Thurman Munson Hall of Fame? And other careers cut short.

[Seven]

I recently noticed one of Heritage's latest posts on social media about a Thurman Munson game-used rookie era catcher’s mitt, that was brought in. It will eventually be auctioned off in February. Munson as many know, had his career abruptly come to an end, when he passed away in a plane crash.

It got me thinking, while he was most certainly exiting the prime years of his career, I think had that tragedy not happened, Munson would eventually had been elected to the Hall of Fame.

Firstly, I would like to ask if anyone would agree with my assessment? My second question would be can you think of any other players whose career were cut short, due to tragedy, that would've been Cooperstown bound?

[Peter_Spaeth]

The "no" argument is that he was already in steep decline when he died. If you can find old threads it's been debated many times before.

Addie Joss for one was cut short by tragedy although an exception was made for him or maybe the rules were not yet established.

[G1911]

Munson was a league average bat his final two years, his age 31 and 32 seasons. He was done as a significant player already; if anything his early death is the only reason he's given as a candidate - if he had played out his decline he would not be in the discussion as he wouldn't even have the rate stats (which are not particularly strong) to point to.

I think there's a reason Yankees fans bring this up a lot but he still isn't in. He wouldn't be the worst choice, it's not entirely unreasonable, but he's short of the general line of achievement that has gotten catchers in.

[Mike D.]

Munson vs. Joe Mauer, who's on the ballot for the 1st time this year via Baseball-Reference's cool "compare tool":



Mauer was worth 7.6 WAR after his age 32 season. If you cut those off and end both after their age 32 season, they're within 2.1 WAR for their career.

Munson's career WAR is higher than both Buster Posey and Yadier Molina, both of whom are often talked about as future Hall of Famers.

Personally, I think all four belong. Most of the catchers in the 40's WAR-wise wouldn't be terrible HOFers.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by G1911

Munson was a league average bat his final two years, his age 31 and 32 seasons. He was done as a significant player already; if anything his early death is the only reason he's given as a candidate - if he had played out his decline he would not be in the discussion as he wouldn't even have the rate stats (which are not particularly strong) to point to.

I think there's a reason Yankees fans bring this up a lot but he still isn't in. He wouldn't be the worst choice, it's not entirely unreasonable, but he's short of the general line of achievement that has gotten catchers in.

I think Munson would certainly be a better choice for the Hall of Fame than a recent selection like Harold Baines. I wish I could've seen Munson play, as he's a little before my time.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Seven

I think Munson would certainly be a better choice for the Hall of Fame than a recent selection like Harold Baines. I wish I could've seen Munson play, as he's a little before my time.

I think we could probably identify 75 or so HOF qualifying players who were more meritous than Baines. That one was absurdly corrupt. It's like we've returned to the Frisch era the last few years with the inconsistent choices that are clearly not reflective of actual merit or lack thereof.

[jingram058]

Munson should be in the HoF. He was the best catcher in baseball. It wasn't his fault he freaking died.

[Kutcher55]

Statistically he is probably a below average candidate, but he has the intangibles having been one of the key players on some historically important and memorable Yankee teams in the 70s. Some might say he was the backbone/spiritual leader of those Yankee teams. For those reasons, I don't think he'd be a terrible candidate.

In a way he reminds me of Steve Garvey. Same era, was a huge star in the game for many years, a marquee name and a clutch player on memorable teams. His WAR puts him well short, but probably more deserving than many including Harold Baines, or Lee Smith.

Fred Lynn is another one. Probably a near miss, but he was one of the best players in baseball for the better part of a decade. Injuries keep him out.

[packs]

Munson was just not an all time great player. Sorry, guys. I'm a huge Yankees fan but he's all mystique and no production. I would even say he's lucky to have an MVP on his resume, as George Brett was clearly the superior player in 1976 (Brett OPS+ was 144 with 7.5 WAR compared to 126 and 5.3 WAR for Munson).

Even in his prime he spent several seasons hovering around replacement level with OPS+ of 105, 101 and 101.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by packs

Munson was just not an all time great player. Sorry, guys. I'm a huge Yankees fan but he's all mystique and no production. I would even say he's lucky to have an MVP on his resume, as George Brett was clearly the superior player in 1976 (Brett OPS+ was 144 with 7.5 WAR compared to 126 and 5.3 WAR for Munson).

Even in his prime he spent several seasons hovering around replacement level with OPS+ of 105, 101 and 101.

Sorry packs, you're wrong. He was the best catcher in all of baseball.

[mckinneyj]

Originally Posted by jingram058

He was the best catcher in all of baseball.

Munson was a tremendous competitor, but, Bench, Fisk and Simmons might take issue with that "best" declaration.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by mckinneyj

Munson was a tremendous competitor, but, Bench, Fisk and Simmons might take issue with that "best" declaration.

They might. But Munson was as good or better than any of them. The three best catchers I ever saw were Berra, Bench and Munson.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Munson should be in the HoF. He was the best catcher in baseball. It wasn't his fault he freaking died.

Johnny Bench was the best catcher in baseball at that time. Not even close.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by packs

Munson was just not an all time great player. Sorry, guys. I'm a huge Yankees fan but he's all mystique and no production. I would even say he's lucky to have an MVP on his resume, as George Brett was clearly the superior player in 1976 (Brett OPS+ was 144 with 7.5 WAR compared to 126 and 5.3 WAR for Munson).

Even in his prime he spent several seasons hovering around replacement level with OPS+ of 105, 101 and 101.

A 100 OPS+ isn't replacement level it's league average and for a catcher it's above average. But yeah, I would have voted for Brett over Munson. Maybe Nettles as well.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Johnny Bench was the best catcher in baseball at that time. Not even close.

Yes it was close, Peter. Munson was the American League version.

[G1911]

I don’t see any reasonable case that Munson was either as good as Bench, or as bad as a replacement level player. At some point math and reality have to interfere with narrative. Must we always take the greatest of extremes?

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don’t see any reasonable case that Munson was either as good as Bench, or as bad as a replacement level player. At some point math and reality have to interfere with narrative. Must we always take the greatest of extremes?

Munson had a career .357 batting average in the postseason with three home runs, 22 RBIs and 19 runs scored. His batting average in the World Series was .373. Munson threw out 44.48% of base runners who tried stealing a base on him, ranking him 11th on the all-time list.[46]

1st all time – Singles in World Series, 9
10th all time – Batting average by catcher, .292
11th all time – Postseason batting average, .357
11th all time – Caught stealing percentage
16th all time – On base percentage by catcher
20th all time – OPS by catcher
24th all time – Slugging by catcher
26th all time – Hits by catcher
26th all time – Runs by catcher
AL Rookie of the Year (1970)
AL MVP (1976)
3× Gold Glove Award
3 AL Pennants
2 World Series titles
7× All Star

Yes his career was cut short. That's the only thing keeping him out of the HoF. All the other arguments or opinions are BS. No more discussion on this by me. There's nothing to discuss.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Munson had a career .357 batting average in the postseason with three home runs, 22 RBIs and 19 runs scored. His batting average in the World Series was .373. Munson threw out 44.48% of base runners who tried stealing a base on him, ranking him 11th on the all-time list.[46]

1st all time – Singles in World Series, 9
10th all time – Batting average by catcher, .292
11th all time – Postseason batting average, .357
11th all time – Caught stealing percentage
16th all time – On base percentage by catcher
20th all time – OPS by catcher
24th all time – Slugging by catcher
26th all time – Hits by catcher
26th all time – Runs by catcher
AL Rookie of the Year (1970)
AL MVP (1976)
3× Gold Glove Award
3 AL Pennants
2 World Series titles
7× All Star

Yes his career was cut short. That's the only thing keeping him out of the HoF. All the other arguments or opinions are BS. No more discussion on this by me. There's nothing to discuss.

Thurman had a great arm and an exceptionally quick release but he is not even close to 11th all time in caught stealing percentage. That stat is dominated by the old-timers like Ray Schalk and Roy Campanella.

[JollyElm]

Many/a lot(?) of us were around when Thurm was playing. He was a great catcher, a great leader, and a hard-nosed ballplayer who got things done. He was a huge part of whatever it was that got the Yanks back into prominence, and was beyond clutch in the post-season...yet, once again, when stats are shown, the first one is WAR. WAR is a goddamn theoretical stat. It seems the people who constantly trot it out are those who have never stepped onto a baseball diamond in their life, and base everything on what a computer tells them. I much rather listen to the guys who played with and against Munson to get the measure of him as a player (Here is where some snarky contrarian will jump in to quote a Yankee who had something less than stellar to say about him. Whatever.).

