Re: How Great Was Tony Gwynn
Posted: Wed May 13, 2020 1:15 pm
I'm trying to give you business, not some rando on Ebay. Doesn't have to be a rookie card, and preferably not one of his ass.
Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums
FCS Football | Message Board | News
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/
How Great Was Tony Gwynn
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=51760
Page 3 of 3
Re: How Great Was Tony Gwynn
Posted: Wed May 13, 2020 1:16 pm
Re: How Great Was Tony Gwynn
Posted: Wed May 13, 2020 1:27 pm
Re: How Great Was Tony Gwynn
Posted: Wed May 13, 2020 1:32 pm
Re: How Great Was Tony Gwynn
Posted: Wed May 13, 2020 1:43 pm
Actual discussion at Topps, circa. January 1983.
TOPPS GUY #1 -- "Hey, do we have a better picture of this Gwynn guy?"
TOPPS GUY #2 -- "He's a rookie. That's all we've got."
TOPPS GUY #1 -- "But I mean, this is of his ass. It's an awful picture."
TOPPS GUYS #2 -- "Who's gonna care 40 years from now? Just another common card of some guy no one will ever remember."
TOPPS GUYS #1 -- "Guess you're right. We'll go with it."
Re: How Great Was Tony Gwynn
Posted: Wed May 13, 2020 2:03 pm
Both Mattingly and Gwynn debuted in 1982JoltinJoe wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 1:43 pmActual discussion at Topps, circa. January 1983.
TOPPS GUY #1 -- "Hey, do we have a better picture of this Gwynn guy?"
TOPPS GUY #2 -- "He's a rookie. That's all we've got."
TOPPS GUY #1 -- "But I mean, this is of his ass. It's an awful picture."
TOPPS GUYS #2 -- "Who's gonna care 40 years from now? Just another common card of some guy no one will ever remember."
TOPPS GUYS #1 -- "Guess you're right. We'll go with it."
Both played their first full season in 1984
Both won batting titles in 1984
Gwynn batted over .300 the next 17 seasons and won 7 more batting titles,
Mattingly hit .300 the next 5 straight, no batting titles.
Re: How Great Was Tony Gwynn
Posted: Wed May 13, 2020 2:33 pm
I don't know who you're debating. If your point is that Gwynn had a better career, I'd agree with that. At peak value -- before Mattingly's back injury -- Mattingly was a superior player, however.Gil Dobie wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 2:03 pmBoth Mattingly and Gwynn debuted in 1982JoltinJoe wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 1:43 pm
Actual discussion at Topps, circa. January 1983.
TOPPS GUY #1 -- "Hey, do we have a better picture of this Gwynn guy?"
TOPPS GUY #2 -- "He's a rookie. That's all we've got."
TOPPS GUY #1 -- "But I mean, this is of his ass. It's an awful picture."
TOPPS GUYS #2 -- "Who's gonna care 40 years from now? Just another common card of some guy no one will ever remember."
TOPPS GUYS #1 -- "Guess you're right. We'll go with it."
Both played their first full season in 1984
Both won batting titles in 1984
Gwynn batted over .300 the next 17 seasons and won 7 more batting titles,
Mattingly hit .300 the next 5 straight, no batting titles.
In just six seasons, Mattingly accumulated enough "black ink" that he is still 90th all-time, measured by the "black ink" test. The only players you will find with as much black-ink in six seasons are all slam-dunk Hall of Famers. He was on a legendary trajectory. Mattingly's Hall of Fame Monitor Score is 134 (over 130 said to be a "Hall of Fame Lock"). Nearly all of his Hall of Monitor points were earned in six seasons (save for points later in his career for Gold Gloves (9!). f you took Mattingly's six huge seasons, mixed them in between those average seasons that occurred after his injury, he would have made the Hall easily. People framed his candidacy with those last six seasons in their minds.
Re: How Great Was Tony Gwynn
Posted: Wed May 13, 2020 2:48 pm
I thought the parallels between the start of Mattingly and Gwynn's career were interesting. Joe Mauer may get the Mattingly treatment by the HOF, he gets it from AZGrizfan. Topps cards from 1982-1984 had some great rookies and some fizzles. Sandberg, Ripken, Gwynn, Boggs, Mattingly, but they all paled to the hype that Darryl Strawberry and Dwight Gooden were getting.JoltinJoe wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 2:33 pmI don't know who you're debating. If your point is that Gwynn had a better career, I'd agree with that. At peak value -- before Mattingly's back injury -- Mattingly was a superior player, however.
