Does Keith Hernandez Deserve the HOF?

[briang0381]

undefinedWhy isn't Keith Hernandez in the Hall?

[Captain Cold Nose]

His career offensive numbers fall a little short. Plus, he played in an era that hasn't fared so well in the BBHOF voting. And his involvement in the 80's drug trials has also harmed him.

[leecemark]

--The reasons previously cited are no doubt why Hernandez is not in the Hall of Fame. I don't know that I would advocate him myself, but he does deserve at least a little more consideration than he gets.
--Hernandez doesn't fit the typical profile of a superstar firstbaseman primarily because he didn't hit for power. He was very good to excellent in most others phases of the game. He is quite possibly the best fielding firstbaseman in the history of the game. At most positions that in itself would be enough to make you a serious Hall of Fame candidate. Firstbase is such a hitters position I wouldn't attempt to base an argument entirely on that, but its a nice place to start.
--Hernandez was one of the better hitters for average of his era, winning one batting title and finishing with a career .296 - 33 points over the league average. He had a keen batting eye and recorded an OBP 55 points better than league. Although he was certainly not a true slugger he also managed a slugging percent 47 points better than league for his career. He was well thought enough of in his day to win an MVP and was a key member of pennant winners in both St Louis and New York.
--While his career was not exceptionally long he did manage to pile up 2,000 hits and 1,000 RBI so he isn't exactly the kind of short career guy who needs a monster peak to be considered. He played about long as Hall of Famer - what many people consider first tier Hall of Famer -George Sisler and more popular candidate Don Mattingly and has a better career OPS+ than either. I think he is in the grey area for a Hall of Fame candidate. I'm not likely to spend alot of time pushing his case, but I don't think he would be a poor choice for the Hall either.

[prof93]

I have always felt that both Mattingly and Hernandez got more credit than they deserved, and MN's own Kent Hrbek got little or none. Hrbek's numbers compare favorably to both.

[Brooklyn]

intersting, I never really thought that highly of Hrbek, but he does compare realtively well. I always thought of Hrbek as a solid first basemen, but his stats are pretty close to Mattingly and Hernandez. Where he really falls down is the "respect from peers" categories:

All-star games: Mattingly 6, Hernandez 5, Hrbek 1
Gold gloves: Hernandez 11, Mattingly 9, Hrbek 0
MVPs: Hernandez 1, Mattingly 1, Hrbek 0
Top 10 MVP: Hernandez 4, Mattingly 4, Hrbek 1

Hrbek was solid, but never condisered the best in the league, as evident by lack of all-star games and MVP voting. He also falls very short on black ink and grey ink, with 0 for black ink and 40 for grey ink (compared to Mattingly who was 23 black and 111 grey and Hernandez who was 14 black and 118 grey).

Hrbek's hit totals are short too, only ammassing 1749. He does almost have 293 homeruns, and his OPS+ (127) is comparable to Hernandex (129) and Mattingly (127)

I think Hrbek falls short of these guys, but it is closer than I would have thought without looking it up, the NY factor definitely helps hype these guys. That said, Hrbek is definitely not a HOFer, but i wouldn't put either of the other two in either. If I had to rank them, it would be Mattingly, Hernandez, Hrbek, with Mattingly getting the nod over Hernandez purely on peak performance - he was one of the best players in baseball, if not the best in baseball, for a 4 or so year run

[prof93]

Hrbek certainly deserved a couple of GG, but the NY bias gave them to Mattingly. I will always feel that Hrbek was every bit as good, if not better than both his more celebrated contemporaries

[MudvilleMike]

undefinedWhy isn't Keith Hernandez in the Hall?

Because the writers don't understand the value of fielding. He should have been first ballot choice (as should Sandberg & Santo). There are so many problems with HOF voting, one doesn't know where to start.

[MudvilleMike]

Hrbek certainly deserved a couple of GG, but the NY bias gave them to Mattingly.

Maybe Hrbek would have won a GG if he were a DH. Unfortunately, Gold Gloves are a joke. That said, I don't know how you could compare Hrbek with Hernandez as fielders. Hernandez's fielding was beyond belief.

[KHenry14]

Frankly if Mazeroski and Ozzie can get in just on fielding alone, then there has to be a place for Hernandez. Easily the finest fielding first sacker I've ever seen, he made plays that no other 1B ever made. Remember how he'd field bunts on the THIRD base side of the mound and then get the force at 3rd? Can anyone name another firstbaseman who made that play? Or even THOUGHT about making that play? And when you add in the pretty decent hitting stats, the GG's, an MVP and a WS title, he makes a pretty good candidate.

BTW, I've had the priviledge of watch J.T. Snow play a pretty good 1B for the last 8 years, but he doesn't hold a candle to Hernandez.

KH14

[MudvilleMike]

Frankly if Mazeroski and Ozzie can get in just on fielding alone, then there has to be a place for Hernandez.

No kidding. When you take into account his near HOF offensive numbers it should be a no-brainer.

[santotohof]

You combine Keith Hernandez and Mark Grace and you have a HOF player. Keith was a fine player who excelled in big markets.Don Mattingley was Lou Gehrig for 5 years and Keith H for 7 .Keith was a phenomenal defensive player but he was a 300- 16- 95 man at bat.Top notch but HOF? No

[dgarza]

I see Hernandez as a boardline HOFer at the best. If he really was the defensive 1B people say, I say let him in. Here's my take on defense and the Hall. If you were the #1 best defensive player at your position of all time, I'd let you in. If you were "just" #2 or #3, then probably not. If Keith was the #1 defense at 1st, then, with his numbers, i say yes.

[RuthMayBond]

Hrbek certainly deserved a couple of GG, but the NY bias gave them to Mattingly. I will always feel that Hrbek was every bit as good, if not better than both his more celebrated contemporariesFunny, I don't have Hrbek as deserving any Gold Gloves (and Mattingly as only definitely deserving one but possibly more)

[RuthMayBond]

Well thats if we all assume your rightVery true. Prove me wrong :waving

[MudvilleMike]

I see Hernandez as a boardline HOFer at the best. If he really was the defensive 1B people say, I say let him in. Here's my take on defense and the Hall. If you were the #1 best defensive player at your position of all time, I'd let you in. If you were "just" #2 or #3, then probably not. If Keith was the #1 defense at 1st, then, with his numbers, i say yes.
I totally don't get your logic. You should add the offensive & defensive contributions and determine if the player was good enough to make the HOF. If Babe Ruth made 200 errors a year, I'd keep him out of the HOF. If Ozzie Smith hit .180, I'd also keep him out of the Hall. Hernandez's offensive numbers are close to HOF to begin with.

[MudvilleMike]

You combine Keith Hernandez and Mark Grace and you have a HOF player. Keith was a fine player who excelled in big markets.Don Mattingley was Lou Gehrig for 5 years and Keith H for 7 .Keith was a phenomenal defensive player but he was a 300- 16- 95 man at bat.Top notch but HOF? No

This is the crux of the problem, people simply don't understand how important defense is. I predict that over the next 10-20 years this will change, just like OBP has become well appreciated. If you took the number of hits Hernandez saved and added them to his offensive stats, everyone would accept that Hernandez should be in the HOF.

[dgarza]

I totally don't get your logic. You should add the offensive & defensive contributions and determine if the player was good enough to make the HOF. If Babe Ruth made 200 errors a year, I'd keep him out of the HOF. If Ozzie Smith hit .180, I'd also keep him out of the Hall. Hernandez's offensive numbers are close to HOF to begin with.
But Ozzie's .262 IS enough to keep him in the Hall?
I think if a player hit .180, he wouldn't be the best defensive player because he would be kept out of the lineup. That type of balance keeps .180 hitters out of contention.

[Brooklyn]

Originally posted by dgarza
I see Hernandez as a boardline HOFer at the best. If he really was the defensive 1B people say, I say let him in. Here's my take on defense and the Hall. If you were the #1 best defensive player at your position of all time, I'd let you in. If you were "just" #2 or #3, then probably not. If Keith was the #1 defense at 1st, then, with his numbers, i say yes.

There's a flaw in that logic. I wouldn't have personally put Mazeroski in the Hall but the argument for putting him in was that he was "the best defensive second baseman ever". What happens when someone comes a long and is regarded as a better defensive second basemen than Mazeroski? Do you take Mazeroksi out of the Hall since he is no longer #1? Over the next 100 years it is feasible that there will be five second basemen who will be remembered as being better defensive second basemen than Mazeroski. The Hall would then be in a position where the sixth best of all time is in on that basis alone. Seems too arbitrary.

I agree that it needs to be a combination of offense and defense. Everyone has there own line as to who belongs, and if a player is over than line, he should be let in, but IMO defense alone is not enough.

[dgarza]

At the time of his induction, was Maz considered the best def. 2B?

Sure there will always be others to take the BEST crown in the future. Roger Conner is no longer considered the best HR hitter nor Lou Brock the best of steal. I said being #1 could give me reason to vote a player into the Hall, that being #1 at the time is enough to get in. I never said that it was the only reasoning a person should be in. I never said anything about taking players out of the Hall after they are no longer #1, that's not my practice. The fact that someone better comes along should never be a reason to take a player out of the Hall. No revolving door policy.

[dgarza]

The Hall would then be in a position where the sixth best of all time is in on that basis alone. Seems too arbitrary.


"Arbitrary"?
Arbitrary would be pulling names out of a hat, not basing induction on reasoning and arguements.

[santotohof]

This is the crux of the problem, people simply don't understand how important defense is. I predict that over the next 10-20 years this will change, just like OBP has become well appreciated. If you took the number of hits Hernandez saved and added them to his offensive stats, everyone would accept that Hernandez should be in the HOF.......... I beg to differ. I realize the importance of defense.This is why Mattingley is still a better choice than Keith.While Donnie Baseball was putting up numbers that Foxx and Gehrig would admire ,Keith H was playing a delightful, sound game of baseball.To think that Hernandez was a better defensive player than Mattingley is sketchy at best.Look at Graces numbers and Hernandez and it is a push. I ,frankly ,think all of the above( Keith,Donnie,Mark) are HOF door knockers, not insiders but that's what makes the world go round. Shoot if the World made sense,Santo would have been elected on his deserving merits long ago.

