Skip to content

“There is a position called the designated hitter. It’s in the rules and everything”

Dec 28, 2011, 3:03 PM EDT

Edgar Martinez

Grant Brisbee of SBN goes after the “Edgar Martinez is not a Hall of Famer” crowd by reminding people that, yo, the DH has been part of the game for 38 years now, so they have to be Hall of Fame eligible.  Brisbee’s hypotheticals which illuminate the silliness of the notion that DHs should not be in Cooperstown are worth a look. Particularly the one which holds that Mariano Rivera shouldn’t make it because, hey, he couldn’t hack it as a starter.

My guess is that the response to this by an anti-Martinez voter would be “hey, DHs should be eligible, but they gotta be WAY better than any other hitters.”  To them I’d ask what such a hitter would look like. Because Martinez was a friggin’ beast.

  1. trevorb06 - Dec 28, 2011 at 3:12 PM

    But Craig, they’re sports writers. They get to interprete the rules any which way they see fit. It’s their BBWAA right to do so. Duh.

    • baseballisboring - Dec 28, 2011 at 4:47 PM

      I’m pretty sure 100 random HBT commenters could do a better job than the BBWAA.

    • pjmarn6 - Jan 1, 2012 at 6:57 PM

      A dh is not electable to the hall of fame because only legally only the American League allows them. Therefore the National league can’t have a candidate. While relief pitchers pitch in both leagues. But according to baseball history current and past, the Hall of Fame is now a joke. And I haven’t seen anything how baseball is going to handle all these illegal records, players, games and circumstances. An impossible situation, that can only lead to one solution dissolve the whole system.

  2. emeraldcityfan - Dec 28, 2011 at 3:15 PM

    Here Here Craig!
    It’s a crime Edgar is not in the Hall yet. Bad knees but dude could hit.

    • Old Gator - Dec 28, 2011 at 4:38 PM

      However, many of us believe that the DH is itself an atrocity – like yours truly – and the baseball equivalent of a scrapyard or a uniformed nursing home porch with ninth-slot rocking chairs for those who either can’t play the field or play it atrociously. I don’t think that half-ballplayers belong in the Hall, and I don’t think they particularly belong in the batter’s box unless they’re willing to make adjustments to their shortcomings and go out in the field and try to catch and throw the ball like the rest of their teammates.

      • JBerardi - Dec 28, 2011 at 5:09 PM

        So basically, the DH is bad because you don’t like it. Got it.

      • Old Gator - Dec 28, 2011 at 5:18 PM

        I’m glad you do. It wasn’t complicated.

      • bigharold - Dec 28, 2011 at 5:57 PM

        Gator come on, … it’s the 21st century already get with the program. I bet you had fit when they started putting numbers on the uniforms of players, or when the dead ball era ended or when they started playing baseball at night. I hear it’s not a good idea to even mention putting teams on the west coast or expansion around you.

        Do you rail against the slackers usually referred to as pitchers that can’t hit at all? Especially, one of my favorites, Mariano Rivera that generally only pitches one inning a game. And, that’s only if they are ahead. Talk about stealing one’s paycheck. How about the guys that are already in the HOF that could tear the cover off the ball but sucked in the field? Those were just DHs before their time. There are more than a few in the HOF like that.

        If you can’t learn to accept the DH how are you going handle the transition from human umpires to computers, super slow motion digital cameras and laser sensors calling balls and strikes in a few years? Not to mention the hi def hologram projection video displays that the games will be watched on.

        The DH has been around long enough that even crusty old aficionados of the game, such as you, should be able to accept it. You gotta go with the times and after about 40 years it about time you accept the reality of the situation. Pitchers are baseball players that are throwing specialist and the DHs are baseball players that are hitting specialist. See that’s not so hard.

      • Glenn - Dec 28, 2011 at 6:16 PM

        By your logic, American League pitchers should be ineligible because they only play half of the game? Come on, prof. A player’s contribution to winning is just that. Being a mediocre, everyday fielder wouldn’t make Martinez any more valuable – and being a bad fielder may decrease his value.

