Hall of Fame Ballot Announced

[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.

[ejharrington]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

Mattingly was elite for four years. If we were just to compare top 4 years, I can see the case for Mattingly.

However, over longer periods, Hernandez was the better player.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by ejharrington

Mattingly was elite for four years. If we were just to compare top 4 years, I can see the case for Mattingly.

However, over longer periods, Hernandez was the better player.

Packs, check out their WAR7:
Hernandez 41.2
Mattingly 35.8

Most people would agree that 4 good years is not enough to make it to the Hall of Fame.

Mattingly was a better hitter in in '85 and '86 than Keith ever was. But Keith had a longer career and was more consistent.

Their career WARs aren't even close.

There are very few people that consider Mattingly to be the best fielding first basement ever, but there are many that believe Hernandez was. And the stats support this. Check out some tape of Hernandez. He was absurd.

[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.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

You keep citing that defense first players are considered the worst HOFers. Who exactly are you referring to, Bill Mazeroski?

I hope not, because if you are comparing Bill Mazeroski to Keith Hernandez, then you have stooped even lower than comparing Bill Madlock to Keith Hernandez.

One more note--a lot of folks on here think Bill James knows what he is talking about. Last July he wrote an article in which he stated: I only advocate for a very limited number of players at any time, the very BEST of those not included; at the moment this would be Dwight Evans, Bobby Abreu and Minnie Minoso, perhaps one or two more. But I acknowledge the validity of other candidates. Keith Hernandez was a Hall of Fame caliber player. I’m not advocating for him, but I acknowledge that he belongs.

I personally would just like to see him get another shot at a vote.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You keep citing that defense first players are considered the worst HOFers. Who exactly are you referring to, Bill Mazeroski?

I hope not, because if you are comparing Bill Mazeroski to Keith Hernandez, then you have stooped even lower than comparing Bill Madlock to Keith Hernandez.

One more note--a lot of folks on here think Bill James knows what he is talking about. Last July he wrote an article in which he stated: I only advocate for a very limited number of players at any time, the very BEST of those not included; at the moment this would be Dwight Evans, Bobby Abreu and Minnie Minoso, perhaps one or two more. But I acknowledge the validity of other candidates. Keith Hernandez was a Hall of Fame caliber player. I’m not advocating for him, but I acknowledge that he belongs.

I personally would just like to see him get another shot at a vote.

I have named specifics several times. Apparently everything must be stated more than 3 times, only for it to be asked again. Mazeroski, Maranville, Schalk, I named specifically. I also stated that this category constitutes every player elected primarily for their defense except for Ozzie Smith, the only glove-primary HOFer that seems to generally held as a 'real one'. Those clear, precise statements made multiple times already should give you plenty to work with.

You are free to be insulted by Madlock's very similar bat to Hernandez and higher oWAR (since WAR is the only stat we can cite for Keith). I don't understand it, but that's your choice.

I tend to like James. More interested in the case for him, as for every single other player, rather than appeals to authority though. Argument by authority is fallacious.

[ejharrington]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

JAWS / WAR / etc. is a very big metric. It says he belongs. The writers disagreed. I believe his peers who actually watched him play will correct that mistake.

[packs]

He wasn't selected for the committee vote. How do they intend to do that?

[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!

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

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

Wow, you guys are true Kings of Comedy. You should be proud.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Wow, you guys are true Kings of Comedy. You should be proud.

Thanks!

[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.