Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if Dave Kingman had 500 HRs. HOFER?

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

  • Fuzzy Bear
    replied
    Originally posted by KCGHOST
    I said "no" because that's how I would have voted. No telling what the real electorate would do.
    The real electorate now probably would have rejected Kingman. Had he made it to 500, the electorate in 1995-99 might have put him in.

    One thing I would suggest, though, is that IF Kingman had made it to 500 HRs, he would have had a better career than the career he had. To have made it to 500 HRs, he would have to have either a higher slugging pct., more career hits, a higher BA or OBP, and/or more games played. Even if he just had more games played, he would have had to be producing at a higher level to stay in the game long enough to get 500.

    Kingman's not Fred McGriff; he didn't need seven more just to dress up his stats. He needed two seasons worth of HRs to get there, and at his age and ability, that wasn't happening. If he had greater ability (to draw walks, to hit for average, to play defense, anything) he might have been able to stay in the game longer, but he didn't, and couples with his silly war with Sportswriter Susan Fornoff, his career ended abruptly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tigerfan1974
    replied
    Originally posted by digglahhh
    Why do you put McGriff in parenthesis? He's been retired .

    You have posted many things here that makes me think you don't follow baseball not involving the Tigers at all.

    Besides the Crime Dog has a very good resume, IMO.
    When I looked it up in the stats, the asterisk next to his name meant he was/is still active.

    Yes, I follow baseball, quite avidly.
    No, I do not live, eat, drink, breathe and die baseball.
    I enjoy the sport, I follow it more than the casual fan I am sure.
    But I do not get lost in numbers, stats, etc.
    Without looking it up, I can't tell you what years McGriff played, what his uniform number was, how many HR he had, or how many All-Star appearances he made; among the million other stats that might be out there for him and every player.

    But something tells me you and RMB and a few others could. There is nothing wrong with that. We have different interests and types of being fans, that's all. :o

    Leave a comment:


  • Bench 5
    replied
    When he became eligible for the Hall of Fame in 1992, he only got 3 votes out of 430 and subsequently dropped off the ballot. I don't think another 52 homers would have given him even close to the requisite number of votes to stay on the ballot. I give sports writers a lot more credit than that. Everyone was aware at the time that he was within striking ranger of 500 and that 500 was considered automatic for the HOF. But all of the articles at the time denounced his consideration for the HOF. As others have pointed out 400 was close to automatic as well in 1986.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnny
    replied
    Originally posted by digglahhh
    Yeah, at the time of his retirement he was the player with the most HRs not in the Hall, I'm not convinced topping 500 would have done it, especially since the writers had to have known that at the time of his retirement Kong could still hit them.

    Those voters are a tricky bunch though, there's no telling what they are liable to do.
    Especially cause its almost as important as who your up against. So if King Kong would have been amongst a weak field of candidates he may have slid in. I actually think that the Vets Committee was the more likely way he would get in.

    Leave a comment:


  • digglahhh
    replied
    Why do you put McGriff in parenthesis? He's been retired .

    You have posted many things here that makes me think you don't follow baseball not involving the Tigers at all.

    Besides the Crime Dog has a very good resume, IMO.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tigerfan1974
    replied
    Emphatically NO!!! Just like other 400+ guys, McGriff, Darrell Evans and Canseco. If they had/do (McGriff) hit 500, they shouldn't be there either.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pine Tar
    replied
    I'm not so sure if he would have been elected but it seems pretty clear that he would have at least garnered enough support to stay on the ballot.

    I think its important to remember that this was before the big power boost.

    Its also important to point out that by the time Kingman was eligible, the people who all retired at about the same time were Darrell Evans, who retired with a career home run total of 414, Mike Schmidt, and Reggie Jackson. Plus there were players like Dave Winfield and Eddie Murray still playing with more than 400 home runs. So Dave Kingman's 442 home runs really didn't stick out that much.

    However, had he hit over 500, they would have since he wouldn't have been compared as much to Evans, Winfield, and Murray. Obviously Dave Kingman doesn't deserve to go to the hall, but it certainly seems like there would have been a danger of him going. What if he had hit 550? It wasn't out of the realm of possibility had he stuck around for a few more years.

    I think this is a good exercise for thinking about the hall worthiness players like Fred McGriff, for whom some would keep out of the hall since he didn't get to 500 home runs. It seems like people who argue that, should be more happy with a 500 home run hitting Dave Kingman in the hall.

    Leave a comment:


  • digglahhh
    replied
    Yeah, at the time of his retirement he was the player with the most HRs not in the Hall, I'm not convinced topping 500 would have done it, especially since the writers had to have known that at the time of his retirement Kong could still hit them.

    Those voters are a tricky bunch though, there's no telling what they are liable to do.

    Leave a comment:


  • 538280
    replied
    No way. I'm sure even the writers would be able to see through Kingman, even if he had the 500 HRs. Kingman didn't even really walk, unlike most big sluggers who hit the occasional HR. Almost all of his offensive value comes from HRs.

    Despite all the HRs, he hit so few doubles, triples, and singles that his rel. SLG is still not really HOF level for a corner OF at 123. His relative line is 90/92/123. Not anything special. I think the writers would have been able to see through him, even with 500 HRs.

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    No. Kingman's sub .240 average with no better than decent walk totals still would have sunk him. The guy only had two seasons of over 400 AB with an average over .240. The low average among 1B-OF-DH slugger types is Killebrew at .256. The lowest average of a non-pitcher I saw in the Hall was Ray Schalk at .253. Whether or not you like that selection, Schalk's selection has a lot to do with how he was regarded defensively. Kong was noted for his defense, too, but because he was an iron glove.

    Jim Albright

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by DoubleX
    I guess I'm the lone vote so far for yes. Like I said before, don't think he'd deserve to be in, but the voters like the shiny numbers, and I think they would have put Kingman in if he surpassed the 500 homerun milestone.
    I agree. Would he have deserved it? Of course not. Would he have made it? Yes. Voters were even more enamored by counting stats then than they are now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bench 5
    replied
    To this day I still maintain that Kingman could hit the ball farther than any player I've seen and that includes all of the juiced players of the past 15 years.

    Even if Kingman played into his early 40s and hit 600 homers he wouldn't have been elected. He was a team cancer and one of the biggest jerks of all time. Look at how many teams he played for. That's because his only value was hitting homers and he had a lousy attitude.

    He could have owned the city of Chicago after he hit 48 homers in 1979. He ruined it by his bevahior. He faked injuries the next year and started slacking. In 1980, he was caught fishing while he was supposedly injured as the Cubs were playing day games. Another time he mailed a dead rat to a female reporter. Pretty sick guy at times. When he was with the Giants he beat up little Mick Kelleher during a game.

    All that being said, he was a good athlete for his size. He had surprising speed and a strong throwing arm. He wasn't very good in the field although when he applied himself he wasn't bad.

    I think the A's refused to sign him because he was considered a bad influence on Canseco and McGwire.

    If he went on steroids like the Bash Brothers, he would have put them to shame. He was big to begin with at 6'6" 225 but I think he would have been a monster.

    I remember about 10 years ago he showed up to an All Star game and participated in a homer run contest. Old-timers were teamed up with actors and they had a contest to see which team hit the most. Most of the actors used metal bats. Brett hit a couple homers that barely cleared the fence. Kingman hit a couple that were in the 425-440 foot range and he was about 50 at the time!!
    Last edited by Bench 5; 03-06-2006, 03:55 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • RobertHConner
    replied
    Originally posted by Captain Cold Nose
    Poor defensive player. Poor hitter in general. Poor teammate. All those home runs for last place teams do not a hall of famer make.
    I was going to respond, but comments like this one say it all.

    Sammy Sosa-whom I cannot stand--could at least run for the bulk of his career.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnny
    replied
    Originally posted by Brooklyn
    We are looking at 500 HRs today as automatic inclusion, but before Kingman everyone with 400 HRs got in too. He was the first with 400 not to make it

    He was in 19th place on the all-time list when he retired, and there were only 21 players in the 400 HR club (as opposed to 40 now) . 500 HRs would have put him 14th.

    I'm not sure how much more glamerous 500 would have looked to voters than 400. If they didn't put number 19 all-time in the HOF, not sure they would have put #14 in. Or at least I hope they wouldn't have. 236 BA is just tough to stomach
    if you think .236 was tough, you ought to have tried watching him catch a fly ball after eating a hot dog. cause laugh or cry it was painful very painful

    Leave a comment:


  • Brooklyn
    replied
    Originally posted by DoubleX
    There is a holy trinity of career numbers - history has shown that if a player reaches one of them, they're in the Hall: 300 wins, 3000 hits, and 500 homeruns. 3000 Ks, is certainly a shiny number, but it's not nearly on the same level as 500 homeruns, from a historical perspective.
    We are looking at 500 HRs today as automatic inclusion, but before Kingman everyone with 400 HRs got in too. He was the first with 400 not to make it

    He was in 19th place on the all-time list when he retired, and there were only 21 players in the 400 HR club (as opposed to 40 now) . 500 HRs would have put him 14th.

    I'm not sure how much more glamerous 500 would have looked to voters than 400. If they didn't put number 19 all-time in the HOF, not sure they would have put #14 in. Or at least I hope they wouldn't have. 236 BA is just tough to stomach

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X