walking him be more beneficial to your team, and allowing the hitter behind him a chance to hit with a man/men on base, than it would be to pitch to that original player with one less person on base?

In our scenario with Griffey and Edgar, the pitchers chose to pitch to Griffey, knowing full well how he could hurt them, as they also knew how Edgar could hurt them. So Griffey reaped the benefits of Edgar batting behind him, in the form of more HR's and RBI - look at his monster seasons from '96-'99, where he averaged 52 HR's and 142, and Edgar gets little or nothing out of it, as by the time he gets up to the plate, because they chose to pitch to Griffey, he gets fewer chances to hit with players on base, and therefore lower RBI totals, and because he didn't have any protection behind him, the pitchers didn't feel the need to be so cautious with him, so he didn't get as many good pitches (fewer HR's, etc...), and more walks (all in all, it makes his numbers more impressive).

So back to where I said if Edgar was not as good of a hitter, he might have more RBI's, well, I am basing my theory (yes it's only a theory - and untested at that), on that with less protection behind him, Griffey would have been walked more, therefore giving Edgar an increased number of bats with runners in scoring position, and many more chances, with multiple runners (because if Griffey was walked with a runner on the bases, obviously he didn't bat them in - of course assuming the bases aren't loaded). And with the law of averages, and assuming that he didn't lose ALL his talent, he would have more RBI, and he would be reaping the benefits. So in a sense, being a lesser hitter, could have helped him - he might have been too great for his own good. It did help his team, but he does not receive any personal recognition for just his mere presence in the lineup, which while being mostly unquantifiable, truly is still a factor.

So what do you think? I put no real thought into this before starting it (maybe I should have), I did it all off the top of my head, and for that, it sounds pretty good, but do you think there is a true basis in it? What other factors would I have to deal with to make it more appropriate, if you even think I have something at all?

[ricky151]

hitting, hitting, hitting. Are we suppose to ignore 7 silver slugger awards that griffey has an MVP award. Its not just the argument you have with his hitting fine Edgar was a good hitter, but could he Field? The answer is no. Griffey had 10 straight gold gloves in cf. How many gold gloved did Edgar win? 0. He was a liability in the field. Defence counts for something. Edgar in the hall of fame. Not if im voting.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

What really hurts Edgar was playing DH. Let me ask this question. If Edgar had played say 75% of his career games at third base (instead of the 28% he played) would there even be any argument whether he belonged in the HoF? :o

[DoubleX]

Edgartohof,

I admire your persistence, but IMO at least, Martinez does not belogn in the Hall. Playing DH gave him a huge advantage to be a good hitter. And even with that advantage, he still wasn't far and away the best hitter. A very good hitter for sure, but there were a number of players that played the field that could hit just as well as Edgar. I think if Albert Belle is struggling so mightily to get any support (he received 7% of the vote), Martinez likely has no chance. Belle was one of those guys who could hit just about as well as Martinez, but also did it while playing in the field. And it's not about being a good fielder or not, simply going out it the field puts a player at a disadvantage when it comes to hitting compared to a player that can sit there for 9 innings and think about nothing but hitting and save all of their energy for nothing but hitting. This is also the reason why Alex Rodriguez won the 2005 MVP and not David Ortiz.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I can't think of a more one-dimensional player than Martinez. Not only did he not play the field for almost his entire career, but he might be the worst baserunner I've ever seen. I think at the heart of the matter is that if not for the innovation of the DH, Martinez likely would have been out of baseball by the mid 90s because he's a complete liability in all other facets of the game. Plus, if there was no DH and Martinez had to play the field just to get his bat in the lineup, it's likely that he wouldn't have been the hitter that being a DH allowed him to be. Playing the field would distract his concentration from hitting, would sap his energy from hitting, and would put wear and tear on his body, that if his early career is any indication, he would not have surived for very long in the majors.

For a DH to make the Hall IMO, they better be about as good a hitter as has come around. And Martinez, while a very good hitter, had a number of peers that could hit just about as well, if not better than him while also playing the field.

[johnny]

EdgarHOF
I really admire your ability to maintain a position. I'm also a Seattle-ite and absolutely love Edgar. I have many great memories of this very humble man (I still recall that heartfelt speech of his during his retirement in which he turns to his wife and says 'without her I am nothing'), still get nostalgic thinking of that chant 'edddgaaar' over Dave Neihaus's voice, and I have to really fight the impulse to stop the car and salute when driving on Edgar Martinez drive outside of Safeco Field. I get it.
He is a class act and the fact that he stayed with our M's -and you know we really sucked there for a long time during his salad days- when he could have gone elsewhere endears him to me to no end. (Edgar, will you marry me? :confused: See just talking about Edgar gets me 'cornfused' with emotion! )
But even I, with all that said just can't see Edgar going to the HOF. He epitomizes one dimensional. Break it down, he was a damn good hitter who ran like a three toed sloth. So every freakin double was earned. But he never played in the field and when he did he got injured. The man was born to do two things: chew gum and hit doubles off the wall. And he did both things well.
PS: Hard to believe that Jim Presley playing at 3b kept a young Edgar down in the minor leagues and on a bench all those years before he got the chance to start full time. The GM should have been shot!

[SABR Matt]

I just flat out do not agree with the conclusion that because Edgar could only do one thing well, he shouldn't get into the HOF. To have enough value to be a HOF calibar player...sometimes all you need is one skill...especially if that skill happens to be hitting...which is more important than any of the other skills singularly (though slightly less important than all of the other skills combined).

Edgar Martinez might have been a one dimensional player...,but he was the best at what he did in major league history (DHing), and one of the top 30 hitters of all time. He's a hall of famer in my book...and this is coming to you from a sabermetrician who believes fielding skill is significantly UNDERRATED by other sabermetricians.

[four tool]

Edgar deserves the hall despite his one dimensionality. Bill Mazeroski and Ted Williams were one dimensional--OK, Ted could hit for average and hit for power. But wiliams had no speed and was a bad fielder. Maz couldn't hit well but they both belong in the hall.

The Hall is based on accomplishments, not lack thereof--and looking at Edgar's accomplishments, he should be in.

[Tigerfan1974]

First, the DH rule should be abandon. (Thanks for nothing Charles Finley!)

Second, saying Martinez is the best DH ever is like saying Gates Brown was the best pinch hitter ever. It just doesn't matter.

I mean talk about the ultimate 1 faceted player!!!

Martinez - no HOF. Sorry.

[johnny]

It's not that Edgar is being hurt only because he does one thing well, it's because that is all he could do. Literally. It's not like you could take his poor fielding cause he was such a great hitter. Edgar could not go into the field at all. Even at 1B during the last half of his career he would have been unlikely to survive the physical toll out there without pulling something.
I love Edgar. Just not in the Hall.

(One reason I hate the DH is that your not forced to really make an objective decision on a player: Does his hitting really make up for his poor fielding.)

[leecemark]

--A couple quick notes;
--Assuming Martinez would have played 162 games in 1994 is a huge reach. The man had an extremely difficult time staying healthy and on the field. His career high in games was 155 and he only reached 150 games 4 times in his career (also that post mentions the 1981 strike even though Martinez didn't play until 1987:confused: ).
--Really the bigger issue for me with Edgar being a DH doesn't have to do with the quality of his fielding as it does the fact he couldn't avoid injuries when asked to play the field. His already short career would have been much shorter if not for the DH. That is an important consideration when comparing him to historical players who did not have that advantage.
--I agree with the posters who point out Martinez utter lack of value outside the batters box. He couldn't field, he was a truely awfull baserunner and he couldn't stay in the lineup.
--To close on a postive note; Martinez WAS a amazing hitter and one of the classiest men in the game. I expect he will fare better than Albert Belle in the HoF voting simply because everybody likes Edgar (although not his position) and nobody likes Albert. Better probably means 10-15% in his first try though.

[DoubleX]

Edgar Martinez might have been a one dimensional player...,but he was the best at what he did in major league history (DHing), and one of the top 30 hitters of all time. He's a hall of famer in my book...and this is coming to you from a sabermetrician who believes fielding skill is significantly UNDERRATED by other sabermetricians.

That's true, but I don't know how much that's saying. The DH is a very small pool and its generally full of players that can't contribute to the other facets of the game. Imagine if all the great hitters in history had the advantage of DH, like Edgar, and did nothing but DH and thus focus on nothing but hitting. Imagine if Barry Bonds DH his whole career? Or Ken Griffey Jr? Or Albert Belle? Or Jeff Bagwell? Or Manny Ramirez? Or Alex Rodriguez? Or Albert Pujols? Or Nomar Garciaparra? Or Gary Sheffield? Or Sammy Sosa? Or Mark McGwire? And so on. Would Edgar still be the best DH ever? Doubtful since these guys were just as good hitters as Edgar without the benefit of doing nothing but hitting. If they did only hitting, they'd be even better. So IMO, for a DH to be in the Hall, they have to be a much better hitter than the best hitters in the game that also play the field.

[DoubleX]

Edgar deserves the hall despite his one dimensionality. Bill Mazeroski and Ted Williams were one dimensional--OK, Ted could hit for average and hit for power. But wiliams had no speed and was a bad fielder. Maz couldn't hit well but they both belong in the hall.

The Hall is based on accomplishments, not lack thereof--and looking at Edgar's accomplishments, he should be in.

Bill Mazeroski was a terrible selection, but Ted Williams is arguably the greatest hitter ever. There is no comparison between Ted and Edgar. If Ted were a DH, he'd be the perfect example a DH that is a Hall of Famer in my mind, which is a hitter that is better than all the other great hitters in the league who also play the field. However, it's a moot point since Ted did play the field, but imagine what his numbers would have been like if he was able to do nothing but focus on hitting and save his energy for hitting.

[ricky151]

mean how difficult is it to play 1st base. I mean you have to be a pretty bad fielder to not be able to play dh. For Pete sakes Cecil fielder and frank Thomas could even play first. Your fielding is worst than those guys there is a huge problem. You don't have to be a gold glover, but to be in the field consistently is really not much to ask. Example tony Gwyn not a great fielder, but not a liability

[ricky151]

its hard enough to pitch each day in and day out with hall of fame numbers. Besides if a guy like Jim Abbott, who only has one hand fields more time than Edgar in a year you cant seriously think he has a shot in making the hall do you?

[Edgartohof]

My last post wasn't specifically meant as another shot at trying to change your minds. I just was wanting to post some thoughts on the him as a hitter, and not specifically about him getting into the HOF, but I didn't want to start a whole new thread over it, so I put it here. Now maybe I should have as this is a thread about him and the HOF, but again, I wasn't looking at it from that angle, just wanted to talk about some stuff.

P.S. I personally still think he deserves to go into the HOF.

[DoubleX]

Example tony Gwyn not a great fielder, but not a liability

This is getting off-topic, but that may have been true about Gwynn at the end of his career (but that's usually the case with most players - look at Willie Mays with the Mets) but Gwynn won 5 Gold Gloves in the early and middle parts of his career.

[BoSox Rule]

I've changed my stance on Edgar Martinez. I always said he wasn't an all-time great hitter because he only hit 309 HR's and he was DH. That was a ridiculous claim. He had over 8500 PA's and a .330 EqA, which is pretty amazing. He has my vote.

[Edgartohof]

I've changed my stance on Edgar Martinez. I always said he wasn't an all-time great hitter because he only hit 309 HR's and he was DH. That was a ridiculous claim. He had over 8500 PA's and a .330 EqA, which is pretty amazing. He has my vote.

Always good to have another supporter. And that .330 Eqa is amazing.

[DoubleX]

My last post wasn't specifically meant as another shot at trying to change your minds. I just was wanting to post some thoughts on the him as a hitter, and not specifically about him getting into the HOF, but I didn't want to start a whole new thread over it, so I put it here. Now maybe I should have as this is a thread about him and the HOF, but again, I wasn't looking at it from that angle, just wanted to talk about some stuff.

P.S. I personally still think he deserves to go into the HOF.

Well in that regard, Martinez was a heck of a hitter. Though, I think it's hard to distinguish his hitting success from his role. So it's kind of like, "Yeah, he was a great hitter, BUT..." Nevertheless, if we talk strictly about hitting and ignore the DH implications, Martinez was very, very good.

[digglahhh]

Is it a given that it is easier to produce as a DH (minus the injury parts). I've DHed in some softball and hardball leagues at various times over the years and I don't find it any easier to hit. You have to adapt to the mindset.

When you're out in the field you know in the back of your head that it is always possible to redeem yourself with the glove if you don't get it done in the box. As a DH you know that you are going to have about 4 chances to help your team the entire game, that magnifies the pressure of each AB. At first I hit poorly as a DH, it took me a while to make the mental adjustment.

Doesn't Giambi hit better as a 1B, and Thomas too. I know there are other mitigating factors there, but still.

I wouldn't mind Edgar in the Hall. He was such a great hitter. One-dimensional sure, but he was so freakin' good. I don't give him any credit for being the best DH, nor do I think that DH has to be recognized as an actual position. But, it does exist, even if we don't like it, and even if we elevate the bar for guys who played there, Edgar probably clears that bar.

There are also so many impressive offensive careers in his time, the fact that the other guys played the field could hurt Edgar. I want to say yes, I lean toward supporting him.

That Albert Belle argument really got me reconsidering his chances though.

[rsuriyop]

If some of the best relievers could make it into The Hall, then by all means why can't the greatest DH of all time make it in?

[Cougar]

Frank Thomas is about to seize the crown as the best primary DH of all time.

Going into 2006, he's only played 1b in 11 more games than he DHed, and it's highly unlikely he'll ever wear a fielding glove again. (Maybe in interleague or something.)

No shame in coming in 2nd to him, though.

[johnny]

My last post wasn't specifically meant as another shot at trying to change your minds. I just was wanting to post some thoughts on the him as a hitter, and not specifically about him getting into the HOF, but I didn't want to start a whole new thread over it, so I put it here. Now maybe I should have as this is a thread about him and the HOF, but again, I wasn't looking at it from that angle, just wanted to talk about some stuff.

P.S. I personally still think he deserves to go into the HOF.


I gotta give you props for stick-to-it-tive-ness. If Edgar doesn't make it in, it won't be because you lacked effort.
If you see Edgar go in the Hall will that mean that Baseball is moving towards a DH in both leagues? We now have a DH award that essentially is an AL driven award in Edgar's honor. Is Selig now greasing the skids for baseball fans to swallow the DH in both leagues. :grouchy
Just a thought?

[four tool]

[QUOTE=DoubleX]Bill Mazeroski was a terrible selection, but Ted Williams is arguably the greatest hitter ever.

Maz was not a terrible selection, he got in for his fielding and he deserved to!
His fielding numbers are like Ted's hitting numbers.

[DoubleX]

[QUOTE=DoubleX]Bill Mazeroski was a terrible selection, but Ted Williams is arguably the greatest hitter ever.

Maz was not a terrible selection, he got in for his fielding and he deserved to!
His fielding numbers are like Ted's hitting numbers.

I guess that all depends on what you value. Personally, I'd rather have a 2Bman that could contribute with the bat and play pretty good defense then a player that plays great defense but doesn't really contribute with the bat. The latter is essentially Mazeroski, and I personally think I'd rather have at least 25 2Bman all-time than Maz on my team. The difference between how much a great defensive but bad offensive player contributes and how a good defensive player and good offensive player contributes, is huge, IMO, and I'll take the latter any day.

[Edgartohof]

I just wanted to correct something I said earlier - Edgar's EQA isn't .330, it's ONLY .329, and ONLY good for 12th all-time. Didn't want to be telling any untruths here.

[johnny]

It's nice to see someone step up to the plate and hit the double off the wall to admit they made a mistake...not sure but i think i mixed my metaphors.:noidea

[Seattle1]

Ok I am new here so sorry if this has already been discussed. I am interested in hearing other baseball fans opinions as to whether or not Edgar Martinez should be inducted into the HoF. I know a lot of Mariner fans think so, but I am interested in what the perception is around the country.

Personally I am more or less on the fence, I understand the arguments for and against, but you sure wouldn't hear me complain one bit if he got in!

Thanks in advance for your opinions!

[Yankwood]

Without staggering numbers, no glove, no go. Numbers are very, very good. Just not good enough.

[jalbright]

To me, he's one of those guys who epitomizes where the HOF line should be. Personally, I put him just below the line, but I can't argue too strenously with those who see him as just over the same line. It's that close.

Jim Albright

[Yankwood]

To me, he's one of those guys who epitomizes where the HOF line should be. Personally, I put him just below the line, but I can't argue too strenously with those who see him as just over the same line. It's that close.

Jim AlbrightJust curious. Being that he's JUST below the line, would wearing the glove make any difference? Even if he was a below average fielder? Or, say he was a first or third baseman and an average to a little below average fielder. Would this make a difference to you"

[jalbright]

Just curious. Being that he's JUST below the line, would wearing the glove make any difference? Even if he was a below average fielder? Or, say he was a first or third baseman and an average to a little below average fielder. Would this make a difference to you"

I don't know about a below average fielder, but definitely yes even for an average 1B. Of course, he didn't do that, and he had a heck of a time staying healthy when he also played in the field.

Jim Albright

[The Dude]

Yes.
You might already know I'm a supporter of the DH and it's my opinion that it's a position. However, I will admit that a DH must put up great offensive numbers to counteract the minimal fielding points.

In my mind, Edgar is one of the few players to do that and he deserves to be in.

[cup2006sensrule]

Martinez doesn't do it for me. Great hitter but not quite enough to get in.

Albert Belle and Juan Gonzalez would both be better selections of his peers and I'm not sure either of those guys get in either.

[SABR Matt]

Edgar Martinez is absolutely a hall of famer. Forget for a moment that he played very little in the field. Yes...forget that...you too you old codgers with your old-schoolish ways! :)

Offensively, despite the lack of awe inspiring HR totals, Edgar Martinez was good enough without getting ANY defensive credit whatsoever to be the 5th (fifth!!) best third baseman of all time...this is compared to players who are getting significant defensive credit.

I have no doubt in my mind that Edgar Martinez belongs in the hall despite the lack of a glove....it's not even close, guys.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Yes.
You might already know I'm a supporter of the DH and it's my opinion that it's a position. However, I will admit that a DH must put up great offensive numbers to counteract the minimal fielding points.

In my mind, Edgar is one of the few players to do that and he deserves to be in.

This is the argument FOR Edgar, and it has merit.

