Is CC Sabathia a Hall of Famer?

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It seems Mattingly and Garvey are the two players with the biggest gap between perception and the metrics. They really cream Joe Carter too.

Surely you're not comparing Mattingly with Garvey are you? And don't call me surely!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Surely you're not comparing Mattingly with Garvey are you? And don't call me surely!

Garvey had 200 hits what, 6 times? 10 time all star. .294 BA. MVP and a 2nd place. 4 Gold Gloves. The metrics HATE him. BR ranks him 51st at 1B.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Garvey had 200 hits what, 6 times? 10 time all star. .294 BA. MVP and a 2nd place. 4 Gold Gloves. The metrics HATE him. BR ranks him 51st at 1B.

Pete, not disgracing Garvey, only trying to heighten how good Mattingly was....Having said that, who would you rather have at identical ages?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Pete, not disgracing Garvey, only trying to heighten how good Mattingly was....Having said that, who would you rather have at identical ages?

I'd give a slight edge to Mattingly, but let's not forget if you watched baseball in the 70s, it was accepted wisdom that Garvey was one of the elite players in the game.

[JollyElm]

This is why people trotting out 'advanced' (um...theoretical) metrics like WAR drives me frickin' bananas. Anyone watching him play back in the day KNEW Garvey was the man. And I hated the Dodgers!!

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I'd give a slight edge to Mattingly, but let's not forget if you watched baseball in the 70s, it was accepted wisdom that Garvey was one of the elite players in the game.

Yes, he was.....Loved his forearms!!

[Kenny Cole]

The only thing I will say about the "advanced metrics" is that they seem to change fairly regularly. I tend to go with my eye test at at least as much: if I watched a large portion of their career and thought they were elite then, that is important to me -- maybe more so than the "advanced stats" that people tout.

I grew up with Garvey. Never really cared for him as a person but always thought he was a pretty exceptional baseball player. Same with Mattingly: I viewed him then, and still do as pretty much the same as Kirby Puckett. One is in, one is out. They played at the same time, in the same league. One was beloved by the writers (at the time) and had an injury that ended his career. One had an injury that derailed his career. Puckett had a higher career WAR because he quit when he was injured, had more SBs. He had fewer HRs, slightly fewer RBIs, etc., than Mattingly. In my view, they were pretty comparable, both then and now. I frankly think that both of them are probably questionable. But I certainly don't think one was substantially better than the other. I am sure that the current "advanced metrics" will disagree, but I don't really care, because the metrics will say something different in a few more years as they "advance" some more.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Willie Randolph is worth MUCH more as a second baseman as opposed to his contemporaries than Mattingly was as a first baseman compared to his. If Mattingly is easier to replace, than Randolph is obviously the better value. If Mattingly's whole career was like those 6 years it would be a different story, but unless your name is Koufax 6 years ain't enough to get you into the hall. Mattingly was barely a replacement level player the remainder of his career.

I'm not some kid (I'm sneaking up on 50) who thinks metrics are the only thing that counts. However there are baseball people a lot smarter than me who have certainly demonstrated that you ignore them at your peril if you want to win baseball games.

That being said you don't have to go deep into esoteric stats to understand that the value of Randolph's career is greater than that of Mattingly's. Randolph helped his team for almost the entirety of an 18 year career. Mattingly was a dead average producer at 1b except for that 6 year peak

We belong to two groups who will just never agree on these things, so I guess I'll give up too. After I snarkily point out that I have lots of company in the front offices of major league baseball teams that win.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Willie Randolph is worth MUCH more as a second baseman as opposed to his contemporaries than Mattingly was as a first baseman compared to his. If Mattingly is easier to replace, than Randolph is obviously the better value. If Mattingly's whole career was like those 6 years it would be a different story, but unless your name is Koufax 6 years ain't enough to get you into the hall. Mattingly was barely a replacement level player the remainder of his career.

I'm not some kid (I'm sneaking up on 50) who thinks metrics are the only thing that counts. However there are baseball people a lot smarter than me who have certainly demonstrated that you ignore them at your peril if you want to win baseball games.

That being said you don't have to go deep into esoteric stats to understand that the value of Randolph's career is greater than that of Mattingly's. Randolph helped his team for almost the entirety of an 18 year career. Mattingly was a dead average producer at 1b except for that 6 year peak

We belong to two groups who will just never agree on these things, so I guess I'll give up too. After I snarkily point out that I have lots of company in the front offices of major league baseball teams that win.

So you would take Randolph over Mattingly?