The only Modern Baseball candidate I'd really like to see get in is Ted Simmons. Munson was a great player, but for me, he just didn't play enough games, not even for a catcher. I just don't think Parrish was quite good enough.

I could live with Mattingly, Whitaker, Lynn, or Bonds. I'd say no to any of them, but none of them seriously dilutes the talent pool in the Hall. Anybody else on the list I really don't like.

Posted by Got_Worms on 6/1/2019 11:22:00 AM (view original):
Catcher definitely is an under represented position in Cooperstown. Bill Freehan made 10 straight All-Star games (11 total), and 5 consecutive Gold Glove's which is pretty impressive, especially for a catcher!

Surprised he was only on one ballot in 1982 receiving very little support. As far as catchers go, Thurman Munson definitely belongs!

Munson had under 6000 career plate appearances. I think his HOF candidacy is strongly boosted by his tragic death. It looked like his career was winding down at the time of his death, and he was talking about retiring. He wasn't hitting in 1979. If he had just had his career peter out in 2 or 3 more unsuccessful years, or had actually retired at the end of 1979, I don't think people would be advancing him as a candidate. But because of the implied "what ifs" from his death, he's a sneaky-popular candidate.

I get it, and he's another guy I wouldn't hate to see get in. But I'm not sure he's one of my top-5 most-deserving catchers who aren't already in the Hall.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/1/2019 2:38:00 PM (view original):
The only Modern Baseball candidate I'd really like to see get in is Ted Simmons. Munson was a great player, but for me, he just didn't play enough games, not even for a catcher. I just don't think Parrish was quite good enough.

I could live with Mattingly, Whitaker, Lynn, or Bonds. I'd say no to any of them, but none of them seriously dilutes the talent pool in the Hall. Anybody else on the list I really don't like.

Not a Dale Murphy guy?

Fred Lynn had some impressive accomplishments: ROY/MVP in the same season, only player ever hit a grand slam in the all-star game, and should've been 1979 AL MVP!

Definitely not. Dale Murphy is a borderline top-10 OF of the 1980s. You don't need 10 OFs from one decade. I want Henderson, Raines, and Gwynn in. I'd also probably take Dawson, Yount, Rice, and Jack Clark ahead of Murphy. Maybe Winfield. Probably Dwight Evans. Maybe another guy or 2 I'm forgetting.

Murphy had a 4- or 5-year stretch that was really good, but not nearly good enough for me to drag him into the HOF. His career numbers are very pedestrian for an OF (in the context of HOF candidacy). I prefer Lynn because his best seasons were so great. But I don't really think either of them belong.

would love to see Lofton and Belle get more support. Belle was definitely on track to make it before he got hurt. His seven year run from 1993 through 1999 was absolutely ridiculous. 162 game averages were:

.308/.391/.602, 45 doubles, 45 HRs, 137 RBI

Just nuts. In strike-shortened 1995 he still managed 52 doubles and 50 homers. But he's a colossal a-hole so probably won't get much support.

Lofton really got screwed with so little support when he was on the ballot, his career compares very favorably to Tim Raines. Both were monster leadoff hitters early in their careers, and both managed to hang on for a while and still contribute as they aged and lost speed.

Raines: .294/.385/.435, 2600 hits, 113 triples, 808 SB
Lofton: .299/.372/.423, 2428 hits, 116 triples, 622 SB

That Raines/Lofton comparison is ignoring three very important factors -

1) Raines had over 1000 more plate appearances. Almost 2 full seasons worth of extra career.

2) Raines played the greatest number of his games in the 80s, Lofton in the '90s - the triple slash may look similar, but that ignores league environment. Raines' OPS+ is 123, Lofton's 107. That is a massive gap when taken in terms of percentile. Amongst outfielders, without looking up charts, Lofton would be basically a 50th percentile hitter by OPS+, and Raines something like 80-85th percentile.

3) In spite of Raines being the more prolific base thief, he was caught fewer times than Lofton.

I don't think the Lofton for HOF discussion is as ridiculous as a lot of people on this site seem to think. I don't think he belongs, but he's close enough to talk about. But he's not close to Raines.

So I threw this together quickly because it's a bit easier. This is based on wRC+, amongst outfielders with at least 3000 career PAs since 1920. For reference, Raines' wRC+ is 125, and Lofton's is 109.

Percentile	wRC+
5%	86
10%	91
15%	95
20%	97
25%	100
30%	102
35%	104
40%	106
45%	107
50%	109
55%	111
60%	113
65%	115
70%	118
75%	120
80%	123
85%	127
90%	131
95%	137

I honestly can't believe how nicely I nailed those percentiles.

Lofton career WAR: 68.4
Raines career WAR: 69.4

not close to Raines, eh?

Raines was certainly a better hitter in the context of his era, but they were very similar in what they actually did at the plate, which was the point of the comparison. And Lofton was a much better fielder, he played center field at an elite level for a long time while Raines was a mediocre left fielder.

that's a lot of numbers to prove the very obvious point that there were more home runs hit in the 1990s and 2000s than in the 1980s

you get a debate club gold star

I think it's a lot more useful than that. 107 vs. 123 doesn't mean much without context. You don't know what that gap really means. But it's much easier to understand 50th vs. 82nd percentile.

Do you want to try to argue that HOF entry should be based on WAR? Historically, offense has virtually always been weighted far, far ahead of defense, at least as long as you aren't talking about SS or C. Andruw Jones is in danger of dropping off the ballot, and he blew Lofton away defensively.

I feel like the tone of that last post could be misconstrued. That was intended to be a serious question - should the HOF ideally house the players who produced the most total value (and that doesn't have to literally be bWAR or fWAR or whatever, but however you can best accumulate total value of a player's total accomplishments on the field)?

I don't think the answer to this question is yes. My reasoning comes back to the fact that "it's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Very Good." It's also not the "Hall of Great." Fame is not a talent level, or a level of accomplishment. This is not to say that I think the most famous players should go in, but rather that the HOF is designed to preserve what each generation remembered about baseball in each of its eras. From their own website: "The Hall of Fame's mission is to preserve the sport's history, honor excellence within the game and make a connection between the generations of people who enjoy baseball."

I think it's more valuable to enshrine players who did things that were memorable, or who captured the public imagination, than necessarily exclusively the "best" players. Often those overlap, but not always.

"I think it's more valuable to enshrine players who did things that were memorable, or who captured the public imagination, than necessarily exclusively the "best" players. Often those overlap, but not always."

Joe Carter has a strong case based on this criteria. Plus he was a prolific run producer and set a record with three consecutive 100+ RBI seasons with three different teams.

I think he was the first 1B to have a 30-30 season until Bagwell came along.

His World Series HR is one of the best moments in baseball history, not just the 1990's!

Posted by 06gsp on 6/1/2019 7:06:00 PM (view original):
Lofton career WAR: 68.4
Raines career WAR: 69.4

not close to Raines, eh?

Raines was certainly a better hitter in the context of his era, but they were very similar in what they actually did at the plate, which was the point of the comparison. And Lofton was a much better fielder, he played center field at an elite level for a long time while Raines was a mediocre left fielder.

Maybe this just proves what some on this site think - WAR is a useless piece of crap.

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/1/2019 8:36:00 PM (view original):
I think it's a lot more useful than that. 107 vs. 123 doesn't mean much without context. You don't know what that gap really means. But it's much easier to understand 50th vs. 82nd percentile.

Do you want to try to argue that HOF entry should be based on WAR? Historically, offense has virtually always been weighted far, far ahead of defense, at least as long as you aren't talking about SS or C. Andruw Jones is in danger of dropping off the ballot, and he blew Lofton away defensively.

in The Hall i would like a little more respect for D and a little less for O at the positions that count

there may be something to the idea that a great hitter is a force multiplier

and a great defender only gets to chip in once maybe in a BABIP and never always in a 3TO

but there are nine positions for a reason

the Omars and Andruws deserve more representation



what gets the oohs and the awes when i watch is not clubber lang