Best team with no HOFers or HOF caliber players?

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If you don't like Molina's chances the 2011 Cardinals maybe? Am I missing someone there, I don't think Wainwright makes it.

Pujols was on the 2011 Cardinals

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Pujols was on the 2011 Cardinals

Ah, I was off in my mind by a year on his departure.

[D. Bergin]

If Jeff Kent had put up the bulk of his traditional stats as a 2nd Baseman in almost any other period of baseball history other then the late 90's to mid 2000's (and playing in the shadow/infamy of Bonds), he likely would have sailed in to the Hall a long time ago.

A lot of the players around him dampened his analytical numbers (and let's be honest, that's what we go by nowadays), with all of the monster offensive seasons going on around the rest of the league during that time period, he was killed by the grading curve of the era.

If Kent put up the same stats as a 2nd baseman, that he put up in 1997 to 2007, from 1977 to 1987 instead, he'd probably have a career WAR number in the range of Joe Morgan.

Lastly, I don't recall Kent ever being implicated in PEDS, but I'm sure it's hard for a lot of voters to shake a couple thoughts:

#1. He was Bonds team-mate for so long (even if they hated each other), along with team-mates with lots of other suspected PEDs cheats on other teams...and

#2. All his best seasons were essentially post prime seasons for most other players in the league (age 30 to 39).

It might just be guilt by association, but it does create certain doubts.

[packs]

How did the players around him dampen his analytical numbers?

Kent has some surface level totals that might impress you if you only looked at his raw numbers for home runs but baseball Reference has him ranked as the 21st best second baseman, with Ian Kinsler ranked just above him.

All of his advanced stats are below the average 2B Hall of Famer.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by packs

How did the players around him dampen his analytical numbers?

Kent has some surface level totals that might impress you if you only looked at his raw numbers for home runs but baseball Reference has him ranked as the 21st best second baseman, with Ian Kinsler ranked just above him.

All of his advanced stats are below the average 2B Hall of Famer.

The more other players have monster seasons around you (whether they are on PEDS or not), the less valuable your semi-monster season is going to be, from a replacement value perspective.

Again, I'm not arguing for him to be in the HOF, but when you say "surface level"...do you mean HR's, RBI's, Runs, Extra Base Hits, OBP, etc., etc., etc....

Baseball Reference has him ranked based on WAR alone.

However, Jeff Kent ranks 43rd All-Time in extra base hits...(a pretty good catch-all for your quality of batted balls to me). The only regular 2nd basemen ahead of him are Rogers Hornsby and Craig Biggio.

He's 54th All-Time in RBI's. Hornsby and Lajoie are the only regular 2nd basemen ahead of him in this category.

His surface level lifetime BA, Slugging%, OBP, OPS, and even OPS+ are all pretty impressive for a 2nd baseman IMO.

He was a competent but not spectacular 2nd baseman defensively. This does not help his overall WAR. He was thought of highly enough for multiple teams to keep trotting him out there though. Even supplanting an aging Biggio in Houston near the end of his own career.

[packs]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

The more other players have monster seasons around you (whether they are on PEDS or not), the less valuable your semi-monster season is going to be, from a replacement value perspective.

Again, I'm not arguing for him to be in the HOF, but when you say "surface level"...do you mean HR's, RBI's, Runs, Extra Base Hits, OBP, etc., etc., etc....

Baseball Reference has him ranked based on WAR alone.

However, Jeff Kent ranks 43rd All-Time in extra base hits...(a pretty good catch-all for your quality of batted balls to me). The only regular 2nd basemen ahead of him are Rogers Hornsby and Craig Biggio.

He's 54th All-Time in RBI's. Hornsby and Lajoie are the only regular 2nd basemen ahead of him in this category.

His surface level lifetime BA, Slugging%, OBP, OPS, and even OPS+ are all pretty impressive for a 2nd baseman IMO.

He was a competent but not spectacular 2nd baseman defensively. This does not help his overall WAR. He was thought of highly enough for multiple teams to keep trotting him out there though. Even supplanting an aging Biggio in Houston near the end of his own career.

Isn't your WAR based on your performance alone? I'm not understanding how another player having a good year would negatively affect your own WAR.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

Isn't your WAR based on your performance alone? I'm not understanding how another player having a good year would negatively affect your own WAR.

Many of WAR’s components are contextual - it won’t value the same stat line the same way in 1927, 1967, and 2007. Because much of it is contextual to the league when you have lots of guys posting monster numbers you don’t necessarily get monster WAR. Hence why there aren’t 25 guys from c. 2000 with 100 WAR.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by packs

Isn't your WAR based on your performance alone? I'm not understanding how another player having a good year would negatively affect your own WAR.

It's not just "another" player. It's all the other players in that particular season. All your immediate contemporaries. It's basically being judged on a curve, according to everybody else's performance. Stats were generally inflated across much of the league during most of his best years, therefore his stats don't look quite as impressive in the context of his times, therefore he gets dinged on his overall WIN Shares by the algorithm.

If Jeff Kent puts up the same stat line as a 2nd baseman in 1978 as he did in 1998, I'd guess he'd have accumulated at least 3 more Win Shares that season.

I'm not saying he would have, I'm saying "if he did".

In the end, I guess it doesn't really mean anything. Just more chatter in the year 2023.

[Peter_Spaeth]

But isn't the point of the analytics that Kent likely would NOT have put up those same numbers in a different era?

[D. Bergin]

Maybe I'm not being clear enough. I'm not posing an argument for why Jeff Kent SHOULD be in the HOF, but rather, why he is not...regardless of my personal beliefs.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But isn't the point of the analytics that Kent likely would NOT have put up those same numbers in a different era?

I wasn't arguing otherwise. Just hypothesizing what his raw stats might have translated to in a slightly different era.