Quote: Originally Posted By mpitt76 on 12/01/2009
Does anyone else feel this way??

It's not Edgar's fault he's a DH. Baseball (all of baseball) created this position and they are going to have to live with what it is. Don't knock a player because he didn't play the field. If he had to, he would of.

I don't think its a good argument that just because its a created position, people from that position should get voted in. Backup catcher and closers are also created positions, but I would never vote for one of those. The DH was created so players with a handicapp could also play. I don't think he will be or should be knocked to many 'points' for being a DH. He had excellent offensive numbers which will more than outweigh his defensive liability.

Continuing with the fielding theme, does anybody else choose to not define a player by the position they play? I try to define players by the sum of their value. Their offense plus their defensive value(regardless of the position). It may just sound like semantics, but I'd have a hard time voting in someone like Cal Ripken Jr just because they put up good numbers for a SS. I see him as having X offensive value and X defensive value. I don't define him as a SS and compare him to other SS's anymore than I'd define him as a #6 hitter (or wherever he hit) and compare him to other #6 hitters. Someday Derek Jeter, who is a LFer that somehow got misplaced at SS, will get voted in because and only because when he takes the field, he goes to that spot between 2nd and 3rd base. Seems silly....

I have a real hard time putting a defensive value on players. The #'s seem kinda quirky (range factor, FLD%, etc) and it's difficult to compare.

I don't even put a lot of stock in gold gloves, I think the voting is to subjective. Which is kinda funny because I think the MVP voting is important.

Here's another point.

Don't you think Edgar's #'s as a hitter would have been lower if he had to go out their and field every inning? Surely fatigue would have played a role.

Also, he would have had to use more practice time fielding instead of just concetrating on the hitting.

Being a DH is too much of an advantage in real life baseball.

He played half the game, he doesn't deserve to be in the hall.

Quote: Originally posted by boogerlips on 12/01/2009Continuing with the fielding theme, does anybody else choose to not define a player by the position they play? I try to define players by the sum of their value. Their offense plus their defensive value(regardless of the position). It may just sound like semantics, but I'd have a hard time voting in someone like Cal Ripken Jr just because they put up good numbers for a SS. I see him as having X offensive value and X defensive value. I don't define him as a SS and compare him to other SS's anymore than I'd define him as a #6 hitter (or wherever he hit) and compare him to other #6 hitters. Someday Derek Jeter, who is a LFer that somehow got misplaced at SS, will get voted in because and only because when he takes the field, he goes to that spot between 2nd and 3rd base. Seems silly....

I think you have to give some consideration to what position a player plays. A superb SS is going to make a lot more difference with his glove than is a fielder. SS is also a harder position to play, and quality defense at that position is harder to come by than a decent outfielder. And don't forget about catchers - a catcher that throws out 50% of runners gets some votes just for that reason.

Quote: Originally posted by skinndogg on 12/01/2009 Here's another point.Don't you think Edgar's #'s as a hitter would have been lower if he had to go out their and field every inning?  Surely fatigue would have played a role.Also, he would have had to use more practice time fielding instead of just concetrating on the hitting.Being a DH is too much of an advantage in real life baseball.He played half the game, he doesn't deserve to be in the hall.  

If you have an AL team, SOMEONE has to play DH. Should a player be denied an honor for their superb hitting just because the team he played for chose him to be that guy? Would he be more valuable if he had played out his career as a D/D- at 3B?

Quote: Originally Posted By mattedesa on 12/01/2009

Quote: Originally posted by boogerlips on 12/01/2009 Continuing with the fielding theme, does anybody else choose to not define a player by the position they play? I try to define players by the sum of their value. Their offense plus their defensive value(regardless of the position). It may just sound like semantics, but I'd have a hard time voting in someone like Cal Ripken Jr just because they put up good numbers for a SS. I see him as having X offensive value and X defensive value. I don't define him as a SS and compare him to other SS's anymore than I'd define him as a #6 hitter (or wherever he hit) and compare him to other #6 hitters. Someday Derek Jeter, who is a LFer that somehow got misplaced at SS, will get voted in because and only because when he takes the field, he goes to that spot between 2nd and 3rd base. Seems silly....

I think you have to give some consideration to what position a player plays. A superb SS is going to make a lot more difference with his glove than is a fielder. SS is also a harder position to play, and quality defense at that position is harder to come by than a decent outfielder. And don't forget about catchers - a catcher that throws out 50% of runners gets some votes just for that reason

Sounds like we're in agreement.

What about Marvin Miller...forgot about him until just now read an article on espn.com

No on Larkin.....unless they have a wing for the All-Time injured HOF. Played 19 seasons...but only 7 times did he play 140 games or more.

Larkin is Glassman to Ripken the Ironman.

Larkin is one of the most over-rated players of his era.