ESPN just posed this question during the Dodgers-Cubs game ...Is Jeff a Hall of Famer?
Joe Morgan said no, Chris Berman said he's have to think about it a bit (fence sitter) before saying no.
What do you guys think?
Printable View
ESPN just posed this question during the Dodgers-Cubs game ...Is Jeff a Hall of Famer?
Joe Morgan said no, Chris Berman said he's have to think about it a bit (fence sitter) before saying no.
What do you guys think?
no
Joe's not doing the game, its Rick SutcliffeQuote:
Joe Morgan
No
I've been a Dodger fan all my life, but I can't really say that I've ever been a Jeff Kent fan. Even though he's worn the Blue the past few years.
Clayton Kershaw sure looks good wearing the Blue though. Looking forward to watching that kid's career.
I don't have the stats in front of me, but when I think of Jeff Kent I see him as the most dominant 2nd basemen of the past 10 years. Sure he hasn't been the most dominant EVERY year but long term he has been w/o question.....and to me a HOF'er is about being amongst the best at your position during a long period of time.
So I vote yes according to the eye test, though I'd have to confirm with statistics. Realize that there aren't many, if any, 2nd basemen who meet the benchmarks often referred to for automatic HOF entry (3000 hits, 500HR's, etc.etc.). I'll wait for others to post the stats before i finalize my opinion...im too drunk to do it at the moment.. :D;)
Among second basemen all-time:
1st in home runs
2nd in RBI (to Hornsby)
12th in hits
3rd in doubles
3rd in extra-base hits
23rd in batting average
36th in on-base percentage
3rd in slugging percentage (one of the guys ahead of him is no longer a 2B, Alfonso Soriano)
10th in OPS+
He was never more than an average defender (for his career, he is exactly average according to FRAA).
Being a very good hitter at 2B, and the second best power hitting second basemen of all-time, I'd say yes.
Yes. A little thought about it, but yes. Compared to the other second basemen in the hall, I think he gets in.
Wpow. I didn't realize his numbers were that good. I dunno...based on the stats, yes, but he was never a guy I watched play and said "Wow, that guy is INCREDIBLE!", and I'm one of those people who sort of thinks that's who a Hall of Fame should be reserved for.
humm...
HOF Standards: Batting - 48.9 (79) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 121.5 (111) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Yea, he'll get in. He's really a marginal HOF'er, but the voters love him and will put him in.
As far as offensive second basemen, I don't see how he doesn't get in. With that said, I still don't think that he should be in the hall of fame. I watch baseball with regularity and have been doing so for the last 10 years. There was only about a 3-4 year stretch where the guy was really even noticed. He has always been a good player, one that would be good to have on your team, but he has never really dominated. He got a lot of attention because he was one of the few second baggers that could hit at all for a few years. Guys at second who can hit always get attention. Anyone remember Carlos Baerga? People were calling him a future hall of famer too.
Great player. Hall worthy, I don't think so.
Yea, agreed.
Yes, but then Bearga petered out while Kent kept on going.
He's probably one of those guys, who, if he gets in, will get between 75 to 80 per cent of the vote, or one of the top vote getters who doesn't get in.
I would say that it wouldn't be unreasoanble if he was in the Hall, compared to some other choices (but we already have some bad apples in that barrel)
He'll get in. I'm not denying that at all. I'm just arguing that his induction could be a bit unworthy.
There's far greater mistakes in the Hall, and about to get in, as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcbarr
That we can both agree on.
In
HOF, as for first ballot (I dont know what the honor is in that) probably not....
thanks for confirming the eye ball test.......it never lies ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
He certainly has been the best second baseman in the league for a while now. Dominant though, I'm not sure I would go that far. He has been great compared historically against other 2B, and no other 2B that played during his time can touch him.
It all depends on how you think the HOF should be measured. If you compare him to other 2B then he gets in on the first ballot, not even a thought to me. If you compare him to everyone else, then I'm not so sure he even gets in. I haven't looked at any of his defensive stats though.
Roberto Alomar was far better of a 2nd baseman. (Defense and hitting)
I think that Kent is a HOF'er.
yep, and so was SandbergQuote:
Roberto Alomar was far better of a 2nd baseman. (Defense and hitting)
Alomar was clearly better defensively, and overall, but I think Kent edges him offensively, by barely a tad.Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
Defensively, as with Alomar, yes. Offensively though, Kent was better. Sandberg had 6 really good seasons - 1984-85, and 1989-92, 3 solid seasons - 1987-88, 1993, and 6 relatively poor seasons - 1982-83, 1986, 1994, 1996-97.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reade
Kent, though, was always an above-average hitter. He was solid from 1992-1997, then rattled off 10 consecutive seasons of an OPS+ of at least 119.
Sandberg, at his peak, offensively, was roughly as good as Kent at his peak, except Kent had that standout 2000 season that Sandberg can't match. However, Kent sustained a heightened level of offense for a much longer period of time than Sandberg, and when he wasn't at that level, he was still an average to slightly above average hitter, while Sandberg filled in the spaces with below average hitting.
Using some more advanced metrics...
Offensively, they all come in roughly equal. In equivalent average (EQA, same scale as batting average but includes all offensive contributions), Sandberg was at .284, Alomar .294, and Kent .292. In career WARP3, Sandberg had 108.7, Alomar 132.6, and Kent 113.9. Alomar had 6 seasons of 10+ WARP3, with 5 of those above 11. Kent had just 3, but 2 above 12. Sandberg had 4, with 2 in the 11 range and 1 above 13. Kent just hasn't had the low points that both Sandberg and Alomar experienced.
Alomar was clearly the best of the 3, I think, and it's kind of ironic that I think he'll have the hardest time getting into the Hall.
You spit on one umpire and it screws you for life. :)
Care to offer how you arrived at those numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee hater
I don't see any way at all that Alomar comes out lower than Sandberg.
Unless, you know, you just rattled numbers off the top of your head.
Sandberg was in no way better than Alomar, I find that very hard to believe. Sandberg my have had that one season that was pretty impressive, but if you look at the careers of all of these guys he has got to be number three.
You think you're being clever, but you're not.Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee hater
i like all 3 of the guys mentioned for the hall but tha could be because I have seen all of them play. I never say an eddie collins or rogers hornsby or even joe morgan play....
I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee hater
You just made up numbers off the top of your head. WARP isn't. The exact formula isn't public, but it doesn't take more than a couple seconds of research to know what goes into it. It's not just a randomly generated number. Nor was I using it as a definitive answer. I was just using it to give another perspective on the question. There's no need to make snarky remarks every time anybody uses a stat which you don't like.
Did you not make those numbers up off the top of your head? Did you not make a snarky remark after I used a stat that you don't like?Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee hater
Please. If i didn't mention WARP, you would not have posted your made-up numbers.
Sure. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee hater
Stop what? Stop jumping in and making snarky comments every time somebody uses a stat you don't like.Quote:
Again, stop.
We know what WARP is based off. We don't know the exact formula. I don't care to know your exact formula, but I'd love to know what it uses, and frankly, what you said above, it still gives no indication to how Sandberg would rank higher than Alomar, considering Alomar had more longevity, and they were contemporaries, and Alomar was better. Never mind the fact that comparing players to the other players on their team is a horrible way to evaluate who was a better player.