Hall or Not?

[Alliball]

Re: Hall or Not?

What ever we just disagree. I think the hall should be base on the things I say and you think they should be base on your things, those numbers you showed aren't that great, so if anybody has those kind of numbers they should be in, it will become like the football hall. lol


I will say one thing you can be nicer about things, instead of always putting me down for my opinion, but it is all cool. You have done this to me for a couple of other things. So OK we have different opinion that is life, but why attack. If I ever have attacked you before I am sorry.

So you don't think Johnny Bench is qualified to be in the Hall of Fame?

[Scottdau]

Re: Hall or Not?

So you don't think Johnny Bench is qualified to be in the Hall of Fame?

I am not saying that, but I still think this numbers base of their position is not a good way, but I do understand why they do it. I just don't agree with it.

I will say onething about Bench he was a great catcher too, that does have some merit. If you pick a guy that is all around great player, then I can see why he is in. But if another player has those same numbers and don't get in that is not fair, at least to me. All becasue he played the out field. I don't know maybe I am off and you guys are right.

[SportsTop]

Re: Hall or Not?

Kent is a pretty interesting candidate. He's going to be one of the first "steroid era" players to become eligible who's career benefitted from playing with one of the poster children for steroid use......Barry Bonds.

Just how much did Kent benefit from hitting in front of or behind Bonds and how much did he benefit from Bonds' steroid use? It's a tough nut to crack because Kent's prime playing years (ages 29-34) just happened to be in S.F.

Kent's average year not in S.F. (minus his rookie season):

Avg: .287
R: 72
RBI: 80
HR: 20

Kent's average year in S.F.:

Avg: .297
R: 95
RBI: 115
HR: 29

Again, it's hard to put these numbers into context considering his age and the teams he played on but there was an undeniable advantage in batting in front of or behind Bonds during his total domination of the league.

I think Kent is borderline. He was never very flashy and he doesn't seem to have that special something most Hall of Famers possess. The voters tend to remember things like that. He'll likely get in but it won't be on the first ballot.

[Scottdau]

Re: Hall or Not?

Kent is a pretty interesting candidate. He's going to be one of the first "steroid era" players to become eligible who's career benefitted from playing with one of the poster children for steroid use......Barry Bonds.

Just how much did Kent benefit from hitting in front of or behind Bonds and how much did he benefit from Bonds' steroid use? It's a tough nut to crack because Kent's prime playing years (ages 29-34) just happened to be in S.F.

Kent's average year not in S.F. (minus his rookie season):

Avg: .287
R: 72
RBI: 80
HR: 20

Kent's average year in S.F.:

Avg: .297
R: 95
RBI: 115
HR: 29

Again, it's hard to put these numbers into context considering his age and the teams he played on but there was an undeniable advantage in batting in front of or behind Bonds during his total domination of the league.

I think Kent is borderline. He was never very flashy and he doesn't seem to have that special something most Hall of Famers possess. The voters tend to remember things like that. He'll likely get in but it won't be on the first ballot.

Yeah, but he did bat after Bonds, the bottom line is Kent is a damn good hitter, regardless of Bonds, yes it helped, don't get wrong, but he can stick that ball. He was a beast for us. Also, he play 2nd base becasue we had Snow, they wanted to move him to 1st, but becasue of Snow they couldn't. If he was moved to first instead would we be having this debate?

[SportsTop]

Re: Hall or Not?

Yeah, but he did bat after Bonds.....

I'm missing your point. Bonds was on base over 50% of the time during that stretch. The gave Kent extra RBI opportunities and better pitches to hit.

[Scottdau]

Re: Hall or Not?

I'm missing your point. Bonds was on base over 50% of the time during that stretch. The gave Kent extra RBI opportunities and better pitches to hit.

Yeah that true, but this getting better pitches I don't agree with that. If he was hitting infront of Bonds than yes, just ask Rich A.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: Hall or Not?

Let's just discount everybody.

[Alliball]

Re: Hall or Not?

Yeah that true, but this getting better pitches I don't agree with that. If he was hitting infront of Bonds than yes, just ask Rich A.

Having Bonds on base forced teams to pitch to Kent rather than around him which would put Bonds in scoring position.

[roadman]

Re: Hall or Not?

Yeah, but if you hit 3000 hits you should be in. Even if it is only because you played 30 years. lol That guy should be given some props to be able to play that long while other weren't or couldn't.

So, the baseball writers should recognize longevity vs consistency? What about Kirby Puckett? He had a shortened career because he couldn't continue and he was voted in.

To answer if the debate would continue if Kent was a 1B, yes, it would continue further. Kent is a middle infielder who has put up solid and consistent power numbers. The corner IF positions and corner OF positions are normally your power source positions.

[Scottdau]

Re: Hall or Not?

So, the baseball writers should recognize longevity vs consistency? What about Kirby Puckett? He had a shortened career because he couldn't continue and he was voted in.

To answer if the debate would continue if Kent was a 1B, yes, it would continue further. Kent is a middle infielder who has put up solid and consistent power numbers. The corner IF positions and corner OF positions are normally your power source positions.

Sure, but then I go back to my other point, Kent is no small guy and most small guys played second base. But what ever. I just find the position thing to be off. 2nd used to be the smallest guy on the field in the past it is changing now, but I wouldn't be shocked if Kent was the biggest 2nd basemen in the history of the game. Size does matter here. If he was putting up this kinds of numbers and he was a little guy then I would say yes he should be in, but you are rewarding Kent for a playing a base that he really isn't that great at and should be a first baseman. It is all good if he make it I will be happy, I like Kent even though he is a an ***, he his one hell of a hitter.

[Scottdau]

Re: Hall or Not?

So, the baseball writers should recognize longevity vs consistency? What about Kirby Puckett? He had a shortened career because he couldn't continue and he was voted in.

To answer if the debate would continue if Kent was a 1B, yes, it would continue further. Kent is a middle infielder who has put up solid and consistent power numbers. The corner IF positions and corner OF positions are normally your power source positions.

I don't know about longevity, but I do believe if a guy has great numbers only because he played a long time he should make it. The Kirby thing is tougher to me, if you go by guys that got injured and had to get out to soon, then you would have a lot of guys in that category. Don't get me Kirby was great, but so were some others that fell short to injuries. The thing is injuries are a part of the game. They have cute a lot of great players careers short. My whole thing is Kent is a power hitter no matter what postion he plays, but becasue he plays 2nd that get him in, I just don't get, but oh well.

[Scottdau]

Re: Hall or Not?

Having Bonds on base forced teams to pitch to Kent rather than around him which would put Bonds in scoring position.

Yeah you might be right, it would be better batting before Bonds. The thing is Kent is a good hitter no matter where he batted for the Giants, when he had a slump one year they batted him before Bonds and he got real hot and they moved him back to after Bonds, so maybe you are right about seeing better pitches. Who knows.

[dmoney24]

Re: Hall or Not?

I'm curious what everyone's opinion of Mike Piazza in the HOF. I'd like to see that discussion. He is one of the better hitters in a hitter's era. He is one of the worst catchers in the history of the game. I'm curious to how that will balance out when he becomes Hall of Fame eligible.

[Kelverin]

Re: Hall or Not?

I'd like to see that discussion.

I wouldn't, it would be boring. First ballot, no question.

[Scottdau]

Re: Hall or Not?

Yeah Mike is a damn good hitter, but sucks at catching, so who knows. Maybe there is something to this position thing. I just don't see how it is fair to an outfielder that has the same kind of numbers. I guess you have to start somewhere and I guess the position is the place to start, but I do think this will be a bigger problem down the road. Now a days you see big guys playing little guys positions. So maybe it will change again.