Home Sports Talk

Munson, Mattingly and Tommy John could be HOF'ers which of these and others do you like?

MLBdaysMLBdays Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited November 6, 2019 6:44PM in Sports Talk

I'm all over Mattingly and Munson.... not sure about Tommy John though his surgery might take him over the top... check out this article for reference.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/28007863/thurman-munson-dwight-evans-lou-whitaker-included-hof-panel-ballot

Comments

  • CoinstartledCoinstartled Posts: 10,135 ✭✭✭✭✭

    We need a hall of almost.

    For every very very good but not great player that enters the HOF, you have an argument as to why a dozen other very very good players should be enshrined as well.

  • hammer1hammer1 Posts: 3,874 ✭✭✭✭✭

    TJ better acknowledge Dr. Frank Jobe in his acceptance speech.

  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 6,225 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Marvin Miller

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • daltexdaltex Posts: 3,477 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Some of these don't even belong in the Hall of Almost.

  • garnettstylegarnettstyle Posts: 2,143 ✭✭✭✭

    Parker, Garvey, and Murphy long overdue.

    IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED

  • garnettstylegarnettstyle Posts: 2,143 ✭✭✭✭

    @MLBdays said:
    I will say this: None of these players can hold a candle to Albert Belle's career numbers ...who is clearly being blackballed.... if any of the guys mentioned in the above article had Belle's numbers they would ice skate into the HOF....Everyone knows he wasn't a boy scout but be my guest~

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/belleal01.shtml

    As dominant a 10 year window as anyone in MLB...

    He never won a MVP and didnt play long enough. Only 1,700 hits. Not a HOF.

    IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED

  • jay0791jay0791 Posts: 3,508 ✭✭✭✭

    Belle was clearly better than the attention he gets
    Why?
    Is it bad attitude, PEDS ?

    T John is at best hall of very good. Basically a 50-50 pitcher who played long enough to get 288 wins with no individual accomplishments

    Munson is the best choice here. If it matters other sports have inducted players with relatively short careers but were dominant. Munson was clearly dominant for a catcher

    Collecting PSA... FB,BK,HK,and BB HOF RC sets
    1948-76 Topps FB Sets
    FB & BB HOF Player sets
    1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
  • garnettstylegarnettstyle Posts: 2,143 ✭✭✭✭

    @jay0791 said:
    Belle was clearly better than the attention he gets
    Why?
    Is it bad attitude, PEDS ?

    T John is at best hall of very good. Basically a 50-50 pitcher who played long enough to get 288 wins with no individual accomplishments

    Munson is the best choice here. If it matters other sports have inducted players with relatively short careers but were dominant. Munson was clearly dominant for a catcher

    Who was better? Munson or Simmons?

    IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED

  • LarkinCollectorLarkinCollector Posts: 8,975 ✭✭✭✭✭

    What the HOF really needs is more Yankees in it.

  • doubledragondoubledragon Posts: 22,516 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Now it's time for an edition of

    Did you know, that Mr. Dave Kingman averaged a dinger every 15.11 at bats.

  • jay0791jay0791 Posts: 3,508 ✭✭✭✭

    Both played in the golden age of catchers so get overlooked.
    Bench, Fisk and Carter played at the same time and are inducted.
    II am old enough to have seen the entire career of everyone on the modern era list except John.
    As a Yankee lifelong fan I can say Munson approaches legend status. He is revered to this day
    by all that played with and against him. Much more so than Simmons. I always though Simmons was a great catcher
    even back then. Certainly on the same level as Fisk and Carter.

    About 25% of Simmons games were not played as catcher. Munson was at 10% but with post season success his seasons were long. His last game he played he took himself out for the first time ever. He could barely make it to first base he was in so much pain. Most including teammates felt he as done. The biggest argument against Munson was he played only 11 seasons. His War and DWar were right up there with HOFers. As Bill James would say we can't give him credit for what could have been. Munson's number are very good for a catcher but would they have rapidly declined like Dale Murphy and totally ruin his chanced for induction? I love Munson but I think so.

    Simmons 21 years vs Munson's 11 years are similar if you expand Munson out 10 years. They are just about double.
    Munson has better Avg and more hits but less HR's. If Munson doesn't drop off and plays more I give him a slight offensive edge. Simmons has a slightly better F% and the same errors as Munson in 1/2 the time. Edge Simmons.

    Both were up for HOF consideration when defense wasn't so defined and neither got credit for the great defensive catchers they were. Munson was also being considered for the HOF during very top heavy candidates were also up.
    That also went against him.

    I give an overall slight edge to Munson. He was a team captain that was respected and meant something. For example I think Jeter was in name only. He also has better fireplace mantle decorations.
    In this day where a catcher that is merely good with pitchers and bats .200 with no power is considered above average or is just a defensive gem like Yadia (most feel this gets him into the HOF by itself).
    We have 2 players who played the hardest position to play and did it all well. If both get in I wouldn't think badly.

