PDA

View Full Version : Who's going into HOF?



earlywynnfan
09-29-2006, 10:49 AM
Eric, if you don't feel this is appropriate for here, feel free to delete. I was wondering who everyone thinks is going to go into the HOF from the Vet's committee.

While I think several on this list deserve to be in the HOF, I can't point at any one player and say that I feel they WILL be chosen, especially since the big pushes for Minoso and Santo fell flat in the last few years.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com



2007 VETERANS BALLOTS FINALIZED AS

SCREENING COMMITTEE COMPLETES SELECTIONS



27 players, 15 managers, executives, umpires featured on two ballots for Feb. 27 Election


(COOPERSTOWN, NY): Twenty-seven former major league players and 15 former managers, executives, and umpires comprise two ballots for the 2007 Hall of Fame Veterans Committee election, on which Veterans Committee members will cast their votes, with results to be announced on February 27. Any candidate(s) named on 75% of ballots cast will earn election and be honored in Cooperstown on July 29, during Hall of Fame Weekend, along with any candidate(s) named in the 2007 Baseball Writers’ Association of America (BBWAA) balloting, results to be announced January 9.

The final Players and Composite Ballots, to be voted upon by living Hall of Fame members, as well as the Ford C. Frick and J.G. Taylor Spink Award winners, currently a voting body of 84, as of today:




PLAYERS BALLOT (alphabetically)


Dick Allen
Joe Gordon
Roger Maris
Tony Oliva
Cecil Travis
Bobby Bonds
Gil Hodges
Carl Mays
Al Oliver
Mickey Vernon
Ken Boyer
Jim Kaat
Minnie Minoso
Vada Pinson
Maury Wills
Rocky Colavito
Mickey Lolich
Thurman Munson
Ron Santo

Wes Ferrell
Sparky Lyle
Don Newcombe
Luis Tiant

Curt Flood
Marty Marion
Lefty O’Doul
Joe Torre





COMPOSITE BALLOT (alphabetically)


Buzzie Bavasi
Charles O. Finley
Bowie Kuhn
Walter O’Malley
Bill White
August Busch Jr.
Doug Harvey
Billy Martin
Gabe Paul
Dick Williams
Harry Dalton
Whitey Herzog
Marvin Miller
Paul Richards
Phil Wrigley

suave1477
09-29-2006, 11:00 AM
I mean maybe some of you might not agree with me on this but I will say I think should be at the top of this list to go in. Should be Roger Maris, for obvious reasons. Even though his playing did decline tremdously towards the end of his career. I personally think the fact that breaking such a cherish record set by Ruth, puts Maris on a petistal, but thats just my opinion.

Sure other players on the list might of had better overall seasons then Maris, still he made a huge accomplishment which wasn't even touched untill over 30 years later by artifically induced results.

both-teams-played-hard
09-29-2006, 11:12 AM
I bet Gil Hodges will make it.
While Roger Maris and Curt Flood have been in my "personal" Hall of Fame for years.

Vintagedeputy
09-29-2006, 11:32 AM
My choices?

Gil Hodges - no brainer- should have been in 20 years ago.

Jim Kaat - a .544 winning percentage is not so hot but 283 wins for some lousy teams over 25 years deserves some merit.

Rocky Colavito - another no brainer

Thurman Munson - Munson, Bench, Fisk.....3 of the best catchers in the 70's, easy choice.

Ron Santo - solid ballplayer, fan favorite. A slider perhaps but deserving.

trsent
09-29-2006, 11:40 AM
I've always wondered why Thurnan Munson is not honored with the other greatest ballplayers of all time. He has been ignored for years.

I'll say that Billy Martin would be a perfect choice, but he'll stay with Munson on the outside looking in.

TNTtoys
09-29-2006, 12:53 PM
I also think Gil Hodges should get the nod... I don't agree on Munson or Maris... but that's what makes the world go 'round.

I'll add to the list Wes Ferrell (he was great in the movie "Elf")

Seriously, I don't see any of the others getting in. There are some great players there -- Newcombe, Kaat, Santo to name a few... but I don't think their lifetime stats are of the caliber of the others who have made it over the years.

2OnBase
12-06-2007, 01:27 AM
I hope this thread continues for awhile. Too many people are left out for who knows what reason, but it really does not seem to add up. Of non pitchers, here are some thoughts.

Statistically if Kirby Puckett is in, so should Tony Oliva. 5 time Hit champ, 3 time Batting Avg. Champ, also was Slugging Average & Run champion for a year. He was a very solid all-around player plagued by bad knees that caused him to retire early.

Dick Allen is another. 3 time Slugging Champ, 2 time Home Run Champ, 1 x RBI champ. Portrayed as a jerk in his day by the media (I have never met the man), but someone who was always feared at the plate.

Ron Santo is yet another. Continually amongst the leaders in On Base Percentage, slugging, and RBI's, he was also a fantastic 3rd baseman only bettered in his day, by Brooks Robinson in my opinion. Point.....what percentage of all HOF's are 3rd Baseman? This needs to change! Name a National League 3rd baseman who outplayed Santo annually offensively and defensively.

Last, one which was not on the list below, Ken Williams. One of two men to interupt Babe Ruth's hold as the yearly A.L. Home Run Crown in the 20's (1922, the other was 1925, an injury riddled year for Babe I believe). Regardless, lifetime .319 batting avg., .393 OBP, and .530 slugging avg., but had only 6 seasons of over 130 games played. I personally would like to learn more about him.

Nathan
12-07-2007, 12:24 AM
I'd say Santo.

As for Dick Allen, I believe it was Bill James who referred to him as the biggest locker room cancer to ever play the game with the exception of Hal Chase (if you're not sure how extreme that is, read up on Hal Chase sometime).

bigtruck260
12-07-2007, 01:33 AM
I am not going to help this one out - but I think Will Clark deserves more than 4% of the vote.

Blyleven needs to get in too...

Dave

Chris78
12-08-2007, 08:31 PM
I always felt that Blyleven should go in as well. The negative is he just missed 300 wins, which both Niekro and Sutton did get to. Blyleven is somebody that probably will make it with the Veteran's committee someday.

It will be interesting to see how many votes Tim Raines gets with his first appearance. I consider him to be borderline yes, but we will see.

cjmedina1
12-08-2007, 09:06 PM
Mark Mcgwire!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

Carlie Medina III
carliemedinaiii@sbcglobal.net

whatupyos
12-08-2007, 11:46 PM
He's the only one worthy in this grouping besides Goose in my opinion. He better at least have 50% of the vote this year. There is no reason why he should not be in there this year....none!!!!

Aaron

2OnBase
01-01-2008, 11:49 AM
I believe the original post by Ken concerned specifically entry into the Hall via the Veteran's Committee. However, McGwire's entry potential is a great discussion topic as well. I have always liked McGwire, but the steroid accusations may take awhile for the voters to sort through. Lots of legal activities (testimonials) have yet to be disclosed or take place concerning players with Hall potential and some voters may wait to see what facts are uncovered prior to rendering an opinion. I just do not believe anyone will be able to state with certainty who did NOT embark on supplementation. As has been stated to monotony, the Player's Association and MLB's dropping of the ball with respect to mandatory testing has had so many ramifications beyond the pure health of those involved and those whom have modeled this behavior.

Swoboda4
01-01-2008, 02:03 PM
With the onset on the "Steroid Decades" as I call it, a review of great players list who previously just missed the Hall by fractions of a point to Jack Morris to Bill Madlock,Munson,Mattingly,Santo,etc will now be revisited and welcomed.
They deserve it and Message Sent.

JETEFAN
01-01-2008, 02:32 PM
IFf Puckett is in, then there is no doubt that Donnie Baseball should be there too !!!!!!!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: I don't want to hear that he never won a championship, Hall of Fame should be judged on personal acheivements not team success. The player goes in not the team !!!


George

nomarmauerfan
01-01-2008, 03:17 PM
George,
I couldn't agree more. Look at all of the voting criteria and its a crime that Mattingly is not in there.

Mike

earlywynnfan
01-01-2008, 03:56 PM
Sorry, guys, but having one mistake in the HOF (Puckett) does not justify making another (Mattingly) or even others (Murphy, Rice, Maris, Munson, Hodges.) These guys were very, very good players, but that just makes them borderline HOFers, that's all. Do we really need more of those in the Hall?

