Mattingly vs Puckett
by Dewey Finn on Aug 19, 2009 12:23 AM EDT
Email
Print
|
1B Don Mattingly |
|
OF Kirby Puckett (HOF) |
|
1785 |
Games |
1783 |
|
7003 |
At Bats |
7244 |
|
2153 |
Hits |
2304 |
|
1007 |
Runs |
1071 |
|
442 |
Doubles |
414 |
|
222 |
HR |
207 |
|
1099 |
RBIs |
1085 |
|
588 |
BB |
450 |
|
444 |
K |
965 |
|
.307 |
BA |
.318 |
|
.358 |
OBP |
.360 |
|
.471 |
SLG |
.477 |
On my way to work this morning, I heard an interesting discussion on the local sports radio (Fan 590 - Toronto) about Don Mattingly deserving to be in the Hall of Fame. The radio personalities used Kirby Puckett and his statistics as a comp to justify their case for Mattingly to be in the HOF. What do you guys think? Does Don Mattingly belong in the Hall of Fame? Is Kirby Puckett a fair comparison to support their argument? Mattingly was awesome from '84-'89. If Mattingly didn't suffer from the debilitating back problems, how good do you think he could have been??? (stats)
74 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think Mattingly does belong.
"Carter's 25-game hitting streak isn't any normal streak. He's 46 for 97 (.474 average) during the run, adding 16 walks and compiling 81 total bases in the process. I'm out of superlatives for what he's doing." - Kevin Goldstein
Should be
Based on the stats that you presented, it looks like Mattingly rightfully belongs in the HOF. Perhaps the only thing holding him back is positional value, but he was amongst the best at first during his career.
by MartyMcFly on Aug 19, 2009 12:49 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
It shouldn’t matter, but Mattingly retired just prior to the Yankees big run… Puckett had some memorable hits in the ‘87 WS that might stand out in voters’ minds… also puckett seemed have retired with something left in the tank following his ocular issues whereas mattingly’s best years were 5 or 6 years behind him
i was surprised looking at the K totals… i was born in ‘85 so my knowledge of ’80’s players is admittedly weak, but i always assumed puckett was the better contact hitter when compared to mattingly
long story short, i’m guessing voters assume puckett could have contributed several more quality seasons while mattingly was clearly near the end of his career in terms of being able to hit as a 1B
Mattingly does NOT belong in the HOF, but was a very good player
Are we seriously going to hold up Kirby Puckett’s batting numbers in a vacuum and say Mattingly belongs because he has similar numbers???
********* ONE OF THESE GUYS WAS A CENTER FIELDER AND THE OTHER WAS A FIRST BASEMAN. *********
If anything, this just further illustrates why Mattingly does NOT belong in Cooperstown. His performance compared to Puckett has absolutely no value in this debate. One of these guys played a premium defensive position well and the other played the least valuable position on the diamond and had back problems.
I mean really...
How is “Mattingly hit like a Center Fielder!” a good argument for putting him in the HOF? He just wasnt good enough for long enough. Puckett was a superior player to Mattingly.
And I'm not sure Puckett belongs based on his numbers alone
Puckett got in largely for sentimental reasons and because he was extremely popular and well-liked at the time of voting (+ postseason heroics).
You can make a HOF case for hundreds of underserving players if you play the “let’s compare his numbers to another marginal HOFer” game.
Mattingly was a 9 time gold glover
at 1B. Granted, it’s not as glamorous or valuable as a CF, but he was an excellent defender as well as a very good hitter. He also won an MVP, which Puckett did not have. Had Mattingly hung on even as a backup for another 3-4 years, he’d have had around 2500 hits and 2-3 World Series rings and would have been a HOF member pretty easily. Before the back problems, he was a shoo in for 3000 hits, but reality had other plans. Mattingly was a complete player and one of the best players in baseball for 4-5 years. If Puckett, Rice, etc got in, then Mattingly deserves to be in the HOF. I’d be all for removing Puckett, Rice and the rest of the borderline HOF guys though.
by Looney4baseball on Aug 19, 2009 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions
He didn't deserve that MVP though.
Rickey Henderson and George Brett were both better in 1985. BUT RBIZZZ RULE!!!!
