Jump to content
crissfan172

If Jim Thome is a no doubt Hall of Famer...

Recommended Posts

...how is Edgar Martinez not?

I know the first thing that always comes out of the critics' mouths is, "He's a DH." Well...Jim Thome hurt his teams with his defense (-3.8 dWAR), while, in limited time, Edgar actually helped his team with his defense (0.3 dWAR).

Now...obviously his dWAR is barely positive because he was a DH for so long, but why should he be punished for not playing defense when hitters like Thome are rewarded for playing bad defense?

Their OPS+ is identical (147).

Their oWAR's are very similar:

Martinez: 66.9 in 8,672 PA's (7.71 per 1000 PA's).

Thome: 74.6 in 10,012 PA's (7.45 per 1000 PA's).

I guess at the end of the day, the voters could refute this argument by pointing to Thome's 598 homers compared to Martinez's 309, but I guess I just don't value counting stats (homers, RBI's, runs, etc.) the same way that the voters do. The complete package, IMO, is more important than excelling in one statistic more than another.

Just my two cents...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. The guy was an outstanding hitter. Lifetime .312 is outstanding. I came away very impressed after looking up his stats on Baseball Reference. Martinez was a professional hitter. Like Thome, the knock on him was his lack of defense. However, DH is a viable position in baseball. IMO, Martinez was the best DH in baseball from 1995 to 2003. I'm not a huge HOF guy, but I think that Martinez deserves the honor as much as Thome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think they're both Hall of Famers, but the 600 home run club is an automatic in so far as the voters, and me, are concerned.
Yep, there are certain milestones that automatically garner respect and 600 home runs is one of them.

I'll add that while Thome's dWAR is negative he still played a position. He was a ballplayer, not a ballhitter. However; Edgar also belongs in the hall, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The same reason Baines isn't.

....

Tim Raines is a much better player than Baines, in fact Raines is probably a better player than Thome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim Raines is a much better player than Baines, in fact Raines is probably a better player than Thome.

Raines was way better than Baines, but Thome is better than Raines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, there are certain milestones that automatically garner respect and 600 home runs is one of them.

I'll add that while Thome's dWAR is negative he still played a position. He was a ballplayer, not a ballhitter. However; Edgar also belongs in the hall, IMO.

I think that argument about "hitter" versus "player" is like saying a legendary pitcher shouldn't go in because they were a poor fielder and an embarrassment at the plate. Or that a dominant reliever can't go in because they weren't successful as a starter.

If you provide that much production to help your club, why does it matter that they did it while NOT costing their team runs on defense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The same reason Baines isn't.

....

Because HOF voters hate players whose names rhyme with "Lanes"?

That explains why Jimmy Haynes never made it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because HOF voters hate players whose names rhyme with "Lanes"?

That explains why Jimmy Haynes never made it.

Or Johnny Sain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What reason is that?

Yea, I'm curious about that, too. IMO, Baines isn't a Hall of Famer because he had zero defense and baserunning value, but only had a 120 OPS+. He was only a tiny bit better as a hitter than Nick Markakis, but played the field rarely or never from his mid-20s on. That's reflected in his 37 WAR, which is actually worse than Jim Rice, and Rice is one of the weaker HOFers.

Thome had a 147 OPS+. His resume is the same as Baines, except that he was a dramatically better hitter. Edgar also had a 147 OPS+, and was handicapped by the stupidity of the mid-80s Mariners who kept him in AAA Calgary for several years while he put up .900+ OPSes and they played Jim Presley and his anemic bat at third. Thome and Edgar are roughly equal, and both far superior to Baines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • While Lamar did play better than RG3, keep in mind the league context.  He had a 121 Rating+ (basically OPS+ for passer rating, adjusted for that season's averages. Over 100 is good, less is bad.)  Lamar's 2019 was 128.  So Lamar is still better, but that was RG3 as a rookie.  Who knows how he would have done if he didn't get hurt/if he was drafted by an org not owned by Dan Snyder.   That said, I don't think it's reasonable to use RG3's injury problems as a reason not to sign Lamar long term.  I think that they were specific to RG3 and the team he played for. (I think the Football Team horribly mismanaged him.)   In general running QBs havent had high injury risk, any more than regular QBs.  Look at Steve Young, Randall Cunningham, Russell Wilson, Newton, Culpeper, VIck.  All have been fairly durable, certainly no bigger an injury risk than any other QB.  There is some risk that some injuries are going to be more damaging to Lamar's career because of his reliance on his athleticism, but given that many running QBs have stayed productive into their 30s I think this risk is relatively low. I don't think Vick is a great comp because he didn't really figure out how to be a passer until after he came back from his jail sentence.  Vick's best Rating+ pre-jail/suspension is 104, which is worse than Lamar's 2020.  And that's taking 6 Vick seasons compared to 3 Lamar seasons. I think Deshaun Watson checks off more boxes as a good comp, because of the recency of his contract, his performance, his playoff (lack of) success, and his playing style. If we're being realistic, Lamar has no real comparables.  There isn't a QB in NFL history that generates as much true dual-threat value as Lamar.  I think this actually is a problem when trying to figure out how much to pay him.  He's got the intangibles, sure (at least when it comes to regular season play) but with no real comps, it's kind of impossible to project his development/future performance. We know that the Ravens don't really throw the ball much, but in 2019 they were pretty damn efficient at it, and in 2020 they were middle-of-the-pack.  But when you can run the ball for 6-10 yards a carry, it kind of eliminates the need to throw the ball.  Imagine how good you'd have to be throwing the ball to make it a better proposition than running in most game situations.  And we also don't know how much his running ability affects his passing game.  And there's no way to know that until he can't run anymore.  Which isn't happening for 4-5 years barring injury. Even if it's risky, I think you really have no choice but to pay him, especially if you can get a contract with an out after his age-28 or 29 season.  It's easy to point to our mistake with thinking Flacco was worth an extension, but that's no reason to deny Lamar his extension, especially given that he's already shown the ability to singlehandedly carry us into the playoffs, even if he has struggled once there.  Flacco never carried this team in the regular season the way Lamar does.  In fact it was our multiple HOFers on the other side of the ball that carried Flacco into the postseason so he could be the hero for a couple games.  Credit to him for stepping up in January, but someone has to get us there, and we don't have anyone else who can do that.  The chance that we find someone in the draft that can do that is not that great.  Certainly lower than the chance that Jackson is going to take us to the SB.  I guess we could talk swapping him for someone like Deshaun Watson, but I just don't know how plausible that really is.
    • Lol, you gotta wait until spring training for those gems.
    • Well, now we know why Jim Hunter became redundant.
    • Brob was one of those let go.  I will miss him!  But he  remains as an "ambassador" as does Demper.  
    • I must have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone mention B-rob. Is he gone? I thought I heard him on some broadcasts last summer.
    • Mike Vick, six years into his career (going into the dogfighting arrest) had a 71/52 TD/INT ratio, for a 75.7 QB rating. RG3, three years in, had a 40/23 TD/INT ratio, for a 90.6 QB rating. He then got hurt and was never the same again. Lamar, three years in, has a 68/18 TD/INT ratio, for a 102.6 QB rating. Lamar is head and shoulders above both of those players.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...