      • Old Gator - Dec 28, 2011 at 6:20 PM

        Harold – none of the above, except for the DH. It’s not a question of modernity or tradition. I find it a boring and unimaginative imposition on the game, not some form of blasphemy against a metaphysical principle. I hated it at the time and still do. I cut pitchers a break at the plate because unlike anyone else in the field, who needs to wait on a play to involve them, pitchers are directly involved in every single play – none of which can occur until they throw the ball. I also value highly the drama, pathos and tension implicit in whether a pitcher who’s doing well will have to be removed late in a game because his team needs a hit to drive in a run or advance a runner. This is purely an aesthetic matter, again, not a religious one. With those late inning strategic decisions taken out of the game, I find it boring, and I find designatedhitterball games monotonous. And I find the warehousing of shitty fielders and brokedown former athletes on the bench, all pecs and biceps and clubs like paleolithic mammoth hunters taking long rest periods, pathetic.

        That’s all. As Tom Reagan said to Johnny Caspar, it ain’t complicated.

      • Old Gator - Dec 28, 2011 at 11:03 PM

        Glenn: precisely, except that it’s by your logic, not mine. Hiding a player on the bench for eight outs at a time to hide his shortcomings as a “complete” ballplayer, if anything, artificially inflates his value and protects him from having to be considered on all of his merits and flaws like the rest of his teammates. If it’s unfair to discriminate against a half-ballplayer because you don’t get nearly as much of a chance to take his fielding into consideration as you would for any other position player, it’s equally unfair to recommend him purely on a constricted sample of his talents and contributions. You’ve gained as much as you’ve lost.

        But the bottom line is, he’s contributed less, by definition, because he’s played less; everyone on the team except the mammoth hunter has been out there on the field for a minimum of eight innings – including designatedhitterball league pitchers.

      • Francisco (FC) - Dec 28, 2011 at 11:45 PM

        Gator, I hope that doesn’t stop you from attending a game or two in Toronto with yours truly whenever you drop by. I mean who else am I going to go with? I don’t think they allow beavers in urban environments… or mongrels

      • Old Gator - Dec 29, 2011 at 9:29 AM

        Francisco: now why did I not realize you lived in Toronto?

        Sure – a bowl of cabbage soup and a smoked meat and chopped liver sandwich at Caplansky’s and a game at the Rogers any time. I ought t be back up in the early spring, right after the season opens, so we’ll figure something out once I know my schedule.

      • Roger Moore - Dec 29, 2011 at 5:35 PM

        In fairness to Edgar, he wasn’t really moved away from 3B because he was an inadequate fielder there. His problem was he was fragile, so the Mariners decided to keep him at DH to minimize his injury risk.

  3. mabunar - Dec 28, 2011 at 3:22 PM

    “To them I’d ask what such a hitter would look like. Because Martinez was a friggin’ beast.”

    Frank Thomas
    Jim Thome

    • ireportyoudecide - Dec 28, 2011 at 3:26 PM

      So if Martinez had the same stats and had been a below average first basemen then he would be a hall of famer? That’s basically what the no DH people are saying.

      • mabunar - Dec 28, 2011 at 3:32 PM

        I’m not a No-DH person. Just posing a couple names of guys that I think people get in there heads when they think monster DHs.

      • mabunar - Dec 28, 2011 at 3:35 PM

        I don’t think those people would be swayed if he played 1B. If anything it might count against him as he wouldn’t compare to the power of all the other 1B during that time…and like it or not, 1B is a power position.

  4. nategearhart - Dec 28, 2011 at 3:22 PM

    It’s because writers/voters only look at two numbers when considering non-2B and non-SS hitters: hits and homeruns. I’m with you, Craig, I don’t know what else he could have done. In his peak years, he was Ted Williams. If he had played for an NL team, that team would have put him in the field. If there was no DH position, the Mariners would have put him in the field. His bat was too good. Fact is, the Mariners didn’t have to put him in the field, so why should they, and risk him getting more injuries?

