Former second baseman Jeff Kent has been up for Hall of Fame consideration for a decade, with this year marking his last crack at induction via the Baseball Writers Association of America. Kent received 46.5% of the the vote during this cycle, well shy of the 75% needed for induction. He falls off the ballot and will no longer be considered by the BBWAA.
Kent hovered in the 25-50% vote share range for his final four seasons. He never seemed in danger of falling below the 5% threshold that cuts players from the ballot early but also didn’t get the kind of late momentum needed to vault him within striking range of induction. If he’s to be enshrined in Cooperstown, that’ll now have to come via the Era Committee. The Contemporary Baseball Era Players Committee met this winter — enshrining Fred McGriff in the process — meaning the earliest Kent will be under consideration again is the 2025-26 offseason.
A right-handed hitter, Kent was one of the game’s better power bats over his 17-year MLB career. He played just under 2300 games for six different clubs, with his best seasons coming as a member of the Giants. Kent hit .297/.368/.535 during a six-year stretch in San Francisco spanning 1997-2002. He received MVP votes in five of those campaigns and won the award in 2000 thanks to a massive .334/.424/.596 showing with 33 longballs.
Kent finished his career with a .290/.356/.500 line in more than 9500 plate appearances. His 377 career homers are the most by any primary second baseman, while he collected 2461 hits, drove in 1518 runs and scored 1320 times. He was a five-time All-Star and secured four Silver Slugger awards while winning the aforementioned MVP. Strong as his offensive contributions were, Kent faced plenty of questions about his glove at the keystone. Those defensive concerns dissuaded enough voters to keep him from induction.
While Kent was the only player to “age” off the ballot this year, a number of first-time candidates unsurprisingly dropped out after not reaching the 5% threshold to last another season. Bronson Arroyo, R.A. Dickey, John Lackey, Mike Napoli, Huston Street, Matt Cain, Jacoby Ellsbury, Andre Ethier, J.J. Hardy, Jhonny Peralta, Jered Weaver and Jayson Werth each fall out of future consideration.
Among first-time candidates, just two topped the 5% mark to remain on the ballot for at least another year. Carlos Beltrán debuted at 46.5% and would seem to have a solid chance at induction at some point down the line. Francisco Rodríguez has a more uphill battle after starting off at 10.8% of the vote.
Sorry he fell off.
If he goes to his medicine cabinet I’m sure he’ll find some old stuff that will help him heal faster.
Expected, but still a travesty.
Does Kent really belong in the HoF, even without the PED tag? He had a solid stretch in San Fran and good overall numbers but he never attained any of the milestones (3000 hits, 500 HRs) and he was a 2nd baseman in name only. He had a bat like Cano but played 2nd like Rougned Odor. Plus he missed the better part of his 20s and late 30s to injuries. He definitely deserved more votes than he got but without the PEDs he would be borderline. With them I don’t see it.
How do all these people keep track of who and who wasn’t on peds? Or who was suspected? Arod and manny and Sheffield I get.
Imagine writing this on the day Scott Rolen got in, LOL!
What “PED tag” are you people even talking about? He’s never been named or alluded to in any of the ample reports, and never failed a test. It’s 100% conjecture, based on vibes and feelings. Ortiz got in last year with a literal failed test, and there is absolutely no way he was good enough before he started cheating. Kent has no such proof, the same career bWAR, and somehow he’s “borderline?” Just nonsense.
Maybe Kent needs a PR Man
Like Wacky Wavy Inflatible Tube Man
Tragic
He’s not in…yet Bill Mazeroski is? What am I missing here?
Bill Mazeroski couldn’t get in on the BBWAA ballot either, and he got 5 extra years (and also never eclipsed Kent’s vote share). I’m sure a future Veteran’s Committee will put Jeff Kent in, but we’ll have to wait until then.
Mazeroski may be one of the 5 worst guys in the HoF. It is quite a shame these days how lame it has become.
Just because one person gets in you think shouldn’t be doesn’t mean everyone who is better than him gets in. I’m not saying kent shouldn’t be in either.
I remember the first time I saw B.Maz stats. I was shocked that he was in the HOF. In his extensive career he never once even batted league average. Obviously he must have had an incredible glove to rack up over 36 WAR but in my opinion, that isn’t enough by itself.
His numbers are there, this is just the Baseball Hall of Fame being antiquated and obsolete as usual. Look at how long it took Fred McGriff to get in, it had to be through a committee, even though he had the stats to back it up…
McGriff was definitely a mistake but did Kent really have the numbers? He is definitely borderline but he lost a ton of time to injuries. Without the PEDs maybe he would have gotten in. Probably not but it would have been a lot closer. He had the same problem as McGriff. A good bat but not good enough to make up for his atrocious defense.
@thecoffinnail
Derek Jeter on line 1
Derek Jeter was the team leader of a number of teams that went to and won WS’s.
MLB is not rotisserie baseball. The HOF is not where the players where the best statistics go. If it was, we could program a computer to make the selections.
@Samuel
Admittance to the HOF is determined by “leaders” who go to and win WS’s. Got it.
Here’s some numbers for you to ignore. Kent 123 wRC+, -53 DRS, Jeter 119 wRC+,-162 DRS.
NoSaint;
If you got it, why are you giving me these numbers?
I wish you could meet on a large Zoom meeting with the thousand-plus players that were active when Derek Jeter and Jeff Kent were playing. You can pull out your spreadsheet and tell them why Kent was the better player.
I don’t think they’d laugh at you. I think they’d be in shock.
@Samuel
I never said that “Kent was the better player”. I presented 2 numbers for each player representing offensive and defensive quantification, of which I suggested you ignore. It was you who drew the conclusion that Kent was the better player. Interesting.
It would be my pleasure to zoom with 1000’s of players, former or current. I would love to hear their stories. If the conversation came around to advanced statistics/Sabremetrics I would be happy to share what I know. As long as it is juxtaposed along side leadership and WS wins and appearances as entry into the HOF. Unlike you, I do think there would be laughter.
Nope.
“Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”
Ouch
Just like when he said he fell off his motorcycle…
Or his truck when he was washing it.
I remember that to.
He’s a no doubt hall of famer in my book
Did he not get in because he’s a notorious jerk?
To baseball writers especially. Lol
He should have been nice. Worked for Ortiz 🙂
He didn’t get in because the offensive numbers weren’t there without some defensive numbers to bolster it. He was a horrible fielder. Add the bad personality and he had no chance.
Ever see Kirby Puckett’s rap sheet for domestic violence? These people are too woke now moving the All Star Game out of Atlanta. Kent belongs and that is a travesty. I also think teams are terrified to sign Trevor Bauer because the woke mob will cancel them. Why does DeShawn Watson have a job another thought to ponder.
On stats Kent should be in.
On CHARACTER & INTEGRITY aspects of being a Hall of Fame player, Jeff Kent falls way short.
@Prospectnvstr: Jeff Kent had strongly principled character and terrific, team-focused intensity. Read some of the glowing things his managers, teammates, and opposing players say about him, his work ethic, and his on-field contributions. Kent’s a guy who stands his ground, and if that rubs some the wrong way, it doesn’t mean he’s the bad person so many make him out to be. His controversial and maligned personality should have nothing to do with his HOF eligibility.
Werth and Ellsbury were worth at least some consideration, given how some mediocre players make it in.
Even if Ellsbury was inducted, he probably wouldn’t show up.
I’m not getting the joke. Is it that he would get injured on the way there? His 30-30 season with an elite OPS and superstar defense impresses me quite a bit.
Ellsbury? Not a chance. If you’re only going to have a 10-year career, you better have better than a 103 OPS+ and more than one Gold Glove.
And if he did have a chance, he would go in as a Yankee no doubt. Maybe he would even represent the injured list?
Don’t discount K-Rod’s chances. Rolen started out around 10% also. No one really knows what voters will look at in 5-7 years.
He beat up his father in law in the Mets family room iirc
HOF voters in general don’t do a very good job but when in comes to RP they’re horrible.
It’s a hard position. I would have voted for Wagner.
At least he won. Would have been worse to be beaten up by his father in law in the Mets family room.
Honestly I love this site, but can you spare us the article if we can’t comment?
Obviously this isn’t in regards to this article.
Thank you
After reading his stats, it’s easy to see why he didn’t get voted in… *face palm
His lack of traction is interesting. I wonder if the writers suspected of something.
He wasn’t that good. His traction of being on so many ballots is what I question.
The guy couldn’t carry Grich’s or Whitaker’s jock and they were one and done.
Proof the Hall of Fame is a joke: Alan Trammell.
Anyone who doesn’t realize Tramell is a hall of famer is a joke.
Alan Trammell is not a HOFer not even close. For someone with twenty years in the league his numbers are pedestrian actually barely average. At least Biggio reached 3000 hits in his twenty years Trammell didn’t get close. In fact none of his numbers are on par with HOF numbers. I guess being an Angel’s fan you probably believe in participation trophies so it doesn’t shock me that you’d obviously put everyone in the hall.
DEFENSE is part of the equation.
HoF voting is a joke. How many second baseman hit 377 homers with 1500 RBIs, while remaining highly productive through their age 39 season?
Um 7?
Jeff Kent wasn’t a second baseman. The Giants played with two third basemen on the field during Kent’s years
Yet Bobby Grich was a better hitter, and Kent couldn’t field.
wRC+. Grich 129, Kent 124. Fangraphs gives Grich a 134 at defense, 1.2.
Total BS.
If he had played for the Phillies and Rolen for the Giants. I think Kent is in and Rolen isn’t.
Quick fun story guys. Was once at a Dodgers’ game with seats in shouting distance of the on deck circle. At the time Jim Rome’s show was really popular and he would talk about Kent’s “porno stash.” So when he was on deck I was yelling like an idiot kid, “Kent, where’s the Porno Stash!!? Show us the Porno stash!!” And when the hitter in front of him flied out he turned to the crowd gave a smirk and rubbed his mustache before walking to the plate. The whole section went wild. It was pretty dang funny at the time. Liked him ever since. I don’t know if he belongs in the Hall, but that day he did.
Could not possibly care less about the worst HOF in sports.
That would be the NFL. Fart for more than five years and you’re in.
The ability to fart for five years should get you admittance to your own HOF. Or an endoscopy.
Baseball HOF is a joke anyway!
It didn’t used to be a joke it used to be legit but now it’s basically become the Hall of Everyone That Played Major League Baseball. For years stats are what mattered the most but now they let everyone in. In my eyes there’s one position that stats can be used to a lesser degree and that’s catcher. Everyone else should hit and do it at the most elite level that’s the whole point. The Hall was for only the elite. If you have to think about it the guy’s not a hall of famer.
Drugs are bad. But they either need to go no drugs or all drugs and they already have some drugs in the hall.
Well, we’re allowed to comment on the news that Jeff Kent is no longer on the HOF ballot but certainly not if he was ever accused of domestic violence. So considerate of our MLBTR parents to shield their children from the possibility of spirited but anonymous conversation morphing into a state of virtual violence.
Freedom is a wonderful thing; MLBTR should encourage it sometime.
Kent was a a slightly better hitting producer than Rolen with better durability/longevity. Interesting to see how much value the voters gave to Rolen’s defense. And I don’t doubt he had a better HOF campaign team than noted red-ass J.K.
Rolen was an all time top defender. Kent was an all time worst defender. Of course defense matters.
Kent’s defensive stats were about league average
How is that all-time bad?
BBWAA- You disgust me. He’s only the career leader in homers by a 2B, a near .300 hitter, multiple time All Star, and he was an above average fielder for a power hitting second baseman. Oh, and he didn’t cheat!!! I bet none of you fat creeps could even swing a bat without pulling a muscle. You’re more embarrassing than Manfred!!!!
But but but he was a mean guy. No mean guys allowed in the hall!
@SODOMOJO: Jeff Kent wasn’t a mean guy. Read some of the glowing things his managers, teammates, and opposing players say about him, his work ethic, and his on-field contributions. Kent’s a principled guy who stands his ground, and if that rubs some the wrong way, it doesn’t mean he’s the bad person so many make him out to be. His controversial and maligned personality should have nothing to do with his HOF eligibility.
No arguments here @Brad Scott!
Oh, chicks dig the long ball. There are at least two much much better second baseman than Kent who are not in the Hall.
How does an average defender wind up with negatives in all the defensive categories? He’d be a DH only today.
Sooo….pretty sure that isn’t the right K-Rod that’s attached to the hyperlink
He’ll eventually get voted in by the players committee.
Like Kent or not (and apparently there is a lot of “not” here) Bonds/Kent/Snow made for a dangerous middle of the lineup for the Giants from 1997-2002
The Hall of Shame is a sham without Bonds and Clemens
It’s a hall of fame. Go look up the word enshrine.
By your measure, Hitler belongs in the WWII hall of fame.
No words…
I haven’t seen Godwin’s Law in awhile.
A good number of these baseball writers wouldn’t have jobs if it weren’t for McGwire and Sosa. MLB and the writers were more than happy to ride that horse in 1998, and now fake outrage at them like none of them knew.
Two thoughts: If Baines is in the Hall of Shame, let everyone in. At this point, it’s just an A for effort joke.
