I concur. As a guy who values peak over career numbers anyways I think that Posada should follow Jeter and Rivera into the Hall.

Yep. I think Posada has been the most valuable player to the Yankees over the last decade, you can't understate how much not having an offensive sink hole behind the plate would have helped them.

Yesterday in a chat Neyer said there is no way he gets in the hall

OPS+
Piazza 142
Cochrane 128
Dickey 127
Hartnett 126
Bench 126
Berra 125
Campanella 124
POSADA 124
Simmons 117
Fisk 117
Carter 115
I-Rod 110

The counting stats are certainly an obstacle, but Posada had the best hitting season of any catcher age-35+ in MLB history in 2007, and although injured in 2008, he's got a 159 OPS+ this year (in limited time, again due to injury), so he may not be done in making his case. Perhaps with increasing time at DH, Posada will last longer than we would expect.

I'll repost here what I said over at Beyond the Box Score. Basic summary: Unfortunately, not enough career value yet.

I've got him as -8 runs from 2005-2007 on blocking pitches

Rally’s got him as -15 defensively over his career with a WAR of 41.6.

Of HOFers and likely HOFers:
Bench = 68.8
Pudge the elder = 67.5
Pudge the younger = 68.1
Piazza = 58.3
Carter = 64.6

Of long-time non-HOF catchers:
Jim Sundberg = 34.7
Ted Simmons = 52.1
Lance Parrish = 35.3
Bill Freehan = 42.4
Jason Kendall = 36.5
Darrell Porter = 41.9

Simmons and Freehan are occasionally pushed as worthy HOFers. Posada should pass Freehan this season, but probably won’t get near Simmons unless he lasts for another 4 or 5 years.

Quantifying catcher defense is really tough, so I don’t know how realistic Sean’s numbers are, but Posada definitely doesn’t have a good defensive reputation.

If you assume he’s average defensively, then he still only gains 1.5 more wins – which doesn’t vault him into HOF discussions.

The relatively late start to his career (26 before he got a full-time gig) probably will hurt him counting stat-wise, although not that much in WAR. And who’s to say the late start isn’t why he’s still productive today.

So regrettably since he’s my second favorite player of the Yankee dynasty, I’m going to have to say no on the HOF. If he puts up a few more seasons like his 2007, then that’s a different story.

Yesterday in a chat Neyer said there is no way he gets in the hall

And there are good odds that Neyer will be correct. After all, saying there is no way that he gets into the Hall is very different from saying he doesn't belong. In the case of Posada, while he's definitely put up the peak numbers, his career totals will most likely end up being on the low side of things - he'll probably retire with a R/HR/RBI line of less than 1000/300/1200, which will put him behind most of the recent inductees (Bench, Fisk, Carter), he'll only have about 5 or 6 AS appearances, and he'll almost certainly be without an MVP. Combine that with being of the same generation as I-Rod and Piazza (and being chased by Mauer), and I think there's a good possibility that he'll have to wait for the VC.

He should get in imo but probably wouldn't if he retired today. His bat has shown no signs of decline however and I could see him successfully mix matching catcher/DH in NY for a good number of years to come.

Off the top of my head, "No, but not a travesty", but Rob is smoking crack if he said that. Yankees from those teams that are close, which Posada unquestionably is, all have a chance. I don't know how Rob gets to "no way", perhaps he'll stop by.

Quantifying catcher defense is really tough, so I don’t know how realistic Sean’s numbers are, but Posada definitely doesn’t have a good defensive reputation.

Depends on how much credit you want to give for handling pitchers. My numbers ignore that, because I've yet to see convincing evidence that it is a predictable skill. As far as using SB/CS/WP/PB/E, I have the same level of detail for catchers in 1954 as I do in 2008, unlike TotalZone, where I have to use different methods to deal with varying detail of batted balls.

I look at catcher defense against LHP/RHP separately, and I think this does enough to reasonably control for the pitchers - my career ratings are very similar to Tango's who goes a step further with WOWY and looks at how catchers do with and without each individual pitcher.

Anyway, the defensive ratings of the HOF above group are:

Bench +97
Ivan +152
Carter +106
Fisk +30
Piazza -61

As far as I know these ratings match up with how they were regarded defensively.

If he retired today I'd vote no, being a small hall guy. It's hard for me to justify supporting a player in the low 40's for WAR when I've been very critical of the Rice vote. He can be the starting C for the Hall of Very Good.

Similar careers to Posada's in terms of OPS+ over a span of PAs at up-the-middle positions.

There isn't a HOFer in the bunch over the past half century, though they are all very good players. (Posada, as of this morning, is eerily close to Nomar in career numbers.)

But, having said that, look at the guys on the list before Jackie Robinson. Joe Gordon, Ernie Lombardi, Earle Combs: they are HOFers who share three things: fine play in modest career length, starring for championship teams, and induction into the HOF via Veterans' Committees after quite a wait. I think Posada will look very good to future VCs as they reflect back on the '96-'03 dynasty.

The relatively late start to his career (26 before he got a full-time gig) probably will hurt him counting stat-wise, although not that much in WAR.

And it wasn't until he was 28 that he really became a legit full-time starter, he had less than 850 PA at age 26-27.

I have been saying this for years. Since Berra got in, how many catchers are in the Hall of Fame? A few, catcher is underrepresented there. And Posada is one of the top 10 catchers in the history of the game.

He is a HOFer.

I think Posada will look very good to future VCs as they reflect back on the '96-'03 dynasty.

Veterans committees are not what they used to be. To get in Posada needs to defy age and have a few more big years, or hope Derek Jeter takes over the VC one day and becomes the next Frankie Frisch.

