Jeff Bagwell: Hall of Famer?

[FedEx227]

The most simple breakdown is 48% towards offense and 52% towards defense in regards to how individual win shares are measured.

http://www.tangotiger.net/winshares.htm

Here's the exact breakdown to what W2B is describing in case anyone is interested.

 

[dell71]

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.

:shocked: Really?

I have lots of respect for Bill James but on this one, he's off his damn rocker. I said out loud to myself several times "Jeff Bagwell is the 4th best first baseman of all time." Nope, didn't sound even close to possibly being right. By the way, I did the same thing with "Jeff Bagwell is one of the 25 best hitters of all time" with the same result. My conclusion both of those sentences are pure, unmitigated bullshit. Sorry to be blunt.

As far as the first basemen thing, I have to believe Mr. James totally forgot that Gehrig, Foxx, McCovey, Greenberg, Murray, Killebrew and Mize all played the position. Not too mention, Pujols who might actually be the 4th best 1B of all time.

As far as him being one of the 25 best hitters ever, there's no way on God's green Earth. In 1994, Ted Williams put out a book detailing who he thought were the 20 best hitters of all time. They were:

20. Ralph Kiner
19. Mike Schmidt
18. Frank Robinson
17. Harry Heilmann
16. Mel Ott
15. Johnny Mize
14. Al Simmons
13. Tris Speaker
12. Mickey Mantle
11. Hank Greenberg
10. Willie Mays
9. Hank Aaron
8. Joe Jackson
7. Stan Musial
6. Ty Cobb
5. Joe DiMaggio
4. Rogers Hornsby
3. Jimmie Foxx
2. Lou Gehrig
1. Babe Ruth

The first thing that sticks out is Williams didn't include himself, that automatically bumps this list to the 21 greatest hitters. Any who argue that point should simply never discuss baseball. Second, I'm very hesitant to say Bagwell is a better hitter than anyone here. Third, this was done in 1994. This doesn't include Griffey, A-Rod, Bonds, Thomas, Ichiro, Ramirez or, of course Pujols who just might really be one of the 25 best hitters of all time. Hell, I'm not sure he'd make the next 25 because there are still some greats left out there: McCovey, Brett, Winfield, Carew, Gwynn, Stargell, Killebrew, Puckett, Sheffield (everyone underrates him cuz he's a jackass - even I don't want him as a teammate but just as a hitter he's always been a beast), Henderson (best leadoff man ever, and it's not even close), etc. Even if you take off anyone I've mentioned that we think/know used roids, I just don't see Bagwell as one of the 25 best hitters.

I will concede that a case can be made for his 1994 being one of the 25 best individual seasons of all time.

Honestly, I can go either way on his HOF credentials. That usually leads me to say no, because it should be a no-brainer. However, I wouldn't bitch whether he got in or not. I just think those of you voting yes on him are inflating his greatness to Ruthian levels when that shouldn't be the case.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Nobody is putting him at "Ruthian levels", but i'm not sure how a .949 OPS and nearly 80 WAR isnt enough to impress some of you. I'm honestly shocked at how indifferent some of you guys are towards him. The guy was a PHENOMINAL baseball player.

Of some of these 1B you've mentioned, I'd take Bagwell over McCovey, Murray, Killebrew, & Stargell, without much of a second thought.

Bagwell hit for a higher OPS than any of them, and much higher batting average, and his OPS+ negates any argument you can make for his era. He was a better fielder than any of those guys (all but Murray were flat out BAD fielders), and a FAR superior baserunner than any of them.

I don't perosnally think he's the 4th best 1B of all time, but he's not far off. I don't think he's one of the top 25 hitters of all time, but again, he's probably not far off. Comparing guys like Dave Winfield or Kirby Puckett to Bagwell is actually kind of insulting to Bagwell IMO.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Here are the 1B I think are defintely better than Bagwell, beyond a shadow of a doubt. In no particular order:

Gehrig
Foxx
Pujols
F. Thomas
Mize
Greenberg

That's six. I'll count Cap Anson for shits and giggles, because I love old timey baseball more than I should. So that's seven.

I wouldnt take McCovey, Murray, Killebrew, Stargell or McGuire, for reasons i've outlined already in the thread. None of them (except Murray) could field the position at even an average level, and none could touch Bagwell's baserunning. Even if you think some or all are better hitters (very debatable), I feel strongly that Bagwell was a better overall baseball player than all of them. His OPS and AVG blows these guys away. His OPS+ is right there with all of them. His WAR is higher than all of them. He had a shorter career, that's really the only disadvantage, because it hurts the totals. McCovey is the best argument of the group, so i'll even throw him in, and now we have eight guys better than Bagwell.

After that, sorry, I wont concede anyone else. Hernandez, Mattingly, Will Clark, Tony Perez, Dick Allen, Palmeiro, Giambi, Cepeda....who else? Norm Cash? Mark Grace? Now we are reaching. Of this group, you could make a case for Palmeiro or Giambi.

Bottom line, is I cant see Bagwell any worse than the 8th or 9th best 1B of all time. Not very far off from the 4 spot James had him in back in 2001.

EDIT - Upon further review, Bagwell & Frank Thomas are scary similar hitters, with Thomas having a slight edge in AVG, OBP, & OPS, and surprisingly slight edges in the totals, considering he played longer. And again, Bagwell was a plus fielder for his career, Thomas not so much. And then we have the 200+ SB's for Bagwell. I'm taking back Thomas as defintely better than Bagwell. So that list is down to five.

 

[dell71]

Nobody is putting him at "Ruthian levels", but i'm not sure how a .949 OPS and nearly 80 WAR isnt enough to impress some of you. I'm honestly shocked at how indifferent some of you guys are towards him. The guy was a PHENOMINAL baseball player.

Of some of these 1B you've mentioned, I'd take Bagwell over McCovey, Murray, Killebrew, & Stargell, without much of a second thought.

Bagwell hit for a higher OPS than any of them, and much higher batting average, and his OPS+ negates any argument you can make for his era. He was a better fielder than any of those guys (all but Murray were flat out BAD fielders), and a FAR superior baserunner than any of them.

I don't perosnally think he's the 4th best 1B of all time, but he's not far off. I don't think he's one of the top 25 hitters of all time, but again, he's probably not far off. Comparing guys like Dave Winfield or Kirby Puckett to Bagwell is actually kind of insulting to Bagwell IMO.

I actually like Bags, but I'd hardly consider it insulting to him or most anyone to be compared to Winfield or Puckett. Whether or not he's better is open to debate, but I wouldn't say they nor he is so far & away better that its not a worthy discussion. BTW, Winfields OPS+ is lower, but its 130 maintained over 22 seasons. This includes a 137 at age 40 & a 105 at age 41.

Here are the 1B I think are defintely better than Bagwell, beyond a shadow of a doubt. In no particular order:

Gehrig
Foxx
Pujols
F. Thomas
Mize
Greenberg

That's six. I'll count Cap Anson for shits and giggles, because I love old timey baseball more than I should. So that's seven.

I wouldnt take McCovey, Murray, Killebrew, Stargell or McGuire, for reasons i've outlined already in the thread. None of them (except Murray) could field the position at even an average level, and none could touch Bagwell's baserunning. Even if you think some or all are better hitters (very debatable), I feel strongly that Bagwell was a better overall baseball player than all of them. McCovey is the best argument of the group, so i'll even throw him in, and now we have eight guys better than Bagwell.

After that, sorry, I wont concede anyone else. Hernandez, Mattingly, Will Clark, Tony Perez, Dick Allen, Palmeiro, Giambi, Cepeda....who else? Norm Cash? Mark Grace? Now we are reaching. Of this group, you could make a case for Palmeiro or Giambi.

Bottom line, is I cant see Bagwell any worse than the 8th or 9th best 1B of all time. Not very far off from the 4 spot James had him in back in 2001.

Bolded: Who mentioned any of these guys? And I didn't mention McGwire, either. I wouldn't take any of this bunch over Bags (save for a healthy/in his prime Mattingly).

The rest: putting him 8th among 1st baggers is lots more palatable than 4th. Like I said, I can go either way on him getting in the HOF. After some more thought I'm leaning more in than out but when I make a short list of the very greatest ever, he doesn't make it.

PS: In a few short years, we might have to knock Bags and a few others down another peg to include Ryan Howard. We'll see.

And someone else here did say he was definitely among the 25 best hitters of all time. I'm too lazy to see who that was.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I only included the bolded guys because I was going through everyone who realistically could be compared to Bagwell, I wasnt insinuating you thought those guys were better.

I think we are meeting in the middle, here. I never thought he was 4th, that was Bill James circa 2001. But I definately think he's Top 10 material. It seemed like you were burying him in your first post, but I guess you werent to the extent i thought you were.

 

[NAHSTE]

He's top 25 in OPS, Dell, that's where the top 25 hitters of all time comment came.

 

[dell71]

He's top 25 in OPS, Dell, that's where the top 25 hitters of all time comment came.

So what?

Mark McGwire 10th
Todd Helton 11th
Vlad Guerrero 24th
Miguel Cabrera 33rd
Matt Holiday 36th
Carlos Delgado 38th

Hank Aaron 39th

If you don't see something wrong with the OPS argument after that, I can't help you.

 

[NAHSTE]

So what?

Mark McGwire 10th
Todd Helton 11th
Vlad Guerrero 24th
Miguel Cabrera 33rd
Matt Holiday 36th
Carlos Delgado 38th

Hank Aaron 39th

If you don't see something wrong with the OPS argument after that, I can't help you.

Good point, but I'm not basing my argument for Bagwell solely on OPS. He offered way more value with his defense and base running than Helton, McGwire, Delgado, Galarraga, etc. He was an elite slugging 1B who was more than just a slugging 1B. He was a great all around player who excelled at his position for 7-10 years. That's a HOFer in my book.

While it's foolish to call him a top 25 hitter of all time based solely on OPS, I still think the distinction helps his case to be included in the Hall. Coupled with his defensive and baserunning value, he has a pretty compelling argument.

 

[Senser81]

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.

Kill me, but I am going to perform TWO eye tests. Back when I actually watched baseball in the 1980's, I could tell that Rafael Palmeiro was on steroids, because I remember him as a singles-hitter watching him every day for the 1987-88 Cubs. They let him go because he lacked power. To have Palmeiro magically transform into a 569-HR guy was a bit too much for me. Same thing with Luis Gonzalez.

Back on topic, Eye Test #1: I remember watching a big, strapping 1B for the Astros named Glenn Davis. He was your typical power hitter, but he was able to hit HRs at the Astrodome, which was great. He signed a big money deal with the Orioles, and the Astros replaced Davis with Jeff Bagwell.

Bagwell was a nice player...a good fielder, a great baserunner for a 1B, could hit for average...but definitely not on par with Glenn Davis in terms of power. Then, after a few years, you make up your mind and say "Bagwell is just a different player than Davis, so instead of expecting 30+ HRs every year from the 1B position, we'll just have to live with the 15-20 HRs Bagwell produces.

Then, in 1994, Bagwell looks noticeably bigger, has a monster year, and never looks back. Sorry, but I have to think that Bagwell took steroids. The change was too pronounced for a guy who had been in the league a few years. It would be like Kevin Seitzer miraculously turning into Mike Schmidt midway through his career.

Eye Test #2: When I saw Bagwell play, I never thought "This guy is a Hall of Famer". After seeing the numbers he eventually compiled, I'm on the fence, but its not like I thought I was witnessing greatness when I saw Bagwell play.

"This post...gets results!"​

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Maybe Davis forgot to bring his steroids with him to Baltimore, and Bagwell found them in a dark corner of the Astrodome. Davis completely fell apart when he left Houston.

I would say the chances of Bagwell being a roider are somewhere in the ballpark of around 100%.

 

[FirstTimer]

EDIT - Upon further review, Bagwell & Frank Thomas are scary similar hitters, with Thomas having a slight edge in AVG, OBP, & OPS, and surprisingly slight edges in the totals, considering he played longer. And again, Bagwell was a plus fielder for his career, Thomas not so much. And then we have the 200+ SB's for Bagwell. I'm taking back Thomas as defintely better than Bagwell. So that list is down to five.

That may be true...kind of..however no one in their right mind thought Bagwell>Thomas or Bagwell=Thomas when they were playing. Look at Thomas' 91-98 and then the seasons he had in 00, 03, 06, and 07.

His black ink and gray ink stack up better than Bagwells too I believe.

Bagwell was better defensively and on the bases but there is no way in hell that I take Bagwell over Thomas if given the choice.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I like Thomas better, too. But I was surprised to see how close all of the numbers were, so I took him off of the list of "no brainers".

 

[NAHSTE]

Yeah, I don't think Thomas > Bagwell was ever in question, but there was a time when Thomas was considered one of the greatest RH hitters ever. If he has trouble getting in, the whole thing is retarded.

 

[FirstTimer]

I like Thomas better, too. But I was surprised to see how close all of the numbers were, so I took him off of the list of "no brainers".

Yeah, I don't think Thomas > Bagwell was ever in question, but there was a time when Thomas was considered one of the greatest RH hitters ever. If he has trouble getting in, the whole thing is retarded.

That's my point.

Thomas>Bagwell=No brainer

VSN Algebra FTW