- This topic has 24 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 5 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’d say that Beltran’s election to the baseball HOF is justified on the merits of over 2700 hits, 435 HR’s and almost 1600 RBI’s to go along with 312 SB’s. He was also a veritable monster during several post-season appearances early in his 20 year Big League career. Who will ever forget the Godzilla vs. King Kong battle between Pujols and Beltran during the ’04 NLCS in which those two combined for 8 HR’s, 24 hits and an OPS of 1.563/1.521 respectively during that 7 game NLCS? While watching, I genuinely thought those two could possibly combine to throw the tilt of the Earth’s axis entirely out of whack with the blow by blow power display they featured during that series. Every Redbird fan knows how incredibly dangerous Beltran was whenever he stood in from either side of the box.
But, Jones? Yeah, he was a 10 time GG CF’er but he couldn’t even manage to collect 2000 base hits and he finished up with a pedestrian .254 career BA during his 17 season career. In any case, I don’t feel as though an OF’er should be placed in the HOF primarily on the merits of his mitt, which I feel is why Jones has gained entrance.
I understand tbe statistics argument against jones but im of a different sort. I believe defense should matter more than offense. Especially the defense you see with your eyes,not the stats on paper. In my eyes, i would argue jones is a more actual hall of famer than beltran in spite of his offensive woes later in his career. But thats just my view.
How is Andrew Jones a HOF’r and Jim Edmonds not? That’s a photo finish for me and Edmonds was one and done on the ballet.
Yeah, Edmonds came closer to collecting 2000 hits and finished up with a career BA that’s 30 pct. pts. above Jones career BA. I would have liked to see Jimmy get in there, but the reality is that I don’t think either him or Jones belong. The way things have been going it won’t be too long before Reggie Sanders sneaks in there…
If we were picking teams, you can have first choice between Edmonds and Jones. The seperation between the two is not as large as the HOF voting makes it appear to be.
It’s the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of the Few Best Players, so I’m ok with guys like Jones and Beltran getting in. They were two of the best of their eras, which we can sort of define with WAR, and sort of define with other metrics (like All Star appearances, MVP votes, and Gold Gloves). Beltran was never a league leading type of guy but was a very solid to great all around player for a long while. Jones’ case more depends on the Gold Gloves because his other stats aren’t sterling.
As far as Jim Edmonds, I think he deserves to be in, but the HOF Monitor and JAWS both think he has a weaker case than either Beltran or Jones. If I was picking one I’d go Beltran, Edmonds and Jones but I probably have a little bias as I really enjoyed watching Edmonds play CF in St Louis.
Beltran is a solid Famer in my opinion. Jones is right there as well – not quite the player Beltran was but definitely just above where I would draw the line. Edmonds is in that ball park as well.
And I am a broken record about my guy Kenny Boyer. Boyer’s WAR is almost exactly the same as Jones, with a better OPS+, 5 gold gloves, an MVP and over 2000 hits. Boyer was also a team leader on the field. Edmonds had a much higher OPS+ than Jones, and 8 gold gloves. I think Jimmy will get in at some point. I thought Boyer was a shoe-in at the last veteran’s vote, and had better credentials than Dave Parker or Dick Allen. But alas, I don’t think anyone really knows much about him today.
Of course, Jones and Beltran are recently retired players, while Boyer is no longer on the ballot. The current and veteran groups have separate voting processes.
The whole purpose of the Veterans Committee is to have voters who know the history of the game and not leave it in the hands of the mass of the current writers. I don’t know the reason Boyer hasn’t made it, but I doubt it is uninformed voters. More likely, he didn’t rise to the top in whatever metrics and discussions that committee follows when they meet (another difference in the two processes).
I speak from some experience, as remembering old time players as more than just numbers on paper is an important part of the Cardinals Red Ribbon Committee.
Doesn’t Andruw Jones induction into the the Hall of Fame help Jim Edmonds’ chances eventually. Their numbers are virtually identical, except that Edmonds had 30 points higher career average. Both had similar homers, RBI’s, and 8 gold gloves. The only catch is that Edmonds would have to be elected by the veterans committee. Although they should reevaluate candidates that have not made it in.
Yeah, that sounds right as far as the committee’s thinking process. I think in the case for Dick Allen, the emotions about him have softened over the years. He was a great hitter, the best offensive player among the three of him, Parker and Boyer.
But when he played, and for quite a few years after he retired he was thought of as a guy that despite his offensive prowess, his shortcomings defensively and in the clubhouse neutralized his value. He played on four teams in four years during his prime for example.
My general impression is that people much later, today that is, feel he was misunderstood, or for whatever reason do not think his personal issues were a detriment to his teams, whereas at the time he played they were a big issue among team management. Personally I loved Allen as a player, and hated that we traded him after only one season. And I am fine with him in the Hall – he could mash as good as anyone. But he was a negative in the field and in the clubhouse, which to some degree lowers his value and is why it took so long to get him in.
Parker had the physical presence and tools that were certainly Hall of fame worthy. But his career faded kind of quick. I think people saw him when he had the big years and moments, and tend to extrapolate that over a longer period of time than what he actually played at that level. He has that impression as sort of a monster talent, which he was but not for a real long time. I don’t think he quite gets there as far as a Famer, but then again do not have a big issue with him being in. He and Allen both did some things better than just about anyone, and that sticks with you. But for awhile they were not considered quite as good all around as what you want to see for the Hall. Later on those impressions of them at their peak seems to have over-ridden their negatives that were more in focus during their careers, and in the years just after they retired.
