George Kell?

[DoubleX]

Here's a Hall of Famer we don't talk about much. How do people feel about George Kell's inclusion in the Hall of Fame (via the Veterans Committee in 1983)? I don't have much of a problem with him being in, and given some of the other players the VC has put in, he really isn't a bad choice. My problem is with the Hall of Fame representation at 3B in general. Like I said, I don't mind Kell being in so much, but I do mind him being in and guys like Santo, Boyer, Evans, Nettles, Bando, Groh, Hack, Bell, Elliot, and Cey being out.

Kell is a good borderline candidate, but at a position where there are a number of approximately equally qualified, if not superior candidates, on the outside, I don't know how I feel about Kell being in.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Here's a Hall of Famer we don't talk about much. How do people feel about George Kell's inclusion in the Hall of Fame (via the Veterans Committee in 1983)? I don't have much of a problem with him being in, and given some of the other players the VC has put in, he really isn't a bad choice. My problem is with the Hall of Fame representation at 3B in general. Like I said, I don't mind Kell being in so much, but I do mind him being in and guys like Santo, Boyer, Evans, Nettles, Bando, Groh, Hack, Bell, Elliot, and Cey being out.

Kell is a good borderline candidate, but at a position where there are a number of approximately equally qualified, if not superior candidates, on the outside, I don't know how I feel about Kell being in.
There are better third basemen than Kell not in. That it and of itself does not make him a poor choice.
Kell's long post-playing career had to be on the mind of voters when elected. He was a scout for the Tigers as well as a longtime broadcaster, and an excellent one at that, objective and polished, certainly the best player-turned broadcaster I have ever heard.

[oscargamblesfro]

Kell always struck me as sort of an inferior forerunner to say Wade Boggs in some ways. He won a batting title and led the league in things like doubles and hits a few times, some power but not a whole lot. If I remember correctly, he was regarded as a very good glove. Kell was a good, even very good player, but his career really wasn't all that long and there are as you say quite a few better 3b out of the Hall. Not the worst player in there, and one of the better 3b of his time, but still, overall, kind of a poor man's Boggs, and what you might call a 3rd level HOF'er .

[DoubleX]

Can someone make an argument of why George Kell but not Stan Hack? Their careers looks very similar. Is Kell's post-playing career, as CCN mentioned, the difference?

[Captain Cold Nose]

Can someone make an argument of why George Kell but not Stan Hack? Their careers looks very similar. Is Kell's post-playing career, as CCN mentioned, the difference?
It could also be a matter of who was on the committee and timing. If Kell had more direct contemporaries than Hack on the VC when he was elected that could make all the difference in the world. Which is a big problem with such a committee to begin with and may actually go toward explaining why the VC hasn't elected anyone the last couple years. Cronyism only goes so far in bigger groups.

[KCGHOST]

I always felt Kell was a dreadful selection. You have to give him an awful lot of "glove" credit to get him up to HoF status to me.

I know, 3B seems to be underrepresented in the HoF, but it is not like we have passed over some outstanding players. Hack, Santo, Rosen, Elliott, Bando, Evans, Cey, etc., are very good players but the omission of them is not a glaring over sight.

[DoubleX]

I always felt Kell was a dreadful selection. You have to give him an awful lot of "glove" credit to get him up to HoF status to me.

I know, 3B seems to be underrepresented in the HoF, but it is not like we have passed over some outstanding players. Hack, Santo, Rosen, Elliott, Bando, Evans, Cey, etc., are very good players but the omission of them is not a glaring over sight.

Not even Santo? I consider Santo to be the biggest oversight of all players.

[Brad Harris]

I don't know what third basemen you've been researching, but yes, some of them damn well were outstanding selections that have been passed over. Santo and Boyer ought to be on every Veterans Committee voter's ballot this year.

Kell isn't that horrible a selection, but it's too bad the voters didn't select a few more (better) third sackers before putting Kell in. Kell as a marginal selection is much more defensible than Kell as a standard bearer.

[KCGHOST]

Not even Santo? I consider Santo to be the biggest oversight of all players.

He may well be the biggest oversight, other than Blyleven and some 19th century guys, but he is not by any means a great player. Like you, I support his induction but I am not confusing him with Eddie Mathews.

[DoubleX]

He may well be the biggest oversight, other than Blyleven and some 19th century guys, but he is not by any means a great player. Like you, I support his induction but I am not confusing him with Eddie Mathews.

I agree that there is a pretty big drop between the Big 4 at 3B (Schmidt, Brett, Mathews, and Boggs) and the rest, but IMO, Santo is the best of the rest, and that to me is more than good enough to be in. He's the 5th best at his position in my book, and that's well within Hall of Fame territory. I'm also a big Blyleven supporter, but I think Santo is the bigger oversight.

[538280]

I don't know what third basemen you've been researching, but yes, some of them damn well were outstanding selections that have been passed over. Santo and Boyer ought to be on every Veterans Committee voter's ballot this year.


I think there are far worse players than Kell in the HOF, but I wouldn't consider him a HOFer or even very close.

Sorry if this is hijacking, but what honestly is the deal with Ken Boyer? I've asked a number of people this, I don't understand what makes him so clearly deserving. Why is he better than Sal Bando? I see Boyer being a better fielder, but that's not a huge advantage, and Bando was the better hitter and significantly better there at his peak. I don't see how Boyer is extremely similar in value to Ron Santo (I see Santo being MUCH better).

[DoubleX]

I think there are far worse players than Kell in the HOF, but I wouldn't consider him a HOFer or even very close.

Sorry if this is hijacking, but what honestly is the deal with Ken Boyer? I've asked a number of people this, I don't understand what makes him so clearly deserving. Why is he better than Sal Bando? I see Boyer being a better fielder, but that's not a huge advantage, and Bando was the better hitter and significantly better there at his peak. I don't see how Boyer is extremely similar in value to Ron Santo (I see Santo being MUCH better).

Why are you so predictable? Whenever Ken Boyer gets mentioned, you have to launch your Sal Bando crusade.

[538280]

Why are you so predictable? Whenever Ken Boyer gets mentioned, you have to launch your Sal Bando crusade.

Because it rarely ever gets addressed. I really don't get the big deal about Ken Boyer though-and I've never seen anyone really explain to me what is so great about him convincingly.

[The Commissioner]

One thing that people forget about Kell is that he was considered to be great fielder during his own time. Had his resume been padded with a few Gold Gloves to accompany his batting stats, his Hall credentials wouldn't even be in question.

[DoubleX]

One thing that people forget about Kell is that he was considered to be great fielder during his own time. Had his resume been padded with a few Gold Gloves to accompany his batting stats, his Hall credentials wouldn't even be in question.

It didn't do Buddy Bell any good (or Santo or Boyer for that matter). Unless we're talking about Brooks Robinson good and like 10 Gold Gloves, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference.

[The Commissioner]

It didn't do Buddy Bell any good.

First of all, as good of a fielder as Bell was, I'd argue that he was nowhere near as great as Kell. Secondsly, and most imnportantly, though, his batting stats weren't at Kell's level. If Bell had a lifetime .300 average or won a batting title, he'd be in Cooperstown too.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The issue with Kell is the fact that better candidates are not in the HOF. I agree with Captain Cold Nose on this point, and agree that this fact, in and of itself, does not make Kell a poor choice.

Kell's career ended just after he turned 35, but that probably should not be held against him. He was the Orioles' 3B, but they found a hotshot kid named Brooks Robinson, and decided to give their top prospect the job. There was no free agency, and Kell decided to retire. He was hardly done; he hit .297 in his last year (lifetime .306) with a .352 OBP (lifetime .367).

Kell was, for most of his career, the best 3B in the AL, before the emergence of Al Rosen. He was the best defensive 3B in the AL by many accounts, and a perennial All-Star. The word "perennial" is often bandied about mistakenly, but Kell was an All-Star TEN TIMES in an eleven year period. Including his last season.

Kell is not an outlandish pick for the HOF. Not by a longshot. He's the most unfairly maligned HOF picks, in that most of the criticism of the pick comes from things beyond Kell's control. The problem isn't that Kell is in; it's that Santo, Hack, and a few others are out. Kell belongs; he's well within the normal parameters of who gets selected to the HOF.

[DoubleX]

First of all, as good of a fielder as Bell was, I'd argue that he was nowhere near as great as Kell. Secondsly, and most imnportantly, though, his batting stats weren't at Kell's level. If Bell had a lifetime .300 average or won a batting title, he'd be in Cooperstown too.

Bell was a better all around hitter. Kell had almost no power, whereas in his prime, Bell could be counted on for decent power (15 homeruns) and a good average (about .290).

[Fuzzy Bear]

Bell was a better all around hitter. Kell had almost no power, whereas in his prime, Bell could be counted on for decent power (15 homeruns) and a good average (about .290).

Kell hit for a much higher average. Kell had a higher OBP for his career than Bell, and (surprisingly) a higher slugging percentage.

Bell was a guy who had the HOF in his sights. He had 2,500 hits, his reputation was at an all-time high, and he was playing well. Then came 1988; he was traded to the Reds, got hurt, Chris Sabo took his job, and that was it. He didn't even try a comeback.

Had he gotten to 3K hits, he would have made the HOF; had he gotten to 2,800 hits, he would have been a very strong candidate. He lost it all at once, and the HOF voters tend to focus on that with candidates who don't have a particular milestone to point to.

[538280]

Kell hit for a much higher average. Kell had a higher OBP for his career than Bell, and (surprisingly) a higher slugging percentage.


Kell may have been a better hitter while he was playing, but if so it's slightly, and this completely ignores the big longevity and durability gap between them. Kell was a very good fielder, but so was Bell. Buddy Bell is the easy choice in that comparison IMO.

[AstrosFan]

Good points, everyone.

Kell is not the worst Hall selection. True.
There are a number of 3B outside who are more deserving. True.
Kell was a good hitter, a very good fielder, but had longevity and durability issues. True.

I looked up Kell on baseball reference, and he and George Kelly popped up. I wonder if that's the only name that will result in multiple Hall of Famers?

[Captain Cold Nose]

Good points, everyone.

Kell is not the worst Hall selection. True.
There are a number of 3B outside who are more deserving. True.
Kell was a good hitter, a very good fielder, but had longevity and durability issues. True.

I looked up Kell on baseball reference, and he and George Kelly popped up. I wonder if that's the only name that will result in multiple Hall of Famers?
No Joe Kelley?
There are four Robinsons in the HOF.

[oscargamblesfro]

Does anyone here think the fact that Kell bounced around a bit with various clubs hurts him a little bit as far as the esteem he's held in goes? I think players, especially before the free agency era, who traveled around a lot have a tendency to sometimes be underrated.

[AstrosFan]

No Joe Kelley?
There are four Robinsons in the HOF.

I meant I looked up "George Kell".

[Captain Cold Nose]

I meant I looked up "George Kell".
Ah, ok. That's sounds like an interesting random search, actually.

[oscargamblesfro]

I'm too young to have seen Kell play, but I'm wondering who is a good comp for modern players. Are there any contemporary players that are truly reminiscent of Kell or is he an example of a type of player who's essentially extinct now?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Does anyone here think the fact that Kell bounced around a bit with various clubs hurts him a little bit as far as the esteem he's held in goes? I think players, especially before the free agency era, who traveled around a lot have a tendency to sometimes be underrated.

It hurts him a bit, but Kell is pretty much identified as a Detroit Tiger.

I'm too young to have seen Kell play, but I'm wondering who is a good comp for modern players. Are there any contemporary players that are truly reminiscent of Kell or is he an example of a type of player who's essentially extinct now?

He's close to Wade Boggs, but Boggs was much better, and played longer. He's a very, very much improved version of Jeff Cirillo, in his best years, or Kevin Seitzer, in his best years (although Seitzer had a little more HR power).

Seitzer and Cirillo would only be HOFers if you took their best years and gave each player 10 seasons worth of them. Had Kell played longer, and held on as a regular (something he probably could have done), the Boggs comparision would look more legit.

Kell's type hasn't died out completely, but managers today expect some HR pop from their 3B. A player of Kell's type would have a struggle holding a job these days if he went into a slump and wasn't a Gold Glove fielder.

[oscargamblesfro]

Interesting that you mention Seitzer and Cirillo, I would never have guessed that... I would have guessed he was possibly closer to a Carney Lansford or a Bill Madlock, but with much stronger defense.

[538280]

Interesting that you mention Seitzer and Cirillo, I would never have guessed that... I would have guessed he was possibly closer to a Carney Lansford or a Bill Madlock, but with much stronger defense.

I'd say a better fielding Lansford is the best comparison. Madlock was quite a bitter better with the stick in the context of their eras (just take a look at the OPS+-123 to 111. Madlock's is of course inflated for not being able to stay on the field, but Kell was much the same way.

[leecemark]

--As a hitter he was pretty similar to Lansford, but Carney was a lousy fielder and Kell an outstanding one. Cirillo is probably a better comp, but Kell had a slightly better peak and more good years. I don't like the Boggs comparison much. Boggs was a contender (and often winner) for the batting title many times, while Kell was only up there in his very best years. Boggs also walked alot more.

[Fuzzy Bear]

--As a hitter he was pretty similar to Lansford, but Carney was a lousy fielder and Kell an outstanding one. Cirillo is probably a better comp, but Kell had a slightly better peak and more good years. I don't like the Boggs comparison much. Boggs was a contender (and often winner) for the batting title many times, while Kell was only up there in his very best years. Boggs also walked alot more.

He was the same type of player as Boggs, but, yes, Boggs was much, much better. Kell was much, much better than Cirillo, though. Kell also rates ahead of Boggs with the glove; he's a guy who would have been a perennial GG winner if they had the award when he was active.

Kell's career would also have been a little longer if Brooks Robinson hadn't come along. Again, he played in the reserve clause era; there was no playing out his contract and becoming a free agent. He would have either sat on the bench or retired if the O's wouldn't release him (and they wouldn't).

[Fuzzy Bear]

Interesting that you mention Seitzer and Cirillo, I would never have guessed that... I would have guessed he was possibly closer to a Carney Lansford or a Bill Madlock, but with much stronger defense.

Kell had much more plate discipline than either Lansford or Madlock, and was much, much better on defense.

There were no Gold Glove awared when Kell was active; this hurts his perception. I believe he'd have won about 4-5 Gold Gloves while active.

Black Ink: Batting - 16 (140) (Average HOFer ≈ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 93 (248) (Average HOFer ≈ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 28.7 (308) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 90.0 (177) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

Five Gold Gloves would have put Kell at 100 on the HOF monitor.

Kell was a very sure-handed fielder at 3B; his FP was .969 vs. the league FP of .954 for his career. He also had above-average range (0.11 over league for his career, and better than that in his prime years).

I have always been a fan of Kell. I view him as underrated, and underappreciated, and his HOF selection overly criticized. I agree that there are better 3B than Kell not in the HOF, but given the lack of 3B in Cooperstown, that's not a reason to rip out his plaque.

[Mike90]

He played about 1800 games with an OPS+ of 111. I don't think his defense completely makes up for the distance between what he did as a hitter and hall of fame standards.

[Fuzzy Bear]

He played about 1800 games with an OPS+ of 111. I don't think his defense completely makes up for the distance between what he did as a hitter and hall of fame standards.

Kell hit .297 in his final year with decent plate discipline. He had lost some range in the field, but his fielding percentage was significantly better than league. Kell could have remained a starter at 3B, but the O's came up with Brooks Robinson.

All that's missing in Kell's career is 2-3 years of a decline phase. Kell could have played longer, but he was offered a job as a full-time broadcaster, which, in 1957, was a BETTER JOB than continuing to play. (Today, Kell, at age 35, could milk 2-3 more $3 million plus seasons out of some team; that wasn't an option in the reserve clause era of 1958.)

Kell is not a case of growing old early. He could still play. He had an unusually good opportunity in broadcasting, and he took it. He should not be penalized for it in terms of history.

[jalbright]

Kell is not a case of growing old early. He could still play. He had an unusually good opportunity in broadcasting, and he took it. He should not be penalized for it in terms of history.

I don't view it as penalizing him. I'm just not willing to credit him with what he did not do, whether in his case it was because he couldn't or chose not to. The thing that separates him from Negro Leaguers or wartime service is that those guys either served their country in a time of need in mid career(many because they were drafted and had to) and/or didn't have any choice.

[leecemark]

--It was the transition to a long a successfull broadcasting career that made him a good VC choice though. I'd agree that his playing career along doesn't get him there, but the VC gets to consider the entire package. I must admit some bias on Kell though. He was the Tigers TV man when I was growing up.

[Mike90]

Kell hit .297 in his final year with decent plate discipline. He had lost some range in the field, but his fielding percentage was significantly better than league. Kell could have remained a starter at 3B, but the O's came up with Brooks Robinson.

All that's missing in Kell's career is 2-3 years of a decline phase. Kell could have played longer, but he was offered a job as a full-time broadcaster, which, in 1957, was a BETTER JOB than continuing to play. (Today, Kell, at age 35, could milk 2-3 more $3 million plus seasons out of some team; that wasn't an option in the reserve clause era of 1958.)

Kell is not a case of growing old early. He could still play. He had an unusually good opportunity in broadcasting, and he took it. He should not be penalized for it in terms of history.

I don't view it as penalizing him. I'm just not willing to credit him with what he did not do, whether in his case it was because he couldn't or chose not to. The thing that separates him from Negro Leaguers or wartime service is that those guys either served their country in a time of need in mid career(many because they were drafted and had to) and/or didn't have any choice.

Basically what Jailbright said: Kell was a fine player, but his playing record is short of HOF standards. Maybe Kell could have kept playing after hitting .297 and adding on to his HOF resume, or maybe he would have declined drastically; either way, speculation about what he could have done if he hadn't retired should not affect his HOF chances IMO.