Quote:
Originally Posted by brian1961
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
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seven
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.
|
Now we're getting somewhere, by acknowledging the math instead of pretending it doesn't exist. The argument that Munson's intangibles of being a Yankee hero are sufficient for the Hall is a much better argument.
My objection is while there can be some bonus for intangibles, it needs to be quite significant and in accord with previous Hall voting. Gene Tenace's team won more WS than Munson's Yankees. Why isn't he brought up constantly? Because he wasn't the team captain? Because he wasn't a Yankee captain?
Alright, let's look at Yankee team captains. There is no indication this job has had any correlation to the Hall. Fine players who were Yankee captains but don't quite have the stats are also not in. Randolph, Guidry, Mattingly, Nettles. I assume the counter argument will be that the difference is Munson won two World Series and these other fine player Yankee captains did not. If we limit to to 1) Yankee team captains who 2) don't quite have the stat line but 3) won 2 World Series, this constructs an argument that eliminates every other player in baseball history besides a couple obvious hall of famer Yankees like Jeter who are in on the strength of their actual performance. An argument tailored to arrange things distinctly for only one individual is usually not a good argument; it's usually done when a generally applicable standard can't be found to use.
I cannot think of an analogous selection in the Hall. There are bad choices in, mostly the result of 1) corruption on a vets committee or politics or 2) 19th century choices made in a time with less information and data available and trying to honor historic firsts or pioneers. While many allege it, I also can't see any consistent evidence of Yankee favoritism in hall voting that give a player bonus points for playing for the Yankees. I can't think of a player selected on similar grounds as Munson would be; I may well be forgetting one. Nobody as far as I recall has ever beens elected or really boosted for being a team captain; nobody has gotten in for winning two World Series; nobody has gotten in by a tragic death (Joss and Clemente were clearly deserving on merit and truly great players well above the baseline of the Hall).