Why We Need Numbers
Posted: January 26th, 2009 | Filed under: Baseball | 93 Comments »
I don’t know how it is for you, but for me, when someone says, “Jeff Kent,†well, I don’t think “Hall of Famer.†I just don’t — this is an utterly involuntary reaction. I never thought of him as a great player when I watched him play. I never felt any special excitement when he was in the game. I didn’t think he deserved the MVP he won in 2000 — in my memory his own teammate Barry Bonds was clearly the better player — and I thought when I watched him play that Kent was a first baseman masquerading as a second baseman.* Even when he became the all-time home run leader for second basemen, I yawned. Big deal. I thought: That’s like setting the NFL record for most rushing yards by a quarterback, or NBA record for most assist by a power forward, or something. It’s quaint and worth a little bit of applause, but it hardly stands a a defining hallmark of greatness.
*Speaking of out-of-place second basemen, our KC Star pal Sam Mellinger reports that the Royals are going to give Mark Teahen a shot to play some second base. It’s an interesting move — Teahen came up as a third baseman, he shifted to corner outfield, and he is listed at 6-foot-3. As Sammy points out the only second basemen in baseball history to be that tall and get 500 plate appearances at second base are:
1. Don Kolloway (4,244 PAs, 80 OPS+)
2. Mike Andrews, (3,685 PAs, 104 OPS+)
3. Bob Randall (1,491 PAs, 74 OPS+)
4. Alexei Ramirez (509 PAs, 103 OPS+)
Of course, this is a little bit misleading. Ryne Sandberg was 6-foot-2 (and a converted third baseman). Bobby Grich was 6-foot-2. Ron Oester, Jerry Lumpe, Jose Lopez — all 6-foot-2. And there have been a whole bunch of 6-foot-1 second basemen, including Chase Utley, Alfonso Soriano and the subject of this post, Jeff Kent.
And so, I have to admit, I’m kind of excited that the Royals are going to try Teahen at second base. I mean, hey, I don’t know how seriously they will try. And I don’t know if it can work. But I think this is precisely the sort of risk-reward thinking the Royals should be doing right about now. Teahen doesn’t really have a place on the Royals at the moment. He doesn’t fit in the outfield. The Royals are overloaded with first basemen. Alex Gordon needs to be at third base every day — he looks to me poised for a breakout season. And the Royals even have their super sub (hopefully) in Willie Ballgame, who plays seven positions, including all three outfield spots.
But second base — hey, why not, right? Teahen’s a good athlete. He has a good and accurate arm. He likes playing the infield. And — this is just my opinion — I’ve always felt like if the Royals would just give him a role and leave him alone and not expect him to be things he ain’t, he could really emerge as a good offensive player. I don’t know if he can turn the double play. I admit he would look odd at second, at least for a while. But I’m really glad the Royals are trying it — especially if Teahen gets into it. Seems to me that’s one that could pay off in a big way. And if it doesn’t, hey, you could at least say you tried.
Back to Jeff Kent. My point is that none of us are immune to the emotions of the moment. I have never really expressed it this way, but I GET why some people don’t vote for Bert Blyleven for the Hall of Fame. He generally was not viewed as a great pitcher while he pitched. I GET why Lou Whitaker and Dan Quisenberry and Ken Boyer received limited-to-no Hall of Fame support while Ryne Sandberg and Bruce Sutter and Brooks Robinson have plaques in Cooperstown right now. The latter three had this aura about them that the former three did not. I get the concept of perception and gut reaction and that in some twisted away a Hall of Famer is supposed to represent something transcendent in our consciousness. I feel those things too. I FEEL like Jeff Kent is absolutely not a Hall of Famer, and I’m always surprised whenever some announcer or writer calls him one.
Then, I look at the numbers. And I see that my perception of Jeff Kent is entirely wrong.
Kent was a 20th round pick out of Cal. He was a shortstop at Cal, and the Blue Jays initially tried him at short and third. They moved him to second base his first season in High Class A, and he showed signs of power and even a little flash of speed, but his batting averages were low, and he struck out a ton. But the Blue Jays must have loved him because he never played a single game in Triple A. The Blue Jays called him up to the big leagues in 1992, when he was 24. He showed enough promise that he was the key player in the trade that brought the Blue Jays David Cone for the pennant stretch that year.
Kent played 140 games in 1993 for the Mets, hit 21 homers, slugged .446, didn’t walk at all, struck out quite a bit, not bad for a second-year second baseman in a lousy hitting ballpark. The Mets did not seem to quite know what they had with him. He was apparently a pain in the neck — that reputation would follow him everywhere he went — and, in a way that’s hard to explain, something about him seemed unsubstantial. The Mets were awful then, and Kent seemed to define that. He hit fine when he was in the lineup, which was only about two-thirds of the time. The Mets dumped him on the Indians in the closing days of 1996 for a fading Carlos Baerga. Kent played 39 games without distinction for the Tribe before he was traded again, this time to San Francisco.
And give this to then Giants manager Dusty Baker: He did what nobody else seemed willing to do — he put Jeff Kent out at second base every day. Kent was 29 years old, he had been traded three times, he had never gotten 500 at-bats in a season. And in 1997, Baker played him in 155 games, put him in the heart of the lineup, and the guy banged 29 homers and drove in 121 RBIs. True, Kent had his failings that year — his on-base percentage was .316, he struck out 133 times, and those RBIs were largely because Barry Bonds had one of his many miraculous years in front of him — but, hey, the only second basemen who had ever driven in that man runs: Hornsby, Gehringer, Lajoie and Gordon. It was a breakout year.
His 1998 season was MUCH better — .298/.359/.555 with 31 homers, 128 RBIs, a 142 OPS+. I can’t tell you if he was playing a credible second base at the time … I really don’t know. Baseball Prospectus rates him as a slightly above average defensive second baseman in 1998 — and well above average later on — and his range factor numbers are good for almost his entire career. When I saw him play, I thought he was a statue at second base. But, we’re getting back to the point of the post, aren’t we? I didn’t see him enough to really know.
And: I was wrong about his MVP year of 2000 too — there’s a strong argument to be made that Kent deserved the MVP over Bonds. True, Bonds had better on-base percentage and slugging percentage and he bashed 49 homers (Bonds hit .305/.440/.688). But Kent’s .334/.424/.596 are very strong, certainly MVP caliber. Also:
– Kent played in 16 more games than Bonds.
– Kent played the more difficult and valuable defensive position.
– Because of this, Kent actually had more Win Shares than Bonds (37-32), which surprised me.
Point is, that was not a bogus MVP award at all — he had a true MVP season (so did Bonds, and so did Todd Helton and a couple of others). Kent was an excellent player the next two years, a very good one until 2005. He got a late start, but he had a nine-year peak from 1997-2005, where he started in the All-Star Game four times, he drove in 100 or more RBIs eight times, won an MVP, hit 22 or more homers every year, finished among the league leaders in numerous categories. The guy has a career OPS+ of 123, which is better than Roberto Alomar (116 OPS+), Craig Biggio (111 OPS+), Derek Jeter (120 OPS+), Barry Larkin (116 OPS+), Alan Trammell (116 OPS+), Cal Ripken (112 OPS+), Ryne Sandberg (114 OPS+), Lou Whitaker (116 OPS+) and every other middle-infielder of the last 25 years or so who would get serious Hall of Fame consideration, with the exception of A-Rod, who is a whole other story. Sure many of these players offered other things that Kent did not — better defense, more speed, a better attitude, a sense of leadership. But Kent hit the baseball as well or better than any of them.
Is Jeff Kent a Hall of Famer? I sure never thought so. But, yes, that’s why we have numbers. That’s why people keep up with this stuff. What really bothers me about Bert Blyleven is that his pitching brilliance wasn’t fully appreciated in his time, and BECAUSE of that, it’s not fully appreciated now. We keep twisting around in the same circle. It’s like we keep trying to justify our own notions and convictions, even if it means making the same mistakes. I saw someone, in making the Hall of Fame case for JIm Rice, pointed out that he was the highest paid player in baseball for a few years.
That’s great. But you know what? Rice already got paid for those years. The part that makes sense to me about the Hall of Fame is perspective, it is that a Hall of Famer’s career should stand up long after the trends and quirks of the time have faded, long after the camera has panned back. If a player’s career looks better in reverse — Bert Blyleven, Lou Whitaker, Dan Quisenberry, Ron Santo, Dwight Evans on and on and on — we should honor that, give them a fair Hall of Fame hearing, one that isn’t marred by hunches of the time that might not have been right in the first place. And if a player’s career doesn’t stand up to the scrutiny of the years, well, that’s why we wait five years before voting. I look at Jeff Kent’s numbers now and — well, he won’t be eligible for five years so things can change. But I would predict that, when we look back, Kent’s career will look awfully good. I’ll bet it will look like a Hall of Fame career.
Loading ...
first
stop voting for “Friends in Low Places”. I do not like that song. The worst move the Royals ever made was making that the seventh inning stretch song.
Although, maybe the Royals were finally embracing their standing as American League door mat.
It’s funny, looking at Kent’s B-Ref page, how many of his top batting comps are catchers. Berra, Fisk, Pudge-Rod, Bench, Simmons… of course, all these guys are HoF or near-HoF players. Now, you say, that’s because they are catchers. But it’s the same observation about the non-catchers on those lists: Dave Parker, Jim Rice, Tony Perez, Harold Baines, Ryno, Andre Dawson.
Of course, there are all the usual caveats about B-Ref’s comps. But it’s still an interesting look.
Great points, Joe. I think it’s important to recognize that a lot of people base their HOF votes on how they felt about a player at the time. For some people, this is how they consciously vote, but for others, they do it sub-consciously. For a player who is a marginal candidate, it’s easy for someone to look at their numbers and see what they want to see, depending on how emotionally invested they are. That’s kind of the definition of marginal (and it sometimes creeps into non-marginal candidates too, like Blyleven).
Kent is easily a forgotten player. As a second-baseman – who pays attention to second-basemen?! – playing for the Giants – who pays attention to the Giants?! – he fell out of people’s minds pretty quickly. But, like you said, I think his numbers really hold up. And even though he was never part of a national discussion, and even though he was someone that no one seems to remember caring about, he actually *was* acknowledged at the time as the best second-basemen in baseball (the annual Sporting News and Athlon guides prove it. I took a look at them here: http://wezen-ball.blogspot.com/2009/01/through-years-jeff-kent.html). It’s just the inherent invisibility of his place in baseball that makes people not realize it.
Be definitely deserves to be mention with Craig Biggio and Roberto Alomar as the second-basemen of their generation, even if people don’t realize it.
Great post, the last two paragraphs especially.
I love ‘first.’ Makes my comment look better.
Billy Beane would tell you he doesn’t want to do away with scouting departments, he just wants to supplement their observations with numbers. Isn’t it possible that the voice in your head that doesn’t like Kent for the Hall is making a good argument?
Josh=first nimrod.
Kent’s an interesting subject to me. I vividly recall him coming up as a Blue Jay and thought he was fantastic… when I look at the stats now, I can see why. In about 40% of a season (65 games) in Toronto, he smacked 8 HR’s and 35 RBI’s. Not shabby for a guy who skips AAA to earn a spot on a perenial playoff contender. but he never really lived up to the expectations in my mind…though he was a solid producer IMHO.
In fact, I never thought about it until now, but you summed up a lot of my feelings about Kent by saying he looked more like a first baseman. I couldn’t agree more.
I always got the impression though, that Bonds made him a better hitter. That didn’t matter to me though…I mean, how much did Ruth impact Gehrig’s hitting? That’s the way baseball lineups are supposed to work. Anyway….
I felt he was top notch. And like you say, if he’d been given more of a starting role in his earlier years, he probably would have unavoidably strong HOF numbers. I mean, his first 5 seasons he averaged 99 games per year but still managed a couple 20 HR seasons and seemed to get better the more he played.
I think he could’ve reached 400 HR’s, 600 doubles, 1600 RBI’s, if he’d played just a bit more in his early years.
I don’t even remember him in Cleveland.
As far as Kent’s defense goes, we have two great methods to help us quantify this:
Sean Smith’s TotalZone, on Jeff Kent @ 2B (the numbers are available up to 2007) — expressed in runs saved above/below average
1992: +2 (and, at 3B: -6)
1993: -10
1994: +1
1995: -3
1996: played mostly at 3B, where he was -2
1997: +8
1998: +6
1999: was unavailable at Retrosheet at the time that Smith produced these ratings
2000: +1
2001: +4
2002: +2
2003: +3
2004: -5
2005: -5
2006: -5
2007: -4
AND, we also have Dan Fox’s Simple Fielding Runs — which, again, I have only up to 2007:
1992: +1.4 (and, at 3B, while in Toronto: -6.2)
1993: -9.7
1994: +3.3
1995: +.3
1996: (played mostly at 3B, where, according to this method, he was about +.5)
1997: +5.8
1998: +2.1
1999: (again, not available at that time)
2000: -.5
2001: +1.8
2002: -.9
2003: -2.4
2004: +2.3
2005: -3.4
2006: -3.2
2007: -5.8
So — once you compilie those scores, you can come to the conclusion that Kent was basically an average defender — some good years, some bad ones.
Oh, and MGL’s UZR, published at FanGraphs, has this on Kent from 2002-2008:
2002: +2
2003: +/- 0
2004: +5.8
2005: -12.1
2006: -12.8
2007: -10.9
2008: -11.5
All the methods agree on this — he was really bad defensively as his career wore down.
So there you have it.
I guess this is why it’s the Hall of FAME. I guess you can get in if you have the numbers and/or the fame. Besides, Halls of Fame are fun.
About tall second basemen:
What about tall shortstops? Before Cal Ripken, how many were there?
Heck, I wanted to write that Barry Larkin might be the last of the great small shortstops, and I knew that I’d have to think about that a bit first. Of course, step 1 would be to check his height. 6′ even. Not so short.
Cal was 6′ 4″. A-Rod is 6′ 3″. They could both play the position just fine.
Is there a really good reason why you can have tall shortstops and not tall second basemen? And if you move past a prejudice against tall second basemen, you’d be opening up a key position to a lot more people, potentially giving you a lot more offense there.
Excellent post…I look forward to the day when, oh, say, 75% of the Hall voters look at the numbers, or stop to check their gut reactions against *something*, or do any sort of thinking at all, before voting. This is exactly the kind of analysis they should all be *required* to do, or risk losing their badges (and, no, the voice in his head is making a terrible argument…but the important thing is to question it in the first place).