The argument AGAINST Edgar is simply this: If Edgar, why not Will Clark?

I'm not saying Will Clark shouldn't be in the HOF, but as of now, Clark is "one and done" with the BBWAA balloting.

[STLCards2]

Just curious. Being that he's JUST below the line, would wearing the glove make any difference? Even if he was a below average fielder? Or, say he was a first or third baseman and an average to a little below average fielder. Would this make a difference to you"

Yes, it would make the difference for me too.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Just curious. Being that he's JUST below the line, would wearing the glove make any difference? Even if he was a below average fielder? Or, say he was a first or third baseman and an average to a little below average fielder. Would this make a difference to you"

It would make a difference to me because Martinez DH'd due to an inability to stay healthy, and most of his injuries were from his playing the field.

Had there been no DH, Martinez would not have had a career as long as he did.

I give Martinez SOME credit for being a victim of organizational stupidity. Martinez didn't become a regular until age 27, but he was clearly ready at age 24, age 25 at the very latest. The M's management held to the traditional posture of allowing an incumbent to keep his position over a rookie. The incumbent, Jim Presley, was a guy who, in his first full season in 1985, hit 28 HRs. He then hit 27 and 24, with his BA going down as well. In 1988, when Martinez was 25 and ready for the majors long ago, the M's still kept Jim Presley on the job; he hit 14 HRs while batting .230. In 1989, the M's used Martinez' glove as an excuse, starting Presley again; he hit 12 HRs while upping his BA to a monster .236.

Had Martinez been given the 3B job in 1987, it may have been a different story. Had the M's converted Martinez to an outfielder in 1987, we would be discussing a possible HOFer. (It's astonishing how little imagination the M's brain trust had in arranging their talent base back then.) Had Martinez been made a career DH in 1987, the injuries wouldn't be an issue now, and Martinez would be viewed much as Frank Thomas is now; as a guy who stunk in the field, but who could have put on the glove and gone out there if he had to. His career totals would be much higher, much more in the realm of the HOF.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. If I'm going to put a coulda, woulda, shoulda in the HOF, it'll be Al Rosen. Martinez' case rests on what is, not on what could have been.

[538280]

I would consider Edgar Martinez a HOFer. He is a TREMENDOUS hitter, with era adjustments at least one of the top 30 or 40 of all time. Even though he has just about no defensive value, he is a plenty good enough hitter than he has more than enough value to be a HOFer.

The only real valid argument against Edgar, though, I think, is that you could say his hitting numbers were inflated by being a DH. Exactly the precise amont by which they were inflated is the question. However, I don't see why it should be more than about 7%, and take seven points off his OPS+ and he's still at 140-an amazing figure for a player in this era. So, I think Edgar should be in the HOF.

I have doubts about whether or not he'll make it, though. Many of the writers hate the DH, so he'll lose those votes, and his numbers don't look nearly as good as they really are through the traditional viewing of baeball statistics, which the writers have proven time and time again is the method they use.

[Yankwood]

Edgar Martinez is absolutely a hall of famer. Forget for a moment that he played very little in the field. Yes...forget that...you too you old codgers with your old-schoolish ways! :)

Offensively, despite the lack of awe inspiring HR totals, Edgar Martinez was good enough without getting ANY defensive credit whatsoever to be the 5th (fifth!!) best third baseman of all time...this is compared to players who are getting significant defensive credit.

I have no doubt in my mind that Edgar Martinez belongs in the hall despite the lack of a glove....it's not even close, guys.Yes, but he wasn't a third baseman. Not enough to satisfy this old codger. Whereas you're thinking in terms of CREDIT for playing 3rd, I've seen him play third and therefore I'm thinking DEBIT, had he been allowed to play there more. A run prevented defensively is a run scored offensively. My thinking is he gets NO credit for run prevention. He was just sittin' on his "no fielding a$$" watching the game while others were out there REALLY playing. Sorry, but no Hall for Edgar.

[grey eagle]

Edgar is a borderline case for me. I wouldn't complain if he got in, but my standards are pretty high - probably higher than most. A 147 OPS+ in 8600 plate appearances is good enough offensively, but his lack of defensive innings and speed are certainly negatives.

However, he's not even close to being a top-5 third baseman in my book - not even top 10. Paul Molitor ranks much higher in my 3B rankings, even though he (like Edgar) played mostly DH.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Edgar is a borderline case for me. I wouldn't complain if he got in, but my standards are pretty high - probably higher than most. A 147 OPS+ in 8600 plate appearances is good enough offensively, but his lack of defensive innings and speed are certainly negatives.

However, he's not even close to being a top-5 third baseman in my book - not even top 10. Paul Molitor ranks much higher in my 3B rankings, even though he (like Edgar) played mostly DH.

Molitor did not "mostly DH", but he did have more games at DH than anywhere else.

Molitor probably would not have been able to stay healthy enough to get his BA back over .300, or to have gotten to 3,000 hits had he not DH'd. He had his worst injury ever as an outfielder, so moving him out of the infield wasn't a guarantee of health.

[The Dude]

The argument AGAINST Edgar is simply this: If Edgar, why not Will Clark?

I'm not saying Will Clark shouldn't be in the HOF, but as of now, Clark is "one and done" with the BBWAA balloting.

I wouldn't be against Will Clark in the hall of fame. He's in my territory of Maybe, maybe not. I think Martinez' hitting overcomes Clark's hitting and his defense.

As for one and done, there's a lot of great players who were one and done. I'll name the two that pop into my head when I think of One and Done.
-Ron Santo (Who most people consider the biggest travesty in a long line of players the HoF hasn't inducted yet)
-Ted Simmons (Who you'll find most people in the History of Game and HoF forums think is the most deserving catcher outside of the hall and one of the overall bigger mistakes the HoF has made)

[SABR Matt]

Yes, but he wasn't a third baseman. Not enough to satisfy this old codger. Whereas you're thinking in terms of CREDIT for playing 3rd, I've seen him play third and therefore I'm thinking DEBIT, had he been allowed to play there more. A run prevented defensively is a run scored offensively. My thinking is he gets NO credit for run prevention. He was just sittin' on his "no fielding a$$" watching the game while others were out there REALLY playing. Sorry, but no Hall for Edgar.

Statistically, you aren't supported by the evidence. Every fielding metric I've seen suggests that when he played third base, he was above the margin, although not by much. A lousy fielder? you betcha. Submarginal and thus not meriting some minor credit for services rendered in the early portions of his career? Not on your life bub.

And as a DH...he was worth ZERO defensively...not a negative number.

For all intents and purposes, he was a third baseman who was bad enough defensively to not earn any wins after 1993.

[leecemark]

--He couldn't earn any wins as a thirdbaseman because.......he wan't a thirdbaseman. Although Edgar was a below average defensive player in the brief time he played the field, it wasn't his glove that was primarily responsible for turning him into a DH. It was his incredibly fragile body. He simply was not able to avoid injury when playing the field and had he played in the pre-DH era would have had a very short career or (at best) hung around as a pinch hitting specialist.

[Yankwood]

Statistically, you aren't supported by the evidence. Every fielding metric I've seen suggests that when he played third base, he was above the margin, although not by much. A lousy fielder? you betcha. Submarginal and thus not meriting some minor credit for services rendered in the early portions of his career? Not on your life bub.

And as a DH...he was worth ZERO defensively...not a negative number.

For all intents and purposes, he was a third baseman who was bad enough defensively to not earn any wins after 1993.That's right. You made my point. He was a zero defensively because he DIDN'T play. That's to his advantage. Had he played more you would have seen the negative. When the best you've got to show is a zero.....well, like I said, No Hall For Edgar.

[SABR Matt]

Your definition of what makes a player great is way too rigid, Yankwood.

It is entirely possible to be a great baseball player without having great skills in EVERY POSSIBLE AREA.

On this notion that Edgar "simply couldn't stay healthy when he played the field!!!"...the fact that he happened to get injured in 1993 (RUNNING THE BASES!) and lost a step due to the injury does not prove that he couldn't stay healthy playing the field. Nor does his unfortunate run in with...I think it was John Marzano? when he was playng first. He got injured twice as a position player on two freak plays. That does not make him brittle.

The Mariners chose to DH him because he was an outstanding hitter and they are a risk averse organization dedicated to doing the safest thing possible...and in Edgar's case, the safest thing possible was to move him to DH in 1994 upon his return from the 1993 disaster to full time active duty.

Of the 7 times Martinez landed on the DL, 5 were caused by injuries sustained running the bases, and we've established that Edgar was a horrible baserunner, so this should be no surprise. I doubt had he become the Mariners' first baseman instead that he would have been significantly more injury prone, and I *HIGHLY* doubt he would have finished his defensive career as a submarginal player.

[Jake83]

Edgar Martinez is absolutely a hall of famer. Forget for a moment that he played very little in the field. Yes...forget that...you too you old codgers with your old-schoolish ways! :)

Offensively, despite the lack of awe inspiring HR totals, Edgar Martinez was good enough without getting ANY defensive credit whatsoever to be the 5th (fifth!!) best third baseman of all time...this is compared to players who are getting significant defensive credit.

I have no doubt in my mind that Edgar Martinez belongs in the hall despite the lack of a glove....it's not even close, guys.


How can he be the 5th best 3rd basemen when he only play the position for a few years??

[SABR Matt]

Certainly, if you define a player's position as the one he majored in, and allow for the position of DH, then you can't call Edgar a third baseman. I only said that (about Edgar being 5th best at third base) to make a point...that point being that almost exclusively on hitting alone, Martinez is a hall of famer...forget defense entirely and just look where he is offensively...he blows a lot of current HOFers away...even if you add their hitting and fielding together and just give Edgar zero fielding credit.

[Jake83]

Certainly, if you define a player's position as the one he majored in, and allow for the position of DH, then you can't call Edgar a third baseman. I only said that (about Edgar being 5th best at third base) to make a point...that point being that almost exclusively on hitting alone, Martinez is a hall of famer...forget defense entirely and just look where he is offensively...he blows a lot of current HOFers away...even if you add their hitting and fielding together and just give Edgar zero fielding credit.


He never had to play the field from 95 on expect in interleague play in NL parks. Hitting alone Yes he is a Hall of Famer but like a catcher or 2B baseball can put up 300 Homers and 2000 Hits to get in I think a DH has to have either 3000 hits or 550 Home Runs

[Fuzzy Bear]

He never had to play the field from 95 on expect in interleague play in NL parks. Hitting alone Yes he is a Hall of Famer but like a catcher or 2B baseball can put up 300 Homers and 2000 Hits to get in I think a DH has to have either 3000 hits or 550 Home Runs

The HOF really hasn't dealt with the issue of career DHs. That's mainly because there are very, very few. Teams are reluctant to take a young player who can hit, but doesn't field well, and make him a career DH. The young player tends to resist it and so does his agent.

So most guys who DH'd for much of their career, but who have great hitter's numbers (and Martinez was a GREAT hitter; there isn't any denying that) but a lot of time at DH and a "story" as to how they landed there, well, that's confusing.


I wouldn't be against Will Clark in the hall of fame. He's in my territory of Maybe, maybe not. I think Martinez' hitting overcomes Clark's hitting and his defense.


I don't have a problem with Clark's induction, either, although there are guys ahead of him, IMO. I also agree that there are a number of "one and done" cases by the BBWAA that simply defy logic; it's as if the writers didn't even look at their career records before voting. Simmons and Whitaker are great examples of this. I mentioned Clark because he is Martinez' best comp, and look what happened to him in HOF voting. Clark's dismissal indicates that Edgar will have a tough row to hoe.

Edgar won't be one and done, however, because his case will stir up the DH issue. There are enough pro-DH writers voting that will vote to keep Edgar on the ballot on that issue alone; he'll either be inducted or stay on the ballot the full 15 years.

[leecemark]

--I would be shocked if Edgar was one and done. Not only was he a great hitter, he was a class act. Everybody loves Martinez (as opposed to to say Albert Belle, a similar hitter - and better player).
--He was brittle though. Someone mentioned he only played the field after 95 in interleague games. Well usually not even then. He wore a glove a total of 33 times in his last 10 seasons (and not always full fames even then). His last appearance in the field (except for a ceremonial walkon in his last game) was in 2001. He injured himself bad enough to go on the DL in his very first chance in that game, pretty much confirming the logic of the Mariners risk adverse approach to handling him.
--Edgar was a poor fielder, terrible baserunner and EXTREMELY injury prone. Although he was a great hitter those are alot of negatives to overcome. I'm not entirely opposed to Martinez in the Hall of Fame. I am a Mariners fan and it would mean alot to the organization to see him as the first Seatttle Hall of famer. He was/is a class guy who represented the organization and baseball very well and never really considered leaving for greeener pastures (although being limited to DH probably made that a little easier choice for him). Strictly based on his playing record he comes up a little short for me though. Or maybe not, I'm still working on making my personal HoF match Cooperstown in size:hp .

[Yankwood]

I never mentioned anything about Edgar's injuries, nor did I tie that in with why he didn't play third. He didn't play third because he COULDN'T play third. In other words they hid his weakness.
Edgar was never a great baseball player. He was a very good HITTER. HUGE difference.Although hitting is so very important it still makes him a one-dimensional (player).

Someone else here said the Hall has not yet had to deal with DH's and that's very true. It probably will take them a while to figure out how. It's very similar to the 8 pitch closers. They've kind of screwed that up, too, so who knows which way they'll go with the DH situation.

[SABR Matt]

Not really true Yankwood. Not to the extant you're imagining. He was not a good fielding third baseman, but neither is Chipper Jones and neither was Eddie Mathews. I don't believe Edgar would have been worth less than zero for his defense when you added it all up had he played third his whole career.

[DoubleX]

Edgar Martinez is absolutely a hall of famer. Forget for a moment that he played very little in the field. Yes...forget that...you too you old codgers with your old-schoolish ways! :)

Offensively, despite the lack of awe inspiring HR totals, Edgar Martinez was good enough without getting ANY defensive credit whatsoever to be the 5th (fifth!!) best third baseman of all time...this is compared to players who are getting significant defensive credit.

I have no doubt in my mind that Edgar Martinez belongs in the hall despite the lack of a glove....it's not even close, guys.

That's great, but he wasn't a 3Bman. He was a DH. He played 563 games at 3B. None in his lat 7 seasons, and only 7 in his lat 10 seasons. To lump him in with guys that played two or three times as many games at the position just isn't fair to them, especially since if Edgar played the field everyday, he may not have been able to contribute as much offensively, he may have hurt the team more defensively, and he probably would have been injured a lot more and perhaps out of baseball much earlier in his career. Conversely, if guys like Schmidt and Brett and Mathews and Boggs and Santo and so on played almost exclusively at DH, they may have been ever more valualbe offensively.

That all being said, Martinez was a terrific hitter so he's close for me, but he doesn't quite make it. For a DH to get in for me, they must be a superior hitter to just about everyone in the league. Their only job is to hit. They don't have to think about fielding, they don't have to deal with the fatigue of playing the entire game. They can focus and train on nothing but hitting, and their bodies don't place nearly as much stress on their bodies so they stay fresher throughout games and the season. So for me, a DH better be hitting like Ted Williams or Barry Bonds the past few years to get in. Edgar was a terrific hitter, but his hitting was not clearly above a number of his peers that contributed defensively, on the bases, and were able to hit just about as well as Edgar despite the extra rigors and contributions of playing the field.

[Yankwood]

Not really true Yankwood. Not to the extant you're imagining. He was not a good fielding third baseman, but neither is Chipper Jones and neither was Eddie Mathews. I don't believe Edgar would have been worth less than zero for his defense when you added it all up had he played third his whole career.I believe Killebrew was moved to first because he used to play 3rd base "with his chest instead of his glove", as they used to say. But at least he was at a position and hit 500 HRs. This is the kind of offensive production I would want from a DH. Not that I need 500 homers but...well, not to change the subject here, but, what about Tino Martinez? Better or worse chance than Edgar? In your opinion.

[SABR Matt]

FAR worse.

Martinez could flash the leather at first base but had all of two seasons that were even remotely close to where Edgar was perennially offensively, and the difference between a LUCIFER-inspired HORRIFIC first baseman and a good one like Tino is maybe 2 wins a year, so even if you imagine Edgar to be the worst fielder in the history of major league baseball...Tino's missing 4-7 wins on offense and getting back 2 or 3 each year on defense.

[Yankwood]

Now see, if I had my choice between the two, I would take Tino in a heartbeat. It's O.K. to disagree, though. Edgar used to absolutely massacre the Yankees too, that sonofa........:grouchy

[538280]

I'm with Matt here. Looking at Edgar's hitting record, it's hard to say that he's not AT LEAST one of the top 30 hitters of all time. Even with absolutely no defensive value, I think that Edgar has ample hitting value to make him an easy HOFer. Even if you bring his offensive numbers down a bit because all he did was hit, he's still easily above the HOF margin.

XX, I think Edgar was consistently among the best hitters in the game. he was in the top 5 in the league in OPS+ every year 1995-2001, except for 1999 when he was sixth. And outside of those years he was still one hell of a hitter. I think this guy should be an easy HOFer. A better hitter with the M's than Griffey was IMO.

And I think that if you really think Tino Martinez is better than Edgar then you're way overrating 1B defense and defense in general.

[SABR Matt]

And before anyone accuses me of stumping for Mr. Mariner on sentimental grounds, I should point out that I have Ken Griffey 10th among CFers...so it's not like Mariner ratings are inflated...LOL

[DoubleX]

XX, I think Edgar was consistently among the best hitters in the game. he was in the top 5 in the league in OPS+ every year 1995-2001, except for 1999 when he was sixth. And outside of those years he was still one hell of a hitter. I think this guy should be an easy HOFer. A better hitter with the M's than Griffey was IMO.

But would he have done that if he had played the field? Doubtful. Conversely, what other players would have ranked in the top 5 as consistently if they did not play the field and only played DH. By not playing the field, Martinez had a huge advantage to be a better hitter, and that should be held against him, IMO. The top 5 you mention would likely have been wildly different if the other best hitters in the league didn't have to play the field. Additionally, the fact that Martinez could not play the field has to be considered. He was a defensive liability and that detracts from his overall value. If not for the DH, there is a good chance that his poor fielding, his terrible running, and his proclivity for being easily injured when playing the field, would have forced him to leave baseball. Basically, the DH gives him an advantage to be a better hitter and allows him to mask the glaring holes in his game that would have hurt his team in an earlier generation. Imagine all the past careers that coud have been extended or enhanced by the DH? Imagine all the non-Hall of Famers that could have been Hall of Famers if they had the DH. Frank Howard, Rocky Colavito, Ted Kluszewski, Charlie Keller, the list could go on and on.

