The Case for Don Mattingly

by Travis G on Jan 13, 2009 1:08 PM EST in Analysis Comment 13 comments

Hall of Fame voting is ridiculous. Why is Jim Rice good enough to be elected now, but not in 1994 (when he was first eligible)? He was the same player. He hasn't hit any more homers or won any more games.

(I know the 'reason' is two-fold: it's his last eligible year, and the steroid controversy made voters look at hitters differently. But both of those are, for lack of a better word, stupid; how should his year of eligibility have any influence on whether he gets in? And his first eligible year was before the offensive explosion, and offense has declined the last three years and he still hasn't gotten in.)

Don Mattingly got just 12% of the votes this year. Rice got over 76%. They both won one MVP. Mattingly's OPS+ was one point below Rice's. Donnie's highest OPS+ (161) was higher than Rice's (157).

Rice was about average in the field. Mattingly won nine Gold Gloves (they're not the end-all, be-all of defense, but still). Going by Zone Rating (suggested by Sky Kalkman), Jim Rice was 13 runs above an average fielder for his career. Mattingly was 42. The difference in defense more than makes up for the one point of OPS+.

If we include postseason and clutch hitting, Mattingly looks even better. Rice hit best in low leverage situations and worst in high leverage. Mattingly was the exact opposite. Rice played in 18 post-season games, batting .225/.313/.366 (which even makes Arod look good). Mattingly (albeit in just five games), hit .417/.440/.708.

If you want to use longevity, Rice played just two more seasons than Donnie (and those two seasons were below average).

And perhaps most of all, we should face the fact that it just isn't the Hall of Fame anymore. It's the Hall of the Very Good.

Nothing against Phil Rizzuto, Don Sutton, Tony Perez, etc., but they don't deserve to be in the same building as Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb and Walter Johnson. But that's an argument for another day. We can't go back and take players out of the Hall. Those very good players are there to stay.

So since the bar has been lowered, a very good player like Mattingly deserves to be enshrined. After all, Jim Rice got in.

0 recs | Comment 13 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I agree with some of the things you said. But you can’t say that Jim Rice got in, but doesn’t deserve it, so let’s enshrine other players who don’t really deserve it either.

The few postseason games that both guys played are entirely meaningless. We’re talking about two players who had about 5-6 very, very good seasons but slipped from their peaks rather quickly, didn’t play long enough to compile the counting stats people like to see – hits, home runs, and RBIs.

Neither should be in the hall of fame.

by 3460kuri on Jan 13, 2009 1:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

no, i can say that

in the opinions of the voters, Rice deserves entry, therefore other very good players cant be excluded. the bar unfortunately has been lowered. since that has happened and we cant change it, it’s time for other very good players to be enshrined.

i looked at the postseason stats because i was trying to figure out what made Rice 6 times better (in terms of votes) than Mattingly. it clearly wasn’t that.

and yes, i agree that neither should be in, but now that Rice is in, Mattingly is just as, if not more deserving.

by Travis G on Jan 14, 2009 1:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Forget HOF

maybe we should forget the HOF anyway. I mean, the same troop of idiots (and more) vote as vote for MVP, and they have no clue. There are many people in the hall that don’t deserve to be there. As a Sox fan, I am happy for Rice, but as I posted on OTM, Dwight Evans was actually a better player. Same career OPS+, longer career, much much better fielder. Now, who thinks Evans deserves to be in? Basically none of these guys (including Mattingly) deserve to be in.

by Buzzy on Jan 13, 2009 7:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree

Both were good players, but to be a HOF player u need to be GREAT for ten years plus in my book.
it’s just like gold glove voting, so subjective

I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to go chase it. ~Rogers Hornsby

by kdog on Jan 13, 2009 9:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

two negative

does not equate a positive in terms of baseball.

Look, I loved Mattingly, he was one of the first Yankee players I liked, but he simply doesn’t cut it, Rice was a bad case but he was still a significantly better case than Donnie baseball.

there are simply several problems.

a. his overall # and rate. 127 OPS+, 2100 ish hit and 200 HR

his position: A might be a ok case if he was a SS and might be enough if he was a C, but he’s a 1B

c. his peak, while sort of HOF worthy, didn’t last long enough nor was it extreme enough to warrent us to overlook all the other negatives.

Just to point out, Donnie’s “peak” was a 4 year span where his OPS+ was around 155ish average.

Jason Giambi’s best 4 eyar span ‘s OPS+ was well over 170, he has a lot more HR than Donnie, and a vastly better career rate as well. yet he won’t make it, not even close.

Jorge has similar rate, more HR, almost as many games played as Donnie, and he probably won’t make it, despite being a catcher.

Carlos Delgado may or may not make it, his 4 year peak was better than Donnie’s by a good margin, has 10 points better career OPS+, and probably make it to 500 dinger. even adjust for the context of the two era, the above 3 are all equally if not significantly more qualified players for the HOF, yet they won’t get in (Delgado might, Posada is a long shot and Jason has really no shot)

by RollingWave on Jan 14, 2009 1:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

i know that Donnie's OPS+

isn’t particularly great for a 1b-man. but i was merely comparing him to Jim Rice.

as for Giambi, he did PEDs. he’s probably not getting in just bc of that, despite his prodigious hitting.

Mattingly (could be argued) was the best all-around 1b-man for 10 straight years. and he WAS the best hitter in MLB for a 4 year span. Rice never had a stretch like that. Rice once led the league in OPS+. Mattingly twice.

and then when we throw in defense, it should be pretty clear.

like i wrote, if the bar hadn’t been lowered, i would be fine with Donnie’s absence. but it HAS been lowered.

by Travis G on Jan 14, 2009 2:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would

Not vote for Giambi even if he’s clean. I would still vote for McGwire / Bonds / Clemens regardless of what happens from here.

Giambi’s not in because he had a HOF peak but not much else to back it up. he had cruddy defense, and didn’t reach any milestones with his count stats.

Rice is still a better candidate than Mattingly even if we use him as the lowest bar. for one, Rice had 160 more HR than Donnie and 300 more hits , that in itself is enough of a difference. (espically since 160 is roughly 70-80% of Donnie’s TOTAL career HR) his career was too short , yet it was still 2 years and 300+ games longer than Donnie, his peak wasn’t awsome, yet his 4 best years is only a slight tick below Donnie’s

Rice isn’t a good candidate, but he’s still a significantly BETTER candidate than Mattingly. if anyone should be crying about his selection, it should be Dave Parker. who has only 40 less HR, 300 more hits, 180 more doubles, and similar rate to Rice, AND he played the outfield and a less friendly stadium.

by RollingWave on Jan 16, 2009 2:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

my point

re: Giambi was that the PEDs will keep him out of the HOF. even McGwire cant get in. it’ll be interesting to see what happens with Bonds.

what you failed to mention is Mattingly’s defense, of which he was generally regarded as the best AL first-baseman for about 10 years. Rice was about average. shouldn’t that hold some sway? Ozzie and Maz got in purely bc of defense.

by Travis G on Jan 20, 2009 12:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I heard about this travisty

at my bar and organically scoffed out loud.

An elevator repairman ( with a world class ’86 NHL Mullet ) spoke up across the bar to protest.

My argument was that if you let guys like Rice in how do you keep guys like Dale Murphy out?

I really feel Rice’s induction is a product of the up swell of all things Red Sox; now that they’ve put to bed the 1918 threshold.

"Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? You watching?. And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake... I... drink... your... milkshake!"-Daniel Plainview

by yankee come lately on Jan 14, 2009 6:23 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Rice - Mattingly

Rice was a dominant force in mid-to-late 70s and into the early 80s. For those old enough to remember him, he was a frightening sight on in the batter’s box and with the game on the line. Donnie was a great player, but really only had three dominant seasons, in my opinion. As someone mentioned earlier, and I agree, the Hall of Fame isn’t supposed to be for good players, but rather players who defined an era. I believe Rice did that—despite his shortcomings. Donnie did it as well, but not as long.

"Baseball is the background music of my life." -George Will

by Ronster22 on Jan 14, 2009 9:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No

I do remember. But really, Rice only put up those kind of numbers in 77, 78 and 79. In all, I think he only had 5 years where his slugging exceeded 500. If he was so feared, he should not have been. He had terribly inflated Fenway numbers, a career OPS+ of 128, hit into a crazy number of DP, palyed an average LF. I agree that ther perception of Rice was greater than Rice. That seems to be what gets people into the Hall, and that is fine. However, then we should not care at all about the fairness, or lack of fairness, when we look at who is in and who is out. The simple fact is that there is many, many better ball players than Rice who are not in.

by Buzzy on Jan 14, 2009 9:50 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Rice and Others

Mattingly (as much as I love him) has to get in line behind all the others that can make justifiable cases now that Rice is in. Dale Murphy (as mentioned above), Dave Parker, Albert Belle, Andre Dawson, Dwight Evans (as mentioned above) and the list goes on. The Rice selection is the worst in a long while.

Fortunately as Rob Neyer pointed out, previous bad selections do not seem to open the floodgates. Catfish hasn’t helped Tiant or Jim Kaat or Tommy John for example.

Meanwhile, three cheers for Rickey (actually only two are needed, I’m sure he’ll supply the first one himself)!

by stusviews on Jan 14, 2009 3:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs