This isn't meant to be an either or discussion, Peter. Nobody here is arguing the merits of "defense being
more important than hitting". Rather, I am trying to demonstrate that players who performed at the highest level defensively should receive more consideration than I think they've gotten.
If you have a hitter that is good enough to knock the ball into the cheap seats, you can have Mark Belangers at every position, and it's not going to make a difference. Ok, so Mark Belanger is a bit of a reach given how useless he was with the bat. I will give that to you. I think my premise is sound, but I will acquiesce on my chosen champion. Somebody like Bill Mazerowski was a weak hitter, and he clearly made the Hall based on his defensive prowess. Yet he still managed 138 home runs and 853 RBIs, numbers which are downright Ruthian when compared to Belanger's meager offensive output. But how would you feel if I were talking about Keith Hernandez instead of Belanger? Same talking points. Unlike Belanger, Hernandez was a difference maker offensively. He wasn't a power hitter, but he could stroke the ball all over the field. He was the National League MVP in 1979 when he hit .344 with 210 hits. His average and 116 runs scored led the league. He hit a league leading 48 doubles, then chipped in 11 triples and 11 home runs. He drove in 105 runs, walked 80 times, and struck out 78. He was an All Star, and won his second career Gold Glove. His .930 OPS represented his career high.
Hernandez had a career .821 OPS, which is pretty good. He hit .300 or better six times, and .296 for his career. He ended up with 2,182 hits in his career. He scored and drove in over 1,000 runs each. He wasn't a base stealing threat, totaling only 98 stolen bases in 161 career attempts.
Hernandez managed to stay on the Hall of Fame ballot for nine seasons, but he never seriously challenged the 75% threshold needed for Cooperstown. His 10.8% in 1998 was as close as he would come; you really can't even use the word "close" with Hernandez' Hall of Fame chances.
If I am here as an advocate for those incredible defensive players who were overlooked by the Baseball Writers, Hernandez could be a good starting point. He was a very good hitter, and he was an elite first baseman.
Does the basic idea I am trying to get across hold any merit in your mind, Peter? I am only asking that the players who have been named as the best defensively at their position for many years to get a second look, because not where are metrics available that can quantify the contributions they made defensively in much the same way that the were considered offensively. Are the metrics perfect? No. I'm sure they will be improved over time, much like batting average has given way to on base percentage, which has given way to BAbip, etc. And Gold Gloves are not a perfect award, either. We've discussed that there have been some players that won them that really were not the best at their position that season. Favoritism comes into play with that award occasionally, too, it seems. But Keith Hernandez has won 11 Gold Gloves, the most by a first baseman in the league's history. And the Award has been handed out since 1957. That's now going on 57 years.
Keith Hernandez the hitter did not meet the criteria put forth by the individuals that made up the BBWAA. Might Keith Hernandez the hitter and first baseman now merit consideration to be elected by the Veteran's Committee.?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
That isn't the point. Most fly balls and grounders are going to be handled the same way by most professional players. it's only at the edges that the quality of a fielder makes a difference in my opinion. Tell me, would you take Mark Belanger (a great fielding, pathetic hitting shortstop) over Rogers Hornsby (a great hitting, but by some accounts weak fielding, second baseman)? I doubt it.
|