This is Section 3 in a continuing series on the Role of the Hall of Fame in the 21st Century. If you missed previous articles in the series you may find them here: Section I Section II

SECTION III

I’ve prepared a quick-reference chart that includes all of our main players from section I, with several who are due to appear on the ballot in the next few years:

And now their records averaged to 162 games:

The most blunt opening statement one could make is that given the current balloting prejudices, only McGwire seems a certain Hall of Famer among those on the list—but I will consider the question of McGwire’s contribution later while reviewing his up-and-down career.

I would eliminate Cecil Fielder on the following simple basis: if he were to be considered seriously at all, his place in the Hall would only be justified if one could prove that Fielder was the best power hitter of his time, since a lifetime .255 batting average, acceptable (at best) defense, and the most congestive base running of his era doesn’t give us much else. Now, looking merely at these limited stats, one can see that in just over 5000 at bats he hit 319 homers. That’s a nice career, but really, it isn’t much, especially when one considers what is expected of exceptionally torpid first basemen, and especially when one considers that McGwire hit almost twice as many homers in only 1000 more at bats—and played half of his career injured. Fielder did help the Yankees to a championship in 1996, and he also hit 50 homers once. But so did Mariano Duncan and Brady Anderson respectively. Ok, so good-bye Cecil.

Gregg Jeffries managed to build a nice career for himself as a first baseman after it became clear that he was not very good anywhere else in the infield. Jeffries is a classic case of “first baseman by default.” He actually wasn’t bad there, and he had some productive years, stealing bases and hitting for a good average. But his career simply wasn’t long enough or good enough. Most players with 5000 or so ABs don’t have much of a shot. If Mattingly is getting 13-20% with 7000 ABs, and he “didn’t play enough,” how will Jeffries, with .289-126-663 fare? Sorry. Not even close.

Wally Joyner makes a more interesting case, hitting better than Jeffries power-wise (and the same .289 average); and, since he did reach as many career ABs as Don Mattingly, a comparison is useful. Except for career RBI and on base, Joyner is below in every category, though he did have an impressive career, coming close to Mattingly’s career numbers in most other key areas. But he never finished higher than 8th in the MVP voting, doing so only once, and his best batting average placed him fifth in the league, never again to break into the top ten. He was an All-Star once and never led the league in anything. He hit .245 in the post-season and had a good glove. Joyner was a very fine player with a distinguished career, and he fit in well wherever he played, but he is clearly not a Hall of Famer. And yes, to quote again Rob Neyer, “he doesn’t feel like one” either.

Will “the Thrill” Clark is a very tough case. During the mid-late 80s, a debate raged as to who was the better player, Clark or Mattingly. Watching Clark play, you could see why so many people were excited. He was very good on defense, had excellent power, and seemed to be just around or over .300 consistently every year. In addition, no player was more important than Clark to the Giants in those years. But after 1992, Clark never hit more than 16 home runs, except his last year in Texas (1998) when he hit 23. But he finished his career over .300 and hit .300 or better in his last 4 years. Like Mattingly, Clark had a lot of injuries. That ’98 season he played 149 games, but from 1994-2000, 110 games were fairly typical, and Clark never reached his potential. He, too, had around 440 doubles in 7000 AB, and hit 284 HR, but unlike Mattingly, he struck out more than he walked and he won only one gold glove. Clark was runner up for the ’89 MVP (that was Kevin Mitchell’s 15-minutes-of-fame MVP, and Clark’s .333 average was second highest in the league, narrowly behind Tony Gwynn’s .336); he was fifth in hitting twice and fourth once. Clark’s numbers don’t knock me out as Hall of Famer, but many skeptics will say to me, Clark’s numbers as so close to Mattingly’s—how can you say Mattingly is a Hall of Famer, and Clark, who played longer, is not?

Clark was never even the best player in his entire league for a few years, surely never the best in all of baseball, and never clearly the best first baseman in all of baseball, though he might have been the best NL first baseman for a couple years in his prime. By the time of Mattingly’s decline, Rafael Palmeiro was reaching good numbers, McGriff was well into his prime, and then McGwire exploding near the end of Clark’s career. Even Tino Martinez was having .500+ slugging years in the mid-90s, though he was not the pure hitter that Clark was, and remained underrated defensively until later in his career with the Yankees. You also had Cecil Fielder in his “best” years overlapping Clark’s best years. Clark hit his peak between 1987 and 1991, when Mattingly was at the end of his prime, and then Fielder showed up in 1990 with his 51 homers and followed that with 44 a year later. Clark had 38 homers for those two years combined and almost 50 fewer RBI. Although Clark hit about 25 or 30 points higher than Fielder, he drove in only an average of 73 runs over the next 6 seasons, never fulfilling his promise. From 92-99 Clark hit fewer home runs and drove in fewer runs than Tino Martinez, who already has more home runs than Clark career-wise, and while a fine champion first baseman in his own right, Tino is not quite Hall of Fame yet himself, and doesn’t “feel like one.”

Also, compare Mattingly and Clark this way: Mattingly had almost no learning curve once reaching the majors; it was like he was born to the game. In 1987, his second year, Clark stole 5 bases and was caught 17 times, with 49 walks and 98 strikeouts. The following year he got wise and stole 9 of 10, but struck out 129 times, while walking 100; but he would never walk 100 again. In fact, he never walked 75 times again—but he did strike out more than 75 times—the next 4 years in a row. To his credit, he was a feared hitter, and was intentionally walked a lot—155 times—and only grounded into 100 double plays lifetime, with most of his single-season GIDP totals in single digits between 5 and 7—and that is superb. But Clark never got 200 hits. The closest he came was 196, and his next best total is 177. A better analysis of his consistency—and a better argument for Clark—might lie in the fact that he hit .300 or better in 10 of his 15 seasons. Finally, Fred McGriff was, like Clark, playing both in the AL and NL, and was, by the time Clark was established, considered more dangerous and consistent as a power hitter—and rightly so (see below). Clark was a very good first baseman, but he was not one of the two or three best defensive first basemen ever. And that is not only the difference between Mattingly and Clark, but also the difference between Mattingly and almost every other player who ever played first base (including those in the HoF).

So is Will Clark a Hall of Famer? He never won a World Series, losing in 1989 with the Giants (.250 with no RBI in the A’s sweep), though he was the NLCS MVP that year hitting .650 with a stratospheric 1.882 OPS, and carries a lifetime .333 postseason average with .947 OPS over 31 games. Super statistician Bill James ranks Mattingly 12th all-time at first base and Clark 13th, his system taking defense and “Win Shares” into account. But how much, I ask, does defense count for, when Frank Thomas ranks ahead of Mattingly at number 9? Thomas is undeniably one of the best hitters of his era and has shown more longevity than Mattingly—but the man is not a good first baseman. He is a great hitter. Tony Perez, by the way, makes James’s list at #14. If you are a believer in Win Shares, then Don Mattingly is a Hall of Famer, and so is Will Clark. Keith Hernandez finishes James’s list at 16th, and Palmeiro is currently 19th. In his Baseball Abstract, James feels that Clark’s peak years (1987-92) had greater impact for his team than Palmeiro’s—and that is probably true, especially when one thinks of the offense in Texas from the mid-90s to the present when both played there, and the good offense in Baltimore during Palmeiro’s years there. However, given what Palmeiro has done in recent years, you would have to rate him above Clark, who was good defensively, though rarely, got recognized for it. I liked watching Will Clark play—you felt he could get a hit against any pitcher any time he came to the plate. He just might be a Hall of Famer. Then again, to quote Rob Neyer, “He doesn’t feel like a Hall of Famer.” Perhaps one could qualify that to say he doesn’t feel like one, though he often played like one. I think I might need a few more years of reflection before I might decide for sure what I think of Will Clark’s career.

