The Jam - Grace will never make the Hall of Fame. Grace was just a singles and doubles hitting first baseman who had no power (despite playing a power position) and never had a single 100 RBI season despite batting third in the order. He was a media darling however and did have a good glove. But if Mattingly never makes it (and he wont), Grace shouldnt even appear on the ballot after his first year of eligibility.
As for Santo, Sutter and Dawson, they should make it although I would guess Dawson will wear an Expos hat. Smith is going to have a tough time I believe.
I sure hope Donnie gets into the Hall... That would guarantee Bagwell's induction
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
~"He probably is not a Hall of Famer, but he, Dick Allen, and Ron Santo have the biggest gripes of all the guys not in...and Puckett, Molitor, Perez, and soon Palmeiro have to be the most fortunate men alive in regard to the Hall of Fame."~
Dick Allen?? If you put Dick Allen in the Hall of Fame you might want to change the name to the Hall of Statistics. Allen had good to great numbers but given the amount of problems he was to each team that he played for he is far from a Hall of Famer. I agree with what Bill James said about him, "He did more to keep his teams from winning than anybody else who ever played major league baseball."
stown, No need to worry- Bagwell's in. Exactly what the Hall looks for- Great stats, MVP, long career, good fielder, same team, great teammate and leader. His most impressive year was 1994 when the season got cut short:
110 games: .368 avg, 39 HRs, 116 RBI
Projected over a full 162 game season that's 57 HRs and 170 RBIs. Are you kidding me?
<< <i>skin, you make some valid arguments. I myself am on the fence with regard to Palmeiro, but I would trade Mattingly's few years of dominance with Palmeiro's entire career any day: >>
Amen. Palmeiro had a run of 11 years out of 12 where he had an OPS+ of 125 or higher, topping out at 160 one year. 9 straight years of 100+ RBI (would have been 11 without the strike in 1994). 9 straight years of 38 or more HR. 3 time Gold Glove winner.
Palmeiro is not only a HOF'er, he's a first ballot HOF'er.
Cdsnuts, Jim Rice was not as dominant as everybody thinks. You aren't looking at the correct measures in your alaysis. Check out his OPS+ finishes, or his Batter Run finishes as they will give you the true value of his bat.
Rice was helped VERY much by Fenway, and those good stats take that into account. RBI is a very misleading stat as I've mentioned before.
Check his OPS+ finsihes to get a better gauge of his hitting value.
As for Mattingly and 3,000 hits, five/six years puts him right around there. He was still a .290+ hitter his last couple of years. His hit totals were depressed because those last two years were strike years. 160+ hits in a year would not have been much a problem at all for a .290+ hitter in a full season. His power numbers were gone obviously, but he could have easily slapped his way to 3,000 hits(even though he would have been below average), and that should not change his HOF status just because he slapped his way to 3,000 hits while being below average.
To finally answer the question that was originally posted, I think having Mattingly autographed on that item would make it a very desirable item. He is not going to make the hall, and like I said, his merit comes up just a tad short, but he is well worth remembering.
As for Palmeiro's numbers, take them with a grain of salt as those are a product of his era and not his true ability. I posted a chart of his yearly ranks as a hitter, and they aren't very impressive at all. Like I said, his stature as a hitter is far closer to Harold Baines than it is to the true Hall of Famers of his era and the era before his.
I would like to see how James can objectively come to that conclusion about Dick Allen. A bad apple on a team who has an OPS+ of .989 will win or lose as many games with his bat as a CHOIR BOY with the same OPS+. There are countless bad apples, poor teammates etc., who participated on many winning teams. Saying a player is a bad apple, thus the reason why the team lost, is just a convenient tag to assign to a difficult proposition. Very little evidence supports any such claims of bad appleness. Go player by player in history and you will see countless bad apples/poor teammates win, and countless choir boys lose. How many runs you are responsible for on offense and how many runs you prevent on defense is what determines winning and losing...add luck, chance, and circumstance and you have your formula for winning.
If somebody were to say that about Dick Allen's bad applness to exclude him from the Hall, then why couldn't somebody say the opposite about Don Mattingly and his good guyness to automatically merit a Hall selection???
Bagwell broke his hand and was out for the season right before the strike in 1994, so he wouldn't have had those numbers, and would've been lucky to still win MVP after missing 50 games.
Is Mattingly an HOFer? Are John Olerud, Will Clark, or Steve Garvey? No, they are all in the sister group of the pitchers like Kaat, Morris, John, and Blyleven. The 1st-basemen who bat left (except Garvey), have good eyes, .300 averages, middling power, and a perception of being some of the best hitters of their times. Mattingly may be the leader of this group, as he had 4 or 5 peak years in which he was probably the best hitter in his league or even the game, while Will Clark had what Bill James evaluates to be the single best season of the 1980s (1987). None of those guys will get it, nor do I think they particularly deserve to be. First base is a stacked position in the Hall, so you have to have serious numbers. The intangibles of leadership are great for rounding out a resume, but no one ever got a spot on the board of directors just for being a "people person." And you've got to wonder if his leaddership was so influential and important, why couldn't he lead his team to first place, even once?
WANTED: 2005 Origins Old Judge Brown #/20 and Black 1/1s, 2000 Ultimate Victory Gold #/25 2004 UD Legends Bake McBride autos & parallels, and 1974 Topps #601 PSA 9 Rare Grady Sizemore parallels, printing plates, autographs
<< <i>stown, No need to worry- Bagwell's in. Exactly what the Hall looks for- Great stats, MVP, long career, good fielder, same team, great teammate and leader. His most impressive year was 1994 when the season got cut short:
110 games: .368 avg, 39 HRs, 116 RBI
Projected over a full 162 game season that's 57 HRs and 170 RBIs. Are you kidding me?
I think Biggio's the guy you need to worry about.
Lee >>
Lee,
1994 was a magical year in the making only to see it end way too early due to greed Unfortunately, I don't think Bags will be around much longer... He may have to hang up his cleats after this season due to a nagging shoulder injury. He's only about 50 HRs short of 500, which "should" make him a lock for the Hall.
With Ryno getting in, that easily opened the door for Biggio; even though Biggio is a better all-around player than Sandberg ever was. He's got at least another two productive years left which will allow him to pad his all ready impressive stats (1,600 runs, 1,000 RBIs, 400 SBs, etc) . By then, he should have over 3,000 hits, 600 doubles, and 10,000 ABs.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
THe leadership does very little towards winning, just like the bad appleness.
More on Dick Allen. How James can come up with that statement is a poor job of analyzing on his part(for an 'expert'). That WIll Clark 1987 statement is another wrong and headscratching statement.
So Dick Allen prevented his teams from winning hmmm. Lets go back to 1972 and the bad apple(Dick Allen) posted an amazing .420 OB% and .620 SLG%. If he was such a hinderence to winning then how in the world did the White Sox manage to win 87 games and finish in second place when the rest of their starting lineup combined for a grand total of 42 home runs(compared to Allen's 37), and the pitching staff ranked 8th in ERA out of a 12 team league???
Not to mention that the projected win total for that team should have been 81 games(based on what everybody produced that season), instead of the 87 that they actually won. So we have a team that out performed their projected win total by six games, AND we had a team that finsihed 8th out of 12 in ERA, AND we have a team where 7 starters combined for 42 home runs. What in the world makes a team like that win 87 games??? The answer is because a monster at the plate named Dick Allen mashed his way to a .420 OB%, .620 SLG% and a league leading runaway OPS of 1.040!! Folks that OPS number is simply amazing for the death valley park he played in, AND the era he did it in.
Any moron that says his attitude cost them should be shining shoes instead of writing books. Attitude in MLB means VERY LITTLE towards producing/preventing runs, and ultimately winning. People have to realize this. Joe Girardi may be the best teammate ever, but I will take the jerk catcher who is slugging .560 if I want to win MLB games. I will take Joe Girardi if I want to be the Cubs and have a guy to go out to dinner with.
That attitude factor is ingrained in us in little league through high school, and it does make some difference there, with all the impressionable adolescents who don't have a brain of their own yet. However, there isn't ANY CREDIBLE, AND I SAY CREDIBLE evidence, that shows that it makes anything more than a negligible difference in producing/preventing runs and Winning and Losing in MLB. A jag-off that records 50 saves does just as much for his team as a priest who saves 50 games for his team.
What can i say, people love the Hollywood spin to things, thus the firm belief in such things. They just happen to turn their cheek when the evidence smacks them in the face and says otherwise. Why? Ask the people who created the Greek Gods as that will give a clue on why myths like those are perpetuated.
<< <i> ... the sister group of the pitchers like Kaat, Morris, John, and Blyleven. >>
In my official capacity on this board as defender of the Blyleven faith, please note:
# of Top-5 finishes
ERA: 7 vs. 8 (BB+H)/9I: 7 vs. 4 K/9I: 10 vs. 2 Shutouts: 9 vs. 9
Clearly, the pitcher listed first is better than the pitcher listed second, and it is probably also clear that the pitcher listed first is Blyleven. What may not be clear is that the pitcher listed second is not "a" pitcher - it is Tommy John, Jim Kaat and Jack Morris COMBINED. I have said it before and will say it again (and again, and again) - Bert Blyleven belongs in the HOF and it makes a mockery of the entire process that he is not in yet.
If he had had the good fortune to pitch for the Dodgers or any other contending team during his prime, he not only would be in the HOF, he would have gone in on the first ballot and his "sister group of pitchers" would include Nolan Ryan, not Jim Kaat.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
"ERA+ I never saw that stat on the back of a card." and that is the exact problem with baseball fans ERA+ also normalizes to league. It has some pitfalls but does the quick and dirty method fine.
More on bad attitude. Possibly the worst viewed teammate in history is Sammy Sosa. Funny how they managed to win in '98 and '03 when he was every bit as bad a teammate as last year. So the Cubs get rid of him(and others) thinking that once they get rid of the cancers then EVERYONE else will play better and they will win more. The problem is that other players performances aren't affected by the attitudes of those types of teammates, and there isn't any evidence to argue otherwise. So getting rid of the cancerous attitude has really propelled the Cubs and brought the Orioles down right? Countless upon countless examples in MLB history to show what I am talking about. The problem is that people just want to see the times when the bad apples are on a losing team and ignore the times like I am showing.
As for Bert....if he had gotten home by TEN instead of BLYLEVEN, he may very well be in the Hall As it is, he has a good gripe!
As for Will Clark's 1987(being the best season in all of the 80's) I think Jack Clark, Dale Murphy, Eric Davis, Tim Raines, Wade Boggs, Paul Molitor, Mark McGwire, Dwight Evans, and George Bell(to name a few) would have to say something about that, and those are from just 1987. Bill James needs to revise that statement.
Clark hit .308 .378 OB% .580 SLG%... and in a rather biazzare note he had 5 SB and 17 Caught stealing!
Eric Davis had an interesting year, even though he mssed 30 games he hit 37 Home Runs, stole 50 bases(caught six times), .293 .399OB .599SLG.
Clark finished 7th in the NL in OPS+, and 13th overall. Add those 17 Caught stealings and he isn't even remotely close to having the best season in 1987 let alone the entire 80's.
Bill James could not have possibly said that. Either that was read wrong, or he was smoking dope as he wrote it.
<< <i>If he had had the good fortune to pitch for the Dodgers or any other contending team during his prime >>
I guess those 1979 Pirates that won a World Series when Blyleven was 28 weren't during his prime? Or the '77 Rangers that won 94 games when he was 26? Or how about those '80 Pirates - the defending champs - that won 83 games when he was 29?
Blyleven's records for those teams:
'77: 14-12 '79: 12-5 '80: 8-13
Or, if you want to go before his prime to the best team he ever played on, the 1970 Twins that won 98 games:
'70: 10-9
Or, if you want to go past his prime to his second World Series championship team, the 1987 Twins that won 85 games:
'87: 15-12
Looks like Bert was the same thing with good teams as he was with average teams - a .500 pitcher. Yes, wins can be misleading. Yes, pitchers can be done in by poor run support. But the length of Blyleven's career normalizes all the extremes of run support. And he still comes up .500 during an era when guys completed what they started (can't blame the bullpen too much for "lost" wins).
HOF pitchers should be better than the teams they play on. If a team finishes 81-81, with a HOF'er in the prime of his career as their ace, in a four-man rotation, shouldn't you reasonably expect that HOF'er to be about 20-11 or so? Blyleven never did that.
Was he good? Sure. Was he great? At times. Did he win enough to get in? Nope.
<< <i>I guess those 1979 Pirates that won a World Series when Blyleven was 28 weren't during his prime?
<< <i>
Yes, they were, and he went 12-5, so there's one point for my side.
<< <i>Or the '77 Rangers that won 94 games when he was 26?
<< <i>
Yes, they were, too. And in 1977 Blyleven was 2nd in ERA (and adj. ERA), 1st in (BB+H)/9I, 2nd in shutouts. In other words, he was much, much better than his 14-12 W/L record. Again, had he had that season for a better team, he would have been a Cy Young contender and it would be pointed to as HOF evidence.
<< <i>Or how about those '80 Pirates - the defending champs - that won 83 games when he was 29?
<< <i>
OK, point for your side, he sucked that year.
<< <i>Or, if you want to go before his prime to the best team he ever played on, the 1970 Twins that won 98 games:
'70: 10-9
<< <i>
That's his rookie year, for heaven's sake, and a damn fine one, too - top 10 in five categories. He pitched the pants off the NL ROY that year, and would have won the AL ROY most years, but had the misfortune to come up against Munson.
<< <i>Or, if you want to go past his prime to his second World Series championship team, the 1987 Twins that won 85 games:
'87: 15-12
<< <i>
Now I wonder if you're actually arguing a point or just yanking my chain. You skip over a season where he goes 19-7 for a 75 win team, cite the season you cite, and then stop without mentioning the season where he went 17-5 for a 91 win team. And while we're talking about the few good teams he's been on, why no mention of his 5-1 postseason record with an ERA under 2.50?
<< <i>Looks like Bert was the same thing with good teams as he was with average teams - a .500 pitcher. Yes, wins can be misleading. Yes, pitchers can be done in by poor run support. But the length of Blyleven's career normalizes all the extremes of run support.
<< <i>
If I understand you correctly, every single pitcher in the history of baseball who pitches a long time has absolutely 0% luck, good or bad, reflected in his W/L record? In order for me to believe that, I would have to believe in some sort of cosmic force that "remembers" that a pitcher has had bad luck one year, and makes it all even again later. Nice comforting thought, but I don't beleive it. If a pitcher has bad luck one year, then his final career record will probably still reflect that bad luck year. If he has two or three, ditto.
<< <i>And he still comes up .500 during an era when guys completed what they started (can't blame the bullpen too much for "lost" wins).
<< <i>
Actually, Blyleven kept completing them long after everyone else had stopped. He had 24 CG in 1985 when second place had 14. And I can point out that Blyleven pitched on many, many teams with god-awful bullpens and he stayed in and pitched because he had to. Yet again, if he had pitched on LA with Mike Marshall in the pen, his HOF induction would have been assumed.
<< <i>HOF pitchers should be better than the teams they play on. If a team finishes 81-81, with a HOF'er in the prime of his career as their ace, in a four-man rotation, shouldn't you reasonably expect that HOF'er to be about 20-11 or so? Blyleven never did that.
<< <i>
He never did it in a season that you mentioned, but, as I pointed out above, he did do it.
Trivia question: which pitcher has more ________ than 50% of the pitchers in the HOF and 99% of the pitchers not in the HOF?
Answer: Bert Blyleven, and it barely matters what you fill in the blank with.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Blyleven's has a career ERA of 3.31 compared to the league average during his career of 3.90. That is relatively close in line with his lifetime winning percentage of .534, but he should have had a few more wins than he did, enough to push him to 300.
One thing though, checking his teams wins is flawed as other pitchers could have contributed to that success. You need to check his team's offense and his team's defense to get a better gauge. Or better yet go to retrosheet and look at every one of his starts and figure out his ACTUAL run support and compare it with the run support of other pitchers with similar era's in that era.
Blyleven's ERA+ numbers merit Hall induction as he had finishes of 1,2,2,2,4,4,5,6,8,10. That is far more dominant than a hitter like Palmeiro who had longevity, yet most people think Raffy is automatic(which of course they are wrong).
Steve Carlton had a lifetime ERA of 3.22, but his league average ERA was 3.72, so he was actually a little worse than Blyleven in that department. Carlton did pitch for a superior offensive team. Carlton pitched 247 more innings in his career, or approximately two more innings per season, which isn't much. He was also horrendous his last two seasons, which explains his ERA getting closer to league average than it truly represented him the rest of his career.
Carlton ERA+ finishes are 1,1,3,3,3,7,8
Yes, things like run support SHOULD even out over 20+ years, but it is possible it doesn't. Heck, run support may not even out for two guys on the SAME TEAM! There is a lot of randmoness and LUCK in that.
THE FUNNY THING IS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO THEORIZE OR GUESS HERE, YOU CAN LOCATE THAT RUN SUPPORT INFORMATION, BUT IT WOULD TAKE A LITTLE LEG WORK
<< <i>THE FUNNY THING IS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO THEORIZE OR GUESS HERE, YOU CAN LOCATE THAT RUN SUPPORT INFORMATION, BUT IT WOULD TAKE A LITTLE LEG WORK >>
You could do the leg work, but I think the larger point is - you don't have to. Bert Blyleven got crappy run support in 1977 (for example) - I'll bet the farm on it. He was 2nd in the league in ERA on a +.500 team and only won 15 games. Sometimes, common sense can save a lot of leg work.
In 1987, Nolan Ryan led the league in ERA and strikeouts. He was 8-16. I can not imagine a bigger waste of time than checking to see if he had good run support. He didn't!
Regarding the "luck" question, for those who remember their Statistics 101, the universe of pitchers entire careers defines a "universe" of large enough size to be statistically significant. "Luck" over the course of a pitcher's career could reasonably be described as random, and that luck would, therefore, follow a bell curve pattern. Most pitchers would be clustered around the mean - where luck had evened out over the course of a career - but there would be pitchers at various distances from the mean, some of them a significant distance away. Nolan Ryan is one of those pitchers; he had several seasons, like 1987, where he didn't win anywhere near as many games as he should have, and not a single "lucky" season to help balance them out. Bert Blyleven is another. An example of a pitcher at the other, "lucky", end of the spectrum is Jack Morris.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
dallasactuary, your last post is 100 percent correct, and I agree with all of that. Add Randy Johnson of last season to the bad luck group. He actually had a better season than Clemens, yet Clemens wins the Cy because he simply had better run support. Now this year Clemens pitched like 17 scoreless innings over a three game stretch or something and he had zero wins to show for it. Wins for pitchers is the most overrated stat around.
dallasactuary, your assessment on the randomness of things evening out is also correct, and you hit the nail on the head with Jack Morris as the other extreme. There is no guarantee that they will even out.
I also agree with you on the common sense of being #2 in the league and winning only fifteen games. Common sense does dictate that he had crummy run support that year.
I saw a balls out analysis done on Blyleven before, and his win total should have been around 300 wins, give or take a few. I wish I still had that. It wasn't done by me, but by a heckuva evaluator(nobody famous).
But there is also more besides ERA, as baserunners allowed is also very telling of a pitchers ability, and the defense plays a big role in the amount of hits allowed. His baserunners allowed is very nice too. His IP are very nice too. BB/K is also telling of a pitchers ability as it is independent of defensive misjustices.
The man dominated in the most important areas for a pitcher, and he did it for a very long time and that is the recipe for the Hall of Fame if I ever saw one. He is basically Palmeiro if Palmeiro had actually been one of the best in the game(the one thing lacking for his Hall status).
People mistakingly get caught up in wins, but we are talking about fans who believe in every myth imaginable right up on par with the ancient greeks. Add, "He knows how to win" garbage with the rest of the myths. He knows how to win simply if his team scores enough runs for him and plays good defense, ask Rick Helling when he won more games than Pedro that one year. People say "He knows how to win", but he must have forgotten the next couple of years when he had the same type ERA's but didn't get the same run support, and therefore didn't warn jack, gee go figure.
P.S. I did do some game by game looking at Jack Morris, AND Jack McDowell, two guys with the 'reputation' of "knowing how to win", and their know how was simply being good(very good in Morris's case) pitchers with plenty of luck on their side to achieve records better than what their ability(runs allowed) dictated. Pitching to the score is a fallacy that has been proven to be nonexistent many times.
P.S. If some pitcher had an ability to pitch to the score, then if he were on a team that averaged one run per start for him, would his ERA then be close to zero for the year? If he was able to pitch to the score, then I expect that to be the case. People say that guys with a lot of 5-4 wins achieve that because they know how to pitch to the score, and pitch well enough to win. That is hogwash of course but if they could do that at their command, then they should have 0.66 ERA's on teams that average one run a game for them, as that probably would need to be their ERA in order to win 22 games.
If Hawk is not in, no way Mattingly gets in. I know Dawson played 7 more years, but the hall rewards long careers and consistency, as well it should. Mattingly had only 5 years if good numbers which is nowhere near enough for the Hall. Like I said, if he gets in it's because he's a Yankee, which is completely unfair to everybody who is not in and has better numbers and a longer career. And the string of 9 Gold Gloves is awesome, but that's the type of thing that will put a player over the edge if he's on the fence, which I don't think Donnie Baseball is. 3 more good years and he's in, but like you said his injuries hurt him and he opted to not play when he healed.
Lee >>
I love Donnie Baseball. I am a huge Yankee fan. Donnie does not belong in the Hall in my mind. BUT Lee, the above comparison stinks big time. Ridiculous almost. Go ahead and post Kirby Pucketts career stats. A mirror of Mattingly's. How the hell did Kirby make it? Because he fooled America with his smile for so long?
skinpinch - There is far more to the Hall of Fame than OPS+ and other offensive measuring sticks. Dick Allen was an offensive force when he was healthy and not suspended during his career. He also is a player whose value was far less than his statistics. In the 80's I remember Bill James writing that Dick Allen would eventually get in the Hall of Fame because of his numbers. That makes sense as time goes by because his numbers begin to characterize the player but it would be a huge mistake. I am guessing you did not follow baseball in the 70's and are merely looking at his offensive numbers and characterizing him as some kind of hitting machine. That is easy but ask yourself if his numbers are so great why is he not even a viable Hall of Fame candidate - never having gotten 20% of the vote? The first thing that stands out is that he was on the roster for 6 different teams in his career and was traded 5 times. How many Hall of Famers pre-1975 can make that claim?
Why so many teams? Players could not move other than via the draft, trade, or being left on waivers. Certainly a Hall of Fame candidate like Allen would be too valuable too trade that many times.
In Philadelphia in 65 Allen got in a fight with a popular teammate - forcing a trade of that teammate. In 1969 after 6 Hall of Fame calibre seasons the Phillies suspended him for 26 games for his conduct. They traded him to the Cardinals, a team with a positive clubhouse atmosphere. Despite an all-star season the Cardinals could not take his attitude and traded him to the Dodgers for the legendary Ted Sizemore and Bob Stinson. He had another All-Star season but the Dodgers could not take his behaviour either and traded him for Tommy John and Steve Huntz. In Chicago he had that remarkable MVP season, one of the best in history, but, of course, he wore out his welcome there after a couple of seasons - walking out on the team to a voluntary retirement and forcing a trade. At that point he was sold to the Atlanta Braves for $5000. Three general managers at the time went on record as saying that they would not take Dick Allen if you paid them to take him. From there he went to Philadelphia where he threatened to sit out the 1976 NL Championship series if the Phillies did not include a teammate who was a friend of his on their play-off roster. The Phillies traded him to Oakland where he was suspended and than voluntarily retired because he would not DH.
He might have a Hall of Fame talent and Hall of Fame statistics but very few (if any) players in baseball history have been as destructive as Allen.
Dan, You're right- Can't make much of an argument for Puckett based on stats. I think he got in because he was considered the team leader of the Twins that won two series and a guy who people thought had great character. That was before we found out he cheated on his wife, had an alcohol problem, and attacked women in restaurant bathrooms. He also got the sympathy vote for going blind, which people for some reason think is more sad than having a career cut short by a bad back. However, at the time of voting before all this stuff came out, he was held in the same esteem as Ozzie Smith (.262, 28 HR, 793 RBI)- a loveable guy and a team leader for overachieving championship teams. Hell, I think Pujols eclipsed Ozzie in everything in his first two years. I think every decade they could have a re-vote on the guys that are in, and the two with the most OUT votes get the boot. Wouldn't that be fun? "Sorry Kirby, sorry Billy Williams, we're taking your plaques down."
Mattingly can easily make the HOF. He will have to go the Joe Torre route to get there, but I'm guessing ole' Joe doesn't have that much time left working for the lunitic.
sagard, great point. Although I still think Joe will leave on his own terms. I know it is hard to fathom a manager under George being bigger than George but this is the case. Even the lunatic knows he can't run Joe out of town, he will leave on his own accord. But great point, I see Don Mattingly as Joe's successor. Sorry all of you Joe Girardi fans!
Which brings up another point: Sometimes players will get voted in automatically on their personna, whether it be a champion, hard worker, crowd pleaser, etc.... If they are known as the "best" in any one of these personality traits, they could get in on that alone. Fair? Probably not to the guys who put up the stats and don't get in. Take Cal for instance. Even if his stats were worse than Puckett's he would have gotten in solely based on being the "Iron Man" and "The guy who saved baseball". Ozzie was the enetertainer who came onto the field and did backflips and was exciting to watch play the field. Joe Morgan was the spark plug that ignited the Big Red Machine and had the wierd batting style. Gaylord Perry was known for cheating more than anything else, but he was candid about it so people liked him. He did pitch forever and racked up decent numbers, but most of his seasons hovered around .500 and he was never really thought of as good enough for a team to keep as their ace for a while so he bounced around the league and played for just about every team during his era. Anybody like run-on sentences?
Tangent- why was it ok for Perry to openly scuff, spit on, and grease the ball, repeatedly get caught and suspended, but he gets in the Hall. Yet for McGwire or Bonds to stick a needle into their arm is going to ruin baseball and geopardize their eligibility? Isn't cheating cheating?
Tangent- why was it ok for Perry to openly scuff, spit on, and grease the ball, repeatedly get caught and suspended, but he gets in the Hall. Yet for McGwire or Bonds to stick a needle into their arm is going to ruin baseball and geopardize their eligibility? Isn't cheating cheating?
Lee >>
Spit balls, scuffing the ball, etc is or was part of the fabric of the game. Since Union soldiers forced their Confederate prisoners to play ball in prison camps with them! I say, DOCTOR UP THE BALL, NOT THE BODY !!!!
cubfan: if grace's stats don't get him in, then combined with his TV analyist skills, he gets in. PS Palmeiro should go in as Cub ... I can't believe Brock went in as Cardinal
You are the only one on this board that has come up with valid arguments that speak against Mattingly being in the Hall of Fame. Not just on this post, but on the other ones we participated in. As much as I am a Mattingly fan, I am also objective. However, I will not accept arguments that talk about his 222 career homers or his comparison to Kirby Puckett, John Olerud, Cecil Cooper, Will Clark based on raw career numbers. That is just too short sighted and not analytical enough.
In keeping with the spirit of this original post, I must say something else about collectibility. When Wade Boggs got voted into the HOF, there was no real movement on his card prices. More people sold it on ebay, but also more people were there to buy, but it did not increase in value so much. A few years ago, I bought all the Boggs rookies I can find at $55 a pop. It kept declining ever since because I think there are more and more graded all the time. Everyone expected him to make it and when he finally did, it was no surprise, therefore, no price increase. However, if Mattingly ever got elected, then I am sure his prices will sky rocket because not many expect him to make it. He can legitimately get in via Veterans Committe. He will stand out compared to who they have on their list now. Also, former HOFers are there to vote as well. Do you really think Cal Ripken, Mark McGwire, Wade Boggs, Kirby Puckett, Paul Molitor, George Brett, Ryan Sandberg, etc will not vote for him? They played with him and know what he is made of. Puckett already stated that he should get in. Also, Mattingly is likely to become a manager at some point. He is already the hitting coach. The Yankees losing streak was not due to offense, so Mattingly is not to blame in case anyone got ideas. Torre will stay on a few more years, but not longer. Mattingly is in perfect position to move up the ranks. The fans in NY love him and Steinbrenner respects him. If Mattingly does well as a manager for 10 years, then I am sure the Veterans committee have no choice but to finally vote him in. So, never say never.
"So many of our DREAMS at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we SUMMON THE WILL they soon become INEVITABLE "- Christopher Reeve
Aro, you need to re-read the post I wrote earlier and show me how exactly he destructed a poor team to make them win 87 games. One man's bad attitude does not change how another man on the team will hit or pitch, and nothing else has ever shown otherwise. It will certainly make managers and GM's get headaches, but it doesn't do anything towards producing runs/preventing runs and ultimately winning. Unless you have some ground breaking monumental study that shows otherwise, you need not even chime in on it. Re-read all the bad apple posts.
The Cubs did the same thing with Sosa this year. They basically paid the Orioles to take him thinking that getting rid of a 'cancer' will make the other players perform better. Well that obviously doesn't work, it never has worked, and it never will. A player is what he is regardless of the ATTITUDE of another teammate. You win games by getting the best players at producing runs and preventing runs, and then hope lady luck is on your side. Attitude may possibly make up .001 percent of the equation, if that.
skin, I couldn't agree with you more on that point. There are lots of guys through the years that had awful attitudes but were the better players on winning teams. Rickey Henderson, Canseco, Palmer, Gooden, Clemens (early years), Cobb (ok, that's reaching back a bit), etc..... Baseball for the most part is not won with teamwork when you compare it to other sports. If everybody individually does their job, the team collectively does better. Greg Maddux doesn't need anyone to help him throw strikes, except maybe a good frame job by the catcher every now and then. Bonds doesn't need help hitting home runs. Sandberg didn't need help making diving catches at 2nd. Rickey Henderson didn't need help being fast and stealing a ton of bases. Team chemistry simply doesn't mean nearly as much in baseball as it does in the other sports where you're counting on your teammates to pass to you, block for you, set you up, help out defending, etc.... I'm not saying it's a non-factor, but I think it's on the low end of the totem pole when it comes to winning in baseball. I mean look at the White Sox- best record in the league and the manager and star absolutely hate each other, and openly talk about it in the media.
skinpinch - ~"One man's bad attitude does not change how another man on the team will hit or pitch, and nothing else has ever shown otherwise. It will certainly make managers and GM's get headaches, but it doesn't do anything towards producing runs/preventing runs and ultimately winning."~
It is not an argument about team chemistry in a given season. Plenty of teams have won with jerks that produced. Plenty of teams are willing to trade for so called problem players if they produce. Team chemistry is not the issue. No Hall of Famer carried the baggage of Allen and no pre-1975 Hall of Famer played for so many teams because they were NOT WANTED.
Sosa is a terrible comparable and shows a total lack of understanding on the kind of affect Dick Allen had on organizations - which I can understand given the fact you are merely looking at his statistics and not reading any articles from the era or never having had the opportunity to actually watch him play. Sosa has played with the Cubs for the past thirteen seasons - when they felt that his stats no longer justified his attitude they moved him. Allen's prolific stats never seemed enough to keep him on the same team.
Allen was the MVP and had one of the best seasons in history in 1972 - no argument there. Funny how the best the White Sox could do for him two years later was $5000, and only one team in the big leagues wanted him. It is not about him being a jerk - there are plenty of jerks. However, he had no value to basically 23 teams in 1974, as he did when he retired abruptly in 1977. He had no value despite being a great offensive force. That is not a Hall of Famer - not even close. If you want to make it the Hall of OPS+ or just offensive statistics you will miss out on some good selections.
Aro, you keep missing the point. Somebody said that Bill James said that Dick Allen did more to prevent winning that anybody else. As I've said and all the evidence shows, a man's attitude does nothing in terms of how many runs a team produces/prevents and how many games they win.
Yes, Dick Allen's attitude may have cost him future employment, but that does not change the impact of his playing performance for his team and how much it helped his teams! You seem to think that a team, all things being equal, that replaces Dick Allen with some schlub who hits .240 and Slugs .410 will end up winning more games. You seem to think that a miracle will occur and all of the pitchers will all of a sudden have a better ERA now that Allen's attitude is gone, or that those 1972 teammates who combined for 42 home runs would now combine for 110 home runs because Allen's attitude is gone.
For some reason you are basically saying(and James) that Allen's incredible hitting ability isn't as valuable to a team as a good guy with lesser hitting ability, and that just isn't accurate. CDSnuts says it well in the paragraph above me.
If I want to make the Hall of OPS+ that would be more indicative of the truth of what a players value really is. Fans like you don't really know the accurate truth and fall in love with LOTS OF MYTHS because you simply don't understand any better.
Stats in baseball do get you there 95% of the way. If you say ALlen doesn't belong in the HAll because he is a jerk, then crappy players like Joe Girardi should be Hall of Fame shoe-ins I geuss because they are on the opposite spectrum----great teammates to be around, but does very little towards actually winning ball games.
And no, I was young when Allen played, but I've read all about him, know about him etc..., and I've forgotten more about baseball than you will ever know in your lifetime. You seem to have a hard time comprehending simple analysis, let alone any tougher ones.
The hardest thing to do is make myth believers see the light, and I realize that every time I post on subjects like this that I am fighting an uphill battle against zealots, because the vast majority of the fans believe in almost all the myths that I hear about and debunk. Fans just don't like evidence, its too inconvenient for them as it may shatter deeply held beliefs.
To put into perspective on Mattingly's dominance in his prime: It is very hard to lead MLB in OPS+, very hard! To do it twice is extremely difficult. Since WWII the following players are the only ones who have ever lead MLB in OPS+ two times or more, Williams, Musial, Mantle, Bonds, Mcgwire, Schmidt, Morgan, McCovey, Aaron, and Mattingly. That tells people right there how dominant he actually was in his prime, and those weren't his only two good years either. That is what separates him from the Will Clarks, Hernandez, Coopers, Grace etc... That is what makes him worthy of remembering and being immortalized, he was able to walk down the straight and rightfully say "I am the best hitter on the planet!" IF that isn't fame, then I'm not sure what is.
I may even be changing my view and start campaigning for him. He may not make(or probably should not make) the Hall the way it has currently been voted, but he would make the Hall if it were voted for its intended purpose, and that is where the deutchergeist is coming from!
Comments
I think it would be valuable now.
PS Koufax led MLB in ERA one time????
Koufax led MLB in ERA 3x and the NL 4 times (all in a row)
and led the Majors in all but 64 when Dean chance did.
Lee
As for Santo, Sutter and Dawson, they should make it although I would guess Dawson will wear an Expos hat. Smith is going to have a tough time I believe.
Dick Allen??
If you put Dick Allen in the Hall of Fame you might want to change the name to the Hall of Statistics. Allen had good to great numbers but given the amount of problems he was to each team that he played for he is far from a Hall of Famer. I agree with what Bill James said about him, "He did more to keep his teams from winning than anybody else who ever played major league baseball."
110 games: .368 avg, 39 HRs, 116 RBI
Projected over a full 162 game season that's 57 HRs and 170 RBIs. Are you kidding me?
I think Biggio's the guy you need to worry about.
Lee
<< <i>PS Koufax led MLB in ERA one time????
Koufax led MLB in ERA 3x and the NL 4 times (all in a row)
and led the Majors in all but 64 when Dean chance did. >>
ERA+, not ERA. ERA+ is ERA adjusted for ballpark advantes.
Tabe
<< <i>skin, you make some valid arguments. I myself am on the fence with regard to Palmeiro, but I would trade Mattingly's few years of dominance with Palmeiro's entire career any day: >>
Amen. Palmeiro had a run of 11 years out of 12 where he had an OPS+ of 125 or higher, topping out at 160 one year. 9 straight years of 100+ RBI (would have been 11 without the strike in 1994). 9 straight years of 38 or more HR. 3 time Gold Glove winner.
Palmeiro is not only a HOF'er, he's a first ballot HOF'er.
Tabe
Rice was helped VERY much by Fenway, and those good stats take that into account. RBI is a very misleading stat as I've mentioned before.
Check his OPS+ finsihes to get a better gauge of his hitting value.
As for Mattingly and 3,000 hits, five/six years puts him right around there. He was still a .290+ hitter his last couple of years. His hit totals were depressed because those last two years were strike years. 160+ hits in a year would not have been much a problem at all for a .290+ hitter in a full season. His power numbers were gone obviously, but he could have easily slapped his way to 3,000 hits(even though he would have been below average), and that should not change his HOF status just because he slapped his way to 3,000 hits while being below average.
To finally answer the question that was originally posted, I think having Mattingly autographed on that item would make it a very desirable item. He is not going to make the hall, and like I said, his merit comes up just a tad short, but he is well worth remembering.
As for Palmeiro's numbers, take them with a grain of salt as those are a product of his era and not his true ability. I posted a chart of his yearly ranks as a hitter, and they aren't very impressive at all. Like I said, his stature as a hitter is far closer to Harold Baines than it is to the true Hall of Famers of his era and the era before his.
I would like to see how James can objectively come to that conclusion about Dick Allen. A bad apple on a team who has an OPS+ of .989 will win or lose as many games with his bat as a CHOIR BOY with the same OPS+. There are countless bad apples, poor teammates etc., who participated on many winning teams. Saying a player is a bad apple, thus the reason why the team lost, is just a convenient tag to assign to a difficult proposition. Very little evidence supports any such claims of bad appleness. Go player by player in history and you will see countless bad apples/poor teammates win, and countless choir boys lose. How many runs you are responsible for on offense and how many runs you prevent on defense is what determines winning and losing...add luck, chance, and circumstance and you have your formula for winning.
If somebody were to say that about Dick Allen's bad applness to exclude him from the Hall, then why couldn't somebody say the opposite about Don Mattingly and his good guyness to automatically merit a Hall selection???
Is Mattingly an HOFer? Are John Olerud, Will Clark, or Steve Garvey? No, they are all in the sister group of the pitchers like Kaat, Morris, John, and Blyleven. The 1st-basemen who bat left (except Garvey), have good eyes, .300 averages, middling power, and a perception of being some of the best hitters of their times. Mattingly may be the leader of this group, as he had 4 or 5 peak years in which he was probably the best hitter in his league or even the game, while Will Clark had what Bill James evaluates to be the single best season of the 1980s (1987). None of those guys will get it, nor do I think they particularly deserve to be. First base is a stacked position in the Hall, so you have to have serious numbers. The intangibles of leadership are great for rounding out a resume, but no one ever got a spot on the board of directors just for being a "people person." And you've got to wonder if his leaddership was so influential and important, why couldn't he lead his team to first place, even once?
2005 Origins Old Judge Brown #/20 and Black 1/1s, 2000 Ultimate Victory Gold #/25
2004 UD Legends Bake McBride autos & parallels, and 1974 Topps #601 PSA 9
Rare Grady Sizemore parallels, printing plates, autographs
Nothing on ebay
<< <i>stown, No need to worry- Bagwell's in. Exactly what the Hall looks for- Great stats, MVP, long career, good fielder, same team, great teammate and leader. His most impressive year was 1994 when the season got cut short:
110 games: .368 avg, 39 HRs, 116 RBI
Projected over a full 162 game season that's 57 HRs and 170 RBIs. Are you kidding me?
I think Biggio's the guy you need to worry about.
Lee >>
Lee,
1994 was a magical year in the making only to see it end way too early due to greed
With Ryno getting in, that easily opened the door for Biggio; even though Biggio is a better all-around player than Sandberg ever was. He's got at least another two productive years left which will allow him to pad his all ready impressive stats (1,600 runs, 1,000 RBIs, 400 SBs, etc) . By then, he should have over 3,000 hits, 600 doubles, and 10,000 ABs.
More on Dick Allen. How James can come up with that statement is a poor job of analyzing on his part(for an 'expert'). That WIll Clark 1987 statement is another wrong and headscratching statement.
So Dick Allen prevented his teams from winning hmmm. Lets go back to 1972 and the bad apple(Dick Allen) posted an amazing .420 OB% and .620 SLG%. If he was such a hinderence to winning then how in the world did the White Sox manage to win 87 games and finish in second place when the rest of their starting lineup combined for a grand total of 42 home runs(compared to Allen's 37), and the pitching staff ranked 8th in ERA out of a 12 team league???
Not to mention that the projected win total for that team should have been 81 games(based on what everybody produced that season), instead of the 87 that they actually won. So we have a team that out performed their projected win total by six games, AND we had a team that finsihed 8th out of 12 in ERA, AND we have a team where 7 starters combined for 42 home runs. What in the world makes a team like that win 87 games??? The answer is because a monster at the plate named Dick Allen mashed his way to a .420 OB%, .620 SLG% and a league leading runaway OPS of 1.040!! Folks that OPS number is simply amazing for the death valley park he played in, AND the era he did it in.
Any moron that says his attitude cost them should be shining shoes instead of writing books. Attitude in MLB means VERY LITTLE towards producing/preventing runs, and ultimately winning. People have to realize this. Joe Girardi may be the best teammate ever, but I will take the jerk catcher who is slugging .560 if I want to win MLB games. I will take Joe Girardi if I want to be the Cubs and have a guy to go out to dinner with.
That attitude factor is ingrained in us in little league through high school, and it does make some difference there, with all the impressionable adolescents who don't have a brain of their own yet. However, there isn't ANY CREDIBLE, AND I SAY CREDIBLE evidence, that shows that it makes anything more than a negligible difference in producing/preventing runs and Winning and Losing in MLB. A jag-off that records 50 saves does just as much for his team as a priest who saves 50 games for his team.
What can i say, people love the Hollywood spin to things, thus the firm belief in such things. They just happen to turn their cheek when the evidence smacks them in the face and says otherwise. Why? Ask the people who created the Greek Gods as that will give a clue on why myths like those are perpetuated.
<< <i> ... the sister group of the pitchers like Kaat, Morris, John, and Blyleven. >>
In my official capacity on this board as defender of the Blyleven faith, please note:
# of Top-5 finishes
ERA: 7 vs. 8
(BB+H)/9I: 7 vs. 4
K/9I: 10 vs. 2
Shutouts: 9 vs. 9
Clearly, the pitcher listed first is better than the pitcher listed second, and it is probably also clear that the pitcher listed first is Blyleven. What may not be clear is that the pitcher listed second is not "a" pitcher - it is Tommy John, Jim Kaat and Jack Morris COMBINED. I have said it before and will say it again (and again, and again) - Bert Blyleven belongs in the HOF and it makes a mockery of the entire process that he is not in yet.
If he had had the good fortune to pitch for the Dodgers or any other contending team during his prime, he not only would be in the HOF, he would have gone in on the first ballot and his "sister group of pitchers" would include Nolan Ryan, not Jim Kaat.
More on bad attitude. Possibly the worst viewed teammate in history is Sammy Sosa. Funny how they managed to win in '98 and '03 when he was every bit as bad a teammate as last year. So the Cubs get rid of him(and others) thinking that once they get rid of the cancers then EVERYONE else will play better and they will win more. The problem is that other players performances aren't affected by the attitudes of those types of teammates, and there isn't any evidence to argue otherwise. So getting rid of the cancerous attitude has really propelled the Cubs and brought the Orioles down right? Countless upon countless examples in MLB history to show what I am talking about. The problem is that people just want to see the times when the bad apples are on a losing team and ignore the times like I am showing.
As for Bert....if he had gotten home by TEN instead of BLYLEVEN, he may very well be in the Hall
Lee
Clark hit .308 .378 OB% .580 SLG%... and in a rather biazzare note he had 5 SB and 17 Caught stealing!
Eric Davis had an interesting year, even though he mssed 30 games he hit 37 Home Runs, stole 50 bases(caught six times), .293 .399OB .599SLG.
Clark finished 7th in the NL in OPS+, and 13th overall. Add those 17 Caught stealings and he isn't even remotely close to having the best season in 1987 let alone the entire 80's.
Bill James could not have possibly said that. Either that was read wrong, or he was smoking dope as he wrote it.
<< <i>If he had had the good fortune to pitch for the Dodgers or any other contending team during his prime >>
I guess those 1979 Pirates that won a World Series when Blyleven was 28 weren't during his prime? Or the '77 Rangers that won 94 games when he was 26? Or how about those '80 Pirates - the defending champs - that won 83 games when he was 29?
Blyleven's records for those teams:
'77: 14-12
'79: 12-5
'80: 8-13
Or, if you want to go before his prime to the best team he ever played on, the 1970 Twins that won 98 games:
'70: 10-9
Or, if you want to go past his prime to his second World Series championship team, the 1987 Twins that won 85 games:
'87: 15-12
Looks like Bert was the same thing with good teams as he was with average teams - a .500 pitcher. Yes, wins can be misleading. Yes, pitchers can be done in by poor run support. But the length of Blyleven's career normalizes all the extremes of run support. And he still comes up .500 during an era when guys completed what they started (can't blame the bullpen too much for "lost" wins).
HOF pitchers should be better than the teams they play on. If a team finishes 81-81, with a HOF'er in the prime of his career as their ace, in a four-man rotation, shouldn't you reasonably expect that HOF'er to be about 20-11 or so? Blyleven never did that.
Was he good? Sure. Was he great? At times. Did he win enough to get in? Nope.
Tabe
<< <i>I guess those 1979 Pirates that won a World Series when Blyleven was 28 weren't during his prime?
<< <i>
Yes, they were, and he went 12-5, so there's one point for my side.
<< <i>Or the '77 Rangers that won 94 games when he was 26?
<< <i>
Yes, they were, too. And in 1977 Blyleven was 2nd in ERA (and adj. ERA), 1st in (BB+H)/9I, 2nd in shutouts. In other words, he was much, much better than his 14-12 W/L record. Again, had he had that season for a better team, he would have been a Cy Young contender and it would be pointed to as HOF evidence.
<< <i>Or how about those '80 Pirates - the defending champs - that won 83 games when he was 29?
<< <i>
OK, point for your side, he sucked that year.
<< <i>Or, if you want to go before his prime to the best team he ever played on, the 1970 Twins that won 98 games:
'70: 10-9
<< <i>
That's his rookie year, for heaven's sake, and a damn fine one, too - top 10 in five categories. He pitched the pants off the NL ROY that year, and would have won the AL ROY most years, but had the misfortune to come up against Munson.
<< <i>Or, if you want to go past his prime to his second World Series championship team, the 1987 Twins that won 85 games:
'87: 15-12
<< <i>
Now I wonder if you're actually arguing a point or just yanking my chain. You skip over a season where he goes 19-7 for a 75 win team, cite the season you cite, and then stop without mentioning the season where he went 17-5 for a 91 win team. And while we're talking about the few good teams he's been on, why no mention of his 5-1 postseason record with an ERA under 2.50?
<< <i>Looks like Bert was the same thing with good teams as he was with average teams - a .500 pitcher. Yes, wins can be misleading. Yes, pitchers can be done in by poor run support. But the length of Blyleven's career normalizes all the extremes of run support.
<< <i>
If I understand you correctly, every single pitcher in the history of baseball who pitches a long time has absolutely 0% luck, good or bad, reflected in his W/L record? In order for me to believe that, I would have to believe in some sort of cosmic force that "remembers" that a pitcher has had bad luck one year, and makes it all even again later. Nice comforting thought, but I don't beleive it. If a pitcher has bad luck one year, then his final career record will probably still reflect that bad luck year. If he has two or three, ditto.
<< <i>And he still comes up .500 during an era when guys completed what they started (can't blame the bullpen too much for "lost" wins).
<< <i>
Actually, Blyleven kept completing them long after everyone else had stopped. He had 24 CG in 1985 when second place had 14. And I can point out that Blyleven pitched on many, many teams with god-awful bullpens and he stayed in and pitched because he had to. Yet again, if he had pitched on LA with Mike Marshall in the pen, his HOF induction would have been assumed.
<< <i>HOF pitchers should be better than the teams they play on. If a team finishes 81-81, with a HOF'er in the prime of his career as their ace, in a four-man rotation, shouldn't you reasonably expect that HOF'er to be about 20-11 or so? Blyleven never did that.
<< <i>
He never did it in a season that you mentioned, but, as I pointed out above, he did do it.
Trivia question: which pitcher has more ________ than 50% of the pitchers in the HOF and 99% of the pitchers not in the HOF?
Answer: Bert Blyleven, and it barely matters what you fill in the blank with.
One thing though, checking his teams wins is flawed as other pitchers could have contributed to that success. You need to check his team's offense and his team's defense to get a better gauge. Or better yet go to retrosheet and look at every one of his starts and figure out his ACTUAL run support and compare it with the run support of other pitchers with similar era's in that era.
Blyleven's ERA+ numbers merit Hall induction as he had finishes of 1,2,2,2,4,4,5,6,8,10. That is far more dominant than a hitter like Palmeiro who had longevity, yet most people think Raffy is automatic(which of course they are wrong).
Steve Carlton had a lifetime ERA of 3.22, but his league average ERA was 3.72, so he was actually a little worse than Blyleven in that department. Carlton did pitch for a superior offensive team. Carlton pitched 247 more innings in his career, or approximately two more innings per season, which isn't much. He was also horrendous his last two seasons, which explains his ERA getting closer to league average than it truly represented him the rest of his career.
Carlton ERA+ finishes are 1,1,3,3,3,7,8
Yes, things like run support SHOULD even out over 20+ years, but it is possible it doesn't. Heck, run support may not even out for two guys on the SAME TEAM! There is a lot of randmoness and LUCK in that.
THE FUNNY THING IS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO THEORIZE OR GUESS HERE, YOU CAN LOCATE THAT RUN SUPPORT INFORMATION, BUT IT WOULD TAKE A LITTLE LEG WORK
<< <i>THE FUNNY THING IS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO THEORIZE OR GUESS HERE, YOU CAN LOCATE THAT RUN SUPPORT INFORMATION, BUT IT WOULD TAKE A LITTLE LEG WORK
You could do the leg work, but I think the larger point is - you don't have to. Bert Blyleven got crappy run support in 1977 (for example) - I'll bet the farm on it. He was 2nd in the league in ERA on a +.500 team and only won 15 games. Sometimes, common sense can save a lot of leg work.
In 1987, Nolan Ryan led the league in ERA and strikeouts. He was 8-16. I can not imagine a bigger waste of time than checking to see if he had good run support. He didn't!
Regarding the "luck" question, for those who remember their Statistics 101, the universe of pitchers entire careers defines a "universe" of large enough size to be statistically significant. "Luck" over the course of a pitcher's career could reasonably be described as random, and that luck would, therefore, follow a bell curve pattern. Most pitchers would be clustered around the mean - where luck had evened out over the course of a career - but there would be pitchers at various distances from the mean, some of them a significant distance away. Nolan Ryan is one of those pitchers; he had several seasons, like 1987, where he didn't win anywhere near as many games as he should have, and not a single "lucky" season to help balance them out. Bert Blyleven is another. An example of a pitcher at the other, "lucky", end of the spectrum is Jack Morris.
dallasactuary, your assessment on the randomness of things evening out is also correct, and you hit the nail on the head with Jack Morris as the other extreme. There is no guarantee that they will even out.
I also agree with you on the common sense of being #2 in the league and winning only fifteen games. Common sense does dictate that he had crummy run support that year.
I saw a balls out analysis done on Blyleven before, and his win total should have been around 300 wins, give or take a few. I wish I still had that. It wasn't done by me, but by a heckuva evaluator(nobody famous).
But there is also more besides ERA, as baserunners allowed is also very telling of a pitchers ability, and the defense plays a big role in the amount of hits allowed. His baserunners allowed is very nice too. His IP are very nice too. BB/K is also telling of a pitchers ability as it is independent of defensive misjustices.
The man dominated in the most important areas for a pitcher, and he did it for a very long time and that is the recipe for the Hall of Fame if I ever saw one. He is basically Palmeiro if Palmeiro had actually been one of the best in the game(the one thing lacking for his Hall status).
People mistakingly get caught up in wins, but we are talking about fans who believe in every myth imaginable right up on par with the ancient greeks. Add, "He knows how to win" garbage with the rest of the myths. He knows how to win simply if his team scores enough runs for him and plays good defense, ask Rick Helling when he won more games than Pedro that one year.
People say "He knows how to win", but he must have forgotten the next couple of years when he had the same type ERA's but didn't get the same run support, and therefore didn't warn jack, gee go figure.
P.S. I did do some game by game looking at Jack Morris, AND Jack McDowell, two guys with the 'reputation' of "knowing how to win", and their know how was simply being good(very good in Morris's case) pitchers with plenty of luck on their side to achieve records better than what their ability(runs allowed) dictated. Pitching to the score is a fallacy that has been proven to be nonexistent many times.
<< <i>No way he makes it. Also, think if he was an Expo, do you think we'd even be having this discussion.
Mattingly: .307 avg., 222 HR, 1099 RBI
Andre Dawson: .279 avg., 438 HR, 1591 RBI
If Hawk is not in, no way Mattingly gets in. I know Dawson played 7 more years, but the hall rewards long careers and consistency, as well it should. Mattingly had only 5 years if good numbers which is nowhere near enough for the Hall. Like I said, if he gets in it's because he's a Yankee, which is completely unfair to everybody who is not in and has better numbers and a longer career. And the string of 9 Gold Gloves is awesome, but that's the type of thing that will put a player over the edge if he's on the fence, which I don't think Donnie Baseball is. 3 more good years and he's in, but like you said his injuries hurt him and he opted to not play when he healed.
Lee >>
I love Donnie Baseball. I am a huge Yankee fan. Donnie does not belong in the Hall in my mind. BUT Lee, the above comparison stinks big time. Ridiculous almost. Go ahead and post Kirby Pucketts career stats. A mirror of Mattingly's. How the hell did Kirby make it? Because he fooled America with his smile for so long?
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
The first thing that stands out is that he was on the roster for 6 different teams in his career and was traded 5 times. How many Hall of Famers pre-1975 can make that claim?
Why so many teams? Players could not move other than via the draft, trade, or being left on waivers. Certainly a Hall of Fame candidate like Allen would be too valuable too trade that many times.
In Philadelphia in 65 Allen got in a fight with a popular teammate - forcing a trade of that teammate. In 1969 after 6 Hall of Fame calibre seasons the Phillies suspended him for 26 games for his conduct. They traded him to the Cardinals, a team with a positive clubhouse atmosphere. Despite an all-star season the Cardinals could not take his attitude and traded him to the Dodgers for the legendary Ted Sizemore and Bob Stinson.
He had another All-Star season but the Dodgers could not take his behaviour either and traded him for Tommy John and Steve Huntz.
In Chicago he had that remarkable MVP season, one of the best in history, but, of course, he wore out his welcome there after a couple of seasons - walking out on the team to a voluntary retirement and forcing a trade.
At that point he was sold to the Atlanta Braves for $5000. Three general managers at the time went on record as saying that they would not take Dick Allen if you paid them to take him. From there he went to Philadelphia where he threatened to sit out the 1976 NL Championship series if the Phillies did not include a teammate who was a friend of his on their play-off roster. The Phillies traded him to Oakland where he was suspended and than voluntarily retired because he would not DH.
He might have a Hall of Fame talent and Hall of Fame statistics but very few (if any) players in baseball history have been as destructive as Allen.
You're right- Can't make much of an argument for Puckett based on stats. I think he got in because he was considered the team leader of the Twins that won two series and a guy who people thought had great character. That was before we found out he cheated on his wife, had an alcohol problem, and attacked women in restaurant bathrooms. He also got the sympathy vote for going blind, which people for some reason think is more sad than having a career cut short by a bad back. However, at the time of voting before all this stuff came out, he was held in the same esteem as Ozzie Smith (.262, 28 HR, 793 RBI)- a loveable guy and a team leader for overachieving championship teams. Hell, I think Pujols eclipsed Ozzie in everything in his first two years. I think every decade they could have a re-vote on the guys that are in, and the two with the most OUT votes get the boot. Wouldn't that be fun? "Sorry Kirby, sorry Billy Williams, we're taking your plaques down."
Lee
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Tangent- why was it ok for Perry to openly scuff, spit on, and grease the ball, repeatedly get caught and suspended, but he gets in the Hall. Yet for McGwire or Bonds to stick a needle into their arm is going to ruin baseball and geopardize their eligibility? Isn't cheating cheating?
Lee
<< <i>
Tangent- why was it ok for Perry to openly scuff, spit on, and grease the ball, repeatedly get caught and suspended, but he gets in the Hall. Yet for McGwire or Bonds to stick a needle into their arm is going to ruin baseball and geopardize their eligibility? Isn't cheating cheating?
Lee >>
Spit balls, scuffing the ball, etc is or was part of the fabric of the game. Since Union soldiers forced their Confederate prisoners to play ball in prison camps with them! I say, DOCTOR UP THE BALL, NOT THE BODY !!!!
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
You are the only one on this board that has come up with valid arguments that speak against Mattingly being in the Hall of Fame. Not just on this post, but on the other ones we participated in. As much as I am a Mattingly fan, I am also objective. However, I will not accept arguments that talk about his 222 career homers or his comparison to Kirby Puckett, John Olerud, Cecil Cooper, Will Clark based on raw career numbers. That is just too short sighted and not analytical enough.
In keeping with the spirit of this original post, I must say something else about collectibility. When Wade Boggs got voted into the HOF, there was no real movement on his card prices. More people sold it on ebay, but also more people were there to buy, but it did not increase in value so much. A few years ago, I bought all the Boggs rookies I can find at $55 a pop. It kept declining ever since because I think there are more and more graded all the time. Everyone expected him to make it and when he finally did, it was no surprise, therefore, no price increase.
However, if Mattingly ever got elected, then I am sure his prices will sky rocket because not many expect him to make it. He can legitimately get in via Veterans Committe. He will stand out compared to who they have on their list now. Also, former HOFers are there to vote as well. Do you really think Cal Ripken, Mark McGwire, Wade Boggs, Kirby Puckett, Paul Molitor, George Brett, Ryan Sandberg, etc will not vote for him? They played with him and know what he is made of. Puckett already stated that he should get in.
Also, Mattingly is likely to become a manager at some point. He is already the hitting coach. The Yankees losing streak was not due to offense, so Mattingly is not to blame in case anyone got ideas. Torre will stay on a few more years, but not longer. Mattingly is in perfect position to move up the ranks. The fans in NY love him and Steinbrenner respects him. If Mattingly does well as a manager for 10 years, then I am sure the Veterans committee have no choice but to finally vote him in. So, never say never.
BST: Tennessebanker, Downtown1974, LarkinCollector, nendee
The Cubs did the same thing with Sosa this year. They basically paid the Orioles to take him thinking that getting rid of a 'cancer' will make the other players perform better. Well that obviously doesn't work, it never has worked, and it never will. A player is what he is regardless of the ATTITUDE of another teammate. You win games by getting the best players at producing runs and preventing runs, and then hope lady luck is on your side. Attitude may possibly make up .001 percent of the equation, if that.
I couldn't agree with you more on that point. There are lots of guys through the years that had awful attitudes but were the better players on winning teams. Rickey Henderson, Canseco, Palmer, Gooden, Clemens (early years), Cobb (ok, that's reaching back a bit), etc..... Baseball for the most part is not won with teamwork when you compare it to other sports. If everybody individually does their job, the team collectively does better. Greg Maddux doesn't need anyone to help him throw strikes, except maybe a good frame job by the catcher every now and then. Bonds doesn't need help hitting home runs. Sandberg didn't need help making diving catches at 2nd. Rickey Henderson didn't need help being fast and stealing a ton of bases. Team chemistry simply doesn't mean nearly as much in baseball as it does in the other sports where you're counting on your teammates to pass to you, block for you, set you up, help out defending, etc.... I'm not saying it's a non-factor, but I think it's on the low end of the totem pole when it comes to winning in baseball. I mean look at the White Sox- best record in the league and the manager and star absolutely hate each other, and openly talk about it in the media.
Lee
It is not an argument about team chemistry in a given season. Plenty of teams have won with jerks that produced. Plenty of teams are willing to trade for so called problem players if they produce. Team chemistry is not the issue. No Hall of Famer carried the baggage of Allen and no pre-1975 Hall of Famer played for so many teams because they were NOT WANTED.
Sosa is a terrible comparable and shows a total lack of understanding on the kind of affect Dick Allen had on organizations - which I can understand given the fact you are merely looking at his statistics and not reading any articles from the era or never having had the opportunity to actually watch him play. Sosa has played with the Cubs for the past thirteen seasons - when they felt that his stats no longer justified his attitude they moved him. Allen's prolific stats never seemed enough to keep him on the same team.
Allen was the MVP and had one of the best seasons in history in 1972 - no argument there. Funny how the best the White Sox could do for him two years later was $5000, and only one team in the big leagues wanted him. It is not about him being a jerk - there are plenty of jerks. However, he had no value to basically 23 teams in 1974, as he did when he retired abruptly in 1977. He had no value despite being a great offensive force. That is not a Hall of Famer - not even close. If you want to make it the Hall of OPS+ or just offensive statistics you will miss out on some good selections.
Yes, Dick Allen's attitude may have cost him future employment, but that does not change the impact of his playing performance for his team and how much it helped his teams! You seem to think that a team, all things being equal, that replaces Dick Allen with some schlub who hits .240 and Slugs .410 will end up winning more games. You seem to think that a miracle will occur and all of the pitchers will all of a sudden have a better ERA now that Allen's attitude is gone, or that those 1972 teammates who combined for 42 home runs would now combine for 110 home runs because Allen's attitude is gone.
For some reason you are basically saying(and James) that Allen's incredible hitting ability isn't as valuable to a team as a good guy with lesser hitting ability, and that just isn't accurate. CDSnuts says it well in the paragraph above me.
If I want to make the Hall of OPS+ that would be more indicative of the truth of what a players value really is. Fans like you don't really know the accurate truth and fall in love with LOTS OF MYTHS because you simply don't understand any better.
Stats in baseball do get you there 95% of the way. If you say ALlen doesn't belong in the HAll because he is a jerk, then crappy players like Joe Girardi should be Hall of Fame shoe-ins I geuss because they are on the opposite spectrum----great teammates to be around, but does very little towards actually winning ball games.
And no, I was young when Allen played, but I've read all about him, know about him etc..., and I've forgotten more about baseball than you will ever know in your lifetime. You seem to have a hard time comprehending simple analysis, let alone any tougher ones.
The hardest thing to do is make myth believers see the light, and I realize that every time I post on subjects like this that I am fighting an uphill battle against zealots, because the vast majority of the fans believe in almost all the myths that I hear about and debunk. Fans just don't like evidence, its too inconvenient for them as it may shatter deeply held beliefs.
To put into perspective on Mattingly's dominance in his prime: It is very hard to lead MLB in OPS+, very hard! To do it twice is extremely difficult. Since WWII the following players are the only ones who have ever lead MLB in OPS+ two times or more, Williams, Musial, Mantle, Bonds, Mcgwire, Schmidt, Morgan, McCovey, Aaron, and Mattingly. That tells people right there how dominant he actually was in his prime, and those weren't his only two good years either. That is what separates him from the Will Clarks, Hernandez, Coopers, Grace etc... That is what makes him worthy of remembering and being immortalized, he was able to walk down the straight and rightfully say "I am the best hitter on the planet!" IF that isn't fame, then I'm not sure what is.
I may even be changing my view and start campaigning for him. He may not make(or probably should not make) the Hall the way it has currently been voted, but he would make the Hall if it were voted for its intended purpose, and that is where the deutchergeist is coming from!