Joe Posnanski

First comment!!

Setting aside PEDs, why is Kevin Brown obviously not a Hall of Famer?

My question regarding Blyleven versus Schilling getting into the Hall of fame is about their relationship’s with the media. Please correct me if I am wrong but, wasn’t Blyleven perceived as un-friendly to the media? Schilling is a media darling with all the quotes and demonstrative opinions which, along with his two World Series performances, will get him in the Hall of Fame, in my opinion. His numbers are not Hall of Fame numbers but, his ability to provide great quotes and plenty of great stories will push him over the finish line while the lack of allies in the media will keep Blyleven out.

Joe!

That is a pretty bogus comparison of Mattingly and Jackie. Take a look at their best 7 full time years:

Mattingly - .322 / .376 / .520, 144 OPS+
Jackie R - .322 / .419 / .497, 142 OPS+

The OPS+ were calculated using a simple weighted average based upon plate appearances.

I don’t think it fair to count the tail end of Mattingly’s career when he was a shell of his former self. Robinson himself only had 8 seasons when he played in 120 games.

Geez, this one isn’t all that hard, even for HOF voters. I mean, if the Steroids Era did ANYTHING, it should have pounded into the voters’ heads the notion that raw numbers cannot be examined without the context in which they were compiled. Many of them are even using that argument already against Mark McGwire, and in favor of guys like Andre Dawson.

Well, okay, just follow that thought to its logical conclusion, fellas, and use the neutralize stats feature on Baseball-Reference.com before you compare two guys from different eras. All it is is a handy (and free) compilation of just about every traditional baseball stat ever compiled, and since it’s computer-based, it can perform some basic neutralization calculations with no trouble whatsoever. Seems like a tool HOF voters might be interested in using, but what do I know?

Anyway, using this handy tool that all HOF voters should have set as their Internet Explorer home pages long ago, we find that the neutral stats for Schilling and Morris are thus:

Schilling: 224-141, .614 Win Pct, 3202 K’s, 3.15 ERA, 1.08 WHIP
Morris: 229-204, .529 Win Pct., 2579 K’s, 3.82 ERA, 1.28 WHIP

If that’s not convincing enough, how about this one: Schilling’s teams won 59.2% of his career starts. Morris’ won 57.3%. And, in case you’re all wondering, Schilling compiled this record with WORSE teams. During Schilling’s years, his teams posted a combined .487 winning percentage in all games he didn’t start. For Morris, his teams had a .531 winning percentage in games he didn’t start. In other words, Schilling’s teams were about 22% more likely to win on days he pitched while Morris’ teams were about 8% more likely to win when he took the mound.

Pretty much a no contest.

If people continue to use Wins as a HOF credential, then they should start using Wins for position players, too.

If there needs to be a real discussion, the guy isn’t a hall of famer. Schilling was awesome. 5 years from now, he’ll remain awesome, except he’ll be seen as awesome outside the scope of the HoF.

Remember when Edgar Martinez retired and everybody picked him to be a no-doubt HoF’er? What are the odds he gets in now? When he’s considered in ‘09, I bet he doesn’t catch as much praise. Same will go for Schill. Great players of their generation, not every generation.

But Morris would be the 3rd guy from St. Paul in the HOF (Winfield, Molitor). That would be cool. Has to count for something.

I rarely mention other posters in comment threads but I must say Blackadder cracked me up. Kevin Brown. Hall of Fame. Just saying those two things one after the other is hilarious.

And Mike’s summary - “I guess the point is… Jackie’s baseball skill is somewhat overrated”. Now that’s stating an opinion with confidence. An opinion I don’t share BTW. But okay.

Anyway, humor aside - IMO - (and I find Schilling’s public persona to be very annoying) - Schilling’s amazing post season performances allow him to be considered for the Hall. I haven’t checked the record books but I daresay he has one of the best winning percentages of pitchers in post season history with 12 or more decisions. He pitched in the steroid era and though he might have played second fiddle to Randy and Pedro as a brilliant poster pointed out above - we must remember that Randy and Pedro and both arguably top ten pitchers of ALL TIME. Not a bad second fiddle to play.