Now we move on the career of Mark McGwire. A first time automatic you say? What about those Palmeiro naysayers who speak of inflated home runs? What else did Big Mac do beside show off that wonderful grin and bash homers 500 feet (with or without the help of “Andro”)? Well, he was hurt, a lot. And he hit .263 lifetime. McGwire, like other chronically injured sluggers with a handsome smile gets the old Mickey Mantle treatment—“oh, just think what he could have done if he were only healthy!” Well, he did quite well despite his physical problems, and overcame a lot of poor hitting seasons to recuperate himself and his career. McGwire set the rookie home run record in 1987 with 49, and hit a lively .289 with 118 RBI. But while his home run totals were high the next five years, and while he drove in a substantial amount of runs for those great A’s teams, his batting averages were low for a “Hall of Famer”:

Now, is this Mark McGwire, or some nightmarish reincarnation of Dave Kingman? And given the exceptional players hitting in front of him (none less remarkable than Rickey Henderson, Carney Lansford, and Jose Canseco in his prime), shouldn’t he have driven in more runs? The next two years (1993 and 1994), Mac played only 27 and 47 games respectively, going on a mini-tear in ’93 while he was healthy for a month. Then in ’95 he got back into 100 games bashing .274-39-90. After his body healed, McGwire broke out in 1996 with a .730 slugging percentage, propelled by 52 homers and a .312 batting average. He also walked MORE than he struck out (116/112). With his value at an all-time high, and the A’s going nowhere, he was dealt to the Cardinals in ’97 and hit .274-58-123 (but 159 strikeouts). He would have two more magnificent seasons in St. Louis, the magical 70 home run year of 1998 (he hit .299 with 162 walks and 147 RBI, but 155 Ks), losing the MVP to Sammy Sosa. In 1999 he wowed us again, going .278-65-147 with lots of Ks and walks. In 2000 injuries limited him to 89 games, but he was still bashing—32 HR and .305 average. His last year was brutal, and injuries and time had finally taken Mac from his game days. He hit an indigestible .187 in 97 games with 29 HR and 118 Ks on 56 walks and only 4 doubles.

Ok, so is Mac a Hall of Famer? Most people say, no-brainer—he broke the single season home run record by nine homers, hit 50+ homers four times, and is sixth on the all-time list, ahead of even Reggie Jackson; if Orlando Cepada is there, so is McGwire. But McGwire never won an MVP, and apart from his runner up in ‘98, never finished better than fourth, although he was among the top 7 five times. Twelve all-star appearances help, and so does a solid glove. From my perspective, Mac had a great first year (Rookie of the Year) and a fantastic, peaking finish, but in the early-middle years he was really just an average slugger—a Dave Kingman, if you will, for many years, one who also happened to be a very good first baseman. Now, what does 6th on the all time home run list mean, if you are a career .263 hitter? Traditionally it means a trip to the Hall of Fame if you have 500+ home runs. Reggie Jackson hit .262, though in his early years he hit for average and stole bases, along with the HR and RBI. .260 lifetime averages have not affected other 500 HR sluggers in the past: Hall of Famer Harmon Killebrew hit .256 with 573 homers and McCovey hit .270 with 521. Slugger first-basemen like Boog Powell and Gil Hodges hit .266 and .273 respectively, but are only members of the 300 HR club, and are thus unlikely ever to win induction.

McGwire did walk a lot, producing a nearly .400 on base % (actually .394) and has the highest ratio of home runs per at bat in history—more than Babe Ruth. His strikeout totals are obscenely high in his glory years (1997-2001): 159-155-141, then 78 in 2000, and an appalling 118 in 2001, when he only came up 299 times in 97 games—meaning that he struck out every 2.5 at bats—is this the worst ratio of all time? He was clearly just trying to hit home runs. He was also, as he admits, using some kind of steroid. What kind it really was, and how much, who knows? But I don’t think McGwire’s total achievement is purely limited to his home runs. He played very good defense when he was healthy—mainly for the A’s. He was also one of the most feared hitters in the NL for about five years at the end of his career, and had one of the most productive periods for a slugger one could imagine. McGwire was always strong, always capable of hitting 50 homers. I don’t think drugs would really have helped him as much as they would other players. In fact, McGwire was so strong, he couldn’t even hit a double for goodness sake—except if he hit it off the wall—thus he rarely doubled, belting 252 over his entire career.

