George Foster

[ElHalo]

Every single person who ever hit 50 HR in a major league season before 1990 is in the Hall of Fame... except Roger Maris, and George Foster. There have been endless debates and what ifs and arguments about Maris... why not so for Foster?

[leecemark]

---I think they are equally (un)qualified for the Hall of Fame. As far as the attention, well 50 isn't 61 and didn't set any records. Perhaps as important, Maris had his great years in New York. Foster turned into a bum when he moved to New York. Too many people remember the huge disappoint for the Mets and too few the great hitter for the Reds. Not to mention, Foster was only about the 4th or 5th or 6th best player on the Reds when they were winning their championships. His best years came in 77-78 when the Dodgers were winning the division. The stars were just never aligned right for George.

[Cougar]

He had a nice peak, but it was on a team of superstars, and it was fairly short. His career numbers are comparable to a number of other All-Star caliber but not HOF players in the corner OF/1b category. He didn't do anything particularly well (nor terribly badly, to be fair) without a bat in his hand.

There's not really any one reason why he's not a popular HOF candidate. Pretty much he just wasn't good enough for long enough.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I was a big George Foster fan. He was my favorite NL player for quite a long time.

He was Jim Rice, but for not as long as Jim Rice was. If you're going to produce that much in the short term, you should at least finish with Tony Perez-like numbers to earn consideration. I believe a player should have strong peaks for HOF consideration, but they also need strong overall numbers if they play 15 years+.

As far as the Maris comparison, Foster, to put it lightly, was not nearly the defensive player Maris was. I don't know if Foster's teammates talked about him like Maris's teammates did in St. Louis, with much glowing praise.

He's a good guy, and active around Southwestern Ohio in terms of appearances. And no one can take away his 1977 season from him. But he's short of the mark.

[dgarza]

I think it's quite fair to throw Cecil Fielder into this thread. Sure 1990, but 1990 was only made as a line to cut Cecil out, not for any better reason. 1995 would be a much better year to draw the line. Plus Cecil has already received votes and we can see his support.

[dgarza]

Overall, I'd say Foster would have been the guy I'd have taken 1st...then Maris...then Fielder. Although Maris is a bit closer to Fielder in my book than he is to Foster, just a hair .

Fielder was a little more consistant with the HRs and RBIs than the other two.
Foster had the better AVG and he took a few more bases that Maris and Cecil.
Merely going by fielding numbers (I don't know their legacy) Foster "seems" to be equal or slightly better than Maris. All I remember is Foster making a dead on throw to home to nail the base runner in the 75 WS game 6.

Now if we take each player's high HR season, we can see how much of an impact it had of HR career totals:
Foster's 52 in 77 was 15% of his total.
Fielder's 51 in 90 was 16% of his total.
Maris's 61 in 61 was 22% of his total.
------------------------------------With most HR hitters, any 1 season being greater than 10% of the total is a "crutch" season. Realistically, anything over 12% of the total should be considered "crutch" since even McGwire and Foxx eclipse the 10% with their high seasons.

I didn't know Foster played for the White Sox...I've never seen a picture or a card.

As to Foster being a disappointment with the Mets...it may be true, he was not doing with them what he did with the Reds, just his RBI numbers didn't fall off the cliff like Maris's did. Foster still put respectable 80s-90s for RBIs.


As to why Maris gets more talk than Foster...obviously 1961, and then Foster might have had more players during his day that were just too damn similar to him for his own fame.

[DoubleX]

His abysmal .274 career average such discount Foster before any discussion begins. And forget about Maris and his .260, right El Halo? ;)

[ElHalo]

DGarza,

Mostly I'd agree with you, but I'd take Maris over Foster... because, contrary to your analysis of their fielding numbers, Roger Maris is generally regarded as one of the best corner outfielders of the last fifty years. He was an excellent fielder... good enough to stay in the majors even if he couldn't hit at all.

[dgarza]

DGarza,

Roger Maris is generally regarded as one of the best corner outfielders of the last fifty years. He was an excellent fielder... good enough to stay in the majors even if he couldn't hit at all.How does Foster stand up in his fielding/arm? No one has really said yet. Average? Weak? Better than average, but not great?

[Captain Cold Nose]

How does Foster stand up in his fielding/arm? No one has really said yet. Average? Weak? Better than average, but not great?

Not looking at the numbers, I know Foster did have a fielding percentage of 1.000 at least once. But, even Dave Kingman disparaged his fielding. I don't think he had the best reputation, outside of the one throw you mentioned.

Foster can be seen with the Chisox on the 1986 Topps Update series, for one.

[leecemark]

---Foster had very good speed and a decent arm. He was quite possibly the most talented player of his time. The question with him was his effort. Pete Rose once said of Foster "I've never seen him get his unifrom dirty". Foster himself once said he wouldn't go after a ball to near the wall because it wasn't worth the chance of getting hurt.
---As mentioned earlier, Foster was pretty much an NL Jim Rice in the late 70s. Take the parks into account and you could make a pretty good case he was better than Rice. Rice just stayed good a little longer.
---I'd probably have to take Foster over Maris. His 77 season was better overall than Maris 61 and he had more good years. Maris was a better fielder and more of a high effort guy though. The Cards thought he was good enough to start for their pennant winning teams in 1967-68 when he really wasn't hitting at all. So while Foster is better on paper, its possible Maris was a more valuable guy to have on your team. You've got ot really buy into the intangibles to make that call though.

[DoubleX]

Maris was a better fielder and more of a high effort guy though. The Cards thought he was good enough to start for their pennant winning teams in 1967-68 when he really wasn't hitting at all. So while Foster is better on paper, its possible Maris was a more valuable guy to have on your team. You've got ot really buy into the intangibles to make that call though.

Heh, George Foster sounds kind of like Roger Dorn. Also, in Ball Four, Bouton claims a few times that Maris would not run it out to first and that he would dog it on some plays.

[four tool]

Can't see Foster over Maris. Maris didn't even get 500 AB many years and when he did his numbers were very good. Maris was good enough to help both the Yankees and Cardinals win pennants and WS, George was a small part of the Big Red Machine. Would anyone pick Foster over Maris if they were putting together a team for the playoffs? I can't see how or why anyone would.

Fielder actually had the best AB/HR number 16.2 Foster was 20.2 and Maris 18.5 but George had many more AB than Roger, tho not as many as Cecil.

The only reason I'd consider Maris for the hall is because of 61 HR, and that's not a lock. The other two definitely don't make the cut

[dgarza]

Would anyone pick Foster over Maris if they were putting together a team for the playoffs? I can't see how or why anyone would.


Back before free agency, I'd take Foster 1st over the long haul. For the playoff, well, I'm not a big one to look at post-season stats and make a decision based on them, but Foster's post-season batting numbers are better.

[leecemark]

--Maris was a very good player for only 3 years (1960-62) and even in 1961 was not the best hitter in the league. The 61 HR was only good enough to get him to 4th in slugging and OPS+. Outside his 3 year run, Maris had a career high of 28HR and 80RBI. 1960 and 61 were the only years he finished in the top 10 in MVP voting.
--Foster also had a three year run (1976-78) that stands out from the rest of his career. It looks as good or better than Maris top three to me. Given if you give the peak edge to maris though, Foster was much better outside those years. He had 4 other 90 RBI season and a 5th year where he drove in more than Maris' best off peak year. Foster won the MVP once to Maris twice, but also had a 2nd, 3rd and 6th. He never lead the league in OPS+ either, but was 2nd twice, 3rd twice and top 10 seven times.
--I wouldn't vote for Foster, but he was significantly better than Maris both at their best and over the course of their careers. Maris' fluke 61 HR season does not make him a Hall of Famer. Norm Cash was better in 1961 and MUCH better for his career. His flukish 1961 gets counted against him becasue he never came close to repeating it. Why people think Maris singular accomplishment should be viewed differently is beyond me.

[four tool]

Back before free agency, I'd take Foster 1st over the long haul. For the playoff, well, I'm not a big one to look at post-season stats and make a decision based on them, but Foster's post-season batting numbers are better.
Maris helped both the Yankess and Cards win World series and you'd take Foster?--I'll pit my team against yours any time

[leecemark]

--Maris didn't exactly carry those teams on his back. He was generally about the third best position player on those Yankee teams and he was only the third best outfielder for the Cardinals. I seem to remember both of those teams winning pennants before they picked Maris up (Yankees 9 of 11 years and Cards in 64).

[dgarza]

Maris helped both the Yankess and Cards win World series and you'd take Foster?--I'll pit my team against yours any time
Just 'cause it would have Maris? What do those Teams have to do with a Foster vs Maris debate? 75-76 were years as well. Of course Maris also didn't help his teams win post season series just as often as he did help them (that's for your logic)

[ElHalo]

--Maris didn't exactly carry those teams on his back. He was generally about the third best position player on those Yankee teams and he was only the third best outfielder for the Cardinals. I seem to remember both of those teams winning pennants before they picked Maris up (Yankees 9 of 11 years and Cards in 64).

I'm not trying to say Maris carried those Cardinals teams; he was probably only their fifth best player. But he wasn't bad for them... put up a 116 OPS+ in 1967.

Maris was certainly no HoF'er overall... but I think the case between him and Foster is a close one. Foster was a better slugger, overall, but he didn't really bring anything else to the table... They both were pretty lousy in the BA department, but Maris had a significant edge in relative OBP. Maris' OPS+ is higher for his career... and he was a great defender.

It's not really ludicrous to go either way with them... I pick Maris, largely because of his defense, because their offenses were so similar... and because Foster KILLED the Mets with his mediocre play and huge contract(though of course the team did pretty well after they got rid of him).

[dgarza]

and because Foster KILLED the Mets with his mediocre play and huge contract(though of course the team did pretty well after they got rid of him).
Foster never KILLED the Mets

[ElHalo]

Foster never KILLED the Mets

I remember Foster as supposedly being the Mets' saviour... the guy who was to bring them to the promised land. They shelled out a whole heap of money for him... and he did nothing.

Pretty much the same thing as they had with Bonilla, but ten years earlier.

[leecemark]

--The more I look at Foster vs Maris the more convinced I am Foster was better. As El Halo mentioned their career percent stats are almost exactly the same - Maris 260/345/476 - 127 OPS+, Foster 271/338/480 - 126 OPS+. However, Foster's counting stats are much better - 348HR/1239RBI/986runs to 275HR/851RBI/826runs.
--Maris probably has the defensive edge, but it overstates the case by quite a bit to describe him as "one of the best corner outfielders of the last 50 years". Maris won exactly one Gold Glove. Al Kaline and Roberto Clemente were his exact contemporaries and were regarded by every source I've ever read - and the Gold Glove voters - to be Maris' superior. Minoso and Yaz were the other top corner men in the AL during Maris career. He was good, but probably not good enough to make up much ground against a better hitter at a corner OF spot.
--It really doesn't matter much which was better in the long run. Neither deserves the Hall of Fame, but if I had to pick one it would be Foster.

[ElHalo]

Leecemark,

When I've read people talk about the best defensive rightfielders of the postwar era, the discussion usually includes Kaline, Clemente, Maris, Larry Walker, and Ichiro. Not a bad short list to be on. Ralph Houk once said that Maris was better defensively than Mantle... Maris played CF over Mantle in the 1962 AS game.

And like I said, it's not a huge difference... their percentage numbers are similar, with probably a slight edge to Maris... their counting numbers are disparate, which the edge to Foster... Maris had the better defense... and Maris had the better peak.

You want to take Foster, go ahead. I'd take Maris... but I wouldn't really be happy with either one of them. I just brought this thread up because I didn't think George Foster got enough respect from people.

[leecemark]

--El Halo, I'm not really sure saying Maris was better is advancing the cause of getting more respect for Foster. At least we agree neither is a Hall of Famer.
-- One last point of interest, neither Foster nor Maris has a Hall of Famer amoung their ten most similar players (Maris' most similar is Bob Allison, for Foster its Gil Hodges). For Maris three "great years" ,however, his most similar player was Reggie Jackson all three years. Of course, Reggie was at that level about 4 times as long. If anyone is interested, Foster's most similar player (well hitter) in his 4 best years was Willie Stargell each time.

[ElHalo]

--El Halo, I'm not really sure saying Maris was better is advancing the cause of getting more respect for Foster. At least we agree neither is a Hall of Famer.

No, neither is a HoF'er... how can I put this...

I think that Roger Maris is vastly overrated by most people, and that George Foster is vastly underrated... so much so that his name never gets mentioned. I just found it odd that nobody ever mentioned Foster, becuase I felt he was good enough to get remembered... though not as good as Maris.

Basically, it comes down to this: When I was a little kid, maybe 6 or 7 years old, I memorized all the players who'd ever hit 50 homers, how many they'd hit that year, and what year they'd done. Obviously, since this was past the time Foster'd done it, the list went like this:

Ruth 4
Foxx 2
Mays 2
Mantle 2
Kiner 2
Mize
Maris
Wilson
Greenberg
Foster

And it struck me that all of these guys are always talked about as being among the best players of all time, and all are in the HoF... except Maris and Foster. And that Maris is talked about all the time in various capacities... but not Foster.

So I figured, why not Foster? Never meant to say that he was a HoF'er, or even as good as Maris... but why is his name never brought up?

The 50 HR club is a revered club from my childhood, a hallowed ground upon which only the greatest of the great baseball players could tread... but somehow, nobody seemed to recognize the pantheonness of Foster. In retrospect, he wasn't that great, and of course the sanctity of the 50 HR club is completely gone now that Brady Anderson, Greg Vaughn, and Luis Gonzalez are members, but still.

[Captain Cold Nose]

And it struck me that all of these guys are always talked about as being among the best players of all time, and all are in the HoF... except Maris and Foster. And that Maris is talked about all the time in various capacities... but not Foster.

So I figured, why not Foster? Never meant to say that he was a HoF'er, or even as good as Maris... but why is his name never brought up?



Foster was somewhat overshadowed by his more famous teammates, Rose (say what you will about him now, but he was immensely popular before the gambling came to light), Bench, Morgan and the acquired in-season Tom Seaver the year he hit 52. He was also a quiet, private man. Part of the difference may be the venues. New York is New York, and Cincinnati is, er, Kentucky.

[DoubleX]

The 50 HR club is a revered club from my childhood, a hallowed ground upon which only the greatest of the great baseball players could tread... but somehow, nobody seemed to recognize the pantheonness of Foster. In retrospect, he wasn't that great, and of course the sanctity of the 50 HR club is completely gone now that Brady Anderson, Greg Vaughn, and Luis Gonzalez are members, but still.

El Halo, as I read this I can't help but think back to your posts about Reggie Jackson in the 70's Players thread. Your posts there seemed to downgrade how impressive Jackson's career homerun totals were. When he retired, 500 career homeruns was still a revered and very exclusive club, and when he retired only 5 people ever had hit more homeruns than Jackson. Yet, you seemed to treat his career power stats as not all that impressive. Whereas here, you seem to put a lot of stock in how impressive one great season of power was when 50 homeruns was still a revered feat. It just seems to me that your contradicting yourself a bit on the importance of power as you do not treat Jackson's career homerun total as impressive, but you do treat anyone (including George Foster) who had one good season of power as impressive and at least worthy of hall consideration. I don't understand how you can give added weight to George Foster's hall case because he hit 50 homeruns once when it was a special achievement, but you dismiss Jackson's career homerun total (and suggest he was not much better than Frank Howard) when that was an even more significant achievement. What's more impressive to me? I'll take Jackson hitting 563 career homeruns good for 6th all-time when he retired and compiled in an era of depressed power stats, over one great season of power.

As for the topic of this thread, I'd take Foster over Maris due to longevity of production. Foster from 1975 to 1985 was consistently a good hitter and run producer, and from 76-79, he was great.

[dgarza]

I've never ever seen El Halo go so ape over defense as he has with Maris. Usually it's not an issue.

[ElHalo]

El Halo, as I read this I can't help but think back to your posts about Reggie Jackson in the 70's Players thread. Your posts there seemed to downgrade how impressive Jackson's career homerun totals were. When he retired, 500 career homeruns was still a revered and very exclusive club, and when he retired only 5 people ever had hit more homeruns than Jackson. Yet, you seemed to treat his career power stats as not all that impressive. Whereas here, you seem to put a lot of stock in how impressive one great season of power was when 50 homeruns was still a revered feat. It just seems to me that your contradicting yourself a bit on the importance of power as you do not treat Jackson's career homerun total as impressive, but you do treat anyone (including George Foster) who had one good season of power as impressive and at least worthy of hall consideration. I don't understand how you can give added weight to George Foster's hall case because he hit 50 homeruns once when it was a special achievement, but you dismiss Jackson's career homerun total (and suggest he was not much better than Frank Howard) when that was an even more significant achievement. What's more impressive to me? I'll take Jackson hitting 563 career homeruns good for 6th all-time when he retired and compiled in an era of depressed power stats, over one great season of power.

As for the topic of this thread, I'd take Foster over Maris due to longevity of production. Foster from 1975 to 1985 was consistently a good hitter and run producer, and from 76-79, he was great.

It's all a matter of degrees here. In the Reggie Jackson context, I was trying to argue that he wasn't that great of a player... that he was, at best, a third tier HoF'er.

I don't believe that either Maris or Foster are in any way, shape, or form HoF'ers. I don't believe that either one of them are even close to being as good as Reggie Jackson... he's not a top 30 all time player in my book, but he's still a lot better than Foster or Maris.

My point with Foster wasn't saying that he should merit Hall consideration... just that his name should maybe sometime be mentioned by anybody in any context ever. Sometime.

Obviously, while I don't consider Reggie's career to be all that impressive... it's much more impressive than either Maris or Foster. Of course I never meant to imply that either one should be considered on his level.

That much being said... in and of itself, I tend to be more impressed by great single season totals than great career totals. I'm a lot more impressed by somebody like George Sisler hitting .400 in two different seasons than by Lou Brock collecting 3000 hits despite never topping a .315 BA in any particular season. And I'd be a lot more impressed by somebody hitting 50 homers in one year (at least before 1990... Brady Anderson and Greg Vaughn don't impress me at all) than somebody hitting 25 a year for 20 years and topping 500... but never hitting more than 30 in a season.

I guess longevity's just not all that important to me... because as a baseball fan, you can't appreciate longevity while it's happening. Once a player's been around long enough to rack up the really impressive career totals, their skills have normally deteriorated to the point where they're not all that impressive to watch any more (Barry Bonds excepted). As a fan, you get excited by a guy getting 250 hits in a season, or 50 HR... but not so much by a guy hanging around till he's a bit player at age 42 to top 3000 hits, because by the time they've reached those totals, they're normally just that... a bit player. And bit players aren't exciting. When you think of how good somebody was, you normally think of them at their peak... not as the sum total of their career accomplishments.

[ElHalo]

I've never ever seen El Halo go so ape over defense as he has with Maris. Usually it's not an issue.

You're right. It normally doesn't concern me at all. But I've always said I'd use defense as a tie breaker... and when I've got two players with career OPS+'s one point apart, where one guy's SLG advantage is countered almost exactly by the other guy's OBP advantage... I consider that a tie. And when one guy had a reputation for not just above average defense, but exceptional defense... I consider it in a tie situation.

[Biofury]

Ruth 4
Foxx 2
Mays 2
Mantle 2
Kiner 2
Mize
Maris
Wilson
Greenberg
Foster



How about those that barely missed the feat,
Lou Gehrig hit 49 HR 2 times
Harmon Killebrew also hit 49 HR twice,
Frank Robinson hit 49 during his triple crown season,
MCGwire obviously did it, but just missed hitting 50 in his rookie year! :waving :clapping

We should add Bert Blyleven (pitcher) to that list, he served up 50 gopher balls in 1986

[kranepool]

foster was NEVER the most talented guy on the big red machine, and...

he was an above average power guy for several seasons, but not close to a Hall contender in my view. too may others of his ilk with much better numbers, ie., Canseco. which reminds me "will jose ever enter the hall?"

thoughts?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Foster is one of the biggest "what ifs" of the HOF gray area. And Foster IS in the HOF gray area. Most guys who do what Foster did aren't in the HOF, but some (more than one) are.

Foster was originally a product of the Giants' system, but he was trapped behind Bobby Bonds, Ken Henderson, and Willie Mays. As a prospect, Garry Maddox and Gary Matthews were ahead of him, and there was a guy named Bernie Williams (not Bernabe) who was rated about even with Foster as a prospect. His chances of moving up were not good in 1970.

Foster got a break when, during the 1971 season, the Reds traded for him to fill the hole caused by CF Bobby Tolan's injury. Foster turned in a 13-58-.241 line for the year in 473 ABs while playing CF. This wasn't the most auspicious debut for a 22 year old who we are discussing about being a HOFer, but it wasn't terrible for the era. One could conclude that Foster, given a regular job, would have thrived.

Instead, events conspired to keep Foster on the bench for THREE MORE YEARS:


The Reds reinstated Tolan to the lineup, even though his injury was a knee injury, and he was never the same player after that.

In 1972, Sparky tried to fill his OF void with "proven veterans" like Ted Uhlaender and a few others.

In 1973, Sparky acquired Cesar Geronimo, and chose to live with his defense in CF.

In 1974, Ken Griffey, Sr. was the hot Red prospect, and he became the third OF regular.


Foster did not re-emerge as a regular until age 26, in 1975, when Dan Driessen's glove became a liability. That's when Sparky installed Pete Rose at 3B and the LF job became open. Foster got the job, and held it this time.

There is much made of the four players that were the leadership core of the great Reds teams (Rose, Morgan, Bench, and Perez). What is forgotten is the performance of Foster. In 1975, Foster was part of a team that won their division by 20 games, and who won perhaps the greatest World Series ever. In 1976, the Reds went all the way again, and Foster finished second to teammate Morgan in MVP voting. (Foster was actually the favorite for much of the year, but Morgan finished super strong that year to win back-to-back awards.)

All of this was before the 50 HRs in 1977.

Foster's image was tarnished by his mediocre 1982 season with the Mets; he was a permanent disappointment for the Mets after that. Foster's 1983-85 seasons were reasonably productive, however; they were seasons consistent with the decline phase of a HOFer's career. Foster went into the tank again in 1986, and that ended up being his last season. Whether or not he could have squeezed out a last hurrah is irrelevant; he didn't really try to.

There ARE some legit questions about how good Foster was. One would have expected a future HOFer to have seized Tolan's job by the throat in 1971, playing Gehrig to Tolan's Pipp. Foster didn't do that. One would have expected a future HOFer to have risen above the cast of thousands in the Red outfield from 1972-74, but Sparky was a guy with a bias toward veterans and glove guys, plus the Reds were not in rebuilding mode; they contended every year but 1971 (the year Foster first played regularly). Foster dropped on the Red depth chart over that period and had to re-emerge as a prospect.

Had Foster just been given a job at age 22 and been told to go for it, things probably would have been different. Foster would have achieved 400 HRs easily, and would probably have had a Stargell-esque career. He's be a stronger candidate than he is now.

I really can't support Foster for the HOF; there are guys ahead of him. A number of guys. Foster was a guy who SHOULD have been a HOFer, and, with a little more luck, probably would have been.

[dl4060]

Foster is not as far out as I would have thought offhand. I always thought of him as a guy who had only two good seasons, but he is not far from HOF matierial. His years with the mets really killed him, because he was such a huge disappointment.

[romanos72]

Hardly Hall of Fame #s:

AB-7,023 Runs-986 Hits-1925 2B-307 HR-348 RBI-1,239 TB-3,370 SO-1,419 OBP-.338 Avg.-.275

Only 3 years in which he posted 30+ HRs and 100HRs. He strung together a few dominating years, like Dale Murphy, but not enough for entrance into the Hall. Of course, stats don't tell the whole story, but he just doesn't measure up to the players in the Hall. Loved watching him in the 70s and
80s, though.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Foster is not as far out as I would have thought offhand. I always thought of him as a guy who had only two good seasons, but he is not far from HOF matierial. His years with the mets really killed him, because he was such a huge disappointment.

What killed him was not "his years with the Mets", but his first year and his last year with the Mets.

Foster never got over having such a bad first year with the Mets, as far as the media and fans were concerned. They paid all that money for a guy who hit 13 HRs with a low BA who wasn't special on defense. They expected 30 plus HRs. They never took into account that Foster was 33 when he began that contract, and Shea was more brutal than Riverfront for a hitter. Foster had productive seasons from 1983-85, but they were below expectations, and because of that, many Mets fans seem to think that Foster's whole stay in NY was 1982 x 5. Not true.

Then, to make it worse, the Mets in 1986 had an all-time great team, but Foster wasn't part of it. He grew old, then was either released or traded to the White Sox for just about nothing (I forget which). Not being a memorable part of 1986 put the kibosh on Foster's image. He made a poor first impression in New York and a poor last impression in New York, and nothing he did in between overcame that.