Slightly OT - 2020 Modern Baseball Era HOF Ballot

[triwak]

Nine former big league players and one executive comprise the 10-name Modern Baseball Era ballot to be reviewed and voted upon Dec. 8 at the Baseball Winter Meetings.

Dwight Evans, Steve Garvey, Tommy John, Don Mattingly, Marvin Miller, Thurman Munson, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, Ted Simmons and Lou Whitaker are the candidates the Modern Baseball Era Committee will consider for Hall of Fame election for the Class of 2020. All candidates are former players except for Miller, who was the head of the Major League Baseball Players Association from 1966-82. All candidates except for Miller and Munson are living.

[triwak]

Let the BOOMERS' arguments begin!! :-)

[packs]

No to all but would like to see Mattingly do well. He was easily the most talented of the group and the HOF has awarded stalled careers before (see Dizzy Dean for proof). I don't know how other people feel but if Mattingly didn't get hurt he's the guy everyone would have been comparing Albert Pujols to when Pujols was at his peak.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think Whitaker may rate the highest of these in terms of the modern metrics. He's certainly the highest by far on Hall of Stats.

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm pulling for my childhood favorite Thurman Munson!

[OldOriole]

Granted, this is only one measurement to take into consideration but it does provide some useful info. Here are their career WARs (from baseball-reference) and where they rank on the all-time list:

Whitaker #79 (75.1 WAR)
Evans #129 (67.1 WAR)
John #169 (61.5 WAR)
Simmons #301 (50.3 WAR)
Murphy #366 (46.5 WAR)
Munson #373 (46.1 WAR)
Mattingly #457 (42.4 WAR)
Parker #519 (40.1 WAR)
Garvey #575 (38.1 WAR)

[Smanzari]

Marvin Miller really needs to be in, really surprised he's not

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Smanzari

Marvin Miller really needs to be in, really surprised he's not

Nope.

[nickedson]

My votes would be for Marvin Miller, Lou Whitaker and Dale Murphy. Ted Simmons is also worthy.

[Jim65]

These guys were all voted on multiple times and fell short. None are deserving.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Isn't Bobby Grich on this ballot?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Isn't Bobby Grich on this ballot?

This would be the ballot he would be on if he made the cut.

[darwinbulldog]

Whitaker and Miller

[jhs5120]

Marvin Miller will get in - he should've in 2007. It's just a shame that he won't be alive to see it.

[bnorth]

In my weird opinion if Fred McGriff isn't in the hall nobody on that list should be.

[RL]

My opinion is that if Harold Baines got in, everyone on the ballot should get in.

[Kzoo]

If Lou Whitaker had played his entire career for the Yankees, instead of the Tigers, he'd be in already. Just my opinion.

[JollyElm]

That's a helluva nice grouping. Specific metrics aside, Garvey, Parker, Mattingly and Whitaker were all looked at as studs during their careers. When their teams came to town, those are the guys you couldn't wait to see. To me, players like John, Evans, and Simmons (who I never realized had the career numbers he did until recently) were more about stamina, slowly accruing numbers over time while not being considered (forgive the puns) topps in their fields. Since everyone's hometown will greatly influence their feelings in regard to this list of players, Thurman Munson was a hard nosed leader who helped restore the Bronx Bombers to prominence. He is the one I am rooting for the most.

[Vintagecatcher]

Dewey had a cannon for an arm.

Great all around baseball player!

Patrick

[steve B]

If he'd had a full career Munson would already be in.

I don't really buy the argument that they were all already voted on.

At least Evans was off the ballot because of the really strong field in 1999
(Ryan, Brett, Yount, in on their first, and Fisk and 5 other eventual HOFers. )
He was a decent hitter for the era, just missing 400hr at a time that was a solid milestone. And a great fielder.

There aren't really any on that list that wouldn't belong at all.

[packs]

Whitaker didn't even make it past the first vote before he fell off. Sometimes there is merit in revisiting. Jorge Posada didn't survive his first vote either and I can't think of a more egregious example of a guy being criminally ignored (even if he ultimately isn't a HOFer).

[SAllen2556]

Of the all-time top 80 players ranked by WAR, who is NOT a member of the Hall of Fame?

Answer:
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Albert Pujols
Adrian Beltre
Curt Schillling
Pete Rose

and...Lou Whitaker.

Of the top 16 second basemen ranked by WAR, there are 3 players NOT in the Hall. They are Bobby Grich, Robinson Cano, and Lou Whitaker.

