From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: DAVE KINGMAN FOR THE HALL OF FAME
Originator: news@nimaster
Nntp-Posting-Host: crux.princeton.edu
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Lines: 85

In article <1993Apr15.093231.5148@news.yale.edu> (Steve Tomassi) writes:
>     Hi, baseball fans! So what do you say? Don't you think he deserves it?
>I

>mean, heck, if Dave Winfield (ho-hum) is seriously being considered for it,
>as

>is Lee Smith (ha), then why don't we give Dave Kingman a chance? Or Darrell

>Evans! Yeah, yeah! After the Hall of Fame takes in them, it can take in
>Eddie

>Murray and Jeff Reardon.

Um, what?  Eddie Murray was a superb first baseman for a *long* time.

Winfield as produced consistently for almsot 20 years, and excellently
on several occasions.  

Dave Kingman's *best* year was like Darryl Strawberry's *typical*
year with the Mets.  

Darrell Evans, too, did a whole lot more than just hit homers, which 
*is* all that Kong did.  

>     Well, in any case, I am sick and tired (mostly sick) of everybody
>giving

>Hall of Fame consideration to players that are by today's standards,
>marginal.

Whom are you talking about?  Yes, Eddie Murray is marginal, but that's
because he's 38 years old.  He wasn't marginal for a *long* time.

>Honestly, Ozzie Smith and Robin Yount don't belong there. They're both

>shortstops that just hung around for a long time. Big deal.

Not.  

Smith has hung around for a long time AND fielded the position better 
than anyone else ever has.

Yount stopped being a shortstop about a decade ago, in case you hadn't 
noticed.

One of his two MVP awards was as a centerfielder.

>     Let's be a little more selective, huh? Stop handing out these honors
>so

>liberally. Save them for the guys who really deserve it. Face it, if

Like whom?  There are many players in the Hall who aren't anywhere near
as goos as the guys you're running down.

>something
>isn't done, there will be little prestige in the Hall of Fame anymore. When

That's already the case, by some standards.  But the *bad* players in the 
Hall are all from the 20's and 30's.  Recent picks have generally been
excellent.

>certain individuals believe that Steve Garvey or Jack Morris are potential
>candidates, the absurdity is apparent. Gee, can these guys even compare to
>the more likely future Hall of Famers like Kirby Puckett or Nolan Ryan?

No, but who cares?  Was Stan Musial anywhere near as good as Babe Ruth?
Not really.  But he obviously belongs there.

The Hall has generally had about the top 1% of major leaguers.  As 
more players come through the game, more will be in that top 1%.  

And, yes, it's pretty easy to argue that Smith,. Yount, Evans, Winfield,
etc. are in the top 1%.  Dave Kingman on the other hand, was a liability
throughout most of his career.

Of course, Garvey *hasn't* gotten a lot of HOF press, so I don't know
what you mean.  

As for Ryan, is his W-L better than Morris'?  That's what a lot of voters
tend to look at.  And Morris *was* awfully good for a decade, and doesn't
lead MLB history in walks allowed, either.

Roger
