Best team with no HOFers or HOF caliber players?
 

I don't have the answer in mind. Second part is to take steroid exclusions out of the analysis. Also, players not yet eligible. Not exactly sure when Sutton left the Dodgers but maybe one of the post-Sutton teams?

The 1884 Maroons come to mind first.

The Giants sort of had a dynasty in the early 2010s winning World Series in 2010, 2012, and 2014. Their best players were probably Madison Bumgarner, Buster Posey, Tim Lincecum and Barry Zito. All fine players, but I don't see any of them getting into the HOF any time soon.


Also, the Kansas City Royals won the Word Series in 2015 in 5 games and lost it in 7 games the year before and their best players were probably Salvador Perez, Alex Gordon, Erik Hosmer, Alex Rios and Ben Zobrist. Unlike the Giants from a few years earlier, they had few to no pitching stars, unless you consider Lorenzo Cain, Edison Volquez, or their closer Greg Holland to be stars.

Good call on both teams.

really like your pick with the Giants.

Those players just all spiked with career bests during those years at the same time. And then some faded away while others had some respectable to strong careers

The 2008 Rays had nobody and they managed to win 97 games in the AL East. Lost to the Phillies in the series but their best players were Carlos Pena, Evan Longoria and Carl Crawford.

1962 angels, 86 - 76, 3rd in AL. They had nobody.

I am not a Giants fan and I am not saying Buster Posey is a shoe-in HoFer...but he was NL Rookie of the Year and a NL MVP...he was a World Series Champ 3 times in his first 5 full seasons...he was a catcher with a lifetime batting average above .300 and he even won a NL batting title...even though his career was not lengthy (less than 1,400 games), his WAR (yes, I know...what is it good for) is the 7th best All-Time as a catcher and better than many catchers that are in the Hall with longer careers...if anybody from those Giants teams from 2010-2014 is deserving it is Posey.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Question: What WAR numbers are you looking at? I am looking at career WAR numbers for catchers, and Posey ranks 16th, just behind Wally Schang, Gene Tenace, and Thurman Munson. That being said, any of those guys could get in some day, but I think Munson may have the best shot, do to his untimely death.

Posey and Munson have similar credentials. Both were 7x All Stars, both won Rookie of the year, both won MVP. Posey won 3 World Series, to Munsey's 2. Munsey was probably the better fielder, and won 3 Gold Gloves, to Posey's 1.

Maybe he was looking at best 7 years stretch, in which Posey ranks comfortably above the HOF catchers average in WAR.

Munson's a good comparison, who also does well in the prime years ratings. Minus a couple MVP's, Campanella's MLB career could also be argued to be a decent comparison to Posey.

Even with 3 MVP's and a strong Negro League background, it took Campanella at least 5 tries to get into the HOF.

Catching is tough!

My first instinct was that Posey was a no-brainer for the HOF. Might not be as cut and dry as I thought, re-looking back at his total career stats.

Posey ranks 10th in WAR7. Munson 8th.

I see them both getting in.....Eventually

IMO Posey is a clear HOFer.

I think Posey is a lock for the HOF as well and I don't see a lot of similarities between his career and Munson's. Posey won a batting title, which is very unusual for a catcher. I can't think of an unusual aspect of Munson's game or anything that would separate him from another borderline catcher. Posey also went out on his own terms with a monster final season. His OPS+ is significantly higher than Munson's and even their prime OPS+ numbers put Posey significantly ahead in terms of production in any single season.

So you don't see any similarities between two catchers that both won Rookie of the Year, both won MVP, both were 7x All Stars, both won multiple World Series, and both won Gold Gloves?

As far as peak goes, Munson's WAR 7 is higher than Posey's.

Last, Posey played 229 games at first base, so he needed to be a better hitter than Munson to be a fair comparison.

No, I don't see any comparison. Munson was not the player Posey was, for several reasons:

Posey was a 300 hitter for his career. Munson was not. This is an important stat for catchers as they are rarely 300 hitters.

Posey won a batting title. Another rarity for catchers.

Posey has a career OPS+ of 129 compared to Munson's 116.

Munson's prime wasn't all that special either. The year he won MVP his OPS+ was 126, below Posey's career average. Posey's OPS+ during his MVP season was 171 and led the league.

Again, Posey was doing special things and Munson was not.

So you aren't even going to acknowledge that Posey played a season as a half as a first baseman?

How does it factor into anything? I'm not going to mention Munson's untimely death either.

Looks like Munson appeared as a DH 77 times and had another 50 plus appearances in the outfield himself. Not sure it matters, does it?

Is this a serious question? Frist base is arguably the easiest fielding position.
So people that play First Base are generally players that hit well and field poorly. If you don't hit extremely well, then you probably can't make an MLB roster as a first baseman.

An above average hitting catcher is way more valuable to a team than 1st baseman that only hits slightly better. This is the exact reason why Munson's WAR and WAR7 are higher than Posey's. That and Munson was arguably a better fielder. Fielding matters as a catcher. Munson lead the League in throwing out runners twice. Posey never did.

What's wrong with resting players? On the days Posey played first, isn't it reasonable for a team to still want him in the line up and be interested in resting his knees? He wasn't in the universal DH era.

I guess you didn't see my edit above that included Munson appearing as a DH 77 times and an outfielder over 50 times himself.

As the OP I don't accept the Giants answer LOL. Any other candidates?

The only MLB catcher in the HOF with a higher OPS+ than Posey is Mike Piazza. Mickey Cochrane is also at 129. Posey is going in easy, probably a 1st ballot HOFer.

The 2002 Angels are the champion most likely to never have a HOFer.

Posey had 838 plate appearances at 1B, 133 as DH and 66 as PH

Munson had 19 plate appearances at 1B, 336 as DH and 64 as PH. Munson also had played appearances at RF (92), LF (14), and 3B (3). In other words, Munson was more versatile than Posey.

I am not saying Posey doesn't belong in the HOF. I am saying that it might be a bitter pill to swallow if Posey made it in before Munson.

Well prepare yourself because he's almost certainly a first ballot HOFer and Munson is unlikely to see another vote.

Observation from casual fan - I assumed Posey was first ballot and had sick numbers. That was the feeling I got from watching the Giants in those every other year championships. He seemed to be the guy keeping it together and getting big hits (from the catcher position) all the darn time. When I just looked at his numbers was surprised to see that a legit argument could be made to keep him out. I’d certainly vote him in but not as slam dunk as I would have thought.

AGREED! Though David Eckstein is one of my all-time favorites.

Well, if every catcher decided to hang up their cleats at age 34, there might be some others with a higher OPS+ than Posey. Berra comes to mind.

Posey didn't even reach 5,000 at bats in his career. More than 50 other catchers did.

Speaking of possible HOF catchers:
(Peter- please excuse this hijack of your thread)

How would you rank Posey, Mauer & Molina?


Would they all get in? None?


Make your arguments.
.

One interesting Posey tidbit, if my memory of the game is right, in Bumgarner's astonishing long relief stint to win the WS, he did not shake off Posey's signs even once.

I was wondering the same question.

I would go 1) Mauer with Posey closely behind. Molina is 3rd. He just wasn't a great hitter.

(Sorry I've posted so much in Peter's thread)

Kirk Gibson Dodgers?

The 2005 White Sox were pretty bland too. they had Konerko and Dye but no one is going to remember them unless you were from Chicago. With a pitching staff anchored by Buehrle and Jon Garland and Dustin Hermanson closing for you. Oof.

Wow an examining the line up a little further shows that only 3 of the starting 9 had an OPS+ over 100 that year. Pretty hard to believe they were champs.

They did have Big Frank but he only appeared in 34 games and didn't appear in the postseason.

I believe '88 was Don Sutton's final year.

What about the 2016 Cubs? They won 103 games and the World Series.

Their best players were Kris Bryant, Anthony Rizzo, Javier Baez, Ben Zobrist and a young Kyle Schwarber.

Pitchers were Jon Lester, Jake Arrieta, John Lackey, Kyle Hendricks.

'Back in the day':

Attachment 582354

A couple of the early 70s Yankee teams were pretty good but no HOFers I don't think.

Yanks never won in the early 70s, but did in '77 and '78 with Reggie Jackson and Catfish Hunter. They had Gossage in '78, but not '77.

Not to mention the borderline guys like Nettles, Randolph, Munson and Guidry.

1970 team won 93 games, that's not bad.

I think they all make it. I would adopt your order, although on a different team Mauer might have enjoyed more accolades.

Is there a HOF player on the 1997 Florida Marlins? Gary Sheffield (60 WAR) and Kevin Brown (67 WAR) come to mind as the best players.

And not yet enshrined, the 2004 Florida Marlins I think are also without a HOF. Waiting for Miguel Cabrera (67 WAR), though. but technically it still counts.

Not my card. But I remember he was one of the hot cards to chase in 2002, especially in Topps 206. My order is 1) Mauer, 2) Posey, and 3) Molina....I can't stand him.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...7a75b21099.jpg

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

If you read my question, I am excluding players who would be in but for steroids (Sheffield) and who aren't eligible yet but obviously are in (Cabrera).

Kevin Brown is an interesting player, his stats seem much better than his acclaim.

Kevin Brown has also been linked to steroids:
https://www.thesportster.com/basebal...#8-kevin-brown

Yeah but it's not like he would have been voted in otherwise, IMO. He never got much love.

1993 Phillies won the pennant with no HOFers although Schilling.

2008 and 2009 Phillies won and lost the World Series with no definite HoFers. Utley and Rollins are borderline with Utley probably with a better chance than Rollins.

It's interesting (to me at least) how close Utley, Whitaker and Grich's stats are.

All 3 had career batting averages between .266 (Grich) and .276 (Whitaker)

Their career HRs range from 224 (Grich) to 259 (Utley)

Whitaker and Utley had an OPS+ of 117, with Grich a little higher at 125.

They were All-Stars 5x (Whitaker) or 6x (Grich and Utley)

They all won 1 World Series each.

Their WARs range from 64.5 (Utley) to Whitaker (75.1).

I think Utley eventually gets in, but he should at least have to wait for Whitaker.

Grich is about as borderline as they come, despite a WAR over 70.

I never compared their stats before but they are all pretty close as you indicated. As a Phillies fan I would be happy to see Utley get in, but injuries may have cost him even with the 5-6 year peak that he had.

Whitaker and Grich were both one and done on HoF ballots. I would think Utley gets over 5% on his first ballot this year but it will be interesting to see how much above 5%.

1981 Dodgers?

1985 Blue Jays. Second best record in MLB, (99-62), AL east champions. They had some "Hall of Very Gooders", but nobody on the roster even came close to Cooperstown.

I was thinking about them, but its hard to say how dominant they really were, due the '81 strike. Their record was 63-47 for 2nd best in the NL West.

And they eeked by in both their Divisional and NL Championship Series with 3-2 series wins.

If Jeff Kent isn't making it, I'm just not seeing Utley, technical stats or not.

89 Giants made it to the Series with basically no names at all.

Agreed, but they're only the second champion we've been able to come up with i think, besides the Angels.

Did you see my posts about the Cubs (#33) and Royals (#3)? Sorry, I know I’ve posted a lot in this thread.

OH, right you are, my mindset going in was teams from the past, not teams with current players but those are good.

I thought of them too, but Goose Gossage was on the team for most of the season (though he left before the post season).

Oops. I didn't remember that, only his fellow 73 Topps rookie Rick Reuschel.

If you don't like Molina's chances the 2011 Cardinals maybe? Am I missing someone there, I don't think Wainwright makes it.

Pujols was on the 2011 Cardinals

Kent has a WAR a lot lower than Utley, Grich and Whitaker. Thrre are a number of second baseman who it's hard to see how one gets in but others don't.

Oral Hershiser has 200 wins and 56 WAR, a Cy Young and 3 other top 4 finishes. I am not saying he will make it, but Jim Kaat just made it with 50.5 WAR and finished 4th in the Cy Young voting once.

Ah, I was off in my mind by a year on his departure.

Jeff Kent
 

If Jeff Kent had put up the bulk of his traditional stats as a 2nd Baseman in almost any other period of baseball history other then the late 90's to mid 2000's (and playing in the shadow/infamy of Bonds), he likely would have sailed in to the Hall a long time ago.

A lot of the players around him dampened his analytical numbers (and let's be honest, that's what we go by nowadays), with all of the monster offensive seasons going on around the rest of the league during that time period, he was killed by the grading curve of the era.

If Kent put up the same stats as a 2nd baseman, that he put up in 1997 to 2007, from 1977 to 1987 instead, he'd probably have a career WAR number in the range of Joe Morgan.

Lastly, I don't recall Kent ever being implicated in PEDS, but I'm sure it's hard for a lot of voters to shake a couple thoughts:

#1. He was Bonds team-mate for so long (even if they hated each other), along with team-mates with lots of other suspected PEDs cheats on other teams...and

#2. All his best seasons were essentially post prime seasons for most other players in the league (age 30 to 39).

It might just be guilt by association, but it does create certain doubts.

How did the players around him dampen his analytical numbers?

Kent has some surface level totals that might impress you if you only looked at his raw numbers for home runs but baseball Reference has him ranked as the 21st best second baseman, with Ian Kinsler ranked just above him.

All of his advanced stats are below the average 2B Hall of Famer.

But isn't the point of the analytics that Kent likely would NOT have put up those same numbers in a different era?