  5. ireportyoudecide - Dec 28, 2011 at 3:23 PM

    The good news is when Bonds and Clemens don’t make the Hall of Fame next year the list of players who played the last 25 years who are not in the Hall will be better then the players in the Hall. Welcome to the club Edgar, who would you rather have to start a team. Bonds, Clemens and Edgar or Dawson, Rice and Blyleven? One of those groups is in the hall of fame, one is not.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 28, 2011 at 4:48 PM


      Really? Would love to hear how BB wasn’t a worthy HoFer.

      • ireportyoudecide - Dec 28, 2011 at 5:29 PM

        I didn’t say he wasn’t worthy, I don’t have a problem with any of those guys being in the hall. However Bonds is better then Rice, Martinez is better then Dawson, and Clemens is better then Blyleven. My point was the Hall is losing relevance if the best players are no longer included. Blyleven was a great player, Clemens was better.

      • chuckj1234 - Dec 28, 2011 at 5:42 PM

        The BB HOF is special. Most sports teams have one but baseball is special. Just ask Rose.

  6. mabunar - Dec 28, 2011 at 3:27 PM

    Not totally on topic…but does Jim Edmonds get in? More power less pure hitting skills than Edgar, but add in the fielding and do you get someone around the same overall level? WAR has Edmonds jussst a bit higher. Watching him play I never thought HOF…but if Martinez has this much backing there must be a campaign waiting for Edmonds too.

    • nategearhart - Dec 28, 2011 at 3:29 PM

      I’d put Edmonds in. Mays and Mantle set the bar ridiculously and unfortunately high for centerfielders. Edmonds was right there with Andruw Jones as one of the best CF in the league for several years.

      • Old Gator - Dec 28, 2011 at 5:21 PM

        it used to be my impression that the bar for a hall of fame belonged “ridiculously high.” A lot of marginals – like Blyleven – are getting in primarily because marginals – like Blyleven – are already in.

    • thefalcon123 - Dec 29, 2011 at 1:47 PM

      Jim Edmonds should absolutley get in the hall of fame, and I actually believe there will be a groundswell campaign for him in the future as he will be overlooked.

      Edmonds numbers are absurdly close to those of Duke Snider, and he is the 2nd best center fielder since the Mays/Mantle era (behind only Griffey) and certainly one of the 10 best all time. He gets a lot of comparisons to Andruw Jones (an OPS about 80 points higher), which is unfair because Edmonds was clearly a better offensive player. From 2000-2004, he put up one of the best peaks by a center fielder in baseball history, posting an OPS above .974 every single year and winning a gold glove every year. His 1.003 OPS during that span was higher than Alex Rodriguez’.

      The funny thing is, Jim Edmonds is an overrated fielder. By paying so much attention to his glove, everyone seemed to forget that he was one the game’s elite hitters, posting a career 131 OPS+ at a premium defensive position.

      Mays, Mantle, Cobb, Griffey, Speaker, DiMaggio and arguably Duke Snider (Edmonds tops him by 0.4 WAR) were better. I think being the 8th best player in the history of the game at your position should make you HOFer.

      Adam Darowski of Beyond the Boxscore wrote an article on this subject over at Gashouse Graphs a few years ago and can articulate it better than I ever can. check it out here:

  7. largebill - Dec 28, 2011 at 3:27 PM

    While I agree that Martinez’ hitting more than meets the standards of the Hall of Fame, DH is not a position. It actually denotes a role on the team with an absence of a position. DH’s are and should be eligible for the HoF, but just being considered the best DH ever means nothing. If Martinez hadn’t come along would that (the best DH) argument have any bearing on Harold Baines’ HoF case? Of course not. The standard for a DH should be equal to those expected from player at the least demanding defensive positions. Basically, a DH should be comparable to a 1B or a corner outfielder. Telling me Piazza is best hitting catcher means something. Or that a player is one of five best second basemen ever. In both cases the position is a limiting factor that narrows the field.

