Any ballot with a vote for Mattingly that doesn't include a vote for Hernandez is highly irritating.

I love and loved Hernandez when he played(and as an announcer), but I never considered him the equal of Mattingly. To me, neither belongs in the HOF but both are very close to HOF players. It just seems that their peaks were not quite long enough..

Any ballot with a vote for Mattingly that doesn't include a vote for Hernandez is highly irritating.

I'd agree it's hard to defend, and if I had to vote for one of them, I'd take Hernandez. But if you accept his premise that "for five seasons, he was, unquestionably, one of the two or three best players in the game", then his vote makes a certain amount of sense, since Hernandez never had his concentrated stretch.

Two other factors: At the time, and contrary to what we think we know now, Mattingly's glove wasn't seen as all that far below Hernandez's. And then there's the Hernandez cocaine thing.

Again, none of these would influence my vote, but for someone like Vaccaro, I think it helps explain his reasoning.

Any ballot with a vote for Mattingly that doesn't include a vote for Hernandez is highly irritating.

Hernandez hasn't been on the ballot for several years.

But if you accept his premise that "for five seasons, he was, unquestionably, one of the two or three best players in the game", then his vote makes a certain amount of sense, since Hernandez never had his concentrated stretch.

If you believe this, then stop using Rice as the whipping boy for bad choices, Andy.

He was the cleanup hitter on the last dynasty the sport is ever likely to see

I will bet all of the money in the world that we'll see another dynasty.

Hernandez hasn't been on the ballot for several years.

This is a very good point. (Neither has Rose, we're still getting that crap.)


At the time, and contrary to what we think we know now, Mattingly's glove wasn't seen as all that far below Hernandez's.

And Jeter was seen as a golden-glover.

Anyhow, I know I'm fanboying, but I watched both play; the fact that Mattingly was excellent still places him far below Hernandez with the glove, IMO.

I actually don't think Williams is a horrible choice. He was really good and durable for a long run of years and he gets a bump because of the titles. If he hadn't torn up his knee, I think he might have made it in.

If it were possible, I'd certainly swap him for Earl Coombs.

God I'm irritated with people calling Barry Larkin a "borderline" choice. He's a 12 time All-Star and clearly in the top 40% of the Hall of Fame.

Ray, Rice wasn't the top 3 best players for a 5 year stretch. He has an argument for a 3 year stretch. You have to use a moderately charitable definition of great to get him to 5 great seasons period.

As left-fielders go he has no peak case by any definition other than perhaps using best 3 consecutive years. And even then it's nothing close to an historic run.

EDIT: At that, in his best stretch as a hitter he DH'd over 1/3 of the time -- 165 games

At the time, and contrary to what we think we know now, Mattingly's glove wasn't seen as all that far below Hernandez's.

And Jeter was seen as a golden-glover.

Which only reinforces my point that perception can often override reality for some writers.

Hey, come on, somebody has to be the whipping boy for the "bad choices"....otherwise there would be no reason for most of what gets written here in the off-season!

It would still be great if Repoz can look through the voter results and give us some kind of percentage for NYC-based BBWAA voters. Sample size will be small, but there might be a trend. Eyeballing Maury's list, I find 16 of the first 100 badges (the most senior) voters are NYC-area folks. That 16% ratio seems to hold pretty steadily out to the 2001 cutoff for voting eligibility.

Last year Mattingly received 79 total votes, and one can suspect that his support in the NYC-area group is elevated, maybe up to 30%. It would sure be interesting to get a partial glimpse of this...

BTW, Mike Vaccaro's badge number is #335, from 1998.

I shouldn't have picked the fight. I'm mostly just annoyed Mattingly is still getting the support he does in comparison to Hernandez's.

You have to use a moderately charitable definition of great to get him to 5 great seasons period.

Well then, you have to do the same for Mattingly. He never finished higher than 5th in WAR, and that's just the AL so it sort of precludes him from being unquestionably one of the top 2 or 3 players in baseball, wouldn't you think?

At least Rice finished 2nd once.

I love and loved Hernandez when he played(and as an announcer), but I never considered him the equal of Mattingly.

This proves only that you didn't really understand baseball.

Hey, come on, somebody has to be the whipping boy for the "bad choices"....otherwise there would be no reason for most of what gets written here in the off-season!

LOL. No kidding.

#9 He has to be in the conversation for second best SS of all time. I don't think he actually is the second best, but he has something on any other contender.

