Whitaker, Evans, and Munson Get Long-Overdue Turns on Modern Baseball Ballot
“What about Whitaker?” That question, which has been on my mind for nearly two decades, came to the fore two years ago when longtime Tigers teammates Jack Morris and Alan Trammell, both of whom spent 15 often contentious and sometimes agonizing years on the BBWAA’s Hall of Fame ballot, were finally elected to the Hall by the Modern Baseball Era Committee. With five All-Star selections, three Gold Gloves, and a central role on the Tigers’ 1984 championship squad, Lou Whitaker had accumulated similarly strong credentials to Trammell while forming the other half of the longest-running double play combo in major league history, one that did a fair bit to prop up Morris’ wobbly candidacy. Yet Whitaker, who ranks 13th in JAWS among second basemen, did not get his 15 years on the writers’ ballot because in his 2001 debut — the last Hall of Fame election cycle that I did not cover, but a pivotal one in many ways — he failed to receive at least 5% of the vote from the BBWAA and thus fell off the ballot. Like so many other candidates who have suffered such a fate, he had never received a second look from a small-committee process. Until now.
Whitaker is one of 10 candidates on the 2020 Modern Baseball Era Committee ballot, which was announced on Monday and which covers players and other figures who made their greatest contributions to the game during the 1970-87 timeframe. He’s not the only one emerging from limbo, either. This marks the first small-committee appearance for longtime Red Sox right fielder Dwight Evans, an eight-time Gold Glove winner who lasted just three cycles on the ballot (1997-99) and peaked at 10.4%, and for late Yankees catcher Thurman Munson, a former MVP who lasted 15 years on the ballot (1981-95) but only in his debut year broke double digits. Munson was virtually ignored on the 2003, ’05, and ’07 ballots voted upon by an expanded Veterans Committee consisting of all living Hall of Famers (and assorted stragglers), receiving just 12 votes out of a possible 243 across those three cycles.
The other seven candidates — former Major League Baseball Players Association executive director Marvin Miller, and ex-players Steve Garvey, Tommy John, Don Mattingly, Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, and Ted Simmons — have each been considered before, some of them multiple times via the 2018 Modern Baseball ballot and its predecessors, the ’11 and ’14 Expansion Era Committee ballots. Indeed, while this slate includes candidates long overdue for a bronze plaque in Cooperstown, a good chunk of ballot space is occupied by candidates who have repeatedly failed to gain much traction with the voters and who fare poorly via JAWS. The extent to which they have crowded out better candidates has been frustrating.
More on that shortly, but first, some details and background. The candidates will be voted upon by a 16-member panel of Hall of Famers, executives, and media members at the Winter Meetings in San Diego next month; to be elected, they must receive at least 75% of the vote, as they do via the more expansive BBWAA process. The voting results will be announced on Sunday, December 8, with the winners inducted next July 26 in Cooperstown, New York alongside anybody elected by the writers, whose ballot will be announced on November 18 and whose results will be announced on January 21.
The Modern Baseball Era Committee is one of four panels resulting from the 2016 rejiggering of the process by which managers, executives, umpires, and any players who have exhausted their eligibility on the writers’ ballot are considered for election. Up until 2001, that process was simply known as the Veterans Committee, and it had its share of pitfalls, most notably a long history of cronyism that resulted in the election of some inferior candidates, particularly in the 1960s and ’80s. The 2001 election of Bill Mazeroski, a defensive whiz whose JAWS is nonetheless the lowest among enshrined second baseman, produced such an outcry that the institution began a seemingly endless series of overhauls to its process.
In the wake of Mazeroski’s election, the Veterans Committee was expanded to include all living members of the Hall of Fame, all living recipients of the Frick and Spink Awards (broadcasters and writers), and members of the Veterans Committee whose terms had not yet expired. In 2007, after that large group failed to elect anybody in 2003, ’05’, or ’07, the frickin’ Spinkers and the spinkin’ Frickers were stripped of their rights to vote. The remaining group was allowed to vote on post-1943 players, but those from pre-1943, as well as managers, executives, and umpires, were considered on two separate tracks. The 2008 and ’10 processes resulted in the elections of three managers, three executives, and one umpire, but the late Joe Gordon was the only candidate elected for his playing career, that by the pre-1943 committee in 2009. That year, the living Hall of Famers once again pitched a shutout when it came to the postwar candidates.
In 2010, the Hall disbanded the expanded Veterans Committee and introduced three, 16-member Era Committees voting on a triennial cycle, namely the Pre-Integration Era (1871–1946), Golden Era (’47–72), and Expansion Era (’73 onward). In two full times through the order, none of them elected a living ex-player, and combined, they honored just two ex-players (2012 Golden Era choice Ron Santo and ’13 Pre-Integration choice Deacon White) out of eight total honorees, with complete shutouts of both the ’15 Golden and ’16 Pre-Integration slates. In the summer of the latter year, the Hall announced the reorganization of the process into four different periods, with the earlier ones — namely the Early Baseball and Golden Days Era Committees, respectively covering players whose greatest contributions occurred during the 1871-1949 and 1950-69 periods — considered less frequently across a 10-year cycle than the Modern Baseball and Today’s Game (1988 onward) slates:
2017: Today’s Game
2018: Modern Baseball
2019: Today’s Game
2020: Modern Baseball
2021: Golden Days and Early Baseball
2022: Today’s Game
2023: Modern Baseball
2024: Today’s Game
2025: Modern Baseball
2026: Golden Days
Note that years refer to those of induction; the ballots are released the previous November and voted upon in December.