Maybe I'm not being clear enough. I'm not posing an argument for why Jeff Kent SHOULD be in the HOF, but rather, why he is not...regardless of my personal beliefs.

That Giants team reminds me of the 1986 Mets. Only HOF: Gary Carter.

The more other players have monster seasons around you (whether they are on PEDS or not), the less valuable your semi-monster season is going to be, from a replacement value perspective.

Again, I'm not arguing for him to be in the HOF, but when you say "surface level"...do you mean HR's, RBI's, Runs, Extra Base Hits, OBP, etc., etc., etc....

Baseball Reference has him ranked based on WAR alone.

However, Jeff Kent ranks 43rd All-Time in extra base hits...(a pretty good catch-all for your quality of batted balls to me). The only regular 2nd basemen ahead of him are Rogers Hornsby and Craig Biggio.

He's 54th All-Time in RBI's. Hornsby and Lajoie are the only regular 2nd basemen ahead of him in this category.

His surface level lifetime BA, Slugging%, OBP, OPS, and even OPS+ are all pretty impressive for a 2nd baseman IMO.

He was a competent but not spectacular 2nd baseman defensively. This does not help his overall WAR. He was thought of highly enough for multiple teams to keep trotting him out there though. Even supplanting an aging Biggio in Houston near the end of his own career.

I wasn't arguing otherwise. Just hypothesizing what his raw stats might have translated to in a slightly different era.

Isn't your WAR based on your performance alone? I'm not understanding how another player having a good year would negatively affect your own WAR.

Many of WAR’s components are contextual - it won’t value the same stat line the same way in 1927, 1967, and 2007. Because much of it is contextual to the league when you have lots of guys posting monster numbers you don’t necessarily get monster WAR. Hence why there aren’t 25 guys from c. 2000 with 100 WAR.

It's not just "another" player. It's all the other players in that particular season. All your immediate contemporaries. It's basically being judged on a curve, according to everybody else's performance. Stats were generally inflated across much of the league during most of his best years, therefore his stats don't look quite as impressive in the context of his times, therefore he gets dinged on his overall WIN Shares by the algorithm.

If Jeff Kent puts up the same stat line as a 2nd baseman in 1978 as he did in 1998, I'd guess he'd have accumulated at least 3 more Win Shares that season.

I'm not saying he would have, I'm saying "if he did".

In the end, I guess it doesn't really mean anything. Just more chatter in the year 2023. ;)

I would have saved a lot of time, if I had figured out how to say what you had just said. :D:D

Before Larkin was inexplicably let into the HOF, my answer would have been the 1990 Reds.

I think a good argument can still be made that the Reds did not have a legit HOF caliber player that year and still won it all.

I think the same could be said about the 1940 Reds, whose only Hall of Famer was Ernie Lombardi, who is probably the weakest catcher in the HOF besides Rick Ferrell.

I think Larkin, a 12x all-star, 9x silver slugger, and former MVP is HOF material, myself. Larkin also hit .353 in the World Series in their sweep of the A's.

Fred McGriff was probably impacted by this as well since his 493 home runs didn't seem as impressive when guys are getting to 600 and 700.

Why does Lombardi get no love? Two batting titles as a catcher is pretty impressive.

Fred McGriff really kind of gets screwed by this and the steroid guys. The Hall standard the the steroid guys can't make it but the writers don't want to put in guys at offensive positions who didn't post numbers as gaudy as the steroid guys makes for an extremely high standard different from previous eras. Was glad to see the committee put him in.

Are you really saying Larkin is not HOF quality? In addition to the stats already listed, he is the best SS of the 1990s, has a peak performance as good as Jeter, was a 20/20 member in 1991, and became the first 30/30 SS in 1996. Barry Larkin (like Ripken Jr, and Yount) are the bridge generation from defense first SS to dual threat shortstops.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

SS's in the Hall better than Larkin:
Appling
Banks
Boudreau
Cronin
Davis
Jeter
Ripken
Vaughn
Wagner
Yount

SS's in the Hall I'm undecided if are better than Larkin:
Wallace


SS's in the Hall worse than Larkin:
Aparicio
Bancroft
Jackson
Maranville
Reese
Rizzuto
Sewell
Smith (unpopular opinion)
Tinker
Trammell


I have a hard time seeing how Larkin is 1) not a deserving HOF SS, and 2) so ill-deserved that his election is inexplicable. He's better than about 50% of the SS's in. He's certainly better than the bottom 5.

Any reasonable argument here, or just hot take bias?

I assume you are looking at WAR. But I read some years ago that JAWS has Jeter and Larkin neck-and-neck, the difference being .5 pts.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk