Slightly OT - 2020 Modern Baseball Era HOF Ballot
 

Nine former big league players and one executive comprise the 10-name Modern Baseball Era ballot to be reviewed and voted upon Dec. 8 at the Baseball Winter Meetings.

Dwight Evans, Steve Garvey, Tommy John, Don Mattingly, Marvin Miller, Thurman Munson, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, Ted Simmons and Lou Whitaker are the candidates the Modern Baseball Era Committee will consider for Hall of Fame election for the Class of 2020. All candidates are former players except for Miller, who was the head of the Major League Baseball Players Association from 1966-82. All candidates except for Miller and Munson are living.

Let the BOOMERS' arguments begin!! :-)

No to all but would like to see Mattingly do well. He was easily the most talented of the group and the HOF has awarded stalled careers before (see Dizzy Dean for proof). I don't know how other people feel but if Mattingly didn't get hurt he's the guy everyone would have been comparing Albert Pujols to when Pujols was at his peak.

I think Whitaker may rate the highest of these in terms of the modern metrics. He's certainly the highest by far on Hall of Stats.

I'm pulling for my childhood favorite Thurman Munson!

HOFers?
 

Granted, this is only one measurement to take into consideration but it does provide some useful info. Here are their career WARs (from baseball-reference) and where they rank on the all-time list:

Whitaker #79 (75.1 WAR)
Evans #129 (67.1 WAR)
John #169 (61.5 WAR)
Simmons #301 (50.3 WAR)
Murphy #366 (46.5 WAR)
Munson #373 (46.1 WAR)
Mattingly #457 (42.4 WAR)
Parker #519 (40.1 WAR)
Garvey #575 (38.1 WAR)

Marvin Miller really needs to be in, really surprised he's not

Nope.

My votes would be for Marvin Miller, Lou Whitaker and Dale Murphy. Ted Simmons is also worthy.

These guys were all voted on multiple times and fell short. None are deserving.

Isn't Bobby Grich on this ballot?

This would be the ballot he would be on if he made the cut.

Whitaker and Miller

Marvin Miller will get in - he should've in 2007. It's just a shame that he won't be alive to see it.

In my weird opinion if Fred McGriff isn't in the hall nobody on that list should be.

My opinion is that if Harold Baines got in, everyone on the ballot should get in.

If Lou Whitaker had played his entire career for the Yankees, instead of the Tigers, he'd be in already. Just my opinion.

That's a helluva nice grouping. Specific metrics aside, Garvey, Parker, Mattingly and Whitaker were all looked at as studs during their careers. When their teams came to town, those are the guys you couldn't wait to see. To me, players like John, Evans, and Simmons (who I never realized had the career numbers he did until recently) were more about stamina, slowly accruing numbers over time while not being considered (forgive the puns) topps in their fields. Since everyone's hometown will greatly influence their feelings in regard to this list of players, Thurman Munson was a hard nosed leader who helped restore the Bronx Bombers to prominence. He is the one I am rooting for the most.

Dwight Evans
 

Dewey had a cannon for an arm.

Great all around baseball player!

Patrick

If he'd had a full career Munson would already be in.

I don't really buy the argument that they were all already voted on.

At least Evans was off the ballot because of the really strong field in 1999
(Ryan, Brett, Yount, in on their first, and Fisk and 5 other eventual HOFers. )
He was a decent hitter for the era, just missing 400hr at a time that was a solid milestone. And a great fielder.

There aren't really any on that list that wouldn't belong at all.

Whitaker didn't even make it past the first vote before he fell off. Sometimes there is merit in revisiting. Jorge Posada didn't survive his first vote either and I can't think of a more egregious example of a guy being criminally ignored (even if he ultimately isn't a HOFer).

Of the all-time top 80 players ranked by WAR, who is NOT a member of the Hall of Fame?

Answer:
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Albert Pujols
Adrian Beltre
Curt Schillling
Pete Rose

and...Lou Whitaker.

Of the top 16 second basemen ranked by WAR, there are 3 players NOT in the Hall. They are Bobby Grich, Robinson Cano, and Lou Whitaker.

Among 2nd basemen, he's ranked 7th in games played, 14th in JAWS (ahead of Alomar, Biggio, Doerr, Fox), 10th in home runs, 5th in walks, 4th in double plays turned, 11th in putouts, 18th in range factor (ahead of Morgan and Sandberg, Kent, and Cano), and 6th in assists.

1978 Rookie of the year, 3 gold gloves, 4 time silver slugger, 5 time all-star.

I hope he gets in. He really was the best player on the Tigers in those days in terms of pure talent.

Hope Munson gets in too.

Oh, he didn't even make the cut? Wow. His metrics are pretty undeniable.

7 more home runs and he likely would have been automatic.

Don't think I'd agree with this. Munson was already in major decline at the time of his death. He was still hitting for a decent average (.288) but his power had entirely evaporated. He slugged .373 and .374 his last two seasons.

Miller and Whitaker. Can;t believe Whitaker didn't go in with Trammel, he's one of the best 2B ever.

