1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

David Cone and Orel Hershiser

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Dick Whitman, Aug 11, 2011.

  1. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    Tell me, MankyJimy, you don't happen to do Youtube videos about fitness and steroids-in-baseball do you?

    And pertaining to that, do you pull provably, demonstratively hot chicks?
     
  2. MankyJimy

    MankyJimy Active Member

    I believe that with the right arguments a majority of the voters can be persuaded to vote for Kingman, if he were allowed back on the ballot. Blyleven also started out with a small % of the vote and slowly built up to the 75%
     
  3. MankyJimy

    MankyJimy Active Member

    Nope, you must have me confused with someone else.
     
  4. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    That's what I was hoping to hear. Congrats! You have his new job! Wear it well!
     
  5. Yes, sir!
     
  6. I'm glad Blyleven made it into the HoF. Now we don't have to hear him talk about how great he was and how he deserves to be in the HoF. I'm not a fan of self promoters.
     
  7. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    Where Kingman's name is interesting is with the comparison to McGwire. They were very, very similar, one dimensional players and neither is deserving of going anywhere near Cooperstown.

    Both were complete douchebags too.
     
  8. sgreenwell

    sgreenwell Well-Known Member

    McGwire was a hell of a better player than Kingman. McGwire had a good batting eye; for his career, his OBP was 130 points higher than his batting average, which is usually the sign of a patient hitter. In comparison, Kingman's swing was about 70 points, and his batting average was much lower for the career, in the .230s.
     
  9. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    they weren't similar at all
     
  10. BrianGriffin

    BrianGriffin Active Member

    Kingman was a good home run hitter, period. To me, that makes him an interesting side note, not a Hall-of-Famer. The amazing thing to me about Kingman is he kept getting at-bats as opposed to, say, Rob Deer, who was essentially the same player only the game lacked patience for his lack of patience at the plate. At least Deer would draw walks. But given 2,800 more at-bats, Deer may have matched Kingman. But who was going to give that many more wasted at-bats to a Deer or Kingman by mid-90s?
     
  11. cyclingwriter

    cyclingwriter Active Member

    That is an interesting question because Deer (if I remember correctly) also had a great arm in right, so in theory he was more valuable than Kingman. So why did Kingman get a long career?

    I am going to say two things (both hypothesis)
    1. Kingman came up in the 1970s where hitting homeruns was slight tougher, but more esteemed. Ie..most scouts, gms and fans thought it was more important than a guy who drew walks, bunted, ran the bases properly, but had no power). Therefore he stuck around. Deer came up just as things such as Baseball Abstract was catching attention and some teams, scouts, gms..they eventually realized Deer had a relative lack of worth despite his homers.

    2. Kingman had "potential." He had been the no. 1 overall draft pick in 1970, was 6-6, and looked athletic. He got to play because managers thought they could maybe unleash his full ability.

    Like I said, these are just stabs...because it is a good question.
     
  12. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

    Rob Deer, master of the 30 HRS/60 RBI line.
     
Write your reply...
Uploads are not available.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page