Again, on what planet is Berkman's prime not close to Bagwell? Also, fans aren't going to MMP? The Astros averaged over 31,000 per game last year - much, much more than the majority of Bagwell's career, even including 2002 and 2003 in MMP. http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/housattn.shtml Also, in 2001, when Bagwell was 33 (Lance is 34 now), the Astros were coming off a 72-90 season, worse than even the 2009 version. Things can change quickly when you can find a Pettitte/Clemens/Kent in free agency and swing a midseason deal for Carlos Beltran. Am I saying I expect those to happen again? No, but if I had told you those things in 2001, you wouldn't have believed them, either. The point is, if you believe a guy has multiple more seasons of Bagwell/Berkman-esque production, you don't let that asset walk for nothing. Either trade it as part of rebuilding, or give it a chance to help you in a year or two, pending lucky breaks.
Gracias senor, not injury prone or an injury concern by any means just part of getting up there in age for Puma.
Cat, come on...you can't seriously believe the 31,000 crap. Tickets sold is one thing, butts in seats are another. Hey remember, we got Johnson via trade in 98 and had gone after Clemens in 99, so the Stros had shown they were willing to go out and get a big time player so expecting something to happen was reasonable to stay at a high level plus a great farm system to fall back on. We have NONE of that soooooooo my point is, if he stays healthy but is not putting up Puma like numbers...WHATS THE POINT?
You're just arbitrarily picking random numbers with the "five seasons above 1.000 OPS". I can say Bagwell had six seasons about a .980 OPS, Berkman's had five. Wow, what an enormous difference. Also, I can turn your argument around and say Berkman was far more consistent, which speaks a lot when your alleged fear is a significant dip in numbers. Bagwell had five full seasons (500+ ABs) of a .900 OPS or lower. Berkman has had one. Misleading? Yes, of course - I just picked a number at random to try and make my case. Just as you did with the other. That's why you look at cumulative figures. Want to take into account the Dome? That's fine. Bagwell's career OPS+, adjusted for park, is 149. Berkman's is 147. Almost identical. And your prediction for average is irrelevant - we're debating based on data we actually have. I love Jeff Bagwell, and no doubt he should be a first-ballot HOF. I'd also agree he's a superior defender at 1B, though 1B defense isn't all that relevant in the big picture. However, to act like there's much difference at all between the two as offensive players - much less a "wide margin" - is just bias at its finest.
I'm not following you. Are you saying that I labelled Lance as injury-prone? I definitely don't recall that.
Let me add a couple of things... 1) When I say not picking up his option, I'm also not saying pocket the money either. The money being saved, 13 million, needs to be reinvested into something productive or if a trade happens some high qaulity prospects. 2) On the Bagwell vs Puma conversation, Baggy was a hall of fame baserunner, fantastic defensive 1st baseman and super high baseball IQ which along with the offensive numbers tells me Baggy was much better then Puma. Now not saying Puma is crap, it is more about how much I consider Baggy great.
I picked OPS because you use that as a primary stat when comparing players. I do not look at one portion of any player's game but for the sake of our conversation I picked OPS. One question, You say Baggy should be a 1st ballot hall of famer correct? If they are as close as you say they are, will Puma sniff the hall? I think Puma is great but I can't see even being considered without a couple of huge years and I just don't see it happening. Baggy is a HOF player, Puma not even close, so how can they be that close?
Puma has already hit over 300 homeruns. He's 34, and could easily have 6 years left in him of probably at least 30 bombs a year give or take a few. If he averages 30 homeruns for the 6 next seasons that puts him well around 500 homeruns. And if he hits 500 bombs he is a no-brainer for the hall. And I realize he hasn't reached 30 homeruns the past few years, but I believe he can still touch that mark and easily go beyond it. He still has the chance to statistically be better than Bags.
