I'm Keith Hernandez

by squid92 on Jun 2, 2009 4:01 PM EDT

Keith Hernandez is a Met icon. We all see him every night doing the SNY broadcasts for us, and I'm sure a great many of us have watched him playing baseball in his prime. He's known as one of the best defensive first basemen to maybe have ever played. So, I was just wondering...how does Keith hold up to other first basemen of his era, guys who have even been elected to the HOF? Well, let's find out.

Here's a WAR Graph of Keith and his contemporary first basemen that have been elected to the Hall.

via farm4.static.flickr.com

Some notes:

Yikes, Orlando Cepeda (besides one great year) and Tony Perez don't really stack up, do they? Perez had the longest career of any of these guys, but was only really productive for about half of them.
McCovey had the highest peak years, but dropped off quicker than maybe anyone else.
I'd have to say Eddie Murray had the longest amount of production of any of these guys. Then again, he never reached the plateaus that Hernandez and McCovey got to.
I always thought Harmon Killebrew was more productive than this graph indicates. I guess he's been supersized through legends. I guess his defense is what really held him back, seeing as he was a great hitter.

So, what have we learned? Anything? Well, Keith has the lowest SLG of any of the hitters by far, behind Tony Perez by almost 30 points. Additionally, Keith doesn't have nearly as many HRs as his first basemen friends, with only 162 career HRs to the next lowest, 379, by Tony Perez and Orlando Cepeda. Additonally, Keith's BA betrays his ability to get on base: Despite having nearly the same career BA as Cepeda, Keith's OBP was a whole 34 points higher. Ultimately, though, it comes down to fans and managers not adequately evaluating defense. Which is too bad, because Keith was downright dirty out there.

via assets.espn.go.com

EPIC

This FanPost was contributed by a member of the community and was not subject to any vetting or approval process. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions, reasoning skills, or attention to grammar and usage rules held by the editors of this site.

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Read More: keith hernandez, New York Mets

Comments

Great Stuff

I don’t think many reasonable people believe that Cepeda and Perez are deserving of being in the Hall. Perez only got in because he was on the Big Red Machine.

Its a shame that because first base has long been a position where no-glove all-hit guys are “hidden” great fielding at first has been undervalued.

by mets81 on Jun 2, 2009 4:37 PM EDT reply actions

Agreed

I’ve always felt first base defense was way undervalued, maybe more than any position. Everything on the infield goes through the first baseman. He doesn’t need to be all that rangey (though it helps), but there are so many other things a first baseman can do well to aid his team’s goal of run prevention. Make nice scoops, position himself properly, play aggressively on bunts. Third baseman may have long throws to make, but first baseman have to receive almost all the throws, and a lot of that credit winds up on the guys making the throws, even if they don’t always deserve them (ahem, David Wright, how many steak dinners is that for Delgado now?). The thing is, you’ll still take a 40 HR guy who doesn’t move to well over a guy who saves you tons of runs at first base, but that doesn’t mean compared to other defensive positions first base is any less valuable, and that’s the common misconception IMO.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Mark Himmelstein on Jun 2, 2009 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions

i totally agree also

It’s true how flashy numbers like home runs win over people more than making that good back hand in the hole to save a run. Keith is a good example I think of how the writers who vote for the players to get into the Hall are blinded by the “sexy” stats and not the basic fundamentals that make up a good ball player. Also it goes by whose buddy-buddy with the writers and such. Many voters have biased opinions towards certain players and some have got in just by who your friends with. Personally, I don’t think Puckett is a Hall of Famer for example, but he was loved by the media for all the non sense that came out of his mouth.

by dave the rave on Jun 3, 2009 12:53 AM EDT up reply actions

Flashy numbers aren't as important as being FEARED

by jasondg on Jun 3, 2009 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions

For what its worth

He was ranked the eighth best player not in the Hall on MLB Network’s “Prime 9” show on the subject, and the reasoning was very largely about his defense. It made me happy.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Mark Himmelstein on Jun 2, 2009 4:38 PM EDT reply actions

Good for MLB network.

At least it wasn’t on ESPN, Steve Phillips would have put Eckstein #1-9, and Beltran #Last.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Jun 2, 2009 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions

For me

Harmon Killebrew was “supersized” by that old black and white Home Run Derby show. I remember him always being on it.

by jasondg on Jun 2, 2009 4:44 PM EDT reply actions

I was actually originally thinking of doing one of these on Robin Ventura.

If you look at his stats, they’re not really HOF worthy, but they’re close. If he played a couple more good seasons, you probably could make a case for him.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Jun 2, 2009 5:59 PM EDT reply actions

Interesting one

The kicker for him is also glove, though I don’t think he was such a standout in that way that he deserves consideration on glove alone. Keith did things defensively that no other first baseman had done.

"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet

What a fool I was to defy him"

-HST

by Mark Himmelstein on Jun 2, 2009 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions

I'll probably do something on Robin in the future.

I really liked him, he was my favorite player during his tenure. Well, in addtion to Piazza. And Olerud. And Alfonzo…I kinda loved that whole infield.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Jun 2, 2009 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions

yeah that infield was pretty awesome

by meigs1414 on Jun 2, 2009 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions

The SI Cover

Didn’t it say “The Best Infield Ever?”

I mean, I wouldn’t go that far but yeah they were good. Too bad they only had one year together.

by Zwill on Jun 2, 2009 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Might have been the best defensive infield ever.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Jun 2, 2009 8:47 PM EDT up reply actions

That's such a difficult statement to evaluate

without useful defensive statistics for so much of the game’s history.

by Zwill on Jun 2, 2009 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions

True.

One of the best defensive infields in the last 20 years, though. I feel I can safely make that statement. Ventura was an absolute beast at third.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Jun 2, 2009 9:36 PM EDT up reply actions

don't forget Rey-Rey

seriously though, that team was the shizzle. 1999 – best year of my young life (not entirely for the Mets, but they played a big part)

by cjmulrain on Jun 2, 2009 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions

Koosman

King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president

by Sam Page on Jun 2, 2009 8:50 PM EDT reply actions

Killebrew

I always thought Harmon Killebrew was more productive than this graph indicates. I guess he’s been supersized through legends. I guess his defense is what really held him back, seeing as he was a great hitter.

The difference is almost entirely defense. WAR has Killebrew as the second-best hitter of the bunch, just a handful of runs behind McCovey, and there’s little shame in that.

There’s one thing to keep in mind when considering Killebrew: he spent 800 or so games at third base, 1000 or so at first (and a bunch more in LF). Killebrew was actually a pretty decent first baseman. Win Shares gives him a B grade at the position, and BP has him a handful of runs above average. The problem was that the Twins every season had people who could play first base—Roy Sievers, Pete Runnels, Don Mincher, Vic Power, Bob Allison, Rich Reese—and could really hit, but they couldn’t play anywhere else. They certainly couldn’t play third. And Killebrew wasn’t any good there, but he could throw, and he’d battle it as hard as he could, and, well, it was the lesser of two evils.

But when you look at his career through WAR like this, especially when things aren’t broken down by position, the 40-70 games (or more) a season he’d play at third bring his rating so far down that he looks like a terrible fielder.

Also, TotalZone, which is what WAR uses, doesn’t do a great job with first baseman, because their position is less range-oriented than any other but catcher. Not that range isn’t important—it certainly is—but you should keep it in mind when looking at first basemen.

Is it Killebrew’s fault that his WAR is so low? Yes and no. He was a terrible third baseman, and he never had a lot of range. But he also didn’t really have a choice in where he played, and I believe that had he been allowed to play first his whole career, his defensive value would look different.

by Alex Nelson on Jun 2, 2009 9:19 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

I guess...

I don’t think it would be good enough to put him at Keith’s or McCovey’s level overall. I think you’re overrating him a bit as a first baseman. Either way, his hitting isn’t as good as McCovey’s (as you said, no shame in that), and I think even if he played his entire career at 1st, Killebrew would never be close to the defender Keith was. He just had some superior range.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Jun 2, 2009 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions

Actually

I’d never claim Killebrew would be anything closer to Hernandez as a fielder. Just as it wouldn’t be fair to say Hernandez would be anything close to Killebrew as a hitter. Hernandez was a good hitter, but Killebrew had better adjusted OBAs and SLG, by a long shot.

I went the extra mile and pulled out my TZ database and checked his actual position splits. It doesn’t think as highly of Killebrew as WS or FRAR but still thinks he’s only a couple runs below average in range. Make Killebrew a career first baseman and he gains 40+ runs on Hernandez in TZ. This puts them in a dead heat, even assuming that the other elements of Killebrew’s defensive game were just as bad as his range (which they probably weren’t).

I think they’re a lot closer in value than the HOF voters will tell you, but I think I’d take Killebrew if a push came to a shove. (And this despite Keith being my favorite player as a young child, and me not having ever thought this much about the value of Harmon Killebrew’s career.)

by Alex Nelson on Jun 3, 2009 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions

You're sorta missing the point of the exercise.

Harmon Killebrew is in the HOF. Keith isn’t. Who has more to prove? The fact that we’re even having this discussion just proves the point, right?

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Jun 3, 2009 12:08 AM EDT reply actions

damnit, reply fail.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Jun 3, 2009 12:08 AM EDT up reply actions

Contemporaries?

Murray, sure, but the other guys broke into the majors when Hernandez was still in grammar school. And (except for Perez) they had their best years before expansion, the lowered mound and division play. It would be equally unfair to compare their numbers (or Keith’s) to the slugging 1Bs of the juiced ball/juiced player era.

I’d say Hernandez is just a bit short of the HOF threshold, but it’s real close. The other problem, of course, is that MLB and the writers haven’t forgotten his role in the Pittsburgh cocaine trial; I suspect several of them leave him off their ballots for that reason.

by madisonmetsfan on Jun 3, 2009 1:48 PM EDT reply actions