[SABR Matt]

This idea that having to take on the TAXING chore of playing *gasp* FIRST BASE!!!! *shriek*...would destroy Edgar Martinez' bat is utterly preposterous.

[DoubleX]

This idea that having to take on the TAXING chore of playing *gasp* FIRST BASE!!!! *shriek*...would destroy Edgar Martinez' bat is utterly preposterous.

Then why didn't he ever play 1B? The almighty Paul Sorrento and David Segui? Why was he the DH and they the 1Bmen? In 18 seasons he played just 28 games at 1B. If he was anywhere close to capable, one would expect more games than that.

[jalbright]

This idea that having to take on the TAXING chore of playing *gasp* FIRST BASE!!!! *shriek*...would destroy Edgar Martinez' bat is utterly preposterous.
Maybe it wouldn't have destroyed his bat--but the Mariners weren't willing to risk putting good-hitting, not great fielding but fragile Edgar at first. Looking at his record, it's hard to say they were wrong to do so, IMO. To me, that matters in HOF conversations.

Jim Albright

[Yankwood]

This idea that having to take on the TAXING chore of playing *gasp* FIRST BASE!!!! *shriek*...would destroy Edgar Martinez' bat is utterly preposterous.I don't think anybody is mistaking playing first base for boot camp, but it's still somewhat of a strain or Gehrig's streak was no big deal.

[SABR Matt]

Then why didn't he ever play 1B? The almighty Paul Sorrento and David Segui? Why was he the DH and they the 1Bmen? In 18 seasons he played just 28 games at 1B. If he was anywhere close to capable, one would expect more games than that.

The Mariners like to protect their best property. Of course, by the time he was 38, he was in fact too brittle to field, but this is true of a lot of other players who just so happen to play first base instead of DH. And for the record, David Segui is a very good fielder...why would you put him anywhere other than where he could field. Same for John Olerud.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Then why didn't he ever play 1B? The almighty Paul Sorrento and David Segui? Why was he the DH and they the 1Bmen? In 18 seasons he played just 28 games at 1B. If he was anywhere close to capable, one would expect more games than that.

Segui was a tremendous defensive first baseman; it would have made sense to DH Edgar if Segui was available. The same could not be said of Sorrento, but Sorrento played 8 times more games at 1B than at DH for his career, so . . .

[DoubleX]

The Mariners like to protect their best property. Of course, by the time he was 38, he was in fact too brittle to field, but this is true of a lot of other players who just so happen to play first base instead of DH. And for the record, David Segui is a very good fielder...why would you put him anywhere other than where he could field. Same for John Olerud.

I know, I was exagerrating to make the point that in 18 years Martinez only played 28 games at 1B. In 18 years there had to have been more than 28 opportunities for Martinez to play 1B when the options were not that great. If Martinez were anything close to an adequate 1Bman, I'm sure there would have been more than 28 instances in 18 years when the Mariners would have felt comfortable with him out there.

[SABR Matt]

There's also something about routines...Martinez didn't play the field sometimes because...why upset what's working? Don't believe the Ms would treat a veteren that way? Talk to an Ms fan about where Ichiro SHOULD be playing in the OF.

[538280]

But would he have done that if he had played the field? Doubtful. Conversely, what other players would have ranked in the top 5 as consistently if they did not play the field and only played DH. By not playing the field, Martinez had a huge advantage to be a better hitter, and that should be held against him, IMO. The top 5 you mention would likely have been wildly different if the other best hitters in the league didn't have to play the field. Additionally, the fact that Martinez could not play the field has to be considered. He was a defensive liability and that detracts from his overall value. If not for the DH, there is a good chance that his poor fielding, his terrible running, and his proclivity for being easily injured when playing the field, would have forced him to leave baseball. Basically, the DH gives him an advantage to be a better hitter and allows him to mask the glaring holes in his game that would have hurt his team in an earlier generation. Imagine all the past careers that coud have been extended or enhanced by the DH? Imagine all the non-Hall of Famers that could have been Hall of Famers if they had the DH. Frank Howard, Rocky Colavito, Ted Kluszewski, Charlie Keller, the list could go on and on.

I am willing to dock his hitting numbers a bit for DHing, like I said before. I can't see that it should be any more than 5-10% though. After all, he still had the same pitchers to face as everyone else, and he still faced the same hitting challenges. I don't see how by "resting" it increased his hitting numbers. Are you saying that his hitting numbers would have decreased substantially if he had to go out there every half inning and play first? I agree with Matt, I don't see how playing first would have had such a huge effect on his hitting. The Mariners had other options at first, they knew Edgar was fragile out there, and they decided not to take the risk of him getting injured and them missing out on such a great hitter.

Also, if may be true that if Edgar had came along pre 1973 he would not have been the great player he was in his era, because there was no DH. I think that very well may be true. But, I think we should only look at what a player has accomplished in his own time. Harmon Killebrew almost certainly would not have been a star in the deadball era. Should we penalize him for that? I don't see that we should, because I only think players should be evaluated based on what they did in their own time. I think it makes sense to dock Edgar's hitting stats a bit for DHing, but I don't think we should try to transport any player into another era. I think the fact is that Edgar was able to have tremendous value (well over the HOF level) in his own time, and that is enough to put him in the HOF.

[Edgartohof]

I guess that it's time I chime in a little (oh stop groaning :D ).

Here is a quick take on the Keltner test:

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

No, not really - one of the top hitters in his prime though

2. Was he the best player on his team?

Yes, in 1992 (his batting title and doubles beat out Griffey's ~27 HR's), and 1995 (by far - had a shot at the MVP), and 2000 (.324 BA, 37 HR's, and RBI - once griffey left, he had his shot to shine), but one must remember that he played with Ken Griffey Jr. and Alex Rodriguez, and Brett Boone, and Ichiro Suzuki - so he had a lot of competition for first on his own team, but that doesn't mean he wasn't great.

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

Definitely - he was the best DH of his time.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

1995, 1997, 2001

5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

Was one of the most potent offensive forces in baseball history after about age 32. - one of the best seasons by a 37 and 40 year old

6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

No, but not that far off

7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

Yes - and no

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

His OBP is 21st all-time, his Equivalent Average is 12th all time, rate stats show him as GREAT. He does miss a little in the career marks, but was held up by an obtuse Front Office, who would not let him play (refer to Bill James)

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

As mentioned above, his career stats are held back by his late start due to the Mariner's front office, and two injury seasons, which could have been great ('93-'94). Prior to the injuries in '93 and '94, he had progressively gotten better each of the last 3 full seasons, and he won batting titles both seasons before and after the injuries ('92 and '95). So there is no reason to believe that he could not have had equally impressive seasons in those 2 years - at least decent years (.300/.400 with 20 HR's). Also, his best year - 1995 was a strike shortened year, so his peak season, while already great, does not correctly compare to other top seasons - he had appeared in every game that season, so he has a legitimate claim that he could have played a full 162 that year. And if he had kept up his pace, his season would have been:

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB TB TOB RC BA OBP SLG
strike shortened 145 511 121 182 52 0 29 113 116 321 306 153 0.356 0.479 0.628
extrapolated 162 571 135 203 58 0 32 126 130 357 342 170 0.356 0.479 0.628

Some might not say that that is much, but is does make a difference. It shows that he had a "Coor's Field" season - away from Coor's Field.

He would then have125+ Runs/RBI, 200 Hits, 58 doubles, 130 Walks, 170 RC, .300/.400/.600 seasons, and 342 Times On Base - which averages to getting on base more than 2 times per game!!! And is good for a tie at 9th all-time (at that time, it would have been 7th).

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

Definitely - the greatest DH EVER! Heck, the award was even named after him!

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

1995, he was 3rd, and had a legitimate shot at winning - led in: G, BA, OBP, OPS+, R, 2B, TOB, and RC. He was also 3rd in Slg. and TB, and 2nd in H, BB, and IBB.

2000 - .324/.423/.579 96 BB, 37 HR's, 145 RBI,

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?

He had 7 all-star selections, and 9 all-star seasons (was not selected in '98-99). And yes, most players who had 7+ all-star selections, went into the HOF, and more will, in the next few years.

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

Yes, definetly. Case in point - 1995! With the loss of star player in Griffey Jr. He stepped up and led the team, and brought them to the ALCS! He also stepped up again in 2000, when Griffey Jr. left the team for good. Edgar threw up career highs in 37 HR's and a league leading 145 RBI! He led the team to a Franchise record (at that time) of 91 wins, and a tie for the division lead, and again played very well in the post season.

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

He transformed the role of DH. He became synonymous with the position - the DH award was named after him - which in itself points to the fact that if Major League Baseball is going to name an award after him, he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Definitely. He was an upstanding person, and player, and won the Roberto Clemente Award in 2004 as well. He was always a gentleman on and off of the field, a quiet, but personable person - a, "Humble and Quiet Giant" - the HOF would be so worthy to have a person of his moral character to join their ranks.
---------------------------------------------

His VORP (670) is good for 44th All-time

EQA (.329) is 12th All-time!!!

OWP (.730) is 25th All-time

He is 34th in RCAA (through 2005 I believe)

One of only 7 righties with 2 batting titles

Had a line of .329/.446/.573 over his 7 year peak from 1995 - 2001

Over his 7 year peak, he also had a 162 game average of: 190 hits, 46 doubles, 31 HR's, 123 RBI, 119 BB's, and 331 TB, and over this span, never had an OBP below .423!!!

Edgar had an amazing eye, and knew how to take a walk. He ended up leading his league in OBP three times, 2nd twice, and top 5 ten times in his career. His career OBP of .418 is good for 21st all-time - only 20 other players got on bases at a better rate than him!!! And if you count only 20th/21st century players with 2000+ games, he moves to 12th all-time!!!

And to think that he did all of this while not always having depth perception!
He has an eye condition called strabismus, in which he can lose depth perception at any time, which I need not tell you, doesn't help you hit the ball.

He is one of the greatest hitters ever, could hit for average, power, could take a walk. He could win you a batting title and an RBI title. He was Mr. Double, and Mr. Mariner, and even affectionately known as Papi. His training was well known, and he took more care of his bats than ANYONE. He is a great guy to have on your team, and a great guy to know outside of the game. He was always willing to give someone the help they need. He did things with the bat that few could, dealing with things that few have to. He was held back early in his career, and when he made it, he was hampered with injuries. And whodathunk that the guy brought up as a no-hit, all-glove 3Bman, would turn into an all-hit, no-field hitting machine.

He may have been quiet and unassuming otherwise, but when he stepped up to the plate, he knew what he had to do, and everyone knew he was going to do it.

He was the one constant face for an organization, saw them at their worst, and their best. He has played in every single post-season game for the Mariner's, and also had their biggest hit (which I need not remind everyone of). He stayed with one organizaton from the beginning. He was the epitomy of loyalty. He was given the chance to go for a Ring on several teams in contention, but decided to stay with his team - he started with them, he ended with them.

No one can refute how great he was with a bat in his hand, and though he has shortcomings, I feel that he is still worthy of a plaque in Cooperstown.

I would like to end this by saying sorry for the length of this - but hey, I'm not the one who brought it up :D

[DoubleX]

Also, if may be true that if Edgar had came along pre 1973 he would not have been the great player he was in his era, because there was no DH. I think that very well may be true. But, I think we should only look at what a player has accomplished in his own time. Harmon Killebrew almost certainly would not have been a star in the deadball era. Should we penalize him for that? I don't see that we should, because I only think players should be evaluated based on what they did in their own time. I think it makes sense to dock Edgar's hitting stats a bit for DHing, but I don't think we should try to transport any player into another era. I think the fact is that Edgar was able to have tremendous value (well over the HOF level) in his own time, and that is enough to put him in the HOF.

Killebrew may not have been a star in the deadball era, but he would have been playing in the field. That facet remains constant. The DH allows for players to stay in the game that likely would have been forced out in earlier generations. I don't think you realize just what an advantage not playing the field is to a player, even if it's just not playing 1B, especially over a 162 game season. It's not just a physical toll, it's a mental toll as well, it's a distraction from hitting. A halfway player has to be a pretty special hitter IMO to make the Hall. Edgar was certainly a great hitter for a number of years, but he wasn't doing anything that different from the Albert Belle's, Manny Ramirez's, Frank Thomas', Jim Thomes', Alex Rodriguez's, Juan Gonzalez's, Ken Griffey Jr's, Jason Giambi's, Mark McGwire's, and so forth of the league during his career. Yeah, Martinez may have had a longer string of seasons during the mid/late 90s of consistenly high OPS+, but I guarantee he wouldn't have had that had he played in the field as often as the other players.

The fact is that because of the DH there is only one way to compare Martinez to his peers, and it's unfair to his peers to hold him on equal footing in terms of hitting when he has an advantage to be a better hitter that they do not have. Some adjustment has to be made to consider that Martinez is a hitter and is in a position to be a better hitter, whereas his peers are ballplayers. If you think Martinez would have had the same career and would have hit the same playing 1B everyday then you're kidding yourself. He would have been Ted Kluszewski.

[Seattle1]

Thanks everyone for all of your thoughtful replies, very interesting. If I'm going to be honest with myself, I have to acknowledge that Edgar would not have been able to accumulate some of the career numbers that he did without the benefit of being able to DH for years. That said I still would not complain, nor would I think of the HoF being at all diminished, if Edgar were to be inducted.

:)

[Rennie Stennett]

And before anyone accuses me of stumping for Mr. Mariner on sentimental grounds, I should point out that I have Ken Griffey 10th among CFers...so it's not like Mariner ratings are inflated...LOL

Just a Note: Mr. Mariner will always be Alvin Davis.

Edgar had a pretty good career for a guy with 500 doubles, 300 HR's, 2200 hits and a .312 average lifetime. He was no Brooks Robinson at the Hot Corner, but he was okay. He could run in the early days; batted second many times and even batted leadoff a couple of times, if I remember correctly.

Too bad he got hurt in that pre season game in Vancouver after the boys went north after Spring Training. A meaningless game.

[CROM]

the only thing that will hold edgar back are his 2 years of missed prime ( 93, 94 )
in 1992 he was the batting champ and then in 95 he hit .350 or something like that. he kept up the great stats through 2001.. 2 years that could have been his most productive were spent mainly on the DL.. this is what will hurt him the most.. those 2 years may have cost him 200 or more hits which could have gotten him to 2500 lifetime..
for 8-9 years edgar martinez played on an elite level which will eventually get him into the hall of fame.. i wouldnt expect him to be voted in immediately though.. he may even have to wait on a pass from the veterans..
im not a fan of the DH position but as long as it is regarded as such the players ( who play DH) should be treated as any mediocre fielder IMO..

[GhostShip]

I'll say this right up front: I'm an Edgar Martinez fan. I've watched him since he came up in the Mariners organization, and I was there when he hit the double in '95 series. I think he's a hall of famer, for a variety of reasons listed in this thread. However, I think Edgar's is a unique and special case that should be considered uniquely before passing judgement on his qualifications.

Edgar Martinez achieved most of his greatness past his prime. For all the talk about his brittleness, he suffered the bad leg injuries when he was 30 and 31, when he should have already had a career's worth of numbers behind him. Yet, because of Mariner's mismanagement -- he had only 3 full seasons of numbers (1 of which was a batting title). Edgar had to pack his career numbers on after he was 30, and with bad legs. Most players are on the downward slope of their careers after 30, yet here is Edgar putting up rock solid numbers year after year. There is no doubt with 2-4 more solid caliber seasons -- the ones he should have had in his 20s, we wouldn't be having this discussion, Edgar would be just waiting for his 1st ballot vote for the HoF.

I can already hear the "coulda woulda shoulda" arguments rising from some people on the board as I write that last paragraph. But, the funny thing to me is for those people who use that argument, and then try to subtract something from Edgar for being a DH and not playing the field. Seems like you want it both ways. Does it seem fair to punish Edgar for being a DH and not getting an early start in baseball? It doesn't to me. The smart move was to move Edgar to DH and protect what was left of a middle aged players career. It was Edgar who tacked on another 10 years of superstar caliber performance, even if he wasn't in his youth.

To put this in better context, examine the career of his former teamate Ken Griffey Jr. Here is a player who before he was 30 managed to stack on hall of fame worthy numbers, and have the full potential to challenge Hank Aaron's HR record. Yet, here is another player that gets into his early 30s and turns "brittle" so to speak. The smart move at this point would be to get Griffey back to an AL team and into the DH role, if he wants to ever play a full season again.

The other player I want to bring up for the "coulda woulda shoulda" folks is Kirby Pucket. Here is another player who's numbers *clearly* fall short, yet who's career was shortened by other factors. Yet we can draw the inference on Kirby's career of what could have been -- and the hall of fame voters did the right thing. I really think the right thing when it comes to Edgar is to look past the whole DH debate and deeper into Edgar's life and career, before rushing to a conclusion.

Now Will Clark was mentioned a few times, and there are many similarities between Will's and Edgar's numbers. However, it really should be pointed out that Will batted from the left side. There is a very clear seperation from left and right handed hitters when it comes to reasonable power and average from the right side. Frank Thomas comes to mind, however even Frank is going to risk pulling his average below .300 if he continues on to try and get 500 home runs.

The list of retired players with 300/400/500 (avg/obp/slg) from the right side:

Rogers Hornsby
Jimmie Fox
Hank Greenberg
Ed Delahanty
Edgar Martinez

Did I miss anyone? That's pretty exclusive company, considering everyone except Edgar is in the hall.

Anyways, I think I've gone on long enough. Edgar's is a special case, and I think he's obviously put up special numbers that puts in him in a unique category. The question remains should we evaluate Edgar as a DH and give him no other considerations, I still think the call is borderline. But if we add in the late start, the longevity of his career past his prime while his mobility was reduced, plus all the other things that Edgar has done, I think the result is clear:

Edgar Martinez's vote to the hall of fame should be a walk off homerun.

Regards,

David Johnson

[digglahhh]

I would have no issue with Edgar in the Hall.

But I must note that to consider the DH a "position" is a bit disingenious.

