Why would I want to compare the value of a 2B/SS versus that of a 1B from a relative value standpoint?
Yes, I get that the defensive implications of playing a middle infield position are greater than that of 1B. I don't need some shitty stat called WAR to try to tell me that.
Am I better off just paying attention to WAR and filling up a lineup full of middle infield types that are seemingly WAR studs? Or, is it quite possible that the game has been played for generations may in fact be the way to look at the game?
I guess the reason that I hate WAR is that stat geeks use the stat as this great measure of how performance works when in reality what WAR does is mostly confirm the eye test. The problem with WAR, and other advanced stats, is that they have very little of an understanding of what is going on around them.
For example, Miguel Cabrera is easily the best hitter in baseball IMO. There's no way a pitcher in their right mind is ever going to willingly want to pitch to him in a dangerous situation. As a result, Victor Martinez comes up to the plate in a ton of premium situations and he's going to get different pitches to hit than what he'd get if not for that situation. Yes, Martinez is a very good hitter in his own right. But on the other hand, part of why he has been so good in Detroit is what surrounds him and the situations that he gets put in.
Going back a few years ago, on base % was all the rage. And I'm one person that really values on base % going back to when I was a kid and nobody else gave much of a shit about it. But on the other hand, the reason I give a shit about on base % is because of what it represents. It represents patience. It represents swinging at good pitches to hit. It represents pitchers being careful due to the damage that can be caused. The fallacy with a stat like on base % is that no matter how great it is, you still have to be able to hit the ball to score runs. So who cares if you have a ton of guys that can work the count if you don't have guys that can actually put the ball into play.
It's one of the things that I love about the Nelson Cruz signing ... advanced stats be damned. He's a hitter that pitchers know if they make a mistake with you're looking at 2-3 runs going up on the board. It changes how they pitch to him. It changes how they pitch to guys in front of him. It will change the situations that the guys behind him hit in. There's tons of compounding factors that go into the game. Very rarely do you have unique events that aren't related to other events.
Why would I want to compare the value of a 2B/SS versus that of a 1B from a relative value standpoint?
Yes, I get that the defensive implications of playing a middle infield position are greater than that of 1B. I don't need some shitty stat called WAR to try to tell me that.
Am I better off just paying attention to WAR and filling up a lineup full of middle infield types that are seemingly WAR studs? Or, is it quite possible that the game has been played for generations may in fact be the way to look at the game?
I guess the reason that I hate WAR is that stat geeks use the stat as this great measure of how performance works when in reality what WAR does is mostly confirm the eye test. The problem with WAR, and other advanced stats, is that they have very little of an understanding of what is going on around them.
For example, Miguel Cabrera is easily the best hitter in baseball IMO. There's no way a pitcher in their right mind is ever going to willingly want to pitch to him in a dangerous situation. As a result, Victor Martinez comes up to the plate in a ton of premium situations and he's going to get different pitches to hit than what he'd get if not for that situation. Yes, Martinez is a very good hitter in his own right. But on the other hand, part of why he has been so good in Detroit is what surrounds him and the situations that he gets put in.
Going back a few years ago, on base % was all the rage. And I'm one person that really values on base % going back to when I was a kid and nobody else gave much of a shit about it. But on the other hand, the reason I give a shit about on base % is because of what it represents. It represents patience. It represents swinging at good pitches to hit. It represents pitchers being careful due to the damage that can be caused. The fallacy with a stat like on base % is that no matter how great it is, you still have to be able to hit the ball to score runs. So who cares if you have a ton of guys that can work the count if you don't have guys that can actually put the ball into play.
It's one of the things that I love about the Nelson Cruz signing ... advanced stats be damned. He's a hitter that pitchers know if they make a mistake with you're looking at 2-3 runs going up on the board. It changes how they pitch to him. It changes how they pitch to guys in front of him. It will change the situations that the guys behind him hit in. There's tons of compounding factors that go into the game. Very rarely do you have unique events that aren't related to other events.
Anyone who has even an elementary understanding of WAR understands that doesn't work because you're killing someone's defensive value by moving them from SS to 1B.
WAR isn't always a great way to build a roster. It's always a great way of comparing players values from one position to another.
