Comments on: Best OPS+ in 2009 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/2827 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6 By: Andy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/2827/comment-page-1#comment-9381 Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:39:35 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=2827#comment-9381 Gold gloves, schmold schmloves. Mattingly was a great fielder, yes. One of the best, yes. Voting for gold gloves goes only on reputation, not merit. Defense, especially from a position like 1B, is overrated in terms of overall value to the team.

]]>
By: Queens Qrew http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/2827/comment-page-1#comment-9379 Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:38:17 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=2827#comment-9379 I understand that there were some young Hall of Famers. But with some notable exceptions (Kiner, Koufax) they were mostly the bottom of the group.

And still, Mattingly would be far towards the bottom of the list, playing-time wise. And he just didn't put up good enough numbers in those years.

]]>
By: JohnnyTwisto http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/2827/comment-page-1#comment-9359 Wed, 07 Oct 2009 05:58:58 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=2827#comment-9359 You're right King. I wasn't going to get into an expansive discussion of all his merits in this forum. I do like Mattingly and he was an excellent fielder. But I'm not sure how much value that adds at his position. And while it hurts me to admit it, he probably didn't deserve the '85 MVP.

]]>
By: kingturtle http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/2827/comment-page-1#comment-9356 Wed, 07 Oct 2009 04:27:31 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=2827#comment-9356 none of you have mentioned mattingly's fielding prowess. nine gold gloves over a ten-year span.

]]>
By: Andy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/2827/comment-page-1#comment-9353 Wed, 07 Oct 2009 02:38:37 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=2827#comment-9353 The other thing is that Puckett was very solid through his whole career. Mattingly had a few incredible years, a few other good years, and a bunch of so-so years.

]]>
By: Andy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/2827/comment-page-1#comment-9351 Wed, 07 Oct 2009 02:37:52 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=2827#comment-9351 Puckett and Mattingly do have similar numbers, but Puckett clearly has the edge. They played almost the exact same number of games but Kirby had 150 more hits.

]]>
By: JohnnyTwisto http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/2827/comment-page-1#comment-9350 Wed, 07 Oct 2009 02:33:34 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=2827#comment-9350 Goofy, Puckett was a CF and Mattingly a 1B. Mattingly's career offensive numbers comparing to Puckett's is not really a point in his favor.

Moreover, the cut-off for borderline HOFers has to come _somewhere_. Some players in that echelon are going to be in, and some will be out. It's not a "travesty" that one makes it and another doesn't unless one is obviously better than the other.

]]>
By: DavidRF http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/2827/comment-page-1#comment-9348 Wed, 07 Oct 2009 02:03:27 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=2827#comment-9348 Sandberg also retired at 34, but he came back. 🙂

]]>
By: birtelcom http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/2827/comment-page-1#comment-9347 Wed, 07 Oct 2009 01:56:15 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=2827#comment-9347 I ran a PI search for seasons by a player with 0 or more PAs, checked Hall of Fame, and set it for ascending order. That gave me the Hall of Famers with the shortest careers and the display also shows the ages of the players, so you can see pretty quickly the young retireees. Post-WWII early retirees: Koufax at 30 and Drysdale at 32, Bobby Doerr at 33, Catfish Hunter 33, Lefty Gomez 34, Hal Newhouser 34, Lou Boudreau 34, George Kell 34

]]>
By: TheGoofyOne http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/2827/comment-page-1#comment-9345 Wed, 07 Oct 2009 00:50:28 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=2827#comment-9345 Mattingly and Puckett are almost exact, other than SB (favoring Puckett) and Ks (favoring Mattingly); both were not only great fielders, but field generals.

Oh, sure the argument is that Puckett's peak was cut short by injury...but so was Mattingly's! And don't forget, that means that Mattingly was so good at his peak that even the faltering later in his career left him with the same numbers as Puckett.

Frankly, I'm not sure Puckett belongs, though he was my favorite non-Yankee, but I think it's a travesty to have one in and one out.

]]>