HoF Debate: Don Mattingly

[acsguitar]

I really don't care much about the HOF.

It doesn't tell me much about the player other than he has great numbers.


Mattingly numbers wise should not be in. However, he was a class act and was a hero for millions of new yorkers at least.

I wish the hall took into account personal actions and being a team leader.

Anyways Mattingly would be in if I made the rules for getting into the hall.

But no its made by a bunch of crotchity sports writers

[BritSox]

I really don't care much about the HOF.

It doesn't tell me much about the player other than he has great numbers.


Mattingly numbers wise should not be in. However, he was a class act and was a hero for millions of new yorkers at least.

I wish the hall took into account personal actions and being a team leader.

It does, or at least everyone assumes it will for Jeter and Ripken, and did do for Puckett. Plenty of players get a boost for this sort of thing. Even with that boost, Mattingly's miles outside.

[Padsin05]

got to say no for Mattingly

as for Sayers, its all about the era. There werent many 1000 yard rushers when he played, most teams used 2-3 RB's, and Sayers also was a KR his entire career.

[bigh0rt]

I really don't care much about the HOF.

It doesn't tell me much about the player other than he has great numbers.


Mattingly numbers wise should not be in. However, he was a class act and was a hero for millions of new yorkers at least.

I wish the hall took into account personal actions and being a team leader.

Anyways Mattingly would be in if I made the rules for getting into the hall.

But no its made by a bunch of crotchity sports writers

Whatever he gains for being a 'team leader' and his 'personal actions' he loses times two for his 'handlebar moustache'.

There are many New Yorkers who, if they made the rules, would erect a 50 ft. statue of Mattingly out front and call him King... just like there are fans of other teams who would do the same for their childhood baseball hero.

Neither Mattingly's career, peak, impact, or accolates place him anywhere near the Hall of Fame, in my opinion. People keep saying he was super fantastic for 6 years when it was more like 4, with 2 other years that were pretty impressive, and 6 years that really weren't all that exciting. Sure, he played in pinstripes, sure he was a nice guy (I hear), sure he was the face of the Yankees. But he is not, will not, nor should he ever be, in the Hall of Fame, in my opinion.

[pokerplaya]

Though a great NY sports figure, he falls well short of having any serious consideration for the HOF.

[raiders_umpire]

Mattingly is not even close to being HOF material. He was a class act and a huge fan favorite in New York, but his numbers just do not match up to become a member of the hall. He ranks very close to Dale Murphy in my book. He had 4 great years and was loved by his team and most all fans, but was just not good enough for long enough to become HOF material.

[WharfRat]

Whatever he gains for being a 'team leader' and his 'personal actions' he loses times two for his 'handlebar moustache'.

Tell that to Tom Selleck gringo!!

Anyway, this one is easy...if he stays healthy, he's a top-10 all-time 1B and in the Hall. But he hurts his back, and the rest is sad history. Sorry Donnie.

[rainman23]

My favorite ballplayer of all time. The couple people here who have suggested his peak wasn't all that special -- well, you're wrong. For two or three years in the 80's Mattingly was routinely described as the best player in MLB. He was putting up monster triple crown numbers before they were routine. If you don't think his peak years were good enough, then you don't think anyone in the middle 80's was good enough.

All that said...HoF...God no. He really was only an exceptional ballplayer for those four years. I'm not sure anyone can make the HoF based on four years, but if they do, they're going to be years like Ruth had in the 20's, or Bonds had in the 2000's. Better even than Mattingly's four year stretch. Much as I love the guy, I'd be embarrassed for the Hall if that ever happened.

[Mashug]

This is a tough one. I'd say no except when you consider who else is in there and how he compares.

Robin Yount: He was a very good player for a very long time. Great? No. That's not what the HOF is for. It's for the all time best players, or at the very least, the best players of their time. He was neither. The HOF is for Mike Schmidt, Cal Ripken, Eddie Murray, Dave Winfield and Ricky Henderson. Not Robin Yount

Reggie: In my opinion he was the most overrated player in baseball history. Sorry fellow Yankee fans, but Reggie was a one dimentional player who had a couple of great post season series. He sucked in the outfield and alienated his teamates. He was a .265 hitter and holds the alltime record for K's. I don't care about the +500 hrs. Dave Kingman just fell short and you wouldn't put him in, would you?

Compare Pucket and Mattingly: Kirby Pucket was a great player. Very simlar to Mattingly with equal numbers. As good as Kirby was in the outfield, Mattingly was better a 1B. They both played the game the way it was meant to be played. These 2 really should be tied together when you talk about HOF qualifications.One had to retire because of an injury and the other hung in there when he couldn't swing the bat because of an injury, then ultimately quit. If you put one in there, you need to put the other one in as well.

The next question is why Jim Rice isn't in there. I don't get that one.

[bigh0rt]

This is a tough one. I'd say no except when you consider who else is in there and how he compares.

Robin Yount: He was a very good player for a very long time. Great? No. That's not what the HOF is for. It's for the all time best players, or at the very least, the best players of their time. He was neither. The HOF is for Mike Schmidt, Cal Ripken, Eddie Murray, Dave Winfield and Ricky Henderson. Not Robin Yount

Reggie: In my opinion he was the most overrated player in baseball history. Sorry fellow Yankee fans, but Reggie was a one dimentional player who had a couple of great post season series. He sucked in the outfield and alienated his teamates. He was a .265 hitter and holds the alltime record for K's. I don't care about the +500 hrs. Dave Kingman just fell short and you wouldn't put him in, would you?

Compare Pucket and Mattingly: Kirby Pucket was a great player. Very simlar to Mattingly with equal numbers. As good as Kirby was in the outfield, Mattingly was better a 1B. They both played the game the way it was meant to be played. These 2 really should be tied together when you talk about HOF qualifications.One had to retire because of an injury and the other hung in there when he couldn't swing the bat because of an injury, then ultimately quit. If you put one in there, you need to put the other one in as well.

The next question is why Jim Rice isn't in there. I don't get that one.

You can't compare Mattingly's and Puckett's offensive stats. One played Centerfield while the other played First Base. That makes Puckett's a lot more impressive, and actually weakens the argument for Don's induction.

Jim Rice is on my retroactive list.