Jose Altuve is not a better baseball player than Jeff Bagwell: Not even disputable, not all that close. Jose Altuve is a better Astro than Jeff Bagwell: I can agree with this.
Yes he his. To me his playoffs separate him from bags and biggio. Doesn’t really matter what his final stats are when it’s all said and done. Question is, will the writers screw him over for the hall of fame because the cheating scandal. My guess is they will because baseball HOF voters think they’re GOD.
Altuve needs 2+ more good seasons to get to HOF level. Bagwell and Biggio are already there. Bagwell was a generational good player 8-10 year peak as good anyone ever. Biggio was very very good for 14+ years. Altuve could still surpass them both, but still needs more time.
That'll be easy for Altuve, and he's already at a HOF level. He's been very good for at least 10 years (including this year), I can see him keeping it up for the next 4-5 years. I do think his playoff performance does set him apart.
Yeah; from my perspective: Bagwell is the best but I totally understand if Altuve is your favorite. And if Altuve can put together... 3 more seasons like these past two, it's going to really start changing the conversation. At some point, he's going to get close enough to Bagwell where we just can't dismiss their postseason resumes.
He's not there yet. His JAWS numbers are below HoF standards, and if you look at his BBREF comps, it's Pedoria, Hanley Ramirez, Nomar... And, unfortunately, I don't think Altuve can be "close" - he needs to be such an overwhelming no-brainer that the voters simply can't keep him out. Anything borderline, and the scandal is (probably) going to be too big an obstacle for him to overcome.
You really think if Jeremy Pena has a couple of more elite-level postseasons - not regular seasons but postseasons.... that he would be better than Jeff Bagwell?... Like, really?.... Here's a crazy number: in *one* postseason, Pena totaled 61 plate appearances - that's nearly 50% of Bagwell's career total. That's mind-blowing - and relevant on two fronts: 1) it underscores how small the sample size is with Bagwell; 2) it shines a light on not just how small the sample size is - but the nature of it. We watched Jeff Bagwell excel at an elite level for more than a decade: do Astros fans really think if Bagwell had an extended playoff run, that his numbers wouldn't have eventually looked more and more like his regular season numbers? It wasn't until 2004 - when he was 36 and his shoulder was starting to be a problem - that Bagwell totaled more than 19 PAs in a single postseason (56 in '04). And you know what? He was pretty good in 2004: .285/.375/.490/.865 If prime Jeff Bagwell had gotten 56 plate appearances across multiple series in the same postseason... I think he would've done quite well. But, when you're getting 13, 16, 19, 12 - and the majority of those are against legitimate Hall of Famers... It's just hard.
I never said playoffs don't matter. I said playoffs - which are much smaller sample sizes - don't invalidate 10x more regular season results. I mean, if you gave Jeff Bagwell 9,431 postseason plate appearances - do you think his numbers would've been bad?
You said "BOTH" as if they're equal. There are not equal. I understand why fans hold playoff results on a higher pedestal - but they really are random, small sample sizes. I mean... Jeff Bagwell has 9,431 regular season plate appearances and 129 postseason plate appearances, spread across six different seasons. Those are just not in any way, shape or form comparable. And here's the thing about Bagwell's postseason results: others, such as @Nook and @IdStrosfan have made this point - but those late 90s Astros teams did not strike fear in their opponents. And consequently, teams just didn't pitch to Bagwell in the postseason. I mean, as bad as he hit - he actually walked 12 times in his first 60 plate appearances. In '99 and '01, the Braves walked him 10 times in just 31 plate appearances. That's a 228-walk pace over a full Bagwell season in that era! I really think a big dent in Bagwell's results is that he uncharacteristically chased bad pitches those first two postseasons because that was mostly all he was seeing, and he was likely pressing to try and make something happen. In '99, '01 and '04 - his final 87 postseason PAs (I'm not counting 2005, when he was a wreck, physically) - he actually posted a .425 OB% with 17 BB in 87 PAs. Again, that's a ~140-walk pace. I mean, I'm not arguing Bagwell had a good postseason track record. But it was probably better than people realize, and it was likely a function of him being so good, teams just weren't going to let him beat them.
They screwed over Biggio that first year bc if Alomar isn't a first balloter, by their logic, Biggio shouldn't be either.
The '98 team was pretty stout. But it was nowhere close to as good as literally any of the postseason line-ups they've trotted out since 2017. Teams were just not going to let Bagwell beat them. @Nook said this - but can you imagine if prime Bagwell had been this era's 1B?... Holy ****.
The point was that Bagwell had nothing around him, as the entire offense did exactly jack ****ing **** for multiple series.
Looking at the 9 players w/ most PA* for all 5 Astris 100+ win teams. (*must include all 8 positions) 1998 had 4 players with OPS+ of 136 or better and 2 more over 120. They had 2 weak players at 91 and 79. The 2019 team was loaded w/ 7 guys over 120 including 3 over 150. The 1998, 2017, and 2019 look to be a shade above 2018 and 2022 in overall depth of good hitting. At first glance, 2023 looks weak also, but that's because Altuve and Diaz are not among the top 9 (yet). In the 2nd half, the entire team is 123 and has 6 guys over 140, which is insane. Then add Brantley to that and this team could best the 2019 as the best hitting team entering the playoffs.