Your Victor Martinez example is funny, considering his average season of WAR has been lower with Detroit than it was with Cleveland or Boston.
BTW, the increased appreciation of OBP is the only reason Edgar has a HOF case at all.
It's easy to have doubts about just about anybody that played in that era regarding steroids ...
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.
Edgar was pretty open about using creatine. I remember reading all about it in the paper. Mark McGwire tried to throw people off doing the same thing. Edgar juiced, added no value as a fielder, and didn't reach the 3,000 hits or 500 HR's. 3,000 or 500 has typically been the criteria for getting in.
If that was true, there would only be like 50 guys in the HoF.
The guys without that typically had lots of stolen bases and/or were great fielders. Edgar was one of the slowest players in the league. He added nothing on the bases or as a fielder. Edgar didn't become a full time player until he was 27. He was a great hitter, but I don't think it's difficult to understand why he's not going to get in the Hall of Fame.
It's easy to have doubts about just about anybody that played in that era regarding steroids ...
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.
Edgar was pretty open about using creatine. I remember reading all about it in the paper. Mark McGwire tried to throw people off doing the same thing. Edgar juiced, added no value as a fielder, and didn't reach the 3,000 hits or 500 HR's. 3,000 or 500 has typically been the criteria for getting in.
If that was true, there would only be like 50 guys in the HoF.
The guys without that typically had lots of stolen bases and/or were great fielders. Edgar was one of the slowest players in the league. He added nothing on the bases or as a fielder. Edgar didn't become a full time player until he was 27. He was a great hitter, but I don't think it's difficult to understand why he's not going to get in the Hall of Fame.
IDGAF about Edgar and the HoF. But if you're gonna say 3000/500 is the criteria for getting in, I reserve the right to call you a fucking liar.
Analysts mention it all the time when debating a player's merits. The guys who don't reach those numbers offer other things besides hitting. I didn't just pull those numbers out of my ass. Each player is different, but a DH/1B should be expected to reach those numbers in order to get in.
It's easy to have doubts about just about anybody that played in that era regarding steroids ...
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.
Edgar was pretty open about using creatine. I remember reading all about it in the paper. Mark McGwire tried to throw people off doing the same thing. Edgar juiced, added no value as a fielder, and didn't reach the 3,000 hits or 500 HR's. 3,000 or 500 has typically been the criteria for getting in.
If that was true, there would only be like 50 guys in the HoF.
The guys without that typically had lots of stolen bases and/or were great fielders. Edgar was one of the slowest players in the league. He added nothing on the bases or as a fielder. Edgar didn't become a full time player until he was 27. He was a great hitter, but I don't think it's difficult to understand why he's not going to get in the Hall of Fame.
It's easy to have doubts about just about anybody that played in that era regarding steroids ...
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.
Edgar was pretty open about using creatine. I remember reading all about it in the paper. Mark McGwire tried to throw people off doing the same thing. Edgar juiced, added no value as a fielder, and didn't reach the 3,000 hits or 500 HR's. 3,000 or 500 has typically been the criteria for getting in.
If that was true, there would only be like 50 guys in the HoF.
The guys without that typically had lots of stolen bases and/or were great fielders. Edgar was one of the slowest players in the league. He added nothing on the bases or as a fielder. Edgar didn't become a full time player until he was 27. He was a great hitter, but I don't think it's difficult to understand why he's not going to get in the Hall of Fame.
IDGAF about Edgar and the HoF. But if you're gonna say 3000/500 is the criteria for getting in, I reserve the right to call you a fucking liar.
Analysts mention it all the time when debating a player's merits. The guys who don't reach those numbers offer other things besides hitting. I didn't just pull those numbers out of my ass. Each player is different, but a DH/1B should be expected to reach those numbers in order to get in.
Those have never, ever been "criteria for getting in". As Fremont noted that would make for an exceedingly smaller HOF.
They have always* been considered automatic milestones - if you reach them your induction is assured, without any analysis given to your other numbers or the context of your career.
You probably just worded it wrong, but Fremont was right to call you out. Those numbers aren't close to requirements for HOF induction.
Why would I want to compare the value of a 2B/SS versus that of a 1B from a relative value standpoint?
Yes, I get that the defensive implications of playing a middle infield position are greater than that of 1B. I don't need some shitty stat called WAR to try to tell me that.
Am I better off just paying attention to WAR and filling up a lineup full of middle infield types that are seemingly WAR studs? Or, is it quite possible that the game has been played for generations may in fact be the way to look at the game?
I guess the reason that I hate WAR is that stat geeks use the stat as this great measure of how performance works when in reality what WAR does is mostly confirm the eye test. The problem with WAR, and other advanced stats, is that they have very little of an understanding of what is going on around them.
For example, Miguel Cabrera is easily the best hitter in baseball IMO. There's no way a pitcher in their right mind is ever going to willingly want to pitch to him in a dangerous situation. As a result, Victor Martinez comes up to the plate in a ton of premium situations and he's going to get different pitches to hit than what he'd get if not for that situation. Yes, Martinez is a very good hitter in his own right. But on the other hand, part of why he has been so good in Detroit is what surrounds him and the situations that he gets put in.
Going back a few years ago, on base % was all the rage. And I'm one person that really values on base % going back to when I was a kid and nobody else gave much of a shit about it. But on the other hand, the reason I give a shit about on base % is because of what it represents. It represents patience. It represents swinging at good pitches to hit. It represents pitchers being careful due to the damage that can be caused. The fallacy with a stat like on base % is that no matter how great it is, you still have to be able to hit the ball to score runs. So who cares if you have a ton of guys that can work the count if you don't have guys that can actually put the ball into play.
It's one of the things that I love about the Nelson Cruz signing ... advanced stats be damned. He's a hitter that pitchers know if they make a mistake with you're looking at 2-3 runs going up on the board. It changes how they pitch to him. It changes how they pitch to guys in front of him. It will change the situations that the guys behind him hit in. There's tons of compounding factors that go into the game. Very rarely do you have unique events that aren't related to other events.
Anyone who has even an elementary understanding of WAR understands that doesn't work because you're killing someone's defensive value by moving them from SS to 1B.
WAR isn't always a great way to build a roster. It's always a great way of comparing players values from one position to another.
And the increased appreciation of OBP is the only reason Edgar has a HOF case at all.
Trust me, I get what you are saying.
I was using that analogy to point out what I consider to be the hypocrisy of WAR.
I guess my point is that I can look at a player and understand their value without needing someone to throw a stat up there to tell me that a guy like Cano is a better 2B than other 2B in the league or to try to compare whether or not Cano is a comparable player to Cabrera - which is an apples and oranges comparison IMO.
WAR to me falls in the category of helping those whose eyes are worse than Grandpa Sankey.
It's easy to have doubts about just about anybody that played in that era regarding steroids ...
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.
Edgar was pretty open about using creatine. I remember reading all about it in the paper. Mark McGwire tried to throw people off doing the same thing. Edgar juiced, added no value as a fielder, and didn't reach the 3,000 hits or 500 HR's. 3,000 or 500 has typically been the criteria for getting in.
If that was true, there would only be like 50 guys in the HoF.
The guys without that typically had lots of stolen bases and/or were great fielders. Edgar was one of the slowest players in the league. He added nothing on the bases or as a fielder. Edgar didn't become a full time player until he was 27. He was a great hitter, but I don't think it's difficult to understand why he's not going to get in the Hall of Fame.
It's easy to have doubts about just about anybody that played in that era regarding steroids ...
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.
Edgar was pretty open about using creatine. I remember reading all about it in the paper. Mark McGwire tried to throw people off doing the same thing. Edgar juiced, added no value as a fielder, and didn't reach the 3,000 hits or 500 HR's. 3,000 or 500 has typically been the criteria for getting in.
If that was true, there would only be like 50 guys in the HoF.
The guys without that typically had lots of stolen bases and/or were great fielders. Edgar was one of the slowest players in the league. He added nothing on the bases or as a fielder. Edgar didn't become a full time player until he was 27. He was a great hitter, but I don't think it's difficult to understand why he's not going to get in the Hall of Fame.
