Baseball Fans, let's talk some baseball...

[Skrappy1]

Ok, someone out there in Huddle land (I believe it's Balzac) has an avatar campaigning for Jim Rice to get into the Hall of Fame. For the record, I think that Rice should get in...he might be a bit of a borderline guy if you just look at his overall stats, but he was one of the most feared hitters in the league for a 12 year period in his career. He hit over 20 HRs every year during that 12 year streak, with the exception of the strike shortened season in 1981 (in which he hit 17). During that stretch he also had three 39 homer years and a 46-homer effort in 1978. To me that's a guy that should get into the Hall of Fame...enough said there.

 

Anyhow, this all got me thinking about something that has bothered me for a few years now...can someone please explain to me how a guy like Kirby Puckett gets elected as a first ballot Hall of Famer? He was a very good player and all, but in my eyes he's a borderline HOF'er at best, certainly not a first ballot guy even in a weak induction year like 2001. Why put in Puckett on the first ballot instead of putting in a guy like Rice, whose career numbers are much better than Puckett's in virtually every category? I realize that Rice was known during his career for being standoffish with the media, but that really shouldn't be a deciding factor in keeping him out in my opinion.

 

As a Yankee fan, I also find it impossible in the case of Kirby Puckett not to compare his numbers and career with that of another guy who is not in the Hall, Don Mattingly. Their careers almost spanned the exact same period of time, and for two contemporary players, their career numbers are about as similar as you could ever hope to find. Check them out:

 

Kirby: 7244 AB .318 AVG 207 HR 414 2B 1085 RBI 1071 RS .360 OBP 2304 H .477 SLG

Don: 7003 AB .307 AVG 222 HR 442 2B 1099 RBI 1007 RS .358 OBP 2153 H .471 SLG

 

Nearly identical. I aslo think that one of Mattingly's most impressive stats is that he struck out just 444 times over his entire career, and average of just once every 15.77 at bats. That's amazing for just about anybody, especially for a guy who at one time had a great deal of power, but I guess I'm getting off the point. As much as I hate to say it, I don't believe that Mattingly should be in the Hall of Fame. He just didn't put up good enough numbers for a long enough period of time, and the Hall is supposed to be reserved for the very best, people who sustained a period of excellence for a little longer than Donnie did.

 

But what really gets me is that Puckett never in any way distinguished himself from Mattingly, yet one is a first ballot HOF'er, and one will probably never get in, and I just don't get why. During a four year span from 1984-1987, Mattingly averaged .336 w/ 29 HR, 45 2B, 120 RBI, and 102 RS. He won a batting title in '84, an MVP in '85, and also led the league in too many offensive categories to name during that span. For those four years, he was widely acknowledged as being the best player in baseball...I don't ever recall Kirby Puckett's name even entering into the conversation.

 

I don't understand the favoritism towards Kirby just because he had a reputation of being a good guy...that's not what the HOF is meant for, and besides, Donnie was a great guy too. They were both among the best fielders at their positions for the course of their careers, and they also both had injuries that ended their careers prematurely. The only difference was Donnie was able to come back and play for a few more years after his back injury (although clearly he was never close to the same player), while Kirby's eye injury put an abrupt end to his career.

 

The only other thing that I can think of that people will mention is that Kirby was part of two winning World Series teams. While I can see that as being an advantage in helping a guy get in, I don't see how it would set him that far apart from the rest of the field. In baseball, a single position player is rarely if ever the difference between teams winning and losing a World Series. Was it Don Mattingly's fault that he played his career in the wrong place in the wrong time? After all, even many of the all-time great baseball players have never won anything. Does the Twins winning the World Series mean that Kirby was a better player than guys like Ted Williams, Ernie Banks, Barry Bonds, or even Alex Rodriguez? No way.

 

Realize that this isn't meant to be a rip on Kirby Puckett thread...he was always a very good player, I just never thought of him as an absolute great one, and his numbers validate my thoughts. Also, as I have already stated, I'm not trying to campaign for Don Mattingly to get it, I honestly don't think that he should. I'm merely pointing out the undeniable similarities in their careers and some type of obvious double standard. I also think that it's a disgrace to baseball that guys like Puckett can not only get in, but get in on the first ballot- an honor usually reserved for the best of the best - while other more deserving guys who have been waiting forever continue to wait...guys like Jim Rice, relief pitchers like Bruce Sutter and Goose Gossage, or I don't know, how about the all time MLB hits leader in Pete Rose? I just think that it's pretty ridiculous, and I was hoping that someone might be able to shed some light on to what I am missing?

Edited January 25, 2005 by Skrappy1

[godtomsatan]

I just think that it's pretty ridiculous, and I was hoping that someone might be able to shed some light on to what I am missing? 

 

671139[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I agree Puckett isn't what you would normally consider a first ballot HOFer. I agree Mattingly had a spectacular four year run.

 

That said, Puckett was a great player for 12 seasons that won two world championships and had yet to reach his decline phase when he stopped playing due to injury.

 

Other than 84-87, Mattingly was an average AL 1B on a series of good teams that never went anywhere.

 

If you think Mattingly is a HOFer, do you think Steve Garvey is too? How about Will Clark? John Olerud? Wally Joyner? All have similar career numbers, some even have WS rings and MVPs.

[Skrappy1]

I agree Mattingly had a spectacular four year run.  That said, Puckett was a great player for 12 seasons

671172[/snapback]

 

 

 

Mattingly had five 20 HR seasons and three 30 HR seasons, Puckett had six 20 HR seasons and only one 30 HR season. Mattingly had five 100 RBI seasons, Puckett only three. Puckett had three 100 Run seasons to Mattingly's two. They both finished their careers with nearly identical at bat, hit and homerun totals as well as in virtually almost every other offensive category. Are you saying it's better to be a little great great for a 10 year period rather than be really great for a 4 year one? That's the part I don't get.

 

Other than 84-87, Mattingly was an average AL 1B on a series of good teams that never went anywhere.

Actually, the Yankees weren't a good team at all for most of the stretch from 1988 to 1993, they were flat out awful...but that was certainly through no fault of Mattingly's. When a guy like Scott Sanderson can come along and be your unquestioned ace and the best pitcher your staff has seen in years, your team has no chance to win anything.

 

If you think Mattingly is a HOFer, do you think Steve Garvey is too? How about Will Clark? John Olerud? Wally Joyner? All have similar career numbers, some even have WS rings and MVPs.

Not at all, you obviously didn't read the post...I admitted several times I don't think Mattingly is a Hall of Famer, I just don't see how Puckett is either. Edited January 25, 2005 by Skrappy1

[LegFuJohnson]

Puckett was a friendly guy, and had his career cut short, and they voted him in. I'm sure the World Series helped out quite a bit. If the incident with that woman in that bar happened earlier, he might not have gotten in, its just the way the voters are. Puckett probably shouldn't be there.

 

Mattingly was my favorite player growing up, and he's not going to be in the Hall, and that's fine. Should have won an extra MVP award in 1984 as well.

[REZ]

Until the last few years, most cf's didn't put up the numbers that first basemen put up. When players are considered for the HOF, they supposedly compare them to others that play their position.

Mattingly's career numbers for a first baseman are low.

Puckett's were fairly in line for a cf.

 

I used to really like to watch Mattingly. If he hadn't hurt his back, I think he would've been a lock for the HOF.

[godtomsatan]

Are you saying it's better to be a little great great for a 10 year period rather than be really great for a 4 year one?  That's the part I don't get.

 

 

To answer the question, yes, apparently it is more important to be a great player over the course of 12 seasons, make it to 10 all-star games, win 2 world championships, and leave the game due to injury while still at peak performance than to have a fantastic 4 year run, or even stretch it out to 6 to be generous, and then be extremely average for the remainder of a career.

[Skrappy1]

To answer the question, yes, apparently it is more important to be a great player over the course of 12 seasons

672448[/snapback]

 

 

 

First of all, Kirby's career was 12 seasons long, I'd hardly say that he was great for 12 seasons...was he great in 1984 when he hit .296 with ZERO HRs in 557 ABs? How about in 1985 when he hit .288 with 4 HRs in 691 ABs? How is that in any way great? Even at his peak, he was marginally great, he never was extraordinary in any way, just very good all around.

 

make it to 10 all-star games

True, Mattingly had 6 All-Star game appearances to Kirby's 10...Don also had 9 Gold Gloves to Kirby's 6.

 

and leave the game due to injury while still at peak performance than to have a fantastic 4 year run, or even stretch it out to 6 to be generous, and then be extremely average for the remainder of a career.

Thank you for your generosity. You do realize that Mattingly suffered a bad back injury in 1990, right? He missed a large part of that season and he was never the same afterwards, thus the "average remainder" to his career. He also left the game at a fairly young age (34) due to that back injury.

 

Did the suddeness and finality of Kirby's injury lead to him getting sympathy votes?

[Skrappy1]

If the incident with that woman in that bar happened earlier, he might not have gotten in, its just the way the voters are.  Puckett probably shouldn't be there.

671696[/snapback]

 

 

 

I had that exact same thought. That's partially my point though, guys should either be worthy of the Hall or not, the fact that someone was a nice guy shouldn't help get him in, just the same as the fact that a guy was a *** shouldn't keep him out (like in the case of Jim Rice).

 

Mattingly was my favorite player growing up, and he's not going to be in the Hall, and that's fine.  Should have won an extra MVP award in 1984 as well.

I agree with you entirely, I used to love watching him and Winfield when I was a kid...again, I also agree with you that he isn't going to, and probably shouldn't, make the Hall though.

 

Until the last few years, most cf's didn't put up the numbers that first basemen put up. When players are considered for the HOF, they supposedly compare them to others that play their position.

Mattingly's career numbers for a first baseman are low.

Puckett's were fairly in line for a cf.

671767[/snapback]

 

 

 

That's a good point, and I realize that position played is a huge factor into someone being Hall worthy or not. I just find his 207 career HRs extremely unimpressive for an outfielder who averaged over 600 ABs a year for 12 seasons. Granted, Kirby did a lot of other things very well (like field and hit for average)...he was a very fine player, I just don't think of him as a slam-dunk Hall of Fame player.

[godtomsatan]

Did the suddeness and finality of Kirby's injury lead to him getting sympathy votes?

 

672481[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Sure it did. The guy was still at his peak.

 

I don't understand what your point is. Puckett was one of the most popular and respected players in the game during the course of his career.

 

If Mattingly wasn't a Yankee this conversation wouldn't be taking place.

 

The BBWAA thinks that Puckett was a clear-cut HOFer. I'm always a little unsure on how I feel about that kind of thing. I understand the "he either is or he isn't" argument, but I figure there's 15 years of voting to be done, might as well spread it out a bit.

[Skrappy1]

I don't understand what your point is.

 

If Mattingly wasn't a Yankee this conversation wouldn't be taking place.

 

672508[/snapback]

 

 

 

If you really believe the second part, then clearly you don't.

[I Like Soup]

I don't understand what your point is. Puckett was one of the most popular and respected players in the game during the course of his career.

 

672508[/snapback]

 

 

 

Neither of which is a reason to vote someone in to the HOF.

 

It seems to me the requirements for players getting in have been muddied in the last decade or so. We are faced with players who started their careers or played a majority of them in the lackluster '80's (compared to the offensive explosion of the 90's and today). I think someone like Jim Rice should be in. I never thought Puckett or Mattingly deserved to get in. Look at Fred McGriff's numbers...he was one of the best power hitters in the late 80's early 90's but it hasn't served him too well. When you start looking at a player's career numbers, they aren't really adding up against the cream of the crop in the Hall. I think the voters feel as if they have to vote someone in instead of really making the Hall an exclusive bunch.

[godtomsatan]

If you really believe the second part, then clearly you don't. 

 

672536[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You keep saying Mattingly and Puckett aren't HOFers. Yet you continue to throw things out that make Mattingly more qualified than Puckett. So, I'm not sure if you're not willing to accept the fact that the BBWAA clearly thinks that Kirby Puckett was a superior player, or you think that Mattingly is a superior player to Puckett, or what. That's why I'm asking this.

 

And if Mattingly wasn't a Yankee there wouldn't be an outcry at some point every year (and there is in a variety of baseball circles and/or the media).

[Skrappy1]

You keep saying Mattingly and Puckett aren't HOFers. Yet you continue to throw things out that make Mattingly more qualified than Puckett. So, I'm not sure if you're not willing to accept the fact that the BBWAA clearly thinks that Kirby Puckett was a superior player, or you think that Mattingly is a superior player to Puckett, or what. That's why I'm asking this.

I'm not trying to point out that Don Mattingly should be in, I'm just of the opinion that Puckett shouldn't be in either. Comparison with one's contemporaries is and has always been the main way to determine a player's greatness, correct? I only use Donnie in the discussion because their career numbers are practically identical, and their careers spanned almost the exact same period of time. Any way it's broken down, their totals are the same and at their peaks there is no debate that Mattingly was the superior player. They also both lost a good deal of their careers due to serious injury...I guess I just find it interesting that Kirby seems to have been martyred somewhat because his injury ended his career outright while Donnie's did not, it just seriously curtailed his productivity for the remainder of his.

 

Of course I am willing to accept the fact that Puckett was voted in to the Hall, that is the reality of the situation, and I have nothing against Kirby Puckett personally...trust me, I'm not losing any sleep over him being in the Hall or anything. I just feel that there are other more deserving players than Puckett (Jim Rice) and I feel that Kirby was voted in more for being a combination of a very good player, a perceived good guy, and perhaps largely because people felt sorry for the way his career ended, and/or the fact that he lost his vision in one eye. I'm not much for this politically correct world we live in today, and I feel a guys' career on the field should ultimately determine whether or not he's a HOF'er...any off-field escapades or contributions should have little or nothing to do with it, but that's just my opinion.

 

Look, the football season is now essentially over, there is no hockey, and I'm only a casual basketball fan...there isn't much happening in the sports world right now to talk about, but I am a baseball fanatic. I thought that the purpose of these forums was to use them as springboards for discussions, and Puckett getting elected was just something I've never really agreed with. I guess the bottom line is that I feel it somewhat of an injustice. Sure there are other things that one could worry about, but I like talking sports and I was just interested to hear what other Huddlers thought of the matter, that's all.

 

And if Mattingly wasn't a Yankee there wouldn't be an outcry at some point every year (and there is in a variety of baseball circles and/or the media).

Is it possible here that you are maybe anti-Yankee and that is affecting the way you view the situation or my opinion of it? I say this only because I have never heard an outcry for Mattingly to get elected, and I often listen to NY sports talk radio and more than half of my friends are Yankee fans who grew up watching Mattingly play...I still find that the majority of us can be objective enough about the situation to admit that he shouldn't be a HOF'er.

Edited January 27, 2005 by Skrappy1

[Ursa Majoris]

This is why Kirby Puckett is in the HOF:

 

THE METRODOME, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA -- No matter which team came out on top, it was guaranteed to be a Cinderella story. Both the Twins and the Braves had worked their way from last place the previous season all the way to what many consider the most exciting World Series of all time.

 

In Minnesota, fans waved the Twins to victory with their "Homer Hankies," while in Atlanta, fans urged on the Braves with the controversial "Tomahawk Chop." Through the first five games, the home team prevailed each time.

 

For Game 6, the scene (and the home-field advantage) shifted back to the deafening cacophony of Minnesota's Metrodome. In a rematch of Game 3 (a 12-inning classic in its own right won by the Braves) a young Scott Erickson faced an even younger Steve Avery. But the player that everyone would be talking about after the game was the Twins' future Hall-of-Famer Kirby Puckett.

 

Puckett was a one-man gang for the Twins, knocking in two runs, scoring another, and robbing the Braves of still another with a gravity-defying snare of a Ron Gant drive to the wall in the third. But thanks to a game-tying homer by Terry Pendleton in the seventh, Puckett would need to produce even more.

 

The game remained tied at three through the eleventh when Atlanta skipper Bobby Cox sent Game 1 starter Charlie Leibrandt, the veteran left-hander, to the hill to face the heart of the Twins' order. He never even got past Puckett. The first batter up that inning, Puckett capped his performance by driving the game winner into the seats in left-center to force a Game 7.

 

When all was said and done, five games were decided by one run, four were won on the final play, three went into extra innings, and the home team won every contest in a Series that played its final game in Minnesota.

 

The game announcer came out with the immortal line "We'll See You Tomorrow Night" as the ball sailed over the fence to take the Series to 3-3.

 

That's why Kirby is there.

[Skrappy1]

Puckett was one of the most popular and respected players in the game during the course of his career.

672508[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Neither of which is a reason to vote someone in to the HOF. 

 

It seems to me the requirements for players getting in have been muddied in the last decade or so.  We are faced with players who started their careers or played a majority of them in the lackluster '80's (compared to the offensive explosion of the 90's and today).  I think someone like Jim Rice should be in.  I never thought Puckett or Mattingly deserved to get in. 

673876[/snapback]

 

 

 

I somehow missed Soup's post during the initial debate, which is too bad because I think it's a pretty sound post.

 

I almost hate to bring this thread back up because I feel as though I've been partially perceived as wanting to slam Kirby Puckett, and that truly wasn't my intent. I just feel that there is a difference between someone who was a very good player and someone who is an all-time immortal.

 

Anyhow, I thought of someone today who will perhaps make for a better comparison to Puckett in some of your minds as they both are centerfielders, and they have also both won multiple championships...it leads me to this question:

 

If Bernie Williams' career ended today, would you consider him to be a Hall of Famer?

 

If so, would you consider him a first-ballot guy?

 

Please try to keep any like or dislike for Bernie or his team out of the equation and answer the question honestly...I think it's a very fair question.

Edited February 16, 2005 by Skrappy1

[I Like Soup]

I somehow missed Soup's post during the initial debate, which is too bad because I think it's a pretty sound post.

 

I almost hate to bring this thread back up because I feel as though I've been partially perceived as wanting to slam Kirby Puckett, and that truly wasn't my intent.  I just feel that there is a difference between someone who was a very good player and someone who is an all-time immortal. 

 

Anyhow, I thought of someone today who will perhaps make for a better comparison to Puckett in some of your minds as they both are centerfielders, and they have also both won multiple championships...it leads me to this question:

 

If Bernie Williams' career ended today, would you consider him to be a Hall of Famer? 

 

If so, would you consider him a first-ballot guy?

 

Please try to keep any like or dislike for Bernie or his team out of the equation and answer the question honestly...I think it's a very fair question.

700682[/snapback]

I don't think so. Someone in the HOF should be a person who changed the game or dominated it during his playing time. Bernie has done neither while being a solid producer for his team.

[Balzac]

One point that I'm not sure has been raised - if Puckett had played in a major market like New York, do you think people would have any doubts as to his HOF credentials? This is an honest question. I'm not sure whether he deserves to be in or not (he was a very, very good all around player for a long period of time), but I gotta believe that he'd be getting more respect if he played in NYC, LA, Boston, Philly or one of the other big baseball towns.

 

As far as Mattingly goes, I'd compare his stats to those of a guy like Canseco (w/o the roids asterik). I AM BY NO MEANS SAYING CANSECO WAS COMPARABLE TO MATTINGLY AS A PERSON OR A PLAYER. What I am saying is that they are similar in that their career stats looks rather nice, but when you look closely you see that most of the numbers were accumulated over a very short period. The Hall has and always will frown upon this. It's keeping Rice out, it's keeping Mattingly out and it will keep people out for decades to come.

[Gopher]

A few things....

 

1) Type of injury - I think Puckett got some "sympathy" votes because of how he left the game. People are a lot more sympathetic towards someone who has to leave the game because of their vision than someone who has chronic back problems. I didn't follow Mattingly as close as I did Puckett, being from MN, but if Mattingly was forced to leave baseball because of chronic back problems, it should really be viewed no different than Puckett's situation, other than that Puckett left the game more suddenly. However, the public and the voters, I believe, look at Puckett's health issues as more of a tragedy, whereas athletes with back problems are a dime a dozen. Would Puckett have gotten in if he had left the game because of bad knees? I'm not sure.

 

2) Dominance - Puckett, during his prime, was considered by his peers, teammates and opponents alike, to be the best player at his position. IN FACT, because of his consistency in all aspects of the game...power, average, base running, and defense, he was considered by many to be the BEST ALL-AROUND player in the game for a two to three year period. I'm not sure if the same thing could be said about Mattingly. He was a great all-around player, but was seemingly always overshadowed by others.

 

3) Their position - Great defensive plays in the outfield get a lot more attention than great plays in the infield. In the eyes of the fans and the media, it is much more spectacular to see a center fielder on a highlight reel for robbing a homerun than it is to see a first baseman robbing a single or double. Not to mention, Mattingly played a position where it is almost a prerequisite to hit 30+ homeruns every year to be considered great. Puckett, on the other hand, played a position where having slugging power is almost a "bonus." If the two players had played opposite positions and still managed to excel on defense, there is no telling how they would be viewed. I think it would be drastically different, simlpy because of the depth of talent at their respective positions during that era.

 

4) Rings - Puckett was the unquestioned superstar on two World Series winning teams. Not to mention, although I am admittedly biased, those two were two of the most dramatic World Series in history, especially the latter games of each. Whether it is fair or not, a great play or two in the post-season can go a long way in determining how a player is viewed when their career is over. I wouldn't be surprised if Carlton Fisk gained a vote or two just because of his infamous homerun. On the contrary, a guy like Bill Buckner, even if he did have HOF numbers, might not ever stand a chance because of one error.

 

In my opinion, those are the factors that set Puckett and Mattingly apart. Like I said, I don't know if it's fair, but with no written rules that determine who gets in and who doesn't, that's my best interrpretation as to why two guys with such similar numbers can be looked so differently by HOF voters.

[Skrappy1]

I don't think so.  Someone in the HOF should be a person who changed the game or dominated it during his playing time.  Bernie has done neither while being a solid producer for his team.

 

703451[/snapback]

 

 

 

See, I actually agree with this completely and that is my basic point. I think right now, Bernie is a borderline HOF'er at best. But he plays the same position as did Kirby (they both won mulitple gold-glove awards in CF), and his statistics are comparable or exceed Kirby's in every area with the exception of batting average (.318 to .301). Bernie has 4 World Series rings to Kirby's 2. They both won 1 batting title in their careers. Check out their stat comparison:

 

Kirby: .318 avg 2304 hits 207 HR 1071 runs 1085 rbi 134/76 SB/CS .360 OBP

Bernie: .301 avg 2097 hits 263 HR 1248 runs 1132 rbi 144/85 SB/CS .388 OBP

 

Where Bernie's average is the only area you can point to where Kirby has him soundly beat, Bernie's OBP more than makes up the difference there (Bernie is only about 60 total bases behind Kirby in almost 300 less at bats). No disrespect meant to Kirby, I'm just not of the opinion that he belongs in the Hall, at least not yet.

 

A few things....

