Do you think Jef Kent should be in the Hall of Fame?

sportscardtheory said:

The Hall of Fame a lot of these "He's in the Hall of Very Good" people want would be the most boring and meaningless Hall of Fame in existence... where 5 players every 10 years make it. Yay.

Click to expand...

To be honest, I'm not so sure this would be a bad thing. I think most, if not all, would agree that the HOF has many undeserving members. The HOF should be for the elite players, and not necessarily the stat compilers. Yes, I know those kinds of players have been around for a long time, and many of those just shouldn't be there (Don Sutton for instance).

And for the Steve Garveys and Gil Hodgeseseses of the world, if they haven't made it by now there's a reason. They simply don't belong. It may be a cliche, but as many have said over and over again - it is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Very Good. The HOF should have players in it that consistently were the "100, 200, 300, etc" guys in Topps sets, along with a sprinkling of "50, 150, 250, etc" guys. If your bubblegum card consistently had a single 0 or a 5 at the end of it, you belong in the HoVG.

sportscardtheory said:

Why are some of you acting like the ONLY thing "great" about Jeff Kent is the fact that he is the all-time leader in HRs for second basemen?

Click to expand...

If Kent weren't the all-time leader in homers at second base, no one would be talking about him as a Hall of Fame candidate and he'd most likely get 20% of the HOF vote.
Kent's entire candidacy is based on the fact that he played second base.
Sure he was a great RBI guy, but so were Harold Baines, Dave Parker and 20 other players who had similar or more RBI and have no shot at the HOF.

TNP777 said:

To be honest, I'm not so sure this would be a bad thing. I think most, if not all, would agree that the HOF has many undeserving members. The HOF should be for the elite players, and not necessarily the stat compilers. Yes, I know those kinds of players have been around for a long time, and many of those just shouldn't be there (Don Sutton for instance).

And for the Steve Garveys and Gil Hodgeseseses of the world, if they haven't made it by now there's a reason. They simply don't belong. It may be a cliche, but as many have said over and over again - it is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Very Good. The HOF should have players in it that consistently were the "100, 200, 300, etc" guys in Topps sets, along with a sprinkling of "50, 150, 250, etc" guys. If your bubblegum card consistently had a single 0 or a 5 at the end of it, you belong in the HoVG.

Click to expand...

The question is where the line for "Hall of Very Good" ends and the line for "Hall of Fame" begins. And the problem is that voters have been inconsistent over the years. If Lloyd Waner, Bill Mazerowski, Phil Rizzuto, George Kell, Nellie Fox, Lou Aparicio etc. can make it, it's hard to argue that many of the names mentioned should not have.

Topnotchsy said:

The question is where the line for "Hall of Very Good" ends and the line for "Hall of Fame" begins. And the problem is that voters have been inconsistent over the years. If Lloyd Waner, Bill Mazerowski, Phil Rizzuto, George Kell, Nellie Fox, Lou Aparicio etc. can make it, it's hard to argue that many of the names mentioned should not have.

Click to expand...

Agreed, and that is the major contributor of the never ending "is this guy a HOFer?" debate. The HOF is filled with guys who IMO simply don't belong (such as every single player you mentioned). But because they're in, they are among the players being used as a measuring stick for future consideration. "Well, Rizzuto had these numbers, and this guy surpassed them so he should be a lock." Problem is, Rirruto shouldn't be there in the first place (again, MY opinion).

Just to clear some stuff up, here are more of Kent's stats and accomplishments;

1x MVP Award
4x Silver Slugger Awards
5x All-Star games


2nd Basemen all-time rankings


1st homeruns
3rd runs batted in
3rd slugging percentage
3rd ISO
4th doubles
6th OPS
10th runs created
11th hits
12th games
12th plate appearances
12th at-bats
13th runs
17th WAR

Sure, he's not top-ten all-time due to his lack of speed and superior defense, but he was no slouch and is one of the best offensive 2nd basemen to play the game.

This is a baseball forum, but i think this is somewhat relevant. Players play certain positions and there is a reason for it. If you become a catcher, then you need to be compared to the catchers who played with and before you. Same with any other position. in football, there are 3 place-kickers in the HOF and NO punters! Does that even seem right? if those positions are so meaningless, then why even have them? They are not the big time positions, so they get ignored and overlooked. I'm sure baseball is a bit better represented by position, but DH is one of those newer positions that has a place in the game, yet it is blasted for what it is, a part time position.

As for the watered down Hall argument, i still can't get past the fact that the current HOF represents less than 2% of the all-time roster of MLB. That should mean that anyone in the Hall now richly deserves it and anyone with similar careers should also warrant inclusion, period. Players made different impacts. There are coaches, managers, executives and players. They all provided a different role in the history of the game. You could nearly double the number of members in the HOF (not that i even believe that many are deserving, it only proves a point) and it would move the percentage up only about 1%, making the HOF still a very exclusive club.

Sorry, the HOF to me is a bit of a joke now. Regardless of their on or off field discretions, you don't have the #3 all time hitter and the all-time hit king in the club. You don't (and may never) have the all-time HR king either. It's not much different that the All-Star game now, more of a popularity contest than anything. Writers don't like or respect you, you're out. Pfttt!

I wonder if Cobb would wan't to see Rose in the Hall of Fame.

mrmopar said:

Regardless of their on or off field discretions, you don't have the #3 all time hitter and the all-time hit king in the club. You don't (and may never) have the all-time HR king either.

Click to expand...

You act as though these guys shouldn't be held accountable for their own actions. Why is that?

Ok so what holds us hostage is the thought that if he wasn't a second baseman, his hr totals wouldn't be enough. My thing is, say Big Mac hadn't of done roids. He'd be a lock because of one thing and one thing only. His hr total. I do not have the ability right now but I'd guess there are quite a handful of other players we could look up who got in because of a magic number everything else be damned. That means they may not be good defensively, or have a decent BA, etc. So what's the magic number for second base? Because even a guy in the outfield or first base might have been a slowly lumbering defensive failure. But I'd assume 500 and he was a lock if not implicated by steroid issues.

You see, this is what ticks me off about the voting. One day it's offensive numbers. The next it's all about defense. There needs to be a little more clarity. I could see if Kent had hit 300 hr's and most second basemen were right around 250 or so. But this dude has more homers by a mile. So what if he hit behind Bonds? He still poked all those homers over the fence. Take other second baseman and let's see them do that. It's not going to happen.

I thought he was one of the best second basemen of the time that he played, so I'm gonna give him the thumbs up for the Hall. I think that you can pretty much only be compared to your contemporaries and not somebody from a totally different era of baseball.

They played a game and are part of the history of that game. Pretending they don't exist isn't holding them accountable for their actions. If Rose is banished from his involvement in baseball, that is a suitable punishment. That is a punishment that prevents him from working in the industry and thus he can't profit from the game. However, that should have no impact on his accomplishments prior to his action. Hypothetically, had he been caught betting on baseball AFTER enshrinement, should he then be removed from the Hall of Fame?

Let's use OJ Simpson here as another example. For arguments sake, say he did kill his wife and it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Did that make him a lesser player when he played football? He then becomes a criminal and is deserving of whatever punishment the judicial system deems appropriate, but that has no bearing on his football career.

Holy strawmen.

predatorkj said:

Ok so what holds us hostage is the thought that if he wasn't a second baseman, his hr totals wouldn't be enough. My thing is, say Big Mac hadn't of done roids. He'd be a lock because of one thing and one thing only. His hr total. I do not have the ability right now but I'd guess there are quite a handful of other players we could look up who got in because of a magic number everything else be damned. That means they may not be good defensively, or have a decent BA, etc. So what's the magic number for second base? Because even a guy in the outfield or first base might have been a slowly lumbering defensive failure. But I'd assume 500 and he was a lock if not implicated by steroid issues.

