From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Mattingly discussion, take 2.
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 06:55:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.172048.18109@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> akamholz@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Andrew E Kamholz) writes:
>In article <92352.051418RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu> writes:
>>first off, while i am sure that there have been gold glove winners
>>who were the best (defensively) at their position, in general, the
>>award is one big popularity contest.  mattingly, like ozzie smith,
>>wins because he used to be good.  i think he's still slightly above
>>average, but he's not the best.  not by a long shot.

>Have you guys who continually knock Mattingly's defensive skills SEEN
>HIM PLAY? I have. 

I've seen him well over a dozen times.

Big deal.

In that time he's played about 1500 games, give or take.  I've seen
a very small sample of his fielding, and so have you.  In many games 
he doesn't see a single chance that many other fielders wouldn't also
make.

>The only guy in the league who comes close to his
>ability is Mark McGwire, who I have also seen play. (I drove cross country
>and saw several games at each of several parks). Wally Joyner is next,
>followed by Kent Hrbek. I don't know what you're considering in your
>formula for defensive ability, but he is, by a long shot, the best.

We're considering the percentage of balls hit in his neighborhood that 
he converts into outs.  That is, how well he does his job as a fielder.
You can't tell that by watching five or even ten games.  And you *certainly*
can't tell that by thinking of games played several years ago.  Mattingly
is not the excellent fielder he used to be.  

He still looks good, and always throws to the right base and all that, 
but he doesn't get to the ball the way he used to.

>>SECOND, you admit that mattingly has become much worse than he once
>>was, offensively.  why, then, do you still want to bat him third?
>>you say that with williams and boggs in front of him, he'll have a
>>lot more chances at the plate with runners on base than he used to
>>have, and give this as your sole reason for batting him third.

>>i fail to see why "lots of runners on in front of the three slot"
>>implies "might as well bat a mediocre hitter third".  wouldn't it
>>make more sense to bat someone who will cash in on all those
>>opportunities third, than to bat someone who will let a lot of them
>>slip away third?

>When I get a chance, I will post Mattingly's numbers on hitting with men
>on base. Elias has it. He is incredible- way above average. Some Yankee

Is this very important?  Does his terrible performance with *nobody*
on not make up for it to some extent?  (Also, has this stayed constant
over the years?  I doubt it.  Nobody does this year after year.)

>people attribute Don's shortcomings the last few years to the fact that
>there hasn't been anyone on base for him. There hasn't been anyone on base
>for him since he drove in 145 in '85. Believe me (Why not?); he WILL cash in.

Ah.  I see.  Henderson didn't play after that?  Sax?  Randolph?  They
didn't get on base?  What are you smoking?  And why *should* I believe
you?  

And what can you say about a hitter -- if such a one exists -- who
can't turn it on unless there are men on base?  What's he waiting for?
Why is he punishing his team by not hitting when there's nobody on?

>And I agree; Frank Howard IS really cool.

Now, *him* I saw play a LOT.

Roger

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball