3 MVP titles is automatic ticket to HOF?

[Yuri89]

Thinking basically about Bryce Harper. Right now hes not on the short list, but he improves generally as the season goes.

So with a 3 MVP he could afford going in , even if his WAR, career totals etc werrent the sexiest?

[jalbright]

I would say yes. The only guys with three or more who aren't in are Bonds and A-Rod, and that's about PEDs. I count 20 with two and Harper is active, so not yet eligible. There's Juan Gonzalez, Dale Murphy and Roger Maris who aren't, but that's 16 of 19 with two. I would say even two is the level at which you have to explain why the guy doesn't belong rather than explain why he does.

The list of two or more: BBref

Barry Bonds (7)

Yogi Berra (3)

Roy Campanella (3)

Joe DiMaggio (3)

Jimmie Foxx (3)

Mickey Mantle (3)

Stan Musial (3)

Albert Pujols (3)

Alex Rodriguez (3)

Mike Schmidt (3)

Mike Trout (3)

Ernie Banks (2)

Johnny Bench (2)

Miguel Cabrera (2)

Mickey Cochrane (2)

Lou Gehrig (2)

Juan Gonzalez (2)

Hank Greenberg (2)

Bryce Harper (2)

Rogers Hornsby (2)

Carl Hubbell (2)

Walter Johnson (2)

Roger Maris (2)

Willie Mays (2)

Joe Morgan (2)

Dale Murphy (2)

Hal Newhouser (2)

Cal Ripken Jr. (2)

Frank Robinson (2)

Frank Thomas (2)

Ted Williams (2)

Robin Yount (2)

[willshad]

No, it's not an 'automatic ticket'. If Harper won MVP this season with numbers similar to 2021, then falls of a cliff next year, or his career suddenly ends for some reason, he would not have had a HOF career. Would he be 1/2 to 2/3 of the way there? Probably. Even with 3 MVPs, he would need the counting numbers and relatively good play in his 30s.

[Yuri89]

I was aware of this more or less. I put 3 MVP because there has been a coyple guys with 2 MVPS that have not end up in the hall for several reasons.
3 MVPS seem to be a major deal

[Los Bravos]

Honestly, two should do it, absent a truly compelling reason otherwise (and "disappointing decline phase" doesn't qualify as compelling, to me.)

Harper's got a ways to go before he's done but he already has a solid leg up on the process.

[Yuri89]

No, it's not an 'automatic ticket'. If Harper won MVP this season with numbers similar to 2021, then falls of a cliff next year, or his career suddenly ends for some reason, he would not have had a HOF career. Even with 3 MVPs, he would need good counting numbers and relatively good play in his 30s.

Im not so sure about what you say unless harper literally stop playing after 2 yesrs or so.( winning a 3rd mvp in the process) And even so I think that harper would have a serious case.

[pedrosrotatorcuff]

Honestly, two should do it, absent a truly compelling reason otherwise (and "disappointing decline phase" doesn't qualify as compelling, to me.)

Harper's got a ways to go before he's done but he already has a solid leg up on the process.

Do you think any of the 2-time odd men out are Hall-worthy?

[Yuri89]

Do you think any of the odd men out are Hall-worthy?

My thought is Dale Murphy should go in. Maris is different because his career is too short. Juan Gonzalez is also steroid case.

By the way of course I think Bonds and A Rod should be in the hall

[scottmitchell74]

3 MVPs would punch the ticket no matter what else happened.

[pedrosrotatorcuff]

My thought is Dale Murphy should go in. Maris is different because his career is too short. Juan Gonzalez is also steroid case.

By the way of course I think Bonds and A Rod should be in the hall

I forgot to specify "any of the 'mere' 2-timers" since Bond and A-Rod are so obviously inner-circlers statwise, but yeah. I can see the cases for Murphy and Juan Gone but Maris is a real stretch imo.

[Chadwick]

LB is correct: if a guy is the best player in the league at least twice, he's the type of candidate you have to find reasons not to support. I phrased that slightly differently that what's being asked here because, while winning an MVP Award multiple times is impressive, the MVP Award is evidence of opinion, not evidence of performance. It does hold sway for me, but I am careful not to conflate the 1961 AL MVP voters' opinion that Maris was the "most valuable" player in the league that year with the evidence that demonstrates he wasn't even the best player on his own team. This isn't to say that contemporary opinion is worthless, or necessarily wrong, but it's not gospel either.

Beyond the scope of this thread, but not unrelated to my point is the observation that the above is exponentially more true for All Star selections/appearances than for end of year awards.

[Los Bravos]

Do you think any of the 2-time odd men out are Hall-worthy?

I'm on record here (frequently) as being in favor of Murphy's election. I'm also quite frequently on record about how I feel regarding PED abusers, so I'm a no on Gonzalez. I'm not there on Maris but his case is growing on me and has been for the last few years. I'll probably get there sooner rather than later.

[willshad]

LB is correct: if a guy is the best player in the league at least twice, he's the type of candidate you have to find reasons not to support. I phrased that slightly differently that what's being asked here because, while winning an MVP Award multiple times is impressive, the MVP Award is evidence of opinion, not evidence of performance. It does hold sway for me, but I am careful not to conflate the 1961 AL MVP voters' opinion that Maris was the "most valuable" player in the league that year with the evidence that demonstrates he wasn't even the best player on his own team. This isn't to say that contemporary opinion is worthless, or necessarily wrong, but it's not gospel either.

Beyond the scope of this thread, but not unrelated to my point is the observation that the above is exponentially more true for All Star selections/appearances than for end of year awards.

A HOF player should at least have several seasons where he had an 'MVP type' of season. Whether he actually wins any or not is based as much on luck as anything else. For instance, Dale Murphy could have easily won MVP in 1987, giving him three..would that have made him a better player, or an 'automatic induction'? What if he had won also in 1984 and 1985, giving him a whopping FIVE MVP awards? Would this make him any better?

I think MVP shares are much better to look at than actual MVP wins. Then, we see that Murphy is a good but not great 77th all time, which is an area where a guy may or may not be inducted into the HOF, but probably not.

[Yuri89]

A HOF player should at least have several seasons where he had an 'MVP type' of season. Whether he actually wins any or not is based as much on luck as anything else. For instance, Dale Murphy could have easily won MVP in 1987, giving him three..would that have made him a better player, or an 'automatic induction'? What if he had won also in 1984 and 1985, giving him a whopping FIVE MVP awards? Would this make him any better?

I think MVP shares are much better to look at than actual MVP wins. Then, we see that Murphy is a good but not great 77th all time, which is an area where a guy may or may not be inducted into the HOF, but probably not.

If he is 77 all time then is hard to explain why he is not in the hall. Depending how much of the ones that has more mvp shares are outfielders like murphy. But that is another story.

Subjective or not, there are little amount of guys with 3 mvps, and all of them are in the hall, except for steroid users. And Harrper is obviously a HOF type player, hes not having flukish seasons a la yelich or bellinger.

[jalbright]

A HOF player should at least have several seasons where he had an 'MVP type' of season. Whether he actually wins any or not is based as much on luck as anything else. For instance, Dale Murphy could have easily won MVP in 1987, giving him three..would that have made him a better player, or an 'automatic induction'? What if he had won also in 1984 and 1985, giving him a whopping FIVE MVP awards? Would this make him any better?

I think MVP shares are much better to look at than actual MVP wins. Then, we see that Murphy is a good but not great 77th all time, which is an area where a guy may or may not be inducted into the HOF, but probably not.

Yuri89 responded

If he is 77 all time then is hard to explain why he is not in the hall. Depending how much of the ones that has more mvp shares are outfielders like murphy. But that is another story.

Subjective or not, there are little amount of guys with 3 mvps, and all of them are in the hall, except for steroid users. And Harrper is obviously a HOF type player,play not habing flukish seasons a la yelich or bellinger.

willashad is correct that MVP shares is superior to simple MVP wins. I think it is undeniable that Dale Murphy is closer to 77th than he is to the top 30, which is where he is based on wins. Neither is the final word, or Ruth or Cobb or Speaker or other stars before 1920 wouldn't belong. A guy can be a HOFer without winning an award, especially, if as willshad notes, he had several MVP type seasons. Juan Marichal picked the wrong seasons to have great years in terms of winning the Cy Young Award, for instance. He was damn good, but his competition was better.

I guess I agree with Yuri that 77th is probably good enough if that was the end of the story Accounting for the fact early guys were not considered after they won one is an issue we need to consider. Murphy would have been inducted already if he hadn't dropped off so precipitously. He's close enough that even enough of his skeptics like myself admit that with a more normal decline phase for a player of his caliber, we would support him. There's enough of us like that to put him over the top given that alternate ending to his career.