Yeak Mike, my memories of Dave Parker was that of a hitter that you feared but in reality it was a shorter stretch than what is Hall worthy. Same with Don Mattingly. There were a few years in the mid 80’s that Mattingly was the best hitter in baseball but he didn’t sustain it long enough.
Another guy in that category is Dale Murphy. A great player in the early to mid 80’s but probably not enough total WAR to get inducted.
I don’t see how Edmonds can’t be in if Jones got in.
Edmonds stats are slightly better than Andrew Jones, as Jones had 700 more AB’s
Edmonds 30 points higher batting Average, 39 points better OPS, 41 points higher slugging %
Jones did have 2 more gold gloves and got over 400 Homers where Edmonds has 393….that may be what got him in the 400 HR’s. There War is pretty much similar 62.7 to 60.4
Dale Murphy won back to back NL MVP’s and was, in my view, the best all around baseball player in either league for several seasons in the early 80’s. I’m not suggesting that he unquestionably belongs in the baseball HOF but, from my seat, Murphy makes a much stronger case for election than either Jimmy or Jones. Murphy was the best of the best for a portion of his career which is genuinely not the case with either Edmonds or Jones.
In regards to Ken Boyer it’s my view that the primary reason Santo is a member of the HOF and Boyer isn’t probably has to do with the city in which they played. I’d term it a clear case of exclusion due to systemic geographyism…
It’s been my experience that one of the best ways to determine how dominant of a player a guy was during any particular stretch of his career is to take a quick peek at his IBB’s. If he led his league in that often overlooked category, you can bet a dollar or two that he was one of, if not the best, players of that particular portion of his career. If the opposition is frightened to work to a guy, he’s pretty good.
Far as murphy goes, he was great for a very short stretch. But then he completely lost his talent. Didnt get old,have injuries, just lost his talent. Edmonds should be for defense alone. He was as great as jones and far better than beltran regardless of tbe defensive numbers and his offense was solid.
I’ve been watching Big League baseball for a minute or two and Jimmy Edmonds made two plays that were far and away the best I’ve ever witnessed from any other OF’er. One of them was early in game 7 of the ’04 NLCS that saved at least 2 runs and prevented the Astros from taking command early in the game. It was a play that I thought he had no chance to make when the ball left the bat and headed towards the LCF gap. I’m still thoroughly convinced that no one makes that play in that sort of high stakes situation other than Jimmy Edmonds. He brought best the OF mitt I’ve ever seen and seemed to amp it up when the stakes were high. Jimmy was a good one.
Well what makes edmonds that great is his natural ability. Even some really good outfielders dont have that. Its why most outfielders play back at normal depth or further. They have more time to track the ball and run it down while giving up lots of hits in front of them. Efmonds plated pretty shallow and insticntively knew where tbe ball was going off the bat. He didnt need to track it. He automatically ran to where he thought it would be and looked up n found it. A natural born outfielder. Prob couldnt play the infield at all but put him out in the outfield and he was home.
I just can’t get excited about halls of fame, especially since more often than not it seems to honor merely “above average” baseball players rather than the truly great. I know I know defining “fame” and “great” is a slippery matter as eras change, and even baseball is changing. Thus, HOF has become a big yawner.
Edmonds could certainly go get ’em. I can still see a play he made out here years ago when he was still with the Angels. A ball was hit to shallow left center, and Edmonds charged in and to his right and flat out dove headlong and made the catch. It caused this stretch of grass to show sort of a skid mark, and was there the rest of the game. So you watched the latter part of the game and always saw that mark on the grass that reminded you that you saw a highlight reel play.
And on Boyer and Santo, I dug out my Bill James historical abstract and James said they were basically the same player, with Santo a little more patient as a hitter.
With NL third baseman, it seemed to be that Eddie Mathews was the best in the ’50s, with Boyer taking over the reign for the first half of the ’60s and Santo ascending to the top in the second half of the ’60s. Allen was in the conversation too for a few years, ’64 to ’67, but did not have the glove that Santo had. One thing about Rich though, he was an outfielder and never played third much until he reached the majors. He was sort of forced into that role, which is probably one reason he was not a good fielder.
And a valid argument can be made that a NL MVP during a championship season along with a WS GS tater in game 4 that wiped out a 3-0 Yankee lead and effectively tied that WS at 2 games apiece lifts Boyer head and shoulders above Santo as a historically great baseball player who’s legacy should coexist with his 3B peers in the baseball HOF.
Yeah, I agree 1TD and have used that as one more reason to vouch for Boyer’s inclusion in the Hall. Santo never really played in high leverage games, and when he did play in some big games in ‘69, his center fielder messed up a couple of plays in a game they needed against the Mets and Santo publicly berated him. Not the kind of teammate you want to have in a leadership role.
And he never placed higher than 4th in the NL MVP voting. I’m not discounting Santo because he was a first rate baseball player and I recall him being more of a threat to my favorite team than any other Cub’s player with the exception of “Willy Billiams”…Mr. Cub was at the end of his career, but Santo and especially Williams were always a genuine headache for this Redbird fan when I was still very young and baseball was still played by hard nosed ballplayers who’s primary goal was to battle and fight tooth and nail to win baseball games. I’m thankful that I was able to see all those guys take to the field and play the game they loved.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.