I guess this depends on if 'the grade' is George Kelly, Jake Beckley, and Tony Perez. Mattingly is certainly the superior player to all three in my mind's eye.

I guess this depends on if 'the grade' is George Kelly, Jake Beckley, and Tony Perez.

The votes that put those players in deserve a Grade of D-, at best.

Kelly and Beckley weren't inducted by the voters.

Anytime your best argument is "Player A and B are in the HOF but were worse than Player C, therefore Player C should be inducted," the guy probably doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

I see Mattingly as pretty similar to Albert Belle: HOF-quality peak, but not historically spectacular enough to overcomes shortcomings in career value due to injuries that severely limited their post-peak contributions.

There is no argument for Mattingly that doesn't suggest Will Clark should go first.

A rare indication that your average sports writer is in fact more intelligent than your average sports fan.

A rare indication that your average sports writer is in fact more intelligent than your average sports fan.

nah... just a fluke.

Billl James has Donnie Baseball ahead of Will the Thrill but I gotta admit it's a pretty bizarre choice.

Mattingly 263/34-32-29/144/23.87
Clark 331/44-37-34/168/27.0

Or by rank:

Mattingly 31st/13th/11th/22nd
Clark 13th/4th/4th/11th

Clark had a historic peak--for top 3 and top 5 years he trails only Gehgrig, Foxx and Dick Allen. 'Course Allen is a huge oversight by the BBWAA and VC, and just by the numbers Clark should be a first ballot HoFer. His numbers are better than McGwire's.

As for Mattingly his four numbers average out to a 19th ranking which puts him ahead of Cepeda, Bill Terry, George Sisler and of course the obvious HoF mistakes like Bottomley and Kelly.

I don't think you have to appeal to the Bottomleys and Kellys to make a case for Donnie. Rather he would be among the lower tier of "non-mistakes" like Cepeda. Doggie Perez was actually a bit above that lowest tier of non-mistakes.

You can argue that the HoF's "standard" is too low--and by standard, I mean the non-mistakes. (G. Kelly is not the standard, but Cepeda is.) But it is what it is and Donnie and Cepeda and Sisler and Terry are what they are. Lower tier non-mistake HoFers. That is what Donnie is.

Having your number retired by the Yankees is a greater honor than being elected to the Hall of Fame.

Mattingly was on his way to a Hall of Fame career; he just didn't complete it that way.

A power-hitting first basemen with 222 home runs and a lifetime OPS of .829? Sounds like a prime candidate for the Hall of the Very Good to me. But of course, since he's a Yankee, we're going to hear a non-stop campaign on his behalf, a la Rizzuto.

"The votes that put those players in deserve a Grade of D-, at best."

I don't really see anything wrong with Beckley in the Hall. His argument is all about career value over peak, which pretty much makes him the anti-Mattingly:

1) He was the career leader in games played at first at the time he was elected to the Hall.
2) He put up 2,930 hits despite playing in the era of the 135-game schedule. That ranks him 31st all-time; among eligibles, all of the first 37 are in.
3) He was the career leader in triples for a while, and still ranks fourth on the all-time list. All of the top 14 (and 19 of the top 20) are in.
4) He's 59th in career total bases, with 4147. Among 1Bs, that puts him immediately below Willie McCovey (4219), Jeff Bagwell (4213), and Willie Stargell (4190), and immediately above Harmon Killebrew (4143).

He also meets 50% of the HoF standards, and nine of his ten Sim Score comps are in. He's not an inner-circle guy, but he's certainly good enough that he doesn't need to be ashamed about his plaque.

Mattingly was on his way to a Hall of Fame career; he just didn't complete it that way.

Well, if they ever begin a CuddaShuddaWudda HOF, he'd be right in there, along with several dozen or more players who were great for a brief period and then had an injury that wasn't bad enough to keep them out of the game but was bad enough to bring them back to the point where the HOF was out of the question.

And the closest comparison here (not statistically, but anecdotally) might be Mickey Vernon, another first baseman who had nearly all of Mattingly's strong points (BA, fielding), and not-so-strong points (not that many home runs at a power position), and was also plagued for most of his career by a chronic injury which diminished his productivity. He's almost forgotten now, due to passage of time (though he's still alive), a career spent on mostly mediocre or terrible teams in mostly bad hitters' parks. He's the Don Mattingly of Leisure World of Washington.

Billl James has Donnie Baseball ahead of Will the Thrill but I gotta admit it's a pretty bizarre choice.


I asked James about that during an ESPN chat shortly after the New Abstract came out. Specifically, I asked him what his justification was for working the subjective portion of the rankings so that Mattingly was higher than Clark. His answer was two-fold:

1. He ranked current players as low as reasonably possible. Clark was still active at the time, though near the end of the line.
2. Win shares did not show Mattingly as a great fielder, and James believes that he was.

I also asked why Chris Hoiles didn't make the list of catchers, but Mike McFarlane did. I didn't get an answer. I suspect his personal opinions of players (i.e. players he liked/disliked not due to their statistics) played a role in some of the rankings. But it's his book, he can do whatever he wants.

I also asked him if he hates pants. Twice actually. Didn't get an answer either time.

That chat was the first time I had ever asked someone if they hate pants (online anyway)

Why is Kirby Puckett, a centerfielder, be on a comp list with 1Bmen?

I'm going to fire my copy editer.

There's a negative score built-in for players who play different positions, but if everything else is pretty similar, they'll still sometimes end up on the list.

Here's Jason Kendall's age-31 comp list, for example:

1. Thurman Munson (886)
2. Tony Fernandez (861)
3. Tim McCarver (852)
4. Lou Boudreau (845) *
5. Julio Franco (842)
6. Jay Bell (841)
7. Craig Biggio (841)
8. Mickey Cochrane (838) *
9. Jack Clements (832)
10. Dick Bartell (828)

It's only got four catchers (five if you count Biggio) because in general, Kendall hits a lot more like a middle infielder than like a backstop.

Why is Kirby Puckett, a centerfielder, be on a comp list with 1Bmen?

They had very similar numbers - high batting average, about the same power level, few walks, few strikeouts. That's not a super-common profile (most hitters with BB and K levels that low are slap hitters without much power) so the system reaches down into someone like Puckett.

But looking at Mattingly's list...
1. Bottomley doesn't really belong in the Hall.
2. It's not clear Puckett belongs there either, but given similar offensive numbers I'd take the fast centerfielder before the slow first sacker from the same era. (Garrett Anderson I guess is a bit similar but I think he's behind Mattingly, let alone Puckett, when you adjust for era.)
3. Tony Oliva played in the mid-late '60s and early '70s, and also played the OF.
4. Will Clark is a similar but clearly better candidate.
5. The other guys are pretty obviously below HoF standards.

Note that Orlando Cepeda's list isn't really fair to him in the sense that, other than Hodges and Garvey, they played in far better hitting environments than Cepeda.

I also asked why Chris Hoiles didn't make the list of catchers, but Mike McFarlane did.

Yeah...that's just nuts. Hoiles had one of the all-time greatest offensive seasons for a catcher in 1993, and had a career 119 OPS+ in 3300 PAs. There's no way he's not one of the top 100 catchers in history.

2. Win shares did not show Mattingly as a great fielder, and James believes that he was.

He was (and I'm a Met Fan)- at least he was before he hurt his back. Total Baseball had Mattingly as a below average 1B- which was just completely nuts.

I suspect his personal opinions of players (i.e. players he liked/disliked not due to their statistics) played a role in some of the rankings.

It's part of his charm- in the Historical Abstract his ongoing campaign against Rogers Hornsby has reached hysterical proportions- the way he twists the numbers to downgrade him- while saying he's doing the opposite is high comedy.

Way back in the 1988 abstract he twists the numbers into noodles to prove that Kevin Seitzer (OPS+ of 128) had a better year offensively than Mark McGwire (OPS+ of 164)- he did that with a slight of hand trick- he used something called OWP (Offensive Winning Percentage)- which was defined loosely as the winning pct an average fielding team with average pitching would have with 9 clones of a batter. It was a nice idea (same essentialy as EQA...) He made one whopping error though- he didn't use a park adjusted league average r/g as the baseline. For each player he used the ACTUAL runs/g scored in that player's team's games. So Seitzer and McGwire weren't being compared against a neutral standard- Seitzer's OWP was computed using KC's (and KC's opponent's) pitching and defense. McGwire was computed using Oakland's pitching and defense.

The result was that even though Seitzer played in a neutral park (actually it was a good park for Seitzer) and McGwire played in a pitcher's park- James' "context adjustments" did the opposite- KC had a much better staff and defense- but worse offense than Oakland.

Career Numbers:

Player X

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB OPS+

1747 6192 903 1749 312 18 293 1086 37 26 838 798 .282 .367 .481 2976 127

Mattingly
1785 7003 1007 2153 442 20 222 1099 14 9 588 444 .307 .358 .471 3301 127

Comtemporary 1B from the AL. Player X won two WS, but wasn't on the HOF for 2 years. Mattingly has a higher peak, but the career numbers are eerily similar. Why is there even discussion about Mattingly being in the HOF?


Player X is Kent Hrbek.

Mattingly was on his way to a Hall of Fame career; he just didn't complete it that way.

True, but I won't be holding my breath waiting for the articles arguing Saberhagen's Hall of Fame case.

Mattingly has a higher peak, but the career numbers are eerily similar. Why is there even discussion about Mattingly being in the HOF?

His huge peak. I don't think it's anywhere near huge enough, but that's why people talk about it. Oh, and he was a Yankee.

They had very similar numbers - high batting average, about the same power level, few walks, few strikeouts. That's not a super-common profile (most hitters with BB and K levels that low are slap hitters without much power) so the system reaches down into someone like Puckett.

It shouldn't compare CFs to 1Bs, is what I'm saying. It's not a helpful comp.

"You can argue that the HoF's "standard" is too low--and by standard, I mean the non-mistakes. (G. Kelly is not the standard, but Cepeda is.) But it is what it is and Donnie and Cepeda and Sisler and Terry are what they are. Lower tier non-mistake HoFers. That is what Donnie is."

As baseball goes on, shouldn't the Hall of Fame standards for getting in be stricter? I mean, when some of these guys retired, they were much higher up on the rank of all time greats then they are now. So at the time, that production was acceptable, because that production represented a top ten or top 15 1st baseman of all time. It doesn't anymore. IMO, as much as I love Donnie Baseball (I'd vote for him, but I don't think he's a HoFer) the fact that he's as good as guys who just made it in (and met the standards) from way back when means that today, he is not a Hall of Famer.

"True, but I won't be holding my breath waiting for the articles arguing Saberhagen's Hall of Fame case."

MLB.com has done this for every player on the ballot this year who has even the smallest arguement. The only one they've written that hasn't been pimping their player for the hall is the one about Disarcina.

It shouldn't compare CFs to 1Bs, is what I'm saying. It's not a helpful comp.

Well, I guess you're making the case that there should be more points off for different positions. Which is fine, though you're going to get more fundamentally dissimilar players being grouped together that way.

As baseball goes on, shouldn't the Hall of Fame standards for getting in be stricter? I mean, when some of these guys retired, they were much higher up on the rank of all time greats then they are now.

The problem for the Hall of Fame as an institution is that this eventually turns the HoF into an ossified institution where almost all of the people enshrined are dead and most visitors have few, if any, memories of anyone honored.

It shouldn't compare CFs to 1Bs, is what I'm saying. It's not a helpful comp.

There is an item in the calculation that makes it less likely for it to happen. But I like that fact that when players of different positions have very similar numbers, they show up on their comp lists.

I would like to add that playing on winning teams isn't something I even consider when looking at a HOF case. It depends so much on one's teammates that I dont' think it should even be relevant. In fact, player's on losing team's may be underrated by WS because they didnt' get to play against their awful teammates. Plus, Mattingly's 1987 Yankees had more wins than Hrbek's championship winning 1987 Twins. Are you really going to give Hrbek more credit because his team played in the right division? Who is to say that the Yankees, if they were in the AL West, wouldn't have won the series that year?

And peak matters. This is why I listed Beckley as a guy who shouldnt' be in the HOF. He was never one of the 15 best players in baseball in any year of his career per WS. Think about that. He is what some people think that Raffy Palmeiro is but isn't. This is like MArk Grace with a few below average years attached to his career to rack up some impressive counting stats. Should that player be in the HOF? I urge every to not put as much weight on career numbers and instead look at how those numbers were achieved.

And finally, Mattingly was a better fielder than all of those guys on his list except for Keith Hernandez. Three of those players (Olerud, Anderson, and Bottomley) also played in friendlier offensive eras. I am not sure about park effects, but yankee stadium has rarely been a hitter's park as well. Take similarity scores with a huge grain of salt as they don't adjust for any of these things.

I also believe that WARP is closer on Mattingly than WS is. So I guess that last paragraph wasn't finally.

MLB.com has done this for every player on the ballot this year who has even the smallest arguement. The only one they've written that hasn't been pimping their player for the hall is the one about Disarcina.

Fair enough. I withdraw my sarcasm.

I see Mattingly as pretty similar to Albert Belle: HOF-quality peak, but not historically spectacular enough to overcomes shortcomings in career value due to injuries that severely limited their post-peak contributions.

Mattingly can't even approach Belle in terms of his peak value. He's closer to Mark Grace than he is to Belle.

And peak matters.

Of course. But Mattingly's peak just wasn't that impressive. He had a lot of RBIs in 1985, but he was also hitting behind Rickey Henderson.

And finally, Mattingly was a better fielder than all of those guys on his list except for Keith Hernandez.

Was he really that much better than Olerud?

Olerud doesn't have a prayer of getting any serious HOF consideration, but I think he's got a better case than Mattingly.

"This is like MArk Grace with a few below average years attached to his career to rack up some impressive counting stats."

Which years of Beckley's career, specifically, are you talking about? The only possible ones I can see are 1906 and 1907, and he combined for a whopping 435 AB in the two put together.

I'm glad you concede that his counting stats are impressive, though.

I would like to add that playing on winning teams isn't something I even consider when looking at a HOF case.

I'm not sure that that poster was arguing for Hrbek for the Hall, or even necessarily that Hrbek > Mattingly.

I think he was just saying that they are comparable in a lot of ways, and hardly anybody thinks Hrbek belongs in the HoF.

Take similarity scores with a huge grain of salt as they don't adjust for any of these things.

We've been doing so. Keith Hernandez, who is a very good comp and a near-exact contemporary, couldn't stay on the ballot for very long. Barely anyone thinks Cecil Cooper is a Hall of Famer. Wally Joyner, who overlapped with Mattingly quite a bit, isn't going to get many votes for Cooperstown.

"Olerud doesn't have a prayer of getting any serious HOF consideration, but I think he's got a better case than Mattingly."

Yeah, but his peak years weren't grouped together like Mattingly's. From 84 to 87 Mattingly was an absolute beast, and because it was all together he (based on what I've read) had this reputation as one of the best in the game, which of course led to people thinking of him as a Hall of Famer. He's also got an MVP. Olerud's two best years are 5 years apart, and most of his peak outside of 93 (98-02 work for everyone?) was in severe pitchers parks. I'd agree that he has a better case then Mattingly, he was a remarkably consistent good, sometimes great hitter for a first baseman and a pretty good fielder too, for about 12 years.

Why is Kirby Puckett, a centerfielder, be on a comp list with 1Bmen?

They had very similar numbers - high batting average, about the same power level, few walks, few strikeouts. That's not a super-common profile (most hitters with BB and K levels that low are slap hitters without much power) so the system reaches down into someone like Puckett.

But looking at Mattingly's list...
1. Bottomley doesn't really belong in the Hall.
2. It's not clear Puckett belongs there either, but given similar offensive numbers I'd take the fast centerfielder before the slow first sacker from the same era. (Garrett Anderson I guess is a bit similar but I think he's behind Mattingly, let alone Puckett, when you adjust for era.)
3. Tony Oliva played in the mid-late '60s and early '70s, and also played the OF.
4. Will Clark is a similar but clearly better candidate.
5. The other guys are pretty obviously below HoF standards.

Note that Orlando Cepeda's list isn't really fair to him in the sense that, other than Hodges and Garvey, they played in far better hitting environments than Cepeda.

I attempted a few years ago to correct sim scores for batters based on era and park. I'm not going to claim any amazing gains in accuracy with that effort, but I thought I'd share the same list of comps that kevin provided just for further discussion:

Mattingly, Don
939 - Cecil Cooper
938 - Frank McCormick
931 - George Burns
927 - John Olerud
927 - Bob Watson
914 - Hal McRae
909 - Carl Furillo
908 - Hal Chase
906 - Harry Davis
904 - Rico Carty

Cepeda,Orlando
912 - Rafael Palmeiro
900 - Andres Galarraga
898 - Jim Rice
890 - Jeff Bagwell
882 - Billy Williams
879 - Lee May
879 - Dave Parker
879 - Boog Powell
877 - Norm Cash
877 - Fred McGriff

Bottomley, Jim
919 - Will Clark
901 - Andres Galarraga
901 - Hal Trosky
899 - Ted Kluszewski
896 - Del Ennis
893 - Vic Wertz
890 - Jack Fournier
887 - Harry Davis
884 - Joe Adcock
884 - George Scott


I don't think either Mattingly or Bottomley look quite as good now and Cepeda looks a lot better.

Vlad,

When adjusting Beckley's WS to 162 games his best season is still only 25 WS. I dont' have Mark Grace's numbers in front of me so maybe Grace was better than that. Beckley did play in a fantastic offensive era and may have had his prime extended by the arrival of the AL and the watering down of baseball's talent in the first decade of this century.

Answer Guy,

He did mention Hrbek's 2 titles while saying that Hrbek deserves consideration if Mattingly does. To me that would mean he is giving Hrbek's credit for those two titles.

RP,

I do think he was a better fielder than Olerud. However, he was also a better hitter in a less hitter-friendly environment (mid to late 80's vs. mid to late 90's). So Mattingly was the better player than Olerud. The difference between bottom rung HOFer and a player with no support is surprisingly small.

Also, my peak matters line was based on the analysis of Hrbek and Mattingly that took into account only career counting and rate stats. How one gets those stats is more important to me than what those final stats are.

BTW.. those numbers were from after 2002 I think, so obviously the comparisons with anyone active in that time will have changed.

Actually that should be the first decade of last century, not this century. What year is this?

Beckley is essentially Blyleven. Grace is a poor comparision.

He did mention Hrbek's 2 titles while saying that Hrbek deserves consideration if Mattingly does. To me that would mean he is giving Hrbek's credit for those two titles.

I think that was peripheral to his argument, though he can speak for himself. The real meat in this line of argument is, well, put Mattingly in Minnesota instead of New York and even money says he doesn't get 5% on his first ballot.

Mattingly can't even approach Belle in terms of his peak value. He's closer to Mark Grace than he is to Belle.

Mattingly's best 4 years by OPS+
161,156,156,146 (avg 155)
Belle: 192,178,171,157 (avg 175)
Grace: 143,140,130,127 (avg 136)

Mattingly was a superior defensive player (so was Grace- but not as good as Mattingly in his prime- Mattingly was better than Olerud- and I'm a Met fan saying that- only a notch below Keith H.) Belle was rather indifferent defensively...

I'd say Mattingly was roughly equidistant between the 2... taking defense into account I'd say he was a little closer to Belle than to Grace

but man oh man could Belle rake...

"When adjusting Beckley's WS to 162 games his best season is still only 25 WS."

We've already established that Beckley's case rests on career value, rather than peak, so why does this matter? He didn't have Roger Connor's peak, but he was an above-average regular for eighteen consecutive years. That has a lot of value. It's the Don Sutton case for induction, and in fact Beckley has only two fewer career Win Shares than Sutton (319). If you take it to right-spectrum position players only, he's hanging out with (+/- 10 WS) Sam Rice, Enos Slaughter, Harry Hooper, Joe Medwick, and Orlando Cepeda.

Grace, in contrast, had 279 for his career, which is Kirby Puckett territory.

Please, everyone, stop bringing up Puckett. He played a right-side defensive spectrum position. It doesn't get any left-er than 1B.

I'm just thankful no one has brought up the 'leadership' argument (yet) for Mattingly. It always seems funny when I see a sportswriter mention it when Mattingly's career fit perfectly between WS appearances for the Yankees, plus the fact he only made it to one playoff series, right at the end of his career. He played well in it, but the Yankees still lost.

Mattingly was a great player for a few years, but the list of players who also had 4 great years (OPS+ of 140 or more including one MVP), 2 very good ones (OPS+ of 120 or more) and a batch of mediocre years (OPS+ of 100-119 5 times and 2 years of sub 100) is long I'm certain. Dave Parker, as the first example that came to my mind, had 4 years of 140+ plus including one MVP, a 132 in the middle for his peak, plus another 148 outside of it to go with 6 mediocre (100-119 while a regular). He played on 2 WS winners, made the playoffs 5 times out of 19 seasons so he couldn't have been too bad in the clubhouse despite the drugs and stuff. He has 3.19 MVP shares vs Mattingly's 2.22 shares so the voters didn't see Parker as less valuable than Mattingly when they were on the field. Mattingly out gold gloves Parker 9 to 4, but was at first base rather than the outfield.

Parker will never be voted into the HOF and I feel if he is short then Mattingly has to be viewed as coming up short as well. I just don't see any argument (outside of the drug issue) that can push Parker below Mattingly.

The real meat in this line of argument is, well, put Mattingly in Minnesota instead of New York and even money says he doesn't get 5% on his first ballot.

One wonders, then, what would have happened had Kirby Puckett played in New York. I guess he would have been a unanimous choice.

Dan T., those are great lists, much better than the original. Do you have your complete set accessible somewhere? What criteria do you use?

Right on Answer Guy. The point I was trying to make is there are a lot of people who think Mattingly is a HOFer, and maybe two guys from Minnesota that would argue that Hrbek is, despite the fact that their career numbers are almost exactly the same.

I hate to bring up the old argument about "What is the Hall of Fame." Is it the best players, or the most famous, best players. Playing on winning teams has a pretty good correlation with being in the HOF, whether we like it or not. (Sidenote, has this been studied? that is, the team winning percentages of HOFers. I'm guessing that HOFer, as a group, have impressive team W/L records, but I could be wrong.)

Sidenote, has this been studied? that is, the team winning percentages of HOFers. I'm guessing that HOFer, as a group, have impressive team W/L records, but I could be wrong.

The vast majority of HOFers were very good players, so all else being equal their teams (on average) would be better than average.

Many HOfers were legitimately great players, capable of adding 5-10+ wins a year to their teams (at least at their peaks) that in itself wouyld make it likely that most HOFers were on winning teams- plus better (ie winning) organizations are more likely to have HOFers (whether by scouting them, stealing them from dumass teams etc) and to supplement them with good players as well.

Get the right guys on the VC and in 30 years Kent Hrbek could be a HoFer. He would not be the wurst at furst.

Dan T., those are great lists, much better than the original. Do you have your complete set accessible somewhere? What criteria do you use?

I can send out a spreadsheet that has a full list of scores with stats through 2001. I've been meaning to rerun them with the latest Lahman, but it's pretty computationally intensive and I need to make sure I still remember how the full spreadsheet works.

Basically what I do is determine how far away a given player is from "average" during his career - where average is determined by the league rate stats for any given season over the same number of plate appearances. After coming up with the average player, I have two careers - the actual (park-adjusted) numbers and the average career. Subtracting them shows me how far above/below average any given player was for each component of sim scores. I then run the sim scores algorithm like James or Forman did. In general my lists appear to be more reasonable, but my methods can probably be improved.

Let me see if I can rerun the calculations with the new data tonight and if so, I'll try and find somewhere to post them along with the full method. If you want the 2001 list, just let me know and I can email you a copy.

Let me see if I can rerun the calculations with the new data tonight and if so, I'll try and find somewhere to post them along with the full method. If you want the 2001 list, just let me know and I can email you a copy.

Thanks, but I'll wait and see if you are able to do the update (no pressure or anything).

