@DaveSpiwak said:
I think the guys with very high peaks and relatively short careers belong in the hall over guys that were average for 20 years. WAR really works against guys with short careers, particularly if they’re an ‘easy’ position like 1B, LF, RF. I’m on board with WAR for the most part but I don’t think it’s the best gauge of judging players for the hall. I’ll take a guy like Mattingly that had a period of a few years where he was the best player in baseball over a guy that just hangs around and is ‘average’ for 20 years playing shortstop.
The thing is, it really doesn't. Take a guy like Griffey. Very good to (mostly) great through his first year in Cincinnati. Last eleven years of his career he was very ordinary to awful. Does he get credit for hanging around? Not really. He had 83.8 WAR, but 76.3 of that was in the first eleven years.
To further my point: according to WAR alone, Griffey in his last 11 years was almost as good as Gregor Blanco was in his ten years. If he retires at 30 he's a first ballot HoFer. Of course he made a lot of money playing to 40, and a lot of money for his teams.
The situation I’m referring to most is those in the ‘hard’ positions where some of them have a WAR comprised largely of credit they get just for taking the field (Position Adjustment and Runs From Replacement). Not to slam Jeter because he’s absolutely a HOFer in my book, but he’s a great example of what I’m referring to. His bWAR is 71.3 and he almost all of it from just taking the field as a shortstop (Position Adjustment plus Runs From Replacement). Most people look at that WAR and think ‘HOFer’ but, at the heart of what WAR is saying, he was just a slightly above average shortstop that played for 20 years.
All that said, I do think Jeter easily belongs in the hall of fame. But generally speaking, if more than 50% of WAR comes from just taking the field, the player isn’t all that much above average. I wholeheartedly agree with WAR’s assumption that average is very valuable. But I don’t think average belongs in the hall of fame over guys who had big peaks and won awards.
I don't see that at all. At best Jeter was a bad defensive shortstop, and usually he was terrible. He has an astounding -253 Runs from Fielding, counterbalanced in part by 144 for playing shortstop. That means that defense subtracts a total of 109 runs from his offensive totals.
Compare to Mattingly who, quite simply, was never the best in baseball, or even close. He had only four years where he could have been considered "one of the best" in the game, that is four years where he was in the top 10 in WAR for American League Position Players. The year he won MVP, he wasn't even close to being the best player on his own team. Mattingly was a good player, but not nearly good enough for nearly long enough to be in the HoVG.
An interesting comparison is found in pitchers. Jim Kaat and Jamie Moyer had very similar careers, though Kaat was slightly but clearly better. For example, Kaat had three All-Star games in 25 years while Moyer had 1 in 25. Now compare them to Sandy Koufax. All three have very similar WARs, yet Koufax is a pretty uncontroversial HoFer, and it's not very controversial that neither Kaat nor Moyer ever got close (Kaat peaked at 29.6%, Moyer at 2.4%). Bottom line is that players who are just a little above average for a very long time don't get close, while players who were dominant for a few years get in as do players who were reliably very good but never or almost never superb. There are probably between 200 and 300 seasons in baseball history I'd consider superb.
Compare to Mattingly who, quite simply, was never the best in baseball, or even close. He had only four years where he could have been considered "one of the best" in the game, that is four years where he was in the top 10 in WAR for American League Position Players. The year he won MVP, he wasn't even close to being the best player on his own team. Mattingly was a good player, but not nearly good enough for nearly long enough to be in the HoVG.
I've heard about how Mattingly was "the best in baseball" more times than I can count and it simply isn't true. There is no period, not 2 years, not 3 years, not 4 years, not any years, in which Mattingly was ever the best player in his own division. During Mattingly's very brief peak, Wade Boggs was consistently better and was the best in the AL. The best player in baseball during Mattingly's peak was Tim Raines, regardless of how few people recognized it at the time.
Edit to add: there was a HOVG Yankee who was the best in baseball. From 1970-1972 (not in any single year, but for the three years in total) Bobby Murcer was the best in MLB, and should have won the AL MVP in 1971 (Torre was the MLB best that year). And the second best player in the AL over the same period? That would be fellow Yankee and fellow HOVG member Roy White. And no, I have no idea who had the most WAR over that period because I don't care, and neither should you.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@DaveSpiwak said:
I think the guys with very high peaks and relatively short careers belong in the hall over guys that were average for 20 years. WAR really works against guys with short careers, particularly if they’re an ‘easy’ position like 1B, LF, RF. I’m on board with WAR for the most part but I don’t think it’s the best gauge of judging players for the hall. I’ll take a guy like Mattingly that had a period of a few years where he was the best player in baseball over a guy that just hangs around and is ‘average’ for 20 years playing shortstop.
To whom are you referring exactly?
Some hypothetical player?
Sounds like a veiled shot at Derek Jeter, who has the highest election percentage for a position player in the history of baseball since the inaugural class.
6th on the All-time hit list. Reaching 3400 hits faster (less games and AB's) than 3 of those higher than him including Rose.
But yeah he was not a total dominat-er due to not begin a power hitter but look at his post season numbers. He played a full regular season of games in the post season with a salvo of 200 hits in 158 playoff and World Series games, let that sink in; 200 post season hits in 158 games. 200 hits against the best pitchers in the most critical and pressure filled at bats, not to mention a over 300 hitter in those 158 post season games. When games counted the most he was dominant! Which alone puts him in top half echelon of HOF's
Below are his post season numbers when Games count the Most.
G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS TB
158 734 650 111 200 32 5 20 61 18 5 66 135 .308 .374 .465 .838 302
Dislike the player if you like, calling him merely a compiler who hung around is simply not accurate.
And yeah that 5 year run by Mattingly is the stuff of childhood legend - or at least was for me.
Dave already clarified he wasn’t talking about Jeter.
Compare to Mattingly who, quite simply, was never the best in baseball, or even close. He had only four years where he could have been considered "one of the best" in the game, that is four years where he was in the top 10 in WAR for American League Position Players. The year he won MVP, he wasn't even close to being the best player on his own team. Mattingly was a good player, but not nearly good enough for nearly long enough to be in the HoVG.
I've heard about how Mattingly was "the best in baseball" more times than I can count and it simply isn't true. There is no period, not 2 years, not 3 years, not 4 years, not any years, in which Mattingly was ever the best player in his own division. During Mattingly's very brief peak, Wade Boggs was consistently better and was the best in the AL. The best player in baseball during Mattingly's peak was Tim Raines, regardless of how few people recognized it at the time.
Edit to add: there was a HOVG Yankee who was the best in baseball. From 1970-1972 (not in any single year, but for the three years in total) Bobby Murcer was the best in MLB, and should have won the AL MVP in 1971 (Torre was the MLB best that year). And the second best player in the AL over the same period? That would be fellow Yankee and fellow HOVG member Roy White. And no, I have no idea who had the most WAR over that period because I don't care, and neither should you.
I'm a lifelong Yankee fan and do believe Murcer was very good as was Roy White. I am also from Oklahoma and appreciate how good Murcer was. However, neither player was as good as Mattingly and neither won the MVP (shoulda doesn't count), ever led the league in hitting, won 9 GGs, or led in RBIs. We are talking about the Hall of Very Good and Mattingly was that. For 4 or 5 years he was great. I am biased as he was my favorite player as a teen (Nettles was my favorite in my grade school years). Munson deserves mention too.
Compare to Mattingly who, quite simply, was never the best in baseball, or even close. He had only four years where he could have been considered "one of the best" in the game, that is four years where he was in the top 10 in WAR for American League Position Players. The year he won MVP, he wasn't even close to being the best player on his own team. Mattingly was a good player, but not nearly good enough for nearly long enough to be in the HoVG.
I've heard about how Mattingly was "the best in baseball" more times than I can count and it simply isn't true. There is no period, not 2 years, not 3 years, not 4 years, not any years, in which Mattingly was ever the best player in his own division. During Mattingly's very brief peak, Wade Boggs was consistently better and was the best in the AL. The best player in baseball during Mattingly's peak was Tim Raines, regardless of how few people recognized it at the time.
This is incorrect.
From 1985-1987, Don Mattingly was vastly superior to Wade Boggs.
Vastly .
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
And this is a GREAT example of where WAR can be so wrong - a high average singles hitter who walks a lot is not more valuable than a high average slugger.
In that span, Mattingly had more doubles and much more HR while hitting (bad guess of) .345 over the three year span and baked into which was some truly super human and still talked about hitting displays of both the short and long term duration.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@bobbybakeriv said:
I'm a lifelong Yankee fan and do believe Murcer was very good as was Roy White. I am also from Oklahoma and appreciate how good Murcer was. However, neither player was as good as Mattingly and neither won the MVP (shoulda doesn't count), ever led the league in hitting, won 9 GGs, or led in RBIs. We are talking about the Hall of Very Good and Mattingly was that. For 4 or 5 years he was great. I am biased as he was my favorite player as a teen (Nettles was my favorite in my grade school years). Munson deserves mention too.
We can bicker about the word(s) we use to fill in "Hall of ______ _______", but for a three-year period, 1970-1972, Bobby Murcer was a more valuable baseball player than Don Mattingly was for any three-year period in his career. Whichever Hall Mattingly is a part of, Murcer is either in the same Hall or the next one up. Roy White is either in the same one or the next one down from Mattingly. You may have many more, and smaller, Halls than I do but I think of all three as in the same one.
And while "shoulda" may not count, I see no reason decades after the fact in discussing who was the more valuable player to pretend that Murcer wasn't the most valuable player in 1971, or to pretend that Mattingly was the most valuable player in 1985 (Henderson and Brett were both more valuable). Reasonable people are not required to defer to the mistakes made in 1971 or in 1985.
And this is a GREAT example of where WAR can be so wrong - a high average singles hitter who walks a lot is not more valuable than a high average slugger.
In that span, Mattingly had more doubles and much more HR while hitting (bad guess of) .345 over the three year span and baked into which was some truly super human and still talked about hitting displays of both the short and long term duration.
Just to be clear, I didn't look up anyone's WAR and I have no idea, nor do I care at all, what any of their WARs were for the periods in question. Wade Boggs was better than Don Mattingly over Mattingly's peak; not vastly better, but a little bit better. Assuming "that span" is 1985-1987, Mattingly hit 10 more more doubles and 56 more HR than Boggs. Over the same span, Boggs got to first base 220 more times than Mattingly. Two hundred and twenty. Baseball fans have a tendency to give all or nearly all of the credit for driving in a run to the player who drove it in, but - very obviously - it's a 50/50 thing. You can't drive in a runner who isn't on base, and Wade Boggs was constantly on base. He was responsible for more runs being scored than Mattingly was. Still, as hitters they were close. But consider that Boggs played third base and Mattingly played first, and it's no longer all that close; Boggs was clearly more valuable than Mattingly over this, and every other, 3-year span.
And since you mentioned it I'll assume you think it's important. Mattingly hit .335 over that span, while Boggs hit .363. And note that this is Mattingly's peak, but not Boggs'. I assume nobody is arguing that Boggs wasn't vastly better than Mattingly over the course of their careers. If they are, then they are wrong; really, really wrong.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
“But consider that Boggs played third base and Mattingly played first, and it's no longer all that close”
Huh?
Mattingly was the best defensive first baseman in the American League; Boggs was an average defender at third.
Are you suggesting that just because he played third he’s better and the fact that he kind of sucked with the glove doesn’t matter?
Because you are better than that; that doesn’t match up with the excellent logic and reason you typically bring.
Also, you can’t drive in a runner that isn’t there but you can walk around the bases. So I will take the 66 extra bases hits over the 200 BB, since that is the specific metric that gives Boggs his edge.
I’m not someone who dismisses walks, either. But the edge here goes to Mattingly, hands down, from 85-87.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
There is ABSOLUTELY no chance Murcer was better than Mattingly. Mattingly had over 200 hits, 110 RBIs, 40 doubles, and 320 total bases three years in a row. Murcer never achieved any of those numbers once. Mattingly was also team captain, Murcer, not so much. Mattingly was way better and its not close. He was also the best defensive player at his position for a decade. You're a numbers guy, look at them. This being said they are both HOVG players, I agree. I like Murcer but he was not Mattingly.
Are you suggesting that just because he played third he’s better and the fact that he kind of sucked with the glove doesn’t matter?
Not "better", "more valuable". Literally ANY player can play first base; even Ryan Howard or Dave Kingman can hide there and not hurt the team too much. Players who can play third base are more rare, and therefore more valuable. I'm not trying to make too big a deal out of it, just pointing out that the gap in value between Boggs and Mattingly strictly as hitters grows when you consider that Boggs played a harder position. I didn't say by how much because I don't know by how much; but I am 100% certain that it grows.
Boggs did not, by the way, "kind of suck" with the glove. He was no Gold Glover, but he was about average, making him more valuable than any first baseman in the history of time. Average MLB third basemen don't grow on trees; at any given time there are maybe a few dozen people on the planet capable of being an average MLB third baseman, as compared to the millions who could play first base better than Ryan Howard.
@bobbybakeriv said:
There is ABSOLUTELY no chance Murcer was better than Mattingly. Mattingly had over 200 hits, 110 RBIs, 40 doubles, and 320 total bases three years in a row. Murcer never achieved any of those numbers once. Mattingly was also team captain, Murcer, not so much. Mattingly was way better and its not close. He was also the best defensive player at his position for a decade. You're a numbers guy, look at them. This being said they are both HOVG players, I agree. I like Murcer but he was not Mattingly.
If anyone has ever argued that "numbers" weren't bigger in 1985-1987 than they were in 1970-1972 then they were wrong. If anyone makes a comparison between a player in 1985-1987 to a player in 1970-1972 and ignores how vastly different the circumstances were, then they will be wrong.
The AL in 1985-1987 scored 31,878 runs; in 1970-1972 the AL scored 22,022 runs. I'm not going to go through all the math to get this down to a relevant comparison between Mattingly and Murcer, but if you are looking at "numbers" between any players in those two very different eras and not doing something to account for how much easier it was to score a run in Mattingly's era than in Murcer's era, your conclusion will be meaningless. And as with the comparison to Boggs, here, too, Mattingly and Murcer were about equal as hitters at their peaks. But Murcer played a skill position, and won a Gold Glove during the period at issue, and Mattingly didn't. None of this is science and I'm open to an argument that Mattingly in 1985-1987 was better than Murcer in 1970-1972. But your statement that Mattingly was "better and its not close"? I'm certain that you're wrong about that; regardless of which one was better, it's close.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
You are giving primarily opinions and I am giving facts. I could simply argue that there were lower runs scored because the hitters weren't as good, which would be my opinion. There were fewer teams, however, which likely does come into play. I don't care about all the anecdotal or subjective stuff (e.g. Murcer shoulda won, Mattingly shouldn't have won MVP). Murcer was no where near the best defensive CF in baseball either nor very good on the basepaths for a CF. He did walk more than Mattingly but struck out a lot more too. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. Your opinion simply isn't supported by the player facts. I think if we put these two players' 3 best years to a vote, player 1 would win hands down. Good debate but I just don't see it your way. Also, wouldn't the MVP voting help account for era relativity? Edit, Sorry the table is so skewed looking.
Year G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG TB Awards
“He was no Gold Glover, but he was about average, making him more valuable than any first baseman in the history of time.”
No.
A great first baseman makes up for a lot more than he’s being given credit for...
...I agree you can stash a bum there but a plus defender is huge.
Mattingly, Tino, Giambi then Tex.
Believe me, you notice the difference watching 162.
Buckner sure made a big difference! Just kidding. I hate it that he is almost exclusively remembered for that one play. He was a very good hitter and player.
I could simply argue that there were lower runs scored because the hitters weren't as good, which would be my opinion.
Yes, but that argument would so embarrassing that it would end the discussion.
There were fewer teams, however, which likely does come into play.
Yes, and that's one of the things I meant by "doing the math" to convert the total runs scored into a direct comparison. But most of that 50% difference in runs is going to remain after adjusting for teams, parks, etc.
I don't care about all the anecdotal or subjective stuff (e.g. Murcer shoulda won, Mattingly shouldn't have won MVP).
I'm not sure what to do with this. It is "anecdotal" in exactly the same way to say that Ted Williams deserved the MVP over Joe Gordon. If we have to accept that Joe Gordon was better than Ted Williams - the argument that you are making - then there's no point discussing baseball. We just sit back and let sportswriters tell us what to think, and then think it. Sorry, not for me.
Murcer was no where near the best defensive CF in baseball either nor very good on the basepaths for a CF.
Huh? I'll have to find where I said that Murcer was the best defensive CF in baseball and delete that. Wait, I never said that. I'll just ignore what you said here. And Murcer wasn't very good on the basepaths "for a CF"? OK, that may be true. But he was better on the basepaths than Mattingly, which would at least be relevant to this conversation. I'm just ignoring baserunning since it wasn't in the skill set of either of these two players.
Your opinion simply isn't supported by the player facts.
Yes, it is. It's not proven, as I've said, but it is definitely supported. I'm trying to look at the most important facts I can, and I may be missing something, but every fact I'm looking at takes the different eras into account, because any fact that doesn't is useless.
I think if we put these two players' 3 best years to a vote, player 1 would win hands down.
On this we agree 100%.
Good debate but I just don't see it your way. Also, wouldn't the MVP voting help account for era relativity? Edit, Sorry the >table is so skewed looking.
Year G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG TB Awards
MVP voting is 100% opinion. Yes it is a fact that MVP votes were the opinions of other people, but that's not the kind of "fact" that matters. To me, anyway. One stat that you did leave out of your stat table is the one that does take era into account - OPS+. Mattingly's was 155, Murcer's was 154. Another fact that supports the position I've taken - Mattingly and Murcer were very nearly equal as hitters at their peaks.
I'd love to convince you that I'm right, but I know I probably won't. But you, or someone reading this, is going to take a look through baseball reference at the multitude of player stats that do take eras and parks into account, and they're going to be convinced - and rightly so - that any difference between Mattingly and Murcer at their peaks is very much smaller than they had always believed.
And once we've gotten that far with Mattingly and Murcer, we can move on to Jim Rice and Roy White.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I still don't agreeI but appreciate your thoughts. I don't want to debate Rice vs. White b/c it'd likely wind up as the same type of discussion and I don't really care for either player that much. I think if you asked most legit baseball fans, they would say Mattingly was the better player. You don't agree which is fine. I like Murcer and feel he was a very good player. The Joe Gordon/Ted Williams thing has nothing to do with my POV. I think Babe Ruth was the best player ever but that is my opinion.
Chase Utley and Ryan Howard. Two major pieces of the Phillies core from the 07-11 run, put up HOF-caliber numbers during those runs but couldn't beat the injury bug.
Main collecting focus is Patrick Roy playing days 85/86-02/03, expect 1/1, National/All-Star stamped cards.PC Completion: 2,548/2,952; 86.31% My Patrick Roy PC Website:https://proy33collector.weebly.com
“But consider that Boggs played third base and Mattingly played first, and it's no longer all that close”
Huh?
Mattingly was the best defensive first baseman in the American League; Boggs was an average defender at third.
Are you suggesting that just because he played third he’s better and the fact that he kind of sucked with the glove doesn’t matter?
Because you are better than that; that doesn’t match up with the excellent logic and reason you typically bring.
Also, you can’t drive in a runner that isn’t there but you can walk around the bases. So I will take the 66 extra bases hits over the 200 BB, since that is the specific metric that gives Boggs his edge.
I’m not someone who dismisses walks, either. But the edge here goes to Mattingly, hands down, from 85-87.
Mattingly wasn't nearly as good as Pete O'Brien. Plus, an average third baseman is pretty valuable. An average defensive first baseman not so much, and it is hard to make the case that Mattingly was any better than average in 1985 or 1986. He was good in 1987, but still not as good as O'Brien. Besides, with many teams sticking incompetent fielders at first, where they can do less damage, being among the best defensively doesn't matter.
Again, I claim the year Mattingly won MVP he wasn't nearly the best player on hi team. Henderson was far superior. With two players on the same team in the same year, raw offensive numbers are very comparable.
Boggs was a far better player at Mattingly's peak.
I understand that for many here Mattingly was a favorite player, and his rookie card was absolutely iconic, but that doesn't mean he was ever great.
I Mattingly wasn't nearly as good as Pete O'Brien. Plus, an average third baseman is pretty valuable. An average defensive first baseman not so much, and it is hard to make the case that Mattingly was any better than average in 1985 or 1986. He was good in 1987, but still not as good as O'Brien. Besides, with many teams sticking incompetent fielders at first, where they can do less damage, being among the best defensively doesn't matter.
Mattingly won a Gold Glove both of those years. That makes a pretty good case that he was better than average. Now, we are just ignoring everything that does not support our supposition. I am done with this discussion. I like hearing the opinions of others but now things are just getting silly. Mattingly was widely viewed (along with Keith Hernandez) as being the best defensive first basemen in baseball for a decade. The guy won 9 gold gloves. That's not average.
