Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dalakhani
The slugging pct over the same period of time is nearly identical. Mattingly led the league in doubles three times over that era. No, he didnt hit as many home runs, but the LEAGUE didnt hit as many home runs and he more than makes up for that with a MUCH HIGHER Batting average and a higher on base pct.
What he will likely be in 2010 doesnt matter for what we are discussing because he could get hit by a bus tomorrow and we will only have his current body of work to judge him by. What Mattingly did after his first six years are also immaterial. That being the case, the numbers and the awards clearly point to mattingly.
I do admit that from a numbers perspective, it is very difficult to find five better than TEX. Could that not be more of a result of the era than the quality of player? I would venture to say that we could take a top position player from ANY position today (except pitcher) and compare him to top players from the 80's at the same position and the numbers would be favorable to the player of this era. I was looking at the year Keith Hernandez won MVP. He was an MVP first baseman with 11 home runs.
|
While it is different eras the awareness of what constitutes value in players has also changed. The year Hernandez won he actually tied Stargell and won witht the help of a media surge that decided he was valuble versus straight stats similar to the year Kirk Gibson won. While I agree that Mattingly had a few really great years if you take his entire career he isnt the player that Texiera is now. The thing that everyone misses about Texiera is that he still is improving and there is no reason to believe he has peaked. Regardless even if i give yoy Mattingly begrudgingly and Murray that still leaves a lot more to go.