MLB 2025 Season

igotid88

The Juggler said:

mfc2006 said:

Looks like Mattingly will be the new bench coach of the Blue Jays

@igotid88

You rooting for the Blue Jays or Yanks this year?!?

Yankees as Mattingly isn't the manager

igotid88

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

DewieCox said:

I always thought Rolen should get more consideration but his numbers aren’t there for me for as injury free as he remained. Wouldn’t be the worst inclusion though. 

Yea. Nice player but nothing outstanding. I guess his WAR will get him in. 

So I look at the AB's and say what can Mattingly do with another 400 AB's?  Donnie isn't catching Rolen in Runs, 2b, 3b, HR, RBI or SB.  

Rolen was a solid player over his career whereas Mattingly was great for a short time.

You're forgetting the back issue. There's a reason it's brought up. It's not like Mattingly all of a sudden became an average hitter. And he was still better than average. Also Rolen is 6'4 240lbs compared to Mattingly's 6'0 190lbs at the time. The stolen bases and 3b I'll give you as he wasn't born with speed. That's like comparing someone who broke their leg on a race to someone who was able to finish the race without much issue. Mattingly was ahead in hits. Would have passed him in doubles. Hr would have been the same. He's a good RBI man as he puts the ball in play

F Me In The Brain

I love it.  
(Also, my brother's love of Donnie is freaky but it can't touch your dedication to the man!)

Poncier

igotid88 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

DewieCox said:

I always thought Rolen should get more consideration but his numbers aren’t there for me for as injury free as he remained. Wouldn’t be the worst inclusion though. 

Yea. Nice player but nothing outstanding. I guess his WAR will get him in. 

So I look at the AB's and say what can Mattingly do with another 400 AB's?  Donnie isn't catching Rolen in Runs, 2b, 3b, HR, RBI or SB.  

Rolen was a solid player over his career whereas Mattingly was great for a short time.

You're forgetting the back issue. There's a reason it's brought up. It's not like Mattingly all of a sudden became an average hitter. And he was still better than average. Also Rolen is 6'4 240lbs compared to Mattingly's 6'0 190lbs at the time. The stolen bases and 3b I'll give you as he wasn't born with speed. That's like comparing someone who broke their leg on a race to someone who was able to finish the race without much issue. Mattingly was ahead in hits. Would have passed him in doubles. Hr would have been the same. He's a good RBI man as he puts the ball in play

But we can't use speculative stats to put someone in the HoF.
If Babe Ruth lived and played til he was 69, he'd have hit 1469 homers and driven in 4869 runs.

igotid88

Poncier said:

igotid88 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

DewieCox said:

I always thought Rolen should get more consideration but his numbers aren’t there for me for as injury free as he remained. Wouldn’t be the worst inclusion though. 

Yea. Nice player but nothing outstanding. I guess his WAR will get him in. 

So I look at the AB's and say what can Mattingly do with another 400 AB's?  Donnie isn't catching Rolen in Runs, 2b, 3b, HR, RBI or SB.  

Rolen was a solid player over his career whereas Mattingly was great for a short time.

You're forgetting the back issue. There's a reason it's brought up. It's not like Mattingly all of a sudden became an average hitter. And he was still better than average. Also Rolen is 6'4 240lbs compared to Mattingly's 6'0 190lbs at the time. The stolen bases and 3b I'll give you as he wasn't born with speed. That's like comparing someone who broke their leg on a race to someone who was able to finish the race without much issue. Mattingly was ahead in hits. Would have passed him in doubles. Hr would have been the same. He's a good RBI man as he puts the ball in play

But we can't use speculative stats to put someone in the HoF.
If Babe Ruth lived and played til he was 69, he'd have hit 1469 homers and driven in 4869 runs.

Ruth had a long career already. Koufax played 12 years and is in the Hall. Mattingly didn't play the average 20 years or so that average HOF played. But If his numbers were average throughout his career and wasn't a league leader and didn't have an MVP and didn't have respectable numbers on a 14 year career. I wouldn't be pushing it as much. I understand why he isn't in. But if Alan Trammell can get in why not Donnie Baseball?

The Juggler

Had I started golfing twenty years earlier and, like Donnie Baseball, if I did not have a bad back, I would absolutely be a scratch golfer right now. 

You cannot forget my back issue.  

Poncier

If the queen had balls...

igotid88

The Juggler said:

Had I started golfing twenty years earlier and, like Donnie Baseball, if I did not have a bad back, I would absolutely be a scratch golfer right now. 