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Aug 19, 2009 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions
you can find historical WAR here … i’ll let you look up the guys you want, but it’s all there
in ’85 rickey was a 10 win player, brett was 8, and mattingly was 6.4
by gorilla_baller on Aug 19, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions
I didnt know WAR
was what they used to determine the MVP now. Better go get Jimmy Rollins 2007 MVP award back.
by Looney4baseball on Aug 20, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Aug 20, 2009 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions
doesnt matter whether he deserved it or not,
he won it. Plenty of MVPs don’t have the best stats but it’s hard to overlook that he was in the top 5 in all 3 triple crown categories and 2nd in OPS.
by Looney4baseball on Aug 20, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Huh?
Homeruns, RBIs, Batting Average, and OPS aren’t important? I can understand that people aren’t that high on RBIS but homeruns and OPS are definitely important stats.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Aug 20, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions
He's just showing
that he’ll dismiss virtually anything statistical in favor of his opinion. Not 1 citing of any stat by him in this thread because well, that would take effort. Instead he can tell people that they are young, because they don’t agree with him.
by Looney4baseball on Aug 21, 2009 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Just as
.279/.341/.463 doesn’t make Tony Perez a HOF 1B.
.297/.350/.499 doesn’t make Orlando Cepeda a HOF 1B.
.285/.379/.462 doesn’t make Carl Yastrzemski a HOF 1B/OF.
Oh, sorry…all 3 of those are in the HOF. But at least you posted something with stats in it.
by Looney4baseball on Aug 22, 2009 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Of those three
I would keep Yaz and Cepeda and give Perez the boot!!!!
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Aug 23, 2009 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions
But it puts things into perspective
that there’s a quite a few borderline HOFers or that Mattingly deserves more consideration than he’s gotten. Mattingly had better stats in 2 of the 3 cats above over both Yaz and Cepeda and was better in all 3 than Perez. Granted, the longevity of the 3 got them into the HOF, where Mattingly most likely will not, but it just goes to show that had Mattingly stayed around longer that he would have very likely been a HOFer.
by Looney4baseball on Aug 24, 2009 8:28 AM EDT up reply actions
Im on record as saying I wouldnt vote for Puckett OR Rice, but theyre both better players than Mattingly was.
Gold Gloves are also popularity contests, though Mattingly was good.
I dont think he would be a shoo in even if he hung around for a decline phase. His career numbers arent great to begin with and a decline phase would have pulled them down farther. I dont agree he was a shoo in for 3000 hits – everyone is if you project them long enough. Assuming health is a fool’s game. He was really only a premier player for ~4 years. His peak isnt quite good enough or long enough and his career isnt long enough. He wasnt a bad player, but he’s really not that close to the HOF.
Mattingly had 1570 hits after his age 30 season...
and was averaging 190 hits a season. That would have put him on pace to reach 3000 hits around age 38. Even with his decline due to injuries, he would have been a good bet to reach 3000 hits by age 40-41 at latest. He would have only had to have averaged 143 hits a year for 10 years to get there and even with the back problems he has 134 hits his final season. If he had stayed around until 2000, he would have retired with 2600-2700 hits and 3 championships, this would have gotten him in the HOF. Rice’s peak as a great player was for 4-5 years, but not in succession. In that time, I never recall him being mentioned as one of the "premier players in the game’.
As far as Gold Gloves being popularity contests, so are MVP’s and AS games. Even so, Rice had 0 Gold Gloves.
All Rice had on Mattingly was home runs. The rest is pretty much similar. Puckett and Mattingly are very similar as evidenced by the 162 game averages of each:
G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+
162 702 638 97 190 29 6 30 113 4 3 52 110 .298 .352 .502 .854 128 for Rice
162 712 658 97 209 38 5 19 99 12 7 41 88 .318 .360 .477 .837 124 for Puckett
162 701 636 91 195 40 2 20 100 1 1 53 40 .307 .358 .471 .830 127 for Mattingly
If Rice and Puckett belong in the HOF, then so does Mattingly, IMO. I’d be fine leaving Mattingly out if both Rice and Puckett weren’t in the HOF.
by Looney4baseball on Aug 20, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
That's crazy
Rice was constantly mentioned as one of the premier players in the league. He won the MVP and finished near the top a bunch of times. You must be young…
Why would you assume Mattingly would play to 40-41? How many guys did that then?
Championships also dont mean that much in terms of HOF worthiness.
Mattingly was an inferior player to Rice and far inferior to Puckett. Speaking of popularity contests, Mattingly isnt getting many votes at all and has pretty much zero chance of getting in.
So anyone that disagrees...
with you here must be young? Define what you consider young. I watched Rice his entire career, so I must not be that young. Rice was never mentioned in the class of Jackson, Schmidt, Winfield, Rose, Carew, Brett, Bench….
I’d assume Mattingly would have played to 40-41 if he was making a run at 3000 hits. Boggs and Gwynn come to mind immediately as playing into their 40’s to get to 3000 hits. A quick check shows Boggs and Gwynn both played to age 41. Boggs retired in 1999, and Gwynn in 2001. Boggs had 912 hits after age 34 and Gwynn had 937 after age 34. With Mattingly at 2153 hits he would have been very close to 3000 hits by age 40.
Puckett was known for his heroics in the World Series. He doesn’t deserve to be in the HOF based solely on his stats.
So despite statistics showing the contrary, you’re going to continue to persist that Mattingly was far inferior to Puckett, even though their 162 game average (a little above) shows them pretty much identical. Oh yeah, that’s because you dismiss things like statistics….typical old guy stuff.
by Looney4baseball on Aug 21, 2009 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Mattingly had 4 top 10 finishes in MVP voting
Rice had 6. During the 70’s and 80’s, outside of NY and outside of Mattingly’s 3-4 super years, Rice was considered the better player. If you need more proof look at the HOF vote totals.
so 2 MVP votings
and HOF vote totals is your argument that he wasn’t as good. I’m outside of NY and it was rare that I ever heard Rice mentioned as one of the best players in the game while Mattingly often was. Oh well, at least you looked something up.
by Looney4baseball on Aug 22, 2009 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Not to mention that Puckett was probably a mistake hall of famer
who got a sympathy vote because he went blind.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
If Mattingly played for the Twins would this even be a debate?
Puckett played in two of the great WS of all time and had huge moments in both. Mattingly played in his first and only series at the spry age of 34.
To his credit, Mattingly’s K Rate% is Dimaggio-esque and for all his back issues was an excellent defensive 1B, however that’s like being the tallest midget (or little person to be PC).
Strangely enough, Kent Hrbek in less AB (6192) had more HR (293), similar RBI (1086), OBP (.367), and SLG (.481), so basically Hrbek was an arguably greater offensive force than Mattingly and that’s why he’s not in HOF consideration.
Along with Hrbek...
…other players in Mattingly’s tier include (IMHO) Will Clark and John Olerud. I was never a Mattingly fan so I could be a bit biased. Fred Lynn and Dave Parker were great players for 6-7-8 years too, and no one clamors for them to be in the HOF.
Not to mention...
…Dale Murphy. That guy was amazing until he just fell off a cliff in 1988.
Will Clark has a decent case for the HOF
As good as Mattingly at least IMO.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Aug 19, 2009 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hrbek
was a ‘power hitter’ where Mattingly never really was. Mattingly was pretty much a doubles hitter that hit some home runs. Minus a .025 batting average difference, 400 hits, 130 2B’s, 8 gold gloves, 5 All star appearances and an MVP, Hrbek was a similar player stats wise. I’m not sure if park factors would change things, but Hrbek played in the ‘homer dome’ and Mattingly had the short porch in right field. Mattingly was a much better all around player than Hrbek. Is Mattingly really that much worse than the last 2 modern era 1B inducted into the HOF, Tony Perez and Cepeda? Perez played till he was 44 and his .279/.341/.463 line is worse than Mattingly. Cepeda was at .297/.350/.499 not much over Mattingly’s .307/.358/.471.
by Looney4baseball on Aug 19, 2009 10:06 AM EDT up reply actions
um
hrbek was a tremendous defender, but he didn’t play for the yankees….the one defensive play people remember him for was the ron gant move in 91, but gagne and gaetti always raved about how hrbek made them look much better….and i don’t see mattingly hosting any outdoors shows now ;)
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
by biggentleben on Aug 25, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Minor League Ball A Blog About Minor League Baseball, Rookies, and Prospects
it’s an interesting post, but it doesn’t belong here
No
see, as a member of this community, I feel responsible to make sure it is being used the right way. I read everything on this site. I’m not saying this isn’t a compelling point, it’s just that this is not what this site is for
Stop feeling responsible
And just respond to the posts you like.