    • nategearhart - Dec 28, 2011 at 3:32 PM

      An AL team is required to “field” a DH; if they don’t, they can’t play. Therefore, of course it is a position. They HAVE to make someone do it. And it’d be one thing to say that Edgar was the best DH ever if he had Adam Kennedy’s stats, but the fact is he was one of the best hitters EVER, not just “good for a DH”.

      • dondada10 - Dec 28, 2011 at 4:02 PM

        I’m in the crowd that agree Edgar should be in the Hall, simply for the reason that he was a dominant hitter in his era. However:

        Rule 6.10. use of the DH is optional, however, the manager must designate a DH prior to the start of the game; failure to do so forfeits the right to use the DH, and the pitcher must then take his turn at bat.

      • jehzsa - Dec 28, 2011 at 4:35 PM

        Let me put it this way. As things stand now, the Rays would love to be able not to “field” a DH.

        So let’s meet halfway. No DH for the Rays and Longoria bats twice. :)

      • cur68 - Dec 28, 2011 at 5:22 PM

        Any argument for a DH not being in the HOF is the same argument for Rivera not making it. Are you really an elite, HOF pitcher if all you do is get 2 or 3 outs/game? DHing is little more than hitting’s version of relief pitching that rarely comes to bat. If Rivera was an NL closer he’d rarely come up to bat.

        Both guys are specialists at what they do and both are/were, to quote a phrase, “friggin beasts”. As far as I’m concerned Rivera is HOF worthy just like Edgar is.

    • Joe - Dec 28, 2011 at 3:50 PM

      Aren’t they all “roles,” really? Today so and so is the left fielder, tomorrow he’s the first baseman, the next day he’s the DH. One guy, three roles. What’s his “position”?

      Pete Rose isn’t in the hall for other reasons, but he played more than 500 games at five different positions. One year it was his role to be second baseman, another year his role was left fielder, another year it was first base. He wasn’t one of the greatest all time at any of those positions. But if he were eligible, he’d be a no-brainer for the Hall, because he was a great player.

  8. Jonny 5 - Dec 28, 2011 at 3:31 PM

    “My guess is that the response to this by an anti-Martinez voter would be “hey, DHs should be eligible, but they gotta be WAY better than any other hitters.” To them I’d ask what such a hitter would look like. Because Martinez was a friggin’ beast”

    Well I’m a person who wouldn’t be jumping at voting in a one dimensional player that isn’t a starting pitcher. But any ball player with as many AB’s as Martinez or even close actually and has the 35th highest career OPS in baseball history with (I think 8) active current players diluting the list, totally deserves it. 35th represents better than the top 1% in career OPS for any ball player ever. EVVVVERRRRR……..

    • Jonny 5 - Dec 28, 2011 at 3:32 PM

      (I think8) = ( I think 8 )

      • proudlycanadian - Dec 28, 2011 at 4:16 PM

        Edgar was the best DH and clearly belongs in the Hall of Fame. Too bad you do not have a DH in the NL. Howard would be a natural at the position.

      • Jonny 5 - Dec 28, 2011 at 4:37 PM

        PC, It is not too bad we don’t have a DH in the NL IMO. I prefer the NL style myself. And Howard does just fine playing defense. He’s not the worst first baseman in baseball anyway. He might make a pretty good DH, but some guys don’t take to it as well as others either.

      • proudlycanadian - Dec 28, 2011 at 5:15 PM

        You know your team better than I do Jonny.

  9. danrizzle - Dec 28, 2011 at 3:31 PM

    If somebody doesn’t want to vote for Edgar Martinez for the Hall of Fame, then that’s their right. Period. Anybody who disagrees just can’t get over their base of hard core ballot envy.

    • nategearhart - Dec 28, 2011 at 3:35 PM

      Looks like someone has hardcore professional blogger envy.

