ERA can be misleading a bit for relievers, but I see that Kimbrel's career ERA is a FULL RUN lower. That's a lot.

Kimbrel and Jansen are close to locks.

It's not a full run lower.

Kimbrel is at 2.41 Source: https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...imbrcr01.shtml

Jansen is at 2.51. Source: https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...anseke01.shtml

The difference is .1, not 1.0?

I am too old to read stats on devices. :) Thanks for the correction.

Kimbrel was removed from his closer role in LA last season. He's been pretty terrible since the all star break too, even though he managed to be named as a replacement for the all star team.

From what I have seen, WAR doesn't seem to be a great stat for relievers because of the minimal number of innings they generally pitch.

I’m not a fan of it either, but the voter base is these days.

I admit to being biased, but Francisco Lindor and Jose Ramirez are both very strong candidates, and I expect they'll make it over the line. They need to produce in their 30's about half of what they did in their 20's, which is very reasonable IMO.

WAR for the top 10 save leaders. Other than Rivera and Eckersley, nothing that impressive compared to starters and position players. Relievers just don't pitch enough any more to do well in WAR.

Mariano Rivera's career WAR is 56.3
Trevor Hoffman 28.0
Lee Smith 28.9
Fracisco Rodriguez 24.2
John Franco 23.4
Billy Wagner 27.8
Kenley Jansen 20.8
Craig Kimbrel 23.1
Dennis Eckersley 62.1 (also a starter so a lot higher because of that)
Joe Nathan 26.7

+1

Machado is more likely than Harper especially if you are looking at WAR.

I think Posey might get 1st ballot, as a Catcher, nice guy image, 3WS championships, ROY, MVP, etc. And considering the last true Giant to get inducted by the BBWAA was Gaylord Perry in 1991 it's time to put another Giant in the Hall.

Just my thought, but I think WAR works well for hitters, less well for pitchers and hardly at all for relievers.

Love this thread and I need to look at my speculative list when I'm next on my computer, since I'm a HOF auto collector.

Two others trending really nicely, Shohei and Aaron Judge. I have a Judge auto but not Ohtani.

One other Sox player that I unfortunately think will come up short is Jon Lester.

And no way CC should get in ahead of Schilling. Both should be in!

1995 Beltran (should be a lock....)
1997 Beltre (lock)
1999 Sabathia (lock....not just likely)
2000 Cabrera (lock)
2001 Utley (unlikely)
2001 Ichiro (lock)
2001 Pujols (lock)
2002 Greinke (lock....maybe not Scherzer, Verlander, or Kershaw, but is one of the best of his era)
2002 Votto (lock)
2002 Mauer (likely)
2003 Cano (no)
2004 Molina (lock)
2005 Cruz (unlikely)
2005 Verlander (lock)
2008 Scherzer (lock)
2008 Kershaw (lock)
2010 Posey (lock)
2011 Altuve (likely.....if he continues to produce)
2011 Freeman (likely)
2011 Trout (lock)
2011 Goldschmidt (disagree.....likely...Goldie may not be a first ballot, but he is going in....great first baseman....7 ASs, MVP, bunch of Silver Sluggers, Gold Gloves)
2012 Harper (likely.....if he continues to produce and does not have a career ending injury in the next couple of years)
2013 Arenado (look at his hardware.....not too soon to tell.....very likely)
2013 Machado (likely)
2013 Cole (too soon to tell)
2014 Betts (likely)
2014 DeGrom (unlikely.... unfortunately for him, he started too late and is too injury prone)

Schilling will eventually get in as well....his "issues"....do not have anything to do with his performance...... people will eventually get over it.....

You have folks like Landis, Anson, Cobb, Speaker, Hornsby, Slaughter, and others in who were just flat out racists, bigots, who objected integration, were on record making disparaging remarks about black players, etc.

Greinke will be interesting because if he gets into the HOF (most likely should) he'll be representing KC and his 41%-ish win percentage with them.

Greinke is not an "if"......he is a lock....maybe not first ballot.....but he is for sure getting in..... he is a hair shy of 3000 Ks

I think Altuve (over 2000 H, 3 batting titles, high WAR, etc.), Freeman (2000 H with what looks like many more to come, etc.) both get in. Arenado looks good too as he’s got ten 10 GGs and 5 Platinum gloves (unofficial perhaps I know but still impressive) and he’s continued to be a run producer after leaving Coors Field. And Betts will get in. Very high WAR, only 30 and still productive. And he can play middle infield as well! Remember, these guys can also cruise at DH and pile up the numbers towards the end of their careers if desired.

Dale Murphy has 2 MVPs.....along with basically 400 HRs, 2100 hits, almost 1300 RBIs, 7 AS, 5 GGs, 4 SSs.... I think Murphy should be in, personally speaking.

And this actually overstates how valuable these guys were. WAR includes a leverage adjustment - basically, relief pitchers get extra credit when they appear in tight games. This doesn't make any sense, a run scored in the first inning counts just as much as a run scored in the ninth, but relievers get extra credit for preventing runs in the ninth inning that starters don't get for preventing runs in the same game in the first inning.

Because they pitch so few innings, relief pitchers just aren't that valuable. Their WAR scores are lower than those of starters, and if WAR had been better formulated (i.e., if it hadn't included a leverage adjustment) they would be even lower.

The leverage adjustment is not something I have ever heard of before, but even with it, closers just don't do well with WAR.

I am not sure how you would analyze it statistically, but I've always thought relief pitchers' stats are favorably skewed because they don't get charged for letting inherited runners score.

Ummm, yeah, no. He has about 700 more strikeouts than Pettite in about the same amount of seasons.....also has a Cy Young...plus, no HGH admission. So, yeah, he is not pretty much Andy Pettite. He is a lock.

Hernandez should be in....11 Gold Gloves, the most of any 1st baseman.

He'll get in within the next couple of years....

And 162 homers.

If you start a 1B's HOF case talking about his defense, he doesn't belong.

11 Gold Gloves ...

60 WAR....

MVP...

Silver Sluggers

That's good enough for me ..

Man maybe it's because I'm a Dodger fan but I'm certainly don't see Posey as a first ballot and have questions about him even making it. Even at a position that SHOULD have lower standards due to the physical demands of the job his totals are SO low. Not a lot of 1500 hit, 700 RBI, 600 Run, 150 HR guys in the hall even at catcher. A 44 career WAR doesn't impress much either. Great player, but not sure about HOF player.

What about Molina? His counting stats are all higher because he played a lot longer than Posey, but his WAR is actually a little lower at 42.1.

Catchers are definitely looked at differently than other positions so I think they both will eventually get in, but not necessarily on the first ballot.

I think Betts (very high WAR and still only 30, etc.), Altuve (2000 H, high WAR, 3 batting titles, etc.), Freeman (2000 H with more to come, MVP, etc.) and Arenado (10 GGs, 5 Platinum Gloves, still a run producer after leaving Coors Field, etc.) are all going to get in. And Sabathia will get in because who else is going to win 250 games?

Justin Verlander has 255 wins.

Brian

He quit the game too early.

He had almost 200 million reasons to do so, but checking out of the game to go home and chill with the family while you're still healthy and productive isn't a great HOF look even if it's a totally rational decision.

Isn't that what Koufax did?

And who knows if he was really or felt healthy.

I don't think it hurts Posey. He is very well liked, he's a catcher, he's in.

I agreed. I think Posey is in. He was also the anchor of all those champion teams.

I would not vote for him, but Posey is pretty much a lock. People like him and that team won 3 WS with nobody else who has a HOF argument on playing for them. He’ll get in even with the very weak career line.

We need more pictures! I think these 4 all have a good chance for the HOF.

Attachment 588577

The two catchers we've been discussing, vintage rookie style.

On the subject of catchers, any chance Salvador Perez gets any consideration?

WS (and series MVP), multiple GG's and AS appearances could hit 300 HRs.

Would be very borderline but I bet he looks good vs Hartnett/Schalk/Ferrell others?

...

He's one of those guys that WAR loves for no discernible reason. Ex: 1982. 7 homers, 72 runs, 413 slugging - and he gets a 4.6 WAR. That's not even a good season let alone nearly All-Star but WAR thinks it is.

Also, he was washed up at 35 and played just 12 full seasons.

If you like Hernandez, put in John Olerud, too.

I agree. Not many guys who played just 6 full seasons are in the Hall.

Olerud....3 GGs..... Hernandez 11.

I know people poo poo GGs when it comes to certain positions but I am of the opinion that unless you played that position in the pros, a person has no right to poo poo a GG at any position.

Olerud was great, as was Will Clark.

If person has not done X, person cannot have negative opinion on X but can have a positive one.

This makes no sense.

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.

The Gold Glove Award is the award given annually to players judged to have exhibited superior individual fielding performances at each fielding position. Winners are determined from voting by the managers and coaches in each league, many of whom have done X, know the game in and out, and can appreciate the difficulty, challenges, etc. of each position, including 1st base. Yes, a first baseman may not get as many line drives or pop ups like a SS or outfielder respectively but it's still challenging to play that position well in the pros and requires lots of skill and concentration.

A person who was recognized by the league's coaches and managers 11 times during his 16 year career, of which not all 16 years were full seasons for him, for his position play, is a MAJOR accomplishment.

At no point in his career was Keith Hernandez better than Don Mattingly. If Mattingly is not in the HOF there is no argument for Hernandez.

I am all for Donnie B getting in. I am a bigger hall guy though....would put in Dave Parker, Murphy, Lou W, Richie Allen, Flood, Andruw Jones, Kent, etc.

To me, you don't have to be Aaron, Mays, Ruth...if you were one of the best offensively, and/or defensively at your respective position for a considerable stretch, you should be recognized.

This is a silly argument, considering that Keith Hernandez started playing a decade before Mattingly. Are you discounting Hernandez' MVP that he won in 1979, 3 years before Mattingly played for the Yankees?

Yes, Mattingly was more productive than Hernandez during his prime from 1984 through 1989. This was the end of Hernandez' career, as Hernandez retired in 1990 and is 7 years older than Mattingly. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

Mattingly only had 4 great years (over 5 WAR).
Hernandez had 5 great years (over 5 WAR).
And Mattingly only had 2 other years with over 3 WAR.
Hernandez had 6 other years with over 3 WAR.

Many people consider Hernandez to be the best fielding first baseman ever. No one (except maybe you?) consider Mattingly to be a better fielder.

I think Utley is underrated. The fact that he never won a gold glove hides the fact that he was one of the best defenders of his time. He led the entire MLB with a 3.5 dWAR in 2008 and his 64.5 WAR/49.3 7-Year Peak WAR/17.3 dWAR is pretty impressive at 2B. He suffers in counting stats because he didn’t even play 2000 games and again, he suffers a bit in the awards because of the GG thing and the fact that the voters picked the wrong Phillie in 2007 for the MVP.

Didn't Palmeiro win a GG in a year he played fewer than 50 games at 1B?

Here is a pretty good analysis for Utley:

https://www.cooperstowncred.com/chas...le%20in%202024.

In 1999 Palmeiro played 128 games at DH and only 28 at 1B and won the Gold Glove at 1B. He had 13 assists as a 1B.

Hernandez had the benefit of health and he did almost nothing with it. His counting stats are either less than Mattingly's or the difference is negligible. But Mattingly was only healthy for 4 seasons. And for those four seasons he was arguably the best player in the entire league, and a proto-Albert Pujols. Hernandez was never that good.

The difference in defense is negligible as well. Everyone knows Mattingly was an all world glove in his own right. He has two less Gold Gloves in 3 less seasons. Not turning anyone's head.

This guy is getting in for sure

Obviously the voters for this award are very informed.

I like how Tabe is arguing that Hernandez wasn't healthy enough, and you are arguing that he was too healthy (and somehow squandered his health).

As you said Mattingly was only healthy for 4 seasons. Is that enough for the HOF? Maybe. But I don't see a way Hernandez doesn't get in first.

What does too healthy mean? When was Keith injured and what were his injuries? Mattingly suffers from the same injury as David Wright and my point about his four seasons was that despite being healthy for only a fraction of Hernandez's entire career, he put up as good or better numbers.

That doesn't make Hernandez sound good but it seems like you think it does.

Mattingly was arguably the best player in baseball, or right at the top, for a period of years. Hernandez, not close. That has to count for something in the comparison.

With all due respect, this too is a silly argument. Dale Murphy was arguably the best player in baseball in the early 80s. Does that mean he should get into the HOF before Billy Williams, or any other player who had a better overall career?

As far as peak goes, you need a very narrow window of time to claim that Mattingly had a better peak. Specifically, you need 4 years. WAR7, which is used in JAWS is more common. Hernandez is 21st for First Baseman with a WAR7 of 41.2 compared to Mattingly who ranks 34th with a 35.7 WAR7. Oh, and Hernandez ranks ahead of Olerud (24th) and Will Clark (31) too.

And let's not forget Hernandez finishing in the top 5 in the MVP voting 3 times, just as Mattingly did.

What was Koufax's WAR 7?

You can just look and see who was better. Mattingly was hitting close to or more than 30 homers and 100 runs driven in while hitting 343, 324, 352 and 327.

When you talk about talent and ability and who was better, it is so obviously Mattingly.

Keith Hernandez could not do those things. What COULD he do that Mattingly couldn't? Stay healthy is just about all you can point to. I don't want to hear about defense. You're talking about a guy who won 9 Gold Gloves of his own.

Koufax' WAR7 was 46, just behind Carl Hubbel, Max Scherzer and Jim Palmer and ahead of Don Drysdale, Mike Mussina, Nolan Ryan and many other HOFers.

I am cognizant of what a Gold Glove is. You wrote the argument that nobody who is not a major leaguer can put a less than very positive value on it, but you or others can (i.e. must, as any other option has been effectively removed) put a high value on it without being a major leaguer yourself. That makes no sense at all, even if one accepts appeal to authority as the height of reason.

The less extreme reasonable argument version, that a 1B GG has a lot of value and should be valued significantly for HOF voting, is really easy to refute with the corrupt or blatantly incompetent Palmeiro choice.

Does getting on base count for anything to you? Does having more than 4 great years mean anything? What about Albert Belle and Dale Murphy--are you going to drone on about how they should get in because they were amazing for 4 years?

There isn't a lot to drone on about because Mattingly is so obviously the superior player.

And he ranks 95th by JAWS overall. I don't think people will ever agree how to value guys who had short but very high peaks.

Koufax ranks ahead of 15 HOF pitchers in JAWS.

Mattingly ranks ahead of 2 HOF 1B in JAWS--Jim Bottomley and George Kelly (arguably the worst member of the HOF).

And to compare Koufax's 5 straight ERA titles and 3 triple crowns to anything accomplished by Mattingly is a stretch at best.

Why do you think Hernandez was so ignored during his election years then? He never received more than 10.8% of the vote in any of his 9 years on the ballot.

Just for comparisons sake, Mattingly was on the ballot for 15 years, peaking at 28.2% and recorded vote totals above Hernandez's max of 10.8% in all but 3 of his seasons on the ballot.

What did everyone else see in Mattingly?

Because WAR didn't exist then, and that's the only statistic in which Hernandez looks anything like a HOFer.

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 ;).

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

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.)

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?

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.

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.

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