MLB HOF debate thread

Which brings us back to Bagwell, who hit .226 in 106 career at-bats with two homers and 10 RBIs. Not exactly endearing in the eyes of some hall voters.

 

I think the 1982 title wasn't nearly as important to Ozzie's case as the 1985 Niedenfuer home run (his first one hit left-handed, which is really a pathetic stat.) Of course, the Cards didn't win the Series that year, either.

Vizquel only has Jose Mesa's blank eyes to blame. 8)

 

Ted Williams hit .200. Ernie Banks hit ---.

Sorry, but if the postseason is a strong rationale for keeping a guy out, that's ludicrous. It can help, it can hurt -- especially for players like Bagwell seemingly on the bubble, although I don't think he should be -- but it shouldn't be a major sticking point for anyone.

 

Do you truly believe that, Chris, or is that a bit of subjectivity creeping in?

 

Biggio played catcher, 2nd and CF and he won four Gold Gloves at 2nd. Biggio was a guy who could play anywhere.

Boggs was a stone hands at 3rd and his lack of power probably meant that he would have been obsolete at 1st or DH (the only other positions his slow white ass could handle).

Biggio has 4514 total bases - including more than twice as many HR as Boggs. Plus Biggio is 9th all-time in doubles (just 3 behind Honus Wagner). Boggs is 18th on the all-time doubles list even though a very good percentage of Wade's extra base hits were Monster-ball doubles that would have been pop-ups in the Astrodome. Toss in that Boggs had just 4064 total bases (less than either Jim Rice or Dwight Evans) and you start to get the picture of how over-rated Boggs truly is.

Plus Biggio is not a known molester of collies.

 

You couldn't resist.

 

If you look at Fielding Runs Above Replacement, Smith is a significantly better defensive shortstop than Vizquel. This is also true if you just trust your eyes. Vizquel was great. Smith was in another world. He was also a slightly better hitter based on career OPS+.

 

Damn, when you put it that way, Boggs sounds like a piece of crap ...

 

I think we all have to realize that the basis for picking the Hall of Fame players has changed. Mediocre stats will not put a player in any longer. They have to stand above and beyond the rest of the class to get in. Look at Ripken Jr. and Gwynn. That is why players like Bagwell, Rice, and probably Dawson are going to be kept out of the Hall.

 

I still think Mattingly should be in

 

Great point.

 

Of course it's ludicrous. The whole system is ludicrous. But it's reality. I think Bagwell deserves to be inducted. Again, I'm not so certain he will be, and part of the reason I feel that way is the method of selection, which has little if any guidelines and is subject to flights of fancy.