Options
David Wright vs. Don Mattingly
PaulMaul
Posts: 4,709 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Curious what the experts think about this matchup. Both offensively and as overall players (obviously Don has the edge as a defender).
0
PaulMaul
Posts: 4,709 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
Pretty comparable.
Mattingly played a bit longer, but he wasn't very good those last couple years. Slight edge to Mattingly for longevity.
At his peak, Mattingly was better than Wright at his peak, but not by a huge margin. Moderate edge to Mattingly for peak.
In his non-peak years, Wright was better than Mattingly in Mattingly's non-peak years; let's say that cancels out Mattingly's edge for longevity.
It's not obvious to me that Mattingly deserves an edge as a defender. He was a very good first baseman, but very good first basemen just don't add that much value. Wright was a good enough third baseman, and probably added more value (compared to replacement) than Mattingly. If there's an edge either way, it's slight, and I'm inclined to just call it a wash.
Based solely on peak offense, I would give the edge to Mattingly, but I could construct a decent case that it's Wright who deserves the slight nod over Mattingly. They're very close.
Mattingly
Donnie Baseball was the best player in the game for three seasons. David Wright was never that for one.
Also, what PSA 10 do you want to own? A '84 Donruss, Topps, Fleer Mattingly or a David Wright anything? lol
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
@softparade Kind of tough to compare cards from 1984 and 2005....
Would say that Mattingly was definitely a more powerful hitter until his injury problems turned him from a great to a slightly above average player.
Wright was a very good player 6 of his first 8 seasons and then dropped off to an above average player.
Dallas' post is a good one, in the final results they were about equal.
I don't care about their card values, has nothing to do with the OP imo.
When was that?
That's why I lol'd
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
On value I agree, on demand? No. Will never agree. The continued huge demand for Mattingly cards highlights fan sentiment. You don't find that with any David Wright card. It matters.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Mattingly is more popular and his rookie cards were produced in lesser numbers. That is obvious.
I took it that the comparison was about their baseball abilities, since there is NO comparison when discussing their cards.
The 1984 Donrus card is iconic.
The original post had nothing to do with their cards or popularity.
You’re right. I’m derailing this with card talk. Mattingly was unbelievable in ‘84, ‘85, and 86. That’s long enough ago for a lot of people to not have witnessed it and unable to have that perspective. Sucks getting old lol
I digress...
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
His stats from 1984-1987 are great.
Mattingly had a slightly better peak as Dallas mentioned, but I'd say they are about even, too. I'd take a good fielding 3B over a better fielding 1B, unless it's Keith Hernandez.
Both players share the unfortunate designation of careers cut short by injury and both players were on pace for HOF careers prior to that.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Yeah, but he wasn't the best player in baseball.
From 1984 through to June 1987 when he hurt his back Mattingly was absolutely and undeniably in that discussion.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
He's in the discussion, but I don't think he was the best player. The best player for that four-year period, IMO, was Tim Raines. The best hitter (excluding baserunning value) was probably Mattingly.
Boggs was right there, even without the HRs.
Boggs was better, as was Rickey.
Raines, Boggs, and Mattingly, in some order, were the best three players in 1984-1987; nobody else is in the conversation. For best hitter, Boggs and Mattingly remain in the conversation (and dominate it), but Murphy and Gwynn at least deserve a mention.
I don't see how Henderson gets in either conversation; he was great in 1984-1986, but he missed too much of 1987. {But if you look at 1984-1986 instead, the three best players remain Raines, Boggs and Mattingly.}
Well, the years mentioned were 84-86, so 1987 can be ignored. In those three years, Rickey had a total WAR of 22.2. That's more than Raines or Mattingly and just behind Boggs.
Back to the original question, I'll give the nod to Donnie baseball. I don't ever remember Wright having as much of an impact ever in his career as Mattingly had during that 3 year stretch. IMO Wright was very very good but a notch below Mattingly.
Question for you: who was better from 1975-1979, Jim Rice or Gene Tenace?
Rice. 75-76 Tenace was a little better, but 77-79 Rice was better. Edge goes to Rice for the 5 year period.
That's an interesting question. Both are guys whose true value is somewhat obscured because of where they played their home games. Rice is hurt because he rarely walked. Tenace is hurt because he was a very poor hitter when he was not walking. Tenace was not good defensively but he was better than Rice and played a more valuable position.
I would give Rice the edge. Although Rice is known for his extreme splits, he had years where he was very good on the road (1975, for example). And, no matter how much of a pitcher's park San Diego was, there's no excuse for getting just 43 hits all year at home, as Tenace did in 1978 when he hit just .204 at home.
That's arguable, but my question was directed at Tabe, who used WAR in a "better than" argument. Tenace had more WAR than Rice over the five year period '75 - '79. It should follow, for Tabe, that Tenace was better than Rice over that period. I just wanted him to say it.
WAR isn't perfect and doesn't do a great job comparing these two particular players. WAR overrates some players for whatever reason. Tenace is one such player.
LOL. What you say is true - WAR is very far from perfect - but the rest of what you said only makes sense if there is some other objective way to rate players correctly. And if there is some other objective way to rate players correctly, then why did you use WAR to make your Henderson comparison rather than that other way?
