Re: Puckett vs. Mattingly... Clearing A Common Misconception
MattyC
Posts: 1,335 ✭✭
I know this should go in the Sports Talk forum, but I am posting it here since it relates to the HOF threads that are running here.
I've seen many people, when debating Kirby Puckett's Hall induction vs. Mattingly's candidacy, refer to Puckett's glaucoma as the result of his broken jaw. This, to some, is worthy of sympathy points, whereas Mattingly's bad back (by some accounts caused by a freak horseplay incident) is not similarly worthy.
But let's clear this up in one thread, once and for all.
Puckett's glaucoma was NOT IN ANY WAY the result of his being hit by a pitch. THIS ASSERTION IS FALSE. It is misinformation. It is not the case. I get so tired of seeing it bandied about in debate.
The simple, indisputable, medical fact is this: Kirby's career ending eye issue was HEREDITARY.
From many an article in the news:
"Puckett's glaucoma is hereditary--an older brother also has it, and their father had glaucoma too. "That's what you have to watch out for. If you have any family history of glaucoma you should definitely get checked." -- SAID PUCKETT HIMSELF.
Link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-326499.html
I've seen many people, when debating Kirby Puckett's Hall induction vs. Mattingly's candidacy, refer to Puckett's glaucoma as the result of his broken jaw. This, to some, is worthy of sympathy points, whereas Mattingly's bad back (by some accounts caused by a freak horseplay incident) is not similarly worthy.
But let's clear this up in one thread, once and for all.
Puckett's glaucoma was NOT IN ANY WAY the result of his being hit by a pitch. THIS ASSERTION IS FALSE. It is misinformation. It is not the case. I get so tired of seeing it bandied about in debate.
The simple, indisputable, medical fact is this: Kirby's career ending eye issue was HEREDITARY.
From many an article in the news:
"Puckett's glaucoma is hereditary--an older brother also has it, and their father had glaucoma too. "That's what you have to watch out for. If you have any family history of glaucoma you should definitely get checked." -- SAID PUCKETT HIMSELF.
Link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-326499.html
0
Comments
IMF
In summation;
An All-Star who hit .314 with 23 HRs and 99 RBI the year prior to waking up one day without the ability to see is incredibly different than a one-time All-Star who toiled in mediocrity for the last 6 years of his career.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
<< <i>SO much different than debilitating back pain causing you to play like a below average player for the last 6 years of your career. >>
That's quite an exaggeration there. Of course he declined, but over his last 6 years, his OPS+ was 105, he won 4 Gold Gloves, and received MVP votes twice.
<< <i>
<< <i>SO much different than debilitating back pain causing you to play like a below average player for the last 6 years of your career. >>
That's quite an exaggeration there. Of course he declined, but over his last 6 years, his OPS+ was 105, he won 4 Gold Gloves, and received MVP votes twice. >>
Oh come on. He hit .323 in his first 8 seasons and only .286 in his last 6. He wasn't the same player, obviously. Yes, he was better than average when he could actually be on the field, but he was shadow of his former self and certainly didn't go out in his prime like Puckett.
He was having an All Star year and then was hit by the pitch and never played in a regular season game again. I would guess the trauma from the pitch quickened the effects of the glaucoma.
I don't think anyone is downing Mattingly. He was tremendous. I'll even say this as I am a New Yorker........In his prime he was the best defensive 1st baseman I had ever seen.
If asked who was the better player for their entire career...........I would take Puckett by a slight margin.
When a career is instantly taken from a player because of tragedy; I believe you can clearly add some make believe stats. Such as the case of Gehrig and Puckett whose stats would have been much greater.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>SO much different than debilitating back pain causing you to play like a below average player for the last 6 years of your career. >>
That's quite an exaggeration there. Of course he declined, but over his last 6 years, his OPS+ was 105, he won 4 Gold Gloves, and received MVP votes twice. >>
Oh come on. He hit .323 in his first 8 seasons and only .286 in his last 6. He wasn't the same player, obviously. Yes, he was better than average when he could actually be on the field, but he was shadow of his former self and certainly didn't go out in his prime like Puckett. >>
I never said he did. All I was saying is that he was not a "below average player" for his last 6 seasons. He was so good in his prime that it only made him seem below average at the end.