Yes, I knew that OBP gap was huge when I made the original comparison Joe. The other numbers are very close, and the OPS+ is very comparable.

They both also had shortened careers, as Mattingly’s back forced him to be very mediocre after 1989. This was the original impetus for the comparison and I don’t think I even mentioned it. His line is .323/.385/.521 in the 8 years before his back flared up. Robinson played for 10 with 2 crappy years at the end of his career.

For what Jackie accomplished, he definitely deserves the honor. I just get the feeling that had Jackie been 2nd into the leagues he would barely be mentioned. Or maybe it would have taken him 26 extra years to get into the HOF like Doby, who had an OPS+ of 136, finally did in 1998, 27 years after he retired. Or if we were voting on this stat line today, somebody would make the asinine remark “this isn’t the hall of very good.”

responding to MIKE’s point about it being more difficult to win GG when you’re not as good at the plate…wouldn’t that mean it’s easier to win GG when you’re outstanding at the plate? perhaps mattingly won a few he didn’t deserve because of the attention brought to him by his offensive stats? playing in new york didnt hurt either, of course.

Hmmm…. I’ve always made the emotional case for Jack Morris to be in the Hall, in part because it isn’t “The Hall of Guys Who Finished in the Top Three in Very Important Statistical Categories for Seven to Ten Years.” Winning does count for something (and I don’t mean the number of victories a pitcher earns - I mean being The Man on a Winner. Or One of A Few Men on a Winner. It’s the only way you can justify about a third of the Yankees being in the Hall.)

Of course you need high-end numbers to go along with it, but I think these other factors need to be considered. All of that said, you finally broke it down for me - Jack Morris doesn’t belong in the Hall.

[I]That is a pretty bogus comparison of Mattingly and Jackie. Take a look at their best 7 full time years:

Mattingly - .322 / .376 / .520, 144 OPS+
Jackie R - .322 / .419 / .497, 142 OPS+[/I]

Jackie’s 7 best full time years started at the age of 28, Mattingly’s started at the age of 23. That’s a HUGE difference there. Give Jackie those 5 years that he couldn’t have because he was black and this argument is laughable. Well it is already laughable but it would be laughabler.

@ Drew

Yes, it is a difference, but really, we can only go by what they did on the field. Obviously, taking everything into consideration, Robinson is deserving of HOF. I was originally trying to argue the point that the stats aren’t similar.

@ BE EARL
And I COMPLETELY agree on the Puckett comparison.

Justin - that’s ridiculous. I’m 5′7″ on a good day. I assure you, my physical limitations have a far bigger negative impact on my ability to play professional basketball than anything Bill Russell ever had to deal with in Boston. Maybe Mattingly was a wuss, or maybe he had a crippling condition that would have left a lesser man playing shuffleboard by his 32nd birthday. My point is, we don’t know.

I also tried to explain how Mattingly earned the GG’s DESPITE his offensive performance, winning them in years in which his lines were:

.288/9/68
.288/14/86
.291/17/86
.304/6/51

Really, the voters were rewarding offensive prowess?

I don’t mean to downplay Jackie’s accomplishments or the adversity he overcame. But the belief that what he had to deal with was “harder” than what other players have had to deal with is unfounded, even if it makes us feel progressive and empathetic.

Amen Mike! If he didn’t like it, let ‘em go pick cotton! Are you with me?

To reader Lou

The fact that a GG caliber 2nd baseman has basically the same OPS+ as a 1st baseman (albeit also GG caliber) is an argument for Jackie being more worthy for the HOF than Mattingly. How many second baseman have a 7 year stretch like that?
Another thing that a lot of people don’t point out is how big missing those early years are for Jackie. The man didn’t play until he was 28 years old when most players start their decline and while his first two seasons his OPS was 111 and 118, I think that having those early years he might have been at least league average or maybe better, with most likely, better defense.
As an aside, looking at the numbers he put up between 30-35, Jackie was a beast of an older player.

Really, the voters were rewarding offensive prowess?

No, inertia.

