DO KEITH AND DONNIE BASEBALL BELONG IN THE HALL OF FAME?
Well, we recently saw several guys elected to the hall of Fame, including Yanks Mariano Rivera and Mike Mussina.
Got me thinking about the two best first basemen in the 1980's, IMO:
Got me thinking about the two best first basemen in the 1980's, IMO:
Keith Hernandez
And
Don Mattingly
Hernandez, as an absolute gift to the Mets from the Cardinals, hit .297 overall as a Met, starting with seasons of .306, .311, 309, .310, and .290 from 1983 through 1987 (age 33).
He unfortunately started to decline physically, hitting just .248 over the next 3 years in just 693 at bats, retiring after his age 36 season.
He unfortunately started to decline physically, hitting just .248 over the next 3 years in just 693 at bats, retiring after his age 36 season.
He was not a huge home run hitter like other Hall of Fame first baseman - in fact, he only hit 162 dingers in 8,553 career plate appearances.
But he did hit .296/.384/.436 over his career (and over .300/.400/.460 up through his age 33 season).
He won an MVP, a batting title, was a 5 time All Star, and...doggone it...won ELEVEN GOLD GLOVES.
Compare the latter defensive stat to new Hall inductee and career DH Edgar Martinez.
Edgar sure hit great, but did nothing on defense.
Keith hit well, but not as well, but was absolutely overwhelming on defense.
Edgar sure hit great, but did nothing on defense.
Keith hit well, but not as well, but was absolutely overwhelming on defense.
You see, in the great game of baseball, defense counts too - a ton.
And Keith was phenomenal at defense, especially on bunt plays.
And Keith was phenomenal at defense, especially on bunt plays.
His defense on bunt plays was so incredible and superior, so instinctual that it called to mind Clint Eastwood's line, "Do ya feel lucky, punk....WELL, DO YA?"
Because any punk who thought he was lucky enough to challenge Clint was gunned down. Keith was just as deadly on bunt plays.
So, all told...
Because any punk who thought he was lucky enough to challenge Clint was gunned down. Keith was just as deadly on bunt plays.
So, all told...
Keith Hernandez should be in the Hall of Fame - and not because I am a biased Mets fan.
Don Mattingly was pretty much Keith's contemporary, also a superior fielding first baseman, but also a PHENOMENAL hitter when healthy.
A Wright-like back injury that sapped his power and batting average over his last 6 seasons.
In the prior 6 years (1984-89, ages 23-28), Mattingly averaged the following:
In the prior 6 years (1984-89, ages 23-28), Mattingly averaged the following:
152 games, 96 runs, 114 RBIs, 46 doubles, 27 HRs, just 34 Ks in an average of 684 plate appearances and a .327 average.
WOW. DiMaggio-like, frankly.
And the 114 average RBIs were all the more impressive, given that the Yanks were not that good during his career, roughly a .500 team overall.
In 3 of those seasons, he had over 200 hits, including one where he had an incredible 238 hits.
WOW. DiMaggio-like, frankly.
And the 114 average RBIs were all the more impressive, given that the Yanks were not that good during his career, roughly a .500 team overall.
In 3 of those seasons, he had over 200 hits, including one where he had an incredible 238 hits.
He was a six time all star, 9 Gold Gloves, an MVP (and 2nd once), and a batting title winner.
Career, just 7,722 plate appearances, but .307/.358/.471 and 1,099 RBIs, despite playing half his career with back issues.
Don Mattingly should be in the Hall of Fame - and I say that while not being a Yankees fan (since 1961, anyway).
But then, as Mack would say, Gil Hodges should be in there too.
Career, just 7,722 plate appearances, but .307/.358/.471 and 1,099 RBIs, despite playing half his career with back issues.
Don Mattingly should be in the Hall of Fame - and I say that while not being a Yankees fan (since 1961, anyway).
But then, as Mack would say, Gil Hodges should be in there too.
I do... for a number of reasons.
ReplyDeleteThey were stars of the game and continued that excellence into management and broadcasting.
They represent the best there is in baseball.
Sort of like Gil Hodges
Mattingly is a no-brainer to me.
ReplyDeleteHernandez is cursed in that defense was never a primary consideration for first basemen the way it was for the other infield positions. He established new standards for play there, but his lack of power numbers and below .300 lifetime average have me voting "No" -- excellent, All-Star, but not among the best of the best overall when you compare him to, say, a Paul Goldschmidt who delivers the defense as well as formidable offense.
There seems to be an element of "popularity contest" that seeps into this format and that's where Keith takes a bit of a hit, IMO.
ReplyDeleteThat and an obsession with "counting stats".
You are right, Tom.....Keith's impact was Hall worthy.
Reese, I hear you - but anyone who saw Keith on bunts, he was a true game-changer. He took away the sac bunt from other teams, by and large, back when sac bunts were still a key part of teams' strategies to win games. He'd totally be in the other team's head when bunting, and that plus his cat-like quickness and impeccable instincts, really screwed up other teams. I never saw anyone else do it as effectively.
ReplyDeleteI don't ascribe a lot to defensive WAR stats - I'd imagine Keith's are probably very good, but are also most likely understated. He saved a ton of runs just on the bunts. Not to mention other runs on his otherwise great glove work.
He was like a great goal tender on a good hockey club - a difference-maker.
Of course, I can make the case for these two dudes all I want, but if the sources I found were accurate, neither got anywhere near the 75% needed to get voted in.
ReplyDeleteKeith peaked at 10.8%
Donnie peaked at 28.2%
The Hall has been watered down to electing good players, not just great.
ReplyDeleteEven if I were to agree that Keith Hernandez belongs based on his performance and leadership, there's still the matter of his years of cocaine use which violated U.S. and MLB rules, which led to Keith testifying for the feds in exchange for immunity if he revealed other MLB users, followed by a suspension for the entire 1986 season that was ultimately reduced when MLB Commissioner caved.
Is that Hall worthy? I don't think so.
However, Keith's a changed man and so in a decade or so, I would be open to Hall induction only if it also includes him as broadcaster and a posted Hall statement that notes his drug use and what that led to.