Options
Is Don Mattingly an HOF or not?
DS1991Topps
Posts: 106 ✭
in Sports Talk
Is Don Mattingly an HOF or not?
THANKS,
...1991 TOPPS Desert Shield Baseball Card Collector
.....Since 1991 HOOAH!
S1991TOPPS@aol.com ">myemailaddress
...1991 TOPPS Desert Shield Baseball Card Collector
.....Since 1991 HOOAH!
S1991TOPPS@aol.com ">myemailaddress
0
Comments
1. 7-17-81 Warrenton GC Driver 310 yards 7th Hole (Par 4)
2. 5-22-99 Warrenton GC 6 iron 189 yards 10th Hole
3. 7-23-99 Oak Meadow CC 5 iron 180 yards 17th Hole
4. 9-19-99 Country Lake GC 6 iron 164 yards 15th Hole
5. 8-30-09 Country Lake GC Driver 258 yards 17th Hole (Par 4)
Collector of Barber Halves, Commems, MS64FBL Frankies, Full Step Jeffersons & Mint state Washington Quarters
While, granted, Mattingly was no stat compiler, he was the best for a significant stretch. He is at least the third best defensive first baseman in baseball history. He has tons of accolades to his name. He was one of the best players from the 1980's.
I know the Hall of Fame houses many players that racked up high numbers simply by playing many many years, but there are others who had shorter careers that were more impactful like Sandy Koufax. The HOF should respect both type of players and Mattingly fits in the latter category.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
He didn't play long enough, and his numbers weren't dominant enough long enough to warrant induction.
Don Mattingly and Thurman Munson, while both very good players, do not have HoF resumes.
Shane
<< <i>If he hadn't played for the yankees...he wouldn't even be mentioned.
He didn't play long enough, and his numbers weren't dominant enough long enough to warrant induction.
Don Mattingly and Thurman Munson, while both very good players, do not have HoF resumes. >>
Exactly - I bet if his (Mattingly's) career was a bit longer, and he was healthy and productive for a more sustained stretch, you could make a case for him. As it stands, he's not really even close.
You cannot fault a candidate for playing the minimum. The HOF makes that crystal clear. A HOFer does not have to play 18 years, nor does he need 3000 hits. Its nice if he did, but not a deal breaker.
If Mattingly just continued to play, he could have reached 3000 hits and been in "automatically." He did not have to produce a single gold glove or other accolade if he continued his career simply because compiling 3000 hits satisfies most people.
His career .300 average and 9 gold gloves in 12 full seasons look much more attractive and meaningful than a .281 lifetime average with 3000 hits in 20 full seasons. Do you see where I am going with this?
Are we just looking at players who played 18-27 years and ignoring the rest? Don Sutton has lofty career numbers, but he was never ever a dominant pitcher. A mediocre career for over 20 years and he is in the HOF. I can understand why some think that is exceptional because Sutton was ready to pitch any year and was always reliable for almost a quarter century. I can respect that. I can also respect that Koufax only played about 10 years, yet he had 4 monumental seasons and a lot of excellent ones. He was the pitcher for 4 years and one of the best for 10 years.
Keep in mind that many of the ~20 year players' best seasons are not near the best seasons of those that had 10 years service.
Don Sutton's best season is no where near the best 4 seasons of Koufax by any measure.
If you still feel that the HOF is only for players who played 20 years and almost all were record breaking, as is the case with Babe Ruth and Roger Clemens, I respect that too, but then you need to clear out over half of the current players enshrined.
How about this plausible senario: Julio Franco gets 3000 hits. Does he belong in the HOF?
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
1. Don Sutton did play many years at a high level. His ERA+ rankings are as follows...2,2,4,7,9,10,10. His IP are as follows...5,5,5,7,8,8,9,9,9,10. His bb+H/IP are exceptional with rankings of 1,1,1,1,2,4,4,4,5,5,6,8,9,9. His ERA and IP domiance are barely HOF, but his bb+h/IP dominance make him a no brainer Hall of Famer. Add in the longevity he is a slam dunk Hall of Famer.
2. Don Mattingly is hardly Koufaxian. Mattingly's OPS+ dominance rankings are 1,1,3,6, and those are his only top ten finishes. So it isn't like Mattingly dominated to such a great degree over his contemporaries that he didn't need to play a long time to make his mark as a true HOFer. His dominance is actually less than some of his HOF contemporaries AND those contemporaries had long careers to boot. They are also comparable(or better) to a Dave Winfield though too, minus the longevity.
By comparison, Koufax in his short career got in because of the dominance in his main categories as follows....ERA+ 1,1,2,3,3,5. BB+h/IP 1,1,1,1,2,4. IP 1,1,3,4. Wins 1,1,1,4,4. Those are the adjusted stats for Koufax a he actually had five ERA titles, but those were helped by his home stadium.
You also mentioned that Mattingly could have hung around and got 3,000 hits and been a shoe in. Possible. He would have to average 141 hits a year from age 35-40. Of course, being that those would have occured in the rapid expansion-lively ball era, it would not have meant as much. Of course, he was already well below average as a hitter for a 1B, so I doubt he would have been able to hold onto a job that long to hit .280 with 7 home runs a year from a 1B in that era.
Had he not gotten injured, we are talking a WHOLE NEW BALLGAME HERE!!! We wouldn't even be having this discussion as he would have been cemented in sooner or later. I am just looking at what actually happened.
A side comparison, Kirby Puckett gets in with near equal credentials because his career ended with the eye problem, and he was viewed as a great guy (until the legal problems). Don mattingly has just as good a case as Puckett.
Mattingly was the best hitter in baseball for a stretch from 1985-1987. The best hitter torch went from Schmidt '80-'82 to Murray '82'-'85 to Mattingly '85'-'87, with some overalapping of course. He was in their class as Hall of Famers at their peak, but his peak was a little shorter(even before he got hurt). To say it is just Yankee fans that think he was great is a mistake. He does fall a little short though looking at what actually happened as opposed to what could have been.
