Appreciating Jim Edmonds

Hall of Fame voting season is over, the results are out, but Hall of Fame discussion season isn’t over quite yet. Maybe that irks you and you just want this all to go away, but if that’s the case, you probably didn’t click on this post to begin with. If you did, just think of this more as the appreciation of a career, tied to some voting results.

It should come as no real surprise that Jim Edmonds fell off the ballot in his first year of eligibility, receiving just 11 votes (2.5%). If you’d been following Ryan Thibodaux’s Hall of Fame tracker, you’d have long seen this coming, and it never seemed realistic that Edmonds would actually make it in in the first place. But it’s kind of sad, because Edmonds had a remarkable career, one that stands head and shoulders above the typical “fall off the ballot in the first year of eligibility” career, yet here we are.

It’s not the first time it’s happened. A couple years back, it was Kenny Lofton who fell off in his first year of eligibility. A couple years before that, and perhaps most egregiously, it was Kevin Brown. Dwight Gooden‘s first-ballot exclusion may have come as a bit of a surprise in 2006, and maybe the most famous example of this phenomena was Lou Whitaker’s first-year showing of 2.9% that dropped him from the ballot in 2001.

Edmonds isn’t the first player with a borderline Hall of Fame-worthy career to receive just one turn on the ride, and he won’t be the last. Some of Edmonds’ detractors will reference his laissez-faire, some might characterize it as careless or lackadaisical, attitude. If that’s the case, maybe we care about this more than Edmonds himself. And in some ways, maybe falling off the ballot on your first year is better than falling off in year two or three. Guys who fall off the first time around were never going to make it anyway, and there’s less recognition for the guy who falls off in year three after clinging onto the 5% threshold in years one and two. You fall off in year one with a legitimate case, and you get used as an example in an article.

Any ballot I work up will remain an imaginary one until the year 2027, but if I had a ballot that counted in the present, Edmonds would’ve been on it. Edmonds had the kind of career that seems to get overlooked by the BBWAA come Hall of Fame time, though. Extremely well-rounded players who were never the best or “most feared” hitter in the game tend to get passed up, as was the case for Lofton in 2013 and Whitaker in 2001.

But the thing is, while Edmonds was very well-rounded — that’s what really made him so great — it’s not like many folks would quibble with his career WAR because it was propped up by defensive metrics, a positional adjustment or baserunning numbers. As a bit of an aside, I grew up as a kid in northeast Ohio in the ’90s, so Kenny Lofton is one of my all-time favorite players, and one of the reasons why I fell in love with the game of baseball in the first place. But I’ll be honest, I don’t totally see his Hall of Fame case, and Lofton’s is probably the one you’ll hear most compared to Edmonds’. Lofton was a fantastic, exciting player, certainly worthy of Hall of Fame discussion, but in my opinion it’s hard to make a compelling argument for a guy who wasn’t much more than a league-average hitter unless there are extreme circumstances in the defense, peak years, or baserunning departments, and Lofton wasn’t a true outlier in any. Hitting is the most important part of a position player’s game, and I don’t think one can become a Hall of Famer on elite well-roundedness alone. That’s just me. Feel free to disagree.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

Edmonds, though. Edmonds was a true slugger. Edmonds finished his career with a wRC+ one point better than Ken Griffey Jr. I know, I know, Griffey’s last few seasons in the league skew that number down a bit, but you get the picture. There was never a large disparity between Junior’s offensive ability and Edmonds’. Fred McGriff received nine times as many votes as Edmonds this year and remained on the ballot for a seventh consecutive year. McGriff was a career first baseman with no speed, so it stands to reason his votes are coming almost exclusively for his bat. Yet, McGriff was no better a hitter than Edmonds:

  • McGriff: .284/.377/.509, 134 wRC+
  • Edmonds: .284/.376/.527, 132 wRC+

Granted, McGriff has about an extra four year’s worth of playing time on Edmonds, so McGriff clearly has the edge in career offensive value, but Edmonds was far from a glove-first center fielder. He was a bat-first center fielder with an amazing glove, and that’s a generational talent.

