View Poll Results: Does Jim Edmonds deserve to be enshrined in Cooperstown?

Voters
9. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    8 88.89%
  • No

    1 11.11%
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 222

Thread: Jim Edmonds

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    501
    The round number argument is pretty absurd, to us. To some, not all voters, would see a 400 HR, 1300 RBI Dale Murphy in a different light. Not saying he would have been inducted on a first or even second or third ballot but like a lot of borderline guys, like Cougar mentions.. if they can build a solid 30-35% on their first ballot, they can usually build a following to get elected after 8-10 years.

    Dale's voting went 19, 23, 18, 15 and has levelled off around 12. He's all but dead in the water for BBWAA election.

    An interesting case to follow, not to go off subject too much will be Fred McGriff, receiving an extremely low 21.5% this past year. 7 more measly homeruns would have gotten him almost triple the percentage this year and probably election in 2011 or 2012. I think coupled with lowered offensive numbers this year, his 493/1550 will once again stand out to voters. Watch for his rise in the ballots next year.

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan View Post
    I always thought the 'round number' argument is absurd. I don't agree at all with this statement. Murphy would have got some extra votes in this instance, but it wouldn't have carried him to induction; he's just too far away. The round number theory is only helpful to give a player who's really close to being HOF worthy that extra push he needs to get in. To say that 2 more HR would suddenly turn Murphy from a guy who routinely gets 25% of the vote to an inductee is preposterous.

    And the same thing goes for Edmonds: getting to 400 HR will help somewhat, but if he's ultimately only going to get 25% as his career stands now, it won't help him all that much post retirement. It might get him to 40%. Anyway, the milestone theory is much more important for the significant milestone like 500 or 1500 or 3000; not necessarily 400 or 1200 or .290

    Give the voters a tad more credit than that fellas.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    501
    We're all not in agreement that Dale belongs, however in the eyes of the voters, 2 more homeruns in his career would have gotten his HOF voting % much higher than his 23% peak.

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan View Post
    But then again, maybe not.

    Dale Murphy doesn't belong in the HOF regardless of whether he attained 2 more HR or not. Too much mediocrity surrounding a HOF peak. An extra 10 HR may make more of a difference in Edmonds case, since he is a stronger candidate, both offensively and defensively, and spent more time in CF.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    4,220
    Blog Entries
    1
    Murphy just missed 1200 runs scored as well, with 1197. Two of those runs would have come when he drove himself in with HR 399 and 400.

    This is a pretty subtle point, but Murphy lost 50-55 games to the 1981 strike, where he certainly would have hit a few more home runs (even given he was having a lousy season). Is Dale Murphy's HOF candidacy a casualty of the 1981 players' strike? One could make a pretty fair argument.

  4. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Jsquared83 View Post
    An interesting case to follow, not to go off subject too much will be Fred McGriff, receiving an extremely low 21.5% this past year. 7 more measly homeruns would have gotten him almost triple the percentage this year and probably election in 2011 or 2012. I think coupled with lowered offensive numbers this year, his 493/1550 will once again stand out to voters. Watch for his rise in the ballots next year.
    500 HR is more important to McGriff than 400 HR is to Murphy for two reasons: 1) 500 is a much more historically significant number and 2) McGriff is a better overall candidate since he had the better career. If Murpy got to 400 HR, I doubt his peak vote would have topped 30%. Like I said, the round number theory is no-doubt present, but it's more prevalent in cases with players with borderline credential and more significant milestones. McGriff fits both that criteria, while Murphy is just too far away.

    It will mean EVERYTHING for Damon to get to 3000, because 2990 will give voters every reason to shun him.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    501
    I agree that McGriff had the better career and certainly deserved better than his 21% showing this year. I think Mcgriff is a HOFer and Murphy is on the borderline. However, I think that psychologicaly, a swing voter can stomach/justify voting for a 400 HR guy as opposed to a 39x HR guy with Murphy-like credentials. It all depends how many of those were THAT close to pulling the trigger for Dale. I believe there were more than a few.