When he was playing (and admittedly statistically declining) he was thought of as a sure fire HOFer. That's important in his case, as he was looked at as one of the best around by both players and fans alike.

End of rant.

[nolemmings]

I can't give an objective opinion. Thurman Munson was my favorite player and meeting him was the highlight of my sportsfan life, short 60 seconds or so as it was.

[Mike D.]

I always find it amusing that people find WAR useful until they disagree with what it says about a borderline Hall of Famer, then it's garbage. Yet nobody looks at the list of top 10 career WAR and says "that list is absurd".

When talking about catchers who's career were "cut short", how about Mauer? He was a very good catcher who had a 135 OPS+. He played until he was 35, but at less valuable position (1B) and had a 105 OPS+.

Mauer was worth 44.6 WAR in his first 10 seasons, before he was forced off catching. He was worth 10.6 WAR in his final 5 seasons (post concussions). It stands to reason he'd have had some aging related loss of performance those last 5 years even if he didn't have the concussion.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Many/a lot(?) of us were around when Thurm was playing. He was a great catcher, a great leader, and a hard-nosed ballplayer who got things done. He was a huge part of whatever it was that got the Yanks back into prominence, and was beyond clutch in the post-season...yet, once again, when stats are shown, the first one is WAR. WAR is a goddamn theoretical stat. It seems the people who constantly trot it out are those who have never stepped onto a baseball diamond in their life, and base everything on what a computer tells them. I much rather listen to the guys who played with and against Munson to get the measure of him as a player (Here is where some snarky contrarian will jump in to quote a Yankee who had something less than stellar to say about him. Whatever.).

When he was playing (and admittedly statistically declining) he was thought of as a sure fire HOFer. That's important in his case, as he was looked at as one of the best around by both players and fans alike.

End of rant.

If we 1) toss out statistical evidence and 2) toss out any opinions other than that he is a Hall of Fame, then Munson is a Hall of Famer. You can arrange any outcome if you refuse to a admit any evidence that is not in accord with what you want to find

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Munson had a career .357 batting average in the postseason with three home runs, 22 RBIs and 19 runs scored. His batting average in the World Series was .373. Munson threw out 44.48% of base runners who tried stealing a base on him, ranking him 11th on the all-time list.[46]

1st all time – Singles in World Series, 9
10th all time – Batting average by catcher, .292
11th all time – Postseason batting average, .357
11th all time – Caught stealing percentage
16th all time – On base percentage by catcher
20th all time – OPS by catcher
24th all time – Slugging by catcher
26th all time – Hits by catcher
26th all time – Runs by catcher
AL Rookie of the Year (1970)
AL MVP (1976)
3× Gold Glove Award
3 AL Pennants
2 World Series titles
7× All Star

Yes his career was cut short. That's the only thing keeping him out of the HoF. All the other arguments or opinions are BS. No more discussion on this by me. There's nothing to discuss.

I can appreciate your passion, but we all know that Bench's accomplishments are significantly greater.

One can argue he is or is not a HOFer, but to argue he is above Bench is just not within the realm of reason.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I can appreciate your passion, but we all know that Bench's accomplishments are significantly greater.

One can argue he is or is not a HOFer, but to argue he is above Bench is just not within the realm of reason.

Let's not overlook the fact that he is NOT a HOFer. Historically, voting is not perfect, but it certainly suggests he's at best borderline. Can you imagine any doubt about Bench?

1981 BBWAA (15.5%)
1982 BBWAA ( 6.3%)
1983 BBWAA ( 4.8%)
1984 BBWAA ( 7.2%)
1985 BBWAA ( 8.1%)
1986 BBWAA ( 8.2%)
1987 BBWAA ( 6.8%)
1988 BBWAA ( 7.5%)
1989 BBWAA ( 6.9%)
1990 BBWAA ( 7.4%)
1991 BBWAA ( 6.3%)
1992 BBWAA ( 7.4%)
1993 BBWAA ( 9.5%)
1994 BBWAA ( 6.8%)
1995 BBWAA ( 6.5%)

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by G1911

If we 1) toss out statistical evidence and 2) toss out any opinions other than that he is a Hall of Fame, then Munson is a Hall of Famer. You can arrange any outcome if you refuse to a admit any evidence that is not in accord with what you want to find

Gee, not exactly a surprise to see you try to take a shot at yet another person here. Yawn. Perhaps, if you actually read what I wrote, you may notice that I didn't give an opinion on whether or not he belongs, I simply stated, "When he was playing (and admittedly statistically declining) he was thought of as a sure fire HOFer. That's important in his case, as he was looked at as one of the best around by both players and fans alike."

