Players not yet eligible for the HOF

[packs]

Would you then say it was pretty clear to everyone who the better players was?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

Would you then say it was pretty clear to everyone who the better players was?

I think it was pretty clear who was considered better in the 1980's and 1990's, but that doesn't make it true and that doesn't mean either or both is HOF deserving.

Personally I would vote for neither. 127 and 128 OPS+ is good, but it's not really great for a 1B. Neither has any milestones or particularly HOF tier counting stats; rates are good but not exactly overlooked when the barrier is HOF level 1B performance. The defense argument for Hernandez is absurd; there are a tiny amount of players in the HOF for defense. 1B defense is not that valuable. Hernandez is very similar to Olerud except Hernandez has more fans and so every HOF thread becomes about Hernandez and Mattingly even if they don't meet the criteria of the thread .

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think it was pretty clear who was considered better in the 1980's and 1990's, but that doesn't make it true and that doesn't mean either or both is HOF deserving.

Personally I would vote for neither. 127 and 128 OPS+ is good, but it's not really great for a 1B. Neither has any milestones or particularly HOF tier counting stats; rates are good but not exactly overlooked when the barrier is HOF level 1B performance. The defense argument for Hernandez is absurd; there are a tiny amount of players in the HOF for defense. 1B defense is not that valuable. Hernandez is very similar to Olerud except Hernandez has more fans and so every HOF thread becomes about Hernandez and Mattingly even if they don't meet the criteria of the thread .

You love to say that allowing Hernandez in the HOF would open the floodgates to people like Olerud (even though he had fewer accolades). Others point to Will Clark needing to be in if Hernandez gets in.

Well, if Mattingly gets in, then so do Albert Belle, Dale Murphy, Johan Santana, and pretty much anyone else who has had 4 exceptional years.

To be honest, I am ok with none of those guys getting in, including Hernandez. But for Packs to claim that Mattingly is more deserving than Hernandez for such reasons as the HOF voters have been kinder to Mattingly is incredibly weak.

[packs]

Johan Santana won two Cy Youngs and the pitching Triple Crown. That is a HOF resume and there are plenty of lesser accomplished pitchers in the Hall.

I brought up the vote because you kind of insist it’s only single posters who see the same things as the general public.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Belle's traditional stats are much better than his WAR -- 8 seasons of more than 30 HR (with 2 over 40 and one over 50) and 9 (consecutive) seasons of 100 plus RBI. Plus a career OPS of .933. It feels counter to common sense to me that Hernandez has a higher WAR7 but he does.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by packs

Johan Santana won two Cy Youngs and the pitching Triple Crown. That is a HOF resume and there are plenty of lesser accomplished pitchers in the Hall.

I brought up the vote because you kind of insist it’s only single posters who see the same things as the general public.

No idea what you are talking about.

Yes, I am aware of Santana's achievements.

Mattingly was my probably fav. player growing up. His Rookie was my first big purchase of a baseball card. But let's not let our feelings get in the way of the reality that he doesn't have the strongest HOF resume. Does he get in some day? Probably. Does he deserve to leapfrog Hernandez. Perhaps not.

Just came across this article by Joe Posnanski that sums it up well: "I am not entirely clear why Keith Hernandez’s Hall of Fame case never got going. As an 11-time Gold Glove winner who won an MVP award and is pretty widely regarded as the greatest defensive first baseman ever, he was certainly one of the most famous players of his day (and he became even more famous after retirement for his work on Seinfeld and in commercials).

He seemed like the sort of player who would capture the voters’ imaginations, especially because he starred in New York, which — if you follow the conventional wisdom — is supposed to make a big difference.

But things never really got going for him. In his first Hall of Fame year, 1996, Hernandez barely got the 5 percent necessary just to stay on the ballot. He did stay on the ballot for nine years, but just barely each time. He never got 11 percent of the vote. In those nine years, three first basemen were elected by either the BBWAA or veterans committees. Here are those three in career WAR, seven-year peak WAR and JAWS, the Jay Jaffe invention that combines them both.

1. Tony Pérez (54.0 career WAR, 36.5 peak, 45.3 JAWS)
2. Orlando Cepeda (50.1 career WAR, 34.5 peak, 42.3 JAWS)
3. Eddie Murray (68.7 career WAR, 39.1 peak, 53.9 JAWS)

OK, now compare them to Keith Hernandez — 60.1 career WAR, 41.3 peak, 50.8 JAWS.

You will notice, I do use WAR and JAWS quite a bit when discussing these players. This is not to say that I always agree with WAR and JAWS’ conclusions; this list, as you have certainly noticed, does not go in order of those things. But I think what WAR and JAWS do well is give us a baseline to discuss.

And in this case, by WAR, Hernandez had the best seven-year peak of the four. I think that’s probably right; he and Cepeda are the only two to win MVP awards, and Hernandez’s 1979 season — .344/.417/.513, led league in runs and doubles, won the Gold Glove with outrageously good defense — was probably the best year any of the four had. And Hernandez had three or four years that were just about as good.

In career WAR, he only trails Murray because, let’s be clear, Eddie Murray was a marvelous and indestructible force who played more than 3,000 games (a thousand or so more than Hernandez). Murray was a metronome who basically had the same superb year every year and over 21 seasons cracked more than 3,000 hits and 500 home runs. Murray is a first-ballot, no-doubt Hall of Famer.

But shouldn’t that that put Hernandez close? Why has he basically been ignored?

I don’t think it’s one thing; it’s never just one thing. Hernandez’s struggle with drugs in the 1980s undoubtedly has something to do with it. The fact that he was not a home run hitter undoubtedly has something to do with it. The fact that his career ended up being a bit short — his last full season was at age 33 — undoubtedly has a lot to do with it.

But Hernandez also faces a unique challenge that can be summed up in two words: Don Mattingly.

They were not precise contemporaries. Hernandez is seven years older than Mattingly and had collected more than 1,000 hits, four Gold Gloves and an MVP award before Mattingly even debuted in the Major Leagues.

But … they overlapped in New York. From 1983-89, Hernandez was first baseman for the Mets, Mattingly for the Yankees. They were each 6-foot, 180-or-so pound left-handed batters who sported fantastic mustaches. Comparisons were inevitable and plentiful.

And, frankly, it was a battle that Hernandez could not win, even if he did play for the superior team. Mattingly was everything in the mid-1980s while Hernandez was already into the decline phase of his career. Oh, Hernandez still had good years. In 1984, he hit .311, drove in 94 RBIs, won the Gold Glove and finished second in the MVP voting. He was just about as good in 1985 and ’86 as the Mets roared to their World Series title.

But Mattingly was something else. He was almost mythical. He launched double after double into the gaps, crushed 30 homers a year, won his own Gold Gloves in large part because of the gorgeous way he scooped bad throws out of the dirt. And he did it with such style, such coolness, he was an ’80s icon like Molly Ringwald, George Michael, Madonna, Bruce Willis, Princess Di — OK, he wasn’t like any of them, but he had a vibe. New York belonged to Donnie Baseball.

And I don’t think that Hernandez has ever quite escaped that comparison. Mattingly is not in the Hall of Fame. His career has been seen as too short. But the fire is still burning, there are so many people who believe that he belongs in Cooperstown.

Hernandez, meanwhile, is all but forgotten as a Hall of Fame candidate even though his case is significantly better than Mattingly’s. I mean, again, not to make too much out of WAR but Hernandez over his career was worth 18 or 19 more wins than Mattingly. Offensively, he was more valuable than Mattingly because he walked almost twice as often. Defensively, he was more valuable than Mattingly — because he really was more valuable defensively than pretty much any first baseman in the game’s history.

This leads to one more Keith Hernandez topic. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about how I am left cold by the argument that Jeff Kent belongs in the Hall of Fame simply because he hit more home runs than any second baseman ever. But this is only because second basemen through the years rarely hit home runs. Kent’s 377 homers are impressive enough as far as that goes, but that would rank him 10th among left fielders, 11th among right fielders and tied for 18th among first basemen. As I wrote then, this feels more like trivia than a notable argument to me.

But then: What are we supposed to do with the consensus that Hernandez was the greatest defensive first baseman ever? Isn’t this the same thing? First base, by virtually all measures, is the least challenging and least important defensive position. How much does it matter when talking about the Hall of Fame to say that Hernandez played first base better than anyone else?

