Is there anyway the mods could merge these two threads?
"I do not think baseball of today is any better than it was 30 years ago... I still think Radbourne is the greatest of the pitchers." John Sullivan 1914-Old athletes never change.
jfg wrote:Almost all of the Hall of Fame predictors have him as a borderline candidate, Baseball Reference's Hall of Fame Monitor has him as a lock.
Other locks with same or higher HoF monitor scores: Todd Helton Gary Sheffield Larry Walker Miguel Tejada Bernie Williams
How many of those do you think are HoF locks?
Helton for sure, I would say Walker as well. Sheffield and Tejada would be if it weren't for their alleged steroid use, but I still think they have a good chance. I don't think Bernie is anywhere near a lock but I think he has an outside shot being one of the key parts of a dynasty. Plus, he was never a bonafide national star like Mattingly was.
jfg wrote:Almost all of the Hall of Fame predictors have him as a borderline candidate, Baseball Reference's Hall of Fame Monitor has him as a lock.
Other locks with same or higher HoF monitor scores: Todd Helton Gary Sheffield Larry Walker Miguel Tejada Bernie Williams
How many of those do you think are HoF locks?
Helton for sure, I would say Walker as well. Sheffield and Tejada would be if it weren't for their alleged steroid use, but I still think they have a good chance. I don't think Bernie is anywhere near a lock but I think he has an outside shot being one of the key parts of a dynasty. Plus, he was never a bonafide national star like Mattingly was.
Your qualifications just arent the same as mine I guess. In my book unless the guy didnt put up a peak that made him undoubtedly one of the beasts of the game, or perform at an elite level for a long period of time, Im just not that interested.
I think the Hall of Fame should be a photograph of every era of baseball. The stats matter but it's not the end all for me. Each era needs to be judged on it's own merit and sometimes a player is more than what their stats say. Puckett was one of those guys, Mattingly was too. I also think it's important for Helton and Walker to get in even if you think their stats are skewed by Coors. Coors is a small part of the reason I'd vote them in, just to document that part of baseball history.
jfg wrote:I think the Hall of Fame should be a photograph of every era of baseball. The stats matter but it's not the end all for me. Each era needs to be judged on it's own merit and sometimes a player is more than what their stats say. Puckett was one of those guys, Mattingly was too. I also think it's important for Helton and Walker to get in even if you think their stats are skewed by Coors. Coors is a small part of the reason I'd vote them in, just to document that part of baseball history.
jfg wrote:I think the Hall of Fame should be a photograph of every era of baseball. The stats matter but it's not the end all for me. Each era needs to be judged on it's own merit and sometimes a player is more than what their stats say. Puckett was one of those guys, Mattingly was too. I also think it's important for Helton and Walker to get in even if you think their stats are skewed by Coors. Coors is a small part of the reason I'd vote them in, just to document that part of baseball history.
Also interesting to see people throwing VORP around in that thread the way they do WAR today. Can't wait for the next hot new untouchable metric acronym I get to learn.
jfg wrote:I think the Hall of Fame should be a photograph of every era of baseball. The stats matter but it's not the end all for me. Each era needs to be judged on it's own merit and sometimes a player is more than what their stats say. Puckett was one of those guys, Mattingly was too. I also think it's important for Helton and Walker to get in even if you think their stats are skewed by Coors. Coors is a small part of the reason I'd vote them in, just to document that part of baseball history.
Also interesting to see people throwing VORP around in that thread the way they do WAR today. Can't wait for the next hot new untouchable metric acronym I get to learn.
And VORP and WAR probably completely contradict each other, right? All of a sudden Mattingly is a HOFer with the new metric, probably.
jfg wrote:I think the Hall of Fame should be a photograph of every era of baseball. The stats matter but it's not the end all for me. Each era needs to be judged on it's own merit and sometimes a player is more than what their stats say. Puckett was one of those guys, Mattingly was too. I also think it's important for Helton and Walker to get in even if you think their stats are skewed by Coors. Coors is a small part of the reason I'd vote them in, just to document that part of baseball history.
Also interesting to see people throwing VORP around in that thread the way they do WAR today. Can't wait for the next hot new untouchable metric acronym I get to learn.
Yeah, I haven't seen VORP, WARP, or EQA cited in a long time.
"I do not think baseball of today is any better than it was 30 years ago... I still think Radbourne is the greatest of the pitchers." John Sullivan 1914-Old athletes never change.
jfg wrote:I think the Hall of Fame should be a photograph of every era of baseball. The stats matter but it's not the end all for me. Each era needs to be judged on it's own merit and sometimes a player is more than what their stats say. Puckett was one of those guys, Mattingly was too. I also think it's important for Helton and Walker to get in even if you think their stats are skewed by Coors. Coors is a small part of the reason I'd vote them in, just to document that part of baseball history.
I thought Mattingly's era was pretty well represented.
Boggs Brett Ripken Henderson Yount Gwynn Murray Sandberg Puckett Ozzie Smith Eckersley Molitor Carter
For a purely statistical look HEREare the players stats for just the seasons of Mattingly's career. Looking at just those seasons it should put him in the best light possible (at least for the counting stats) since most of the other players' careers won't fall exactly into that timeline.
Mattingly's ranks BA 11th 2B 3rd HR 32nd RBI 7th R 15th OBP 104th SLG 56th OPS 53rd
here is my post from the other thread which had links to players stats.
the 2 names that jump out are McGuire and Palmeiro, but I can't see human voters voting for them.
I don't really remember much specifics of these players, so right now I mostly just have numbers to look at. I also right now have no idea how their career numbers match up vs other current HOF players or how they rank all time.
Barry Larkin? .295/.371/.444/.815/ 2340 hits/ http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/3901/career doesn't look like someone who was great, but he did play SS, from a time when SS was not a big offensive position. I wouldn't call him elite, but in this HOF I would say good enough.
Tim Raines? .294/.385/.425/.810/ 808 SB/ 2605 hits/ 1571 R/ http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/1850/career doesn't jump out as someone great, but he did have 808 SB with 1571 R while batting leadoff.
Edgar Martinez - .312/.418/.515/.933/ 2247 hits/. http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/4135/career I don't think he should get valued down because he was a DH. he was still an elite hitter, and should be in the HOF.
Larry Walker. .313/.400/.565/.965/. http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/4181/career some really impressive numbers, BUT he REALLY got to benefit from playing in Coors back when it was a great hitters park. should he be valued down because of that? 6 seasons with an OPS above 1.000, but all while with Colorado. or was he just fortunate and you still have to count his career numbers regardless of where he played?
Fred McGriff - .284/.377/.509/.886/ 493 HR/ 1550 RBI/. http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/3579/career I feel biased towards McGriff because he used to be my favorite player. I feel like maybe he is borderline. not what I would call all time great, but in this HOF he should be good enough to get in.
Don Mattingly - .307/.358/.471/.830/ 2153 hits/. http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/3056/career only 14 seasons. 1 MVP, 1 batting title. started with back troubles in 1990 and wasn't the same until he finished in 1995. career wise not what I would call elite.
Dale Murphy - .265/.346/.469/.815/ 2111 hits/. http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/1587/career he did have back to back MVP awards in 1982 and 1983, but his career numbers don't look elite.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by thedude » Wed Dec 21, 2011 8:57 pm 