I have been saying this for years. Since Berra got in, how many catchers are in the Hall of Fame?

By the BBWAA, there's Fisk, Carter, and Bench. By the VC, there's Lombardi, and I think Ferrell. There may also be some NeL players, and one or two other VC guys I'm forgetting.

Veterans committees are not what they used to be

Sure, but we're talking decades out here, and by then they won't be what they used to be in the 2000s :) And Gordon just got elected, after all.

A low 40's WAR is a lot more respectable for a catcher than for other positions. I know that in order to get the proportion of catchers roughly equal to other positions, Dan R applies a 58% catcher bonus. As a result, his WARP--which is pretty close to Rally's--together with the catcher adjustment have Posada over the Hall of Merit in/out line, which I think makes someone a reasonable Hall of Fame candidate.

A few follow-ups:

Good points about peak value. That's a point I failed to bring up (focusing on career value), but of course it's pivotal for Posada: He was an elite player at a very tough position for a pretty long peak period, which also coincided with several championships (and then beyond).

Just to be clear, I think Posada deserves to go in. But like Rob, I'm not sure he will, and that's even if he has 2-3 more good to very good seasons. A big chunk of Posada's career value lies in his walks (and to some extent, doubles). Even with the supposed era of new Enlightenment, I'm not sure those factors will be properly weighed when the times comes to vote.

More generally, the Hall, to me, is overrepresented at some positions and underrepresented at others. I do believe Posada is one of the dozen best catchers of all-time (or will be by the time he retires), and that, to me, is a good reason to induct him. I feel the same way about guys like Santo at 3B, and maybe even Whitaker and Grich at 2B (though I could go either way there). I'm not a baseball affirmative action zealot per se, but I do think the Hall should represent the full spectrum of baseball greatness. And it is not the case that all of baseball's great players played the outfield or pitched.

Sean I think you've got Bench far too low for his defensive rep (which when active was basically the same as Rodriguez in his prime) And Jim Weigand has him #1 against the running game every year from 1969 to 1976 (before slipping to second in 1977)


Carter in his prime put up some very nice numbers but struggled at the beginning of his career and was terrible at the end.

All in all Bench was 610 SB, 469 CS and 62 PO. Carter had 1498 SBA, 810 CS and 51 PO (in a lot more playing time to be sure)

Jim has Carter's arm as slightly negative on balance.

I have Posada above the line. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned his decent 383 postseason plate appearances. That is nearly a full season at catcher spent in the postseason. Granted he's "hit like a catcher" in the postseason but there's something to be said for average production in those circumstances.

Maybe Bench was too good. Looks like teams ran a lot less on him than on Carter. That speaks well for his ability, but looking at the numbers above, people were running on Carter at less than a break-even rate.

Bench's total number is also a function of having a shorter career. Per 1200 innings I have:

Rodriguez: +9.8
Bench +8.0
Carter +7.3

And Posada is one of the top 10 catchers in the history of the game.

I don't know about that... I'd vote for Posada if I had a vote, but I'm a big hall guy.

Of the OPS+ list above, I would say all 7 in front of him are clearly better -- and I think I'd also take Fisk and Carter ahead of Posada. I'd have to think about just how over-rated I-Rod was defensively, but probably take Rodriguez, too. If not, then I'd take Josh Gibson.

[EDIT: Jonah's 'top dozen' sounds closer, but I suppose top 10 vs. top 12 is nitpicking]

By the BBWAA, there's Fisk, Carter, and Bench. By the VC, there's Lombardi, and I think Ferrell. There may also be some NeL players, and one or two other VC guys I'm forgetting.

Piazza goes in in a few years, as does Rodriguez. I think Posada won't make it as he will be compared to those 2.

Piazza goes in in a few years, as does Rodriguez. I think Posada won't make it as he will be compared to those 2.

You're probably right, and I hate that. PEDs aside, should Manny not go in because he played at the same time as an even better left fielder, Bonds? Is Raines disqualified because of Rickey? Jeter because of A-Rod? (when they were both SS anyway)

Sometimes all-time greats cluster at the same position at the same time. Considering the effects of an era are certainly important, but all-time context matters too. Argh.

Is Raines disqualified because of Rickey?

Based on the BBWAA voting of the last couple years, all signs point to "Yes."

Only 1511 games. I can't put him in right now. He'd better stay out of the way of all moving buses.

I have Posada above the line. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned his decent 383 postseason plate appearances. That is nearly a full season at catcher spent in the postseason. Granted he's "hit like a catcher" in the postseason but there's something to be said for average production in those circumstances.

So now we're giving extra credit for "decent" postseason performances? But what "nearly a full season"? He has played only 96 postseason games. And hit .236/.352/.379. We're awarding merit badges for that?

So, in the last half century, there have been 3 HOF catchers, and 2 more locks. Thats.... Not a lot.

Granted he's "hit like a catcher" in the postseason but there's something to be said for average production in those circumstances.

Yes, there is. And what there is to be said is that he performed at an average level (which was below average for him). There's really no additional credit to be found there.

So, in the last half century, there have been 3 HOF catchers, and 2 more locks. Thats.... Not a lot.

By the BBWAA voting, that's the same number as for CF - Mays, Mantle, Snider, Puckett, and probably Dawson next year. It's probably also about the same as for 3B - Schmidt, Brett, Boggs, Matthews, Molitor (depending on how you want to count him), and Brooks Robinson.

The BBWAA hasn't really elected all that many guys at any position.

EDIT: Second Basemen - Carew, Sandberg, Morgan, with Alomar being the only likely upcoming addition.

Posada's problem is that catchers are both injury prone and undervalued unless they gather in a lot of MVP votes. I've watched him for his entire career and IMO there's no question that he's a HoF level talent, but I'd agree that he could use 2 or 3 more productive years in order to break through that lack of understanding on the part of HoF voters as to the true value of a catcher.

OTOH we've always got one of the screwiest HoF choices of all time.

Yes, there is. And what there is to be said is that he performed at an average level (which was below average for him). There's really no additional credit to be found there.

I think we should let everyone in the Hall who played in the postseason. It seems to be where the people with fetishes for postseason play are headed anyway. Extra credit for that mediocre postseason performance for Posada? Truly bizarre.

I think we should let everyone in the Hall who played in the postseason. It seems to be where the people with fetishes for postseason play are headed anyway. Extra credit for that mediocre postseason performance for Posada? Truly bizarre.

Well, I generally disagree on you with this topic, since I do believe that exceptional post-season performance should be counted in a player's favor. In this case, however, I agree that I can't see why a performance which is average for the position (and substandard for the player) should be counted as a point of credit.

I guess. I mean, when you are talking about a top 15 player at his position of all time, I just don't see how that isn't a hall of famer.

But I understand they guys who just want to see a musuem for Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Willie Mays.

But I understand they guys who just want to see a musuem for Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Willie Mays.

Nice strawman.

OTOH we've always got one of the screwiest HoF choices of all time.

He (allegedly) invented shin guards!!!

Does anyone think it's likely that borderline HOF candidates from this era will get a boost from playing their whole career with one team?

Does anyone think it's likely that borderline HOF candidates from this era will get a boost from playing their whole career with one team?

I think that benefit could apply in some cases. I'm not sure it would to lifelong Yankees.

Posada needs to stay healthy and keep raking. He still hits like an MVP catcher. He needs a little luck to stay on the field and after his current contract is up he will look a lot more viable.

#29: You forgot Craig Biggio. Also Killebrew at third.

40 non-pitchers have been elected by the BBWAA since Yogi Berra in 1972 (including Yogi). 5 per position (on average).

Nice strawman.

Strawman or exaggeration? I saw exaggeration, and I know, because I wrote it.

I really understand the small hall argument. I think it has some merit, I just don't particularly agree with it.

Also Killebrew at third.

He obviously spent time there, but I'm not sure I'd say Killebrew was elected as a 3Bman. About 1/3 of his time was at the position, and he had more games at first.

#29: You forgot Craig Biggio. Also Killebrew at third.

Crap. I did forget Biggio.

With respect to Killebrew, that's really a judgement call - while he did play 3B, I think most people remember him as a 1B.

Maybe Bench was too good.

Could be. Pete Palmer came up with Bench as the worst catcher of all time because his assist rate was so low.

Looks like teams ran a lot less on him than on Carter. That speaks well for his ability, but looking at the numbers above, people were running on Carter at less than a break-even rate.

Yeah I wonder about that. What Jim does is rate the catchers on stolen base frequency as well as percentage. There should be a hidden gain in DP rate by cutting off the running game.

Of interest: Bench caught 42 playoff games before his arm went south. 2 SB, 13 CS and 4 PO. That's unreal.

4 SB, 0 CS in 3 games in his final appearance.

Posada needs to stay healthy and keep raking. He still hits like an MVP catcher. He needs a little luck to stay on the field and after his current contract is up he will look a lot more viable.

I'm afraid he's going to follow the Moises Alou path... he'll probably be able to hit til he's 50, but injuries will start to cut his playing time down to nothing.

Although I'd really like another couple thousand PAs, I'd probably support him for the HOF. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that we're criminally underrating the difficulty of catching compared to other positions, and Posada's peak is damn impressive. He's got 3 or 4 offensive seasons more valuable than anything Pudge Rodriguez ever did. 2000, 2003 and 2007 were all MVP-worthy.

Ryan I doubt anybody around when he was active thought of Killebrew as a 1B. I know I never thought of him as anything but a 3B. And yes, I'm aware that he played more first than third. But the difference comes primarily before he established himself and while he was playing out the string.

And I know he shows up on the peak lists at 3B (and the position on those lists is determined by primary position in the 5 years rated -- so that Stan Musial shows up as a RF)

Well, I'll go into a little more detail why I think that much postseason work is valuable:

1) Average production has value
2) This is a catcher, games caught in the postseason probably take away from games caught at some later date. When you're talking about a borderline player an additional 96 games of average production might sway the argument.
3) If you're peak-inclined you need to consider the postseasons where he was really good and see if they line up with the regular seasons where he was really good. That would add to his peak value.

It's not much but when you're borderline every little bit counts.

Maybe I'm making this up or twisting it a little, but didn't Neyer say something along the lines of he's glad he has time before he has to vote to deal with the steroid issue? I say that because maybe it comes out that Piazza and Pudge definitively used PEDs, and nothing comes out with Posada, that would certainly help his chances, and it doesn't seem far fetched.

I always got the feeling based off of everything else they do that the old time voters would if anything overrate catchers, giving them credit for their defense and calling a game. But it's basically been the opposite. I get the feeling they'd say Jose Molina should start for his defense even though he'll bat .240, but then for HOF voting they'll say Posada didn't put up enough numbers.

If he puts up a few more seasons like his 2007, then that’s a different story.

If Posada puts up a few more seasons like his 2007 as a catcher in his late 30s or early 40s, then he's probably going to attract some rumors of PED usage. Unfair as it might be, any "late bloomer" of the 1990s and early 2000's is going to face that type of scrutiny.

