2013 MLB Hall of Fame Screechfest

My thinking on the DH is that it is a position, but it is a position with much less of a physical toll, so it's much easier to play. So if a player is going to do only half of what other players do, he ought to do it a lot better.

A first baseman who hits .300 has done more than a DH who hits .300.

If you deduct some points from Edgar for that adjustment, he comes up short.

One man's opinion.

 

Wasn't me.

 

MLB Network is showing a marathon of the Ken Burns documentaries. They're on Ty Cobb right now.

It is reinforcing to me what a total a-hole Ty Cobb was, which makes me think about the "character clause." I'm sorry, but I just can't get behind any philosophy that says guys who use steroids lack integrity and character when guys like Ty Cobb are in the HOF.

And the whole "on-field character" argument is merely an interpretation of some voters. The ballot doesn't say what type of character and integrity counts.

And one more thing, while I'm on a roll, why is character only a negative? If you can take a guy whose performance was far above the standard and eliminate him on character, shouldn't you also raise a guy whose performance was below the standard because of his character. Say... Dale Murphy?

 

The Edgar-DH debate will never end, but my question is this --

Martinez put up these slash lines -- .343/.404/.544; .356/.479/.638; .327/.464/.595; .330/.456/.554; .322/.429/.565; .337/.447/.554; .324/.423/.579; .306/.423/.543.

Those last seven years are consecutive. How much better do you have to be in batting, on-base and slugging as a DH to earn respect because all you do is hit. If Martinez hit .370 and got on base .508 percent of the time instead of .356 and .479, both of which led the league, then that makes it a hall of fame season?

In 2,271 plate appearances at third, his slash line was: .302/.391/.459
In 6,218 plate appearances as a DH, it was: .314/.428/.532

 

That last part helps the argument against him. It shows just how much getting to only DH helped him while other players he is being measured against had to also play the field.

Also, the slash lines alone are a bit of a manipulation. Counting statistics should be measured as well. Martinez only hit 30 home runs in a season once in his career. That also works against him.

 

martinez over a 162-game season: 41 doubles, 24 HR, 99 RBI, .312/.418/.515
molitor - 37 doubles, 14 HR, 79 RBI, .306/.369/.448

 

hey, i was just tossing out numbers ... one set of which is terribly more impressive than the other. but i was just tossing them out.

 

One reason that one set of numbers looked more impressive than the other is the use of unfair choices of categories, especially leaving out runs scored while including RBI.

Molitor's 162-game average was 108 runs scored and 30 stolen bases. He had 504 total stolen bases in his career.
Martinez's average was 96 runs scored and four stolen bases.

Using the average 162-game season also slants the comparison unfairly in Martinez's favor. Molitor played longer. That means he contributed longer and should get credit for that. Not only did he have a huge edge in career runs scored (1,782 to 1,219), he also finished with more RBI for his career than Martinez (1,307 to 1,261).

 

whoa, so molitor's 26 more stolen bases led to 12 more runs a year all while martinez drove in 20 more runs a year on average? i guess i overlooked that "slant" because the RBIs made it more than insignificant.

also, yes, molitor did play longer than martinez. the mariners sat on him too long in the minors.

 

My point was that, intentionally or not, you manipulated the comparison by the statistics you chose. This post makes it seem like it was intentional. Sorry, but 12 runs a season is not insignificant. Neither is 26 more stolen bases. It does, however, help to counter the point you seem to be making in comparing the two.

Molitor was a threat on the bases. Martinez was more of a clogger. That is a significant difference in Molitor's favor, one you left out by the statistics you chose.

Leaving out runs scored also slanted things unfairly in Martinez's favor.

The reason Martinez stayed in the minors too long is irrelevant. I've heard that argument many times, but the fact remains Martinez did not play those seasons in the majors. You can't give him credit for things he didn't do. Molitor contributed longer at the major-league level, so leaving that out and using averages without also using career totals unfairly slants things in Martinez's favor.

Taking a complete look at both players, rather than only using statistics that favor your point, shows they are closer than you make them out to be offensively. And, as Versatile pointed out, Molitor played nearly 1,000 more games in the field, which is a very big difference.

Also, Molitor started his career in 1978. Martinez was not a full-time player until 1990, placing him far more squarely in an era dominated by hitting. That also has to be taken into consideration.

 

Molitor got in before I had a vote. I'm not sure Id have voted for him either.

Edgar's power and OBP numbers went up significantly after he became a DH. The career numbers are skewed because of his last couple of years when he was old and in decline.

When he was young he was a nice little hitter: good average, not much power for a corner infielder, couldn't stay healthy. Then around age 32, he becomes a DH and puts together 5-6 monster seasons.

Either being a DH helped him become a better hitter or he started taking steroids. Your pick.

 

Martinez did have a great seven-year run starting at 32, but at 27, 28 and 29 before a two-year stretch of injuries, he did win a batting title, hit over .300 and got on base at a .400 clip. His HR numbers weren't great by any stretch, but he was showing the beginning of the normal carerr arc for a hitter. It's too bad injuries essenially wiped out a season of his career at 30-31 just as he was coming into his prime.