Andre Dawson elected to HOF

[jeffx]

Sigh...if only Mattingly didn't have back problems, we're talking a top 10 all time first basemen...and a HOF pitcher if Doc Gooden didn't have coke and a smile.

Plenty of Yankee fans still think Mattingly belongs in the HOF despite his short career. You hear these cats all the time on WFAN. Their argument is if Puckett's in the HOF, Donnie Baseball should get in too.

 

[Senser81]

Plenty of Yankee fans still think Mattingly belongs in the HOF despite his short career. You hear these cats all the time on WFAN. Their argument is if Puckett's in the HOF, Donnie Baseball should get in too.

I would guess that if Mattingly played well in 2 World Series like Puckett did, he'd be in the HOF.

 

[FedEx227]

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...

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I'm calling your show and demanding answers from Lefty.

 

[Senser81]

I'm calling your show and demanding answers from Lefty.

Good luck, I think they cancelled the show.

 

[FedEx227]

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.

 

[FedEx227]

Good luck, I think they cancelled the show.

:jimshake:

 

[FirstTimer]

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...

That's even tough to say. He played 12 full seasons in the Bigs and 14 overall. It's not like he only played 7 or 8.

 

[Senser81]

No show this week. That's on me, I'm going to a Bulls game.

:jimshake:

 

[FedEx227]

I was given tickets... thankfully. Not paying any damn money to watch Vinny Del and the Crew.

 

[jeffx]

I was given tickets... thankfully. Not paying any damn money to watch Vinny Del and the Crew.

I feel the same way about the Knicks.

 

[dell71]

I feel the same way about the Knicks.

This.

That's even tough to say. He played 12 full seasons in the Bigs and 14 overall. It's not like he only played 7 or 8.

True, he "played" for 14 seasons. However, he was never the same hitter once he started having back problems, basically from '88 on which emcompasses the last 8 seasons. This what his lack of "longevity" refers to.

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.

Seasons| BA| H| 2B| HR| RBI| SLG| OBP| OPS
1984-87| .337| 222| 48| 31| 127| .560| .381| .941
1984-89| .327| 215| 45| 28| 121| .530| .372| .902
1990-95| .286| 179| 36| 12| 80| .405| .345| .750

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).

 

[Senser81]

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.

 

[FedEx227]

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.

 

[dell71]

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.

Not quite true. While Boggs did sit out a few games, allegedly for the purpose of maintaining his batting average, Mattingly played in all 162 games for the only time in his career.

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.

"Well above average" is still selling him short. From 84-87 he was viewed by many as the best player in the game - that's a little different. And for the era he was playing in, he did have amazing numbers. No other player had his combination of power and average. Guys that hit .300 were largely slap hitters with the occasional 15-20 homer guy, save for maybe George Brett & Dave Winfield. Even with those guys, Brett was more of a .300-.315 guy with occasional seasons a little above or below that range (except of course, for 1980 when he hit .390 - but only played in 117 games) and only hit 30+ homers once in 21 seasons. Winfield was more of .280-.300 guy again, with a few seasons a little above or below that range and hit 30+ homers 3 times over 22 seasons. The guys who did hit 30 homers were mostly strikeout artists with 100+ per season and did well to hit .275. Mattingly never struck out more than 43 times in any season and hit 30+ homers three times in a row.

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.

 

[Senser81]

Not quite true. While Boggs did sit out a few games, allegedly for the purpose of maintaining his batting average, Mattingly played in all 162 games for the only time in his career.

Doesn't matter if its true. Thats how I remembered it. My mind = fact.

 

[dell71]

Doesn't matter if its true. Thats how I remembered it. My mind = fact.

lmao!

 

[jeffx]

Dell, give me a table on Albert Belle.

 

[FedEx227]

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.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/something-for-joey/

 

[jeffx]

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.

That's what I can't stand - not getting in because you didn't kiss the ass of a bunch of writers who never played the game. Forget the nice-guy shit, it should be about production on the field.