Best team with no HOFers or HOF caliber players?

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by packs

How did the players around him dampen his analytical numbers?

Kent has some surface level totals that might impress you if you only looked at his raw numbers for home runs but baseball Reference has him ranked as the 21st best second baseman, with Ian Kinsler ranked just above him.

All of his advanced stats are below the average 2B Hall of Famer.

The more other players have monster seasons around you (whether they are on PEDS or not), the less valuable your semi-monster season is going to be, from a replacement value perspective.

Again, I'm not arguing for him to be in the HOF, but when you say "surface level"...do you mean HR's, RBI's, Runs, Extra Base Hits, OBP, etc., etc., etc....

Baseball Reference has him ranked based on WAR alone.

However, Jeff Kent ranks 43rd All-Time in extra base hits...(a pretty good catch-all for your quality of batted balls to me). The only regular 2nd basemen ahead of him are Rogers Hornsby and Craig Biggio.

He's 54th All-Time in RBI's. Hornsby and Lajoie are the only regular 2nd basemen ahead of him in this category.

His surface level lifetime BA, Slugging%, OBP, OPS, and even OPS+ are all pretty impressive for a 2nd baseman IMO.

He was a competent but not spectacular 2nd baseman defensively. This does not help his overall WAR. He was thought of highly enough for multiple teams to keep trotting him out there though. Even supplanting an aging Biggio in Houston near the end of his own career.

[packs]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

The more other players have monster seasons around you (whether they are on PEDS or not), the less valuable your semi-monster season is going to be, from a replacement value perspective.

Again, I'm not arguing for him to be in the HOF, but when you say "surface level"...do you mean HR's, RBI's, Runs, Extra Base Hits, OBP, etc., etc., etc....

Baseball Reference has him ranked based on WAR alone.

However, Jeff Kent ranks 43rd All-Time in extra base hits...(a pretty good catch-all for your quality of batted balls to me). The only regular 2nd basemen ahead of him are Rogers Hornsby and Craig Biggio.

He's 54th All-Time in RBI's. Hornsby and Lajoie are the only regular 2nd basemen ahead of him in this category.

His surface level lifetime BA, Slugging%, OBP, OPS, and even OPS+ are all pretty impressive for a 2nd baseman IMO.

He was a competent but not spectacular 2nd baseman defensively. This does not help his overall WAR. He was thought of highly enough for multiple teams to keep trotting him out there though. Even supplanting an aging Biggio in Houston near the end of his own career.

Isn't your WAR based on your performance alone? I'm not understanding how another player having a good year would negatively affect your own WAR.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

Isn't your WAR based on your performance alone? I'm not understanding how another player having a good year would negatively affect your own WAR.

Many of WAR’s components are contextual - it won’t value the same stat line the same way in 1927, 1967, and 2007. Because much of it is contextual to the league when you have lots of guys posting monster numbers you don’t necessarily get monster WAR. Hence why there aren’t 25 guys from c. 2000 with 100 WAR.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by G1911

Many of WAR’s components are contextual - it won’t value the same stat line the same way in 1927, 1967, and 2007. Because much of it is contextual to the league when you have lots of guys posting monster numbers you don’t necessarily get monster WAR. Hence why there aren’t 25 guys from c. 2000 with 100 WAR.

I would have saved a lot of time, if I had figured out how to say what you had just said.

[bdk1976]

Before Larkin was inexplicably let into the HOF, my answer would have been the 1990 Reds.

I think a good argument can still be made that the Reds did not have a legit HOF caliber player that year and still won it all.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by bdk1976

Before Larkin was inexplicably let into the HOF, my answer would have been the 1990 Reds.

I think a good argument can still be made that the Reds did not have a legit HOF caliber player that year and still won it all.

I think the same could be said about the 1940 Reds, whose only Hall of Famer was Ernie Lombardi, who is probably the weakest catcher in the HOF besides Rick Ferrell.

I think Larkin, a 12x all-star, 9x silver slugger, and former MVP is HOF material, myself. Larkin also hit .353 in the World Series in their sweep of the A's.

[paul]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I think the same could be said about the 1940 Reds, whose only Hall of Famer was Ernie Lombardi, who is probably the weakest catcher in the HOF besides Rick Ferrell.

I think Larkin, a 12x all-star, 9x silver slugger, and former MVP is HOF material, myself. Larkin also hit .353 in the World Series in their sweep of the A's.

Why does Lombardi get no love? Two batting titles as a catcher is pretty impressive.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by bdk1976

Before Larkin was inexplicably let into the HOF, my answer would have been the 1990 Reds.

I think a good argument can still be made that the Reds did not have a legit HOF caliber player that year and still won it all.

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I think Larkin, a 12x all-star, 9x silver slugger, and former MVP is HOF material, myself. Larkin also hit .353 in the World Series in their sweep of the A's.

Are you really saying Larkin is not HOF quality? In addition to the stats already listed, he is the best SS of the 1990s, has a peak performance as good as Jeter, was a 20/20 member in 1991, and became the first 30/30 SS in 1996. Barry Larkin (like Ripken Jr, and Yount) are the bridge generation from defense first SS to dual threat shortstops.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by G1911

Many of WAR’s components are contextual - it won’t value the same stat line the same way in 1927, 1967, and 2007. Because much of it is contextual to the league when you have lots of guys posting monster numbers you don’t necessarily get monster WAR. Hence why there aren’t 25 guys from c. 2000 with 100 WAR.

Fred McGriff was probably impacted by this as well since his 493 home runs didn't seem as impressive when guys are getting to 600 and 700.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Fred McGriff was probably impacted by this as well since his 493 home runs didn't seem as impressive when guys are getting to 600 and 700.

Fred McGriff really kind of gets screwed by this and the steroid guys. The Hall standard the the steroid guys can't make it but the writers don't want to put in guys at offensive positions who didn't post numbers as gaudy as the steroid guys makes for an extremely high standard different from previous eras. Was glad to see the committee put him in.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by packs

Isn't your WAR based on your performance alone? I'm not understanding how another player having a good year would negatively affect your own WAR.

It's not just "another" player. It's all the other players in that particular season. All your immediate contemporaries. It's basically being judged on a curve, according to everybody else's performance. Stats were generally inflated across much of the league during most of his best years, therefore his stats don't look quite as impressive in the context of his times, therefore he gets dinged on his overall WIN Shares by the algorithm.

If Jeff Kent puts up the same stat line as a 2nd baseman in 1978 as he did in 1998, I'd guess he'd have accumulated at least 3 more Win Shares that season.

I'm not saying he would have, I'm saying "if he did".

In the end, I guess it doesn't really mean anything. Just more chatter in the year 2023.