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

  • #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


    • #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


      • #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


        • #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


          • #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


            • #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


              • #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


                • #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


                  • #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


                    • 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


                      • 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


                        • 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


                          • 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


                            • 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


                              • 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

                                Working...
                                X