>Soon, Dave Kingman will be eligible for the HOF. Although I personally do not
>feel he should be in the Hall of Fame, and I believe baseball writers who vote
>hold my opinion (after all, who can forget Dave's "Give a reporter a rat" charity!), what about the veterans committee? Years from now, when most people
>who saw Kingman are dead, the thing the veterans committee would most likely
>turn to is his stats. And, to this point in time, EVERYONE with 400+ homers is
>in the HOF. Sure, he had tons of SO, only a .236 career average and his
>reputation may follow him to the veterans committee. But lets look at Darrell
>Evans. In NO WAY am I saying that Kingman is the player Darrell is, but, in
>years to come, they may be compared due to some similarities. Evans now has
>400+ homers. His BA is around .250, he does have alot of career strikeouts
>due to the length of his career. But Darrell is one of the most admired PEOPLE
>in the game. And in years to come, when we are all in baseball heaven, where
>there is nothing but Sunday afternoon games played on real grass, people may
>forget about personalities. And Kingman COULD get in.
Point by point:
* Dave Kingman is the worst baseball player I've ever had the pleasure to boo.
More on this later.
* I don't care about his personality (or lack thereof). If a player qualifies
for the Hall on the field, I think he should be in. HE DOESN"T.
* The veterens committee should be disbanned. Last year one frustrated member
of the committee made a statement to the effect that they should have voted
someone in that year otherwise what was the point of the committee. In a
convoluted way he's right. There is no old player left who is worthy, so time
to close shop. Logically the comm. should have only elected players from the
pre-HOF period. The present writers should be capable of picking the recent
players who they've all seen.
* I firmly believe stats accurately reflect most of a player abilities however,
I don't believe HOF voting should depend on milestone stats. IMHO even Don
Sutton and his 300 wins doesn't belong in (same holds for Blyleven even if he
reaches 300). If a guy wasn't one of the two or three best at his position
for more than a year or two, how can he be considered an all-time great?
* Back to Kong:
Simply the worst baserunner, worst fielder, non-thinking player to put on
a glove. I've seen him get thrown out by 20-30 feet trying to stretch an
extra base. And the worst ***artist I can think of, given a big AB simply
mark the K on your scoresheet. (Sorry, don't really want to get into the
clutch/***debate.) Maybe he overcame this in his Oakland years (good
RBI's) but with the Mets he was hilariously, entertainingly pitiful.
There was no worst leftfielder in baseball and when the Mets tried him at
first he set new standards there.
* Consider if you were running a team. Wouldn't you rather have 3/4 of the
current LF or 1B in the majors rather than him?
* Having gone on this tirade long enough let me admit that his monster HR's
and K's were very exciting.
Whew, I feel better now.