Hall of Fame chances

[jbhofmann]

Wait, did someone just say Jim Edmunds might be the greatest defensive CF in the history of the game?

If you mean a guy who had below average speed who had to dive to make great catches that others made standing up, then I guess he was Willie Mays 2.0

 

[Mozzie22]

Wait, did someone just say Jim Edmunds might be the greatest defensive CF in the history of the game?

If you mean a guy who had below average speed who had to dive to make great catches that others made standing up, then I guess he was Willie Mays 2.0

Not sure who Edmunds is but I said that Jim Edmonds might just be the greatest defensive center fielder of all time. Over the years I've heard every conceivable dumb theory by every idiot out there about Jim Edmonds dogging it purposely so he would then have to dive to make a miraculous catch. Edmonds played shallower than any CF'er in the game. He did this to take away the bloop hit to shallow center field and was able to do this because he could go back on a hard hit ball and track it down better than anybody I've ever seen. Only in his last few years did he have average to below average speed. From 2000-2005 he was unreal.
-

 

[jbhofmann]

Not sure who Edmunds is but I said that Jim Edmonds might just be the greatest defensive center fielder of all time. Over the years I've heard every conceivable dumb theory by every idiot out there about Jim Edmonds dogging it purposely so he would then have to dive to make a miraculous catch. Edmonds played shallower than any CF'er in the game. He did this to take away the bloop hit to shallow center field and was able to do this because he could go back on a hard hit ball and track it down better than anybody I've ever seen. Only in his last few years did he have average to below average speed. From 2000-2005 he was unreal.
-

You call my theory dumb and respond with, "he played shallow". Maybe that is how the greatest defensive CFer in baseball history had negative defensive WAR years before he even hit the age of 30. Or maybe you fell for the romanticizing of an above average showman.

 

[Mozzie22]

You call my theory dumb and respond with, "he played shallow". Maybe that is how the greatest defensive CFer in baseball history had negative defensive WAR years before he even hit the age of 30. Or maybe you fell for the romanticizing of an above average showman.

Read again what I wrote. Edmonds played shallow because he could and other center fielders could not do what he did.

Read this:
More on Jim Edmonds and the Hall - SweetSpot Blog - ESPN


"Jim Edmonds announced his retirement on Friday, and in this space, Chad Dotson was all over it, making a very good argument that Edmonds belongs in the Hall of Fame (and that it’s not all that close). Commenters largely disagreed, a couple slapping the tired old “Hall of Very Good” label on him. (Why is that a thing, incidentally? “Fame” and “Very Good” are not related terms, not even the same part of speech. But I digress.)

Chad was right, though; Edmonds should (but won’t) be a no-doubt Hall of Famer. I think the biggest problem is one Chad didn’t have space to address; people don’t realize quite how rare it is to find a player who can hit like Edmonds did and play great defense at an important position like center field.

Contrary to what its detractors will tell you, absolutely nobody views Wins Above Replacement (WAR; using the version found on baseball-reference.com here) as an infallible, be-all and end-all measure of a player’s worth. It’s also certainly not necessary to see Edmonds as the great player he was; his 132 OPS+ and eight 30-homer seasons at a primarily defensive position, his eight Gold Gloves and his .874 OPS is 64 postseason games all speak to that, too. What WAR is, however, is a really convenient way to get an idea of how different skills like that come together to give a player value. And by WAR, among all players who played at least 50 percent of their games in center, Edmonds comes in eighth all-time, behind Ty Cobb, Willie Mays, Tris Speaker, Mickey Mantle, Joe DiMaggio, Ken Griffey Jr. and Billy Hamilton -- six Hall of Famers, one no-doubt future Hall of Famer, and that’s it. Edmonds comes in just ahead of Duke Snider, and well ahead of several other Hall of Famers.

You can find ways to quibble with WAR -- doubt that his defense was really worth nearly 100 runs above average for his career, for instance, or punish him more than WAR does for all that time he missed to injury (totally unnecessary, but to each her own) -- but I don’t think you can find a way to argue that Edmonds was any less than the 10th greatest center fielder of all time.

There are currently 50 Hall of Famers (among those selected as players) who primarily played in the outfield, and of those, 16 were primarily center fielders. Given that, it seems to me that if a player ranks among the top 10 all-time at the most important outfield position, there’s little room to argue that he doesn’t belong.

Don’t believe in judging him by the position he played? OK, judge him by where he fits among the players at large. This is a list ranking all non-Hall of Famers according to career WAR. Edmonds sits 14. The only players ahead of him who are Hall-eligible are Bill Dahlen and Lou Whitaker (both clearly deserving Hall of Famers who have been criminally overlooked) and Barry Larkin, who very likely will be voted in next January. The nine active or recently retired players ahead of him all are clearly Hall of Famers. And Edmonds is ahead of likely Hall of Famers like Manny Ramirez, Ivan Rodriguez and Craig Biggio (not to mention a host of already-Hall of Famers like Willie McCovey, Eddie Murray, and Ernie Banks).

Even if you’re a “small Hall” person, Edmonds’ almost historically rare combination of very good (often elite) offense and great defense fits comfortably within your boundaries. You just might not realize it yet."

 

[markakis8]

Neither of them are close to any milestones and both are done.

Neither had 400 hr and both were around 2000 hits. Just in those 2 cats, they are 1000 hits and 100 hr away.

I hate replying to you, it only strengthens your trolling/stalking case. And I can't have that.

LOL....wuuuuuuuuuuut?

 

[markakis8]

Chipper isn't #2

He might be 5

Make your argument, sir. I find it hard to believe a switch-hitting franchise player with over 2,700 hits and a career .930 OPS with above average defense is not going to trump anyone but Schmitty. And this is coming from a die-hard Brooks fan. Find me another 3B that had an OPS over 1.000 five different years. There aren't any. Better yet...find me another 3rd baseman that had an OPS of at least .900 12 different years (full seasons). Only one (and it was exactly 12 years) - Mike Schmidt.

BTW, I despise the Braves. I just call it like I see it.

 

[markakis8]

Read again what I wrote. Edmonds played shallow because he could and other center fielders could not do what he did.

Read this:
More on Jim Edmonds and the Hall - SweetSpot Blog - ESPN


"Jim Edmonds announced his retirement on Friday, and in this space, Chad Dotson was all over it, making a very good argument that Edmonds belongs in the Hall of Fame (and that it’s not all that close). Commenters largely disagreed, a couple slapping the tired old “Hall of Very Good” label on him. (Why is that a thing, incidentally? “Fame” and “Very Good” are not related terms, not even the same part of speech. But I digress.)

Chad was right, though; Edmonds should (but won’t) be a no-doubt Hall of Famer. I think the biggest problem is one Chad didn’t have space to address; people don’t realize quite how rare it is to find a player who can hit like Edmonds did and play great defense at an important position like center field.

Contrary to what its detractors will tell you, absolutely nobody views Wins Above Replacement (WAR; using the version found on baseball-reference.com here) as an infallible, be-all and end-all measure of a player’s worth. It’s also certainly not necessary to see Edmonds as the great player he was; his 132 OPS+ and eight 30-homer seasons at a primarily defensive position, his eight Gold Gloves and his .874 OPS is 64 postseason games all speak to that, too. What WAR is, however, is a really convenient way to get an idea of how different skills like that come together to give a player value. And by WAR, among all players who played at least 50 percent of their games in center, Edmonds comes in eighth all-time, behind Ty Cobb, Willie Mays, Tris Speaker, Mickey Mantle, Joe DiMaggio, Ken Griffey Jr. and Billy Hamilton -- six Hall of Famers, one no-doubt future Hall of Famer, and that’s it. Edmonds comes in just ahead of Duke Snider, and well ahead of several other Hall of Famers.

You can find ways to quibble with WAR -- doubt that his defense was really worth nearly 100 runs above average for his career, for instance, or punish him more than WAR does for all that time he missed to injury (totally unnecessary, but to each her own) -- but I don’t think you can find a way to argue that Edmonds was any less than the 10th greatest center fielder of all time.

There are currently 50 Hall of Famers (among those selected as players) who primarily played in the outfield, and of those, 16 were primarily center fielders. Given that, it seems to me that if a player ranks among the top 10 all-time at the most important outfield position, there’s little room to argue that he doesn’t belong.

Don’t believe in judging him by the position he played? OK, judge him by where he fits among the players at large. This is a list ranking all non-Hall of Famers according to career WAR. Edmonds sits 14. The only players ahead of him who are Hall-eligible are Bill Dahlen and Lou Whitaker (both clearly deserving Hall of Famers who have been criminally overlooked) and Barry Larkin, who very likely will be voted in next January. The nine active or recently retired players ahead of him all are clearly Hall of Famers. And Edmonds is ahead of likely Hall of Famers like Manny Ramirez, Ivan Rodriguez and Craig Biggio (not to mention a host of already-Hall of Famers like Willie McCovey, Eddie Murray, and Ernie Banks).

Even if you’re a “small Hall” person, Edmonds’ almost historically rare combination of very good (often elite) offense and great defense fits comfortably within your boundaries. You just might not realize it yet."

Man, you had a compelling argument....until you said the bolded...don't you realize he was voted in the HOF 2 years ago?

 

[ThoseBackPages]

Chipper played too many games at other positions to be ahead of Brooks

 

[Anthony K.]

Man, you had a compelling argument....until you said the bolded...don't you realize he was voted in the HOF 2 years ago?

Carl, I don't think you realized that was a quote from the article he linked to above it

 

[markakis8]

Carl, I don't think you realized that was a quote from the article he linked to above it

:lol: My apologies Mozzie.

*slowly backs away*

 

[hive17]

Make your argument, sir. I find it hard to believe a switch-hitting franchise player with over 2,700 hits and a career .930 OPS with above average defense is not going to trump anyone but Schmitty. And this is coming from a die-hard Brooks fan. Find me another 3B that had an OPS over 1.000 five different years. There aren't any. Better yet...find me another 3rd baseman that had an OPS of at least .900 12 different years (full seasons). Only one (and it was exactly 12 years) - Mike Schmidt.

BTW, I despise the Braves. I just call it like I see it.

I'll take Brett over Chipper. Give me the guy who was an All Star 13 time in-a-row, batted .390 and is in the 3000 hit club.

 

[markakis8]

I'll take Brett over Chipper. Give me the guy who was an All Star 13 time in-a-row, batted .390 and is in the 3000 hit club.

AS games are not that great of a tool to measure greatness when comparing two players. Chipper played in the steroid era where offensive numbers were ballooned. He had THREE years of OPS over 1.000 and didn't make the AS game, including his MVP year. He also had two other seasons of .920 OPS + and did not make the AS team.

Brett's 1980 season was historical for sure, but that doesn't automatically make him greater 3B than Chipper.

Chipper's career BA was .303 and Brett's was .305. I'm sure if Chipper would've gotten the extra 1400 at bats that Brett has on him, he would've gotten to 3,000 hits as well.

Chipper had more runs, HR, RBI's, and 500 more BB in 1,000 LESS plate appearances.

Chipper's career OPS: .930
Brett's career OPS: .857

The only thing Brett had on Chipper was durability. Both were great. Chipper was better.

 

[hive17]

AS games are not that great of a tool to measure greatness when comparing two players. Chipper played in the steroid era where offensive numbers were ballooned. He had THREE years of OPS over 1.000 and didn't make the AS game, including his MVP year. He also had two other seasons of .920 OPS + and did not make the AS team.

Brett's 1980 season was historical for sure, but that doesn't automatically make him greater 3B than Chipper.

Chipper's career BA was .303 and Brett's was .305. I'm sure if Chipper would've gotten the extra 1400 at bats that Brett has on him, he would've gotten to 3,000 hits as well.

Chipper had more runs, HR, RBI's, and 500 more BB in 1,000 LESS plate appearances.

Chipper's career OPS: .930
Brett's career OPS: .857

The only thing Brett had on Chipper was durability. Both were great. Chipper was better.

Brett's WAR is better, and he won a Gold Glove, which Chipper didn't. And I wasn't going to mention PEDs, because I don't think that helps anyone's argument. I would like to think Chipper didn't use, but please don't make the argument that his "clean" numbers are on par with litterally everyone else's "dirty" numbers. That just calls too many thing into question.

 

[markakis8]

Brett's WAR is better, and he won a Gold Glove, which Chipper didn't. And I wasn't going to mention PEDs, because I don't think that helps anyone's argument. I would like to think Chipper didn't use, but please don't make the argument that his "clean" numbers are on par with litterally everyone else's "dirty" numbers. That just calls too many thing into question.

You're grasping at straws here. Brett's WAR is 84 and Chipper's is 81.5.

"he won a gold glove" - nice. Rafael Palmeiro and Jeter won gold gloves too. Point is, Brett wasn't known as a defensive wizard.

And Brett played when steroids were being used as well. His numbers are just as "clean" as Chippers.

We can end the debate though. They were both great players.

 

[ThoseBackPages]

its funny. five years ago nobody outside of atlanta gave a XXXX about Larry Jones.

 

[ThoseBackPages]

also, with these discussions, it comes down to someones age as far as who they saw play live vs reading about stats on the internet

 

[notjomommasclint]

To me the bottom 4 of the top five 3rd basemen listed are interchangeable.. But 1 is rock solid fact. Michael jack Schmidt is the greatest third baseman to lace em up.

 

[hive17]

also, with these discussions, it comes down to someones age as far as who they saw play live vs reading about stats on the internet

Agreed. I saw both play on TV and in person (Brett multiple times, and Chipper once in person maybe against Milwaukee). That's why I feel the way I do about Brett.

Also:

George Brett had a great meal, true story - YouTube

 

[markakis8]

also, with these discussions, it comes down to someones age as far as who they saw play live vs reading about stats on the internet

I saw George Brett play. I missed a couple of his early years, but I saw him in his prime.

 

[sawmillthug]

Me too. Watched George Brett play the game a lot since I was little.