HoF Debate: Jim Edmonds

[bigh0rt]

Up Next: Jim Edmonds

Edmonds may not have made a great historical impact on the game, and some may feel that he is the least deserving of our candidates so far, but I'll disagree...

For a 5-6 year stretch, Edmonds has been the absolute best player at his position in all of baseball. I feel that with two or three more productive seasons, the 4-time All Star becomes Hall considerable. He hasn't reached any major milestones yet, but I'm the type who will take 12-14 very good/great seasons that eneded in 2,500 hits over 18-20 above-average/good seasons that ended in 3,000 hits. Maybe that's just me.

Edmonds will not get to any of the milestone numbers and that will hurt him with the panel; although he has a very outside shot at 500 HR. He should most likely end his career over 425, though. The other milestone numbers will not be there. However, as far as quality of play? He's been one of the best hitters in baseball for most of his career. He gets on base, hits homeruns, drives in runs, has excellent EBH numbers and hits well for average. Plus he's a top notch defender. If you judge Edmonds' career on a quality scale I'd dare you to find 5 outfielders that are better from his era. If the judges are pre-occupied with milestone numbers then Edmonds probably doesn't stand a chance getting into the HOF.

I think with 2-3 more solid seasons, he gets serious consideration, from me at least, for making a ballot after waiting some. That said, I don't have faith in the panel to induct him, even then.

8 Gold Glove Awards (6 consecutive), a Silver Slugger, 2 Top 5 MVP Finishes, .384 career OBP, .291 career AVG, over 1,000 RBI, over 400 EBH, over 40 HR twice and 39 in another year, .927 career OPS in his 14th season with the Angels and Cardinals.

Gray Ink: Batting - 60 (400) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 37.6 (173) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 83.5 (193) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Things I Consider:
- Historical Impact - Did the player leave his mark on the game? This is probably the area in which the fewest players actually impact the HoF, as so few people actually fall under this criteria; however, it is just one of several things to be considered.
- Position Rank - How does he stack up against his peers, not only of his own era but in baseball history? Judging a player against his contemporaries is one way to judge value.
- Longevity - how long does a player play at the top of his game? Is his peak short, or does he maintain excellence over a stretch? Is he given an extra nudge due to simply doing something for an absurd amount of time?
- 'The Numbers' - Isn't that what it's all about, afterall? From the milestones, to the averages/ratios, to the career highs, records, etc. etc.

Remember, NO FLAMING/INSTIGATIN'!


1st ballot? 2nd? 3rd? Not at all? Why? Is he a lock today? In a season? Two more? Three?

Enjoy!

[d18Mike]

There is another Bill James qualifier that goes along with his HOF Monitor tool in assessing viability -- that is simply, is he the best player at his position who is not in the HOF? He'll never be that.

Strip away the Sportscenter highlight reels and there are a lot of players who have remarkably similar if not superior stats who will likely never be in a HoF Debate thread.

Great player. No HOFer unless you are willing to say that Tim Salmon and Shawn Green are also Cooperstown bound.

[giants!]

Jim Edmonds is not a hall of famer and will most likely never accumulate the stats needed. He is in a major "aging process" where his skills have declined each of the past two seasons. Having said that, he does not have anywhere near good enough stats now to supplement the remaining stats that he can accumulate in his aging years. Assuming he plays 3 more years with an average of
.270/25/80, that will bring his career totals to around .285/406/1228 and that is a big question mark that he can play 3 more years. Even with those numbers, he does not distinguish himself from other players who are not in the hall, especially considering he played in a major offensive era. Good player but not hall bound.

[ukrneal]

Edmonds is a good player, but not an HOFer. His stats at the OF position are not that great (good but not great). His highs have nothing on the likes of Sosa or Griffey. Griffey was a better fielder and hitter during most of that time, so I would not say that Edmonds was the best CF.

He never led the league in anything and no MVPs to help push him over.

[Dan Lambskin]

i havent gotten into the previous HOF discussions becasue they all seemed borderline to me and i didnt have a compelling argument either way, but i just dont think of Jim Edmonds as a HOF player

[WhiteHot]

Not a chance.

[Pogotheostrich]

Edmonds doesn't make it IMO. He was good on the Angels but never really great. His only shot is playing another 3+ years and hit like he did the first 5 years in St. Louis.

[noseeum]

Probably one of the best defensive center fielders there has been, but even in his generation, he takes a back seat to Andruw Jones.

As an outfielder, you have to have a lot of offense to make it, so I think he'll come up short. No World Series championships to help put him over the top.

Hell of a player, though.

[blankman]

No chance.

[BritSox]

I don't think either a short period of very good/great or a career of merely above average for a long time is enough. It has to be a long career of very good, or a shorter period of absolute domination, a la Pedro/Koufax (can't think of that sort of hitter off the top of my head).

Two top-five MVP years aren't nearly enough. Imho, for hitters you're looking at 6-8 top-five finishes or a couple of wins (ot at least close seconds in years when the bar was very high) minimum to be considered. Edmonds hitting-wise is Raffy Palmeiro without the milestones. He's had an OPS over 1000 twice. That doesn't get you into the Hall, unless you're over 900 for fifteen different years or something.