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

[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%)

[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.

[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.

[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.