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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don't think Munson is a strong candidate, but he also wouldn't be a shocking choice. He's a bit below the line, but not that far below it and he has the intangibles of having a lot of fanboys who don't care about math, a tragic story, and being a Yankee captain.

I just wouldn't use the vote results to make the case - a player is meritorious or not because he is or is not actually meritorious, not because the voters did X or Y.

The arguments that he is with Bench or Fisk or was replacement level during his prime are just absurdist reactions at opposite ends of the absurdity spectrum. It usually takes less than 15 posts in a HOF thread before we've devolved into a world that is completely distinct and separate from any actual reality.

I get it, but at the same time to me the fact of voters over 15 years being that unimpressed, who were from that period, is at least relevant, although of course not definitive.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I get it, but at the same time to me the fact of voters over 15 years being that unimpressed, who were from that period, is at least relevant, although of course not definitive.

My only issue is that if I made this argument, that Munson is not deserving because the voters overwhelmingly thought he was not deserving, then I would have to take that argument for everyone else. For example, I would have to conclude that Arky Vaughn was a poor Vets Committee choice, because the voters overwhelmingly rejected him during his many years on the ballot. It seems to me the safe and fair argument to make about Munson, and to hold everyone to the same standard, is the mathematical one.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

My only issue is that if I made this argument, that Munson is not deserving because the voters overwhelmingly thought he was not deserving, then I would have to take that argument for everyone else. For example, I would have to conclude that Arky Vaughn was a poor Vets Committee choice, because the voters overwhelmingly rejected him during his many years on the ballot. It seems to me the safe and fair argument to make about Munson, and to hold everyone to the same standard, is the mathematical one.

The committees haven't put Munson in either.

[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.

[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.