Their career stats are remarkably similar, so I'm not sure how one is "a deserving HOFer" and one "is deservedly not." Mattingly didn't go out in his prime, but he was quite a bit better than Puckett for the first half of their careers. And, let's not forget that Puckett's stats were greatly helped by the ballpark that he played in. In away ballparks, Mattingly was certainly better.
Mattingly isn't even close to top #10 at first base. There are so many guys with power there....Gehrig, Foxx, Murray, Pujols, Killebrew, McCovey? A bunch of 500 home run hitters. Frank Thomas.
And the lack of world series rings hurts Mattingly.
<< <i>And the lack of world series rings hurts Mattingly. >>
It shouldn't though. Teams win championships, not players. That's why Ted Williams and Ernie Banks have zero rings, and some average or below average players have 3 or more. A-Rod had 3 big years in Texas (52, 57, and 47 HRs), and his team finished in LAST place all 3 years.
<< <i>
<< <i>Another issue with Puckett vs Mattingly, Puckett is clearly top 10 all time in centerfield. Say #8. >>
PUCKETT NEVER GOT TO FINISH HIS CAREER. Clearly accumulative stats like WAR and JAWS will be lower than they would have been had he been able to finish his career. 3-5 more years and he would be right up there with the great CFs. When playing, he was a 5-tool talent. Mattingly was always a 4-tool player.
<< <i>
<< <i>It's better to burn out than to fade away. >>
It's better to end up here!
YES
Doug
I.e. Be a genius like Sandy Koufax. Roy Campanella got 3 mvp's. Puckett is borderline on this short HOF career list.
To use the JAWS metric, Roy Campanella is at #27?? That's crazy. Sandy Koufax is .....82????
The average of 58 HOF starting pitchers is WAR 67.9, Koufax is a 46.2.
-I think world series rings to HOF voters are like a bonus. I think rightly or wrongly, it shows leadership. There are a lot of guys that struggle to get in the hall with great career numbers (but no WS wins). Andre Dawson? Jim Rice? They took a long time. Will Dale Murphy ever get in.
But... Don Sutton and Bert Blyleven is? What a joke the baseball hall of fame is...
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
<< <i>Dale Murphy and Jack Morris should be in.... How on this earth Morris isn't in is beyond me?
But... Don Sutton and Bert Blyleven is? What a joke the baseball hall of fame is... >>
Blyleven was a much better pitcher than Morris whose career ERA would be among the very highest for a HOFer. Murphy is a career. 265 hitter who struck out a ton of times and played in a ballpark nicknamed The Launching Pad. He was exceptional for about a 4-5 year stretch but that doesn't make for a HOF resume.
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>
<< <i>It's better to burn out than to fade away. >>
It's better to end up here!
1) He was hit in the face by a pitch.
2) The pitch to the face advanced his already existing glaucoma.
3) A radical treatment was applied to slow down or reverse damage done by his glaucoma. The treament failed and made things worse to the point Puckett completely lost sight in the one eye.
The treatment was the culprit but if not done glaucoma would have eventually ended his career in the near future any ways.
<< <i>But let's clear this up in one thread, once and for all.
Puckett's glaucoma was NOT IN ANY WAY the result of his being hit by a pitch. THIS ASSERTION IS FALSE. It is misinformation. It is not the case. I get so tired of seeing it bandied about in debate.
The simple, indisputable, medical fact is this: Kirby's career ending eye issue was HEREDITARY. >>
How many studies have been performed that prove being hit in the face with a baseball cannot accelerate glaucoma? Or, are you making assumptions and saying something is a "medical fact", without any medical proof, to bolster an opinion?
+1
<< <i>An All-Star who hit .314 with 23 HRs and 99 RBI the year prior to waking up one day without the ability to see is incredibly different than a one-time All-Star who toiled in mediocrity for the last 6 years of his career. >>
You might want to re-check your math. Mattingly made 6 All-Star games, not 1. The fact of the matter here is that Mattingly was hands down the more dominant player, but his star dimmed too soon due to the back injury. Heck, if he had retired right after he got hurt, maybe he'd be in the HOF right now. But he of course didn't, and that was that. The mediocre years killed his chances. Puckett didn't have any of those. Sadly, I wouldn't put Mattingly in the HOF. And this is coming from someone who worshipped him growing up.
<< <i>
<< <i>SO much different than debilitating back pain causing you to play like a below average player for the last 6 years of your career. >>
That's quite an exaggeration there. Of course he declined, but over his last 6 years, his OPS+ was 105, he won 4 Gold Gloves, and received MVP votes twice. >>
Gold gloves and MVP votes as a criteria is silly, IMO. The year Raffy Palmiero got a gold glove while playing 26 games at 1B and DH'ing 128 games removed the last shred of credibility from that award.
Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
thankfully, voters have taken the view that high stats should be considered in context of the medicinally inflated numbers they are and not admit a player purely becasue they have 700+ home runs.
Conversely, voters should consider a player's magnitude- above and beyond stats - and consider character, sportsmanship and class.
the game is better with players like mattingly in it... they should be celebrated, not excluded because of a narrow measures.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Another issue with Puckett vs Mattingly, Puckett is clearly top 10 all time in centerfield. Say #8. >>
PUCKETT NEVER GOT TO FINISH HIS CAREER. Clearly accumulative stats like WAR and JAWS will be lower than they would have been had he been able to finish his career. 3-5 more years and he would be right up there with the great CFs. When playing, he was a 5-tool talent. Mattingly was always a 4-tool player. >>
I like Puckett and have no problem with him being in the HOF, but he was not a 5-tool player. He didn't have a big arm for one. Genuine five tool players are rare and I think the term is used way too often. I love Mattingly. He is my favorite player of all-time; however, I don't think he is HOF-worthy. Had he not hurt his back, I think he would have made it.
<< <i>
<< <i>An All-Star who hit .314 with 23 HRs and 99 RBI the year prior to waking up one day without the ability to see is incredibly different than a one-time All-Star who toiled in mediocrity for the last 6 years of his career. >>
You might want to re-check your math. Mattingly made 6 All-Star games, not 1. The fact of the matter here is that Mattingly was hands down the more dominant player, but his star dimmed too soon due to the back injury. Heck, if he had retired right after he got hurt, maybe he'd be in the HOF right now. But he of course didn't, and that was that. The mediocre years killed his chances. Puckett didn't have any of those. Sadly, I wouldn't put Mattingly in the HOF. And this is coming from someone who worshipped him growing up. >>
I meant he used to be an All-Star, not that he made one All-Star team. Like, he was at one time an All-Star. Puckett was an All-Star when his carer was cut short. Mattingly was 6 years removed from being an All-Star when he retired.
<< <i>What the heck is "JAWS" besides that really big shark?????? >>
They basically played the same years (1984-1995). Mattingly played half of the 1983 season as well.
Puckett for the most part played all of his games healthy. Mattingly for the most part played half of his games hurt.
They put up almost identical stats, in the same era, in the same league, in the same amount of time.
How can it be said that Puckett was clearly the better player? Mattingly put up the same numbers while hurt, as Puckett did while healthy. To me, that means Mattingly was better.
If Puckett played his whole career as a Yankee, but put up the same exact stats that he did in Minnesota, he would not be in the Hall.
If Mattingly played his whole career as a Twin, but put up the same exact stats that he did in New York, he would be in the Hall.
<< <i>Puckett and Mattingly played the same amount of career games.
They basically played the same years (1984-1995). Mattingly played half of the 1983 season as well.
Puckett for the most part played all of his games healthy. Mattingly for the most part played half of his games hurt.
They put up almost identical stats, in the same era, in the same league, in the same amount of time.