You cannot forget my back issue.  

Those are bad examples. You didn't have years of being an exceptional golfer. And then got injured. 
You guys are acting like he was an awful player who maybe had potential but his years were cut short. That's the problem with youse guys.

There's also a reason why his name keeps coming up

Ledbetterman10

When I was a kid getting into baseball in the 80's (so like 7-8 years old), I thought that Mattingly must've been one of the greatest baseball players ever based solely on the "Donnie Baseball" nickname. I figured to have "baseball" right in your nickname must mean you're great. But again, I wasn't even 10-years-old yet. 

I've always found him to be a bit of a tragic figure. Plays for years for the Yankees, and as soon as he retires, they win the World Series. Then he's a bench coach for the Yankees, and as soon as he moves onto the Dodgers, the Yankees win the World Series two years later. 

And sorry, igotid88, they're not "Mattingly's Blue Jays" as your thread states. They're former Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Red Baron Charlie Montoyo's Blue Jays. 

igotid88

Ledbetterman10 said:

When I was a kid getting into baseball in the 80's (so like 7-8 years old), I thought that Mattingly must've been one of the greatest baseball players ever based solely on the "Donnie Baseball" nickname. I figured to have "baseball" right in your nickname must mean you're great. But again, I wasn't even 10-years-old yet. 

I've always found him to be a bit of a tragic figure. Plays for years for the Yankees, and as soon as he retires, they win the World Series. Then he's a bench coach for the Yankees, and as soon as he moves onto the Dodgers, the Yankees win the World Series two years later. 

And sorry, igotid88, they're not "Mattingly's Blue Jays" as your thread states. They're former Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Red Baron Charlie Montoyo's Blue Jays. 

I know. But it can't be Marlins anymore. And isn't John Schneider the Jays' manager?

Ledbetterman10

igotid88 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

When I was a kid getting into baseball in the 80's (so like 7-8 years old), I thought that Mattingly must've been one of the greatest baseball players ever based solely on the "Donnie Baseball" nickname. I figured to have "baseball" right in your nickname must mean you're great. But again, I wasn't even 10-years-old yet. 

I've always found him to be a bit of a tragic figure. Plays for years for the Yankees, and as soon as he retires, they win the World Series. Then he's a bench coach for the Yankees, and as soon as he moves onto the Dodgers, the Yankees win the World Series two years later. 

And sorry, igotid88, they're not "Mattingly's Blue Jays" as your thread states. They're former Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Red Baron Charlie Montoyo's Blue Jays. 

I know. But it can't be Marlins anymore. And isn't John Schneider the Jays' manager?

My bad. You’re right. Montoyo was replaced by Schneider in July. 

The Juggler

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

Had I started golfing twenty years earlier and, like Donnie Baseball, if I did not have a bad back, I would absolutely be a scratch golfer right now. 

You cannot forget my back issue.  

Those are bad examples. You didn't have years of being an exceptional golfer. And then got injured. 
You guys are acting like he was an awful player who maybe had potential but his years were cut short. That's the problem with youse guys.

There's also a reason why his name keeps coming up

If Randall Cunningham had an offensive minded coach, a better offensive line, and didn't suffer multiple injuries, he'd definitely be in the hall of fame right now. My example was a joke, this one is comparable. I wish those things would've happened but they didn't. 

They don't let you in the hall of fame because of what you could've been if such and such didn't happen.

igotid88

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

Had I started golfing twenty years earlier and, like Donnie Baseball, if I did not have a bad back, I would absolutely be a scratch golfer right now. 

You cannot forget my back issue.  

Those are bad examples. You didn't have years of being an exceptional golfer. And then got injured. 
You guys are acting like he was an awful player who maybe had potential but his years were cut short. That's the problem with youse guys.

There's also a reason why his name keeps coming up

If Randall Cunningham had an offensive minded coach, a better offensive line, and didn't suffer multiple injuries, he'd definitely be in the hall of fame right now. My example was a joke, this one is comparable. I wish those things would've happened but they didn't. 

They don't let you in the hall of fame because of what you could've been if such and such didn't happen.

Randall at his peak was not Mattingly at his peak. It's about what Mattingly did and could have done. I'm not talking about Alvaro Espinoza or of similar ilk. If what Mattingly did was average then there is no case. If Mattingly didn't retire and played 5 or 6 more years. And ended up with 2700 hits does that make him more eligible? He probably would have ended up closer to 3000. Then you would say he only got 2700-3000 because he stayed longer than he had to.

The Juggler

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

Had I started golfing twenty years earlier and, like Donnie Baseball, if I did not have a bad back, I would absolutely be a scratch golfer right now. 

You cannot forget my back issue.  

Those are bad examples. You didn't have years of being an exceptional golfer. And then got injured. 
You guys are acting like he was an awful player who maybe had potential but his years were cut short. That's the problem with youse guys.

There's also a reason why his name keeps coming up

If Randall Cunningham had an offensive minded coach, a better offensive line, and didn't suffer multiple injuries, he'd definitely be in the hall of fame right now. My example was a joke, this one is comparable. I wish those things would've happened but they didn't. 

They don't let you in the hall of fame because of what you could've been if such and such didn't happen.

Randall at his peak was not Mattingly at his peak. It's about what Mattingly did and could have done. I'm not talking about Alvaro Espinoza or of similar ilk. If what Mattingly did was average then there is no case. If Mattingly didn't retire and played 5 or 6 more years. And ended up with 2700 hits does that make him more eligible? He probably would have ended up closer to 3000. Then you would say he only got 2700-3000 because he stayed longer than he had to.

You will never get an absolute perfect comparison but this is pretty close for a different sport. Randall was one of the best qb's in the league until he got hurt in '91. Many say he revolutionized the position.

You can toss out whatever stats you want on Mattingly, but the fact remains your case for him being in the hall of fame is based on assumptions of what he would have done had he not been injured and retired when he did. That's the same thing people of the same mindset would say about Cunningham's chances of the pro football hall of fame (he also gets consideration but will never make it, most likely).

igotid88

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

Had I started golfing twenty years earlier and, like Donnie Baseball, if I did not have a bad back, I would absolutely be a scratch golfer right now. 

You cannot forget my back issue.  

Those are bad examples. You didn't have years of being an exceptional golfer. And then got injured. 
You guys are acting like he was an awful player who maybe had potential but his years were cut short. That's the problem with youse guys.

There's also a reason why his name keeps coming up

If Randall Cunningham had an offensive minded coach, a better offensive line, and didn't suffer multiple injuries, he'd definitely be in the hall of fame right now. My example was a joke, this one is comparable. I wish those things would've happened but they didn't. 

They don't let you in the hall of fame because of what you could've been if such and such didn't happen.

Randall at his peak was not Mattingly at his peak. It's about what Mattingly did and could have done. I'm not talking about Alvaro Espinoza or of similar ilk. If what Mattingly did was average then there is no case. If Mattingly didn't retire and played 5 or 6 more years. And ended up with 2700 hits does that make him more eligible? He probably would have ended up closer to 3000. Then you would say he only got 2700-3000 because he stayed longer than he had to.

You will never get an absolute perfect comparison but this is pretty close for a different sport. Randall was one of the best qb's in the league until he got hurt in '91. Many say he revolutionized the position.

You can toss out whatever stats you want on Mattingly, but the fact remains your case for him being in the hall of fame is based on assumptions of what he would have done had he not been injured and retired when he did. That's the same thing people of the same mindset would say about Cunningham's chances of the pro football hall of fame (he also gets consideration but will never make it, most likely).

But like you said before about not having an offensive minded coach and injuries. Those things should be considered. Isn't that what analytics does now with WAR, FIP, UZR, rWar, fWar, and so on? He was on his way to a Hall of Fame career. It's not like he was a bad player after the injury. If he was an average player before the injury and I has said "he could have been a great player if he didn't get injured". That's a different story. He was great before and still pretty good after. So it's not a big leap to say he would still be great for at least a few more years. 27-34 are usually a player's prime years.

The Juggler

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

Had I started golfing twenty years earlier and, like Donnie Baseball, if I did not have a bad back, I would absolutely be a scratch golfer right now. 

You cannot forget my back issue.  

Those are bad examples. You didn't have years of being an exceptional golfer. And then got injured. 
You guys are acting like he was an awful player who maybe had potential but his years were cut short. That's the problem with youse guys.

There's also a reason why his name keeps coming up

If Randall Cunningham had an offensive minded coach, a better offensive line, and didn't suffer multiple injuries, he'd definitely be in the hall of fame right now. My example was a joke, this one is comparable. I wish those things would've happened but they didn't. 

They don't let you in the hall of fame because of what you could've been if such and such didn't happen.

Randall at his peak was not Mattingly at his peak. It's about what Mattingly did and could have done. I'm not talking about Alvaro Espinoza or of similar ilk. If what Mattingly did was average then there is no case. If Mattingly didn't retire and played 5 or 6 more years. And ended up with 2700 hits does that make him more eligible? He probably would have ended up closer to 3000. Then you would say he only got 2700-3000 because he stayed longer than he had to.

You will never get an absolute perfect comparison but this is pretty close for a different sport. Randall was one of the best qb's in the league until he got hurt in '91. Many say he revolutionized the position.

You can toss out whatever stats you want on Mattingly, but the fact remains your case for him being in the hall of fame is based on assumptions of what he would have done had he not been injured and retired when he did. That's the same thing people of the same mindset would say about Cunningham's chances of the pro football hall of fame (he also gets consideration but will never make it, most likely).

But like you said before about not having an offensive minded coach and injuries. Those things should be considered. Isn't that what analytics does now with WAR, FIP, UZR, rWar, fWar, and so on? He was on his way to a Hall of Fame career. It's not like he was a bad player after the injury. If he was an average player before the injury and I has said "he could have been a great player if he didn't get injured". That's a different story. He was great before and still pretty good after. So it's not a big leap to say he would still be great for at least a few more years. 27-34 are usually a player's prime years.

On his way to a hall of fame career before the injury and then being pretty good and retiring early....does not scream hall of fame to me. Sorry. 

And you have analytics to look at for his career. I don't understand your point there. 

igotid88

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

Had I started golfing twenty years earlier and, like Donnie Baseball, if I did not have a bad back, I would absolutely be a scratch golfer right now. 

You cannot forget my back issue.  

Those are bad examples. You didn't have years of being an exceptional golfer. And then got injured. 
You guys are acting like he was an awful player who maybe had potential but his years were cut short. That's the problem with youse guys.

There's also a reason why his name keeps coming up

If Randall Cunningham had an offensive minded coach, a better offensive line, and didn't suffer multiple injuries, he'd definitely be in the hall of fame right now. My example was a joke, this one is comparable. I wish those things would've happened but they didn't. 

They don't let you in the hall of fame because of what you could've been if such and such didn't happen.

Randall at his peak was not Mattingly at his peak. It's about what Mattingly did and could have done. I'm not talking about Alvaro Espinoza or of similar ilk. If what Mattingly did was average then there is no case. If Mattingly didn't retire and played 5 or 6 more years. And ended up with 2700 hits does that make him more eligible? He probably would have ended up closer to 3000. Then you would say he only got 2700-3000 because he stayed longer than he had to.

You will never get an absolute perfect comparison but this is pretty close for a different sport. Randall was one of the best qb's in the league until he got hurt in '91. Many say he revolutionized the position.

You can toss out whatever stats you want on Mattingly, but the fact remains your case for him being in the hall of fame is based on assumptions of what he would have done had he not been injured and retired when he did. That's the same thing people of the same mindset would say about Cunningham's chances of the pro football hall of fame (he also gets consideration but will never make it, most likely).

But like you said before about not having an offensive minded coach and injuries. Those things should be considered. Isn't that what analytics does now with WAR, FIP, UZR, rWar, fWar, and so on? He was on his way to a Hall of Fame career. It's not like he was a bad player after the injury. If he was an average player before the injury and I has said "he could have been a great player if he didn't get injured". That's a different story. He was great before and still pretty good after. So it's not a big leap to say he would still be great for at least a few more years. 27-34 are usually a player's prime years.

On his way to a hall of fame career before the injury and then being pretty good and retiring early....does not scream hall of fame to me. Sorry. 

And you have analytics to look at for his career. I don't understand your point there. 

So if he had taken hgh or steroids and played more years that's okay? That's what they say about Bonds.  He was already a HOF before the performance enhancers. So he should be in. And I agree he should be in.

Poncier

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

Had I started golfing twenty years earlier and, like Donnie Baseball, if I did not have a bad back, I would absolutely be a scratch golfer right now. 

You cannot forget my back issue.  

 
There's also a reason why his name keeps coming up

Yep, cause you keep bringing it up.

igotid88

Poncier said:

igotid88 said:

The Juggler said:

Had I started golfing twenty years earlier and, like Donnie Baseball, if I did not have a bad back, I would absolutely be a scratch golfer right now. 

You cannot forget my back issue.  

 
There's also a reason why his name keeps coming up

Yep, cause you keep bringing it up.

I'm not part of the Hall of Fame committee 

Poncier

Dud peaked at 28 percent votes on HoF ballot.
The Contemporary Committe put him on this year cause one of the members reads this forum and wanted to have a good chuckle.