OrangeWhoopass.com Forums

General Discussion => Talk Zone => Topic started by: Limey on November 02, 2006, 02:57:17 pm

Title: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Limey on November 02, 2006, 02:57:17 pm
Players (and years played) who accumulated 1500 runs, 2300 hits, 400 homers, 1500 RBI, 1400 walks and 200 stolen bases in their careers:

Hank Aaron (23 years)
Barry Bonds (20 years and counting)
Willie Mays (22 years)
Frank Robinson (21 years)
Jeff Bagwell (15 years)
That is all.

Carve these names on a bat, and use it to beat anyone who claims that Bagwell is even marginal for the Hall.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Fredia on November 02, 2006, 03:09:06 pm
most of which was done during the dome years. amazing man
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Limey on November 02, 2006, 03:12:50 pm
Quote:

most of which was done during the dome years.


...and in significantly fewer games.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: austro on November 02, 2006, 03:19:06 pm
Quote:

Players (and years played) who accumulated 1500 runs, 2300 hits, 400 homers, 1500 RBI, 1400 walks and 200 stolen bases in their careers:

Hank Aaron (23 years)
Barry Bonds (20 years and counting)
Willie Mays (22 years)
Frank Robinson (21 years)
Jeff Bagwell (15 years)
That is all.

Carve these names on a bat, and use it to beat anyone who claims that Bagwell is even marginal for the Hall.


I'm as big a Bagwell fan as there is, but for this to be an honest comparison, you really ought to point out when each of these men passed that threshold.  For all I know, Aaron also passed it in his 15th season, but kept on playing for 8 more.
Title: Too Much! Too Much Fucking Perspective
Post by: Limey on November 02, 2006, 03:23:41 pm
Quote:

Players (and years played) who accumulated 1500 runs, 2300 hits, 400 homers, 1500 RBI, 1400 walks and 200 stolen bases in their careers:

Hank Aaron (23 years)
Barry Bonds (20 years and counting)
Willie Mays (22 years)
Frank Robinson (21 years)
Jeff Bagwell (15 years)
That is all.

Carve these names on a bat, and use it to beat anyone who claims that Bagwell is even marginal for the Hall.



Just for a laff, if you knock stolen bases off the above combination of achievements, the following names get added to Bagwell's peer group:

Ruth, Mantle, Foxx, Williams, Matthews, Ott, Gehrig, Musial, Yastrzemski, that is all.

I've heard of some of these guys.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Limey on November 02, 2006, 05:03:28 pm
Quote:

I'm as big a Bagwell fan as there is, but for this to be an honest comparison, you really ought to point out when each of these men passed that threshold.  For all I know, Aaron also passed it in his 15th season, but kept on playing for 8 more.


You're welcome to do that if you wish, but I think it's irrelevant.  The more important fact, IMHO, is that there are only 5 players all time who can claim to have achieved these thresholds in all six categories.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Froback on November 02, 2006, 05:24:37 pm
Quote:

Quote:

I'm as big a Bagwell fan as there is, but for this to be an honest comparison, you really ought to point out when each of these men passed that threshold.  For all I know, Aaron also passed it in his 15th season, but kept on playing for 8 more.


You're welcome to do that if you wish, but I think it's irrelevant.  The more important fact, IMHO, is that there are only 5 players all time who can claim to have achieved these thresholds in all six categories.



And the only 1B.  And when you think about 1B, SB isn't an area you think of production from.  And Bagwell was one of the best baserunners in all of baseball during his prime years.  Not bad for a slugging 1B!  I personally think he rates right up in the top 2 or 3 all time 1B.  I admit a little bias, but I think you would have a hard time claiming anyone (other than maybe Gehrig) who is unquestionably better.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Arky Vaughan on November 02, 2006, 05:31:49 pm
Quote:

Players (and years played) who accumulated 1500 runs, 2300 hits, 400 homers, 1500 RBI, 1400 walks and 200 stolen bases in their careers:

Hank Aaron (23 years)
Barry Bonds (20 years and counting)
Willie Mays (22 years)
Frank Robinson (21 years)
Jeff Bagwell (15 years)
That is all.

