The balance of power between AL East and AL West shifted starting in 88 with the rise of the A's juggernaut. That said the situation that existed in the 80s revealed the reason why wildcards were needed. The 84 Royals got to postseason with a record that would have been fifth best in the AL East. And the 87 Twins took a World Championship with a record that would have been fifth in the AL East as well.
The Don Mattingly Yankees would have made the postseason multiple times had the wildcard existed in the 1980s and IMO that could have had a bearing on Mattingly's chances for making the Hall of Fame. Kirby Puckett had identical career numbers to Mattingly and got in on the first ballot and IMO his playing on two championship teams was a big influence there.
After reading this, I compared the stats of Puckett vs Mattingly and they are indeed very close. Closer than I ever realized. No doubt the two champion teams helped put Puckett into the HOF - good point!
Ironically the Yankees were the best team in baseball in the 80s in terms of overall record, yet had only 2 AL East, 1 AL, and 0 World Series titles to show for it. This ignominious feat repeated three decades later as the Yankees managed 3 AL East titles without a single World Series appearance in the 2010s.
Unless the Yankees manage to win the World Series this year, they will have won exactly one World Series in the last 25 years, something they have never done before
And that track record of championship futility should have cost Brian Cashman his job a LONG time ago but Hal Steinbrenner alas, is so terrified of ever being compared to his father that he literally has a mental block when it comes to uttering the words, "You're fired." One reason I don't follow the Yankees (and baseball) any longer is because I've long grown fed up with how Cashman has gotten a free ride for the most inept track record of futility in Yankee history.
The WS I am sure was a factor and not making a case for or against Puckett and Mattingly, but Pucket finished with numbers consistent to his other seasons that were at HOF level. Mattingly's total numbers are similar to Puckett but his career was not balanced. The same to lesser degree is true for Dwight Evans. He had a 140 OPS+ from 1981-1990 but less than 115 the years prior. Voters tend to like consistency for the most part. Not saying that should be a factor or not but seems to be
I have heard that argument too that Puckett was more consistent over time but that means being forced to acknowledge that Mattingly for a period of five years was arguably the best player in baseball. And one might note that Sandy Koufax was not "consistent" over the course of his career but basically got in the HOF for his last five seasons of total dominance aided by three pennants and two WS in his last four years. Perhaps if Mattingly had at his peak led the Yankees to titles in the 1985-88 period that might have made his greatness in that era stand out more.
There was also the fact that Puckett was still going strong when he was forced to retire due to glaucoma (he hit over .300 with 20+ homers in his final year). Later revelations about his personal life notwithstanding, he was a popular and unique player who undoubtedly garnered sympathy due to his career-ending circumstances (see also: Ross Youngs and Addie Joss, though surprisingly, not Thurman Munson).
I think with Puckett, like Koufax, there is a sense from the voters of what might have been had he continued to play. Koufax, I'm sure, had a number of good/great years ahead of him. I'm not so sure about Puckett. Mattingly, outside of his peak, settled into a fairly solid, but unspectacular, first baseman over the latter half of his career.
I believe Mattingly's drop-off was due to his lower back issues. I wonder how monumental his numbers would have been otherwise.
With all of that said and injuries aside, from a WAR perspective, Mattingly is 40th highest all-time for first basemen. Puckett is 25th highest for center fielders.
Mattingly was certainly on the very short list one of best players in baseball from 1984-89. I am not personally saying that because his numbers after were not consistent should keep him out of the HOF, but that is a factor for a lot of voters at the time.
I think also if we flipp his last 6 season to his first and his first 6 to his last and then he retired his HOF chances might have increased. But then if his frist 6 were seen as decent not great, like Evans he would likely been seen always as a good but not great player.
I also agree if he had gone to a WS or two between 84-89 or maybe even just went and won one that might have change voters' perspective.
I wonder if it had to do with how Mattingly performed compared to other HOF first basemen? Maybe Puckett performed relatively better with HOF center fielders? I don't know, but just raising the question.
