Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pat Burrell or Dave Kingman

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

  • Ashburn1
    replied
    If I were building a team, I would go with Pat over Kingman, but I do have fond memories of Kong from when I was a kid.

    I first became really aware of him when I was 10. It was 1979, and the Phils were lumbering through a disapointing season that would see them finish in 4th place, so the biggest thing for me to get excited about was the NL home run race between him and Mike Schmidt. Kingman came out on top in that one, 48-45 (gaudy numbers in those days), and even though he was on the Cubs I came to become a secret fan of the big, hulking gorilla of a slugger, and always paid attention when he came to bat in hopes of seeing a moon shot. Of course, I usually ended up seeing a big whiff, but the all or nothing aspect of Kong watching is what made him so exciting. It helped that he wasn't on my team, I probably would have been constantly frustrated by him if he was a Phillie. When he went to the Mets in '81, I got to see him live several times at Shea and I loved watching him go up there and swing for the parking lot.

    Isn't his 35 home runs for Oakland in '86 a record for a player's final season?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Kid
    replied
    Pat Burell. More selective.

    Leave a comment:


  • HDH
    replied
    C'Mon now, Rob Deer wasn't that horrible in the OF as Kong. Deer was just a bull... That reminds me, maybe I should've compaired Greg Luzinski and Burrell. The only OF I've seen lately reminding me of Kingman's defense; Chris Duncan looked very Kong-Like in the post-season. I remember Hal McRae was just lousy as was Billy Williams; Rusty Staub threw underhanded. Just imagine how bad Roy Johnson or Babe Herman must ave been.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dodgerfan1
    replied
    We could probably have a poll asking who was worse, Rob Deer or Dave Kingman?

    Leave a comment:


  • leecemark
    replied
    --Deer was, amazingly enough, significantly worse at actually making contact than Kingman. He was better at most other aspects of the game though. He had some paitience at the plate, was a pretty good defensive outfielder and had decent speed on the bases. If he hit .220 he was a plus outfielder and if he hit .250 he was All Star caliber. Unfortunately, he couldn't always manage even the .220 . Kingman had the better career, mostly because he got more opportunities. Whether he was actually a better player is debatable.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dodgerfan1
    replied
    Originally posted by KCGHOST
    You are going to have to go deeper into the barrel to find someone worse than Kingman.
    Rob Deer??

    Leave a comment:


  • KCGHOST
    replied
    You are going to have to go deeper into the barrel to find someone worse than Kingman.

    Leave a comment:


  • CTaka
    replied
    Pat Burrell is a far better all around player than Kong. I've seen both play and the only similarity is their height.

    Remember that Burrell is actually fairly decent at getting on base. His career OBP is 21 points above league average because he is willing to take a walk (whe he isn't whiffing). Kong was far more impatient; he didn't walk nearly as much as you'd think a guy with his power would. His career OBP was actually 27 points BELOW league average.

    Burrell certainly doesn't remind anyone of Ichiro in the outfield and his resemblance to a statue can be frustrating. But he isn't THAT bad, at least not if you've had the misfortune of watching Kingman attempt to play the outfield. Burrell's fielding percentage is close to league average (2 points below) but his range factor is 21 points above league average. I think that's more a testament to decent positioning than it is speed - since he has none. But Kingman's fielding percentage was 22 points BELOW league average and his range factor was 15 points BELOW league average. That's a lot! And his errors were often just rediculous; I'd wonder if it was possible for anyone beyond Little League to actually be that bad. Statistically he was just about as bad at 1B, but most of my memories of his foibles were in the outfield.

    I understand that Burrell can be frustrating for Philly fans, but he looks like an All Star compared to Kong!

    Leave a comment:


  • HDH
    started a poll Pat Burrell or Dave Kingman

    Pat Burrell or Dave Kingman

    16
    Pat Burrell
    75.00%
    12
    Dave Kingman
    25.00%
    4
    Pat Burrell reminds me most of Dave Kingman (Kong). If you ever saw him, Kingman was as one dimensional player as there ever was. He went for a homerun with every long looping swing. He was a bad 1B and a bad LF. He was very tall (6-6) and could run some but, looked quite awkward. Except when he played the Dodgers, every hit, every HR was meaningless. However, he was a fan favorite. Who would you rather have, Pat Burrell or a man named Kong?
    Last edited by HDH; 12-18-2006, 08:32 PM.

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X