I don't doubt that but how can you really know unless you saw Campanella catch regularly?

Munson posted a 101 OPS+ in 1978, and was at 95 in 1979, below league average. He was entering his decline already, but only a year and a half into it. Fisks prime was fairly similar to Munsons, except he then had a second career as a decent to good catcher after it. The rate stats argument that eliminates what would have been Munsons decline but includes Fisks isn’t fair, compare to prime to prime if we want to argue that their value during their good years means Munson is a Hall of Famer.

Wouldn’t be the worst catcher in the hall, one of the better ones who is not in the hall. He’s a fine choice, but I would probably vote no personally.
By WAR, the best non-HOF’ers are
Schang
Trance
Munson
Freehan
Posada
Kendall
Porter
Sundberg

All of whom are between 40-49 WAR. None of them feel like hall of famers to me.

If Munson had played almost anywhere but NY people would not even be having these discussions, IMO.

The good news is that 100% of the people reading this agree with you…but only half have the same conclusions you do. :D

MOLINA's
 

Yadi perhaps deserves consideration as the best defensive catcher of all-time. His stats off the charts, however, I believe in intangibles......that is why Bengie and Jose should be included in this discussion! :rolleyes:

Maybe he's not a HOFer but I always thought Jorge Posada deserved more respect than a one and done ballot guy.

I won't say anything bad about Bench, but sounds like Campy was right there.

He twice beat out Josh Gibson for starting catcher in Negro League All Star games, and after his late start to the Majors he won 3 MVPs, when the competition for that award was the likes of Jackie Robinson, Stan Musial, Eddie Mathews, Willie Mays, Ernie Banks, Duke Snider and Hank Aaron.

...and Vin Scully said he was the best he'd seen, so that's a nice recommendation on the ole' resume.

Overshadowed by many other big names but definitely a key to those great teams. You could do a lot worse than put him behind the plate for a decade and a half. Even as a Red Sox fan I always liked him for some reason.

I'd end up at no on Posada, but I think he merited actual consideration. There are a lot of guys who are not getting any real examination and immediately falling off the ballot these days that deserve better. Lofton, Posada, Delgado all 1 and done candidates.

"Indian" Bob Johnson. Career starts at age 27. 13 year career never once had an OPS+ below 125. Never. Once. Also one of the best fielders of his era with massive outfield assist numbers. Only one year with a WAR under 3.0 (it was his final year when he had a 3.9. 8 100 RBI season out of 13 (on some bad Philadelphia A's teams mind you). Six years of 100+ runs. More walks than strikeouts.

Hall Of Famer

I approve of this post :)

We made it through 359 posts. :)

Billy Wagner only getting 10% seems a little low.

The Billy Wagner chart really isn’t an apples to apples comparison. Fingers, Gossage and Hoyt played a different game as relievers. They were often asked to pitch multiple innings or come in with an out in the 7th. If you want to compare Wagner you have to look at guys like John Franco or Fransisco Rodriquez. If Wagner goes in don’t those guys have to go in to ?

Yeah let's see him next to Rivera and even Hoffman.

I agree with you on how Wagner was used compared to Wilhelm, Gossage, & Sutter. As far as comparing him to Franco or Rodriquez. They basically are close on saves. Franco pitched a half dozen more years than Wagner to amass 400+ saves. Wagner’s era was a lot better than Rodriquez. As a closer, I think Wagner is overlooked.

Modern closers
 

I have no interest in modern closers getting in. When any 1-3 (and often 4-5) starter can convert to a reliever, only use their two best pitches, and ramp up their mph for one inning of work and be as good or better than most relievers, I don’t see how it makes sense to honor the save like we do. These guys are the not good enough to start guys, why should they get in? I’m not saying they aren’t useful, or even valuable. I’m not saying I don’t want great relievers on my favorite team. What I’m saying is that it doesn’t make sense to honor players as the best when the reason they are doing the job they are doing is because they aren’t the best.

And...
 

I wouldn’t choose them for all star games either. I know it makes strategic sense to get one inning guys for a game like that, but it doesn’t make all-star sense.

Of course if you use WAR, you get a very different result in terms of comparing Wagner even to the 70s and 80s guys. Cherry picked data.

I agree that closers shouldn’t be in the hall outside of Mario Rivera. But when they put Sutter in Wagner was brought up as getting no traction. I’m biased as I was born and raised in Houston. And yes I’m still stoked about the 2017 World Championship. I went to the first Colt 45’s game, so I waited for along time.

We had a really good discussion of this I think when Rivera made the Hall.

Only pitcher w/ more career K's than Total Bases Allowed (min. 1,000 K’s): Wagner 1,196 K - 953 TB

1,382 pitchers have thrown 900+ innings in their career. 2 have a WHIP -1.000:
Wagner & Addie Joss

Guy was dominant.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

Jake daubert a premier 1st baseman of the deadball era who belongs in the hall of fame.
August herrmann consider one of the fathers of the world series and made peace between the nl and al by giving up sam crawford to Detroit and Tony mullane.

Shouldn’t the HOF be just starting pitchers, shortstops, and center fielders? I mean, those guys could play anywhere, and everyone else wasn’t good enough to play there. :rolleyes::D

If being a modern closer is so easy, why have there been only 30 of them to amass even 300 saves (and only 12 with 350)?

Rivera was the best of all time…but just because you saw Babe Ruth doesn’t mean you shouldn’t appreciate the greatness of Lou Gehrig.

Absolutely, if fielding was the only thing they did.

Because saves are so insignificant teams didn’t strategize to amass them until recent changes in the game. Because designating one guy to amass the save stat is largely arbitrary and not done, or not consistently done, by all teams. Because there are a limited number of saves that can be gotten each season. Because closers are a dime a dozen, so a bout of bad luck or the whim of a manager can bump a closer down the line at any time for any length of time, regardless of how great the pitcher may be. Because some amassers of saves are better than closers and are moved from save-getter into the starting lineup.

Something I'm interested in seeing is how Voters are going to handle some of the modern starting pitchers considering the game has changed so much. I always think of a pitcher like DeGrom who unfortunately has caught a bit of the injury bug this season, but it's difficult to deny his dominance. He'll be 34 next year but one would think he still has a few more years left. I'm wondering how his Hall of Fame case will be handled.

I don't think we're going to see another 300 game winner, anytime soon. Is 250 games going to be the new 300? Scherzer has an outside shot at it, so does Greinke. Will be interesting to see.

I'm not saying you're wrong but if closers are a dime a dozen, shouldn't the elite of the elite become HOFers? What Rivera was able to do as a closer and for so long is extremely rare. Same thing with Hoyt Wilhelm. These guys are no doubters in my mind. They were so far away from dime a dozen it wouldn't make sense not to have them in the HOF.

Rivera
 

I understand we have to deal with what is, but I have a hard time believing there aren’t a thousand great starters who would have been even better if they only prepped for and gave all effort to one inning when already staked with the lead. That is why the sentiment of Rivera being the guy if you needed one inning is nonsense to me. Let me see the hundreds of Hall of Fame starters prepare for and only be depended on for one inning and then I’ll tell you if Mariano is the guy or not. I highly doubt it would be so clear. Frank Tannana, Roy Oswalt, Chuck Finley, these and many many more really good pitchers can easily be imagined having long and successful careers as one-inning closers. They weren’t because they were too good to waste on that, especially when there was a plethora of not-as-good guys to be maximized in a short stint when only one great pitch is needed.

Keith Hernandez closes out the most games as a hitter, nobody talks about this stat when making Keith’s case. But it is essentially the same statistic as a save.

What about Lenny Harris? Should he be in for all time pinch hits? Sure, he isn’t good enough to be a starter, but look at him shine in his fraction of the game.

Again, I think you're vastly oversimplifying what a closer does. There is a reason hardly any closers close out games for 20 years. There is nothing to doubt about Rivera. He is as good as you will ever get at the position. Roy Oswalt would not have been better than he was.

To the fan, the ninth inning seems more dramatic and important. But the reality is that the team that scores the most runs over all nine innings wins. Therefore, all runs count the same, as do all runs prevented. Therefore, a rational team should want its best pitchers throwing the most innings, not limiting them to specialized innings which is a fallacy.

The popular line about Rivera was that he made it an 8 inning game. Why wouldn't that have been equally true (if it was) had he pitched the first inning of the same games?

The team that scores the most runs wins, but games are decided in the 9th inning. That's when you need to win the game. You can't win the game with 7 strong.

Did you read the article I posted?

A run scored is a run scored. A run prevented is a run prevented. If you didn't give up the 2 in the first, you would be in a dramatically different place heading into the 9th.

No. If you score 3 in the first and the score is 3-2 in the 9th, you don't win for scoring 3 in the first. You win when the 9th inning is over and you're still ahead.

Disagree fundamentally.

Is there any other team sport with specialists who play only at the end of the game?

Asserting that the game is decided or won in the 9th doesn’t make it true.

IF you're a football fan you're probably familiar with your kicker.

Then let the pinch hitters in.... Manny Mota, Smoky Burgess and Lenny Harris belong in the Hall of Fame!

Only a handful of Kickers are in the HOF. I do agree there should be more.

But Kickers and Punters play the entire game. I have seen missed field goals that occur in the first half, which undoubtedly cost their respective teams many many games.

The kicker is a bad analogy. That is a distinct part of the game requiring distinct skills. A better one would be a two-minute drill quarterback.

A two minute drill quarterback who only comes into the game when there is a lead. He specializes in ball control and clock management. If only there were players like that to elect into the football hall!

Yes. Far better analogy.

Well, football and baseball are entirely different sports I was thinking of a player whose job it is to come in at the end and win the game on one play as close to simulating a 9th inning man as possible. I came up with the kicker. But you get the idea.

Why is the finishing the 9th inning different for the pitcher than everyone else? 8 defenders are in the game to finish the ninth. As are the batter and any base runners. All are in the game to finish it as the winner. Yet only the pitcher gets a statistic for it. Bottom of the 9th inning game winning RBIs should be an equivalent stat. And what about a defensive metric for 9th inning putouts in the winning cause?

Game winning RBI is a stat. Hitting with RISP is a stat. Runners left on base is a stat.

I think you know why the pitcher gets a save even if you don't agree with the importance of a closer.

Kickers kick the whole game.