Well, I actually think it does matter, in a way that Kent’s homer lead does not. The goal of every first baseman is to play the best defense possible — whether that means covering a lot of ground, rescuing bad throws, slapping down tags on pickoff plays, charging bunts and so on. The person who does that best makes the team better.

Meanwhile, the goal of second basemen is not only to hit home runs. Nobody thinks that Jeff Kent was the best hitter to play second base, just that he hit the most home runs.

Here, for argument’s sake, is my opinion about the best defender ever at each position:

C: Johnny Bench, HOF
1B: Keith Hernandez, not Hall of Fame
2B: Bill Mazeroski, HOF
SS: Ozzie Smith, HOF
3B: Brooks Robinson, HOF
LF: Carl Yastrzemski, HOF (maybe Barry Bonds, not a Hall of Famer though that has nothing to do with his defense).
CF: Willie Mays, HOF
RF: Roberto Clemente, HOF

If Hernandez was a poor hitter, I don’t think his first base defense alone would be enough to get him into the Hall of Fame. But he was a very good hitter, an MVP, a big star. Like I said at the top, I do not quite understand why Hernandez hasn’t received more support."

[packs]

It’s not just me who thinks Mattingly was better. That’s what that means.

[nat]

Any case for Keith Hernandez for the hall will be, and should be, controversial, because he's a marginal candidate, and marginal candidates are, almost by definition, controversial. He's tied for 187th in career WAR, surrounded by lower-tier hall of famers, and good non-hall of famers. He's exactly tied with Dazzy Vance, and right around the same level as Bobby Abreu, Vlad Guerrero, Jim Edmonds, and Zach Wheat. Is Zach Wheat a deserving hall of famers? My answer is: sure, but if they had left him out I wouldn't have missed any sleep over it. (Or probably even have noticed.) That's Hernandez' company. Guys on the borderline of the hall, in both directions, who pretty much can't (because they're borderline) have strong arguments either in their favor or against them.

Insofar as Hernandez does have a case, defense is an essential part of it. Gold gloves are a poor measure of defense, as the recently cited Palmeiro GG illustrates. The statistic you want to use to measure defense is Rfield. Hernandez has a career score of 117, meaning that he saved 117 runs more than an average first baseman. Mattingley has a career Rfield of 33. Now, before we get carried away, let's remember that these guys play first base. And while defense is important no matter where you play, there are only so many opportunities for first basemen to make important plays. (Ozzie Smith's number, for comparison, is 239.) Still, 117 runs saved is very good. It's a little below Omar Vizquel (who was, of course, a shortstop).

Baseball-Reference doesn't seem to have career leaderboards for Rfield, but they do have Total Zone, which is the next best thing. And Hernandez is the all-time leader in Total Zone Runs Saved for first basemen. (N.B. this statistic only goes back to 1953, the data it's based on wasn't collected before that time.) Todd Helton is #2, 13 runs behind. Don Mattingley is 31st. Good, but not an all-time leader.

(Technical note: all first basemen will look terrible by dWAR, because dWAR contains a positional adjustment. Basically, they get penalized for playing a position that it's relatively easy to fill. Because of the positional adjustment, the leaderboard for dWAR is very heavy on shortstops and has no first basemen.)

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You love to say that allowing Hernandez in the HOF would open the floodgates to people like Olerud (even though he had fewer accolades). Others point to Will Clark needing to be in if Hernandez gets in.

What post did I say this in? I said Hernandez is very similar to John Olerud. Go look at their numbers (WAR, OPS+, defense value, etc. etc.) and tell me that is untrue. This is a true statement. I never said anything about the floodgates or that he would lower the standard much if he was let in? Where was this or something to that affect? I love to say this? Where?

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Well, if Mattingly gets in, then so do Albert Belle, Dale Murphy, Johan Santana, and pretty much anyone else who has had 4 exceptional years.

The post you quoted has me saying I would not vote for Mattingly and do not think him a good candidate. I am not making any case for him whatsoever? I would not vote for him, a short peak like his is not HOF tier as it generally has not been treated as such by the Hall.

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

To be honest, I am ok with none of those guys getting in, including Hernandez. But for Packs to claim that Mattingly is more deserving than Hernandez for such reasons as the HOF voters have been kinder to Mattingly is incredibly weak.

