Slightly OT - 2020 Modern Baseball Era HOF Ballot

[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

[Brian Van Horn]

One guy I am surprised is not on the ballot is Bill Madlock. Four batting titles.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

One guy I am surprised is not on the ballot is Bill Madlock. Four batting titles.

He's in the jerk category with Albert Belle.
Belle was a better player than everyone on the list and will never be elected.

[Hot Springs Bathers]

Miller, Simmons and Munson

[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.

[yanks87]

Technically Dave Parker had better numbers than Edgar Martinez AND played the field. I personally think the HoF classes from the last couple of years had has some great players, but a lot of JOKES have made it in. Maybe it is an overall loathing of all things Mariners, but the idea of Edgar in the same hall as Aaron, Ruth, Cobb, Mays and others is a tragedy. I kinda think that sometimes it is OK to have no one get in if the class is light. It devalues the Hall to have 2nd tier players in just because "someone had to get in." My 2 cents.

[yanks87]

I am probably in the minority, but as a lifetime Yankee fan, I am perfectly fine with Mattingly not getting in. He had a couple good years, was good to great in the field, but not Hall worthy.

[Orioles1954]

If Alan Trammell makes the Hall then Whitaker HAS to go in.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by yanks87

Technically Dave Parker had better numbers than Edgar Martinez AND played the field. I personally think the HoF classes from the last couple of years had has some great players, but a lot of JOKES have made it in. Maybe it is an overall loathing of all things Mariners, but the idea of Edgar in the same hall as Aaron, Ruth, Cobb, Mays and others is a tragedy. I kinda think that sometimes it is OK to have no one get in if the class is light. It devalues the Hall to have 2nd tier players in just because "someone had to get in." My 2 cents.

I can see a Yankees fan (given your user ID) hating the Red Sox but I’m not sure why anyone would “loathe” the Mariners! How do you end up loathing a team that has a winning season every decade or so? Edgar was long overdue with his induction, especially once they started electing Relief Pitchers into the Hall of Fame... once that door opened you have no reason to exclude specialized hitters like the DH. Parker’s numbers relative to his era are just not as good as Edgar’s are, the stats just don’t Back up Parker in that argument in any way. I have no idea what is so bad about Edgar making the Hall of Fame? Far less deserving players have been and will be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

I can see a Yankees fan (given your user ID) hating the Red Sox but I’m not sure why anyone would “loathe” the Mariners! How do you end up loathing a team that has a winning season every decade or so? Edgar was long overdue with his induction, especially once they started electing Relief Pitchers into the Hall of Fame... once that door opened you have no reason to exclude specialized hitters like the DH. Parker’s numbers relative to his era are just not as good as Edgar’s are, the stats just don’t Back up Parker in that argument in any way. I have no idea what is so bad about Edgar making the Hall of Fame? Far less deserving players have been and will be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

Ha! I actually have no problem with the Red Sox! I grew up in NY, and moved to the Pacific Northwest 20 years ago, my loathing of the team is based on years of going to games in Seattle and some not so nice things that happened when I brought my kids to the games throughout the years.

I totally agree with you on Relief Pitchers opening the door for the DH. I guess my point though not very well articulated is that if a DH is considered for the hall and his numbers are in the neighborhood of an outlier, that should be a reason to NOT elect them to the Hall of Fame. I hated facing Edgar, he was a monster at the plate, but he played for 18 seasons and didn't amass 3000 hits, as a DH. He didn't have to play the field, he didn't have to do anything but hit, but as another person pointed out, the only stat that is really impressive is the OPS. Everything else compares to Dave Parker, who played the field. So that is my point, if you have someone who puts together a great career, which Edgar did, name a street after him and have him back to throw out a first pitch from time to time. For that same player to make the hall, based on stats, there has to be some serious separation between him and the rest of the field. One guys opinion, I am sure there are some kind of equation that shows how great he was, I just cannot compare him to what I think of as the "greats of the game."

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by yanks87

Technically Dave Parker had better numbers than Edgar Martinez AND played the field. I personally think the HoF classes from the last couple of years had has some great players, but a lot of JOKES have made it in. Maybe it is an overall loathing of all things Mariners, but the idea of Edgar in the same hall as Aaron, Ruth, Cobb, Mays and others is a tragedy. I kinda think that sometimes it is OK to have no one get in if the class is light. It devalues the Hall to have 2nd tier players in just because "someone had to get in." My 2 cents.

Not sure how someone with a career OPS of .810 has better numbers than a guy with a career OPS of .933

[Peter_Spaeth]

Based on my perceptions at the time they played, Garvey and Parker are two long career guys whose metrics don't even come close to how I would rate them subjectively.

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Not sure how someone with a career OPS of .810 has better numbers than a guy with a career OPS of .933

TRUE, but I guess my point goes past OPS, if you look at their career numbers they are VERY similar, in many cases if we are going on sheer offense stats, The Cobra out performed Edgar, their lifetime averages are only 20 points apart (.290/.312), Parker out hit, out homered, had more RBI's and Doubles. The difference in my mind, Parker played the field. It's a shame that a DH can be elected in to the HoF without 3000 hits, Edgar had 2247.

Not trying to spark a huge baseball debate, but if someone who got into the Hall when compared to an outlier is very similar in stats, then, in my mind, they shouldn't be in the hall. Players going in should have a stat line that puts distance between them and the field of guys on the cusp, or should at the very least been the iconic embodiment of the position they played during the era in which they played. To me, that is the only way that Edgar gets in as a DH, because stat wise, he is in the category of players that normally wouldn't.

[Chris-Counts]

"My opinion is that if Harold Baines got in, everyone on the ballot should get in."

I agree 100 percent. People can argue all day long about what constitutes a Hall of Famer — and fight over the fine line between great and very good — but I have long argued that those who have already been elected ARE the standard future Hall of Famers should be measured against. There are simply no other alternatives. Also, I don't think anybody who is not an authority on baseball history, and or doesn't have a good understanding of comparative statistical analysis has any business voting for Hall of Famers. The process is a total sham. All you have to do is read a couple columns by so-called sports journalists about why they voted someone like Harold Baines, or why they voted against someone like Barry Larkin, and it's clear to see have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

As far as I'm concerned, the Hall of Fame has no credibility until Minnie Minoso goes in.

[seff]

I like to see Tommy John, Steve Garvey, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker and Lou Whitaker all make it in. Great players.

[topcat61]

I'm really not pleased with the results of who got in -Simmons and Miller -and felt that there were great cases to be made for the other players. Maybe next time but Whitaker was a one and done in 2001 which is really surprising.

[sayheykid54]

Absolutely NO question Lou Whitaker belongs in the Hall. One of the best 2nd basemen of his generation.

Has a better lifetime WAR than Derek Jeter

[todeen]

Originally Posted by yanks87

Technically Dave Parker had better numbers than Edgar Martinez AND played the field. I personally think the HoF classes from the last couple of years had has some great players, but a lot of JOKES have made it in. Maybe it is an overall loathing of all things Mariners, but the idea of Edgar in the same hall as Aaron, Ruth, Cobb, Mays and others is a tragedy. I kinda think that sometimes it is OK to have no one get in if the class is light. It devalues the Hall to have 2nd tier players in just because "someone had to get in." My 2 cents.

Edgar Martinez is to the Mariners what Derek Jeter was to the Yankees. He was always in the right place at the right time to make something magical happen. There was no one else a mariners fan wanted to hit in the toughest situation than Edgar. He cemented his legendary status and his call to the hall was rightfully deserved.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by nat

Simmons vs. Munson is the interesting question.

...

But here's the thing that makes it interesting. At his best Munson was a lot better than Simmons.

When was that? Simmons, at his best, hit for a higher average, higher OPS, higher slugging, and higher OPS+ than Munson at his best. Munson had one OPS+ over 126. Simmons had four of 140+. Munson's highest slugging was .487. Simmons topped that five times, including four over .500.

[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.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

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

Better in what sense, though? I look at his 162 game average and I see a player who might have made a couple all star teams in their career: 276 / 17 homers / 73 rbis / 789 OPS / 117 OPS+.

You're telling me that if you saw those stats without knowing who the player was, you'd think they were one of the top 100 payers of all time?

[JollyElm]

When I hear people talking about WAR (a completely theoretical stat!!), it's like listening to the arrogant Bob Costas lecturing us about baseball. He has never played a game of baseball in his life. He's never even played a game of Wiffle Ball at a family picnic in his life, yet he wants to be all pedantic about the game. That analysis doesn't gel with people (like me and my friends) who have played baseball/softball our entire lives. Having real knowledge about what actually happens on a field is much more important when analyzing players. For instance, how many runs/extra base hits/base advances did Dave Parker prevent due to his opponents' fear of his cannon of an arm? And I have to imagine that the vast majority of people on this site have seen most, if not all, of these players in their primes. Hometown and personal biases aside, we all KNOW what each of these guys brought to the table. Deep dives into advanced sabermetrics are unnecessary.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

When I hear people talking about WAR (a completely theoretical stat!!), it's like listening to the arrogant Bob Costas lecturing us about baseball. He has never played a game of baseball in his life. He's never even played a game of Wiffle Ball at a family picnic in his life, yet he wants to be all pedantic about the game. That analysis doesn't gel with people (like me and my friends) who have played baseball/softball our entire lives. Having real knowledge about what actually happens on a field is much more important when analyzing players.

Arguments like this are funny, like saying that because Albert Einstein never travelled at the speed of light his theory of relativity is BS.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JunkyJoe]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

... ...... Having real knowledge about what actually happens on a field is much more important when analyzing players. For instance, how many runs/extra base hits/base advances did Dave Parker prevent due to his opponents' fear of his cannon of an arm? And I have to imagine that the vast majority of people on this site have seen most, if not all, of these players in their primes. Hometown and personal biases aside, we all KNOW what each of these guys brought to the table. Deep dives into advanced sabermetrics are unnecessary.

+1

The fans who truly understand the intricacies of the game (especially from firsthand playing experience), and the players and coaches who battled against the ballot candidates, are the ones who can speak to the unquantifiables that some of the greatest players brought to the game.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by packs

Better in what sense, though? I look at his 162 game average and I see a player who might have made a couple all star teams in their career: 276 / 17 homers / 73 rbis / 789 OPS / 117 OPS+.

You're telling me that if you saw those stats without knowing who the player was, you'd think they were one of the top 100 payers of all time?

I think context plays a big role (particularly era they were in), while also Lou's defense obviously plays a big role, too.
One other middle infielder slashed .262/.337/.328 for a career OPS of .666 and an OPS+ of 87 and made it to the HOF on his first ballot, thanks to stellar defense.
The Cooperstown Cred article on Whitaker notes how close he and Sandberg are statistically, too...
https://www.cooperstowncred.com/when...-hall-of-fame/

[packs]

Originally Posted by AGuinness

I think context plays a big role (particularly era they were in), while also Lou's defense obviously plays a big role, too.
One other middle infielder slashed .262/.337/.328 for a career OPS of .666 and an OPS+ of 87 and made it to the HOF on his first ballot, thanks to stellar defense.
The Cooperstown Cred article on Whitaker notes how close he and Sandberg are statistically, too...
https://www.cooperstowncred.com/when...-hall-of-fame/

I guess I'll have to take your word for it. Whitaker's 117 OPS + is 10 below Mattingly's at 127. Whitaker, who I guess played good enough defense to merit consideration also only won three gold gloves compared to Mattingly's nine. Even Sandberg won nine. Sandberg and Mattingly also won MVPs. I really don't see what elevates Whitaker over either of them other than some outlier WAR total that doesn't seem to fit his actual production.

[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).

[rats60]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

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).

Only if you only value WAR. I think it is because people value fantasy stats more today than actual production, such as leading your team to 5 World Series. WAR seems to greatly over value walks and doesn't really care about actual production or clutch stats. It also greatly over values certain positions such as 2B while under valuing others such as C. I find the idea that Lou Whitaker had "value" equal to Johnny Bench absurd and brings the whole concept of WAR into question.