If Puckett is in, so should Mattingly. Borderline, yes.
<< <i>--A side comparison, Kirby Puckett gets in with near equal credentials because his career ended with the eye problem, and he was viewed as a great guy--
If Puckett is in, so should Mattingly. Borderline, yes. >>
If a candidate can't get in on their own merits, they shouldn't have to use another HoF'er to garner induction.
Mattingly just wasn't great long enough to warrant it.
Didn't the Yanks win the WS the following year after he retired?
...1991 TOPPS Desert Shield Baseball Card Collector
.....Since 1991 HOOAH!
S1991TOPPS@aol.com ">myemailaddress
All I know, is if Bill Mazeroski is a HOF'er. Don Mattingly certainly has to be.
Maz:
17 seasons
7 time all star
8 time gold glover (longest stretch consecutive 5 years 63-67)
top ten voting for MVP once (8th)
.260 career hitter
138 career HR
853 career RBI
2,016 career hits
.983 career fielding percentage
And I hate the Yanks...
(his big claims - 5 postseason series, 2 WS titles, .323 postseason ave, 2 HR)
Mattingly
14 seasons
6 time all star
9 time Gold Glover (5 year consecutive stretch 85-89(
MVP in 1985
top ten in MVP voting four times (1st in 85, 2nd in 86, 5th in 84 and 7th in 87)
.307 career hitter
222 career HR
1,099 career RBI
2,153 career hits
.996 career fielding percentage
.417 average in 1 postseason series, 1 HR, 6 RBI
Mattingly's numbers compare just as favorably over the course of the seasons with Puckett - but Maz got in based on good defense and one home run. To me, that's a little tough to swallow. The writers will end up keeping Donnie out. I'm not sure how long you must be kept out by the writers for the Veterans Committee to evaluate you, but I'm sure/hopeful the veterans do the right thing and put Mattingly in Cooperstown.
And I hate the Yanks... But I do like Don... He is one hell of a nice guy and he always took care of the fans... I went to school with him... He was a year a head of me, but boy he could play some baseball. Puck got in... so should Don...
...1991 TOPPS Desert Shield Baseball Card Collector
.....Since 1991 HOOAH!
S1991TOPPS@aol.com ">myemailaddress
That being said, people are throwing names like Klu and Hrbek around, and that isn't fair either. Mattingly was the best hitter in baseball for about four years, and that does mean something, ESPECIALLY since he did it in the most competitive era in MLB history!
Deutershcgeists' main point was that Mattingly being the best for four years should carry a lot of weight compared to say a Palmeiro, or Baines, who were never remotely the best but played a long time and managed to put up good career numbers.
IT isn't the Munson argument as Munson was never the best for a four year stretch, this is a different animal! There are very few players who can walk down the street and say "In my prime, I was the best hitter on the planet!" That says a lot!
So that begs the question on what the Hall of Fame's purpose is. Most likely it is to immortalize the greats of the game so future generations can know of the greats of the past. Now, does being the best hitter in baseball for a four year stretch warrant telling the grandchildren about? Or do you have to be Palmeiro, and never be remotely the best and never once be considered the best hitter in the game by anybody...but be good for a long enough time to be worthy of passing it on to the grandchildren?
I personally would rather tell my grandchildren about this guy Mattingly that came virtually out of nowhere and just took baseball by storm for about five years, becoming the best hitter and most popular player in the game, than of Palmeiro who was very good, but always had between six and twelve guys per year better than him. Tell me, which of those two is more worthy of praise, and more interesting to remember?(steroids aside).
P.S. I am not from New York, but I see people giving Mattingly disrespect in some of their comparisons, and the same people singing the praise of guys who don't deserve it. I am the true rarity in sports fandom....UNBIASED!
I see the Hall voters giving a pass to Puckett because of eye problems, and not to Mattingly because of back problems. I see the Hall wrongly singing the praise of the Good guyness of Puckett, and ignoring Mattingly's accurate good guyness, and that is where the comparisons come in. By the way sportsmanship, character etc.. are official criteria for the Hall of Fame!
In Mattingly's time, his contemporaries like Brett, Schmidt, and Murray were all exhaulted as the best hitters in the game at one time or another for a few years stretch. Mattingly does compare to those prime's, but wasn't quite as long. He carried the best hiter torch received from Schmidt, and Murray, then shared and passed it with Boggs, then a couple of years passed before the next best unqestionable hitter came along....Frank Thomas.
Here are the number of time finishing in MLB top ten in OPS+
Mattingly 1st, 4th, 1st
Palmeiro 6th, 7th, 7th
Now tell me, which of those two would you tell your children about? Especially when you consider that Palmeiro's men on hitting numbers do not compare to Mattingly's in those years, and you see that value widen even more, and Palmeiro would probably have ZERO top ten finishes.
Also, answer me this....Is Gale Sayers a better RB than Jerome Bettis? I believe EVERY Knowledgeable football analyst, historian etc.. wouldn't even question that, and that comparison is very similar to Don Mattingly and Rafael Palmeiro.
So one Hall of Fame recognizes greatness, albeit short, and the other only recognizes it on special occassions, some of which contradicts their other inclusions. Why Puckett and not Mattingly for instance? Baseball also rewards longevity but why Palmeiro and not Baines? I know Palmeiro ain't in, but from past discussions I know everyone on here thinks he belongs...why, I'm still scratching my head.
Bottom line, Palmeiro was NEVER EVER remotely close to being the best hitter in MLB! Mattingly absolutely was! The Hall has to recognize the absolute best of the eras, Palmeiro was not, Mattingly was and that is FACT. Yet Mattingly will not get it, Palmeiro will(based on opinons i've heard here). Also, other Hall of Fames would have put Mattingly in.
My conclusion is that I would not mind at all if Mattingly's short greatness earned him the Hall(even though he officialy comes up short in my book), and I would be insulted if Palmeiro's hitting got him landed in the Hall when he was NEVER even close to being the best hitter in MLB!
<< <i>Here is a comparison of Mattingly and Palmeiro and their top ten rankings in MLB in OPS+. Granted, OPS+ isn't perfect with the ball park translations, nor does it include men on hitting. However, those two factors would hurt Palmeiro's case if they were included correctly. There are also a couple of other factors, but none that really affect these guys.
Here are the number of time finishing in MLB top ten in OPS+
Mattingly 1st, 4th, 1st
Palmeiro 6th, 7th, 7th
Now tell me, which of those two would you tell your children about? Especially when you consider that Palmeiro's men on hitting numbers do not compare to Mattingly's in those years, and you see that value widen even more, and Palmeiro would probably have ZERO top ten finishes.
Also, answer me this....Is Gale Sayers a better RB than Jerome Bettis? I believe EVERY Knowledgeable football analyst, historian etc.. wouldn't even question that, and that comparison is very similar to Don Mattingly and Rafael Palmeiro.
So one Hall of Fame recognizes greatness, albeit short, and the other only recognizes it on special occassions, some of which contradicts their other inclusions. Why Puckett and not Mattingly for instance? Baseball also rewards longevity but why Palmeiro and not Baines? I know Palmeiro ain't in, but from past discussions I know everyone on here thinks he belongs...why, I'm still scratching my head.
Bottom line, Palmeiro was NEVER EVER remotely close to being the best hitter in MLB! Mattingly absolutely was! The Hall has to recognize the absolute best of the eras, Palmeiro was not, Mattingly was and that is FACT. Yet Mattingly will not get it, Palmeiro will(based on opinons i've heard here). Also, other Hall of Fames would have put Mattingly in.
My conclusion is that I would not mind at all if Mattingly's short greatness earned him the Hall(even though he officialy comes up short in my book), and I would be insulted if Palmeiro's hitting got him landed in the Hall when he was NEVER even close to being the best hitter in MLB! >>
Why not give it up? Your rants against Palmeiro appear personal. Like I stated, he will get in as a first ballot HOF'er. Sure, the HOF voting process is biased and places much more emphasis on big seasons (hence the discussion about Mattingly's few dominant seasons) rather than consistency. Big seasons are why someone like Don Drysdale gets in and Milt Pappas doesn't, even though they had very similar stats throughout their careers.
Drysdale
G - 518
IP - 3452
W - 209
L - 166
PCT - .557
H - 3084
SO - 2486
BB - 855
ERA - 2.95
GS - 465
CG - 167
SHO - 49
Pappas
G - 520
IP - 3186
W - 209
L - 164
PCT - .560
H - 3046
SO - 1728
BB - 858
ERA - 3.40
GS - 465
CG - 129
SHO - 43
Besides the strikeouts, the only major difference is that Drysdale has some huge seasons, while Pappas was the model for consistency. In our case, Palmeiro's consistency is so overwhelming that he will be a first ballot hall of famer. Rememer, this discussion was about Mattingly, not Palmeiro. If you find his hard work insulting, then find yourself another sport to follow. Come that wonderful day when he is elected into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot with > 90.0% of the vote, only you and a handful of anomilies in the baseball world will still hold to that belief.
Remember these Chuck Norris Facts
1. When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down
2. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, Chuck Norris can actually roundhouse kick you yesterday
3. There are no such things as lesbians, just women who have not yet met Chuck Norris
<< <i> Mattingly absolutely was! The Hall has to recognize the absolute best of the eras, Palmeiro was not, Mattingly was and that is FACT. >>
Excuse me?
After his fourth year in the league (1986), the best he could muster in either OPS or AVG was 6th in OPS, and 8th in average...hardly what you'd call a long term, dominant performance.
Mattingly was a very good player, but he doesn't exemplify the length of greatness that a HoFer should have to warrant induction.
Mattingly's statistical clones are John Olerud and Cecil Cooper. However, neither Cooper nor Olerud were considered the BEST for as long as Mattingly was. Olerud was the BEST for one year in all due respect, but no where near as long as Mattingly.
As good as Cooper and Olerud were, Mattingly dominated first base defensively for longer periods of time. Neither Cooper nor Olerud are close to the 9 gold gloves Mattingly earned.
Mattingly was MVP and was the leader in other categories such as hits, doubles, RBI, etc more than Cooper or Olerud.
So, Mattingly is no Cecil Cooper or John Olerud in pin stripes. Mattingly was clearly much better!
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
"Mattingly and Munson for the HOF" posts are getting old ... just as Munson's career was before it was cut short. He was going to the Indians, and would have retired as a member of another team.
<< <i>Mattingly's statistical clones are John Olerud and Cecil Cooper. >>
Exactly.
<< <i>However, neither Cooper nor Olerud were considered the BEST for as long as Mattingly was. >>
The best what? And, by whom, other than Yankee fans?
<< <i>"Mattingly and Munson for the HOF" posts are getting old >>
The best point made yet.
Yeah...maybe he would have been in there if he did not retire early, but oh well, thats life.
The HOF is becoming filled with players who were pretty good, or players like Mattingly who dominated for a small stretch of time (like 5 years in a row for example).
They need to tighten up the standards for who gets into the HOF.
Now with this whole Steroid Mess going on....there is no telling what the HOF will look like in 10 years.
<< <i>AS far as the argument about Mattingly only being considered because he was a Yankee does not carry a lot of weight.
Mattingly's statistical clones are John Olerud and Cecil Cooper. However, neither Cooper nor Olerud were considered the BEST for as long as Mattingly was. Olerud was the BEST for one year in all due respect, but no where near as long as Mattingly.
As good as Cooper and Olerud were, Mattingly dominated first base defensively for longer periods of time. Neither Cooper nor Olerud are close to the 9 gold gloves Mattingly earned.
