Edgar Martinez in the Hall??

[Peggin_Maniac]

Yes, I know it might be tough for him to make the Hall being a DH
for most of his career, but he is the best DH of all time...Just because he only bats and doesn't play the field you shouldn't penalized him for that...He is filling a role...Somebody has to DH in the game!!!

What's your thoughts on it!!!!

Some of his stats:
Career .954 OPS
Career .424 on base per.
Career .317 batting avg.
closing on 300 HR's
over 2,000 hits
closing in on 500 doubles
two batting titles
One RBI title
1,130 runs
1,147 RBI'S
1,163 walks

[A Satch In Time Whiffs Nine]

What hurt Edgar was the late start he had. He made the bigs at age 24 and while he had strong seasons in ‘90 and ‘91, his breakthrough season wasn’t until 1992 -- and by then he was 29 years old.

At this point in time, I say no -- Edgar is not getting in. The guy certainly had some terrific seasons (including the one in 2000, which was one of the greatest seasons ever turned in by a 37-year-old player -- definitely ranks up there with anything Bonds or Teddy did at that age). But I don't think he’s done enough to warrant election into the Hall.

[J W]

I don't think the writers would vote for him.

But I'll say this: when the time comes, if the time comes, Edgar will be the first full-time DH elected into the Hall.

Career DHs (NOT Frank Thomas or some other converted DH)... career DHs generally don't have HOF numbers, even offensively. DHs are usually marginal players who are above-average offensively and not so hot with the glove. It's very rare that someone is called up from the minors and it becomes quickly evident that DH is the best/only position for him... and then he becomes an iconic character. Edgar is the only example I can think of.

Of course, players who have spent nearly their entire careers as a DH make up a short list anyway. Maybe more time will tell.

[Etheridge2]

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.

[abolishthedh]

If Edgar is on the record as stating that he would retire if the end the era of the DH, then I am disappointed. I try not to go on a rant about this topic because, as you can see, I feel strongly about it too. But I don't want to sound like a paraiah about the whole thing, so I'll let others state their positions.

Here's the thing: Edgar was a fairly good 3rd baseman! He must not have liked playing the position, and this is a different matter, and it would be enough to keep him out of the Hall on that alone. However, I still love the guy as a player because I thought he was a good 3rd baseman, and that he was a team player who went along with the assignment for the good of the team. He must have changed his mind, as people are prone to do over time.

I love Edgar because he is as professional as anyone can be at baseball. He's as professional as Tony Gwynn, Ripken or any player in the past several decades you could name. Its a shame that he must now think of himself as one dimensional.

[Peggin_Maniac]

He became a DH when he tore up his hamstring back in the early
90's...And he was a pretty decent 3rd baseman til the injury..As long as he is productive (which he still is) why not keep playing???? As long as the DH is still in the big leagues you shouldn't fault him for filling a role...It know different than a reliever,
a starter going every 5 days...I know I will get some flack from this statement because the pitchers are on the field and the Dh is not...But this is how I feel....

One day relievers and Dh's will make the hall (some day)

[Brad Harris]

(1) It seems quite clear from a number of the previous posts that whether or not you think Edgar Martinez should be elected to the Hall of Fame rests largely on one's personal feelings about the designated hitter rule.

To wit: the designated hitter rule is a part of the game - like it or not - and has been for thirty years now. Edgar Martinez has filled that role throughout his career. It is not the designated hitter's fault that the designated hitter rule exists. You can't fault Martinez for playing that position. He gets no demerits for it.

(2) Martinez is the best designated hitter in the history of the game. After thirty years and some fairly good hitters filling those roles, Martinez is heads above the rest at that "position." Being the best at any position is worthy of serious consideration for enshrinement. There is a designated hitter. Someone had to fill that role. Martinez did it and has excelled at it for over a decade!

(3) Martinez must be judged solely on his offensive contributions (as he really has no career defensive contributions to speak of.) You don't subtract from Martinez's career value because he has no fielding stats, but rather you would add value to the careers of other hitters for whatever fielding accomplishments boosted their overall value. Penalizing Martinez is the wrong way to compare the relative worth of these players. You should, instead, reward others for positive fielding contributions. In this way Martinez can be fairly and accurately measured against other players.

(4) Martinez has consistently been one of the 5 best hitters in the game for a decade. That, in itself, is worthy of serious consideration. Not many players outside the Hall of Fame can make such a claim.

(5) Martinez's career numbers are not short as many people think. He had 7,520 career plate appearances coming into 2003. Fifty percent of the players in the Hall of Fame had fewer career plate appearances than Martinez. And that percentage is rising as Martinez sees playing time this summer.

