Comments on: Edmonds in 2014

By: eccard

eccard — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 06:22:06 +0000

Thanks Erik, I didn’t think you’d actually do the comparison so props man. Actually Jim Ed monds and Jim Ed Rice kind of both had the awesome years with the bat and then tailed off badly at the end. I understand the reasoning of the HOF vote for Rice saying he was one of the very best in the game for a 10 year run, which he was. He was indeed deadly with the bat, but that said his career production is equal to Dwight Evans(and yes the HOF voters slapped him in the face BigChief).
The difference was the defense. When Rice was in left everyone ran on him, while very few coaches sent their runners against Dewey. He had that amazingly accurate cannon for an arm. I grew up in the northeast and got to watch that Red Sox dynasty; Yaz, Rice, Evans, Lynn, Fisk, Burleson, Scott, Hobson, El Tiante. My favorite world series of all time: 1975 Reds and Red Sox. Oh man could those two teams mash.
Yaz in left could handle the green monster, Lynn in center and Evans and his eight GG’s in right. That was defense! Lynn could lay out for a ball coming in like no other. Edmonds on the other hand was better going back. Now that you make me think about it Edmonds defense is definitely HOF quality. NO arguement. Keep beating the drum Erik, #15 doesn’t deserve the Dewey slight anymore then Evans did.

By: Jim Edmonds and Greatness « Play a Hard Nine

Jim Edmonds and Greatness « Play a Hard Nine — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 05:44:42 +0000

[...] Last time took a look at Jim Edmonds’ context neutral career numbers in arguing his case for the Hall. But let’s face it – just looking at career numbers alone doesn’t always make the point. Most of the time, for a player be recognized as Hall of Fame worthy, that player will have needed to prove greatness for a sustained period, not pad their WAR totals with a long career of solid but unspectacular seasons. [...]

By: bigchieftootiemontana

bigchieftootiemontana — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:15:40 +0000

Nice to see some love for Edmonds, he was a scary , important f eature of the MV3 years with his glove and bat.
Evans sure got dissed in HOF voting, I think he was better than Rice.

By the way there is a discussion going on over at Baseball Think Factory about your Edmonds post.

By: danup

danup — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:06:26 +0000

Jim’s peak was just remarkable—and he was subjectively such an exciting player to watch that I’m stunned he’s gone underappreciated. That distinctive, whirling home run uppercut, the slow-guy/great-reflexes plays in the outfield… I guess this is the bad side-effect of running for your entire peak with McGwire, Pujols, or Rolen batting in front of you.

By: erik

erik — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 23:12:56 +0000

furthermore, Edmonds had a better five year peak, and more seasons where he was just out of his mind, while Dewey was more or less consistently very good but not particularly outstanding.

By: erik

erik — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:22:41 +0000

A fair point and that's what I was trying to explain about why we should be looking stats such as OPS+ and WAR. The problem with plain ol' production stats, the numbers you'd read on the back of a baseball card, is they don't take into account the era the player played in, the ballpark or the competition. I think we all have a sense of these things in our minds, but we're just simply using or best guess or hunch. These numbers actually quantify it for us so we can more fairly and accurately make comparisons. As for Dewey, I am afraid Edmonds may share his fate, which is something Evans didn't deserve. Evans has more career WAR (61.7) than Dawson. Here's a graph:

By: eccard

eccard — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:05:01 +0000

Compelling argument. I’m not sure I buy into all the new-fangled sabermetrics et al. Everyone has a better way to figure out who the top talent was. How about plain old production stats? That seems to be a non-factor in all this stuff. Those stats say Dawson is a HOFer. Being one of only three players to be a member of the 300hr/300steals club with Willie Mays and Beroids Bonds says a lot too.

Jimmy in his prime was truly one of the best. I kind of liken him to Dewey Evans of Boston. Elite defensive performers that were under appreciated with the bat. I wonder how the two compare and how Evans would show up on your chart?

By: Pitchers Hit Eighth

Pitchers Hit Eighth — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 07:30:01 +0000

It wasn’t until I started really researching the possibilities of Dawson, Murphy, et al for this year’s ballot that I truly realized the excellence of Jimmy’s career.

Like you write, he has all the highlight reel catches, but even I have chalked that up to a little hot-dogging over the years.

His rank in career WAR was astounding to me.

I’m on board, no convincing necessary. #JimmyBaseballforHOF