No show this week. That's on me, I'm going to a Bulls game. If you don't mind waiting a week you can put him on the spot.
Andre Dawson elected to HOF
Collapse
X
-
-
Comment
-
Puckett was absolutely helped out by having some great World Series.
Mattingly is a guy that I'm always taken aback when I forget he isn't in the Hall, he's a hard case because while he didn't have longevity, he played at a high level throughout his career. So it's kind of that tough spot to be in.
Average wise he was great: .307/.358/.471, 127 OPS+, 20 HR, 100 RBI, good defense. Longevity-wise and milestone wise he never really hit anything. 200 homers, 2,000+ hits...Comment
-
I was given tickets... thankfully. Not paying any damn money to watch Vinny Del and the Crew.Comment
-
This.
Basically, he had 4 full seasons of remarkable play, then slowed down over the next 2 years and physically fell off the table after that.
Yyyyaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!! It's table time again!!!!!!!!
This shows Mattingly's per 162 game averages for his first 4 full seasons as the Yanks everyday 1st baseman on line 1, then incorporates his next 2 seasons into that, showing his first 6 full seasons. Use either one of those first 2 lines to find out what us old guys are talking about when we say he was a sure-fire HOFer early on. Finally, it shows his last 6 seasons in which he really struggled to do anything.
There were two things not included. First is OPS+. From 1984-89 his OPS+ were: 156, 156, 161, 146, 128, 133. From 1990-95 they were: 81, 103, 107, 120, 112, 97. The other thing is his fielding. He wasn't merely a good fielder, he was an outstanding one. During his era, it was definitely arguable that only Keith Hernandez was better at the position.
All that said, I am a true life-long Yanks fan but I'm a baseball fan first. That means I hold the HOF in high regard and get pissed when stupid things happen, like Alomar not getting in this year. It also means that, whatever the reason, Mattingly's career doesn't stack up and he should in no way make the HOF.
The difference between Mattingly and Kirby Puckett is Puckett was virtually the same player for all 12 of his seasons until the eye injury caused him to retire. Plus, he was a key cog on 2 WS winning teams, winning WS MVP in one of them and won a AL ACS MVP. Mattingly, as shown, was in the conversation of the best player in baseball for 4 years and still one of the best 1st basemen over the next 2 years. For the last 6 years he was mainly a defensive player with not quite as much range as he once had that hit for a decent average but had only occasional pop in his bat. Even those 162 game averages of the last 6 years is exaggerated just a bit because over that span, he only surpassed 10 HR and 70 RBI twice each, only hit .300 once and barely, at that (.304).Last edited by dell71; 01-12-2010, 12:08 PM.Comment
-
There were two things not included. First is OPS+. From 1984-89 his OPS+ were: 156, 156, 161, 146, 128, 133. From 1990-95 they were: 81, 103, 107, 120, 112, 97. The other thing is his fielding. He wasn't merely a good fielder, he was an outstanding one. During his era, it was definitely arguable that only Keith Hernandez was better at the position.
Another thing that was not included was the mockery that Mattingly and Wade Boggs made of baseball in 1986. The Red Sox had already clinched the division with a few weeks to play, and Boggs and Mattingly were tied for the lead in AL batting average at like .355. What happened was that Boggs would take a one or two percentage point lead, then he would sit out to maintain his average. But then Mattingly would play well and jump ahead of Boggs...so it was Mattingly's turn to sit out while Boggs would go back on the field and try to reclaim the lead. This "cat and mouse" game continued until the end of the year, and was absurd.Comment
-
Good stuff again. Yeah, he was just mediocre from 90-95. So he was a well above average player from 84-89. Unless you're Koufax or just have unbelievably amazing numbers (which Mattingly didn't) you probably can't carve out a HOF career.Comment
-
Another thing that was not included was the mockery that Mattingly and Wade Boggs made of baseball in 1986. The Red Sox had already clinched the division with a few weeks to play, and Boggs and Mattingly were tied for the lead in AL batting average at like .355. What happened was that Boggs would take a one or two percentage point lead, then he would sit out to maintain his average. But then Mattingly would play well and jump ahead of Boggs...so it was Mattingly's turn to sit out while Boggs would go back on the field and try to reclaim the lead. This "cat and mouse" game continued until the end of the year, and was absurd.
But alas, I've already agreed that he's not HOF worthy when his body of work is taken as a whole. I just want people to understand how good he was early on.Last edited by dell71; 01-12-2010, 01:06 PM.Comment
-
Comment
-
Comment
-
Amazing hitter for a few years, good run producer, really gaudy RBI numbers thanks to batting in a lineup with Manny, Thome, Vizquel, Lofton and had a ridiculous year for the White Sox in 1998.
None of which I believe was clean.
His HOF candidacy is something odd though. Statistically... he may be up there with a HOF just because of how good he was for those few years, but there's just no way... not with the shortness of his career and definitely not with the way he treated the media during his career.
Last edited by FedEx227; 01-12-2010, 03:21 PM.Comment
-
His HOF candidacy is something odd though. Statistically... he may be up there with a HOF just because of how good he was for those few years, but there's just no way... not with the shortness of his career and definitely not with the way he treated the media during his career.Comment
Comment