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

[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".