HOF expansion era ballot

[Bigdaddy]

LaRussa and Cox, and Garvey.

From the mid 70's to the mid 80's, who would you take at 1st base over Garvey?? Stargell - past his prime and already a HOFer; Perez - see Stargell; Chambliss - no; E Murray - didn't start until the late 70's; Hernandez - good glove, but not quite. For a 10 year span, Garvey was the best first baseman in MLB.

[brewing]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

LaRussa and Cox, and Garvey.

From the mid 70's to the mid 80's, who would you take at 1st base over Garvey?? Stargell - past his prime and already a HOFer; Perez - see Stargell; Chambliss - no; E Murray - didn't start until the late 70's; Hernandez - good glove, but not quite. For a 10 year span, Garvey was the best first baseman in MLB.

I disagree that he was the best for a 10 span. A case can be made he was the best in 1975 and 1976, but for all other years someone was better. 1977 on, Murray was better



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[parker1b2]

I would vote for Cox and possibly Torre. I don't think any of the players deserve it, they were great players but not HOFers IMO. In the mid 80s I would have rather had Mattingly over Garvey.

[djson1]

I still don't understand why Garvey and Mattingly are NOT in while other guys are (I won't mention them here). What were the reasons again? I remember in the '80s broadcasters would talk about how they thought Garvey was a shoe-in...same with Mattingly. What happened after they retired? Were the memories not that great? (and don't tell me it had to do with Garvey's illegitimate kids).

[UnVme7]

Originally Posted by djson1

I still don't understand why Garvey and Mattingly are NOT in while other guys are (I won't mention them here). What were the reasons again? I remember in the '80s broadcasters would talk about how they thought Garvey was a shoe-in...same with Mattingly. What happened after they retired? Were the memories not that great? (and don't tell me it had to do with Garvey's illegitimate kids).

It all comes down to numbers. If you look at Mattingy's and compare them to guys in the HOF that played his position, or even not his position, his numbers just aren't quite good enough.

Mattingly was a good ball player, but not a HOF'er in my book. He just didn't play long enough.

[Exhibitman]

Mattingly loses not because of the career he had but because of the career he did not have. His overall stats are strikingly similar to Kirby Puckett's but Mattingly had two careers. He was a god of batting--the next DiMaggio--until he hurt his back, then he became a very good player. I think that hurts his voting totals. It is better to burn out than fade away when it comes to HOF voting.

[packs]

I don't know why Mattingly isn't in either. The HOF has inducted players with brief dominance and promise who suffered major injuries before.

Dizzy Dean would be a good example. He had 4 dominating seasons before an injury took his career.

From 1984 to 1987 Donnie Baseball was the premier player in the American League. He averaged 30 homers, 121 rbis and a .336 average over his peak. Had he not gotten hurt, I don't think there's any doubt he was a HOFer.

He should get in for the quality of player that he was. Not because of his career numbers.