NIGHT STALKER Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 The writers who make these decisions are making it difficult for themselves on who deserves to be in and who doesn't. Very simple to figure out...if you have to think about whether a player deserves to be in, he doesn't belong. It should be a slam dunk thought process. I'll give you two former players that have been on the bubble. One former Yankee and one former Red Sox. Don Mattingly and Jim Rice. If you have to think about whether to vote these guys in, they don't deserve to be in...the HOF should be reserved for great players, not borderline players that you have to think about before casting a vote. What do you guys think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn306 Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Rice should be in no questions asked. The guy was maybe the most feared hitter in the AL during his time and probably only Mike Schmidt was a better power hitter. Mattingly is a little tougher in my eyes. He was probably the best player in game 1984-1988. When he started having back issues though his numbers dropped. It also does not help him that he did not see the post season until 1995. Rice in Mattingly out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFJF Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Rice should be in no questions asked. The guy was maybe the most feared hitter in the AL during his time and probably only Mike Schmidt was a better power hitter. Mattingly is a little tougher in my eyes. He was probably the best player in game 1984-1988. When he started having back issues though his numbers dropped. It also does not help him that he did not see the post season until 1995. Rice in Mattingly out. As a Yankee fan it pains me to say that IMO it's hard to justify putting Mattingly in...however, if people are going to put Puckett in then Mattinglys numbers are too similar do discount. I've heard them compared on many occassions as great players whos careers were cut short by injury which is true. If Puckett deserves to be in, Mattingly deserves consideration. Not every player is a slam dunk. Some guys are going to be great players with numbers that compare to those HOFers with the "worst" stats in the hall and that will always lead to debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barton Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Listen, I might be talking out of my a** here. But did Bill Mazeroski not get in the HOF just because he was a great glove at 2nd base? I know he won a ring with a huge homerun, and Donnie didnt. But Donnie was also a great 1st baseman with numerous gold gloves and a MUCH better bat. Mattingly has a .307 career BA and 9 gold gloves! Which is a record for a 1st baseman in MLB history!! Mazeroski was a fricking .260 hitter who never once hit higher than .275, owns 8 gold gloves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Listen, I might be talking out of my a** here. But did Bill Mazeroski not get in the HOF just because he was a great glove at 2nd base? I know he won a ring with a huge homerun, and Donnie didnt. But Donnie was also a great 1st baseman with numerous gold gloves and a MUCH better bat. Mattingly has a .307 career BA and 9 gold gloves! Which is a record for a 1st baseman in MLB history!! Mazeroski was a fricking .260 hitter who never once hit higher than .275, owns 8 gold gloves. If I remember correctly, Keith Hernandez had 11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 I'd put them both in. Mattingly may not have the total numbers of some of these guys, but he was the best player in the game for five years. That's enough for me. The BEST player for a half a decade doesn't deserve to be in and some decent ballplayer gets in for playing 20 years and amassing numbers based on that? Palmero over Donnie? No way that's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbn007 Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Mattingly does not deserve to be in. He was maybe the best all around player at a premium position for a 6 year period in the late 1980s. But that was it. The next 6 years were in decline due to his back injuries. His 6 superb seasons do not, IMO, make him a HOF player. For that matter, Puckett is not a HOF in my eyes either. Nice player, but a HOF? No. Rice deserves to be in. From 1975, for the next 10-11 seasons, he was the most feared hitter in the game. The most feared. That is a nice long time to be considered the best slugger in the game. Put him in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Ron Guidry, Pete Browning, Shoeless Joe, Chino Smith, Dick Redding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barton Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 If I remember correctly, Keith Hernandez had 11. You're right. Mattingly just owns the AL record for 1st baseman. Still, Mazeroski in the HOF? Thats a joke. A JOKE. He shouldnt be in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn306 Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 I never saw Mazeroski play but unless he was Ozzie Smith with the glove he had no buisness getting into the HOF. The reason he got in was because of all his cronies on the Veterans Committee. If I'm not mistaken after Maz got in they got rid of that. The reason why I would put Puckett in over Mattingly comes down to one thing. 1) Puckett was a great post season player 2) Mattingly's only post season appearence was in the last year of his career. The 85 Yankees were a really good team with Mattingly, Winfield, Henderson, Guidry, and Righetti. It would have been intersting to see how they would have matched up against KC in the playoffs or St.Louis in the World Series that year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFJF Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 2) Mattingly's only post season appearence was in the last year of his career. And in that post season he looked like the same Don Mattingly that was the best player in baseball in the late 80s .417 BA, 4 2B, HR, 6 RBI in 5 games...can't hold it against a player for playing on teams that didn't make the post season enough times. He had one shot on the big stage in absolutely tore it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GimmeShelter Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 And in that post season he looked like the same Don Mattingly that was the best player in baseball in the late 80s .417 BA, 4 2B, HR, 6 RBI in 5 games...can't hold it against a player for playing on teams that didn't make the post season enough times. He had one shot on the big stage in absolutely tore it up. That was nice to see. He was obviously hurting and you could see his approach at the plate was different yet still he almost got the Yanks past Seattle that year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 I never saw Mazeroski play but unless he was Ozzie Smith with the glove he had no buisness getting into the HOF. The reason he got in was because of all his cronies on the Veterans Committee. If I'm not mistaken after Maz got in they got rid of that. The reason why I would put Puckett in over Mattingly comes down to one thing. 1) Puckett was a great post season player 2) Mattingly's only post season appearence was in the last year of his career. The 85 Yankees were a really good team with Mattingly, Winfield, Henderson, Guidry, and Righetti. It would have been intersting to see how they would have matched up against KC in the playoffs or St.Louis in the World Series that year. Maz probably rates as one of the top 5 defensive second basemen of all time granted his offense was utterly horrible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Maz probably rates as one of the top 5 defensive second basemen of all time granted his offense was utterly horrible Beat me to it. Maybe the greatest defensive second baseman of all time. Records for the most double plays of anybody in a season and for a career at 2B. He could turn anything. Plus the only walkoff game 7 HR to win a world series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 So a guy who was the best player in the game for 5 years doesn't rate? The BEST. Old men are going to go to the HOF and say when I was a kid there was this guy who was better than.... Boggs, Palmero, etc and little kids are gonna make fun of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 I actually didn't hate the yankees when I was kid cause I liked Mattingly. I'm sure there are more than a few people in the hall that he deserves it more than. Whether that should get him in or not.. Glad I don't have to vote, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIGHT STALKER Posted August 7, 2006 Author Share Posted August 7, 2006 See, I think you guys proved my point. When you have a slam dunk player, there's no debate...guys like Mays, Aaron, Mantle, Williams...you know the guys I'm referring to. This is why guys like Rice, Mattingly, etc., will have a difficult time...too many opinions are whether they deserve to get in or not. Going back to my original point, if you have to think or debate it, they don't deserve to get in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbn007 Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 See, I think you guys proved my point. When you have a slam dunk player, there's no debate...guys like Mays, Aaron, Mantle, Williams...you know the guys I'm referring to. This is why guys like Rice, Mattingly, etc., will have a difficult time...too many opinions are whether they deserve to get in or not. Going back to my original point, if you have to think or debate it, they don't deserve to get in. No one argues about Rice, except the foolish writers who vote and skip his name every year. The others are debateable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Gossage should be in. And for chrissakes put Buck O'Neill in before he dies. I have no idea if he was a great player or not, thoguh the little there is available about him is in his favor. If Phil Rizzuto gets in large part based on sentiment, then O'Neill deserves a day int he sun and a plaque. Cannot argue with Rice. Mattingly is tough. His numbers ar damn near identical to those of Puckett. Puckett got the benefit of retiring due to glacoma and won 2 titles-and before anyone knew he was something of a jerk. That's where it gets a little silly; if you put guys like Mazroski and Puckett in, how do you not put Mattingly and Maris in? Maris had an MVP, the HR record forever pre-steroids and was part of numerous pennant winners in NY and STL. And they penalize Mattingly because he didn't have decent pitchers and hurt his back. It probably would bet better to drop Mazeroski and Puckett but that won't happen. One guy they always bring up as a HoFer is Burt Blyleven. No way-if he gets in, then Tommy John should too. But I don't think either is a HoFer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 287 wins, 3701 Ks, 3.31 career ERA, 5th in strikeouts, 25th in wins Bert Blyleven? I'm not saying Tommy John shouldn't be in too, but he only has 1 more win than Blyleven, and nearly 1500 less strikeouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Gossage should be in. And for chrissakes put Buck O'Neill in before he dies. I have no idea if he was a great player or not, thoguh the little there is available about him is in his favor. If Phil Rizzuto gets in large part based on sentiment, then O'Neill deserves a day int he sun and a plaque. Cannot argue with Rice. Mattingly is tough. His numbers ar damn near identical to those of Puckett. Puckett got the benefit of retiring due to glacoma and won 2 titles-and before anyone knew he was something of a jerk. That's where it gets a little silly; if you put guys like Mazroski and Puckett in, how do you not put Mattingly and Maris in? Maris had an MVP, the HR record forever pre-steroids and was part of numerous pennant winners in NY and STL. And they penalize Mattingly because he didn't have decent pitchers and hurt his back. It probably would bet better to drop Mazeroski and Puckett but that won't happen. One guy they always bring up as a HoFer is Burt Blyleven. No way-if he gets in, then Tommy John should too. But I don't think either is a HoFer. Maris actually had 2 MVP's ('60 and '61) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 287 wins, 3701 Ks, 3.31 career ERA, 5th in strikeouts, 25th in wins Bert Blyleven? I'm not saying Tommy John shouldn't be in too, but he only has 1 more win than Blyleven, and nearly 1500 less strikeouts. Don Sutton also got in, due almost entirely to 300 wins, which was a mistake. Sutton, Blyleven and John all pretty much hung around forever, but were really good, not dominant. I'd say from memory John was the best of the 3, damsn the stats. Totally reinvented himself successfully after -TOMMY JOHN -surgery. On their best days, none of'em could touch Guidry, who even closed when the Yankees needed him to do so. I'm not sure any of them including Guidry belong, but once you let in Don Sutton and Gaylord Perry, gets harder to deny them. How do the press square Gayold Perry with their hard stands on McGwire and Bonds, or Palmiero? That shoudl be fun. You already let in an admitted and open cheater, and now you're going to hold a hard line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Ron Guidry, Pete Browning, Shoeless Joe, Chino Smith, Dick Redding forgot about Goose Gossage, Lee Smith and Roger Maris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Jim Rice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Ron Guidry, Pete Browning, Shoeless Joe, Chino Smith, Dick Redding There's a pretty good reason Shoeless Joe isn't in. The guy threw the world series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 There's a pretty good reason Shoeless Joe isn't in. The guy threw the world series. and he served his lifetime ban. he's been dead for years, its time to let him in. i think Rose should be let in the HOF too, after he dies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbn007 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 287 wins, 3701 Ks, 3.31 career ERA, 5th in strikeouts, 25th in wins Bert Blyleven? I'm not saying Tommy John shouldn't be in too, but he only has 1 more win than Blyleven, and nearly 1500 less strikeouts. Both Bert and John were very good pitchers. But they were compilers, not superstars. They accomplished what they did over a long time, not because they were HOF players. IMO, Cal Ripken is also a compiler, not a HOF player. Look at his stats. He had 3 Super seasons, but otherwise, he was just a very good player. Oh yeah, he also played a million games in a row. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn306 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Both Bert and John were very good pitchers. But they were compilers, not superstars. They accomplished what they did over a long time, not because they were HOF players. IMO, Cal Ripken is also a compiler, not a HOF player. Look at his stats. He had 3 Super seasons, but otherwise, he was just a very good player. Oh yeah, he also played a million games in a row. Dead Wrong on Ripken. Ripken redefined the position of SS with his numbers. Before Ripken the position of SS was not one of power but more glove. Guys like Dave Concepcion, Larry Bowa, Rick Burleson. Good gloves but more singles hitters than power hitters. Ripken set the tone for the A-Rod's, Nomar's and Tejeda's with the power numbers. Yes he played a million games in a row, he also won a bunch of gold gloves and and MVP awards as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbn007 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Dead Wrong on Ripken. Ripken redefined the position of SS with his numbers. Before Ripken the position of SS was not one of power but more glove. Guys like Dave Concepcion, Larry Bowa, Rick Burleson. Good gloves but more singles hitters than power hitters. Ripken set the tone for the A-Rod's, Nomar's and Tejeda's with the power numbers. Yes he played a million games in a row, he also won a bunch of gold gloves and and MVP awards as well. First off, you always had SS with power. Check out Rico Petrocelli of the Bosox, in the 1960s and later. He had some very nice seasons. There were a handful of others over the years. And teh Game was very different then. Teams wanted their SS to be like Mark Berlanger. Make all the plays, and get a hit every now and then. Or else they wanted a Maury Will, or a Campy Campanares. Maury Wills defined the position. He introduced the concept of speed as a real weapon in Baseball. Ozzie Smith defined the position. He introduced the concept of super defense, WITH excellent range. Before, most SS did not have anywhere near that kind of range. Check out Ripken's career. He had 3 super seasons. Sure, in the others he hit for more power then a SS usually did, but otherwise he was very ordinary. But he had enough time to make his stats grow, after all those years. Sorry, He is a very good Baseball player, but not a HOF. Same as Bert And John. Unlike Rice, who was a terror for AL pitchers for more then 10 seasons. The most feared hitter in Baseball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFJF Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Ripken averaged 20 HR a season and has a .276 lifetime BA, the streak is whats getting him in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Ripken averaged 20 HR a season and has a .276 lifetime BA, the streak is whats getting him in. The streak should keep him out if you view baseball as a team sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFJF Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 The streak should keep him out if you view baseball as a team sport. The hall has little to nothing to do with team sports. It's all about individual achievement. Occasionally you get some guys who were great for the team but that's just gravy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbn007 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Ripken averaged 20 HR a season and has a .276 lifetime BA, the streak is whats getting him in. Take off his 3 super seasons, and his HR average is lower. He is in because of the streak, and only because of that streak. He is not a HOF player. No one mentions Ripken in the same sentence as Mays, Ruth, et al, the guys who really belong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.