Is Jim Edmonds a Hall of Famer?

[HoustonGM]

Sam Rice is (undeservedly imo) in the Hall of Fame.

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx...00&position=OF
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx...53&position=OF

The only season in which Sam Rice had a wRC+ above Edmonds' career number of 135 was a season in which Rice had 25 plate appearances. And he was primarily a RIGHT fielder.

[free2131]

I voted no, but under the peer pressure I will pretend that I accidentally voted no.

So...

LMAO, crazy old me voted no when I OBVIOUSLY meant to vote yes. Cause only a LOSER would vote no on purpose!

[OregonDuck1989]

Damn it Free is back.

[free2131]

Damn it Free is back.

I love to hate you so much.

[dickay]

I'd say Edmonds is close, Great CF'er, but not a HOF'er.

I also don't think he's top 10 alltime. He is fringe on that, but likely closer to 15 or so than 10.

Here is the simple analysis BR has;

Gray Ink Batting - 60 (411), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 88 (185), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 40 (154), Average HOFer ≈ 50

Those aren't perfect, but there is some merit. Edmonds did have some great defensive contributions, but I don't think it warrants a HOF entry.

All that said...I think if he can put together one or two more decent seasons than he'd get over that hump. Mil. I think is going to give him a fair shot. I can see him getting to 2000 hits and maybe 400 hrs before he's all said and done. While I know people hate benchmark stats, fact is HOF voters look at them...and I think he'll need to get closer if he's going to get in.

Oh, and as for Kirby Puckett. He's a bad example to use because IMO he's a horrific example of a HOF'er. He was largely a sympathy vote, a beloved charecter and great ambassador of the game at the time...he simply wasn't good enough to warrant HOF consideration though. Had it not been for his eye situation, 'maybe' he would've gotten those HOF numbers?? I don't know...but HOF votes shouldn't be given on 'maybe's.

[200tang]

Edmonds' case relies almost entirely on what you make of his defense and defensive metrics. His offense was good, but he won't get in on offense alone, so the people who are saying no/yes are the ones I would have guessed.

As far as the real voting goes, I'd say his chances are slim to none. Scott Rolen/Andruw Jones fall in to this category for me as well.

[HoustonGM]

I'd say Edmonds is close, Great CF'er, but not a HOF'er.

I also don't think he's top 10 alltime. He is fringe on that, but likely closer to 15 or so than 10.

Who's ahead of him?

Ty Cobb, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Tris Speaker, Joe DiMaggio, Ken Griffey and Billy Hamilton obviously. You can easily argue Duke Snider. That's 8.

Those aren't perfect, but there is some merit.

They're actually pretty terrible to assess a player's actual HoF worth. They're more useful for evaluating whether or not he will get in.

[kenny1234]

In the Hall of Fame that I would vote for, no he isn't a Hall of Famer, though he is borderline. In a quick look through the centerfielders, I can't disagree with HGM ranking him around #10 - but that is about where I would make the distinction between Hall of Fame and Hall of Very Good if based only on career value. The HOF centre fielders below him (ie. Puckett, Dawson) don't get into my version of the hall.

If the Hall was based solely, or even primarily on statistical measures, or even contributions to winning, and was roughly the size it is, then there is no question that he belongs.

Given that the Hall is based on more than that, I see him as borderline, and one that loses out for just not being a more visible player, and for providing value in undervalued ways - particularly walks and defense.

[kenny1234]

They're actually pretty terrible to assess a player's actual HoF worth. They're more useful for evaluating whether or not he will get in.

I think they have some merit - but not much. They do correspond to how people think about players. One of the things that I find interesting is that on WPA (now available on BB-Ref), Edmonds falls behind guys like Strawberry, Ken Singleton, or both Ken Griffeys. The only Hall of Famers below him on that stat are guys that don't belong (like Rice) or middle infielders/catchers. I have no idea why his stats in that respect are so low, but they are interesting and in line with the idea that he doesn't "feel" like a Hall of Famer.

[HoustonGM]

They do correspond to how people think about players.

Right. They're useful in assessing a player's actual chances.

[dickay]

Right. They're useful in assessing a player's actual chances.

i feel, when someone asks "is someone a HOF'er" you can't just provide ones ficticious assessment of what that is. You can provide some dialog, "this is why i'd vote him in or not" but you also have to answer the question for what it is. Based upon how people are elected into the HOF, the historical opinions of the voters, those are really the crux of the answer.

How you or I feel about it doesn't matter since we don't vote.

[YEAH DAAAAWG]

In fairness, the poll says "Is Jim Edmonds a Hall of Famer?" not "Will Jim Edmonds be elected to the Hall of Fame?" Those are two very different things. While I think he is a Hall of Famer, I doubt he will be elected into it.

[BINGLEBOP]

In fairness, the poll says "Is Jim Edmonds a Hall of Famer?" not "Will Jim Edmonds be elected to the Hall of Fame?" Those are two very different things. While I think he is a Hall of Famer, I doubt he will be elected into it.

Agreed, and I feel the same way.

[dickay]

In fairness, the poll says "Is Jim Edmonds a Hall of Famer?" not "Will Jim Edmonds be elected to the Hall of Fame?" Those are two very different things. While I think he is a Hall of Famer, I doubt he will be elected into it.

you feel he's a HOF'er based upon your interpretation of what that is. Thats nice, and good dialog but kind of irrelevant. Based upon what the HOF actually is however, and how people are elected into it...you don't think he is, or will be.

If someone asked, "am I a future "Mr. Universe", I could create an opinion of what should be and argue that I am. It is again irrelevant. I can never be "Mr. Universe" unless I meet their criteria for selection, just as Edmonds can never be a HOF'er unless he meets their criteria.

Nothing wrong with adding dialog and why you disagree with how the HOF selections occur, but to answer the question I feel you have to answer whether or not he will be selected into the 'actual' HOF and not a ficticious one.

[etothep]

Who saw such a change in voting habits coming after HGM & Tang's choice?