      • danrizzle - Dec 28, 2011 at 4:13 PM

        While I’d love to challenge whoever has the record for most thumbs-down, I should probably note that the sarcasm of my comment (of which there was plenty) apparently didn’t reach the audience.

        That isn’t to say I don’t envy professional baseball bloggers, though!

  10. awriterorsomething - Dec 28, 2011 at 3:40 PM

    Harmon Killebrew: 61.4 WAR in a 22 year career.
    Edgar Martinez: 67.2 WAR in an 18 year career.

    Killebrew would have been more valuable to his team as a DH than as a field position player. His dWAR was -7.6 and it was only THAT good because they stuck him at first where he could do the least harm.

    Edgar on the otherhand was moved to DH more due to injuries than fielding ineptitude. His dWAR during his fielding days is about a breakeven and at the significantly more demanding postion of 3rd base.

    Edgar belongs in the hall. He was a major offensive force and that should be recognized.

    Otherwise you are saying that being a good hitter but hurting your team deffensively is better than being a great hitter and not hurting your team deffensively.

    • mabunar - Dec 28, 2011 at 3:51 PM

      I get where you’re coming from, but a counter argument would be that if you have to field…that takes up some percentage of your mental/physical being. So if you are purely hitting, you theoretically have more devoted to batting and should have much better results. Again, grain of salt, but once Edgar was moved to DH he didn’t have to deal with all the muscle tweaks that a 1b does from lunging, stretching and jumping for the ball.

      • Ari Collins - Dec 28, 2011 at 4:35 PM

        Actually, people hit worse at DH than they do when they’re playing defense.

    • mabunar - Dec 28, 2011 at 4:04 PM

      And remember, WAR/RAR deals with percentages/probabilities of wins/runs caused by certain events. HRs are guaranteed runs…no question about it. So, comparing Killebrew (573) to Martinez (309) by WAR needs to have more story told.

      • danrizzle - Dec 28, 2011 at 4:19 PM

        Here’s part of the rest of the story: Killebrew’s career triple-slash is .256/.376/.509, which in his era amounted to an OPS+ of 143, which over a career is flat-out excellent. Edgar’s line was: .312/.418/.518, for an OPS+ of 147, also flat-out excellent. Edgar had only about 400 fewer total bases in more than 1100 fewer plate appearances. That isn’t the whole story, but it goes a long way.

    • kopy - Dec 28, 2011 at 4:25 PM

      I think Martinez deserves the hall, but I think this is erroneous:

      “Otherwise you are saying that being a good hitter but hurting your team deffensively is better than being a great hitter and not hurting your team deffensively.”

      Injuries are unfortunate, but that doesn’t give Martinez a free pass. You can’t say, “If Martinez was healthy, he would have been a better fielder than Killebrew. Therefore Martinez was the better player.” (Not that you did exactly, but I’m paraphrasing) Reality is, Killebrew was more valuable by having the health to play the field. Martinez also hurt his team defensively by locking up the DH spot and not allowing a potentially worse defender to DH instead.

      I think it’s fair to hold DHs to a slightly higher standard than those that play in the field, but Martinez is more than good enough for the HOF.

      • Jonny 5 - Dec 28, 2011 at 4:49 PM

        The DH position benefits from not being subjected to negative dWar which most would encounter, so it should be a weight against them when it comes to eligibility into the “Hall of the greatest” imo.

      • Kevin S. - Dec 28, 2011 at 6:40 PM

        You do realize that the positional adjustment basically makes being a DH the same as a negative ten dWAR first baseman for a full season, right?

  11. bigharold - Dec 28, 2011 at 3:48 PM

    I could see where a writer would have a higher standard for a DH than a position player but to say that the DH doesn’t warrant consideration or a DH should be held to a ridiculously high standard is profoundly myopic.