There are too many tough guys dictating etiquette on the Internet.
Or is Kendry perhaps the one who needs to sit?
Dude, I'm not dictating etiquette
I’m simply suggesting that Dewey posts something like this one a site where it belongs. This is not this site. I know and respect Dewey and realize that he is a very big part of this community. However interesting a conversation it may be, it does not belong on a prospect site
Why did you choose this site to police?
Why not all the fantasy trade related threads that are not supposed to be on the site? Why not the Lastings Milledge and James Loney threads? They aren’t rookies, in the minor leagues, or prospects. It is obvious that you just have a problem with Dewey and I highly doubt that you really ‘know’ him.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Aug 20, 2009 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions
ok fine
my apologies. FWIW, I’d saw Puckett. He led the Twins to a WS and played a position that demanded far more defensive prowess. Let’s be real, if Mattingly didn’t play in NY, there wouldn’t even be a discussion about him being in the HOF
And we can't really say what if his injuries hadn't derailed his career
That’s like saying what if J.D. Drew was always healthy. Health and consistency are part of what makes a player hall of fame worth, IMO
It's John's site
If he sees a problem with it, he can delete it. In the meantime, chillax.
After 1987 Mattingley looked like a good bet to make the Hall of Fame
Unfortunately he declined too early too quickly. He had a very nice career but not Hall worthy. As someone has already pointed out Puckett and Mattingley put up similar numbers but as a CF and 1B, plus Puckett himself is borderline, helped to get in by the fact he was forced to retire early due to an eyesight condition.
Problem with HOF debates
Is that people use the worst player to compare to and say that they belong in the HOF.
Puckett does not belong in the Hall of Fame. Neither does Mattingly, and niether does Jime Rice.
Now everyone’s going to compare to Rice and Puckett as a reason why their very good, but not elite favorite belongs.
Ummm positional value?
Puckett played a great center field, Mattingly played a great first base. The former is far more valuable than the latter. Comparing a center fielder’s stats and a first baseman’s stats is a bad place to start.
I forgot who wrote it
however an article i read during the whole Jim Rice debate an interesting methodology due to the ever chaning landscape of the game. He argued that the best way to see if a player belongs in the HOF is compare them to their position at their time. To me that is the beginning of the end of throwing out the 500 HR standard, etc.
08/03/2009 A day that will live in infamy for the rest of the AL West.
you can find historical WAR here … i’ll let you look up the guys you want, but it’s all there
in ’85 rickey was a 10 win player, brett was 8, and mattingly was 6.4
by gorilla_baller on Aug 19, 2009 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions
If Mattingly's arguement is that he was just as good as Puckett
Then he shouldn’t be in because he played an easier position and Puckett is pretty borderline to begin with.
But Mattingly is more deserving than say Jim Rice or Jack Morris.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
I never saw Jim Rice play
but this is a pretty ridiculous comment. Rices career dwarfs Mattinglys statistically, and Morris won 14 games in thirteen different year as well as pitching in (and winning) the most memorable WS game of my lifetime. 250 wins is going to look a lot better 5 years from now. Mattingly had 5 great seasons over an otherwsie EXTREMELY unremarkable career.
Yeah
I have Rice above Mattingly, as most do. I dont think Rice was a HOFer, but he’s a borderline guy. His peak was longer and better than Mattingly’s, unless you place a s***load of value on 1B defense (and gold gloves – which are BS). Rice actually wasnt a bad fielder at all, btw. That’s a myth that’s been thrown around recently. He was pretty average in the OF. There’s been some nice articles on it, but its just so fashionable to bash Rice that no one wants to hear it.
Rice has the great peak and it lasted longer than Mattingly’s.
