@Tabe said:
Creating an arbitrary standard of 5.7 WAR explains your incorrect conclusion regarding the number of good seasons Belle had. It's silly to argue that his 1999 season where he hit 37 homers with an n OPS+ of 143 was not "good" despite the WAR of 3.4. Same with 1993 with his 38 homers and OPS+ of 145.
I'll avoid arbitrary standards, and simply list actual Win Shares for Belle and some others, from best season down to 10th best:
Belle: 37, 31, 30, 27, 24, 24, 18, 16, 15, 15
First, let's start with Biggio, a player many here thought got in to the HOF because he was a "compiler", and wasn't actually very good.
Biggio: 38, 35, 32, 32, 31, 29, 26, 26, 25, 20
Yeah, he compiled some ordinary seasons beyond that, but while he played the prime of his career, he beat Belle in each and every one of their top 10 seasons, and Belle has nothing beyond that, ordinary or otherwise. Silly comparison, Biggio was in a different value universe than Albert Belle.
Or Will Clark, who isn't in the HOF.
Clark: 44, 37, 34, 28, 25, 25, 20, 19, 19, 18
Again, he beats Belle in each and every season. Will Clark was a lot better than Albert Belle. A LOT better.
Jimmy Wynn?
Wynn: 37, 32, 32, 31, 28, 28, 28, 21, 18, 17
Belle ekes out one tie, but otherwise Wynn also takes all of the top 10. Jimmy Wynn was a lot better than Albert Belle. A LOT better.
So far, I've only compared Belle to players that were a mile and a half better than he was. Who was closer?
Murcer wins 6 out of 10, but Belle wins 4. Murcer wins the Top 10 total by 8, and has a couple more good enough seasons beyond that. Bobby Murcer was better than Albert Belle, but not a lot better.
Roy White: 34, 29, 29, 26, 26, 22, 21, 19, 17, 15
White wins 4, Belle wins 5, with one tie. Total for their top 10 is White 238, Belle 237 - let's call that a tie. White played only one more season of any value (Belle none). Within the limits of statistical comparison, Albert Belle is effectively the equal of Roy White. {Note that Jim Rice is also 4-5-1 vs. Belle, loses the total, but has 2 more good enough seasons. He is also effectively equal to Belle and White.}
Amos Otis: 29, 29, 27, 25, 25, 23, 22, 22, 18, 17
Here we have a dead heat: Belle 5, Otis 5. Total for the top 10 - also a dead heat. By virtue of Belle's peak, I'll break the tie and say Belle was a very little bit better than Amos Otis.
That we are talking about Albert Belle being a HOFer is depressing. Just depressing. Otis, White, and Murcer were all fine players. Albert Belle was a fine player, too. But none of them was worthy of carrying Jimmy Wynn's jockstrap, and none of them are close to being HOFers. Not. Even. Close.
Toy Cannon!
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
People crapping on Albert Belle continually fail to recognize his career ending injury at a young age. He didn’t have time to compile the stats over a long career. Maybe that is a disqualification to many. But to argue he wasn’t good enough from 93-00 is just silly. He was an absolutely elite hitter, and did things that still haven’t been matched.
@Centauri said:
People crapping on Albert Belle continually fail to recognize his career ending injury at a young age. He didn’t have time to compile the stats over a long career. Maybe that is a disqualification to many. But to argue he wasn’t good enough from 93-00 is just silly. He was an absolutely elite hitter, and did things that still haven’t been matched.
He wasn't young, he was 33 his last full season, and his last full season was a dud. It is very unlikely any season he had played after that would have cracked his top 10, and he would remain a mile and a half behind Jimmy Wynn, and the effective equal of Roy White and Amos Otis. He was a very good hitter for a short time; so were a whole lot of players who never sniffed the HOF. He may very well get in given the atrocities the VC has committed in the past, but make no mistake, Albert Belle being admitted to the HOF would be another atrocity.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@GreenSneakers said:
I’m not seeing the argument for Hernandez over Mattingly.
I agree completely!
They ended up with similar totals. Hernandez beats Mattingly in some of the new metrics.
Mattingly came in destroying AL pitching until his injury deprived him of his power.
Don had 4 seasons of OPS above .917 Hernandez had one and just barely. Looking at SLG and Total Bases, Don had monster years that Keith couldn't touch.
Keith walked more than Don and hit more Triples. Both were superb defenders.
Can you even IMAGINE having this debate had Mattingly not hurt his back?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
It’s hard for me to understand why Belle has gotten multiple chances on the various era committees when he is a confirmed cheater (corked bats) and notorious malcontent with a short career who barely got any support from the writers. I honestly think he’s there to fill out the ballot with someone who won’t get votes to boost the chances of the folks the Hall wants in. If they put the 8 Most deserving on the ballot votes would get split, nobody would get in, and the Hall definitely does not want that outcome.
Here's my take: induct Bonds & Clemens into the HOF. They're two of the greatest players in baseball history and their stats / accomplishments dwarf the other candidates being considered.
Their penance (for their "steroid-taint") was waiting ten years and not being elected by the BBWAA.
With esteem respect to Dallasactuary and his research on Win Shares to compare Albert Belle to other players, both in and out of the HOF. You make a compelling argument against Belle, but I think that OPS+ should be considered as part of the evidence since it is such a comprehensive hitting statistic factoring in ball park biases.
Belle ranks 54 All-Time in OPS+! Those ahead of him are almost all HOFers, some active, some yet to be voted on. He ranks higher than Will Clark using this metric. Those behind him drop off dramatically in terms of HOF status. One can argue that Belle forms that line between obvious HOFer and very good player. This means that multiple data sets must be used to see if he makes it over that line. I have not studied Belle as intensely as some other players, but at least I can understand why he is part of the conversation.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
@paleocards said:
Here's my take: induct Bonds & Clemens into the HOF. They're two of the greatest players in baseball history and their stats / accomplishments dwarf the other candidates being considered.
Their penance (for their "steroid-taint") was waiting ten years and not being elected by the BBWAA.
Clemens could go in as far as I'm concerned, but Bonds.....never.
Bonds could have been known as a legitimate GOAT candidate as an all around player, but there's no way any player puts up those SLG numbers the last 8 years of a 22 year career.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Centauri said:
People crapping on Albert Belle continually fail to recognize his career ending injury at a young age. He didn’t have time to compile the stats over a long career. Maybe that is a disqualification to many. But to argue he wasn’t good enough from 93-00 is just silly. He was an absolutely elite hitter, and did things that still haven’t been matched.
He wasn't young, he was 33 his last full season, and his last full season was a dud. It is very unlikely any season he had played after that would have cracked his top 10,
He had a positive WAR his final season while, you know, playing with a career-ending injury. Hardly a "dud". Yeah, he was 33 but he clearly had more productive years ahead of him without the injury.
Just for fun, there are 39 players with 9 or more seasons of 28 home runs, 278 with 8 or more OPS+ of 123. If this is the best argument you can bring for Belle's "good" seasons, I suggest you don't have much of a case.
You made my case for me and don't even realize it.
You're asking us to consider a guy elite whose only value was as a slugger, yet was only 72nd in career home runs and 54th in OPS+ in a relatively short career.
He does. As I have said, many, many times before, OPS+ is a fantastic stat but it only measures what it measures. If being a great baseball player was the same thing as having a high OPS+, then I would not be arguing against Belle. But they aren't the same thing.
What OPS+ does not measure:
The biggie - length of career. You can split Will Clark's career into one with the same number of PA as Belle, and the same OPS+, and a second career of 1,600 PA with an OPS+ of about 110. Albert Belle was NOT better at what OPS+ measures than Will Clark; Will Clark hit just as well as Belle for as long as Belle, PLUS he played longer.
Fielding - if Will Clark touched Albert Belle with one of his Gold Gloves it would burn him like Holy Water burns a demon.
GIDP - Belle had a 162 game average of 20; Clark averaged 8. Take 12 singles a year away from Belle and what happens to his OPS+? It drops 10 points, to 134, that's what it does. I know DPs get ignored all the time, but they shouldn't be. I'll amend what I said a little earlier. Will Clark hit BETTER than Albert Belle for as long as Belle, PLUS he played longer.
Baserunning - just mentioned to fill out the list; not a big plus or minus for Belle or Clark.
Will Clark was a much, much better baseball player than Albert Belle. I will stick to Murcer, White, and Otis as Belle's peer group. Belle hit better than all of them, but he wasn't a better baseball player.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@GreenSneakers said:
I’m not seeing the argument for Hernandez over Mattingly.
I agree completely!
They ended up with similar totals. Hernandez beats Mattingly in some of the new metrics.
Mattingly came in destroying AL pitching until his injury deprived him of his power.
Don had 4 seasons of OPS above .917 Hernandez had one and just barely. Looking at SLG and Total Bases, Don had monster years that Keith couldn't touch.
Keith walked more than Don and hit more Triples. Both were superb defenders.
Can you even IMAGINE having this debate had Mattingly not hurt his back?
@GreenSneakers said:
I’m not seeing the argument for Hernandez over Mattingly.
I agree completely!
They ended up with similar totals. Hernandez beats Mattingly in some of the new metrics.
Mattingly came in destroying AL pitching until his injury deprived him of his power.
Don had 4 seasons of OPS above .917 Hernandez had one and just barely. Looking at SLG and Total Bases, Don had monster years that Keith couldn't touch.
Keith walked more than Don and hit more Triples. Both were superb defenders.
Can you even IMAGINE having this debate had Mattingly not hurt his back?
So, just for fun, I compared Mattingly's four best consecutive seasons to Hernandez from 1979 to 1982.
Pretty similar, right? I mean Mattingly was a distinctly better hitter in his top four consecutive seasons but, especially when you take into account that Mattingly played in a noticeably better hitter's league, it's not a huge divergence.
But here's the thing: that's pretty much all Mattingly had. Now take a look at Mattingly compared to Hernandez' next four years,
Hernandez is still a really good player, but now Mattingly is much better. So here's the thing: Hernandez did it twice. Mattingly had the better offensive four years, but Hernandez kept at a high level longer. In fact, for a career Hernandez has a 128 OPS+ compared to 127 for Mattingly. So a slightly higher OPS+ over about 800 extra PA. So there's an argument, but it really doesn't show a clear separation.