Seriously, once a player starts winning Gold Gloves, he becomes pretty hard to displace. See, for instance, Rafael Palmeiro - whose 28 games at 1b were sufficient to win in 1999. In other words, the voters thought he was so good a fielder in 1999, that he deserved to win a Gold Glove despite playing only 28 games in the field. His team, OTH, thought so little of his fielding that they thought he only merited 28 games at 1B.

Besides, you don’t think voters looked at Donny Baseball’s declining numbers and thought, hell, he *must* be a good fielder if the Yankees kept throwing him out at 1B despite Pete Rose-like anemia with the bat.

If you want to talk about Mattingly and Jackie, the question is this simple:

Where does Jackie Robinson rank among all-time second basemen?

Where does Don Mattingly rank among all-time first basemen?

It’s really not “just a position”. The difference between playing an up-the-middle position and a corner position (especially first base, regardless of Mattingly’s prowess) is enormous. Would Ozzie Smith have even made the major leagues if he played first base? You may be able to make a case that he would, but it would have been an awfully close call.

And just to throw this out there, in the latest Bill James Historical Abstract I have lying around (and he’s spent a lot more time looking at this stuff than I have), he ranks Don Mattingly as the #12 first baseman of all-time. That’s fantastic. He misses the top 10, sure, but #12 is very solid. Jackie comes in at #4 among second basemen.

Was Mattingly a poor player? No. And that’s why he’s constantly discussed in the “hall of fame snub” conversations. A little more longevity to his career, and he’d have had a shot at the hall. It didn’t help him, either, that in the very same city there was another first baseman who was racking up the gold gloves and riding an OBP around .400, and for a winning team, no less.

Mattingly was a damn fine first baseman, nobody would say otherwise. But let’s not sell Jackie short, and say he wasn’t really all that special. The guy was without question among the absolute best second basemen the game has seen, and saying he’s only a hall of famer because he broke the color barrier is as embarrassing and ignorant as saying Ripken’s only a hall of famer because of the streak, another often heard and inaccurate argument.

I expect Joe to be cited by Schilling when he writes a self-serving blog post on the Hall of Fame. Something along the lines of….
“Man, I’ll tell you guys, I really couldn’t care less about the Hall of Fame. Everyone on the street keeps telling me how I am a no doubter, but I have to remind them that that isn’t why I played. I played to win, and oh man did I win when it counts. The guy who I think has the most credibility when it comes to the Hall of Fame, Joe Posnanski, thinks that I was more clutch than Jack Morris, how about that. I could even pitch with a bloody sock. Try that Roger. But back to the point. I have three rings, so what does it matter if I make the Hall of Fame, it doesn’t really matter to me. I played to win, have you seeen my post-season numbers? Yeah, I bet they stack up pretty well to some of the guys in the Hall, but oh well, if I make it I make it, but I’m not obsessing over it. I mean I don’t really care either way because I know that I pitched in a hitters era, but it doesn’t matter to me………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..I pitched my best when it mattered most, but oh well, what is the Hall of Fame without a three time World Series Champ”

“That is a pretty bogus comparison of Mattingly and Jackie. Take a look at their best 7 full time years:

Mattingly - .322 / .376 / .520, 144 OPS+
Jackie R - .322 / .419 / .497, 142 OPS+”

The diffence in value between a first baseman with a 144 OPS+ and and second baseman with a 142 OPS+ is substantial. Factor in the fact that Robinson has a reputation (probably fairly deserved) as one of the greatest baserunners in history, and it ain’t too close.

Am I the only one here that remembers that Robinson played 1B at the beginning of his MLB career? He won the first Rookie of the Year (an award now named for him) in 1947 for a Dodger team that had Stanky at 2B.

Yeah, but on XM the other day I heard the expert argument that essentially said this: “Jack Morris would pitch great for 6 innings, then with his team safely ahead he would just throw (lob, underhand?) fastballs over the plate thereby explaining his inflated ERA and lack of strikeouts.”

I don’t find Jack Morris to be a HoF pitcher, nor do I find Schilling worthy either.

