OT: Who should be in the Hall that isn't

[Tabe]

Why am I seeing Ozzie Smith compared to Don Mattingly & Keith Hernandez? Ozzie played a super-premium defensive position at probably the highest level ever. Mattingly & Hernandez played what is - by far - the easiest defensive position. There's a reason the slow guys who can barely bend over play 1B. Hernandez gets no consideration because he never even once hit 20 HRs. Sorry, you play 1B, you gotta hit with power. It's the nature of the position.

Let me put it another way: Keith Hernandez was basically John Olerud, only with (a lot) less power. Anybody clamoring for Olerud to get in?

[Ejm1]

Tony Oliva, Fred McGriff, Roger Maris, Peter Edward Rose,

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Why am I seeing Ozzie Smith compared to Don Mattingly & Keith Hernandez? Ozzie played a super-premium defensive position at probably the highest level ever. Mattingly & Hernandez played what is - by far - the easiest defensive position. There's a reason the slow guys who can barely bend over play 1B. Hernandez gets no consideration because he never even once hit 20 HRs. Sorry, you play 1B, you gotta hit with power. It's the nature of the position.

Let me put it another way: Keith Hernandez was basically John Olerud, only with (a lot) less power. Anybody clamoring for Olerud to get in?

If you read the entire thread, you'd see I made the point that shortstop was a far more difficult position than first base. A shortstop will have to make more throws than a first baseman, and those throws are more difficult. And, a shortstop will have more responsibilities. They may have to get the ball when its been hit in their general vicinity. They may have to cover the bag on a steal, or turn a double play. So much of playing shortstop is body positioning, and while being in position to make a play, avoiding a guy that's trying to slide into you. But you make it sound like playing first base in the Major Leagues is like playing Hello Kitty with a 10 year old. When Chris Davis, or some other similar left handed superstar power hitter turns a 98 mile per hour fastball into a line drive headed towards right field, you only have a split second to react, and that's often with a base runner interfering with you. And while only the slow guys that can barely bend over play first, of those slow guys that can barely bend over (and there have been a lot of them), Mattingly and Hernandez were by far the best at their position defensively.

And the reason nobody is clamoring for John Olerud to get in is because he was never the best player in baseball. Not by a long shot. Mattingly in his prime was putting up Triple Crown-worthy numbers while playing defense better than anybody else in his league. Keith Hernandez, while not ever the best player in the game, at least was voted the best player in his league for one year. And a big part of the reason he won the MVP is his defense. Somehow he did that while hitting 11 home runs. I guess the voters that year didn't get the memo that first basemen had to be power hitters.

And by the way, nobody here is really "clamoring" for Mattingly or Hernandez to get into the Hall of Fame, either. I stated that Mattingly would likely never get in. This is interesting discussion on how some players that were spectacular defensively at their position can get in based on their defense alone, while other players who were also elite defensively at a different position, while being a top tier hitter, gets overlooked. Yes, we did take it a step further that Mattingly should at least get another look. But nobody here is organizing a massive letter writing campaign targeting the BBWAA.

[tbob]

Not one mention of the player John McGraw called the best hitter he ever saw?
Turkey Mike Donlin.
In a poll of the top American League pitchers in the 1960's they resoundingly said the most feared hitter they faced was Tony Oliva.
They both deserve to get in and Buck Weaver's name needs to be cleared after 94 years.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

And the reason nobody is clamoring for John Olerud to get in is because he was never the best player in baseball. Not by a long shot. Mattingly in his prime was putting up Triple Crown-worthy numbers while playing defense better than anybody else in his league. Keith Hernandez, while not ever the best player in the game, at least was voted the best player in his league for one year. And a big part of the reason he won the MVP is his defense. Somehow he did that while hitting 11 home runs. I guess the voters that year didn't get the memo that first basemen had to be power hitters. .

First of all, I never compared Olerud to Mattingly.

Secondly, the writers were enamored with Hernandez winning a batting title - but not enough to give him the award solo. He wasn't the best player in 1979 - Dave Winfield was.

Third, I still think the Olerud/Hernandez comparison holds. High average, elite defensive 1B. Except that Olerud hit for more power and had seasons with higher average than Keith reached.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Tabe

First of all, I never compared Olerud to Mattingly.

Secondly, the writers were enamored with Hernandez winning a batting title - but not enough to give him the award solo. He wasn't the best player in 1979 - Dave Winfield was.

Third, I still think the Olerud/Hernandez comparison holds. High average, elite defensive 1B. Except that Olerud hit for more power and had seasons with higher average than Keith reached.

Chris, you're right. You did not compare him to Mattingly. I did.

I would also agree with you that all things considered, Winfield was the best player in the NL that season.

And I absolutely agree that the comparison holds. Though I don't think you or I could find anybody with a high degree of baseball knowledge that would put Olerud's defensive abilities above Hernandez's. John won 3 Gold Gloves. Keith won 11. Again, I always like to throw in the disclaimer that Gold Glove wins alone do not accurately measure how good somebody is defensively (you could have two Gold Glove outfielders, yet one may be clearly better than the other). I just like it in certain instances where the comparison merits consideration. Receiving 3 Gold Glove Awards means for a time you were a very good defensive player (generally speaking, not always). But winning 11 Gold Gloves means you were highly regarded as a defensive player for quite a long time. You're flying in the rarefied air when you have double digit Gold Glove Award wins.

I guess for me, the bottom line is that I think a lot of players that have been labeled as "great players" do not get the consideration they merit when it comes to the Hall of Fame. That's on the BBWAA. It's too easy to look at Mattingly and say "his career numbers don't measure up".

[clydepepper]

Bill- In comparing Olerud to Hernandez, you failed to mention the fact that Olerud played at the same time as the immortal (without the 't' ) Rafael Palmeiro, who won a gold glove while playing only 28 games on defense in 1999, then told us about Viagra and how to impress congressmen before disappearing like a ghost that no one wants to remember.

At least Hernandez did not have to contend with that.


Anyway, I always compared, at least via their beautiful swings, Olerud to Ventura.

[sniffy5]

I'm a Yankee fan on Long Island and have no problem saying that Jeter has been overly-praised by the NY press since 1996, and as a result fans celebrate him way too much, IMHO. He WAS NOT the leader of multiple championship teams, as someone said. That would be O'Neill, if anyone. (Note that his Captain designation came after Paul retired.) And he's never been a captain in any sense of the word anyway. Never sticks up for teammates in the press, never does anything to fire up teammates on the field, stayed on the sidelines during bench clearing dust ups (talking to opposing player no less!!!). Some captain! Mark Messier he is not. I guess he "leads by example." Doesn't every good player do that? I only go on about this cause his monument out there next to Ruth and Dimagg will refer to him as "The Captain." Total nonsense. Hey Mr. Intangibles, can you do something tangible, like win at least ONE batting title or ONE MVP if you are going to be labeled as the best player of your generation??

[Runscott]

This should be simple: just take the least-deserving HOF'er at each position, and find the closest matches that have been omitted. You'll almost certainly be able to find a few who were better hitters and worse fielders, or better fielders and worse hitters, or who had better careers over a shorter period of time, or who had slightly worse careers over a longer period of time. Put them all in and let the watering-down continue.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Bill- In comparing Olerud to Hernandez, you failed to mention the fact that Olerud played at the same time as the immortal (without the 't' ) Rafael Palmeiro, who won a gold glove while playing only 28 games on defense in 1999, then told us about Viagra and how to impress congressmen before disappearing like a ghost that no one wants to remember.

At least Hernandez did not have to contend with that.


Anyway, I always compared, at least via their beautiful swings, Olerud to Ventura.

I never said that the Gold Glove Award was perfect. I think I referenced a few times where Jeter won the Award and didn't really deserve it. But if you research Hernandez or Mattingly, besides the hardware, it's said repeatedly that the two were considered the best defensive players at their position while they were playing. I think most of the time, the Awards are handed to the most deserving player. Sometimes they do get it wrong, though. Absolutely.

[ejharrington]

Hernandez was a winner everywhere he went and made his teammates better. Look at the Mets pre-Hernandez and post-Hernandez. That's the ultimate sign of a great player. I'm not going to argue 1B is as important a defensive position as SS/2B/3B but it is underrated in that a great 1B can make mediocre infielders much better as they otherwise are. This does not show up in the stat sheets but if you're an erratic thrower you don't overthink a throw when you know your 1B can bail you out if your throw is off. Hernandez was the best fielding 1B ever. Anybody can just look up WAR and say one player is similar to another. WAR is useful but (especially with regards to defense) is flawed.

The HOF is incomplete without him and I hope his peers correct the mistake the writers made.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

Hernandez was a winner everywhere he went and made his teammates better. Look at the Mets pre-Hernandez and post-Hernandez. That's the ultimate sign of a great player. I'm not going to argue 1B is as important a defensive position as SS/2B/3B but it is underrated in that a great 1B can make mediocre infielders much better as they otherwise are. This does not show up in the stat sheets but if you're an erratic thrower you don't overthink a throw when you know your 1B can bail you out if your throw is off. Hernandez was the best fielding 1B ever. Anybody can just look up WAR and say one player is similar to another. WAR is useful but (especially with regards to defense) is flawed.

The HOF is incomplete without him and I hope his peers correct the mistake the writers made.

Uh, no he didn't. Check the Cleveland years, where he took a pile of money and basically never stepped foot in town.

[pbspelly]

I love that story about Olerud and Henderson, whether it is true or not.

I don't have anything against Olerud, and really don't have an opinion about whether he deserves to be in the Hall, but as an avid Mets fan for decades, I can tell you that Hernandez meant much more to his team. Besides his fielding and hitting, he 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 may be 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.

[ejharrington]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Uh, no he didn't. Check the Cleveland years, where he took a pile of money and basically never stepped foot in town.

He was past his prime, like saying Steve Carlton isn't a HOFer based on the end of his career.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

He was past his prime, like saying Steve Carlton isn't a HOFer based on the end of his career.

You said he was a winner everywhere and made his teams better. I say he was a money-grabbing SOB with no interest in playing for Cleveland, just cashing the checks.

[pbspelly]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Let me put it another way: Keith Hernandez was basically John Olerud, only with (a lot) less power. Anybody clamoring for Olerud to get in?

Actually, yes. See Bill James, often regarded as the best ever at determining a player's true value (as opposed to what the public, or sportswriters, perceive that player to be worth):

"In recent years it has been suggested that the Cy Young Award for Felix Hernandez or the Hall of Fame selection of Bert Blyleven show how far sabermetrics has come in winning general acceptance. Well, let me suggest that the near-unanimous rejection of John Olerud shows how far we haven’t come…. In my analysis, John Olerud rates as an obvious Hall of Famer."

Furthermore, Hernandez was a superior defensiver player and far more influential team leader than Olerud.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by pbspelly

Actually, yes. See Bill James, often regarded as the best ever at determining a player's true value (as opposed to what the public, or sportswriters, perceive that player to be worth):

"In recent years it has been suggested that the Cy Young Award for Felix Hernandez or the Hall of Fame selection of Bert Blyleven show how far sabermetrics has come in winning general acceptance. Well, let me suggest that the near-unanimous rejection of John Olerud shows how far we haven’t come…. In my analysis, John Olerud rates as an obvious Hall of Famer."

Furthermore, Hernandez was a superior defensiver player and far more influential team leader than Olerud.

Good for Bill James then

Hernandez may have been better than Olerud defensively but the difference between the two would have been very, very, VERY small. He was an all-time great at eliminating throwing errors, for example.

Besides, Olerud is the subject of one of the best Rickey Henderson stories of all-time*. Can Keith Hernandez say THAT???????????

* - Upon joining the Mets in 1999, Henderson saw Olerud wearing his helmet in the field and asked him about it. Olerud explained he always wore the helmet in the field. Rickey says "weird. We had a guy in Toronto who did the exact same thing." Olerud says "Rickey, that was me."

[clydepepper]

That was GREAT!

Does that mean that we all look the same to THEM? lol - I hope

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

That was GREAT!

Does that mean that we all look the same to THEM? lol - I hope

Huh?

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Huh?

THEM= players who always wore helmets on the field.

I remember George Scott and Dick Allen doing the same, not sure what their reasoning was but Olerud had a brain aneurism and took step as a precaution.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

THEM= players who always wore helmets on the field.

I remember George Scott and Dick Allen doing the same, not sure what their reasoning was but Olerud had a brain aneurism and took step as a precaution.

I think Scott wore it because he was afraid of fans throwing stuff at him. LOL. Would not surprise me if Allen had a similar reason.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Besides, Olerud is the subject of one of the best Rickey Henderson stories of all-time*. Can Keith Hernandez say THAT???????????

* - Upon joining the Mets in 1999, Henderson saw Olerud wearing his helmet in the field and asked him about it. Olerud explained he always wore the helmet in the field. Rickey says "weird. We had a guy in Toronto who did the exact same thing." Olerud says "Rickey, that was me."

Apparently that story's urban legend. Though I prefer to believe it's true.. As I do the Cal Ripken/Kevin Coster/fake blackout at Camden story

[clydepepper]

I haven't heard the Ripken story

[Kenny Cole]

I'll go with some negro leaguers. There are others who merit discussion but I'll start with these:

John Beckwith
Dick Lundy
Blll Monroe
Grant Johnson
Ed Wesley
Nip Winters
Oliver Marcelle
Bill Wright
Spottswood Poles
John Donaldson
Dick Redding
Dobie Moore
Alejandro Oms

[Klrdds]

I agree with your Negro League opinions but would like to add 2 names to your list:
Sammy Hughes
C. I. Taylor

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

I haven't heard the Ripken story

Costner is a guest at Ripken's home, Ripken leaves the house but returns sooner than expected, only to find Costner in bed with his wife. There's a fight and Ripken informs the Orioles he's not coming to the park, thus ending his streak. The Orioles, not wanting the streak to end, fake a blackout and cancel the game, preserving Cal's streak.

[tazdmb]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Costner is a guest at Ripken's home, Ripken leaves the house but returns sooner than expected, only to find Costner in bed with his wife. There's a fight and Ripken informs the Orioles he's not coming to the park, thus ending his streak. The Orioles, not wanting the streak to end, fake a blackout and cancel the game, preserving Cal's streak.

http://www.snopes.com/sports/baseball/ripkenstreak.asp

[Davino]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Good for Bill James then

Hernandez may have been better than Olerud defensively but the difference between the two would have been very, very, VERY small. He was an all-time great at eliminating throwing errors, for example.

Besides, Olerud is the subject of one of the best Rickey Henderson stories of all-time*. Can Keith Hernandez say THAT???????????

* - Upon joining the Mets in 1999, Henderson saw Olerud wearing his helmet in the field and asked him about it. Olerud explained he always wore the helmet in the field. Rickey says "weird. We had a guy in Toronto who did the exact same thing." Olerud says "Rickey, that was me."

That is a hilarious story, heard it long ago, but Rickey being Rickey is classic!!!