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

[G1911]

Munson was a league average bat his final two years, his age 31 and 32 seasons. He was done as a significant player already; if anything his early death is the only reason he's given as a candidate - if he had played out his decline he would not be in the discussion as he wouldn't even have the rate stats (which are not particularly strong) to point to.

I think there's a reason Yankees fans bring this up a lot but he still isn't in. He wouldn't be the worst choice, it's not entirely unreasonable, but he's short of the general line of achievement that has gotten catchers in.

[Mike D.]

Munson vs. Joe Mauer, who's on the ballot for the 1st time this year via Baseball-Reference's cool "compare tool":



Mauer was worth 7.6 WAR after his age 32 season. If you cut those off and end both after their age 32 season, they're within 2.1 WAR for their career.

Munson's career WAR is higher than both Buster Posey and Yadier Molina, both of whom are often talked about as future Hall of Famers.

Personally, I think all four belong. Most of the catchers in the 40's WAR-wise wouldn't be terrible HOFers.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by G1911

Munson was a league average bat his final two years, his age 31 and 32 seasons. He was done as a significant player already; if anything his early death is the only reason he's given as a candidate - if he had played out his decline he would not be in the discussion as he wouldn't even have the rate stats (which are not particularly strong) to point to.

I think there's a reason Yankees fans bring this up a lot but he still isn't in. He wouldn't be the worst choice, it's not entirely unreasonable, but he's short of the general line of achievement that has gotten catchers in.

I think Munson would certainly be a better choice for the Hall of Fame than a recent selection like Harold Baines. I wish I could've seen Munson play, as he's a little before my time.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Seven

I think Munson would certainly be a better choice for the Hall of Fame than a recent selection like Harold Baines. I wish I could've seen Munson play, as he's a little before my time.

I think we could probably identify 75 or so HOF qualifying players who were more meritous than Baines. That one was absurdly corrupt. It's like we've returned to the Frisch era the last few years with the inconsistent choices that are clearly not reflective of actual merit or lack thereof.

[jingram058]

Munson should be in the HoF. He was the best catcher in baseball. It wasn't his fault he freaking died.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Munson should be in the HoF. He was the best catcher in baseball. It wasn't his fault he freaking died.

Johnny Bench was the best catcher in baseball at that time. Not even close.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Johnny Bench was the best catcher in baseball at that time. Not even close.

Yes it was close, Peter. Munson was the American League version.

[G1911]

I don’t see any reasonable case that Munson was either as good as Bench, or as bad as a replacement level player. At some point math and reality have to interfere with narrative. Must we always take the greatest of extremes?

[Kutcher55]

Statistically he is probably a below average candidate, but he has the intangibles having been one of the key players on some historically important and memorable Yankee teams in the 70s. Some might say he was the backbone/spiritual leader of those Yankee teams. For those reasons, I don't think he'd be a terrible candidate.

In a way he reminds me of Steve Garvey. Same era, was a huge star in the game for many years, a marquee name and a clutch player on memorable teams. His WAR puts him well short, but probably more deserving than many including Harold Baines, or Lee Smith.

Fred Lynn is another one. Probably a near miss, but he was one of the best players in baseball for the better part of a decade. Injuries keep him out.

[packs]

Munson was just not an all time great player. Sorry, guys. I'm a huge Yankees fan but he's all mystique and no production. I would even say he's lucky to have an MVP on his resume, as George Brett was clearly the superior player in 1976 (Brett OPS+ was 144 with 7.5 WAR compared to 126 and 5.3 WAR for Munson).

Even in his prime he spent several seasons hovering around replacement level with OPS+ of 105, 101 and 101.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by packs

Munson was just not an all time great player. Sorry, guys. I'm a huge Yankees fan but he's all mystique and no production. I would even say he's lucky to have an MVP on his resume, as George Brett was clearly the superior player in 1976 (Brett OPS+ was 144 with 7.5 WAR compared to 126 and 5.3 WAR for Munson).

Even in his prime he spent several seasons hovering around replacement level with OPS+ of 105, 101 and 101.

Sorry packs, you're wrong. He was the best catcher in all of baseball.

[mckinneyj]

Originally Posted by jingram058

He was the best catcher in all of baseball.

Munson was a tremendous competitor, but, Bench, Fisk and Simmons might take issue with that "best" declaration.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by packs

Munson was just not an all time great player. Sorry, guys. I'm a huge Yankees fan but he's all mystique and no production. I would even say he's lucky to have an MVP on his resume, as George Brett was clearly the superior player in 1976 (Brett OPS+ was 144 with 7.5 WAR compared to 126 and 5.3 WAR for Munson).

Even in his prime he spent several seasons hovering around replacement level with OPS+ of 105, 101 and 101.

A 100 OPS+ isn't replacement level it's league average and for a catcher it's above average. But yeah, I would have voted for Brett over Munson. Maybe Nettles as well.