    Aside from the logic that the DH has been in MLB for nearly 40 years there have been some really great hitters that have been a DH or spent significant parts of their career as a DH, e.g. Martinez, Thome and Thomas. It makes no sense that they shouldn’t even be considered. And, there are a bunch of guys that were considered great hitters but barely adequate to truly horrid defensively that are already in the HOF, (Manny Ramirez comes to mind although he is not yet eligible and has other baggage). Not to mention there are a bunch of pitchers that are in the HOF with no regard to their offense because their specialty was throwing not hitting or running the bases or even defense. If one’s criteria is based heavily on the completeness of a candidate in all aspects of baseball that opens the door to see pitchers on a different light as well. Nobody is suggesting that.

    If a DH candidate was held to slightly higher standard because he didn’t have to deal with the wear and tear of playing defense that’s OK. But, the standard should be ridiculously higher and there needs to be some logic attached to it not just that DH’s aren’t worthy because they don’t play defense.

  12. cintiphil - Dec 28, 2011 at 3:54 PM

    This argument will go on for a long time. If the position is eligible for the hall, then, he had better be a great hitter, because he can’t contribute in any other way. I mean he should be hitting .325+ and hit about 20 HR’s and drive in at least 100 for a few years. I don’t care either way. If the DH becomes a rule in the NL, I will stop watching or even following the game.

    • Joe - Dec 28, 2011 at 4:32 PM

      “he should be hitting .325+ and hit about 20 HR’s and drive in at least 100 for a few years.”

      Well, that’s Edgar Martinez’ resume right there.

      • cur68 - Dec 28, 2011 at 5:47 PM

        It’s like he has no idea what Edgar Martinez’s stats were…amazing, really to check into this conversation without looking at them.
        Martinez’s stat line is: .312 & 24 home runs/year with 99 RBI averaged over 18 years. His career numbers are that good never mind “a few years”. If you want to average over his 7 best seasons (which should easily satisfy the arbitrary criteria of “a few years”) he’s even better than “.325+ 20 HR’s and 100 RBI” (works out to .334, 27 & 104). Dude was a monster. I’m not sure what phil’s point was beyond registering his lack of interest in Edgar, but given his criteria, he should have no problem with Martinez in the HOF.

      • cintiphil - Dec 29, 2011 at 2:57 PM

        Then vote him in, I don’t care either way. Just leave it in the AL. In the NL, they play baseball.

  13. dirtyshoez - Dec 28, 2011 at 4:29 PM

    If not fielding is so important for preservation…then why can’t AL pitchers get it together? They dont have to hit and risk injury, and get their rhythm messed up. You’d think the ERA would be lower in the AL just based on that fact.

    …Until someone like Edgar comes along.

  14. wlschneider09 - Dec 28, 2011 at 4:33 PM

    Those of us who are ancient remember that Martinez was a 3B for a big chunk of his career. Fun fact: Martinez played exactly 592 games in the field (564 at 3B, 28 at 1B) and 592 games at DH.

  15. scapistron - Dec 28, 2011 at 4:37 PM

    There is already a DH in the HOF. 44% of his games came as a DH. The next highest percentage was 30% at 3rd base.

  16. nukeladouche - Dec 28, 2011 at 5:40 PM

    Me, I don’t think Edgar put up the long-term #s needed to make the HOF.

    Yes, his “percentage” categories – average (.312), OBP (.418), SLG (.515) and OPS (.933) were great. But he finished his career with 2247 hits, 309 HRs, 1261 RBI and 1219 runs. A guy who has a very good but short-lived career is not, in my opinion, HOF-worthy, as longevity – i.e., sustaining play at a superior level for a significant length of time – ought to be a factor (and frankly, playing DH is a bit easier on a player’s body than being a FT position player, so the bar on longevity should be set a little higher for a FT DH).

    Edgar’s HOF cause is diminished by the fact that he didn’t reach any of the “milestone” #s in traditional cumulative stats: 500 HRs, 1500 runs & RBIs, 2500 hits (3000 is the “big” milestone in hits, but not every HOFer reaches that lofty plateau, so to me, 2500 hits ensures you get a second look, while anything below that is a strike against you). He was hurt by a few things: (1) he didn’t get a full season in prior to age 27 and (2) injuries in ’93 and the strike in ’94 cost him more games during his prime (what I think works out to be ages 26 – 31, maybe 32).

