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

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by brewing

My point was that Mattingly and Garvey are brought up as Hall worthy way more often than Foster and Allen.

Dick Allen and Bob Johnson are so far and away the best hitters not in the Hall that there isn't a close next tier. Allen was a nightmare defensively and...unique...as an individual. Johnson holds the record for assists by a left fielder and seems to have had better than average range.

Tom C

[Peter_Spaeth]

Garvey's knocking at the door
Foster's ringing the bell
Johnson's knocking at the door
Allen's ringing the bell
Do me a favor
Open the Hall
Let em in

Luis Tiant
Tommy John
Colavito
Mattingly Don
T Oliva
Jimmy Wynn
Open the Hall
Let em in, in, in

[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 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.

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Colavito was easily on his way to 500 plus HR when he fell off the map at age 32. He didn't quite have the batting average, but he had a streak of phenomenal power seasons.

[packs]

The difference is nothing prevented him from falling short except his own limitations. That's the difference we're trying to point out with Mattingly's injury and his career.

These comparisons aren't apples to apples.

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

The difference is nothing prevented him from falling short except his own limitations. That's the difference we're trying to point out with Mattingly's injury and his career.

These comparisons aren't apples to apples.

How do you know? Not sure back then it was as in vogue to publicize injuries. He just fell off the map of his own accord? Possible but there could be other factors too.

[darkhorse9]

This thread fails without Dale Murphy on the top of the list.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

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.

Mattingly had 5 seasons that I look at as HOF seasons, he had some years when he hit 15-18 HRs, had 75-80 RBIs and .275-.300 BA, like you said, very good years but not great which is what a HOFer should be.

[howard38]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How do you know? Not sure back then it was as in vogue to publicize injuries. He just fell off the map of his own accord? Possible but there could be other factors too.

He had shoulder and wrist injuries around 1966 when he turned 32. He didn't blame that on his decline but it couldn't have helped.

[clydepepper]

Max Patkin

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Batter67up

Gil Hodges &
Don Newcombe

The Hall is not much more than a popularity contest. Look at Chuck Klein he got voted in after he passed away by the Veterans Committee yet he was 1932 MVP, 4 time Homerun Champion, 2 Time RBI Champion, 320 Lifetime Avg, 300 Homeruns. He got elected in 1980 and passed away in 1958. When I looked at this, I lost a lot of respect for the writers who elect the inductees.

Chuck Klein was the 1930s version of Larry Walker, Todd Helton, Jim Rice, and a whole host of other guys whose numbers were enormously inflated by their home ballparks. In 1931, for example, he hit .401 with 22 HRs at home and just .269 with 9 HRs on the road. He basically had a 5-year run of greatness thanks to Baker Bowl with a fine 1936 season mixed in.

Klein is also, I believe, the only guy besides Ted Williams to win the Triple Crown in a season but not also win the MVP (Williams did it twice).

Bottom line: The writers got it right by not electing Klein.

[pbspelly]

I vote with the others for Keith Hernandez. Greatest defensive first baseman ever, and an excellent hitter. I think he gets a bit of a bad rap because of his drug problems mid-career, but he got his act back together and was a beautiful player. The Mets never would have been the powerhouse they were in '86 without him.

A fascinating book of his, by the way, is Pure Baseball, where he comments and dissects two baseball games pitch by pitch.

[Tabe]

Why am I seeing Ozzie Smith compared to Don Mattingly & Keith Hernandez? Ozzie played a super-premium defensive position at probably the highest level ever. Mattingly & Hernandez played what is - by far - the easiest defensive position. There's a reason the slow guys who can barely bend over play 1B. Hernandez gets no consideration because he never even once hit 20 HRs. Sorry, you play 1B, you gotta hit with power. It's the nature of the position.

Let me put it another way: Keith Hernandez was basically John Olerud, only with (a lot) less power. Anybody clamoring for Olerud to get in?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Brian Van Horn

Other players for consideration:

Baby Doll Jacobson
Charlie Grimm
Emil Meusel
Bob Meusel
Stuffy McInnis
Bob Veach
Bob Johnson

You have pretty low HOF standards, IMHO.

Baby Doll Jacobson? Career 112 OPS+, less than 100 HRs, and only 1700 hits.

Charlie Grimm? A 1B with a career OPS+ of just 94?!? Has a much stronger case as a manager and absolutely zero case as a player.

Emil Meusel? Simply didn't play enough. 9 seasons (discounting his 1 game in 1914 and 42 in 1927) just ain't enough. And he wasn't elite in those 9 seasons.

Bob Muesel? Decent enough candidate though he also didn't really play long enough. Just 11 years, none of which were GREAT by the standards of the day. With a higher peak, maybe he gets in.