His contact average was very high, but a player who strikes out once a game isn’t a very good hitter—he’s a pure slugger. His walk totals are inflated in St. Louis because he had no protection and because no one wanted to pitch to him—fair enough—so are his walks the result of a good eye, or just the ol’ “pitch around ‘em” strategy? And another funny thing, McGwire only has 1626 career hits! Yes, over 1/3 of his career hits are home runs! And how about this: if we consider that Mac was a pure slugger, despite all his power, he only led the league in slugging four times and in OPS twice, and never led in total bases. By contrast, Mattingly actually led in total bases twice and OPS and slugging once apiece, though he never hit more than 35 homers in a season.

I’m not criticizing Mac simply to play devil’s advocate—he was a tremendously exciting player to watch, and as home runs have taken over today’s game, Mac and Sosa’s great year is partly to blame for the euphoria. I think we need to sit back and really assess what Mac did and did not do. He was not a great hitter. He was not even a good hitter until late in his career. He was a super-high-percentage homerun hitter. He was often too injured to be an MVP, and when he finally did play to the best of his ability, he was not on a competitive team, and struck out once per game.

The answer, then, is yes; McGwire is a Hall of Famer. Big Mac played 15 years and Mattingly 14. We have already determined that Mattingly had 6 “prime” years, a couple decent years after that, and one good comeback year in 1994. Let’s assume, then, that Mattingly had at least 7, if not 8, excellent seasons taken together, with a few decent seasons and only two, maybe three really fair seasons. How many did McGwire have? 1995-2000 (6 years) were McGwire’s big peak seasons where he always hit lots of home runs with a decent, .270ish (sometimes higher) average, and lots of Ks/BBs. He also had 3 years prior to his mid-career injury that were similar. That makes 9, with a few high homer, low average years when he battled injuries day-to-day. That’s a fine career—and he fought to compete and overcome his injuries. Mattingly played as long as he could and gave us everything he had. He never hit 40 home runs, but in his best years at first base, few were better, ever. McGwire is the only first baseman of the past 25 years—perhaps longer—that would give me serious pause for consideration as to whether I would take Mattingly in his prime, or someone else in his prime for my own late-20th century dream team.

Fred McGriff. I don’t remember whether it was Chris Berman of ESPN who originally coined the sub-moronic “Crime Dog’ nickname that he is stuck with today, but whoever is responsible for this vapid pun deserves some eternal punishment for pure imbecility. There is probably no more apish and childishly coined nickname for anyone in all of professional life. Just stop saying it—everyone, please. The man doesn’t deserve this. My hat is off to Fred McGriff—you deserve to be in the Hall just for putting up with it.
As for his career, if McGriff is a controversial choice, then the voters are either hypocrites, or the standard is changing. His defense was never noteworthy, and might even be said to be below average—he wields a big bat and played first base well enough to stay there for most, if not all, of his career. He has an outside shot at 3000 hits, but will need a few more good years to get there. He also is closing in on 500 homers, and is sure to get there soon. If he keeps playing, he could move up the ranks quickly over the next three seasons. He already has over 1500 RBI—so like Palmeiro, the RBI and HR watersheds are already established. He is also a very good career hitter, and at .286 (Palmeiro is .290), one must consider him better than many of the .260 sluggers already in the Hall, not to mention the fact that he holds a high on base and a lifetime slugging over .500, classic “first baseman” numbers. Furthermore, he was able to do it in both leagues. McGriff does strike out a lot, averaging 124 in his career per 162 AB and was 9th on the all time list coming into the 2003 season (expect McGriff and Sosa to be around #3-#5 by season’s end)—but remember McGwire’s high K totals? What impresses me about McGriff are his “per 162 games” stats—lifetime over 100 RBI and 33 HR per 162, and 166 hits per year shows consistency, health, and production. He also scored 90 per year, about the same as Mattingly’s 91.

