Every year at Hall of Fame voting time many Yankee fans across New York resume their favorite cause celebre: pleading their case with anyone who will listen that Don Mattingly belongs in the Hall.
Now, let’s make one thing clear. As a child of the ’80s who grew up loving the Yankees, like many current twentysomething Yankee fans I absolutely adored Don Mattingly. He was, by far, my favorite baseball player, and truthfully, without his awe-inspiring bat anchoring year after year of putrid Yankee lineups it’s quite possible I might not have become the baseball obsessive that I am today.
With that out of the way, I can comfortably say what every statistically-minded fan knows: Donnie Baseball has no business even being considered for the Hall of Fame.
In addition to writing this blog–not to mention reading however many Yankee blogs I can get to on any given day– I participate in a daily group e-mail back-and-forth with 20 or so die-hard Yankee fans (if it hasn’t been made abundantly clear, I obviously can never get enough discussion about the Yankees. I guess this is what happens when you hate football and the Knicks haven’t been enjoyable to watch in a decade–and no, they’re still not fun this year), and my good friend Lenny asked if the stat-driven guys in the group could manipulate the numbers to make a case for Donnie Baseball to the Hall. Lenny is a very knowedgable and passionate Yankee fan, although when it comes to the acceptance of advanced stats he seems to be firmly entrenched in the Jon Heyman school of skepticism.
Here’s what I had to say:
“For a six-year stretch, from 1984 through 1989, Donald Arthur Baseball had a case for best player in baseball. His corresponding OPS+’s were as follows: 156, 156, 161, 146, 128, 133. Remember, anything above 130 is very good; above 140 is superstar; above 150 means you’re among the best hitters in the game.
On a non-stat note, I was among the many thousands of young Yankee fans who grew up idolizing Mattingly. He was my favorite player in the game by far as a youngster.
However, Mattingly’s bad back derailed any chance he’ll ever have at the Hall of Fame. As much as some of the criteria used by the dinosaurs in the BWWAA seems archaic, one unwritten rule of the Hall is that the player has to have been dominant for at least a 10-year stretch, and that’s something I happen to agree with. There are many players who have had five-year periods of outrageous production only to flame out; those players — like Mattingly — belong in the Hall of Very Good.
Unfortunately, D. Baseball just wasn’t elite long enough to make it to the Hall of Fame, despite being the one shining light on a number of very bad Yankee teams. I love Donnie Baseball, but there’s no case for him for the Hall, and I don’t want to see him in there. He doesn’t deserve it.”
Following this, my younger brother Craig, who was obsessed with Danny Tartabull as a young Yankee fan, said that “if Mattingly belongs in the hall then Danny Tartabull should get a look too.”
My gut instinct was to chuckle at that statement, although it’s not quite as off-base as I would’ve initially though. Check it out:
Tartabull’s career OPS+? 133. Mattingly’s? A somewhat surprising 127. They both played 14 seasons.
Tartaball career wOBA? .377. Donald Arthur Baseball? .361.
Not saying it is necessarily so, or that I’m going to make it, but it appears there’s a case to be made for Danny Tartabull actually having a better career than Don Mattingly, despite the fact that almost no Yankee fans would probably ever think or realize that. And you’re never going to see Danny Tartabull’s name turn up on a Hall of Fame ballot.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
9 Responses to Donald Arthur Baseball and the Hall of Fame
Leave a Reply
TIQ IQ
# 1 – I am not skeptical of advanced stats. I just like to poke fun of people who worship them for a plethora of reasons that I won't get into here. I am quite well-versed in numbers, which brings me to my next point.
# 2 – Numbers are easily manipulable, as evidenced by your comparison of Danny Tartabull and Donnie Baseball. My Don Mattingly for HOF comments were mostly tongue-in-cheek; goading the numbers guys to make him look good enough. The fact that it was taken even this far proves to me that stat geeks belong alone in their mother's basement, shielding themselves from the sun at all costs and playing Dungeons and Dragons.
All personal feelings aside, those two shouldn't be in the same conversation. You find a way to bring them into the same conversation; if I cared to do it and spend the time on it, I'd find a way to make Don Mattingly look like Stan Musial. Taking a step back from the ledge, he should always be in the conversation as long as Kirby Puckett is in there (not to mention Bill Mazeroski, Ralph Kiner, et al.).
Also, I think you should reread that article. Jon Heyman is quite adept at using advanced stats. Now if you said Dan Shaugnessy…….
P.S. does my screen name give away my bias?
I agreed that Mattingly is not a HoFer, but that he was amongst the game's best from 84-89, particularly 85-87.
One thing to keep in mind when comparing Mattingly to the likes of Puckett, or Maseroski, or even Tartabull is that it's not a straight apples to apples comparison. Puckett and Maz played valuable defensive positions. Mattingly, while great with the glove, did not. Tartabull was primarily a DH and a lousy corner OFer when he wasn't – Mattingly's defensive prowess is enough to make up for 15 points of wOBA.
Lastly – I can't agree that Mattingly "anchored putrid Yankee lineups". The Yankees had some excellent offensive players in the 80s: Winfield and Henderson were as good or better than Mattingly, and guys like Don Baylor, Jack Clark, and even Willie Randolph put up some pretty good seasons in the Mattingly era. It was always the lack of pitching that did those teams in.
I agree, Matt – I just didn't even want to get deeper in the conversation, but now that you opened the door…..he was a nine-time gold glover and is easily one of the best ever at his position, so that is worth something. Also, Mattingly was in the conversation for best player in the game for 5-6 years running. He was downright dominant. Scary good. He was so good for that period, plus the defensive dominance, plus the fact that his non-peak years were still good – all point to worthy of consideration. That said, I understand why he isn't in there, recognize that my personal feelings are the only reason I'm even having this conversation, and Donnie himself doesn't even think he belongs in there (though there are HoFers who felt the same way about themselves).
Matt,
Definitely agree, and I wasn't trying to say that a straight OPS+ or wOBA comparison was all you have to look at; apologies if I didn't make that clearer.
Just thought the offensive numbers were interesting, and I can't imagine any Yankee fans would've expected Tartabull to show a higher career wOBA than Mattingly prior to looking it up. I sure as hell didn't.
And with "putrid Yankee lineups" I was thinking about the late 80s/early 90s teams more than anything, although a cursory glance shows that they weren't actually that bad, as you point out (although check out the 1990 squad for a good laugh). I think I was moreso letting Alvaro Espinoza and his career .279 OBP cloud my judgment.
That 1990's lineup is hilarious! Jesse Barfield led the Yanks in OPS with a .815! Also, Mattingly punched up a terrible .643 OPS in limited time.
No mention of my brilliant Puckett/Mattingly comparison in this post? How dare you.
Sorry Skip! What better place to make it than in the Comments?
No problem Larry. It wasn't your comparison or any comparison in particular. Just more of a general point to consider when comparing players in HoF debates.
And yes, those post '88 line ups were awful. How the likes Espinosa, Bob Geren (a childhood favorite), and Oscar Azocar were given so many at bats is beyond me. But the pitching was still far worse.
When I think of the "Mattingly era" though I cut it off at '89. He was never the same of the back injury in 90.