    I think he’s close – and 2 more full seasons of his average stats (177 hits, 96 runs, 99 RBIs, 24 HRs) would’ve put him at 2601 hits, 1411 runs, 1459 RBIs and 355 HRs. Throw in a .312 BA and real good OBP, SLG & OPS stats and that’s a HOF line. But without those two seasons, his stats are in many ways little better than Bernie Williams’ – 287 HRs, 1257 RBIs, 1366 runs, .297 BA – but without the defensive play.

    Had he been a 2B, SS or C I’d accept the argument that his offensive stats as is are HOF-worthy, but I expect more offense from certain positions. . . like DH.

  17. bozosforall - Dec 28, 2011 at 7:49 PM

    The standard for DH should be higher than for regular hitters…just as the standard is higher for relievers than it is for closers (at least ERA-wise). If you weren’t the Mo Rivera of DHs, then you aren’t a HOFer.

    • thefalcon123 - Dec 29, 2011 at 12:07 PM

      I think it is much higher.

      Also, there are many, many other relievers in the hall of fame. Rollie Fingers, Bruce Sutter, Hoyt Wilhelm…etc. None of them are as good as Mo.

      And if your standard for a HOF DH is “the best DH in baseball history”, then Edgar Martinez has a pretty good argument.

  18. bozosforall - Dec 28, 2011 at 7:52 PM

    Imagine if the DH existed when Babe Ruth was playing…his career HR numbers would have been unreachable, given the fact that he could still hit the ball consistently out of the park when he retired (4 HRs in his last game as a Brave, 6 of his 13 overall hits were HRs that last season).

  19. bozosforall - Dec 28, 2011 at 8:03 PM

    Jim Rice snuck in with a 127 OPS+, therefore Edgar Martinez should easily get in with his 147 OPS+.

    • cintiphil - Dec 29, 2011 at 3:00 PM

      I lived in Boston when Rice played there. He was a very player, but not HOF material. he got in because of where he played. Numbers like his would not get him in the hall if he played in Chicago, St. Louis or Cinti.

      • cintiphil - Dec 29, 2011 at 3:01 PM

        “Very good Player”

  20. thefalcon123 - Dec 29, 2011 at 12:03 PM

    Martinez didn’t accumulate absurd counting stats because he wasn’t a full time player until age 27. Looking at 300 homers, 2200 hits and 1200 RBIs for a DH in the high offense 90s doesn’t look HOF worthy.

    Nope, Martinez requires looking slightly up from the final lines. From 1990 to 2003, he was a dominant player. He posted an OPS+ above 150 8 times, (12 times above 130), won 2 batting titles, lead the league in OBP 3 times (above .400 10 times), and had a 14 year stretch where his *average* season was .317/.426/.531
    Sure seems like a HOFer to me.

  21. pmiller1129 - Dec 29, 2011 at 3:21 PM

    Edgar was actually a good 3rd baseman until his knees couldn’t handle it anymore. He is the best ever at position. The DH award is named after him. If writers have a problem with him only playing half the game then they shouldn’t ever vote for a Closer. The closer plays 1/2 of 1/9th (1/18th) of a game IF his team is ahead. Talk about not playing much and getting way too much credit. This whole argument about not playing enough should go away. The DH is actual position in the lineup. The closer is not. Its just a pitcher who pitches for small amount of time, a guy who generally has one good pitch and throws it a a lot. EDGAR for HOF!!!

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Wright (2933)
  2. D. Span (2488)
  3. G. Stanton (2410)
  4. J. Fernandez (2390)
  5. G. Springer (2351)
  1. Y. Puig (2252)
  2. F. Rodney (2190)
  3. M. Teixeira (2139)
  4. G. Perkins (2051)
  5. H. Olivera (1904)