Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Options
Edgar Martinez and the Fallacy of WAR
Tequilla
Member Posts: 19,815
in Tug Tavern
I find it highly amusing that the data for WAR penalizes a player for playing DH by saying that the player is below league average as a defensive player - even though there's minimal (if any) evidence to suggest as much. Penalizing a player for filling a position on the roster and the lineup (even if it does not require fielding) is part of the rules of the game and not some arbitrary component driven out of stat heads. If you're going to use negative defensive WAR for a DH's lack of fielding skills, wouldn't you then have to make a comparable adjustment to all pitchers for how shitty they are as hitters?
Of course, the part that I find the most comical is that most forget that Edgar was actually a fairly strong 3B before his leg injuries got to the point where the Mariners management decided that it was in their best interest to keep him off the field to protect his legs and bat. Edgar not only had seasons where he was a positive WAR player defensively, but from a range factor standpoint, he was a Top 2-3 player in the league.
The other thing that I think is so comical when it comes to evaluating the DH types (whether it be Frank Thomas, Edgar, or David Ortiz) is that if there was no DH in place, each of these players would be playing 1B and remain on the field because of their bat.
Of course, the part that I find the most comical is that most forget that Edgar was actually a fairly strong 3B before his leg injuries got to the point where the Mariners management decided that it was in their best interest to keep him off the field to protect his legs and bat. Edgar not only had seasons where he was a positive WAR player defensively, but from a range factor standpoint, he was a Top 2-3 player in the league.
The other thing that I think is so comical when it comes to evaluating the DH types (whether it be Frank Thomas, Edgar, or David Ortiz) is that if there was no DH in place, each of these players would be playing 1B and remain on the field because of their bat.
Comments
What is good for?
.418 career OBP, enough said
The simple way to question Edgar regarding steroids is because he remained a strong hitter late into his 30s and that it took him until his late 20s to get into the big leagues.
However, unlike many of the supposed juicers of the era, Edgar's numbers remained relatively stable year over year as he was much more of a line drive hitter than he was a pure power hitter.
There's very few public comments that in any way, shape, or form that have ever directly connected Edgar with steroids.
About the only thing that would ever shock me with steroids is somebody saying that Griffey was on them. That being said, until there's evidence presented publicly that connects Edgar I think it's irresponsible to suggest he (or any other player in a similar position) was on the juice. Even a guy like Jeff Bagwell, who I think it's far easier to make that leap of usage with based on his numbers, change in body structure, etc. is difficult IMO to really throw claims of usage about when there's no direct evidence to tie the player with performance enhancing drugs.
And regardless, countless of players in that era were using. Those that are willing to throw those that have never been tied into using (at least not publicly) into the discussions of having used must also consider that there would also be numerous other players who they are not even suspecting used. In that regard, it's hard to play the moral police by trying to figure out who was or wasn't clean. It's an absolute dangerous slope to walk when it comes to that regard.
I don't know how much you remember about the late 90s, but it seemed like everybody was trying to rush out to their local GNC finding ways to get ripped by taking supplement after supplement.
It would seem to me that that's very circumstantial evidence to tie someone to steroids.
Counting stats are ridiculous hallmarks in my opinion and don't measure the relative worth or value of a player. Voters would be highly encouraged in my view to vote for those that were the most influential in the game at a given point in time and not worry so much about what the statistics told. Over time, statistics can skew what you want to believe in a player. However, in the moment, you know who the best are. Important to keep that in mind IMO.
You can say he juiced, but counting stats have become extraordinarily overrated.
Martinez was a great, great hitter
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2003&month=0&season1=1990&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=17,d
Throw out pujols and his 475 AB's and he was a top 5 offensive performer during a 13 year stretch in baseball's peak offensive era.
That's HOF worthy
An emphasis on counting stats has been highly selective throughout the history of the game.
With any hitter, the question needs to be whether or not he was the, or one of the, most dominant players in the game during his time period. With respect to Edgar, there's no questioning that he was on the short list of best right handed hitters over his career. How many right handed hitters have won multiple batting titles?
