The John Smoltz Debate: 2015
Dec 29, 2014
Written by
Committee Chairman
This is the twenty-first of our series where we here at Notinhalloffame.com, do what else? Debate the merit of twenty-four men on the most loaded Baseball Hall of Fame ballot in our lifetime.
Joining me, the site's Committee Chairman, in this debate are D.K. of the site's Phillies Archivist blog and Darryl Tahirali of the site's DDT's Pop Flies blog. This looks to be a very important part of our site, and we hope you will enjoy reading this as much as we enjoyed writing it.
Chairman: I know that I keep equating last year’s Maddux/Glavine & Thomas to this year’s Randy/Pedro & Smoltz but it seems so much of a given that two of them are going in (Randy Johnson & Pedro Martinez) and John Smoltz, while great is arguably a level below, and not necessarily a first ballot. I think the biggest comparison has to be Dennis Eckersley who got in on the first ballot, and had successful stints both as a starter and a reliever and they have similar bWARs (Eckersley 62.5 – Smoltz 66.5) but for John to replicate Eck’s 83.2% in his first year is so much harder as the man with the feathered coif did not have this kind of competition.
For the record, I far prefer the career of Smoltz and do feel his a Hall of Fame inductee; I just don’t know whether he would get in right away like Eckersley.
D.K.: I’d have to think that Smoltz is so highly respected by his peers and team beat writers that at worst John Smoltz will be a near-miss for election this year with over 2/3 of the writers casting their ballots for him and he might even get elected in his first year of eligibility.
While his victory total of about 220 wins is not that staggering, Smoltz struck out more than 3,000 batters and helped anchor an Atlanta Braves pitching rotation that was vital towards the team’s drive to a record-setting 14 straight division championships. He also made an unselfish switch to the bullpen for a few seasons where he notched more than 150 Saves.
Outstanding qualifications! The only thing that may prevent his election next month is that some writers hold first year eligible candidates to a higher standard than others.
Darryl: John Smoltz and Dennis Eckersley are the only pitchers in major league history to combine 150 wins and 150 saves, while Smoltz is the only one to combine 200 wins and 150 saves, although Eckersley finished three wins shy of 200 and he was a full-time reliever for 12 seasons to Smoltz's three, and Smoltz's period as a closer coincided with higher save totals in the majors as managers brought in the closer in any save situation. In 2011, I labeled Smoltz a "no-brainer" Hall of Famer who will most likely go in on the first ballot.
Frankly, and even though I called him another "no-brainer," I wasn't sure that Tom Glavine was going to be elected last year on his first try. He was, and maybe it was the vestige of the 300-game winner, which Smoltz does not enjoy, and we'll see whether Smoltz's detour into relief pitching will help or hurt him. But I also suspect that part of Glavine's appeal was that he was a pitcher in the Steroids Era, a clean player, and a part of so many winning Braves' teams. Smoltz has that too, and something else besides—he may benefit from a "complete the set" mentality that wants to put him in with Glavine and Greg Maddux with no delays.
Chairman: So we all see Smoltz as a Hall of Fame entry, and we all think he will get into the Hall immediately. Yet, here I am putting that word in italics. Could he somehow slip to next year? For the longest time I thought that it was possible and I thought of all the reasons why it could happen, so much to the point where I convinced myself they would make him wait a year.
Today I was also thinking about how Smoltz has now become a broadcaster, basically crossing over to media. I am not saying that he is politicking for votes, but he is in a position where he crossed over somewhat to “part of us” mentality that the writers might like. What am I saying here? I am saying that the imaginary fence I had him on, or thought he might be on, I am convinced what side he will fall; and I am totally cool with that, and yes I mean that as a first ballot induction.
D.K: I think it’s going to be close, but Smoltz might come up a little short this year. He won 20 games only once and people tend to generalize that he “unselfishly went to the bullpen for a few years to help his team”. Actually he had an injury that caused him to miss the entire 2000 season. Then when he had recuperated enough he rejoined the team in 2001 and went to the bullpen to build up arm strength to help his team”. He worked out of the pen so well manager Bobby Cox kept him there, because he’s discovered a gem in Smoltz’s work as a Closer. The move became semi-permanent and he didn’t return to starting until 2005. That cost him a significant number of career wins, but it also made him an attractive candidate as a rare pitcher who could excel both out of the rotation and out of the bullpen.
213 wins, 154 Saves and 3,084 Saves mark Smoltz as one of the toughest pitchers to face of his era but he’ll be competing against 303 game winner and #2 all-time in strikeouts in Randy Johnson who also had a higher winning percentage than Smoltz, Pedro Martinez another 3,000 strikeouts pitcher with the second highest winning percentage of any 200 game winner, plus holdover Curt Schilling whose numbers are very similar to Smoltz’s in wins, win percentage and strikeouts. Smoltz will be a Hall of Famer soon, although perhaps not this year.
Darryl: I don't know that the move to broadcasting will be that big of a factor, although as I watch him on MLB Network that does cross my mind occasionally. I think the bigger factor is that he is the third of the Braves' starting-pitcher trio, and with both Maddux and Glavine being voted it last year, it may be a "complete the set" mentality to vote for him this year, as I mentioned previously. Given the ballot logjam, I would not mind seeing him not be voted in this year, but I would hate to see a poor showing. And although I've stated repeatedly that I don't go for the contingency approach that "Player A may be a Hall of Famer, but Player B needs to go in first," it would rankle me if Smoltz gets elected this year while Curt Schilling does not.
Chairman: Easy one for me here. A definite yes.
D.K.: I ranked him at #8. - YES.
Darryl: No. Not this year. I think he is a Hall of Famer, and I think that he will get a lot of support. However, I do not think he is "inner circle" enough to leapfrog over candidates just as deserving as he is who have been on the ballot previously. Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez, yes. John Smoltz, no. Not this year.
The Lee Smith Debate: 2015
Dec 29, 2014
Written by
Committee Chairman
This is the twenteth of our series where we here at Notinhalloffame.com, do what else? Debate the merit of twenty-four men on the most loaded Baseball Hall of Fame ballot in our lifetime.
Joining me, the site's Committee Chairman, in this debate are D.K. of the site's Phillies Archivist blog and Darryl Tahirali of the site's DDT's Pop Flies blog. This looks to be a very important part of our site, and we hope you will enjoy reading this as much as we enjoyed writing it.
