HOF results

[packs]

I'm not going to quote JAWS but I don't remember any of them driving in 100 runs six years in a row. I'm also not going to compare people like Hornsby, Lajoie and Eddie Collins to Jeff Kent. Clearly we are talking about the modern era and the modern game.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by packs

I'm not going to quote JAWS but I don't remember any of them driving in 100 runs six years in a row. I'm also not going to compare Lajoie and Eddie Collins to Jeff Kent.

Why not? They are second basemen. You said no second baseman ever hit like Jeff Kent. They are relevant.

As to driving in x amount of runs x years in a row...first off RBI is a stat that requires the performance of other players (to be on base). It is one of the most flawed measurable stats out there when used to compare one player from one team against another from another team in a different situation (let alone from different eras). Secondly, again, 100 RBI during Kent's playing career meant far less than it did at other times. Scoring was sky high league wide. 100 RBI in 2004 might have meant the same as 75 or 80 in 1975.

Tom C

[packs]

So you think it's apt to compare say Cy Young to Pedro Martinez?

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by packs

So you think it's apt to compare say Cy Young to Pedro Martinez?

Not in terms.of raw numbers as you are doing. But in terms of Youngs performance versus a league average pitcher of his time and Martinez performance versus a league average pitcher of his time, absolutely.

How much better than an average pitcher of his day was each one? That is quantifiable and thus each can be compared based on that.

Tom C

[packs]

Whatever you say. I think players like Morgan and Carew were better pure hitters and for a longer amount of time, but they couldn't do what Kent did with the bat. Only Jeff Kent could and to an extent Sandberg. And with 3 decades between debuts, I think that says something about the special player Kent was considering there's no one on your list in between.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Whatever you say. I think players like Morgan and Carew were better pure hitters and for a longer amount of time, but they couldn't do what Kent did with the bat. Only Jeff Kent could and to an extent Sandberg. And with 3 decades between debuts, I think that says something about the special player Kent was considering there's no one on your list in between.

Well so far you, Darren, and one out of seven voters are the only ones buying.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well so far you, Darren, and one out of seven voters are the only ones buying.

It's so funny reading your constant passive aggressive BS. But what's even funnier is how you so obviously think you're always the smartest person in the room.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by packs

Whatever you say. I think players like Morgan and Carew were better pure hitters and for a longer amount of time, but they couldn't do what Kent did with the bat. Only Jeff Kent could and to an extent Sandberg. And with 3 decades between debuts, I think that says something about the special player Kent was considering there's no one on your list in between.

Offensively Kent was special. No question. If I try real hard I could make a case for him to be in the top ten second basemen in terms of just offense. And because I don't value defense as much as others might, Kent may be around #14 or 15 all time at the position. That's a HOFer in my book. Not a slam dunk, but deserving. Certainly way better than his voting percentages thus far.

Tom C