Yeah, same could be said with PEDs.... "perception" Thomas has other advantages, but perception is Jeff's main issue.
"other" advantages? Please, do enlighten us. Thomas has no advantages, except this ridiculous "perception" advantage which he can only hold in the empty tin heads of lazy so-called "journalists". Jeff Bagwell is even with Thomas as a hitter and head-and-shoulders better in every other category. Every. Other. Category. I can't believe we're still having this conversation. Holy **** ignorance is powerful.
First, like I already stated, Bagwell is better.. and it's not really close. But, Thomas has no advantages?... -He gets zero credit for 500 HRs? If he had the same DH advantage with fewer HRs than Bagwell, would you mention the HR advantage, then? To say he gets no credit for actually doing it is silly. -ROY+MVP<2MVPs Can it a popularity contest or whatever, but that is an advantage. -Frank won a batting title. -Frank has a higher career OPS. 25+ points higher Looking at their stats now, the biggest eye opener for hitting is BB/K's. Frank had 200 more walks than K's while Pipes did the opposite. Frank wasn't particularly clutch in the postseason, but still, much better than Bagwell.... only speaking hitting-wise.
Credit, yes. Credit over Bagwell, no. Bagwell's shoulder was already falling off by 2002, yet at the end of 2005 they both had 449. It's a counting stat, Thomas had a lot more ABs, and he also got the chance to collect a bunch of those whilst playing only half the game. Sorry, I don't follow what you're asking. I would hope to treat the two equitably and not be disingenuous. If Bagwell had more dingers than Thomas and more ABs, I wouldn't consider it that big of an advantage. That would be silly. What I'm saying is it's not an advantage over Bagwell. I don't think it's intellectually honest, anyway. Not to me. Do the voters consider it an advantage? If they do, it's sad, at least in my book. Compare the numbers, the impact the players had on their teams, and how they stack up historically against other 1B (well, Thomas falls short there since he DH'ed quite a bit). Touché. I actually *do* give a little credence to BA still. Call me old-fashioned. Touché, again. Touché, again again. Very good points. I know a lot of folks buy into this, and I can't blame anyone--but a lot of HOFers sucked it up at the plate in the postseason. So I don't personally put any credence in this argument. So, I hear you saying that while Bagwell is clearly the better player, there are a couple of areas in which Thomas has an advantage. Good points. Thanks.
Let's properly break down just how much of an advantage it is: ~ 7 more hits/walks/hit-by-pitches a season + ~ 1.3 more home runs a season over a 15-year career. The difference is minuscule. I understand that that the writers *think* Thomas has the advanatge.. but those writers are morons. Whatever slight offensive edge Thomas has is wiped out completely by Bagwell's defense and baserunning. It's why Bagwell has a +7 WAR advantage despite playing four fewer seasons.
Exactly. First sentence in my first response said this. I would want that "minuscule difference" in my team's favor. Whenever I research stats on baseball-reference I look at OPS.. and guess what?.. Bagwell's .945 rates better than most and well against anyone. My only real knock on him was postseason. He was Olajuwon-like during the regular season though. Better than Biggio, awesome stats, and got cheated out of GG's. Don't deny the BB/K factor either. Frank was a little better hitter.. Bagwell is easily the better player.
Bagwell must be top 10 first basemen of All Time, if he is not in the Hall of Fame, then who cares about the Hall of Fame? If you don't get the best players in the Hall of Fame, then something really wrong is going on with the system. If there is NO PROOF of wrongdoing, you are a great player, and always did the right things as a person, AND ALL WITH THE SAME CLUB, he should be in the Hall of Fame. This guy was even good running bases. He always had a great at bat, as he had incredible knowledge of the plate, he made himself one of the best fielders at his position, and he is not in the Hall of Fame because people "think" he used PED? Well, Biggio and Bagwell are great friends, the names always in the same sentence, why not say Biggio used PED? Is stupid, and i don't care about the Hall of Fame until they have Bagwell in it, if he is left out, then I don't care about it. HE BELONGS
500 Homeruns - 2x MVP - Batting Title ... made Frank 1st Ballot. Has any player boasted that combination and not made First Ballot? Looking at more stats... 1,704 RBIs, Career .301 BA, .974 OPS One of the best nicknames in sports too. Specifically vs Jeff, they're equal power-wise, Jeff might drive in runs a little better. Definitely creates more with his baserunning. Frank made better contact and had a better eye (BB/K is the ultimate factor hitting-wise between the two). Bagwell faaaarrr better defender and baserunner. 1-10 Scale, IMO Hitting Frank - 9 Pipes - 8.5 Overall Frank - 7.5 Pipes - 9
Easy argument here: Who would you take for your team, Thomas and Bagwell? You can't go wrong with the answer, but i take Bagwell EASILY, as he is the best player of both. Funny thing, one is a Hall of Famer and the other one is not, INCREDIBLE
The writers being stupid is Jeff's main issue. In my opinion, DH's shouldn't even be considered for the HOF unless they were damn near Barry Bonds as a hitter. Frank Thomas getting into the HOF before Jeff Bagwell does nothing but tarnish the validity of the baseball HOF.
Frank Thomas is a deservedly first ballot HOF. Bagwell not being in the HOF regardless of Frank Thomas is an insult.
Maybe the best... or minimum, Top 5 Don't know details on guys like Gerhig/Foxx/Greenberg's defense and baserunning, but I can't see anyone's being better. Their steals clearly show they were all behind Bagwell in that regard. Their hitting might be better, but then again, that era featured higher BA's and better BB/K across the board. If they did hit better, it wasn't by much. Then, Bagwell would again clearly make up the difference like Big Hurt and 99% of other 1B throughout history. Bagwell could be argued as greatest 1B. Postseason is his only real downfall, and it's a big downfall. Still, Top 5, minimum.
He's the second greatest NL 1B of all-time (behind Pujols) and ranks 3rd in WAR and 5th in OPS+ among HoF 1B. I think he's the 8th-10th best ever.
My point was that Frank Thomas isn't a HOFer at all if Jeff Bagwell isn't a HOFer. Frank Thomas was a DH for more than half his career so to me that puts him as a much lesser player than Bagwell.
I'm being conservative. IMO, there are only three definitively better first basemen: Gehrig, Foxx and Pujols. You could make a strong case that Greenberg, Killebrew and/or Mize are better. I think, when his career ends, Cabrera's numbers will be better. Among all first basemen, he's 4th in WAR and 8th in OPS+. I mean... he's keeping uber-elite company, even at the bottom of this list - all of whom are Hall of Famers (save Pujols, who will be a Hall of Famer, obviously).
Every time I see these favorable comparisons with other Hall of Fame first basemen, and see that only Gehrig, Foxx, and Pujols are inarguably better (and Pujols has really been the generation after Bagwell), I have the same reaction: WTF WTF is wrong that this guy wasn't "first ballot" hall of fame? WTFWTFWTF he's still not in there, after his fifth year of eligibility? WTF. Some serious stupid going on.
