bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,584
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jul 27, 2022 7:24:33 GMT -5
Mauer will make the HOF - and probably easily make it. He is 7th among all catchers in JAWS (a measure of HOF worthiness posted on Baseball Reference). The top 11 catchers (excluding Mauer) is the HOF. Of the top 15 catchers of all-time, only Mauer (7th), Munson (12th), Tenace (13th) and Posey (14th) aren't in the HOF. Mauer and Posey aren't eligible. Gene Tenace is one of the most underrated players of all-time.
Edgar was a very deserving member of the HOF.
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Jul 27, 2022 13:10:45 GMT -5
They already let Baines and Morris in, so adding another good but not really great player? Sure. You probably ought to advocate for Rick Reuschel though who was better than Parker and way-the-hell better than Jack Morris (especially as a human being) Mauer is more worthy than Ted Simmons and Parker was a better player than Baines. I just think if you measure a hall of famer by the intangibles as well as the hard numbers those two guys eventually getting a plaque is not unreasonable.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 27, 2022 17:49:35 GMT -5
Joe Mauer seems like an iffy prospect for the HOF. If he wasn't a catcher he would have no chance, but he was a catcher for his first decade or so. Compare his stats with Edgar Martinez, who got elected in his very last year of eligibility, and Mauer is ... well, it's not terribly close at all. But of course Martinez was a DH, while Mauer was a catcher, and he's going to get a lot of credit for being a catcher. Mauer has almost exactly the career WAR as Big Roidy (David Ortiz) did, so I think he gets in. Ortiz was a career DH. Speaking of which, I wonder if the writers will hold to their sanctimonious position on PED users when they just elected a guy who failed a test. First ballot, no less. It is absolutely absurd that Ortiz got in on his first try, while Barry Bonds (the best player of the last 50 years or so, even without steroids) remains on the outside.
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Jul 27, 2022 22:19:21 GMT -5
WAR, huh, yeah What is it good for? Absolutely nothing Say it again, y'all
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 28, 2022 1:21:40 GMT -5
Joe Mauer seems like an iffy prospect for the HOF. If he wasn't a catcher he would have no chance, but he was a catcher for his first decade or so. Compare his stats with Edgar Martinez, who got elected in his very last year of eligibility, and Mauer is ... well, it's not terribly close at all. But of course Martinez was a DH, while Mauer was a catcher, and he's going to get a lot of credit for being a catcher. Mauer has almost exactly the career WAR as Big Roidy (David Ortiz) did, so I think he gets in. Ortiz was a career DH. Speaking of which, I wonder if the writers will hold to their sanctimonious position on PED users when they just elected a guy who failed a test. First ballot, no less. It is absolutely absurd that Ortiz got in on his first try, while Barry Bonds (the best player of the last 50 years or so, even without steroids) remains on the outside. Ortiz played for Boston, which is almost as much of a boost as playing for the Yankees. I am pretty convinced that Ortiz was part of why Martinez got elected. Edgar was getting better and better vote totals every year as people started to understand more about what his value had been and some of the glut of candidates on the ballots either dropped off or got elected, but even so there had never been a "pure DH" (Edgar actually started as a 3rd baseman) elected to the HOF. But I think everybody knew Ortiz was likely to be a first ballot pick, and how could you say Edgar didn't deserve to get in because he was a DH and then immediately vote for Ortiz to get in? Edgar's numbers were actually pretty favorable compared to Ortiz. Martinez was a high-average hitter with extra-base power, while Ortiz was a HR slugger, but overall Edgar's offense productivity was pretty close to Ortiz in most metrics. Edgar better in some, Ortiz better in some. There just was no real argument for why Edgar should not get in but Ortiz should, much less get in easily on the first ballot. However, playing in Seattle and never winning a World Series versus playing in Boston and winning several got Ortiz a lot of HOF votes. As for Bonds, Clemons, etc. -- well, obviously people make arguments both ways. Alex Rodriguez is another sure-fire HOF player as one of the best shortstops in baseball history (way better than Derek Jeter), but it looks like he won't be getting elected either unless people suddenly decide to forgive him for his admitted PED use. I suspect someday the HOF will add a special "steroid era" committee that will try to assess which players should be in even though they are known to have used PEDs.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 28, 2022 1:37:31 GMT -5