 

1)  Type of injury - I think Puckett got some "sympathy" votes because of how he left the game.  People are a lot more sympathetic towards someone who has to leave the game because of their vision than someone who has chronic back problems.   I didn't follow Mattingly as close as I did Puckett, being from MN, but if Mattingly was forced to leave baseball because of chronic back problems, it should really be viewed no different than Puckett's situation, other than that Puckett left the game more suddenly.  However, the public and the voters, I believe, look at Puckett's health issues as more of a tragedy, whereas athletes with back problems are a dime a dozen.  Would Puckett have gotten in if he had left the game because of bad knees?  I'm not sure.

713096[/snapback]

 

 

 

I agree completely, that's one of the things I was trying to gauge to see if others agreed with that presumption.

 

2)  Dominance - Puckett, during his prime, was considered by his peers, teammates and opponents alike, to be the best player at his position.  IN FACT, because of his consistency in all aspects of the game...power, average, base running, and defense, he was considered by many to be the BEST ALL-AROUND player in the game for a two to three year period.  I'm not sure if the same thing could be said about Mattingly.  He was a great all-around player, but was seemingly always overshadowed by others.

This is the only area where it would be impossible for me to agree with you...I think you must have a short memory regarding Mattingly. It was only a brief period (from 1984-1987), but during that period Don Mattingly was almost overwhelmingly considered the best player in the game, bar none. He didn't steal the bases, but you couldn't find fault in anything else he did or didn't do. Donnie finished in the top 5 in AL MVP voting 3 straight years (1984-1986 ), winning the award in 1985 and finishing 2nd in 1986. Kirby was more consistent for a longer period of time, but he never won an MVP, his best finishes being 2nd once (1992)and 3rd twice (1987-1988). I am a baseball nut, and I know Kirby was a fantastic all around player who was well respected among fans and his peers, but I NEVER heard anyone call him the best player in the game.

 

3) Their position - Great defensive plays in the outfield get a lot more attention than great plays in the infield.  In the eyes of the fans and the media, it is much more spectacular to see a center fielder on a highlight reel for robbing a homerun than it is to see a first baseman robbing a single or double.  Not to mention, Mattingly played a position where it is almost a prerequisite to hit 30+ homeruns every year to be considered great.  Puckett, on the other hand, played a position where having slugging power is almost a "bonus."  If the two players had played opposite positions and still managed to excel on defense, there is no telling how they would be viewed.  I think it would be drastically different, simlpy because of the depth of talent at their respective positions during that era. 

No doubt CF takes more skill (mainly speed and fearlessness) to play than 1B, and that 1B are expected to have bigger offensive numbers...I can't argue otherwise. I will however say that Mattingly was one of the greatest defensive 1B of all-time, and seeing many of the plays that he made first hand, I would say that his defense shouldn't be underrated. This is also what made me bring the Bernie Williams comparison later in the thread, because they are both CF'ers.

 

4)  Rings - Puckett was the unquestioned superstar on two World Series winning teams.  Not to mention, although I am admittedly biased, those two were two of the most dramatic World Series in history, especially the latter games of each. 

I agree post-season play can only help a player in terms of getting into the Hall. I understand that, but I'm not really sure it's fair as it's probably more a factor of being in the right place at the right time. Again, that's what made me think of Bernie...he was the CF'er and cleanup hitter on 4 World Series winning teams. He also holds a ton of postseason batting records including 22 HR and 79 RBIs....I still don't think he's a slam-dunk HOF'er.

 

In my opinion, those are the factors that set Puckett and Mattingly apart.  Like I said, I don't know if it's fair, but with no written rules that determine who gets in and who doesn't, that's my best interrpretation as to why two guys with such similar numbers can be looked so differently by HOF voters.

Fair enough. Edited February 26, 2005 by Skrappy1

[godtomsatan]

Kirby: .318 avg 2304 hits 207 HR 1071 runs 1085 rbi 134/76 SB/CS .360 OBP

Bernie: .301 avg 2097 hits 263 HR 1248 runs 1132 rbi 144/85 SB/CS .388 OBP

 

 

We have to do this AGAIN???

 

OK, before I get accused of being a Yankee-hater (which I am), let's get a couple of things straight. Compare Bernie Williams to Ken Griffey, Jr., not Kirby Puckett. The game changed in a very very very quick fashion after the strike year, and the stats are going to favor Williams head-to-head with Puckett without a little context put in, considering the offensive era that the late 90s produced.

 

Ask one question:

 

Was Bernie Williams ever considered the best CF in the American League?

 

That is the comparison that needs to be made. As the other post said, Puckett was considered the best at his position, by the fans (all-star games), his peers (gold gloves), and by the people who follow the game (1st ballot HOFer). Not to rehash, but that's a difficult trifecta to get past, regardless of what his numbers look like.

 

Now, Bernie Williams. I repsect him immensely. As much as I like seeing the Yankees lose, as a baseball fan, I still respect when the game is played well. And Bernie Williams played the game well.

 

A guess is that he will get into the HOF because the Yankee squad of the late 90s was one of the best teams ever assembled. Jeter, Williams, Posada, Pettitte, and Rivera were the cogs, but other than Rivera, none of those of those guys were ever considered "the best" at their positions.

 

The stats don't necessarily measure up, but to me (and in fact, what the guys who vote on the HOF will cite) the key stat of Williams career, and this goes back to the Puckett argument, is the rings on his fingers.

Edited February 27, 2005 by godtomsatan

[Skrappy1]

We have to do this AGAIN??? 

713240[/snapback]

 

 

 

Hey, I didn't bump it up that last time.

 

OK, before I get accused of being a Yankee-hater (which I am)

Really? :bigshock:

Was Bernie Williams ever considered the best CF in the American League?

Nope. As a Yankee fan, and a Bernie fan, I actually find it kind of funny that Bernie has won 4 gold gloves...he's been a solid fielder, but his insticts are awful and he's never been someone who'd impress you as a great fielder. Plus his arm is absolutely trash. Don't think for a second that offensive numbers don't influence the people that vote for Gold Glove awards (as stupid as that sounds).

 

Puckett was considered the best at his position, by the fans (all-star games), his peers (gold gloves), and by the people who follow the game (1st ballot HOFer). Not to rehash, but that's a difficult trifecta to get past, regardless of what his numbers look like.

I understand, I was just trying to bring a little perspective to the argument that Puckett won 2 World Series and played CF so you have to overlook his less than mindblowing offensive numbers. Era not withstanding, Bernie still has him beat in most offensive categories, in championships 4 to 2, and has also played in All-Star games (5) and won Gold Gloves (4).

 

Now, Bernie Williams. I repsect him immensely. As much as I like seeing the Yankees lose, as a baseball fan, I still respect when the game is played well. And Bernie Williams played the game well.

Good to hear you say that...some people can not separate personal feelings and emotions from their arguments enough to be objective sometimes. Actually, we probably are all like that at times, but I try to do my best to be objective.

 

A guess is that he will get into the HOF because the Yankee squad of the late 90s was one of the best teams ever assembled.

I think Bernie has a chance and will probably go in eventually, but certainly not on the first ballot (but then again who knows?). If he can bounce back and have another solid season or two, and maybe win another championship, that would help his cause immensely. To me, a first-ballot guy is someone you don't even have to think about...someone mentions the name and you say "Oh, yeah, definite Hall of Famer, no doubt." Griffey is in that category to me right now, despite the injuries, if he never plays another game in his life. I don't put Bernie in that category, I just don't consider Puckett to be in it either (yes I know - the writers did and that's all that matters).

Edited February 27, 2005 by Skrappy1

[Rovers]

I don't think either Puckett or Mattingly should be in. See the Trammel thread. They DO deserve some sort of recognition in Cooperstown, but NOT in the same room with Ruth, Cobb, Mantle, Mays and Ted Williams, etc.