Scott Rolen has been elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame. But if Rolen is Hall of Fame worthy, why isn't Jim Edmonds?
This week, most fans of the St. Louis Cardinals were elated when Scott Rolen was elected to the National Baseball of Fame. Needing to be named on 75% of the ballots, Rolen was named on 76.1% of the ballots by voters from the Baseball Writers Association of America.
Scott Rolen spent six years wearing the Birds on the Bat, in what was arguably the zenith of his career. The Jasper, Indiana native won 4 of his 8 career Gold Gloves, his lone Silver Slugger Award, and made 5 of his 6 All-Star appearances while in St. Louis.
The 1997 Rookie of the Year Award winner had a 17-year career with stops in Philadelphia, St. Louis, Toronto, and Cincinnati. He finished with a career slash line of .281/.364/.490 and an OPS+ of 122.
Nevertheless, Rolen was likely pushed over the finish line with Hall of Fame voters for his remarkable defense at third base. In fact, 10-time Gold Glover and Hall of Fame 3rd baseman, Mike Schmidt, said in 2004 that Rolen is "better than me."
So, where does Jim Edmonds fit into this debate? Looking closely, Edmonds' career mirrors Rolen's as a borderline Hall of Famer. In some stats, Rolen is better. But in others, Edmonds' is better. Nevertheless, Jim Edmonds, like Scott Rolen. was a very good offensive player and an elite defender.
I"m going to look at the statistical comparison of the two former Cardinals. However, It's not my intention to try to convince you Jim Edmonds should or should not be in Baseball's Hall of Fame. Nor is it my intention to pit a contest between Rolen and Edmonds. No, I just want to see if Edmonds' career stats vs Rolen's, at least puts him in the conversation for HOF.
I'll let you make your own opinion on Edmonds' worthiness as a potential Hall of Famer.