A position is a demarcation, a description of a player BEYOND a hitter. You position is what makes you DIFFERENT from the other guys in the line-up. What, specifically do you do, is part of YOUR job that is NOT part of the others'?

Edgar Martinez's "position" does not differntiate him from anybody else who ever played.

The way I look at cases like this, is to assume the player was a below average fielder at the least important position. So, if Edgar Martinez was a terrible 1B, which would hurt his value, would that be enough of a knock to keep him out given his offense? Probably not.

I don't really understand how somebody playing subpar defense can increase their value. Like all that was stopping David Ortiz from last year's AL MVP was going out there and butchering grounders on a regular basis...

But of course, this plays perfectly into the Hall of Fame vs. Hall of Value argument.

Personally, I passively support Edgar.

[romanos72]

I wish I shared SABR Matt's enthusiasm for Edgar's induction into the hall, but his numbers don't cut it in a hitting-rich era. No 3,000 hits. No 500 HRs. Hitting .300 just doesn't do it alone anymore, especially when you don't play the field throughout the majority of your career. He wasn't a top-tier player when he played (perhaps not recognized due to the small market he played for) and never led his team to a championship or even a pennant. Good guy, good numbers, but not worthy.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

Is Edgar martinez deserving of being forever enshrined in the hall of fame?

[leecemark]

--Great hitter, but his career numbers are a little short for a guy who could do nothing else. Edgar couldn't play the field and was one fo the worst baserunners I've ever seen. Mariners Hall of Fame for sure, but not quite Cooperstown. Having the DH of the Year award named for him will have to do as the honor to cap his career.

[brett]

I think that his ops+ and PA's put him in almost exclusively hall of fame company. I do not penalize a DH much more than a first baseman-although I penalize first basemen rather significantly for their position-they have to produce at a higher level.

As a DH or first baseman, a player would have to be capable of being "the man" in an offense to be HOF caliber. Was he? Probably.

Anyway, how many guys had 147 OPS+ through 8500+ PA's and are not in?

How many had .300/.400/.500 through that many and are not in? (NONE, not even close. No player with .300/.400/.500 with 5000 PAs is not in I believe).

[leecemark]

--Edgar has to rank behind a firstbaseman. He wasn't a DH just because he couldn't field, but because he was too brittle to play the field. In the pre-DH era he wouldn't have had much of a career.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

--Edgar has to rank behind a firstbaseman. He wasn't a DH just because he couldn't field, but because he was too brittle to play the field. In the pre-DH era he wouldn't have had much of a career.
Did he stop being a third baseman because he couldn't field or because he couldn't stay healthy? I just don't remember. I thought he was a a pretty ok third basman. If he had played about 70%-75% at third base he would be a no doubts HoFer.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

If I recall correctly Edgar had to stop playing third due to several injuries from '93- '94. Most of these injuries were to his hamstring and quads. The finishing blow to Edgar's career as a 3rd baseman came on July 20th 1996, when he collided with then Mariner's catcher John Marzano. Martinez injured his ribs pretty badly, and never played third base again until his very last game. He had a career .952 fielding persentage, which is prety mediocre. Injury was his problem not ability.

[DoubleX]

If i recall corectly edgar had to stop playing third due to several injuries from 93'- 94' most of these injuries were to his hamstring and quads. the finishing blow to Edgars carrer as a 3rd baseman came on july20th 1996, when he collided with then mariner catcher John marzano, martinez was injured his ribs pretty badly and then never played third base agian in till his very last game of his carrer. he had a carrer .952 fielding persentage, which is prety mediocre. Injury was his problem not ability.

It seems to me that a .952 fielding percentage would suggest that ability was a big part of the problem. Even when healthy early in his career his fielding percentage was pretty mediocre. Though his range factor was actually above average.

[538280]

It seems to me that a .952 fielding percentage would suggest that ability was a big part of the problem. Even when healthy early in his career his fielding percentage was pretty mediocre. Though his range factor was actually above average.

You really think fielding percentage means much as a indicator of defensive performance? Edgar wasn't a good 3Bman, but he wasn't completely horrible either. He moved because of injuries. It doesn't matter much anyway why he moved to me-that only has a little bit to do with how much credit he gets for defense in the years he did play 3B.

[rsuriyop]

This topic has been discussed at length numerous times already. But anyways, my position has always been that if the door can be opened for relief pitchers getting into the hall, then why can't the greatest DH of all-time be in there as well? (That is, unless you consider Frank Thomas to be a DH.)

[brett]

It seems to me that a .952 fielding percentage would suggest that ability was a big part of the problem. Even when healthy early in his career his fielding percentage was pretty mediocre. Though his range factor was actually above average.

Even if fielding% was a good indicator of fielding prowess .952 is not bad. Mike Schmidt was a career .955 fielder.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

By no means was Edgar a great defensive third baseman. His performance was nothing special, but adequate.

[CROM]

why does edgar martinez get so much more love than larry walker?

their stats are quite similar except for the fact that in 300 less ABs walker produced 62 triples to martinez 15 and also has 74 more HRs.. not to mention larry walker has 230 SBs and 7 gold gloves to martinez 49 SBs and 0 GGs.. larry walker was also a great base-runner while martinez wasnt a very good one..
i know the power numbers may be inflated but even so, the martinez nay sayers point to the DH position while walker put up close to the same numbers while playing stellar defense..

both are .300/.400/.500 guys which in itself is HOF criteria but one of em had a hell of a glove as well while the other played DH... care to elaborate? im just curious is all..

[leecemark]

--I would describe him as below averge rather than terrible. You certainly could have lived with his glove to get his bat in the lineup had he been able to stay healthy. Had he been able to play the field his whole career he would easily been a top 10 (probably no worse than 7th) thirdbaseman and a no brainer for the Hall. Even if he had to move to 1B he would be over the Hall of Fame line. It is only the fact that he COULDN'T handle anything other than DHing that puts him below the line for me.

[CROM]

and dont get me wrong.. i ride the fence with both of them.. if a ballot was put in my face tomorrow it would be a decision based on how i was feeling that particular day..
on one hand id think i couldnt fault edgar martinez for taking one for the team and going DH or just being unable to physically play the position.. the same goes for larry walker and his injuries.. i debate with myself over these 2 more so than probably anyone..

[Wade8813]

I think the only real arguement against Larry Walker is that playing in Coors field padded his numbers, whereas playing in Safeco probably hurt Gar's stats.

Also, a lot of the reason Edgar didn't put in time at first is the M's have had numerous good fielders there. Olerud, Sexson, Segui... Edgar probably could have put in a lot more time there, but why would the M's do that, when the DH was a perfectly viable option?

[DoubleX]

It is only the fact that he COULDN'T handle anything other than DHing that puts him below the line for me.

Same here. If not for the DH, I don't think Martinez would have lasted in the Majors nearly as long as he did.

[EvanAparra]

Same here. If not for the DH, I don't think Martinez would have lasted in the Majors nearly as long as he did.
But.... so?? The DH is a position, he played that position. Its not like the DH is an exception the Mariners made for him.

[leecemark]

--DH isn't really a position, it is serial pinch hitting. For most of baseball history (and players are being compared to history for the HoF) that crutch didn't exist and Edgar wouldn't be the subject of this discussion.

[KCGHOST]

Edgar is going to be a tough nut. His counting numbers are nothing special. His OPS+ of 147 screams HoFer, but his WARP3 is only 107+ which is fairly good but not HoF caliber. His RCAA of 647 is well into the HoF "lock" category. That would be the highest such figure for any player who didn't make the HoF by a wide margin. Might squeak in with a real weak freshman class.

[EvanAparra]

--DH isn't really a position, it is serial pinch hitting. For most of baseball history (and players are being compared to history for the HoF) that crutch didn't exist and Edgar wouldn't be the subject of this discussion.
Actually, it is a position.

A designated hitter (often shortened to "DH"), is an official position adopted by Major League Baseball's American League in 1973

Whether you like it or not is irrelevant to it being a position. He played the position pretty darn well, as shown by his .312/.418/.515 line, his 300+ HRs and his 500+ 2Bs. Include his 2 batting titles (only DH to ever win one), "the double", and i'd put him in, although he is a somewhat borderline candidate for me.

[leecemark]

--Where exactly on the field is this position? A position is a defensive assignment. I am not really anti-DH. I'm an AL fan and can barely remember the game without the DH. That doesn't mean that I don't deeply discount a player who makes a career of it.

[EvanAparra]

--Where exactly on the field is this position? A position is a defensive assignment. I am not really anti-DH. I'm an AL fan and can barely remember the game without the DH. That doesn't mean that I don't deeply discount a player who makes a career of it.

Since I just quoted something that said that the DH was an "official Major League Baseball position" I dont see what the question of being on the field has anything to do with it.

[leecemark]

--I didn't notice that you quoted anything. DH is a job, which I guess can be called a position out of convenience and tradition, but you aren't "playing" anything when you have that job.

[EvanAparra]

A designated hitter (often shortened to "DH"), is an official position adopted by Major League Baseball's American League in 1973

Sorry, this is what I meant when I said I had quoted something.

I just don't think people should be discounted for being a DH since someone HAS to be one in the AL, IMO.

[DoubleX]

--DH isn't really a position, it is serial pinch hitting. For most of baseball history (and players are being compared to history for the HoF) that crutch didn't exist and Edgar wouldn't be the subject of this discussion.

That's my feeling on it as well. Imagine all the players that could have had longer and more productive careers if they had the benefit of the DH. Frank Howard is the first that comes to mind. He was perfectly suited for the DH and he could have hit 500+ homeruns if he had that benefit.

Historically, players that could not play the field, because of injuries and inability, like Martinez, disappeared from the game, no matter how good their bats were. Howard is an example. Ralph Kiner comes to mind. Hank Greenberg left early, and so on and so on. If not for the DH, I think Martinez would have been out of the game years ago.

I don't mean to imply that a DH under no circumstances could make the Hall, but they have two very significant things to overcome in my book: 1) History, as I've just explained; 2) Was their hitting really that much better than the best position players of their day. Martinez was an excellent hitter for sure, but he never distanced himself from the pack of the best hitting positional players.

[DoubleX]

Whether you like it or not is irrelevant to it being a position. He played the position pretty darn well, as shown by his .312/.418/.515 line, his 300+ HRs and his 500+ 2Bs. Include his 2 batting titles (only DH to ever win one), "the double", and i'd put him in, although he is a somewhat borderline candidate for me.

But it doesn't take anything special to play the "position." Anyone can play that position, and several of Martinez's peers could have played it just as well as he did because being a DH allows a player to be a better hitter than they would normally. In fact, every other player does play Martinez's position - it's called hitting.

I just don't think people should be discounted for being a DH since someone HAS to be one in the AL, IMO.

That shouldn't stop us from considering the reason why that player is playing DH. If the reason is because that player can't actually field a position and can only contribute in one way, and if not for the DH, would likely be relegated to pitch-hitting duties or out of baseball altogether because of his defensive inability, that should be held against him.

[EvanAparra]

But it doesn't take anything special to play the "position." Anyone can play that position, and several of Martinez's peers could have played it just as well as he did because being a DH allows a player to be a better hitter than they would normally.

Really? Several of his peers could have had his career line over 18 years? How many?



If the reason is because that player can't actually field a position and can only contribute in one way, and if not for the DH, would likely be relegated to pitch-hitting duties or out of baseball altogether because of his defensive inability, that should be held against him

Thats your opinion. So if Ryan Howard moved to the AL and started DHing, all of a sudden his career would mean a lot less to you?

[Edgartohof]

Hmmm.... where do I stand on this one?

I know - down with the DH!!!!!

NOT


I am as biased on this as anyone - and moreso than most - much more. But I do believe that he deserves to be in.

I understand those who say that he doesn't (don't necessarily agree with them). There are some points that don't really help him, but he has many that do. I willl post some of those things later (when I get home), but suffice it to say for now that he deserves to be in Cooperstown.

[Los Bravos]

Imagine all the players that could have had longer and more productive careers if they had the benefit of the DH. Frank Howard is the first that comes to mind. He was perfectly suited for the DH and he could have hit 500+ homeruns if he had that benefit.

Historically, players that could not play the field, because of injuries and inability, like Martinez, disappeared from the game, no matter how good their bats were. Howard is an example. Ralph Kiner comes to mind. Hank Greenberg left early, and so on and so on. If not for the DH, I think Martinez would have been out of the game years ago.All of that is true, but you have (at least in my opinion) set yourself up on the wrong side of the insight.

I look back at those guys and regret their premature absence from the game, rather than see it as some natural outcome. I don't think Spencerian survivial of the fittest is a great starting point for participation in a sport.

I don't see why this (undeniable) historical fact is accorded the status of being natural, and presumably, superior. It's not, at least to me. I want to see guys who can still hit, hit. Similar to the way I want to see guys who've lost their fastballs, but can still get people out (see Tanana, F.) hang around and keep on winning.

Of course, I'm also in favor of seeing light hitting but exceptional defensive players like Mark Belanger get more recognition, so...there you go.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

Imagine if there was no DH rule. Would Edgar Martinez be forced to retire early due to injuries? I think not. The Seattle Mariners would have Put him at first base just to keep him in the line- up, but they didn't have to; there is a Dh rule and the Mariners decided it would be a better fit to put him there rather than at first.
The bottom line is that whether there is a Dh or not, Edgar Martinez would have continued to play.

[EvanAparra]

.
The bottom line is that whether there is a Dh or not, Edgar Martinez would have continued to play.
Agreed, although i'm sure the response from many here would be that his numbers would have gone down had he played in the field, which I don't believe. If someone can find a stat where a majority of players move from the field to DH consistently do better then i'll believe it, until then, pure speculation.

[iPod]

Actually, it is a position.

A designated hitter (often shortened to "DH"), is an official position adopted by Major League Baseball's American League in 1973

Whether you like it or not is irrelevant to it being a position. He played the position pretty darn well, as shown by his .312/.418/.515 line, his 300+ HRs and his 500+ 2Bs. Include his 2 batting titles (only DH to ever win one), "the double", and i'd put him in, although he is a somewhat borderline candidate for me.

Being "the only DH to win a batting title" is an absolutely useless distinction. What bothers me so much about his Hall of Fame candidacy is that so many of the arguments used to support him are built around the assumption that its somehow appropriate to compare him only to other players designated by their managers to hit.

When you say something like "he's the only shortstop to do X" it's saying "Yes, hitting achievement X isn't so terribly historic when standing on its own, but you have to remember he was also contributing by playing shortstop, where hitting skills are more marginally valuable. This skill set must be fulfilled and can't be fulfilled by most players, and if our guy can fill that skill set, maybe its not so fair to hold hitting achievement X up to the same standard as the first basemen, left fielders, and so forth."

Saying there's value in being "the best DH ever" or "being the only DH ever to win a batting title" is essentially saying, "Yes, winning 2 batting titles in and of itself isn't such a huge deal, but you have to compare him to those who were able to fill the role he filled. The opportunity cost 'at DH' is lower because most of the truly great hitters can't play DH." That's poor logic. Since all he does is hit, and all you're willing to classify him as is a hitter, you compare him to all hitters, regardless of position. There's no intuitive reason why you should compare him only to players who are designated to hit, because being designated to hit doesn't reflect an inherent skill that warrants some sort of mental separation.

[DoubleX]

Imagine if there was no DH rule. Would Edgar Martinez be forced to retire early due to injuries? I think not. The Seattle Mariners would have Put him at first base just to keep him in the line- up, but they didn't have to; there is a Dh rule and the Mariners decided it would be a better fit to put him there rather than at first.
The bottom line is that whether there is a Dh or not, Edgar Martinez would have continued to play.

That may have worked for a few years, but history has shown, that even the best of hitters, when they can't field anymore, and can't run the bases, they are forced out of the game. Hank Greenberg, Ralph Kiner, Frank Howard, even Joe DiMaggio, and many others. If those players couldn't stick in the game without the DH, I don't believe Martinez would have either. I believe Ted Kluszewski is a good comparison for Martinez. Great hitter, but when injuries prevented him from being able to play the field (and we're talking 1B), not even his still potent bat could keep him in the lineup and his career ended after four seasons as a part time player.

[DoubleX]

Really? Several of his peers could have had his career line over 18 years? How many?

Let's not kid ourselves here and say that Martinez had an 18 year career. He had 7200 ABs, so we'll deal with that.

I believe, the following peers of Martinez, if primarily playing DH, could have produced similarly to Martinez (and some did):

Barry Bonds
Frank Thomas
Manny Ramirez
Larry Walker
Mike Piazza
Alex Rodriguez
Ken Griffey Jr
Jeff Bagwell
Jim Thome
Carlos Delgado
Jason Giambi
Nomar Garciaparra
Juan Gonzalez
Gary Sheffield
Mo Vaughn
Mark McGwire
Sammy Sosa
Chipper Jones
Vladimir Guerrero
Bernie Williams
Jeff Kent
Albert Belle (if not for the degenerative hip, but he was at the same level of Martinez through 5850 ABs)

That's just off the top of my head, and many of these players were just about as good as hitter, if not better than Martinez, despite not playing full time DH.

[EvanAparra]

And every single person you just named will either be in the Hall of Fame, or has a good case as to why he should be in. Doesn't that tell you something?

[EvanAparra]

Being "the only DH to win a batting title" is an absolutely useless distinction. What bothers me so much about his Hall of Fame candidacy is that so many of the arguments used to support him are built around the assumption that its somehow appropriate to compare him only to other players designated by their managers to hit.

No, its not. Ok, tell me who we should compare him to? Or should be compare relievers to starters as well?

Saying there's value in being "the best DH ever" or "being the only DH ever to win a batting title" is essentially saying, "Yes, winning 2 batting titles in and of itself isn't such a huge deal, but you have to compare him to those who were able to fill the role he filled.

Correct.

[DoubleX]

And every single person you just named will either be in the Hall of Fame, or has a good case as to why he should be in. Doesn't that tell you something?

Many of those players won't get in the Hall, and a lot of them, say someone like Bernie Williams or Jeff Kent wouldn't even sniff anything close to the Hall if he were primarily a DH, even with assuming an offensive bump due to only DHing. You also have to remember that a lot of them will be making the Hall because they A) Didn't play DH, and in some cases contributed defensively and on the bases; B) Had better counting stats than Martinez despite not being just a DH.

