Have you seen the players elected in the early days of the Hall of Fame? Fred Clarke, Tommy McCarthy, Ray Schalk, etc. If the Hall of Fame can be disqualified from its claim to its name by electing a few people who aren't really famous or great, it has been disqualified for about 80 years already.

Mauer has greater name recognition, as a recent star, then at least 50% of the HOF inductees. This is not logical.

Plenty of people are probably talking about football right now. See how many people you run into can name anyone who got into the NFL Hall of Fame last year or recognize the names if you tell them who was. I think the results will be similar to what you found with Mauer.

https://www.profootballhof.com/news/...class-of-2023/

Yanks fans should be more happy this Mauer vote opens up Jorge Posada for a HOF Vet bid.

If 7-8 year "peaks" matter so much for catchers now, 2000-2007 Posada should carry some weight.

Ortiz himself has admitted he failed a test. He's denied taking steroids but admits failing a test:

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/d...sted-positive/

I Did not compare Mauer to any other HoF inductees. I compared him To Barry Bonds Roger Clemens and Alex Rodriguez. None of whom are currently in the Hall of Fame. All of the 3 are by any measurement among the best to ever play the game. That is not Logical.

You chose to make the argument in #100 that his name recognition is 1/18 in your survey and thus he is not famous and thus should not be in the Hall of Fame, while the roster of steroid users should be. Mauer, obviously, is more recognizable a name to people today than most of the names in the Hall. This is not a good argument, or logical. I did not choose that argument, you made it. You then argued in favor of Pettite, who is not exactly a top tier HOF quality player like the 3 druggies you also mentioned, but a borderline candidate if you ignore the drugs.

I am quite confident you are able to understand why steroid players are not in, and that they are not excluded on grounds of name recognition or performance.

First dupe post, do I get a sticker?

For most of the class of 2023 you are right not alot if name recognition. Ronde Barber's Brother Tiki is the Afternoon Host on WFAN so alot around here are going to know him...And Joe Klecko gonna be known by Almost anyone in Green and White north of the Raritan River. Sack Exchange Pictures still populate alot of sports bar Walls. ..
If Canton was keeping out 3 of the Top 30 to have ever played Football I would be complain about them as well. But their not.. Football seems to run a pretty solid HOF..

Hof
 

If Joe Mauer is a Hall of Famer, than Don Mattingly should likewise be inducted into the HOF. His lifetime numbers best Mauer (Avg, OPS, HRs, RBIs, Hits, etc.), and along with Keith Hernandez, he was one of baseball’s greatest all-time defensive first baseman. Peak value, Mattingly was better than Mauer due to his superior power (Mauer only hit 20+ homers in one season, and never knocked in more than 100 runs in a single season). I don’t believe Mauer is a true Hall of Famer, BUT IF HE IS, Mattingly clearly deserves to be enshrined in Cooperstown. The HOF is slowly being “watered-down”, somewhat stealing the thunder from the players that unquestionably deserve a final resting place in this hallowed establishment.

If people don’t know who Joe Mauer is, that sounds like their problems.

I also wonder how much baseball they pay attention to, considering his greatness at the plate - MVP, rated a top 10 catcher all time by JAWS, a record three batting titles at his position and the first catcher to win a batting title since Ernie Lombardi.

People know who Bonds is, who Shoeless Joe, Pete Rose and A-Rod are, but name recognition or lack thereof is not a good qualification for a Hall of Fame in my book.

Wins and rings are team accomplishments, and the Hall of Fame is an individual honor. It’s one thing if you want to judge managers, executives, owners by this standard. I don’t think players should be judged as such.

One is known for being a catcher, the other for being a first baseman. Mauer compares more favorably to Hall of Fame catchers based on JAWS than Mattingly does among Hall of Fame first basemen.

I’d put Hernandez above Mattingly, actually.


Now, if Mauer spent his whole career at first base, it’d be hard to think he measures up, but different positions have different standards.

Every election quickly becomes Yankees fans favorite players :rolleyes:

Significantly greater production is expected from a 1B than a catcher. Mattingly is up .001 in batting, .003 in OPs, has 30 more hits. These are not good talking points. Mattingly's frame of comparison is first baseman, not catchers.

Also, his name is Mauer.

Besides not being particularly great, with only two seasons under 3.00 ERA and no Cy Young awards, Pettite is also an admitted PED guy. Not really a mystery why he's not in.

Nowhere in my original post fo I ever say that Joe Mauer doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. I say he has less name recognition than Bonds Clemens and Rodriguez because all 3 of them were significantly better Baseball players. All 3 of them are eligible according to the rules to be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. And they are all 3 among best to ever play the game of Baseball. Because of that all 3 deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. That is the argument I make. If I wanted to argue that Joe Mauer doesn't belong in the HOF I could. But here today in this Thread I did not. We know that because no where in my post do I say Joe Mauer Doesn't belong in the Hall of fame.
Is Joe Mauer a more recognizable name than " Most of the Names in the Hall of Fame" I dont know difficult to prove either way it is a very broad statement. What demographic, so many variables. And because it is difficult to prove either way it is a weak argument. Supported by little logic. But you make that argument. We know that because you say that in your post. See how that works your words in your post equals Your Argument....not mine. And you make it in 2 seperate posts.
You conclude that you are confident that I should be able to understand why they " The Druggies" as you call them are not in the Hall of Fame. Again I wrote very clearly that I do not understand why despite the name recognition gained during three spectacular baseball careers they are not in the Baseball hall of Fame. So I dont share your confidence or find even a thread of logic in your conclusion.
The reason for that is because athletes are by nature competitive. They look for ways to improve all the time. All the Time. I dont know where the line is where competitive turns to cheating by unfair advantage. Baseball has rules and a commissioner and a union to balance and they did not preclude or bar in any way the path for these baseball greats to enter the Hall of Fame. So I believe their careers on the field of play should speak for them. Especially after Bud Selig and David Ortiz have already been enshrined. Just my Humble opinion.

Here's what you said:

How is this not objecting to Mauer? Your entire thesis is that the Hall of Fame is not a Hall of Fame because it is not electing the cheaters but is electing guys like Mauer, whose candidacy you cared about so very much that you ran a totally real street survey in advance for 2 entire weeks!

If you are NOT objecting to Mauer, then your entire closing argument and first paragraph are senseless babble, and don't connect at all.


You really want to argue that you cannot understand why they are not included because they used banned drugs? Really? You can't figure out? You don't know why they aren't in? You don't have to agree with it, I don't really agree with it, but it is astoundingly obvious and nobody here who follows baseball even a little bit can plausibly claim to be too stupid to know.

Did Gaylord Perry “cheat”? I believe that he has admitted numerous times to doctoring the ball. He’s still in the HOF though, right? Mauer is really marginal, Helton hit in Colorado (I know, he was just playing the hand that he was dealt, not his choice to have been drafted by the Rockies but career road numbers pale in comparison and double those in place of the high altitude and I don’t think there is any chance that he’s a HOF’er). Those two making the Hall in modern times with the system the way it is as well as historically been, no excuse for Bonds, Clemens and A-Rod to be left out. I think the baseball writers have sent a clear message to us how they feel about the steroid era, now it’s time to move on and recognize the all-time greats alongside their contemporaries and historical counterparts.

mauers batting titles as a catcher are what got him in first ballot...imho.

Catchers have won four batting titles in major league history, only three of them in the American League and they're all Joe Mauer.

Things are looking pretty good for Buster Posey now.

I think with Helton's induction things are also looking pretty good for Joey Votto and Paul Goldschmidt when it's their time. Probably not first ballots either but both should get the call now.

