2008 HOF Class (1 Viewer)

[Michael Brown]

And damn if my Rice rookie cards don't jump in value soon, I'm never going to retire

I bought Bert Blyleven in bulk

Don't feel too bad. When I was a little kid that found out about the value of cards in 1989, I stocked up on Gregg Jefferies cards and Eric Lindros cards.

Oh yeah? Well I have a Topps Gregg Jefferies future star card AUTOGRAPHED! In your face, SUCKAZ!!!

 

[Greco]

I would be remiss if I did not add my obligatory " as the dominant pitcher of the '80's, multiple WS ring wearer and composer of possibly the greatest pitched game 7 in WS history....Jack Morris belongs."

 

[Capella]

The "Mattingly deserves to be in the Hall" argument is one of my all-time favorite comical discussions.

I can't believe people (almost always Yankee fans, of course "you didn't watch him every day!!") actually attempt to argue it.

 

[ack34]

Some interesting numbers from Tom Tango at tangotiger.net:Using the best 12 years theory - Jim Rice is 173rd all time (262 win shares, ending in 1986). There’s about 200 players in the Hall of Fame, so, he’d qualify under this 12-year criteria. But, it’s certainly not overwhelming. Among players whose 12 year peak period started in 1964 or later, Rice is 73rd. Recent nonpitchers around him are:Brett Butler, 264Jose Cruz, 264Dwight Evans, 263Dale Murphy, 262Alan Trammell, 261Amos Otis, 261John Olerud, 260So, according to Win Shares, those 7 players, at their 12-year consecutive best, are equal to Jim Rice.Tim Raines (1982-1993) is #16 among those recent players, at 313, between George Brett at 314 and Frank Thomas at 311. Also he removed the best 12 years from both Rice and Raines. He was interested in looking at how players did in their NON peak years.Jim Rice for example, had only 20 win shares in his non-peak years, which puts him at #423. Tim Raines is #55 in peak years, and #95 in non-peak years. The idea that Raines in his non-peak years wasn’t that great is foonolish. If you remove the 12 best years of everyone, Raines is one of the 100 best players of all-time, according to Win Shares. And if you only look at his 12 best, he’s #55.

I'm biased. I'm a big Jim Rice fan. My favorite player in my teen years. Watched pretty close to every game he ever played. Rice was a monster. none of the players on your above list pass the eye test for me. Raines has some interesting numbers and deserves consideration for the Hall. But Rice finished top 5 in MVP 5 years in a 10 year stretch. He was a great hitter and an average fielder. Jim Rice should be a Hall of Famer.Heard on Mike and the Mad Dog in NY today, "If you grew up a Yankees fan in the late 70's, early 80's and dont think Jim Rice belongs in the HOF, youa dont know what you were watching."

Agreed. He was the most feared hitter in the AL in the 70's.Tim Raines desrves to be there too.

 

[ack34]

The "Mattingly deserves to be in the Hall" argument is one of my all-time favorite comical discussions.

I can't believe people (almost always Yankee fans, of course "you didn't watch him every day!!") actually attempt to argue it.

As I stated earlier, I'm not a Yankees fan and I didn't watch him every day, but the guy was the best player in the game in the mid 80's. He was an absolute joy to watch and it was too bad his back injury prevented him from adding onto his #'s. He retired at a relatively young age. I understand most of you children were too young to see him and have since been blinded by your hatred of all things Yankees, but his back was the one thing that kept him out of the Hall.

 

[Workhorse]

Mattingly's best 5 years in OPS+:

1986 - 161

1985 - 156

1984 - 156

1987 - 146

1989 - 133

Olerud's best 5 years in OPS+:

1993 - 191

1998 - 163

2002 - 140

2001 - 136

1997 - 135

Olerud had two seasons which were better than anything Mattingly ever put up. Olerud's peak (from 1992 to 2002) lasted far longer than Mattingly's too. Just think about this: Mattingly's career high OBP (.394 in 1986) wouldn't even crack Olerud's TOP 7 seasons and is short of Olerud's CAREER AVERAGE.

One more thing:

Career lines in Avg/OBP/Slg:

Mattingly Home - .313/.365/.495

Mattingly Road - .302/.353/.450

Olerud Home - .289/.394/.466

Olerud Road - .301/.402/.464

If Mattingly played his home games at Shea Stadium instead of Yankee Stadium, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

One more thing: Mattingly wasn't even the best player in HIS DIVISION during his prime. Wade Boggs was a superior hitter those years and played a much tougher defensive position.

Perhaps you are too young or maybe you just aren't aware, but offensive numbers were WAYYYYYYYYYYYY down during the 1980's. They picked up right around the strike year and continued that way for about 10 years. Unfortunately, Mattingly's power was already sapped by 1994 and he was out of the league after 1995.Again, I'll reiterate. Mattingly was THE best offensive first baseman in the game. Olerud? Not so much. It is also why Mattingly has four top-10 MVP finishes and Olerud has one. It's why you can't compare Jim Rice to Vladimir Guerrero, even though each was possibly the most feared hitter of his era. Numbers don't transcend eras, and even though their careers overlapped for awhile, Mattingly and Olerud clearly played in different offensive eras.

For comparison, at the midpoint of Mattingly's career (1989), Fred McGriff's 36 HR led the American League. He was one of five guys with 30+ in the AL. At the midpoint of Olerud's career (1997), Ken Griffey Jr. led the way in the AL with 56. Five guys hit 40+ that year, and 18 players hit 30+. If you can't see the difference there, I don't know what to tell you. Had Olerud played in the 1980's, he's probably a .270-.280 hitter with 12-15 HR and 75 RBI with an OPS far lower than Mattingly.

Comparing Mattingly and Olerud to one another is pointless. Instead, compare them to their peers at the time they played.

About Boggs versus Mattingly. Wade Boggs was a better pure hitter. But if you honestly think that Wade Boggs was ever a better baseball player than Don Mattingly from 1984-1989, then you weren't watching baseball back then. And playing the more physically demanding position isn't as important if you aren't playing it as well. Otherwise, let's bring Mickey Tettleton into the discussion.

You know that OPS+ is LEAGUE AND ERA ADJUSTED, right? So when you are looking at that stat, it DOES compare their numbers to their peers. And Olerud's numbers are pretty equal to Mattingly's if not slightly better. Want to really bend your brain? Look at Mattingly's "similarity scores" through Age 33 (the end of his career):http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/sco...e=33&age=33

And Boggs was a better player than Mattingly from 84-89. Boggs rank in OBP every year in that stretch: 2nd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st. During that stretch, you just couldn't get the guy out. And Boggs was an excellent defensive 3Bman early in his career. He had great range.

It must suck to see the world only through Red Sox colored glasses.

It must suck to have no real comeback to facts when they're smacking you in the face.

This is funny.Wade Boggs walked more. He was obviously better than Don Mattingly.

NEWSFLASH: The fewer OUTS you make, the better a hitter you are.

 

[igbomb]

The "Mattingly deserves to be in the Hall" argument is one of my all-time favorite comical discussions.

I can't believe people (almost always Yankee fans, of course "you didn't watch him every day!!") actually attempt to argue it.

As I stated earlier, I'm not a Yankees fan and I didn't watch him every day, but the guy was the best player in the game in the mid 80's. He was an absolute joy to watch and it was too bad his back injury prevented him from adding onto his #'s. He retired at a relatively young age. I understand most of you children were too young to see him and have since been blinded by your hatred of all things Yankees, but his back was the one thing that kept him out of the Hall.

So what if his injured back kept him out of the hall? You don't get inducted based on what might have been, you get in based on your accomplishments. And I firmly believe that Mattingly was very overrated and wouldn't have gotten half of the attention he did if he wasn't the only thing the Yankees had going for them when he played.Boggs was much better than Mattingly.

 

[shadyridr]

The "Mattingly deserves to be in the Hall" argument is one of my all-time favorite comical discussions.

I can't believe people (almost always Yankee fans, of course "you didn't watch him every day!!") actually attempt to argue it.

As I stated earlier, I'm not a Yankees fan and I didn't watch him every day, but the guy was the best player in the game in the mid 80's. He was an absolute joy to watch and it was too bad his back injury prevented him from adding onto his #'s. He retired at a relatively young age. I understand most of you children were too young to see him and have since been blinded by your hatred of all things Yankees, but his back was the one thing that kept him out of the Hall.

So what if his injured back kept him out of the hall? You don't get inducted based on what might have been, you get in based on your accomplishments. And I firmly believe that Mattingly was very overrated and wouldn't have gotten half of the attention he did if he wasn't the only thing the Yankees had going for them when he played.Boggs was much better than Mattingly.

 

[Balco]

The "Mattingly deserves to be in the Hall" argument is one of my all-time favorite comical discussions.

I can't believe people (almost always Yankee fans, of course "you didn't watch him every day!!") actually attempt to argue it.

As I stated earlier, I'm not a Yankees fan and I didn't watch him every day, but the guy was the best player in the game in the mid 80's. He was an absolute joy to watch and it was too bad his back injury prevented him from adding onto his #'s. He retired at a relatively young age. I understand most of you children were too young to see him and have since been blinded by your hatred of all things Yankees, but his back was the one thing that kept him out of the Hall.

So what if his injured back kept him out of the hall? You don't get inducted based on what might have been, you get in based on your accomplishments. And I firmly believe that Mattingly was very overrated and wouldn't have gotten half of the attention he did if he wasn't the only thing the Yankees had going for them when he played.Boggs was much better than Mattingly.

Wait, you are saying that MAttingly was better than Boggs? Seriously? That is what we call

 

[shadyridr]

The "Mattingly deserves to be in the Hall" argument is one of my all-time favorite comical discussions.

I can't believe people (almost always Yankee fans, of course "you didn't watch him every day!!") actually attempt to argue it.

As I stated earlier, I'm not a Yankees fan and I didn't watch him every day, but the guy was the best player in the game in the mid 80's. He was an absolute joy to watch and it was too bad his back injury prevented him from adding onto his #'s. He retired at a relatively young age. I understand most of you children were too young to see him and have since been blinded by your hatred of all things Yankees, but his back was the one thing that kept him out of the Hall.

So what if his injured back kept him out of the hall? You don't get inducted based on what might have been, you get in based on your accomplishments. And I firmly believe that Mattingly was very overrated and wouldn't have gotten half of the attention he did if he wasn't the only thing the Yankees had going for them when he played.Boggs was much better than Mattingly.

Wait, you are saying that MAttingly was better than Boggs? Seriously? That is what we call

No I am saying no way was Mattingly overrated and Boggs was not much better than Mattingly.

 

[ack34]

Mattingly's best 5 years in OPS+:

1986 - 161

1985 - 156

1984 - 156

1987 - 146

1989 - 133

Olerud's best 5 years in OPS+:

1993 - 191

1998 - 163

2002 - 140

2001 - 136

1997 - 135

Olerud had two seasons which were better than anything Mattingly ever put up. Olerud's peak (from 1992 to 2002) lasted far longer than Mattingly's too. Just think about this: Mattingly's career high OBP (.394 in 1986) wouldn't even crack Olerud's TOP 7 seasons and is short of Olerud's CAREER AVERAGE.

One more thing:

Career lines in Avg/OBP/Slg:

Mattingly Home - .313/.365/.495

Mattingly Road - .302/.353/.450

Olerud Home - .289/.394/.466

Olerud Road - .301/.402/.464

If Mattingly played his home games at Shea Stadium instead of Yankee Stadium, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

One more thing: Mattingly wasn't even the best player in HIS DIVISION during his prime. Wade Boggs was a superior hitter those years and played a much tougher defensive position.

Perhaps you are too young or maybe you just aren't aware, but offensive numbers were WAYYYYYYYYYYYY down during the 1980's. They picked up right around the strike year and continued that way for about 10 years. Unfortunately, Mattingly's power was already sapped by 1994 and he was out of the league after 1995.Again, I'll reiterate. Mattingly was THE best offensive first baseman in the game. Olerud? Not so much. It is also why Mattingly has four top-10 MVP finishes and Olerud has one. It's why you can't compare Jim Rice to Vladimir Guerrero, even though each was possibly the most feared hitter of his era. Numbers don't transcend eras, and even though their careers overlapped for awhile, Mattingly and Olerud clearly played in different offensive eras.

For comparison, at the midpoint of Mattingly's career (1989), Fred McGriff's 36 HR led the American League. He was one of five guys with 30+ in the AL. At the midpoint of Olerud's career (1997), Ken Griffey Jr. led the way in the AL with 56. Five guys hit 40+ that year, and 18 players hit 30+. If you can't see the difference there, I don't know what to tell you. Had Olerud played in the 1980's, he's probably a .270-.280 hitter with 12-15 HR and 75 RBI with an OPS far lower than Mattingly.

Comparing Mattingly and Olerud to one another is pointless. Instead, compare them to their peers at the time they played.

About Boggs versus Mattingly. Wade Boggs was a better pure hitter. But if you honestly think that Wade Boggs was ever a better baseball player than Don Mattingly from 1984-1989, then you weren't watching baseball back then. And playing the more physically demanding position isn't as important if you aren't playing it as well. Otherwise, let's bring Mickey Tettleton into the discussion.

You know that OPS+ is LEAGUE AND ERA ADJUSTED, right? So when you are looking at that stat, it DOES compare their numbers to their peers. And Olerud's numbers are pretty equal to Mattingly's if not slightly better. Want to really bend your brain? Look at Mattingly's "similarity scores" through Age 33 (the end of his career):http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/sco...e=33&age=33

And Boggs was a better player than Mattingly from 84-89. Boggs rank in OBP every year in that stretch: 2nd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st. During that stretch, you just couldn't get the guy out. And Boggs was an excellent defensive 3Bman early in his career. He had great range.

It must suck to see the world only through Red Sox colored glasses.

It must suck to have no real comeback to facts when they're smacking you in the face.

This is funny.Wade Boggs walked more. He was obviously better than Don Mattingly.

NEWSFLASH: The fewer OUTS you make, the better a hitter you are.

Boggs was a better punch and judy hitter, no doubt.

 

[Greco]

Mattingly's best 5 years in OPS+:

1986 - 161

1985 - 156

1984 - 156

1987 - 146

1989 - 133

Olerud's best 5 years in OPS+:

1993 - 191

1998 - 163

2002 - 140

2001 - 136

1997 - 135

Olerud had two seasons which were better than anything Mattingly ever put up. Olerud's peak (from 1992 to 2002) lasted far longer than Mattingly's too. Just think about this: Mattingly's career high OBP (.394 in 1986) wouldn't even crack Olerud's TOP 7 seasons and is short of Olerud's CAREER AVERAGE.

One more thing:

Career lines in Avg/OBP/Slg:

Mattingly Home - .313/.365/.495

Mattingly Road - .302/.353/.450

Olerud Home - .289/.394/.466

Olerud Road - .301/.402/.464

If Mattingly played his home games at Shea Stadium instead of Yankee Stadium, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

One more thing: Mattingly wasn't even the best player in HIS DIVISION during his prime. Wade Boggs was a superior hitter those years and played a much tougher defensive position.

Perhaps you are too young or maybe you just aren't aware, but offensive numbers were WAYYYYYYYYYYYY down during the 1980's. They picked up right around the strike year and continued that way for about 10 years. Unfortunately, Mattingly's power was already sapped by 1994 and he was out of the league after 1995.Again, I'll reiterate. Mattingly was THE best offensive first baseman in the game. Olerud? Not so much. It is also why Mattingly has four top-10 MVP finishes and Olerud has one. It's why you can't compare Jim Rice to Vladimir Guerrero, even though each was possibly the most feared hitter of his era. Numbers don't transcend eras, and even though their careers overlapped for awhile, Mattingly and Olerud clearly played in different offensive eras.

For comparison, at the midpoint of Mattingly's career (1989), Fred McGriff's 36 HR led the American League. He was one of five guys with 30+ in the AL. At the midpoint of Olerud's career (1997), Ken Griffey Jr. led the way in the AL with 56. Five guys hit 40+ that year, and 18 players hit 30+. If you can't see the difference there, I don't know what to tell you. Had Olerud played in the 1980's, he's probably a .270-.280 hitter with 12-15 HR and 75 RBI with an OPS far lower than Mattingly.

Comparing Mattingly and Olerud to one another is pointless. Instead, compare them to their peers at the time they played.

About Boggs versus Mattingly. Wade Boggs was a better pure hitter. But if you honestly think that Wade Boggs was ever a better baseball player than Don Mattingly from 1984-1989, then you weren't watching baseball back then. And playing the more physically demanding position isn't as important if you aren't playing it as well. Otherwise, let's bring Mickey Tettleton into the discussion.