Sometimes it just all comes down the changing of the times, and what was valued in baseball at one point can become less important in the next generation. For example, you can read about players from the 19th Century or early 20th Century that were considered star players in their time, with what seems like average batting stats today, but they excelled so much on defense and that stood out then.
Making the issue worse is that from 1979 through 1993 the AL played a balanced schedule so the divisions were just there for decoration. It's not as if the Royals had a better record because the AL West was better from top to bottom; they were just lousy compared to the AL East in 1984, but because of geography, they got to play the Tigers in the ALCS
The Toronto Blue Jays were, or at least questionably the best team on paper of the mid to late 80s. The 1985 team might have been the best AL team of the decade but lost to the Royals. Then the 1986 team look like the strongest team going into September only to fade the final month, and in 1987 that epic final week derailed them. By 1988 The A's were clearly the best team in the AL.
The East was where the money was and why they had the better players. From the start of Free Agency in the mid 70s until the late 80s most of the WS came out of the AL East or NL East or Los Angeles.
I also want to add, as a huge Royals fan at that time and especially in 85 when they won it all, I was immensely disappointed that particular team never made it to the post season again! Talk about feeling shocked. With that great, young pitching staff and Brett only being 32 years old, I figured they were the team to beat in the AL West after 1985. When Kevin Seitzer came up, the 'promise' of Bo Jackson, and adding Danny Tartabull, I thought the missing pieces of the offense were finally solved and that the Royals might have been the best team in the league (on paper in 1987) and certainly in the West. I seem to recall some publications predicting them to win the division ahead of the 1987 season. But Brett only played 115 games that year because of injuries and Saberhagen was 15-3 with a 2.47 ERA at the All-Star break but then then collapsed. Dan Quisenberry officially lost his closer role and no one else was able to step in. It seemed like all year long they trailed the Twins by a few games. I remember the frustration! lol
But after a very disappointing 1987, it was apparent by 1988 with Oakland the times had changed pretty quickly. Injuries plagued most of the young KC starters, and Danny Jackson got traded for Kurt Stillwell (?!) ahead of 1988 season, and Brett's injuries (outside of 1988) didn't help after 1985. Bo Jackson, Tartabull, and Seitzer didn't quite pan out as I hoped either. Poor trades happened including horrific signings such as Mark Davis.
I saw a podcast interview with Brett recently and he talked about how disappointed he was not to make it to the postseason after 1985 as he played eight more seasons. If the current division set-up existed, the Royals would have won the "Central" in 1989.
Yeah, the AL West was rather surprising. In 1985 the Royals who won 92 games were a surprise, but George Brett (who should have been league MVP) had a big, clutch year carrying them and they arguably had the best starting pitching in the league. Dan Quisenberry led the league in saves and had a 4.2 WAR which is quite high for a reliever although he was showing signs of decline. Bret Saberhagen won the Cy Young and Charlie Leibrandt finished second in the league in ERA. So while they were surprising, they were not shocking to me.
I think the 1987 Twins were indeed shocking. They only won 85 games and their pitching wasn't great, but Frank Viola was very good. So were their defense and lineup. But, the Twins came back to win the World Series only four years later albeit with some new core players so maybe I am not giving them enough credit for 87.
It's remarkable how many players were 'rejuvenated' coming to Oakland and by 1988. Dave Parker (RIP), Eckersley, Honeycutt, Bob Welch, and Dave Stewart suddenly emerging as one of the top starting pitchers. Of course, Oakland won three Rookie of The Year awards in a row from 1986-88 with Canseco, McGwire, and Weiss. They also brought up effective players with Steinbach and Luis Polonia. It's still weird to me they didn't win the World Series in 88 and 90, but that's how it goes sometimes. We know all too well the impact steroids had on Canseco, but I don't think McGwire was using them at that point in time. They were a powerhouse that would have been hard to predict in the mid 80s.
