Comments on: Edgar Martinez and the Hall of Fame http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/edgar-martinez-and-the-hall-of-fame/ Daily baseball statistical analysis and commentary Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:42:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: JoeR43 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/edgar-martinez-and-the-hall-of-fame/#comment-113687 JoeR43 Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:49:42 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=12583#comment-113687 And sure, let's factor in defense. Sean Smith's Total Zone WAR scores do that well: Martinez: 67.2 WAR, 5.088 WAR per 650 PA Helton: 57.3 WAR, 4.845 WAR per 650 PA So at best, for your case, they've been equal over a slightly longer time period for Martinez. And Helton's a borderline Hall of Famer as it is, so if you're going to crucify a guy, at least pick Frank Howard or something. Still, wah wah Martinez didn't have a long enough career. Billy Herman, Bill Mazeroski, Jim Bottomley, Lloyd Waner, Pie Traynor, Dave Bancroft, and Duke Snider, among others, all had shorter careers in terms of PA than Edgar Martinez. Orlando Cepeda had 23 more PA's. Martinez hit for average, ISO'd over .200 (98th of all time among players w/ 6000+ PA, and HEY same as Jim Rice), walked a ton, and of course, off the field, was an awesome guy. Sorry he wasn't a 300 game winner, too. And sure, let’s factor in defense. Sean Smith’s Total Zone WAR scores do that well:

Martinez: 67.2 WAR, 5.088 WAR per 650 PA
Helton: 57.3 WAR, 4.845 WAR per 650 PA

So at best, for your case, they’ve been equal over a slightly longer time period for Martinez. And Helton’s a borderline Hall of Famer as it is, so if you’re going to crucify a guy, at least pick Frank Howard or something.

Still, wah wah Martinez didn’t have a long enough career. Billy Herman, Bill Mazeroski, Jim Bottomley, Lloyd Waner, Pie Traynor, Dave Bancroft, and Duke Snider, among others, all had shorter careers in terms of PA than Edgar Martinez. Orlando Cepeda had 23 more PA’s.

Martinez hit for average, ISO’d over .200 (98th of all time among players w/ 6000+ PA, and HEY same as Jim Rice), walked a ton, and of course, off the field, was an awesome guy. Sorry he wasn’t a 300 game winner, too.

]]> By: JoeR43 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/edgar-martinez-and-the-hall-of-fame/#comment-113684 JoeR43 Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:40:16 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=12583#comment-113684 Except, no, that's wrong, in so many ways: 1) So because Martinez doesn't "stack up" in your mind to a borderline Hall of Famer who has had Coors Field to help boost his numbers, he's a no? 2) MARTINEZ STILL HAS 900 MORE PA THAN HELTON Martinez OPS+: 147 Helton OPS+: 140 Martinez neutral-park, 750 run slash stats + RC: .320/.428/.529, 1707 RC Helton neutral-park, 750 run slash stats + RC: .310/.408/.533, 1386 RC Martinez wRC+: 152 Helton wRC+: 146 In closing, STOP SAYING SHIT WITH NO FUCKING FACTUAL INFORMATION BEHIND IT. It's lazy reasoning like that that's why the Hall of Fame is messed up beyond repair as it is. Except, no, that’s wrong, in so many ways:

1) So because Martinez doesn’t “stack up” in your mind to a borderline Hall of Famer who has had Coors Field to help boost his numbers, he’s a no?

2) MARTINEZ STILL HAS 900 MORE PA THAN HELTON
Martinez OPS+: 147
Helton OPS+: 140

Martinez neutral-park, 750 run slash stats + RC: .320/.428/.529, 1707 RC
Helton neutral-park, 750 run slash stats + RC: .310/.408/.533, 1386 RC

Martinez wRC+: 152
Helton wRC+: 146

In closing, STOP SAYING SHIT WITH NO FUCKING FACTUAL INFORMATION BEHIND IT. It’s lazy reasoning like that that’s why the Hall of Fame is messed up beyond repair as it is.