Mattingly was MVP and was the leader in other categories such as hits, doubles, RBI, etc more than Cooper or Olerud.
So, Mattingly is no Cecil Cooper or John Olerud in pin stripes. Mattingly was clearly much better! >>
Yeah well, how many times did Mattingly lead the Yanks to a division title? 0
That says a lot right there. The big 0.
He dominated for a small stretch of time and was awarded an MVP. That's enough. The HOF is SUPPOSED to reward the players with dominating and stellar CAREERS, not one or two great years like Roger Maris, or a 5 season stretch like Mattingly. Had Mattingly played 20 years he would be in with no problem because he would have the career numbers to back it up (3,000 hits for example). But he CHOSE to retire early because of back problems. Maybe he got those problems because he did not condition himself good enough.
The point is to reward great CAREERS. Not a few great seasons within a career.
Mattingly had a good career, and was outstanding for 2-3 of them. As good a guy as he was, is NOT a HoF career. I am sorry, Mattingly fans, he just didn't dominate long enough, and I suspect every one of the HoF voters would agree.
You all that are hollering for his induction need to take a clear, objective look at his body of work, and quit focusing on 2-3 years.
Second, why would I have anything personal against Palmeiro...I don't know the man. You seem to have some kind of love for his spanish looks is more like it.
Third, Deuterschgeist initially posed the question as to why Mattingly's dominance doesn't give him any chance to make the Hall. He brought up an OUTSTANDING point of Julio Franco sticking around long enough to get 3,000 hits. That is what should be discussed. I highligted this issue using Mattingly and Palmeiro. One of them at one time was the very best hitter in the game, then got hurt and was never the same. The other WAS NEVER REMOTELY CONSIDERED THE BEST HITTER IN THE GAME, and that the Hall should recognize who were the best, and not just guys who played for a long time while never being one of the best, ala Palmeiro or Baines.
My point of view was even though Mattingly was dominant, it wasn't quite enough to distance himself from his peers to the same degree as a Koufax, therefore he would fall short of the Hall(becuase of the short period of dominant play)..
I also pointed out that people are comparing him to Olerud, Hrbek etc.. and that those comparisons HOLD NO WATER AT ALL!!! Mainly, at one point in Mattingly's career he was the absolute best hitter in baseball for about four years, and that holds a lot of weight! Olerud, Hrbek, etc... cannot make any such claim. They ended up finsihing with similar career statsitcs, but Mattingly's injury was a large factor in that happening.
The true definaition of a Hall of Famer is a guy who was one of the absolute best players in the game, AND also had a long string of very good seasons.
RAFAEL PALMEIRO CAN ONLY MUSTER OPS+ RANKINGS OF 6TH, 7TH, AND 7TH FOR HIS CAREER. Add his mediocore MOB numbers(compared to other HOF stature players), and you have a fella WHO IS NOWHERE NEAR considered the best in the game, and THAT is not Hall of Famer. His lifelong stats are a product of his TIME NOT, and I reapeat NOT HIS ABILITY!!! Palmeiro is FAR closer to Harold Baines, than to a Hall of Famer!
2. The Hall has a few players who don't belong, and some who do. So corrections do need to be made, and a Palmeiro mistake can be avoided before it happens.
Here are Palmeiro's yearly ranking in OPS. THIS IS NOT OPS+ where a ballpark adjustment is made. Being that Palmeiro gets hurt when the adjusment is made, then these numbers are all a few spots lower than what they say.
'87 NOT in top 100
'88...42nd
'89...62nd
'90...27th
'91...6th
'92...44th
'93....9th
'94....19th
'95....11th
'96....27th
'97....66th
'98....26th
'99.....5th
'00....27th
'01....27th
'02....16th
'03....44th
'04....NOT in top 100
For an average yearly rank of 38th. With a ballpark adjustments his rank puts him at about an average of 43RD.
After a finsih of 130th this year, and 150th next year if he hangs on, these numbers will only go down.
He was never the near the best at all. These numbers are not bad...they look worse than they are, but when the ballpark adjustments are made, he falls out of the hall of fame.
He was NEVER close to being the best....6th, 7th, 7th in OPS+ are his best years.
Was not a consistent top ten dominator.
Was not even a consistent top 20 dominator.
He was a consistent top 40 dominator, I'll give him that.
Plus his numbers don't get a boost with men on hitting like some other Stars.
Yeah, he was consistent! He was consistently the 35th best hitter in the league(OPS+). That does not smack Hall of Fame.
<< <i>By the way Megatron TWO things. 1). I would be happy to exchange names with you and bet a nice sum that Palmeiro WILL NOT garner >90% of the vote. Typically, players who have 45-50 peers in their careers who are better than him don't usually even make it.
2. The Hall has a few players who don't belong, and some who do. So corrections do need to be made, and a Palmeiro mistake can be avoided before it happens.
Here are Palmeiro's yearly ranking in OPS. THIS IS NOT OPS+ where a ballpark adjustment is made. Being that Palmeiro gets hurt when the adjusment is made, then these numbers are all a few spots lower than what they say.
'87 NOT in top 100
'88...42nd
'89...62nd
'90...27th
'91...6th
'92...44th
'93....9th
'94....19th
'95....11th
'96....27th
'97....66th
'98....26th
'99.....5th
'00....27th
'01....27th
'02....16th
'03....44th
'04....NOT in top 100
For an average yearly rank of 38th. With a ballpark adjustments his rank puts him at about an average of 43RD.
After a finsih of 130th this year, and 150th next year if he hangs on, these numbers will only go down.
He was never the near the best at all. These numbers are not bad...they look worse than they are, but when the ballpark adjustments are made, he falls out of the hall of fame. >>
Look, I understand and respect your analysis. I never said the guy was the best or even near the best. However, what I have stated is that the guy has posted excellent (once again, not the best) numbers over the course of a career. As a result, he will put up HOF numbers at the end of the career with approximately 600 home runs, > 600 doubles, > 3000 hits, and a .285 career batting average. Over the history of the HOF election, no player with 600 home runs or 3000 hits has been denied access to the Hall. Palmeiro will have both. HOF on the first ballot no doubt about it.
I will simply make a friendly wager, but no money involved. However, I doubt I will be on these boards by then. Once again, please understand. I respect your analysis and understand it. Palmeiro may not have been the most dominating player at his position, but his career stats are undeniable.
Also, don't compare Baines and Franco to Palmeiro. Those players played longer in their careers with lower career numbers. Baines has a similarity score of 792 to Palmeiro out of 1,000. That is a weak similarity. Those players with the most similar scores:
Frank Robinson (880) *
Eddie Murray (876) *
Reggie Jackson (842) *
Mel Ott (828) *
Dave Winfield (820) *
Fred McGriff (817)
Al Kaline (805) *
Harold Baines (792)
Willie McCovey (768) *
Billy Williams (756) *
* HOF
Remember these Chuck Norris Facts
1. When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down
2. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, Chuck Norris can actually roundhouse kick you yesterday
3. There are no such things as lesbians, just women who have not yet met Chuck Norris
The Harold Baines comparison is close. Don't forget that Harold played about seven more years in the tougher era. If Harold Baines starts seven years later, which means he gets seven more seaons in this current era, instead of the tougher era, then Harold's 2,866 hits turn into 3,000+ hits, so then is he a Hall of Famer just because the era helped him? His 384 Home Runs turn into 430+. His RBI turn into 1,750+.
I will have to say it again, YOU CANNOT TAKE PALMEIRO'S NUMBERS AT FACE VALUE AS HIS 3,000 HITS AND 500 HOME RUNS DO NOT MEAN THE SAME IN REGARDS TO WINNING GAMES AS SIMILAR NUMBERS IN OTHER ERAS. That point is exemplified by Palmeiro's low yearly ranking. If he ranks 38th in the league with a .900 OPS, and somebody ranks 20th in the league in 1983 with a .850 OPS, then obviously the lower OPS in 1983 is going to win more games even though on the surface it looks to be a weaker season. When this concept is comprehended, then you(or anyone), should start to understand what I mean, AND WILL THEN STOP SAYING HE HAS 3,000 HITS AND 500 HOME RUNS AS IF THEY ARE AS VALUABLE AS YOU INCORRECTLY BELIEVE. They can't be too valuable when he typically finishes 35th in the MLB, and never once in the top Five, and barely cracks the top ten a few times. Sorry, but that does not cut it. A Hall of Famer has to be one of the very best when he played, and he isn't close to that at all. He just has longevity, ala Harold Baines, and he has goood circumstances to achive numbers above what his ability really was. The writers need to understand this, and some of them actually are starting too.
The average fan will NEVER understand this.
Unfocused, impulsive collector of everything ...
For comparisons sake......In 1986 Mike Schmidt had 37 HR, 119 RBi, .290 AVG, . 390 OB%, .547 SLG%, and a .937 OPS. Those numbers are a touch below Palmeiro's 2000 season. But what did those numbers mean? Mike was the third best hitter in baseball, and 1st in the NL which won him the MVP.
So which is better, being the 3rd best, or 27th? Palmeiro's numbers only look better because it was FAR easier to hit in 2000 than in 1986. The reasons have been explained ad nauseum on this board before as to why. So when you look at Palmeiro's 560 HR, and compare them to 548 HR by Mike Schmidt, you should realize that Mike Schmidt's HR numbers would be closer to 700 in this era, and in those parks. Now do that for EVERY player that played from 1950-1992, and Palmeiro will be getting swallowed up in all those categories you exhault him in. What ends up happening is that he wouldn't look like anything special as he does now(because of the inflated numbers), as his numbers would be more in line with Dale Murphy.
Also remember, that in 2000 there were about ten million less (baseball age) men available in the US, than there were in 1986. Also realize that in 2000, many athletes were lost to other sports that were not lost to in 1986(as baseball was numero uno as those 86'ers were growing up). So if ten million more people would have been made available in 2000(plus the countless others who should have played baseball), then a few more guys would have passed him as well.
Remember, your putting 33rd best right on the same plateau as 3rd best when you continue to do his numbers at face value and vote him in the Hall with the greats like Schmidt, etc...who truly were the best in the game at one time in their career, AND played a long time!
So please stop saying 3,000 hits and 500 HR when you mention him, as if it measures up to Willie Mays numbers or something.
Now I can't say anything if you believe that being good for a long time deserves a spot in the hall as that is an opinion. But I do say something when incorrect analysis and faulty comparisons are made.
Time for a Group Hug!
...1991 TOPPS Desert Shield Baseball Card Collector
.....Since 1991 HOOAH!
S1991TOPPS@aol.com ">myemailaddress
<< <i>The average fan will NEVER understand this. >>
You have to take everything so damn personal. I am not an average fan and follow baseball religiously. Go back and read my post. I UNDERSTAND YOUR DAMN ANALYSIS. We will never see eye to eye. I say consistency matters a lot, you say it matters very little. Fine and end of point. We shall see 5 years after he retires and become a 1st ballot HOF'er. No sense in being a f*ucking az*hole about it.
Done talking to you. Talking to you is like clapping with one hand.
Remember these Chuck Norris Facts
1. When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down
2. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, Chuck Norris can actually roundhouse kick you yesterday
3. There are no such things as lesbians, just women who have not yet met Chuck Norris
<< <i>
<< <i>The average fan will NEVER understand this. >>
You have to take everything so damn personal. I am not an average fan and follow baseball religiously. Go back and read my post. I UNDERSTAND YOUR DAMN ANALYSIS. We will never see eye to eye. I say consistency matters a lot, you say it matters very little. Fine and end of point. We shall see 5 years after he retires and become a 1st ballot HOF'er. No sense in being a f*ucking az*hole about it.
Done talking to you. Talking to you is like clapping with one hand. >>
And you say he's taking it personally? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
You are going to see the number of members of the 500 HR club double in the next 10 years. 500 HRs will no longer be an automatic induction into the hall, as it will become a commonplace occurance, and there is that cloud of steroid use over his head...he starts hitting bombs the year that Canseco shows up on his team....coincidence? Hmm, I think not.
Raffy will not be a first-ballot guy, as I think too many of the HoF voters are going to hold back first ballot induction to all these steroid guys (McGwire too).
Looking at his career in perspective, and the fact he never had a true overwhelming year, you can't help but shake your head at the mediocrity. Yeah he's been consistent, but he's never truly dominated for even a year, let alone a stretch of time.
The Hall of consistently very good is actually a more appropriate place, which is not a bad place to be....but the fact that he was never even close to being in that "MOST FEARED HITTER IN THE LEAGUE" category, then he just doesn't belong with all the other Hall of Famer 1B who were in that "MOST FEARED HITTER IN THE LEAGUE". Obviously most feared hitter is a subject statement, but when you consistently rank in the 20's to 30's in terms of hitting ability, then obviously he doesn't come close to that category.
P.S. Tony Perez doesn't belong in the Hall either, as he was a product of his lineup, thus the RBI totals which got him there.
If you are having trouble clapping with one hand, just clap your one hand on your leg, and you should get the desired sound. Thanks.
Here is a question about consistency...would a player who played 24 years and got exactly 125 hits every single season, and hit 20.8 HR per year be a Hall of Famer?
<< <i>if you truly understood my posts you would not have said that you can't ignore 3,000 hits and 500 Home Runs, as if they meant the same as if done 20 years earlier. >>
Skinpinch,
Your posts are understood, but the fact is certain numbers get you in the Hall and as right now and 3000/500 will do it. Whether or not it's right doesn't matter, we may see the day when those are no longer magical numbers (especially 500 home runs), but for now they are. Palmeiro will go unless they set the precedent with him, which I doubt.
When you say "whether or not it is right, it doesn't matter," is wrong. It does matter, and I'm showing people why it is wrong, and seven years from now when Palmeiro is done more voters will hopefully realize it matters, and then avoid a mistake by putting Palmeiro in when he doens't belong. ALso, just because Palmeiro has more total hits and home runs than guys, doesn't make him a better hitter. He will outdistance Edgar martinez in both, but Martinez is a vastly superior hitter!
Funny, he will also demolish some guy named Ted Williams in both categories.....Yet, Palmeiro was never near the best hitter in his time. I think people will realize, and if not, I will help them realize.
Ask Mike Schmidt if it matters. I think guys like him would like to see this evidence presented to confirm what they already know, and to enlighten the fans.
Any moron will be able to tell you seven years from now that the 500 Home RUn club, for players from this era, does not mean near as much as it did from previous eras, when they notice such a large percentage of the club coming from the inflated era.
Basically seven years from now there will be 11 500 HR club members from this era, and 14 in the rest of history combined. Like I said, any moron should be able to put two and two together.
Then there is what is actually in the Hall now. Almost EVERY 1B or Corner OF have been among the very best at one time in their careers, and that is what I am measuring Palmeiro against. Even Tony Perez, who I feel doesn't belong, was closer to being the best hitter than Palmeiro was.
Just look at all the Post WWII 1b...all of them dominated to a much greater extent than Palmeiro. The guys closest to Palmeiro in terms of being among the best hitters in their times are Cepeda and Tony Perez. Here are their top OPS+ finishes in their leagues:
Cepeda...3,4,4,7,7,8,10
Perez....2,3,9
Palmeiro...3,5,6,9,9,10
Perez got in 14 years after he retired, Cepeda got in 25 years after. Plus those guys played in the tougher era to dominate, Palmeiro played in the time of less people to choose from, therefore easier to dominate.
If Palmeiro deserves it, he will need to wait until this era is COMPLETELY over so you can properly judge his merit. He may have to end up waiting 15 years from now to see if the Delgado's of the world are going to get to 560 Home Runs. The more "Delgado's" that reach 500 Home Runs, the lesser the chance the voters will pull the trigger on Palmeiro. I think the voters will wait and see on this.
I was a big fan of his until two years ago when he declined the trade to the Cubs because he didn't feel the Rangers were getting good enough prospects back. That was utterly ridiculous and really hurt his cause with me because he didn't want to go play for a team that was very likely going to go to the series.
Still I can't deny the numbers he has put up, despite all the contributing factors inflating those numbers. He does get in.
I think people are under the impression that the 500 homers and 3000 hit club is automatic. No where is it written in stone that it is. The only standard for numbers according to the HOF criteria is 10 years minimum played. The rest is subjective and debatable. Charter and Sportsmanship are also categories to consider, but most people throw those out. Most HOF analysis on this board is a quantitative argument about so and so numbers and all. Even after explaining that most HOF criteria are qualitative, people don't get it and stick with their perception that they are use to.
I am tired of hearing about Mattingly's career being too short when the HOF says that 10 years is enough. The 10 years of service is the only numbers category that is written in stone. The 3000 hits and 500 homers category is something we made up and act as if its written in stone.
Did Mattingly have good sportsmanship and good Character?
No one argues this point.
Did Mattingly impact the game and stood out among the rest?
6 straight all-stars, 5 straight gold gloves, 1 MVP (runner up, other top 10 finishes), RBI title, 3 Hits titles, Batting Champ, MLB record for most grand slams a season, MLB most homers in eight straight games. He was the best for a significant stretch. Olerud was the best for one season, so Mattingly is in a different level all together. Getting voted to the all-star game 6 straight years at 1b is extremely difficult because a lot of big boppers occupy that spot. It is hard to stand out at 1b because it is so competative. He was the BEST of his era.
Did Mattingly do something innovative to the sport?
1B was long regarded as a position to put a player who could hit but could not field. Mattingly showed the importance of defense at 1B and started a new trend of putting players on 1B that can also actually play the position and not use it as a DH role. Remember when Olerud came to NY? They were happy with his OBP, but also really appreciated his defense. Martinez was brought over to NY again because they want a good solid first baseman who could field. Giambi would be given the DH most of the times. Frank Thomas is hard to market because he is a defense liability. I read it quite often how teams use defense as a criteria when selecting a first baseman since no team wants 2 DH's. Each team wants some flexibility. So, Keith Hernandez and Mattingly showed the 1980's about a new breed of first baseman that must have defensive skills and not be another DH.
Jim Abbott was also a good guy, but he does not really qualify because he had only one outstanding season (CY Young top 3 in 1992). He really could not break ahead of his peers even though we all thought he had potential.
So, I am not saying put every nice guy in baseball's HOF, but I am saying that you could use that as a criteria. The primary question the HOF asks from a player is if you could write baseball history without mentioning their name. It is hard not to mention Babe Ruth when writing about baseball history. It is also hard not to mention Greg Maddux. It would be hard not to mention Randy Johnson also. Can you write Baseball history without mentioning Mattingly? He was the player of the 1980's. Maybe you can ignore him for 1984, but that's hard since he was the batting champ after battling Winfield until the last day. No one can forget that. You cannot ignore 1985 as the Yanks almost got 1st place largely due to Mattingly's clutch hitting and the highest RBI total of any player in a long time. Its hard to ignore 1986 as Mattingly established himself as the next young thing to take the reins of Lou Gehrig and other Yankee greats. Plus he lost the MVP to a pitcher (Roger Clemens) which some think was unfair since Clemens got the CY Young for being the best pitcher, the MVP, many argue should be the trophy for the best hitter. 1987 was the year he set MLB records in homers for 8 straight games and it was his third year hitting 30 or more homers and his fourth straight year of hitting above .300. It was not one year that Mattingly really stood out, as he did play in 6 straight all-star games. It was not just 4 seasons, but he won the gold glove for 9 seasons, batted .300 for 7 seasons, hit over 100 RBI for 5 seasons (over 86 RBI for 7 seasons) in 10 full seasons of service. Its hard to ignore him when talking about the 1980's.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
The vote: Wade Boggs 474 (91.9%), Ryne Sandberg 393 (76.2%), Bruce Sutter 344 (66.7%), Jim Rice 307 (59.5%), Rich “Goose” Gossage 285 (55.2%), Andre Dawson 270 (52.3%), Bert Blyleven 211 (40.9%), Lee Smith 200 (38.8%), Jack Morris 172 (33.3%), Tommy John 123 (23.8%), Steve Garvey 106 (20.5%), Alan Trammell 87 (16.9%), Dave Parker 65 (12.6%), Don Mattingly 59 (11.4%), Dave Concepcion 55 (10.7%), Dale Murphy 54 (10.5%), Willie McGee 26 (5.0%), Jim Abbott 13 (2.5%), Darryl Strawberry 6 (1.2%), Jack McDowell 4 (0.8%), Chili Davis 3 (0.6%), Tom Candiotti 2 (0.4%), Jeff Montgomery 2 (0.4%), Tony Phillips 1 (0.2%), Terry Steinbach 1 (0.2%), Mark Langston 0, Otis Nixon 0.
<< <i>
Did Mattingly impact the game and stood out among the rest?
6 straight all-stars, 5 straight gold gloves, 1 MVP (runner up, other top 10 finishes), RBI title, 3 Hits titles, Batting Champ, MLB record for most grand slams a season, MLB most homers in eight straight games. He was the best for a significant stretch. Olerud was the best for one season, so Mattingly is in a different level all together. Getting voted to the all-star game 6 straight years at 1b is extremely difficult because a lot of big boppers occupy that spot. It is hard to stand out at 1b because it is so competative. He was the BEST of his era. >>
Wow, you were really stretching there at the end...grand slams in a season? Consecutive HR game streak? Wow, if you have to bring that up to pad the resume, you know something is wrong.
<< <i>
Can you write Baseball history without mentioning Mattingly? He was the player of the 1980's. Maybe you can ignore him for 1984, but that's hard since he was the batting champ after battling Winfield until the last day. No one can forget that. You cannot ignore 1985 as the Yanks almost got 1st place largely due to Mattingly's clutch hitting and the highest RBI total of any player in a long time. Its hard to ignore 1986 as Mattingly established himself as the next young thing to take the reins of Lou Gehrig and other Yankee greats. Plus he lost the MVP to a pitcher (Roger Clemens) which some think was unfair since Clemens got the CY Young for being the best pitcher, the MVP, many argue should be the trophy for the best hitter. 1987 was the year he set MLB records in homers for 8 straight games and it was his third year hitting 30 or more homers and his fourth straight year of hitting above .300. It was not one year that Mattingly really stood out, as he did play in 6 straight all-star games. It was not just 4 seasons, but he won the gold glove for 9 seasons, batted .300 for 7 seasons, hit over 100 RBI for 5 seasons (over 86 RBI for 7 seasons) in 10 full seasons of service. Its hard to ignore him when talking about the 1980's. >>
He wasn't even the best AL player in the 80s...that title easily goes to Wade Boggs, who, coincidentally, was a FIRST BALLOT hall of famer. You are desperately reaching for straws, again and again going for the HR streak and grand slams in a season. Mattingly had a great 4-year streak, but he was far from HoF worthy. How can we not ignore him when discussing the 80s? His numbers essentially fell off the map after 1987. His injuries just caught up to him, and he never truly dominated the game but for 2 years...after 1986, the best he finished in OPS was 1987 and 6th place.
Why are we having this discussion? Mattingly was a fine player, but will never be a HoF player.
You think it's coincidence that a Yankee fan thinks yet another of his boys should be in?
However, the Hall of Fame doesn't say you have to play well for 20 years to make it, it only says 10 years, and these two rules are the rules pertaining to performance:
5. Voting — Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
6. Automatic Elections — No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.
That is very vague and leaves lots to the imagination. All the voters really have to go by is what is already in the Hall of Fame.
As for Mattingly, how he gets11% of the vote and Puckett gets in is a REAL HEAD SCRATCHER. Paul Molitor is another recent election on the first ballot to scratch your head.
Steve Garvey has ZERO top ten OPS+ finishes and he routinely gets higher vote totals, and he doesn't have career total numbers that are greatly impressive.
Basically, the Hall of Fame contains players who meet two criteria 1) They were very closer, or were, the absolute best players of their times. 2)They were also good enought in many other years to achieve lifelong totals(longevity).
Mattingly doesn't pass this test, neither does Palmeiro, nor Garvey. But if you think about it, had Mattingly scratched and clawed for another five years as a below average contributor, but got his 3,000 hits, how would that Make him any better than he was? If he was a below average contributor, then he could have easily been replaced. So the emphasis is, and SHOULD be more focused on how good you were during your prime(which is typically around 5-6 years).
P.S. Most baseball writers DO NOT know how to evaluate a player.
I think more time is needed to put Mattingly's career in perspective anyway. He is a much better candidate now because we know he was not a steroid user like his peers.
As far as Wade Boggs being a better player than Mattingly during the 1980's....that is not so clear cut. Mattingly had more offensive weapons while boggs was excellent in walking and getting hits. Mattingly can hit for average, power, and drive people in. Both were no speedsters around the bases either.
My main point was what skinpinch stated as well: Had Mattingly played about 5 more average seasons to get 3000 hits, no one would argue his induction. But I say what good is a Mattingly that plays 18 years with a .287 career average for instance? Why would he be more desirable just because he padded his stats? Hitting above .300 in career totals for 10 full seasons sounds better. Its funny, but taking the rationale of most posters here, then the more average seasons Mattingly could put up, the closer he would get to enshrinement. Is he a better player then for just being able to hang on?
Someone brought up Steve Garvey. He never dominated like Mattingly. When you mention Olerud, Cooper or Garvey, while I agree they are good players worthy of comparing to Mattingly, they just did not have those dominating distinguished seasons like Mattingly did (check the Bill James formulas for reference). Mattingly stood out more in his era than the others did in theirs.
Mattingly did not fade after 1987. He was still voted in the all-star games and continued to hit .300 and win gold gloves. At worst, he was still one of the top first baseman along with McGwire (but we are all starting to feel differently about him now).
With time, people will realize that Mattingly was one of the distinguished 1980's players that deserves induction. People will realize that there is a trend in baseball about emphasizing defensive talents more as well. 1B is no longer a DH position.
The reason I mentioned his MLB records is because he truely was one of the best and that is just more of an indication of it. Upon all his seasonal accolades, he still has MLB records that withstood the test of time. One would think those home run related records would be shattered by now, but they were not. Ruth, Gehrig and Molitor all had or have MLB records, all-time greats should have those as well as many other distinctions. Mattingly has all around distinctions-- that was the point I was driving at.
This is fun to debate. I realize many would put in a player that got 100 hits a season for 30 years simply because he has 3000 hits even though this player was mainly a back up, pinch hitter or occasional DH that managed to take care of himself physically. Its still impressive like in the case of Julio Franco, but one must realize that these kinds of players were not the best during any stretch in their careers. If Franco plays a few more seasons, he will get 3000 hits. Would I think he deserves to be in the HOF? I think so based on different criteria than I would use to justify Mattingly. Longevity is good, but so is quality within a 10 year time frame.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
After just his 6th full season, Mattingly only scratched above .300 once (.304), with seasons of .256, .288., .288, .291, and .288, and after just his 5th (!!) full season, never hit more than 23 home runs in a season again. He only hit 30+ HR's 3 times. Yet you try to bring in his home run hitting ability?
You say Mattingly was arguably better than Boggs? Then how did Boggs be a first-ballot HoFer, yet Mattingly failed to garner 12% of the vote?
Mattingly played parts of 14 years, so please don't try paint the 'he didn't overextend his stay'. He should have hung it up in 1989, when his game was gone and body was breaking down.
Now, using everybody's logic of the magic 3,000 number, how does Don Mattingly hanging around as a below average player for a quest to 3,000 hits make him a better player and contributor to his team?? He certainly wouldn't be much of a contributor to a team if he is below average. Yet, with 3,000 hits he makes everybody's Hall of Fame? Heck, people even said they would put a guy in that got ONLY 125 hits for 24 years, which means that guy has a pretty poor average and was not that good.
As for Boggs, he was very Fenway aided in is career(still a HOF of course). Also, Mattingly was CLEARLY the best hitter from 1985-1987. He did dominate for those years, and 1984 was pretty darn good too. '88 and '89 were all-star caliber as well. ALSO HE DID LOSE HIS POWER BECAUSE OF A BACK INJURY!! PUCKETT GETS A PASS FOR THE EYE INJURY, GO FIGURE.
I can see why Deutchergeist brought up the grand slam season record and consecutive HR game record. I remember those, especially the consecutive game one, and that was VERY exciting. Yeah, it isn't the all-time HR record, but Joe Dimaggio's hit streak isn't really anything different, yet it is one of the most revered records ever. Mattingly's HR streak was done when he was at the top of his game and he was like the Natural...it was worth remembering and telling the kids about.
But the bottom line is Mattingly could rightfully walk down the street in 1987 and say "I am the best hitter on the planet." There are VERY few players who could have the right to say that in the history of MLB. People think that is not enough, yet he would be a Hall of Famer if he hung around as a below avg player, slapping singles until he got to 3,000 hits?? That is very flawed logic!
Two things have to happen here, either people need to revise their statments on 3,000 hits being automatic, or they need to rethink a guy like Mattingly's(or Dick Allen) HOF status.