Is Jeff Kent a Hall of Famer?

Also, just because Hall of Fame voters made mistakes in the past doesn't mean they have to be repeated.

 

If you're talking about Mazeroski, I definitely agree. Granted, the regular voters didn't vote him in.

 

but the thing is that when a guy is in he is in. some may call it a mistake but he is in. it's not like you can correct a past wrong by taking a guy out. as long as someone like mazeroski is in, it makes sense that people will compare guys to him. unless they say to get someone in you have to take someone out people will always use guys that are already there as a comparison for guys who are up for election.

 

Good point.

 

MLB, for all intents and purposes, runs it.

Look at the names on the board of directors and tell me how it's at all possible that the HOF is an independent operation. Bud Selig and Bob DuPuy, the two top guys in MLB, are directors. So are, among others, Jays CEO Paul Beeston, Cardinals owner Bill DeWitt, Royals owner David Glass, White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf, Yankees chairman Harvey Schiller and former AL president/Yankees GM/Orioles GM Lee MacPhail, who's also the father of the current president of the Orioles.

That's eight of the HOF's 17 directors, so, assuming they would all vote together as a bloc on certain issues - and why wouldn't they? - they would only have to sway one of the other nine in order to control votes on any given issue. And, since many of those other nine are still connected to baseball in some way - Frank Robinson, for example, is a "special assistant" to Bud Selig - it wouldn't take much for the establishment to maintain its control.

 

I know he did. It's just that he doesn't seem to fit in with the other guys who cracked that plateau. Especially when you consider some of the greats who didn't get there.

Hypothetical question - if he retired with 2960 hits, do you still guarantee he's in on the first ballot?

 

that's a tough one. he was very well liked, considered a good teammate and the Astros were fairly successful through much of his (and Bagwell's) career. he also caught and played outfield and was solid, although his arm was average at best.

 

As much as I like Biggio I don't immediately think Hall of Famer. Although you can't argue with 3,000 hits and that seems to be the benchmark.

I would consider Kent better than Biggio, FWIW, which ain't much.

 

Kent to me is first-ballot. Biggio, I like less, but taking a second look at his numbers, other than his very last season, he was still a valuable player (26 and 21 homers in his third- and second-to-last seasons). He wasn't a great average hitter but he did just about everything else.

He's one of those guys who was never, ever one of the "very best" but was "very good" for 20 years, and therefore should probably make it. But to me, Kent was better.

 

Mazeroski's selection has been widely criticized as a mistake, so no, I don't think his presence there should be used as a benchmark.

 

They also played very different roles. Kent was a middle-of-the-order hitter while Biggio was a leadoff guy. Biggio scored over 110 runs six time and stole 414 bases. He was also a much better fielder than Kent. I don't think they are really that far apart.

 

Jeff Kent also played almost his entire career during an unprecedented offensive era, and his defense could at best be characterized as average.

He's a Hall of Famer, possibly even first-ballot, but it's not the slam dunk some of you are claiming.