Jeff Bagwell - HOF?

He should be a lock, but the writers will probably fuck it up.

 

Jeff was a good guy and a good player. He is not a first ballot hall of famer in my book. He may get there but he shouldn't be there if a guy like Jim Rice can't get in without buying a ticket. Bagwell was a step below the likes of say Fred McGriff who is definitely borderline.

 

Bagwell's prime was Pujols-like. His non-peak years were very good. Rice wasn't close. Find me a list of guys with an OPS+ of 150 who aren't in the Hall of Fame. Plus, Bagwell could field and was a great baserunner. It's not his fault he didn't play for the Red Sox or Yankees.

 

He wasn't good enough which is why the Red Sox traded him.

 

Yeah, that was a steal for Boston.

 

Blame Scott Cooper!

This conversation is ridiculous. As is the one we always have about Thomas. Rice, McGriff, Dawson etc. are a different category.

 

Hey, I'm not a BoSox fan but its the truth. He was expendable.

 

Here is the problem with Bagwell in a nutshell - he is known as a slugger but he never led the league in HR and he only led the league in RBI once. Jim Rice led the league in RBI and HR three times. In those three years Rice was THE most feared slugger in the league (maybe in all of baseball). So talk about peak years to me is bunk because different times had different characteristics. Bagwell's time was know for steroids and astronomical OPS numbers (14 of the top 25 career OPS numbers are from players from the last 25 years - yet OPS and OPS+ are the first thing brought into the conversation by Bagwell supporters). Bagwell's peak was between Mark McGwire and Albert Pujols - the thing that all three have in common is steroid rumors. The rumors about Pujols are whispers right now but they are unmistakable. Mark McGwire never flunked a drug test but who doesn't think he did steroids? Rumors about Bagwell were so rife and common that his mother felt compelled to address them.

If Bagwell was clean he probably deserves to be in. If he was a steroids user - then electing him is a slap in the face of players like Rice, Dawson, Mattingly and McGriff who did things the right way. If you were to profile a player by his numbers to fit the profile of a steroids user - then the fact that Bagwell's SLG jumped a remarkable 234 points between 1993 and 1994 and his HR/AB dropped in those same years from one every 27 AB to one every 10 AB scream "steroids". (Brady Anderson's jump in numbers wasn't even that dramatic from the year before he hit 50 HR to the year he hit 50 HR and Bagwell didn't have reports of a "juiced ball" to explain his jump.)

If Bagwell was clean - then yes these questions are unfair but after turning a blind eye all those years - now the question has to be asked of every player from that era.

 

I think those guys have to get in now because of that uncertainty.

 

I am obviously assuming that Bagwell was clean. McGriff had the same peak (did he even have one?) as Bagwell, is he also under suspicion? If you want to say he used steroids, that's something I can't counter, but strictly based on performance, it's not even close. TO say that "he was known as a slugger" as a means to stop looking at any stat other than HRs & RBI is absurd. He was a complete player. Again, compare his best 3 years (adjust for league averages if you want), best 5 years, 7 pick whatever number you want, the only one who will match him is Mattingly for a short period. He was an all time great.

 

That's stupid, even for you.

 

So did Frank White, let's get him in, too.

Seriously, there's nothing wrong with a good but not great careers. The guys you listed there are just that, though I think Rice should probably be in.