Joe Mauer announces retirement: HOF? Make Your Case:

[the 'stache]

I think Mauer is deserving. Maybe not first ballot, though. I mean, he's not a closer.

Come on, the guy was the best pure hitter in baseball for eight years. Except for his injury-riddled 2011 when he hit .287, and a .293 season in 2007, he hit .300 every year between 2006 and 2013, hitting .328 for those 1,012 games. In those seasons, he hit .347, .328, .365, .327, .319, .324.

Again, this is a catcher doing this. And he wasn't a bad defender, winning three Gold Gloves. So he didn't hit a lot of home runs. You had a catcher, the premium position in baseball, the hardest one to produce offense at a high level, hitting .328 in his prime. Why is he not a Hall of Famer, yet Tony Gwynn, widely considered one of the best pure hitters of the modern era, if not the best, is? Gwynn hit .338. Didn't hit for power. Stole bases early, but that stopped when he hit 30.

Compare their career slash lines

Mauer .306 AVG/.388 OBP/.439 SLG/.827 OPS 124 OPS+
Gwynn .338 AVG/.388 OBP/.459 SLG/.847 OPS 132 OPS+

Gwynn's average for his career is much higher. Yet their on base percentage is identical.

Now, look at Mauer's prime.

'04-'13 .323 AVG/.405 OBP/.468 SLG/.873 OPS 135 OPS+

That's across 5,006 PAs. A catcher with 35% above league average OPS.

Why is there any question as to his worthiness?

[Peter_Spaeth]

What's a pure hitter anyhow? I would take Miggy and ARod over the same stretch 100 times out of 100. I have to think about who else.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I think Mauer is deserving. Maybe not first ballot, though. I mean, he's not a closer.

Come on, the guy was the best pure hitter in baseball for eight years. Except for his injury-riddled 2011 when he hit .287, and a .293 season in 2007, he hit .300 every year between 2006 and 2013, hitting .328 for those 1,012 games. In those seasons, he hit .347, .328, .365, .327, .319, .324.

Again, this is a catcher doing this. And he wasn't a bad defender, winning three Gold Gloves. So he didn't hit a lot of home runs. You had a catcher, the premium position in baseball, the hardest one to produce offense at a high level, hitting .328 in his prime. Why is he not a Hall of Famer, yet Tony Gwynn, widely considered one of the best pure hitters of the modern era, if not the best, is? Gwynn hit .338. Didn't hit for power. Stole bases early, but that stopped when he hit 30.

Compare their career slash lines

Mauer .306 AVG/.388 OBP/.439 SLG/.827 OPS 124 OPS+
Gwynn .338 AVG/.388 OBP/.459 SLG/.847 OPS 132 OPS+

Gwynn's average for his career is much higher. Yet their on base percentage is identical.

Now, look at Mauer's prime.

'04-'13 .323 AVG/.405 OBP/.468 SLG/.873 OPS 135 OPS+

That's across 5,006 PAs. A catcher with 35% above league average OPS.

Why is there any question as to his worthiness?

It is not really fare to compare Joe to Tony. Joe had his prime when he was young. Tony had his prime years from age 33 to 37 like normal players.

[Mark17]

The Tony to compare Mauer's stats to is Oliva. Both lifetime Twins, 15 year careers, batting titles, gold gloves, 5 times Sporting News All Stars, injuries. Mauer was a catcher, but Oliva hit for more power while often protecting Killebrew in the lineup.

Of the two I would take Oliva, the best pure hitter of his day. Not saying Oliva is therefore a HOFer, just saying, if one goes in, so should the other as they are about equally deserving or undeserving.

… Oliva Mauer
AB 6301 6930
R 870 1018
H 1917 2123
2B 329 428
3B 48 30
HR 220 143
RBI 947 923
AVG .304 .306
OBP .353 .388
SLG .476 .439

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

It is not really fare to compare Joe to Tony. Joe had his prime when he was young. Tony had his prime years from age 33 to 37 like normal players.

He got better as he studied more.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

He got better as he studied more.

Mr Bonds must have studied a lot too.

[orioles93]

Personally I think Mauer gets in eventually, and is deserving. But just curious on everyone's thoughts on Mauer's career versus the likes of Ted Simmons, Lance Parrish, and Victor Martinez.

[Baseballcrazy62]

How about Bill Freehan? 11x All-Star and 5x Gold Glove winner plus a World Series Ring. Never understood how little he is appreciated by the voters.

[Bagwell-1994]

Originally Posted by orioles93

Personally I think Mauer gets in eventually, and is deserving. But just curious on everyone's thoughts on Mauer's career versus the likes of Ted Simmons, Lance Parrish, and Victor Martinez.

Simmons was an 8-time all-star with highest MVP finish at 6th and never led the league in any significant category, 4 seasons over 5 WAR (50.3 total BWAR). Parrish was also an 8-time all-star but similarly highest MVP finish was 9th and never led the league in anything notable, 1 season at 5 WAR (39.5 total BWAR). Martinez was a 5-time all-star with a 2nd place MVP finish in 2014, only ever led the league in OBP & OPS in 2014 and has the lowest career WAR (32.2) of anyone in the conversation, 2 seasons above 5 WAR.

Mauer was a 5-time all-star, MVP winner in 2009, 3 time batting champ: 2006/2008/2009, led league in OBP/SLG/OPS/OPS+ in 2009, led league in OBP in 2012. Had 5 seasons over 5 WAR (55.1 total BWAR).

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_C.shtml

This table at BBreference lists Mauer as the 7th best catcher ever regarding WAR and JAWS as performance measuring metrics. Admittedly Ted Simmons is 10th best ever per the chart, but as stated above, he lacks the league-leading stats/MVP that Mauer accumulated.

I'm not sure I would even vote for Mauer for HOF due to his relatively low counting stats in areas ("only" 2123 hits) but his .306/.388/.439 career slash line is impressive. Combine that with his stellar MVP season, 3 batting titles and 7th place position in WAR/JAWS all-time among catchers and I think he's a sure-fire HOFer at some point.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by orioles93

Personally I think Mauer gets in eventually, and is deserving. But just curious on everyone's thoughts on Mauer's career versus the likes of Ted Simmons, Lance Parrish, and Victor Martinez.

I'm not a huge Mauer fan but I would rate him ahead of those guys. As for Freehan he definitely was the best catcher in the AL for a long stretch but his absolute numbers aren't that great IMO.

[packs]

Mauer wasn't good enough for long enough. I really don't see how he can be looked at any differently than Nomar, who I think had a much better career and isn't talked about at all. Mauer played catcher briefly and he was briefly very good at what he did. But so are a lot of people. His catching record for batting titles doesn't mean much to me at all. Winning three titles at any position isn't a HOF-worthy stat (ask Bill Madlock, who won 4 or Larry Walker and Tony Oliva who won 3 and are still out).

[Yastrzemski Sports]

When we discuss a HOF candidate the player is compared to others at his position. Mauer played the majority of his career at catcher so any comparisons have to be done among other catchers. Mauers stats are 2123 hits, .306 ba, 923 rbi, 1018 runs along with 6 as, 3 gg and an mvp award. First, there are 4 other catchers who won mvp. 3 are in the hof and the other is Thurman Munson who would be and probably should be. Among hof catchers, His hit total is 3rd behind Berra and Fisk and his BA is 3rd behind Cochrane and Dickey (tied with Lombardi). His run and rbi totals are in the range of other hof catchers. His stats are good enough compared to others already there. The mvp award is huge and weighs heavily for a candidate because it shows dominance. Not every player who wins an mvp will be in the hof but for many it will make the difference to put someone in. When I put all of the factors together I think Mauer will be a HOF member as one of the best catchers of his generation whose numbers put him among the all time greats.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Nomar just goes to show why you can't anoint a 25-26-27 year old young man as a lock all-time great or even HOFer.

[Bagwell-1994]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nomar just goes to show why you can't anoint a 25-26-27 year old young man as a lock all-time great or even HOFer.

Very unfortunate about Nomar. He had a heck of a career trajectory from 1997-2003.

Your statement is 99.99% true... with one exception! 27-year old Mike Trout, who is already rated as the 7th or 8th most valuable center fielder ever based on the ever popular WAR and JAWS metrics. He barely has over 1,100 hits, but I'd bet if Trout's career ended today, he would still eventually be enshrined at Cooperstown, simply due to the insane level of value he provided over his 7 year career.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/l.../jaws_CF.shtml

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[packs]

Originally Posted by Yastrzemski Sports

When we discuss a HOF candidate the player is compared to others at his position. Mauer played the majority of his career at catcher so any comparisons have to be done among other catchers. Mauers stats are 2123 hits, .306 ba, 923 rbi, 1018 runs along with 6 as, 3 gg and an mvp award. First, there are 4 other catchers who won mvp. 3 are in the hof and the other is Thurman Munson who would be and probably should be. Among hof catchers, His hit total is 3rd behind Berra and Fisk and his BA is 3rd behind Cochrane and Dickey (tied with Lombardi). His run and rbi totals are in the range of other hof catchers. His stats are good enough compared to others already there. The mvp award is huge and weighs heavily for a candidate because it shows dominance. Not every player who wins an mvp will be in the hof but for many it will make the difference to put someone in. When I put all of the factors together I think Mauer will be a HOF member as one of the best catchers of his generation whose numbers put him among the all time greats.

Elston Howard won an MVP too. He's not in the HOF either. I don't think the MVP means much for Mauer. The season was a total aberration. He never came close to repeating that performance. Among catchers all time he's probably the best pure hitter, but that's it. He was never an elite all world catcher like Johnny Bench or Pudge (cheating aside). I don't think he was as dominating a player as you're making him out to be. His career OPS of 827 is lower than Jorge Posada's 848.

[packs]

double post

[Yastrzemski Sports]

You’re right on Howard. An oversight on my part. Ellie’s career numbers were well below hof caliber but Mauers are not. I’ll use your own words - among catchers probably the best pure hitter. That’s saying a lot. If you’re the best then you belong among the immortals.
Posadas numbers are 1664 hits, 275 hr, .273 ba, 900 runs, 1065 rbi and 5 was rings. You could make an argument for Jorge but there is a much better argument for Mauer. Ops+ is a better indication of a players value taking ballparks and league into account - Mauers is 124, Posada is 121. Jorge has a higher ops because he hit a lot more hr - probably because he played in Yankee stadium. He has a lower ops+ because everyone hits more hr in Yankee stadium. 3 batting titles and an MVP make Mauer an elite hitting catcher and gold glove awards help to show his value at the position which Jorge does not have.
An mvp award means he was the best player in the league for a season and he received all first place votes. If that’s not dominant then I’m not sure what is.

Originally Posted by packs

Elston Howard won an MVP too. He's not in the HOF either. I don't think the MVP means much for Mauer. The season was a total aberration. He never came close to repeating that performance. Among catchers all time he's probably the best pure hitter, but that's it. He was never an elite all world catcher like Johnny Bench or Pudge (cheating aside). I don't think he was as dominating a player as you're making him out to be. His career OPS of 827 is lower than Jorge Posada's 848.

[packs]

Dominant for one season only. That's not a HOFer. He wasn't anywhere near elite any other time in his career. And when I say pure hitter, I mean able to hit 300. There are plenty of players who hit 300 over their careers (like Mattingly) who are not HOF players (even catchers like Bubbles Hargrave; Manny Sanguillen hit 300 as a catcher though his career average is 296).

Even while trying to take away from Posada, you listed a stat that Mauer leads by only 3 points. Posada was off the ballot in one vote and despite what might be popular opinion, I would take Posada over Mauer every time they stood next to each other.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Dominant for one season only. That's not a HOFer. He wasn't anywhere near elite any other time in his career. And when I say pure hitter, I mean able to hit 300. There are plenty of players who hit 300 over their careers (like Mattingly) who are not HOF players (even catchers like Bubbles Hargrave; Manny Sanguillen hit 300 as a catcher though his career average is 296).

Even while trying to take away from Posada, you listed a stat that Mauer leads by only 3 points. Posada was off the ballot in one vote and despite what might be popular opinion, I would take Posada over Mauer every time they stood next to each other.

It's insane to think Mauer belongs in the HOF when Mattingly does not, whatever the shortcomings of Mattingly's career stats.

[Bagwell-1994]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's insane to think Mauer belongs in the HOF when Mattingly does not, whatever the shortcomings of Mattingly's career stats.

I think this is due to comparing him to his peers at his position. Mauer ranks as the 7th most valuable catcher ever when measuring via WAR/JAWS. Mattingly ranks as the 40th most valuable 1st baseman: https://www.baseball-reference.com/l.../jaws_1B.shtml

Mattingly had an outstanding stretch from 1983 to 1987 primarily, including an MVP, and 8 gold gloves. But when compared to the sheer number of heavy hitters at 1st base all-time in the HOF, he simply falls way down the list, unfortunately.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[clydepepper]

Since Baines (but, he's such a nice fellow) got in, isn't it time to start a grass-roots campaign for Paul Lo Duca?

.

[Yastrzemski Sports]

I’m sure this was meant to be a joke but in all seriousness Baines has 2800+ hits and 380+ hr. If there is someone else with those numbers I would give them support.
If you want to make that joke I would say that since Edgar Martinez got in then we can start the campaign for the guys who are similar to him - Will Clark, Magglio Ordonez and Moises Alou. Edgar’s numbers are nowhere near HOF caliber for any player whose primary skill was hitting.

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Since Baines (but, he's such a nice fellow) got it, isn't it time to start a grass-roots campaign for Paul Lo Duca?

.

[packs]

I seem to recall MLB naming an award after Edgar Martinez. The other players with awards named after them are: Cy Young, Rod Carew, Tony Gwynn, Roberto Clemente and Hank Aaron.

There is no Joe Mauer award.

[Yastrzemski Sports]

Personally I never understood why they named the award after him. It seemed like all at once they took all of the awards and attached a players name to it. You could have done a lot better than the Carew and Gwynn awards - like the Cobb and Hornsby awards. They could have done a lot better than the Edgar award. They named the award after a guy who wasn’t in the hall and didn’t belong.
No, there should not be a Mauer award because there isn’t an appropriate award to name after him. There isn’t an award named after most hof players but it doesn’t mean they don’t belong.

Originally Posted by packs

I seem to recall MLB naming an award after Edgar Martinez. The other players with awards named after them are: Cy Young, Rod Carew, Tony Gwynn, Roberto Clemente and Hank Aaron.

There is no Joe Mauer award.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Yastrzemski Sports

I’m sure this was meant to be a joke but in all seriousness Baines has 2800+ hits and 380+ hr. If there is someone else with those numbers I would give them support.
If you want to make that joke I would say that since Edgar Martinez got in then we can start the campaign for the guys who are similar to him - Will Clark, Magglio Ordonez and Moises Alou. Edgar’s numbers are nowhere near HOF caliber for any player whose primary skill was hitting.

The guys who would be most similar to Baines not in the HOF would be Al Oliver, Rusty Staub and Dave Parker. They were similar hitters OPS+ 121-124 and 2700+ hits. The guys you mentioned had a lot fewer hits ~2100.

[Yastrzemski Sports]

The guys I mentioned were similar to Edgar.

Originally Posted by rats60

The guys who would be most similar to Baines not in the HOF would be Al Oliver, Rusty Staub and Dave Parker. They were similar hitters OPS+ 121-124 and 2700+ hits. The guys you mentioned had a lot fewer hits ~2100.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Yastrzemski Sports

Personally I never understood why they named the award after him. It seemed like all at once they took all of the awards and attached a players name to it. You could have done a lot better than the Carew and Gwynn awards - like the Cobb and Hornsby awards. They could have done a lot better than the Edgar award. They named the award after a guy who wasn’t in the hall and didn’t belong.
No, there should not be a Mauer award because there isn’t an appropriate award to name after him. There isn’t an award named after most hof players but it doesn’t mean they don’t belong.

You said Edgar doesn't belong. If he doesn't belong, why did MLB name an award after him? If there were better players at his position, why did they choose him?

In my opinion it was because there hasn't been a player better than him at his position.

[Yastrzemski Sports]

First, in my opinion he didn't have a position - that's why he was a DH. That's a guy with a bat who is a liability in the field. He had a spot in the lineup not on the field. At the time they named the award Frank Thomas, Paul Molitor and Harold Baines had done more and that's not even talking about David Ortiz.
Now, for someone who is inducted into the HOF and had an award named after them at DH you should have done something pretty special. Edgar had 2200 hits and 300 hr. That is absolutely pedestrian. He had no extras - no WS, no MVP, no great accomplishment or moment that defined him and he was never close to being the best player on his team. If he had played the field we wouldn't even be talking about him in the hall.
I don't know how voters can elect Edgar before they put in Jeff Kent, Fred McGriff, Omar Vizquel and Lou Whitaker among others. It was irresponsible of MLB to name the award after him and it seemed like they rushed to do so and it seemed like that made it an obligation to put him in the hall. They should never name an award after someone who isn't already in.

Originally Posted by packs

You said Edgar doesn't belong. If he doesn't belong, why did MLB name an award after him? If there were better players at his position, why did they choose him?

In my opinion it was because there hasn't been a player better than him at his position.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Yastrzemski Sports

First, in my opinion he didn't have a position - that's why he was a DH. That's a guy with a bat who is a liability in the field. He had a spot in the lineup not on the field. At the time they named the award Frank Thomas, Paul Molitor and Harold Baines had done more and that's not even talking about David Ortiz.
Now, for someone who is inducted into the HOF and had an award named after them at DH you should have done something pretty special. Edgar had 2200 hits and 300 hr. That is absolutely pedestrian. He had no extras - no WS, no MVP, no great accomplishment or moment that defined him and he was never close to being the best player on his team. If he had played the field we wouldn't even be talking about him in the hall.
I don't know how voters can elect Edgar before they put in Jeff Kent, Fred McGriff, Omar Vizquel and Lou Whitaker among others. It was irresponsible of MLB to name the award after him and it seemed like they rushed to do so and it seemed like that made it an obligation to put him in the hall. They should never name an award after someone who isn't already in.

Glad you brought up David Ortiz because Edgar's WAR is 68.4 compared to Ortiz at 55.3. That's a HUGE margin of difference for a guy you say had some kind of prestige number that Edgar didn't. Not to mention that both Edgar's OPS and OPS+ are each higher than Ortiz, as is his career on base.

For a guy who wasn't very good, he seems to be better than anyone you brought up.

[Yastrzemski Sports]

Edgar. 2247 hits, 309 hr, 1261 RBI, 312 ba, 933 ops
Ortiz. 2472 hits, 541 hr, 1768 RBI, 286 ba, 931 ops
Seriously? Ortiz has 200+ more hits, 200+ more hr and 500+ more RBI not to mention 3 ws rings and Edgar is better because of WAR and OPS? I guess in your opinion. I'm not sure how many would agree.

Originally Posted by packs

Glad you brought up David Ortiz because Edgar's WAR is 68.4 compared to Ortiz at 55.3. That's a HUGE margin of difference for a guy you say had some kind of prestige number that Edgar didn't. Not to mention that both Edgar's OPS and OPS+ are each higher than Ortiz, as is his career on base.

For a guy who wasn't very good, he seems to be better than anyone you brought up.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I always thought of Edgar as similar to Bernie Williams in terms of hitting, and of course Bernie played a prime position, and well.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Yastrzemski Sports

Edgar. 2247 hits, 309 hr, 1261 RBI, 312 ba, 933 ops
Ortiz. 2472 hits, 541 hr, 1768 RBI, 286 ba, 931 ops
Seriously? Ortiz has 200+ more hits, 200+ more hr and 500+ more RBI not to mention 3 ws rings and Edgar is better because of WAR and OPS? I guess in your opinion. I'm not sure how many would agree.

Why do people always bring up WAR as it relates to player's value if it doesn't relate to a player's value? There is such a huge disparity between Edgar and Ortiz in terms of WAR despite Edgar having a significantly shorter career. How do you explain that difference? Ortiz's best output was 6.4 in any one season. Edgar's is 7.0, and he went on to eclipse Ortiz's benchmark 2 other times when he put up seasons of 6.5. Ortiz was only worth 6 or more wins that one single time. Edgar put up a WAR higher than 6.0 five times.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Why do people always bring up WAR as it relates to player's value if it doesn't relate to a player's value? There is such a huge disparity between Edgar and Ortiz in terms of WAR despite Edgar having a significantly shorter career. How do you explain that difference?

What IS the explanation? Often the answer in counterintuitive comparisons like that is that one guy just didn't draw walks, but that's not true of Ortiz.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What IS the explanation? Often the answer in counterintuitive comparisons like that is that one guy just didn't draw walks, but that's not true of Ortiz.

I would say the explanation is Edgar was a superior player who was more valuable to his team.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I would say the explanation is Edgar was a superior player who was more valuable to his team.

But that's subjective, in terms of the WAR calculation do you know?

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But that's subjective, in terms of the WAR calculation do you know?

Do I have to? It's a stat referenced all the time in discussions about a player's value.

[Yastrzemski Sports]

Edgar's WAR is a statistical anomaly that can't be explained. I can't even imagine how they calculated it. He's right around the level of Fisk Murray and Gwynn who all had significantly better and longer careers than Edgar. I'm not sure how they calculate for a DH because for other players defense is part of the equation. I doubt that anyone thinks that Edgar had as much of an impact on the game as Eddie Murray. And Ortiz numbers dwarf Edgar. Thats why a lot of fans like hard numbers - they never lie. 500 hr is more than 300.

Originally Posted by packs

Why do people always bring up WAR as it relates to player's value if it doesn't relate to a player's value? There is such a huge disparity between Edgar and Ortiz in terms of WAR despite Edgar having a significantly shorter career. How do you explain that difference?