Billy Wagner was an all time great who definitely belongs in the Hall of Fame. He just didn’t play foe the Yankees and get lucky enough with save situations. His last season was probably one of the best of all time for a last year guy before retirement. Was it an injury thar made him want to retire?
No DH in the HOF! It’s bad enough the DH exists at all.
Closers play less of the game, and fewer games, than DH’s
so the 2b with the most HRs all time doesn’t have the resume for the HoF?
Baseball is not a HR hitting contest.
bye Roid Boy
Never would’ve known the Angels had another Francisco Rodriguez if it weren’t for this article
He’s the all time single season saves leader and was a crucial part of the 2002 World Series winning team
Yupp that’s the K-rod we know but not the one linked in the article
Absolutely ridiculous that Kent didn’t get in.
For those hating on Kent’s average (not poor) defense. He was considerably better in tne field than Rod Carew for one.
Ridiculous that he’s not in. All-time HR leader amongst 2B.
A number of the reporters either never saw him play or had their fee fees hurt by him. The players will vote him in.
Proof again be nice to writers. They will hold it against you. Baseball shows this basis again and again. Still believe if Clemons and bands had more friendly to writers like Ortiz. They are in.
If Kent had played for the Yankees or Red Sox he would have been in ten years ago.
When Kemp was playing, he was never treated as a star but as a very good support player. Nobody ever went to a game to see him play. I think a lot of these borderline cases come down to just the players image and did we think of them as a HOF years ago and not if they deserve it or not
Also, Bronson Arroyo was robbed.
Kinda backwards career. From age 29-39, probably the most offensive minded 2baseman in the game. To age 39!! Go figure
This guy deserves to be in. Brutal that he is snubbed. Guy was simply incredible at the plate.
I remember the Giants wanted him to move to 3rd base and he refused as he thought his numbers qouldnt be as respected at 3rd base instead of 2nd base . As far as im concerned he doesnt deserve the hall
Kent deserves to be in the HOF just for getting in Barry Melonheads grill.
How the heck does Rolen get in but not Kent? Scott Rolen? Really? These guys were “really good” but neither are HOF caliber. But if you compare stats side by side, Kent was better. Yet he drops off and Rolen gets in.
Rolen?
Did he really fall off or did he jump?
As baseball fans if someone calls out the name of a baseball player and you have to think about or debate if he’s a HOFer then he’s not a HOFer. The Hall is supposed to be for the best of the best. The guys with the best career numbers. The elite. If not elite they should be some type of pioneer of the game. We should never be saying well he was a DH or he’s just a little second baseman who couldn’t hit very well but boy his glove was magic. Ozzie Smith is the only player in the history of the game whose glove and overall presence carried him to the Hall. Exceptions can be made for guys who had their career cut somewhat short by injury. Not that these guys are bad guys they just don’t belong in the Hall. There’s too many people that seem to want to forget the first 130 years of this sport.
It amazes me as an old (ancient?) Fan how many opinions on here come from people who weren’t born or were quite, quite young when passing judgement on players they never had the chance to actually see play. The ‘eye’ test may seem outdated but is a valid one among older fans. Maseroski (60+ years), Grinch, Trammell and Whitaker (40+ years) and Kent all belong due to the era in which they played. The PED argument is a a joke since both the owners and MLB were complicit in their widespread use until the jig was up and they conveniently threw the players under the bus for it.
Grinch stole Christmas. He doesn’t belong in the hall, unless it’s for a time out.
Cute. Clearly I meant Grinch but you made my point. Looking only at numbers tells only part of the story.
Numbers don’t require you to have watched the player.
Both Kent and Rolen are all stars, but the HOF should be reserved for the truly elite and not watered down. If commish I’d remove 40% of guys already in. And that’s just like, my opinion man.
The commissioner has no power whatsoever to decide who is in the Hall. The HoF is a private and independent museum 501(c)(c3) nonprofit unaffiliated with MLB.
Also “truly elite” is not a criterion for induction nor is any other language that can be interpreted to mean something similar. The actual criteria, nobody cares to know — except I guess the people who actually vote.
Ok. But I never said the commish had power to decide who gets voted in. And I don’t care so much about semantics to argue about it either.
The HOF is watered down in my opinion
Well you did say if you were commissioner, so you can see why I assumed you imagined the commissioner had that power.
Not sure what semantics you’re referring to here. The only semantics that interest me involve the actual criteria for induction. Have you noticed how nobody wants to talk about them? At all? I sure have.
