HOF voting

[helf35]

These voters are jokes. If you are voting Bonds and Clemens why are you leaving Sosa and Mcgwire off and for that matter Palmerio should be back on the list. These are the voters who refuse to vote Mcgriff or Raines yet they vote Jeff Kent. Was Kent better than either of these 2. Personally I think every member of the Hall should be getting a vote to even it out so worthy candidates get elected in or at least get a fair shake.

[danesei@yahoo.com]

I don't think that the argument of "If Bonds/Clemens, then everyone" holds. The reason that Bonds/Clemens get votes is their relative positions as arguably the greatest players in the game over their respective careers.

Clemens is arguably the top RH power pitcher of his generation.
Bonds is arguably the greatest power/speed combination of all time. He holds the all-time and single season HR records.

Even if we lump all PED users into a "PED pool," it wouldn't change the fact that these two individuals were exceptional among that pool.

Let's assume for a moment that all players in the 80s/90s/00s were PED users of some sort or another. You'd be forced to either ignore a generation of baseball or, at least, pick the best of the best:

Greg Maddux - Best finesse pitcher of the generation
Randy Johnson - Best LH power pitcher of the generation
Pedro Martinez - Best RH peak power pitcher of the generation
Roger Clemens - Best RH power pitcher of the generation
Mike Piazza - Best offensive catcher of the generation
Barry Bonds - Best offensive player & power/speed combination of the generation
Rickey Henderson - Best speed player of the generation
Tom Glavine - Possibly best LH finesse pitcher of the generation

I'm sure I missed a lot of players, but that is what I view as a list of players who would be arguably in, even if they used PEDs... along with the rest of the game.

Now, after that top tier of players, I would ask "Did this player use or was he suspected of using PEDs during his career?"

That's why Bonds and Clemens in, but not the other PED users.

[danesei@yahoo.com]

On a side note, I'm in the camp of individuals who think Piazza took PEDs. I just don't think anyone cares, since he was generally nice to the media. I think, if Bonds and Clemens were so brash with the media, they might be up in the 50+ percentile, as well.

[earlywynnfan]

I think the idea behind Bonds and Clemens but not the others is that there is a very clear line as to when they, uh, raised their careers to another level. But with Bonds and Clemens, they both had HOF careers before this happened. I'm not saying I would vote this way, it's just what I've read.

As for McGriff and Kent, if you are looking at stats on a piece of paper, McGriff wins. But if you put it on the field, Kent was far more valuable in terms of position. How many all-time teams do you pick before you get to Kent? How many 1B are there in front of McGriff? (And I love McGriff, and Raines.)

Ken

[3arod13]

Ex-Yankees pitcher Brandon McCarthy is well known on Twitter -- he's got almost 150,000 follower -- for his strong opinions.

He issued another recently. McCarthy, who recently signed a four-year deal with the Dodgers, wrote about the Hall of Fame on Derek Jeter's website, PlayersTribune.com

McCarthy's proposition? Put everyone, including those suspected of steroid abuse, in the Hall of Fame.

From McCarthy's post:

Admittedly, it's a mess. The ramifications extend far and wide, but I believe the answer is to admit those players whose on-field accomplishments merit it and leave history to be the final judge and jury. Ultimately, I believe the greatest injustice would be to leave worthy players--some of whom are objectively among the greatest ever--out of the Hall of Fame, when there very well may be guys already enshrined who have used performance enhancing drugs. Who knows how many PED users are already in the Hall of Fame? And in the future, who knows how many PED users, who managed to stay under the radar, will join them in Cooperstown? The true shame would be knowing that players who got away with using PEDs were voted in, while others connected to PEDs--either by proof, or worse yet, suspicion--continue to be left out and villainized.

McCarthy then posted his own Hall of Fame ballot, which included Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.

[johnsontravis@ymail.com]

So there are lots of people who murdered others, but simply walk around and we don't know about it. So let's just let the ones we know just walk free so everyone can be in the same boat. Just release everyone from jail because it isn't fair they are locked up when others did the same thing and are free.

Sorry McCarthy that is some broken logic you hold. I'd be more accepting of someone saying PEDs are ok than what you suggested.

[danesei@yahoo.com]

So there are lots of people who murdered others, but simply walk around and we don't know about it. So let's just let the ones we know just walk free so everyone can be in the same boat. Just release everyone from jail because it isn't fair they are locked up when others did the same thing and are free.

