Announcement

Collapse

Updated Baseball Fever Policy

Baseball Fever Policy

I. Purpose of this announcement:

This announcement describes the policies pertaining to the operation of Baseball Fever.

Baseball Fever is a moderated baseball message board which encourages and facilitates research and information exchange among fans of our national pastime. The intent of the Baseball Fever Policy is to ensure that Baseball Fever remains an extremely high quality, extremely low "noise" environment.

Baseball Fever is administrated by three principal administrators:
webmaster - Baseball Fever Owner
The Commissioner - Baseball Fever Administrator
Macker - Baseball Fever Administrator

And a group of forum specific super moderators. The role of the moderator is to keep Baseball Fever smoothly and to screen posts for compliance with our policy. The moderators are ALL volunteer positions, so please be patient and understanding of any delays you might experience in correspondence.

II. Comments about our policy:

Any suggestions on this policy may be made directly to the webmaster.

III. Acknowledgments:

This document was based on a similar policy used by SABR.

IV. Requirements for participation on Baseball Fever:

Participation on Baseball Fever is available to all baseball fans with a valid email address, as verified by the forum's automated system, which then in turn creates a single validated account. Multiple accounts by a single user are prohibited.

By registering, you agree to adhere to the policies outlined in this document and to conduct yourself accordingly. Abuse of the forum, by repeated failure to abide by these policies, will result in your access being blocked to the forum entirely.

V. Baseball Fever Netiquette:

Participants at Baseball Fever are required to adhere to these principles, which are outlined in this section.
a. All posts to Baseball Fever should be written in clear, concise English, with proper grammar and accurate spelling. The use of abbreviations should be kept to a minimum; when abbreviation is necessary, they should be either well-known (such as etc.), or explained on their first use in your post.

b. Conciseness is a key attribute of a good post.

c. Quote only the portion of a post to which you are responding.

d. Standard capitalization and punctuation make a large difference in the readability of a post. TYPING IN ALL CAPITALS is considered to be "shouting"; it is a good practice to limit use of all capitals to words which you wish to emphasize.

e. It is our policy NOT to transmit any defamatory or illegal materials.

f. Personal attacks of any type against Baseball Fever readers will not be tolerated. In these instances the post will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the personal attack via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue personal attacks will be banned from the site.

g. It is important to remember that many contextual clues available in face-to-face discussion, such as tone of voice and facial expression, are lost in the electronic forum. As a poster, try to be alert for phrasing that might be misinterpreted by your audience to be offensive; as a reader, remember to give the benefit of the doubt and not to take umbrage too easily. There are many instances in which a particular choice of words or phrasing can come across as being a personal attack where none was intended.

h. The netiquette described above (a-g) often uses the term "posts", but applies equally to Private Messages.

VI. Baseball Fever User Signature Policy

A signature is a piece of text that some members may care to have inserted at the end of ALL of their posts, a little like the closing of a letter. You can set and / or change your signature by editing your profile in the UserCP. Since it is visible on ALL your posts, the following policy must be adhered to:

Signature Composition
Font size limit: No larger than size 2 (This policy is a size 2)
Style: Bold and italics are permissible
Character limit: No more than 500 total characters
Lines: No more than 4 lines
Colors: Most colors are permissible, but those which are hard to discern against the gray background (yellow, white, pale gray) should be avoided
Images/Graphics: Allowed, but nothing larger than 20k and Content rules must be followed

Signature Content
No advertising is permitted
Nothing political or religious
Nothing obscene, vulgar, defamatory or derogatory
Links to personal blogs/websites are permissible - with the webmaster's written consent
A Link to your Baseball Fever Blog does not require written consent and is recommended
Quotes must be attributed. Non-baseball quotes are permissible as long as they are not religious or political

Please adhere to these rules when you create your signature. Failure to do so will result in a request to comply by a moderator. If you do not comply within a reasonable amount of time, the signature will be removed and / or edited by an Administrator. Baseball Fever reserves the right to edit and / or remove any or all of your signature line at any time without contacting the account holder.

