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

[brewing]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Brent, they're not at all the same. Firstly, you're comparing Foster and Mattingly side by side knowing full well that after '87, Mattingly's power was gone because of back injuries. Doing an OPS + comparison of any year after 1987 for Mattingly is pointless. The crux of our argument is that Mattingly was robbed of his prime years. He hit 30 home runs at age 26. The remainder of his career, he averaged 12 home runs a season.

But even more importantly, you're forgetting one little thing. Actually, it's not a little thing. It's half the game.

Defense.

While Foster in his prime put up offensive numbers quite similar to Mattingly in his prime, there is no comparison when it comes to defense.

Now I know that the Gold Glove Award is hardly the be all, end all measurement of defensive abilities, but it is a good starting point.

Don Mattingly was a spectacular defender. He won 9 Gold Gloves.
George Foster didn't win a single Gold Glove in his 18 seasons.

When defense is considered, Mattingly vaults way ahead of Foster. And it's defensive prowess that I've been talking about really since I first posted in this discussion.

I concede the Foster argument on the matter of career ending injury. I believe the injury argument is weak and I'll pass because it's too subjective for my analytical nerd self.

Defense?
By any defensive metric outside of assists, putouts, and fielding average, Mattingly was at best an average first baseman. GG argument shouldn't be brought up unless we are in a bar discussing this with guys that do not know who the Big Six is or who truly believe Cal Ripken is the greatest SS ever.