HOF results

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I'll bring up Jeff Kent again. How does a guy with his run producing numbers at second base not get more votes?? Your statements probably say it all.

Because in context, he just wasn't a HOF caliber player. Those numbers were in an era of huge numbers.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Because in context, he just wasn't a HOF caliber player. Those numbers were in an era of huge numbers.

However, if the other players producing those numbers were roiders, and Kent wasn't, wouldn't that mean something? I've never heard of Kent being tainted by roid rumors, so I assume he's clean. Like McGriff, I think this is another place where PED users hurt legitimate players because their stats get lost in the forest.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Because in context, he just wasn't a HOF caliber player. Those numbers were in an era of huge numbers.

In context, Peter??? What the hell other second baseman produced as many runs as him year after year? And according to your logic, since it was the era of 'huge numbers,' why were Piazza and Griffey elected?? They, too, played in the same era as Kent.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

In context, Peter??? What the hell other second baseman produced as many runs as him year after year? And according to your logic, since it was the era of 'huge numbers,' why were Piazza and Griffey elected?? They, too, played in the same era as Kent.

Well, since to date he is only getting 15 percent of the vote, sounds like you have your work cut out for you to convince people that that is the relevant criterion, to be the leading run producer at a given position. FWIW JAWS has him at 18th all time second baseman. Piazza is 5th at catcher. Griffey is 5th in center.

[Golfcollector]

Griffey is #4 all time in the NON Steroids Home Run Category, and was the best defensive CF of an entire generation, while playing for mostly bad teams.

Yeah...I guess he wasn't better than Seaver...

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Golfcollector

Griffey is #4 all time in the NON Steroids Home Run Category, and was the best defensive CF of an entire generation, while playing for mostly bad teams.

Yeah...I guess he wasn't better than Seaver...

This is true. All of it.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well, since to date he is only getting 15 percent of the vote, sounds like you have your work cut out for you to convince people that that is the relevant criterion, to be the leading run producer at a given position. FWIW JAWS has him at 18th all time second baseman. Piazza is 5th at catcher. Griffey is 5th in center.

Ha ha. Now it's about everyone's favorite new stat of relevance, WAR?? Only moments ago you said he shouldn't be elected because, "Those numbers were in an era of huge numbers." So when one stat doesn't fit your narrative, you find one that does? Is that where we're at?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Ha ha. Now it's about everyone's favorite new stat of relevance, WAR?? Only moments ago you said he shouldn't be elected because, "Those numbers were in an era of huge numbers." So when one stat doesn't fit your narrative, you find one that does? Is that where we're at?

Do you even know how WAR works? It's adjusted for the era.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Do you even know how WAR works? It's adjusted for the era.

So, you ignored my question about you changing stats to fit your narrative, and you ask me if I EVEN KNOW how WAR works? Are you serious?? Kent has a .290 lifetime average, is the all-time HR leader for second baseman and is what, 3rd or 4th in career RBI's for the position? Those are actual stats. And we were all around to watch him play. His career wasn't something so long ago in the past that we have to develop a stat like WAR to figure out if he was good or not. He was a monster at second base and the guy belongs in the Hall of Fame.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

So, you ignored my question about you changing stats to fit your narrative, and you ask me if I EVEN KNOW how WAR works? Are you serious?? Kent has a .290 lifetime average, is the all-time HR leader for second baseman and is what, 3rd or 4th in career RBI's for the position? Those are actual stats. And we were all around to watch him play. His career wasn't something so long ago in the past that we have to develop a stat like WAR to figure out if he was good or not. He was a monster at second base and the guy belongs in the Hall of Fame.

He was an excellent offensive player in an era with many many excellent offensive players. Thus the reason his career OPS+ is just 123. For his career he was approximately 23% better than league average. That is excellent for a second baseman. Still not as good as Bobby Grich, but certainly excellent. When you add in the poor defense, I would say he is more like a Lou Whitaker. Whitaker had excellent defense and a career OPS+ of 117. Kent isn't as good as Bobby Grich either offensively or defensively (when compared to league average during their respective careers), but he is better than a number of current HOF 2B men. Kent should certainly be pulling higher numbers than he is no doubt. But there are other 2B who were better an are not in the Hall.

Tom C

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

So, you ignored my question about you changing stats to fit your narrative, and you ask me if I EVEN KNOW how WAR works? Are you serious?? Kent has a .290 lifetime average, is the all-time HR leader for second baseman and is what, 3rd or 4th in career RBI's for the position? Those are actual stats. And we were all around to watch him play. His career wasn't something so long ago in the past that we have to develop a stat like WAR to figure out if he was good or not. He was a monster at second base and the guy belongs in the Hall of Fame.

