Does Mattingly deserve induction?

[Jake]

Lifetime BA- .307

If his back hadn't gone out it would have been a lot higher.

1984- .343
1985- .324
1986- .352
1987- .327
1988- .311
1989- .303

Also one of the finest first basemen of all time.

Lifetime fielding percentage = .996

9 gold gloves in 10 years.

In the only postseason action he ever saw, in 1995, against Seattle, he batted .417.

Also a 6-time All-Star.

His fielding percentage puts him up there with Gehrig.

He is the 2nd best Yankee 1B of all time behind Gehrig.

Induct him.

[nightal]

Let's see how he measured against contemporaries:

Mattingly played from 1982-1995

CAREER
1982-1995

Minimum 4000 Plate Appearances

AVERAGE
1 Tony Gwynn .336
2 Wade Boggs .334
3 Kirby Puckett .318
4 Paul Molitor .308
5 Don Mattingly .307
6 Mark Grace .306
7 Mike Greenwell .303
8 Will Clark .302
9 Julio Franco .301
10 John Kruk .300

BPA
1 Barry Bonds .637
2 Rickey Henderson .621
3 Eric Davis .583
4 Fred McGriff .581
5 Darryl Strawberry .577
6 Mark McGwire .572
7 Mike Schmidt .568
8 Jose Canseco .559
9 Kevin Mitchell .557
10 Tim Raines .554

DOUBLES
1 Wade Boggs 489
2 Cal Ripken 447
3 Don Mattingly 442
4 Kirby Puckett 414
5 Tim Wallach 413
6 Paul Molitor 410
7 George Brett 394
T8 Tony Gwynn 384
T8 Eddie Murray 384
10 Robin Yount 375

EXTRA BASE HITS
1 Cal Ripken 816
2 Eddie Murray 753
3 Andre Dawson 745
4 Joe Carter 713
5 Tim Wallach 690
6 Don Mattingly 684
7 Dave Winfield 682
8 Kirby Puckett 678
9 Gary Gaetti 671
10 Paul Molitor 670

HITS
1 Wade Boggs 2541
2 Tony Gwynn 2401
3 Cal Ripken 2366
4 Kirby Puckett 2304
5 Paul Molitor 2255
6 Eddie Murray 2248
7 Brett Butler 2211
8 Tim Raines 2199
9 Don Mattingly 2153
10 Ryne Sandberg 2132



HOMERUNS
1 Eddie Murray 346
T2 Joe Carter 327
T2 Cal Ripken 327
4 Andre Dawson 326
5 Dale Murphy 306
6 Jose Canseco 300
7 Dave Winfield 298
8 Darryl Strawberry 297
T9 Kent Hrbek 292
T9 Barry Bonds 292

ISOLATED POWER
1 Mark McGwire .271
2 Barry Bonds .255
3 Fred McGriff .250
4 Mike Schmidt .246
5 Darryl Strawberry .246
6 Jose Canseco .245
7 Kevin Mitchell .243
8 Cecil Fielder .240
9 Matt Williams .237
10 Danny Tartabull .223



OPS
1 Barry Bonds .938
2 Fred McGriff .921
3 Mike Schmidt .899
4 Mark McGwire .892
5 Kevin Mitchell .890
6 Wade Boggs .877
7 Will Clark .877
8 Danny Tartabull .869
9 Jack Clark .868
10 Jose Canseco .867



OWP
1 Barry Bonds .747
2 Rickey Henderson .728
3 Fred McGriff .700
4 Mark McGwire .696
5 Will Clark .694
6 Wade Boggs .694
7 Kevin Mitchell .682
8 Mike Schmidt .681
9 Pedro Guerrero .674
10 Jack Clark .673


RBI
1 Eddie Murray 1344
2 Cal Ripken 1267
3 Andre Dawson 1190
4 Joe Carter 1173
5 Harold Baines 1171
6 Dave Winfield 1139
7 Chili Davis 1100
8 Don Mattingly 1099
9 Kirby Puckett 1085
10 Kent Hrbek 1079

RCAA
1 Rickey Henderson 614
2 Wade Boggs 556
3 Barry Bonds 527
4 Tim Raines 463
T5 Paul Molitor 420
T5 Frank Thomas 420
7 Eddie Murray 377
8 Tony Gwynn 376
9 Will Clark 365
10 Fred McGriff 352

RCAP
1 Wade Boggs 557
2 Rickey Henderson 555
3 Barry Bonds 453
4 Cal Ripken 391
5 Tim Raines 364
6 Lou Whitaker 357
7 Paul Molitor 352
8 Frank Thomas 346
9 Alan Trammell 332
10 Tony Gwynn 309

RUNS
1 Rickey Henderson 1470
2 Tim Raines 1305
3 Wade Boggs 1287
4 Cal Ripken 1271
5 Brett Butler 1268
6 Paul Molitor 1258
7 Ryne Sandberg 1177
8 Eddie Murray 1132
9 Lou Whitaker 1119
10 Robin Yount 1083

RUNS CREATED
1 Wade Boggs 1500
2 Rickey Henderson 1451
3 Tim Raines 1390
4 Eddie Murray 1354
5 Paul Molitor 1333
6 Cal Ripken 1310
7 Tony Gwynn 1236
T8 Brett Butler 1203
T8 Ryne Sandberg 1203
10 Kirby Puckett 1192

RUNS CREATED/GAME
1 Barry Bonds 8.23
2 Rickey Henderson 7.63
3 Wade Boggs 7.51
4 Fred McGriff 7.41
5 Will Clark 7.08
6 Mike Schmidt 7.00
7 Mark McGwire 6.82
8 Kevin Mitchell 6.80
9 Tim Raines 6.75
10 Jack Clark 6.68