Among 2nd basemen, he's ranked 7th in games played, 14th in JAWS (ahead of Alomar, Biggio, Doerr, Fox), 10th in home runs, 5th in walks, 4th in double plays turned, 11th in putouts, 18th in range factor (ahead of Morgan and Sandberg, Kent, and Cano), and 6th in assists.

1978 Rookie of the year, 3 gold gloves, 4 time silver slugger, 5 time all-star.

I hope he gets in. He really was the best player on the Tigers in those days in terms of pure talent.

Hope Munson gets in too.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

This would be the ballot he would be on if he made the cut.

Oh, he didn't even make the cut? Wow. His metrics are pretty undeniable.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

In my weird opinion if Fred McGriff isn't in the hall nobody on that list should be.

7 more home runs and he likely would have been automatic.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by steve B

If he'd had a full career Munson would already be in.

Don't think I'd agree with this. Munson was already in major decline at the time of his death. He was still hitting for a decent average (.288) but his power had entirely evaporated. He slugged .373 and .374 his last two seasons.

[toppcat]

Miller and Whitaker. Can;t believe Whitaker didn't go in with Trammel, he's one of the best 2B ever.

[oldjudge]

Mattingly and Marvin Miller. Mattingly, despite the back issues in the second half of his career, was a .307 lifetime hitter. He won 9 gold gloves and was an MVP. Almost every year of his 14 year career he was in the top 20 in MVP voting.
Marvin Miller had more of an impact on the game than most of the guys in the Hall now.

[CobbSpikedMe]

Mattingly, Miller and Whitaker have my votes. I loved Mattingly and Whitaker and Miller was just so important to the modern game of baseball.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Oh, he didn't even make the cut? Wow. His metrics are pretty undeniable.

Not really.

Hall of Fame Statistics
Black Ink
Batting - 8 (302), Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink
Batting - 40 (657), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor
Batting - 42 (484), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards
Batting - 32 (288), Average HOFer ≈ 50

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

Not really.

Hall of Fame Statistics
Black Ink
Batting - 8 (302), Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink
Batting - 40 (657), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor
Batting - 42 (484), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards
Batting - 32 (288), Average HOFer ≈ 50

JAWS
Second Base (8th):
71.1 career WAR / 46.4 7yr-peak WAR / 58.7 JAWS

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Mattingly and Marvin Miller. Mattingly, despite the back issues in the second half of his career, was a .307 lifetime hitter. He won 9 gold gloves and was an MVP. Almost every year of his 14 year career he was in the top 20 in MVP voting.
Marvin Miller had more of an impact on the game than most of the guys in the Hall now.

I'm OK with Mattingly. He only had 4 or 5 really great years, but I he was pretty special during that time and was also pretty good for a few years after that. I always thought Whitaker was the quiet strength of the Detroit team back in the day so I'm good with him too. I think Simba should absolutely be in and also think that Dewey was vastly underrated. He had a gun in right field. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if Murphy or Parker got in either.

Marvin Miller should have been elected years ago, but the owners hate him for obvious reasons. Also, I think that he asked not to ever be elected shortly before he died, right after he missed the last time. Jay is right, there have been very few people as instrumental in the history of baseball as he was. That should mean something.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

Of the all-time top 80 players ranked by WAR, who is NOT a member of the Hall of Fame?

Answer:
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Albert Pujols
Adrian Beltre
Curt Schillling
Pete Rose

and...Lou Whitaker.

Of the top 16 second basemen ranked by WAR, there are 3 players NOT in the Hall. They are Bobby Grich, Robinson Cano, and Lou Whitaker.

Among 2nd basemen, he's ranked 7th in games played, 14th in JAWS (ahead of Alomar, Biggio, Doerr, Fox), 10th in home runs, 5th in walks, 4th in double plays turned, 11th in putouts, 18th in range factor (ahead of Morgan and Sandberg, Kent, and Cano), and 6th in assists.

1978 Rookie of the year, 3 gold gloves, 4 time silver slugger, 5 time all-star.

I hope he gets in. He really was the best player on the Tigers in those days in terms of pure talent.

Hope Munson gets in too.

Ok, Beltre and Pujols aren't eligible yet. The guys with red text just picked a bad year to retire....

[rhettyeakley]

Marvin Miller will get in, although I never got too excited about non-players or managers getting in... I just feel there are too many. Morgan Bulkeley? Effa Manley? If Marvin Miller gets in then Curt Flood should get in by default! (Flood was good player too though with a career WAR higher than 2 of the guys on this ballot)

Of the players I don't see how Whitaker isn't in when they sent his 2 inferior Tigers teammates in recently (Morris & Trammell, although I had no problem with Trammell getting in).

