If you had to take one current member of the HOF....

[Mozzie22]

Definitely Ozzie Smith. Alan Trammell did everything better than Ozzie Smith and yes, I am saying Trammell had a better glove than Smith. Trammell got in front of ground balls that Ozzie had to dive for. Has anyone besides me ever asked why Ozzie Smith made more diving plays for a shortstop than anyone else? He dogged a lot of those ground balls so he could make the diving play. Ozzie couldn't hit his way out of a wet paper sack either.

I've always found your posts to be fairly level headed...until now. I agree that Trammell was the more well rounded player but there is absolutely no way in hell that Trammell ever, ever, ever, got in front of balls that Ozzie had to dive for. The reason he dove for so many balls is because he could, not because he was trying to showboat or hot dog a play. Trammell wouldn't have made an effort for the balls Ozzie dove for. One of the reasons Ozzie was so good defensively is because he was able to read the play and move before the batter even started his swing. Trammell was a fine defensive player buy you're seriously delusional to think he was a better defensive player that Ozzie. And for what it is worth I think it is a shame that Trammell isn't in the HOF because he most definitely deserves it.

 

[Sly]

LOL, For all intents and purposes, its fair to say the stats are identical.

I'm not saying Mattingly is HOF, but if Puckett is than Mattingly is. But Puckett wasn't as scary as Mattingly.

Mattingly vs. Puckett:

Technically, no, Pujols wouldn't, as he's only had 9 season in the pros, and you need 10 to be inducted (unless due to death).

Seriously though, that's exactly it with Puckett. Mattingly was really good for about 5-6 straight years, then really faded for the last 6. Puckett, you look at his numbers from Season 1 to Season 12, and they are stellar year after year.

On top of that, Puckett was clutch in the post-season and helped lead the Twins to two World Series titles.

If Mattingly would not have faded into oblivion the last handful years of his career, he might have had BETTER per-162 stats than Puckett instead of worse. They are definitely comparable, but Puckett was seemingly no where near being done when he was forced to retire.

You have to look at a players ENTIRE career (including season by season). Mattingly racked up most of his stats over the span of about 6 seasons. Then faded off with the exception of about one for the last six or seven of his career.

A player who was great for 5 or 6 season and the mediocre for another 7 or 8 is NOT a HOF player. Puckett put up his great numbers for EVERY season he played and was consistant.

Puckett was a HOF-caliber player for 10 or 11 of his 12 seasons. Mattingly was one for 6 (maybe 7) of his 14 seasons.

 

[Mozzie22]

LOL, For all intents and purposes, its fair to say the stats are identical.

I'm not saying Mattingly is HOF, but if Puckett is than Mattingly is. But Puckett wasn't as scary as Mattingly.

Mattingly vs. Puckett:

Technically, no, Pujols wouldn't, as he's only had 9 season in the pros, and you need 10 to be inducted (unless due to death).

Seriously though, that's exactly it with Puckett. Mattingly was really good for about 5-6 straight years, then really faded for the last 6. Puckett, you look at his numbers from Season 1 to Season 12, and they are stellar year after year.

On top of that, Puckett was clutch in the post-season and helped lead the Twins to two World Series titles.

If Mattingly would not have faded into oblivion the last handful years of his career, he might have had BETTER per-162 stats than Puckett instead of worse. They are definitely comparable, but Puckett was seemingly no where near being done when he was forced to retire.

You have to look at a players ENTIRE career (including season by season). Mattingly racked up most of his stats over the span of about 6 seasons. Then faded off with the exception of about one for the last six or seven of his career.

A player who was great for 5 or 6 season and the mediocre for another 7 or 8 is NOT a HOF player. Puckett put up his great numbers for EVERY season he played and was consistant.Puckett was a HOF-caliber player for 10 or 11 of his 12 seasons. Mattingly was one for 6 (maybe 7) of his 14 seasons.[/quote

So is Koufax a HOF by your rational?

 

[Sly]

Definitely Ozzie Smith. Alan Trammell did everything better than Ozzie Smith and yes, I am saying Trammell had a better glove than Smith. Trammell got in front of ground balls that Ozzie had to dive for. Has anyone besides me ever asked why Ozzie Smith made more diving plays for a shortstop than anyone else? He dogged a lot of those ground balls so he could make the diving play. Ozzie couldn't hit his way out of a wet paper sack either.

I've always found your posts to be fairly level headed...until now. I agree that Trammell was the more well rounded player but there is absolutely no way in hell that Trammell ever, ever, ever, got in front of balls that Ozzie had to dive for. The reason he dove for so many balls is because he could, not because he was trying to showboat or hot dog a play. Trammell wouldn't have made an effort for the balls Ozzie dove for. One of the reasons Ozzie was so good defensively is because he was able to read the play and move before the batter even started his swing. Trammell was a fine defensive player buy you're seriously delusional to think he was a better defensive player that Ozzie. And for what it is worth I think it is a shame that Trammell isn't in the HOF because he most definitely deserves it.

On top of all of that, plays that Trammell (and other SS's) made look great, Ozzie made them look easy. The plays that Trammell (and other SS's) didn't make, Ozzie made and made look great!

THAT is why Ozzie dove for balls, because he was getting to balls that a regular SS couldn't get to. THAT is why Ozzie's Range Factor per Game (Putouts and Assists per game) is nearly ONE over the league average (5.03 vs. 4.10). Trammell? Well he was over the league average, but not quite near Ozzie's level (4.47 vs. 4.09).

The only shortstop that has ever been close to as good as Smith...Omar Viqzuel.

 

[Sly]

LOL, For all intents and purposes, its fair to say the stats are identical.

I'm not saying Mattingly is HOF, but if Puckett is than Mattingly is. But Puckett wasn't as scary as Mattingly.

Mattingly vs. Puckett:

[quote="Sly":3cznjmi3]Technically, no, Pujols wouldn't, as he's only had 9 season in the pros, and you need 10 to be inducted (unless due to death).

Seriously though, that's exactly it with Puckett. Mattingly was really good for about 5-6 straight years, then really faded for the last 6. Puckett, you look at his numbers from Season 1 to Season 12, and they are stellar year after year.

On top of that, Puckett was clutch in the post-season and helped lead the Twins to two World Series titles.

If Mattingly would not have faded into oblivion the last handful years of his career, he might have had BETTER per-162 stats than Puckett instead of worse. They are definitely comparable, but Puckett was seemingly no where near being done when he was forced to retire.

You have to look at a players ENTIRE career (including season by season). Mattingly racked up most of his stats over the span of about 6 seasons. Then faded off with the exception of about one for the last six or seven of his career.

A player who was great for 5 or 6 season and the mediocre for another 7 or 8 is NOT a HOF player. Puckett put up his great numbers for EVERY season he played and was consistant.Puckett was a HOF-caliber player for 10 or 11 of his 12 seasons. Mattingly was one for 6 (maybe 7) of his 14 seasons.[/quote

So is Koufax a HOF by your rational?[/quote:3cznjmi3]

One could easily argue against him. Up until the last five years of his career, no he wasn't. But the fact that in those last five years, he won three Cy Youngs and nearly three MVP's, that says something about how good he became.

And unlike Mattingly, Koufax went out on top and was getting better...Mattingly was getting worse. As was the same with Puckett, he was still as good as he was day one.

 

[Mozzie22]

LOL, For all intents and purposes, its fair to say the stats are identical.

I'm not saying Mattingly is HOF, but if Puckett is than Mattingly is. But Puckett wasn't as scary as Mattingly.

Mattingly vs. Puckett:

[quote="Sly":26mqzkkd]Technically, no, Pujols wouldn't, as he's only had 9 season in the pros, and you need 10 to be inducted (unless due to death).

Seriously though, that's exactly it with Puckett. Mattingly was really good for about 5-6 straight years, then really faded for the last 6. Puckett, you look at his numbers from Season 1 to Season 12, and they are stellar year after year.

On top of that, Puckett was clutch in the post-season and helped lead the Twins to two World Series titles.

If Mattingly would not have faded into oblivion the last handful years of his career, he might have had BETTER per-162 stats than Puckett instead of worse. They are definitely comparable, but Puckett was seemingly no where near being done when he was forced to retire.

You have to look at a players ENTIRE career (including season by season). Mattingly racked up most of his stats over the span of about 6 seasons. Then faded off with the exception of about one for the last six or seven of his career.

A player who was great for 5 or 6 season and the mediocre for another 7 or 8 is NOT a HOF player. Puckett put up his great numbers for EVERY season he played and was consistant.Puckett was a HOF-caliber player for 10 or 11 of his 12 seasons. Mattingly was one for 6 (maybe 7) of his 14 seasons.[/quote

So is Koufax a HOF by your rational?[/quote:26mqzkkd]

Sorry my question about Koufax got lost in quote-land, it is highlighted above.

 

[Sly]

LOL, For all intents and purposes, its fair to say the stats are identical.

I'm not saying Mattingly is HOF, but if Puckett is than Mattingly is. But Puckett wasn't as scary as Mattingly.

[quote="uniquebaseballcards":2d0px01o]Mattingly vs. Puckett:

[quote="Sly":2d0px01o]Technically, no, Pujols wouldn't, as he's only had 9 season in the pros, and you need 10 to be inducted (unless due to death).

Seriously though, that's exactly it with Puckett. Mattingly was really good for about 5-6 straight years, then really faded for the last 6. Puckett, you look at his numbers from Season 1 to Season 12, and they are stellar year after year.

On top of that, Puckett was clutch in the post-season and helped lead the Twins to two World Series titles.

If Mattingly would not have faded into oblivion the last handful years of his career, he might have had BETTER per-162 stats than Puckett instead of worse. They are definitely comparable, but Puckett was seemingly no where near being done when he was forced to retire.

You have to look at a players ENTIRE career (including season by season). Mattingly racked up most of his stats over the span of about 6 seasons. Then faded off with the exception of about one for the last six or seven of his career.

A player who was great for 5 or 6 season and the mediocre for another 7 or 8 is NOT a HOF player. Puckett put up his great numbers for EVERY season he played and was consistant.Puckett was a HOF-caliber player for 10 or 11 of his 12 seasons. Mattingly was one for 6 (maybe 7) of his 14 seasons.[/quote

So is Koufax a HOF by your rational?[/quote:2d0px01o]

Sorry my question about Koufax got lost in quote-land, it is highlighted above.[/quote:2d0px01o]

I saw it and responded (post above this one)

 

[Mozzie22]

LOL, For all intents and purposes, its fair to say the stats are identical.

I'm not saying Mattingly is HOF, but if Puckett is than Mattingly is. But Puckett wasn't as scary as Mattingly.

[quote="uniquebaseballcards":25uhzg5h]Mattingly vs. Puckett:

[quote="Sly":25uhzg5h]Technically, no, Pujols wouldn't, as he's only had 9 season in the pros, and you need 10 to be inducted (unless due to death).

Seriously though, that's exactly it with Puckett. Mattingly was really good for about 5-6 straight years, then really faded for the last 6. Puckett, you look at his numbers from Season 1 to Season 12, and they are stellar year after year.

On top of that, Puckett was clutch in the post-season and helped lead the Twins to two World Series titles.

If Mattingly would not have faded into oblivion the last handful years of his career, he might have had BETTER per-162 stats than Puckett instead of worse. They are definitely comparable, but Puckett was seemingly no where near being done when he was forced to retire.

You have to look at a players ENTIRE career (including season by season). Mattingly racked up most of his stats over the span of about 6 seasons. Then faded off with the exception of about one for the last six or seven of his career.

A player who was great for 5 or 6 season and the mediocre for another 7 or 8 is NOT a HOF player. Puckett put up his great numbers for EVERY season he played and was consistant.Puckett was a HOF-caliber player for 10 or 11 of his 12 seasons. Mattingly was one for 6 (maybe 7) of his 14 seasons.[/quote

So is Koufax a HOF by your rational?[/quote:25uhzg5h]

One could easily argue against him. Up until the last five years of his career, no he wasn't. But the fact that in those last five years, he won three Cy Youngs and nearly three MVP's, that says something about how good he became.

And unlike Mattingly, Koufax went out on top and was getting better...Mattingly was getting worse. As was the same with Puckett, he was still as good as he was day one.[/quote:25uhzg5h]

I've always flip flopped on Koufax. I agree, those five years put him in but he was very mediocre the other five.

 

[Sly]

So is Koufax a HOF by your rational?

One could easily argue against him. Up until the last five years of his career, no he wasn't. But the fact that in those last five years, he won three Cy Youngs and nearly three MVP's, that says something about how good he became.

And unlike Mattingly, Koufax went out on top and was getting better...Mattingly was getting worse. As was the same with Puckett, he was still as good as he was day one.

I've always flip flopped on Koufax. I agree, those five years put him in but he was very mediocre the other five.

I think voters do look at "what could have been" in cases like that. Mattingly's five or six great season were great, no question. But Koufax's five season were AMAZING.

After those seasons of Mattingly's he went downhill for another six or seven. After those five seasons of Koufax's, well he had to leave the game and who knows "what could have been".

But yes, I think some could make a pretty good argument against Koufax. To me, those five season though were amazing enough that he's a good one to be in. Mattingly, not so much.

 

[1st4040]

Goose Gossage

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

No, I just don't think Puckett is a HOFer. His numbers, anyway you look at it, are the same as a non-HOFer despite the number of seasons he played. So what if his career was cut short, so was Mattingly's. Puck's numbers couldn't have been that great as you say if Mattingly equaled him in less time.

At age 35 Puckett's numbers for his ENTIRE career were about the same as Al Oliver's - another person who belongs in the Hall of Very Good. Actually, Puck was most similar to Al Oliver from ages 32 - 35!

Career Similarity scores:
Don Mattingly (891)
Cecil Cooper (886)
Carl Furillo (873)
Kiki Cuyler (871) *
Cesar Cedeno (870)
Tony Oliva (867)
Minnie Minoso (864)
Magglio Ordonez (860)
Joe Medwick (859) *
Felipe Alou (858)

LOL, For all intents and purposes, its fair to say the stats are identical.

I'm not saying Mattingly is HOF, but if Puckett is than Mattingly is. But Puckett wasn't as scary as Mattingly.

Mattingly vs. Puckett:

Technically, no, Pujols wouldn't, as he's only had 9 season in the pros, and you need 10 to be inducted (unless due to death).

Seriously though, that's exactly it with Puckett. Mattingly was really good for about 5-6 straight years, then really faded for the last 6. Puckett, you look at his numbers from Season 1 to Season 12, and they are stellar year after year.

On top of that, Puckett was clutch in the post-season and helped lead the Twins to two World Series titles.

If Mattingly would not have faded into oblivion the last handful years of his career, he might have had BETTER per-162 stats than Puckett instead of worse. They are definitely comparable, but Puckett was seemingly no where near being done when he was forced to retire.

You have to look at a players ENTIRE career (including season by season). Mattingly racked up most of his stats over the span of about 6 seasons. Then faded off with the exception of about one for the last six or seven of his career.

A player who was great for 5 or 6 season and the mediocre for another 7 or 8 is NOT a HOF player. Puckett put up his great numbers for EVERY season he played and was consistant.

Puckett was a HOF-caliber player for 10 or 11 of his 12 seasons. Mattingly was one for 6 (maybe 7) of his 14 seasons.

 

[henderson939]

I dont see why Pucketts sudden retiring has to do with anything? You could say "what if" if Mattinglys back never gave out. Career stats are just about identical. Mattingly also won an MVP, 9 gold gloves & was a 6x all-star. I would think the hall would count career stats not just a few years a player was dominant. All said and done, even with Mattinglys decline the numbers are just about the same. Puckett had 240 more AB too.

 

[sportscardtheory]

No, I just don't think Puckett is a HOFer. His numbers, anyway you look at it, are the same as a non-HOFer despite the number of seasons he played. So what if his career was cut short, so was Mattingly's. Puck's numbers couldn't have been that great as you say if Mattingly equaled him in less time.

At age 35 Puckett's numbers for his ENTIRE career were about the same as Al Oliver's - another person who belongs in the Hall of Very Good. Actually, Puck was most similar to Al Oliver from ages 32 - 35!

Career Similarity scores:
Don Mattingly (891)
Cecil Cooper (886)
Carl Furillo (873)
Kiki Cuyler (871) *
Cesar Cedeno (870)
Tony Oliva (867)
Minnie Minoso (864)
Magglio Ordonez (860)
Joe Medwick (859) *
Felipe Alou (858)

What do you not understand about him not completing his career. OBVIOUSLY his numbers would have been bigger had he continued on with his career like most other HOFers were allowed to do. Keep fighting the good fight though.

 

[sportscardtheory]

I dont see why Pucketts sudden retiring has to do with anything? You could say "what if" if Mattinglys back never gave out. Career stats are just about identical. Mattingly also won an MVP, 9 gold gloves & was a 6x all-star. I would think the hall would count career stats not just a few years a player was dominant. All said and done, even with Mattinglys decline the numbers are just about the same. Puckett had 240 more AB too.

You really don't get it. I'm done trying with the anti-Puckett people. It's a lost cause.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

You DO realize that you're saying Puckett only would have been HOF if he he played longer...? :lol:

What do you not understand about him not completing his career. OBVIOUSLY his numbers would have been bigger had he continued on with his career like most other HOFers were allowed to do. Keep fighting the good fight though.

 

[KOBEARODLT]

No, I just don't think Puckett is a HOFer. His numbers, anyway you look at it, are the same as a non-HOFer despite the number of seasons he played. So what if his career was cut short, so was Mattingly's. Puck's numbers couldn't have been that great as you say if Mattingly equaled him in less time.

At age 35 Puckett's numbers for his ENTIRE career were about the same as Al Oliver's - another person who belongs in the Hall of Very Good. Actually, Puck was most similar to Al Oliver from ages 32 - 35!

Career Similarity scores:
Don Mattingly (891)
Cecil Cooper (886)
Carl Furillo (873)
Kiki Cuyler (871) *
Cesar Cedeno (870)
Tony Oliva (867)
Minnie Minoso (864)
Magglio Ordonez (860)
Joe Medwick (859) *
Felipe Alou (858)

What do you not understand about him not completing his career. OBVIOUSLY his numbers would have been bigger had he continued on with his career like most other HOFers were allowed to do. Keep fighting the good fight though.

so mattinglys back gave out...does that mean he should be in because he OBVIOUSLY didnt get to finish his career? I personally like both players but if kirby is in than i think mattingly should be as well.

 

[sportscardtheory]

You DO realize that you're saying Puckett only would have been HOF if he he played longer...? :lol:

What do you not understand about him not completing his career. OBVIOUSLY his numbers would have been bigger had he continued on with his career like most other HOFers were allowed to do. Keep fighting the good fight though.

Yeah... it was fluke. He didn't regress like Mattingly did. He was blinded by a damn baseball. He wasn't physically degenerating, he was forced out of the game. You should start a petition to have him taken out. I'm sure the Hall will think very highly of your 5 total signatures. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Lars]

If Don Mattingly finished with nearly the same numbers, but in his last five or six years, played more like an all-star, sentiment would dictate his induction to the Hall.

For the second half of his career, Mattingly was more like Sean Casey than Lou Gehrig.

If Puckett hadn't been beaned and had not developed glaucoma, he probably would have gotten 3,000 hits - the man wasn't slowing down and his play didn't show any signs of obvious decline.

Admittedly however, maybe we would have learned more about his personal problems and maybe the writers wouldn't have been so eager to endorse him for induction to the Hall.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Getting back to the original point of this thread, I'd take Puckett out of the Hall because its particularly dangerous to have HOF members voted in for mostly potential and not for actual performance. IMO this is worse than the inducted HOFers whose numbers are only close, but are really just shy of, HOF-worthiness. A real competitor would agree with this.

If Don Mattingly finished with nearly the same numbers, but in his last five or six years, played more like an all-star, sentiment would dictate his induction to the Hall.

For the second half of his career, Mattingly was more like Sean Casey than Lou Gehrig.

If Puckett hadn't been beaned and had not developed glaucoma, he probably would have gotten 3,000 hits - the man wasn't slowing down and his play didn't show any signs of obvious decline.

Admittedly however, maybe we would have learned more about his personal problems and maybe the writers wouldn't have been so eager to endorse him for induction to the Hall.