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

[sycks22]

Jack Morris
Tony Oliva
Pete Rose

We'll keep it simple

[the 'stache]

When the discussion of best players not in the Hall of Fame turns to Don Mattingly and Dwight Gooden, as it invariably does, a distinction has to be made about why a player's performance declined. In some cases, allowances should be made. In others, they most certainly should not.

Don Mattingly was the best player in baseball--bar none (imo)--for a four year span. In my humble opinion based on statistical analysis, and from watching him play as I was growing up, there was nobody on that same level with Mattingly. You had Tony Gwynn and Wade Boggs, extraordinary hitters who put up similar batting averages, yes, but they did not have the power that Mattingly had. Gwynn was an outstanding fielder early in his career, and Boggs became a decorated fielder, later in his career. Gwynn also possessed speed that neither Mattingly or Boggs had. But if you are looking at the total package, Mattingly was clearly the most rounded player of the three.

You also had players with equal or greater power, and similar run production. Names like Dale Murphy, Mike Schmidt, Darryl Strawberry, Jose Canseco, Eric Davis, and Jim Rice come to mind in the mid to late 80s. But while some could match his power and run production, and may have even excelled in the field as Schmidt did, nobody could touch him from a pure hitting standpoint. To be a .330 + hitter, with 30 + home runs, 100 + RBI, and spectacular defensive ability-that has always been a rare thing indeed. Mattingly could change the outcome of a game with his glove or his bat. And when injuries robbed him of his elite abilities, he was still a very good player. Look at his career numbers. He had two All Star caliber seasons after his peak. Then his average and power numbers dipped. But then from 1991-1995 he regained his hitting abilities. Certainly his power was gone, but he was hitting in the .290s to .300 again, and still playing spectacular defense. So when I look at his career in the aggregate, I see a man that was a hitter without peer in his prime, and one of the best defensive first basemen to ever play the game throughout his career. He was the one offensive player everybody in the 80s wished they could be. That to me says Hall of Famer.

The Baseball Writers put Sandy Koufax in for five great years. Well, look at Don Mattingly's production 1984-1988:

152 games, 100 runs, 206 hits, 44 doubles, 27 home runs, 114 RBI, .332 AVG

In 3,412 plate appearances between 1984 and 1988, Mattingly struck out 176 times. That's an average of 35 strikeouts per season.

Get rid of 1988, and look at 1984-1987, and his four year averages are mind boggling for the era:

154 games, 102 runs, 210 hits, 46 doubles, 30 home runs, 121 RBI, .337 AVG, .941 OPS.

In that four year span, he had 4 All Star selections, an MVP, an MVP runner up (again, I felt he should have won the MVP in 1986 when he had 117 runs scored, 238 hits, 53 doubles, 31 home runs, 113 RBI, and hit .352, but it went to Roger Clemens instead, who won the Cy Young), 3 Gold Gloves, 3 Silver Slugger Awards.

He dominated the game. He was the most feared hitter in the game during hi prime. If his back hadn't robbed him of his power, there's no telling where he would have ended up.

At 28 years old, Mattingly already had 1,300 hits, 164 home runs and 717 RBI. From 1984 to 1989 (I eliminated 1982 when he had only 12 at bats, and 1983 when had only 279 at bats), he was averaging 203 hits per year, or 216 hits per 162 games played. Now, certainly, he wouldn't have kept that torrid pace up, but say he has about a 10% drop in production, and averages 183 hits per season. In a little over 9 years, or at age 37, he's crossing 3,000 hits. His back robbed him of that.

Now, when you look at Dwight Gooden, the circumstances are completely different. Dwight Gooden robbed himself of a chance at true greatness.

Just how good was Gooden?

His first three years in the Major Leagues were the best first three years any pitcher has had since 1950. I used Baseball Reference to try and quantify this based on WAR.



13 shutouts in his first three seasons, tying him with Jerry Koosman, of all people, for the most ever.

Most strikeouts? Gooden again leads the pack with Hideo Nomo's 703 ending up second, and Tim Lincecum third at 676.