In general my lists appear to be more reasonable, but my methods can probably be improved.

One suggestion, which I previously made to Sean: it would seem to make sense to use OPS+ as a determinant. Your system approaches this, but it might simplify the computation if you incorporated it directly.

I first got into baseball around 1987-88, and, at that time, Mattingly was thought of as something akin to a god. The first baseball book I ever got was a 1988 Topps book that I literally read to pieces. It was broken up into two sections, the first containing profiles of the great players of that era, the second about the great players of the past. The second section was arranged alphabetically, but the first was in rough order of how good the player was considered to be. Mattingly was not only the first player in the book, but the only one to get a two-page profile. It really shocked me when I got back into baseball years later and realized how disappointing Mattingly's career had ended up being--to a six-year-old kid, it had seemed like the question wasn't whether Mattingly would make the Hall of Fame, but where he'd rank among the greatest players ever.

One wonders, then, what would have happened had Kirby Puckett played in New York.

Well, if you took Don Mattingly's career, and made him a swift (for most of his career anyway) center fielder with a pivotal role in two title-winning teams, would you have a Hall of Famer? (The first part is far more important in my mind than the second, though I suppose that's not everyone's taste.) That's a tough question, but it's very close to the Kirby Puckett question.

If you took Kirby Puckett's career and made him a slow first basemen instead, I don't think you have someone worthy of Cooperstown.

The peak value thing only goes so far.. if we let in everyone who had four great seasons, the Hall of Fame would be a lot bigger than it is now.

It really shocked me when I got back into baseball years later and realized how disappointing Mattingly's career had ended up being--to a six-year-old kid, it had seemed like the question wasn't whether Mattingly would make the Hall of Fame, but where he'd rank among the greatest players ever.

This phenomenon is a lot more common that one might guess.

If I travelled time and came across the 16-year old Answer Youth in 1990 and told him that neither Darryl Strawberry nor Eric Davis were going to make Cooperstown, I'm not sure I'd have believed myself. If I had gone on to talk about how prospects weren't looking so good for Jose Canseco or Don Mattingly or Will Clark either, I'd be stunned.

And that's not unique to 1990. You could have done the same thing with Fred Lynn in 1980 or Dale Murphy in 1986.

Vlad,

I am not sure when we established that Beckley's HOF (or in my case HOM) case is not influenced by his peak at all. I may be misunderstanding you but you did seem to say that his incerdibly low peak (for a HOF candidate) is immaterial to his case. My point is that Beckley was never a great player in any year and barely reached the 'very good' level. I can't support anyone for the HOF that has that resume.

I also want to state again that I think his prime was extended due to the switch from a 10 team league to two 8 team leagues in only a few years.

I know that I am in a vast minority here but career numbers really mean about zilch to me. They are tiebreakers really. If a player has 4-5 years as a superstar and 3-4 as a very good player that is far more impressive to me than 15 years as an average to slightly above player but with large counting stats.

Also, Yes Kent Hrbek probalby deserved more attention than he got but I don't think he was as good as Mattingly and there is a steep drop off. The 12% who vote for Mattingly probably dont' think he is more than a borderline guy (which is correct) and if you put hrbek jsut below that then he isnt' getting any votes. The distance between 12% and less than 5% is very small and not linear in other words.

I gave it some thought (and some B-R), and most guys who were thought to be on the HOF track in the early 70s (when I started) is in. This is not necessarily to say everyone who should be in is in (e.g., Nettles, Freehan, Allen, Santo), but that the "locks" pretty much stayed locked. Exceptions might include Garvey, Cedeno, Munson, and Blue (and Rose, of course, but that's another story). Hmm, maybe four guys is a lot. I'm very surprised Garvey's not in, given the high regard for him at the time and that really he did little to tarnish his playing record.

I'm very surprised Garvey's not in, given the high regard for him at the time and that really he did little to tarnish his playing record.

Cute, Garvey has a bigger problem than his failure to keep his pants on-

He was well regarded in the 70s for playing everyday, hitting .300 every year, getting 200 hits every year, and driving in 100 runs every year. But he never hit .300, got 200 hits or drove in 100 runs after age 31 (1980).

A third of his career is taken up by seasons like these: .282-16-86; .255-21-81; .281-17-81; .284-8-86 (I'm not even going to discuss his OPS marks- triple crown numbers impress the voters- especially the ones who want to vote for Garvey). Do those look like HOF #s for a 1B?

Paternity problems or not- if his peak extended a few years longer (34 instead of 31) he'd probably be in. (and if Mattingly's peak had lasted until 31 rather than 26 he'd be in....)

"I may be misunderstanding you but you did seem to say that his incerdibly low peak (for a HOF candidate) is immaterial to his case."

There are two kinds of value for a HoF case: Peak value, and career value. Some guys (Sandy Koufax, etc.) get in on peak value with career totals that are pedestrian, and others (like Beckley) get in for career value without having an exceptional peak.

Beckley's career accomplishments are significant enough to make him worthy of a slot, without even getting into considerations of the height of his peak. If a guy has Beckley's career accomplishments, he'd probably belong in the Hall if he'd had no peak at all, i.e. just putting up a 125 OPS+ every season for 20 years, until he got bored and retired.

"I also want to state again that I think his prime was extended due to the switch from a 10 team league to two 8 team leagues in only a few years."

If it makes you feel any better, think of it as his early years being unfairly penalized by playing in a 10-team league.

Vlad,

Beckley's peak is not just unexceptional, it is completely pedestrian. While I don't have the numbers with me I bet that Tim Salmon had a higher peak. In fact he has the same peak score in my HOM system as George Kelly, Joe Judge, and Lu Blue. 0. He is better than all three but only because he was average for a longer period of time. Okay, that is a little extreme, but not as much as you may think.

Beckley is not the oppsite of Mattingly, he is the opposite of Hack Wilson or Chuck Klein, guys with really low career totals and high peaks.

And Beckley's best seasons came after the switch to a 16 team league, 1902 was his best season IIRC. Maybe his numbers are a little higher in the 1890's, but then they would be lower in the 1900's, forcing some of those later seasons to go from roughly average to below average if still in the 10 team league. There is no evidence that baseball had the talent to support a 16 team league in the 00's, let alone the 1890's.