The point is that he can be sensibly compared to any shortstop not named Wagner and that's a strong indication that he's fully qualified.

Hernandez actually does better than Mattingly as far as peak goes if you look at WAR. He had 3 top 5 seasons. And he had a much longer, more productive career.

I'm with Lassus. I don't think you can compare Mattingly to him.

Ray, sure if you'd made the argument that Mattingly doesn't qualify under Andy's definition in the first place I wouldn't have said a thing. (Though I don't think simply citing his rank in WAR is good enough. That's where you startto make a case like this)

That's where you start to make a case like this

Andy used the word "unquestionably". All you have to do is peruse the WAR list and a rather large question pops out immediately.

I'm just pointing out Andy's Yankee is showing a bit here.

But if you accept his premise

But why would you? Mattingly's 4 year run from 84-87 was quite impressive. But he ranked 10th, 9th, 3rd, and 11th in WAR just among position players in those years. That's a nice foundation for a HoF case, but that's all it is. If your entire case is based on 4 years, it had better be a historic run, and quite clearly, Mattingly's wasn't.

Andy used the word "unquestionably". All you have to do is peruse the WAR list and a rather large question pops out immediately.

I'm just pointing out Andy's Yankee is showing a bit here.

Ray, all I can say is to take a look at what I actually wrote, note the highlighted items, and see if you might want to reconsider your conclusion:

I'd agree it's hard to defend, and if I had to vote for one of them, I'd take Hernandez. But if you accept his [Vaccaro's] premise that "for five seasons, he was, unquestionably, one of the two or three best players in the game", then his vote makes a certain amount of sense, since Hernandez never had [t]his concentrated stretch.**

Now I think that it is "unquestionably" true, that from about 1984 through 1987/88, Mattingly was thought by many or most observers to be "one of the two or three best players in the game". But that's not necessarily what I thought for more than perhaps a year or two (when it may have been true), and in any case, even if I had shared Vaccaro's assumption (which I don't), I still wouldn't take Mattingly above Hernandez. All I was trying to do with that comment was to explain Vaccaro's possible reasoning, not to say that I shared it. You of all people should be able to see the difference, since fortunately for all of us, you're the one BTF Ray who's capable of acknowledging reality.

**Hernandez's best years weren't consecutive, whereas Mattingly's were.

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

But if you accept his premise

But why would you?

Again, that's a question best addressed to Vaccaro, since he was the one who stated the premise as fact.

Mattingly's 4 year run from 84-87 was quite impressive. But he ranked 10th, 9th, 3rd, and 11th in WAR just among position players in those years. That's a nice foundation for a HoF case, but that's all it is. If your entire case is based on 4 years, it had better be a historic run, and quite clearly, Mattingly's wasn't.

See above. I'm not the one making the case. Sometimes I think that BTF needs a way to let us colorize type without messing up the format of the page, in order to distinguish quoted material and avoid this commonplace confusion.

The problem is that, these days, too many people stop with WAR rather than start with it.

As for Mattingly, there is a relatively sizable cult (including Bill James) who worship him. But he's a flameout guy (OPS+ of 144 up to age 28, 104 from age 29-34), short career--about the same as Dick Allen. If you go for Donnie, you better go for Dick too. Mattingly is like a lesser version of George Sisler, a guy who's marginal in the eyes of sabe-folk but whose first half contained much better peak seasons than Mattingly and was received with sympathy by BBWAA voters.

Would love to see Donnie's HoF vote percent by region and by date range of voter. There has to be some skew here...

Again, that's a question best addressed to Vaccaro, since he was the one who stated the premise as fact.

But by your post, you seemed to be willing to at least consider Vaccaro's position as a valid one.

For reasons already stated by a number of posters, myself included, that's just not a viable position to defend.

But by your post, you seemed to be willing to at least consider Vaccaro's position as a valid one.

For reasons already stated by a number of posters, myself included, that's just not a viable position to defend.

But again, trying to understand and interpret a third party's position isn't the same thing as agreeing with it, or even saying that his premise is reasonable. That's why I used "if", "then", and quote marks around Vaccaro's words. Not once did I, or would I, agree with either Vaccaro's premise or his conclusion.

I find the Mattingly/Hernandez comparison pretty academic, as very few people - including fans of both of these players - truly think either should be in the Hall of Fame. I suspect what one thinks of Hernandez largely comes down to how singularly-impressive his defensive work was. Both players were excellent for a period of years, but neither is HOF-worthy, in most people's eyes.

As for the bigger point of this thread, Vaccaro's ballot isn't that bad, when you think about it. He selects Williams and Mattingly, but tacitly acknowledges neither will make the HOF, or that his argument for wither is even especially strong. But he wasn't going to vote for 10 other guys, anyway, so what's the harm in representing NYC?!

Among the other players, most of BBTF has four favorites: Raines, Larkin, Bagwell, and Trammell. He picks three of them. This ballot could be a lot worse.

Also, I'm softening in my opposition to Morris. The fact is, voting for him is not stopping any of the "top four" candidates from getting a vote, and I'mmore interested in praising voters for getting it right on the strongest candidates than in criticizing them for selecting (what I see as) weaker candidates. It's not a mutually exclusive thing, and whether or not Don Mattingly gets 10% or 13% each of the next several years doesn't really matter. If Morris makes the HOF in the next few years by a hair, or misses it by a hair, the argument for his induction seems to increasingly be that somebody from his precise era must be a HOFer, right? And he's the last starter on the ballot, literally, with a chance of induction. Whatever.

But he wasn't going to vote for 10 other guys, anyway, so what's the harm in representing NYC?!

Nothing. Except that it's already grossly over-represented.

But I still believe baseball is a team game, and if someone like Phil Rizzuto is in the Hall to rep the glue of past dynasties, I think someone like Bernie should be in to rep this one.

I know that the writer is most likely just looking for ways to prop up his vote, but this does point out the danger in putting in undeserving* candidates. There's always some discussion about how if Rice or Morris gets in that the standards will be lowered. Well, this is what happens.

*I don't know much about Rizzuto but from the threads here at the time I assume that he is undeserving on his numbers and is in because of the dynasty and the announcing. If that is not correct then disregard.

I don't know much about Rizzuto but from the threads here at the time I assume that he is undeserving on his numbers and is in because of the dynasty and the announcing. If that is not correct then disregard.

It's funny, that. You can make a good HOF case for Rizzuto if you give him large amounts of credit for 1) missing time due to WWII and 2) excellent (but non-flashy) defense. However, those are two things that the actual HOF voters generally do not do...

Not to mention that the Yankee dynasty will be represented by decent players like, say, Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera. Posada probably qualifies for the Hall of Lance Parrish.

Lost in the shuffle here is the fact that this isn't a bad HOF ballot at all. Larkin, Raines, Bagwell...only one missing that we generally all think should be there is Trammell. Hard to care too much about the surplus votes for Morris, Mattingly, and Bernie.

I think Bernie is worth serious consideration. Much more deserving than Mattingly or Morris.

Bernie top season by OPS:

.997
.971
.957
.952
.926
.917
.908
.878
.837

That's a decade of terrific production at center field, my friends. Bernie gets demerits for durability, and a rapidly declining glove. But since most HOF probably think of Bernie has a good centerfielder, I'm not sure why he doesn't get more love. Also, throw in being the career leader in a bunch of postseason stats for good measure. Bernie has twice as good a case as Jim freaking Rice.

short career--about the same as Dick Allen. If you go for Donnie, you better go for Dick too.

I don't see that. Not that I'd vote for either right now, but they are marginal enough candidates that the character issue is probably the deciding factor for voters. Other than refusing requests to cut those sideburns, Mattingly never caused any trouble.

I think Bernie is worth serious consideration. Much more deserving than Mattingly or Morris.

Especially if there's the possibility that his glove wasn't quite so bad as WAR says it was.

Especially if there's the possibility that his glove wasn't quite so bad as WAR says it was.

Looking at oWAR, OPS+, or straight OPS, Bernie is damn worthy of consideration. The defensive component of WAR is just about worthless IMHO. The badness of Bernie's defense is much more subjective than the quality of his offense. I do think he was quite bad in the later years of his career, of course.

God I'm irritated with people calling Barry Larkin a "borderline" choice. He's a 12 time All-Star and clearly in the top 40% of the Hall of Fame.

I agree with your general statement but ...

About half the players in the HoF were put there by the VC (well over half if you include Negro Leaguers and "Old Timers" the latter of which I'm not sure the BBWAA ever got to vote on). There's little evidence that VC selections have lowered the voters' standards -- the voters make some odd choices sometimes (especially lately) but they have a very high standard. So somebody around the 40% mark of HoF members actually is "borderline" in terms of the historic HoF voting standard. It's one of the problems with using the HoF standards, monitor, etc. in predicting BBWAA vote -- the average BBWAA selection far exceeds the "average" HoFer, at least over the last 50 years (again, the old timers). And if memory serves, half the pitchers are from before 1900 which is just silly.

Larkin's historical ranking as a SS ... I hadn't really tried to figure that out before. Will depend some on your peak vs. career preferences and of course whether you simply consider somebody like Yount a "SS" of a SS/CF. (My feelings are well-known.) I suppose most relevantly, if you consider AROD a "SS", he also blows Larkin out of the water on both peak/career.

Without checking numbers, I would think that Wagner, AROD, Vaughan and Banks are distinctly ahead of him on peak/prime. Maybe Nomar too but probably not. And maybe Ripken

On career, and not counting the entire careers of AROD, Yount and Banks as "SS", there aren't that many long-career SS who also hit. Wagner, Ripken ... and Vaughan made it to 7700 PA. Oh, Trammell. Ripken has him in WAR in time at SS although that requires believing that Ripken was an historically great defensive SS.

So, assuming you define SS in a sensible manner (i.e. as I do :-) and still off the top of my head then ...

career -- Wagner, Ripken, AROD, Vaughan, Larkin, Trammell
peak -- Wagner, AROD, Vaughan, Banks, Ripken, Larkin (or Larkin Ripken)
overall -- Wagner, Ripken, AROD, Vaughan, Larkin, how do you feel about career/peak?

If you want to ding Vaughan for playing pre-integration, be my guest.

On career, and not counting the entire careers of AROD, Yount and Banks as "SS", there aren't that many long-career SS who also hit. Wagner, Ripken ... and Vaughan made it to 7700 PA. Oh, Trammell. Ripken has him in WAR in time at SS although that requires believing that Ripken was an historically great defensive SS.

Checking out Larkin vs. Ripken on career value, Cal wins only on the basis of home runs and longevity. Larkin beats Cal both on OPS+ and average OWaR. His peak wasn't quite as high as Cal's, and of course his durability wasn't even close, but when he was actually on the field, he was more consistent at the plate.

Ripken has him in WAR in time at SS although that requires believing that Ripken was an historically great defensive SS.

Ripken has 84.3 WAR from 1982-96; he moved off of SS after the '96 season. If you credit him with half of his '82 season rather than the whole thing (since he spent part of that year at third), that drops to around 82.0, with about +178 in fielding.

Larkin has 68.9 career WAR, and is rated +28 in fielding. That's a difference of 13.1 WAR, and 150 fielding runs. So if Ripken has anything above a 20-run edge on Larkin as a fielder, he grades out with the better shortstopping career even considering only time spent at the position. That's not much of a requirement, certainly nothing approaching historical greatness.

But if you accept his premise that "for five seasons, he was, unquestionably, one of the two or three best players in the game", then his vote makes a certain amount of sense

You know who has a case for being "one of the two or three best players in the game" for a five or six year period and is still on the ballot: Dale Murphy. From 1982 - 87 (six seasons), he made 6 All-Star games, won 5 Gold Gloves, 4 Silver Sluggers, and 2 MVP awards. Total Zone hates his CF defense, but even with that, he's got a 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 10th among NL position players in that six-year stretch (plus a 2nd in 1980). Looking just at oWAR, he has a 1st (1985), two 2nds, a 4th, and a 5th, along with a 2nd in 1980.

Larkin has 68.9 career WAR, and is rated +28 in fielding. That's a difference of 13.1 WAR, and 150 fielding runs. So if Ripken has anything above a 20-run edge on Larkin as a fielder, he grades out with the better shortstopping career even considering only time spent at the position. That's not much of a requirement, certainly nothing approaching historical greatness.

Fair enough, poor wording on my part.

That said I don't consider WAR differences of a couple of wins over 9-10,000 PA to be meaningful so Ripken would probably have to be something +50-70 in fielding for me to declare him a clear winner (assuming the other numbers hold up). That of course is still not historical greatness.

Also I have no problem with Ripken being rated one of the best defensive SS. I never thought of him that way at the time but he was certainly very good. So I'm not questioning that rating, I'm just pointing out to people that the gap is basically all defense.

When are the voting results announced? Wikipedia only says "early January".

Next Monday.

Thanks.

The HOF needs to hire some new publicity folks. Why on earth would you announce your election results on the day of the national championship game?