Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Sports' started by TomVols, Jan 22, 2009.
What say you all?
Borderline. Stats need to be discounted for his era. Marginal fielder, but according to P. Gammons (who says he will vote for him), Joe Morgan said Kent's ability to turn the DP made up for his lack of range otherwise.
I tell you this: If Kent gets in, then Lou Whitaker should, too. Kent's OPS is 123, while Lou's is 116, but Lou was a better fielder and faster. Plus, Lou won a W.S. - boo-yah!
Since he didn't succeed until after the Indians traded him...I say no
He was better than most, but many are in line ahead of him.
Sorry Andy. Sweet Lou trails Kent in most categories.
Most HR all-time. 2nd in RBI most all time. 9th in Runs all time. Produced more runs in his era than any other 2B.
What I find interesting is that Biggio is considered a slam dunk but Kent isn't. Could it be that Kent wasn't exactly a media darling?
I'm not saying Kent is a slam dunk no brainer. However, once again the Paris Hilton types love a Biggio's 3,060 hits (there goes the statistical minimums again) but are iffy on Kent.
I agree that there are people who should go in ahead of Kent. But once those folks are in, I won't burn Cooperstown to the ground if he gets in. Still, I don't know that I am itching to put him in.
The Paris Hilton types at ESPN are glomming onto the fact that in one stat, Kent had more (was it RBI) than Mickey Mantle.
Ah yes! webdog - the BB Sports forum counterpoint to Andy T..
I asked first.
If you compare Jeff Kent to hall of fame players in general he might not add up, but if you compare him to only second basemen he looks like a lock because of his power production. Some would say let him in because of his offensive numbers compared to other two baggers, and they could also mention his 2000 most valuable player award (which Bonds should have won). Others would say that only being great at a particular position doesn't cut it if that position (second base) has not had many hall caliber players.
No...you asked about Jeff Kemp
I say yes without a doubt. His numbers are outstanding for a second baseman.
Tom, you of all people should know that offensive stats from different eras need to be discounted. That's why I compared their OPS+ numbers, which shows how well they performed comparative to their eras. Sweet Lou's career OPS+ is only 7 points below Kent's. Lou was a much better fielder than Kent - at a position where defense is a premium. So in my book, they are about the same. If I were ranking 2B's of all-time, I would probably put them right next to each other - maybe Kent at #9 and Lou at #10.
Also, you can't compare their RBI numbers, because Lou led off most of his career and Kent hit no. 4.
Look at the whole package - not just the celebrity numbers. You are always saying that the ESPN types only look at HR and RBI's and not the more important stats like OBP and OPS, so start taking your own advice.
You are correct. I overlooked my own typo.
No doubt, starting with !
Well, the batting gloves he was wearing when he slugged Barry Bonds should be on display.
As Bill James likes to point out we can pick and choose a lot of things to look at. You're doing it. You're isolating OPS+ as the bene esse, THE metric. Well, Lou has a better OPS+ than Ryno. So should Lou get in ahead of Ryno? Kent's is the best in his era, btw. So it follows the other statistics - it doesn't belie them. Your theory comes up short.
Interesting factiod here: ten players (HOF eligible) in baseball history other than Kent have an OPS+ equal to or greater than Kent. Five are in the Hall and four are not.
Players should be looked at as a whole, in comparison first and foremost to their own era and then to the all timers. The latter is a standard, like it or not. Whether we should compare Pujols to Babe Ruth is irrelevant. We do it anyway. That's what seperates baseball from the NFL and the NBA.
And my problem with the Paris Hilton types is what you're doing - exalting the one IT statistic as THE metric, ignoring all others.
Good to see you weigh in, friend.
Okay.....yes, or no. You have to choose one:
Does Kent get in on your ballot today?
And none of this "First ballot/not a first ballot" garbage that the media has invented which is a tiering of the HOF. Either a player is HOF or he isn't.
I was going to say no until I looked up baseball-reference and saw all the years of high performance. From 1998 to 2005, it looks like he was one of, if not the best, 2b in the game. So, yeah, I'll vote him in.
Tom, I wouldn't call OPS+ an "isolated" stat. OPS is a combination of OBP and SLG, which essentially shows offensive value. The + part compares the player to his era. And I also compared Lou and Kent defensively and speed-wise. Put the whole package together and they are very comparable. I say put them both in.
The stat may or may not be isolated, but using it as a singular or elevated metric (or any stat in this way) is folly. I don't agree that they are both that comparable across the board.
That said, I would HESITANTLY vote for Kent, but only because I did some of the BR research (like CCROB).
Listening to my fav sports radio show yesterday and they made a great point. Jeff Kent wasn't a great 2B. He was a great hitter who happened to play 2B.