One hundred and twenty-six center fielders have accrued more than 5,000 plate appearances in the modern era (1921-present). Edmonds ranks as the tenth-best hitter of the group with his 132 wRC+. His career slash line, home run, RBI and run totals are indiscernible from Hall of Fame center fielder Duke Snider. Say what you will about defensive metrics, especially pre-Defensive Runs Saved, but nobody questions Edmonds’ abilities in center, and the numbers say he added the 14th-most defensive value in the history of center fielders.

While he may never have had the reputation as one of the game’s “feared” hitters, there’s no doubting that for a long stretch, he was one of the best. Using FanGraphs WAR and Baseball-Reference WAR, Edmonds had the 52nd-greatest five-year peak by a position player in nearly a century. Edmonds’ peak comes in better than Brooks Robinson, Willie McCovey, Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza and countless other Hall of Famers. In a six-year stretch from 2000-05, only Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez were more valuable than Edmonds. During that time, there wasn’t much that set Edmonds apart from his teammate Albert Pujols at the plate. He was one of the 10 best hitters in the game over that six-year period, and was the only one of the top 10 sluggers to play a premium position up the middle.

Edmonds made one of the best catches many of us have ever seen, the kind of career highlight play that cements a player in a group of fan’s heads for eternity:

He was robbing home runs like Kevin Kiermaier or Mike Trout when Kevin Kiermaier and Mike Trout were still in middle school, hoping that one day they could rob a home run like Jim Edmonds:

Not only is he a world champion, but he has a heroic, signature postseason moment, in a game that helped his team advance to a World Series:

At his best, Jim Edmonds was one of the most exciting players in the game. His career stands up to some of the greatest center fielders we’ve ever seen. In the end, though, it wasn’t deemed worthy of an eternal place in Cooperstown. Injuries held Edmonds back from racking up the kind of counting stats voters like to see; he fell seven homers shy of 400 and 51 hits shy of 2,000. Some folks had a hard time getting past his body language. He never won an MVP, and he was never considered the game’s best player, or even one of the game’s few best players.

But that doesn’t mean that Jim Edmonds didn’t do it all. He was a world champion, a four-time All-Star and an eight-time Gold Glover. He had the well-rounded, complete game of a Hall of Famer. He had the bat of a Hall of Famer, and he had the glove of a Hall of Famer. He had the peak years of a Hall of Famer, and he had the signature moments of a Hall of Famer. He’ll always have all of that. He just didn’t have the support of a Hall of Famer.





August used to cover the Indians for MLB and ohio.com, but now he's here and thinks writing these in the third person is weird. So you can reach me on Twitter @AugustFG_ or e-mail at august.fagerstrom@fangraphs.com.

48 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
zxlkho
10 years ago

“He was a world champion, a four-time All-Star and a six-time Gold Glover.”

He actually had 8 gold gloves. 6 in the NL, 2 in the AL.

The Real McNulty
10 years ago

another Craig Edwards Cardinal puff piece

outliarbaseball.com
10 years ago

As a life-long Cards fan who re-found baseball in the 2004 playoffs, Edmonds will always be one of my favorites. Thanks for the write-up.

I was at the game in Cincinnati when he brought Larue’s homer back in the 9th. Would’ve tied the game. One of my favorite baseball experiences, ever. That’s why you go to the ballpark.

The Real McNulty
10 years ago

the walk off against the Astros is also an easy choice. MV3 can really spoil a fan.

Greg SimonsMember since 2016
10 years ago

I was there, too. Reds fans weren’t happy, but I was ecstatic. The two catches highlighted in this article are my all-time favorites by Edmonds.

uncleleo
10 years ago

I agree with the main points of this article about Edmonds, but you don’t think Lofton’s baserunning OR defense was an outlier? He is #15 all-time in stolen bases and #18 all-time in BsR and even more, he is 5th all-time in DEF for outfielders. All in addition to being an above average hitter in 14 of his 15 full seasons. I’m not saying he’s a slam dunk HOFer, but I’d vote for him before Edmonds (who I’d also vote for).

uncleleo
10 years ago
Reply to  uncleleo

Also, because you seem to like video proof (and just because it’s one of my favorite catches):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc-ZY-AxtRQ

uncleleo
10 years ago

I can appreciate that, I guess I just think that’s quite a standard to hold them to. Smith and Robinson are two of the absolute best defenders (if not the top two) ever. And that also ignores the well-roundedness you bring up for Edmonds…Lofton was a better hitter (SIGNIFICANTLY better than Ozzie) and baserunner (SIGNIFICANTLY better than Robinson) than both of them as well as a much, much better defensive player than Raines.

Agree to disagree I suppose, but I’ve always felt Lofton had a Hall of Fame career.

grandbranyanMember since 2017
10 years ago

He doesn’t have the gaudy counting stats, but Lofton’s career batting line closely mirrors Lou Brock’s. He also stole bases more efficiently while playing a more difficult defensive position better. Granted I’m too young to have seen Brock play, but if I had to pick one of the two to have on my hypothetical team I’m taking Kenny.

Mahoney
10 years ago
Reply to  grandbranyan

I agree Lofton was better than Brock. Actually, Lofton is pretty close to Raines, if you swap some of Raines’s offense for a similar value in defense.

Brian23
10 years ago

On the basis of each ball he handled, Lofton was as good of a defender as Robinson and Smith – outfielders just don’t get as many chances as infielders. His defensive value was immense and exactly what the Indians needed, as it allowed them to play Manny Ramirez and Albert Belle at the corners.

CosmoMember since 2024
10 years ago

I’m a big Cubs fan, but Edmonds was one of my all time favorite players. I can’t believe guys like Dawson and Rice are in, and Edmonds gets bounced after one year. His peak was elite. Thanks for the great career, Jim!!! Loved watching you play!

CosmoMember since 2024
10 years ago
Reply to  Cosmo

And I actually think for a season or two, he was the best player, even if he wasn’t seen that way…

Mahoney
10 years ago
Reply to  Cosmo

I almost think he’s a “second-hand” victim of the steroid era. Besides the guys who did them, and the guys who got tainted by rumors that they did them, there are guys like Edmonds who put up great numbers in an era when fans were numb about big numbers.

Hurtlocker
10 years ago

Edmonds was a very good player, but really should never get a chance at the HOF so this shouldn’t be a surprise. There seems to be a lot of trying to justify players into the HOF when in reality they don’t belong there. Even Griffey had a Sandy Koufax type career, he belongs in the HOF but did he really get more support then Willie Mays???

nickolai
10 years ago
Reply to  Hurtlocker

I agree he is not quite HoF-worthy, but certainly deserved more consideration than a first-year, 2.5% bounce-out. Would say the same for Lofton and Brown, and definitely Whitaker.

Victim of the nonsensical 10-vote limit.

Mahoney
10 years ago
Reply to  Hurtlocker

Ah, the small vs. big HOF argument. I don’t know how you solve this one without either (a) removing guys currently in the Hall who are clearly below guys like Edmonds or (b) letting in everybody who is as worthy as the Hall of Famers in (a).

As for the vote % for Mays, sportswriters back in the 70’s were apparently even denser than some of the ones purged from the 2014 HOF voters. I don’t put too much worth on who has the all time highest vote %.

TKDCMember since 2016
10 years ago
Reply to  Hurtlocker

So you’re saying that people who voted for Griffey made a mistake? If they were voting for the “Hall of Better than Willie Mays” you’d end up with 440 empty ballots.

Bryan O'ConnorMember since 2025
10 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

…or a bunch with just Bonds.

olethrosMember since 2020
10 years ago
Reply to  Hurtlocker

“should never get a chance at the HOF”

Really? Of 19 enshrined CF, he’s better than 9 of them in career WAR, peak WAR, and JAWS score. He’s in the 50th percentile of HoF CF. If he doesn’t belong, neither do any of the others.

