MLB HOF debate thread

You cannot even put Williams, Banks, and Bagwell in the same sentence, let alone the same paragraph. I do not know why I am even doing it here, but Bagwell's numbers to me are not enough to warrant the Hall. If he reached 500 home runs, then maybe he had a case. If he won more than 1 MVP award, then maybe he would have a case. In the power era, 500 home runs should be a benchmark, as well as several other categories. Bags did not reach it.

 

You have to raise the offensive standards for post-1980s players. I wouldn't even consider Palmeiro until No. 3,000, and even then it was iffy in my book. (Now, he's a definite no).

Biggio, yes, for the reasons already mentioned.

Thomas, yes.

Bagwell, nah, although I can definitely understand the Astrodome argument. I think the stadiums and teams of a player should be taken into consideration, which is why I have always thought Bert Blyleven (his pathetic campaigning notwithstanding) should be in.

 

The Astrodome argument means nothing IMO. If they start including ballparks in the selection criteria, it will be a joke. Parks keep getting smaller and smaller while the players get bigger and bigger. I personally think Minute Maid is a travesty to baseball.

 

This is about as silly as it was when we did it last time. Bagwell & Thomas should be in, no brainers. They had more great years than any of the other people you are trying to compare them to. Rice & Mattingly didn't have enough.

 

How bout Thome?

 

Bagwell's OPS+ of 150 is better than Harmon Killebrew, Mike Schimdt, George Brett, Reggie Jackson and Eddie Mathews.

It's 34th best in ML history. And we're not talking some artificially short career. He played 2,150 games.

Jim Rice's OPS+ was 128.

 

Bagwell doesn't even compare to those players in terms of HRs or RBIs

 

In some ways, cumulative, sticking-around stats are becoming less important with the advent of other indicators. Bagwell might not have the HR/RBI totals of, say, Eddie Matthews, but he walked a bunch and has one of the best OPS averages of any peer. That matters.

 

If you're using simplistic HRs and RBI as the end-all, you don't really belong in a grown-up discusssion about the HOF.

 

Bullshit, Monte. One can easily assess the Hall of Fame merits of a players without knowing OPS+, OPS- or OPS2. Stats, even the simple ones, are only part of the discussion. A player's place in the game, whether he helped define his era, whether he was integral to a historic team. That's why those who dis the induction of Tony Perez, the glue of the Big Red Machine and the player on that team opponents feared the most, are more tenuous as far as belonging on the grown-ups list than those who aren't saberheads.

 

I never did say that I was using HR and RBIs as the end-all. All I am saying is that Bagwell does not compare to those players in those terms. I don't think Bagwell deserves to be in the same breath as some of those players mentioned. IMO, there should be a cleansing of people out of the Hall of Fame. A lot of players in there really do not belong. But that's another piece, another story.

 

he said while nuzzling at the teet of bill james.