I know he was fun to watch and had an impressive .318 career average, but his OBP was only .360 and he barely cracked 200 homers. And while injury curtailed his career, I'm not sure how much more he would have done given that he was already 35 years old. Great hitter for average, not much patience at the plate. Gold Glove in CF, but no MVPs or truly monster seasons.
I'm on the fence....I'll give the points to whoever can convince me one way or the other. And please, make arguments better than "he was awesome" or anything based on a play he made in a game you happened to watch.
2007-07-08 17:03:50 · 9 answers · asked by Craig S 7 in Sports ➔ Baseball
Yes, he does deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. You neglected to mention that he was the best player on two World Series-winning teams. Also, what's wrong with a .360 OBP? Granted, it's not extremely high, but it's higher than Hall of Famers Lou Brock (.343), Robin Yount (.342), Reggie Jackson (.356), and Yogi Berra (.348). Also Hall of Famers George Brett and Paul Molitor had career OBPs of .369, not much higher than Puckett. The problem with many people today is that they look too deeply into meaningless stats. Puckett and the aforementioned players were hackers, and great hitters or power hitters, which is what fans love. Fans want to see players swing the bat, not work the count and walk. Who would you rather watch, Kevin Youkilis,whose at-bats take 10 minutes, or Alfonso Soriano, who is always a threat to hit one out, or up the gap?
Not that I'm a huge fan of on-base percentages (it hasn't exactly translated into a World Series championship for Billy "Moneyball" Beane), but a .360 OBP for a team would be great, it's just ridiculous to think of that as a huge factor when looking at a player's career.
Puckett WAS great, and I believe that he had at least three good years left, and I am glad that the BBWAA took that into account when voting for him. Puckett had a great average, lots of 200 hit seasons, power, played a great center field, and was the cornerstone of two championship teams. Yes, he did have a few monster seasons, as he played the majority of his career before what is now generally recognized as the steroid era. For example, his 1988 stats of .356-24-121 (with 42 doubles) may not seem great today, but in 1988, it was amazing. Who won MVP that year? Jose Canseco, an admitted steroid user.
2007-07-08 17:53:33 · answer #1 · answered by Jeffrey S 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
To me a Hall of Famer goes beyond being a great player on a stat sheet. If someone were to look at Dave Kingman's power totals you would have to think that he were in the HOF but if you watched him play you would say, he is good but not great. Kirby was the opposite, when you finished watching him play a game you felt like you saw something special. He had good numbers at the plate but also always came up with the clutch hit, walk, hbp (whatever they needed at that time). I think the defense is what pushed him over the top though...you saw someone do everything you could imagine in the feild. It is hard to justify that his statistics were HOF worthy but the play on the field is what spoke loudest for him. Some players you can not measure what they do for the game with a stat sheet. It is like Joe Namath in Football, if you look at his stats you say "journeyman QB with a few decent years" but it is what he brought to the game that made him a HOF.
Stats say that Palmeiro should be a first ballot HOF but is there really anything about him that makes you think he deserves the hall? Not really for me, he was a good player but not the kind that you talk about in the train after the game for what he had done! Kirby was someone that you would spend an hour talking about what youo saw him just do...with him a single could always be a double, doubles could always be triples...and triples he almost had a heart attack by the time he got to third so no way were they inside the parkers!
I hope this has been at least some what enlightening.
2007-07-09 09:27:26 · answer #2 · answered by bdough15 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
6 silver slugger awards, and you mentioned the batting averages and OBP. Though his OBP was a bit low, the guy averaged 90 runs scored per season. Two-time world series champ, and the captain of each of the teams that he played on. Was an All-Star 10 out of 12 seasons, averaged 192 hits per season, and would have had 3000 hits if he hadplayed 5 more seasons. Played no less than 108 games per season, averaged 148 games/season. Put it this way, his stats are much better than Craig Biggio, and Bigg is going to Cooperstown one of theses days without a World Series (probably).
The guy is already a HOF'er because the writers loved him, the way he played, and because he achieved more in a 12 season career than anyone else really has. 1,00 hits in his first five seasons, and 2,000 in his 1st 10. Pretty amazing. Let's not forget the way we played the field, and the prettiest bat flips after going yard!
2007-07-09 00:25:53 · answer #3 · answered by Sales Manager 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I agree his on field achievements aren't deserving of a HOF'er status. But his passion for the game when he played is what I always loved to watch. I was there the day that he retired and it was a sad day. But your points are legit and I agree.
2007-07-09 00:16:28 · answer #4 · answered by buck 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes, Puckett is deserving of being in the HOF.
2007-07-09 01:57:22 · answer #5 · answered by amethyst 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well, there are less deserving players in the Hall of Fame.
2007-07-09 00:15:51 · answer #6 · answered by DAKal 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
DEAR SIR
I SAY YES HE DOES NEED TO GO IN TO THE HALL OF
FAME HE DESERVE THE GREATEST OF THEM ALL OK
TAKE CARE
2007-07-09 04:41:56 · answer #7 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
He is very deserving
2007-07-09 01:45:17 · answer #8 · answered by Scooter_loves_his_dad 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
bro he was awesome
2007-07-09 00:08:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