IDGAF about Edgar and the HoF. But if you're gonna say 3000/500 is the criteria for getting in, I reserve the right to call you a fucking liar.
Analysts mention it all the time when debating a player's merits. The guys who don't reach those numbers offer other things besides hitting. I didn't just pull those numbers out of my ass. Each player is different, but a DH/1B should be expected to reach those numbers in order to get in.
Those have never, ever been "criteria for getting in". As Fremont noted that would make for an exceedingly smaller HOF.
They have always* been considered automatic milestones - if you reach them your induction is assured, without any analysis given to your other numbers or the context of your career.
You probably just worded it wrong, but Fremont was right to call you out. Those numbers aren't close to requirements for HOF induction.
*pre steroid era freeze out.
They were a pre steroid era guarantee. I remember hearing about Palmeiro being the first guy to not get in with 500+ HR's.
For a DH, I think it's fair to ask they reach those numbers. Like I said before, Edgar offered nothing in the field or on the bases. You look at recent guys who got in without those numbers, and they offer many things other than hitting such as Barry Larkin, Robby Alomar, Andre Dawson, etc.
I'm looking at the voting now, and see Edgar was 10th in 2013 and 13th in 2014. Comparing him to Frank Thomas is wrong. Frank Thomas had better power and got on base at the same rate as Edgar. He also won back to back MVP's. Edgar was a great hitter, but he was never the most feared hitter in the game like The Big Hurt once was.
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.
Other than BA (which is worthless) Thomas' rates are superior across the board, and he has an extra 1400 PA's to spread those rates across. He's clearly a superior HOF candidate to Edgar.
It's easy to have doubts about just about anybody that played in that era regarding steroids ...
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.
Edgar was pretty open about using creatine. I remember reading all about it in the paper. Mark McGwire tried to throw people off doing the same thing. Edgar juiced, added no value as a fielder, and didn't reach the 3,000 hits or 500 HR's. 3,000 or 500 has typically been the criteria for getting in.
If that was true, there would only be like 50 guys in the HoF.
The guys without that typically had lots of stolen bases and/or were great fielders. Edgar was one of the slowest players in the league. He added nothing on the bases or as a fielder. Edgar didn't become a full time player until he was 27. He was a great hitter, but I don't think it's difficult to understand why he's not going to get in the Hall of Fame.
It's easy to have doubts about just about anybody that played in that era regarding steroids ...
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.
Edgar was pretty open about using creatine. I remember reading all about it in the paper. Mark McGwire tried to throw people off doing the same thing. Edgar juiced, added no value as a fielder, and didn't reach the 3,000 hits or 500 HR's. 3,000 or 500 has typically been the criteria for getting in.
If that was true, there would only be like 50 guys in the HoF.
The guys without that typically had lots of stolen bases and/or were great fielders. Edgar was one of the slowest players in the league. He added nothing on the bases or as a fielder. Edgar didn't become a full time player until he was 27. He was a great hitter, but I don't think it's difficult to understand why he's not going to get in the Hall of Fame.
IDGAF about Edgar and the HoF. But if you're gonna say 3000/500 is the criteria for getting in, I reserve the right to call you a fucking liar.
Analysts mention it all the time when debating a player's merits. The guys who don't reach those numbers offer other things besides hitting. I didn't just pull those numbers out of my ass. Each player is different, but a DH/1B should be expected to reach those numbers in order to get in.
Those have never, ever been "criteria for getting in". As Fremont noted that would make for an exceedingly smaller HOF.
They have always* been considered automatic milestones - if you reach them your induction is assured, without any analysis given to your other numbers or the context of your career.
You probably just worded it wrong, but Fremont was right to call you out. Those numbers aren't close to requirements for HOF induction.
*pre steroid era freeze out.
They were a pre steroid era guarantee. I remember hearing about Palmeiro being the first guy to not get in with 500+ HR's.
For a DH, I think it's fair to ask they reach those numbers. Like I said before, Edgar offered nothing in the field or on the bases. You look at recent guys who got in without those numbers, and they offer many things other than hitting such as Barry Larkin, Robby Alomar, Andre Dawson, etc.
