Don Mattingly and Kirby Puckett have almost identical career stats. Kirby was a first ballot Hall of Famer and Don Mattingly can't get serious consideration for the Hall. Bottom line - dont' make the mistake of getting hurt earlier in your career - do it at the end! I also happen to believe that if Mattingly had just come back for three seasons and just "hung on" as a bench guy for the '96-'98 Yankees and won two rings, he would have been in already. BTW, I also think it's a crime that Dale Murphy is not in. At some point, the idiotic baseball writers who vote for the Hall will start to realize that stats weren't the same in the 80's as they were in the 90's and forward. Murphy had NOBODY protecting him in a horrendous Braves lineup for his entire career (don't give me any Bob Horner arguments) and still put up amazingly good career numbers.
Don Mattingly, Yogi Berra, Thurman Munson, Brian McCann and Topps Rookie Cup autograph collector www.questfortherookiecup.com
Mattingly had 2 or 3 eye popping years, a couple of good years and many mediocore years. Puckett was forced to end his career at age 34/25 due to the eye injury and was still a hell of a hitter. He also won two world series and was playoff hero to boot. The last full season Puckett played he had 20+ homers and 99 RBI with a .318 BA. I think he had very very good chance for 3000+ hits.
Mattingly's last 5 years of his career were sub standard and he was crippled by his back injury, I believe he retired at the same age. Mattingly couldnt have played another game due to his injuries, but Puckett still had 5 seasons in him. His 3 monster seasons really inflate his career numbers. If Mattingly had kept playing his career batting average would have easily dipped below .300 as he was a shell of his former self.
If Mattingly had played for Seattle, no one would care about his chances for the Hall.
Still do not understand why people give Kirby a pass because of "what he could have done if not for injury". Yet Mattingly never gets the same defense. Mattingly's best days were behind him at 29. A healthy back gives him 6 or 7 years in his prime. He easily would have over 3000 hits, 400 HR's, BA .310-.320 and over 2000 RBI. Easily a 1st ballot HOF'er.
One more note, Ryan Howard had as many strikeouts 2 months into his 3rd full season as Mattingly had in his entire 14 year MLB career.
Puckett is in because he was the best player and team leader on a perennial contender and led his team to two championships. It's the same reason Ozzie Smith is in. It's not just about winning titles, it's about being the team leader on WS winning teams. If Mattingly led the Yankees to a championship (NOT if he hung on late in his career to win one), history would look at him much differently and he'd probably get in. Same thing with Murphy and Dawson. Don't underestimate the power of winning the world series and becoming a household name for a couple years (Eckersley) for people that don't know jack about baseball.
<< <i>If Mattingly led the Yankees to a championship (NOT if he hung on late in his career to win one), history would look at him much differently and he'd probably get in. >>
He would have only had to "hang on" for one more season.
If Jeff Bagwell is a borderline candidate (which I believe is the consensus) then no way Mattingly gets in For about the same # of seasons, they both have 1 MVP but Bagwell's #s are significantly better than Don's in nearly every category (including double the homeruns)
I think Omar has a great chance to get into the HOF. He was the best defensive SS in the last 20 years, stole bases, got on base, helped his team on offense and defense. Highest fielding percentage in history. Played on very competitive teams, made nightly highlight reel plays. He and larkin will both be in the HOF.
I'm not saying Omar is not deserving, I'm saying he has no chance of being voted in unless things drastically change with the voting. Underrated players rarely get the nod. Everybody on these boards was clamoring about how Raines was a lock and possibly first ballot, and he got like 25%.
Sometimes these "debates" get misconstrued into who is deserving and who isn't. I'm not joining that argument at all. I'm predicting what the voters will do based on many years of following distinct patterns, and I can say with relative certainty that Omar Vizquel will never sniff the hall of fame.
Good to see stubbornness and stupidity can survive three years
Mattingly and Puckett have very similar homerun, RBI, batting average, obp and slg numbers. Too those things aren't everything the game of baseball is about. Puckett is one of the lowest level Hall-of-Fame players put in by the writers, but when you add in defense and World Series performance he moves ahead of Mattingly. Murphy and Dawson are also both ahead of Mattingly, as are Whitaker and Trammell, and Parker and Simmons, and Blyleven and Raines, and Lynn and Grich. . .
Smith was the best defensive player in history. One of the best baserunners in history. The very best player in the league once. The best player in the league at his position a good number of times. Vizquel doesn't really come close to that. Nor does he come close to the best players who aren't in the Hall-of-Fame
Vizquel has amassed pretty much the same baeball value as Dave Concepcion. Quite good. If that is one's view as a HOFer, it is hard to debate their view(since what constitutes a HOFer is vague).
But if one is going to argue that Vizquel is superior to a guy like Concepcion, then that would be a case that is difficult to make. They are very similar.
Both are inferior to Alan Trammell.
Whatever one views the HOF, it is seems silly to campaign a player to be a HOFer when there are superior players who are not in the hall of fame either.
P.S. The common perception is that Vizquel is basically Ozzie Smith. That is not true either.
Ozzie probably/maybe was the best defensive player ever, and he needed every bit of that title(perceived or real) to take a mediocore hitting game to the HOF. Vizquel, as flashy as he can be, just was not as good at getting outs on the defensive end as Ozzie was.
Ozzie and Vizquel are about 500 plate apperances within each other for their career. So OPS+ can be used in this case as a decent barometer for their offensive value.
Ozzie 87 OPS+ Vizquel 83 OPS+
Ozzie 580 SB, 148 CS Vizquel 389 SB, 156 CS
Ozzie was a MUCH better base stealer, and he was the better defender.
Small edge in hitting for Ozzie. But the big edge in base running, and the edge in defense certainly makes a noticeable separation between the two.