I was just trying to express my opinion, sorry that was lost in the error of my misalignment of powers. The criteria for induction are what they are yes, but they are not in conflict with personal opinion as to what a HOF recognition should mean. I think it’s watered down, and my opinion has zero to do with the selection criteria.
Fair enough. What it should mean is endlessly debatable but I believe either way the debate starts with what it actually means now, and you can see how little anyone wants to discuss that.
@blueskies Sorry to be combative, especially to you as I always value your fact-based input. Normally I would first agree wholeheartedly with the correction you made in my rash comment about commish having power over HOF, and then engage you in your point about how so few people actually look at the criteria for HOF induction. But I’m grumpy today!
I do think, as with any award or induction beyond sports, that HOF selections are replete with variation among committee opinion and the ultimate execution of the criteria somewhat incoherent. It happens in any awards committee. Why I’m seeing it first hand today while serving on a academic science grant selection committee where most committee members are lost on the concept of basic science vs. applied. Anyway, I diverge… and I apologize for the grumpiness
No worries. Maybe the only other thing I can add to this discussion is my own thoughts about why the criteria read as they do. The Hall is all about baseball’s public image, which is why it mentions sportsmanship, integrity and character and these criteria are at least as prominent as the more performative ones. Think of the Hall as baseball’s Normal Rockwell moment. If this seems a little silly or artificial, I won’t disagree, but just say, there it is, so we know. But this is why I get a little grumpy when the debate is all about who had a better career WAR. Even if someone believes it should reduce to some number, the way it works now, it just doesn’t — and never has. And not for no reason, is my point.
Yeah I don’t think it should be just driven by stats, and I’m not one to encourage Bonds as worthy of HOF recognition, though I will also express my opinion that he was a helluva hitter (juiced or not).
I doubt we disagree though that lacking sufficient stats/game, a player shouldn’t get in based upon a preponderance of good sportsmanship, integrity and character. And character judgement is highly flawed. Was Gwynn a terrible example to the youth of America for his addiction to chew? Or was he the ambassador of sportsmanship, integrity and character? We know that he was both. But who weights these variables on the HOF committee? Do they use some sort of consensus of reasoning?
Do we overlook Ruth’s womanizing and bad diet choices despite his stats, and instead induct Gehrig because he was reserved and polite and didn’t die due to self-inflicted bad behavior?
I would prefer that they minimize the weighting of “sportsmanship, integrity and character” because those who judge a person on these principles are likely practicing their own personal bias. These are highly subjective criteria.
Bringing it back to the real example of this article, to me (and this is just me), Kent seemed slightly more impactful on offense, Rolen the better work on defense. And Rolen seemed less of an a-hole (not that we really know). While they were both deserving allstars multiple times over, both are slightly below my personal cut-off level for what constitutes HOF careers.
Maybe I should abandon “HOF” as a measure of greatness, or as a meaningful adjective for something that is personal to me, and just say greatness. Gwynn, Kershaw, Mays, etc… there’s little argument that they have the numbers and also are/were high integrity humans, and I put those types of players into a higher tier.
The players on the bubble of the HOF are the ones we’ll debate and that’s our freedom and joy in sports. Anyone here who questions who the better player is, say between Rolen vs. Kent, are simply engaging in the fun. Hopefully it doesn’t get too fussy because it’s not that important in the grant scheme of things.
End diatribe. Fortunately I’m only good for one or two of these every offseason…
Gaylord Perry cheated, Fergie Jenkins had a coke arrest. Orlando Cepeda had a Marijuana arrest. They were before the woke sensitive era. I believe Ortiz had a positive drug test but the writers loved him. Kent was not a great guy and the sensitive woke writers did not like him. Kent is worthy like Schilling and Albert Belle not a good guy either. Kent blows me away because if this were twenty years ago I believe he gets voted in.
As diatribes go that was pretty good. Sure, the sportsmanship-integrity-character criteria are subjective, but the judgment is made by the sportswriters who are qualified to vote, based on what that means to people at the time. The standards change over time, as they should. If you want to play a little mind game consider whether Ty Cobb would be elected to the Hall if he was on the ballot today.
And Bonds, he’d have gotten in on the first ballot if he hadn’t blown his head up like a basketball and then tried to convince us that he was practically the only player in baseball who wasn’t on the juice.
Ray, you really need to turn off the TV.
The HoF remains the most consistently funny joke in MLB.
It’s not “strong as his offensive contributions were,” it’s “AS strong as his offensive contributions were.” Please use proper grammar.