Mattingly and Marvin Miller. Mattingly, despite the back issues in the second half of his career, was a .307 lifetime hitter. He won 9 gold gloves and was an MVP. Almost every year of his 14 year career he was in the top 20 in MVP voting.
Marvin Miller had more of an impact on the game than most of the guys in the Hall now.

Mattingly, Miller and Whitaker have my votes. I loved Mattingly and Whitaker and Miller was just so important to the modern game of baseball.

Not really.

Hall of Fame Statistics
Black Ink
Batting - 8 (302), Average HOFer ≈ 27
Gray Ink
Batting - 40 (657), Average HOFer ≈ 144
Hall of Fame Monitor
Batting - 42 (484), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards
Batting - 32 (288), Average HOFer ≈ 50

JAWS
Second Base (8th):
71.1 career WAR / 46.4 7yr-peak WAR / 58.7 JAWS

I'm OK with Mattingly. He only had 4 or 5 really great years, but I he was pretty special during that time and was also pretty good for a few years after that. I always thought Whitaker was the quiet strength of the Detroit team back in the day so I'm good with him too. I think Simba should absolutely be in and also think that Dewey was vastly underrated. He had a gun in right field. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if Murphy or Parker got in either.

Marvin Miller should have been elected years ago, but the owners hate him for obvious reasons. Also, I think that he asked not to ever be elected shortly before he died, right after he missed the last time. Jay is right, there have been very few people as instrumental in the history of baseball as he was. That should mean something.

Ok, Beltre and Pujols aren't eligible yet. The guys with red text just picked a bad year to retire....

Marvin Miller will get in, although I never got too excited about non-players or managers getting in... I just feel there are too many. Morgan Bulkeley? Effa Manley? If Marvin Miller gets in then Curt Flood should get in by default! (Flood was good player too though with a career WAR higher than 2 of the guys on this ballot)

Of the players I don't see how Whitaker isn't in when they sent his 2 inferior Tigers teammates in recently (Morris & Trammell, although I had no problem with Trammell getting in).

Mattingly is jut not deserving to me, if he isn't a Yankee this isn't even a question.

I love Dale Murphy and he was great most years from 1980-1987 but the rest of his body of work just doesn't cut it.

Tommy John will get in eventually with his 288 wins and a respectable ERA. Moving forward pitchers aren't going to be sniffing 300 wins so it will be harder and harder to justify his exclusion.

I am always surprised at how pedestrian Steve Garvey's #'s are with how highly he was regarded in his heyday. Career WAR of less than 40 with 2,600 hits, 10x All-Star, 4X gold glove & an MVP award? Compare his numbers to Dwight Evans and Dewey gets the clear nod in my opinion!

Everything I just said of Steve Garvey can basically be said about Dave Parker.

Ted Simmons & Thurman Munson are interesting and I am not sure how I feel about them. Most catchers hit a bit of a production wall at about 32-33 years old and that was right when Munson died and we was showing signs of slowing down... but we will never know, he was a Yankee, and he has the sentimental "died too young" thing going for him so I wouldn't be shocked to see him inducted, many casual baseball fans that followed baseball in the 1970's are often surprised that he isn't already in when they find that out. I Feel like Simmons probably should be in as his career WAR, JAWS, etc. usually put him in the top 10-11 spots of all-time catchers, kinda hard to not include him.

In summary...

Will get in: Marvin Miller

Probably should get in or will get in someday: Lou Whitaker, Ted Simmons, Tommy John

Wouldn't be surprised to see them inducted: Dwight Evans & Thurman Munson

Just not quite enough: Dale Murphy

Not worthy: Mattingly, Garvey, Parker

One guy I am surprised is not on the ballot is Bill Madlock. Four batting titles.

His numbers for his 11 years are generally better than Fisks first 11 years. And Munson wasn't as much of a power hitter. Going by modern stats, his WAR compared to Fisks for the 11 years was better.

And consider that all that comes from a Red Sox fan.

Yeah, but he went from a guy hitting 16-20 homers to hitting 6. And on pace for 4-5 his last year.

He was CLEARLY declining. Fisk improved.

He's in the jerk category with Albert Belle.
Belle was a better player than everyone on the list and will never be elected.

Miller, Simmons and Munson

If any of the players got in I would say it was long overdue.

+1
 

As usual the Yankee lovers are all over their faves, but Whitaker is by far the best player of the era who is not in the HOF.

I would put Simmons in too. Miller is a no-brainer.

Why do people think Whitaker was such a good player? He only received 2.9 % of the vote when he was first eligible and was voted on by writers who watched him play. Mattingly was on the ballot for 15 years and people are saying he wasn't even close.

These Players rank among the top 1-2% All-Time
 

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.

The Cobra
 

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.

Donnie Baseball
 

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.

If Alan Trammell makes the Hall then Whitaker HAS to go in.

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.

Top 100 WAR all-time. Better than most infielders already inducted.

Because the writers are wrong a lot and some players are just not appreciated by them relative to their actual worth to the team. Whitaker was always vastly underrated by just about everyone. Retrospectively looking back we are starting to realize some players were not appreciated like they should have been (Whitaker) while others were largely overrated (Steve Garvey is a good example).

Not sure how someone with a career OPS of .810 has better numbers than a guy with a career OPS of .933

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.

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.

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

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/

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."

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.

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.

Edgar 68.4 WAR
Parker 40.1

The HOF rests its case.

Hall of Stats
Edgar 136
Parker 78

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....

Roger that, moot point if there ever was one.

How so? I have found it a pretty reliable site for rating players.

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.

For sure, I was saying my argument was moot as the proof was in the pudding with one in the Hall, and one....not.

Don't get me started on Baines...

Yeah, next to Baines, Parker is first ballot LOL.

Only if you only value WAR. I think it is because people value fantasy stats more today than actual production, such as leading your team to 5 World Series. WAR seems to greatly over value walks and doesn't really care about actual production or clutch stats. It also greatly over values certain positions such as 2B while under valuing others such as C. I find the idea that Lou Whitaker had "value" equal to Johnny Bench absurd and brings the whole concept of WAR into question.

My top 3 picks would be 1) Munson, 2) Parker, and 3) Whitaker, in that order.

Better in what sense, though? I look at his 162 game average and I see a player who might have made a couple all star teams in their career: 276 / 17 homers / 73 rbis / 789 OPS / 117 OPS+.

You're telling me that if you saw those stats without knowing who the player was, you'd think they were one of the top 100 payers of all time?

When I hear people talking about WAR (a completely theoretical stat!!), it's like listening to the arrogant Bob Costas lecturing us about baseball. He has never played a game of baseball in his life. He's never even played a game of Wiffle Ball at a family picnic in his life, yet he wants to be all pedantic about the game. That analysis doesn't gel with people (like me and my friends) who have played baseball/softball our entire lives. Having real knowledge about what actually happens on a field is much more important when analyzing players. For instance, how many runs/extra base hits/base advances did Dave Parker prevent due to his opponents' fear of his cannon of an arm? And I have to imagine that the vast majority of people on this site have seen most, if not all, of these players in their primes. Hometown and personal biases aside, we all KNOW what each of these guys brought to the table. Deep dives into advanced sabermetrics are unnecessary.

Arguments like this are funny, like saying that because Albert Einstein never travelled at the speed of light his theory of relativity is BS.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edgars career numbers most closely resemble Will Clark, Moises Alou, Magglio Ordonez and John Olerud. You can talk about War and OPS all you want but his career numbers are equivalent with these guys. Tell me why Will Clark shouldn’t be in if Edgar is.

+1

The fans who truly understand the intricacies of the game (especially from firsthand playing experience), and the players and coaches who battled against the ballot candidates, are the ones who can speak to the unquantifiables that some of the greatest players brought to the game.

OMG, you are hilarious!!!!! Your dumb analogy doesn't even come close to what I was saying.

Well, my use of the word funny wasn't meant in the comedic sense. It was in the strange/perplexing sense. And I certainly didn't mean anything personally against you, specifically, when I posted. That's why it is funny (strange) to me that you would seem to take it that way.

Personal observation tends to be both anecdotal and biased which is why stats are very helpful. Now what stats you think matter is a subject for debate.

I think context plays a big role (particularly era they were in), while also Lou's defense obviously plays a big role, too.
One other middle infielder slashed .262/.337/.328 for a career OPS of .666 and an OPS+ of 87 and made it to the HOF on his first ballot, thanks to stellar defense.
The Cooperstown Cred article on Whitaker notes how close he and Sandberg are statistically, too...
https://www.cooperstowncred.com/when...-hall-of-fame/

I like to KNOW {WHY } we hold catchers to such HIGH stats as a 1b, 3b or a of player ? Lets put Mantle, Schimdt , Gehrig behind the plate for most of there careers & lets see , how less stats , they would have ! To me if you hit 225 to 300 HRS, drive in around 1100 runs, or get 2,000 hits or 400 doubles , add catch a good game & can throw a little, that is GOOD ENOUGH ? HOFer catchers are Munson ,Simmons , L.Parrish ....Munson was well on his way, Simmons was a{SH } & the better hitter on this list .Parrish won gold gloves , went to ALL*STAR games in the 1980's & like Gary Carter , both had 324 career HRS, top 5 ALL - time at the catcher spot ?:eek:

My point was clearly that we saw these people play throughout most or all of their careers. We experienced these players directly. So with regard to your Albert Einstein analogy, in this case he DID travel at the speed of light. He (analogous to us rating these players) is talking through direct knowledge and not theoretics.

Two things I find interesting:

1. If you line up the players on the ballot by career WAR and highest % of the vote they received from the BBWAA, you get almost a perfect inverse. Sometimes we forget how bad the HOF voting used to be...historically they run about 3-4 “Baines” per decade!

2. Ted Simmons missed last time he was on the ballot (“veterans”, not BBWAA) by 1 vote