[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Donny Baseball was all world for 6 years then injured his back and was never the same, but hung on for another several years as a very good player. I think Mattingly gets HOF consideration because of the stellar first half of his career, but is not considered a candidate by many bcause he played several years as a shell of his former self. Hrbek is not an appropriate comparison because of the uneven nature of Mattingly's performance. Hrbek was never one of the 5 best players in baseball for a multi-year period. What is more intriguing is to compare Mattingly's career to Kirby Puckett. Statistically, they are very close. IMHO he proves it is better to leave baseball relatively rapidly while at the top rather than hanging in there as a good or very good player, unless you have unassailable stats already, like Rickey Henderson.

The Rice analogy to Mattingly isn't really on point because of the effect of the injury on Mattingly. Rice is one of those very good for a very long time guys with a season or two at the peak. I also think that Blyleven, John and a few others (don't know if they are eligible yet, but Harold Baines and Fred McGriff will fall into this category) who were very good for a very long time but never great are subject to debate for the HOF because of the misleading nature of the statistics as the day to day of their careers fades away. I also think that Eddie Murray was overrated and was not a good HOF candidate under the criteria I would like to see applied, but he met the statistical criteria that many mechanically apply to election. I saw him as more like Don Sutton.

I tend to be very snobby about the HOF. I want guys with bunches of batting titles, multiple 20 game seasons, etc., guys who were clearly in the top echelons of the game at the time they were playing, not guys who were good for 30-100-.300 for ten years and were around 25-85-.280 for the rest of their careers, or who won 15-18 games a year with no Cy Young awards. What I don't think makes the HOF is 20 years of 25 HR and 150 hits (.250 average for 600 AB), even though it adds up to 3,000 hits and 500 HR for the career. Needless to say, I dont' believe in applying any rigid number as a hard rule basis for election. After all, 3,000 hits, 500 HR or 3,000 strikeouts has no independent value; they are simply the largest round numbers that players can reasonably be expected to attain. To me, the key is how you get there, not just that you got there.