Sorry McCarthy that is some broken logic you hold. I'd be more accepting of someone saying PEDs are ok than what you suggested.

There's a huge logical fallacy at work here...

I think it's called "False Analogy" or something. After all, the difference between PED users and murderers is the degree to which they are punished. In the case of PED users, they're punished according to the MLB rules and uniform player agreement between MLB & MLBPA. The fact that HOF voters choose to exclude PED users and suspected users out of the HOF has nothing to do with the law.

If you wanted to parallel this to murderers, you could argue that murderers who have served their time and been released into society should not be discriminated against when it comes to hiring practices. Many employers do discriminate specifically on this basis, but the EEOC is finally taking the most blatant violators to court.

To this point, MLB has taken a "hands off" approach to directing the HOF voters, with the exception of individuals on the permanently ineligible list. If Selig really wanted to take a stand against PEDs, he could have pushed for all players (including those whose names were found on "anonymous" reports) who were found to have been users of any type of PED to be banned from the HOF. If he wanted a HOF that showcased the greatest statistical players of the era, he could have mandated that voters not hold PED use against players. It's possible, if not likely, that some voters would not adhere to the rule, for personal reasons, but I think journalists, as a whole, feel they have a high level of integrity, and they'd be honest in applying the mandate.

Now, if there is a total ban on known PED users from the HOF, MLBPA would insist on having a committee to determine what the defining line is for "PED user" (known to have used; admitted to use; failed test; Mitchell report; BALCO client; Biogenesis client). I have know idea where that line would be drawn.

[Roady]

I think the idea behind Bonds and Clemens but not the others is that there is a very clear line as to when they, uh, raised their careers to another level. But with Bonds and Clemens, they both had HOF careers before this happened. I'm not saying I would vote this way, it's just what I've read.

As for McGriff and Kent, if you are looking at stats on a piece of paper, McGriff wins. But if you put it on the field, Kent was far more valuable in terms of position. How many all-time teams do you pick before you get to Kent? How many 1B are there in front of McGriff? (And I love McGriff, and Raines.)

Ken
No they didn't and for sure Bonds didn't.
Look at the stats again and ask yourself if you would vote either of them in the HOF if they quite before taking roids. Bonds was a 25-30 HR type player with the Pirates before steroids. I have no idea where people get the idea Bonds was so great before his San Fran days and roids. I believe his first full season taking roids was 1993, his first year with the Giants.
No way he was HOF worthy in just 7 good years with the Pirates.
Clemens didn't have the body of work to be a HOFer before his first bought with steroids either. If he started taking them in 1997 as most believe then look at his stats before that. No way a HOF player. A good pitcher for several years but in definite decline until the magic juice.

[danesei@yahoo.com]

No they didn't and for sure Bonds didn't.
Look at the stats again and ask yourself if you would vote either of them in the HOF if they quite before taking roids. Bonds was a 25-30 HR type player with the Pirates before steroids. I have no idea where people get the idea Bonds was so great before his San Fran days and roids. I believe his first full season taking roids was 1993, his first year with the Giants.
No way he was HOF worthy in just 7 good years with the Pirates.
Clemens didn't have the body of work to be a HOFer before his first bought with steroids either. If he started taking them in 1997 as most believe then look at his stats before that. No way a HOF player. A good pitcher for several years but in definite decline until the magic juice.
What is your justification of 1993 for Bonds? Bonds was the reigning NL MVP going into 1993.

The general consensus has been that Bonds started using PEDs in response to Sosa's HR surge and McGwire's 70 HRs in 1998. That would imply that Bonds started using PEDs in 1999 or 2000. Going by that assumption (as opposed to your arbitrary 1993), Bonds was already the only 400/400 player in MLB history after 1998.

Let's say we go with your assumption of 1993. From 1986-1992, Bonds had 176 HR and 251 SB, through his age 27 season. Players typically hit their peak performance years from 27-31. That means Bonds was expected to see a spike in production from 1992-1996, based upon a typical aging curve. Bonds had a 204 OPS+ in 1992 and 206 OPS+ in 1993. From 1986-1999, his career looked pretty normal, so I think it's a reach to believe Bonds started using "steroids" (your word) in 1993.

If not for voters valuing batting average & hits over HR, SB, SLG, OBP, runs & RBI in 1991, Bonds would have won the NL MVP award for four consecutive seasons (1990-1993). I don't see how a player who had a reasonable shot at four consecutive MVP awards would be considered anything but great.

[3arod13]

I find it amazing that many, including MLB, team owners, coaches, players, fans, collectors, media, ESPN, etc., all had an idea and/or knew back then that this was going on, yet cheered them on, with many benefitting from it and most enjoying the ride. Funny, how when things took a turn for the negative, many got on their high horse, look the other way, and now can't believe this even went on.

[3arod13]

I find it amazing that many, including MLB, team owners, coaches, players, fans, collectors, media, ESPN, etc., all had an idea and/or knew back then that this was going on, yet cheered them on, with many benefitting from it and most enjoying the ride. Funny, how when things took a turn for the negative, many got on their high horse, look the other way, and now can't believe this even went on.

And now they're considered cheaters. Hilarious!!

[johnsontravis@ymail.com]

Some things that go into voting:

Integrity-Nope
Sportsmanship-Nope
Character-Nope

I'm not sure why anyone still thinks Clemens or Bonds should be in the HOF. Especially Bonds! Who cares what they did before steroids. The matter of the fact is they both lack any good moral values and are cheaters.

[Roady]

What is your justification of 1993 for Bonds? Bonds was the reigning NL MVP going into 1993.


That award does not give him the ability to hit .336 with 46 home runs.

[danesei@yahoo.com]

That award does not give him the ability to hit .336 with 46 home runs.

Correct. His ability to hit for contact, hit for power and quick bat speed led to his hitting .336 w/ 46 HR.

1992 (age-27 season):
140 G, 109 R, 147 H, 36 2B, 5 3B, 34 HR, 103 RBI, 39 SB, 8 CS, 127 BB

1993 (age-28 season):
159 G, 129 R, 181 H, 38 2B, 4 3B, 46 HR, 123 RBI, 29 SB, 12 CS, 126 BB

He played 13.6% more games in 1993. He hit 35.3% more HRs in 1993. His batting average improved by 8%.

Those aren't extreme changes.

1994 (age-29 season):
112 G, 89 R, 122 H, 18 2B, 1 3B, 37 HR, 74 RB, 29 SB, 9 CS, 74 BB

1995 (age-30 season):
144 G, 109 R, 149 H, 30 2B, 7 3B, 33 HR, 104 RBI, 31 SB, 10 CS, 120 BB

If we go with your conclusion that Bonds used steroids from 1993, how do you explain 1994 and 1995? Did Bonds decide that he shouldn't use steroids anymore? His 1992 and 1995 seasons are nearly identical.

The simpler (and far more logical) conclusion is that Bonds matured during his prime and learned to maximize his skill set.

The difference in 1998 and 1999 statistics are far more drastic (and indicative of something changing).

1998 (age-33 season):
156 G, 120 R, 167 H, 44 2B, 7 3B, 37 HR, 122 RBI, 28 SB, 12 CS, 130 BB

1999 (age-34 season):
102 G, 91 R, 93 H, 20 2B, 2 3B, 34 HR, 83 RBI, 15 SB, 2 CS, 73 BB

Another thing to consider is that Bonds' career unfortunately also involved three home ballparks:

1986(21)-1992(27): Three Rivers Stadium (335 RF)
1993(28)-1999(34): Candlestick Park (328 RF)
2000(35)-2007(42): Pac Bell/SBC/AT&T Park (309 RF)

The 309 RF foul pole made that a left-handed pull-hitter's dream. If you got the ball over the 24 ft wall, it was a HR. If you didn't clear the wall, the ball would take a wicked bounce, and the batter would be awarded with a double or triple.

[Roady]

In my mind Bonds is a cheater and got what he got with artificial help from illegal drugs. I believe wholly that he started taking PED's full time in 1993 and was experimenting with them in 1992. Bonds wanted to move to San Fran for a reason.

I can't say anymore because every time I defend my point of view on this site I get an email from administration because some people want me off of here and report my post as hostile or baiting. I am down to my last warning so I must be very careful of what I say.

Have a good day and believe what you want.

[danesei@yahoo.com]

I can't say anymore because every time I defend my point of view on this site I get an email from administration because some people want me off of here and report my post as hostile or baiting. I am down to my last warning so I must be very careful of what I say.

Roady, I think I'm vocal in my opinion, but when I say things, I do my best to back up my opinions with facts. To my knowledge, I've never received an email warning, and I also feel that certain members can be hostile at times. How many warnings are people given that you'd be down to your last one already?

That said, I don't get how defending your claim/theory that Bonds started using PEDs in 1992 would get you banned. Just use facts and statistics to support your claim.

San Francisco is Bonds' hometown. He was offered a contract by them coming out of HS, but opted for college. SF made him the highest paid player in MLB history when he signed in 1993 (as a free agent). You're right. He wanted to move home.

[Roady]

I received 2 warnings.

[earlywynnfan]

I thought the commonly held belief -- and I'm not interested in Bonds enough to care to look it up -- was that he started juicing because he was jealous of all the attention McGwire and Sosa were getting. A quick look at his stats, to me, show that to be where he jumped to superhuman status.

[Roady]

He averaged 25 HR's a year his first 7 years. Even taking away his first year in which he only played 113 games his average for the next 6 years was 26.6 a year.
Hit hit 46 in 1993. Nearly double his average. I really doubt if any players HR totals nearly double just because of moving from Pittsburgh to San Fransisco.

[Roady]

I will state that I have zero proof that Bonds did PED's in 1993.

I have watched baseball my entire life and I have said since 1993 that he was on steroids. I was laughed at and ridiculed for many years about my belief that he and McGwire and Canseco and others were cheaters, until it was shown to be true.

I believe he started for sure in 1993. He just got better drugs and was taking them more aggressively in 2000.
Most people didn't want to believe that McGwire could have taken them his entire career until he stated it to be true.
I told people since he was a rookie that he was a roider.

[Roady]

"I told people since he was a rookie that he was a roider." McGwire I mean.

[danesei@yahoo.com]

He averaged 25 HR's a year his first 7 years. Even taking away his first year in which he only played 113 games his average for the next 6 years was 26.6 a year.
Hit hit 46 in 1993. Nearly double his average. I really doubt if any players HR totals nearly double just because of moving from Pittsburgh to San Fransisco.

Roady, do you simply ignore when others present data/evidence to you?

The problem with saying Bonds averaged X HRs during his first 7 years, but then jumped to 46 in his 8th year is that it completely ignores variance. By picking 1993 arbitrarily, you ignore statistics.

From 1986-1992, Bonds hit a HR every 20 AB. From 1993-1998, Bonds hit a HR ever 16 AB. From 1999 (when the majority of individuals believe Bonds started using PEDs) through 2007, Bonds hit a HR every 9 AB.

The 25% improvement from his first seven seasons (age 21-27) to his prime and post-prime (age 28-33) seasons in HR rate falls within normal deviation. The spike during his supposed decline years (34-42) of almost 100% improvement in HR rate is clearly the work of outside assistance. Again, the "spike" in 1993 can be explained through variance.

[Roady]

Roady, do you simply ignore when others present data/evidence to you?

The problem with saying Bonds averaged X HRs during his first 7 years, but then jumped to 46 in his 8th year is that it completely ignores variance. By picking 1993 arbitrarily, you ignore statistics.

From 1986-1992, Bonds hit a HR every 20 AB. From 1993-1998, Bonds hit a HR ever 16 AB. From 1999 (when the majority of individuals believe Bonds started using PEDs) through 2007, Bonds hit a HR every 9 AB.

The 25% improvement from his first seven seasons (age 21-27) to his prime and post-prime (age 28-33) seasons in HR rate falls within normal deviation. The spike during his supposed decline years (34-42) of almost 100% improvement in HR rate is clearly the work of outside assistance. Again, the "spike" in 1993 can be explained through variance.
Thank you for the personal attack.
I can't respond in kind because my account would be locked. :mad:

[danesei@yahoo.com]

Thank you for the personal attack.
I can't respond in kind because my account would be locked. :mad:

How does the following constitute a personal attack?

Each time that someone shows you that Bonds' HR total in 1993 isn't indicative of PEDs, so much as it's a case of statistical variance, you basically say that his choice to sign with SF somehow correlates with PED usage. When asked for some justification for your theory, you simply state Bonds hit 46 HR in 1993. That's it.

If my comment constitutes a personal attack, then I hope it gets deleted, but I don't believe my directing the comment to you (since you're the most vocal and recent to say Bonds used PEDs from 1993) would be uncalled for.


Roady, do you simply ignore when others present data/evidence to you?

The problem with saying Bonds averaged X HRs during his first 7 years, but then jumped to 46 in his 8th year is that it completely ignores variance. By picking 1993 arbitrarily, you ignore statistics.

From 1986-1992, Bonds hit a HR every 20 AB. From 1993-1998, Bonds hit a HR ever 16 AB. From 1999 (when the majority of individuals believe Bonds started using PEDs) through 2007, Bonds hit a HR every 9 AB.

The 25% improvement from his first seven seasons (age 21-27) to his prime and post-prime (age 28-33) seasons in HR rate falls within normal deviation. The spike during his supposed decline years (34-42) of almost 100% improvement in HR rate is clearly the work of outside assistance. Again, the "spike" in 1993 can be explained through variance.

[Skizzick]

Some things that go into voting:

Integrity-Nope
Sportsmanship-Nope
Character-Nope

I'm not sure why anyone still thinks Clemens or Bonds should be in the HOF. Especially Bonds! Who cares what they did before steroids. The matter of the fact is they both lack any good moral values and are cheaters.

Good morals? Seriously? If we were to kick anybody who didn't have "good morals" out of the Hall of Fame, we'd be left with about 5% of them still in.

[3arod13]

Ok, let’s get away fromPED/Steroid talk just for a moment, and let’s just talk about natural ability vs.cheating. As we are all aware, there are many ways of cheating. But I will agree that what occurred in this era, was very significant in the result of individual player numbers.

Do you honestly believe thereare players (including managers) in the Hall of Fame who haven’t cheated in oneway or another? Do you honestly believe thateveryone in the HOF is there due to only their natural ability?

We’ve had this discussionbefore about pitchers using substances or marking up the ball in order to getan edge (which they still do today). Mostsaid that’s been part of the game. I saythat’s cheating, which can increase their strikeout numbers, in addition toother things; and since they aren’t using their own natural ability to throwthe ball to get that strikeout or out on their own natural ability – it’scheating! Bet those batters will tellyou the same thing!

In a perfect world, it would begreat if everyone did everything based solely on their natural ability. Unfortunately, never going to happen.

Am I trying to justify thePED/Steroid era? No! Just saying!

Do I wish everyone justperformed based on their natural ability? Of course I do!

[teddy406]

I NEVER want to see Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, Sheff, Palmero, or any of the Roiders in the HOF. They already tainted our all time statistics in the game, so I don't want them tainting the HOF on top of that. I think Jeff Kent is a definate HOF eventually. All time 2b HR king with 377. 2500 hits. 1500 rbi. 560 doubles. 290 career avg. 350 obp. 500 slugging. One MVP and 5 time all star. Solid playoff numbers too. I think a lot of people in the baseball world don't realize how steller his numbers are. He's got my vote.

[3arod13]

They already tainted our all time statistics in the game, so I don't want them tainting the HOF on top of that.

I can't argue or disagree with that!

[danesei@yahoo.com]

I NEVER want to see Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, Sheff, Palmero, or any of the Roiders in the HOF. They already tainted our all time statistics in the game, so I don't want them tainting the HOF on top of that. I think Jeff Kent is a definate HOF eventually. All time 2b HR king with 377. 2500 hits. 1500 rbi. 560 doubles. 290 career avg. 350 obp. 500 slugging. One MVP and 5 time all star. Solid playoff numbers too. I think a lot of people in the baseball world don't realize how steller his numbers are. He's got my vote.

I won't argue the "Roiders in the HOF" aspect, since that's personal prerogative, but I disagree with Kent in the HOF.

Kent's stats in 2000 were essentially a result of Bonds being in the line-up with Kent. (Beyond that, Kent had the fourth highest WAR among those receiving NL MVP votes.) Having Bonds as a teammate benefited Kent through increased RBI opportunities. If not for Bonds' PED use, Kent wouldn't have had a HOF-level career. I'm not arguing as much against Kent as pointing out that certain players benefited more from PEDs (that they didn't use) than others. Kent falls into this category.

[teddy406]

That's a bit of a stretch on Kent benefiting from Bonds using PEDS. I mean he was the MVP in 2000 over Bonds, when Bonds was in his 2nd year of Roiding. Kent also had big years with the Astros and Dodgers. He didn't hit 377 HRs and get 1500 rbis because Bonds was using PEDS. Come on.

[Bondsgloves]

Kent 100% benefited from Bonds batting ahead of him. Anyone who followed the Giants knows this as a fact. Barry was walked so many times that pitchers would pitch to Kent so they wouldn't move Bonds to second base. There is no way Kent puts up the numbers he did without Bonds.. The funny thing is everyone here is quick to say who cheated and who didn't.. A lot of you don't want to believe the truth that most in the league have been doing illegal stuff to get an edge in the past and will continue to do in the future. Believe what you will. Look at ball players today, testing is a joke the system is easily beat.

[Bondsgloves]

The "steroid era" is over, but the "PED era" is in full swing. Not testing positive for banned substances? No problem. The PED industry is constantly creating new and improved ones--ones not on the list of banned substances. As long as athletes stay ahead of the list, they will be seen as clean. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see who is using there are many players who are putting up impressive numbers and our built bigger than NFL like linebackers..

[teddy406]

Oh, don't get me wrong. Guys are still using. But you could say that for A LOT of guys, who didn't use, that played with a stud batter behind them. Gehrig/Ruth. Foxx/Williams. Aaron/Mathews. We could go on and on with this list. It's not really a PED issue on this. It's that MANY, MANY batters have benefitted from a great batter batting behind them. Maris in 1961 with Mantle batting behind him. Of course it helps. But you still have to hit that ball and drive in runs. Not everybody can do that. In fact, most can't. Kent could.

[EricTheRed44]

These voters are jokes. If you are voting Bonds and Clemens why are you leaving Sosa and Mcgwire off and for that matter Palmerio should be back on the list. These are the voters who refuse to vote Mcgriff or Raines yet they vote Jeff Kent. Was Kent better than either of these 2. Personally I think every member of the Hall should be getting a vote to even it out so worthy candidates get elected in or at least get a fair shake.

Bonds and Clemens are INFINITELY better than Sosa and McGwire. All cheaters but if are going to give two votes, its a landslide in favor of Bonds and Clemens.

McGriff gets nailed the most. Without the Strike he would have been a 500 HR member and the man always looked the same and had similar production his entire career. He would have been a HOF'er without everyone boosting their numbers with roid use.

Also, watching Bonds for the early part of his career when he visited Cincinnati, there was a similar and maybe even more amazing player to watch... Eric Davis. If Davis would have roided up to help avoid injuries he could have easily had the career Bonds have (sands batting average). Davis and McGwire were both hurt OFTEN but it seems like once McGwire started using he was able to stay in the lineup. I remember Bonds and Davis being somewhat similar in body size and then BOOM, Bonds looks like he's a monster.

[EricTheRed44]

The "steroid era" is over, but the "PED era" is in full swing. Not testing positive for banned substances? No problem. The PED industry is constantly creating new and improved ones--ones not on the list of banned substances. As long as athletes stay ahead of the list, they will be seen as clean. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see who is using there are many players who are putting up impressive numbers and our built bigger than NFL like linebackers..

There are users out there but you need look no further than the top 10 HR's in each league the past season compared to 10 years ago. The HR numbers are down dramatically. Sure there are users but its down considerably the past 3 or 4 years.

[danesei@yahoo.com]

That's a bit of a stretch on Kent benefiting from Bonds using PEDS. I mean he was the MVP in 2000 over Bonds, when Bonds was in his 2nd year of Roiding. Kent also had big years with the Astros and Dodgers. He didn't hit 377 HRs and get 1500 rbis because Bonds was using PEDS. Come on.

Kent's AB per HR/RBI by team:

SFG 19.6/4.98
NYM 27.3/6.86
LAD 25.3/6.09
HOU 21.3/5.23
Career 22.5/5.62

Given the breakdown of HRs & RBI per AB, I would say Kent definitely benefited from having Bonds hitting in front of him. In Houston, he benefited from Biggio setting the table and Bagwell moving him over.

It's possible that Kent gets to 375 HR (377) and 1500 RBI (1518) without being on the Giants, but I doubt it. If we credit Kent with his Astros years (best ratios after Giants) production, we get:

3434 AB @ 21.3 AB/HR = 161 HR v 175 actual
3434 AB @ 5.23 AB/RBI = 657 RBI v 689 actual

Kent's career without Bonds would be 363 HR and 1487 RBI, in a best case type of scenario. To say he didn't benefit from Bonds is unrealistic. I do think Kent would have reached 1500 RBI (one more season of compiling) and 375 HR (one or two more seasons of compiling), but he definitely benefited from batting behind Bonds during his time in San Francisco.