Certainly this comparison is no guarantee of greatness. We all remember Steve Blass, who went from being 19-8 with a 2.49 ERA in 1972 at age 30 to completely losing his ability to pitch the next year. Obviously, this is an extreme, but it just shows that anything is possible in baseball.

Gooden, even though he wasn't the same dominant pitcher he was in his first three seasons, when he won 58 games before he was 22, was still a pretty good pitcher at age 25. He'd won 100 games, had a career 2.64 ERA, and had struck out 1,168 batters in 1,291 innings. But somewhere along the way, early in his career, Gooden started taking drugs. Cocaine. He would end his career with 194 wins against 112 losses. A .634 winning percentage. Still pretty darned good. 2,293 strikeouts. A 3.51 career ERA. 24 shutouts and one no hitter.

But he could have been so much more. Gooden had the stuff to win 300 games. No, he could have won a lot more games than 300. He could have approached 200 wins by age 30. This is a guy who had the kind of stuff pitching coaches drool over. His fastball, which consistently touched 98 mph, wasn't even his best pitch. His curveball was so devastating it was given the nickname "Lord Charles".

But he threw it all away. Many people lament Mickey Mantle and what could have been if he had only taken care of himself. He was famous for staying out all night, for drinking with Whitey, Billy, Yogi and the rest of the Yankees. He was a frequent guest at Toots Shor's restaurant. He thought he was going to die young, so he burned the candle at both ends. And he played through one injury after another. Even though he didn't take care of himself, he's still one of the all-time greats. But he still could have done more.

Well, I feel that way when I look at one of my old Dwight Gooden baseball cards. He could have been the best ever if only he'd stayed clean.

[Centauri]

Vizquel should be in.
Albert Belle should be in - never implicated in any way to PED's, consistently great numbers, including some truly spectacular seasons. 50hr/50 2b same season. The only difference between Belle and the Big Hurt is than Belle had a career ending injury at 32.

Jim Thome not mentioned - 600HR, no PED links. Career very similar to Killebrew.

Sabathia has 208 wins at age 32. 300 is reachable.

[the 'stache]

I don't think there's any way Sabathia gets 300 wins. He's really lost his touch. Over his last 40 starts, he's got a 4.87 ERA. And he's been worse than that lately.

As for Belle, he was an incredible player. But I don't see him getting in because he was so unpleasant to everybody-writers, teammates, fans. It's a shame, really, because he was a superstar. But ultimately, the BBWAA are people, and people remember how a baseball player acts beyond the confines of the nine innings spent on the field.

[brewing]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

The Baseball Writers put Sandy Koufax in for five great years. Well, look at Don Mattingly's production 1984-1988:



152 games, 100 runs, 206 hits, 44 doubles, 27 home runs, 114 RBI, .332 AVG



Get rid of 1988, and look at 1984-1987, and his four year averages are mind boggling for the era:



154 games, 102 runs, 210 hits, 46 doubles, 30 home runs, 121 RBI, .337 AVG, .941 OPS .

George Foster 1976-1980
145 games, 91 runs, 163 hits, 23 doubles, 35 home runs, 116 RBI, .297AVG

George Foster 1976-1979
145 games, 94 runs, 168 hits, 24 doubles, 38 home runs, 122 RBI, .303 AVG, .941 OPS.

I don't see Mattingly being better or mind boggling.

OPS+ is a nice measure that crosses era's although they played in similar times.

Foster became a full time player in 1975 and Mattingly in 1984.
Here is how their OPS+ compared
Foster. Mattingly
76 84. 139 156
76 85. 150 156
77 86. 165 161
78 87. 151 146
79 88. 155 128
80 89. 131 133
81 90. 150 81
82 91. 90 103
83 92. 95 108
84 93. 111 120
85 94. 121 113

Say Mattingly is a HoF all you want, but promote Foster just as much because their argument is the same.

[packs]

The George Foster argument to me has no place in the discussion. As far as I know he did not suffer a career ending injury that robbed him of his talents. His numbers are exactly what he was able to put up.

The whole argument for Mattingly is that he was a HOF player that was robbed of his career by an injury and his career numbers do not reflect his talent level.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Of course Foster benefited from having Rose Morgan Bench and Perez hitting in front of him...

