PDA

View Full Version : Jim Edmonds, Hall of Famer?



nycredsfan
04-22-2006, 05:09 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/04/21/extra.mustard/index.html

This is a pretty interesting article about Edmonds chances of making the Hall. People seem to have pretty strong opinions here on Edmonds so I thought you all might have something to say. I can't imagine him having a shot because while he has been impressively consistent, he never had that huge peak that is needed. As noted in the article, there are only two years in his career where you can say that he was the best player on his team.

OnBaseMachine
04-22-2006, 05:14 PM
Sure he is. He's better than Willie Mays, just ask Cards fans. ;)

WMR
04-22-2006, 05:14 PM
I bet Georgie-Porgie has some strong feelings on this subject.

RedsBaron
04-22-2006, 05:15 PM
IMO Edmonds is a borderline candidate. If his career ended now, he would not make the HOF, but, as the article pointed out, he isa entering a gray area. A few more strong seasons could put him in the Hall.

Joseph
04-22-2006, 05:18 PM
No. :)

Highlifeman21
04-22-2006, 05:26 PM
IIRC, Jim Edmonds had around 265 winshares through 2005. Also, according to Retrosheet, he had 36.6 Batter-Fielder Wins through 2005. While his career lines of .383 OBP and .542 SLG are respectable, he still only has roughly over 1600 H in roughly the same time frame of Games Played (1600). While that itself is a neat parlor stat of roughly 1 hit per game played, I don't think he's really in consideration until he breaks the 2500 H plateau, IMO.

Sure, there will be people saying he should get more of the Ozzie Smith defensive consideration, but I want and challenge someone to justify every one of Edmonds' gold gloves. While I think he takes good routes to balls, and seems to get an above average break on them, I think his arm is suspect, and it's no secret he slows up to make diving/highlight film plays.

As of right now, no, Jim Edmonds isn't a HOF for me.

MWM
04-22-2006, 05:27 PM
He needs another two maybe three years of production like he's had the last 5 years. Otherwise, no!

Red in Chicago
04-22-2006, 05:30 PM
even though the year is very young, what i've seen of him, he's not looking very solid so far...that said, he's at least 3 to 4 solid years away from making the hall...i don't think it's in the "cards" for him;)

Cyclone792
04-22-2006, 05:43 PM
Right now, I wouldn't put him in, though he's greater than some center fielders already in the Hall (Earle Combs and Lloyd Waner, to name a few), and he compares very well to several players already in the Hall (Max Carey, Hack Wilson, Earl Averill, Kirby Puckett, Larry Doby and Richie Ashburn). Then again, Dale Murphy fits much of that same criteria himself, and he's not in, same with Jimmy Wynn, who is probably even a better candidate than Murphy and Edmonds (so far). There's also even more players not in the Hall/still active who are in a similar grouping, guys such as Vada Pinson, Wally Berger and Bernie Williams.

Basically, Edmonds is in a group of about a dozen guys or so that are all borderline candidates. Roughly half are in, and Edmonds is no different being borderline himself right now.

Two more good seasons from Edmonds, however, and it's tough not to put him in since he'll likely rank higher than every one of those players listed above. In fact, if Edmonds has two more seasons of about 30 win shares each then he'll have a good argument to rank among the top 10 center fielders ever, and that is a clear Hall of Famer.

RFS62
04-22-2006, 06:29 PM
Maybe an Academy Award, but no hall of fame.

jmcclain19
04-22-2006, 06:40 PM
It's not the Hall of the Very Good.

I think Edmonds "Most similiar batters by Age 35" speaks volumes about whether or not he should get in.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp.cgi?I=edmonji01:Jim+Edmonds&st=age&compage=35


Sim Player From To Yrs G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG SB CS OPS+
+---++-------------------+---------+--+----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+---+----+
Jim Edmonds 1993-2005 13 1587 5557 1063 1619 362 21 331 998 825 1411 .291 .384 .543 59 46 138
906 Tim Salmon 1992-2004 13 1596 5723 956 1618 331 22 290 989 941 1316 .283 .386 .500 48 40 129
896 Ellis Burks 1987-2000 14 1672 6044 1045 1770 334 61 285 1012 657 1093 .293 .364 .510 171 79 125
894 Dick Allen 1963-1977 15 1749 6332 1099 1848 320 79 351 1119 894 1556 .292 .378 .534 133 52 156
892 Fred Lynn 1974-1987 14 1648 5985 955 1732 360 40 264 986 755 919 .289 .368 .495 67 51 133
883 Mo Vaughn 1991-2003 12 1512 5532 861 1620 270 10 328 1064 725 1429 .293 .383 .523 30 18 132
878* Willie Stargell 1962-1975 14 1753 6164 956 1750 336 49 368 1197 718 1497 .284 .361 .533 12 12 150
874 Reggie Smith 1966-1980 15 1840 6649 1067 1914 351 57 295 1028 837 976 .288 .366 .491 130 86 138
869 Larry Walker 1989-2002 14 1663 5880 1152 1863 410 50 335 1133 725 1023 .317 .398 .574 215 71 141
864 David Justice 1989-2001 13 1492 5227 875 1465 262 21 294 968 833 933 .280 .378 .507 49 45 130
861 Paul O'Neill 1985-1998 14 1621 5645 815 1639 353 16 223 989 727 928 .290 .369 .477 94 52 126
Jim Edmonds 1993-2005 13 1587 5557 1063 1619 362 21 331 998 825 1411 .291 .384 .543 59 46 138
+---++-------------------+---------+--+----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+---+----+
Average of all 10 Players 13 1654 5918 978 1721 332 40 303 1048 781 1167 .291 .374 .515 94 50 134
Avg of all 8 Retired Players 13 1660 5947 959 1717 323 41 301 1045 768 1166 .289 .370 .509 85 49 134

Would you put Tim Salmon or Ellis Burks in the Hall?

Willie Stargell is on that list, and his numbers are similiar when he played in one of the most pitching dominant eras in the history of baseball. Edmonds has racked up his stats in the steroid era.

OnBaseMachine
04-22-2006, 06:41 PM
Maybe an Academy Award, but no hall of fame.

:laugh: :laugh:

My serious answer - No. But as others have said, another three years of 900+ OPS production and my stance may change. He looks terrible at the plate this year so hopefully his career is wrapping up.

MWM
04-22-2006, 06:55 PM
The St. Louis version of Jim Edmonds is HOF caliber, IMO. The problem is that pre-St. Louis Edmonds was not HOF caliber and that's almost half his career. And he turns 36 in June and he had a 100 point drop in OPS last year so he's likely starting the ineitable decline in his career.

But his 5 year stretch from 2000-2004 is HOF caliber. IMO, he was the best CF in the game over that stretch. But that's not enough for the HOF, IMO.

Cyclone792
04-22-2006, 07:10 PM
It's not the Hall of the Very Good.

I think Edmonds "Most similiar batters by Age 35" speaks volumes about whether or not he should get in.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp.cgi?I=edmonji01:Jim+Edmonds&st=age&compage=35


Sim Player From To Yrs G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG SB CS OPS+
+---++-------------------+---------+--+----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+---+----+
Jim Edmonds 1993-2005 13 1587 5557 1063 1619 362 21 331 998 825 1411 .291 .384 .543 59 46 138
906 Tim Salmon 1992-2004 13 1596 5723 956 1618 331 22 290 989 941 1316 .283 .386 .500 48 40 129
896 Ellis Burks 1987-2000 14 1672 6044 1045 1770 334 61 285 1012 657 1093 .293 .364 .510 171 79 125
894 Dick Allen 1963-1977 15 1749 6332 1099 1848 320 79 351 1119 894 1556 .292 .378 .534 133 52 156
892 Fred Lynn 1974-1987 14 1648 5985 955 1732 360 40 264 986 755 919 .289 .368 .495 67 51 133
883 Mo Vaughn 1991-2003 12 1512 5532 861 1620 270 10 328 1064 725 1429 .293 .383 .523 30 18 132
878* Willie Stargell 1962-1975 14 1753 6164 956 1750 336 49 368 1197 718 1497 .284 .361 .533 12 12 150
874 Reggie Smith 1966-1980 15 1840 6649 1067 1914 351 57 295 1028 837 976 .288 .366 .491 130 86 138
869 Larry Walker 1989-2002 14 1663 5880 1152 1863 410 50 335 1133 725 1023 .317 .398 .574 215 71 141
864 David Justice 1989-2001 13 1492 5227 875 1465 262 21 294 968 833 933 .280 .378 .507 49 45 130
861 Paul O'Neill 1985-1998 14 1621 5645 815 1639 353 16 223 989 727 928 .290 .369 .477 94 52 126
Jim Edmonds 1993-2005 13 1587 5557 1063 1619 362 21 331 998 825 1411 .291 .384 .543 59 46 138
+---++-------------------+---------+--+----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+---+----+
Average of all 10 Players 13 1654 5918 978 1721 332 40 303 1048 781 1167 .291 .374 .515 94 50 134
Avg of all 8 Retired Players 13 1660 5947 959 1717 323 41 301 1045 768 1166 .289 .370 .509 85 49 134

Would you put Tim Salmon or Ellis Burks in the Hall?

Willie Stargell is on that list, and his numbers are similiar when he played in one of the most pitching dominant eras in the history of baseball. Edmonds has racked up his stats in the steroid era.

Here's the prime problem with the most similar "batters" group:

Tim Salmon - right fielder
Ellis Burks - center fielder, but Edmonds blows him away
Dick Allen - first baseman, and character issues notwithstanding, belongs in the Hall
Fred Lynn - the only center fielder in the list close to Edmonds. Edmonds blows him away in a five-year peak, and he's has already matched him in career value
Mo Vaughn - first baseman
Willie Stargell - clear HOFer
Reggie Smith - right fielder
Larry Walker - right fielder
David Justice - right fielder
Paul O'Neill - right fielder

Notice a trend ... only two of the 10 above even played center field, and none played a more important defensive position than center field (i.e. no catchers or middle infielders on the list).

