Baseball Player Comparison

[dooley_womack1]

Bench was a player who helped define his era. Edmonds was woodwork who made simple plays look spectacular. And a catcher has a ton more on his plate than a center fielder does. And Bench played several other positions too. Again, stats and Fame aren't a one-on-one correlation

 

[novelist_wannabe]

For those who haven't checked the numbers or figured it out - Player A is Jim Edmonds and Player B is Johnny Bench.

Normally I wouldn't dream of comparing those 2 but I was struck by the similarities in numbers. Maybe if Edmonds had spent his whole career with the Angels then more people would consider him Hall worthy. I admit to cherry picking some stats but they were the stats many sabermetricly inclined folks normally base their comparisons on.

Again - normally I wouldn't be making the argument for Edmonds and the Hall of Fame but I'm guessing someone will and the comparisons to people people like Bench or Jim Rice or Andre Dawson will be used to further Edmonds' case.

Sorry, if Dale Murphy doesn't get in (I think he should, but I don't think he ever will), then Edmonds shouldn't. Their careers are very similar, except Murph has two MVPs. Edmonds -- better batting average. Murphy - more RBIs and stolen bases.

 

[RickStain]

Dale Murphy should be in too.

 

[dooley_womack1]

For the record, I voted Mini Ditka

 

[SoCalDude]

Edmond had MVP potential, but he was too flaky to achieve it. Too many throwaway at-bats.

 

[Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L)]

For the record, I voted Mini Ditka

For the record - you voted for Daniel Nava

 

[spnited]

Dale Murphy should be in too.

No he should not. And Edmonds will nevrr get close.

 

[Boom_70]

How is 401 "just below the magic 500?"

I think anything over 400 is a big number.

Just saying - there are some interesting names between 400 and 500 hr's.
Still think though that 500 is the magic number that separates the elite.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Without giving away too much, positions matter. So does being a key member of the modern version of the '27 Yankees. MVP's matter, too. <b>And All-Star Game selections.</b>

Less than you think.

I woudn't give them huge weight, because of the fan vote being a popularity contest. However, it is at least a quick reference on whether a man was considered a premier player at his position, in his league, during his era. And that has always been a popular criteria.

Mike Williams, mediocre relief pitcher, was a two-time All-Star because somebody from the Pirates had to be picked.

Discouting All-Star Game selections as a criteria - one among many - because Mike Williams made two games is like dismissing global warming because it is cold out one day, or accept it because it is hot out one day. It is selective use of a miniscule sample size that does nothing to prove the point one way or the other.

All-Star selections are but one of many criteria, and can be used as an objectively quick reference. As I've admitted, there are a multitude of flaws in assigning the All-Star selections too much weight in a HOF debate. One player from every team is certainly one. But the presence of Mike Williams on two N.L. All-Star teams, as a standalone fact, does nothing for me.

 

[cyclingwriter]

I tend to agree on that one. The majority of modern Hall of Famers have a good approximation of All-Star game appearances. Robin Yount being one of the odder exceptions.

His three All-Star games, and Mike Williams' two mean little when deciding if they go into the Hall.

 

[qtlaw]

Wow only 3 for Yount? Maybe he was just a 2nd half player?

Edmonds does not even register as someone who was dominant in his era.

Bench really does. His offensive numbers were low but he played in an era when people rarely got 30 HRs or 100 RBIs and .290 got you into the top ten.

 

[RickStain]

Edmonds is being underrated here.

OPS by CF in 2004, minimum 500 PA:

Jim Edmonds 1.061
Jeromy Burnitz .916
Carlos Beltran .915
Aaron Rowand .905
Johnny Damon .857

And that's with slightly overrated but still stellar defense in a key defensive position.

The Bench comparison is deceptive because Bench had better peak years relative to his league, but Edmonds is way better than a second-tier guy.

 

[heyabbott]

Dale Murphy should be in too.

Gil Hodges

 

[spnited]

Edmonds is being underrated here.

OPS by CF in 2004, minimum 500 PA:

Jim Edmonds 1.061
Jeromy Burnitz .916
Carlos Beltran .915
Aaron Rowand .905
Johnny Damon .857

And that's with slightly overrated but still stellar defense in a key defensive position.

I'll take guys who won't make the Hall of Fame for $1,000, Alex.

 

[RickStain]

Dale Murphy should be in too.

Gil Hodges

First baseman.

 

[spnited]

Rick, Burnitz played only 167 games in CF is his career and only 69 in 2004. He was primarily a right fielder

 

[RickStain]

Rick, Burnitz played only 167 games in CF is his career and only 69 in 2004. He was primarily a right fielder

I just did a Fangraphs sort. He played enough games there to qualify for that season.

Edmonds won't ever break 50% of the vote. But he should.

 

[Boom_70]

Edmonds is being underrated here.

OPS by CF in 2004, minimum 500 PA:

Jim Edmonds 1.061
Jeromy Burnitz .916
Carlos Beltran .915
Aaron Rowand .905
Johnny Damon .857

And that's with slightly overrated but still stellar defense in a key defensive position.

The Bench comparison is deceptive because Bench had better peak years relative to his league, but Edmonds is way better than a second-tier guy.

The thing with players like Edmunds is if you have to convince yourself the he is a HOFer through a plethora of stats then he probably is not worthy.

 

[heyabbott]

Dale Murphy should be in too.

Gil Hodges

First baseman.

Who's on first

 

[RickStain]

The thing with players like Edmunds is if you have to convince yourself the he is a HOFer through a plethora of stats then he probably is not worthy.

That's a way of looking at it.