    However the selectors can only vote for 4 candidates. Would they choose 2 catchers???

    Collecting PSA... FB,BK,HK,and BB HOF RC sets
    1948-76 Topps FB Sets
    FB & BB HOF Player sets
    1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,171 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MLBdays said:
    I will say this: None of these players can hold a candle to Albert Belle's career numbers ...who is clearly being blackballed.... if any of the guys mentioned in the above article had Belle's numbers they would ice skate into the HOF....Everyone knows he wasn't a boy scout but be my guest~

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/belleal01.shtml

    As dominant a 10 year window as anyone in MLB...

    Great 5 year window, no doubt. With another 5 very good ones. Rarely missed any games either. Tremendous slugger!

    His "problem" is that's it a 10 year career and he was never the MVP. Either Frank Thomas or Griffey were always a little better, or Arod or Gonzalez or Manny or Nomar would jump up and have a better year.

    He was a 5 time All-Star and led his league twice in SLG, once in OPS, once in 2B and once in HR. He did lead in TB three times with one second place finish.

    He was also a legendary jerk (from what I have read). Setting that aside, 1500 games is less than Tony Oliva who isn't in either.

    Munson was an All-Star 7 out of his 11 years in the majors and died during his career. I see his stats were declining, but I am surprised that he isn't in.

    Like it or not, I think longevity (see Harold Baines) has a LOT to do with it.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,171 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @doubledragon said:
    Now it's time for an edition of

    Did you know, that Mr. Dave Kingman averaged a dinger every 15.11 at bats.

    Belle was at 15.36.

    The real question was; who was the bigger Dbag?

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,171 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MLBdays said:
    Simmons gets in Munson no..... I'd love to see Munson get in ...but he doesnt have enough juice on the rez.. Simmons' numbers are huge.

    To be fair, it's hard to put up numbers when you're deceased.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • JRR300JRR300 Posts: 1,346 ✭✭✭✭

    In my mind, Simmons was very good, not great. Munson was great but he started to decline and then died way too young. In my mind the longevity factor matters which is most likely why several of these players aren't already in. Maybe we can institute layers within the hall, so that we can put in the very good players on the bottom level and then work your way up to the really deserving ones. Just me being sarcastic!

  • daltexdaltex Posts: 3,477 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It's a fair question to wonder how revered Munson would have been had he lived. As it is we can speculate what might have been, but we're spared the inevitable decline phase. It's a little like Koufax. If he had walked away in mid-1979 would he be considered? Similarly, if Roy Halladay hadn't been romanticized by dying young, would he have been a first ballot HoFer? It's hard to make a case that he was considerably better than Kevin Brown who got 2.1% in his only appearance on the ballot.

    Actually, Munson and Halladay are pretty similar. Both slightly bring down the level of their positions in the Hall, but it's easy to make a case (incorrect, IMO) that they belong. Below average for HoFers, but hardly the worst. I think it's fair to say that untimely death gave them a big boost.

  • keetskeets Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭

    none of the players on the list or mentioned in this thread should enter the HOF. it is already too watered down and not really a Hall of Greatness, just goodness.

  • TabeTabe Posts: 5,920 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @garnettstyle said:

    @MLBdays said:
    I will say this: None of these players can hold a candle to Albert Belle's career numbers ...who is clearly being blackballed.... if any of the guys mentioned in the above article had Belle's numbers they would ice skate into the HOF....Everyone knows he wasn't a boy scout but be my guest~

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/belleal01.shtml

    As dominant a 10 year window as anyone in MLB...

    He never won a MVP and didnt play long enough. Only 1,700 hits. Not a HOF.

    The rules say 10. He played in 12 and was incredible for nearly all of them. Retired because of injury, just like Dizzy Dean, Sandy Koufax, and Kirby Puckett.

    And he should've won the '95 MVP.

  • garnettstylegarnettstyle Posts: 2,143 ✭✭✭✭

    Dave Parker should've won the '85 MVP.

    IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED

  • TabeTabe Posts: 5,920 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @garnettstyle said:
    Dave Parker should've won the '85 MVP.

    Dwight Gooden should have won the '85 MVP.

  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,102 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Tabe said:

    @garnettstyle said:
    Dave Parker should've won the '85 MVP.

    Dwight Gooden should have won the '85 MVP.