True, excellent point with the catcher/1st base issue, BUT you are missing one major point - Mattingly was arguably considered baseball’s BEST player for a 4-5 year period. This certainly needs to be configured into the equation. Regarding Hernandez, he was great, but Mattingly was a far superior hitter during his peak years….not even close. Like Mauer, Hernandez falls way short on his power numbers versus Mattingly.

Actually, you're half right. Catchers have won 6 batting titles, 3 in each league, and Mauer has all of the A.L. crowns. The fourth St. Paul native to make it to Cooperstown, all in my adult lifetime, he's the best athlete I can recall from Minnesota since Dave Winfield, and probably a bit better. Congrats Joe!!!

From what I found online, there are 7 batting titles won by catchers. 3 in the AL (all won by Mauer) and 4 in the NL - Buster Posey (2012), Ernie Lombardi (1938, 1942) and Bubbles Hargrave (1926).

You're right, I forgot about Posey-- I stopped after Joe won his last.

Thank you for the correction. I should have said since WWII, not in baseball history. Nice Bubbles Hargrave reference by the way.

Slightly Off Topic
 

This forum is noteworthy for the number of members who seem to enjoy speculating about Hall of Fame membership every year.

They also are quick to rant against the BBWAA if their favorites are not selected by the BBWAA (baseball not boxing).

Few, if any, seem to think the BBWAA does a good job selecting Hall of Famers. Complaints abound about whom they select or don't select in a given year.

So if I pick only three players that I think should be in the Hall in a given year, and only those three players are selected by the BBWAA, does that make me a target for ridicule by the forum members who are perpetually at odds with the BBWAA's selections?

I guess that is one reason not to pontificate about my thoughts on this subject on the forum.

Whoops, I just did.:eek:

I'd just quibble with the part about the watering-down happening "slowly."

Freddie Lindstrom
Bill Mazeroski
Bruce Sutter
Waite Hoyt
Luis Aparicio
Ted Lyons
Lloyd Waner
Tommy McCarthy
Nellie Fox
Rabbit Maranville
Ray Schalk
Al Lopez
Joe Tinker
... and Evers
... and Chance

Whoof.

Sorry but no matter how many times you say it I never said Joe Mauer doesn't belong in the Hall of fame. You claim that You infer this. But it is just your inferance. I directly compare Mauer's name recognition to Barry Bonds Roger Clemens and Alex Rodriguez to make the point that all three are in fact Famous. They became Famous playing Baseball. I saw all 3 play both live and on TV. It was clear that they were Great. I close my first post saying that I do not support the Baseball Hall of Fame because they have denied admission to 3 of the Greatest to have ever played the game. Makes sense to me.

You use words like Druggies and cheaters to describe Barry Bonds Roger Clemens and Alex Rodriguez. I describe them as Great and among the Best to have ever played the game. When Bud Selig and David Ortiz were elected into the Hall of Fame any claim that these three do not belong in the Hall of Fame because of steroids lost any and all credibility. So again I state for the record I do not understand why these three remain outside the hall of Fame.
You seem stuck on the word understand and my use of it in this context. Here it does not mean I cannot comprehend or understand the arguments against them. Here it means I cannot agree with a group of folks like you who describe 3 of baseballs greatest as cheaters and Druggies undeserving of the Hall of Fame after voting in David Ortiz who tested positive for steroids during his playing career. And Bud Selig who oversaw baseball during the Steroid era.

I'm a big Reds fan, but can't endorse Votto. I've racked my brain to think of a time Votto produced a clutch 2-out hit when the Reds really needed it, and can't come up with a single memory.

His hitting was very good in blowout games and he was adept at drawing lots of walks (but subsequently not scoring). And he was less than mediocre in the few playoff games the Reds managed to blow. I would take Goldschmidt over Votto any day of the week.

Don't forget HOF Manager Tony LaRussa, who managed the two most steroid-abusing teams in MLB history, and knew EXACTLTY what was going on the entire time.

The problem with Mattingly was how much he fell off after his injury, and his peak was great, but not so great that he won a bunch of MVPs or black ink before falling off.

Hernandez might not have had the power, but he won a record 11 Gold Gloves at the position, more than the nine Mattingly won.

Accolades, black ink, outstanding peak, great career all matter to me, as does how somebody compares to others at their position in Cooperstown.

All three have MVPs, Hernandez and Mattingly both runners-up, though Hernandez had three top 10 finishes after turning 30, and finished fourth in helping the Mets win that 1986 World Series. I don’t judge too much off of rings, but if postseason success matters, then Hernandez was a key contributor on championship teams for two different organizations.

If you count JAWS, Hernandez is 21st all time among first basemen.

60.3 career WAR | 41.2 7yr-peak WAR | 50.8 JAWS | 4.7 WAR/162
Average HOF 1B (out of 24):
65.0 career WAR | 41.8 7yr-peak WAR | 53.4 JAWS | 4.8 WAR/162

Meanwhile, Mattingly is 39th all time among first basemen.

42.4 career WAR | 35.7 7yr-peak WAR | 39.1 JAWS | 3.8 WAR/162
Average HOF 1B (out of 24):
65.0 career WAR | 41.8 7yr-peak WAR | 53.4 JAWS | 4.8 WAR/162

Mauer, meanwhile, may not have been a slugger, but three batting titles and an MVP as a catcher is impressive, as holding a record three batting titles at the position is greatness.

Advanced stats love Hernandez but I don't see any meaningful argument that if you were considering peaks, his was better than Mattingly's. Mattingly was the best player in baseball, a proto Albert Pujols. No one has ever said that about Keith Hernandez.

I don't think anyone is saying Mattingly didn't have some better years than Hernandez at his very peak. The issue is Mattingly only had 3 amazing years (1984-86), 3 good years (1987-89), and then not much.

Hernandez had 3 amazing years, 2 great years, 4 good years, and a few decent years. Remember, Hernandez had 3 top 5 MVP finishes (including his win), and got MVP votes 6 other times.

It doesn't hurt that Hernandez was a key player on World Series winning teams in two different cities. Mattingly played on some great Yankees teams, but played in a single playoff series (which he played great in, but they lost).

Growing up in the NY suburbs, I loved Mattingly. I still remember the day I got his Rookie Card when I was 8 years old--my first big baseball card purchase (not a great investment). I didn't see Hernandez's best days. But its hard not to see Hernandez' value.

Because every thread needs cards. Congrats to the Class of 2024!

Agree with and understand are two completely different things. We all understand why they are not in and it is disingenuous to pretend that is not so, just as the previous claim. What this has to do with Mauer is a complete and total mystery, if you are not arguing against him and brought these things up for no reason at all after criticizing his candidacy with your completely real multi-week street survey.

I think that actually makes Hernandez look worse, not better. Even with better health and more productive seasons his career numbers are pretty much the same or less than a hobbled Mattingly.

I think they both get in one day, with Mattingly getting in first.

Of the short peak guys of the 80's--Murphy, Mattingly, Gooden, Hershiser, Saberhagen, Dave Stieb, etc. I'd put Murphy and Hershiser in first.

One could argue that the Hall has been watered-down since the 1937 election of Morgan Bulkeley, who was president of the NL for one year (the first year).

It has been conjectured that because Ban Johnson (the first president of the AL) was elected that year that the NL needed to be represented by Bulkeley.

Hof
 

As a point of reference on your championship comparison for Mattingly vs. Hernandez, Mattingly was consistently a victim of being part of great run producing teams with mediocre pitching at best. Both the Cardinals & Mets boasted strong to outstanding pitching staffs for Hernandez’s two championships. No solid pitching….no championships. FYI, I totally respected Hernandez and think both him and Mattingly merit a closer look at joining the HOF. It’s certainly not a “hands down” decision, but the argument can be made for either side (especially considering some of the “suspect” choices being made over the years).

Regarding the Clemens, Bonds, Alex Rodriguez HOF issue, it may boil down to were these players HOF caliber BEFORE they subjected themselves to PEDS. The answer to that question is YES. However, are we now in a baseball environment whereby any player who is safely assumed to have participated in taking steroids to elevate their performance automatically banned from Cooperstown? Don’t know if there is a definitive answer to that question. I will say this….I find it very troubling that baseball’s all time hit, home run and Cy Young Award kings are all excluded from Cooperstown. It truly places a black mark on the game. I am an avid pitching coach in my spare time, and can promise you that so many aspiring young ball players partake in some form of performance enhancing drugs (illegal or legal) because there is simply too much money at stake. Whether it is jockeying for position to achieve a potential MLB high draft pick slot or besting their peers for a college scholarship, PEDs are widespread at some particular level. When does it end? It won’t because the almighty dollar rules most people’s lives. Sad to say, this is where our National Pastime is at.

My tribute to our new Hall of Fame additions!

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/~V4AA...4h/s-l1600.jpg

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/5-sAA...ff/s-l1600.jpg

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/RNQAA...Eu/s-l1600.jpg

I don't get to show these off very often, since signed index cards are not all that glamorous, and get harder and harder to find. I like the simplicity and the total focus on the signature.

^^^^^ Scott - those index card signatures are sweet! Thanks for sharing

Thank you- sorry for the oversized images.

Which years are you calling "amazing" for Hernandez? Or "great"?

So 5 seasons that were great or better?

If you rank them in order by slugging, Hernandez's 5th best was .449. Is that great? His 5th best season in homers was 13. His 5th best season in hits was 171. By WAR, his 5th best season was 5.0. Heck, his best was 7.6 - below the 8.0 that is generally deemed "MVP level".

Even Hernandez's best season, 1979, was it really "amazing"? .344 with 11 homers? .340 with 11+ homers was done 10 different times in the 1970s - twice by Rod Carew. If something is done basically every year, is it really amazing?

Yeah, I would call a 7.6 bWAR year, where a guy wins MVP "amazing."

Let's rank the top 14 seasons by Mattingly (M) and Hernandez (H) by bWAR.

1)H: 7.6 2)M: 7.2 3)H: 6.7 4)M: 6.5 5/6) M/H: 6.3 (tie) 7)H: 5.5 8)M: 5.1 9)H: 5 10)H: 4.6 11)H:4.4 12/13)M/H: 4.2 14) H: 4.1

That's 9 for Hernandez and 5 for Mattingly.

Now you will say, but Hernandez didn't hit for power. This is true, but he was arguably the greatest fielding first baseman ever.

Now you will say "But I'm smarter than WAR, and I, unlike WAR, know that being a good first baseman doesn't matter."

I would say that usually it is hard to have a large fielding impact as first baseman, unless you are Keith Hernandez. He was just that good.

An accepted standard for defensive value is total zone defense (Rtot). Though, imperfect, Rtot shows the importance a first baseman can have. Keith Hernandez' Total Zone Defense was 117. He is 40th all-time of any player ever going back to the 50s when the stat measures to.

By comparison, Bill Mazeroski's Total Zone Defense (rTot) was 147, Omar Vizquel's 129, Mike Schmidt's 127, Don Mattingly 33, and Will Clark's was 2.

I'm not sure why you're mentioning Mattingly since I didn't ask about him or mention him in any way.

A WAR of 7.6 is really good. But amazing? Nah. He finished FOURTH in WAR that year in the NL, 3rd among position players.

But, I'll go with that incredibly loose definition of "amazing" and concede his 1979 was amazing. What was his other amazing season? His three great ones?

And, yeah, I basically don't care about defense at first base. It's importance is very, very low when evaluating 1B.

Nice autos and the pics were resized.
.

can we elect them and not have to listen to them?

Thanks and thanks!

I can't imagine anyone thinking that Joe Mauer doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, he has three batting titles as a catcher and his career was shortened because of injuries from playing the position. People seem to be okay with Sandy Koufax being in despite the short part of his career that was actually successful.