Edgar’s HOF Support Drops
This is expected, as we’d seen enough early ballots to get a feel for where this was headed, but today’s HOF voting announcement reveals that Edgar Martinez has seen his proportion of the vote drop in his second year of eligibility. After getting 36 percent of the vote last year, he fell to 33 percent this year. We have always suspected that Edgar’s only possible path to Cooperstown was the long slow road, and this simply confirms that suspicion. Realistically, with the glut of power hitters coming on the ballots over the next few years, Edgar doesn’t have much of a chance for the next decade or so.
It’s a bit sad, but it’s also reality. For the next ten years, we’re going to spend one day in early January trying to figure out what the direction of Martinez’s vote total means for his possible election in the following year. Prepare for one very long haul.
illdonk wrote: “As for Paul Molitor, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the idea that moving to DH on a majority basis extended his career and put him in the Hall. …[Games played analysis of how he couldn’t stay healthy until moving to DH ensues.] …Does this mean that Molitor suddenly became a much, much better hitter? Maybe. What does seem more likely is that being a DH allowed him to stay in the lineup on a full-time basis and perform to the best of his considerable abilities.”
I think this is reasonable speculation, but there is really no way to know, is there? I also happen to think it is reasonable to speculate that Edgar was MLB-ready 2-3 years earlier than he was given a chance, and would have performed somewhere a bit north of league average (at least) had he been given the chance. The consensus is that that is irrelevant to the HoF analysis, though, so why should Edgar’s (or any DH candidate’s) naysayers be permitted this bit of speculation on the other side? Consider both, or consider neither…I simply ask for consistency.
The other thing here is, although I get the impression that illdonk writes this in order to further his (speculative) argument that the DH enables guys to extend their careers “artificially” and make HoFers out of guys who wouldn’t otherwise be considered, it is also true that Paul Molitor is IN the Hall, he’s an important part of “the standard” as it applies to Edgar. My point is, if it wasn’t a knock on Molitor, and isn’t going to be a knock against Frank Thomas when his time comes – despite BOTH players having well over 1000 games played at DH each – then it shouldn’t be a knock against Edgar.
“Pete…have you done anything from the DH perspective regarding Paul Molitor? I know he has some of the key numbers (mostly 3000+ hits). But, he sailed in and was basically a DH most of his career. Does Edgar compare favorably to him?”
I haven’t, but I will look. My gut (which unlike BBWAA voters I don’t trust without verifying by the record) tells me illdonk is probably right about the relationship of Molitor’s best seasons to when he was DH’ing, and I would guess that Edgar compares pretty favorably given that there’s not a huge difference in their WAR once you account for additional playing time (74.8 for Molitor in 2683 games; 67.2 for Edgar in 2055 games), and Edgar’s career OPS+ (unadjusted to account for his significant OBP advantage) is 147 to 122 for Molitor.
I’ll say this, quickly, though: it looks like Molitor started getting up to 1/3 of his games at DH as early as 1987, so you could see how Edgar did vs. Molitor as a fielder by grouping Molitor’s “fielding seasons” (1978-1990 and “DH seasons” (1987-1998; some overlap), and then Edgar’s 1987-1994 “fielding seasons” vs. his 1993-2004 “DH Seasons” and see how it comes out. That’s a little unfar to Edgar, because he had a more limited-playing time lead-in before becoming a full-time player, but it might still be telling.
Molitor, 1978-1990: .299/.361/.437, 121 OPS+
Molitor, 1987-1998: .316/.382/.467, 127 OPS+
“Full-time DH” (1991-1997) : .32/.385/.472, 127 OPS+
Edgar, 1987-1994: .303/.391/.460, 133 OPS+
Edgar, 1994-2004: .314/.427/.537, 151 OPS+
Edgar, “Full-Time DH” (1995-2003): .321/.438/.558, 159 OPS+
[I’ve excluded each man’s last year, which was among each’s worst, for purposes of comparing their “Full-Time DH” periods” which, interestingly, correspond in age pretty well – 34-40 for Molitor (with more significant “part-time DH service for him between 30-33), and 32-40 for Edgar).]
Of course, this includes three years of irregular playing time, call-ups/send-downs, and two years of injury, so it probably overstates the difference between Edgar as a fielder and Edgar as a DH. And Molitor’s offensive performance, at least from a “rate” perspective, isn’t terribly different among these rough categories. But it also shows that Edgar was a better quality hitter than Paul Molitor at each point of his career. Molitor may have provided similar or better career value, thanks to a longer career and more accumulated stats, but he was not a better hitter.
I agree with your points Pete. That was sort of what I was thinking as I reviewed both their careers. As you point out, the big key here is that the voters have already accepted that Molitor’s DH years can be used when taking into account a player’s HOF status. So, then the next step is to get an idea of what exactly is the cut off on DH ABs, before they stop counting.
I think this is reasonable speculation, but there is really no way to know, is there?
Are you saying there’s no way to know that an injury-riddled player wouldn’t have become extremely durable at the age of 34 without the DH, eventually getting 225 hits at the age of 40? No way to prove it, of course, but I’ve said dumber things. I didn’t write that it proved everything for every player ever. Had the subject been Frank Thomas, it would have been a different story.
My point is, if it wasn’t a knock on Molitor, and isn’t going to be a knock against Frank Thomas when his time comes – despite BOTH players having well over 1000 games played at DH each – then it shouldn’t be a knock against Edgar.
We’re getting to the heart of the discussion, here. Because who said it won’t be a knock against Thomas? It won’t be a deciding factor because people consider him, with 500 clean HRs and two MVPs, so overwhelmingly qualified for the Hall that the conversation probably won’t ever get to that point (although thinhs have been crazy in recent years), but ask any voter about it and they’ll be happy to grimace and chuckle about his defense.
If Edgar had 1000 more hits or 200 more HRs, and won some major awards and championships, the DH issue would barely be discussed. Edgar’s considered a borderline Hall of Fame candidate using the generally accepted criteria, so people look for other contributions. Okay, 300 HRs, some good batting numbers in a relatively short career…what else ya got?
For a player like Kirby Puckett, who obviously had a short career, those ‘what else ya got?’ contributions were his being a beloved player with six Gold Gloves who led two small-market Twins teams to championships, plus the disease-shortened career. Over the next 50 years you’re going to hear a lot of Hall arguments made on behalf of players, citing similar stats to Puckett (like in New York with Mattingly), but they’re not going to match those extras.
Here’s another example: it’s a knock against Edgar that he never played in a World Series, and performed terribly in his three ALCS chances to reach one. Or to put it another way, it would be a boost if he had won a World Series and perhaps a WS-MVP. Now, will that matter for Griffey Jr.? Did that matter for Ted Williams? Of course not. But it matters to Edgar, like it mattered to Catfish Hunter.
On a non-Edgar point, pissing off every single sportswriter in America probably hurt Richie Allen in a way that it didn’t, say, Steve Carlton.
Think of Hall of Fame voting like a race with a finish line. There are players like Ted Williams and Stan Musial and Ken Griffey Jr. who are miles past the line, so one or two missteps don’t really matter. Then there are players like Kirby Puckett and Catfish Hunter, who perhaps didn’t have the stats to reach the line, but voters gave them the few extra steps to cross it, for fame and championships.
Now here’s Edgar. Pete and BLYK and many others here see Edgar as way past that finish line, with a bunch of Neanderthal voters unfairly bringing up the DH and lack of pennants to push him back across the line. I think the truth is many voters looking at his career totals don’t think he is past the line, and don’t have any reasons to give him those extra steps.
We can keep discussing the DH for eleventy-seven years, complaining how unfair it is that Edgar isn’t in when Molitor and then Frank Thomas are. Or we can realize that this means it isn’t the DH issue that’s keeping Edgar out.
As I said up there somewhere, Edgar will be in the Hall if voters can be convinced to reward a player with a career OPS better than Hank Aaron, Mike Schmidt, Frank Robinson and every other recent Hall of Famer not named Williams, Mantle, Musial or Mays. If they can’t be convinced of that, he won’t get in.
“Are you saying there’s no way to know that an injury-riddled player wouldn’t have become extremely durable at the age of 34 without the DH, eventually getting 225 hits at the age of 40?”
Kinda, but not really. I’m saying it is reasonable speculation, just as I believe it is reasonble speculation to say that Edgar Martinez, by the ’87-’89 range, had proven all he had to prove in AAA, had proven in limited stints in MLB that he was better than Jim Presley (I know, not saying much there), and between that and the way he started his career when he got a full-time chance, was fully capable of providing league average or better offense and defense for 2-3 years at the Major League level before he was given that chance.*
I say that not because I want voters to credit Edgar with something he did not do. I want them to realize that he had demonstrated the capability to play at a league average or better level some three years before given the chance, and if the stats he would have accumulated in those years are all that is standing in the way of moving you from “meh” to pretty sure Hall of Famer, then I’d suggest to you that from what we know he accomplished, the right balance of great rate stats and lesser counting stats is already proven. Tacking on three average seasons to a Hall of Famer’s career does little to nothing to prove his value as a hitter. His peak already did that.
“No way to prove it, of course, but I’ve said dumber things.”
That’s more what I am saying – not that it is unreasonable but that there’s no way to prove it, just as there is no way to prove the equally reasonable argument about the years before Edgar was given a full-time gig. Honestly, they kind of cancel each other out.
As and aside, since you raised Kirby Puckett, I don’t know how many people realize just how close Edgar, with his case of strabismus, was to being the Kirby Puckett of the Mariners. Read this Ken Rosenthal article from about ten years ago, and tell me that Edgar wasn’t facing something damn close to what Kirby faced. It is to the credit of his work ethic and character – a word that comes up in the voters’ Hall of Fame voting instructions – that Edgar overcame that. Between that and the remarkable things Edgar continues to do for this community, things that made him not only a respected teammate and opponent but a Clemente Award winner and a World Sports Humanitarian Hall of Fame inductee, those things should definitely be plusses on Edgar’s side of the ledger. Joe Posnanski recently wrote something I really believe (that happens quite a lot, actually): the Hall of Fame character clause was not included so much to EXCLUDE as to INCLUDE. And its inclusionary purpose has never found a better subject that Edgar Martinez.
