Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - Edgar, Frank and a Picky, Picky Hall

Today, the incomparable Lee Sinins posted several lists showing the recently-announced-his-retirement Edgar Martinez's place in baseball history.

Don't get too caught up in the actual statistics; look at the list of names. Then answer the question: is the Hall of Fame becoming too picky? And this isn't just about Edgar, it's also about a certain hurt player ... a Big Hurt player.

Martinez ranks 12th in career OBA compared to the league average, for players with at least 7,500 plate appearances since 1900. Here's the list:

OBA DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE
1 Ted Williams .134 .482 .348
2 Babe Ruth .118 .474 .356
3 Barry Bonds .103 .439 .336
4 Ty Cobb .093 .433 .340
5 Rogers Hornsby .091 .434 .342
6 Frank Thomas .089 .429 .339
7 Mickey Mantle .087 .421 .333
8 Lou Gehrig .086 .447 .361
9 Tris Speaker .084 .428 .344
10 Eddie Collins .082 .424 .342
11 Wade Boggs .082 .415 .333
12 Edgar Martinez .081 .420 .338
13 Stan Musial .079 .417 .338
14 Mel Ott .071 .414 .343
15 Jimmie Foxx .070 .428 .358

He's also 12th on the American League's list of leaders in Runs Created Above Average (RCAA). Here's that list:

1 Babe Ruth 1795
2 Ted Williams 1475
3 Ty Cobb 1369
4 Lou Gehrig 1247
5 Mickey Mantle 1099
6 Tris Speaker 1053
7 Jimmie Foxx 996
8 Frank Thomas 796
9 Eddie Collins 747
10 Joe DiMaggio 708
11 Rickey Henderson 706
12 Edgar Martinez 651
13 Harry Heilmann 624
14 Nap Lajoie 617
15 George Brett 593

This is NOT meant to be a "debate the worthiness of certain statistics for judging a player's greatness," prompt, though I suppose that will inevitably play a role.

The point here is -- look at those lists of names. Every single name on those lists is already in the Hall of Fame or in the case of Rickey Henderson, is a mortal lock to get there. Except two.

Edgar Martinez is one. The other, surprisingly enough, is Frank Thomas -- a player about whom scuttle has turned from "a first ballot guy for sure" into "maybe not ..." Could be the attitude; could be the lack of winning; could be a few weak years that coincided exactly with the McGwireSosaFest.

Or it could be that Thomas has done a fair amount of time at designated hitter. As, of course, has Martinez. And believe it or not, this is NOT meant to re-hash the old "do DH's belong in the Hall of Fame?" argument, though again, I suppose that will inevitably play a role.

Big Frank probably will get in. Edgar almost certainly won't, leaving Lee's lists as an enormous game of "One of These Things is Not Like the Others."

The Hall of Fame ... too picky? Discuss.

Posted by Mick Doherty on Tuesday, August 10 2004 @ 11:43 AM EDT.

Edgar, Frank and a Picky, Picky Hall | 19 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

_Scott - Tuesday, August 10 2004 @ 12:00 PM EDT (#32038) #

I not saying Edgar or Frank should or should not be in the Hall of Fame, but I don't feel the hall is becoming to picky. I think the problem is that the hall has not been picky enought in the past. That is something that can't be fixed now. This means that either you don't let players in that are better than some current HOFamers or the hall becomes too large and loses some of its meaning.

As a "off the wall" suggestion mabye they could have a seperate area for the truly great. A section of the hall with a limited number of selections (50 or 100). I not saying to have them ranked, but to vote someone into that section you would have to also vote someone out into the general area of the hall. Then the hall could include more player without having to compare Frank Thomas to Babe Ruth.

_Jordan - Tuesday, August 10 2004 @ 12:13 PM EDT (#32039) #

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/OPSplus_career.shtml
Another stat to consider is Adjusted OPS+, which helps place a player's offensive production in the context of his era. COMN for the chart. On that list, Thomas is tied for 12th with Pete Browning, just below Jimmie Foxx and McGwire; Martinez is tied for 32nd with Jim Thome, between Ed Delahanty and Gavvy Cravath. More excellent company.

If Edgar Martinez had spent his career playing a lousy first base, there would be little argument against his place in the Hall of Fame. As it stands, the DH rule was introduced in 1973 and is now the rule in virtually every professional league in the world except the NL (and possibly Japan's Central League, though that may have changed too). Like it or hate it, the designated hitter is a fully legitimate part of the game now, and players who spent most or all of their career there must not be punished for playing a non-traditional position.

If Edgar Martinez is kept out of the Hall of Fame because he was a DH, then almost on principle, you have to repeal the designated hitter rule.

Frankly, I think the Hall's problem has been that it's not nearly picky enough (cf. Kirby Puckett, Tony Perez). But admitting Martinez, and eventually Thomas, will be entirely consistent with its goal of recognizing an era's greatest players.

_Scott - Tuesday, August 10 2004 @ 12:31 PM EDT (#32040) #

Kirby had to get in just because everyone love him and his last name was really good for lymricks. :)

Craig B - Tuesday, August 10 2004 @ 12:34 PM EDT (#32041) #

I think the problem is that the hall has not been picky enought in the past. That is something that can't be fixed now.

I don't agree 100% with this, by the way. I think the Hall hasn't been selective enough with non-players and pre-1945 players; I think they been too selective with post-1945 players.

All in all, though, I prefer a larger Hall to a smaller one. I wouldn't mind a Hall of Fame with 500 members; I think that would drive mostfans right 'round the bend.

_Mick - Tuesday, August 10 2004 @ 12:39 PM EDT (#32042) #

I think they been too selective with post-1945 players.

Exactly the point. I think it's getting more and more and more selective as we go. Jim Kaat, Tommy John and Bert Blyleven would all be in if they'd pitched 25 years earlier. And for the changing game, Bruce Sutter never got a significant sniff from voters. And maybe in some cases the game is changing TOO fast, so Trammell, for instance, is lost in the transition from Aparicio to Ripken and A-Rod.

_Jordan - Tuesday, August 10 2004 @ 12:42 PM EDT (#32043) #

I still can't believe that Dennis Eckersely is in the Hall of Fame and neither Sutter nor Goose Gossage ever will be (save for Veteran's Committees). And Trammel isn't even the worst oversight in the Tigers' infield. Lou Whittaker is as close to Ryne Sandberg as makes no difference, yet Sweet Lou's already off the ballot. Screwy.

Craig B - Tuesday, August 10 2004 @ 01:17 PM EDT (#32044) #

Absolutely, Mick. You get no argument from me. You and Jordan have identified some of the worst exclusions.

_RhyZa - Tuesday, August 10 2004 @ 01:22 PM EDT (#32045) #

I say you can deduct a few points for HOF consideration for the fact they were DH's, but not the absurd amount that most people probably will. As someone already pointed out, in another time they'd just as easily have been playing 1B despite their weakness in the field, because there's no way that keeps them out of the lineup considering their prowess with the bats. Excuse the topic shifting segue but I just don't see how the logical arguments of abolishing the DH are anymore convincing than having to watch the mockery of a pitcher having to hit. Isn't there's something more unnatural, if not compomising to the game than the DH, in walking a #8 hitter to get to the #9 to bail yourself out of a jam. I dunno, maybe it's just me. It makes about as much sense to me as does having a batter have to pitch to the pitcher. Then again, that might not be such a bad idea to re-even things up. I agree that ideally it should be standardized in both leagues and it might help make for a better game strategically but again this is created by the mockery of having a pitcher hit which I just can't come to terms with; if I wanted to see strategy take precedence to the athletes themselves I'd watch chess. Basically I'd rather see the best baseball players on a team do what they do best. If that means the 'blasphemy' of having one player only hit even if it means sacrificing managers/bench players (I repeat managers and bench players) being more involved in the game, then so be it. There are enough other ways a manager can impact a game and enough great overall players in the game of baseball that I see no need to try to force 'specialists' to be something they're not or to penalize them and the fans of the game (as I see it) in the process; there's a place for an array of specialists in baseball yet when it comes to the DH it's not even considered by some. The one that always gets me is when people say that pitchers wouldn't be so quick to throw at batters knowing that they'd have to bat too, I'd probably respond with 'and that's a good thing'? haha just kidding, actually I'm only half kidding with that one. I'm not sure if people just agree with the stance of no DH because that's what the 'smart' baseball faction is supposed to do or they genuinely like their games interrupted with the a pitcher having to hit or bunt or get pinch hit for (weighed against the benefits that 'no DH' does in fact provide). Ideally there should be (or have been) 8 hitters in a lineup, but for more reasons than one can count now that is impossible.. if there is something else that would rid the DH, while not having pitchers hit I'd be all ears.