VII. Appropriate and inappropriate topics for Baseball Fever:

Most concisely, the test for whether a post is appropriate for Baseball Fever is: "Does this message discuss our national pastime in an interesting manner?" This post can be direct or indirect: posing a question, asking for assistance, providing raw data or citations, or discussing and constructively critiquing existing posts. In general, a broad interpretation of "baseball related" is used.

Baseball Fever is not a promotional environment. Advertising of products, web sites, etc., whether for profit or not-for-profit, is not permitted. At the webmaster's discretion, brief one-time announcements for products or services of legitimate baseball interest and usefulness may be allowed. If advertising is posted to the site it will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the post via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue advertising will be banned from the site. If the advertising is spam-related, pornography-based, or a "visit-my-site" type post / private message, no warning at all will be provided, and the member will be banned immediately without a warning.

It is considered appropriate to post a URL to a page which specifically and directly answers a question posted on the list (for example, it would be permissible to post a link to a page containing home-road splits, even on a site which has advertising or other commercial content; however, it would not be appropriate to post the URL of the main page of the site). The site reserves the right to limit the frequency of such announcements by any individual or group.

In keeping with our test for a proper topic, posting to Baseball Fever should be treated as if you truly do care. This includes posting information that is, to the best of your knowledge, complete and accurate at the time you post. Any errors or ambiguities you catch later should be acknowledged and corrected in the thread, since Baseball Fever is sometimes considered to be a valuable reference for research information.

VIII. Role of the moderator:

When a post is submitted to Baseball Fever, it is forwarded by the server automatically and seen immediately. The moderator may:
a. Leave the thread exactly like it was submitted. This is the case 95% of the time.

b. Immediately delete the thread as inappropriate for Baseball Fever. Examples include advertising, personal attacks, or spam. This is the case 1% of the time.

c. Move the thread. If a member makes a post about the Marlins in the Yankees forum it will be moved to the appropriate forum. This is the case 3% of the time.

d. Edit the message due to an inappropriate item. This is the case 1% of the time. There have been new users who will make a wonderful post, then add to their signature line (where your name / handle appears) a tagline that is a pure advertisement. This tagline will be removed, a note will be left in the message so he/she is aware of the edit, and personal contact will be made to the poster telling them what has been edited and what actions need to be taken to prevent further edits.

The moderators perform no checks on posts to verify factual or logical accuracy. While he/she may point out gross errors in factual data in replies to the thread, the moderator does not act as an "accuracy" editor. Also moderation is not a vehicle for censorship of individuals and/or opinions, and the moderator's decisions should not be taken personally.

IX. Legal aspects of participation in Baseball Fever:

By submitting a post to Baseball Fever, you grant Baseball Fever permission to distribute your message to the forum. Other rights pertaining to the post remain with the ORIGINAL author, and you may not redistribute or retransmit any posts by any others, in whole or in part, without the express consent of the original author.

The messages appearing on Baseball Fever contain the opinions and views of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of Baseball Fever, or of the Baseball Almanac family of sites.

Sincerely,

Sean Holtz, Webmaster of Baseball Almanac & Baseball Fever
www.baseball-almanac.com | www.baseball-fever.com
"Baseball Almanac: Sharing Baseball. Sharing History."
See more
See less

Jim Edmonds

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by John Shoemaker View Post
    Does anyone know if Edmonds is trying to catch on with a team to play this year? I hope he does - IMO there are a lot of teams he can help.
    Whereabouts unknown. He's still a free agent as of now: Free Agent Tracker MLB Trade Rumors

    Players debuting since 1985, 1000+ games in CF, 5500+ PA
    Code:
      Cnt Player            OPS+  RC   OBP    G    PA  From  To
    +----+-----------------+----+----+-----+----+-----+----+----+
        1 Ken Griffey        138 1934  .373 2521 10742 1989 2008 
        2 Jim Edmonds        132 1364  .377 1925  7708 1993 2008 
        3 Ellis Burks        126 1350  .363 2000  8176 1987 2004 
        4 Bernie Williams    125 1445  .381 2076  9053 1991 2006 
        5 Ray Lankford       122 1045  .364 1701  6674 1990 2004 
        6 Carlos Beltran     118 1079  .357 1481  6520 1998 2008 
        7 Andruw Jones       111 1104  .339 1836  7514 1996 2008 
        8 Kenny Lofton       107 1386  .372 2103  9234 1991 2007 
        9 Mike Cameron       106  959  .340 1680  6807 1995 2008 
       10 Torii Hunter       105  737  .326 1380  5502 1997 2008 
       11 Steve Finley       104 1416  .332 2583 10460 1989 2007 
       12 Johnny Damon       103 1296  .354 1988  8807 1995 2008 
       13 Devon White         98 1022  .319 1941  8080 1985 2001 
       14 Lance Johnson       95  706  .334 1447  5800 1987 2000 
       15 Marquis Grissom     92 1101  .318 2165  8959 1989 2005 
       16 Brian McRae         92  689  .331 1354  5737 1990 1999 
       17 Juan Pierre         84  697  .346 1288  5639 2000 2008
    Last edited by Freakshow; 03-23-2009, 12:44 PM.
    Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam, circumspice.

    Comprehensive Reform for the Veterans Committee -- Fixing the Hall continued.

    Comment


    • #77
      I voted no. If Dale Murphy isn't in, I don't think Edmonds should be in. Murphy won two MVP awards, and didn't play in the offensive-friendly era Edmonds did. Looking at his numbers, though, Jimmy is definitely at least a borderline canidate (personally, though, if you're borderline, I don't think you should go in the HoF). Amazing that a guy with Edmonds speed only stole 65 bases, though.
      "You have probably heard that I use my scorecard to convey information. Since our opponents know this, they keep a close watch on every movement I make with my scorecard, but this is fortified with many other devices."

      -Connie Mack

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Gravy Train View Post
        I voted no. If Dale Murphy isn't in, I don't think Edmonds should be in. Murphy won two MVP awards, and didn't play in the offensive-friendly era Edmonds did. Looking at his numbers, though, Jimmy is definitely at least a borderline canidate (personally, though, if you're borderline, I don't think you should go in the HoF). Amazing that a guy with Edmonds speed only stole 65 bases, though.
        I'm not objecting to the conclusion -- I think Gravy Train has got it more or less exactly correct; Edmonds is borderline -- but I do object to the reasoning. Simply, two wrongs don't make a right.

        Murphy is better than Edmonds, I agree...indeed, I think he's so much better that it's a travesty he's only receiving vote totals from the BBWAA in the teens or whatever they've been on late. Murphy is better than half the center fielders in the Hall of Fame right now.

        However, if Edmonds is worthy, regardless of his rank compared to other worthies, his induction ought to be supported. Players ought to be considered on their own merits.

        To put it another way, if Ty Cobb for some bizarre reason weren't in the Hall, it wouldn't improve matters to exclude Tris Speaker on the logic that he wasn't as good as Cobb. A HOFer is a HOFer, and aiming for some sort of cosmic justice is foolhardy. The best bet for such justice is to slowly but surely improve matters one step at a time, and hope that someday we'll get to the top of the mountain.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Ace Venom View Post
          If Andre Dawson can't get in, then neither should Jim Edmonds. Edmonds is good, but he's not a Hall of Famer. Then again, if they let Jim Rice in, they could let Edmonds in. It's not a hard and fast rule, so I look at Jimmy Baseball's numbers and I have to say no. I won't say his career is done, but he needs another season.
          Dawson's and Edmonds' cases have nothing to do with each other, never mind the fact Dawson will almost certainly be inducted in the Hall of Fame before Edmonds sees his first ballot. Edmonds deserves to be in because he was great enough for long enough, not because he's better than Rice.
          "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
          "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
          "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
          "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear View Post
            Edmonds is, IMO, in the Duke Snider mold. He's not as good, of course, but he's cut out of the Snider mold. How much below Snider can you be and still be a HOFer?
            Well, I don't want to debate Jim Edmonds vs Duke Snider here. But, as to the how much below Snider can you be and still be a HOFer, I'd say quite a bit.

            Don't have any data in front of me, but there probably are at least 150 position players in the HOF. Quite a few- help, somebody- were elected by the Veterans' Committees. It's true that Duke wasn't elected until his 11th try, but that was due to many circumstances, which I won't go into now. Some were salient, some were not.

            Most recent/current polls place Duke Snider somewhere in the top 60 or so position players of all time. Some, like James, place him considerably higher. If these opinions are accepted, it seems that Snider is at least in the middle- probably higher- in the hierarchy of HOF position players.

            So, in my opinion, the answer to the question is- LOTS- maybe 100 player's worth- if voting was rational.

            Edmonds has been a very good player for quite a few years. His lack of counting stats and his lack of league leaderships will work against him. I don't believe he will be voted into the HOF by the BBWA, but many stranger things have happened.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Cougar View Post
              I'm not objecting to the conclusion -- I think Gravy Train has got it more or less exactly correct; Edmonds is borderline -- but I do object to the reasoning. Simply, two wrongs don't make a right.

              Murphy is better than Edmonds, I agree...indeed, I think he's so much better that it's a travesty he's only receiving vote totals from the BBWAA in the teens or whatever they've been on late. Murphy is better than half the center fielders in the Hall of Fame right now.

              However, if Edmonds is worthy, regardless of his rank compared to other worthies, his induction ought to be supported. Players ought to be considered on their own merits.

              To put it another way, if Ty Cobb for some bizarre reason weren't in the Hall, it wouldn't improve matters to exclude Tris Speaker on the logic that he wasn't as good as Cobb. A HOFer is a HOFer, and aiming for some sort of cosmic justice is foolhardy. The best bet for such justice is to slowly but surely improve matters one step at a time, and hope that someday we'll get to the top of the mountain.
              Fair enough. I generally don't go in for the whole "if so-and-so is in the Hall, this guy should be, too," anyhow. How many players compare favorably to Rabbit Marinville or Jim Bunning, for example? A better way to put that would have been: if Dale Murphy, who had similar numbers, but also won two MVPs, hasn't sniffed Cooperstown, why should Edmonds be inducted? In the end, though, you would have to judge each player individually.
              "You have probably heard that I use my scorecard to convey information. Since our opponents know this, they keep a close watch on every movement I make with my scorecard, but this is fortified with many other devices."

              -Connie Mack

              Comment


              • #82
                Threads merged, but with the new poll in place instead. The prior poll was 54-20 against Edmonds, or almost precisely 73-27% against.
                Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
                Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
                A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

                Comment


                • #83
                  I went with yes for the fact that I believe he deserves to be in the hall. That said I don't think he'll get in via the writers. When you look at his combination of offensive production and great defensive ability at a very important defensive position he's above the HOF line.
                  My dream ballpark dimensions
                  LF: 388 Feet...Height 37 Feet...LCF: 455 Feet...CF: 542 Feet...Height 35 Feet
                  RCF: 471 Feet...RF: 400 Feet...Height 60 Feet
                  Location....San Diego

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Sockeye View Post
                    I went with yes for the fact that I believe he deserves to be in the hall. That said I don't think he'll get in via the writers. When you look at his combination of offensive production and great defensive ability at a very important defensive position he's above the HOF line.
                    It's hard to say. Edmonds was a "Web Gems" player in his best years; he was dramatic and memorable. If Bobby Thomson were a career CF with Edmonds' numbers, he'd already be in the HOF, IMO.

                    I'll be amazed if no team takes a flyer on Edmonds. He certainly appears to have something left in the tank, and he seems to have recovered from his concussion problems. Edmonds played at All-Star level with the Cubs; he's certainly a stronger bet in CF than some guys who are pencilled in as starters.
                    "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."

                    NL President Ford Frick, 1947

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Edmonds would actually make a lot of sense for the Yankees: They need a good glove in CF, and his lefty power will presumably play well in the new Yankee Stadium, given that its dimensions are similar to the old one. They're in "win now" mode, so not giving the time to a younger player isn't a big deal...

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        old thread but what do you think about jim edmonds chances?

                        -some GGs at CF
                        -close to 400 HRs
                        -131 career ops+
                        -good peak but no real black ink (00-04: .298/.410/.593 with 156 OPS+)

                        on the downside he only will end up with 2000 hits and 1200 rbi and never was top 3 in a mvp race. but he had a long and very good career.
                        I now have my own non commercial blog about training for batspeed and power using my training experience in baseball and track and field.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by dominik View Post
                          old thread but what do you think about jim edmonds chances?

                          -some GGs at CF
                          -close to 400 HRs
                          -131 career ops+
                          -good peak but no real black ink (00-04: .298/.410/.593 with 156 OPS+)

                          on the downside he only will end up with 2000 hits and 1200 rbi and never was top 3 in a mvp race. but he had a long and very good career.
                          His chances? Not great. His deservedness? Yes.
                          1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

                          1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

                          1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


                          The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
                          The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Taking into consideration "class," professionalism, hustle, and leadership, he should be considered. His stats, however, will probably preclude his induction into the HOF.

                            That said, as a Milwaukee Brewers fan I'd like to acknowledge and thank him for his contributions to the 2010 Brewers, and wish him well if the Cinci Reds make it into postseason!

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by dominik View Post
                              old thread but what do you think about jim edmonds chances?

                              -some GGs at CF
                              -close to 400 HRs
                              -131 career ops+
                              -good peak but no real black ink (00-04: .298/.410/.593 with 156 OPS+)

                              on the downside he only will end up with 2000 hits and 1200 rbi and never was top 3 in a mvp race. but he had a long and very good career.
                              That's an interesting question, considering he was a good fielding CF. As I try remembering recent HOF worthy players who spent their WHOLE career in CF, I can't think of any off hand. I mean, there's Bernie Williams, but he was inferior offensively and produced -118 runs saved in his career defensively according to TZone (Edmonds is +94). And then there's Andruw Jones, but he's significantly inferior offensively and about the same defensively according to TZone. While there's been a few player who've spent part of their careers in CF, then switched over to a corner outfield position, Edmonds is unique in that he spent all his playing days in center. Edmonds of course is a 8 time Gold Glover, and IMO has a HOF peak.

                              However, Edmonds also has his minuses. He spent plenty of time on the DL, and got a relatively late start to begin with. He only played 150+ games 4 times. And although he could move well when he got going, he was a lousy basestealer. He also was a fairly poor situational hitter for a middle-of-the-order player, with a lifetime RISP of just .268 (.851 OPS) and .229 RISP w/2 outs (.783 OPS - 952 AB), and bases loaded (.286 - .806 OPS).

                              I suppose Edmonds is worth a second look if you deem a CF-only guy to hold significantly more value than a corner outfield guy, because Edmonds would be below a few guys in that instance. Edmonds place it history ultimately depends on how much worth you define his accomplishments as a centerfielder, since there are relatively few who stay in that position their whole career and produce the numbers Edmonds has.

                              But given the historic offensive era in which he played, Edmonds won't be elected anytime soon. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Edmonds take the Jim Rice path to the HOF, perhaps getting in on a weaker ballot in the back-end of his eligibility. With a bit more time & perspective, I believe history will smile favorably upon him.
                              Last edited by Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan; 08-12-2010, 06:13 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Edmonds has had a good season this year; it's close to his career norms, suggesting that he can hang on another year.

                                If Edmonds continues to play as he has this year, and comes back somewhere next year, he's likely to reach 400 HRs. That'll be impressive; it'll make his career look more impressive at a glance.

                                There's been some talk about how much below Duke Snider can you be and still be a HOFer. The answer is: You can be as far below Snider as Andre Dawson is and still be a HOFer.

                                Was Dawson REALLY better than Edmonds? I doubt it. Edmonds was the superior offensive player (.659 OWP to .595 OWP for Dawson), and he played CF for a greater part of his career (Dawson actually logged more time outside of CF, although most of his star years were in CF.) Other than steals, I find it hard to demonstrate how Dawson was better, in any facet of the game, than Edmonds was. Edmonds had a higher peak, and is producing at a higher level at age 39 than Dawson was at age 39. It's not unfair to ask: If Dawson, why not Edmonds?
                                "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."

                                NL President Ford Frick, 1947

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X