Comments on: Injury forces should-be Hall of Famer Jim Edmonds to retire

By: metalhead65

metalhead65 — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 16:27:31 +0000

under the radar?seriously? I don’t care where he played he was always on the tv making diving catches wether he had to or not.just because he played shallow and made highlight catches does not make him a hall of famer. he was good but no Jr.

By: mf44srq

mf44srq — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:27:02 +0000

He belongs in the Hall of Highlight Reels, not the Hall of Fame.

By: baseballisboring

baseballisboring — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 21:44:17 +0000

Meh, I dunno…not that I have any trust in the BBWAA at all, but I think they’ll take the fact that he was a (good) center fielder into consideration, and I think he’ll slide in eventually. Probably going to take some internet crusading though.

By: BC

BC — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 20:02:53 +0000

They have baseball teams on the West Coast?

By: seeingwhatsticks

seeingwhatsticks — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 20:01:39 +0000

I understand the small hall ship sailed a long time ago when the HOF induction ceremony became a big business that required people being inducted every year whether they were HOF worthy or not, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I have to jump on board with the concept.

MVP voting doesn’t mean anything by itself, but then no stat or accomplishment means anything in isolation. In this case I think it is telling because Edmonds doesn’t necessarily have the glamour numbers that we associate with the HOF. He didn’t hit 400 HR, let alone 500 HR, despite playing a position (OF) where power is frequently generated and based on the fact that he played 17 years you can’t blame a short career for that. He only hit .300 I think 4 times, only played 150+ games 4 times, and if you look at the baseball-reference similarity scores only 1 of the 10 listed is a current or likely HOF player. If you want to go back to the Jim Rice comparison for a second, Edmonds played 1 more season than Rice but over 200 fewer games.

As far as his WAR is concerned, considering there is no 1 definitive WAR formula I have a hard time using that as a major determining argument for or against HOF inclusion. It’s an interesting stat but like all stats in baseball it has to be placed in context. Edmonds played a lot of years but doesn’t have the gaudy counting stats and never had a high enough peak in relation to his peers to justify HOF inclusion. There’s certainly an argument to be made that his defense makes up for some of that but in my opinion he was a great player but not one of the very best of his generation. He may get in eventually but it’s not going to happen any time soon and he’ll probably need one of those years where there just aren’t any other really good HOF candidates up for voting.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:24:09 +0000

MVP voting doesn’t tell you as much as you would think. It says that Howard and Rollins have been more important to the Phils than Utley.
.
I have no problem with people being “small hall”, although the reality of a small hall sailed decades ago. There are about 7 HOF CFers that were better than Edmonds, so you think that in the history of MLB only 7 CFers should be in the HOF?
.
The funny thing is that players today have to be much better than players of yesteryear to get in the HOF because players as a group are better than players were 30, 40, and 50 yrs ago. Pitchers are better and more specialized, hitters have more data available for study (film), adjustments are now made within ABs and games instead of between seasons.

By: seeingwhatsticks

seeingwhatsticks — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:06:50 +0000

It’s close but I say no. Of course, I’m a small-hall guy and I don’t think Rice should have gotten in so saying “some of his stats are better than Jim Rice” doesn’t move me as much as it might others. For what it’s worth I also don’t think Andruw Jones is in either. The fact that Edmonds only finished in the top 5 of MVP voting twice tells me he was rarely if ever the best player on a good team, and as far as steroids/PED go haven’t we learned that we can’t assume anyone was/is clean? In my view being associated with Tony LaRussa certainly doesn’t help his case on that front, and while I don’t have any specific evidence to suggest Edmonds was dirty I also don’t have evidence that suggests with any certainty that he was clean.

By: dirtyharry1971

dirtyharry1971 — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 18:51:34 +0000

I think he belongs too but when i came here yesterday we got guys saying Sheffield isnt a HOF’er but this guy is a clear cut HOF’er? What am i missing here? Sheff belongs even more than Edmonds and thats not a knock to him either

By: goawaydog

goawaydog — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:27:05 +0000

he gets my vote on sheer balls to the wall commitment to every play. top 10 CF, also top 10 in entertainment value. a quality ballplayer.

By: rmfields

rmfields — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:24:32 +0000

I will miss this man’s Willie Mays-esque catches in the outfield! Edmonds had an outstanding career; a true ballplayer.

By: pauleee

pauleee — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:19:12 +0000

Somehow flew under the radar? That’s because he played half his career in Anaheim, and West Coast baseball doesn’t even count to half the people east of the Mississippi.

By: BC

BC — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:58:45 +0000

He’s going to have a really tough time getting in. The stats are there, but I think he somehow just flew under the radar for years – other than the Sportscenter highlight catches. I don’t think he gets in. If I were a voter, I’d be sqaurely on the fence though.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:45:14 +0000

Well, we have 5 years for voters to become more comfortable with defensive metrics and value metrics that account for defense and positional value (as CF defensive value is vastly under rated right now), and he should get enough votes to stay on the ballot and gain steam over time as people realize how few CFs were actually better than Edmonds was….I think he’ll get in after many years of incremental increases in support.

By: dodger88

dodger88 — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:39:56 +0000

Agreed that he will end up a borderline candidate who’s inclusion in the HoF would be fine with me but my expectation is that he falls short. He may get a bump for being “clean” compared to those that were suspected of PED use, thus making his numbers look better on the surface.

I like the fact that he technically retires as a Cardinal and not just as a result of a one day PR signing.