<< <i>Of course you might come back with something sarcastic thinking reaching base, like catching the ball, doesn't mean anything in the sport of baseball >>
I've tried to point out a few things, that people might or might not have known. I've tried to make a case, by suppling thoughts from a different point of view. I have not been sarcastic or been mean spirited about it
If you want THAT, no problem. Do you really know anything about put-outs? Do you know Mattingly had 2-3 times as many put-outs? YES, i know he's a 1st baseman ... do you think wandering around center field is HARDER than the responsibilities of a first baseman ? How many balls in the dirt, line drives, tag the runner, double plays situations does a centerfielder have ?
Oh, and by the way ... with Mattingly having 2-3 times more touches of the ball ... Mattingly 64 errors at 1st base & Puckett 51 errors in the outfield
I'll agree on ONE thing with you ... I'm tired of this topic
<< <i>Very difficult topic for everyone to agree on
But I think the HOF is viewed by many, as they view a graded card ... far too many times, people buy the grade, and the card is never inspected. I think that people nowadays are used to astronomical numbers, and a career lasting 15 years, 2500 hits, 250 Home Runs is considered just average. I think players from the 80’s – present are held to higher standards (roids might have something to do with it)
Consider The great Johnny Bench … .267 average, only 2048 hits in 17 seasons. He hit 389 home runs, which is NOT incredible … but then we MADE it incredible, by breaking down statistics by positions (as it really matters) … and a couple of rings, along with being associated with a certain “red machine” title
Its all persona
Compare Bench with a guy with a ‘stache, who only played for a total of 11 full seasons … who racked up 2153 hits, 222 home runs, and averaged 307 … no rings, but won an MVP & other hardware >>
So your argument is that 389 HRs is NOT incredible but that 222 at a power position where 30 HR/yr is the norm, even in the 1980s, is somehow HOF-worthy? Look, the reason Mattingly isn't in the HOF is because he wasn't even good for over half of his career. Sure, that's because of injury, but that's the way it is. 5, 9, 14, 17, 6 & 7 - Mattingly's HR totals his last 6 years.
Player x is a guy that NO ONE would argue should be in the HOF - yet he was a more consistent player than Mattingly and put up similar career numbers.
Look, there's no question that 1984-87 Mattingly is a HOF'er. Problem is, he played 1982-95.
As for Rickey Henderson, seriously, this guy is a no-brainer HOF'er. Career OPS+ of 127 while hitting leadoff. 1400 steals, 1100 RBI, 297 HR, an MVP, 10-time All-Star. Yep, he's a HOF'er.
<< <i>If you want THAT, no problem. Do you really know anything about put-outs? Do you know Mattingly had 2-3 times as many put-outs? YES, i know he's a 1st baseman ... do you think wandering around center field is HARDER than the responsibilities of a first baseman ? How many balls in the dirt, line drives, tag the runner, double plays situations does a centerfielder have ? >>
This statement betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the relative difficulties of the various defensive positions. 1B is, by FAR, the easiest of all the positions on the field. That's why your immobile behemoths play there - McGwire, Big Papi, Cecil Fielder, Frank Thomas, etc. It's also why guys that would be a significant liability in other positions for various reasons play there - like Jeff Bagwell with his "can't throw the ball 50 feet" shoulder.
Center field, on the other hand, is in the top 3 for difficulty (with catcher and SS). You have to be able to cover a ton of ground AND make good throws.
Put another way - pretty much any CF could play 1B, and play it well, with a minimum of training. Pretty much no 1B could play CF.
I had more discipline when I had to quit smoking. Had to reply to a big piece of misinformation and big piece of information still ignored
It is not a matter of difficulty, it is a matter of helping your team win. That is done by things that are likely to lead to runs for your team or stop the other team for scoring. If the Yankees and Twins both had to replace Mattingly and Puckett with average fielders the Twins would seen their opponents increase in scoring more than the Yankees. And the average firstbaseman would be a much better hitter than the centerfielder
That is also the reason Larkin was a truly great player
In your efforts to point out things we may have missed, you still have yet to point to a firstbaseman worse than Mattingly that the writers have chosen for the Hall-of-Fame
He was a very good player, but not HOF in my opinion. He only played 150 or more games 4 times and also had 4 seasons under 100 games played, not to mention one season at exactly 100 games played. He never had 200 or more hits in a season and never had a season over 90 or more RBI. Certainly a very good player, but not a great player.
Mattingly is not the topic at hand ... its becoming the topic, but the REAL topic is the LAME HOF
We've discussed many players with similar stats, and I keep hearing ... "yeah, but he did this" "this guy did that" "and this guy played this position"
if stats are closely the same, cant we find SOMETHING good to say about 20-30 more deserving guys ?
In your efforts to point out things we may have missed, you still have yet to point to a firstbaseman worse than Mattingly that the writers have chosen for the Hall-of-Fame
I possibly have one (and yes I know it is from a bygone era) Frank Chance?
I've only glanced over this thread, but am I correct in my understanding that someone here thinks that Jim Rice and Don Mattingly should be in the HOF over Rickey Henderson?
"I've only glanced over this thread, but am I correct in my understanding that someone here thinks that Jim Rice and Don Mattingly should be in the HOF over Rickey Henderson"
yes, thats the hilarious part of this thread.
Seriously, how big a baseball fan are you? Thats a very legitimate question, not to be rude or look down on you in ANY way. If you know baseball, know the stats, crunch the numbers and appreciate real dominance you can't honestly to expect people to agree with you over your baseless statments regarding Mattingly, Rice et.al.
Rice ... in 14 full seasons ... averaged 27 home runs ... 170 hits ... close to .300 average ... 101 RBI ... 25 doubles ... MVP Award ... no rings
and 8 all star games
Dont worry, he'll get in, and all will agree he deserves to get it ... but only when someone tells you its ok, to start saying its ok to think he is deserving
I am a huge Jim Rice fan and I'd like to see him make it in (though I'm confident that he won't). But at this point, I am so tired of reading about him in "Hall of Fame?" threads that I can't wait until he misses the final cut so we can just move on to someone or something else. I'd be willing to bet that there are no less than 50 different threads on this board that discuss this very question ad nauseum. And there's probably at least 25 threads that discuss Mattingly's chances too.
<< <i>I am a huge Jim Rice fan and I'd like to see him make it in (though I'm confident that he won't). But at this point, I am so tired of reading about him in "Hall of Fame?" threads that I can't wait until he misses the final cut so we can just move on to someone or something else. I'd be willing to bet that there are no less than 50 different threads on this board that discuss this very question ad nauseum. And there's probably at least 25 threads that discuss Mattingly's chances too. >>
Veteran's Committee. When it comes to Hall-of-Fame choices they have a huge difference in standards, consistency, logic and ethics than the writers do >>
Considering Chance was elected in 1946 (1st HOF class was 1936) he can't be compared to a modern Veteran's Committee electe.
<< <i>You make some valid arguments. Bichette almost won the Triple Crown that year. He led in homers and rbi and was 3rd in batting average. But I wonder if Coors Field had anything to do with it. >>
That year Bichette played 71 games at Coors field , with a .377 BA. He had 19 doubles , 1 triple and 31 homeruns. He scored 64 runs and drove in 83 runners. This all at Coors field.
His #'s away started with a .300 avg, with 19 doubles , 1 triple and 9 HR's.He also had 38 runs and 45 Rbi's. This in 68 games.
Yes , Coor's field had alot to do with his great #'s.
No to Larkin.
" In a time of universal deceit , telling the truth is a revolutionary act " --- George Orwell
Another problem for Bichette in 1995, is that his own teammates (Andres Galarraga, Vinny Castilla and Larry Walker) also had similar stats. Basically, the voters couldn't determine that Bichette was even the most valuable player on his own team, let alone the entire National League.
