SS - you actually gain an ADVANTAGE on the DP pivot, but you pay for it having to twist your body on balls hit into the hole. You will probably CATCH more balls in the hole, because your glove is on the right side, but then you have to stop your momentum and switch hands and twist your body, making your throw from there even slower than Jeter's.

You missed one here Brock. The other problem lefty shortstops face is on balls that must be charged (similar to third basemen with bunts), because they can't quickly fire the ball to first across their body, but must either pivot or get nothing on the throw.

Puckett's a 1st ballot HOF'er and Mattingly is on the outside looking in?

Puckett is a weak HOFer, but you're not dealing with the issue: one is a CF and one is a 1B.

Puckett's a 1st ballot HOF'er and Mattingly is on the outside looking in?
If Mattingly played for any team other than the Yankees, he would have been voted in long ago.

This doesn't make any sense.

Coke to Ray.

Ray that's just it, Puckett is not a "weak" HOF'er. He's a FIRST BALLOT HOF'er. And he deserves to be.

I agree with your second point, there is a difference between a GG centerfielder and a GG first baseman. That's why Puckett goes in on the 1st ballot, but Mattingly should have to wait a couple of years before being voted in. But by now, he should have been voted in.

Actually Lassus, it was Bill James in his 1987 Abstract who first raised the concept of the anti-NY bias in voting. He did so in the context of Roger Clemens beating Mattingly for the 1986 MVP, and contrasted that with Jim Rice beating Ron Guidry out of the 1978 MVP. Bill James felt that Mattingly and Guidry were the deserving candidates both times.

James also touched on McGee beating Gooden in 1985. Quick, name all the Mets that have won an MVP award in the last 50 years?

Some Yankees off the top of my head that may very well have won some awards in the last 20 years had they played elsewhere:

MVP: Jeter 1998, 1999, 2006, 2009
Soriano 2002
Posada 2003
Shefield 2004
Cano 2010

CY Young:
Pettitte 1996
Rivera 2004

My all time favorite is Hideki Matsui losing ROY in 2003 because, as the arguement went at the time, he should be ineligible because he was a veteran from Japan. Check out the winners from 2001 and 2002

Bill James felt that Mattingly and Guidry were the deserving candidates both times.

Like the voters, Bill was half-right. Gator and the Rocket were the better choices.

...you pay for it having to twist your body on balls hit into the hole...

Actually, you pay for it having to twist your body on virtually every 6-3 chance and all of the 6-4 chances that require actual throws rather than just flips. This will lead to a lot of IF 1Bs and FCs that could have been DPs.

The other problem with lefty throwing catchers is that the natural tail on throws to 2B takes the ball away from, rather than toward, the sliding runner. This makes the catch and tag more difficult for the infielder, even if the throw isn't particularly off the mark.

That's why Puckett goes in on the 1st ballot, but Mattingly should have to wait a couple of years before being voted in. But by now, he should have been voted in.

Whether Puckett is first-ballot or borderline is not relevant to whether Mattingly is deserving of a spot in the HOF. What's your argument for Mattingly as deserving in response to the arguments forwarded countless times here why he is not?

The only argument for Mattingly is a pure peak one, and he just doesn't have quite enough pure peak. Had his career been shaped more like Puckett's (ie, relatively nondescript start followed by dramatic improvement and sudden end) then he might very well have gotten in even though he would not have been any more deserving.

To get 3000 hits, Mattingly would have had to average 169 hits over the next five seasons, a number he hadn't achieved since age 31.

Even if you add his 5 best years to his total he "only" gets to 3150 or so.

Ray that's just it, Puckett is not a "weak" HOF'er. He's a FIRST BALLOT HOF'er. And he deserves to be.

LOL.

For single seasons, From 1901 to 2012, Throws LH, Played 1 games at 2B, sorted by most recent date


Rk Player Year Age Tm Pos
1 Don Mattingly 1983 22 NYY 397/4
2 Gonzalo Marquez 1973 27 TOT 3/4D9
3 Sam McDowell 1970 27 CLE *1/43

Cleveland second baseman Sam McDowell forces Washington's Frank Howard to end the top of the 8th at Cleveland Municipal Stadium. McDowell, who had been the Indians' starting pitcher, was facing runners at second and third with two out and the hard-hitting Howard at the plate. Manager Alvin Dark called for Dean Chance to relieve McDowell, but instead of removing Sudden Sam from the game, Dark had Chance take Graig Nettles' spot in the lineup, moved second sacker Eddie Leon over to play third, and McDowell left the mound to play second.

Chance intentionally walked Howard to load the bases, then got Rick Reichardt to ground one to Leon who tossed to McDowell at second to force Howard and end the inning. McDowell returned to the mound for the 9th and struck out the side (Aurelio Rodriguez, Paul Casanova, and Tim Cullen).

Wow.. you play a total of 1/3 of an inning at second in your entire 15-year career and you get the biggest man in the game sliding into you.

A lefty catcher is probably viable. The others probably aren't.

If the population were 90% left-handed, do you think baseball would have been designed so that players run the bases clockwise?

If the population were 90% left-handed, do you think baseball would have been designed so that players run the bases clockwise?

If it weren't created that way, it likely would have changed over time to meet the better configuration.

Puckett's also in because he to retire due to a medical issue - he was perceived to have been cheated out of years of his career when he could have added to his counting stats. Mattingly is perceived to have gotten hurt (rightly or wrongly, his back issues may have been just as much an inevitable, chronic condition as Koufax's elbow or Puckett's eyes), which you get no points for because it happens to a lot of players and they either recover or they don't. Plus Kirby was round and rolly polly and won two rings.

and won two rings.

This really shouldn't get overlooked in the Puckett story. He was seen as the best player on two World Series teams. That carried a lot of weight in the Kirby Hall of Fame case.

Plus Kirby was round and rolly polly and won two rings.

He had a very sad fall from grace, with the career-ending glaucoma being the best of it. There was the massive weight gain, the publicising of the mistresses, the nasty divorce, the criminal charges of abuse and the like, and, finally - almost mercifully - the stroke that killed him.

I may be misremembering, but I think all of this had basically remained below the surface, for the most part - a kind of poorly kept secret - until the Deford article for SI blew the doors off.

That carried a lot of weight in the Kirby Hall of Fame case.

As did Kirby's weight itself, ironically. As Squash says in #65, Kirby was round and rolly and polly and yet could play baseball with the best of them - and that added to the adoration for him.

I may be misremembering, but I think all of this had basically remained below the surface, for the most part - a kind of poorly kept secret - until the Deford article for SI blew the doors off.

I'm pretty sure you're right - Kirby's "second life" was still very much under the rug when he was voted in. He was beloved still at that point and given extra points for that - I doubt very much he would have been voted in on the first try if it was otherwise. If there's one thing the writers seem to hate above all it's when they have to rewrite a story they've already written, in a sense.

I imagine that the Puckett Secret was out in Minnesota, years before it became a national story. Anyone?

If the population were 90% left-handed, do you think baseball would have been designed so that players run the bases clockwise?

No, but only because "clockwise" would mean the opposite of what it does now.

Puckett was no where near a HOF player, he only had 48 bWAR, not even top 250 all time, and wasn't likely to pile up a lot more. He got in because everyone thought he was a great guy, except the women he was assaulting and harassing.

In comparison, Ichiro, who left some peak seasons in Japan has played the same number of MLB seasons as Kirby, 12, and has 6 more WAR.

McGwire, whom many on the site think isn't a HOF player based on performance, put up 10 more WAR in a similar number of games, and even fewer PAs than Kirby.

Even if Kirby played another 6 years be was unlikely to even sniff the top 100 in WAR, so his case always depended on his faux nice guy image.

If the population were 90% left-handed, do you think baseball would have been designed so that players run the bases clockwise?

No, but only because "clockwise" would mean the opposite of what it does now.

At the risk of being pedantic, the direction "clockwise" probably derives less from the prevalence of right hand dominance and more from the use of sundials in the Northern Hemisphere.

This really shouldn't get overlooked in the Puckett story. He was seen as the best player on two World Series teams. That carried a lot of weight in the Kirby Hall of Fame case.

Well, there is a guy who hit cleanup on four World Series Winners, as well as two AL Pennant Winners, who doesn't seem to be judged by the same standard.

his case always depended on his faux nice guy image

His case was also heavily dependent on the "cut down in his prime" narrative. I remember a ton of articles about how he would have racked up another 1000 hits and 500 RBI easy.

Well, there is a guy who hit cleanup on four World Series Winners, as well as two AL Pennant Winners, who doesn't seem to be judged by the same standard.

No, the guy who is viewed as the best player on those four World Series teams will in fact be inducted to the Hall of Fame, as well as the guy seen as the best pitcher. So that particular standard will, in fact, hold up.

Http://research.sabr.org/journals/counterclockwise-sport

There is some evidence that suggests that, before the advent of professional baseball, games antecedent to baseball, such as rounders, were sometimes played with the bases run in a clockwisoe direction.  In William Clarke's The Boy's Own Book Extended, published in 1851, such a game is diagrammed with the batter placed on the catcher's right-forcing him to bat lefthanded. (This diagram is reproduced in Harold Peterson's The Man Who Invented Baseball. Mr. Peterson states that it was first published in an earlier edition of Clarke's book in 1829 in a description of "rounders," and in 1834 in The Book of Sports by Robin Carver in a description of "baseball." All of the other games with more than two bases described by Mr. Peterson utilize a counterclockwise direction in baserunning.)   

Why did counterclockwise, instead of clockwise, baserunning prevail? The answer probably lies in a combination of factors, some of which lie unfathomed within the enormously complex and largely unknown human brain. One fact is pointed out in Jack Fincher's Sinister People: by whatever definition one uses for "handedness" every human society appears to be predominately right-handed.   

Clockwise baserunning, therefore, would necessitate that most fielders would have to turn before they threw the ball (to a teammate or at the runner; the latter was often the case in games antecedent to baseball). As pointed out above, left-handed batting was called for.  Since a majority of the population would find it easier to throw without first turning, and to swing the bat right-handed, counterclockwise baserunning gradually prevailed.    

Now the environment of the game can influence skills that can be learned. Professional baseball evolved with batters standing on either side of the pitcher-catcher axis. It is conceivable that the batter could have been forced to remain stationary, and the catcher compelled to move to either side of the batter (depending on which way the latter swung) but that's not the way the game developed. The left-handed batter stands closer to first base, and this provides his team with an offensive advantage. He can both reach first more quickly, and block the catcher's view of the runner on first.

So in 1894 the pitchers were throwing underhand? Or bowling?

"Well, there is a guy who hit cleanup on four World Series Winners, as well as two AL Pennant Winners, who doesn't seem to be judged by the same standard."

"No, the guy who is viewed as the best player on those four World Series teams will in fact be inducted to the Hall of Fame, as well as the guy seen as the best pitcher. So that particular standard will, in fact, hold up."




Bernie Williams should be a HOF'er. As per paragraph #55, the anti-NY bias applies to HOF voting as well.

This really shouldn't get overlooked in the Puckett story. He was seen as the best player on two World Series teams. That carried a lot of weight in the Kirby Hall of Fame case.

Well, there is a guy who hit cleanup on four World Series Winners, as well as two AL Pennant Winners, who doesn't seem to be judged by the same standard.

? That's a different standard. Best player vs. hitting cleanup.

Bernie may have hit cleanup on those teams (I'll take your word for it as my memory is hazy), but the standard offered was that Puckett was seen as the best player on those teams - not that Puckett hit cleanup.

Bernie Williams should be a HOF'er. As per paragraph #55, the anti-NY bias applies to HOF voting as well.

If nothing else, you're doing your damnednest to counteract it.

Bernie's a reasonable Hall candidate (though he, like Lofton, is going to get buried under the current avalanche of better candidates). But let's not overstate his bona fides. Even with the shortened career, Kirby outWARs him.

SS - you actually gain an ADVANTAGE on the DP pivot, but you pay for it having to twist your body on balls hit into the hole. You will probably CATCH more balls in the hole, because your glove is on the right side, but then you have to stop your momentum and switch hands and twist your body, making your throw from there even slower than Jeter's.

Having played several years of softball with a lefty SS, I've often felt it was the best spot for a lefty infielder. Brock summarizes it well but I'll add a couple. Somebody already mentioned the difficulty on balls that need to be charged. This is the biggest problem for SS and 3B but my impression is that SS have a lot fewer balls they need to charge than 3B ... and a lot of the balls a SS would need to charge can be handled by a 3B coming across. Also, from a strategy standpoint, teams would start bunting a lot on a lefty 3B but nobody bunts to SS. Still, if there are fewer 3B charge plays than I think, 3B is probably the most natural position.

But the play in the hole is more natural than Brock gives it credit for. First, for the righty thrower --

a) has to backhand the ball (tougher), sometimes in that very awkward "bent low on the run" position.
b) when fielding it on the run (left foot forward as fielding), he's got to step and stop momentum to fire.
c) has a major advantage when he can get set up to throw before the ball gets there.

For the lefty thrower --

a) has an easier time fielding the ball (right leg forward as fielding)
b) the fielding motion actually lends itself reasonably well to the throwing motion -- think of the 2B fielding a ball going to his left and pivoting to get the runner at second. It's a bit of an ole move. The SS spins (back to plate), plants the left leg, throws to second or first.
c) has a major disadvantage on balls he doesn't have to take on the run -- at best it's a bit like a tennis player running around a ball hit to his backhand.

Now rec league softball is maybe a step or two below MLB but this guy was the best SS I saw on the softball field. He had something of a gun for an arm which helped a lot. But in general everything looked pretty natural for him except for the occasional chopper/slow roller.

It's an obvious disadvantage and MLB is a game of small disadvantages adding up to a lot, so it's hard to imagine a scenario where it made sense. And somebody like Ichiro or the younger Gwynn would eat a lefty SS alive. But just imagine Jeter, even the b-r version of Jeter. B-R has Jeter as about 23 wins worse defensively than the average SS and he still has 70 WAR. He could lose another 20 wins on defense and still have a better career than Miguel Tejada or another 20 wins on top of that and still be above-average. If our theoretical lefty can hit like AROD or Pujols, we're still talking at least 40 runs per year below average defensively while still being an average SS. Now let's pretend our Jeter/AROD hitter has AROD's "natural" ability at SS. Can that guy keep himself above 40 runs a year below average? For that not to be true for the young AROD, the lefty disadvantage has to be in the range of 45-50 runs a year. It might be but jeepers that's a lot.

Now, of course we'd never see this because if a lefty has the range for SS, they have the range for CF where there's no lefty disadvantage and you're only giving up 5-10 runs of positional difference. Worst-case scenario you end up with Jeter's bat at LF/RF/1B where he'd be at least above-average for most of his career and you don't have to take the silly risk of a lefty-throwing SS.

C makes a reasonable amount of sense. Nobody's mentioned that the play on bunts, etc. along the 3B line is a bit more awkward for the lefty C but most of catching should theoretically work nearly as well for a lefty. Just get Jose Molina to teach him how to frame pitches and that's like 4 wins a year right there! :-)

C makes a reasonable amount of sense. Nobody's mentioned that the play on bunts, etc. along the 3B line is a bit more awkward for the lefty C but most of catching should theoretically work nearly as well for a lefty.

It's easier for a lefty catcher to throw to first on a bunt down the third base line for the same reason it's more advantageous to be a lefthanded thrower at first base. It's probably a slight edge on a throw to second and mostly neutral to third.

And I think you're underestimating the number of balls the shortstop has to charge/overestimating the number of those plays third baseman can cut off.

I think you're underestimating the number of balls the shortstop has to charge/overestimating the number of plays those third baseman can cut off.

Which is perfectly understandable, since his analysis is based on rec league softball. The third baseman can cut off just about every single ball that the SS would have to charge. And you don't have to charge that many anyway, because every batter is dragging a 30 lb beer gut down to first base.

I tried it with one of my Little League teams once - had a good fielder who happened to be a lefty. Sure enough, he made several good plays on balls down the line that a righty (at that level) would probably have whiffed altogether.

My first travel team (12U) had a lefty at second most of the time, and it was two different kids. At that age, pitchers are usually also your best position players, so you do a lot of defensive juggling as you change pitchers.

One of the kids was a slick fielder if not tremendous athlete. He started at 1B, but our 10th guy was a big lunk who was a 1B in the same sense that Adam Dunn is. When biggie played, the 1B shifted to 2B. At that age, there were enough runners on base that the 2B threw to second as often as he threw to first. The other lefty who spent time there was a small, athletic kid who was our best defensive OF and started the year in CF. Tried him at short once in semi-desperation on the "best athlete" theory and he proved to be a good infielder as well. He ended up spending roughly equal amounts of time in CF, 2B, and SS - depending on who was pitching.

Luckily, we had a hittin' bunch of fools:-)

Has anyone (Dan? AROM?) ever run a "rest of career if he didn't have glaucoma" projection for Puckett?

I think there's something else going on with Puckett, though. I know memories are unreliable, but my recollection is that it was widely reported that the beaning that Puckett took was responsible for his vision problems. I believe that this was "known" for quite a while before being disproved.

If a large chunk of the voters believed at the start that Puckett's career was cut short by a HBP to the head, it would not surprise me at all if they gave him extra credit over and above the "body gave out on him" argument. It's been 5 years since Puckett played, you get a ballot, you think "That guy was good and his career was cut short by the beaning. He would have been in easy if not for that." If you don't really think about it, you might not remember that it was glaucoma. In fact, it's possible that the guys from Golf Weekly (or whatever) don't even know that the medical condition was not caused by the beaning.

It's good to see a good player with a basically reasonable take on his HOF merits. Sure, you can quibble that it would have been harder for him to get to 3000 hits than he might think, but his basic stance is "I was good for a little while, got hurt, stopped playing pretty young; maybe I would have been good enough to get in if I hadn't got hurt and hadn't stopped young."

I think that's hard to disagree with, and it's certainly far more reasonable than the opinions of some of the actual voters out there; even far more reasonable than the opinions of some of the actual voters out there about Don Mattingly specifically. And it's much better than the sort of crap that comes from people like Jack "I compare favorably to Bert Blyleven" Morris or Dale "Maybe I don't have the numbers but I should be in anyway because I've got the heart" Murphy.

I seem to remember Puckett turning down what would have been the highest AAV contract at the time (offered by Boston?) to take slightly less to stay with the Twins - the Twins contract he signed may even have given him the highest AAV to that point, but Rickey or Jose passed him that same offseason.

Still, turning down a couple of extra million (when that was a big deal) to stay with the original team could have boosted his 'character' in the eyes of the voters

It's easier for a lefty catcher to throw to first on a bunt down the third base line

To throw maybe but not to field the bunt. It is very awkward to field a ground ball that is heading away from you. This is part of why RH Cs circle the ball (back to 3B/2B) to field it which also puts them in position to throw. If a LH C circles the ball down the 3B line (to get his glove in front of it), he's got to circle it with his back to 1B, then spin to throw. I think this could be handled just fine the vast majority of the time but it is a disadvantage.

Which is perfectly understandable, since his analysis is based on rec league softball.

Well, no, my "analysis" (i.e. guess based on watching lots of baseball) of how often 3B vs SS charge the ball is based on baseball. But it is also the fact that, were this ever to happen in baseball, teams could easily bunt more often on a lefty 3B but nobody really bunts on the SS -- it's always been true that if you can get it past the pitcher, you'll be safe unless the 3B gets you. I don't think I've ever seen a SS make a play on a bunt.

But I could well be wrong. Maybe there are a lot more charge plays by a SS than I realize -- there's no particular reason to notice them when a righty is playing the position. And I did note that an Ichiro/Gwynn type who could control the bat, chop the ball, drive him into the hole would eat a lefty SS alive. Note, the bouncer over the mound seems OK for a lefty to handle to me although more awkwardly -- that's not a charge play, it's a head across play. Also note that there are a number of plays where the SS comes in on the ball but probably doesn't need to -- a lefty SS potentially could wait back although that would mean a closer play at first.

In general they are going to be screwed on almost any bang-bang play. But a 3B charging hard down the line or a SS having to charge straight ahead onto the grass are impossible plays for a lefty to make. That is, there would be a lot of plays where they'd be giving up a little bit -- in the way that Jeter is giving up a little bit only surely worse than that. But I can see how a player could be a good enough hitter to overcome those (in our little mind experiment). Then there are plays that are flat out impossible for them to make and, if there are enough of these, there's no way they could be a good enough hitter. I think you get more of those impossible plays at 3B.

Anyway, I bring up the softball only because this guy did not seem awkward at the position at all except on the impossible plays. I bring it up purely from the "mechanics" point of view, that, from my experience, it works a lot better than you'd think. Or at least a lot better than I thought it would. I'm not sure we have too many other folks who've seen an adult lefty SS. My main concern as the 1B was that the guy threw a screwball over to first, probably from all that necessary spinning and running around backhands.

I don't mean to undersell it. 40 points of OBP is a huge difference between players but it's just one less out per week. Jeter is apparently historically awful but even he averages only 10-15 runs per year below average which is something like 2 plays every 3 weeks. If a lefty SS misses 2 plays a week, he's gonna be about 40 runs below average and now he does have to be AROD or better with the bat. I can easily believe that a lefty SS would miss that many -- but that's still a guy who might make something like 19 out of every 20 plays an average SS would make.

I'm just saying I don't think we're talking Todd Hundley in LF or Mike Piazza at 1B levels of aesthetic horror for a lefty SS (except on charged balls), I think a good athlete would mainly be a guy who can't make the close plays. Basically I'm talking about somebody like Kenny Lofton or Willie Davis or maybe down to Vic Davalillo (looking at LH CF Rfield leaders ... although I don't recall if Davis or Davalillo had a SS arm). Kenny Lofton (combo of offense and defense) as AA maybe AAA quality SS is something I can buy -- y'know, maybe one of the 100, maybe 200 best SS on the planet at a given time. That would be not too shabby in my book. Slightly less useful than a borderline HoF CF but still impressive.

(And obviously he'd have to have played SS throughout his teens and minors)

4. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 04, 2013 at 05:25 PM (#4339261)

In the 6 seasons before he hurt his back, Mattingly hit .327/.372/.530 with a 147 OPS+, while also earning 5 (of 9) Gold Gloves. Only 29, he was a likely HoFer until the back went out.

This smooshes Mattingly's career through age 25, which was a HOF start, together with his much more modest age 26-28 seasons,*** where he was a 3 and 4 win player (4.9, 3.5, 3.9 bWAR). With a normal aging curve (no injury) starting with his age 29 season at 3.5 bWAR and dropping by half a win a year, Donnie gets nowhere near the Hall; in fact he does only a very little better in this hypothetical than he actually did.

People forget or ignore that Mattingly stopped putting up HOF seasons after the age of 25. Short of a very, very unusual resurgence, even without injury he wasn't going.

In the 6 seasons before he hurt his back, Mattingly hit .327/.372/.530 with a 147 OPS+, while also earning 5 (of 9) Gold Gloves. Only 29, he was a likely HoFer until the back went out.

Yup, Hall of Fame talent derailed by injury. Clearly not a HoF career.

Still not seeing it. 32 bWAR through age 28. That's great, if you're in your prime and putting up 6 and 7 win seasons with the promise of a few more, but the evidence says those days were gone. Mattingly was still a fine player, but putting up less impressive 146, 128, and 133 OPS+ seasons. 1990, his age 29 season, would have been the fourth year since he was putting up seasons with 156, 156, and 161 OPS+s. If we're talking about getting into the Hall, that makes all the difference.

He's a different enough player after age 25 (you can slice it a little differently and decide it was after age 26) that I wonder if he hadn't been playing in more pain than he'd been letting on.

-----------

It's interesting to look at what Mattingly would have needed to do after age 28 to get to the Hall. His peak was probably good enough, so let's say it was. Say also that 60 bWAR would earn him serious consideration, and 65 bWAR would cinch election.

He had 32 bWAR after his age 28 season. He needed 33 more wins to close the deal. Assuming a normal aging curve, he would have had

age 29-35: 3.5, 3, 2.5, 2, 1.5, 1. 0.5 = 14 wins. Not close.
age 29-36: 4, 3.5, 3, 2.5, 2, 1.5, 1. 0.5 = 18 wins. Still not close.

Those two examples show us how tough it can be to get in as a compiler when you've already dropped from your peak to a 4 win player while still in your prime.

Mattingly needed--as one route to the Hall--to go back to being a 5 win player (unusual, after a three year drop off), and gradually decline from there through his age 38 season:

age 29-38: 5, 4,5, 4, 3.5, 3, 2.5, 2, 1.5, 1. 0.5 = 27.5 wins.

32 bWAR (through age 28, actual) + 27.5 bWAR (age 29-38, hypothetical) = 59.5 bWAR

It's hardly clear he'd go in, even with those numbers. Even being able to stay on the field as a solid or better regular through 35, and giving some value in his late 30s, it's an iffy case. Hard to say how that borderline WAR would translate into numbers HOF voters tend to use, but it doesn't look like a clear cut case unless Mattingly gets to 3,000 hits.

In short, Mattingly needed to either revert entirely in 1990 to the player he had been through 1986, or he was going to need an awfully long plateau at his established level as of 1989. Five more years as a 4 win player, then another five years as an average regular, at 2 wins a year. That gets him to the low 60s.

It's unlikely that even a healthy Mattingly goes into the Hall. I'm also not seeing why so many people assume that his entry would have been clear cut, when in 1989 he was no longer the player he'd been (and given that it's often said that starting in 1990 he was no longer the HOF player he'd been).


***Wikipedia reminded me that Mattingly may have been injured prior to the year YC claimed: "In June 1987, it was reported that Mattingly injured his back during some clubhouse horseplay with pitcher Bob Shirley though both denied this." Still, there's nothing in Mattingly's monthly splits in 1987 that suggests he was hurt in June. Big peak in June and July, all the other months about the same, say c. .850 OPS.

------------------

Puckett was no where near a HOF player, he only had 48 bWAR, not even top 250 all time, and wasn't likely to pile up a lot more. He got in because everyone thought he was a great guy, except the women he was assaulting and harassing.

There's no mention in Wikipedia that he was found guilty of assaulting and harassing women. (That's as far as I've looked into it.( Do you know something to the contrary?

My last hypothetical in #91 has Mattingly playing another 10 seasons, and needing another 1700 hits starting with his age 29 season. The last two of those ten seasons were probably part time--say 85 hits apiece. That leaves 8 seasons to get 1530 hits. He picked up 191 hits in 1989, playing 158 games, and batting .303. Obviously if he does that 8 more times (which, with two partial seasons, gets him to 3000 hits) his bWAR will increase over the hypothetical, but if instead we tailor his hits to the bWAR I proposed (around 60), Mattingly doesn't get past 2500 hits for his career.

To throw maybe but not to field the bunt. It is very awkward to field a ground ball that is heading away from you. This is part of why RH Cs circle the ball (back to 3B/2B) to field it which also puts them in position to throw. If a LH C circles the ball down the 3B line (to get his glove in front of it), he's got to circle it with his back to 1B, then spin to throw. I think this could be handled just fine the vast majority of the time but it is a disadvantage.

How often does a catcher have to use his glove to field a bunt? If the bunt is still moving at a clip fast enough to require the use of the glove, it's going to be too far away from the catcher for him to make the play anyway.

The catcher often circles the ball, not to field it better, but because he would have to position himself that way to throw the ball anyway. The lefty catcher is not going to circle himself around a bunt just so he can uncircle for the throw. He's going to charge it, pick it up with his bare hand and fire it to first, in less time than it takes the righty catcher to execute the same maneuver.

There's no mention in Wikipedia that he was found guilty of assaulting and harassing women.

Scroll down to "Retirement, accolades, and controversy" and follow the links.

Which is perfectly understandable, since his analysis is based on rec league softball.

Well, no, my "analysis" (i.e. guess based on watching lots of baseball) of how often 3B vs SS charge the ball is based on baseball. But it is also the fact that, were this ever to happen in baseball, teams could easily bunt more often on a lefty 3B but nobody really bunts on the SS -- it's always been true that if you can get it past the pitcher, you'll be safe unless the 3B gets you. I don't think I've ever seen a SS make a play on a bunt.

A) It's not just about bunts. There are plenty of slow rollers to SS.

B) The rec league softball thing was a joke. Sheesh.

I imagine that the Puckett Secret was out in Minnesota, years before it became a national story. Anyone?

Not that I remember.

Also, Puckett was so adored by the media that Bob Costas gave his son the middle name "Kirby".

#91 Jack Carter:

Oy, you are taking this conversation into a direction of a tangential argument that I wanted to travel at a different time. WAR is the begining of the conversation, not the end.

The reason I feel this way is that the defensive numbers awarded by WAR are so absurd across the spectrum that the statistic is compromised in it's entirety. I have read many other opinions on this board and know that I am hardly alone in this belief.

Mattingly gets -6.8 defensive points for his career, with negative rankings in 12 of 14 seasons, and with 0.1 in the other 2 seasons? Really? Do you want to stand by this?

I know that 375lb Carlos Lee is thrilled to be the highest ranked WAR defensive player in the NL in 2011, but I just can't give WAR any credibility because its defensive numbers defy common sense as calculated at this time. Maybe at some point in the future this flaw will be fixed. Maybe not.

Win shares also has it's flaws, and as I review the results I often disagree, but they don't offend my senses. Win shares is a vastly more useful ranking statistic.

If I need to use one number (which I don't) for offense I use OPS+. For defense, I use anecdotal evidence, GG voting, players opinions, my eyes, and common sense.

He had a very sad fall from grace, with the career-ending glaucoma being the best of it. There was the massive weight gain, the publicising of the mistresses, the nasty divorce, the criminal charges of abuse and the like, and, finally - almost mercifully - the stroke that killed him.

Interestingly enough from the Bill James 1988 Abstract:

"Young players are often bathed in a transcendant innocence which makes them attractive. Then they start doing commercials, trading on that attraction, and we know it's just a matter of time until they are caught trying to capture some chemicals or are hit with a paternity suit and start fighting with the club over money...Part of the charm of Kirby iss that his skin of innocence seems thicker than usual, and seems to be wearing off more slowly"

Also fun are the 1984 Shortstop comments:

On Dickie Thon, rated #2 in MLB:

"Why do I have this feeling that some tragedy is waiting for him Things seem too perfect, too good, as if someone was setting him up for something..."

I seem to remember Puckett turning down what would have been the highest AAV contract at the time (offered by Boston?) to take slightly less to stay with the Twins - the Twins contract he signed may even have given him the highest AAV to that point, but Rickey or Jose passed him that same offseason.

As I recall without checking, there was a race to see who would be the first $3 million a year player (they were calling it 3m/year, but it was actually 3m AAV, as none of these guys hit 3m in the first year of their contracts). Kirby hit it first with a 3/9m, but Rickey later in the offseason got 4/12m and was said to have passed him because his deal was longer and he was getting bigger single year numbers on the back end.

b) the fielding motion actually lends itself reasonably well to the throwing motion -- think of the 2B fielding a ball going to his left and pivoting to get the runner at second. It's a bit of an ole move. The SS spins (back to plate), plants the left leg, throws to second or first.

Does this spin not seem like a significant disadvantage? Both righties and lefties have their momentum taking them away from the throw, and given how deep shortstops play, it's a long throw, a lot longer than the equivalent throw in softball. I assume second basemen get away with it because they're often throwing to 2nd.