Jeff Bagwell and Fred McGriff - HoFers?

I guess I'd say Bagwell yes, McGriff no. Bagwell definitely has a better case, because I think he was considered one of the games best hitters for a decent amount of years.

 

Does playing in such an offensive era hurt Vizquel, though? HIs numbers don't stack up with the other hitters, particularly the other shortstops, of his era nearly as well as Ozzie Smith's did with his contemporaries.

I don't have a problem with Vizquel getting in, though if I had to pick I'd take Bagwell first. I'm just wondering if it is fair to compare him straight up to Ozzie Smith when the position changed a bit during Vizquel's career.

 

A very good point.

IMO, I don't think it will matter in Vizquel's case. Honestly, the position hasn't changed that much -- what I mean is, I don't think the standards for success at the second-toughest defensive position on the field have changed. I think most teams would like to have more offensive firepower at shortstop, but I think what an SS can do with the bat is still mostly a bonus.

I do think that has changed in this decade, though. Teams are going for shortstops that can hit for higher averages than Vizquel or Ozzie Smith. But that's mostly because teams are seeking offense any way they can get it. And that's a relatively recent phenomenon -- Reyes, Escobar, Tulowitzki, Ramirez, Drew, Peralta and Hardy are all younger than 26. In Vizquel's prime, you still had guys like Rafael Belliard and Rey Ordonez in the league.

But regardless of who else was on the team, the Indians would have been satisfied with Vizquel at short. Just like the Cubs are OK with Theriot and the Braves are OK with Escobar and the Reds are OK with Keppinger and the Angels are OK with Aybar. (Yes, those guys are probably better hitters than Vizquel. But I'll give you $100 if any of them end up with as many career hits as Vizquel.) If you can get a Tejada/Jeter/H. Ramirez/Rollins-type hitter at short ... gravy.

But just like with catchers, I think shortstops aren't held to as high a standard offensively. And Vizquel was so damn good defensively that, like Ozzie, he won't be hurt too much by the fact that he was "only" a .274 hitter with no power. If there's a place in the Hall of Fame for one-dimensional sluggers, there's certainly a place for spectacular, all-time great defenders.

 

I think when you look at Vizquel, you have to take into account the fact that during his two-decade career 1990-present you can make the case he's a top five shortstop. He's in the Jeter, A-Rod, Larkin, Rollins, Tejada category.

Hell, from 1990-2000, the only shortstops in the NL that have a shot at the Hall are Larkin, who I think is in, and then I guess the second choice would be Edgar Renteria. There is not a wide selection of candidates, which helps Vizquel, unlike Bagwell were there are two dozen guys to compare him to.

 

Vizquel actually has a much better case than I think anybody realizes.

[/quote]

That alone might keep him out. He probably deserves to be in the HOF, but if the voters don't know it, that won't matter.

 

Bagwell has a better case than anyone mentioned on this thread, Biggio included, certainly Rice, McGriff & Viszquel. He should be beyond discussion. Biggio & Viszquel I think should be in, Rice & McGriff out.

 

You can't put Biggio in and not put Bagwell in...

 

Here is the crux of my issue with the two players - Bagwell is the all-time leader for HR and RBI for the Astros. Not allowing Bagwell into the Hall would in a way be slap at the entire Astros franchise. It is the Hall of Fame and nobody had more "Fame" in a Astros uniform.

That said - empirically Fred McGriff was every bit the player Bagwell was with McGriff leading Bagwell in both career HR and RBI. It should also be noted that McGriff was also a player that came up big in the playoffs - with 10 HR in 10 post season series with a combined OPS of .917. Compare that to what Bagwell did in 9 post season series.

McGriff missed 500 HR by 7 HR. If McGriff had 500 some writers would have considered him a lock but I don't see the big difference between 493 and 500.

 

Amen, brother. Murph was the Bagwell of his day, sort of. Back-to-back National League MVPs ... the Braves only really good hitter from the 80s ... he came up two homers short of 400, which would have made him a lock for a lot of writers. Murph's absence is a slap in the face to the 1980s Braves teams and to a damn fine player and role model!

Oh yeah, about Bagwell and McGriff ... I can go along with Evil Bastard's logic ... put'em both in.

 

You can but Biggio shouldn't be in either. Neither should McGriff.

 

I'd vote 'no' on both Bagwell and McGriff.

 

To me, this is a classic example of why the old formulas don't work any more. Measured against other numbers of his era, McGriff probably falls just short. When you factor in that many of those numbers were steroid-induced, though, it elevates McGriff because he was never (to my knowledge) linked to the juice in any way. So, hitting 493 the hard way deserves a little more respect. Plus, voting him in would send an interesting message to some of those who got better numbers through chemistry.