Jim Edmonds

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan
    Registered User
    • May 2008
    • 1222

    #91
    Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear View Post
    It's not unfair to ask: If Dawson, why not Edmonds?
    A couple of good reasons actually: 1) Dawson won an MVP in 1987, and twice finished runner-up in 1981 & 1983. Obviously, winning the MVP award in any given year is the ultimate validation of greatness - over a whole season anyway; 2) Dawson has much greater longevity, with about 2800 more PA's than Edmonds. This is very significant when you consider the borderline nature of Edmond's permanence.

    Comment

    • Cougar
      Registered User
      • Jan 2003
      • 9059

      #92
      Originally posted by Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan View Post
      A couple of good reasons actually: 1) Dawson won an MVP in 1987, and twice finished runner-up in 1981 & 1983. Obviously, winning the MVP award in any given year is the ultimate validation of greatness - over a whole season anyway
      Whaaa??? First and foremost, the 1987 MVP voting in both leagues is notorious for being awful. Ozzie Smith was the league MVP that year, and if it wasn't him, it was Jack Clark, and if it wasn't him, it was Tim Raines, or Mike Schmidt, or Eric Davis, or Will Clark, or Darryl Strawberry, or Dale Murphy, or Pedro Guerrero...

      Dawson was a great player, and he put up some superb counting stats that season. He also deserved a lot of credit for giving the Cubs a blank contract in the face of collusion; that narrative probably got him the prize. Frankly I'm glad he won because I like Hawk, and I think he is a HOFer based on the totality of his career, but this wasn't his year, it was Ozzie's.

      So, to paraphrase Bill James, if that's the ultimate validation, I'm a lug nut.

      Originally posted by Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan View Post
      2) Dawson has much greater longevity, with about 2800 more PA's than Edmonds.
      I'm totally OK with this...important point to be made in Dawson's favor.

      Originally posted by Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan View Post
      This is very significant when you consider the borderline nature of Edmond's permanence.
      "The borderline nature of [his] permanence"?? What on earth do you mean by this?

      --------------------------------------------

      Cards on the table -- I think Dawson is a legit HOFer, bad OBP and all, and I think Edmonds is too. Who is better -- very tough call? Given that they were both multi-tooled CFers, it's amazing how different they are.

      Dawson -- early peak, lots of power, lots of speed and SB, durable despite ravaged knees but had to be moved to RF mid-career, great fielder nonetheless, biggest weakness is plate discipline.

      Edmonds -- late peak, good but not great power (smaller parks helped), very average speed for a CF but got to everything somehow anyway, brittle (only 150 games 4x) but was able to remain in CF into his forties, plate discipline one of hsi biggest strengths.

      Their career HR are close, their career TOB are close (Dawson's better on both counts because he played 600-odd more games so far), their career BA's are close...

      It's a tough comparison -- almost a matter of taste. Era matters too...if Hawk were 20 years younger, he'd be coached to have better plate discipline, he'd steal fewer bases, and he'd play on grass and have better doctors so presumably his knees would be much better. If Edmonds were 20 years older...well, I've already said he'd probably look a lot like Fred Lynn, but that's a rosy scenario.

      Comment

      • Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan
        Registered User
        • May 2008
        • 1222

        #93
        Originally posted by Cougar View Post
        Whaaa??? First and foremost, the 1987 MVP voting in both leagues is notorious for being awful. Ozzie Smith was the league MVP that year, and if it wasn't him, it was Jack Clark, and if it wasn't him, it was Tim Raines, or Mike Schmidt, or Eric Davis, or Will Clark, or Darryl Strawberry, or Dale Murphy, or Pedro Guerrero...

        Dawson was a great player, and he put up some superb counting stats that season. He also deserved a lot of credit for giving the Cubs a blank contract in the face of collusion; that narrative probably got him the prize. Frankly I'm glad he won because I like Hawk, and I think he is a HOFer based on the totality of his career, but this wasn't his year, it was Ozzie's.

        So, to paraphrase Bill James, if that's the ultimate validation, I'm a lug nut.
        Whether or not Dawson deserved the MVP award that year is debatable. What ultimately matters is he DID win it, and the annals of history bestows Dawson his commensurate respect. The voters won't care that Ozzie or whoever should have been the winner, unless the voting was a complete travesty. Dawson's numbers were substantial enough that most people do accept his winning it as legitimate.


        Originally posted by Cougar View Post
        "The borderline nature of [his] permanence"?? What on earth do you mean by this?
        It means simply that the length of Edmonds career is borderline in terms of games played, at least vis a vis his contemporaries. Because of this, Edmonds may have to go the Veterans Committee route to be enshrined (example: Earl Averill, Arky Vaughan)

        Comment

        • jjpm74
          • Jan 2008
          • 19329

          #94
          Jim Edmonds has none of the milestone numbers the writers like, no MVP awards, and only 4 All-Star appearances, and in an offense heavy position, won 8 gold gloves.

          Career wise, he has less than 2000 hits, only 67 SBs, and nowhere near 1500 RBIs or Runs. Edmonds will probably be one and done when he becomes eligible for the HOF.

          Comment

          • PVNICK
            Registered User
            • Jul 2007
            • 13688

            #95
            Its too bad but I tend to agree with JJPM's assessment (too bad for Edmonds not the agreeing)
            Edmonds routinely finishes in the back third of most people's top 10 CF or at least honorable mention so to say he is not going to get into the HOF, well sux.

            As for Dawson, he got in or established himself as "great" "one of the best players in baseball" on the back of 81-83 not the 87 season or his Cubs career for that matter, IMO.

            late edit: as for the question at hand, I voted yes only b/c I saw it first. really it is both I think he will deserve to get in but no I don't think his #s will get him in b/c I don't vote nor are my standards necessarily those of those who do.
            Last edited by PVNICK; 08-13-2010, 04:14 AM.

            Comment

            • Jsquared83
              Registered User
              • Mar 2009
              • 531

              #96
              Edmonds needs to hit 3 milestones or round numbers, 400/1200 and 2000. Dale Murphy would have been in by now if he hit 2 more homers. Meaningless to us but those voters get all giddy about a player when they see whole numbers followed by 2 or 3 zeroes at the end.

              Comment

              • Cougar
                Registered User
                • Jan 2003
                • 9059

                #97
                Originally posted by Jsquared83 View Post
                Edmonds needs to hit 3 milestones or round numbers, 400/1200 and 2000. Dale Murphy would have been in by now if he hit 2 more homers. Meaningless to us but those voters get all giddy about a player when they see whole numbers followed by 2 or 3 zeroes at the end.
                I'm inclined to agree that those milestone numbers are very important to Edmonds' odds for getting into the Hall, although they factor little into his actual worthiness.

                400 HR -- He's at .390 -- 10 away, with 47 games left in the Reds' season. He won't get all ten, but he's likely to get somewhere between 2-5. If he plays in 2011 he'll pick the rest up.

                1200 RBI -- He's at 1196. For all practical purposes, it would take a season ending injury to keep him from reaching this mark this season.

                2000 hits -- He's at 1943. He isn't going to get 57 hits in 47 games (especially given he doesn't play every day). But he can get close with 25 to 40 hits, and get the rest early in 2011 if he plays.

                Basically, if Edmonds cares at all about the Hall, it's in his interest to try to hang on next year and pick up those milestones if it's at all possible.

                I think you're right about Dale Murphy falling short of 400 HR costing him an early Hall call. I still think he'll get there eventually...he was revered by his peers, so when the VC votes or meets or whatever they're doing and the committee is full of Murph's contemporaries, justice will be served.

                Boy, I remember how hard Dale Murphy tried for those last two...he had 396 at the end of 1991, coming off a season of .252/18/81...not good enough for a corner OF carrying Murphy's salary, but probably about replacement level. In 1992 he was injured and could only muster 10 hits in 18 games; though 2 were HR. Even though his contract was up, the Phillies brought him back for spring training in 1993, but released him right before the start of the season because it was clear he had utterly nothing left.

                Murphy then signed with the expansion Colorado Rockies, partly on the notion if that you can't hit 2 home runs in Denver, you can't hit them anywhere. All of baseball was rooting for him.

                He couldn't even hit one home run; he managed to hit five singles and a double, for a paltry .143 BA, through May 21, when Murphy decided he had had enough and retired.

                Comment

                • Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan
                  Registered User
                  • May 2008
                  • 1222

                  #98
                  Originally posted by Jsquared83 View Post
                  Dale Murphy would have been in by now if he hit 2 more homers. Meaningless to us but those voters get all giddy about a player when they see whole numbers followed by 2 or 3 zeroes at the end.
                  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.
                  Last edited by Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan; 08-13-2010, 07:25 AM.

                  Comment

                  • Cougar
                    Registered User
                    • Jan 2003
                    • 9059

                    #99
                    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.

                    Give the voters a tad more credit than that fellas.
                    Those initial extra votes lead to momentum for his candidacy...he wouldn't have been first ballot, but if he started out his first year of eligibility (1999) at, say 30%, instead of 19%, he's "almost halfway to 75%", and is on everyone's radar for the next year.

                    Maybe he makes the slow climb instead of or along with Rice (30% his first ballot) and Dawson (45% his first ballot).

                    Comment

                    • Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan
                      Registered User
                      • May 2008
                      • 1222

                      Originally posted by Cougar View Post
                      Those initial extra votes lead to momentum for his candidacy...he wouldn't have been first ballot, but if he started out his first year of eligibility (1999) at, say 30%, instead of 19%, he's "almost halfway to 75%", and is on everyone's radar for the next year.

                      Maybe he makes the slow climb instead of or along with Rice (30% his first ballot) and Dawson (45% his first ballot).
                      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.

                      Comment

                      • Jsquared83
                        Registered User
                        • Mar 2009
                        • 531

                        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.

                        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.

                        Comment

                        • Jsquared83
                          Registered User
                          • Mar 2009
                          • 531

                          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.

                          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.

                          Comment

                          • Cougar
                            Registered User
                            • Jan 2003
                            • 9059

                            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.

                            Comment

                            • Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan
                              Registered User
                              • May 2008
                              • 1222

                              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.

                              Comment

                              • Jsquared83
                                Registered User
                                • Mar 2009
                                • 531

                                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.

                                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.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X