How can it be said that Puckett was clearly the better player? Mattingly put up the same numbers while hurt, as Puckett did while healthy. To me, that means Mattingly was better.
If Puckett played his whole career as a Yankee, but put up the same exact stats that he did in Minnesota, he would not be in the Hall.
If Mattingly played his whole career as a Twin, but put up the same exact stats that he did in New York, he would be in the Hall. >>
This post makes absolutely no sense. It's astonishing how much wrong information and false equivalency is in there. These types of debates aren't meant for people with an emotional attachment to one of the players... in your case Mattingly.
I mean Jesus, Puckett was working on a string of 10 straight All-Star games when he was forced to retire. Mattingly hadn't been to an All-Star game in 6 years when he hung it up. Puckett went out in his prime. Mattingly went out limping. Thus the disparity.
<< <i>
<< <i>Puckett and Mattingly played the same amount of career games.
They basically played the same years (1984-1995). Mattingly played half of the 1983 season as well.
Puckett for the most part played all of his games healthy. Mattingly for the most part played half of his games hurt.
They put up almost identical stats, in the same era, in the same league, in the same amount of time.
How can it be said that Puckett was clearly the better player? Mattingly put up the same numbers while hurt, as Puckett did while healthy. To me, that means Mattingly was better.
If Puckett played his whole career as a Yankee, but put up the same exact stats that he did in Minnesota, he would not be in the Hall.
If Mattingly played his whole career as a Twin, but put up the same exact stats that he did in New York, he would be in the Hall. >>
This post makes absolutely no sense. It's astonishing how much wrong information and false equivalency is in there. These types of debates aren't meant for people with an emotional attachment to one of the players... in your case Mattingly. >>
I agree with sportscardtheory.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Mattingly:
Cecil Cooper (933)
Wally Joyner (907)
Hal McRae (895)
Kirby Puckett (891) *
Will Clark (879)
Magglio Ordonez (877)
Jeff Conine (875)
Tony Oliva (867)
Raul Ibanez (863)
Keith Hernandez (861)
Puckett:
Don Mattingly (891)
Cecil Cooper (886)
Magglio Ordonez (875)
Carl Furillo (874)
Kiki Cuyler (872) *
Cesar Cedeno (870)
Tony Oliva (867)
Minnie Minoso (864)
Cy Williams (859)
Felipe Alou (858)
Mattingly on the other hand had 3 dominant years, and everything else was good or very good, but not great. In his first 6 full season he made the All Star team, but then never made it again for his last 6 years. If you think about it this more or less parallels Dale Murphy's career; very strong starts to their careers, but then a long period of being just above aveage to very good, but not great. The one big difference is Mattingly played in NYC and the media attention helped grow his legend.
<< <i>They can be compared as hitters and Puckett still has a slight edge there. >>
Mattingly has a CLEAR edge when it comes to hitting (if you don't include baserunning - if you do, it's very close). You keep ignoring the fact that Puckett was aided by his ballpark. That is why Mattingly has a higher OPS+ (127 to 124) despite having a a slightly lower OPS (.837 to .830). OPS+ accounts for the ballpark advantage. Take a look at their away stats - Mattingly had a higher BA, a higher OBP, and a higher SLG.
And, why does it matter how each of them acquired their injuries? All that matters is what they accomplished.
<< <i>I don't necessarily agree that Puckett belongs in the HOF; he is certainly one of the weaker members based on statistics. But when you look at his career, he made the All Star team in each of his last 10 seasons (he didn't make it his first two years). So he was considered one of the very best players at his position for the duration of his career.
