I questions #1 and #3. Starting with the first question, he only had one vote for MVP in 1981, so I wouldn't consider that a consensus for best player in the game. :-)

As for the second question, I haven't fully analyzed the season in a while, but Seaver was better than Fernando (same WS amount, but Tom Terrific had a higher WS per game average).

He was a good pitcher who, if he hadn't been overworked by Lasorda, probably would have something to sell. I would have to say no for him.

I tend to agree that he is not a Hall of Famer. He did win the Cy Young award in 1981 and I think that is far more important for a pitcher than MVP. Obviously, it would be a huge feather in his cap if he won MVP, but its hard to hold it against a pitcher if he doesn't do well in MVP voting. I pitcher has to be a freak like Roger Clemens in '86 or Rollie Fingers in '81 to make the MVP cut. Even then, it has to be in a year where there is no clear cut choice among the batters. I'll grant you that the balloting was tight for CY in 81, and Seaver may well have been the better pitcher. But, Fernando did win the award, so I think the answer to #1 would be a definite 'yes'.

Carl:
Question #1 deals with if a player was thought to be the best player in the game. I don't remember anybody thinking that at the time (except, as Eric noted, for a couple of months in 1981). Schmidt and Brett were the top guys that year.

Most writers (as they do today) did not feel a starting pitcher was comparable to a starting position player the vast majority of the time (which I don't agree with, BTW). Therefore, the MVP voting for that year lends support to the notion that they didn't feel he was the best player in the game.

I don't think there's a lot of disagreement here, but I have to quibble with the statement that he ?has a much better case for the Hall of Fame than it appears at first glance. In the 15-prong Keltner test, there are five questions (4, 5, 13, 14, and 15) which clearly work in Valenzuela?s favor?? A lot of the postings seem, implicitly, to consider all factors as having similar weight -- e.g., five work for him, five against, so he?s a close call.

All five factors supporting Valenzuela (4,5,13,14,15) are what I would call ?secondary? Keltner questions -- ones that don?t go to the heart of ?was this a great player.? Those factors are useful for evaltauing guys who arguably are great players but fall on the borderline -- Dale Murphy, Tommy John, Tiant, etc. For players like that, it?s informative to ask, ?OK, he?s of borderline greatness; let?s look at pennant races, post-greatness longevity, influence on the game, etc.? But these secondary questions are unhelpful for guys who just don?t make the cut on the more substantive questions.

Scott,
I don't think anybody here is saying, or even implying, that all the questions have equal weight. If that were the case, then Valenzuela would be in the Hall, as he has more clearly in his favor (five) than clearly against him (four). But as the article states, that does not make him a Hall of Famer. If he had 220 wins -- basically three more productive seasons -- I'd say he's in. As it stands, obviosly not.

I disagree, however, that all five of the questions in Valenzuela's favor are unimportant ones. When I personally consider candidates, I place a not-insignificant weight on questions number four (impact on pennant races) and fourteen (impact on the game of baseball). I guess that's why I tend to favor candidates like Minoso and Flood more strongly than some people do.

I agree, but the measure we are using to quantify this question is number of MVPs won. Since the MVP voting has always been biased against pitchers, I think its appropriate to look at Cy Young awards rather than MVP awards. Again, I don't think Fernando belongs in the Hall of Fame, but he was considered the best pitcher in the NL for one season, so I would still answer 'yes' to that question.

...and played the outfield and first base during emergencies.

Fernando played 1B once and in the OF once.

Otherwise and excellent analysis.

Bill James, in the Politics of Glory, made it clear the "best player in baseball" and "best shortstop/pitcher/whatever in baseball" questions are for a period of years, not but one year.

Most all of the above is accurate and fair, but doesn't give sufficient weight to the fact that baseball is more than a game and statistics, it is also an artform. Fernando was an artist -- one of the very best of our time, and I saw Sandy Koufax pitch. He was also one of the very best baseball PLAYERS I have ever seen. Were he not left handed he could, I believe, have played every position at the big-league level -- well maybe not shortstop. He also was a very fine hitter. I saw him pitch once at Candlestick for the Padres in the twilight of his career. The first few times at bat he clearly just put the ball in play and jogged to first -- he clearly was choosing not to waste his energy with no one on, and nothing at stake. Late in the game he came up with the game on the line, fouled off several pitches, hit a sharp ground ball to right and drove in the winning run. Give me a chance to go back and see three people play again it would be Koufax, Musial and Fernando. Satchel Paige is in the Hall and Fernando should be too -- if you don't believe me, ask Vin Scully.

Well, he fell off the ballot five years ago, but we'll keep it in mind.

man I hate the Keltner test. It's a nice tool for if you want to start an argument for a guy for the hof, to figure out if you are talking out your ass, but just because a guy doesn't win a few categories on the Keltner test, it doesn't mean they are deserving, just that there are other guys who are more deserving of the effort.

I really focus on two questions is he the best guy eligible not in? and best guy at his position eligible but not in? the rest is more or less filler questions to gauge where the guy rests among the other good to great players. Even if you answer no to those questions it doesn't mean he isn't deserving, just that he isn't the most deserving of a concentrade campaign.

I saw him pitch once at Candlestick for the Padres in the twilight of his career. The first few times at bat he clearly just put the ball in play and jogged to first -- he clearly was choosing not to waste his energy with no one on, and nothing at stake. Late in the game he came up with the game on the line, fouled off several pitches, hit a sharp ground ball to right and drove in the winning run.

Sniff... sniff... I smell a TRACER!

The only game where Fernando got a hit in Candlestick as a member of the Padres

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

Yes, he was good enough to keep pitching long after his prime.

I'm gonna disagree with this, with the emphasis on regularly. He had a decent year at age 32 and another one at 35. He was not heathy enough to pitch regularly and effectively in 5 of the 7 seasons from ages 30-36, and done in the majors at age 36. That he kept pitching in the Mexican league into his 40's seems irrelevant to this question. Was he adding Major league value (I think that has to be the standard if we're talking about the HOF) after age 30? The answer is, very little.

I'm gonna disagree with this, with the emphasis on regularly. He had a decent year at age 32 and another one at 35. He was not heathy enough to pitch regularly and effectively in 5 of the 7 seasons from ages 30-36, and done in the majors at age 36. That he kept pitching in the Mexican league into his 40's seems irrelevant to this question. Was he adding Major league value (I think that has to be the standard if we're talking about the HOF) after age 30? The answer is, very little.

I think the assumed argument in the article was that Fernando was much older than advertised.

I think we should all tear apart this Primate Study, just to see if we can lure TDIEE out of self-imposed exile.

I love the fact that someone somehow sees a Primate Study put up in 2002, registers just to post about it, and in doing so reanimates a HoF thread about a guy who's been off of the ballot for half a decade.

Fernando played 1B once

That game is legendary, of course. The winning run scored in the 18th inning on a single that was a soft line drive just over Fernando's head. Some thought that perhaps Eddie Murray could have gotten to that ball - but Murray was playing third base at the time. Murray was playing 3B because Jeff Hamilton was pitching. (Probably the quickest way to find the game would be to check out Hamilton's pitching record.)

Sorry. Did I say 18th inning? 22nd inning.

That game is all kinds of crazy. I remember watching the beginning of the game, then watching a movie, followed by a nap, and getting up to watch the game end. I like that Hershiser pitched 7 innings of relief.

I think we should all tear apart this Primate Study, just to see if we can lure TDIEE out of self-imposed exile.

IIRC, he left after the initial "Children taken away" thread because he got tired of Backlasher. I occasionally saw him at Cardboard Gods, but I think that he and a few Dodger fans from here hang out at Dodger Thoughts.

IIRC, he left after the initial "Children taken away" thread because he got tired of Backlasher. I occasionally saw him at Cardboard Gods, but I think that he and a few Dodger fans from here hang out at Dodger Thoughts.

I know he was still posting for awhile after that thread, though I wouldn't be surprised if interactions with BL was ultimately his reason for departing.

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

No. His ten most similar pitchers are Ken Holtzman, Camilo Pascual, Mark Langston, Frank Viola, Dave Stieb, Rick Sutcliffe, Bob Buhl, Bill Hutchison, Mike Flanagan, and Tommy Bridges ? none of whom are in the Hall of Fame, or ever will be.

For what it's worth, Stieb is in the Hall of Merit and should probably be in the Hall of Fame. Bridges gets support (he finished 30th in the 2009 election, just behind Albert Belle).

Valenzuela didn't get any votes. But I can see the case, especially in terms of the 'fame' part.

He wouldn't be the worst pitcher in the Hall of Fame, not that that is a reasonable standard. But I wouldn't lose any sleep if he somehow gets in someday. He was probably more valuable than Lefty Gomez, Chief Bender. Definitely better than Catfish, Haines, Chesbro and Marquard.

I think Hunter is a pretty decent comp, except that Fernando was better. Catfish wasn't a bad hitter either. Fernando definitely had a better peak.