2013 MLB Hall of Fame Screechfest

I think history tends to disagree that a player's prime starts at 30-31. There was definitely something unsual about Edgar's arc. I'm willing to accept that simply moving him to DH allowed him to be stronger and healthier. I'm also willing to accept the other possibility.

Either way, doesn't help his case.

In the entire history of baseball, there are only five players who have had at least three 25-homer seasons after age 31 while having zero prior to that.

Ken Williams and Cy Williams both did it, starting in 1922, shortly after the new ball was introduced (thanks Black Sox). Luke Easter also did it, but he was an African American who didn’t reach the majors till 1949, at age 33, and he hit 25-plus in each of his first three full seasons.

The other two players are Edgar Martinez and Ken Caminiti.

 

Let's just look at his prime seasons, excluding when he was a part time major leaguer early and when he was a fossil late...

1990-94 (age 27-31), played mostly 3B: .307/.397/.471/.868/138
1995-01 (age 32-38), played mostly DH: .329/.446/.574/1.020/164

Now, no one under normal circumstances should be that much better at 32-38 than he was at 27-31.

 

To be fair, that stat is skewed because Martinez didn't get a chance to be a regular until 27.

It just seems to me that people want to ding him for doing what he did, which is really really good, because he wasn't playing the field. And when he was playing the field, he was producing at a hall of fame level, would there have been a dropoff of some sort -- absolutely.

But I think his circumstance is so rare that it shouldn't matter. The Dh has been around for generations and yet there have been only two cases -- Martinez and David Ortiz -- that fit the bill of exclusive to DH who have produced at a HOF-level without having significant playing time in the field. If half of the AL had guys like that, I could understand the reluctance. But there are so few because the skills those two have greatly outweigh it.

And if this was the 50s and 60s, they would be playing the field. You are punishing them for playing during an era where teams are taking advantage of the rules allowed.

 

And Martinez's situation is not under normal circumstances, despite stellar numbers in the minors, he didn't get a full season until 27. Had he done so at 23 or 24, then his peak years would have been earlier and not late, because he would have had more at-bats under his belt. His 27/28/29 seasons show the maturity of a hitter adjusting in this first could of years in the majors. It just took place later than it should have, through no fault of his own.

 

So you're saying that he kept his body from aging because he wasn't in the majors? When he was 27, he had the body of a 23-year-old because he had been kept in the minors unfairly all those years?

No, I think if this were the '50s and '60s he'd have been retired at age 32 because his body couldn't handle playing the field.

 

No, I'm pointing out that he didn't have the wear and tear of a major-league grind for an extra four years before reaching what is looked at as a hitter's prime that allowed him to be productive that late.

 

No, he probably had more wear and tear. He was still playing baseball every day, but he was doing it in the minors where the medical care is not as good and the travel is more grueling.

What relieved him of the physical toll was being a DH!

 

Good discussion here. A couple points:

- Lefty Grove wasn't called up until age 25. He won 111 games in the minor leagues. But he also compiled legitimate Hall of Fame numbers in the majors (300 wins, 9 ERA titles, 7 strikeout titles), without anyone having to give him "extra credit" for his late debut.

- Hell, one of Edgar's teammates on the Mariners didn't get "called up" until age 27, and he didn't really have a choice in the matter, either. But Ichiro Suzuki is going to make the Hall of Fame, based solely on his legitimate major league credentials. (Even though he's not half the hitter Edgar was.)

- Just for kicks, Edgar's career numbers as a professional — including minor leagues — are 2,939 hits and 1,623 RBI. If he'd compiled those all in the majors, he'd be a shoo-in to the HOF. But he didn't. He doesn't get extra credit because the Mariners were stupid in the '80s. Lots of players are held back for lots of reasons, or not ever given a "fair" chance to succeed in the majors. Edgar made the most of his opportunity when he finally got it. But we can only judge his performance on the field, not hypothetical numbers if he had played a different position or been a starter in 1988 like maybe he should have been.

