Mattingly 1984-88 Stacks Up Pretty Well

by pinstriper on Jan 17, 2010 4:31 PM EST

Started thinking about this after reading jscape2000's "Donny Baseball: Inside The Numbers" article over here.

People have said a lot of things for and against Don Mattingly's performance in the 1984-88 timeframe, so eventually I decided to go right to the source data and have a look for myself.

Just took a look at some numbers over at baseball-reference for Mattingly vs. some of the other players mentioned in jscape2000's thread for 1984-88 performance. Gotta say, Mattingly comes away looking VERY good against that peer group.

I focused on OPS+ as a standard of comparison in that it covers both OBP and slugging percentage, so it seems fair to both styles of hitter... plus it's league and park adjusted, so in theory at least it reduces the impact of playing in a particularly big or small park. It's still not a perfect measurement, and I doubt there is such thing as a perfect measurement. But I had to look at something.

Here's average OPS+ for the five year period 1984-88 for the players in question...

Average OPS+ 1984-88

Boggs: 154.2
Mattingly: 149.4
Raines: 140.6
Henderson: 139.2
Gwynn: 135.8
Ripken: 125.0
Puckett: 119.2

Boggs and Mattingly were in a class of their own during this time period. Boggs had the upper hand over Mattingly, though I doubt any manager would have complained about having either on their team. To be clear, the above suggests that over the 1984-88 seasons Boggs and Mattingly performed, on average, roughly 50% better than league average.

I wondered how the players' peak OPS+ would compare... so in this case we're taking the BEST of those five seasons for each player. Wondered if that would shake things up. It didn't...

Best OPS+ During 1984-88

Boggs: 173
Mattingly: 161
Gwynn: 158
Henderson: 157
Raines: 151
Puckett: 152
Ripken: 145

Boggs and Mattingly are still at the top, though the order of the guys underneath changed a little. The gap between Boggs and Mattingly increased and the gap between Mattingly and everyone else decreased. This shows Mattingly's consistency relative to Boggs during that stretch: Boggs' average OPS+ is fueled largely by that monster 173 season skewing the overall number... by contrast, Mattingly's five seasons were much more consistent, so while he didn't go quite as far into the stratosphere as Boggs in his best season, he kept performing at a consistently high level for longer during this time.

We can see this more clearly in how far each player's peak OPS+ was above the 1984-88 average...

"Streakiness" Rating 1984-88

Puckett: +32.8
Gwynn: +22.2
Ripken: +20.0
Boggs: +18.8
Henderson: +17.8
Mattingly: +11.6
Raines: +10.4

Think of the above as a measure of each player's "streakiness" during the 1984-88 seasons. Only Raines was more consistent from season to season than Mattingly, but it's almost a wash between these two, with a large gap separating them from everybody else.

It's clear to me that my eyes weren't lying to me in watching Mattingly play during those peak seasons, nor was I looking back with sentimentality at the "good old days." The numbers really do support what I (and countless other Yankee fans during that time period) saw on the field. Mattingly was bested by only Boggs, with both players clearly separating themselves from the others. Between the two, Mattingly was markedly more consistent year-to-year. I thought Mattingly was the better player then and I'd still take him now.

The biggest knock against Mattingly seems to be that he didn't put up good enough numbers for a long enough time, essentially that his performance faded later in his career. I wanted to see how that played out in OPS+, so I checked the career OPS+ for each player...

Career OPS+

Gwynn: 132
Boggs: 130
Mattingly: 127
Henderson: 127
Puckett: 124
Raines: 123
Ripken: 112

I was surprised. Clearly every player's career OPS+ is lower than their peak seasons, but that's stating the obvious. Given the rap Mattingly gets about the latter part of his career, I expected to see his career OPS+ drop him to the bottom of the group. But that's not what actually happened. Turns out he held his own pretty well... not quite the best-in-baseball caliber player he had been, but certainly holding his own! Makes me wonder if Mattingly's demise hasn't been a little overstated.