Pete O'Brien was the best defensive first baseman of that era, but let's pretend he wasn't and let's pretend Mattingly actually did deserve all of those Gold Gloves. That still doesn't change the fact that the best defensive first baseman is less valuable (makes fewer plays that matter, contributing to fewer runs saved) than an average third baseman. Players capable of performing at the level of an average third baseman in MLB do not play first base, they play third base or shortstop. Put Steve Garvey at third base and you have a disaster of such epic proportion that people still talk about it. Move him to first base and he wins four straight Gold Gloves. Such is the chasm of skill required between the two positions.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary said:
Pete O'Brien was the best defensive first baseman of that era, but let's pretend he wasn't and let's pretend Mattingly actually did deserve all of those Gold Gloves. That still doesn't change the fact that the best defensive first baseman is less valuable (makes fewer plays that matter, contributing to fewer runs saved) than an average third baseman. Players capable of performing at the level of an average third baseman in MLB do not play first base, they play third base or shortstop. Put Steve Garvey at third base and you have a disaster of such epic proportion that people still talk about it. Move him to first base and he wins four straight Gold Gloves. Such is the chasm of skill required between the two positions.
I am not debating the positional value. Boggs was better than Mattingly. Pete O'Brien won ZERO gold gloves. Hernandez 11 and Mattingly 9. There is no "pretending" involved. Mattingly DID win those and that's a straight up FACT. Let's pretend O'Brien would play 10 games a season if he was on the Yankees roster back then is more like it. There is no true debate here aside from both you and Daltex being from Dallas and likely biased thusly. This thread has officially become laughable. Incidentally, in 2011 Hernandez was voted the greatest defensive 1B ever and Mattingly placed 3rd. O'Brien did not make the list. The list was admittedly subjective but you would think O'Brien would have been on it somewhere if he was so good. I guess I also forgot that you apparently know more than every baseball manager, coach, and associated GG voter of that era if not history given that you say they got it wrong so many times. Jeez.
BTW - Garvey played 3B professionally at the MLB level so I doubt Garvey would have been a "disaster." O'Brien likely so. I am not saying he was good but "disaster" seems strong to me. Below average, probably.
@bobbybakeriv said:
BTW - Garvey played 3B professionally at the MLB level so I doubt Garvey would have been a "disaster." O'Brien likely so. I am not saying he was good but "disaster" seems strong to me. Below average, probably.
I assume Garvey played third base well enough in the minors to convince the Dodgers that he could play there in the majors. They were wrong. They were very, very, wrong. In his last failed year at 3rd Garvey made 28 errors on 286 chances. 19th century third basemen who literally did not wear gloves did better than that. To call it a disaster is to grossly understate just how bad a third baseman Garvey was, but I don't know what other word to use. How about "apocalyptic"? Whatever word you want to use - and no, "below average" isn't even in the ballpark - when the Dodgers moved him to first base due to his lack of fielding ability, they found out that even a terrible third baseman can play first base with the best of them.
Regarding Gold Gloves, I can't argue against the facts regarding who won how many of them. But I don't have any interest in memorizing what other people thought and who they voted for; what I enjoy is doing my own analysis and deciding for myself who the best players/fielders were. I find fault with the votes for every award in a lot of years, but the votes for Gold Gloves are beyond any doubt the very worst. There may be an exception to this rule, but I'm not aware of any: the more Gold Gloves a player has, the more undeserved Gold Gloves a player has. Brooks Robinson did not deserve 16 Gold Gloves, Ozzie Smith did not deserve 13, and Don Mattingly did not deserve 9. Gold Glove voters, more often than not, vote for the player who won the Gold Glove the year before. You watch every play of every game and collect every piece of data in existence while all I know is who won the Gold Glove the year before (and you don't know that). I will predict who wins the Gold Gloves this year at least twice as often as you will. Gold Gloves aren't entirely meaningless, but they're awfully close.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@bobbybakeriv said:
BTW - Garvey played 3B professionally at the MLB level so I doubt Garvey would have been a "disaster." O'Brien likely so. I am not saying he was good but "disaster" seems strong to me. Below average, probably.
I assume Garvey played third base well enough in the minors to convince the Dodgers that he could play there in the majors. They were wrong. They were very, very, wrong. In his last failed year at 3rd Garvey made 28 errors on 286 chances. 19th century third basemen who literally did not wear gloves did better than that. To call it a disaster is to grossly understate just how bad a third baseman Garvey was, but I don't know what other word to use. How about "apocalyptic"? Whatever word you want to use - and no, "below average" isn't even in the ballpark - when the Dodgers moved him to first base due to his lack of fielding ability, they found out that even a terrible third baseman can play first base with the best of them.
Regarding Gold Gloves, I can't argue against the facts regarding who won how many of them. But I don't have any interest in memorizing what other people thought and who they voted for; what I enjoy is doing my own analysis and deciding for myself who the best players/fielders were. I find fault with the votes for every award in a lot of years, but the votes for Gold Gloves are beyond any doubt the very worst. There may be an exception to this rule, but I'm not aware of any: the more Gold Gloves a player has, the more undeserved Gold Gloves a player has. Brooks Robinson did not deserve 16 Gold Gloves, Ozzie Smith did not deserve 13, and Don Mattingly did not deserve 9. Gold Glove voters, more often than not, vote for the player who won the Gold Glove the year before. You watch every play of every game and collect every piece of data in existence while all I know is who won the Gold Glove the year before (and you don't know that). I will predict who wins the Gold Gloves this year at least twice as often as you will. Gold Gloves aren't entirely meaningless, but they're awfully close.
I won't disagree on Garvey. I don't even really care. However, I do lend significant credence to the 75% weighting that managers and coaches have when it comes to gold glove voting. There is a rather prominent chance that players who win it most or over many consecutive years are actually that much better. Is it perfect? Likely not. But I would rather put my stock in the opinions of professional baseball talent evaluators than the opinions of fans.
It seems every "award" or even several statistics I have mentioned, are immediately discounted by you as being flawed in someway. I know what I have read about that era and I know what the professional evaluators of that era declared and they not once declared O'Brien the best fielder at his position. Not ONCE. Ok. Let's just put this one to rest. I think we have side-tracked the intent of this thread anyhow. We can take it up another time (but it should likely be over on the sports talk forum IMO). Have a good night.
@dallasactuary said:
Pete O'Brien was the best defensive first baseman of that era, but let's pretend he wasn't and let's pretend Mattingly actually did deserve all of those Gold Gloves. That still doesn't change the fact that the best defensive first baseman is less valuable (makes fewer plays that matter, contributing to fewer runs saved) than an average third baseman. Players capable of performing at the level of an average third baseman in MLB do not play first base, they play third base or shortstop. Put Steve Garvey at third base and you have a disaster of such epic proportion that people still talk about it. Move him to first base and he wins four straight Gold Gloves. Such is the chasm of skill required between the two positions.
I don't think either of those guys were any better fielders than Kent Hrbek.
Seems to me Mattingly had the great 4 year peak 1984-87, got injured and never regained his power, yet seems to get credit for playing at that 84-87 level for the rest of his career. Tough break for Don, but he had some pretty average years, it looks like about 6.
Kent was a tremendous fielder. He probably should have won a couple of GG's. I don't remember much about Pete O'Brien. Mattingly was certainly a terrific fielder.
Looking at Hrbek's hitting totals, they are almost a mirror image of Mattingly's. Kent's consistency was remarkable, he really never had a "bad" year. Even his last year was not horrible, but an indication he was at the end of a very nice career.
It's a shame that Mattingly hurt his back (?) but it happens, and he dropped from great to above average/very good.
Hrbek gets no consideration here, quite like when he played in Mattingly's "shadow".
Kent gets my vote for HOVG.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Hrbek was very good, and also a great first baseman who probably did deserve a GG or two. Where Hrbek suffers in a comparison with others is that he was always good to very good, but never great. When most people, including me, decide whether one player was better than another player we consider both the total value of their career and also how good they were at their peak. Bill James rates peak more than career and has Mattingly ranked far above all the other first basemen that have been mentioned. I disagree that peak ought to count that much, and IMO he has Mattingly ranked way too high, but I do agree that peak value ought to count for something and I would rank Mattingly higher than Hrbek. But if your opinion is that career value is all that matters - which is reasonable and defensible - then Hrbek ends up in a large pool that includes Mattingly, Garvey, Hodges, Bob Watson, Wally Joyner, and others. All of them very good, none of them great.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary said:
Hrbek was very good, and also a great first baseman who probably did deserve a GG or two. Where Hrbek suffers in a comparison with others is that he was always good to very good, but never great. When most people, including me, decide whether one player was better than another player we consider both the total value of their career and also how good they were at their peak. Bill James rates peak more than career and has Mattingly ranked far above all the other first basemen that have been mentioned. I disagree that peak ought to count that much, and IMO he has Mattingly ranked way too high, but I do agree that peak value ought to count for something and I would rank Mattingly higher than Hrbek. But if your opinion is that career value is all that matters - which is reasonable and defensible - then Hrbek ends up in a large pool that includes Mattingly, Garvey, Hodges, Bob Watson, Wally Joyner, and others. All of them very good, none of them great.
Completely agree that Mattingly would have been a beast if he hadn't gotten hurt. Was he better than Kent?
I really think it's just too close to call. Ability in the two cases are so different. Hrbek's remained constant and Mattingly's dropped pretty dramatically.
Hrbec was never great, although he was 2nd in MVP voting in 1984 to a pitcher (Ripken was the clear winner that year, WHY DID HE ONLY GET 1 VOTE?????), so Hrbek could have won an MVP.
If I take the position that I need a guy playing 1B for 14 years, I'll take Hrbek and wouldn't care much if I had to "settle" for Don.
Certainly if your looking for a five year guy and get to pick the years, Mattingly is your man, but, look at Kent's 1987-91, pretty great and helped his team win 2 Championships. Still gets overshadowed by a guy on his own team.......Puckett. Even though OPS+ seems to favor Kent!
I know....................1st base.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
One of the things I like is old school stats. For me, the 1985 year with 145 RBI is a stand out. Sure, you can break it down to component parts and make it less impressive; often sandwiched between Hall of Famers Henderson and Winfield, maybe a ‘more valuable’ batter produces more, easy to score runs that year but still...
...145.
It’s one of those simple numbers that states what you actually did in the games to plate runs and I love it.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
It’s one of those simple numbers that states what you actually did in the games to plate runs and I love it.
And that's the disconnect that leads to the huge number of MVPs that have gone to players because they led the league in RBI, and for no other reason.
Rickey Henderson scored 146 runs that year.
...146.
It's one of those simple numbers that states what you actually did in the games to plate runs, but nobody cares. Because RBI.
Henderson and Brett were the two most valuable players in the AL in 1985, in either order. But Mattingly led the league in RBI so he got the MVP award. I am no more impressed that Mattingly has an MVP in his trophy case than I am that Joe Gordon has one, and I can think of no reason why anyone else would be.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I still believe Mattingly deserved it but an argument can be made for the other two. Mattingly did far surpass both of them in total runs produced and total bases which should count for something besides RBI, HRs, and BA (which Mattingly wins 2/3 categories there too). I think Mattingly should have won it in 1986 over Clemens but he didn't. If Clemens won it then, Guidry should have won it in 1978 over Rice. C'est la vie. It's all just opinion at this point of the discussion. Some of us have differing ones.
Also, I am not nearly as impressed with Brett hitting .390 in '80 since he missed 45 games that season. IMO, Carew hitting .388 in '77 is more impressive since he only missed 7. I would think that you would feel the same way if you are looking at the totality of things. I am fairly sure you have a work-around on that one ready too though. 45 games is more than a quarter of a season and A LOT can happen in that span of time.
@bobbybakeriv said:
Mattingly did far surpass both of them in total runs produced ...
Depends on what you mean by "runs produced". I assume you mean RBI + Runs - HR, but that's not really a good measure of runs produced. BB-ref has a stat called "Runs Created" which is a better measure and Mattingly came in 4th in 1985 behind Brett, Boggs, and Henderson.
Mattingly did lead the AL in runs created in 1986, and that is the year he has the best argument for deserving the MVP. Clemens winning it was silly, and the MVP should have come down to Mattingly and Boggs. Mattingly's overall hitting stats were better than Boggs, but Boggs clutch hitting stats were better and, I hate to even bring it up, Boggs was more valuable in the field. Looking at everything, I see a toss-up in 1986.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@bobbybakeriv said:
Mattingly did far surpass both of them in total runs produced ...
Depends on what you mean by "runs produced". I assume you mean RBI + Runs - HR, but that's not really a good measure of runs produced. BB-ref has a stat called "Runs Created" which is a better measure and Mattingly came in 4th in 1985 behind Brett, Boggs, and Henderson.
Mattingly did lead the AL in runs created in 1986, and that is the year he has the best argument for deserving the MVP. Clemens winning it was silly, and the MVP should have come down to Mattingly and Boggs. Mattingly's overall hitting stats were better than Boggs, but Boggs clutch hitting stats were better and, I hate to even bring it up, Boggs was more valuable in the field. Looking at everything, I see a toss-up in 1986.
I thought Mattingly should have won in 1986 and not 1985. Henderson was quite a bit better imo in 1985.
Boggs was pretty deserving in 1986 too, but I like Donnie's SLG to go with the great BA.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Comments
How 'bout a little SF Bay Area non-steroidal representation::
I don't see that at all. At best Jeter was a bad defensive shortstop, and usually he was terrible. He has an astounding -253 Runs from Fielding, counterbalanced in part by 144 for playing shortstop. That means that defense subtracts a total of 109 runs from his offensive totals.
Compare to Mattingly who, quite simply, was never the best in baseball, or even close. He had only four years where he could have been considered "one of the best" in the game, that is four years where he was in the top 10 in WAR for American League Position Players. The year he won MVP, he wasn't even close to being the best player on his own team. Mattingly was a good player, but not nearly good enough for nearly long enough to be in the HoVG.
An interesting comparison is found in pitchers. Jim Kaat and Jamie Moyer had very similar careers, though Kaat was slightly but clearly better. For example, Kaat had three All-Star games in 25 years while Moyer had 1 in 25. Now compare them to Sandy Koufax. All three have very similar WARs, yet Koufax is a pretty uncontroversial HoFer, and it's not very controversial that neither Kaat nor Moyer ever got close (Kaat peaked at 29.6%, Moyer at 2.4%). Bottom line is that players who are just a little above average for a very long time don't get close, while players who were dominant for a few years get in as do players who were reliably very good but never or almost never superb. There are probably between 200 and 300 seasons in baseball history I'd consider superb.
