Jeff Kent HOF

[Goldfan]

Somehow they need to fix the HOF. Have one wing for the very good players and another one for the greatest players of all time. Kent can be in the same wing as Mazeroski. Used to be 3,000 hits to get in and 400 homers with a .300 or more lifetime BA. Pitchers had to have 300 wins. At least they only let one in this year.

The hitters just can’t put up the numbers any longer because those pitchers are sooooo good…..BUT the Pitchers can’t put up those numbers either
You explain that riddle to me……..
As good as they say all these pitchers are and it takes an act of God for a batter to hit .250…..it would seem to reason that SP could easily throw 5 and win 20-25 a year
Mystery of the universe

Its no mystery at all if you understand baseball. Pitchers throw much harder with more spin but they get injured a lot and analytics tell teams to not let pitchers face the same hitters multiple times in a game. So more pitchers mean less innings and less wins for starting pitchers. Look at the number of pitches thrown over 96 miles per hour now with high spin rates and compare it to 20 years ago. Pitching specialization has made individual pitching statistics like wins irrelevant and hitting very difficult.

Great SP who are the type we’re talking about……… should be able to shutout these K kings with bats in their hands…..pitch 6-7 innings…hand over to flame throwers in BP for a couple innings and record the W…..at LEAST 20 a season. The qualifier hasn’t changed for a SP>>>>5innings.

So when "Should" doesn't happen or is extremely rare,
Should we question the hypothesis?

Went back to ‘99, the top 10 in MLB were at 18 or above. This Last year it was down to 13. The ERA’s were a little higher and WHIP was slightly higher through the top 10 in ‘99. The league had HOFers and I’ll argue much better overall talent back then. Johnson, Pedro, Maddux, K. Brown, Schilling
If a Sonny Gray type can actually be successful in today’s game can you imagine what a Maddux and Pedro could do. They didn’t throw hard but know how to pitch. Most give this era of pitchers WAY too much credit for throwing heat and completely miss the point that most batters today don’t know how to hit. This just isn’t my opinion…..Will Clark, Chipper and other great hitters are posted all over X trashing today’s hitting approach. The GAME has lost it’s intelligence and its a bunch of Robots in uniforms

[Quincy Varnish]

I'm old school and I think he was a very good player but the hof should be for the elite. I really don't care what the metrics say in my opinion, and its just that, he just doesn't pass the eye test for the hof. I agree with those that say that the bar has been lowered.

He has the most hr all time as a 2b. That’s not metric-y insider baseball.

377 home runs is pretty impressive for a position that is not a power position. His other numbers are good but I will stand by my OPINION that while he was a very good player that doesn't necessarily make him a Hall of famer. I can see how some people see him as a hof player.

Kent played 17 years. He had 560 doubles, 377 HRs and nearly 2500 hits.

If Kent were a lifetime Cardinal player, he would be celebrated as one of the greatest Cardinals ever, and many would be saying he should be in the HOF.

No, he would be regarded as a player whose numbers were inflated by his use of PED's, just like McGwire.

Um, no. McGwire and others were actually known to use steroids. I do not recall any rumors of Kent using steroids until the Bonds controversy blew up - and even then, it was presumed guilt by association.

The “proof” provided of his supposed steroid use is only his elevated SLG in his 30s. If there is anything else of substance, please provide it.

I’m not claiming Kent was innocent, but it seems to me you’re claiming he was guilty based on numbers alone. It would have no more merit to claim Brock must have used steroids when he broke the single season SB record at age 35.

[12xu]

I'm old school and I think he was a very good player but the hof should be for the elite. I really don't care what the metrics say in my opinion, and its just that, he just doesn't pass the eye test for the hof. I agree with those that say that the bar has been lowered.

He has the most hr all time as a 2b. That’s not metric-y insider baseball.

377 home runs is pretty impressive for a position that is not a power position. His other numbers are good but I will stand by my OPINION that while he was a very good player that doesn't necessarily make him a Hall of famer. I can see how some people see him as a hof player.

Kent played 17 years. He had 560 doubles, 377 HRs and nearly 2500 hits.

If Kent were a lifetime Cardinal player, he would be celebrated as one of the greatest Cardinals ever, and many would be saying he should be in the HOF.

No, he would be regarded as a player whose numbers were inflated by his use of PED's, just like McGwire.

Um, no. McGwire and others were actually known to use steroids. I do not recall any rumors of Kent using steroids until the Bonds controversy blew up - and even then, it was presumed guilt by association.

The “proof” provided of his supposed steroid use is only his elevated SLG in his 30s. If there is anything else of substance, please provide it.

I’m not claiming Kent was innocent, but it seems to me you’re claiming he was guilty based on numbers alone. It would have no more merit to claim Brock must have used steroids when he broke the single season SB record at age 35.

X 1000

[renostl]

Somehow they need to fix the HOF. Have one wing for the very good players and another one for the greatest players of all time. Kent can be in the same wing as Mazeroski. Used to be 3,000 hits to get in and 400 homers with a .300 or more lifetime BA. Pitchers had to have 300 wins. At least they only let one in this year.

The hitters just can’t put up the numbers any longer because those pitchers are sooooo good…..BUT the Pitchers can’t put up those numbers either
You explain that riddle to me……..
As good as they say all these pitchers are and it takes an act of God for a batter to hit .250…..it would seem to reason that SP could easily throw 5 and win 20-25 a year
Mystery of the universe

Its no mystery at all if you understand baseball. Pitchers throw much harder with more spin but they get injured a lot and analytics tell teams to not let pitchers face the same hitters multiple times in a game. So more pitchers mean less innings and less wins for starting pitchers. Look at the number of pitches thrown over 96 miles per hour now with high spin rates and compare it to 20 years ago. Pitching specialization has made individual pitching statistics like wins irrelevant and hitting very difficult.

Great SP who are the type we’re talking about……… should be able to shutout these K kings with bats in their hands…..pitch 6-7 innings…hand over to flame throwers in BP for a couple innings and record the W…..at LEAST 20 a season. The qualifier hasn’t changed for a SP>>>>5innings.

So when "Should" doesn't happen or is extremely rare,
Should we question the hypothesis?

Went back to ‘99, the top 10 in MLB were at 18 or above. This Last year it was down to 13. The ERA’s were a little higher and WHIP was slightly higher through the top 10 in ‘99. The league had HOFers and I’ll argue much better overall talent back then. Johnson, Pedro, Maddux, K. Brown, Schilling
If a Sonny Gray type can actually be successful in today’s game can you imagine what a Maddux and Pedro could do. They didn’t throw hard but know how to pitch. Most give this era of pitchers WAY too much credit for throwing heat and completely miss the point that most batters today don’t know how to hit. This just isn’t my opinion…..Will Clark, Chipper and other great hitters are posted all over X trashing today’s hitting approach. The GAME has lost it’s intelligence and its a bunch of Robots in uniforms

A fair amount of data gathering. The game has definitely changed which wasn't the point that I remember.
I also believe successful players would be successful in not only their time but in todays game too, across
most sports. Again not what I thought was the statement.

My assumption was where are the great pitchers and where did the wins go. My answer would be do those pitchers
get the wins today inside of this current method of use. Randy is a good one to wonder on. He is a true HOF talent
though so above a Gray. He typically had very high pitch counts. He'd be a different product in todays
game. Today he'd think it "normal" to be pulled near 100 PC. In 1999 he won 17 games. 16 games exceeding 120 pitches. 9 times over 130. exceeding 140. Those, regardless of right or wrong would not happen if he's in todays game. His win total drops from that 17 if pulled in the 6th which is long in todays game, as does his 350 SO. Would he be less great? Maybe because we embrace his greatness with those great numbers of 303 W's, 4000+ IP's, 4800 SO's.

I don't think todays game necessarily helps Sonny either. Max effort high spin on a 5'-10" 180 lb guy.
debatable at least.

Thank you. Johnson was an excellent mention not sure his approach would change. His use would IMO.

[Red Bird Classic]

I'm old school and I think he was a very good player but the hof should be for the elite. I really don't care what the metrics say in my opinion, and its just that, he just doesn't pass the eye test for the hof. I agree with those that say that the bar has been lowered.

He has the most hr all time as a 2b. That’s not metric-y insider baseball.

377 home runs is pretty impressive for a position that is not a power position. His other numbers are good but I will stand by my OPINION that while he was a very good player that doesn't necessarily make him a Hall of famer. I can see how some people see him as a hof player.

Kent played 17 years. He had 560 doubles, 377 HRs and nearly 2500 hits.

If Kent were a lifetime Cardinal player, he would be celebrated as one of the greatest Cardinals ever, and many would be saying he should be in the HOF.

No, he would be regarded as a player whose numbers were inflated by his use of PED's, just like McGwire.

Um, no. McGwire and others were actually known to use steroids. I do not recall any rumors of Kent using steroids until the Bonds controversy blew up - and even then, it was presumed guilt by association.

The “proof” provided of his supposed steroid use is only his elevated SLG in his 30s. If there is anything else of substance, please provide it.

I’m not claiming Kent was innocent, but it seems to me you’re claiming he was guilty based on numbers alone. It would have no more merit to claim Brock must have used steroids when he broke the single season SB record at age 35.

Kent's statistical profile strongly suggests that he was a PED user.

*41 of his 55.4 brWAR came after age 30.

*His 3-year peak came between age 32-34! That's an age when the vast majority of players are declining. The exceptions are almost all known or likely PED users.

*It's not just SLG: Kent's OPS was 802 up to age 30, and .888 from age 31-40.

It's just not normal for a players OPS to increase by almost 100 points from age 31-40, and I could make similar points about other stats (Kent's performance rose pretty much across the board from age 31-40 compared to his numbers up to 30.)

*Kent's performance boost came in 2000 which exactly coincides with the wave of PED use that followed McGwire and Sosa.

Baring some other factor that's not obvious in the numbers, the evidence strongly suggest that we're talking about a PED user.

And I don't have a bone to pick with Jeff Kent. I'd say the same for any player with these numbers.

[Jeff Goldblum]

I'm old school and I think he was a very good player but the hof should be for the elite. I really don't care what the metrics say in my opinion, and its just that, he just doesn't pass the eye test for the hof. I agree with those that say that the bar has been lowered.

He has the most hr all time as a 2b. That’s not metric-y insider baseball.

377 home runs is pretty impressive for a position that is not a power position. His other numbers are good but I will stand by my OPINION that while he was a very good player that doesn't necessarily make him a Hall of famer. I can see how some people see him as a hof player.

Kent played 17 years. He had 560 doubles, 377 HRs and nearly 2500 hits.

If Kent were a lifetime Cardinal player, he would be celebrated as one of the greatest Cardinals ever, and many would be saying he should be in the HOF.

No, he would be regarded as a player whose numbers were inflated by his use of PED's, just like McGwire.

Um, no. McGwire and others were actually known to use steroids. I do not recall any rumors of Kent using steroids until the Bonds controversy blew up - and even then, it was presumed guilt by association.

The “proof” provided of his supposed steroid use is only his elevated SLG in his 30s. If there is anything else of substance, please provide it.

I’m not claiming Kent was innocent, but it seems to me you’re claiming he was guilty based on numbers alone. It would have no more merit to claim Brock must have used steroids when he broke the single season SB record at age 35.

Kent's statistical profile strongly suggests that he was a PED user.

*41 of his 55.4 brWAR came after age 30.

*His 3-year peak came between age 32-34! That's an age when the vast majority of players are declining. The exceptions are almost all known or likely PED users.

*It's not just SLG: Kent's OPS was 802 up to age 30, and .888 from age 31-40.

It's just not normal for a players OPS to increase by almost 100 points from age 31-40, and I could make similar points about other stats (Kent's performance rose pretty much across the board from age 31-40 compared to his numbers up to 30.)

*Kent's performance boost came in 2000 which exactly coincides with the wave of PED use that followed McGwire and Sosa.

Baring some other factor that's not obvious in the numbers, the evidence strongly suggest that we're talking about a PED user.

And I don't have a bone to pick with Jeff Kent. I'd say the same for any player with these numbers.

His peak also coincides with hitting before/after Barry Bonds.

[Red Bird Classic]

I'm old school and I think he was a very good player but the hof should be for the elite. I really don't care what the metrics say in my opinion, and its just that, he just doesn't pass the eye test for the hof. I agree with those that say that the bar has been lowered.

He has the most hr all time as a 2b. That’s not metric-y insider baseball.

377 home runs is pretty impressive for a position that is not a power position. His other numbers are good but I will stand by my OPINION that while he was a very good player that doesn't necessarily make him a Hall of famer. I can see how some people see him as a hof player.

Kent played 17 years. He had 560 doubles, 377 HRs and nearly 2500 hits.

If Kent were a lifetime Cardinal player, he would be celebrated as one of the greatest Cardinals ever, and many would be saying he should be in the HOF.

No, he would be regarded as a player whose numbers were inflated by his use of PED's, just like McGwire.

Um, no. McGwire and others were actually known to use steroids. I do not recall any rumors of Kent using steroids until the Bonds controversy blew up - and even then, it was presumed guilt by association.

The “proof” provided of his supposed steroid use is only his elevated SLG in his 30s. If there is anything else of substance, please provide it.

I’m not claiming Kent was innocent, but it seems to me you’re claiming he was guilty based on numbers alone. It would have no more merit to claim Brock must have used steroids when he broke the single season SB record at age 35.

Kent's statistical profile strongly suggests that he was a PED user.

*41 of his 55.4 brWAR came after age 30.

*His 3-year peak came between age 32-34! That's an age when the vast majority of players are declining. The exceptions are almost all known or likely PED users.

*It's not just SLG: Kent's OPS was 802 up to age 30, and .888 from age 31-40.

It's just not normal for a players OPS to increase by almost 100 points from age 31-40, and I could make similar points about other stats (Kent's performance rose pretty much across the board from age 31-40 compared to his numbers up to 30.)

*Kent's performance boost came in 2000 which exactly coincides with the wave of PED use that followed McGwire and Sosa.

Baring some other factor that's not obvious in the numbers, the evidence strongly suggest that we're talking about a PED user.

And I don't have a bone to pick with Jeff Kent. I'd say the same for any player with these numbers.

His peak also coincides with hitting before/after Barry Bonds.

A cursory look at the records shows that Kent's peak does coincide with Bond's explosion in the early 2000s,

Kent's OPS by age:
24-31: .812
31-34: .943 (with Bonds peaking)
35-40: .855 (After going to Houston)

Batting directly after (and later sometimes before) a roids raging Bonds may explain much of Kent's extordianry middle-age performance.

However, after Kent went to Houston, where he didn't have Bonds next to him in the line up, his performance at the plate remained well above what he'd done prior to age 31. That in and of itself makes Kent an statistical outlier, unless you include him with the group of probable PED users.

[Jeff Goldblum]

I'm old school and I think he was a very good player but the hof should be for the elite. I really don't care what the metrics say in my opinion, and its just that, he just doesn't pass the eye test for the hof. I agree with those that say that the bar has been lowered.

He has the most hr all time as a 2b. That’s not metric-y insider baseball.

377 home runs is pretty impressive for a position that is not a power position. His other numbers are good but I will stand by my OPINION that while he was a very good player that doesn't necessarily make him a Hall of famer. I can see how some people see him as a hof player.

Kent played 17 years. He had 560 doubles, 377 HRs and nearly 2500 hits.

If Kent were a lifetime Cardinal player, he would be celebrated as one of the greatest Cardinals ever, and many would be saying he should be in the HOF.

No, he would be regarded as a player whose numbers were inflated by his use of PED's, just like McGwire.

Um, no. McGwire and others were actually known to use steroids. I do not recall any rumors of Kent using steroids until the Bonds controversy blew up - and even then, it was presumed guilt by association.

The “proof” provided of his supposed steroid use is only his elevated SLG in his 30s. If there is anything else of substance, please provide it.

I’m not claiming Kent was innocent, but it seems to me you’re claiming he was guilty based on numbers alone. It would have no more merit to claim Brock must have used steroids when he broke the single season SB record at age 35.

Kent's statistical profile strongly suggests that he was a PED user.

*41 of his 55.4 brWAR came after age 30.

*His 3-year peak came between age 32-34! That's an age when the vast majority of players are declining. The exceptions are almost all known or likely PED users.

*It's not just SLG: Kent's OPS was 802 up to age 30, and .888 from age 31-40.

It's just not normal for a players OPS to increase by almost 100 points from age 31-40, and I could make similar points about other stats (Kent's performance rose pretty much across the board from age 31-40 compared to his numbers up to 30.)

*Kent's performance boost came in 2000 which exactly coincides with the wave of PED use that followed McGwire and Sosa.

Baring some other factor that's not obvious in the numbers, the evidence strongly suggest that we're talking about a PED user.

And I don't have a bone to pick with Jeff Kent. I'd say the same for any player with these numbers.

His peak also coincides with hitting before/after Barry Bonds.

A cursory look at the records shows that Kent's peak does coincide with Bond's explosion in the early 2000s,

Kent's OPS by age:
24-31: .812
31-34: .943 (with Bonds peaking)
35-40: .855 (After going to Houston)

Batting directly after (and later sometimes before) a roids raging Bonds may explain much of Kent's extordianry middle-age performance.

However, after Kent went to Houston, where he didn't have Bonds next to him in the line up, his performance at the plate remained well above what he'd done prior to age 31. That in and of itself makes Kent an statistical outlier, unless you include him with the group of probable PED users.

He also had the Crawford boxes and Biggio and Bagwell hitting around him. And Alou, Bell, etc.

[Quincy Varnish]

His peak also coincides with hitting before/after Barry Bonds.

A cursory look at the records shows that Kent's peak does coincide with Bond's explosion in the early 2000s,

Kent's OPS by age:
24-31: .812
31-34: .943 (with Bonds peaking)
35-40: .855 (After going to Houston)

Batting directly after (and later sometimes before) a roids raging Bonds may explain much of Kent's extordianry middle-age performance.

However, after Kent went to Houston, where he didn't have Bonds next to him in the line up, his performance at the plate remained well above what he'd done prior to age 31. That in and of itself makes Kent an statistical outlier, unless you include him with the group of probable PED users.

He also had the Crawford boxes and Biggio and Bagwell hitting around him. And Alou, Bell, etc.

Yup, and after becoming a Giant he made adjustments to his swing. He started going opposite field, taking advantage of spacious Pac Bell. Note that a good portion of his boost in SLG can be attributed to his increase in doubles, perhaps more so than HR.

[1_12_1968]

He's got some very good numbers as a second baseman, I'm good with this selection.

What say you?

Yes he should probably be in. He’s one of the best hitting second baseman of all time and it’s also hilarious that he got in and that probably makes bonds who he had a feud with and got left out of the hall of fame even angrier

Super happy he is in and Bonds is still a loser.

[Bushiro]

Not saying Edmonds is a hof ...but considering he played in the steroid era...if he was clean and I believe he was...those are some great numbers...not to mention the defense...how many cf are ahead of him all time?...

[Adam2]

Im fine with it. Im also fine with any other player associated with steroids that has the proper numbers to be in

Its a product of the era, as with any era. Pitchers of that generation juiced, hitters of that generation juiced.

[Ozziesfan41]

Im fine with it. Im also fine with any other player associated with steroids that has the proper numbers to be in

Its a product of the era, as with any era. Pitchers of that generation juiced, hitters of that generation juiced.

I’m against it I like what Holliday said about it he said the juicers took awards away from non juicers who couldn’t hope to compete with those kinds of numbers took money away from them. Although he and Lynn said there should be a steroid wing in the hall of fame that recognizes them and Lynn said they could put a giant syringe over the doorway

[Bubble4427]

If Dale Murphy can’t get in the HOF…..there is no way in the world Jeff Kent belongs in.
Dale Murphy dominated the sports for a 5 years stretch……finishing in the top 10 of almost everything.

Jeff Kent was barely in the top 20. Juice or no juice.

[Ozziesfan41]

If Dale Murphy can’t get in the HOF…..there is no way in the world Jeff Kent belongs in.
Dale Murphy dominated the sports for a 5 years stretch……finishing in the top 10 of almost everything.

Jeff Kent was barely in the top 20. Juice or no juice.

dale murphy was an outfielder Jeff Kent was has the most home runs ever by a second baseman and 3rd in rbi it’s beyond insane to compare one of the best offensive second baseman in baseball history to an outfielder or first baseman. Murphy should be in but it would be beyond dumb to keep Kent out when he has some of the best offensive numbers ever by a second baseman. If Murphy was a second baseman 100% he would be in already

[Red Bird Classic]

I'm old school and I think he was a very good player but the hof should be for the elite. I really don't care what the metrics say in my opinion, and its just that, he just doesn't pass the eye test for the hof. I agree with those that say that the bar has been lowered.

He has the most hr all time as a 2b. That’s not metric-y insider baseball.

377 home runs is pretty impressive for a position that is not a power position. His other numbers are good but I will stand by my OPINION that while he was a very good player that doesn't necessarily make him a Hall of famer. I can see how some people see him as a hof player.

Kent played 17 years. He had 560 doubles, 377 HRs and nearly 2500 hits.

If Kent were a lifetime Cardinal player, he would be celebrated as one of the greatest Cardinals ever, and many would be saying he should be in the HOF.

No, he would be regarded as a player whose numbers were inflated by his use of PED's, just like McGwire.

Um, no. McGwire and others were actually known to use steroids. I do not recall any rumors of Kent using steroids until the Bonds controversy blew up - and even then, it was presumed guilt by association.

The “proof” provided of his supposed steroid use is only his elevated SLG in his 30s. If there is anything else of substance, please provide it.

I’m not claiming Kent was innocent, but it seems to me you’re claiming he was guilty based on numbers alone. It would have no more merit to claim Brock must have used steroids when he broke the single season SB record at age 35.

Kent's statistical profile strongly suggests that he was a PED user.

*41 of his 55.4 brWAR came after age 30.

*His 3-year peak came between age 32-34! That's an age when the vast majority of players are declining. The exceptions are almost all known or likely PED users.

*It's not just SLG: Kent's OPS was 802 up to age 30, and .888 from age 31-40.

It's just not normal for a players OPS to increase by almost 100 points from age 31-40, and I could make similar points about other stats (Kent's performance rose pretty much across the board from age 31-40 compared to his numbers up to 30.)

*Kent's performance boost came in 2000 which exactly coincides with the wave of PED use that followed McGwire and Sosa.

Baring some other factor that's not obvious in the numbers, the evidence strongly suggest that we're talking about a PED user.

And I don't have a bone to pick with Jeff Kent. I'd say the same for any player with these numbers.

His peak also coincides with hitting before/after Barry Bonds.

A cursory look at the records shows that Kent's peak does coincide with Bond's explosion in the early 2000s,

Kent's OPS by age:
24-31: .812
31-34: .943 (with Bonds peaking)
35-40: .855 (After going to Houston)

Batting directly after (and later sometimes before) a roids raging Bonds may explain much of Kent's extordianry middle-age performance.

However, after Kent went to Houston, where he didn't have Bonds next to him in the line up, his performance at the plate remained well above what he'd done prior to age 31. That in and of itself makes Kent an statistical outlier, unless you include him with the group of probable PED users.

He also had the Crawford boxes and Biggio and Bagwell hitting around him. And Alou, Bell, etc.

You'd make a good defense lawyer.

It's possible, perhaps even likely, that Kent used steroids, but you've created at least a shadow of doubt about it.

So with the PED issue set aside, is Kent a HOF caliber player?

56 WAR makes him a borderline candidate IMO. If I were a voter, he probably wouldn't get my vote, but I'm a small hall guy and we've a large HOF already. In other words: Jeff won't be close to the worst player in the HOF.

Cheers