Ahh, well…. Getting on to the meat of your post, I realize that this discussion revolves around where the line is for Edgar, vs. Thomas or Molitor. And no doubt there wasn’t much thought given to how the DH has affected them, because they have the “magic numbers” (3000 hits, 500 HR), but of course since I know you are paying attention I know you know I will say that begs the question of whether voters should look deeper than one or two counting stats (or shouldn’t look at different ones than they do). Don’t get me wrong, I would certainly concede they are both worthy Hall of Fame types, but it is really difficult to make the case that they weren’t assisted in getting to those magic numbers by some 1200-1300 AB at DH each, isn’t it? Edgar’s rate stats are fairly close to Thomas’s, and better than Molitor, so if the difference in their worthiness and Edgar’s is in counting stats that playing DH enabled, how should Edgar be treated any differently for his DH time?
Yet I realize you (and certaindoom) are simply telling me “that’s the way it is,” and you are right. I completely agree that, until we turn voters on the idea that OBP is more important than AVG, or even SLG (which it is, demonstrably; the problem is getting people to listen),times on base as a more important counting stat than hits (which it is), and XBH as nearly equally as important a counting stat as just HR. I think OPS (or OPS+), and possibly WAR, is going to be where the battle is fought and won.
The saber guys have the advantage of being right about this, but the disadvantage of not being able to hold the attention of those they need to convince. These arguments will have to be repeated 1000 times before they sink in to the average voter, and will have to be more succinctly and entertainly presented that I have yet been able to muster.
====
*I hesitate to even post it here, because it is such a time-worn tale among all of us, but I will for the sake of posterity:
In the 1990 Bill James Abstract, written before Edgar became a full-time player, Bill James wrote, “What a sad story this one is. This guy is a good hitter, quite capable of hitting .300 in a park like Seattle, with more walks than strikeouts. Martinez has wasted about three years when he could have been helping the team.” James was referring to the fact that the M’s were using Martinez as a utility player – as unbelievable as it sounds to day, Edgar in those days was known as much for his glove as for his bat – as he spent 1987-1989 (and part of a fourth season) hitting .344/.360/.495 in over 275 games and 1000 PA in AAA while Jim Presley held down the third base job by hitting just .238/.285/.392 (an OPS+ of 81, almost 20% below that of the average Major Leaguer at the time) over those same seasons.
[And to those who would argue that Edgar didn’t make the most of his limited opportunities when he got brief call-ups over those years – Edgar hit .372/.413/.581 in 46 PA in 1987, .281/.351/.406 in 38 PA in 1988, and .240/.314/.304 in 196 PA in 1989 – as you can see that is only partially true, and is based on short stints of irregular playing time. But even then, the cumulative totals Edgar posted in the Majors during the same period Presley was there, while not world-beating, were significantly better than what Presley was doing – .268/.336/.366, with a 91 OPS+. Between that and the stellar AAA numbers, it didn’t take a genius to see that Martinez was a better choice than Presley – and that Edgar had proven all that he could prove in AAA – even if he hadn’t yet taken full advantage of his opportunities in the Majors. But at least one genius – James – saw it clearly.]
Finally, in 1990, Presley was traded and Martinez was given a chance to play every day. Edgar responded just as James had predicted he would, with a chance, by hitting .318/.402/.477, with an OPS+ of 145 (or nearly 50% better than a league average player) over his first three full seasons, all while playing third base full time. In his third year, he won a batting title while hitting .343/.404/.544, with a 164 OPS+ (3rd highest in the league), was an All Star, and just missed finishing in the top ten in MVP voting despite playing for a last-place team and missing the last three weeks of the year with a shoulder injury. At the time, Edgar’s .343 was the highest batting average posted by a right-handed hitter since Harvey Kuehn hit .353 in 1959. That mark stood until 1995 when Edgar won his second batting title, hitting .356 (with an astonishing 185 OPS+) – at that time the highest batting average by a right-handed hitter since Joe DiMaggio hit .381 in 1939.
It is not hard at all to imagine an alternate universe during which Edgar is called up and given the full-time 3B job sometime early in 1987, adds 300-350 hits, maybe 60-80 XBH and a couple hundred RBI, walks, and runs scored, all while playing close to 300 more league average-ish games at 3B, while hitting well enough that by his retirement, he still would have finished with that magical .300/.400/.500 average. All it would have taken is to hit someting like the late-career version of Jose Vidro to do it, in fact.
I find that just as easy to imagine (easier, frankly) as the detractors from Edgar’s HoF case find it easy to imagine that, if he had had to play 1B or 3B regularly through the late ’90s that he would have broken down, couldn’t have hit well, etc., etc. (despite the fact that most of Edgar’s major injuries came running the bases or at the plate, not in the field).
Sorry for the unclosed ital. MAN, I hate that comment editor – cannot get it to work for shit.
Dave,
Maybe some version of Pete’s dissertation on Edgar could be formatted and made part of the Reference Material for this site. This has to be the most exhaustive case for Edgar yet made.
We can keep discussing the DH for eleventy-seven years, complaining how unfair it is that Edgar isn’t in when Molitor and then Frank Thomas are. Or we can realize that this means it isn’t the DH issue that’s keeping Edgar out.
– If the DH issue isn’t the case then why is it the one that is always brought up? That sure seems like a convenient way to stop things. Take something that comes up all the time and say that it doesn’t need to discuss (or made into an objective number/cutoff) so that you always have that to fall back onto at the end of the day.