For that we have to go to defense. If Mattingly was a "superb" defender, there is no evidence of it, or rather it's not like saying Arenado and Robinson are both superb 3Bs, but rather Brett and Robinson. Brett was notably better than average, but no comparison to Robinson.
Just for fun, there are 39 players with 9 or more seasons of 28 home runs, 278 with 8 or more OPS+ of 123. If this is the best argument you can bring for Belle's "good" seasons, I suggest you don't have much of a case.
You made my case for me and don't even realize it.
You're asking us to consider a guy elite whose only value was as a slugger, yet was only 72nd in career home runs and 54th in OPS+ in a relatively short career.
Again making my case and not realizing it.
So in home runs Belle is roughly in a group with the likes of Hodges, Rice, Baines, Edmonds, Aramis Ramirez, and the Howard brothers (Frank and Ryan). He's considerably behind Konerko, Galarraga, and Kingman. Good players. By HR all by themselves, not close to HoFers.
OPS+ we have Kevin Mitchell, Lance Berkman about the same with Cravath and Keller better. Good supporting numbers for the HoF, but not much when that's the whole argument.
@GreenSneakers said:
I’m not seeing the argument for Hernandez over Mattingly.
I agree completely!
They ended up with similar totals. Hernandez beats Mattingly in some of the new metrics.
Mattingly came in destroying AL pitching until his injury deprived him of his power.
Don had 4 seasons of OPS above .917 Hernandez had one and just barely. Looking at SLG and Total Bases, Don had monster years that Keith couldn't touch.
Keith walked more than Don and hit more Triples. Both were superb defenders.
Can you even IMAGINE having this debate had Mattingly not hurt his back?
@GreenSneakers said:
I’m not seeing the argument for Hernandez over Mattingly.
I agree completely!
They ended up with similar totals. Hernandez beats Mattingly in some of the new metrics.
Mattingly came in destroying AL pitching until his injury deprived him of his power.
Don had 4 seasons of OPS above .917 Hernandez had one and just barely. Looking at SLG and Total Bases, Don had monster years that Keith couldn't touch.
Keith walked more than Don and hit more Triples. Both were superb defenders.
Can you even IMAGINE having this debate had Mattingly not hurt his back?
So, just for fun, I compared Mattingly's four best consecutive seasons to Hernandez from 1979 to 1982.
Pretty similar, right? I mean Mattingly was a distinctly better hitter in his top four consecutive seasons but, especially when you take into account that Mattingly played in a noticeably better hitter's league, it's not a huge divergence.
But here's the thing: that's pretty much all Mattingly had. Now take a look at Mattingly compared to Hernandez' next four years,
Hernandez is still a really good player, but now Mattingly is much better. So here's the thing: Hernandez did it twice. Mattingly had the better offensive four years, but Hernandez kept at a high level longer. In fact, for a career Hernandez has a 128 OPS+ compared to 127 for Mattingly. So a slightly higher OPS+ over about 800 extra PA. So there's an argument, but it really doesn't show a clear separation.
For that we have to go to defense. If Mattingly was a "superb" defender, there is no evidence of it, or rather it's not like saying Arenado and Robinson are both superb 3Bs, but rather Brett and Robinson. Brett was notably better than average, but no comparison to Robinson.
Mattingly before he gets injured dwarfs Hernandez.
Don then has a couple of down years and then bounces back, somewhat, albeit with less power.
Hernandez never had any power. He had one season with over .500 SLG.
Mattingly may not have deserved all NINE of his GG's, Hrbek probably should have gotten a couple. Mattingly, like Hernandez was a superb fielder and much better hitter pre injury and about as good after.
Hernandez did walk a lot more....... that's really it, and triples. Don drove in more runs and scored more, while averaging 50 more TB per year.
No denying comparing their entire careers makes it close.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
So in home runs Belle is roughly in a group with the likes of Hodges, Rice, Baines, Edmonds, Aramis Ramirez, and the Howard brothers (Frank and Ryan). He's considerably behind Konerko, Galarraga, and Kingman. Good players. By HR all by themselves, not close to HoFers.
Weird to compare career totals of guys who played full careers to Belle's total as if that's somehow a knock against Belle, whose career - again - was shortened by injury. Baines played ELEVEN (or twelve, depending how you count 1989) more full seasons than Belle. Rice is in the Hall with fewer home runs AND Belle was better anyway.
OPS+ we have Kevin Mitchell, Lance Berkman about the same with Cravath and Keller better. Good supporting numbers for the HoF, but not much when that's the whole argument.
It's not the whole argument. 103 extra base hits in a season, something that hadn't been done in a fully integrated league - and did it in a shortened season. Led in slugging twice, total bases 3 times, runs once. Lost probably 20+ homers due to strikes. One of a very small group to have a 50-hr and 200-hit season. Only guy to have 50 homers & 50 doubles in the same season. And so on.
@ElvisP said:
They should change the name to HOPG(Hall of pretty good). 👍
That ship has sailed, half of the inductees the last 10 years should not have made it. The same thing has happened in the NFL. They almost need a special section of the Hall for only the best players.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
@GreenSneakers said:
I’m not seeing the argument for Hernandez over Mattingly.
I agree completely!
They ended up with similar totals. Hernandez beats Mattingly in some of the new metrics.
Mattingly came in destroying AL pitching until his injury deprived him of his power.
Don had 4 seasons of OPS above .917 Hernandez had one and just barely. Looking at SLG and Total Bases, Don had monster years that Keith couldn't touch.
Keith walked more than Don and hit more Triples. Both were superb defenders.
Can you even IMAGINE having this debate had Mattingly not hurt his back?
Hernandez beats him in most of the metrics. What would Mattingly's numbers look like if he hit in the Old Busch and Shea Stadium? Hernandez was the best fielding first basemen of all time - not simply a superb defender. Big difference. Also won 2 WS with 2 different teams and was a key player for both.
@GreenSneakers said:
I’m not seeing the argument for Hernandez over Mattingly.
I agree completely!
They ended up with similar totals. Hernandez beats Mattingly in some of the new metrics.
Mattingly came in destroying AL pitching until his injury deprived him of his power.
Don had 4 seasons of OPS above .917 Hernandez had one and just barely. Looking at SLG and Total Bases, Don had monster years that Keith couldn't touch.
Keith walked more than Don and hit more Triples. Both were superb defenders.
Can you even IMAGINE having this debate had Mattingly not hurt his back?
Hernandez beats him in most of the metrics. What would Mattingly's numbers look like if he hit in the Old Busch and Shea Stadium? Hernandez was the best fielding first basemen of all time - not simply a superb defender. Big difference. Also won 2 WS with 2 different teams and was a key player for both.
Who knows how Mattingly would have hit somewhere else?
Nobody else in the MLB was hitting for average AND power like Don 1984-87......not even close.
WS victories are team accomplishments and meaningless in a player comparison.
The only reason there's any comparison at all, is because Mattingly injured his back.
Hernandez was the Harold Baines of this comparison. Not as good, but played well for a long period.
.430 SLG Firstbasemen are not that good.
Even with the two years after Don's injury, he ends up with a .470 SLG.
FAR more ability than Keith, injury makes the careers look similar.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I give up. Anyone who thinks Hernandez has anything in common with Baines has either never watched baseball or didn't understand what he saw. By the way, Bert Blyleven was also better than Catfish Hunter.
@GreenSneakers said:
I’m not seeing the argument for Hernandez over Mattingly.
I agree completely!
They ended up with similar totals. Hernandez beats Mattingly in some of the new metrics.
Mattingly came in destroying AL pitching until his injury deprived him of his power.
Don had 4 seasons of OPS above .917 Hernandez had one and just barely. Looking at SLG and Total Bases, Don had monster years that Keith couldn't touch.
Keith walked more than Don and hit more Triples. Both were superb defenders.
Can you even IMAGINE having this debate had Mattingly not hurt his back?
Hernandez beats him in most of the metrics. What would Mattingly's numbers look like if he hit in the Old Busch and Shea Stadium? Hernandez was the best fielding first basemen of all time - not simply a superb defender. Big difference. Also won 2 WS with 2 different teams and was a key player for both.
Who knows how Mattingly would have hit somewhere else?
Nobody else in the MLB was hitting for average AND power like Don 1984-87......not even close.
WS victories are team accomplishments and meaningless in a player comparison.
The only reason there's any comparison at all, is because Mattingly injured his back.
Hernandez was the Harold Baines of this comparison. Not as good, but played well for a long period.
.430 SLG Firstbasemen are not that good.
Even with the two years after Don's injury, he ends up with a .470 SLG.
FAR more ability than Keith, injury makes the careers look similar.
Yeah. You are just an irrational Yankee Fan, He wasn't even the best player on his team. Ricky was, Relax! And 84-87, look at George Brett - The 85 MVP.
@GreenSneakers said:
I’m not seeing the argument for Hernandez over Mattingly.
I agree completely!
They ended up with similar totals. Hernandez beats Mattingly in some of the new metrics.
Mattingly came in destroying AL pitching until his injury deprived him of his power.
Don had 4 seasons of OPS above .917 Hernandez had one and just barely. Looking at SLG and Total Bases, Don had monster years that Keith couldn't touch.
Keith walked more than Don and hit more Triples. Both were superb defenders.
Can you even IMAGINE having this debate had Mattingly not hurt his back?
Hernandez beats him in most of the metrics. What would Mattingly's numbers look like if he hit in the Old Busch and Shea Stadium? Hernandez was the best fielding first basemen of all time - not simply a superb defender. Big difference. Also won 2 WS with 2 different teams and was a key player for both.
Who knows how Mattingly would have hit somewhere else?
Nobody else in the MLB was hitting for average AND power like Don 1984-87......not even close.
WS victories are team accomplishments and meaningless in a player comparison.
The only reason there's any comparison at all, is because Mattingly injured his back.
Hernandez was the Harold Baines of this comparison. Not as good, but played well for a long period.
.430 SLG Firstbasemen are not that good.
Even with the two years after Don's injury, he ends up with a .470 SLG.
FAR more ability than Keith, injury makes the careers look similar.
Yeah. You are just an irrational Yankee Fan, He wasn't even the best player on his team. Ricky was, Relax! And 84-87, look at George Brett - The 85 MVP.
Not a Yankee fan AT ALL!
Not discussing who was the best player on the teams, not relevant.
Brett had a better '85, otherwise Mattingly much more power.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@daltex said:
I give up. Anyone who thinks Hernandez has anything in common with Baines has either never watched baseball or didn't understand what he saw. By the way, Bert Blyleven was also better than Catfish Hunter.
That was a " tongue in cheek" comment about Baines, referring to his being a good, but not great, hitter fo a long period of time.
Bert was a terrific pitcher, Catfish had a nice run as well. What's your point?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Tabe said:
Creating an arbitrary standard of 5.7 WAR explains your incorrect conclusion regarding the number of good seasons Belle had. It's silly to argue that his 1999 season where he hit 37 homers with an n OPS+ of 143 was not "good" despite the WAR of 3.4. Same with 1993 with his 38 homers and OPS+ of 145.
I'll avoid arbitrary standards, and simply list actual Win Shares for Belle and some others, from best season down to 10th best:
Belle: 37, 31, 30, 27, 24, 24, 18, 16, 15, 15
First, let's start with Biggio, a player many here thought got in to the HOF because he was a "compiler", and wasn't actually very good.
Biggio: 38, 35, 32, 32, 31, 29, 26, 26, 25, 20
Yeah, he compiled some ordinary seasons beyond that, but while he played the prime of his career, he beat Belle in each and every one of their top 10 seasons, and Belle has nothing beyond that, ordinary or otherwise. Silly comparison, Biggio was in a different value universe than Albert Belle.
Or Will Clark, who isn't in the HOF.
Clark: 44, 37, 34, 28, 25, 25, 20, 19, 19, 18
Again, he beats Belle in each and every season. Will Clark was a lot better than Albert Belle. A LOT better.
Jimmy Wynn?
Wynn: 37, 32, 32, 31, 28, 28, 28, 21, 18, 17
Belle ekes out one tie, but otherwise Wynn also takes all of the top 10. Jimmy Wynn was a lot better than Albert Belle. A LOT better.
So far, I've only compared Belle to players that were a mile and a half better than he was. Who was closer?
Murcer wins 6 out of 10, but Belle wins 4. Murcer wins the Top 10 total by 8, and has a couple more good enough seasons beyond that. Bobby Murcer was better than Albert Belle, but not a lot better.
Roy White: 34, 29, 29, 26, 26, 22, 21, 19, 17, 15
White wins 4, Belle wins 5, with one tie. Total for their top 10 is White 238, Belle 237 - let's call that a tie. White played only one more season of any value (Belle none). Within the limits of statistical comparison, Albert Belle is effectively the equal of Roy White. {Note that Jim Rice is also 4-5-1 vs. Belle, loses the total, but has 2 more good enough seasons. He is also effectively equal to Belle and White.}
Amos Otis: 29, 29, 27, 25, 25, 23, 22, 22, 18, 17
Here we have a dead heat: Belle 5, Otis 5. Total for the top 10 - also a dead heat. By virtue of Belle's peak, I'll break the tie and say Belle was a very little bit better than Amos Otis.
That we are talking about Albert Belle being a HOFer is depressing. Just depressing. Otis, White, and Murcer were all fine players. Albert Belle was a fine player, too. But none of them was worthy of carrying Jimmy Wynn's jockstrap, and none of them are close to being HOFers. Not. Even. Close.
@GreenSneakers said:
I’m not seeing the argument for Hernandez over Mattingly.
I agree completely!
They ended up with similar totals. Hernandez beats Mattingly in some of the new metrics.
Mattingly came in destroying AL pitching until his injury deprived him of his power.
Don had 4 seasons of OPS above .917 Hernandez had one and just barely. Looking at SLG and Total Bases, Don had monster years that Keith couldn't touch.
Keith walked more than Don and hit more Triples. Both were superb defenders.
Can you even IMAGINE having this debate had Mattingly not hurt his back?
Hernandez beats him in most of the metrics. What would Mattingly's numbers look like if he hit in the Old Busch and Shea Stadium? Hernandez was the best fielding first basemen of all time - not simply a superb defender. Big difference. Also won 2 WS with 2 different teams and was a key player for both.
Who knows how Mattingly would have hit somewhere else?
Nobody else in the MLB was hitting for average AND power like Don 1984-87......not even close.
WS victories are team accomplishments and meaningless in a player comparison.
The only reason there's any comparison at all, is because Mattingly injured his back.
Hernandez was the Harold Baines of this comparison. Not as good, but played well for a long period.
.430 SLG Firstbasemen are not that good.
Even with the two years after Don's injury, he ends up with a .470 SLG.
FAR more ability than Keith, injury makes the careers look similar.
Yeah. You are just an irrational Yankee Fan, He wasn't even the best player on his team. Ricky was, Relax! And 84-87, look at George Brett - The 85 MVP.
Henderson's WAR led the league and even Boggs' was higher than Brett's. Given both Brett and Boss played same position I think a very fair compare. At best in 1985 Brett should have been 3rd in AL MVP voting, but in actuality he came in 2nd thus he did better than he should have.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Yeah. You are just an irrational Yankee Fan, He wasn't even the best player on his team. Ricky was, Relax! And 84-87, look at George Brett - The 85 MVP.
To be fair, over that specific 4-year period Mattingly was the best Yankee. But Boggs was the best player in the AL and Tim Raines was the best player in MLB.
For context on Mattingly: he was very good from 1984-1987 earning 122 Win Shares. Raines had 134 and Boggs had 128.
122 Win Shares in a 4-year span really is very good and only very good players - players as good as or better than Mattingly - have done it.
For example:
Will Clark: 131 from 1987-1990, 140 from 1988-1991, 131 from 1989-1992
Ken Singleton: 123 from 1977-1980
Dave Parker: 124 from 1976-1979
Bobby Murcer: 126 from 1970-1973
Frank Howard: 125 from 1968-1971, 130 from 1967-1970
Dick Allen: 129 from 1965-1968, 138 from 1964-1967
Don Mattingly was in fact a very good player. But Ken Singleton was better. Top 10 Win Shares:
Mattingly does take home the 8th best season trophy, but otherwise, year in and year out, Singleton was better.
There is this persistent myth that Mattingly was "the best in baseball" or the "most feared hitter" over some period of time, and it's simply not true. I'm a big fan of Ken Singleton, and a bigger fan of Bobby Murcer - they were excellent players who don't get the recognition they deserve. I've never heard them referred to as "the best in baseball" or "most feared hitter", and I don't think they ever were. What I know for sure is that Don Mattingly was not a better baseball player than either of them. Had Don Mattingly played for the Mariners, I guarantee you we would not be discussing him today, unless it was me trying to convince people that he was actually better than they think he was.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Yeah. You are just an irrational Yankee Fan, He wasn't even the best player on his team. Ricky was, Relax! And 84-87, look at George Brett - The 85 MVP.
To be fair, over that specific 4-year period Mattingly was the best Yankee. But Boggs was the best player in the AL and Tim Raines was the best player in MLB.
For context on Mattingly: he was very good from 1984-1987 earning 122 Win Shares. Raines had 134 and Boggs had 128.
122 Win Shares in a 4-year span really is very good and only very good players - players as good as or better than Mattingly - have done it.
For example:
Will Clark: 131 from 1987-1990, 140 from 1988-1991, 131 from 1989-1992
Ken Singleton: 123 from 1977-1980
Dave Parker: 124 from 1976-1979
Bobby Murcer: 126 from 1970-1973
Frank Howard: 125 from 1968-1971, 130 from 1967-1970
Dick Allen: 129 from 1965-1968, 138 from 1964-1967
Don Mattingly was in fact a very good player. But Ken Singleton was better. Top 10 Win Shares:
Mattingly does take home the 8th best season trophy, but otherwise, year in and year out, Singleton was better.
There is this persistent myth that Mattingly was "the best in baseball" or the "most feared hitter" over some period of time, and it's simply not true. I'm a big fan of Ken Singleton, and a bigger fan of Bobby Murcer - they were excellent players who don't get the recognition they deserve. I've never heard them referred to as "the best in baseball" or "most feared hitter", and I don't think they ever were. What I know for sure is that Don Mattingly was not a better baseball player than either of them. Had Don Mattingly played for the Mariners, I guarantee you we would not be discussing him today, unless it was me trying to convince people that he was actually better than they think he was.
How about good old Keith "the best defensive player in the history of the world" Hernandez?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Good grief. It just hit me that for the first time I'm old enough to have an opinion on the Veterans Committee's decisions based on having watched the players in their prime. (I did catch the later parts of the careers of Morris, Trammell, Baines, Smith and Simmons.)
And please note that all of my comparisons are to people not in the HOF. Compare Mattingly to actual HOFers (real ones, not Harold Baines or Jim RIce) and the margin by which he loses becomes uncomfortably embarrassing. Two recent HOFers who were considered "weak" for various reasons - Ron Santo and Craig Biggio - beat Mattingly 10-0-0 and by comfortable margins in most years.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
After reading up on Win Shares, it doesn't look like a stat that should be used to compare players individual numbers.
Let's look at a batting comparison using SLG. 1st base is generally a sluggers position.
Mattingly had 4 great years with .573, .567, .559 and .537.
Hernandez's best 4 are .513, .494, .463 and .459.
Mattingly's top 7 seasons were ALL better than Hernandez's.
Similarly Don had 4 seasons of OPS over .900. .967, .939, .937 and .918.
Keith was only above .900 twice, once a nice .930, then a .902 with a big drop down to .864 and .859.
After Don's injury his OPS dropped and Keith was better, primarily because of a better OBP.
Mattingly's peak was so far above Hernandez's there's no way any stat that shows them as anywhere near equal is accurate.
Obviously Don's numbers dropped significantly for a couple of years after his injury, but he did make somewhat of a comeback hitting for average.
For a career, Hernandez was close to, or in areas, better than Mattingly, however before injury took its toll, there's really no doubt who was the FAR superior hitter.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@daltex said:
I give up. Anyone who thinks Hernandez has anything in common with Baines has either never watched baseball or didn't understand what he saw. By the way, Bert Blyleven was also better than Catfish Hunter.
That was a " tongue in cheek" comment about Baines, referring to his being a good, but not great, hitter fo a long period of time.
Bert was a terrific pitcher, Catfish had a nice run as well. What's your point?
My point is that you don't understand baseball if you persist in this kind of argument. Hernandez was a much better hitter than Baines, and any merit Baines' bat offered was taken away by his complete lack of defensive ability. So we have a hitter who played poor right field for a few years and then he went to DH with a 121 OPS+. He ends up being almost exactly league average for a very long time, not good.
I've stipulated that Mattingly was "most feared" as a hitter from 1984-87. The only player during those exact four years with more batting runs was Boggs. Here's the thing, though. Four years is too short a time to base a "great" career argument on, and Mattingly really wasn't better than a good defensive first baseman. So those four years stack up well offensively against any that Hernandez ever played. But, as stated above, Hernandez stacks up almost as well from 1979-82 offensively, and there isn't a ton of drop off from 1983-6, while Mattingly has no secondary period even close.
Mattingly had a very nice one dimensional period for a relatively short time. Hernandez was almost as good for much longer, and was also the best defensive 1B in history (not best defensive player). So Mattingly was better than Hernandez for a short time at things that Mattingly was best at. Not surprising, but doesn't make him a better player.
Yes, Hunter had a nice run, from 1972-5. He was pretty bad otherwise. Those SAME years Blyleven was much better, and he added other very good seasons throughout his career (1984 might have been better than "very good". It was better than any season Hunter ever had.) Yet somehow the BBWAA elected Hunter on the third ballot and Blyleven not until the 14th. I expect anyone who thinks Mattingly was clearly better than Hernandez and Hernandez comparable to Baines to not be able to see the vast chasm between Hunter and Blyleven.
@JoeBanzai said:
After reading up on Win Shares, it doesn't look like a stat that should be used to compare players individual numbers.
I have to admit, your first sentence made me laugh. They aren't perfect, but there exists no single statistic that is more useful for comparing players' individual numbers than Win Shares. None.
And I don't know what to say about the comparison you did make after dismissing Win Shares. Yes, Mattingly had a higher slugging average than Hernandez, and that produced a higher OPS in a few years, but are you seriously telling me that nothing else matters? Outs made? Means nothing. Clutch hitting? Means nothing. Baserunning? Means nothing. Fielding? Means nothing. GIDP? Means nothing. Park adjustments? Meaningless. Era adjustments? Meaningless. Length of career? Meaningless.
But OK, for the sake of argument let's accept the argument that you just made, and Mattingly, by virtue of his higher slugging average and sometimes OPS, is better than Hernandez. If you believe the argument that you just made then you must also believe that Leon Durham was better than Mattingly. Durham had a higher slugging average than Mattingly, and a higher OPS than Mattingly, not just some years, but for their entire careers.
Doing you the honor of assuming you do understand that there is a LOT more to comparing two first basemen than their slugging average, I invite you to expand your argument to include the other things that you - and every person who has ever seen a baseball game - know are also important considerations. If you include everything that matters, you'll end up with Win Shares. I'm interested to see which things that everyone knows are important that you leave out in order to avoid admitting that Win Shares are the best stat we've got.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@daltex said:
I give up. Anyone who thinks Hernandez has anything in common with Baines has either never watched baseball or didn't understand what he saw. By the way, Bert Blyleven was also better than Catfish Hunter.
That was a " tongue in cheek" comment about Baines, referring to his being a good, but not great, hitter fo a long period of time.
Bert was a terrific pitcher, Catfish had a nice run as well. What's your point?
My point is that you don't understand baseball if you persist in this kind of argument. Hernandez was a much better hitter than Baines, and any merit Baines' bat offered was taken away by his complete lack of defensive ability. So we have a hitter who played poor right field for a few years and then he went to DH with a 121 OPS+. He ends up being almost exactly league average for a very long time, not good.
I've stipulated that Mattingly was "most feared" as a hitter from 1984-87. The only player during those exact four years with more batting runs was Boggs. Here's the thing, though. Four years is too short a time to base a "great" career argument on, and Mattingly really wasn't better than a good defensive first baseman. So those four years stack up well offensively against any that Hernandez ever played. But, as stated above, Hernandez stacks up almost as well from 1979-82 offensively, and there isn't a ton of drop off from 1983-6, while Mattingly has no secondary period even close.
Mattingly had a very nice one dimensional period for a relatively short time. Hernandez was almost as good for much longer, and was also the best defensive 1B in history (not best defensive player). So Mattingly was better than Hernandez for a short time at things that Mattingly was best at. Not surprising, but doesn't make him a better player.
Yes, Hunter had a nice run, from 1972-5. He was pretty bad otherwise. Those SAME years Blyleven was much better, and he added other very good seasons throughout his career (1984 might have been better than "very good". It was better than any season Hunter ever had.) Yet somehow the BBWAA elected Hunter on the third ballot and Blyleven not until the 14th. I expect anyone who thinks Mattingly was clearly better than Hernandez and Hernandez comparable to Baines to not be able to see the vast chasm between Hunter and Blyleven.
Apparently you can't read, or just like to argue, either of which is ok.
Let's forget about an already admitted throw away comment about Harold Baines.
Let's forget about "Catfish" Hunter and Rik Aalbert Blyleven.
Let's actually look at some more real numbers of the two players in question;
Total Bases.
Mattingly 388, 370, 324, 318, 301, 277, 266 seven year average of 321.
Hernandez 313, 294, 257, 257, 255, 247, 246 seven year average 267.
If you extend it to 10 years, it gets a little better for Keith, he closes the gap to 290-255.
So no, we are not just talking about the 3 years Don obliterated Keith, but also the next 4 where he was better, then 2 where they were equal. After that, Keith was better, but only because Don was hurt.
IF Keith was better than Don defensively, it was by a slight amount. Mattingly was a GREAT fielder, was Hernandez better? Couldn't be by much.
Many here would argue neither was good enough for the HOF. If one does get in, I would rather it be the one with the most ability.
NOW do you understand the Baines reference?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@JoeBanzai said:
After reading up on Win Shares, it doesn't look like a stat that should be used to compare players individual numbers.
I have to admit, your first sentence made me laugh. They aren't perfect, but there exists no single statistic that is more useful for comparing players' individual numbers than Win Shares. None.
And I don't know what to say about the comparison you did make after dismissing Win Shares. Yes, Mattingly had a higher slugging average than Hernandez, and that produced a higher OPS in a few years, but are you seriously telling me that nothing else matters? Outs made? Means nothing. Clutch hitting? Means nothing. Baserunning? Means nothing. Fielding? Means nothing. GIDP? Means nothing. Park adjustments? Meaningless. Era adjustments? Meaningless. Length of career? Meaningless.
But OK, for the sake of argument let's accept the argument that you just made, and Mattingly, by virtue of his higher slugging average and sometimes OPS, is better than Hernandez. If you believe the argument that you just made then you must also believe that Leon Durham was better than Mattingly. Durham had a higher slugging average than Mattingly, and a higher OPS than Mattingly, not just some years, but for their entire careers.
Doing you the honor of assuming you do understand that there is a LOT more to comparing two first basemen than their slugging average, I invite you to expand your argument to include the other things that you - and every person who has ever seen a baseball game - know are also important considerations. If you include everything that matters, you'll end up with Win Shares. I'm interested to see which things that everyone knows are important that you leave out in order to avoid admitting that Win Shares are the best stat we've got.
We're not talking about Leon Durham, well you can, I'm not.
Your "best stat we've got" is more about contributions to TEAM victories, that's something else.
Since neither of you guys are coming up with facts, here's a few;
Mattingly played in about 300 fewer games, yet had more doubles, home runs, RBI, and Total Bases than Hernandez.
Keith had an extra 2 years and was behind in a lot of categories.
Hernandez walks a lot more and strikes out twice as often, hit more triples and scores more runs.
He stole more bases, but in this case he was thrown out so much, that's probably not a win for Keith. Neither was good at stealing, so Don didn't.
Every 162 games Don grounded into 5 more double plays.
It gets worse for Keith of you look at the 162 game average.
OPS+ says they are within 1 point.
Two extra seasons and no major injury and the BEST Keith can do is a tie.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Outs made, clutch hitting, fielding, park adjustments, era adjustments, baserunning, GIDP.
Stop with the cherry-picking of the few stats that Mattingly wins and address the contributions they made as baseball players - ALL of the contributions they made - and do so in the context in which they played. Or not, but stop embarrassing yourself.
And if you really, really want to embarrass yourself, repeat the line about "TEAM victories" not being important; that didn't make me laugh, it almost made me cry. "Well, yeah, Hernandez helped his team win more games than Mattingly, but Mattingly beats Hernandez in all the things that don't win games." That's what you said - at least that's what everyone who read what you posted heard - and it's why you are losing this debate so spectacularly.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Mattingly reminds me of the Munson case. Among the top players in league for 5-6 years (when healthy). Beloved by their fans, Captains, NY bias, then injuries and tragedy killed their HOF chances. 3 more top of leagues years each and they are both in.
And, despite not having the length of success, they are both as deserving as some of the recent inductees.
@GreenSneakers said:
I’m not seeing the argument for Hernandez over Mattingly.
I agree completely!
They ended up with similar totals. Hernandez beats Mattingly in some of the new metrics.
Mattingly came in destroying AL pitching until his injury deprived him of his power.
Don had 4 seasons of OPS above .917 Hernandez had one and just barely. Looking at SLG and Total Bases, Don had monster years that Keith couldn't touch.
Keith walked more than Don and hit more Triples. Both were superb defenders.
Can you even IMAGINE having this debate had Mattingly not hurt his back?
Hernandez beats him in most of the metrics. What would Mattingly's numbers look like if he hit in the Old Busch and Shea Stadium? Hernandez was the best fielding first basemen of all time - not simply a superb defender. Big difference. Also won 2 WS with 2 different teams and was a key player for both.
Who knows how Mattingly would have hit somewhere else?
Nobody else in the MLB was hitting for average AND power like Don 1984-87......not even close.
WS victories are team accomplishments and meaningless in a player comparison.
The only reason there's any comparison at all, is because Mattingly injured his back.
Hernandez was the Harold Baines of this comparison. Not as good, but played well for a long period.
.430 SLG Firstbasemen are not that good.
Even with the two years after Don's injury, he ends up with a .470 SLG.
FAR more ability than Keith, injury makes the careers look similar.
Yeah. You are just an irrational Yankee Fan, He wasn't even the best player on his team. Ricky was, Relax! And 84-87, look at George Brett - The 85 MVP.
Not a Yankee fan AT ALL!
Not discussing who was the best player on the teams, not relevant.
Brett had a better '85, otherwise Mattingly much more power.
I would disagree that Mattingly had "much more power" considering Brett had a higher lifetime SLG % and higher peak SLG % seasons. Mattingly also had the advantage of playing in front of the short porch in Yankee stadium while Brett played in much bigger KC
Outs made, clutch hitting, fielding, park adjustments, era adjustments, baserunning, GIDP.
Stop with the cherry-picking of the few stats that Mattingly wins and address the contributions they made as baseball players - ALL of the contributions they made - and do so in the context in which they played. Or not, but stop embarrassing yourself.
And if you really, really want to embarrass yourself, repeat the line about "TEAM victories" not being important; that didn't make me laugh, it almost made me cry. "Well, yeah, Hernandez helped his team win more games than Mattingly, but Mattingly beats Hernandez in all the things that don't win games." That's what you said - at least that's what everyone who read what you posted heard - and it's why you are losing this debate so spectacularly.
You do the same thing whenever you lose a debate (which is not very often).
You try to spin the argument into something different that you perceive to be an advantage to your failed position.
We are comparing two borderline HOF players. One was a sure thing until he was injured, the other was NEVER quite good enough, even though he was quite good.
In the end, they could both go in, neither could make it, or one could go in. If one goes in Mattingly would be the better choice.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@GreenSneakers said:
I’m not seeing the argument for Hernandez over Mattingly.
I agree completely!
They ended up with similar totals. Hernandez beats Mattingly in some of the new metrics.
Mattingly came in destroying AL pitching until his injury deprived him of his power.
Don had 4 seasons of OPS above .917 Hernandez had one and just barely. Looking at SLG and Total Bases, Don had monster years that Keith couldn't touch.
Keith walked more than Don and hit more Triples. Both were superb defenders.
Can you even IMAGINE having this debate had Mattingly not hurt his back?
Hernandez beats him in most of the metrics. What would Mattingly's numbers look like if he hit in the Old Busch and Shea Stadium? Hernandez was the best fielding first basemen of all time - not simply a superb defender. Big difference. Also won 2 WS with 2 different teams and was a key player for both.
Who knows how Mattingly would have hit somewhere else?
Nobody else in the MLB was hitting for average AND power like Don 1984-87......not even close.
WS victories are team accomplishments and meaningless in a player comparison.
The only reason there's any comparison at all, is because Mattingly injured his back.
Hernandez was the Harold Baines of this comparison. Not as good, but played well for a long period.
.430 SLG Firstbasemen are not that good.
Even with the two years after Don's injury, he ends up with a .470 SLG.
FAR more ability than Keith, injury makes the careers look similar.
Yeah. You are just an irrational Yankee Fan, He wasn't even the best player on his team. Ricky was, Relax! And 84-87, look at George Brett - The 85 MVP.
Not a Yankee fan AT ALL!
Not discussing who was the best player on the teams, not relevant.
Brett had a better '85, otherwise Mattingly much more power.
I would disagree that Mattingly had "much more power" considering Brett had a higher lifetime SLG % and higher peak SLG % seasons. Mattingly also had the advantage of playing in front of the short porch in Yankee stadium while Brett played in much bigger KC
I was referring to Mattingly's top seasons, but yes Brett was better than my statement sounds like.
The discussion was Mattingly/Hernandez, not bringing in a deserving HOFer to a debate on two borderline guys.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
You do the same thing whenever you lose a debate (which is not very often).
You try to spin the argument into something different that you perceive to be an advantage to your failed position.
We are comparing two borderline HOF players. One was a sure thing until he was injured, the other was NEVER quite good enough, even though he was quite good.
In the end, they could both go in, neither could make it, or one could go in. If one goes in Mattingly would be the better choice.
No, I do the same thing every time I get frustrated. Your case for Mattingly is based on a small handful of stats, all of which are included, along with much more, in Win Shares. And you said that Win Shares aren't appropriate for comparing two players!?!?! That is, very obviously, nonsense. Don't you get frustrated when you ask a question and the answer you get back is nonsense?
And when you say that I "spin the argument into something different that you perceive to be an advantage to your failed position", surely you realize that this is what you're doing, not me. I'm trying to discuss 10 different things that all contribute to the value of a baseball player, and you're saying that only two of them matter, and even considering the other eight is inappropriate. That's spin, and it's absurd spin.
I agree that we're discussing two borderline HOF players, although Mattingly is further from that borderline than Hernandez. You keep saying "except for the injury", or something similar, as if getting injured and falling apart as a star player doesn't "count" somehow. It does count, and it's knocked many players off of what looked like a HOF track. And it, as much or more than anything else, is why Hernandez was clearly a better player than Mattingly.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
If Mattingly gets in, then the Hall of Fame will have to get a limo for Keith Hernandez next year.
I was originally responding to this quote. I still stand by it. Both guys in wouldn't bother me, because, as many others have said, it wouldn’t be watering down the Hall any more than it has been recently. Also not a travesty if both left out. But making a distinction that Hernandez is clearly more deserving than Mattingly, I don’t get. Also, if you’re new here, I hate the Yankees.
I think that something we should all agree on is that neither Mattingly nor Hernandez are HOF worthy. Mattingly should proudly go up in the Yankees ring of honor and Hernandez can go into the Cardinals and Mets rings of honor. The same can be said for Singleton (Orioles), Murphy (Braves), etc. I would say the same thing for players like Simmons (Cardinals) and Trammel (Tigers) but........
@shagrotn77 said:
I think we'll see McGriff and Murphy get in. Possibly Mattingly.
If Mattingly gets in, then the Hall of Fame will have to get a limo for Keith Hernandez next year.
Keith Hernandez had a nice, long career. But in their primes, he couldn't hold a candle to Mattingly. At least not with the bat. I'm not saying Donnie Baseball will get in, but he's unquestionably more deserving than Keith Hernandez.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
@1all said:
I think that something we should all agree on is that neither Mattingly nor Hernandez are HOF worthy. Mattingly should proudly go up in the Yankees ring of honor and Hernandez can go into the Cardinals and Mets rings of honor. The same can be said for Singleton (Orioles), Murphy (Braves), etc. I would say the same thing for players like Simmons (Cardinals) and Trammel (Tigers) but........
The problem isn't that the likes of Hodges and Morris, or even Baines and Kaat, are being enshrined, it's that they're being chosen over so many more deserving, even vastly more deserving, players. I'm in no way saying that Kevin Brown, Rick Reuschel, Luis Tiant, or David Cone must be in, but they were all a lot more deserving than Morris and Kaat. Similarly, Olerud and Clark are far more deserving than Hodges, and Kirk Gibson and David Justice (never mind Jack Clark and Brian Giles) are vastly more deserving than Baines.
If you want to put Hodges, Baines, Morris, and Kaat in, I suppose I can be OK with that, but put the better players (in Baines' case the HUNDREDS of better players) in first. Nevertheless, I say yet again that the selections are no worse and mostly better than those that the various committees put in fifty years ago.
Last word on Hernandez: Mattingly isn't his comp. McGwire is. Within close enough margin of error, Hernandez helped his teams with his glove (and weaker bat) as McGwire did with his bat (and weaker glove). They are close enough that, PEDs and cocaine in Hernandez' case notwithstanding, if you put one in, you should put both in. And Mattingly is not even close.
Solely because I am fascinated by the support for Mattingly over Hernandez in the total absence of evidence, I dug a little deeper. If people want to believe Mattingly was as good defensively as Hernandez, I can't stop them and I can't prove them wrong, so let's ignore fielding.
Solely as offensive run producers, here's some more data.
There are formulas that convert everything a player does on offense into runs created. In other words, not just runs scored and RBI, but advancing runners with a single or walk, stealing a base, not hitting into an inning-ending double play, etc. It's then a simple matter to convert that into runs created per game (per 27 outs) by taking into account how many outs the player used in creating those runs. From 1st to 10th, counting only complete seasons, here are the figures for Mattingly and Hernandez:
At their peaks (top 2 seasons) they were equals. Mattingly then wins seasons 3 and 4 by a little bit, and Hernandez wins the rest of the seasons by a lot. For their careers, Hernandez beats Mattingly by a little bit. {These aren't park/era-adjusted; if they were, the gap would a bit larger - about 6.5 to 6.1 for their careers, and Hernandez would also win the top 2 seasons}.
Conclusion: Hernandez contributed more offensively than Mattingly.
Other fact: Hernandez played longer than Mattingly.
Hernandez was a better offensive performer than Mattingly. Q.E.D.
Or another way to look at it. In another thread I calculated OPS++ for several players, the goal of which was mostly to make fun of Jim Rice, which was a success. But behind the fun-making, there was a real point. OPS+ is a great stat, but it has flaws. One flaw is that it treats a bases-empty single as more valuable than a bases-empty walk. There are other flaws, but that's the big one, and players that take a lot of bases-empty walks get way undervalued compared to players who hit a lot of bases-empty singles. {Tell me if you disagree that bases-empty walks and singles are of identical value, and we can discuss crayons or something else you do understand, rather than baseball.)
Mattingly's career OPS+ is 127 and Hernandez's is 128; about a tie.
Mattingly's OPS++ drops to 126.
Hernandez's OPS++ goes up to 144.
Like OPS+, OPS++ is far from perfect, but OPS++ is better than OPS+. And 144 to 126 is a better measure of the offensive difference between Hernandez and Mattingly than 128 to 127.
I really think I could keep this up for 10 more pages, such is the sheer volume of evidence that Hernandez was a better player than Mattingly, but I won't. Everyone who looks into it, and knows where to look, already gets it.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary said:
Solely because I am fascinated by the support for Mattingly over Hernandez in the total absence of evidence, I dug a little deeper. If people want to believe Mattingly was as good defensively as Hernandez, I can't stop them and I can't prove them wrong, so let's ignore fielding.
Solely as offensive run producers, here's some more data.
There are formulas that convert everything a player does on offense into runs created. In other words, not just runs scored and RBI, but advancing runners with a single or walk, stealing a base, not hitting into an inning-ending double play, etc. It's then a simple matter to convert that into runs created per game (per 27 outs) by taking into account how many outs the player used in creating those runs. From 1st to 10th, counting only complete seasons, here are the figures for Mattingly and Hernandez:
At their peaks (top 2 seasons) they were equals. Mattingly then wins seasons 3 and 4 by a little bit, and Hernandez wins the rest of the seasons by a lot. For their careers, Hernandez beats Mattingly by a little bit. {These aren't park/era-adjusted; if they were, the gap would a bit larger - about 6.5 to 6.1 for their careers, and Hernandez would also win the top 2 seasons}.
Conclusion: Hernandez contributed more offensively than Mattingly.
Other fact: Hernandez played longer than Mattingly.
Hernandez was a better offensive performer than Mattingly. Q.E.D.
Or another way to look at it. In another thread I calculated OPS++ for several players, the goal of which was mostly to make fun of Jim Rice, which was a success. But behind the fun-making, there was a real point. OPS+ is a great stat, but it has flaws. One flaw is that it treats a bases-empty single as more valuable than a bases-empty walk. There are other flaws, but that's the big one, and players that take a lot of bases-empty walks get way undervalued compared to players who hit a lot of bases-empty singles. {Tell me if you disagree that bases-empty walks and singles are of identical value, and we can discuss crayons or something else you do understand, rather than baseball.)
Mattingly's career OPS+ is 127 and Hernandez's is 128; about a tie.
Mattingly's OPS++ drops to 126.
Hernandez's OPS++ goes up to 144.
Like OPS+, OPS++ is far from perfect, but OPS++ is better than OPS+. And 144 to 126 is a better measure of the offensive difference between Hernandez and Mattingly than 128 to 127.
I really think I could keep this up for 10 more pages, such is the sheer volume of evidence that Hernandez was a better player than Mattingly, but I won't. Everyone who looks into it, and knows where to look, already gets it.
@dallasactuary said:
Solely because I am fascinated by the support for Mattingly over Hernandez in the total absence of evidence, I dug a little deeper. If people want to believe Mattingly was as good defensively as Hernandez, I can't stop them and I can't prove them wrong, so let's ignore fielding.
Solely as offensive run producers, here's some more data.
There are formulas that convert everything a player does on offense into runs created. In other words, not just runs scored and RBI, but advancing runners with a single or walk, stealing a base, not hitting into an inning-ending double play, etc. It's then a simple matter to convert that into runs created per game (per 27 outs) by taking into account how many outs the player used in creating those runs. From 1st to 10th, counting only complete seasons, here are the figures for Mattingly and Hernandez:
At their peaks (top 2 seasons) they were equals. Mattingly then wins seasons 3 and 4 by a little bit, and Hernandez wins the rest of the seasons by a lot. For their careers, Hernandez beats Mattingly by a little bit. {These aren't park/era-adjusted; if they were, the gap would a bit larger - about 6.5 to 6.1 for their careers, and Hernandez would also win the top 2 seasons}.
Conclusion: Hernandez contributed more offensively than Mattingly.
Other fact: Hernandez played longer than Mattingly.
Hernandez was a better offensive performer than Mattingly. Q.E.D.
Or another way to look at it. In another thread I calculated OPS++ for several players, the goal of which was mostly to make fun of Jim Rice, which was a success. But behind the fun-making, there was a real point. OPS+ is a great stat, but it has flaws. One flaw is that it treats a bases-empty single as more valuable than a bases-empty walk. There are other flaws, but that's the big one, and players that take a lot of bases-empty walks get way undervalued compared to players who hit a lot of bases-empty singles. {Tell me if you disagree that bases-empty walks and singles are of identical value, and we can discuss crayons or something else you do understand, rather than baseball.)
Mattingly's career OPS+ is 127 and Hernandez's is 128; about a tie.
Mattingly's OPS++ drops to 126.
Hernandez's OPS++ goes up to 144.
Like OPS+, OPS++ is far from perfect, but OPS++ is better than OPS+. And 144 to 126 is a better measure of the offensive difference between Hernandez and Mattingly than 128 to 127.
I really think I could keep this up for 10 more pages, such is the sheer volume of evidence that Hernandez was a better player than Mattingly, but I won't. Everyone who looks into it, and knows where to look, already gets it.
Good work and breakdown.
Mattingly was the more popular player, and was one of the Kings of the Rookie Card craze, and that is where a lot of his backers argue from.
1985 was a great year for Mattingly, but as others pointed out, Brett had a better year. Mattingly had 145 RBI that year, but Eddie Murray was a better RBI guy that year despite being 21 behind...and Mattingly won MVP over Brett because of that RBI total.
Mattingly may have been the 'most feared' hitter form the exact years of 1984-1987, but Murray was 'most feared'(and better) from 1982-1985 in MLB...so that argument has never been a real compelling one for Mattingly because those years overlap. Boggs was better too for another stretch of years that overlapped Mattingly's 'reign'.
I personally would not put Mattingly in because there are better candidates who are not enshrined.
However, looking at human nature and the way they think, he may get in if the steroid guys get shunned by the committee.
Comments
Toy Cannon!
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
People crapping on Albert Belle continually fail to recognize his career ending injury at a young age. He didn’t have time to compile the stats over a long career. Maybe that is a disqualification to many. But to argue he wasn’t good enough from 93-00 is just silly. He was an absolutely elite hitter, and did things that still haven’t been matched.
I’m not seeing the argument for Hernandez over Mattingly.
He wasn't young, he was 33 his last full season, and his last full season was a dud. It is very unlikely any season he had played after that would have cracked his top 10, and he would remain a mile and a half behind Jimmy Wynn, and the effective equal of Roy White and Amos Otis. He was a very good hitter for a short time; so were a whole lot of players who never sniffed the HOF. He may very well get in given the atrocities the VC has committed in the past, but make no mistake, Albert Belle being admitted to the HOF would be another atrocity.
I agree completely!
They ended up with similar totals. Hernandez beats Mattingly in some of the new metrics.
Mattingly came in destroying AL pitching until his injury deprived him of his power.
Don had 4 seasons of OPS above .917 Hernandez had one and just barely. Looking at SLG and Total Bases, Don had monster years that Keith couldn't touch.
Keith walked more than Don and hit more Triples. Both were superb defenders.
Can you even IMAGINE having this debate had Mattingly not hurt his back?
It’s hard for me to understand why Belle has gotten multiple chances on the various era committees when he is a confirmed cheater (corked bats) and notorious malcontent with a short career who barely got any support from the writers. I honestly think he’s there to fill out the ballot with someone who won’t get votes to boost the chances of the folks the Hall wants in. If they put the 8 Most deserving on the ballot votes would get split, nobody would get in, and the Hall definitely does not want that outcome.
Here's my take: induct Bonds & Clemens into the HOF. They're two of the greatest players in baseball history and their stats / accomplishments dwarf the other candidates being considered.
Their penance (for their "steroid-taint") was waiting ten years and not being elected by the BBWAA.
With esteem respect to Dallasactuary and his research on Win Shares to compare Albert Belle to other players, both in and out of the HOF. You make a compelling argument against Belle, but I think that OPS+ should be considered as part of the evidence since it is such a comprehensive hitting statistic factoring in ball park biases.
Belle ranks 54 All-Time in OPS+! Those ahead of him are almost all HOFers, some active, some yet to be voted on. He ranks higher than Will Clark using this metric. Those behind him drop off dramatically in terms of HOF status. One can argue that Belle forms that line between obvious HOFer and very good player. This means that multiple data sets must be used to see if he makes it over that line. I have not studied Belle as intensely as some other players, but at least I can understand why he is part of the conversation.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
Clemens could go in as far as I'm concerned, but Bonds.....never.
Bonds could have been known as a legitimate GOAT candidate as an all around player, but there's no way any player puts up those SLG numbers the last 8 years of a 22 year career.
He had a positive WAR his final season while, you know, playing with a career-ending injury. Hardly a "dud". Yeah, he was 33 but he clearly had more productive years ahead of him without the injury.
You made my case for me and don't even realize it.
Again making my case and not realizing it.
He does. As I have said, many, many times before, OPS+ is a fantastic stat but it only measures what it measures. If being a great baseball player was the same thing as having a high OPS+, then I would not be arguing against Belle. But they aren't the same thing.
What OPS+ does not measure:
The biggie - length of career. You can split Will Clark's career into one with the same number of PA as Belle, and the same OPS+, and a second career of 1,600 PA with an OPS+ of about 110. Albert Belle was NOT better at what OPS+ measures than Will Clark; Will Clark hit just as well as Belle for as long as Belle, PLUS he played longer.
Fielding - if Will Clark touched Albert Belle with one of his Gold Gloves it would burn him like Holy Water burns a demon.
GIDP - Belle had a 162 game average of 20; Clark averaged 8. Take 12 singles a year away from Belle and what happens to his OPS+? It drops 10 points, to 134, that's what it does. I know DPs get ignored all the time, but they shouldn't be. I'll amend what I said a little earlier. Will Clark hit BETTER than Albert Belle for as long as Belle, PLUS he played longer.
Baserunning - just mentioned to fill out the list; not a big plus or minus for Belle or Clark.
Will Clark was a much, much better baseball player than Albert Belle. I will stick to Murcer, White, and Otis as Belle's peer group. Belle hit better than all of them, but he wasn't a better baseball player.
So, just for fun, I compared Mattingly's four best consecutive seasons to Hernandez from 1979 to 1982.
https://stathead.com/tiny/h2NRr
Pretty similar, right? I mean Mattingly was a distinctly better hitter in his top four consecutive seasons but, especially when you take into account that Mattingly played in a noticeably better hitter's league, it's not a huge divergence.
But here's the thing: that's pretty much all Mattingly had. Now take a look at Mattingly compared to Hernandez' next four years,
https://stathead.com/tiny/Ig2oA
Hernandez is still a really good player, but now Mattingly is much better. So here's the thing: Hernandez did it twice. Mattingly had the better offensive four years, but Hernandez kept at a high level longer. In fact, for a career Hernandez has a 128 OPS+ compared to 127 for Mattingly. So a slightly higher OPS+ over about 800 extra PA. So there's an argument, but it really doesn't show a clear separation.
For that we have to go to defense. If Mattingly was a "superb" defender, there is no evidence of it, or rather it's not like saying Arenado and Robinson are both superb 3Bs, but rather Brett and Robinson. Brett was notably better than average, but no comparison to Robinson.
So in home runs Belle is roughly in a group with the likes of Hodges, Rice, Baines, Edmonds, Aramis Ramirez, and the Howard brothers (Frank and Ryan). He's considerably behind Konerko, Galarraga, and Kingman. Good players. By HR all by themselves, not close to HoFers.
OPS+ we have Kevin Mitchell, Lance Berkman about the same with Cravath and Keller better. Good supporting numbers for the HoF, but not much when that's the whole argument.
Mattingly before he gets injured dwarfs Hernandez.
Don then has a couple of down years and then bounces back, somewhat, albeit with less power.
Hernandez never had any power. He had one season with over .500 SLG.
Mattingly may not have deserved all NINE of his GG's, Hrbek probably should have gotten a couple. Mattingly, like Hernandez was a superb fielder and much better hitter pre injury and about as good after.
Hernandez did walk a lot more....... that's really it, and triples. Don drove in more runs and scored more, while averaging 50 more TB per year.
No denying comparing their entire careers makes it close.
They should change the name to HOPG(Hall of pretty good). 👍
Weird to compare career totals of guys who played full careers to Belle's total as if that's somehow a knock against Belle, whose career - again - was shortened by injury. Baines played ELEVEN (or twelve, depending how you count 1989) more full seasons than Belle. Rice is in the Hall with fewer home runs AND Belle was better anyway.
It's not the whole argument. 103 extra base hits in a season, something that hadn't been done in a fully integrated league - and did it in a shortened season. Led in slugging twice, total bases 3 times, runs once. Lost probably 20+ homers due to strikes. One of a very small group to have a 50-hr and 200-hit season. Only guy to have 50 homers & 50 doubles in the same season. And so on.
That ship has sailed, half of the inductees the last 10 years should not have made it. The same thing has happened in the NFL. They almost need a special section of the Hall for only the best players.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Hernandez beats him in most of the metrics. What would Mattingly's numbers look like if he hit in the Old Busch and Shea Stadium? Hernandez was the best fielding first basemen of all time - not simply a superb defender. Big difference. Also won 2 WS with 2 different teams and was a key player for both.
Who knows how Mattingly would have hit somewhere else?
Nobody else in the MLB was hitting for average AND power like Don 1984-87......not even close.
WS victories are team accomplishments and meaningless in a player comparison.
The only reason there's any comparison at all, is because Mattingly injured his back.
Hernandez was the Harold Baines of this comparison. Not as good, but played well for a long period.
.430 SLG Firstbasemen are not that good.
Even with the two years after Don's injury, he ends up with a .470 SLG.
FAR more ability than Keith, injury makes the careers look similar.
I give up. Anyone who thinks Hernandez has anything in common with Baines has either never watched baseball or didn't understand what he saw. By the way, Bert Blyleven was also better than Catfish Hunter.
Yeah. You are just an irrational Yankee Fan, He wasn't even the best player on his team. Ricky was, Relax! And 84-87, look at George Brett - The 85 MVP.
Not a Yankee fan AT ALL!
Not discussing who was the best player on the teams, not relevant.
Brett had a better '85, otherwise Mattingly much more power.
That was a " tongue in cheek" comment about Baines, referring to his being a good, but not great, hitter fo a long period of time.
Bert was a terrific pitcher, Catfish had a nice run as well. What's your point?
Toy Cannon:
Henderson's WAR led the league and even Boggs' was higher than Brett's. Given both Brett and Boss played same position I think a very fair compare. At best in 1985 Brett should have been 3rd in AL MVP voting, but in actuality he came in 2nd thus he did better than he should have.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
To be fair, over that specific 4-year period Mattingly was the best Yankee. But Boggs was the best player in the AL and Tim Raines was the best player in MLB.
For context on Mattingly: he was very good from 1984-1987 earning 122 Win Shares. Raines had 134 and Boggs had 128.
122 Win Shares in a 4-year span really is very good and only very good players - players as good as or better than Mattingly - have done it.
For example:
Will Clark: 131 from 1987-1990, 140 from 1988-1991, 131 from 1989-1992
Ken Singleton: 123 from 1977-1980
Dave Parker: 124 from 1976-1979
Bobby Murcer: 126 from 1970-1973
Frank Howard: 125 from 1968-1971, 130 from 1967-1970
Dick Allen: 129 from 1965-1968, 138 from 1964-1967
Don Mattingly was in fact a very good player. But Ken Singleton was better. Top 10 Win Shares:
Mattingly: 34, 32, 29, 27, 26, 24, 20, 20, 15, 14
Singleton: 36, 33, 32, 28, 28, 27, 24, 18, 17, 16
Mattingly does take home the 8th best season trophy, but otherwise, year in and year out, Singleton was better.
There is this persistent myth that Mattingly was "the best in baseball" or the "most feared hitter" over some period of time, and it's simply not true. I'm a big fan of Ken Singleton, and a bigger fan of Bobby Murcer - they were excellent players who don't get the recognition they deserve. I've never heard them referred to as "the best in baseball" or "most feared hitter", and I don't think they ever were. What I know for sure is that Don Mattingly was not a better baseball player than either of them. Had Don Mattingly played for the Mariners, I guarantee you we would not be discussing him today, unless it was me trying to convince people that he was actually better than they think he was.
How about good old Keith "the best defensive player in the history of the world" Hernandez?
Good grief. It just hit me that for the first time I'm old enough to have an opinion on the Veterans Committee's decisions based on having watched the players in their prime. (I did catch the later parts of the careers of Morris, Trammell, Baines, Smith and Simmons.)
Hmm. And I'm old enough that I actually wrote "Good grief."
Mattingly: 34, 32, 29, 27, 26, 24, 20, 20, 15, 14
Hernandez: 33, 29, 29, 28, 27, 24, 24, 23, 21, 20
Hernandez wins 6-2-2.
And please note that all of my comparisons are to people not in the HOF. Compare Mattingly to actual HOFers (real ones, not Harold Baines or Jim RIce) and the margin by which he loses becomes uncomfortably embarrassing. Two recent HOFers who were considered "weak" for various reasons - Ron Santo and Craig Biggio - beat Mattingly 10-0-0 and by comfortable margins in most years.
After reading up on Win Shares, it doesn't look like a stat that should be used to compare players individual numbers.
Let's look at a batting comparison using SLG. 1st base is generally a sluggers position.
Mattingly had 4 great years with .573, .567, .559 and .537.
Hernandez's best 4 are .513, .494, .463 and .459.
Mattingly's top 7 seasons were ALL better than Hernandez's.
Similarly Don had 4 seasons of OPS over .900. .967, .939, .937 and .918.
Keith was only above .900 twice, once a nice .930, then a .902 with a big drop down to .864 and .859.
After Don's injury his OPS dropped and Keith was better, primarily because of a better OBP.
Mattingly's peak was so far above Hernandez's there's no way any stat that shows them as anywhere near equal is accurate.
Obviously Don's numbers dropped significantly for a couple of years after his injury, but he did make somewhat of a comeback hitting for average.
For a career, Hernandez was close to, or in areas, better than Mattingly, however before injury took its toll, there's really no doubt who was the FAR superior hitter.
My point is that you don't understand baseball if you persist in this kind of argument. Hernandez was a much better hitter than Baines, and any merit Baines' bat offered was taken away by his complete lack of defensive ability. So we have a hitter who played poor right field for a few years and then he went to DH with a 121 OPS+. He ends up being almost exactly league average for a very long time, not good.
I've stipulated that Mattingly was "most feared" as a hitter from 1984-87. The only player during those exact four years with more batting runs was Boggs. Here's the thing, though. Four years is too short a time to base a "great" career argument on, and Mattingly really wasn't better than a good defensive first baseman. So those four years stack up well offensively against any that Hernandez ever played. But, as stated above, Hernandez stacks up almost as well from 1979-82 offensively, and there isn't a ton of drop off from 1983-6, while Mattingly has no secondary period even close.
Mattingly had a very nice one dimensional period for a relatively short time. Hernandez was almost as good for much longer, and was also the best defensive 1B in history (not best defensive player). So Mattingly was better than Hernandez for a short time at things that Mattingly was best at. Not surprising, but doesn't make him a better player.
Yes, Hunter had a nice run, from 1972-5. He was pretty bad otherwise. Those SAME years Blyleven was much better, and he added other very good seasons throughout his career (1984 might have been better than "very good". It was better than any season Hunter ever had.) Yet somehow the BBWAA elected Hunter on the third ballot and Blyleven not until the 14th. I expect anyone who thinks Mattingly was clearly better than Hernandez and Hernandez comparable to Baines to not be able to see the vast chasm between Hunter and Blyleven.
I have to admit, your first sentence made me laugh. They aren't perfect, but there exists no single statistic that is more useful for comparing players' individual numbers than Win Shares. None.
And I don't know what to say about the comparison you did make after dismissing Win Shares. Yes, Mattingly had a higher slugging average than Hernandez, and that produced a higher OPS in a few years, but are you seriously telling me that nothing else matters? Outs made? Means nothing. Clutch hitting? Means nothing. Baserunning? Means nothing. Fielding? Means nothing. GIDP? Means nothing. Park adjustments? Meaningless. Era adjustments? Meaningless. Length of career? Meaningless.
But OK, for the sake of argument let's accept the argument that you just made, and Mattingly, by virtue of his higher slugging average and sometimes OPS, is better than Hernandez. If you believe the argument that you just made then you must also believe that Leon Durham was better than Mattingly. Durham had a higher slugging average than Mattingly, and a higher OPS than Mattingly, not just some years, but for their entire careers.
