OT: Did Adam Dunn ruin his Hall chances

[ejharrington]

If you look at the JAWS system (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_1B.shtml) a statistical case can be made that Hernandez is more than a borderline HOFer. There are 11 HOF 1B ranked ahead of him (Gehrig, Foxx, Anson, Connor, Brouthers, Mize, F. Thomas (DH), McCovey, Murray, Greenberg, and Sisler). There are 7 HOF 1B ranked lower than him (Terry, Beckley, Perez, Cepeda, Chance, Bottomley, Kelly). So statistically and quantitatively, he is right in the mix. More subjectively, other than the fact that I watched him play for five years and considered him the best player on the Mets, the fact that he won an MVP, was a key member of two different World Champions, was the greatest fielder of all-time at 1B, and IS ALREADY famous, he is more than worthy of being in the Hall of Fame.

[Peter_Spaeth]

OLERUD.

Black Ink Batting - 7 (326), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 51 (504), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 68 (292), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 39 (180), Average HOFer ≈ 50

JAWS First Base (20th), 58.0 career WAR/38.9 7yr-peak WAR/48.5 JAWS
Average HOF 1B (out of 19) = 65.9 career WAR/42.4 7yr-peak WAR/54.2 JAWS

HERNANDEZ

Black Ink Batting - 14 (170), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 118 (173), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 86 (215), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 32 (266), Average HOFer ≈ 50

JAWS First Base (18th), 60.0 career WAR/41.0 7yr-peak WAR/50.5 JAWS
Average HOF 1B (out of 19) = 65.9 career WAR/42.4 7yr-peak WAR/54.2 JAWS


Let's just say NO to both and move on.

[ejharrington]

I guess Ozzie Smith shouldn't be in the HOF either, huh?


Black Ink Batting - 2 (617), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 51 (504), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 142 (95), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 35 (219), Average HOFer ≈ 50

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ozzie qualifies in one category, unlike the other two. And you expect much better batting stats from your first baseman than your shortstop. So when the shortstop is the greatest ever, you can forgive him a 2500 hit career with 600 steals.

[the 'stache]

I'm reading this, and surprised that there is any question about Reggie Jackson and Harmon Killebrew being Hall of Famers. Their career batting averages notwithstanding, both men were titans throughout their careers. Killebrew just mashed, and he did so during what is considered the second dead ball era, which , depending on which writer you talk to, extended either from 1964-1972, or 1963-1976. The first is what I have typically seen mentioned. Killebrew became a full time player in 1959, and his career ended in 1975. During that dead ball era, Killebrew hit 318 home runs, leading the AL in homers three times: 1964 (49), 1967 (44), and 1969 (49). He also hit 39 in 1966, and 41 in 1970. Only Hank Aaron (334) hit more home runs during that period than Killebrew, and he played that entire period in the National League, while Killebrew played in the American League, which was more affected by the era. Killebrew won six home run titles, three RBI titles, and led the league in walks four times. He won one MVP, and finished in the top five five other times. Reggie was a lot like Harmon. Just monstrous power. He didn't lead the league as many times, but there is no doubt the guy was a superstar in his era. Reggie won four home run titles, 1973 (32), 1975 (36), 1980 (41), 1982 (39). Just by comparing Reggie's titles to Harmon's, it's apparent that even though Harmon played in a tough era, there just weren't that many home runs being hit during Reggie's time. Reggie had some other big power years. He hit 47 in 1969, and didn't lead he league because Harmon hit 49. He hit 32 in both 1971 and 1977, and hit 29 home runs three different times, in 1968, 1974 and 1979.

Killebrew hit 573 home runs and drove in 1,584 runs. He walked 1,559 times.
Reggie hit 563 home runs and drove in 1,702 runs. He walked 1,375 times.

Both guys did their fair share of striking out, especially Reggie. But when you look back when they both played, these are the guys that put butts in the seat. There should be no question that both these guys belong, regardless of their batting average. .

Getting back to Keith Hernandez. Yes, he saved x amount of runs during his career. And that may not be a lot more than John Olerud's. But Hernandez revolutionized first base defense. There are more runs that he saved that will never show up in stats because certain plays were never attempted. When Keith Hernandez was on first base, other teams stopped bunting, because he was so aggressive. He would charge home plate, and throw out the runner advancing to second. Or, he would charge the bunter, and throw a strike to third while the pitcher covered first. That just didn't happen before Hernandez came along, at least not with the incredible frequency. And if you had a runner at third, you just didn't try to bunt to Keith's side. He was so accurate throwing the ball, he would get the ball to home before the runner arrived, and his throws put the catcher in perfect position. Hernandez was incredible at scooping pitches out of the dirt. He just did so many things at a high level. I remember on three, maybe four different occasions watching him grab bloop fly ball right inside the first base line, do a somersault, and make a perfect throw to the pitcher covering first base. I mean the guy was incredible to watch. I was never a Keith Hernandez fan, but the times I got to see him play, he always seemed to do something spectacular. And I wasn't used to seeing a first baseman that could move like he did. First basemen were big, lumbering guys who hit home runs, and if you were lucky, they weren't terrible defensively.

Hernandez deserved the eleven straight Gold Gloves he won. He won a couple Silver Sluggers, too. Most of the guys we discussed in the thread I started were pretty much borderline at best for the Hall, but Hernandez is a guy that I feel should have gotten a lot more consideration then he got. The guy was a winner, too. The Cardinals won the World Series with him in 1982. The Mets in 1983 were 68-94, and they hadn't won at least 70 games since 1976. The next year with Hernandez, the Mets go 90-72. In 1985 they add Gary Carter. Dwight Gooden is one of the best two pitchers in baseball. In 1986 they win the World Series.

Hernandez made the players around him better. He was a really good hitter. He was a spectacular fielder, maybe the best to ever play the position, at least in the modern era (with deference to Hal Chase and Fred Tenney.) I don't know if Hernandez is a Hall of Famer. I think he's awfully close. I think he was definitely better than 10% of the BBWAA vote.

[pbspelly]

Really it comes down to this, which would you rather have? I just don't think it's close.

[packs]

I don't know what happened but John Olerud in my opinion was clearly the better player. Better peak seasons, hit over .350 twice compared to Hernandez not ever doing it, more power, higher OBP and SLG.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

The Mets in 1983 were 68-94, and they hadn't won at least 70 games since 1976. The next year with Hernandez, the Mets go 90-72. In 1985 they add Gary Carter. Dwight Gooden is one of the best two pitchers in baseball. In 1986 they win the World Series.

Keith Hernandez played 95 games with that 83 Mets team. Dwight Gooden arrived in 1984. In my opinion, he was just as important to the Mets turnaround. He won ROY and finished 2nd in CY Young voting. Hernandez and Gooden had similar WAR. Hernandez higher on Baseball Reference, Gooden higher on Fan Graphics.

[the 'stache]

Yes, I knew that. The 1983 season was a complete loss for the Mets. They also had a managerial change mid season. With George Bamberger, the Mets were 16-30. Frank Howard took them the rest of the way, going 52-64.

A lot of good things happened to the Mets in a very small period of time. The addition of Hernandez was so incredibly important for a few different reasons. He had a huge impact defensively. With him at first base, other teams stopped bunting because he was so good at rushing in, and beating the lead runner to second base. His range was incredible, and his arm was strong and accurate. Davey Johnson has said that the Mets actually changed how the Mets did their relay throws because Hernandez was so good. He brought a strong bat to the top of the lineup. But most importantly, he brought confidence to a team that had none. He made other players around him better. He was instrumental in helping the young players on the team believe they could win.

Davey Johnson started his managerial run with the Mets in 1984, too. He came to the club at the right time, as the team received a tremendous infusion of young talent that he would be able to mold. Darryl Strawberry was the NL Rookie of the Year in 1983. Then Dwight Gooden came up. The Mets had their own Bob Feller. Doc quickly became the most dominant pitcher in the National League. Not to be overlooked, the Mets added two other outstanding starting pitchers-Sid Fernandez, who the Mets acquired from the Dodgers, and Ron Darling, who the Mets had signed and developed. Darling threw in 5 games in 1983. In 1984, he would win 12 games, and Fernandez 6. In 1985, Fernandez would win 9 and Darling 16. In 1986, the year they won the World Series, Gooden would win 17, Fernandez 16 and Darling 15. Bob Ojeda, who the Mets acquired from the Red Sox would win 18. Rick Aguilera would win 10, and their dynamic left-right bullpen duo of Jesse Orosco and Roger McDowell would combine to win 22 games, and save 43.

That '86 team won 108 games. To this day, I am still amazed that Mets group only won one World Series.

Originally Posted by rats60

Keith Hernandez played 95 games with that 83 Mets team. Dwight Gooden arrived in 1984. In my opinion, he was just as important to the Mets turnaround. He won ROY and finished 2nd in CY Young voting. Hernandez and Gooden had similar WAR. Hernandez higher on Baseball Reference, Gooden higher on Fan Graphics.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Let's just say NO to both and move on.

That's exactly the point I'm making.