@Darin said:
I apologize but seriously anyone who is somewhat familiar with who Will Clark is should know how his name is spelled. I’m not a stickler on spelling but when it’s a person’s name and you misspelled it about 25 times in a row it’s pretty noticeable.
@Darin said:
I apologize but seriously anyone who is somewhat familiar with who Will Clark is should know how his name is spelled. I’m not a stickler on spelling but when it’s a person’s name and you misspelled it about 25 times in a row it’s pretty noticeable.
Autocorrect, typos or maybe just not being great spelling names , maybe someone has a close friend that spells it that way so it happens. It was blatantly obvious who was being talked about
Jokes are fine about it especially when substantive info comes with it as well. But now instead of a statement that William Nuschler Clark born on March 16th 1984 in New Orleans, a product of Jesuit HS and Mississippi State drafted 2nd overall vs Donald Arthur Mattingly born on September 8th 1982 a product of Reitz Memorial HS drafted in the 19th round of the Yankees that Donald Arthur Matting was a more dangerous hitter than William Nuschler Clark the focus is on me adding an E at the end of a name
How is that productive to good sports conversations?
It’s Mattingly not Matting!
Nice contribution just ignoring everything in my post you quoted and directing the conversation again off of actual sports
Maybe we can just have a Spelling Bee instead of discussing sports so theres not a need to resort to grammar and spelling as a response when proven wrong?
I really regret clarifying. However... You have asserted the outcome - you think Will Clark was better than Don Mattingly. There's not much more to discuss. I respect your opinion on the matter, but I disagree.
Clark's 89 season was spectacular, and he deserved the MVP that season.
Mattingly was a better fielder statistically, overall. Clark may have been a better fielding first-baseman early in his career.
Based on their primes; I give Mattingly the edge.
Based on overall career: Neither is that impressive, but I would give Clark the edge here. Neither aged well.
Now that I know Clark's middle name I can take something positive away from this thread.
Don had the better 4 year prime for sure, Will was the better player though. Don was basically done by the age of 29 and both of them have about the same length career with Don playing 14 years and Will 15 years. Even ignoring Dons short rookie year will had about a full seasons worth of at bats of extra walks.
Will was the more consistent better player other than those 4 years early in Dons career. I wouldnt put either in the HOF but if I had to choose one it would be Will
Clark just didn't do enough. His last big season was 1991 - 29 homers, an .895 OPS, Gold Glove, 4th in MVP.
From 1992-99, his age 28-35 seasons, he averaged 120 games a year while averaging 14 homers a year. Clark did have a nice last year in 2000 when he magically recovered his power in St. Louis for half a season.
Mattingly didn't do enough either. His last big season was juiced-ball 1987. from 1988-95 (also 8 years, like the Clark stretch), Mattingly averaged 134 games while averaging 12 homers a year.
Mattingly played 13 seasons (ignoring 1982). Clark played 15. Both guys had consecutive stretches of over HALF of their careers where they averaged 14 and 12 homers a year, respectively. For first basemen, that just ain't enough, unless you're hitting .430 or something.
Looking at Rose's stats, Pete never had 100 RBI. High 80's I believe was the best. Hustler, gamble and compiler. Very good, but not one of the greatest. More George Kell numbers than Al Kaline.
So your conclusion is that George Kell and Al Kaline are more deserving?
In a rare effort to promote efficiency here on the forum I will agree without taking the opportunity to promote Rocky Colavito or Frank Howard that are far more deserving to be in the HOF than the player that is the subject of this thread. Seems that if there is a moral compass, it is MIA… on several levels.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Kell was more for reference, But he was a .300 career multi season all star.
MLB walks a tightrope as they have to double down on forbidding insider gambling, but at the same time look stupid by profiting off of the fruit. Well I me stupid until they sell the team at a ten figure number.
Comments
Don had the better 4 year prime for sure, Will was the better player though. Don was basically done by the age of 29 and both of them have about the same length career with Don playing 14 years and Will 15 years. Even ignoring Dons short rookie year will had about a full seasons worth of at bats of extra walks.
Will was the more consistent better player other than those 4 years early in Dons career. I wouldnt put either in the HOF but if I had to choose one it would be Will
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
Clark just didn't do enough. His last big season was 1991 - 29 homers, an .895 OPS, Gold Glove, 4th in MVP.
From 1992-99, his age 28-35 seasons, he averaged 120 games a year while averaging 14 homers a year. Clark did have a nice last year in 2000 when he magically recovered his power in St. Louis for half a season.
Mattingly didn't do enough either. His last big season was juiced-ball 1987. from 1988-95 (also 8 years, like the Clark stretch), Mattingly averaged 134 games while averaging 12 homers a year.
Mattingly played 13 seasons (ignoring 1982). Clark played 15. Both guys had consecutive stretches of over HALF of their careers where they averaged 14 and 12 homers a year, respectively. For first basemen, that just ain't enough, unless you're hitting .430 or something.
Last guy to leave the Bar Mitzvah here.
Looking at Rose's stats, Pete never had 100 RBI. High 80's I believe was the best. Hustler, gamble and compiler. Very good, but not one of the greatest. More George Kell numbers than Al Kaline.
So your conclusion is that George Kell and Al Kaline are more deserving?
In a rare effort to promote efficiency here on the forum I will agree without taking the opportunity to promote Rocky Colavito or Frank Howard that are far more deserving to be in the HOF than the player that is the subject of this thread. Seems that if there is a moral compass, it is MIA… on several levels.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Kaline definitely had better numbers than Pete.
Kell was more for reference, But he was a .300 career multi season all star.
MLB walks a tightrope as they have to double down on forbidding insider gambling, but at the same time look stupid by profiting off of the fruit. Well I me stupid until they sell the team at a ten figure number.