Options
Here's how Munson stacks up against the 70's Hall of Famers...
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
Here is an objective analysis putting Munson's value in perspective with some Hall of Famers from the 70's. The first thing that has to be stated is that Munson does need to be looked at differently than other players with short careers. His career wasn't shortened due to a big drop in ability, but rather a tragic death that most certainly cut short a career that would have continued, for how long, we will never know.
Munson played basically from 1970 to 1979, so lets see how he stacks up against the best during that time period, not just in his position, but in all positions. The following measurement is from baseball prospectus, and it is measured in Wins Above a Replacement Player(WARP). Basically, it is how many runs/wins a player contributes over what a replacement player would do in his stead. So it takes position and park factors into account. The only things it does not take into account are Men on base hitting, and strikeouts. Also, the more per season at bats helps(as Rose benefits from this) This measurement also has serious flaws for cross era comparisons, but it does very well for in-era comparisons like these.
Here are Munson's yearly WARP:
1970 8.4
1971 5.7
1972 6.8
1973 7.6
1974 5.0
1975 9.1
1976 7.8
1977 7.4
1978 6.7
1979 3.8
Total = 69.4 AVG = 6.9
Here are Fisk's yearly WARP:
1970 DNP
1971 0.5
1972 9.0
1973 5.2
1974 3.6
1975 4.6
1976 7.5
1977 10.2
1978 8.5
1979 1.0
Total = 50.1 AVG = 6.2 (not counting the .5 in '71)
Here is a list of Hall of Famers from that time span in WARP:
Bench 93.7
Rose 83.7
Reggie 75.9
Carew 74.3
Munson 69.4
Perez 67.7
Stargell 63
Fisk 50.1
Of course, all of those players went on to have longer careers, but Munson is a special circumstance, and we don't know what would have happened. What this does show is that he stacked up VERY WELL with the Hall of Famers from his era(in all positions). Now you could make some realistic assumptions about the rest of Munson's career based on his last few seasons, and his gamer type attitude(where he probably could have endured for a while). His last three years were WARP's of 7.4, 6.7, and 3.8, for an average of 6.0. Remember that the 3.8 was done in only 97 games, so that would have been higher. Usually you can project pretty well based on the previous three seasons of a guy, and you can figure that he will be somewhere close to that 6.0 average for a couple of more years(he was 32). Then it is also reasonable to have a descent from there on out. We don't know all of that for sure, as he may have possibly played till 39 or 40 like a Fisk or a Boone, we just don't know. So lets concentrate on what we do know above.
We do know that he was one of the very best players in all of baseball during the 1970's. Sure, he won't make much offensive leader boards, as a lot of his value comes from being a very nice catcher, but that is value nonetheless, and REAL value at that.
We also know that Munson had some pretty good hitting numbers with men on base. Whether that came from skill or chance, it still meant that more of his hits carried more weight than say more of Fisk's hits, as we look at the career numbers below.
Fisk Nobody on Hitting.... .265 AVG, .334 OB%, .464 SLG%
Fisk Men on Hitting............274 AVG, .349 OB%, .451 SLG %
Munson Nobody on hitting....279 AVG, . 332 OB%, .394 SLG%
Munson Men On Hitting........307 AVG, .364 OB%, .430 SLG%
As you can see, Munson did more of his damage with Men on, and Fisk didn't do quite as much with men on. That means more of Munsons' hits lead to more runs that Fisk. That isn't incorporated into WARP, so that gives Munson's WARP a little boost, probably by about 5-10%. Fisk's raw numbers always look sexier because of the boost at Fenway for RH, and the disadvantage for Munson at Yankee stadium for a RH hitter. The men on hitting numbers don't take that into account, as those are raw numbers, but it does account for more value for Munson.
Now, there are a few other Hall of Famers from that era, like Yaz, McCovey, B. Williams. During the 70's Munson would have beat all three of those guys, but yaz and McCovey were at their best in the 60's, so I didn't add them. I may have missed a player or two, but those are the main ones.
Basically, Munson only has Rose and Bench that are clearly ahead of him AND JOE MORGAN, I JUST REMEMBERED! If you add Schmidt who came a little later, he too would beat him in the 70's. But after that, there isn't much more that are definitive ahead of Munson.
When you add the Men on Hitting and Strikeout value, then he is equal of Reggie in that time, and he is right there with carew. He already edges perez and Fisk who are Hall of famers. He also beats Stargell easily in the 70's(though he may be like yaz and McCOvey). So ther are some good hall of famers he is ahead of in that time, and FOUR that are clearly ahead. So, he certainly measures up against his peers, it is then a matter of guessing the rest, using reasonable projections. But I don't think anybody can say that Munson was not one of the best players in baseball during the 70's(which is a very tough era to dominate in by the way!!!!).
P.S. Total Baseball with Batter Runs and Batter/FIelding WINS comes very close to the same conclusions above.
The tricky part is adding the guys that lapped Munsons prime, like Brett, Yount, Murray, Yaz, McCovey, Stargell who were better players in their prime, and had a higher standing among the league. Also guys that were finishing in the mid 70's. I didn't look at Munsons' best five years, and match them against other players best five years that didn't happen in the exact time frame of 1970-1979. You can do ten, ten year stretches to figure that out i.e. 1971-1980, 1972-1981, 1973-1982, 1974-1983, 1968-1977, 1969-1978 etc...and you can rank all the best ten year stretches and see how Munson stacks up against that. That is a little more work, something i don't want to do right now.
But based on the above info, I would say Munson has a legit case to be considered. It is also dependent on how much character you want to add to his value, as that is in fact one of the criteria for the Hall of Fame. Looking at the info, I would be far more upset at a Puckett induction than I would a Munson induction.
Based on the information presented
Munson played basically from 1970 to 1979, so lets see how he stacks up against the best during that time period, not just in his position, but in all positions. The following measurement is from baseball prospectus, and it is measured in Wins Above a Replacement Player(WARP). Basically, it is how many runs/wins a player contributes over what a replacement player would do in his stead. So it takes position and park factors into account. The only things it does not take into account are Men on base hitting, and strikeouts. Also, the more per season at bats helps(as Rose benefits from this) This measurement also has serious flaws for cross era comparisons, but it does very well for in-era comparisons like these.
Here are Munson's yearly WARP:
1970 8.4
1971 5.7
1972 6.8
1973 7.6
1974 5.0
1975 9.1
1976 7.8
1977 7.4
1978 6.7
1979 3.8
Total = 69.4 AVG = 6.9
Here are Fisk's yearly WARP:
1970 DNP
1971 0.5
1972 9.0
1973 5.2
1974 3.6
1975 4.6
1976 7.5
1977 10.2
1978 8.5
1979 1.0
Total = 50.1 AVG = 6.2 (not counting the .5 in '71)
Here is a list of Hall of Famers from that time span in WARP:
Bench 93.7
Rose 83.7
Reggie 75.9
Carew 74.3
Munson 69.4
Perez 67.7
Stargell 63
Fisk 50.1
Of course, all of those players went on to have longer careers, but Munson is a special circumstance, and we don't know what would have happened. What this does show is that he stacked up VERY WELL with the Hall of Famers from his era(in all positions). Now you could make some realistic assumptions about the rest of Munson's career based on his last few seasons, and his gamer type attitude(where he probably could have endured for a while). His last three years were WARP's of 7.4, 6.7, and 3.8, for an average of 6.0. Remember that the 3.8 was done in only 97 games, so that would have been higher. Usually you can project pretty well based on the previous three seasons of a guy, and you can figure that he will be somewhere close to that 6.0 average for a couple of more years(he was 32). Then it is also reasonable to have a descent from there on out. We don't know all of that for sure, as he may have possibly played till 39 or 40 like a Fisk or a Boone, we just don't know. So lets concentrate on what we do know above.
We do know that he was one of the very best players in all of baseball during the 1970's. Sure, he won't make much offensive leader boards, as a lot of his value comes from being a very nice catcher, but that is value nonetheless, and REAL value at that.
We also know that Munson had some pretty good hitting numbers with men on base. Whether that came from skill or chance, it still meant that more of his hits carried more weight than say more of Fisk's hits, as we look at the career numbers below.
Fisk Nobody on Hitting.... .265 AVG, .334 OB%, .464 SLG%
Fisk Men on Hitting............274 AVG, .349 OB%, .451 SLG %
Munson Nobody on hitting....279 AVG, . 332 OB%, .394 SLG%
Munson Men On Hitting........307 AVG, .364 OB%, .430 SLG%
As you can see, Munson did more of his damage with Men on, and Fisk didn't do quite as much with men on. That means more of Munsons' hits lead to more runs that Fisk. That isn't incorporated into WARP, so that gives Munson's WARP a little boost, probably by about 5-10%. Fisk's raw numbers always look sexier because of the boost at Fenway for RH, and the disadvantage for Munson at Yankee stadium for a RH hitter. The men on hitting numbers don't take that into account, as those are raw numbers, but it does account for more value for Munson.
Now, there are a few other Hall of Famers from that era, like Yaz, McCovey, B. Williams. During the 70's Munson would have beat all three of those guys, but yaz and McCovey were at their best in the 60's, so I didn't add them. I may have missed a player or two, but those are the main ones.
Basically, Munson only has Rose and Bench that are clearly ahead of him AND JOE MORGAN, I JUST REMEMBERED! If you add Schmidt who came a little later, he too would beat him in the 70's. But after that, there isn't much more that are definitive ahead of Munson.
When you add the Men on Hitting and Strikeout value, then he is equal of Reggie in that time, and he is right there with carew. He already edges perez and Fisk who are Hall of famers. He also beats Stargell easily in the 70's(though he may be like yaz and McCOvey). So ther are some good hall of famers he is ahead of in that time, and FOUR that are clearly ahead. So, he certainly measures up against his peers, it is then a matter of guessing the rest, using reasonable projections. But I don't think anybody can say that Munson was not one of the best players in baseball during the 70's(which is a very tough era to dominate in by the way!!!!).
P.S. Total Baseball with Batter Runs and Batter/FIelding WINS comes very close to the same conclusions above.
