Jeff Kent vs Ryne Sandberg

[Honus Wagner Rules]

In the Jeff Kent HoF thread, Ryne Sandberg came up. So it got me thinking, of the two who was the better hitter? What say you BBF?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

FYI



. G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS+ TB
Kent 2294 8490 1319 2457 560 47 376 1516 94 60 801 1522 .289 .355 .499 122 4239
Ryne 2164 8335 1318 2380 403 76 282 1061 344 107 761 1260 .285 .344 .452 114 3787

[ipitch]

Their stats are really close, but I'll say Kent since Ryno played in a hitter's park.

[wardawg]

Kent is the better hitter, however, Sandberg is the better all around player.

[OleMissCub]

Kent is the better hitter, however, Sandberg is the better all around player.

Agreed.

WARP3
Sandberg: 108.7
Kent: 115.4

[The Fine Chi]

Their stats are really close, but I'll say Kent since Ryno played in a hitter's park.

I guess that's true if hitting is all that matters to you.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I guess that's true if hitting is all that matters to you.

Curious as to why you voted for Sandberg as a better hitter than Kent?

[brett]

Agreed.

WARP3
Sandberg: 108.7
Kent: 115.4

WARP also doesn't include extra baserunning not directly in the stat-line. Rough estimate, Ryno would probably pick up 4-5 WARP worth of runs there (if Kent is basically an average base-runner).

[The Fine Chi]

Curious as to why you voted for Sandberg as a better hitter than Kent?

Their respective eras and positional scarcities. Middle infielders weren't expected to do what Sandberg did in his day. There are plenty of slugging middle infielders in the Kent era (Bill Hall hit 37 homers in a season for example) but there were not nearly as many during the Sandberg era (pre 1994).

Do you view this as a legitimate argument?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Their respective eras and positional scarcities. Middle infielders weren't expected to do what Sandberg did in his day. There are plenty of slugging middle infielders in the Kent era (Bill Hall hit 37 homers in a season for example) but there were not nearly as many during the Sandberg era (pre 1994).

Do you view this as a legitimate argument?

I'm not sure how it applies to a Kent/Sandberg? The fact that there were few slugging infielders in Sandberg'a playing days doesn't really prove that Sandberg was the better hitter. Kent has 97 more HRs and 157 more doubles than Sandberg. That is a rather large difference. Now, some of the edge comes from the differences in the eras they played in. However, there is no way the entire difference in HRs and doubles can be simply be attributed to the different eras. Also, though Sandberg played in a lower offensive era, he played in a great hitter's park. Kent played the majority of his career in tough pitcher's parks.

Sandberg
Home: .300/.361/.491
Road: .262/.326/.412

Kent
Home: .289/.358/.494
Road: .290/.353/.504

Kent was pretty much the same hitter at home as he was on the road. Sandberg hit significantly better at home.

Oh and Bill Hall hit 35 HRs not 37. :)

[brett]

Their respective eras and positional scarcities. Middle infielders weren't expected to do what Sandberg did in his day. There are plenty of slugging middle infielders in the Kent era (Bill Hall hit 37 homers in a season for example) but there were not nearly as many during the Sandberg era (pre 1994).

Do you view this as a legitimate argument?

I do, to the extent that Sandberg WAS expected to run in his time, and did it well, and Kent's contemps at second may not have been expected to run. It opens doors for better hitting second basemen when the "need to be a runner" bias is removed.

[The Fine Chi]

I'm not sure how it applies to a Kent/Sandberg? The fact that there were few slugging infielders in Sandberg'a playing days doesn't really prove that Sandberg was the better hitter. Kent has 97 more HRs and 157 more doubles than Sandberg. That is a rather large difference. Now, some of the edge comes from the differences in the eras they played in. However, there is no way the entire difference in HRs and doubles can be simply be attributed to the different eras. Also, though Sandberg played in a lower offensive era, he played in a great hitter's park. Kent played the majority of his career in tough pitcher's parks.

Sandberg
Home: .300/.361/.491
Road: .262/.326/.412

Kent
Home: .289/.358/.494
Road: .290/.353/.504

Kent was pretty much the same hitter at home as he was on the road. Sandberg hit significantly better at home.

Oh and Bill Hall hit 35 HRs not 37. :)

I suppose that I've answered the wrong question, that one being who was a more valuable hitter for his team.

On a side note, I would have thought Sandberg lost more than the .030 points of isolated slugging he did when leaving the friendly confines.

[ipitch]

I guess that's true if hitting is all that matters to you.

The first post asks who was the better hitter.

[philkid3]

In about 150 more plate appearances, Kent has the RC/27 lead 6.2 to 5.7, but Sandberg has the highest OWP (which I'm, admittedly, less versed in). Kent had the best single season in batting wins by a mile (5.4), and the second best by a little (3.9). Sandberg then has four of the next six, then it mostly goes to Kent.

It's really pretty hard to determine to me. I'm going to go with Kent for being better at his best I think.

[The Kid]

Sandberg the better all around player, Kent the better hitter.

[KCGHOST]

If you think comparing Kent to Sandberg is a matter worthy of study then you have to accept Kent is the better hitter. Kent is a so-so defender and base runner while Sandberg was very good at both of those things.

[gman5431]

Yeah i agree with most people here. I actually voted for Sandburg because i like him better and i think he is the better all around player - which to me matters most. I hesitate to says Kent is the better hitter because the stats are close. Basically Kent has more homers and Ryno has more steals. If i had to draft one of the two i would take Sandburg so i guess thats why i voted for him.

G Man

[Brad Harris]

Yeah i agree with most people here. I actually voted for Sandburg because i like him better and i think he is the better all around player - which to me matters most. I hesitate to says Kent is the better hitter because the stats are close. Basically Kent has more homers and Ryno has more steals. If i had to draft one of the two i would take Sandburg so i guess thats why i voted for him.

G Man

So you (a) didn't understand the instructions, (b) don't know that baserunning has nothing to do with hitting, (c) didn't read the question first, or (d) don't care what the question was; you'll do what you want regardless of the instructions?

Just curious. ;)

[OleMissCub]

I had a RYNO poster in my room growing up, but I had to stifle my homerism and go with Kent here.

[gman5431]

So you (a) didn't understand the instructions, (b) don't know that baserunning has nothing to do with hitting, (c) didn't read the question first, or (d) don't care what the question was; you'll do what you want regardless of the instructions?

Just curious. ;)

All of the above. :dance

I firmly believe that Ryno was a better ballplayer and i'm not ready to consent that Kent is a better hitter. I think they may be even and i might lean towards Ryno on that one as well. Depends on how much drinking i have been doing and what day of the week it is.

G Man

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I specifically asked in my OP who is the better HITTER not the better all around ballplayer. Why some chose to ignore that I do not understand.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

For the people that voted for Sandberg. I have a question for you. Did you vote for Sandberg because:

1) You truly believe Sandberg was the better HITTER
2) You are a Ryne Sandberg fan
3) You compared then as all around players even though the instructions said to compare them as hitters.

[Dodgerfan1]

This is an excellent question! Very close, IMO. I went with Kent, but certainly would have no problem with 'RYAN' Sandberg. Different types of hitters; both very productive. I like Kent's power.

[gman5431]

For the people that voted for Sandberg. I have a question for you. Did you vote for Sandberg because:

1) You truly believe Sandberg was the better HITTER
2) You are a Ryne Sandberg fan
3) You compared then as all around players even though the instructions said to compare them as hitters.

Given those options i would go with (1). I do not consider myself a Sanberg fan and i do not like the Cubs. I think he was a better hitter then Kent.

G Man

[Dodgerfan1]

Given those options i would go with (1). I do not consider myself a Sanberg fan and i do not like the Cubs. I think he was a better hitter then Kent.

G Man

Wow. Their stats certainly don't bear this out....

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Given those options i would go with (1). I do not consider myself a Sanberg fan and i do not like the Cubs. I think he was a better hitter then Kent.

G Man

Good, now we are getting somewhere. On what basis did you conclude that Sandberg was the better hitter?

[Ubiquitous]

Jeff Kent from 1992 to 1997: .269/.324/.455 in almost 3,000 PA's.
1998 and on: .299/.369/.520 in over 6,500 PA's oh and age 30 to 40.


Just sayin . . . .

[STLCards2]

Jeff Kent from 1992 to 1997: .269/.324/.455 in almost 3,000 PA's.
1998 and on: .299/.369/.520 in over 6,500 PA's oh and age 30 to 40.


Just sayin . . . .


It is not uncommon for a player to significanlty improve after their first 5-6 years. Why the speculation?

[Ubiquitous]

But it isn't common for players on the wrong side of 30 to be better then when they were under 30. Not unless. . .

[Brad Harris]

All of the above. :dance

I firmly believe that Ryno was a better ballplayer and i'm not ready to consent that Kent is a better hitter. I think they may be even and i might lean towards Ryno on that one as well. Depends on how much drinking i have been doing and what day of the week it is.

G Man

I hear ya! :laugh :laugh :laugh

[philkid3]

Maybe he did take "you know what" and that made him a better hitter. In which case, he was a better hitter.


Unfortunately.

[gman5431]

Wow. Their stats certainly don't bear this out....

Stats are just numbers. They are part of the story but not the whole story. I think Sandberg is a better hitter then Kent. I dont see that as too far of a reach.

G Rizzle

[Brad Harris]

Stats are just numbers. They are part of the story but not the whole story. I think Sandberg is a better hitter then Kent. I dont see that as too far of a reach.

G Rizzle

In the case of Sandberg, the Hitter versus Kent, the Hitter, what's the "other" part of the story?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Stats are just numbers. They are part of the story but not the whole story. I think Sandberg is a better hitter then Kent. I dont see that as too far of a reach.

G Rizzle
OK, I'll bite. On what basis did you reach the conclusion that Sandberg was the better hitter? What evidence has led you to reach such a conclusion?

[gman5431]

By watching both of them play, in the context of their eras and their value as hitters to their teams and the actual ability to hit a baseball - i believe Sandberg is the better hitter.

G Rizzle

[Brad Harris]

By watching both of them play, in the context of their eras and their value as hitters to their teams and the actual ability to hit a baseball - i believe Sandberg is the better hitter.

G Rizzle

Don't the stats simply bear out what you "saw" anyway though?

[gman5431]

Don't the stats simply bear out what you "saw" anyway though?

To a certain extent, yes, but stats can be misleading. And even though they overlapped slightly, they played in two different eras.

[Sirmudgeon]

Kent vs. Sandberg is no real comparison, hitting-wise. It's not just stats, it's who would you rather face with the game on the line? Kent is a latter-day Bobby Grich, he'll take a double-play relay off his noggin rather than just allow it to happen. Same at the plate.

Sandberg? Well, A-Rod is a player I follow, just due to his numerical supremacy, but the ultimate "likely to get their panties in a twist" DP combo is probably A-Rod at short and Sandberg at second.

Kent's a jerk, but he'd be my pick every time at 2B over Sandberg, as a hitter and even as a fielder (unlike Bowa, he doesn't care about fielding percentage, he cares about winning the game). Not much of a fielder, neither was Rose, but both won.

Gotta give Ryne some credit, he was the link between Morgan and Alomar, very good hitter, not a stud 4-hole guy. Kent still is.

[Brad Harris]

To a certain extent, yes, but stats can be misleading.
Not nearly as misleading as first-hand observation, IMHO.

[STLCards2]

Gotta give Ryne some credit, he was the link between Morgan and Alomar, very good hitter, not a stud 4-hole guy. Kent still is.


In what league is Jeff Kent "still" a "stud 4-hole guy"?

[Sirmudgeon]

St. L Cards really called me on this one, that Jeff Kent is no longer a stud four-hole guy. I guess he's correct, with the caveat that I'd not want to face Kent in the four-hole with the bases juiced and the game on the line.

How many other players would you have up there? Pujols, Ramirez, David Wright, Garret Anderson, Vlad the Impaler, Ortiz if healthy, Morneau, Holliday, a couple of others. I guess point being Kent is still a stud hitter, probably his last year of being so, nonetheless...

I've always detested Kent. I'll miss him, best hitting second-sacker since probably Hornsby- this would include Morgan, Sandberg, Alomar, Carew, Gehringer, Robinson, yes even poosh-em-up Lazzeri, et al. Collins was pre-Rajah, so doesn't figure in.

All-time:
1. Hornsby
2. Collins
3. Morgan
4. Kent
5. Gehringer
6. Robinson
7. Sandberg
8. Alomar
9. Carew
10. McPhee

[Brad Harris]

I think you're forgetting Joe Gordon. People often forget that Gordon lost his age 29 and 30 seasons to WWII. Had he played in 1944-1945, he'd have very likely been the all-time home run leader at second base by the time he retired.

[Sirmudgeon]

You are spot on, Classic. Gordon is probably up there in the top ten, maybe vying with Jackie and Charlie G. And yet, I think Kent's better than both. And yes, I think Sandberg's knickers are still in a twist.