Jeff Bagwell: Hall of Famer?

[FirstTimer]

I think the only 1B of his era better than Bagwell is Frank Thomas (and its close),

I disagree here.

Frank Thomas was/is far and away better than Bagwell. Like I said earlier, even with Thomas' defensive shortcomings he was considered one of the best position players in baseball along side Bonds and Griffey in the early to mid 90's. Thomas didn't start DH'ing full time until 2000 so I think like 5 of his 7 best seasons were playing 1B full time as well.

 

[NAHSTE]

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.

What about being the only first basemen to go 40-30 ... and doing it twice?

It's about being the very best in the game, or at least your position, for several years

Sounds like Bagwell to me.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

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.

OK, now i'm truly perplexed. I think you are reaching real far with this.

Ok, so Bagwell was the leading vote getter amongst 1B "only" three times, but you fail to mention he was also the only 1B to actually win MVP during his career.

And does it really matter if Fred McGriff or Andres Galarraga or Sean Casey snuck in and finished ahead of him in MVP voting every now & then? Who cares, doesn't mean Bagwell wasn't the best 1B in the NL during his career, which based on awards, counting stats, metric stats, consistancy, and just about every other measure, he was.

I just don;t get this counter argument at all, putting such heavy emphasis on All Star games and "top MVP vote getter amongst his position" (even though he's the only guy at his position to actually win the award), when it doesnt need to be that complicated. I mean, not only does Bagwell have a more impressive resume than the guys in his own era, he actually stacks up quite favorably with the other 1B already in the HOF (he's better than most of them, actually).

Reasonable minds can disagree, but if Jeff Bagwell isnt a HOF, then neither is anybody else from his era (short of Frank Thomas, who unfortuately, due to hanging around too long, will probably lose votes from dumbfuck voters hung up on first ballot nonsense).

 

[FirstTimer]

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.

This is my favorite gem in this post.

So Bagwell gets slighted because he didn't lead a league he didn't even play in in MVP votes for his position at any point in his career?

I don't think Ripken should get into the HOF because he never lead NL short stops in MVP votes.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

This is my favorite gem in this post.

So Bagwell gets slighted because he didn't lead a league he didn't even play in in MVP votes at any point in his career?

I don't think Ripken should get into the HOF because he never lead NL short stops in MVP votes.

You might want to re read his post

 

[NAHSTE]

You might want to re read his post

Eh, it still won't make a lick of sense.

 

[FirstTimer]

You might want to re read his post

...What was Bagwell supposed to do? Jump leagues so he could try and be the top vote getting 1B in the AL?

 

[mcstl25]

We can agree to disagree on this one. Not sure why you all care why some nobody without a hall of fame vote cares not to elect Bagwell to the HOF. I've already stated several times that I think Bagwell will get in (not this year), I just don't agree with it.

Again, my reasons. First, I just never really saw Bagwell as an elite player. For more quantitative evidence - Bagwell didn't reach any significant career milestones as he didn't hit .300, didn't reach 3,000 hits or 500 home runs. You can argue that injuries cut his career short preventing him from reaching the hit and HR milestones, but he still never led the league in home runs or batting average either.

As I mentioned earlier, he was only a 4-time all-star and finished in the top 5 in MVP voting only 3 times, which hurts his resume. Finally, he was horrible in the post-season (.226 BA, 2 HR and 13 RBIs in 33 games.)

Again, Bagwell was a great player, but doesn't have a hall of fame resume in my opinion. Need to be better than just a great player to get in.

 

[mcstl25]

...What was Bagwell supposed to do? Jump leagues so he could try and be the top vote getting 1B in the AL?

I think you missed the point.

My point was that I was only comparing Bagwell to National League first basemen, meaning that American League players weren't even taken into consideration. If Bagwell wasn't considered the first or second best first baseman in the National League most years according to MVP and all-star voting, he would have fallen even further down the list if also compared to American League first basemen.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

We can agree to disagree on this one. Not sure why you all care why some nobody without a hall of fame vote cares not to elect Bagwell to the HOF. I've already stated several times that I think Bagwell will get in (not this year), I just don't agree with it.

Again, my reasons. First, I just never really saw Bagwell as an elite player. For more quantitative evidence - Bagwell didn't reach any significant career milestones as he didn't hit .300, didn't reach 3,000 hits or 500 home runs. You can argue that injuries cut his career short preventing him from reaching the hit and HR milestones, but he still never led the league in home runs or batting average either.

As I mentioned earlier, he was only a 4-time all-star and finished in the top 5 in MVP voting only 3 times, which hurts his resume. Finally, he was horrible in the post-season (.226 BA, 2 HR and 13 RBIs in 33 games.)

Again, Bagwell was a great player, but doesn't have a hall of fame resume in my opinion. Need to be better than just a great player to get in.

I guess my biggest issue is you would take McGuire but not Bagwell. If you wouldnt take either, I can say, well ok, this guy just has really high standards. But Bagwell trumps McGuire in everything but HR's.

By the way, McGuire in the postseason:

.217, 5 HR, 14 RBI in 42 games, .669 OPS

Also, Top 5 MVP three times, just like Bagwell, but unlike Bagwell, McGuire never won.

McGuire went to 12 All Star Games. So if i'm understanding right, All Star Games and HR's trump everything else in this case?

 

[mcstl25]

I can admit that I'm a homer on McGwire. Living in St. Louis during the 1998 season when McGwire broke Maris' record was unbelievable. McGwire did something at the time that no other player had ever done. Not only that, McGwire and Sosa almost single-handedly brought baseball fans back to the game after the strike.

To me, the hall of fame is more about those kind of moments than just putting together a bunch of "really good" seasons.

Now, in hindsight, after a roided up Bonds broke the roided up McGwire's record, it diminished the legacy of the 1998 season. Add on to that the testimonies in front of Congress and McGwire's admission of steroid use, the 1998 season was further diminished. So I really can't argue with people who don't think McGwire deserves to be in the hall. My personal opinion, MLB turned a blind eye to steroid use and made millions of dollars off the 1998 season. It's hypocritical for MLB to punish McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds when they practically encouraged the use of performance enhancing drugs because "chicks dig the long ball".

In the end, Bagwell will probably get in and McGwire will not. I don't agree with it, but I also don't have a vote.

 

[Irish]

I wouldnt let him in. But I also wouldn't let McGuire in.

The MLB is basically the last Hall of Fame that lets only the best of the best in. Instead of leagues like the NFL where they try to get as many people as they can in a year. I think the Hall of Fame should be for the best of the best, and Bagwell never crossed my mind as that guy. Sure he is a great hitter, feared for the most part of his career, but does his name belong next to legends of the game?

It is tough criteria for me. MLB is easily the toughest Hall of Fame to get into(well I don't know much about the NHL or NBA but whatever) and I don't want to see great players get in. Only the best of the best.

 

[NAHSTE]

Again, my reasons. First, I just never really saw Bagwell as an elite player.

What is not elite about averaging 37 homers and leading the league in WAR?

For more quantitative evidence - Bagwell didn't reach any significant career milestones as he didn't hit .300, didn't reach 3,000 hits or 500 home runs.

His lifetime average is .297 ... Please don't tell me you are quibbling over .03 points of batting average.

As for the 500 bombs, he got hurt at 37 and fell off. 50 homers short, big deal. He averaged 35 for a career, and put up 6 seasons over 39.

You can argue that injuries cut his career short preventing him from reaching the hit and HR milestones, but he still never led the league in home runs or batting average either.

What about slugging? Or runs? Or total bases? OPS? Or RBIs? Or fielding percentage? Because he led the league in each of those categories. Not only did his .750 slugging percentage in '94 lead the league, it's the 11th best season any hitter has had ever, behind only Gehrig, Ruth, Hornsby and roided-up Bonds. Who cares that he never led the league in HRs or AVG? It's not like he was deficient in these categories ... He once hit .368 which is more than enough to win a batting title in most years, not his fault Tony Gwynn hit .396 that year and he only finished second. In 2000, he hit 47 homers ... good enough to win the HR title most years, not his fault Sammy Sosa hit 50 and he only finished second.

As I mentioned earlier, he was only a 4-time all-star and finished in the top 5 in MVP voting only 3 times, which hurts his resume.

No it doesn't as we've already deconstructed. How does winning an MVP and only finishing top 5 two other times hurt his resume? And the other two times, he finished second and third. Failing to see how three top-3 MVP finishes, including one win, hurts his resume in any way, shape or form.

Again, Bagwell was a great player, but doesn't have a hall of fame resume in my opinion. Need to be better than just a great player to get in.

:bizzaro:

He's the 9th best slugging pct. 1B of ALL TIME ... And a top 25 OPS guy ALL TIME... How does one of the 25 greatest hitters ever not get you in?



Stop using wacky, arbitrary criteria and just look at his career as a whole. It's one of the more impressive resumes you'll find from this era.

I wouldnt let him in. But I also wouldn't let McGuire in.

The MLB is basically the last Hall of Fame that lets only the best of the best in. Instead of leagues like the NFL where they try to get as many people as they can in a year. I think the Hall of Fame should be for the best of the best, and Bagwell never crossed my mind as that guy. Sure he is a great hitter, feared for the most part of his career, but does his name belong next to legends of the game?

It is tough criteria for me. MLB is easily the toughest Hall of Fame to get into(well I don't know much about the NHL or NBA but whatever) and I don't want to see great players get in. Only the best of the best.

That's incorrect. The pro football hall requires 80% of the votes and only has a 44-person committee. The baseball HOF only requires 75% of over 300+ delegates, and also has a veteran's committee which will vote on you if you can't get in after a certain amount of time. The pro football hall only allows up to 7 to be inducted (though they do let in a minimum for four each year), while the BBWAA allows you to vote for up to 10 players each year.

There are 253 members of the pro football hall of fame, 293 in baseball.

So it's actually harder to get into the Pro Football HOF than it is the baseball one ... Not that this should matter in this discussion because Bagwell is one of the 25 best hitters of all time and that should be enough to let you in no matter how exclusive a club it is.

 

[Irish]

That's incorrect. The pro football hall requires 80% of the votes and only has a 44-person committee. The baseball HOF only requires 75% of over 300+ delegates, and also has a veteran's committee which will vote on you if you can't get in after a certain amount of time. The pro football hall only allows up to 7 to be inducted (though they do let in a minimum for four each year), while the BBWAA allows you to vote for up to 10 players each year.

There are 253 members of the pro football hall of fame, 293 in baseball.

So it's actually harder to get into the Pro Football HOF than it is the baseball one ... Not that this should matter in this discussion because Bagwell is one of the 25 best hitters of all time and that should be enough to let you in no matter how exclusive a club it is.

Pro football hall of fame opened in 1963. So in about 47 years about 5(.3) guys get in every year.

MLB opened in 1939. So in 71 years abut 4(.1) guys get in every year.

Its slight sure but still. Recently the idea around NFL HOF time is you have 7 spots make sure you fill them, which I don't really see from the MLB. Recently they only have been letting in 2-4 guys in the past 5 or so years it seems. And I see the talent that gets into the NFL HOF to be less rich than the MLB.

Does Bagwell deserve to get in based on the standards now? Yes probably. But if I had to vote, I would like to see the HOF tighten up on the criteria they let in. Id like for the HOF to be for the game changers, the A+ players. And I don't think Bagwell stands next to those guys.

 

[FirstTimer]

I think you missed the point.

I think you made a terrible one.

My point was that I was only comparing Bagwell to National League first basemen

Really? Wow thanks for pointing that out. I'm sure no one here would have been able to realize that NL MVP voting took into account only players in the NL.

If Bagwell wasn't considered the first or second best first baseman in the National League most years according to MVP and all-star voting, he would have fallen even further down the list if also compared to American League first basemen.

Behind who? Frank Thomas(a lock HOF'er)? ..and who else?

I find it ridiculous you make this point especially considering that Bagwell was the only NL 1B to win the award between 1979 and 2005.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

FWIW, in addition to ranking him as the 4th best 1B of all time through 2001, Bill James ranked Bagwell as the best payer in all of baseball for both 1994 & 1996. Two years out of the 90's, while playing against Bonds, McGuire, Walker, Larkin, C. Jones, Piazza, F. Thomas, Jeter, Giambi, A-Rod, Griffey, and a bunch of other guys i'm sure i'm forgetting at midnight after losing a devastating game to the Seahawks. That means, at least to Bill James, who does this for a living, Bagwell was the best player in the game for 20% of the decade.

I can live with a "no" vote, but only if the "yes" votes are limited to Bonds, Griffey, Thomas, Piazza and maybe one or two other guys, if Bagwell is your cut off point.

 

[NAHSTE]

I can live with a "no" vote, but only if the "yes" votes are limited to Bonds, Griffey, Thomas, Piazza and maybe one or two other guys, if Bagwell is your cut off point.

Well, at least for this "no" voter, he isn't:

I'd put him in the hall over Bagwell....

Remember, that this is the same guy who knocked Bagwell for only making 4 all star games, and only finishing top-5 in MVP voting three times, and for never leading the league in HR or average.

Well ... Palmeiro has 4 ASG appearances, one top 5 finish, and you won't believe this ... he never led the league in HR or average.

So yeah, this guy's cred is out the window. Glad he's not in the BBWAA.

 

[FirstTimer]

FWIW, in addition to ranking him as the 4th best 1B of all time through 2001, Bill James ranked Bagwell as the best payer in all of baseball for both 1994 & 1996. Two years out of the 90's, while playing against Bonds, McGuire, Walker, Larkin, C. Jones, Piazza, F. Thomas, Jeter, Giambi, A-Rod, Griffey, and a bunch of other guys i'm sure i'm forgetting at midnight after losing a devastating game to the Seahawks. That means, at least to Bill James, who does this for a living, Bagwell was the best player in the game for 20% of the decade.

I agree with 1994...I guess.

But no way in hell I agree with him about 1996. Thomas, Bonds, and Junior were all better than Bags in 1996.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I agree with 1994...I guess.

But no way in hell I agree with him about 1996. Thomas, Bonds, and Junior were all better than Bags in 1996.

James uses his Wins Share system to determine this.

Bagwell's WAR was 8.3 in 1996, which was second in baseball. If I gave you a hundred guesses, you might not guess who was #1.

Chuck f'n Knoblauch, who put up a .965 OPS, led the league with 14 triples, hit .341 and slugged .517. His offensive WAR was "only" 7.9, but he added nearly a full win with his defense, (0.9), for a total of 8.8. That was obvioulsy before he forgot how to throw.

I don't know what any of this means, other than I was shocked to find out who beat out Bagwell that year, and I forgot how awesome Knoblauch was before he came to NY.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I agree with 1994...I guess.

But no way in hell I agree with him about 1996. Thomas, Bonds, and Junior were all better than Bags in 1996.

James credits Bagwell with 41 win shares in 1996.

Thomas 27, Bonds 39, Junior 28.

Each team is credited with 3 win shares per victory, which are then split amongst the players on each team using hitting, pitching, and fielding statistics. The formula can be googled if you care, it's incredibly complicated to the point i'm not sure if I believe in the system because I don't really understand it. But James is a sharp guy, so I do put stock in his opinions and use them as part of my overall analysis.