Bonds begins HOF campaign

Saying that Carew is considered among the best of all time, and got 90% of the vote, speaks to the perception of him, but doesn't really answer the question of whether he was in fact more valuable as a player than Bagwell, who everyone knows has not gotten in for the sole reason of steroid allegations. I have no solid factual basis for knowing whether or not Bagwell used PEDs, and most likely no one on this board does. If you exclude PEDs from consideration, and if you take a more modern statistical view which does not look at batting average in isolation (remember, Bagwell reached base much more frequently than the "singles hitter" Carew), I really don't see how you reach a conclusion that Carew was a better offensive player than Bagwell.

 

That is a copout. Percentage of vote means better player? C'mon, tell me why you think he is better. Phil Rizzuto is in the hall, is he better than Bagwell?

 

Seems to me this is true ONLY if there was some power-hitting, better offensive player sitting on the bench whose place Carew was taking.

Otherwise, the Angels weren't putting themselves at a disadvantage. They just were at a disadvantage.

 

Rizzuto is definitely not better than Bagwell.

 

That's some horrible logic.

The correct answer.

 

"Otherwise, the Angels weren't putting themselves at a disadvantage. They just were at a disadvantage."

I see and agree with your point - we're just looking at the same issue at different times. I'm not saying they had someone on the bench who would have done better (although they may have in 1985); my point was that they went into the '85 season thinking they were set at first as Carew chased his 3000th hit, rather than finding someone else to take the spot.

And actually, their long term plan was probably to have Darryl Sconiers, who was fairly well regarded in his minor league days, ready to play first by then, but cocaine use sidetracked his career, IIRC.

 

I may be wrong but are people seriously doubting whether Carew belongs in the Hall?

 

OK, cranberry... Go find a lifelong seamhead, someone who has covered Carew and Bagwell and repeat your statement that "Bagwell is clearly better than Carew..." and see how long it takes for them to stop laughing...

They are very, very, very different players from two pretty different eras even though they weren't that far apart. I think both should be in Cooperstown and I would have voted for Bagwell on the first ballot.

 

I don't think it's gotten that far.

 

I don't need to. I am a lifelong seamhead who's seen both of them play. Bagwell was the better all-around player and would have commanded more dollars if they'd ever been in the same market. Power hitters are just more valuable than singles hitters and always have been. We just have better metrics now to make that case. Carew played during a time when there was way too much focus on batting average. He's a Hall of Famer, for sure, but a better comparison for him is Wade Boggs.

 

As one who was seemingly among the anti-Carew forces on here today I would like to reiterate my view, expressed previously on this thread, that he's a fully deserving HOFer. I do think that perception of his historical ranking as a player is slightly lower than it used to be, for two reasons: (1) a greater general appreciation, no matter how much it irritates Murray Chass, of a broader range of statistics, which makes his high batting average less impressive than it used to be in light of his more modest walk and power totals, and (2) the offensive explosion since he retired, for numerous reasons (smaller parks, expansion, weight training, PED use, possibly a livelier ball) which skewed historical standards.

This sort of baseball historiography is interesting - for example, in 1985 pretty much everybody thought Steve Garvey (272 HRs, .294/.329/.446) had a much better career than Bobby Grich (224 HRs, .266/.371/.424, at a more demanding defensive position). Today I think there's a lot of people who find it a very close call.

 

I agree that the HOF voters have not been kind to players who were dominant in the 1980s, whose numbers pale in comparison with the players from a decade or so later.

Dave Parker comes to mind.

Jim Rice had to wait way too long to get in.

Dale Murphy comes to mind.