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

[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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Seven

Concerning your part about Yankees Captains, I wanted to bring this up. Randolph, In my opinion, by the metrics of the Hall of Fame, should've been given at least consideration. Compiling a 65.9 bWAR, over a lengthy career was impressive. I think he's very underrated.

Mattingly, had he not gotten hurt, would've easily made the Hall of Fame. His persistent back issues, led to his demise. Nothing we can do about that, though. I think he certainly had the talent, just couldn't stay healthy.

Nettles, is another guy I don't understand how he's not in the current iteration of the Hall. His JAWS has him right there with Molitor, Martinez and Rolen. He has a 67.9 bWAR. Again another player very underrated.

I do think all 3 deserved an honest look. Mattingly got one, and has again and again. I do have a very hard time supporting nearly league average bats, obviously offensive requirements are significantly lessened for 3B and 2B but it's a stretch argument. I'm not convinced that dWAR and games played should really get one in.

[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

[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?

[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.

[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

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.

Both aspects are relevant which is my point. Certainly, an expert will explain in detail the basis of his or her opinion, but equally importantly, will give his or her qualifications and experience to render that opinion. From experience I would say both aspects are equally important.

You say you are not making an appeal to authority argument, but when you say we should disregard the opinions of all experts who have weighed in on HOF votes, and focus solely on the numbers or other merits, I think you are making such an argument or a species of one. For example, if the five leading experts on a particular disease opine that a certain treatment works, in addition to considering the substance of their argument, I would give weight to the fact of their opinions.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Both aspects are relevant which is my point. Certainly, an expert will explain in detail the basis of his or her opinion, but equally importantly, will give his or her qualifications and experience to render that opinion. From experience I would say both aspects are equally important.

You say you are not making an appeal to authority argument, but when you say we should disregard the opinions of all experts who have weighed in on HOF votes, and focus solely on the numbers or other merits, I think you are making such an argument or a species of one. For example, if the five leading experts on a particular disease opine that a certain treatment works, in addition to considering the substance of their argument, I would give weight to the fact of their opinions.

I am saying we should focus on the reasons he is or is not deserving of being in the HOF. The fact that the voters did not vote for him is not a reason he is or is not deserving - it is irrelevant who makes the argument. An argument is not valid or true or reasoned because I make it or you make it or a HOF voter makes it.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You say you are not making an appeal to authority argument, but when you say we should disregard the opinions of all experts who have weighed in on HOF votes, and focus solely on the numbers or other merits, I think you are making such an argument or a species of one.

You can believe that focusing on the actual reasoned argument rather than who makes it is an appeal to authority, but that is plainly factually false. We've hit the point of complete ridiculousness again. If a conman says something, that does not make it false. If the world's foremost expert says something, that does not make it true. In both cases there is an actual reason it is true or false and you know that very well. There's nothing reasonable to say to this lol

[Peter_Spaeth]

Again, you are going back to factual statements and I agree, something is either true or false independent of the speaker. But in matters of opinion, where there is no right and wrong, or true or false (except at the extremes perhaps), or where we aren't at the point yet we can conclusively prove something true or false, then I think others' opinions do count for something. And whose opinion it is matters. If it's a difference of opinion on a matter involving a virus between the world's leading virologist and a chiropractor, if I can't decide based on the arguments themselves, I might give more weight to the virologist. If that's an appeal to authority, and I don't think so, so be it. I'll give you the last word.

So in this context, whether Munson belongs clearly has no right and wrong answer, so if I'm undecided after hearing the merits arguments, it might matter to me that 1000 baseball writers said no, more than that 1000 fans who loved him as a kid said yes.

[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 😐

[Chuck9788]

So how much longer do you think Thurman Munson career would have been in MLB had he not been tragically killed in the Aug 1979 plane crash? Also, do you think Munson would have possibly been traded to another team if he were not killed?

[Seven]

Originally Posted by Chuck9788

So how much longer do you think Thurman Munson career would have been in MLB had he not been tragically killed in the Aug 1979 plane crash? Also, do you think Munson would have possibly been traded to another team if he were not killed?

I believe there were rumors that he liked the idea of Cleveland? Something to do with his family.

I think he would've had at least 3 more seasons in the bigs.