Mlb hof tracker

[dgo71]

OK, my quick glance wasn't accurate, but Kent is still at the top of the leaderboard in many important areas.

HR - 1st with 377
Doubles - 4th with 560
Hits - 12th with 2461 (ahead of Whitaker marginally, ahead of Grich and significantly ahead of Randolph)
OPS - 6th with .855 (behind Ryan Schimpf who has 89 career games and Ross Barnes who played in the 1880's...others ahead of him are Hornsby, Gehringer and Jackie Robinson - pretty good company)
SLG - 3rd at .500 (again behind Jackie and the apparently HOF-bound Ryan Schimpf...)

5 All-Stars, 4 silver sluggers, 2000 NL MVP with 3 other Top 9 finishes.

I do hear defense as a detractor for Kent, but his career fielding average is just a couple points lower than Grich and Whitaker, and slightly ahead of Randolph. Kent never once led the league in errors. Do you mean he led second basemen in errors? That's plausible, but he never led the league in that category.

Not taking away from Grich or Whitaker because I could definitely get behind their enshrinement as well (Randolph not as much) but Kent has more than enough on his resume to garner much more consideration than he's getting. I really think the biggest knock on him was the fact that nobody really liked the guy. Media and teammates alike were all pretty consistent in feeling he was a jerk and that's coming back to haunt him, which is a shame really because it shouldn't be a popularity contest. If he had those stats with Kirby Puckett's personality he would've been a first ballot guy.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by dgo71

OK, my quick glance wasn't accurate, but Kent is still at the top of the leaderboard in many important areas.

HR - 1st with 377
Doubles - 4th with 560
Hits - 12th with 2461 (ahead of Whitaker marginally, ahead of Grich and significantly ahead of Randolph)
OPS - 6th with .855 (behind Ryan Schimpf who has 89 career games and Ross Barnes who played in the 1880's...others ahead of him are Hornsby, Gehringer and Jackie Robinson - pretty good company)
SLG - 3rd at .500 (again behind Jackie and the apparently HOF-bound Ryan Schimpf...)

5 All-Stars, 4 silver sluggers, 2000 NL MVP with 3 other Top 9 finishes.

Not taking away from Grich or Whitaker because I could definitely get behind their enshrinement as well (Randolph not as much) but Kent has more than enough on his resume to garner much more consideration than he's getting. I really think the biggest knock on him was the fact that nobody really liked the guy. Media and teammates alike were all pretty consistent in feeling he was a jerk and that's coming back to haunt him, which is a shame really because it shouldn't be a popularity contest. If he had those stats with Kirby Puckett's personality he would've been a first ballot guy.

You say the biggest knock is his personality, but I gave you legitimate stat ones. You are comparing him to other 2nd basemen, but he could have very well ended up at 3rd and then his offensive stats would just be good not great. His numbers only look good when you end the statement with "for a second baseman". You can't take a good batsman and put in at a position where other's weren't as good and base it off of that. If you are going to compare him to other 2nd basemen it is best to compare his full performance and his defense didn't hold up.

As I mentioned before his numbers were inflated by Bonds who in the six years walked 840 times (159/162 games).

Giants years (900games) .297 BA/ .368 OBP/ .535 SLG
All other years (1333games) .286 BA/ .348 OBP/ .477 SLG

His per 162 game numbers don't hold up when he wasn't with Bonds either:
Giants 184 hits / 32HR/ 19.62 ABperHR / 124 RBI
Other Teams 169 hits/ 24 HR/ 25.11 AB per HR/ 96 RBI

All of his awards and noteworthy seasons come from that 6 year stretch with the Giants. Move him to another position or to another team and we wouldn't even be talking about him.

[dgo71]

I disagree that his defensive faults negate his offense. He wasn't the butcher at second you're trying to make him out to be. He lacked range for sure but throughout his career he wasn't awful at the position. Saying you "could have" moved him to another position isn't legitimate statistical fact, it's speculation. He was a second baseman whether he might have been better at another position or not. It's worth noting too that his years in San Fran were also during his prime years. Obviously hitting with Bonds in the lineup helped but it was also the time of his career that he should have been most productive. I respect your view that he doesn't measure up in your eyes but I maintain that he should eventually get in. Definitely feel that he merits better than 16% of the vote or whatever it was.

[Topps206]

Also, put Jeff Kent in. He gets by. Other positions, no. Second base? Put him in.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Topps206

Also, put Jeff Kent in. He gets by. Other positions, no. Second base? Put him in.

Kent is a borderline guy who I think falls short.

18th all time in 2b fWAR

19th all time in 2b wRC+

out of the top 100 in 2b defense

75th all time in 2b OBP

the only places he is in the top 10 are slugging and homers, the rest of his game is pretty...mediocre

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Kent is a borderline guy who I think falls short.

18th all time in 2b fWAR

19th all time in 2b wRC+

out of the top 100 in 2b defense

75th all time in 2b OBP

the only places he is in the top 10 are slugging and homers, the rest of his game is pretty...mediocre

I think someone who puts up his numbers at his position warrants Hall inclusion more than someone like a first baseman would.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Topps206

I think someone who puts up his numbers at his position warrants Hall inclusion more than someone like a first baseman would.

I think when a player brings negative value at his position, that argument goes out the window. Kent could have easily played 1b or OF. When a player brings negative value to his team, what does it matter where he played?

In the case of IRod, he brought elite defense, which allowed the voters to put aside the PED suspicions, unlike Piazza or Bagwell. I personally wouldn't have voted for him either, because I think he doped.

I can only speculate on why he was elected. Certainly at majority of voters now have no standards and are voting for known cheaters. There are a few who aren't voting for anyone suspected. Then there are those who are taking it on a case by case basis. Enough of those didn't believe Canseco or maybe they saw Piazza get elected and put I Rod in the same group.