Remember me

Jeff Kent and the Hall of Fame

February 3, 2009

Bill James is apparently not too impressed by Jeff Kent. In the Postscript to the 2003 edition of the New Historical Baseball Abstract, written after the 2002 season, Bill said, “I looked carefully at the issue of whether Jeff Kent had a good argument to be considered one of the top 20 second basemen of all time, and concluded that he did not, and would not, even setting aside the argument that we should be careful in rating active players. If he has another MVP-candidate season, however, he will be near the top 20.”

A few days ago, on his website, somebody asked him whether he would vote for Kent as a Hall of Famer. Bill replied, “Probably not.   I haven’t studied it, but Kent seems schematically to score as a better player than he would seem to be intuitively.    I’ll study it before I take any firm stance, but. . . .I wouldn’t vote for him if he rattles the bar on the way over.”

Joe Posnanski was in a similar boat. He recently wrote on his blog, “I don’t know how it is for you, but for me, when someone says, ‘Jeff Kent,’ well, I don’t think ‘Hall of Famer.’” But after studying the numbers, Posnanski changed his tune. Actually, the title of his blog post was, “Why We Need Numbers.”

Rob Neyer didn’t have such a negative immediate reaction to Kent and the Hall, declaring that Kent had, for him, passed the “sniff test.”

Is Jeff Kent a Hall of Famer? Either way, where does he now rank among the greatest second basemen of all time? Having looked at the issue a few different ways, I’m pretty confident that 1) Kent is, in fact, a Hall of Fame-caliber player, and 2) Kent is probably the 13th greatest second baseman in baseball history.

There are 17 post-1900 Hall of Famers who can be classified as second basemen. Of those 17, four (in alphabetical order: Eddie Collins, Nap Lajoie, Joe Morgan, and Rogers Hornsby) are clearly in a class by themselves. After that quartet, five more players are a notch below, but are still obvious Hall of Famers (Rod Carew, Frankie Frisch, Charlie Gehringer, Jackie Robinson, and Ryne Sandberg). All of the top nine second basemen were elected by the BBWAA.

Another half-dozen players were very good, though their Hall of Fame cases are more questionable (Bobby Doerr, Johnny Evers, Nellie Fox, Joe Gordon, Billy Herman, and Tony Lazzeri). After that you have Red Schoendienst and Bill Mazeroski, both fine players, but both below-average Hall of Famers. Each one of these bottom-feeders was a Veterans Committee choice.

I decided to use Win Shares Above Bench (WSAB, from The Hardball Times) to look at the best second basemen in baseball history. I took Bill James’ top 25 second basemen in the New Historical Baseball Abstract, plus Schoendienst, Mazeroski, and Kent. For each, I looked at their total career WSAB, their top five WSAB seasons, and their next five best years. I put these together to come up with a very simple score:

Career WSAB +

(Top 5 WSAB * 2) +

Next 5 WSAB

 

Basically, this gives bonus points for prime seasons, and extra bonus points for peak years. Oh, and Lajoie gets shorted some points, since I’ve only got WSAB numbers from 1900 on, and he played a few years in the 19th century.

Here are the results, ranked 1 through 28:

Rank

Player

HOF?

WSAB

Top5

Next5

Score

1

Collins

Yes

357

143

112

755

2

Hornsby

Yes

331

148

117

744

3

Morgan

Yes

306

138

86

668

4

Lajoie

Yes

265

139

86

629

5

Biggio

No

206

102

68

478

6

Gehringer

Yes

204

100

69

473

7

Alomar

No

189

105

53

452

8

Sandberg

Yes

176

108

50

442

9

Carew

Yes

192

97

50

436

10

Frisch

Yes

185

91

52

419

11

Robinson

Yes

152

105

47

409

12

Grich

No

177

88

56

409

13

Kent

No

169

89

54

401

14

Doyle

No

153

84

50

371

15

Whitaker

No

169

71

53

364

16

Herman

Yes

144

81

44

350

17

Doerr

Yes

137

75

48

335

18

Gordon

Yes

124

77

46

324

19

Evers

Yes

133

77

34

321

20

Randolph

No

140

67

43

317

21

Fox

Yes

119

72

43

306

22

Lazzeri

Yes

122

74

35

305

23

Myer

No

114

65

32

276

24

Knoblauch

No

100

70

34

274

25

McAuliffe

No

108

64

35

271

26

Lopes

No

106

64

32

266

27

Schoendienst

Yes

97

59

29

244

28

Mazeroski

Yes

62

43

18

166

As you can see, there’s a gray area between the Billy Herman group and the Jackie Robinson group, a gray area that includes such sabermetric darlings as Bobby Grich and Lou Whitaker, and underappreciated Dead Ball Era star Larry Doyle. Willie Randolph also has basically the same credentials as all the second-class Hall of Fame second basemen.

300 points seems to be the dividing line: below that number, and you’ve got essentially  no chance of making the Hall. Kent, at 401, is well ahead of the marginal Hall of Fame group, but not quite as good as the shoo-ins.

Of course, you might reasonably quibble with the actual Hall of Fame list... What about the Hall of Merit? 

Rank

Player

HOM?

Score

1

Collins

Yes

755

2

Hornsby

Yes

744

3

Morgan

Yes

668

4

Lajoie

Yes

629

5

Biggio

No

478

6

Gehringer

Yes

473

7

Alomar

No

452

8

Sandberg

Yes

442

9

Carew

Yes

436

10

Frisch

Yes

419

11

Robinson

Yes

409

12

Grich

Yes

409

13

Kent

No

401

14

Doyle

No

371

15

Whitaker

Yes

364

16

Herman

Yes

350

17

Doerr

Yes

335

18

Gordon

Yes

324

19

Evers

No

321

20

Randolph

Yes

317

21

Fox

No

306

22

Lazzeri

No

305

23

Myer

No

276

24

Knoblauch

No

274

25

McAuliffe

No

271

26

Lopes

No

266

27

Schoendienst

No

244

28

Mazeroski

No

166

Actually, that’s not much different. The Hall of Merit voters traded Evers, Fox, Lazzeri, Schoendienst, and Mazeroski for Grich, Whitaker, and Randolph, but the end result is basically the same: Kent is clearly a middle-of-the-pack immortal. (And so, incidentally, is Larry Doyle.)

A few other notes before we move on: Kent isn’t just 13th on the above list. He ranks tied for 12th in total WSAB; 12th in his top five seasons; and 8th in his next five. Just looking at offense, he’s 13th in Offensive Winning Percentage and 7th in Batting Runs. Pick your measurement; Kent is safely in the top 20, and he’s pretty clearly one of the 15 or so best second basemen ever.

Whether that makes Kent a Hall of Famer is, I suppose, up to individual interpretation. I mean, if you’re a small-Hall kind of person, then you probably want to draw the line at Frisch, with a special pass for Jackie. But Kent has stronger credentials than loads of already-enshrined second basemen. If you buy the idea that the Hall is a self-defining institution, then I don’t see how you can avoid the conclusion that Jeff Kent – and Grich, and Doyle, and Whitaker – belong.

 
 

COMMENTS (21 Comments, most recent shown first)

kcale
I had him in the top 10 among second baseman (by a wins shares derivative method). There's only one little problem, he was a PED user. Look at his career progression.... an average player in his 20's and a really good player in his 30's (1997-2005, what a coincidence!). Hall of Fame? How about Hall of Shame.
4:02 PM Jun 5th
 
jollydodger
In HOF debates with me, if there's any doubt, don't let him in. With Kent, I have no doubt. I didn't like him at all, but he was a HOFer.
9:09 PM Mar 24th
 
cunegonde
As interesting as this analysis is, there's something about it that doesn't add up. Look at the 20 2Bs on the Hall of Fame list, the first one. Of those, 13 are in the Hall of Fame. Only one of the 13, Sandberg, was in the majors as recently as 1986. Of the 7 2Bs who aren't in the Hall, only one was NOT in the majors in 1986, that being Larry Doyle. Of course it's easier to be in the Hall if you were around longer ago, but not by that much. I mean, does anyone really think that Grich and Whitaker are ever going to be addressing admiring throngs in Cooperstown? The effect of this sort of analysis is to regard mostly modern players, those from the last 30 years or so, as "underappreciated." And this is the standard in sabermetrics. Don't get me wrong: I love sabermetrics. But it seems there's got to be a modern bias in there somewhere.
8:47 PM Feb 15th
 
ventboys
Kent's career OPS+ is 123, which would be good or a 2ndbaseman if he was a strong defensive player. Kent wasn't regarded as a good one, though, and his numbers reflect that. His double play data is pretty bad for a long career, and his range was league average.