]]> By: NearlyWetMyPants http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/edgar-martinez-and-the-hall-of-fame/#comment-113340 NearlyWetMyPants Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:20:41 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=12583#comment-113340 Hmmm, ok I don't see him as a hall of famer and I'm hoping someone can catch me up as it seems like a no brainer. I just can't make the numbers add up to legend. The arguments about having a shortened career and being unable to accumulate the "Count Stats" seem fairly self defeating. If a player has 4 WAR by the all star break then doesnt play any more (maybe he slept with the owners wife or something), should he beat a player who put up 7 WAR over the full season in the end of season awards? No, because even though he was better per game than Mr 7 WAR he had a statistically worse season. Is this not a similar argument but replacing a season with a career? If you compare his numbers to Todd Helton (who admittedly has the hefty mile high inflation on his numbers) then you'll find that he's inferior in pretty much every significant category including every value that every other response has preached about. If you trade off the Coors factor against the pretty good (if fairly erratic) defensive numbers from Helton, then surely if Edgar is a first ballot hall of hamer then Helton is worth a new religion? Oh, and election is all about being the best of those who are eligible at the time. Given that the ballot is new people and some people deemed not good enough last time there are always going to be weak years where lesser people get in... Hmmm, ok I don’t see him as a hall of famer and I’m hoping someone can catch me up as it seems like a no brainer. I just can’t make the numbers add up to legend.

The arguments about having a shortened career and being unable to accumulate the “Count Stats” seem fairly self defeating. If a player has 4 WAR by the all star break then doesnt play any more (maybe he slept with the owners wife or something), should he beat a player who put up 7 WAR over the full season in the end of season awards? No, because even though he was better per game than Mr 7 WAR he had a statistically worse season. Is this not a similar argument but replacing a season with a career?

If you compare his numbers to Todd Helton (who admittedly has the hefty mile high inflation on his numbers) then you’ll find that he’s inferior in pretty much every significant category including every value that every other response has preached about. If you trade off the Coors factor against the pretty good (if fairly erratic) defensive numbers from Helton, then surely if Edgar is a first ballot hall of hamer then Helton is worth a new religion?

Oh, and election is all about being the best of those who are eligible at the time. Given that the ballot is new people and some people deemed not good enough last time there are always going to be weak years where lesser people get in…

]]> By: Joe R http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/edgar-martinez-and-the-hall-of-fame/#comment-113235 Joe R Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:23:11 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=12583#comment-113235 I just still find it funny that we're supposed to discard Martinez' career for how he was used and no other reason, according to some. I just still find it funny that we’re supposed to discard Martinez’ career for how he was used and no other reason, according to some.

]]> By: Joser http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/edgar-martinez-and-the-hall-of-fame/#comment-113155 Joser Fri, 11 Dec 2009 04:18:53 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=12583#comment-113155 It may not be the best comparison; it was just the first one that popped into my head, meant to illuminate the point in general rather than proving it in particular. But there was a time when a pitcher's hitting ability mattered quite a lot. I mean, I think Babe Ruth would've argued that at least. Since his era, players have gotten increasingly specialized; the DH is jut the latest and perhaps most extreme case, but from late-innings defensive specialists to LOOGYs to closers, that sort of evolution has been going on for a long time now and everybody -- from the fans to the HoF voters -- has adapted to it to some extent. Though it may take until the old guard shuffles off their mortal coils before it is accepted to the extent that a DH is welcomed into Cooperstown. It may not be the best comparison; it was just the first one that popped into my head, meant to illuminate the point in general rather than proving it in particular. But there was a time when a pitcher’s hitting ability mattered quite a lot. I mean, I think Babe Ruth would’ve argued that at least. Since his era, players have gotten increasingly specialized; the DH is jut the latest and perhaps most extreme case, but from late-innings defensive specialists to LOOGYs to closers, that sort of evolution has been going on for a long time now and everybody — from the fans to the HoF voters — has adapted to it to some extent. Though it may take until the old guard shuffles off their mortal coils before it is accepted to the extent that a DH is welcomed into Cooperstown.

]]> By: CircleChange11 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/edgar-martinez-and-the-hall-of-fame/#comment-112753 CircleChange11 Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:41:44 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=12583#comment-112753 The one thing I remember from my TL2 days, was that Rico Brogna was a "simulation monster". *grin* In the "GM Challenge" aspect of that game (maybe it was TL3) he went on to have a "Palmeiro-esque" career and made the HoF. *Shrugs* Previous to that, in the days of Microleague and Earl Weaver Baseball, Will Clark was THAT guy. The one thing I remember from my TL2 days, was that Rico Brogna was a “simulation monster”. *grin* In the “GM Challenge” aspect of that game (maybe it was TL3) he went on to have a “Palmeiro-esque” career and made the HoF. *Shrugs*

Previous to that, in the days of Microleague and Earl Weaver Baseball, Will Clark was THAT guy.

]]> By: Brandon http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/edgar-martinez-and-the-hall-of-fame/#comment-112730 Brandon Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:29:24 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=12583#comment-112730 There was a time when I played a LOT of Tony Larussa II baseball -- mostly doing drafts , then rapid-playing the season to see how it ended up. The single most important draft pick to make to maximize wins was Edgar Martinez (in the 7th round, I believe). He gave a TREMENDOUS boost to the run scoring potential of any team. He was a monster, even if he wasn't hitting 45 bombs each year. He was ALWAYS on base, and that creates runs. So what if he was a DH! Besides, it IS a position and he WASN'T hurting his team with the glove, like so many other players do. And it's apparently not an easy position psychologically. Most players HATE playing DH, because they aren't in the rhythm of the game. If it was easy to find a DH, why is there such a shortage of great ones (Harold Baines, anyone?). There was a time when I played a LOT of Tony Larussa II baseball — mostly doing drafts , then rapid-playing the season to see how it ended up. The single most important draft pick to make to maximize wins was Edgar Martinez (in the 7th round, I believe). He gave a TREMENDOUS boost to the run scoring potential of any team. He was a monster, even if he wasn’t hitting 45 bombs each year. He was ALWAYS on base, and that creates runs. So what if he was a DH! Besides, it IS a position and he WASN’T hurting his team with the glove, like so many other players do. And it’s apparently not an easy position psychologically. Most players HATE playing DH, because they aren’t in the rhythm of the game. If it was easy to find a DH, why is there such a shortage of great ones (Harold Baines, anyone?).

]]> By: GarForever http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/edgar-martinez-and-the-hall-of-fame/#comment-112627 GarForever Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:45:06 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=12583#comment-112627 For those still hung up on "count stats" as opposed to more advanced metrics, here's this from Doug Miller's mlb.com piece on November 27 (my apologies if someone else already referenced this, but I didn't see it among the comments): "Martinez is one of only 11 inactive players to play in 2,000 games and have a career batting average over .300 with a career OBP over .400 and a slugging percentage over .500. The other 10 are already on the wall in Cooperstown. Also, Martinez, Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Stan Musial, Rogers Hornsby and Lou Gehrig are the only players in MLB history with at least 300 home runs, 500 doubles, a career batting average higher than .300, and a career on-base percentage higher than .400." All while playing the equivalent of 13.7 seasons on the most generous of estimates. So, even if you think more advanced metrics shouldn't count, or just being a DH should count against him, perhaps you should think again. Or, is someone among the other five likewise unworthy of HoF status? For an entire decade, there were two right handed batters in the AL no one wanted to face: Frank Thomas and Edgar Martinez. Both belong in the Hall. For those still hung up on “count stats” as opposed to more advanced metrics, here’s this from Doug Miller’s mlb.com piece on November 27 (my apologies if someone else already referenced this, but I didn’t see it among the comments):

“Martinez is one of only 11 inactive players to play in 2,000 games and have a career batting average over .300 with a career OBP over .400 and a slugging percentage over .500. The other 10 are already on the wall in Cooperstown. Also, Martinez, Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Stan Musial, Rogers Hornsby and Lou Gehrig are the only players in MLB history with at least 300 home runs, 500 doubles, a career batting average higher than .300, and a career on-base percentage higher than .400.”

All while playing the equivalent of 13.7 seasons on the most generous of estimates. So, even if you think more advanced metrics shouldn’t count, or just being a DH should count against him, perhaps you should think again. Or, is someone among the other five likewise unworthy of HoF status?

For an entire decade, there were two right handed batters in the AL no one wanted to face: Frank Thomas and Edgar Martinez. Both belong in the Hall.