[MudvilleMike]

......... I beg to differ. I realize the importance of defense.This is why Mattingley is still a better choice than Keith.While Donnie Baseball was putting up numbers that Foxx and Gehrig would admire ,Keith H was playing a delightful, sound game of baseball.To think that Hernandez was a better defensive player than Mattingley is sketchy at best.Look at Graces numbers and Hernandez and it is a push. I ,frankly ,think all of the above( Keith,Donnie,Mark) are HOF door knockers, not insiders but that's what makes the world go round. Shoot if the World made sense,Santo would have been elected on his deserving merits long ago.

Mattingly put up great offensive numbers, but only for a brief period of time. Also he never walked.

At least we can agree on Santo, and don't even get me started on Ryne Sandberg.

[RuthMayBond]

......... I beg to differ. I realize the importance of defense.This is why Mattingley is still a better choice than Keith.While Donnie Baseball was putting up numbers that Foxx and Gehrig would admire ,Keith H was playing a delightful, sound game of baseball.To think that Hernandez was a better defensive player than Mattingley is sketchy at best.Based upon WHAT?

[RuthMayBond]

Based on equivalent defensive numbers, and the fact the Mattingley was twice as productive as Hernandez for an extended period ( 320-30-110 over his first five) that's why.Let's try this again. Your original assertion that Mattingly was a better DEFENSIVE player, don't change the question. What do you base the defensive comparison on?

[Cougar]

I've always been one who backed both Hernandez and Mattingly. The reasons are pretty well articulated above, so I won't elaborate.

[BillyF29]

I rank Hernandez right behind Mazeroski as a position player and ahead of the likes of Mattingly and Harmon Killebrew.

And anyone who says Mattingly is on the same level as Hernandez defensively is on drugs.

So yeah, he belongs in the Hall

[RuthMayBond]

I rank Hernandez right behind Mazeroski as a position player and ahead of the likes of Mattingly and Harmon Killebrew.Hernandez is almost as good as Maz defensively and much better offensively

[BillyF29]

Hernandez was much better than Maz offensively, but Maz was a better defender at a much tougher position than Keith, thus giving Maz a slight edge.

Where as Mattingly was just slightly better than Hernandez with the bat and Hernandez was much better with the glove.

[RuthMayBond]

Hernandez was much better than Maz offensively, but Maz was a better defender ...I suppose, but they were both the best at their position defensively. Now that I think of it, Bid McPhee might give Maz a run for his money defensively :D

[JoltinJoe36]

I saw both Mattingly and Hernandez in their prime quite often. Mattingly was a superior offensive player. Hernandez was better defensively, the best glove I've ever seen at first, but Mattingly was just a notch behind.

Both should be in the Hall, but Mattingly has the better case.

[Pitching Beats Hitting]

Let me begin by saying that I consider Keith Hernandez to be Ozzie Smith except Hernandez was a better hitter. LIke Smith, Keith's case is based on defense first and offense is simply icing on the cake. Hernandez hit third on good teams and was a good RBI man who also scored a lot of runs.

Hernandez/Smith
Runs- 1124/1257
Hits- 2182/2460
2Bs- 426/402
HRs- 162/28
RBI- 1071/793
BB- 1070/1072
SB- 98/580
Gld Glvs- 11/13

Hernandez also has an MVP, a batting title, 2 run scoring titles and a number of other credentials. Nobody I know has any problem with Ozzie being in, why don't I hear much support for Mex?

[Bleacherbee]

Because he played first, not short

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Because he played first, not short

Hernandez's defense is not equal to Ozzie's defense. Keith's defense is no better than J.T. Snow's defense. Also, SS is a more important and demading position.

[Bleacherbee]

Hernandez's defense is not equal to Ozzie's defense. Keith's defense is no better than J.T. Snow's defense. Also, SS is a more important and demading position.


Err, to be fair, I think he was slightly better than JT Snow...

But, honestly, first base is nowhere NEAR even REMOTELY as demanding a position as short.

[Pitching Beats Hitting]

Shortstop is, most definitely, a significantly more physically demanding position. I have no idea what relevance that has on this discussion, but it is a true statement nonetheless. Hernandez brought excellence to his position in the field that was akin to what Smith brought to his position. Hernandez would make it impossible to bunt on him. 3-6-3d like it was going out of style. A great defensive player who, if Smith hit enough to get in, then Hernandez certainly hit enough to get in.

[Bleacherbee]

Shortstop is, most definitely, a significantly more physically demanding position. I have no idea what relevance that has on this discussion, but it is a true statement nonetheless. Hernandez brought excellence to his position in the field that was akin to what Smith brought to his position. Hernandez would make it impossible to bunt on him. 3-6-3d like it was going out of style. A great defensive player who, if Smith hit enough to get in, then Hernandez certainly hit enough to get in.

I don't think that it has anything to do with relevance to the discussion - the difference between short and first IS the whole discussion.

To put it another way: Ozzie could have batted .150 lifetime and still been elected. Hernandez, would he have batted .150 lifetime, would not have had a job. Its a fundamental difference between players of the two positions - corner vs. middle infield.

Hernandez may well be the best defensive first baseman of the last 50 years, but Ozzie Smith was the best defensive Shortstop of the last 50 years, and - by nearly unanimous definition, the best defensive player at the most difficult defensive position, ergo, the best defensive player in the past half century.

He's there because of that, and Hernandez isnt there because we're aruging defense and defense alone here (nobody says Ozzie went in for his offensive play), and frankly, a defensive first baseman will never be elected based on defense alone. Not until a whole lot of shortstops get enshrined first :)

[leecemark]

--I think Hernandez was the best defensive firstbaseman ever to play the game. However, no firstbaseman is going to make the Hall primarily on defense. There just isn't enough defensive value to be had at 1B. That said, I think Hernandez overall package is Hall worthy. He will be the next MLB firstbaseman to make my BBF ballot, although that is likely to be at least a few months away.

[Yankees7]

Vic Power was a very good defensive first sacker many years ago, but Hernandez was a magician with the glove. The kid that played for the Twins and got traded to the RedSox was pretty fair also.

[leecemark]

--Actually as great as Ozzie was with the glove he'd have been out of a job if he hit .150, same as Hernandez would have. He did hold a job some years hitting .220 though.

[Bleacherbee]

--Actually as great as Ozzie was with the glove he'd have been out of a job if he hit .150, same as Hernandez would have. He did hold a job some years hitting .220 though.

Exaggerating.

Lets say .210

[leecemark]

--.210 might have kept him in the lineup long enough to have a real career. It wouldn't have put him in the Hall though.

[RuthMayBond]

Hernandez's defense is not equal to Ozzie's defense. Keith's defense is no better than J.T. Snow's defense. Also, SS is a more important and demading position.You don't seriously believe this, do you?

[dodgerdave]

Because he played first, not short


I think what he's trying to say is that Keith Hernandez is the "Ozzie Smith of firstbasemen".

[RuthMayBond]

Hernandez's OPS+ is better than or equal to Murray, Sisler, Mattingly, and Bottomley.

[dodgerdave]

What do you guys think of Mark Grace as a possible HOF?

[moviegeekjan]

What do you guys think of Mark Grace as a possible HOF? That's been a topic on a few Dbacks message board threads on the MLB site, but very few believe that he'll make the Hall. A good player... a much loved player... but he never dominated his era like a bonafide HOFer. Who knows... in the distant future, a veteran's committee may decide to open the doors, but that's hard to see (esp. in light of Ron Santo's difficulty getting elected)

[Pitching Beats Hitting]

Dodger Dave

Mark Grace. I had considered him a Hal of Famer in my mind, but upon review of his numbers, I only give him credit for 4 hal caliber seasons, and I am feeling a bit generous to be honest with you. 4 gold gloves but only 3 all-stars and never led the league in anything significant except doubles and even then, only once. Can you make a case FOR MArk Grace?

Also, you are exactly right when you observe that I am saying that Hernandez is the Ozzie Smith of first basemen, even with slightly better hitting as you would expect from a corner infielder compared to a middle infielder.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

You don't seriously believe this, do you?

Yes, I do...

[Brad Harris]

Nobody I know has any problem with Ozzie being in, why don't I hear much support for Mex?

Hernandez belongs in Cooperstown.

He'll get my vote for the BB Fever Hall of Fame when his turn comes.

[DoubleX]

I have Keith Hernandez in that Gray Area, meaning I wouldn't begrudge it if he got in or didn't get in the Hall. However, if I have to pick one side, I'd say he's just out. On strictly offense, his numbers were very steady, yet hardly eye popping for a 1Bman. I'd like to see higher career totals for him, especially in the Homerun and RBI departments where 162 and 1071 seems kind of paltry for a Hall of Fame 1Bman over a 17 year career.

As for defense - I honestly don't know much about it other than he was really good. So I'll take it on the good authority of the members here that he was more than just really good, he was among the very best, if not the best. Is that enough though? How much value can that add to the team as a 1Bman? I think Hernandez would have been more valuable to his teams if he was just a good or very good defensive 1Bman but provided more pop on offense out of the 1B position. I don't think it's like Ozzie Smith at SS, where at a very key defensive position he could really effect the outcome of the score and the game - I don't believe as a 1Bman, Hernandez, for all his skill, could impact a game with his defense in the same way.

[RuthMayBond]

I think what he's trying to say is that Keith Hernandez is the "Ozzie Smith of firstbasemen".Pretty good comparison, except that Hernandez's OPS+ is not as bad as you think, unlike Ozzie's

[RuthMayBond]

Yes, I do...JT Snow: 11956 PO, 950 A, 1227 DP, 1.06 adjusted Range Factor, ONE fielding% title, ZERO putout titles, ZERO assist titles, ZERO DP titles

Keith Hernandez: 17909, PO, 1682 A, 1654 DP, 1.14 adjusted Range Factor, THREE fielding% titles, FOUR putout titles, FIVE assist titles, SIX DP titles

I guess ol' JT was better :crazy

[Cougar]

Hernandez belongs in Cooperstown.

Ditto. :gt

[RuthMayBond]

Yes, I do...I can find at least NINETEEN guys with as good of an Adjusted Range Factor AND as many PO titles AND as many A titles as JT Snow. I can find, uh, NOT ONE with as good of an Adjusted Range Factor AND as many PO titles AND as many A titles as Hernandez.

[Bleacherbee]

--.210 might have kept him in the lineup long enough to have a real career. It wouldn't have put him in the Hall though.

I'm not buying that at all. Ozzie set a standard for defensive excellence, and I dont think that his offensive production would have mattered one way or the other.

The only thing he had to do was keep his bat lively enough to stay in the lineup for as long as he did... the glove got him to Cooperstown.

[rockin500]

I'm not buying that at all. Ozzie set a standard for defensive excellence, and I dont think that his offensive production would have mattered one way or the other.

The only thing he had to do was keep his bat lively enough to stay in the lineup for as long as he did... the glove got him to Cooperstown.

.210 would not have gotten him in. Dont believe that. If you do believe that, i also have a bridge to sell ya.

[AG2004]

Let’s take a look at how the Keltner List Questions apply to Keith Hernandez.

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

There was an MVP award. However, if you look over any period of 4-5 years, no, he was not regarded as such.

2. Was he the best player on his team?

Quite possibly. Among the Cardinals, one could argue that Ted Simmons or Ozzie Smith was a greater player overall. With the Mets, there was Gary Carter or a young Dwight Gooden.

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

Maybe, but one could make a persuasive case that Murray or Mattingly was better. While Hernandez was with the Cardinals, one could have made a case that Garvey was the best 1B in the NL.

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

He had a good year with the Cardinals in 1982, and helped keep the Mets in contention in 1984 and 1985. The Mets won the series in 1986, but they were too far ahead of anybody else in their division for any single player to make a real impact.

5. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

No. He hung around for three seasons at the end of his career, but never played 100 games in any of them.

6. Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

Definitely not.

7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

Similarity Scores: Mark Grace, Wally Joyner, Hal McRae, Joe Kuhel, Ken Griffey Sr., John Olerud, Chris Chambliss, Cecil Cooper, Jose Cruz, Joe Judge. Not a Hall of Famer among them, although Hernandez was better than any of them.

Lifetime Win Shares, retired 1B (+/-30 from Hernandez): Mize 338*, Beckley 318*, Cash 315, Hernandez 311, Cepeda 310*, Vernon 296, Sisler 292*, Konetchy 287, Powell 282. Some are, some aren’t.

Top 3 seasons (+/- 10): Mize 100*, Greenberg 98*, Perez 96*, Murray 95*, Mattingly 95, Chance 95*, Cepeda 93*, Cash 93, Terry 93*, Fournier 91, Hernandez 91, Mayberry 91, Sisler 91*, Powell 87, Vernon 86, Camilli 85, Watson 85, Jim Bottomley 83*, Kluszewski 82, Cooper 81, Sievers 81. Hernandez is just at or below the cut-off line.

Top Five Consecutive Seasons (+/- 15): Killebrew 147*, Mattingly 144, Chance 143*, Terry 142*, Murray 142*, Hernandez 136, Greenberg 135*, Sisler 135*, Camilli 135, Cepeda 130*, Cash 130, Hodges 129, Cooper 127, Bottomley 127*, Fournier 127, Kluszewski 125, Garvey 124, Watson 123, Bill White 121. Hernandez is around the cut-off line again.

Career win shares per 162 games (+/- 2.5): Terry 26.17*, McCovey 25.54*, Killebrew 24.68*, Fournier 24.46, Cash 24.43, Camilli 24.35, Hernandez 24.13, Mattingly 23.87, Cepeda 23.64*, Trosky 23.45, Murray 23.40*, Sisler 23.02*, Grace 22.73, Powell 22.37, Konetchy 22.30. Some are, most aren’t, and Hernandez is also near the cut-off line.

I’d give a “No” vote here.

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

Black Ink 14, Gray Ink 118, HOF Standards 32.0, HOF Monitor 86.0. Definitely not.

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

Hernandez’ secondary average, .290, is close to his batting average. He was playing in an average era. You’d have to look at his defensive statistics, as he did win 11 Gold Gloves. Unfortunately, defense isn’t as important at first base as it is at any other position.

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

No. There’s Dick Allen, perhaps Mattingly, and, if you consider him a 1B instead of an OF, Mule Suttles. McGwire and Clark will be eligible soon, and Bagwell and Thomas are top active players.

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

Hernandez won an MVP award in 1979, finished second in 1984, and ended up fourth in 1986. However, Hernandez had only one season with at least 30 win shares.

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?

He had 10 seasons with at least 20 win shares. However, Hernandez was an All-Star only five times, and never had that honor three times in a row. Most people meeting either of those last two criteria aren’t in the hall of fame.

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

There’d be a good chance that it would win a pennant, and the team would almost certainly be competitive.

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

I don’t believe he did.

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Hernandez’ involvement in the 1980s drug scandals would be a blot on his character.


Keith Hernandez does not belong in the Hall of Fame.

[baseball79]

He has a chance to make it on the veterans ballot.

[Designated Fielder]

Ozzie and Keith Hernandez were teammates for a year and half. Who was the better Cardinal during this year and a half? Hernandez. Ozzie was just becoming a player. Of course, we should say a year by 1983 Hernandez was in Herzog's doghouse for drugs and a lack of hustle.

Essentially, Ozzie Smith is a flashy defensive shortstop who has a good reputation. Despite Hernandez's commercials with Clyde Frazier, he does not have a good reputation, and would never garner enough support for the Hall of Fame.

[64Cards]

If a guy in hs or college ball is left-handed and doesn't have the arm or speed to play outfield, he becomes a 1bman. If a right-hander can't play any other field postion very well, he ends up at 1b by process of elimination. If a 1bman in hs or college ball isn't a real good hitter, they end up playing softball. There are a few exceptions, but by and large it's a hitting position. The 1b will almost always be batting in the 3-6 spot in the lineup. A utility player/pinch-hitter needs to be able to play other positions than 1B or a team can't carry him on the roster.

That being said, Hernandez was the finest defensive 1bman I ever seen. Not enough stick for HOF though.

[Pitching Beats Hitting]

I keep hearing guys poo-pooing the definsive value of a first baseman. Making scoops around the bag is possibly the most important defensive play not involving the pitcher for a number of a reasons. The first reason is that it occurs so often, usually twice a game minimally. Secondly, it makes plays that much easier for the rest of the infield. If you know that all you have to do is field that ball, then the play is significantly easier. Just throw it over in time to beat the runner and don't worry about location hardly at all. If the 1Bman can reach it, it's an out. I saw Tino Martinez one year single-handedly save Derek Jeter a good 20 errors, and I sincerely consider that to be a close estimate. Martinez was the best I ever saw at fielding the ball that was over his head and into the runner. Martinez would take a step towards the plate, jump up and catch the ball in his left hand and sweep down and tag the runner a step in front of the bag. Perfect execution, but enough about Tino...

Secondly, an a league and an era when people actually bunted, Hernandez made it nearly impossible to do so. That makes a huge impact on a game, as big as a shortstop showing great range and throwing the ball right on the money while still lieing on his back.

Shortstop can be more flashy at times, but defense at first still counts.

[westsidegrounds]

First base gets a bad rap because a team can get by with a subpar fielder there better than with a subpar guy anywhere else except maybe LF. Now, that doesn't mean that a really good first baseman, like Hernandez, can't make a very valuable contribution. But it's sometimes difficult to convince people of that.

That said, I don't think KH belongs in the Hall of Fame. (Which is not an insult in my book.)

[64Cards]

PBH-while I agree it's nice to have a good defensive 1bman, it's still what you do with the bat that is most important at that position. Tino Martinez played here 2 years and was a very good defensive 1bman, but only drove in around 70 runs. Pujols replaced him at 1b. Nope, he's not as good defensively. Maybe the play you were describing with Tino saving 20 of Jeter's wayward throws, Pujols may only make the play 12 times. But look at what they did with the stick, there's no comparison as to whom is much more valuable.

An interesting thing with Hernandez. After Herzog took over the Cards in mid-1980, he spent that season evaluating the talent and came up with this plan. First, he needed a new catcher. Simmons couldn't throw out many people, plus he didn't have confidence in Ted being able to catch Sutter's split-finger in the dirt. So he was signing Darrel Porter. Now he wanted to keep Simmons stick in the lineup. So, he was going to put him at 1b and put Hernandez, his 2nd best hitter in LF. Why take the best defensive 1bman in the game and put an untried guy at the position? Because he wanted to keep Simmons bat and figured, playing in a big ballpark with astroturf, Simmons would do less damage to him at 1b then in LF. Anyway, the plan fell through when Simmons and his agt decided they didn't feel like learning at new position at that stage of his career.

[Pitching Beats Hitting]

64 Cards-

Whitey Herzog traded Keith Hernandez for Neil Allen and Rick Ownby. He did so in an attempt to punish Hernandez personally by banishing him to the doldrums that were the Mets at the time. Point is, Herzog is not exactly an intelligent source on this issue. Ok, end of personal tyrade...

That said, your point is well taken as to the expectation of a bopper at the corner infield positions. But, let's don't forget that Hernandez hit 3rd on a very good team that did win a championship. It's not like he was as bad as OZZIE SMITH up there or anything! :)

[leecemark]

--Hernandez was not a HR hitter, but he was a very good offensive player. His OPS+ beats Sisler, who is the prototype good glove (although again Hernandez was better), non-power hitting Hall of Fame 1B.

[Cougar]

64 Cards-

Whitey Herzog traded Keith Hernandez for Neil Allen and Rick Ownby. He did so in an attempt to punish Hernandez personally by banishing him to the doldrums that were the Mets at the time. Point is, Herzog is not exactly an intelligent source on this issue. Ok, end of personal tyrade...

That said, your point is well taken as to the expectation of a bopper at the corner infield positions. But, let's don't forget that Hernandez hit 3rd on a very good team that did win a championship. It's not like he was as bad as OZZIE SMITH up there or anything! :)

If I'm not mistaken Mex hit third on two championship teams. I'm sure about the 1986 Mets, but I think he hit third on the 1982 Cardinals as well.