Elsewhere on the site there is some really good date on era effects, dealing with the huge offensive numbers of what we call the steroid era. Kent played right in the middle of that, and his numbers increased substantially in 1998 (at 30 years old he increased his OBA 43 points and his slugging 83 points, setting new career highs by a large margin), and stayed up there until he was 40 years old.

His hook is that he holds the record for homers by a second baseman. If, as has been suggested, that homeruns increased by some 30% in the mid 1990's, how legit is that record? No judgements here, just addressing a question or 2...
7:37 PM Feb 14th
 
mskarpelos
I respectfully disagree with you on this one, Matt. Since there are no explicit statistical standards for a "binary system" to which you allude, selection for the Hall of Fame is necessarily self-defining--that is, we have to ask ourselves the question, "Is this person the best player at his position who is not already in the Hall of Fame?". We could, I admit, ask the less restrictive question, "Is this player better than anyone at his position already in the Hall of Fame?" I opt for the former, because if we go with the latter, every poor choice for the HOF becomes the new standard, and the level of qualification will spiral ever downward.

A third, more subjective, question that Bill proposed in his book _The Politics of Glory_ is, "Was the guy actually famous?" (The example Bill used was Don Drysdale vs. Milt Pappas. Both had similar career stats, but Drysdale went into the HOF while Pappas got no love outside of his immediate family. According to Bill, Drysdale probably didn't belong in the HOF either, but at least he was genuinely famous.)

So looking at Jeff Kent we have to say that although he has better credentials than the worst second basemen already in the HOF (Shoendienst and Mazeroski), he doesn't have better stats than the best second baseman not in the HOF (Grich). That would still be true if Biggio and Alomar go into the HOF.

As to whether Kent is famous enough to qualify subjectively on that basis, I don't think he does. Mazeroski, because of his World Series heroics and his superlative ability on the pivot, was probably more famous in his day than Kent ever was in his, although I still don't think Mazeroski belongs in the HOF either.

When/if Grich goes in then Kent becomes the best player at his position not in the HOF and so becomes a legitimate candidate. Until then, he doesn't meet the necessary standard of excellence (or at least my preferred standard of excellence). You may consider this unfair, but life is unfair, and there are worse tragedies than being denied a spot in the Baseball Hall of Fame.
1:42 PM Feb 12th
 
enamee
Two things:

1) Biggio secured his place in the Hall of Fame when he got to 3000 hits. That number is still automatic, unless and until some mediocrity like Johnny Damon or Edgar Renteria reaches it and makes the voters think twice.

2) I don't buy the idea that somehow Kent should have to "wait" until Biggio, Alomar, and Grich go into the Hall. It's not a hierarchy; it's a binary system: either you're in, or you're out. Now, I would agree that if Biggio, Alomar, and Kent were all on the same ballot, a writer would be crazy to vote for Kent but not the other two. But the notion that Kent has to wait his turn is silly. If he's a Hall of Famer, he should go into the Hall of Fame.

Anyway, Grich isn't on the BBWAA ballot. Kent shouldn't suffer because the writers were fools when it came to Grich.
4:33 PM Feb 9th
 
mskarpelos
I agree with the relative rankings: Biggio, Alomar, Grich and Kent should all go into the HOF in that order. I'm fairly sure that Alomar will go in as soon as he's eligible unless a lot of the writers hold the ump spitting incident against him. I'm less sure that the writers will recognize Biggio as belonging in the HOF, although he clearly does. I'm convinced, however, that Grich will not go into the HOF because only the sabermetric community loves him, and they don't have enough clout in such matters. Thus, out of fairness to Grich and possibly Biggio and Alomar, I would keep Kent out of the HOF, but if they go in, Kent should follow soon thereafter.
4:01 PM Feb 9th
 
enamee
Well, the standard I use when judging a player's relative greatness is, "How much did he contribute to winning?" Arky Vaughan was underappreciated in his own time, but his contributions to winning were real and measurable. It's not his fault that many people at the time didn't quite realize how much he contributed. And it's not my job to penalize him for the blind spots of others. Same thing for Grich, Whitaker, and every other underappreciated great player.

And if you want to penalize Kent for playing in an era with 30 teams, you'll have to penalize everybody who played prior to integration, prior to the major league takover of the minor leagues (which increased the quality of play in the majors), prior to the influx of Latin Americans and Asians... The point is, the only way to determine how great a player was in a way which has any concrete meaning is to determine how much he contributed to winning. That's it.

(That doesn't mean things like character and leadership and so for don't matter. They do impact wins; I recognize that. The problem with those things is that we have no idea how to actually measure them, so we are inevitably operating at a disadvantage when we consider them.)

Anyway, bottom line, Jeff Kent contributed a great deal to winning. And you can use whatever numbers you like; it's not just a Win Shares thing. Kent compares favorably to the second basemen already in the Hall of Fame and/or the Hall of Merit. Given that the statistics indicate this, I would argue that the burden is on Kent's detractors to explain why the statistics are wrong.
4:38 PM Feb 8th
 
Richie
Players don't stay in the majors twice as long as they used to, or accrue twice the amount of stats that they used to.

If twice the amount of teams is offset by twice the amount of competing players (blacks, south americans, japanese), then we're back to even.

The only significant mathematical difference is going from 154 to 162 games. Which itself is smaller than that, as more games mean more wear and tear, ergo a greater need for a day off here and there.
10:47 AM Feb 8th
 
PeteDecour
I don't think you can use the win shares that way quite that straightforwardly. kent played in an era where there were 30 employers who gave you Win shares stats. for most of baseball there was less than that. That affects your list in two ways: 1) there were more crappy 2bs for Kent to be compared to, and 2) there were more jobs and chances to accrue win shares.
Those are two factors I think that are contributing to why some people look at Kent and say he is more stats than Hall of Famer.
Not sure where I am or how you factor in the fact that twice as many jobs are available, and guys can now stay in the majors twice as long and accrue twice the stats they used to get the chance to: because nobody wants to play kevin frandsen so jeff kent and jamie moyer and randy johnson and their generation get to accrue stats far longer than the guys did prior to about 1970.
I think you make a great argument for Laughing Larry Doyle, not sure how to apply it to Kent
12:49 AM Feb 8th
 
evanecurb
I have seen many articles and lists over the years in which either Rogers Hornsby or Joe Morgan was listed as the greatest second baseman of all time. The only occasion I recall seeing Eddie Collins listed as the greatest was in Ty Cobb's autobiography, which came out before Morgan started playing and was more a testament to Cobb's dislike of Hornsby than a true tribute to Collins. I think Collins, along with Speaker, Grove, Foxx, Mathews, and Musial, is one of the most underappreciated of the historic all time greats.
4:59 PM Feb 7th
 
ventboys
This a really good stuff, great research and spot on analysis.

I have this thought in my head, that I can't seem to word properly. I'll take a shot.

Is being "qualified" for the Hall of Fame the sole requirement for election? I would say that Kent is in the gray area, simply because it takes this much research to define him as qualified. While the numbers are always important to Hall voters, it seems to me that they are only a part of the gestalt. There are other factors, ones that are probably better left to a qualified historian. The Hall of Fame is a museum, not a graded list, which we sometimes forget when we are crunching numbers.


We have Kent, Grich, Randolph and Whitaker on the left side, and lets say Robbie Alomar and Ryne Sandberg on the right. On the left are the guys who were underrated in their time for various reasons, who look very good when their numbers are broken down with sophisticated tools. On the other side are the guys that were the clearly established stars, who made the covers of the magazines, won the awards, started the allstar games and were rated as the top players in their prime, yet can be argued as inferior statistically to the players listed on the left side.

You can put them all in, leave them all out, or pick and choose. To rate them as best to worst (or, to be fair, least best; these guys were all terrific players) is one thing to do. You can rate them by historical magnitude as well, and the list won't be the same in most cases. I'm hip to the mathematical ratings. I am very glad that there are qualified people to do this work, and I consider myself fortunate to be allowed to read their research. I do believe that the historical importance factor has to be acknowledged as well. I've looked at Kent, and I concur that he is a Hall of Famer. I don't know that he'll be a first ballot, though.




