I grew up a Yankees fan and I was always a huge Don Mattingly fan. In his hey day, he WAS the Yankees. And he totally got robbed of a second consecutive MVP award in '86, when the writers gave it to Roger Clemens, a friggin pitcher! Still though, I don't think Donnie is a Hall-of-Famer. As someone mentioned, his back robbed him of that opportunity. But he's so well-loved by Yankees fans, I don't think it really matters one way or the other.
"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."
I shouldn't do it - this thread needs to join the other 647 Mattingly threads in thread heaven - but:
<< <i>but he remains very popular today and has had a great impact on the game overall. >>
You would need to add the words "among Yankee fans" after the word "today" - no one else really cares all that much about a first baseman from 20 years ago who had a few good seasons. Truth hurts, but Yankee fans have always played up the careers of their favorites and, in effect, turned minor stars into household names.
A great impact? What exact impact did he have? Another example of remembering things the way you would like them to be, and not how they actually were.
This thread is dead. See you next week on the "Bernie Williams is a Hall Of Famer" thread.
<< <i>I shouldn't do it - this thread needs to join the other 647 Mattingly threads in thread heaven - but:
<< <i>but he remains very popular today and has had a great impact on the game overall. >>
You would need to add the words "among Yankee fans" after the word "today" - no one else really cares all that much about a first baseman from 20 years ago who had a few good seasons. Truth hurts, but Yankee fans have always played up the careers of their favorites and, in effect, turned minor stars into household names.
A great impact? What exact impact did he have? Another example of remembering things the way you would like them to be, and not how they actually were.
This thread is dead. See you next week on the "Bernie Williams is a Hall Of Famer" thread. >>
Mattingly is still mentioned very highly in many baseball circles, and please explain the "minor star" reference.
Lets not forget about Bernie Williams, not a HOF'er but he'll get his plaque at Yankees Stadium.
Collecting; Mark Mulder rookies Chipper Jones rookies Orlando Cabrera rookies Lawrence Taylor Sam Huff Lavar Arrington NY Giants NY Yankees NJ Nets NJ Devils 1950s-1960s Topps NY Giants Team cards
<< <i>He's far from the 'cusp' as you so eloquently put it.
as far as martinez? >>
This thread is about mattingly having no chance at the hall - quit taking potshots at Edgar.
<< <i>axhole I love how you just have to follow me around and reply to every post i make. >>
I love how you have no idea how to put together a well-thought out post.
<< <i>get a life. >>
Got one, thanks.
What long lasting impact did Mattingly actually have on the game? If he weren't being coddled as a coach for the yanks, how many people would actually remember him?
Good god if bernie gets a plaque, well, that just speaks volumes to how little those things mean.
I guess McGwire's 23.5% will keep him out ouf the hall forever..there is no way 52% of the No votes would change their minds about him...
now, since the steroid era guys are gonna have trouble getting into the Hall, does that create a void of electees? will that be when Mattingly makes it into the Hall?
ps...in regards to the statement that someone made about being an all-time great Yankee not holding any water.....Being a Great Yankee (holding many Yankee records) should count more then being a Great from Any other team...the Yankees have been the most successful, have the largest amount of HOF's, and are the most famous team in all of sports (throughout the world)..they have 4 of the top 10 players of all -tiime....the history of the team is so long and deep, that holding ANY yankee record should be considered a feat in itself!
SO, because Mattingly holds so many Yankee records, and played in the most statistically competitive era (the 1980's,just ask Skinpinch), i believe he will continue to gain votes (hes up to 10% this year) as his accomplishments, his respect for the game, and the popularity (FAME) he has, becomes more recognized and appreciated by the voters....
who is more Famous: Mattingly, Blyleven ,Dawson......i think the answer is obvious (other then in a few select cities--ie Minnesota, Montreal)
Remember this is the Hall of Fame, not the hall of Shame, or the Hall of Minimum Stat Requirements
When it is George Brett's, Wade Bogg's, Eddie Murray's, and Robin Yount's turn to vote as part of the voting process, Mattingly is going to be voted in.
Mattingly has AT LEAST as much merit as Jim Rice. He actually has more in terms of peak value. Their similarity is that they declined rather quickly, but for different reasons.
Rice declined because he just became a bad baseball player and couldn't avoid hitting into double plays...hence an early exit from the game, after a nice run. Not to mention the very large boost he received from playing at Fenway
Mattingly's decline can be largely attributed to his health problems, and it is this aspect where Hall voters show their hipocrisy...Why does Puckett get a pass for a similar early exit, and Mattingly's ignored? Would it have actually been more beneficial for Mattingly to retire after the back problem, and then he could have gotten greater sympathy? Maybe. But he did play on, and wasn't the same player.
The competitive era! YEs fandango. Is it more impressive to win a bowling tournament when the elite players are drawn from a pool of 75 people or 200? In Mattingly's case, he was fighting with the competitive 200 pool, wheras in other era's they were fighting it out with the 75 pool containing lesser elite players.
As for the FAME aspect, there is no question Mattingly is known/revered from people outside of New York...especially back then! Sure some ten year old may not know him now, but they probably never heard of Jimmy Foxx or Duke Snider either. So in that sense, most guys in baseball history are lost on the current public.
if mattingly played his career in kansas city. pittsburgh or milwaukee you wouldn't give a second thought to his career. but no put him in pin stripes and they should get bonus points? please. you already got phil rizzuto in.
mattingly may be a class act, blah, blah, blah but 2/3 of a career doesn't make one a hall-of-famer. and yes stats do matter. your opening spiel bragged about mattingly's stats. according to baseball reference, mattingly's career numbers were closest to cecil cooper. when you start a bandwagon for cooper than mattingly should get consideration.
222 hr's 1099 rbi's and 2153 hits with only one postseason appearance does not make one a deserving hall-of-famer.
will clark also had similar stats and was a gamer. st. louis got him for a playoff drive in 2000 at the end of his career and he batted .345 in 51 games. there are many near greats that won't make it.
