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

[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.

[Mike D.]

Catcher, with 15 HOFers, is a position that is slightly misrepresented in the Hall of Fame, along with second base and third base.

Looking at the career WAR list, everyone with a WAR of 48 or higher and a WAR7 over 30 is already enshrined except Mauer, who should make it.

Looking down the list, Hall of Famer Roy Campanella sits at 42.0 with Roger Bresnahan a tick above him at 42.1.

Just below that are Jason Kendall (41.7), Darrell Porter (40.8), and Jim Sundberg (40.5). Those guys don't feel like Hall of Famers to me.

So, at least at the moment, 42 WAR "feels" like the area where players above that might be Hall of Fame catchers (in my opinion).

The catchers above 42.0 WAR who aren't in the Hall of Fame:

Wally Schang - 48.0 (lower than 30 WAR7 as referenced above)
Gene Tenace - 46.8
Buster Posey - 44.8
Bill Freehan - 44.8
Jorge Posada - 42.7
Yadier Molina - 42.3

Posey and Molina, who aren't yet eligible for the HOF ballot, are two catchers who have been often spoken of as future Hall of Famers. I don't disagree with that. For the others, are any of them NOT being in the Hall of Fame a travesty? Probably not. Would any of them being IN the Hall of Fame render the place a irrelevant storage unit for old baseball junk? Also no.

Also, there are 4 Hall of Fame catchers with less than 40 WAR (Gibson, Lombardi, Ferrell, Mackey).

After those six guys listed above, are there any current players on a Hall of Fame trajectory? Leaving out young but promising guys like Adley Rutschman, who's careers will be fun to watch develop?

J.T. Realmutoat 33.3 and Salvador Perez at 33.0 are the two with the best chance. After that, it's Willson Contreras at 24.2 and then a significant drop-off. So, even adding the six above plus Mauer wouldn't overload the Hall of Fame with catchers anytime soon.

If all of the above guys were in, is there anyone would put forth a compelling agreement for? Nobody jumps out at me, but I'd love to hear of any other candidates people would advocate for.

[Seven]

A lot of discussion happening, the caveat to my original question was had Munson lived, do you think he would've been a Hall of Famer? I think we can safely assume he would've ended up with over a 50 WAR. Maybe he impacts if the Yankees win in 1980 or 1981? Just a fun what if, I don't want people to be at each others throats!

[jingram058]

I hope he gets in, if only to shut the know it alls up. And, to Hell with WAR. It's f@cking stupid.

Edit - If you didn't see Munson play, or you just didn't like him or the Yankees, then your smug, self-righteous comments are equally f@cking stupid.

Go ahead, make some smug, snappy comeback. No one cares in this meaningless forum. I may read through to see, but that is my last, final word.

[Snapolit1]

Should be a special Hall of Fame for everyone's favorite player when they were 12 years old.

[G1911]

It will be interesting to see if there is any honest argument for Munson that is not a little child’s tantrum but instead an actual, reasoned case.

[brian1961]

Originally Posted by G1911

It will be interesting to see if there is any honest argument for Munson that is not a little childÂ’s tantrum but instead an actual, reasoned case.

Greg, 'ol boy, this thread had been bothering me since it was initiated. Thurman Munson's career is simply not one where you crunch numbers ad nauseum and out pops HOF deservability. The fact that the BBWAA did not deem him worthy over the 15 years of eligibility is not surprising when you consider Thurm's relationship to the press. Correct me if I'm wrong, but adjectives, terms and responses like jovial, easy to approach, always happy to help you, and any more questions for me, were perhaps NEVER attributed to the man.

Thurman Munson was a throwback to Jackie Robinson and how Leo Durocher described him:
"You want a guy who comes to play. This guy didn't just come to play. He come to beat ya. He come to stuff the ---damn bat right up your ass."

Thurman Munson was no shrinking violet---he was "IN YOUR FACE"! I would imagine the working press did not take too kindly to him as the years went on.

So, Reggie "biggest hot dog ever" Jackson did not say he was the straw that stirs the drink, regarding that controversial 1977 interview. Many years later, Jackson said he would never talk bad about the team's captain. After all, it was Munson who encouraged George Steinbrenner to go get Reggie for the Yanks.

Great advice.

Going back to this whole business of straw-stirring and drink, let me just say this. Thurman Munson was the huge beer stein that held the drink together. HE was the kingpin. HE was the player whom his teammates looked up to, and looked to for direction. Sure, Billy Martin was ultra important, but in that Bronx Zoo period of hiring-firing-hiring-firing, the team needed a ROCK OF GIBRALTOR----and THAT was Thurman Munson!

Thurman led the Yanks all through their re-emergence as contenders, and then champions, and, somewhat ironically, like Billy Martin when he was a player, was invaluable to the team during post-season play. I mean, Thurman Munson just ERUPTED with key hits and plays when it counted most.

Do I believe Thurman Munson deserves to be enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame? You better believe it! ---Brian Powell

[Seven]

Originally Posted by G1911

It will be interesting to see if there is any honest argument for Munson that is not a little child’s tantrum but instead an actual, reasoned case.

I think we can safely say, given the statistics he posted, he was more of a "Hall of Very Good" candidate, again based off of statistics. However, the Hall of Fame isn't always about stats. It takes other things into consideration. Legacy, impact in the clubhouse, etc. I don't think anyone could deny the significance of Munson to the Yankees. He was the "Straw that stirred the drink." The heart and soul of those "Bronx is Burning" Yankees.

I will not lie, I am a "Small Hall" believer. That the Hall of Fame should only be a place where players who were truly special, either statistically or culturally impactful, should get in. The idea of me advocating for Munson goes directly against what I believe the Hall should be.

However, you look at the Hall of Fame, there are dozens of players, especially ones voted in through the veterans committee that don't necessarily belong there. I'm not saying this is a reason to put Munson in, just merely an observation.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Catcher, with 15 HOFers, is a position that is slightly misrepresented in the Hall of Fame, along with second base and third base.

Despite their importance to the game, there are fewer catchers than any other position in the HOF. There are 15 catchers in the Hall of Fame, 17 3rd baseman, and 20 second baseman.

[Beercan collector]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Despite their importance to the game, there are fewer catchers than any other position in the HOF. There are 15 catchers in the Hall of Fame, 17 3rd baseman, and 20 second baseman.

Used to be a good infielder could get into the Hall of Fame but now the qualification is meeting the offensive achievements of jog around outfielders 😐

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Not my argument or the end logic of it, I don't think, I am only arguing the lack of support is a factor when one makes an assessment, perhaps when as here the support is so lacking at both the writer and committee level it might even create a presumption, but obviously not the sole determinant. You seem to view it as entirely irrelevant and I would disagree. It seems related to your expansive, and I would argue incorrect, application of the "appeal to authority" logical flaw.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not my argument or the end logic of it, I don't think, I am only arguing the lack of support is a factor when one makes an assessment, perhaps when as here the support is so lacking at both the writer and committee level it might even create a presumption, but obviously not the sole determinant. You seem to view it as entirely irrelevant and I would disagree. It seems related to your expansive, and I would argue incorrect, application of the "appeal to authority" logical flaw.

I don't want to hijack to far away from Munson; but I love pedantry.

That person or persons X believed Y has no actual impact on X being true or false. Many people believe many things, true and false. This is a very popular belief, but I don't see how belief of X has anything to do with X is true.

If I say "90% of people believe the sky is blue, this is evidence the sky is blue" I am incorrect. The sky does, in fact, appear blue but the reason this is so is not because 90% of people in a survey said this. A thing can be and sometimes is true or false independent of popular or expert belief. It's not real evidence; it captures conception but not truth or validity of that conception.

Whether one is deserving or not deserving is distinct and independent from what happened; which is where this information is useful and valid and good data. In a history of the Hall, it's the important thing. In a debate of "is X meritorious", it's not.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don't want to hijack to far away from Munson; but I love pedantry.

That person or persons X believed Y has no actual impact on X being true or false. Many people believe many things, true and false. This is a very popular belief, but I don't see how belief of X has anything to do with X is true.

If I say "90% of people believe the sky is blue, this is evidence the sky is blue" I am incorrect. The sky does, in fact, appear blue but the reason this is so is not because 90% of people in a survey said this. A thing can be and sometimes is true or false independent of popular or expert belief. It's not real evidence; it captures conception but not truth or validity of that conception.

Whether one is deserving or not deserving is distinct and independent from what happened; which is where this information is useful and valid and good data. In a history of the Hall, it's the important thing. In a debate of "is X meritorious", it's not.

But you're misstating the issue, in my opinion. The relevant question here is do the opinions of experts tasked with determining who should be in the Hall matter at all to the discussion? They aren't random people chosen out of the phone book, if they were, I would agree with you. I am only saying some weight should be given, they should not be completely disregarded. PS the blue sky is a bad example as it concerns a matter of fact, not opinion or belief, so opinions/beliefs there truly are meaningless.

[RCMcKenzie]

The math on Jesse Orosco says that he pitched in more games than anyone else. That's enough to talk about on a HOF plaque right there.


Was Scott Rolen really better at baseball than Munson or Mattingly? Is Rolen even famous? The sky appears to be blue from our vantage point. It's not actually blue.

[pclpads]

If he was indeed HOF worthy, he'd be in by now, over 40 years since his death. Being a Yankee simply doesn't make a ballplayer a HOFer.

[cgjackson222]

Given how brutal being a catcher is on the body, I think that catchers should not be expected to have the same numbers as other position players to make the HOF.

When compared with other catchers, Munson is about the 12th best catcher ever not including Negro Leagues, and the top 11 are all in the HOF except Mauer.

Add in the fact that Munson played really well in the postseason, batting .373 in 3 World Series, was a strong fielder, and a leader in the clubhouse of a winning squad, and I think he is a good candidate.

I think there are a bunch of borderline HOF catchers--Munson, Posey, Molina, Schang, Tenace, Freehan and Posada, to name a few. I think Munson is as good a candidate as any.

I will be a little annoyed if Molina or Posey make it in before Munson.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Given how brutal being a catcher is on the body, I think that catchers should not be expected to have the same numbers as other position players to make the HOF.

When compared with other catchers, Munson is about the 12th best catcher ever not including Negro Leagues, and the top 11 are all in the HOF except Mauer.

Add in the fact that Munson played really well in the postseason, batting .373 in 3 World Series, was a strong fielder, and a leader in the clubhouse of a winning squad, and I think he is a good candidate.

I think there are a bunch of borderline HOF catchers--Munson, Posey, Molina, Schang, Tenace, Freehan and Posada, to name a few. I think Munson is as good a candidate as any.

I will be a little annoyed if Molina or Posey make it in before Munson.

When, not if, IMO. Right or wrong, seems that's how this will unfold.

[Beercan collector]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Given how brutal being a catcher is on the body, I think that catchers should not be expected to have the same numbers as other position players to make the HOF.

When compared with other catchers, Munson is about the 12th best catcher ever not including Negro Leagues, and the top 11 are all in the HOF except Mauer.

Add in the fact that Munson played really well in the postseason, batting .373 in 3 World Series, was a strong fielder, and a leader in the clubhouse of a winning squad, and I think he is a good candidate.

I think there are a bunch of borderline HOF catchers--Munson, Posey, Molina, Schang, Tenace, Freehan and Posada, to name a few. I think Munson is as good a candidate as any.

I will be a little annoyed if Molina or Posey make it in before Munson.

Thank you
I think a catcher is the most valuable player on the field ,
Physically and mentally demanding - a leader and a coach On the field , Involved with every single pitch of the game and he’s The only player that has the umpires ear - pitchers important but a catcher can’t leave the sixth or seventh inning because he’s tired and a good catcher plays most of the games - Should be more catchers in the Hall of Fame

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But you're misstating the issue, in my opinion. The relevant question here is do the opinions of experts tasked with determining who should be in the Hall matter at all to the discussion? They aren't random people chosen out of the phone book, if they were, I would agree with you. I am only saying some weight should be given, they should not be completely disregarded. PS the blue sky is a bad example as it concerns a matter of fact, not opinion or belief, so opinions/beliefs there truly are meaningless.

The opinion of experts matters, is the deciding factor, as to who has, in fact, actually gotten in. It is not relevant to who should be in if standards are consistent (the underlying assumption when we have most hypothetical debate about whether X belongs in the Hall, as obviously we do not have a vote). A thing is not so or reasonable because X or Y believes it. WHO supports a position lends great rhetorical and sophistic support and will usually find popular support, but it's not evidence that that position is correct or the best one to take.

"Craig Biggio is better than Ken Griffey Jr. because Bill James said so" is a bad reason. "Craig Biggio is better than Ken Griffey Jr. because the small differences all ad up to produce more valuable, as evidenced by X, Y, Z metrics" is a reasonable argument to make, using provable actual facts to construct a proper argument for the position.

An argument requires proof, evidence, reason (depending on the arbitrary or not arbitrary nature of the discussion - hard proof shows Ty Cobb had a better batting average than R.J. Reynolds, reason to make a HOF case) to make itself, not appeal to expert Y or experts Z. Experts are not inherently correct, it's not a real reason or proof of the point that group Z agrees with you or agrees with me (or in this case, us as we seem to have the same position on the issue).

Harold Baines, for our most recent ridiculous example, is not a good HOF choice because the experts said he was. He either was or was not on some grounds of reason.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

The opinion of experts matters, is the deciding factor, as to who has, in fact, actually gotten in. It is not relevant to who should be in if standards are consistent (the underlying assumption when we have most hypothetical debate about whether X belongs in the Hall, as obviously we do not have a vote). A thing is not so or reasonable because X or Y believes it. WHO supports a position lends great rhetorical and sophistic support and will usually find popular support, but it's not evidence that that position is correct or the best one to take.

"Craig Biggio is better than Ken Griffey Jr. because Bill James said so" is a bad reason. "Craig Biggio is better than Ken Griffey Jr. because the small differences all ad up to produce more valuable, as evidenced by X, Y, Z metrics" is a reasonable argument to make, using provable actual facts to construct a proper argument for the position.

An argument requires proof, evidence, reason (depending on the arbitrary or not arbitrary nature of the discussion - hard proof shows Ty Cobb had a better batting average than R.J. Reynolds, reason to make a HOF case) to make itself, not appeal to expert Y or experts Z. Experts are not inherently correct, it's not a real reason or proof of the point that group Z agrees with you or agrees with me (or in this case, us as we seem to have the same position on the issue).

Harold Baines, for our most recent ridiculous example, is not a good HOF choice because the experts said he was. He either was or was not on some grounds of reason.

Most complex legal cases involve opinions of experts. The consensus for decades has been that such opinions are helpful to the finder of fact if certain requirements are met. In fact as we speak I am reviewing an expert report. Perhaps I should move to strike it on the basis that it's an improper appeal to authority?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Most complex legal cases involve opinions of experts. The consensus for decades has been that such opinions are helpful to the finder of fact if certain requirements are met. In fact as we speak I am reviewing an expert report. Perhaps I should move to strike it on the basis that it's an improper appeal to authority?

I know that you know the rules of a court room are not the same thing as reason. I certainly hope that your expert is there to present a real, constructed argument using facts rather than stating "I am an expert of X, therefore this is true" and resting it there. I hope he is saying something like "I am an expert in X. Because of A, B and C reasons it is my opinion that..." instead, a legitimate argument. You can try to twist it into countering an argument that all opinions from experts are invalid, but this is not the claim made nor is that what an appeal to authority is. The argument must be one from reasons, not simply appealing to being an expert.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

The opinion of experts matters, is the deciding factor, as to who has, in fact, actually gotten in. It is not relevant to who should be in if standards are consistent (the underlying assumption when we have most hypothetical debate about whether X belongs in the Hall, as obviously we do not have a vote). A thing is not so or reasonable because X or Y believes it. WHO supports a position lends great rhetorical and sophistic support and will usually find popular support, but it's not evidence that that position is correct or the best one to take.

"Craig Biggio is better than Ken Griffey Jr. because Bill James said so" is a bad reason. "Craig Biggio is better than Ken Griffey Jr. because the small differences all ad up to produce more valuable, as evidenced by X, Y, Z metrics" is a reasonable argument to make, using provable actual facts to construct a proper argument for the position.

An argument requires proof, evidence, reason (depending on the arbitrary or not arbitrary nature of the discussion - hard proof shows Ty Cobb had a better batting average than R.J. Reynolds, reason to make a HOF case) to make itself, not appeal to expert Y or experts Z. Experts are not inherently correct, it's not a real reason or proof of the point that group Z agrees with you or agrees with me (or in this case, us as we seem to have the same position on the issue).

Harold Baines, for our most recent ridiculous example, is not a good HOF choice because the experts said he was. He either was or was not on some grounds of reason.

It isn't binary -- that is, either opinions are dispositive or they are completely irrelevant. I see a middle ground where one can give them weight if appropriate. Of course, the opinion ultimately has to stand of its own accord, but to my mind, expert qualification to express the opinion under some circumstances adds weight if there are competing positions. We do this every day in civil litigation.

And sure, you can find examples where experts were off the mark. But that doesn't invalidate the general proposition that expert opinions are generally entitled to some weight, it's nothing more than trying to invalidate a proposition via an example at the very bottom of the slippery slope.

[RCMcKenzie]

To me, this topic is in the realm of entertainment, not science and philosophy.

Should Munson be in the Baseball Hall of Fame is like asking if Cher should be in the Rock N Roll Hall of fame.

Either you like them or you don't. There is no correct answer, so no reason to get upset about it.

Is Tom Cruise a better actor than the Rock? and so on.