Just say NO to Mattingly

[Zito75]

I say NO WAY he deserves to be in the hall. So he had a few GOOD years. How many playoffs did he play in? How many WS titles did the Yanks win? How many games did he DH? If he gets in, John Olerud should be in.

[Chadwick]

My suggestion to Yankee fans looking for a candidate to support: support Graig Nettles or Carl Mays instead of Mattingly or Thurman Munson.

My suggestion to people who are (still) bewildered that Kirby Puckett was elected, but Mattingly has received very little support. Get over it. Albert Belle will also be shorted by these same voters. Adding another undeserving candidate will only open more cans o' worms.

[Chadwick]

Re: Just say NO to Mattingly

Originally posted by Zito75
I say NO WAY he deserves to be in the hall. So he had a few GOOD years. How many playoffs did he play in? How many WS titles did the Yanks win? How many games did he DH? If he gets in, John Olerud should be in.

I agree. No way. However...

(1) He had a few GREAT years, not just GOOD ones.

(2) Playing for only one playoff team has nothing to do with whether or not he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

(3) Not having played for a World Champion has nothing to do with whether or not he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

(4) Appearing in 76 games as a DH has nothing to do with whether or not he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

(5) If Mattingly were elected - and that would be a mistake - it shouldn't become the basis for more mistakes. Two wrongs do not make a right. John Olerud should be judged on his own merits, not on Mattingly's.

I'm curious, then, that your conclusion - despite my agreeance with it - is supported by five completely fallacious statements, four of which have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Mattingly should be elected.

Can you state, more explicitly, why you don't think he belongs? My own reasons are quite simple:

1. Mattingly had a brief period of dominance. Outside that period of time, he wasn't often among the best players.

2. Mattingly's hitting contributions are minimized by the fact he played first base. His defensive contributions are also minimized by the same fact.

3. Mattingly was a Yankee and, therefore, is a popular candidate, but frankly doesn't have a case any better than Will Clark, Keith Hernandez or Steve Garvey.

[The Commissioner]

I'd actually support Mattingly for the Hall of Fame, but don't feel overwhelmingly either way. To me it would be no great tragedy were he not inducted, nor would it be a travesty to have him enshrined. Of course, as most people on these boards already are aware, I am far more liberal when it comes to inducting players than most people are. On the few mock ballots we held, I believe I either had Mattingly as my tenth candidate or had him narrowly miss being on my ballot. I could also see reasonable arguments in favor of Olerud, Clark, Hernandez, and Garvey as well.

While I could certainly understand the arguments presented against Mattingly concerning the Hall of Fame, I definitely don't see him as being in the "NO WAY" category. After all, the guy does have a career .307 BA with over 2000 hits. That may not sound too impressive, until you consider how small the list is of others who have accomlished this and are not in Cooperstown. The only ones that I could find which top that and are presently eligible for election are George Van Haltren (.316) and Deacon White (.312). Equal or right below are only Stuffy McInnis (.307), Jimmy Ryan (.306), and Al Oliver (.303). I'm not saying that should be used as criteria to elect him, but I would certainly say that puts him way beyond the "No Way" category. When you take into consideration his batting title, his MVP award, and his years as a Gold Glove fielder, he has to at least be considered a borderline candidate.

[George Costanza]

Those other players that were mentioned don't belong in the hall. Mattingly was more dominate in his six best years then any of those players listed for their careers. I think Don Mattingly belongs in the hall because if his back held up he would have been a lock.

[A Satch In Time Whiffs Nine]

I think Don Mattingly belongs in the hall because if his back held up he would have been a lock.

Wait. So let me get this straight. You’re willing to put a guy in the Hall of Fame based on what he might have done on the playing field had he remained healthy? Do you realize how silly this argument is?

You know what, let’s elect J.R. Richard too. He would have been a lock had he not suffered a near-fatal stroke.

Let’s also elect Tony Conigliaro. He would have been a lock had he not been hit in the face with a Jack Hamilton fastball.

Let’s elect Thurman Munson. He would have been a lock had he not crashed up his plane.

Heck, let’s just go ahead and elect Joe Charbonneau too. He would have been a lock had he not sucked those seasons following his Rookie of the Year campaign in 1980.

[Cougar]

Re: Re: Just say NO to Mattingly

Originally posted by Chancellor
I agree. No way. However...

(1) He had a few GREAT years, not just GOOD ones.

Most definitely. I'd break down his career offensively this way.

(Note: I'd say Mattingly was GREAT defensively every season with the exception of 1990, when his back betrayed him completely.)

1982 -- Cup of coffee

1983 -- Solid but unspectacular half-season as rookie.

1984-1986 -- Arguably the most dangerous offensive force in the game. Spectacular production. These are Mattingly's GREAT years, the peak. HOF quality seasons.

1987-1989 -- Still clearly playing at All-Star caliber, but not quite at the heights of the PEAK. These are seasons a HOF can have, as long as they are not his best seasons. Steady, slow decline through this period, slightly masked by some extra games played in 1989.

1990 -- The back gives out completely; Mattingly plays only half a season, and basically at replacement level. If memory serves, he had surgery sometime in this period which eased the pain but robbed him of his ability to "torque" his body in his swing.

1991-1995 -- His power gone, Mattingly adjusts, and becomes a singles & doubles hitter. He was NOT, as is often alleged, a bad hitter in this period: BA's of .288, .288, ,291, ,304, .288. But he really couldn't drive the ball much; he was basically Doug Mientkiewicz. Still a good situational hitter, but needed leadership and glove to stay in the lineup.

Originally posted by Chancellor
(2) Playing for only one playoff team has nothing to do with whether or not he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

And for what it's worth, in that one playoff series, Mattingly hit .417, with 4 doubles, 1 home run, and 6 RBI. An OPS of 1.148.

Originally posted by Chancellor
(3) Not having played for a World Champion has nothing to do with whether or not he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

(4) Appearing in 76 games as a DH has nothing to do with whether or not he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

I agree 100%. These are trivial -- especially the occasional DHing. We're talking about 1 game a month here!

I can imagine some extra credit if he had led his team to a title, but it was never his fault that the Yankees didn't win.

Originally posted by Chancellor
(5) If Mattingly were elected - and that would be a mistake - it shouldn't become the basis for more mistakes. Two wrongs do not make a right. John Olerud should be judged on his own merits, not on Mattingly's.

I disagree that it would be a mistake, but I agree that Olerud should be evaluated on his own merits.

Originally posted by Chancellor
My own reasons [for opposing Mattingly's induction] are quite simple:

1. Mattingly had a brief period of dominance. Outside that period of time, he wasn't often among the best players.

The fairest and best argument against Mattingly. This is a subjective call, basically, but to me, he played 14 seasons. Throw out the cup of coffee, the half-season as a rookie, and the injury-marred 1990, and you've got 3 spectacular seasons, 3 more that were clearly all-star caliber, and 5 more ordinary ones where, if you take everything into account, he was still among the 5 or 6 best players on his team. That's borderline, but it's good enough for me.

Originally posted by Chancellor
2. Mattingly's hitting contributions are minimized by the fact he played first base. His defensive contributions are also minimized by the same fact.

This is technically correct, but a minor point at best, and it is especially mitigated when you consider how good a first baseman Mattingly was. He wasn't just a garden-variety gold glover; he was compared to Hernandez in his ability to affect and change the game from the corner position.

More generally, I believe we tend to underrate the importance of good defense at the 1b position. A good first baseman prevents his fellow IF from making errors with scoops, discourage opponents from bunting, discourages baserunners from stealing and taking big leads, allows the second baseman to cheat more toward the middle, handles relay throws from the OF, etc. None of these aspects are picked up well by defensive statistics, if they are picked up at all.

Originally posted by Chancellor
3. Mattingly was a Yankee and, therefore, is a popular candidate, but frankly doesn't have a case any better than Will Clark, Keith Hernandez or Steve Garvey.

Originally posted by The Commissioner
I'd actually support Mattingly for the Hall of Fame, but don't feel overwhelmingly either way. To me it would be no great tragedy were he not inducted, nor would it be a travesty to have him enshrined. Of course, as most people on these boards already are aware, I am far more liberal when it comes to inducting players than most people are. On the few mock ballots we held, I believe I either had Mattingly as my tenth candidate or had him narrowly miss being on my ballot. I could also see reasonable arguments in favor of Olerud, Clark, Hernandez, and Garvey as well.

Like the Commissioner, I'm also more liberal in terms of induction than many, but I also support Mattingly. I agree that his case is very similar to Clark, Hernandez, and Garvey -- but I support them too. I believe they all meet the threshold. I also know they are reasonable arguments against each of them. Olerud I'm not so sure on, mostly because his career isn't over yet and I haven't taken a long look at him. He's definitely piling up some career numbers that wil merit serious consideration.

Originally posted by The Commissioner
While I could certainly understand the arguments presented against Mattingly concerning the Hall of Fame, I definitely don't see him as being in the "NO WAY" category. After all, the guy does have a career .307 BA with over 2000 hits. That may not sound too impressive, until you consider how small the list is of others who have accomlished this and are not in Cooperstown. The only ones that I could find which top that and are presently eligible for election are George Van Haltren (.316) and Deacon White (.312). Equal or right below are only Stuffy McInnis (.307), Jimmy Ryan (.306), and Al Oliver (.303). I'm not saying that should be used as criteria to elect him, but I would certainly say that puts him way beyond the "No Way" category. When you take into consideration his batting title, his MVP award, and his years as a Gold Glove fielder, he has to at least be considered a borderline candidate.

I think this is indisputably true, and the Commissioner's evidence is perfect. Yes, those numbers are arbitrary, but Mattingly cleared them both fairly comfortably, and these aren't exactly obscure stats, so the figure isn't entirely pulled from whole cloth. (Cecil Cooper and Hernandez just missed the BA standard at .298 and .296 respectively, but Cecil's a full .009 behind Mattingly in BA; that's enough to matter. Will Clark is at .303 and 2176 hits, but he is not yet eligible.) Fundamentally, the only player in this club who played post-1920 is Al Oliver (an interesting case in his own right). That's revealing to me.

Back to Mattingly: There's a certain amount of subjectivity here, but part of what a makes a Hall of Famer is a certain something. I have a baby on the way. When he/she is born, and we talk about baseball, I'll tell him/her I saw Don Mattingly play. He was exciting, interesting, and compelling to watch; a genuine superstar. This quality about Mattingly endured long after his prime years. And I'm not a Yankee fan (particularly; I'm not a hater either -- I admire their success, I guess, but I root for the A's mainly), so this isn't stereotypical NY bias.

Mattingly's black ink is at 23; the HOF average is 27; considering expansion making it tougher to lead the league, that's about average. His gray ink is 127 versus 144 HOF average. When you consider Mattingly's relatively short career, those figures are really good. He's low (but not ridiculously so) on the HOF standards (39.7%), again because of his short career, but scores well on the HOF Monitor at 113.5, above the general threshold of 100 for HOF.

Throw in the intangibles (as I talk about above), the defense, the leadership (Yankee Captain, plenty of testimonials), and he makes the cut for me.

Reasonable people (including very smart ones, like Chancellor) can disagree.

[Cougar]

Originally posted by A Satch In Time Whiffs Nine
Wait. So let me get this straight. You’re willing to put a guy in the Hall of Fame based on what he might have done on the playing field had he remained healthy? Do you realize how silly this argument is?

You know what, let’s elect J.R. Richard too. He would have been a lock had he not suffered a near-fatal stroke.

Let’s also elect Tony Conigliaro. He would have been a lock had he not been hit in the face with a Jack Hamilton fastball.

Let’s elect Thurman Munson. He would have been a lock had he not crashed up his plane.

Heck, let’s just go ahead and elect Joe Charbonneau too. He would have been a lock had he not sucked those seasons following his Rookie of the Year campaign in 1980.

Satch's point is correct here, but let's be fair. There's a distinction between injury and tragedy. It's not right to compare Mattingly's bad back with Munson's horrific death. I don't think Satch meant to do that, but I thought I should clarify anyway.

[Baseball Guru]

Originally posted by The Commissioner
I'd actually support Mattingly for the Hall of Fame, but don't feel overwhelmingly either way. To me it would be no great tragedy were he not inducted, nor would it be a travesty to have him enshrined. Of course, as most people on these boards already are aware, I am far more liberal when it comes to inducting players than most people are. On the few mock ballots we held, I believe I either had Mattingly as my tenth candidate or had him narrowly miss being on my ballot. I could also see reasonable arguments in favor of Olerud, Clark, Hernandez, and Garvey as well.

While I could certainly understand the arguments presented against Mattingly concerning the Hall of Fame, I definitely don't see him as being in the "NO WAY" category. After all, the guy does have a career .307 BA with over 2000 hits. That may not sound too impressive, until you consider how small the list is of others who have accomlished this and are not in Cooperstown. The only ones that I could find which top that and are presently eligible for election are George Van Haltren (.316) and Deacon White (.312). Equal or right below are only Stuffy McInnis (.307), Jimmy Ryan (.306), and Al Oliver (.303). I'm not saying that should be used as criteria to elect him, but I would certainly say that puts him way beyond the "No Way" category. When you take into consideration his batting title, his MVP award, and his years as a Gold Glove fielder, he has to at least be considered a borderline candidate.

Well said Commish!!

I couldn't have said it any better so I won't

Just to say I agree......

[Etheridge2]

Re: Re: Just say NO to Mattingly

Originally posted by Chancellor
I agree. No way. However...

(1) He had a few GREAT years, not just GOOD ones.

(2) Playing for only one playoff team has nothing to do with whether or not he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

(3) Not having played for a World Champion has nothing to do with whether or not he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

(4) Appearing in 76 games as a DH has nothing to do with whether or not he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

(5) If Mattingly were elected - and that would be a mistake - it shouldn't become the basis for more mistakes. Two wrongs do not make a right. John Olerud should be judged on his own merits, not on Mattingly's.

I'm curious, then, that your conclusion - despite my agreeance with it - is supported by five completely fallacious statements, four of which have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Mattingly should be elected.

Can you state, more explicitly, why you don't think he belongs? My own reasons are quite simple:

1. Mattingly had a brief period of dominance. Outside that period of time, he wasn't often among the best players.

2. Mattingly's hitting contributions are minimized by the fact he played first base. His defensive contributions are also minimized by the same fact.

3. Mattingly was a Yankee and, therefore, is a popular candidate, but frankly doesn't have a case any better than Will Clark, Keith Hernandez or Steve Garvey.

Well said and I agree 110%

[J W]

I doubt if I put Mattingly's name on any of my ballots... perhaps once, in the very last one. He is very borderline for me (even me) and he is far down my "queue list". But, perhaps I am awfully scrutinizing when it comes to first baseman... Clark, Garvey and Hernandez weren't too high on the list either. John Olerud is an interesting comparison, but I would likely rate him behind all the others.

Today's game may be clouding the issue at first base for me. I see myself voting for Mark McGwire, Jeff Bagwell, and Frank Thomas before any of them. Take the Murrays and Palmeiros out of the picture, and when you compare these guys to the players from the 80s you see a remarkably different kind of first baseman. For players like McGwire and Thomas it puts into question defensive ability at first.

As an added note, I wouldn't have an aneurysm if I read Mattingly's name on an electee's list anytime soon.

[Zito75]

I was just throwing Olerud out there since he is a team leader, he's consistent, and has put up decent numbers year in, year out. He's got a batting title, plus he's had some RBIs and hit for power and average. All I was trying to say that Mattingly isn't deserving. As far as he back is concerned, the point was made that several other players should be considered for what they MIGHT have accomplished. Fact is, Donny was injured and was not the same player in the '90s. He was average at best. I agree that Bagwell, Thomas, and those others should be considered way above Mattingly. I can also say that if Mattingly played in KC, he'd get just as much love and respect as Sweeney is getting now. Since he was a Yankee, he was automatically a headliner. Bottom line, he's not a HOF player. I just wanted to hear how other critics felt.

[eurycea]

Maybe if he trimmed his sideburns

I wouldn't be heart broken if he got in, but I think that just gives more reasons to let Garvey, Hernandez et. al in (like others have said). Maybe you shouldn't elect people because of who it might let in in the future, but then again maybe you should - I don't know.

Anyway, I don't see him getting in.

[Etheridge2]

People should be elected on their own merits regardless of what other players must be but with a VERY RARE exception i feel most players should either be a NO WAY or a HECK YEAH there shouldn't be much middle ground because if there is then it's probably a NO WAY... in 84-86 did I feel Mattingly was headed for Cooperstown...Heck yeah but I thought the same for Doc Gooden, Darryl Stawberry, Andre Dawson, Dale Murphy, Jack Morris, and Ryne Sandberg were all headed that way too and it may end up that none of them get in as it is Morris and Ryno are the only ones I think are Heck Yeah guys now...the rest are just all on the outside...

Also I agree that you have to look differently at players whose careers ended because they just couldn't physically perform due to nothing more then injury and those whose career ended due to tragedy/disease (Munson and Puckett fror example)

[Chadwick]

What a great discussion, this thread has going!

Umm...perhaps I should have qualified my earlier statements a little by saying that waking up to a Hall of Fame with Don Mattingly in it wouldn't be waking up to an institution that's any worse off than it already is.

I remember Mattingly very well and have a great deal of respect for him. He was, in point of fact, a great ballplayer. And I'd rather be considering someone who was great for a brief period than someone who was merely good over many years. I think Mattingly was an infinately better player than, say, Mark Grace (who's career numbers will earn him a modest candidacy.)

It's not so much that I don't think Mattingly is a "Hall of Famer," as I do that Mattingly clearly falls into the gray area, which isn't sorted out at all at this point. Is there a concensus on what other first basemen are better? Worse?

How can we be discussing Don Mattingly's possible election without supporting Dick Allen's candidacy first? Shouldn't Keith Hernandez be elected, as well? He won an MVP, 2 World Championships, batting title, more gold gloves, etc. And he has better career numbers. How can Hernandez get virtually no support while Mattingly enjoys a vocal advocacy?

I'm simply inclined to err on the conservative side of the argument until the dust settles and we can begin to sort through things like this. Where do Garvey and Clark rate? I'd argue that Will Clark is a better candidate than Mattingly, but it isn't readily realised because (a) Mattingly has an MVP and Clark does not (in spite of deserving one in 1989) and (b) Mattingly was a Yankee.

Where do Gil Hodges, Ed Konetchy, Mickey Vernon and guys like that stack up against the "expansion era" first basemen?

The question is more: why Mattingly? And why now?

And I simply can't find any compelling reason to get him in ahead of Dick Allen.

Of course, electoral strategy isn't what we're talking about...but it's still how I think about it.

And we do have Hernandez and Garvey on the BBWAA ballot with Donnie right now so we, at least, have to order those three.

Just jumping in with a "let's elect Mattingly" attitude, however, doesn't really serve much purpose. It's hard to decide whether a guy has crossed that line if you haven't drawn the line yet.

That's all.






Oh...and, for the record, I think Olerud will be a very good candidate when all is said and done. That's a subject for another thread though.