Joe Mauer...HOF yay, or nay?

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by ihatenames

As a catcher Mauer rates very well for hall of fame inclusion. As a first baseman not so much. Considering by retirement he will have more time at first than catching I think it will be a difficult fight for him. He was very good during his peak though.

I truly don't understand this. Are we incapable of evaluating a career if they didn't play the exact same position the entire time, we have to only consider them one thing?

[ihatenames]

Originally Posted by Rain King

I truly don't understand this. Are we incapable of evaluating a career if they didn't play the exact same position the entire time, we have to only consider them one thing?

I guess I wasn’t clear or you missed the point or both. We compare players based on their peers at the time they played and also to hall of fame inductees. When compared to strictly catchers Mauers numbers are fantastic. When we compar his numbers to his peer first basement they are not nearly as impressive. First baseman typically have higher offensive expectations than a catcher. So yes, where someone plays does matter in the discussion of whether or not they deserve the hall of fame.

And no, we don’t have to just consider them one thing, but we do have to evaluate their performance and weigh their position in the evaluations. If mauer stayed a catcher he would be a shoe in. Since he spent the majority of his career as a first baseman that changes the evaluation criteria a bit.

His numbers don’t look nearly as impressive when compared to other first baseman and that will hurt him. Was his peak as a catcher good enough to overcome that? We will have to see what true writers/voters think. My vote is no if I had one.

Hopefully, that make more sense to you.

[Rain King]

The above is why a stat like WAR is so nice to have.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by ihatenames

I guess I wasn’t clear or you missed the point or both. We compare players based on their peers at the time they played and also to hall of fame inductees. When compared to strictly catchers Mauers numbers are fantastic. When we compar his numbers to his peer first basement they are not nearly as impressive. First baseman typically have higher offensive expectations than a catcher. So yes, where someone plays does matter in the discussion of whether or not they deserve the hall of fame.

And no, we don’t have to just consider them one thing, but we do have to evaluate their performance and weigh their position in the evaluations. If mauer stayed a catcher he would be a shoe in. Since he spent the majority of his career as a first baseman that changes the evaluation criteria a bit.

His numbers don’t look nearly as impressive when compared to other first baseman and that will hurt him. Was his peak as a catcher good enough to overcome that? We will have to see what true writers/voters think. My vote is no if I had one.

Hopefully, that make more sense to you.

As of right now, he has not spent the majority of his career as a first baseman. 7,883.0 innings played as a catcher. 4,662.1 innings played as a first baseman. I don't hold the DH thing against him because a lot of star players DH for a breather during the season. It really has become a position that you cycle players through to get them off their feet for a day. There are very few true DHs anymore. IMHO, he should be judged as a catcher even if he winds up spending more time as a first baseman because that's where he had his best seasons. We didn't judge Ernie Banks and Rod Carew as first basemen, despite the fact they had more playing time there. We judged them as shortstop and second baseman respectively, so why the double standard for Mauer? Others may disagree. That's fine. It's a free country, or in this case, a free planet.

[ihatenames]

Originally Posted by Rain King

The above is why a stat like WAR is so nice to have.

I agree. It helps clear off some of the mud. No stat should be the only metric but anything that adds more information to the discussion is of value.

Originally Posted by actionjackson

As of right now, he has not spent the majority of his career as a first baseman. 7,883.0 innings played as a catcher. 4,662.1 innings played as a first baseman. I don't hold the DH thing against him because a lot of star players DH for a breather during the season. It really has become a position that you cycle players through to get them off their feet for a day. There are very few true DHs anymore. IMHO, he should be judged as a catcher even if he winds up spending more time as a first baseman because that's where he had his best seasons. We didn't judge Ernie Banks and Rod Carew as first basemen, despite the fact they had more playing time there. We judged them as shortstop and second baseman respectively, so why the double standard for Mauer? Others may disagree. That's fine. It's a free country, or in this case, a free planet.

If Ernie Banks and Rod Carew played their entire career as first baseman would they still be hall of famers? In my opinion, without question yes. So I don’t see a double standard there at all. Neither one were fringe hall of famers. Mauer is.

