Edmonds had a career OPS+ of 131, Raines 123.  And a higher WAR to boot!  Jim Edmonds for the HoF!  More top 5 MVP finishes also.  All while playing a tougher position.

I actually was suprised at Edmonds "advanced metrics" were as high as they were.  I'm sure he juiced of course.

Posted by The Taint on 2/26/2012 11:30:00 AM (view original):
Taint was just poking jrdx.

Gayest thing ever said on WIS.

Unlikely.

And, as we've learned, the most important advanced metric if FIP.   Edmonds doesn't even have one.

Neither did Raines.

He sucks too.

Posted by rsp777 on 2/26/2012 12:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 2/26/2012 11:30:00 AM (view original):
Taint was just poking jrdx.

Gayest thing ever said on WIS.

Without a doubt.

Posted by The Taint on 2/26/2012 3:56:00 AM (view original):
Tim Raines Career WAR is below Lou Whitaker, Edgar Martinez, Jim Edmonds, and Kenny Lofton.

A lot of people think Whitaker was absolutely robbed and deserves to be in.  Martinez will struggle because he was a DH, but his bat was hall worthy.  Edmonds has a case.  If you are treating WAR as a legitimate stat, Edmonds' WAR is 8th all time among CF since 1947.

As for Lofton, his WAR is above Ozzie Smith, Ernie Banks, Roberto Alomar, Mark McGwire, Jackie Robinson, Jim Rice and Harmon Killebrew.  He's fifty spots above Andre Dawson.

WAR isn't a be all end all perfect stat, it has its flaws, but it is a good general measuring stick of the value of a player.

And, it forces us to rethink our preconceived notions of who is and isn't a hall of famer.

I think you just summed up the dilemma (problem?) of the hall of fame. If we can reduce hall of fame worthiness to a statistical formula, what's the point of having voters?

This is what started this thread/argument in the first place. At one point, I'm sure that longevity, character, professionalism, service to team/city, WS rings, post-season success, etc. all factored in to a guy being inducted into the hall of fame. It's why you still hear some guys talk about a guy "feeling" like a HOFer. Even Palmeiro, before his 'roid bust, had HOF numbers, but a lot of people still said he just didn't feel like a HOFer.

I think far too often these days we try to reduce the HOF vote to a specific statistical formula that excludes other factors regarding a player's character, effectiveness or contributions. IMO, are there some guys who blatantly shouldn't be in? Absolutely. But I also acknowledge there are guys who I think deserve enshrinement who others would say have no business being there.

These debates are fun/interesting until someone comes along and tries to reduce hall eligibility to some numerical formula.

I'm not trying to reduce all hall eligibility to a formula.  I don't argue for or against a player based on character because I don't know them.  Puckett was thought to be an extremely high character guy.  Turns out he wasn't.

WAR isn't perfect.  Especially when it comes to catcher's defense, and well, defense in general.  But it is a better than eyeball general indicator of worthiness.

WAR isn't perfect.  Especially when it comes to catcher's defense, and well, defense in general.  But it is a better than eyeball general indicator of worthiness.
?

Blanket statements like this are what started the "discussion".  WAR is a self-defining combination of statistics.  It's curve-fitting by a bunch of guys who are trying to reduce contributions on the field to a statistic, so they can "measure" it.  IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PLAYING THE GAME.

That's sort of the difference between baseball fans and stat-nerds.   Stat-nerds need a number in order to say "He was/is good."

Todd, I disagree.  In general, WAR gives you a quick glance idea of how valuable a player was over the course of their career.

I think you need more context than just WAR, since (for Fangraphs calculation at least) they are just adding UZR and wRAA.  It's like if someone told you that they thought player X was a hall of famer.  You glance at his batting average and see that it was .205 for his career.  It's probably pretty easy at that point to eliminate him as a candidate.  Swap WAR for BA and 25 for .205 and you get the same result for people who prefer advanced metrics over batting average.  Sure there's more to that player's story than just his WAR or BA but at the extremes you really don't need much more.

Just to play devil's advocate here - aren't all the people now arguing against "stat nerds" the same ones who wanted people thrown out of the hall? It's somewhat contradictory, as all players were voted in by guys who saw them play and thus shouldn't be "tossed" based on their numbers.

Now if we want to debate selections of the Veterans Committee, who likely just vote their good, deserving buddies in, that's a different story.

I think eligibility should be reduced to 10 years, max, and the vet committee scrapped. The only reason a guy gets in on his 10th try or later is because public opinion has eventually swayed a voter who was on the fence and leaning towards a "no" vote. If it takes you 10+ tries, you are NOT a HOFer