Doing you the honor of assuming you do understand that there is a LOT more to comparing two first basemen than their slugging average, I invite you to expand your argument to include the other things that you - and every person who has ever seen a baseball game - know are also important considerations. If you include everything that matters, you'll end up with Win Shares. I'm interested to see which things that everyone knows are important that you leave out in order to avoid admitting that Win Shares are the best stat we've got.
Apparently you can't read, or just like to argue, either of which is ok.
Let's forget about an already admitted throw away comment about Harold Baines.
Let's forget about "Catfish" Hunter and Rik Aalbert Blyleven.
Let's actually look at some more real numbers of the two players in question;
Total Bases.
Mattingly 388, 370, 324, 318, 301, 277, 266 seven year average of 321.
Hernandez 313, 294, 257, 257, 255, 247, 246 seven year average 267.
If you extend it to 10 years, it gets a little better for Keith, he closes the gap to 290-255.
So no, we are not just talking about the 3 years Don obliterated Keith, but also the next 4 where he was better, then 2 where they were equal. After that, Keith was better, but only because Don was hurt.
IF Keith was better than Don defensively, it was by a slight amount. Mattingly was a GREAT fielder, was Hernandez better? Couldn't be by much.
Many here would argue neither was good enough for the HOF. If one does get in, I would rather it be the one with the most ability.
NOW do you understand the Baines reference?
We're not talking about Leon Durham, well you can, I'm not.
Your "best stat we've got" is more about contributions to TEAM victories, that's something else.
Since neither of you guys are coming up with facts, here's a few;
Mattingly played in about 300 fewer games, yet had more doubles, home runs, RBI, and Total Bases than Hernandez.
Keith had an extra 2 years and was behind in a lot of categories.
Hernandez walks a lot more and strikes out twice as often, hit more triples and scores more runs.
He stole more bases, but in this case he was thrown out so much, that's probably not a win for Keith. Neither was good at stealing, so Don didn't.
Every 162 games Don grounded into 5 more double plays.
It gets worse for Keith of you look at the 162 game average.
OPS+ says they are within 1 point.
Two extra seasons and no major injury and the BEST Keith can do is a tie.
Blah, blah, blah.
Outs made, clutch hitting, fielding, park adjustments, era adjustments, baserunning, GIDP.
Stop with the cherry-picking of the few stats that Mattingly wins and address the contributions they made as baseball players - ALL of the contributions they made - and do so in the context in which they played. Or not, but stop embarrassing yourself.
And if you really, really want to embarrass yourself, repeat the line about "TEAM victories" not being important; that didn't make me laugh, it almost made me cry. "Well, yeah, Hernandez helped his team win more games than Mattingly, but Mattingly beats Hernandez in all the things that don't win games." That's what you said - at least that's what everyone who read what you posted heard - and it's why you are losing this debate so spectacularly.
Mattingly reminds me of the Munson case. Among the top players in league for 5-6 years (when healthy). Beloved by their fans, Captains, NY bias, then injuries and tragedy killed their HOF chances. 3 more top of leagues years each and they are both in.
And, despite not having the length of success, they are both as deserving as some of the recent inductees.
I would disagree that Mattingly had "much more power" considering Brett had a higher lifetime SLG % and higher peak SLG % seasons. Mattingly also had the advantage of playing in front of the short porch in Yankee stadium while Brett played in much bigger KC
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
You do the same thing whenever you lose a debate (which is not very often).
You try to spin the argument into something different that you perceive to be an advantage to your failed position.
We are comparing two borderline HOF players. One was a sure thing until he was injured, the other was NEVER quite good enough, even though he was quite good.
In the end, they could both go in, neither could make it, or one could go in. If one goes in Mattingly would be the better choice.
I was referring to Mattingly's top seasons, but yes Brett was better than my statement sounds like.
The discussion was Mattingly/Hernandez, not bringing in a deserving HOFer to a debate on two borderline guys.
Oh crap. I just realized I praised the one who should not be named!!! I hope I didnt start something here
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
😱
No, I do the same thing every time I get frustrated. Your case for Mattingly is based on a small handful of stats, all of which are included, along with much more, in Win Shares. And you said that Win Shares aren't appropriate for comparing two players!?!?! That is, very obviously, nonsense. Don't you get frustrated when you ask a question and the answer you get back is nonsense?
And when you say that I "spin the argument into something different that you perceive to be an advantage to your failed position", surely you realize that this is what you're doing, not me. I'm trying to discuss 10 different things that all contribute to the value of a baseball player, and you're saying that only two of them matter, and even considering the other eight is inappropriate. That's spin, and it's absurd spin.
I agree that we're discussing two borderline HOF players, although Mattingly is further from that borderline than Hernandez. You keep saying "except for the injury", or something similar, as if getting injured and falling apart as a star player doesn't "count" somehow. It does count, and it's knocked many players off of what looked like a HOF track. And it, as much or more than anything else, is why Hernandez was clearly a better player than Mattingly.
I was originally responding to this quote. I still stand by it. Both guys in wouldn't bother me, because, as many others have said, it wouldn’t be watering down the Hall any more than it has been recently. Also not a travesty if both left out. But making a distinction that Hernandez is clearly more deserving than Mattingly, I don’t get. Also, if you’re new here, I hate the Yankees.
I think that something we should all agree on is that neither Mattingly nor Hernandez are HOF worthy. Mattingly should proudly go up in the Yankees ring of honor and Hernandez can go into the Cardinals and Mets rings of honor. The same can be said for Singleton (Orioles), Murphy (Braves), etc. I would say the same thing for players like Simmons (Cardinals) and Trammel (Tigers) but........
I'm hoping Murphy gets in.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Keith Hernandez had a nice, long career. But in their primes, he couldn't hold a candle to Mattingly. At least not with the bat. I'm not saying Donnie Baseball will get in, but he's unquestionably more deserving than Keith Hernandez.
The problem isn't that the likes of Hodges and Morris, or even Baines and Kaat, are being enshrined, it's that they're being chosen over so many more deserving, even vastly more deserving, players. I'm in no way saying that Kevin Brown, Rick Reuschel, Luis Tiant, or David Cone must be in, but they were all a lot more deserving than Morris and Kaat. Similarly, Olerud and Clark are far more deserving than Hodges, and Kirk Gibson and David Justice (never mind Jack Clark and Brian Giles) are vastly more deserving than Baines.
If you want to put Hodges, Baines, Morris, and Kaat in, I suppose I can be OK with that, but put the better players (in Baines' case the HUNDREDS of better players) in first. Nevertheless, I say yet again that the selections are no worse and mostly better than those that the various committees put in fifty years ago.
Last word on Hernandez: Mattingly isn't his comp. McGwire is. Within close enough margin of error, Hernandez helped his teams with his glove (and weaker bat) as McGwire did with his bat (and weaker glove). They are close enough that, PEDs and cocaine in Hernandez' case notwithstanding, if you put one in, you should put both in. And Mattingly is not even close.
Solely because I am fascinated by the support for Mattingly over Hernandez in the total absence of evidence, I dug a little deeper. If people want to believe Mattingly was as good defensively as Hernandez, I can't stop them and I can't prove them wrong, so let's ignore fielding.
Solely as offensive run producers, here's some more data.
There are formulas that convert everything a player does on offense into runs created. In other words, not just runs scored and RBI, but advancing runners with a single or walk, stealing a base, not hitting into an inning-ending double play, etc. It's then a simple matter to convert that into runs created per game (per 27 outs) by taking into account how many outs the player used in creating those runs. From 1st to 10th, counting only complete seasons, here are the figures for Mattingly and Hernandez:
At their peaks (top 2 seasons) they were equals. Mattingly then wins seasons 3 and 4 by a little bit, and Hernandez wins the rest of the seasons by a lot. For their careers, Hernandez beats Mattingly by a little bit. {These aren't park/era-adjusted; if they were, the gap would a bit larger - about 6.5 to 6.1 for their careers, and Hernandez would also win the top 2 seasons}.
Conclusion: Hernandez contributed more offensively than Mattingly.
Other fact: Hernandez played longer than Mattingly.
Hernandez was a better offensive performer than Mattingly. Q.E.D.
Or another way to look at it. In another thread I calculated OPS++ for several players, the goal of which was mostly to make fun of Jim Rice, which was a success. But behind the fun-making, there was a real point. OPS+ is a great stat, but it has flaws. One flaw is that it treats a bases-empty single as more valuable than a bases-empty walk. There are other flaws, but that's the big one, and players that take a lot of bases-empty walks get way undervalued compared to players who hit a lot of bases-empty singles. {Tell me if you disagree that bases-empty walks and singles are of identical value, and we can discuss crayons or something else you do understand, rather than baseball.)
Mattingly's career OPS+ is 127 and Hernandez's is 128; about a tie.
Mattingly's OPS++ drops to 126.
Hernandez's OPS++ goes up to 144.
Like OPS+, OPS++ is far from perfect, but OPS++ is better than OPS+. And 144 to 126 is a better measure of the offensive difference between Hernandez and Mattingly than 128 to 127.
I really think I could keep this up for 10 more pages, such is the sheer volume of evidence that Hernandez was a better player than Mattingly, but I won't. Everyone who looks into it, and knows where to look, already gets it.
Good work and breakdown.
Mattingly was the more popular player, and was one of the Kings of the Rookie Card craze, and that is where a lot of his backers argue from.
1985 was a great year for Mattingly, but as others pointed out, Brett had a better year. Mattingly had 145 RBI that year, but Eddie Murray was a better RBI guy that year despite being 21 behind...and Mattingly won MVP over Brett because of that RBI total.
Mattingly may have been the 'most feared' hitter form the exact years of 1984-1987, but Murray was 'most feared'(and better) from 1982-1985 in MLB...so that argument has never been a real compelling one for Mattingly because those years overlap. Boggs was better too for another stretch of years that overlapped Mattingly's 'reign'.
I personally would not put Mattingly in because there are better candidates who are not enshrined.
However, looking at human nature and the way they think, he may get in if the steroid guys get shunned by the committee.