There are many who just don’t “feel” that McGriff is a Hall of Famer, and others who chide his defense. One mark against him is that he has never yet finished above 4th in MVP voting, and his next two best years have him finishing 6th. He is a five time All-Star who was around 5th in total bases every year from 1988-1994 (excluding ’91) and led the league in home runs twice (but never hit more than 37)—though it is important to mention that he places 21st on the all-time HR list and could crack the top 10 if he plays another two years. McGriff has also hit .303 in 50 postseason games with 10 home runs, a .918 OPS and 37 RBI. In twelve WS games he has 4 homers and a .279 average with .997 OPS. Yet, if you view McGriff strictly as a slugging first baseman who hit for good average, he is only 67th on the career list in slugging % (excluding this year). And the list, if you have a look, is far too over-represented by first baseman to overlook 67th place. Current first baseman Todd Helton (4th), Frank Thomas (17th), Jim Thome (18th), Carlos Delgado (28th), Jeff Bagwell (29th), Jason Giambi (30th), Mo Vaughn (50th) and Rafael Palmeiro (53rd) are ahead of him. However, he is 43rd in career total bases and has a good chance of ending his career in the top 30 or even 25. Thus, good by percentage—better by longevity (i.e., the “traditional” HoF credentials).

Thus, if mediocre defensive players with 500 homers and 1500 RBI who hit .25 points below McGriff’s lifetime average are HoFers, surely one should induct McGriff, more so if he does finish in the top ten in home runs with around 2700+ hits and 1700 RBI. Even if you adjust his stats for ballparks (he played in a mixture, though often in hitter’s parks) and for era, his numbers are still good. And if you attack him on the basis of his defense, surely then you have to consider how Mattingly’s defense, even in his declining years, was so exceptional as to add substantial value. Finally, there are “lively” ball theorists who say today’s stats are inflated. But players’ stats were higher in the 1930s too. Are Cal Ripken’s numbers inflated? Those of Frank Thomas? Giambi? Delgado? Bagwell? Manny Ramirez? McGwire? Sosa? Bonds? Well, maybe anyone who played at Coors field…

As to whether McGriff really is a Hall of Famer, we may know soon. I would say that if McGriff can play until he’s 40, and put up credible numbers, it will be difficult to ignore him and not be a hypocrite, no matter what you might “feel.” And if the standard is changing, let’s not simply “up” the lifetime benchmarks, let’s reevaluate the credentials altogether. As Nietzsche once put it, let’s have a “revaluation of all values.”

Rafael Palmeiro’s name has been mentioned frequently in the past year, having now reached 500 home runs. About ten years ago I started a Palmeiro HoF watch. Because he was such a consistent hitter, and could do a lot of things on the field, I felt that one day he might get there; but almost everyone to whom I mentioned this idea laughed at me and said that Frank Thomas would have the numbers long before Palmeiro. Well, I’m still waiting. Over the past ten years, especially in the two coziest ballparks in baseball—Camden Yards and Arlington—Palmeiro has hit for tremendous power as well. Many say his power numbers are inflated because of where he has played, and that home runs are up everywhere. Since 1987, Palmeiro has hit 280 homers at home, 228 away. But look at this:

It is not entirely the case that Palmeiro has benefited tremendously from smaller ballparks, but it probably does make a high-30s HR hitter into a low- 40s HR hitter. Perhaps one could say instead that he is an excellent hitter who made adjustments to the modern game and to the parks in which he has played—and thus, does simply what good hitters do (in this case, hit for more power). In recent years, he has nearly doubled his home run production, perhaps sacrificing 25 points of batting average, and this is not entirely the result of home field. But even then, 1999 saw him achieve his highest, single-season home run total (47) with a career high batting average (.324). In the past two years he has averaged 45 homers per year and hit exactly .273, not bad numbers at age 36 and 37, considering his on base percentage in those years is almost .400 and his slugging over .550. As of the completion of this essay (August 13) he has 28 homers. Thus, Palmeiro already has two of the basic milestones—over 1500 RBI and 500 HR, with a .290 career avg. (over .300 six times) and tons of doubles. He will play two or three more seasons at least, and reach 3000 hits, and could come close to Mark McGwire in HR (only 2 more seasons away at the current pace), and exceed 1800 RBI and 600 doubles. OK, surely then, he’s a lock? You cannot say that home run totals in the last ten years are inflated, because he’s hit homers in the very high 30s and 40s like Giambi and Delgado, and no one is calling their home run totals inflated and unworthy, nor do they say that A-Rod’s 40+ HR seasons in cozy Arlington are a fluke. Give me a break. Plus, he’s not only solid defensively, but like Barry Bonds, he’s actually gotten better with age—now consistently walking more than he strikes out (over 100 BB last three year in a row) and scoring more runs than he did in his youth. Of course, he’s always had great protection behind him. The only thing he doesn’t have is an MVP or a flashy piece of silver. In 1988 he was second in batting average and finished third in 1990. He was always an excellent hitter.

My aim is not to investigate the Palmeiro query in any further depth—I believe that most consider him worthy of the Hall. With regard to other active players, I can only imagine that, by the numbers, Frank Thomas will become a Hall of Famer. But what could Thomas do in his best years that Mattingly did not do? Hit 5 more home runs? Walk more—that’s basically it. And he has played much of his career as a DH. Will Clark in his prime was probably a more complete player as well, though he wasn’t the pure offensive menace that gave “The Big Hurt” his nickname (and proving again the triumph of late 20th Century subliteracy). If we compare Thomas’s numbers to Edgar Martinez, something funny happens:

Is Edgar Martinez a Hall of Famer too? Edgar developed his power later, and didn’t hit 20+ homers regularly until mid-career, but he did win two batting titles and was first or second in OB% six times (Thomas five times). He also won two batting titles and finished 2nd in 1997 (to Thomas). He was a six time All star, and ranks 24th in career OPS. Now, I don’t think Martinez is a Hall of Famer, but as dominant as Thomas has been, right now I don’t know if he is either—but in four or five years, I think there will be no room for argument, especially when he arrives at 500 home runs.

Among active players, Jeff Bagwell is still a difficult case for me. He is 100 homers behind McGriff, with about 2000 hits, and he strikes out like McGriff. On the other hand, he is a career .302 hitter going into this season, with about 35 points better in OB and Slugging. He won an MVP in his monster year of 1994 when he hit .368 (strike-shortened) and led the league in almost everything, but finished 2nd in average to Tony Gwynn’s .394 and 2nd in homers to Matt Williams. Bagwell finished in the top ten in hitting only two other times. Right now, I can’t see voting for him and not McGriff, especially given Bagwell’s postseason hitting apocalypse. What is attractive about Bagwell is his consistency, his health, and his longevity with one team, as well as being part of what is possibly one of the three worst trades in baseball history (of course, involving the star-crossed Red Sox). Bagwell is only 35, so with another four or five seasons, the numbers could certainly be there. Another long shot is John Olerud, a .300 career hitter (exactly) with doubles and homers in the Mattingly range and an excellent glove. He is only 34, and has over 2000 hits and will finish this season with almost 1200 RBI. With two gold gloves and a batting title, Olerud may not have all the hardware (3rd is his best MVP finish) but his BB/K numbers are very good and if he can play this way for at least 5 more seasons, people may take him more seriously. What if John Olerud plays until 41 and gets 3000 hits, reaches the top ten (or five) in doubles, and hits 300 HR with 1600 RBI? Is he a Hall of Famer?