Years ago I was an usher for the Orioles. In 1987 I had broke my toe and was assigned different duties including visiting teams locker room. One day I spent about 40 minutes in the locker room before the game. A couple of Yankees were their typical rude primadonna Godlike selves. They were taunting me and dumping things on the floor, including food, expecting me to rush over and make it right. ( I was on crutches ) Out of the blue Tommy John and Don Mattingly stepped in and chewed these as*holes out. Then both jumped in and helped me clean their mess up. Then Don went over ,poked one in the chest, said something that stopped the rest of the crap.I liked him so much more as a person , than as a player , as I agree if he had played somewhere else, he might have no carrier at all. If he had played in Houston , Jose Cruz and him could've been a modern Ruth & Gehrig, in a Houston sort of way.
" In a time of universal deceit , telling the truth is a revolutionary act " --- George Orwell
Back around 86 I lived in Flordia, my father took me to a Yankees against the Orioles spring training game. There was Don Mattingly going to the field. Now from what I heard about Don Mattingly is that he doesnt like to sign autographs because he doesnt like people selling his name for money. So I got alot of other little kids around the fence, and started Yelling Don Mattingly about 5 min later he came to the fence and signed all of our cards, including my Baseball mit. I was around 12 at the time That was my most memorable moment with baseball as a kid.
Fandango, I know you are a big Mattingly fan (I loved watching him play, too, and for about a 4 year stretch he was as good a hitter as any in the Majors), but he will never get even close to the necessary votes for admission to the Hall. In fact, I'd be surprised if he ever breaks 50%.
With regard to McGwire: his 23% vote total is artficially low because many voters who plan on eventually voting for him witheld their vote this election as a sign of protest for his steroid use. I do expect that Big Mac will get into the Hall within the next 5-7 years, or at least he will get far closer than Mattingly ever will.
I'm not saying I think McGwire deserves to be in the Hall (I don't), or that Mattingly does (I don't, either), but that's the way I see it unfolding, FWIW. Had Mattingly not been plagued by the bad back, I think he was on his way to the Hall for sure, but he just doesn't have the career numbers, cumulatively, to get there, IMO.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The stats you mentioned are nice, but there is nothing in there that even come remotely close to justifying a place in the HOF. He had some nice seasons-lots of guys had good seasons and are not in the HOF.
Mattingly was good but he is not a hall of famer. Rice is getting in next year. If Mattingly belongs then so does the great Albert Belle, a more feared hitter.
We have already proven that there are dozens of players ahead of Jim Rice not in the HOF. Mattingly actually ranks over Jim Rice when using more accurate statistical measures of a player's true playing value.
I reference Skinpinch and Dallasanctuary who came up with all sort of computations and permutations of more accurate measures of performance. Do an analysis using OPS+ and batter runs instead of RBI, batting average and home runs and you will see what we all mean.
"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
The comparison between Puckett and Mattingly's career is not accurate. Puckett lead his team to 2 World Series titles, Don never could lead the Yanks to a title. That is why Kirby got in on the first ballot, it wasn't a sympathy vote.
Eh, only the first statistic you cited is of any real consequence. Maybe the grand slam stat too. Otherwise, they're indicative of a player who was very good but certainly not HOF worthy. The fact is that if Mattingly had played for the Brewers or the Rangers he and the phrase "Hall of Fame" wouldn't appear in the same sentence.
I'm Ron Burgundy. You stay classy, San Diego.
Ron Burgundy
Buying Vintage, all sports. Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
ahmm, Mattingly was the best Player in the 1980's, it doesnt mater what team he was on! actually it would have been better if he were on a different team, cause the Yankees STUNK in the 1980's--they had awful pitching...
if mattingly was the first baseman of the Royals, put up the same stats he did, and won a championship --he would be in the hall...
when you are chosen to be card #1 in more sets then anyone in your playing generation, you deserve to be in the hall!
I'd put in Garvey before Mattingly. Mattingly just didn't play long enough; whatever the reason doesn't matter. Garvey had a longer career and put up his consistent numbers in the 70's (tougher time than the 80's to put up big numbers) and his defense at first base wasn't as bad as everybody says. He had no arm? I didn't realize an arm for a first baseman is that big of a deal compared to other skills, like digging balls out of the dirt, stretching, grabbing line drives, etc... which all happen much more in a game than the need for a first baseman to throw the ball which rarely happens. I realize I am a bias Dodger fan though.
<< <i>I guess McGwire's 23.5% will keep him out ouf the hall forever..there is no way 52% of the No votes would change their minds about him... >>
Stranger things have happened. Bruce Sutter, Billy Williams, Don Drysdale, Duke Snider, and Bob Lemon all went from less than 25% on their first ballot to eventual election.
If past voting is any indicator, Mattingly's not getting in. Typically, folks who get elected go up the list, not down. Mattingly's stock has gone down on the ballot almost every year: 2001 = 28.2% (145 votes) 2002 = 20.3% (96 votes) - 2003 = 13.7% (68 votes) - 2004 = 12.9% (65 votes) - 2005 = 11.4% (59 votes) - 2006 = 12.3% (64 votes) + 2007 = 9.9% (54 votes) -
Edit: There's always the Veterans Committee. The last guy they let in was in 2001 (Bill Mazeroski). Ron Santo and Gill Hodges each got 65% of the VC votes in 2005, maybe they'll finally get the call next month?
<< <i>I'd put in Garvey before Mattingly. Mattingly just didn't play long enough; whatever the reason doesn't matter. Garvey had a longer career and put up his consistent numbers in the 70's (tougher time than the 80's to put up big numbers) and his defense at first base wasn't as bad as everybody says. He had no arm? I didn't realize an arm for a first baseman is that big of a deal compared to other skills, like digging balls out of the dirt, stretching, grabbing line drives, etc... which all happen much more in a game than the need for a first baseman to throw the ball which rarely happens. I realize I am a bias Dodger fan though. >>
GARVEY DIDNT HAVE 1 YEAR EQUAL TO MATTINGLY'S MONSTER 4 YEAR RUN....
JUST CAUSE YOU ACCUMULATE DECENT NUMBERS OVER A LONG HAUL, DOESNT MAKE YOU HALL MATERIAL!
ITS HOW DOMINANT YOU WERE IN YOUR ERA! WHO WAS THE MOST FAMOUS PLAYER IN THE 80'S....HANDS DOWN MATTINGLY
TYPING IN ALL CAPS DOES NOT MAKE YOUR OPINION ANY MORE FACTUAL.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Don was popular Yankee, but there were players that were just as popular or more so. Puckett and Cal Ripken are all probably more popuar nationally that Mattingly.
The last six years of his career were so average that I think it lowers the writers' opinion of him. Plus the fact his career bookends with Yankee WS doesn't help.
FANDANGO- You probably were not alive (or too young to have been aware) in the 70's to witness how much Garvey meant to a very good team. Stats were up there with the best of the 70's for a long time, he produced in the clutch (and post season) and was a model citizen... at least until he retired. I doubt there were many kids, who grew up in the 70's in SoCal, who were not Garvey fans. Lots of haters in other cities of course. Also, I acknowledged in my post that I was a bias Dodger fan so you should probably take what I write with that in mind. Lastly, next time you do not have to YELL and I will still hear you.
<< <i>when you are chosen to be card #1 in more sets then anyone in your playing generation, you deserve to be in the hall! >>
Well then, that settles it. We are all so foolish as to not recognize the fact that Don Mattingly was numerically listed first more than any other player of his generation. I think some serious consideration needs to be put into reviewing all current HOFers and seeing how many times they were listed #1 in a set. Of course there would have to be adjustments made based on the number of sets put out in that players career that he was eligible to be # 1 in, and we would have to throw out any sets that came out after that player retired. I don't think that honorary #1's for retirement should be taken into consideration when selecting our Hall of Famers.
I can't believe we have been voting based on something so stupid as merit and accomplishments for the past 80 years.
Who here on these boards wants to start a petition with me to have all Hall of Fame members reviewed?
I have always questioned Garvey's absence in the Hall. I am by no means a Garvey fan as he destroyed my Cubbies as a Dodger and a Padre, but I used to study the stats of all players from the '70s - '80s (i.e Rose vs Carew, Seaver vs. Palmer vs. Carlton, Schmidt vs. Foster vs. Rice etc). One thing that stood out to me on Garvey was that no matter the stage - regular season, All Star game, playoffs or World Series, he was probably the most consistent hitter in the game bar none. He could hit for some power, always approached 200 hits in a season, 300+ average and I do believe he won a few Gold Gloves. He was the leader on 4 Dodger World Series teams and played a key roll in San Diego's 1984 run. Whether or not he was a model husband does not justify his low vote counts. I think even Kirby Puckett had some charges pressed against him by his wife. The fact that Garvey was hated by most people outside of LA is another testament to how good of a player he was.
<< <i>FANDANGO- You probably were not alive (or too young to have been aware) in the 70's to witness how much Garvey meant to a very good team. Stats were up there with the best of the 70's for a long time, he produced in the clutch (and post season) and was a model citizen... at least until he retired. I doubt there were many kids, who grew up in the 70's in SoCal, who were not Garvey fans. Lots of haters in other cities of course. Also, I acknowledged in my post that I was a bias Dodger fan so you should probably take what I write with that in mind. Lastly, next time you do not have to YELL and I will still hear you. >>
SORRY about the caps before, i wasnt yelling.....
my point about being the #1 card in many sets simply demonstrates the (perceived) Dominance of Donald Arthur Mattingly during the 1980's.....
when these companies sat around the table to come up with their checklists, it was almost a foregone (sp) conclusion who would lead off the set.....the Best, most popular, and Most famous player of the Decade (a decade where it was hardest to accumulate good stats due to the competitiveness)
Garvey was a 70's player.....mattingly dominated the 80's, and the people who dominated the 90's were roid heads....so in 10 years there will be a HOF player vacuum (no roid heads will ever get in), and this is when Mattingly will become a popular vote.....
i know fandango is actually in his little corner of his parents basement laughing at the rest of us because he constantly comes on this board and stirs the pot. i truly believe he is puting us on because no serious sane person would write much of the diatribe that he puts up her.
i guess i am grateful that for awhile he is off his "albert pujols is the greatest thing ever to hit the planet diatribe. it is strange that he would admire mattingly for being a class act and than fawn over pujols who is slowly but surely becoming the biggest tool in baseball. all he needs is for barry bonds to retire and then pujols will be the biggest self-absorbed prima donna in the majors.
for the record, eddie murray was named the top 1st baseman in the 1980's not mattingly. don't know if murray was ever the #1 card in a set, but i think his numbers speak for themselves. i know mattingly did not play in the entire decade in the majors but i don't make the calendar.
As for this card #1 thing. I could be mistaken but in the 70's card #1 was often a record breaker or league leader. Instead it was card #'s 100, 200, etc... that were reserved for the super stars with second tier stars at 50, 150, third tier at 20, 40, 60, etc..... Even then, it was just Topp's opinion. Bottom line, the card #1 argument does not seem worth a lot to me except that the card companies of the 80's apparently saw Donnie baseball as the most marketable guy around. In later years (90's) didn't Topps do tributes to Nolan Ryan, et al, as card #1?
Back to my main point, I just think if you are talking Mattingly then Garvey should at least be in the conversation. Besides Ripken and Gherig did anybody play in more straight games than Garvey? I think Garvey is right up there as a junior "iron man."
By the way, I like Mattingly and Pujols so am not hating on them. Just expanding the conversation. Not a personal attack on the SCREAMING Pujols fan.
