Is Jim Edmonds a Hall of Famer?

[boomboom]

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.

I agree, I think his stats are HOF worthy but I don't think he will be elected.

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.

You absolutely make no sense.

[dickay]

I agree, I think his stats are HOF worthy but I don't think he will be elected.

so to the question, "is he a HOF'er" the answer is no, or should be.. in your opinion. Based upon what you believe the HOF "should" be, you feel it is yes.

It makes perfect sense. The HOF is an actual entity, not a figment of someones imagination. We all have opinions on what it should be.....but to be an actual HOF (which is what the questioned asked, "is he a HOF'er) you must meet certain criteria. If you don't think he meets the criteria used by those who vote (which I know can be rediculous) than the answer is no, he's not a HOF'er.

[boomboom]

so to the question, "is he a HOF'er" the answer is no, or should be.. in your opinion. Based upon what you believe the HOF "should" be, you feel it is yes.

It makes perfect sense. The HOF is an actual entity, not a figment of someones imagination. We all have opinions on what it should be.....but to be an actual HOF (which is what the questioned asked, "is he a HOF'er) you must meet certain criteria. If you don't think he meets the criteria used by those who vote (which I know can be rediculous) than the answer is no, he's not a HOF'er.

I am not sure what you are trying to say. If you want to go that way. He hasn't been voted into the HOF yet, so no he is not a HOFer. Geez...not sure what you are trying to say.

[dickay]

I am not sure what you are trying to say. If you want to go that way. He hasn't been voted into the HOF yet, so no he is not a HOFer. Geez...not sure what you are trying to say.

the question is, based on his stats is he a HOF'er? We all know he must wait 5 years after retirement to get entry. Thats moot, we know he's not a HOF'er now. Based upon his stats, is he? And you simply cannot say yes because he fits a ficticious idea of what that should be....the HOF is an actual entity. It has actual criteria and a history of voting preferences.

Is he a HOF'er is a question which can only be answered by comparing it to those actual standards and preferences that are in place. The standards and voting preferences of those who actually vote on it.

As I said, I see how one can object to HOF voters criteria (I do) but to say "yes, so and so is a HOF'er" based upon "my" criteria and imagination of what that wonderland should look like" really doesn't answer the question and is not relevant to the question. It merely provides dialog that you don't like the HOF selection process.

This whole discussion came into play when discussing the merits of Baseball References three or four HOF gauging systems. Someone said they are only relevant to determine whether or not someone will get elected into the HOF. Well, last I checked, one only becomes a HOF by getting elected into the HOF by those who vote on it, thus...if those systems gauge with any effectiveness how the voters actually will vote, they are extremely relevant to this discussion.

If Jeffy had said, "do you think Jim Edmonds should be elected into the HOF" than I agree that would be different. That invokes a percieved thought on what the HOF should be for each of us individually. Just asking, "is Jim Edmonds a HOF'er" invokes the actual HOF and its voting criteria and preferences because he can't be an actual HOF'er unless he satisfies them.

[YEAH DAAAAWG]

I am not sure what you are trying to say. If you want to go that way. He hasn't been voted into the HOF yet, so no he is not a HOFer. Geez...not sure what you are trying to say.

Don't bother.

[TheNamelessPoet]

where do I find WAR... I am currious about players... like Andruw Jones, and Chipper

[kenny1234]

where do I find WAR... I am currious about players... like Andruw Jones, and Chipper

One source is here, just click on the 1871-2009 link near the top left.
http://www.baseballprojection.com/

[boomboom]

the question is, based on his stats is he a HOF'er? We all know he must wait 5 years after retirement to get entry. Thats moot, we know he's not a HOF'er now. Based upon his stats, is he? And you simply cannot say yes because he fits a ficticious idea of what that should be....the HOF is an actual entity. It has actual criteria and a history of voting preferences.

Is he a HOF'er is a question which can only be answered by comparing it to those actual standards and preferences that are in place. The standards and voting preferences of those who actually vote on it.

As I said, I see how one can object to HOF voters criteria (I do) but to say "yes, so and so is a HOF'er" based upon "my" criteria and imagination of what that wonderland should look like" really doesn't answer the question and is not relevant to the question. It merely provides dialog that you don't like the HOF selection process.

This whole discussion came into play when discussing the merits of Baseball References three or four HOF gauging systems. Someone said they are only relevant to determine whether or not someone will get elected into the HOF. Well, last I checked, one only becomes a HOF by getting elected into the HOF by those who vote on it, thus...if those systems gauge with any effectiveness how the voters actually will vote, they are extremely relevant to this discussion.

If Jeffy had said, "do you think Jim Edmonds should be elected into the HOF" than I agree that would be different. That invokes a percieved thought on what the HOF should be for each of us individually. Just asking, "is Jim Edmonds a HOF'er" invokes the actual HOF and its voting criteria and preferences because he can't be an actual HOF'er unless he satisfies them.

You still don't make any sense, why are you stating the obvious. Who cares how the first thread question is started, I know what he meant. It is utterly stupid to think other. Of course we don't elect him to the HOF, but is he worthy? I think he is, will he be voted in. Probably not. Based on statistical evidence he would be a good candidate to be elected into the HOF. Based on his stats, if he does get elected, he isn't an inner circle player. He was just a da mn good player for a long time. He was especially a great Center Fielder for the Angels and Cardinals. The question was asked to the users of the forum, not to the HOF voters.

[boomboom]

One source is here, just click on the 1871-2009 link near the top left.
http://www.baseballprojection.com/

thanks Kenny

[boomboom]

Don't bother.

I know, but he won't stop posting rubbish.

[dickay]

You still don't make any sense, why are you stating the obvious. Who cares how the first thread question is started, I know what he meant. It is utterly stupid to think other. Of course we don't elect him to the HOF, but is he worthy? I think he is, will he be voted in. Probably not. Based on statistical evidence he would be a good candidate to be elected into the HOF. Based on his stats, if he does get elected, he isn't an inner circle player. He was just a da mn good player for a long time. He was especially a great Center Fielder for the Angels and Cardinals.

ugh....I agree with you and posted why I was stating the obvious here;

This whole discussion came into play when discussing the merits of Baseball References three or four HOF gauging systems. Someone said they are only relevant to determine whether or not someone will get elected into the HOF. Well, last I checked, one only becomes a HOF by getting elected into the HOF by those who vote on it, thus...if those systems gauge with any effectiveness how the voters actually will vote, they are extremely relevant to this discussion.

[Jeffy25]

I believe his offense makes me a borderline hall of famer almost by themselves, if you add in his defensive contributions, it's hard to say no, IMO.

[etothep]

I believe his offense makes me a borderline hall of famer

Based on his offense, am I also a bordlerline HOFer?

[Jeffy25]

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

no one ****ing listens to me

[Jeffy25]

where do I find WAR... I am currious about players... like Andruw Jones, and Chipper

http://www.baseballprojection.com/war/playerindex.htm

for offensive players, 60 for a career is basically the borderline.

Chipper is an easy choice, with a near 77, good enough for 39th best offensive player of all time.

While Andruw has a 58.4, number 115 of all time.

which honestly would probably keep A. Jones out for most sabr minded fans. Although he is very close and could easily reach that 60-65 in the next few years easily.

His downfall was a tough one, but his defense coupled with solid offense are enough to think he could get there.

I think Chipper will be voted in, while Andruw won't....but Andruw could change that with a couple more good years, and could be a mutually agreed upon player at some point (although I really really doubt that)