I've heard about how Mattingly was "the best in baseball" more times than I can count and it simply isn't true. There is no period, not 2 years, not 3 years, not 4 years, not any years, in which Mattingly was ever the best player in his own division. During Mattingly's very brief peak, Wade Boggs was consistently better and was the best in the AL. The best player in baseball during Mattingly's peak was Tim Raines, regardless of how few people recognized it at the time.
Edit to add: there was a HOVG Yankee who was the best in baseball. From 1970-1972 (not in any single year, but for the three years in total) Bobby Murcer was the best in MLB, and should have won the AL MVP in 1971 (Torre was the MLB best that year). And the second best player in the AL over the same period? That would be fellow Yankee and fellow HOVG member Roy White. And no, I have no idea who had the most WAR over that period because I don't care, and neither should you.
redacted
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Dave already clarified he wasn’t talking about Jeter.
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, Dwight Evans, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
I'm a lifelong Yankee fan and do believe Murcer was very good as was Roy White. I am also from Oklahoma and appreciate how good Murcer was. However, neither player was as good as Mattingly and neither won the MVP (shoulda doesn't count), ever led the league in hitting, won 9 GGs, or led in RBIs. We are talking about the Hall of Very Good and Mattingly was that. For 4 or 5 years he was great. I am biased as he was my favorite player as a teen (Nettles was my favorite in my grade school years). Munson deserves mention too.
This is incorrect.
From 1985-1987, Don Mattingly was vastly superior to Wade Boggs.
Vastly .
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
And this is a GREAT example of where WAR can be so wrong - a high average singles hitter who walks a lot is not more valuable than a high average slugger.
In that span, Mattingly had more doubles and much more HR while hitting (bad guess of) .345 over the three year span and baked into which was some truly super human and still talked about hitting displays of both the short and long term duration.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
We can bicker about the word(s) we use to fill in "Hall of ______ _______", but for a three-year period, 1970-1972, Bobby Murcer was a more valuable baseball player than Don Mattingly was for any three-year period in his career. Whichever Hall Mattingly is a part of, Murcer is either in the same Hall or the next one up. Roy White is either in the same one or the next one down from Mattingly. You may have many more, and smaller, Halls than I do but I think of all three as in the same one.
And while "shoulda" may not count, I see no reason decades after the fact in discussing who was the more valuable player to pretend that Murcer wasn't the most valuable player in 1971, or to pretend that Mattingly was the most valuable player in 1985 (Henderson and Brett were both more valuable). Reasonable people are not required to defer to the mistakes made in 1971 or in 1985.
Just to be clear, I didn't look up anyone's WAR and I have no idea, nor do I care at all, what any of their WARs were for the periods in question. Wade Boggs was better than Don Mattingly over Mattingly's peak; not vastly better, but a little bit better. Assuming "that span" is 1985-1987, Mattingly hit 10 more more doubles and 56 more HR than Boggs. Over the same span, Boggs got to first base 220 more times than Mattingly. Two hundred and twenty. Baseball fans have a tendency to give all or nearly all of the credit for driving in a run to the player who drove it in, but - very obviously - it's a 50/50 thing. You can't drive in a runner who isn't on base, and Wade Boggs was constantly on base. He was responsible for more runs being scored than Mattingly was. Still, as hitters they were close. But consider that Boggs played third base and Mattingly played first, and it's no longer all that close; Boggs was clearly more valuable than Mattingly over this, and every other, 3-year span.
And since you mentioned it I'll assume you think it's important. Mattingly hit .335 over that span, while Boggs hit .363. And note that this is Mattingly's peak, but not Boggs'. I assume nobody is arguing that Boggs wasn't vastly better than Mattingly over the course of their careers. If they are, then they are wrong; really, really wrong.
@dallasactuary
“But consider that Boggs played third base and Mattingly played first, and it's no longer all that close”
Huh?
Mattingly was the best defensive first baseman in the American League; Boggs was an average defender at third.
Are you suggesting that just because he played third he’s better and the fact that he kind of sucked with the glove doesn’t matter?
Because you are better than that; that doesn’t match up with the excellent logic and reason you typically bring.
Also, you can’t drive in a runner that isn’t there but you can walk around the bases. So I will take the 66 extra bases hits over the 200 BB, since that is the specific metric that gives Boggs his edge.
I’m not someone who dismisses walks, either. But the edge here goes to Mattingly, hands down, from 85-87.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
And...
...there was a 9 day period in 1987 where Don Mattingly was arguably the best player in the history of baseball.
Apropos of nothing, of course, but have to bring up the GS HR streak...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
@dallasactuary
There is ABSOLUTELY no chance Murcer was better than Mattingly. Mattingly had over 200 hits, 110 RBIs, 40 doubles, and 320 total bases three years in a row. Murcer never achieved any of those numbers once. Mattingly was also team captain, Murcer, not so much. Mattingly was way better and its not close. He was also the best defensive player at his position for a decade. You're a numbers guy, look at them. This being said they are both HOVG players, I agree. I like Murcer but he was not Mattingly.
Not "better", "more valuable". Literally ANY player can play first base; even Ryan Howard or Dave Kingman can hide there and not hurt the team too much. Players who can play third base are more rare, and therefore more valuable. I'm not trying to make too big a deal out of it, just pointing out that the gap in value between Boggs and Mattingly strictly as hitters grows when you consider that Boggs played a harder position. I didn't say by how much because I don't know by how much; but I am 100% certain that it grows.
Boggs did not, by the way, "kind of suck" with the glove. He was no Gold Glover, but he was about average, making him more valuable than any first baseman in the history of time. Average MLB third basemen don't grow on trees; at any given time there are maybe a few dozen people on the planet capable of being an average MLB third baseman, as compared to the millions who could play first base better than Ryan Howard.
If anyone has ever argued that "numbers" weren't bigger in 1985-1987 than they were in 1970-1972 then they were wrong. If anyone makes a comparison between a player in 1985-1987 to a player in 1970-1972 and ignores how vastly different the circumstances were, then they will be wrong.
The AL in 1985-1987 scored 31,878 runs; in 1970-1972 the AL scored 22,022 runs. I'm not going to go through all the math to get this down to a relevant comparison between Mattingly and Murcer, but if you are looking at "numbers" between any players in those two very different eras and not doing something to account for how much easier it was to score a run in Mattingly's era than in Murcer's era, your conclusion will be meaningless. And as with the comparison to Boggs, here, too, Mattingly and Murcer were about equal as hitters at their peaks. But Murcer played a skill position, and won a Gold Glove during the period at issue, and Mattingly didn't. None of this is science and I'm open to an argument that Mattingly in 1985-1987 was better than Murcer in 1970-1972. But your statement that Mattingly was "better and its not close"? I'm certain that you're wrong about that; regardless of which one was better, it's close.
You are giving primarily opinions and I am giving facts. I could simply argue that there were lower runs scored because the hitters weren't as good, which would be my opinion. There were fewer teams, however, which likely does come into play. I don't care about all the anecdotal or subjective stuff (e.g. Murcer shoulda won, Mattingly shouldn't have won MVP). Murcer was no where near the best defensive CF in baseball either nor very good on the basepaths for a CF. He did walk more than Mattingly but struck out a lot more too. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. Your opinion simply isn't supported by the player facts. I think if we put these two players' 3 best years to a vote, player 1 would win hands down. Good debate but I just don't see it your way. Also, wouldn't the MVP voting help account for era relativity? Edit, Sorry the table is so skewed looking.
Year G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG TB Awards
1984 153 603 91 207 44 2 23 110 41 33 0.343 0.381 0.537 324 AS,MVP-5
1985 159 652 107 211 48 3 35 145 56 41 0.324 0.371 0.567 370 AS,MVP-1,GG,SS
1986 162 677 117 238 53 2 31 113 53 35 0.352 0.394 0.573 388 AS,MVP-2,GG,SS
Year G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG TB Awards
1971 146 529 94 175 25 6 25 94 91 60 0.331 0.427 0.543 287 AS,MVP-7
1972 153 585 102 171 30 7 33 96 63 67 0.292 0.361 0.537 314 AS,MVP-5,GG
1973 160 616 83 187 29 2 22 95 50 67 0.304 0.357 0.464 286 AS,MVP-9
@dallasactuary
You said:
“He was no Gold Glover, but he was about average, making him more valuable than any first baseman in the history of time.”
No.
A great first baseman makes up for a lot more than he’s being given credit for...
...I agree you can stash a bum there but a plus defender is huge.
Mattingly, Tino, Giambi then Tex.
Believe me, you notice the difference watching 162.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Buckner sure made a big difference!
Just kidding. I hate it that he is almost exclusively remembered for that one play. He was a very good hitter and player.
True, but there are facts and there are facts. The FACT that you either aren't considering or aren't acknowledging is that runs were easier to produce in 1985-1987 than they were in the early 70's. Without consideration of that fact, any discussion of Mattingly vs. Murcer is just masturbatory rehash©.
Yes, but that argument would so embarrassing that it would end the discussion.
Yes, and that's one of the things I meant by "doing the math" to convert the total runs scored into a direct comparison. But most of that 50% difference in runs is going to remain after adjusting for teams, parks, etc.
I'm not sure what to do with this. It is "anecdotal" in exactly the same way to say that Ted Williams deserved the MVP over Joe Gordon. If we have to accept that Joe Gordon was better than Ted Williams - the argument that you are making - then there's no point discussing baseball. We just sit back and let sportswriters tell us what to think, and then think it. Sorry, not for me.
Huh? I'll have to find where I said that Murcer was the best defensive CF in baseball and delete that. Wait, I never said that. I'll just ignore what you said here. And Murcer wasn't very good on the basepaths "for a CF"? OK, that may be true. But he was better on the basepaths than Mattingly, which would at least be relevant to this conversation. I'm just ignoring baserunning since it wasn't in the skill set of either of these two players.
Yes, it is. It's not proven, as I've said, but it is definitely supported. I'm trying to look at the most important facts I can, and I may be missing something, but every fact I'm looking at takes the different eras into account, because any fact that doesn't is useless.
On this we agree 100%.
MVP voting is 100% opinion. Yes it is a fact that MVP votes were the opinions of other people, but that's not the kind of "fact" that matters. To me, anyway. One stat that you did leave out of your stat table is the one that does take era into account - OPS+. Mattingly's was 155, Murcer's was 154. Another fact that supports the position I've taken - Mattingly and Murcer were very nearly equal as hitters at their peaks.
I'd love to convince you that I'm right, but I know I probably won't. But you, or someone reading this, is going to take a look through baseball reference at the multitude of player stats that do take eras and parks into account, and they're going to be convinced - and rightly so - that any difference between Mattingly and Murcer at their peaks is very much smaller than they had always believed.
And once we've gotten that far with Mattingly and Murcer, we can move on to Jim Rice and Roy White.
I still don't agreeI but appreciate your thoughts. I don't want to debate Rice vs. White b/c it'd likely wind up as the same type of discussion and I don't really care for either player that much. I think if you asked most legit baseball fans, they would say Mattingly was the better player. You don't agree which is fine. I like Murcer and feel he was a very good player. The Joe Gordon/Ted Williams thing has nothing to do with my POV. I think Babe Ruth was the best player ever but that is my opinion.
Chase Utley and Ryan Howard. Two major pieces of the Phillies core from the 07-11 run, put up HOF-caliber numbers during those runs but couldn't beat the injury bug.
Main collecting focus is Patrick Roy playing days 85/86-02/03, expect 1/1, National/All-Star stamped cards.PC Completion: 2,548/2,952; 86.31% My Patrick Roy PC Website:https://proy33collector.weebly.com
Mattingly wasn't nearly as good as Pete O'Brien. Plus, an average third baseman is pretty valuable. An average defensive first baseman not so much, and it is hard to make the case that Mattingly was any better than average in 1985 or 1986. He was good in 1987, but still not as good as O'Brien. Besides, with many teams sticking incompetent fielders at first, where they can do less damage, being among the best defensively doesn't matter.
Again, I claim the year Mattingly won MVP he wasn't nearly the best player on hi team. Henderson was far superior. With two players on the same team in the same year, raw offensive numbers are very comparable.
Boggs was a far better player at Mattingly's peak.
I understand that for many here Mattingly was a favorite player, and his rookie card was absolutely iconic, but that doesn't mean he was ever great.
I Mattingly wasn't nearly as good as Pete O'Brien. Plus, an average third baseman is pretty valuable. An average defensive first baseman not so much, and it is hard to make the case that Mattingly was any better than average in 1985 or 1986. He was good in 1987, but still not as good as O'Brien. Besides, with many teams sticking incompetent fielders at first, where they can do less damage, being among the best defensively doesn't matter.
Mattingly won a Gold Glove both of those years. That makes a pretty good case that he was better than average. Now, we are just ignoring everything that does not support our supposition. I am done with this discussion. I like hearing the opinions of others but now things are just getting silly. Mattingly was widely viewed (along with Keith Hernandez) as being the best defensive first basemen in baseball for a decade. The guy won 9 gold gloves. That's not average.
Pete O'Brien was the best defensive first baseman of that era, but let's pretend he wasn't and let's pretend Mattingly actually did deserve all of those Gold Gloves. That still doesn't change the fact that the best defensive first baseman is less valuable (makes fewer plays that matter, contributing to fewer runs saved) than an average third baseman. Players capable of performing at the level of an average third baseman in MLB do not play first base, they play third base or shortstop. Put Steve Garvey at third base and you have a disaster of such epic proportion that people still talk about it. Move him to first base and he wins four straight Gold Gloves. Such is the chasm of skill required between the two positions.
I am not debating the positional value. Boggs was better than Mattingly. Pete O'Brien won ZERO gold gloves. Hernandez 11 and Mattingly 9. There is no "pretending" involved. Mattingly DID win those and that's a straight up FACT. Let's pretend O'Brien would play 10 games a season if he was on the Yankees roster back then is more like it. There is no true debate here aside from both you and Daltex being from Dallas and likely biased thusly. This thread has officially become laughable. Incidentally, in 2011 Hernandez was voted the greatest defensive 1B ever and Mattingly placed 3rd. O'Brien did not make the list. The list was admittedly subjective but you would think O'Brien would have been on it somewhere if he was so good. I guess I also forgot that you apparently know more than every baseball manager, coach, and associated GG voter of that era if not history given that you say they got it wrong so many times. Jeez.
BTW - Garvey played 3B professionally at the MLB level so I doubt Garvey would have been a "disaster." O'Brien likely so. I am not saying he was good but "disaster" seems strong to me. Below average, probably.
I assume Garvey played third base well enough in the minors to convince the Dodgers that he could play there in the majors. They were wrong. They were very, very, wrong. In his last failed year at 3rd Garvey made 28 errors on 286 chances. 19th century third basemen who literally did not wear gloves did better than that. To call it a disaster is to grossly understate just how bad a third baseman Garvey was, but I don't know what other word to use. How about "apocalyptic"? Whatever word you want to use - and no, "below average" isn't even in the ballpark - when the Dodgers moved him to first base due to his lack of fielding ability, they found out that even a terrible third baseman can play first base with the best of them.
Regarding Gold Gloves, I can't argue against the facts regarding who won how many of them. But I don't have any interest in memorizing what other people thought and who they voted for; what I enjoy is doing my own analysis and deciding for myself who the best players/fielders were. I find fault with the votes for every award in a lot of years, but the votes for Gold Gloves are beyond any doubt the very worst. There may be an exception to this rule, but I'm not aware of any: the more Gold Gloves a player has, the more undeserved Gold Gloves a player has. Brooks Robinson did not deserve 16 Gold Gloves, Ozzie Smith did not deserve 13, and Don Mattingly did not deserve 9. Gold Glove voters, more often than not, vote for the player who won the Gold Glove the year before. You watch every play of every game and collect every piece of data in existence while all I know is who won the Gold Glove the year before (and you don't know that). I will predict who wins the Gold Gloves this year at least twice as often as you will. Gold Gloves aren't entirely meaningless, but they're awfully close.
I won't disagree on Garvey. I don't even really care. However, I do lend significant credence to the 75% weighting that managers and coaches have when it comes to gold glove voting. There is a rather prominent chance that players who win it most or over many consecutive years are actually that much better. Is it perfect? Likely not. But I would rather put my stock in the opinions of professional baseball talent evaluators than the opinions of fans.
It seems every "award" or even several statistics I have mentioned, are immediately discounted by you as being flawed in someway. I know what I have read about that era and I know what the professional evaluators of that era declared and they not once declared O'Brien the best fielder at his position. Not ONCE. Ok. Let's just put this one to rest. I think we have side-tracked the intent of this thread anyhow. We can take it up another time (but it should likely be over on the sports talk forum IMO). Have a good night.
I don't think either of those guys were any better fielders than Kent Hrbek.
Seems to me Mattingly had the great 4 year peak 1984-87, got injured and never regained his power, yet seems to get credit for playing at that 84-87 level for the rest of his career. Tough break for Don, but he had some pretty average years, it looks like about 6.
Kent was a tremendous fielder. He probably should have won a couple of GG's. I don't remember much about Pete O'Brien. Mattingly was certainly a terrific fielder.
Looking at Hrbek's hitting totals, they are almost a mirror image of Mattingly's. Kent's consistency was remarkable, he really never had a "bad" year. Even his last year was not horrible, but an indication he was at the end of a very nice career.
It's a shame that Mattingly hurt his back (?) but it happens, and he dropped from great to above average/very good.
Hrbek gets no consideration here, quite like when he played in Mattingly's "shadow".
Kent gets my vote for HOVG.
Hrbek was very good, and also a great first baseman who probably did deserve a GG or two. Where Hrbek suffers in a comparison with others is that he was always good to very good, but never great. When most people, including me, decide whether one player was better than another player we consider both the total value of their career and also how good they were at their peak. Bill James rates peak more than career and has Mattingly ranked far above all the other first basemen that have been mentioned. I disagree that peak ought to count that much, and IMO he has Mattingly ranked way too high, but I do agree that peak value ought to count for something and I would rank Mattingly higher than Hrbek. But if your opinion is that career value is all that matters - which is reasonable and defensible - then Hrbek ends up in a large pool that includes Mattingly, Garvey, Hodges, Bob Watson, Wally Joyner, and others. All of them very good, none of them great.
Completely agree that Mattingly would have been a beast if he hadn't gotten hurt. Was he better than Kent?
I really think it's just too close to call. Ability in the two cases are so different. Hrbek's remained constant and Mattingly's dropped pretty dramatically.
Hrbec was never great, although he was 2nd in MVP voting in 1984 to a pitcher (Ripken was the clear winner that year, WHY DID HE ONLY GET 1 VOTE?????), so Hrbek could have won an MVP.
If I take the position that I need a guy playing 1B for 14 years, I'll take Hrbek and wouldn't care much if I had to "settle" for Don.
Certainly if your looking for a five year guy and get to pick the years, Mattingly is your man, but, look at Kent's 1987-91, pretty great and helped his team win 2 Championships. Still gets overshadowed by a guy on his own team.......Puckett. Even though OPS+ seems to favor Kent!
I know....................1st base.
One of the things I like is old school stats. For me, the 1985 year with 145 RBI is a stand out. Sure, you can break it down to component parts and make it less impressive; often sandwiched between Hall of Famers Henderson and Winfield, maybe a ‘more valuable’ batter produces more, easy to score runs that year but still...
...145.
It’s one of those simple numbers that states what you actually did in the games to plate runs and I love it.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
And that's the disconnect that leads to the huge number of MVPs that have gone to players because they led the league in RBI, and for no other reason.
Rickey Henderson scored 146 runs that year.
...146.
It's one of those simple numbers that states what you actually did in the games to plate runs, but nobody cares. Because RBI.
Henderson and Brett were the two most valuable players in the AL in 1985, in either order. But Mattingly led the league in RBI so he got the MVP award. I am no more impressed that Mattingly has an MVP in his trophy case than I am that Joe Gordon has one, and I can think of no reason why anyone else would be.
I still believe Mattingly deserved it but an argument can be made for the other two. Mattingly did far surpass both of them in total runs produced and total bases which should count for something besides RBI, HRs, and BA (which Mattingly wins 2/3 categories there too). I think Mattingly should have won it in 1986 over Clemens but he didn't. If Clemens won it then, Guidry should have won it in 1978 over Rice. C'est la vie. It's all just opinion at this point of the discussion. Some of us have differing ones.
Also, I am not nearly as impressed with Brett hitting .390 in '80 since he missed 45 games that season. IMO, Carew hitting .388 in '77 is more impressive since he only missed 7. I would think that you would feel the same way if you are looking at the totality of things. I am fairly sure you have a work-around on that one ready too though.
45 games is more than a quarter of a season and A LOT can happen in that span of time.
Depends on what you mean by "runs produced". I assume you mean RBI + Runs - HR, but that's not really a good measure of runs produced. BB-ref has a stat called "Runs Created" which is a better measure and Mattingly came in 4th in 1985 behind Brett, Boggs, and Henderson.
Mattingly did lead the AL in runs created in 1986, and that is the year he has the best argument for deserving the MVP. Clemens winning it was silly, and the MVP should have come down to Mattingly and Boggs. Mattingly's overall hitting stats were better than Boggs, but Boggs clutch hitting stats were better and, I hate to even bring it up, Boggs was more valuable in the field. Looking at everything, I see a toss-up in 1986.
I thought Mattingly should have won in 1986 and not 1985. Henderson was quite a bit better imo in 1985.
Boggs was pretty deserving in 1986 too, but I like Donnie's SLG to go with the great BA.