Stuffy McInnis? A 1B with a career .381 slugging percentage? Even by dead ball era standards, that's terrible.

Bobby Veach? This one's a pretty solid pick. The Hall isn't incomplete by his absence but he is a much better candidate than I expected when I looked him up. Certainly a lot better than some of the other guys on this list.

Bob Johnson? Yep. Hurt by being in the shadow of other, greater players of the era but he probably belongs.

[Ejm1]

Tony Oliva, Fred McGriff, Roger Maris, Peter Edward Rose,

[Peter_Spaeth]

288-1283-.296 in a hitters' era.

I don't see it.

Neither did anyone else.

Hall of Fame
1948 BBWAA ( 0.8%)
1956 BBWAA ( 0.5%)

[Tabe]

For me, when it comes to guys not in the HOF but should be, my #1 guy is Albert Belle. 9 straight 100+ RBI seasons - and a 10th with 95. 162 game averages of 40 HR and 130 RBI. While people spout the nonsense that Jim Rice was a "feared hitter", Albert Belle really was. His career ended in a heartbeat but you talk his 10 full seasons in the majors and he was an elite hitter for at least 9 of them. The guy absolutely belongs.

As for Don Mattingly, I see him get compared to Puckett, Dizzy, and Koufax all the time. I get it. The difference between those guys and Mattingly is this: their careers were basically ended by injury. Puckett & Koufax never played again, Dizzy only made 31 more starts. Mattingly? He kept playing. And, sorry, but that gets held against him. Going out and putting him subpar numbers like 9 HRs and 68 RBI at first base *IS* going to get held against you. Don't really care if it's because you hurt your back. If you're healthy enough to play, you're expected to play well. A great player who puts up average (or worse) numbers because he's hurt is no different than an average player who puts up average numbers.

You know who had a similar career to Don Mattingly? Lance Parrish. Parrish was unquestionably the best catcher in baseball putting up excellent power numbers for the era while playing stellar defense. Four Gold Gloves and who can forget the orange highlighter catcher's mitt? On his way to his best season ever in 1986 when he's felled by a back injury. Falls off the cliff after that but still manages 2 more All-Star appearances. Sounds a lot like the career of Don Mattingly* doesn't it?

* - In no way am I saying their careers were identical. Mattingly was obviously a LOT better as a hitter than Parrish. Just saying they were both the best at their positions, both hurt their backs, both hung around for years after putting up subpar numbers but nobody's giving a pass to Parrish for it.

[sayhey24]

It sure is a fun discussion. My two cents on a couple of themes that have come up here. I think through statistics and the eye test, Mattingly was a much better player than George Foster.

I believe there was a comparison between Mattingly's shortened career and Koufax's shortened career. Let's face it, Koufax's 5-6 prime years were much greater and much more dominant than Mattingly's, and Koufax led his team to the World Series and championships.
And for whatever reason, the writers and others treat a player like Koufax, who
didn't linger, but retired at a young age after one of the greatest pitching seasons ever, differently than a player facing injuries who continues to play for a number of years. For some reason, they're perceived differently.
I'd actually put Tony Oliva in ahead of Mattingly when it comes to great players who didn't achieve their full potential because of injuries.

The bottom line is that injuries and overall declining ability affect lots of players and keep them from having the careers we expected of them during their peak years -- you'd have to build a new Hall of Fame to put them all in.

Greg

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

288-1283-.296 in a hitters' era.

I don't see it.

Neither did anyone else.

Hall of Fame
1948 BBWAA ( 0.8%)
1956 BBWAA ( 0.5%)

Career OPS+ of 139. 7 straight 100+ RBI seasons, 9 straight of 92+. Yep, a hitters' era where his numbers were 40% above league average. You do that, you're elite.

That said, I should have added "but the HOF isn't hurt by his exclusion".

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Career OPS+ of 139. 7 straight 100+ RBI seasons, 9 straight of 92+. Yep, a hitters' era where his numbers were 40% above league average. You do that, you're elite.

That said, I should have added "but the HOF isn't hurt by his exclusion".

His numbers look an awful lot like Will Clark's. His OPS+ is 137 for example.

[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 Tabe

Why am I seeing Ozzie Smith compared to Don Mattingly & Keith Hernandez? Ozzie played a super-premium defensive position at probably the highest level ever. Mattingly & Hernandez played what is - by far - the easiest defensive position. There's a reason the slow guys who can barely bend over play 1B. Hernandez gets no consideration because he never even once hit 20 HRs. Sorry, you play 1B, you gotta hit with power. It's the nature of the position.

Let me put it another way: Keith Hernandez was basically John Olerud, only with (a lot) less power. Anybody clamoring for Olerud to get in?

If you read the entire thread, you'd see I made the point that shortstop was a far more difficult position than first base. A shortstop will have to make more throws than a first baseman, and those throws are more difficult. And, a shortstop will have more responsibilities. They may have to get the ball when its been hit in their general vicinity. They may have to cover the bag on a steal, or turn a double play. So much of playing shortstop is body positioning, and while being in position to make a play, avoiding a guy that's trying to slide into you. But you make it sound like playing first base in the Major Leagues is like playing Hello Kitty with a 10 year old. When Chris Davis, or some other similar left handed superstar power hitter turns a 98 mile per hour fastball into a line drive headed towards right field, you only have a split second to react, and that's often with a base runner interfering with you. And while only the slow guys that can barely bend over play first, of those slow guys that can barely bend over (and there have been a lot of them), Mattingly and Hernandez were by far the best at their position defensively.

And the reason nobody is clamoring for John Olerud to get in is because he was never the best player in baseball. Not by a long shot. Mattingly in his prime was putting up Triple Crown-worthy numbers while playing defense better than anybody else in his league. Keith Hernandez, while not ever the best player in the game, at least was voted the best player in his league for one year. And a big part of the reason he won the MVP is his defense. Somehow he did that while hitting 11 home runs. I guess the voters that year didn't get the memo that first basemen had to be power hitters.

And by the way, nobody here is really "clamoring" for Mattingly or Hernandez to get into the Hall of Fame, either. I stated that Mattingly would likely never get in. This is interesting discussion on how some players that were spectacular defensively at their position can get in based on their defense alone, while other players who were also elite defensively at a different position, while being a top tier hitter, gets overlooked. Yes, we did take it a step further that Mattingly should at least get another look. But nobody here is organizing a massive letter writing campaign targeting the BBWAA.

[tbob]

Not one mention of the player John McGraw called the best hitter he ever saw?
Turkey Mike Donlin.
In a poll of the top American League pitchers in the 1960's they resoundingly said the most feared hitter they faced was Tony Oliva.
They both deserve to get in and Buck Weaver's name needs to be cleared after 94 years.

[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.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

And the reason nobody is clamoring for John Olerud to get in is because he was never the best player in baseball. Not by a long shot. Mattingly in his prime was putting up Triple Crown-worthy numbers while playing defense better than anybody else in his league. Keith Hernandez, while not ever the best player in the game, at least was voted the best player in his league for one year. And a big part of the reason he won the MVP is his defense. Somehow he did that while hitting 11 home runs. I guess the voters that year didn't get the memo that first basemen had to be power hitters. .

First of all, I never compared Olerud to Mattingly.

Secondly, the writers were enamored with Hernandez winning a batting title - but not enough to give him the award solo. He wasn't the best player in 1979 - Dave Winfield was.

Third, I still think the Olerud/Hernandez comparison holds. High average, elite defensive 1B. Except that Olerud hit for more power and had seasons with higher average than Keith reached.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Tabe

First of all, I never compared Olerud to Mattingly.

Secondly, the writers were enamored with Hernandez winning a batting title - but not enough to give him the award solo. He wasn't the best player in 1979 - Dave Winfield was.

Third, I still think the Olerud/Hernandez comparison holds. High average, elite defensive 1B. Except that Olerud hit for more power and had seasons with higher average than Keith reached.

Chris, you're right. You did not compare him to Mattingly. I did.

I would also agree with you that all things considered, Winfield was the best player in the NL that season.

And I absolutely agree that the comparison holds. Though I don't think you or I could find anybody with a high degree of baseball knowledge that would put Olerud's defensive abilities above Hernandez's. John won 3 Gold Gloves. Keith won 11. Again, I always like to throw in the disclaimer that Gold Glove wins alone do not accurately measure how good somebody is defensively (you could have two Gold Glove outfielders, yet one may be clearly better than the other). I just like it in certain instances where the comparison merits consideration. Receiving 3 Gold Glove Awards means for a time you were a very good defensive player (generally speaking, not always). But winning 11 Gold Gloves means you were highly regarded as a defensive player for quite a long time. You're flying in the rarefied air when you have double digit Gold Glove Award wins.

I guess for me, the bottom line is that I think a lot of players that have been labeled as "great players" do not get the consideration they merit when it comes to the Hall of Fame. That's on the BBWAA. It's too easy to look at Mattingly and say "his career numbers don't measure up".