One thing we forget about the 1987 Twins is that they lost their last 5 games, each of which came after they had clinched the AL West. If they had won all 5 of those games, they would have been a 90 win team.
The two factors in the East-West issue were aside from the California Angels and the Chicago White Sox, the western teams were small-market franchises. Also, the Royals in 1976 and 1977 should have beaten the Yankees. Whitey Herzog mismanagment or lack of faith in his bullpen turned wins into losses.
I'm not sure that I fully agree with that - in particular, the "small market franchise" bit.
If you look at the salaries of the late 1970s, you'll discover that there wasn't an actual difference between "small market" and "large market" teams at the time. That wasn't really a thing until the early 1990s.
Similarly, it's hard for me to conclude that the California Angels should ever be thought of as a "small market" franchise. In fact, they did a pretty good job at splashing for high cost free agents in the early 1980s.
Should the Rangers be considered "small market?" What about the White Sox?
Also - having watched those 1976, 1977, and 1978 ALCS games, I'd argue that Herzog's insistence on aggressive and reckless baserunning was also a major factor. The Royals were really good at running themselves out of big innings.
I did set aside the Angels and Sox (who did, for a time, have Veeck as their owner, and the 77 team lost key players in 78.) The Rangers had Brad Corbet, who did have money, but they had average pitching. The Twins, Royals, and A's were all small markets.
When Whitey ran Dennis Leonard out to the mound to relieve an exacerbated Frank White wanted know what he was doing out there. Also, Jim Colbor,n who won 18 for the 77 Royals, did not pitch an inning in the ALCS
The 80s were really the gold-standard for competitive balance in baseball. Every team in the AL but the Rangers, Indians and Mariners won the division at least once, and all but the Pirates and Reds did so in the NL (I'm including the '81 Expos). The two NL teams that didn't reach the postseason, just happened to bookend the decade by winning the World Series in '79 and '90 respectively.
The balance of power between AL East and AL West shifted starting in 88 with the rise of the A's juggernaut. That said the situation that existed in the 80s revealed the reason why wildcards were needed. The 84 Royals got to postseason with a record that would have been fifth best in the AL East. And the 87 Twins took a World Championship with a record that would have been fifth in the AL East as well.
The Don Mattingly Yankees would have made the postseason multiple times had the wildcard existed in the 1980s and IMO that could have had a bearing on Mattingly's chances for making the Hall of Fame. Kirby Puckett had identical career numbers to Mattingly and got in on the first ballot and IMO his playing on two championship teams was a big influence there.
After reading this, I compared the stats of Puckett vs Mattingly and they are indeed very close. Closer than I ever realized. No doubt the two champion teams helped put Puckett into the HOF - good point!
Ironically the Yankees were the best team in baseball in the 80s in terms of overall record, yet had only 2 AL East, 1 AL, and 0 World Series titles to show for it. This ignominious feat repeated three decades later as the Yankees managed 3 AL East titles without a single World Series appearance in the 2010s.
Unless the Yankees manage to win the World Series this year, they will have won exactly one World Series in the last 25 years, something they have never done before
And that track record of championship futility should have cost Brian Cashman his job a LONG time ago but Hal Steinbrenner alas, is so terrified of ever being compared to his father that he literally has a mental block when it comes to uttering the words, "You're fired." One reason I don't follow the Yankees (and baseball) any longer is because I've long grown fed up with how Cashman has gotten a free ride for the most inept track record of futility in Yankee history.