You know that OPS+ is LEAGUE AND ERA ADJUSTED, right? So when you are looking at that stat, it DOES compare their numbers to their peers. And Olerud's numbers are pretty equal to Mattingly's if not slightly better. Want to really bend your brain? Look at Mattingly's "similarity scores" through Age 33 (the end of his career):http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/sco...e=33&age=33

And Boggs was a better player than Mattingly from 84-89. Boggs rank in OBP every year in that stretch: 2nd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st. During that stretch, you just couldn't get the guy out. And Boggs was an excellent defensive 3Bman early in his career. He had great range.

It must suck to see the world only through Red Sox colored glasses.

It must suck to have no real comeback to facts when they're smacking you in the face.

This is funny.Wade Boggs walked more. He was obviously better than Don Mattingly.

NEWSFLASH: The fewer OUTS you make, the better a hitter you are.

Boggs was a better punch and judy hitter, no doubt.

Boggs lead the leauge in hits once and never lead the league in total bases. Punch and judy to be sure.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Mattingly's best 5 years in OPS+:

1986 - 161

1985 - 156

1984 - 156

1987 - 146

1989 - 133

Olerud's best 5 years in OPS+:

1993 - 191

1998 - 163

2002 - 140

2001 - 136

1997 - 135

Olerud had two seasons which were better than anything Mattingly ever put up. Olerud's peak (from 1992 to 2002) lasted far longer than Mattingly's too. Just think about this: Mattingly's career high OBP (.394 in 1986) wouldn't even crack Olerud's TOP 7 seasons and is short of Olerud's CAREER AVERAGE.

One more thing:

Career lines in Avg/OBP/Slg:

Mattingly Home - .313/.365/.495

Mattingly Road - .302/.353/.450

Olerud Home - .289/.394/.466

Olerud Road - .301/.402/.464

If Mattingly played his home games at Shea Stadium instead of Yankee Stadium, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

One more thing: Mattingly wasn't even the best player in HIS DIVISION during his prime. Wade Boggs was a superior hitter those years and played a much tougher defensive position.

Perhaps you are too young or maybe you just aren't aware, but offensive numbers were WAYYYYYYYYYYYY down during the 1980's. They picked up right around the strike year and continued that way for about 10 years. Unfortunately, Mattingly's power was already sapped by 1994 and he was out of the league after 1995.Again, I'll reiterate. Mattingly was THE best offensive first baseman in the game. Olerud? Not so much. It is also why Mattingly has four top-10 MVP finishes and Olerud has one. It's why you can't compare Jim Rice to Vladimir Guerrero, even though each was possibly the most feared hitter of his era. Numbers don't transcend eras, and even though their careers overlapped for awhile, Mattingly and Olerud clearly played in different offensive eras.

For comparison, at the midpoint of Mattingly's career (1989), Fred McGriff's 36 HR led the American League. He was one of five guys with 30+ in the AL. At the midpoint of Olerud's career (1997), Ken Griffey Jr. led the way in the AL with 56. Five guys hit 40+ that year, and 18 players hit 30+. If you can't see the difference there, I don't know what to tell you. Had Olerud played in the 1980's, he's probably a .270-.280 hitter with 12-15 HR and 75 RBI with an OPS far lower than Mattingly.

Comparing Mattingly and Olerud to one another is pointless. Instead, compare them to their peers at the time they played.

About Boggs versus Mattingly. Wade Boggs was a better pure hitter. But if you honestly think that Wade Boggs was ever a better baseball player than Don Mattingly from 1984-1989, then you weren't watching baseball back then. And playing the more physically demanding position isn't as important if you aren't playing it as well. Otherwise, let's bring Mickey Tettleton into the discussion.

You know that OPS+ is LEAGUE AND ERA ADJUSTED, right? So when you are looking at that stat, it DOES compare their numbers to their peers. And Olerud's numbers are pretty equal to Mattingly's if not slightly better. Want to really bend your brain? Look at Mattingly's "similarity scores" through Age 33 (the end of his career):http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/sco...e=33&age=33

And Boggs was a better player than Mattingly from 84-89. Boggs rank in OBP every year in that stretch: 2nd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st. During that stretch, you just couldn't get the guy out. And Boggs was an excellent defensive 3Bman early in his career. He had great range.

It must suck to see the world only through Red Sox colored glasses.

It must suck to have no real comeback to facts when they're smacking you in the face.

This is funny.Wade Boggs walked more. He was obviously better than Don Mattingly.

NEWSFLASH: The fewer OUTS you make, the better a hitter you are.

Boggs was a better punch and judy hitter, no doubt.

Boggs lead the leauge in hits once and never lead the league in total bases. Punch and judy to be sure.

Also, it's good that Rice didn't get voted in. He doesn't belong in the HOF, he was always overrated. If he played for the Angels, no one would know his name.

 

[whoknew]

Ridiculous that McGwire did noit get in. If Barry Bonds or Clemens gets voted in before McGwire it will be a travesty. If McGwire does not get in, neither should any of them.This is the era baseball has become. The dead ball era, the live ball era, the steroid era. I guess we should not expect any of todays players to get in.

You really think McGwire deserves to be in? Really all he has to hang his hat on is 583 HRs. In 16 seasons:He never won an MVP.Won ROY.Won 1 GG.Led the league in RBIs once.Won 3 silver slugger awards.To put that in perspective, in 4 seasons Ryan Howard has won ROY, MVP, 1 silver slugger and lead the league in RBIs once.

I'm sure this is mentioned later, but he has a .394 career OBP and a 162 career OPS+.

 

[whoknew]

Jim Rice would be one of the worst players in the HOF if he is elected next year.

 

[Pat Patriot]

You are incorrect but are obviously entitled to your opinion.

I can say that watching the best hitter in baseball over a 10 year period, I wouldnt really care what he did in the next five years and certainly wouldnt base his HOF candidacy on career statistics. This isnt an exact science because we dont necessarily get to see every player that we opine on over a long period of time. However, when I do get the chance to watch a player over years time, I feel that I have a pretty good idea whether someone is a special player or not. Rice was a special player.

 

[whoknew]

You are incorrect but are obviously entitled to your opinion.

I can say that watching the best hitter in baseball over a 10 year period, I wouldnt really care what he did in the next five years and certainly wouldnt base his HOF candidacy on career statistics. This isnt an exact science because we dont necessarily get to see every player that we opine on over a long period of time. However, when I do get the chance to watch a player over years time, I feel that I have a pretty good idea whether someone is a special player or not. Rice was a special player.

 

[Koya]

Ridiculous that McGwire did noit get in. If Barry Bonds or Clemens gets voted in before McGwire it will be a travesty. If McGwire does not get in, neither should any of them.This is the era baseball has become. The dead ball era, the live ball era, the steroid era. I guess we should not expect any of todays players to get in.

You really think McGwire deserves to be in? Really all he has to hang his hat on is 583 HRs. In 16 seasons:He never won an MVP.Won ROY.Won 1 GG.Led the league in RBIs once.Won 3 silver slugger awards.To put that in perspective, in 4 seasons Ryan Howard has won ROY, MVP, 1 silver slugger and lead the league in RBIs once.

I'm sure this is mentioned later, but he has a .394 career OBP and a 162 career OPS+.

If you ignore the roids issue, there is simply no way you can justify leaving Big Mac out. 162 OPS+ is sick. 8 seasons over .600 SLG, 6 seasons over .680, 4 over .725 . That's ridiculous slugging and OPS.But, I'm glad he is not in the hall for his cowardly displays in not owning up to what helped him gain that now lost legacy.

 

[Workhorse]

Mattingly's best 5 years in OPS+:

1986 - 161

1985 - 156

1984 - 156

1987 - 146

1989 - 133

Olerud's best 5 years in OPS+:

1993 - 191

1998 - 163

2002 - 140

2001 - 136

1997 - 135

Olerud had two seasons which were better than anything Mattingly ever put up. Olerud's peak (from 1992 to 2002) lasted far longer than Mattingly's too. Just think about this: Mattingly's career high OBP (.394 in 1986) wouldn't even crack Olerud's TOP 7 seasons and is short of Olerud's CAREER AVERAGE.

One more thing:

Career lines in Avg/OBP/Slg:

Mattingly Home - .313/.365/.495

Mattingly Road - .302/.353/.450

Olerud Home - .289/.394/.466

Olerud Road - .301/.402/.464

If Mattingly played his home games at Shea Stadium instead of Yankee Stadium, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

One more thing: Mattingly wasn't even the best player in HIS DIVISION during his prime. Wade Boggs was a superior hitter those years and played a much tougher defensive position.

Perhaps you are too young or maybe you just aren't aware, but offensive numbers were WAYYYYYYYYYYYY down during the 1980's. They picked up right around the strike year and continued that way for about 10 years. Unfortunately, Mattingly's power was already sapped by 1994 and he was out of the league after 1995.Again, I'll reiterate. Mattingly was THE best offensive first baseman in the game. Olerud? Not so much. It is also why Mattingly has four top-10 MVP finishes and Olerud has one. It's why you can't compare Jim Rice to Vladimir Guerrero, even though each was possibly the most feared hitter of his era. Numbers don't transcend eras, and even though their careers overlapped for awhile, Mattingly and Olerud clearly played in different offensive eras.

For comparison, at the midpoint of Mattingly's career (1989), Fred McGriff's 36 HR led the American League. He was one of five guys with 30+ in the AL. At the midpoint of Olerud's career (1997), Ken Griffey Jr. led the way in the AL with 56. Five guys hit 40+ that year, and 18 players hit 30+. If you can't see the difference there, I don't know what to tell you. Had Olerud played in the 1980's, he's probably a .270-.280 hitter with 12-15 HR and 75 RBI with an OPS far lower than Mattingly.

Comparing Mattingly and Olerud to one another is pointless. Instead, compare them to their peers at the time they played.

About Boggs versus Mattingly. Wade Boggs was a better pure hitter. But if you honestly think that Wade Boggs was ever a better baseball player than Don Mattingly from 1984-1989, then you weren't watching baseball back then. And playing the more physically demanding position isn't as important if you aren't playing it as well. Otherwise, let's bring Mickey Tettleton into the discussion.

You know that OPS+ is LEAGUE AND ERA ADJUSTED, right? So when you are looking at that stat, it DOES compare their numbers to their peers. And Olerud's numbers are pretty equal to Mattingly's if not slightly better. Want to really bend your brain? Look at Mattingly's "similarity scores" through Age 33 (the end of his career):http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/sco...e=33&age=33

And Boggs was a better player than Mattingly from 84-89. Boggs rank in OBP every year in that stretch: 2nd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st. During that stretch, you just couldn't get the guy out. And Boggs was an excellent defensive 3Bman early in his career. He had great range.

It must suck to see the world only through Red Sox colored glasses.

It must suck to have no real comeback to facts when they're smacking you in the face.

This is funny.Wade Boggs walked more. He was obviously better than Don Mattingly.

NEWSFLASH: The fewer OUTS you make, the better a hitter you are.

Boggs was a better punch and judy hitter, no doubt.

Boggs lead the leauge in hits once and never lead the league in total bases. Punch and judy to be sure.

Also, it's good that Rice didn't get voted in. He doesn't belong in the HOF, he was always overrated. If he played for the Angels, no one would know his name.

Boggs finished his career in the top 20 all time in doubles. Hardly a "slap hitter".And anyone who still thinks that slugging is more important than OBP in this day and age of linear weights should just give up on baseball altogether.

 

[Koya]

Boggs finished his career in the top 20 all time in doubles. Hardly a "slap hitter".And anyone who still thinks that slugging is more important than OBP in this day and age of linear weights should just give up on baseball altogether.

What about linear weights?And OBP vs. SLG is up for debate. You get the wrong mix of all OBP and no good contact, you won't go anywhere. While there are different approaches, to outright say OBP is more important than OBP outright is a huge oversimplification imo.

 

[Greco]

Boggs finished his career in the top 20 all time in doubles. Hardly a "slap hitter".And anyone who still thinks that slugging is more important than OBP in this day and age of linear weights should just give up on baseball altogether.

What about linear weights?And OBP vs. SLG is up for debate. You get the wrong mix of all OBP and no good contact, you won't go anywhere. While there are different approaches, to outright say OBP is more important than OBP outright is a huge oversimplification imo.

His doubles total was greatly inflated by his ability to "slap" the ball to the opposite field and hit if off a wall that was all of 310 feet away from home plate. Punch and Judy.

 

[Koya]

Boggs finished his career in the top 20 all time in doubles. Hardly a "slap hitter".And anyone who still thinks that slugging is more important than OBP in this day and age of linear weights should just give up on baseball altogether.

What about linear weights?And OBP vs. SLG is up for debate. You get the wrong mix of all OBP and no good contact, you won't go anywhere. While there are different approaches, to outright say OBP is more important than OBP outright is a huge oversimplification imo.

His doubles total was greatly inflated by his ability to "slap" the ball to the opposite field and hit if off a wall that was all of 310 feet away from home plate. Punch and Judy.

Ahh... linear weights = park adjustment?

 

[Greco]

Boggs finished his career in the top 20 all time in doubles. Hardly a "slap hitter".And anyone who still thinks that slugging is more important than OBP in this day and age of linear weights should just give up on baseball altogether.

What about linear weights?And OBP vs. SLG is up for debate. You get the wrong mix of all OBP and no good contact, you won't go anywhere. While there are different approaches, to outright say OBP is more important than OBP outright is a huge oversimplification imo.

His doubles total was greatly inflated by his ability to "slap" the ball to the opposite field and hit if off a wall that was all of 310 feet away from home plate. Punch and Judy.

Ahh... linear weights = park adjustment?

Just think Boggs was nothing more than a table setter, at best. If there were two outs in the ninth with the winning run on third, Boggs would just as soon walk and let Greenwell knock in the game winning run.

 

[Koya]

Boggs finished his career in the top 20 all time in doubles. Hardly a "slap hitter".And anyone who still thinks that slugging is more important than OBP in this day and age of linear weights should just give up on baseball altogether.

What about linear weights?And OBP vs. SLG is up for debate. You get the wrong mix of all OBP and no good contact, you won't go anywhere. While there are different approaches, to outright say OBP is more important than OBP outright is a huge oversimplification imo.

His doubles total was greatly inflated by his ability to "slap" the ball to the opposite field and hit if off a wall that was all of 310 feet away from home plate. Punch and Judy.

Ahh... linear weights = park adjustment?

Just think Boggs was nothing more than a table setter, at best. If there were two outs in the ninth with the winning run on third, Boggs would just as soon walk and let Greenwell knock in the game winning run.

I am not arguing for Boggs over Mattingly, just not sure what linear weights meant. Personally, in their prime, there is no question - I would take Mattingly. If you asked me to take one career vs. another, it would be a lot closer.

 

[Greco]

Boggs finished his career in the top 20 all time in doubles. Hardly a "slap hitter".And anyone who still thinks that slugging is more important than OBP in this day and age of linear weights should just give up on baseball altogether.

What about linear weights?And OBP vs. SLG is up for debate. You get the wrong mix of all OBP and no good contact, you won't go anywhere. While there are different approaches, to outright say OBP is more important than OBP outright is a huge oversimplification imo.

His doubles total was greatly inflated by his ability to "slap" the ball to the opposite field and hit if off a wall that was all of 310 feet away from home plate. Punch and Judy.

Ahh... linear weights = park adjustment?

Just think Boggs was nothing more than a table setter, at best. If there were two outs in the ninth with the winning run on third, Boggs would just as soon walk and let Greenwell knock in the game winning run.

I am not arguing for Boggs over Mattingly, just not sure what linear weights meant. Personally, in their prime, there is no question - I would take Mattingly. If you asked me to take one career vs. another, it would be a lot closer.

No idea what a linear weight is. And Boggs v. Mattingly comes down to Boggs being on base v. Mattingly driving base runners in, IMO.

 

[Koya]

Boggs finished his career in the top 20 all time in doubles. Hardly a "slap hitter".And anyone who still thinks that slugging is more important than OBP in this day and age of linear weights should just give up on baseball altogether.

What about linear weights?And OBP vs. SLG is up for debate. You get the wrong mix of all OBP and no good contact, you won't go anywhere. While there are different approaches, to outright say OBP is more important than OBP outright is a huge oversimplification imo.

His doubles total was greatly inflated by his ability to "slap" the ball to the opposite field and hit if off a wall that was all of 310 feet away from home plate. Punch and Judy.

Ahh... linear weights = park adjustment?

Just think Boggs was nothing more than a table setter, at best. If there were two outs in the ninth with the winning run on third, Boggs would just as soon walk and let Greenwell knock in the game winning run.

I am not arguing for Boggs over Mattingly, just not sure what linear weights meant. Personally, in their prime, there is no question - I would take Mattingly. If you asked me to take one career vs. another, it would be a lot closer.

No idea what a linear weight is. And Boggs v. Mattingly comes down to Boggs being on base v. Mattingly driving base runners in, IMO.

Very true. And since Boggs would not cause havoc once on the basepaths, I can't see putting him ahead of an in his prime Mattingly.