What that list says to me is that there were at least 20-25 peers of Edgar Martinez that could do what Martinez did with the bat without even having the advantage of being a DH - so how special is Martinez when there are 20-25 two-way players out there that can do close to what he does with the bat, his supposed speciality (and more)? These players, even if just playing 1B, were more complete players and contributing more to their team.

[EvanAparra]

What that list says to me is that there were at least 20-25 peers of Edgar Martinez that could do what Martinez did with the bat without even having the advantage of being a DH - so how special is Martinez when there are 20-25 two-way players out there that can do close to what he does with the bat, his supposed speciality (and more)? These players, even if just playing 1B, were more complete players and contributing more to their team.
So really, would you give Gar the nod if he had played below average defense his whole career?

[EvanAparra]

even with assuming an offensive bump due to only DHing.
Why? Where is one single stat that supports that?

[DoubleX]

So really, would you give Gar the nod if he had played below average defense his whole career?

That's the thing. If there was no DH, Martinez likely would have been out of baseball years ago, just like Ralph Kiner, just like Frank Howard, just like Ted Kluszewski, just like Hank Greenberg. And if Martinez played the field regularly, his hitting likely would have suffered because 1) He'd be more exposed to injury; 2) He couldn't just sit on the bench the whole game and rest up and prepare for his next AB; 3) He'd have to focus on other things, and not just hitting - being a DH allows him to spend 100% of his time and focus on hitting, being a fielder doesn't allow that.

As Mark said, when we're talking about something like the Hall of Fame, we have to put players in a historical context and compare them to others. Is it fair to put Martinez in because he had the advantage of the DH when similar players like Frank Howard and Ted Kluszewski did not and could have benefitted greatly, like Martinez did from the DH? Those guys could have hit 500+ homeruns if they got to DH everyday.

Moreover, a DH is just a one way player. The game is played two ways. A DH is paid to be a hitting specialist. But when there are guys who can play both ways and hit similarly to the DH, I don't see what makes the DH so valuable.

Beyond all that, there are also Martinez's counting stats to consider. For a guy to have spent almost his entire career doing nothing but hitting, and doing it in one of the greatest offensive eras ever, you'd expect more than 2247 hits and 309 homeruns. Frank Howard had 382 homeruns and a 142 OPS+, without the benefit of the DH, and despite playing his entire career in one of the tougheest offensive eras ever and in Dodgers Stadium and RFK for most of his career, and he's not sniffing the Hall of Fame - now imagine if Howard got to do nothing but DH.

[EvanAparra]

That's the thing. If there was no DH, Martinez likely would have been out of baseball years ago, just like Ralph Kiner, just like Frank Howard, just like Ted Kluszewski, just like Hank Greenberg. And if Martinez played the field regularly, his hitting likely would have suffered because 1) He'd be more exposed to injury; 2) He couldn't just sit on the bench the whole game and rest up and prepare for his next AB; 3) He'd have to focus on other things, and not just hitting - being a DH allows him to spend 100% of his time and focus on hitting, being a fielder doesn't allow that.

As Mark said, when we're talking about something like the Hall of Fame, we have to put players in a historical context and compare them to others. Is it fair to put Martinez in because he had the advantage of the DH when similar players like Frank Howard and Ted Kluszewski did not and could have benefitted greatly, like Martinez did from the DH? Those guys could have hit 500+ homeruns if they got to DH everyday.

Moreover, a DH is just a one way player. The game is played two ways. A DH is paid to be a hitting specialist. But when there are guys who can play both ways and hit similarly to the DH, I don't see what makes the DH so valuable.


See, but you have to say "likely" before everything you say. Its baseless, and pure speculation. Same thing with saying Frank Howard could have hit 500 HRs, speculation.

Every man that you named that could play the field and hit like Edgar has HOF-esqe numbers, as does Gar. There's nothing that makes the DH so valuable, but Edgar could have trotted out there and played some average-below average first base and he would be considered oh so more valuable. That doesn't make any sense to me.

[DoubleX]

See, but you have to say "likely" before everything you say. Its baseless, and pure speculation. Same thing with saying Frank Howard could have hit 500 HRs, speculation.

Every man that you named that could play the field and hit like Edgar has HOF-esqe numbers, as does Gar. There's nothing that makes the DH so valuable, but Edgar could have trotted out there and played some average-below average first base and he would be considered oh so more valuable. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Fine, you're right. Let's just ignore all the history of all the great hitters that had to leave the game because of injuries and poor defense and assume that Martinez would have been an exception and would have played just as long and with the exact same type of production if the DH didn't exist. Let's just assume that playing the field wouldn't have increased the risk for injury and wouldn't have distracted from his focusing on hitting... Given all the history and all the great hitters that were phased out early, it is extremely reasonable to assume that Martinez would not have been the same kind of hitter or have played for as long as he did if not for the DH.

And like I said, Edgar does not have Hall of Fame-esque numbers. His counting stats are pretty unimpressive considering that he played DH for almost his entire career and during one of the greatest offensive eras ever. Every other player I mentioned was able to hit close to the level of Martinez (or higher) while also playing the field, and that puts them a cut above Martinez.

Ask yourself this question - Could any of the players I mentioned do what Edgar did if the roles were reversed? Yes, we know that, because they did it or were close to doing it despite doing other things as well. Now ask yourself this other question - Could Edgar do what he did if the roles were reversed and he wasn't playing DH? Unlike the other question, we don't know the answer to this, but the weight of history and the rigors of playing the field (there rigors, even in playing 1B), make it likely that Martinez would not have been able to what he did in a role reversal. It's a one way street here.

[EvanAparra]

Fine, you're right. Let's just ignore all the history of all the great hitters that had to leave the game because of injuries and poor defense and assume that Martinez would have been an exception and would have played just as long and with the exact same type of production if the DH didn't exist.

Fine, you're right. Lets assume he would have gotten hurt?? um... no thanks. Get Martinez distracted from hitting? C'mon now... where are you going with this? (Nothing would distract Gar from hitting, absolutely nothing)

Given all the history and all the great hitters that were phased out early, it is extremely reasonable to assume that Martinez would not have been the same kind of hitter or have played for as long as he did if not for the DH.

Maybe to you, but i'm not going to say "Well, if he had played first base (since that's so strenous to a player's career) his career would have ended a long time ago and he wouldnt have been able to hit as well". No, im not going to say that at all.

And like I said, Edgar does not have Hall of Fame-esque numbers. His counting stats are pretty unimpressive considering that he played DH for almost his entire career and during one of the greatest offensive eras ever.

I'd say a career OPS+ of 147 is HOF-esqe, it ranks 45th all time, tied with Willie Stargell, Mike Schmidt, and Vlad Guerrero - and ahead of Gary Sheffield, Sam Crawford, Frank Howard, Duke Snider, and Reggie Jackson. Career OBP of .418, 22nd all time. And the .312 batting average. I don't like using "counting numbers" because I think they overrate the heck out of players, but I know HOF voters use them like a bible.

Now ask yourself this other question - Could Edgar do what he did if the roles were reversed and he wasn't playing DH? Unlike the other question, we don't know the answer to this, but the weight of history and the rigors of playing the field (there rigors, even in playing 1B), make it likely that Martinez would not have been able to what he did in a role reversal.

Sure. He could play third base, why not 1st? Where is this big weight of history and the rigors of playing 1st base that show his production would have gone down or he would have gotten hurt? (since 1B is usually where players go when they cant play other positions, doesnt seem to rigorous to me) It doesn't make it likely that he wouldn't have been able to do the job, at least not to me. However, I dont even really care all that much if he could have or not, because I would put him in the hall regardless.

[DoubleX]

Fine, you're right. Lets assume he would have gotten hurt?? um... no thanks. Get Martinez distracted from hitting? C'mon now... where are you going with this? (Nothing would distract Gar from hitting, absolutely nothing)

At this point, I give up. We're just going in circles. I think you're ignoring all the many great hitters who played before the DH, who had to leave the game when they defensively couldn't hack it anymore. Martinez in this regard is no different than Hank Greenberg or Ted Kluszewski, and if you don't believe that being able to focus entirely on one thing gives that player an advantage over everyone else, than I don't know what else to say. It seems like common sense to suggest that the person who focuses 100% on something and does not have to deal with other aspects either physically or mentally, would have an advantage to be better. And there are more rigors to just playing 1B than you think. It exposes the player to more injury and requires the player to do more than he would if he were sitting on the bench. Even at 1B, he'd still have to react to things, pivot, throw, run to the bag, bend down, stretch, perhaps dive - over the course of a season, these little things take a toll, particularly for a player like Martinez that has bad knees and is injury prone to begin with. 1B is only easy relative to the other positions in the game, but it still has physical demands, takes a toll on a player, and keeps the player from resting on the bench the whole game thinking only about hitting. Look at Gary Sheffield - he is a much, much greater athlete than Martinez, but look at the troubles he had mastering 1B and having the necessary reactions (should I also remind you that Sheffield was hurt at a collision at 1B). If players like Greenberg and Kluszewski, who were 1Bman, couldn't stay in the game, I don't see why injury-prone and poor fielding Martinez would have.

So that concludes my last run around the circle. ;)

[leecemark]

--If Edgar was capable of playing 1B, then why did he sit the pine when the M's played at NL parks in interleague play. The obvious answer is that the risk of injury and defensive liability was too great. I'm an M's fan and have the utmost respect for Edgar Martinez, but the man did have some enormous shortcomings. He could not stay healthy, he was a substandard defender (and for most of his career no defender at all) and an absolutely terrible baserunner. His hitting almost makes up for that, but is just a little short IMO.

[Sliding Billy]

At this point, I give up. We're just going in circles.
Isn't this just the kind of case where win shares or something like them would help settle the argument? If Martinez accumulated win shares at a Hall of Fame rate, doesn't he deserve to go in, regardless of how he accumulated them? On the other hand, if his lack of defensive win shares pulls his total down too far, then he probably shouldn't go in.

I feel the emphasis should be on the extent he helped his team win, rather than on his hypothetical contributions or those of others who were unable to DH. Although I can certainly understand the feeling that Martinez caught a break by playing when he did, as well as the reluctance to consider a player who was on the field only a few minutes every game.

Bad as I hate to say it, the DH is probably going to be around for a long time, and there will others under consideration whose main position--or "position"--was DH, and batting their only source of value.

The figures I get are

305 career
32, 28, 25 three best
128 top five consecutive
about 25.5 per 162

That would put him below Stan Hack, but above Graig Nettles, pretty close to Reggie Smith, all in all.

[DoubleX]

Isn't this just the kind of case where win shares or something like them would help settle the argument? If Martinez accumulated win shares at a Hall of Fame rate, doesn't he deserve to go in, regardless of how he accumulated them? On the other hand, if his lack of defensive win shares pulls his total down too far, then he probably shouldn't go in.

I feel the emphasis should be on the extent he helped his team win, rather than on his hypothetical contributions or those of others who were unable to DH. Although I can certainly understand the feeling that Martinez caught a break by playing when he did, as well as the reluctance to consider a player who was on the field only a few minutes every game.

Bad as I hate to say it, the DH is probably going to be around for a long time, and there will others under consideration whose main position--or "position"--was DH, and batting their only source of value.

The figures I get are

305 career
32, 28, 25 three best
128 top five consecutive
about 25.5 per 162

That would put him below Stan Hack, but above Graig Nettles, pretty close to Reggie Smith, all in all.

I don't like treating win shares as the be all and end all, but you're right, it is helpful in this discussion. The totals you reference for Martinez are about where I would consider him all time. Standing strong among that group just on the outside of the Hall.

My argument has long been that for a DH to win the MVP or go to the Hall, their value as a hitter must be above and beyond the value that the best hitting positional players bring. Win shares attempt to measure just that.

[Wade8813]

Ted Williams focused on hitting 100%, and he played in the field.

And while there are certainly many players in history who've been forced to retire early due to injuries, there are several others who played at more strenuous positions, then after injuries kept playing for years at first base (or even other positions). Mantle played with all sorts of injuries. Koufax pitched with immense pain in his primary arm. I'm not saying Gar is on the level of either of those two, but if they could continue playing CF, or pitching, while in pain, it's not unreasonable to guess that someone might be able to move to a less strenuous position to keep playing.

[DoubleX]

Ted Williams focused on hitting 100%, and he played in the field.

And while there are certainly many players in history who've been forced to retire early due to injuries, there are several others who played at more strenuous positions, then after injuries kept playing for years at first base (or even other positions). Mantle played with all sorts of injuries. Koufax pitched with immense pain in his primary arm. I'm not saying Gar is on the level of either of those two, but if they could continue playing CF, or pitching, while in pain, it's not unreasonable to guess that someone might be able to move to a less strenuous position to keep playing.

Ted Williams is an extreme example. He might be the greatest hitter ever. He also didn't play CF, he played the less demanding LF, which after 1B, is probably the least demanding position on the diamond.

Anyway, I still stick by all the examples in history in which players were too hurt or too inept to even play 1B to keep themselves in the game.

[leecemark]

Ted Williams focused on hitting 100%, and he played in the field.

And while there are certainly many players in history who've been forced to retire early due to injuries, there are several others who played at more strenuous positions, then after injuries kept playing for years at first base (or even other positions). Mantle played with all sorts of injuries. Koufax pitched with immense pain in his primary arm. I'm not saying Gar is on the level of either of those two, but if they could continue playing CF, or pitching, while in pain, it's not unreasonable to guess that someone might be able to move to a less strenuous position to keep playing.


--Mantle was a much great player than Martinez and yet injuries drove him out of the game at a much younger age. Koufax arm woes ended his career at 30. Not very good examples of how Edgar could have stuck around pre-DH.

[Washizzle Express]

--If Edgar was capable of playing 1B, then why did he sit the pine when the M's played at NL parks in interleague play. The obvious answer is that the risk of injury and defensive liability was too great. I'm an M's fan and have the utmost respect for Edgar Martinez, but the man did have some enormous shortcomings. He could not stay healthy, he was a substandard defender (and for most of his career no defender at all) and an absolutely terrible baserunner. His hitting almost makes up for that, but is just a little short IMO.
The value of a player and their hall of fame worthiness are dependent not only on their stats, but on their team role. Edgar's role on Seattle was being a clubhouse leader as well as hitting at a consistently high level. Whether or not Edgar could play gold-glove caliber defense shouldn't matter considering he was on the same team as olerud and segui. Edgar wasn't thrown out on the basepaths for making stupid mistakes, and although my 90 year-old grandma could outrun him with her walker, Edgar knew the intricities of the game better than most players. He is the best hitting DH ever, and he wouldn't even be the first one in the hall of fame; that distinction goes to Paul Molitor. His career numbers are phenomenol, and that alone should be enough to get him into the hall in a sport based on offense.

[Washizzle Express]

--Mantle was a much great player than Martinez and yet injuries drove him out of the game at a much younger age. Koufax arm woes ended his career at 30. Not very good examples of how Edgar could have stuck around pre-DH.
Martinez was a hitter, Koufax was a pitcher. Stop comparing apples and oranges. ;)

[iPod]

No, its not. Ok, tell me who we should compare him to? Or should be compare relievers to starters as well?


You compare him to all hitters. All hitters, not just people who were also arbitrarily chosen to be solely hitters.


Correct.

The point of that made up quote though is that it makes no sense. Arguments that revolve around being "the best DH ever" are based on the idea that his numbers deserve a boost, because there is a scarcity of players with the skills he brought. The skill he brought was to fill a spot in the batting order. Because every player in the major leagues except AL pitchers has been proven capable of filling a spot in the batting order, being a DH is essentially an accident of history and has no inherent value. If that's the case, why bother to construct arguments that compare him to other DH's? It's an absolutely terrible line of reasoning and a completely useless way of going about building a HoF case for Edgar Martinez, yet for some reason, people are persuaded by it.

With that said, I wouldn't necessarily vote against him. Don't get the wrong idea.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

Comparing Edgar Martinez to other player I found that he is one of only 6 players in history to have a batting average of .300 or more, on-base percentage of 400 or more, a slugging percentage of .500 or more, 2000 hits, 300 home runs, 500 doubles, and 1000 walks. the other five player happen to be Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Stan Musial, Rogers Hornsby, and Lou Gehrig. all happen to hall of famers.
thats some mighty fine company..... :clapping

[EvanAparra]

The point of that made up quote though is that it makes no sense. .
What are you talking about here? What made up quote? I didn't make up any quote.

[EvanAparra]

Arguments that revolve around being "the best DH ever" are based on the idea that his numbers deserve a boost, because there is a scarcity of players with the skills he brought..
Where do you find me using the "best DH ever" line in my arguement? Or even saying it at all? For that matter, who has said that at all in this thread? Maybe you can find someone, because I can't.

[Wade8813]

Ted Williams is an extreme example. He might be the greatest hitter ever. He also didn't play CF, he played the less demanding LF, which after 1B, is probably the least demanding position on the diamond. I wasn't comparing their hitting skills. I'm talking about the ability to concentrate on hitting. And I certainly would never penalize someone for playing LF. They won't get any bonus, but no penalty either.

Mantle was a much great player than Martinez and yet injuries drove him out of the game at a much younger age. Koufax arm woes ended his career at 30. Not very good examples of how Edgar could have stuck around pre-DH. They also had much more severe injuries, and kept playing for quite some time despite those injuries.

[iPod]

What are you talking about here? What made up quote? I didn't make up any quote.

I wrote...


Saying there's value in being "the best DH ever" or "being the only DH ever to win a batting title" is essentially saying, "Yes, winning 2 batting titles in and of itself isn't such a huge deal, but you have to compare him to those who were able to fill the role he filled.

To which you responded "Correct." I'm saying the whole point of what I wrote, the hypothetical over-spelling-out of the argument, was to show how silly it sounded. The role he filled wasn't scarce, so it doesn't deserve extra credit.

[iPod]

Where do you find me using the "best DH ever" line in my arguement? Or even saying it at all? For that matter, who has said that at all in this thread? Maybe you can find someone, because I can't.

You said Edgar was the only DH to win a batting title, which I think is a meaningless point, and wrong for the same reasons that the "best DH ever" argument is wrong. "Washizzle Express" said Edgar was the "best hitting DH ever" (as opposed to the best "overall DH" ever, I guess...?) More generally, I've read at least a couple of people on this board before you started posting here making the argument that Edgar should be in the Hall because, like the best first baseman, the best second baseman, and so forth, the "best DH ever" should be in the Hall of Fame as the DH is a position just as much as those.

[EvanAparra]

You said Edgar was the only DH to win a batting title, which I think is a meaningless point, and wrong for the same reasons that the "best DH ever" argument is wrong. "Washizzle Express" said Edgar was the "best hitting DH ever" (as opposed to the best "overall DH" ever, I guess...?) More generally, I've heard several people on this board before you started posting here make the argument that Edgar should be in the Hall because, like the best first baseman, the best second baseman, and so forth, the "best DH ever" should be in the Hall of Fame because the DH is a position just as much as those.

Well, I disagree with those people. I think Edgar should be in because he was a damn good hitter and because he had such a huge impact on baseball in Seattle.

I don't see how my saying that Edgar is the only DH to win a batting title is a meaningless point, since he is the only DH to win a batting title, its not a point, its a fact. Nowhere in my post did I say this is the reason he should be in, as a matter of fact, i think I even put that in parenthesis, so I dont know why you centralized your long post on such a small thing that was in parenthesis.

[hudsonharden]

In the pre-DH era he wouldn't have had much of a career.

But he didn't play in that era, so the point is moot. Jackie Robinson wouldn't have had much of a career in the 1920's.

I'd put him in, he set the bar for his position (or lack thereof) and he was an icon is Seattle. To me, being a "hometown hero" is worth something. Baseball is not played in a vacuum, and one's impact on the game other than pure statistical data must be taken into account.

[Sliding Billy]

I've read at least a couple of people on this board before you started posting here making the argument that Edgar should be in the Hall because, like the best first baseman, the best second baseman, and so forth, the "best DH ever" should be in the Hall of Fame as the DH is a position just as much as those.
Good news for Jesse Orosco!

[DoubleX]

They also had much more severe injuries, and kept playing for quite some time despite those injuries.

Yes, but in cases like Mantle, or Kiner, or Greenberg, or DiMaggio and so on, would those injuries had festered like they did if those players were able to exclusively DH and not run out onto the field?

[DoubleX]

The value of a player and their hall of fame worthiness are dependent not only on their stats, but on their team role. Edgar's role on Seattle was being a clubhouse leader as well as hitting at a consistently high level. Whether or not Edgar could play gold-glove caliber defense shouldn't matter considering he was on the same team as olerud and segui. Edgar wasn't thrown out on the basepaths for making stupid mistakes, and although my 90 year-old grandma could outrun him with her walker, Edgar knew the intricities of the game better than most players. He is the best hitting DH ever, and he wouldn't even be the first one in the hall of fame; that distinction goes to Paul Molitor. His career numbers are phenomenol, and that alone should be enough to get him into the hall in a sport based on offense.

I don't buy the "best hitting DH" argument because everyone else in the game hits as well. If Bonds played DH, he would have been the best hitting DH. If Manny Ramirez played DH (and he probably should), he'd probably be the best hitting DH. The list could go on like that - Edgar isn't really doing anything that the best hitting positional players couldn't do if they were exclusively a DH.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

I really doubt that people are basing their intire argument on the FACT that he is the best DH, they are just making a statement.

[iPod]

Well, I disagree with those people. I think Edgar should be in because he was a damn good hitter and because he had such a huge impact on baseball in Seattle.

I don't see how my saying that Edgar is the only DH to win a batting title is a meaningless point, since he is the only DH to win a batting title, its not a point, its a fact. Nowhere in my post did I say this is the reason he should be in, as a matter of fact, i think I even put that in parenthesis, so I dont know why you centralized your long post on such a small thing that was in parenthesis.

Randy Johnson is also the tallest person ever to win the Cy Young award. I honestly consider that fact just as relevant to Randy Johnson's HoF case as Edgar Martinez being the only DH to win a batting title is to his HoF case.

I know it wasn't a big part of your post, but I strongly disagree with the idea that it's relevent enough even to deserve mention. Take it for what it's worth.

[Edgartohof]

Edgar Martinez is 34th all-time on the RCAA list - AL and NL (as of 2004), with 619. Offensively, that beats out recent inductee Wade Boggs, and Paul Molito (who also happens to have been a DH) There are only 3 other active players ahead of him on the list: Barry Bonds, Frank Thomas, and Jeff Bagwell.

At the time of this (2004), he was also 14th all-time on the AL all-time RCAA list!

And take a look at this:

Equivalent Average:
# Player EqA
1 Babe Ruth .364
2 Ted Williams .363
3 Barry Bonds .354
4 Frank Thomas .344
5 Lou Gehrig .344
6 Albert Pujols .338
7 Mickey Mantle .337
8 Mark McGwire .334
9 Manny Ramirez .333
10 Rogers Hornsby .333
11 Stan Musial .330
12 Edgar Martinez .329

And he is 44th in VORP, with 670.1

And here is my take on the Keltner List:

My take on the Keltner List

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
No

2. Was he the best player on his team?
Yes, in 1992 (his batting title and doubles beat out Griffey's 27 HR's), and 1995 (by far - had a shot at the MVP), and 2000 (.324 BA, 37 HR's, and 145 RBI, giving him the RBI title).

And one must remember that he played with Ken Griffey Jr. and Alex Rodriguez, and Brett Boone, and Ichiro Suzuki - so he had a lot of competition for best on his own team, but that doesn't mean he wasn't great.

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

Him and Thomas are vying for that title

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

1995, 1997, 2001

5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

Was one of the most potent offensive forces in baseball history after about age 32. - one of the best seasons by a 37 and 40 year old. In fact, he is 3rd all time for RBI after the age of 32, behind only Babe Ruth and Cap Anson! Imagine if the Mariners organization had let him start his career earlier - which he was more than ready for.

He is also 4th in Base on Balls and 5th in OPS+ after the age of 32 - not too shabby.

6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

No, but not that far off

7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

Yes

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

His OBP is 21st all-time, his Equivalent Average is 12th all time, rate stats show him as GREAT. He does miss a little in the career marks, but was held up by an obtuse Front Office, who would not let him play (refer to Bill James)

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

As mentioned above, his career stats are held back by his late start due to the Mariner's front office, and two injury seasons, which could have been great ('93-'94). Prior to the injuries in '93 and '94, he had progressively gotten better each of the last 3 full seasons, and he won batting titles both seasons before and after the injuries ('92 and '95). So there is no reason to believe that he could not have had equally impressive seasons in those 2 years - at least decent years (.300/.400 with 20 HR's). Also, his best year - 1995 was a strike shortened year, so his peak season, while already great, does not correctly compare to other top seasons - he had appeared in every game that season, so he has a legitimate claim that he could have played a full 162 that year. And if he had kept up his pace, his season would have been:

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB TB TOB RC BA OBP SLG
strike shortened 145 511 121 182 52 0 29 113 116 321 306 153 0.356 0.479 0.628
extrapolated 162 571 135 203 58 0 32 126 130 357 342 170 0.356 0.479 0.628

Some might not say that that is much, but is does make a difference.

He would then have125+ Runs/RBI, 200 Hits, 58 doubles, 130 Walks, 170 RC, .300/.400/.600 seasons, and 342 Times On Base - which averages to getting on base more than 2 times per game!!! And is good for a tie at 9th all-time (at that time, it would have been 7th).

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

Definitely - the greatest DH EVER! Heck, the award was even named after him!

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

1995, he was 3rd, and had a legitimate shot at winning - led in: G, BA, OBP, OPS+, R, 2B, TOB, and RC. He was also 3rd in Slg. and TB, and 2nd in H, BB, and IBB.

2000 - .324/.423/.579 96 BB, 37 HR's, 145 RBI,

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?
He had 7 all-star selections, and 9 all-star seasons (was not selected in '98-99). And yes, most players who had 7+ all-star selections, went into the HOF, and more will, in the next few years.

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

Yes, definetly. Case in point - 1995! With the loss of star player in Griffey Jr. He stepped up and led the team, and brought them to the ALCS! He also stepped up again in 2000, when Griffey Jr. left the team for good. Edgar threw up career highs in 37 HR's and a league leading 145 RBI! He led the team to a Franchise record (at that time) of 91 wins, and a tie for the division lead, and again played very well in the post season.

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

He transformed the role of DH. He became synonymous with the position - the DH award was named after him - which in itself points to the fact that if Major League Baseball is going to name an award after him, he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Definitely. He was an upstanding person, and player, and won the Roberto Clemente Award in 2004 as well. He was always a gentleman on and off of the field, a quiet, but personable person - a, "Humble and Quiet Giant" (Dusty Baker?) - the HOF would be so worthy to have a person of his moral character to join their ranks.

[DoubleX]

2. Was he the best player on his team?
Yes, in 1992 (his batting title and doubles beat out Griffey's 27 HR's), and 1995 (by far - had a shot at the MVP), and 2000 (.324 BA, 37 HR's, and 145 RBI, giving him the RBI title).

I'd rather have Griffey in '92. Griffey was playing GG defense at an important defensive position while also providing good offense, including more homeruns and RBI than Martinez, and almost certainly much better baserunning than Martinez. I'd consider what Griffey provided out of CF to be more valuable to his team than Martinez, even though Martinez was primarily a fielder that year.

I'll give you '95 though. Martinez's bat was good enough to make him the best on the team, though Tino Martinez and Jay Buhner also had big years in Griffey's absence.

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

Him and Thomas are vying for that title

I don't put much stock in this. DH isn't really a position in the true sense - it's being a hitter. Everyone in the league is a hitter as well, and what differentiates them, what defines their position is where they play in the field - without that differentiating factor, they'd all just be hitters like Martinez. Were there some years that Martinez was arguably the best hitter in the league? Yes, there were - '95 is a prime example. Anyway, was Martinez the best DH in the league during his time? Yeah he was most years, but in the grand scheme of things, I'm not sure how much that's worth when hitting is the only thing being considered.

5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

Was one of the most potent offensive forces in baseball history after about age 32. - one of the best seasons by a 37 and 40 year old. In fact, he is 3rd all time for RBI after the age of 32, behind only Babe Ruth and Cap Anson! Imagine if the Mariners organization had let him start his career earlier - which he was more than ready for.

He is also 4th in Base on Balls and 5th in OPS+ after the age of 32 - not too shabby.

This question would be more appropriate for Martinez if it were amended to "Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime without the DH?" I think that's what the question is really getting at as the DH allows some players to play past the point that they normally would have. It takes a lot less for a player to play past their prime as a DH than it does as a positional player (again we can go back to all the history examples - Mantle, DiMaggio, Greenberg, Kiner, Howard, and so on...).

So I don't really see awarding a DH bonus points here when the DH is a modern advantage that allows certain modern players, like Martinez, play past the point that their predecessors could play. Is it fair to award Martinez because he played in an era with a DH and then hold this same question against guys like Greenberg, Kiner, and Howard, because they didn't have the benefit of the DH to prolong their careers? I don't believe so.

6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

No, but not that far off

I'd go so far to say that he's one of the very best hitters in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame, but there are several players I'd put him ahead of as better players not in the Hall.

7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

Yes

Depends what statistics we're talking about. Almost all post 1901 players with an OPS+ as high as Martinez are in the Hall, Dick Allen is an exception that comes to mind (and there are probably some others). However, it should be remembered that most the players in the Hall with a similar OPS+ did so without the benefit of being a DH for most of their careers, and had more than 7200 ABs. There are only two post-1901 Hall of Famers I can think of with a better OPS+ and less ABs - One is Elmer Flick, and he's not a player that particularly screams first or second tier Hall of Famer at you. The other is Ralph Kiner, who I think is a great comparison here because he's a player that would have likely really benefitted from the DH. All of the others are mostly guys with at least 2000 more ABs and not much, if any time at DH.

Then if we just go by counting statistics, which are the more traditional measures the writers and veteran's committees look for when putting players in the Hall, 2247 Hits and 309 homeruns does not particularly leap at you as being Hall of Fame numbers, especially when you consider that Martinez was primarily a DH and played in one of the best offensive eras ever. Ron Santo, Dave Parker, Andre Dawson, Dale Murphy, Reggie Smith, Darrell Evans, Graig Nettles, Dwight Evans, Will Clark, Jim Rice, Gary Gaetti, Joe Carter, George Foster, Fred Lynn, Bobby Bonds, Ken Singleton, Jack Clark, Steve Garvey, Norm Cash, Lee May, Dick Allen, Willie Horton, Don Baylor, and some others, have counting numbers in these benchmark categories in the same realm as Martinez, and most haven't even sniffed the Hall. Sure, Martinez has the better BA than all of these guys, but many of these players have other things going for them that Martinez doesn't - many had more power (and more power in less friendly offensive eras), some contributed good defense at important positions, some had good speed, some brought all of these things, etc...

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

His OBP is 21st all-time, his Equivalent Average is 12th all time, rate stats show him as GREAT. He does miss a little in the career marks, but was held up by an obtuse Front Office, who would not let him play (refer to Bill James)

Is the best argument for him to be in the Hall that his OBP is 21st all time? That's nice, but not particularly convincing. Martinez has a lot more going for him than just that (OPS+, BA), but he also has a lot going against him as well (such the DH, unimpressive counting stats given his era and "position," arguably one of the slowest baserunners in the history of the game).

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

This is an interesting question. I believe that playing DH everyday allowed him to be a better hitter and have a longer career than if he played the field everyday and that the DH presented him with a best-case scenario for honing his hitting. How much so, I don't know, and we've covered this ground quite a bit in this thread. Still, Edgar had to go up there and hit, and no question he was a terrific hitter, and the statistics reflect that. So without getting into the DH issue and just focusing on his stats, his rate stats do him justice, while his counting stats are somewhat lower than one might expect.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

Didn't we already cover this question? His position is strictly hitter and everybody hits. With hitting being the constant trait shared by all, position is thus defined, IMO, by where the player plays in the field, or else everyone would be the same. So the question here only pertains to hitting, IMO and Dick Allen was a better hitter and he's not in the Hall of Fame.

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

1995, he was 3rd, and had a legitimate shot at winning - led in: G, BA, OBP, OPS+, R, 2B, TOB, and RC. He was also 3rd in Slg. and TB, and 2nd in H, BB, and IBB.

2000 - .324/.423/.579 96 BB, 37 HR's, 145 RBI,

I actually agree with you about '95. I hold a pretty high standard for DHs to win the MVP or make it to the Hall, but Martinez hitting production was good enough in '95 to make him a viable MVP candidate, though it would have been nice if he could have turned a few of those 52 doubles into a few extra homeruns.

I'm not with you so much on 2000. That year, there were a number of non-DHs that put up similarly or more productive offensive years, so in that case, I'm going to go with the non-DHs, even if they were just playing 1B. This is because my belief is that had these guys DHs fulltime like Martinez, they would have had an opportunity to be even more productive. I'm talking about guys like Alex Rodriguez, Carlos Delgado, Manny Ramirez, Jason Giambi, and Nomar Garciaparra. IMO, Alex Rodriguez, because he provided good defense at SS, speed on the bases, while hitting on the same level as Martinez, was miles ahead of Martinez that year and probably should have won the MVP. Martinez wasn't even the best DH that year, that distinction goes to Frank Thomas.

I honestly don't think I'd put Martinez in the top 10 in MVP voting in 2000. I'd have at least the following 9 players ahead of him (in no real order):

Alex Rodriguez
Carlos Delgado
Manny Ramirez
Jason Giambi
Nomar Garciaparra
Frank Thomas
Darin Erstad
Mike Sweeney
Pedro Martinez

And then I could see valid arguments for these 4 players being ahead of Martinez in 2000:

Derek Jeter
Bernie Williams
Magglio Ordonez
Miguel Tejada

So Martinez is somewhere between 10th and 14th in 2000 in my book.

Also, on a side-note, because Carlos Delgado came up, I believe Delgado is a good example of a player whose benefit from being a fulltime DH even though he's just playing a sluggish 1B. In addition to strains that build up from fielding everyday (and yes, even at 1B, strains build up and there is greater exposure to injury), Delgado is a very studious hitter. I believe he records in writing all of his ABs for future reference. If he wasn't playing in the field, he could spend 100% of his time studying his notes and contemplating his approach in his next AB, and that would likely make him a better hitter, in addition to being generally more rested and achy.

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?
He had 7 all-star selections, and 9 all-star seasons (was not selected in '98-99). And yes, most players who had 7+ all-star selections, went into the HOF, and more will, in the next few years.

Another interesting question because he probably lost out on a few All Star selections due to the game being played in an NL park without the DH. So is it fair to count a season as a potential All Star season when there really was no "position" for him to play in the All Star game? I don't know the answer, just think it's interesting. :)

Also, here's a list off the top of my head of players with at least 7 All Star selections who have not been put in the Hall:

Bill Freehan: 11
Steve Garvey: 10
Dave Concepcion: 9
Joe Gordon: 9
Goose Gossage: 9
Elston Howard: 9
Fred Lynn: 9
Ron Santo: 9
Joe Torre: 9
Walker Cooper: 8
Del Crandall: 8
Andre Dawson: 8
Gil Hodges: 8
Bob Johnson: 8
Harvey Kuenn: 8
Marty Marion: 8
Tony Oliva: 8
Lance Parrish: 8
Jim Rice: 8
Ted Simmons: 8
Vern Stephens: 8
Darryl Strawberry: 8
Dick Allen: 7
Ken Boyer: 7
Dom DiMaggio: 7
Bob Elliot: 7
Ken Keltner: 7
Sherm Lollar: 7
Minnie Minoso: 7
Thurman Munson: 7
Dale Murphy: 7
Dave Parker: 7
Billy Pierce: 7
Al Oliver: 7
Bobby Richardson: 7
Lee Smith: 7
Reggie Smith: 7
Dave Stieb: 7
Mickey Vernon: 7
Rudy York: 7

I'm sure I'm missing some. So it doesn't look like Martinez would be joinining an exclusive club in being a 7-Time All Star not in the Hall of Fame.

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

Martinez's teams were almost always stocked with talent, including having the best CF and SS in the game (two very important defensive positions) for a number of years, and the team never won the pennant, so that should just go to show how valuable and influential Martinez was.

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

He's made a real debate about a DH's Hall of Fame chances.

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Definitely. He was an upstanding person, and player, and won the Roberto Clemente Award in 2004 as well. He was always a gentleman on and off of the field, a quiet, but personable person - a, "Humble and Quiet Giant" (Dusty Baker?) - the HOF would be so worthy to have a person of his moral character to join their ranks.