Mike Green - Tuesday, August 10 2004 @ 02:09 PM EDT (#32046) #

Of course, the Hall should admit Martinez and Thomas. As far as I am concerned, the truly egregious modern decisions concern second basemen Whitaker and Grich. I don't know that the writers have understood how important a defensive position it is. To have a player who plays the position well, and is among the 15-30 best hitters in his prime, is a rare phenomenon.

_Scott - Tuesday, August 10 2004 @ 02:10 PM EDT (#32047) #

RhyZa:

"Basically I'd rather see the best baseball players on a team do what they do best. If that means the 'blasphemy' of having one player only hit even if it means sacrificing managers/bench players (I repeat managers and bench players) being more involved in the game, then so be it."

Your argument is logical, but the only problem is that that logic could be extended. If you want only the best doing what they do, a entire offensive and defensive line is the natural progression. Pure feilders and pure hitters. This would not hurt the quality of the game, but is it where baseball wants to go. If anyone thinks that this is impossible remember Football started with all the players playing both sides of the ball.

I do agree that HOF consideration a player should not be penalized for being a DH.

_RhyZa - Tuesday, August 10 2004 @ 03:38 PM EDT (#32048) #

Fair enough, but this is in dealing with it in the context of such a significant drop off from a regular batter to a pitcher as the alternative, which in fact changes the complexion of the game (for better or for worse) a lot more than a DH does. Should such a weakness have such a profound effect on the game? And the DH has enough opposition towards it that it would never get to the point where football is at anyway as it�s generally understood to be an exception, and not necessarily an enhancement. This is a tough issue because at the root is a basic philosophical difference... How about this "I'd rather NOT see the best baseball players on a team do what they're worst at when the opposite is the alternative?" If there's no DH, he's either out in the field (weakness) or on the bench removing his hitting (strength) and there's a pitcher hitting in his place (major weakness; in actuality weakness is being generous when referring to pitcher�s batting, it might be more accurate to say down right unqualified). If there is a DH, he's not out on the field, he's hitting and a pitcher doesn't need to hit. Now with these stipulations being relative to every team, I would always opt for the strengths to be displayed in my sport (when the drop off is so huge as it is with a batter to pitcher) rather than having to perform despite the weaknesses, which is a part of the game, but shouldn�t be setup with this as an initial consideration as it decreases the potential for the maximum level of play.

_Doug C - Tuesday, August 10 2004 @ 04:18 PM EDT (#32049) #

As with many others, I have been reading da Box avidly and now have found a spot to make a first post. Maybe there's a DH compromise: the DH is not tied to the position (ie pitcher) but to the player. If you remove the current pitcher, that also removes the DH for him and insert a substitute hitter when that place comes around in the order. It would put back some of the strategy of the NL into the AL regarding bench management. My only concern: would a 25 man roster support this rule?

_John Northey - Tuesday, August 10 2004 @ 11:01 PM EDT (#32050) #

DH's for the Hall? To me it is much like a poor firstbaseman or LF or RF. The 3 spots DH's were 'hid' in the past and in the NL. They only get in if they hit amazingly well for a long period of time. Reggie Jackson was viewed (rightly or wrongly) as a poor defensive player. If he didn't hit 500 HR he might not have made the HOF. Dave Kingman is a good example of a guy who's bat was plenty good enough if he was a SS/2B/3B/CF/CA or a gold glove 1B/LF/RF but no where near good enough for a DH who played the field.

Is it fair for Edgar to miss the HOF due to a short career due to his team leaving him in the minors for way too long? No, but thems the breaks. I see him as being similiar to Molitor except with a (very) late start.

