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]

Originally Posted by briang0381

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]

Originally Posted by prof93

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]

Originally Posted by KHenry14

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]

Originally Posted by 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

Funny, I don't have Hrbek as deserving any Gold Gloves (and Mattingly as only definitely deserving one but possibly more)

[RuthMayBond]

Originally Posted by prof93

Well thats if we all assume your right

Very true. Prove me wrong

[MudvilleMike]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by MudvilleMike

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]

Originally Posted by Brooklyn

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]

Originally Posted by MudvilleMike

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]

Originally Posted by santotohof

......... 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]

Originally Posted by santotohof

......... 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]

Originally Posted by santotohof

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.