http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=34977
Printable View
I found the comments highlighted in bold interesting:
"The notion that when Kent comes up for election five years from now, Chase Utley's career (likely to still be in progress) might set a loftier standard. Or the fact that he was helped immeasurably by Barry Bonds' presence in the Giants' lineup.
What matters most for Kent, at least from this corner, is that he'll go down as "the greatest" at something. Doesn't matter what it is -- Sandy Koufax' fastball, Bill Mazeroski's glove, Cal Ripken's longevity -- that's a defining criterion. Kent is without question the greatest power hitter ever seen at his position, hitting 351 homers as a second baseman and 377 overall. You could make a case for many others as the best pure hitter, notably Rogers Hornsby, Joe Morgan, Frankie Frisch, Eddie Collins, Nap Lajoie and Charlie Gehringer. But Kent set the standard for power, and if Ryne Sandberg makes the Hall (dubious choice in my mind), then Kent certainly qualifies. Sandberg was a beloved player playing in big-city Chicago, while Kent toiled in lesser settings and was pretty much despised by everyone."
Interesting, or ridiculous? If Ryne Sandberg is a dubious choice for the Hall, than you have a stupidly small Hall.
Also, failing to acknowledge Rogers Hornsby as the greatest power hitting second basemen is a failure to acknowledge the simplest things we know about context.
Oh, and now I click the link, and see this is Bruce Jenkins. That explains everything. That he's even mentioning Jeff Kent and Mickey Mantle in the same sentence is crazy.
I found them interesting in that it shows this particular HOF voters logic, flawed as it maybe, I still find it interesting to get a glimpse into the mind set of an actual voter. Did you not care for his break down of Mantle vs. Kent?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I find it sad that the people that get to decide who makes the Hall of Fame think that it's a "credential" of Jeff Kent that he has more RBI than Mickey Mantle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
I'll take that as a yes lol. Some people think that hitting is hitting regarless of the position of the player...I have even heard some on here enspouse that sentiment. Shrug. Is it fair? no but I can see the allure of doing it, it makes evaluating hitters much easier and it is probably why people do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Yeah, being dumber is usually easier than taking the time to evaluate things, even the 3 seconds it takes to realize that Mickey Mantle is in no way comparable to Jeff Kent and the number of RBI tells you nothing except that Jeff Kent hit behind Barry Bonds for a huge portion of his career. :)
are you theorizing that player A hitting behind a player that gets on base alot is some how related to player A getting lots of RBI's??? thats crazy talk!?!?! everyone knows that RBI's are a function of a players cluthiness.:pQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
lol
There is little doubt in my mind that Kent will make the HOF, at some point.
But this...
If the writer truly believes that, I wonder how he figures that Kent qualifies for the HOF. It isn't true, of course. Bonds did not make Kent a better hitter...he likely had no effect whatsoever on Kent, as a hitter. Bonds did provide Kent with more RBI opportunities, I would say.Quote:
Or the fact that he was helped immeasurably by Barry Bonds' presence in the Giants' lineup.
As for the comparison with Mantle, what is there to say? Mantle was one of the absolute greatest players ever. Kent was a very good player. Mantle played in an era of low run production, while Kent had his best seasons during and after the offensive explosion of the last 15 years. Context. Context. Context.
This is the same writer that said he isnt voting for Rickey Henderson correct?
No. That was Corky Simpson.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Yeah, Hornsby only slugged 77 points higher then Kent and led the league twice in HR's and placed second twice. Kent placed ...seventh...once.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I don't think this guy knows who Hornsby is.
He knows. He just doesn't grasp the concept of context. All he sees is 377 for Kent, and 301 for Hornsby, and that obviously means Kent was a better home run hitter. There's no room for the fact that Kent's only time in the top 10 in his league was when he placed 7th and that Hornsby placed in the top 7 14 times and led the league in slugging percentage 9 times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
I don't think that there's any such thing as cluthiness. :D
Excellent Joe Posnanski article here: Why We Need Numbers.