You see, this is what ticks me off about the voting. One day it's offensive numbers. The next it's all about defense. There needs to be a little more clarity. I could see if Kent had hit 300 hr's and most second basemen were right around 250 or so. But this dude has more homers by a mile. So what if he hit behind Bonds? He still poked all those homers over the fence. Take other second baseman and let's see them do that. It's not going to happen.

Click to expand...

It is well known that Kent and Bonds Had no love for each other. The SF media also did not like Kent for this reason. Rogers Hornsby was not only the best 2nd baseman Of all time but One on the greatest hitters also. Kent is the 2nd best hitting 2nd baseman hands down. He had 8 100+ RBI season's. Rogers Hornsby had 5
Roberto Alomar had TWO Ryne Sandberg had ONE! Joe Morgan had ONE! Look at all the Hitting stats for 2nd basemen in the history of the game and only 2 are way above the rest ,Hornsby and Kent. if you compare the rest they are very good!

So Kent is not a Hall Of Famer::facepalm::::facepalm::::facepalm::::facepalm::

kent falls in to the category of a player who deserves consideration, merely as a formality, to show respect for a very good career. No way do I consider him a HOF'er but understand the validity in consideration.

sportscardtheory said:

Just to clear some stuff up, here are more of Kent's stats and accomplishments;

Click to expand...

I will bet you my Jeff Kent autographed card that he doesn't even get 25% of the vote.
In fact, I think he'll get less than 20% this week.

Austin said:

I will bet you my Jeff Kent autographed card that he doesn't even get 25% of the vote.
In fact, I think he'll get less than 20% this week.

Click to expand...

I agree that he may not reach 20% this year. It's a stacked ballot.

I have no evidence at all so take this for what it is...a baseless accusation/assumption...but I always thought Kent was a juicer. Seems like his numbers mysteriously and suddenly jumped in his 30s right around the time when Bonds broke the HR record (when they were teammates). Good player, but I would never vote for him.

Personally I don't think he deserves it but until I looked at the stats I didn't realize he had as good of a career as he did and I can see a case for him. However, There are a bunch of guys that deserve to get in before him. I wonder if down the road near the end of his allowed time on the ballot there'll be a strong push to get him in like there was with Jim Rice.
[MENTION=3754]MansGame[/MENTION] I think you might be like me and always assume Jeff Kent was the backup middle infielder we got in exchange for Carlos Baerga in 96

Nearly 50 votes cast and it's pretty interesting that ~70% of the poll said NO he shouldn't be in the HOF.

gracecollector said:

At the end of the day, it's the writers that vote you in the hall, and Kent was NOT respected by the writers. For a borderline-at-best candidate, an icy relationship with the writers is the kiss of death for induction. I don't think he makes it in numbers-wise, as his chances rely only on HRs at his position and there is the cloud of PEDs hanging in his vicinity. Definite No for me. It's not all numbers guys... the Hall considers character as well. And forget the "Hall of Very Good" vs. "Great Career" debate too. The Hall is for the ELITE, not just the great, let alone the very good.

Click to expand...

Great post, Brad. I was going to say something along those lines as well.

He's gets a 'no' from me.

corockies said:

I like to compare players like Kent to Todd Helton career wise. The reason I do this is because people give the same Hall of Very Good argument for Helton as well as Kent (and they have very similar career stats). Here's a breakdown:

Kent:
17 years played
2298 games played
career .290 ba
career 560 2b
career 47 3b
career 377 hr (351 at 2b - ML record)
career 1518 rbi to 1522 strikeouts
5 time all star
4 time silver slugger
0 gold gloves

Helton:
17 years played
2247 games played
career .316 ba
career 592 2b
career 37 3b
career 396 hr
career 1406 rbi to 1175 strikeouts
5 time all star
4 time silver slugger
3 gold gloves

The career #s of these 2 are very similar. I find it interesting how the hall of fame vote works. I think actual player input should have more weight in the voting process. They are the ones who competed against one another.

Click to expand...

If it hasn't been said already, you are comparing a 1B who played in Coors Field to a second baseman. It's apples to tires.