Id also vote Morris before Mattingly. Mattingly really isnt that close. Basically no chance of Mattingly making it, either (thank God).
Rice had...
4 years with an OPS over .900 and 5 more years with an OPS over .800. Mattingly had 4 years with an OPS over .900 and 4 more years with an OPS over .800. So much for a greater peak and lasting longer than Mattingly’s unless you consider a 1 year difference the difference between the HOF or not.
Since everyone likes WAR so much, Rice’s career WAR was 2.76 and Mattingly 3.06, so in reality, Mattingly was more valuable than Rice was.
by Looney4baseball on Aug 20, 2009 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Jesus, dude
Take off your Mattingly jersey. Is every year over .900 OPS the same? Is every .800/.900 OPS the same or equally valuable? No, its not. Jim Rice’s (HOF) peak was longer and better than Mattingly’s.
Since everyone likes WAR so much, Rice’s career WAR was 2.76 and Mattingly 3.06, so in reality, Mattingly was more valuable than Rice was.
What the heck does this mean? Do you even know what WAR is? This doesnt make any sense.
No Mattingly jersey....
I don’t even particularly like the guy, but he is comparable to Rice and Puckett. The difference between Mattingly and Rice in terms of career OPS is .024 (Rice .854, Mattingly .830). Rice’s OPS was only higher because he was a power hitter and Mattingly was not. I think you’re blinded by Rice’s HR number comapred to Mattingly’s. And to save you time from citing Rice’s 406 TB season in 1978, Mattingly had 388 TB in 1986.
And yes, I know what WAR is. It shows the value of a player in the number of wins the player contributed to his team per season above what a replacement level player would have. Mattingly was more valuable to his team than Rice was by his contributions over the course of his career. That means it would be easier for a team to replace Rice than Mattingly.
So far all I’ve seen from you is your opinion backed with absolutely no statistics to back why you feel Mattingly shouldn’t be in the HOF. I have no issue with Mattingly not making the HOF, but they already set precedence in lowering the standards for the HOF by letting in Rice.
by Looney4baseball on Aug 21, 2009 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Once again
Just because a guy is comparable to two of the worst HOFers – guys I said above many times I wouldnt have voted for – does not mean that makes that guy a HOFer.
OPS = not a great measure of statistics. Its not 2002 anymore. We have better measures, that’s just a shorthand. You havent really cited any good stats. Not that it would matter. I made the case above, and its been made 100 times. Google it. Mattingly doesnt statistically profile as a HOFer.
And yes, I know what WAR is. It shows the value of a player in the number of wins the player contributed to his team per season above what a replacement level player would have. Mattingly was more valuable to his team than Rice was by his contributions over the course of his career. That means it would be easier for a team to replace Rice than Mattingly.
You tried to cite WAR and gave me two single digit numbers. What the heck was that supposed to mean…?
And yet again
you dismiss stats while providing none of your own and don’t understand what the career average per season WAR’s comparing Mattingly and Rice were. My point of comparing Rice, Puckett, Cepeda, Yaz and Perez is to show that there’s enough Hall of Famers that Mattingly is comparable to, to at least show that Mattingly should get more consideration than he has. Those 5 were just the tip of the iceberg.
“You havent really cited any good stats. Not that it would matter. I made the case above, and its been made 100 times”
translation: you’re not going to change your mind no matter what anyone says nor how many other hall of famers that Mattingly is comparable to, even at his own position. It’s apparent from you WAR comments that you don’t understand it, despite me saying first that it was their career average WAR per season and then spelled it out further in the second reply. It is their average WAR per season. Mattingly was worth 3.06 WAR each season on average and Rice was worth 2.76 WAR each season on average. It can’t get any simpler than that.
by Looney4baseball on Aug 25, 2009 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Just so we are all on the same page...
I wasn’t advocating Mattingly to be in the HOF based on Puckett’s numbers. This was a discussion I heard on the radio and wanted to see what the community thought. I do completely agree that a CF and 1B should not be compared when it comes to stats. However, the fact that Mattingly did indeed play excellent defense should not be ignored.
