At work so I can't get too into this right now. Yes, Beltran played more baseball. The counting stats also say that edmonds had as many strike outs as Beltran, even though 575 games less.
Why would STL be ahead of HOU when he... He barely played more games as a Cardinal than an Astro. 1500 RBIs and 1500 runs are not significant because you feel like discrediting his case.
So? Beltran made more overall outs, even as a rate stat - Edmonds had a higher on-base percentage. Also: higher batting average and slugging percentage, too. Beltran was a significantly better (and all-around great) base stealer - but that's the only category in which he rates higher than Edmonds.
He was a contributor the year they went to the World Series, unlike this year, and he was overall better as a Cardinal. And while he didn't go '04 bonkers, he was pretty damn good in the postseason for St. Louis: .981 OPS. And he was 35, not 27. If you want to argue that '04 postseason ranks as a more defining career moment, I'd probably agree. I was thinking more of the gold standard milestones: 500 HRs, 3,000 hits, .300 career average, etc. But yes, 1,500/1,500 is viable; in fact, I used that milestone often to promote Bagwell's case. And I'm not discrediting his case; I just don't think he'll be a slam dunk. Again, Jim Edmonds - who was, in his prime, every bit as good as Beltran - was one-and-done on the ballot. I'm not arguing Edmonds is a Hall of Famer but if he couldn't muster more than 5% of the vote - that does not bode well for Beltran getting to 75%.
Edmonds was not every bit as good as Beltran. I know if you could take one in their prime it would be Beltran. Everybody would take Beltran before Edmonds. It's why Edmonds didn't make it and Beltran will.
Beltran was healthier & significantly faster. Otherwise, they were remarkably similar (see below). And as the voting block gets smaller, smarter & more progressive, I guarantee you Edmonds' quick exit, as well as Andruw Jones' likely eventual exit, will absolutely be factors. JAWS ranks Beltran 8th all-time among CFers, btw - just under the average of HoF CFers. Kenny Lofton, who I didn't mention, is 9th (he, like Edmonds, was one and done); Jones is 11th; Edmonds is 15th. Let's do this - let's lop off the final four years of Beltran's career - not to discredit him for his longevity (he wasn't particularly good, anyway, with just 2.1 WAR, so it actually elevates his rate stats) but because it gives us a better 1:1 comparison. Beltran: .283/.359/.496/.854 122 OPS+ HR 358 RBI 1,327 R 1,346 WAR 67.7 PA 8,949 Edmonds: .284/.376/.527/.903 132 OPS+ HR 393 RBI 1,119 R 1,251 WAR 60.3 PA 7,980 In fact, if you reduce Beltran's plate appearances to 7,980 (same as Edmonds), he's had roughly the exact same WAR (if you use the simple metric of dividing WAR by PA): 60.3. Again, this was just intended to show you the gap isn't near as wide as you seem to think. Playing everyday is important, and Edmonds struggled with health. But they were remarkably similar players.
Not really. Beltran played a lot more games than either, but Edmonds was a better hitter and Jones was a better defender We love to hate on Jim Edmonds here, but he was insanely good. And he was still productive when he retired. He had a higher career OPS than Fred McGriff while primarily playing CF.
Beltran definitely had his issues with injuries too. Perhaps its easier to have a higher OPS in a shorter season, especially when you sit every time you have an ache or pain. As I said, nobody takes Edmonds over Beltran.
That isn't true though. Beltran has the better HOF case because he played more games, but you are either vastly underrating Edmonds or overrating Beltran. Maybe even a combination of both. If you looked at the numbers and forgot the names, Edmonds would get your vote as the better player.
Edmonds' OPS in years in which he played in at least 90% of his team's games: .874, 1.061, .994, .974, .981, .888. Edmonds averaged 129 games/year (~80%) between '96 and '08. Take out '99 (when he missed 100+), and his average over that span jumps to 135 (83%) And stop saying nobody; you haven't so much as asked any one single person, let alone enough to form a consensus. Jim Edmonds was a terrific centerfielder and even if nobody picks him ahead of Beltran, I find it hard to believe many would complain if he was the second choice.
Thats what I mean. Beltran was better. I have texted all my baseball peeps today and asked who would they take in CF in their prime. Everyone says Beltran. Like 6 people. Small sample but 6/6 is 6/6.