TKDCMember since 2016
10 years ago

Interestingly, if the current gold glove rules were in place during his career, Edmonds would have most likely never won the award.

I think one thing that really holds him back is that he was not perceived as a good hitter until he got to St. Louis. Some may have taken this to mean he was using PED, but with or without help, he had 6 seasons from age 30-35 with a higher wRC+ than any of his previous seasons.

Without the stats, I always thought that his defense after age 30 was way overrated, but the numbers suggest he was about as good in his 30s as his 20s.

I imagine if you switched his offensive outputs and make his age 30-35 seasons his age 24-29 seasons and his age 24-29 seasons his age 30-35 seasons, he might have made it. He certainly would have stayed on the ballot.

AngelsLakersFan
10 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

Also interestingly, before Mike Trout happened Jim Edmonds was the best player the Angels organization ever produced.

During his time in Anaheim I think he was perceived as much as a lackadaisical douche as he was a good hitter. Being raised in southern California, going from the jock in high school to playing center field for the home town team I’m not sure he ever took the chance to really grow up. The trade to St. Louis really seemed to open his eyes to that. I always saw it as a classic change of scenery… that and the way Anaheim just destroys left-handed hitters.

TimothyMember since 2024
10 years ago

I don’t understand why you’re so dismissive of his candidacy in the first place, “…it never seemed realistic that Edmonds would actually make it in in the first place.” I was stunned that he only got 11 votes.

His WAR total reached the mid-60’s and almost all of it came in one long stretch – averaging 5 WAR/year from ’95 to ’05. Both of which, in my mind, make him a borderline case, at least.

And from a personal standpoint, as a Pirates fan, the early 2000’s Cardinals lineup with Edmonds, Rolen, and Pujols was terrifying.

olethrosMember since 2020
10 years ago
Reply to  Timothy

Because of ballot congestion. I’m not at all surprised he didn’t hit 5%, because the voting population is dominated by fucking imbeciles.

TimothyMember since 2024
10 years ago
Reply to  olethros

That’s a good point; I didn’t think about the 10 vote limit thing. I hate this stuff.

Mike K
10 years ago

Just to nit-pick:

“He was one of the 10 best hitters in the game over that six-year period, and was the only one of the top 10 sluggers to play a premium position up the middle.”

A-Rod played SS almost exclusively during 3 of those 5 years. And even though 3B often isn’t considered a “premium position up the middle”, I believe it gets (basically) the same position-adjustment as CF and 2B.

Sleepy
10 years ago

Edmonds also has more…

intentionally get bad jump on fly ball, make completely unnecessary diving catch, take incredibly long to get up after diving catch while wincing in pain as if hit by sniper fire

…than anybody in the history of organized baseball.

CosmoMember since 2024
10 years ago
Reply to  Sleepy

So?

Sleepy
10 years ago
Reply to  Cosmo

I always found that super-annoying.

TimothyMember since 2024
10 years ago
Reply to  Sleepy

My dad always accused Jim Edmonds and Andy Van Slyke of doing that. I have no opinion of that beyond that 5 year old me thought AVS was sick.

TheGrandslamwichMember since 2026
10 years ago
Reply to  Sleepy

Isn’t that called the Jeter?

Snooty BabittMember since 2025
10 years ago

For every qualified 33 and 34 year old in MLB history, Edmonds logged the 7th (.342) and 9th (.341) highest ISOs of all time. With him are Ruth twice, McGwire twice, Luis Gonzalez, Stargell and Gehrig.

grandbranyanMember since 2017
10 years ago

Edmonds the Angel (1995-98, ages 24-28) .228 ISO, 41st in MLB.

Edmonds the Cardinal (2000-05, ages 29-35) .291 ISO, 5th in MLB.