As others have said, Posada's (likely) lack of counting stats will doom his BBWAA chances. He'll probably get elected eventually by a future VC, but it may take a few decades.

Could be. Pete Palmer came up with Bench as the worst catcher of all time because his assist rate was so low.

Bill James also noted that when he was developing Win Shares, he couldn't get the statistics to match up with Bench's reputation. (He felt the problem was with the statistics, not the reputation.)

It could be either that the numbers we have for Bench don't adequately measure his defensive contributions, or that he wasn't quite as great as he's made out to be. It's probably some of both.

Yeah I wonder about that. What Jim does is rate the catchers on stolen base frequency as well as percentage. There should be a hidden gain in DP rate by cutting off the running game.

Ah. I've been there. I gave catchers a bonus once for keeping SB attempts low, and was thinking about the DP. Somebody smart told me I was wrong (MGL). I went back to the drawing board, spent a day trying to make my case, and in the end I saw that he was right. The chance of the DP is already there in the run expectancy charts. I've done the math but don't ask me to reproduce it, I've learned my lesson and moved on. But feel free to try it yourself.

Truth is, being such a good catcher that you hold the running game to 0 SB/ 0 CS is exactly as valuable as allowing 5 SB attempts per game, all at exactly a break even percentage.

It could be either that the numbers we have for Bench don't adequately measure his defensive contributions, or that he wasn't quite as great as he's made out to be. It's probably some of both

It may also be part of the nature of baseball defense: a guy can be so good in some respects that his talents overflow the possible impact they could have on a game. Jesse Barfield, for example, had an arm that was just astonishing to behold, but how much value could he possibly bring to a team with his arm, over and above an ordinary good major-league right fielder? I think Bench was like that. He used to be shown doing things like holding nine baseballs comfortably in one bare hand. That's miraculous, but of course there aren't many game situations where it's of much use.

Does anyone think it's likely that borderline HOF candidates from this era will get a boost from playing their whole career with one team?

It could be a plus. It makes it more likely that there is team, media members and group of fans interested in pushing the candidacy. It also probably focuses others on the person's credentials in the sense that they remember the player as being an asset for his team for an extensive period of time.

While this article curiuosly omits Simmons it does mention Posada, and not favorably.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/more-on-catchers-fieldingwppb/

He used to be shown doing things like holding nine baseballs comfortably in one bare hand. That's miraculous, but of course there aren't many game situations where it's of much use.

That's what I mean about the numbers not adequately reflecting his greatness. They weren't keeping track of Number of Balls Held in One Hand back then. I think Sean has this on bbref.com now, though.

It could be either that the numbers we have for Bench don't adequately measure his defensive contributions, or that he wasn't quite as great as he's made out to be. It's probably some of both

It may also be part of the nature of baseball defense: a guy can be so good in some respects that his talents overflow the possible impact they could have on a game.

Concur. Bench's throwing arm was the best I've ever seen from a catcher. It was un-freaking-believable.

But realistically, the only impact that has is to shut down the opponent's base-stealing. Which is fine, but how many runs does it eliminate?

I also find the dismissal of Ted Simmons somewhat shocking. Simmons deserves to be in the HOF. To wave one's hand at this candidacy is peculiar in the least.

Bill Freehan should be the in-out line. Not sure why he's not in the HoF, lots of All-Star game appearances.

As far as borderline catchers, I voted for/supported Torre, Simmons, Howard, and Freehan for the HOM so I definitely agree with those that believe that catcher is underrepresented. As mentioned above I woudl also vote for Posada but he is behind the two biggies of his era.

As for Bresnahan, while I think that he is a HOF mistake, he is not the complete and utter reach that some make him out to be. The guy had a very good peak in the aughts (and there weren't many great catchers then, Kling was probably second best), though it is buoyed by time spent in the outfield. Still, better him than Schalk or Ferrell.

Truth is, being such a good catcher that you hold the running game to 0 SB/ 0 CS is exactly as valuable as allowing 5 SB attempts per game, all at exactly a break even percentage.

I won't be able to come up with statistics to prove my case, but I feel pretty strongly that this argument misses something. If you attempt as a team 120 steal attempts, and steal at a roughly break even percentage, does that mean you might as well never attempt to steal, in any situation, regardless of the game context? I don't think so.

What makes a break even percentage changes depending on the context of the game - who's up, what is the score, what inning is it, how many outs, etc. There are times when its worth trying if your chance of success is 65%, and times when its not, when you chance of success is 70%. Or something like that.

If a catcher is so good that it totally removes the possibity of a stolen base, that has value IMO, beyond simply the "break even percentage".

Simmons is my favorite player of all time, so I agree with Harvey.

I think that Neyer is too quick to dismiss Posada. I do not believe that there has to be parity of positions in the hof (that would get people campaigning for relief pitchers, pinch hitter specialist, or even non-elite dh's) but catchers by their very nature have shorter careers, it doesn't diminish their seasonal value, so understanding that an average all star type of catcher might only play 10 seasons versus 13 for an all star at other positions, means that there is no reason not to expect lower counting numbers for a hof catcher, provided that they posted enough valuable seasons.

Bill Freehan should be the in-out line. Not sure why he's not in the HoF, lots of All-Star game appearances.

Career .262/.340/.412 line, or 706/200/758 R/HR/RBI. In their raw form, neither set of numbers looked impressive enough to convince the BBWAA of his worthiness. It also didn't help that he would have been coming onto the ballot at the same time that Bench, Simmons, and Munson were at the tail ends of their careers (with more impressive numbers - and story for Munson) and Fisk, Carter, and Parrrish were entering their primes.

