The Value of Defense: Jeff Kent and His Hatred of the Leather

by Dave Gershman on Feb 21, 2011 10:01 AM EST in Visuals Above Replacement

I'm sure you're wondering the same thing I was as I was creating this graph -- "where can I find a bowl and spoon to eat up these delicious fruity pebbles?" Well forget about the fruity pebbles, let's talk some baseball...

I was contemplating whether or not Jeff Kent was the most overrated underrated player of all time. It seems to me that someone who has Jeff Kent as a "lock" for the Hall of Fame, which some do, is overdoing it just a tad. In my eyes, despite being a power hitting second baseman, despite playing for some good Giants teams, despite winning an MVP award, Jeff Kent isn't destined for Cooperstown as much as some would think. Why you ask?

In light of Rickie Weeks' new deal, I did some homework and compared Rickie to every second baseman in the NL. Then, to expand my search, I compared many different second baseman in baseball to players past, concluding that the game currently boasts of many underrated second baseman or a few who simply had mysterious careers, such as Luis Castillo. Castillo enjoyed a decent 7-8 years before tailing off for what has been a dreadful past 2-4 years as a big leaguer.

But as I was comparing second baseman past and present, I realized that the difference in many overrated and underrated second baseman is defense. Imagine if Jeff Kent had at the very least, a close to positive career UZR -- then we're talking about whether or not Kent was better than Sandberg.

As the three current second baseman have all been worth more wins than Jeff Kent thus far in their career, you just wonder how that can be possible? Kent is superior in nearly every offensive statistic. Kent had more power. Kent batted around Barry Bonds for quite some time. His defense throughout all of his career was pretty lousy, especially compared to other 2B's.

Furthermore, it's amazing that a career can be so different due to a horrible career's worth of shotty D. The defense made him much less valuable than the other three, who supplied a bit of both. Even though he eventually stepped it up and provided to be worth more wins during his 8th-14th years and beyond, one can only imagine what he would have been like had the glove been a bit more special. Nevertheless, killing two birds with one stone, let's see in 10 or so years if Howie Kendrick, Ian Kinsler, and Aaron Hill are comparables to Jeff Kent and what many think, is a potential Hall of Fame career.

Now back to the fruity pebbles...

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Health

Kinsler’s next several years may be determined largely by his ability to stay healthy. He’s averaging just 120 games a year, and last year his power was severely affected as he recovered from an ankle injury in the spring. He’s an MVP candidate if he stays healthy all year.

It’s also worth noting that thus far none of the three comps have come close to Kent’s best seasons in WAR.

What if something happens?!?
What could happen to an Old Fashioned?

by t ball on Feb 21, 2011 10:59 AM EST reply actions

It may be true that those three are all currently north of Kent's curve on the graph...

But Kent was a rare player who got MUCH better in his 30s. All of your comparables are on pace to soon fall far below Kent’s WAR curve unless they suddenly start playing at superstar levels at age 29 the way he did. This is more about Kent’s unusual aging pattern than his mediocre defense.

by psiogen on Feb 21, 2011 12:54 PM EST reply actions

let’s see in 10 or so years if Howie Kendrick, Ian Kinsler, and Aaron Hill are comparables to Jeff Kent and what many think, is a potential Hall of Fame career.

I think this is a more important point than you let on. Second-basemen are notoriously bad at aging gracefully overall. Certainly, if any of those three players age nearly as well as Kent, then it will be extraordinary.

Jonathan Sanchez: Often maddening to watch, but capable of perfection on a moment's notice---just like his adoptive father.

by rotorueter on Feb 21, 2011 3:41 PM EST reply actions

But wait a second

UZR only started collecting data in 2002, when Kent was already 34 years old and well past his defensive peak. It seems ridiculous to hold his UZR against him when you don’t have the data for the years that it SHOULD have been much much better.

My Adopted Giant
Dursh nerf darsh narf. Poop.

by GiantPain on Feb 21, 2011 4:17 PM EST reply actions

Yeah

He was still a productive player, and was worth 21.1 wins from ages 34-37, those 4 years from 2002-2005. Worth more wins throughout that time than Kinsler/Hill/Kendrick by a lot. And there defense were all better.

Dave Gershman - Beyond the Box Score
Penn League Report / Twitter: @Dave_Gershman

by Dave Gershman on Feb 21, 2011 4:27 PM EST up reply actions

I think he's just saying that the graphic is somewhat misleading

Because Kent’s UZR data only covers the back-end of his career while the other three guys really haven’t seen their defense decline. You’re basically comparing a few years of UZR data for the end of Kent’s career with the UZR data for the early portions of those other players’ careers, when it’s generally known that players peak earlier defensively. Not saying your conclusion is wrong, but UZR would seem to be somewhat weak evidence.

Baseball is my preferred sport. It should be yours, too.
I'm a columnist for Beyond the Box Score, an SB Nation blog.
Oh, I'm on Twitter, too.

by Satchel Price on Feb 21, 2011 5:39 PM EST up reply actions

He was a better player during those back end years with bad defense, which is one of the points here. How much defense can change a career

Dave Gershman - Beyond the Box Score
Penn League Report / Twitter: @Dave_Gershman

by Dave Gershman on Feb 21, 2011 5:59 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

Well sure

At the end of his career, Kent got most of his value from his offense and suffered with the glove. But who knows, maybe earlier in his career he compensated for his comparatively worse offense with above-average defense. We can’t know that for sure via UZR because it only goes back to 2002.

My Adopted Giant
Dursh nerf darsh narf. Poop.

by GiantPain on Feb 22, 2011 1:19 AM EST up reply actions

Total Zone has him as -13 from 2002 to 2008.

So we’re using the same metric for their entire careers (Total Zone):

Hill: +45
Kinsler: +20
Kendrick: +11
Kent: -4

While I understand most (all?) like UZR over TZ, it helps to compare apples to apples.

On Twitter: @baseballtwit

by adarowski on Feb 22, 2011 5:54 AM EST up reply actions

Boy, the two systems disagree on Kinsler quite a bit.

On Twitter: @baseballtwit

by adarowski on Feb 22, 2011 5:55 AM EST up reply actions

whoa

See Data Differently: Beyond the Box Score | @justinbopp

by Justin Bopp on Feb 22, 2011 9:41 AM EST up reply actions

I don't think it's a coincidence

that Kinsler’s UZR numbers are better the two years since Andrus replaced Young at SS.

What if something happens?!?
What could happen to an Old Fashioned?

by t ball on Feb 22, 2011 10:58 AM EST up reply actions

But again, you are comparing the worst part of Kent’s defensive career to the best part of the other three…

Overplayed memes:
EASTCOAST BIAS
2002 WS CANCELED
Blue Jays want all our player that we don't utilize correctly

by say hey nation on Feb 25, 2011 9:03 AM EST up reply actions

No

This list

Hill: +45
Kinsler: +20
Kendrick: +11
Kent: -4

is their entire careers.

On Twitter: @baseballtwit

by adarowski on Feb 25, 2011 8:43 PM EST up reply actions

Dave Pinto posted his PMR for 2B today

For 2B from years 2006-2010. Kent comes in last, but of course, that’s the tail end of his career. Kinsler is 4th at 106.5, Hill and Kendrick are neck and neck at 13th and 14th, 102.1 and 101.5 respectively.

What if something happens?!?
What could happen to an Old Fashioned?

by t ball on Feb 22, 2011 9:10 PM EST reply actions