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

[aarne13]

No, I don't think Kent is a Hall of Famer.
I think for middle infield players, if they don't have great offensive stats like Ripken or Hornsby, they must be an incredible fielder, like Ozzie.

Kent had very good stats, but he was an average fielder.
In contrast, other HOF second basemen like Sandberg and Alomar were all-around great players, offensively and defensively.

Offensively, Kent was top tier for the position. Top 5 power numbers, doubles, HR, RBI, OPS. Defense was a wash.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Why wouldn't you compare Kent to his peers, fellow 2nd basemen. You don't compare Joey Belle to 1st basemen, do you.

 

[ASTROBURN]

I have to disagree that Bagwell only had a "pretty good career." He has amazing numbers while having played the early part of his career in the Astrodome. Also MVP and RoY. His candidacy is much stronger than Kent's.

Thank you!

 

[MansGame]

Why wouldn't you compare Kent to his peers, fellow 2nd basemen. You don't compare Joey Belle to 1st basemen, do you.

You can go find the Albert Belle HOF discussion thread (same style as this one) which I created a while ago and reference. Open it back up if you'd like.

I didn't ever remember discussing Belle only versus other Left Fielders but rather his career and numbers as a whole. Essentially making my point because I'm sure if you stack his career numbers ONLY up against people who played Left Field, probably makes more of a case for him.

This actually is one of the only times we've discussed a guy and the HOF and have had to revert to him at his position only to make a case for him getting in.


---
Buying Albert Belle cards! PM me!

 

[Austin]

When Kent was playing, no one ever said, "that guy's a Hall of Famer!"
It's only when his career ended, and he ended up with 350+ homers at second base, did people think he might be worthy.

And he is nowhere in Sandberg's or Alomar's class because, in addition to their offense, they were among the greatest fielding second basemen ever. Kent was a liability at second base and should have been an outfielder.

 

[gracecollector]

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.

 

[mlbsalltimegreats]

You can go find the Albert Belle HOF discussion thread (same style as this one) which I created a while ago and reference. Open it back up if you'd like.

I didn't ever remember discussing Belle only versus other Left Fielders but rather his career and numbers as a whole. Essentially making my point because I'm sure if you stack his career numbers ONLY up against people who played Left Field, probably makes more of a case for him.

This actually is one of the only times we've discussed a guy and the HOF and have had to revert to him at his position only to make a case for him getting in.


---
Buying Albert Belle cards! PM me!

This is true mac but if Belle Had the Most homeruns at his position would you consider him a hall of famer?

 

[Super Mario]

 

[sportscardtheory]

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.

 

[Austin]

I compare Kent to Lee Smith.

Lee Smith had the most career saves for about 15 years and has no shot at the HOF.
As soon as Hoffman and Rivera passed him, no one cared about Smith.

The same will happen with Kent when Cano and other players pass him.

Kent's only HOF claim is the home run record, and it's a weak number at a position dominated by light-hitting, quick-reflexed great fielders.

As soon as Kent's record is surpassed, no one will give a rat's ass about him and his voting numbers will tank like Lee Smith's.

 

[predatorkj]

It's a good point that Kent only merits consideration as he is one of the top 2-3 all-time power hitting second basemen. It is doubtful that he would look as "good" if he were a corner outfielder or first baseman. That said, his primary position *was* second base and he has to be given consideration for what he accomplished. He is by no means a strong candidate, but he is a candidate nonetheless. I do agree that the Hall is watered down and that is what makes all these debates fun. Why does Phil Ruzzuto and Pee Wee Reese make it and Alan Trammell does not....????

I have to disagree that Bagwell only had a "pretty good career." He has amazing numbers while having played the early part of his career in the Astrodome. Also MVP and RoY. His candidacy is much stronger than Kent's.

Well Bagwell, unlike Helton( as someone tried to point out earlier) had more first baseman type stats. Which is why position matters. Your first baseman, third baseman, and corner outfield spots are usually all sluggers positions. Which is why when you get a Piazza, or Kent, or Ripken/Jeter/A-Roid, you really have to consider them way above the riff raff due to what they accomplished offensively at a position that is usually offensively inept. So that's why position matters. All MLB players ought to be a master with the leather but there is a reason why the slugger positions have bigger guys at them. They don't require lithe athletic prowess like short and second and even a catcher can. Although I think most catchers aren't as lithe as they are mentally sharp.

 

[predatorkj]

Kent was a real nice player at the start of his career. Then when he went to S.F. his numbers exploded. Barry Bonds was a definite influence.

I don't think he was one of the greatest of all time. I don't think he was the best 2B of his era. And I don't think he was regularly considered the best player on his team.

But he had a really solid career, period.

During his career you couldn't argue more than two other players were better than him as a second baseman. Not when the whole package is taken into consideration. Defensively he was good not great. Offensively he was great not good. Does this not tip the scales? All I know is I was excited as hell to have him on our team. He certainly pulled his weight!

 

[predatorkj]

You can go find the Albert Belle HOF discussion thread (same style as this one) which I created a while ago and reference. Open it back up if you'd like.

I didn't ever remember discussing Belle only versus other Left Fielders but rather his career and numbers as a whole. Essentially making my point because I'm sure if you stack his career numbers ONLY up against people who played Left Field, probably makes more of a case for him.

This actually is one of the only times we've discussed a guy and the HOF and have had to revert to him at his position only to make a case for him getting in.


---
Buying Albert Belle cards! PM me!

No it's not. You seen any offensive pitchers lately? They get in based on one side of the game...defense!

 

[sportscardtheory]

Well Bagwell, unlike Helton( as someone tried to point out earlier) had more first baseman type stats. Which is why position matters. Your first baseman, third baseman, and corner outfield spots are usually all sluggers positions. Which is why when you get a Piazza, or Kent, or Ripken/Jeter/A-Roid, you really have to consider them way above the riff raff due to what they accomplished offensively at a position that is usually offensively inept. So that's why position matters. All MLB players ought to be a master with the leather but there is a reason why the slugger positions have bigger guys at them. They don't require lithe athletic prowess like short and second and even a catcher can. Although I think most catchers aren't as lithe as they are mentally sharp.

Great post. Stop talking so much sense though. Biggio and Kent aren't Babe Ruth, so...

lol

 

[Topnotchsy]

Note: I began this post undecided on whether I felt Kent was worthy of HOF consideration, but ended my post with an opinion.

I think that everyone agrees that Kent would not make it on the strength of his offensive numbers had he not played at 2nd base. Therefore, in my mind, the questions to consider are whether he should be viewed as 2nd baseman, or simply as a ball player and if he is viewed as a 2nd base man, is his home run total a reason to consider him for the Hall?

In thinking about this, I think we can safely accept the idea that there is a great distinction between players at different positions. There were 25 players in baseball history who have hit 500 or more home runs. At the top of that group are Barry Bonds, Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth and Willie Mays, all players who played the bulk of their career in the outfield. You also have Ken Griffey Jr., Sammy Sosa, Mickey Mantle, Frank Robinson, Reggie Jackson, Manny Ramirez, Ted Williams, Mel Ott and Gary Sheffield. That's 13 out of the 25 players. Moving to in infield we find that amongst players who primarily played at 1st base we have Jim Thome, Mark McGwire, Harmon Killebrew, Rafael Palmeiro, Jimmie Foxx, Willie McCovey, Frank Thomas and Eddie Murray. That's another 8. The last 4 players were Ale Rodriguez, Mike Schmidt, Ernie Banks and Eddie Mathews. Schmidt and Mathews were 3rd baseman, Arod split his career between SS and 3B and Banks divided his between SS and 1B.

On that list, 2 positions are glaringly missing; catcher and 2nd base. It is generally accepted that we view catchers differently than most players. This is presumably because they play a very important and visible role on the defensive side of the game, calling the plays etc. This component is very apparent when weighing the careers of players like Yadier Molina and others who were considered masters at their craft, but (I believe) also spills over into the way we view players like Mike Piazza who played the same position, if not quite as well (defensively).

With 2nd base, on one hand the position is clearly not as impactful as catcher on the defensive side. On the other hand when it comes to historical offensive performance, it is clear that 2nd base man are a different breed. When we mention that Kent leads 2nd basemen with 377 career home runs, we understate how impressive that is if we do not point out that #2 all time is Rogers Hornsby with 301. Kent does not just lead 2nd basemen, he has more than 25% more home runs than the #2 player. Hornsby is currently 135th on the all-time home run list and he has the second to most homers for a 2nd baseman! (Kent is tied for 68th.)

To consider for other positions:
Catcher: 1. Piazza (427), 2. Fisk (376) 12.5% difference
1st Base: 1. Jim Thome (612) 2. Mark McGwire (583) 5% difference
Shortstop: (hard to calculate since the biggest hitters only played around half their careers here)
3rd Base: 1. Mike Schmidt (548) 2. Eddie Mathews (512) 7%
Outfield: 1. Bonds (762) 2. Aaron (755) 1% difference

With all that said, the question to ask (in my mind) is whether his power output makes him special enough at the position to warrant the Hall of Fame. To consider that question I think it is worth looking at the stat that measures players against others at their position; namely All-Star Game appearances. While partially a popularity contest, it is a pretty nice measure about how a player stacks up against those at the same position. In this case in my mind Kent falls short. With only 5 AS game appearances, despite the fact that Kent hit for far more power than his peers at 2nd base, voters still did not feel he was sufficiently better enough to be worth note.

Because of this, my conclusion would be like many above. While Kent was a very solid player, I don't think he is HOF worthy.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Robin Yount is a first-ballot HOFer and he's a 3-time All-Star. Steve Garvey was a ten-time All-Star and he fell off the ballot after 15 years of eligibility. I don't think All-Star appearances are all THAT important to Hall voters.

 

[Topnotchsy]

Robin Yount is a first-ballot HOFer and he's a 3-time All-Star. Steve Garvey was a ten-time All-Star and he fell off the ballot after 15 years of eligibility. I don't think All-Star appearances are all THAT important to Hall voters.

I'm not sure if this was a response to my post. If it is though, it is worth noting that Yount had 3000 hits and 2 MVP's. He even won an MVP in a season he did not make the All-Star team! (How often does that happen lol.) With Kent though, a primary argument is the fact that he played 2nd base and should be judged differently because of it. My argument is that while his power numbers are outstanding for the position, the lack of AS appearances indicate that he wasn't an overall standout on the highest level.

 

[Austin]

When we mention that Kent leads 2nd basemen with 377 career home runs, we understate how impressive that is if we do not point out that #2 all time is Rogers Hornsby with 301. Kent does not just lead 2nd basemen, he has more than 25% more home runs than the #2 player. Hornsby is currently 135th on the all-time home run list and he has the second to most homers for a 2nd baseman! (Kent is tied for 68th.)

And this is precisely why the lone argument (home run leader) for Kent's HOF candidacy is a fallacy.
Hornsby had a .358 lifetime batting average and won two Triple Crowns. Using Hornsby's lesser career home run total as a reason for Kent's superiority is illogical.

(Topnotchsy, this is not a criticism of you, and I understand you don't believe Kent is a HoFer.
I'm just using the Hornsby point as an example of why Kent's modest 350 home run total is not HOF worthy, when that's the only reason backers think he should be inducted.
The other 2nd basemen who hit 30-40 homers, like Hornsby and Sandberg, excelled at other things besides hitting homers.)

 

[sportscardtheory]

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?

I'm just wondering if any of the same people who don't believe Kent is a HOFer think Mike Piazza is, when your arguments against Kent work against Piazza as well.

 

[Topnotchsy]

And this is precisely why the lone argument (home run leader) for Kent's HOF candidacy is a fallacy.
Hornsby had a .358 lifetime batting average and won two Triple Crowns. Using Hornsby's lesser career home run total as a reason for Kent's superiority is illogical.

(Topnotchsy, this is not a criticism of you, and I understand you don't believe Kent is a HoFer.
I'm just using the Hornsby point as an example of why Kent's modest 350 home run total is not HOF worthy, when that's the only reason backers think he should be inducted.
The other 2nd basemen who hit 30-40 homers, like Hornsby and Sandberg, excelled at other things besides hitting homers.)

Not a problem. The latter part of my post was meant to deal with whether his home run total was enough of a reason to make him a HOFer. I used AS games as my metric, but simply comparing overall stats to other 2nd baseman makes it clear that despite the home run total, others were better hitters.

Of course Hornsby was one of the absolute best ever and may not be a fair measuring stick.