No argument here from me. The guy was classy.

[iPod]

Also, here's a list off the top of my head of players with at least 7 All Star selections who have not been put in the Hall:

Bill Freehan: 11
Steve Garvey: 10
Dave Concepcion: 9
Joe Gordon: 9
Goose Gossage: 9
Elston Howard: 9
Fred Lynn: 9
Ron Santo: 9
Joe Torre: 9
Walker Cooper: 8
Del Crandall: 8
Andre Dawson: 8
Gil Hodges: 8
Bob Johnson: 8
Harvey Kuenn: 8
Marty Marion: 8
Tony Oliva: 8
Lance Parrish: 8
Jim Rice: 8
Ted Simmons: 8
Vern Stephens: 8
Darryl Strawberry: 8
Dick Allen: 7
Ken Boyer: 7
Dom DiMaggio: 7
Bob Elliot: 7
Ken Keltner: 7
Sherm Lollar: 7
Minnie Minoso: 7
Thurman Munson: 7
Dale Murphy: 7
Dave Parker: 7
Billy Pierce: 7
Al Oliver: 7
Bobby Richardson: 7
Lee Smith: 7
Reggie Smith: 7
Dave Stieb: 7
Mickey Vernon: 7
Rudy York: 7

I'm sure I'm missing some. So it doesn't look like Martinez would be joinining an exclusive club in being a 7-Time All Star not in the Hall of Fame.
[/B]


Jeez, was that all really just off the top of your head? I'm impressed!

[Naliamegod]

Martinez's teams were almost always stocked with talent, including having the best CF and SS in the game (two very important defensive positions) for a number of years, and the team never won the pennant, so that should just go to show how valuable and influential Martinez was.


The team was really only stocked with talent during the 2001-2003 runs and maybe 1995. The Mariners were a pretty mediocre team throughout the 90s really.

[DoubleX]

Jeez, was that all really just off the top of your head? I'm impressed!

Thanks, though I actually had to look up most of the players once I thought of them to make sure that they actually played in 7. But I wasn't going off some master showing how many All Star games every player played in.

[DoubleX]

The team was really only stocked with talent during the 2001-2003 runs and maybe 1995. The Mariners were a pretty mediocre team throughout the 90s really.

The team won the Division in '95 and '97 and finished over .500 in '91, '93, and '96. The team was stocked with talen throughout the second half of the decade, it just underachieved or was beset by injuries. When you have some some combination consisting mostly Ken Griffey Jr, Alex Rodriguez, Randy Johnson, Edgar Martinez, Jamie Moyer, Jay Buhner, Tino Martinez, you're pretty deep in individual talent. Even Dan Wilson was an All Star in '96 and Paul Sorrento hit 54 homeruns in his two seasons with the team in the mid 90s.

[Naliamegod]

The team won the Division in '95 and '97 and finished over .500 in '91, '93, and '96. The team was stocked with talen throughout the second half of the decade, it just underachieved or was beset by injuries. When you have some some combination consisting mostly Ken Griffey Jr, Alex Rodriguez, Randy Johnson, Edgar Martinez, Jamie Moyer, Jay Buhner, Tino Martinez, you're pretty deep in individual talent. Even Dan Wilson was an All Star in '96 and Paul Sorrento hit 54 homeruns in his two seasons with the team in the mid 90s.

You know how many years we had all those guys together? One year in 1997. People also seem to forget that from 1996-2000 the Mariners had some of the worse pitching in all of baseball. The starting staff was competent a few years (Thanks to Moyer and Fassero's two year run) but they had practicly noone in the bullpen. The team didn't win a pennant because they were "underachievers," but simply because they were not that good in the first place.

[Edgartohof]

You know how many years we had all those guys together? One year in 1997. People also seem to forget that from 1996-2000 the Mariners had some of the worse pitching in all of baseball. The starting staff was competent a few years (Thanks to Moyer and Fassero's two year run) but they had practicly noone in the bullpen. The team didn't win a pennant because they were "underachievers," but simply because they were not that good in the first place.

And does everyone remember Charlton as the closer in '97, with his 7.00+ ERA!!!! And his WHIP was something close to 2.0!!!! And to think that we won the division that year!

[DoubleX]

You know how many years we had all those guys together? One year in 1997. People also seem to forget that from 1996-2000 the Mariners had some of the worse pitching in all of baseball. The starting staff was competent a few years (Thanks to Moyer and Fassero's two year run) but they had practicly noone in the bullpen. The team didn't win a pennant because they were "underachievers," but simply because they were not that good in the first place.

The point here is that Martinez was not the centerpiece or the best player on the team during much of that period. The team had the best SS and best CF in the game and didn't win. The question asked, "If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?" And the answer is no because he wasn't even the best player on the team and the team didn't win the pennant.

And the team had more than just '97 with a strong core. The team had multiple years where it had a lot of individual talent and players putting up big numbers. In 1996 the team got monster years from Griffey, Rodrigez, Martinez, and Buhner. Dan Wilson was an All Star that year. Paul Sorrento hit 23 homeruns (after hitting 30 the year before). That lineup was stacked. Johnson missed much of the season, but the team did get half a year of Jamie Moyer being pretty good. In '98 Griffey and Rodriguez again had monster seasons, Edgar did his usual thing, Moyer was looking like an ace, and Fassero was actually pretty good that year. In '95, Griffey as his great self, Edgar had a big year, Jay Buhner had a big year, Tino Martinez had a big year, Mike Blowers had a big year, Randy Johnson was an ace, Jeff Nelson and Norm Charlton were terrific out of the pen. In '99, A-Rod, Griffey, and Edgard did their usual things, David Bell had a career year, Jamie Moyer was great, and Freddy Garcia looked like an ace in the making. The team was consistently stacked with talent and players having big years in the mid-late 90s.

You're probably right though that in the end it was pitching that doomed the Mariners during that period. It's rotation and bullpen weren't deep, and both are what big reasons why the 2001 Mariners were still so successful. But that doesn't really address the question here. Like I said, the question asked if the team was likely to win the pennant if Martinez was the best player on his team, and the answer is no because in most years he was probably the 3rd best player, at best, and the team didn't win. It's really an unfair question to begin with because in baseball it's pretty near impossible for one player to make such a difference.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Edgar didn't need the DH to stay in the major leagues. The M's could have moved him to LF or 1B and lived with his defense. But he WAS injury prone, somewhat.

If Edgar had never DH'd, his hitting numbers would have been less, and he'd probably have been about where he is now regarding the HOF; people saying, "Yes, but . . . " a lot.

What hurt Edgar, far more than DHing, was the lost years in the minors behind Jim Presley. Edgar lost 2-3 years of regular play at 3B behind an inferior player because the Mariners were like any other team; the guy with the Job (Presley) tends to keep the Job. Had Edgar played 2-3 more years as a regular at the start of his career, he'd be far more well-regarded as a HOFer.

[brett]

If he doesn't get in, Edgar Martinez would probably be the second best career game value offensive player not in. Here is a short list using my system, but other systems would certainly yield similar results.

Allen: +106
Martinez: +86
Larry Walker: +71
Bobby Bonds: +71
Ron Santo: +58

Any of these 5 could be in or out depending on value given for position, defense, and other factors. By the way, Martinez TOPS Joe Dimaggio purely on offensive game value above the league average. Still, he would probably take at least a 45 game cut for position in my system. Santo would have about a 15 game positional boost, plus maybe 30 for defensive superiority (just a rough guess) so he would be at +103 which would be a total lock. Allen would lose some, maybe as much as 25-30, but at +76 would still be above anyone else not in. Bonds and Walker would both stay about where they are, all things factored in-I'd have to look to see how many games Bonds played at CF.

So in Martinez case, playing DH, or even had he played first base at an average or slightly below average level, he would rank lowest of these 5 and probably below my HOF cutoff. If he had been a serviceable left fielder, he would probably get in based on numbers.

As far as non-statistical methods, he was talked about in the MVP race at least twice, and even mentioned as the favorite at times, but only up to about mid July. After that, he seemed to fall back into the pack of great offensive performers. It seemed a given for his career that he would have to last and last to have a chance. 2 more years before the drop-off and he gets in.

Still, a 147 OPS+ and .300/.400/.500 with 8500+ PA's puts him in A)Almost exclusive and B) totally exclusively hall of fame company. The only guys at .300/.400/.500 with 5000 at bats are:

Ruth, Gehrig, Williams, Musial, Hornsby, Heilman, Delehanty, Cobb, Joe Jackson (would have been even if he went O-fer to 5000), and Speaker who all went .330/.400/.500, and Foxx, Greenberg, and Ott-oh and Brouthers almost exclusively pre-1900. Then again, Bobby Abreu also is currently at .300/.400/.500 with 5000+ as are a few current and recent guys.

[AG2004]

I decided to make my own Keltner List for Edgar Martinez. As it was hard to think of career DH, I compared him to first basemen when I had to make comparisons based on positions. Otherwise, I've kept the same standards I've used with my other Keltner Lists, including the adjustment of peak performance for strike-shortened seasons. I reached the conclusion that Martinez is no Hall of Famer, and did so without considering the debate about whether career DHs should be admitted to Cooperstown.

Case to Consider: MARTINEZ, Edgar

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

No.

2. Was he the best player on his team?

1995 was the only season that he was the best player on the Mariners. During his peak years, he was generally the third-best player in the lineup, behind Alex Rodriguez and Ken Griffey Jr.

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

He was the best DH from 1995 until 1999. However, 1995 is the only season that he was better than all the 1B in the American League. In 1996 and 1999, there were three AL first baseman with more win shares than Martinez.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

The Mariners would not have won the division in 1995 had he merely been very good. Martinez generally performed well in division series, but poorly in league championship series.

5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

For about 2 or 3 seasons.

6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

No.

7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

By Similarity Scores, the most comparable players are: Will Clark, John Olerud, Bernie Williams, Bob Johnson, Ellis Burks, Moises Alou, Paul O’Neill, Luis Gonzalez, Orlando Cepeda, and Larry Walker. Only Cepeda is in Cooperstown (although seven of the players are not yet eligible for Cooperstown). On the other hand, Martinez’ OPS+ of 147 is higher than that of anybody on the list.

Since Martinez played the majority of his games at DH, I’ll compare him to first basemen in the categories.

Career win shares, 1B: Jake Beckley 318, Norm Cash 315, Keith Hernandez 311, Orlando Cepeda 310, MARTINEZ 305, Mickey Vernon 296, George Sisler 292, Ed Konetchy 287, Boog Powell 282. Some are in Cooperstown, but some aren’t.

Best five consecutive years: Keith Hernandez 136, George Sisler 135, Hank Greenberg 135, Dolph Camilli 135, Rafael Palmeiro 133, MARTINEZ 132, Fred McGriff 132, Orlando Cepeda 130, Norm Cash 130, John Olerud 130, Gil Hodges 129, Cecil Cooper 127, Jim Bottomley 127, Jack Fournier 127, Ted Kluszewski 125, Steve Garvey 124. (Numbers have been adjusted to 162-game schedules in strike seasons.) Martinez is a little on the low side.

Top 3 seasons: Tony Perez 96, Eddie Murray 95, Don Mattingly 95, Frank Chance 95, Bill Terry 93, Orlando Cepeda 93, Norm Cash 93, Rafael Palmeiro 92, MARTINEZ 91, Keith Hernandez 91, George Sisler 91, John Mayberry 91, Jack Fournier 91, Mickey Vernon 86, Boog Powell 87, Dolph Camilli 85, Bob Watson 85, Steve Garvey 84. (Again, we adjusted for strike seasons). Martinez is at the cut-off line for Cooperstown.


[B] 8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

He has a black ink score of 20 (103rd place; 27 is average), a gray ink score of 107 (144th place; 194 is average), and a HOF Standards score of 49.9 (77th, 50 is average). The ink totals are a little low for someone whose job consists purely of hitting, but not out of HOF territory.

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

He played during the 1990s, a hitter-friendly time. Also, he was a DH for about 70% of his games, which means he had no defensive value whatsoever during that time.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

He’s the best DH, but there’s little competition at that position. Most DHs spent many years in the outfield or at first before moving to the DH position. I’m having a hard time thinking of anybody else who had a long career at DH. There are first basemen who would be more deserving than Martinez.

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

He finished third in the 1995 MVP voting, and was sixth in 2000; those are his only top ten finishes. He did finish first in win shares among American League players in 1995. However, 1995 was the only season in which he recorded 30 or more win shares.

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?

He played in 7 All-Star games, which is low for a position player. He finished with 20 or more win shares in 10 seasons, however, and that is good for a position player.

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

I doubt it. He wasn’t all that consistent. If you rack up consecutive seasons with 36 (adjusted for season length), 23, 27, 24, 22, and 28 win shares, your team would out of contention in half of those seasons.

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

The AL’s designated hitter award is now known as the Edgar Martinez Award.

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Yes; in 2004, Martinez won the Roberto Clemente Humanitarian Award.

CONCLUSION: Martinez was the best DH, but that’s a position commonly occupied by players at the end of a long career; there are not very many career designated hitters. He doesn’t compare well to contemporary first basemen, and he wasn’t the dominant player on his team. He just doesn’t look like a Hall of Famer.

[Wade8813]

I don't buy the "best hitting DH" argument because everyone else in the game hits as well. If Bonds played DH, he would have been the best hitting DH. If Manny Ramirez played DH (and he probably should), he'd probably be the best hitting DH. The list could go on like that - Edgar isn't really doing anything that the best hitting positional players couldn't do if they were exclusively a DH. If you ignore the steroids, Bonds would also be the best hitting 1B, 2B, SS, 3B, C, LF, RF, CF, or P :rolleyes:

Martinez's teams were almost always stocked with talent, including having the best CF and SS in the game (two very important defensive positions) for a number of years, and the team never won the pennant, so that should just go to show how valuable and influential Martinez was. The team had the best CF and SS in the game (for a little while, arguably the two best in baseball), and still never won the pennant. Which tells you the question is ridiculous.

[AG2004]

The team had the best CF and SS in the game (for a little while, arguably the two best in baseball), and still never won the pennant. Which tells you the question is ridiculous.

The question is not "did they win the pennant," but "could they win the pennant." Since Seattle did have that 116-win regular season along the line, the team could very well win a pennant, especially if you had a league with no divisions and no championship playoff.

That "could" is important. Ralph Kiner's teams never came close to winning a pennant, but even a team such as "Babe Ruth and the Twenty-Four Dwarves" would have trouble reaching .500. Most teams whose best player was of Kiner's caliber would contend for a pennant, and thus could win it.

[jeterMVP]

never had a 200 hit season
had 30+ homers in a season once
highest rbi total was 145...second highest was 116
not even close to 3000 hits
not even close to 500 homers
five tools?

no hall of famer

[EvanAparra]

never had a 200 hit season
had 30+ homers in a season once
highest rbi total was 145...second highest was 116
not even close to 3000 hits
not even close to 500 homers
five tools?

no hall of famer
Sounds like Orlando Cepeda and Will Clark.

[DoubleX]

Sounds like Orlando Cepeda and Will Clark.

Cepeda had five 30+ homerun seasons and a high of 46. He also has more hits and homeruns than Martinez despite playing in one of the toughest offensive eras, while Martinez was playing in one the best offensive. Cepeda is someone who really, really could have benefitted from the DH as injuries limited his effectiveness and ability to stay on the field for more than half of his career. Another example of how injured players, without much defensive value, but a big bat, struggled to stay on the field and put up consistently good numbers in the latter half of his career - he suffered a bad knee injury in 1965, similar to what Martinez had early in his career, and was never again quite the same and unlike Martinez, did not have the DH to get him in the lineup regularly healthy enough to hit. Nevertheless, Cepeda still put up better career totals than Martinez despite not having the DH to get him in the lineup, and despite playing in the 60s.

I hate to resort to citing Bill James, but in his 2001 abstract, James says of Cepeda's knee injur that it "wrecked his chances of hitting 700 homers..."

[EvanAparra]

Cepeda had five 30+ homerun seasons and a high of 46. He also has more hits and homeruns than Martinez despite playing in one of the toughest offensive eras, while Martinez was playing in one the best offensive.
ok... I was just trying to point out that there are very good players who dont meet most or some of that criteria that could/should be in the HOF.

[DoubleX]

ok... I was just trying to point out that there are very good players who dont meet most or some of that criteria that could/should be in the HOF.

That's probably true. Cepeda was a terrific hitter until the knee injury. It's a very similar situation to Martinez, except Cepeda didn't have the DH. Looking at how Cepeda's career went after the injury is probably a good look at how Martinez's career would have looked after his injuries and without the DH. The difference is that Cepeda was much better prior to the injury.

As for Will Clark - I don't quite get why everyone is so in love with him. I don't see him as a Hall of Famer, though he probably deserved to at least stay on the ballot last year. I have him around 18th-21st all time at 1B, and that seems lower than a lot of people here. He's like the big secret of OPS+, which shows him to be a pretty darn good offensive player. But I remember all of Clark's career, and outside of maybe a five year stretch in the late 80s and early 90s, I don't recall Clark ever really being considered that great when he played. He didn't really stand out at all during much of his career.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

I don't see how the mariner's success or lack of it should either contribute of detract for the chances of Edgar Martinez HoF candidacy.

[Wade8813]

The question is not "did they win the pennant," but "could they win the pennant." Since Seattle did have that 116-win regular season along the line, the team could very well win a pennant, especially if you had a league with no divisions and no championship playoff. You're talking about a different Seattle team. The debate earlier was about the M's with Griffey & A-Rod.

[jsmets92]

He was one of the best hitters in Baseball during his prime. I would vote him in even as a DH

[GhostShip]

There have a number of assumptions and points made about Edgar's ability to field 3rd base (or 1st) after his injuries '93-'94. We will never know truly know how good/bad/ugly he would have been in the field after this time simply because Lou Pinella made the decision to move Edgar to DH to make SURE he could be kept in the lineup. His precense and bat were that important.

However, Edgar had an incredible work ethic and would go back into training the moment the season ended. He still played and trained 3rd base during games in the off season (winter ball), as this was his natural position. The assertion that he could not have played the field for a number of years after 93-94 is absolutely FALSE.

The fact that the DH existed and gave Lou another option to preserve Edgar's prescence in the lineup, should not count against his candidancy the way that people seem to think it should. Lou made an easy choice, and played other mediocre fielding 3rd basemen he had available to him, and insured Edgar would have a better chance of being in the lineup full time. Would Edgar have been injured again if he played the field? We don't know. But we do know Lou considered it much more important to have Edgar in the lineup than to field him.

I won't say Lou Pinella is a rocket scientist or anything, but he is a good manager (we'll see how far he takes the Cubs). Why can't we accept Lou's decision at face value? Edgar could still field, but why take a risk? Lou needed Edgar's bat and presence in the lineup. And that's the other point: the Mariner's were a better club with Edgar playing.

I watched Lou tinker around with the lineup for a little bit until he found the sweet spot for Griffey and Martinez. The natural order for your typical manager would have been Martinez 3rd, and Griffey 4th - higher average and obp first and higher homerun power after. But, as Lou found out and played the majority of the time, Martinez was the best 4th hitter and he would put Griffey 3rd. Why?

Martinez was a selfless hitter. He was capable of hitting to all fields with power, and would do what he could to advance runners selflessly. His prescence in the lineup insured Griffey could not be pitched around with impunity. Do you pitch around Griffey and put him on first with 2 outs? If you do, you get to face Edgar - who was an extremely prolific doubles hitter, who could knock Griffey home from first with ease - without a homerun.

Anyways, the point I'm making is this: Lou Pinella made a choice that Edgar's bat and prescence in the lineup was much more important to the club than fielding him. He had an easy option to play Edgar in the DH position because it was an AL club. Had it been a NL club, Edgar would have played 3rd base and/or eventually 1st base. This should not be held against Edgar as much as folks are trying to on this thread. The overall dislike people have of the DH should not be attributed to the people that play that position. The choice of being made the DH is often not in control of the players themselves.

[Colorado Express]

I say "no", but I may change my mind tomorrow. I've never viewed him as a HOFer, but his numbers make him worthy of discussion. He was a very good player, but was overshadowed by Griffey and ARod for much of his career.

[EvanAparra]

I say "no", but I may change my mind tomorrow. I've never viewed him as a HOFer, but his numbers would certainly support him getting in. Now the BIG question is...where those huge muscles artificially enhanced??? Does that hurt him???

That shouldn't be an issue with Gar until something is brought out against him, until then, innocent until proven guilty (or at least accused formally :ughh)

[Wade8813]

He was a very good player, but was overshadowed by Griffey and ARod for much of his career. Which isn't a reason to keep him out of the HOF. He was overshadowed by arguably the two best players in all of baseball at the time. That shouldn't be held against him. It probably will hurt him, just as not being in the limelight hurts anyone.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

I say "no", but I may change my mind tomorrow. I've never viewed him as a HOFer, but his numbers make him worthy of discussion. He was a very good player, but was overshadowed by Griffey and ARod for much of his career.

Having good teamsmates should never be detrimental of a players candidacy for the HoF, just because he was slighty over shadowed by two future HoFers for a part of his career means only that he for a time was not as good as them. this does not mean that he (martinez) because he was overshadowed is not desserving of HoF honors.

[Colorado Express]

Having good teamsmates should never be detrimental of a players candidacy for the HoF, just because he was slighty over shadowed by two future HoFers for a part of his career means only that he for a time was not as good as them. this does not mean that he (martinez) because he was overshadowed is not desserving of HoF honors.

I agree, it shouldn't keep him out, but people tend to forget how good he was as he was never the "showcase" in Seattle. Not being in the limelight can often hurt a players chances.

[Sliding Billy]

Anyways, the point I'm making is this: Lou Pinella made a choice that Edgar's bat and prescence in the lineup was much more important to the club than fielding him. He had an easy option to play Edgar in the DH position because it was an AL club. Had it been a NL club, Edgar would have played 3rd base and/or eventually 1st base. This should not be held against Edgar as much as folks are trying to on this thread. The overall dislike people have of the DH should not be attributed to the people that play that position. The choice of being made the DH is often not in control of the players themselves.
I agree it's absurd to blame Edgar for DH'ing, much less make him a scapegoat for the abomination. And it would be a shame if those were the motives for denying him the HOF. The real issue, however, is that he didn't make a defensive contribution to his team's wins while DH'ing.

Just to put a number on it, per the New Bill James Historical Abstract, about 20 percent of Wade Boggs's win shares were for his defense, for Dick Allen, 10 percent, for Brooks Robinson, 30 percent. Martinez wound up with about 300 win shares--borderline HOF territory. Had he played a full career at third, he'd probably have 330-350 win shares, which would make him a cinch.

Now in the first place, I'm much less confident in defensive win shares than in offensive ones. In the second place, for a gifted hitter, it's pretty much hang-around value, although its absence does make the peaks lower, too. The only point in quantifying it is to emphasize that it's not Edgar's fault that he was a DH, and it doesn't matter whether he could have played third, or even what the reasons were that he didn't. Stopping ground balls helps your team win, and he wasn't.

[AlecBoy006]

Paul Molitor was a DH, and he is a HOF'er.

Edgar is arguably the greatest DH of all time. I would yes.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

Being the "Best" DH really doesn't prove Much. Any player could be DH, in Martinez's case he must be compared to all position players not just other DH's.

[DoubleX]

Being the "Best" DH really doesn't prove Much. Any player could be DH, in Martinez's case he must be compared to all position players not just other DH's.

Exactly - there is nothing special about being a DH - he's not doing anything that any other position player is not already doing, and by being able to focus 100% on hitting and rest for almost the entire game, he has an advantage to be a better hitter than positional players, and thus a DH should be held to a higher standard of offensive production because it's the only expectation upon them.

[GhostShip]

Exactly - there is nothing special about being a DH - he's not doing anything that any other position player is not already doing, and by being able to focus 100% on hitting and rest for almost the entire game, he has an advantage to be a better hitter than positional players, and thus a DH should be held to a higher standard of offensive production because it's the only expectation upon them.

And I'm sure if every hitter took that approach to DHing they would fail miserably at it. Time and time again I've read articles about players describing how difficult it is to stay "in the game" because you essentially pinch hit 4 or 5 times and aren't out on the field staying in the flow of the game. There is no "redemption" for a failed at bat by going out and making a good play on the field. If you just sit on the bench you also don't stay warmed up, and you go up to bat essentially cold and not ready to play.

There have been several interviews and articles about Edgar's legendary preparation before games for his eye problems, batting, and other physical preparations. Edgar would often be in the clubhouse between at bats for a time making sure he stayed warmed up on an exercise bicycle or treademill. And after the game he'd often be back into the batting cage to work.

I really think a lot of players don't move to DH as easily as you suggest. There is a different mindset, and if you don't treat it like a full time job you don't play at near the same level as you previously did. How many players move into the DH role full time and maintain their previous levels of performance? I don't know about you, but don't the vast majority of them watch their numbers get worse and they are headed out of the game in a couple of years?

If it's as easy as you suggest, you would see signicant performance increases wouldn't you? I mean a player now DHing would see some measurable performance boost? Sure seems like for most players moving to DH this is not the case.

[Edgartohof]

Just wanted to give a quick shoutout to Edgar Martinez and wish him a Happy Birtday as he turns 45 today!!! (and I figured this was as good a place as any)

He has been out of the game for 3 years, with only 2 left before a lot of questions will be answered - whether he will be inducted into the HOF or not...!

[four tool]

He should be inducted, first ballot.

[1905 Giants]

Will Seattle forget him? Hopefully not.
Will the Voter's forget him? Hopefully not
Will the voter's vote him in? Some will try, but probably not enough (First Ballot anyway)
He may catach a little more attention for being one of the good guys as well.

[Seattle1]

Just wanted to give a quick shoutout to Edgar Martinez and wish him a Happy Birtday as he turns 45 today!!! (and I figured this was as good a place as any)

He has been out of the game for 3 years, with only 2 left before a lot of questions will be answered - whether he will be inducted into the HOF or not...!

Wow, I can't believe all of 2007 went by without anyone adding a post to this thread!

:eek:

I'm glad to see the "yes" votes are way ahead for Edgar Martinez, that really makes a lot of sense!

:clapping

[Fuzzy Bear]

I have come around to view Edgar as a deserving HOFer. He has a career Offensive Winning Percentage of .711; that's excellent, even for a no-field 1B/LF type.

Unlike Harold Baines, I have no doubt that Edgar would have been a career regular SOMEWHERE, one way or the other. His injuries were not chronic injuries, as Baines' were; he COULD have played the field, although he might have been less durable. His career numbers are short on the front end because the Mariners made this stupid decision to play Jim Presley for years before Edgar was made a regular; he was an All-Star caliber player for YEARS before he became a regular in the big leagues.

I cannot think of a single player, other than Babe Herman, who posted a comparable Offensive Winning Percentage for his career that is NOT in the HOF. And Edgar was BETTER than Herman, offensively, plus, he was not the joke on the basepaths or in the field that Herman was. (It is interesting to wonder how Herman would be regarded if he had become a career DH, but that's another thread.)

Edgar for the HOF! I'm an unabashed convert now.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Fine, you're right. Let's just ignore all the history of all the great hitters that had to leave the game because of injuries and poor defense and assume that Martinez would have been an exception and would have played just as long and with the exact same type of production if the DH didn't exist. Let's just assume that playing the field wouldn't have increased the risk for injury and wouldn't have distracted from his focusing on hitting... Given all the history and all the great hitters that were phased out early, it is extremely reasonable to assume that Martinez would not have been the same kind of hitter or have played for as long as he did if not for the DH.

And like I said, Edgar does not have Hall of Fame-esque numbers. His counting stats are pretty unimpressive considering that he played DH for almost his entire career and during one of the greatest offensive eras ever. Every other player I mentioned was able to hit close to the level of Martinez (or higher) while also playing the field, and that puts them a cut above Martinez.

Ask yourself this question - Could any of the players I mentioned do what Edgar did if the roles were reversed? Yes, we know that, because they did it or were close to doing it despite doing other things as well. Now ask yourself this other question - Could Edgar do what he did if the roles were reversed and he wasn't playing DH? Unlike the other question, we don't know the answer to this, but the weight of history and the rigors of playing the field (there rigors, even in playing 1B), make it likely that Martinez would not have been able to what he did in a role reversal. It's a one way street here.

I would disagree with you strongly over the issue that Edgar does not have HOF numbers. A .711 career Offensive Winning Percentage, especially in a career that lasted at a full-time level through age 41 is very much withing HOF norms for players at the left end of the defensive spectrum. Edgar also deserves SOME credit for playing THIRD base (although I grant you, he was never a defensive standout there).

Would Edgar have lasted as long as he did if he had to play the field every day? I think he would have lasted much longer than people think. Edgar's injuries were not the type that were chronic (knee, back); if they were, he couldn't have kept up his hitting for as long as he did. Edgar was over .660 in Offensive Winning Percentage at ages 39 and 40; that's consistent with the aging pattern of a great hitter. The type of injuries that come from collisions are less likely at first base or left field; ditto, throwing related injuries. Edgar's numbers would have been somewhat different had he played the field longer, but the reason he was shifted to DH was not that he couldn't play the field anymore; it was a decision made more on efficiency. The M's had Tino Martinez at first, and Jose Cruz, Jr. in the minors, waiting to take over in LF; it made more sense to DH Martinez.

Edgar's career numbers suffer more from the stupid decision to leave him languishing on the bench, or in the minors, rather than at a regular position, until age 27. This decision represented an astonishing display of stupidity in talent evaluation by the Mariner brass, and gives some insight as to why the Mariners, a talent-rich organization in the late eighties, underachieved year after year. These knuckleheads could not see that Martinez was a superior prospect to Jim Presley, Alvin Davis, Phil Bradley, Mickey Brantley, Greg Briley, and a slew of players that received their shot while Martinez was ready, willing, and able to be an instant star at the major league level. If Martinez had been given a job when he was ready, he'd have coasted into 3,000 hits, and we wouldn't be having this debate. But what he did was good enough for the HOF, anyway, IMO.

[philkid3]

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/111373/GwynnvsEdgarvsRainesvsSchill.png
Source (http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/5/6/866714/graph-of-the-day-gwynn-vs-edgar-vs)

[leecemark]

I have come around to view Edgar as a deserving HOFer. He has a career Offensive Winning Percentage of .711; that's excellent, even for a no-field 1B/LF type.

Unlike Harold Baines, I have no doubt that Edgar would have been a career regular SOMEWHERE, one way or the other. His injuries were not chronic injuries, as Baines' were; he COULD have played the field, although he might have been less durable. His career numbers are short on the front end because the Mariners made this stupid decision to play Jim Presley for years before Edgar was made a regular; he was an All-Star caliber player for YEARS before he became a regular in the big leagues.

I cannot think of a single player, other than Babe Herman, who posted a comparable Offensive Winning Percentage for his career that is NOT in the HOF. And Edgar was BETTER than Herman, offensively, plus, he was not the joke on the basepaths or in the field that Herman was. (It is interesting to wonder how Herman would be regarded if he had become a career DH, but that's another thread.)

Edgar for the HOF! I'm an unabashed convert now.


--A couple points to correct in your analysis here, Fuzzy. Edgar's injuries were chronic. He had some different ones, but bad hamstrings were a recurring problem for him. When interleague play came around the M's tried to get him in the field for an NL park game - and he hurt himself chasing a foul popup in his first chance and went on the DL. That seriously does not bode well for his chances of a long career while trying to play defense.
--Martinez was probably a better player than Jim Presley for a few years before he finally ousted him from the M's 3B job, but he was not the player he was to become. He was a skinny kid and the Mariners doubted he would hit for the power they expected from a corner player. Although Edgar is a beloved figure in Seattle and nobody wants to tarnish his reputation there is reason to believe that he did not develop his power naturally. Those who markdown - or completely shut out - suspected steroid users should have concerns about Martinez.
--While Edgar doesn't have the humorous stories about his baserunning the way Babe Herman does, he was a major liability in that department. More than once I saw what should have been clean singles turned into fielder's choice because Edgar could not beat the throw in from the outfielder to 2B. He virtually never advanced an extra base on a hit.
--Martinez is not an unreasonable candidate for discussion, but he certainly has enough question marks to keep him from being a slam dunk yes.

[Paul Wendt]

--While Edgar doesn't have the humorous stories about his baserunning the way Babe Herman does, he was a major liability in that department. More than once I saw what should have been clean singles turned into fielder's choice because Edgar could not beat the throw in from the outfielder to 2B. He virtually never advanced an extra base on a hit.
Mark,
I don't understand this. You seem to say that he was forced at second on many should-be outfield singles. In my mind's eye I see 9-6 on a bloop just over the 2bman and 7-4 on a ball hit over shortstop. Those visions are entirely fabricated because I don't have any experience seeing them at the ballpark or on the boob tube. Do I understand you correctly?

What kinds of doubles did Martinez hit? He did hit a lot of them, especially '95-96.

[leecemark]

--Well "many" would probably be an exaggeration. One I recall was a sharp liner fielded on one hop by the left fielder who forced Edgar at second. Another was a bloop that dropped in in left center where Martinez hesitated halfway down and was not able to get the rest of the way in time once he saw it drop. Those are the only two specifics that come to mind.
--I do know that in his last few years I got to where I hated to see him come up with a man on first and less than 2 outs. A ground ball that didn't get through the IF was ALWAYS going to be a double play.
--As for his doubles I only moved to Washington in 1995 and my recollection of Edgar from 95-6 is much less clear than from more recent times. He was slow, but not the historically slow player he was to become. HIs doubles in Safeco were all balls either off the wall or that got down in the big alleys there and rolled to the wall.

[redban]

I say NO, he shouldn't get in the Hall of Fame.

Designated Hitter in the American League during the biggest offensive era in baseball history; he would need Babe Ruth/Barry Bonds type numbers to get my vote.

[Railsplitter]

I say NO, he shouldn't get in the Hall of Fame.

Designated Hitter in the American League during the biggest offensive era in baseball history; he would need Babe Ruth/Barry Bonds type numbers to get my vote.

It is one of the biggest offensive eras in history due in large part to PED's and Edgar has never been linked (as far as I know). That in my mind is unfair to Edgar to say that he doesn't have Barry Bonds (PED user) type numbers. No one who is clean has Barry Bonds type numbers in recent history

[Freakshow]

Look at all of the corner-OF, corner-IF types who had similar numbers to Edgar in three basic offensive measures: Adjusted Batting Wins, Offensive Win Percentage, and Runs Created:
Rank Player ABW OW% RC
22 Jeff Bagwell 58.4 0.721 1788
23 Mike Schmidt+ 57.9 0.727 1757
24 Roger Connor+ 57.2 0.739 1498
25 Willie McCovey+ 55.6 0.718 1638
28 Mark McGwire 54.9 0.737 1529
31 Eddie Mathews+ 53.5 0.704 1716
33 Sam Crawford+ 52.9 0.738 1566
36 Edgar Martinez 52.1 0.711 1631
38 Harmon Killebrew+ 52.0 0.706 1606
39 Harry Heilmann+ 51.3 0.742 1663
40 Chipper Jones(37) 50.8 0.716 1772
42 Willie Stargell+ 50.4 0.717 1531
48 Jesse Burkett+ 48.8 0.728 1566
50 Paul Waner+ 47.1 0.699 1817
53 Wade Boggs+ 45.9 0.677 1750Most (all?) of those listed are slam dunk HOFers. Many of them accrued little more defensive value than Edgar. Martinez is one of the top 50 offensive players in baseball history.

In the Hall of Fame Purgatory project, Martinez was named the 18th most deserving player candidate for the Hall. Yet, he hasn't made the BBFHOF, even though 18 of the next 20 elected after Edgar in that project have been.

In the Collaboration Game v2.0, Martinez was ranked the 198th best player in history, ahead of about 80 hall of famers.

With a proper focus on the value he contributed to his teams through his playing, Edgar is an easy choice for the Hall. It's only when people start dealing in hypotheticals that he falls short: What If there was no DH rule? What If Edgar had played in another era? Along with the prejudice often encountered against players who fill the role of DH, it will probably be enough to keep the BBWAA from voting him into the Hall. Let's try to avoid making that mistake at BBF.

[dgarza]

What If there was no DH rule? What If Edgar had played in another era? That kind of suggestion just reminds me that Martinez was a better 3B than Killebrew in the field. And that the only other really difference between the two is Killebrew's HRs and AVG, but both have pretty similar SLG and OPS+.

If Killebrew had a career mostly pre-DH, Martinez could have too.