He might be, but let's stick to the Contemporary Baseball rules, with players who had their highest impact in the 1980s or later. Grich's best years were in the 70s.

If you excuse the Steroid allegations, only Bonds and Clemons from this group. The other guys were great players and great skills but fall short of what is required for HOF enshrinement. Shilling is out because he fails as a human being in my opinion.

How so…..what did he do that was so tragic as to keep it out….

Child molester?
Murderer?
Rapist?
Drug addict?
Cheater?
Drug dealer?
Mobster?
Peeping Tom?
Jaywalker?
Bank robber?
Flasher?
Vivisectionist?
Necrophiliac?
Satanism?
Drunkard?
Necromancer?
Wife beater?
Gay?

All of the above? :rolleyes:

Even worse than these, he's an ideological enemy of some's party. I mean, a failed businessman. Yes, that is the reason.

If we ignore steroids for Bonds and Clemens, I don't see how Palmeiro isn't also a clear hall of famer. He's not as good as Bonds, obviously, but he seems to be easily over the Hall standard. 3,000 hits, 569 homers, 132 OPS+. He's clearly a hall of famer as well, if we are ignoring the roads.

Curt won the Roberto Clemente Award, the Hutch Award, the Branch Rickey Award, the Lou Gehrig Memorial Award, and the SI Sportsman of the Year Award. All of these awards were based not only on his on-field accomplishments, but also his character and charitable pursuits.

Hopefully his peers will do the right thing and undo the injustice a minority of the writers perpetuated.

Olerud's 1993, where he led the AL in OPS+, was better than Hernandez's MVP season. His two best OPS+ seasons are much higher than Keith's best.

While I won't argue Hernandez was not better defensively, Olerud was close and he was better at eliminating throwing errors thanks to his extra 5" in height and larger wingspan. At the end of the day, though, the difference in their defense adds up to not much actual impact.

I'm not saying Olerud belongs in. I don't. But I also don't think Keith does either. The Hall doesn't need 1B with 162 homers.

Keith Hernandez has a higher JAWS than 10 HOF First Baseman, including Bill Terry, Harmon Killibrew, David Ortiz, Tony Perez, and Orlando Cepeda, and is a hair behind Sisler. There is more to being a first baseman than hitting Home Runs.

Keith may not be a shoe-in, but he deserves another chance at a vote. I suppose Olerud may too.

JAWS figures are what they are but do you think any GM would draft Hernandez over Terry, Killebrew, David Ortiz, Tony Perez or Orlando Cepeda?

So we should base HOF nominations based on what we think GMs would do?

If I were a GM, I'd pick Keith over most of them.

I was pointing out that Hernandez is the weakest on the list and may explain why he is the one not in the HOF.

Weakest in what way, other than that you think GMs would not want him as much as the others?

Weakest in that he wasn't as good as the other players on your list. Defense is a valuable skill but it's not something someone is going to get into the HOF for at first base. Shortstop, sure. Centerfield, maybe. Not first base. Hernandez's WAR is only where it is because of the points he picks up for dWAR. His offensive WAR is lower than every player on your list.

Bill Terry is closest to him but Keith Hernandez didn't hit 400 or retire with a 341 average.

Yes, 1st base is the least important infield position, but it still matters.
Hernandez is underrated for his offensive production. For instance, he had an offensive WAR over five 3x, was a 2x Silver Slugger, and his OPS+ is 6 points higher than Perez'.

You have to mash to get into the HOF at first base. Keith Hernandez did not mash. Tony Perez his over 200 more home runs than Hernandez and drove in over 600 more runs.

Can't believe there aren't more comments on your pick up! Killer jersey - absolutely killer!! Congrats!

Not all first baseman in the HOF "mashed".

Hernandez has more career Homers than Bill Terry.

I'm just saying Hernandez deserves another shot.

He hit .296, he walked well, he had little power. If .296/.384/.436 in the context that he did it is a HOF 1B, then we'd have to elect a ton of people. If it is his defense, well, I really don't see an argument for a defensive 1B to be elected while people revile every defense-first HOFer except for Ozzie Smith (Mazeroski, Maranville, Schalk, everyone but Ozzie dots the 'worst HOFer' opinion lists).

I get that Hernandez was very good at playing 1B, but I have a hard time ascribing the huge value to this that WAR does. Killebrew -18.7, Hernandez +1.3 (a positive at 1B is very, very tough); it's how they punish 1B not to dominate the rankings with their bats. 1B also has a positional adjustment factor on top of the dWAR component. Thus it has Killebrew and Hernandez equal overall in WAR because of the dWAR gap. I cannot fathom a single team picking Hernandez over Killebrew, not because they are stupid and don't understand analytics, but because Killebrew is clearly more valuable. WAR has a lot of problems with defense; one of many reasons it should not be treated as gospel.

Will Clark and Fred McGriff are better candidates for 1B who played when Hernandez did.

Olerud, Hernandez, they are better than the absolute worst 1B, but those mistakes should not be extended to justify hundreds of more mistakes.

Bill Terry hit 400. If Keith Hernandez hit 400 I'd want him in too. But he didn't. He also didn't hit 341 over his career like Terry did, which is extraordinary.

I think you have some good points, until your last sentence "Olerud, Hernandez, they are better than the absolute worst 1B, but those mistakes should not be extended to justify hundreds of more mistakes"

We live in a big Hall world. If we lived in a small Hall world, I would agree that Hernandez should not be considered. But in our current reality, he should get another shot.

And letting Hernandez in wouldn't open the floodgates to "hundreds of more mistakes"

Hernandez himself isn’t, but the logic to get him in does open the massive floodgate. “X is better than Y, Y is in, therefore we should elect X”. Considering some of the atrocious choices made, this is probably more like a thousand players who can be justified by it than a couple hundred. I think comparing to the general standards of the 1B in as a group is a good way to do it, or to focus on the very best at a position who are not in (the Hall inevitably waters down for it to continue functioning over time, but this directs that watering down to those closest to the extant threshold). I don’t see Hernandez meeting either standard. He fails at the traditional stats (he was very good, he only fails in the context of the Hall of Fame), and is left with a WAR argument, of which he is an oddity. WAR is written to punish first basemen, and the way that they do this is designed around a factor that he dodges because of his unusual style as a player, as a glove heavy 1B. I think WAR does a decent job of comparing offense among contemporaries (it is very much geared to the current game as it is played now, not how it was played in 1960 or 1930 or 1887), but the defensive adjustments is where it runs off the tracks, and some rather dubious values are given for some players.

If we were comparing Hernandez to George Highpockets Kelly and Jim Bottomley (the two worst 1B in the HOF), then I think your argument would make sense. But I wasn't comparing Hernandez to them.

Hernandez has a lot more than just WAR. He has an MVP and two other top 5 finishes. He was a central figure for two different team's championships. He has a batting title, 2 silver sluggers, and 5 All Star nods.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

An MVP, a single batting title, 2 silver sluggers and 5 all star-games are not exactly Hall figures. That's not a standard I think anyone would embrace. Hernandez played like a Hall of Famer in 1981 if we accepted single seasons, but as a career honor, I can find no career figure that indicates Hall of Fame except for his borderline WAR, which is the odd result of an equation written to dictate an outcome for the 90% of 1B. It helps Olerud too. I was surprised not to see Olerud on his career similarity scores, but he does dominate the age season comparables.

Now George Kelly I think we can all agree on :D

"He's better than Tony Perez" is true but not a great argument, as Perez is one of the weakest 1st basemen to get in. I think with Hernandez we are talking about how he compares with other guys that don't belong in the Hall.

There was a post here a few months ago about which current 1st basemen will get elected once they are eligible. The consensus was Pujols and Cabrera will get in for sure (great insight I know), but that the next guys behind those two - Votto, Freeman and Goldschmidt - will have a hard time getting enough votes. And those guys are all a tier up from Hernandez.


Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Duplicate

I'd say the ten best players not in the Hall, in order, are

Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Alex Rodriguez
Mike Trout
Clayton Kershaw
Justin Verlander
Max Scherzer
Jim McCormick
Albert Pujols
Curt Schilling

There are maybe as many as 20 other eligible players who haven't gotten in yet and probably should, but I don't feel too bad about omitting anyone who isn't on the above list. Even if you want to limit Hall membership to something like the 50 best players per century of MLB history, they're all above that cutoff.

I don’t think I would put McCormick over Pujols, but I’m a fan of his candidacy.

Exactly. Hernandez had a WONDERFUL career. But lots of guys have had wonderful careers that don't belong in the Hall. Bill Madlock won FOUR batting titles and was a 3-time All-Star, was a major factor in a title for Pittsburgh, and a major factor in a division title for Detroit. Nobody thinks he belongs - but he had a wonderful career. And so on.

Yes I do.

You guys are right. Hernandez' 11 Gold Gloves are meaningless and Bill Madlock is a fair comparison with Keith Hernandez. Well done.

Madlock is very similar offensively. .305/.365/.442/123 OPS+ is pretty close to .296/.384/.436/128+ at the same time in the same league. if Keith's batting title is a HOF credential, Madlock's 4 is a lot stronger.

I don't think more than a tiny minority of fans will consider 1B gold gloves to be much of a Hall argument.

Madlock was a poor defender and Hernandez is generally regarded as the best defensive 1B to ever play. A lot of people consider 11 GG's impressive. He was also the key player on two different WS Champs and a great clutch hitter.

I have to ask if Hernandez is a HOFer do you think Mattingly is too? I love Mattingly like no one else but I don’t think he’s a HOFer by the numbers. He does however share many similar highlights with Hernandez. Mutual MVPs, a batting title, 9 gold gloves, 6 time all star, 3 time silver slugger. Similar counting stats aside from WAR.

Your first 3 I have no problem going in; could not care less about steroids. You still have to hit the ball no matter how powerful you have magically become. The next 6 maybe go in; we'll see. Finally, Schilling was a lock before he melted down in such a way that made the Black Sox/Joe Jackson, Hal Chase, Pete Rose, etc., look like kindergarten with their gambling. Though I hate what they did, and to this point they rightfully haven't gotten in, I hate Schilling even more. It sickens me to think he might go in. And then I would add Cecil Travis, Riggs Stephenson, Thurman Munson, and Don Mattingly to the list of whom ought to be in. They probably never will go in but ought to. Just my opinion; you all have yours, I have mine.

I like Ichiro, too.

I think the only people who believe 1B defense is a hall worthy honor as Keith Hernandez fans. I have never heard this argument made for anyone else. Defense first catchers, shortstops and second basemen in the Hall are usually listed among the very worst electees. Perhaps I greatly underestimate the value of 1B defense.

The Black Sox rigged a World Series and destroyed the integrity of the game. Schilling retweeted a meme that has nothing to do with baseball whatsoever.

This is why the Hall should be based on reasonably objective criteria and not feelings.

Based on his off-field shenanigans? Or are there other features that sicken you?

Its not just about defense, World Series with different teams, or being clutch. Its about peak. Hernandez won an MVP and came in the top 5 two other times. Madlock's peak was 6th in the voting.

And if you take two seconds to look beyond the slash line, you'd see that Madlock led the league in exactly 3 things--Batting Average, Double Plays hit into, and Hit by Pitch. Madlock was about as one dimensional a player as it gets. He hit a lot of singles.

Hernandez was a much more dynamic player (at or close to lead league in doubles, walks, etc), which in turn helped him be at or near the league lead in runs. Runs are important.

Madlock and Hernandez have almost the same rate of doubles, homers, and runs. Madlock outslugged Hernandez by a few points for more TB per year. If these numbers make Madlock one dimensional at the plate, so was Hernandez. Madlock slightly wins in black ink, Hernandez wins grey ink by a wide margin (though neither is Hall territory). WAR suggests neither ever deserved an MVP. oWAR suggests Madlock was the better offensive player, 49.1 to 46.3. I am not sure I agree with that. Looking at their oWAR, their rates of counting stats per 162, their standard percentages BA/OBP/SLG they are very similar. Madlock grounded into 5 more double plays a year, but struck out a ton less. Both have a poor stealing record.