I said in reference to this "that doesn't make it true and that doesn't mean either or both is HOF deserving", so I agree.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Not sure where or how this thread went off the rails, as it's supposed to be about players NOT YET ELIGIBLE.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by packs

It’s not just me who thinks Mattingly was better. That’s what that means.

Your reading comprehension skills are apparently very poor if your takeaway from the Posnanksi article was that many people think Mattingly deserves to be in. He is saying a lot more than that. Mainly that Hernandez is more deserving than Mattingly DESPITE what people like you think. Note that this article was part of a larger series of articles in which Posnanski ranks the best players not in the HOF. Where does he rank Hernandez? Number 22, behind players such as Albert Pujols and ahead of Fred McGriff, Johan Santana, Curt Schilling and Jeff Kent. And where does he rank Mattingly? He ranks him number 53.

Now is the part when Greg G1911 accuses me of "appealing to authority"

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by Tabe

He's one of those guys that WAR loves for no discernible reason.

Rick Reuschel is in this club.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

Rick Reuschel is in this club.

Bobby Grich.

[nat]

Conventional wisdom often under-values players who are good at lots of things but not great at any single thing. Bobby Grich is an example. He was very good defensively. He had good-but-not-great power. He drew lots of walks, so his on base percentage was good, but since he had a relatively low batting average, it wasn't outstandingly good. Add it up and you get a really good player. But since he didn't do anything flashy, he doesn't have the corresponding reputation.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nat

Conventional wisdom often under-values players who are good at lots of things but not great at any single thing. Bobby Grich is an example. He was very good defensively. He had good-but-not-great power. He drew lots of walks, so his on base percentage was good, but since he had a relatively low batting average, it wasn't outstandingly good. Add it up and you get a really good player. But since he didn't do anything flashy, he doesn't have the corresponding reputation.

That makes sense but he ranks ahead of Jackie, Sandberg, Alomar and Biggio, hard to buy into that for me anyhow.

[packs]

What about Aaron Nola for the too soon to tell crowd? Nothing jumps out but he's 30 years old and has over 1500 K's. They say 3000 is the magic number for pitchers and still being relatively young I could see a path to it.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That makes sense but he ranks ahead of Jackie, Sandberg, Alomar and Biggio, hard to buy into that for me anyhow.

To get back to subject instead of Hernandez and personal agendas between posters -

Biggio, Utley and Jackie are all really close together. Jackie is a very short career which is why, but Utley is 1.0 WAR below Biggio. Have a hard time seeing them as essentially the same value. Biggio played far more at a similar effectiveness. One really has to buy into dWAR's hatred of Biggio's defense.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You love to cherry-pick the data. In 1982, Hernandez finished in the top 10 in the NL in batting average with .299 and was 3rd in the NL in on base percentage with .397. Schmidt led the majors with .403. Hernandez led the Majors with 19 intentional walks. His OPS was .810 and his OPS+ was 127. He was top 10 in the NL in doubles (33). He won a Gold Glove. This is how he accumulated WAR.

Olerud finished in top 10 in MVP voting once. Hernandez had 3 top 5 finishes including an MVP.

It's not really cherry picking. There is no time or metric or era by which you can twist a 1B hitting .299 with 7 homers into being a good year. None. Go look at Al Oliver in 1982 and try and tell me that Hernandez was even close as WAR says he was.

And you, again, went right back to Gold Gloves. For a 1B. One of Olerud's greatest talents was eliminating errors from other players, something ignored by Gold Glove voters and dWAR. He consistently cut down throwing errors when joining teams. But, again, who cares? It's 1B. It's like bragging about Jim Kaat's Gold Gloves as a pitcher.

Olerud had essentially the same total WAR in nearly the same AB. He hit 18+ homers seven times - Hernandez did it once. Olerud led his league in OPS and OPS+ and hit .350 or higher twice. Hernandez never did any of that.

I don't think Olerud belongs in the Hall. Hernandez was a fine player who had an excellent career. But he doesn't belong in the Hall either.

[brass_rat]

Somewhat related to this discussion, I enjoyed this blog post:

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/can-fred...3000-hit-club/

I like this adjustment as well:

"ZiPS actually has a milestone algorithm I wrote some years ago that reduces playing time less as a player nears a significant milestone, so the projection system now has Freeman more likely to get to 3,000 than to fall short, at 53%."