CCSAGE
10 years ago

I loved watching Jim Edmonds play, however he is merely ‘Hall of Very Good’ worthy. When looking at career numbers for HOF eligibility, I first go to baseball-reference.com and look for the bold numbers that indicate the player led the league in a category. Standard stats, advanced stats, defensive metrics, etc. – most of it can found on that site. Edmonds never led the league in a single category. Then I look at MVP balloting. Edmonds was listed on MVP ballots six times in his career: his highest vote total was 4th, followed by 5th, 14th, 17th, 26th, 27th. He had two great seasons, but he just wasn’t dominating the game like a HOF’er. If he wasn’t on the DL so often, he would have had a better shot.

devo1d
10 years ago
Reply to  CCSAGE

That’s an interesting way to formulate HOF worthiness, but I wouldn’t rely on MVP voters to determine a players value. That’s the point, he never led the league in anything but was good to great at the two most important factors for his position.

Willing to bet he was more valuable than 4th and 5th in those respective years.

devo1d
10 years ago
Reply to  devo1d

And I’d be wrong. Even if you take out pitchers, he’s not in the top 4 or 5 in any of those votes.
It appears he was rewarded a few spots for playing on good teams.

Famous Mortimer
10 years ago
Reply to  CCSAGE

Go to www,hallofstats.com to see if Edmonds is worthy (hint: he is).

bernoulli
10 years ago

One explanation for preconception that Edmonds isn’t a HoF-er, is that he never got the chance to be the best or clear hero on his team. His career peak coincided with the Pujols and Rolen peak. Lead team in WAR only in 2000 and 2002. Likewise, his 2004 NLCS performance was awesome, but still put him behind Beltran and Pujols, and was about equal to Berkman and Rolen.

david k
10 years ago

I never understood how the Angels traded Edmonds for Bottenfield and Kennedy. yes, in hindsight, that trade looks really awful, but even at the time of the trade, it looked really bad. Bottenfield, from what I recall (too lazy to look it up) had an ERA over 4.00 but had a lot of wins one year, and Kennedy may have been a pretty good 2B prospect, but there was no way he was projecting to be a star player. Those two guys for a guy with the skillset of Edmonds?

david k
10 years ago
Reply to  david k

Damn, I just decided to look up Bottenfield’s stats anyway, and they were much WORSE than I thought. He probably had the worst 18-7 season (.720 win %) in MLB history. FIP of 4.75, 1.503 WHIP, 89 BB, 124 Ks in 190 innings. Yikes!

Plus he hadn’t won more than 5 games in a season before his age 30 18-7 season.

AngelsLakersFan
10 years ago
Reply to  david k

The Angels had 4 great outfielders, no second basemen and Edmond had just a year remaining on his contract. It was still really stupid.

danM321
10 years ago

While I’m not sure Jim Edmonds would be in my personal imaginary Hall of Fame (I’m a bit of a small hall biased guy) it cannot be disputed that by the standards that have been set by the real hall he should in fact be in. Edmonds is Jim Rice if he had a better on base and played gold glove center field. And Rice is in (with nearly 15 less WAR). Now you can say “the Rice vote was a travesty on his 15th try so we should ignore that”. But that is the precedent. The BBWAA decided a player vastly inferior to Edmonds should be enshrined and yet Edmonds is off the ballot after one measly year. It really does amaze me how little so many of the people who are paid to cover the sport of baseball actually know about it (hooray for Fangraphs and the coming enlightenment!).

Dan FlahertyMember
10 years ago

To me, Edmonds is just as much of a Hall of Famer as most of the guys in the hall. His glove was amazing, enough to carry him far enough up in my heart at least, and to add the value with his bat that he did just seals the deal. Things like this is why i don’t trust the voting system.

The Kudzu KidMember since 2016
10 years ago

So this sets the over/under for Andruw Jones’s Hall of Fame votes at 11. Do you take the over or the under?

Bryan O'ConnorMember since 2025
10 years ago

I like the McGriff comp, but you should have stuck with Griffey. On a rate basis, they were the same guy. Of course, you have to be willing to dock Griffey for his long decline phase to come to that conclusion. I did here:
https://replacementlevel.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/a-tale-of-three-outfielders/