To end where I had begun, I’d like to briefly compare Hall of Famer Kirby Puckett’s career with that of Don Mattingly. Both were often mentioned together as two of the last “throwback” players, and both had careers shortened by an insurmountable injury. They finished their careers with nearly identical ABs, and both were known for their superb defense:

The numbers are pretty self-explanatory. Puckett got more hits than just about everyone during his playing years (led the league four times), but Mattingly is right there with him. He was a ten-time All Star, a batting champion (with two 2nd place and one 3rd place finish), and a six-time gold glover. Although Puckett was the ACLS MVP in 1991, and an All Star Game MVP, he never actually was the league MVP, finishing 3rd in 1987 and 1988, and 2nd in 1992 (he was in the top 7 seven times). He was surely one of the best AL players during the late 80s and early 90s, and possibly the best at his position—but if Puckett is in the Hall of Fame, why not Mattingly? Puckett had some speed early in his career, and Mattingly’s last couple years brought his average down slightly (in 1990 and 1991 Mattingly missed significant time with back injuries and his hitting suffered greatly)—but Puckett never had a bad year, ever—he never even really had a significantly down year. He was always excellent, and it is this spirit of excellence, and his stellar play in the post season that earned him the trip to Cooperstown. If you consider that Mattingly suffered debilitating injuries, then it is all the more amazing that his career numbers are about equal to Puckett’s, and he struck out half as often, and hit more home runs! Ah—but he is a first baseman and that is what first baseman are supposed to do, we can’t compare him to Puckett. But why not? What are center fielders supposed to do? Play well. That’s it. Just like first baseman. Some hit home runs (Andruw Jones), some hit lots of home runs (Mantle, Mays, Snyder), some simply “have HR power” (Puckett) and some hit just a few (Tris Speaker)—but all of the players I’ve mentioned are Hall of Fame material. We don’t seem to care much that center fielders can be sluggers, all-around stars, or leadoff guys with stellar defense; but they all must be good hitters, and all must be excellent (or at least very good) defensively and all-around. Joe DiMaggio is perhaps the paradigm here. We can have Ernie Banks and Alex Rodriguez at short, but we can also have Smith and Aparicio. So why not one of the top two or three greatest defensive first baseman ever, who was also the best hitter in the league for half a decade—and didn’t stop playing a great first base even when his back gave out? Great as he was, this is something even Eddie Murray couldn’t do. After his injuries, Murray was a DH, and no longer a good defensive player.

Standards for the Hall of Fame should be tough, but they should also be fair, and they should recognize what supremely brilliant defense at first base—or any position—can do for a team. For that, and his best years, and pretty terrific all-time numbers in a shortened career, Mattingly deserves to be honored just as much as the role of defense needs to be reconsidered and positional prejudices abolished forever. Until we have a more clearly defined and accepted way to measure defense, and we use it to develop a figure like “total impact” by year, players like Mattingly may not get their due. Statisticians such as Bill James, and more recently Michael Hoban (author of Fielder's Choice: Baseball's Best Shortstops) have attempted to account for defense more fairly in evaluating players for total impact. For this broad category, and the even broader category of “did everything possible on the field extremely well,” I think Mattingly greater than many already in the Hall of Fame, and certainly no worse than Puckett. If one were to look at the importance of defense at most other positions, one would find that defense does matter a great deal when considering Hall of Fame infielders (and it also seems very necessary in center field, compared with the other outfield positions), and one must conclude that first base is the anomaly that requires correction. Some players break records and some set new standards. Perhaps Don Mattingly and Keith Hernandez are two such players. I only know that Mattingly certainly does “feel” like a Hall of Famer, even if his career numbers are a little disappointing—and if feelings really do count for something in HoF voting, there’s one more reason to vote for him next year.

You may find previous Hall of Fame articles by clicking here: Hall of Fame Part I , Setting a New Standard, Painting the Corner with Alan Trammell , Seconds Anyone? , Placing a Great Duo in Historical Context

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites