Hall or Not?
Collapse
Recommended Videos
Collapse
X
-
Re: Hall or Not?
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.Last edited by Scottdau; 06-07-2007, 12:08 AM.Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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.Comment
-
Comment
-
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.Comment
-
-
Comment
-
Re: Hall or Not?
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.Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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.Comment
-
Re: Hall or Not?
Comment
-
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.Comment
-
Comment
-
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.Comment
Comment