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Let's not overlook the fact that he is NOT a HOFer. Historically, voting is not perfect, but it certainly suggests he's at best borderline. Can you imagine any doubt about Bench?

1981 BBWAA (15.5%)
1982 BBWAA ( 6.3%)
1983 BBWAA ( 4.8%)
1984 BBWAA ( 7.2%)
1985 BBWAA ( 8.1%)
1986 BBWAA ( 8.2%)
1987 BBWAA ( 6.8%)
1988 BBWAA ( 7.5%)
1989 BBWAA ( 6.9%)
1990 BBWAA ( 7.4%)
1991 BBWAA ( 6.3%)
1992 BBWAA ( 7.4%)
1993 BBWAA ( 9.5%)
1994 BBWAA ( 6.8%)
1995 BBWAA ( 6.5%)

I don't think Munson is a strong candidate, but he also wouldn't be a shocking choice. He's a bit below the line, but not that far below it and he has the intangibles of having a lot of fanboys who don't care about math, a tragic story, and being a Yankee captain.

I just wouldn't use the vote results to make the case - a player is meritorious or not because he is or is not actually meritorious, not because the voters did X or Y.

The arguments that he is with Bench or Fisk or was replacement level during his prime are just absurdist reactions at opposite ends of the absurdity spectrum. It usually takes less than 15 posts in a HOF thread before we've devolved into a world that is completely distinct and separate from any actual reality.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Gee, not exactly a surprise to see you try to take a shot at yet another person here. Yawn. Perhaps, if you actually read what I wrote, you may notice that I didn't give an opinion on whether or not he belongs, I simply stated, "When he was playing (and admittedly statistically declining) he was thought of as a sure fire HOFer. That's important in his case, as he was looked at as one of the best around by both players and fans alike."

The shot was at the illogical setup, not the person. I know this board abolsutely hates logic and reason and loves ad hominem and outrage. I do not know you whatsoever. Perhaps if you read what I wrote, you would see the glaring logic issue.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don't think Munson is a strong candidate, but he also wouldn't be a shocking choice. He's a bit below the line, but not that far below it and he has the intangibles of having a lot of fanboys who don't care about math, a tragic story, and being a Yankee captain.

I just wouldn't use the vote results to make the case - a player is meritorious or not because he is or is not actually meritorious, not because the voters did X or Y.

The arguments that he is with Bench or Fisk or was replacement level during his prime are just absurdist reactions at opposite ends of the absurdity spectrum. It usually takes less than 15 posts in a HOF thread before we've devolved into a world that is completely distinct and separate from any actual reality.

I get it, but at the same time to me the fact of voters over 15 years being that unimpressed, who were from that period, is at least relevant, although of course not definitive.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by G1911

The shot was at the illogical setup, not the person. I know this board abolsutely hates logic and reason and loves ad hominem and outrage. I do not know you whatsoever. Perhaps if you read what I wrote, you would see the glaring logic issue.

You are going to talk to me about logic???? Good one. If you want to take shots at "this board," then take shots at it and leave me the eff out of it. Are we done, because I have things to do?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

You are going to talk to me about logic???? Good one. If you want to take shots at "this board," then take shots at it and leave me the eff out of it. Are we done, because I have things to do?

Yes, I pointed out the clear faulty logic in a debate thread. Yes, I can tell you are super busy and have many things to do. You are done whenever you want to be done, I have no control over that.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I get it, but at the same time to me the fact of voters over 15 years being that unimpressed, who were from that period, is at least relevant, although of course not definitive.

My only issue is that if I made this argument, that Munson is not deserving because the voters overwhelmingly thought he was not deserving, then I would have to take that argument for everyone else. For example, I would have to conclude that Arky Vaughn was a poor Vets Committee choice, because the voters overwhelmingly rejected him during his many years on the ballot. It seems to me the safe and fair argument to make about Munson, and to hold everyone to the same standard, is the mathematical one.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

My only issue is that if I made this argument, that Munson is not deserving because the voters overwhelmingly thought he was not deserving, then I would have to take that argument for everyone else. For example, I would have to conclude that Arky Vaughn was a poor Vets Committee choice, because the voters overwhelmingly rejected him during his many years on the ballot. It seems to me the safe and fair argument to make about Munson, and to hold everyone to the same standard, is the mathematical one.

The committees haven't put Munson in either.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The committees haven't put Munson in either.

Sure. If we want to say it with an added committee clause, "Munson shouldn't be in the HOF because the voters overwhelmingly rejected him AND the Vets committee has not put him in," we are still supposing that what HAS happened and what SHOULD happen are the same thing. Everyone who is in the HOF should be and everyone not in should not be.

[Mike D.]

Catcher, with 15 HOFers, is a position that is slightly misrepresented in the Hall of Fame, along with second base and third base.

Looking at the career WAR list, everyone with a WAR of 48 or higher and a WAR7 over 30 is already enshrined except Mauer, who should make it.

Looking down the list, Hall of Famer Roy Campanella sits at 42.0 with Roger Bresnahan a tick above him at 42.1.

Just below that are Jason Kendall (41.7), Darrell Porter (40.8), and Jim Sundberg (40.5). Those guys don't feel like Hall of Famers to me.

So, at least at the moment, 42 WAR "feels" like the area where players above that might be Hall of Fame catchers (in my opinion).

The catchers above 42.0 WAR who aren't in the Hall of Fame:

Wally Schang - 48.0 (lower than 30 WAR7 as referenced above)
Gene Tenace - 46.8
Buster Posey - 44.8
Bill Freehan - 44.8
Jorge Posada - 42.7
Yadier Molina - 42.3

Posey and Molina, who aren't yet eligible for the HOF ballot, are two catchers who have been often spoken of as future Hall of Famers. I don't disagree with that. For the others, are any of them NOT being in the Hall of Fame a travesty? Probably not. Would any of them being IN the Hall of Fame render the place a irrelevant storage unit for old baseball junk? Also no.

Also, there are 4 Hall of Fame catchers with less than 40 WAR (Gibson, Lombardi, Ferrell, Mackey).

After those six guys listed above, are there any current players on a Hall of Fame trajectory? Leaving out young but promising guys like Adley Rutschman, who's careers will be fun to watch develop?

J.T. Realmutoat 33.3 and Salvador Perez at 33.0 are the two with the best chance. After that, it's Willson Contreras at 24.2 and then a significant drop-off. So, even adding the six above plus Mauer wouldn't overload the Hall of Fame with catchers anytime soon.

If all of the above guys were in, is there anyone would put forth a compelling agreement for? Nobody jumps out at me, but I'd love to hear of any other candidates people would advocate for.

[Seven]

A lot of discussion happening, the caveat to my original question was had Munson lived, do you think he would've been a Hall of Famer? I think we can safely assume he would've ended up with over a 50 WAR. Maybe he impacts if the Yankees win in 1980 or 1981? Just a fun what if, I don't want people to be at each others throats!

[jingram058]

I hope he gets in, if only to shut the know it alls up. And, to Hell with WAR. It's f@cking stupid.

Edit - If you didn't see Munson play, or you just didn't like him or the Yankees, then your smug, self-righteous comments are equally f@cking stupid.

Go ahead, make some smug, snappy comeback. No one cares in this meaningless forum. I may read through to see, but that is my last, final word.

[Snapolit1]

Should be a special Hall of Fame for everyone's favorite player when they were 12 years old.

[G1911]

It will be interesting to see if there is any honest argument for Munson that is not a little child’s tantrum but instead an actual, reasoned case.

[brian1961]

Originally Posted by G1911

It will be interesting to see if there is any honest argument for Munson that is not a little childÂ’s tantrum but instead an actual, reasoned case.

Greg, 'ol boy, this thread had been bothering me since it was initiated. Thurman Munson's career is simply not one where you crunch numbers ad nauseum and out pops HOF deservability. The fact that the BBWAA did not deem him worthy over the 15 years of eligibility is not surprising when you consider Thurm's relationship to the press. Correct me if I'm wrong, but adjectives, terms and responses like jovial, easy to approach, always happy to help you, and any more questions for me, were perhaps NEVER attributed to the man.

Thurman Munson was a throwback to Jackie Robinson and how Leo Durocher described him:
"You want a guy who comes to play. This guy didn't just come to play. He come to beat ya. He come to stuff the ---damn bat right up your ass."

Thurman Munson was no shrinking violet---he was "IN YOUR FACE"! I would imagine the working press did not take too kindly to him as the years went on.

So, Reggie "biggest hot dog ever" Jackson did not say he was the straw that stirs the drink, regarding that controversial 1977 interview. Many years later, Jackson said he would never talk bad about the team's captain. After all, it was Munson who encouraged George Steinbrenner to go get Reggie for the Yanks.

Great advice.

Going back to this whole business of straw-stirring and drink, let me just say this. Thurman Munson was the huge beer stein that held the drink together. HE was the kingpin. HE was the player whom his teammates looked up to, and looked to for direction. Sure, Billy Martin was ultra important, but in that Bronx Zoo period of hiring-firing-hiring-firing, the team needed a ROCK OF GIBRALTOR----and THAT was Thurman Munson!

Thurman led the Yanks all through their re-emergence as contenders, and then champions, and, somewhat ironically, like Billy Martin when he was a player, was invaluable to the team during post-season play. I mean, Thurman Munson just ERUPTED with key hits and plays when it counted most.

Do I believe Thurman Munson deserves to be enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame? You better believe it! ---Brian Powell

[Seven]

Originally Posted by G1911

It will be interesting to see if there is any honest argument for Munson that is not a little child’s tantrum but instead an actual, reasoned case.

I think we can safely say, given the statistics he posted, he was more of a "Hall of Very Good" candidate, again based off of statistics. However, the Hall of Fame isn't always about stats. It takes other things into consideration. Legacy, impact in the clubhouse, etc. I don't think anyone could deny the significance of Munson to the Yankees. He was the "Straw that stirred the drink." The heart and soul of those "Bronx is Burning" Yankees.

I will not lie, I am a "Small Hall" believer. That the Hall of Fame should only be a place where players who were truly special, either statistically or culturally impactful, should get in. The idea of me advocating for Munson goes directly against what I believe the Hall should be.

However, you look at the Hall of Fame, there are dozens of players, especially ones voted in through the veterans committee that don't necessarily belong there. I'm not saying this is a reason to put Munson in, just merely an observation.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Sure. If we want to say it with an added committee clause, "Munson shouldn't be in the HOF because the voters overwhelmingly rejected him AND the Vets committee has not put him in," we are still supposing that what HAS happened and what SHOULD happen are the same thing. Everyone who is in the HOF should be and everyone not in should not be.

Not my argument or the end logic of it, I don't think, I am only arguing the lack of support is a factor when one makes an assessment, perhaps when as here the support is so lacking at both the writer and committee level it might even create a presumption, but obviously not the sole determinant. You seem to view it as entirely irrelevant and I would disagree. It seems related to your expansive, and I would argue incorrect, application of the "appeal to authority" logical flaw.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by brian1961

Greg, 'ol boy, this thread had been bothering me since it was initiated. Thurman Munson's career is simply not one where you crunch numbers ad nauseum and out pops HOF deservability. The fact that the BBWAA did not deem him worthy over the 15 years of eligibility is not surprising when you consider Thurm's relationship to the press. Correct me if I'm wrong, but adjectives, terms and responses like jovial, easy to approach, always happy to help you, and any more questions for me, were perhaps NEVER attributed to the man.

Thurman Munson was a throwback to Jackie Robinson and how Leo Durocher described him:
"You want a guy who comes to play. This guy didn't just come to play. He come to beat ya. He come to stuff the ---damn bat right up your ass."

Thurman Munson was no shrinking violet---he was "IN YOUR FACE"! I would imagine the working press did not take too kindly to him as the years went on.

So, Reggie "biggest hot dog ever" Jackson did not say he was the straw that stirs the drink, regarding that controversial 1977 interview. Many years later, Jackson said he would never talk bad about the team's captain. After all, it was Munson who encouraged George Steinbrenner to go get Reggie for the Yanks.

Great advice.

Going back to this whole business of straw-stirring and drink, let me just say this. Thurman Munson was the huge beer stein that held the drink together. HE was the kingpin. HE was the player whom his teammates looked up to, and looked to for direction. Sure, Billy Martin was ultra important, but in that Bronx Zoo period of hiring-firing-hiring-firing, the team needed a ROCK OF GIBRALTOR----and THAT was Thurman Munson!

Thurman led the Yanks all through their re-emergence as contenders, and then champions, and, somewhat ironically, like Billy Martin when he was a player, was invaluable to the team during post-season play. I mean, Thurman Munson just ERUPTED with key hits and plays when it counted most.

Do I believe Thurman Munson deserves to be enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame? You better believe it! ---Brian Powell

Originally Posted by Seven

I think we can safely say, given the statistics he posted, he was more of a "Hall of Very Good" candidate, again based off of statistics. However, the Hall of Fame isn't always about stats. It takes other things into consideration. Legacy, impact in the clubhouse, etc. I don't think anyone could deny the significance of Munson to the Yankees. He was the "Straw that stirred the drink." The heart and soul of those "Bronx is Burning" Yankees.

I will not lie, I am a "Small Hall" believer. That the Hall of Fame should only be a place where players who were truly special, either statistically or culturally impactful, should get in. The idea of me advocating for Munson goes directly against what I believe the Hall should be.

However, you look at the Hall of Fame, there are dozens of players, especially ones voted in through the veterans committee that don't necessarily belong there. I'm not saying this is a reason to put Munson in, just merely an observation.

Now we're getting somewhere, by acknowledging the math instead of pretending it doesn't exist. The argument that Munson's intangibles of being a Yankee hero are sufficient for the Hall is a much better argument.

My objection is while there can be some bonus for intangibles, it needs to be quite significant and in accord with previous Hall voting. Gene Tenace's team won more WS than Munson's Yankees. Why isn't he brought up constantly? Because he wasn't the team captain? Because he wasn't a Yankee captain?

Alright, let's look at Yankee team captains. There is no indication this job has had any correlation to the Hall. Fine players who were Yankee captains but don't quite have the stats are also not in. Randolph, Guidry, Mattingly, Nettles. I assume the counter argument will be that the difference is Munson won two World Series and these other fine player Yankee captains did not. If we limit to to 1) Yankee team captains who 2) don't quite have the stat line but 3) won 2 World Series, this constructs an argument that eliminates every other player in baseball history besides a couple obvious hall of famer Yankees like Jeter who are in on the strength of their actual performance. An argument tailored to arrange things distinctly for only one individual is usually not a good argument; it's usually done when a generally applicable standard can't be found to use.

I cannot think of an analogous selection in the Hall. There are bad choices in, mostly the result of 1) corruption on a vets committee or politics or 2) 19th century choices made in a time with less information and data available and trying to honor historic firsts or pioneers. While many allege it, I also can't see any consistent evidence of Yankee favoritism in hall voting that give a player bonus points for playing for the Yankees. I can't think of a player selected on similar grounds as Munson would be; I may well be forgetting one. Nobody as far as I recall has ever beens elected or really boosted for being a team captain; nobody has gotten in for winning two World Series; nobody has gotten in by a tragic death (Joss and Clemente were clearly deserving on merit and truly great players well above the baseline of the Hall).

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not my argument or the end logic of it, I don't think, I am only arguing the lack of support is a factor when one makes an assessment, perhaps when as here the support is so lacking at both the writer and committee level it might even create a presumption, but obviously not the sole determinant. You seem to view it as entirely irrelevant and I would disagree. It seems related to your expansive, and I would argue incorrect, application of the "appeal to authority" logical flaw.

I don't want to hijack to far away from Munson; but I love pedantry.

That person or persons X believed Y has no actual impact on X being true or false. Many people believe many things, true and false. This is a very popular belief, but I don't see how belief of X has anything to do with X is true.

If I say "90% of people believe the sky is blue, this is evidence the sky is blue" I am incorrect. The sky does, in fact, appear blue but the reason this is so is not because 90% of people in a survey said this. A thing can be and sometimes is true or false independent of popular or expert belief. It's not real evidence; it captures conception but not truth or validity of that conception.

Whether one is deserving or not deserving is distinct and independent from what happened; which is where this information is useful and valid and good data. In a history of the Hall, it's the important thing. In a debate of "is X meritorious", it's not.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don't want to hijack to far away from Munson; but I love pedantry.

That person or persons X believed Y has no actual impact on X being true or false. Many people believe many things, true and false. This is a very popular belief, but I don't see how belief of X has anything to do with X is true.

If I say "90% of people believe the sky is blue, this is evidence the sky is blue" I am incorrect. The sky does, in fact, appear blue but the reason this is so is not because 90% of people in a survey said this. A thing can be and sometimes is true or false independent of popular or expert belief. It's not real evidence; it captures conception but not truth or validity of that conception.

Whether one is deserving or not deserving is distinct and independent from what happened; which is where this information is useful and valid and good data. In a history of the Hall, it's the important thing. In a debate of "is X meritorious", it's not.

But you're misstating the issue, in my opinion. The relevant question here is do the opinions of experts tasked with determining who should be in the Hall matter at all to the discussion? They aren't random people chosen out of the phone book, if they were, I would agree with you. I am only saying some weight should be given, they should not be completely disregarded. PS the blue sky is a bad example as it concerns a matter of fact, not opinion or belief, so opinions/beliefs there truly are meaningless.

[RCMcKenzie]

The math on Jesse Orosco says that he pitched in more games than anyone else. That's enough to talk about on a HOF plaque right there.


Was Scott Rolen really better at baseball than Munson or Mattingly? Is Rolen even famous? The sky appears to be blue from our vantage point. It's not actually blue.

[pclpads]

If he was indeed HOF worthy, he'd be in by now, over 40 years since his death. Being a Yankee simply doesn't make a ballplayer a HOFer.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by G1911

Alright, let's look at Yankee team captains. There is no indication this job has had any correlation to the Hall. Fine players who were Yankee captains but don't quite have the stats are also not in. Randolph, Guidry, Mattingly, Nettles. I assume the counter argument will be that the difference is Munson won two World Series and these other fine player Yankee captains did not. If we limit to to 1) Yankee team captains who 2) don't quite have the stat line but 3) won 2 World Series, this constructs an argument that eliminates every other player in baseball history besides a couple obvious hall of famer Yankees like Jeter who are in on the strength of their actual performance. An argument tailored to arrange things distinctly for only one individual is usually not a good argument; it's usually done when a generally applicable standard can't be found to use.

Concerning your part about Yankees Captains, I wanted to bring this up. Randolph, In my opinion, by the metrics of the Hall of Fame, should've been given at least consideration. Compiling a 65.9 bWAR, over a lengthy career was impressive. I think he's very underrated.

Mattingly, had he not gotten hurt, would've easily made the Hall of Fame. His persistent back issues, led to his demise. Nothing we can do about that, though. I think he certainly had the talent, just couldn't stay healthy.

Nettles, is another guy I don't understand how he's not in the current iteration of the Hall. His JAWS has him right there with Molitor, Martinez and Rolen. He has a 67.9 bWAR. Again another player very underrated.

[cgjackson222]

Given how brutal being a catcher is on the body, I think that catchers should not be expected to have the same numbers as other position players to make the HOF.

When compared with other catchers, Munson is about the 12th best catcher ever not including Negro Leagues, and the top 11 are all in the HOF except Mauer.

Add in the fact that Munson played really well in the postseason, batting .373 in 3 World Series, was a strong fielder, and a leader in the clubhouse of a winning squad, and I think he is a good candidate.

I think there are a bunch of borderline HOF catchers--Munson, Posey, Molina, Schang, Tenace, Freehan and Posada, to name a few. I think Munson is as good a candidate as any.

I will be a little annoyed if Molina or Posey make it in before Munson.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Given how brutal being a catcher is on the body, I think that catchers should not be expected to have the same numbers as other position players to make the HOF.

When compared with other catchers, Munson is about the 12th best catcher ever not including Negro Leagues, and the top 11 are all in the HOF except Mauer.

Add in the fact that Munson played really well in the postseason, batting .373 in 3 World Series, was a strong fielder, and a leader in the clubhouse of a winning squad, and I think he is a good candidate.

I think there are a bunch of borderline HOF catchers--Munson, Posey, Molina, Schang, Tenace, Freehan and Posada, to name a few. I think Munson is as good a candidate as any.

I will be a little annoyed if Molina or Posey make it in before Munson.

When, not if, IMO. Right or wrong, seems that's how this will unfold.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Munson had 6 HR his last full season and 3 his last roughly 2/3. Not a great note suggesting he had a lot of production left in him when he passed.