Hmm, Edmonds v Puckett. Let's break it down:
Batting - Puckett .318/.360/.477/.837, 124 OPS+
Edmonds .284/.376/.527/.903, 131 OPS+
Slight edges across the percentage board for Edmonds, with the exception of a decent lead for Puckett in batting average, and a pretty large lead in slugging for Edmonds.
Edmonds clearly had more HR power, as he hit nearly 400 HR's, hit over 40 twice, and had one season with 39. Puckett only hit 30+ one time.
Puckett hit more doubles & triples. He hit nearly as any doubles in five less seasons, and more triples. Puckett also had more total hits, about 500 more, even while playing five less seasons.
Edmonds never led the league in anything. Puckett led the league in hits four times, batting once, and twice led the league in total bases.
Advantage: Edmonds. Slightly. He got on base more and had more HR power. Had Puckett played longer he would have closed/widened the totals gaps and I probably would have given him the edge. But it is what it is. Longevity does count for something.
Baserunning - Neither man was a particularly efficient base stealer, but Puckett stole more bases and at a higher percentage.
Puckett hit into far more double plays, a hidden stat that is far too often ignored. He led the league one time, and his totals were into the double figures 11 out of 12 seasons.
Edmonds, meanwhile, hardly ever hit into DP's, crossing the double digit threshold only 4 times in 17 seasons.
Advantage: Puckett. Neither guy was a great baserunner, and I guess I should probably lump the DP's into batting anyway.
Fielding - Both men rate much better than the rest of their respective leagues in fielding percentage, R/FG, R/F9, and most of the other fielding stats. Edmonds has the wider gaps. Both won multiple gold gloves, if you are into that.
Look, both were great fielders by any measure. I watched both play for their entire careers. For my eye test, it's Edmonds all the way. He may be the best i've ever seen.
Advantage: Edmonds
Intangibles - Puckett was known as a clutch player for two World Series winning teams, and was considered a great teammate and leader. Some disregard these things, I personally do not. Athletes are not emotionless stat generating cyborgs, they are human beings who can absolutely be influenced by emotion and have performance effected by it. By all accounts, and by watching him play, Puckett had that extra something special that made people around him better.
Puckett's postseason stats back up his reputation. .308/.393/.519/.913 World Series slash line is better than his regular season line (as is his overall postseason line). He hit 5 HR's in 24 WS games and made one of the more famous World Series catches of all time up against the old Metrodome plexiglass.
Edmonds postseason numbers are nearly identical to his regular season numbers, but he was only a .156 hitter in 9 World Series games with no HR's.
Advantage: Puckett. By a mile.
Overall, I like Edmonds a little but better. I think he's vastly underrated. I wouldn't argue very hard if you prefer Puckett. I think it's close.
