Jeff Kent, one of the best hitting second basemen in major league history, is set to announce his retirement from baseball Thursday after 17 years in the big leagues. Kent was still productive last year, at seasonal age 40, but injured his knee and played only a small role in the Dodgers' final push toward the NL West title. Could he have been productive again this year? Sure, but given the way the market is treating players his age and with his skillset, Kent probably would have had to take a dramatic paycut to continue his career. It's hard to blame someone who's already set for life for deciding not to spend another year away from his family, especially at a discount rate.
And with that, the discussion about Kent's legacy -- to be more specific his Hall of Fame case -- can begin.
Kent's statistical credentials are impressive. His 377 career home runs are far and away the most by any second baseman in baseball history. Ryne Sandberg is second on the list with 282 for his career. The great Rogers Hornsby is the only second baseman in the Hall of Fame with a higher slugging average than Kent's .500. Kent even has an MVP Award to his name to go along with five All-Star nods and four Silver Sluggers.
His case isn't open and shut, though. His .356 career on-base percentage is middling next to the other second baseman in the Hall of Fame as is his career 123 OPS+.
Throw in a poor defensive reputation and the lack of a signature milestone -- like say the 3,000 career hits on contemporary Craig Biggio's resume -- and Kent doesn't seem like a first-ballot lock. He'll get in to Cooperstown, but you get the feeling it might take a few tries.
There's one other knock on Kent that I've purposely omitted up until now. He is, to put it bluntly, kind of a jerk, or at the very least that's been his reputation for years.
He famously feuded with Barry Bonds when the two were in San Francisco, even coming to blows with the surly home run king in the dugout back in 2002. No one rushed to the defense of Kent then, despite Bonds' status as a media pariah. That incident came months after Kent broke his wrist "washing his truck." (There were reports that Kent actually suffered the injury while riding his motorcycle, a direct violation of contract).
Milton Bradley accused him of being racist during his first season with the Dodgers in 2005. He publicly ripped venerable broadcasting legend Vin Scully last season and even waded into the heated Proposition 8 debate last November.
Like it or not, character matters to the folks who ultimately decide the fate of each Cooperstown candidate.
In Kent, we have a guy who came to blows with his teammates, who was a disruptive force in the clubhouse, who might have violated a legal contract with his team and then lied about it, who has been accused of being a bigot and who teed off on one of the most likable people in baseball history. He might be punished for those things in the short-term, but ultimately the voters are going to put him in Cooperstown because the Hall, in the end, is usually about on-field excellence.
My question is how much does character truly matter in the process?
Mark McGwire is, by most accounts, a better human being than Kent. He was certainly held in higher regard by his teammates and coaches. Yes, he might have done steroids, but is that worse than (maybe) violating a legal contract and then lying about it? I'm asking because I don't know the answer.
The Hall voters have answered it definitively the last few years. McGwire is, in all likelihood, never going to get into Cooperstown, but it's not because he lied or because he cheated the game of baseball or because he was a jerk to his teammates. If that was the case, Kent, who was great in his own right, would face a daunting uphill struggle to get in just like McGwire.
It's because he duped the guys who followed him around during the magical summer of 1998 and wrote lyrical odes about Big Mac and Slammin' Sammy. And that's a shame, because the Hall of Fame should always be about greatness on the field, not who got their feelings hurt off of it.

















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-21-2009 @ 11:44PM
Martin said...
What a ridiculous post on so many levels.
1. Kent's an easy Hall of Famer. He has almost 100 more home runs than any other second baseman, which in and or itself guarantees his entry into the HOF.
2. His support of Prop 8 has absolutely no significance, especially since the majority of Californians (and the majority of Americans)agreed with him.
3. His fight with Barry Bonds is similarly of no significance since Bonds had disputes with so many (perhaps the result of roid rage). Just ask Gary Sheffield.
4. Equating Kent's prickly personality to McGwire's perceived cheating and subsequent refusal to answer Congressional questions regarding steroids borders on the ludicrous. Many players have made it into the Hall of Fame despite having less than angelic personalities. Can you say Ty Cobb? But being perceived as unfriendly is a far cry from being perceived as a cheat.
5. Finally, to give any credence to comments by Milton Bradley, given Milton Bradley's mental instability and especially when no one else has made any such accusations, shows a complete lack of objectivity and intelligence on the part of the author.
Reply
1-22-2009 @ 12:01AM
Andrew said...
1 - Agree to an extent. The voters are fickle, though, and I don't sense a groundswell of support for him. As I said, he'll get in, but I don't think he'll be a slam dunk among the electorate. He is to me.
2 - Agree completely.
3 - Agree again.
4 - Actually, if you re-read the post I compared directly McGwire's alleged cheating, and let's be honest, he cheated, to Kent "allegedly" breaking his wrist while doing wheelies on his motorcycle and then lying about it to his team and to the media. I'm not saying it's the same, but there are character issues beyond a "prickly personality."
5 - Calling Milton Bradley mentally unstable is armchair psychology and nothing more. You don't know him well enough to evaluate his mental state. I'm not suggesting you believe Bradley's accusations specifically, merely citing another example where Kent's character has been called into question. (Smoke fire and all that)
I guess you missed my point. Character shouldn't be a part of the Hall litmus test because it's far too nebulous and subjective, it's far too easy for the voters to bend it to their biases. Whether they use it to keep Kent out of the Hall for a year or two or to keep McGwire out forever, it's just not right.
1-22-2009 @ 12:54AM
Martin said...
McGwire isn't merely a "character" question. His stats (and particularly the number of home runs hit by him, which number is the primary basis for him being considered for the HOF) were artificially and illegally enhanced. Thus, his qualifications for the HOF can certainly be questioned without getting into the character issue. Moreover, the steroids scandal has been perhaps the most devastating thing to happen to baseball since the Black Sox scandal. And just as the Black Sox scandal caused baseball to take a zero tolerance attitude toward gambling (see Pete Rose), steroids (and the resulting skewing of the power statistics) should result in a zero tolerance for those found to have used PEDs.
Reply
1-22-2009 @ 6:25AM
mdokun65 said...
If Kent really is the big jerk that he has been called, he's not going to care about what people say about him. They'd be better off not saying it to him directly, though. As far as talent is concerned, his offensive numbers as a second baseman are easily Hall-Of-Fame worthy. His power and productivity are far ahead of the other second basemen, and whether his rotten attitude delays his induction or not, he will eventually make it to Cooperstown.
Reply
1-22-2009 @ 9:21AM
adamyaz said...
Jeff Kent is a future hall of fame member - without question. He will not be a first ballot, most likely. But it has little to do with his personality and attitude and more to do with the history of the hall vote. Sandberg didn't get in until his 3rd try - he retired as the HR leader among 2b and a much better defender. There are very few players who are first ballot hof members. It is an honor reserved for the elite - which Kent was not. If he had a .340 batting average or 3000 hits - his character wouldn't be called into question.
I give Kent extra points for not getting along with Bonds and Bradley.
Reply