Who's going into HOF?

[JETEFAN]

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]

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]

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]

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!!

[suave1477]

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

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

[cjclong]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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