<< <i>Does winning a WS help, probably so, is it a prerequiste? I dunno, ask Billy Williams and Ernie Banks that question. >>
Or Ty Cobb...or Ted Williams...or Rod Carew...or Carl Yastrzemski...or Carlton Fisk...or Ken Griffey, Jr. for that matter.
Amassing rings is icing on the cake as far as HOF credentials but by itself doesn't mean much: Luis Sojo has five rings, but you don't hear anything about his HOF worthiness because he didn't have a career that came close to HOF-caliber.
Comments
www.questfortherookiecup.com
Mattingly's last 5 years of his career were sub standard and he was crippled by his back injury, I believe he retired at the same age. Mattingly couldnt have played another game due to his injuries, but Puckett still had 5 seasons in him. His 3 monster seasons really inflate his career numbers. If Mattingly had kept playing his career batting average would have easily dipped below .300 as he was a shell of his former self.
If Mattingly had played for Seattle, no one would care about his chances for the Hall.
Was he a former shell of what he was? Yes, but to say that he had many mediocre seasons or more mediocre seasons then good ones is just not correct.
Is he a Hall of Famer? IMO he is on the cusp. Does he stand a chance in the coming years because of the thin pool we may see due to steroids?
That is an intriguing possibility.
For about 4 years he was the best hitter on the planet. His defense was also outstanding.
Lets put it this way if he was ever enshrined the HOF would not be further diluted.
Steve
One more note, Ryan Howard had as many strikeouts 2 months into his 3rd full season as Mattingly had in his entire 14 year MLB career.
Steve
Steve
Lee
Eckersley was a household name well before he gave up that HR to Gibson.
Those that know baseball know these things too.
Does winning a WS help, probably so, is it a prerequiste? I dunno, ask Billy Williams and Ernie Banks that question.
Puckett got in on a sympathy vote, had he molested that woman or beat his wife sooner he'd be on the outside trying to look in.
Steve
<< <i>If Mattingly led the Yankees to a championship (NOT if he hung on late in his career to win one), history would look at him much differently and he'd probably get in. >>
He would have only had to "hang on" for one more season.
That is actually not true.
During Pucketts 13 years on the team they finished over 500 4 times (5 times if you include the one year they played 500)
They finished last or second to last 6 times (almost 50 % of the time.
One year that they won the WS they played 525 ball, the other was 586.
Not once did they play 600 ball.
4 times they finished dead last in their division.
Like Yogi says "you could look it up'
Now before I ruffle any Twins fans here I'm just stating facts, I have no idea why the finished those years like they did.
One year they went from last to WS champs and they always had a good team from when I watched them
But to say Puckett is in the HOF because he played on a perennial contender is just not so.
So was Omar Vizquel.
Omar is still playing, 5 years after he retires I see him in the Hall of Fame.
You think he won't make it?
Steve
Zero chance.
For about the same # of seasons, they both have 1 MVP but Bagwell's #s are significantly better than Don's in nearly every category (including double the homeruns)
Sometimes these "debates" get misconstrued into who is deserving and who isn't. I'm not joining that argument at all. I'm predicting what the voters will do based on many years of following distinct patterns, and I can say with relative certainty that Omar Vizquel will never sniff the hall of fame.
I think not only is he deserving but will get in.
Steve
Mattingly and Puckett have very similar homerun, RBI, batting average, obp and slg numbers. Too those things aren't everything the game of baseball is about. Puckett is one of the lowest level Hall-of-Fame players put in by the writers, but when you add in defense and World Series performance he moves ahead of Mattingly. Murphy and Dawson are also both ahead of Mattingly, as are Whitaker and Trammell, and Parker and Simmons, and Blyleven and Raines, and Lynn and Grich. . .
Steve
But if one is going to argue that Vizquel is superior to a guy like Concepcion, then that would be a case that is difficult to make. They are very similar.
Both are inferior to Alan Trammell.
Whatever one views the HOF, it is seems silly to campaign a player to be a HOFer when there are superior players who are not in the hall of fame either.
P.S. The common perception is that Vizquel is basically Ozzie Smith. That is not true either.
Ozzie probably/maybe was the best defensive player ever, and he needed every bit of that title(perceived or real) to take a mediocore hitting game to the HOF.
Vizquel, as flashy as he can be, just was not as good at getting outs on the defensive end as Ozzie was.
Ozzie and Vizquel are about 500 plate apperances within each other for their career. So OPS+ can be used in this case as a decent barometer for their offensive value.
Ozzie 87 OPS+
Vizquel 83 OPS+
Ozzie 580 SB, 148 CS
Vizquel 389 SB, 156 CS
Ozzie was a MUCH better base stealer, and he was the better defender.
Small edge in hitting for Ozzie. But the big edge in base running, and the edge in defense certainly makes a noticeable separation between the two.
Steve
<< <i>Lets put it this way if he was ever enshrined the HOF would not be further diluted. >>
Well put Steve.
<< <i>Does winning a WS help, probably so, is it a prerequiste? I dunno, ask Billy Williams and Ernie Banks that question. >>
Or Ty Cobb...or Ted Williams...or Rod Carew...or Carl Yastrzemski...or Carlton Fisk...or Ken Griffey, Jr. for that matter.
Amassing rings is icing on the cake as far as HOF credentials but by itself doesn't mean much: Luis Sojo has five rings, but you don't hear anything about his HOF worthiness because he didn't have a career that came close to HOF-caliber.
Vintage Cards Specialist/Hobby Historian
Vintage Baseball Cards website:
http://www.obaks.com/vintagebaseballcards/index.html
Dave
<< <i>A simple testament to Donnie's FAME. We are talking about him more than 15 years after he retired. It shouldn't be about stats alone.
Dave >>
Don Larsen might agree with you.
Tabe