Slightly OT - 2020 Modern Baseball Era HOF Ballot

[JollyElm]

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

[Vintagecatcher]

Dewey had a cannon for an arm.

Great all around baseball player!

Patrick

[steve B]

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

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

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

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

[packs]

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

[SAllen2556]

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

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

and...Lou Whitaker.

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

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

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

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

Hope Munson gets in too.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

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

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

and...Lou Whitaker.

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

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

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

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

Hope Munson gets in too.

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

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by steve B

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

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

[toppcat]

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

[oldjudge]

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

[CobbSpikedMe]

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

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

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

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

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

[rhettyeakley]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In summary...

Will get in: Marvin Miller

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

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

Just not quite enough: Dale Murphy

Not worthy: Mattingly, Garvey, Parker

[timn1]

Originally Posted by toppcat

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

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

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

[packs]

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

[nat]

Simmons vs. Munson is the interesting question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by packs

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

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

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by packs

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

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

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Tabe

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

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

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

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by steve B

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

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

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

He was CLEARLY declining. Fisk improved.