The Dave Kingman Official HOF Thread
MeteoriteGuy
Posts: 7,140 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
He is 34th on MLB All-Time Home Run List with 442!
jk.
jk.
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
0
Comments
I don't mean to beat him up, as I was a fan of his. His 1972 RC remains one of my all-time favorites. ( I think it's a real cool-looking card!) "Kong" Kingman, as exciting as he was, simply was not a HOF calibre player.
<< <i>but he struck out a boatload of times! >>
That's true about Kingman, but that's not what is keeping him out of the HOF. I believe that Mickey Mantle, Willie Stargell, and Reggie Jackson all retired as the number one whiff artist of all-time. However, each one of those players had SO much more going for him. The point is that a boatload of strikeouts by itself isn't enough to keep a hitter out of the HALL. Kingman had nothing other than HR ability.
Edit: I meant almost 40 homers with fewer than 90 RBI, LOL...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Kingman was a real jerk to a lot of folks. pathetic batting average, less than impressive RBI totals.
not a shot in hell.
But I guarantee you - not a shadow of a doubt in my mind - that many, if not most people would argue in our frequent HOF threads here that he DID belong if he had played his entire career on the Boston Red Sox.
I am reasonably sure that he would actually BE in the HOF if he had played for the Red Sox.
{This is due to the relative ease with which a player like Kingman could have (and did) hit HR in Fenway, not to any Red Sox bias}
<< <i>Of course, Dave Kingman in the HOF is a joke.
But I guarantee you - not a shadow of a doubt in my mind - that many, if not most people would argue in our frequent HOF threads here that he DID belong if he had played his entire career on the Boston Red Sox.
I am reasonably sure that he would actually BE in the HOF if he had played for the Red Sox.
{This is due to the relative ease with which a player like Kingman could have (and did) hit HR in Fenway, not to any Red Sox bias} >>
Im not a huge supporter for Rice being in the HOF- yes I would like to see it but wont argue it either way so Im pretty sure I would feel the same way about Kingman. I would like to think most reasonable Sox fans feel this way..
I would think he had less then 100 at bats at Fenway.
Not enough to say with any certainty what he would have done there?
Steve
It was all or nothing for King Kong. I would have hated to get on his bad side, and receive mail.........
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Since Kingman only had around 1700 AL at bats, and he played mainly in the west how many homers did he hit at Fenway?
I would think he had less then 100 at bats at Fenway.
Not enough to say with any certainty what he would have done there?
Steve >>
I checked Retrosheet for Kingmans Fenway stats---- 76 at bats--13 homeruns.
No one has ever come close to playing that much with that low a batting average. Two recent players, Todd Hundley and Dave Valle combined had 133 fewer than Kingman
How is it even possible for someone to have a K/BB ratio of 3-to-1 and still have that much offensive value? That's Hal Lanier level. Forever the ultimate all-or-nothing hitter
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Big Dave ! Not an Ice balls chance in hell .
<< <i>As dallas pointed out, Kingman might very well BE in the HOF had he played in Boston, as his production while playing at Wrigley Field indicates. >>
I'm not sure I understand the connection between becoming a HOFer by playing for Boston based on production in Chicago.
I'm not sure I understand the connection between becoming a HOFer by playing for Boston based on production in Chicago.
Both parks were much better suited for Kingman to hit at than the pitcher-friendly Shea Stadium. In Chicago, in almost 3 full seasons, Kingman hit about .275 and as a visiting player, his best games were often vs the Cubs, as I well recall from watching him at that time. If Kingman had played in Boston or Chicago and hit 550 home runs with a career average of .260 instead of .240 would he be in the HOF? Would the voters pereceive him differently? Possibly. For the record, though, I do not think Kingman was close to being a HOF calibre player.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I think Frank Howard deserves to be in more than Kingman and that will not likely happen... >>
No argument. Frank Howard probably should be in the HOF; he is at least very, very close. Howard was to Dave Kingman what Bob Gibson was to Bob Forsch.
<< <i>If Kingman had played in Boston or Chicago and hit 550 home runs with a career average of .260 instead of .240 would he be in the HOF? Would the voters pereceive him differently? Possibly. For the record, though, I do not think Kingman was close to being a HOF calibre player. >>
Yes, that's exactly my point. People watch mediocrities like Kingman play in easy parks and convince themselves that they are good players. They watch good players like Jim Rice play in easy parks and convince themselves that they're great players. If Boog Powell could have played on George Sisler's teams 50 years earlier we might be asking "Babe who"?
Rice and Sisler had very good batting averages. In the case of Sisler, record highs; for Rice, often top 10, more importantly high enough to help with those big RBI totals. That is a major thing Hall-of-Fame voters have always looked at, even if incorrect. Dwight Evans was better a better player than Rice, Cy Williams was close to Sisler, both in nearly identical enviornments
If one points to his RBI totals, then one MUST point to his failures in RBI chances.
There are three reasons why he amassed more RBI than the plethora of better hitters from his time in MLB. 1) He simply had more opportunites with men on base, 2)He played in the best hitters park in the league, and 3)He swung more often, resulting in more RBI, but more outs(and failures of RBI) too.
This has been a public service announcement.
Kong playing at Fenway his whole career, and in that lineup, would certainly have artificially raised his perceived ability, and his 'traditional' stats, much like it did for other hitters who actually did have that opportunity.
I wouldn't base that on a 76 at bat sample size of what he did at Fenway, but on the THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of at bats sample size from the YEARS upon YEARS of home/road data of all the Fenway hitters, and all the visiting Fenway hitters(compared to the same thousands of data of all the other parks), that only a an ignorant homer could ignore and proclaim otherwise.
-Skin
Rice was a good hitter. Good on the Moises Alou level, not Alex Rodriguez level. His high failure is as much a product of his enviornment as his high success rate. Put Alou in the Red Sox 70s and 80s lineups and he would have done about as well as Rice. Rodriguez would have done far better, Kingman would have done worse. . .