Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was Kirby Hall of Fame Worthy?

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by micsmith

    Anyone else think his stats and career are pretty similar to Don Mattingly's?
    No. Their career totals are similar, but how their career folded and accumilated them is WAAAY different.

    And I have no problem with Kirby

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by micsmith
      Puckett is certainly a deserving Hall of Famer.

      Anyone else think his stats and career are pretty similar to Don Mattingly's?
      Looking at their averages/162 games, I think that their stats ARE similar. Well, not stolen bases. But, for the most part, they are similar. Now, their careers did not unfold the same way. I really don't have a problem with seeing Mattingly as a HOF. But Kirby has a much better case than Mattingly does.

      Comment


      • #18
        Puckett is a good solid HOFer. Not top tier, but not in the bottom tier either. The knock on him is his relatively short career, and although I'm certainly not in the business of giving player's injury credit he was very close at the time of his premature retirement anyway, so I have no qualms about him.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by dgarza
          Looking at their averages/162 games, I think that their stats ARE similar. Well, not stolen bases. But, for the most part, they are similar. Now, their careers did not unfold the same way. I really don't have a problem with seeing Mattingly as a HOF. But Kirby has a much better case than Mattingly does.
          Puckett is a much better player than Mattingly. Much more skilled on defense and a better runner, even if they were similar hitters. The fact Mattingly (a 1Bman) has similar hitting stats to Puckett (a CFer who's not HOF worthy on hitting alone), is a good case against Mattingly actually.

          Comment


          • #20
            No.

            The guy dies, and all of a sudden everyone thinks he was amazing, and forget he's easily a undeserving Hofer.

            Jim edmonds has better career stats than puckett, and Im sure many dont think he'll ever sniff cooperstown.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by 538280
              The fact Mattingly (a 1Bman) has similar hitting stats to Puckett (a CFer who's not HOF worthy on hitting alone), is a good case against Mattingly actually.
              Only if you have position biases.
              Or
              I don't think it should be used as a case against Mattingly, but I can see it as a case for Puckett. I just don't like to use a player's position to knock them. I would only use it to help them.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by lllllllllllllllllll

                The guy dies, and all of a sudden everyone thinks he was amazing
                I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure all those All Star selections came when he was alive.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by dgarza
                  I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure all those All Star selections came when he was alive.
                  He was helped a lot by his homepark, look at his splits.

                  http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/Jpuckk0010.htm

                  Ridiculous.

                  The guy was a solid player, nothing more, the fact he's getting compared to the alltime great CF'S in baseball history is 100% ridiculous.

                  You could certainly make a case jim edmonds is superior to puckett, and I guarantee you he won't sniff the HOF.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by lllllllllllllllllll
                    You could certainly make a case jim edmonds is superior to puckett, and I guarantee you he won't sniff the HOF.
                    I think Edmonds will get a damn good looking at for the HOF (at this point). I think he could be on the ballot for a few years.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by lllllllllllllllllll
                      No.

                      The guy dies, and all of a sudden everyone thinks he was amazing, and forget he's easily a undeserving Hofer.

                      Jim edmonds has better career stats than puckett, and Im sure many dont think he'll ever sniff cooperstown.
                      I've always thought Puckett was a great player, and Hall worthy, his death has just brought this up to the forefront. I had Puckett 7th (higher than most) long before there was an inkling of any of this, so I'm not sure where you are going with this.

                      As for Edmonds, what has he done? Has he ever led in anything? Not that I recall, he won a few GG's from his bat, and a few with his glove. He only has 1600 or so hits, and is already 35, so will be lucky to reach 2,000, and not due to some career ending injury. What, are you going to say that he has more HR's? Well, he played in the steroid era, so of course a power hitter is going to have more HR's. Puckett wasn't a HR hitter, he was a great OVERALL hitter, who on top of his great BA's, and doubles power, also hit a few HR's (around 20), and was MUCH better on the bases. And tell me, when was the last time Edmonds helped his team win a World Series - let alone 2? NEVER. In fact, in his sole World Series, he went 1-15, for a .067 BA, and 6 SO. And speaking of strikeouts, he is well on his way to ending in the top 10 (and possibly top 5) all-time on the SO list. He has 6 seasons in which he has had 130+ SO's.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by dgarza
                        Only if you have position biases.
                        Or
                        I don't think it should be used as a case against Mattingly, but I can see it as a case for Puckett. I just don't like to use a player's position to knock them. I would only use it to help them.
                        Even ignoring position deals, Puckett was a solid hitter through the entirity of his career while Mattingly was a monster for a few years and then was mediocre for the rest. They really don't compare at all.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I don't see Edmonds being in the same category as Puckett:

                          - They played a similar number of years (Edmonds going into 2006)

                          - Edmonds is a .291 career hitter, Puckett is .318

                          - Edmonds' career high in BA is .311, Puckett hit UNDER that only four times.

                          - Edmonds has appeared in 140 or more games 7 times, Puckett did it 9 times.

                          - Edmonds has more career HR and a higher OBP and SLG.

                          - Puckett has a higher BA, Hits (by 685) Runs, Doubles, Triples, RBI, SB, and SB%

                          - Puckett had 6 GG, Edmonds 8.

                          - Edmonds was an AS 4 times, Puckett 10.

                          - Edmonds won 1 SS, Puckett won 6.

                          - Puckett led his league in hits 4 times, BA once, RBI once, and Total Bases twice. Edmonds has yet to lead the league in any category.

                          Their Jamesian Metrics pretty much back this up:

                          Puckett
                          Black Ink: Batting - 22 (91) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
                          Gray Ink: Batting - 122 (151) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
                          HOF Standards: Batting - 38.8 (156) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
                          HOF Monitor: Batting - 155.5 (67) (Likely HOFer > 100)

                          Edmonds
                          Black Ink: 0
                          Gray Ink: Batting - 60 (400) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
                          HOF Standards: Batting - 37.6 (173) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
                          HOF Monitor: Batting - 83.5 (193) (Likely HOFer > 100)

                          Edmonds was a very good player...but with only 1,609 career hits, and never leading the league in any major category, I don't see him getting a lot of HOF support. Meanwhile, Puckett got in rather easily, as he should have. And yes, he did get in well before his death, so he was as good a candidate alive as dead.
                          Visit my card site at Mike D's Baseball Card Page.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Bravo!!!

                            Originally posted by lllllllllllllllllll
                            No.

                            The guy dies, and all of a sudden everyone thinks he was amazing, and forget he's easily a undeserving Hofer.

                            Jim edmonds has better career stats than puckett, and Im sure many dont think he'll ever sniff cooperstown.
                            This is a great comparison since Edmonds has played 13 years now compared to the 12 Puckett played::atthepc

                            Code:
                            	Hits	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	BB	K	AVG	OBP	SLG	A	E	FPct	RF
                            Edmonds	1619	362	21	331	998	59	825	1411	.291	.384	.543	136	43	.990	2.67
                            Puckett	2304	414	57	207	1085	134	450	965	.318	.360	.477	143	51	.989	2.67
                            So by my calculation that means that Puckett has 685 more hits, 52,more doubles, 36 more triples, 87 more RBI's, 75 more SB, 446 fewer strikeouts, 27 point highe BA, and 7 more assists than Jim Edmonds. All that being considered I am sure that Edmonds 124 more HR, 375 more BB, 24 point higher OBP, 66 point higher SLG and 1 extra gold glove really makes him the much better HOF candidate!

                            Seriously man I said I never really liked Puckett but exactly what were you looking at when you said Edmonds has better career stats?
                            I signed with the Milwaukee Braves for three-thousand dollars. That bothered my dad at the time because he didn't have that kind of dough. But he eventually scraped it up.~Bob Uecker


                            "While he had a total of forty home runs in his first two big-league seasons, it is unlikely that Aaron will break any records in this department." ~ Furman Bisher, Atlanta Journal and Constitution "journalist"

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by lllllllllllllllllll
                              No.

                              The guy dies, and all of a sudden everyone thinks he was amazing, and forget he's easily a undeserving Hofer.

                              Jim edmonds has better career stats than puckett, and Im sure many dont think he'll ever sniff cooperstown.
                              Man, this is good stuff!!! Better than any comedy material George carlin, Richard Pryor, or Bob Newhart ever did.

                              I do agree with you that Jim Edmonds will ever sniff Cooperstown.

                              Edmonds had a better career than Pucket??? Er...okay...whatever you say.

                              Yankees Fan Since 1957

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Naliamegod
                                They really don't compare at all.
                                Their numbers DO compare...because they are so similar (when taken as averages). They DID arrive at them differently, so their careers ARE NOT similar.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X