Mattingly on the other hand had 3 dominant years, and everything else was good or very good, but not great. In his first 6 full season he made the All Star team, but then never made it again for his last 6 years. If you think about it this more or less parallels Dale Murphy's career; very strong starts to their careers, but then a long period of being just above aveage to very good, but not great. The one big difference is Mattingly played in NYC and the media attention helped grow his legend. >>
I agree. If you put Mattingly in the HOF it will water it down even more. I mean hell if Adam Larouche has one or two great years and wins an MVP then I guess he is in too.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
<< <i>
<< <i>They can be compared as hitters and Puckett still has a slight edge there. >>
Mattingly has a CLEAR edge when it comes to hitting (if you don't include baserunning - if you do, it's very close). You keep ignoring the fact that Puckett was aided by his ballpark. That is why Mattingly has a higher OPS+ (127 to 124) despite having a a slightly lower OPS (.837 to .830). OPS+ accounts for the ballpark advantage. Take a look at their away stats - Mattingly had a higher BA, a higher OBP, and a higher SLG.
And, why does it matter how each of them acquired their injuries? All that matters is what they accomplished. >>
Clearly it does matter how they acquired their injuries. That's why one is a first ballot Hall of Famer and the other just got 13.2% in his 13th year on the ballot. It may not matter to YOU, but it does matter to most people who understand that Puckett's career was taken from him early.
<< <i>
<< <i>Puckett and Mattingly played the same amount of career games.
They basically played the same years (1984-1995). Mattingly played half of the 1983 season as well.
Puckett for the most part played all of his games healthy. Mattingly for the most part played half of his games hurt.
They put up almost identical stats, in the same era, in the same league, in the same amount of time.
How can it be said that Puckett was clearly the better player? Mattingly put up the same numbers while hurt, as Puckett did while healthy. To me, that means Mattingly was better.
If Puckett played his whole career as a Yankee, but put up the same exact stats that he did in Minnesota, he would not be in the Hall.
If Mattingly played his whole career as a Twin, but put up the same exact stats that he did in New York, he would be in the Hall. >>
This post makes absolutely no sense. It's astonishing how much wrong information and false equivalency is in there. These types of debates aren't meant for people with an emotional attachment to one of the players... in your case Mattingly. >>
Puckett and Mattingly played the same amount of career games. FACT
They basically played the same years (1984-1995). Mattingly played half of the 1983 season as well. FACT.
Puckett for the most part played all of his games healthy. Mattingly for the most part played half of his games hurt. By your own admission, FACT
They put up almost identical stats, in the same era, in the same league, in the same amount of time. FACT.
How can it be said that Puckett was clearly the better player? QUESTION.
Mattingly put up the same numbers while hurt, as Puckett did while healthy. FACT.
To me, that means Mattingly was better. OPINION
If Puckett played his whole career as a Yankee, but put up the same exact stats that he did in Minnesota, he would not be in the Hall. OPINION
If Mattingly played his whole career as a Twin, but put up the same exact stats that he did in New York, he would be in the Hall. OPINION
Where is the "wrong information"? I count 5 facts, 3 opinions, and 1 question. My reasoning for Puckett not being a HOFer has nothing to do with my "emotional attachment" to Mattingly. I've said a hundred times on these boards that, in my opinion, Mattingly does not have to numbers to warrant an induction. I feel the same way about Puckett. I think they are both borderline, and I don't think it can be (fairly) said that one belongs in, and one belongs out.
You keep talking about Puckett's speed. He stole an average of 12 base per season over his career, and his single season high was 21 steals. You act like he was Lou Brock. Hows that for false equivalency?
<< <i>
You keep talking about Puckett's speed. He stole an average of 12 base per season over his career, and his single season high was 21 steals. You act like he was Lou Brock. Hows that for false equivalency? >>
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I never said anything of the sort, yet here you are, making more crap up. This is why you can't even be in this discussion. You just say things that are so absurd that it makes it really hard to even respond.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Another issue with Puckett vs Mattingly, Puckett is clearly top 10 all time in centerfield. Say #8. >>
PUCKETT NEVER GOT TO FINISH HIS CAREER. Clearly accumulative stats like WAR and JAWS will be lower than they would have been had he been able to finish his career. 3-5 more years and he would be right up there with the great CFs. When playing, he was a 5-tool talent. Mattingly was always a 4-tool player. >>
I like Puckett and have no problem with him being in the HOF, but he was not a 5-tool player. He didn't have a big arm for one. Genuine five tool players are rare and I think the term is used way too often. I love Mattingly. He is my favorite player of all-time; however, I don't think he is HOF-worthy. Had he not hurt his back, I think he would have made it. >>
I had to jump in when I saw the comment that Puckett didn't have a big arm. I watched him play in person at least 200 times and he had a cannon for an arm. He only ended up with 142 outfield assists because players flat out wouldn't run on him. He not only had a strong arm but he had a very accurate arm as well.
<< <i>MyDaughtersNameIsMattingly it's just not fair that you keep comparing a CF to a 1B when it comes to hitting. If you ever got very far or had a kid get far in Baseball, for reference my brother in law had a short MLB career and my kid excelled all the way until he joined the Marines out of HS. You are generally at first base because you are skilled at mashing the ball but generally don't possess the skills to play to many other positions. >>
Mattingly wasn't being hidden at first base. He was one of the best defensive 1B of all time. Probably the best ever in the American League.
<< <i>
<< <i>
You keep talking about Puckett's speed. He stole an average of 12 base per season over his career, and his single season high was 21 steals. You act like he was Lou Brock. Hows that for false equivalency? >>
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I never said anything of the sort, yet here you are, making more crap up. This is why you can't even be in this discussion. You just say things that are so absurd that it makes it really hard to even respond. >>
You have no idea when your talking about. It's absurd that you can't put their stat lines next to each other and not see that they had almost identical careers .
You keep mentioning how their careers ended. How's Kirby's was ended suddenly, and tragically blahblahblah. How Don limped to finish blahblahblah. It seems you me you think Puckett is deserving more due to sympathy, rather than what he actually accomplished, as a whole.
I'll say it again, and then I'm done with these threads. They both played 12 full seasons in the big leagues at the exact same time, and put up the same stats. Either both should be in, or both should be out.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
You keep talking about Puckett's speed. He stole an average of 12 base per season over his career, and his single season high was 21 steals. You act like he was Lou Brock. Hows that for false equivalency? >>
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I never said anything of the sort, yet here you are, making more crap up. This is why you can't even be in this discussion. You just say things that are so absurd that it makes it really hard to even respond. >>
You have no idea when your talking about. It's absurd that you can't put their stat lines next to each other and not see that they had almost identical careers .
You keep mentioning how their careers ended. How's Kirby's was ended suddenly, and tragically blahblahblah. How Don limped to finish blahblahblah. It seems you me you think Puckett is deserving more due to sympathy, rather than what he actually accomplished, as a whole.
I'll say it again, and then I'm done with these threads. They both played 12 full seasons in the big leagues at the exact same time, and put up the same stats. Either both should be in, or both should be out. >>
You really want to dispute that there is a difference in value of offensive output between CF and 1b? How many CF's can knock out 35-45 hr in a season, much less 20? Compare that number to 1b's who have/can done it. Mattingly was a very good player, but he wasn't a standout statisical hitter for his position. ANd playing great D at 1b is not the same as playing great D in CF. Not saying Puck deserved his HOF nomination, but in now way are they apples to apples players.
Put Puckett on the Yankees and he is a legend.
It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Really good
<< <i>Put Mattingly on the Twins or Royals and we aren't having this discussion.
Put Puckett on the Yankees and he is a legend.
It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Really good >>
+100
<< <i>
<< <i>It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Really good >>
Wow! Great Point! Who's more famous? Mattingly or Puckett?????
Except for within 100 miles of either coast, Puckett is more famous.
Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
<< <i>
Kirby Puckett - HOFer >>
How are off the field issues related to HOF candidacy?
I won't mention names here but the anti-Yankee folks are obvious - they are the ones that won't reply to facts WITH facts - they reply with name calling.
Don Mattingly is a HOFer if he wasn't a Yankee. Baseball writers and voters hate the Yankees for the most part, and make biased decisions accordingly. (Please see 2006 A.L. MVP voting for proof of this).