Dave Kingman? HOF?

Dave Kingman? HOF?

Post by Dave Mast » Mon, 19 Feb 1990 08:46:20


Quote:

>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.

>Any opinions?

Yes, I have an opinion.

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.

Dave Masten

 
 
 

Dave Kingman? HOF?

Post by Timothy Mav » Mon, 19 Feb 1990 01:19:44

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.

Any opinions?

My friend is hoping this scenario to come true, as he has been hoarding Dave
Kingman rookie cards!  All I have said to him is if Kong does get into the HOF,
my friend will not be around to cash in on his cards!

--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|Tim Mavor         |SH205    |"There's such a fine line between being clever |

|__________________|_________|_______________________________________________|

 
 
 

Dave Kingman? HOF?

Post by F.. » Tue, 20 Feb 1990 01:35:44

Tim: Maybe Kingman will be the player that ends the 400+ auto-admission.
It seems to me that he's just the kind of player voters will love to
draw their lines at.  I agree with you, by the way: I don't think he
should even get serious consideration.

Personally, there are too many players in the Hall of Fame, I think.
Admission is cheapened with the numbers where they are.  So why doesn't
the Hall establish a new rule--namely, that in order to be admitted,
another player has to be bounced out?  Boy, wouldn't THAT be interesting
to see.  It would surely provide lots of terrific arguments between fans.

Tom Buckley


 
 
 

Dave Kingman? HOF?

Post by Isao Take » Tue, 20 Feb 1990 06:59:51

*Tim: Maybe Kingman will be the player that ends the 400+ auto-admission.
*It seems to me that he's just the kind of player voters will love to
*draw their lines at.  I agree with you, by the way: I don't think he
*should even get serious consideration.
*
*Personally, there are too many players in the Hall of Fame, I think.
*Admission is cheapened with the numbers where they are.  So why doesn't
*the Hall establish a new rule--namely, that in order to be admitted,
*another player has to be bounced out?  Boy, wouldn't THAT be interesting
*to see.  It would surely provide lots of terrific arguments between fans.
*
*Tom Buckley

        I think that is a GREAT IDEA.  I would like to see Hack Wilson, Billy
Williams, and many other "Great but not great enough for HOF " players
being bounced out.  

        I am still a Cub fan.

        I don't know why Roger Maris is NOT a HOFer and Hack Wilson is.  Each
of them had ONE SUPER SEASON.

 
 
 

Dave Kingman? HOF?

Post by David Reed Don » Tue, 20 Feb 1990 11:16:33

Quote:

>*Tim: Maybe Kingman will be the player that ends the 400+ auto-admission.
>*It seems to me that he's just the kind of player voters will love to
>of them had ONE SUPER SEASON.

Now hold on a sec...I think you are being a little tough on both of them. Maris
won the MVP award two years in a row, so he must have come with SOMETHING
resembling a good second season. He was also regarded as a solid defensive
outfielder. Wilson was even more impressive, as he led the NL in homers 4
different years, and led the league in RBI's in yet another. He was THE
*** force in the NL for a few years there, and put together what might
have been close to the best single-season performance ever in 1930. Now,
whether either of them deserves to be in the HOF is up for debate, I don't
think they do.

WHich reminds me of someone else who should be coming up for election soon...
What are we going to do with Cecil Cooper?

- DaveD

--
- A member of the crack staff of Lopata 407...

 
 
 

Dave Kingman? HOF?

Post by David M Ta » Tue, 20 Feb 1990 23:12:30

 [stuff about bumping people from the HOF]...>

Quote:

>    I think that is a GREAT IDEA.  I would like to see Hack Wilson, Billy
>Williams, and many other "Great but not great enough for HOF " players
>being bounced out.  

Umm, there are a lot of people you could get rid of before zapping real
talents like Billy Williams.  Chick Hafey springs to mind, as well as a lot
of so-so pitchers like Amos Rusie, Rube Marquard, Don Drysdale,...

--
        David M. Tate       | "The concept of weight of evidence was central

                            |  32 other publications [of mine].  What I say 33
 "A Man for all Seasonings" |  times is true."          -- I. J. Good.  

 
 
 

Dave Kingman? HOF?

Post by News Administrat » Wed, 21 Feb 1990 02:28:53

to win four 1991 season tickets to a stadium of your choice.

Path: arrakis.nevada.edu!easye

To enter: Print name,address,zip, and phone number on a postcard and send
before July 1, 1990 to:

   "Season Tickets"
   23705 Via Del Rio
   Yorba Linda, CA  92686

I think the Royals and CUBS would be a great matchup for the WS.
Have other choices? Feel free to post them.

 1/3 of the people will always buy                |        REBELS #1

 2/3 of the people need help making up their minds|
                            -->    Advertising 101| GO CUBS,49ERS,and CELTICS  

 
 
 

Dave Kingman? HOF?

Post by John Fede » Tue, 20 Feb 1990 23:12:46

I sense an argument brewing.  Not for Dave Kingman to the HOF,
but with Dave Masten's statement:

Quote:
>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?

Doesn't longevity count? Shouldn't the ability to make a contribution
to a ML team for 20 plus years count as much as, say a five-year
domination of your position and a quick disappearance from baseball?

Pete Rose's stats (let's leave out the *** for these purposes)
over the years seldom put him in the top two or three at
his position in any given year.  The top five, probably.
But there was always another person at his position whose
power numbers probably put him out of the very top.

If a pitcher can average 15+ wins a year for 20 years,
that's impressive.  The fact that you can make a major
league contribution long after the rest of your age group
has taken up coaching or auto sales should make some
difference.

John "Let's start a great big argument here" Fedele

 
 
 

Dave Kingman? HOF?

Post by David M Ta » Wed, 21 Feb 1990 10:22:53

Quote:

>I sense an argument brewing.  Not for Dave Kingman to the HOF,
>but with Dave Masten's statement:

>>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?

>Doesn't longevity count? Shouldn't the ability to make a contribution
>to a ML team for 20 plus years count as much as, say a five-year
>domination of your position and a quick disappearance from baseball?

Yes, longevity counts.  However, do you think the fact that Kingman was a
liability to major league teams for 20 years counts in his *favor*?

I could never be a major league manager, but I recognize the fact that these
guys do stupid things, too.  Signing Kingman is one of them.

Quote:
>Pete Rose's stats (let's leave out the *** for these purposes)
>over the years seldom put him in the top two or three at
>his position in any given year.  The top five, probably.
>But there was always another person at his position whose
>power numbers probably put him out of the very top.

Whoa, boy.  Pete Rose led the league in hits 7 times; doubles 5 times; runs
4 times; batting avg. 4 times.  If you want to compare him with other players
at his position:
        1st four years: second base.  As good as anyone in the league.
                Mazeroski was (of course) a better defensive player; Felix
                Mantilla had more power.  Still, couldn't do better than
                Rose.  Joe Morgan came up at the end of this period, as did
                Rod Carew.

        next 8 years: outfield.  3 batting titles,  lead in runs twice, lead
                in hits 4 times (in 8 years). 13 errors, 72 assists over that
                time.  Not Clemente, but then who is?

        next 4 years: third base.  Led league in runs 3 straight years.  Led
                in doubles same three years.  827 hits, 440 runs over those
                four years.  Not Mike Schmidt, but almost as valuable in a
                complimentary role.  No one complains that Rickey Henderson
                should be more like Mark McGwire...

At this point, Pete is 38 years old.  Still, 8 more years (or so) at first.
You can judge for yourself whether he should have hung it up earlier.

Quote:
>John "Let's start a great big argument here" Fedele

Will this do, John? :-)

--
        David M. Tate       | "The concept of weight of evidence was central

                            |  32 other publications [of mine].  What I say 33
 "A Man for all Seasonings" |  times is true."          -- I. J. Good.  

 
 
 

Dave Kingman? HOF?

Post by Mary Rose Campbe » Wed, 21 Feb 1990 11:56:26


  states

Quote:
>* 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.

How about Richie Ashburn?  He batted .308 in 15 seasons, won two batting
titles, was an excellent fielder and runner, and is the only post 1900
player with 2500 or more hits and a .300 batting average who isn't in
the hall.  It looks like he'll be elected as a broadcaster before he
gets in as a player, largely because he played for some lousy teams.
(Phillies 1948-1959, on a good team for about 2 1/2 seasons; Cubs 1960 &
1961; and the team MVP of the legendary 1962 Mets)

mrc

 
 
 

Dave Kingman? HOF?

Post by Dave Mast » Thu, 22 Feb 1990 04:16:20

I guess I should respond:

Quote:

>I sense an argument brewing.  Not for Dave Kingman to the HOF,
>but with Dave Masten's statement:

>>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?

>Doesn't longevity count? Shouldn't the ability to make a contribution
>to a ML team for 20 plus years count as much as, say a five-year
>domination of your position and a quick disappearance from baseball?

Yes they do count, in his contract negotiations.  But seriously, obviously there
should be no hard and fast rule.  Every eligible player must be considered
individually.  But I subscribe to a stricter definition for membership. No I
don't believe a long term good player who may have good stats which add an extra
win or two a year for a team is a HOF'er.  But I wouldn't tale a five year
phenom unless he also played good ball for quite a few extra years. Example:
Yaz (yes Yastrzemski) he had about 3 super years mixed in with some good years
ending with a few mediocre years where his stats were probably Fenway inflated.
He clearly belongs, but if '67,'68-'70  are replaced with more typical years?
Hmmm.

There's little point in arguing this, it's obviously an extremely subjective
(emotional?) subject.  I just think there are already too many players in there
that even baseball nuts like us know little about without adding a whole bunch
of good players who are already forgotten (ie Al Oliver).

Quote:
>Pete Rose's stats (let's leave out the *** for these purposes)
>over the years seldom put him in the top two or three at
>his position in any given year.  The top five, probably.
>But there was always another person at his position whose
>power numbers probably put him out of the very top.

Plenty of others have responded here.  I concur with them, Pete WAS one of the
best (I'd say top 3 2B,LF,RF whatever) for a long time.  Yearly stats show
him to be one of the most *** players throughout the late '60s to 70s.
More subjectively, the man was a pain in
the a## to watch as he'd decimate my team again and again.

Quote:
>If a pitcher can average 15+ wins a year for 20 years,
>that's impressive.  The fact that you can make a major
>league contribution long after the rest of your age group
>has taken up coaching or auto sales should make some
>difference.

>John "Let's start a great big argument here" Fedele

Yes, its impressive.  But if a team never said "uh oh were going against Sutton
today, we're in trouble" I don't think he needs a plaque in Cooperstown.  

is pretty restrictive agreed, someone else suggested fif*** years.  Should we
enshrine Koosman, Hunter, Tiant, Blyleven, J Niekro, Bobo Newsome, Guidry
Morris, J Perry, Bunning, Newhouser (is he already in?), Blue, Reushel!! etc?
Some say yes, I hope not.

Just my random, chaotic thoughts.

Dave Masten