craftysouthpaw
New member
- Jan 8, 2010
- 668
- 0
Absolutely. I could definitely see Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg, Pujols, McCovey, and Thome ahead of Bagwell. I would struggle with the others but that is just me. But even putting all 9 ahead of him, it seems awfully tough to say there have only been 9 elite first baseman to play the game since WWI (I excluded Carew as while he played a few more games at 1B, his prime was spent at 2B). I lean towards a small Hall kind of guy but that just seems a bridge too far IMO. But I get it.
I worry that we are missing something when the Hall is so weighted towards guys that played over 50 years ago. That just doesn't pass the smell test and I think we fall victim to romanticizing the old timers at the expense of the immense talent right in front of us. Not to mention running the risk of turning younger generations away from any interest in a HOF that honors so few of the guys they watched growing up.
Greenberg is an interested comparison and I don't see how Bagwell's stats could fall short if the same conclusion isn't reached for Greenberg. By stats, I assume most people are talking about counting stats and Bagwell exceeds him in every single one except for triples. As far as rate stats, Greenberg had an OPS+ of 158 and Bagwell was 149 so in the ballpark. Greenberg was probably a slightly better hitter with Bagwell better on the bases and in the field. Greenberg was basically Frank Thomas with a shorter career. Actually, I think all three of them created very similar value but Thomas' career lasted longer than Bagwell's whose career lasted longer than Greenberg's. Voters obviously extrapolated some for Greenberg to think what his counting stats would have looked like if he could have played longer - quite a bit actually. Not sure why the same isn't being done for Bagwell.
As for Murray, he only looks better because he played five extra years where he was a less than average 1B - a dreaded compiler (my second least favorite term when it comes to HOF discussions just behind Hall of Very Good). During Murray's last 6 years (his age 35-41 seasons), he created 4.4 WAR which is barely higher than Bagwell's last full season (age 36) of 3.6 WAR. Murray put up 125 HR's and 544 RBI's during those years he was basically hanging on. That is the only reason his counting stats look better than Bagwell's. And I have no problem with guys hanging on. But given Bagwell was a better hitter from ages 21 - 36 (career OPS+ of 151 vs 135 as of the end of their respective age 36 seasons), his counting stats would have easily surpassed Murray's with equal career lengths. I'm not saying you should play the what-if game in all circumstances - but Bagwell was putting up excellent numbers until 36, not some guy that had a career ending injury at age 27. And it is completely reasonable to assume Bagwell would have put up age 38-41 numbers that were at least as good as Murray's which means 63 more HR's for one. Murray deserves some extra credit for durability and I could see an argument that is enough to draw him about even with Bagwell. But at the very least, Bagwell is in his same class.
I'm not sure why people forget how dominant of a run Bagwell had or that they don't think of him as one of the best of his era. His 10 year run from 1994 - 2003 put him as one of the very best offensive players in the NL during that time and definitely the best at his position. Bonds is the only one who was definitely better than him during that time and only a few others have arguments (Chipper, Piazza, Biggio, probably a couple others). The best in the league at one's position for 10+ years, plus multiple other years of above average prodution is a HOF'er in my book.
I think this table does a good job of quickly putting Bagwell into the context of where he rates all time among 1B. I don't take these rankings as gospel but they do a great job of shedding light on where guys generally fall out when compared to others at their positions.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/jaws_1B.shtml