Another knock on Mattingly was that he'd never been to the postseason... how would he handle the pressure? Pretty well as it turns out...

1995 ALDS vs. Seattle Mariners (5 games)

.417 AVG, .440 OBP, .708 SLG, 1.148 OPS, 10 hits, 4 doubles, 1 HR, 3 R, 6 RBI, 17 total bases

What makes the above more impressive is that Mattingly posted these numbers while batting against Randy Johnson in two of the five games, and at a point in his career when his own skills had already diminished. That's a heck of a performance. If the Yankees had won the series, Mattingly would quite possibly have been the ALDS MVP.

Overall, I came into this little analysis already a Mattingly fan, but still I'm impressed with what I found. He stacks up extremely well against his peers in 1984-88, with only Wade Boggs standing between him and designation as the best player in baseball. And Mattingly was more consistent, which counts for a lot in my book. His oft-cited late-career slide just doesn't measure out to be remotely as bad as his detractors suggest. He didn't wilt under postseason pressure when he finally made it, this despite playing against a dominating left-handed starting pitcher and at the tail end of his own playing career.

All the other players in this peer group are in the Hall of Fame, or most likely will be soon. Mattingly more than holds his own against them. I don't have a vote but if I did, seems to me he's plenty worthy. As for the 1984-88 analysis that was the premise of my exercise, Mattingly certainly looks like the winner or near-winner there depending on how much you value the year-to-year consistency. He's got my vote.

Tweet Comment 31 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Some good stuff here. It looks like you calculated those big hand (decimals in the avg OPS+). Do you know BBref.com averages it for you if you click on the years you want?

I like your ‘streakiness’ idea.

A tweak: Delta OPS+ 84-88
We’re dealing with 5 seasons, so what’s the biggest difference above and below the average.

Mattingly: avg 150, +11, -22
Boggs: avg 154, +19, -29

It shakes out like this: both had 2 seasons in the 150s, 1 season in the 120s, and 1 season in the 160s. Mattingly had a season of 146, but Boggs’ other season was 173.

As hitters it is very very close- one season of incredible instead of merely great makes all the difference. I don’t think you’ll change my mind, but you’ve really highlighted how close Mattingly was to being the best player in baseball.

"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."

by jscape2000 on Jan 17, 2010 5:22 PM EST reply actions

Thanks, J, appreciate that.

I didn’t know about the BBRef.com averaging feature but am anxious to learn. Certainly would save some time. (Yes, I calculated the averages with the help of my trusty handheld calculator.)

Nice. The Delta OPS shows the same consistency of Mattingly vs. Boggs, but this time on both the top and bottom ends. I’m going to play with the concept a little… I do like having a single number to capture the concept in that it’s easier to see at a glance how everything sorts out.

Yes, it really brought the closeness home to me, too. At the time that made for some great Boggs vs. Mattingly debates with friends. I’ll stick with Mattingly on the basis of his consistency, but tried to be objective in the article. Really can’t fault someone for going with either one.

by pinstriper on Jan 17, 2010 5:43 PM EST up reply actions

Excellent post pinstriper!

by Scooby Snacks on Jan 17, 2010 9:13 PM EST reply actions

I appreciate your efforts here...

but to be honest, OPS+ is a horrible stat. OPS is a useless stat, and OPS+ is just slightly better.

Think about it this way: Imagine we have 2 players, both who have an OPS of .800. Player A has an OBP of .300 and a SLG of .500. Player B has an OBP of .400 and SLG .400. These two players are not equal! Player B is far more valuable. The problem with OPS is that it adds two quantities together that are not scaled to each other, so it really can’t tell you much. Really, SLG itself has problems because a HR is not four times better than a single, so OPS is a useless stat that’s made out of the erroneous addition of non-scaled stats, one of which is somewhat of a useless stat itself.

Let me introduce you to two fantastic stats: wOBA and wRC+.

First of all, wOBA was a creation that was spawned by efforts to find out how many runs, on average, any possible result of an at-bat would net. Here is a great explanation of wOBA: http://www.insidethebook.com/woba.shtml

The next step is wRC+. This stat is a measurement of runs created based on wOBA, then adjusted for park effects, and finally normalized to 100, so a league average hitter in any given year would have a wRC+ of 100. Why is this stat so great? First of all, it uses the statistical strengths of wOBA, then adds in further precision by adjusting for the parks. It is also great because we can use it to judge players across different eras. A league average hitter in our time might have very different stats from an average hitter in the dead ball era.

Just as a for instance, Babe Ruth’s career wRC+ is 204, meaning he was over twice as productive as the average player in his generation (which further shows how great he is). Now, if you put Babe Ruth in today’s game, he probably wouldn’t be as good with all the advanced medicine and nutrition and PED’s floating around. For his time, though, he was the most dominant player baseball has ever seen. Even Barry Bonds’ career wRC+ pales to his at 177.

So not only is this stat very precise and practical, it allows us to judge players in different years, which is a very valuable tool for, say, Hall of Fame voting, since the Hall is supposed to be the most dominant players from their own generations.

That said, let’s take another look at Mattingly from ‘84 – ’88.
His average wRC+ during those years was 150. Don’t get me wrong, that is superstar level. A-Rod last year was a 151, so for a 5 year span Mattingly was as good as A-Rod is right now. However, he was not the best player of his generation. Henderson and Boggs in the same time period were 159, and Tim Raines was a 153. So while he was very good, he was not the best of that period.

Now, to discuss his Hall of Fame credentials. Looking at the numbers, Mattingly had 4 great years (‘84-’87), 5 good years (‘88, ’89, ’92-’94), 3 average seasons (‘83, ’91, ’95), and 1 absolutely awful season (’90). His career average is 128, so he was 28% better than the average hitter throughout his career. That is a really good hitter. The problem is, the hall isn’t for good hitters, it’s for great hitters. Mattingly didn’t perform at a high enough level for a long enough time to make the hall. Just for instance, A-Rod has already played a year longer than Mattingly did, and his career number is 153. Pujols over his first 9 years has a career average of 173 (he will end up being an all-time great). Mattingly was good, but just not quite good enough.

by Wraithpk on Jan 17, 2010 9:48 PM EST reply actions

Is wRC+ weighted for games played or at bats?

because A-Rod missed a lot of time this year, so for Mattingly to come in approx equal to an injury shortened A-Rod season isn’t quite as impressive as you make it sound.

Crowds are won and lost and won again, but our hearts beat for the diehards.

by Edwantsacracker on Jan 18, 2010 12:10 AM EST up reply actions

Similar to OPS+, AVG, OBP, and most stats, wRC+ is a rated stat that does not show amount of time played. A good stat to look at if you want to take into account time played is wRC, which is basically just wRC+ before it is converted into the 100=average rate. This is a counting stat that does get higher with more plate appearances.

Using that statistic, you are absolutely right. Mattingly averaged 117.9 runs created in that 5 year stretch, and A-Rod last year had 97.9. What wRC+ shows you is that if you extended A-Rod out to a full season of plate appearances at the average level of play he had in 2009, he would have put up about the same numbers as Mattingly, around 118 runs. Of course, A-Rod was obviously hindered by his hip for much of the season, so really you could say that Mattingly in that 5 year stretch is equal to A-Rod with an injured hip.

by Wraithpk on Jan 18, 2010 12:52 PM EST up reply actions

I've got no problem with that.

We’re comparing players from different eras. And presumably A-Rod is getting credit for more on the defensive side than Mattingly is, by virtue of A-Rod playing 3B and Mattingly playing 1B. Plus A-Rod is arguably one of the very best ever to play the game, and bad hip or not, he still put together a great season… in fact, a remarkable season in that he still reached 30 HR and 100 RBI with an abbreviated number of at-bats. If Mattingly rates in his company, I see no shame in that!

If I may ask, where can I locate wRC+ and wOBP data? At the moment I don’t know where to look that up. I appreciate the help.

by pinstriper on Jan 18, 2010 2:52 PM EST up reply actions

Stats

wRC+ is a park and league adjusted number that rates only the value of the players offense. If you want to consider defense too, you could look at something like WAR. I agree with Wraithpk on wRC+, it’s a really good stat for comparing between eras. A current player with a 150 will be just as valuable to a team now as a 1910 player with a wRC+ of 150 was to his team then.

You’ll find those stats (and wOBA) on Fangraphs. Look at the player pages.

by metric on Jan 19, 2010 11:25 AM EST up reply actions

WAR

unfortunately, WAR wasn’t calculated before the 2002 season because it includes defensive metrics that weren’t tracked before that season. wRC+ is solely an offensive stat, so the comparison with injured A-Rod and Mattingly is purely offense. If Mattingly really was as great defensively as you and others have said, he might have come out slightly higher because even though A-Rod plays 3B, he’s below average defensively.

One problem I will warn you about with WAR, though, is for outfielders. The defensive metric they use is UZR, which tracks things like how many balls hit into the fielder’s area did they get to, how many assists and putouts they got, etc. It’s generally agreed that UZR works pretty well for infielders, but is somewhat shaky for outfielders. The art of tracking defensive prowess is a very new phenomena, so it hasn’t been very well refined yet.

by Wraithpk on Jan 19, 2010 11:59 AM EST up reply actions

WAR

Yeah, since UZR isn’t calculated prior to 2002, Fangraphs stops there. But you still could use Rally’s WAR on Baseball Projection or Baseball Prospectus’s WARP, both are calculated long term. Each has it’s own problems for sure. The criticizms of defensive metrics like UZR apply to both rWAR and WARP. Rally uses TotalZone, which is similar to UZR and WARP uses FRAA, which is calculated without Play by Play data (I think).

by metric on Jan 19, 2010 1:36 PM EST up reply actions

This is the place

where I think sabermetrics outsiders get turned off. (Not a value judgment, just an observation.) It’s pretty easy to get on board OBP as important, and to understand how OPS is a kludge but at least having its heart in the right place… and how OPS+ is an improvement over both.

I think I understand that wRC is cumulative, and wRC+ normalizes playing time to make it easier to compare players whose careers spanned different lengths… say, Thurman Munson vs. Carlton Fisk.

Now I start to lose it. I thought wRC+ and wOBA were two useful stats for which one considered offense only, and the other also encompassed defense. That’s not the case? If they’re both offense only, then which one would I want to use and why? At this point it’s confusing.

And when you go beyond those gatekeepers (wRC+ and wOBA) the wheels come off, so to speak, for a lot of people. WAR? WARP? rWAR? TotalZone? Why so many stats and how do they differ? More importantly, why would somebody want to apply any of these, and how does one know which provide a more valid analysis? For that matter, how does one know that ANY of them provide any semblance of validity? It doesn’t help that by this point the math behind the stats gets pretty opaque. There’s a certain directness in calculating AVG, OPS, and even OBP that is appealing in its simplicity… any average Joe can understand where those numbers come from. Not so with the alphabet soup you just mentioned!

If this comes off as disrespectful please accept my apologies, it’s not meant as such. I wanted to offer a vantage point from someone just coming into this new world… thought it might be helpful to see how these things look when someone isn’t as immersed in them. If sabermetrics will continue its move into the mainstream, I think this sort of issue will need to be addressed eventually, somehow. Anyway, just wanted to offer the outside-in perspective.

As for me, I’m interested in trying to understand and appreciate you guys helping me. I’ve already learned a lot, thank you for that.

by pinstriper on Jan 19, 2010 3:49 PM EST up reply actions

wRC+ is based on wOBA. It is just adjusted for park factors and then normalized so that 100 is average. Both are measurements of offense, the difference is that the league average wOBA changes from year to year, so you first calculate the league average wOBA after park adjustments, and this value is set to wRC+ of 100. If a player has a wOBA of 10% better than average, his wRC+ will be 110.

Also, wOBA is actually very simple to calculate. It is similar to SLG, but uses different weights. The equation is this:

((0.72xNIBB + 0.75xHBP + 0.90×1B + 0.92xRBOE + 1.24×2B + 1.56×3B + 1.95xHR) / PA ) + (.25xSB – .5xCS)

by Wraithpk on Jan 19, 2010 4:10 PM EST up reply actions

btw

I was advised that the SB and CS values should be in the numerator instead of outside the fraction. My bad!

by Wraithpk on Jan 19, 2010 6:39 PM EST up reply actions

Sabermetrics

Don’t worry, nothing you’re saying is at all disrespectful. I fully get it that most of these stats are confusing. Heck, I’m still confused about the differences between UZR and TotalZone and between all the WAR/WARP stats and I try to keep up with them. If knowing the details doesn’t matter to you, or if you feel more comfortable with other stats, feel free to stick to OPS, in the end it’s all about enjoying the game.

You’re voicing many of the common complaints/confusions about the sabermetrics today. There really are a lot of stats out there and without the time and inclination to read about all of them, it’s hard to know what’s what. I recommend Fangraphs for your stats needs. It has a good community to go with it.

If you ever have any specific questions there are lots of stats geeks who would be overjoyed to answer them.

If you’re interested in knowing which stats are better, or how valid each stat is, you might have to start getting technical. But to keep it simple, wRC+ is the best context independent (not looking at base/out situations) offensive stat out there.

by metric on Jan 19, 2010 4:18 PM EST up reply actions

I have no qualms with trying to argue for your favorite player. Just don’t turn Mattingly into something he wasn’t.

I think you left out two key pieces to your argument – playing time and defensive position.

Yes, a 127 OPS+ equals a 127 OPS+ in a vacuum. In that sense, Mattingly was as good a hitter as Rickey Henderson. But this isn’t a vacuum; Mattingly had 7,700 plate appearances for his career, but Rickey Henderson had over 13,000. With an equal OPS+, the value of any random plate appearance throughout either of their careers may have been equal, but Henderson came to the plate 5,000 more times. There is no way that the value of their entire careers are even close to equal.

You’ve also left out the fact that different defensive positions require different levels of offense. First baseman have always been expected to hit well, but shortstops were traditionally seen as glove men until the mid-1990s. In 1986, Mattingly posted a .967 OPS., compared to the average AL first baseman who posted a .780 OPS that year. In 1984, Cal Ripken posted a .884 OPS, while the average AL shortstop posted a .649 OPS. Mattingly was 187 points better than his peers but Ripken was 235 better. Ripken’s best season was more valuable than Mattingly’s.

Like I said, I have no problem with you arguing in for your favorite player. Just don’t turn him into something he isn’t.

by 3460kuri on Jan 18, 2010 9:36 AM EST reply actions

Just to back up your post with wRC+...

Mattingly’s career wRC+ was 128
Henderson’s was 145
Ripken’s was 115

According to wRC+, Ripken’s best season was actually in 1991, when he posted a 160. Mattingly’s best was in 1986 when he posted a 165. So in Mattingly’s best season, he was 5% further above average than Ripken’s best season, but as you said, Ripken plays a defense first position, while first basemen are expected to hit. Ripken also played for 21 years. Like I’ve said before, Mattingly didn’t play long enough or at a high enough level to be in the Hall.

by Wraithpk on Jan 18, 2010 1:02 PM EST up reply actions

I know the Hall of Fame

is a hot button for some people with Mattingly… and yes, I did mention it toward the bottom of my article, maybe I shouldn’t have because I think it distracts from the main point of my fanpost. My main point was to ascertain how Mattingly measures relative to several of his peers specifically in the 1984-88 timespan. I still believe he stacks up very well.

As for Hall of Fame, I personally would have no problem with him being inducted. I realize you and some others would. That’s fine by me, we can agree to disagree on that.

I do think the anti-Mattingly contingent tends to overstate his flaws, and that bothers me. Should it? It’s not like he’s my brother or something, but somehow it does. Guess I’m irrational in that regard. That notwithstanding, I do think his downside tends to get overstated by some.

I’m also learning that one problem with statistics these days is precisely that so many are available. If someone wants to deify a player OR tear him down, chances are they can find some sort of statistical evidence to support their cause. (Within reason of course… I don’t think anyone can make Cody Ransom into the greatest player in baseball history.) The problem is often not that the argument makes no sense, but that the underlying statistics were misused or misunderstood… and worse, neither author nor reader may have any clue. Every statistic out there has its own flaws and assumptions baked right in, yet virtually none of us (me included) can honestly claim to understand all those nuances. That’s okay too… we can have a lively discussion and hopefully all walk away a little better for the experience.

One question in particular about your post, in the interest of learning. Why OPS? Wraithpk said in no uncertain terms that OPS is completely useless. Just going by what he said. I do know OPS is not park-adjusted, which is one reason I went with OPS+ instead. So why use OPS to form an argument about Ripken vs. Mattingly?

by pinstriper on Jan 18, 2010 3:23 PM EST up reply actions

Well, first of all, I’m not anti-Mattingly. He was a good player who suffered a premature decline that was due at least in part to injuries, which is unfortunate. But he was still a good player for the Yankees, and it’s tough not to like that.

My problem was when you tried to compare him to other hitters while ignoring the length of each player’s career and failing to mention the importance of positional standards. I know the title of this post is 1984-1988, but you did touch on career OPS+, and your omissions resulted in Mattingly being ranked higher than he probably should be.

First baseman and corner outfielders may get all the love and all the MVP votes, but from a strict value standpoint, a shortstop who hits like a good first baseman is more valuable than a good first baseman, possibly even when that shortstop has a lower OBP or fewer home runs. The argument should be based on how much better a given player is than the average hitter at his position, not how a shortstop, right fielder, or third baseman compare to a first baseman at the plate, because you can’t replace a shortstop with a right fielder, and so on.

The only obvious “flaw” with Mattingly is that he only played twelve seasons and retired at age 34. The first half of his career was something out of a storybook, but in his final six seasons he only managed to slug higher than .416 once. I understand it was a different era, but it wasn’t that different. And six good season rarely make a player a Hall of Famer.

Your argument against statistics these days is reasonable, but I would modify it: there are so many available, and few people take the time to understand them before they treat them as gospel or cast them aside as totally useless.

In that vein, I use OPS+ instead of wRC+ because in my mind, they both measure the same thing – how much better a given player is than the average hitter – and despite differing calculations and levels of precision, they spit out numbers that are only negligibly different. Depending on which method you use, Don Mattingly was either 27% or 28% better than average for his career, Babe Ruth was either 104% or 107% better, Barry Bonds was either 77% or 81% better.

Wraithpk talks about how OPS equally values the .300 OBP/.500 SLG player and the .400 OBP/.400 SLG player, and he’s right, but the reality is that very few players perform at either of those extremes. OPS isn’t perfect, but In the end, it’s about giving up a degree of precision in order to make something easier, kind of like how an accountant will round the numbers on a tax return to the nearest whole dollar, rather than worry about taxes owed on spare change. In that spirit, I like OPS+ simply because it is several steps closer mathematically to the statistics that one would find on the back of a baseball card.

by 3460kuri on Jan 18, 2010 4:44 PM EST up reply actions

eh...

there are a lot of problems with OPS. If you’ve ever had to learn about error propagation in a science class, you know that when you take two non precise numbers and multiply them, you start to get very large errors. I’m going to do a post on the differences of OPS+ and wRC+. They do measure the same thing, but wRC+ is much more precise.

by Wraithpk on Jan 19, 2010 12:04 PM EST up reply actions

I want the best combination of precision and ease. OPS+ is fairly simple to explain and derive. I agree with you that wRC+ is more precise, but how much more precise is it really?

I guess my challenge is to find a player who is valued very differently by the two methods. Somebody with a low OBP and high SLG or high OBP and low SLG like you referenced before.

by 3460kuri on Jan 19, 2010 12:52 PM EST up reply actions

Examples

Tango gives the example of Rice and Boggs. They have OPS+ of 128 and 130. That looks pretty close, but their wRC+ are 124 and 133. Which is a much bigger gap.

However, Henderson is the best example. He had a career OPS+ of 127. That would place him at the same level offensively as Rice. The more accurate wRC+ corrects that, giving Henderson a 145 career average.

For the most part, the difference may be small. wRC+ is calculated using the same linear weights as wOBA, and as such, it has an intuitive (if more complicated) formula. Still, most people don’t calculate OPS+ by themselves and if you’re going to look one of them up anyway, there really isn’t any reason to use OPS+.

by metric on Jan 19, 2010 2:00 PM EST up reply actions

I would guess that the major difference for Henderson’s OPS+ and wRC+ was his ability to steal bases. OPS+ doesn’t count those, while wRC+ does. That’s an important part of some players offensive game, however, so it’s nontrivial when discussing their overall effectiveness.

by Wraithpk on Jan 19, 2010 2:41 PM EST up reply actions

True

It’s likely that only 5 or fewer points of wRC+ are due to his career .400/.420 being so OBP heavy.

by metric on Jan 19, 2010 3:56 PM EST up reply actions

The Hitman ...

I’ve got a picture taken at Yankees Stadium with Donnie swinging on the on-deck circle and sporting #46. I think it may have been his first homestand with the club. Sadly, despite his most excellent numbers, he just didn’t play long enough to be hall worthy. …

But when I close my eyes, and drift back to those days, there wasn’t a prettier swing or more exciting Yankee than Donnie Baseball—

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

by Ronster22 on Jan 18, 2010 4:56 PM EST reply actions

Donnie Baseball was one hell of a player,

but his back is what will keep him from going to the Hall of Fame. He was unbelievable for that five year period, but to be a Hall of Famer, you need to be unbelievable for more than five. And it’s disheartening because Mattingly could have become that elite player for more than that five year window. But as much as I love Mattingly he wouldnt get my HOF vote.

where have you gone Joe dimaggio our nation turns it's lonely eyes to you?

by Brooklynsoul on Jan 18, 2010 9:47 PM EST reply actions

Well done

Best piece I’ve read on this site…You know where I stand. Boggs may have been the better “hitter”, but Mattingly rules.

by david d on Jan 19, 2010 11:53 AM EST reply actions

it's too bad

that Mattingly’s career was so short and that longevity is such a factor with some writers (and fans).

All things being equal, without the back problems, Mattingly would have retired around the same time as Ripken, had 4 WS rings (supposing his performance equaled or surpassed Tino Martinez’s in 1996 to 2000), and possibly greater career numbers due to longevity.

It’s a tough call, but I think any true baseball fan, and any real baseball player, can appreciate Mattingly’s career and contributions to the game (and his team) regardless of him being inducted into the HoF or not, or having his number retired, or any other public memorial of his career.

I think, even though I don’t know Mattingly personally, that he would probably appreciate the opportunity to manage a team more than he’d care about whether he gets into the HoF. He was not happy with the Yankees when they didn’t select him to succeed Torre, after being the hitting coach and bench coach.

by phonty on Jan 20, 2010 12:43 PM EST reply actions

Well said.

I made a point to attend Don Mattingly Day at the old Yankee Stadium, when they retired his uniform number, for that reason. It was a nice way to let him know we appreciated his time with the Yankees, regardless of what happens down the road with the HoF. He will always have an important place in Yankees lore.

As for the coaching, by all accounts he’s brought the same work ethic to those roles as he did as a player. I don’t know if he’d make a great manager or not… I’d like to think he would… but if he were to fall short, it certainly wouldn’t be for lack of preparation.

He commanded the same sort of respect in his day as Jeter commands now, from all manner of folks all throughout baseball. There aren’t a lot of players who can say as much… to me that says a lot about what he brought to the game, and how he played it. That’s why I respect the heck out of him even today.

by pinstriper on Jan 20, 2010 4:08 PM EST up reply actions