Jeff Kent...Hall of Fame?

It's easy to write columns on issues when you're decided on that issue, when you want to persuade your reader to see your point, or when there is a clear right or wrong. The hardest issue, in sports, is who should or shouldn't make the Baseball Hall of Fame. It's a place where you have to be truly dominant in order to get in. Great players haven't gotten in who were dominant (Ron Santo, Don Mattingly, and up until this year, Jim Rice). Guys who have great talent, maybe the greatest raw talent the sport has ever seen have slipped somewhere in their careers, and they can't get in (Darryl Strawberry, Shoeless Joe, Pete Rose, Doc Gooden, Albert Belle, Mark McGwire... this list can go on and on). Jeff Kent retired, and by the end of this article, I don't know whether or not I'll believe he should be in the Hall of Fame. I just have to do an old fashioned pro and con list, and figure this out.

PROS

All-Time Leader in Home Runs by a Second Basemen
1,500 RBI's
1 MVP
560 Doubles (7 more than Tony Gwynn)
The chance of Milton Bradley introducing Jeff Kent at the HOF induction ceremony, reminding everybody that "He doesn't know how to deal with African-American people"

CONS

Solid fielder, but no gold gloves
Converted Third Basemen
Coveted Player, yes, but his trade value netted the likes of a washed up Carlos Baerga, a declining Matt Williams, and other obscure players (I guess a pro was he was pretty much traded for David Cone straight up before he made his mark in the majors)
Hit behind Barry Bonds, who was on base all the time
Was only a 5 time all-star, and a 4 Time Silver Slugger
Wasn't the best second baseman in the majors for just about all of his career (Roberto Alomar}
Topped 100 Runs only three times in his career
Played in an era where power stats were inflated

I came up with more cons, but now I know that he isn't a first balloter. I think he will have to wait, but he should probably get honored for his longevity, and the fact that he wasn't a slouch at second base, while putting up stellar numbers. My final verdict is that he should be in the hall, but not right away. Besides, who wants to hear a HOF speech where he thanks himself, and nobody else?

TehLokiVarsity Captain

292 days ago

Score -2

"The chance of Milton Bradley introducing Jeff Kent at the HOF induction ceremony, reminding everybody that "He doesn't know how to deal with African-American people" "

Another stupid statement.

Stephen A Smith clone anyone?

Permalink | Reply

LaredosliderJV Squad

292 days ago

Score -1

lol...tyty

Permalink

Sj-hypocycloidAll-American

292 days ago

Score 1

I guess I would have to lean toward the cons as well. I have found that my emotions cloud my judgment in cases like this. I know there's sentiment for Ron Santo, but I didn't follow baseball all that closely when he played (and I didn't get his baseball card year after year in my formative years), so I don't have an opinion one way or the other.

Now, Jim Rice and Don Mattingly are right in my wheelhouse. I'd say Mattingly deserves to be in even though he really only had 6 truly stellar years. But he was a class act.

Jeff Kent is an interesting case. I had stopped following baseball with the white-hot intensity of my teen years by the time Kent started playing, so my frame of reference is largely formed by ESPN. His numbers are good, but I never got the sense that he was feared as a batter the way that Griffey Jr., Bonds, Ramirez, McGwire, and so on were.

I see Kent as a similar case to Bobby Bonilla - a guy who was pretty good, but left to his own devices (i.e. not batting behind or ahead of Barry Bonds), he might not have been as good as the final numbers indicate. But Kent was good enough to have HOF-type numbers, and he will likely get in based on those numbers. And that's fine. I could see him having to wait it out for 5-7 years though.

Permalink | Reply

TehLokiVarsity Captain

292 days ago

Score 0

I dunno if he would have to wait that long. THe obvious thing they'll look at is All-Time leader in HRs for a 2nd baseman. HE's got good numbers. He may have never wopn a gold glove but still played stellar defense. And although he wasn't feared, you still had him in the back fo your mind that he could just as easily knock one out. I say maybe 2-4 year wait.

Permalink | Reply

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

292 days ago

Score 0

377 HRs and 1,518 HRs aren't what they used to be. Fortunately for him, he played a position that typically isn't highly productive. And if you look at the calibre of second basemen already in the Hall, then Kent belongs.

Permalink | Reply

The oldest manVarsity

292 days ago

Score 0

Kent's numbers are of a calibre to rate the Hall of Fame and one for sure is he did'nt use any illegal substances to do it. And the same thing can be said of Bonds without Kent maybe he wouldn't have put up the same numbers. His personality has nothing to do with the Hall of Fame Look at Cobb who I can tell you from personal experience was a true son of a bitch and there is no real description to go to explain Cobb. Kent was a player to just play the game and wanted everyone around him to do the same. You may not like his attitude or him but looking back at all the second baseman I have seen there is only a very small number of them that even approached his numbers and talent. He played to win and his record speaks for itself. I am not putting him in Rodgers Hornsby talent but his numbers and service time are right there. Give him credit for what he did in all the years he played. Not liked generally but one hell of a player especially at the plate.

Permalink | Reply

JuTMSY4Legend

292 days ago

Score 1

I dare you not to write a run-on sentence

Permalink

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

292 days ago

Score 2

Rogers Hornsby is on a different planet from Jeff Kent. If Rogers Hornsby were a stealth fighter, Jeff Kent would be a paper airplane.

Permalink

JuTMSY4Legend

292 days ago

Score 2

you're being generous Rawb...

Permalink

Anonymous Fanatic #1

291 days ago

Score 2

How do you know Kent didn't use performance-enhancing drugs? I mean, there's not exactly concrete evidence of who used and who didn't. You might suspect, but you can't know beyond a shadow of a doubt.

As for his HOF chances, I think the best comparison for him is a guy who isn't eligible yet either: Mike Piazza. Both have the most career home runs for their positions and neither are renowned for their defensive prowess. I don't really buy the "better player" angle, as it's not fair to punish a player for playing against an all-time great (that's like saying Joe Dimaggio doesn't get to go because Ted Williams was a better OF, or that Mantle doesn't make it because Willie Mays was better). I guess my point is that if a player is great, he's great, doesn't matter who played at the same time as another great player. He's got 4 Silver Sluggers, an MVP award, and 5 All-Star Games (Although again, when discussing who deserves to be in the HOF, the writers' awards really shouldn't enter into the equation. Unless the demographics of the voters have changed dramatically between the player's career and his first appearance on the HOF ballot, if a player is not appreciated during his career, odds are pretty good that he'll be unappreciated on the ballot as well. Sort of like a begging the question deal. For an example, see: Raines, Tim).

I think that Kent's a Hall of Famer, and I think he'll get there eventually, but I doubt it'll be on his first try.

Permalink

JuTMSY4Legend

291 days ago

Score 2

How do you know Kent didn't use performance-enhancing drugs? I mean, there's not exactly concrete evidence of who used and who didn't. You might suspect, but you can't know beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Good point, thanks for addressing it

I think its fair to assume he's as innocent as his peers in the league during his time of similar ilk. Did Craig Biggio do Steroids?

And again, the moment a Clemens or McGwire makes it in, then Bonds belongs in and so do others of similar standing...

Permalink

TehLokiVarsity Captain

291 days ago

Score 0

Consider the fact that Kent has as many RBI season as Griffey Jr. a HOF lock and more RBIs than Mantle, who is in the Hall.

Permalink | Reply

Anonymous Fanatic #1

291 days ago

Score 1

RBIs are mostly meaningless. If nobody gets on base in front of a hitter, it's impossible for him to have a high RBI total. And Kent hit after Barry Bonds during his humongous on-base seasons, so Kent had more opportunities than anybody this side of Babe Ruth for RBIs during that time (Kent had 689 RBIs in the 6 years with San Francisco, and only 829 in his other 11 seasons). Kent's career OBP is .356, Mickey Mantle's was .421, and Junior's was .373. Kent's slugging percentage is .500, Mantle's was .557, and Junior's was .547.

Kent was a great hitter for a long time at an up the middle position, but you can't compare him to Mantle or Griffey. That's just crazy talk.

Permalink

TehLokiVarsity Captain

291 days ago

Score 0

Who cares who he batted behind. It's a matter of him playing at a level that he did his job and produced, which he did. Are you going to vilify him because he batted ehind a guy whow as always on? No, that's not his fault. He did what he was paid for and he did it damn well. And I'm not comparing so to speak, I was just pointing out something,.

Permalink

Tmil42AAA-er

291 days ago

Score 1

I'm not trying to bring down Jeff Kent. I'm trying to say that RBIs are not a good indicator of offensive performance. Listen, I think Kent was a hell of a hitter, and not being in the same league as Mantle and Griffey is nothing to be ashamed of. My point is, let's use stats that actually measure a player's performance, rather than those which depend on other people.

Permalink

TehLokiVarsity Captain

291 days ago

Score 1

MOst HRs for s second baseman. 5 all stars. 4 silver sluggers, an MVP. A solid XBH batter. I'm not doubting he is going to wait, I just don't think as long as people say he should.

Permalink

Tmil42AAA-er

291 days ago

Score 1

I agree wholeheartedly. I think having to wait is ridiculous anyway. What's the difference between a first-ballot HOF and all the others? It's ridiculous.

Permalink

TehLokiVarsity Captain

291 days ago

Score 1

agreed. Kent will be in on his second try. Or, he should be.

Permalink

Anonymous Fanatic #1

291 days ago

Score 1

There are reasons for why those guys didn't get into the HOF, by the way.

• Straw- Drug problems led him to fall off the face of the earth at age 29.
• Shoeless Joe- permanent ban for throwing the 1919 WS.
• Pete Rose- permanent ban for betting on baseball.
• Doc Gooden- see Daryl Strawberry (man, it's depressing to be a Mets fan sometimes).
• Albert Belle- was done at 33.
• Mark McGwire- became the scapegoat of the steroids era, otherwise would be a HOF already.

Kent played until he was 40, has never been accused of cheating/betting/steroid use, and so I'm not sure if these guys provide the best comparison for Kent.

Permalink | Reply

SSreportersLegend

291 days ago

Score 2

Would you like to sign-up? You seem to know what you're talking about.

Permalink

Tmil42AAA-er

291 days ago

Score 2

That would be redundant...the better question is...would I like to sign in before I open my mouth?

Permalink

LaredosliderJV Squad

291 days ago

Score 0

these guys aren't being compared to Kent in the first paragraph...they're just examples of how good you have to be as well as how much you're not able to f' up in order to make the hall...all these players had more talent...and were cornerstones for their franchises. Jeff Kent was never a franchise player.

Permalink

Falcon02520Legend

291 days ago

Score 3

Never a fan of Kent, but according to the current system, he is a hall of fame player. Alas, I do believe that the Baseball Hall of Fame is in need of a serious make-over... but more on that later ;)

Permalink | Reply

Tmil42AAA-er

291 days ago

Score 1

Falcon, I could go on for days about the inadequacies of the HOF voting processes. Suffice it to say, they're not exactly a bastion of consistency and reliability in their voting methods.

Permalink

JuTMSY4Legend

291 days ago

Score 2

what voting process is?

Permalink

Tmil42AAA-er

291 days ago

Score 1

I'm talking about the actual BBWAA vote and the Veteran's Committee votes as well. That's why I used processes (the plural of process).

Permalink

JuTMSY4Legend

291 days ago

Score 2

I was being facetious...

There is no perfect system...especially in "informed" voting where opinion matters just as much...

every player is essentially comparing apples to oranges as each faced a different set of scenarios...

Permalink

Tmil42AAA-er

291 days ago

Score 1

Well, I'm not sure I like your face. I realize it's an opinion thing, but at have an enlightened and engaged class of voters do it. I mean, the constituency of the BBWAA contains a political cartoonist from Canada, as well as dozens of retired (read: old) writers who don't put much thought into it. I mean, that's what I think happens, I really need to do some more research to have an informed opinion on whether or not the BBWAA has voters with informed opinions.

Permalink

Anonymous Fanatic #2

290 days ago

Score -5

throw out all of the stats between 2002-2004 for the highpoint of the steroid era. Oh, Jeff Kent's best statistical years were in that time frame, then he is likely another cheater and you can keep the HOF door closed. www.propokerschool.com

Permalink | Reply

TehLokiVarsity Captain

290 days ago

Score 2

Wow, amazzing proof that he cheats. Why do stupid people breed

Permalink

Falcon02520Legend

290 days ago

Score 4

Because they are too stupid to use protection...

Permalink

Davis21wylieMVP

290 days ago

Score 5

Why do stupid people breed

Says the guy who spells "amazing" with 2 z's...

Permalink

Tmil42AAA-er

290 days ago

Score 1

Well played, sir...well played indeed.

Permalink

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

290 days ago

Score 0

it's the cool way of saying "amassing"

Permalink

TehLokiVarsity Captain

290 days ago

Score -5

OH NO HE POINTED OUT A TYPO?!??!?!

I swear genocide against stupid people should be legal.

Way to point out I used ONE WHOLE EXTRA LETTER!

Ever so observant. Dipshit.

Permalink

Davis21wylieMVP

290 days ago

Score 4

Aw, quit being such a douche and take your good-natured ribbing like a man.

Permalink

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

289 days ago

Score 2

And genocide is the murder of a race, not the killing of people based on intellect (or lack thereof).

Calm the fack down.

Permalink

Taytay 24All-American

289 days ago

Score 2

Genocide is not necessarily limited to race, but I find the suggestion to be despicable and an insult to other groups who have truly been the victims of genocide. Does TehLoki not realize he is endorsing mass murder?

Permalink

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

289 days ago

Score 1

It's amazzingly offensive.

Permalink

TehLokiVarsity Captain

288 days ago

Score -2

I endorse mass murder on stupidity.

I don't think many of you need to worry.

Now shh. it's OK

Permalink

Tmil42AAA-er

290 days ago

Score 4

Can we throw out 1968 for the highpoint of the pitcher-dominated 60s? Can we throw out the early 1940s because many of the best players were off to war at the time?

Truth is, the "Steroids Era" happened. We don't know who used, we don't know who didn't, despite George Mitchell's assertions, we don't know a damn thing in that respect. It might be easier to pretend it didn't happen by throwing out stats for an arbitrary period of time (too short, by the way, the Steroids Era encapsulated more than 3 years), but that's what makes it so difficult to deal with.

Permalink | Reply

JuTMSY4Legend

290 days ago

Score 4

How about everything pre-1947 because the league wasn't integrated?

Permalink

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

289 days ago

Score 2

Throw out everything post 1962 because of expansion.

Permalink

Anonymous Fanatic #3

238 days ago

Score 0

KENTmay have been the best second basemen ever. Last year I saw him at Shea and he was quite unbelievable in the field and hit one of the longest hrs I have ever seen and hit the ball to the wall two other times.The guy has 32 all time in extra base hits 22 in doubles top fifty in sac flys,top 50 in hbp. A solid .290 average and defensively a very tall strong armed 2nd basemen. Sandberg not in his league and Morgan played on one of the greatest hitting teams ever so why point out hitting with good players. Kent lost 5 years with the Mets. I watched him play and the Mets just missed him-he hit the ball very hard but no one really noticed. Cone was considered one of the great pitchers at that time so someone knew something. If you wanted a run knocked in he gave himself up constantly in close games. He was also a great defensive first basemen but he was way better than most second basemen. He has a better fielding %than most of the 2nd base HOFer.100 more hrs in friendlier hitting parks. Kent was fabulous even up till last August.

Permalink | Reply

Anonymous Fanatic #3

238 days ago

Score 0

No one points out that years ago-15-you made the allstar team on reputation long past your prime. If Kent played a few years ealier he would have 10 plus appearances and realistically he was the best second basemen in N.L FOR 10 STAIGHT YEARS. He got robbed with allstar appearances but has 4 kids so he probably could care less as he got to see his familly for 5 days. Look at his stats and tell me how many players had a better ten year run at any position. His dad wasn't Griffey so hereally only got a shot at 30 not at 25. Trust me as a huge Met fan the guy was a player from the time he came up.He just hit the ball harder than anyone I have seen other than Stargell'McCovey and to be fair his stats may actually be better than Mantles if you throw out the hrs. If he doesn't go first ballot it will because he didn't hang on and d.h. and pad his stats and move past almost all the greats in stats.He was a great,great player.

Permalink | Reply

Wolfsong30Tee-Baller

122 days ago

Score 0

"I'm not trying to bring down Jeff Kent. I'm trying to say that RBIs are not a good indicator of offensive performance. Listen, I think Kent was a hell of a hitter, and not being in the same league as Mantle and Griffey is nothing to be ashamed of. My point is, let's use stats that actually measure a player's performance, rather than those which depend on other people."

Baseball is a TEAM sport. Everything about it calls for cooperation (teamwork) and dependency (hey, I walked, stole 2b, now get me the hell in the dugout). Hitting with runners in scoring position, hitting home runs with a runner on first, keeping the momentum going and taking advantage of the pitcher throwing from the stretch is all partt of the TEAM sport. To trivialize RBIs and claim that RBIs are not a good indicator of offensive performance, what is? A two out hit with the bases empty? A sacrifice bunt? Moving the runners over? A base on balls? Or is it strictly batting average?

Run production is THE most important aspect of offense in baseball. There are no ties; you have to score runs to win, and you score runs by knocking in the base runners. To do that, you have to hit. Kent has, what, 500something doubles? Over 300 home runs? A couple of thousand combined hits? Where else would those runs scored come from, if not for Kent's ability to drive them in? From the 6-7-8 hitters? If you truly believe that, I've got some beachfront Arizona property for sale, cheap.

Wolfsong30.

Permalink | Reply