If you look at it just from a numbers standpoint, Andre Dawson was more borderline than not. Jim Rice also fits in that line of thinking.
In many ways, I view both of them as HOF players as they were some of the best players in the game when they played.
Counting stats are what they are. The timing of the game changes and has throughout history. Measuring someone that played in a period where the game had greater offense (even going back to the late 1920s where the National League wound their balls significantly tighter than they ever had previously to promote offense) versus a timing when pitching dominated (see the mid to late 1960s into the early 1970s) and you'll get vastly different results when looking at stats.
The point as always is that the eye test is really what stands out to me when measuring a HOF caliber player. When we're applying advanced stats of today in comparing to years past when the game wasn't played in that manner is a massive apples vs. oranges comparison.
A guy like Tim Raines is a really great example of this. There's no questioning that the first 8-10 years of his career were great HOF caliber years. But the last 8 years or so of his career were quite pedestrian and helped him in adding up totals. I'm not against him being in the HOF as you could very easily conclude he was the 2nd best lead off hitter in the game during that time period (behind the best to ever play the game). But in looking back on things growing up, there was never really a thought of Tim Raines being one of the great players in the game. A very good player for sure. But not a great, living legend caliber player.
A DH definitely deserves to get in (and has) Edgar was the best DH of his time. But the problem was, Edgar's time was essentially 7 seasons. That's pretty bordecline to say a guy who only played at a high level for that short of a time deserves to be enshrined with the absolute giants of the sport. It has been done (Sandy Koufax for one) but if you are going to get in with that short of a career, you need to really blow away the competition. Edgar was great, but in an offensive ballpark, in an offensive era, with a monster lineup around him, he was very good, almost great. He needed to be amazing.
A DH definitely deserves to get in (and has) Edgar was the best DH of his time. But the problem was, Edgar's time was essentially 7 seasons. That's pretty bordecline to say a guy who only played at a high level for that short of a time deserves to be enshrined with the absolute giants of the sport. It has been done (Sandy Koufax for one) but if you are going to get in with that short of a career, you need to really blow away the competition. Edgar was great, but in an offensive ballpark, in an offensive era, with a monster lineup around him, he was very good, almost great. He needed to be amazing.
The 7 seasons part I sort of disagree with - but I get what you're saying.
The .300/.400/.500 stats for Edgar are well known ...
In the history of the AL, there have been only 8 players to win multiple batting titles as a RH hitter. The 5 to complete that before Edgar (Nap Lajoie, Harry Heilmann, Al Simmons, Jimmie Foxx, and Joe DiMaggio) are all HOFers. Edgar was #6. Nomar #7 (HOF caliber players if injuries didn't derail his career). Cabrera #8 (almost certain HOF).
An interesting thought that I heard talked about the other day was that as we have more teams and players in the game today than we ever have, the % of players that we're electing is at an all time low comparatively speaking even though there's a greater pool of players to choose from.
Is it possible that we look way too much for reasons not to include versus looking for reasons to include?
Comments
Yes, I get that the defensive implications of playing a middle infield position are greater than that of 1B. I don't need some shitty stat called WAR to try to tell me that.
Am I better off just paying attention to WAR and filling up a lineup full of middle infield types that are seemingly WAR studs? Or, is it quite possible that the game has been played for generations may in fact be the way to look at the game?
I guess the reason that I hate WAR is that stat geeks use the stat as this great measure of how performance works when in reality what WAR does is mostly confirm the eye test. The problem with WAR, and other advanced stats, is that they have very little of an understanding of what is going on around them.
For example, Miguel Cabrera is easily the best hitter in baseball IMO. There's no way a pitcher in their right mind is ever going to willingly want to pitch to him in a dangerous situation. As a result, Victor Martinez comes up to the plate in a ton of premium situations and he's going to get different pitches to hit than what he'd get if not for that situation. Yes, Martinez is a very good hitter in his own right. But on the other hand, part of why he has been so good in Detroit is what surrounds him and the situations that he gets put in.
Going back a few years ago, on base % was all the rage. And I'm one person that really values on base % going back to when I was a kid and nobody else gave much of a shit about it. But on the other hand, the reason I give a shit about on base % is because of what it represents. It represents patience. It represents swinging at good pitches to hit. It represents pitchers being careful due to the damage that can be caused. The fallacy with a stat like on base % is that no matter how great it is, you still have to be able to hit the ball to score runs. So who cares if you have a ton of guys that can work the count if you don't have guys that can actually put the ball into play.
It's one of the things that I love about the Nelson Cruz signing ... advanced stats be damned. He's a hitter that pitchers know if they make a mistake with you're looking at 2-3 runs going up on the board. It changes how they pitch to him. It changes how they pitch to guys in front of him. It will change the situations that the guys behind him hit in. There's tons of compounding factors that go into the game. Very rarely do you have unique events that aren't related to other events.
WAR isn't always a great way to build a roster. It's always a great way of comparing players values from one position to another.
Your Victor Martinez example is funny, considering his average season of WAR has been lower with Detroit than it was with Cleveland or Boston.
BTW, the increased appreciation of OBP is the only reason Edgar has a HOF case at all.
They have always* been considered automatic milestones - if you reach them your induction is assured, without any analysis given to your other numbers or the context of your career.
You probably just worded it wrong, but Fremont was right to call you out. Those numbers aren't close to requirements for HOF induction.
*pre steroid era freeze out.
I was using that analogy to point out what I consider to be the hypocrisy of WAR.
I guess my point is that I can look at a player and understand their value without needing someone to throw a stat up there to tell me that a guy like Cano is a better 2B than other 2B in the league or to try to compare whether or not Cano is a comparable player to Cabrera - which is an apples and oranges comparison IMO.
WAR to me falls in the category of helping those whose eyes are worse than Grandpa Sankey.
For a DH, I think it's fair to ask they reach those numbers. Like I said before, Edgar offered nothing in the field or on the bases. You look at recent guys who got in without those numbers, and they offer many things other than hitting such as Barry Larkin, Robby Alomar, Andre Dawson, etc.
In many ways, I view both of them as HOF players as they were some of the best players in the game when they played.
Counting stats are what they are. The timing of the game changes and has throughout history. Measuring someone that played in a period where the game had greater offense (even going back to the late 1920s where the National League wound their balls significantly tighter than they ever had previously to promote offense) versus a timing when pitching dominated (see the mid to late 1960s into the early 1970s) and you'll get vastly different results when looking at stats.
The point as always is that the eye test is really what stands out to me when measuring a HOF caliber player. When we're applying advanced stats of today in comparing to years past when the game wasn't played in that manner is a massive apples vs. oranges comparison.
A guy like Tim Raines is a really great example of this. There's no questioning that the first 8-10 years of his career were great HOF caliber years. But the last 8 years or so of his career were quite pedestrian and helped him in adding up totals. I'm not against him being in the HOF as you could very easily conclude he was the 2nd best lead off hitter in the game during that time period (behind the best to ever play the game). But in looking back on things growing up, there was never really a thought of Tim Raines being one of the great players in the game. A very good player for sure. But not a great, living legend caliber player.
Edgar was the best DH of his time. But the problem was, Edgar's time was essentially 7 seasons. That's pretty bordecline to say a guy who only played at a high level for that short of a time deserves to be enshrined with the absolute giants of the sport. It has been done (Sandy Koufax for one) but if you are going to get in with that short of a career, you need to really blow away the competition. Edgar was great, but in an offensive ballpark, in an offensive era, with a monster lineup around him, he was very good, almost great.
He needed to be amazing.
The .300/.400/.500 stats for Edgar are well known ...
In the history of the AL, there have been only 8 players to win multiple batting titles as a RH hitter. The 5 to complete that before Edgar (Nap Lajoie, Harry Heilmann, Al Simmons, Jimmie Foxx, and Joe DiMaggio) are all HOFers. Edgar was #6. Nomar #7 (HOF caliber players if injuries didn't derail his career). Cabrera #8 (almost certain HOF).
An interesting thought that I heard talked about the other day was that as we have more teams and players in the game today than we ever have, the % of players that we're electing is at an all time low comparatively speaking even though there's a greater pool of players to choose from.
Is it possible that we look way too much for reasons not to include versus looking for reasons to include?