]]> By: B http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/edgar-martinez-and-the-hall-of-fame/#comment-112623 B Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:05:22 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=12583#comment-112623 Look, I thoroughly understand the point you're making, trust me. We are discussing this on Fangraphs, after all. I have yet to disagree with your opinion, as I do understand it and see it as a valid opinion. But again, I'm just bringing a different persective here. I am judging their total contributions against zero. I don't particularly care to use a replacement level benchmark for something like the HoF, because I would rather reward a players total accomplishments, and playing the field and contributing to outs is accomplishing something a DH is not, whether whatever example player we want to use is above average or well below average as a fielder. I dunno, I could go on, but I think I've made all my points so I might as well just stop here. Just to reiterate my point - I'm just bringing a different perspective on things. I will take part in your office example, though...I don't think the rampaging part is accurate. It's more like said employee (who I'll call #1) is doing productive things everyone is expected to pitch in and do, just not as many productive things as his hypothetical "replacement" employee would be doing. Meanwhile, the other guy, who I'll call #2 (maybe he's a higher level employee, so he's not expected to pitch in to little things like decorating the office for the holidays or moving stuff in/out of storage or cleaning the fridge or whatever else?) isn't doing any of those things. Sure, #2 might not be expected to because it's not in his job description while it is in #1's job description....but I just prefer to give credit #1 for helping out cleaning the fridge, etc...even if he's not helping as much as his replacement would, and not credit #2 at all. Just my point of view. :) Oh (so much for me stopping my post), and I'm not suggesting abandoning replacement level players at all. As I've said, the baseball market does operate that way, so it is a necessary and accurate concept. I'm just suggesting that while I do think it's an appropriate concept for valuing players and making GM/team building decisions, I don't necessarily think it's always the best way for giving out certain awards that recnognize a players accomplishments (like the HoF). Look, I thoroughly understand the point you’re making, trust me. We are discussing this on Fangraphs, after all. I have yet to disagree with your opinion, as I do understand it and see it as a valid opinion. But again, I’m just bringing a different persective here. I am judging their total contributions against zero. I don’t particularly care to use a replacement level benchmark for something like the HoF, because I would rather reward a players total accomplishments, and playing the field and contributing to outs is accomplishing something a DH is not, whether whatever example player we want to use is above average or well below average as a fielder. I dunno, I could go on, but I think I’ve made all my points so I might as well just stop here. Just to reiterate my point – I’m just bringing a different perspective on things.

I will take part in your office example, though…I don’t think the rampaging part is accurate. It’s more like said employee (who I’ll call #1) is doing productive things everyone is expected to pitch in and do, just not as many productive things as his hypothetical “replacement” employee would be doing. Meanwhile, the other guy, who I’ll call #2 (maybe he’s a higher level employee, so he’s not expected to pitch in to little things like decorating the office for the holidays or moving stuff in/out of storage or cleaning the fridge or whatever else?) isn’t doing any of those things. Sure, #2 might not be expected to because it’s not in his job description while it is in #1′s job description….but I just prefer to give credit #1 for helping out cleaning the fridge, etc…even if he’s not helping as much as his replacement would, and not credit #2 at all. Just my point of view. :)

Oh (so much for me stopping my post), and I’m not suggesting abandoning replacement level players at all. As I’ve said, the baseball market does operate that way, so it is a necessary and accurate concept. I’m just suggesting that while I do think it’s an appropriate concept for valuing players and making GM/team building decisions, I don’t necessarily think it’s always the best way for giving out certain awards that recnognize a players accomplishments (like the HoF).

]]> By: Joe R http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/edgar-martinez-and-the-hall-of-fame/#comment-112615 Joe R Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:17:19 +0000 http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/?p=12583#comment-112615 I admit, though, that the positional adjustment still probably high-balls Walker. Generally the league normal home-road OPS split is around 30 points, so let's say if Walker had an .865 road OPS in his career, he may have been around a .895 home OPS, .880 overall. Still top 100 of all time. Still higher than Sammy Sosa, who people would put in instantly if not for steroid hesitation. Essentially, he would be the Will Clark of corner OF's And there was definitely an argument to put Clark in the Hall. So, there definitely should be one to put Walker in. Do I think he belongs? Well, I know he wouldn't be the priority that I have on Martinez, Raines, and Blyleven, but I wouldn't exactly be calling the BBWAA idiots for enshrining him. I admit, though, that the positional adjustment still probably high-balls Walker. Generally the league normal home-road OPS split is around 30 points, so let’s say if Walker had an .865 road OPS in his career, he may have been around a .895 home OPS, .880 overall. Still top 100 of all time. Still higher than Sammy Sosa, who people would put in instantly if not for steroid hesitation. Essentially, he would be the Will Clark of corner OF’s

And there was definitely an argument to put Clark in the Hall. So, there definitely should be one to put Walker in. Do I think he belongs? Well, I know he wouldn’t be the priority that I have on Martinez, Raines, and Blyleven, but I wouldn’t exactly be calling the BBWAA idiots for enshrining him.

]]>