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan View Post
    500 HR is more important to McGriff than 400 HR is to Murphy for two reasons: 1) 500 is a much more historically significant number and 2) McGriff is a better overall candidate since he had the better career. If Murpy got to 400 HR, I doubt his peak vote would have topped 30%. Like I said, the round number theory is no-doubt present, but it's more prevalent in cases with players with borderline credential and more significant milestones. McGriff fits both that criteria, while Murphy is just too far away.

    It will mean EVERYTHING for Damon to get to 3000, because 2990 will give voters every reason to shun him.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    4,220
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan View Post
    500 HR is more important to McGriff than 400 HR is to Murphy for two reasons: 1) 500 is a much more historically significant number and 2) McGriff is a better overall candidate since he had the better career. If Murpy got to 400 HR, I doubt his peak vote would have topped 30%. Like I said, the round number theory is no-doubt present, but it's more prevalent in cases with players with borderline credential and more significant milestones. McGriff fits both that criteria, while Murphy is just too far away.

    It will mean EVERYTHING for Damon to get to 3000, because 2990 will give voters every reason to shun him.
    There's an even better argument that the 1994 lockout cost McGriff 500 HR. McGriff was having his greatest season, hitting .318 with 34 HR in 113 games; in a full season it would have been the year that jumped out at one from his Baseball Encyclopedia page (or his B-R page; I guess I'm dating myself). With 58 games left on the Braves' schedule, he might have made a run at 50 HR. He certainly would have hit the 7 more he would have needed to clear the 500 mark.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    4,220
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Jsquared83 View Post
    I agree that McGriff had the better career and certainly deserved better than his 21% showing this year. I think Mcgriff is a HOFer and Murphy is on the borderline. However, I think that psychologicaly, a swing voter can stomach/justify voting for a 400 HR guy as opposed to a 39x HR guy with Murphy-like credentials. It all depends how many of those were THAT close to pulling the trigger for Dale. I believe there were more than a few.
    Many suspect that now that Rice and Dawson are in, a lot of their votes will migrate to Murphy, as the best remaining slugging OF on the ballot. Murph could make a late charge in the voting. We'll see.
    Last edited by Cougar; 08-13-2010 at 08:27 AM.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    501
    Very possible. 8-10 more homeruns, maybe another 30 RBIs and hey.. 405-10 HR, 1290-1300 RBI and a little more visually pleasing of a line on the back of his baseball card for '81 :-D

    If Edmonds fails to gain election, its not going to be because of his lack of dominant peak or raw skill, it will be due to his fractured seasons and scattered injuries.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    Murphy just missed 1200 runs scored as well, with 1197. Two of those runs would have come when he drove himself in with HR 399 and 400.

    This is a pretty subtle point, but Murphy lost 50-55 games to the 1981 strike, where he certainly would have hit a few more home runs (even given he was having a lousy season). Is Dale Murphy's HOF candidacy a casualty of the 1981 players' strike? One could make a pretty fair argument.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    501
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    Many suspect that now that Rice and Murphy are in, a lot of their votes will migrate to Murphy, as the best remaining slugging OF on the ballot. Murph could make a late charge in the voting. We'll see.
    You mean Rice and Dawson? But yes, when you think of 80's power and dominant players. Murphy at his best was right in the discussion.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    501
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    There's an even better argument that the 1994 lockout cost McGriff 500 HR. McGriff was having his greatest season, hitting .318 with 34 HR in 113 games; in a full season it would have been the year that jumped out at one from his Baseball Encyclopedia page (or his B-R page; I guess I'm dating myself). With 58 games left on the Braves' schedule, he might have made a run at 50 HR. He certainly would have hit the 7 more he would have needed to clear the 500 mark.
    He would have also moved up on the MVP voting for that year. With Bagwell's injury, it would have been a race between him and Bonds. Gwynn would have continued his quest for .400 as well. Matt Williams was grossly overrated that year. Don't know why he finished 2nd.

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    4,220
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Jsquared83 View Post
    You mean Rice and Dawson? But yes, when you think of 80's power and dominant players. Murphy at his best was right in the discussion.
    Yes, I did mean Dawson...I've corrected the original post.

  12. #112
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    501
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    Yes, I did mean Dawson...I've corrected the original post.
    Ah just saw that now, was busy on my next post haha

  13. #113
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    4,220
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Jsquared83 View Post
    He would have also moved up on the MVP voting for that year. With Bagwell's injury, it would have been a race between him and Bonds. Gwynn would have continued his quest for .400 as well. Matt Williams was grossly overrated that year. Don't know why he finished 2nd.
    A heckuva good point!

    Looking at contenders: Montreal had two candidates that cancel each other out (Larry Walker and Moises Alou); so did the Giants with Bonds and Williams (who was making a run at Maris and was an A++ fielder at 3b back then). Cincinnati had three guys having borderline MVP seasons, none too compelling (Hal Morris, Bret Boone, and Kevin Mitchell). Piazza with the Dodgers would have been well into the mix. I wonder if Biggio would have picked up some of Bagwell's support if the Astros had stayed in the mix. And of course you have Gwynn, who might have batted .400 for the worst team in the NL, and Maddux, who was at the height of his powers, but of course faced the bias against starters winning the MVP.

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    4,220
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Jsquared83 View Post
    Ah just saw that now, was busy on my next post haha
    Actually I didn't catch it until you pointed it out, so thanks.

  15. #115
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    501
    no prob

    If Atlanta made a run at Montreal, I could see McGriff winning it with say a 45/130/.315 line. I never realized how dismal the western division teams were in both divisions that year, especially the AL.. ouch

    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    Actually I didn't catch it until you pointed it out, so thanks.

  16. #116
    Back to Edmonds.... On a pure merit basis, I think he has a reasonable case. Based on the way the HOF voters look at players, I think he has a very small chance of being voted in. As I'm sure many have mentioned- I haven't read all the posts- Edmonds has no impressive offensive counting numbers, particularly in this era. He just reached 2000 games, he almost surely won't reach 2000 hits or 400 homers if he retires this year. His lifetime line of .284/.376,.526 is very good but doesn't jump out- and, many voters still don't pay a lot of attention to OBP, SA, OPS, OPS+. Worse yet, for him, he never led the league in ANYTHING offensively- nothing. No black ink, not enough gray ink.

    He has a deserved reputation as an outstanding defender, but he's not legendary. He also missed a lot of games, including in his prime. In a 162 game era he had 140 games only 7 times.
    Edmonds is in that big soup bowl which contains nams like Averill, Berger, Puckett, Wilson, DMurphy, Doby, Ashburn, Dawson, maybe Lynn, Wynn, Pinson, and a few others. Some are in the HOF, some aren't. They're hard for voters to distinguish because they don't jump out.

    Edmunds has been a fine player but I don't believe he'll be voted in by the BBWA.

  17. #117
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    501
    Despite Edmonds' lack of black or gray ink, he has the best 5 year peak of any of those guys. as a perceived "clean" guy from the steroid era, his lesser showings in MVP are due to tainted players dominating the top of the leaderboards. And while not an A+ defender, he sure gave that appearance at his best. Defensive metrics will tell you that he was GG caliber for at least a few years.

    Can't argue with the injuries. That seems like the only factor keeping him from being a solid HOFer. Fill in his injury plagued seasons with merely pedestrian stats and he's a no brainer.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigRon View Post
    Back to Edmonds.... On a pure merit basis, I think he has a reasonable case. Based on the way the HOF voters look at players, I think he has a very small chance of being voted in. As I'm sure many have mentioned- I haven't read all the posts- Edmonds has no impressive offensive counting numbers, particularly in this era. He just reached 2000 games, he almost surely won't reach 2000 hits or 400 homers if he retires this year. His lifetime line of .284/.376,.526 is very good but doesn't jump out- and, many voters still don't pay a lot of attention to OBP, SA, OPS, OPS+. Worse yet, for him, he never led the league in ANYTHING offensively- nothing. No black ink, not enough gray ink.

    He has a deserved reputation as an outstanding defender, but he's not legendary. He also missed a lot of games, including in his prime. In a 162 game era he had 140 games only 7 times.
    Edmonds is in that big soup bowl which contains nams like Averill, Berger, Puckett, Wilson, DMurphy, Doby, Ashburn, Dawson, maybe Lynn, Wynn, Pinson, and a few others. Some are in the HOF, some aren't. They're hard for voters to distinguish because they don't jump out.

    Edmunds has been a fine player but I don't believe he'll be voted in by the BBWA.

  18. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan View Post
    I always thought the 'round number' argument is absurd. I don't agree at all with this statement. Murphy would have got some extra votes in this instance, but it wouldn't have carried him to induction; he's just too far away. The round number theory is only helpful to give a player who's really close to being HOF worthy that extra push he needs to get in. To say that 2 more HR would suddenly turn Murphy from a guy who routinely gets 25% of the vote to an inductee is preposterous.

    And the same thing goes for Edmonds: getting to 400 HR will help somewhat, but if he's ultimately only going to get 25% as his career stands now, it won't help him all that much post retirement. It might get him to 40%. Anyway, the milestone theory is much more important for the significant milestone like 500 or 1500 or 3000; not necessarily 400 or 1200 or .290

    Give the voters a tad more credit than that fellas.
    true with the milestones but he is not a corner OF but played a GG CF defense for many years. CF is the most important fielding pos. after catcher and the 2 middle IFs. this should help him a lot.

  19. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    Many suspect that now that Rice and Dawson are in, a lot of their votes will migrate to Murphy, as the best remaining slugging OF on the ballot. Murph could make a late charge in the voting. We'll see.
    I would love to see it, but I don't expect it. To me, Murphy was more deserving than either Rice or Dawson, but all three have always been in my brain's Hall of Fame.

  20. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by hairmetalfreek View Post
    I would love to see it, but I don't expect it. To me, Murphy was more deserving than either Rice or Dawson, but all three have always been in my brain's Hall of Fame.
    Murphy's vote total may increase but there's no chance he'll be votefd in. You need to focus only on one number- .265, his BA. He never was a real high relative BA guy to begin with, and his low offense era doomed him when he couldn't sustain big power numbers for 2- 3 more seasons. I see Murphy about on a par with Edmonds as a player- neither one will get voted in.

  21. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by BigRon View Post
    Murphy's vote total may increase but there's no chance he'll be votefd in. You need to focus only on one number- .265, his BA. He never was a real high relative BA guy to begin with, and his low offense era doomed him when he couldn't sustain big power numbers for 2- 3 more seasons. I see Murphy about on a par with Edmonds as a player- neither one will get voted in.
    really?

    they have similar HRs but:

    Murphy edmonds

    BA .265 .286
    OPS+ 121 131
    5y peak(ops+) 146 156
    slg .469 .526
    WAR 44.2 68.3!

    Edmonds is by far the superior player in every category. his WAR is clear HOF standard, murphys is not

  22. #122
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    6,399
    Quote Originally Posted by dominik View Post
    really?

    they have similar HRs but:

    Murphy edmonds

    BA .265 .286
    OPS+ 121 131
    5y peak(ops+) 146 156
    slg .469 .526
    WAR 44.2 68.3!

    Edmonds is by far the superior player in every category. his WAR is clear HOF standard, murphys is not
    Those peak OPS+ numbers are a little misleading since they played in different eras. Despite a lower OPS+ in his best 5 years, Murphy finished 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 4th, and 8th in the NL in his Top 5 OPS+ seasons. Whereas Edmunds, in his best 5 OPS+ seasons finished 3rd, 5th, 5th, 13th, and 14th in the National League in OPS+.

