"For his career, Kent compiled a .290/.353/.500 batting line with 1,320
runs scored, 560 doubles, 377 homeruns, and 1,518 RBI in 8,498 at bats. Those
are tremendous statistics for a second baseman. But, that’s the problem. His
statistics are elite for a second baseman, but merely good when taking his
defensive position out of the equation [...]
his Hall of Fame candidacy should not be decided by evaluating his
statistics by comparing them to other second basemen. This is especially true
given that Kent was not an above average fielder. The idea that each position
has a different set of offensive standards is ludicrous and out-dated [...]
The idea that middle infielders are expected to put up less offensive statistics than say a first baseman or an outfielder is something that was lost in the 1980’s. With the likes of Ryne Sandberg, Craig Biggio, Roberto Alomar, and presently Chase Utley at second base, and with shortstops like Cal Ripken, Alex Rodriguez, and presently Hanley Ramirez, the notion of the proverbial no-hit, all field middle infielder is dead and buried. That Kent or any other middle infielder gets bonus points for not being an outfielder or corner infielder is unfair."
To give the writer credit, he concludes with comparing Kents stats to other 2b, and comes to the same conclusion that most people will have, he's a hall of famer. He however states that "His remarkably consistent excellence is his best argument for admittance to the Hall of Fame, not the fact that he played second base."
I simply wholeheartedly disagree. When Evaluating the Hall of Fame context is everything. The league that you play in, the era that you play in, and let's not forget the position that you play. Some positions are more demanding than others. You can't play 2b if you are 6'7' 250 pounds, you just can't. So the fact that Kent put up numbers that are great regardless of position, just further illustrateshow great of a player he was when you consider he played 2b.
Much has been said around the net about Fangraphs Value wins, and you know what they use in getting those values? Positional adjustments. That's to say that players that play tougher positions are worth more to their team. Even if the "pro-verbial no-hit all field middle infielder" is dead does not mean you shouldn't get bonus for your position. There is a reason David Ortiz didn't win an MVP, he didn't field and therefore didn't bring as much to the table that Arod did. That's no different than comparing a catcher to a corner outfielder, all else being equal (and it definitely doesn't have to be but just saying for now) the catcher brings more to the table than the outfielder. 1b is an easy position to replace, most people can play it and there are plenty of capable ones available. Middle infield is not.
"That Kent or any other middle infielder gets bonus points for not being an outfielder or corner infielder is unfair."
It's not that Kent gets bonus points for not being an outfielder, it's that he gets bonus points for being a 2b. There is a reason he played 2b in his 40s (wouldn't that prove that he was a fine defender?). You can't just assume players can be equally productive at all positions. Just because the game has evolved to where a few great athletes can hit and play demanding positions (Arod, Ripken, Sandberg, etc...) does not mean we should now consider every position equal. Hanley's offensive production at SS makes him one of the most valuable commodities in the entire game, it doesn't place the short stop position on the same line as an outfielder.
There is not much more I can say on this topic. Jeff Kent was a great hitter, and he did it at 2b and that's why he's a Hall of Famer. There are an infinite amount of hitters who if they played catcher would be first ballot Hall of Famers, but there is a reason that they didn't, they simply can't. So to not give Kent or anyone that plays a more demanding position his due credit is simply wrong, plain and simple.
No comments:
Post a Comment