The WS I am sure was a factor and not making a case for or against Puckett and Mattingly, but Pucket finished with numbers consistent to his other seasons that were at HOF level. Mattingly's total numbers are similar to Puckett but his career was not balanced. The same to lesser degree is true for Dwight Evans. He had a 140 OPS+ from 1981-1990 but less than 115 the years prior. Voters tend to like consistency for the most part. Not saying that should be a factor or not but seems to be
I have heard that argument too that Puckett was more consistent over time but that means being forced to acknowledge that Mattingly for a period of five years was arguably the best player in baseball. And one might note that Sandy Koufax was not "consistent" over the course of his career but basically got in the HOF for his last five seasons of total dominance aided by three pennants and two WS in his last four years. Perhaps if Mattingly had at his peak led the Yankees to titles in the 1985-88 period that might have made his greatness in that era stand out more.
There was also the fact that Puckett was still going strong when he was forced to retire due to glaucoma (he hit over .300 with 20+ homers in his final year). Later revelations about his personal life notwithstanding, he was a popular and unique player who undoubtedly garnered sympathy due to his career-ending circumstances (see also: Ross Youngs and Addie Joss, though surprisingly, not Thurman Munson).
I think with Puckett, like Koufax, there is a sense from the voters of what might have been had he continued to play. Koufax, I'm sure, had a number of good/great years ahead of him. I'm not so sure about Puckett. Mattingly, outside of his peak, settled into a fairly solid, but unspectacular, first baseman over the latter half of his career.
I believe Mattingly's drop-off was due to his lower back issues. I wonder how monumental his numbers would have been otherwise.
With all of that said and injuries aside, from a WAR perspective, Mattingly is 40th highest all-time for first basemen. Puckett is 25th highest for center fielders.
Mattingly was certainly on the very short list one of best players in baseball from 1984-89. I am not personally saying that because his numbers after were not consistent should keep him out of the HOF, but that is a factor for a lot of voters at the time.
I think also if we flipp his last 6 season to his first and his first 6 to his last and then he retired his HOF chances might have increased. But then if his frist 6 were seen as decent not great, like Evans he would likely been seen always as a good but not great player.
I also agree if he had gone to a WS or two between 84-89 or maybe even just went and won one that might have change voters' perspective.
I wonder if it had to do with how Mattingly performed compared to other HOF first basemen? Maybe Puckett performed relatively better with HOF center fielders? I don't know, but just raising the question.
Sometimes it just all comes down the changing of the times, and what was valued in baseball at one point can become less important in the next generation. For example, you can read about players from the 19th Century or early 20th Century that were considered star players in their time, with what seems like average batting stats today, but they excelled so much on defense and that stood out then.
Making the issue worse is that from 1979 through 1993 the AL played a balanced schedule so the divisions were just there for decoration. It's not as if the Royals had a better record because the AL West was better from top to bottom; they were just lousy compared to the AL East in 1984, but because of geography, they got to play the Tigers in the ALCS
The Toronto Blue Jays were, or at least questionably the best team on paper of the mid to late 80s. The 1985 team might have been the best AL team of the decade but lost to the Royals. Then the 1986 team look like the strongest team going into September only to fade the final month, and in 1987 that epic final week derailed them. By 1988 The A's were clearly the best team in the AL.
The East was where the money was and why they had the better players. From the start of Free Agency in the mid 70s until the late 80s most of the WS came out of the AL East or NL East or Los Angeles.
I also want to add, as a huge Royals fan at that time and especially in 85 when they won it all, I was immensely disappointed that particular team never made it to the post season again! Talk about feeling shocked. With that great, young pitching staff and Brett only being 32 years old, I figured they were the team to beat in the AL West after 1985. When Kevin Seitzer came up, the 'promise' of Bo Jackson, and adding Danny Tartabull, I thought the missing pieces of the offense were finally solved and that the Royals might have been the best team in the league (on paper in 1987) and certainly in the West. I seem to recall some publications predicting them to win the division ahead of the 1987 season. But Brett only played 115 games that year because of injuries and Saberhagen was 15-3 with a 2.47 ERA at the All-Star break but then then collapsed. Dan Quisenberry officially lost his closer role and no one else was able to step in. It seemed like all year long they trailed the Twins by a few games. I remember the frustration! lol
But after a very disappointing 1987, it was apparent by 1988 with Oakland the times had changed pretty quickly. Injuries plagued most of the young KC starters, and Danny Jackson got traded for Kurt Stillwell (?!) ahead of 1988 season, and Brett's injuries (outside of 1988) didn't help after 1985. Bo Jackson, Tartabull, and Seitzer didn't quite pan out as I hoped either. Poor trades happened including horrific signings such as Mark Davis.
I saw a podcast interview with Brett recently and he talked about how disappointed he was not to make it to the postseason after 1985 as he played eight more seasons. If the current division set-up existed, the Royals would have won the "Central" in 1989.
Yeah, the AL West was rather surprising. In 1985 the Royals who won 92 games were a surprise, but George Brett (who should have been league MVP) had a big, clutch year carrying them and they arguably had the best starting pitching in the league. Dan Quisenberry led the league in saves and had a 4.2 WAR which is quite high for a reliever although he was showing signs of decline. Bret Saberhagen won the Cy Young and Charlie Leibrandt finished second in the league in ERA. So while they were surprising, they were not shocking to me.
I think the 1987 Twins were indeed shocking. They only won 85 games and their pitching wasn't great, but Frank Viola was very good. So were their defense and lineup. But, the Twins came back to win the World Series only four years later albeit with some new core players so maybe I am not giving them enough credit for 87.
It's remarkable how many players were 'rejuvenated' coming to Oakland and by 1988. Dave Parker (RIP), Eckersley, Honeycutt, Bob Welch, and Dave Stewart suddenly emerging as one of the top starting pitchers. Of course, Oakland won three Rookie of The Year awards in a row from 1986-88 with Canseco, McGwire, and Weiss. They also brought up effective players with Steinbach and Luis Polonia. It's still weird to me they didn't win the World Series in 88 and 90, but that's how it goes sometimes. We know all too well the impact steroids had on Canseco, but I don't think McGwire was using them at that point in time. They were a powerhouse that would have been hard to predict in the mid 80s.
Absolutely!
One thing we forget about the 1987 Twins is that they lost their last 5 games, each of which came after they had clinched the AL West. If they had won all 5 of those games, they would have been a 90 win team.
The two factors in the East-West issue were aside from the California Angels and the Chicago White Sox, the western teams were small-market franchises. Also, the Royals in 1976 and 1977 should have beaten the Yankees. Whitey Herzog mismanagment or lack of faith in his bullpen turned wins into losses.
I'm not sure that I fully agree with that - in particular, the "small market franchise" bit.
If you look at the salaries of the late 1970s, you'll discover that there wasn't an actual difference between "small market" and "large market" teams at the time. That wasn't really a thing until the early 1990s.
Similarly, it's hard for me to conclude that the California Angels should ever be thought of as a "small market" franchise. In fact, they did a pretty good job at splashing for high cost free agents in the early 1980s.
Should the Rangers be considered "small market?" What about the White Sox?
Also - having watched those 1976, 1977, and 1978 ALCS games, I'd argue that Herzog's insistence on aggressive and reckless baserunning was also a major factor. The Royals were really good at running themselves out of big innings.
I did set aside the Angels and Sox (who did, for a time, have Veeck as their owner, and the 77 team lost key players in 78.) The Rangers had Brad Corbet, who did have money, but they had average pitching. The Twins, Royals, and A's were all small markets.
When Whitey ran Dennis Leonard out to the mound to relieve an exacerbated Frank White wanted know what he was doing out there. Also, Jim Colbor,n who won 18 for the 77 Royals, did not pitch an inning in the ALCS
The 80s were really the gold-standard for competitive balance in baseball. Every team in the AL but the Rangers, Indians and Mariners won the division at least once, and all but the Pirates and Reds did so in the NL (I'm including the '81 Expos). The two NL teams that didn't reach the postseason, just happened to bookend the decade by winning the World Series in '79 and '90 respectively.