A Stat That May Or May Not Exist To Judge Jeff Kent, Among Others
As I’ve stated numerous times, I’m no stat geek, but the talk about Jeff Kent’s numbers
being such that he should be a no doubt Hall of Famer have got me to wondering if some enterprising nerd could come up with a way to determine whether Barry Bonds’s presence as a lineup bodyguard for Kent gave him such an advantage that there would be a reason to question his qualifications had he not had Bonds in the same lineup for six seasons.
The recent vitriol launched at Jim Rice and Andre Dawson and the prevailing feeling among stat guys who insist that neither player belongs in the Hall of Fame makes me wonder what would happen if things were turned the opposite way with a player that they support like Kent. If Rice’s home/road splits and the number of outs he made are enough of a reason to keep him out; and if Dawson’s .323 career on base percentage is the yoke around his 
neck, then what happens if a number is formulated to judge Kent during the Giants years without Bonds and it’s determined that he no longer cuts it?
What if those numbers are adjusted and they wind up closer to Lou Whitaker instead of Ryne Sandberg? Would Kent then be a “no doubt” Hall of Famer? Whitaker has legitimate HOF credentials, but was absurdly only on the ballot for one year in which he received less than 3% of the vote and was eliminated from subsequent ballots. What would’ve happened with Whitaker’s numbers had he been in a lineup with Barry Bonds for six years of his career? There may already be a stat to account for this, but if there
is, no one seems to be using it to support Kent’s candidacy.
The stat could be called something like Numbers In A Lineup Containing A Lesser Player, or NIAL-CALP. (That’s pretty clunky, but you get the idea.) Digging up statistics and formulating algorithms isn’t my bag, but if anyone’s looking for a true way to judge Jeff Kent’s career and put the argument to rest one way or the other, then that’s the way to do it, because to me, if there wasn’t a Barry Bonds next to Kent in the lineup, Kent might’ve wound up in Hall of Fame limbo with Whitaker, or worse.
princeofny
I don’t believe Kent is a “no doubt” Hall of Famer. But Kent batted behind Bonds, not in front of him. Isn’t the theory of protection supposed to be more helpful to the hitter in front? I mean players play with other great players. And Kent continued to hit after he left San Fran too. I don’t know why Whitaker didn’t get much support, he should of at least stuck around on the ballot a little longer. But I think that a player in a great lineup, Jeter for example, probably has more of a chance of the lineup impacting his production positively, then say, only having two great hitters in a lineup, like Bonds and Kent.
http://statisticianmagician.mlblogs.com/
Neyer and Gammons both have him as an obvious Hall of Famer.
I didn’t use the word “protected”, but the word applicable to Kent/Bonds might be “assisted”. In the years Kent and Bonds played together, Bonds’s OBP was: .446; .438; .389; .440; .515; and .582. I can’t imagine that no one’s checked into this, but how many times did Kent drive Bonds out of how many opportunities? You know that an RBI total is increased by the number of guys on base, but how many more chances did Kent have than say Vladimir Guerrero during Kent’s MVP year? Guerrero drove in two fewer runs, but what if Kent had (let’s pull an even number out of the air) 100 guys on base in front of him and drove in 45; but Guerrero had 75 guys and drove in 35; who had the better year? Who had more opportunities to put up gaudy numbers? Kent’s big years all had a big bat assisting him; in SF it was Bonds; in Houston it was Lance Berkman, Jeff Bagwell and Craig Biggio. I’m not saying Kent doesn’t deserve the recognition, but it needs to be put into a better context and a similar scrutiny that Rice/Dawson receive is a good place to start.
Kent hit behind Bonds almost all the time from 1998-2001; in 1997 and 2002, they alternated between 3rd and 4th, I’d guess depending on whether a righty or lefty was pitching.
Well, that is why I avoid RBI’s. They show something somewhat meaningful, and guys who continually put up large RBI totals are probably pretty good. But if I am looking at players that are similiar in skill, I want to look at something that is as independent of one’s team as can possibly be. But yes, I agree that Jeff Kent probably had more chances to drive in runs than that of Vlad Guerrero. And it’s funny that you mention them two, because they had the exact same OPS+ of 162 that year. But of course the 2B probably deserves the nod if the offensive output is about the same. But one could argue that maybe Barry could have won that award in 2000 anyway, which would have given him eight total. But again, Kent being a second baseman, and Bonds at that point being a poor corner outfielder. But still, Bonds is and was BONDS.
http://statisticianmagician.mlblogs.com/
This position crap is really starting to get on my nerves; if he was a catcher, then it’s important, but he was a barely average fielding second baseman; if he fielded like Bill Mazeroski or Roberto Alomar then his position has some relevance because his glove was an asset, but who cares what his position was if he wasn’t really very good at playing it? I don’t look at what position a guy plays to determine his hitting value, I mean, what’s the difference if the third baseman hits .360 like Wade Boggs or hits 50 homers like ARod? Would David Ortiz get more support if he stood in right field like a statue and put up the same offensive numbers? Would Edgar Martinez get more support if he was a stone gloved first baseman or an immobile third baseman? It’s meaningless. These guys are HOFers because of their bats. Lou Whitaker won three Gold Gloves, but no one seemed to care about that when they ignored him as the time to vote for him came and went.
But do you actually think the positions don’t matter? Or do you believe that the voters don’t think that they matter? Kent could field his position, and I don’t believe he was putrid at it. Alomar has an even better case, in my opinion, than Kent, because he was such a great 2B, one of the greatest defenders ever at the position. Even though Kent’s bat was a little better, Alomar was way, way better with the glove. I have no idea how Whitaker was perceived by the writers of his day, but it seems his defense was ignored almost entirely.
http://statisticianmagician.mlblogs.com/