Let's talk about Hall of Fame candidates who have been "neglected"

[Shoeless Moe]

Good article on it.....

Thurman Munson V. Carlton Fisk: Using Modern Statistics Reveals Better Player

There is a difference between being a great baseball talent, being a great player and having a great career.

Thurman Munson and Carlton Fisk were great baseball talents. Munson and Fisk were great players. Fisk had a better career than Munson did. As Helen Gamble of The Practice might say, "I wonder why."

Traditional statistics reveal little when comparing them, although Munson had a better batting average (.292 to .269) and a better on-base percentage (.346 to .341). Fisk's slugging average (.457) was superior to Munson's (.410).

Do you think that Munson's home park compared to Fisk's home parks was a factor?


Munson and Fisk each had Hall of Fame ability. Modern statistics shed new light on the careers of both catchers.

Munson's career WAR or WIns Above Replacement was 43.3 for his 10 full complete seasons. Fisk's career WAR was 63.7 for his 21 complete seasons. This is to be expected based on longevity.

Munson's WAR was 3.9 over an average season compared to Fisk's 2.7. It is a substantial difference that favors Munson and reveals his value.


Rbat or Runs Batting refers to the number of runs better or worse compared to average. Munson's average Rbat was 11 compared to Fisk's seven.

RAR or Runs Above Replacement is the number of runs a player is better than a replacement player. Munson's average RAR was 38. Fisk's average RAR was 25.

Turning to defense, Munson's fielding percentage was .982 compared to FIsk's .988.

Munson nabbed 44 percent of base-stealers compared to the league average of 38 percent while Fisk threw out 34 percent of potential stealers compared to the league average of 35 percent.

Munson's RF or range factor was 5.61 per nine innings. Fisk's was 6.00.

Munson was clearly as good as Fisk. Based on sabermetrics, he was probably better than Fisk. His problem was that his career was cut short.

Roy Campanella, like Munson, had his career cut short by a tragic accident. He has become terribly underrated with the passage of time, but to those who saw him play, he was every bit Yogi Berra's equal. Just ask Vin Scully.


Campanella played 10 seasons, batted .276/.360/.500. His WAR over an average season was 3.2. which is not as good as Munson's 3.9, but which is better than Fisk's 2.7.

A better defensive catcher than Campanella never played the game.

The point is that Munson's relatively brief career has resulted in his being underrated. Longevity might be more valuable than greatness, but longevity too often results in a player being overrated.

Munson was at least as good as Fisk—and Gary Carter, Roger Bresnahan, Ray Schalk and Rick Ferrell. It's upsetting that Munson will never be elected to the Hall of Fame.

[benge610]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Good article on it.....

Thurman Munson V. Carlton Fisk: Using Modern Statistics Reveals Better Player

There is a difference between being a great baseball talent, being a great player and having a great career.

Thurman Munson and Carlton Fisk were great baseball talents. Munson and Fisk were great players. Fisk had a better career than Munson did. As Helen Gamble of The Practice might say, "I wonder why."

Traditional statistics reveal little when comparing them, although Munson had a better batting average (.292 to .269) and a better on-base percentage (.346 to .341). Fisk's slugging average (.457) was superior to Munson's (.410).

Do you think that Munson's home park compared to Fisk's home parks was a factor?


Munson and Fisk each had Hall of Fame ability. Modern statistics shed new light on the careers of both catchers.

Munson's career WAR or WIns Above Replacement was 43.3 for his 10 full complete seasons. Fisk's career WAR was 63.7 for his 21 complete seasons. This is to be expected based on longevity.

Munson's WAR was 3.9 over an average season compared to Fisk's 2.7. It is a substantial difference that favors Munson and reveals his value.


Rbat or Runs Batting refers to the number of runs better or worse compared to average. Munson's average Rbat was 11 compared to Fisk's seven.

RAR or Runs Above Replacement is the number of runs a player is better than a replacement player. Munson's average RAR was 38. Fisk's average RAR was 25.

Turning to defense, Munson's fielding percentage was .982 compared to FIsk's .988.

Munson nabbed 44 percent of base-stealers compared to the league average of 38 percent while Fisk threw out 34 percent of potential stealers compared to the league average of 35 percent.

Munson's RF or range factor was 5.61 per nine innings. Fisk's was 6.00.

Munson was clearly as good as Fisk. Based on sabermetrics, he was probably better than Fisk. His problem was that his career was cut short.

Roy Campanella, like Munson, had his career cut short by a tragic accident. He has become terribly underrated with the passage of time, but to those who saw him play, he was every bit Yogi Berra's equal. Just ask Vin Scully.


Campanella played 10 seasons, batted .276/.360/.500. His WAR over an average season was 3.2. which is not as good as Munson's 3.9, but which is better than Fisk's 2.7.

A better defensive catcher than Campanella never played the game.

The point is that Munson's relatively brief career has resulted in his being underrated. Longevity might be more valuable than greatness, but longevity too often results in a player being overrated.

Munson was at least as good as Fisk—and Gary Carter, Roger Bresnahan, Ray Schalk and Rick Ferrell. It's upsetting that Munson will never be elected to the Hall of Fame.

Thank you Paulie.
Well done.

[Mike D.]

Average WAR for a 22 vs 10 career has some value, but clearly decline phase and longevity come into play.

WAR7 looks at a players WAR in their best 7 seasons. Fisk’s is 37.5 and Munson is 37…suggesting to me that they were similarly talented/productive in their prime.

[shagrotn77]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

It's upsetting that Munson will never be elected to the Hall of Fame.

Never say never. The standards are changing all the time, as are the metrics the voters are using to make their decisions. I do think that Munson will make the HOF at some point, and I would bet it's sooner rather than later.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by shagrotn77

Never say never. The standards are changing all the time, as are the metrics the voters are using to make their decisions. I do think that Munson will make the HOF at some point, and I would bet it's sooner rather than later.

Maybe but there is SO much worthy competition for the vote of these committees and they don't vote very often. Modern Baseball doesn't even meet until 2023 I don't think. And then 2025.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Good article on it.....

Thurman Munson V. Carlton Fisk: Using Modern Statistics Reveals Better Player

There is a difference between being a great baseball talent, being a great player and having a great career.

Thurman Munson and Carlton Fisk were great baseball talents. Munson and Fisk were great players. Fisk had a better career than Munson did. As Helen Gamble of The Practice might say, "I wonder why."

Traditional statistics reveal little when comparing them, although Munson had a better batting average (.292 to .269) and a better on-base percentage (.346 to .341). Fisk's slugging average (.457) was superior to Munson's (.410).

Do you think that Munson's home park compared to Fisk's home parks was a factor?


Munson and Fisk each had Hall of Fame ability. Modern statistics shed new light on the careers of both catchers.

Munson's career WAR or WIns Above Replacement was 43.3 for his 10 full complete seasons. Fisk's career WAR was 63.7 for his 21 complete seasons. This is to be expected based on longevity.

Munson's WAR was 3.9 over an average season compared to Fisk's 2.7. It is a substantial difference that favors Munson and reveals his value.


Rbat or Runs Batting refers to the number of runs better or worse compared to average. Munson's average Rbat was 11 compared to Fisk's seven.

RAR or Runs Above Replacement is the number of runs a player is better than a replacement player. Munson's average RAR was 38. Fisk's average RAR was 25.

Turning to defense, Munson's fielding percentage was .982 compared to FIsk's .988.

Munson nabbed 44 percent of base-stealers compared to the league average of 38 percent while Fisk threw out 34 percent of potential stealers compared to the league average of 35 percent.

Munson's RF or range factor was 5.61 per nine innings. Fisk's was 6.00.

Munson was clearly as good as Fisk. Based on sabermetrics, he was probably better than Fisk. His problem was that his career was cut short.

Roy Campanella, like Munson, had his career cut short by a tragic accident. He has become terribly underrated with the passage of time, but to those who saw him play, he was every bit Yogi Berra's equal. Just ask Vin Scully.


Campanella played 10 seasons, batted .276/.360/.500. His WAR over an average season was 3.2. which is not as good as Munson's 3.9, but which is better than Fisk's 2.7.

A better defensive catcher than Campanella never played the game.

The point is that Munson's relatively brief career has resulted in his being underrated. Longevity might be more valuable than greatness, but longevity too often results in a player being overrated.

Munson was at least as good as Fisk—and Gary Carter, Roger Bresnahan, Ray Schalk and Rick Ferrell. It's upsetting that Munson will never be elected to the Hall of Fame.

The thing is, if you're comparing Munson vs. Fisk in stats like that, there is a bias for Munson, because he died close to his peak. It does not include the period of decline that Fisk had. You may be right about Munson belonging, but you have to account for every bias like that before I'm convinced.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It seems Munson had probably already started his inevitable decline when he passed. Odds are his career stats would have been borderline for a catcher. I don't think it would be the end of the Hall as we know it if he gets in, but neither is he a compelling omission IMO. I think he tends to be a bit overrated both because he was a Yankee and because of his unfortunate accident.

[Ricky]

“A better defensive catcher than Campanella never played the game.”

Johnny Bench says hi.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Ricky

“A better defensive catcher than Campanella never played the game.”

Johnny Bench says hi.

If someone wasn't going to say it, I was at the ready. Campanella was indeed fantastic, but nobody could hold a candle to Bench.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by perezfan

If someone wasn't going to say it, I was at the ready. Campanella was indeed fantastic, but nobody could hold a candle to Bench.

I don't doubt that but how can you really know unless you saw Campanella catch regularly?

[55koufax]

Yadi perhaps deserves consideration as the best defensive catcher of all-time. His stats off the charts, however, I believe in intangibles......that is why Bengie and Jose should be included in this discussion!

[packs]

Maybe he's not a HOFer but I always thought Jorge Posada deserved more respect than a one and done ballot guy.

[G1911]

Munson posted a 101 OPS+ in 1978, and was at 95 in 1979, below league average. He was entering his decline already, but only a year and a half into it. Fisks prime was fairly similar to Munsons, except he then had a second career as a decent to good catcher after it. The rate stats argument that eliminates what would have been Munsons decline but includes Fisks isn’t fair, compare to prime to prime if we want to argue that their value during their good years means Munson is a Hall of Famer.

Wouldn’t be the worst catcher in the hall, one of the better ones who is not in the hall. He’s a fine choice, but I would probably vote no personally.
By WAR, the best non-HOF’ers are
Schang
Trance
Munson
Freehan
Posada
Kendall
Porter
Sundberg

All of whom are between 40-49 WAR. None of them feel like hall of famers to me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If Munson had played almost anywhere but NY people would not even be having these discussions, IMO.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If Munson had played almost anywhere but NY people would not even be having these discussions, IMO.

The good news is that 100% of the people reading this agree with you…but only half have the same conclusions you do.