Another example of the Hall of Fame getting watered down

[dalgreen]

I try to stay away from listening to St. Louis sports talk because they are such kool-aid drinkers...anyway... this guy, who I already can't stand, just stated that if Andre Dawson gets elected than Jim Edmonds should be elected as well. According to him, Edmonds has more career hr's, rbi's, higher avg., and gold gloves than Dawson. See, this is why I state that the Hall should only be for the greatest of the great, so there's none of this, "Well if he gets in, then you have to let this guy in" stuff.

[rocket]

Jim Edmonds is better than Andre Dawson.

 

Sorry.

[CuseCubFan69]

I agree but Ozzie Smith is in so the door is now wide open.

[dalgreen]

Jim Edmonds is better than Andre Dawson.

 

Sorry.

 

No need to apologize; I don't think either should get in. But because of the way it is now, there's a compelling argument that Edmonds could get in.

[CoolHandLuke]

I actually think Edmonds may have a shot. His power and plate discipline combined with his defense(percieved defense anyway) give him at least a shot, especially if he can put up 4-5 more productive years.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

The problem with Edmond's case is that he's never been THE guy on his team. He's always been overshadowed by someone better. I think he's better than Hawk, but not worthy of the Hall.

[vaball]

I agree but Ozzie Smith is in so the door is now wide open.

 

Ozzie is in because he is the best defensive shortstop ever.

[wastra]

IMO, the difference between the best defensive player in the league and an average one is FAR FAR FAR less pronounced and important to a team's overall ability to win ballgames than the difference between the best offensive player and an average one.

 

Hence, defense is overrated in Ozzie Smith's case. IMO, defense alone should not get one into the Hall. Ozzie was a sub-par HoFer (significantly) at the plate. If he's in, then a case can easily be made for Omar Vizquel who was only a miniscule shade lesser in the field, and demonstrably better at the plate- and Omar Vizquel is NOT a HoFer, IMO.

 

 

Ozzie Smith is in because he was a great (the best) defensive shortstop and did back flips on the field.

[jaydee]

I agree but Ozzie Smith is in so the door is now wide open.

 

Ozzie is in because he is the best defensive shortstop ever.

 

should the best defensive 2b, 1b, 3b, rf, lf, cf, and pticher all make it even if they are a below average major league hitter?

[AcesHigh]

The problem with Edmond's case is that he's never been THE guy on his team. He's always been overshadowed by someone better. I think he's better than Hawk, but not worthy of the Hall.

The same could be said for Rafael Palmiero before this morning. He's never been THE guy on his teams, but he was a slam dunk, first ballot guy until he failed a drug test.

[frostwyrm]

The problem with Edmond's case is that he's never been THE guy on his team. He's always been overshadowed by someone better. I think he's better than Hawk, but not worthy of the Hall.

 

Pujols is the main man in St. Louis, but that doesn't mean none of his teammates should make the Hall.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

I'm not saying Edmonds won't make it in. I'm just saying I don't believe he belongs in the Hall. For the record, I never thought Palmeiro was a lock for the hall either. He was borderline, and this might have really hurt his chances. The hall of fame is getting easier to get into these days. And having Pujols on your team just kind of overshadows Edmonds accomplishments. I think if he were THE marquee player on any of his teams, then he'd have a better shot at it.

[cubsfromMD]

I'm not saying Edmonds won't make it in. I'm just saying I don't believe he belongs in the Hall. For the record, I never thought Palmeiro was a lock for the hall either. He was borderline, and this might have really hurt his chances. The hall of fame is getting easier to get into these days. And having Pujols on your team just kind of overshadows Edmonds accomplishments. I think if he were THE marquee player on any of his teams, then he'd have a better shot at it.

 

 

while I dont think that either edmonds of andre should be in the hall, I dont know what I think about the marquee player argument. I dont know that someone should be penalized for having great players on his team. Was Gerhig any worse because he was overshadowed by ruth for many years?

[CubinNY]

Allthough Jimbo hot dog is no longer the best defensive CF, he once was, and was for at least 5 or 6 years. I cannot stand his hotdogishness but there is no denying he was ARGUABLY the best defensive CF of his generation and in his steriod filled era, a pretty good offensive one too. I hate to say it, but if I had a vote he probably would get in. But then again I'm not a stickler for the saving the hall for the best of the best. I think the Hall should be reserved for the best of each era (approx 15 years).

[vaball]

IMO, the difference between the best defensive player in the league and an average one is FAR FAR FAR less pronounced and important to a team's overall ability to win ballgames than the difference between the best offensive player and an average one.

 

Hence, defense is overrated in Ozzie Smith's case. IMO, defense alone should not get one into the Hall. Ozzie was a sub-par HoFer (significantly) at the plate. If he's in, then a case can easily be made for Omar Vizquel who was only a miniscule shade lesser in the field, and demonstrably better at the plate- and Omar Vizquel is NOT a HoFer, IMO.

 

 

Ozzie Smith is in because he was a great (the best) defensive shortstop and did back flips on the field.

 

So do people here really think Ozzie does not belong in the Hall? He is the best defensive shortstop ever. That counts for a lot. He made spectacular plays every day. Even though his offense is not Hall worthy overall, it did improve significantly as his career went on. Plus, he didn't play most of his career in the offensive era we have today. He also played his career before the emergence of power hitting shortstops.

 

Shortstop was traditionally a defensive-minded position, with a few exceptions in the past. Only recently has it become an offensive position. I don't think the way baseball has changed over the years should make Ozzies spot in the hall less deserving.

[GaryWoods]

.....there is no denying he was ARGUABLY the best defensive CF of his generation .....(approx 15 years).

 

If you can't deny something, doesn't that mean that it's NOT arguable?

[CubinNY]

.....there is no denying he was ARGUABLY the best defensive CF of his generation .....(approx 15 years).

 

If you can't deny something, doesn't that mean that it's NOT arguable?

 

LOL, no it means one cannot deny that he is among the best defensive CFer of his era, thus one can make an argument that he was the best defensive CFer of his era.

 

I have never stuck up for Edmonds before and I feel......well.....dirty. :D

[CubbieRich]

Jim Edmonds is better than Andre Dawson.

 

Sorry.

 

The only thing Edmonds has over Andre is that he wears eye makeup. My Jimmy, you look so cute.

 

Andre was an MVP of the NL. Edmonds hasn't been close.

Andre has far more HR, RBI, etc.. than Edmonds.

Andre had more speed and used it for more SB.

Andre was a feared OF who would throw you out with his great arm.

Andre was selected for 8 All-Star Games, Edmonds a mere 4.

Andre's teammates NEVER accused him of showboating flyballs or being a cancer in the clubhouse. Edmonds wore both lables quite well. Little wonder the Angels won the WS after Edmonds was dealt.

 

I don't know if Andre deserves the Hall of Fame, but Edmonds is clearly not the premier CF in the NL..let alone HOF material.

 

Not sorry.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

IMO, the difference between the best defensive player in the league and an average one is FAR FAR FAR less pronounced and important to a team's overall ability to win ballgames than the difference between the best offensive player and an average one.

 

Hence, defense is overrated in Ozzie Smith's case. IMO, defense alone should not get one into the Hall. Ozzie was a sub-par HoFer (significantly) at the plate. If he's in, then a case can easily be made for Omar Vizquel who was only a miniscule shade lesser in the field, and demonstrably better at the plate- and Omar Vizquel is NOT a HoFer, IMO.

 

 

Ozzie Smith is in because he was a great (the best) defensive shortstop and did back flips on the field.

 

So do people here really think Ozzie does not belong in the Hall? He is the best defensive shortstop ever. That counts for a lot. He made spectacular plays every day. Even though his offense is not Hall worthy overall, it did improve significantly as his career went on. Plus, he didn't play most of his career in the offensive era we have today. He also played his career before the emergence of power hitting shortstops.

 

Shortstop was traditionally a defensive-minded position, with a few exceptions in the past. Only recently has it become an offensive position. I don't think the way baseball has changed over the years should make Ozzies spot in the hall less deserving.

 

Shortstops who are similar in offensive production to Ozzie Smith(Using OPS+, so era isn't much of an argument):

 

Deivi Cruz

Chris Woodward

Shawon Dunston

Kevin Elster

Spike Owen

Garry Templeton

Ricky Gutierrez

Walt Weiss

Jose Vizcaino

Greg Gagne

Mark Grudzielanek

Royce Clayton

Kevin Stocker

 

 

Players significantly better offensively than Ozzie Smith:

 

Jeff Blauser

Jay Bell

Edgar Renteria

 

How many of these players have made an All-Star Game, nevermind consideration for the HOF? Is Smith's defense THAT much better than the assortment of role players above?

[vaball]

How many of these players have made an All-Star Game, nevermind consideration for the HOF? Is Smith's defense THAT much better than the assortment of role players above?

 

Yes.

[UK1679666180]

Smith deserves to be in the HOF, now was he better than Ripken (who re-defined the position)?

 

I'd go for Ripken as the best SS of the 80s and A-Rod in the 90s..

[badger1679666666]

Is Smith's defense THAT much better than the assortment of role players above?

 

Yes.

[XZero771679666304]

Smith deserves to be in the HOF, now was he better than Ripken (who re-defined the position)?

 

I'd go for Ripken as the best SS of the 80s and A-Rod in the 90s..

 

As an overall player, Smith isn't in the same league as Ripken.

[UK1679666180]

Plus, if there was a more classy player than Ripken, I have yet to see him.

[rocket]

Jim Edmonds is better than Andre Dawson.

 

Sorry.

 

The only thing Edmonds has over Andre is that he wears eye makeup. My Jimmy, you look so cute.

 

Andre was an MVP of the NL. Edmonds hasn't been close.

Andre has far more HR, RBI, etc.. than Edmonds.

Andre had more speed and used it for more SB.

Andre was a feared OF who would throw you out with his great arm.

Andre was selected for 8 All-Star Games, Edmonds a mere 4.

Andre's teammates NEVER accused him of showboating flyballs or being a cancer in the clubhouse. Edmonds wore both lables quite well. Little wonder the Angels won the WS after Edmonds was dealt.

 

I don't know if Andre deserves the Hall of Fame, but Edmonds is clearly not the premier CF in the NL..let alone HOF material.

 

Not sorry.

 

-Andre's MVP year was for a last place team, and while his season was good, it wasn't MVP worthy. He only got it because of RBI. Stastically, Edmonds' 2004 was a hell of a lot better than Dawson's MVP season.

-Edmonds has a far better career OBP, AVG, SLG, and obviously OPS. Please further elaborate your "etc." you used in that post.

-Uh oh! More stolen bases! Who cares?

-Edmonds has a great arm too. His arm is "feared" too.

-And up until now, Abreu's been in 2 all star games. I'm not impressed by number of All Star appearances.

-I guess you were in the clubhouse for all of Dawson's teams then. Talk about your meaningless points, Jesus.

-The Marlins won the World Series the year after Dawson retired. Coincidence? Yes. Just like it's a coincidence the Angels won after Edmonds left.

 

Sorry.