Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 1324150)

Peter - I can assure you I was not the only one. .262 is weak by almost anyone's standards. Just as thete are some who think there is an automatic induction number for career hr's, I naively thought there was an automatic exclusion level for batting average, and it had to be somewhere above .262


Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 1324153)

.262, Peter

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1324160)

Slugging average. On base percentage. MUCH better by those metrics which were known well before the fancy WAR and OPS stuff.

Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 1324186)

.262 - his batting average wasn't HOF-caliber. Other stuff certainly was.

He was really good, but not great. Once they let Jackson in with his weak batting average, it helped promote the idea that 500 HR's was enough, and that nothing else counted - certainly batting average didn't. You could say that Reggie is one of the reasons that some people are talking about Dunn. Batting average obviously isn't important anymore.

Originally Posted by packs (Post 1324253)

Out of 111 members who were voted in on a regular ballot (not veterans committee), Reggie has the 17th highest voting percentage. Granted, I never saw him play and wasn't around for his peak. I think you're right about the perfect storm of factors around him.

Originally Posted by Centauri (Post 1324272)

In addition to excellent reg season stats, HOF worthy, he played in 5 WS, won 4 of those (was injured for the WS on one of those Oakland teams) with 2 WS MVPs. For the 5 he played in, 27 games, he had a 1.2 OPS. He had a 1.7 OPS in the 77 series. Roided out Barry is impressed with that.

On the very biggest stage the game offers - WS with the Yankees, he was very truly the straw that stirred the drink.

Jackson deserved every vote he got. Dunn is just a guy.

Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 1324150)

Peter - I can assure you I was not the only one.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1324347)

Scott, if he had scattered 200 more singles across 20 seasons, thereby raising his average to .280 or so, would that really make that much of a difference? It seems obvious to me (and most people) that Reggie is an easy choice for the HOF, as was Killebrew.

Originally Posted by Centauri (Post 1324432)

LOL - if Reggie wasn't as good as he was, like much worse down to Dunn's level, what then?

Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 1324499)

I wonder how many members the HOF would have today, if the voting was done only by current HOF members.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1324525)

Dunno, but if the voting was done by 54 members, based on threads I have seen, it might double.

Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 1324293)

Brent, the great thing is that everyone here respects everyone else's opinion :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by jcmtiger (Post 1324726)

This thread is to crazy. Dunn will never get into the HOF. Please!!!!! The HOF is for great players not average players.

Joe

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies (Post 1325008)

Yes sir! Love learning about everyone's opinions on players and the history of the game. Again, I do not think Dunn is a HOF'er. He has tremendous power though


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290 (Post 1325052)

So did Dave Kingman...If I had a choice with the game on the line, I would take even him over Dunn....

Originally Posted by Centauri (Post 1324067)

By 1984, Reggie had 13 All Star appearances, 7 top tens in the MVP voting, winning in 73. Plus some medium level of success in the post-season, if I understand it right.

Originally Posted by Mountaineer1999 (Post 1325068)

Wow! This is an awful lot of words about Adam Dunn, a guy I would have never put in the same sentence with HOF.

Originally Posted by calvindog (Post 1325105)

As a Dodgers fan growing up in the 70s I hated Reggie. Notwithstanding the strikeouts and low career BA, his greatness could not be denied. 13 AS teams and 7 top ten MVP finishes are all that need to be said. He was the dominant player pretty much of his generation.

On another note, I always felt that stats shouldn't be the sole arbiter on HOF eligibility which is why I never bothered to think about them when considering a player whose career I witnessed growing up. Jim Rice to me always felt like a monster player of his generation. How could he not make the HOF? Similar to an extent was Steve Garvey. While his production fell off at the end thus him never being considered a serious HOF candidate, he surely was the best player on a decade of great Dodgers teams, was a perennial AS and MVP vote getter -- winning it once -- but finished just 400 hits short of 3000 and had a lifetime BA of .298. If he had 400 more hits is there by any doubt he would be in the HOF today?

Originally Posted by ejharrington (Post 1324693)

That being said, I will go to my grave believing Keith Hernandez is a Hall of Famer.

Originally Posted by Tabe (Post 1325325)

Keith Hernandez was just John Olerud with less power. You think Olerud belongs in the HOF?

Originally Posted by pbspelly (Post 1292854)

I don't have anything against Olerud, and really don't have an opinion about whether he deserves to be in the Hall (and Bill James,for one, has made the argument that Olerud does), but as an avid Mets fan for decades, I can tell you that Hernandez meant much more to his team than Olerud. Besides his fielding and hitting, Hernandez was the first team captain in Mets history and really kept a young, and notably rambunctious, team together. He was known for counseling pitchers during tight situations, a job usually designated for the shortstop, and even called pitches for some of the young guys.

His value is reflected in the MVP voting. Hernandez was named on the ballot eight different times, winning it once and coming close two other times. Olerud was listed only twice, coming in third in his best year.

And while Olerud was certainly an excellent fielding first baseman, Hernandez was so adept on bunts and at throwing to all bases that he changed the position. The Mets even used to have him handle outfield relay throws sometimes instead of the second baseman (although with Gregg Jeffries and Wally Backman at second, that is a bit more understandable). As one commentator has stated, "If you never saw him play, it's hard to describe how a first baseman can be such an impact player in the field. Just saying he won eleven consecutive Gold Gloves doesn't do him anything near justice. He was a master at fielding bunts, often cutting down the runner at second, and covered an enormous amount of ground. He covered a multitude of sins handling throws. Who else could hold together an infield that sometimes included Wally Backman at second, Howard Johnson at third, and Kevin Mitchell at short - on a first place team"

Bill James even devised a stat based on Hernandez, after figuring out that one way to measure a first baseman's range was to count assists at all bases other than first, and that Hernandez was making 20-30 more outs per season than the average team. He named it, "The Keith Hernandez Breakthrough.“

According to one sabermetric stat (Total Zone Runs), Hernandez's defense saved 117 runs in his career, the most ever for a first baseman. Olerud comes in fourth at 97, still excellent, but nearly 20% behind.

All this having been said, Hernandez still has to answer for a few things. Besides the short career and the admitted drug use, many consider his mustache and his "Just For Men" ads unpardonable.

Originally Posted by wolf441 (Post 1325112)

+1. If anyone had told you in 1980/81 that Garvey not only wouldn't get in the Hall of Fame, but wouldn't even really be a serious candidate, what would you think at the time?