Is Jorge Posada a HOFer?

doog71

Just curious your thoughts.

- Four World Series rings
- Five All-Star selections
- 275 HR (23 behind Gary Carter, a HOFer w/o as many rings)
- Five Silver Slugger awards
- Entire career with one team (at least so far)
- Only Major League catcher to ever have hit .330 or better with 40 doubles, 20 home runs, and 90 RBIs in a single season.
- Since 2000, Posada has had more runs batted in, home runs, and hits than any other catcher in baseball. That's a decade of dominance at his position.
- No 'roids reports!

What do you think?

BPorter26

a good player, but not HOF worthy.

bking

<< <i>Just curious your thoughts.

- Four World Series rings
- Five All-Star selections
- 275 HR (23 behind Gary Carter, a HOFer w/o as many rings)
- Five Silver Slugger awards
- Entire career with one team (at least so far)
- Only Major League catcher to ever have hit .330 or better with 40 doubles, 20 home runs, and 90 RBIs in a single season.
- Since 2000, Posada has had more runs batted in, home runs, and hits than any other catcher in baseball. That's a decade of dominance at his position.
- No 'roids reports!

What do you think? >>



Not for me. Hs career just doesn't scream "HOF" and I hate borderline candidates.

Put another way, if we was wearing a Royals jersey for those years, he isn't in the discussion.

RynoandBo

No.

He's in the Hall of Good.

Ironmanfan

report floating around that he called the Mets for a catching job

IMF

doog71

Even though I'm a Yankees homer, I think I agree he's not quite at the HOF level, but I wonder if voters will take all the postseason hardware into consideration.

ThoseBackPages

Munson first.

MantleMarisFordBerra

Can't put everybody in. As a Yanks fan I love Jorge but he's not Hall of Fame.

If Cooperstown is looking to add another Yankees catcher they should to take another look at the career of Thurman Munson. Rookie of the Year, '76 MVP winner, 3 AL pennants, 2 World Series Championships, 7 time All Star, 3 Gold Gloves and by all accounts was the catalyst from bringing the Yankees out of their late 60s/early 70s slump and back to greatness...which is why he was named the first Yankee captain since a man you might have heard of - Lou Gehrig. I also think it's a shame that he died in the prime of his career. If he had been able to play even two more years he'd already have a plaque.

kerryville

After watching some of the new inductees example Dawson. It wouldn't surprise me. He is not in my book.

larryallen73

I don't think he is even that close frankly.

bking

I know it factors into the voters' minds, but I really wish crap like All-Star appearances, MVP votes, Gold Gloves, etc could be left out of these discussions. I can make a strong case for leaving rings out of it too, as that's the ultimate team stat, right?

BaltimoreYankee

As another Yankee fan, I gotta say....no. He's definitley a Hall of Very Gooder though. I think a better case can be made for Mike Mussina, comparing him to a HOFer like Don Sutton.

fkw

No, he is 1/2 a Bill Dickey, not even close IMO

mlbfan2

<< <i>I can make a strong case for leaving rings out of it too, as that's the ultimate team stat, right? >>



Indeed. Ted Williams has 0 rings, and Frank Crosetti has 8. Rings should carry very little weight when it comes to the HOF.

PowderedH2O

Posada has had a better career than many low level HOFers, has been considered a "winner" by many, and I think the sportswriters will eventually see that you have a Yankees team that was dominant for many years with only one position player in the Hall (Jeter). Teams that win 4 World Series in five years get lots of HOFers. So, Posada might very well eventually get in. Probably a 12th or 13th vote. Maybe it has to go to the Veteran's Committee.

bking

<< <i>Teams that win 4 World Series in five years get lots of HOFers. >>



Tell that to the grossly underrepresented 70's Cowboys. </ grumble>

doog71

Rings have gotta be part of the discussion at least. I think for HOF voters, it does speak to a guy being clutch, a gamer, etc. I don't know if Puckett would've gotten in without the rings...

bking

<< <i>Rings have gotta be part of the discussion at least. I think for HOF voters, it does speak to a guy being clutch, a gamer, etc. I don't know if Puckett would've gotten in without the rings... >>



Clutch??? Gamer?? Are we going to count Easter Bunny sightings next?? Even if you beleive in clutch, even though most advanced stats dispel the notion quite completely, isn't a player who plays on good teams going to logically get more chances to "perform in the spotlight"?

Probstein123

yes

jeffcbay

Yes, I believe he is... and I'm a Yankee-not-liker.

WalterSobchak

He is not a first ballot HOF'er, but I believe he will get in at some point. That resume is strong enough.

WinPitcher

Because he played such a demanding position he may very well have a shot.

Even if it's a long one.

JoeBanzai

He has been very good for a long time BUT Munson should definitely get in before Posada.

I'll never understand how some dominant players get hurt and get passed over for serious HOF consideration and some do not. Look at Puckett and Oliva for the Twins. I think Oliva was a better hitter, got hurt, struggled to continue playing on bad knees and doesn't get in. Puckett was better in the field and did have a lot of charisma, but I don't see that in the requirements for induction.

Joe

SidePocket

I actually thought thought this might be a joke, but he does have nice stats. Not great stats, just nice stats.

lanemyer85

no, but sadly he might just get in late in his eligibility Bert Blyleven style.

the low end HOF members typically bottom feed at around +60 WAR. Posada is at +47. Ron Santo and Alan Trammell are both at +66, Tim Raines is at +64. So he isn't even in the league of the top 3 disrespected HOF candidates. However there are some catchers like Gabby Hartnett who are in at a +50...which quite frankly shouldn't be that close considering the only thing Posada has on Hartnett is a few more HRs and team dependent rings.

Posada - .273/.374/.474 - 275 HRs, 1065 RBIs, OPS+ 121
Hartnett - .297/.370/.489 - 236 HRs, 1179 RBIs, OPS+ 126

So Posada had pretty good counting stats and on base skills for a catcher, but unfortunately for him, he also sucked as a catcher. Not Jeter's historically worst of all-time - level of defensive inefficiency, but inefficient none the less. -2.9 Defensive WAR, -38 Defensive Runs Saved Above Average, -14.1 UZR/150 and a mediocre 28% caught stealing rate. Compare that to Hartnett who was a +1.1 WAR defender with a career 56% caught stealing rate.

Smuggo

Not to me, I would think that Munson and Ted Simmons deserve a call well in advance of Jorge.
Good player, great teams, seems to be a super guy - HOFer, nah.

vladguerrero

nope

prthd

<< <i>Rings have gotta be part of the discussion at least. I think for HOF voters, it does speak to a guy being clutch, a gamer, etc. I don't know if Puckett would've gotten in without the rings... >>



I HATE the Yankees. That being said, yes I think he deserves to be in.


- Entire career with one team (at least so far)

- Since 2000, Posada has had more runs batted in, home runs, and hits than any other catcher in baseball. That's a decade of dominance at his position.

- No 'roids reported

larryallen73

I think a better case can be made for Mike Mussina, comparing him to a HOFer like Don Sutton.

270 wins v. 324 wins... hmmmm.... not much of a case. Don Sutton is certainly a low level HOFer but 324 wins is one of the top all time in wins... and wins are the ultimate stat that matters!

epatmythes

debate debate debate, debate... debate

NO

RonBurgundy

No.

JMDVM

Another Yankee fan here and I say no. One of the WORST defensive catchers I've ever seen. Once saw him tag a runner with an empty glove while the ball was in his bare hand....Throwing out runners? Mediocre. Terrible baserunner, boneheaded. Good hitter, but shouldn't a HOFer excell in all phases of the game? It would be a travesty if he got in an Munson doesn't.

shagrotn77

Absolutely.

EchoCanyon

<< <i>

<< <i>I can make a strong case for leaving rings out of it too, as that's the ultimate team stat, right? >>



Indeed. Ted Williams has 0 rings, and Frank Crosetti has 8. Rings should carry very little weight when it comes to the HOF. >>



But unfortunately they do -- look up Puckett and Mattingly stats, almost identical, except for rings. Both should be in the HOF or neither.

I also agree with the post about "recent inductees" (ie, Dawson, Rice and even Tony Perez) as being very good but not GREAT.

fiveniner

Today there are Hofers that do not really belong there and about as many that should be.I think politics goes a long way in the induction of several players.
I do not believe Posada is more deserving of Thurman Munson or Ted Simmons for that matter.Simmons will never go in despite a very productive career.Munson stands a chance through the Veterens Commitee and deservedly so.

airjoedan

I never thought of him as a hall of famer - I wouldn't even say he is borderline. He was a very good player and it is amazing he has stayed with one team his entire career. I look at it this way - he was very comparable to Jason Varitek. While Posada's stats are better, he certainly wasn't leaps ahead of Varitek. That being said, do you see Varitek as a possible hall of famer? I certainly don't see Varitek as a hall of fame player - so, I can't imagine a player at the same position that was only a bit better than him making it in.

This is no knock of Posada, he has had a very good career. I would agree that Munson should make it well before Posada - not even close. The longevity of Posada's career and remaining with one team and being a consistent above average player for a number of years is quite respectable though...

