Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kiki Cuyler

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

  • TomBodet
    replied
    Or maybe he would, you're just not seein' it. *shrugs*

    Leave a comment:


  • Freakshow
    replied
    Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    A side question, is "Kiki" pronounced "Key-Key" or "K'eye-K'eye"?
    It's the latter, rhyming with the first syllable of his last name.

    My summation of Cuyler is exactly what I said about Hooper last week: he is not one of the Hall's egregious errors; he is not among their worst 20 players. However, he is clearly a "mistake" - if Cuyler were eligible now he would not rate among the top 50 candidates for the Hall.

    Leave a comment:


  • Honus Wagner Rules
    replied
    A side question, is "Kiki" pronounced "Key-Key" or "K'eye-K'eye"?

    Leave a comment:


  • TomBodet
    replied
    Was always under the impression that Cuyler was Very good in Rf, Mr Manush OK in left, Roush great in cf.

    As far's their relative Hof creds--borderliners, but am glad they're in.

    Leave a comment:


  • leecemark
    replied
    --Cuyler was a second tier star at his peak and that isn't good enough for a guy with his shortish career. Very nice player, but there are probably a couple dozen outfielders outside the Hall of Fame who are as/more deserving.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fuzzy Bear
    replied
    Originally posted by rsuriyop
    Juding from his stats and other sources, Cuyler was a true all-arounder. So I don't see why he'd be undeserving of the honor.
    I'm not in favor about ripping out Cuyler's plaque, but really: If Cuyler, why not Mattingly? If Cuyler, why not Will Clark? If Cuyler, why not Albert Belle? We won't even touch Ron Santo.

    Cuyler is a short career guy who had a rep for loafing at times. He was NOT a team leader; he gets no boost from intangibles. He was a pretty good player who hit for a good BA in a high BA era who was elected to the HOF the winter after Yaz won the AL batting title at .301. He did not have exceptional defensive value; he was OK in the field. He is proof of Bill James' assertion that as time passes, the image of a player fades, and his induction to the HOF rests more and more on his batting stats, which remain constant.

    I have a tough time viewing Cuyler as better than Mattingly or Clark. I view Albert Belle as CLEARLY superior. I would like some feedback on that. Those guys had the same career length as Cuyler, and much higher peaks.

    Leave a comment:


  • rsuriyop
    replied
    Juding from his stats and other sources, Cuyler was a true all-arounder. So I don't see why he'd be undeserving of the honor.

    Leave a comment:


  • bluezebra
    replied
    Originally posted by tibber
    how about luke appling? or heinie manush, a guy i feel is really underated (and not just because i'm protective of my fellow alabamians.)
    I saw Appling play many times. For most of his career, he was the best position player on the White Sox, and one of the best short stops in MLB. Two AL batting titles, one at .388, and a career .310. How many short stops have those stats?

    Bob

    Leave a comment:


  • Brownie31
    replied
    Most teams of their era would have been glad to have either Manush
    or Cuyler in their lineup. Joe McCarthy, the greatest manager in the
    history of the game, went out of his way to get Cuyler for the Cubs
    and Cuyler was one of his coaches with the Red Sox. Manush was
    also an asset to the game. One could say, if one were so inclined,
    that Albert Pujols is a home run hitter when home run hitters are
    a dime a dozen!

    My beef with the HOF is not over whose in, but whose not.
    In particular Lefty O'Doul and Gil Hodges!

    Brownie31

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    What about Red Faber? Edd Roush? Sam Rice? Zach Wheat? I think all of these guys and Cuyler and Willis are all lower-third, but definately deserving members.

    Manush is borderline, but I have no problem with him making it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fuzzy Bear
    replied
    baseballreference.com shows Manush elected to the HOF in 1964, while Cuyler was elected in 1968. I don't know why I thought that Manush and Cuyler went in together, but I remember it that way from my youth. Goes to show the accuracy of youthrul memories.

    Manush had a longer career than Cuyler, but he was an impatient hitter who didn't walk all that much. He was elected at a time where his .330 lifetime BA carried a lot of weight. I rate him ahead of Cuyler, who walked more, mainly on career length.

    If Cuyler is a HOFer, why isn't Don Mattingly, Dick Allen, and Will Clark? Those guys had short careers, and were, arguably, better players. I don't want to rip Cuyler's plaque out, but if he retired today, the BBWAA would not elect him; he'd be in danger of "one and done".

    Leave a comment:


  • tibber
    replied
    i wasn't comparing manush to youngs or ferrell, just using them as examples of oft-criticized descions that i have no problem with. ferrell's numbers wouldn't be HOF worthy at any other position, but he was a catcher, who i think you have to judge a bit differently than you would another position. i believe youngs would have made it in anyway had he lived and kept up his pace, and i can't see why he wouldn't have.

    Leave a comment:


  • leecemark
    replied
    --I'd say 4th rather than 3rd, but thats a pretty minor difference. Manush was much better than Ferrell or Youngs - they are the kinds of players I'd describe as bottom tier or simply bad choices.

    Leave a comment:


  • tibber
    replied
    Originally posted by leecemark
    --He is best known as a high average hitter in an era when they were a dime a dozen. To be fair,he was one of the better guys at doing it. However, he wasn't nearly the best BA man of his time - leading the league only once. He had little power and barely over league average OBP. He was primarily a LF with no better than average defensive skills and he didn't steal bases. He isn't the top 100 in either Black or Grey Ink.
    --I don't think he was one of the very worst choices for Cooperstown, but he is closer to the bottom than the top. He barely cracks my top 25 LFers. Which numbers do you think merit him ranking higher?
    well, he's certainly not to tier. but in a 5 tier hall of fame, i think he should at least rank 3rd tier. a .330 BA with 2524 hits, which he led the league in twice. 4 top 5 finishes in MVP balloting. true, he only won one batting title but he finished in the top ten eight other times, including two runner-up finishes. he's in the top 50 in doubles and triples, putting him among very good company and ahead of some others.

    but who knows. maybe my HOF standards aren't high enough. i mean, i don't see any problem with rick ferrell or ross youngs. *shrug*

    Leave a comment:


  • J W
    replied
    Imapotato has a good point about Roger Connor, the other great first baseman of the 19th century. I think it's the very fact he's a 19th century player that makes him forgotten to Joe Baseballfan... who frankly may or may not even recognize Cap Anson or Dan Brouthers.

    I could go a step further. There may be an argument that "real baseball" began in 1900, but Joe Baseballfan may not realize that the sport existed prior to Babe Ruth.

    Kuyler and Manush are each other's most similar player... they played relatively the same position, at the same time, but in different leagues. I'm not really sure which one was the better player (yet) but I can definitely say that Joe Baseballfan has never heard of either guy.
    Last edited by J W; 07-13-2004, 12:16 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X