Kirby Career (single year high)
career BA .318 (.356)
Homers 207 (31)
RBI 1085 (121)
slug .477 (.545)
K's 965 (99)
Played 12 seasons; 8 years over .300; 6 time gold glove winner; 10 time all star; 4 times hit leader; 1 time rbi leader.
Mattingly (season year high)
career BA .307 (.352)
Homers 222 (35)
RBI 1099 (145)
slug .471 (.573)
K's 444 (43)
Played 14 seasons; 7 seasons over .300; 9 gold gloves; 1 AL MVP (1985); 2 time hits leader; 1 time batting champion; 1 time RBI leader; 6 time all star.
The stats speak for themselves....
OH! And all these stats are from www.baseballreference.com
Funny thing is...when looked at....Kirby's most similar batter to himself IS Don Mattingly....
And I suppose I can give you these nimbers too.....
Mattingly
Black Ink: Batting - 23 (83) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 111 (177) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 34.1 (193) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 134.0 (87) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Kirby
Black Ink: Batting - 22 (91) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 122 (148) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 38.8 (147) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 155.0 (61) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Thank you for the info GoReds. The stats do speak for themselves. But I doubt the voters will give a shit and Donnie Baseball will get screwed.
Career stats do matchup quite nicely, but it doesn't tell the whole story. Mattingly should not be in the HOF and Puckett should. Sorry Nick...
Go year-by-year and you'll see. Mattingly just had too many "normal" years. It is very similar to the whole Sandberg/Whitaker debate. Over a career they are close but year-by-year and for those who watched, it wasn't that close...
You gotta remember though....those Yankees teams weren't that great.....It wasn't year after year playoffs like it is now......so if he had a solid support cast dont you think his RBI numbers would be up...and he would likely be considered HOF with a World series title?
Okay....maybe I should put Donnie's case like this...
For six seasons...Puckett was the best centerfielder in the game better than some guys who aren't totally memorable....
And for six seasons Mattingly was BY FAR the best first baseman in the league...better than guys like Eddie Murray, Darrel Evans, Wally Joyner, Fred McGriff, and George Brett....
For my money.....Mattingly never got the credit he was due....
and on a sidebar....What about Boggs?
I gotta agree. As far as dominating, Mattingly and Puckett DO match up rather nicely. Mattingly was arguably the best player in the American League, albeit on a bad Yankee team, for half a decade. Yes, Kirby had postseason opportunities to shine but you can't penalize Donnie Baseball for that. The guy goes down as one of the all-time great Yankees and I guess that's a nice consolation prize if he doesn't make the HOF.
A couple points:
1) First basemen are held to a higher standard, because it's traditionally a heavy-hitting position. Mattingly was a superb defensive 1B, but 1B defense isn't nearly as important as CF defense.
2) Mattingly's peak stats were slightly better, but apart from those six HOF-esque years, he was horribly unproductive, especially considering his position, slugging in the low .400s with an OBP in the low-to-mid .300s. Puckett was one of the top CFs in the game pretty much his entire career.
3) Puckett was forced to retire because of a sudden health problem. Mattingly had chronic health problems, which both kept his stats down for years and aren't nearly as dramatic, so they don't weigh as well with the voters.
Sidebar: Boggs has 3000 hits, so he's in pretty much automatically. Supposedly, he had an arrangement in his last contract to go in as a Devil Ray (the rumor was that McGriff had a similar arrangement, although he's not a sure thing for the HoF); that ought to make for a fun dispute.
Here's my two cents:
I think Yankee fans hold Mattingly in a higher light than normal people. As I remember, Mattingly was a great player for a couple of years. Then, he was a good player the rest of his career. It's easy to comapre stats, but stats don't tell the whole story. If you're the man for long enough, you're in the hall. Mattingly wasn't the man long enough. Kirby was.
beefmaster-
good point, there is a big difference between a center fielder and a first basemen.
Mattingly will be compared to other first basemen and Puckett to other centerfielders.
The other point is that Donnie played his entire career in a left handed hitters paradise so his HRs look better than they really are.