I say we start pulling people OUT of the HOF! Off the bat, I nominate a couple old-timers -- George Kelly and Rube Marquard, along with some new guys -- Puckett and Ozzie Smith. (Sure, I love those guys, they were fun to watch, had great personalities, and were the type of players I want my kids to be. But 1st ballot HOFers??)

Ken

Chris78
01-01-2008, 08:26 PM
Does anyone feel that the steroids situation will help some of the borderline guys now (the ones that were not on steroids)?

Also, does anyone here use www.baseball-reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com) when looking up the player's stats? If you do, there is something that shows who are the 10 most similar players to that person. For instance, 8 of the 10 players listed for Bert Blyleven are in the Hall of Fame. For Tim Raines, 5 of the 10 are in. For Mark McGwire and Don Mattingly, 2 of the 10 are in. I think that this is a good reference to use for your case.

Chris

skyking26
01-01-2008, 09:33 PM
Sorry, guys, but having one mistake in the HOF (Puckett) does not justify making another (Mattingly) or even others (Murphy, Rice, Maris, Munson, Hodges.) These guys were very, very good players, but that just makes them borderline HOFers, that's all. Do we really need more of those in the Hall?

I say we start pulling people OUT of the HOF! Off the bat, I nominate a couple old-timers -- George Kelly and Rube Marquard, along with some new guys -- Puckett and Ozzie Smith. (Sure, I love those guys, they were fun to watch, had great personalities, and were the type of players I want my kids to be. But 1st ballot HOFers??)

Ken
I agree on Ozzie Smith. A wonderful athlete, all field, no hit...not a hall of famer. They made a mistake there. I don't think Mattingly or Puckett or Rice, etc. should be in either. The Hall is for top guys, not borderline...

cjclong
01-02-2008, 11:07 AM
Mattingly was one of my favorite players and if he had remained healthy might be a HOF candidate but his career numbers don't justify it in my opinion. To me the HOF should be reserved for players of superstar ability and not players who were just very, very good. As for Maris, I understand the argument because of the home run record. However his overall numbers don't justify it. He really had only two outstanding seasons , 60 and 61. Except for 61 he never hit more than 39 home runs in a year and finished with less than 300 and a batting average far below .300. The question with Maris is how short a time frame for excellence do we look at. Should everyone who has a season or a moment of excellence be in the Hall? If that were the case we could have everyone who has pitched a perfect game in the Hall because you can't be any better for one game. We all have players like Mattingly that we like but if you take a hard look at the career numbers they don't measure up. (I know this is opinion which makes it interestingly since obviously people will differ.)

JETEFAN
01-02-2008, 11:41 AM
The bottom line is whether you think Puckett should be in or not, he is in !! And like I said before, if he is there Mattingly had equal if not better numbers. If the voters decided what Kirby did was good enough, then if Donnie did the same or better why is he not good enough???

George

cjclong
01-02-2008, 12:05 PM
I guess the argument is because one player is voted in who doesn't have true HOF numbers do you put everyone else in with those numbers? If you do you can replace the HOF building with a 20 floor skyscraper and induction there will lose all meaning. I understand when we have a favorite player we would like to be in the Hall and another player with similar numbers is there and our player isn't it makes it hard to accept our player not being there. There seems to be a feeling somebody needs to be inducted into the Hall every year and if you have a year when the only players eligible are those that are very good but not outstanding some very good players get in instead of true outstanding HOF players. I think there should be years when no one is inducted. Since this is subjective there will always be arguments over who should be there and who shouldn't. I think it ought to be an exclusive rather than inclusive, but that's just my opinion and obviously others will differ.

ahuff
01-02-2008, 12:36 PM
The bottom line is whether you think Puckett should be in or not, he is in !! And like I said before, if he is there Mattingly had equal if not better numbers. If the voters decided what Kirby did was good enough, then if Donnie did the same or better why is he not good enough???

George

I am a huge Mattingly fan. I believe what might be hurting Mattingly is that he accomplished a great deal of his achievements during a 5-6 year span. After that, there was a noticeable drop off (due to injuries of course). Looking at Puckett's career, he was very consistant throughout his shortened career.

JETEFAN
01-02-2008, 01:50 PM
I am a huge Mattingly fan. I believe what might be hurting Mattingly is that he accomplished a great deal of his achievements during a 5-6 year span. After that, there was a noticeable drop off (due to injuries of course). Looking at Puckett's career, he was very consistant throughout his shortened career.

Again, voting has always been on bottom line, Mattinglys numbers are better than Pucketts and in fact Donnie played longer! Do we penalize Aaron for needing 4000 more at bats than the Babe? Length of time was not a factor when he was crowned HR king by MLB and upon the acceptance of Puckett's numbers by the Hall, Mattingly should be measured by the same measuring stick. My humble push for Donnie Baseball!!:D

suave1477
01-02-2008, 04:26 PM
Mattingly was one of my favorite players and if he had remained healthy might be a HOF candidate but his career numbers don't justify it in my opinion. To me the HOF should be reserved for players of superstar ability and not players who were just very, very good. As for Maris, I understand the argument because of the home run record. However his overall numbers don't justify it. He really had only two outstanding seasons , 60 and 61. Except for 61 he never hit more than 39 home runs in a year and finished with less than 300 and a batting average far below .300. The question with Maris is how short a time frame for excellence do we look at. Should everyone who has a season or a moment of excellence be in the Hall? If that were the case we could have everyone who has pitched a perfect game in the Hall because you can't be any better for one game. We all have players like Mattingly that we like but if you take a hard look at the career numbers they don't measure up. (I know this is opinion which makes it interestingly since obviously people will differ.)

Cjclong I compltely hear what you are saying but I think with Maris in particular your missing some things.
Hear me out on this!!

You said he only had 2 outstading seasons - which is 2 more then most players, which one season he was MVP and the other broke one of the most cherished records in baseball

You said he never hit more then 39 home runs in a season other then those 2 years yeah but he still got into the late 20's a few seasons which is a lot for the early 1960's - remember back then home runs were different not everyone was juiced averaging 50 a year lol lol

You also said should everyone who has a moment of season of excellence be allowed in the fame NO and your right bu Maris had the most excellent season by breaking a coveted record - he didnt have an excellent season - he had one of the most talked about season till this day in baseball!!!

I think an exception should be made in his case and go in be voted in by the Veterans Board. I mean it is not like were giving him the a first time ballot vote in, just a hey you accomplished something amazing vote and we recognize what you have done lol lol:p

Till this day no one has broken Maris 61 record - naturally

cjclong
01-02-2008, 05:20 PM
Suave, because Maris broke Ruth's single season record he might be an exception to my criteria for the Hall. If you take away the 60 and 61 seasons he was a very ordinary player. However he was a very underrated fielder. His play on Mays double to hold Alou at third in the ninth inning of game 7 of the 62 World Series saved the game for the Yankees. His 61 season is as you pointed out one that everybody remembers to this day. He had two MVP seasons, but a lot of people felt that in 60 Mantle was really more deserving of the award when he came on with a lot of clutch hits late in the year. And of course Maris hit ahead of Mantle and got a lot of good pitches because of that. (In 61 when Maris broke Ruth's record he did not receive a single intentional walk all year. Not one. Nobody was going to walk Maris to get to Mantle.) However in fairness to Maris he did take advantage of the situation to set the record. If I had a vote I don't think I would vote for Maris for the reasons I stated, but you have a very convincing argument and if he were voted in I couldn't say that he didn't belong.

byergo
01-02-2008, 09:52 PM
My thoughts:

Look at Maris's career stats. He isn't even close to HOF consideration. I mean NOT EVEN CLOSE. Career .260 hitter with 275 HR's? It's laughable to even talk about it. His career year came as he coasted behind The Mick's coat tail. Served meat pitches and never intentionally walked even a single time. Mantle got screwed as he was the obvious MVP, the vastly better player and had the better year in 61.

The Wizard of Oz is one of, if not the greatest defensive player in the history of baseball. 15 All Star Appearances (the leading vote getter most years), 13 consecutive Gold Gloves, not a great bat but led the NL in batting average and won a Silver Slugger in 1987 (he improved greatly as a hitter as his career progressed). Again, a no-brainer Hall of Famer. Not even up for discussion.

I love Donnie Baseball (who doesn't) but sadly injuries cost him of being a sure Hall of Famer. That's the breaks in sports. Bo Jackson would have been a HOF'er in either/both football/baseball, but sadly the greatest athlete in history got injured too. Oh, what could have been.

All steroid era suspected players (you know who they are, I don't have to name them and the list will grow longer after Canseco's new book is released) should be barred from the HOF until we have more historical perspective on this whole mess.

Shoeless Joe should be in (look at his World Series stats and tell me he threw a game?). Pete Rose should never be in (broke the cardinal rule of baseball).

Jim Rice and Andre Dawson deserve long hard looks.

Goose Gossage is another no-brainer. Absolutely dominant pitcher.

Bert Blyleven should be in.

One last thought. A year in which nobody is voted in is OK! This is the HALL OF FAME after all.

earlywynnfan
01-03-2008, 07:12 PM
1) I don't consider anyone who was an offensive liability for most of his career a "no-brainer." Ditto for Mazeroski. Brooks could hit. Michael Jack could really hit. Tris Speaker could hit. Have you ever checked Bill James' research on how much defense helps a team over a season? For the few games Ozzie helped win with his glove, I'm sure he lost as many with his bat.

2) I'm going to flip your Jackson/Rose argument: There has never even been discussion, let alone proof, that Rose bet on baseball as a player; for his on the field accomplishments, he deserves to be in the Hall; he just shouldn't be allowed back in baseball because of what he did in a manager's uniform. As for Jackson, NOBODY said he threw games; read your history books. What he did do is TAKE THE CASH!! That, and silence. That's like telling the judge that you were just the lookout, you didn't actually rob the bank, so you should be set free.

3) Player A: 1325 hits, 826 runs, 851 RBI, 275 HR, .260 2 MVP. Yankee
Player B: 2153 Hits, 1007 Runs, 1099 RBI, 222HR, .305 1 MVP. Yankee
Player C: 2111 hits, 1197 runs, 1266 RBI, 398 HR, .265 2 MVP. NOT a Yankee.

Why is A (Maris) and B (Mattingly) getting all this push, while Player C is ignored? Would anyone care about Mattingly in particular if he was, say, a Royal??

I agree that Goose is a no-brainer, the man was incredible. I also agree with Blyleven and Dawson being very close, closer than anyone mentioned above.

Ken

JETEFAN
01-03-2008, 07:28 PM
1) I don't consider anyone who was an offensive liability for most of his career a "no-brainer." Ditto for Mazeroski. Brooks could hit. Michael Jack could really hit. Tris Speaker could hit. Have you ever checked Bill James' research on how much defense helps a team over a season? For the few games Ozzie helped win with his glove, I'm sure he lost as many with his bat.

2) I'm going to flip your Jackson/Rose argument: There has never even been discussion, let alone proof, that Rose bet on baseball as a player; for his on the field accomplishments, he deserves to be in the Hall; he just shouldn't be allowed back in baseball because of what he did in a manager's uniform. As for Jackson, NOBODY said he threw games; read your history books. What he did do is TAKE THE CASH!! That, and silence. That's like telling the judge that you were just the lookout, you didn't actually rob the bank, so you should be set free.

3) Player A: 1325 hits, 826 runs, 851 RBI, 275 HR, .260 2 MVP. Yankee
Player B: 2153 Hits, 1007 Runs, 1099 RBI, 222HR, .305 1 MVP. Yankee
Player C: 2111 hits, 1197 runs, 1266 RBI, 398 HR, .265 2 MVP. NOT a Yankee.

Why is A (Maris) and B (Mattingly) getting all this push, while Player C is ignored? Would anyone care about Mattingly in particular if he was, say, a Royal??

I agree that Goose is a no-brainer, the man was incredible. I also agree with Blyleven and Dawson being very close, closer than anyone mentioned above.

Ken


Along with 3000 hits and 500 Hr's, .300 BA has been a sort of measuring stick for the hall, seems like player B, Yankees or not is the only one .300 or above, A & C not even close....

earlywynnfan
01-03-2008, 09:26 PM
So you mean that

Mattingly: 2153 Hits, 1007 Runs, 1099 RBI, 222HR, .305 1 MVP

belongs in the HOF (without a doubt!), while

Cecil Cooper: 2192 hits, 1012 runs, 1125 RBI, 241 HR, .298

does not, because of a .007 difference in batting average??

The HOF does not mean pick one stat that your player does really really well at and ignore the fact that many non-HOF calibre players beat all their others. And, sorry, but a .305 batting average isn't exactly spectacular in baseball history, even for the 1980's. I'm sure there are a hundred players out there who hit higher than .305 for 14 or more years. And is hitting .300 what you want out of a First Baseman? Where is his power and run production? He had almost 1,600 more at-bats than John Mayberry, yet still hit less homers! WHAT MAKES HIM AN ELITE PLAYER?

Ken

JETEFAN
01-04-2008, 01:46 AM
So you mean that

Mattingly: 2153 Hits, 1007 Runs, 1099 RBI, 222HR, .305 1 MVP

belongs in the HOF (without a doubt!), while

Cecil Cooper: 2192 hits, 1012 runs, 1125 RBI, 241 HR, .298

does not, because of a .007 difference in batting average??

The HOF does not mean pick one stat that your player does really really well at and ignore the fact that many non-HOF calibre players beat all their others. And, sorry, but a .305 batting average isn't exactly spectacular in baseball history, even for the 1980's. I'm sure there are a hundred players out there who hit higher than .305 for 14 or more years. And is hitting .300 what you want out of a First Baseman? Where is his power and run production? He had almost 1,600 more at-bats than John Mayberry, yet still hit less homers! WHAT MAKES HIM AN ELITE PLAYER?

Ken

I think maybe more All-Star selections, more MVP's, and more Gold Gloves than Cooper might have something to do with it. .....I'll take outstanding defense, along with his offensive numbers! as for Mayberry, why are we even mentioning a .253 hitter??. My point is that if Pucketts numbers were good enough for the Hall, than Mattingly with equal or better numbers should be in as well, along with anyone else with equal numbers. including Cooper. Cooper and Mattingly were very close as far as hitting, but Cooper was no where near the defensive player Mattingly was.

George

Carlevv
01-04-2008, 02:13 AM
Albert Belle

byergo
01-04-2008, 12:41 PM
A, B, & C all far short of the mark.

JETEFAN
01-04-2008, 07:55 PM
Seasons AB BA HR Hits AS GG MVP

Mattingly 14 7003 .307 222 2153 6 9 1

Puckett 12 7244 .318 207 2304 8 6 0


What do we do, drop Puckett from the hall or add Mattingly? Equal if you ask me !!


George

sylbry
01-04-2008, 08:39 PM
Seasons AB BA HR Hits AS GG MVP

Mattingly 14 7003 .307 222 2153 6 9 1

Puckett 12 7244 .318 207 2304 8 6 0


What do we do, drop Puckett from the hall or add Mattingly? Equal if you ask me !!


George

Championships: Puckett - 2, Mattingly - 0

Batting Titles: Puckett - 1, Mattingly - 0

chakes89
01-04-2008, 09:09 PM
Dave Concepcion

nomarmauerfan
01-04-2008, 09:27 PM
Slybry,
Mattingly won a batting championship in 1984. Also, world championships are teams, not individuals. And, others, Cecil Cooper....he was an excellent hitter, but to put him as a similar caliber player as Mattingly is goofy. Mattingly was one of the top 2-3 players of the 80's and the face of a team. Cooper was not. A great hitter, yes, but I don't think its a fair comparison.
We're all looking at stats and that's great. But, if you look at the actual voting criteria, there's a lot more that goes into it. I am as big of a Mattingly fan as you'll find and I want him to be in. But, even he says that it would just be the icing on the cake. I hope someday they'll put him in, but it would be hard to come back from last year when he received less than 10% of the vote.

Mike

sylbry
01-04-2008, 09:53 PM
Slybry,
Mattingly won a batting championship in 1984. Also, world championships are teams, not individuals. And, others, Cecil Cooper....he was an excellent hitter, but to put him as a similar caliber player as Mattingly is goofy. Mattingly was one of the top 2-3 players of the 80's and the face of a team. Cooper was not. A great hitter, yes, but I don't think its a fair comparison.
We're all looking at stats and that's great. But, if you look at the actual voting criteria, there's a lot more that goes into it. I am as big of a Mattingly fan as you'll find and I want him to be in. But, even he says that it would just be the icing on the cake. I hope someday they'll put him in, but it would be hard to come back from last year when he received less than 10% of the vote.

Mike

Mike,

Thank you for the correction. I thought he did but the website I checked prior to posting didn't have him listed as winning a batting title.

Statwise Mattingly and Puckett are close but Puckett's other accomplishments and intangibles are what makes him a HOFer IMO. Mattingly doesn't have two rings. Mattingly never had a game like Puckett did in game 6 of the 91 Series. Mattingly might be considered one of the 15 best Yankees. Puckett is the face of the Twins franchise. And have you ever heard any ballplayer ever say anything bad about Puckett. The guy always had a smile and was friendly to everyone. (Don't know enough about Mattingly to comment here.)

I know intangibles and character shouldn't trump stats but in the end baseball is also about memories and Puckett created some very positive, strong, and lasting ones.

Bryan

Carlevv
01-04-2008, 09:54 PM
Seasons AB BA HR Hits AS GG MVP

Mattingly 14 7003 .307 222 2153 6 9 1

Puckett 12 7244 .318 207 2304 8 6 0


What do we do, drop Puckett from the hall or add Mattingly? Equal if you ask me !!


George

Albert Belle

Seasons 10

AB 5853

Runs 974

Hits 1726

HR 381

RBI's 1239

Avg. .295

His career was also cut short because of an injury. If Mattingly gets in this guy deserves the same treatment. Belle was a dominating force in the game period. I dont want to hear that he wasnt a good guy either. Numbers dont lie.

nomarmauerfan
01-04-2008, 10:54 PM
Bryan,
Don't worry...I'm not one of the ones you have to convince about Kirby. I believe he should be there. He was everything you said and more. A personal story about Kirby...I am a physical therapist in Minnesota and I was treating one of his friends. He asked her to call him while she was at PT. I got on the phone and he said, "Mike, I just want to say thanks for treating my friend. I'm going to send a little something with her the next time she comes in." Well, the next visit, she brings in a signed Puckett bat (game-issued). She smudged the sig after he signed it, but it doesn't matter...a great story from a GREAT man and one of my prized collectibles.
Donnie and Puck were so close in stats, personality, etc., that I think we all like to link them together. In my opinion, they both deserve to be in. Mattingly's only playoff appearance in 1995 was like Puck's Game 6...Donnie hit over .400 for the series with a bunch of RBI's (I can't remember, but I think it was 6). He carried the team and if it wasn't for his bullpen, the Yanks would've advanced. I grew up in NY and never saw another player like Donnie Baseball. I'm sure I hold him in the same regard as you hold Puck. They are just one in a million. And, when you're that big of a fan, you just want to see them rewarded. The voting is subjective, our discussions are subjective...but, to me, Donnie Baseball is and always will be the best player I've ever seen.

Mike

BTW, Slybry, are you going to Twinsfest in a few weeks? My family and I will be there on Sunday in the Mauer line.

Nathan
01-04-2008, 11:03 PM
Mattingly is most similar to the following 10 players:

Cecil Cooper
Wally Joyner
Hal McRae
Kirby Puckett
Garrett Anderson
Will Clark
Jeff Conine
Tony Oliva
Keith Hernandez
Jim Bottomley

Bottomley and Puckett are the only two HOFers, and Bottomley is generally regarded as one of the worst inducted. Puckett would be as well, if not for the following three factors:
1) His exuberant personality and friendly media dealings
2) The abrupt end to his career that caused many to project him over what the next 5-7 years would have held
3) A home run and a catch in the World Series

I loved Puckett, and it's possible that he would have continued on and been enormously productive, but in the basic reality of HOF induction I believe he falls short...or at least should have.

JETEFAN
01-05-2008, 01:44 AM
Bryan,
Don't worry...I'm not one of the ones you have to convince about Kirby. I believe he should be there. He was everything you said and more. A personal story about Kirby...I am a physical therapist in Minnesota and I was treating one of his friends. He asked her to call him while she was at PT. I got on the phone and he said, "Mike, I just want to say thanks for treating my friend. I'm going to send a little something with her the next time she comes in." Well, the next visit, she brings in a signed Puckett bat (game-issued). She smudged the sig after he signed it, but it doesn't matter...a great story from a GREAT man and one of my prized collectibles.
Donnie and Puck were so close in stats, personality, etc., that I think we all like to link them together. In my opinion, they both deserve to be in. Mattingly's only playoff appearance in 1995 was like Puck's Game 6...Donnie hit over .400 for the series with a bunch of RBI's (I can't remember, but I think it was 6). He carried the team and if it wasn't for his bullpen, the Yanks would've advanced. I grew up in NY and never saw another player like Donnie Baseball. I'm sure I hold him in the same regard as you hold Puck. They are just one in a million. And, when you're that big of a fan, you just want to see them rewarded. The voting is subjective, our discussions are subjective...but, to me, Donnie Baseball is and always will be the best player I've ever seen.

Mike

BTW, Slybry, are you going to Twinsfest in a few weeks? My family and I will be there on Sunday in the Mauer line.

Well said Mike, Donnie hit .417, 6 RBI's and had a .708 Slug.!!!!!!:eek:

George

Stefano61
01-07-2008, 05:42 PM
Albert Belle

Seasons 10

AB 5853

Runs 974

Hits 1726

HR 381

RBI's 1239

Avg. .295

His career was also cut short because of an injury. If Mattingly gets in this guy deserves the same treatment. Belle was a dominating force in the game period. I dont want to hear that he wasnt a good guy either. Numbers dont lie.

I totally agree with you, Albert Belle should be in the HOF...he had far more "Hall of Fame years" than Dawson and Rice, playing a lot less. I believe that excellence years should be decisive in judging a player performance (agree with McLaughlin of Hardball Times in this), I hate to see players going to the Hall because they play forever and pile up numbers in less than mediocre seasons...Belle had an OPS for his career of .933 (33rd in the history of the game with at least 5000 PA...Rice .854 and Dawson .806)...he was a complete player and the most feared hitter in baseball for a decade, forced to retire when he was still in his prime years, in my opinion that's more than enough for a place in the HOF

5kRunner
01-07-2008, 06:03 PM
I totally agree with you, Albert Belle should be in the HOF...he had far more "Hall of Fame years" than Dawson and Rice, playing a lot less. I believe that excellence years should be decisive in judging a player performance (agree with McLaughlin of Hardball Times in this), I hate to see players going to the Hall because they play forever and pile up numbers in less than mediocre seasons...Belle had an OPS for his career of .933 (33rd in the history of the game with at least 5000 PA...Rice .854 and Dawson .806)...he was a complete player and the most feared hitter in baseball for a decade, forced to retire when he was still in his prime years, in my opinion that's more than enough for a place in the HOF

I'll admit, Albert Belle deserved a lot more consideration than he got. But, Dawson has 6 Gold Gloves to Belle's 0. You could make the argument Dawson was the most feared hitter in the NL for years. And if you argue Belle's career was cut short, you could also argue that playing in Montreal ruined Dawson's knees enough to affect his stats as well.

Anyway, the numbers are the numbers. But, in my opinion the players of the 80's were forgotten because of the steriod era of the late 90's and 00's.

Nathan
01-07-2008, 09:57 PM
I don't think Joey Belle gets serious consideration because his career was too short to merit it. Had he played another 5-9 years at a high level the discussion would be there.

As for Andre Dawson, his career percentages are .279/.323/.482. I don't think he was "great", just "pretty good". It's entirely possible that the injuries prevented him from maximizing his ability, but no HOF outside of hockey puts guys in based on what could have been.

2OnBase
01-12-2008, 01:19 AM
Great discussion points by everyone! I believe cross era comparisons with ballplayers should NOT be emphasized until comparison to peers from the same era is first considered. Equipment, rules, ballparks, field dimensions (especially fences and mound height), strike zones, all change as the game has developed. In my opinion, we should be comparing ballplayers to their peers from the same era AND at the same position prior to making any attempt to compare to another era. It takes a different type of player, to play shortstop rather than outfield, catcher rather than 2nd base, and so on. During certain eras of the game, the play expected and performed was different for most positions as the game has evolved. For example, the shortstops of the 60-70's were clearly more defensive minded than what has been witnessed recently with the superb offensive numbers for this position (with the exception of Ernie Banks). Relief pitching has changed significantly as well, but finally has been noticed by Hall voters. Unfortunately, those pitching prior to some of the "save" rule changes and statistics will likely be ignored for years to come.

Rod