Georgie was the second best catcher in baseball for most of his career, only behind Pudge Rodriguez—if you factor in overall value, probably behind both Pudge and Mike Piazza for several years.

What is he trying to say here? That Piazza only moves ahead of him if you factor in his time at 1B/DH?

I'd think that for the HOF, a more appropriate question would be "Why?", wouldn't it?

I always like these type of comments when applied to short career players.

In fact, only seven other catchers in baseball history have a better OPS -- on-base plus slugging average. Doesn't that pretty much make him one of the 10 best catchers of all time? And if you're in the top 10 all-time at your position, shouldn't that be enough to get you into the HOF?

as pointed out on other threads he finishes this high because he had a short career even for a catcher. If you look at other catchers he beats out on that list and roughly their first 7000 plate appearances he falls further down the list.

What is he trying to say here? That Piazza only moves ahead of him if you factor in his time at 1B/DH?

It sounds like he's saying Posada is a better hitter than Mike, but Mike makes up for it on defense.

Ted Simmons.
That's why not.

Baseball-reference.com compares him to Gaby Harnett, Gary Carter and Bill Dickey - HOFers all.

That's funny. I just looked at Posada's B-Ref page and #1 on the similarity score was Lance Parrish. I wonder why he would leave that out?

I always like these type of comments when applied to short career players.
***

as pointed out on other threads he finishes this high because he had a short career even for a catcher.

He's 13th all time in PAs among guys who played 50%+ of their games at catcher

Among the 20 Catchers with the most PAs he's 6th in OPS+
he has *not* had a short career for a catcher

He's 8th all time among catchers in WAR Batting Runs
8th 1B: Johnny Mize
8th 2B: Bobby Grich
8th SS: Barry Larkin
8th 3B: Bob Elliot
24th OF: Shoeless Joe

Posada's main problem imho was that he was not a very good defensive player, tolerable yes, but likely below average most years. Piazza got a ton of grief for his throwing (or lack thereof), but while Posada had a stronger arm, it didn't really translate into a that much better CS%, and Piazza was better at handling pitches, bunts, pop up etc.

Among the 20 Catchers with the most PAs he's 6th in OPS+

and if you compare those guys when they are in the range of their 7000 plate appearances some of them past him(don't currently have a pi subscription so can't look who those 20 are) but I know that Ted Simmons after 7400 plate appearances has a 124 ops+. If you expand the plate appearances to say 5000 then Gene Tenace joins the discussion.

Posada is the definition of a borderline catcher, which for hof terms, means he's completely not-qualified. There are just too many better players at his position that aren't in, that it's a waste of effort to campaign for him. He's not a Morris or Rice level bad choice, but still not a good choice either.

8, It seem strange to say it, but the Yankees, with 5 WS wins and 2 additional WS appearances in the 1996-2009 period, will be vastly underrepresented in Cooperstown.

8, It seem strange to say it, but the Yankees, with 5 WS wins and 2 additional WS appearances in the 1996-2009 period, will be vastly underrepresented in Cooperstown.

Yep. Just like the Cubs having Santo/Williams/Jenkins/Banks in might be overrepresented for a team with their lack of success.

I imagine the Yankees get Torre, Jeter, Mussina and Rivera and Arod since you extended the range out to 2009 in, not including bit players like Boggs, Randy Johnson, Tim Raines(he'll go in eventually).

Of course you have other borderlines like Bernie, Pettitte*, Clemens*, Sheffield, Tino, Cone, Posada, Giambi*, David Wells, etc.

His inability to spell Thurman Munson's name correctly inhibits my ability to take him seriously on this matter. It's like people on the internet who talk about Mark McGuire's candidacy.

That being said, Posada doesn't really emerge as that much better than Munson when I look at it more closely.

-Posada had 7150 PA with a 121 OPS+, compared to Munson's 116 OPS+ over 5903 PA.
-Posada played 125 career post season games, hitting .248/.358/.387, Munson 30 games, and .357/.378/.496

-Posada accumulated 44.7 bWAR with his 5 best seasons coming in at 6.1, 5.8, 5.7, 4.6, 4.4
-Munson in about two full seasons less time accumulated 41.0 bWAR, 5 best seasons of 6.6, 6.1, 5.9, 5.1, 4.4
-Fangraphs has it about the same: Posada at 47.6 fWAR (6.2, 6.1, 5.7, 4.5, 4.4)/Munson 44.4 fWAR (6.8, 5.9, 5.4, 4.8, 4.5)

-Posada's hardware case has 5 Silver Sluggers complimented with 5 All-Star appearances. A Top 3 MVP finish and a Top 6 another year.
-Munson's hardware case has a ROY, MVP, 3 Gold Gloves. Another Top 10 MVP appearance when he finished 7th.

There were no Silver Slugger awards in his time but Munson led the AL in Batting Runs for catchers in 1970 and 1973. Considering he was the only catcher who hit above .300 in 1975 and 1976 (as well as the only C with 100 RBI in those years), I have to imagine he would have won at least 3 Silver Sluggers.

Boggs, Johnson and Raines are not particularly going into the HoF due to their Yankee careers. Arguably, that's the case too with Clemens (though he had a much longer and memorable Yankee stint than the others).

Boggs, Johnson and Raines are not particularly going into the HoF due to their Yankee careers. Arguably, that's the case too with Clemens (though he had a much longer and memorable Yankee stint than the others).

again, agreed, but it's still players who are hofer who are going in who played for the Yankee dynasty.

I'm not sure what the appropriate number of peak hof players for a dynasty is.

The 47-64 yankees featured Berra, Dimaggio,Mantle, Rizzuto and Ford, with a cameo by Mize and Slaughter... and that was with 15 world series appearances or in todays terms winning the division 15 out of 18 seasons.

The Oakland a's of the 71-74 won 3 world series averaged 95 wins a year, only Reggie, Rollie Fingers, Catfish Hunter (and Billy Williams joined their last year) are in the hof from that group. They do have a nice group of hovg in Tenace, Campaneris, Bando.

I don't think there really is a number to attach to a world series winning team or a dynasty of any sort, it all depends on your construction.

The Oakland a's of the 71-74 won 3 world series averaged 95 wins a year, only Reggie, Rollie Fingers, Catfish Hunter

And, let's face it, Fingers and Hunter are generally considered two of the weaker BBWAA selections of the past 25 years.

well, two of the most memorable, based on starring on a rare team to win 3 WS in 4 years - and having cool moustaches.

to the extent that the Hall honors those who we most remember in the big spots, those 2 fit the bill. Fingers has crazy-good, if not best ever, 'wiggling out of entering with runners on' stats. Catfish was the titular head of those teams and pitched so well in the postseason.

I never gave Catfish a top 15 vote for Hall of Merit, but what fame he earned on the biggest of stages.

Posada had "only" 1450 starts at C. That is not a lot for an HOF-level C, especially in the post-war era.

Posada is likely in the top 10 of post-war Cs, he is not in the top 10 of Cs all-time.

By the way, P-I doesn't help at all in trying to look at the first XXX PA of a player's career. (Or if it does, somebody please tell me.) You get that by summing parts of a career on their page (for those who don't know, click on the first year of a sequence, click on the last year, b-r will sum it all up for you).

For those with at least 1000 games at C, here is your post-war WAR list:

Bench 71
PudgeI 67.3
PudgeII 67.3 (perfect! please retire now)
Carter 66
Berra 62
Piazza 59
Simmons 50
Posada 45
Munson 43
Freehan 43
Porter 41

You will notice that there is a big gap between (hopefully) future HoFer Piazza at 59 and Posada at 45. You will not that Ted Simmons, with more games caught than Posada, is between them. He was one and done. You will note that Munson is just behind Piazza. Munson stayed on the ballot for 15 years but his highest vote was 15% in his first year of eligibility. He is also just ahead of Freehan and Porter who were both one and done. You might further note that Fisk took 2 ballots (bad luck), Carter took several ballots and even Berra took 2 ballots.

The writers didn't give Munson a sniff. He more "extras" as Posada -- 2 WS, excellent postseason, RoY, MVP, 7 AS games and of course a tragic death. You never know, the writers do make arbitrary picks out of seemingly identical players from time to time so they could select Posada. But voting history says he doesn't stand a chance.

Posada is not unlike pre-war Cs:

Dickey 54
Cochrane 51
Hartnett 50
Lombardi 39 (VC selection)

By the way, the war (or integration) is not exactly an arbitrary cut-off here. As it turns out, 1946-47 was the last year for Dickey, Cochrane, Lombardi, Ferrell and even Lopez (in as a manager). Yogi's first season was 46 (23 PA). And, as it happens, Cs started having much longer careers after the war. Near as I can tell, the only significant C whose career spans both eras is Walker Cooper from 1940-57.

.One more note: A lot of Yankees fans are fond of saying that if Thurmon Munson had lived for another three years, he would have been a Hall of Fame catcher.

Well, let’s compare. Thurmon played in 1423 games, Jorge in 1829. Munson out hit Posada by a wider margin, .292 to .273. But Posada was a much better all-around hitter with 275 home runs to Munson’s 113 and with a .377 OBP and .477 SLG to Munson’s .350 and .410.

Talk about strawmen. I don't doubt Yankee fans thought Munson was a HOF, just like reds fans thought Concepcion was a HOFer, or Dodgers fans thought Garvey was a HOFer, or Angels fans think Salmon is a HOFer. But merely being better than those guys, regardless of what partisan fans feel, is no basis for a cogent argument.

Sure, why the #### not, let's let Jim Rice in while we're at it, everyone gets to be a ####### hall of famer, what could go wrong.

I think catchers are a bit underrated in the HoF. I think both the stats and trad groups underrate just how hard it is to be a catcher and the toll it takes on your body. That said Posada is in fact borderline and in my mind hinges on defense, and we know what a rats nest that topic is.

I suspect he will not make it by writers, but likely will via VC.

Shrug.

I think catchers are a bit underrated in the HoF. I think both the stats and trad groups underrate just how hard it is to be a catcher and the toll it takes on your body. That said Posada is in fact borderline and in my mind hinges on defense, and we know what a rats nest that topic is.

I suspect he will not make it by writers, but likely will via VC.

Pretty much agree.

Posada is a perfectly cromulent VC HoFer. Hopefully, they put Simmonds in too.

Posada's main problem imho was that he was not a very good defensive player, tolerable yes, but likely below average most years. Piazza got a ton of grief for his throwing (or lack thereof), but while Posada had a stronger arm, it didn't really translate into a that much better CS%, and Piazza was better at handling pitches, bunts, pop up etc.

And even those numbers might overrate Posada's defense. The people who have used pitch f/x data to measure a catcher's framing skill generally have Posada at the very bottom of the lists. Using retrosheet I've got Posada costing his team about 10 wins over his career from game calling.

http://www.baseballprojection.com/special/catcher_gcall.htm

I'm not sure what the appropriate number of peak hof players for a dynasty is.

There's probably no such thing in MLB, in stark contrast to other sports. In other sports, teams can better utilize the skills of their superstars and put them in the best position to be the difference between winning and losing. In MLB, you can't decide to put one of your best hitters at the plate at the key juncture of the game, or even guarantee that he gets to hit with runners on in any given game ... and if you luck into such a situation, he may just get intentionally walked anyway. Your best pitcher can only pitch every four or five days, or for an inning or two every other day or so.

Combine that factor with the greater longevity and lower attrition that MLB players experience compared to other, more physically taxing sports, and it means that MLB Hall of Famers largely get inducted for the breadth of their career or peak. An intense peak of a few years doesn't get the job done. As a Phillies fan, I'll throw out Chase Utley ... if injuries have taken their toll and he's in a steady decline, will he even stay on the Hall of Fame ballot after his first year? In other sports, if you're one of the best 5 players in your sport day-in, day-out for 5 years, that's generally a ticket to the Hall of Fame, and it also makes it much more likely that your team will compete for a championship, since your skills can be better leveraged in game play.

With those two factors at play, it's not surprising that (i) dynastic teams can result more from a combination of some top level talent with quality depth of strong (if not elite) talent supporting it, and (ii) you can have a '60s Cubs or '90s Mariners team that flounder as a result of a failure to buttress its elite foundation with a quality, or even average, supporting cast.

#21 Dempsey didn't call the game in Baltimore -- the starting pitchers did. Not unique to Dempsey either. The same went for every one of the Baltimore catchers in the Weaver era (and there were lots of them -- all with substantial playing time). This makes for an extremely useful sanity check on your methodology.

You've got Hendricks, Etchebarren, Oates, Williams, Duncan and Dempsey as probably having enough time to compare. What's particularly interesting is having Earl Williams (generally views as a first-baseman who caught -- and hated it) followed by Dave Duncan (who was seen as a pure glove from the start of his career)

I think this'll serve to tell you the general range of noise in what you're trying to do.

Yep. Just like the Cubs having Santo/Williams/Jenkins/Banks in might be overrepresented for a team with their lack of success.

Boggs, Johnson and Raines are not particularly going into the HoF due to their Yankee careers. Arguably, that's the case too with Clemens (though he had a much longer and memorable Yankee stint than the others).

And applying that bolded portion to the first quote, Banks did not go into the HOF based on his firstbase play in the late 60's. By the time Santo and Williams became productive, Banks was an ordinary player, and by the time Jenkins came along, a below average one. And for that matter, most of Santo's elite years were behind him before Jenkins matured.

Fingers has crazy-good, if not best ever, 'wiggling out of entering with runners on' stats. Catfish was the titular head of those teams and pitched so well in the postseason.

Not that I would doubt you, but what is that based upon? I know Hoffman has the best inherited runners prevented scoring percentage in baseball history, but I don't have it broken down by the situation, is there something else that gives Fingers props that I've missed?

And applying that bolded portion to the first quote, Banks did not go into the HOF based on his firstbase play in the late 60's. By the time Santo and Williams became productive, Banks was an ordinary player, and by the time Jenkins came along, a below average one. And for that matter, most of Santo's elite years were behind him before Jenkins matured.

And of course the Yankee dynasty I mentioned from 48-62(or whatever the years I listed were) just transitioned from Dimaggio to Mantle.

I used to think of Barra as one of the more stat-savvy sportswriters. Now I'm not sure why.

as pointed out on other threads he finishes this high because he had a short career even for a catcher. If you look at other catchers he beats out on that list and roughly their first 7000 plate appearances he falls further down the list.

Just don't see him as particularly short career for a C. He's right there with Dickey and Hartnett, longer than Cochrane. He's behind Berra, Carter and Bench by a goodly amount, but not all that far behind Piazza. Don't see any point in saying he had a short career becasue it wasn't as long as the Pudge's, and as much as I love Simmons, he only has those 9,000+ PA's becasue he stuck around for some miserable seasons as a DH/Utility IF.

There are just too many better players at his position that aren't in, that it's a waste of effort to campaign for him.

Really? Such as? The only 3 C I believe are clearly better than him aren't eligible for the ballot (Piazza, Rodriguez and Simmons) and 2 of them are pretty solid bets to go in. Which other C are you thinking of?

You get that by summing parts of a career on their page (for those who don't know, click on the first year of a sequence, click on the last year, b-r will sum it all up for you).

That's effing awesome, Walt! Thank you!

. . . he finishes this high because he had a short career even for a catcher. If you look at other catchers he beats out on that list and roughly their first 7000 plate appearances he falls further down the list.

Actually, that's not really fair to Jorge. Posada didn't miss his decline phase - he played until he was 40, and hit very well except for his last season, putting up a 124 OPS+ after age 30, including the best hitting age-35 season of any catcher ever. Posada misssed time early in his career because he didn't make the majors until 25, mostly due to converting to catcher in the minors, and then shared time with Giardi (perhaps overly so). Even with the that, Posada is still 24th all-time in games at catcher. Without checking, I'm pretty sure there are any number of HOFers who rank lower than 24th in games played at their position.

The Hall has been pretty stingy in admitting catchers and perhaps Posada will be the catalyst for giving more weight to positional context. If so, he probably makes it and the Veterans Committee door may open for a few others.

Ted Simmons.
That's why not.

Mistakes of inclusion don't set the low end of what should be a HOFer, so why should mistakes of exclusion set the high end of what should not be a HOFer?

It's like people on the internet who talk about Mark McGuire's candidacy.

C Roy Campenella
1B Mark McGuire
2B Red Scheondeinst
SS Phil Rizutto
3B Cal Ripkin
LF Carl Yaztremski
CF Ricky Hendersen
RF Roberto Clemante
P Roger Clemons
RP Phil Neikro

I'd move Ripkin over to shortstop and play Eddie Matthews at 3B.

Angels fans think Salmon is a HOFer.

No they don't. But they like him a lot!

It's like people on the internet who talk about Mark McGuire's candidacy.


C Roy Campenella
1B Mark McGuire
2B Red Scheondeinst
SS Phil Rizutto
3B Cal Ripkin
LF Carl Yaztremski
CF Ricky Hendersen
RF Roberto Clemante
P Roger Clemons
RP Phil Neikro

Naturally, this team would play in Cincinatti.

And even those numbers might overrate Posada's defense. The people who have used pitch f/x data to measure a catcher's framing skill generally have Posada at the very bottom of the lists. Using retrosheet I've got Posada costing his team about 10 wins over his career from game calling.

Anecdotally, Posada was the worst plate-framer I've ever seen in my life above the high-school level. He was bad in every area - high, low, inside, outside.

Should Posada's poor plate framing bolster the HOF cases of the Yankee pitchers?

"Angels fans think Salmon is a HOFer.

No they don't. But they like him a lot!"

Angels HOF, yes. Otherwise, Mr. 299 is a fine representative of the Hall of Very Good.