Willie Randolph. The obvious one, Mattingly.

What about Munson or Maris?

Ah right. Lots of Yankees on that list of guys people want to see in.
Of them all, I would only agree with Mattingly.

Prediction-Kershaw will be a first ballot HOFer. He has been a dominant superstar by any measure. Sabathia will eventually get in. He is basically a compiler, but was dominant at times earlier in his career.
Also, 3000 strikeouts will eventually lose its ring just as 500 HRs has.
225 will probably end up being the new 300.

Not really sure why people don't think another pitcher will win 300 games. Randy Johnson won 300 games after he turned 25 years old. He's obviously one of the greatest pitchers of all time, but so are the majority of people who won 300 games.

Johnson had a very unusual career trajectory. And I think the trend over time is going to be towards shorter starts meaning fewer decisions.

Probably yes....But not a first ballot, maybe several ballots. I'm pretty sure he has a career ERA of close to 4.00....I dont know many pitchers in the Hall with that high of an ERA

Mattingly, yes....Randolph, no....Just my opinion

Sabathia is an absolute yes for HOF to me. Maybe not first ballot, but he definitely gets in.

In some sense he was a compiler, yes, with only one 20 win season. Yes, the ERA is a little "thick" but he also pitched virtually his entire career in the AL (ex the Milwaukee stint where he went 11-2 with a 1.65 ERA), including through the back half of the steroid era.

Pretty likable guy, seems like a pretty good teammate and he's definitely a gamer.

Being a lefty helps the case, but he seems like a pretty easy choice to me.

advanced metrics like Randolph better believe it or not.

None of these. And if I could, I would kick out a dozen of the marginal players that keep guys like Mattingly in the conversation. He was good, he wasn't great. Just good isn't good enough for even the Hall of Very Good.

FWIW Hall of Stats has Randolph about 50 points higher than Mattingly, who is by their standards utterly mediocre.

No offense Scott, then obviously the metrics SUCK

This shit about WAR and metrics just blows me away. If you were in game 7 of the World Series, bases loaded and down by two and two outs, who would you rather have at bat? Mattingly or Willie Randolph? This is just crazy, no contest

but you don't choose the HOF on one at bat you choose it on a body of work.

So....Randolph and Mattingly are the exact same age, you can get either one of them for the same price. You dont need any positional needs, so you are simply going with the player.....Who do you take?

Mattingley.....307 career batting average, Randolph, .274....Why are we even discussing this?

Give me a break. Randolph never had a season like Mattingly did in 1986 and that's not even the season he won the MVP. The distance between them is huge in my opinion. If not for his injuries, Mattingly would be the guy everyone compared Pujols to.

Yes....People need to realize that there are many variables to being elected to the HOF. Mattingly had them all...Including being a great team leader. Players, coaches loved him. To compare this guy to Willie Randolph is a disgrace, Willie Randolph is in more company with Mickey Rivers than Mattingly

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

If I had to take one for the career they had (not the one they should've had if, but etc.) I take Randolph. But then I'd rather win than look good.

Wow, I give up!:confused:

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

Mattingly had 6 wonderful years for a crap ball club. If he played for the Royals we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. 6 years...

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?

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.

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.

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!!

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

So you would take Randolph over Mattingly?

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.

I posted Munson & Maris to counter the mindset that if any player wore the pinstripes he has an edge to Cooperstown.
There are alot of marginal Yankees that aren't in & have no advantage because they played in the Bronx.

Does Rizzuto get in playing for Phila/KC, or the Browns/Orioles?

Is Munson even in the conversation if he played for Cleveland or Detroit?

I always suspected that Rizzuto got in because Pee Wee Reese was already in.
Rizzuto had a higher BA & won an MVP & was every bit the contemporary.
Would Reese be in if he played w/ the Phillies, Indian's or A's?

I never saw either play, but statistically there is no comparison. Reese was far better than Rizzuto in almost every respect, while Rizzuto played for a more dominant team. I don't think that particular comparison is even very close.

Joe Gordon -- is he in if his whole career was in Cleveland? I doubt it. Lazzeri?

AVG WAR of a HOF is 59.3

AVG WAR of 2010-2019 BBWAA = 73.2
AVG WAR of 2010-2019 VETS = 49.6
2010-2019 Combined AVG = 68.5

The HOF is actually....watering up? Getting concentrated? People forget that the "watering down" of the HOF started VERY early, so at this point it's actually reversing. We used to get Harold Baines level bad selections from the vets all the time.

I always pulled for Gordon. He was, at least according to Bill James, defensively great last I looked. Allegedly had real good range. I didn't see him play and don't know. Who are the great 2B's in the HOF? Lajoie, Collins, Frisch, Hornsby, Gehringer, Robinson, Morgan. Biggio and Carew for part of their careers. Alomar? Maz was defensively the best as I understand it.

Pretty small group. I don't have a problem with McPhee, Herman, Lazzeri, Gordon, Doerr, Schoendienst, Fox, or Sandberg. Evers I question.

Buddy Myers was pretty much a Herman clone. Jeff Kent was pretty good, at least offensively, for a while. He gets no love. I could maybe see Whitaker. I loved Frank White, but he has no chance. Randolph either IMO. Who else?

I think you hit everyone I can think of. Current players you have Cano, Utley, Pedroia in similar territory I think.
Oh, you forgot Grich. He ranks very high with the metrics, top 10.

Rizzuto couldn't hold Pee Wee's Jock. He was the third best NY Short Stop, just Alvin Dark didn't play his whole career with the Giants.

My problem with Gordon is I don't see him as particularly superior to Vern Stephens, who played all around the infield instead of just at 2nd, but if one is in the other belongs.

Just double checked and he only played short and third, mainly short, so a middle infielder but not a 2b.

Vern Stephens is vastly underrated IMO. I could very much support him because he was offensively a massive player in the '50s. How many SS's have led the league in HR's or RBi's? Banks, Wagner, George Davis (dunno how much SS he played that year) and Dahlen are who I can think of that did one or the other. It could easily be argued that he was the best shortstop of the late '40 to mid '50s, but no one even knows who he is now, which is beyond pathetic. He got a nod for the Veteran's Committee once, I believe, and that was it. He was a force back then and it is really too bad he gets no love. I have, I think, all of his mainstream cards because I'm a fan.

What a quote! lol

Career stats of the two are very similar. Rizzuto won three major awards and was second in MVP voting once. Reese won no major awards. Also, Phil had just a few more championship rings. However, I see them both as borderline HOFers at best.

Reese: WAR - 66.3; AB- 8058; H- 2178; Hr - 126; BA - .269; R - 1338; RBI - 885; SB - 232; OBP - .366; SLG - .377; OPS - .743. 10 AS games.

Rizzuto: WAR - 40.8; AB - 5816; H - 1588; HR - 38; BA - .273; R - 873; RBI - 563; SB - 149; OBP - .351; SLG - .355; OPS - .706. 5 AS games.

Both were leaders. No dispute about that. Both lost 3 years to WWII. And I have no problem with either of them being in. But in a blind taste test, which one do you take? IMO, that's an easy call and it isn't the Scooter.

Live ball era leader in career ERA (by a LOT) , already has more great seasons than Koufax. He's a no-brainer.

Kenny—I agree at first glance (and maybe second) Reese’s stats look better. He had over 1/3 more ABs, so Hits/yr are about the same. Reese hit for a little more power, although neither would be confused with a home run hitter. Rizzuto won a slew of rings and Pee Wee, near the end of his career, won one. Rizzuto was an MVP and runner up MVP. Reese was never the bride or the bridesmaid. Not that it should matter but Phil was an American institution. I never heard Pee Wee on a Meat Loaf album. He was the most entertaining broadcaster I ever heard and was the nicest guy ever in person. i’ll take Phil every day if the week and twice on Sunday.

My vote on CC is no. 9 seasons of 3.90 or higher ERA. Yeah, he's got 250 wins but he got there by averaging 8 wins a year since 2013.

Not a terrible selection but no.

Maybe, but he did play a major role in arguably the greatest rock & roll song of all time!


Steve