There are two things working against Don Mattingly in this argument, and why I think he won't be in the HOF:
1. Position.
CF is the third hardest position to play, while 1B is the easiest. Look at the last two catchers vote in, Carter & Fisk. If they had been 1B or LF, neither would be in the HOF with their hitting stats (.260 & 300+ hrs). It's not fair to compare Don's stats with Puckett's because they played different positions. You have to compare Don with other 1B. In his top 10 most similar batters (http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mattido01.shtml), other than Puckett, only Jim Bottomley is in the HOF (although Clark & Edgar are possibles). However Bottomley isn't very similar to Mattingly, less so than Cecil Cooper, John Olerud & Wally Joyner, who are not HOF worthy.
2. Injuries
HOF voters love players who's careers were cut short due to injury, as opposed to players who were humbled by them. Puckett (as well as Koufax, Addie Joss, etc.) are in the hall partially because their injury came at the end of their career, near their prime. Mattingly's injury robbed him of a HOF career, but for some reason the voters don't use the same logic to compensate.
Mike
THE KELTNER LIST: Questions
Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
Yes, he won an MVP in 1985 & was runner-up in 1986.
Was he the best player on his team?
In 85, yes, but in 86 or 87 it's arguable that Henderson or Winfield was. So for one or two years, yes.
Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
From 84-89 he made the All Star game. However, from 87 on, McGwire was the better AL 1B. So for 3 years he was.
Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
I would have to say no. During Mattingly's tenure, the Yankees finished at best 2nd.
Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?
Tough question. A player's prime is usually around age 28-30. Mattingly's prime was at the age of 26, but he played until the age of 34.
Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
No. His black & grey ink tests will account to that.
Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?
Nope. Only 2 of his top 10, 1 being a CF.
Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
No. He falls short in many qualifications that are normal for a 1B, not enough hits, not enough HRs.
Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
No. Yankee stadium, albeit a pitcher's park, isn't a bad place to hit for lefties. His defense is arguable here, but not big enough for me. He wasn't hurt by his park, as he was hobbled by injuries.
Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?
Probably not. Keith Hernandez has a legitimate argument, as does Dick Allen & Darrell Evans, who both played 3B & 1B. Am I missing anyone who is eligible?
How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
He was in the top 10 in voting 4 times.
How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?
Mattingly played in 6 All Star games, but only 4 of those seasons I would classify as All Star seasons. Hall of Famers typically play in more than six All-Star games in their career. Kirby Puckett, for instance, played in ten.
If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
Sure, for about the 4 years he was great. Otherwise, I'd have to say no.
What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
No.
Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?
Absolutely.
Summary:
The Keltner list is not about how many yesses or nos you get, but rather to clear your thoughts on the issue. There are plenty of 1B in the HOF, and plenty more to come in the next 10 years. He wasn't the best 1B during his career, since McGwire & McGriff both outhomered him (from 1982-1995, even though both didn't start their careers until years later). Mattingly was a great 1B for about 4 years, but I just don't think that makes him HOF worthy.
Mike
I had no idea such a can of worms would be opened up on this topic. Then again, this is why sports is so great. We could argue for months on this.
Everyone brings up great points. I am a Yankee fan so of course I hold Donnie in a special light. He had to suffer through all the shit years the Yanks went through (by the way, they're on their way to a few more if Steinbrenner gets his way.) But he still played hard and played hurt and managed to put up numbers.
I'll say this, the case against him is better than the case for him. That's as close as I'll get to saying he shouldn't be in.
As for Keith Hernandez and DaEvans, not fuckin' likely. I'm Keith Hernandez will get close but no cigar and DaEvans will receive votes but not nearly enough.
Did I mention I met Robin Yount the other day? Great guy.
As for the Bogger, he's in no problem. 3,000 hits. That's all that matters. I did hear he wanted to wear a DRays hat in the Hall. I didn't hear that MLB gives them no choice. Interesting. What will the Rocket do?
Who is Keltner?
Mattingly reminds me of Dale Murphy. Good most years, great for some, but not great enough for the Hall.
Mattingly belongs in the moustache hall of fame.
Ken Keltner was a 3B in the 40s that had a solid MLB career, but nothing spectacular. A few years back, some clowns tried to get a petition to get him into the HOF. Bill James made up these questions to probe into a player's HOF candidacy & they're now called the Keltner list.
Mike
Glassjoe - Although you're correct that the Metrodome is widely considered a hitters' park, it's actually not. Fewer HRs are hit there than in other parks, and not just because the Twins have been power-deprived for a decade and a half. The LF fence is 343 ft., and while RF is a mildly shallow 327, it has a 25-ft.-high Hefty bag for a fence. Also, when Puckett played there, there were 4 ft. of plexiglass on top of the LF wall, making it even harder to hit the ball out there.
The "Homerdome" nickname came about because the Twins had some heavy-hitting teams in the mid-80's (like their RBI team) and the nickname was catchy. It's not actually based in fact, though.
Oh.
Few things are, I suppose. :)
FYI...the nickname "Donnie Baseball" was given to Mattingly by--you guessed it--Kirby Puckett.
Well nothing to do with whether he belongs in the HOF or not...but this is always good for a laugh....
I'll second the nomination for the moustache HOF. Our RBI nickname for him has always been 5 o'clock shadow.
Quote from: BeefMaster on 10/28/03, 04:58:19 PM
Glassjoe - Although you're correct that the Metrodome is widely considered a hitters' park, it's actually not. Fewer HRs are hit there than in other parks, and not just because the Twins have been power-deprived for a decade and a half. The LF fence is 343 ft., and while RF is a mildly shallow 327, it has a 25-ft.-high Hefty bag for a fence. Also, when Puckett played there, there were 4 ft. of plexiglass on top of the LF wall, making it even harder to hit the ball out there.
The "Homerdome" nickname came about because the Twins had some heavy-hitting teams in the mid-80's (like their RBI team) and the nickname was catchy. It's not actually based in fact, though.
Here are the park factors for hitters in the HHH for Puckett's career (over 100 favors batters):
105
106
103
104
103
107
107
105
103
102
100
99
Not until the end of Pucket's career was it anything resembling a pitcher's park. In 1994, the HR factor (not hitting, just homers) was 118! It gets stranger because in '95 it dropped to 88. The prevailing theory is that a new air conditioning system was installed, changing the way the ball carries.
Beefmaster is right about the park, today it's a homer unfriendly park, but the Twins can still score lots of runs due to the turf (lots of doubles). However back then, as far as I can tell it was a home run park (unfortunately I can't find HR stats pre-1994).
I didn't realize that the Dome actually qualified as a hitters' park. I knew it was overrated for homers, but I really should've factored in the turf more. Funny you should mention the AC - there was a controversy a few months ago about a guy who claimed that in the World Series years he used to manipulate the fans so that they blew out when the Twins were batting and in when the opponents batted. He was generally regarded around here as a crackpot, but I guess you never know.
That is really bizarre about the HR factor. I blame the retirement of Kent Hrbek - '94 was his last year. Of course, by the end he was barely hitting 20 a year, but I'm sure his influence meant something.
A park factor of 100 means that the park is average for hitters. If it's, for example, 110, that means that hitters perform 10% better in that park than in an "average" park. A rating of 90 would mean that hitters perform 10% worse in that park. From the numbers MarquisEXB posted, the Metrodome gave hitters a 3-7% statistical boost (except the last couple years) during the time Puckett played his home games there.
A thought about the parkfactor of the Metrodome:
As I understand it, parkfactor compares hitting performance in a stadium to average hitting performance across the league. I assume that a score of 100 means that the park is average relative to the other major league stadiums at the time. Could the fact that the park factor of the Metrodome changed in 1994/1995 be attributed to the new ballparks being built, which changed the average hitting performance for the whole league? Those years were around the start of the trend from bigger parks (Municipal Stadium in Cle., Arlington Stadium, Memorial Stadium in Bal.) to bandboxes like Camden Yards, Coors Field, Jacobs Field, Ballpark at Arlington, etc. Is it possible that nothing in the Metrodome changed, but increased hitting performance in these new parks changed the league average that it was being compared to?
RockRaines, that is an incredibly intelligent point. It's ture that the time the Metrodome went downhill (or is it uphill) was the same time that a bunch of new parks were being built. Very observant.
We're getting off the subject of whether or not Donnie Baseball (The Man) belongs in the HOF but a very good point nonetheless.
I don't think it was other ballparks. I've checked the Yankees and they don't really follow the same trend as the Metrodome, although they slightly dip in '94, they don't in other years. Actually Yankee stadium although a pitcher's park, does fluctuate pretty wildly. Also to verify I checked Oakland. Oakland does dip in '94 & '95, but in '96 comes back to it's pre-94 self. 1994 could be an abberation because of the strike. No one has the specific downfall that Minny does.
Unless I get better data, I stand by my hypothesis.