MLB HOF debate thread

Yeah, you're right. Bagwell was a better blend of getting on base and hitting for pop than those guys. What the hell good would that do?

You don't have to be a saberhead to know about OPS, for God's sake.

But I love how some guys embrace ignorance when they make baseball arguments.

And Dooley, you're wrong about Perez. One of the worst HOF selections in recent memory. By any reasonable measure, Jeff Bagwell was a better player.

 

you have to look at Bagwell all around. He was a terrific base runner with incredible instincts. He had more than 200 stolen bases and he was a speedster by any means. He was a very underrated defensive first baseman and again used his instincts to make the correct play every time. He was never out of place and knew exactly what to do. Take all that and factor in his offensive numbers, and maybe he gets in. He's very much on the fence, but I think I'd vote for him.
Of course, if you have to make a case for somebody they probably don't deserve to be in. Guys like Clemens, Maddux and Glavine you don't even think about. Also, there can be players who are VERY VERY good but aren't HOF worthy. Bagwell may be at the top of that last.

 

I' bet Bagwell gets in because of all that's been mentioned before, plus a few more things:

1. He was great on the basepaths and stole 202 bases, as well. Sure, he missed 500 homeruns, but the 200 stolen bases should plug that perceived hole. And with that, voters can argue he was the greatest all-around first baseman ever.

2. The sabermetrics cadre will be out in force for him. Bill James ranks Bagwell as the fourth-best first baseman all time. Here's a link to some Baseball Prospectus arcana raving about him: http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/bp/1371023.html

3. He was a good citizen / clubhouse guy and was well-liked and respected by the media.

4. He was the 1994 NL MVP, albeit in a strike-shortened season. In skimming other replies, I don't think this was mentioned.

 

Dooley, we've done this before, but you couldn't be wronger on this. As was said, there (I'm guessing - didn't look it up)isn't any per season measure that would make Perez look like a better player than Bagwell. & Bagwell did it plenty long enough. Maybe Perez should have been 1st ballot in the "glue" HOF, with Rizzuto, Eckstein (who else?), but he was half the baseball player that Bagwell was.

 

Lou Gehrig, and it's so lopsided that it's laughable.

Offensively, he is completely without peer among HOF first basemen:

534 doubles -- ranked 3rd (behind Palmeiro and Murray; Gehrig's record for 1Bs stood until 1996)
163 triples -- 2nd (Daubert, 164)
493 HRs -- 6th (but like 2Bs, TBs, RBI and R, he held the record for 1Bs when he retired)
.340 BA -- T-2nd (Terry, .341; tied w/ Sisler)
1,995 RBI -- 1st (and 4th overall)
2,721 H -- 5th
1,888 R -- 1st (and 10th overall)
1.079 OPS -- 1st (and 3rd overall ... naturally, also 1st in OBP and SLG among 1Bs)
5,060 TB -- 3rd (Murray, Palmeiro; record stood until 1995)

His 102 stolen bases are 40th among first basemen, but with 1,888 runs scored it seems he could run the bases OK, perhaps. Defensively, he worked himself into becoming one of the better-fielding first basemen of his era. Like Bagwell, he might have won one Gold Glove (likely in 1934 or '38) if that award had been around back then. Probably would have been hard-pressed to surpass Joe Judge early in his career or Zeke Bonura and Joe Kuhel later, though.

Bags might very well be in the top 5-10 first basemen ever. But no way anyone can approach Gehrig as the best all-around first baseman of all time. No effin' way.

 

but you are, i'll bet.

 

When a player hits a HR - I know who hit the HR.

When OPS+ is quoted - I don't know who sets the OPS+ standard (seriously - and I consider myself a stats guy). One year Fenway is a hitters park and the next year its a pitchers park.

Bagwell may be great but too many rumors exist of him being the steroids guy who introduced Caminitti to steroids. It was so bad that Bagwell's mom had to address the rumors.

What exactly makes Bagwell better than Don Mattingly or Fred McGriff?

 

And you'd be wrong. Nothing new there. There's plenty of stuff the sabermetrics crowd does that makes my eyes glaze over. But OPS ain't exactly quantum physics. Sorry if I actually do some homework -- I'm funny that way. I even do research for my stories.

And buckweaver, I'm going to hope that when crustacean said "best all-around,'' he meant something more along the lines of "most-rounded." Bagwell was strong across the board, but his overall value doesn't come close to Gehrig.

Sometimes, people get too hung up on the all-around thing. It's like the triple-double stat in basketball. People will go ga-ga over the guy who had 18 points, 11 rebounds, 10 assists. Me, I'll take the guy who had 35 points, eight rebounds and seven assists.

 

You're kidding, right?

Mattingly had six peak years -- Hall of Fame years, to be sure -- but missed an average of 40 games a year his final three seasons after age 31. He had a Hall of Fame peak, but nothing before and nothing after. Just didn't play long enough (and, yes, I think if Puckett gets in despite retiring early to injury, then Mattingly should, too.)

His fielding and pure hitting were better than Bags (although Jeff got on base way more than Mattingly), plus Bagwell's power numbers completely overwhelm here.

Bagwell also had more consistency (Bags never had a very average season like Donnie in 1991: .288-9-68 ... in 152 games) and was much healthier (until 2005, anyway). It's not even close.

 

Thanks for checkin' in, Jeff's Dad.

 

Leon Durham deserves a place in the Hall. Lets kick out Boggs and put in Durham.

After all, Boggs only won five batting crowns. Never mind that his lifetime batting average is 45 points higher than what Biggio has turned in so far.

My thought is this: If ever there was a 3,000-hit guy unworthy of HOF status, it would be Biggio. But I'm a sentimental guy. I like to see underdogs rewarded, so I don't have a problem with him making the Hall. He's one of those guys who truly brought a lot of intangibles to the game.

 

Will you never forgive him? He didn't trade himself for Larry Andersen. And you're the only one I've ever heard the steroid rumors from.

As for this last piece, Mattingly & McGriff are opposites. Mattingly (like Rice), was HOF great for not long enough. McGriff was very good for a long enough time that his career counting numbers mistakenly make it look like he was great. Bagwell was alot better than McGriff for alot longer than Mattingly.