Jeff Bagwell: Hall of Famer?

[NateDogg7240]

I sure hope he makes it in. He was always my favorite player

 

[FedEx227]

The eye test definitely hurts Bagwell and just the fact that he had the similar "second peak" at age 31-35 that many of the other juicers had.

It's not a no doubt, but I think it's very likely.

I always said Bagwell was one of the reasons you should let eligible, deserving roided guys in no matter what because no matter how hard you try to keep all the "juicers" out you never will. There will be guys put in in the next 5 years that are more than likely juicers whether it's Bagwell or Edgar Martinez or any number of other guys. You can't say we're not going to vote the steroid guys and only leave out Clemens, Bonds, McGwire and Sosa while at the same time letting in the fringe guys that while not proven, more than likely did.

 

[NAHSTE]

I guess that's a good point FedEx. For instance, I'm fairly certain Chipper was doing some unnatural things for a stretch there, but it'd be criminal not to vote him into the HOF.

I am borrowing this quote from someone, but I'd rather see 100 users get in than keep out one clean guy just because it looks like he was juicing.

 

[FedEx227]

Yeah, I don't condone steroid use but it happened and we can't take back history. It's stupid to not try and pick out individuals that we think did or we didn't think did and some of these guys can't get in but other guys that may have can get in because they weren't caught or knowingly did it, etc.

It's just stupid.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I think Bagwell was a better player than McGuire or Sosa anyway.

I'm not sure why anyone would vote "no". He was a tremendous hitter.

 

[CaribbeanJoseph]

Without a doubt.

 

[mcstl25]

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AqjdSLYJPCEXLEHF8AvLSRkRvLYF?slug=jp-halloffamedecisions123010

I usually cannot stand Jeff Passan, but this is a pretty good article about different schools of thought on steroid era players and the hall of fame.

The "schools of thought" that I agree with most, oddly enough, are #1 (vote everyone in) or #4 (vote nobody in).

I can understand the rationale behind #2, but don't agree with it. The reason being, there are probably hundreds of ballplayers who used steroids but never were caught. For example, Griffey, Thomas, Bagwell, Martinez, and Thome all to my knowledge have never been accused of using PEDs. However, it's almost a sure thing that at least one of them, and likely more, have used PED at some point in their career. I have a problem with letting someone in the hall just because they were better at covering their tracks than those that didn't use. Now, the flip side of this argument is that a HOF caliber player who never used PEDs would be punished by not making it to the hall, which is why I can understand this argument. Regardless, my belief is most players that played during the steroid era, more specifically pre-2003, who put up hall of fame numbers were using some type of PED.

Anyone who uses rational #3 is an idiot, plain and simple. I get so sick and tired of hearing about the "eye test" as a measure of it a player took steroids or not. When you have relief pitchers and 170 pound middle infielders testing positive for steroids use, every player who played baseball during the steroid area should be suspected of using.

My school of thought is a mix of #1 and #4. Any player suspended for using steroids after MLB began testing for steroids in 2003 should be banned from the hall of fame. All other players should be treated as equals. MLB turned a blind eye to steroid use for too long, and made way too much money off players like McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds. Throwing those guys under the bus and making them the face of steroid use is incredibly hypocritical. I understand that steroids were considered an illegal drug by MLB prior to 2003, but MLB did not enforce the rule until it got out of control.

Back on topic... while I think Bagwell will get in, I voted no.

 

[nesper]

baseball hall of fame debates in my opinion have become such a joke there are so many standards that its just retarded, one standard for big market players another for small market just scrap the whole thing. Comparing players across generations and comparing them to peers, considering their competition, ignoring their lack of competition (ozzie smith). not to tangent this post but the baseball hall of fame is the epitomy of a shitty hall of fame it tops state and local hall of fames which are put on by some athletic club that 99% of the people dont even know exists. i was sorta against bagwell coming in here but then i leaned yes and now i dont give a shit.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I'm curious to hear the basis of the "no" arguments against Bagwell. If its not sterod related, what is it about the numbers that you don't like? If not Bagwell, then what other 1B of the era do you like, if any? Frank Thomas (a lock in my mind)? McGuire (I like Bagwell better)? I can't imagine McGriff, Grace, Galarragga, etc.

I think Bagwell stacks up a slight notch below the best of all time, and wouldn't be embarrassed in any comparison.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

For a comparison, Bill James ranked Bagwell the 4th best 1B of all time in 2001, ahead of guys like Eddie Murray, Harmon Killebrew,Hank Greenberg, Willie McCovey,Cap Anson, Tony Perez, Keith Hernandez, Raffy, Cepeda, Frank Chance, Sisler, McGriff, Boog Powell, etc etc. Mostly HOF'ers, all at least close to that standard.

 

[NAHSTE]

Yeah, Bagwell is a no doubter based on numbers. .900 career OPS while playing most of his career in the Astrodrome ... plus added defensive and baserunning value.

