Saying where he finished in voting is pointless to me because the voting system is flawed. That was kind of the point. It's voted on by mostly relics. Even the year Howard won it, it probably should have been Pujols again, but Howard's HR's swayed the voting.
But in those years, regardless of where he finished, there were better players. Whether he was #13 behind 3 players that deserved to be ahead of him and nine who didn't, he still didn't deserve to win. There was only one year where he legitimately could have won and that was the year that J-Roll won, but like I said, David Wright beat him in every major category, even the almighty WAR. So like I said, he never was an MVP. Ever. He played well, but in every one of his peak seasons, there was AT LEAST one person better. So if he finished 2nd or 22nd, he still was never an MVP. Flawed voting or not, there is nothing you can say to me that would make believe he should have ever won an MVP (unless you remove the players who had better years than him...)
I don't understand how anyone at this point, with the wealth of statistics available can stand by the baseball voting system. Especially on something like GG.
See above. Advanced stats or not, old stats or not, eye test or something else, he never would have won an MVP in those years where he received votes. As far as GG goes, yeah the voting is flawed. No doubt. And frankly I wouldn't base my vote on # of GG. But they count for something. Sure, there are times when guys don't deserve them, but the majority of the time they get the right people. Look at the guys to whom Chase lost...Castillo, Vina, Hudson, Phillips. All these guys are good fielders. Some better than others, some arguably better or worse than Chase.
Judging from this and prior posts about this I'm not sure you understand that Utley plays second base. From 2005-2009 he had 25 more WAR than the next closest 2nd baseman. Over that same time frame there is no larger gap between the best and next best player at any position. His offensive WAR was almost 4 times the amount of the next closest 2B.
He was 2nd in offensive WAR (just a compilation of batting statistics) and WAR during that stretch to only Pujols, who is legit one of the greatest hitters of all time. Like the elite of the elite, elite for even a HOF player.
I'm admittedly not an advanced stats guy, but let's go with this. He dominated WAR for five years. Then this goes back to the injuries issue. HOF is for the best of the best, not guys who could have been the best of the best.
I don't disagree that he likely won't make it, but you're severely downplaying how good he was, based on mostly antiquated lines of thinking. All the things you're saying are the reasons (aside from injuries) that he likely won't make the Hall, but they're also the reasons a lot of people hate the baseball HOF voters.
I don't think I'm downplaying anything. He was a great Phillie, a great second baseman, and a great all around baseball player (hell, by all accounts he is even a great human being). But the HOF should be reserved for the greatest players of all time. Guys that you saw play day in and day out and were blown away. As I've noted, there are guys in the HOF that don't fit that description IMO, but they are in there, so Chase has a shot. But I would not vote for him. Hate hte HOF system all you want, the system works for the most part. I'm of the opinion that it is better to deny access (be it for steroids or some other reason) for a couple of guys that should be in, than it is to allow access to guys who shouldn't be in there.
"Small Hall" I believe they call it. Like I said, you let in Utley then the conversation moves to other 2Bs like Kinsler, Castillo, Polanco. Guys with arguably better or comparable stats and careers who very clearly are not HOF worthy.