(6) Martinez had 620 Runs Created Above Average thru 2002 - the 34th highest total in history! That doesn't tell me that he needs 3,000 hits or any other "magic number" that voters will recognize. That tells me this: there is no one who has ever retired with that many RCAA who has not been elected to the Hall of Fame.

Martinez has, in my opinion, done enough to warrant election to the Hall - or, at the very least, to be a very strong candidate. He shouldn't be so easily dismissed just because some people don't like the DH-rule. I certainly hope the voters don't treat him similarly.

[Brad Harris]

Another thing: Edgar Martinez's RC/27 of 8.62 is the 47th in history (minimum 2,000 plate appearances). Place it in the context of his era, however, and you'll find Martinez's adjusted RC/27 to be the 41st best total in history.

However, there's a huge difference between someone with 2,000 plate appearances and the 7,520 that Martinez has put in.

Among players with at least as any attempts as Martinez, you're looking at Edgar rating 23rd all-time. Martinez's RC/27 of 8.62 came in an environment of 5.00 RC/27 which means that Martinez's offensive contributions were a whopping seventy-two percent higher than average!

The only players with that much playing time and more valuable offensive contributions are: Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, Barry Bonds, Mickey Mantle, Lou Gehrig, Rogers Hornsby, Jimmie Foxx, Dan Brouthers, Stan Musial, Mel Ott, Tris Speaker, Billy Hamilton, Honus Wagner, Ed Delahanty, Willie Mays, Joe DiMaggio, Frank Robinson, Hank Aaron, Nap Lajoie, Mark McGwire and Jeff Bagwell.

That's a pretty exclusive list of the greatest hitters ever.

That means Martinez's career offensive contributions have exceeded the value of those of Mike Schmidt, Duke Snider, Willie McCovey, Joe Morgan, Sammy Sosa or Pete Rose.

It seems to me the burden of proof in this argument rests with those who would keep Martinez out of the Hall of Fame. So far, I've seen no evidence save the fact that the designated hitter rule reduces a player to playing only "half the game."

[Peggin_Maniac]

There is somebody out there that agrees with me...thanks for you insight Chancellor...

[BoSox Rule]

Originally posted by Etheridge2
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..

if i had 5000hr i want to e in the hall, dh or not

[abolishthedh]

Quoted, from Etheridge2: Even a DH with 3000Hits and 5000 HR ....

3000 hits and 5000 Homers? Now THERE'S Enron-style bookkeeping!

That's okay. We know what you meant.

Since he's now 39 and will still have 900 hits to go by the end of the year in order to get to 3000 hits, I expect his case to be among the most contentious in baseball history.

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by abolishthedh
Since he's now 39 and will still have 900 hits to go by the end of the year in order to get to 3000 hits, I expect his case to be among the most contentious in baseball history.

It's a pretty fair guess that he won't reach 3,000 career hits (not that he has to.)

He presently has 2,031 hits (thru 6/8/03). There are 205 players in history with more. 95 of the 191 players in the Hall of Fame have fewer career hits than Martinez does at this point. Some of those Hall of Famers with fewer hits include Johnny Mize, Earl Averill, Sam Thompson, Bill Dickey, Jimmy Collins, Earle Combs and Frank Baker.

Martinez has more career hits than popular candidates such as Gil Hodges, George Foster, Minnie Minoso, Dick Allen, Tony Oliva, Curt Flood or Vern Stephens.

Martinez has more career hits than active (or recently retired) stars like Jose Canseco, Sammy Sosa, Bernie Williams and John Olerud, whose names are occassionally tossed around as candidates for the Hall.

So clearly, having a career hits total near 3,000 - while certainly beneficial - is not a requirement for election. It would appear that election is based more on the quality of his hits, rather than just their quantity.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Originally posted by Chancellor


He presently has 2,031 hits (thru 6/8/03). There are 205 players in history with more. 95 of the 191 players in the Hall of Fame have fewer career hits than Martinez does at this point.

.

How many of those 95 were everyday players after WWII? That looks like a very manipulative stat to me.

[Steffo]

Though I agree with you Chancellor, that Edgar should be in the HOF, some of your arguments are sorta weak. You say 95 players have less hits then him? Most are pitchers. Am I not right? Do you expect pitchers to have that many hits since they play every 5th day or so? Or AL pictchers from the '70's plus with near no hits.

Oh, and those 7520 plate apperaces, 50% lower, aren't most of them pitchers too?.


SO I do agree with you on most arguments and the general fact that Edgar is a HOFer, some of your arguments re quite weak as well.

[CardFanNV]

Great positon players are measured by the five tools .........

hit for average
hit for power
run
field
throw

To be HOF, you should be among the best at 4 of these tools. I'd be willing to sacrifice one.

The only thing Ozzie couldn't do is hit for power. You can argue hit for average, also. But his last 12 years were FAR better than his early days.

Harmon Killebrew - couldn't run, not a good fielder, low BA, one of his own team's scouts once said, "He throws like a girl."

He did improve, but he's a HR hitter. Nothing more.

Mays, like Bonds, could do it all. And if you have to sacrifice a tool, you'd better be EXCELLENT at the rest.

How can a guy who almost NEVER wears a fielder's glove get in the hall?

[CardFanNV]

Fielding is part of the game. It is essential to winning.

How many broadcasters emphasise the importantance of the pitcher being able to FIELD his position well? And why do they do it so often?

I cannot condone a player getting HOF consideration who either CAN'T or WON'T take the field!

DH IS NOT A POSITION! It is a full-time PH, and it should be stricken from the rules.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Originally posted by CardFanNV

DH IS NOT A POSITION! It is a full-time PH, and it should be stricken from the rules.

But it's not. You can ignore the big elephant standing in the hallway, but it's still there. Not acknowledging it doesn't change the fact it's still there. So it has to be treated as such, abhorent as you find the rule or not.

As a full-time hitter, Martinez should have better overall numbers. That's why I wouldn't put him in. Not because he is listed as a non-fielding position that seems to get some people's lather up so much. Why? Because pitchers don't strike out or bunt as much? Because it cuts down on double switches? I'm not a big DH proponent but I find the anti-DH argument way too much ado about nothing.

Should a player be penalized for dh'ing toward the end of their career, after they have done more than enough to merit consideration, (Brett, Murray, Yaz)? If a player can still hit well enough, then use that player.

The five tools is a good judge, though. If a player can't show most of those tools for a good portion of their career, they shouldn't make it. I'm not against the DH, but I don't think they show enough overall skills.

[Etheridge2]

I can and will hold a bias towards players who are essentially a DH a player who doesn't take the field not only doesn't get any consideration for his glovework but gets negative points towards his career. No player in baseball disgusts me more then Edgar for the simple reason that during the players strike when they were talking about eliminating the DH he stated he would retire if they did so..The man doesn't evben want to play the field..plain and simple he isn't a baseball player.. a pitcher taking the mound every 5 days is different because the position is physically demanding to the point where you cvan not play everyday. A DH in order to even mnerit consideration needs numbers that blkow the mind 4000 hits ore 700hr it just The DH is basebgall's biggest mistake over the last 40 years and it ruins the game IMO. I don't care that it isn't mARTINEZ'S FAULT THAT there is a DH he could play the field if he wanted to and if he can't then let him reetire he has also not been among the best 5 hitters in the game for the last decade..

the best hitters over the last decade in my oppinion have been
AROD
Bonds
Sosa
Alomar
Jeter
Bagwell
Manny Ramirez
Nomar
Piazza
Palmiero

And all these guys have played the field and some have even won Gold Gloves I would take ANYH of them over Edgar over the last decade...

If Martinez gets in to nthe hall it would be a BIG mistake

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by Steffo
You say 95 players have less hits then him? Most are pitchers. Am I not right?....Oh, and those 7520 plate apperaces, 50% lower, aren't most of them pitchers too?.

You are, of course, quite right. Thank you for pointing that out.


There are 133 non-pitchers in the Hall of Fame.
37 of them have fewer hits than Edgar Martinez.
That's still 28% (and rising as he continues to play).

Martinez has more hits than 28% of the non-pitchers in the Hall of Fame. It's still a sizeable group.

The point was simply that a player doesn't necessarily need a high hit total to gain election. (Or, conversely, that a high hit total doesn't necessarily guarantee election either.)

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by CardFanNV
Great positon players are measured by the five tools .........

hit for average
hit for power
run
field
throw

To be HOF, you should be among the best at 4 of these tools. I'd be willing to sacrifice one.

The only thing Ozzie couldn't do is hit for power. You can argue hit for average, also. But his last 12 years were FAR better than his early days.

Harmon Killebrew - couldn't run, not a good fielder, low BA, one of his own team's scouts once said, "He throws like a girl."

He did improve, but he's a HR hitter. Nothing more.

Mays, like Bonds, could do it all. And if you have to sacrifice a tool, you'd better be EXCELLENT at the rest.

How can a guy who almost NEVER wears a fielder's glove get in the hall?

Horsefeathers!

First off, when do you ever hear of "great position players" being compared to the Hall of Fame? Never! It's "great players!" You're inserting the "position" into that phrase in order to single out Martinez.

Secondly, the idea that Hall of Fame qualification is somehow based on the well-roundedness of a player's greatness defies both the trends of the past and the current voting patterns of those who decide who gets elected.

If being superb at several things instead of truly great at one or two is enough, then why isn't Dwight Evans or Bobby Grich in the Hall? Where's Minnie Minoso or Ron Santo? Why couldn't Ryne Sandberg get half the votes last winter?

No. The Hall of Fame voters focus more on exactly the opposite - they tend to focus on people who do one thing really, really well. Look at the bias towards power hitters in the Hall. There are very few power hitters who couldn't do anything else who have been elected (Kingman is one example.)

Say what you want about Ozzie Smith, but he was never a good hitter. Sure he improved, from being a bush league hitter to an adequate major league hitter, but he was never a good major league hitter. His defense got him into the Hall and nothing else. In fact, if his glove hadn't been considered the best ever, if it had merely been the best of his generation, say, he'd have had a lot more difficult time convincing the voters he belonged.

I don't understand why you mentioned Killebrew because it completely contradicts what you said at the beginning of your post - that great position players are measured by how many of the "tools" they excel at. Killebrew gained election to the Hall (as have numerous others) through excelling at only one thing.

Edgar Martinez has only had to excel at one thing - getting on base and driving in runs - and he's done a marvelous job of that. He shouldn't be judged on the standards applied to players who play defense as well in the same vein that you can't judge a relief pitcher by the same standards you apply to a starter; it's simply a different (not a lesser) role.

[Captain Cold Nose]

How many of the 28% have comparable career lengths as Martinez? And how many of them came from offensive-eras like Martinez?

[Peggin_Maniac]

Amen Chancellor!!!

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by CardFanNV
Fielding is part of the game. It is essential to winning.

It is less essential to winning than hitting is. Far less. There are tens of thousands of people across the United States who could strap on a glove and play a major league caliber field. There are only hundreds who could pick up a bat and hit at a big league level. The value of an above average fielder is far less than the value of an above average hitter. Furthermore, the value of good fielding varies from one position to another. A good fielding shortstop is worth more than a good fielding first baseman. DH is a position wherein no fielding is required. It is a role, the same as any other on the team.

To fight against that reality is to piss in a wind that's blowing in your face.

How many broadcasters emphasise the importantance of the pitcher being able to FIELD his position well? And why do they do it so often?

Oh...well, if a broadcaster mentions it, gee...it must be integral to winning the game. Broadcasters talk about things they hope the audience finds interesting. They are entertainers and rarely know more than a knowledgabale fan. A pitcher's fielding is very minimal in the scheme of his overall value. Sandy Koufax was a poor fielder. No one ever mentions it. Why not? Because it's not that important.

I'll take a lineup full of Edgar Martinez's and put them in the field over a lineup full of Ozzie Smith's any day of the week and I'll beat your butt black and blue 9 times out of 10.

I cannot condone a player getting HOF consideration who either CAN'T or WON'T take the field!

DH IS NOT A POSITION! It is a full-time PH, and it should be stricken from the rules.

Good for you. Why don't you go take your little placquard and go down to the park and protest, huh? Or have you attended an AL game in the last 30 years?

If you want to ignore reality, that's certainly up to you. Just know, "the Matrix has you."

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by Etheridge2
...The DH is basebgall's biggest mistake over the last 40 years and it ruins the game IMO....

Bud Selig must drool over fans like you.

1. You think the DH is baseball's biggest mistake over the last 40 years; and

2. You think the game is ruined, but you're still a fan.

[Brad Harris]

Captain Cold Nose...

My argument is two-fold. Edgar Martinez has done enough to warrant consideration for the Hall of Fame. And it is patently ridiculous to dismiss the candidacy of Martinez (or any other career DH) because of the designated hitter rule. My vitriol is primarily aimed at the latter.

If you haven't already, I suggest you read my earlier posts in this thread regarding Martinez's runs created and RC/27 totals and where they rate in the history of the game.

Martinez has 281 win shares going into this season, which places him in solid territory as a Hall of Fame candidate. (Especially considering that he has no fielding win shares to help boost that total, as most players would.)

Martinez's .952 OPS is the 13th highest total in history (minimum 7,500 plate appearances.) Calculating his adjusted OPS yields similar results. His OPS+ of 126 is still solidly among the best ever (32nd all-time.) Martinez's career OPS is 26 percent better than league average.

Here, by the way, are the top 10 RCAA totals for the last 10 years (1993-2002):

938 Barry Bonds
583 Jeff Bagwell
545 Frank Thomas
506 Edgar Martinez
485 Jim Thome
478 Mark McGwire
465 Manny Ramirez
453 Gary Sheffield
428 Mike Piazza
421 Rafael Palmeiro

Martinez has been one of the best hitters in baseball for the last decade. Etheridge2's opinion doesn't really have any bearing on that fact.

Has Martinez been good enough for long enough? Perhaps not quite yet. However, he certainly has earned a good look by the voters and I hope he isn't treated as poorly (for committing the crime of being a DH) by the BBWAA as he has been here.