The Hall of Fame doesn't necessarily need a DH.

I agree with Ken Rosenthal. I apologize. I promise it won't happen too often.

Though he kind of hedges his bet with this conclusion: "To me, Martinez is a Hall of Famer -- he was the best at his position during the time he played, and he also deserves credit for helping save the Mariners franchise. His numbers, though, are short."


I suppose it's true that Edgar Martinez is the best DH of all time. Molitor spent a lot of time at DH and he's in the Hall of Fame, blah blah blah. There aren't too many other full-time DHs who jump out at you. Harold Baines, Chili Davis, Cliff Johnson ...

But I can't understand the concept that Edgar gets more credit for being a DH, not less credit. Sure, match him up against DHs and his offensive numbers are probably the best. But can't we at least match him up against first basemen or other positions where defense is de-emphasized?

Stick with the big scoreboard stats that everybody knows and loves.

Edgar is .312, 306, 1247.

If he is allowed in the Hall of Fame, who else gets to go?


Will Clark .303, 284, 1205.

Don Mattingly .307, 222, 1099.

Cecil Cooper (unfairly got zero HOF votes) .298, 241, 1125.


What do you say to Greg Luzinski if Edgar Martinez makes the Hall of Hame? When Greg says, "I hit .276, 307, 1128. I'm not saying I was Ozzie Smith out there, but I shouldn't get penalized for actually playing in the field."

Or what about Baines and Chili? Lower batting averages, but more overall production in their careers. Would Harold Baines be given the same HOF consideration if he had played DH full-time instead of contributing in the outfield for half his career? That makes no sense.


So I guess I disagree with Ken Rosenthal after all. Phew.