Sitting down to write this post, I was intending to write that whether you voted "Yes" or "No" on Edgar, you were being reasonable.  Looking at it more closely, I now see that Yes is probably right.

.

=== Chief Justice Dept. ===

You might argue whether Bill James is baseball's greatest sabermetrician, but there is no arguing about whether he is baseball's greatest historian. 

As James memorably put it, when he mows the 17th row on his lawn, 8th rank, he thinks, "That's Joe Shlabotnik.  17-8 in 1932."  Bill once explained that occasionally in a movie theater he'll stop thinking about baseball, but it has to be a good movie.  (He wisely kept Susie out of the discussion.)

You cross his aptitude with the amount of time he has spent on history, and you wind up with a historical analyst that is just about unsurpassable.

...........

And OF the historical things he's studied, the Hall of Fame ranks way, way up there.  James is baseball's greatest expert on the HOF.  In all seriousness, you could just make him Chief Justice of the HOF, have him put players in, and you'd be much better off than you are.

...........

He devised four "tests" for predicting sportswriter votes for the HOF.  It doesn't matter whether you or I agree with these.  What matters is whether writers are being consistent with themselves.  

When the writers fail to vote for Bert Blyleven, the question is whether they're being consistent with their own voting standards, as applied to comparable players.  Or are they being unfair, based on personal distaste against iffy won-lost records?

.

=== HOF Monitor ==

How consistent are the writers if they don't vote for Edgar? 

Well, the first two James tests, Black Ink and Gray Ink, are not the best tests for today's players because they measure league-leading performance.  Leading an 8-team league in HR's is a lot different than leading a 15-team league in HR's.  (Edgar does fine on these tests.)

The test that gives you a real sense for Truth on Edgar is the HOF Monitor, because it does not favor players from prior eras.  (Granted, it does give a bit of an edge to players in offensive eras, but also very heavily weights defense, and longevity, and position scarcity.)

This is a refined, detailed points system that is explained right here.

.

=== 67th Percentile ... against other HOF'ers ===

There are 229 batters in the Hall of Fame, and Edgar is in 104th place on the HOF Monitor list.  76 HOF'ers are above Edgar, and 153 HOF'ers are behind him.  (Some players are ahead of Edgar but not in the HOF.  That's because they're ineligible, like Joe Jackson, or still active, like Ken Griffey Jr.)

To get a feel for it, your key is to scan down this list right here.  You'll see that about 33% of the existing HOF'ers are above Edgar, and about 66% of them are below him. 

Very few retired non-HOF'ers are above Edgar, whereas a boatload of actual HOF'ers below him.  Actually, about 70 (check me) HOF'ers don't even make this list.  Again, you've got to scan the list personally.  It will give you your own feel for the situation.

Here is the complete list of retired players, with more HOF Monitor points than Edgar, not yet in the Hall:

• 47.  Roberto Alomar
• 62.  Mark McGwire
• 99.  Don Mattingly
• 100.  Albert Belle

That's it.  Against that list of four players, there are 153 HOF'ers behind Edgar -- 153 guys the writers did vote in.  And the writers can't stop saying, hey, I didn't vote for Mattingly.  Why should I vote for Edgar.

It would be one thing if Edgar were better than 10% of the HOF'ers and worse than 90% of them.  That's not the case.  Edgar has more HOF Monitor points than the middle Hall of Famer, not more than the bottom one.

Not voting for Edgar here would be as if you had a 23-team NCAA tournament, arguing incessantly about the #22-23-24 teams ... while freezing out the #8 team.

.

Part 2