What? No Lou Gehrig? FWIW. Go Steelers. : )

Alex,

You were chatting with Lombardi and the topic was something other than Phil Hughes' velocity?

No Lou, and no Joe Pepitone either! LOL. Nah, this is just the "consecutive" crew.

[1] Babe Dahlgren kinda broke the chain a little... >;)

[3] What? No Scrabble??

Too bad Tex didn't take #26 to keep that going (23, 24, 25 . . . 25). With all due respect to Donnie Baseball, Tex could/should prove be the best of the four by the time his contract expires.

Indeed, Chyll, John Olerud, Tony Clark, Andy Phillips, Doug Mientkiewicz, and even Miguel Cairo got a bit too much playing time at first base during the Giambi era.

[6] Whatever happens, I think Donnie B. will remain most folks' favorite. Me included. : )

I'm not so sure about that re: Mattingly. He was one of MY favorites, as he was for most of the guys who saw him play. But if you are a teenager now, Mattingly is just a memory. Which isn't to say that Teix can replace him, because Mattingly had a distinct career--Yankee prospect who thrived and then withered during a pennant-less run.

{9] Bah! Get of my lawn. ha.

Mattingly in effect had two careers, pre- and post-1990. I think Tex can be about as good as Mattingly was during the early part of his career.

i am so disappointed in all of you. how about moose? how about chris? jim spencer! joe collins? And, a HALL OF FAMER, johnny mize.

But the only player i remember the janlks hiding was ....

I'm glad there is another gold glove and silver slugger winner playing 1B again! It's been too long.

[6] Cliff, you are a sentimentalist after all. Isn't Giambi, not Mattingly, really the yardstick that Teixeira will be measured against?

And I say that even though Mattingly was my most favoritist player by far growing up.

[6] I am very optimistic about Teixeira too, but besting Don Mattingly's healthy six years is a very tall order. From 1984 to 1989, Mattingly was an All Star all six years, had 5 gold gloves, had 4 top-6 finishes in OPS+ (inclduing two #1 finishes) and three top-5 MVP finishes (including one award).

Teixeira is joing the Yankees at the exact point Mattingly's back stunted his career, so the comparison isn't linear, but I don't think you can expect Teixeira to match Mattingly's best 6 seasons.

Speaking of Mattingly, if Jim Rice get's elected to the HoF tomorrow, it should boost Donnie's future chances of getting in. Now, I personally don't think either belong, but am just looking for a silver lining in what will be a bad day for the HoF.

Consider the following comparison:

Rice: 9,058 PAs; OPS+ 128; .298/.352/.502 in a hitter's park; 8 All Star appearances; 3.15 MVP shares (1 award); 5 top-10 OPS+ finishes ( 1 first place finish)

Mattingly: 7,721 PAs; OPS+ 127; .307/.358/.471 in a pitcher's park; 6 All Star appearances; 2.22 MVP shares (1 award); 5 top-6 OPS+ finishes (2 first place finish)

Anecdotally, Rice was voted the best hitter in the game by his peers in 1979, while Mattingly was voted the best player in the game by his peers in 1986 and 1987.

Basically, Rice and Mattingly were equally productive hitters, but Rice gets an edge for about two more seasons worth of PAs. Of course, Mattingly was a 9-time gold glover, while Rice was a bad right fielder. Also in small samples (80 PAs for Rice vs. 25 PAs for Mattingly), Mattingly was excellent in his lone post season, while Rice was very bad in two of his three post seasons.

To make a long story short, there is really no way to argue that Rice is a Hall of Famer, while Mattingly is not. It seems that 15 years has made people forget Rice's rapid decline and flaws as a player, so I guess there is a chance that the same will take place for Mattingly.

It would be better if the HoF sought to tighten its standards, but unless the voting process is revamped, its continued dilution is inevitable.

[16] Interesting comparison. One note: OPS+ should take care of hitters park v. pitchers park. But I guess you are saying that Rice's .500+ SLG looks artificially good compared to Mattingly's .471.

What hurts Mattingly even more (v. Rice) than time (which makes people forget Rice's decline) is that the end of Mattingly's career coincided with the offensive explosion. His numbers just look so weak when compared with McGwire and Bagwell, and even Palmiero or McGriff (134 OPS+, 493 HR).

[15] Over 4 of those years he avergaed an OPS+ off 155, and 145 over the six years. I doubt Tex can match that, but we can hope. And Pepitone is the only defensive 1Bman that even compared to Donnie.

[17] Right...I added the pitcher's/hitter's park in case anyone wasn't aware of OPS+.

Ironically, I think Mattingly could be helped by the offensive explosion at the end of his career, especially because so many people will simply attribute it to steroids. Not only does absence make the heart grow fonder, but time seems to cloud the memory. Who knows...in another 8 years, people may be talking about how Donnie Baseball was a slick glove who was one of the most feared hitters in his prime. They might also talk about how his work ethic and passion for the game was in contrast to the self absorbed, juiced up players that followed. If the NY writing contingent is as successful as their Boston brethren, the campaign could work.

[18] We can hope, but Tex doesn't have to be better than Mattingly to be a success. While I think there is a small chance he could surpass the bar, it is a stretch to say he should.

[18][19] Maybe more advanced defensive metrics, assuming they develop, will help players like Mattingly. What about Keith Hernandez: 128 OPS+, lots of GG, five full seasons of 140+ OPS+, one MVP, one second place MVP finish.

Of course, I still think that Fred McGriff is too easily forgotten.

[21] Yep...Hernandez is another player who I think merits inclusion if Rice is indeed Hall worthy. Hernandez is hampered by relatively low counting stats though, so his obstacle is probably greater than Mattingly. Also, he was never deemed the "best in the game", which seems to carry weight with some voters.

McGriff also compares favorably to Rice too. That's the problem with Rice. He is like a flood gate. It's really a shame.

[22] Of course, Hernandez' greatest obstacle is he dropped off the ballot, but I have a feeling he'll be a popular Veteran's committee nominee.

[22] McGriff was better than Rice, even if the MVP voters selected otherwise. His peak years were as good or slightly better, he was more consistent longer, and he put up the better (all important) counting stats.

[0] I hope Tex can hit 1/3rd as good as puffy-faced era Bonds...

maybe missed it on the earlier Rickey Henderson thread but, is he a top-10 all-time player?? I would say Yes...

Red Sox signed Saito for their pen, now have three Japanese players..hope that doesn't mean 3 times as many games on tv here! Lucky for me that Matsui is still the most popular player in Japan, despite Ichiro being much much better...should get at least 50 Yanks games on tv over the year, maybe more.

[21] Oh yes, Crime Dog McGriff was a great great player..though the whole HOF argument thing gets a bit old..for me, if you aren't in right away then you probably shouldn't be in at all...

[26] The reason for the five year waiting period between retirement and ballot is to allow emotions to subside, and for a player's career to be put in proper historical context. I have no problem with more players being voted in later, so long as there is a rational basis for doing so.

Frankly, I think the waiting period should be ten years or more.

[27] this could then be called the "Kirby Puckett" rule..i LOVED Kirby when he played, but he is in on emotion for sure...

am sure this has been argued to death too but..if Jim Rice goes in, how can Andre Dawson be kept out? I know the whole low-OBP thing hurts his case, but the guy had power, speed and defense..i think he belongs in...