More on Kent and the Hall of Fame

by Dusty Writes

December 2025

***

The recent Hall of Fame( HOF)  elections have sparked debates. Many fans disagree with how the recent voting went, while many fans agreed with the voting. Some fans disagree with Jeff Kent being voted into the HOF. The point of this article is not to convince anyone that Kent is a HOF. I am presenting another side of the coin, which is much more favorable to Kent's career, than what has been presented by those who don't believe Kent is a HOF.

A big criticism of Kent is that he was a poor defensive player. How do we know he was as poor a defensive player as many fans believe? What stat are fans using to come to the conclusion Kent was a terrible defensive player? Some stats, articles and comments by the media suggest Kent was nowhere as poor a defensive player as many believe. For example, Chris Russo and Tim Kurkjian, both have said that Kent was much better defensively than given credit for. 

Some fans say Kent was an average fielder, some say slightly below average, some say he was o.k. defensively, while others say he was significantly below average.

How do people come up with so many different conclusions about Kent's defensive abilities? According to Baseball Reference, Kent's career Defensive WAR is - 0.1, which seems to be almost average. If this stat is reliable, then Kent's defensive liabilities are exaggerated. How reliable is this stat?  

Baseball Reference lists Kent's career WAR among second basemen as 55.4 (19th best). He has a higher WAR than many HOF, including Bobby Doerr, Nellie Fox, Tony Lazzeri, Red Schoendienst, Bill Mazeroski and some other HOF players.

Lou Whitaker, Bobby Grich, Robinson Cano, Willie Randolph and Chase Utley all second basemen have higher WAR, but are not in the HOF. But that is for another debate. 

In WAR/7, Kent ranks 28th ahead of many HOF. In Wins Above Average, Kent ranks 21st, ahead of many HOF. Jaws lists Kent as 22nd best, once again, better than many HOF.

As far as WAR/162 Kent ranks 61st, better than many HOF. Offensive WAR ranks Kent as 14th best all time, much better than most HOF second basemen.

Kent has the most homeruns by a second basemen in history. According to StatMuse, Kent has second most rbis in history by a second baseman, and the most since the 1930s. He is in the top 5 in doubles at his position, and his OPS+ is top 15 among players with a minimum required amount of games played.

Baseball Almanac lists Kent as having the second- best slugging percentage of any second basemen in history. The Baseball Scholar.com lists Kent as the 19th best second baseman in history. The Baseball Egg ranks Kent as the 21st best third baseman of all time. Ballpark Savvy lists Kent as the 11th best second baseman in history. Just Baseball, by Daniel Curran said Kent is 1 of 41 players to have a slugging percentage of .500 with at least 9,000 Plate Appearances. Another article said Kent is the only second baseman to have 8 seasons with 100 or more rbis.

Grant Brisbee, of the Athletic said he believed Kent was a HOF "since the day he retired. It was a slam dunk for me." Brisbee also said that defensively, Kent was fairly good going to his left, but was weaker going up the middle. He said Kent was reliable as the pivot man on double plays.

There is a great article written by Chris Bodig which includes incredible statistical charts showing how dominant Kent was at his position for a decade or more. The chart also shows that Kent was a very clutch hitter. One of the criticisms of WAR by many people, is that it doesn't include clutch hits. 

The other thing about Kent's career is that he has never been linked to steroids, as far as I know. Maybe he has, but I am not aware of that. Shouldn't Kent be given more credit for putting up excellent career offensive numbers while he batted against many pitchers who were probably using PED? That makes his offensive stats even more impressive. Plus, his stats are compared to many players that used PED. In comparison to players using PED, Kent's stats would appear to be less impressive than what they would be if those players were not using PED.

What is interesting about HOF debates is that fans use the stats they want to use to support their agenda, whether it is promote a player for the HOF or to not have a player elected to the HOF. There are many stats to go by. Which stats are misleading, and which stats should fans use to get the best and accurate picture of a player's career?

Should all stats be used, or should some stats be discarded when evaluating a player's career? I believe comments by a player's teammates, coaches, his opponents the media that cover a player on an everyday basis, etc. can provide a much better overall picture, combined with stats, than just using stats alone to evaluate a player's career.

The more "modern day" stats are very confusing. How reliable are they? For example, Bill James, considered the "Father" of modern- day stats has criticized the stat WAR. Isn't he the person who was the pioneer of these newer stats? And he criticizes it? In 2017 Jose Altuve won the MVP and Judge came in second place. Their WAR stats were very close. Baseball Reference has Altuve with a 8.3 WAR and Judge with 8.1. But Bill James' comments seem to contradict the WAR stat in this particular instance. James said, " Aaron Judge was nowhere close as valuable as Jose Altuve." James said, " The belief that it is close is fueled by bad statistical analysis." He said the belief this MVP race was close was based on a flawed analysis." It is based essentially on a misleading statistic, which is WAR."

James also said or wrote, that he had a main objection to WAR. " It is that math should never be used as a substitute for thought. Many, many people use WAR to call an end to what would otherwise be interesting discussions. It's annoying."

Many articles have criticized the WAR stat. The Belly Up Sports Staff had a headline on Aug,6, 2018 that read: WAR- Why it's a Dumb Stat

Some fans commented that " WAR is the most overrated stat in all of baseball and the average person who uses it as an argument has no idea how it's calculated."

Brian Kenny, of MLB Now, is a big pro-WAR stat person. He has been criticized by people who believe in the more traditional stats, in his support of WAR. Kenny believed Don Mattingly should have been elected into the HOF. He mentioned that some stat, was it WAR?, said Mattingly had a negative defensive rating. How can Mattingly have a negative defensive rating? Mattingly was widely considered one of the greatest defensive first basemen in history. Kenny said he doesn't believe in these ridiculous stats that said Mattingly was a negative defensive player. This is very confusing. So now Kenny and James sometimes believe the WAR stat is very flawed, but other times they use it as a main tool to evaluate a player's career? I believe it was Jon Heyman who also believes in WAR, mentioned a WAR stat that said Andruw Jones was basically a 50 percent better defensive player in his career than Willie Mays. He said any stat that says Jones is 50 percent better than Mays is a ridiculous stat.

There have been articles written by very influential media people, some who may have been or still are HOF voters, who said Jones after his first 5 or 6 year was a terrible defensive outfielder, yet most people that are on tv or who write articles suggest Jones may be the best defensive centerfielder in history.

Obviously, fans are coming to completely different conclusions because they are using completely different stats, or interpreting stats completely different. It seems to me that fans, for the most part, believe their opinion is the correct opinion, and whoever disagrees with their opinion is ill-informed, or not using the " correct stats". But which stats are the correct stats? 

WAR has been described as an estimate and not an exact stat. How can an estimate be a stat? Isn't a stat supposed to be a fact? Also, how does Baseball Reference, Fangraphs, and Baseball Prospectus all have different formulas and all 3 come up with different WAR stats for players?  3 different stats for the same player? How reliable are these WAR stats? 

Many fans have commented that WAR is not the end-all and be-all. 

The different defensive stats have completely different evaluations for the same player?  A fan using one set of stats can come up with a completely different evaluation of a player's career than a fan using different stats?  It seems like fans and media are not on the same page when it comes to using stats. Each fan believes the other fan's opinion is not legitimate.

Every fan's criteria is different for the Hall of Fame. Some fans want a bigger HOF with many players elected to Cooperstown. Others want a smaller HOF with only the all-time greats. Either opinion is legitimate because fans have different criteria for HOF membership.

For example, Brian Kenny and many others believe if a player is the best player or one of the best in MLB for a period of 4 years or more, that should be enough to elect him to the HOF. Therefore, Kenny was a big supporter for Mattingly in the HOF. Kenny, a big supporter of the WAR stat, doesn't believe Mattingly's career WAR should prevent him from being voted into the HOF. He believes a Players 4-6 year peak outweighs career stats. You may completely disagree with Kenny, but you can't say his opinion is wrong. That is his criteria or standard. How can you criticize his opinion or standard? You can disagree with his criteria or standards, but his opinion is legitimate.