Jeff Kent - HOFer?

[RedsoxRockies]

In

[boomboom]

HOF, as for first ballot (I dont know what the honor is in that) probably not....

[dickay]

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..

thanks for confirming the eye ball test.......it never lies

[jcbarr]

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.

[boomboom]

Roberto Alomar was far better of a 2nd baseman. (Defense and hitting)

[koolzach1]

I think that Kent is a HOF'er.

[Reade]

Roberto Alomar was far better of a 2nd baseman. (Defense and hitting)

yep, and so was Sandberg

[HoustonGM]

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.

yep, and so was Sandberg

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.

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.

[jcbarr]

You spit on one umpire and it screws you for life.

[HoustonGM]

According to my metrics, Kent is by the far the less productive player of those 3. Sandberg 87, Alomar 86, Kent 72.

Care to offer how you arrived at those numbers?

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.

[jcbarr]

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.

[HoustonGM]

I'm sorry the formula is not available to the public at this time. It is a stat that values longetivity, comparasions to contemporaries, and takes into consideration the actual replacement value of the talent in the teams farm system, among other things.

You think you're being clever, but you're not.

[Wassit3]

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....

[HoustonGM]

You think you know something, but you don't.

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.

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.

[HoustonGM]

No I didn't. Please stop implying I was being untruthful. I mean it.

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?

Please. If i didn't mention WARP, you would not have posted your made-up numbers.