Alomar VS Kent

[Myankee4life]

This is regarding their HOF chances. Who has a better case for the hall?
I guess this is probably the same as asking who was the better player.

Kent (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=kentje01) .289/331/1312/.354/.506 1139(RS) 2070(H) 474(2B) 92(SB) 126OPS+

Alomar (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=alomaro01) .300/210/1134/.371/.443 1508(RS) 2724(H) 504(2B) 474(SB) 116OPS+

Kent had a RC/27 of 6.33......Alomar had a RC/27 of 5.89

It seems Kent was the better hitter by a fair margin but Alomar won 10GG and is considered one of the greatest defensive 2B ever.

Is Kent's offense enough to overrule Alomar's defense.

Who has a better case for the Hall (Whose the better player)

[candy curveball cummings]

This is regarding their HOF chances. Who has a better case for the hall?
I guess this is probably the same as asking who was the better player.

Kent .289/331/1312/.354/.506 1139(RS) 2070(H) 474(2B) 92(SB) 126OPS+

Alomar .300/210/1134/.371/.443 1508(RS) 2724(H) 504(2B) 474(SB) 116OPS+

Kent had a RC/27 of 6.33......Alomar had a RC/27 of 5.89

It seems Kent was the better hitter by a fair margin but Alomar won 10GG and is considered one of the greatest defensive 2B ever.

Is Kent's offense enough to overrule Alomar's defense.

Who has a better case for the Hall (Whose the better player)

I wouldn't necessarily call Kent the better hitter. They weren't the same kind of Hitters. For one thing, even though Alomar played in about 400 more games than Kent, Kent had about 200 more strikeouts. Alomar was a tough out who reached bases, he had a little bit of power, he had speed, he could hit for average, and could play awesome defense. Alomar was a 5-tool player, Kent wasn't.

Alomar easily has a better case for the hall.

[ElHalo]

This isn't even close, in my view. I probably tend to underrate Kent -- I still tend to think of him as that guy the Mets eagerly dumped so they could pick up Carlos Baerga -- but Alomar was a truly legendary player. Kent's numbers look good, but you have to remember that he put them up in the National League, and wasn't much of a player till he hit his 30's.

The fact that a whole bunch of players at that time started getting much better much older than they had any right to isn't in the least bit suspicious.

[Senor Octobre]

alomar hands down. kent is underrated though imho. I still think alomar was a better player then biggio

[wilkerson_rulz-06]

No doubt Alomar, better career though Kent still comes close.

[538280]

Kent was the better hitter-but I'd like to stress other things a player can do to contribute to the offense. That RC/27 listed at the beginning of this is the basic formula, and that naturally is not all that sophisticated and will underrate players like Alomar who were great baserunners. The technical RC formula, which is much more accurate and fair, shows them as basically equal offensively as far as rates is concerned. Alomar is the better player by a wide margin.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Alomar was a better player, but Kent is finishing stronger. Alomar was regarded as a great player early on in his career; Kent still isn't regarded as great in some quarters.

I'd put both in the HOF.

[leecemark]

Alomar was a better player, but Kent is finishing stronger. Alomar was regarded as a great player early on in his career; Kent still isn't regarded as great in some quarters.

I'd put both in the HOF.

--Agreed. But if I can only vote for one its Alomar.

[KCGHOST]

Alomar has certainly done as well as Kent offensively and he has a locker full of gold gloves to go with that.

[Mike D.]

I voted for Alomar. He's a sure-fire HOFer...while Kent is still "on the bubble" a bit, although I think he'll make it in, as well.

[yankillaz]

Who voted for Kent??

[Fuzzy Bear]

Who voted for Kent??

I vote for Kent to make the HOF, although I rank Alomar ahead of him.