Chairman: I don’t know about the two of you, but my biggest turn around over the past ten years has been on Lee Smith, and not for the better. I was all in on respect for closers and I was taken in by the 478 Saves (retiring with the all time Saves record) and four Saves Titles. This is still an accomplishment to celebrate, but when compared to a true dominating closer like Mariano Rivera, he doesn’t come close. Forgetting the Saves, we have Rivera’s 1.000 WHIP to Smith’s 1.242, Rivera’s 205 ERA+ to Smith’s 132, and a bWAR of 56.6 to Smith’s 29.4. I haven’t even talked about how he shit the bed in his two playoff appearances. What was I thinking?
Perhaps the writers are thinking the same as this is Lee Smith’s 13th year and like so many others here, he hit his low last year with a 29.9%, down from 50.6 two years ago. I don’t think it is looking good for Mr. Smith.
D.K.: Lee Smith’s case for the Hall of Fame brings up an interesting topic. Should someone who once led a sport in a statistical category be a Hall Of famer if that record has been surpassed or even obliterated? Smith’s 486 Saves was the record for at least a decade until that total was surpassed by Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera.
Well you could say that before Babe Ruth came to prominence a guy named Gavvy Cravath was the all-time home run leader. No one brings his name up for the Hall of Fame in the Pre integration (1871-1945) category. The same is true for other sports:
In the NFL Philadelphia Eagles 1950s and 1960s receiver/kicker, Bobby Walston was once the NFLs all-time leader in Scoring and Billy Howton another star of the 1950s and early ‘560s was briefly the all-time pass receiving record holder with 503 catches.
Today, however these NFL stars accomplishments have pretty much been forgotten. Smith is likely to receive the same treatment from writers as sportswriters have given Cravath, Walston and Howton in the past.
To add to the gloom of Smith’s case you have to note that he finished his career 21 games below .500 (71-92), had a significant number of blown Saves (103) and led the league as often in Blown Saves as he did in Saves (four times in each category).
Darryl: D.K. brings up a good point about pioneers who have since been surpassed, and Lee Smith I think is the prototype of the "one-inning closer." As such, he falls between two stools: One stool has the "firemen" from the previous eras—Hoyt Wilhelm, Rollie Fingers, Goose Gossage, Bruce Sutter—the relievers who stepped in to quell the rally and stayed in to finish the game, and the other stool has the lights-out closers who followed Smith including Dennis Eckersley (although technically Eckersley's career began before Smith's, Eck was a starter until 1987), Trevor Hoffman, Mariano Rivera—and Billy Wagner, who I think has a legitimate Hall case, but that is for another time. Smith may have blown 103 saves, but his .823 save percentage is still better than the four Hall of Fame relievers I just named.
And although the Chairman thinks the newly-instituted 10-year rule for ballot appearances is a conspiracy theory to eliminate the PEDs candidates, I think it is also to slough off clean guys like Smith, who have hung around year after year but who are stalled at a voting plateau and show only negative movement. In other words, in each of more than ten ballot appearances, Lee Smith has simply not been impressive enough to garner the three-fourths needed for election. And there is a very good reason why: Lee Smith was very good but not elite.
Chairman: D.K., I like your analogy about holding an all-time major statistical category for over a year as a huge deal, and one that should be celebrated, but I personally don’t view the Save as a major stat anymore, and I don’t see it anywhere near as important as a Home Run. A Home Run is not ambiguous, a Save can be obtained so many ways, and you frankly have a lousy two thirds of an inning, let in a run and allow three people on base, and still get a Save.
At the end of the day, I just don’t see Lee Smith as an elite guy, just like Darryl states. We have seen some relievers change the game; and Lee just isn’t that guy.
D.K.: If part of the reason that Lee Smith dropped from around 50% of the vote to about30% was because of the competition heating up with three first time eligibleMaddux, Glavine and Thomas reaching the Hall, then things won’t get any easier forhim this year. Something tells me that the writers will definitely put Craig Biggio over the top after his near-miss last year. Then you have Randy Johnson, John Smoltzand Pedro Martinez becoming eligible this year and with those factors plus the 10vote maximum per writer and you can see how lesser candidates like Smith could getsqueezed out.
After the rule change was adopted limiting new candidates to 10 years on the
ballot, Smith will be the last candidate to get a full 15-year run on the ballot, ending in 2017. The extra years probably won’t help him much.
Darryl: Good point, Chairman, and not to put too fine a point on it, but while the game did change during Smith's tenure, to an interventionist bullpen capped by the one-inning closer, it was an institutional change and not as a result of Smith's impact. He was merely an instrument used for that change and not the catalyst for that change.
Chairman: Here is where I like the extra time to think about it. If I had a vote seven years ago, I would have said yes. I would have been wrong, and I vote no.
D.K.: NOPE
Darryl: No.
The Gary Sheffield Debate: 2015
Dec 28, 2014
Written by
Committee Chairman
This is the nineteenth of our series where we here at Notinhalloffame.com, do what else? Debate the merit of twenty-four men on the most loaded Baseball Hall of Fame ballot in our lifetime.
Joining me, the site's Committee Chairman, in this debate are D.K. of the site's Phillies Archivist blog and Darryl Tahirali of the site's DDT's Pop Flies blog. This looks to be a very important part of our site, and we hope you will enjoy reading this as much as we enjoyed writing it.
Chairman: I forgot just how much Gary Sheffield accomplished. 9 All Star appearances, 509 Home Runs, a Batting Title, an OPS Title, 6 OPS seasons over 1.000, a 60.2 bWAR and a World Series Ring. Screams Hall of Fame right? Here we may have another Rafael Palmeiro (without the wagging finger to congress) but with a more surly attitude. Here is another difference; I wouldn’t be surprised to see Sheffield hang on the ballot another two years like Raffy did.
D.K.: Sheffield was sort of a Dick Allen with better numbers and more career longevity. While 509 home runs is great to put on his HOF resume, like Allen he was one of the more divisive players in any MLB dugout, any time, any place. Love him or hate him one thing was certain - and Sheff could care less. Yankees beat writers circa 2004-2005 and media found him to be a clubhouse cancer. Things were never harmonious with Sheff around. He sometimes seemed to be more interested in proving what a BADASS he was than in winning games.
It’s interesting that now in retirement he’s putting up a lot of his own money to build a baseball stadium and instructional baseball camp in Pasco County, Florida (just North of Tampa/St. Pete/Clearwater) to teach the game properly and to develop some future major leaguers. If this kinder, gentler edition of Sheff had been present during his playing days then he’d have a lot easier time in securing writers’ votes to put him into the Hall of Fame.
Darryl: The Dick Allen comparison is good, but Gary Sheffield has always reminded me more of Dave Winfield. Both have reached Cooperstown milestones—Sheffield with 500-plus home runs, and Winfield with 3000-plus hits—both were excellent hitters for whom you put up with their deficient defensive skills (although, surprisingly, Winfield was a designated hitter just over 400 times in a nearly 3000-game career, while Sheffield DH'ed about 300 times in more than 2500 games), and although neither was the superstar in the lineup, you didn't want either one to beat you—because each could.
But, gentlemen, let's make explicit what the Chairman alluded to: performance-enhancing drugs. Sheffield was named in the Mitchell Report as having received PEDs from the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative, and the BALCO scandal has been the biggest bugbear to Barry Bonds—with whom
Sheffield is associated as he worked out with Bonds in 2001, during which time Sheffield's trainer applied "the clear," a topical application reputedly containing steroids and obtained from BALCO, to Sheffield. Chairman, you may be right about Sheffield hanging on, then disappearing, as did Rafael Palmeiro. In any case, on an overcrowded ballot with a PEDs taint hanging all over him, Gary Sheffield, whom I think is definitely borderline, won't need to book a flight to Cooperstown anytime soon except as an onlooker.
Chairman: I hate to use the likability card, as I completely agree with you Darryl that this should have absolutely no merit as to whether a candidate gets in or not, but there is always that human element. The baseball writers have met a lot of these guys and there is no doubt in my mind that many of them have held grudges against certain people and refused to vote for them.
With Sheffield, this is a guy who ruffled more feathers than Barry Bonds did, and while his numbers are Hall of Fame worthy, they are not Play Station numbers like Bonds. I only bring this up to add a little fuel to the potential one and done of Sheffield on the ballot. If you were a writer torn between Sheffield and let’s say for argument sake Mike Mussina as the tenth guy you would pick, maybe you go with the guy who didn’t blow you off for an interview.
Again, that should never be a factor, but it’s like why I keep my mouth shut at the airport; I am not giving anyone with power over me for that brief period of time a reason to use it.
D.K.: One and done, Darryl? - I don’t think it’s going to play out that way, but who knows how the voters will treat Sheff his first ballot? My guess is he’ll get closer to 25% of the votes than 5% and that he may be stuck in that neighborhood for years to come.
Darryl: Yes, I can see that if it came down to choosing between two candidates, and you know both of them, and one of them has been more of a jerk than the other, how you might vote for the nicer guy. Writers are only human, after all. I think Sheffield may play out more like Mark McGwire: Career numbers on the bubble and a PEDs taint although not of the finger-wagging hubris of Rafael Palmeiro. He may survive for several years with percentages in the 20s and 30s.
Chairman: I think Sheff is going to get “Palmeiro’d”, but in other years he would get my vote. Here, I have to pass. Just too much competition, and I vote no.
Darryl: No.
D.K.: He probably hurt his teams with his attitude as much as he helped them with his talents. - NO.
The Curt Schilling Debate: 2015
Dec 27, 2014
Written by
Committee Chairman
This is the eighteenth of our series where we here at Notinhalloffame.com, do what else? Debate the merit of twenty-four men on the most loaded Baseball Hall of Fame ballot in our lifetime.
The Tim Raines Debate: 2015
Dec 28, 2014
Written by
Committee Chairman
This is the seventeenth of our series where we here at Notinhalloffame.com, do what else? Debate the merit of twenty-four men on the most loaded Baseball Hall of Fame ballot in our lifetime.
Joining me, the site's Committee Chairman, in this debate are D.K. of the site's Phillies Archivist blog and Darryl Tahirali of the site's DDT's Pop Flies blog. This looks to be a very important part of our site, and we hope you will enjoy reading this as much as we enjoyed writing it.
Chairman: For the record I have always loved Tim Raines and wanted to throttle anyone who ever called him a poor man’s Rickey Henderson. Although I grant that Henderson had the more impressive career, Raines had one hell of a run, and was overshadowed by a better base stealer. “The Rock” enters his eighth nomination and with the reduction from fifteen years to ten years on the ballot has potential to be the biggest victim from the change.
Raines had 46.1% last year, which is down from finally hitting the 50% mark last year. Gentlemen, if Raines was on for fifteen years, I would bet my house that he would get inducted but in ten years? I am keeping my deed to the property.
Darryl: You'll have to throttle me, then, because I've been calling Tim Raines the poor man's Rickey Henderson for some time now. On the other hand, I've been calling Kenny Loftonthe poor man's Tim Raines, and he was criminally a one-and-done two years ago.
But here's my Raines story: Years ago, I was in a technical writing certification program, and one report-writing course I took included feasibility reports. I did mine on a fictitious Hall of Fame "Underdog Committee" that looked at bubble candidates who would be retiring soon. I picked Raines, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, and—don't laugh—Andres Galarraga (hey, he looked pretty good back then), and had to evaluate them and pick one to recommend. I went in figuring I'd pick Martinez, but after evaluating them, I picked Raines as the best (most feasible) candidate. Funny how that worked out on the real ballots years later, yes? But you're right—I was pretty sure after last year that Raines would struggle on the ballot, and that'll be even more so now. Some Expansion Era Committee is going to have to fight to get him in the Hall.
D.K.: If you think of the Hall Of Fame as the greatest team of players ever assembled then you’re going to need every component of a great team, including you’re speed guys and table setters. With 808 stolen bases and a career .294 hitter hardly any player has filled the bill for that role better than Raines since the late 1970’s except Rickey Henderson. Lou Brock, Henderson and Raines posted career totals not seen since the dead ball era days when running was a most critical and necessary part of the game.
His seasons of .320, .334 where he led the National League in ‘86 and .330 is a pretty nice career peak that he reached between 1985 and 1987. He finished his career with 2,605 hits and better than a hit per game average and he reached 70 stolen bases six consecutive years (1981-1986), taking four NL stolen base titles, and reaching a career high of 90 SB in 1983.
A veteran of 2502 games in 23 years he had tremendous longevity also. With his vote totals of about 50% the last two elections, he’s been a bit underappreciated so far by the writers. I’ll be very interested to see if Raines vote total makes some progress towards election, come January 6th.
Chairman: So let’s call him a rich man’s Maury Wills then? If Maury can get solid Veteran’s support, maybe there is a hope for Raines that way, as I have a strong suspicion he will see a percentage decrease again this year, and he is not going to get in by “traditional means”.
“The Rock” (and is that because of what he liked smoking the best?) has to consider it a win just to get back to where he was two years ago. I wonder if the Expos deal hinders him a bit. I know that his teammates Gary Carter and Andre Dawson got in, but Carter had a couple good years with the Mets and was just one of those guys that people loved. Dawson had the MVP season with the Cubs, and many people associate “the Hawk” with Chicago more than Montreal. Raines never had a signature season outside of Montreal. Am I reaching or am I bordering on another conspiracy theory here?
D.K.: Although the writers have asked the HOF if they may increase the maximum number of players they can vote for in any election to 12. As far as I know, if 12 votes is approved per writer it won’t go into effect for the election at hand. Even with only 10 votes I’ll fit “The Rich Man’s Maury Wills (Tim Raines) in there somewhere.
Darryl: Gary Carter and Andre Dawson may be good examples, and not just because they were also Expos. It took Carter six tries to be elected, and it took Dawson nine tries--and both did it in years that did not have the embarrassment of riches that Raines is facing now. Shhh! Everyone is trying to forget that Raines was one of several MLB players implicated in the Pittsburgh drug trials of the mid-1980s. Supposedly, Raines slid head-first into bases so he would not break the cocaine vial in his back pocket. But given the obvious punishment being meted out to the PEDs guys, you have to wonder whether some writers have not forgotten about Raines's involvement in this quiet, although significant, drug scandal in baseball.
Chairman: This breaks my heart because I think he is a Hall of Famer. He is my 11A candidate, but sadly my vote is no.
Darryl: This is my last speech. Probably. I've been calling Tim Raines a Hall of Famer since 2002. Yes, that was in his last year before retirement. I've been calling him that ever since. But based on his voting history, I don't think that he has a chance on the writers' ballot. My primary approach in this (hypothetical) vote is, with a few exceptions, to clear the ballot by voting for as many candidates who have a good chance of actually being elected and thus enable voters to more seriously consider candidates such as Raines, who is a SABR darling who does not have that Hall of Fame glow about him. (Spoiler alert: I'll be saying the same thing about Alan Trammell.)
Thus, it pains me to say it, but my vote is no. Not this year.
D.K.: Maybe it’s because I was small in stature in elementary school but I always appreciated baseball’s smaller, pesky, feisty little guys that batted lead off or #2 to set the table...the Richie Ashburns, Curt Floods, Lou Brocks , Luis Aparicios, Maury Wills, Ron Hunts, Pete Roses, Nellie Foxs and Ricky Hendersons of this world ....and Tim Raines. I see that I think much more highly of Tim than my colleagues. I ranked Raines as my #3 candidate and that results in an emphatic YES vote!
The Mike Piazza Debate: 2015
Dec 27, 2014
Written by
Committee Chairman
This is the sixteenth of our series where we here at Notinhalloffame.com, do what else? Debate the merit of twenty-four men on the most loaded Baseball Hall of Fame ballot in our lifetime.
Joining me, the site's Committee Chairman, in this debate are D.K. of the site's Phillies Archivist blog and Darryl Tahirali of the site's DDT's Pop Flies blog. This looks to be a very important part of our site, and we hope you will enjoy reading this as much as we enjoyed writing it.
Chairman: We talked about suspicion keeping Jeff Bagwell out so far, and the same has to be stated for Mike Piazza, who can make a statistical claim as the best offensive Catcher in the history of Baseball. There has been a bigger cloud over Piazza than Bagwell, though no positive tests or anything of that nature. With his credentials is there any reason to explain why Mike Piazza has not entered the Baseball Hall of Fame; however all is not lost. Piazza is on his third year of the ballot, and unlike others, his percentage has gone from 57.8% to 62.2%. He may not get in this year, but his chances look healthy.
Darryl: Considering that Mike Piazza did admit to using androstenedione
("andro," most notably associated with Mark McGwire) early in his career, his 2013 debut percentage of 57.8 is impressive, as is the fact that only Piazza and Craig Biggio saw their vote totals increase in 2014. Jeff Bagwell may not be a great comparison because Bagwell is competing against a number of other high-profile first basemen, but who has Piazza's competition at catcher been on his two ballots so far? Sandy Alomar, Jr.? Paul Lo Duca? And there is really no competition for him this year. Moreover, you are right: Piazza is the best-hitting catcher in history. What makes me optimistic is that he debuted at a high percentage and added more votes even with Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and Frank Thomas added to last year's ballot.
D.K.: Piazza’s future is looking up and his vote totals should increase as well. The only question is how far up will they go this year. Enough to get elected? We’ll see.
He hit 396 of his 429 career home runs as a catcher, which is better than any other catcher in history by a large margin. He could have hit over 400 home runs as a catcher, but he foolishly left the San Diego Padres and went to the Oakland Athletics for his final year where he was used exclusively as a designated hitter (when he wasn’t hurt - in an injury plagued final season.)
As a Phillies fan it bothers me that he grew up in the Philadelphia suburbs and with better scouting he could have been a career Phillie. Instead he was drafted by the Los Angeles Dodgers, and he made a name for himself with them and the Phillies’ divisional archrival, the New York Mets. Instead of having Piazza as their power-hitting backstop for a decade and a half from the early 1990s to the mid-2000s the Phillies had to settle for Mike Lieberthal.
Chairman: These are all outstanding points, and I forgot about that andro admission. For the record, I do think he was on PEDs, but like I have said multiple times before, those people get a pass before the official announcement from MLB, and I do have again state; he never flunked a test, so none of my matters anyway.
I went so glass if half empty with Piazza looking at what I thought was a low debut for him without comparing him to the Bonds of the world. He is heading in the right direction, which he should be. I think a small victory for him is to squeak in to that 65 to 67 range, which in my mind is the best he could hope for this year.
D.K.: Between 1994 and 1997 Piazza scorched the ball to the tune of a .342 four-year average. He hit no lower than .328 and had a career high of .362. To his predecessor, an all-star catcher, Mike Scoscia, Piazza was crooning, “Move Over Little dog, ’Cause the Big Dog’s movin’ in”. Piazza’s impact early in his career was considerable. He managed to hit .308 lifetime despite tailing of in his later years and he’s the all-time leader in home runs as a catcher. - Pretty indisputable qualifications. I’d vote for Piazza each and every year until he’s giving his induction speech.
Darryl: Agreed. As long as Piazza keeps adding to his vote, he will be elected in a couple of years. Of course, my wildly optimistic scenario is to see a 13 percent jump that pushes him across the threshold this year. Hey, a fan can dream, can't he?
Chairman: I will keep it simple. Yes.
Darryl: Equally simple. Yes.
D.K.: Even if he didn’t have the greatest throwing arm to nab base stealer
Piazza more than made up for it with his bat and is in fact arguably the best hitting Catcher in MLB history. I ranked him #4 this year. YES.
The Mike Mussina Debate: 2015
Dec 27, 2014
Written by
Committee Chairman
This is the fifteenth of our series where we here at Notinhalloffame.com, do what else? Debate the merit of twenty-four men on the most loaded Baseball Hall of Fame ballot in our lifetime.
Joining me, the site's Committee Chairman, in this debate are D.K. of the site's Phillies Archivist blog and Darryl Tahirali of the site's DDT's Pop Flies blog. This looks to be a very important part of our site, and we hope you will enjoy reading this as much as we enjoyed writing it.
Chairman: I went on record last year saying that the biggest shock to me was the paltry 20.3% he got on his first year of eligibility. I know he was “only” an All Star five times, but every stat points to this man as a Baseball Hall of Fame inductee. Personally, I think the biggest disaster that could happen is if Mike Mussina somehow fails in the ten years on the ballot to get into Cooperstown. It’s funny to me how someone who spent his entire career in the ballyhooed American League East, doesn’t have that cache name. We talked about the “Hall of Very Good”, and I think a lot of people want to automatically put Mussina there. He is better than that.
Darryl: I agree completely. In fact, three years ago, I wrote an article for the site in which I identified five "tough sell" Hall of Fame-caliber players, meaning that because of the ballot logjam they may get overlooked. Of course, one was Frank Thomas, and we saw how "overlooked" he was last year. On the other hand, the other four were Jeff Kent, Mike Piazza, Curt Schilling—and Mike Mussina. Moose may be a Bert Blyleven-type case in which the advanced stats will need to demonstrate how effective he was in tandem with his traditional stats. His 3.68 ERA may hurt a bit, but in that AL East he spent a lot of time with the Baltimore Orioles, which was a division doormat—and his FIP (fielding-independent ERA) is 3.57, meaning that he did a fair bit of heavy lifting and not his fielders. Mussina is better than a lot of pitchers already in the Hall—he won't cheapen the roster by any measure.
DK: Mussina’s not quite in the Pedro Martinez/Whitey Ford category in winning percentage, Whitey Ford, but who is? With his .638 winning% he’s closer to another current nominee, Randy Johnson and that’s plenty good enough company. Like Ford, who had just two 20-win seasons, which may surprise a lot of people, Mussina also is short in the 20 wins season category, winning 20 only once. He had a lot of Ford-like high win percentage seasons, however, going 18-5, 16-5, 19-9, 19-11, 18-7 17-8, 18-10 various years and other stellar seasons without reaching the 20 win mark.
I thought he might make a run for 300 wins, when he won 20 in 2008, but he was about 39 years and 10 months old when he go his 20th, for the only time in his career, in the Yankees 2008 season finale. Does that mean he didn’t have “the heart of a lion” to pursue 300, or that at nearly 40 he just considered himself done. Was he a good family man who just wanted to stay home after about 20 years on the road with his major and minor league teams or was he just a guy who wasn’t that driven by statistical goals. After all Al Kaline didn’t come back for one more season just because he was one home run below the 400 HR mark at the end of the 1974 season and Billy Pierce didn't cancel his retirement plans because he finished the 1964 season one strikeout below 2,000K - and no one holds that against them and doesn’t think they weren’t spectacular ballplayers.
Mussina’s 20% vote total last year was surprisingly low, but there have been others like Gary Carter who started small, but whose vote totals snowballed in the next few years afterwards towards eventual election by the BBWAA.
Chairman: So we all agree that Mussina is a Hall of Fame Pitcher, at least in our eyes. It is almost that he is in the wrong place at the wrong time with this vote; almost like his career in Baseball, as he was never on a championship Yankees team, which certainly would have helped; especially if he would have at least a signature post season performance, which he didn’t have.
I don’t know if you both saw the article that Buster Olney recently did where he stated he was abstaining from his vote to help a guy like Mike Mussina, a man he would vote for…if he had more than ten slots. Basically, he thinks by abstaining, he helps Mussina’s percentage, should others vote for him.
Now, I hate the idea of abstaining from a Hall of Fame vote, especially if this what some of the voters thinks it has come too but if anything illustrates the current logjam to get into Cooperstown better than this, I haven’t seen it.
D.K.: When I look at his career numbers I don’t find many numbers that are eye-popping, however, you see the picture of a very steady, consistent performer.
You might not think of him as a great strikeout pitcher, but Mussina didn’t fall too far short of being a 3,000 strikeout man, with 2813 Ks for his career. He never led the league in strikeouts but he topped 200Ks four seasons and he topped 170 Ks nine seasons. He was really consistent, but didn’t have the WOW FACTOR going for him of being the best pitcher in the majors at any time in his career.
With the absence of the WOW FACTOR, I think that Mussina fits the profile o someone who gets elected in their final one or two chances with the writers or fails short there and gets elected by the Veterans Committee.
Darryl: Chairman, I have not seen Buster Olney's article. Do you have a link or reference to it? I respect Olney's work and generally agree with his views. I admit that I am not a mathematician and would have to read his rationale, but I do not understand how abstaining from voting, and it sounds from your description that he is abstaining altogether because Mussina is not among his ten, would help Mussina. Again, I'm no math whiz, but it seems to me that the more votes cast for any player increases the chances for some candidates to be elected, and that removes them from the ballot and thus increases the chances for the remaining candidates in future years. Silly hypothetical: Say Olney planned to vote for Curt Schilling this year but abstains, and Schilling misses election by one vote. Olney's vote would have removed Schilling from the ballot by dint of election to the Hall--but now Schilling comes back on a future ballot, still siphoning support for Mussina. I don't get it.
DK, to your point about round numbers, we like them because they are convenient plateaus. To me, Mussina is a Hall of Famer without the 300 wins, and in any case, in his era of interventionist bullpens, 268 wins is 300 wins. Mussina had 43 "tough losses," losses in which he pitched a quality start (six or more innings pitched while allowing three or fewer earned runs), with 24 of those with Baltimore, and he had 40 wins lost (22 with Baltimore), games in which he had the lead when he left the game but his bullpen lost the lead and thus Mussina got a no-decision instead. (He had 113 of those altogether.) Somewhere in there are the 32 wins he needed for 300 games. Contrast that with Gus Wynn, who grimly hung on until his age-43 season to get to 300 wins in 1963, and his 1962 season, in which he fell one short of 300 wins, was really grim: 7-15 (.318), 4.46 ERA, 88 ERA+ (i.e., Wynn was a below-league-average pitcher). He returned in 1963, got his 300th win in his fourth start--on July 13, after not having pitched in his first game of the season until three weeks earlier--and pitched the minimum five innings necessary to be credited with a win. He started just one more game subsequently, getting a no-decision, while his 15 other appearances were as mop-up relief (he did earn one save). It was a desperate effort to reach a milestone, and watching Tim Wakefield labor to get to 200 wins a few years ago is probably a similar experience.
And now we get to the asinine premise of the Bernie Mac baseball movie
"Mr. 3000," in which Mac's character has three hits taken away from him by revisionist bookkeeping, and although he may have been a Hall of Famer at 3000 hits, he may not be at 2997 hits, and thus he suits up at age 47 to get back those three hits. Ugh! No! That's why I love Al Kaline's numbers. As you note, he did finish one home run shy of 400, and he was two doubles shy of 500 while his .297 batting average is three percentage points below .300. Now, had Kaline not played the 1974 season and thus passed the 3000-hit plateau with his 146 hits that season, would he have been a Hall of Famer with 2861 hits, 470 doubles, and 386 homers? Maybe not first-ballot, as he was in 1980 with more than 88 percent of the vote, but really?
Chairman: Darryl, here is the link to Olney’s reasoning. Anyway, for me Mussina gets on my ballot, but admittedly on the ten hole. I vote yes.
Darryl: Yes. Despite his paltry vote total last year, Mike Mussina is clean and is a no-doubt Hall of Famer. Get him off the ballot--and into Cooperstown.
D.K.: I can see why the writers asked that they be allowed to cast 12 votes instead of 10 this year. There’s simply too many good candidates right now. Even with an expanded ballot, however, Mussina still misses the cut. I ranked him #13. That’s a NO vote from me - not NO forever, but NO for this year with it’s crowded field.
The Mark McGwire Debate: 2015
Dec 26, 2014
Written by
Committee Chairman
This is the fourteenth of our series where we here at Notinhalloffame.com, do what else? Debate the merit of twenty-four men on the most loaded Baseball Hall of Fame ballot in our lifetime.
Joining me, the site's Committee Chairman, in this debate are D.K. of the site's Phillies Archivist blog and Darryl Tahirali of the site's DDT's Pop Flies blog. This looks to be a very important part of our site, and we hope you will enjoy reading this as much as we enjoyed writing it.
Chairman: What, the PED discussion again? Actually, I am going to open with something a little different, as I have been a little surprised at just how much as his support has plummeted. This was the first “Steroids Guy” on the Ballot and here we are on year nine and the new ten year rule will kick him off in two years; and don’t think this isn’t by accident. Mark McGwire plummeted to eleven percent last year, but his fall shows me that contrition doesn’t mean anything to the writers. Nobody else apologized, and Big Mac has done pretty well for himself as a hitting coach in the Majors. So much for forgiveness.
Darryl: You and I differ on the intent of reducing the eligibility period. I think it is to reduce the logjam regardless of the perception of the player—Edgar Martinez, Tim Raines, and Alan Trammell are just as likely to fall off as the PEDs-suspected players. Mark McGwire was indeed the lightning rod, though, the first star with that PEDs association to hit the ballot. Regardless of what doping did to his performance, that performance is on the bubble—more peak dominance than longevity.
He was largely one-dimensional, a Three True Outcomes hitter—walk, strikeout, home run—but it was an awesome dimension. One thing that impresses me is that his on-base percentage of .394 is 131 points higher than his .263 batting average. He collected 1626 hits but walked 1317 times, and only 150 of those were intentional—but that's still 46th all-time. That's a feared hitter—and a selective one. Borderline, but he's like a Ralph Kiner: Essentially one tool, but it was a sledgehammer. Just barely a Hall of Famer—but I think at this point, a future Expansion Era Committee will have to debate that. And that is the ramification of the shortened eligibility period: Baseball is dumping responsibility for gatekeeping into the Hall on future committees.
D.K.: I think that a lot of the media that covered McGwire’s quest to surpass the single season total of Roger Maris back in 1998 felt like they’d been duped when it came out that McGwire wasn’t clean. These same writers are the ones who have withheld their vote for McGwire ever since he became eligible. Therefore I think McGwire’s chances for election are minimal.
Chairman: I stand by my conspiracy theories! We did not walk on the moon, there was another gunman and aliens built the pyramids in Egypt. Ok, bad jokes aside, we’ll agree to disagree on the motives, but you are right about equating McGwire to a one trick pony, though it was one equivalent in my eyes to Thornton Melon’s triple lindy (1% of future shares in the site to whoever gets that reference), but yes, taking away from PEDs it is a resume that puts you on the cusp of the Hall when looking at the bigger picture.
Saying that these future committees are going to be loaded with his generation’s “clean players”, so if McGwire and his friends are getting in, they have a better chance with the baseball writers, not with guys like Frank Thomas or Goose Gossage who have openly decried these guys shouldn’t be in, and could wind up on these future committees.
D.K.: The odd thing about Barry Bonds and McGwire is that they began using PEDs after they were already highly successful star players. Many have argued that if Bonds had left steroids alone he’d have made the Hall Of Fame anyway. McGwire wouldn’t have put up Hall Of Fame numbers, but he would probably have hit 400+ clean home runs and had a very good career. He reached the majors with a bang, smashing 49 home runs in his first full season of 1987 and topped 50 homers a few seasons later when he was still likely clean. He probably wouldn’t have made the HOF because he was only a .263 lifetime hitter and he struck out far too much.
Was it the Deadly Sin of pride that prompted Bonds and McGwire to chase records and increase their legacies that in the end became their downfalls.
Darryl: Chairman, you may be right that McGwire's best chance is with the writers and not a future veterans committee--that is an excellent point. The recent Hall of Famers will staff those future committees, and they are likely to keep their current perspectives. So, McGwire may in fact be his generation's Deacon White, not necessarily in terms of conduct, but that his great-grandkid may deliver the induction speech near the end of this century.
As for Thornton Melon, well . . . he just don't get no respect, does he?
Much like McGwire.
And as for a second shooter, don't get me started on the JFK assassination. The most plausible explanation to me would probably gobsmack a lot of people, but then I'd tell them to read David Lifton's "Best Evidence." (Hint: The "best evidence" is the body itself and what may have happened to it between Dallas and Bethesda, where the autopsy took place.)
Chairman: DDT, we have to sit down over beer one day and solve the problems of the world, and based on an earlier comment I owe you a small portion of the site. Personally, I do believe is a Hall of Famer, and I would have voted him in other years, but the glut of additional talent pushes him off if my ballot. I vote no.
Darryl: Chairman, I'll gladly take you up on that offer.
It's not so much the glut of additional talent--this year's ballot isn't any heavier than it has been in the past couple of years--but by now it is patently obvious even to me that anyone with tangible evidence or admission of PEDs usage is wearing a scarlet letter of "C" for Cheater and is not going to get 75 percent. So, this year my voting approach is primarily (although not exclusively) for those "clean" candidates who are with little dispute Hall of Famers. And with only 10 votes that means a mean triage.
So, no to Mark McGwire. Not this year.
D.K.: I’ve never been one to forgive and forget easily when I’ve been wronged.
(I still have a fist and a set of brass knuckles ready for an older bully who once sucker punched me when I was 13).
That said, when America watched the race between Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa to topple Roger Maris’ season’s home run record of 61 homers in 1998 collectively we thought we were watching the greatest thing since Maris and Mickey Mantle were racing to beat Babe Ruth’s record of 60 HR nearly four decades earlier. The country thought it was watching history in the making; as it turned out we were only watching two frauds making fools out of the nation’s sports fans. The answer is a NO vote to McGwire this year and it might always be so.
The Fred McGriff Debate: 2015
Dec 26, 2014
Written by
Committee Chairman
This is the thirteenth of our series where we here at Notinhalloffame.com, do what else? Debate the merit of twenty-four men on the most loaded Baseball Hall of Fame ballot in our lifetime.
Joining me, the site's Committee Chairman, in this debate are D.K. of the site's Phillies Archivist blog and Darryl Tahirali of the site's DDT's Pop Flies blog. This looks to be a very important part of our site, and we hope you will enjoy reading this as much as we enjoyed writing it.
Chairman: Prior to the PED controversy I kept thinking that Fred McGriff was going to wind up being the guy who would go down in history as the man who had the most Home Runs but wouldn’t wind up in the Hall of Fame. That has obviously changed, but I could easily change this to “player untainted with PEDs who has the most Home Runs not entering the Hall”. It was never that I once thought he wasn’t a very good player, or even at times great; but did the “Crime Dog” ever feel special?
He is entering year sixth on the ballot, coming off his all time low of 11.7%. Thirty years ago, wouldn’t this guy be in right away; or does his frequent movement make seem like a high priced journeyman?
Darryl: I do tend to go back and forth on Fred McGriff, but ultimately it is back to he falls just short. Crime Dog is on two cusps: One is that he started a decade before both the players and the numbers got big, so his year-to-year stats look strong but not eye-popping like the Steroids-Era players. Two is that both qualitatively and quantitatively, McGriff is on the cusp of greatness—just shy of 2500 hits, just shy of 500 home runs, and over 1500 RBI.
You may indeed be right: Turn McGriff's clock back 30 years, and his record looks like Willie McCovey's or Harmon Killebrew's. But that's not the case, and what really kills McGriff's chances is that by now the Hall is chock-full of power-hitting first basemen whose numbers are gaudier, and who had dominating peaks, which McGriff never had. He was excellent, but not elite, and you have to draw the line somewhere.
D.K.: Hall Of Fame standards are completely out of whack when a player like McGriff who put up such great numbers (as follows) receives so few votes. 493 home runs - 9 seasons of 30HR or more; 12 seasons of 25HR or more. 2 NL HR titles. 1550 Runs Batted In: 6 seasons of 100 or more RBI; 10 seasons of 90 or more RBI. Just under 2,500 career hits with a.285 batting average.
Man, what does a guy have to do to impress these writers?
Chairman: O.K., let’s play this game. How much does “fame” really matter? As a Jays fan going to the games, I never really thought “Hey, I’m going to watch Fred McGriff play today!” What imagination did he capture? Was he ever at any time considered the best at his position? I know I am arguing against stats, but I just want to throw that out there, and see just what being an icon in the sport means.
We just watched Gil Hodges fail to get into the Veterans Ballot, and while I am not saying that he has better stats than McGriff (he doesn’t), he was a guy who Dodgers fans paid to see. Does that mean anything, or should it? Maybe I am thinking of the romanticism of baseball and sports in general but shouldn’t that matter a little bit?
Unlike Larry Walker who is facing voting issues, McGriff doesn’t have a fan base as he played for three teams for five years and another five for another three combined, he has no real identity that makes any city want to rally around him. That might be why Hodges’ supporters are so passionate, and those of McGriff are non-existent.
D.K.: Playing all or most of one’s career in one city and for one team definitely has it’s advantages regarding the Hall of Fame and that goes for any sport. (I’ve often though that If linebacker Maxie Baughan hadn’t been included in a blockbuster multi-player deal in 1966 and been sent to the Los Angeles Rams and had stayed in Philadelphia his entire career he’d have been in the Pro Football Hall of Fame long ago. He only missed making the Pro Bowl one year in the early part of his career, otherwise he’s have made 10 straight pro Bowls and would have been perfect for the decade of the 1960s (Baughan made the NFL Pro Bowl for the seasons 1960-61 and 1963-69. His top years were split between Philly and LA and even unluckier than being traded from Philly was the fact that he was traded to a city that would lose its NFL franchise and that hasn’t had a team for the last 20 years - so no HOF backing comes from LA, and only some comes from Philly.
Nomadic players or players that test the free agency waters every few years do pay a price (at the gates of Cooperstown, or Canton, or Toronto, or Springfield) eventually. It is the voting writers’ job however, to see what value a player brings to his teams, no matter how often he changes uniforms and to not let a hometown push backing a player who spent all or most of his career with one team sway them unduly.
McGriff has some great numbers if you take the time to examine them. If I had a maximum of 10 choices like the writers do (and they are lobbying to be allowed to vote for 12 players instead of just 10), McGriff wouldn’t be in my first five choices, but he’d be among my ten somewhere.
Darryl: I'm not sure that Gil Hodges is a good comparison in terms of "fame" because he is an outlier--the Dodgers are a storied franchise, particularly the 1940s and 1950s Brooklyn version that is practically worshipped in Roger Kahn's book "The Boys of Summer." That mystique, as I suggested in my article on this year's Golden Era candidates, has probably inflated Hodges's perception--and, as I note, largely without justification. As for the "nomadic" aspect of McGriff's career, he played in the free-agency era, and the writers know that.
Look at Dave Winfield: I never thought of him as being the reigning star on his teams, and he played for six teams during his career. One of those, admittedly, was the New York Yankees, another "mystique" team, and Winfield did reach a Cooperstown milestone of 3000 hits, both of which were undoubtedly factors in his first-ballot election in 2001. I'm surprised that Atlanta isn't rallying around McGriff since three of his five All-Star appearances came while he was on the Braves. But has anyone considered whether his prolonged exposure through those Tom Emanski Baseball Fundamentals television commercials have ultimately soured his chances?
Chairman: You know I never saw those commercials before? Maybe that is the blessing (curse) of living in Canada. After doing research maybe that bright red hat is what should go on the bust; though it won’t happen on my ballot. I vote no.
Darryl: No.
D.K.: I ranked McGriff 10th and gave him my final YES vote. He’s at or near the top of the list when it comes to candidates on this ballot who have thus far been underappreciated by the writers.
The Don Mattingly Debate: 2015
Dec 26, 2014
Written by
Committee Chairman
This is the twelfth of our series where we here at Notinhalloffame.com, do what else? Debate the merit of twenty-four men on the most loaded Baseball Hall of Fame ballot in our lifetime.
Joining me, the site's Committee Chairman, in this debate are D.K. of the site's Phillies Archivist blog and Darryl Tahirali of the site's DDT's Pop Flies blog. This looks to be a very important part of our site, and we hope you will enjoy reading this as much as we enjoyed writing it.
Chairman: Donnie Baseball. Mattingly is on his 15th year on the ballot, and I didn’t even realize this until I looked it up. Last year, Mattingly had 8.2 percent of the ballot, his lowest total ever. His highest was 28.2 percent, which was on his first year of eligibility. The second year was 20.3. I really like him, but here is a guy who might be this generation’s Steve Garvey; and I don’t mean because he pretended to be a really good guy in public. Basically, I am saying that sabremetrics is not his friend. With this loaded ballot, I could conceivably see him fall under fiver percent. Now I’m too lazy to look up if anybody ever fell below that 5 percent threshold on their final year, but that would have to be a first right?
Darryl: Well, the saber numbers are not his enemy—it's the counting numbers that are hurting him: Don Mattingly simply doesn't have the big career totals. Only six of his 14 seasons saw him play 150 or more games, and that is indicative of the injuries that dogged him. In the only season in which he played every game, 1986 in his age-25 year, Mattingly led the American League in hits, doubles, slugging percentage and total bases. He hit 31 home runs, drove in 113, and posted a .352/.394/.573 slash line. He had a six-year peak between 1984 and 1989, which is just a little short and he was not quite the dominant player during that time. That would compensate for the light counting numbers, but it never happened. Mattingly falls just short in both areas. And if he does fall below five percent this year, I think that would be more of an indicator of an overloaded ballot.
D.K.: This is his last year on the Writers’ Ballot Mattingly will be a Veterans Committee candidate two years from now in December 2016, for the HOF Class of 2017. If he is to reach the Hall Of Fame at all entrance to Cooperstown via the Vets Committee is his proper level of the Hall. Injuries prevented him from sustaining the type of dominant performance that adds up to a Writers Ballot HOFer, but I could see him getting in through the Vets.
Chairman: I think whatever metric you use, it comes down to a peak period that just wasn’t long enough and a period after that doesn’t measure up no matter how you slice it. I wonder though if he was on better Yankees teams, and whether we want to admit or not, Major League Baseball is more interesting when the Bronx Bombers are good, that if he played for a better team, that he would be closer to induction. Mattingly was the star of bad Yankees teams, but Rizzuto was what on great Yankees teams, maybe the fifth best player? Sorry…but I know that Darryl will understand when I say that Phil Rizzuto is my Percy Sledge. Holy Cow!
D.K.: There’s not much I could add to Darryl’s comment. He said it all – or at least most of it. Mattingly's Saber numbers or I guess you could call them his qualitative numbers are Hall Of Fame-like. It’s his quantitative numbers or counting numbers that weaken his case. His four or five year peak was not dominant enough over a long enough period of time to rate Hall of Fame enshrinement in the minds of most voters. He will be eligible for consideration by the Veterans Committee just two years from now in December 2016 on the Expansion Era committee ballot.
Mattingly has become part of a historical footnote. He is one of three players who had been through more than 10 BBWAA elections when they decided to shorten the number of years players can be voted in by the writers. Three players are being grandfathered in and will receive their full run of 15 years on the ballot as per the old rules. This will be Mattingly’s final year on the ballot, next year will be Alan Trammel’s final year on the writer’s ballot and Lee Smith will have his final vote in 2017. After Smith’s shot in 2017, the 15-year ballots rule will pass into history.
Darryl: At least Percy Sledge had an R&B hit called "Out of Left Field," so he's at least in the ballpark. I'm tempted to say that whether Mattingly was on a good or bad team doesn't, or shouldn't matter, but I don't know. Mattingly's record matches pretty closely to Kirby Puckett's in several ways. Both played at the same time, and even though Mattingly logged two more seasons, both played in nearly the same number of games although Puckett had about 100 more plate appearances and collected a season's worth more hits; thus, Puckett hit several points higher, .318 to Mattingly's .307, but otherwise their slash lines are about the same. Mattingly won a MVP award and was runner-up the following year; Puckett was top five three times. Puckett of course had postseasons heroics on his side as his Minnesota Twins won two World Series. Mattingly only ever saw one postseason series, in 1995, the AL Divisional Series against the Seattle Mariners famed for the "Edgar Martinez double" that won the fifth and deciding game. But we all but forget that Mattingly fairly raked in the series, knocking ten hits including four doubles and a home run for a .417 average while driving in six runs, so who knows what Mattingly could have done in more postseasons. Puckett is a marginal Hall of Famer, but he was worth about eight wins more in bWAR than was Mattingly, and that may be the real difference.
Chairman: I always like Mattingly…especially in his Simpsons cameo: “Mattingly, I thought I told you to trim those side sideburns!” Still, an appearance for Mr. Burns’ company softball team doesn’t get him on my ballot. I vote no.
Darryl: No.
D.K.: No.
