Is George Foster HOF material

[jjpm74]

I've been researching one of my favorite childhood players, George Foster and was surprised to see just how close to HOF numbers he has.

His plusses:

*Over a 7 year stretch from 1975-1981 hit 20 or more homeruns at a time when 20 home runs was considered a good number for a power hitter. Included in this stretch are the years 1977-1979 where he hit 52 home runs, 40 home runs and 30 home runs respectively.

*Drove in 100 or more runs 3 times

*Batted .300 or better 4 times.

*1 MVP--1977, 2.37 MVP shares puts him 67th all time.

*5 time All Star including 1976 where he was the All Star MVP

*26 Black ink points puts him 1 away from the average HOFer.

*HOF Monitor is 94.0

*a standout on the Big Red Machine teams that also features Pete Rose, Johnny Bench, Tony Perez, Joe Morgan and Dave Concepcion.

His minuses:

*None of his comparables are in the HOF, though cases have been made for Gill Hodges, Fred Lynn, Del Ennis, and Rocky Colavito.

*119 Gray Ink puts him below the average for a HOFer.

So is he in or out?

[leecemark]

--He isn't THAT much different than Jim Rice and Rice is likely in for 2009. OTOH Rice had a few more good years to make for a better career and he is not going to be the most inspired choice by the BWAA. Foster is behind at least a half a dozen contemporary outfielders in the line of Cooperstown and most of them will never make it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

--He isn't THAT much different than Jim Rice and Rice is likely in for 2009. OTOH Rice had a few more good years to make for a better career and he is not going to be the most inspired choice by the BWAA. Foster is behind at least a half a dozen contemporary outfielders in the line of Cooperstown and most of them will never make it.

He's actually more like Tony Oliva than Rice, in that Rice lost years at the back end of his career, whereas Oliva and Foster lost years on the front ends of their careers. In truth, both Rice and Foster are behind Oliva.

Well . . . maybe that's not quite accurate. Foster took longer than Rice to establish himself as an MLB regular, for reasons that were, in part, beyond his control. He was a superstar from 1976-81 after having a good season re-establishing himself as a regular in 1975. But he fell of the cliff in 1982 when he went to the Mets; he was a sub-.500 OWP man for 4 of the 5 years he played in NYC, and you can cobble together a platoon in LF that will equal that production.

Foster's not a HOFer for me, and I'm not really sure he would have been if he had been allowed to keep his regular OF job in 1972, either with the Reds or somewhere else. His rapid (and permanent) decline at age 33 is NOT the sign of a HOFer. And, all things considered, he's clearly behind Jim Rice, as well as Oliva.

[Paul Wendt]

That is such a reasonable statement!

He was Hall of Fame material but didn't tailor a hall of fame suit.
--without any cause of a type that some people credit: owned by minor club, in military service, under draconian suspension, etc.

[THE OX]

There's another thread somewhere here at BBF, the gist of which is non-HOF'ers who had one or more superb seasons.

IMO Foster would fit perfectly into that category.

[2Chance]

I voted for "Not even close" based on what I remembered about him. I thought he had about a three-year peak, when he was actually very good for about 7. Maybe he should have been in the "very good, but short" range, but it's still not the most glowing endorsement.

He had nine seasons of 20+ homers, including that streak of 7, broken up by the year he was traded to the Mets. The following two seasons in New York he also finished 6th in HR, with 28 and 24.

I liked Foster too, and he is still active in the community and looks like he could suit up and play today.

[KCGHOST]

I am not big on Jim Rice's candidacy so I really can't get excited about a player who Rice exceeds in career win shares, WARP3, and RCAA.

[Brooklyn]

[QUOTE=2Chance;1127838]I voted for "Not even close" based on what I remembered about him. I thought he had about a three-year peak, when he was actually very good for about 7. Maybe he should have been in the "very good, but short" range, but it's still not the most glowing endorsement.

{/QUOTE]

I'm probalby nitpicking about the categories, but I couldn't vote for "falls a little short". "Not even close" probalby doesn't give him his due, but he is far more then "a little short". As already stated, there are a number of outfielders in line in front of him, and in fairness the Hall would have to greatly expand in size before he would be seriously considered.

He was a nice player and a key part of the Big Red Machine, but was pretty much done by the time he left Cincinatti at age 32

[Captain Cold Nose]

Foster is my all-time favorite, next to Yaz. Great guy to meet in person. And, as 2Chance said, very much a contributor to the community.

He was a very good player who had a couple big offensive seasons. There are a lot of those throughout history. Very good does not equal great or special, which a HOF player should be.

[Cowtipper]

He had good black and grey ink, but I still wouldn't put him in - he is right below the Hall of Fame line. The bulk of his 'great' career, in my opinion, occurred in a six year period from 1975 to 1980, where he hit 199 of his 348 career home runs and drove in 659 of his 1239 runs. Other than that, he was an average to good player at best. In that six year span, he averaged 33 home runs and 110 RBI - that means, in all the other years he played, he averaged 12 home runs and 48 RBI. During the six years he was a real star - but for the rest of his career, he was basically a John Valentin with a worse eye at the plate.

Do six years make a Hall of Famer? In George Foster's case, I say no.