Mlb hof tracker

[Topps206]

Also, put Jeff Kent in. He gets by. Other positions, no. Second base? Put him in.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Topps206

Also, put Jeff Kent in. He gets by. Other positions, no. Second base? Put him in.

Kent is a borderline guy who I think falls short.

18th all time in 2b fWAR

19th all time in 2b wRC+

out of the top 100 in 2b defense

75th all time in 2b OBP

the only places he is in the top 10 are slugging and homers, the rest of his game is pretty...mediocre

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Kent is a borderline guy who I think falls short.

18th all time in 2b fWAR

19th all time in 2b wRC+

out of the top 100 in 2b defense

75th all time in 2b OBP

the only places he is in the top 10 are slugging and homers, the rest of his game is pretty...mediocre

I think someone who puts up his numbers at his position warrants Hall inclusion more than someone like a first baseman would.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Topps206

I think someone who puts up his numbers at his position warrants Hall inclusion more than someone like a first baseman would.

I think when a player brings negative value at his position, that argument goes out the window. Kent could have easily played 1b or OF. When a player brings negative value to his team, what does it matter where he played?

In the case of IRod, he brought elite defense, which allowed the voters to put aside the PED suspicions, unlike Piazza or Bagwell. I personally wouldn't have voted for him either, because I think he doped.

I can only speculate on why he was elected. Certainly at majority of voters now have no standards and are voting for known cheaters. There are a few who aren't voting for anyone suspected. Then there are those who are taking it on a case by case basis. Enough of those didn't believe Canseco or maybe they saw Piazza get elected and put I Rod in the same group.

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by rats60

I think when a player brings negative value at his position, that argument goes out the window. Kent could have easily played 1b or OF. When a player brings negative value to his team, what does it matter where he played?

In the case of IRod, he brought elite defense, which allowed the voters to put aside the PED suspicions, unlike Piazza or Bagwell. I personally wouldn't have voted for him either, because I think he doped.

I can only speculate on why he was elected. Certainly at majority of voters now have no standards and are voting for known cheaters. There are a few who aren't voting for anyone suspected. Then there are those who are taking it on a case by case basis. Enough of those didn't believe Canseco or maybe they saw Piazza get elected and put I Rod in the same group.

Second base is a tougher position than first or outfield. I'm not sure how you measure valur.

Bagwell could play defense also. That includes a .993 fielding percentage.

I have no reason to doubt Canseco. He's been right time and time again.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Topps206

Second base is a tougher position than first or outfield. I'm not sure how you measure valur.

Bagwell could play defense also. That includes a .993 fielding percentage.

I have no reason to doubt Canseco. He's been right time and time again.

A- fielding % is a terrible way to judge defense as it tells us nothing about their range, number of plays made ,arm strength ...etc it just tells us a % of errors made, and errors don't tell us the complete story as more errors does not always mean worse defense as a player may create more outs on defense yet make more errors.

B- sure a player with good numbers at 2b has more value than a similar player at 1b, but Kent wasn't good enough at 2b to merit HOF inclusion. the only place he's a top player all time is in homers.

C- using hearsay to determine HOF voting is a pretty sketchy system

[Topps206]

Kent had good offensive numbers at second base.

People used gut instinct to exclude Bagwell. I'm less likely to think Bagwell used than Pudge.