FYI...Wade Boggs during his Boston career had Home numbers of .367 AVG, .465 OB%, .525 SLG%. 281 Doubles. His road nubmers during his Boston career were as follows............307 AVG, .391 OB%, .400 SLG% 141 Doubles.
Fenway really helped him out. In a neutral park his value goes down considerably, especially when you look at those doubles which would be fly outs in most other parks.
Wade Boggs deserves the HOF in my opinion, but he got in first ballot because of 3000 hits. The baseball writers have this knee jerk response in voting in anyone with 3000 hits, just like they did with Molitor. Would Boggs have made it had he retired in 1994? I would say yes because he had a quality career for at least 10 years and was the best hitter in terms of getting on base and hitting doubles. He would challenge a pitcher by fouling out on purpose until he got a good pitch to hit. He was a pure hitter. Mattingly was the best in his prime because he hit for average or hit the ball in play, but rarely struck out. His hitting got better with men on base. My point is, Boggs and Mattingly occupied slightly different niches in terms of hitting.
So, Mattingly played parts of 14 years and that labels him as over extending his career? I thought the argument was that it was too short. Now we are switching perception of reality. If Mattingly had really over extended his career, then he would have reached 3000 hits and thus no argument over his enshrinement. In 1989, Mattingly was still one of the best first baseman and that is why the Yankees signed him for another 5 years (unitl 1995). He retired when his contract expired, but even then, Steinbrenner was still pursuing Mattingly and wanting to resign him. That is not over extending his career.
Mattingly still won 4 straight gold gloves in the worst 6 seasons of his career. He hit a combined batting average of .286 in his six worst seasons, which is still above average. Yes, his home run totals declined and that made him look undesirable when compared with McGwire and Palmeiro. I am telling you that this steroid scandal will make Mattingly's career look better and dignified.
He continued to be an RBI machine as measured through # of AB's to RBI. I know he only had around 50 RBI in 1994 and 1995, but that was because of the strike and time on DL (not his back, but other things like eye infection).
I have a feeling that Palmeiro might be a first ballot selection all because of his career totals. He was never the best, never MVP, Gold glove a few times, but rarely, if at all, a leader in offensive categories. Yet, because of his totals, he is a shoe in. Mattingly does not have large career totals, so we ignore him. The HOF never said to elect players that have the biggest total stats. Evaluate how much each player contributed to baseball history....
Bo Jackson does not deserve the HOF simply because he did not have a long enough streak. Mattingly had 6 straight all-star seasons. Olerud's streak was not long enough either. But Frank Thomas had a significant streak of being the best offensive first baseman.
"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
Comments
His road nubmers during his Boston career were as follows............307 AVG, .391 OB%, .400 SLG% 141 Doubles.
Fenway really helped him out. In a neutral park his value goes down considerably, especially when you look at those doubles which would be fly outs in most other parks.
Would Boggs have made it had he retired in 1994? I would say yes because he had a quality career for at least 10 years and was the best hitter in terms of getting on base and hitting doubles. He would challenge a pitcher by fouling out on purpose until he got a good pitch to hit. He was a pure hitter. Mattingly was the best in his prime because he hit for average or hit the ball in play, but rarely struck out. His hitting got better with men on base. My point is, Boggs and Mattingly occupied slightly different niches in terms of hitting.
So, Mattingly played parts of 14 years and that labels him as over extending his career? I thought the argument was that it was too short. Now we are switching perception of reality. If Mattingly had really over extended his career, then he would have reached 3000 hits and thus no argument over his enshrinement. In 1989, Mattingly was still one of the best first baseman and that is why the Yankees signed him for another 5 years (unitl 1995). He retired when his contract expired, but even then, Steinbrenner was still pursuing Mattingly and wanting to resign him. That is not over extending his career.
Mattingly still won 4 straight gold gloves in the worst 6 seasons of his career. He hit a combined batting average of .286 in his six worst seasons, which is still above average. Yes, his home run totals declined and that made him look undesirable when compared with McGwire and Palmeiro. I am telling you that this steroid scandal will make Mattingly's career look better and dignified.
He continued to be an RBI machine as measured through # of AB's to RBI. I know he only had around 50 RBI in 1994 and 1995, but that was because of the strike and time on DL (not his back, but other things like eye infection).
I have a feeling that Palmeiro might be a first ballot selection all because of his career totals. He was never the best, never MVP, Gold glove a few times, but rarely, if at all, a leader in offensive categories. Yet, because of his totals, he is a shoe in. Mattingly does not have large career totals, so we ignore him. The HOF never said to elect players that have the biggest total stats. Evaluate how much each player contributed to baseball history....
Bo Jackson does not deserve the HOF simply because he did not have a long enough streak. Mattingly had 6 straight all-star seasons. Olerud's streak was not long enough either. But Frank Thomas had a significant streak of being the best offensive first baseman.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee