I would think it has to do with the fact that Pudge was FAR superior at his position than Bagwell was at his. I think it's easier to stick to your values when excluding a "borderline" HOFer than one of the best of all time, unless those "best" happen to be arrogant, miserable SOB's like Clemens and Bonds.

Are you sure about that? Bagwell is easily a Top 10 first baseman if all time. Maybe Top 5. If we're talking modern era he's even further up that.

Also, put Jeff Kent in. He gets by. Other positions, no. Second base? Put him in.

Top 5:
Gehrig
Foxx
Brouthers
Pujols
Bagwell??

Jeff Bagwell was better than: Greenberg, Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, McCovey, Bill Terry, Johnny Mize, Eddie Murray, Rafael Palmeiro, Mark McGwire, Cap Anson? Or mostly-1B like Killebrew, Banks, Miggy, or Carew? Looks to me like he's barely in the top-5 of his own era, and that's only if you like him over McGwire and don't count Miggy.

Sorry, he's in the marginal-HOF tier, with Perez, Cepeda, Mattingly, and Hodges.

All time, I rank Bagwell seventh, behind Gehrig, Foxx, Anson, Pujols, Brouthers and Roger Connor. I'd put him above everyone else.

What makes him better than Thomas, Murray, Cabrera, Terry, or Banks?

I tend to think of Banks as a shortstop and Cabrera who played multiple positions. I would call Thomas the better hitter, Bagwell the better player. Bagwell was very valuable and terrific all around.

I would put him below Greenberg and Mize who lost prime years to the war. Also, he is below Cabrera. That puts him 10th. IRod is only behind Bench and Berra, also Josh Gibson if we are including Negros Leaguers which you didn't with Bagwell.

It feels pretty strange for someone to lump Roger Connors and Dan Brouthers with Albert Pujols or Miguel Cabrera. I guess you're looking at numbers or WAR or something but there's no way they stay on any list in the modern game.

Kent is a borderline guy who I think falls short.

18th all time in 2b fWAR

19th all time in 2b wRC+

out of the top 100 in 2b defense

75th all time in 2b OBP

the only places he is in the top 10 are slugging and homers, the rest of his game is pretty...mediocre

I have reason to think Rodriguez juiced and therefore don't rank him.

Brouthers did some pretty remarkable stuff in his day.

I think someone who puts up his numbers at his position warrants Hall inclusion more than someone like a first baseman would.

I think when a player brings negative value at his position, that argument goes out the window. Kent could have easily played 1b or OF. When a player brings negative value to his team, what does it matter where he played?

In the case of IRod, he brought elite defense, which allowed the voters to put aside the PED suspicions, unlike Piazza or Bagwell. I personally wouldn't have voted for him either, because I think he doped.

I can only speculate on why he was elected. Certainly at majority of voters now have no standards and are voting for known cheaters. There are a few who aren't voting for anyone suspected. Then there are those who are taking it on a case by case basis. Enough of those didn't believe Canseco or maybe they saw Piazza get elected and put I Rod in the same group.

Second base is a tougher position than first or outfield. I'm not sure how you measure valur.

Bagwell could play defense also. That includes a .993 fielding percentage.

I have no reason to doubt Canseco. He's been right time and time again.

A- fielding % is a terrible way to judge defense as it tells us nothing about their range, number of plays made ,arm strength ...etc it just tells us a % of errors made, and errors don't tell us the complete story as more errors does not always mean worse defense as a player may create more outs on defense yet make more errors.

B- sure a player with good numbers at 2b has more value than a similar player at 1b, but Kent wasn't good enough at 2b to merit HOF inclusion. the only place he's a top player all time is in homers.

C- using hearsay to determine HOF voting is a pretty sketchy system

Kent had good offensive numbers at second base.

People used gut instinct to exclude Bagwell. I'm less likely to think Bagwell used than Pudge.

they were pretty good, 19th in wRC+ is borderline HOF. But defense matters, and when you are near the bottom in 2b defense during your era it's kinda tough to call you a HOF player. 18th in career 2b fWAR is also borderline. it depends on if you are a big hall person or not.

I guess compared to others I can be a big Hall person, but there are also quite a few I'd kick out and also have voiced my opposition to players who get popular support from different eras. There is no cut off. You're either in or you're out, for me. Defense does matter, but not enough for me to punish what Kent did at the plate.