[ndevlin]

Kent's AB per HR/RBI by team:

SFG 19.6/4.98
NYM 27.3/6.86
LAD 25.3/6.09
HOU 21.3/5.23
Career 22.5/5.62

Given the breakdown of HRs & RBI per AB, I would say Kent definitely benefited from having Bonds hitting in front of him. In Houston, he benefited from Biggio setting the table and Bagwell moving him over.

It's possible that Kent gets to 375 HR (377) and 1500 RBI (1518) without being on the Giants, but I doubt it. If we credit Kent with his Astros years (best ratios after Giants) production, we get:

3434 AB @ 21.3 AB/HR = 161 HR v 175 actual
3434 AB @ 5.23 AB/RBI = 657 RBI v 689 actual

Kent's career without Bonds would be 363 HR and 1487 RBI, in a best case type of scenario. To say he didn't benefit from Bonds is unrealistic. I do think Kent would have reached 1500 RBI (one more season of compiling) and 375 HR (one or two more seasons of compiling), but he definitely benefited from batting behind Bonds during his time in San Francisco.


Did Jeff Kent benefit from having Bonds in the lineup, sure. But you can't fault him for that.

Pick a HOF'er, any, and they were benefited by a teammate. It happens.

[Bondsgloves]

I agree it isn't Kent's fault. But this was no ordinary teammate. We are arguably talking the greatest hitter of all time.

[ndevlin]

I agree it isn't Kent's fault. But this was no ordinary teammate. We are arguably talking the greatest hitter of all time.

I gotcha. You seem to be a Giants fan- did Kent deserve the Mvp, or Bonds?

[danesei@yahoo.com]

Did Jeff Kent benefit from having Bonds in the lineup, sure. But you can't fault him for that.

Pick a HOF'er, any, and they were benefited by a teammate. It happens.

I don't fault Kent for benefiting from Bonds being in the lineup. I'm saying that if you're going to say no on Bonds due to PEDs, you need to say no on Kent for the same reason.

[ndevlin]

I don't fault Kent for benefiting from Bonds being in the lineup. I'm saying that if you're going to say no on Bonds due to PEDs, you need to say no on Kent for the same reason.

I'm not following. No to Kent because of PED's?

[danesei@yahoo.com]

I'm not following. No to Kent because of PED's?
No, the reason this came up was someone said they'd never vote for Bonds, but they would vote for Kent. I'm saying I'd vote yes on both, but if someone is going to say Bonds is out, they would need to consider how Kent's candidacy is a result of Bonds.

For the 2000 MVP, I understand *why* Kent beat Bonds (media concerns coupled with games played), but I don't really know if Kent wins the MVP without Bonds being on the team. I think Bonds deserved the MVP, but I don't fault the selection of Kent, either.

[Bondsgloves]

I gotcha. You seem to be a Giants fan- did Kent deserve the Mvp, or Bonds?

As a Giants fan, Bonds should have one the MVP. Bonds would have put up the same numbers with or without Kent. Kent no way would have put up the number without Bonds. The Sportswriters didn't like Bonds, if there was ever a chance to give the vote to someone else they would (example Pendelton).

[vonbrandingo]

Kent did his damn job and did it well. I'd like to see Jody Reed put up Kent's numbers hitting after or before Bonds. I also like that he and Bonds didn't get along. Didn't matter, still drove him in.

[3arod13]

I don't care when they used. How often they used. If one gets in, they all get in. Bonds hit 73 HR's. Really! Come on guys!!

[danesei@yahoo.com]

I don't care when they used. How often they used. If one gets in, they all get in. Bonds hit 73 HR's. Really! Come on guys!!

I disagree, and somewhat greatly. If you go with "one in; all in," I think we need to have parallel standards for PED users (like 25% higher - so 500 HR _standard_ would be 625 & 3000 hit _standard_ would be 3750; for pitchers 3500 Ks standard would be bumped up to 4375).


Kent did his damn job and did it well. I'd like to see Jody Reed put up Kent's numbers hitting after or before Bonds. I also like that he and Bonds didn't get along. Didn't matter, still drove him in.

As for Kent v Jody Reed: reductio ad absurdum. When I say Kent isn't MVP in 2000 without Bonds, I'm not calling Kent a journeyman middle infielder. Jody Reed was a below average MLB player in terms of WAA.

My point is more along the lines that Jeff Kent hitting behind anyone but Bonds ends up being a lesser version of Chase Utley, or someone comparable to Alfonso Soriano / Chuck Knoblauch.