Dave Kingman? HOF?

Dave Kingman? HOF?

Post by mist.. » Wed, 21 Feb 1990 23:52:11


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?

I couldn't agree more.  How else can you explain Phil Niekro?
Never a *** pitcher (except '67) yet he is a certain hall of famer.

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.

Exactly.  Hell, you don't even need to win 15 for 20 years...just 15 for 15
and you can get in.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Chad "Mr.B" Jackson       Trapped in Gainesville, Fla.!                     -

- Toronto Blue Jays in '90!  (or '91, whichever comes first)                  -
- Remember Phil -- Atlanta Bullpen Coach.  Down with Turner!                  -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- "It's so crowded nobody goes there anymore"                               -
-                                       -- Yogi Berra                         -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

Dave Kingman? HOF?

Post by Tim Priddy » Thu, 22 Feb 1990 01:33:52

Quote:
John Fedele writes:

 > 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?

        Longevity does count, but it certainly shouldn't put someone in
the hall.  I'd say 7, 20 win seasons and 10, 16 win seasons beats out
your example of 20, 15 win season.  Does that seem obvious to everyone?

        Pete Rose is closer to Dave Masten's view.  When he came up at
second base, he was considered one of the best.  He's long been
considered one of the best hitters, and not only because of his
breaking Ty Cobb's record.

        I would tweak Dave's HOF metric slightly by simply dropping
the "at his position."  It is the Hall of Fame, and I believe that
fame should be rooted in the player's being one of the few, best
players in baseball.

        Dave Kingman was very highly touted as a young player, but his
personality interferred with his play (or maybe just his playing
time).  Dave had some great seasons and a long homer-packed career,
but I nevered looked at him as one of the best.  I held more
admiration for other players in this era.  It seems that managers and
GM's around held my view as well everytime they shipped him off.

        Vida Blue is a good example that longevity does count.  Vida
was the very best for a few years, but had his career shortened by his
stint with ***.  Here's hoping Vida will get voted in someday.

        Tim Priddy (Oakland Coliseum, Sec: 123, row: 3, seat: 13)

        uucp:     ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!tpriddy

 
 
 

Dave Kingman? HOF?

Post by Jonathan Ki » Thu, 22 Feb 1990 01:43:23

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?

> 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.

Boy, this is really weird.  I didn't know that people batted by
position.  I mean, Pete Rose always hustled on defense and all but
what he'll always be remembered for is his ability to get to first
base, and then round those bases with stunning regularity.  In the
decade of the 1970s, Rose got well over 2000 base hits, and scored
over 1000 runs.  He hit .300 or better 9 times (and in his "off-year"
of 1974 he walked 106 times and scored 110 runs).  In the mid-70s,
there really wasn't anyone like him; nobody doubted he was a star,
even though he never hit 20 homers or batted in 100 runs.  Everybody
knew what he could do.  While it's true that he hung around virtually
forever, and got to collect over 4200 hits and 700 doubles, you'd have
to be crazy to think he racked up those kind of numbers in 24
solid-but-not-really-impressive seasons.  Rose was not even close to
being the best hitter that ever lived, but his baseball cards have
enough italics and diamonds on them to get him into the HOF without
the really gaudy bottom line figures.

While your reputation in the Hall might rest more on overall career
value, it's tough to find too many people there who didn't also have
several very distinguished seasons.

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

   Jon "Let's not and say we did" King

 
 
 

Dave Kingman? HOF?

Post by Randy Paler » Thu, 22 Feb 1990 02:39:38

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 agree that Kingman should never grace the walls of the hall. He
was a one-dimensional player and the stats will tell that story. Kong
has a reputation of being an a**hole and has never led a team to any
post-season activity. However, you are correct. In the years to come,
those "qualities" will be diminished and the only thing the committee
will have to go on is the stats. They will show that: 1) Homeruns was
all he could do. 2) He holds the single season record for the lowest batting
average for a full time player. 3) He was a terrible fielder. 4) Mondo
strikeouts. 5) Low singles, doubles, triples, etc.

If you take a look at his stats, it is plain that he could hit serious
homeruns. However, the total lack of production from any other phase of
his game jumps off the page at you.

Evans, on the other hand, is an excellent fielder with a high OBP(lotsa BB)
and a respectable lifetime BA. Those are measurable stats.

luigi

******************************************************************************
IS IT APRIL YET?
HEAVEN = MAY DAYS, REAL GRASS, REAL SUNSHINE, REAL BASEBALL! GO GIANTS!!!
'stick seats - Sec2,row10,seats 1&2
Randy Palermo
login = luigi

decwrl!mips!luigi
******************************************************************************

 
 
 

Dave Kingman? HOF?

Post by David M Ta » Thu, 22 Feb 1990 03:56:33


Quote:
>    I would tweak Dave's HOF metric slightly by simply dropping
>the "at his position."  It is the Hall of Fame, and I believe that
>fame should be rooted in the player's being one of the few, best
>players in baseball.

Oh, you mean only offense counts?  How can you possibly say this?  It isn't
*accidental* that some guys play shortstop while others play first base.  Too
many people seem to think that defensive skills are irrelevant, a "bonus" on
top of hitting.

Tell you what, Tim: you pick a team of the nine "few, best players" (in your
opinion), and I'll pick a team that includes players at all positions, and
we'll see who wins the Series.

Incidentally, how do you feel about pitching?  The only pitcher in the Hall
with any decent stats (offensive, that is) is Babe Ruth.  Does that mean that
there shouldn't be any others?  Oh, I see, you're talking best "at that
position" :-).

I don't think we give *enough* consideration to the position played.  Ideally,
the Hall should represent all postions roughly equally, not because we impose
that constraint, but because defensive worth should be a factor.  A player like
Ernie Banks or Mike Schmidt, who combines outstanding defense at a position
requiring above-average skill, is *more* *valuable* than a better offensive
player without those skills.  I think Bill Mazeroski should be in the Hall; no
one ever played second base as well, and he could hit some, too.  That made
him more valuable than just about any other second baseman, and every team
needs a second baseman.

Tim, your postion sounds to me suspiciously like the sort that would never
induct an offensive lineman into the Football HOF, because none ever scored
enough touchdowns...

--
        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 Dave Mast » Thu, 22 Feb 1990 03:14:56

In response to my tirade:

Quote:
>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

I think the numbers show Richie was a very fine player and MAY have been
deserving of the hall.  Clearly he rates WAY behind Mays and Mantle and
significantly behind Duke Snider (at least for a 5-10 year period) so using
my offhand rule he should'nt get in. But rules (especially casual ones) are
made to be broken.  Instead, I'll argue that plenty of voters saw him play and
for FIF*** YEARS passed him up for the hall.  How can some old fogeys whose
judgement is clouded by the years all of a sudden deem him worthy? Actually,
my convictions here aren't very strong since I think sportswriters can't even
recognize today's talent.
 
 
 

Dave Kingman? HOF?

Post by Tim Priddy » Thu, 22 Feb 1990 11:01:25

Quote:
David M Tate writes:


 > >      I would tweak Dave's HOF metric slightly by simply dropping
 > > the "at his position."  It is the Hall of Fame, and I believe that
 > > fame should be rooted in the player's being one of the few, best
 > > players in baseball.
 >
 > Oh, you mean only offense counts?  How can you possibly say this?  It
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 > isn't *accidental* that some guys play shortstop while others play
 > first base.  Too many people seem to think that defensive skills are
 > irrelevant, a "bonus" on top of hitting.

        I didn't say that.  I never said nor implied that defense
didn't count.  

 > Incidentally, how do you feel about pitching?  The only pitcher in the
 > Hall with any decent stats (offensive, that is) is Babe Ruth.  Does
 > that mean that there shouldn't be any others?  Oh, I see, you're
 > talking best "at that position" :-).