Former commissioner Bud Selig and longtime executive John Schuerholz were the only candidates elected on the 2017 ballot, with Morris and Trammell following the next year as the first living ex-players elected by a small committee since Mazeroski. Last winter, in the second go-round for Today’s Game, Harold Baines and Lee Smith were elected, with the choice of the former — who accumulated 2,866 hits in his career but compiled just 38.7 bWAR and 30.1 JAWS, with the latter now 75th among right fielders — widely criticized. Baines topped out at 6.1% in five chances on the writers’ ballot, the lowest mark of any honoree from the post-1960 expansion era, but what really drew fire was the makeup of the electorate, which had several connections to the candidates, an inescapable fact of longevity but also a reminder of the Veterans Committee’s aforementioned history of cronyism. The panel included White Sox team owner Jerry Reinsdorf (who agreed to retire Baines’ jersey number while he was still active, after he had been traded away), and Hall of Famers Tony LaRussa (who managed Baines in both Chicago and Oakland), and Pat Gillick (who served as GM of the Orioles while Baines was there in 1997-98). Smith had connections to Hall of Famers Ozzie Smith and Joe Torre (respectively his teammate and manager in St. Louis) and Greg Maddux, his teammate in Chicago.
Perhaps in an effort to downplay such connections or decrease the potential for lobbying, since the move to the post-2016 format, the Hall has stopped announcing actual voting panels far in advance. Last year’s 16-member panel, which consisted of nine Hall of Famers (including two apiece elected as managers and executives), four current executives, and three media members, was revealed on December 3, 2018, six days ahead of the election. We likely won’t learn who’s on this committee until just a few days prior to election, and you can bet that the Hall’s critics and anybody else interested in the upcoming result will be keeping their eyes peeled.
Back to the specifics. As gratifying as it is to see the candidacies of Whitaker, Evans, and Munson get their long-awaited turns, the reality is that they’re hardly alone in being overlooked to this point. This period is overflowing with viable candidates. Below is a sortable table showing those who were considered by the aforementioned older committees but failed to gain entry while Gillick (2011), La Russa, Torre, and Bobby Cox (all ’14), and Morris and Trammell (’18) were elected. Those leftovers are shown alongside a similarly-sized group of players eligible for consideration but left off those ballots:
| Player | Pos. | JAWS | Jpos | Dif | Pos Rk | BBWAA% | 2011 | 2014 | 2018 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bobby Grich | 2B | 58.7 | 56.9 | 1.8 | 8 | 2.6% | Off | |||
| Lou Whitaker | 2B | 56.5 | 56.9 | -0.4 | 13 | 2.9% | ON | |||
| Graig Nettles | 3B | 55.2 | 55.7 | -0.5 | 12 | 8.3% | Off | |||
| Ted Simmons | C | 42.6 | 44.7 | -2.1 | 10 | 3.7% | <50% | <37.5% | 68.8% | ON |
| Buddy Bell | 3B | 53.4 | 55.7 | -2.3 | 15 | 1.7% | Off | |||
| Sal Bando | 3B | 53.0 | 55.7 | -2.7 | 16 | 0.7% | Off | |||
| Thurman Munson | C | 41.6 | 44.7 | -3.1 | 12 | 15.5% | ON | |||
| Keith Hernandez | 1B | 50.8 | 54.8 | -4.0 | 19 | 10.8% | Off | |||
| Dwight Evans | RF | 52.2 | 56.8 | -4.6 | 15 | 10.4% | ON | |||
| Rick Reuschel | SP | 56.6 | 61.5 | -4.9 | 49 | 0.4% | Off | |||
| Reggie Smith | RF | 51.6 | 56.8 | -5.2 | 16 | 0.7% | Off | |||
| Willie Randolph | 2B | 51.1 | 56.9 | -5.8 | 17 | 1.1% | Off | |||
| Luis Tiant | SP | 55.1 | 61.5 | -6.4 | 57 | 30.9% | <18.8%* | <18.8%* | <43.8% | Off |
| Dan Quisenberry | RP | 23.6 | 32.5 | -8.9 | 21 | 3.8% | <37.5% | Off | ||
| Dave Stieb | SP | 50.4 | 61.5 | -11.1 | 71 | 1.4% | Off | |||
| Tommy John | SP | 48.0 | 61.5 | -13.5 | 85 | 31.7% | <50% | <37.5% | <43.8% | ON |
| Dale Murphy | CF | 43.9 | 57.8 | -13.9 | 25 | 23.2% | <43.8% | ON | ||
| Don Mattingly | 1B | 39.1 | 54.8 | -15.7 | 39 | 28.2% | <43.8% | ON | ||
| Rusty Staub | RF | 39.6 | 56.8 | -17.2 | 36 | 7.9% | <50% | Off | ||
| Dave Parker | RF | 38.7 | 56.8 | -18.1 | 39 | 24.5% | <37.5% | <43.8% | ON | |
| Ron Guidry | SP | 42.9 | 61.5 | -18.6 | 119 | 8.8% | <50% | Off | ||
| Vida Blue | SP | 41.7 | 61.5 | -19.8 | 130 | 8.7% | <50% | Off | ||
| Dave Concepcion | SS | 35.0 | 55.0 | -20.0 | 46 | 16.9% | 50% | <37.5% | Off | |
| Steve Garvey | 1B | 33.4 | 54.8 | -21.4 | 51 | 41.6% | <50% | <37.5% | <43.8% | ON |
| Al Oliver | CF | 35.9 | 57.8 | -21.9 | 50 | 4.3% | <50% | Off | ||
| Billy Martin | Mgr | <50% | <37.5% | Off | ||||||
| Marvin Miller | Exec | 68.8% | <37.5% | 43.8% | ON | |||||
| George Steinbrenner | Exec | <50% | <37.5% | Off |
Prior to this year, only one of the period’s top dozen unelected players in terms of JAWS differential (the gap between his score and the standard at the position) was on any recent ballot, namely Simmons, who has traveled quite a road from oblivion to the precipice of election. The longtime Cardinals backstop, who ranks 10th at the position in JAWS, went one-and-done on the 1994 ballot and thus was ineligible for consideration until 2009, the point at which his BBWAA candidacy would have expired. Thankfully, his credentials, which include eight All-Star appearances and totals of 2,472 hits and 248 homers, have impressed the Historical Overview Committee, a panel of 11 BBWAA elders that builds the ballots, enough for him to gain placement on committee ballots. That itself is exceptional; that he’s gained enough momentum to have fallen just one vote short of election in 2018 is nearly miraculous. Grich has yet to get past the ballot’s gatekeepers, and Whitaker is only now doing so. Meanwhile, 12 candidates with lower JAWS than that nearly-doomed dozen have combined for 20 ballot appearances over the past decade, with Concepcion the only one to break out from the “less than” group — the ones whose actual levels of support are obscured when the totals are announced, so as to avoid embarrassing any candidate.
This time around, four candidates from that upper dozen are on the ballot — an improved state of affairs — but now the issue is that they’re in such direct competition that gaining consensus could prove difficult. Each of the 16 members is allowed to vote for as many as four candidates, meaning that there are a maximum of 64 votes available in what Joe Posnanski termed “a mathematical mousetrap” back in December 2014 (on the occasion of the ’15 Golden Era shutout) while discussing the issue with MLB Advanced Media’s Tom Tango:
Tom Tango explains it this way: Let’s say all ten candidates on the ballot were equally qualified for the Hall of Fame. That’s not quite true here, but it’s a good starting point — you had 10 good candidates. If they’re all equally good candidates, then each one had a 40% chance of getting picked for a ballot — 10 players on the ballot, voter chooses four, 40% chance. Pretty simple.
Well, if a player has a 40% chance of being on one ballot, his chances on making 12 of 16 is … get ready for it, less than 0.5%. That’s not 5% — it is less than one-half of one-percent. 995 times out of a 1,000, the player would NOT get elected. And remember, that’s assuming every voter uses all four of his votes.
Gulp. That mathematical barrier helps to explain the dearth of living ex-players elected by the various small committees in recent years, shutouts and shortfalls that have led to heartbreak (think 90-something-year-old Minnie Miñoso dying just months after falling short on the aforementioned Golden Era ballot), endless griping, and near-endless tinkering.
I can almost hear you rolling your eyes at the notion that after so long with ballots that don’t have enough good candidates, we now have one that has too many. But much as the ongoing candidacies of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens have siphoned off votes that could go towards other worthy candidates on the BBWAA ballots, the same is true of Miller, arguably the single most important non-player in baseball history and a candidate who should have been elected decades ago. Instead of Simmons being enshrined already, he has to battle Munson for support among those inclined to recognize somebody from a position underrepresented within the Hall, so perhaps we should thank our lucky stars that Whitaker isn’t similarly paired with Grich, or Evans with Reggie Smith. Mind you, I’m not convinced that all of the top 12 players on the above table need to be elected; considerations outside of WAR and JAWS are always germane to the discussion, and even JAWS can’t sell me on the merits of Reuschel ahead of Tiant, whose modest support in three previous committee appearances is presumably why he’s not here this time, even if some of the other reheated candidates are.
Over the next two weeks, I’ll have far more to say about the 10 candidates on the ballot, most of whom I wrote about during my nearly six-year run at Sports Illustrated. I’ll break out the JAWS but also go deeper into their careers, if not as deep as I do for my BBWAA ballot profiles. As there are enough excerpts from The Cooperstown Casebook already in circulation, I won’t publish the full essays on Simmons and Whitaker that I wrote specifically for that tome (I’ll send any actual voter a book, though), but that doesn’t mean I won’t offer enough to make their cases. After all, in the case of Whitaker, I’ve been waiting nearly two decades for this chance.
Brooklyn-based Jay Jaffe is a senior writer for FanGraphs, the author of The Cooperstown Casebook (Thomas Dunne Books, 2017) and the creator of the JAWS (Jaffe WAR Score) metric for Hall of Fame analysis. He founded the Futility Infielder website (2001), was a columnist for Baseball Prospectus (2005-2012) and a contributing writer for Sports Illustrated (2012-2018). He has been a recurring guest on MLB Network and a member of the BBWAA since 2011, and a Hall of Fame voter since 2021. Follow him on BlueSky @jayjaffe.bsky.social.
It’s about time for Whitaker to get in. More fWAR and bWAR than Trammell. Higher OBP and SLG. Higher wRC+. Across a very similar number of plate appearances, too. It’s almost as if there’s some other explanation for how differently they were treated by voters. I can’t possibly think of a difference between them that would explain that, though…
It’s the grit.
I agree, but they can also hide behind the fact that Trammell played the tougher defensive position.
I know where you¿re coming from but I think that’s a bit unfair.
For one thing, none of the measures that you cited were in existence when Trammell and Whitaker debuted on the ballot.
Based on what voters had to go on/valued at the time, there were legitimate reasons to prefer Trammell over Whitaker.
-More important defensive position (SS vs 2B)
-More Gold Gloves at that more important defensive position (4 vs 3)
-More All-Star Game Appearances (6 vs 5)
-Better performance in MVP voting
-More times batting over .300 (5 vs 1)
Also, looks like the ballot was slightly easier the year that Trammell debuted which may have helped him stay on past the first ballot.
Of course, you also ignored advanced metrics that give Trammell a clear advantage such as peak WAR. And the fact that he has a higher Jaws ranking at his position.
And if race is the primary driving issue, then how to explain the treatment of fellow second baseman Bobby Grich?
Well, if you want to go to traditional stats, Whitaker had more HR, Runs, and RBI than Trammel while Trammel committed more errors. It’s just really stretching to justify Trammell getting more than 12 times the percentage of votes that Whitaker got, no matter what you look at.
Things like gold gloves, all star game appearances, and mvp voting are all driven by…voting. So none of those really indicate that Trammel was actually a better performer, just that the relevant population at the time perceived him as a better performer, while there is not any objective data to back that up. That is, of course, exactly what has happened with the hall of fame to this point, which I hope will be rectified in short order.
Ummm….he didn’t get “12 times the percentage of votes”. Heck, I’m not even sure what that’s supposed to mean. Maybe you mean something like “12 percentage points more”???
“Things like gold gloves, all star game appearances, and mvp voting are all driven by…voting.”
And they’re all things that get cited by voters for why they vote for someone for the Hall of Fame. Particularly 20 years ago. Which is why they’re relevant.
Things like HR, RBIs, and runs tend to matter more when someone crosses a particular threshold.
I’m not going to claim that there was no racism involved. But to claim it as the primary factor….sorry but where’s your data??? Meanwhile, I can show you plenty of white players who have been snubbed as well as underqualified minorities who made it in.
Anyway, I’ll leave you with this. An article listing 8 possible reasons why Whitaker got snubbed. Some of those also apply to Trammell, whereas others are unique to Whitaker.
https://www.vintagedetroit.com/blog/2017/12/08/wheres-whitaker-eight-theories-hall-fame-snub/
I meant that Trammel peaked at around 36% of the vote while Whitaker dropped off the ballot after receiving less than 3% of the vote.
I think you’re missing my point, though. First, I didn’t claim race was the “primary” factor and second, what data do you expect me to provide? You want me to go back and poll all the voters and ask them if they discriminated against Whitaker on the basis of his race? Of course every single person is going to deny they did anything other than look at baseball factors.
The point is that things like how a player was perceived at the time (I believe Trammel was perceived to be the better player at the time) and whether he won awards that were voted upon like gold gloves, all star appearances, and mvp votes are influenced by any number of factors, including implicit biases. My point further, is that if you look at the objective facts, e.g. their respective fWAR and bWAR, their traditional counting stats, there is no real argument that Trammel was significantly superior to Whitaker. And if some sportswriters are using “Trammel hit .300 in more seasons than Whitaker did” as a real factor, then they have no idea how baseball works and should lose their ballot.
Whitaker is easily the equal of Trammel and there is no way you can reconcile the disparity in their treatment by objective measures.
Come on…you’re honestly going to claim that you weren’t talking about race in your original comment?
“It’s almost as if there’s some other explanation for how differently they were treated by voters. I can’t possibly think of a difference between them that would explain that, though…”
After claiming that they were equal/Whitaker was better? Sorry but I’m not buying that. You’ve tried to bat away every other reasonable explanation so that leaves race as your primary explanation.
And you simply can’t compare what someone got in their first year on the ballot with what someone got on their 11th+ time on the ballot. Apples and oranges.
BTW, the factors that I mentioned…defensive position, gold gloves, All-Star games, batting over .300. etc. were all used by Bill James in his Hall of Fame Monitor. Which he developed to predict who would go in the Hall of Fame. You don’t have to like it but those ARE factors that were considered by voters. Which is why James included them. (and Trammell does lead Whitaker on that measure 118-94).
https://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_monitor
I was absolutely talking about race. I’m not running from that. I am absolutely alleging that Whitaker was treated less well to this point because of his race. And for all the trolls out there ready to jump on this, I’m not saying that any voters went in saying “screw Lou Whitaker because of the color of his skin.” What I am saying is that the perception of Whitaker’s merit compared to Trammel’s merit, to this point, has not matched the reality, and I think that is in part due to racial biases, both conscious or otherwise.
As an example, PC1970 below points out that Trammell was more “known” than Whitaker who was a quiet guy. Well, what happens to players of color when they are demonstrative and outspoken? Mostly, they get shit on, like Acuna this postseason. Whereas, someone like Bregman can pimp a home run, then quickly apologize and have it be forgotten. Similarly PC1970 points out that Trammell was a coach and involved in management longer than Whitaker, which may be a (silly but real) factor in how he made it in more quickly. White guys clearly have had better historical access to managerial and front office positions than players of color. If any of this has lead to a more favorable perception of Trammell compared to Whitaker, then race has been a factor. Full stop. Both deserve to be in the hall and I hope they both will be soon.
Learn some reading comprehension before claiming I said something different, FFS. It can be a factor whether it is the primary factor or not.
“Learn some reading comprehension before claiming I said something different, FFS”
Oh I understood EXACTLY what you were saying. And by the way, I’ve already acknowledged that racism could have been a factor, so you can stop already with your cute little asides like “FFS”.
Again though, my issue is that you’ve claimed from the very beginning that racism is the ONLY factor in why they were treated differently. You can deny that if you want but it’s clear that’s what you believe. How do I know that?
Both myself and PC1970 have pointed out multiple factors that put Trammell ahead of Whitaker in terms of voters minds. Factors that had NOTHING to do with racism or perceptual biases. And yet you’ve simply ignored or dismissed those because they don’t fit your point of view.
2 points on this-
1. Whitaker played in Detroit which was (& is) heavily AA dominated. Willie Horton has a statue at Comerica & is honored, likely beyond his actual on field accomplishments. HE was a pillar of Detroit & I don’t think Whitaker was quiet due to some fear of racism. I just think he was a quiet guy who didn’t care about that stuff.
2. While I understand CC’s point about persons of color getting treated worse & believe there is some truth to it, that doesn’t mean minorities have to be quiet. Ozzie Smith & Kirby Puckett were 2 truly beloved AA players who’s careers overlapped Whitaker’s. They were both gregarious, outgoing guys & Ozzie never got hammered for his back flips that I recall. Don Baylor was a different type- stern, serious, leader who would take no guff & very respected. Dusty Baker, Dave Henderson were others. Dave Winfield. Andre Dawson.
If racism has an effect, IMO, it’s a small one.
It’s not really fair to say “12 times the percentage of votes,” as Trammel got 15.7% his first time, declined a bit the next two years, and then bounced around under 20% for nearly ten years. The more accurate “five to six times the percentage of votes” is damning enough.
I have no doubt that if Whitaker had managed to stay on the ballot the first two years, he would have also had an eventual climb in voting as time went on, aided by many people making his case. Same is true for other snubbed players who fell off, like all the center fielders from Kenny Lofton to Andruw Jones or Jim Edmonds.
Not just driven by voting, but by flawed voting processes.
Gold Glove voting was by an unconstrained plurality. You could win a gold glove with 2 votes when Trammell played. The infamous Rafael Palmeiro gold glove is an example of what happens with that type of voting process.
I know what you’re getting it, but, as someone who grew up following those 80’s Tigers teams, I will say that Trammell AT THAT TIME was considered a better player. Was it race? Not sure, but, Tram did have a couple things in his favor:
– He almost won an MVP (& quite frankly should have) in 1987. That big year elevated him to star status & Whitaker never had a year like that.
– Trammell won a WS MVP in 1984.
– He did have more big years (peaks JAWS of 7 more than Lou), more times over .300, etc.
– Trammell was more of a known player. Whitaker was very quiet & almost thought of as a different guy (This is even mentioned in Bill James New Historical Abstract). If there was a face of the 1980’s Tigers, it was Trammell, not Lou. Fair or not, that does make a difference.
– Lastly, Trammell stayed in baseball as a coach, then manager of Detroit & was a coach for several more years. Whitaker did not. That stuff probably shouldn’t matter, but, that visibility has always helped in HOF voting for the borderline type candidates.
All that said, I hope like hell that Lou gets in. He was my favorite Tiger growing up & certainly deserves the honor.
There is also the matter that Lou was a bit of a flake. There are not a lot of players who forgot to bring their uniform to an All-Star Game. It’s a little thing, but when a player is on the borderline the little things tend to matter.
Marvin Miller’s exclusion to this point is petty political bullshit from a group of small people.
I’m glad he’s on the ballot and hopefully he will finally get his due. Whitaker, too.
That certain sections of the game’s power structure are still mad enough at Miller to keep him out of the Hall of Fame decades after he should’ve been inducted is the clearest argument for why he belongs in the Hall.
Miller himself knew good and well he wasn’t getting as long as he was alive and management was over-represented on the Veterans Committee, and he was ok with it: he’s the single most influential non-player of the last 50 years, and his true legacy is felt every single time a player signs a FA contract.
Well said
I agree he should have been inducted ages ago but didn’t Miller himself say he didn’t want to be inducted posthumously? Voters should honor his wishes and use the slot for someone who wants it.
Thanks for reminding me that Harold Baines is now a HOFer. Sigh…
Jim Rice.
Double sigh.
Whittaker yes yes, but what’s with Grich? Did he kick somebody’s dog?
The voters were intimidated by his glorious mustache.
So how do we explain Jack Morris?
It’s about time that Lou Whitaker got the recognition he deserves by inducting him into the Hall of Fame. No question that he belongs, along with Alan Trammell. I won’t quibble about who was the better player. They’re very close, but they both clearly belong in the HOF. Both have better numbers across the board than MOST of the HOF’ers who are inducted at their respective positions.
Sweet Lou has a higher WAR than any of other nine candidates who are on the list this year, and a higher WAR than any of the ten who were on the list two years ago. Pick your metrics, but he belongs in the hall.
I wrote about Whitaker’s credentials six years ago. There should be no doubt.
https://www.blessyouboys.com/2013/12/27/5248636/top-tigers-countdown-7-sweet-lou-whitaker/comment/206092049
I think everyone on this ballot is a better candidate than Baines was. The dynamics of the ballot are interesting and the four vote maximum makes it tough on players. Marvin Miller is hands-down the best candidate on the ballot. If I had a ballot and did zero additional research, I would vote for Whitaker, Simmons and Evans in addition to Miller. I have Simmons and Munson in a coin-flip situation, so I’d vote for the one that’s still alive so he can enjoy being inducted into the Hall.
I think that’s a good point. Simba is long in the tooth and it would be great if he got in while he and his teammates could enjoy it
A few years ago the Veteran’s Committee didn’t vote to enshrine anyone, and one of the members (Fergie Jenkins?) said something along the lines like “I feel like we failed”.
I wish the committee could do something like cast a preliminary vote and then decide to re-vote after eliminating some of the candidates who lacked support. Maybe that – or, like a ranked choice-style vote, could help eliminate the “mathematical mousetrap.”
There are plenty of worthy candidates, and I’m sure that baseball fans such as myself want to see them recognized… Please, HOF Committee, pick (at least) two.
For what it’s worth, I’d choose Munson, Murphy, Miller, and Garvey. But you know what? If was in the voting room, and one of the other six was a vote or two away from induction, I would *gladly* say “you know what? Let me change my vote to [Whitaker / Evans / Whoever]. ” I don’t want to walk out feeling as if I failed.
Garvey! You are going to have to explain your work
Wow, my most disliked post on Fangraphs (-3… and counting!) – all because I thought a guy who was once the biggest star in the game should be recognized as a Hall of Famer.
Here’s my quick defense of Garvey, who, for the record, played on the opposite coast from where I lived and also before I was born:
– While he was playing, he was named as a player “who had already done enough to merit induction into the Hall of Fame”.
– Arguably the most famous player in the late 1970s / early 80s.
– 2x NLCS MVP winner.
– Hit .417 en route to a championship in the 1981 World Series
– Altogether, a .338 AVG / .550 SLG in the postseason
– Reggie Jackson called him the best clutch hitter he’d ever seen.
– 10x All-Star; 2x AS MVP.
– 1974 NL MVP (and four other seasons finishing in the top six)
– 4 Gold Gloves – and I know people say that stat is overrated, but he led the league in fielding % five times.
– NL Consecutive Games streak, which is still standing.
– Is beloved by his fanbase. Jimmy Kimmel even wrote an article for ESPN about why h should be in the Hall of Fame.
– In terms of the Hall of Fame Monitor by Bill James, where 100 means a good possibility of entering the Hall and “130 is a virtual cinch”, Garvey is right at 130.
– His advanced stats are not there – true. Like, Lou Whitaker probably has double the career WAR. But Garvey’s OPS+ still beats players such as Lou Brock, Alan Trammell, Richi Ashburn, Craig Biggio, Roberto Alomar, Cal Ripken, Ryne Sandberg, Barry Larkin, Robin Yount, and others.
And sure anyone can counter with “BUT HIS WAR IS BELOW FORTY”, but the Hall, as far as I’m concerned, is not SOLELY about stats. It’s about recognizing the biggest stars to ever play the game. And certainly Garvey – who garnered the most votes in one All-Star game despite being LEFT OFF THE BALLOT – was certainly one of them.
I’m pulling for Thurmon Munson. He is deserving and also a tragic and integral part of baseball’s story during that time period.
I agree though I’m a but biased since I’m from Canton, Ohio where Munson grew up.
Anyway, will always remember my dad calling me from the mall to tell me that Munson had died. I didn’t believe him so I turned on the radio. The first words I heard – without even trying to tune the dial were “Thurman Munson has died in a plane crash”. Chilling…
HoF is a joke. Harold Baines is in (and so are bunch of grossly under-qualified old timey guys) but all these guys drop off ballots after first year, get ignored for 15 years, whatever. Pathetic.
I tend to lean toward small hall, high peak (with a reasonable amount of career), so I probably wouldn’t vote for any of these guys (and would not have voted for Trammell and definitely not for Morris). Though if Trammell is in you’ve kind of got to bring Whitaker in too, they’re too similar in too many different ways to have one in and the other out.
I’d also be fine without any of these post-hoc committees, since inevitably they seem to dilute the pool with friends-of who are weaker candidates rather than enshrine those truly worthy.
Roberto Alomar was within spitting distance of being elected his 1st year and Whitaker couldn’t reach 5%. I hate HOF voting!
spitting distance! Pun intended?
Lou Whitaker and Kirby Puckett both debuted on the ballot in 2001. Puckett (44.4 JAWS) got 423 votes (82.1%) and Whitaker (56.5 JAWS) got 15 votes (2.9%). That is crazy to me. As is the degree to which opinions on players can change in less than 20 years.
Kirby Puckett is one of the all timers for change in opinion in time he played vs current. I mean everyone knew all hit-no field guys like Jim Rice & Steve Garvey took value off the table with their subpar D & baserunning or that Ozzie Smith’s so-so offense took value away . It couldn’t be quantified, but, it doesn’t mean people didn’t understand it was something.
Puckett, OTOH, was a star of the first order. He hit .320 with decent power (well above average for a CF), was considered a very good fielder, decent baserunner. Sure he didn’t walk much, but, he was hitting .320! Add in his post season heroics on 2 WS winning teams. It just wasn’t apparent at that time that the D wasn’t that good, the power was inflated by his home park & his lack of walks capped his offensive value.
Yeah it’s all about narrative. Kirby Puckett was thought of as a legit superstar player who got a lot of TV time in the World Series, had the barrel-chested thing that everyone loved to talk about, was lovable (hah), and was a likely 3,000 hit guy with a big BA until he had to retire literally overnight from an eye ailment. He got the Sandy Koufax treatment.
Whitaker was thought of as a good 2B, and that’s where his story kind of ended.
I have looked at Munson’s career record and see nothing that indicates a Hall of Famer.
Marvin Miller probably deserves to be in, but, I have no idea of the criteria for a nonplayer.
Hi Steve, check out Chris Bodig’s CooperstownCred and read it with an open mind about Munson.
But here are two quick notes:
– Under Jaffe’s JAWS system, Munson is rated as the 12th best catcher in MLB history.
– He batted .373 with a .909 OPS in three World Series… winning rings in two of them.
Would it really be so bad if one of the biggest stars of his era was inducted into the Hall of Fame?
THE HALL OF BAINES…
I no longer care who gets a plaque in the actual “hall”. The Hall of Fame is MUCH more interesting for its other exhibits, and for being in Cooperstown (which is essentially a real-life version of a Norman Rockwell painting).
Does anybody still care who gets inducted?
Thurman Munson is one of exactly 7 Catchers in the history of baseball to put up 45+ WAR in a period of 10 consecutive years while Catching at least 1,000+ Games. The others are Gary Carter, Johnny Bench, Ivan Rodriguez, Mike Piazza, Mickey Cochrane, and Yogi Berra… all HOF, obviously.
Thurman Munson is also the ONLY Catcher in the history of baseball with at least a .300+ postseason AVG (.357) and at least 20+ postseason RBI (22) and at least 20+ defensive CS (24).
Thurman was the Catcher on the 1968 College Baseball All-American Team, he was Rookie of the Year in the AL in 1970, he won Gold Gloves in 73/74/75, he was AL MVP in 1976, and then he won World Series Titles in 77/78. Not even ONE HOFer of ANY position has achieved all 5 of those milestones…
Munson belongs in the Hall of Fame.
I do not think you will find any disagreement here.
Tommy John has 79.4fWAR and “only” 62.1 bWAR. I feel like if you take this into account when looking at his JAWS maybe there should be consideration of an adjustment upwards which makes him a lot more borderline? (I realize he was more an accumulator but 288 wins and ~80WAR is pretty much a lock from what I can tell).
I love high peaks as much as the next guy but I think durability/longevity are skills as well, that don’t get nearly enough credit in current HOF debates. Tommy John is an extreme example, with no real peak to speak of, but he should still be in for being a productive player for a quarter century, come on now.
Phil Niekro is a pretty good comparison for Tommy John. Niekro is a deserving HoFer in my opinion, and TJ was his equal. Niekro got the nod because he had the good fortune to cross the 300 W threshold. I suspect that had TJs win-loss decisions broken a bit more favourably and had he won 300 games with the exact same career he would have easily been elected.
I also think Jim Kaat deserves a place in the HoF.
I think the Modern Game committee has a failure of imagination and hope that a campaign to include Vin Scully on the next ballot should begin in earnest. For the most part broadcasters and writers are honored with a lessor award as we all know but the Hall of Fame is clear that they are not Hall of Famers. By convention some fans and people in the game have treated this as a Hall of Fame honor but the Hall does not, nor should it, some of the award recipients have been very good and great broadcasters or writers but have not been massively important to the history of the game.
Marvin Miller is massively important to the history of the game, some of the executives have been as well and Miller is being considered for a plaque in the Hall of Fame proper. Bud Selig is a Hall of Famer but Vin Scully is not. I would understand a separate distinction for on field and off but that distinction does not exist as long as executives are in.
Vin Scully transcended the level of Frick award winners and should be enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame. I don’t think I need to share his credentials with the readers here, you know. The fact that he is in a lower class of the Hall should be rectified. His contributions to the sport go beyond what Selig or many of the executives have done. It is time we stopped letting the Hall off the hook by our convention of refering to all Frick winners as Hall of Famers, the Hall doesn’t acknowledge them as that and we shouldn’t. And if we didn’t we would be calling for Vin Scully to be properly inducted.
Vin Scully received the Ford Frick Award for broadcasting back in 1982.
As for Marvin Miller-the 16 member panel ought to strike a deal such as the players on the voting board get enough cross aisle votes to induct Marvin Miller, and in return the owners get the needed support to induct one of their own guys in the future, otherwise I say exclude him from future consideration.
Munson HOF Committee prepared a comprehensive analysis of his career and submitted a petition to the Historical Overview Committee to help get him on ballot. visit http://www.munsonhof.com to see our analysis.
I’m sure Marvin Miller and the eight living candidates were and are nice guys, but I sure wouldn’t plan a vacation to Cooperstown just to attend Hall of Fame weekend because any of them got elected. Who would I drop everything to see? Easy Thurman Munson. And no, I’m not a Yankees fan.
The 70’s Yankees zoo was a notorious collection of malcontents, myopic egos, and hell-raisers who brought decadence to a new low almost daily. Google it, you’ll see yourself. One man alone named Thurman Munson however commanded both the respect and on-field, focused efforts of every man who donned the pinstripes during those wild times. Through Munson’s leadership, and passionate effort the Yankees went to three straight World Series (1976-78) and won the last two. Big deal you might say right? Well, by and large the 1977, 1978, 1980 and 1981 Yankees rosters were made up of almost the same players. The first two teams WITH Munson won the World Series, the latter two WITHOUT Munson made the playoffs, but did not win a world championship. And why? Every single player on the 70’s Yankees winners will tell you Thurman Munson was the primary difference between them being a collection of talent and being a championship team.
This a big reason why Thurman Munson was the first and only Yankees captain since Lou Gehrig. The authenticity, respect, leadership, and character he brought had no equal. In fact, one of the chief qualifications for induction is one’s character. Can anybody really look at Thurman Munson’s living family members in the eyes and say he didn’t meet the qualifications of induction based on this parameter?
Munson wasn’t just a highly-respected, on-field general leading the troops from behind (no pun intended), quite to the contrary, his statistics both offensively and defensively are still comparable to the other elite catchers of both his era and all-time despite the fact that he played half of his career in cavernous, pre-renovated Yankee Stadium.
It is this intangible difference in leadership, again it was on a volition team in the biggest media market, combined with his impressive resumé (Rookie of the Year, AL MVP, 3 Gold Gloves, 7 time All-Star, 2 World Series rings, and a .373 World Series batting average), and character that qualifies this former Yankees captain to not only lead a collection of social malcontents to immortality, but also his long-deserved place among other legends in the Hall of Fame.
I’m sure through a little self-introspection the other candidates on the ballot would understand why Munson deserves induction whether with others or by himself and that would be a party worth attending.
Oh, I would absolutely attend to hear Marvin Miller’s speech, may he rest in peace.
It’s really too late to be a small-hall guy, but I am one. I would rather see a couple of deserving players not get in than what we have now: letting in good players like Morris and Baines. The Veterans committee needs to go away, and figure out a way to not let in every Bill, Jack, and Harold.