SECONDARY AVERAGE
1 Barry Bonds .487
2 Rickey Henderson .474
3 Mark McGwire .454
4 Jack Clark .435
5 Eric Davis .432
6 Mike Schmidt .423
7 Fred McGriff .420
8 Darryl Strawberry .418
9 Mickey Tettleton .411
10 Jose Canseco .382

TOTAL AVERAGE
1 Barry Bonds 1.042
2 Rickey Henderson 1.014
3 Fred McGriff .951
4 Mike Schmidt .926
5 Mark McGwire .925
6 Jack Clark .905
7 Eric Davis .900
8 Tim Raines .891
9 Darryl Strawberry .889
10 Wade Boggs .884

TOTAL BASES
1 Cal Ripken 3878
2 Eddie Murray 3716
3 Kirby Puckett 3453
4 Wade Boggs 3445
5 Andre Dawson 3418
6 Paul Molitor 3370
7 Ryne Sandberg 3360
8 Harold Baines 3323
9 Don Mattingly 3301
10 Tony Gwynn 3206

TRIPLES
1 Brett Butler 124
2 Willie Wilson 110
3 Tim Raines 102
4 Juan Samuel 95
5 Andy Van Slyke 91
6 Tony Fernandez 89
7 Vince Coleman 88
8 Willie McGee 87
9 Robin Yount 83
10 Tony Gwynn 80

WALKS
1 Rickey Henderson 1335
2 Wade Boggs 1213
3 Tim Raines 1083
4 Brett Butler 1059
5 Tony Phillips 974
6 Eddie Murray 973
7 Jack Clark 972
8 Lou Whitaker 941
9 Chili Davis 935
10 Barry Bonds 931

This shows the obvious answer is NO.

Great guy. "100% ballplayer, 0% ********"-- Bill James.....But, not a Hall of Famer.

Remember, these are JUST his contemporaries.



al

[Jake]

Sandberg beats him in runs, runs created, and total bases.

Mattingly beats Sandberg in batting average, fielding percentage, extra base hits, hits, doubles, and RBI.

He also had better stats in his MVP year(85) than Sandberg had in his MVP year(84).

If his back had not gone out he would have been a guaranteed first ballot Hal of Famer, based on his stats from 1983-1989. He averaged .310 BA during this time.

HIS LIFETIME BA IS .307. It would have been a lot higher had his back not screwed him. Mattingly had a higher career on base percentage, and his career batting average is .22 higher.

All I'm saying is that if you let Sandberg in, you have to let Mattingly and his 9 gold gloves at first base in as well. From 1984-1987 his OPS averaged .940. .940. His lifetime OPS is considerably higher than Sandberg's, and as I said before, Mattingly has a higher lifetime fielding percentage.

Mattingly deserves induction.

[dgarza]

This shows the obvious answer is NO.


I can respect your opinion of NO,
but I don't think it should be based on the lists you have provided.

[RuthMayBond]

There are at least fourteen 1B with a better OPS+ AND more plate apps. And at least one with close OPS+ and way more PA. And at least six more with better OPS+ and close to Mattingly's PA.

[RuthMayBond]

Sandberg beats him in runs, runs created, and total bases.

Mattingly beats Sandberg in batting average, fielding percentage, extra base hits, hits, doubles, and RBI.

He also had better stats in his MVP year(85) than Sandberg had in his MVP year(84).

If his back had not gone out he would have been a guaranteed first ballot Hal of Famer, based on his stats from 1983-1989. He averaged .310 BA during this time.

HIS LIFETIME BA IS .307. It would have been a lot higher had his back not screwed him. Mattingly had a higher career on base percentage, and his career batting average is .22 higher.

All I'm saying is that if you let Sandberg in, you have to let Mattingly and his 9 gold gloves at first base in as well. From 1984-1987 his OPS averaged .940. .940. His lifetime OPS is considerably higher than Sandberg's, and as I said before, Mattingly has a higher lifetime fielding percentage.

Mattingly deserves induction.Um, if a 1B can't hit better than a 2B and have a better fielding%, he's got problems :laugh

[nightal]

I can respect your opinion of NO,
but I don't think it should be based on the lists you have provided.


What should it be based on?? World Championships,.. what?. He DOES NOT measure up against players of his era/generation; what else do you need to know?

[nightal]

Ok, let's just do the firstbasemen 1982-1995
4000 Plate Appearances minimum



1B

AVERAGE AVG
1 Don Mattingly .308
2 Mark Grace .306
3 Will Clark .302
4 Rafael Palmeiro .301
5 Keith Hernandez .293
6 Wally Joyner .290
7 Eddie Murray .289
8 Fred McGriff .287
9 Kent Hrbek .283
10 Andres Galarraga .283


1B

BPA BPA
1 Fred McGriff .582
2 Mark McGwire .574
3 Will Clark .542
4 Rafael Palmeiro .529
5 Kent Hrbek .519
6 Eddie Murray .516
7 Andres Galarraga .494
8 Don Mattingly .484
9 Wally Joyner .481
10 Willie Upshaw .479


1B

DOUBLES 2B
1 Don Mattingly 442
2 Eddie Murray 342
3 Kent Hrbek 307
4 Will Clark 300
5 Wally Joyner 290
6 Andres Galarraga 267
7 Mark Grace 261
8 Pete O'Brien 243
9 Rafael Palmeiro 236
10 Fred McGriff 213

1B

EXTRA BASE HITS EBH
1 Don Mattingly 684
2 Eddie Murray 672
3 Kent Hrbek 617
4 Will Clark 547
5 Fred McGriff 499
6 Andres Galarraga 490
7 Wally Joyner 467
8 Mark McGwire 428
9 Rafael Palmeiro 426
10 Pete O'Brien 421


1B

HITS H
1 Don Mattingly 2151
2 Eddie Murray 1997
3 Kent Hrbek 1733
4 Will Clark 1543
5 Wally Joyner 1481
6 Andres Galarraga 1371
7 Pete O'Brien 1351
8 Mark Grace 1333
9 Fred McGriff 1210
10 Keith Hernandez 1200


1B

HOMERUNS HR
1 Eddie Murray 308
2 Kent Hrbek 292
3 Mark McGwire 274
4 Fred McGriff 269
5 Cecil Fielder 223
6 Don Mattingly 222
7 Will Clark 205
8 Andres Galarraga 200
9 Glenn Davis 177
10 Rafael Palmeiro 169


1B

ISOLATED POWER ISO
1 Mark McGwire .272
2 Fred McGriff .250
3 Kent Hrbek .199
4 Rafael Palmeiro .197
5 Will Clark .195
6 Eddie Murray .190
7 Andres Galarraga .188
8 Don Mattingly .164
9 Willie Upshaw .162
10 Wally Joyner .157


1B

OPS OPS
1 Fred McGriff .924
2 Mark McGwire .895
3 Will Clark .877
4 Rafael Palmeiro .868
5 Kent Hrbek .850
6 Eddie Murray .847
7 Don Mattingly .831
8 Mark Grace .814
9 Wally Joyner .807
10 Andres Galarraga .805


1B

OWP OWP
1 Fred McGriff .704
2 Mark McGwire .700
3 Will Clark .694
4 Rafael Palmeiro .655
5 Eddie Murray .654
6 Keith Hernandez .638
7 Don Mattingly .626
8 Kent Hrbek .619
9 Mark Grace .606
10 Wally Joyner .590


1B

RBI RBI
1 Eddie Murray 1186
2 Don Mattingly 1098
3 Kent Hrbek 1079
4 Will Clark 881
5 Wally Joyner 789
6 Andres Galarraga 761
7 Fred McGriff 760
8 Mark McGwire 738
9 Pete O'Brien 696
10 Cecil Fielder 694


1B

RCAA RCAA
1 Eddie Murray 366
2 Will Clark 365
3 Frank Thomas 345
4 Fred McGriff 336
5 Don Mattingly 295
6 Mark McGwire 275
7 Kent Hrbek 262
8 Rafael Palmeiro 225
9 Jeff Bagwell 216
10 Keith Hernandez 189


1B

RCAP RCAP
1 Frank Thomas 282
2 Will Clark 256
3 Fred McGriff 247
4 Eddie Murray 225
5 Mark McGwire 189
6 Jeff Bagwell 170
7 Jack Clark 145
8 Don Mattingly 130
9 Keith Hernandez 125
10 Kent Hrbek 123



1B

RUNS R
T1 Don Mattingly 1007
T1 Eddie Murray 1007
3 Kent Hrbek 898
4 Will Clark 845
5 Fred McGriff 729
6 Wally Joyner 725
7 Andres Galarraga 669
8 Rafael Palmeiro 642
T9 Mark McGwire 611
T9 Pete O'Brien 611

1B

RUNS CREATED RC
1 Eddie Murray 1218
2 Don Mattingly 1160
3 Kent Hrbek 1082
4 Will Clark 986
5 Fred McGriff 876
6 Wally Joyner 822
7 Andres Galarraga 742
8 Rafael Palmeiro 733
9 Mark Grace 728
10 Mark McGwire 726
1B

RUNS CREATED/GAME RC/G
1 Fred McGriff 7.45
2 Will Clark 7.08
3 Mark McGwire 6.88
4 Rafael Palmeiro 6.69
5 Eddie Murray 6.32
6 Kent Hrbek 6.26
7 Mark Grace 6.12
8 Don Mattingly 6.09
9 Keith Hernandez 6.01
10 Wally Joyner 5.74

1B

SECONDARY AVERAGE SEC
1 Mark McGwire .458
2 Fred McGriff .417
3 Kent Hrbek .337
4 Eddie Murray .326
5 Will Clark .324
6 Rafael Palmeiro .312
7 Willie Upshaw .279
8 Keith Hernandez .278
9 Wally Joyner .271
10 Pete O'Brien .263


1B

TOTAL AVERAGE TA
1 Fred McGriff .953
2 Mark McGwire .931
3 Will Clark .883
4 Rafael Palmeiro .853
5 Kent Hrbek .834
6 Eddie Murray .832
7 Keith Hernandez .784
8 Mark Grace .782
9 Don Mattingly .777
10 Wally Joyner .767


1B

TOTAL BASES TB
1 Eddie Murray 3307
2 Don Mattingly 3299
3 Kent Hrbek 2952
4 Will Clark 2542
5 Andres Galarraga 2284
6 Wally Joyner 2283
7 Fred McGriff 2264
8 Pete O'Brien 2108
9 Rafael Palmeiro 1983
10 Mark Grace 1896


1B

TRIPLES 3B
1 Will Clark 42
2 Willie Upshaw 41
3 Mark Grace 28
4 Andres Galarraga 23
5 Eddie Murray 22
6 Rafael Palmeiro 21
T7 Don Mattingly 20
T7 Keith Hernandez 20
T7 Bill Buckner 20
T7 Pete O'Brien 20



1B

WALKS BB
1 Eddie Murray 903
2 Kent Hrbek 833
3 Fred McGriff 684
4 Mark McGwire 669
5 Will Clark 645
T6 Pete O'Brien 609
T6 Keith Hernandez 609
8 Don Mattingly 588
9 Wally Joyner 560
10 Alvin Davis 544

He WAS one of the best firstbasemen of his time, offensively. If you count his Gold Gloves; he probably finishes only behind Murray, McGwire, Clark, Palmeiro and maybe, McGriff.

[RuthMayBond]

This tends to make Jake's point, but of course Mattingly is gonna look better if you restrict it to ONLY the exact years during Mattingly's career

[dgarza]

He DOES NOT measure up against players of his era/generation; what else do you need to know?
Maybe his generation has abnormally above historical standards?
What else do I need to know? Well, for 1 thing....more...
Players are not in the HOF based just on how they are benchmarked by their contemporaries, there's more to it than that, for me at least.
How does he match up to players in general historically?
Is he an inovator?
Fielding? not totally, but it does enter into the equation.
What kind of impact or impression did he make/have?
How was he viewed during his playng days?
How was he viewed after his playing days?
Etc?

[nightal]

This tends to make Jake's point, but of course Mattingly is gonna look better if you restrict it to ONLY the exact years during Mattingly's career


I know, I know. I'm trying to give Mattingly the benefit of the doubt. But, it's not working for me.

[nightal]

Maybe his generation has abnormally above historical standards?
What else do I need to know? Well, for 1 thing....more...
Players are not in the HOF based just on how they are benchmarked by their contemporaries, there's more to it than that, for me at least.
How does he match up to players in general historically?
Is he an inovator?
Fielding? not totally, but it does enter into the equation.
What kind of impact or impression did he make/have?
How was he viewed during his playng days?
How was he viewed after his playing days?
Etc?


1.-If you match Mattingly up against players other than the ones he played against- I can assure you, he will suffer more, in comparison.
2.-What exactly did Mattingly innovate?
3.-His strength is fielding, he matches up historically well.
4.-He was the Yankees best player during this time, for sure. But they only went to 1 Division Series (and lost) during his tenure.
5.-He was viewed as a damn fine ballplayer, that's what. But I never heard while he was active- "Future Hall of Famer" attached to his name.
6.-This I don't have an answer to. I'm sure very positive.

[dgarza]

But I never heard while he was active- "Future Hall of Famer" attached to his name.
Really? I absolutely did! Much more than Sandberg, for what that's worth.

[RuthMayBond]

Really? I absolutely did! Much more than Sandberg, for what that's worth.dgarza lived in NY, nightal didn't :laugh

[dgarza]

dgarza lived in NY, nightal didn't :laugh
alot closer to chicago really.

c;mon, how can any anyone not remember how highly regarded Mattingly was?

[RuthMayBond]

c;mon, how can any anyone not remember how highly regarded Mattingly was?Mattingly was considered a probable Hall of Famer at least through 1989, and the same with Sandberg through at least 1992, with renewed interest in 1996.

[nightal]

alot closer to chicago really.

c;mon, how can any anyone not remember how highly regarded Mattingly was?


You bet he was highly regarded, I'm not arguing this.

[dgarza]

You bet he was highly regarded, I'm not argueing this.
right, but the extent that Boggs was,,, they seemed "equals" at the time, HOF-wise

[Sashag]

A while ago, someone mentioned that Mattingly was only big to Yankees fans, and not so much to the rest of the baseball world. This could be why he hasn't gained enough votes to be elected, (or one of the many reasons.) Just thought I would put it out there. -Sasha

[RuthMayBond]

A while ago, someone mentioned that Mattingly was only big to Yankees fans, and not so much to the rest of the baseball world. This could be why he hasn't gained enough votes to be elected, (or one of the many reasons.) Just thought I would put it out there. -SashaIt never stopped Rizzuto :grouchy

[DTF955]

He clearly seems to me a carbon copy of the Tony Oliva situation. Till about '89 I remember thinking of im as a shoo-in. But, his back problems just really hurt him.

But you're right, he might be in like Rizzuto, witht he VC.But, I don't see him getting much support otherwise. He just lost a lot of power, I think, after the late '80s.

[Captain Cold Nose]

It never stopped Rizzuto :grouchy
There's a difference in 500 or so writers and a committee of 17 or so guys, with a few of them being close pals of Rizzuto's.

It's going to take something really special for a post free agency player to make it. The current members of the VC, i.e. currently living HOF'ers aren't going to be so quick to let someone new into their exclusive club unless they were overwhelming. Mattingly is a contemporary or had his day not long after the majority of these players were retired, so they all have seen him. It's a matter of how his peers saw him, and if he did enough in their eyes to convince them the writers made 15 years worth of mistakes. I'm not so sure the current lot (after only one election, mind you, so no pattern has truly been established) will fall all over themselves.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Mattingly is a guy with a following. He's the kind of guy that might get a whole lot of writer support in his last few seasons on the ballot. I doubt he'll make it, but you never know.

Mattingly was one of the greatest of the great for his peak years, 1984-87. His back problems started in 1988, and that was the beginning of the end. He lost his HR power, and never got it back.

Mattingly is great in the sense that Al Rosen was great and Charlie Keller was great. They were all great, but all had back problems. They don't get slack for that; if your back isn't up to the job of playing baseball, it affects your ability to play the game, and it's part of your inherent makeup. It's not something that happened to you (Lyman Bostock) beyond your control.

Al Rosen hit a much higher peak than Mattingly; he's ahead. Will Clark had more career value; he's ahead. The problem with Mattingly is the cases for the guys who are better than him, but still not in the HOF.

[four tool]

Mattingly was regarded as a great hitter in his prime. SI once did a conversation between Ted Williams, Boggs and Mattingly about hitting. It's a great read if you can find it. (if I could, I'd post it or let people know where it's available.)

[Lindseynelson]

I loved Donnie BBall but his was a split career.
He was Lou Gherig for his first 5 years but because of his back he was a solid but not hallworthy Mark Grace, Keith Hernandez type for the second half of his pinstripe run
I was thrilled to see him wake up the echoes in his only postseason shot.
His defense was unmatched but he just could not turn on the ball anymore to continue those huge early numbers

[Fuzzy Bear]

He was Lou Gherig for his first 5 years but because of his back he was a solid but not hallworthy Mark Grace, Keith Hernandez type for the second half of his pinstripe run


That's actually an accurate assessment of his first 5 years.

Bill James once wrote an essay on Mattingly where he talked about how when a player first enters the big leagues, anything's possible, but Mattingly was 4 years into his career, and anything was STILL possible. Mattingly had statistical chances to rack up 4,000 hits, and 700 HRs. Slim, miniscule chances, but any player that registers a tick on those scales after 4 years in the bigs is something special.

I think that essay was in early 1987; Mattingly had one more super year, then began his fade. But, yes, he was THAT good for a while.

Rosen is a favorite of mine, but Don may, in fact, rate ahead of Rosen, even in peak value. Mattingly's peak was SO high that he may, in fact, rate ahead of Clark. I'm willing to be open on this, given Mattingly's high peak.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Mattingly was regarded as a great hitter in his prime. SI once did a conversation between Ted Williams, Boggs and Mattingly about hitting. It's a great read if you can find it. (if I could, I'd post it or let people know where it's available.)
I do remember that article, it was a good one. Boggs and Mattingly seemed to be quite close. I remember in the court reporter cartoon-like picture, they had a chicken in front of Boggs. And I think Boggs (I don't think it was the other way around) saying how Mattingly would make a habit of driving balls to the high walls of Fenway when playing there to help his doubles production, something Williams admitted he wasn't able to do much.

dgarza is right. There was a decent stretch through the eighties when Don Matingly was it. I remember flipping through a baseball card price guide and his cards were always the highest priced non-rookies throughout the eighties. His fall from that point was harsh, and it makes him look like just another good 1st baseman career wise. One who didn't have a long career.

[digglahhh]

Mattingly was regarded as a great hitter in his prime. SI once did a conversation between Ted Williams, Boggs and Mattingly about hitting. It's a great read if you can find it. (if I could, I'd post it or let people know where it's available.)

Williams references Mattingly and Boggs a few times in "MY Turn at Bat" too.

As for Mattingly, being the second most deserving 1B who played in NY in the mid to late 80's ain't so bad...:cool:

[Captain Cold Nose]

Williams references Mattingly and Boggs a few times in "MY Turn at Bat" too.

As for Mattingly, being the second most deserving 1B who played in NY in the mid to late 80's ain't so bad...:cool:
He did? That makes me curious as to how many times Williams revised that.

[hellborn]

Really? I absolutely did! Much more than Sandberg, for what that's worth.
When Don was hitting .350 with power, I think that most everybody felt that he would end up in the HOF. Would have, too, if he had stayed healthy.
But, he didn't, and there are a lot of guys who had brilliant starts to their careers, were derailed by health problems, and are not viewed as being anything near HOF worthy (look up Hal Trosky for another 1B). I can't see Mattingly getting in, despite some great years and being a good guy.
I feel that you could argue for Henderson or Winfield being the best Yankees when they played with Mattingly, but Don wouldn't be a bad choice.

I don't see why Sandberg was brought up here as a comparison since he was a 2B, but I know that a lot of people in Chicago felt that he would be an easy HOFer, even as early as '84, especially after the 40HR year. Remember how much Harry Carey loved him, always called him "The Great Ryne Sandberg"? I worried that he wouldn't make it after the early retirement, and he didn't play well enough after the comeback to help his cause much.

[hellborn]

I loved Donnie BBall but his was a split career.
He was Lou Gherig for his first 5 years but because of his back he was a solid but not hallworthy Mark Grace, Keith Hernandez type for the second half of his pinstripe run
I was thrilled to see him wake up the echoes in his only postseason shot.
His defense was unmatched but he just could not turn on the ball anymore to continue those huge early numbers
When I first read this, I agreed with the Gehrig comparison for his early years, but now I'm not sure...once Lou got rolling, his OPS+ numbers were usually in the 200 range, Don more like 150-160 in his best years. Mattingly actually compares well to Trosky for OPS+ for their top years, Don was a little better.
Mattingly was certainly highly respected for his hitting before he got hurt, and did very well in MVP voting, which Trosky did not. Trosky had Gehrig and Foxx around to make him look bad by comparison.
OPS+ is just one tool, and maybe it's a bad one for Don because he wasn't a monster OBP guy, but I think that it's a stretch to compare Mattingly to Gehrig. Maybe not a huge one...

[RuthMayBond]

I think that it's a stretch to compare Mattingly to Gehrig. Maybe not a huge one...You're comparing a guy who had NO BETTER THAN the TWENTY-NINTH best career for a FIRST BASEMAN, with a guy who had AT LEAST the 17th best career EVER (that low only because of the disease) :crazy :crazy :crazy :crazy :crazy :crazy :crazy :crazy :crazy

[Williamsburg2599]

We he does almost have 20,000 posts.:D

Seriously though, a great player, a great fielder, an all-star, and I beleve he would be a great manager, but not a HOFer.

[dl4060]

1.
5.-He was viewed as a damn fine ballplayer, that's what. But I never heard while he was active- "Future Hall of Famer" attached to his name.


I don't think he was HOF level, but when he was active he most definitely was referred to that way. From 85-87 Mattingly was considered by many to be the best player in baseball. I don't think he quite was, but he was certainly in the argument. Bill James has a piece in the 1988 abstract where he debates who the best player in the game is. He starts it off by saying Mattingly, and then something to the effect of "that's what everyone seems to think these days." If Mattingly had put together a ten year performance level with the rate stats he had from 84-84 I think he would go in. His peak was just too short to merit induction in my mind.

From 84-88 however, he was an outstanding player. In fact I rarely heard him mentioned at all in that period without "future hall of famer" or "possibly the best player in baseball" attached.

[dl4060]

You bet he was highly regarded, I'm not arguing this.

But you stated that you never heard "Future Hall of Famer" attached to his name, which amazes me. I really cannot believe anyone who was a baseball fan at the time did not hear these things about him.

[digglahhh]

On YES, they play the clip of the homer he hit in the eight consecutive game of his streak all the time.

Rizzuto is so amazed that Mattingly pokes it out the opposite way. That was only about twenty years ago, but it really does give you an indication to how widespread the power game has become and where it was only a short while ago. Twenty years ago, one of the best players in the game hitting a homer to the opposite field registered notable excitement in the broadcasters voice. Now leadoff men and utility infielders do it without most of us raising an eyebrow.

[Fuzzy Bear]

You're comparing a guy who had NO BETTER THAN the TWENTY-NINTH best career for a FIRST BASEMAN, with a guy who had AT LEAST the 17th best career EVER (that low only because of the disease) :crazy :crazy :crazy :crazy :crazy :crazy :crazy :crazy :crazy

One has to discount Gehrig's numbers just a bit, as he played in the greatest hitters' era ever. That's not a knock; Gehrig is probably the greatest 1B ever; only Jimmie Foxx could contest that. But Gehrig's OPS is inflated by the high BAs of the era.

Mattingly really was that good, for a while. His 1984-87 numbers, in the context of their time, are flat out impressive, period. Had he racked up 15 seasons at those levels, he'd be competition for the greatest 1B of all time.

[Skin & Bones]

One has to discount Gehrig's numbers just a bit, as he played in the greatest hitters' era ever. That's not a knock; Gehrig is probably the greatest 1B ever; only Jimmie Foxx could contest that. But Gehrig's OPS is inflated by the high BAs of the era.

Even when you adjust for that factor, Gehrig still comes out very much ahead of Mattingly as a hitter. Heck, even throw in a timeline adjustment, and it's still not close.

And Foxx has a case over Gehrig? I disagree. I'd personally put Bagwell over Foxx, and would even go as far to argue that Thomas is better than Foxx too. Pujols at this rate may pass them all up, and retire the greatest 1B of all-time.



Mattingly really was that good, for a while. His 1984-87 numbers, in the context of their time, are flat out impressive, period. Had he racked up 15 seasons at those levels, he'd be competition for the greatest 1B of all time.

Mattingly, while great in his prime, was no Dick Allen. Heck, I'd even argue that Will Clark was better. He was great, but don't make him out to be something he wasn't.

[hellborn]

You're comparing a guy who had NO BETTER THAN the TWENTY-NINTH best career for a FIRST BASEMAN, with a guy who had AT LEAST the 17th best career EVER (that low only because of the disease) :crazy :crazy :crazy :crazy :crazy :crazy :crazy :crazy :crazy
I should have made it clear that I was referring to the comment about the first 5 years of Don's career, not his whole career...I still think that Gehrig was better, but Mattingly was putting up #s that made people think of the top 1bmen and the HOF (not OBP wise, though).

[hellborn]

Even when you adjust for that factor, Gehrig still comes out very much ahead of Mattingly as a hitter. Heck, even throw in a timeline adjustment, and it's still not close.

And Foxx has a case over Gehrig? I disagree. I'd personally put Bagwell over Foxx, and would even go as far to argue that Thomas is better than Foxx too. Pujols at this rate may pass them all up, and retire the greatest 1B of all-time.

Mattingly, while great in his prime, was no Dick Allen. Heck, I'd even argue that Will Clark was better. He was great, but don't make him out to be something he wasn't.
I think that Clark clearly had a better career than Don.

[Skin & Bones]

I think that Clark clearly had a better career than Don.

Actually, your right. Now that I look at both of their career statistics, I would argue that Clark has the better career, as well as the better peak.

[Seattle1]

Induct him.

I would have to say no to the Hall of Fame for Don Mattingly. Sorry Jake.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I love Donny Baseball here but I don't see him getting into the Hall...but in my mind if Rice gets in than Mattingly should be in there too.

[Seattle1]

It never stopped Rizzuto :grouchy

Holy Cow! :laugh

[mtortolero]

He deserved the 1986 MVP that went to Clemens but still his HOF level was reduced in those three or four years in the middle 80´s.
He was the Dale Murphy of the AL with everybody talking about him as a HOF lock.

[White Knight]

right, but the extent that Boggs was,,, they seemed "equals" at the time, HOF-wise

That rivalry in the mid-late 80's was the greatest since DiMaggio and Williams. And the funny part is in the mid 80's, Boggs was regarded as the more pure hitter, while Mattingly was the better all-around player. Sound familiar? :)

[Brad Harris]

Will the Thrill was better and has a similar injury argument. No to Mattingly.

[henrich]

Mattingly top 30 all-time at 9516, just ahead of Stuffy McInnis (9494) and behind John Olerud (9655). Was this era abnormally good, I have him 13th in his era.

[Brad Harris]

Was this era abnormally good, I have him 13th in his era.
I think so. The last 20-25 years have seen a disproportionately large number of very good or great first basemen. "Why" is a completely different question and one that I'm not equipped to answer. I would venture a guess that (a) the larger the league, the more good hitters fill out the starting lineups at first base (the easiest defensive position) throughout the game and that (b) perhaps previous eras had an abundance of good hitters at corner outfield spots (as opposed to first base) like we're seeing at first in this era.

I would also venture to speculate that while there certainly seem to be more borderline candidates at first these days, there probably aren't very many more legend-caliber Hall-of-Famers than there's been in other epochs of the game's past.

[henrich]

I think so. The last 20-25 years have seen a disproportionately large number of very good or great first basemen. "Why" is a completely different question and one that I'm not equipped to answer. I would venture a guess that (a) the larger the league, the more good hitters fill out the starting lineups at first base (the easiest defensive position) throughout the game and that (b) perhaps previous eras had an abundance of good hitters at corner outfield spots (as opposed to first base) like we're seeing at first in this era.

I would also venture to speculate that while there certainly seem to be more borderline candidates at first these days, there probably aren't very many more legend-caliber Hall-of-Famers than there's been in other epochs of the game's past.

I'll buy that explanation, and analysis.

[Paul Wendt]

>>Originally Posted by Lindseynelson
He was Lou Gherig for his first 5 years but because of his back he was a solid but not hallworthy Mark Grace, Keith Hernandez type for the second half of his pinstripe run<<

That's actually an accurate assessment of his first 5 years.
That's also a big overrating of Mattingly after 1987, which was actually more than 60% of his career.

Mattingly 1988-finis, OPS+ 112. Is that above average at firstbase?

Hernandez dipped below OPS+ 120 only once in his twelve full seasons.

Grace was below 120 six times in fourteen full seasons. average 121, tailed off to career average 119 during two part seasons.

Mattingly was better by slugging than onbase average, so OPS+ overrates him a little.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Mattingly was regarded as a great hitter in his prime. SI once did a conversation between Ted Williams, Boggs and Mattingly about hitting. It's a great read if you can find it. (if I could, I'd post it or let people know where it's available.)

Here you go. From SI, April 14, 1986.

.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Mattingly was regarded as a great hitter in his prime. SI once did a conversation between Ted Williams, Boggs and Mattingly about hitting. It's a great read if you can find it. (if I could, I'd post it or let people know where it's available.)

Mattingly article continued...

.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

During Mattingly's heyday I was in high school. He was highly revered and was considered the best player in the game by everyone, players, media, fans, etc. Here's a good article from October 13, 1986. It's sheds some light as to who people viewed Mattingly during his peak seasons.

.

[henrich]

That was awesome to read. Really took you back in time to some greats talking to each other. Thanks for sharing.

[Captain Cold Nose]

That was awesome to read. Really took you back in time to some greats talking to each other. Thanks for sharing.

It was, um, awesome to read at the time, too.

[henrich]

It was, um, awesome to read at the time, too.

Ummm..sorry.:hp

[White Knight]

Great articles, Honus. I was a little younger (not entering HS until September, 1987), but living in NY and being a Yankee fan, I idolized Mattingly. He clearly was the best player in the mid 80's, no contest. Had his back not went out and he continued his mid 80's form, I am confident that he would have been in the top three Yankees of all time, no doubt in my mind.

[JDD]

The last time I looked at Mattingly's numbers, he had only four HOF-type seasons. They were due in part to Henderson batting in front of him and Winfield behind him. When Rickey left, so did the RBI and so did his Hall of Fame chances.

[Paul Wendt]

Great articles, Honus. I was a little younger (not entering HS until September, 1987), but living in NY and being a Yankee fan, I idolized Mattingly. He clearly was the best player in the mid 80's, no contest. Had his back not went out and he continued his mid 80's form, I am confident that he would have been in the top three Yankees of all time, no doubt in my mind.
Can we blame it all on the back? Henderson was a big part of that statistical record and he probably deserved the MVP.

Ruth and Mantle are out of sight. (Now so is A-Rod, altho maybe no Yankee.)
Berra is underrated but surpassing Gehrig would make a good case for best all-time at first base and convention would then take Berra for granted.

The comparison with Gehrig is easy to understand: firstbase, lefty, (easy to execute the comparision), BA and EBH, "good" guy like Lou not "bad" guy like Babe. Of course, a lot can happen between four season and twelve seasons. Without benefit of a bad backs, Jeff Bagwell didn't quite make twelve full seasons as Gehrig did. Frank Thomas didn't quite make ten at his established level. Jimmy Foxx made 12, but he was two-three years younger than the other four.

[White Knight]

Can we blame it all on the back? Henderson was a big part of that statistical record and he probably deserved the MVP.

Ruth and Mantle are out of sight. (Now so is A-Rod, altho maybe no Yankee.)
Berra is underrated but surpassing Gehrig would make a good case for best all-time at first base and convention would then take Berra for granted.

The comparison with Gehrig is easy to understand: firstbase, lefty, (easy to execute the comparision), BA and EBH, "good" guy like Lou not "bad" guy like Babe. Of course, a lot can happen between four season and twelve seasons. Without benefit of a bad backs, Jeff Bagwell didn't quite make twelve full seasons as Gehrig did. Frank Thomas didn't quite make ten at his established level. Jimmy Foxx made 12, but he was two-three years younger than the other four.

Roughly 50% here rate Mantle ahead of Gehrig, and 50% vice versa (I did a poll, and results were dead even at 50-50). You assume I put Mantle at number 2 Yankee. I don't, I give it to Gehrig, by quite a decent margin. Now, Mattingly would have to do quite well to have surpassed Mantle. But what if he had stayed in his form as 1984-1987? It's quite possible he could have retired with a .330 average, 3,700+ hits, and 2,000 RBI, 600+ doubles, and 400 HRs, and just 400 strikeouts (I'm a huge fan of players who don't strike out). Add the gold gloves and I think 3rd place is his.

Mattingly's high RBIs I credit Henderson for, but that doesn't stop the high average he had, very few strikeouts, and incredible amount of doubles he produced. He was a hitting machine, and a true gold glove.

[1905 Giants]

Roughly 50% here rate Mantle ahead of Gehrig, and 50% vice versa (I did a poll, and results were dead even at 50-50). You assume I put Mantle at number 2 Yankee. I don't, I give it to Gehrig, by quite a decent margin. Now, Mattingly would have to do quite well to have surpassed Mantle. But what if he had stayed in his form as 1984-1987? It's quite possible he could have retired with a .330 average, 3,700+ hits, and 2,000 RBI, 600+ doubles, and 400 HRs, and just 400 strikeouts (I'm a huge fan of players who don't strike out). Add the gold gloves and I think 3rd place is his.

Mattingly's high RBIs I credit Henderson for, but that doesn't stop the high average he had, very few strikeouts, and incredible amount of doubles he produced. He was a hitting machine, and a true gold glove.

I think your totals may be just a little generous, as that would mean he would be third all-time on the RBIs list, 4th in hits, and around 15th in Doubles (I'll give you the homeruns and the strikeouts).

[four tool]

I think your totals may be just a little generous, as that would mean he would be third all-time on the RBIs list, 4th in hits, and around 15th in Doubles (I'll give you the homeruns and the strikeouts).

I agree the totals are generous--3,000 hits maybe but not 3,700 and .330 unless he was completely healthy and had no decline phase.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Mattingly was regarded as a great hitter in his prime. SI once did a conversation between Ted Williams, Boggs and Mattingly about hitting. It's a great read if you can find it. (if I could, I'd post it or let people know where it's available.)

The problem with Mattingly is that his prime was so short.

From 1984-87, Don Mattingly was projecting out to be not just a HOFer, but an inner-circle HOFer. The kind of HOFer to which no questions would ever be asked.

His prime ended in 1987; he was in decline from 1988 on. I believe that it was in 1987 that Mattingly began having back problems; his OWP took a dip and he missed 20 games or so. The next year, 1988, he dropped to 12 fewer HRs, and he stabilized at the level of a good (but not quite great) first baseman for the next 2 years.

After 1989, Mattingly NEVER touched greatness. His OWP was in the .500s or less. Mattingly's 1990 season was, really, below replacement level for a first baseman; it was only his past track record and the never-to-be-realized hopes for a comeback that got him more chances to be a regular.

Don Mattingly is a modern day Pete Reiser. Reiser was an all-out hustling ballplayer who was a truly great player in 1941 and 1942. If WWII had not come, Reiser would have posted a few more outstanding seasons to where he would have about the same level of peak value case Mattingly has. Reiser, arguably, did less than Mattingly at his peak, mainly due to injuries, and it was the very style of Reiser's play that allowed him to be memorable that caused so many of his injuries. Mattingly had a better career than Reiser, but not enough better to make him a HOFer.

And, as I've probably said before, if Mattingly, why not Will Clark? Indeed, why not Norm Cash? I personally disagree with any ranking system that puts Mattingly ahead of either of those guys, and particularly Clark, who was an exact contemporary.

[Paul Wendt]

But what if he had stayed in his form as 1984-1987? It's quite possible he could have retired with a .330 average, 3,700+ hits, and 2,000 RBI, 600+ doubles, and 400 HRs, and just 400 strikeouts

It is possible but someone said "I feel confident . . . no doubt in my mind".
I would call it barely possible rather than quite possible!

Last night I wrote that Gehrig's longevity at his level was unprecedented. You won't find it; I deleted it before posting. It was very closely precedented by Dan Brouthers in the '80s and early '90s. And it was more than precedented by the guy batting just ahead of him in the Yankees lineup.

Take a look at Sam Crawford. He maintained preformance at his personal standard for more than 12 seasons, mainly by putting two in the bank before age 23 (the age for Brouthers, Gehrig, Mattingly, Bagwell, Thomas). Crawford was very consistent, very durable, very high quality, but not in the "historically great" classes with Lou Gehrig.

In our time it is common to play well in one's late thirties, probably as common as the mid-thirties in Sam Crawford's time. I would extend "quite possible" rather than "barely possible" to Don Mattingly maintaining performance at ages 23-37 as Sam Crawford did at ages 21-35. What would Mattingly's career record look like thru 1998, age 37, if he matched the consistency and durability of Sam Crawford thru 1915, age 35?

(I suppose almost everyone would call that Mattingly a greater player than Crawford, as a great? firstbaseman, in a time --at least his first decade-- when it was much less common to stand out. Only a few naysayers and Yanktweakers would write off that Mattingly's remarkable longevity to the expansions of 1993 and 1997. But the point is, what if 1984-87 Mattingly maintained Sam Crawford's degree of consistency and durability --less than Gehrig's, hence "barely realistic" rather than "get serious".)

For "quite realistic" rather than "barely realistic", see Eddie Murray. He was as good as Mattingly at peak. He was a consistent player with durability and longevity, but like so many others he did not maintain his personal performance for 12 seasons. By year 10 he was one step down, by year 15 two steps down. That degree of consistency, etc, is what I would call "quite realistic" for Mattingly.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Ummm..sorry.:hp

No need to apologize. When you start hearing the players of your day are one you go back to read about in awe all these years later, and it really wasn't that long ago, well, another cliche I won't finish.

Don't worry about the off-the-cuff mumblings.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He deserved the 1986 MVP that went to Clemens but still his HOF level was reduced in those three or four years in the middle 80´s.
He was the Dale Murphy of the AL with everybody talking about him as a HOF lock.

Murphy's prime was significantly longer than Mattingly's; indeed, it was eight (8) years to Mattingly's four (4) years.