Quote:
Originally Posted by metsgeek
Grimaldi will probably end up the closest thing to Ruth, but calling Fontana Kingman is wrong as well. He's our career HR leader! 61 HR in 1932. His peak seasons are light years better than Kingmans' ever were. Unfortunately he was a lot more inconsistent than Kingman ever was.
|
I think there's just no point in really trying to compare anyone to Ruth. In
OOTP, in the leagues I've seen, there tends to not be hitters as good as in real life. In PBRL, the highest career OPS+ ever is 164. Babe Ruth was at 207. Ted Williams was 191. Gehrig was 179. Bonds was 182. Hornsby was 175. Mantle 172.
We just don't have anyone like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by metsgeek
Of course they're in different eras, against fictional players as opposed to a larger pool of actual players, but comparing him to Kingman is just as off as you say my comparing him to Ruth is. I was focusing only on HR. Probably myopic, but using OPS+ for the 1948 HOF ballot is IMHO anachronistic.
|
Well, that's just not fair. Ruth's OPS+ was 207. Kingman's was 115. Fontana is *much* more similar to Kingman than to Ruth. I really don't think they are that different. Also, keep in mind that Fontana started at 17, Kingman at 22, and Fontana had his career extended by bad wartime competition.
I actually think they are really similar. The 1920s and 30s, when Fontana played, was great for hitters, so his raw stats look better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by metsgeek
Regardless, he belongs in the HOF. I doubt you'd find anyone here who would say that Kingman belongs there.
|
Of course Kingman doesn't belong. But I, personally, don't think Fontana does either.