The tricky part is adding the guys that lapped Munsons prime, like Brett, Yount, Murray, Yaz, McCovey, Stargell who were better players in their prime, and had a higher standing among the league. Also guys that were finishing in the mid 70's. I didn't look at Munsons' best five years, and match them against other players best five years that didn't happen in the exact time frame of 1970-1979. You can do ten, ten year stretches to figure that out i.e. 1971-1980, 1972-1981, 1973-1982, 1974-1983, 1968-1977, 1969-1978 etc...and you can rank all the best ten year stretches and see how Munson stacks up against that. That is a little more work, something i don't want to do right now.
But based on the above info, I would say Munson has a legit case to be considered. It is also dependent on how much character you want to add to his value, as that is in fact one of the criteria for the Hall of Fame. Looking at the info, I would be far more upset at a Puckett induction than I would a Munson induction.
Based on the information presented
0
Comments
Is Simmons worthy of the Hall then? It is possible, as I've always thought about him. I will check his men on numbers and see if he gets any extra credit like Munson.
That being said, his career simply wasn't long enough to merit induction.
Is it a tragedy? Yes, a horrible end to a great man and a great career. That doesn't mean we should circumvent the guidelines. Where would it stop? Do we induct Dwight Gooden because he dominated so thourghly at the beginning of his career?
It opens a whole big can of worms.
I think as fans we should want only the best of the best in...not trying to work to get more and more players inducted.
From the 8 Hall of Famers you listed only Bench would have been a Hall of Famer based strictly on his numbers from the 70's and Bench is vastly superior to Munson.
Munson's decline in 78 and 79 was because he was breaking down. There was talk during the 79 season of moving him to firstbase that his knees and back could no longer withstand the burden of catching every day. There was also talk he was heading to Cleveland to finish his career as a position player.
JS
Lets look at the best ten year stretches that Hall of Famers from similar years have had, and compare them to Munson's run.
Murray had 78 WARP over one ten year stretch(plus a large boost with men on hitting).
Brett had a 77 WARP over one ten year stretch
Schmidt had a 95 WARP over on ten year stretch
Yount had a 76 WARP over one ten year stretch
McCovey 76
Yaz 89
Winfield 75
Ozzie SMith 77
Carew 74
Bench 93
Rose 83
Reggie 76
Perez 67
Now lets look at some NON Hall of Famer Super star players from the same time period and see their best ten year stretch...
MUNSON 69
Dick Allen 81
Jim Rice 69
ted Simmons 69
Steve Garvey 73 (boosted by lots of per season at bats)
Ken singleton 72
George Foster 72
***Fred Lynn 69 (with lots of missed games per season). This happens to be my all time 'what if' player. Look how he always missed 15-20 games per year. Man, had he been healthy all those years, he would have HOF credential. As of now, his best ten year run is as good as Munson's.
SO as I paint the picture, two things come to mind...1) Munson is most certainly in the group of the NON Hall of Fame Stars of the time, and 2) There really is a fine line between the Hall of Fame players, and the next group of players who are on the cusp. The amazing thing when you look at the voting is that most of the players voted in actually are in the correct company, as you can see from those two short lists.
Another thing that comes to light is that the top list of Hall of Famers also had other good years besides their best ten year run. They could have a few ten year runs (starting in different years) and still have better WARP than a Munson. Wheras the bottom list, those ten year runs were it for the most part. The rest of their years are not quite there, to a degree.
Also, that Tony Perez is a lucky man that he had Joe Morgan and Pete Rose batting in front of him, because without all those RBI he would not be in the HOF, as he is partly a product of his lineup. In another lineup, he would not make it.
Those are just short lists, as there are probably more, but it looks as though Munson's peak is more in line with the Super Star NON hall of famers, rather than the elite actual Hall of Famers, as thin a line as it is, that is what shakes out to be. So now, I would have to say Thurman probably does not belong in the Hall, but rather in the next group of excellent ballplayers.
This was a good work through examination. I don't think there is much else that could alter those findings on Thurman. This is really the first time I looked at this kind of hard(not very hard), but I'm pretty satisfied with this conclusion.
The Hall of Fame is for immortalizing the very best players who played. Munson died a tragic death cutting short his career, but the ironic thing is that by Munson dying as a star he was automatically immortalized in the annals of baseball history. He really doesn't need the Hall of Fame to be remembered...instead of his death being a road block to immortalization, it may have in fact been the exact thing that does immortalize him.
Skinpinch, you are right. Even though he is not in the HOF, per se, he has been immortalized by the Yankees by retiring Thurman's #15 jersey, a plaque in Yankee Stadium Monument Park, and his empty locker never to be used again. Also avid fans and the Hall of Fame themselves have immortalized Munson. Some of his items are on display at Cooperstown. A quote from the HOF in an E-mail I received from them: "While Mr. Munson is not currently a member of the Hall of Fame, he is represented in the Museum and Library as an important figure in baseball history. The Museum has in its collection: a batting helmet from the 1970's, a free standing sculpture of glass, wood and bronze created by Steve Linn, baseball cards and posters. On loan, we have a catchers mitt and mask that came from Gene Michael, which he used during his career with the Yankees."