Dewey Finn = Dylan McKay, King Billy Royal = Zack Morris, RedSoxFaithful = Millhouse Van Houten, Paul Thomas = Steve Urkel, Galt = Screech Powers, Bravesin07 = Richard Stabone, Hero66 = Beavis, Slurve = Phoebe Buffay
I’m keith hernandez, go ahead… kiss her!
by gorilla_baller on Aug 20, 2009 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions
Sean Smith did a study on scoops by 1B
btw, and Mattingly came up very poorly. The list otherwise was consistent with what youd expect, with Mo Vaughn and Frank Thomas down at the bottom. Am I saying Mattingly’s defense was overrated? Maybe. Lots of gold gloves… wow! In 10 years we can look back at Jeter’s gold gloves, too. Mattingly had a bad back. Its hard to play 1B with a bad back. Am I to believe he was an excellent defensive 1B one day and had to sit the next with a bad back? At his best when healthy his defense was among the best ever. He wasnt healthy all that much, though. Talking career value wise, I have a big problem with people arguing his defense pushes him over the top. I think sentimentality has exaggerated his career contributions on defense.
Very good player, not a HOFer.
Mattingly
was one of my favorites growing up but he belongs in the Hall of Very Good not the Hall of Fame along with Will Clark, Dale Murphy, Jim Rice (should have been), etc
08/03/2009 A day that will live in infamy for the rest of the AL West.
by Michael Cave on Aug 19, 2009 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions
+1
Well said.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Aug 19, 2009 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Theres going to be a big push
to elect guys who ‘did it the right way’ by perception and so guys like mattingly will be more likely to get in…although its hard for me to think of who fits that bill recently
Abrupt End to Puck's Career
I also think Puck gets some HOF love for the way his career ended. He actually increased his careers OPS+ each of his last two seasons. By that time he was mostly a corner OF and DH. Give Puckett a fairly normal decline and his career counting stats are far superior to Mattingly. His rate stats are probably lower. I’m not saying this should have mattered, but I think it did.
I also like to point out the Hrbek and Mattingly have eerily similar career stats, but nobody has suggested that Hrbek belongs in the HOF. I attribute this to Hrbek being somewhat underrated. He was a darn good player.
Mattingly basically had the same thing though
His career was cut short by his back.
Still, point stands b/c Puckett was a good deal better player than Mattingly.
Neither
Neither Puckett or Mattingly should be HOFers, I’d actually boot a bunch of guys out of the HOF if it was up to me. We shouldn’t be throwing everybody who was a pretty good player and a nice guy into the HOF.
No
Yankee fans here in NY bring up this comparison all the time, but I think it falls short on several fronts.
1) I wouldn’t have put Puckett in myself so I certainly don’t want to go down the ‘if him then you must put him’ road.
Good player was Puckett but I think (as mentioned above) that he gets partially in for the abrupt way his career ended and partially for the smiling, good-natured persona he had during his career. I think the personality had such an effect that had the somewhat sordid details (or at least accusations) about his private life come out a year or so prior to his vote instead of after I’m not sure the outcome would have been the same.
2) Mattingly had what amounted to 5-6 HoF seasons followed by 5-6 mediocre ones – as opposed to Kirby’s dozen or so seasons on a more consistent track. It’s arguable about whether that should matter but I think it does.
3) The CF vs 1B thing. Again, it’s been brought up already so no need to crunch the details but, even as good as DM was with the glove around 1st, similar offensive numbers can’t be treated as an equivalency here.
4) Post-Season. It’s not necessarily Mattingly’s fault that he barely got a chance to shine in October, but Kirby did and when he did he made the most of it and that earns him brownie points that Donnie Baseball doesn’t get.
Bernie
What about Bernie Williams?
G 2076
AB 7869
H 2336
R 1366
2B 449
HR 287
RBI 1257
BB 1069
K 1212
AVG .297
OBP .381
SLG .471
No Bernie
Bernie is not a Hall of Famer, its not the Hall of Good. Bernie = Mattingly, a good player that NYers love, but not nearly on that level of good to bring up HOF. The only guy that is a Hall of Famer off the Yankee championship teams is Jeter, even though I hate the guy! And I guess I should say Mariano too although personally I don’t know how much I buy relievers as HOFers.
by GoldenSpikes24 on Aug 20, 2009 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