_Cristian - Tuesday, August 10 2004 @ 11:47 PM EDT (#32051) #

If sportswriters want to create a mythical Hall of Fame where the DH rule does not exist, they are free to do so. Then they can exclude whoever they like and I won't give a damn. However, the DH exists. It is part of baseball and therefore those who DH should be judged like any other ballplayer. To not allow Edgar into the Hall because he DH'ed most of his career is to vote on what baseball should be rather than who is worthy to be considered great. By the rationale of some of these sportswriters, no new pitcher should ever get into the Hall unless they finish every game and win 30 games a year like the 'real' pitchers of the 19th century used to do.

_G.T. - Tuesday, August 10 2004 @ 11:54 PM EDT (#32052) #

Beautiful night for Edgar, tonight... HR in his first (Home) AB after the announcement.

So if he does go in, do we hear that he's the last of a dying breed, the HOFer who plays his entire career with one team, which just doesn't happen anymore in the era of free agency?

You know, like was said about Bench and Yastremski in '83... and Yount and Brett in '93... and Gwynn and Ripken in '01...

_Mark J - Wednesday, August 11 2004 @ 12:39 PM EDT (#32053) #

Bit late to the party here, but anyway...

Edgar is definitely in for me. So is Thomas

I think it's a value/ability issue re. the DH. Yes, he would be a more valuable player if he played SS. Yes, he would have been worth more wins to his club. This is reflected in his low win shares total. I looked it up last night, I think it's around 300 & it would place him around 150th all-time.

But, his hitting ability is unquestionably excellent. If his career is so short then how did he end up 12th all-time in RCAA in the AL? Must have been a pretty good hitter. Fortunately for him there happens to be a full-time lineup position where you don't have to field, and he filled this role extremely well, possibly the best to do it in 30 years of the DH. I don't see how he should be punished for filling a regular lineup spot. I agree it makes his value to the team less, but don't we want to rate *ability* when it comes to the Hall? This is why Koufax is in with 194 win shares.

Kind of a side issue, not really trying to score points here, but don't most hitters hit better when they are position players? I'm wondering if Martinez had an ability to hit the same or better as a DH? You always hear about Giambi or Thomas hitting better when they play first.

These issues of "value" may be useful at times, but for the Hall I'd lean towards rewarding ability.

On the main topic I'd say I agree with the approximate size. They let too many pre-WW2 players in. I didn't think Perez or Mazeroski were good choices, recently.

Craig B - Wednesday, August 11 2004 @ 01:59 PM EDT (#32054) #

I should point out there that Edgar's HR last night is almost definitely not related to the retirement announcement, but rather to the fact that I dropped him in BBFL immediately before the game.

_Jurgen - Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 01:48 AM EDT (#32055) #

Frank Thomas is one of the greatest right-handed hitters of all time.

The idea that he isn't a first ballot HoFer because he doesn't have 3,000 hits or 500 homers is ridiculous. No right-handed hitter in the past fifteen years can compare.

Pujols is already falling behind what Thomas was doing at the same age. Sosa at his prime was never as good as Thomas. And Thomas never had the kind of injury problems that plagued McGwire's career--and Big Frank was every bit as good.

Pujols
career EqA: .336
career EqR: 489 (8.86 EqR27)

Sosa
career EqA: .298
peak EqA: .366, .332, .329, .322, .310
career EqR: 1418 (6.53 EqR27)
peak EqR: 163, 135, 131, 127, 122

McGwire
career EqA: .335
peak EqA: .384, .379, .370, .352, .344
career EqR: 1511 (8.77 EqR27)
peak EqR: 160, 134, 133, 131, 129

Thomas
career EqA: .345
peak EqA: .398, .369, .366, 365, .364
career EqR: 1700 (9.43 EqR27)
peak EqR: 159, 156, 149, 146, 143

_Jurgen - Thursday, August 12 2004 @ 02:01 AM EDT (#32056) #

Ignore how Sammy accomplished those peak years (3 seasons of 60+ homers) out of your mind for a moment, and Edgar's HoF case is just as good as Sammy's:

Edgar Martinez
career EqA: .332
peak EqA: .373, .354, .351, .346, .346
career EqR: 1574 (8.55 EqR27)
peak EqR: 143, 137, 134, 133, 126

Edgar, Frank and a Picky, Picky Hall | 19 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.