Tabe

<< <i>- Only Major League catcher to ever have hit .330 or better with 40 doubles, 20 home runs, and 90 RBIs in a single season.
- Since 2000, Posada has had more runs batted in, home runs, and hits than any other catcher in baseball. That's a decade of dominance at his position.
>>


These two are a great example of crafting your argument to slant as much in favor of your guy as possible. The first one...he had exactly 20 HR and 90 RBI. Why choose those numbers? Because they perfectly coincide with Jorge's best (by FAR) season? If we drop the numbers to 30 doubles, we get 5 other catchers in the .330/20/90 club. If we ignore doubles altogether, we get 10 members of the .330/20/90 club, with one guy having 40 HR. Who would you rather have, the guy with 40 HRs and 20 doubles or the guy with 20 HRs and 40 doubles? Easy choice.

As for the second one, again, you've picked an arbitrary cutoff that heavily favors Posada. Lemme put it another way - not that ever was, at any time, but for sure since the day Joe Mauer debuted, Posada hasn't even sniffed being the best catcher in baseball.

Posada goes into the Hall of Very Good. He was a good hitting catcher but a TERRIBLE catcher. Not a great manager of pitching staffs, horrible at throwing guys out, and poor defensively in every other way.

Tabe

bking

<< <i>

<< <i>Rings have gotta be part of the discussion at least. I think for HOF voters, it does speak to a guy being clutch, a gamer, etc. I don't know if Puckett would've gotten in without the rings... >>



I HATE the Yankees. That being said, yes I think he deserves to be in.


- Entire career with one team (at least so far)

- Since 2000, Posada has had more runs batted in, home runs, and hits than any other catcher in baseball. That's a decade of dominance at his position.

- No 'roids reported >>



I think it's possible to be the best at a position for a decade without the words "Dominance" and "HOF" being applicable. But, as another poster mentioned, Mauer might put a chink in the decade of dominance thing.

48leafpsa

no, lance parrish deserves being in there more

Wolfgang427

Yes, a HOFer. Great stats and a nice player too boot(which many HOFers lack).

sportscardtheory

A resounding no.

Saberman

The idea that he 'led' his position from 2000-2010 is really not HOF special. Guys like PIazza and Irod just happened to have their career's overlap the 90's and 00's. He isn't as good as either of them. Same as Mauer overlapping the last half of the 2000's.

doog71

Great discussion! It's been interesting to see how strongly people feel from both perspectives (some even seem angry about Jorge being suggested as an HOFer, lol).

Yankees001

Jorge, will be in the Hall of Fame. His popularity and achivements have already put him their.

Championships, great stats for a catcher and no rumers about drug usage is the key.

As for the Munson arguement, should he be in? I guess it just depends on how you look at it. Munson was great, but he had a short career. I think if he had 4-5 more years he would be. Yes, I do know he died and how. I don't get a vote, it just depends on how the voters look at it. I wish he was in the Hall, he was the second best catcher of the 1970's.

I do feel Roger Maris has a better arguement. But the Hall voters never asked me.

I know alot of people on these boards like Ron Santo. I do not feel Santo is or should ever be in the Hall of Fame. A note to the Santo fans, sorry that is just the way I feel.

Dave

PowderedH2O

Munson would have been a marginal HOF candidate with a career that lasted until he was 37-38 years old. Obviously, that did not occur. He was certainly an outstanding catcher, but he was not so outstanding that he should be in the Hall based upon a ten year career. His numbers declined in 1978. They were even worse in 1979. I cannot assume that he would have gone back to being the Munson of 1973-1977. He was a catcher in his thirties. Most likely he would have continued a slow decline with hit totals somewhere near 2000 and maybe 130-140 home runs and a lifetime batting average in the .280's and an OPS+ of 110 or so. I doubt that would have been enough, even had he lived. I may be wrong. Maybe he was just having a couple of off years. But, catchers don't traditionally start career resurgences in their thirties after catching over 1200 games. So, I see him marginal with a full career, and not even a marginal candidate based upon what actually did occur.

bigred1

No

SidePocket

Not taking roids and playing your entire career with one team should have nothing to do with qualifying for the HOF.

stangrider

No

Smuggo

AGain a nice player and a super guy seemingly.
He gets 0 extra points for not being associated with steriods. That's like saying you get extra credit at school if you don't cheat.
He was a decent hitting, very average defensive catcher on some great teams.

WinPitcher

It would be if your name was McGwire, Palmeiro, or Sosa to name a few.

I'd put him into the same class as Bernie Williams. Long shot at best. Very long one.


Steve

doog71

These days, you DO get points for not using steroids. It's been established that using was a "new normal" for a period of time. If you resisted that temptation, the same HOF voters that won't vote in the McGwires of the world because they used will keep that in mind. Whether it "should" matter in their voting is irrelevant. The question is, DOES it? I'd say yes, considering voters are human and do take character into account when voting.