Buster Posey

[Mark68]

59 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Funny, FiveThirtyEight's headline article today is about this same question.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/buster-poseys-career-was-short-but-elite-will-it-land-him-in-the-hall-of-fame/

 

Not sure if anyone else saw this, but MadBum was worth 3.7 WAR as a hitter. 

[Taylor]

4 minutes ago, Mark68 said:

Not sure if anyone else saw this, but MadBum was worth 3.7 WAR as a hitter. 

He was more valuable than Pujols most years.

[Torridd]

16 hours ago, happybat4 said:

Good player! Might be a stupid question, but is he a hall of famer? Counting stats and WAR are low, but I think catchers have low WARs compared to most players.

He is.

[Mark68]

The top of this page breaks down Posey's HOF candidacy: MLB's top 20 offseason trade candidates: Byron Buxton, Josh Hader, and Craig Kimbrel among big names (cbssports.com)

 

I think he's in. His peak years were some very excellent years. Even this year, he performed at a high level. 

[happybat4]

I think you also have to look at his peers, he probably has the highest BWAR of his catcher peers.

[Duren, Duren]

World series titles are huge. Three confirm that it wasn't just a fluke season or anomaly. People remember and glorify dynasty type teams. Even those winning two in a row.  Then people look to see who the best on those teams were. He plays the toughest position and was the backbone of the pitching staff as well. The stats are good enough, though not gaudy. Without the silverware he probably gets in about five to ten years later. Now it seems pretty much a lock.

[happybat4]

12 minutes ago, Duren, Duren said:

World series titles are huge. Three confirm that it wasn't just a fluke season or anomaly. People remember and glorify dynasty type teams. Even those winning two in a row.  Then people look to see who the best on those teams were. He plays the toughest position and was the backbone of the pitching staff as well. The stats are good enough, though not gaudy. Without the silverware he probably gets in about five to ten years later. Now it seems pretty much a lock.

Wouldn't this make Posada as valuable? Posada won 4 titles and has better post season stats. Posey only had a .667 OPS in the post season. .616 in his three world series.

[yamsi12]

7 hours ago, True Grich said:

One of the best fantasy baseball team names ever... "Pocket full of Poseys"

 

Buster nut in her Posey is better.

[Blarg]

2 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

Posey was a great player.  But I can’t feel comfortable saying he was one of the greatest players of all time.

If I owed a museum designed to present to the public “the greatest players of all time,” I would not be including Buster Posey in the museum.

With that very simplified analysis, I say he is not a HOF player.

The Hall of Fame isn't based on Greatest All Time stats. It is about performance in that specific players years of service. 

So, no, Posey is not Johnny Bench but compared with players from 2010 to present day, his performance is far greater than any other catcher during that span of time and deserves recognition.  

[Dtwncbad]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

The Hall of Fame isn't based on Greatest All Time stats. It is about performance in that specific players years of service. 

So, no, Posey is not Johnny Bench but compared with players from 2010 to present day, his performance is far greater than any other catcher during that span of time and deserves recognition.  

I didn’t say a peep about stats.

I don’t think he is one of the greatest players of all time.  Simple as that.

You are welcome to your own opinion/analysis of if he is a HOF.

[Stradling]

7 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

I didn’t say a peep about stats.

I don’t think he is one of the greatest players of all time.  Simple as that.

You are welcome to your own opinion/analysis of if he is a HOF.

In your version of the hall of fame does the position they play matter?  Or performance versus peers of their era?  

[Dtwncbad]

7 hours ago, Stradling said:

In your version of the hall of fame does the position they play matter?  Or performance versus peers of their era?  

Sure I think considering those things is rational in determining if a player is one of the greatest of all time.

The era part could be complicated because I think it is very possible to be (for example) the very best first baseman of a particular era and still be nowhere near one of the greatest of all time.  In that case being the best in an era isn’t enough.

I still want anyone going into the Hall to be one of the greatest of all time.

The era needs to be considered in terms of how the game is played at that time.

Easy example is a guy hitting 30 homers a year back in the 50s is much more impressive than a guy hitting 30 a year during the steroids era.

 

[Taylor]

15 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

I didn’t say a peep about stats.

I don’t think he is one of the greatest players of all time.  Simple as that.

You are welcome to your own opinion/analysis of if he is a HOF.

This is a bad take. Context is very important when deciding who should be in the HoF. 

[Blarg]

But he isn't the greatest of all time! What do not get about this, Taylor?

[Stradling]

The greatest of all time is kinda silly considering we have no idea if the players in the early days were actually great or just better than their peers. 

[Dtwncbad]

You guys are trying way too hard to be argumentative here.  If you can look yourself in the mirror and say honestly that the HOF is not attempting to identify the greatest players of all time, then good for you and I will not bother to try to change your minds. 

[Duren, Duren]

Reputation is also a factor. Media vote. And always have. A newspaper writer was behind the HOF in the first place in the 1930s. And we know from anecdotal comments over the year that reputations and relationships have factored in voting. Media favorites have also garnered the most hype and promotion for the HOF. Conversely, those disliked have often been negatively portrayed. Maybe not in decisive numbers, but enough to possibly sway opinion and affect the total vote count.

From what I can tell from casual observation, Posey is a big favorite with the media. And has been singled out for respect since early in his career. Maybe even too effusively, given that he had great talent on many of his teams over his career. I think the momentum for his induction will be spread by most media and carry him over the threshold in his first couple of years of eligibility. 

 

 

[Taylor]

2 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

You guys are trying way too hard to be argumentative here.  If you can look yourself in the mirror and say honestly that the HOF is not attempting to identify the greatest players of all time, then good for you and I will not bother to try to change your minds. 

"Greatest players of all time" is subjective. Otherwise there wouldn't be voting and players would automatically be added to the Hall based on WAR.

[Dtwncbad]

1 hour ago, Taylor said:

"Greatest players of all time" is subjective. Otherwise there wouldn't be voting and players would automatically be added to the Hall based on WAR.

Duh?

[Taylor]

7 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Duh?

So what's your point?

[Stradling]

1 hour ago, Taylor said:

So what's your point?

Don’t be so argumentative 

[Dtwncbad]

Buster Posey was a great player.  Not one of the greatest of all time.

Not that complicated.

[Blarg]

It is the Hall of Fame not the Hall of the Greatest Players of All Time.

Not that complicated. 

[HanfordGuy]

Posey’s counting numbers aren’t that impressive when comparing him to other HOF catchers except the speed and defensive specialists. I think his awards, WS rings and him being one of the top catchers in the league for most of career gives him a boost. I don’t think he makes it on his first ballot.

[Taylor]

12 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

Buster Posey was a great player.  Not one of the greatest of all time.

Not that complicated.

So what will you say if and when he gets voted in?