Also,

If Don Mattingly had stuck around for three more seasons and earned 40 WS (he had 15 when you schedule adjust his 1995 seasons, so 13.3 per season isn't high by any means) he woul dhave 309 WS and his career length wouldn't be too big of an issue. But would he really be helping his HOF candidacy by playing below average for three more seasons?

And his prime didn't end at the age of 26, he was a very fine player in 1988 and 1989 and had a number of 20 WS seasons (James says 20 WS means an All-Star season, though barely) after his back injury.

Sidenote, has this been studied? that is, the team winning percentages of HOFers. I'm guessing that HOFer, as a group, have impressive team W/L records, but I could be wrong.

Yes it has-BJ did in the most recent Historical Abstract (tho to be fair it may have been Win Shares)...

I generally mistrust discussions of a player's prime because it generally means whatever the person talking about a prime wants it to mean. Three years? Five years? Seven years? Best run of consecutive seasons, or best x number of seasons chosen from throughout the career? Just offensive performance, or defense/baserunning as well?

It's entirely possible that under some definitions, Salmon's "peak" is higher than Beckley's. I don't find the comparison particularly meaningful or interesting. Salmon was an everyday player for only eleven years, including one where he was almost exclusively a DH. If Beckley had retired in 1898, he wouldn't belong anywhere near the Hall of Fame, any more than Salmon does.

"If Don Mattingly had stuck around for three more seasons and earned 40 WS (he had 15 when you schedule adjust his 1995 seasons, so 13.3 per season isn't high by any means) he woul dhave 309 WS and his career length wouldn't be too big of an issue. But would he really be helping his HOF candidacy by playing below average for three more seasons?"

I don't understand this preoccupation you seem to have with "below average" seasons. Until Beckley turned 38, there was no time when he was a below-average player. He didn't pad out his career by collecting counting stats as a drag on his team; in fact, he retired after only 32 games once his skills started showing real slippage in 1907. Ironically, Beckley's election would probably have been much less controversial if he had stuck around past his prime, since a full '07 and a partial '08 might have carried him to 3,000 hits.

If Mattingly had been able to continue to play at an above-average level after 1994, I'd give him credit for those seasons. He wasn't, so I don't.

Post 8:

Dick Allen's failure to gain admission to the Baseball Hall of Fame is to the CREDIT of the voters and NOT an omission. They understand the difference between "posers" and the real deal. Clearly a distinction some here and elsewhere are incapable of making.

I understand that my stance is now perceived as a cranky old man who doesn't think anyone today can hold a candle to players of yesteryear.

Balderdash.

The Baseball Hall of Fame made a series of egregious blunders in its selection process over the years. Now, due to various circumstances something of a balance has been reached. Only a very few, if any, players exist who are on the outside looking in who SHOULD be awarded with a plaque.

The willingness, nay in fact the FERVOR with which many here advocate on behalf of these borderline candidates hearkens back to the Dark Days of the 1970's. It pains me to think that such informed fans would commit the same foolish errors of the past.

I understand that my stance is now perceived as a cranky old man who doesn't think anyone today can hold a candle to players of yesteryear.

How about as someone whose perception seems completely out of whack with reality? Seriously Harvey, while I don't see Allen as a clear case, I think he belongs. Poser? Come on, that's ridiculous. You try posing 351 career HR and a .292 BA in the 60s and 70s.

Allen received a lot of accolades DURING his career, and he deserved them. He played in a tough environment and time for a proud black man, and he often didn't handle it well, but he was a HELL of a player.

Andere:

I saw him play. I lived through his career from beginning to end. I even ran into him at the racetrack. Said hello.

If chosen he wouldn't be the worst player in the Hall of Fame. But as I have written MULTIPLE times the ONLY time Dick Allen was a Hall of Fame caliber player was in the batter's box. And while offense matters so do the other aspects of the game.

I will tell you all of you that I recount this site's collective comments on behalf of Allen to my peers, all avid fans, all who saw Allen play.

On this topic the best they can muster is that reading his stat line can be "deceiving".

The straight truth is that they think y'all are daft.

I'm very surprised Garvey's not in, given the high regard for him at the time and that really he did little to tarnish his playing record.

Wellll.... there is the fact that he's a Nazi, molests children, gave head to Ho Chi Minh, planned the Watergate breakdown, dropped a satellite dish on Bo Diaz, produced the movie Heavens Gate, wrote several episodes of SuperTrain, was the never convicted second shooter of John Lennon, sold arms to Iran and let poor Oliver North take the fall, and rumor has -- plans to marry Jeffery Dahmer's rotting corpse thanks to Massachussetts' leniant marriage laws.

But, yeah, besides that -- swell guy.

Wellll.... there is the fact that he's a Nazi, molests children, gave head to Ho Chi Minh, planned the Watergate breakdown, dropped a satellite dish on Bo Diaz, produced the movie Heavens Gate, wrote several episodes of SuperTrain, was the never convicted second shooter of John Lennon, sold arms to Iran and let poor Oliver North take the fall, and rumor has -- plans to marry Jeffery Dahmer's rotting corpse thanks to Massachussetts' leniant marriage laws.

Huh, I hadn't heard about the Dahmer thing.

I saw him play.

Yeah, well, either you weren't paying much attention or your assessment differs from other people who saw him play and were stupid enough to elect him to seven All Star teams, a Rookie of the Year award and an MVP.

If chosen he wouldn't be the worst player in the Hall of Fame. But as I have written MULTIPLE times the ONLY time Dick Allen was a Hall of Fame caliber player was in the batter's box. And while offense matters so do the other aspects of the game.

A number of Hall of Famers would deserve discredit ahead of Allen there. While I would make no argument that he was a good defensive player, the stats don't show him to have been Ozymandias with the glove, and flexibility is worth something.

I will tell you all of you that I recount this site's collective comments on behalf of Allen to my peers, all avid fans, all who saw Allen play.

Yeah, well, maybe you can all write in and have his MVP taken back.

Poser...bah. If anyone is being daft here, it's you. His deserving Hall of Fame induction is quite debatable, but your use of that word is completely ridiculous applied to a player who accomplished a hell of a lot as a major league ballplayer.

Huh, I hadn't heard about the Dahmer thing.

The evil of Steve Garvey never dies. I wouldn't be suprised if he's building a crystal meth lab somewhere right now with the intentions of ruining the lives of some nice young honor students somewhere.

And his prime didn't end at the age of 26
yes it did, he was good at ages 27, 28 and 32- but his defense had visibly eroded along with his bat- there's a pretty clear line of demarcation in his case- he was a legitimately great player (both defensively and offensively) from 1984-1987- and that was it.

He was above average in 1988 & 1989 (and arguably in 1993)- but that was it.

And your overheated retort to the use of a single word is indicative of the type of misdirected passion of which I wrote of earlier.

When you tell me something about Allen that is germane to his playing career which is of substance I will gladly read it. Alas, too much of this discourse is simply re-hashing that which is clearly evident from the reference materials available.

Again, Allen was a player who had to be EXPERIENCED.

But since you have your mind made up that I am a zealot opposed to Allen I will walk away with this final comment that my posts here are not even ABOUT Allen. It's about the Hall of Fame.

Vlad,

I measure peak as every WS gained over 25 and every point of WARP3 gained over 8. Beckley has none of either, though with WARP3 always changing he may have a few runs over 8 WARP3. I measure prime as all WS gained over 15 and all WARP3 gained over 4.5. I forget his WARp score but over his career, Jake Beckley gained 92 WS over 15 in his career, schedule adjsuted of course. Gil Hodges has 90, Ed Konetchy has 88, jack Fournier has 81. Any of those guys Hall of Famers? Don Mattingly has 92. So with all of those other seasons that Beckley played he only gave his teams as many WS above average (15) as Mattingly. Mattingly did not play his decline phase in a watered down league with a low average. Mattingly has a peak score of 22 WS, Beckley 0.

In my eyes, that 22 WS difference is more important than the 100 WS difference in their career totals. Why? because Beckley had many seasons under 15 WS, or below average. I do not believe that below average play should add anything to a HOF case. Hell, I don't think that average play (and Beckley had many 16 and 17 WS seasons) should add anything to a HOF case. We differ here.

And by WARP, MAttingly crushes Beckley. 35.0 to 15.7 in prime, 15.9 to 0 in peak. And this is not the newest iteration, where I have heard that Mattingly has gained 6 Wins to his career total. Some of this is severe timelining (which you may or may not agree with) but at the same time, it makes as much sense to timeline as it does to not timeline and expect all eras to have been equal in talent over time. Especially sinec there was a definitely weak league in the latter parts of Beckley's career, without black players to boot.

Do those look like HOF #s for a 1B?

No, of course not, but I'm telling you for many years it looked like he was a lock for the Hall. Even at the end of his career when he really lost his meager-for-a-1Bman power he was well-regarded (look, he hit .280 again! look, he can still hit 20 HR! and at his age! and lookit those Padres win with Old Master Garvey leading the way! still an All-Star, I tells ya). Outside of special case Rose, does anybody else have 10 All-Star appearances and is out looking in?

I attempted a few years ago to correct sim scores for batters based on era and park.

Did you use the same categories as BBREF does? BBREF uses stuff like hits, RBIs, etc. that doesn't really help. I don't understand why some many people here use the similarity scores when they don't really provide any help at all.

I saw [Dick Allen] play.

Not to be rude, but so what?

Again, Allen was a player who had to be EXPERIENCED.

Again...this basically seems like you're saying "Well, the stats show him to be great, but I've decided I didn't like him, and since I saw him play and you didn't, I'm going to use that as an argument I know you can't refute that way I won't have to change my mind."

But since you have your mind made up that I am a zealot opposed to Allen I will walk away with this final comment that my posts here are not even ABOUT Allen. It's about the Hall of Fame.

Here's why I don't necessarily see what you're saying, HW.

If the same guys who gave Allen MVP votes from 1964-67 to 1972-74 were also evaluating him for the Hall, I don't think they were keeping Allen out on what he did on the playing field. By their own votes, he was often a great player, worthy year-in/year-out of being called the best or among the best. Which is why I don't understand his exclusion, unless you introduce a shift of opinion after he retired, namely, what he did on the field was outweighed enough by what he did off of it. I.e., it wasn't really that one-dimensionality you refer to; it was his ####-you attitude catching up with him.

If I'm still not on your point, then you win, you're just too subtle for me. 8-)

Black Ink: Batting - 27 (66) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 159 (73) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 38.7 (157) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 99.0 (143) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Wow, Allen's just about the very definition of 'borderline candidate.'

The lack of batting HOF Standards when so many worse hitters than him are in the hall is an argument against, but the high amount of Gray Ink is a strong argument for. In the end, I'd vote him in, because I'm the sort who says "sure, he's a HOFer, he was a really good player and he'd be happy and it would be fun." That's what the HOF is for, after all; it's not like we're making them senators or something. I'm okay with Puckett, too, because the precedent for careers that get short-changed but are still long enough had been set. No way on Mattingly or Garvey, of course. But I've got no problem with Sutton, and I think they may as well elect John, Kaat, and of course Blyleven.

Yes on Parker, too... he was never significantly below average all the way through age 40, and was only below average twice during that time, usually fairly well above, and with a few monster seasons here and there. As far as the off-the-field garbage goes, Parker's admission that he took cocaine was a good thing for baseball over all, and earns him extra points from me, far from taking them away.

Of course, if Puckett, Allen, and Parker are in, I think Al Oliver is a worthy candidate, too. And I don't hear him campaigning, either, which probably would help his case in some quarters.

And absolutely no Dawson or Rice... I'd vote for Baines and even Chili Davis before either of them.

The lack of batting HOF Standards when so many worse hitters than him are in the hall is an argument against....

Do those rankings change much if you use median, rather than average? Given that the Hall is selecting from the extreme right end of the population, I'd expect the mean to be higher than the median, but don't have a good instinct for degree....

And your overheated retort to the use of a single word is indicative of the type of misdirected passion of which I wrote of earlier.

Harvey, you're the one who came into this thread and started ranting, not I. I don't have any particular passion regarding Dick Allen and the Hall of Fame, but there was no way I was going to read #68, which I interpret as a screed against the participants here with a flawed basis, without responding.

When you tell me something about Allen that is germane to his playing career which is of substance I will gladly read it. Alas, too much of this discourse is simply re-hashing that which is clearly evident from the reference materials available.

I feel no need to rehash it either.

Again, Allen was a player who had to be EXPERIENCED.

Again, those who experienced it repeatedly voted him to All Star Teams, voted him Rookie of the Year, and MVP. He was traded several times, and those teams that traded for him gave up highly regarded players (McCarver, Flood (well, they tried), Sizemore, John, etc.). Clearly, your interpretation of your experience at the time is not the same as it was for others.

Yes, there is a very negative and complicated legacy associated with Dick Allen that runs parallel to this, much of it his own fault. The degree to which one should let it define his career is VERY questionable. You choose to let it be a deal-breaker, and that's fine. But don't get on a high horse and tell those of who choose otherwise (for good reason) that we are naive idiots, because that's BS.

Paging Mr. Malcolm...a Mr. Don Malcolm.

The lack of batting HOF Standards when so many worse hitters than him are in the hall is an argument against, but the high amount of Gray Ink is a strong argument for.

Keep in mind that HOF Monitor and HOF Standards are intended to show whether a player is likely to be inducted, not whether he deserves to be inducted. The statistical pro-Allen argument would assume a different set of standards, under which Allen looks a LOT better (in a nutshell, Allen's career OPS+ of 156 rates 20th all-time).

Of course, if Puckett, Allen, and Parker are in, I think Al Oliver is a worthy candidate, too...And absolutely no Dawson or Rice...

If Parker and Oliver, why not Rice?

Vaux,

I would argue against using the median of all HOFers to judge whether or not a player should be in the Hall. Obviously we shouldn't use the worst players as the worst players in the Hall are obvious and utter mistakes. However, what about the 25% line? 33%? Obviously a player would have clear most of the hurdles if we lowered the bar, but I don't think it is fair to assume that the 50% line is the in/out line. The in/out line is lower than that.

I measure peak as every WS gained over 25 and every point of WARP3 gained over 8. Beckley has none of either, though with WARP3 always changing he may have a few runs over 8 WARP3. I measure prime as all WS gained over 15 and all WARP3 gained over 4.5.

Sometimes we wonder why statheads are mocked.

Sometimes we wonder why statheads are mocked.

I don't.

I think, except for Barry is Lazy we would generally agree that a player's peak is when he's at his best (as a definition- we may disagree which year or year's constitutes someone's peak)

You are obtuse.

Has anyone ever looked at Andres Galarraga as a candidate for the Hall? I would say no, but he definitely has a case.

oops my bad:

I think, except for Barry is Lazy Jschmeagol we would generally agree that a player's peak is when he's at his best (as a definition- we may disagree which year or year's constitutes someone's peak)

Outside of special case Rose (17 appearances), does anybody else have 10 All-Star appearances and is out looking in?

According to BB-Ref, only Bill Freehan is eligible and unelected with more AS appearances (11). Among not-yet-eligibles, some might argue that R Alomar and Larkin, 12 appearances each, are not locks. I would think the rest would be considered locks:
Ripken 19, Gwynn 15, Bonds 13, Griffey 12, McGwire 12, Piazza 12, I Rodriguez 12, Clemens 11, Henderson 10, R Johnson 10.

Let me see if I can rerun the calculations with the new data tonight and if so, I'll try and find somewhere to post them along with the full method. If you want the 2001 list, just let me know and I can email you a copy.


Thanks, but I'll wait and see if you are able to do the update (no pressure or anything).


Ok, I've rerun the numbers (batters only). I've posted the methodology and this year's HOF ballot on my blog. (Please ignore the fact that I haven't written anything else in a year). As I say there, if anyone is interested in the full set of scores, send me an email through the blog and I'll provide the full spreadsheet.

Also, in case anyone does a comparison, the list for Mattingly in the blog looks somewhat different than the one in this thread. I realized I had a bug in my spreadsheet that was calculating PA incorrectly.

One suggestion, which I previously made to Sean: it would seem to make sense to use OPS+ as a determinant. Your system approaches this, but it might simplify the computation if you incorporated it directly.

Did you use the same categories as BBREF does? BBREF uses stuff like hits, RBIs, etc. that doesn't really help. I don't understand why some many people here use the similarity scores when they don't really provide any help at all.

For this exercise I just kept sim scores pretty much as is. I know it's not much more than a toy, but people seem to like it. I thought I'd keep the basic concept but try and make it a little more accurate. I've thought about trying to play with the formulas to make it better, but haven't really spent the time to come up with anything I like.

I am not entirely sure how I should be mocked for what i said. Why is it wrong to meaure the impact of someone's peak by looking how the value over a certain barrier? In fact isn't taht was RCAA, FRAA, and VORP do? You may argue that my method is simple and I would admit that it is, but it is a useful guidepost. And it was in ressponse to VLAD's claim athat prime could be anything a person wanted it to be. I simply gave him the rough sketch of my HOM system to show him what I was talking about.

Of course I guess you too could just sit around and make fun of me. And people wonder why statheads aren't taken seriously. Of course a player's peak is when he is at his best, I was just measuring the impact of that peak.

jschmeagol, i wasn't mocking you. i understand what your logic is, and i agree with a lot of it.

its just that sometimes our arguments are so far removed from the game, they can look ridiculous.

try and look at the part of your post i cut out from the point of view of a regular old joe baseball fan.

I think i get it. You were saying the post is too technical right? Most likely guilty as charged. However, I would like to say it was part of a disagreement with Vlad.

Of course a player's peak is when he is at his best, I was just measuring the impact of that peak.

That's not what you said, you basically said "peak" was when a player "I measure peak as every WS gained over 25 and every point of WARP3 gained over 8."-
under that definition most players never have a "peak"
I understand now that you were trying to say that you measure the impact of someone's peak by measuring how far above some elevated baseline that player was able to reach