And 15 percent of the voters who were "around to watch him play" agree with you!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

So, you ignored my question about you changing stats to fit your narrative, and you ask me if I EVEN KNOW how WAR works? Are you serious?? Kent has a .290 lifetime average, is the all-time HR leader for second baseman and is what, 3rd or 4th in career RBI's for the position? Those are actual stats. And we were all around to watch him play. His career wasn't something so long ago in the past that we have to develop a stat like WAR to figure out if he was good or not. He was a monster at second base and the guy belongs in the Hall of Fame.

And 15 percent of the voters agree with you!! And I haven't changed my narrative at all it's just that you are unable to appreciate what I am saying -- that in context, on an era adjusted basis, his stats are less impressive than they might be in absolute terms. But again, 1 in 7 voters agree with you, so I will defer.

[cammb]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

So, you ignored my question about you changing stats to fit your narrative, and you ask me if I EVEN KNOW how WAR works? Are you serious?? Kent has a .290 lifetime average, is the all-time HR leader for second baseman and is what, 3rd or 4th in career RBI's for the position? Those are actual stats. And we were all around to watch him play. His career wasn't something so long ago in the past that we have to develop a stat like WAR to figure out if he was good or not. He was a monster at second base and the guy belongs in the Hall of Fame.

+1

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Because in context, he just wasn't a HOF caliber player. Those numbers were in an era of huge numbers.

I would put Bobby Grich and Lou Whitaker in before Kent. Especially Grich.

Tom C

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

I would put Bobby Grich and Lou Whitaker in before Kent. Especially Grich.

Tom C

Yeah, although I don't think contemporaneously he was considered a superstar, Grich rates as the number 7 all time second baseman by the JAWS metric. He's ahead of Sandberg and Alomar and Biggio, and just behind Carew, which I really can't figure out. Must be one of those era adjusted phenomena.

[UnVme7]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Because in context, he just wasn't a HOF caliber player. Those numbers were in an era of huge numbers.

Right, but those big(steroid) numbers came from guys in other positions. It's unfair to compare a 2nd baseman to a 1st baseman or catcher as far as numbers is concerned. You just don't.

If you look at Kents numbers and compare them to other second baseman, like we should do, his numbers are at the top. Out of 20 HOF'ers to play the position, he's in the top 10 in all offensive categories.

Oh, and he won an MVP...

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by UnVme7

Right, but those big(steroid) numbers came from guys in other positions. It's unfair to compare a 2nd baseman to a 1st baseman or catcher as far as numbers is concerned. You just don't.

If you look at Kents numbers and compare them to other second baseman, like we should do, his numbers are at the top. Out of 20 HOF'ers to play the position, he's in the top 10 in all offensive categories.

Oh, and he won an MVP...

OPS+ shows how a player rates offensively when compared to their contemporaries and when adjusted for park factors.

Jeff Kent career OPS+ 123
Bobby Grich career OPS+ 125

Bobby Grich 4x Gold Gloves (and should have won several more)
Jeff Kent Gold Gloves...BWWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Kent should absolutely be getting a higher percentage than he is currently. He may get in eventually and I have no problem with that at all. But you MUST take his numbers within the context of his times...whatever position he plays. Bobby Grich was a better second baseman (relative to his era) than was Jeff Kent. Lou Whitaker was a slightly worse offensive player but a much better defensive player. Heck, taking defense into account, I could make a case for Willie Randolph not being that far off from Kent.

Tom C

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

OPS+ shows how a player rates offensively when compared to their contemporaries and when adjusted for park factors.

Jeff Kent career OPS+ 123
Bobby Grich career OPS+ 125

Bobby Grich 4x Gold Gloves (and should have won several more)
Jeff Kent Gold Gloves...BWWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Kent should absolutely be getting a higher percentage than he is currently. He may get in eventually and I have no problem with that at all. But you MUST take his numbers within the context of his times...whatever position he plays. Bobby Grich was a better second baseman (relative to his era) than was Jeff Kent. Lou Whitaker was a slightly worse offensive player but a much better defensive player. Heck, taking defense into account, I could make a case for Willie Randolph not being that far off from Kent.

Tom C

Grich rates 7th per JAWS, Kent 18th. But just ask Darren, we saw Kent so we don't need JAWS.

[UnVme7]

Kent shouldn't be penalized for playing avg defense. If that's his only flaw then I don't have a problem getting in.

Edgar is getting quite a few votes and he didn't even play defense at all. At least Kent played a defensive position.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by UnVme7

Right, but those big(steroid) numbers came from guys in other positions. It's unfair to compare a 2nd baseman to a 1st baseman or catcher as far as numbers is concerned. You just don't.

If you look at Kents numbers and compare them to other second baseman, like we should do, his numbers are at the top. Out of 20 HOF'ers to play the position, he's in the top 10 in all offensive categories.

Oh, and he won an MVP...

Well, try to convince the 6 out of 7 voters who don't agree, what can I say. Maybe his stock will go up over time.

[trdcrdkid]

Originally Posted by UnVme7

If you look at Kents numbers and compare them to other second baseman, like we should do, his numbers are at the top. Out of 20 HOF'ers to play the position, he's in the top 10 in all offensive categories.

Oh, and he won an MVP...

Plus he was on Survivor!

[packs]

You don't need JAWs to tell you anything about a player you watched. You can use JAWs to talk about Bill Dickey if you want, but Jeff Kent's entire career was played out before our eyes. Tell me who was a better hitter at second base than he was. There was no one. If he's not getting in it's because people think he juiced, not because he wasn't the best offensive second baseman of his time.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

You don't need JAWs to tell you anything about a player you watched. You can use JAWs to talk about Bill Dickey if you want, but Jeff Kent's entire career was played out before our eyes. Tell me who was a better hitter at second base than he was. There was no one. If he's not getting in it's because people think he juiced, not because he wasn't the best offensive second baseman of his time.

And that's exactly the point of JAWS, to enable a meaningful comparison where you can't make one from personal observation, as well as to eliminate bias. Anyhoo, Alomar ranks ahead of Kent statistically. And Biggio.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_2B.shtml

[glchen]

Kent has more home runs than any other 2nd baseman in history, and by a considerable margin (377 to 301), 3rd in RBI's for all 2nd basemen in history, 2nd in slugging, 6th in OPS, and he has an MVP to boot. He's one of the few 2nd basemen in history who consistently batted 3-5 in a lineup during his entire career. Sure, he might not be as good as Alomar, but he's still a legitimate HOFer.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by glchen

Kent has more home runs than any other 2nd baseman in history, and by a considerable margin (377 to 301), 3rd in RBI's for all 2nd basemen in history, 2nd in slugging, 6th in OPS, and he has an MVP to boot. He's one of the few 2nd basemen in history who consistently batted 3-5 in a lineup during his entire career. Sure, he might not be as good as Alomar, but he's still a legitimate HOFer.

In context to the era in which he played he was not as good as Bobby Grich. When taking defense into consideration, Grich was a MUCH better player.

Tom C

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glchen

Kent has more home runs than any other 2nd baseman in history, and by a considerable margin (377 to 301), 3rd in RBI's for all 2nd basemen in history, 2nd in slugging, 6th in OPS, and he has an MVP to boot. He's one of the few 2nd basemen in history who consistently batted 3-5 in a lineup during his entire career. Sure, he might not be as good as Alomar, but he's still a legitimate HOFer.

So why on an objective metric (JAWS) is he so far below Alomar and Biggio?

[UnVme7]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And that's exactly the point of JAWS, to enable a meaningful comparison where you can't make one from personal observation, as well as to eliminate bias. Anyhoo, Alomar ranks ahead of Kent statistically. And Biggio.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_2B.shtml

No doubt. Completely agree Alomar was a better player than Kent overall. And I'm ok if Alomar and Biggio rank ahead of Kent. They're both HOF'ers. Kent ranks ahead of them in other stats as well.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by packs

You don't need JAWs to tell you anything about a player you watched. You can use JAWs to talk about Bill Dickey if you want, but Jeff Kent's entire career was played out before our eyes. Tell me who was a better hitter at second base than he was. There was no one. If he's not getting in it's because people think he juiced, not because he wasn't the best offensive second baseman of his time.

From 1992-1997, Tony Phillips and Roberto Alomar and Chuck Knoblauch were better than Kent both offensively and defensively.

I have no problem saying that over a 8 year period from 1998-2005, Kent was the best offensive second baseman in baseball. Likely the best overall, as I value offense to defense about 80/20.

After 2005, guys like Utley and Cano and Pedroia are better than Kent all around.

Does being the top in your position in the majors over and 8 year period, plus being in the top 6-8 at your position for another 8 or so years, make you a Hall Of Famer? I think in conjunction with the way his counting stats look, most likely the answer is yes. I just don't think it is as ct and dry as some are making it out to be.

Tom C