He was an excellent offensive player in an era with many many excellent offensive players. Thus the reason his career OPS+ is just 123. For his career he was approximately 23% better than league average. That is excellent for a second baseman. Still not as good as Bobby Grich, but certainly excellent. When you add in the poor defense, I would say he is more like a Lou Whitaker. Whitaker had excellent defense and a career OPS+ of 117. Kent isn't as good as Bobby Grich either offensively or defensively (when compared to league average during their respective careers), but he is better than a number of current HOF 2B men. Kent should certainly be pulling higher numbers than he is no doubt. But there are other 2B who were better an are not in the Hall.

Tom C

I think to many people get into the hof. Let's be honest I mean players who were good not great seem to always squeak in. I think it's overrated the hof now. I say you have 3 ballots to get in and if by then u don't well sorry you don't get in. Plain and simple.

A little serve off topic...
 

But speaking of Griffey Jr., IMHO it's a real shame that a century player like that had all of his early baseball cards created in a crap time of mass production. If he had played 100+ years ago can you imagine what a T206 high grade Griffey would go for? :D

And 15 percent of the voters who were "around to watch him play" agree with you!!

And 15 percent of the voters agree with you!! And I haven't changed my narrative at all it's just that you are unable to appreciate what I am saying -- that in context, on an era adjusted basis, his stats are less impressive than they might be in absolute terms. But again, 1 in 7 voters agree with you, so I will defer.

Mc Gwire got caught with Andro in his locker which was legal at the time, sold at GNC, but later banned. Do you know who else was caught using Andro? Newest hofer Mike Piazza.

McGwire admitted to using steroids long after his career was over, but didn't say what he used. It is widely believed that he used illegal drugs too, but he wasn't caught doing so.

Eckersley won CY and MVP in the same season. Sutter was CY. Lee Smith won....uh....

Hmm, wasn't Sheffield on the 2003 list? And Sosa got caught with a corked bat. That's still cheating, right?

Right, but those big(steroid) numbers came from guys in other positions. It's unfair to compare a 2nd baseman to a 1st baseman or catcher as far as numbers is concerned. You just don't.

If you look at Kents numbers and compare them to other second baseman, like we should do, his numbers are at the top. Out of 20 HOF'ers to play the position, he's in the top 10 in all offensive categories.

Oh, and he won an MVP...

OPS+ shows how a player rates offensively when compared to their contemporaries and when adjusted for park factors.

Jeff Kent career OPS+ 123
Bobby Grich career OPS+ 125

Bobby Grich 4x Gold Gloves (and should have won several more)
Jeff Kent Gold Gloves...BWWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Kent should absolutely be getting a higher percentage than he is currently. He may get in eventually and I have no problem with that at all. But you MUST take his numbers within the context of his times...whatever position he plays. Bobby Grich was a better second baseman (relative to his era) than was Jeff Kent. Lou Whitaker was a slightly worse offensive player but a much better defensive player. Heck, taking defense into account, I could make a case for Willie Randolph not being that far off from Kent.

Tom C

Well, try to convince the 6 out of 7 voters who don't agree, what can I say. Maybe his stock will go up over time.

Grich rates 7th per JAWS, Kent 18th. But just ask Darren, we saw Kent so we don't need JAWS.

Kent shouldn't be penalized for playing avg defense. If that's his only flaw then I don't have a problem getting in.

Edgar is getting quite a few votes and he didn't even play defense at all. At least Kent played a defensive position.

Plus he was on Survivor!

You don't need JAWs to tell you anything about a player you watched. You can use JAWs to talk about Bill Dickey if you want, but Jeff Kent's entire career was played out before our eyes. Tell me who was a better hitter at second base than he was. There was no one. If he's not getting in it's because people think he juiced, not because he wasn't the best offensive second baseman of his time.

And that's exactly the point of JAWS, to enable a meaningful comparison where you can't make one from personal observation, as well as to eliminate bias. Anyhoo, Alomar ranks ahead of Kent statistically. And Biggio.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_2B.shtml

Kent has more home runs than any other 2nd baseman in history, and by a considerable margin (377 to 301), 3rd in RBI's for all 2nd basemen in history, 2nd in slugging, 6th in OPS, and he has an MVP to boot. He's one of the few 2nd basemen in history who consistently batted 3-5 in a lineup during his entire career. Sure, he might not be as good as Alomar, but he's still a legitimate HOFer.

In context to the era in which he played he was not as good as Bobby Grich. When taking defense into consideration, Grich was a MUCH better player.

Tom C

No doubt. Completely agree Alomar was a better player than Kent overall. And I'm ok if Alomar and Biggio rank ahead of Kent. They're both HOF'ers. Kent ranks ahead of them in other stats as well.

So why on an objective metric (JAWS) is he so far below Alomar and Biggio?

Right, but Kent was playing in an era with a bunch of juicers, where as far as I know, that is something Kent has never been accused of. Is there some WAR where all of the suspected juicers are excluded?

You need an objective metric where the suspected juicers in that era are excluded. For example, you have known juicers like Bret Boone at 2nd base who impact the WAR for players like Kent.

This is true. All of it.

Wouldn't Lee Smith have been considered the "Premier Closer" of that 1993-96 window when Eck dropped off and pre-Rivera taking over as Yankee closer?

Not really an era, but I do remember a short period of time when Lee Smith was considered THE closer.

That said, I'm not sure I would put him either.

The juicer issue may affect Kent's standing relative to guys in other eras, but why would it affect his standing vis a vis guys in the same era, i.e. Alomar and Biggio? Any change to the weight factor is going to affect all equally, I would think?

From 1992-1997, Tony Phillips and Roberto Alomar and Chuck Knoblauch were better than Kent both offensively and defensively.

I have no problem saying that over a 8 year period from 1998-2005, Kent was the best offensive second baseman in baseball. Likely the best overall, as I value offense to defense about 80/20.

After 2005, guys like Utley and Cano and Pedroia are better than Kent all around.

Does being the top in your position in the majors over and 8 year period, plus being in the top 6-8 at your position for another 8 or so years, make you a Hall Of Famer? I think in conjunction with the way his counting stats look, most likely the answer is yes. I just don't think it is as ct and dry as some are making it out to be.

Tom C

Unless I am missing someone obvious, Bill Freehan was the best offensive catcher of the 60s. Jim Fregosi or Bert Campaneris were the best offensive shortstops (same caveat). It's too narrow a criterion.

Production is production regardless of whether it was enhanced with drugs or not. Since we will never know if he definitively did or did not use, we are left with his numbers.

As to whether there was any speculation, you would likely have to ask Mets and Indians fans their thoughts on what he "suddenly" became once he became a teammate of Barry Bonds.

Tom C

The thing is though: Alomar and Biggio were typical second basemen, just better than most. Alomar had some pop, but not so much more than the average second baseman. He topped out at 24 homers. Kent's power sets him apart. It makes him a unique player. He stands alone at second. And I would think that being unique trumps being better than usual. But I understand Kent is under the PED cloud and that is the only logical reason not to vote for him. You can't argue with his numbers, no matter how hard you try.

I tend to agree that Kent should get into the Hall. But you and others seem to be stuck on the raw numbers. Yes he had more power than any other 2B in terms of the raw numbers. But when put in the context of the era in which he played, the numbers (whether he was a second baseman or first baseman or catcher) are not quite what they seem.

Pie Traynor hit .366 in 1930. Great year.

Roberto Clemente hit .320 in 1963.

Looking at each just as raw numbers, Traynor seems to have had the much better year in terms of this one statistic, batting average. However, The National League hit .303 as a whole in 1930. Thus Traynor was 20.8% better than average. The league as a whole hit .245 in 1963. Thus Clemente was 30.6% better than average.

Clemente had the better year in terms of batting average because the year in which he and Traynor played must be taken into consideration.

For Kent, his raw offensive numbers blow away those of someone like Bobby Grich. However, when adjusted against the league average during their years played and then adjusted again for park factors, Bobby Grich was actually a better hitter than Jeff Kent.

Tom C

You say that but you're ignoring an important aspect too: there have been a thousand Bobby Grich's at second base and only ONE Jeff Kent.

A thousand Bobby Grich's?

Name them.

He is one of the ten best 2B ever.

Tom C

I'm talking about average second basemen. They're everywhere. Maybe Bobby Grich was a little better, but nothing sets him apart from the plethora of guys like him. Decent stats, above average, but not the all time hitter Kent was.

Name another second basemen who could hit like Kent. You can't.

I just did. Bobby Grich was a better hitter than Jeff Kent.

He was also a better hitter than Ryne Sandberg and Roberto Alomar. And Frankie Frisch.

Tom C

Was surprised and kind of sad to see Jim Edmonds dropped off after one year...I think he got lost in the shuffle...one of the better outfielders in during his time....

Ricky Y

Grich
 

Tom there are none so blind as those who cannot see, eh?

That mustache alone is Hall Of Fame worthy.

Tom C

Hornsby, Lajoie, Collins, Morgan, Robinson, Alomar, Biggio, Gehringer, Carew, Grich, Sandberg, Utley, Frisch.

I would add Cano as well.

Tom C

Whitaker maybe as well.

I'm not going to quote JAWS but I don't remember any of them driving in 100 runs six years in a row. I'm also not going to compare people like Hornsby, Lajoie and Eddie Collins to Jeff Kent. Clearly we are talking about the modern era and the modern game.

Why not? They are second basemen. You said no second baseman ever hit like Jeff Kent. They are relevant.

As to driving in x amount of runs x years in a row...first off RBI is a stat that requires the performance of other players (to be on base). It is one of the most flawed measurable stats out there when used to compare one player from one team against another from another team in a different situation (let alone from different eras). Secondly, again, 100 RBI during Kent's playing career meant far less than it did at other times. Scoring was sky high league wide. 100 RBI in 2004 might have meant the same as 75 or 80 in 1975.

Tom C

So you think it's apt to compare say Cy Young to Pedro Martinez?

I was just saying that there was a very brief time when Lee Smith was considered the top closer in baseball.

Not that it should translate into the HOF.

And I will have to admit to loving Campy Campaneris. :)

Not in terms.of raw numbers as you are doing. But in terms of Youngs performance versus a league average pitcher of his time and Martinez performance versus a league average pitcher of his time, absolutely.

How much better than an average pitcher of his day was each one? That is quantifiable and thus each can be compared based on that.

Tom C

Whatever you say. I think players like Morgan and Carew were better pure hitters and for a longer amount of time, but they couldn't do what Kent did with the bat. Only Jeff Kent could and to an extent Sandberg. And with 3 decades between debuts, I think that says something about the special player Kent was considering there's no one on your list in between.

Well so far you, Darren, and one out of seven voters are the only ones buying. :D

There's never been a player unanimously elected, so how does that fit in with your narrative as you try to pivot to me being wrong because he only got 15% of the votes?? So in your world, all of the people who didn't vote for Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Hank Aaron, WIllie Mays, Roberto Clemente and others were correct, because in your mind the HOF voters are infallible? Isn't that your implication?? Let's imagine for a moment that those people were the only ones allowed to vote. Wouldn't The Hall of Fame be empty, devoid of ANY players?? And, of course, leave it to you to completely ignore the blatant fact that Kent had a horrible relationship with the press corps, so it's pretty damn obvious to anyone with a brain cell that many, many of them have a personal animus towards him and will never vote for him no matter what. So the 15% isn't what I would call a realistic number by anyone's measurement, wouldn't you agree, Peter?? I'm sure you can find some new sabermetric to back that up.

And as for your reliance on sabermetrics since, I guess, it's the only thing you base all of your never-ending opinions on, you realize WAR is theoretical, don't you?? Theoretical. I'm reminded of Kevin Costner in the movie JFK:
"Theoretical physics can also prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy! But use your eyes, your common sense."

Jeff Kent had 9 ridiculously great years in a row (with a few different teams) while the bookends of his career were still pretty darn good for run producing. This guy batted .290, is the all-time leader in HR's for a second baseman and #3 or 4 all time for the position in RBI's, yet in your THEORETICAL WAR-based world he was barely better than some bottom of the barrel schmuck they could've replaced him with??? Really? That's your common sense?? Sure, makes sense to me.

Offensively Kent was special. No question. If I try real hard I could make a case for him to be in the top ten second basemen in terms of just offense. And because I don't value defense as much as others might, Kent may be around #14 or 15 all time at the position. That's a HOFer in my book. Not a slam dunk, but deserving. Certainly way better than his voting percentages thus far.

Tom C

You make less than no sense to me. Somebody not being unanimous has nothing to do with somebody getting 15 percent of the vote. Total straw man argument. Or just a meaningless one. Oy vey. Is that seriously your argument, that HOF voting is meaningless because Willie Mays wasn't unanimous? Huh?? Here is a challenge for you, identify the best players ever who initially got 15 percent or less of the vote. Then we have something meaningful to discuss.

Yes, WAR and JAWS are theoretical. They are statistical efforts to compare players, and while you may not like them, many people find them informative.