Nobody should make it on the basis of five years. Koufax may be the exception because his were SO off the charts that most people count him among the 10 best pitchers ever. Mattingly had five great years but how many people would rank him with Ruth Cobb etc.?

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by brewing

Say Mattingly is a HoF all you want, but promote Foster just as much because their argument is the same.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

On Bill's logic maybe we better put Nomar in too.

[Jim65]

Mattingly was on his way to a HOF career and injuries slowed him way down. Its a shame but it happened. Looking at his whole career, hes not a HOFer, 5 great years is not enough.

[packs]

5 great years is enough, which we've talked about with specific examples of players who meet that standard and are in the HOF. The real discussion should be based around what separates these players.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Mattingly was on his way to a HOF career and injuries slowed him way down. Its a shame but it happened. Looking at his whole career, hes not a HOFer, 5 great years is not enough.

I would say that Mattingly had 4 great seasons, 3 very good seasons, and 1 good year. When you consider the Hall requires ten years, Don meets that, and the great majority of the time, that time played is at a high/elite level.

If nothing more, it creates interesting discussions.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

On Bill's logic maybe we better put Nomar in too.

I'm just playing the contrarian, Peter. I don't think Mattingly will ever make the Hall. But when you consider that Ozzie Smith got in as a shortstop for basically providing the same glove work Don Mattingly provided at first base, only without the offensive production, maybe the voters need to rethink some things.

Years played + games:

Smith 18 years, 2,573 games played
Mattingly 14 years, 1,785 games played

Gold Gloves:

Smith 13
Mattingly 9

Ok, Smith played 788 more games, roughly 5 more seasons, than Mattingly. He provided 5 more years of outstanding defense at shortstop than Mattingly provided at first.

I think most people would agree that shortstop is a more difficult position to play than first base. On any given play, the shortstop might be going for the ball, or covering second base. He could be involved in a double play as the pivot man. He has to make more throws than a first baseman will make in a game.

When you consider time played, as well as the higher degree of difficulty at shortstop, it's clear that Smith had more impact on defense than Mattingly did.

But then you mix in Mattingly's offensive excellence.

I just think that everybody that has so nonchalantly said "Mattingly does not deserve a Hall induction" really hasn't given him the thorough look he deserves. And I would certainly say the same thing about Keith Hernandez.

Maybe with the advanced metrics that are available now, some of these players, Hernandez and Mattingly among them, should be looked at again, and given fair consideration again. It doesn't mean I expect them to vote any differently. But they might. When you consider how great Mattingly's impact was on the whole game, I think he deserves that much.

[VoodooChild]

5 great years is all most HOFers have. The difference is they had 5 great years during a 20 year career. The rest of the years were consistently above average. All I'm saying is (and I know I'm in the vast minority) why not let more players in who had the same great 5 years during a 15 year career and were just as consistently above average the rest of their shorter career? Again, it's a baseball museum we're talking about. Have a separate wing for Ruth and the obvious all time greats with those magic (but random) career stats.

I do respect everybody's opinion and these types of conversation is what makes baseball the best. But I say let the best players on the planet during their era in. The guys I've seen play: Dave Parker, Fred Lynn, Dale Murphy, Tim Raines, Oral Hershiser, Mattingly, Eric Davis, Albert Belle, Johan Santana, Larry Walker, Bagwell, Roy Halladay are all HOFers in my eyes.

[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.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by brewing

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.

I watched Mattingly play a lot when I was a kid. The guy was a hell of a defensive first baseman. This wasn't Derek Jeter getting Gold Glove Awards that were, for the most part, unwarranted. What other defensive metrics were there when he was playing? There was fielding %, putouts, assists, errors, double plays, etc. None of these advanced metrics existed back then, and it's impossible to add today's metrics to games played 25 years ago. Things like zone rating are compiled on a game by game basis, and I don't know of any way of accurately creating these advanced metrics. It would be like going back and trying to figure out how many quarterback sacks Deacon Jones had. You'd have to go back and watch every play. And those seasons were only 16 games.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, Brent. I think the accolades for his defense are well deserved. He was fantastic with the glove.