Hall of Fame Ballot Announced

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

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.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

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.

[cgjackson222]

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

[ejharrington]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

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.

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

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Tabe

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

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.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

While you are on the topic of awards that have not existed for the entirety of baseball, you may wish to include silver slugger. Created in 1980, Hernandez won the inaugural award for NL 1B. He did not win 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.

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.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

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.

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.

[ejharrington]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

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.

[packs]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

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.

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.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by raulus

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.

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

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

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

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.