- DH is a position, and it's not going away, no matter how much the "purists" want it to. The war is over. (In fact, I'm convinced the NL will adopt it in the next 10 years. The only professional baseball leagues in the world still not using the DH are the National League in this country and the Central League in Japan. That's it. Once one submits, the other will follow. There may only be a dozen American players left in the major leagues right now who didn't grow up using the DH in every league in youth ball, high school, college, the minors, etc. Then they get to the NL and pitchers hit again? Doesn't make any sense.)

- That said, I agree with the voters who hold DH candidates to a higher standard for award and Hall of Fame voting. I think that's quite fair, based on what we know about the position after 40 years of use. It's clearly a position that allows hitters (generally, older hitters) to stay healthier and more productive than they would if they were playing anywhere else on the field. So yes, when comparing a first baseman with a .300/.400/.500 slash line and 30 homers and a DH with the same stats, position must be taken into account.

- All that said, did Edgar do enough — in the major leagues, as a DH — to warrant election to the Hall of Fame? I'd be OK with him getting in, because he was the best player at his position for more than a decade, which is usually enough to get you in anywhere. But I'm not sure I'd vote for him myself. Great peak value, iconic postseason moment, but the positional adjustment is enough to make me think he should have done more as a hitter, especially in that era — not sure he could have had a higher peak (except for leading the league in more categories), but definitely higher in career value, counting totals, etc.

Maybe that's too much of an adjustment for a DH, I don't know. This is the first time we're really dealing with a full-time, career-long DH candidate, other than maybe Molitor, who had a pretty high peak and career value.

 

You're right. It's not a "position". The more accurate description would be a "responsibility" or "role", like a closer.

But like closers, it is a defined role in today's game and has been for decades. So in that respect, it is real and has value — though we can debate how much value a DH or closer actually provides.

What I hate to see, though, is voters who think DHs or closers aren't (practically) eligible for awards or the Hall of Fame. Which isn't right. We can judge them by a different/higher standard, but at some point, you're going to have to vote for somebody because players are now spending their entire careers in those roles and we ought to judge them based on what they're asked to do, just like we do with everyone else. [/rant]

Before the age of about 11 or 12, I think a lot of youth leagues are "everyone hits" regardless of defensive position. So there are technically no DHs at all.

But in Legion ball and summer ball as a teenager, and even in sanctioned high school ball, a DH could be used for any position, not just a pitcher. (I know this because I occasionally got DHed-for as a first baseman on my HS varsity team. Sigh.) Or the two coaches could agree not to use the DH if they both wanted their nine position players to hit, which was sometimes the case.

 

For me, the biggest knock against Martinez isn't the fact that he was a DH, but the fact that he didn't accomplish much in his 20s. He had pretty good rate stats, but not very good career totals. At age 31 he had only 62 career home runs and 268 RBI. From age 32 on, he was a beast, but he was playing catch up, and, although he was really good up until age 41, he just didn't accomplish enough overall compared to many of his contemporaries. I don't think being a career outfielder would help his chances much. Look at Larry Walker...he was a similar hitter to Edgar, and has gold glove fielding and good baserunning value to go along with it. How can you choose Martinez and not choose Walker? Jim Edmonds is another guy who is pretty similar as a hitter, and has a ton of gold gloves in center field, and I doubt he will make it in.

In a way, he was like the position player version of Randy Johnson, in the way they both did almost all of their HOF performance after age 30. Johnson was historically good from that point on. Martinez was really good, but not quite historically good. He would need to have had a better peak in order to be a peak value HOFer.

 

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2012/12/26/yes-i-cast-my-hall-of-fame-vote-for-barry-bonds-along-with-dale-murphy-at-the-top-of-my-ballot/

Interesting ballot by Tim Kawakami: Voted for Bonds, Clemens, Bagwell, Biggio, Schilling, Raines, Murphy and Morris. Didn't vote for Trammells after voting for him last year, despite having to slots available. Also didn't vote for Piazza

 

again, it's insignifuckingcant. martinez produced more runs a year ... which was my fucking point to begin with. are you fucking dense or something?

take away molitor's magic number, and it's not even a contest of who the better hitter was. shit, it's not even close.