Turning the previous question on its head -- of those returning to the HOF ballot this year, who least deserves a plaque in Cooperstown?
| Bert Blyleven |  2 (1.68%) |
| Andre Dawson | 5 (4.20%) |
| Rich Gossage | 2 (1.68%) |
| Don Mattingly | 32 (26.89%) |
| Mark McGwire | 15 (12.61%) |
| Jack Morris | 13 (10.92%) |
| Dale Murphy | 14 (11.76%) |
| Jim Rice | 6 (5.04%) |
| Lee Smith | 17 (14.29%) |
| Alan Trammell | 13 (10.92%) |
119 votes | 10 featured comments
To be clear, I would probably vote for all 10 of these guys; some are no-brainers in my view (Blyleven, Morris, Trammell) while others are more borderline (Smith, Rice) and of course there's the McGwire conundrum. But given all that, having to choose one, I went with Rice. Great hitter for a dozen years then totally fell off the map. Probably deserves a spot in the Hall, though his BBRef comparables include some current HOFers (Cepeda is #1) and some obvious not-so-much guys (Ellis Burks?) ...
For me, this comes down to Morris and Mattingly. I voted Morris, because Mattingly was at least great for a few years (before he hurt his back). Morris, on the other hand, was just a solid-to-good pitcher (most of the time - he did have some truly awful seasons mixed in there), but one who was fortunate enough to play on excellent teams for the majority of his career. His case is built on two things - his Win totals and Game 7 of the 1991 World Series. That shouldn't be nearly enough. Heck, that's barely enough to keep him on the ballot year after year. Dave Stieb was a demonstrably better pitcher than Morris, and as much as I love him, Stieb's no Hall of Famer.
If Jack Morris gets in the Hall of Fame, that's the last straw. They will need to tear that place down and start again for it to regain any credibility in my eyes.
If Jack Morris gets in the Hall of Fame, that's the last straw. They will need to tear that place down and start again for it to regain any credibility in my eyes.
Wow, you'd vote for all of them? I guess I'm a "small hall" guy, at least in comparison to that.
I selected Mattingly, since I don't see any criteria he meets, at all, that would merit his induction into the hall. Do those who vote for him give him a break because of his injuries? Because as a hitter, he was basically Tim Salmon, without the World Series win. John Olerud was a better hitter, lasted longer, also played great defense in his prime, and also doesn't seem like a future HoFer to me.
After Mattingly, I also wouldn't vote for Morris, Rice, Smith, or Murphy. Dawson is a borderline case in my head,although I lean towards no.
I selected Mattingly, since I don't see any criteria he meets, at all, that would merit his induction into the hall. Do those who vote for him give him a break because of his injuries? Because as a hitter, he was basically Tim Salmon, without the World Series win. John Olerud was a better hitter, lasted longer, also played great defense in his prime, and also doesn't seem like a future HoFer to me.
After Mattingly, I also wouldn't vote for Morris, Rice, Smith, or Murphy. Dawson is a borderline case in my head,although I lean towards no.
On top of Morris, I also wouldn't vote for Mattingly, Dawson, Rice, Smith or Murphy. Murphy is the only one that I would consider out of that group, but he fell off a bit too early for my liking.
Mattingly to me has no place in the hall outside of a mention for former MVP winners.
As a hitter he was over 25 HR just 3 times, 5 times with 100 RBI's (just 1 of those was without Rickey Henderson hitting leadoff). For a first baseman that just doesn't impress. At his peak (4 years) he had an OPS+ of 146 to 161. For comparison, Frank Thomas has 8 full seasons better than Mattingly's best. McGriff had a 5 year stretch (3 in Toronto, 2 in SD) better than that with 150+ games per year, then a 143 then a 157 in the strike year.
Think about that - Fred McGriff had a longer, higher peak than Mattingly with the bat.
One of his biggest 'strengths' is supposed to be his leadership. Yet the Yankees only made it to the playoffs in his final year, the first year a Wild Card existed. They were knocked out in the first round. Yes, he hit well in that single series but obviously didn't have the 'leadership aura' to push his teammates past Seattle.
For a guy who is associated with just the Yankees he sure has acheived what most would figure impossible, namely never getting to the World Series as a player or coach (the Yanks were there the year before Mattingly reached the majors, the year after he retired, and the year before he started coaching).
Mattingly is nothing like a HOF'er. Not even close.
As a hitter he was over 25 HR just 3 times, 5 times with 100 RBI's (just 1 of those was without Rickey Henderson hitting leadoff). For a first baseman that just doesn't impress. At his peak (4 years) he had an OPS+ of 146 to 161. For comparison, Frank Thomas has 8 full seasons better than Mattingly's best. McGriff had a 5 year stretch (3 in Toronto, 2 in SD) better than that with 150+ games per year, then a 143 then a 157 in the strike year.
Think about that - Fred McGriff had a longer, higher peak than Mattingly with the bat.
One of his biggest 'strengths' is supposed to be his leadership. Yet the Yankees only made it to the playoffs in his final year, the first year a Wild Card existed. They were knocked out in the first round. Yes, he hit well in that single series but obviously didn't have the 'leadership aura' to push his teammates past Seattle.
For a guy who is associated with just the Yankees he sure has acheived what most would figure impossible, namely never getting to the World Series as a player or coach (the Yanks were there the year before Mattingly reached the majors, the year after he retired, and the year before he started coaching).
Mattingly is nothing like a HOF'er. Not even close.
Well, as alluded to earlier, I am a "big Hall" guy, and in fact can see McGriff as a viable candidate, so that comparison doesn't bother me.
But when you're making comparisons, the relevant name on Donnie Baseball's "Most Similar" list is Kirby Puckett. Sure, Puck was a flashy (not necessarily "great") CF while Mattingly was "just" a very good (maybe great) 1B ... and yes, the Twins won a couple of titles with Puckett in the lineup.
But statistically, they are pretty much the same guy, even to time of service -- Puckett 12 full seasons, Mattingly 13. Does Puckett belong in the Hall while Mattingly does not? Especially given some of the little guy's, ah, personality quirks, coming to light after retirement, I'd say no.
What makes the difference?
What makes the difference?
Easy one. There is no difference, neither should get into the Hall without buying a ticket. I'm sure I'm in the minority on Puckett but I don't see how he got in so easily. Mattingly has no case at all. If Mattingly is worthy then there will be 10 players in every class from now until eternity.
I'm a "Big Hall" guy as well but most of the guys on this list are borderline and thats where it gets tough. Mattingly, Murphy, Morris, good players, almost great players but averybody on the list has a reason or 2 that's holding them back. For me Blyleven, Gossage, McGwire, Trammell and Smith should be in and Rice, Dawson, Morris and Murphy could go either way. As far as the big hall, there's plenty of oldtime HOF'ers who should only be in a "Big Hall" and considering baseball is well over 100 years old and there are now 30 teams instead of 16, 227 players that are in so far is not a overly large number.
I don't think Puckett should have gotten in either, but as to why he got in and not Mattingly, 2 reasons:
1. World Series wins, featuring several memorable Puckett moments (hits and catches). I'm of the opinion that postseason, while being a fairly useless way to evaluate a player, should be factored into hall of fame voting (the only reason anyone even brings up Morris is one WS game; otherwise he was a durable and good pitcher).
2. Freakish injury. It's odd to distinguish between injury types, but Puckett went out on performing near his top level after developing glaucoma (I think), which isn't a sports injury. Mattingly had a bad back. A bad back is one of the quintessential sports injuries. So sportswriters felt sorry for Puckett moreso than Mattingly. Me, I feel bad for Albert Belle, who was better than either of them before his hip went bad. But he's not a HoFer either.
1. World Series wins, featuring several memorable Puckett moments (hits and catches). I'm of the opinion that postseason, while being a fairly useless way to evaluate a player, should be factored into hall of fame voting (the only reason anyone even brings up Morris is one WS game; otherwise he was a durable and good pitcher).
2. Freakish injury. It's odd to distinguish between injury types, but Puckett went out on performing near his top level after developing glaucoma (I think), which isn't a sports injury. Mattingly had a bad back. A bad back is one of the quintessential sports injuries. So sportswriters felt sorry for Puckett moreso than Mattingly. Me, I feel bad for Albert Belle, who was better than either of them before his hip went bad. But he's not a HoFer either.
To me there is a big difference between Puckett and Mattingly. One played a solid CF while the other was a solid 1B. CF'ers are far harder to find than 1B.
Also of note: career OPS+
161,156,156,146,133,128,120,112,107,107,103,97,81
152,141,138,132,131,130,129,120,120,119,92,79
Two of Mattingly's seasons were under 100 games played (plus a -11 his first call up). Mattingly had a higher peak, and a lower drop off (3 years for Puckett at the 120 range vs 3 years at 110 for Mattingly).
I wouldn't put either in, but Puckett has a lot more of a case than Mattingly does.
Also of note: career OPS+
161,156,156,146,133,128,120,112,107,107,103,97,81
152,141,138,132,131,130,129,120,120,119,92,79
Two of Mattingly's seasons were under 100 games played (plus a -11 his first call up). Mattingly had a higher peak, and a lower drop off (3 years for Puckett at the 120 range vs 3 years at 110 for Mattingly).
I wouldn't put either in, but Puckett has a lot more of a case than Mattingly does.