Puckett go in on his first attempt and Mattingly does not look like he is going to make it.

But I just checked their stats and they are very very similar.

One has more hits and then the other has a better career batting average but one does not overshadow the other in any catogory.

So why is Puckett a HOF and Mattingly is not?

Can somebody explain this?

I think Puckett was more consistent while Mattingly had five good years and faded in his later years. Also the Twins 87 World Series may help him.

world championship and kirby retired because of health issues he was still on top of his game mattingly was not .

that homer off the atlanta will go down as one of the best Hr's to, doesn't hurt either.

I think it was in the 10 th inning to win the WS game

the answer to this question is very simple:

Puckett was a clutch player in the play-offs and World Series, and that captivated the voters.

Yes, Mattingly was an awesome player; but it's unfortunate he played during the era the Yankees weren't doing much.

Imagine Mattingly in place of Jeter, and Mattingly gets into the Hall.

If Jeter just maintains his consistency (no need for spectacular 60 homers, 160 RBIs, or 0.370 batting averages), he will get into the Hall for the 3-4 titles he and the Yankees won in a row.

Jeter was clutch in play-offs and World Series. That alone will sway many voters to get him into the Hall.

Pod
I couldn't agree more, clutch ws and playoff plays does wonders for the HOF voting, think ron santo, should be in the hall, but no rings, sandberg, no rings, I am not saying you need to win the big dance but you need to at least play in 1 esp if you have avg numbers

I think Sandberg eventually will get in; it will be a hard struggle; but the fact he played almost his entire career with Cubbies, and performed well in the divisional play-offs, will help him.

Okay I got some of the reasoning.

Mattingly wasn't playing that well near the end of his career and Puckett did choose to retire. He was kinda forced.

And Puckett won a World Series while Mattingly only made the playoffs once.

BUT if you look at http://www.baseball-reference.com

and find similar players with stats to Puckett the number one match comes up Mattingly and out of the next 9 guys ONLY 2 guys that have similar stats to Puckett are in the HOF.

Mattingly's Career Stats:

.307 BA 222 HRS 1099 RBI 2153 Hits

6 All-Star Games
9 Gold Gloves
1985 MVP

Puckett's Career Stats:

.318 BA 207 HRS 1085 RBI 2304 Hits

10 All-Star Games
6 Gold Gloves

RIGHT

I agree but how many years is mattingly play versus puckett years

so if puck could have played a few more his stats would be even better.

Originally posted by gioperation
RIGHT

I agree but how many years is mattingly play versus puckett years

so if puck could have played a few more his stats would be even better.

Puckett played 14 years and Mattingly played 12 years.

So in 2 less years Mattingly was able to put up Puckett type numbers.

But yes I do get it that Puckett would have been playing a few more years if not for the eye thing but you can't put someone into the Hall because of what they WOULD have done and Puckett was trailing off in his last couple of years too.

I just don't see how one can be in the Hall and the other can't. Either both should be in or neither of them should have made it.

It's not just stats, as I am sure most of you are aware; it's the contribution made to baseball lore.

Puckett did much more to add to baseball history than did Mattingly.

Of course, had the Yankees made the play-offs as often back during Mattingly's day than they do now, Mattingly would've been a 1st-ballot Hall of Famer

they can't elect everyone, I bet it has to come down simply to PR then, one of the WS's that the twins didn't they go from worse to first. That I bet weighs alot on the voters...

Originally posted by podstock
It's not just stats, as I am sure most of you are aware; it's the contribution made to baseball lore.

Puckett did much more to add to baseball history than did Mattingly.

Of course, had the Yankees made the play-offs as often back during Mattingly's day than they do now, Mattingly would've been a 1st-ballot Hall of Famer

You have to got to be joking.

"It's the contribution made to baseball lore."

Um, if that was the case then Roger Maris would be in the HOF.

Both Mattingly and Puckett were only slightly above average players during their careers.

Both shouldn't be in the HOF.

But why did one guy get elected on the FIRST BALLOT which many Hall of Famers don't and the other can only get 20% of the vote?

well, what exactly did Roger Maris add to baseball lore, other than having that one spectacular year?

Lots of players with career years have fantastic numbers during that one year.

And, my statement ""It's the contribution made to baseball lore."
DOESN'T mean that you automatically get in with a 61-homer year, and not doing much else.

The answer to your question is simple; Puckett's statistics were amplified by his performance in the World Series. Every time someone talks about the Twins winning the Series, they show Puckett with that fabulous catch, and running around the bases after the clutch homer.

Mattingly never had the chance to showcase his talents in the World Series.

Originally posted by podstock
well, what exactly did Roger Maris add to baseball lore, other than having that one spectacular year?

Lots of players with career years have fantastic numbers during that one year.

And, my statement ""It's the contribution made to baseball lore."
DOESN'T mean that you automatically get in with a 61-homer year, and not doing much else.

The answer to your question is simple; Puckett's statistics were amplified by his performance in the World Series. Every time someone talks about the Twins winning the Series, they show Puckett with that fabulous catch, and running around the bases after the clutch homer.

Mattingly never had the chance to showcase his talents in the World Series.

Yeah I got it that Mattingly did not win a World Series or go to one.

But Puckett just had an above average career at best. There are plenty of guys not in the HOF that did better than him.

So basically Puckett is in the HOF because when people remember the Twins winning a World Series they think of him.

And I brought up your baseball lore comment because nobody in 25 years is going to remember Puckett winning the World Series for the Twins but people will still remember Roger Maris breaking Babe Ruth's 60 HRS. So what Puckett did really was not "baseball lore".

Every time the world Series comes about, and highlights are shown of past heroes (Mays over the shoulder catch; Kirk Gibson's 1988 home run), Puckett's will be included.

Perhaps Maris will be voted into the Hall by the Veterans committee.

Mattingly has plenty of time to be voted in.

That's what makes this argument about who's in and out of Hall of Fame so fun.

There's so many factors, and it's subjective.

For instance, I say Rose shouldn't be in the Hall (he gambled as a manager; given his gambling addictions, chances are highly likely he gambled while playing the game; he flat out lied all these years; and now, he's pondering admitting he gambled so he can get iin the Hall ---- reeks of hypocrisy)

Others claim Rose is a Hall-of-Famer.

And then, there are players who go in without controversy --- Cal Ripken, Nolan Ryan, Mike Schmidt, Reggie Jackson

I don't think that Roger Maris should get into the Hall of Fame.

I don't know I kinda think that the standards of the Hall of Fame has come down recently.

Too many questionable guys are getting in on their first ballot while others aren't even being voted for.

I really like Puckett and Mattingly for their careers but I don't think that I would have voted for either of them.