[64Cards]

Herzog traded Hernandez for one reason...nose candy. Whitey said in his bio that it was well known in bb at the time and that was that best deal he could make. He wanted to bring up Andy van Slyke, the Cards best minor league playerr at the time to play RF and move George Hendrick from RF to 1B. And we're getting back to the 1bman thing again, but he thought it was more important to have an excellent glove and arm in RF and move another guy to 1B. And at that end of the 84 season, he traded Hendrick to Pittsburgh for John Tudor and picked up Jack Clark from SF and stuck him at 1B. And Clark of course wasn't nearly the glove that Hernandez was at 1B, but a more dangerous bat, a great cleanup hitter & they made it to the WS in 2 of Clark's 3 seasons.

[RuthMayBond]

That being said, Hernandez was the finest defensive 1bman I ever seen. Not enough stick for HOF though.OK. As long as you eliminate Murray, Sisler, and Bottomley.

[KHenry14]

I fall into the camp that believes that Hernandez is the best fielding 1B of all time. He made plays, especially on bunting situations, that no other 1B ever made. And I think in some way that kind of performance needs to be recognized.

I also fall into the camp that expects a bit more stick from my 1B than what Hernandez offered. Sure you can hide a bad glove man in a trade off for a good stick (anyone else thinking of Dr. Strangeglove?) but I think 1B is an underrated position defensively because so many bad gloves have resided there. But he wasn't a bad stick, just not a great one.

With that said, if a guy has an MVP, and is known for being a pretty good hitter and then you combine that with all-time defensive prowess, I think that warrants a trip to Cooperstown. But just barely mind you... ;)

KH14

[64Cards]

OK. As long as you eliminate Murray, Sisler, and Bottomley.
Correct about Bottomley being one of the more marginal players in HOF. Other than being my dad's favorite player when he was a kid, I can't come up with any reason for him to be in HOF. Sisler had a .340 avg, 44 points higher than KH, more runs, more RBI's, 2 batting titles, hit 400 twice. Eye injury cut him down at his peak, age 32.


Murray & KH are about the same age [KH is 2 1/2 years older]played in same era. Eddie played 21 years to Keith's 17 w/about 1000 more hits, 500 runs, 850 RBI's and 342 HR's. Ok, Keith had a better glove at 1b, slightly better BA & OBP. Also appeared on 3 episodes of Seinfeld and a Grecian Formula commercial.

[RuthMayBond]

Other than being my dad's favorite player when he was a kid, I can't come up with any reason for him to be in HOF. Sisler had a .340 avg, 44 points higher than KH, more runs, more RBI's, 2 batting titles, hit 400 twice.Do we want to mention anything about the relative prominence of offense in the two eras, or not?

[64Cards]

Do we want to mention anything about the relative prominence of offense in the two eras, or not?
Naaahh...everyone in this forum knows that the 20's were an era of inflated averages, just as recently HR's were. But in era when big dogs went crazy with the bat, Sisler barked as loud as anyone, albeit without much hr pop. Plus he was one of my grandmother's favorite players. And if he hadn't been shot down with the sinusitis that affected his eyesight at career peak, Lord knows what kind of numbers he may have ended with. St. Louis is one of the worst places for allergies. Too bad they didn't have Sudafed in 1924.

Keith had a hell of a year in 79, MVP, hit .344. Carew put up a .388 in 77, Brett hit .390 in 80, Boggs had a string of .350 plus seasons in the 80's, so KH wasn't playing in a dead ball era.

[Pitching Beats Hitting]

Ruthmaybond

I clearly want Hernandez in the hall, but let's don't say anything rediculous. Eddie Murray was eight bazillion times the offensive player that Mex was. Murray has the 8th most RBI of all time. I hope I don't actually need to go through a complete run-down of their career numbers in this case, because there really is no comparison.

64 Cards

It's not that Hernandez just had a better glove than, well, anybody really. It's that he had THE BEST glove, and certainly was as at least as distant from Murray defensively as Murray was from Hernandez offensively(if that makes any sense).

[DoubleX]

It's not that Hernandez just had a better glove than, well, anybody really. It's that he had THE BEST glove, and certainly was as at least as distant from Murray defensively as Murray was from Hernandez offensively(if that makes any sense).

That's a good point, especially since Murray was no slouch on defense and Hernandez was no slouch on offense. However, as a 1Bman, that gap in talent is far more valuable on offense than on defense. So on the whole, Hernandez's advantage on defense does not make up for the value that Murray's advantage on offense has.

[leecemark]

--I'm as big a Hernandez backer as anybody, but Murray was a better offensive player and more valuable overall player than Hernandez at their respective peaks. The gap may not be huge, but it gets significantly wider when you consider than Murray was also better much longer. Steady Eddei is amoung the top half of the Hall, Hernandez is in the grey area. A pretty dark shade of grey IMO, but there are quite a few better players still outside and ahead of him in line.

[Toy Boat]

Ozzie and Keith Hernandez were teammates for a year and half. Who was the better Cardinal during this year and a half? Hernandez. Ozzie was just becoming a player. Of course, we should say a year by 1983 Hernandez was in Herzog's doghouse for drugs and a lack of hustle.



That's a good point, because I believe most Met fans will agree with me that Hernandez was also the best player during his stay as a Met - even more so than Gary Carter, who of course is in the Hall.

I can see the argument for keeping Hernandez out, but it does irritate me a bit that a player like Ozzie can get in on the first ballot and Keith is already off the ballot after a handful of years.

[DoubleX]

That's a good point, because I believe most Met fans will agree with me that Hernandez was also the best player during his stay as a Met - even more so than Gary Carter, who of course is in the Hall.

I can see the argument for keeping Hernandez out, but it does irritate me a bit that a player like Ozzie can get in on the first ballot and Keith is already off the ballot after a handful of years.

Doesn't Strawberry enter that equation at all? Strawberry great combo of power and speed at such a young age was incredible, especially the power numbers considering the era (and his age).

[Toy Boat]

Doesn't Strawberry enter that equation at all? Strawberry great combo of power and speed at such a young age was incredible, especially the power numbers considering the era (and his age).

Strawberry certainly merits mention, but I always thought of Hernandez as the key cog on those mid-80's Mets teams. Both finished in the top 10 of MVP voting 3 different times as a Met (Hernandez: 2nd in 84, 8th in 85, 4th in 86; Strawberry: 6th in 87, 2nd in 88, 3rd in 90) I think the difference is that Hernandez's best years with the team were when the Mets made the transformation from a horrible franchise to a world championship team, while Strawberry's best years were on teams that were underachievers.

[RedSoxVT92]

Alright does Keith Hernandez deserve the HOF? Maybe not the best time to ask it(with the whole comment on the woman in the dugout) But he is Considered possibly the best defensive first baseman of all time. Won 11 straight Gold Gloves and has a lifetime .994 fielding percentage at first. 5 time all star, 1979 MVP award and two batting championships. But longevity kills him playing in only 12 seasons with 100 games or more. Also his offense is well below the hall of fame standered for first baseman. His career high in homers was 18 and he has 162 career homers with a career .296 average. But does his HOF defense make up for his Non HOF first base offense. Personally I wouldnt mind if he does get in or if he doesnt get in to Cooperstown. So does he deserve the HOF and do you think he will ever get in?

[RuthMayBond]

Alright does Keith Hernandez deserve the HOF? Maybe not the best time to ask it(with the whole comment on the woman in the dugout) But he is Considered possibly the best defensive first baseman of all time. Won 11 straight Gold Gloves and has a lifetime .994 fielding percentage at first. 5 time all star, 1979 MVP award and two batting championships. But longevity kills him playing in only 12 seasons with 100 games or more. Also his offense is well below the hall of fame standered for first baseman. His career high in homers was 18 and he has 162 career homers with a career .296 average. But does his HOF defense make up for his Non HOF first base offense. Personally I wouldnt mind if he does get in or if he doesnt get in to Cooperstown. So does he deserve the HOF and do you think he will ever get in?His HR may be low for a 1B but not the rest of his hitting. His career was arguably not as good as Allen or McGriff but arguably better than Cepeda, Beckley, Terry, Sisler, Bottomley, and George Kelly

[jalbright]

His gold gloves would mean a lot more at any other position except pitcher. First is much more an offense first position. My take on Hernandez is that it depends on exactly where you draw the line. He's near the borderline in most aspects. To me, he's usually just a little shy, so that's what I'd go with, but he'd hardly be a disastrous choice if we ignore political correctness concerns.

He was an all-star five times, which is borderline, and his black ink, gray ink and HOF standards scores are all just a little shy (about 20 spots), but not by huge amounts. None of his ten most similar are likely to make the Hall. His peak win shares rank just a little lower among 1B than I'd like to see (23rd for top 3 and 19th for best five consecutive). His career win share mark is just inside where I'd draw the border at 16th among 1B.

His one clear positive is his performance in MVP win shares. I just don't think that's enough to put him over the top.

Jim Albright

[538280]

Of course Hernandez was a tremendous fielder, and his offense is better than people realize. He wasn't really just an okay hitter. He was a very good hitter, if he played any position but 1B or corner OF he'd be a great hitter. He didn't have much HR power but hit for a high average and walked a lot, so that made him a great OBP guy. Hernandez as a hitter is really more of a leadoff Henderson/Raines type. He was a strange player, hard for the voters to get a hold of.

He played 1B but his talents looked more like a 2B, SS, or CF. He belongs in though, the writers just sometimes find it hard to evaluate a player like that.

[DTF955]

His gold gloves would mean a lot more at any other position except pitcher. First is much more an offense first position. My take on Hernandez is that it depends on exactly where you draw the line. He's near the borderline in most aspects. To me, he's usually just a little shy, so that's what I'd go with, but he'd hardly be a disastrous choice if we ignore political correctness concerns.

He was an all-star five times, which is borderline, and his black ink, gray ink and HOF standards scores are all just a little shy (about 20 spots), but not by huge amounts. None of his ten most similar are likely to make the Hall. His peak win shares rank just a little lower among 1B than I'd like to see (23rd for top 3 and 19th for best five consecutive). His career win share mark is just inside where I'd draw the border at 16th among 1B.

His one clear positive is his performance in MVP win shares. I just don't think that's enough to put him over the top.

Jim Albright

That's about where I was thinking, too, just a bit shy, the epitome of a really good player who just isn't the level of the greatest. However, as someone else said, he's arguably better than Terry and a few that the Veteran's Committee selected. So, i voted that I wouldn't really care if he got in or not, becasue it is possible that the Veterans' Committee might just decide to vote him in in 10-15 years, when his contemporaries are on; IIRC he was pretty popular.

There are two other things I'd look at:
Fielding at 1st. As stated, that's not really known as a defensive position, and he was an innovator. Over vacation I read a really good book on first basemen (by Tom keegan) in which he was covered in depth. And, the way he played it, proactively as the writer described it, it does sound like there was quite a bit extra that he did that should count for something.

Park factor: His type of hitting might have been helped some by the turf in St. Louis, but it did reduce some of his power, as did Shea, and he couldn't line balls through as effectively on grass as on turf.

So, given those factors, especially the defense, coupled with his MVP shares, playoff appearances, etc., I wouldn't be horribly distressed if his colleagues voted him in from the Veterans' Committee. There have been worse choices.

In fact, I remember reading how players of Hernandez' era have been so overlooked by writers. I wonder if we might not see a resurgence of Veterans' Committee voting in another 5-10 years, as those from that era start considering worthy players who they played against and thinking, "hey, the writers never did pay much attention to 'x', maybe we should take another look at him, we remember how great he was on the ball diamond."

It seems odd now, because they haven't been electing many people, but history does repeat itself sometimes. Hopefully, it won't be so political this time around, if that happens, and one player won't just try to elect teammates like Frisch did. If it does happen, hopefully those borderline candidates like have been discussed on here (like Parker, maybe Hernandez, Gossage) will be the ones considered.

[KCGHOST]

I've never been much in favor of his induction. Always felt that he is just a little shy of having the necessary career.

[Freakshow]

In fact, I remember reading how players of Hernandez' era have been so overlooked by writers. I wonder if we might not see a resurgence of Veterans' Committee voting in another 5-10 years, as those from that era start considering worthy players who they played against and thinking, "hey, the writers never did pay much attention to 'x', maybe we should take another look at him, we remember how great he was on the ball diamond."

It seems odd now, because they haven't been electing many people, but history does repeat itself sometimes. Hopefully, it won't be so political this time around, if that happens, and one player won't just try to elect teammates like Frisch did. If it does happen, hopefully those borderline candidates like have been discussed on here (like Parker, maybe Hernandez, Gossage) will be the ones considered.
Yes.

Until recently, there were three cohorts that had been shortchanged by the Coop: 1) the Negro Leaguers have just been taken care of; 2) that leaves the stars of the 1860's-70's-80's; 3) and the stars of the 1960's-70's-80's.

The pioneers of the early days of professional baseball were largely forgotten by the time the Hall opened in the late 1930's. There has never (yet) been a systematic effort to give this group fair representation.

The stars of the expansion era had their eligibility with the VC cut short with the reformation in 2001. For example, Santo and Minoso were never eligible for the old VC; Dick Allen had one year. The result is, the VC has elected only three players retiring from 1966-83 (the most recent years they have considered): Bunning, Mazeroski and Cepeda.

The writers just don't elect many players, only 20 in the last 14 years. They basically leave all but the no-brainers on the outside, until a VC comes along to correct the oversights.

I'm with you: when this new VC is finally fixed and actually starts electing players, let's hope they get it right.

[yankillaz]

Unless you make a "Seinfeld Guest Actor's HOF" he's not in.

[Chisox]

just to make the message long enough: No.

[digglahhh]

I happen to think he's a shoo-in. I'll try not to let my Mets fandom interefere here.

But first of all, the FAME part of the HOF, is quite relevant here. He's considered by many the best fielding 1B of all-time. Now, 1B is an offensive position, but when you have a guy with a career 129 OPS+ who is also the best ever defensively at his position, that's a pretty compelling argument...

Teams were intimidated of his defense, they could not, and often would not, bunt. Nobdoy got on those bunts quicker. He was a studious hitter who helped his teammates with his wisdom. He played for 2 WS champions and was the leader of that '86 Mets team, and that was a difficult group to keep together. He did well in the MVP voting and won one in '79.

He's not the greatest of the great, but that line has blurred a long time ago. He is very deserving, IMO, especially when you look at his case three dimensionally.

[STLCards2]

But first of all, the FAME part of the HOF, is quite relevant here.

On the flipside of FAME, if you asked a casual baseball fan, "who is Keith Hernandez," many would not know and very, very few would regard him as a Hall of Fame player. Hernadez is supported here much more than by the press or general public. Heck, Keith is known as much for snorting nose-candy, appearing on hair-coloring commercials, making fun of women as an announcer, and being on Seinfeld as he is for being a great player, and is still nowhere near a househould name. When I think of FAME and baseball, Hernandez does not cross my mind.

For the record, I wouldn't be torn apart if he was or wasn't elected. There are many worse in the Hall, but 15 or so not in the Hall I would put in first. Wouldn't be a bad selection, however.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Is he a HOFer? I would vote to put him in, but he hasn't gotten much support to date.

Hernandez' career began sloppily and ended abruptly, due to injury. He came up at age 21, was pretty much the regular 1B at 22, an OK regular at 23, and a co-MVP at age 25, after which, he remained a star through age 33. In 1988, his career began to decline due to injuries; he was never a full-timer again, and his last season, 1990, was spent with the Indians.

In the midst of all this, Hernandez was a Gold Glove 1B on two world champions, an MVP winner, the best 1B in the NL during the 1980s, and a 5 time all-star. He hit .296 with an excellent OPB, and he had extra-base power (though not HR power). From 1979-87, he put up All-Star numbers, year after year; he was consistent from year to year, and didn't have a bad year.

Hernandez is borderline, but I would put him in. I would put him in because he clearly helped his teams win, none of his teams would have won without him, and his defense was absolutely super; he was the best defensive 1B of his generation, and, possibly, of my lifetime.

Your thoughts . . .

[RedSoxVT92]

I would say on the fence. He is arguably the best 1st base fielder of all time (although 1st base isnt that important defensivly). Has 11 GG the most by a 1st baseman ever. His career stats are better than the leauge average. .994 fielding percent, .992 leage fielding percentage, 9.73 range factor, 8.51 leag e range factor. But he doesnt have the 1st base power but is underated as a hitter. Could draw a good amount of walks and hit for a high average. career high being .344, career average is .296 and has two silver sluggers. But the hall of fame is already stocked with 1st baseman and I still havent made up my mind weather he is a HOFer or not. So im on the fence and wouldnt mind him getting in or not.

[125osprey]

Great glove and a stellar career but not worthy of induction into the Hall.

One of the things that sticks in my mind about Hernandez is that during Game 6 of the '86 World Series he was in the clubhouse resigned to the fact that the Mets were going to lose. It was only after things started to turn around that the team captain joined his squad in the dugout. That has always bugged me. But then again, everything about the '86 Mets bugs me.

[125osprey]

I'll point out my own error. Hernandez wasn't appointed captain until the following year.

[KCGHOST]

As a 1B Hernandez has pretty marginal productivity to be an HoFer. Nice glove, but the day will never dawn when I want to put a 1B in the HoF because of his glove.

Don't get me wrong, he was a fine player who had a fine career.

[Seattle1]

Well, he was pretty good in Seinfeld I guess. :dance :laugh

[baseball junkie]

Not a chance. He was an excellent defensive first baseman but he lacked power -- absolutely pivotal to a corner infielder. His .296 career batting average is far too low. And he fell 818 hits short of the only milestone that could justify his inductions: 3,000 hits.

Maybe if St. Louis hadn't brought him up to the majors at 20 years old and had left him in the minors to develop until he was 23 or 24 he could have avoided the first five years of his career -- that really kill his career batting average. Bringing him up to the major later may have also helped extend his career because he might have kept himself in better playing shape for the exact purpose of extending his career to make more money. In that case perhaps he would have hit one of the major milestones. But that is just a maybe.

[DoubleX]

I'm on the fence with Hernandez. He might be the best defensive 1Bman ever, but I'm not sure how much that counts for. He was a good hitter, albeit never really great and never really what you'd expect from a Hall of Fame 1Bman. Not sure if the defense forms enough of a total package or not.

[538280]

Hernandez had a 129 OPS+ in an era that was very hard to dominate. OPS+ may be unfair to him as well because most of it comes from the OBP side. Hernandez was a high average hitter who drew a ton of walks for an awesome OBP, and had some power as well to make him a very valuable hitter, even for a 1Bman. I think you guys are selling his offesnse short. .301 EqA is the same as Orlando Cepeda, and higher than Eddie Murray, Cap Anson, and only slightly lower than Bill Terry. I think you guys are selling his offense short.

[64Cards]

I'm with the general consenus about hernandez, he was a good offensive player, but not great. Average power for a 1bman. He did have a tedency to loaf at times. He was the finest defensive 1Bman I've ever seen, but I think having a guy at 1b who is a big gun with the stick, like the Cards had in 67/68 with Cepeda and 85/87 with Jack Clark, who were average defensively, t least compared to Hernandez, is more valuable to a team.

[psbaseballfan27]

Do you think Keith Hernandez is a hof. I am biased about this.:D :D He won so many gold gloves.

[jalbright]

merging several hernandez threads

[PVNICK]

I happen to think he's a shoo-in. I'll try not to let my Mets fandom interefere here.

But first of all, the FAME part of the HOF, is quite relevant here. He's considered by many the best fielding 1B of all-time. Now, 1B is an offensive position, but when you have a guy with a career 129 OPS+ who is also the best ever defensively at his position, that's a pretty compelling argument...

Teams were intimidated of his defense, they could not, and often would not, bunt. Nobdoy got on those bunts quicker. He was a studious hitter who helped his teammates with his wisdom. He played for 2 WS champions and was the leader of that '86 Mets team, and that was a difficult group to keep together. He did well in the MVP voting and won one in '79.

He's not the greatest of the great, but that line has blurred a long time ago. He is very deserving, IMO, especially when you look at his case three dimensionally.
I agree with everything Digglah said.

The way he played a bunt was like nothign I've seen before or since. Late games he never gave away an AB. If you are the best ever at your position defnsively, won an MVP a batting title, batted over .300 with 90 BB and 30+ 2B, double figure HR, 90 R and 90 RBI in an era when 35 HR and 110 runs or RBI would often lead the league and do it while playing in two pitcher's parks your whole career the question is why aren't you in or very close to getting in?

[RuthMayBond]

I agree with everything Digglah said.

The way he played a bunt was like nothign I've seen before or since. Late games he never gave away an AB. If you are the best ever at your position defnsively, won an MVP a batting title, batted over .300 with 90 BB and 30+ 2B, double figure HR, 90 R and 90 RBI in an era when 35 HR and 110 runs or RBI would often lead the league and do it while playing in two pitcher's parks your whole career the question is why aren't you in or very close to getting in?It worked for Maz, and he didn't even have all that

[digglahhh]

I agree with everything Digglah said.

The way he played a bunt was like nothign I've seen before or since. Late games he never gave away an AB. If you are the best ever at your position defnsively, won an MVP a batting title, batted over .300 with 90 BB and 30+ 2B, double figure HR, 90 R and 90 RBI in an era when 35 HR and 110 runs or RBI would often lead the league and do it while playing in two pitcher's parks your whole career the question is why aren't you in or very close to getting in?

Thanks, Nick. There's a first time for everything.

And for those hung up on the fact that the best defensive 1B of all time isn't a particularly compelling honor - I can respect that... in and of itself.

But, what we have here is a (theoretical) candidate for whom that accomplishment comes with a guy who put up a 129 career OPS+ and who has all kinds of "intangibles." For all the talk about his offense not being good enough for a 1B, he played his share of winning teams that did so with him hitting in the middle of their order. Consider that OBP is the more important part of OPS, and consider that eleven GGs have to count for something, he's certainly at least among the best candidates on the outside.

[Brad Harris]

And for those hung up on the fact that the best defensive 1B of all time isn't a particularly compelling honor - I can respect that... in and of itself.

I disagree. It's like those people who won't vote for someone because they were a designated hitter.

Playing defense is part of a first baseman's job. It may not be the most important part of his job. It may be the least important defensive contribution of anyone on the diamond. It's still a part of the game. Honoring someone who was the best ever at a particular aspect of the game is certainly within the purview of the Hall's charter. It irks me to see people support a guy like Omar Vizquel (i.e. "one of the greatest fielders to ever play his position") and then dismiss that same argument for Keith Hernandez.

I'm not saying we need to put the greatest role-players in the Hall. The greatest bunter, the greatest pinch hitter, the greatest one-out left-handed middle relief specialist, etc. But we're already using the argument of "greatest defensive player at his position" for other positions. To apply the argument to some positions but not others seems to me an inconsistent application of that line of thinking.

It's not as though we're honoring a Mark Belanger or Paul Blair, either. Hernandez carried quite a bat. I don't mind giving him a little extra credit for his "unique" status among first base defenders. I think it's enough to make up for any lack of offense in his career (though I can respect opinions contrary to that.)

Anyone here think Kaat's 16 gold gloves are enough extra credit to push him over the line, but Hernandez's trophies aren't?

[RuthMayBond]

It irks me to see people support a guy like Omar Vizquel (i.e. "one of the greatest fielders to ever play his position") and then dismiss that same argument for Keith Hernandez.And Vizquel isn't even the best defensively at his position, whereas Hernandez indisputably was

<Anyone here think Kaat's 16 gold gloves are enough extra credit to push him over the line, but Hernandez's trophies aren't?>

Kaat is the Vizquel of pitchers, actually overrated even much moreso

[jalbright]

Playing defense is part of a first baseman's job. It may not be the most important part of his job. It may be the least important defensive contribution of anyone on the diamond. It's still a part of the game. Honoring someone who was the best ever at a particular aspect of the game is certainly within the purview of the Hall's charter. It irks me to see people support a guy like Omar Vizquel (i.e. "one of the greatest fielders to ever play his position") and then dismiss that same argument for Keith Hernandez.

I'm not saying we need to put the greatest role-players in the Hall. The greatest bunter, the greatest pinch hitter, the greatest one-out left-handed middle relief specialist, etc. But we're already using the argument of "greatest defensive player at his position" for other positions. To apply the argument to some positions but not others seems to me an inconsistent application of that line of thinking.

I'm no fan of the "greatest fielder at his position" argument as the sole justification for putting a guy in. The Mazeroskis or a Schalks can (and IMO do) have too small a contribution with the bat to merit induction despite their excellence defensively. HOFers should be the whole package, or at least as valuable as those who have something darned close to the "whole package". A 1B who is short of the mark with a bat (as I think Hernandez is) has a very hard time in my view making it up simply because of the relatively small defensive impact a super 1B glove has over a decent 1B glove. IMO, there's got to be some players among the first two or three on the outside looking in, and in my book, that's precisely where Hernandez belongs.

Jim Albright

[philkid3]

This is the crux of the problem, people simply don't understand how important defense is. I predict that over the next 10-20 years this will change, just like OBP has become well appreciated. If you took the number of hits Hernandez saved and added them to his offensive stats, everyone would accept that Hernandez should be in the HOF.

Who doesn't understand how important defense is? If anything it's overrated for the most part.

[brett]

Hernandez falls "just short" in my book. Maybe I will reconsider. He was one of the best PLAYERS in the NL from '79 to '86. 2000 games as a first baseman is just not enough unless the guy is in the 140 OPS+ range. First basemen just don't have the same impact as shortstops for example. A great one does not save that many runs versus an average or poor one.

If he or Mattingly had put up maybe 300 more solid games then they could have made it. I think Hernandez was the better of the two. He drew a lot of walks.

[bluezebra]

ONLY IF HE STOPS DOING THOSE OBNOXIOUS HAIR DYE COMMERCIALS.

Bob

[Cougar]

The ladies love Clyde and Mex, and their flowing dark locks.

[digglahhh]

I'm no fan of the "greatest fielder at his position" argument as the sole justification for putting a guy in. The Mazeroskis or a Schalks can (and IMO do) have too small a contribution with the bat to merit induction despite their excellence defensively. HOFers should be the whole package, or at least as valuable as those who have something darned close to the "whole package". A 1B who is short of the mark with a bat (as I think Hernandez is) has a very hard time in my view making it up simply because of the relatively small defensive impact a super 1B glove has over a decent 1B glove. IMO, there's got to be some players among the first two or three on the outside looking in, and in my book, that's precisely where Hernandez belongs.

Jim Albright

But, and I know you are aware of this, a player is more than the sum of his parts.

He may be off the pace of HOF 1B offense, but he was a very good hitter. And, we're not talking about Helton, Snow, or Garvey, here. On top of a relatively close case with the bat, Mex is the consensus best defensive player of all time at his position. Isn't that something of a bonus, beyond his raw defensive value?

All in all, I guess we aren't really too far off. You see him as one of the best who should be out. I see him as one of the lowest level players who should be in (minus those who I feel are mistakes, obviously).

[jalbright]

But, and I know you are aware of this, a player is more than the sum of his parts.

He may be off the pace of HOF 1B offense, but he was a very good hitter. And, we're not talking about Helton, Snow, or Garvey, here. On top of a relatively close case with the bat, Mex is the consensus best defensive player of all time at his position. Isn't that something of a bonus, beyond his raw defensive value?

All in all, I guess we aren't really too far off. You see him as one of the best who should be out. I see him as one of the lowest level players who should be in (minus those who I feel are mistakes, obviously).

I'm not sure how much is a difference in how we see Hernandez, and how much is a difference in where each of us would draw the line. Regardless, we're not all that far apart. I wouldn't regard Hernandez' inclusion as a farce, like, for instance, George Kelly. I don't get the sense that you feel his exclusion is a travesty, either. A gray area guy, it would seem.

Jim Albright

[DiMag4Life]

I don't see why he's not in. 128 career OPS+, historically great defensive 1B'man, albeit not the most valuable defensive position. Should he be in?

[philkid3]

I don't think so, but he's about my bar for first basemen. He's about as good as you can get without getting into my Hall of Fame.

[willshad]

I dont think hernandez has the power you want for a first baseman. he was pretty good offensively for the time, but really falls short when comparing him to all time greats at the position. A guy like him would need real good career counting stats for me to cinsider him hall worthy..but with barely 2000 hits, 1000 runs and 1000 RBI, doesnt cut it. If you let him in then you have to let in guys like Mark Grace and john Olerud as well, and i think thats lowering the bar just a bit too much.

[philipthegreat]

I dont think hernandez has the power you want for a first baseman. he was pretty good offensively for the time, but really falls short when comparing him to all time greats at the position. A guy like him would need real good career counting stats for me to cinsider him hall worthy..but with barely 2000 hits, 1000 runs and 1000 RBI, doesnt cut it. If you let him in then you have to let in guys like Mark Grace and john Olerud as well, and i think thats lowering the bar just a bit too much.

cpoupled with some controversy and you have a bad HOF case.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm loathe to put a lot of creedence into a 1B candidate for the HOF whose qualifications can't be summed up by his triple crown stats, but Hernandez is an exception.

Hernandez was, arguably, the best 1B in the NL from 1979 to the late eighties, moving into the slot as Steve Garvey faded. He had some controversy, but he was also a key player on two World Championship teams. One can make a case that he was the BEST player on the 1986 Mets, and he WAS, IMO, the best player on the 1982 Cardinals. He was the premier defensive 1B of his time, and, possibly, of the half-century.

Hernandez gets some credit for a late start caused by Cardinal ineptitude; he is probably missing a season and a half where he should have been in the major leagues. Part of the problem was that the Cardinals didn't recognize what they had. Hernandez, to be fair, didn't help himself by having off years in 1975 (when he got his first shot) and 1978 (when he hit .255, a year before winning the batting title and the MVP).

Had Hernandez not had the back problems he encountered after 1987, he'd have a better shot; the bad back probably cost him a lifetime .300 BA, which would have helped him some. It also would have filled out his career hit total; he would be a stronger candidate with 2,500 career hits. He is somewhat similar to Olerud, except Olerud played in a better offensive era and park, and Hernandez, IMO, was more consistent from year to year. (If you take out the 2 best years from Olerud's career and replace them with what his new career norms would be, his career is much less impressive; the effect of doing that with Hernandez is somewhat less extreme.) He's got a case and I would vote for him; I don't think I'd be pleading his case the way I might for, say, Ron Santo, however.

[KCGHOST]

Hernandez is a tough call for me. Amongst the 21 HOFers who would be classified as 1B's would rank 9th in WARP3, 14th in Wins Shares, and 15th in RCAA. While I don't think of him as an HoFer these standings suggest that he wouldn't be a terrible choice.

[leecemark]

--Hernandez obviously doesn't match up well to the very best 1B's, but he is clearly better than some Hall of Famers - closer to the median than the worst. I wouldn't be es[ecially enthused about him if he was just a good glove to go along with his good bat, but being the best defensive 1B of all time (or at least arguably so) gets him over the hump for me. Its between Hernendez and Dick Allen for best firstbaseman not inducted. Allen was the better player, but Hernandez has some intangibles (the best glove thing, leader of a couple championship teams and the MVP) that make hime at least as good a choice for Cooperstown.

[jalbright]

merging threads.

[mtortolero]

Probably with four more seasons putting average season numbers he should be in with similar arguments as Carew (a bit less contact but a bit more power).
So good he was, he is a borderline reference but not a HOF.

[philipthegreat]

--Hernandez obviously doesn't match up well to the very best 1B's, but he is clearly better than some Hall of Famers - closer to the median than the worst. I wouldn't be es[ecially enthused about him if he was just a good glove to go along with his good bat, but being the best defensive 1B of all time (or at least arguably so) gets him over the hump for me. Its between Hernendez and Dick Allen for best firstbaseman not inducted. Allen was the better player, but Hernandez has some intangibles (the best glove thing, leader of a couple championship teams and the MVP) that make hime at least as good a choice for Cooperstown.

The problem is that being better than some HOF's is really skewed up with guys like george kelly in the hall of fame.

Defensive ability is terribly overated,the only person who deserved to get in based on defensive ability was Brooksie.

[philkid3]

The problem is that being better than some HOF's is really skewed up with guys like george kelly in the hall of fame.

Defensive ability is terribly overated,the only person who deserved to get in based on defensive ability was Brooksie.

Wow, I'll argue Ozzie Smith deserves to be in on defense long before Robinson.

[TheMadDog31]

Why is Keith Hernandez not in the Hall of Fame? He's considered by many to be one of the greatest defensive first basemen of all-time, and he was a pretty damn good hitter too.

Can someone explain this to me?

[Brad Harris]

Why is Keith Hernandez not in the Hall of Fame? He's considered by many to be one of the greatest defensive first basemen of all-time, and he was a pretty damn good hitter too.

Can someone explain this to me?

Because "pretty good hitter" isn't that rare among 1B/DH/LF/RF types and defense at first base isn't appreciated or valued like it is at, say, the middle infield spots.

[jalbright]

merging two threads, which may provide an answer for the question two posts ago.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

Let's hear it.

[brett]

I had him on a HOF course (same for Buddy Bell) but they both fell off 2-3 years to fast.

Point is, I can not put him plausibly in my top 100 players of all time, and he didn't doing anything else to warrant extra positive consideration (if anything it would be negative). OK, he was a leader on 2 great teams. He has a case as the best fielding first baseman ever, but I think I probably have him around 150 on the value chart.

[Cowtipper]

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=42546

These can be combined.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I support Hernandez.

Hernandez posted a .669 OWP for his career. That's pretty good for a guy who was the premier defensive first baseman of his era. He posted an OWP of over .700 for the 8 year core of his career (1979-86), which is excellent for even a big oaf at 1B. He won an MVP award, and he was, arguably, the best 1B in the NL from 1979-86.

Hernandez' career was shortened on the front end because the Cardinals weren't willing to give him a job and let him run with it until he was 24. It was shortened on the back end by back problems, so I don't give him slack there. Hernandez DID play in pro-pitcher environments his entire career; here's his stats in a 715 run context:


Year Ag G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB Avg OBP SLG OPS RC ActG
+-------+----+-----+----+----+----+---+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+
1974 20 14 35 3 11 1 2 0 2 8 8 0 .314 .442 .457 .899 7 14
1975 21 64 186 21 46 8 2 3 21 17 26 0 .247 .307 .360 .667 21 64
1976 22 129 382 59 116 23 5 8 51 53 53 4 .304 .393 .453 .846 67 129
1977 23 161 559 91 162 41 4 15 92 79 88 7 .290 .378 .458 .836 96 161
1978 24 159 556 100 152 35 4 12 71 90 68 14 .273 .373 .415 .788 87 159
1979 25 160 614 119 216 49 11 11 107 82 78 11 .352 .425 .521 .946 138 161
1980 26 159 603 116 199 41 8 17 104 90 73 15 .330 .418 .509 .927 128 159
1981 27 162 608 112 197 46 7 14 83 104 71 21 .324 .420 .492 .912 126 103
1982 28 160 592 84 186 35 6 8 101 108 67 20 .314 .415 .434 .849 108 160
1983 29 150 551 82 173 25 8 13 68 95 72 10 .314 .415 .459 .874 105 150
1984 30 154 566 91 187 34 0 16 103 106 89 2 .330 .431 .475 .906 118 154
1985 31 158 605 96 195 36 4 11 100 82 59 3 .322 .399 .450 .849 110 158
1986 32 149 565 101 185 37 1 14 89 102 69 2 .327 .432 .471 .903 114 149
1987 33 154 592 90 175 29 2 19 92 83 104 0 .296 .384 .448 .832 101 154
1988 34 96 361 52 106 18 0 12 66 34 58 2 .294 .352 .443 .795 57 95
1989 35 75 221 21 56 9 0 4 22 30 39 0 .253 .348 .348 .696 27 75
1990 36 43 132 8 28 2 0 1 9 15 17 0 .212 .297 .250 .547 10 43
+-------+----+-----+----+----+----+---+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+
Totals 2147 7728 1246 2390 469 64 178 1181 1178 1039 111 .309 .400 .456 .856 1420 2088
+-------+----+-----+----+----+----+---+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+
/162 G 583 94 180 35 5 13 89 89 78 8 .309 .400 .456 .856 107
+-------+----+-----+----+----+----+---+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+
Year Ag G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB Avg OBP SLG OPS RC ActG


I think he belongs. He's not a clear-cut injustice, but he belongs.

[jalbright]

merged new thread into this one.

[Mongoose]

During Hernandez's time with the Mets, the rest of the infield mostly consisted of guys like:

SS: Hubie Brooks, Kevin Mitchell, Ron Gardenhire
2B: Tim Teufel, Wally Backman
3B: Kevin Mitchell, Ray Knight (eroded fielding skills), Howard Johnson (horrible arm in the early days)

The only decent fielder that played infield regularly for the Mets in those days was Rafael Santana, and he was only average-good with so-so range.

Because of Keith's incredible range and ability to catch anything thrown at him and make a play on it, all these guys were actually pulled together into an above average infield. I can't count how many bad throws he acrobatically tagged runners out on off the bag with slap tags; probably one every other game.

That will not show up in the statistics.

He wasn't just the best; nobody else was on the same planet as a fielder. He wasn't just a good fielding first baseman: he turned these other guys into good infielders by masking their deficiencies. You can't even say he redefined the position because nobody that's followed has even come close to doing what he could do.

And he had a good bat that got better when it had to.

He's a Hall of Famer.

[Mike90]

And he had a good bat that got better when it had to.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Hernandez hit .296/.384/.436 in the regular season and .265/.370/.359 in the postseason. He batted .245 in two world series.

edit: He did hit .315 with men on base and .357 when the bases were loaded.

[Mongoose]

Keith had a history of delivering when it mattered the most:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SLN/SLN198210200.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYN/NYN198610270.shtml

By the way, hypothetically speaking and not referring to anyone in particular... If someone is ignorant, they really should avoid waving that around like a flag. Looking like an ignoramus is nothing to be proud of.

[henrich]

I support Hernandez.

18th Hodges 10,839
19th McCovey 10,739
20th Brouthers 10,736
21st McGwire 10,477PED
22nd Connor 10,438
23rd hernandez 10,427
24th Thome 10,319 (thru 2007)
25th Beckley 10,273

Bold in the Hall, Italics should be in the hall Thome not eligible, McGwire steroids, Hodges a perennial candidate by the veterans committee and of course Hernandez.

[Mike90]

Keith had a history of delivering when it mattered the most:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SLN/SLN198210200.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYN/NYN198610270.shtml

By the way, hypothetically speaking and not referring to anyone in particular... If someone is ignorant, they really should avoid waving that around like a flag. Looking like an ignoramus is nothing to be proud of.

I agree that looking like an ignoramus is nothing to be proud of, although I have a feeling, despite your assurance that you were speaking hypothetically, that you were referring to me. I might be wrong; if I am, sorry.

Anyway, I disagree that two pretty good game 7s is enough to claim that Hernandez has a "history" of hitting better when it counted because

a) 2 games and 9 plate appearances is such an incredibly small sample size that I am amazed anyone would use it as proof of anything. Those two games represent less than a tenth of one percent of Hernandez's major league career.

b) In 14 world series games, Hernandez hit .245/.349/340 with 1 home run. In 30 postseason games (including the world series), he was a little better batting .265 with 2 HRs. That's not exactly legendary hitting "when in mattered the most."

I would put Hernandez in the Hall; I would also induct Will Clark, Dick Allen and Fred McGriff ahead of him. I think he was a borderline great player but not because of what he did in the playoffs.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

I support Hernandez.

18th Hodges 10,839
19th McCovey 10,739
20th Brouthers 10,736
21st McGwire 10,477PED
22nd Connor 10,438
23rd hernandez 10,427
24th Thome 10,319 (thru 2007)
25th Beckley 10,273

Bold in the Hall, Italics should be in the hall Thome not eligible, McGwire steroids, Hodges a perennial candidate by the veterans committee and of course Hernandez.

Keith Hernandez falls short IMO. He was just not great enough of a hitter in one of the premier offensive positions in baseball. He definitely deserves a modest amount of extra credt for the fantastic defense, but still he was not enough of an offensive asset even with that credit. An there's absolutely no way Keith Hernandez should rank above Jim Thome on anyone's list. Thats just crazy talk.

Bottom line is that if you induct Keith, you HAVE to induct Will Clark (who was no slouch with the glove himself). But it doesn't stop there; there's no way you can leave John Olerud out - he was everything Keith was weith the bat AND he won 3 GG's. You also have to take a good, hard look at Cecil Cooper, who was a 2 time GG and was every bit the offensive threat Keith was minus the walks.

Bottom line is Keith Hernandez was a very smooth, consistent player, but he is not a HOF'er. A player who is weak on the counting stats (2184 hits, 1162 runs, 162 HR etc) has to have a historic or close to historic peak to be deserving in my book.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Offensive Win%
1979 NL-.773-1
1980 NL-.746-2
1981 NL-.728-7
1983 NL-.696-7
1984 NL-.734-4
1986 NL-.718-3

Adjusted Batting Runs
1979 NL-47-2
1980 NL-42-2
1981 NL-24-4
1982 NL-28-10
1983 NL-26-9
1984 NL-38-3
1985 NL-27-10
1986 NL-35-3

On-base %
1979 NL-.417-2
1980 NL-.408-1
1981 NL-.401-3
1982 NL-.397-3
1983 NL-.396-2
1984 NL-.409-3
1985 NL-.384-7
1986 NL-.413-2

Runs Created
1979 NL-135-1
1980 NL-122-2
1981 NL-73-4
1983 NL-98-8
1984 NL-108-5
1985 NL-100-9
1986 NL-106-6

Gold Gloves
1978-NL--1B
1979-NL--1B
1980-NL--1B
1981-NL--1B
1982-NL--1B
1983-NL--1B
1984-NL--1B
1985-NL--1B
1986-NL--1B
1987-NL--1B
1988-NL--1B

Hmmmmm . . . Hernandez' defense is pretty decent for a first baseman. He's got a .668 OWP. This is better than the vaunted Jim Rice (.627), Don Mattingly (.619), Albert Belle (.656), Rafael Palmiero (.651), Steve Garvey (.571), John Olerud (.638), Cecil Cooper (.596), and not far from Will Clark (.686). He's not Frank Thomas (.732), but, then again, what's Thomas's defensive value?

Hernandez' offense is pretty good, even for a first baseman, for a guy that brings his defensive credentials to the table. There are guys with OWPs less than Hernandez that are merely average at the left of the defensive spectrum who get more love here; Rice is one of them. Hernandez was not the classic power hitter people expect in a first baseman, but he wasn't Mark Grace; he was a .700 OWP guy in his best years. He was an MVP winner, and a guy who was an integral part of two (2) World Champions.

I really can't see where Hernandez as a HOFer is such a ridiculous proposition. I can somewhat understand one not viewing Hernandez as a HOFer in the final analysis, but I can't see dismissing him blithely, as some do here.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

I don't want to knock Hernandez, because I liked him as a player and he's a borderline candidate for sure. But his induction will never happen, at least not soon, because of the competition ahead of him. With Jeff Bagwell, Frank Thomas, Carlos Delgado, Fred McGriff, Mark McGwire & Jim Thome coming down the pipeline in the next few years, Hernandez has no chance.

And because those aforementioned players are just a bit better than Hernandez, its my view that he just doesn't have enough juice to get elected by the writers. Hernandez, in the greater scheme, simply falls short with the numbers. Again, that's no knock on Hernandez as a player, he just didn't quite do enough - or at least didn't do it for long enough.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Keith Hernandez falls short IMO. He was just not great enough of a hitter in one of the premier offensive positions in baseball. He definitely deserves a modest amount of extra credt for the fantastic defense, but still he was not enough of an offensive asset even with that credit. An there's absolutely no way Keith Hernandez should rank above Jim Thome on anyone's list. Thats just crazy talk.

Bottom line is that if you induct Keith, you HAVE to induct Will Clark (who was no slouch with the glove himself). But it doesn't stop there; there's no way you can leave John Olerud out - he was everything Keith was weith the bat AND he won 3 GG's. You also have to take a good, hard look at Cecil Cooper, who was a 2 time GG and was every bit the offensive threat Keith was minus the walks.

Bottom line is Keith Hernandez was a very smooth, consistent player, but he is not a HOF'er. A player who is weak on the counting stats (2184 hits, 1162 runs, 162 HR etc) has to have a historic or close to historic peak to be deserving in my book.

I've advocated for Clark; I certainly think he's better than Mattingly. But Clark won a mere ONE (1) Gold Glove, compared to ELEVEN (11) for Hernandez. Clark's OWP is .686, but Hernandez' OWP is .668. At worst, they're even. But that's minimizing Hernandez' defensive advantage, or the fact that Clark missed more time with injuries than did Hernandez (both of their careers ended a bit early due to injuries).

John Olerud doesn't equal Hernandez in OWP, and he only won 3 Gold Gloves. Olerud NEVER won an MVP and was not consistent from year to year.

Cecil Cooper had a .595 OWP. He didn't walk much, and he didn't play full time all that much, either. How one can say "If Hernandez, then Cooper" is absolutely beyond me.

The difference between Hernandez and the guys mentioned in the quote (Clark, Olerud, Cooper) is simple: Hernandez is better. Better than all of them. Better than Clark by a hair. Better than Olerud by a clear margin. Better than Cooper by a ridiculously large margin. Inducting Hernandez does not open any kind of floodgate; he is far more in line with HOF Definition C than any of those other guys.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

I've advocated for Clark; I certainly think he's better than Mattingly. But Clark won a mere ONE (1) Gold Glove, compared to ELEVEN (11) for Hernandez. Clark's OWP is .686, but Hernandez' OWP is .668. At worst, they're even. But that's minimizing Hernandez' defensive advantage, or the fact that Clark missed more time with injuries than did Hernandez (both of their careers ended a bit early due to injuries).

John Olerud doesn't equal Hernandez in OWP, and he only won 3 Gold Gloves. Olerud NEVER won an MVP and was not consistent from year to year.

Cecil Cooper had a .595 OWP. He didn't walk much, and he didn't play full time all that much, either. How one can say "If Hernandez, then Cooper" is absolutely beyond me.

The difference between Hernandez and the guys mentioned in the quote (Clark, Olerud, Cooper) is simple: Hernandez is better. Better than all of them. Better than Clark by a hair. Better than Olerud by a clear margin. Better than Cooper by a ridiculously large margin. Inducting Hernandez does not open any kind of floodgate; he is far more in line with HOF Definition C than any of those other guys.

I brought up Cecil Cooper more for effect. What I was trying to demonstrate was that minus the walks (which ARE important obviously), he was Hernandez's equal as a hitter. I imagine the OPS+ factor would have reflected this, and to a certain extent OWP. Now this doesn't prove much since Hernandez actually posted those walk numbers, but it's interesting nonetheless. Cooper played 7 season of 148 games or more...

I see plenty of similarities offensively with John Olerud and Keith. OPS+ was even, Keith BA was 1 pt higher. Olerud had a .398 OBP to Keith's .385 and slugged .29 higher. Not sure why the desparity in OWP exists, but basically they were equals as hitters. Of course, Hernandez was better with the glove, but was he SO MUCH better that you could vouch for Keith for the Hall and not Olerud? I don't really think so. If they were both shortstops maybe, but not at 1B. ANd yes, Olerud WAS a consistant player.

Clark was at least equal to Hernandez, and I don't advocate him either.

[mwiggins]

Bottom line is that if you induct Keith, you HAVE to induct Will Clark (who was no slouch with the glove himself). But it doesn't stop there; there's no way you can leave John Olerud out - he was everything Keith was weith the bat AND he won 3 GG's. You also have to take a good, hard look at Cecil Cooper, who was a 2 time GG and was every bit the offensive threat Keith was minus the walks.



Well, yeah, you'd probably want to put Clark in as well. You could just easily say "If you elect Tony Perez or Orlando Cepeda, you have to elect Will Clark."

And Olerud's a step below that. Hernadez has a much better career OWP - .668 to .638 - was better with the glove, and got much more love from MVP voters.

And as much as a I love Coop, he's not at the same level as Hernandez. Saying "minus the walks" is a mouthful. Keith has a 128 to 121 edge in career OPS+, and his is driven much more by a high OBP, making the edge as a hitter more than OPS+ indicates. And I saw Cooper play a LOT, and he was not in the same ballpark with the glove.

[Greg Maddux's Biggest Fan]

Well, yeah, you'd probably want to put Clark in as well. You could just easily say "If you elect Tony Perez or Orlando Cepeda, you have to elect Will Clark."

And Olerud's a step below that. Hernadez has a much better career OWP - .668 to .638 - was better with the glove, and got much more love from MVP voters.

And as much as a I love Coop, he's not at the same level as Hernandez. Saying "minus the walks" is a mouthful. Keith has a 128 to 121 edge in career OPS+, and his is driven much more by a high OBP, making the edge as a hitter more than OPS+ indicates. And I saw Cooper play a LOT, and he was not in the same ballpark with the glove.

I contend Olerud was Hernandez's equal as a hitter. OWP was .30 lower but OPS+ was the same, he slugged .29 higher and had a .15 advantage in OBP. Olerud did this in 222 more AB's and had better couning numbers because of the slugging (ex. Olerud: 255 HR / 500 2B; Hernandez: 162 HR / 426 2B)

[Mike90]

A little bit off topic, but Will Clark's peak was way better than the other borderline first basemen. He had 5 seasons with an OPS+ of 150 or better; Bill James credits Clark's 1989 season with 44 win shares, the best season of the 1980s. He was also a pretty good fielder. He had the misfortune of having his best seasons in a pitchers' park before the offensive explosion of the mid-1990s, which makes his numbers look less impressive than they really were.

Hernandez probably doesn't have a chance of getting elected by the Veterans, but he was arguably the greatest defensive 1st baseman ever and was a pretty terrific hitter as well.