[...] + Why we need numbers in baseball. {Joe Posnanski.} [...]
WHB 810am in Kansas City reports Grienke Signed to 4-year Deal!
Kent is getting more support now (informally of course) than I thought he would, so he’s a good bet. And it’s not like a Lee Smith type of situation where his record is going to be passed within five years, unless Chase Utley starts hitting 50 homers a year.
i think there’s no doubt being in the same lineup as bonds helped jeff kent… but there for a few years, he turned into an above average defensive second baseman and he was always a good offensive one.
i think the reason that kent doesn’t strike you as a hall-of-famer on first glance is that he got there kind of slowly. sure, he hit for power from the minute he showed up in the majors, but he didn’t exactly make a huge splash those first few years, defensively or offensively.
he was 30 when he put up his first season that looks like a part of a hall-of-fame resume.
And from 30-39 he was probably the best offensive 2b in the game. and an above-average defensive guy at 2b for most of that time as well. and even that defense really wasn’t that flashy. just good.
i love his b-r comps by age… khalil greene, brett boone, mike leiberthal, rich aurilia. then he turns 30: joe gordon, nomar garciaparra, brett boone, yogi berra.
plus, you know, he played long enough to get counting stats. number that surprised me: 21st all time in doubles. again, not that flashy. but impressive nonetheless. 34th all time in career extra base hits… again, at a position normally a bit oriented toward defense, and he was by no means a butcher.
so i think i know why he doesn’t seem like a hall of famer at first glance: not much of a splash early in his career, not flashy, overshadowed by a much better hitting and much much more famous teammate, played most of his best games after folks out east were asleep, etc. and, on top of that, didn’t get much coverage in the media as he was, by all accounts, kind of a jerk and not the most talkative guy in the clubhouse.
but the numbers don’t lie, at least not in this case.
i’d take him over craig freakin’ biggio any day of the week.
Joe, I don’t know if you saw Dave Cameron (of Fangraphs fame) take on 2B versus 3B:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/2b_and_3b
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/more-2b3b-stuff
Very interesting and relevant to Mark Teahen.
I think part of the issue with some of the players you name (Whitaker, Trammel, Evans, Blyleven, etc) compared to other (Sandberg, etc) is that the former players are not easily distinguished as the “star player.” Sandberg was perceived as the best player on the Cubs for years (excepting Dawson in ‘87).
I never thought Kent was the best player on his team, ever. That is a tough hurdle. (In all fairness, he had little to no chance of that since most of his best years overlap Bonds.)
Jeff Kent and Omar Vizquel are the only two teammates of Bonds that have legit Hall of Fame chances (as it stands now). I don’t think there are any players in the Hall of Fame that didn’t play with another Hall of Famer at some point.
19th!
I just wish the Royals would make up their minds with Teahen. This is the third year in a row he is making a spring position change. I hope it works works out for him because he has always done whatever the Royals ask and seems like a good guy to have on the club. I just read Grinke signed a new deal. I’m glad he committed to the team already. I was afraid he would hold out and maybe be traded away.
Kent doesn’t say Hall of Fame to me. Numbers or not, I don’t think I would vote for him.
Excellent article.
I think part of the problem with Kent is that he had his peak or his best 7 seasons rather late in his career I think he started about age 30. As a result, people have a perception of him as a good player not a very good/great player. I think the strike and being traded 3 times had a lot to do with his lack of playing time.
Also, second base is probably the worst defined position in the HOF. They don’t elect thirdbasemen unless your Mike Schmidt-George Brett caliber, they elect a lot of Left fielders but second base is weird.
To the best of my knowledge it’s the only position that celebrates say the 30th best 2b (Maz, Schoendist) or the 20-25th best (Doerr, Lazerri) yet fails to recognize the 8th-12th best (Grich, Whitaker)and players who should be considered boderline 15th-17th (Willie Randolph) are not even brought up in conversation.
GRIENKE
4 more years! 4 more years!
4 more years! 4 more years!
4 more years! 4 more years!
4 more years! 4 more years!
Re: Greinke. Whoo-hoo!!!!! At least once every five games, there will actually be a reason to go to Kaufman!
God Save the Queen instead of Anarchy in the UK??
Not putting tall guys at 2nd is more of a tradition than anything else, and like most traditions, is based on a fallacy.
It has not been that long since ALL of the infield positions except 1st base were filled with short quick guys. There was as much dearth of offense at 3rd as there was at 2nd before Brett and Schmidt (along with some others) completely changed expectations in the 1970’s.
3rd basemen are the least represented in the Hall. But tath is going to change over the next couple of decades as some guys that either played 3rd their whole career or started out there will be shoo-ins.
In recent history, 2nd basemen are considered guys too short for 3rd, or not enough arm, and not quite good enough to play short.
Right now, 2nd base is a tough position to get voted in on. It is not given the same weight defensively as SS. Ozzie Smith, the greatest defensive shortstop I have ever seen, got in right away.
Frank White the greatest defensive 2nd baseman I have ever seen was off the ballot quickly. Frank was a slightly less effective offensive player, mostly because of low OBP, but if he had been a dominant defensive SS he might be in.
Mazeroski, the other great defensive 2nd baseman who is slightly before my time, had to wait for the veteran’s committee, and was pushed over the top by one celebrated Home run. He is the most similar player to White and although he was just a hair less effective offensively, they are absurdly similar.
Jeff Kent is a hall of famer as far as a hitter, but Whitaker, White and Grich are just as deserving.
Jeff Kent is the modern day Rogers Hornsby.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, he is in no way as good as Hornsby (although in a run neutral environment, their numbers would be a lot closer than people think), but they both are good hitting, not so good fielding 2nd basemen, who had a reputation for being a big pain in the backside. They both had shortened careers, Kent’s on the front side and Hornsby on the back side.
I am sure at the time, people would tell you that Frisch was the better player, because he was defensively superior, just as Alomar was considered the better player between Kent and Alomar, but as hitters, Kent and Hornsby were the best 2nd basemen of their generation.
Why is there no talk of PED’s with Kent? I don’t have any information or anything that points to that, I only think it is a legitimate question.
I would also agree with others that he benefitted from hitting behind Bonds. How much? Is there any way to measure that? How much should that matter?
Only asking the questions.
If you look at Kent as a second baseman, he’s in. However, he was an average fielder who they hid at second base. Would someone like Jim Edmonds (and many others) have been better off playing 2nd base? Edmonds would have been at least as good as Kent (likely better) if he played 2nd base instead of center field. Since Kent had the fortune of playing 2nd base, he gets in?
Why not try Teahen at SS and have Aviles play 2B? I think both would excel at those positions.
As a Giants fan I can totally see Kent as a Hall of Famer. I always felt more comfortable with him at the plate in clutch situations too.
What will be interesting to me is what the Giants will do if he’s elected and goes in as a Giant. Jeff Kent Day when they retire his number will be kind of strange since we’ve been booing him for years now.
This could be my memory playing tricks on me, but it seems to me that the Mets fans got very frustrated with Kent because he went into extended slumps during the year when he was a huge hole in the lineup.
And I love the point that the reason for the 5 year wait is to allow for perspective and to modify initial impressions if further study proves them mistaken.
To Mike #6,
To address your point, there’s a difference between evaluating potential and evaluating performance. Once your career is done, your numbers are what they are and that can (for the most part) be objectively measured. However, if you’re a 17 year old kid in the minors, of course scouting is necessary. Numbers tell you what you did, and can give a glimpse of the future, but that has to be coupled with your projectable skill set.
Once your career is over “scouting†isn’t necessary, you have the data of what happened. So it really doesn’t matter if he’s tall or short, fast or slow, he did what he did, no need to scout his performance.
#28
Jim Edmonds would have been the worst defensive 2nd baseman in the history of baseball. His DP numbers would have been off the charts bad.
Now, if you are suggesting that a RH throwing equivalent of Jim Edmonds have a better shot for the HOF at 2B rather than CF, you are probably right.
Of course, some guys are so bad defensively, they cannot stay at 2B (See Soriano, Alphonso, e.g.) and have to be moved the OF.
I couldn’t agree more with the Teahen to short and Aviles to second comment.
If the Royals are to legitimately to compete for the post season it will be with Aviles at second.
The Royals for too long have tried to win as many games as possible instead of trying to develop talent, even if the development needs to take place at the major league level.
I don’t know if Teahen will work at short or not. But I know that Aviles is better suited at second and the Royals should put him there and let him develop, instead of leaving him at short because they have nothing better.
The same for Butler. Put him in the lineup at DH. Let him succeed or fail.
And, if Buck is not the answer at catcher, let him go. It will benefit the Royals and Buck to allow him to move on. I personally don’t see where Olivo is an improvement over Buck, but if that is the decision go with it.
I’m an Orioles homer from back in the day and Ken Boyer was a heckuva player. But there really is no comparison between him and Brooks Robinson.
Ken Boyer 8268 plate appearances
Brooks Robinson 11782.
Just to make it simple.
And a good number of those were with Earl Weaver as his manager. If Earl thought running Brooks out there to play was the best move even when his offensive ability was gone then there was something special about the man’s fielding. You don’t have to have seen it to understand that.
And presumably you’ve seen Brooks play 3rd in the ‘70 series when the BRM 1.0 was beaten predominately by him. I’ve read too that it was Brooks at 3rd who convinced the Dodgers that they couldn’t bunt on the O’s in ‘66 and that basically killed what little offense they had. So -very arguably I’ll admit- Brooks’ defense was a major reason the O’s won 2 WS.
This probably comes off more hostile than I mean it too. I wouldn’t have heartburn with Ken Boyer in the HoF, I just think that the voters got Brooks>Ken right.
I agree with post #27. Here’s a guy who didn’t have a real good year until he’s 29 and then he has his best years between age 30 and 38, right in the middle of the steroid era, and no one is questioning this? I recently read “Game of Shadows” and I have no trust in anyone’s numbers if they didn’t start to decline around age 34.
I also think the Bonds factor played a pretty big role in his numbers too. Is there a way to quantify that? Probably not.
I agree with trying Teahen at 2nd and hopefully we’re able to see this earlier then expected with the WBC. Although Canada lost any chance they had with all their pitching talent not going (Harden, Dempster, Bedard, Francis, Hill) they will need to just put their best bats out there at any position and hope for the best. With Morneau at first, Votto needs a spot and could be the third OF with Stairs and Bay. Their next best hitter besides Teahen (or Russell Martin who’s catching obviously) is probably Shawn Bowman who plays 3rd. Slotting Teahen at 2nd makes sense for that lineup and the Royals.
Oh and great job by Moore locking up Greinke for awhile.
As far as Kent, he’s a HOFer. Has he always been a cancer in the clubhouse, because besides the run-ins with Bonds and Bradley (both of whom no one else can stand) I don’t remember much else. For the PED question, Kent had been one of the more outspoken people that supported strict testing. With that and the fact he showed power as soon as he came into the league probably clears him of suspicion.
Thanks, Brent..I forgot he was left handed. How about Andruw Jones or Larry Walker? Would they have had a better shot if they played 2nd base?
Long-time lurker, first-time commenter.
1) I like Teahen at short and Avilés at second, too. Teabag would be an above-average hitter and below-average fielder at SS, and Avilés would be an average fielder and above-average hitter, even figuring in regression to the mean.
2) I think Springsteen is an iconic artist without any real iconic songs. Rock and roll song of the ’70s? Free Bird or Stairway. Rock and roll song of the ’80s? I dunno, it was a bunch of crap back then, and nothing really stood out but alternative bands, non-iconic by definition.
3) Jeff Kent is borderline, and he’s such a dick they ought to keep him out.
The following numbers have their limitations. They don’t take into consideration which players were able to have longer careers or how high the players’ peaks were. However, they add something to a consideration of numbers.
Career win shares primarily at 2b include Collins 574, Morgan 512, Hornsby 502, Lajoie 496, Biggio 425, Gehringer 381, Alomar c. 370, Frisch 366, Whitaker 351, Sandberg 346, Kent 344, Grich 329, Randolph 312, Evers 268, Mazeroski 219, White 211.
CWS primarily at ss include Wagner 655, Ripken 427, Yount 423, A-Rod 407, Davis 398, Dahlen (not in) 394, Appling 378, Vaughn 356, Larkin 346, Wallace 345, Cronin 333, Smith 325, Jeter 320, Trammell 318, Aparicio 293, Tinker 258, Reyes 116, Ramirez 86.
I think the best all time forward in assists is probably Larry Bird. Nothing wrong with him, is there?
Jim Rice has one MVP, in a season where his home/away splits were 1.105 versus .837. He has a career OPS+ of 128, and 382 home runs, and is in the HOF.
Jeff Kent has one MVP, in a season where his home park hurt him .986 to 1.053. His career OPS splits were .853 at home to .857 on the road; let him play in Coors half his games (career OPS 1.007 there) and he’d dwarf Jim Rice’s career stats.
Okay, this isn’t about Jim Rice, who has forever lowered the bar on HOF entry. This is about comparing a guy who was a mediocre defender at the least important defensive position to a guy who was a decent defender at one of the most important defensive positions and has somewhat comparable stats. And maybe home runs are not critical for second basemen, but not one HOF second baseman has hit nearly as many as did Jeff Kent. None.
Mind you, I hate Jeff Kent. He hurt the Dodgers time and again the last few seasons by ignoring his coaches to get thrown out trying to take the extra base when he no longer had the speed, and refusing to move over to first base one he’d lost his range at second, and not taking enough days off to allow his aging body to heal. I hate that he hurt himself “washing his truck” in violation of his contract. I hate that he talked the talk of a team leader, at least when it was time to criticize anybody, but never walked the walk. I hate that he criticized Vin Scully for noticing what everybody else in the ballpark and watching on television saw. Kent’s numbers went through the roof when Manny came over. Maybe it was just a hot streak. More likely, it was more fastballs. That’s no criticism of Kent, it’s just numbers. Mostly, though, Kent struck me as a selfish jerk who wasn’t as good as he thought he was.
But good enough to go into the HOF? Yes, he’s that good. Every middle infielder who has hit as well as Kent for his career is in the HOF, and plenty who didn’t are also in the HOF. He wasn’t a defensive stiff for most of his career. There’s no justification for not putting Kent in the HOF. That hasn’t helped Blyleven (yet) but I think it will.
If Kent played his career in the Eastern time zone he would be a no-doubt HOFer.
As a young Mets fan, I remember thinking that Kent was the only thing wrong with the team. I remember going to a game when the only run they scored was when Kent walked with the bases loaded, which somehow seemed to symbolize the problem with Kent. I can imagine J.D. Drew putting up HOFish numbers and being a similar case (not that I think that WILL happen, but I can definitely imagine it).
Maybe Kent is a Hall of Famer. I tend to think he is, but I don’t expect him to get in anytime soon. To pull a Joe, here’s Kent versus another second baseman.
Kent: 1632 games, 943 runs, 1754 hits, 275 HR, 1100 RBI, .289/.352/.503, 124 OPS+
Player X: 1566 games, 914 runs, 1530 hits, 253 HR, 975 RBI, .268/.357/.466, 120 OPS+
The numbers for Kent are truncated through age 35, when Player X stopped playing. Both were second basemen and both won MVPs. Player X was a much better defender and his career was artificially truncated by WWII. He was also part of five world champions and enjoyed the better reputation during his playing days, all of which pretty well offsets the extra years of production by Kent. Overall, pretty similar players, particularly if you give Player X his lost WWII seasons.
He is, of course, Joe Gordon, who didn’t make the Hall until the VC put him in this year, nearly 60 years after he retired. Presuming the VC hangs around in perpetuity, that seems like Kent’s most likely avenue to the Hall as well.
“Better than I thought” does not amount to “all-time great”. Your perception is right. Jeff Kent’s not a HoFer.
I’m reminded of the line Kevin Costner uttered in JFK: “The government says it can prove it with some fancy physics in a nuclear lab. Of course they can. Theoretical physics can prove an elephant can hang from a cliff……with his tail tied to a daisy. But use your eyes, your common sense.” Same with Jeff Kent’s numbers. No one who saw him play — and I saw him lots when he was with the Mets — thought him to be a HoFer. Not me, not the homer Met announcers (who once opined, in all seriousness, that Howard Johnson* would one day win a Gold Glove), not the reporters, not the diehard Mets fans who were my friends. No.Bo.Dy.
Now ask me about Frank Robinson, or Reggie — they were HoFers, and you knew that when you saw them play.
But any Hall without Pete Rose — next to whom Kent is Mr. Rogers — is not worthy of the name, anyway.
*Actually, Howard Johnson was a player more esteemed than Jeff Kent when he was with the Mets.
Juancho,
I don’t know that the 80’s were a bunch of crap. You could actually argue at a lot of the music with mainstream appeal was actually a lot better than the top 40 chart toppers of the 1990s and 2000s.
Prince, for starters, was amazing and sold a shitload of records. As far as pop music was concerned, Michael Jackson’s two releases, Bad and Thriller, were pretty outstanding. Guns N’ Roses were quite a bit more complex than reductive 80s rock haters would care to admit. Bruce Springsteen released The River, Nebraska, Born in the USA, and Tunnel of Love (highly underrated). Artsier bands like R.E.M. and the Talking Heads sold well. Paul Simon’s Graceland came out. N.W.A. and Public Enemy hit the scene. Hell, U2 was still good.
A wise man told me one time that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably a duck. You should not need a stack a stats to prove it is a duck. When I think of Jeff Kent, one of the best players of all time does not come to mind right off the bat. A person can make the stats tell any story that they want them to by selecting what measuements they want to look at. The man once said that there are lies, damn lies, and stats.
Jack and Diane by John Cougar (not Mellencamp)has to be added to the list. That song dominated the early 80’s.
This discussion reminds me of a story:
I was at a game at Shea in May ‘96, and the guy behind me absolutely hated Jeff Kent. He screamed obscenities at Kent throughout the game, though his most common epithet was simply “You Suck, Kent!” Well, Jeff comes up once and just crushes one–winds up with a double. He’s standing at second base, and the guy behind me yells “That changes NOTHING! You STILL suck, Kent!”
It’s strange, because my take on Kent was pretty much the exact opposite. I felt he was a no-doubt, slam-dunk Hall of Famer, and after looking at the stats, while I still think he’s worthy, I don’t think it’s as clear-cut a case. If forced to guess, I’d say he WILL make it (and deservedly so), but I could see people making pretty heated arguments against him. A lot of it, of course, will be because of his general attitude as opposed to his actual on-field contributions.
To the Mets fans arguing against Kent, of course no one thought he was a Hall of Famer when he was in New York – he wasn’t putting up Hall of Fame numbers then. He was a good-hitting second baseman (and sometime third baseman,) but not an elite player at that point. It would be like arguing that Nolan Ryan shouldn’t be in the Hall because he was basically a league-average pitcher during his seasons there.
As an addendum, I never cease to be amazed at the ongoing battle against stats by some. Sure, they can be cherry-picked and even manipulated, but I don’t know how people can still not understand that – used correctly – they’re just a record of what happened on the field. A more accurate record than simple memory, which is often incomplete – can you honestly say you’ve seen (and remembered) every at-bat or pitch for any given player? Memory is also tinted with bias. Everyone likes or dislikes players more than those players’ actual contributions on the field.
Ironically, it’s the writers who hate stats who tend to cherry-pick or use misleading or outdated stats to try to bolster their points.
Kent = Blyleven with one HUGE exception…the MVP.
Both have the numbers to make it, but not really thought of as elite, sure-fire HOFers while they played. I think Kent will get in within 3-4 years of eligibility, but any voter that votes for Kent and didn’t vote for Blyleven is a hypocrite.
[...] Posnanski (in a post about Jeff Kent that’s well worth the read) likes the move: And so, I have to admit, I’m kind of excited that the Royals are going to try Teahen at [...]
Kent’s MVP is a result of writers not wanting to vote for Barry Bonds again. Sportwriters will always go with the most compelling instead of the best, otherwise Michael Jordan would have 10 MVP’s instead of 5 and Terry Pendleton would have zero.
As far as Kent, he put up the best numbers of anyone who ever played second base. That should settle that. Think about it, only so many positions on a baseball diamond and at 2B he swings the bat better than every last person who ever played the position.
I remember him from Cleveland, where he was decidedly nothing special. That’s why I have the exact same “Kent, HOF? No way.” feeling. Your numbers demonstrate he was a better hitter than I remember.
But I’m going to keep going back to the character thing. The guy broke his wrist on his motorcycle (forbidden in his contract) AND THEN LIED ABOUT IT. Isn’t that low character? Doesn’t that hurt his team? I won’t be heartbroken if he goes through a ballot purgatory.
What has happened to this commenter base? This reliance, time and time again in the above discussions, on “gut feeling” regarding Kent seems rather ridiculous. “I saw him play lots, and he isn’t a HOF” is not an argument. Anecdotal evidence should not be overriding the actual facts presented. This Costner quote re: fancy physics v. common sense – the common sense should be dictated by what actually happened, not by vague recollections of subjective opinions. And regarding the steroid era, there is no way to prove whether he did or did not use (not a sticking point with me, regardless). However, he has been a vocal proponent of blood testing in MLB. While this may be some elaborate ploy, when it is coupled with the lack of evidence against him, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
I agree with Justin…since around 2002 I definitely have thought of Jeff Kent as a HOF. I mean, he was a pretty consistently great offensive player for about 8 years at 2b.
I think the “I don’t care what the stats say, I trust how I feel” argument should be used for everything, though. I love it.
It could work with driving: “I know the directions are telling me to turn right, but in my gut I FEEL I should turn left”
Science: “I know all these fancy experiments appear to indicate that the earth, in fact, revolves around the sun, but in my gut I feel that it must be the other way around.”
Foreign policy: “Sure, there’s no credible evidence linking Iraq with 9/11 or recent attempts to produce WMDs, but I feel like they must be.”
And yes, I believe that deliberations on Jeff Kent’s HOF credentials are on the same level as issues of war and peace. The evidence would indicate that the Kent debate is actually less important, but that’s not what my gut is telling me.
It’s funny how often I see articles that claim that determining Hall of Famers should require no research and that a Hall of Famer is someone people instinctively know is a Hall of Famer when they see him. It’s a ridiculous argument, because aside from the obvious choices, people disagree on who those “know them when they seem them” ballplayers are.
Are far as Kent and drugs, the reason no one is talking about Kent and PEDs is that
1) Kent has been vociferous about not using them and has been highly critical of players (though he doesn’t name names) who did use them.
2) He’s a middle infielder who didn’t get so big that he had to be moved away from his position
Does that make sense? Not a lot. Kent did gain 35 pounds in his career; he wasn’t Craig Biggio. And, of course, people who deny things vociferously often are viewed are denying things too much. On the other hand, Kents comments would tend to invite anyone who knew of PED use by Kent to come out and say so.
But I can’t say whether Kent is Gary Hart or he’s just being honest. The truth is that we can’t assume anything about anybody – even when we know someone took steroids, it’s pretty impossible to calculate the effect of those steroids.
If Kent’s viewed as difficult enough without mitigating credit for second base, he might be something like a lesser Dick Allen.
He’s not the hitter Hornsby, Lajoie, Collins, or Morgan were, but his numbers say eventual Hall of Fame. He’s about at Gordon level, since he missed wartime. I think he’ll have to wait.
If Teahen was capable of playing SS he would have been playing it the last 2 years instead of Tony Pena Jr. Plus Aviles makes all the plays he needs to and if his hitting regresses he will still be a ton better then any other option currently available at short.
Fifty-ninth.
Damn. Sixty-first.
To go along-side what Rally’s TotalZone, Dan’s SimpleFieldingRuns, and MGL’s UZR, I too, via my WOWY, have Jeff Kent as an averagish fielding 2B through 2004, and then bad in the last 4 years.
The best case against Kent’s candidacy is that, as many people (such as Tom Tango and Dan Rosenheck) have pointed out, 2B is not actually a premium defensive position in today’s game (there is reason to think that it was a more premium position in the past). It is comparable to 3B or CF today, and is far behind SS or C. Is an average to slightly below average fielding CF with Kent’s career length and an OPS+ of 119 (what his OPS+ *should* be, taking into account his SLG heavy line and poor DP performance) a hall of famer? Maybe, although probably not. Certainly very borderline.
Some more numbers. Joe recently pointed out the importance of total plate appearances, which measure who has been good enough to get MLB playing time. PA for 2b: Alomar 10400, Whitaker 9967, Kent 9537, Sandberg 9282, Grich 8220, Gordon 6536 & WWII.
Career win shares: Alomar 370?, Whitaker 351, Sandberg 346, Kent 344, Grich 329, Gordon 242.
Win shares per 500 PA: Grich 20.0, Sandberg 18.7, Gordon 18.5, Kent 18.0, Alomar 17.8, Whitaker 17.6. My feeling is that THIS number just gives the group rough equivalency, so that preference among the six has to be based on other numbers (+/or subjectivity).
For comparison, Joe Morgan 22.5, Ray Durham 14.0.
With respect to Blackadder’s comment about centerfielders, here are career win shares for some centerfielders (cf. Kent’s 344):
Snider 351, Carey 351, Dawson 340, Ashburn 329. I contend Ashburn could have played several more years if he hadn’t just played a season (“Yo lo tengo!”) with the 1962 New York Mets.
“How about Andruw Jones or Larry Walker? Would they have had a better shot if they played 2nd base?”
I have a hard time believing Andruw’s HoF case is harmed by his position – there’s no harm in being perceived as a great defensive center fielder. His case is harmed more by the fact that (assuming his career trajectory doesn’t change) he fell off a huge cliff when he turned 30.
I can’t imagine Walker would’ve been any good at second base. I mean, you could put Frank Thomas at 2B too and his offense would be more valuable but he’d kill you in the field. It just doesn’t make sense if the guy would be an absolute butcher at the position. In any case, the knock on him won’t be that he wasn’t a good enough hitter to get in as a corner outfielder (his career OPS+ of 140 is pretty stellar, and his output was solid from 26 right up until his retirement at 38), but that his numbers were helped pretty significantly by playing a lot of games at Coors. (Jim Rice, of course, just got in despite a similar home park advantage, but Walker won’t have the Boston hype machine working for him.)
true, jeff kent’s career numbers dont compare really to other 2nd baseman. they do compare to…
marisa tomei… hall of famer?
she’s put together a quiet hall of fame career
1 oscar win
3 total oscar nominations ranging over 16 years.
Hey, big props to Bill Simmons who managed to steal and then mangle the “so overrated they’re underrated” topic discussed here last year.
Simmons shows off his keen insight by tabbing Kevin Durant – the second overall pick in the NBA draft – and Manny Ramirez – one of the most relentlessly discussed ballplayers of all time – as two underrated gems of the sports world.
Is that Pearl Jam’s “Alive” listed in the poll? Because if so, I am a huge Pearl Jam fan, but I never thought of it as being “iconic.”
http://statisticianmagician.mlblogs.com/
Hey Joe, I thought you were done with baseball Hall of Fame posts.
As with almost all of these discussions, no one is talking about half of the actual criteria for being voted into the Hall of Fame. Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the teams on which the player played.
Looks like Kent has a nice playing record, and good playing ability. He seems to have contributed a lot to his teams, later in his career anyway. So his playing record is good. Not overwhelmingly so, but somewhere near the Hall of Fame standard.
That leaves integrity, sportsmanship and character– half of the qualities that are supposed to be looked at. I don’t know the guy, so I won’t comment on that. I haven’t heard a lot of good things said about him in those areas though.
Looking at the criteria, I’d say he needs to score well in integrity, sportsmanship and character columns to get into the Hall, and if he doesn’t, then he’s out.
Tom in St. Paul doesn’t need them fancy stats to know a duck, eh?
“Jack and Diane” did not dominate the early 80s. Yes, I am going to use some stats instead of my own gut feeling. According to Billboard “Maneater” and “Kiss is on My List” by Hall & Oates spent more time at #1. So did “Billie Jean” and “Beat it.” Ditto for “Just like starting over,” “Endless Love,” and “(Let’s get) Physical.” And these are just songs from 1980 to 1982.
“Jack and Diane” may have seemed to quack, but it comparatively laid an egg.
And that, kiddies, is just one more example of why checking objective facts often beats selective memory.
Buchholz Surfer,
As far as I know, there’s no way of knowing how each category in the voting process is supposed to be weighed, but if I had a vote I certainly wouldn’t consider each to be equal. Aside from the fact that character, integrity and sportsmanship are all pretty close to synonymous as far as they pertain to how we view ballplayers, to consider all of them equal would be basically saying that half of what makes a player a Hall of Famer has nothing to do with that player’s actual ability.
There’s also the fact that we don’t know THAT much about players’ integrity and character, particularly with all the spin that goes on these days. Does Jeter have more character than A-Rod or does he just know how to make it appear that he does, with a massive assist from the sycophantic New York media? Puckett, I’m convinced, got elected easily based largely on his image as a great, fun-loving, baseball-loving person. Fast forward a couple of years and he’s being hauled into court for sexually assaulting a woman.
If I were a voter, I’d probably consider things like character and integrity as tie-breaking factors in the case of guys I just couldn’t decide on one way or another. In some extreme cases, I might use that to keep someone out, if someone were deplorable enough a human being.
On the other hand, I suppose, you COULD have a Hall where Sean Casey (great “character” but certainly not a HoF career) and Barry Bonds (unfathomable numbers, bad “character”) have an equal chance of being elected, but I wouldn’t particularly care about that Hall.
It’s funny, when Kent won that MVP in 2000, I thought I was watching a future hall of famer. I thought any middle infielder who could hit like Kent could hit – even if he wasn’t a great fielder – should be a hall of famer. Now…I don’t know. I guess I would put him in if it was up to me. I’m more borderline about Kent reviewing his stats than when I was watching him play.
Thanks for the quotation from John Updike. He was only 28 when he wrote it, in the same year that Rabbit, Run was published. Updike lived in Massachusetts most (but not all) of the 1950’s, attending Harvard and then, after three years away, to begin the career of a (mostly independent) writer. I wonder to what extent he played baseball or basketball.
“character, integrity and sportsmanship are all pretty close to synonymous as far as they pertain to how we view ballplayers”
And a player’s playing record, playing ability and contributions to his team are also pretty much synonymous. There’s three stats-based categories and three character-based categories. But hardly any consideration is given to the character-based criteria in these interminable internet arguments over the Hall.
The criteria for voting are spelled out, how much weight to give each factor isn’t. Even if you don’t think voters should count some of the criteria as much as others, it’s still wrong to just totally ignore half of the factors that are spelled out in the instructions.
It’s hard for fans to have any idea of a player’s character, integrity or sportsmanship. That’s probably part of the reason that fans don’t get to vote. But the rules are still there, and the people who actually do vote for the Hall are supposed to vote on those things. It’d be wrong for the voters to completely ignore half of the instructions and value the other half at 100%, which is what most people in this discussions do. Not only do most fans in these arguments give no value to half of the criteria, they mock and attack as ignorant fools those voters who do value those factors.
(Not saying you do, I know you said you’d use the character/integrity/sportsmanship factors as tiebreakers, which at least acknowledges the actual rule for voters.)
I don’t care that much about who is the Hall and should probably stay out of these arguments and just not read Joe’s posts that involve the Hall. But I love Joe’s writing in general, and it’s hard to avoid the comments.
Anyway, most of you commenters can go back to ignoring half of the actual voting criteria and go back to arguing incessantly over the minutiae in the half of it that matters to you, I won’t point out the actual rules anymore and spoil the fun.
I just wish Joe would go back to writing about other topics.
Wait, who’s Jeff Kent?
I thought this was a music blog?
Great Post Joe. And most of the commentary is very good as well.
Jeff Kent is probably one of those 15-30 rankings for 2b on most lists.
Maybe he is the Vern Stephens of 2nd baseman(with a longer career).
Kent has to be in. Just has to. The guy was one of the better hitters in the game at any position in his peak, he was a very effective hitter for a long period of time, and is arguably the best offensive 2nd baseman of all time. What a great, simple swing. One thing that kills him is that he really wasn’t a full-time guy until he was 29…he played a lot of games the years before that, but as Joe put it no one really knew what to do with him and his awful mustache.
Kent has always been reputed to be a prickly-at-best guy, but his press conference was quite moving. You could tell that leaving the game was just killing him.
I would also be remiss to ignore one of my favorite baseball stories ever. Kent was giving an interview while with the Astros where he noted that his goal was to leave baseball with no friends. Jeff Bagwell, one of the classiest guys to ever play the game, deadpanned a perfect comeback. He said something to the effect of “you’re doing a hell of a job.”
Enjoyed the first half of your column. Well thought out, expertly expressed regarding the whole perception thing. Agreed with you on roughly 98 per cent.
And then you went and blew it by suggesting Jeff Kent IS a Hall of Famer. Oh, brother. Spare us Kent in the H.O. F. He couldn’t carry Maz’s glove, Alomar’s bat or charisma, Sandberg’s jock and whatever it was that made Craig Biggio the player he was.
He was a fairly ordinary ballplayer with a very decent power bat for a second baseman ( in the Palezoid-Steroid Era ), a chip on his shoulder and the personality of a garden tool — not to mention a guy who played for way too many teams and who blossomed way too late to be considered anything else.
What I love about the MLB HoF is that numbers are so important when determining who gets in. Some numbers are (or were, pre-steroid era) automatic HoF entry numbers: 3,000 hits, 500 HR, 300 wins. Sure, baseball voters still judge the marginal HoF candidates on their intangibles, as you’ve discussed at great length. But it is nowhere near as important as when deciding who gets in the NFL HoF. For football, the numbers are almost irrelevant to the discussion. They still matter, but the perception of a player becomes so much more important when debating who should be in the NFL HoF. Terrell Davis is one example: he has great career numbers, but people perceive him to be a RB who benefited from the Denver system. Steve McNair is another fine example: he has great career numbers, often better than many other QBs already enshrined, but what is the overall perception of his skills? Would any person not a fan of the Titans or Ravens extol his virtues as a potential HoF QB? Just a thought.
Jonathan- there’s a big difference between the Baseball and Football Halls of Fame. For starters, the Football Hall’s members are voted on by a small panel, NOT by the sportswriters at large. A baseball player needs the support of the vast majority of sportswriters. A football player needs the support of just a few key individuals.
That has both its pluses and minuses, of course. A knowledgeable baseball writer like Joe Posnanski may believe that Bert Blyleven’s numbers make him a no-brainer for the Hall of Fame, but that means nothing unless he can convince the majority of his colleagues. Similarly, he can argue that Jim Rice is NOT a Hall of Famer, but there’s nothing he can do if the majority of his colleagues disagree.
On the other hand, an individual writer is a powerful force, IF he’s on the football Hall of Fame committee. Peter King and (until his recent health problems) Paul Zimmerman have long had the power to get guys into the Hall of Famer AND to keep them out, no matter what their colleagues outside the committee think.
Another big difference between baseball and football is this: football ALWAYS adds six men to the Hall of Fame each year. Baseball can add zero or fifty men in a given year. If nobody is deserving next year, the baseball writers will elect nobody. But the football committe is SURE to induct six new members. As a practical matter, that means that, each year, there are 1 or 2 newly eligible players who are no-brainers (Bruce Smith and Rod Woodson maybe the new no-brainers this year). That leaves room for 4 guys who’d been overlooked in previous years. So, what happens? A lot of arguing and a lot of horse trading (“I want Randy Gradishar in, you want Kenny Stabler in, he wants Drew Pearson in… well, I’ll vote for your guy if you vote for my guy, and next year we’ll all vote for his guy…”).
The final big difference between baseball and football is, numbers really DO tell most of the story in baseball. If a veteran outfielder has only 75 career homers, it’s safe to say he has very little power. Aftere all, any guy who COULD hit 40 homers a year WOULD do so. On the other hand, a quarterback’s numbers may be utterly dependent on the system he plays in. I have very little doubt that Bob Griese COULD have thrown for 300 yards every week if he’d played for a team that emphasized the passing game. as it was, he played for a great team built around the power running game.
I think if anything has been demonstrated by the last few rounds of voting, it’s that MVPs, Cy Youngs and All-Star appearances should be thrown out the window when considering the HOF (see Dawson, Andre and Blyleven, Bert).
When considering Jeff Kent, we’ll look at the two major criteria for induction: 1) how great was his peak and 2) how long was he great for? For question 1, Posnanski points to 1997-2005 as Kent’s peak. You could make the argument that he was the best offensive second baseman in the league at the time (the evidence seems pretty clear that he was an average defensive second baseman until the last few years, which shouldn’t really be held against him). However, these nine years directly overlapped with the steroid era, and also overlapped with the majority of Kent’s 30s. Now I’m not saying that he used, especially in the absence of evidence, but I’d say there’s at least reason to cast a doubtful eye on these numbers (Bonds’s teammate; “suddenly improved” while playing in the Bay Area, ground zero for all the PEDs).
As for question 2, it’s clear that his Mets seasons weren’t anything special, and his post-Giants career tailed off pretty much the way you’d expect it to (except, as someone pointed out earlier, when Manny joined the Dodgers). So really, you’d be inducting Kent on a “one of the best players in the game for a few seasons” argument rather than a “sustained greatness” argument. I honestly don’t think he’s obviously in or out, and that brings me to another point.
Jeff Kent is EXACTLY the kind of player that 15-year voting system is set up for. You figure he should receive 25-40% of the vote on the first ballot, enough to keep him up for discussion every year. In this time, hopefully, the steroid mess will have been cleared up and we’ll have a better idea as to whether Kent was a user, as well as some perspective on how he stacked up against the Biggios and Alomars of the world.
Yes, the 15-year voting system helps “ferret” out some more information on players. But i do think, that the system(provided one can garner enough votes to stay on it) does not really reflect just numbers or just character or some other missing fact(s) about a player. In fact, the process is still arbitrary.
Case in point: Dawson vs. Parker. Both were very good defensive players early on. Both were elected an MVP award. Both had over 2,700+ hits(long careers). Dawson has more HR’s and Parker has a higher batting avg. Both played, mostly, in the NL and both became DH’s at the end.
The Bill James abstract rates Parker over Dawson for RF. The Bill James Win Shares book has Dawson ahead by 12 or so WS.
Many of the other lists put Parker between 14-25. Dawson between 12-30.
So my question is this – Why is Parker only a 15% vote getter and Dawson should be in … next year?
My answer to Kris M’s question is that, rightly or wrongly, some people suspect that between ages 29-32 (four seasons) Parker sabotaged his own career and took some of his money from Pittburgh under false premises because he was using drugs and not playing up to his potential.
Thanks to David in Toledo about his explanation of Dave Parker.
In a very wry sort of fashion, if you just looked at the numbers without the ‘perception’(name)of the player(s)- you might not be able to tell who the players were when they have between 280-400 WS.
So my question is this – with position players only, if a consensus was reached on the ranking, should the top 25 or 30 players at each position be voted into the HOF?
Nah, I think I’d want to know who the players were, so I could tweak my vote — if I wanted to — based on what I knew or could learn about the player’s biography.
I also think there’s a huge difference between a player with 280 career win shares and one with 400, assuming a full career for each. I’d put the Hall presumption line at 300 for catchers (and pitchers), 325 for ss, 340 2b, 350 3b and cf, 360 rf, 370 1b and lf, 400 dh. (That seems pedantic, but check out the actual results.) Bert Campaneris and Tony Fernandez are at 280, Ozzie Smith is at 325, and then George Davis 398 and Robin Yount 423 and Cal Ripken 427 (closest I could get to 400). Look at their playing numbers without their names and the differences are clear. And Campaneris and Fernandez were good ballplayers.
As Kris probably knows, Parker (327) and Dawson (340) are close to one another by this metric.
Well, the WS method does reward consistency over a long period of time. One of the real rubs for HOF candidates is simply, there is no signficant method for measuring shorter careers.
Joss was Joss, Dean was Dean, Koufax was Koufax, Puckett was a very good centerfielder whose career was cut short by glaucoma. . . .
Not that it matters one bit (and it certainly wasn’t even the main point of the side issue about Mark Teahen), but Ryne Sandberg was not “a converted third baseman.” Ryne Sandberg was a converted shortstop.
The Cubs envisioned Sandberg as their shortstop of the future when they got him and Larry Bowa from the Phillies for Ivan DeJesus. But in Sandberg’s rookie year in 1982 they got to Spring Training without a reasonable facsimile of a ML third baseman (Ken Reitz had put aup a horrid OPS+ of 52 in 1981), so they stuck the rookie there a stop gap measure. The idea was that he had to play somewhere and as long as Bowa could still play short, Sandberg might as well fill the hole at third – but there was no thought that he’d stay there for his career. Sandberg was the shortstop of the future just waiting for Bowa to retire.
And then … the Cubs drafted Shawon Dunston #1 during that year’s Amateur Draft and Dunston was annointed the new shortstop of the future.
The Cubs didn’t like the idea of leaving Sandberg at third. He still hadn’t developed any power and was viewed as too light a hitter to leave at third base. So they auditioned him at second, where he started 24 games during his rookie year (and bumping aside Bump Wills who although he had a decent year at age 29 never played again). The next year they brought in Ron Cey and made the switch permanent.
I saw Kent play for a few years with the Astros, and he was a professional hitter. I haven’t seen any stats on sac flies, but it seemed like he could get one whenever it was needed, and more than anyone else around.
Instead of comparing him to other infielders, what about just looking at him as a hitter? Who cares that he was a second baseman? It’s kind of irrelevant. Compare him with other top hitters of the era to decide whether he deserves to be in. My guess is that it would be a “yes”.
I must admit I wouldn’t have posted here except for the complete and total inanity I read in rml’s post (#45) and of course even that wasn’t enough but the irony it brought up for me (like vomit?) did the trick.
JFK was almost a completely fallacious movie that relied on one falsehood after another with a hero (Garrison) who was a virtual incompetent whose only claim to fame was the stubbornness with which he pursued innocent people. It was somehow accepted as truth despite being so filled with lies. (Like the so-called fact that oswalt was a poor shot when his army record shows he was in fact an expert.)
Using that as a quote to back up your view that Kent isn’t HoF worthy is monstrously ironic, since you would have to avoid the truth to reach that conclusion – just as garrison and the movie JFK did. Like him or hate him (and I generally hated him except when he went after Bonds) Kent’s numbers deserve HoF votes and IMO inclusion went viewed honestly, which was Joe’s basic point, and a good one.
But if you want to argue that he doesn’t, at least don’t quote a truly bad prosecutor and equally bad man’s words appearing in a film that has untruths throughout it.
Kent is clearly a Hall-of-Famer. I followed him closely in SF and he did some things that the numbers don’t reflect and Barry Bonds never did. He led the team. He picked the team up and carried it for weeks at a time while Bonds coasted. He was more clutch than Bonds. Bonds would hit a big homer to win a game and get all the press, but Kent was the one who got it done day in and day out. Nobody ever doubted his commitment. To accuse him of roiding because he was on the team with Bonds is ludicrous. He is the best seccond baseman of the modern era. Case closed.
WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH NUMBERS???