A great question to many would be whether a guy like Clayton Kershaw is already a HOF player. He's already won 3 Cy Young Awards and a MVP. His peak is already comparable to that of Sandy Koufax. And certainly, I think we'd all agree that Koufax was a HOFer.
Today's generation is also going to be an interesting view of what a HOF player is. Hitters aren't going to put up the gaudy offensive numbers that they have in the past. If players are going to be judged in that regard, there will be few HOF players.
Moreover, the problem with looking at things through distorted lenses when viewing and judging players that played a generation or two ago is also a massive problem. To me, the best example of this is comparing a guy like Jack Morris versus Bert Blyleven. Blyleven made the HOF in my opinion based off of 2 primary considerations: longevity and advanced statistics (WAR). Even though he pitched in an era where starters pitched closer to every 4 days and tended to pitch complete games, Blyleven won 20 games in a season only once. His highest finish in a Cy Young race was 3rd 2x and finished in the Top 5 3x total. At no point growing up did I ever hear anybody say that Blyleven was one of the great pitchers in the game and in fact he only made 2 all-star teams in his career. In comparison, Morris won 20 games 3x during his career and finished in the Top 5 of Cy Young voting 5x during his career. Morris was a 5-time all star and started 3 of those games (an honor generally reserved for the pitcher that is viewed as the best in their league). Morris may have been one of the last in a generation of pitchers that finished what they started as he completed 1/3 of his starts throughout his career (Blyleven finished 35%).
In looking at the game today, pitchers are valued more based on their ability to strike hitters out, what their ERA/WHIP combo is, FIP, etc. 30 years ago, the marking of an ace was their ability to take the ball every 4-5 days and be able to give 8 or 9 innings routinely. Bullpens weren't what they are today. Throwing at max levels for 5-7 innings is all you are asking for out of starting pitchers today. Wins and losses are considered to be out of a pitcher's control. We marvel at a pitcher like Felix for his ability to average 7 innings per start. Yet Jack Morris averaged over 7 innings per start for his CAREER.
Morris is my pet peeve case of a guy that is out of the HOF that IMO should be in the HOF as he clearly was one of, if not the best, pitcher in the American League, if not the game, during the 80s. But he's also a great example of how today's advanced statistics look at players of the past differently than how they were viewed during the time that they played.
Keeping those who juiced out of the HOF is fucking stupid, unless MLB wants to take them out of the record books and start taking away championships from teams that had juicers.
Never going to happen. As such, Edgar the juicer should be in the HOF.
Case closed.
WAR >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traditional counting stats. And it should give the DH a negative positional adjustment.
And WAR isn't just giving DH a negative adjustment. It gives LF, RF, and 1B a negative adjustment as well. If WAR didn't give DH a negative positional adjustment it would be assigning more value to a DH than that of a RF with equivalent production, which would be FS. It charges DH's 5 more runs than 1st baseman which seems perfectly fair since 1B have to at least contribute something defensively.
No one's arguing Gar wasn't a decent defensive 3B when he played the position, but to assume the late career Martinez who added at least 30 pounds of muscle would have been as competent a fielder as early career Martinez is ridiculous. There's a reason he bulked up once he no longer had to play defense, and that's kind of the poont.
Edgar Martinez, 3B
Edgar Martinez, DH
One guy I'm surprised that has gotten such few votes is Bernie Williams. Starting CF for 4 titles, 6 World Series appearances. Jeter and Bernie were the best players on the Yankees for those titles. He made five straight All Star games, .297 average, .381 OBP. He hit with good power in his prime. He was a really good player and didn't even make the ballot last year. The highest he has been is 14th, with 9.6% in 2012. I can understand why he wouldn't be a Hall of Famer, but he should be getting higher vote totals.
If it wasn't for the steroid era freezing everyone out Edgar would be a HOF lock before his 15 years is up as the BBWAA cycles out the old diehards and in more sabermetrically familiar voters.
Thanks to the steroid era he probably never gets in. Which is fine - if they aren't letting Bonds and ARod and Clemens in than Edgar clearly doesn't belong. I think they should all be in though.
OTOH, Edgar didn't throw like a girl.