Last week, centerfielder Jim Edmonds announced his retirement after a 17-year career centered mainly around the Angels and the Cardinals. In that time, we've seen a flood of articles (both on Bleacher Report and elsewhere) debating the merits of his candidacy.
I admit, it was not until I went over these articles that I realized just how strong Edmonds' case for induction actually is. Edmonds has long been known for his flashy (albeit overrated) glove, but his offensive numbers were much better when compared to his contemporaries than I realized.
You can read the links above for the entirety of his case, but the short of it reads like this: Edmonds' 68.3 WAR ranks 63rd all time among position players, and all but two of the eligible players ahead of him (Bill Dahlen and Lou Whitaker) have either been elected to the Hall of Fame or are still on the ballot. For some perspective, there are 134 MLB position players in the Hall right now, meaning that Edmonds falls comfortably into this group.
However, a perusal through the comments section of each article reveals an incredibly bizarre argument against Edmonds' candidacy, which goes something like this: It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Very Good, and the induction of Jim Edmonds would lower the Hall's standards for induction.
When people look to support this stance, the most common things that get brought up are that Edmonds never fared well in the MVP voting, never won a major award aside from Gold Gloves, played in only four All-Star games and was never considered the best player at his position at any time during his career by the national media.
Let's put aside the fact that he received MVP votes in six different seasons (finishing fourth in 2000 and fifth in 2004), was going up against the peaks of Griffey, Jones (in centerfield), Bonds and Pujols his entire career and was, actually, considered the best player in baseball at his position in at least two different seasons.
Instead, let's focus on the bigger issue with all of this evidence: They are popularity contests, not on-field accomplishments. The results are determined by opinion polls and are not necessarily reflective of actual skill or talent.
In other words, if this is the only evidence against a player's candidacy, he is probably a worthy candidate.
The arguments against Jim Edmonds are no different than those used for years against Bert Blyleven (aside from position) before he was finally elected this past year, and it seems that people took the wrong lesson away from Blyleven's story.
Blyleven was not elected because people felt they had to elect someone; he was elected because he was a worthy candidate who put up tremendous numbers during his career. The reason he waited for so long is because he never won popularity contests during his career—not because he wasn't good enough.
This also holds true for Jim Edmonds, who will not lower the standard for the Hall of Fame should he one day be elected. After all, he out-performed 87 position players who are already in.
Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com
- Login to post comments