Last year, we did our first ever debate on Notinhalloffame.com where we tackled the Hall of Fame merit of twenty-four men who are on the Hall of Fame ballot, in what was in our opinion the most loaded ballot in our lifetime.
Since it was so much fun last time, we thought we would do it again!
One thing that has not changed is the number. We will again debate twenty-four men who are on the ballot.
What has changed are the ones debating. Last year I had the pleasure of having DDT, the curator of DDT’s Pop Flies blog and D.K. of the Phillies Archivist blog. This year, Spheniscus, who has participated in past Rock and Roll discussions, will be joining me.
Chairman: Spheniscus, I have to tell you that this is the one I am most looking forward to talking about, but it is not because I am going into this with any strong opinion. Actually, it is the exact opposite, as here is a guy that I really want to explore his career and haven’t really done so before.
I give you Jim Edmonds, a four time All Star a World Series Champion with the St. Louis Cardinals but somebody that I have always regarded as an above average player, but not once really thought of as Cooperstown material, but am I wrong?
I know there are a lot of people who groan about sabremetrics but like it or not, this is going to be the litmus test that a lot of decision makers for the Hall will go by and with Edmonds, his case gets stronger. With a bWAR of 60.3, there are still ten on the ballot that are higher, but this remains a stacked lot so that really shouldn’t be held against him.
Here is what should, that 60.3, is lower by than the average HOF at that position (70.4) as his JAWS (51.4 to the 57.2 average) is also lower.
If you argue with traditional numbers, he doesn’t hit any real “magic numbers”. He is shy of 400 Home Runs, did not make 2,000 Hits, though I can argue that his career Slugging Percentage, which is over .500, should be one of those magic numbers and let’s say it is traditional. I remember that stat on the back of my old baseball cards!
What I think will happen is that Edmonds will fall victim of this group as cases can be made for ten players over Edmonds. My God, could we see him as a “one and done?”
Spheniscus: We definitely could. He is comparable to Duke Snider who is in the Hall. The rest are folks who are probably in the Hall of the Very Good. Guys like Dale Murphy (who I would have voted for), Fred Lynn, Ellis Burks and Shawn Green. And interestingly Larry Walker, who I’m sure we’ll get to later.
Although honestly, the hitting numbers don’t matter to me with him. My mental image of him is superman flying through the air to catch something he had no business getting to in the first place. And that is why I actually think that Edmonds has a chance of being one and done and still making the Hall on what I call the Mazeroski exception. I’m not saying it is a great chance, but it exists for him in a way that it doesn’t for say Sammy Sosa were he to fall off the ballot this year.
Chairman: I like that term. “The Mazeroski Exception”. Permission to use that in the future? Before, I go on to Edmonds, can I state that I would used mine on Joe Carter? I won’t explain that one as I think you know why as a Jays fan I say that!
I think I am more optimistic than you are about Edmonds. I too remember his athletic feats on defense, but I think his metrics are good enough and I think that run in baseball mad St. Louis where he won a World Series really helps. He is one of those guys that I could see some of the voters, who might have him placed 12th on their ballot, push him up a couple spots so that he can get past the first year.
Whether it should happen or not, the human element plays a factor for a lot of the voters. Honestly, I don’t know that I would be any different.
Spheniscus: Permission granted. And I remember my first baseball game back in 1985 when Joe Carter hit a home run for the Indians that went farther than I could ever imagine a ball going. And he may have hit a more important home run at some point in his career. So you have my vote on Carter as well.
And perception is reality. If you asked folks on the site to pick between Jim Edmonds and Larry Walker for the Hall, my guess is that Edmonds wins that vote. Even though Walker is probably the better player. So we’ll see, but my guess is that we will be seeing Edmonds on the ballot next year. And the year after. And the year after. And the year after. He’ll end up somewhere in the low teens.
Chairman: I think there a lot of people who would vote for him, and possibly want to, but I go back to what I said earlier. It is not that hard to find ten people to put ahead of him.
With my pretend ballot, I am doing just that, and I would pass him over, and feel bad about doing it, but not for very long.
Still, I think he will just squeak by with a single digit, maybe in the six to seven range, so that we can reevaluate him at least one more year.
Spheniscus: I agree with you. He may take Nomar’s spot. Let’s say 7.5 to 8 percent. That doesn’t give him much of a cushion not to be a one and done. Which is too bad because he is one of the 15 on this list I would vote for. Just not in the first 10.
2016 HOF Debate: Jim Edmonds
- Written by Committee Chairman
-
Published in Hall of Fame Debates
-
Read 2349 times
01 Jan
2016
2016
Tagged under
Comments powered by CComment