Mattingly is jut not deserving to me, if he isn't a Yankee this isn't even a question.

I love Dale Murphy and he was great most years from 1980-1987 but the rest of his body of work just doesn't cut it.

Tommy John will get in eventually with his 288 wins and a respectable ERA. Moving forward pitchers aren't going to be sniffing 300 wins so it will be harder and harder to justify his exclusion.

I am always surprised at how pedestrian Steve Garvey's #'s are with how highly he was regarded in his heyday. Career WAR of less than 40 with 2,600 hits, 10x All-Star, 4X gold glove & an MVP award? Compare his numbers to Dwight Evans and Dewey gets the clear nod in my opinion!

Everything I just said of Steve Garvey can basically be said about Dave Parker.

Ted Simmons & Thurman Munson are interesting and I am not sure how I feel about them. Most catchers hit a bit of a production wall at about 32-33 years old and that was right when Munson died and we was showing signs of slowing down... but we will never know, he was a Yankee, and he has the sentimental "died too young" thing going for him so I wouldn't be shocked to see him inducted, many casual baseball fans that followed baseball in the 1970's are often surprised that he isn't already in when they find that out. I Feel like Simmons probably should be in as his career WAR, JAWS, etc. usually put him in the top 10-11 spots of all-time catchers, kinda hard to not include him.

In summary...

Will get in: Marvin Miller

Probably should get in or will get in someday: Lou Whitaker, Ted Simmons, Tommy John

Wouldn't be surprised to see them inducted: Dwight Evans & Thurman Munson

Just not quite enough: Dale Murphy

Not worthy: Mattingly, Garvey, Parker

[Brian Van Horn]

One guy I am surprised is not on the ballot is Bill Madlock. Four batting titles.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Don't think I'd agree with this. Munson was already in major decline at the time of his death. He was still hitting for a decent average (.288) but his power had entirely evaporated. He slugged .373 and .374 his last two seasons.

His numbers for his 11 years are generally better than Fisks first 11 years. And Munson wasn't as much of a power hitter. Going by modern stats, his WAR compared to Fisks for the 11 years was better.

And consider that all that comes from a Red Sox fan.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by steve B

His numbers for his 11 years are generally better than Fisks first 11 years. And Munson wasn't as much of a power hitter. Going by modern stats, his WAR compared to Fisks for the 11 years was better.

And consider that all that comes from a Red Sox fan.

Yeah, but he went from a guy hitting 16-20 homers to hitting 6. And on pace for 4-5 his last year.

He was CLEARLY declining. Fisk improved.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

One guy I am surprised is not on the ballot is Bill Madlock. Four batting titles.

He's in the jerk category with Albert Belle.
Belle was a better player than everyone on the list and will never be elected.

[Hot Springs Bathers]

Miller, Simmons and Munson

[Yastrzemski Sports]

If any of the players got in I would say it was long overdue.

[timn1]

Originally Posted by toppcat

Miller and Whitaker. Can;t believe Whitaker didn't go in with Trammel, he's one of the best 2B ever.

As usual the Yankee lovers are all over their faves, but Whitaker is by far the best player of the era who is not in the HOF.

I would put Simmons in too. Miller is a no-brainer.

[packs]

Why do people think Whitaker was such a good player? He only received 2.9 % of the vote when he was first eligible and was voted on by writers who watched him play. Mattingly was on the ballot for 15 years and people are saying he wasn't even close.

[SteveMitchell]

Since all the players are pretty clearly among Baseball's Top 1-2% I would support the election of all but not Marvin Miller.

[nat]

Simmons vs. Munson is the interesting question.

There are lots of exceptions on both sides, so this is more of a rule of thumb than a law, but a player usually gets into the HOF conversation when they get up to about 60 WAR. (Not saying that people are looking at their WAR, just that the time at which lots of people start saying "hall of fame? yeah, I can see it" usually happens right about the time a player reaches 60 WAR.)

This is a bad rule of thumb for catchers though. They miss so much time that very few catchers ever get that high. Heck, Yogi Berra didn't quite make it. Whatever the point is that catchers start becoming good candidates has got to be lower than that, unless you want, like, a total of four catchers in the hall. (Didn't check that number, but it's pretty low.) Ted Simmons is at 50, in a dead heat with Mark Langston. Now, some guys get in with that figure: Orlando Cepeda and Tony Lazzeri did, but it's pretty low for the hall of fame. For a catcher though, maybe it's okay. The only non-HOF catchers between him at the 60 WAR line are Joe Mauer (HOF status TBD) and Joe Torre (who was only sort of a catcher, and got in as a manager anyway). So anyways, it's pretty low, but maybe okay given that he was a catcher.

Now, Munson is at 46. Tied, down to the decimal place, with Bartolo Colon and Willie Wilson. If Simmons is at the "okay, I guess, considering that he's a catcher" point, Munson is really pushing the lower bounds of that. Catchers (that I recognize as such) between them: Gene Tennace, Ernie Lombardi, Buck Ewing, Wally Schang, Mickey Cochrane. All of those guys had more valuable careers than Munson, and, by HOF standards, they're a mixed bag. You also might not want to count Ewing as a 100% catcher, given that he played only a plurality of his innings there.

On that basis, I'd be inclined to say "yes" to Simmons and "no" to Munson.

But here's the thing that makes it interesting. At his best Munson was a lot better than Simmons. He accumulated a somewhat lower WAR total in a much shorter career. One way to measure this is by Wins Above Average (WAA); it's like WAR, but instead of comparing a player to a AAA scrub, it compares him to an average major league player. Simmons was worth 19 WAA, Munson was worth 25. And peak performance does make a difference to how valuable a player was - to win pennants you need above average players (just be definition). But of course just being a competent major leaguer is also valuable, and Simmons did a lot more of that than did Munson. (For obvious reasons.)

So basically I don't know how to think about them. They've both got cases, although built in very different ways. Whether both, or either, or neither, is deserving, I don't know.

[yanks87]

Technically Dave Parker had better numbers than Edgar Martinez AND played the field. I personally think the HoF classes from the last couple of years had has some great players, but a lot of JOKES have made it in. Maybe it is an overall loathing of all things Mariners, but the idea of Edgar in the same hall as Aaron, Ruth, Cobb, Mays and others is a tragedy. I kinda think that sometimes it is OK to have no one get in if the class is light. It devalues the Hall to have 2nd tier players in just because "someone had to get in." My 2 cents.

[yanks87]

I am probably in the minority, but as a lifetime Yankee fan, I am perfectly fine with Mattingly not getting in. He had a couple good years, was good to great in the field, but not Hall worthy.

[Orioles1954]

If Alan Trammell makes the Hall then Whitaker HAS to go in.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by yanks87

Technically Dave Parker had better numbers than Edgar Martinez AND played the field. I personally think the HoF classes from the last couple of years had has some great players, but a lot of JOKES have made it in. Maybe it is an overall loathing of all things Mariners, but the idea of Edgar in the same hall as Aaron, Ruth, Cobb, Mays and others is a tragedy. I kinda think that sometimes it is OK to have no one get in if the class is light. It devalues the Hall to have 2nd tier players in just because "someone had to get in." My 2 cents.

I can see a Yankees fan (given your user ID) hating the Red Sox but I’m not sure why anyone would “loathe” the Mariners! How do you end up loathing a team that has a winning season every decade or so? Edgar was long overdue with his induction, especially once they started electing Relief Pitchers into the Hall of Fame... once that door opened you have no reason to exclude specialized hitters like the DH. Parker’s numbers relative to his era are just not as good as Edgar’s are, the stats just don’t Back up Parker in that argument in any way. I have no idea what is so bad about Edgar making the Hall of Fame? Far less deserving players have been and will be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by packs

Why do people think Whitaker was such a good player? He only received 2.9 % of the vote when he was first eligible and was voted on by writers who watched him play. Mattingly was on the ballot for 15 years and people are saying he wasn't even close.

Top 100 WAR all-time. Better than most infielders already inducted.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by packs

Why do people think Whitaker was such a good player? He only received 2.9 % of the vote when he was first eligible and was voted on by writers who watched him play. Mattingly was on the ballot for 15 years and people are saying he wasn't even close.

Because the writers are wrong a lot and some players are just not appreciated by them relative to their actual worth to the team. Whitaker was always vastly underrated by just about everyone. Retrospectively looking back we are starting to realize some players were not appreciated like they should have been (Whitaker) while others were largely overrated (Steve Garvey is a good example).

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by yanks87

Technically Dave Parker had better numbers than Edgar Martinez AND played the field. I personally think the HoF classes from the last couple of years had has some great players, but a lot of JOKES have made it in. Maybe it is an overall loathing of all things Mariners, but the idea of Edgar in the same hall as Aaron, Ruth, Cobb, Mays and others is a tragedy. I kinda think that sometimes it is OK to have no one get in if the class is light. It devalues the Hall to have 2nd tier players in just because "someone had to get in." My 2 cents.

Not sure how someone with a career OPS of .810 has better numbers than a guy with a career OPS of .933