12:02 AM Feb 7th
 
Richie
Thanks for the additional research, Evan. :-)
9:47 PM Feb 4th
 
evanecurb
Matthew: re: my list of other guys.

Understood that you don't have them handy. No problem. I don't know where you get the win shares data so I looked them up on baseball reference.com. Here's what I found:

Julian Javier: Stunk out loud. OWP of .422, OBP .296. 'nuff said
Frank White: See Javier. He had 2,000 hits but that's about it.
Lazzeri: number 22 on your list - must have overlooked him somehow. Gets extra credit for 60 bombs + 222 RBI in one PCL season.
Stanky: .410 OBP, but not much else. 109 OPS+, .554 OWP probably doesn't belong in the top 25. subject of famous Durocher quote "can't run, can't hit, can't throw, but the little SOB sure can beat you." Also known for jumping up and down behind the pitcher as a hitter distraction and managed the overachieving '67 ChiSox and the underachieving '68 ChiSox.

8:32 PM Feb 4th
 
enamee
Just a follow-up comment: I was thinking to myself, why do people have the initial reaction to Jeff Kent that Bill and Posnanski did? Why don't people think of him as a great player? I can think of several reasons:

1) He's regarded as a malcontent.
2) He spent the first half of his career as a thoroughly mediocre player.
3) He was an exact contemporary of two all-time great 2Bs, Alomar and Biggio.
4) When he finally did emerge as a star, he was in the shadow of his teammate Bonds. He's never clearly been the best player on his own team.
5) He wasn't a very good defensive player, and it's not clear to what extent he should be penalized for that.

For all those reasons, I think smart people are underrating Kent.
5:53 PM Feb 4th
 
enamee
Evan, I don't have full-blown rankings offhand. I just looked at the top 25 second basemen from the New Historical Abstract, plus the 20th century Hall of Fame 2Bs who didn't make it into the top 25, plus Kent.
5:49 PM Feb 4th
 
evanecurb
What a relief! For a minute I thought you had ranked Denny Doyle as the 14th best second baseman of all time. I have him 1,232nd, which is ahead of Rodney Scott but behind Jerry Adair. (showing my age again I'm afraid.)

On a more serious note, where do these guys rank?
Julian Javier
Frank White
Eddie Stanky
Tony Lazzeri

Just wondering


3:25 PM Feb 4th
 
enamee
Yes, that's Laughing Larry Doyle. And yes, he should definitely be in the Hall of Fame.

Funny thing: A lot of the worst players in the Hall played with Frankie Frisch, who of course basically ran the Veterans Committee in the 1970s. Doyle also played with Frisch, in 1919 and 1920 (Doyle's last two years and Frisch's first two years). But this probably hurt him more than it helped. Think about it: Doyle was a second baseman, and a damned good one. Even in his last season, he was an above-average hitter. But Frisch was also a second baseman, a 20-21 year old kid trying to get established. I don't know if this is the case, but I'm guessing if Frisch even thought of Doyle in the 1970s, it was as the old veteran he was trying to replace. Why would he want to put that guy in the Hall of Fame?

A less-sinister perspective would be that Doyle played in the Deadball Era and was then replaced by a Hall of Famer, making him doubly easy to overlook.
2:22 PM Feb 4th
 
Richie
Great. Now we're all showing our age. Welcome to 'Oldaramaville'. Thanks Matt! :-(((

;-)
10:54 PM Feb 3rd
 
evanecurb
Matthew:

Very good analysis. I don't care one way or the other about Jeff Kent, but I am always glad to see Dick "Mugsy" McAuliffe mentioned. One of my all time favorites: the open stance, the bushy eyebrows, the gray on gray Detroit road uniforms....


7:47 PM Feb 3rd
 
Richie
Thanks for the work, Matt.

Wasn't Larry nicknamed 'Laughing Larry Doyle'? Or am I channeling an old "McHale's Navy" episode? If that was his nickname, nobody gets added in before him, I say!
5:46 PM Feb 3rd
 
 
©2024 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Powered by Sports Info Solutions|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy