Slightly OT - 2020 Modern Baseball Era HOF Ballot

[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.

[AGuinness]

I think Whitaker will get the nod. Marvin Miller had a profound impact on the game and should have been in years ago. I'd rather have a bigger Hall than a smaller one.

For anyone who cites years on the ballot for some of these players, the links to the stories below help put some in context, such as under-appreciated players who find themselves on the ballot with a number of first-timers who are slam dunks and/or the stinginess of the voters throughout the years.

This site does a great job in breaking things down, both in brevity for this article and links to much longer reads (all worth the time):
https://www.cooperstowncred.com/the-...llot-for-2020/

And of course, Fangraphs has things covered, too:
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/whitaker...seball-ballot/

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by 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.

Ditto. To me, both were at the top of the game for a time. Guys you go to the ballpark to see play. I ask myself, "During his career, was this guy the top, or very near the top, player at his position?"

So my four votes go to:

Dave Parker
Steve Garvey
Don Mattingly
Dale Murphy

For at least a handful of years, these guys were the best at their position in the majors.

[mr2686]

Some very passionate arguments given both ways for some of these players. Obviously, most are on the bubble which makes it that much harder and also makes for some great arguments.
I could make arguments for all of the players but I'll stick to one for right now...Thurman Frickin' Munson. Despite what has been written about his career in decline the last two years, I would argue just the opposite. Yes his HR's and rbi's were down, but his average remained high considering the position he played...and he played a lot of games at a tough position, and played it well. He died on Aug 2, 1979 and was hitting .288 at the time (he was hitting .294 as of July 24th). He was a ROY, MVP, 3 time Gold Glove winner, and oh yeah, he actually showed up in the playoffs and world series. Can't say that about every HOF'er. Check Campanella's post season stats (and I love Campy) but if he had hit better in the 49, 52 and 56 series, Brooklyn would have had 4 championships instead of 1.
If you look at a lot of catchers that play a lot of games, they seem to have a dip after several years, but then pick up again. I attribute that to getting more time off (which most catchers need). If Munson had not died, and with the Yankees spending history, I'm pretty sure they would have found a better backup than Jerry Narron and given Munson much needed time off.
Anyway, it should be interesting to see who, if anyone, gets in this year.
If I had a vote, and could vote for 4, they would be:
1. Munson
2. Whitaker
3. Evans
4. Garvey (but I'd like to see Simmons get in too).

[Peter_Spaeth]

There was a pretty good chance, as I recall, that the Yankees were going to respect Munson's wishes to be traded to Cleveland so he could be back home. According to one piece I read, he had told Reggie he didn't expect to be back in New York. Perhaps that would have revitalized his career.

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Edgar's on base percentage was a huge 80 points higher. And his slugging percentage was 40+ points higher.

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Edgar's on base percentage was a huge 80 points higher. And his slugging percentage was 40+ points higher.

And yet he had 230 less RBI's, 30 less Home Runs, and 500 less hits.

Edgar was a 7x All Star, 5x Silver Slugger, and won the batting title twice
Cobra was a 7x All Star, 3x Silver Slugger, and won the batting title twice...
He also was an MVP, went to 2 World Series, was an All Star game MVP, and he was 3x Gold Glove Winner

I'm just saying, they are both great players, I just don't see the a huge difference between the two to make one Hall worthy and the other not.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Edgar 68.4 WAR
Parker 40.1

The HOF rests its case.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Their similar counting stats were accrued with a difference of around 2000 plate appearances or almost 4 seasons less. That's a MASSIVE difference in impact. The only category in which Parker was superior per plate appearance was triples. By that logic Sandy Koufax and Dizzy Dean aren't HOF'ers because their counting numbers don't add up.

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Their similar counting stats were accrued with a difference of around 2000 plate appearances or almost 4 seasons less. That's a MASSIVE difference in impact. The only category in which Parker was superior per plate appearance was triples. By that logic Sandy Koufax and Dizzy Dean aren't HOF'ers because their counting numbers don't add up.

I saw that too. To me, I guess that helps my Parker argument as he sustained a high level for what is equal to 4 more seasons than Edgar.

I'm the crazy guy yelling in the street, a roll I am very familiar with. I am sure Edgar is a worthy addition, I just hate the thought of the HoF becoming the equivalent of a Participation Trophy, damn kids and their "everyone's a winner," approach to life....

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by yanks87

I saw that too. To me, I guess that helps my Parker argument as he sustained a high level for what is equal to 4 more seasons than Edgar.

I'm the crazy guy yelling in the street, a roll I am very familiar with. I am sure Edgar is a worthy addition, I just hate the thought of the HoF becoming the equivalent of a Participation Trophy, damn kids and their "everyone's a winner," approach to life....

I would argue it DOESN'T mean that though. It means he sustained an above average level for longer than Martinez sustained a great level. Give me a guy who was a stud for 10 years before you give me a guy who was good for 15, or, God forbid, Harold Baines for 20... Now THAT'S a participation trophy.

[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.

[shagrotn77]

Regardless of who I’d like to see get in among this group, I’ll say Simmons and Whitaker make it as players and Miller has a great shot as a contributor. Munson is a player who I’d like to see get in, but doubt he will this time around.

[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.

[packs]

Can anyone explain why Marvin Miller is a HOFer but Curt Flood isn't? If I recall correctly, only one of them sacrificed anything for free agency and the other is in the HOF.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by packs

Can anyone explain why Marvin Miller is a HOFer but Curt Flood isn't? If I recall correctly, only one of them sacrificed anything for free agency and the other is in the HOF.

I’m not sure level of sacrifice is a factor for induction. Curt Flood gave up the free agency fight while Miller kept working on it years after Flood quit baseball.

[packs]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I’m not sure level of sacrifice is a factor for induction. Curt Flood gave up the free agency fight while Miller kept working on it years after Flood quit baseball.

If it's chicken or the egg and Miller's candidacy relies on the egg, you don't get there without Flood. He is the contributor, not Miller.

[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.