Edgar Martinez and the Fallacy of WAR
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
-
TL, DR summary: Edgar juiced.
-
WAR
What is good for? -
Edgar should be in the hall of fame
.418 career OBP, enough said -
Except he juiced and there are better juicers not currently in. Good player. Not a hall of famer.dhdawg said:Edgar should be in the hall of fame
.418 career OBP, enough said -
You just said it yourself, at the later stage of his career, Edgar was a shit fielder, doesn't matter if due to injuries. And yes he probably juiced, and Bret Boone's 40hr season on the stuff has pretty much diminished anybody's numbers that have been accused of juicing.
-
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.Tequilla said: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. -
If that was true, there would only be like 50 guys in the HoF.RoadDawg55 said:
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.Tequilla said: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. -
Fuck the DH rule.
-
So you're conclusion of Edgar being a juicer is that he was open about taking an over the counter supplement in creatine that could be found at your local GNC (both then and today) and that because Mark McGwire used creatine that therefore it was a common masking for anybody using steroids.RoadDawg55 said:
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.Tequilla said: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.
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. -
I don't agree much with tequilla, but I do in this case.
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 -
What's interesting in that listing is that Edgar's numbers are very similar over that time period to that of Frank Thomas.
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. -
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.ThomasFremont said:
If that was true, there would only be like 50 guys in the HoF.RoadDawg55 said:
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.Tequilla said: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 juiced.
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. -
He wasn't good enough WITH juice to put up HOF numbers.dnc said:Edgar juiced.
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. -
I like how Tequilla hates traditional counting stats AND WAR.
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
-
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. -
Only if you define HOF numbers as what they were in the 1990. The understanding of the game and what contributes to wins has progressed a ton in the last 25 years, and Edgar's numbers look better and better because of it.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
He wasn't good enough WITH juice to put up HOF numbers.dnc said:Edgar juiced.
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.
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.
-
RoadDawg55 said:
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.ThomasFremont said:
If that was true, there would only be like 50 guys in the HoF.RoadDawg55 said:
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.Tequilla said: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.
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.RoadDawg55 said:
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.ThomasFremont said:
If that was true, there would only be like 50 guys in the HoF.RoadDawg55 said:
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.Tequilla said: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. -
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.RoadDawg55 said: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.
OTOH, Edgar didn't throw like a girl. -
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.Tequilla said: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.
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. -
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.ThomasFremont said:RoadDawg55 said:
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.ThomasFremont said:
If that was true, there would only be like 50 guys in the HoF.RoadDawg55 said:
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.Tequilla said: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.
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.RoadDawg55 said:
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.ThomasFremont said:
If that was true, there would only be like 50 guys in the HoF.RoadDawg55 said:
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.Tequilla said: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. -
Those have never, ever been "criteria for getting in". As Fremont noted that would make for an exceedingly smaller HOF.RoadDawg55 said:
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.ThomasFremont said:RoadDawg55 said:
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.ThomasFremont said:
If that was true, there would only be like 50 guys in the HoF.RoadDawg55 said:
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.Tequilla said: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.
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.RoadDawg55 said:
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.ThomasFremont said:
If that was true, there would only be like 50 guys in the HoF.RoadDawg55 said:
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.Tequilla said: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.
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. -
Trust me, I get what you are saying.dnc said:
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.Tequilla said: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.
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.
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. -
They were a pre steroid era guarantee. I remember hearing about Palmeiro being the first guy to not get in with 500+ HR's.dnc said:
Those have never, ever been "criteria for getting in". As Fremont noted that would make for an exceedingly smaller HOF.RoadDawg55 said:
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.ThomasFremont said:RoadDawg55 said:
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.ThomasFremont said:
If that was true, there would only be like 50 guys in the HoF.RoadDawg55 said:
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.Tequilla said: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.
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.RoadDawg55 said:
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.ThomasFremont said:
If that was true, there would only be like 50 guys in the HoF.RoadDawg55 said:
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.Tequilla said: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.
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.
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. -
Has Edgar thrown a ball in this century?dnc said:
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.RoadDawg55 said: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.
OTOH, Edgar didn't throw like a girl. -
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.RoadDawg55 said:
They were a pre steroid era guarantee. I remember hearing about Palmeiro being the first guy to not get in with 500+ HR's.dnc said:
Those have never, ever been "criteria for getting in". As Fremont noted that would make for an exceedingly smaller HOF.RoadDawg55 said:
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.ThomasFremont said:RoadDawg55 said:
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.ThomasFremont said:
If that was true, there would only be like 50 guys in the HoF.RoadDawg55 said:
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.Tequilla said: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.
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.RoadDawg55 said:
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.ThomasFremont said:
If that was true, there would only be like 50 guys in the HoF.RoadDawg55 said:
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.Tequilla said: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.
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.
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. -
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.Alexis said: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 .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?
