I get what you’re saying. But the tale of the players debuting in the fifty years encompassed by 1970-2020 is nowhere near complete. It’s possible that Utley, Grich, Whitaker, Kent and Altuve will get in, and perhaps a player or two who began their careers so recently that we can’t even see them as HOFers yet. Three in fifty years becomes eight or ten, and that’s not unreasonable. I guess that I’m not on board with the notion that there should be X number of a specific position inducted or a wrong has been committed. I don’t think you’re actually saying that, but it’s kind of implied. I do believe that there are some second basemen who should get in, and will eventually. But none of them are slam-dunks who have been horribly wronged. I think the process is mostly working in a fair manner.
There are already too many players in the Hall. It's supposed to be for the cream of the cream of the crop. The last few years (and, honestly, quite a few from earlier years) are marginal HoF. They belong on their team's hall of fame but not in Cooperstown. A friend of mine will argue for ages that Edgar Martinez actually does belong in the Hall because he was such a popular player in Seattle and did so much for the team. But, I counter, that makes him a Mariner Hall of Famer, not a Baseball Hall of Famer. That's where Kent falls. (Not in Seattle, but in SF.)
Once the Hall of Fame started letting guys like Baines in (even it it was the veterans committee) it started a new rash of 'Whataboutism'.
Essentially the argument is 'Well Baines is in so what about so-and-so because they were as good as Baines'.
Kent to me is in the same class as Baines. A solid player for a long time but never one I thought was a Hall of Famer when I was watching him. Looking back I still don't think he's a Hall of Famer (nor is Baines). His entire claim seems to be based around hitting 377 home runs, most for a second baseman.
Hopefully before his case gets any real traction in the Vets committee someone can come along and hit 378 home runs so we can stop hearing about his home run total.
Typically awesome post, but one small quibble: goodness Joe, don’t be like every single person today that overuses the word “gaslighting”. Having a different opinion doesn’t necessarily mean someone is being gaslit.
For me the quibble is that he overuses "I mean," "Look," "But hey," etc. I dislike these pointless filler words even in everyday conversation (where they are ubiquitous); it's worse when it comes from a professional writer (and worse still when it's a professional writer of Joe's caliber.)
So the thing that most cracks me up is some of the same people that are saying Rolen falls short, often because of offense are some of the same people who claim Kent is this offensive powerhouse. They were about the same offensively.
Rolen was a better base runner, and he was a better fielder by light years. One of the best at his position, while the people making exaggerations about Kent's prowess call him average or almost average, which he was not, but even if he was it would be a huge difference.
This is a little bit like the NCAA Tournament, isn’t it? We’re discussing the fringe, a lot of passionate arguments that boil down to: “No, WE’RE #64!!! And it’s really a lot of fun. I enjoy the hell out of smart, opinionated people. It’s a great argument for a “tiered HOF”. We could have these types of discussions over Musial vs. Williams and F. Robby vs. Yaz instead of just Kent vs. Grich.
How can you put Barry Larkin in that second glance category but not Kent? Larking was a better fielder at his position but had just a bit over half the HRs Kent did, less hits, and only 1 more All star. And when I think of MVPs that shouldn't have been, Larkin (along with Pedroia) are on top of my list. Being ARGUABLY the best power hitting 2nd baseman, at least of his time, should put him easily in that second glance category.
He's a jerk, yes. However, anyone who says he doesn't belong in the HOF really knows nothing about baseball. This nonsense in this blog seems to be an excuse. Something needs to be done about the voting process. Anyone who didn't vote for Kent, McGriff, Mattingly, Morris or any of these obvious HOFers should not have a vote, period. They are an embarrassment.
With all due respect, anyone who thinks Kent, McGriff, Mattingly and Morris are slam-dunk HOFers and not borderline is an idiot. And I don’t mean that as an insult, merely pointing out an obviously low I.Q. With all due respect.
Thanks Joe--you captured my feelings on Kent much better than I ever could. My arguments against were two fold: 1) sure, he hit a lot of HRs, but everyone hit HRs during his era; and, 2) I, admittedly unfairly, felt he was a 3B mis-cast as a 2B due to better third-basemen on his teams (Bobby Bo, Edgar Alfonso, Bill Mueller, etc..). Had he stayed at 3B I'm not sure he'd have the same support. I also think team identification hurts...he played for six teams and it is difficult to generate sustained support from such a diverse fan base. Had he played for one or two I think the consolidated base would create the synergy of support required for election of a borderline candidate.
I am much more irritated that Rolen got in and a whole bunch of better players didn't. The fact that Kent didn't get in is waaaaaay down my list of irritating things.
Rolen may or may not belong, but there are some top tier guys who definitely belong, who aren't in. After those problems get solved, maybe I will have some time think about guys like Jeff Kent.
Yep. I wrote about this before: Jeff Kent is not in the top 3 of offensive second basemen. I combined 2nd & 3rd players and found Kent to be 21st among that subgroup:
Kent was a really good player. If he gets into the Hall: he would not be entirely out of place. But it is not embarrassing he isn't in; there are better second basemen outside the Hall (and probably 1-2 active ones).
I get what you’re saying. But the tale of the players debuting in the fifty years encompassed by 1970-2020 is nowhere near complete. It’s possible that Utley, Grich, Whitaker, Kent and Altuve will get in, and perhaps a player or two who began their careers so recently that we can’t even see them as HOFers yet. Three in fifty years becomes eight or ten, and that’s not unreasonable. I guess that I’m not on board with the notion that there should be X number of a specific position inducted or a wrong has been committed. I don’t think you’re actually saying that, but it’s kind of implied. I do believe that there are some second basemen who should get in, and will eventually. But none of them are slam-dunks who have been horribly wronged. I think the process is mostly working in a fair manner.
Joe seems giddy that Kent didn't make it. It's ridiculous! It's like Joe is celebrating because her sabermetric darling made it but Kent didn't!
"My guy walked a lot and deserves the HOF! Kent didn't walk, he just drove in runs but I told you he wasn't worthy!"
Are you actually using the feminine pronoun as a form of insult?
If so: grow up.
Purely a typo. I had to reread it to understand what you were talking about.
There are already too many players in the Hall. It's supposed to be for the cream of the cream of the crop. The last few years (and, honestly, quite a few from earlier years) are marginal HoF. They belong on their team's hall of fame but not in Cooperstown. A friend of mine will argue for ages that Edgar Martinez actually does belong in the Hall because he was such a popular player in Seattle and did so much for the team. But, I counter, that makes him a Mariner Hall of Famer, not a Baseball Hall of Famer. That's where Kent falls. (Not in Seattle, but in SF.)
Once the Hall of Fame started letting guys like Baines in (even it it was the veterans committee) it started a new rash of 'Whataboutism'.
Essentially the argument is 'Well Baines is in so what about so-and-so because they were as good as Baines'.
Kent to me is in the same class as Baines. A solid player for a long time but never one I thought was a Hall of Famer when I was watching him. Looking back I still don't think he's a Hall of Famer (nor is Baines). His entire claim seems to be based around hitting 377 home runs, most for a second baseman.
Hopefully before his case gets any real traction in the Vets committee someone can come along and hit 378 home runs so we can stop hearing about his home run total.
Typically awesome post, but one small quibble: goodness Joe, don’t be like every single person today that overuses the word “gaslighting”. Having a different opinion doesn’t necessarily mean someone is being gaslit.
For me the quibble is that he overuses "I mean," "Look," "But hey," etc. I dislike these pointless filler words even in everyday conversation (where they are ubiquitous); it's worse when it comes from a professional writer (and worse still when it's a professional writer of Joe's caliber.)
So the thing that most cracks me up is some of the same people that are saying Rolen falls short, often because of offense are some of the same people who claim Kent is this offensive powerhouse. They were about the same offensively.
Rolen was a better base runner, and he was a better fielder by light years. One of the best at his position, while the people making exaggerations about Kent's prowess call him average or almost average, which he was not, but even if he was it would be a huge difference.
This is a little bit like the NCAA Tournament, isn’t it? We’re discussing the fringe, a lot of passionate arguments that boil down to: “No, WE’RE #64!!! And it’s really a lot of fun. I enjoy the hell out of smart, opinionated people. It’s a great argument for a “tiered HOF”. We could have these types of discussions over Musial vs. Williams and F. Robby vs. Yaz instead of just Kent vs. Grich.
Google “most home runs by position” and you’ll find 8 HOFers (Ortiz at DH) and… Jeff Kent. Not saying he’s a slam dunk but the argument isn’t weak.
Google “most home runs by position” and you’ll find 8 HOFers (Ortiz at DH) and… Jeff Kent. Not saying he’s a slam dunk but the argument isn’t weak.
P.s. most HR by a pitcher… Gibbie with 24. pretty impressive considering the hitting environment of the day.
Wes ferrell had 37
Thank not sure how I missed him!
How can you put Barry Larkin in that second glance category but not Kent? Larking was a better fielder at his position but had just a bit over half the HRs Kent did, less hits, and only 1 more All star. And when I think of MVPs that shouldn't have been, Larkin (along with Pedroia) are on top of my list. Being ARGUABLY the best power hitting 2nd baseman, at least of his time, should put him easily in that second glance category.
And who's your MVP over Pedroia?
Larkin had 12 all-star games - more than double Kent's 5.
Who's your 1995 NL MVP?
Maddux, Biggio, or Piazza
Generally in agreement with all of Joe's points here, except that this -
"You’re saying that the voters, who with almost no exceptions are earnestly trying to put the best players in the Hall of Fame,..."
- is a real doozy. "...almost no exceptions..." is doing an awful lot of work in that sentence.
He's a jerk, yes. However, anyone who says he doesn't belong in the HOF really knows nothing about baseball. This nonsense in this blog seems to be an excuse. Something needs to be done about the voting process. Anyone who didn't vote for Kent, McGriff, Mattingly, Morris or any of these obvious HOFers should not have a vote, period. They are an embarrassment.
With all due respect, anyone who thinks Kent, McGriff, Mattingly and Morris are slam-dunk HOFers and not borderline is an idiot. And I don’t mean that as an insult, merely pointing out an obviously low I.Q. With all due respect.
Joe didn't vote for Kent. And so ... Joe "knows nothing about baseball" and is "an embarrassment." Ah. Yes. That tracks.
Why are you paying to read Joe's "nonsense"?
Joe didn't vote for Kent. And so ... Joe "knows nothing about baseball" and is "an embarrassment." Ah. Yes. That tracks.
Why are you paying to read Joe's "nonsense"?
Thanks Joe--you captured my feelings on Kent much better than I ever could. My arguments against were two fold: 1) sure, he hit a lot of HRs, but everyone hit HRs during his era; and, 2) I, admittedly unfairly, felt he was a 3B mis-cast as a 2B due to better third-basemen on his teams (Bobby Bo, Edgar Alfonso, Bill Mueller, etc..). Had he stayed at 3B I'm not sure he'd have the same support. I also think team identification hurts...he played for six teams and it is difficult to generate sustained support from such a diverse fan base. Had he played for one or two I think the consolidated base would create the synergy of support required for election of a borderline candidate.
Kent was a HOF jerk to my cameramen brethren. May he never get in.
I am much more irritated that Rolen got in and a whole bunch of better players didn't. The fact that Kent didn't get in is waaaaaay down my list of irritating things.
Rolen may or may not belong, but there are some top tier guys who definitely belong, who aren't in. After those problems get solved, maybe I will have some time think about guys like Jeff Kent.
Yep. I wrote about this before: Jeff Kent is not in the top 3 of offensive second basemen. I combined 2nd & 3rd players and found Kent to be 21st among that subgroup:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PckkhvEHz19N_pjr5ySOAswmPtf8uKNCSrqaCivmrU8/edit#gid=0
Kent was a really good player. If he gets into the Hall: he would not be entirely out of place. But it is not embarrassing he isn't in; there are better second basemen outside the Hall (and probably 1-2 active ones).