PDA

View Full Version : Jeff Kent Retires... Is He HOF material???


soxinem1
01-21-2009, 01:36 PM
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/8691437/13100968

Tough call. Definitely a good hitting 2B (most of the time at 2B anyway).

Troubles with defense, teammates (though I'd give him a pass on his relationship with Barroid).

Since we are debating HOF candidates, might as well add another one.

khan
01-21-2009, 01:50 PM
Thanks to the "Jim Rice" clause, Jeff Kent should be in the HOF easily. Kent had more RBI and hits than Rice.

Kent also is:
The All time leader among 2nd basemen in HR,
A 4x Silver Slugger,
A 1x MVP, as a 2nd Baseman, mind you,
And a major jerk, to boot.


But again: If Rice got in, then so should Kent.

thomas35forever
01-21-2009, 01:53 PM
Nah. He didn't stand out that much.

kittle42
01-21-2009, 01:54 PM
Can't compare Rice to Kent like that - two different eras.

Kent is a definite no.

Hendu
01-21-2009, 02:01 PM
Tough call. If he had put up these numbers in the 80s or early to mid-90s, he'd be a first ballot no-doubter. But in the juiced ball era, his career just doesn't stand out. He's never really been the star of his team, even the year he won the MVP.

PaleHoser
01-21-2009, 02:17 PM
He's not in my Hall of Fame. Roberto Alomar is the next second baseman that I would elect.

FedEx227
01-21-2009, 02:30 PM
Based of his era, no.

hi im skot
01-21-2009, 02:42 PM
No way.

Thome25
01-21-2009, 02:42 PM
Here's his career #'s He played 2,034 of his 2,298 games at 2B which was BY FAR his #1 position:

Jeff Kent:

G 2298 AB 8498 R 1320 H 2461 2B 560 3B 47 HR 377 RBI 1518 SB 94 CS 60 BB 801 SO 1522 BA .290 OBP .356 SLG .500 TB 4246

Here's the career #'s of two HOF 2nd basemen:

Ryne Sandberg:

G 2164 AB 8385 R 1318 H 2386 2B 403 3B 76 HR 282 RBI 1061 SB 344 CS 107 BB 761 SO 1260 BA .285 OBP .344 SLG .452 TB 3787

Joe Morgan:

G 2649 AB 9277 R 1650 H 2517 2B 449 3B 96 HR 268 RBI 1133 SB 689 CS 162 BB 1865 SO 1015 BA .271 OBP .392 SLG .427 TB 3962

And the career #'s of another potential HOF 2B:

Roberto Alomar:

G 2379 AB 9073 R 1508 H 2724 2B 504 3B 80 HR 210 RBI 1134 SB 474 CS 114 BB 1032 SO 1140 BA .300 OBP .371 SLG .443 TB 4018

And for argument's sake here are Jim Rice's career #'s ( because his numbers were good enough to get in):

Jim Rice:

G 2089 AB 8225 R 1249 H 2452 2B 373 3B 79 HR 382 RBI 1451 SB 58 CS 34 BB 670 SO 1423 BA .298 OBP .352 SLG .502 TB 4129

IMO based on these #'s and comparisons, Jeff Kent (along with Roberto Alomar) does indeed deserve to be in the HOF. (I can't believe I just wrote that!!) His numbers were as good or better than these guys. He also played in LESS games than some of them. Yeah, Kent was a power tool but, so were Morgan and Alomar. (He spit on an ump one time).

Someone brought up the steroid era. Was Kent a known juicer? If he was, then he is a definite NO for the HOF......if that was the case then, he should sit out of the HOF forever along with Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds. If not, then he definitely does deserve to be in the HOF.....as much as I'd hate to say it.

FedEx227
01-21-2009, 03:09 PM
You have to look at the era in which he played though. Look at the guys that played at the same time he did.

Thome25
01-21-2009, 03:12 PM
Can't compare Rice to Kent like that - two different eras.

Kent is a definite no.


You have to look at the era in which he played though. Look at the guys that played at the same time he did.



They are still using statistics that were established by HOF players who played decades ago as the benchmark by which all potential HOFers are judged against.

Why is it the opposite when the player isn't already there? The argument is "Well so-and-so played in a different era." Well I'm here to tell you they compare stats from different eras all the time when it comes time to decide who goes in and who doesn't. Are all things ever created equal when comparing stats this way? Probably not.

The only way Kent doesn't go in is if he definitely took perfomance enhancers during his career. This isn't a borderline player here.....his stats are as good or better than current and future HOFers.

FedEx227
01-21-2009, 03:18 PM
I think people think they do, but they don't. If they used Jim Rice's numbers against the guys from this era then there is no way Jim Rice goes in. A-Rod has already destroyed most of Rice's numbers. Rice was a feared power hitter in his era, and that's why he's in the HOF. Kent was a good power hitter, one of the best at his position, which may get him in, but honestly HOF worthy compared with the era he was in? It's tough to say.

He may get the Mike Piazza treatment though being that he really changed the position and was one of the true all-around power hitters at 2B.

Eddo144
01-21-2009, 03:19 PM
They are still using statistics that were established by HOF players who played decades ago as the benchmark by which all potential HOFers are judged against.

Why is it the opposite when the player isn't already there? The argument is "Well so-and-so played in a different era." Well I'm here to tell you they compare stats from different eras all the time when it comes time to decide who goes in and who doesn't.

The only way Kent doesn't go in is if he definitely took perfomance enhancers during his career. This isn't a borderline player here.....his stats are as good or better than current and future HOFers.
Who is "they"? And you absolutely have to adjust for eras. The game has changed over time. Hitting 50 HR in 1975 was a huge deal. In 1995? Not so much?

FedEx227
01-21-2009, 03:22 PM
Who is "they"? And you absolutely have to adjust for eras. The game has changed over time. Hitting 50 HR in 1975 was a huge deal. In 1995? Not so much?

Absolutely, put Jim Rice in today's era and you have Carlos Delgado. I'm certain people wouldn't be in an uproar if Delgado doesn't go into the Hall.

It's all about eras.

Thome25
01-21-2009, 03:23 PM
Who is "they"? And you absolutely have to adjust for eras. The game has changed over time. Hitting 50 HR in 1975 was a huge deal. In 1995? Not so much?

"They" is the HOF voters. My point is, the overall benchmark for what is considered to be a HOF 2B hasn't changed no matter what era you played in.

Ryne Sandberg's and Jeff Kent's stats compare favorably with Joe Morgan's. That's like saying that Ryne Sandberg and Kent don't deserve to be there because the game was differnet when Morgan played in the 1960's and 70's. (Morgan's prime years.)

Not so.....the benchmark for HOF 2B is still there.....even in different eras.

50 HRs is still a big deal.....when was the last time a White Sox player hit 50? That's right...NEVER.

FedEx227
01-21-2009, 03:24 PM
It very well might, but I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't.

Like I said, he very well may get in based off being the first at his position to become a true power hitter much like Piazza will get in there for being the best power hitting catcher of all time.

veeter
01-21-2009, 03:27 PM
I can't put him in. Roberto was far superior because of his unreal defense. Kent was a very, very good offensive second baseman. But it's not the 'Hall of Very Good'.

kittle42
01-21-2009, 03:35 PM
I'm also going to say this analysis requires a little bit of the "I know it when I see it" thing. Almost all of us saw Jeff Kent's whole career - do you think he's hall worthy, without examining the numbers under a microscope?

Thome25
01-21-2009, 03:37 PM
I can't put him in. Roberto was far superior because of his unreal defense. Kent was a very, very good offensive second baseman. But it's not the 'Hall of Very Good'.

Look at my post comparing Kent's offensive stats with Morgan's, Sandberg's and Alomar's. He was as good or better offensively than those three players. That's almost unheard of for a career 2nd baseman.

If he was a product of his era, then how come there wasn't more 2B who were putting up numbers just like his?

Based on stats, if Kent's numbers were only "very good' then Morgan, Alomar and Sandberg's stats were only "very good" as well because their stats were almost identical.

I'm not a fan of Kent's.......like I said, he was a power tool throughout his career but, he deserves to be there as long as he wasn't on performance enhancers himself.

Frank Thomas' numbers are good enough for the HOF....and there's no proof he took steroids. But, with the "steroid era" argument then he shoudn't be there either just based on what era he played in right? (I absolutely think Frank should be there by the way.)

Thome25
01-21-2009, 03:40 PM
I'm also going to say this analysis requires a little bit of the "I know it when I see it" thing. Almost all of us saw Jeff Kent's whole career - do you think he's hall worthy, without examining the numbers under a microscope?


I know what you're saying.....I always ignored Kent because he was a tool and I didn't realize he was that good......until I just looked at his numbers. He put up numbers that were unheard of for a 2B.

If he was merely a product of his era then there should've been more 2nd basemen putting up numbers just like his in the 1990's and 2000's right? His numbers were insane for a 2B even in his own era.

downstairs
01-21-2009, 03:43 PM
I'm also going to say this analysis requires a little bit of the "I know it when I see it" thing. Almost all of us saw Jeff Kent's whole career - do you think he's hall worthy, without examining the numbers under a microscope?

Nope, and that's the litmus test I use as well.

First of all, its the hall of FAME. I've always taken that to mean stats are only a small part of it. Its more "does this man represent the best of baseball- for whatever reason."

I have no problem with a guy with worse stats than another getting in, and the other not.

Here's another simple test I use. If his team were coming in town to play my team, would I be really excited to see him play? Did I ever say "Lets get tickets when the A's come to town, it would be cool to see Rickey Henderson"? Yes.

Would I say this for Kent? No way.

I'm a numbers guy- big time. But I leave that be when I think through the hall of fame.

Eddo144
01-21-2009, 03:43 PM
"They" is the HOF voters. My point is, the overall benchmark for what is considered to be a HOF 2B hasn't changed no matter what era you played in.

Ryne Sandberg's and Jeff Kent's stats compare favorably with Joe Morgan's. That's like saying that Ryne Sandberg and Kent don't deserve to be there because the game was differnet when Morgan played in the 1960's and 70's. (Morgan's prime years.)

Not so.....the benchmark for HOF 2B is still there.....even in different eras.

50 HRs is still a big deal.....when was the last time a White Sox player hit 50? That's right...NEVER.
Where to begin?

First of all, Joe Morgan's numbers are not considered to be the Hall of Fame benchmark; rather, they're the best or second best of all time. When you adjust for era, Sandberg's numbers are not as good as Morgan, but still good enough for the Hall of Fame.

Just because the Sox have never had a 50-HR player doesn't mean it's not easier to do today. Use 40 as the cutoff instead. The Sox didn't have one of those until Frank Thomas. Since then, they've also had Belle, Konerko, Thome, and Dye. And Quentin was well on his way this year, until his injury. It's clearly less impressive to hit 40 HR in a season since 1995 than it was at any time before then.

Thome25
01-21-2009, 03:47 PM
Nope, and that's the litmus test I use as well.

First of all, its the hall of FAME. I've always taken that to mean stats are only a small part of it. Its more "does this man represent the best of baseball- for whatever reason."

I have no problem with a guy with worse stats than another getting in, and the other not.

Here's another simple test I use. If his team were coming in town to play my team, would I be really excited to see him play? Did I ever say "Lets get tickets when the A's come to town, it would be cool to see Rickey Henderson"? Yes.

Would I say this for Kent? No way.

I'm a numbers guy- big time. But I leave that be when I think through the hall of fame.

Then by your definition the HOF should be renamed to the "Hall Of Popularity". This isn't a popularity contest.....it's the HOF. There's plenty of players who were asshats in the hall. look at Rice, Morgan, and Ty Cobb.

Bottom line is, Kent's offensive numbers are on par or better than the greatest players ever to play 2nd base (and other positions as well ahem...Rice....ahem.) and as much as I'd hate to say it, he deserves to be there........barring any PODs.

Eddo144
01-21-2009, 03:51 PM
Look at my post comparing Kent's offensive stats with Morgan's, Sandberg's and Alomar's. He was as good or better offensively than those three players. That's almost unheard of for a career 2nd baseman.
Except that those three were all very good defensively, and Kent was not. That's huge, especially for a defense-first position like 2B.

Based on stats, if Kent's numbers were only "very good' then Morgan, Alomar and Sandberg's stats were only "very good" as well because their stats were almost identical.
Once again, the game has changed over time; raw numbers aren't sufficient to compare players across eras.

I'm not a fan of Kent's.......like I said, he was a power tool throughout his career but, he deserves to be there as long as he wasn't on performance enhancers himself.
This is, at least, a logical argument. Kent still did put up good numbers. He's borderline.

Frank Thomas' numbers are good enough for the HOF....and there's no proof he took steroids. But, with the "steroid era" argument then he shoudn't be there either just based on what era he played in right? (I absolutely think Frank should be there by the way.)
There is no proof that many players being blackballed took steroids. None for McGwire, none for Sosa, none for Bonds, none for Clemens. Just speculation and evidence. Nothing has been proven.

That said, Thomas still put up good number relative to his peers. Look at career OPS+ - that's measured against hitters of the same era:

Frank Thomas: 156 (and his first seven full seasons were all at least 174!)
Jeff Kent: 123 (only one season (162 in 2000) above Thomas's career average)
Joe Morgan: 132

veeter
01-21-2009, 03:52 PM
Look at my post comparing Kent's offensive stats with Morgan's, Sandberg's and Alomar's. He was as good or better offensively than those three players. That's almost unheard of for a career 2nd baseman.

If he was a product of his era, then how come there wasn't more 2B who were putting up numbers just like his?

Based on stats, if Kent's numbers were only "very good' then Morgan, Alomar and Sandberg's stats were only "very good" as well because their stats were almost identical.

I'm not a fan of Kent's.......like I said, he was a power tool throughout his career but, he deserves to be there as long as he wasn't on performance enhancers himself.

Frank Thomas' numbers are good enough for the HOF....and there's no proof he took steroids. But, with the "steroid era" argument then he shoudn't be there either just based on what era he played in right? (I absolutely think Frank should be there by the way.)Kent was a poor defender. That said, yes he played second base, but maybe he should have been stuck at first base. Then, he wouldn't be close. The other guys you mentioned, especially Sandberg and Alomar were outstanding defensive second basemen. And to me, much more Hall worthy.

Thome25
01-21-2009, 03:52 PM
Where to begin?

First of all, Joe Morgan's numbers are not considered to be the Hall of Fame benchmark; rather, they're the best or second best of all time. When you adjust for era, Sandberg's numbers are not as good as Morgan, but still good enough for the Hall of Fame.

Just because the Sox have never had a 50-HR player doesn't mean it's not easier to do today. Use 40 as the cutoff instead. The Sox didn't have one of those until Frank Thomas. Since then, they've also had Belle, Konerko, Thome, and Dye. And Quentin was well on his way this year, until his injury. It's clearly less impressive to hit 40 HR in a season since 1995 than it was at any time before then.

Look....let's just agree to disagree OK?! Kent's number's put him among the greatest ever to play 2B......and he put up insane numbers for a 2B even in his own era.

Do I want an asshat like him in the Hall? NO......do i think his #'s warrant him being there when comparing them with the best ever to play his postition? I'm sad to say yes.

sox1970
01-21-2009, 04:01 PM
Kent is a good example of why the players of his era will be the toughest to call. Nobody knows who juiced and who didn't. Carlos Delgado is another one. I've never really thought of him as a Hall of Famer either...then look at his career stats. They're sick.

It's a tough call. Kent may get in if there isn't any proof of steroid use, but the era will always be looked at with doubt.

PKalltheway
01-21-2009, 04:02 PM
I think that Kent is a Hall of Famer. As Thome25 was saying, even though he played in a power era, his offensive numbers were still very impressive for someone at his position. No other second baseman was putting up nearly the same kind of numbers during his time. He outhit all of his contemporaries playing the same position.

His defense was not good at all, however, I think his offensive numbers were good enough to trump his defensive capabilities. I know that Kent was a one-dimensional player, and a jackass, but I won't hold it against him. He usually wasn't the best player on his team, but he always played an important role on winning ballclubs (1997 Giants, 2000 Giants, 2002 Giants, 2004 Astros, etc.). You take Kent off of the postseason teams he played for, and they wouldn't make the postseason.

He goes in my Hall of Fame.

MUsoxfan
01-21-2009, 04:04 PM
I can't put him in. Roberto was far superior because of his unreal defense. Kent was a very, very good offensive second baseman. But it's not the 'Hall of Very Good'.


Kent also wouldn't be setting the low mark of the "Hall of Very Good". Look at the inductees, and tell me that Kent isn't better than a good chunk of them

SoxfaninLA
01-21-2009, 04:07 PM
Kent is a little bit of a tough case. When you say his name you don't think "best player at his position for 7-10 years" or "one of the most feared players in the game", but he does have some impressive credentials. Career OPS+ of 123, 4 top 10 MVP finishes, and MVP award, and 377 HR at second base. His top ten comparables have 5 hall of famers (Fisk, Berra, Bench, Rice, and Sandberg), and one sure fire hall of famer (Ivan Rodriguez)

That being said, Kent was not one of the most feared hitters in the game. A lot of his numbers were compiled when he was hitting right next to Bonds when he was on his juice-fueled superman years. Kent is also an awful defensive player, and like many have observed in this thread, a tool. He is not first ballot by any stretch, but I think he could be a guy that year by year gets more support and could be a Jim Rice type of candidate. I wouldn't vote for him, but I suspect a lot of people may after some time has passed and they look at his number.

soxinem1
01-21-2009, 04:11 PM
Who is "they"? And you absolutely have to adjust for eras. The game has changed over time. Hitting 50 HR in 1975 was a huge deal. In 1995? Not so much?

Actually, Albert Belle was the only 50HR guy in 1995, beating out his closest rival by 10 HR's in both leagues!!:smile:

But I hear where you are coming from.

Conversely, a starting pitcher with a 4.00 ERA in 1975 usually meant you were battling for a job the next year, or even cut. But in 1995, you could have been an ace on many teams with a 4.00 ERA.

khan
01-21-2009, 04:13 PM
I can't put him in. Roberto was far superior because of his unreal defense. Kent was a very, very good offensive second baseman. But it's not the 'Hall of Very Good'.

Unfortunately, you're wrong. Thanks to every polesmoking East Coast member of the media that voted for him and ESPN, Jim Rice's induction changed the HOF into the 'Hall of Very Good.'

I don't give a damn what era Jim Rice played in. His numbers simply weren't good enough. But thanks to his induction, BOTH Alomar and Kent should get in, no problem. Heck, induct Harold Baines, too! Tim Raines' numbers were better overall than Jim Rice's. Thanks to this induction, there are a lot more players that are now deserving.

soxinem1
01-21-2009, 04:18 PM
"They" is the HOF voters. My point is, the overall benchmark for what is considered to be a HOF 2B hasn't changed no matter what era you played in.

Ryne Sandberg's and Jeff Kent's stats compare favorably with Joe Morgan's. That's like saying that Ryne Sandberg and Kent don't deserve to be there because the game was differnet when Morgan played in the 1960's and 70's. (Morgan's prime years.)

Not so.....the benchmark for HOF 2B is still there.....even in different eras.

In both Morgan's and Sandbag's era, 2B was not really the offensive position it has become. Ray Durham's numbers compare very well to these guys eras. If he would have played in the 70's and 80's, and put up his numbers, Ray could be considered one of the best of those eras.

The thing that always struck me about Kent was his position. I remember early in his career he basically played everywhere, and never really nailed down a spot at 2B until he went to SFG.

He was tried at 3B, SS, and as a utility guy. He didn't hit enough at 1B, and fielded like crap at other positions besides 2B. He had no speed or desire to be an OF.

He was no gazelle at 2B, but he did the least amount of harm. I always thought he was a prime DH who had to play a position.

Eddo144
01-21-2009, 04:24 PM
Kent is a little bit of a tough case. When you say his name you don't think "best player at his position for 7-10 years" or "one of the most feared players in the game", but he does have some impressive credentials. Career OPS+ of 123, 4 top 10 MVP finishes, and MVP award, and 377 HR at second base. His top ten comparables have 5 hall of famers (Fisk, Berra, Bench, Rice, and Sandberg), and one sure fire hall of famer (Ivan Rodriguez.
Wow. His comparables actually detract from his case and convince me he's not a Hall of Famer. Fisk, Berra, Bench, and Ivan Rodriguez are all Hall of Fame-level catchers. Good offensive numbers for a catcher are not good offensive numbers for any other position.

munchman33
01-21-2009, 04:40 PM
Normally I'd say no. But now that Rice is in, I think I should be in too. And if I'm in, it would be hard to keep Jeff Kent out.

Thome25
01-21-2009, 04:41 PM
Wow. His comparables actually detract from his case and convince me he's not a Hall of Famer. Fisk, Berra, Bench, and Ivan Rodriguez are all Hall of Fame-level catchers. Good offensive numbers for a catcher are not good offensive numbers for any other position.

What are you smoking? Can I have some? 2B is not known as an offensive position either. Heck, catcher has probably been a comparable offensive position to 2B over the years.

I mean, Nellie Fox and Bill Mazeroski....sure hit a ton didn't they?:rolleyes:

BadBobbyJenks
01-21-2009, 04:49 PM
I would be shocked if Kent did not get in, best offensive 2B we have seen.

HomeFish
01-21-2009, 05:34 PM
If players deserve to get into the HoF based on stats alone, why do we have a voting process? Why not let a computer decide?

Eddo144
01-21-2009, 05:35 PM
What are you smoking? Can I have some? 2B is not known as an offensive position either. Heck, catcher has probably been a comparable offensive position to 2B over the years.

I mean, Nellie Fox and Bill Mazeroski....sure hit a ton didn't they?:rolleyes:
...and yet 2B has still been a better hitting position than catcher.

Picking out two low-hit, good-field 2B doesn't prove your point, either.

FedEx227
01-21-2009, 05:46 PM
Bottom line is, Kent's offensive numbers are on par or better than the greatest players ever to play 2nd base (and other positions as well ahem...Rice....ahem.) and as much as I'd hate to say it, he deserves to be there........barring any PODs.

STOP comparing eras!

You keep doing it and it makes your argument look more and more stupid every single time.

You said if Kent's numbers are only very good, then all those other 2B are only very good.

NO, they are great because of the era they played in, Morgan was a product of the way baseball was being played in that era.

If you make that stupid analogy, then every power hitter from 1910-1987 completely blows because all of these guys now are much better.

By your mind-numbing logic, Fred McGriff is a first ballot Hall of Fame because his numbers blow Harmon Killebrew out of the water.

Carlos Delgado is a shoe-in because his numbers eclipse that of Willie Stargel and Wilie McCovey.

You cannot compare eras. Just because Kent's number stack up with those of other 2B in the Hall is 100% irrelevant to his induction into the Hall of Fame because you're always going to be able to make a case for guys from today's era because it's a much larger offensive era in terms of the way players are trained, the way bats are made, the way balls are made and the way stadiums are made.

SoxfaninLA
01-21-2009, 05:47 PM
Wow. His comparables actually detract from his case and convince me he's not a Hall of Famer. Fisk, Berra, Bench, and Ivan Rodriguez are all Hall of Fame-level catchers. Good offensive numbers for a catcher are not good offensive numbers for any other position.

I can't disagree with you here. Bench and Rodriguez were at least legendary defenders. Fisk was on the downside of his career when I really started intently following baseball so I am not sure what kind of defensive player he was, and Berra I also have no idea as I have never seen him play. The fact is his hall of fame comparables are mostly catchers, which until recently was not an offensive position. Two of these catchers are legendary defensive players, one has 3 MVP awards and 10 championships, and Fisk holds the record for most games caught at his position and was an 11 time all star.

Kent is a guy who may have put up "numbers" like them, but has none of the intangibles (championships, games played at the toughest position on the diamond, etc.), is a terrible defensive player, and put a lot of these numbers up while being protected by a hall of famer who put up some of the greatest seasons baseball has ever seen. Kent is a no go in my book, but like I said, his candidacy will be interesting I think.

Hendu
01-21-2009, 06:06 PM
For all of those numbers Kent put up, he sure did it fairly quietly. With the exception of a few years where he was hitting behind Barry at his peak, could you honestly say that Jeff Kent was one of the best players in the game? A superstar? Even when he won the MVP, he was more of a role player. All of those numbers, and he's only gone to 5 all star games at a weak offensive position. Very borderline.

munchman33
01-21-2009, 06:25 PM
STOP comparing eras!


Why? Even in his era, Jim Rice shouldn't have been elected. But he was, so that's the low end measuring stick. Kent played second base and put up better numbers. If Rice is in, Kent definately deserves it.

WhiteSox5187
01-21-2009, 06:50 PM
There is no proof that many players being blackballed took steroids. None for McGwire, none for Sosa, none for Bonds, none for Clemens. Just speculation and evidence. Nothing has been proven.

While there is no "proof" (as in a postive test or an admission), there is a hell of a lot of evidence against Bonds and Clemens. Bonds has a trail that the baseball writer for SI, Tom Verducci, said "Makes it clear that he is nothing short of the biggest cheater of all time." Clemens is now having a lot of evidence stare him in the face with McNamee submitting evidence for blood tests to federal prosecutors. McGwire even has his testimony strongly against him (after all, if you HADN'T done steroids, wouldn't you be vehemently denying it rather than side stepping the question?).

The one guy on tht list who I've never heard of any tangible evidence (besides just looking at him throughout the years and the way his numbers spiked) is actually Sosa. I think he was a juicer, but I don't think there is any tangible proof.

I don't think anyone has ever accused Thomas of steroid use largely because he came out speaking against steroids in 1995!

FedEx227
01-21-2009, 06:57 PM
Why? Even in his era, Jim Rice shouldn't have been elected. But he was, so that's the low end measuring stick. Kent played second base and put up better numbers. If Rice is in, Kent definately deserves it.

Actually, he did quite well in comparing with those around him.

Here are their yearly averages:

Jim Rice: .298/.352/502, 30 HR, 113 RBI, 128 OPS+
Eddie Murray: .287/.359/.476, 27 HR, 103 RBI, 129 OPS+
Willie Stargell: .282/.360/.529, 33 HR, 106 RBI, 147 OPS+
Dave Winfield: .283/.353/.475, 25 HR, 100 RBI, 130 OPS+
Mike Schmidt: .267/.380/.527, 37 HR, 107 RBI, 147 OPS+
Reggie Jackson: .262/.356/.490, 32 HR, 98 RBI, 139 OPS+

munchman33
01-21-2009, 07:11 PM
Actually, he did quite well in comparing with those around him.

Here are their yearly averages:

Jim Rice: .298/.352/502, 30 HR, 113 RBI, 128 OPS+
Eddie Murray: .287/.359/.476, 27 HR, 103 RBI, 129 OPS+
Willie Stargell: .282/.360/.529, 33 HR, 106 RBI, 147 OPS+
Dave Winfield: .283/.353/.475, 25 HR, 100 RBI, 130 OPS+
Mike Schmidt: .267/.380/.527, 37 HR, 107 RBI, 147 OPS+
Reggie Jackson: .262/.356/.490, 32 HR, 98 RBI, 139 OPS+

Using yearly averages to make a comparison isn't a good way to do it. Rice only played 13 full seasons. If he played well enough at the end of his career to go five more seasons and his averages were there, you'd have a case.

TDog
01-21-2009, 07:33 PM
Normally I'd say no. But now that Rice is in, I think I should be in too. And if I'm in, it would be hard to keep Jeff Kent out.

Jim Rice being elected to tha Hall of Fame this year is irrelevant to the discussion.

turners56
01-21-2009, 07:43 PM
I don't think Kent stood out much at all in his career.

He's on the border, but I'm going to have to say no.

FedEx227
01-21-2009, 08:04 PM
Using yearly averages to make a comparison isn't a good way to do it. Rice only played 13 full seasons. If he played well enough at the end of his career to go five more seasons and his averages were there, you'd have a case.

So now we can't use a full body of work?

Keep the stipulations coming.

I was always aware that you judged a players career by his career, but I guess I'm wrong.

Averages tell just as much of a story as arbitrary bench-marks, especially when deciding how well Rice did in his era compared to those who played in his era.

Chez
01-21-2009, 08:11 PM
Unfortunately, you're wrong. Thanks to every polesmoking East Coast member of the media that voted for him and ESPN, Jim Rice's induction changed the HOF into the 'Hall of Very Good.'

I don't give a damn what era Jim Rice played in. His numbers simply weren't good enough. But thanks to his induction, BOTH Alomar and Kent should get in, no problem. Heck, induct Harold Baines, too! Tim Raines' numbers were better overall than Jim Rice's. Thanks to this induction, there are a lot more players that are now deserving.

I see your point. But is opening the doors to the HOF a smidge more such a bad thing? I don't think the presence of Jim Rice or Bert Blyleven or Jim Kaat or Jeff Kent dilutes the Hall.

Craig Grebeck
01-21-2009, 09:07 PM
Jim Rice being elected to tha Hall of Fame this year is irrelevant to the discussion.
Not really. Rice being in the HOF means that the BBWAA collectively believes he is better than every single player that is not in the HOF (that's eligible to be voted in, of course i.e. not active or within five years of retirement). That makes it all the more baffling why he is in and a guy like Frank Howard would never be considered.

A. Cavatica
01-21-2009, 09:08 PM
I see your point. But is opening the doors to the HOF a smidge more such a bad thing? I don't think the presence of Jim Rice or Bert Blyleven or Jim Kaat or Jeff Kent dilutes the Hall.

Rice in his prime was a much more dominant hitter than Kent ever was. As I followed Kent's career and watched him play, I never for a moment thought I was watching a Hall of Famer. Rice was a different story.

MrT27
01-21-2009, 10:34 PM
A lot of you guys are saying you have to compare him to the era in which he played, which is fine. But your comparing him to all the sluggers who played different positions. If you compare him to other second basemen of his era then yes he should be in.

guillen4life13
01-21-2009, 11:52 PM
I'd vote no for him. Roberto Alomar was arguably a better offensive player than Kent (more rounded) AND was hands down the best defensive 2B in the majors for most of his career. Both had some major stars hitting behind them in their day. Difference is that I think Alomar helped the guy behind him more than the guy behind him helped him. Vice versa for Kent.

Based on numbers alone, do you really think Kent deserved the 2000 MVP over Todd Helton? I know about Coors inflation, but seriously, I don't even think the ballpark could have been the only difference there.

Compare:
Helton: .372 BA, .463 OBP, .698 SLG, 42 HR, 59 2B, 147 RBI
Kent: .334 BA, .424 OBP, .596 SLG, 33 HR, 41 2B, 125 RBI

*items in bold indicate that he led the NL in that category.

Take away his MVP and suddenly Kent doesn't seem so great anymore. Sounds like both MVPs that year were bad choices in going to Bay Area players.

munchman33
01-22-2009, 12:17 AM
So now we can't use a full body of work?

Keep the stipulations coming.

I was always aware that you judged a players career by his career, but I guess I'm wrong.

Averages tell just as much of a story as arbitrary bench-marks, especially when deciding how well Rice did in his era compared to those who played in his era.

You misunderstand. I'm saying he didn't play a full career. If he had played another 5-7 years, those "averages" wouldn't be up there with those other guys. Rice's "averages" are a result of not playing much baseball because he wasn't good enough to stay in the league at a young age. His five best years are weighted heavily in an argument like that, and it discounts how good those other players were severely when you say it's the same.

Save McCuddy's
01-22-2009, 12:59 AM
Look at my post comparing Kent's offensive stats with Morgan's, Sandberg's and Alomar's. He was as good or better offensively than those three players. That's almost unheard of for a career 2nd baseman.

This statement is not true. Kent's offensive numbers are very good. They are not directly comparable to any of the three players you have mentioned because all three were considerably more dangerous on the bases than Kent. Morgan was in the top 5 in NL stolen bases 11 times. 6 times for Alomar.

If he was a product of his era, then how come there wasn't more 2B who were putting up numbers just like his?

It's typical that in each era only a handful of players at a given position will stand out at the top offensively. Lou Whitaker and Sandberg for the '80's. Biggio, Alomar and Kent in the 90's. Not all from any given era will get to the hall of fame.

Based on stats, if Kent's numbers were only "very good' then Morgan, Alomar and Sandberg's stats were only "very good" as well because their stats were almost identical.

This is untrue. The raw numbers may appear similar, but this is where you are failing to take the eras into consideration. Despite the fact that Kent has a career Slugging percentage of .500 vs Morgan's .427, it's actually Joe who out slugged his contemporaries to a greater degree. In '76 Morgan leads the NL in Slugging at .576. When Kent has his career year in 2000 slugging .596, it was good for 10th in the NL. Among the 9 who topped him that year, Richard Hidalgo makes the list at .636. Not only was .596 not good enough to lead the league, it was .102 shy of the top mark. Kent's only other appearance in the top ten in SLG was 2002 when he slugged an 8th best .565 -- a mere .244 of Bonds' .799 pace. Morgan is a top ten slugger 4 times in his career. Sandberg 5.

While Kent had impressive power numbers as a 2nd baseman, Sandberg's were impressive regardless of position. He has 5 top tens in HR's in his career including his league leading 40 in 1990. Kent's 7th place finish in 2002 is his only appearance on that list. Overall, Kent hits 95 more career homers than Sandberg in a similar # of at bats, but this cursory look at how they performed versus their contemporaries shows that the eras/seasons a player played in do matter. You have to consider what the best players in a particular decade are doing in order to evaluate a career.

Another example before I quit the rant. Morgan is in top 2 in OBP 7 times in his career. He finishes in the top 10 in that category (certainly an important stat for a guy as likely to steal as he was) 11 times overall. Somehow, he is 90th on the all-time list. Obviously there were other eras when it was easier to reach base than it was in the 60's and 70's in the NL because he absolutely dominated the field during his career and hardly makes a dent on the all-time list.

This post was not meant to bash Kent. He does present an interesting dilemna to the HOF voters -- one that I think will be solved by passing him up, but certainly not without consideration. I think I could make just as strong a case for Biggio if not stronger.

Thome25
01-22-2009, 07:50 AM
STOP comparing eras!

You keep doing it and it makes your argument look more and more stupid every single time.

You said if Kent's numbers are only very good, then all those other 2B are only very good.

NO, they are great because of the era they played in, Morgan was a product of the way baseball was being played in that era.

If you make that stupid analogy, then every power hitter from 1910-1987 completely blows because all of these guys now are much better.

By your mind-numbing logic, Fred McGriff is a first ballot Hall of Fame because his numbers blow Harmon Killebrew out of the water.

Carlos Delgado is a shoe-in because his numbers eclipse that of Willie Stargel and Wilie McCovey.

You cannot compare eras. Just because Kent's number stack up with those of other 2B in the Hall is 100% irrelevant to his induction into the Hall of Fame because you're always going to be able to make a case for guys from today's era because it's a much larger offensive era in terms of the way players are trained, the way bats are made, the way balls are made and the way stadiums are made.

You're not understanding my point. We compare the stats of potential HOFers to the stats of the greatest players currently in the HOF at each position from DIFFERENT ERAS all the time.

Don't tell me that when a player comes up for election at 2B that the fans and HOF voters don't compare his stats, etc. to all of the 2nd basemen in the HOF to see if he stacks up. Don't tell me that they don't compare a potential HOFers stats to players with similar stats already in the HOF.

Did all of these players play in the same era? Definitely not. That's how a HOF benchmark is created though.

According to your argument,if player "A" gets 3,000 hits in the 1950's and player "B" gets 3,000 hits in the 1990's then player "A" desreves to be in the HOF and Player "B" does not because of the era he played in. In the 1950's opposing pitching was better so therefore player "A" must be better.

We know this argument is absurd and in some ways so is the "era" argument. A benchmark is a benchmark no matter what era a player played in. That's my point.

With this argument, why not break the HOF into different wings that honor each individual era? I could see a tour guide now......"And this right over here is the HOF of the 1970's.....and that section there is the HOF of the 1980's" Your era argument only works on players who are borderline......but, Kent was definitely better than just a borderline player at 2B. SOME (not all) players have exceptional stats that transcend ALL eras. And that my friend is what the HOF is ironically all about.

Kent met and surpassed all of the benchmarks for a HOF 2nd baseman no matter what era he played in. He put up absolutely absurd numbers for a 2nd baseman even in the juiced ball era. If he was merely a product of his era then, more players would've put up similar numbers at 2B right?

You say that according to my argument that McGriff and Delgado deserve to be in the HOF. But, they are definitely borderline because power hitting first basemen were a dime a dozen in the 1990's and 2000's. 2nd basemen of Kent's caliber were and still are considered exceptional and not the norm.

In order for those two players to go in, they would've had to accomplish that extra something special (mulitiple MVPs, 600-700hrs, 3,000 hits.) because like I said, players like McGriff and Delgado were commonplace in the 1990's and 2000's.

Kent was NOT a common player at 2B......if he was, then we would've had more just like him in his era.......therefore his stats SHOULD stack up VS eras before him.

Get my point?

Side note: Posters who use terms like "most feared hitter in the game" and talk about how quietly Kent put up his numbers proved that in some ways the HOF is a popularity contest and SOME players are merely there based on how hard the media hyped them and how hard they may have hyped themselves during and after their careers. It proves that perception of a player's unmeasurable identity goes a loooooonnngg way when being inducted. There's plenty of deserving players that aren't in the hall because of this. Don't buy into the hype.

guillen4life13
01-22-2009, 09:38 AM
You're not understanding my point. We compare the stats of potential HOFers to the stats of the greatest players currently in the HOF at each position from DIFFERENT ERAS all the time.

Don't tell me that when a player comes up for election at 2B that the fans and HOF voters don't compare his stats, etc. to all of the 2nd basemen in the HOF to see if he stacks up. Don't tell me that they don't compare a potential HOFers stats to players with similar stats already in the HOF.

Did all of these players play in the same era? Definitely not. That's how a HOF benchmark is created though.

According to your argument,if player "A" gets 3,000 hits in the 1950's and player "B" gets 3,000 hits in the 1990's then player "A" desreves to be in the HOF and Player "B" does not because of the era he played in. In the 1950's opposing pitching was better so therefore player "A" must be better.

We know this argument is absurd and in some ways so is the "era" argument. A benchmark is a benchmark no matter what era a player played in. That's my point.

With this argument, why not break the HOF into different wings that honor each individual era? I could see a tour guide now......"And this right over here is the HOF of the 1970's.....and that section there is the HOF of the 1980's" Your era argument only works on players who are borderline......but, Kent was definitely better than just a borderline player at 2B. SOME (not all) players have exceptional stats that transcend ALL eras. And that my friend is what the HOF is ironically all about.

Kent met and surpassed all of the benchmarks for a HOF 2nd baseman no matter what era he played in. He put up absolutely absurd numbers for a 2nd baseman even in the juiced ball era. If he was merely a product of his era then, more players would've put up similar numbers at 2B right?

You say that according to my argument that McGriff and Delgado deserve to be in the HOF. But, they are definitely borderline because power hitting first basemen were a dime a dozen in the 1990's and 2000's. 2nd basemen of Kent's caliber were and still are considered exceptional and not the norm.

In order for those two players to go in, they would've had to accomplish that extra something special (mulitiple MVPs, 600-700hrs, 3,000 hits.) because like I said, players like McGriff and Delgado were commonplace in the 1990's and 2000's.

Kent was NOT a common player at 2B......if he was, then we would've had more just like him in his era.......therefore his stats SHOULD stack up VS eras before him.

Get my point?

Side note: Posters who use terms like "most feared hitter in the game" and talk about how quietly Kent put up his numbers proved that in some ways the HOF is a popularity contest and SOME players are merely there based on how hard the media hyped them and how hard they may have hyped themselves during and after their careers. It proves that perception of a player's unmeasurable identity goes a loooooonnngg way when being inducted. There's plenty of deserving players that aren't in the hall because of this. Don't buy into the hype.

Yeah... but in Kent's case, if anything, he was overhyped. You didn't acknowledge my previous point about the 2000 MVP.

If he were a good fielding 2B I'd probably let him in because that means he played his position well. However, as someone already has said, Kent was a 2B who should have been at 1B or DH but his hitting wouldn't have fit the position. Bonds and J.T. Snow were the leaders on that team through its good years at the early part of this decade and it's not like Kent was known as a good clubhouse guy. From what I've read, when he and Bonds had a little feud, his teammates sided with Bonds(!).

Analogy: if someone put up Josh Fields caliber defense at 2B but had similar numbers to Jeff Kent at the end of his career, would you put him in the hall? I know it's an exaggeration but it's to make a point. I wouldn't.

That said, I think that Kent will make it. Just no way does he make it on the first ballot.

Thome25
01-22-2009, 10:01 AM
Yeah... but in Kent's case, if anything, he was overhyped. You didn't acknowledge my previous point about the 2000 MVP.

If he were a good fielding 2B I'd probably let him in because that means he played his position well. However, as someone already has said, Kent was a 2B who should have been at 1B or DH but his hitting wouldn't have fit the position. Bonds and J.T. Snow were the leaders on that team through its good years at the early part of this decade and it's not like Kent was known as a good clubhouse guy. From what I've read, when he and Bonds had a little feud, his teammates sided with Bonds(!).

Analogy: if someone put up Josh Fields caliber defense at 2B but had similar numbers to Jeff Kent at the end of his career, would you put him in the hall? I know it's an exaggeration but it's to make a point. I wouldn't.

That said, I think that Kent will make it. Just no way does he make it on the first ballot.


I understand your point and you do have a valid one. I'm not a fan of Kent's AT ALL. You're absolutely right he wasn't a five tool player AT ALL. He's never impressed anyone with his defense.

There's plenty of one dimensional guys in the HOF though. Most of the time the one-dimensional players inducted were defense-first, hit-second, light-hitting players.

But, why couldn't the opposite be true for the HOF? Why not have a guy who was a hitter-first, defense second, hit-for-a-ton player?

Frank Thomas fits that mold IMO. He is absolutely a first-ballot HOFer IMHO. We all know that his defense left alot to the imagination and he probably should've been DH his entire career.

Kent put up offensive numbers that were better or on par with alot of HOF or future HOF (think Alomar) second basemen. There aren't very many second basemen who can say that no matter what era they're from. Pre-juiced era or otherwise.

I personally don't want him there because of how much of an ass he was but, I think his numbers warrant a LONG look before dismissing him entirely. IMO he deserves to be in the HOF.

guillen4life13
01-22-2009, 10:34 AM
I understand your point and you do have a valid one. I'm not a fan of Kent's AT ALL. You're absolutely right he wasn't a five tool player AT ALL. He's never impressed anyone with his defense.

There's plenty of one dimensional guys in the HOF though. Most of the time the one-dimensional players inducted were defense-first, hit-second, light-hitting players.

But, why couldn't the opposite be true for the HOF? Why not have a guy who was a hitter-first, defense second, hit-for-a-ton player?

Frank Thomas fits that mold IMO. He is absolutely a first-ballot HOFer IMHO. We all know that his defense left alot to the imagination and he probably should've been DH his entire career.

Kent put up offensive numbers that were better or on par with alot of HOF or future HOF (think Alomar) second basemen. There aren't very many second basemen who can say that no matter what era they're from. Pre-juiced era or otherwise.

I personally don't want him there because of how much of an ass he was but, I think his numbers warrant a LONG look before dismissing him entirely. IMO he deserves to be in the HOF.

From 1991-1997 there's arguably no one you'd want in your lineup more than Frank Thomas. The only other two guys that come to mind are Bonds and Griffey, and even with them it's a big argument. That's where the "Most Feared Hitter in the Game" argument comes in, though I'll agree that saying that is more valid when it comes to LF/1B/DH candidates.

Eddo144
01-22-2009, 10:52 AM
Kent put up offensive numbers that were better or on par with alot of HOF or future HOF (think Alomar) second basemen. There aren't very many second basemen who can say that no matter what era they're from. Pre-juiced era or otherwise.
Here's something I've recently learned. During Kent's era, 2B and 3B were roughly interchangeable, in terms of offensive production. That is, you need to measure Kent relative to other 2B and 3B.

And keep in mind, Kent was not just one-dimensional (a good hitter but average fielder) - he was a poor fielder.

This (http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/sabermetric_neophytes_meet_jeff_kent/)sums up my stance. Since he was a below-average 2B, you can roughly say he would be an average defensive LF or RF. How do his numbers look compared to corner outfielders? Not so good anymore.

Thome25
01-22-2009, 11:00 AM
Here's something I've recently learned. During Kent's era, 2B and 3B were roughly interchangeable, in terms of offensive production. That is, you need to measure Kent relative to other 2B and 3B.

And keep in mind, Kent was not just one-dimensional (a good hitter but average fielder) - he was a poor fielder.

This (http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/sabermetric_neophytes_meet_jeff_kent/)sums up my stance. Since he was a below-average 2B, you can roughly say he would be an average defensive LF or RF. How do his numbers look compared to corner outfielders? Not so good anymore.

Good point......I'm not sure if Kent will get in or not. (Lord knows i don't want him there.) But, his career numbers at least deserve a LONG look by the voters.

I don't think he'll ever be first-ballot. But, he may squeak in during one of his years of eligibility.

Eddo144
01-22-2009, 11:16 AM
Good point......I'm not sure if Kent will get in or not. (Lord knows i don't want him there.) But, his career numbers at least deserve a LONG look by the voters.

I don't think he'll ever be first-ballot. But, he may squeak in during one of his years of eligibility.
Yes, I agree. I actually don't know where I stand exactly on Kent. He's a compelling case; on one hand, he has some good number for a 2B, but on the other, he put those up in an era of high offensive numbers, and he wasn't a very good 2B, so that decreases his value.

I'd be extremely shocked if he goes in on the first ballot, especially considering Maddux is already a shoo-in for that year, Glavine's all but a shoo-in, and Mussina probably has a better case than Kent as well.

TheVulture
01-22-2009, 02:19 PM
Jeff Kent:

Ryne Sandberg:

Joe Morgan:

Roberto Alomar:


Three of those guys are considered amongst the greatest defensive players at 2b of all time and were all great baserunners and little ball players to boot. One guy was a pretty good hitter for a long time. The notion that Kent is comparable to these guys, especially Morgan and Alomar, is laughable.

guillen4life13
01-22-2009, 03:12 PM
Three of those guys are considered amongst the greatest defensive players at 2b of all time and were all great baserunners and little ball players to boot. One guy was a pretty good hitter for a long time. The notion that Kent is comparable to these guys, especially Morgan and Alomar, is laughable.

Word.

It may be a bias that Roberto Alomar was one of my favorite players just by the way he played (that Alomar/Vizquel DP tandem and hitting 2-3 in the lineup used to be so much fun to watch, even if they were a division rival) and that I didn't pay attention to the NL, but even so, I know enough about the NL stars to say that Kent wasn't really upper echelon. For his position, sure, but as has been said, he was a poor defender.

FedEx227
01-22-2009, 04:58 PM
Kent will likely get in though on the basis that he was the first big power hitter at his position. He wasn't the slickest with the glove but his power numbers blow anything any 2B before him did.

I still don't think he truly deserves to get in, but when you're the first of your kind like Kent was, it's considered historic and it'll likely be enough to get him in.

TDog
01-22-2009, 05:46 PM
Not really. Rice being in the HOF means that the BBWAA collectively believes he is better than every single player that is not in the HOF (that's eligible to be voted in, of course i.e. not active or within five years of retirement). ...

It doesn't mean that at all. It never has.

Craig Grebeck
01-22-2009, 05:51 PM
It doesn't mean that at all. It never has.
Of course it hasn't. Keep moving the goal posts TDog. It never gets old. Electing Jim Rice and not electing Reggie Smith doesn't mean they think Rice is better. Gotcha.

Eddo144
01-22-2009, 06:06 PM
Of course it hasn't. Keep moving the goal posts TDog. It never gets old. Electing Jim Rice and not electing Reggie Smith doesn't mean they think Rice is better. Gotcha.
Technically, you're right. The election of Rice means they think he's better than anyone they didn't elect.

However, using that as a basis for future elections is absurd. "Jim Rice is in, and Jeff Kent was better than Rice, so we should elect Kent" is bad logic. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Craig Grebeck
01-22-2009, 06:09 PM
Technically, you're right. The election of Rice means they think he's better than anyone they didn't elect.

However, using that as a basis for future elections is absurd. "Jim Rice is in, and Jeff Kent was better than Rice, so we should elect Kent" is bad logic. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I don't think it makes Rice totally irrelevant -- which is what my original post referred to. Do I think Kent makes it in? Probably. Should he? Probably not.

Save McCuddy's
01-22-2009, 06:16 PM
I don't think it makes Rice totally irrelevant -- which is what my original post referred to. Do I think Kent makes it in? Probably. Should he? Probably not.

Where are we getting the idea that Jeff Kent is as good as Jim Rice?

TDog
01-22-2009, 06:45 PM
Of course it hasn't. Keep moving the goal posts TDog. It never gets old. Electing Jim Rice and not electing Reggie Smith doesn't mean they think Rice is better. Gotcha.

I haven't moved any goal posts. The Baseball Writers of America haven't moved any goal posts. The election of anyone to the Hall of Fame does not that every player of equal or greater statistics belongs in the Hall of Fame.

ode to veeck
01-22-2009, 09:28 PM
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/8691437/13100968

Tough call. Definitely a good hitting 2B (most of the time at 2B anyway).

Troubles with defense, teammates (though I'd give him a pass on his relationship with Barroid).

Since we are debating HOF candidates, might as well add another one.

no

Craig Grebeck
01-22-2009, 10:20 PM
I haven't moved any goal posts. The Baseball Writers of America haven't moved any goal posts. The election of anyone to the Hall of Fame does not that every player of equal or greater statistics belongs in the Hall of Fame.
Sigh. Then what does it mean TDog?

I'm saying that with the election of Rice, they believe he is a better player than anyone who they chose not to vote for in this given cycle. That's what I'm saying.

munchman33
01-22-2009, 10:25 PM
Where are we getting the idea that Jeff Kent is as good as Jim Rice?

Where are you getting the idea that Jim Rice is as good as Jeff Kent?

Kent played second base until he was 40. Rice played the outfield for about a decade. And Kent's numbers are better in a lot of ways.

SoxyStu
01-22-2009, 11:19 PM
Kent will likely get in though on the basis that he was the first big power hitter at his position. He wasn't the slickest with the glove but his power numbers blow anything any 2B before him did.

I still don't think he truly deserves to get in, but when you're the first of your kind like Kent was, it's considered historic and it'll likely be enough to get him in.

This was the basically point I was going to write. He'll get in based on being historically the best power hitter at his position, but should he be in? Nah. When I think of HOFers during this era, he does not come to the forefront in my mind.

Save McCuddy's
01-23-2009, 12:01 AM
Where are you getting the idea that Jim Rice is as good as Jeff Kent?

Kent played second base until he was 40. Rice played the outfield for about a decade. And Kent's numbers are better in a lot of ways.

Yes, Kent did play mostly second base until he was 40.

However, there are no ways in which his numbers are better than Rice's. In fact, they pale ridiculously by comparison when you factor in the offensive inflation of his era.

Jesus -- I not only have to defend Morgan and Sandberg as being better offensively than Kent, but now Rice as well? Who's next, Andre Dawson?

munchman33
01-23-2009, 12:19 AM
Yes, Kent did play mostly second base until he was 40.

However, there are no ways in which his numbers are better than Rice's. In fact, they pale ridiculously by comparison when you factor in the offensive inflation of his era.

Jesus -- I not only have to defend Morgan and Sandberg as being better offensively than Kent, but now Rice as well? Who's next, Andre Dawson?

On the surface the numbers are still better. But if you want to make the era argument, go ahead. But then you have to realize that Kent's numbers, at second base, are tremendous even for his era. Rice's numbers, for his position and era, were certainly not.

Look, I don't think Jeff Kent should be in the Hall of Fame. But if a guy like Jim Rice is in, all sorts of guys should be. And there's no doubt in my mind that Jeff Kent is more deserving of the Hall than Jim Rice. In fact, I would go as far as saying he's twice as deserving, given his position, consistency, length of career, and better overall numbers.

TDog
01-23-2009, 12:19 AM
Sigh. Then what does it mean TDog?

I'm saying that with the election of Rice, they believe he is a better player than anyone who they chose not to vote for in this given cycle. That's what I'm saying.

If you don't believe Jim Rice belongs in the Hall of Fame, why would you believe that someone comparable to Jim Rice belongs in the Hall of Fame?

munchman33
01-23-2009, 12:23 AM
If you don't believe Jim Rice belongs in the Hall of Fame, why would you believe that someone comparable to Jim Rice belongs in the Hall of Fame?

Because Rice is (unfortunately) a Hall of Famer. He's the bar. He's certainly the worst player there.

Save McCuddy's
01-23-2009, 12:39 AM
On the surface the numbers are still better. But if you want to make the era argument, go ahead. But then you have to realize that Kent's numbers, at second base, are tremendous even for his era. Rice's numbers, for his position and era, were certainly not.

Look, I don't think Jeff Kent should be in the Hall of Fame. But if a guy like Jim Rice is in, all sorts of guys should be. And there's no doubt in my mind that Jeff Kent is more deserving of the Hall than Jim Rice. In fact, I would go as far as saying he's twice as deserving, given his position, consistency, length of career, and better overall numbers.

I just couldn't disagree more.

Nellie_Fox
01-23-2009, 01:03 AM
Because Rice is (unfortunately) a Hall of Famer. He's the bar. He's certainly the worst player there.Not even close.

For example, Joe Tinker got in for being in a poem. Career .262 batting average, career .938 fielding percentage. Wasn't good at much of anything.

How about Mazeroski? Career .302 OBP; a very good defensive second baseman, but offensively a complete zero.

TDog
01-23-2009, 01:04 AM
Because Rice is (unfortunately) a Hall of Famer. He's the bar. He's certainly the worst player there.

He's not the worst player there. And if he was, he wouldn't be the bar. You don't see every shortstop who hit .258 in the Hall of Fame because Rabbit Maranville was elected in 1954. Gold Glove shortstop Jim Fregosi hit .265 with 123 more home runs than Maranville in about 700 fewer games. Fregosi also won nearly 1,000 more games as a manager. (I would have no problem with Jim Fregosi going into the Hall of Fame, but that isn't relevant to this post.)

Babe Ruth called Leo Durocher the "All-American out," and Durocher is in the Hall of Fame, with a .247 career batting average, a .299 career on-base percentage. However, he did have one World Series championship as a manager.

A player's election to the Hall of Fame does not and never has set the bar for future Hall of Famers. Never in the history of the Hall of Fame was there such an intent.

SoxfaninLA
01-23-2009, 01:11 AM
Where are you getting the idea that Jim Rice is as good as Jeff Kent?

Kent played second base until he was 40. Rice played the outfield for about a decade. And Kent's numbers are better in a lot of ways.

If you call standing out there and holding a glove playing a position then yes Kent played second until the age of 40. The guy was a brutal defensive player, and not even remotely a threat on the basepaths. If you are one dimensional (hitting), that one dimension better be pretty damn good, not putting up comparable numbers to catchers.

While I don't agree with Rice getting in, he isn't even close to the worst guy in there. Off the top of my head Mazeroski takes the cake here, but I am sure there are worse.

I hate this argument that just because so and so got in means every other guy that may have been slightly better than him should get in. Just because one mistake was made doesn't mean that the mistake should be compounded by letting other very good players in. Then again, when you break it down, the Hall of Fame is kind of a joke, so none of this really matters does it......

munchman33
01-23-2009, 01:15 AM
Not even close.

For example, Joe Tinker got in for being in a poem. Career .262 batting average, career .938 fielding percentage. Wasn't good at much of anything.

How about Mazeroski? Career .302 OBP; a very good defensive second baseman, but offensively a complete zero.

Now here's where era really should play a part.

munchman33
01-23-2009, 01:17 AM
If you call standing out there and holding a glove playing a position then yes Kent played second until the age of 40. The guy was a brutal defensive player, and not even remotely a threat on the basepaths. If you are one dimensional (hitting), that one dimension better be pretty damn good, not putting up comparable numbers to catchers.

While I don't agree with Rice getting in, he isn't even close to the worst guy in there. Off the top of my head Mazeroski takes the cake here, but I am sure there are worse.

I hate this argument that just because so and so got in means every other guy that may have been slightly better than him should get in. Just because one mistake was made doesn't mean that the mistake should be compounded by letting other very good players in. Then again, when you break it down, the Hall of Fame is kind of a joke, so none of this really matters does it......

He "held the glove" there well enough to play that position unti he was 40. So, while he wasn't that great defensively, he wasn't "atrocious" for most of his career, as some here would like you to believe.

Rice was a bad defender, even for a left fielder. He fielded well, but he got to nothing.

drewcifer
01-23-2009, 03:17 AM
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/8691437/13100968

Tough call. Definitely a good hitting 2B (most of the time at 2B anyway).

Troubles with defense, teammates (though I'd give him a pass on his relationship with Barroid).

Since we are debating HOF candidates, might as well add another one.

Kent is cancer. Every team he has been to had hopes and he left them in a worse postition.

He could hit, in his early days...field servicably, but baseball is a team sport and he was nowhere...NOWHERE near great.

I vote no way.

Frater Perdurabo
01-23-2009, 07:24 AM
I don't think Kent belongs in the HOF.

But I bet the media would be talking about him as a future HOF-er if he had played the majority of his career for the Yankees, Red Sox or Cubs.

Craig Grebeck
01-23-2009, 08:28 AM
If you don't believe Jim Rice belongs in the Hall of Fame, why would you believe that someone comparable to Jim Rice belongs in the Hall of Fame?
So Rice being elected doesn't mean the BBWAA believes he's better than other people they could have voted for? Would you just answer a question?

Thome25
01-23-2009, 09:29 AM
Because Rice is (unfortunately) a Hall of Famer. He's the bar. He's certainly the worst player there.

I agree with the first part of your post. Rice is now the bar for that borderline player who had good-but-not great numbers, and who otherwise would not have been there before Rice got elected.

Players like Harold Baines, Andre Dawson, Tim Raines, and even Kent now should have a legit shot at being HOFers.

Rice isn't the worst player in the HOF though.

Thome25
01-23-2009, 09:33 AM
Where are we getting the idea that Jeff Kent is as good as Jim Rice?

Um.......Because Kent put up numbers that were as good or better than Rice's in roughly the same amount of games.:scratch:

And before you go to the era argument......Kent wasn't a product of his era......his offensive numbers transcended eras. He was an exceptional offensive 2B even in his own era.

TDog
01-23-2009, 09:52 AM
So Rice being elected doesn't mean the BBWAA believes he's better than other people they could have voted for? Would you just answer a question?

The short answer is no, but the question is irrelevant.

Voting members of the Baseball Writers Association of America don't speak with a single voice. Different voters have different reasons for voting for players to represent the game in the Hall of Fame. There may be some that hold to a principle that Player A had these stats and he is in so Player B with a similar career must be voted in. You do so voters making the case for specific players because on such grounds, but those are players they advocate as Hall of Fame worthy. There aren't many voters who would advocate that all such players who have similar statistics as Jim Rice should be in the Hall of Fame because in one year more than 75 percent of the voters deemed Jim Rice Hall of Fame worthy.

sox1970
01-23-2009, 09:54 AM
The people that think Jim Rice is the borderline player of all borderline players need to look at his career again. The only criticism you can have is that he didn't do it long enough. Look at what he did from 1975-1986, and how many categories he led or was in the top 5 or top 10 in the league...homers, RBI's, Batting average, Slugging, total bases...year after year after year.

Now look at Harold Baines...he was a good player, and that's about it.

Jeff Kent does have all-time numbers for 2B, and that might get him in the Hall. But you can also say he played in an era that every position was an offensive position. The year to year rankings don't put Kent up there too often. He had his best RBI years batting behind a guy that got walked 150 times a year. He's definitely a tough call, but will probably make it just because of his defensive position.

Thome25
01-23-2009, 10:04 AM
The people that think Jim Rice is the borderline player of all borderline players need to look at his career again. The only criticism you can have is that he didn't do it long enough. Look at what he did from 1975-1986, and how many categories he led or was in the top 5 or top 10 in the league...homers, RBI's, Batting average, Slugging, total bases...year after year after year.

Now look at Harold Baines...he was a good player, and that's about it.

Jeff Kent does have all-time numbers for 2B, and that might get him in the Hall. But you can also say he played in an era that every position was an offensive position. The year to year rankings don't put Kent up there too often. He had his best RBI years batting behind a guy that got walked 150 times a year. He's definitely a tough call, but will probably make it just because of his defensive position.

So then Rice is in the HOF based on what he would've done had he played longer? I believe he had a steep dropoff toward the end of his career and there's no guarantees he would've put up the HOF benchmarks (500 hrs, 3,000 hits) had he played longer......this isn't a valid argument for HOF voters or otherwise.

Rice's career numbers were borderline for a HOF player.....PERIOD. Who care's what he coulda, shoulda, woulda done?......he is now the benchmark for borderline players with good-but-not great numbers who otherwise might not have got there before Rice was voted in.

Rice was voted in because of what team he played for and what caliber of teams he played on.......now players like Baines, Dawson, Raines, and Kent have a shot because the doors were opened for Rice.

Not every position was an offensive position in the steroid era......there were MAYBE a handful of players that put up numbers that were somewhat similar to Kent's in the same era. Kent's were head and shoulers above the rest of the players who played 2B during the same time period with the exception of Alomar.

sox1970
01-23-2009, 10:16 AM
So then Rice is in the HOF based on what he would've done had he played longer? I believe he had a steep dropoff toward the end of his career and there's no guarantees he would've put up the HOF benchmarks (500 hrs, 3,00 hits) had he played longer......this isn't a valid argument for HOF voters or otherwise.

Rice's career numbers were borderline for a HOF player.....PERIOD. Who care's what he coulda, shoulda, woulda done?......he is now the benchmark for borderline players with good-but-not great numbers who otherwise might not have got there before Rice was voted in.

Rice was voted in because of what team he played for and what caliber of teams he played on.......now players like Baines, Dawson, Raines, and Kent have a shot because the doors were opened for Rice.

No, I think Rice deserves it because of what he accomplished in that 12-year period. Some guys get in by sticking around and compiling numbers. When guys like Baines don't rank high in those categories year after year, they better get to 400 homers. They better get to 3000 hits. Baines did neither. Baines isn't even close to being a Hall of Famer. Dawson is much closer than Baines, and deserves it. Raines- I'm on the fence...he'll probably get in eventually.

munchman33
01-23-2009, 10:24 AM
No, I think Rice deserves it because of what he accomplished in that 12-year period. Some guys get in by sticking around and compiling numbers. When guys like Baines don't rank high in those categories year after year, they better get to 400 homers. They better get to 3000 hits. Baines did neither. Baines isn't even close to being a Hall of Famer. Dawson is much closer than Baines, and deserves it. Raines- I'm on the fence...he'll probably get in eventually.

You act like Rice could have continued to "compile" the numbers he didn't have. The guy was basically thrown out of baseball for ineffectiveness at an age where most guys were still playing at a high level.

Thome25
01-23-2009, 10:26 AM
No, I think Rice deserves it because of what he accomplished in that 12-year period. Some guys get in by sticking around and compiling numbers. When guys like Baines don't rank high in those categories year after year, they better get to 400 homers. They better get to 3000 hits. Baines did neither. Baines isn't even close to being a Hall of Famer. Dawson is much closer than Baines, and deserves it. Raines- I'm on the fence...he'll probably get in eventually.

I see what your saying but, It isn't the "Hall Of Ranking High In Certain Statistical Categories At Some Point In Your Career." It's the Hall Of Fame. Which to me, means that the entire body of work by a player is exceptional and that a player's statistics rank high among the ALL-TIME leaders not just the leaders during a specific year or individual time period.

Save McCuddy's
01-23-2009, 10:44 AM
He "held the glove" there well enough to play that position unti he was 40. So, while he wasn't that great defensively, he wasn't "atrocious" for most of his career, as some here would like you to believe.

Rice was a bad defender, even for a left fielder. He fielded well, but he got to nothing.

What do you base this on? Did they air Red Sox games at your preschool?

Save McCuddy's
01-23-2009, 10:48 AM
Not every position was an offensive position in the steroid era......there were MAYBE a handful of players that put up numbers that were somewhat similar to Kent's in the same era. Kent's were head and shoulers above the rest of the players who played 2B during the same time period with the exception of Alomar.

Biggio's were arguably better than Kent's as well.

Thome25
01-23-2009, 11:05 AM
Biggio's were arguably better than Kent's as well.

You're right....we had 3 players who played 2B in the steriod era that put up offensive numbers that were exceptional enough to be considered for the HOF. (Kent, Biggio, and Alomar.)

You can't discount those three players during the steroid era because none of them were linked directly to steroids and they were exceptional offensively at a position that didn't have that many exceptional offensive players even in the era they played in.

For example, during the same era how many OF, 3B, 1B, and DH's put up monster offensive numbers? A TON......that's why it's easy to discount the achievements of players who played those postitions during the steroid era.

The same can't be said for a player who put of the offensive numbers of Kent's caliber at 2b.......he was exceptional during even his own era.

I don't think he'll be first-ballot but, I think he'll get in eventually.

SoxfaninLA
01-23-2009, 11:08 AM
He "held the glove" there well enough to play that position unti he was 40. So, while he wasn't that great defensively, he wasn't "atrocious" for most of his career, as some here would like you to believe.

Rice was a bad defender, even for a left fielder. He fielded well, but he got to nothing.

Kent is an awful defensive player, I don't know where you are getting it that he wasn't. He was bad in San Francisco, let alone 5 years later with the Dodgers. I watched a lot of Dodgers games the last several years, Kent is a first baseman pretending to play second. My point with being so critical of his defense is that if you are only bringing one skill to the table (hitting), then you better be great at it. Kent putting up fairly large numbers in an era where everyone and their mother hit 30 home runs is not impressive enough to get him in the hall of fame. If he had won more than one MVP, or made a dozen all star games, or had 3000 hits then we are talking hall of fame.

Biggio's were arguably better than Kent's as well.

Biggio has a MUCH better case than Kent in my mind, just because he got to the magical 3000 hit number. The only guys with 3000 hits not in the Hall of Fame are Pete Rose (for obvious reasons), Palmeiro, and Biggio. Palmeiro has the whole steriod issue hanging over him so there is a real good chance he never gets in but Biggio would be the first 3000 hit guy without a cloud over him not to get in, and I don't think that will happen.

Nellie_Fox
01-23-2009, 11:59 AM
So Rice being elected doesn't mean the BBWAA believes he's better than other people they could have voted for? Would you just answer a question?Rice has been talked to death on his own thread. Stop hijacking this one.

munchman33
01-23-2009, 01:35 PM
What do you base this on? Did they air Red Sox games at your preschool?

What much smarter baseball people than I am tell me. And how much they joke that he was the best at playing the Fenway carrums because he couldn't get to anything in the air.

munchman33
01-23-2009, 01:35 PM
Rice has been talked to death on his own thread. Stop hijacking this one.

This is a Hall of Fame thread, and Rice is the new bar. It's not a hi-jack. You'll have to get used to it, because it'll be in every HOF thread until someone worse gets voted in.

Nellie_Fox
01-23-2009, 03:08 PM
This is a Hall of Fame thread, and Rice is the new bar. It's not a hi-jack. You'll have to get used to it, because it'll be in every HOF thread until someone worse gets voted in.No, it's not. It's a JEFF KENT HOF thread. Comparing Jeff Kent to other HOFers is fine, but then getting into an extended argument about whether someone other than Jeff Kent should be in the HOF, with no mention at all of Kent, is a hijack. And don't tell me what I have to get used to.

munchman33
01-23-2009, 05:30 PM
No, it's not. It's a JEFF KENT HOF thread. Comparing Jeff Kent to other HOFers is fine, but then getting into an extended argument about whether someone other than Jeff Kent should be in the HOF, with no mention at all of Kent, is a hijack. And don't tell me what I have to get used to.

I must have missed that argument. I thought you were complaining debating Kent and Rice, not whether Rice should be in. He's in, so the bar is low. And Kent should now be a lock.

PennStater98r
01-26-2009, 05:31 PM
I must have missed that argument. I thought you were complaining debating Kent and Rice, not whether Rice should be in. He's in, so the bar is low. And Kent should now be a lock.

Shouldn't Kent have been a lock the moment Ryno is inducted?