bump

A few notes I've posted in the 1996 discussion thread:
The defensive spectrum is not stable and varies from team to team. In some cases, a LF will have more defensive value than a CF. Sometimes, we might be able to say the same for a RF.
We are also seeing this now as we review Keith Hernandez's defensive ability. I think we can surmise from our findings and recollections that a firstbasemen may have an easier time of being average defensively and we may in fact be correct in assigning little defensive value to an average 1B. However (and this is a huge however) a firstbaseman who is above average adds real value to his team He makes the rest of the infield better, as well as his pitchers. Furthermore, while we may have a real cap on average 1B play (similar to what we see in WS) I don't think we can really overestimate the value added by a good to great defensive 1B.

BTW - I think a great way to test 1B ability would be to compare the assist rates and error rates of infielders between year to year when the pitching staff remained mostly stable but there was a change of starting 1B. If anyone can provide examples of teams who meet that criteria, I'd be happy to crunch the numbers.

Anyone know why this thread says 104 posts but only displays 102? Weird. Or is it just my computer?

Anyone know why this thread says 104 posts but only displays 102? Weird. Or is it just my computer?

Not just your computer. Two posts were deleted (reference to one of them in #36). Whenever this occurs, the Hot Topics count is higher than that of the most recent entry in the thread.

Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him well, Horatio.

Actually, it's
Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio.

And then there's this favorite:

Alas, poor Baldrick!

Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio.

Alas, poor Baldrick!

Not just your computer. Two posts were deleted (reference to one of them in #36). Whenever this occurs, the Hot Topics count is higher than that of the most recent entry in the thread.

Out, out d*mn'ed posts!

I've been wondering if he had more defensive value than what the uberstats say. He had all the extra responsabilities that first basemen usually don't have, and I'm also thinking about the effect of playing a lot of his career on turf, with the extra premium it places on IF defense. What say you?

“I hate that ‘Mex’ and my dad hated it worse. ‘Spain!’ he’d yell. ‘Where is that on the map? Europe!’
http://www.siegelproductions.ca/lois/hernandez.htm

Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio.

Yeah, you're right. I got that probably from a television show. I know I didn't get it from my annotated Shakespeare in my library. ;-)

The Fielding Bible people looked at "saved bad throws" a few years ago. Almost all the guys came out equally, with about 18 saved bad throws over a full season. Pujols saved 42, and Doug Mientkiewicz saved 20, but in only about half a season of playing time. There are some issues with the number of opportunities each guy might have had, depending on the infielders on his team, and I'm not sure that these all resulted in outs saved, instead of just bases saved.

http://www.actasports.com/sow.php?id=85

Pujols' score here is about as far ahead of the other 1Bs (apart from Mientkiewicz) as the best 1B that year, Mark Teixeira, was ahead of the average in other kinds of plays made.

If Hernandez was as good as Pujols at scooping balls (which conventional wisdom suggests he was), then he could have been twice as valuable as conventional fielding statistics suggest he was, and a clear HOMer.

So, what's the bottom line? If Hernandez is elected this year, as seems likely, will he be the weakest firstbaseman in the HoM?

No, Terry and Sisler were elected.

So, what's the bottom line? If Hernandez is elected this year, as seems likely, will he be the weakest firstbaseman in the HoM?

As I see it, no. I think he is superior both to Sisler, who is right on the borderline but in, and to Terry, who was a mistake.

No, Terry and Sisler were elected.


no you mean Joe Start

No, Terry and Sisler were elected.


no you mean Joe Start

This isn't at all germane to his HoM case, but as sometimes people bring up stuff on the player just to talk about it ... anyone ever read Keith's Pure Baseball? It's a game between ... I think the Braves and the Phillies, from the early 90s, and he watches the game and gives his analysis on everything from pitch selection to defense to the approaches of the hitters in various situations. It's somewhat dry (he did have a credited co-writer), but overall it was a worthwhile read.

One small detail that stuck with me is that a pitcher will never intentionally throw an inside breaking pitch to same-side hitter; that is, a RHP will never try to throw an inside curve to a RHB. I felt somewhat shamed to have never picked up on this, but it makes sense and he's absolutely right. If you watch a game and see such a pitch, it's always an accident, and the catcher was setting up outside. You'll see batters totally bail on those pitches from time to time, and the reason is their instinct is that it has to be a fastball. Hernandez says that if that happens and it's a strike, you just tip your cap and move on, because you know it was an accident.

no you mean Joe Start

With 11 years of pre-NA credit (and his NAABP hitting numbers were excellent, he wasn't George Wright, but he could rake), Start is an easy choice. Using just his NA/NL numbers, I see what you mean, though.

Haven't we already elected Keith Hernandez? Or does it just seem that way?

35. Cabbage Posted:

On a 3-6-3 double play, the first baseman would receive credit for one assist, one putout, and one double play.

the baseball version of one bourbon, one scotch, and one beer!
The 3-6-1 would then be one Borbon, one scotch and one beer.

Haven't we already elected Keith Hernandez? Or does it just seem that way?

It is a function of these three week cycles; that was a worse decision than electing Terry.

I was out of commission for most of last week. Have we thoroughly compared Hernandez to all the other corner/1B candidates? 311 WS is not slam-dunk territory. That's roughly the same amount as Cash & Cepeda.

I guess OCF's post #4 early in this thread has the table I'm looking for. The offense is a wash and the D might be the tie-breaker in favor of Hernandez.

I'd been told in the last election not to focus too much on pre-1960 guys... and I'd like the expansion era to have more guys due to more slots... but I just want to make sure we're not too hasty inducting an 8553 PA, 129 OPS+ guy even if he is a great fielder and OBP-heavy. Do those numbers stick out post-1960 as well?

Just double-checking... :-)

Probably, Keith should at least wait a while in the backlog. But then again, I thought the same of Sutton and Da.Evans in the last two election cycles, and they went in at the first try. It's just that the backlog is that splintered, although there may be a little Bill Terry effect.

And, since I mentioned them, Keith is higher than where Sutton and Evans would be, if they were still hanging around.

Juan - I pretty much agree with you. Of course, I think many of us deride the thought process of several members of the BBWAA who refuse to vote for anyone in their first season of eligibility. SO we have to balance the ideal of not voting in a guy too soon with placing a guy on a ballot in the place where we can beleive in it and deend it if asked to do so. I had Sutton in the 30's and Evans in the 20s. I have Hernandez in low single digits. That's not final, but I haven't seen any indication yet that I am being hasty with his credentials.

Probably, Keith should at least wait a while in the backlog. But then again, I thought the same of Sutton and Da.Evans in the last two election cycles, and they went in at the first try. It's just that the backlog is that splintered, although there may be a little Bill Terry effect.

We can use the extra week of discussion to counter-act the Bill Terry effect. Extra week is suppose to be extra discussion. :-)

We can use the extra week of discussion to counter-act the Bill Terry effect. Extra week is suppose to be extra discussion. :-)

Not to mention giving me a break. :-)

With 11 years of pre-NA credit (and his NAABP hitting numbers were excellent, he wasn't George Wright, but he could rake), Start is an easy choice. Using just his NA/NL numbers, I see what you mean, though.

I agree, David. He's basically Beckley, but with a peak.

What we have to remember, and has been told many times before, is that (with the exception of the odd N/B), we are electing the bottom of the Hall of Merit (as of 2008).

And, I say having Keith Hernandez, Don Sutton, Darrell Evans and Bill Terry as the bottom sure beats Jesse Haines, Freddie Lindstrom and George Kelly.

I'll second that. Third, fourth, and fifth as well......

But "everyone" decries the bottom of the Hall of Fame and those players never get a 15th place vote here. The issue is the 10-25 or 17-33 percentile or something like that (unlike Dan Greenia and Joe Dimino, I have never actually counted my views on the Coop HOFers). Beckley, Duffy, Bresnahan, Chance; Joss, Grimes, Gomez; Traynor, Wilson, Rizzuto. Point taken, I hope, despite any disagreements in detail.

Judy Johnson, Ray Dandridge, Leon Day, Hilton Smith: I'm not sure whether the group consensually ranks them among the worst HOFers but they don't get the same attention as the 10-25 or 17-33 percentile white HOFers.

I do think that the better mlb players on the "HOF-not-HOM" list will attract the most attention when the Hall of Merit is a fancy website and that examining that list is also one way that a few newcomers will get involved in the next ten years.

And, I say having Keith Hernandez, Don Sutton, Darrell Evans and Bill Terry as the bottom sure beats Jesse Haines, Freddie Lindstrom and George Kelly.

Not even comparable.

Judy Johnson, Ray Dandridge, Leon Day, Hilton Smith: I'm not sure whether the group consensually ranks them among the worst HOFers but they don't get the same attention as the 10-25 or 17-33 percentile white HOFers.

Some of us have actually added Johnson's name to the list just recently, Paul.