I don’t think he should be judged as a catcher or a first baseman. He should be judged as both. I hope the writers evaluate him as such. He should be compared to both and the weight to either position will be up to each writer/voter to decide.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by ihatenames

I agree. It helps clear off some of the mud. No stat should be the only metric but anything that adds more information to the discussion is of value.



If Ernie Banks and Rod Carew played their entire career as first baseman would they still be hall of famers? In my opinion, without question yes. So I don’t see a double standard there at all. Neither one were fringe hall of famers. Mauer is.

I don’t think he should be judged as a catcher or a first baseman. He should be judged as both. I hope the writers evaluate him as such. He should be compared to both and the weight to either position will be up to each writer/voter to decide.

On the bolded point we can definitely agree. That's why I find WAR helpful as a starting point, because it does make these distinctions. It takes his time at catcher and measures him against other catchers at that time. Then it takes his time at 1B and DH, and measures him against other 1B and DHs of the time. But obviously, given the tone of this thread, that could be interpreted as starting a war (see what I did there? )

Also, 1,000% correct on Carew and Banks being no doubt HoFers of course. I'm just sayin' if Mauer makes the HoF, I would call him a catcher, even though Banks and Carew are listed among first basemen, which to me is weird. The Hall of Merit gets it right (to me) listing them as shortstop and second baseman respectively.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by ihatenames

I agree. It helps clear off some of the mud. No stat should be the only metric but anything that adds more information to the discussion is of value.



If Ernie Banks and Rod Carew played their entire career as first baseman would they still be hall of famers? In my opinion, without question yes. So I don’t see a double standard there at all. Neither one were fringe hall of famers. Mauer is.

I don’t think he should be judged as a catcher or a first baseman. He should be judged as both. I hope the writers evaluate him as such. He should be compared to both and the weight to either position will be up to each writer/voter to decide.

Ernie got in pretty easily, but he should be a borderline guy. And if he had been a 1B with a career 122 OPS+ (118 wRC+) in 10,395 PA and 1496 career runs created.

Then that's basically Tony Perez, Darrell Evans, Mark Grace and Paul Konerko.

He's in for hitting 500 home runs, back when that was a free pass to the Hall. And a .500 slugging shortstop is a Hall of Famer. But a .500 slugging, lower OBP First basemen isn't.

[ihatenames]

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

Ernie got in pretty easily, but he should be a borderline guy. And if he had been a 1B with a career 122 OPS+ (118 wRC+) in 10,395 PA and 1496 career runs created.

Then that's basically Tony Perez, Darrell Evans, Mark Grace and Paul Konerko.

He's in for hitting 500 home runs, back when that was a free pass to the Hall. And a .500 slugging shortstop is a Hall of Famer. But a .500 slugging, lower OBP First basemen isn't.

He hit 500 homeruns ans 2,500 hits. That was shoe in during his period. That’s the problem with cherry picked advanced stats. Grace was no where near the ball player Banks was. Banks 6 year peak was significantly better than anything those other guys put up. Banks did not age as gracefully. Also to say he is or isn’t a hall of famer you have to use the criteria of when he played. The leagues has evolved 47 years since his last game. OPB which hurts Banks in these comparisons wasn’t valued during his time period. There was never any doubt he would make the hall when he played. Unfortunately for Mauer mlb has advanced 47 years since he played and there is more data to work with.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by ihatenames

He hit 500 homeruns ans 2,500 hits. That was shoe in during his period. That’s the problem with cherry picked advanced stats. Grace was no where near the ball player Banks was. Banks 6 year peak was significantly better than anything those other guys put up. Banks did not age as gracefully. Also to say he is or isn’t a hall of famer you have to use the criteria of when he played. The leagues has evolved 47 years since his last game. OPB which hurts Banks in these comparisons wasn’t valued during his time period. There was never any doubt he would make the hall when he played. Unfortunately for Mauer mlb has advanced 47 years since he played and there is more data to work with.

Oh for sure.

A shorstop popping 40 homers during that era, wowsers!

And I agree on the OBP side of things.

Just positionally, that total value of PA, wRC+ and wRC and that slash isn't as impressive as other hall of famers, and if he really was only a 1B with that slash, he probably would have struggled to get in, or would have been in only because of the 500 HR mark.

But, he was also a gifted shortstop throughout his 20's, thus, easy choice for the Hall.

[ihatenames]

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

Oh for sure.

A shorstop popping 40 homers during that era, wowsers!

And I agree on the OBP side of things.

Just positionally, that total value of PA, wRC+ and wRC and that slash isn't as impressive as other hall of famers, and if he really was only a 1B with that slash, he probably would have struggled to get in, or would have been in only because of the 500 HR mark.

But, he was also a gifted shortstop throughout his 20's, thus, easy choice for the Hall.

I think even as a first baseman he was a shoe in during that era. There were few better than he was based on the standards of the day. During his peak form 1955-1960 he actually hit more homeruns than either Mays or Aaron. I think he was 7th or 8th all-time on the homeruns list when he retired. And If it wasn’t for Arod he would still hold the all-time record for homeruns during a season by a shortstop. Impressive considering only a handful of other guys were hitting even hit double digets as a shortstop during his time. He also had two seasons over 9 War as a shortstop which is also impressive.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by ihatenames

I think even as a first baseman he was a shoe in during that era. There were few better than he was based on the standards of the day. During his peak form 1955-1960 he actually hit more homeruns than eithe Mays or Aaron. I think he was 7th or 8th all-time on the homeruns list when he retired. And I’d it wasn’t for Arod he would still hold the all-time record for homeruns during a season by a shortstop. Impressive considering only a handful of other guys were hitting even hit double divers as a shortstop during his time. He also had two seasons over 9 War as a shortstop which is also impressive.

Oh for sure, in 1971, he was tied for 8th all time with Mathews at 512 home runs, 3 behind Killebrew and 9 behind Williams, 1 ahead of Ott.

But, he was also the lowest wRC+ at that point in the 500 home run club by about 25 points. Fwiw.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by Airdrop01

I’ve got a metric for Jay Jaffe: DORKS. Damned Old Recalcitrants Killing Sports.

Jay is off the charts in this metric. He’s like, ya know, the best of all the weirdo baseball writers. He’s beating the hell out of George Will, Bill James. Not to mention actual baseball minds. I can only imagine what Thurman Munson would say to Jay. Lol.

Note you can buy Jay’s musings for a cool $26. Not to be confused with the Jay Jaffe who actually did play baseball at USC. He gives inspirational speeches, about overcoming cancer, etc. as opposed to making up stats and schilling snake oil.

Why does it have to be either or? Why does it have to be us and them? Why can I not enjoy a deep dive into numbers and math to analyze the game, and still enjoy the poetry and artistry of watching Troy Tulowitzki (AKA Baryshnikov or Nureyev [can't remember which one] as a friend labeled him shortly after his arrival in Toronto), or more up to date, Andrelton Simmons make an incredible play from deep in the hole at short.

More up your alley (going back aways), why can I not marvel at Willie Wilson closing on a ball in the gap that he had no business catching, or George Brett's picture perfect swing, or Dan Quisenberry baffling hitters again and again with such surgical precision from an impossible angle. If I want to know the catch probability of a modern day Willie Wilson, or the launch angle of a modern day George Brett, or the FIP of a modern day Dan Quisenberry, and how in the hell he was able to outpitch it with such regularity in his prime (I will admit, there aren't too many of him around these days now that the strikeout is king amongst pitchers, and balls in play are the enemy - but given the fact that this is baseball, you never know, his ilk may come back around again), why does it anger you so much?

Why does it bother you that I am interested in these things and this data and yet can still get a thrill out of a towering, majestic walk-off HR by a backup catcher (Luke Maile) whose career fWAR coming into this season suggested he had no business being on a big league roster, and also suggests that he will never be confused with a super-duper star. Yet, there he was beaming like a little kid (and so was I) after his huge moment on May 11th of this year.

There is room for both in the game. Always has been, always will be. It's the factions on both sides trying to drive a wedge between the other side and what it finds enjoyable about the game that make me want to puke/get my blood boiling. There is common ground. We all love this game. We just love it in different ways, and some of us even love all the aspects of it. If you don't like the numbers (not talking about baseball card numbers, but the deeper data), ignore them, brush them away, move on. Just don't mock one of the ways I enjoy the game.

