Comments on: Pop quiz … and a few game notes from Saturday, June 18 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: Johnny Twisto Wed, 22 Jun 2011 16:44:49 +0000 Whether I change your mind or you mine, what difference would it make?

Then what is the point of any of this discussion? None of us are affecting anything. Why talk about the games, they already happened. You've made it clear you're not really interested in conversation which makes me wonder why you spend time here.

By: Yahoo Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:08:37 +0000 Great post

By: Chuck Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:26:52 +0000 My opinion doesn't require backup, John, no more so than would yours.

For the most part, HOF discussions are futile because none of us have a vote.

Whether I change your mind or you mine, what difference would it make?

Jeff Bagwell is currently not a HOFer if only because he hasn't been elected, and until he is, there's nothing anyone can say to change that fact.

And considering he juiced, it's all going to be irrelevant anyway.

By: John Autin Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:00:51 +0000 @65 -- Pithy as your reply may be, it leaves unclear whether you noted the rankings in more traditional stats of Runs, RBI and OBP that I also posted.

More importantly, it leaves completely unexplained why you think Bagwell doesn't belong among the top 10 first basemen of all time.

Since this is the 2nd time on this thread that you've basically posted that opinion without any backup, one might wonder whether your opinion is anything more than a feeling.

By: Chuck Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:46:56 +0000 "I infer that either you don't believe in advanced metrics..,"

I don't.

"..or you don't know how Bagwell compares to other first basemen in that regard. "

I do.

By: John Autin Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:21:20 +0000 @62 -- Chuck, I don't get it -- particularly the vehemence of your position. I infer that either you don't believe in advanced metrics, or you don't know how Bagwell compares to other first basemen in that regard. But here are a few relevant top-10 lists:

Wins Above Replacement by 1B
118.4 -- Lou Gehrig
99.5 -- Cap Anson
94.1 -- Jimmie Foxx
87.2 -- Roger Connor
86.0 -- Albert Pujols
83.7 -- Dan Brouthers
79.9 -- Jeff Bagwell
70.2 -- Johnny Mize
66.7 -- Eddie Murray
66.0 -- Rafael Palmeiro

OPS+ by 1B (min. 5,000 PAs):
178 -- Lou Gehrig
171 -- Albert Pujols
170 -- Dan Brouthers
163 -- Jimmie Foxx
162 -- Mark McGwire
158 -- Johnny Mize
158 -- Hank Greenberg
153 -- Roger Connor
149 -- Jeff Bagwell
147 -- Willie McCovey

But if you don't like metrics, I assume you like counting stats:

Runs by 1B:
1999 -- Cap Anson
1888 -- Lou Gehrig
1751 -- Jimmie Foxx
1663 -- Rafael Palmeiro
1627 -- Eddie Murray
1620 -- Roger Connor
1602 -- Jake Beckley
1523 -- Dan Brouthers
1517 -- Jeff Bagwell
1349 -- Fred McGriff

RBI by 1B:
2075 -- Cap Anson
1995 -- Lou Gehrig
1922 -- Jimmie Foxx
1917 -- Eddie Murray
1835 -- Rafael Palmeiro
1652 -- Tony Perez
1578 -- Jake Beckley
1555 -- Willie McCovey
1550 -- Fred McGriff
1529 -- Jeff Bagwell

But maybe you just like on-base percentage?

OBP by 1B (min. 5,000 PAs):
.447 -- Lou Gehrig
.428 -- Jimmie Foxx
.423 -- Todd Helton
.423 -- Albert Pujols
.423 -- Dan Brouthers
.412 -- Hank Greenberg
.408 -- Jeff Bagwell
.404 -- Jason Giambi
.402 -- Lu Blue
.398 -- John Olerud

I don't know, Chuck -- what do you like?

By: Johnny Twisto Tue, 21 Jun 2011 03:42:44 +0000 I'll try to name 10 1Bmen better than Bagwell.


I don't necessarily agree with that list, but I think one could make the argument for those guys.

However, I infer from Chuck's comment he doesn't think Bagwell is close to the top 10. I think one would have to make some pretty convoluted arguments to find another 10 guys to put ahead of Bagpipes. The guy crushed the Astrodome, for crying out loud.

By: Chuck Tue, 21 Jun 2011 00:58:40 +0000 "Jeff Bagwell is considered a Top-10 all-time at 1B, if not Top-5"

Not by anyone who knows what they're talking about.

By: Doug Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:28:29 +0000 @58.

Lawrence, I would add Fred McGriff to your list.

By: Lawrence Azrin Mon, 20 Jun 2011 18:28:36 +0000 @58/@59 - Well, we'll have "agree to disagree", as I do about everything you two stated (except Santo belonging in the HOF):

-the HOF IS about milestones and nice round numbers, though not in absolutes. These milestones are a shorthand to the BBWAA voters for "had a career good enough to be HOF-worthy".

We on this particular blog argue that should NOT be so, but in practice, of course, everyone with 500HR, 3000 hits, and 300 Wins is in (except for off-field reasons). The only HOFer who falls into this category, and I wouldn't put in the HOF, is Lou Brock. He's more the "exception that proves the rule".

-"bottom tier players" - Barry Larkin got 62% of the vote last year, and will probably be elected next year - I don't know anyone who would call him a "bottom tier" HOF candidate. He's often considered one of the Top-10 shortstops ever. Speaking of that:

- Jeff Bagwell is considered a Top-10 all-time at 1B, if not Top-5
-Bobby Grich and Lou Whitaker are considered Top-dozen at second base
-Stan Hack is considered Top-10 at third base

Ratings based on BJNHA and consensus. None of the players I just mentioned above are bottom tier players, to call them no more qualified than Johnny Damon for the HOF is ridiculous. Just about every player I mentioned above in #57 had a better peak than Damon, often much better. The lack of a peak is what makes Damon's HOF case harder to argue.

-HOF candidates DO "wait their turn", even if they are fully qualified. That's how the HOF works. Carlton Fisk did not get his first year in 1999, because Brett, Ryan, and Yount were on the ballot. He did get elected in 2000, when the best new candidates were Gossage and Jack Morris.