Don’t get me wrong by being a bitter Yankee fan (for both 01 and 04) who is enamored with your love for Donnie Baseball. But pitching is an entirely different criteria when it comes to the hall. If DIzzy Dean can go in only win 150 games and make it in why not Schilling right? I feel it’s wrong, Dizzy won 30 games in a year. Schilling’s best is 23. Schilling wasn’t even the best pitcher in the game when he was at his pinnacle, which, just to remind everyone, lasted only about 5 (98-02) years.

For a pitcher to make it to the hall it’s either going to take Johan Santana-like dominance where you’re undoubted as the Cy Young winner for half a decade. How many Cy Young’s does Schill have?

Now you have all the reason you need to see why he’s not HoF worthy.

Mike-

In fact, there is absolutely data that can be used to look at historical fielding information. Fielding Runs Above Average are a pretty reasonable way of looking at things, and they can be adjusted to take ballpark, league, and era into account, so you get a fairly apples-to-apples comparison. Jackie Robinson’s career adjusted FRAA is 109, not all of which was accumulated at second base (note that Jackie played a fair amount of third base and outfield). Mattingly’s FRAA come in at 40, in a substantially longer career. Part of this can be attributed to the fact that a first baseman’s fielding value is intrinsically lower, but given that Mattingly showed several seasons with a negative FRAA, it’s entirely likely that to some degree his fielding prowess was overstated. I remember that in his time, Mattingly was considered a very good fielder, and it’s reasonable to think that the statistics don’t necessarily show everything (though it’s worth noting that his cross-town rival Keith Hernandez had a career FRAA of 88, and only one season (his rookie) with a negative FRAA). But to say that there’s no way of ever knowing if Robinson was a good fielder or not is simply not accurate.

Remember when Abbott threw that no-hitter? I couldn’t believe how many jeers he had to endure from all the two-handed people in the stands! They were all yelling, “Give up a hit, you damn [socially relevant insult]!” I mean, what a freak!

Robinson was hated, maligned, threatened, battered, assaulted, and more. You’re citing blisters. Seriously, who wasn’t rooting for Jim Abbott?

Subjective would be technically correct, in that it is my opinion that life-threats and daily assaults (not to mention the scrutiny of the nation, and the hopes of a race) can be more stressful than blisters. But only the truly progressive can misuse “subjective” to such a degree that the incredibly obvious is meaningless because it isn’t factual.

Welcome to the world of today, where common sense is ignored and all relevant thoughts must be notarized.

2 different Mike’s too…

and BTW, am I the only one here that thinks comparing someone who played 40 years later stupid??

The adversity that Robinson went through and still having what we can only take as a borderline HoF career (through comparison with Mattingly being so close, yet far) numbers made him worthy?

The average OPS+ of gold glove winners since 2000 is 116.7, and that’s with Brad Ausmus and Mike Matheny dragging things down. So, yeah, there’s probably some correlation to offense and gold gloves (See Jeter, Derek).

If you want the spreadsheet of my quick-and-dirty, let me know and I’ll email it to someone who can do something more with these numbers.

Dan, that’s incredibly interesting. You’d expect the opposite, right? (we’ll call it the Adam Everett postulate). If you contribute a ton on the field, you don’t have to be nearly as good with the bat.

I’m not sure I understand the methodology of FRAA - we may have play-by-play data back into the 50’s, but we certainly don’t have zone data, which is about the best way of figuring out someone’s glove skill these days (and still far from perfect).

Speaking of Jim Abbott, how did he ever get two hits (in 1999 with the Brewers)? Did he just hold the bat with his left hand and swing it one-handed? Did he lay down a bunt?

He got 3 RBI with only 2 hits, so they both couldn’t have been bunt hits, right?

“If people continue to use Wins as a HOF credential, then they should start using Wins for position players, too.”

Oh God, please don’t give them any ideas. I can already see the Kevin Kiernan articles entitled “Nobody Wins as many games as Derek Jeter!”

Haven’t read through the comments so I don’t know if this has been mentioned before.

But don’t forget that Robinson played first base his first season in the majors and played 197 games at first overall.

(His BR page also indicates he played 256 games at 3B as well as well as significant time in the outfield)

Robinson wasn’t much of a one position player so I think we can make the comparison that Mattingly was better defensively. Which could arguably swing back some of the OBP in his direction.

OK… Mattingly is looked at as a borderline HOF guy; peak people like him all right, career people laugh in his face. He won’t get in. Jackie was (at worst) just as good as a hitter, a better baserunner, and played a far more demanding position (and very well, according to Win Shares). He might not have made the Hall of Fame if he didn’t break the color line, but he’d definitely have deserved to.

Incidentally, 132 is Joe Morgan’s career OPS+. Yeah, it has early career and decline phase in it. Ryne Sandberg is at 114, Charlie Gehringer 124, Frankie Frisch 111. Jackie was a better hitter than all of those guys, and played the same position. So yeah, he’s a Hall of Famer on baseball playing merit, and easily.

This from literally 1 minute of “research”

“Then a few hits came, a few stolen bases and some fine fielding plays at first, a position he had never experienced before. The racists sent the hate mail, screamed from the stands and called out obscenities over an anonymous hotel telephone. That’s the way it had always been for blacks, hooded men in the night, rarely one on one in reasoned discussion about who it was that made people white or black after all.

Things got hot when the Dodgers played in Cincinnati, a southern border town with a history of antagonistic attitudes toward people of color. One death threat letter came into the clubhouse. When Robinson took the field that day his shortstop and captain, the previously mentioned Mr. Reese, sauntered over to him, put his arm over his shoulder and talked for a few seconds the way pals often do. No big deal. No extreme measure. Nobody in the press box screaming “stop the presses.”

“That meant so much, so much,” Jackie Robinson told me years later. “It was just a kind and incredible gesture.”

http://www.evesmag.com/robinson.htm

Mike, exactly.

While it’s not totally unbelievable to guess that fantastic athletes would be good both at the plate and in the field - Albert Pujols is widely considered the best defensive first baseman in the game and I can’t find any argument with that - there have got to be some players out there only making a ML roster due to their fielding skills, a la Chris Gomez of the 90s Padres.

Without really getting into it, was Aaron Rowand really in the top three best defensive outfielders in baseball last year? Or was his GG a result of the broken nose fence run and his career-high flukey 123 OPS+?

One thing we all forget - Don Mattingly is in the Fantasy Baseball Hall of Fame.

Sandberg and Lou Whitaker are pretty comparable though.

Yup.

A: 276/366/426 116 OPS+
B: 285/344/452 114 OPS+

Since Sandberg is player B and Sweet Lou player A, so it’s pretty damn puzzling how Sandberg is elected to the HOF on his 3rd try, while Sweet Lou fell off the ballot in his very first year of eligibility (meaning he got less than 5%!!).

When you see stuff like this, it’s tough to resist the urge to attribute skin colour to it.

Sandberg’s peak is higher, and their career values are pretty even. Whitaker was just absurdly consistent, plus he was a middle infielder who could hit, but never had a superstar-looking year. He’s the kind of player you’d expect the writers to miss.

@James

Re: Puckett. maybe, but I don’t see voters using defense at CF vs 1B as a big sticking point. If anything, Mattingly’s 9 would count higher with the standard voter than Puckett’s 6.

I think it comes down to WS titles and the fact Puckett left on a high note (.314 / .379 / .515) and he still had play left in him. Where Mattingly was struggling to keep a job.

For the record, I called no one a bigot. I was responding to being called “progressive” for showing empathy for someone who has suffered at the hands of bigotry, and I wrote that there is nothing particularly progressive about that, nothing more.

Thinking more about it, I would think the best examples I can come up with are those players that have dealt with addictions during their careers. Addictions are a funny thing: the liberal among us will want to label it a disease, and forgive the victim of any responsibility. Obviously, there will be many that will disagree.

Yet I know of no one who is not rooting for Josh Hamilton. Strawberry and Gooden certainly had their supporters. Even Steve Howe seemed to have more people for him than against him, all the way to the end.

And even if people were to root against these guys, it would be for at least an arguable reason. I just can’t think of a single person that was dealt with any significant abuse for no good reason at all.

I didn’t read all of this. But, Mike Lowell was just thrown out trying to steal 2nd in the top of the 9th against the Rays when trailing by 1 run. Can someone explain this to me?

Varitek at the plate, Lowell (1 SB on the year) on first and they try to steal to get in scoring position? If you’re going to run, you have to pinch run. If not, hold tight and look for a freaking gapper or bomb. Jesus H. Christ, looks like Francona’s just giving up.

This comment has basically nothing to do with this post or the millions of comments. It’s more a question as a result of the poll.

Why does Hank Aaron not get more love from fans?

He was an incredible hitter. Not just a power hitter. The guy is third on the all-time hits list. His name is up there on almost every statistical measure of hitting.

He put up with more racial pressure than any player except Jackie Robinson as he took down a beloved record. And unlike Barry… people actually rooted for him.

I love Ted Williams’ swing, his mystique, even his persona in the media. I get that he sacrificed prime years to the millitary and that he was one of the greatest pure hitters ever. But how does he exceed Hank Aaron by so much in people’s minds?

I take Hank Aaron immediately after Ruth and Mays. I just wish The Hammer got more pub.

“When I visited Cooperstown (admittedly several years back), there was an exhibit that discussed Morris’ 10-inning masterpiece with the Twins. That one game shouldn’t also get a plaque in the Hall.”

Or maybe it could be exhibited alongside the bloody sock.

Some mention was made regarding what Bill Russell went through during his early years in Boston. I’m sure it was difficult, but it wasn’t much compared with what Neil Johnston went through dealing with Russell. Now that was tribulation.

Mike, I think the whole point is that with Jackie Robinson, numbers don’t tell the whole story. His numbers were great, HOF worthy, but when you take in the whole picture his career is that much more impressive.
We’re not guessing that Jackie Robinson had a more difficult life in baseball than Don Mattingly, Josh Beckett or Rocco Baldelli. It’s not guesswork. Jackie Robinson DID have it much, much, much more difficult than any of these guys.
I don’t necessarily think you’re a bigot, just ignorant.

Mikey, I did not call you a bigot. You wrote “empathy,” and I rephrased it as “ashamed of bigotry.” I meant them to be synonymous, meaning I meant to call you the same thing you called yourself.

Your argument has evolved to the point that I have nothing to disagree with anymore. I have no idea how Robinson’s situation affected his play. As he was such a great player and handled everything with such dignity, I would guess probably not at all. Feel free to leave out the circumstances when evaluating him against other players.

I found many of the metaphors and words you used in reaching this point perplexing, but in the end I agree with the point.

Robinson was #2 on my list. I feel he was likely every bit the player he could be, that he used all of his talent, and in doing so, thus one of maybe the top 30 or so players in the game. I bump him all the way to #2, because he so easily could have been–really should have been–a colossal failure.

These metaphors do not hold water. Gaedel got out of his talent way more than what he was capable of. Gaedel’s only reason for having a baseball-reference page is the reason you claim prevented him from being a major leaguer. You’ve gotten it completely backwards.

Players who overcome physical factors outside their control do get credit for overcoming adversity. They don’t generally get as much credit as Robinson does, but I think that’s appropriate.

Robinson deserves extra credit because his success or failure had implications far beyond his own career. If Jim Abbott had never pitched in the big leagues, or was a complete failure at the major league level, his failure would not have set back the progress of disabled people generally.

If Abbott had gone into the stands and taken a punch at a heckler, it wouldn’t have been taken as evidence that disabled people are violent and dangerous. If anything, if Abbott had gone after a heckler ten other guys probably would have jumped in to help Abbott beat the sh*t out of the guy.

I don’t think it diminishes the accomplishment of people who have overcome physical challenges to say that Robinson’s circumstances were profoundly different. Obviously you don’t agree but the results of Joe’s poll suggest that a lot of pretty smart baseball fans see it that way.

Matt… we are on such different wavelengths, it’s comical. If a guy got way more than he should have, and “way more” is a grand total of 1 PA, wouldn’t you say that what he dealt with was more detrimental to his career than what Jackie dealt with? I’d love to cite little Joey Smith out in Anywhere, USA, who never made it due to his size, his eyes, his injuries, his alcoholic father, or whatever, but I don’t know any examples of those guys because… they never made it! I won’t take up any more space on this site in this topic because it’s counterproductive and not our site, but it’s been fun chatting with you guys. See you in the comments of another post

Glavine definitely, Pettitte possibly, and Halladay is way too early to be discussed (he’s only 31, and 120-61), although I’m wondering who the heck Halladay is behind, unless you’re predicting great things for Dustin McGowan or Jesse Litsch.

Hulk Hogan is the greatest athelete of this or any generation… Joe please write a piece on the Hulkster and Hulkamania…

“When you see stuff like this, it’s tough to resist the urge to attribute skin colour to it.”

I think there are very very very few writers in the BBWAA that are racist, to the extent that it would affect their vote.

I also think that there are very very few writers in the BBWAA that actually have a brain and the ability to look up a statistic.

The latter is far more responsible for crazy HoF entries and rejections than the former.

Jon… a little late here, and the discussion has apparently moved on to who did or didn’t call someone a bigot. But Jackie’s positional versatility was a huge asset to the Dodgers, not something that should bring him closer to Mattingly. Jackie played first when he came up, because second was taken; he moved to second a couple years later, making room for Gil Hodges, then moved to left and third to make room for Jim Gilliam. Because he could play so many positions well, the Dodgers were able to work less-versatile but still-talented players into the lineup alongside him. Mattingly (and most people) don’t offer their teams that option.

Another historical example is Pete Rose moving to third, allowing George Foster and Ken Griffey Sr. to both play regularly over an inferior player (Denis Menke? Someone like that). But that gets into Joe’s territory…

I read something here a few days ago that crystallized my reservations about this whole numbers/HOF approach. The words used were “larger than life” and “transcendant”.

The HOF should be reserved for the Legends of the Game. And you are legendary when you are “larger than life”, when you are “transcendant.” It’s the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of Numbers. If Reggie Jackson gets 50 fewer HRs, doesn’t he still get in? He was Reggie Freakin’ Jackson. He was a legend, people told stories about the things he did. he got a candy bar named after him (and it may have been a AAA Baby Ruth, but I liked ‘em). For me, it was seeing Frank Robinson hit grand slams in his first two ABs (OK, it WAS vs. the Senators) and doubling in his third at bat for 10 RBI in a game. Or seeing him dive into the RF stands in Yankee Stadium with two out and the winning run at the plate to save the game for the Orioles in 1966 (all you could see was his legs, then he raised his glove with the ball in it).

By that standard, the Reggies, the WIllies, the Mickeys, the Franks and the Brookses, the Cals, they go in. Yeah, there’s a certain level you needed to play at for a certain period. But just like it took a Joe DiMaggio to hit in 56 straight games, if you were larger than life, if you transcended the game, you’ve already got that.

So for me, Schilling is an HOFer, and I don’t think it’s close. He was among the best, and he did legendary stuff like the bloody sock game and beating the Yankees in AZ. He led the Sawx to their first WC since before the Russian Revolution.

And I remember Jack Morris’ 91 WS G7 vs ATL. He was AWESOME. I’m not a fan, but that game made me an admirer. He would not lose that game, period. If I had a vote, he’d get it.*

Blyleven would not. No moments I’d tell my imaginary grandkids about. If he was HOF quality, he would have. Same for Mattingly. Jackie integrated baseball. He took all kinds of abuse, and he had the discipline to restrain his pugnacious, combative character. Yeah, someone had to do it. That someone goes in. he’s the someone.

*Another example, for me, is when Randy Johnson came in in relief vs. the Yankees in 1994. “Entering a 4-4 game in the ninth inning, Johnson pitched the 9th, 10th, and 11th innings. He allowed 1 run, struck out 6, and held on for the series-ending win in Seattle’s dramatic comeback.” Yeah, Unit won all kinds of wards and led the league in various categories; THAT was a performance people will talk about forever.

Creston-

Thank you for pointing that out. I should have made clear that they (the three) are only inches apart in my mind. It’s not an easy 1-2-3.

I was looking more at percentages on the poll. Ted Williams was on 60% of “ballots” while Aaron was only on 45%. Again, I never pointed that out, but that was what I was basing my comment on. It’s just a general observation on what seems to be the mindset of many people when they talk ab