I do recall Topps would make efforts to place key players at #1 after particularly notable seasons... Maris in the '62 set and Mays in the '66 - although Mantle was often at 150 ('67) 50 ('66) or 350 ('65), etc. so I wouldn't call him a "lesser" player, though his career was winding down at that time.
so I wouldn't call him a "lesser" player, though his career was winding down at that time.
Funny. I did not realize that. I think I may have been slightly mistaken to suggest the super stars were only at the even hundreds. You are right that Mantle probably wasn't a lesser player even at the numbers ending in 50. Thanks for the info!
<< <i>i know fandango is actually in his little corner of his parents basement laughing at the rest of us because he constantly comes on this board and stirs the pot. i truly believe he is puting us on because no serious sane person would write much of the diatribe that he puts up her.
i guess i am grateful that for awhile he is off his "albert pujols is the greatest thing ever to hit the planet diatribe. it is strange that he would admire mattingly for being a class act and than fawn over pujols who is slowly but surely becoming the biggest tool in baseball. all he needs is for barry bonds to retire and then pujols will be the biggest self-absorbed prima donna in the majors.
for the record, eddie murray was named the top 1st baseman in the 1980's not mattingly. don't know if murray was ever the #1 card in a set, but i think his numbers speak for themselves. i know mattingly did not play in the entire decade in the majors but i don't make the calendar. >>
That Pujols remark got me going.....Before the playoffs against the Mets, Pujols was believed to be an Angel.....just because the New York Media made him out to be the Bad-guy, does not mean its so.,...the NY papers needed a villain against their beloved Mets, and they Made PUJOLS it.....But ist not True.....come up with 1 thing, other than something in October 2006, where pujols even remotely resembles Bonds...
the novemeber 2006 stories about Pujols were total Horse Shat...He was misquoted from a Spanish Interview, and they made it out like he was complaining...someone asked him a question and he answered it...he did not call a press conference in St Louis to Complain about not winning the MVP, and that is what some writers made it out to be....
how is Pujols Self absorbed? is he self absorbed at his Charity New Years eve ball (non alcoholic party)? Is he self asbsorbed when he takes Down Syndrome kids to the clubhouse and sends them and their whole family to Disney? is he Self absorbed when he sells an Auto on his website and ALL THE MONEY GOES TO CHARITY? How many ball players sign for Charity and dont make a cent? He Donates all the money from selling items on his site to charity! is this how he is a prima dona?
Prima Dona is when you hit 3 hr and 10 rbi in 1 game, and the next day you are selling balls with the Stat line for $399.99---that is a Prima Dona =Arod...guess how many Arod cards i have? as many as Bonds.....ZERO
Czar i lost a lot of respect for you with that comment.....i hope you are not serious about Pujols being like Bonds, you couldnt be further from the truth...
Any Yes, right now Pujols is the 3rd Best Offensive Player in History....Ruth, Williams, Pujols.....
Fandango, I don't know if you are from St. Louis but I am. I was at a dinner function where Bernie Miklasz of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch spoke. When asked about Pujols here is what he had to say. Not verbatim, but the message is there.
1) Pujols did say that about Glavine. Don't need the "New York media" to whip it up. He said it. 2) Pujols has walked through the clubhouse and come up to a reported not bothering a soul and say to the reporter "Get the f**k out of my way" for no valid reason. 3) Pujols agent has instructed him not to talk to the local media for anything important. When he had to apologize to Ryan Howard for his "misquote" he went through USAtoday. Apparently news doesn't travel fast enough through the flyover part of our country. 4) Pujols handlers did call the local media out when he opened up his restaraunt. When they showed up Pujols asked the reporters why they were there.
I will quote Miklasz when he said Pujols was confused either to be a Cal Ripken persona or a BARRY BONDS persona. He added as you mentioned there were times when he was charming and charitible.
You may think I am making it up, but I am not. You may want to defend him and this is your right.
5) A friend of mine who is a big Cardinal fan was at an auto dealer one day and Pujols walks in and announces right off of the bat, "I am not signing any autographs so just leave me alone". Half the people didn't even know who he was. That to me is a Prima Donna.
Neither Miklasz or my car buying friend had a ax to grind with him. Pujols has a long way to go in his career and he may mature. Then again he may get worse.
Pujols will never make the top 3 because he is a butcher in the field anywhere but 1st base. Golden Gloves are not a measurable award and I saw him play OF and 3B and he was horrid. You also failed to mention Willie Mays. I saw Mays play and Pujols is no Willie Mays.
That is not correct, Mattingly batted .417 that series (10 for 24) with 4 doubles 6 RBI and 1HR...it was the yankee pitching that let them down in that series...Scott Kamienecki couldnt hold a 5-0 lead in the third....that was his lastgame as a yankee that bum! Mattingly did all he could that series ad he looked like the mattingly of 1986 (when he was robbed of a second straight MVP by a pitcher!!!!)
...maybe Mattingly will make it into the Hall as a manager for guiding the yanks to numerous world series titles, but it would be nice for him to be elected through the veterans committee... >>
Fandango, I realize you posted this way back in August, but since I was just reading through this thread today, I thought I'd respond to something that popped out at me. It's true that Kamienecki gave up that lead, but according to the box score from that game one of his runs was an unearned run and that error, the only error in the game by the way, was attributed to Mattingly. I'd be hesitant to blame the whole series on pitching alone, especially one man's pitching. Wetteland gave up four of his own runs and Howe couldn't shut the Mariners down in that game either.
Skinpinch, I know you don't like Rice (at least not for HOF consideration), and I've read your numerous posts about how his stats don't measure up, but I disagree with your statement that Rice and Mattingly's sudeen declines were caused by different reasons. Rice didn't just become a bad player as you stated, he also had his share of ailments which prevented him from maintaining the stats he had put up prior to 1987. I'm starting to think your case against Rice is more than just an objective look at the stats. Text
"mattingly dominated the 80's, and the people who dominated the 90's were roid heads....so in 10 years there will be a HOF player vacuum (no roid heads will ever get in), and this is when Mattingly will become a popular vote..... '
since you redirected the new mattingly thread....
No way he gets in the HOF just doesnt have the numbers. 4 Great years doesnt equal the HOF.
I saw his house in Indiana one time. (He lives by my aunt). It was on a few acres of land, but it wasn't anything remarkable...not a huge mansion or anything. Just a modest home. I thought it was cool. A nice place though.
Mattingly led MLB in OPS that has been park adjusted (OPS+) TWICE. Less than 10 players in the last 80 years have done that feat.
Koufax might have led MLB in ERA several times, but Dodgers stadium is a pitcher's park. When park adjusted, his ERA+ led MLB only ONCE.
Both Koufax and Mattingly had short overall careers while dominating 4-6 years. Koufax deserved to be elected and I am not arguing that. Its just that many people thought that Mattingly did not dominate as Koufax did in their respective best 4 years.
Having the numbers park adjusted reveals a much truer profile of a ball player. Just thought I share that perspective. I never thought of it this way until someone showed me, so now I am more convinced that Mattingly deserves strong consideration for the HOF.
"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
It Kirby Puckett and especially Ryan Sandberg (seeing as how he also has nine gold gloves and MVP) can get in with similar career stats, then so too should Mattingly. At least all three do have their shirts retired, which some players (such as Ron Santo) consider to be an even greater honor than the HOF.
You guys don't suppose the reason he was my boyhood idol have anything to do with the fact that he's from nearby Evansville, IN, do ya?
<< <i>Mattingly led MLB in OPS that has been park adjusted (OPS+) TWICE. Less than 10 players in the last 80 years have done that feat.
Koufax might have led MLB in ERA several times, but Dodgers stadium is a pitcher's park. When park adjusted, his ERA+ led MLB only ONCE.
Both Koufax and Mattingly had short overall careers while dominating 4-6 years. Koufax deserved to be elected and I am not arguing that. Its just that many people thought that Mattingly did not dominate as Koufax did in their respective best 4 years.
Having the numbers park adjusted reveals a much truer profile of a ball player. Just thought I share that perspective. I never thought of it this way until someone showed me, so now I am more convinced that Mattingly deserves strong consideration for the HOF. >>
GREAT POINT
cant say how disappointed i am in the yankees that they would show a living legend the door.....
dont expect Donnie BASEBALL at any Yankees oldtimers games.....
HanK steinbrenner is going to be a bigger jerk than his father...
he already ripped his father by saying "we dont expect to win the world series every year, where not STUPID" meaning his father is stupid...
interseting how the Sons didnt make an apperance until George was frail, and had dementia...so sad how they are taking advantage of the old man.....
this yankee fan is quickly being pushed to become a Dodgers Fan....
Comments
<< <i>but he remains very popular today and has had a great impact on the game overall. >>
You would need to add the words "among Yankee fans" after the word "today" - no one else really cares all that much about a first baseman from 20 years ago who had a few good seasons. Truth hurts, but Yankee fans have always played up the careers of their favorites and, in effect, turned minor stars into household names.
A great impact? What exact impact did he have? Another example of remembering things the way you would like them to be, and not how they actually were.
This thread is dead. See you next week on the "Bernie Williams is a Hall Of Famer" thread.
<< <i>I shouldn't do it - this thread needs to join the other 647 Mattingly threads in thread heaven - but:
<< <i>but he remains very popular today and has had a great impact on the game overall. >>
You would need to add the words "among Yankee fans" after the word "today" - no one else really cares all that much about a first baseman from 20 years ago who had a few good seasons. Truth hurts, but Yankee fans have always played up the careers of their favorites and, in effect, turned minor stars into household names.
A great impact? What exact impact did he have? Another example of remembering things the way you would like them to be, and not how they actually were.
This thread is dead. See you next week on the "Bernie Williams is a Hall Of Famer" thread. >>
Mattingly is still mentioned very highly in many baseball circles, and please explain the "minor star" reference.
Lets not forget about Bernie Williams, not a HOF'er but he'll get his plaque at Yankees Stadium.
Mark Mulder rookies
Chipper Jones rookies
Orlando Cabrera rookies
Lawrence Taylor
Sam Huff
Lavar Arrington
NY Giants
NY Yankees
NJ Nets
NJ Devils
1950s-1960s Topps NY Giants Team cards
Looking for Topps rookies as well.
References:
GregM13
VintageJeff
<< <i>He's far from the 'cusp' as you so eloquently put it.
as far as martinez? >>
This thread is about mattingly having no chance at the hall - quit taking potshots at Edgar.
<< <i>axhole I love how you just have to follow me around and reply to every post i make. >>
I love how you have no idea how to put together a well-thought out post.
<< <i>get a life. >>
Got one, thanks.
What long lasting impact did Mattingly actually have on the game? If he weren't being coddled as a coach for the yanks, how many people would actually remember him?
Good god if bernie gets a plaque, well, that just speaks volumes to how little those things mean.
now, since the steroid era guys are gonna have trouble getting into the Hall, does that create a void of electees? will that be when Mattingly makes it into the Hall?
ps...in regards to the statement that someone made about being an all-time great Yankee not holding any water.....Being a Great Yankee (holding many Yankee records) should count more then being a Great from Any other team...the Yankees have been the most successful, have the largest amount of HOF's, and are the most famous team in all of sports (throughout the world)..they have 4 of the top 10 players of all -tiime....the history of the team is so long and deep, that holding ANY yankee record should be considered a feat in itself!
SO, because Mattingly holds so many Yankee records, and played in the most statistically competitive era (the 1980's,just ask Skinpinch), i believe he will continue to gain votes (hes up to 10% this year) as his accomplishments, his respect for the game, and the popularity (FAME) he has, becomes more recognized and appreciated by the voters....
who is more Famous: Mattingly, Blyleven ,Dawson......i think the answer is obvious (other then in a few select cities--ie Minnesota, Montreal)
Remember this is the Hall of Fame, not the hall of Shame, or the Hall of Minimum Stat Requirements
Mattingly has AT LEAST as much merit as Jim Rice. He actually has more in terms of peak value. Their similarity is that they declined rather quickly, but for different reasons.
Rice declined because he just became a bad baseball player and couldn't avoid hitting into double plays...hence an early exit from the game, after a nice run. Not to mention the very large boost he received from playing at Fenway
Mattingly's decline can be largely attributed to his health problems, and it is this aspect where Hall voters show their hipocrisy...Why does Puckett get a pass for a similar early exit, and Mattingly's ignored? Would it have actually been more beneficial for Mattingly to retire after the back problem, and then he could have gotten greater sympathy? Maybe. But he did play on, and wasn't the same player.
The competitive era! YEs fandango. Is it more impressive to win a bowling tournament when the elite players are drawn from a pool of 75 people or 200? In Mattingly's case, he was fighting with the competitive 200 pool, wheras in other era's they were fighting it out with the 75 pool containing lesser elite players.
As for the FAME aspect, there is no question Mattingly is known/revered from people outside of New York...especially back then! Sure some ten year old may not know him now, but they probably never heard of Jimmy Foxx or Duke Snider either. So in that sense, most guys in baseball history are lost on the current public.
mattingly may be a class act, blah, blah, blah but 2/3 of a career doesn't make one a hall-of-famer. and yes stats do matter. your opening spiel bragged about mattingly's stats. according to baseball reference, mattingly's career numbers were closest to cecil cooper. when you start a bandwagon for cooper than mattingly should get consideration.
222 hr's 1099 rbi's and 2153 hits with only one postseason appearance does not make one a deserving hall-of-famer.
will clark also had similar stats and was a gamer. st. louis got him for a playoff drive in 2000 at the end of his career and he batted .345 in 51 games. there are many near greats that won't make it.
Vintage Rookies
With regard to McGwire: his 23% vote total is artficially low because many voters who plan on eventually voting for him witheld their vote this election as a sign of protest for his steroid use. I do expect that Big Mac will get into the Hall within the next 5-7 years, or at least he will get far closer than Mattingly ever will.
I'm not saying I think McGwire deserves to be in the Hall (I don't), or that Mattingly does (I don't, either), but that's the way I see it unfolding, FWIW. Had Mattingly not been plagued by the bad back, I think he was on his way to the Hall for sure, but he just doesn't have the career numbers, cumulatively, to get there, IMO.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I reference Skinpinch and Dallasanctuary who came up with all sort of computations and permutations of more accurate measures of performance. Do an analysis using OPS+ and batter runs instead of RBI, batting average and home runs and you will see what we all mean.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
<< <i>Not sure how Donny "paved the way" for the 1995 to 2000 championship run. ????????????? >>
Duh. He retired and let the Yankees get some real production from Tino.
I'm Ron Burgundy. You stay classy, San Diego.
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
if mattingly was the first baseman of the Royals, put up the same stats he did, and won a championship --he would be in the hall...
when you are chosen to be card #1 in more sets then anyone in your playing generation, you deserve to be in the hall!
<< <i>I guess McGwire's 23.5% will keep him out ouf the hall forever..there is no way 52% of the No votes would change their minds about him... >>
Stranger things have happened.
Bruce Sutter, Billy Williams, Don Drysdale, Duke Snider, and Bob Lemon all went from less than 25% on their first ballot to eventual election.
If past voting is any indicator, Mattingly's not getting in. Typically, folks who get elected go up the list, not down.
Mattingly's stock has gone down on the ballot almost every year:
2001 = 28.2% (145 votes)
2002 = 20.3% (96 votes) -
2003 = 13.7% (68 votes) -
2004 = 12.9% (65 votes) -
2005 = 11.4% (59 votes) -
2006 = 12.3% (64 votes) +
2007 = 9.9% (54 votes) -
Edit:
There's always the Veterans Committee. The last guy they let in was in 2001 (Bill Mazeroski). Ron Santo and Gill Hodges each got 65% of the VC votes in 2005, maybe they'll finally get the call next month?
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>I'd put in Garvey before Mattingly. Mattingly just didn't play long enough; whatever the reason doesn't matter. Garvey had a longer career and put up his consistent numbers in the 70's (tougher time than the 80's to put up big numbers) and his defense at first base wasn't as bad as everybody says. He had no arm? I didn't realize an arm for a first baseman is that big of a deal compared to other skills, like digging balls out of the dirt, stretching, grabbing line drives, etc... which all happen much more in a game than the need for a first baseman to throw the ball which rarely happens. I realize I am a bias Dodger fan though. >>
GARVEY DIDNT HAVE 1 YEAR EQUAL TO MATTINGLY'S MONSTER 4 YEAR RUN....
JUST CAUSE YOU ACCUMULATE DECENT NUMBERS OVER A LONG HAUL, DOESNT MAKE YOU HALL MATERIAL!
ITS HOW DOMINANT YOU WERE IN YOUR ERA! WHO WAS THE MOST FAMOUS PLAYER IN THE 80'S....HANDS DOWN MATTINGLY
TYPING IN ALL CAPS DOES NOT MAKE YOUR OPINION ANY MORE FACTUAL.
The last six years of his career were so average that I think it lowers the writers' opinion of him. Plus the fact his career bookends with Yankee WS doesn't help.
You probably were not alive (or too young to have been aware) in the 70's to witness how much Garvey meant to a very good team. Stats were up there with the best of the 70's for a long time, he produced in the clutch (and post season) and was a model citizen... at least until he retired. I doubt there were many kids, who grew up in the 70's in SoCal, who were not Garvey fans. Lots of haters in other cities of course. Also, I acknowledged in my post that I was a bias Dodger fan so you should probably take what I write with that in mind. Lastly, next time you do not have to YELL and I will still hear you.
<< <i>when you are chosen to be card #1 in more sets then anyone in your playing generation, you deserve to be in the hall! >>
Well then, that settles it. We are all so foolish as to not recognize the fact that Don Mattingly was numerically listed first more than any other player of his generation. I think some serious consideration needs to be put into reviewing all current HOFers and seeing how many times they were listed #1 in a set. Of course there would have to be adjustments made based on the number of sets put out in that players career that he was eligible to be # 1 in, and we would have to throw out any sets that came out after that player retired. I don't think that honorary #1's for retirement should be taken into consideration when selecting our Hall of Famers.
I can't believe we have been voting based on something so stupid as merit and accomplishments for the past 80 years.
Who here on these boards wants to start a petition with me to have all Hall of Fame members reviewed?
Anyone?
<< <i>FANDANGO-
You probably were not alive (or too young to have been aware) in the 70's to witness how much Garvey meant to a very good team. Stats were up there with the best of the 70's for a long time, he produced in the clutch (and post season) and was a model citizen... at least until he retired. I doubt there were many kids, who grew up in the 70's in SoCal, who were not Garvey fans. Lots of haters in other cities of course. Also, I acknowledged in my post that I was a bias Dodger fan so you should probably take what I write with that in mind. Lastly, next time you do not have to YELL and I will still hear you. >>
SORRY about the caps before, i wasnt yelling.....
my point about being the #1 card in many sets simply demonstrates the (perceived) Dominance of Donald Arthur Mattingly during the 1980's.....
when these companies sat around the table to come up with their checklists, it was almost a foregone (sp) conclusion who would lead off the set.....the Best, most popular, and Most famous player of the Decade (a decade where it was hardest to accumulate good stats due to the competitiveness)
Garvey was a 70's player.....mattingly dominated the 80's, and the people who dominated the 90's were roid heads....so in 10 years there will be a HOF player vacuum (no roid heads will ever get in), and this is when Mattingly will become a popular vote.....
i guess i am grateful that for awhile he is off his "albert pujols is the greatest thing ever to hit the planet diatribe. it is strange that he would admire mattingly for being a class act and than fawn over pujols who is slowly but surely becoming the biggest tool in baseball. all he needs is for barry bonds to retire and then pujols will be the biggest self-absorbed prima donna in the majors.
for the record, eddie murray was named the top 1st baseman in the 1980's not mattingly. don't know if murray was ever the #1 card in a set, but i think his numbers speak for themselves. i know mattingly did not play in the entire decade in the majors but i don't make the calendar.
As for this card #1 thing. I could be mistaken but in the 70's card #1 was often a record breaker or league leader. Instead it was card #'s 100, 200, etc... that were reserved for the super stars with second tier stars at 50, 150, third tier at 20, 40, 60, etc..... Even then, it was just Topp's opinion. Bottom line, the card #1 argument does not seem worth a lot to me except that the card companies of the 80's apparently saw Donnie baseball as the most marketable guy around. In later years (90's) didn't Topps do tributes to Nolan Ryan, et al, as card #1?
Back to my main point, I just think if you are talking Mattingly then Garvey should at least be in the conversation. Besides Ripken and Gherig did anybody play in more straight games than Garvey? I think Garvey is right up there as a junior "iron man."
By the way, I like Mattingly and Pujols so am not hating on them. Just expanding the conversation. Not a personal attack on the SCREAMING Pujols fan.
Funny. I did not realize that. I think I may have been slightly mistaken to suggest the super stars were only at the even hundreds. You are right that Mantle probably wasn't a lesser player even at the numbers ending in 50. Thanks for the info!
<< <i>Could someone please explain to me how Don Mattingly's career was significantly better than Will Clark's? >>
Because he was consistently numbered lower in baseball card sets.
<< <i>i know fandango is actually in his little corner of his parents basement laughing at the rest of us because he constantly comes on this board and stirs the pot. i truly believe he is puting us on because no serious sane person would write much of the diatribe that he puts up her.
i guess i am grateful that for awhile he is off his "albert pujols is the greatest thing ever to hit the planet diatribe. it is strange that he would admire mattingly for being a class act and than fawn over pujols who is slowly but surely becoming the biggest tool in baseball. all he needs is for barry bonds to retire and then pujols will be the biggest self-absorbed prima donna in the majors.
for the record, eddie murray was named the top 1st baseman in the 1980's not mattingly. don't know if murray was ever the #1 card in a set, but i think his numbers speak for themselves. i know mattingly did not play in the entire decade in the majors but i don't make the calendar. >>
That Pujols remark got me going.....Before the playoffs against the Mets, Pujols was believed to be an Angel.....just because the New York Media made him out to be the Bad-guy, does not mean its so.,...the NY papers needed a villain against their beloved Mets, and they Made PUJOLS it.....But ist not True.....come up with 1 thing, other than something in October 2006, where pujols even remotely resembles Bonds...
the novemeber 2006 stories about Pujols were total Horse Shat...He was misquoted from a Spanish Interview, and they made it out like he was complaining...someone asked him a question and he answered it...he did not call a press conference in St Louis to Complain about not winning the MVP, and that is what some writers made it out to be....
how is Pujols Self absorbed? is he self absorbed at his Charity New Years eve ball (non alcoholic party)? Is he self asbsorbed when he takes Down Syndrome kids to the clubhouse and sends them and their whole family to Disney? is he Self absorbed when he sells an Auto on his website and ALL THE MONEY GOES TO CHARITY? How many ball players sign for Charity and dont make a cent? He Donates all the money from selling items on his site to charity! is this how he is a prima dona?
Prima Dona is when you hit 3 hr and 10 rbi in 1 game, and the next day you are selling balls with the Stat line for $399.99---that is a Prima Dona =Arod...guess how many Arod cards i have? as many as Bonds.....ZERO
Czar i lost a lot of respect for you with that comment.....i hope you are not serious about Pujols being like Bonds, you couldnt be further from the truth...
Any Yes, right now Pujols is the 3rd Best Offensive Player in History....Ruth, Williams, Pujols.....
I guess you won that argument. He must not be a prima dona. Ok, now let's put this thread back to bed where it belongs.
peace out
But this statement is waaaaaaaaaaay beyond ridiculous ...
Yes, right now Pujols is the 3rd Best Offensive Player in History....Ruth, Williams, Pujols.....
I don't know if you are from St. Louis but I am. I was at a dinner function where Bernie Miklasz of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch spoke. When asked about Pujols here is what he had to say. Not verbatim, but the message is there.
1) Pujols did say that about Glavine. Don't need the "New York media" to whip it up. He said it.
2) Pujols has walked through the clubhouse and come up to a reported not bothering a soul and say to the reporter "Get the f**k out of my way" for no valid reason.
3) Pujols agent has instructed him not to talk to the local media for anything important. When he had to apologize to Ryan Howard for his "misquote" he went through USAtoday. Apparently news doesn't travel fast enough through the flyover part of our country.
4) Pujols handlers did call the local media out when he opened up his restaraunt. When they showed up Pujols asked the reporters why they were there.
I will quote Miklasz when he said Pujols was confused either to be a Cal Ripken persona or a BARRY BONDS persona. He added as you mentioned there were times when he was charming and charitible.
You may think I am making it up, but I am not. You may want to defend him and this is your right.
5) A friend of mine who is a big Cardinal fan was at an auto dealer one day and Pujols walks in and announces right off of the bat, "I am not signing any autographs so just leave me alone". Half the people didn't even know who he was. That to me is a Prima Donna.
Neither Miklasz or my car buying friend had a ax to grind with him. Pujols has a long way to go in his career and he may mature. Then again he may get worse.
Pujols will never make the top 3 because he is a butcher in the field anywhere but 1st base. Golden Gloves are not a measurable award and I saw him play OF and 3B and he was horrid. You also failed to mention Willie Mays. I saw Mays play and Pujols is no Willie Mays.
Thank you Sir.
<< <i>
That is not correct, Mattingly batted .417 that series (10 for 24) with 4 doubles 6 RBI and 1HR...it was the yankee pitching that let them down in that series...Scott Kamienecki couldnt hold a 5-0 lead in the third....that was his lastgame as a yankee that bum! Mattingly did all he could that series ad he looked like the mattingly of 1986 (when he was robbed of a second straight MVP by a pitcher!!!!)
...maybe Mattingly will make it into the Hall as a manager for guiding the yanks to numerous world series titles, but it would be nice for him to be elected through the veterans committee... >>
Fandango, I realize you posted this way back in August, but since I was just reading through this thread today, I thought I'd respond to something that popped out at me. It's true that Kamienecki gave up that lead, but according to the box score from that game one of his runs was an unearned run and that error, the only error in the game by the way, was attributed to Mattingly. I'd be hesitant to blame the whole series on pitching alone, especially one man's pitching. Wetteland gave up four of his own runs and Howe couldn't shut the Mariners down in that game either.
Skinpinch, I know you don't like Rice (at least not for HOF consideration), and I've read your numerous posts about how his stats don't measure up, but I disagree with your statement that Rice and Mattingly's sudeen declines were caused by different reasons. Rice didn't just become a bad player as you stated, he also had his share of ailments which prevented him from maintaining the stats he had put up prior to 1987. I'm starting to think your case against Rice is more than just an objective look at the stats. Text
since you redirected the new mattingly thread....
No way he gets in the HOF just doesnt have the numbers. 4 Great years doesnt equal the HOF.
This statement is false!!
Mattingly only led the league in slugging % once (1986 with .573). That season he was second in singles (152) to Tony Fernandez (161).
Source: www.baseball-reference.com
www.tigerpawcast.com
GEAUX TIGERS!!
[
Koufax might have led MLB in ERA several times, but Dodgers stadium is a pitcher's park. When park adjusted, his ERA+ led MLB only ONCE.
Both Koufax and Mattingly had short overall careers while dominating 4-6 years. Koufax deserved to be elected and I am not arguing that. Its just that many people thought that Mattingly did not dominate as Koufax did in their respective best 4 years.
Having the numbers park adjusted reveals a much truer profile of a ball player. Just thought I share that perspective. I never thought of it this way until someone showed me, so now I am more convinced that Mattingly deserves strong consideration for the HOF.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
You guys don't suppose the reason he was my boyhood idol have anything to do with the fact that he's from nearby Evansville, IN, do ya?
D's: 50P,49S,45D+S,43D,41S,40D,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 241,435,610,654 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
Four great seasons don't equal the HOF.
However, I do believe Bert Blyleven should get in first among any potential eligible candidates, but that's a whole 'nother fish story.
D's: 50P,49S,45D+S,43D,41S,40D,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 241,435,610,654 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
<< <i>Mattingly led MLB in OPS that has been park adjusted (OPS+) TWICE. Less than 10 players in the last 80 years have done that feat.
Koufax might have led MLB in ERA several times, but Dodgers stadium is a pitcher's park. When park adjusted, his ERA+ led MLB only ONCE.
Both Koufax and Mattingly had short overall careers while dominating 4-6 years. Koufax deserved to be elected and I am not arguing that. Its just that many people thought that Mattingly did not dominate as Koufax did in their respective best 4 years.
Having the numbers park adjusted reveals a much truer profile of a ball player. Just thought I share that perspective. I never thought of it this way until someone showed me, so now I am more convinced that Mattingly deserves strong consideration for the HOF. >>
GREAT POINT
cant say how disappointed i am in the yankees that they would show a living legend the door.....
dont expect Donnie BASEBALL at any Yankees oldtimers games.....
HanK steinbrenner is going to be a bigger jerk than his father...
he already ripped his father by saying "we dont expect to win the world series every year, where not STUPID" meaning his father is stupid...
interseting how the Sons didnt make an apperance until George was frail, and had dementia...so sad how they are taking advantage of the old man.....
this yankee fan is quickly being pushed to become a Dodgers Fan....