If the voters want to identify just how DH seasons should be taken into account then it will no longer be an issue. Until they stop just falling into the easy argument when presented with facts otherwise…then it is the issue.
I think the truth is many voters looking at his career totals don’t think he is past the line, and don’t have any reasons to give him those extra steps.
– Here is my question as it pertains to this thread itself.
Both of the people making arguments against Edgar are not arguing against his abilities. Instead, they are standing behind some argument that boils down to the fact that HOF voters are either too lazy or not sophisticated enough to understand why Edgar is a HOFer.
That seems to be an entirely different argument then if Edgar deserves to be in the HOF. Seems like most baseball fans feel that Ron Santo deserves to be in the HOF but was not voted in with the process.
If the people here are just trying to explain why he won’t be elected then it isn’t all that big of a discussion. However, if they are trying argue why he shouldn’t…then it seems incedibly lazy to use the “what other HOF voters do” argument.
As I said up there somewhere, Edgar will be in the Hall if voters can be convinced to reward a player with a career OPS better than Hank Aaron, Mike Schmidt, Frank Robinson and every other recent Hall of Famer not named Williams, Mantle, Musial or Mays. If they can’t be convinced of that, he won’t get in.
– Finally…again…are YOU arguing that a career OPS that high shouldn’t be rewarded (and if so…why?). Or, are you in agreement that it should be rewarded and this whole time you’re just trying to say what the average HOF voter on the street thinks.
Here is something fun to check out.
Edgar versus a player thought to be a clear HOF’er
First, that comment editor is definitely awful.
Edgar overcame that. Between that and the remarkable things Edgar continues to do for this community, things that made him not only a respected teammate and opponent but a Clemente Award winner…
So why do the writers — heck, why did my Mom — know these things about Kirby and not about Edgar? Because Kirby led his team to two titles and the national spotlight, while Edgar never made it to the Series, with his performance being a major factor.
As Posnanski also wrote in that article: “But when you have a borderline Hall of Fame case, I think you need to bring something extra, something that separates you from all the other borderline Hall of Fame cases.” Since you don’t believe that Edgar is borderline, you don’t see this as an issue, but obviously for many voters, it is.
Edgar’s rate stats are fairly close to Thomas’s, and better than Molitor, so if the difference in their worthiness and Edgar’s is in counting stats that playing DH enabled, how should Edgar be treated any differently for his DH time?
Once again, what makes you and others so sure that it is being treated differently? Let’s imagine some voter out there who knocks 10% off their stats because of the DH time.
Do that with Molitor and a voter still sees 3000 hits and a WS-MVP and some impressive World Series records, plus a hitting streak that got everybody excited at the time. Do that with Frank Thomas and a voter still sees 450 HRs, two MVP Awards, and an OPS that still ranks close to the top 100.
Now do that with Edgar Martinez, and a voter sees 2000 hits and an empty trophy case.
As I mentioned above, though, I don’t think that this is what’s happening. Your argument is that he’s obviously worthy and that voters are penalizing him for being a DH. I believe that many voters don’t see him as being worthy of induction, and it has little to do with the DH subject.
You also wrote “I say that not because I want voters to credit Edgar with something he did not do.” But…isn’t that exactly what you’re doing?
Not trying to be obtuse, but I have no idea how my argument about why Paul Molitor was able to achieve what he actually did achieve is cancelled out by your argument about how Edgar might have achieved more if he had been called up earlier. The question was asked about whether being a DH helped Paul Molitor. I beleieve it did, but what does that have to do with Edgar Martinez? Ultimately it doesn’t even have anything to do with Paul Molitor.
If I were arguing that Dale Murphy’s career would have been extended had he gone to an AL team and been their DH, so hey, let’s credit him with another 100 HRs and put him in the Hall, that might be cancelled out your alternate-universe Edgar who was “called up and given the full-time 3B job sometime early in 1987.”
As for that section, that’s an excellent argument for Edgar’s election to the Alternate Universe Hall of Fame. It can have a If They Were Never Injured wing for Dale Murphy, Eric Davis, Don Mattingly and hundreds of others. It can have a If Cocaine Didn’t Exist wing for Dave Parker and Darryl Strawberry. It can have a Sorry About the Racism wing for the African- and Latin-American players who never had a chance to play.
And it can have a Blocked By Management wing for Edgar and a hundred cranky old guys who played before free agency and are telling their grandkids that they could have been the next Mantle. My Dad still talks about the Yankees’ third-string catcher in the 1950s, Charlie Silvera, who would come off the bench and hit .300 in 60 ABs. He’s probably wrong about how good Silvera was, but since the AUHoF will have an infinite, four-dimensional design, there’s plenty of room.
So we can give Edgar credit for those years, as long as we realize that opens up the Hall to 20? 50? 500? other players. There are many reasons why players did not reach 100% of their career potential, and I’m not sure why “Seattle’s Front Office Was Stupid” is any more worthy of a player’s induction than “Institutional Racism” or “Knee Injury.” It’s more instructive as to why the Mariners of the 90s were the most underachieving team in baseball history, but I don’t it having much value beyond that.
Finally…again…are YOU arguing that a career OPS that high shouldn’t be rewarded (and if so…why?). Or, are you in agreement that it should be rewarded and this whole time you’re just trying to say what the average HOF voter on the street thinks.
I wouldn’t have a problem seeing Edgar in the Hall. I have others I’d vote for ahead of him, and have changed my mind a bunch of times. Since I don’t have a vote it’s not that important.
There’s been a lot of posts about how voters can be convinced to vote for him, which is why I wrote my earlier post about how OBP/OPS are the only stats that matter in the discussion. And since then I’ve enjoyed the discussion with Pete. And I always enjoy a good DH debate…
And I always enjoy a good DH debate…
– Again…I thought this wasn’t about the DH? Dos this also mean that Edgar had played 3B (no matter how good or bad) throughout his career that it would not have had any impact in the voter’s eyes?
The question was asked about whether being a DH helped Paul Molitor. I beleieve it did, but what does that have to do with Edgar Martinez? Ultimately it doesn’t even have anything to do with Paul Molitor.
– Yes it does. Paul Molitor was essentially a DH for 75% of his career. You agree that without being able to DH that Moitor would not have been able to make it to the HOF. Yet, by many measures outlined Edgar was a better hitter. So, it would seem that if Molitor was a 1st ballot HOF then there really shouldn’t be much “gray” area for Edgar.
Again, I am highly skeptical in your “this isn’t about the DH” argument because you bring it up in most of your posts. You have yet to argue why Edgar as a hitter (which Pete has done an excellent job showing he was one of the best) does not deserve to be in the HOF.
If it wasn’t about the DH…it wouldn’t always be coming up.
Finally, I’m still not sure I got an answer to what is actually being discussed here. It appears to me that Pete is discussing the merits on if Edgard belongs in the HOF.
Yet, the detractors seem to continue to fall back on an argument of IF Edgar will make it to the HOF.
Isn’t the IF he’ll get elected pretty pointless? You can’t control what 550+ other people will do. The only thing you can do is prove whether he deserves to be considered based on the previous choices.
Hard to care much about 20-year-old baseball stats after that game, huh?
illdonk wrote:
“…why do the writers — heck, why did my Mom – know these things about Kirby and not about Edgar? Because Kirby led his team to two titles and the national spotlight, while Edgar never made it to the Series, with his performance being a major factor.”
Does you Mom live in Minnesota? 🙂
In all seriousness, Edgar does what he does without asking for attention. He did as a player and he does as a philanthropist, working in our community. Heck, I think that quiet work ethic is part of what endeared Edgar to this city.
I would hope writers would be looking for that stuff, but it will be up to the Mariners and other proponents of Edgar’s case to point this out, because I don’t think you’ll ever see Edgar campaign for himself the way Blyleven did.
The other thing about this, and I meant to say it earlier: I have a big problem with postseason appearances/performances, and even MVPs and All Star appearances, being anything more than a sort of inclusionary tie-breaker, and they certainly shouldn’t be used as proxy for dominance.
First, a player can’t control the many aspects of team play required to get to a postseason, nor to have success there as a team. Second, performance in the postseason, is ALL small sample size theater, into which you can’t and shouldn’t read too much (both good or bad). If you want to treat postseason success as an inclusionary tie-breaker, I am fine with that, but to use it to EXCLUDE is just dumb.
Second (and we went around and around on this last year too, illdonk), but how a DH especially finishes in All Star voting and MVP voting is fraught with exactly the same subjective biases that HoF voting for a DH is. And the DH appears on the AS ballot only every other year. Despite what you say, too, Edgar’s cupboard is hardly bare: in addition to the 7 AS appearances (not as bad as his detractors might imply), by my count, he’s one of only 26 guys to have 5 or more Silver Slugger Awards (and one of 16 non-outfielders to win that many), and 8 to have won one at more than one position; 2 batting titles (and 7 top ten finishes for the batting crown); 3 OBP titles (and 11 top ten finishes for the OBP crown, to go along with 6 top ten finishes for the SLG crown); named AL Player of the Month 5 times, and AL Player of the Week seven times; 5 Designated Hitter of the Year Awards (the Award now named for him), and twice voted Mariners MVP by the Seattle Chapter of the BBWAA (so much for the old canard “he was never even the best player on his own team”).
But why look to such poor proxies for “dominance” when we have advanced sortbable statistics available for free these days on the internet? A writer who spends more than a half and hour, max, looking at Edgar’s record doesn’t need to look to Awards to justify his vote – unless he is looking for some excuse to justify his EXCLUSION.
“You also wrote ‘I say that not because I want voters to credit Edgar with something he did not do.’ But…isn’t that exactly what you’re doing?”
No, not at all. I only bring at up at all to to point out the hypocrisy in the immediate howls from Edgar’s detractors about how you can’t assume anything that he didn’t actually do, while at the same time they will almost universally assume that Edgar couldn’t have stayed healthy if he had had to play in the field, or that he would have been a lousy defensive player (despite 500+ games worth of evidence to the contrary, at a more difficult position than he would most likely have been asked to play).
Beyond that, the point I have made with that argument is subtly different from how you are reading it. It is this: if through an argument that is as speculative (but equally or more reasonable as the detractor’s argument about health and defensive prowess) I can show that Edgar may well have gotten to counting numers (hits, doubles, HR, games played at 3B, while maintaining career averages still over but much closer to .300/.400/.500), and to do that all he needed was three average-to-sub-average seasons, how does that really add value to the strong case Edgar actually made over the shorter career?
The counting numbers are just a shorthand for the lazy, in their minds alleviating the need to think. In Edgar’s case, they need to think.
“Not trying to be obtuse, but I have no idea how my argument about why Paul Molitor was able to achieve what he actually did achieve is cancelled out by your argument about how Edgar might have achieved more if he had been called up earlier.”
The point about Molitor and Thomas isn’t that I fail to understand that they have numbers that make them automatics (“over the line” in your race analogy), but rather, to get voters to think about how they GOT over the line. Clearly, in both cases, it is the fact that they were DH’s – not by 10 or 20% or some subjective, imagined “penalty”, but by about half. I won’t do what voters have done and assume they couldn’t have put up those numbers had they not been DHs, but the fact is they both played well over 1000 games at DH, and if voters are going to indulge that assumption in Edgar’s case, then be consistent and recognize it in the case of these “lock” HoF cases, too. If voters do not think about that, and again just stop thinking when they see 3000 hits or 500 home runs, they are simply not looking deep enough, no being the slightest bit consistent.
On the “cancelling out” comment…I’m just saying don’t bitch about proponents bringing up a speculative argument and then use a speculative argument to justify a no vote.
To BLYKMYK44, I think this thread has been simulataneously about making a FOR argument on the merits, and discussing why voters will or will not be moved by certain parts of that case, at the same time. It has been sometimes difficult to follow which we are discussing at what time, and whether the “no” justifiers are speaking for themselves or others, but I think there has been that distinction made, and I think what certaindoom and illdonk have argued is a useful exercise for people who want to argue the FOR case, because they are probably more reasonable than most of the voters.
“Hard to care much about 20-year-old baseball stats after that game, huh?”
Yep. At least for a little bit.
One other thing I wanted to write up, apart from again promising to post the link to a document that lists “no” voters with their reasoning and e-mail addresses here…I just haven’t found the time to add in all the late-rush public ballots announced just before the actual results were, last Wednesday, but I will.
I just want to point out that a lobbying effort to change minds can probably start with the thirty voters* who posted public ballots who voted for closer Lee Smith but did not vote for Edgar Martinez.
==
*The thirty are: Tom Dienhart, Mike Dodd, Jay Dunn, Chris Elsberry, Pedro Gomez, Teddy Greenstein, Ken Gurnick, Tony Jackson, Richard Justice, Chris Haft, Gary D. Howard, Dick Kaegel, Paul Ladewski, Jack McCaffery, Fred Mitchell, Terrence Moore, Mark Newman, Ian O’Connor, Rob Parker, Rob Rains, Tracy Ringolsy, Brendan Roberts, Mark Saxon, Chaz Scoggins, John Shea, Lyle Spencer, Carl Steward, Paul Sullivan, Marc Topkin, and Dave van Dyck. Tracy Ringolsby not only voted for Smith, he voted for John Franco – who didn’t even get half of the 5% support he needed to stay on the ballot – but didn’t vote for Edgar. Ringolsby is particularly disappointing because he is a Hall of Fame writer (2006 Spink Award winner), and once covered the Mariners (though I believe it was in the early 1980s, before Edgar’s time).
==
In his book Men at Work: The Craft of Baseball George Will said “The best case for the DH is this: It represents that rarest of things, the triumph of evidence over ideology. The anti-DH ideology is that there should be no specialization in baseball, no division of labor: Everyone should play ‘the whole game.’ That theory is obliterated by this fact: Specialization is a fact with or without the DH.”
One of the things Will pointed to is that “[m]ost pitchers only go through the motions at bat,” but he could have focused on a sub-specialty within even that to make his point – the closer, who not only would “only go through the motions” if called upon to bat, but rarely is even in the National League. They accumulate a relatively meaningless stat that doesn’t even require pitching well to be “earned” (because yo can get a save by entering a 3-run game in the 9th, give up two earned runs, and still be a “success”), pitching for usually just an inning 2-3 days out of every 3-5. In almost every case, a closer is a failed starter (should sound familiar to those writers who talk as though DHs are all “failed defenders”) who find success in a more limited role.
Closers are “specialists” in every sense of the word that a DH is a “specialist” and then some, and the role is not much older than the DH, yet the DH is villified and we already have three closers in the Hall, a fourth knocking on the door and two more unretired closers who are considered locks to get in. The way things look today, the top SIX (maybe seven) closers will be in the Hall of Fame before the top DH sniffs 50-60% of the vote. How is that consistent, or fair?
It isn’t as though we have no way to measure the impact that each role has (we do), and it isn’t that the closer has more impact (they don’t). It is purely about the unreasoned bias and subjective “ideology” that Will talks about.
Consider the number of PA/Batters Faced for these Hall of Fame closers: Eckersley (as a closer) – 3136 in 12 seasons; Sutter – 4250 in 12 seasons; Gossage – 7505 in 22 seasons. Then there are Rivera – 4581 in 16 seasons (and counting); the aforementioned Franco – 5311; Hoffman – 4387 (and counting). If these guys were hitters, Hall of Fame voters would be screaming that they didn’t have enough PA to be considered. Yet three are in (one of them on the 1st ballot) and a fourth is knocking on the door of 50% support.
Consider this:
Bruce Sutter, who had a short career just as Edgar did, faced 2319 batters in high leverage situations. During those PA, Sutter gave up an OPS+ 10% worse than the overall OPS+ opposing hitters hit against him (though still good because, well, he was pretty good overall so a 10% drop off is still pretty good). Sutter also had 899 PA in medium leverage situations, and was 19% better as measured by opponents’ overall OPS+ against him when the pressure was reduced a bit. Sutter’s career Wins Probability Added is 18.3.
Contrast that with Edgar, who had 1751 PA in high leverage situations, and was slightly better as measured by OPS+ in those situations than he was as measured by his overall (excellent) OPS+. The high-leverage numbers are reasonably similar, even though Sutter’s entire role was to come in an perform in high leverage situations. And Edgar had another 3300 PA in medium leverage situations, where again was slightly better as measured by OPS+ in those situations than he was as measured by his overall OPS+. And Edgar’s career Wins Probability Added is 44.1 – well over double Sutter’s.
On a percentage basis, Sutter’s high leverage PA make up more of his total PA, but that is to be expected given the role he played, and in Edgar’s case it is true only because he played not only with the game on the line but also in almost four times as many medium leverage situations (and a similar number of PA in low leverage situations) where he could still have a decent impact on the game.
And remember, unlike a hitter, a pitcher has the advantage of the hitter’s likely failure (a good hitter fails 70% of the time and is considered a success, meaning even a bad pitcher succeeds 70% of the time). Pitching, too, has to share credit with the defense for success. As I mentioned upthread, all advanced metrics are based on the idea that while pitching is responsible for about 15-20% of a win, offense is responsible for closer to 50%. The relative contributions and impact of the two roles is not particularly close…yet we are enshrining closers at a pretty good rate.
There is simply no way you can make a reasoned and informed argument that the better closers have more impact on the game han the best designated hitters, nor can you consistently glorify the closer while denigrating the DH.
For what it’s worth, I agree with you about closers being over-represented in the Hall, thought the Sutter/Gossage picks were a crazy-huge stretch, and possibly wouldn’t even vote for Trevor Hoffman. I think anybody who doesn’t vote for Mariano Rivera should be thrown out of the BBWAA, though.
I’m just saying don’t bitch about proponents bringing up a speculative argument and then use a speculative argument to justify a no vote.
I’m not really sure what no vote I’m justifying by my speculative argument about Paul Molitor’s career. I think both his and Edgar’s careers were extended by the DH. I think Molitor accomplished more, but I do personally attach a lot more weight to the postseason..
No point in continuing the conversation until next January, so I’ll just say that I think that most of our discussion boils down to whether Martinez being on the outside while Molitor and (presumably) Thomas being in mean that voters are unfairly singling Edgar out for being a DH, or whether the extent to which it is a factor has been overstated/assumed.
I think it’s been overstated. You disagree, and admittedly, you’ve studied the individual voting and voters more closely. So perhaps I’ll have to defer on that point.
Good luck with the campaign. I’d like to attend the induction ceremony.
Agreed, it probably isn’t a discussion worth continuing until next Holiday season. I will post the Word document with voter information about how they voted, why, and how to contact them…when I finish it.
I am not saying necessarily that you and certaindoom are “justifying” no votes, but you have served as the stand-in for those who have. And you are right, I have looked at a lot of public ballots and reasoning, and a fairly significant percentage say specifically that the DH is the reason they won’t consider Edgar (which is stupid, of course). It is likely enough of a faction that it is probably enough to prevent Edgar from reaching 75%…so the argument needs to be made.
The other thing is, even with you, I’ve obviously had difficulty moving you off of counting stats, because you still think Molitor “accomplished more” and presumably think he was the better hitter. I don’t see how that argument can be made, if you look at the record closely, unless you seriously overvalue counting stats and longevity (usually accomplished by extra seasons of league average to sub-average play – if you look closely Molitor had about seven such seasons – that really do nothing more to explain the player’s greatnees, defined by his extended peak, other than to allow him to reach magic counting numbers), or seriously overvalue the contribution of Molitor’s defense early in his career. I do realize most voters think this way, but that you read/listened this far and haven’t been moved much from that position speaks volumes about how much work there is before we accomplish much with “the campaign.”
Thanks for being a good debate partner, though.
I know I said I wouldn’t do this, but…I feel as though I need to explain myself more, and a bit better, with regard to Molitor and why I think he’s relevant to Edgar.
The real difference between Paul Molitor and Edgar Martinez as hitters is simply the opportunity to run up more league average seasons – about 3.5 seasons worthy, exactly. Here’s what I mean:
Molitor’s first season (1978) was an 89 OPS+ season. His last two, combined, were 95 OPS+. And from 1983-1986, combined, he was just a bit better than average, at 107 OPS+, and in 1995 he was essentially average, at 101 OPS+. I don’t know how (on B-Ref) to sum non-consecutive seasons and find out their cumulative OPS+, but all that together is 8 seasons (5.7 season on a 162-game basis) at damn close to exactly league average.
In fact, if you add up the totals of those eight seasons, Molitor racked up 926 games, 4165 PA and 3753 AB, with 1057 hits, 197 XBH, and 877 runs produced (R+RBI-HR), making almost 2900 outs in the process, while hitting .282/.337/.406, for a .743 OPS. League average during Molitor’s career was .264/.332/.405, for a .737 OPS. So those eight seasons, combined, are about as close to league average as you’re going to get.
