Don Mattingly??? In or Out?

[Dodgerfan1]

I'm on the fence with this one. Mattingly had a great run for a while, but in other areas he falls short, IMO. I'll have to think a bit about this.

[W_Marone]

Would you vote for Don Mattingly for the Hall...here's a link to his stats.....

http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mattido01.shtml

Does he have a good case?

[leecemark]

--He has a case, but it isn't quite good enough for me. Donnie's peak was HoF quality, but he didn't sustain it quite long enough.

[KCGHOST]

I'm with leecemark. An outstanding player for several years, but as a 1B he doesn't quite measure up.

[Los Bravos]

Puckett being in essentially requires Don's inclusion.

[EvanAparra]

Originally Posted by Los Bravos

Puckett being in essentially requires Don's inclusion.

Why's that??

[Los Bravos]

Their numbers are substantially similar. Their careers quite closely paralleled each other's. Consistency (not a Hall voter's specialty, usually) argues for Don's inclusion on that basis.

My personal preference would be for neither to be in, but there's no logical argument for one over the other and some of the toothpaste is already out of the tube.

[EvanAparra]

Originally Posted by Los Bravos

Their numbers are substantially similar. Their careers quite closely paralleled each other's. Consistency (not a Hall voter's specialty, usually) argues for Don's inclusion on that basis.
.

But doesn't the positional differences make up for that, or do you not go by that?

[Los Bravos]

Not religously, but to the extent that I do, I tend to expect bigger power numbers out of outfielders, especially strongly built ones like Puckett. Their careers (not just the numbers, but the level of popularity, acclaim and individual accomplishment) are nearly mirror images, to me.

I voted "On the Fence", because I think he's close but a little short. But the closeness to Puckett makes it an uncomfortable logical problem keeping him out, at least to me.

[brett]

Everyone agrees that Puckett does not get in on his offensive value alone. He is a + offensive player, and roughly comparable to Mattingly all things considered, but only about 70% of hall of fame for career offense.

With that in mind, it is logically valid to say that the difference makers for Puckett were that a) he played center field and b) that he made a big difference on the World Series stage.

Mattingly being a first baseman, does not garner the advantage of playing a more critical defensive position and unfortunately Mattingly never got a chance to play in the World Series.

If (for the sake of "consistency") you take every player who is substantially similar to someone in the hall of fame, the you would eventually have almost everyone in.

Originally Posted by Los Bravos

Their numbers are substantially similar. Their careers quite closely paralleled each other's. Consistency (not a Hall voter's specialty, usually) argues for Don's inclusion on that basis.

My personal preference would be for neither to be in, but there's no logical argument for one over then other and some of the toothpaste is already out of the tube.

[mwiggins]

Originally Posted by Los Bravos

Their numbers are substantially similar. Their careers quite closely paralleled each other's. Consistency (not a Hall voter's specialty, usually) argues for Don's inclusion on that basis.

My personal preference would be for neither to be in, but there's no logical argument for one over the other and some of the toothpaste is already out of the tube.

They have similar hitting #'s, but Puckett's a CF while Mattingly's a 1B. Puckett had more defensive value than Mattingly, as well as being a better baserunner. That's enough of a difference to make Puckett a marginal HoF and Mattingly a near-miss.

[CTaka]

Originally Posted by Los Bravos

Puckett being in essentially requires Don's inclusion.

I'm not sure I see the obvious comparison between a CF and a 1B.

I'd rather see Will Clark inducted before I'd vote for Mattingly.

[Los Bravos]

The elephant in the room here is that Puckett garnered votes because of his off the field reputation, his popularity with voters and fans and the sudden end of his career. All of those ancillary factors came into play in voting.

I have no real dog in this hunt, as I stated. My preference is for neither to be in, or both. It's not simply statistics that are parallel (I realize that abstract comparisons between players and their numbers can be used to "prove" that unworthy people should be in), it's that they played at essentially the same time, in the same league with substantially similar results.

I guess I can play along with the idea that Puckett's Octobers made the difference, but the closeness of their careers and the fact that Mattingly is often dismissed out of hand and Puckett went in by acclimation, still doesn't quite sit well with me.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally Posted by Los Bravos

Puckett being in essentially requires Don's inclusion.

Not at all. Puckett had All-Star caliber seasons from 1986-95, and had the glaucoma not taken his eyesight in one eye, he'd have continued to play.

Mattingly was no more than an average 1B from 1990 on, due to his back. He never hit 20 HRs again, nor did he hit .300 in a full season of play again. Will Clark has a better case. Mattingly would not be the worst 1B in the HOF only because of George Kelly and Jim Bottomley being there.

[Los Bravos]

And Mattingly would have continued to pile up homers had not the persistent back problems sapped his power, which is yet another way they had basically the same career.

Outside of Koufax, I'm not a fan of "If's & But's" getting someone to Cooperstown.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Originally Posted by Los Bravos

And Mattingly would have continued to pile up homers had not the persistent back problems sapped his power, which is yet another way they had basically the same career.

Outside of Koufax, I'm not a fan of "If's & But's" getting someone to Cooperstown.

There's are three BIG differences here:

(A) Puckett had many more top years than Mattingly.

(B) Mattingly's decline had to do with back problems, which, while unfair, were a result of his playing skills (swinging the bat, stretching for throws, etc.); he hurt his back playing baseball. Puckett's eye problems were a fluke event, completely unrelated to his skill base.

(C) Puckett had a full prime for his career; his career, really, is only missing the decline phase. That's the phase that would have lowered Puckett's BA to around .305, but would have gotten him to 3,000 hits. His career is a HOF-worthy career IN AND OF ITSELF, in my opinion. Mattingly, on the other hand, had his prime cut in half; he only had 5-6 great years, at most, before he was diminished to being a glove man who hit enough to be above replacement level, but who missed a lot of time with injuries. After age 29, Mattingly was an average player at best; not really even a "good player", and, certainly, no longer a star.

"Ifs and buts" affect Kirby's place in history, but they don't affect his Hall-worthiness. The same cannot be said of Mattingly; his case rests on the value of a peak period that is very high, but very short. The only position player outside the Hall that has a case with such a short career, IMO, is Al Rosen.