My intention is not to pick on you; almost everyone does the same thing. Everyone "just knows" that Rice was better than Tenace and they accept the stats that confirm their existing belief, and they reject the ones that contradict it. And the Rice/Tenace comparison just makes it really, really obvious that people do this because the fact is, there is so little difference between the value of Gene Tenace and Jim Rice that each side has numerous stats to "pick and choose" between.
I'll let it go now; thanks for playing.
I didn't know it was a kind of private duel. :-)
Rice (who you obviously think sucks) is a bit over rated, but he certainly had about 4 fabulous years it you like SLG better than OBP.
In 1977 Tenace had a higher OBP than SLG! Tenace also didn't catch all the time so his positional advantage is diminished. He was a great player in 1975 when he hit well and caught 126 games, but the next year he played more at first base.
Rice had 6 seasons with over 300 Total Bases, Tenaces' best year was '75 with 231.
I have a couple of questions for dallas regarding Tenace and WAR;
1977 and 1978 Tenace had identical OPS+ numbers and close to the same WAR.
First I am curious how his WAR goes up in 78 when he caught 28 less games and played more first base than catcher. His dWAR actually went UP!?!?!?
Seems to me his WAR should go (way) down with him going from predominantly a catcher to playing more than half his games at first base. He even played some 3B in '77 which should add a little more to his value.
Secondly his numbers for '77 were better than in '78 in almost every category, with his OPS being 23 points higher, yet OPS+ says the two years were equal. ?
Defensive WAR is at best random and at worst absolute crap. So my answer to your question is "I don't know", but my advice is to never look at dWAR.
NL OPS was .724 in '77 and then dropped to .692 in '78. I don't know why that happened, but Tenace's position relative to league average stayed the same. With his hitting about the same in both years, his Win Shares (Bill James' stat that allows us to throw WAR in the trash) were 25 in 1977 and 22 in 1978, consistent with your expectation that his fielding was more valuable in '77 than in '78.
And while we're on the subject, Tenace had 125 Win Shares for 1975-1979 and Rice had 127. If you look at any comprehensive stat that has any value at all, Rice and Tenace come out as essentially equal; even WAR got that right. Which of the two one thinks is better than the other will come down to how you choose, or not, to account for Tenace being a catcher for most of his career, and Rice being a DH for a good chunk of his career. Tenace has a shortish career - as catchers do - so he lags Rice in career totals (of WAR, Win Shares, WPA, etc.), but his per game stats are better. You are not wrong if you think Rice was better than Tenace, and you are not wrong if you think Tenace was better than Rice. But you are wrong if you think either was very much better than the other.
Sounds fair enough. Thanks.
It's easy - a highly objective "WAR feels like a valid tool when comparing Mattingly, et al but not Rice & Tenace". This is half because I think WAR overrates Tenace and half because I feel like the comparison between 1B/3B/LF than C/DH/LF.
Yep, it's inconsistent and cherry-picking. Shrug.
As I have said (too often) in the past, the newer "made up" stats don't always make sense and sometimes are just not good, or aren't a useful tool in comparing players.
Is Win Shares better than WAR? Always? Sometimes?
In the comparison of Rice and Tenace, it looks to me like some numbers are over valued for Tenace and Rice gets penalized a bit more than he "should".
I remember those Oakland teams and Tenace was a very nice player along with guys like Joe Rudi and Sal Bando but they weren't guys that really hurt you hitting the ball. What a GREAT team they had! Reggie was pretty good too.
Rice on the other hand was impressive hitting the ball, but because he played in Boston, he gets ripped. In his big three seasons 1977-79 he did crush the ball at home, but from 1980-86 he hit more HR on the road than at home and his OPS averaged about .060 less on the road, not that big a difference.
Certainly Tenace was a much more valuable defensive player when he played catcher, but he only caught over 94 games in a season 4 times in his 8 years where he played more than 1/2 the games scheduled.
And it's that "looks like" that I'm crusading against. It is a fact that a huge majority of people who saw them play "just know" that Rice was better, based entirely on what things "look like". But there is a difference between what things "look like" and what they actually are. In the Rice/Tenace comparison, I think the biggest factor is that people value the RBI multiple times more than the run scored, and infinitely more than the runner advanced. Gene Tenace got on base a ton; not just more often than Rice, but more often than Willie Mays, George Sisler and Pete Rose. And when he wasn't walking, it's not like he was a slouch at the plate, with a slugging average higher than Joe Morgan's....
... and Tenace did that where offense went to die in the 1970's, Oakland Coliseum, where every run was worth more than it was anywhere else. Sal Bando was a great hitter; Joe Rudi was a great hitter, and Reggie Jackson is one of the most underrated hitters of my lifetime. They hurt everyone hitting the ball, which is why they won the WS every year. Their pitching was "meh", but in that ballpark "meh" pitchers looked like stars and one of them (barf) even tricked the world into believing he was a HOFer.
When he played, Gene Tenace was worth more on offense and on defense than Jim RIce. He just was, and every single stat that recognizes the chasm between Fenway and Oakland shows it. He didn't play every game and he didn't play very long, and that is the only reason that it remains an open question whether he was better than Rice over the entire course of their careers.
P.S. Win Shares is always better than WAR. They are fairly similar measuring offense, but defensive WAR is no better than a random number generator and defensive Win Shares - though far from perfect - is the best defensive stat available.