It depends on how long Berkman plays, since the Hall voters, fair or unfair, place a lot of emphasis on cumulative numbers in categories like HR, RBI, etc. If he plays four more though, putting him at 15 seasons (equivalent to Bagwell) - he'll likely be at 2,000 career hits, 400 career homers, and a .400 career OBP. Not many players historically are that strong across the board. Also, it's not exactly fair, but team and final impressions mean a lot. In Bagwell's final seasons, the Astros were a very relevant team, and he was a starter and major contributor to the first Astros team to win a playoff series. So whether the Astros can magically find a way to contend in 3-4 years will play a big factor as well. If I were voting, Berkman is a Hall of Famer, no questions asked. Whether he will be is difficult for me to say because I don't know how long he wants to play, nor do I know if the Astros can be competitive in that 2-4 year window. But a lot of the reasons I'm uncertain on have little to do with the level of offensive player he is/was at his peak, which is the issue here.
By the way, I wasn't criticizing you for using OPS. That's fine. But you need to use the actual statistic. What I was saying is that you're twisting the numbers by acting like "five seasons over 1.000" mean much, because you're just arbitrarily picking a number. Likewise, I could say "five seasons under .900" and make Bagwell look less consistent than Berkman. That's why you go to the cumulative numbers, which are very similar, even adjusted for the Dome. Also, another HOF factor is defense - generally, its importance at 1B is overrated, but it's definitely a factor in the minds of voters. No doubt, Bagwell was a better defensive player than Berkman. And that's another reason why I'm more confident in Bagwell's chances with voters. The only thing I took issue with you on is the claim that Bagwell, offensively, was better than Lance by a wide margin.
*I* stated my impression that he had had injury struggles "recently" (last year); *you* and others corrected me. Sorry I wasn't clear the first time.
NO CHANCE, the dude has declined in HRs the last 4 seasons so what gives you the impression he will all of a sudden hit 30 bombs for 6 straight seasons. If this happens, I'd happily eat my crow and enjoy the ride but I just can not see this happening.
While I do see where you're coming from and I was a huge Big Bopper fan, too, Glen Davis wasn't near the hitter Lance is. Best offensive player on the 85-90 Astros simply isn't saying much (and Hatcher may have been better).
If you're projecting Puma to be in the HOF then it really comes down to the value you have placed or will place on him. I am a Bagwell guy, I look at the stats comparing both and Baggy's numbers pop out at me while Puma's look simply like a really good 1st baseman. Hope your right on Berkman because it would be nice to see him come back to have a all-star season, not just portion, and like I said in the prior post hoply i'll get to eat crow come October.
Well over his career he has averaged 34 homeruns a season. So it still seems reasonable. And Berkman has those years where he hits in the upper 20s and then will go into the 30s and rarely 40s. And as for his decline in homeruns per season. Before he hit 45 bombs in 06 his previous three seasons were years of 25/30/24 So a jump to 30+ even at the age of 34 (which isn't that old) Doesn't seem far fetched.
I meant it more out of how fans would want Puma around because he is a fan favorite. Trading him might STING initially but down the road you could look back and be amazed at how it turned out.
He had declined from 42 home runs in 2002 to 25, 30 and 24 before again emerging with 45 in 2006. Homers alone are a tricky concept - some years you'll have more balls that go to deeper parts of the ballpark, and you end up with more doubles. That's why slugging percentage helps more than just homers in looking at trends. Also, you could argue that considering he hit 25 homers in just 136 games last year, he would have had 30 if not for the uncharacteristic DL stint. All that said, yes, of course I agree he won't hit 30 homers for 6 straight seasons. :grin: But I definitely wouldn't write it off for the next couple, at least.
I'd say give me .290 30 100 with .900 OPS and thats enough for me to pickup his option but anything less would not do it for me. Saying EVERYTHING I've said so far, one more year at 14 mill won't cripple the team and I am a fan, trust me I really am lol, so hey but I think this season is HUGE for Lance to get back on track.