    Murphy was the 2nd best hitter, and 2nd best overall player, in the National League during his prime (1982-1987). And if you throw out his down 1986 season, I'd argue he was the best player in the National League over the other 5 years of that run. He's at least right there with Schmidt, outside of 1986.

    Even using a relative stat like OPS+ to compare them doesn't tell the whole story, since they played in such different eras.

    Though depending on how much you trust the defensive stats that show Edmunds to have been the better defender in those 5 year periods, he's got a good case of having the better 5-year peak. But Murphy won Gold Gloves in 4 of his 5 best OPS+ seasons, and won 5 straight. He was a very good center fielder, at worst, before his body started to break down.

  23. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by mwiggins View Post
    Those peak OPS+ numbers are a little misleading since they played in different eras. Despite a lower OPS+ in his best 5 years, Murphy finished 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 4th, and 8th in the NL in his Top 5 OPS+ seasons. Whereas Edmunds, in his best 5 OPS+ seasons finished 3rd, 5th, 5th, 13th, and 14th in the National League in OPS+.

    Murphy was the 2nd best hitter, and 2nd best overall player, in the National League during his prime (1982-1987). And if you throw out his down 1986 season, I'd argue he was the best player in the National League over the other 5 years of that run. He's at least right there with Schmidt, outside of 1986.

    Even using a relative stat like OPS+ to compare them doesn't tell the whole story, since they played in such different eras.

    Though depending on how much you trust the defensive stats that show Edmunds to have been the better defender in those 5 year periods, he's got a good case of having the better 5-year peak. But Murphy won Gold Gloves in 4 of his 5 best OPS+ seasons, and won 5 straight. He was a very good center fielder, at worst, before his body started to break down.
    OPS+ does adjust for eras. the 70s and 80s just were a very weak time for hitting. there was not much talent compared to now. and adjusted to that weaker competition morohy still was not as good. without adjustment it looks even worse.

    But you could argue that M. prime was not much worse. however his overall value is. 68 to 44 WAR is a huge difference.
    Last edited by dominik; 08-13-2010 at 03:50 PM.

  24. #124
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    6,399
    Quote Originally Posted by dominik View Post
    OPS+ does adjust for eras. the 70s and 80s just were a very weak time for hitting. there was not much talent compared to now. and adjusted to that weaker competition morohy still was not as good. without adjustment it looks even worse.

    But you could argue that M. prime was not much worse. however his overall value is. 68 to 44 WAR is a huge difference.
    Where is your evidence for that assumption?

    And OPS+ adjusts for the league average OBP and SLG, it doesn't level era differences to allow clean comparisons between players from different era's. All OPS+ says is how much better their OBP and SLG were than the league average that season. Doesn't mean a 140 OPS+ in one season is neccessarily "better" than a 135 OPS+ in another season. Esp when you have such different environments as early-to-mid-80's National League and early-2000's National League.

  25. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by mwiggins View Post
    Where is your evidence for that assumption?

    And OPS+ adjusts for the league average OBP and SLG, it doesn't level era differences to allow clean comparisons between players from different era's. All OPS+ says is how much better their OBP and SLG were than the league average that season. Doesn't mean a 140 OPS+ in one season is neccessarily "better" than a 135 OPS+ in another season. Esp when you have such different environments as early-to-mid-80's National League and early-2000's National League.
    OPS+ means how much better you were than the league. that means in a weaker league you need a lower OPS to reach the same OPS+. the league average shows pretty well how the era is suited for hitting. if the league average doesn't show how an era is suited for hitting what does then? So in fact OPS+ helps murphy compared to edmonds because it measures him to his (much weaker) opposition.


    All in all Edmonds was a much better hitter(plus he played his whole career at CF) even if you adjust for era.

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •