Vlad Guerrero: HOF?

Sure, bc you were a saber wonk back before Michael Lewis even dreamed of Moneyball.

 

Fair enough. Let me revise that: Knowing what we all know know about player value, I would not have chosen Vlad over Bagwell in their primes.

 

Agree. I think you can construct various situations where you might want Vlad more than Bagwell on your team (i.e. who else is on your team, the game situation, the ability to find a league average 1b vs. OF), but overall, I think Bagwell was more valuable.

 

I am quite far from being a saber wonk and I agree with Dick on this one.

 

Pre-Moneyball, on what basis would you have picked Bagwell? His outsized muscles? The eyeball test?

 

I didn't need Moneyball to tell me that Guerrero was lousy on the bases and Bagwell was actually good in that area. I didn't need it to know Bagwell was a fantastic defensive player. I didn't need it to realize that patience at the plate has some value. I've always had the sense to know that you have to use every available measure, eyeball tests and numbers, to evaluate players.

Just because you are so caught up in highlights that you can't manage a thorough analysis does not mean everybody else has to limit himself or herself in that manner.

 

Sure, chief.

 

Translation, you've got nothing. As I added to my last post, I am capable of looking deeper than the highlights. It seems you are not.

 

Right. You have the value of hindsight, which all armchair philosophers love. But we will just take you at your word that your eye test was superior even before moneyball changed the lens. And why exactly am I caught up in highlights? you typically create some straw man to combat. I can examine the numbers with the best of em. Bagwell had slightly better career stats than vlad, and was meanwhile dogged by PED whispers that vlad was not, thereby prolly making their HOF candidacies relatively even. If you would rather have had bagwell in his prime, so be it, but you sound like a condenscending douche to say it was so clearcut in the pre moneyball era

 

Which is likely still very damn little.

 

No, I sound like somebody who knows what he is talking about rather than somebody who is blinded by Guerrero's old highlights. He was the more spectacular player. Bagwell was the better player. As I already said, the numbers are comparable and any reasonable analysis of Guerrero has to take his lousy baserunning into account.

Also, the PED talk is irrelevant to the point of who was the better player, but you are trying to shift the argument to something you think you can win. There is no viable evidence that Bagwell used steroids. Can you present any evidence aside from the fact that he got bigger during his career and he played with at least one player who did use, Ken Caminiti? That sin't all of it, but it is the primary argument, which is a joke. Plenty of players who stayed scrawny have been busted for PED use and plenty of players who got bigger and stronger during their careers were not busted.

When it comes to Hall of Fame candidacies, momentum matters. Bagwell's vote totals have gone up since his first time on the ballot. That he has been on the ballot longer will likely be an advantage for Bagwell, which is why I said I think he gets in ahead of Guerrero.

 

Good Lord you're a doofus when it comes to PED's.

There's about a 99% chance he used, but you're right, it shouldn't be held against him. It shouldn't be held against any of them. If you're not busted you are clean in OOPs delusional world.

The pious asshats that vote are getting back at players for making them look like naive fools.