No Roidboys.

Can't seriously argue any of the others after they let Baines in.

Hernandez led the league in Doubles, had 3 other top 5 finishes, and had 7 top 10 finishes in the NL. Madlock's best was 5th, and also tied for 9th once.

Hernandez led the league in Runs twice and had another top 5 finish. Madlock's highest was 8th which was his only top 10 finish.

Hernandez' 7 year peak WAR was 41.2. Madlock's was 28.4

Yes. That's why Hernandez has that big gap in grey ink. It is also a fact that their 162 game averages are very, very close in most things. We've covered almost all the traditional stats here, and they are close. They are very similar, in the same time. The data suggesting this is very strong.

If the argument is that Hernandez had the best season of either of them, I agree. The Hall is a career honor, and Keith's 13 black ink and 210th place are ink is not a credit though. That's a very, very difficult case to make, that his league lead finishes are hall worthy. A ton of other players would be worthy by it.

WAR likes Hernandez, even though it thinks Madlock was a better hitter. As I said, perhaps I underrate the value of 1B defense when 2B, SS, and C defense is not historically seen as a good Hall case. Look at their oWAR and you will see the massive value boosts from it. Keith gets 60.3, Madlock 38.2 even though Madlock gets more offensive WAR. WAR, the only metric by which Hernandez has a hall case, even thinks Madlock hit better. I have a hard time seeing seeing that massive gap ind defense value for a 1B, but I'm open to the argument that 1B defense is greatly underrated and actually does have such a huge outcome on winning.

Clearly you haven't watched my daughter's little league softball games.

First base defense, you say? In a word...er...two words...Bill Buckner. :rolleyes:

You are just focusing on Hernandez' weaknesses (and I readily admit they exist) and not seeing the total body of work. Hernandez has a good WAR, a strong WAR7 and therefore a strong JAWS. He has a lot of awards--11 Gold Gloves, 2 Silver Sluggers, 5x All Star and an MVP (and two other top 5 finishes). He was one of the best players on World Series teams in two different cities and had clutch postseason hits. He was arguably the best fielding first basemen ever. Some believe he revolutionized the position by taking away the bunt down the right field line (he was amazing at charging) and turning diving plays into 3-6-3 double plays.

And you are comparing him to Bill Madlock, someone whose only awards are 3x All Star and an All Star MVP? Madlock had no Gold Gloves, no silver sluggers and never had a top 5 MVP vote. His WAR, WAR7 and JAWS are weak. And because his career was shorter than Hernandez, Hernandez beats him in almost all counting stats.

You gotta come up with someone better than that.

You may not care about peak, 1st base Gold Gloves, or awards, but others do.

All I am saying is that Hernandez deserves another vote.

Yes, Hernandez was very good. No one is disputing that. 2 silver sluggers, repeated as a credential several times now, is not a hall credential. Neither is 1B gold gloves, for any other player. An MVP, a batting title, these are nice seasonal achievements. Again not a Hall marker themselves, and if they are, Madlock's 4 batting titles are looking pretty great. Again, his black ink is very, very low. His league leads are not Hall level. Third time, I am happy to see the argument that first base defense really is as consequential as WAR claims it is for Hernandez. I'm not seeing it.

It is a fact that his statistics are very, very similar to Bill Madlock, a 4 time batting champion. Despite his shorter career WAR, the primary argument for Hernandez, thinks he was in fact a better hitter. This is not an insult to Hernandez. It is difficult to dispute that they are statistically very similar. Somethings are opinion, like whether Hernandez should be inducted, but other things are difficult to deny. They are close statistically. I don't need to "come up with someone better than that" (the comparison came from someone else, also) because this statement of fact is true.

If one cares about league leads, awards, and peak, none of which I have actually, in fact, dismissed, Hernandez does not meet the threshold, as pointed earlier. Again, his black ink is 13. 5 all stars, 2 silver sluggers, an MVP. These are not Hall inductee award resumes. An MVP is nice, many MVP winners don't get in. 2 silver sluggers? I really don't get why that one is repeated as a credential, that should be brushed under the rug to make a case for Hernandez. 5 All-Stars is not impressive at all for a HOFer.

All I'm saying is that I do not see a career, math based argument for Hernandez. He has one stat going for him at a close to hall level, and that stat seems highly dubious. I doubt 1B defense, in a world where every defensive hall of famer except Ozzie Smith is heavily criticized, is a big Hall resume accomplishment. I am happy to be corrected if any argument for it could ever be made.

WAR, WAR7, JAWS are all math-based. But you reject them for Keith Hernandez.

And the Hall of Fame is not based on math. It is based on a lot of other things, like clutch hitting to help win World Series, awards, and being the best at your position in your era.

Those are all the same stat, which I have very specifically said is his one stat at around hall level, several times. Again, for time number 4, I am open to a reasoned argument 1st base defense is actually hugely important and wins tons of games as WAR concludes for Hernandez, and that 1B defense should be a big factor.

As for the rejection of math argument, Hernandez was 1) worse in the playoffs than the regular season statistically, 2) already discussed several times, 2 silver sluggers, an MVP, 5 all-stars are simply not much of a Hall resume for any other player and 3) he was absolutely not the best 1B of his era, at all, and it would be rather silly to argue that he was better than Carew, Murray, and several others who partially overlapped for numerous seasons.

Some Hernandez highlights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv5-3-nq97Q

Keith is both the all time and single season record holder for game winning RBIs. He was clutch no doubt.

We'll just ignore that MLB only tracked the stat from 1980 to 1988.

Interesting. I did not realize the “GWRBI” statistic was only recorded between 1980-88. Then MLB subsequently did away with it, claiming it was too random and arbitrary...

https://www.baseball-reference.com/b..._run_batted_in

Too bad there’s not currently a better method to measure clutch hitting. The ability to get the late inning 2-out hit is what typically separates the winners from the losers.

A good way to tell a poor hall of fame candidate is to look at the arguments made for them and see if they seem reasonable on their own without ever looking at a counterargument.

2 Silver Sluggers.

5 All star games.

A single batting title.

First Base defense.

A stat that existed and was tracked for 9 years labelled "All time".

Arguments like this these are the mark of a very bad hall of fame candidate. They are usually never made for good candidates because better arguments are available and made. Hernandez is probably actually better than these suggest, he was a very good player.

While you are on the topic of awards/metrics invented in 1980, you may wish to include silver slugger. Hernandez won the inaugural silver slugger for NL 1B in 1980. He did not win it in his MVP season because it didn't exist.

You forgot to include "All time best" next to First Base defense, or "11 consecutive Gold Gloves"

And of course you left out his multiple World Series, high WAR, WAR7, and therefore JAWS. You call his math numbers "dubious" while also claiming you acknowledge their strength.

As discussed here, GWRBI may not be the best metric for measuring clutch hitting, but performance in "high leverage" situations may be. Hernandez's batting average in "high leverage" situations was apparently .319

So to ejharrington's point, he was clutch.

Yes. He could have won three silver sluggers if it had existed. That is a much better hall credential.

Still awaiting an argument for 1st base defense. Perhaps I have underrated this pivotal position, where defense first catchers, second basemen and shortstops are held as among the worst selections.

I have very explicitly mentioned his playoff performance, just a few posts ago. Spoiler: it’s not good. He slashed .245/.349/.340. I don’t see how this can be construed as a credential, being average at best in the WS. This is a very poor argument. Being mediocre for 2 series is not a hall credential in any rational way.
If it was, we got a few hundred guys to go induct.

I have explicitly said multiple times his WAR is at that level. There is a transcript. This can be validated. WAR, WAR7, and JAWS are all the same statistic, cut up to different time periods. It is his only stat at (60 is not a done deal) or close to a Hall level. They are dubious. None of his offensive statistics are Hall tier, or even really close. Even his oWAR is nowhere near. Feel free to cite these career offensive statistics putting him at a hall of fame level.

You shouldn't get so emotional.

One thing I will say for Hernandez is that history has proven him to be a much better player than Neil Allen and Rick Ownbey.

Bury your head in the sand if you want. Here is the data comparing Keith to the other all-time great first basemen.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/l.../jaws_1B.shtml

Add in the fact he was the key player on two different World Championship teams (watch the Mets documentary if you don't believe me - he was the leader), 11 Gold Gloves (uh, first base defense does matter - anyone who understands baseball knows this), batting title, clutch hitting, MVP, etc.

He's a clear HOFer.

Can you explain what makes Hernandez a HOFer but not Don Mattingly? They have almost the same credentials, but I would say Mattingly was by far the better player at his peak. He could do everything Hernandez could with his glove, but was far superior to Hernandez with a bat in his hand.

Hernandez has 11 gold gloves, Mattingly has 9. Hernandez has a batting title, so does Mattingly. They both won MVPs. Mattingly has one more all star appearance and silver slugger trophy.

I would find it surprising for anyone to say Keith Hernandez was better than Mattingly. He had a longer career, sure, and wasn't injured like Mattingly was. But I don't see how you can possibly argue Mattingly wasn't the superior hitter at his peak.

Mattingly was elite for four years. If we were just to compare top 4 years, I can see the case for Mattingly.

However, over longer periods, Hernandez was the better player.

Packs, check out their WAR7:
Hernandez 41.2
Mattingly 35.8

Most people would agree that 4 good years is not enough to make it to the Hall of Fame.

Mattingly was a better hitter in in '85 and '86 than Keith ever was. But Keith had a longer career and was more consistent.

Their career WARs aren't even close.

There are very few people that consider Mattingly to be the best fielding first basement ever, but there are many that believe Hernandez was. And the stats support this. Check out some tape of Hernandez. He was absurd.

It has been explained that Hernandez has a WAR out of whack with his performance. Whereas he has been rewarded for his defense, Mattingly has for some reason been punished, even though they have the same exact profile at first base. Nobody who played with Mattingly had anything different to say about his glove. He was all world as well but for whatever reason WAR doesn't reward him.

Even with his healthy career and longevity, Hernandez's counting stats are either below or only barely above Mattingly. Mattingly has more home runs, more RBIs, a higher career average, and a higher career OPS.

Hernandez has 29 more hits in 3 additional seasons and scored 117 more runs.

You said Mattingly had a four year peak. How did he eclipse Hernandez so much if Hernandez had this great HOF career?

It’s odd that the burden is on Hernandez supporters to explain why dWAR likes him. Perhaps you should explain why dWAR didn’t like Mattingly?

I can't. And that's the point. Mattingly had 9 gold gloves. If 11 gold gloves is a testament to Hernandez, how can 9 not be for Mattingly?

Not all Gold Gloves are created equal.

Check out their actual fielding stats:
Hernandez led the league in double plays turned 6x (the guy was doing 3-6-3 double plays),total zone runs at 1B 8x , assists at 1B 5x.

Mattingly led the league in double plays turned 2x, total zone runs as 1B 1x, assists at 1B zero times.

Please show me someone that thinks Mattingly was a better fielder than Hernandez.

Also note that Hernandez career OBP was much higher than Mattingly's and his OPS+ was slightly better too.

OPS+ differs by 1 point. Hernandez played 17 seasons to Mattingly's injury plagued 14, of which you said only 4 seasons were peak performance. How did a guy who played 10 seasons of injury plagued baseball end up so close to a healthy Hernandez?

Because there's almost nothing that separates them, that's how. Except that Mattingly had to be hurt most of his career to end up so close to Hernandez.

And as long as you want to keep hanging onto gold gloves, during their contemporary careers, Mattingly won the AL gold glove every single season Hernandez won the NL gold glove (besides 1984, but then Keith didn't win one in 1989), making him Hernandez's direct counterpart

They aren't that close. Hernandez has 60 career WAR, Mattingly 42 career WAR.

If you can't point to something else, it's because it's not there. The favorable WAR for Hernandez has been discussed to death.

And again, Mattingly had to be hurt for the majority of his career for Hernandez to put up similar career counting statistics. He was obviously far superior to Hernandez. Why else would he have to be hurt to finish so close to him?

For, I think the 5th time now, Hernandez has the WAR (WAR, WAR7 and JAWS are different time weighted cut ups of the exact same statistic, for the third time). This is all that can be pointed too that is actually near HOF standard. I am happy to stand corrected, for like the tenth time, but there's an obvious reason no other career stat, for this career honor, is brought up.

Surely one can see why this is not a compelling case to anyone who doesn't have a Keith Hernandez bias. He's got 1 stat, 1B defense is a joke when C, 2B and SS defense first players, with the sole exception of Ozzie Smith, are considered the worst HOF selections, and his WS performance is poor. If Madlock's 4 are dismissed and considered an insulting comparison, 1 batting title is not a credit.

The burden is on Hernandez supporters to explain why he belongs. They and you have in this thread chosen 1B defense and WAR, which likes Hernandez for defensive reasons.

The burden is on Mattingly supporters to explain why he belongs. They do not tend to rely on 1B defense (the least important position where poor fielders are relegated because it has the smallest impact), but his peak offense production.

Let's compare to The Great Bambino:

0 Silver Sluggers
2 All Star Games
A Single Batting Title
Only played first base in 32 games!

Keith sure compares favorably on all of these metrics.

You should read the statement you are replying too.

That concludes it, we have to remove the Sultan of Swat!

Wow, you guys are true Kings of Comedy. You should be proud.

If Mattingly had stayed healthy he would already be in the Hall of Fame. You yourself just said he was hurt for the majority of his career. Are you implying we should put him in the Hall for what he could have done if he hadn't been hurt?

You keep citing that defense first players are considered the worst HOFers. Who exactly are you referring to, Bill Mazeroski?

I hope not, because if you are comparing Bill Mazeroski to Keith Hernandez, then you have stooped even lower than comparing Bill Madlock to Keith Hernandez.

One more note--a lot of folks on here think Bill James knows what he is talking about. Last July he wrote an article in which he stated: I only advocate for a very limited number of players at any time, the very BEST of those not included; at the moment this would be Dwight Evans, Bobby Abreu and Minnie Minoso, perhaps one or two more. But I acknowledge the validity of other candidates. Keith Hernandez was a Hall of Fame caliber player. I’m not advocating for him, but I acknowledge that he belongs.

I personally would just like to see him get another shot at a vote.

I have named specifics several times. Apparently everything must be stated more than 3 times, only for it to be asked again. Mazeroski, Maranville, Schalk, I named specifically. I also stated that this category constitutes every player elected primarily for their defense except for Ozzie Smith, the only glove-primary HOFer that seems to generally held as a 'real one'. Those clear, precise statements made multiple times already should give you plenty to work with.

You are free to be insulted by Madlock's very similar bat to Hernandez and higher oWAR (since WAR is the only stat we can cite for Keith). I don't understand it, but that's your choice.

I tend to like James. More interested in the case for him, as for every single other player, rather than appeals to authority though. Argument by authority is fallacious.

Thanks!

So you are or are not comparing Keith Hernandez to Mazeroski, Maranville, or Schalk? It sure sound like you are.

As for your dismissal of citing Bill James as an "appeal to authority", that is just weak. I am sure you know better than Bill though.

I cannot fathom how my multiple statements, citing three specifics and then a blanket clause counting every single defense primary electee except for Smith, could possibly be simplified any further. There is no difficult word, no hemming and hawing, and it has been stated several times. It is already at its simplest. I do not understand why you need me to write everything 5+ times for you, and then keep asking me to state things I have already said in very simple and plain words again and again. It's right there for you already.

Yes. Because it is true. You didn't link an argument for Hernandez, you quoted in bold a statement of his belief without the argument. An appeal to authority, the authority of James. An appeal to authority is not reasonable. A thing is reasonable based on the supporting facts and merits of the argument itself, not what authority supports it. If we are arguing by appeal of authority, here's the trump card: "The Hall of Fame is the final authority and clearly things Hernandez does not belong. Therefore he does not". Which, of course, isn't logical, as it's just an appeal to authority.