Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if Dave Kingman had 500 HRs. HOFER?

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

  • Herr28
    replied
    Originally posted by westsidegrounds View Post
    Although, if you're only going to be good at one thing, hitting home runs is a pretty good thing to only be good at.
    You are probably right, I guess. However, I grew up with fast running/great defense teams that didn't rely on home runs to score (other than a George Hendrick or a Jack Clark in the order)! As a kid, I always preferred the stolen base guys to the home run hitters. Ironically, though, at the same time I really liked Kingman, Gorman Thomas, Tony Armas, Steve Balboni and Ron Kittle! They couldn't steal a base if the catcher left the field for a pitch or two, and didn't contribute much more offensively than the home run. Thomas was a pretty fast runner when he was young, though.

    Leave a comment:


  • westsidegrounds
    replied
    Although, if you're only going to be good at one thing, hitting home runs is a pretty good thing to only be good at.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herr28
    replied
    Originally posted by jalbright View Post
    To the discussion at hand, I don't believe there is any one magic number that should put a guy into the Hall. Even 3000 hits, which certainly speaks to some hitting skill plus a notable durability, shouldn't do the trick in and of itself. It should be a consideration of the overall body of work. A Kingman or Adam Dunn hasn't done enough by making it to 500 homers basically because there isn't enough other positives to go with the dingers. Usually, what happens is a guy who makes one of these milestones has more than just that one statistic to point to, and the things that flesh out the record make them worthy. We've definitely have seen guys make it based on 300 wins or 3000 hits when there isn't a lot to go with that one magic number. The fact such errors have been made in the past shouldn't be a reason to repeat them.
    Absolutely, but it will be difficult to convince many of the baseball fans (of varying degrees of interest and knowledge) that those so called magic numbers are not enough - especially if it concerns their favorite player or a guy who starred on their favorite team! For example, I know a lot of Cardinal fans in my family that absolutely love the team, are very informed on the history of the team and its successes, yet don't go beyond the Arch very far in their knowledge of the rest of the game. Many of them, and bless their hearts, will tell you (in that pleasant Midwestern way) that Lou Brock is one of the greatest players in history - after all he beat the great Ty Cobb in stolen bases. Now, we can all see the holes in the logic, but to point to some magic numbers like 3,000 hits or 300 wins is just too easy for some people who do love and pay attention to the game, but don't see beyond certain numbers.

    I think that is part of the discussion as well. It will bring out those who will challenge any assertion that a guy who hit 500 home runs, but didn't contribute in any other meaningful way, is anything but a Hall of Famer. The number is there, in that one stat, and that ends the conversation for some. Again, we can see how that logic is flawed, but some don't. It is the natural result of pointing to certain magic numbers in the first place, I guess. If that had never happened, I don't think there would be any issue with this at all. Of course, people like stuff like that - easy to define cut offs to determine "greatness."

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    To the discussion at hand, I don't believe there is any one magic number that should put a guy into the Hall. Even 3000 hits, which certainly speaks to some hitting skill plus a notable durability, shouldn't do the trick in and of itself. It should be a consideration of the overall body of work. A Kingman or Adam Dunn hasn't done enough by making it to 500 homers basically because there isn't enough other positives to go with the dingers. Usually, what happens is a guy who makes one of these milestones has more than just that one statistic to point to, and the things that flesh out the record make them worthy. We've definitely have seen guys make it based on 300 wins or 3000 hits when there isn't a lot to go with that one magic number. The fact such errors have been made in the past shouldn't be a reason to repeat them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herr28
    replied
    Originally posted by westsidegrounds View Post
    Truth.

    Also, it sure looks like the wilder "suspicions" - like Frank Thomas - are really only made to discredit the entire issue, so that the accusers' (known PED-using) favorites won't look so bad.
    There is probably a lot of truth in that, as well. I think it goes back to the other factors that would allow guys (clean or otherwise) to really succeed in the 1990s while at the plate. The whole decade was building up to crazy things by the end, but none of this has to do with Dave Kingman - so I won't get into all that.

    I guess the point of the thread is really about these "magic numbers?" If player X hits 500 home runs, or player Y wins 300 games, then do they automatically get enshrined (without the stench of the above issue) in Cooperstown? It is the same talk that popped up when discussing (more valid candidates in my mind) Bert Blyleven, Jim Kaat and Tommy John, if they only got to 300...

    Leave a comment:


  • westsidegrounds
    replied
    Originally posted by jalbright View Post


    It's not meant to be a game decided by who has the best pharmacist.
    Truth.

    Also, it sure looks like the wilder "suspicions" - like Frank Thomas - are really only made to discredit the entire issue, so that the accusers' (known PED-using) favorites won't look so bad.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herr28
    replied
    Originally posted by jalbright View Post
    Perhaps it was that prevalent. But ignoring the issue entirely presumes it was that bad, and the evidence for that is as flawed as the "suspicions" based on photographs and whether the person viewing the photo happens to like or dislike the pictured player and also ignores the issue that baseball is meant to be a sport of human versus human with minimal equipment involved. It's not meant to be a game decided by who has the best pharmacist. The bottom line is there's no truly satisfactory answer to a situation in which baseball buried its head in the sand for a decade or more. It's a sad mess that has done the sport no good.
    I agree with what you are saying, and I also think other issues/factors in the 1990s (like the two waves of expansion, non-PED workout routines, etc) help feed the idea that the whole offensive explosion was chemically enhanced. I think many of us can clearly see the effects of numerous factors at play during that time, and know that the spike in offense wasn't solely the result of some (or many) guys using PEDs.

    I am a bit suspicious of many players from that era, up to today, but I won't point the finger at them. I accepted it as a normal part of the process, but that doesn't mean that I agree with it or like it. It just is, because it happened, and here we are left to figure it out. But, the stuff is all around and may be more common than many realize. I knew a lot of guys who were using steroids in high school ball back in 1991-1994, when I was in school, and it didn't stop then either. I knew a lot of guys in the army, same age as these overly paid athletes, who were also using to help with their workouts while in Iraq and Afghanistan. Same mentality, really. I also don't toss the players under the bus after being caught - unless they make other egregious errors of judgement like Ryan Braun's terrible behavior.

    It is a truly idiotic situation to be in for fans that truly love the game, and its rich history. I love the last two lines in your post - sums it up pretty good!

    Leave a comment:


  • Herr28
    replied
    Originally posted by PVNICK View Post
    He wouldn't have the numbers to even make the ballot without the PEDs. Pre-1998 he was what? Lee May except spending his prime playing in Wrigley rather than the Astrodome in an expanded league.
    Exactly. I looked up his career numbers for a post in another thread around here a month or so ago. Pretty pathetic in that pre-'98 60+ HR span. And he came back to linger around to get over the 600 hump. No thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
    Except Braun and Palmeiro were actually suspended by MLB, Clemens and Bonds were NEVER sanctioned by MLB. That is a huge difference and of one the fundemental arguments against punishing the PED users based on "evidence" and giving people a pass based on lack of "evidence." The kangaroo court that you lament is used far by the PED accusers who have the "evidence" than those who are realistic enough to think that most players did it. I think that you miss that point entirely. To say that we should suspect everyone is simply saying that by throwing names like Griffey, we are just pointing out the absurdity of the whole witchchunt. Really, who really isn't suspect. And you know what? I don't care at all, because I see the futility of the whole anti-PED process.
    Perhaps it was that prevalent. But ignoring the issue entirely presumes it was that bad, and the evidence for that is as flawed as the "suspicions" based on photographs and whether the person viewing the photo happens to like or dislike the pictured player and also ignores the issue that baseball is meant to be a sport of human versus human with minimal equipment involved. It's not meant to be a game decided by who has the best pharmacist. The bottom line is there's no truly satisfactory answer to a situation in which baseball buried its head in the sand for a decade or more. It's a sad mess that has done the sport no good.

    Leave a comment:


  • PVNICK
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post
    Sosa would go in, probably first ballot, were he not a PED user.
    He wouldn't have the numbers to even make the ballot without the PEDs. Pre-1998 he was what? Lee May except spending his prime playing in Wrigley rather than the Astrodome in an expanded league.

    Leave a comment:


  • willshad
    replied
    Originally posted by Herr28 View Post
    I know, but so is the 600 HR club. It is still extremely exclusive despite the huge spike in home runs in the 1990s and 2000s. Fewer guys are in the 600+ club than were in the 500+ club back when Kingman would have joined it, if he could have. That is why I brought up Sosa.
    Sosa would go in, probably first ballot, were he not a PED user.

