Hello once again everyone. I recently got into a friendly, Yankee/Met debate with a reporter from my internship, Thomson Media, named Chris Frankie. The debate essentially became a Don Mattingly versus Keith Hernandez debate. Check out the thread. Also, I’ve added hyperlinks to career stats for each on the first mentions of their names. Remember, though, stats don’t make every argument cogent.
Chris Says:
thanks scoops-- you always come thru in the clutch -- much like Rey Ordonez
Joe Says:
Speaking of clutch performers, what has happened to the former clutch performer, that Italian guy from Philly that is supposed to own New York and has a last name eerily close to one of my favorite Italian foods?
Chris Says:
he stinks man -- i have never been a big fan of his and now he is hitting a whopping .143 since the All Star break -- unfortunately, as he goes so goes the Mets. I think they should trade him to the American league so he can DH and we can get some prospects and then maybe we could go about getting a real catcher and a real first baseman
Joe Says:
Never liked him? What about during 2000, when he took the team on his back though? He's one of the best right-handed hitters of our time, top 10 in the last 25 years at least. I guess his career just kinda fizzled a bit early.
Chris Says:
look, most people think he is great and he has had some memorable moments, but he has been a defensive liability throughout, which has downgraded the pitching staff over the years. He can block the plate well but has not arm and he is a wimp on top of that. He has no fire. He has good number and when he launches one it is a rocket, but numbers dont make the player. In my opinion, he has always come up short. A truly great player makes those around him better -- does Mike Piazza do that? And does he show up for the big games. Sometimes, but for the most point i consider him to be a disappointment. Who cares if he launches one into the bleachers when the team is already winning 5-0 or losing 10-2. It makes no difference and when it comes down to it, there are winners and there are losers and he is not a winner. He choked in the playoffs every year for L.A. and as far as I can see, he is done now. Those who say he is one of the best hitting catchers of all time i think are vastly mistaken, be he really isnt a catcher -- he has no business being behind the plate. Statistically, yes, but i would take Gary Carter any day and putting Piazza in the same league as Carlton Fisk, Johnny Bench, and Yogi berra is a sin in this time of bloated stats and inflated achievements.
Joe Says:
Definitely point taken about him as a catcher. Yes, he supposedly can handle a staff, and has most of the good qualities besides the arm, but he never could be mentioned in a defensive argument with any of those guys, or ivan rodriguez, for that matter. But as a right-handed, all-around, average/power hitter, he is among the best 10 right-handed hitters in the last 25 years, in my opinion. My list, in no order, goes like this:1)Piazza2)Molitor3)Manny Ramirez4)Yount5)Pujols (this guy is the real deal)6)Edgar Martinez7)Frank Thomas (too bad he doesn't hit for average anymore)8)Alex Rodriguez (obviously)9)Vladimir Guerrero (he's there already, too)10)Kirby Puckett (he is definitely No. 10 though, if he makes the list, I really had to think about it. maybe McGwire, despite the average, would be there instead of Puckett, but I think I'd go Kirby. I think)Do you agree with this list?
Joe Says:
Sheffield could also make that list, as could David Mark Winfield.
Chris Says:
yeah- i was trying to think -- i would say gwynn but he is lefty -- i dunno -- it would require some thought. I am not a numbers guy and dont think that stats should make up Greatness. I dont care if a guy gets a hit once every 3 at bats if he chokes when it counts and if he is simply not a winner. See i am of the school that Keith Hernandez belongs in the Hall no doubt, but Phil Neikro doesnt
Joe Says:
Numbers can be deceiving, and Hernandez was a good player, and had all the intangibles, but if you want to put him in, I need to ask you for Mattingly. Pretty please with sugar on top, give me Donnie Baseball on a Sunday in August in Cooperstown.
Chris Says:
donnie did not have the longevity for me -- plus i didnt see him everyday. But Hernandez was a leader and an amazing first baseman. He revolutonized the position -- was a 2 time MVP -- 2 time world series champ. He's just an all around winner.
Joe Says:
A winner in baseball is different though. The Yankees had NO pitching during Donnie's years. If he played where Hernandez played, the Cards in 82 and the Mets in 86 would've still won the title. Mattingly won 9 Gold Gloves in a 12-year career, Hernandez had 12 gold gloves in a 15-year career, so that's a wash. Mattingly had more power and some dominating years; Keith had some great years, but never dominated. I would say they both revolutionized defensive first base; you ask a Yank fan, they'll say Donnie did, you ask a Met fan, they'll say Keith did. I'd say both did, they were the two best ever, in no particular order. You have to look at stats a little bit: Mattingly wins that .307 to .296. It's a good argument either way.
Chris Says:
yes -- like i said -- the main thing that did it for me with mattingly is that he didnt play long enough - he had 12 years, but he was injured a lot at the tail end of his career. No, he could not help the teams he was on -- it is true there is only so much control on can have over the outcome. But, i still say that as a baseball fan, i think Hernandez was better -- given the choice of who i would want on my team i would take Mex every day of the week and twice on sunday over donnie baseball
Joe Says:
My reason for going with Donnie, I would say, is that they batted usually in the same spot in the order as each other, and the one key stat (that I think anyone could agree on) is RBI, and Mattingly had five seasons of 100 or more RBI, while Keith had only one. The other key stat, which speaks more to creating stuff on your own, would be homers, and Keith never topped 20, while Mattingly topped 20 five times. Did you know that Mattingly never struck out more than 43 times in a season? That's ridiculous. Keith was good at not striking out too, he only struck out over 100 times once in his career. But honestly, I don't think either should be in the hall, as much as it pains me to say.
Chris Says:
really-- thats a matter of opinion -- if the Scooter can be in the hall with those numbers, Keith should be with out a doubt-- there are intangibles, like leadership, like pulling though in the clutch, like winning. You also have to remember that batting in the American League, especially in the three-hole, that batter has the benefit of having a DH in the lineup and not the rally-killing pitcher in the nine-slot. Stats are stats -- they dont tell the whole story. Donnie baseball was never a leader -- he was a quiet guy who hit for average on a decent Yankees team that never won as much as a division title.
Joe Says:
Wow, if consecutive seasons with .343, 23 homers and 110 RBI with 44 doubles, .324, 35 homers and 145 RBI with 48 doubles, .352, 31 homers and 113 RBI with 53 doubles, and .327, 30 homers, 115 RBI with 38 doubles is a guy who "hits for average" for you, I want to know your version of a guy who "hits for power." Take those orange glasses off, though your point about DH is taken. Don't think Mattingly was as quiet a leader as he's gotten "credit" for either, I think he had some fire.
Chris Says:
joe-- put the textbook away -- i can give him props -- he just wasnt know as a power guy and while 20 homes is a noble and consistent mark -- it doesnt make him necessarily a power guy. Plus please keep in mind that short rightfielf porch -- although you play the hand you're dealt
Joe Says:
Well, stats are not everything, but once the guys are retired, they're the only way to really evaluate these guys anymore. I cannot put away my statbook. And 20 (should I say 30) homers in the 80s was A LOT different than 30 homers now. When you measure up the stats, Keith comes up a good bit shorter than Mattingly. Unfortunately, beside guys like Bill Mazeroski and the Scooter, stats define a player's chances to make the hall. See, if gold gloves would count for more, than maybe both Mattingly and Keith would be able to make it in easier. Keith did play at Shea, which probably takes away a lot of cheap homers. But, you're wrong when you say Mattingly wasn't considered a power guy, at least in his heyday. He was considered the best lefthanded power hitter in baseball from 1985 to 1987, albeit a short period of time that is the impetus (and a valid one) for your argument. Hernandez was never considered a power hitter, he was just a great gap hitter. A really great gap hitter. It's funny how strongly we both feel about our respective first basemen. I've had this argument so many times in my life. I will say this though. If you look at Mattingly and Puckett, again, using stats, which again, you have to do, they come up even except for one key category - two World Series for Kirby, zilch for Donnie. So if you were to put up Keith's two World Series against Mattingly's zilch, I think it might bring them even in a Hall of Fame argument. But, of course, I have to be partial to my boy. By the way, this conversation is going on my blog. I haven't posted anything on it in a while, and this seems like something worthwhile for it.