        No, I'm talking best.  Baseball happens to be a sport where
every position is important to the functioning of the team.  People
from every positioned have been judged to be the best and therefore
were voted into the HOF.

 > Tim, your postion sounds to me suspiciously like the sort that would
 > never induct an offensive lineman into the Football HOF, because none
 > ever scored enough touchdowns...

        Football has positions that are rather unimportant.  Nobody's
gonna get voted into the Football HOF as a kick holder, no matter how
good he is at it.  Also, there are going to be proportionally fewer
punters and line men than running backs and quarterbacks.  There's
nothing wrong with that.

 > I don't think we give *enough* consideration to the position played.
 > Ideally, the Hall should represent all postions roughly equally, not
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 > because we impose that constraint, but because defensive worth should
 > be a factor.  

        I agree that 2B is an important position, but only a simpleton
would expect as many 2Bmen in tha hall as the other positions.  There
are three times as many outfielders in the game, 5 times as many
starting pitchers.

        A lot of second ba*** are simply SS's that were beat out at
their position.  There are plenty of second ba*** that deserve HOF
consideration, but a lot more shortstops, and a helluva lot more
pitchers and outfielders.

 > I think Bill Mazeroski should be in the Hall; no one ever played
 > second base as well, and he could hit some, too.  That made him more
 > valuable than just about any other second baseman, and every team
 > needs a second baseman.

        I'm clueless as to why you reponded so causticly and
libelously to a rather innocuous posting.  Maybe you should have
written an article about BM rather than blindly attacking my posting.

 > "A Man for all Seasonings"

        Lay off the alum; it doesn't suit ya.

        Tim Priddy (Oakland Coliseum, Sec: 123, row: 3, seat: 13)

        uucp:     ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!tpriddy

 
 
 

Dave Kingman? HOF?

Post by Tim Priddy » Thu, 22 Feb 1990 11:14:52

Quote:
Mary Rose Campbell writes:

 > 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)

        Seems like Richie should be in.  How about Taylor Douthit or
Dwayne Murphy?  Dwayne Murphy no, but maybe Taylor Douthit.

Category        Taylor Douthit  Richie Ashburn  Dwayne Murphy (as of '88)
--------        --------------  --------------  -------------
Putouts/game    3.0 (1st)       2.9 (2nd)       2.9 (3rd)
Chances/game    3.2 (1st)       3.0 (2nd)       3.0 (3rd)
Years           1923-1933 (11)  1948-1962 (15)  1978-1987 (10+)
HR%             0.7             0.3             3.8
BA              .291            .308            .247
Hits            1201            2574            999
(H+W)/(AB+W)    .360            .394            .357
                W Champ Stl'26  NL Champ Phi'50 Div. Champ Oak'81
                NL Champ Stl'28
                NL Champ Stl'30

        None have been elected to the Hall of Fame.

        Tim Priddy (Oakland Coliseum, Sec: 123, row: 3, seat: 13)

        uucp:     ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!tpriddy

 
 
 

Dave Kingman? HOF?

Post by David Joseph Grabin » Fri, 23 Feb 1990 03:07:51


Quote:
>    Seems like Richie should be in.  How about Taylor Douthit or
>Dwayne Murphy?  Dwayne Murphy no, but maybe Taylor Douthit.

>Category    Taylor Douthit  Richie Ashburn  Dwayne Murphy (as of '88)
>--------    --------------  --------------  -------------
>Putouts/game        3.0 (1st)       2.9 (2nd)       2.9 (3rd)
>Chances/game        3.2 (1st)       3.0 (2nd)       3.0 (3rd)
>Years               1923-1933 (11)  1948-1962 (15)  1978-1987 (10+)
>HR%         0.7             0.3             3.8
>BA          .291            .308            .247
>Hits                1201            2574            999
>(H+W)/(AB+W)        .360            .394            .357
>            W Champ Stl'26  NL Champ Phi'50 Div. Champ Oak'81
>            NL Champ Stl'28
>            NL Champ Stl'30

Douthit may have been an excellent fielder, but you miss some points in
comparing him to Ashburn.  First, his career was less than half as long;
since he averaged 109 hits per year, some of those years must consist of
just a few games.  Also, he played in the period 1923-1933, in which
offensive totals were much higher than in the 50's or 80's.  His OBA was
.360, and I'd guess that the league average for those years was around
.340.  Ashburn had an OBA of .394, and the league average in the 50's
was about .330.  

Richie Ashburn gets my vote for the Hall of Fame, but half of Ashburn
doesn't get a vote, and I don't think that Douthit was as good as
Ashburn in a career of half the length.

--
My name is David Joseph Grabiner.

My name is called David.
I am the person solely responsible for these opinions.

 
 
 

Dave Kingman? HOF?

Post by Jonathan Ki » Fri, 23 Feb 1990 01:10:27


Quote:
> John Fedele writes:

>  > 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?

>         Longevity does count, but it certainly shouldn't put someone in
> the hall.  I'd say 7, 20 win seasons and 10, 16 win seasons beats out
> your example of 20, 15 win season.  Does that seem obvious to everyone?

It really depends on the team, and how important you think a pitcher's
wins are.  Niekro played for slag teams most of his career, (and in a
tiny ballpark) so I'm more impressed with him than with, say, Don Sutton.

[Rose stuff deleted]

Quote:
>         Dave Kingman was very highly touted as a young player, but his
> personality interferred with his play (or maybe just his playing
> time).  Dave had some great seasons and a long homer-packed career,
> but I nevered looked at him as one of the best.  I held more
> admiration for other players in this era.  It seems that managers and
> GM's around held my view as well everytime they shipped him off.

I have tried to find those "great seasons" of Dave Kingman, but I have
found only one really great offensive season, and a bunch of others
with tons of homers and nothing else (Kong managed to hit 37 homers
one season and slug only .432 with a .282 *OBP*--eeuw).  Here is the
one great season of Dave Kingman:

Year Team   G  AB  R   H 2b 3b  HR  RBI SB   SA  BB  SO   AVG
79   Cubs 145 532 97 153 19  5  48* 115  4 .613* 45 131* .288

Now that's probably a Hall of Fame quality year.  Too bad he didn't
have more of them.

Quote:
>         Vida Blue is a good example that longevity does count.  Vida
> was the very best for a few years, but had his career shortened by his
> stint with ***.  Here's hoping Vida will get voted in someday.

If Vida Blue had his career shortened by ***, all players should be
so lucky.  He broke in in 1969 and retired in the late 80s.  He was a
much better than average pitcher, but not my idea of a Hall of Famer.
Although, of course, he had that truly incredible year in 1971.

Quote:

>         Tim Priddy (Oakland Coliseum, Sec: 123, row: 3, seat: 13)

>         uucp:     ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!tpriddy

More HOF puzzlers: what will the voters do with Bill Madlock (4
batting titles)?  I'm afraid they won't just say no.  A similar
case is Ron Guidry, whose winning percentage (one of the things that
voters weigh heavily) is extremely high although his career was not
extremely long.  

jking

 
 
 

Dave Kingman? HOF?

Post by Jonathan Ki » Fri, 23 Feb 1990 02:10:42

God I hope the lock out ends soon.  Then we can talk about baseball in
the present tense.  But...

[about Don Sutton]

Quote:
> 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.

I say:  lets get rid of career win totals as benchmarks and look at whether
the players were truly great when they were at their peak.  

Quote:
> 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.

Well, let's run down the list:

Koosman? no.  

Hunter? already in; he was, in his prime, the kind of pitcher
opponents feared, but nobody would argue he was the best of his era.

Tiant?  A tougher call than Koosman, certainly.  I'm glad he'll get
votes, but I wonder whether he really belongs.  He was certainly one
of the most enjoyable pitchers to watch, and a very fine pitcher, too.
I've heard people argue he was better than Drysdale, but I don't find
that the most convincing argument.

Blyleven?  You can look at some of his lifetime stats and be very
impressed, but I'm finding it tough to say "Yes, that's our man."  I
expect he'll get in when someone finds out he has the most shutouts of
any pitcher not in the Hall.  

J Niekro? No.

Bobo Newsome?  I don't know enough about him, to be honest.  Maybe
that's telling, but maybe not.

Guidry?  Funny, I just posted about him... Whenever I think about
Guidry, I think about 1978, when he went 25-3 with an ERA of 1.74 and
struck out 248 people while leading the Yankees to the pennant.  What
rotten luck to do that the same season Jim Rice racks up 406 total
bases and wins the MVP.  But of course, he was 16-7 the year before,
and 18-8 the year after, then 17-10, and 11-5, and 14-8, and 21-9, and
had a 22-6 season in 1985.  While I don't really believe in wins and
winning percentage, I find it difficult to argue the man was a VERY
fine pitcher, who would have won a lot more games if he had won any
before he was 26.

Morris?  Maybe it's because I saw him pitch a lot, but I don't know why
he shouldn't be a decent candidate.  He was certainly the kind of pitcher
other teams didn't like to face.  One or two more good seasons, and
there would be less of an argument.  Too bad he didn't have his career
in a major media center.

J Perry?  No, although he had his moments.

Bunning?  Before my time, but Ted Williams was really impressed with
him, and he did play for less than awesome teams.  It looks like he
might not get in, though.

Newhouser?  Again, way before my time, and I don't know his stats that well.

Blue? No.

Reushel? No.  Although if his current "second career" with the Giants
keeps on going and going and going...

Quote:
> Just my random, chaotic thoughts.

> Dave Masten

jking
 
 
 

Dave Kingman? HOF?

Post by David Joseph Grabin » Sat, 24 Feb 1990 03:48:59


Quote:

>>        Seems like Richie should be in.  How about Taylor Douthit or
>>Dwayne Murphy?  Dwayne Murphy no, but maybe Taylor Douthit.
>Douthit may have been an excellent fielder, but you miss some points in
>comparing him to Ashburn.  First, his career was less than half as long;
>since he averaged 109 hits per year, some of those years must consist of
>just a few games.  Also, he played in the period 1923-1933, in which
>offensive totals were much higher than in the 50's or 80's.  His OBA was
>.360, and I'd guess that the league average for those years was around
>.340.  Ashburn had an OBA of .394, and the league average in the 50's
>was about .330.  

>Richie Ashburn gets my vote for the Hall of Fame, but half of Ashburn
>doesn't get a vote, and I don't think that Douthit was as good as
>Ashburn in a career of half the length.

I checked the stats in Total Baseball.  Douthit was a regular for only
six years, 1926-1931, which are about the six hardest-hitting years you
can name.  His best offensive season was 1929, when his OBA was .417 and
the league OBA was .357.  He never led the league in any offensive
category.  His Total Baseball Ranking is 3 wins below average, despite
his excellent defense.

Ashburn, on the other hand, was a regular for his entire 15-year career.
He led the league in walks, hits, and batting average several times,
and in triples and stolen bases once each.  In addition, he led the
league in putouts regularly, topping 500 putouts five times (nobody else
has done it more than once.)  His Total Baseball Ranking is 25 wins
above average.

--
My name is David Joseph Grabiner.

My name is called David.
I am the person solely responsible for these opinions.

 
 
 

Dave Kingman? HOF?

Post by Skibb » Sat, 03 Mar 1990 07:07:14

This almostt akes me think net contributors need to start randomly
peeing in jars.

Ed Skibbe
{att}!druco!druks!skib