Edgar’s “throw-away” seasons are his first three, before he got a full-time chance, his two injury years (1993-94), and his last year. When you combine those five seasons (2.2 on a 162-game basis), Edgar got 364 games, 1381 PA and 1193 AB, with 319 hits, 101 XBH, and 264 runs produced (R+RBI-HR), making less than 1000 outs in the process, while hitting .267/.356/.407, for a .763 OPS. League average during Edgar’s career was .267/.337/.405, for a .757 OPS. Edgar is exactly the same .006 above league average OPS that Molitor is. About as close to league average as you can get.
Neither Edgar nor Molitor is defined as a great player by what they did in these throw-away seasons – it is what they did in the other seasons that defined their greatness.
Take those five seasons away from Edgar and he still has almost 10 and a half years (on a 162-game basis), with almost 2000 hits and close to 450 doubles and 300 HR (737 XBH), and still has more than 1100 of both runs and RBI, while making only 4355 outs and hitting .320/.429/.537, for a .966 OPS. Take away those eight seasons from Molitor and he has a slightly longer career (10.8 years to 10.4, on a 162-game basis), hits about 400 doubles and 165 HR (655 XBH), with over 1250 runs and close to 900 RBI, while making 5156 outs and hitting .319/.386/.470, for a .856 OPS. Edgar is pretty clearly a slightly better and more efficient hitter, but it is very close in terms of value. Edgar’s significant advantage in times on base while making fewer outs is a big plus for him, but Molitor makes up ground when you consider the added value Molitor brought as a baserunner. They’re basically pretty close to even (probably slight edge to Edgar), when you take out the “throw-away” years, and basically both right at league average during those years. And both benefitted by getting to DH, and neither really added much or detracted much as defenders, when they were out there.
Yet Paul Molitor is a 1st ballot Hall of Famer, who got over 85% of the vote from the BBWAA. Hmmmm.
This is what I was getting at earlier, too. The difference, in 162-game seasons, between the “throw-away” time Paul Molitor was able to accumulate and that which Edgar was able to accumulate, is 3.5 seasons. If you take the 162-game average of each of Edgar’s stats from his five “throw-away seasons” – his league average time – and you multiply each by 3.5, and then you add those his actual career (in other words, simulating the opportunity Molitor had to accumulate additional league-average seasons), this is how Edgar’s career totals would look, compared with Molitor:
Edgar: 2617 games (with most of those 562 extra games presumably played at either 1B or 3B), 10804 PA, 9,055 AB, 1432 R, 2740 H, 617 SB, 20 3B, 357 HR (994 XBH), 1503 RBI, 1533 BB (4376 TOB), 1520 K and 6690 outs, with a .303/.406/.493 career line, (.899 OPS).
Molitor: 2683 games, 12160 PA, 10835 AB, 1782 R, 3319 H, 605 2B, 114 3B, 234 HR (953 XBH), 1307 RBI, 1094 BB (4460 TOB), 1202 K and 8040 outs, with a career line of .306/.369/.448 and a career .817 OPS.
Edgar has a fairly significant advantage then, over a pretty similar looking career. He still wouldn’t have 3000 hits, but he’d have nearly the same number of times on base, and would have achieved it while using up over 1000 fewer outs (and no, Molitor’s baserunning can’t make up that difference). My guess is that with counting numbers like that, and rate stats still very close to that .300/.400/.500 line, Edgar would be a lock (and I am sure you would say, “that’s why it isn’t the DH that is his problem”).
But here’s the thing: if all that stands in the way of Edgar being a lock is 3.5 years of league average offense, hasn’t he already proven that he belongs, just by what he did over the shorter career?
There is always a line – how good do the rate stats have to be in order to overcome relatively unimpressive counting stats. What I am suggesting by this statistical exercise is that, if the rate stats are such that all you need to do to make the counting stats acceptable is add 2-4 years of league average offense onto a guy (and when you do it, he still has excellent rate stats), then he has played long and well enough to warrant enshrinement.
Molitor’s first season (1978) was an 89 OPS+ season.
Compiled as a 21 year old player playing second base.
I know we all love Edgar, but this is just a horrible argument to be making. Molitor is similar to Edgar in that he was a great player who got shifted to DH out of an inability to stay healthy in the field, but Molitor has almost triple the number of games in the field as Edgar does- and quite a few of them are at second.
Also, being an ~league average hitter while playing a premium defensive position means you are adding significant value. Yes, I know, your point is on counting stats. Well, we should be elevating the argument, not making bad ones. Molitor’s resume for the HOF does NOT just stand on this time as a DH. Edgar’s is far more dependent on his DH time than Molitor’s.
What is killing Edgar’s HOF push is that he got a very late start to his career. The number of HOFers who started being regular position players at 27 (Edgar’s age at becoming a regular) is basically Jackie Robinson (who has a pretty notable exception). Even guys like Minnie Minoso:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/minosmi01.shtml
Or Jose Cruz:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/cruzjo01.shtml
who do pretty well when compared to the universe of HOFers after age 27… well, Minoso and Cruz aren’t being trumpeted as HOFers.
Ichiro may have the resume to get it done… but sorry, this is the basic problem here. Let’s get the problem right- and then we can start finding the solution.