but productive careers.Puckett played from 1984-1995, but his career was cut short at the age of 34 because of an eye problem.His career stats were, 1,783 games, 7,244 at bats, 1,071 runs scored, 2,304 hits, 414 doubles, 57 triples, 207 hr's, 1,085 rbi's, .318 BA, .360 OBP and .477 Slugging %.He was a 10 time all-star, 6 time gold-glove winner, 6 time silver-slugger, won 2 WS.

http://baseball-reference.com/p/puckeki01.shtml

Don Mattingly played in parts of 14 seasons with the Yankees from 1982-1995, but 1982 really does not count because he only had 12 at bats and 2 hits, so he really played 13 seasons.His career numbers are, 1,785 games, 7,003 at bats, 1,007 runs, 2,153 hits, 442 doubles, 20 triples, 222 hr's, 1,099 rbi's, only struck out 444 times, .307 BA, .358 OBP and .471 Slugging %.

Mattingly had 9 gold-gloves at first base, 6 time all-star, 3 time silver-slugger, and the 1985 AL MVP.

l do not know, if you put Puckett in and Ryne Sandberg, who had a relatively short career, and the Scooter Phil Rizzuto, you have to start to give a better look at guys like Mattingly and perhaps Keith Hernandez.Who thinks Donnie Baseball should be in the Hall?l do.And i'm not even a Yankee fan, I am a Mariner fan.




http://baseball-reference.com/m/mattido01.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Mattingly


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirby_Puckett
Chipmaker, why do you always think position matters so much?Also, why do you always think that first basemen always have to be huge sluggers?I'd rather have a guy like Don Mattingly, who gives me great defense, 9 gold gloves, bats .300 for his career, 200 + hr is and 1000 rbi is then a slugger like Richie Sexson who has over 300 hr's, but gives you limited defense.This positional argument that you always make is starting to get a little bit old, do not you think?

In my opinion, Puckett should never had made the Hall of Fame. His career was just too short, 12 years is not enough. l feel that he had the sympathy vote, because of his glaucoma. Regarding Mattingly, he retired too early. If he had just played a few more years, he would've gotten a WS ring or 2 and would've padded his stats. He was good, but not great. Hall of Fame for Mattingly? No.

Don Mattingly was good enough for induction, but its starting to get foggy on what is looked at to to get in, l used to think they had a standard list of accomplishments to meet, but now it looks more like the drawing of the Lotto numbers.

Well, l think there r two reasons why Don Mattingly has not entered the Hall Of Fame. 1, his numbers r lacking. 2, no WS rings. You give him over 400 HR is & 2,750 + hits, & a couple World Championships & we r not having this conversation. The Hall has always graced championship players from the Yankees who have decent numbers. Overall, too short of a career & not enough stats. To answer ur question about Puckett, you're right, he should not be in there. His stats r Mattingly like in comparison, but u notice he has 2 rings & he is in. Coincedence?

l do not think there is any question by anyone who has seen Kirby Puckett play that he was a great player and a World Series champion. Don Mattingly was one of my favorite players as a kid and for a few years there he was the best offensive player in the A.L. and one day l would not be surprised to see him in Cooperstown, but l think it has to do with the way his career ended. It is like he all the sudden he just got old and started to suck.

Puckett should not have made the hall but at least his career was consistent. Mattingly is probably the most overhyped player of the last 30 years. He had a couple great seasons, three good seasons and the rest were average or below. Only because he is a Yankee does anyone even talk about him. If he had that exact same career with the Royals he'd be completely forgotten. He is not remotely a HOFer and he should just be thankful he gets the talk he gets now. He will never be in.

1. Position matters. It really does. Finding seasons & a career from a CF like Puckett provided, is a lot harder than it is to find seasons & a career at 1B like Mattingly had.

2. Puck always gave good quote.

3. And he was so darn cute.

4. And he saved his big injury for the end of his career, which is a lot more touching.

l do not consider Puckett to have been a very good selection, but if l had to pick one to induct, I'd have picked him over Donnie. Primarily because of item #1; the other three mattered little to me, but l can understand why the voters were swayed, at least a little, by such things.

-----
Being correct never gets old & never goes out of style, JBG. Not even in these dark times. l claim position matters because position DOES matter. If u want to promote Mattingly for the Hall, go right ahead, & compare him to his contemporary peer group -- other 1Bmen, LFs, maybe RFs, & even DHs. These r the positions where defense is not valued as highly as at the others (and if Mattingly COULD have played, say, 3B or 2B, he would have been doing that).

And compare him to other 1Bmen across the long reach of history -- the best ones, the HOFers, were big hitters; bigger in their days than Donnie was in his.

l would not make the claim that Sexson was a better player than Mattingly, but l look into the stats well beyond the kiddie pool depths of ''career HR total''.

ps. Anyone thinking that Mattingly would have had a ring had he played one more season can only make that assumption if he was a bench player. The 1996 Yankees with Mattingly starting & without Martinez at 1B probably do not win that World Series.

all l can say is matingly is better