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.

[Brad Harris]

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.

[Brad Harris]

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]

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]

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:D

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)

[Brad Harris]

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.

[Brad Harris]

2,000+ hits / .300+ average
There are 83 people, thru last season, with at least 2,000 hits and a .300+ batting average. Thought I'd take a look and see who they are.

60 of those 83 (72%) are in the Hall of Fame.

Eligible, Not Elected
George Burns
Jake Daubert
Patsy Donovan
Harvey Kuenn
Stan Hack
Bill Madlock
Don Mattingly
Stuffy McInnis
Ed McKean
Buddy Myer
Al Oliver
Jimmy Ryan
George Van Haltren
Bobby Veach
Dixie Walker

Not Eligible
Roberto Alomar
Wade Boggs
Will Clark
Mark Grace
Tony Gwynn
Julio Franco
Paul Molitor
Pete Rose

[Cougar]

Originally posted by Chancellor
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.

Fair points.

I think Dick Allen is such a peculiar case that he shouldn't bar the door. He's a completely different debate, more of a Pete Rose thing (though not the same, or course, but of the same type -- off-field questions).

There's barely a sliver of difference between Mattingly, Hernandez, Garvey, Will Clark. Truthfully, I end up ranking them somewhat based on off-field stuff, which is less than ideal:

1. Mattingly
2. Will Clark
3. Hernandez
4. Garvey.

No idea where Olerud fits in here -- I'll wait for him to finish up.

The older guys are really hard to compare. Looking at them, I think Hodges should be in, Konetchy probably should not, and Vernon is a really tough call, but I'd say yes. He lost two years (age 26 and 27) to WWII, which pretty much seals the deal for me -- he would likely have been well above 2800 hits if he played those seasons. Most arguments about lost time are invalid, but I'm open to a few, one of which is military service.

I have some sympathy toward a few arguments that have little to do directly with Vernon's case. One is that Washington Senator players are poorly represented, and Vernon was mainly a Senator. Also, I think there's something to honoring the living, and Vernon is still with us at 85 years old. Further, there are people around who remember seeing Vernon and Hodges play; that's probably not true of Konetchy (although I imagine there may be a few fans hanging in).

[Cougar]

Originally posted by Chancellor
2,000+ hits / .300+ average
There are 83 people, thru last season, with at least 2,000 hits and a .300+ batting average. Thought I'd take a look and see who they are.

60 of those 83 (72%) are in the Hall of Fame.

Eligible, Not Elected
George Burns
Jake Daubert
Patsy Donovan
Harvey Kuenn
Stan Hack
Bill Madlock
Don Mattingly
Stuffy McInnis
Ed McKean
Buddy Myer
Al Oliver
Jimmy Ryan
George Van Haltren
Bobby Veach
Dixie Walker

Not Eligible
Roberto Alomar
Wade Boggs
Will Clark
Mark Grace
Tony Gwynn
Julio Franco
Paul Molitor
Pete Rose

Wow, more than I thought.

Let's group these into some categories.

Pete Rose: Pete Rose

Going to go in when they're eligible: Alomar, Boggs, Gwynn, Molitor.

Obvious Hall omissions: Van Haltren, Jimmy Ryan, Stan Hack

Strong Hall arguments: Veach, Myer, Mattingly, Clark, Oliver, McKean, Kuenn

Decent Hall arguments: McInnis, George Burns, Daubert, Grace, Madlock

Poor Hall arguments:

Patsy Donovan -- just a slap hitter from the 1890's who stole a lot of bases under the more liberal rule of the day. Doesn't make Bill James's top 100 RF [#121];

Dixie Walker -- probably closer to "decent" on the numbers, but choosing the wrong side on integration knocks him down here.

Really, him?: Julio Franco. (He's at .2997 and dropping; very unique career, and difficult to categorize; probably "decent".)

Note: Olerud as of yesterday was at .2991 and 2003 hits.

My HOF threshold is basically between strong and decent. Players are listed in no particular order; Kuenn is probably the weakest "strong" case, and Madlock is probably the weakest "decent" case.

Definitions:

Going in: 3000 hit club members, plus Alomar, a top-10 all time 2b.

Obvious omissions: "Jeez, how'd they miss this guy all these years?"

Strong arguments: "Boy, there's some good reasons to enshrine this guy. I could be convinced."

Decent arguments: "Well, you can't dismiss this guy out of hand, but I would like to have more here."

Weak arguments: "Oh, get out of here; no way."

So, "Pete Rose" + "Going in when eligible" + "Obvious omissions" + "Strong arguments" + 60 "HOF" = 75 players out of 83 at this threshold are Hall-worthy or at worst awfully close. That's just over 90%, which make the .300-2000 standard imperfect but pretty darn good.

If one wants to quibble with my rankings, we can split the difference between Chancellor and myself -- make it 81%. Make it 75% if you want -- it's still a good indicator.

Basically, the types of guys who are in this category and don't make the HOF only clear one or both of the thresholds by a little, typically play easier defensive positions, and tend to be a little weak in secondary offense like OBP and SLG.

[NOMAR22]

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.

Omg, are you on crack? Don Mattingley was alot better than Johan Olerud.
Don Mattingley in his prime was a super star.Johan Olerud at his prime was just a good player.

[NOMAR22]

Fair points.

I think Dick Allen is such a peculiar case that he shouldn't bar the door. He's a completely different debate, more of a Pete Rose thing (though not the same, or course, but of the same type -- off-field questions).

There's barely a sliver of difference between Mattingly, Hernandez, Garvey, Will Clark. Truthfully, I end up ranking them somewhat based on off-field stuff, which is less than ideal:

1. Mattingly
2. Will Clark
3. Hernandez
4. Garvey.

No idea where Olerud fits in here -- I'll wait for him to finish up.




I totaly disagree with you. Steve Garvey was better than Will Clark.

[runningshoes]

I'm all over Donnie Baseball being in the hall.

[Captain Cold Nose]

It's nice to see so many three-year-old threads being dug up like this. Next time let's shoot for the Byzantine era.

[DoubleX]

Don't understand why this thread was started? I don't perceive there to be a lot of support for the Hall, even among Yankee fans, and certainly not here. Why all the sudden vitriol?

I also agree with Chancellor that there are better Yankees to support for the Hall - Goose Gossage and Joe Gordon shoudl be in, IMO, but Graig Nettles, Thurman Munson, Elston Howard, and Bernie Williams when his time comes, all probably deserve more support than Mattingly. Mattingly is probably on the same plane as Ron Guidry.

Nevertheless, Mattingly's peak was still pretty impressive, he was always a terrific fielder and his numbers were cut short due to chronic back problems, so he does still land in my Top 20 firstbasemen all-time, but barely. But there are probably a few 1Bman I'd put in the Hall before Mattingly. Dick Allen and Keith Hernandez for sure. Fred McGriff when he's up. Frank Thomas and Jeff Bagwell are no brainers. And perhaps Norm Cash. I have Will Clark just behind Mattingly, and guys like Gil Hodges, Steve Garvey, Boog Powell, and John Olerud behind that. Then of course there is Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, not quite sure what to make of them at this time.

[Cougar]

I totaly disagree with you. Steve Garvey was better than Will Clark.

Well, I find this argument very compelling. The sheer force of your logic compels me to reevaluate everything I've ever thought I knew about baseball...

Wait, there isn't an argument?

[runningshoes]

I don't understand why you guys get so upset about the rehashing of these threads.

I suppose if they were really so troublesome the administrators would give them the axe.

[leecemark]

--I think what is troubling is a new member coming in, digging up ancient threads and attacking those old posts. The authors may not feel the same way or even still be around to defend themselves. Worse he is digging them without having anything new or interesting to say about the topic. If somebody wants to talk about Don Mattingly or whoever, it would be better to start a new thread instead of dredging the archives.

[Captain Cold Nose]

--I think what is troubling is a new member coming in, digging up ancient threads and attacking those old posts. The authors may not feel the same way or even still be around to defend themselves. Worse he is digging them without having anything new or interesting to say about the topic. If somebody wants to talk about Don Mattingly or whoever, it would be better to start a new thread instead of dredging the archives.
Mark's right yet again. I don't have a problem with digging up an old thread if it is still topical and if the new post enhances the discussion. Would you write a letter to the editor based on an article published three years ago? Would a journalist follow up an old story he/she were investigating if there was nothing to add?

[DoubleX]

I hadn't realize when I responded this morning that this thread is nearly two-years old and long since abandoned. I agree that we shouldn't be dredging up ancient threads and then attacking those old opinions. If someone wants to start a new discussion about something, then just start a new thread.