OT: Who's your vote

[packs]

It blows my mind that Bagwell continues to get a lot of votes and McGriff doesn't finish ahead of him. Bagwell would only get in as a home run guy, right? Well, he never once led the league in home runs, or any other offensive category except runs.

McGriff led the league in home runs twice and hit more of them. Why would he finish so far behind Bagwell when he was the superior player?

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by packs

It blows my mind that Bagwell continues to get a lot of votes and McGriff doesn't finish ahead of him. Bagwell would only get in as a home run guy, right? Well, he never once led the league in home runs, or any other offensive category except runs.

McGriff led the league in home runs twice and hit more of them. Why would he finish so far behind Bagwell when he was the superior player?

McGriff hugely underrated.. for several years toward the end of the 80's and into the 90's (pre-1993 offensive explosion) he was the only guy that put up 30 plus every year. I think he suffered because he was so soft spoken and because by the time he finished 30 didn't seem like a big number anymore.. both of which are BS reasons not to be considered.

[buymycards]

Maybe it should be called "The Hall of Pretty Good". There are a lot of good players on this list but true HOFers? Not so many.

[packs]

It's really upsetting to see McGriff finish so poorly. Just looking at recent inductees, he was a far superior player to both Jim Rice and Andre Dawson, yet he will likely toil at 20 percent for the forseable future.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by buymycards

Maybe it should be called "The Hall of Pretty Good". There are a lot of good players on this list but true HOFers? Not so many.

Exluding steroids, I think many/most of the guys listed are slam dunk HOFers.. and purely/objectively based on numbers would be locks

Locks-
Bonds- top 5 offensive numbers, plus 8 GG, and 7 MVP
Clemens- top 10 pitching numbers, 7 Cys and an MVP
Piazza- by far greatest offensive catcher ever
Biggio- 3000 hits for a 2nd baseman is a lock
Sosa- 600+ would be a lock (even though he'll never make it)
Palmeiro- 500+ 3000+ would be a lock (he'll never make it either)
McGwire- 500+ would be a lock.. doubt he makes it ever

Near locks-
Bagwell- certainly hangs offensively with Perez and Rice
McGriff- same number of HR's as Gehrig.. would've hit 500 had they let him hang on long enough to do so.. also definitely as if not more productive than Perez and Rice.
Schilling- who I even think is borderline, but compare him with some of the other HOF pitchers from the beloved vintage card era... Marquard, Faber, Pennock, Haines, etc

[bbcard1]

Like the internet, if we could put the genie back in the bottle we could reinvent the hall of fame, but we can't.

[packs]

I still think its ridiculous that people even consider Biggio. He was not a HOFer. Look at things this way. If Vizquel hung around and got 3,000 hits, would that make him a HOFer? Or is he already a HOfer? If we're talking about Biggio, no one would think he's a HOFer without his milestone, and even with it people don't think he is. So why would he even be considered at all? Seems like people throwing their votes away.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by packs

I still think its ridiculous that people even consider Biggio. He was not a HOFer. Look at things this way. If Vizquel hung around and got 3,000 hits, would that make him a HOFer?

I think regardless of era, or dominance in an era, the Hall has always had milestone that more or less locked a player in.. this is how I'd always interpreted..

300 wins/500 HR- were the top two
then
3000 hits

others like 3000 Ks, 1500 RBI, etc were nice numbers but did not equate to locks by themselves.

It's all screwed up now, since 500, 600, 700!! 3000 hits no longer appear to be locks..

I'm now starting to think this will hurt the vintage card market. I think so much of what drives interest and value for players 50, 100, 125 years ago is a reverance for the Hall and for these numbers and what they mean as compared with today. This makes more people love the history of this game and want to collect its artifacts. If that is completely lost and these milestones will no longer mean anything, why would anyone care anymore about a guy from the 20's/30's that hit 500 HRs?

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

ABSOLUTELY- a player's performance as compared with their peers of the same era means as much if not more than just their yearly or career totals... clearly there was an era prior to 1893 when the mound was closer, there was a dead ball era, there was seemingly a very live ball era in the 20'-30's.. didn't the league bat nearly .300 in 1930?? (is Lefty Grove any less dominant because his ERA ended up over 3.00 or over a run higher than Ed Walsh? No), the mound was lowered after the year of the pitcher in 1968, offense died and they created the DH, and on and on. Every one of these periods affected the statistics of the players in that era, and how a player performs relative to those of his era should be taken into account when judging greatness.

What you fail to realize is that not one of the factors you mentioned constituted cheating. Every player in those era was on a level playing field, which makes comparing them to those in their era valid. Steroids put players on a different field, and now it is unfair to say Player X was the best of his era when you don't know how much of this "greatness" was artificially induced.

Overall, I think "era" and "position" are taken into account a great deal. But people (voters) don't know how to treat the steroid era because you cannot apply the same rules across the board. That's why it was CHEATING.

Originally Posted by packs

I still think its ridiculous that people even consider Biggio. He was not a HOFer. Look at things this way. If Vizquel hung around and got 3,000 hits, would that make him a HOFer? Or is he already a HOfer? If we're talking about Biggio, no one would think he's a HOFer without his milestone, and even with it people don't think he is. So why would he even be considered at all? Seems like people throwing their votes away.

Again, taking "position" into account, Biggio played catcher and second base the majority of his career and was hands down one of the best in the game in his time, at his position. He is a sure-fire HOFer who would have been elected in his first year easily had his election come twenty years ago. He was unfairly punished by the era he played in by voters who aren't sure how to handle any player from that era.

And as far as "hanging around" goes, I will never understand how longevity became such a knock on a player. If someone is good enough to play at a high level, in the very best level of competition, how is that not a positive? Are you going to say Hank Aaron was a compiler? After all, he played 23 seasons.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by packs

It blows my mind that Bagwell continues to get a lot of votes and McGriff doesn't finish ahead of him. Bagwell would only get in as a home run guy, right? Well, he never once led the league in home runs, or any other offensive category except runs.

McGriff led the league in home runs twice and hit more of them. Why would he finish so far behind Bagwell when he was the superior player?

I don't put much stock in being a league leader. It's just an arbitrary accomplishment that's as much determined by what others didn't produce, as much as it does on the individual's production.

Anyways. To me, these two are extremely similar players. McGriff lasted 3 more seasons, resulting in higher totals. While Baggs rates were a bit higher by .013 AVG and .031 in both OBP and SLG. Baggs also had 202 SB's to McGriff's 72.

And not that it means much(for the same reasons that I don't care much for leading the league), but Baggs also had 1 GG, 1 MVP and the ROY. McGriff did have 1 more AS game(5-4)

My personal feeling is that they both belong, but Baggs was the superior player.

Originally Posted by packs

It's really upsetting to see McGriff finish so poorly. Just looking at recent inductees, he was a far superior player to both Jim Rice and Andre Dawson, yet he will likely toil at 20 percent for the forseable future.

I can 100% agree with this. I think the difference is in perspective though. The fact that Rice and Dawson's careers started 10 years earlier helped them greatly. Because it created some separation between them and guys who's career pretty much spanned the entire steroid era.

[packs]

League leader means that you produced more than anyone else in the league. It seems like it SHOULD hold stock. Not sure what you're really saying. They're both home run guys and would only get in for their production. McGriff was better for longer. Doesn't that make him the better player? And as I said McGriff was the best homerun hitter for two seasons compared to Bagwell's zero.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by packs

League leader means that you produced more than anyone else in the league. It seems like it SHOULD hold stock.

ABSOLUTELY- a player's performance as compared with their peers of the same era means as much if not more than just their yearly or career totals... clearly there was an era prior to 1893 when the mound was closer, there was a dead ball era, there was seemingly a very live ball era in the 20'-30's.. didn't the league bat nearly .300 in 1930?? (is Lefty Grove any less dominant because his ERA ended up over 3.00 or over a run higher than Ed Walsh? No), the mound was lowered after the year of the pitcher in 1968, offense died and they created the DH, and on and on. Every one of these periods affected the statistics of the players in that era, and how a player performs relative to those of his era should be taken into account when judging greatness.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by packs

League leader means that you produced more than anyone else in the league. It seems like it SHOULD hold stock. Not sure what you're really saying. They're both home run guys and would only get in for their production. McGriff was better for longer. Doesn't that make him the better player? And as I said McGriff was the best homerun hitter for two seasons compared to Bagwell's zero.

But by putting stock in that you're are putting the other players in those years on an even playing field. I'm not saying that it's not a great accomplishment. BUT I don't think it's a valid point when comparing players.

Also, I don't think that "better for longer" is necessarily valid either. McGriff had 3 more seasons(2 healthy) than Bagwell did, and only managed 176 more hits, 44 more HR's, and 21 more RBI's, while Bagwell still managed to lead him in ALL rate categories(.297/.408/.540-.284/.377/.509), 2Bs(488-441), 3Bs(32-24). SBs(202-72), BBs(1401-1305) and HBP(128-39). McGriff also struck out 324 more times.. Bagwell did average 2 more GiDP per season though..

McGriff's postseason performances far outshine Bagwell's though.. I believe McGriff and Gehrig are the only players to reach the 500 club, if you were to count their postseason performances. As they'd both wind up with 503. Sam Rice would reach the 3000 hit club in this scenario(3006).

We can also look at the 11 year span from 1991-2002 when both of their career overlap and both were healthy in the same year..

McGriff 31 35 37 34 27 28 22 19 32 27 31 30
Bagwell 15 18 20 39 21 31 43 34 42 47 39 31

Bagwell lead in 7 of those 11 years.

We can also look at it while mirroring their ages..age 23-36(that's 14 years, and the entirety of Bagg's healthy career)
Mcgriff 20 34 36 35 31 35 37 34 27 28 22 19 32 27
Bagwell 15 18 20 39 21 31 43 34 42 47 39 31 39 27

Bagwell lead at 7 of those ages. McGriff at 5, and they were even twice..

McGriff did have 31 and 30 in his two uncontested ages(again not counting his 2 short years at the end), So even if we assume give those to McGriff, they're tied up at 7-7-2.

[packs]

I see what you're saying. But with two players who played the same position and finished with similar numbers it seems odd that one would receive nearly 60 percent of the votes while the other finished with 20 percent. Writers voting for Bagwell should ask themselves why they aren't voting for McGriff.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by packs

... with two players who played the same position and finished with similar numbers it seems odd that one would receive nearly 60 percent of the votes while the other finished with 20 percent. Writers voting for Bagwell should ask themselves why they aren't voting for McGriff.

I'm sure those voters wouldn't be able to offer a reasonable explanation

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by packs

I see what you're saying. But with two players who played the same position and finished with similar numbers it seems odd that one would receive nearly 60 percent of the votes while the other finished with 20 percent. Writers voting for Bagwell should ask themselves why they aren't voting for McGriff.

I completely agree. I could see McGriff getting a few less votes, but definitely not 211 less.. And again as I've said all along. BOTH belong in..

I could add Walker to this as well. But he was an OF and the Coors factor plays too big into the discussion. But for Christ's sake, the guy batter over .350 4 times.. with 7 Gold Gloves..

I also wish people would've taken a little more time to look at Albert Belle though. Sure he only had 10 full seasons. But damn, he put up some big numbers during that stretch.. Sure he was a d1ck, and pulled the cork stunt, but I don't ever recall anyone linking him to steroids.. I'm fine with him not getting in, but he barely got a second though..

[packs]

I'm with you on Walker. What a hitter. Can people really say with a straight face that he wasn't better than Rice and Dawson? Baseball Reference ranks him as the 9th best right fielder of all time. How does a top ten player at his position not get into the HOF?