In the Lab: Jeff Kent and the Hall of Fame Index

We usually would be continuing on with our outfielders and bases per out, but this is the perfect time of year to slow down and take a look at some other things we wouldn’t have time to do during the season. The news on Kent and his Hall of Fame election is a little more settled and that provides us with an opportunity to take a little more time to look at the whys and what fors. I’ve looked at Kent before, so none of this is particularly new, but when someone gets into the Hall of Fame it takes on a different level of significance.

My fundamental issue is not with Kent getting in necessarily. The fundamental issue is that the way the Veterans Committee (I know they don’t call themselves that, but that is essentially who they are) goes about this process is significantly flawed. Their job is to clean up glaring omissions from the BBWAA. That question starts with who is the most qualified player at every position that isn’t in the Hall of Fame or on the BBWAA ballot.

For many, those questions seem eerily similar and they might be, but there is one key difference. The example I always use is Harold Baines. Is Baines a Hall of Famer? That’s more of a philosophical question. How many players do you want in the Hall of Fame? If you want 40 or 50 right fielders then maybe he is. My question is a different one: was he the most qualified right fielder in history not in the Hall of Fame? There isn’t a universe where that answer was yes. Yet, they put him in anyway.

My colleague addressed this with Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Those two in particular have a pretty clear point when they started using steroids. It is pretty well documented that they were Hall of Fame level players before their use. So, not putting them in is not a question of whether the steroids elevated their play to Hall of Fame level, but of a moral quagmire that traditionalists can’t get around. Are they honestly going to tell me that their heroes didn’t do ANYTHING to get an edge? They didn’t use greenies? They didn’t cork their bat? They didn’t doctor the ball? They didn’t steal signs? At a certain point where are just stuck in a relative argument over which cheating is acceptable and which cheating isn’t.

What the Hall of Fame Index does is use advanced statistics to compare players across eras at the same position. It combines BWAR (baseball-reference.com WAR) and FWAR (Fangraphs.com WAR) into a career value and peak value number to get a total look at the player. However, I don’t rely exclusively at WAR because I know WAR has its detractors among casual fans and statisticians alike. I also look at offensive numbers, fielding numbers, MVP voting, and playoff numbers. Below you will see Kent along with other prominent second basemen not yet in the Hall of Fame.

Bobby Grich is a perfect example of why we use the other tests. I know most fans will hear his name and see these numbers and wonder if they can get a part of the stash I’m smoking. Simply put, you have to look at the other numbers for it to make sense. I think most fans acknowledge Lou Whitaker, but he is a victim of the way the Veterans Committee does business. He isn’t a part of the modern era according to their rules, so he couldn’t even be considered this time around.

The whole idea of breaking things down into eras is flawed. We should be asking a simple question: who are the best players not in the Hall of Fame? Avoiding that question creates two separate problems. First, players like Whitaker have to continue to wait. Secondly, lesser players find themselves in. It’s not that Kent is not a Hall of Famer per se. If you held a gun to my head and asked yes or no, I would probably say yes. The problem is I would put any of those three guys in before him.

When we look at offensive numbers, I like to look at numbers that distill out the impacts of different eras. So, I like looking at OPS+. rOBA, and offensive winning percentage. All of those numbers distill out the impact of home ballparks and era to some degree. We will also include runs created as a way to look at longevity. Obviously, Whitaker and Kent will be favored there.

We see the beginning of why Grich comes out looking better than what we thought. When Theo Epstein took over the Red Sox he had a catch phrase based on the song by Naughty by Nature. For Epstein, it was “I’m down with OBP (yeah you know me), I’m down with OBP (yeah you know me).” Grich was the perfect combination of power and patience. He wasn’t elite at any particular skill. He was simply good at everything.

Kent’s runs created show that he enjoyed a longer career, but he also played in a better offensive era than the other three. That is where OPS+ comes into play. I’ve obviously been trumpeting bases per out, but offensive winning percentage might be my favorite offensive statistic. It estimates what a team’s winning percentage would be if all nine hitters hit exactly like that player. A Grich team would win 99 games in a 162 game schedule. That’s usually good enough to win the pennant.

Randolph obviously looks like an average offensive second baseman, so something else would explain his overall value. That is where we take a look at fielding in addition to the hitting. After all, WAR is an expression of hitting, fielding, and base running. So far, I’d say Kent’s credentials look pretty good, but we need to take a look at the fielding side of things.

This is where we need to define our terms. We often throw around labels like good or bad, but those labels deserve definition. Kent was not a bad fielder compared to the those playing with him. If you are 42 runs below average over a 15 year career you are not a bad fielder. You are a below average fielder. However, if you compare that same sum with the Hall of Fame universe then you likely would call him bad.

In both editions of “The Hall of Fame Index” I included a feature called “The Ballad of Bobby Grich.” Grich wasn’t a perfect baseball player, but he might be the best example of where value comes from. When you are good offensively and good defensively then you will appear to be very good or great. You will be more valuable than someone great at one aspect and average or below average in the other. Grich is better offensively than Whitaker and around the same defensively.

The same is true for Randolph to a lesser extent. Being legitimately average offensively and excellent defensively makes you good overall. That is how he surpassed Kent in total value. The numbers might not be sexy, but he earned more wins for his team than Kent did for his. However, it is one thing to be good for 15 to 20 years and great for 10. That is one reason why I look at the MVP voting to help parcel that out. First place votes get ten points, top five finishes get five points, top ten finishes get three points, and top 25 finishes get a point each. We also look at the BWAR top ten finishes as well to compare their reputation with their actual production.

If you want a numerical representation of how underappreciated Grich was as a player, this one is it. Nine points means that he finished in the top ten three times. However, the BWAR results actually showed him leading the league one season in WAR. Kent on the other hand had more support in the BBWAA than he deserved. That’s because the MVP award is normally an offensive driven award. WAR looks at the entire player. If I were to hang my hat on a Grich candidacy then this number would be the number I would point to.

The reality is that each of these tests serve as evidence. No single test should keep a guy in or knock a guy out. It is about the preponderance of the evidence. Well meaning and intelligent fans could argue between Grich and Whitaker for the top spot, but it is hard to argue that Kent was the best second baseman not in the Hall of Fame. The Veterans Committee needs to do better and breaking the eras up and instead going by position would more likely lead to the result we would all want for Cooperstown.