McGwire should have manned up at the congressional hearing and admitted what he did instead of sniveling and tap-dancing around the truth like a pussy. Giambi did it right. I wish Mac had done the same.

He also won a gold glove, got on base at an absurd clip, had a stellar batting eye and developed into a pretty solid all-around hitter and excellent run producer.

I wouldn't vote for him because of what he came to symbolize, but don't underestimate who he was as a player, either. He wasn't just a 'roid freak - he hit 49 HRs as a skinny rookie. Nor was he a mindless slugger like Dave Kingman or Rob Deer.

McGwire was a very dangerous offensive presence for a number of reasons, not just the HRs.

I'd suggest that he belongs ahead of Rolen and Helton on that list, Jeter as well if you consider the fact that Jeter's a pretty miserable fielder. On closer inspection, I'd put him ahead of Beltran (Carlos had speed on Edmonds and that's it, Edmonds was a more dangerous hitter and a better fielder based on virtually any metric) and right alongside Chipper Jones.

For a guy that gets such a bad rap for 'preening'; Edmonds has been incredibly underrated for the bulk of his career.

Umm...what else is there to go on besides numbers???

Re-read that.

I wouldn't call a career .263 hitter "solid" but I can get on board with your other points.

Like I said 'developed into'.

There's no doubt that early in his career he was an all/nothing hitter.

But look at his batting averages from 1995 through 2000 - .274, .312, .274, .299, .278, .305

That's 5 seasons of being a .285 hitter - I'd say that qualifies as 'solid' for a guy that drew 100 walks/season as well.

Jeter's not as bad an infielder as some claim. That said, Jeter will make the hall based on his offensive numbers and his rings. Intangibles are hard to measure but you can't talk about Jeter without talking about how clutch he's been both at the plate and in the field when it's mattered most.

Thanks for your posts, they were interesting - and I was a little bored at work.

Like you, I'm not sure I'd cast a HOF vote for him, but I do see now that he's a better player than I had given him credit for. If he had 300 steals or 400 HR he'd have a better chance. Those are the kind of "sexy" stats the voters love. Dawson's 400/300 along with an MVP and a ROY helped in overlooking mediocre career numbers in BA and OBP.

I always read about him being a defensive liability, yet I've seen him make so many big plays in the field. Or maybe it just seems that way cause the fuggin Yankees are on TV so often.

Baseball is scraping the bottom of the bucket lately-nothing against dawson-but the ballot looks like a pack a ball cards you used to get-lots of names not much value-lol

No, you're correct. He makes a lot of great defensive plays. The knock on him has been his range. But he was a lot healthier this year and it showed with his improved range in the field.

"clutchiness"

Jeter's post-season slash stats -- .313/.383/.479; OPS of 863

Edmonds post-season slash stats -- .274/.361/.513; OPS of 874

And Jeter's 'clutch' moments, while there are many, aren't any more incredible than Edmonds'. The Cardinals wouldn't have won a pennant in 2004 or 2006 without him, or the WS in 2006. Not to mention their runs in 2001 and 2002. Pujols was a metronome, but when the Cardinals were really making noise, it was because Jim Edmonds was on his game. Folks outside of STL don't really realize this, but it's absolutely true.

Jeter's a product of being in 138 post-season games by virtue of playing for a team that prints its own money. Now he's still a HOFer because he's a superlative offensive SS, but CF is really the OF version of SS, both players are incredibly important to the defense. Defensively, it's no contest; Jeter's average at best while Edmonds rates historically well.

Offensively they're simply much different players, but Edmonds more than holds his own and is, IMO, the more valuable offensive player over the course of their careers. Jeter's a top of the order hitter playing in front of the best lineup in baseball and still doesn't score as many runs per AB as Edmonds did. Edmonds has more RBI than Jeter in 2000(!) fewer ABs. Jeter was clearly a base-stealer wheras Edmonds was not, but if the point in stealing bases is to get in scoring position, wouldn't those SBs be offset by the fact that Edmonds was still the superior run-scorer? He was certainly a better run-producer. Even if you don't think Edmonds was clearly a better offensive player (though I don't see how), they're obviously in the same ballpark.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Jim Edmonds would be a MFing GOD had he played in the Bronx. They're comparable from a 'clutch' standpoint, comparable from an offensive standpoint and there's no contest when it comes to defense.

It really is critical to recognize that all these #s weren't coming from some flash in the pan left fielder or lumbering 1b. These came from arguably the best defensive CFer in baseball (again, based on the Bill James fielding bible and other metrics, not to mention ones own eyes). To get that combination of elite offense and superb defense from such an incredibly important defensive position only happens a couple of times/decade.

All told, Edmonds was underappreciated throughout his career.

Wait there's a Middle Linebacker Hall of Fame?

Dawson was the best player in the game before that concrete turf in Montreal wrecked his knees.

I don't have any stats handy to back this up, but it's true.