That year Bichette played 71 games at Coors field , with a .377 BA. He had 19 doubles , 1 triple and 31 homeruns. He scored 64 runs and drove in 83 runners. This all at Coors field.
His #'s away started with a .300 avg, with 19 doubles , 1 triple and 9 HR's.He also had 38 runs and 45 Rbi's. This in 68 games.
Yes , Coor's field had alot to do with his great #'s.
Sure, the idea that Bichette's numbers at Coors were better than his away stats is fairly obvious. But even his away numbers were effectively the same as Larkin's:
Looks pretty neutral to me. Don't get me wrong, I hate Dante Bichette. I just hate the idea that Larkin won the MVP even more. In my opinion there has neven been a more undeserving MVP than Barry Larkin in 1995. I have a very hard time accepting that Greg Maddux did not win the MVP that year, he had arguably one of the top 5 seasons by any pitcher in the last 50 years (with all due respect to Koufax, Gibson & Marichal I think this one season from Maddux is up there). On the division winning Braves his stats were:
19-2, 10 CG, 1.63 ERA, 0.811 WHIP, 181 K/23 BB in 210 IP and heading into the playoffs Maddux started 8 games during August/September and was 7-0 with 5 earned runs allowed over 8 games on a division winner while facing other teams' #1 starters.
Comments
<< <i>Of course you might come back with something sarcastic thinking reaching base, like catching the ball, doesn't mean anything in the sport of baseball >>
I've tried to point out a few things, that people might or might not have known. I've tried to make a case, by suppling thoughts from a different point of view. I have not been sarcastic or been mean spirited about it
If you want THAT, no problem. Do you really know anything about put-outs? Do you know Mattingly had 2-3 times as many put-outs? YES, i know he's a 1st baseman ... do you think wandering around center field is HARDER than the responsibilities of a first baseman ? How many balls in the dirt, line drives, tag the runner, double plays situations does a centerfielder have ?
Oh, and by the way ... with Mattingly having 2-3 times more touches of the ball ... Mattingly 64 errors at 1st base & Puckett 51 errors in the outfield
I'll agree on ONE thing with you ... I'm tired of this topic
Keith Hernandez is probably one of the best 1st Basemen ever and he won't be getting in anytime soon.
As for Henderson I think Hockey is being a lil too harsh on him.
He was (some say) the greatest lead off hitter of all time.
Steve
<< <i>Very difficult topic for everyone to agree on
But I think the HOF is viewed by many, as they view a graded card ... far too many times, people buy the grade, and the card is never inspected. I think that people nowadays are used to astronomical numbers, and a career lasting 15 years, 2500 hits, 250 Home Runs is considered just average. I think players from the 80’s – present are held to higher standards (roids might have something to do with it)
Consider The great Johnny Bench … .267 average, only 2048 hits in 17 seasons. He hit 389 home runs, which is NOT incredible … but then we MADE it incredible, by breaking down statistics by positions (as it really matters) … and a couple of rings, along with being associated with a certain “red machine” title
Its all persona
Compare Bench with a guy with a ‘stache, who only played for a total of 11 full seasons … who racked up 2153 hits, 222 home runs, and averaged 307 … no rings, but won an MVP & other hardware >>
So your argument is that 389 HRs is NOT incredible but that 222 at a power position where 30 HR/yr is the norm, even in the 1980s, is somehow HOF-worthy? Look, the reason Mattingly isn't in the HOF is because he wasn't even good for over half of his career. Sure, that's because of injury, but that's the way it is. 5, 9, 14, 17, 6 & 7 - Mattingly's HR totals his last 6 years.
Mattingly: .307/.471 SLG/222 HR/1099 RBI (1785 games)
Player x: .274/.443 SLG/223 HR/1022 RBI (1698 games)
Player x is a guy that NO ONE would argue should be in the HOF - yet he was a more consistent player than Mattingly and put up similar career numbers.