    Leave a comment:


  • JR Hart
    replied
    Originally posted by jalbright View Post
    If you have a problem with guys who clearly meet the standard I set out in my post, like Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens or Ryan Braun or Rafael Palmiero or Gary Sheffield (and many more),
    Except Braun and Palmeiro were actually suspended by MLB, Clemens and Bonds were NEVER sanctioned by MLB. That is a huge difference and of one the fundemental arguments against punishing the PED users based on "evidence" and giving people a pass based on lack of "evidence." The kangaroo court that you lament is used far by the PED accusers who have the "evidence" than those who are realistic enough to think that most players did it. I think that you miss that point entirely. To say that we should suspect everyone is simply saying that by throwing names like Griffey, we are just pointing out the absurdity of the whole witchchunt. Really, who really isn't suspect. And you know what? I don't care at all, because I see the futility of the whole anti-PED process.

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    Originally posted by Joltin' Joe View Post
    I was replying to a poster who was referring to a "clean" list. I don't see how anyone can know who is clean and not clean.
    I'll agree it's impossible to be 100% certain who did and who did not use. But the context in which you made the post certainly seemed to me and at least some others that suspicion was a reasonable ground on which to exclude people from the Hall. If I read something into what was there, I apologize. That said, a little more clarity of your point would also help avoid these kinds of problems. Truth is, I do get sick of the whole suspicion is enough to exclude a guy angle. If you have a problem with guys who clearly meet the standard I set out in my post, like Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens or Ryan Braun or Rafael Palmiero or Gary Sheffield (and many more), I may disagree with you, but I have respect for the position. But when we allow whispers to tar guys like Griffey, against whom there really is no evidence, that just offends my sense of justice. I just have to say enough is enough at that point. If we haven't already inducted juicers, we will unless we just close the doors of the Hall to everybody who played in the eighties until the present day and beyond. It seems to me to be impossible to get a completely "clean" Hall, and, in truth, not advisable to exclude everyone solely because of mere "suspicion", which can be conjured up by imagining the shadows into which we cannot see clearly to always be hiding monsters.

    I'm sorry if I came on too strong, but if you've seen as many of these arguments as I have, much less participated in even a small fraction of them, you realize how difficult and frustrating it is to deal with absolutists who are convinced of the rectitude of their absolutism. I take a position which is clearly between the two camps (exclude guys who 1) can reasonably be proven to have used who 2) it at least seems reasonable to believe wouldn't be HOFers without the pharmaceutical help). For taking a position between the two warring camps, I get the privilege of being attacked from both sides. So I tend not to get involved in these cases unless something in a post really irks me, and, rightly or wrongly, I saw that in your post. It seems from your subsequent posts that I had the wrong impression, and that being the case, I apologize.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fuzzy Bear
    replied
    Originally posted by jalbright View Post
    And if everyone was juicing, how can we determine who gained an advantage over his peers by using PEDs? If it wasn't that prevalent, it comes down to what you're willing to live with--letting in some juicers, or keeping out clean guys. Personally, if the evidence isn't there to prove more likely than not in a civil trial in our courts that the guy used, I don't care what anyone thinks from comparing photographs, listening to anonymous hearsay, or just being suspicious for the sake of being suspicious. It's unfair to tar people with that brush if you can't meet that standard.
    I, personally, believe that PEDs were rampant enough to be a condition of the era. That does not prevent us from determining who were the best of that era, and adjust standards accordingly.

    Leave a comment:


  • jalbright
    replied
    Originally posted by Joltin' Joe View Post
    To me Thome and Thomas is highly suspect. Griffey is less so but still can't eliminate him. There's no way you can classify anyone as clean.

    Are you saying you believe Pujols to be clean?
    This kind of stuff reminds me of McCarthy era tactics, where everyone can be and is suspected--until Senator McCarthy overstepped his limits by trying to apply his game to the military, at which point finally people stood up and said enough is enough. It's either paranoia run amok, or juicing really was so prevalent as to be an integral part of the times, like speakeasies in the 20's. And if everyone was juicing, how can we determine who gained an advantage over his peers by using PEDs? If it wasn't that prevalent, it comes down to what you're willing to live with--letting in some juicers, or keeping out clean guys. Personally, if the evidence isn't there to prove more likely than not in a civil trial in our courts that the guy used, I don't care what anyone thinks from comparing photographs, listening to anonymous hearsay, or just being suspicious for the sake of being suspicious. It's unfair to tar people with that brush if you can't meet that standard.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X