1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jeff Bagwell and Fred McGriff - HoFers?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L), May 25, 2008.

?

Jeff bagwell and Fred McGriff were great players but is either, both or neither Hall of Fame worthy?

  1. Jeff Bagwell is a Hall of Famer but not McGriff

    22 vote(s)
    42.3%
  2. Fred McGriff is a Hall of Famer but not Bagwell

    2 vote(s)
    3.8%
  3. Both players belong in the Hall of Fame

    2 vote(s)
    3.8%
  4. Neither player belongs in the Hall of Fame

    25 vote(s)
    48.1%
  5. Mini Ditka

    1 vote(s)
    1.9%
  1. Herbert Anchovy

    Herbert Anchovy Active Member

    He's far from the worst of his kind.

    http://bronxbanter.baseballtoaster.com/archives/002831.html
     
  2. fremont

    fremont Member

    Another thing, since lost time can apparently help you get into the Hall (Kirby Puckett)...

    Bagwell lost nearly a full season over three straight years of getting his wrist broken by a pitch. Also, there's no telling just how good his 1994 could have been - of course, he got hit in the wrist right before baseball went on strike.

    Bagwell does not have a bad reputation with the media. He was a little surly later on as his body was quitting on him before he was ready to retire. He's blown me off before. Nothing personal - I can understand. Bottom line, he deserves to be among the all-time greats at 1B, and as such he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

    Crime Dog's a bit tougher case. He fell short of 500 homers despite putting in some considerable time playing in that bandbox in St. Petersburg. The fact that he played on a lot of irrelevant teams later on in his career doesn't help (Bagwell was remaining a part of an improving franchise that got to the World Series, if only after Bags had nothing left). Nor does the fact that he didn't bring anything special to the basepaths or the field, although he wasn't a complete stiff. But he was still pretty much just a slugger who hit for a decent average and could draw enough walks to offset his K's some.

    Bagwell's walk-to-K ratio (he had 1,401 walks and 1,529 K's in his career) was pretty good for a guy who was generally thought of as a slugger; McGriff had fewer walks than Bagwell despite having over 700 more plate appearances. Bagwell was a better "on-base" guy. He didn't have to knock it out of the park to hurt you.
     
  3. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    The 162-game averages for Frank Thomas and Bagwell are very similar.

    Thomas
    572 AB, 173 H, 37 HR, 120 RBI, 117 BB, .302/.420/.558

    Bagwell
    587 AB, 174 H, 34 HR, 115 RBI, 106 BB, .297/.408/.540

    Bagwell put up his numbers without the benefit of being a DH and while being a better than average fielder.

    These two were the best first-basemen of the 1990s. They were the elite at their position. I vote Bagwell in, probably first ballot.
     
  4. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    That also serves as a reminder of just how good Thomas has been, but doesn't even factor in Bagwell's ability to steal bases. That high on-base percentage is even more meaningful when you can run.
     
  5. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    The fact that McGriff hung around long enough to compile higher career counting numbers doesn't make him better. Look at the % numbers (BA, OBP, SLG, OPS etc.) and IIRC Bagwell is significantly better (as is Thomas, another no-brainer, even before his resurgence). Bagwell's SBs are iciing on a cake that didn't need it. McGriff may have been the best hitter on a great team, but the team was not great at hitting. By that standard I assume you are ready to put Bernie in (not as absurd as it sounds, but I have a hunch you aren't. Oh, and I'd put Albert Belle in too. No to Rice for the same reason Mattingly & Murphy are out - not great long anough, and no Koufax-like dominance to overcome the abbreviated peak.

    I'd also remove Carter, Perez, Neikro, & Sutton, and then make Sandberg wait until he went in the same year as Trammel. I'd also apologize to Goose for the aggravation.
     
  6. fremont

    fremont Member

    Hey, if Phil Rizzuto is in the HoF I can't count out Bernie on a VC vote in about 25 years...you forgot to mention Scooter in your "deselection" list, didn't you?
     
  7. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    No, I don't count VC selections. No one takes them seriously. Also was focusing on the players near my era, hard for me to talk much about ray schalk or Rick Ferrel.
     
  8. Herbert Anchovy

    Herbert Anchovy Active Member

    I'd make Sandberg wait, period.
     
  9. forever_town

    forever_town Well-Known Member

    I would if they'd fucking induct Buck O'Neil.
     
  10. And Wade Boggs too!
     
  11. a_rosenthal

    a_rosenthal Guest

    So? God forbid facts and numbers get in the way of the game.
     
  12. Herbert Anchovy

    Herbert Anchovy Active Member

    That's rather the problem.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page