Mauer has almost exactly the career WAR as Big Roidy (David Ortiz) did, so I think he gets in. Ortiz was a career DH. Speaking of which, I wonder if the writers will hold to their sanctimonious position on PED users when they just elected a guy who failed a test. First ballot, no less. It is absolutely absurd that Ortiz got in on his first try, while Barry Bonds (the best player of the last 50 years or so, even without steroids) remains on the outside. Ortiz played for Boston, which is almost as much of a boost as playing for the Yankees. I am pretty convinced that Ortiz was part of why Martinez got elected. Edgar was getting better and better vote totals every year as people started to understand more about what his value had been and some of the glut of candidates on the ballots either dropped off or got elected, but even so there had never been a "pure DH" (Edgar actually started as a 3rd baseman) elected to the HOF. But I think everybody knew Ortiz was likely to be a first ballot pick, and how could you say Edgar didn't deserve to get in because he was a DH and then immediately vote for Ortiz to get in? Edgar's numbers were actually pretty favorable compared to Ortiz. Martinez was a high-average hitter with extra-base power, while Ortiz was a HR slugger, but overall Edgar's offense productivity was pretty close to Ortiz in most metrics. Edgar better in some, Ortiz better in some. There just was no real argument for why Edgar should not get in but Ortiz should, much less get in easily on the first ballot. However, playing in Seattle and never winning a World Series versus playing in Boston and winning several got Ortiz a lot of HOF votes. As for Bonds, Clemons, etc. -- well, obviously people make arguments both ways. Alex Rodriguez is another sure-fire HOF player as one of the best shortstops in baseball history (way better than Derek Jeter), but it looks like he won't be getting elected either unless people suddenly decide to forgive him for his admitted PED use. I suspect someday the HOF will add a special "steroid era" committee that will try to assess which players should be in even though they are known to have used PEDs. Very well argued post. I 100% agree that Ortiz playing in Boston was a major factor. Those Boston writers got Jim Rice in, and now this. Interesting theory about Martinez getting a boost to prop up Ortiz. That strikes me as similar to the way the CFP committee would prop up certain teams to boost the teams at the top. Just going by WAR, Edgar was a significantly better player than Ortiz with an advantage of 68.4 to 55.3. 13 extra WAR is a lot. I also agree that a committee will eventually have to decide what to do about the PED users. I think a committee of players from that era would do the best job with it.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 28, 2022 1:49:16 GMT -5
If they do put in known or suspected PED users, I'd include the following (not in any particular order):
-Barry Bonds -Roger Clemens -Alex Rodriguez -Manny Ramirez -Mark McGwire -Raphael Palmeiro -Sammy Sosa
I'm probably forgetting someone, but those are the ones that I could think of off the top of my head. I think they were all better than Ortiz was.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2022 6:29:05 GMT -5
They already let Baines and Morris in, so adding another good but not really great player? Sure. You probably ought to advocate for Rick Reuschel though who was better than Parker and way-the-hell better than Jack Morris (especially as a human being) Mauer is more worthy than Ted Simmons and Parker was a better player than Baines. I just think if you measure a hall of famer by the intangibles as well as the hard numbers those two guys eventually getting a plaque is not unreasonable. Mauer: 55 WAR, (40ish at catcher), 124 OPS, 921 games at catcher Simmons: 50 WAR (46ish at catcher), 118 OPS, 1771 games at catcher Yes, Mauer's first numbers are similar as Simmons, but he played half as long at catcher. There's a great deal to be said for longevity combined with excellence. Mauer played 140g/season five times. Simmons did it like a dozen and caught 140+ games in something like five consecutive seasons. If character/personal stuff is used as critera, Parker doesn't go in. He was a heavy cocaine user, etc. Very good? Sure. But he committed more errors than any 20th century RF--you just remember his big arm. The errors aren't in highlights. He's not near the top of any leaderboards in stats, etc. His big argument is "he was better than Baines". On that, I got nothing because it's a 100% correct statement. Baines is in the HOF because LaRussa and Reinsdorf were part of the process. His selection is just as bad as all the Veteran Committee picks of the 50s/60s.
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Jul 28, 2022 11:23:51 GMT -5
the veterans committee picks of the 50s/60s...yes. As questionable as some selections for the baseball HOF are it's still better than pro football where it seems like seven or eight guys make it in every year.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 28, 2022 14:01:25 GMT -5
the veterans committee picks of the 50s/60s...yes. As questionable as some selections for the baseball HOF are it's still better than pro football where it seems like seven or eight guys make it in every year. The Pro Football Hall of Fame isn't too inclusive. It's arguably not inclusive enough (way more positions in football). The basketball HOF lets too many people in.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jul 28, 2022 14:08:26 GMT -5
If they do put in known or suspected PED users, I'd include the following (not in any particular order): -Barry Bonds -Roger Clemens -Alex Rodriguez -Manny Ramirez -Mark McGwire -Raphael Palmeiro -Sammy Sosa I'm probably forgetting someone, but those are the ones that I could think of off the top of my head. I think they were all better than Ortiz was. Put them all in and build a wing contextualizing the "steroid era." It's impossible to know who was actually clean (and is actually clean today, for that matter). The current situation, with several of the greatest players ever excluded, is absurd. Barry Bonds, whom I hate, is probably the single greatest baseball player to ever live and that fact he's not in the HOF diminishes the Hall as much as it does Bonds. (of course, Barry would have likely been a top 10 player ever without juicing, but that's neither here nor there)
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jul 28, 2022 14:17:04 GMT -5
the veterans committee picks of the 50s/60s...yes. As questionable as some selections for the baseball HOF are it's still better than pro football where it seems like seven or eight guys make it in every year. The Pro Football Hall of Fame isn't too inclusive. It's arguably not inclusive enough (way more positions in football). The basketball HOF lets too many people in. Football seriously underrecognizes offensive linemen. I don't see many glaring mistakes with the basketball hall, at least as far as ex-NBA players. Here's the '23 eligible class, for example (top ten ranked by career win shares) Dirk Pau Shawn Marion Chauncey DWade Buck Williams Horance Grant Tony Parker Terry Porter Elton Brand A class of Dirk/Pau/Marion/Billups/Wade/Parker is pretty damn great. It'd be hard to exclude any of them.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 28, 2022 14:32:17 GMT -5
The baseball HOF has some serious problems if you are going to use the "better than an existing HOFer" argument, because there are some really bad existing HOFers. At some point you just have to acknowledge that there are some bad HOF players and stop saying that everybody better than them needs to be in.
Either that, or else just put everybody who was pretty decent in the HOF and stop fretting about it.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jul 28, 2022 14:41:33 GMT -5
If they do put in known or suspected PED users, I'd include the following (not in any particular order): -Barry Bonds -Roger Clemens -Alex Rodriguez -Manny Ramirez -Mark McGwire -Raphael Palmeiro -Sammy Sosa I'm probably forgetting someone, but those are the ones that I could think of off the top of my head. I think they were all better than Ortiz was. Put them all in and build a wing contextualizing the "steroid era." It's impossible to know who was actually clean (and is actually clean today, for that matter). The current situation, with several of the greatest players ever excluded, is absurd. Barry Bonds, whom I hate, is probably the single greatest baseball player to ever live and that fact he's not in the HOF diminishes the Hall as much as it does Bonds. (of course, Barry would have likely been a top 10 player ever without juicing, but that's neither here nor there) I don't think Bonds was the best player ever but almost certainly the best player in at least 50 years or so.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jul 28, 2022 14:48:22 GMT -5
We'll never know how good Bonds "would have been without juicing".
Anyway, personality and likeability definitely play a factor. Ortiz seems to have been well-liked. Much easier to forgive a guy who is well-liked. Clemons? Not so much, even though he's certainly one of a handful of "best pitchers in baseball history". Bonds? No. Rodriguez? No, although his appearances as an analyst may actually be changing that, as people seem to respond better to him as an analyst than they did as a player.
|
|