In just six seasons, Mattingly accumulated enough "black ink" that he is still 90th all-time, measured by the "black ink" test. The only players you will find with as much black-ink in six seasons are all slam-dunk Hall of Famers. He was on a legendary trajectory. Mattingly's Hall of Fame Monitor Score is 134 (over 130 said to be a "Hall of Fame Lock"). Nearly all of his Hall of Monitor points were earned in six seasons (save for points later in his career for Gold Gloves (9!). f you took Mattingly's six huge seasons, mixed them in between those average seasons that occurred after his injury, he would have made the Hall easily. People framed his candidacy with those last six seasons in their minds.
Re: How Great Was Tony Gwynn
Posted: Wed May 13, 2020 2:52 pm
Re: How Great Was Tony Gwynn
Posted: Wed May 13, 2020 3:47 pm
Mauer should get in. You can't look at longevity when weighing catchers. Mauer's WAR7 and WAR10 place him among the top 10 catchers of all-time. Throw out his years compiling as a DH and 1B.Gil Dobie wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 2:48 pmI thought the parallels between the start of Mattingly and Gwynn's career were interesting. Joe Mauer may get the Mattingly treatment by the HOF, he gets it from AZGrizfan. Topps cards from 1982-1984 had some great rookies and some fizzles. Sandberg, Ripken, Gwynn, Boggs, Mattingly, but they all paled to the hype that Darryl Strawberry and Dwight Gooden were getting.JoltinJoe wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 2:33 pm
I don't know who you're debating. If your point is that Gwynn had a better career, I'd agree with that. At peak value -- before Mattingly's back injury -- Mattingly was a superior player, however.
In just six seasons, Mattingly accumulated enough "black ink" that he is still 90th all-time, measured by the "black ink" test. The only players you will find with as much black-ink in six seasons are all slam-dunk Hall of Famers. He was on a legendary trajectory. Mattingly's Hall of Fame Monitor Score is 134 (over 130 said to be a "Hall of Fame Lock"). Nearly all of his Hall of Monitor points were earned in six seasons (save for points later in his career for Gold Gloves (9!). f you took Mattingly's six huge seasons, mixed them in between those average seasons that occurred after his injury, he would have made the Hall easily. People framed his candidacy with those last six seasons in their minds.
Re: How Great Was Tony Gwynn
Posted: Wed May 13, 2020 5:28 pm
Serious question: do you have that particular post at the ready, saved? Just cut and past it in whenever the conversation turns to Mattingly?JoltinJoe wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 2:33 pmI don't know who you're debating. If your point is that Gwynn had a better career, I'd agree with that. At peak value -- before Mattingly's back injury -- Mattingly was a superior player, however.
In just six seasons, Mattingly accumulated enough "black ink" that he is still 90th all-time, measured by the "black ink" test. The only players you will find with as much black-ink in six seasons are all slam-dunk Hall of Famers. He was on a legendary trajectory. Mattingly's Hall of Fame Monitor Score is 134 (over 130 said to be a "Hall of Fame Lock"). Nearly all of his Hall of Monitor points were earned in six seasons (save for points later in his career for Gold Gloves (9!). f you took Mattingly's six huge seasons, mixed them in between those average seasons that occurred after his injury, he would have made the Hall easily. People framed his candidacy with those last six seasons in their minds.
Re: How Great Was Tony Gwynn
Posted: Wed May 13, 2020 9:15 pm
Re: How Great Was Tony Gwynn
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2020 11:37 am
If he were alive...............
Re: How Great Was Tony Gwynn
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2020 12:08 pm
Pretty sure you don't have to be alive to go 0 for 1,182.
Re: How Great Was Tony Gwynn
Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2020 7:41 am
Gwynn was one of the very few players that had the talent to approach hitting .400 for a whole season.JoltinJoe wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 10:00 amWilliams started his career during the later 1930s, an era with a lot of offense and lively ball. He was head and shoulders above everyone else in batting average, even hitting .400 one year.
During World War II, due a rubber shortage, baseball changed to balata to make baseballs, which deadened the ball. After complaints, baseball went to synthetic rubber, which was still not as a lively a ball, but was better than the balata ball.
Baseball went back to natural rubber after World War II, but all reports was that the post-World War II balls were not as lively as the balls used during the 1930s. Offensive production slipped throughout the later 1940s and continued into the later 1970s. Many experts say that the ball used in that era was simply not as lively as the 1930s ball, even though baseball claimed that the balls were similar.
Anyway, during years when about 10 guys hit over .300 in any year, Williams was still putting up batting averages in the .350 range!
No matter what ball used, Williams was always leaps and bounds better than even the best hitters of his times.