Other than Willie Stargell and Dick Allen, who were both ridiculous hitters, none of those other guys comes close to Edmonds once accounting for a positional adjustment. If Jim Edmonds was a right fielder, he clearly wouldn't belong, but being a center fielder gives him a large trump card on all those guys with the exception of Lynn and Burks, both of whom Edmonds clearly ranks higher than anyway. The other eight players all played positions much less important on the defensive spectrum.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all a fan of Jim Edmonds. I wish he would have stayed in the American League, and I wouldn't put him in the Hall right now. However, to compare him fairly one has to look primarily at other center fielders, and once doing that it's obvious that Edmonds has been a better player than most people give him credit for. Two more seasons in the 25+ win shares category, and it's pretty tough to keep him out. Two more seasons with 30+ win shares and it's impossible to keep him out.

MattyHo4Life
04-22-2006, 07:17 PM
Sure he is. He's better than Willie Mays, just ask Cards fans. ;)

Ok...I'm here...you can ask me. :laugh:

MattyHo4Life
04-22-2006, 07:25 PM
He needs another two maybe three years of production like he's had the last 5 years. Otherwise, no!

I agree completely. As of right now I don't think he merits. If he has a few more great seasons then that would be different. I'm just not sure if Jimmy has the physical ability or even the desire to do that.

cincinnati chili
04-22-2006, 08:02 PM
He's certainly got the rate statistics (opb, slugging) right now. The only question is quantity.

I actually think 2 more good years would be enough, considering he's got the solid CF defensive rep. He's borderline to me now.

A lot of the "comparable" guys mentioned played corner outfield positions, and didn't take away nearly as many outs from the other teams.

I'll go out on a limb and say he's got a better chance than Adam Kennedy and Kent Bottenfield.

MWM
04-22-2006, 08:04 PM
I'll go out on a limb and say he's got a better chance than Adam Kennedy and Kent Bottenfield.

But Bottenfield was a 20 game winner. :D

I think Anaheim was willing to unload him for just about anything. They wanted to get rid of him. I thought it was a bad trade at the time, but I didn't realize it was one of the worst trades in the history of the game.

RisingReds
04-22-2006, 10:04 PM
I think Jim Edmonds is a hall of famer. I'm not a fan of edmonds, but i believe if you put ozzie smith in, you should put edmonds in, who is a much better hitter, and is arguably the best defensive outfielder i've ever seen. thats just my opinion.

Highlifeman21
04-22-2006, 10:56 PM
I think Jim Edmonds is a hall of famer. I'm not a fan of edmonds, but i believe if you put ozzie smith in, you should put edmonds in, who is a much better hitter, and is arguably the best defensive outfielder i've ever seen. thats just my opinion.

Have you ever seen Andruw Jones play, or Torii Hunter?

WMR
04-22-2006, 11:09 PM
Have you ever seen Andruw Jones play, or Torii Hunter?

That's just a very very truncated beginning of what would be a VERY long list.

Yeah give the man an emmy, not a HoF induction.

RisingReds
04-22-2006, 11:09 PM
Have you ever seen Andruw Jones play, or Torii Hunter?

as a matter of fact i have, and i believe he's neck and neck with them.

you have to give him some extra points for making the "greatest catch EVER" according to George Grande, lol. :rolleyes:

Highlifeman21
04-22-2006, 11:14 PM
as a matter of fact i have, and i believe he's neck and neck with them.

you have to give him some extra points for making the "greatest catch EVER" according to George Grande, lol. :rolleyes:


If George Grande voted on the HOF Ballot, Edmonds would get in 1st ballot with 100% of the vote.

OnBaseMachine
04-22-2006, 11:14 PM
Have you ever seen Andruw Jones play, or Torii Hunter?

Or the Seattle version of Ken Griffey Jr.?

Highlifeman21
04-22-2006, 11:15 PM
That's just a very very truncated beginning of what would be a VERY long list.

Yeah give the man an emmy, not a HoF induction.


Start it off! I've named 2 I think are better defensively than Edmonds. As Kornheiser or Wilbon would say, who ya got?

The Baumer
04-22-2006, 11:16 PM
If you elect J-Ed to the hall you are opening the pearly gates to anyone who performs above average. The hall should be reserved for folks who are 1.2 clutch shares or higher per 9 innings.

WMR
04-22-2006, 11:16 PM
I would take Mike Cameron, Carlos Beltran, and Juan Pierre over Edmonds, defensively.

Willy Taveras is superior too.

Highlifeman21
04-22-2006, 11:21 PM
I would take Mike Cameron, Carlos Beltran, and Juan Pierre over Edmonds, defensively.

Willy Taveras is superior too.

Pierre covers plenty of ground, but I think his arm rivals that of Johnny Damon.

I'll see your Cameron and raise you a Grady Sizemore.

WMR
04-22-2006, 11:21 PM
Pierre covers plenty of ground, but I think his arm rivals that of Johnny Damon.

I'll see your Cameron and raise you a Grady Sizemore.


I'd take Joey Gathright over Edmonds, I'd take Ichiro in CF over Edmonds.

The man has been overrated defensively his entire career and he does his best job to perpetuate that myth by flopping around like a fish for catches he should make easily.

Highlifeman21
04-22-2006, 11:26 PM
I'd take Joey Gathright over Edmonds, I'd take Ichiro in CF over Edmonds.

The man has been overrated defensively his entire career and he does his best job to perpetuate that myth by flopping around like a fish for catches he should make easily.


Ah, it brings a tear to my eye so beautifully worded. :thumbup:

Come on now, stick to CF! Ichiro's a RF defensive freak of nature! What do you think about that kid the Red Sox have in C. Crisp's absence? His name is escaping me and the laziness consumes me.

Big Klu
04-22-2006, 11:27 PM
Eric Davis, Cesar Geronimo, Willie Mays, Garry Maddox

WMR
04-22-2006, 11:28 PM
Ah, it brings a tear to my eye so beautifully worded. :thumbup:

Come on now, stick to CF! Ichiro's a RF defensive freak of nature! What do you think about that kid the Red Sox have in C. Crisp's absence? His name is escaping me and the laziness consumes me.

Hahaha... Oh you must mean Wily Mo!!

Yeah, I'd take Wily Mo over Edmon... wait, even I can't go that far. LMAO. hahahaahah

http://img.coxnewsweb.com/B/09/17/48/image_1848179.jpg

MattyHo4Life
04-23-2006, 05:44 AM
Juan Pierre over Edmonds, defensively.

That is just plain silly. Juan Pierre is a defensive liability... he can't even throw. Edmonds is just as good if not better than any Outfielder playing today, and that includes Jones and Hunter.

GAC
04-23-2006, 07:21 AM
"I'm with you fellas"

http://www.filmsajt.se/bilder/person/1754.jpg

Larkin411
04-23-2006, 08:46 AM
I think his St. Louis time is definitely hall of fame caliber and personally wouldn't be outraged if he did get in. In fact, I think the outright hatred Jim Edmonds inspires on this board may be an indication of just how well he has played during his peak, [ ducks, covers head ]

I also have to disagree with the people who imply that his defense isn't that great. Maybe he's not "the best who ever lived!" or anything of that sort but it's worth the gold glove.

All that said, I totally hate him.

MattyHo4Life
04-23-2006, 09:31 AM
In fact, I think the outright hatred Jim Edmonds inspires on this board may be an indication of just how well he has played during his peak

Very few players seem to be hated on this board as much as Edmonds.

Newman4
04-23-2006, 09:35 AM
I'm not a fan of edmonds, but i believe if you put ozzie smith in, you should put edmonds in, who is a much better hitter, and is arguably the best defensive outfielder i've ever seen. thats just my opinion.

That may be the most contradictory (sp?) sentence I have ever read. :laugh: If you tell that to your cable company they should give you free "MLB Extra Innings" out of sympathy if Edmonds is the greatest defensive outfielder you ever seen.

Newman4
04-23-2006, 09:38 AM
That is just plain silly. Juan Pierre is a defensive liability... he can't even throw. Edmonds is just as good if not better than any Outfielder playing today, and that includes Jones and Hunter.

That last sentence is what's plain silly.

RFS62
04-23-2006, 09:49 AM
Jim Edmonds car...


http://www.richgautier.com/img/hotdog1.jpg

Astrobuddy
04-23-2006, 09:53 AM
Jim Edmonds has been a very good player, but he is not a HOF'er.

Just like another poster said.. It isnt the Hall of Very Good.

MattyHo4Life
04-23-2006, 09:54 AM
Jim Edmonds car...


http://www.richgautier.com/img/hotdog1.jpg

:laugh:

GAC
04-23-2006, 10:05 AM
Very few players seem to be hated on this board as much as Edmonds.

If he had ended up in a Cincy uni though, it would never have been. ;)

westofyou
04-23-2006, 10:11 AM
I would take Mike Cameron, Carlos Beltran, and Juan Pierre over Edmonds, defensively.

Willy Taveras is superior too.

Strat sure disagrees with that statement.


Edmonds cf-1(-2)e3
Pierre cf-3(+3)e4
Cameron cf-2e13
Beltran cf-2(-1)e4
Taveras cf-2(-3)e3

Astrobuddy
04-23-2006, 10:16 AM
Willy T may one day be as good as Edmonds was in his prime, but who knows.

Hey West... explain those numbers for me if you dont mind.

Chip R
04-23-2006, 10:17 AM
If he had ended up in a Cincy uni though, it would never have been. ;)

IIRC, JimBo was after him sometime in the late 90s.

MWM
04-23-2006, 10:17 AM
If he had ended up in a Cincy uni though, it would never have been. ;)

I don't know, he strikes out A LOT.....almost as much as Dunn.

westofyou
04-23-2006, 10:22 AM
Willy T may one day be as good as Edmonds was in his prime, but who knows.

Hey West... explain those numbers for me if you dont mind.
1-5 is the Range number with 1 being the best, number in the brackets is arm strength, with - being the best, then the expected errors the player would make per year.

Sometimes the game is off in their ratings, but for the past 5 years Edmonds has trumped most CF in fielding.

Despite most of the dissention displayed here.

Newman4
04-23-2006, 10:29 AM
1-5 is the Range number with 1 being the best, number in the brackets is arm strength, with - being the best, then the expected errors the player would make per year.

Sometimes the game is off in their ratings, but for the past 5 years Edmonds has trumped most CF in fielding.

Despite most of the dissention displayed here.

How do they come up with those numbers?

MattyHo4Life
04-23-2006, 10:30 AM
Jim Edmonds has been a very good player, but he is not a HOF'er.

Just like another poster said.. It isnt the Hall of Very Good.

Would you feel the same way if he has another 3 or 4 years like he has his past several years as a Cardinal?

Newman4
04-23-2006, 10:33 AM
Jim Edmonds car...


http://www.richgautier.com/img/hotdog1.jpg

Would GG get excited if he saw Jim driving his car in his direction?

Astrobuddy
04-23-2006, 10:35 AM
Of course I would Matty. It would get him very close to 500 homers and then he would have tremendous longevity. It aint happening. Edmonds body is giving out. All that hot dogging has taken its toll and at 35 he is coming to the end of being a top flite CF'er. Just like Bagwell, it sucks to watch, but it happens.

The Cards should actually start looking for another CF now and maybe trade Edmonds to a contending team before the deadline and get something for him. His best bet to keep playing will be starting some and DH'ing in the AL.

westofyou
04-23-2006, 10:38 AM
The Cards should actually start looking for another CF now and maybe trade Edmonds to a contending team before the deadline and get something for him.

Now that's a nice back handed compliment eh?

MattyHo4Life
04-23-2006, 10:39 AM
His best bet to keep playing will be starting some and DH'ing in the AL.

I personally think that Edmonds would retire before he became a DH. I don't think his ego could handle it. I think you are premature in your thoughts of both the demise of Edmonds and the Cardinals chances this season. Edmonds has gotten off to a slow start due to a sore shoulder, but he has been aching for years, and has still put up great numbers. I think he could put up a few more very good years if he wants to keep playing.

Big Klu
04-23-2006, 10:42 AM
How can anyone even question whether the "Jim Brown of Baseball" deserves to be in the Hall Of Fame? I mean, if that hack Jim Brown got into the Pro Football Hall Of Fame, then it should be automatic for Edmonds, seeing as he is the "Jim Brown of Baseball"!

Astrobuddy
04-23-2006, 11:22 AM
Matty, Edmonds is 35. He is in decline. He put up a very average year in 2005. He peaked in 2004. He is having a shoulder problem. Thats not good. How did it happen? On field or did it just happen? Thats not good. Think Jeff Bagwell. It started as just a shoulder problem. The difference is, Bagwell didnt have to throw, Edmonds does. Edmonds has throw his body all over the field and its giving out on him. It is just a reality of MLB life. He aint playing till he is 40.

Matty, even you can see early on this isnt a GREAT Cards team. They are good, but they dont have the over powering offense anymore.

Do you think the Cards can win 100 games again this season?

MattyHo4Life
04-23-2006, 12:33 PM
Do you think the Cards can win 100 games again this season?

I can see them winning 95 and possibly 100. The Cardinals offense isn't great, but their starting pitching is.

Cyclone792
04-23-2006, 01:23 PM
Very few players seem to be hated on this board as much as Edmonds.

I don't dislike Edmonds at all, and that's tough to say despite him being one of the greater players on a team that's consistently kicked the tar out of the Reds for the last half dozen years. I do think he hot dogs it a bit in center field, but throughout his career he's still been a good defensive center fielder.

For me at least, what it all comes down to is I've accepted the fact that Edmonds is a great player, and if he's great enough to have a reasonable conversation about his Hall of Fame qualifications, then he's easily earned my respect and admiration of being one of the better players in this generation. Usually when a guy gets to that level, my appreciation for the game and its history wins out. Whatever personal likes or dislikes I have for a player takes a step back to admiring their career as a whole and taking a sincere interest in judging them against other historically great players. If I let my personal feelings for a player interfere, then it becomes a biased comparison, and a biased comparison isn't a fair and objective comparison.

I'm on record already in this thread as saying if Edmonds has two more seasons (preferably 2006 and 2007) like his 2005 season in overall production, then it becomes very tough to keep him out of the Hall of Fame. If he's able to string together two more solid seasons of that caliber (or better), then he'll separate himself above a large pack of Hall of Fame center fielders, he would become the best center fielder not enshrined in Cooperstown and he would have a legitimate say about being one of the 10 greatest center fielders ever to play the game.

Like I said earlier, that is tough to keep out of the Hall, IMO.


He put up a very average year in 2005.

Edmonds put up 28 win shares in 2005 - Morgan Ensberg with 29 win shares was the only Houston Astros position player higher - all of which leads me to believe you have no idea what in the world you're talking about.

westofyou
04-23-2006, 01:25 PM
I can see them winning 95 and possibly 100. The Cardinals offense isn't great, but their starting pitching is.
No offense, but you're both way high..... I don't see 95 wins in this divison at all.

MattyHo4Life
04-23-2006, 01:38 PM
No offense, but you're both way high..... I don't see 95 wins in this divison at all.

What makes this division so much different than last season when the Cardinals won 100 games?

westofyou
04-23-2006, 01:40 PM
What makes this division so much different than last season when the Cardinals won 100 games?
Talent?

OnBaseMachine
04-23-2006, 01:41 PM
What makes this division so much different than last season when the Cardinals won 100 games?

The Cardinals offense stinks, Suppan and Ponson stink, and Isringhausen has looked pretty bad so far. That's why they won't win 95-100 games. I like the Astros chances of winning this division more than I do the Cards, especially if the Rocket returns to Houston.

MattyHo4Life
04-23-2006, 01:57 PM
Talent?

How so? How has the talent changed that much from last year?

westofyou
04-23-2006, 02:00 PM
How so? How has the talent changed that much from last year?
The Brewers are better for one, plus the other teams in the divison will steal more games then you're willing to admit, the Cards aren't exactly the 76 Reds.

95-100 wins is high... not saying it isn't possible, but I think it's high.

Caveat Emperor
04-23-2006, 02:02 PM
What makes this division so much different than last season when the Cardinals won 100 games?

Brewers are much better this year, Reds are slightly improved by trotting Arroyo out every week as opposed to Ramon Ortiz, and I think the Cardinals lineup just isn't going to produce as many runs this year as it did last year.

The Cardinals won't run away with the division, I say that with quite a bit of confidence.

As for Jim Edmonds -- I agree with what's been said: I'd need to see at least 3 more years of his current level performance before this conversation is anything but idle chatter.

MattyHo4Life
04-23-2006, 02:11 PM
The Brewers are better for one, plus the other teams in the divison will steal more games then you're willing to admit, the Cards aren't exactly the 76 Reds.

95-100 wins is high... not saying it isn't possible, but I think it's high.

The Brewers are better, but the Cubs are worse without Lee. I don't know if the Cardinals will win 100 games like they have the last couple of seasons, but I don't think 95 is out of the question at all.

RBA
04-23-2006, 02:31 PM
Why argue? Let's just play the games and see who comes out on top. Or we could just let the stat geeks run the stats through the old IBM and watch water polo instead.

Astrobuddy
04-23-2006, 03:21 PM
Cyclone.. dont throw winshares out there. The Astros were all about pitching last year and had 3 pitchers in the top 10 in winshares. Clemens, Oswalt and Pettitte. The Cards had NO pitchers in the top 10 in winshares.


Winshares is another one of Bill James' BS stats. You can find stats for anything.


Look at Edmonds overall stats and tell me he didnt decline.

Players hit a wall and usually it is earlier than ole Jimmay. I beleive by looking at him the last year and then his start this year that is body is give out. If I am wrong so be it.

KronoRed
04-23-2006, 03:27 PM
Why argue? Let's just play the games and see who comes out on top. Or we could just let the stat geeks run the stats through the old IBM and watch water polo instead.
Sounds like a plan, water polo RAWKS.

Cyclone792
04-23-2006, 03:28 PM
Cyclone.. dont throw winshares out there. The Astros were all about pitching last year and had 3 pitchers in the top 10 in winshares. Clemens, Oswalt and Pettitte. The Cards had NO pitchers in the top 10 in winshares.

And you obviously didn't read my post close enough. Notice the words "position player" when I mentioned win shares, Edmonds, Ensberg and the Astros. Last I checked, Clemens, Oswalt and Pettitte didn't qualify as position players.


Winshares is another one of Bill James' BS stats. You can find stats for anything.

If you've got other metrics that are more accurate, and show that Edmonds was merely an average player last season, please enlighten me. Otherwise your opinion with nothing to back it up has no backbone.


Look at Edmonds overall stats and tell me he didnt decline.

Of course he was going to decline from 2004 since 2004 was likely his greatest season. I look at Edmonds last season and see a guy who also posted a 136 OPS+, essentially his career average, in a year in which he turned 35-years-old. That's a pretty solid season.

Claiming that Edmonds put up a very average year in the context of the average NL center fielder is ridiculous, and you know it.

Astrobuddy
04-23-2006, 03:37 PM
Thats what I said... he peaked in 2004 and he is on his way down. You can pull out all the new stats created in the last 10 years, but Edmond is 35 years old, had an average season for his standards in 2005 and is so far hurting and horrible in 2006.


I will give you a stats.. Edmonds already has 3 errors in just 12 games this season. He had only 2 all of 2005 and 4 all of 2004.

Edmonds has hit a wall and it aint going to be pretty.

Sit back and watch.

Highlifeman21
04-23-2006, 03:41 PM
Cyclone.. dont throw winshares out there. The Astros were all about pitching last year and had 3 pitchers in the top 10 in winshares. Clemens, Oswalt and Pettitte. The Cards had NO pitchers in the top 10 in winshares.


Winshares is another one of Bill James' BS stats. You can find stats for anything.


Look at Edmonds overall stats and tell me he didnt decline.

Players hit a wall and usually it is earlier than ole Jimmay. I beleive by looking at him the last year and then his start this year that is body is give out. If I am wrong so be it.


http://www.potd.simleaguecentral.com/Astrobuddy.jpg

westofyou
04-23-2006, 03:51 PM
Winshares is another one of Bill James' BS stats. You can find stats for anything. I even have a stat for the amount of times I've heard that line of BS.

It's called the stats go against my opinion so I'll deflect from it by attacking the creator of said stat.

Chip R
04-23-2006, 03:58 PM
Edmonds will never be a DH. After all, how can you make the highlights on ESPN diving for sunflower seeds in the dugout? ;)

Newman4
04-23-2006, 10:21 PM
Dang, this is getting good. I love to see a good Astro/Card fan showdown. Heck, I'd rather read this than water polo. By the way, I think I like ol' Astrobuddy. Welcome to the board, man.

Matty, you're such a homer. 100 wins??? Puke. Great pitching staff? Double Puke.

How you guys settling your Edmonds argument with a friendly wager on his season???

Here's a sure sign he's on his way down: In the last series versus the Reds he tried to do a little Hot Dog jump against the wall and he kinda missed the ball and bang there he goes on his punk ass. Woo Ha!

RedsFan75
04-24-2006, 08:35 AM
Edmonds will never be a DH. After all, how can you make the highlights on ESPN diving for sunflower seeds in the dugout? ;)

What's funny, is when I was playing MLB '06 the Show on my PS2 playing against the Cards, I hit a routine fly ball to center, and (Cyber) Edmonds slows up and then makes a routine fly ball, so they have even programmed that in to the video game! :D

MattyHo4Life
04-24-2006, 08:37 AM
How you guys settling your Edmonds argument with a friendly wager on his season??

I would, but ol' Astrobuddy still owes me a Cardinals hat that he lost in a Cards/Astros bet a few years ago. ;)

MattyHo4Life
04-24-2006, 08:40 AM
Matty, you're such a homer. 100 wins??? Puke. Great pitching staff? Double Puke.

If I was such a homer then I would be saying that Edmonds is a first ballot HOFer right now. Anyways..I think the Cards are more of a 90-95 game win team this year, but still division winners. Who would have predicted the Cards would win 100 games last year with Rolen hurt? I know I didn't.

Astrobuddy
04-24-2006, 08:44 AM
The Cards had alot more offense last year. PLUS, Houston played so badly.

MattyHo4Life
04-24-2006, 08:52 AM
The Cards had alot more offense last year. PLUS, Houston played so badly.

How so? The Cardinals had half seasons from Sanders and the ailing Larry Walker, but lost Rolen for the whole year. I'd rather Rolen than what Sanders and Walker did for the Cards last year anyday. Besides, if you want to compare someone to Bagweel... then Walker would be a better comparison than Edmonds would be.

Astrobuddy
04-24-2006, 09:03 AM
Sanders, Walker, Grudz.. Those 3 players mattered.


Plus, like i said... you got wins from Houston you wont get this season. The Astros are a much better team. So I figure it is a 10-15 win swing.

87 wins for the Cards sounds about right.

MattyHo4Life
04-24-2006, 09:14 AM
Sanders, Walker, Grudz.. Those 3 players mattered.


Plus, like i said... you got wins from Houston you wont get this season. The Astros are a much better team. So I figure it is a 10-15 win swing.

87 wins for the Cards sounds about right.

Rolen matters more. I guarantee you that the Cardinals will win more than 87 games.

Chip R
04-24-2006, 09:25 AM
What's funny, is when I was playing MLB '06 the Show on my PS2 playing against the Cards, I hit a routine fly ball to center, and (Cyber) Edmonds slows up and then makes a routine fly ball, so they have even programmed that in to the video game! :D

That's hilarious. :laugh: :laugh:

MattyHo4Life
04-24-2006, 03:24 PM
you got wins from Houston you wont get this season. The Astros are a much better team.

How are the Astros a much better team? Last year the Astros have Clemens. Clemens may not pitch for the Astros at all this year. Clemens may not pitch for anybody this season. He may just decide to retire like Chuck Finley did a few years ago.

registerthis
04-24-2006, 03:46 PM
Now THIS is funny, a Cards fan and a 'Stros fan going at it on a Reds message board.

vaticanplum
04-24-2006, 05:05 PM
The Cards had alot more offense last year. PLUS, Houston played so badly.

Am I understanding you correctly -- Houston played so badly last year? The year they made it to the World Series for the first time? (a fact with which their fans beat us ad nauseum)

But I'll give you one thing: their offense was pretty bad. Their pitching was stellar. This year, they've still got Oswalt and Lidge, but they've lost Clemens and I have no reason to believe that Pettitte's best days are in front of him. Then on the bat side they've picked up -- who, exactly?

MattyHo4Life
04-24-2006, 05:38 PM
Plum,

I know I can't answer your question. I have a feeling though that Astrobuddy is having a morgasm over the way Ensberg has been playing so far this year.

westofyou
04-24-2006, 05:48 PM
Plum,

I know I can't answer your question. I have a feeling though that Astrobuddy is having a morgasm over the way Ensberg has been playing so far this year.
I am, I've got him on my fantasy team.

Astrobuddy
04-24-2006, 08:47 PM
They obviously didnt need to pick up anyone but Preston Wilson. The Astros are 2nd in offense behind the Reds and have a GREAT rotation, best ERA in MLB. Bring back Clemens and if he stays healthy the Astros would have to be the favorites.

So you tell me.

Right now Morgan Ensberg is the best hitter in the NL. To be clear... I said RIGHT NOW. That may change, it may not.

My point reference Astros/Cards was the Astros played so badly against the Cardinals in 2005 early on. Wins are wins.

MattyHo4Life
04-24-2006, 09:04 PM
They obviously didnt need to pick up anyone but Preston Wilson. The Astros are 2nd in offense behind the Reds and have a GREAT rotation, best ERA in MLB. Bring back Clemens and if he stays healthy the Astros would have to be the favorites.

This is the problem. You are looking at how the Astros are playing right now, and that is it. The Astros are hot right now, but they can't play this way all season long. This is essentially the same team as last season munis Clemens, with the addition of Wilson. Wilson is having a horrible season so far, so he isn't the reason the offense is doing so well. The offense is playing over it's head, and will cool off. The Astros are in trouble if Clemens doesn't return.

Astrobuddy
04-24-2006, 09:09 PM
The Astros wont average 6 runs a game, I will grant you that. But this team isnt playing over its head.

Last year Berkman wasnt 100% and didnt even play until May. The kids grew up. They have changed the approach and they are a better hitting team. If you expect the Astros offense to return to last season you are fooling yourself.


The Astros pitching right now is good enough to win the division. Clemens coming back is icing.

Your Cards are in trouble. Pujols or pray for rain. You dont think the Cards pitching has been pitching above its head the last 2 years? Of course you dont. Watch... Cards wont win more than 87 games.

MattyHo4Life
04-24-2006, 09:21 PM
You dont think the Cards pitching has been pitching above its head the last 2 years? Of course you dont. Watch... Cards wont win more than 87 games.

The key to your statement is "two years". The Cards pitching has been good for the last couple of years. That isn't a small sample size like a few weeks is.

MattyHo4Life
04-24-2006, 09:22 PM
Now THIS is funny, a Cards fan and a 'Stros fan going at it on a Reds message board.

Dude....I've been arguing with Astrobuddy on this Reds board for years. No reason to stop now. :)

Astrobuddy
04-24-2006, 09:26 PM
But the law of averages catches up Matty. The Cards wont win anywhere close to 100 games this season. This is also not the same Cards team. This years version, regardless of what you think is weaker and the NL central is better.

By the way... the last 2 years, NO ONE in MLB has played better baseball the 2nd half than the Astros. With this start, if they get better they will bury the rest of the NL Central.

MattyHo4Life
04-24-2006, 09:29 PM
By the way... the last 2 years, NO ONE in MLB has played better baseball the 2nd half than the Astros. With this start, if they get better they will bury the rest of the NL Central.

What was it that you were just saying about the law of averages? ;)

killuminati35
04-24-2006, 09:34 PM
Jim Edmonds is one of my favorite players in baseball today, although I did love seeing him strike out with a full count in the first Reds-Cards game, but I don't think he is quite good enough to get into the Hall. He is still a solid, hard-working guy that any team would love to have on their roster.

Astrobuddy
04-24-2006, 09:35 PM
This year will not go like the last. I promise you that.

Newman4
04-24-2006, 10:37 PM
You dont think the Cards pitching has been pitching above its head the last 2 years? Of course you dont. Watch... Cards wont win more than 87 games.

I agree on this. Carpenter and Suppan have been pitching way,way,way over their heads. Marquis and Ponson suck. Mulder had a noticable loss of velocity in his start against the Reds.

If the Astros have the exact same team, then they're better than the Cards. Walker, Sanders, Matt Morris and even Grudz....all gone. Do 90+ win teams run Luna, Rodriguez, So Taguchi, Skip Whats his name, Miles and Co. out there everyday? :rolleyes:

vaticanplum
04-24-2006, 10:39 PM
By the way... the last 2 years, NO ONE in MLB has played better baseball the 2nd half than the Astros.

2004 post-All-Star break
Houston Astros 45/24
New York Yankees 44/28

2005 post-All-Star break
Houston Astros 39/29
New York Yankees 46/26

totals 04-05
Houston 84/53 .613
New York 90/54 .625

Newman4
04-24-2006, 10:42 PM
2004 post-All-Star break
Houston Astros 45/24
New York Yankees 44/28

2005 post-All-Star break
Houston Astros 39/29
New York Yankees 46/26

totals 04-05
Houston 84/53 .613
New York 90/54 .625

He probably is refering to the 2005 post-season as well.

RBA
04-24-2006, 10:43 PM
Astrobuddy, Is Nomar a Hall-of-Famer? LOL ;)

westofyou
04-24-2006, 10:49 PM
This year will not go like the last. I promise you that.
You are full of promises IIRC.

vaticanplum
04-24-2006, 10:58 PM
He probably is refering to the 2005 post-season as well.

There's not really any way to compare that. Both teams participated in both postseasons. Cumulatively, the Yankees were 6/5 in 2004 and 2/3 in 2005; the Astros 6/6 and 7/7 respectively. That gives exactly .500 for both teams combined for the two years. Obviously, the Astros got further in 2005 than the Yankees did, but there are no real statistics to use this as a gauge for "better baseball" as he calls it. There's a reason postseason stats are measured separately from the regular season.

MattyHo4Life
04-24-2006, 11:45 PM
I agree on this. Carpenter and Suppan have been pitching way,way,way over their heads.

They have in your fantasy world.

A player can play over their head for a period of time, but not for years. How long does Carpenter have to dominate the league before you can admit that he is a great pitcher?

realistic
04-24-2006, 11:59 PM
hes not even close to a hall of famer. go take a look at who is in the hall , it takes a lot more than just being an all-star type player. shame on you that think he will make the hall

Izzardius
04-25-2006, 12:24 AM
Baseball Prospectus just ran an interesting article on this very subject:

http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4999

Edmonds to me is iffy right now, but I think he is close. Another two seasons at his current level of production will cement his case. And yes, I am a Cards fan:)

EDIT:
The Astros wont average 6 runs a game, I will grant you that. But this team isnt playing over its head.

Last year Berkman wasnt 100% and didnt even play until May. The kids grew up. They have changed the approach and they are a better hitting team. If you expect the Astros offense to return to last season you are fooling yourself.


The Astros pitching right now is good enough to win the division. Clemens coming back is icing.

Your Cards are in trouble. Pujols or pray for rain. You dont think the Cards pitching has been pitching above its head the last 2 years? Of course you dont. Watch... Cards wont win more than 87 games.

Two years is a big enough sample size to justify being labeled as good. The divison will be closer than last year, and the Cards won't pull off another 100-win season. But 90 or so is very reasonable.

MattyHo4Life
04-25-2006, 06:09 AM
the Cards won't pull off another 100-win season. But 90 or so is very reasonable.

You are probably right, but I said the same thing a year ago, and I was proven wrong. :laugh:

MattyHo4Life
04-25-2006, 06:11 AM
hes not even close to a hall of famer. go take a look at who is in the hall , it takes a lot more than just being an all-star type player. shame on you that think he will make the hall


If you look at his stats, then you will see that he is close to being a hall of famer. I have stated earlier in this thread that I don't think he is a HOFer now, but could be with 2 or 3 more very good years.

Astrobuddy
04-25-2006, 09:33 AM
But he isnt going to have 2 or 3 more above average seasons. Hell, he wont even be a Cardinals next season. Then Cards fans wont care anymore anyway.

Chip R
04-25-2006, 09:35 AM
But he isnt going to have 2 or 3 more above average seasons. Hell, he wont even be a Cardinals next season. Is he going to play CF for HOU next to Dunn next year? :p:

Astrobuddy
04-25-2006, 09:37 AM
Uh, No Chipper... but nice try.

Newman4
04-25-2006, 09:55 AM
You are full of promises IIRC.

Better to be full of promises than full of.......

Newman4
04-25-2006, 10:27 AM
They have in your fantasy world.

A player can play over their head for a period of time, but not for years. How long does Carpenter have to dominate the league before you can admit that he is a great pitcher?

Obviously more than two years. By the way, if you're using "dominate" to refer to his 2004 season, then you need to re-evaluate who's in fantasy world.

Compare his Toronto years to his last two and thus the reference to pitching over his head.

I'll retract my statement about Suppan though because he's been consistently mediocre.

MattyHo4Life
04-25-2006, 10:36 AM
By the way, if you're using "dominate" to refer to his 2004 season, then you need to re-evaluate who's in fantasy world.

Carpenter had a good season in 2004, but he was recovering from a shoulder injury that kept him out all of 2003. He had a rough first half of the season, but began to look like the pitcher he is today by the end of the season.

Astrobuddy
04-25-2006, 10:48 AM
What about the pre-injury Carpenter? No Cy Young quality there. Pitchers relax and can pitch better when they have an offense behind them that will score runs and a defense that will go get everything hit. Carpenter and the rest of the Cards staff have had that luxury the past 2 years. Thats why they were pitching above their heads. They dont have that this season and when that becomes apparent you will see the Cards pitchers pressing more and trying to strike everyone out and they will get hit.

It wouldnt surprise me one bit to see the Cards finish in 3rd this season 10-15 games out.

Like I have said before... Pujols will be the greatest player to every play on a team that didnt win a WS. The Cards will have to retool next season. This is the current Cards swan song. Walt better make some HUGE moves this summer or this team is in for hard times.

vaticanplum
04-25-2006, 11:17 AM
What about the pre-injury Carpenter? No Cy Young quality there. Pitchers relax and can pitch better when they have an offense behind them that will score runs and a defense that will go get everything hit. Carpenter and the rest of the Cards staff have had that luxury the past 2 years. Thats why they were pitching above their heads. They dont have that this season and when that becomes apparent you will see the Cards pitchers pressing more and trying to strike everyone out and they will get hit.

Oh, so Carpenter was a good pitcher because he was comfortable pitching for a team that had good offense. Hold onto your hats, Reds fans; here we go!

Cyclone792
04-25-2006, 11:27 AM
Like I have said before... Pujols will be the greatest player to every play on a team that didnt win a WS.

Ty Cobb and Ted Williams would beg to differ.

Highlifeman21
04-25-2006, 11:33 AM
hes not even close to a hall of famer. go take a look at who is in the hall , it takes a lot more than just being an all-star type player. shame on you that think he will make the hall


A lot of us need to get in line for that shame then, I suppose. If he puts together 56 winshares over the next I'll say 3 years, he's in, and will arguably become the 12th best CF ever if you include negro leaguers, 10th best CF ever if you don't.

Izzardius
04-25-2006, 12:06 PM
What about the pre-injury Carpenter? No Cy Young quality there. Pitchers relax and can pitch better when they have an offense behind them that will score runs and a defense that will go get everything hit. Carpenter and the rest of the Cards staff have had that luxury the past 2 years. Thats why they were pitching above their heads. They dont have that this season and when that becomes apparent you will see the Cards pitchers pressing more and trying to strike everyone out and they will get hit.

It wouldnt surprise me one bit to see the Cards finish in 3rd this season 10-15 games out.

Like I have said before... Pujols will be the greatest player to every play on a team that didnt win a WS. The Cards will have to retool next season. This is the current Cards swan song. Walt better make some HUGE moves this summer or this team is in for hard times.

The Toronto Carpenter was overly abused by his manager when he was young (can't remember his name) and that almost ruined his career. What we are seeing with him now given his shoulder troubles is indeed rare, but given two seasons of pitching at an ace level and handling a heavy workload I think dispels any notion that he is a fluke.

This may very well be a down year for the Cards, but nobody else in the division has improved enough to completely overtake them.

Astrobuddy
04-25-2006, 12:48 PM
The Astros have. Improvement doesnt have to come via Free Agency. If any team has proven that its the Astros.

They are basically the same team as last season and will be in June and they beat the Cards in the NLCS. The Cards are not even close to the same team and got worse. The Cards dont have that defense and offense they had the last 2 years.

Just watch.... It will be a fun ride for Astros fans.

Izzardius
04-25-2006, 01:00 PM
The Astros have. Improvement doesnt have to come via Free Agency. If any team has proven that its the Astros.

They are basically the same team as last season and will be in June and they beat the Cards in the NLCS. The Cards are not even close to the same team and got worse. The Cards dont have that defense and offense they had the last 2 years.

Just watch.... It will be a fun ride for Astros fans.

We're not even 25 games into the season yet. Sanders and Walker only played in about 100 games each, and the team was without Rolen for most of the year. A healthy Rolen should make up for most of that, and now that Hector Luna is getting a chance to play 2B will probably be better than the last two years. My only grave concern with the lineup is Mr-never-gets-on-base Juan Encarnacion and the mind-boggling concept of having him bat 2nd.

I think the Cards did miss out on a lot in the offseason(especially the oppurtunity to sign Brian Giles) but they haven't fallen as far as people think.

Johnny Footstool
04-25-2006, 02:53 PM
The thing about true Hall of Famers is that you know one when you see one. You don't have to ask, argue, or debate. You hear his name, and there's no question about it.

If you have to make arguments and show stats, the guy probably doesn't belong in the Hall.

Cyclone792
04-25-2006, 03:35 PM
The thing about true Hall of Famers is that you know one when you see one. You don't have to ask, argue, or debate. You hear his name, and there's no question about it.

If you have to make arguments and show stats, the guy probably doesn't belong in the Hall.

I would disagree with this on most counts. If you're talking inner circle, then yes, I agree. But once outside the inner circle, most fans and even Hall voters don't know a Hall of Famer when they see one.

Ask a collection of fans if Tim Raines is a Hall of Famer, and see what type of response you get. If Raines can't make the Hall it'll be a joke, but I'm guessing most fans do not even think he belongs, which is possibly a bigger joke.

There are players today who are far greater than the average fan perceived them to be. Jeff Bagwell is quite possibly the greatest first baseman in National League history, yet among most fans there seems to be some question mark about whether he belongs in the Hall. Craig Biggio is the greatest second baseman we've seen since Joe Morgan, but the average fan will reach out and use a hits total or something along that nature to justify supporting Biggio for the Hall, if the average fan even supports Biggio at all.

Izzardius
04-25-2006, 03:48 PM
I would disagree with this on most counts. If you're talking inner circle, then yes, I agree. But once outside the inner circle, most fans and even Hall voters don't know a Hall of Famer when they see one.

Ask a collection of fans if Tim Raines is a Hall of Famer, and see what type of response you get. If Raines can't make the Hall it'll be a joke, but I'm guessing most fans do not even think he belongs, which is possibly a bigger joke.

There are players today who are far greater than the average fan perceived them to be. Jeff Bagwell is quite possibly the greatest first baseman in National League history, yet among most fans there seems to be some question mark about whether he belongs in the Hall. Craig Biggio is the greatest second baseman we've seen since Joe Morgan, but the average fan will reach out and use a hits total or something along that nature to justify supporting Biggio for the Hall, if the average fan even supports Biggio at all.

Exactly. Players aren't always recognized for how good they are, as I can think of several that are severely underrated, Jeff Bagwell and Frank Thomas chief among them. Barry Larkin and Edmonds too.

Johnny Footstool
04-25-2006, 04:40 PM
There are players today who are far greater than the average fan perceived them to be. Jeff Bagwell is quite possibly the greatest first baseman in National League history, yet among most fans there seems to be some question mark about whether he belongs in the Hall. Craig Biggio is the greatest second baseman we've seen since Joe Morgan, but the average fan will reach out and use a hits total or something along that nature to justify supporting Biggio for the Hall, if the average fan even supports Biggio at all.

The Hall of Fame is all about perception, be it the perception of the writers, fans, or players committee. It's a place for players perceived to be among the greatest who every played the game. When you start making arguments for borderline candidates, well, that's what turns the Hall of Fame into the Hall of Very Good.

Johnny Footstool
04-25-2006, 04:41 PM
Exactly. Players aren't always recognized for how good they are, as I can think of several that are severely underrated, Jeff Bagwell and Frank Thomas chief among them. Barry Larkin and Edmonds too.

If it takes a lot of effort to recognize how good a player is, then they shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame.

Cyclone792
04-25-2006, 04:46 PM
The Hall of Fame is all about perception, be it the perception of the writers, fans, or players committee. It's a place for players perceived to be among the greatest who every played the game. When you start making arguments for borderline candidates, well, that's what turns the Hall of Fame into the Hall of Very Good.

If players are among the 10 greatest players ever at their position, there is no borderline candidates or Hall of Very Good about it.

Izzardius
04-25-2006, 04:58 PM
The Hall of Fame is all about perception, be it the perception of the writers, fans, or players committee. It's a place for players perceived to be among the greatest who every played the game. When you start making arguments for borderline candidates, well, that's what turns the Hall of Fame into the Hall of Very Good.

I beg to differ. The Hall should be about performance. If a player can perform a a consistently high level for a long period of time, then he should have just a good a shot at the Hall as anyone, regeardless of how he is preceived.

Johnny Footstool
04-25-2006, 05:34 PM
I beg to differ. The Hall should be about performance. If a player can perform a a consistently high level for a long period of time, then he should have just a good a shot at the Hall as anyone, regeardless of how he is preceived.

If that player has performed at a high level for a long period of time, they will be perceived as great. It's that combination of high-level performance and the perception of greatness that gets a player into the Hall of Fame.

Cyclone792
04-25-2006, 05:45 PM
If that player has performed at a high level for a long period of time, they will be perceived as great. It's that combination of high-level performance and the perception of greatness that gets a player into the Hall of Fame.

The perceptions of greatness in the eyes of most fans is totally inaccurate because they'll fail in the ability to contextualize for greatness, era and factors such as walks and on-base percentage.

Regarding Jeff Bagwell, for example, most fans will look at him and remember him in uniform, then look at his stats page and see a player with less than 2,500 hits, 51 fewer home runs than the 500 club, a batting average lower than .300 and ultimately conclude that he's not a Hall of Famer. That's why you see the talking heads analyzing a guy such as Bagwell and saying "Eh, I don't know about him ... "

In reality, however, Bagwell was a far greater player than most fans will give him credit for, simply because many people still do not care about 1,400+ walks and an on-base percentage over .400. Compare Bagwell to all other first basemen in the history of the game, and he's a slam dunk, to put it mildly.

Jim Edmonds isn't any different. If he has two more solid seasons, he's arguably one of the 10 greatest center fielders in the history of the game, and easily among the top dozen. Tell that to most fans, and they'll say you're crazy. Ask them to name 12 guys better than Edmonds, and they won't be able to do so.

M2
04-25-2006, 05:59 PM
If it takes a lot of effort to recognize how good a player is, then they shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame.

Or they should have played in New York, L.A., Boston or Chicago.

Don't even get me started on "Hall of the Very Good." Seeing that only a sliver of the top percentile of players who play the game ever make the HOF, that's as ridiculous an argument as has ever been made. We're talking about the difference between 99.92% and 99.93%.

Anyway, good luck getting people to attend the Hall of Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson.

As for Edmonds, he's got a solid resume and I'd give him consideration as is. If he climbed over 2,000 hits or 400 homers, I'd say he'd be a shoo-in.

M2
04-25-2006, 06:00 PM
Jim Edmonds isn't any different. If he has two more solid seasons, he's arguably one of the 10 greatest center fielders in the history of the game, and easily among the top dozen. Tell that to most fans, and they'll say you're crazy. Ask them to name 12 guys better than Edmonds, and they won't be able to do so.

Exactly.

Johnny Footstool
04-25-2006, 06:01 PM
The perceptions of greatness in the eyes of most fans is totally inaccurate because they'll fail in the ability to contextualize for greatness, era and factors such as walks and on-base percentage.

Informed followers of the game (including writers) can and do recognize greatness. And since writers do the voting, Bagwell will be in the HOF. So will Fred McGriff. Those guys were among the greatest in the game for a long, long time.

Edmonds has been an elite performer for five years. He has to maintain his performance for at least a couple more years in order to reach HOF level.

Johnny Footstool
04-25-2006, 06:06 PM
We're talking about the difference between 99.92% and 99.93%.

I like it that way.




Anyway, good luck getting people to attend the Hall of Babe Ruth and Jackie Robinson.

I guess I didn't realize the Bruce Sutter and Don Sutton exhibits were so popular with the general public.


As for Edmonds, he's got a solid resume and I'd give him consideration as is. If he climbed over 2,000 hits or 400 homers, I'd say he'd be a shoo-in.

Yes, if he can reach a milestone like that, he's a shoo-in. He's not there yet.

M2
04-25-2006, 06:09 PM
I guess I didn't realize the Bruce Sutter and Don Sutton exhibits were so popular with the general public.

Last time I was there, one guy outside was screaming about how he was about to "get his Sutton on" while a group of guys with bare legs and raincoats called the Fordham Flashers filed through the door.

Redeye fly
04-25-2006, 06:15 PM
Great discussion here...

One thing that does strike me is that I think Johnny makes a very relevant and very realistic point. Like it or not, the actual HOF voting probably does have a lot to do with perception. I mean we've got a lot of statheads and sabermetrics guys here. Now how many statheads and sabermetrics guys actually have a vote on the HOF ballot? Tell some of the people here that Jim Edmonds may wind up being one of the top 10 center fielders of all time and show some convincing stats to back it up and you'll have an argument. Tell some guy who's been casting ballots for the HOF for 40 years or more that Jim Edmonds is one of the 10 greatest centerfielders of all time, maybe he'll listen, maybe he'll laugh at you. Tell the guy who's Hal McCoy's age or older how many winshares Jim had last year and he'll look at you like you're from another planet.

Keep one other thing in mind here too. We're talking about an era of juiced balls, juiced bodies, smaller ballparks, and watered down pitching. That's part of the perception deal. I mean we've already heard the argument that 500 home runs may not be an automatic entry into Cooperstown anymore, and take a look at some noteable names who've reached that milestone in the past 6 or 7 years or so- McGwire,Sosa,Palmeiro, and Bonds, all having perhaps done so through rather dubious means. The remaining old timers,though on the way out, will look at this era's ridiculous offensive numbers and say they don't mean as much. For stats that would seem to be a little more "era-neutral" (winshares if they have been calculated back that far, OPS relative to league and position averages, etc), some just won't care anyway.

It's already been mentioned by someone that Dick Allen should be in the HOF, attitude issues aside. Well, unfortunately attitude issues matter. There were some who wanted to keep Steve Carlton out of the Hall of Fame just because they didn't like the guy. Even though Albert Belle was putting up some silly numbers in the 90's, people didn't like him. I'm thinking it cost him some MVP votes a year or two, if memory serves me correctly.

I'm not against the numbers and using things like winshares to evaluate players. I find them to be very relevant and very accurate. I just don't know that the HOF committee does at this point and time yet, and so I do agree with Johnny that perception still plays a major role.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2006, 06:16 PM
I hadn't looked at this thread, but a good discussion to say the least.

Edmonds is a tough one to figure. It really is too difficult for me to call right now. I'll just have to see what the rest of his career looks like.

At this very moment, if his career were to end today, I'd say no, but it wouldn't be a firm "no."

Johnny Footstool
04-25-2006, 06:54 PM
Last time I was there, one guy outside was screaming about how he was about to "get his Sutton on" while a group of guys with bare legs and raincoats called the Fordham Flashers filed through the door.

Touche, sir.

Redeye fly, you seem to be catching on to what I'm trying to say. It's about the perception of a player's greatness. For many of us, myself included, the stats play a huge part in that perception. But for me there is an intangible quality above and beyond the numbers that HOF'ers possess and borderline candidates don't. HOF'ers are guys who dominated for a decade or so -- guys who were clearly the cream of the crop. Griffey, Bonds, Bagwell, Frank Thomas, and even Albert Belle pass that test. IMO, Edmonds doesn't pass that test yet. A couple more years of dominance would push him to that level, but right now, he's not there.

pedro
04-25-2006, 07:02 PM
I think he needs to put up 3-4 more solid years to be considered. His game thus far is worthy IMO, but he can't go all "Dale Murphy" if he wants in.

Izzardius
04-25-2006, 07:20 PM
One thing that does strike me is that I think Johnny makes a very relevant and very realistic point. Like it or not, the actual HOF voting probably does have a lot to do with perception. I mean we've got a lot of statheads and sabermetrics guys here. Now how many statheads and sabermetrics guys actually have a vote on the HOF ballot? Tell some of the people here that Jim Edmonds may wind up being one of the top 10 center fielders of all time and show some convincing stats to back it up and you'll have an argument. Tell some guy who's been casting ballots for the HOF for 40 years or more that Jim Edmonds is one of the 10 greatest centerfielders of all time, maybe he'll listen, maybe he'll laugh at you. Tell the guy who's Hal McCoy's age or older how many winshares Jim had last year and he'll look at you like you're from another planet.

Keep one other thing in mind here too. We're talking about an era of juiced balls, juiced bodies, smaller ballparks, and watered down pitching. That's part of the perception deal. I mean we've already heard the argument that 500 home runs may not be an automatic entry into Cooperstown anymore, and take a look at some noteable names who've reached that milestone in the past 6 or 7 years or so- McGwire,Sosa,Palmeiro, and Bonds, all having perhaps done so through rather dubious means. The remaining old timers,though on the way out, will look at this era's ridiculous offensive numbers and say they don't mean as much. For stats that would seem to be a little more "era-neutral" (winshares if they have been calculated back that far, OPS relative to league and position averages, etc), some just won't care anyway.

It's already been mentioned by someone that Dick Allen should be in the HOF, attitude issues aside. Well, unfortunately attitude issues matter. There were some who wanted to keep Steve Carlton out of the Hall of Fame just because they didn't like the guy. Even though Albert Belle was putting up some silly numbers in the 90's, people didn't like him. I'm thinking it cost him some MVP votes a year or two, if memory serves me correctly.

I'm not against the numbers and using things like winshares to evaluate players. I find them to be very relevant and very accurate. I just don't know that the HOF committee does at this point and time yet, and so I do agree with Johnny that perception still plays a major role.


Informed followers of the game (including writers) can and do recognize greatness.

I don't understand the logic behind the perception argument. I've seen plenty of not-so-bright writers that really shouldn't have a say in HOF entry but do anyway. Sometimes greatness isn't so obvious, and the players buried under the writer's rhetoric should be recognized for the Hall of Famers they are even if they aren't "perceived" as such.

Johnny Footstool
04-25-2006, 09:21 PM
I don't understand the logic behind the perception argument. I've seen plenty of not-so-bright writers that really shouldn't have a say in HOF entry but do anyway. Sometimes greatness isn't so obvious, and the players buried under the writer's rhetoric should be recognized for the Hall of Famers they are even if they aren't "perceived" as such.

The point is that HOF greatness *is* obvious. Numbers contribute heavily, but there is something more that separates HOFers from borderline candidates.

Cyclone792
04-25-2006, 09:29 PM
The point is that HOF greatness *is* obvious. Numbers contribute heavily, but there is something more that separates HOFers from borderline candidates.

So what's the difference between Al Simmons, Tim Raines, Willie Stargell and Billy Williams?

And while we're at it, how about Jim Edmonds, Jimmy Wynn, Earl Averill, Kirby Puckett and Richie Ashburne?

Harry Heilmann, Dave Parker and Rusty Staub?

Keith Hernandez, Orlando Cepeda, George Sisler and Bill Terry?

Newman4
04-25-2006, 10:51 PM
You guys that disagree with the perception argument know that probably 95% of baseball fans who aren't Cards fans perceive Jimmy Boy as a Hot Dog and the South End of a Horse Walking North.

The Jim Edmonds Award:

http://www.allaireenterprises.com/horse_butt.jpg

M2
04-25-2006, 10:56 PM
The point is that HOF greatness *is* obvious. Numbers contribute heavily, but there is something more that separates HOFers from borderline candidates.

Cyclone covered it well, but I don't think it *is* obvious, especially to a bunch of writers who don't pay particularly close attention.

You're making the argument that's going to be used against Barry Larkin, namely that he wasn't famous enough. Larkin supporters are going to point to his stats, his MVP award, the Gold Gloves, the Silver Sluggers and the All-Star appearances and the counter is going to be that he wasn't famous enough. Why? Because he played in Cincinnati and not on the BRM.

They'll say that something obvious separates the true greats like Cal Ripken Jr. (whose only advantage over Larkin is that he played more) from borderline guys like Larkin. What really separates them is media coverage. Ripken enjoyed a major market spotlight. His consecutive games streak would have made him famous anywhere, but for pretty much the entire overlap of their careers (16 seasons) Larkin was the better player. Switch their home teams and Ripken's the sturdy guy who the people in the know would say was overrated and a poor comparison to a truly extraordinary player like Larkin.

Mind you, I'm convinced to the point of moral certitude that baseball writers have no business voting for the HOF. I agree with you that Edmonds still needs more the resume, but I tend to regard the vagaries of "fame" only to be relevant in making an argument for a player. That someone may not be considered a potentially worthy HOF candidate because he wasn't famous enough might only be telling you that the voter might not have been proper attention.

Johnny Footstool
04-25-2006, 11:54 PM
You're making the argument that's going to be used against Barry Larkin, namely that he wasn't famous enough. Larkin supporters are going to point to his stats, his MVP award, the Gold Gloves, the Silver Sluggers and the All-Star appearances and the counter is going to be that he wasn't famous enough. Why? Because he played in Cincinnati and not on the BRM.

Probably not a good example. Barry Larkin was an elite player and the face of the franchise for a decade. If you asked any fan in an AL town in the 90's who the best two shortstops in the NL were, they'd say Ozzie and Larkin. What writers are going to argue against him not being famous enough? They voted him MVP over a guy with better raw numbers (Bichette) in 1995.

But "fame," reputation, or whatever you want to call it isn't even a factor until you get to some of the borderline cases, and even then it doesn't trump stats. Jim Rice and Dwight Evans were plenty famous. So was Don Mattingly. Big-market darlings, and yet they're sitting at home during HOF ceremonies every year because their numbers just don't warrant induction.

Stats are the cake, but "fame" is the icing.

Don't get me wrong-- when it comes to fielding a team, you all know I'm firmly a stats guy. But the Hall of Fame isn't about winning games or putting the best team on the field. It's about remembering the players who were the cream of the crop -- not just the guys with the best numbers, but the players you loved. It's a place to celebrate the emotions those players elicit. I'd much rather see Ryne Sandberg in the HOF than the cold, stat-accumulating Don Suttons of the world.

Irrational? Sure, but I don't care. My left-brain loves baseball, but the HOF is a haven for my right-brain.

realistic
04-26-2006, 12:29 AM
in 14 major league seasons hes been to 4 all-star games and only started one. Thats far from "hall of fame" , thats not even a regular all-star...

yes - he had a good past couple years. that happens! players have peak years, albert belle, brady anderson, tony armas, andre dawson, etc. hall-of-famers are all-stars EVERY year pretty much (that should help Larkins chances) . Edmonds numbers look good due to the era hes played in.

Id argue for Dale Murphy waaaay before Jim Edmonds, he had back to back MVP's at least. but id still say no to him. Now, unless Edmonds gets 1200 more hits and/or 200 more hr's hes got no chance at all and hes too old for that

..face it hes an all-star not a hall of famer. big big difference....lets be realistic:)

M2
04-26-2006, 11:05 AM
Probably not a good example. Barry Larkin was an elite player and the face of the franchise for a decade. If you asked any fan in an AL town in the 90's who the best two shortstops in the NL were, they'd say Ozzie and Larkin. What writers are going to argue against him not being famous enough? They voted him MVP over a guy with better raw numbers (Bichette) in 1995.

AL writers never voted for NL MVP and those are the folks who are going to say Larkin wasn't famous enough. I don't know how Larkin's perceived in Kansas, but in Boston it's not uncommon to hear that Barry was a very good player, but not HOF material.

I'm not worried about your right brain. I'm worried about the right brains of half-wit sportswriters.

osuceltic
04-26-2006, 11:28 AM
Hall of Fame voting is moving in a dangerous direction. It's moving away from thoughtful analysis and toward number-triggered automatics. Putting aside the steroids issue, as a longtime fan, I point to two players: Rafael Palmeiro and Keith Hernandez.

I watched the full careers of both guys. Hernandez was among the most complete players of his generation, a great hitter, a truly clutch hitter, the best defensive first baseman I've ever seen (impossible to get a bunt down against a Hernandez team), and an invaluable leader. Palmeiro was a very good player, but at no point -- despite the power numbers -- did I ever feel he was as good as Hernandez as a complete ballplayer. I'd be surprised if anyone who watched both of them would consider Palmeiro the better player. Yet before the steroid test, Palmeiro was seen as a sure-fire hall of famer and Hernandez has never received more than passing interest.

This happens because of the reliance on numbers over watching the games. I know that runs counter to everything some of you believe (I do NOT want to start another sabr-scouting debate), but I believe it strongly.

westofyou
04-26-2006, 11:35 AM
This happens because of the reliance on numbers over watching the games. I know that runs counter to everything some of you believe (I do NOT want to start another sabr-scouting debate), but I believe it strongly.

There is a good 19th century bent to this argument. before "Baseball History" was in vogue and record keeping organized baseball had no idea how to quantify players and their role in the game, a game many had seen but not recorded, or some hadn't seen and only had rough records.

To cut to the chase many players were lauded as the "best" just like Buck Ewing, when in fact there were more players that fell between the cracks, mostly because they were not innew York or Chicago.

As Bill James said, In 100 years everyone who was involved in todays game will be gone, all that will be left is the stats (and game films now) so you have to give credence to the stats, because that's the record of what happened.

Johnny Footstool
04-26-2006, 11:46 AM
AL writers never voted for NL MVP and those are the folks who are going to say Larkin wasn't famous enough. I don't know how Larkin's perceived in Kansas, but in Boston it's not uncommon to hear that Barry was a very good player, but not HOF material.


You must be talking to the wrong people in Boston. Are they also the ones clamoring for Dewey and Rice to be elected?


This happens because of the reliance on numbers over watching the games.

Like I said, numbers are the cake, "fame" is the icing. A player has to have the numbers first. Hernandez may have been a "complete" ballplayer, but he was never the offensive force that Palmeiro was (needle-tracks notwithstanding).

M2
04-26-2006, 12:03 PM
You must be talking to the wrong people in Boston. Are they also the ones clamoring for Dewey and Rice to be elected?

Yep, it's like they live in a universe that's totally centered around the Red Sox. The Reds haven't really occupied that universe since 1975, so Barry Larkin's more theory than reality to them.


Like I said, numbers are the cake, "fame" is the icing. A player has to have the numbers first. Hernandez may have been a "complete" ballplayer, but he was never the offensive force that Palmeiro was (needle-tracks notwithstanding).

Totally agreed there.


This happens because of the reliance on numbers over watching the games.

You mean you can watch baseball? I never knew that.

Cyclone792
04-26-2006, 12:19 PM
You must be talking to the wrong people in Boston. Are they also the ones clamoring for Dewey and Rice to be elected?

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/ballot?event_id=2056

I think you may have to vote before you see the results, but that takes less than 30 seconds. Take a look at how many votes there are and what kind of support Larkin has received.

It's not good.


Like I said, numbers are the cake, "fame" is the icing. A player has to have the numbers first. Hernandez may have been a "complete" ballplayer, but he was never the offensive force that Palmeiro was (needle-tracks notwithstanding).

At least sabermetrically, Palmeiro's numbers aren't that impressive after adjusting for era and the fact that Palmeiro's played in hitter's parks for several of his seasons. Excluding the juice factor, Palmeiro's been overrated, while Hernandez is largely underrated.

M2
04-26-2006, 12:25 PM
http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/ballot?event_id=2056

I think you may have to vote before you see the results, but that takes less than 30 seconds. Take a look at how many votes there are and what kind of support Larkin has received.

It's not good.

He's now ranking below Omar Vizquel. Yikes.

MattyHo4Life
04-26-2006, 12:26 PM
I don't know how Larkin's perceived in Kansas, but in Boston it's not uncommon to hear that Barry was a very good player, but not HOF material.

I hear the same thing West of the Mississippi. I think HOF votes for Larkin will be a hard sell outside of the Cincinnati area.

Chip R
04-26-2006, 12:28 PM
I hear the same thing West of the Mississippi. I think HOF votes for Larkin will be a hard sell outside of the Cincinnati area.

As much as he killed the Cubs during his career, I would think would be very strong advocates for him.

Falls City Beer
04-26-2006, 12:30 PM
I think sportswriters really like Larkin a lot however. I've had the pleasure of living in a number of American cities hither and yon, and the local press in each one almost always referred to the Reds at one point or another as "Barry Larkin and the Reds."

I don't think Barry's a shoo-in (though he should be), but I think his shadow's long enough at his position that the sportswriters will squeak him through.

MattyHo4Life
04-26-2006, 12:31 PM
As much as he killed the Cubs during his career, I would think would be very strong advocates for him.

I think Barry was too nice of a guy for Cubs fans to like him. ;)

Falls City Beer
04-26-2006, 12:36 PM
[Excluding the juice factor, Palmeiro's been overrated, while Hernandez is largely underrated.

Funny, I think they're both terribly overrated.

Palmeiro for the reasons you list, and Hernandez for the constant and absurd panegyrics about his intangibles. But maybe the latter complaint has a lot to do with when I grew up--I remember hearing constantly about what a clutch guy Hernandez was. He was a fine player, but clearly, clearly not a HOF first baseman. His career SLG sucked for a 1st baseman. He was a slightly better OB% Sean Casey.

Chip R
04-26-2006, 12:38 PM
I think Barry was too nice of a guy for Cubs fans to like him. ;)

Plus he actually had a job so they probably couldn't relate to him. ;)

Johnny Footstool
04-26-2006, 12:40 PM
Meh. Put Larkin on a page with 50 other names, many of whom are still active today, and he'll get lost in the shufffle. When his HOF eligibility rolls around in three years, he'll get plenty of recognition.

M2
04-26-2006, 12:41 PM
I think sportswriters really like Larkin a lot however. I've had the pleasure of living in a number of American cities hither and yon, and the local press in each one almost always referred to the Reds at one point or another as "Barry Larkin and the Reds."

I remember those articles too, but, IMO, that said more about how little the writers had to say about the Reds rather than how much reverence they had for Larkin.

Falls City Beer
04-26-2006, 12:44 PM
I remember those articles too, but, IMO, that said more about how little the writers had to say about the Reds rather than how much reverence they had for Larkin.

That may be part of it. It's difficult to say. But Larkin was practically strong-armed by the writers through the field of Dante Bichettes/Fred McGriffs to his MVP in 1995.

Cyclone792
04-26-2006, 12:49 PM
Funny, I think they're both terribly overrated.

Palmeiro for the reasons you list, and Hernandez for the constant and absurd panegyrics about his intangibles. But maybe the latter complaint has a lot to do with when I grew up--I remember hearing constantly about what a clutch guy Hernandez was. He was a fine player, but clearly, clearly not a HOF first baseman. His career SLG sucked for a 1st baseman. He was a slightly better OB% Sean Casey.

With Hernandez, that's what happens when you play in a pitching era and the league average OPS for your career is .719, whereas we're now used to seeing a league average OPS over .750. He's got a 129 OPS+ in nearly 2,100 games played and was an outstanding defensive first baseman. I'm not necessarily saying he belongs, but he's closer than many believe.

Cyclone792
04-26-2006, 12:51 PM
Meh. Put Larkin on a page with 50 other names, many of whom are still active today, and he'll get lost in the shufffle. When his HOF eligibility rolls around in three years, he'll get plenty of recognition.

Hopefully you're right, though my gut tells me he's going to need a moderately strong push from the sabermetric crowd.

There was another recent poll that was a straight yes or no question, does Barry belong. It was split down the middle 50/50. The casual fan's perception of Larkin that I've observed is that he was a very good player, but injured far too often to be HOF caliber.

M2
04-26-2006, 12:53 PM
Meh. Put Larkin on a page with 50 other names, many of whom are still active today, and he'll get lost in the shufffle. When his HOF eligibility rolls around in three years, he'll get plenty of recognition.

That would be the hope, but you're still hoping enough folks thought he famous enough to give him consideration. It's been my experience that Larkin's sub-iconic for many and they aren't inclined to put him on a HOF pedestal.

M2
04-26-2006, 12:54 PM
But Larkin was practically strong-armed by the writers through the field of Dante Bichettes/Fred McGriffs to his MVP in 1995.

I'd x out "writers" in that sentence and insert "Peter Gammons." Unfortunately he may have to do the same thing again for Larkin to gain entrance in Cooperstown.

Newman4
04-26-2006, 12:59 PM
I hate to say it because he's a former Red, but Barry Larkin doesn't come across to many people as having the greatest disposition either. He was moody and at times aloof. Barry never seemed to fit the captain role even though many wanted him to embrace it. He may be a victim of Edmonds-like opposition on a smaller scale when he's up for the HOF.

westofyou
04-26-2006, 01:03 PM
He was moody and at times aloof.
They loved him in San Francisco, San Diego and LA

M2
04-26-2006, 01:04 PM
I hate to say it because he's a former Red, but Barry Larkin doesn't come across to many people as having the greatest disposition either. He was moody and at times aloof. Barry never seemed to fit the captain role even though many wanted him to embrace it.

Fortunately, only delusional Reds fans ever thought those things. To the majority of the world Larkin had a great disposition and epitomized what a team captain should be. Good citizenship in fact will be one of major attributes when he hits the ballot

Falls City Beer
04-26-2006, 01:31 PM
I'd x out "writers" in that sentence and insert "Peter Gammons." Unfortunately he may have to do the same thing again for Larkin to gain entrance in Cooperstown.

That's a good point. Also, I seem to remember a handful of coastal writers (NY/San Fran) coming out strongly in favor of him over Bichette.

Newman4
04-26-2006, 08:32 PM
Fortunately, only delusional Reds fans ever thought those things. To the majority of the world Larkin had a great disposition and epitomized what a team captain should be. Good citizenship in fact will be one of major attributes when he hits the ballot

Well, I guess that's your opinion against mine. Delusional Reds fans sometimes see their favorites in a different light than everyone else as well.

Johnny Footstool
04-27-2006, 09:23 AM
Well, I guess that's your opinion against mine. Delusional Reds fans sometimes see their favorites in a different light than everyone else as well.

People loved him in KC. He signed autographs for about an hour during a delay in a Reds/Royals interleague game.

westofyou
04-27-2006, 09:49 AM
People loved him in KC. He signed autographs for about an hour during a delay in a Reds/Royals interleague game.
Well that's at least 4 cities that aren't Cincinnati that didn't find him moody and aloof.

Jpup
04-27-2006, 10:30 AM
OT: nope.