i've been saying this for years. MM may have even stolen the premise from me - bagwell is the best 1b in NL history. period. IMO, it's not even open for debate. mccovey | bagwell (thru 2004) YRS: 22 | 14 AVG: .270 | .297 HR: 521 (23.7/YR) | 446 (31.9/YR) RBI: 1,555 | 1,510 R: 1,229 | 1,506 OPS: .889 | .950 ALL-STARS: 6 | 4 MVP: 1 | 1 TOP 5 MVP: 3 | 5 ROY: 1 | 1 GG 0 | 1 honestly, the only first baseman even near bagwell is helton, and bagwell played nearly a decade in the dome while helton's played his whole career in coors.
I'd take Bagwell over McCovey. Bagwell is just a more complete player. I'm not going to mention the defense, or the baserunning - everyone knows about that. I'm going to mention the plate discipline. Sure, he could hit 30 to 40 doubles a season, and he could hit 30 to 40 homers a season(in a big-time pitcher's park) - but he'd also take a ton of walks, making pitcher's work and getting on the basepaths where he was a smart runner. It's not only his ability to hit with power, but his ability to get on base that makes him the best National League First Baseman in history.
Those numbers are compelling. If they are adjusted for era, is the difference altogether made up? Also, are there any statistics left out of your list that would favor McCovey? (Not being argumentative; that is a mistake I make often.)
I've always been intrigued that his name wasn't bandied about with all the others--he, Brady Anderson, and Luis Gonzalez (the latter two obviously being much more extreme examples). Is it because they are such good guys that no one wants to incriminate them? Is it because guys know exactly what's going on in the locker room, who's clean and who's not?
well, the main whistle blower - canseco - has had little to no contact with bagwell. really, the only player not in some way implicated by canseco who's still in the thick of all the allegations is bonds, for obvious reasons. sosa, too, i guess, but he has a tie to mcgwire. what's really kind of odd is the only OTHER player to openly admit to it - caminiti - was a biggio/bagwell buddy and never was a connection drawn. i know part of it was he admitted to using when he was a padre and part of it was that his intake didn't end with steroids, likely pushing bags and biggio further from the speculation, but it does seem odd NO ONE even hinted or made even a spurious connection.
adjusted for who? remember, bagwell played 8 years in one of the deadest hitter's parks in all of baseball history. not sure what other numbers we could throw out - championships, maybe?
Thought it would be obvious, but the era adjustment would favor McCovey, and the park adjustment would favor Bagwell (even MMP). Other numbers? I don't know, it's just that most of the time when you throw out a number some stat geek comes along and tells you why it's inferior to "OPS". Speaking of which, the list has OPS but not OBP or SLG, and I'm of course wondering where the bigger disparity lies: OBP or SLG? XBH, K, BB, SB are all numbers folks have used to compare different aspects of a hitter's game. I personally like the list presented as is, but I'm biased.
Which is why all the hemming and hawing about Canseco was absurd. Camniti blew the whistle years before he did but didn't name names and nobody bothered to notice because it was in the "slammin sammy-big Mac" happy home run, post-strike renaissance. Willful blindness & wishful thinking. Bill Terry, btw, shoudl be discussed if you want to name best NL 1st basemen ever.
He was basically a "5-tool" 1st baseman for much of his career. Unprecedented. Bagwell Stargell McCovey Perez
Where do you put Bill Terry? He had a few SB's and didn't get a ton of errors, so I don't know that he was "5-tool" but his bat at least *seems* better than at least Perez and McCovey (haven't looked up Stargell) when looking at the sheer numbers. And when you count that almost nobody was hitting 30 dingers back then, he seems to compare favorably with Bagwell as well.
He was the best pre-war NL 1B'r by a wide margin it looks like, and according to his HOF bio he was an excellent fielder.
There's virtually no way to compare players from those eras, the sabrboys throw out Win Shares and era-adjusted stats, but I put minimal stock in such. The Pre/Post WWII demarcation seems most common, but there are many variables - dead ball/live ball; mound height; integration; ballpark design trends; Latin influx; conditioning & nutrition of the players; etc.... It's still unfair, but to a lesser degree, to compare guys from 30 years ago, to those now. I'd say Bagwell is, without a doubt, the best NL 1B since WWII. Basically, we're just talking out of our asses, as usual.
and he was a terrific fielder in his prime, despite being undersized. he saved a lot of throws in his day and used to bear down on bunters like a lion hunting prey in the african bush. just tenacious on the field. his fielding and baserunning are two of his legacies often forgotten, sometimes ignored, but in his prime... he's really one of a kind.
