- This topic has 12 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 1 day ago by
.
-
Posts
-
With the induction of Andrew Jones into the HOF, doesn’t this help Edmonds get in? Assuming he’d have to go through the committee, which I am not familiar with the process. Edmonds had better numbers IMO.
Edmonds, in my opinion, is like alot of recent inductees. That being he would be very borderline. I’d be surprised if he ever gets in.
It seems over time qualification for the Hall of Fame has slipped from “great ball players” to “very good ball players.” I’m not sure if that’s a good thing or not or an inevitable thing. Apparently letting a year pass with nobody chosen is unacceptable.
Jones got in largely because of his defense. Now personally i consider edmonds pretty equal to jones on defense so the fact his offensive numbers are actually a little better would make you think he would. However in circles that matter, i dont think edmonds gets the same nod on defense. I think a lot of it has to do with jones being on the braves during the times with maddox and glavine as well as others. More eyes were on them as opposed to st louis.
To the original question, Edmonds debuted on a very busy ballot year. Griffey Jr. went in immediately but because Edmonds received less than 5% of the vote, he could not remain on for another year.
On the other hand, Jones received just 7.3% in his first year, but that was enough to stay on the ballot until he finally reached 75% in his ninth of 10 tries.
The number of gold gloves doesnt always mean the person with the higher number was better. Its an arbitrary thing. But i did say it was my opinion that edmonds was as good not an arbitrary fact.
Sorry brian, that is good info though like i said the number of gold gloves can be deceptive. Particularly in the case of these 2 i saw them both play a lot so i trust my eyes more
Edmonds was a great fielder, and IMO that should put him over the top in making the Hall. His batting was much better than Jones’. Edmonds and Ozzie are the 2 greatest fielders I ever saw. Also on a fielding note Omar Vizquel should be in as well. He as great fielder, and IMO ann average bat, but he played many years, which should also be factored in.
Another underrated part of the game is base running. I’ll veer off Edmonds on this as he was average. But Pujols, Walker, Rolen, and Molina were exceptional. Those players made more out of their lack of speed with high baseball IQ.
I think Jimmy will eventually get in. It seems these “almost good enough” players like Dick Allen and Dave Parker eventually garner enough groundswell support to get the nod.
Unfortunately my guy, Kenny Boyer, has not made it despite better numbers than a lot of these later guys like Allen & Parker.
No qualms with Allen or Parker by the way – at their best they were as good as anyone. Not sure anyone hit the ball harder than Allen, or were as imposing and talented as Parker. They just did not stay at peak level as long as the no-doubt Famers.
Cardinals27 you are spot on about base running. Its an underated talent that lots of guys fast or slow never achieve. I think molina was more about timing and surprise. Rolen def possessed that skill, maybe the best i ever saw. I know im off topic but rolen was the prototype perfect ball player i would create in a lab. He had all the intangibles which i feel he learned because he didnt have lots of physical gifts other than size. He maximized everything, something most ball players that do have lots of physical gifts and talents dont ever achieve. I feel edmonds was the same way, not as a baserunner though he wasnt bad, but as a centerfielder. What he lacked in speed, he made up in knowledge of where the ball would be based on how it came off the bat and other factors. I do like this cardinal team but i do miss that team and players. I guess same aa the 80s guys. Its why i could prob never really decide on an all time cardinal team of 9. My favorites vs who i think were the best would be different.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.