Your Royals used a ton of data to get them to the pinnacle of the sport. Their "moneyball" revelation (or market inefficiency if you will) was contact hitters, and speed, particularly speedy outfielders. They amassed and amalgamated all of that in droves, and bludgeoned their opponents with multi-hit innings, and broke the spirit of their opponents with derring do on the bases and potential hits in the gap that died in outfield gloves. If you don't believe data in combination with scouting was used to get them there, you're blinding yourself to something that's right in front of your face.

Speaking of scouting, the sending of Lorenzo Cain from first on a single by Eric Hosmer in the bottom of the eighth of Game 6 of the 2015 ALCS may have broken our backs, but I tipped my cap to it and recognized it for its brilliance, and I can be quite the stathead. Let's stop us-ing and them-ing and get together on something we can all agree on: that this is the greatest game ever invented.

I mean if a behemoth like Aaron Judge and a tiny sparkplug like Jose Altuve (his BB-Ref page says he's 5'6", now there is some data you can spit on) can go down to the wire in the 2017 AL MVP race, what more is there to say? That is the ultimate long and short of it, and proves that whatever size you are, you can succeed in baseball. Well, you can succeed with ungodly hand/eye coordination, fast twitch muscles (and slow twitch muscles - it is after all a marathon followed by a sprint), and graceful, god-given athleticism. So, let's end this war (or WAR if you will) and recognize and celebrate our commonalities, rather than find fault in our differences. Peace out.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Rain King

I truly don't understand this. Are we incapable of evaluating a career if they didn't play the exact same position the entire time, we have to only consider them one thing?

He raised the bar on himself when he want to 1B.

He sucked as a catcher, but so did Piazza. Piazza was a hugely better hitter, so this mattered a little less.

Molina is a vastly superior catcher, with a very high dWar. This helps his cause.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

You see, you say all of this like it's unknown or something.

Advanced stats, clearly show Yogi to be the superior all time catcher.

But you are so hell bent on finding chinks on the armor to argue against Mauer, that you are ignoring very broad things, and that those that aren't so easily dismissive of him do know about his flaws.

I haven't seen anyone say he belongs in the Hall right now. Most people are saying it's going to take some more, 3-4 years of good hitting and durability for it to even be a possibility.

Yogi was a very good defensive catcher, and caught a ton more than Mauer. But their bats were pretty equivalent in total value. OPS+ is only park and league adjusted OPS. That's it.

Yogi also won some MVP's he probably shouldn't have.

55 should have been Mantle, 54 should have been Minoso or Williams probably. I do see his argument for 51 though (though Garver and Williams should be given strong consideration).

Some times reputation proceeds output.

It will take 3-4 good years for Mauer. Give Mauer another 500 hits, and I'll vote for him.

...but don't give him any credit for his catching. None. The dude sucked as a catcher.

[Jeffy25]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

It will take 3-4 good years for Mauer. Give Mauer another 500 hits, and I'll vote for him.

...but don't give him any credit for his catching. None. The dude sucked as a catcher.

He won three gold gloves as a catcher and a career +14 DRS in 7883 innings as a catcher.

That's sucking?


Yes, Piazza hit like a Silver Slugging 1B, but while Mauer was a catcher, he wasn't that far behind him. He stopped catching after 2013, at the time, he had a 134 wRC+, Piazza was a 140. That was the third best wRC+ ever by a catcher to that point (Piazza and Tenace).

Piazza was a bad defensive catcher. Mauer, not so much.

[ihatenames]

Mauer was a solid catcher before his knees caught up with him. He had a solid arm too. I wouldn’t hold his defense against him too much.

[Jason Moyer]

I wouldn't put him in yet, but if he played 3-5 really bad seasons to jack his stats up he'd be a no-brainer!!! It's also possible I'm being sarcastic.

[TheMaus2]

just like Michael Jordan padded his stats

[dsvitak]

I note, with amusement, that Joe Mauer has cleared waivers.

Age 35, with a slugging percentage of .367, and three homers this year.

Still think he's a Hall of Famer?

[TheMaus2]

yes