The particular timing of his career just killed his chances at the Hall.

I wonder how the each hall of famer did compared to the league average at that position. And then see how Posada compares. Would he definitely be better than the average catcher during his playing career than most other HOFers?

I'll jump on the Simmons bandwagon. He should be in. Bill Freehan was an underrated player, and played at about the worst time for hitters, but I don't think he's quite there. Between Freehan and Simmons is a gray area for me, which Posada currently occupies. I see the point that position should be considered along with a career measure like WAR (for voters who lean towards career value). If you let Posada in, you aren't jumping over 20-25 equal or better players, like you are with Rice in the outfield.

If a catcher is so good that it totally removes the possibity of a stolen base, that has value IMO, beyond simply the "break even percentage".

Run value, no, hence the term break even. But situational win value, yes. Interesting question on how big an impact that would have.

Dizzy,

Is it possible though that those attempts prevented also even out over the course of a season?

Ryan I doubt anybody around when he was active thought of Killebrew as a 1B. I know I never thought of him as anything but a 3B. And yes, I'm aware that he played more first than third. But the difference comes primarily before he established himself and while he was playing out the string.

Fair enough, Ron. I'm mostly familiar with Killebrew through his stats, and through the image of him as a hulking beast (and through his reputation as a less than stellar fielder). As a result, I've always thought of him as a 1B, as have most of the people I know. Since none of us are old enough to remember Killebrew from his early playing days, that's probably given me a misleading impression of his positional placement.

Killer was a muscular guy but he wasn't 6 foot tall.

Jorge's Monitor score is 91-and that's with (checking) about 33 points just for the postseason credits. He might get more credit for that, but probably not. Bernie (eligible in 2 1/2 more years) may be a good barometer.

Re our 20 Hall of Merit catchers, fwiw (all retired by 2002)

our recent head-to-head rankings roughly went

1 Gibson

2 Bench

3 Berra

4 Carter

5-6-7-8-9-10-11 Fisk Dickey Hartnett Cochrane Ewing Campanella DWhite

12 Santop

13 TSimmons

14-15 Torre (no managing credit), CBennett

16-17 McVey Freehan

18-19 Bresnahan Trouppe

20 BMackey

Leading C holdover for the 2010 HOM ballot is Elston Howard (28th, so he'll need a resurrection and a virtual ticket to visit the mythical HOM), and he's the only C in the top 45.

I looked at Posada using two of Bill James' frameworks for evaluating players. From Bill James' "Keltner List" I think Posada is very good, but not Hall-worthy. After applying Bill James' "Catcher Pride Points" (from his interesting 2009 Goldmine Book) to Posada's career, he does not come across as a very good defensive catcher; he's a good hitter on winning teams.

Keltner list
Posada was never the best player in the league or on his own team.
He was at one point the best hitting catcher in the AL, but not the best catcher in the AL or MLB.
He impacted pennant races and played past his prime (and didn't get the starting job until his prime).
Posada's not the best player not in the Hall, active or retired.
Of his top 10 similar batters through age 36, only Fisk (918) and Hartnett (875) are in the HoF.
It's debatable whether his hitting numbers meet HoF standards; on the James test, Posada scores 32 versus 50 for the average HoFer.
He's not better than his statistics suggest; in fact the "Catcher Pride Points" score suggests he may be worse.
Other retired and soon-to-be retired catchers are arguably better than Posada.
He ranked only twice in MVP voting: 3rd in the 2003 AL MVP race and 6th in 2007.
He was an All-Star only 5 times in 15 seasons.
It is unlikely that his team would win the pennant if he were the best player on it.
Posada has made no unique impact on the history of baseball, but has generally upheld the standards of sportsmanship and character expected of a HoFer.

As I read it, Bill James created "Catcher Pride Points" to quantify a catcher's unique impact on a team beyond offense and the directly measurable defensive statistics (passed balls, caught stealing %, etc).

This metric looks at a catcher's impact on his pitching staff (catching no hitters, 20-game winners, Cy Young winners, successful rookies, breakout pitchers, and leading the league in team ERA), on his "team's success" (winning World Series, Pennants, Divisions, 90+ team win seasons), and his direct stats and awards (fielding pct, assists, All-Star appearances, Gold Gloves). Only Bill Dickey and Yogi Berra earned more Catcher Pride Points from their "team's success"; however, they're 23% of Dickey's career score but 45% of Posada's. By my calculations, Posada's career Catcher Pride Points total is roughly half of the 10th ranked catcher Del Crandall. On a per "season" basis as James defines it, the top catchers post-1900 are Kling, Hendricks, Campanella and Dickey. Posada's score on a per season basis is less than half of the top 10 ranked catchers. He ranks about where Fisk does, but also near the scores James lists for Rick Dempsey, Brad Ausmus, Benito Santiago, and Lance Parrish.

Re #66: The Monitor formula assesses how likely--not deserving--a player is to be voted in.

Posada's played 1412 games at catcher with a career .277 batting average. If Posada maintains a .275 BA and plays 88 more games at catcher, his Monitor score goes up another 15 points. He's batting ~.310 through about 100 AB. So, if he finishes the season at his career average, his Monitor score will be at least 106. If Posada plays another 188 games at catcher, his Monitor score goes up another 15 points. None of this means Posada "belongs" in the HoF.

Posada was never the best player in the league or on his own team.

Off the top of my head...couldn't an argument be made for '00, '03, or '07 as far as being the best on his team? Maybe not '07 because I think A-Rod was ridiculous that year.

Am I the only person on the planet that thinks the Keltner list is one of the biggest crocks of #### on the planet?

Maybe not '07 because I think A-Rod was ridiculous that year.

ARod's 2007 is wildly overrated. He had an outstanding year. But it was not an all-time great year. His 177 OPS+ doesn't crack the top 200.

The hilarious thing is how people (Mike Francesa) thought we were watching the greatest season in 50 years. But it doesn't touch anything that Bonds did. It doesn't touch McGwire's 1998. Or Sosa's 2001. George Brett in 1985 was as good.

I quite frankly take Posada's 2007 over ARod's 2007.

While this article curiuosly omits Simmons it does mention Posada, and not favorably.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/more-on-catchers-fieldingwppb/

There's a link within the article to a google spreadsheet that includes all catchers. Simmons was -19.9 RAA for his career.

As for Posada, according to the spreadsheet, he allowed 91 more WP than expected and 43 more PB, which translates to -38.2 RAA.

This data supports a position that I've been criticized for advocating in past threads: while Posada has been decent in terms of CS/SBA, he is a terrible defender against WP and gives up an unacceptably high number of PB. If his throwing arm is permanently impaired by his shoulder problems (sure has looked that way in limited playing time late last year and so far this year), then he is a major liability behind the plate and really should be a 1B/DH (which can't happen given the current overload of veterans on the wrong side of the defensive spectrum).

Contrast perception versus reality with regards to defensive reputation to Piazza, who had an atrocious arm (only 23% CS%), but in my opinion was actually fairly decent at preventing WP/PB (as this data indicate, +26.0 for his career). Net Piazza was still below-average defensively, but nowhere near as bad as some portrayed him to be.

I quite frankly take Posada's 2007 over ARod's 2007.

FWIW, Rodriguez had 93.8 VORP to Posada's 71.3 and I'm pretty certain Posada doesn't make that up on defense (see my previous post).

FWIW, Rodriguez had 93.8 VORP to Posada's 71.3 and I'm pretty certain Posada doesn't make that up on defense (see my previous post).

Fair enough. That's a pretty big gap.

Posada should pass Freehan this season, but probably won’t get near Simmons unless he lasts for another 4 or 5 years.

And once again I voice my objection. What on earth does what a crippled 37 year old Posada hobbling about have to do with what you think of him as a player, and what exactly is the point of handing out bonus points to 1500 at bats of a DHing and well past it Ted Simmons? As far as I'm concerned, unless he somehow starts playing close to as good as his peak, Posada's Hall of Fame case should be over already. He either is or isn't an HOFer based on what he did from 1998-2007. Now maybe you could argue that the case is so borderline a little minor bonus for lasting a long time might push him over the top, but counting what he does now the same as what he did at his peak seems foolish.

This obsession with value above replacement as a means of picking Hall if Famers is badly misplaced in my opinion. There's absolutely nothing definitionally that suggests it's the only appropriate method and it just skips right the hell over all sorts of things some of us find important.

As far as I'm concerned, unless he somehow starts playing close to as good as his peak, Posada's Hall of Fame case should be over already.

Why wouldn't him being, say, a league average catcher for three more years add to his HOF case? He'd be providing value to his team, no?

He'd be providing value to his team, no?

That would certainly matter to his team, of course but again where in the world does it say "a Hall of Fame case is about the sum total of value added to his team over his career?" To me 5 years of 40 value points means more than 10 years of 20 value points, because the former established how good of a player he was at one time, and that to me is an awfully big part of a player's Hall of Fame credentials.

I'm not sure anybody ever casts votes for the guy that needed courtesy runners playing for the Braves, or the guy in Cleveland who'd been reduced to the 80 MPH fastball or the guy playing for the San Diego Surf Dogs (BTW, all three of those guys were still providing value long after they'd been past it). They vote for the great players these guys used to be before injuries, hard living and father time took their cuts at them. That doesn't mean what he does at the end doesn't matter at all, but I find it hard to believe it matters all that much.

If his throwing arm is permanently impaired by his shoulder problems (sure has looked that way in limited playing time late last year and so far this year)

Last I checked he was above the league average in throwing out runners. Maybe that info is out of date.

That would certainly matter to his team, of course but again where in the world does it say "a Hall of Fame case is about the sum total of value added to his team over his career?" To me 5 years of 40 value points means more than 10 years of 20 value points, because the former established how good of a player he was at one time, and that to me is an awfully big part of a player's Hall of Fame credentials.

I'm not sure anybody ever casts votes for the guy that needed courtesy runners playing for the Braves, or the guy in Cleveland who'd been reduced to the 80 MPH fastball or the guy playing for the San Diego Surf Dogs (BTW, all three of those guys were still providing value long after they'd been past it). They vote for the great players these guys used to be before injuries, hard living and father time took their cuts at them. That doesn't mean what he does at the end doesn't matter at all, but I find it hard to believe it matters all that much.

Shouldn't sustaining greatness count for something? And as far as Posada hanging around...he might miss more time with injury now, but his career OPS+ is 124, his peak OPS+ (the '98-'07 period you cited) is 126, and his OPS+ from '08 to present is 124...so, I'm not sure if your argument even applies to Posada.

There's absolutely nothing definitionally that suggests it's the only appropriate method and it just skips right the hell over all sorts of things some of us find important.

And that's fine, for you. But just because you're a peak guy doesn't mean those career guys, or peak/career guys, are wrong. Your posts on this subject seem just as absolute as the ones you're criticizing.

This obsession with value above replacement as a means of picking Hall if Famers is badly misplaced in my opinion. There's absolutely nothing definitionally that suggests it's the only appropriate method and it just skips right the hell over all sorts of things some of us find important.

I agree. And as I said earlier, only half-jokingly, if Posada does suddenly put up a series of consecutive seasons comparable to his 2007 season then his HOF case will be frustrated by unfounded steroid speculation. Unless he pulls off a Carlton Fisk (in which case he's facing steroid accusations), there's no chance that Posada accumulates enough career value.


Why wouldn't him being, say, a league average catcher for three more years add to his HOF case? He'd be providing value to his team, no?

It doesn't hurt, but I don't know that it especially helps. Perhaps it shouldn't be, but HOF cases are essentially based on peak or career arguments (and those with both are inner-circle). Posada only has ~6000 PA. Including Piazza and I Rodriguez, the only post-WWII HOF catcher (other than Campanella) with less than 8000 PA is Piazza (who probably would have made it if not for missing time during the 1994/95 strike). And Berra mostly played during a 154 season. 8500-9000 PA is the more normal range for a HOF catcher, and I don't see how Posada can hope to approach that.

And that's fine, for you. But just because you're a peak guy doesn't mean those career guys, or peak/career guys, are wrong. Your posts on these subjects seem just as absolute as the ones you're criticizing.

They're not absolute, it's my opinion. I don't view it the same as picking out dinner. I'm arguing that I think my way is the right way. I realize other people disagree and that's fine, but I still think I'm right. I'm not sure when thinking you're right about something became such a sin.

And I also object to this "peak" versus "career" stuff. That's not at all what I mean. If you ask the question: "how good was Ted Simmons?" it seems to me his years as a DH in Milwaukee are completely besides the point. They mattered to Milwaukee at the time of course, but it's a footnote at best on the question of Ted Simmons as a player. Ted Simmons as a player was a good hitting catcher with a poor defensive reputation. Ted Simmons at the end was none of those three things, so why care?

If that's being absolute, then so be it, but I still think it's vastly superior to treating St. Louis Simmons and Milwaukee Simmons equally. If Simmons decides to retire at 31 after leaving the Cardinals, I don't think his Hall of Fame case differs very much at all to the one he currently has.

I agree. And as I said earlier, only half-jokingly, if Posada does suddenly put up a series of consecutive seasons comparable to his 2007 season then his HOF case will be frustrated by unfounded steroid speculation.

I don't see this as an issue in the slightest. I actually think that the days where the accusation alone sufficed as evidence of guilt are over.

Except for the players lucky enough to be grandfathered in, of course, like Sosa.

Last I checked he was above the league average in throwing out runners. Maybe that info is out of date.

Are you referring to his 2009 stats? That's been less than 200 innings, which is insufficient sample size. Just as 2008 was insufficient. When we don't have adequate data, I think it's appropriate to defer to subjective assessments. And in my opinion, he has below average arm strength.

But going through the game logs for 2009, it looks to me that at least half of Posada's 11 CS include pitcher pickoffs (Sabathia and Pettitte will have that effect) and 1 was Aubrey Huff (I have no idea why Huff would ever attempt a steal). My understanding was that normally catchers are only credited for a CS if they receive an assist on the play (i.e., something might be wrong with the BBRef script?).

I don't see this as an issue in the slightest. I actually think that the days where the accusation alone sufficed as evidence of guilt are over.

If a player as universally beloved and respected as David Ortiz can still be the subject of unfounded speculation (for his sudden drop off in production), then I'm not sure that we've overcome the problem yet.

Posada has gotten better over the years, but his miscellaneous defense behind the plate is about as bad as I've seen from any longtime catcher. We've seen countless veteran pitchers go to the Yankees and not pitch as well as they did on other teams; the standard excuse is that they couldn't handle pitching in New York (Ed Whitson Disease). I'm pretty sure most of it was actually bad defense with Jeter, Giambi, Bernie in his later years, and Posada. I know it is probably really overrated and almost undetectable as a skill, but Posada is terrible at framing pitches -- sometimes he has trouble even catching pitches that are strikes. I'm not sure how many times you lose calls, but at the very least, it probably annoys the hell out of pitchers. As noted previously, he's awful at blocking pitches in the dirt, and he's not really good at blocking the plate. I think he's the rare catcher who, even when throwing out a good number of runners, is almost certainly a bad defensive player.

(As an aside, I don't think Piazza's strengths come close to negating his bad throwing. It's not just the bad percentages...you could live with a guy throwing out 19 guys in 80 attempts a year. It's the sheer number of stolen bases allowed...every baserunner became a threat.)

Anyway, Posada's been a wonderful hitter. But even without his defensive problems, his HOF case is problematic. He's not really a peak guy or a career guy; he's a prime guy. His peak is very good, but so is Darren Daulton's. Bill Freehan and Ted Simmons are there, too. He caught fewer games, but I like Joe Torre's HOF case -- OPS+ over 140 three years in a row (granted, he wasn't catching 130 games a year) and an MVP season at 3B.

Posada's very similar to Ernie Lombardi -- great hitter, similar career length (at this point) with similar numbers. Both generally good throwers (Lombardi was probably better) with serious defensive shortcomings in other areas.

The funny thing about Killebrew was that some of his best years right smack in the middle of his peak came at neither third nor first base. The idea with Killebrew seemed to be play him wherever it was easiest to get his bat in the lineup.

Voros, of course, the argument that pure career value people (I'm not one of them, I'm very middle of the road when it comes to this) could and do make is that you can reducto ad absurdum your stance to the likes of Paciorek. You may prefer 5 at 40 to 10 at 20, but we're a hell of a lot surer about the 10/20 guy's abilities than the 5/40 guy who was unable to be good enough outside those 5 seasons to be above replacement level. And what's the justification for whatever bar you want to set to avoid the Paciorek argument? 5 years? Why 5? Why not 10? It's the same thing, only longer, and now you're the one having to dig your heels in to justify your choice.

I won't be able to come up with statistics to prove my case, but I feel pretty strongly that this argument misses something. If you attempt as a team 120 steal attempts, and steal at a roughly break even percentage, does that mean you might as well never attempt to steal, in any situation, regardless of the game context? I don't think so.

There are a couple of pretty tangible effects of not having to worry about the runner going.

1. It keeps the double play in order.
2. Sometimes pitchers will alter their pitch selection if they're worried about the stolen base attempt.

No. 1 is a pretty big item. If Team A attempts 200 steals at a break-even percentage, andd Team B attempts 50 steals at the same rate, theoretically the impact on runs is the same. However, all other things being equal, Team A is going to GIDP much less often.

Are you referring to his 2009 stats? That's been less than 200 innings, which is insufficient sample size. Just as 2008 was insufficient. When we don't have adequate data, I think it's appropriate to defer to subjective assessments. And in my opinion, he has below average arm strength.

Convenient. As someone who watches the vast majority of his games I would say it's clear his arm strength is much better this year and I would say it is actually above average.

There are a couple of pretty tangible effects of not having to worry about the runner going.

1. It keeps the double play in order.
2. Sometimes pitchers will alter their pitch selection if they're worried about the stolen base attempt.

I also wondered if having a really great throwing catcher could allow the first baseman to do less holding of the runner then having an ordinary backstop would allow. If you could get your first baseman to play a little deeper in the field of play, that would surely help the defense. Did that ever happen with Bench/Rodriguez? If not, is that something teams should consider?

I would think not, as he doesn't want to be moving when receiving a throwover from pitcher or catcher. Which means he can't go far, and introduces a bunch of other factors.

No. 1 is a pretty big item. If Team A attempts 200 steals at a break-even percentage, andd Team B attempts 50 steals at the same rate, theoretically the impact on runs is the same. However, all other things being equal, Team A is going to GIDP much less often.

The odds of a DP is already included in the run values of the SB/CS that go into the break even calculation. Team A will hit into fewer DP's, but that has been accounted for, and they will still score the same number of runs.

Only thing the break even calculation does not account for is game situations where the Break even might be less than normal. Taking away the option of the SB will hurt the win value of such a team. But I have no idea how big an impact this is.

What on earth does what a crippled 37 year old Posada hobbling about have to do with what you think of him as a player, and what exactly is the point of handing out bonus points to 1500 at bats of a DHing and well past it Ted Simmons?

If this is a criticism of WAR, it is not an informed one. Simmons has WAR value of 52.1. A mere 1.4 wins of that came from 1983-1988, when he was hobbling around as a DH.

If all Posada has left is past prime seasons where he's injury prone, incapable of defending as a catcher, and being a part time DH, he won't catch Simmons if he retires next year or plays to 44. If he has some more good Posada years in him as a regular catcher, then he's adding real value and has a shot.

Voros, I agree with your basic point. It's particularly clear with old Gary Carter. Playing on merit to be sure, but adding precisely zip to his HOF case in my opinion.

One thing I find useful in evaluating players with very different career lengths is to look at what kind of player adequately describes the missing playing time.

It's not perfect, but Pete Rose = Ron Santo + Dave Magadan for instance.

As far as I'm concerned, unless he somehow starts playing close to as good as his peak, Posada's Hall of Fame case should be over already. He either is or isn't an HOFer based on what he did from 1998-2007.

Posada isn't just hanging on, he's putting up historic numbers for a catcher his age. Currently, he has a 1.032 OPS and 166 OPS+. Now it might just be small sample size, but the fact that he put up a .970 OPS/154 OPS+ 2007 season, his last healthy season, and even managed a 103 OPS+ when injured in 2008, suggests he may age better than some are assuming.

the break even calculation does not account for is game situations where the Break even might be less than normal

Exactly, just as the value of a stolen base can be higher in a leveraged situation, the value of Johnny Bench as a catcher is higher in a leveraged situation.

Convenient. As someone who watches the vast majority of his games I would say it's clear his arm strength is much better this year and I would say it is actually above average.

And it's convenient that you completely ignored the second paragraph that summarized the results of my review of the game logs (the one nice thing about a small sample is that it's real easy to review each event): about half of the 11 CS that he's been credited with have come from pickoffs and 1 was Aubrey Huff. So the assessment that he's inferior is not entirely subjective on my part, but in fact based on a more in-depth review of the data. It's rather provincial to just cling to "31% is league average" when one only needs to review a few dozen game logs to realize how misleading that statistic is.

Exactly, just as the value of a stolen base can be higher in a leveraged situation, the value of Johnny Bench as a catcher is higher in a leveraged situation.

And he can neutralize the running game for some pitchers who had problems holding runners.

Chris and I have been discussing the pitcher/catcher relationship on OSB for a long time. From what I can tell, in general the pitcher has about twice the impact on SB% as the catcher does and the catcher is slightly more important in the frequency.

But it's almost certainly not true at the extremes.

Add in the fact that stolen base attempts are not random -- they occur substantially more frequently in high leverage situations -- and ... well the extreme catchers are going to be tricky to model.

Exactly, just as the value of a stolen base can be higher in a leveraged situation, the value of Johnny Bench as a catcher is higher in a leveraged situation.

Now the question is, how much more valuable?