Look, there's no question that 1984-87 Mattingly is a HOF'er. Problem is, he played 1982-95.
As for Rickey Henderson, seriously, this guy is a no-brainer HOF'er. Career OPS+ of 127 while hitting leadoff. 1400 steals, 1100 RBI, 297 HR, an MVP, 10-time All-Star. Yep, he's a HOF'er.
Tabe
<< <i>If you want THAT, no problem. Do you really know anything about put-outs? Do you know Mattingly had 2-3 times as many put-outs? YES, i know he's a 1st baseman ... do you think wandering around center field is HARDER than the responsibilities of a first baseman ? How many balls in the dirt, line drives, tag the runner, double plays situations does a centerfielder have ? >>
This statement betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the relative difficulties of the various defensive positions. 1B is, by FAR, the easiest of all the positions on the field. That's why your immobile behemoths play there - McGwire, Big Papi, Cecil Fielder, Frank Thomas, etc. It's also why guys that would be a significant liability in other positions for various reasons play there - like Jeff Bagwell with his "can't throw the ball 50 feet" shoulder.
Center field, on the other hand, is in the top 3 for difficulty (with catcher and SS). You have to be able to cover a ton of ground AND make good throws.
Put another way - pretty much any CF could play 1B, and play it well, with a minimum of training. Pretty much no 1B could play CF.
Tabe
back to the original question, I looked at Larkin's stats and while good they may or not be HOF worthy.
i do agree though for a SS they are impressive
We will find out how the writers feel about it soon enough though.
And fwiw they are the ones who's opinion matters not ours.
Steve
It is not a matter of difficulty, it is a matter of helping your team win. That is done by things that are likely to lead to runs for your team or stop the other team for scoring. If the Yankees and Twins both had to replace Mattingly and Puckett with average fielders the Twins would seen their opponents increase in scoring more than the Yankees. And the average firstbaseman would be a much better hitter than the centerfielder
That is also the reason Larkin was a truly great player
In your efforts to point out things we may have missed, you still have yet to point to a firstbaseman worse than Mattingly that the writers have chosen for the Hall-of-Fame
We've discussed many players with similar stats, and I keep hearing ...
"yeah, but he did this"
"this guy did that"
"and this guy played this position"
if stats are closely the same, cant we find SOMETHING good to say about 20-30 more deserving guys ?
<< <i>if stats are closely the same, cant we find SOMETHING good to say about 20-30 more deserving guys ? >>
Yes. We can say they are one of the 20 or 30 best players not in the Hall-of-Fame. That is a pretty good career
I possibly have one (and yes I know it is from a bygone era) Frank Chance?
Steve
have almost the same stats. Again though different era's.
To me, Donnie baseball is on the cusp, the Baseball encyclopedia is fillked with such guys.
A good to great player over all.
Steve
<< <i>Frank Chance? >>
Veteran's Committee. When it comes to Hall-of-Fame choices they have a huge difference in standards, consistency, logic and ethics than the writers do
yes, thats the hilarious part of this thread.
Seriously, how big a baseball fan are you? Thats a very legitimate question, not to be rude or look down on you in ANY way. If you know baseball, know the stats, crunch the numbers and appreciate real dominance you can't honestly to expect people to agree with you over your baseless statments regarding Mattingly, Rice et.al.
<< <i>but am I correct in my understanding that someone here thinks that Jim Rice and Don Mattingly should be in the HOF over Rickey Henderson? >>
no, nobody said that
Steve
and 8 all star games
Dont worry, he'll get in, and all will agree he deserves to get it ... but only when someone tells you its ok, to start saying its ok to think he is deserving
Good-great players that are on the cusp.
Steve
<< <i>It's not like he's Williams or Musial lol. >>
so by THOSE standards, there is no need to have any elections until A-ROD retires (assuming roids never become an issue)
Steve
<< <i>No, guys like Manny, Maddux, Johnson, Glavine, Thome, Thomas, and some younger guys are all poised to enter the Hall.