Two different 30-30 seasons, and six seasons over 39 homers. I don't give a shit what your criteria is, without proof he was using, you gotta vote him in.

 

[mcstl25]

Again, I voted no, but think he will get in.

Bagwell had a great 10 year stretch where he was a great all-around player. However, in my opinion, being a great player isn't enough to get you into the hall of fame. You have to be an outstanding player -- the best at your position, or at least in top three, during your era.

Probably the most telling number for me is the number of all-star game appearances Bagwell made. Despite his great 10 year run, Bagwell was only elected to the all-star game four times, meaning that two or three first basement in just the national league were put on the AS team ahead of him. To me, that is not a hall of fame talent. Now, there are obviously flaws in all-star game voting (i.e. first half is only taken into consideration, fan voting, etc) so there may be evidence to suggest that Bagwell at the end of the year was one of the best at his position, but I haven't looked into that.

Instead of comparing Bagwell's numbers to past generations, his numbers need to be compared to 1B of his era. When you stack his numbers up against his peers, while still great, they are not in my opinion hall of fame worthy.

One number I'd be curious to hear is how many players, on average, are elected to the hall of fame by decade? It just seems to me that the criteria for electing a player to the hall is so watered down these days.

 

[NAHSTE]

Probably the most telling number for me is the number of all-star game appearances Bagwell made. Despite his great 10 year run, Bagwell was only elected to the all-star game four times, meaning that two or three first basement in just the national league were put on the AS team ahead of him.

Ignoring that this is pretty flimsy criteria, I'll play ball. Here are the guys who started and were selected All-Star games at 1B from 1994-2003. Tell me which ones you think are better than Bagwell.

94: Gregg Jefferies (Fred McGriff, Bagwell)
95: McGriff (Mark Grace)
96: McGriff (Bagwell)
97: Bagwell (Andres Galarraga, Grace)
98: Mark McGwire (Galarraga)
99: McGwire (Sean Casey)
00: Galarraga (Todd Helton, McGwire)
01: Helton (Casey, Ryan Klesko)
02: Helton (Richie Sexson)
03: Helton (Sexson)


Looks like he was the victim of playing in a small market, as well as the "1 player per team rule" which let in guys like Klesko and Casey. Was it really Bagwell's fault that he didn't get more fan votes than a Cardinals or Braves player during his prime years? Or that the roster requirements worked against him being selected as a reserve?

And here are the numbers of HOF players inductees by decade:

30s: 18
40s: 29
50s: 21
60s: 27
70s: 45
80s: 33
90s: 32
00s: 35

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I think the only 1B of his era better than Bagwell is Frank Thomas (and its close), which makes Bagwell the premeir 1B in th NL during his era. I also think Bagwell and Thomas are amongst the best 1B of all time.

 

[mcstl25]

Ignoring that this is pretty flimsy criteria, I'll play ball. Here are the guys who started and were selected All-Star games at 1B from 1994-2003. Tell me which ones you think are better than Bagwell.

94: Gregg Jefferies (Fred McGriff, Bagwell)
95: McGriff (Mark Grace)
96: McGriff (Bagwell)
97: Bagwell (Andres Galarraga, Grace)
98: Mark McGwire (Galarraga)
99: McGwire (Sean Casey)
00: Galarraga (Todd Helton, McGwire)
01: Helton (Casey, Ryan Klesko)
02: Helton (Richie Sexson)
03: Helton (Sexson)


Looks like he was the victim of playing in a small market, as well as the "1 player per team rule" which let in guys like Klesko and Casey. Was it really Bagwell's fault that he didn't get more fan votes than a Cardinals or Braves player during his prime years? Or that the roster requirements worked against him being selected as a reserve?

And here are the numbers of HOF players inductees by decade:

30s: 18
40s: 29
50s: 21
60s: 27
70s: 45
80s: 33
90s: 32
00s: 35

First, I never realized that Bagwell only played 110 games in 1994. Wow, what a monster year he could have had if he played the entire season.

Of the list of all-stars above, McGwire is the only one I'd put in the hall. I think Helton and Bagwell have had very comparable careers and I'd consider both fringe hall of famers -- if I happened to have a vote, I'd vote no, but don't have a problem seeing either guy in the hall.

While I understand your point about Bagwell being a victim of a small market team, I think it says something when players like Grace, McGriff, and Galarraga were making the all-star team ahead of Bagwell. Did Bagwell have better careers then those three guys? Yes, of course. However, what this tells me is outside of two or three really great years, Bagwell was usually the 3rd or 4th best first baseman on a year-by-year basis in a first baseman weak national league during the 90's.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Blind resume!

Player 1: 15 years, .297, .408, .540, .948, 2314 H, 449 HR, 1529 RBI, 1517 R, 488 doubles, 32 triples, 149 OPS+, 79.9 WAR (76.3 offense, 3.6 defense)

Player 2: 16 years, .263, .394, .588, .982, 1626 H, 583 HR, 1414 RBI, 1167 R, 252 doubles, 6 triples, 162 OPS+, 63.1 WAR (66.7 offense, -3.6 defense)

Player 2's single season high in WAR was 7.2, while Player 1 topped 8.0 three times, and in fact topped Player 2's career high four times, with a career high of 8.9.

Both won ROY, Player 1 has three top 5 MVP finishes with one win, Player 2 also has three top 5 MVP finishes but with no wins.

Who would you rather have on your team for 15 years? I think the answer is obvious.

If you think Mark McGuire is a Hall of Famer, then how can you leave out Bagwell? He's superior in every way, except HR's.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Oh, I forgot this...Bagwell stole over 200 bases.

McGuire, 12.

 

[NAHSTE]

First, I never realized that Bagwell only played 110 games in 1994. Wow, what a monster year he could have had if he played the entire season.

Strike year, so only 114 games total for all teams.

Of the list of all-stars above, McGwire is the only one I'd put in the hall. I think Helton and Bagwell have had very comparable careers and I'd consider both fringe hall of famers -- if I happened to have a vote, I'd vote no, but don't have a problem seeing either guy in the hall.

Helton had an amazing run to start his career, but I don't think he had enough longevity. Bagwell was a better overall player than Helton when you factor in baserunning and defense.

While I understand your point about Bagwell being a victim of a small market team, I think it says something when players like Grace, McGriff, and Galarraga were making the all-star team ahead of Bagwell.

No it doesn't, it just says that the All-Star game gets it wrong a lot. Despite having lesser numbers than Bagwell, McGriff played for a perennial playoff team which played on national TV every night. Of course he's going to get more votes than Bagwell.

Galarraga started the 2000 game as a member of those same Braves, and that game was played in Atlanta, of course the ballots were gonna be in his favor. Doesn't mean he had a better season. Unless you think 28 HR and a .895 OPS is better than 47 and 1.012. Big Cat didn't get a single MVP vote that year ... you're really telling me he was a better player than Bagwell in 2000? No.

Did Bagwell have better careers then those three guys? Yes, of course.

Good thing the HOF is based on a player's career.

However, what this tells me is outside of two or three really great years, Bagwell was usually the 3rd or 4th best first baseman on a year-by-year basis in a first baseman weak national league during the 90's.

No, this tells me that the All-Star Game often gets it wrong. Chipper Jones won the league MVP in 1999, and didn't even make the ASG as a reserve that season, much less start. You're telling me Ron Coomer was a better 3B than Chipper Jones in 1999?

It's foolish to base a HOF vote on the amount of All Star Game appearances. Between 1994-2000, Bagwell averaged 37 HR and 118 RBI, with rate stats of .309/.433/.593 ... Not that it's even worth comparing because I can tell you right now no other 1B is touching that, but McGriff's numbers during that time were 27, 97 and .291/.374/.494. Solid numbers, but nowhere close to Bagwell. How was Bags not the best 1B in the NL if no other 1B in the NL could match his production? Galarraga came close, but you have to consider that he was playing in Coors Field for much of that time while Bagwell was playing in the decidedly pitcher friendly Astrodome.

Also, Bagwell's baserunning and defense were elite for his position. Only 1B in the 30-30 club and he did it twice.

 

[mcstl25]

I can agree with you that the all-star game frequently gets it wrong, and that wasn't the only criteria I used, just one example.

To me, the hall of fame is more than just compiling a great stat sheet. It's about putting up great numbers AND doing something that very few players have done before -- like winning 4 rings, or 10 gold gloves, or 3 MVPs, or 3 batting titles. It's about being the very best in the game, or at least your position, for several years. To me, Bagwell does not fit this criteria. Bagwell will probably get in to the hall of fame, I'm not arguing that. However, I wouldn't vote him in.

While I believe the number of all-star game appearances does have some merit, I agree that it's not the best indicator of being the best at your position. So let's look at NL MVP voting instead. Only three times during Bagwell's career was he the leading vote getter among first basemen in the NL - 1994, 1997, and 1999. Keep in mind, this includes NL players only. To me, three years of being the best at your position in the NL out of 15 seasons doesn't cut it for me. Gotta do better than that.

 

[FirstTimer]

To me, the hall of fame is more than just compiling a great stat sheet. It's about putting up great numbers AND doing something that very few players have done before -- like winning 4 rings, or 10 gold gloves, or 3 MVPs, or 3 batting titles. It's about being the very best in the game, or at least your position, for several years. .

Bagwell was the best first baseman in the MLB for the better part of a decade.

LOL at you putting McGwire in the HOF at all but then even debating the merits of Bagwell getting in.

Bagwell>>>McGwire as a player.