The Twins' Next Hall Of Famer

The HOF is obviously a big honor and still a big deal, but do you think it is as highly thought of as it was in the past?  There is so much gray area now about who should be considered, who was doing what etc.  Plus sadly, I am not sure the younger generation cares as much about the history of the game just who is playing now or possibly who they watched while growing up (not to sound like an 85 year old curmudgeon).

I could see it go either way for Mauer, although currently trending towards not.  I think it might depend a little on how he plays the next few years and if in retrospect if it looks like his downtime was due to concussion or other issues.  A world series win the next couple of seasons would help.....

Too bad if he does not get in, because it did look like much more of a sure think 7 to 8 years ago, and it would have been fun to see a hometown player who seems in general to be a good guy to get in for his hometown team.  It would have to be a bit of a disappointment for him, but he seems grounded enough where he will still be able to enjoy spending his post-career at his "cabin" and watching his girls win the high school championship for whatever sport they are playing and being a color commentator for some network (the last one might be somewhat unlikely) .

So, how many catchers have made ther HOF? 15 or so, including Piazza?

Joe did things unheard of as a catcher, righty batter, etc.

But, and it's a big one, he never won a World Series. Puckett got in for that. He's sitting at 1697 hits, as a 32 year old on decline. His numbers are very Tony O like:

As KGB said:

 

I think he'll end up like Tony Oliva and not make the hall of fame.It's getting harder to compare him to HOF catchers (Piazza caught 650 more games than Mauer) and if he keep playing 150 games he'll need to get 2,100 hits, he'll end up playing as many games as a non-catcher.

Tony O is a perfect equivalent: did great things as a youth, won batting titles, helped his team compete at the top of the heap, but won nothing, and had a HOF career cut short by injuries.

But, and it's a big one, he never won a World Series. 

I am hoping you won't be able to say this when all is said and done...

Mauer belongs in Hall of Very Good Players--period.  Compare to Oliva/  Sure!  Tony played Hurt--frequently.  He had a finger so badly swollen the bat would repeatedly fly out of his hand if he swung and missed.  Mauer--well, let's just say he spent a lot of time on the injured list.  he mostly had knee problems.  Did catchers have knee problems (and concussion-symptoms) in the 60's and 70's?  Of course, but those guys played!  Joe is a hometown favorite.  It's great to be a huge fan--but was he great?  Great players are leaders.  Joe?  I can't remember anybody extolling that quality in Joe (as a Twin).  Post-season success?  This is often cited as a huge factor in HOF consideration.  Sorry, Joe doesn't have much.  That sort of forces Joe to the Ted Williams/Ernie Banks model for HOF consideration.  Sorry, Joe's numbers aren't at the level of those two.   

 

 

The most interesting question to me, even besides Mauer's HoF case, is why isn't there a single catcher among the 45 greatest players by WAR/162?

Below is from the comment section, I think that give a pretty good explaination:

The writer commits a really common statistical blunder when he says Mauer's candidacy is already extremely strong due to the fact that his WAR/162 is the highest of any catcher in baseball history. Mauer's numbers look better compared to Bench -- a far superior player: Bench's WAR/162 through his age 30 season was 6.33, and this number is actually "hurt" by the fact that he stayed on the field more and therefore had a bigger denominator -- because we're only looking at Mauer's twenties and haven't given him time to decline (which he's already doing) and lower that number. I'm sure this was considered, but it wasn't mentioned.

To the point that catchers are historically underappreciated, it may very well be true that WAR fails to account for the difficulty of playing the position, pitch framing, etc; obviously this is a popular view among mainstream sabermetricians. If this is the case, then it's difficult to compare them to other position players using WAR. But leaving that aside, or even assuming that WAR could be tweaked somehow to account for this, there's no way you can adjust WAR for the fact that catchers, on average, play three-quarters of a season. They're not providing value during that time they're resting, and they're not providing value when their careers end sooner than other players. If you want to make this a Hall of Fame argument, you could argue for lowering the statistical threshold to account for the difficulties of playing catcher, but this has nothing to do with WAR itself

Also when the author says "Is it rational, then, that a strong candidate for the title of greatest catcher of all-time has a per-162 game rate that’s so far below the best players at every other position on the diamond? Is it rational to believe that there have been no really great catchers in major league history?" -- I think there might be a failure to account for a sort of selection bias that undoubtedly occurs when clubs decide which position players will play. Great-hitting young catchers are routinely moved from behind the plate at a young age because teams want to maximize the value they can contribute. it happened with Biggio; it would have happened earlier with Mauer, had the Twins had their way; it's happened with countless other young catchers: teams want their best young hitters in the lineup every day and to not age in dog years. It's very possible that the talent pool of major league catchers is diluted because of this. A somewhat analogous situation is relief pitchers: the reason relief pitchers in general are lesser pitchers than starters is that managers and front-office people have their best pitchers start games, because that's how they can pitch the most innings and give them the most value. Relievers shouldn't -- note shouldn't -- be compared against other relievers, but against other players. But this gets into a long tangent about how JAWS is dumb and how it de-accounts for position, one of the fundamental strengths of WAR."
8:56 PM Jul 22nd

But, and it's a big one, he never won a World Series. Puckett got in for that.

Puckett's WS wins has very little to do with why he got into the HOF.  If that was the case, Jack Morris would've got in as well.  Puckett was one of the best players of his time even without the WS wins.

I think Jim Kaat has a better chance through the Veteran's Committee than anyone who built their reputation as a Twin.

At first, I read your quote, and was skeptical. But, there are some legit ideas you have, as I reflect. Jim was just short of 300 wins, yes, but he was an innovative guy who changed his delivery, and essentially created the slidestep. And, course, the intangibles of being a personable, well-spoken, knowledgeable announcer, and ambassador of the game may be factored too for his benefit. See Kaat and other members of the 1970 roster at my post from yesterday: http://classicminnesotatwins.blogspot.com/2016/01/1970-minnesota-twins-film.html