Is Jim Edmonds a Hall of Famer?

[dps]

Those metrics are not (or are barely) relevant to the discussion of whether or not a player SHOULD BE a Hall of Famer.

The monitor is supposed to just track a player's chances with the voters, without regard to his actual merit, but the HoF standards and the black ink test are supposed to measure merit (though they certainly aren't intended to be the alpha and omega of the discussion).

Aw, fck it, if we're gonna discuss all the rest of this in relation to Edmonds, lets Keltnerize him:

1 Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

I certainly never regarded him as the best player in baseball (or even close). I'm not aware of anybody else feeling that he was the best.

2 Was he the best player on his team?

With the Angels, yeah, probably. Definately not with the Cards.

3 Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

Again, I never regarded him as that good, but I think some people did. Certainly he was generally regarded as the best defensive CF in the AL in his prime.

4 Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

Yes, certainly.

5 Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?

Tough to say in his case. He never played 120 games or more after age 35, but that was more due to injuries than to performance--he continued to play well, except for his stint with the Padres. I guess that's a yes.

6 Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

No.

7 Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?

No.

8 Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

No.

9 Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

Posters here clearly disagree on what weight to give to various traditional and non-traditional stats in Edmonds' case, but that's not the question here. I'd say no.

10 Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?

When he becomes eligilbe, he probably will be.

11 How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

He never even came close. His best finish was 4th, and he never got a single first place vote.

12 How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?

He was selected 4 times, and certainly would have been a good selection a few other times. Four AS selections isn't a great total in a HoF context, but add in some of the other times he arguably should have been selected, and he looks OK here.

13 If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

Yes.

14 What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

Don't recall anything.

15 Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

I suppose so. I don't recall any particular scandals.

[HoustonGM]

The monitor is supposed to just track a player's chances with the voters, without regard to his actual merit, but the HoF standards and the black ink test are supposed to measure merit (though they certainly aren't intended to be the alpha and omega of the discussion).

The HoF standards measure "merit" based on a selection of mainly counting stats and largely modeled off historical HoF inductions. It doesn't, for example, make park or era adjustments, include defense beyond a positional adjustment, etc. Black ink just measures how often a player led his league in a selection of "major" stats. Yeah, they do measure "merit" but they're very lousy at it and are basically niche measurements that don't actually tell you much about a player's actual worth.

2 Was he the best player on his team?

With the Angels, yeah, probably. Definately not with the Cards.

This is true, and this probably does go without saying, but I also think it definitely shouldn't be a slight in the least bit. His peak was with the Cardinals, and he was a legitimate 7 win player for six years. He wasn't the best on the team because his peak overlapped with Pujols entering the league, but on the majority of teams, he would've been the best player easily. (For example, the answer to this question for Lou Gehrig would be unequivocally "No" as well, because of Babe Ruth, but that's no slight on Gehrig.)

7 Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?

No.

See, this, I would argue yes. Certainly not if you use the B-R "Comparables", but that's a lousy way of measuring comparability. Based off value metrics, most players with comparable numbers are in the Hall.

[Jeffy25]

This is true, and this probably does go without saying, but I also think it definitely shouldn't be a slight in the least bit. His peak was with the Cardinals, and he was a legitimate 7 win player for six years. He wasn't the best on the team because his peak overlapped with Pujols entering the league, but on the majority of teams, he would've been the best player easily. (For example, the answer to this question for Lou Gehrig would be unequivocally "No" as well, because of Babe Ruth, but that's no slight on Gehrig.)

I think during his peak, he would have been the best player on at least 20 other teams....he was just second best to Albert. Other than the Yankees, Red Sox, Astros, and a few others off the top of my head, had Edmonds joined them, he would have been the best player on their team.

[dps]

This is true, and this probably does go without saying, but I also think it definitely shouldn't be a slight in the least bit. His peak was with the Cardinals, and he was a legitimate 7 win player for six years. He wasn't the best on the team because his peak overlapped with Pujols entering the league, but on the majority of teams, he would've been the best player easily.

No argument from me on that point. If not being as good as Pujols from 2000-2007 kept you from getting into the Hall, there'd be, what, 12 members at most?