Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if Dave Kingman had 500 HRs. HOFER?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • westsidegrounds
    replied
    Originally posted by Beady View Post
    Doc Cramer .
    Yikes, of his 2705 career hits, 2163 were singles!

    He's the Anti-Kingman!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Beady
    replied
    There's a significant difference between the hypothetical case of Doc Cramer and that of Kingman. There were things Cramer couldn't do but I doubt contemporaries viewed him as a badly flawed player who burdened his team with serious liabilities that had to be balanced against his valuable but limited strengths. That is exactly how Kingman was widely regarded, and it's hard to square with the image of a Hall of Famer.

    As a result, if Cramer had reached a highly visible milestone, after a while people would probably have found it easy to accept that as a measure of the man. if Kingman had hit 500, anybody who had experienced his active days would still judge him as a complete (which is to say, incomplete) player. With or without 500, he could only be elected to the Hall by a body of voters most of whom had not been around for his active days.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Wendt
    replied
    Originally posted by davewashere View Post
    ...16 of the 34 players above Kingman on the all time home run list were not there when he retired. In other words, 47% of the sluggers above 442 home runs finished their careers within the past 23 years. That number will likely be 50% (18 of 36) by the end of next season.
    When Aaron and Robinson retired, 54% of those above 442 homeruns had retired in the past nine years. After Mike Schmidt, 68% had retired in the past 22 years.

    You choose the endpoints selectively but that still doesn't work to make this explosion unprecedented.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iowanic
    replied
    http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl...ingmda01.shtml

    Check out the Similarity scores.

    Leave a comment:


  • westsidegrounds
    replied
    Writers also pay attention to BA as a benchmark, and Kong's lifetime .236 would have put a lot of them off.

    Aside from the career HR total, Kingman's stats aren't all that great: black ink score 11, gray ink 74, where the average HOFer scores are 27 and 144.
    Just as an exercise, compare him to, say, Ralph Kiner:

    RK - career BA .279; lead league in HR seven times; only 1 season (his first) with more than 100 strikeouts (career average 82K per season)
    DK - career BA .236; lead league in HR twice; many seasons over 125 strikeouts (career avg. 152K per season)

    The writers had a lot of trouble putting Ralph into the HOF; Kingman was a significantly worse player than Kiner.
    Last edited by westsidegrounds; 10-28-2010, 05:30 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • davewashere
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul Wendt View Post
    It suppose you portray this as an unprecedented explosion of career homerun kings because it is the first you have experienced. Eight players who debuted in the 1950s (incl'g six 1951 to 1954) bumped Lou Gehrig down from number five to number 13. Four of them (debuts '51, 54, 54, 56) finished 1-3-4-5 in the all-time ranks, almost forty ahead of the previous runnerup.
    It was unprecedented at the level of career home runs, which is why Kingman falls so far short compared to the modern slugger. One guy from the steroid era has finished his career with over 300 home runs more than Kingman, while another is likely to accomplish the feat before his career is over. 16 of the 34 players above Kingman on the all time home run list were not there when he retired. In other words, 47% of the sluggers above 442 home runs finished their careers within the past 23 years. That number will likely be 50% (18 of 36) by the end of next season.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Wendt
    replied
    It suppose you portray this as an unprecedented explosion of career homerun kings because it is the first you have experienced. Eight players who debuted in the 1950s (incl'g six 1951 to 1954) bumped Lou Gehrig down from number five to number 13. Four of them (debuts '51, 54, 54, 56) finished 1-3-4-5 in the all-time ranks, almost forty ahead of the previous runnerup.

    Leave a comment:


  • davewashere
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul Wendt View Post
    > "membership became about as common as being member of Sam's Club"

    Babe Ruth and three players from the next thirty years achieved 500 homeruns.

    Eight players who debuted in the 1950s joined them, including six who debuted in merely four seasons 1951-54. It was bigger than Sam's Club. There were 16 teams, so every other team had one.
    But you have to remember that after the surge of new 500 home run club members from the 1950's there was a drought. How many new members were there from 1975 through 1995? Only 3 by my count. That's only one new member every 6+ seasons. If Kingman had 500 home runs and was eligible for the HOF between 1985 and 1995 I think he gets in. That was a very brief window that closed fast as the power/steroid era moved in. Now he wouldn't have a chance. Of the 7 members of the 600 home run club, 4 made their debut between 1985 and 1995. It'll be 5 out of 8 when Thome joins them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Wendt
    replied
    > "membership became about as common as being member of Sam's Club"

    Babe Ruth and three players from the next thirty years achieved 500 homeruns.

    Eight players who debuted in the 1950s joined them, including six who debuted in merely four seasons 1951-54. It was bigger than Sam's Club. There were 16 teams, so every other team had one.

    Leave a comment:


  • davewashere
    replied
    Would he have been? Yes, absolutely. 500 home runs was a key milestone at that time, and enough writers would have ignored the embarrassingly low batting average to get him in. If we assumed he would have played a few more seasons to get to 500, as opposed to just averaging more home runs per season in the years that he did play, he would have become eligible in the mid-90's. He would have been one of just a couple players from his era to make the 500 home run club, and he would have made it in before membership became about as common as being member of Sam's Club. That definitely would have swayed the voters. Almost none of the metrics that we use now were in common use in the first few years that he would have been eligible for the HOF. Now, do I think he would have deserved to get in? Absolutely not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cougar
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul Wendt View Post
    bat/onbase/slug .242/.308 (up 2%)/.511 (up 7%)
    and OPS+ 125 (up 10) if i estimate correctly.
    So, playing this out, he now has a classic Triple Crown line of .242/500/1310.

    (I'm assuming the extra 58 HR will bring about 100 RBI along with them, give or take.)

    And now his BA goes from .236 to .242...small increase, but .24_ looks better than .23_ , and his slugging percentage is now over .500.

    I think that might have just sold the BBWAA. He at least hangs on the ballot a little while.

    It's a counterfactual...we'll never know, because in fact he didn't hit those extra HR.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Wendt
    replied
    bat/onbase/slug .242/.308 (up 2%)/.511 (up 7%)
    and OPS+ 125 (up 10) if i estimate correctly.

    Leave a comment:


  • J W
    replied
    The exercise would show what Dave Kingman's numbers would look like had he hit 500 HRs in the same number of PAs in his career (or close to it). I suspect it wouldn't change much, and he would still fall short of a HOF career, but it'd be something for someone to do for a few hours. :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Wendt
    replied
    Do you mean simply to replace 58 lesser outcomes (in proportion to his career record) with 58 homeruns? Given his career homerun rate, that means to replace 61-62 plate appearances (in proportion to his career record) with 61-62 homeruns. Three or four of the 61-62 would be homeruns; net gain 58 homeruns. With career on-base average .302, one component would be replacement of 42-43 batting outs with homeruns. In turn that would increase his career on-base average to about .308. Is that what you mean?

    What would that exercise show?

    Leave a comment:


  • J W
    replied
    Request: If you shaved off the same % of singles, doubles, triples, walks & outs compared to Kingman's career totals, and turned them into 58 extra HRs for him, what would his numbers look like?

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X