    Gooden was close to deserving the MVP that year, but Parker wasn't. The best three players, in any order you want to put them, were Willie McGee (the actual winner), Tim Raines, and Pedro Guerrero. Dale Murphy, Dwight Gooden, Ryne Sandberg, Tommy Herr and Gary Carter formed the pack behind them. The pack behind them was headed by Dave Parker and Billy Doran. Parker was a very good hitter that year, but nowhere near the best, and a bad right fielder needs to be comfortably the best hitter to deserve the MVP. He came in as high as he did, 2nd, because he led the league in RBI and back then there were way too many sportswriters who thought that was important.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,171 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The right guy won in 85 in the NL but not the AL.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,171 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 8, 2019 8:25PM

    @dallasactuary said:

    @Tabe said:

    @garnettstyle said:
    Dave Parker should've won the '85 MVP.

    Dwight Gooden should have won the '85 MVP.

    Gooden was close to deserving the MVP that year, but Parker wasn't. The best three players, in any order you want to put them, were Willie McGee (the actual winner), Tim Raines, and Pedro Guerrero. Dale Murphy, Dwight Gooden, Ryne Sandberg, Tommy Herr and Gary Carter formed the pack behind them. The pack behind them was headed by Dave Parker and Billy Doran. Parker was a very good hitter that year, but nowhere near the best, and a bad right fielder needs to be comfortably the best hitter to deserve the MVP. He came in as high as he did, 2nd, because he led the league in RBI and back then there were way too many sportswriters who thought that was important.

    dallas, I was just looking at the AL MVP's and it looks like Wade Boggs should have won a few. He looked pretty good every year from 1986-88. I don't like pitchers for the MVP, so no Clemens for me in 86.

    Maybe even 89?

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,102 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The right people won the MVP in '88 and '89. The 1987 vote, in both leagues, was some kind of grand prank, and the two worst MVP picks in history both got their awards that year. If they'd had a real vote that year, I think Trammell would have deserved it, but Boggs was certainly a legitimate contender. Which leaves 1986, when Boggs got totally screwed; he definitely should have won that year.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • DarinDarin Posts: 6,247 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:
    The right guy won in 85 in the NL but not the AL.

    Correct- George Brett should have won in 85. Led his team to the division
    title by putting the Royals on his back and carrying them past the Angels
    in the final week of the 85 regular season.

    DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21
    In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
  • garnettstylegarnettstyle Posts: 2,143 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November 9, 2019 6:23AM

    @dallasactuary said:

    @Tabe said:

    @garnettstyle said:
    Dave Parker should've won the '85 MVP.

    Dwight Gooden should have won the '85 MVP.

    Gooden was close to deserving the MVP that year, but Parker wasn't. The best three players, in any order you want to put them, were Willie McGee (the actual winner), Tim Raines, and Pedro Guerrero. Dale Murphy, Dwight Gooden, Ryne Sandberg, Tommy Herr and Gary Carter formed the pack behind them. The pack behind them was headed by Dave Parker and Billy Doran. Parker was a very good hitter that year, but nowhere near the best, and a bad right fielder needs to be comfortably the best hitter to deserve the MVP. He came in as high as he did, 2nd, because he led the league in RBI and back then there were way too many sportswriters who thought that was important.

    Not even close. Parker was the clear MVP but they gave it to a guy who hit 10 home runs(McGee). The 1985 cocaine Pittsburgh drug trial scandal is what hurt Parker. Its considered one of the biggest scandals in MLB history. And no pitcher ever deserves to win the MVP.

    Parker led the league in extra base hits and Total bases. First in RBI and was 2nd in home runs. And had a higher OPS than Mcgee. Guerrero had a great year but only played in 137 games. So some of his stats were too low. And what in the WORLD did Raines do to deserve to win the MVP? He had a decent year, but led the league in nothing. Murphy had a good year but played on a bad team, so garbage stats for him.

    If not for the scandal, Parker would've won easily. Fact.

    IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,171 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Darin said:

    @JoeBanzai said:
    The right guy won in 85 in the NL but not the AL.

    Correct- George Brett should have won in 85. Led his team to the division
    title by putting the Royals on his back and carrying them past the Angels
    in the final week of the 85 regular season.

    1985 I was thinking Brett as well, but Boggs had a good case too, maybe better. Boggs played in 161 games, had a higher WAR (9.1-8.3), led the league in hits, BA and OB%. Brett played in 155 games, led the league in SLG and OPS. Henderson had the highest WAR, led the league in SB and runs. Any of these guys would be a better choice than Mattingly imo.

    1986 I would set aside Clemens and it would be a virtual tie between Mattingly and Boggs. Boggs does have the higher WAR.

    1987 Trammell had an awesome year, but Boggs had a very slight edge in WAR and led the league in BA, OBP, OPS and slugged .588. Trammell, playing SS, would have been my pick, but Boggs was right there.

    1988 should have been Boggs, who led the league in WAR, runs Doubles, walks, BA, OPP and OPS, with Puckett being another good choice. Who cares about 40/40? Canseco had a great year offensively in a tough park, but doesn't add much defensively.

    1989 is really confusing, did they reward Yount for his great career here? Henderson has the best WAR, but Boggs is second and has the last year (and 5th straight) leading in OBP. Boggs finished 21st!?

    Boggs was first in WAR Position Players in 1986,87 and 88, and was second in 1985 and 89, led the league in OBP in each of those years and BA in 4 of the 5, had over 200 hits and at least 40 doubles every year and didn't win even one MVP. He had little power, but he walked a LOT.

    I'm not saying he should have won every year, but he certainly was the best player (along with Ricky) in those 5 years and he should have got a couple.

    @garnettstyle said:

    @dallasactuary said:

    @Tabe said:

    @garnettstyle said:
    Dave Parker should've won the '85 MVP.

    Dwight Gooden should have won the '85 MVP.

    Gooden was close to deserving the MVP that year, but Parker wasn't. The best three players, in any order you want to put them, were Willie McGee (the actual winner), Tim Raines, and Pedro Guerrero. Dale Murphy, Dwight Gooden, Ryne Sandberg, Tommy Herr and Gary Carter formed the pack behind them. The pack behind them was headed by Dave Parker and Billy Doran. Parker was a very good hitter that year, but nowhere near the best, and a bad right fielder needs to be comfortably the best hitter to deserve the MVP. He came in as high as he did, 2nd, because he led the league in RBI and back then there were way too many sportswriters who thought that was important.

    Not even close. Parker was the clear MVP but they gave it to a guy who hit 10 home runs(McGee). The 1985 cocaine Pittsburgh drug trial scandal is what hurt Parker. Its considered one of the biggest scandals in MLB history. And no pitcher ever deserves to win the MVP.

    Parker led the league in extra base hits and Total bases. First in RBI and was 2nd in home runs. And had a higher OPS than Mcgee. Guerrero had a great year but only played in 137 games. So some of his stats were too low. And what in the WORLD did Raines do to deserve to win the MVP? He had a decent year, but led the league in nothing. Murphy had a good year but played on a bad team, so garbage stats for him.

    If not for the scandal, Parker would've won easily. Fact.

    Not going to argue too hard here, but McGee did also hit 18 triples and was 1st in WAR position players and Offensive WAR, Had the most hits, won the Batting Title, stole 56 bases and won a Gold Glove in Center Field, so he might not have been the hitter Parker was, but I don't think he was that bad of a choice. I didn't follow the NL too close, but wasn't he a tremendous fielder?

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • DarinDarin Posts: 6,247 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Joe- I agree Boggs was completely overlooked. I don't really know why. If it was me voting, his
    high batting averages would have first drawn my attention, then looking further I would see
    he walked a lot, giving him an incredible on base percentage every year. Tons of doubles,
    lots of runs scored, I guess the MVP voters were just looking at home runs and RBI's.
    Yes, most of those years he could have deserved to win, he not only didn't win, but sometimes was
    pretty far down the list. Too bad, he deserved better.

    DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21
    In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
  • grote15grote15 Posts: 29,477 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November 9, 2019 12:20PM

    Murphy had a HOF stretch from 1980 through 1987 but fell off a cliff, production wise, after 1987 at the age of 31.



    Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
  • PatsGuy5000PatsGuy5000 Posts: 671 ✭✭✭

    @MLBdays said:
    I will say this: None of these players can hold a candle to Albert Belle's career numbers ...who is clearly being blackballed.... if any of the guys mentioned in the above article had Belle's numbers they would ice skate into the HOF....Everyone knows he wasn't a boy scout but be my guest~

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/belleal01.shtml

    As dominant a 10 year window as anyone in MLB...

    He was an awesome hitter, not a good fielder and head case at times. Mattingly was a gold Glover many years and had close to a 10 year run as one of the best.

  • TabeTabe Posts: 5,920 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @PatsGuy5000 said:
    He was an awesome hitter, not a good fielder and head case at times. Mattingly was a gold Glover many years and had close to a 10 year run as one of the best.

    No he didn't. He had 6 years, 84-89 and 88 was nothing special.

  • PatsGuy5000PatsGuy5000 Posts: 671 ✭✭✭

    @Tabe said:

    @PatsGuy5000 said:
    He was an awesome hitter, not a good fielder and head case at times. Mattingly was a gold Glover many years and had close to a 10 year run as one of the best.

    No he didn't. He had 6 years, 84-89 and 88 was nothing special.

    You are right, I did some follow up

  • ScoobyDoo2ScoobyDoo2 Posts: 839 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Simmons gets in with Vet Committee..... Mattingly, Munson not enough in the tank.

  • ScoobyDoo2ScoobyDoo2 Posts: 839 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Garvey I could see squeak in as well as Simmons.

Sign In or Register to comment.