Bagwell

IBTL.

 

I heard that Costas interview, and all due respect to him, even factoring in the whole process is a farce anyway, I think his position is the dumbest of all. H'es going to vote on an individual basis based on what he thinks he might know, irregardless of any factual evidence? Um.. that's dumb.

The big issue with the steroid era to me is context, and indirect impact.

With regard to context, I have no no no way to figure out how a player in that era might compare to (1) players in the past, and (2) their contemporaries who may or may not also be using. If I know for sure Sosa is using and I am pretty sure Thomas isn't... how do I factor that in when comparing the 2 players... and when comparing them against past players?? I just can't figure that out empirically. And that seems to be entirely what the HOF is about. Were you a top player at your position during your time, and how does that compare statistically against past greats.

With regard to indirect impact, I just can not overlook the unknown. The fact that Barry might have clearly been on the juice which impacted high school players - sometimes resulting in deaths. Or which might have kept one or two minor leaguers out of the bigs a year because a guy who would otherwise be retired, injured or sucked isn't. I can't respect that impact to the game. So that even if you said Barry was clean every year but wanted that one extra year so took steroids his last year... I think that has to be factored in even if he clearly had a HOF career otherwise.

That being the case, to me, you either (3) exclude people you are 100% sure used, (2) let everyone in based on stats, or (3) you define the era and vote for no one.... literally nobody. And that means if someone principally played outside of your era, but his last 2 years were in what you define as the "steroid" era, you DON'T vote for them. I've seen some writers still vote for Jack Morris even though he feel in their "steroid" era.

But even with all of that, it's still a joke of a process. The voting pool is ridiculous. Look how many voters are from the East Coast. max of 10 players. 15 years on the ballot, etc., etc. Your stats don't get better after you retire.

 

Saw bagwell on CSN the other nite he looks like homeless person..

 

I'd love for the dumbasses who parrot this tripe to actually do some research (when was the last time these modern "journalists" actually did some damn work? the profession has become an embarrassment, laden with regurgitated watercooler talk and juvenile witticisms) and find out two things: how much power did other sluggers show in the same A and low-A league they're judging Bagwell against? And, who is *still* the career leader for home runs at Bagwell's alma mater?

Dumbasses.

 

Or (1) stop pretending the Hall isn't already full of cheaters, and stop pretending the roided up competition didn't level out the playing field some for the folks you've arbitrarily convicted as guilty, and then put them in the Hall where they belong. Yeah, I'd put Bonds, Palmeiro, and Clemens in. I'd put them in yesterday. I'd even put Sosa in, and maybe McGwire because of all the bombs (even though he sucked at the rest of the game).

To the conversation at hand, for Frank Thomas to be a hallowed "first ballot guy" while Jeff Bagwell sits snubbed on the outside is inexcusable. They should change the name of that institution to "Hitters Hall of Fame", or, more accurately, "Journalists' Pets Hall of Fame."

Agreed. A farce. A comedy of errors. An injustice to the Game. An embarrassment. And the remaining trickle of that institution's credibility is slowly running down the drain with all the flush-worthy toilet tripe its voters come up with year after year.

 

http://houston.cbslocal.com/2014/01/08/if-frank-thomas-is-a-hall-of-famer-jeff-bagwell-should-be-too/

 

jeff bagwell was a better player than thomas, but his numbers dont show that because he was derailed by injuries the last couple years of his career.

you'd think BBWAA writers would be smart enough to realize this.

also, had bagwell played in a bigger park, or bigger market, he no doubt would be in right now.

it irks me that so many call out bags despite the lack of evidence, but there are no such whispers regarding thomas. i mean, his nickname the the freakin BIG HURT!!

no whispers at all for him? might have helped him that he played in CHI...

 

I have no problem believing the Big Hurt was clean. I have a significant problem with this ridiculous assumption that Bagwell was dirty. Based on facial acne and filling out in his mid-20s, and being friends with Ken Caminiti.

Holy ****.

Dude was consistent until his shoulder fell off, and had no significant spike in production or falloff in production until his shoulder fell off.

Yeah, he's guilty.

Dumbasses.

 

Yeah, if it was a Hitters Hall of Fame only, the guys like Edgar wouldn't have "DH" held against them. Or maybe it's both, and it just adds to the hypocrisy

 

As some of you know, I've taken on Bagwell's candidacy as a bit of personal crusade (having actually changed a voter's mind, no less). In doing so, I've created a ready-made template so I can dash off emails quickly. Here it is; feel free to use all or some of it, if so inclined. It's currently targeting specifically those that voted for Frank Thomas but not Bagwell - but it can be modified (as there's plenty of Bagwell-only support).

I've mostly been targeting voters who have shown an open-mind, re: PEDs. Those like Heyman, Pearlman... their little narrow minds are made-up and I think engaging with them would be less productive than just closing the car door on your head for 45 minutes. But there a PED coda - again, completely amendable.

Anyway, verrrrrrrrrrrrry long, so I'll spoiler it - but feel free to pilfer:

Spoiler

Do you possibly have a few minutes to discuss Jeff Bagwell, who is conspicuously absent from your 2014 Hall of Fame ballot? I promise I’m not going to shout down your choices, call you names, or shove my fingers in my ear while I stomp my feet and scream, “ICANTHEARYOU!!!” over and over. Instead, I sincerely hope that my email will raise awareness, not blood pressure; open communication lines, not close them; spark debate, not end it as we look toward next year’s ballot. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, their own perspective; their own conclusion and I have the utmost respect for that.

My hope is to demonstrate that Jeff Bagwell was a five-tool force who absolutely, positively, without any question, deserves election to Cooperstown. And that it’s unfathomable that Frank Thomas is headed to Cooperstown but not Bagwell.

In fact, let’s start there. Thomas is unquestionably one of the era’s very best HITTERS and certainly Hall of Fame worthy. He is NOT, however, one of the era’s very best PLAYERS; not if base running and defense are still a part of the game - Thomas’ game consisted of neither. Bagwell, on the other hand, was an exceptional defensive first baseman (sabermetrics estimate that his defense saved 54 runs over his 15-year career) and, arguably, the greatest running first baseman in baseball history. Actually – that’s not arguable: he is THE greatest running first baseman in baseball history. And that makes him a better PLAYER than Frank Thomas.

Consider that Bagwell is the *only* first baseman to record 30 home runs and 30 steals in a single season (which he actually did twice), and the only first baseman with 400 home runs and 200 steals in a career. His career stolen base success rate of 72% is not too far behind Lou Brock’s (75%), one of the most revered base stealers of all-time. Meanwhile, he’s one of only six players to total 30 home runs, 100 RBIs, and 100 runs in six consecutive seasons, and one of only five players with 300 home runs, 1,000 RBIs and 1,000 runs in their first 10 years in the league. Altogether, he scored 1,517 runs in 15 seasons, an average of 101/year. His total ranks 63rd all-time but it’s important to note that of the 62 players ahead of him, only one (Billy Hamilton) logged fewer than Bagwell’s 15 seasons. In fact, those 62 averaged 20 seasons (with Derek Jeter and, technically, Alex Rodriquez and Manny Ramirez still active), five more than Bagwell. He was an exceptionally efficient and smart base runner.

Back to the Big Hurt - Bagwell scored 23 more runs than Thomas despite logging 644 FEWER plate appearances, and stole 170 more bases. Defensively, Bagwell won a Gold Glove and played 1,279 more games at first base than Thomas – despite Thomas playing in 172 more games overall.

Offensively, the two were incredibly even
Thomas: .301/.419/.555
521 HRs; 1,704 RsBI; 1,494 Rs; 10,075 PAs
OPS+ 156; WAR 69.7

Bagwell: .297/.408/.540
449 HRs; 1,529 RsBI; 1,517 Rs; 9,431 PAs
OPS+ 149; WAR 76.7

Ultimately, isn’t the very nearly negligible gap in their numbers (again, including Thomas’ 644 more plate appearances) trumped by Bagwell’s superior defense and base running? Bagwell was keeping pace offensively while playing the field each and every night. Wrapping up, Thomas had nine top 8 finishes in MVP voting; Bagwell six (Thomas won 2; Bagwell 1). But Bagwell has the Gold Glove and a Rookie of the Year award; Thomas won neither so even the hardware is virtually identical.

Bu this isn’t just Bagwell v. Thomas; let’s look at how Bagwell stacks up historically. I think we can hopefully agree that the eight best first basemen in baseball history (HoF eligible) are some combination of:

Lou Gehrig – 179; 108.5
Jimmie Foxx – 163; 92.5
Hank Greenberg – 158; 55.1
Johnny Mize – 158; 67.8
Harmon Killebrew – 143; 55.8
George Sisler – 125; 51.1
Eddie Murray – 129; 63.4
Willie McCovey – 147; 60.7

Beside each player, I’ve posted their career OPS+ and WAR. I’m not suggesting those two numbers are absolute – they’re just an easy short hand to make my larger point. (Plus, even if you broadly reject sabermetrics, I hope we can at least agree that those numbers accurately represent that those eight players were great.)

Jeff Bagwell? 149; 76.6. Comparing him to the eight best first basemen of all-time, he ranks fifth in OPS+ and third in WAR. Again: of all-time, he’s 5th and 3rd.

Which means, Jeff Bagwell, BA (Before Albert Pujols) has a pretty solid case as the greatest National League first baseman of all-time. And when you add the best of the American League, the guy stacks up favorably, as well.

And I think it’s worth noting that Bagwell was one of the best players on a consistently good team In their 50-year history, the Astros have 13 winning seasons with Jeff Bagwell ; 15 without him. And no, he did not walk onto a great team and ride its coattails. The team won 65 games his rookie season. They would not dip below .500 for another 9 years and then never again while Bagwell was active.

I’m not suggesting Bagwell deserves 100% credit as he had some incredibly gifted teammates. But I’m not sure people realize how good the Astros were for a very long stretch in which he and Craig Biggio were the year-to-year constants.

Statistically, it is nearly impossible to discredit Bagwell’s worthiness, so let’s move on to the elephant in the room: PEDs. I understand each and every voter has their own opinion (and that changing it is impossible) but I’d like to point out that Jeff Bagwell has never, to our knowledge, tested positive for a banned substance; he wasn’t named in Jose Canseco’s book, the Mitchell Report, the BALCO investigation, the Biogenesis investigation, or any other high-profile, PED-related scandal. And he hasn’t been implicated by a former teammate, friend and/or trainer.

I know many writers – not scientists; not doctors – have boiled the PED issue down to “muscles = steroids,” and that’s disappointing both for its simplicity and, honestly, ignorance. The impact of performance enhancing drugs is complicated and multi-faceted. After all, did Lance Armstrong develop incredibly large muscles? Think about this: before steroids were an issue, which would you consider least likely: an athletic 22-23-year old packing on muscles; or an athlete maintaining above-average production into their late 30s/early 40s? Greg Maddux (deservedly) sailed into the Hall of Fame without a hint of suspicion, despite that fact that we know, from the players themselves, that steroids improved recovery time and increased endurance, prolonging careers. So why not be suspicious of Maddux? Because he didn’t pack on muscles? Again, take a long look at Lance Armstrong and tell me PEDs are as easy as “steroids = muscles.”

Ultimately, you’ve been tasked with preserving and promoting the game of baseball, in large part because your experience makes you more qualified to tell a better, more accurate account of its history. To not vote for Jeff Bagwell risks telling an incomplete history of America’s pastime as he is clearly one of the best players of all-time. And to cast his character under a dark shadow of nothing more than rumors, innuendo and science that actually lacks a drip of science, unfairly sullies his reputation and legacy.

If you’ve made it this far, thank you for your consideration and the dialogue,

 

The only freaky thing about Bags' career progression was 1994. The rest fit in line with what you might expect.

Only other thing is maybe going from 4 in AA to 15 in the majors. Nobody seems to accuse him of taking steroids as a rookie though.

 

Yeah, beyond the lazy "muscles" argument, there's nothing suspicious about Bagwell's numbers, which makes all the "eye test" conclusions even sillier. His career shows a very normal ascension, plateau and then decline, right in line with his age. And it discounts that the team freaking built a stadium for him to, more or less, abuse at will - and that's never discussed even though it's far more blatantly obvious than his alleged PED use. (And, I should note: I think he juiced; it's my opinion - I have no interest in defending it or trying to sway anyone else's differing opinion. And if he admitted it; if a failed test was revealed. I'd probably change my stance on advocating for him - but until there's legitimate proof, the witch hunting drives me bonkers.)

And BTW, when it did become unusual for stellar athletes in their early 20s to pack on muscles? That's why I always go to Greg Maddux - him pitching effectively into his late 30s/early 40s should - SHOULD - be FAR more suspicious, generally speaking, than Jeff Bagwell packing on muscles when he's 2freaking2. It's so blatantly ignorant and lazy...

 

Hey Now! excellent post as always. I think it wouldnt hurt to add in the fact that bagwell played the majority of his career in the astrodome to your email blitz fire.

 

Just got around to reading Ric's novella. Well-written, and more diplomatic than you used to write in earlier years (my memory hearkens to a hilarious exchange with a former field goal kicker). Nicely done.