PDA

View Full Version : Paul Konerko and the HOF


stevemcstud
01-07-2010, 01:07 AM
So looking to expand on a discussion I started with a coworker I want to pose a question.

If Paul Konerko averages 24 HR, 70 RBI, 50 R, 105 H, 21 2B for the rest of his career and assuming he retires at age 40 he would accumulate the following stats:

500+ HR - Top 30 in History
1500+ RBI - Top 60 in History
450+ Doubles - Top 100 in History
2400+ Hits - Top 120 in History
1,250+ Runs - Top 150 in History

The ranking in history numbers are adjusted for when he achieves those goals. I realize that these stats have more chance to not happen than do but it is not also not impossible by any means especially if he gets moved to DH in the later part of his career and can be rested and therefor hit better.

Do you think with these numbers Konerko would get anywhere close to lets say 50% in the HOF voting? I mean looking at those numbers they are quite impressive for a career.

soltrain21
01-07-2010, 01:11 AM
Paul Konerko belongs in the "Hall of Pretty Good."

doublem23
01-07-2010, 01:11 AM
I think Konerko is destined to get the Harold Baines treatment; probably not good enough to be deserving of being enshrined, but as good as the Hall's lesser members, yet still getting the cold shoulder.

Nellie_Fox
01-07-2010, 01:21 AM
The Hall is not just about stats. I don't know how many times that has to be repeated. It is about the guys who had a major impact on the game during their career. I just don't see Paulie that way.

I think Harold to some extent, Dick Allen to a somewhat greater extent, and Minnie to a much greater extent, are guys who impacted the game much more than Paulie has.

doublem23
01-07-2010, 01:41 AM
The Hall is not just about stats. I don't know how many times that has to be repeated. It is about the guys who had a major impact on the game during their career. I just don't see Paulie that way.

I think Harold to some extent, Dick Allen to a somewhat greater extent, and Minnie to a much greater extent, are guys who impacted the game much more than Paulie has.

Stats are a pretty good way of telling how much of an impact a guy had, especially since the OP cited only "normal" stats like hits, RBI, HR, etc. It's not like he busted out anything remotely controversial like OPS.

Anyways, the Hall's not about anything other than boneheaded baseball writers (http://deadspin.com/5125268/octogenarian-writer-leaves-rickey-henderson-off-hof-ballot-hilarity-ensues) still trying to get their day in the sun. Its shocking that the BBWAA is probably collectively the subset of the population that is most ignorant about baseball, but, whatever.

(I just love that story. Matt Williams. What a douche.)

Nellie_Fox
01-07-2010, 01:50 AM
Stats are a pretty good way of telling how much of an impact a guy had, especially since the OP cited only "normal" stats like hits, RBI, HR, etc.Except that too many people get locked into certain stats for the Hall. 500 homers, 1500 RBI, 3000 hits, 300 wins. Get one, you're in. Don't have any of them, you're not. That's nonsense. You can have one of them (particularly the homers and RBI) and not have been a major impact player in your time. You can not have any of them and still have been a major impact player in your time. That's the point I was trying to make.

If Dave Kingman had been able to play to 40, his career stats would have predicted 500 HR and 1500 RBI. Anybody think he was HOF caliber? Konerko may end up with stats equivalent to some HOFers, but he has not been a guy who was a major impact player in his era. A very, very good player, but not a Hall of Fame player.

stevemcstud
01-07-2010, 01:58 AM
The Hall is not just about stats. I don't know how many times that has to be repeated. It is about the guys who had a major impact on the game during their career. I just don't see Paulie that way.

I think Harold to some extent, Dick Allen to a somewhat greater extent, and Minnie to a much greater extent, are guys who impacted the game much more than Paulie has.

I agree it is about impact but I there has to be something said about a person who is one of the top 30 HR hitter of all time (again if that happens). How is that not a big impact on the game? In that sense of the game only 29 people in history had a bigger impact.

I am not saying I think he will make it and/or should make it I am just saying that there has to be a case made for being consistent and being in the top 150 in all those categories has to count for something. Not to mention leading a team to a World Series.

Also take into consideration a big reason he did not have as noticeable of an impact is because he was a non steroid player who hit during the steroid era.

doublem23
01-07-2010, 02:00 AM
I should say, if he hits 500 HR, he's in.

Nellie_Fox
01-07-2010, 02:00 AM
I agree it is about impact but I there has to be something said about a person who is one of the top 30 HR hitter of all time (again if that happens). How is that not a big impact on the game? In that sense of the game only 29 people in history had a bigger impact.Because sometimes it's just a matter of having been pretty good for a long time, which is not the same thing as having been scary good for some of that time.

CWSpalehoseCWS
01-07-2010, 02:00 AM
If Paulie can get 500+ HR's I would hope he gets in the HOF.

Jpgr91
01-07-2010, 02:14 AM
Konerko has only been in 3 all star games and has never even been in any discussion for the MVP award. How can someone that has not been considered at the top of the game in the present be considered as one of the best ever?

goon
01-07-2010, 02:25 AM
Paul Konerko belongs in the "Hall of Pretty Good."

Konerko is better than "pretty good".

Konerko is not a Hall of Fame player, though. That's insane.

SOXfnNlansing
01-07-2010, 02:30 AM
One of the HOF 'criteria' I keep hearing about on MLB Network is the number of all star appearances. I think that is misleading in a lot of cases. Sure, Jeter, A-Rod,etc get picked almost every year (deservingly so imo), but some players ASG's are good players on a crappy team that get picked every year as the lone representative: see sandberg and Larkin. Just because a player happens to be the best player doesn't mean they are a HOF player.

On a side note related to the HOF: I am starting to wonder if Big Frank will have to wait a long time to get in. :(: It seems like those baseball writers like to play God with baseball's greats immortality.

stevemcstud
01-07-2010, 02:31 AM
Konerko has only been in 3 all star games and has never even been in any discussion for the MVP award. How can someone that has not been considered at the top of the game in the present be considered as one of the best ever?

That kind of thing has to be placed in context though. A lot of his career will have been in the steroid era.

If you use the same logic as MVP voting a person could very well be elected MVP without anyone voting for him as the #1 MVP candidate. You just use that same logic over career. If a player is consistently in the Top X but never number 1 that does not mean he is not one of the Top X of all time.

stevemcstud
01-07-2010, 02:34 AM
Because sometimes it's just a matter of having been pretty good for a long time, which is not the same thing as having been scary good for some of that time.

I think one could argue being "pretty good" for a long time is "scary good".

Since it has been proven time and time again a lot of players can be really good for a couple season, very few can be pretty good over there career.

Jpgr91
01-07-2010, 02:41 AM
One of the HOF 'criteria' I keep hearing about on MLB Network is the number of all star appearances. I think that is misleading in a lot of cases. Sure, Jeter, A-Rod,etc get picked almost every year (deservingly so imo), but some players ASG's are good players on a crappy team that get picked every year as the lone representative: see sandberg and Larkin. Just because a player happens to be the best player doesn't mean they are a HOF player.

On a side note related to the HOF: I am starting to wonder if Big Frank will have to wait a long time to get in. :(: It seems like those baseball writers like to play God with baseball's greats immortality.

If a player is producing like they should be in the Hall of Fame, it would make sense that the player would be selected as an All Star. However, using All Star appearances as the only factor would be silly. Much like it is silly use stats as the only factor.

That kind of thing has to be placed in context though. A lot of his career will have been in the steroid era.

If you use the same logic as MVP voting a person could very well be elected MVP without anyone voting for him as the #1 MVP candidate. You just use that same logic over career. If a player is consistently in the Top X but never number 1 that does not mean he is not one of the Top X of all time.

As far as the steroid era, everyone's stats are tainted. No one really knows who was and was not using steroids so you can not say that a player played in the steroid era so special consideration must be given.

Multiple first basemen make the All Star game each year. If you are not one of the top 2 or 3 players at your position in your league on a consistent basis, how is it logical to say that the player is one of the best ever? If someone can make an argument that Konerko is one of the top First Basemen of his generation I would really like to hear it.

Nellie_Fox
01-07-2010, 03:14 AM
Konerko has only been in 3 all star games and has never even been in any discussion for the MVP award. How can someone that has not been considered at the top of the game in the present be considered as one of the best ever?
Just to play devil's advocate here, Blyleven only appeared in two all-star games in a 22 year career, and never got a Cy Young (although he did finish 3rd, 3rd, and 4th in Cy Young balloting.) Paulie was 5th in MVP voting in 2005.

Personally, I think Blyleven is an example of a guy who was very good for a long time, but was never dominating at any time. I will have no big problem when he makes the Hall next year, but I also would have had no problem if he had never made it.

jamokes
01-07-2010, 05:40 AM
If Paulie was a Yankee he would get more votes.

It's Dankerific
01-07-2010, 05:46 AM
I really don't think PK is anything near a hall of famer.

tstrike2000
01-07-2010, 06:49 AM
PK's definitely not HOF player, but he'll leave having had a very good career.

white sox bill
01-07-2010, 07:23 AM
500+ HR - Top 30 in History
1500+ RBI - Top 60 in History
450+ Doubles - Top 100 in History
2400+ Hits - Top 120 in History
1,250+ Runs - Top 150 in History

.
Did you forget to post his stolen bases total?

PK not HOF material despite having a very good carerr. I only wish our next generation first baseman will be as good.

Carolina Kenny
01-07-2010, 08:55 AM
The only Hall of Fame Konerko will get into is the Chicago Sports Hall of Fame. Konerko still gives me a Bonerko.

TommyJohn
01-07-2010, 09:34 AM
Except that too many people get locked into certain stats for the Hall. 500 homers, 1500 RBI, 3000 hits, 300 wins. Get one, you're in. Don't have any of them, you're not. That's nonsense. You can have one of them (particularly the homers and RBI) and not have been a major impact player in your time. You can not have any of them and still have been a major impact player in your time. That's the point I was trying to make.

If Dave Kingman had been able to play to 40, his career stats would have predicted 500 HR and 1500 RBI. Anybody think he was HOF caliber? Konerko may end up with stats equivalent to some HOFers, but he has not been a guy who was a major impact player in his era. A very, very good player, but not a Hall of Fame player.
One thing bothers me about Kingman-he laments that if he were a nicer guy to the sportswriters, he would be in today. No, how about he was a strikeout machine with a lifetime BA of .235. I think that is what is keeping him out.

voodoochile
01-07-2010, 09:58 AM
One thing bothers me about Kingman-he laments that if he were a nicer guy to the sportswriters, he would be in today. No, how about he was a strikeout machine with a lifetime BA of .235. I think that is what is keeping him out.

Well Kingman had the dubious distinction of being the only guy with 400 HR not inducted at one point. Obviously guys like McGwire have raised that bar for different reasons but at least now it's more acceptable to ignore Kingman's stats (and no, I'm not arguing Kingman should be in, just commenting).

Haaarold is/was the only guy with 1500+ RBI not in the HOF (actually I don't know if McGwire is another, didn't check).

Personally, I'd vote no on PK unless he hits all those stats and wins another couple WS along the way. Then one might argue for him and obviously I would be pretty damned happy if he won one this coming season.

It's certainly tougher to use stats driven analysis of HOF worthiness these days with the whole steroid era rendering certain traditional career milestones less meaningful. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out, but I think voters are going to be more skeptical of voting in a guy purely on his numbers in coming years. Perhaps that's a reason a guy like Dawson made it this year - because there's less or no stink of steroids on him and because of his peripheral stats like SB, AS appearances, defensive prowess, etc. which is a more traditional way of looking at players except in extreme circumstances where the numbers are so outside the norm as to make a player a lock - Ruth, Cobb, Pujols, etc.

sullythered
01-07-2010, 10:24 AM
Paul Konerko is a very good hitter, and one of my all time favorites. He will not, though, get much hall of fame consideration.

If Paulie was a Yankee he would get more votes.

If Paulie was a Yankee, he would be a national treasure.

Dibbs
01-07-2010, 10:27 AM
Anyways, the Hall's not about anything other than boneheaded baseball writers (http://deadspin.com/5125268/octogenarian-writer-leaves-rickey-henderson-off-hof-ballot-hilarity-ensues) still trying to get their day in the sun. Its shocking that the BBWAA is probably collectively the subset of the population that is most ignorant about baseball, but, whatever.

(I just love that story. Matt Williams. What a douche.)


That story proves the HOF is a complete joke, much like the All-Star selection process by the fans.

For those that have never been there, the HOF is really nothing all that special. I have seen nicer display cases in the basements of people's home. My Frank Thomas autographed baseball is in a nicer display than the Roger Maris 61st home run ball. I had to bend down to almost floor level to see it and it was not clearly marked. I expected a much nicer "shrine" would be holding artifacts of baseball past. One thing I enjoyed was the fact that all of the greats stood right where I was at a different point in time, but you can get that same feeling at the home plate of Old Comiskey Park.

The Hall of Fame is a tourist trap, and the only other time I plan to be there is in support of Frank when he gets in.

veeter
01-07-2010, 10:42 AM
I think Paul will get quite a few votes, but not really come close. Konerko is a really, really good player, who is also a fine defender. But, I put him one step below HOF. Kind of like Buehrle. Not to mention, Paul and Mark don't toot their own horns enough. If both play for many more years however, their numbers will stack up. So you never know.

Jim Shorts
01-07-2010, 10:44 AM
The likes of Jim Rice and Dawson are reasons why the conversation has brought in Paulie.

IMO, the benchmarks to get in have fallen to the point that your scenerio warrants a conversation.

However, IMO, Paulie is not a HoFer, nor is Baines, nor are Rice and Dawson.

It's a joke really. Writers wanted to play god with this ballot and determined that Robbie Alomar needs to sit a year because he spit on an umpire? C'mon, MAN!

pythons007
01-07-2010, 10:59 AM
If All-Star games really plays that much of a factor into who is borderline HOF material, I'll throw up. Time and time again, players are left off the All-Star team because they aren't popular enough, or aren't playing for the the Yankees. I mean has Jeter ever not made an All-Star game? I'm not saying he isn't good, but there are more worthly players that were left off for him to make it. Jeter is just one example and there are countless others.

That article on deadspin was awesome. I believe that sports writers hold this as more of a stick it to them, or a way to get back at a player. I mean look at those players that weren't voted unanomouslyby sports writers. Mays, Ted Williams, and BABE RUTH are you kidding me?!?! Babe Ruth!?!? People still know who he is today, he is baseball. There is a league named after him! It's almost been a century since this guy actually played and he name is still brought up in baseball conversations.

The HOF needs to get these old buzzards off the committee. Its embarrassing! It's also embarrassing that they consider the DH not part of baseball. For guys like Edgar Martinez, Frank Thomas, Jim Thome and countless other players that have unbelievable numbers are going to get scrutinized by these douches because they didn't play a position. That's a crock of ****!

2 of the biggest BS voting systems in baseball are for the HOF and ASG.

kittle42
01-07-2010, 11:03 AM
I really don't think PK is anything near a hall of famer.

We're finding a lot more to agree on these days. Here's to 2010!

ode to veeck
01-07-2010, 12:00 PM
Except that too many people get locked into certain stats for the Hall. 500 homers, 1500 RBI, 3000 hits, 300 wins. Get one, you're in. Don't have any of them, you're not. That's nonsense. You can have one of them (particularly the homers and RBI) and not have been a major impact player in your time. You can not have any of them and still have been a major impact player in your time. That's the point I was trying to make.

If Dave Kingman had been able to play to 40, his career stats would have predicted 500 HR and 1500 RBI. Anybody think he was HOF caliber? Konerko may end up with stats equivalent to some HOFers, but he has not been a guy who was a major impact player in his era. A very, very good player, but not a Hall of Fame player.

I almost got hit by a baseball Kingman hit as we were getting out of a cab at the corner of Sheffield and Waveland, way cleared everything just to the left of the scoreboard.

ode to veeck
01-07-2010, 12:01 PM
If Paulie was a Yankee he would get more votes.

goes without saying, aka the "Jim Rice" Boston/NY effect

Jpgr91
01-07-2010, 12:10 PM
Just to play devil's advocate here, Blyleven only appeared in two all-star games in a 22 year career, and never got a Cy Young (although he did finish 3rd, 3rd, and 4th in Cy Young balloting.) Paulie was 5th in MVP voting in 2005.

Personally, I think Blyleven is an example of a guy who was very good for a long time, but was never dominating at any time. I will have no big problem when he makes the Hall next year, but I also would have had no problem if he had never made it.

I think big reason why Blyleven is not in is because he was never dominant over a long period. It does look like he will get in on the next ballot though. I think it says a lot about him that he never was considered by those in his time to be one of the dominant players in the game. It seems that the only reason he is in consideration is because sports media seems to be championing his cause, it seems that every time there is a HOF induction story there is a Blyleven was left off again story.

Domeshot17
01-07-2010, 12:11 PM
Personally, I think Konerko gets the Crime Dog treatment. Hell finish between 425-450 homers. He will get a few votes, but ultimately never in as he was part of the hall of very good, not the hall of game. The big knock on Konerko is the 2 massively down years. Had he been able to stay with his 35-40 homers 100 rbi pace, he would have a much better case. Konerko went on a 3 year run that was amazing, but pound for pound against other 1b of this era, he is in the 2nd tier.

That said, he is still one of my favorite players, He will have his face on the outfield wall one day, he will have his own statue.

mcgeez8
01-07-2010, 12:33 PM
For those that have never been there, the HOF is really nothing all that special. I have seen nicer display cases in the basements of people's home. My Frank Thomas autographed baseball is in a nicer display than the Roger Maris 61st home run ball. I had to bend down to almost floor level to see it and it was not clearly marked. I expected a much nicer "shrine" would be holding artifacts of baseball past. One thing I enjoyed was the fact that all of the greats stood right where I was at a different point in time, but you can get that same feeling at the home plate of Old Comiskey Park.

The Hall of Fame is a tourist trap, and the only other time I plan to be there is in support of Frank when he gets in.


coming from a supporter of the hall, I agree that some of the displays aren't the best, but they do change often and update the material. Also nothing beats the gallery with all the HOF plaques, which never gets old. Paulee will only be in the hall if he gets 500

Dibbs
01-07-2010, 01:09 PM
coming from a supporter of the hall, I agree that some of the displays aren't the best, but they do change often and update the material. Also nothing beats the gallery with all the HOF plaques, which never gets old. Paulee will only be in the hall if he gets 500

The HOF plaques are definitely a highlight.

I forgot to comment on Konerko in my post. He is not HOF material. No way he gets to 500 HR either. He was never an elite player. As big of a jerk as he was, a guy like Albert Belle is more worthy in my opinion. For a number of years, he was arguably the best hitter on the planet.

esbrechtel
01-07-2010, 01:45 PM
Personally, I think Konerko gets the Crime Dog treatment. Hell finish between 425-450 homers. He will get a few votes, but ultimately never in as he was part of the hall of very good, not the hall of game. The big knock on Konerko is the 2 massively down years. Had he been able to stay with his 35-40 homers 100 rbi pace, he would have a much better case. Konerko went on a 3 year run that was amazing, but pound for pound against other 1b of this era, he is in the 2nd tier.

That said, he is still one of my favorite players, He will have his face on the outfield wall one day, he will have his own statue.

+1 :thumbsup: Well said.

TommyJohn
01-07-2010, 01:52 PM
Well Kingman had the dubious distinction of being the only guy with 400 HR not inducted at one point. Obviously guys like McGwire have raised that bar for different reasons but at least now it's more acceptable to ignore Kingman's stats (and no, I'm not arguing Kingman should be in, just commenting).

Haaarold is/was the only guy with 1500+ RBI not in the HOF (actually I don't know if McGwire is another, didn't check).

Personally, I'd vote no on PK unless he hits all those stats and wins another couple WS along the way. Then one might argue for him and obviously I would be pretty damned happy if he won one this coming season.

It's certainly tougher to use stats driven analysis of HOF worthiness these days with the whole steroid era rendering certain traditional career milestones less meaningful. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out, but I think voters are going to be more skeptical of voting in a guy purely on his numbers in coming years. Perhaps that's a reason a guy like Dawson made it this year - because there's less or no stink of steroids on him and because of his peripheral stats like SB, AS appearances, defensive prowess, etc. which is a more traditional way of looking at players except in extreme circumstances where the numbers are so outside the norm as to make a player a lock - Ruth, Cobb, Pujols, etc.Darrell Evans was actually another 400 club member not in, though eligible.

EndemicSox
01-07-2010, 03:13 PM
Nah, the hall of very good is right. Damn fine player, but not an all-time great.

Frank Thomas is the next Sox who is guaranteed a spot. He may not get in on the first-ballot(although he most certainly deserves 100% of the vote) due to some of the dying breed of voters, but he is still a stone-cold lock.

After the Big Hurt? Who knows, it may take a while if Burls falls off over the next few years. If he can give the Sox another 7-8 years of 15 wins, he probably has a good shot.

It's Dankerific
01-07-2010, 03:19 PM
We're finding a lot more to agree on these days. Here's to 2010!

Ha Ha. at least till April, right? =)

In more detail of my post. PK was hardly ever the best player on his TEAM, let alone in the nation. No MVP trophies (or even close). Nothing really that sets him out apart from the rest to a non-White Sox fan.

He's going to have to settle for whatever the Sox do for him. (and his millions of dollars).

white sox bill
01-07-2010, 03:35 PM
I think big reason why Blyleven is not in is because he was never dominant over a long period. It does look like he will get in on the next ballot though. I think it says a lot about him that he never was considered by those in his time to be one of the dominant players in the game. It seems that the only reason he is in consideration is because sports media seems to be championing his cause, it seems that every time there is a HOF induction story there is a Blyleven was left off again story.

I swear The Hawk (our Hawk) can't even mention Blyleven's name without endorsing him for the Hall. "Theres Big Burt Blyleven at the mic in the Twins booth. Why that man isn't in the Hall of Fame is beyond me"

getonbckthr
01-07-2010, 03:40 PM
One advantage he has is he is good with the media both locally and nationally.

A. Cavatica
01-07-2010, 09:23 PM
I'm not sure he's even worthy of the Hall of Very Good. Paul is an average first baseman.

Marqhead
01-07-2010, 09:34 PM
I'm not sure he's even worthy of the Hall of Very Good. Paul is an average first baseman.

He's an above average first baseman. Plays great defense and consistently averages .280 30 30 100. Again, not even close to being a hall of famer but a damn good player.

soxinem1
01-07-2010, 10:18 PM
Ha Ha. at least till April, right? =)

In more detail of my post. PK was hardly ever the best player on his TEAM, let alone in the nation. No MVP trophies (or even close). Nothing really that sets him out apart from the rest to a non-White Sox fan.

He's going to have to settle for whatever the Sox do for him. (and his millions of dollars).

Like many have stated here, PK will forever live in White Sox lore, ala Robin Ventura, Mark Buehrle, and others like them were solid, productive, and excellent players. But they are not HOF caliber.

But even if Paulie had Fred McGifff-type numbers (and he is not a HOF candidate), he played most of his career in an era when 1B was a stacked position.

There are many guys who have had better careers than Konerko who will not make it, and thus he will not either.

But he will have a solid career, World Series ring (at least one, anyway), All-Star appearances, and over $100 million in the bank to be thankful for when he is done playing.

A. Cavatica
01-07-2010, 11:39 PM
He's an above average first baseman. Plays great defense and consistently averages .280 30 30 100. Again, not even close to being a hall of famer but a damn good player.

Last season was conveniently very close to his career averages. His OPS was .842 (career is .843).

Do you know what the range was for the 24 major league first basemen who had enough at-bats to qualify for the batting title last year? 1.101 (Pujols) to .694 (Huff).

Do you know where he ranked among those 24 players? 19th. Only Nick Johnson, Jorge Cantu, James Loney, Daniel Murphy, and Huff were lower.

His glove is pretty average, too -- certainly not enough to bump him up the list at a position that is 95% about batting.

I give him a bump to average for consistency, but in no way, shape or form is PK an above average 1B.

A. Cavatica
01-07-2010, 11:53 PM
Last season was conveniently very close to his career averages. His OPS was .842 (career is .843).

Do you know what the range was for the 24 major league first basemen who had enough at-bats to qualify for the batting title last year? 1.101 (Pujols) to .694 (Huff).

Do you know where he ranked among those 24 players? 19th. Only Nick Johnson, Jorge Cantu, James Loney, Daniel Murphy, and Huff were lower.

His glove is pretty average, too -- certainly not enough to bump him up the list at a position that is 95% about batting.

I give him a bump to average for consistency, but in no way, shape or form is PK an above average 1B.

Oh - and in his two best seasons, 2005 and 2006, his OPS ranked him twelfth and ninth among his contemporaries.

SouthSoxFan
01-11-2010, 04:13 PM
HOF, definitely not. But is he the last Sox #14 ?

I'd vote yes. He is #2 on the Sox HR list (and still counting), should reach #6 in games played for the Sox, was Captain of the World Championship team and was the 2005 ALCS MVP.

This year may be his last with the Sox, but its hard to imagine a separation scenario that would keep him from attaining a place on the outfield wall someday.

doublem23
01-11-2010, 04:52 PM
His glove is pretty average, too -- certainly not enough to bump him up the list at a position that is 95% about batting.

If he played in New York or Boston, he'd already have 10 Gold Gloves. He is an excellent defensive 1B.

SI1020
01-11-2010, 05:09 PM
If he played in New York or Boston, he'd already have 10 Gold Gloves. He is an excellent defensive 1B. I'm glad I found someone who agrees with me about the defensive prowess of a White Sox player. I agree, Paulie has an excellent glove at first. Our errors total would have been higher last year if not for him. I'm thinking of one particular infielder who owes him a nice steak dinner or two.

PennStater98r
01-11-2010, 05:18 PM
Longevity has to be one of the considered factors. I am, however, a big fan of the All Star games theory (10+). Sure you have to pick someone from every team. However, it's rare - if ever - that a marginal player will go 10+ times.

doublem23
01-11-2010, 05:19 PM
I'm glad I found someone who agrees with me about the defensive prowess of a White Sox player. I agree, Paulie has an excellent glove at first. Our errors total would have been higher last year if not for him. I'm thinking of one particular infielder who owes him a nice steak dinner or two.

People rag on Paulie, rightfully so, because he doesn't have the greatest range at 1B, but that PALES in comparison to his ability to scoop **** outof the dirt, which is really 99% of what you need from your 1B defensively. Teixeira is the only 1B in the AL who is definitely better with the glove than Konerko. There are probably some other arguments out there that can be made, but people who say Paulie is just average at 1B will be in for a shock if the next guy we get doesn't have his defensive prowess.

Patrick134
01-11-2010, 05:41 PM
Having not read through the whole thread I'll say this... If PK had all the exact same stats with a Yankees hat on, he'd be in first ballot.

MisterB
01-11-2010, 06:20 PM
Having not read through the whole thread I'll say this... If PK had all the exact same stats with a Yankees hat on, he'd be in first ballot.

A Yankees hat wasn't enough to get Mattingly in on the first ballot, and Paulie is no better than Donnie Baseball was.

Save McCuddy's
01-11-2010, 08:50 PM
:bong:Having not read through the whole thread I'll say this... If PK had all the exact same stats with a Yankees hat on, he'd be in first ballot.

Frontman
01-11-2010, 09:04 PM
Not close. Paulie might be a very nice guy; and a heck of an above average ballplayer. But Hall of Fame Caliber?

The two I've seen in this past decade who wore a Sox uniform are for certain Frank Thomas; and possibly Jim Thome. Depending on what Mark does the rest of his career; having a no-hitter, a perfect game, and a World Series ring are a plus to be considered, but he isn't again an automatic "yes" in my book.

PKalltheway
01-12-2010, 06:02 PM
Not close. Paulie might be a very nice guy; and a heck of an above average ballplayer. But Hall of Fame Caliber?

The two I've seen in this past decade who wore a Sox uniform are for certain Frank Thomas; and possibly Jim Thome. Depending on what Mark does the rest of his career; having a no-hitter, a perfect game, and a World Series ring are a plus to be considered, but he isn't again an automatic "yes" in my book.
:ralomar:

You forgot about me, too.:redneck

doublem23
01-12-2010, 06:05 PM
:ralomar:

You forgot about me, too.:redneck

While we're at it

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2009/02/18/2008333001.jpg

Frontman
01-12-2010, 06:38 PM
You guys got me on that one; although I hardly consider Griff as a member of the Sox for as short of a time he was here.

stevemcstud
01-12-2010, 07:03 PM
You guys got me on that one; although I hardly consider Griff as a member of the Sox for as short of a time he was here.

He will go in wearing a sox hat.

WhiteSoxJunkie
01-13-2010, 08:41 PM
I don't think Konerko has had a good enough career to warrant induction into the Hall of Fame. He has had a fine career, just not quite HOF worthy. Also, he hasn't had much consistency hitting wise. He did have some horrific and long slumps throughout his career.

Taliesinrk
01-14-2010, 06:56 PM
While we're at it

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2009/02/18/2008333001.jpg

Ahem...........
:burly

"You didn't know????? I just wanted to yank everyone's chain about that early-retirement stuff. Since I'm such a money-grubber, I was trying to drive up my offer so I could get more money from you guys than the Cards"

Frontman
01-14-2010, 08:40 PM
He will go in wearing a sox hat.

You do know that you're opening up a debate; as someone will defend that point of view on this board when Griff hangs them up.

Randar68
01-15-2010, 09:31 AM
Paul Konerko belongs in the "Hall of Pretty Good."

Yep, and I also think with his hip, he won't be playing much past 36 or 37 y.o., JMO.