[clydepepper]

Bill- In comparing Olerud to Hernandez, you failed to mention the fact that Olerud played at the same time as the immortal (without the 't' ) Rafael Palmeiro, who won a gold glove while playing only 28 games on defense in 1999, then told us about Viagra and how to impress congressmen before disappearing like a ghost that no one wants to remember.

At least Hernandez did not have to contend with that.


Anyway, I always compared, at least via their beautiful swings, Olerud to Ventura.

[sniffy5]

I'm a Yankee fan on Long Island and have no problem saying that Jeter has been overly-praised by the NY press since 1996, and as a result fans celebrate him way too much, IMHO. He WAS NOT the leader of multiple championship teams, as someone said. That would be O'Neill, if anyone. (Note that his Captain designation came after Paul retired.) And he's never been a captain in any sense of the word anyway. Never sticks up for teammates in the press, never does anything to fire up teammates on the field, stayed on the sidelines during bench clearing dust ups (talking to opposing player no less!!!). Some captain! Mark Messier he is not. I guess he "leads by example." Doesn't every good player do that? I only go on about this cause his monument out there next to Ruth and Dimagg will refer to him as "The Captain." Total nonsense. Hey Mr. Intangibles, can you do something tangible, like win at least ONE batting title or ONE MVP if you are going to be labeled as the best player of your generation??

[Runscott]

This should be simple: just take the least-deserving HOF'er at each position, and find the closest matches that have been omitted. You'll almost certainly be able to find a few who were better hitters and worse fielders, or better fielders and worse hitters, or who had better careers over a shorter period of time, or who had slightly worse careers over a longer period of time. Put them all in and let the watering-down continue.

[oldjudge]

Dave Orr and Pete Browning are the two best 19th century hitters not in the Hall. Orr had a stroke after eight seasons which ended his career. Otherwise, he might be in the Hall already.

[ejharrington]

Hernandez was a winner everywhere he went and made his teammates better. Look at the Mets pre-Hernandez and post-Hernandez. That's the ultimate sign of a great player. I'm not going to argue 1B is as important a defensive position as SS/2B/3B but it is underrated in that a great 1B can make mediocre infielders much better as they otherwise are. This does not show up in the stat sheets but if you're an erratic thrower you don't overthink a throw when you know your 1B can bail you out if your throw is off. Hernandez was the best fielding 1B ever. Anybody can just look up WAR and say one player is similar to another. WAR is useful but (especially with regards to defense) is flawed.

The HOF is incomplete without him and I hope his peers correct the mistake the writers made.

[CardboardTragic]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Gooden had extraordinary talent. One could argue Garvey did. Dave Parker at his best was pretty phenomenal. Do you support all of them? Colavito had a phenomenal five year stretch from 58-62 averaging 40 HR and well over 100RBI, does he get your vote? Hodges? George Foster was arguably the best hitter in the game, or close to it, for a few years in the mid-70s. It's a very slippery slope.

1st post on Net54.

I'm on the inclusionary side - the HOF should be for those that stood out amongst their peers. Parker was a beast in his time and was considered amongst the best in the game. Without getting into all the statistical detail, that's been done to death on this thread, he's a yes for me. Same as Hernandez.

But I also think the Hall needs a "Legends" or "Immortals" category. Just looking at the list of current HOFers there's a need for it.

Like an earlier poster I want to see and read about the players that were "huge" during the years I watched baseball. Dawson definitely belongs there, but so does Dale Murphy and Doc Gooden.

Having an "Immortals" section would elevate the Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Wagner and Aaron careers to where they belong. Best of the Best.

I believe the rest of the HOF should be about being the best of baseball during the period the players played - not comparing them to ghosts in past eras.

I also believe Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa and others should be in. Rose and Shoeless too for that matter. Put an asterisk beside their names if you want. That was a good suggestion.

Don't forget to put asterisks next to the names of pitchers who cheated using spitters too though.

I like HOF discussions. Having 2% or so of players getting in seems about right to me as well. It's all in good fun anyways.

[EvilKing00]

Bonds
Rose
Joe jackson
Gary shefield
Maddux
Pedro martinez
Chipper jones
Piazza

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Bill- In comparing Olerud to Hernandez, you failed to mention the fact that Olerud played at the same time as the immortal (without the 't' ) Rafael Palmeiro, who won a gold glove while playing only 28 games on defense in 1999, then told us about Viagra and how to impress congressmen before disappearing like a ghost that no one wants to remember.

At least Hernandez did not have to contend with that.


Anyway, I always compared, at least via their beautiful swings, Olerud to Ventura.

I never said that the Gold Glove Award was perfect. I think I referenced a few times where Jeter won the Award and didn't really deserve it. But if you research Hernandez or Mattingly, besides the hardware, it's said repeatedly that the two were considered the best defensive players at their position while they were playing. I think most of the time, the Awards are handed to the most deserving player. Sometimes they do get it wrong, though. Absolutely.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by CardboardTragic

1st post on Net54.

I'm on the inclusionary side - the HOF should be for those that stood out amongst their peers. Parker was a beast in his time and was considered amongst the best in the game. Without getting into all the statistical detail, that's been done to death on this thread, he's a yes for me. Same as Hernandez.

But I also think the Hall needs a "Legends" or "Immortals" category. Just looking at the list of current HOFers there's a need for it.

Like an earlier poster I want to see and read about the players that were "huge" during the years I watched baseball. Dawson definitely belongs there, but so does Dale Murphy and Doc Gooden.

Having an "Immortals" section would elevate the Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Wagner and Aaron careers to where they belong. Best of the Best.

I believe the rest of the HOF should be about being the best of baseball during the period the players played - not comparing them to ghosts in past eras.

I also believe Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa and others should be in. Rose and Shoeless too for that matter. Put an asterisk beside their names if you want. That was a good suggestion.

Don't forget to put asterisks next to the names of pitchers who cheated using spitters too though.

I like HOF discussions. Having 2% or so of players getting in seems about right to me as well. It's all in good fun anyways.

Welcome to the forum, CT. Nice first post.

[clydepepper]

Including only currently elected Hall-of-Famers:

RHP- Walter Johnson
RHP- Christy Mathewson
RHP- Grover Alexander
RHP- Cy Young
RHP- Bob Feller
RHP- Satchel Paige
RHP- Greg Maddux

LHP- Warren Spahn
LHP- Lefty Grove
LHP- Sandy Koufax

C- Johnny Bench
C- Yogi Berra
C- Josh Gibson

1B- Lou Gehrig
1B- Jimmie Foxx
1B- Hank Greenberg

2B- Joe Morgan
2B- Rogers Hornsby
2B- Jackie Robinson

SS- Honus Wagner
SS- Cal Ripken, Jr.
SS- Ozzie Smith
SS- Ernie Banks

3B- Mike Schmidt
3B- George Brett
3B- Eddie Mathews
3B- Brooks Robinson

LF- Ted Williams
LF- Stan Musial

CF- Willie Mays
CF- Ty Cobb
CF- Oscar Charleston
CF- Tris Speaker
CF- Mickey Mantle
CF- Joe DiMaggio

RF- Babe Ruth
RF- Hank Aaron
RF- Frank Robinson
RF- Roberto Clemente

MG- Casey Stengel
MG- John McGraw

[pbspelly]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Let me put it another way: Keith Hernandez was basically John Olerud, only with (a lot) less power. Anybody clamoring for Olerud to get in?

Actually, yes. See Bill James, often regarded as the best ever at determining a player's true value (as opposed to what the public, or sportswriters, perceive that player to be worth):

"In recent years it has been suggested that the Cy Young Award for Felix Hernandez or the Hall of Fame selection of Bert Blyleven show how far sabermetrics has come in winning general acceptance. Well, let me suggest that the near-unanimous rejection of John Olerud shows how far we haven’t come…. In my analysis, John Olerud rates as an obvious Hall of Famer."

Furthermore, Hernandez was a superior defensiver player and far more influential team leader than Olerud.

[kailes2872]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Including only currently elected Hall-of-Famers:

RHP- Walter Johnson
RHP- Christy Mathewson
RHP- Grover Alexander
RHP- Cy Young
RHP- Bob Feller
RHP- Satchel Paige
RHP- Greg Maddux

LHP- Warren Spahn
LHP- Lefty Grove
LHP- Sandy Koufax

C- Johnny Bench
C- Yogi Berra
C- Josh Gibson

1B- Lou Gehrig
1B- Jimmie Foxx
1B- Hank Greenberg

2B- Joe Morgan
2B- Rogers Hornsby
2B- Jackie Robinson

SS- Honus Wagner
SS- Cal Ripken, Jr.
SS- Ozzie Smith
SS- Ernie Banks

3B- Mike Schmidt
3B- George Brett
3B- Eddie Mathews
3B- Brooks Robinson

LF- Ted Williams
LF- Stan Musial

CF- Willie Mays
CF- Ty Cobb
CF- Oscar Charleston
CF- Tris Speaker
CF- Mickey Mantle
CF- Joe DiMaggio

RF- Babe Ruth
RF- Hank Aaron
RF- Frank Robinson
RF- Roberto Clemente

MG- Casey Stengel
MG- John McGraw

Steve Carlton as a LHP before Koufax (IMHO)