Steve >>
I know, but they aint no Williams, Musial, Ruth, etc
Cant wait for Mannys speech at the hall. He'll probably be in the restroom when his name is called
Stargell is in
Dave Parker is still waiting
Why ?
Parker has 500 more hits
though fewer homers ... since 339 is only good for catchers ;-)
<< <i>I am a huge Jim Rice fan and I'd like to see him make it in (though I'm confident that he won't). But at this point, I am so tired of reading about him in "Hall of Fame?" threads that I can't wait until he misses the final cut so we can just move on to someone or something else. I'd be willing to bet that there are no less than 50 different threads on this board that discuss this very question ad nauseum. And there's probably at least 25 threads that discuss Mattingly's chances too. >>
Welcome to the newest thread
Have a seat & enjoy
:-)
Thanks. I'll just sit here and bite my tongue so you guys can carry on.
And middle infielders.
Steve
<< <i>since 339 is only good for catchers ;-)
And middle infielders.
Steve >>
Leave it alone, or I'll make my compelling case for Dwight Gooden to make the Hall
<< <i>
<< <i>Frank Chance? >>
Veteran's Committee. When it comes to Hall-of-Fame choices they have a huge difference in standards, consistency, logic and ethics than the writers do >>
Considering Chance was elected in 1946 (1st HOF class was 1936) he can't be compared to a modern Veteran's Committee electe.
<< <i>Leave it alone, or I'll make my compelling case for Dwight Gooden to make the Hall >>
Now THAT I would love to see. But if it consists of "he's better than xxx who's already in", don't bother.
Tabe
<< <i>
<< <i>Leave it alone, or I'll make my compelling case for Dwight Gooden to make the Hall >>
Now THAT I would love to see. But if it consists of "he's better than xxx who's already in", don't bother.
Tabe >>
No comparison ... who else in history was able to coke up, and strike yo azz out.
Steve Howe tried like 9 times, but the DOC showed how its done
I'm done making my case. When will the DOC be in ?
<< <i>You make some valid arguments. Bichette almost won the Triple Crown that year.
He led in homers and rbi and was 3rd in batting average. But I wonder if Coors
Field had anything to do with it. >>
That year Bichette played 71 games at Coors field , with a .377 BA. He had 19 doubles , 1 triple and 31 homeruns. He scored 64 runs and drove in 83 runners. This all at Coors field.
His #'s away started with a .300 avg, with 19 doubles , 1 triple and 9 HR's.He also had 38 runs and 45 Rbi's. This in 68 games.
Yes , Coor's field had alot to do with his great #'s.
No to Larkin.
Steve
His #'s away started with a .300 avg, with 19 doubles , 1 triple and 9 HR's.He also had 38 runs and 45 Rbi's. This in 68 games.
Yes , Coor's field had alot to do with his great #'s.
Sure, the idea that Bichette's numbers at Coors were better than his away stats is fairly obvious. But even his away numbers were effectively the same as Larkin's:
Bichette (away): 9 HR, .300 avg. 19 Doubles, 45 RBI, 40 Runs
Larkin (away): 7 HR, .309 avg. 14 Doubles, 32 RBI, 42 Runs
Looks pretty neutral to me. Don't get me wrong, I hate Dante Bichette. I just hate the idea that Larkin won the MVP even more. In my opinion there has neven been a more undeserving MVP than Barry Larkin in 1995. I have a very hard time accepting that Greg Maddux did not win the MVP that year, he had arguably one of the top 5 seasons by any pitcher in the last 50 years (with all due respect to Koufax, Gibson & Marichal I think this one season from Maddux is up there). On the division winning Braves his stats were:
19-2, 10 CG, 1.63 ERA, 0.811 WHIP, 181 K/23 BB in 210 IP and heading into the playoffs Maddux started 8 games during August/September and was 7-0 with 5 earned runs allowed over 8 games on a division winner while facing other teams' #1 starters.
Steve