Dave Kingman and todays pitchers

[ChicagoDave]

Dave Kingman was always a player that absolutely fascinated my brother and I. Every year I would compare his home runs to those of Mike Schmidt.

My question for all of you stat heads and number crunchers is this.

How many home runs do you believe Kingman would hit with today's pitcher weak circuits?

Dave

[Slippery Pedro]

611 for his career.

[pwdennis]

I would expect that playing under today's conditions that Kingman would probably have increased his home runs somewhat (485-535 range) but at the cost of increased strikeouts and an even lower batting average. His known deficiencies (personality, abysmal fielding) would have ensured that his nomadic career pattern would have endured under modern conditions. Kingman was somewhat unique in his time as far as his power was concerned, but in today's game, that uniqueness would be lost.

I seriously doubt that Kingman could have held onto a job long enough to get to 600 homers

Originally posted by pwdennis
I would expect that playing under today's conditions that Kingman would probably have increased his home runs somewhat (485-535 range) but at the cost of increased strikeouts and an even lower batting average. His known deficiencies (personality, abysmal fielding) would have ensured that his nomadic career pattern would have endured under modern conditions. Kingman was somewhat unique in his time as far as his power was concerned, but in today's game, that uniqueness would be lost.

I seriously doubt that Kingman could have held onto a job long enough to get to 600 homers

I disagree; I believe that Kingman would have hit significantly more homers, struck out somewhat more but hit for a higher batting average anyway.

Nothing revolutionary, just following the trends of the rest of baseball. Kingman was not at all suited to baseball in the 70s and 80s, he would have been much better off playing in the 1990s.

[pwdennis]

Originally posted by Baudib


I disagree; I believe that Kingman would have hit significantly more homers, struck out somewhat more but hit for a higher batting average anyway.

Nothing revolutionary, just following the trends of the rest of baseball. Kingman was not at all suited to baseball in the 70s and 80s, he would have been much better off playing in the 1990s.

I don't disagree that Kingman is better suited to our era than his own BUT his talents would be less unique and his comparative advantage less than in his own time. Kingman was a greatly flawed ballplayer. Even with a higher BA (say .244 instead of his actual .236) I can't think of too many reasons to keep him around (and really do think Mr Wiff 'n Poof would have been about a .225 hitter in today's game - I don't think that his bat control would be very good in any era - regardless of the perceived quality of the pitching).

Originally posted by pwdennis


I don't disagree that Kingman is better suited to our era than his own BUT his talents would be less unique and his comparative advantage less than in his own time. Kingman was a greatly flawed ballplayer. Even with a higher BA (say .244 instead of his actual .236) I can't think of too many reasons to keep him around (and really do think Mr Wiff 'n Poof would have been about a .225 hitter in today's game - I don't think that his bat control would be very good in any era - regardless of the perceived quality of the pitching).

Yes but we're in the era of HIGH AVERAGES WHEN NOT STRIKING OUT, the highest in history. Kingman was a truly dominant home run hitter and if he were to continue to be a dominant home run hitter, he'd be hitting 55, 60 a year, instead of 35, and that alone would raise his average 30 points. He'd still be a flawed player, but he'd play at least as long as he did -- there are some who believe he was blackballed, the guy did hit 35 homers in his last year -- and he'd hit 600 homers instead of 440.

[Slippery Pedro]

If one were to take Kingman's HR% above the LgeAvg, and then apply that difference to the current LgeAvg from 1994-2001, and apply it to the number of ABs in Kingman's actual career, would that work? What would the final HR number be?

[SmedIndy]

I don't think that would work. I think there are plenty of hitters that have his pop, and he wouldn't be such an outlier like he was.

Kingman would have to be an AL player only. He couldn't survive in the NL right now with the shorter benches unless he could stick at 1B.

I'd say an average year for him now would be .253, with 45 taters, 105 RBI, 80 runs scored, 5 journalists pissed off per season, 1 trade every two years.

[pwdennis]

Kingman's batting line in 1986 at the age of 37 with the A's:

Games 144 / AB 561 / Runs 70 / Hits 118 / Doubles 19 / Triples 0 / HR 35 / RBI 94 / BB 33 / K 126 / AB .210 / OB .255 / SLG .431

I don't think I'd describe a player who produced these results as having been blackballed ! Particularly not one with as little defensive value as Kingman - these numbers MIGHT be ok for a 2B but this is an offensive zero for anything but a key defensive player. This is a TA below .500 . This was a mercy killing.

Remember, not every player is equally well equiped to take advantage of every change of conditions that occurs (Bill James makes this point at various points in his writings). While Kingman's average might creep upward a little (I am not really conceding this point), I doubt that his ability to make contact would improve. For his career Kingman walked 608 times to 1806 Ks (I would imagine this to be the worst ratio in history, although I have not researched the issue).

Originally posted by pwdennis
Kingman's batting line in 1986 at the age of 37 with the A's:

Games 144 / AB 561 / Runs 70 / Hits 118 / Doubles 19 / Triples 0 / HR 35 / RBI 94 / BB 33 / K 126 / AB .210 / OB .255 / SLG .431

I don't think I'd describe a player who produced these results as having been blackballed ! Particularly not one with as little defensive value as Kingman - these numbers MIGHT be ok for a 2B but this is an offensive zero for anything but a key defensive player. This is a TA below .500 . This was a mercy killing.

Except that the A's replaced him with a guy who wasn't any younger (42) or better (.220 .297 .402, while averages around the league soared in '87). There were certainly worse DHs around the league.

[Slippery Pedro]

Would it be safe to say that Greg Vaughn is a good current compare for Kong, statistically and liability-wise in the field?

If so, Vaughn's 1994-2001 HR/PA rate is .056. Kingman had 7429 PA - which would mean Kingman would have 416 HR, using the GVrate - - even less than he really had.

[SmedIndy]

Vaughn's HR rate is all over the place. Kong's was pretty consistent. I'd pick the median over the mean.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Baudib


Except that the A's replaced him with a guy who wasn't any younger (42) or better (.220 .297 .402, while averages around the league soared in '87). There were certainly worse DHs around the league.

It may have not been a blackball. The A's may have just guessed wrong.

Originally posted by Slippery Pedro
Would it be safe to say that Greg Vaughn is a good current compare for Kong, statistically and liability-wise in the field?

If so, Vaughn's 1994-2001 HR/PA rate is .056. Kingman had 7429 PA - which would mean Kingman would have 416 HR, using the GVrate - - even less than he really had.

I don't see Vaughn as a good comp for Kingman. In any event, I can't comprehend how you can project a great HR hitter -- Kingman was an awful player, but a great HR hitter, you can't question that -- into the greatest HR era of all time and think that he would hit fewer homers.

[LeGrandOrange]

Vaughn can actually play the field semi well, he just can't play it all the time due to injuries. He can also draw walks better. He just sucks in Tampa Bay. Vaughn's more Rick Monday then anything else. but without the hatred in Montreal and without being in CF. If he keeps it up for a few years, he might get a NetShrine nomination and might join his cousin here if Hit Dog ever stops getting injured.
I think the only thing Dave Kingman would have more of playing in this era, besides fans throwing stuff at him, is strikeouts. He'd probably have 2,000-so of them. I don't really expect him to have more than 442 HR's if he were playing in a modern era...