OT: Who should be in the Hall that isn't

[packs]

I've said it before but Don Mattingly was the best player of his generation. He was Pujols before Pujols. Yes, he got hurt. But there was no one better.

The HOF has awarded players with shortened careers before. Dizzy Dean had the promise of a HOFer but he didn't have a HOF career. The same is true for Rube Marquard (brief dominance) and Hack Wilson.

So why not Mattingly?

[bbcard1]

One that isn't mentioned often but I like is Maury Wills. Again, it all depends on what we collectively want as a hall of fame, but he had an MVP, a couple of world championships (like Maris) was an evolutionary player. Five time all star and a couple of gold gloves…his career cumulative offensive stats are probably about average for a Hall of Fame shortstop or a little above, I think most baseball fans would take him in his three year prime over any but the most elite of hall shortstops. Didn't do himself any favors after his career. I met him a couple of times and he was nice if a little curmudogny.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I've said it before but Don Mattingly was the best player of his generation. He was Pujols before Pujols. Yes, he got hurt. But there was no one better.

The HOF has awarded players with shortened careers before. Dizzy Dean had the promise of a HOFer but he didn't have a HOF career. The same is true for Rube Marquard (brief dominance) and Hack Wilson.

So why not Mattingly?

But by that logic, if Red Schoendienst and George Kell, why not Julio Franco and Omar Vizquel? If Chick Hafey, why not Andres Galarraga? If Dean, why not Gooden, who I believe had just as many dominating seasons? I think arguments based on who is in -- which seemed to be the justification for the eventual induction of, for example, Rice and Dawson -- just lead one down the road of dilution.

[packs]

You don't think Vizquel is a HOFer?

Don Mattingly would not dilute the HOF. He was a HOFer and one of the most talented players ever to play first base. He is so much further up from Andres Gallaraga that they shouldn't be mentioned in the same argument. For reference even with a full career Gallaraga is ranked 70th on the first base list, with Mattingly at 36th.

Injuries didn't ruin Doc Gooden's career either. Doc Gooden ruined Doc Gooden's career.

[Peter_Spaeth]

So how do you explain this?
Hall of Fame
2001 BBWAA (28.2%)
2002 BBWAA (20.3%)
2003 BBWAA (13.7%)
2004 BBWAA (12.8%)
2005 BBWAA (11.4%)
2006 BBWAA (12.3%)
2007 BBWAA ( 9.9%)
2008 BBWAA (15.8%)
2009 BBWAA (11.9%)
2010 BBWAA (16.1%)
2011 BBWAA (13.6%)
2012 BBWAA (17.8%)
2013 BBWAA (13.2%)
2014 BBWAA ( 8.2%)

[packs]

Simple. The perception today is that you have to have certain numbers to be a HOFer. Mattingly doesn't have them. My argument is that the HOF has recognized injury shortened careers and HOF potential in its past elections. That same eye should be applied to Mattingly. But it hasn't been. That's what we're discussing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Simple. The perception today is that you have to have certain numbers to be a HOFer. Mattingly doesn't have them. My argument is that the HOF has recognized injury shortened careers and HOF potential in its past elections. That same eye should be applied to Mattingly. But it hasn't been. That's what we're discussing.

Right, and my point is that if you let people in because the same logic applies to them as applied to past inductees, in your example 50 years or more ago, it would argue for the inclusion of a whole host of players. Standards change, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Suppose you were to apply your logic, and induct every player since 1940 who was as good or better than Chick Hafey or Travis Jackson or Fred Lindstrom. How many people would that be?

[packs]

Is that really true though? Kirby Puckett was inducted as recently as 2001.

I don't think Chick Hafey or Travis Jackson sniff Mattingly. He was the best player in the league. None of those players were the best of anything really. Your examples seem way off to me. I compared Mattingly to Dizzy Dean and Hack Wilson.

I'm talking about a single player with extraordinary talent, not any old player who was decent.

[brewing]

Originally Posted by packs

So why not Mattingly?

Mattingly was awesome from 84-87 and started a rapid decline from that peak.

Compare him to George Foster from 76-79 and beyond. If Mattingly belongs, than so does George Foster. Why isn't anyone clamouring for Foster?

The injustice is Dick Allen. From 1964-1974 he makes Garvey and Mattingly look like 2nd tier guys.

Why is that?
My theory is appearance. Black vs white and Hollywood looks vs whoa! Another theory could be NY and LA. Regardless, the numbers don't lie.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by brewing

Mattingly was awesome from 84-87 and started a rapid decline from that peak.

Compare him to George Foster from 76-79 and beyond. If Mattingly belongs, than so does George Foster. Why isn't anyone clamouring for Foster?

The injustice is Dick Allen. From 1964-1974 he makes Garvey and Mattingly look like 2nd tier guys.

Why is that?
My theory is appearance. Black vs white and Hollywood looks vs whoa! Another theory could be NY and LA. Regardless, the numbers don't lie.

Why is what? None of the guys you mentioned are in the hall of fame.