TSB 2008 MLB Hall of Fame poll

[slagonia]

Originally Posted by broadwayjoe2

Yes... because you want reactionary fans voting for the HOF.

Isn't the hall of fame for the fans? Shouldn't a guy they all want in there be there?

[broadwayjoe2]

Originally Posted by slagonia

Isn't the hall of fame for the fans? Shouldn't a guy they all want in there be there?

No..... Yankee fans want Mattingly. If you can't make an argument for him to be there other than through 'hometown sympathy'.

By no measure should Mattingly make the HOF. He simply does not belong there. His body of work does not justify it.

Albert Belle is already OFF the ballot and he was twice the hitter Mattingly was.... the only reason that DM is still around is due to the sympathy of a bunch of Yankee fan sports writers who get teary eyed when they think of him.

[slagonia]

Originally Posted by broadwayjoe2

No..... Yankee fans want Mattingly. If you can't make an argument for him to be there other than through 'hometown sympathy'.

By no measure should Mattingly make the HOF. He simply does not belong there. His body of work does not justify it.

Albert Belle is already OFF the ballot and he was twice the hitter Mattingly was.... the only reason that DM is still around is due to the sympathy of a bunch of Yankee fan sports writers who get teary eyed when they think of him.

Belle didn't get voted off the ballot because he wasn't good enough, he got voted off because he was a jack-ass no one liked.

Mattingly's numbers aren't borderline hall of fame, they're about middle of the road. I did a study back on fanhome where I picked ten random HOFers and compared their stats to Mattingly. I don't remember it all, but I remember he was better than about half of the position players I picked (it was kind of unfair that Ted Williams and Willie Mays were two of the ten, but that's the luck of the draw). His 'black ink' and 'grey ink' numbers are about middle of the road as far as HOFers go, and his peak was about as good as anyone in history. I noticed a guy like Puckett gets a pass because he lost a few seasons do to an illness, while Mattingly losing a few seasons due to back problems is simply bad luck.

[broadwayjoe2]

Originally Posted by slagonia

Belle didn't get voted off the ballot because he wasn't good enough, he got voted off because he was a jack-ass no one liked.

Mattingly's numbers aren't borderline hall of fame, they're about middle of the road. I did a study back on fanhome where I picked ten random HOFers and compared their stats to Mattingly. I don't remember it all, but I remember he was better than about half of the position players I picked (it was kind of unfair that Ted Williams and Willie Mays were two of the ten, but that's the luck of the draw). His 'black ink' and 'grey ink' numbers are about middle of the road as far as HOFers go, and his peak was about as good as anyone in history. I noticed a guy like Puckett gets a pass because he lost a few seasons do to an illness, while Mattingly losing a few seasons due to back problems is simply bad luck.

You can't compare random position players to make your determination whether he should go in.... the hall has always skewed their requirements based on position.

A Catcher/SS/2B can get in with much lower power totals than a 3B/OF/1B. It's the nature of their position that defence is valued more highly.

Also you can't compare different eras on straight up numbers. 400-500 HR hit in the eighties carries much more weight than someone who accomplishes that feat today.

Probably your best bet when comparing hitters in different eras is OPS+.... to see how they fared against their contemporaries.


I agree with you that Puckett got in based on his 'rep' and probably doesn't belong. However this doesn't mean every marginal HOF player should get in based on whether they were a nice guy or not.


I will ask you this.....

Does Will Clark belong in the HOF?
Because if you believe Mattingly belongs in then so does Will Clark. In fact Clark's overall numbers are nearly identical to Mattingly's (and in fact strongly favor Clark in the power dept)

Will Clark (career)

7173AB 2176 Hits 284 HR 1205 RBI Avg .303 Career OPS+ 127

Don Mattingly (career)

7003AB 2153 Hits 222 HR 1099 RBI Avg .307 Career OPS+ 127


Or does John Olerud belong in the HOF?

John Olerud (career)

7592AB 2239 Hits 255 HR 1230 RBI Avg .295 Career OPS+ 128



When you compare him to guys of 80's early 90's era.... you simply cannot make a numbers based arguement that he belongs in the Hall. Yankee fan public sympathy is great, but it shouldn't be the basis of entry into the HOF.

[slagonia]

Originally Posted by broadwayjoe2

A Catcher/SS/2B can get in with much lower power totals than a 3B/OF/1B. It's the nature of their position that defence is valued more highly.

However, Mattingly's defensive value over the average player must be taken into account. He was arguably the best defensive first baseman there ever was, and improved the defense of those around him.

Also you can't compare different eras on straight up numbers. 400-500 HR hit in the eighties carries much more weight than someone who accomplishes that feat today.

Except he played in that era. That should actually be a plus.

When you compare him to guys of 80's early 90's era.... you simply cannot make a numbers based arguement that he belongs in the Hall. Yankee fan public sympathy is great, but it shouldn't be the basis of entry into the HOF

Numbers do not a hall of famer make. There's alot more to it than that. Mattingly was our captain, our leader and our ambassidor to baseball. He had arguably the best peak of any first baseman ever during his first few years, and always remained the hard-working, soft-spoken and gracious leader. I have the feeling had he boasted more and acted like a jerk, he'd be in the hall right now.

[broadwayjoe2]

Originally Posted by slagonia

However, Mattingly's defensive value over the average player must be taken into account. He was arguably the best defensive first baseman there ever was, and improved the defense of those around him.



Except he played in that era. That should actually be a plus.



Numbers do not a hall of famer make. There's alot more to it than that. Mattingly was our captain, our leader and our ambassidor to baseball. He had arguably the best peak of any first baseman ever during his first few years, and always remained the hard-working, soft-spoken and gracious leader. I have the feeling had he boasted more and acted like a jerk, he'd be in the hall right now.

Actually.... numbers DO A HALL OF FAMER MAKE.

That's the reason it's the HOF not the hall of nice guys. Can you find me one player (other than Puckett) that has been voted in the past 20-25 years that doesn't have career numbers that are superior to Mattingly. Just curious....

80 - Al Kaline, Duke Snider
81 - Bob Gibson
82 - Hank Aaron, Frank Robinson
83 - Brooks Robinson, Juan Marichal
84 - Luis Aparacio, Don Drysdale, Harmon Killebrew
85 - Hoyt Wilhelm, Lou Brock
86 - Willie McCovey
87 - Billy Williams, Catfish Hunter
88 - Willie Stargell
89 - Johnny Bench, Carl Yastrzemski
90 - Jim Palmer, Joe Morgan
91 - Rod Carew, Gaylord Perry, Fergie Jenkins
92 - Tom Seaver, Rollie Fingers
93 - Reggie Jackson
94 - Steve Carlton
95 - Mike Schmidt
96 -
97 - Phil Neikro
98 - Don Sutton
99 - Nolan Ryan, George Brett, Robin Yount
00 - Tony Perez, Carlton Fisk
01 - Dave Winfield, Kirby Puckett
02 - Ozzie Smith
03 - Eddie Murray, Gary Carter
04 - Paul Molitor, Dennis Eckersley
05 - Wade Boggs, Ryne Sandberg
06 - Bruce Sutter
07 - Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn


The only guys I would say that you might have a question about are highlighted in red. The only problem is that out of those guys, only Puckett has numbers that are comparable to Mattingly. Murray was a bit of a compiler but he still hit 504 hr. Every one else is superior in just about every way.

Mattingly doesn't have the resume.... sorry. That's why he's not in... anyone who thinks he truly deserves to go in is simply playing to home town bias.

[TyPenn613]

I've actually been enjoying this debate back and forth, and when I have a little more time, I'll chime in more on my opinions of Mattingly.

Just a quick note though, while I don't believe Eddie Murray was the greatest ever by any means, a 3000 hit, 500 HR career should certainly warrant a shot at the Hall of Fame. Puckett on the other hand I believe shouldn't have been voted in, but I think he got in much to his heroics in the 1991 World Series, not far from Bill Mazeroski.

[broadwayjoe2]

Originally Posted by TyPenn613

I've actually been enjoying this debate back and forth, and when I have a little more time, I'll chime in more on my opinions of Mattingly.

Just a quick note though, while I don't believe Eddie Murray was the greatest ever by any means, a 3000 hit, 500 HR career should certainly warrant a shot at the Hall of Fame. Puckett on the other hand I believe shouldn't have been voted in, but I think he got in much to his heroics in the 1991 World Series, not far from Bill Mazeroski.

I'm not doubting that Mattingly was a great player for the Yankees, but.... IMO the one thing that keeps the baseball HOF head and shoulders above all others is the fact that they are so selective when it comes to admission.

Mattingly had 4 years where he was truly excellent, then got hurt and declined far earlier than most expected.

But really.... John Olerud stacks up well against him in terms of overall production and was really slick with the glove as well. Nobody considers Olerud a HOF'er because he spent the majority of his career in Toronto and Seattle.

Just don't see how you let a guy like Mattingly in when there are so many others with more impressive resumes.

[areogunz3]

Broadwayjoe2 makes some good points on why Donnie baseball does not belong in the HOF

[Rapier]

Originally Posted by cmaleski2

The problem is, even if I use Mattingly's fielding as the edge he needs to get in, when I compare him to other 'great fielding 1Bs of their era', his offensive numbers come up short every time.

Steve Garvey 4 time gold glover, 1 time NL MVP - More HRs and RBIs than Mattingly, .294 career hitter. Not in the Hall

Cecil Cooper - 2 time gold glover, More HRs and RBIs than Mattingly, .298 career hitter, Not in the Hall

George Scott - 8 time Gold glover, More HRs, 40 fewer RBIs than Mattingly, crummy .268 career hitter, Not in the Hall

Keith Hernandez - 11 time Gold glover, 60 fewer HRs, 20 fewer RBIs, career .296 hitter, not in the Hall

Mark Grace - 4 time gold glover, 50 less HRs, 50 more RBIs, career .303 hitter, not in Hall (won't be close)

They were all good defensive first baseman too. Career numbers, on par with Mattingly or better totals.

That's Mattingly's biggest problem, none of his numbers stand out as 'great' even in his era. You can always find other 1Bs who played the same time Mattingly did that ended up with better career numbers. Mattingly's gold gloves are nice, and yeah, he deserved them. His 5 years of offensive greatness is a major plus too. But none of that make him far and away the best overall first baseman of his era. He was the best for 5 years of a 14 year career. Those other 8 'full' seasons make you think Mark Grace was a HoF candidate.

Just not enough overall numbers for Mattingly, his defense at 1B can't get him in, its not considered a key defensive position (which is a crock to me, but its reality to many).

Good assessment. New York helps a ton. I did a drive by of a player I never heard of, Lee Smith and the "Goose", the "Goose" was eating quite mucho dust.