Carve these names on a bat, and use it to beat anyone who claims that Bagwell is even marginal for the Hall.



With all due respect to Bagwell, one of these things is not like the other: 
Player       R     H   HR   RBI    BB   SB
------------------------------------------
Aaron     2174  3771  755  2297  1402  240
Bonds     2152  2841  734  1930  2426  509
Mays      2062  3283  660  1903  1464  338
Robinson  1829  2943  586  1812  1420  204  
Bagwell   1517  2314  449  1529  1401  202
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Froback on November 02, 2006, 05:41:53 pm
While that is true, Arky, check the games played too.

I think Bagwell's shoulder caused him to fall short in a lot of those cats, because it preventing him from matching them in games played.  Not to mention he had to play in the power hitters death valley of the Dome for over half of his career.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Froback on November 02, 2006, 05:44:27 pm
I think Rob Neyer (one of those ESPN dorks) did a nice little piece on Bagwell a few years back, using all those fancy stat thingys to show that Bagwell ranked very highly among the all-time 1B greats.  But I have no idea how to find it, nor do I have any desire to pay ESPN any money to try to find it.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Limey on November 02, 2006, 05:54:05 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Players (and years played) who accumulated 1500 runs, 2300 hits, 400 homers, 1500 RBI, 1400 walks and 200 stolen bases in their careers:

Hank Aaron (23 years)
Barry Bonds (20 years and counting)
Willie Mays (22 years)
Frank Robinson (21 years)
Jeff Bagwell (15 years)
That is all.

Carve these names on a bat, and use it to beat anyone who claims that Bagwell is even marginal for the Hall.



With all due respect to Bagwell, one of these things is not like the other: 
Player       R     H   HR   RBI    BB   SB
------------------------------------------
Aaron     2174  3771  755  2297  1402  240
Bonds     2152  2841  734  1930  2426  509
Mays      2062  3283  660  1903  1464  338
Robinson  1829  2943  586  1812  1420  204  
Bagwell   1517  2314  449  1529  1401  202



You're missing the point.  I'm not saying that Bagwell is in the same eschelon as these players.  However, it is important if one is deciding Jeff's HoF worthiness.  Look at it another way, Bagwell may be far behind these legends (and one a-hole), but no one else makes it at all.

Also, see my later post listing who comes into the group if you knock off stolen bases; still very special company.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Greg on November 02, 2006, 06:04:12 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Players (and years played) who accumulated 1500 runs, 2300 hits, 400 homers, 1500 RBI, 1400 walks and 200 stolen bases in their careers:

Hank Aaron (23 years)
Barry Bonds (20 years and counting)
Willie Mays (22 years)
Frank Robinson (21 years)
Jeff Bagwell (15 years)
That is all.

Carve these names on a bat, and use it to beat anyone who claims that Bagwell is even marginal for the Hall.



With all due respect to Bagwell, one of these things is not like the other: 
Player       R     H   HR   RBI    BB   SB
------------------------------------------
Aaron     2174  3771  755  2297  1402  240
Bonds     2152  2841  734  1930  2426  509
Mays      2062  3283  660  1903  1464  338
Robinson  1829  2943  586  1812  1420  204  
Bagwell   1517  2314  449  1529  1401  202




I'd like to see the marginal rate of these stats. I'm sure it will look alot better for Bags if we arrange the data in that way. However, do you use total games, total at bats,or even total times on base? I dont know, just thinking.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Arky Vaughan on November 02, 2006, 06:12:45 pm
Quote:

While that is true, Arky, check the games played too.



Well, obviously. But it also shows that using one player's totals to set the bottom limits for a comparison of players can be misleading.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Alkie on November 02, 2006, 06:18:21 pm
Don't you think it's interesting that the rest of the players that reached Jeff's numbers all managed to play MANY more years and end with "much" higher counting stats (the power numbers anyway)?
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Arky Vaughan on November 02, 2006, 06:18:31 pm
Quote:

You're missing the point.  I'm not saying that Bagwell is in the same eschelon as these players.  However, it is important if one is deciding Jeff's HoF worthiness.  Look at it another way, Bagwell may be far behind these legends (and one a-hole), but no one else makes it at all.



Not missing the point. Just seeing it differently. Actually, here's the comparison through roughly the same number of games:
Player       G     R     H   HR   RBI    BB   SB
------------------------------------------------
Bagwell   2150  1517  2314  449  1529  1401  202
Aaron     2119  1519  2618  481  1541   802  187
Bonds     2143  1584  2157  494  1405  1547  471
Mays      2157  1596  2540  542  1505  1019  281
Robinson  2196  1516  2427  475  1455  1086  193
Also through that number of games:
Player     Avg   OBP   Slg
--------------------------
Bagwell   .297  .408  .540
Aaron     .316  .374  .565
Bonds     .289  .412  .567
Mays      .312  .387  .591
Robinson  .303  .394  .553
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Arky Vaughan on November 02, 2006, 06:19:26 pm
Quote:

Don't you think it's interesting that the rest of the players that reached Jeff's numbers all managed to play MANY more years and end with "much" higher counting stats (the power numbers anyway)?



I not only find it interesting, I find it instructive.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Limey on November 02, 2006, 06:39:08 pm
Quote:

Quote:

You're missing the point.  I'm not saying that Bagwell is in the same eschelon as these players.  However, it is important if one is deciding Jeff's HoF worthiness.  Look at it another way, Bagwell may be far behind these legends (and one a-hole), but no one else makes it at all.



Not missing the point. Just seeing it differently. Actually, here's the comparison through roughly the same number of games:
Player       G     R     H   HR   RBI    BB   SB
------------------------------------------------
Bagwell   2150  1517  2314  449  1529  1401  202
Aaron     2119  1519  2618  481  1541   802  187
Bonds     2143  1584  2157  494  1405  1547  471
Mays      2157  1596  2540  542  1505  1019  281
Robinson  2196  1516  2427  475  1455  1086  193
Also through that number of games:
Player     Avg   OBP   Slg
--------------------------
Bagwell   .297  .408  .540
Aaron     .316  .374  .565
Bonds     .289  .412  .567
Mays      .312  .387  .591
Robinson  .303  .394  .553



So, looking at it that way, it's just Baggy, Bones and Mays.  Sweet!
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: strosrays on November 02, 2006, 06:40:59 pm
Quote:

While that is true, Arky, check the games played too.

I think Bagwell's shoulder caused him to fall short in a lot of those cats, because it preventing him from matching them in games played.  Not to mention he had to play in the power hitters death valley of the Dome for over half of his career.




I'm not knocking down Bagwell at all, or Limey's point about his HOF-worthiness, but I think the "he played half his career in the Dome" argument has relevance if you are comparing him contemporary players, in this case Bonds, but in the long view,whatever he lost there was probably more than made up for by the fact he played almost his entire career in one of the greatest offensive eras ever.  Aaron, Mays, and Frank Robinson on the other hand all played part or most of their careers in the second deadball era of the mid-1960's to 1970's.  And by the time Bagwell arrived, the Dome's fences had been moved in a few times; it was still a hard place to hit for power, but not as much as it was when it got the reputation as a graveyard for power hitters.

The guys who played in the Dome in the '60s-'70s -- Jim Wynn, Cesar Cedeno, Bob Watson -- those were the guys whose career numbers were really depressed by playing inside.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Arky Vaughan on November 02, 2006, 06:44:13 pm
What's scary is that Gehrig played only 14 more games than Bagwell but drove in 466 more runs. He must've had somebody pretty good batting in front of him.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Limey on November 02, 2006, 06:47:17 pm
Quote:

Don't you think it's interesting that the rest of the players that reached Jeff's numbers all managed to play MANY more years and end with "much" higher counting stats (the power numbers anyway)?


It's not so much that these four players all played longer than Baggy; it's that Jeff is at #144 on the all-time games played rankings.  That means, of all of the 143 players who played more games than Bagwell, only 4 can best him in that combination* of stats.

* FTR, I could throw in doubles and triples too - which would be a combo including all the major offensive stats - but it doesn't change the list.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Limey on November 02, 2006, 06:49:12 pm
Quote:

What's scary is that Gehrig played only 14 more games than Bagwell but drove in 466 more runs. He must've had somebody pretty good batting in front of him.


Well he had 44 more homers.  As for the other 400-odd ribs...umm...
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Phil_in_CS on November 02, 2006, 06:50:42 pm
Quote:

What's scary is that Gehrig played only 14 more games than Bagwell but drove in 466 more runs. He must've had somebody pretty good batting in front of him.



and that guy in front of Gehrig cleared the bases frequently, too
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Limey on November 02, 2006, 06:51:26 pm
Quote:

What's scary is that Gehrig played only 14 more games than Bagwell but drove in 466 more runs. He must've had somebody pretty good batting in front of him.


And while we're at it, Gary Sheffield is short of the mark in runs, ribs and walks, despite playing 3 more years (and counting).  He's also short a marble or two, and a whole boat-load of charm.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Arky Vaughan on November 02, 2006, 06:52:44 pm
Baseball-Reference's similarity scores function provides this interesting list of comparable players through the same age:

The Link
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Froback on November 02, 2006, 06:56:38 pm
Quote:

Quote:

What's scary is that Gehrig played only 14 more games than Bagwell but drove in 466 more runs. He must've had somebody pretty good batting in front of him.


Well he had 44 more homers.  As for the other 400-odd ribs...umm...


That is why I said Gehrig is probably the only one who is someone you could say was a better 1B than Bagwell, ever.  I think Bagwell has a solid if not better arguement against any other candidate for the #2 slot behind Gehrig.

His extra, what 40 points in batting average probably also has alot to do with it.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Limey on November 02, 2006, 09:29:57 pm
Quote:

That is why I said Gehrig is probably the only one who is someone you could say was a better 1B than Bagwell, ever.


We have only to wait 4 years, and the woodwork will creak...
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Arky Vaughan on November 02, 2006, 09:45:41 pm
Quote:

That is why I said Gehrig is probably the only one who is someone you could say was a better 1B than Bagwell, ever.  I think Bagwell has a solid if not better arguement against any other candidate for the #2 slot behind Gehrig.



I think you're forgetting Jimmie Foxx.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Limey on November 03, 2006, 09:04:28 am
Quote:

I think you're forgetting Jimmie Foxx.


"Stealth" sucked.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: VirtualBob on November 03, 2006, 10:36:22 am
Quote:

Quote:

While that is true, Arky, check the games played too.



Well, obviously. But it also shows that using one player's totals to set the bottom limits for a comparison of players can be misleading.



Exactly.  Notice that Bagwell is last in that group in every category.  (Not that it is a bad group to be last in, mind you.)  All you have to do is find one category where Bagwell is not last and add it to the list with an appropriate threshold and the group would immediately shrink further.  Which, of course, would mean nothing.

Bagwell is one of the all time greats, but that is not in any way due to the various groupings that can be created with data mining techniques.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Limey on November 03, 2006, 10:54:14 am
Quote:

Exactly.  Notice that Bagwell is last in that group in every category.


Last in that group in every category.  5th all-time, ahead of every other major leaguer ever.  If it was so easy there'd be, I don't know, tens of players in the group, instead of 5.

FTR, it is simply a combination of the all-time "batting" stats available here  at ESPN.  I did not list doubles and triples as it does not change the result, and I did not include the negative stats of caught stealing and strikeouts for the same reason.

I also posted those who join the group if you ignore stolen bases - i.e. just hitting stats - and it swells to about 15 people.  All of whom you'll know.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Col. Sphinx Drummond on November 03, 2006, 11:40:51 am
Who are the other great firstbasemen of his era? Among contemporaries, Thomas, McGriff, Palmeiro, McGwire, and Thome??? Who else? Galarragga? Delgado? Overall, none is close to the well-rounded baseball player that Bagwell was. They all spent time padding offensive stats DHing in the AL, that should work against them! Take away their at bats as DH and see how they compare.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: VirtualBob on November 03, 2006, 11:55:03 am
Quote:

Quote:

Exactly.  Notice that Bagwell is last in that group in every category.


Last in that group in every category.  5th all-time, ahead of every other major leaguer ever.  If it was so easy there'd be, I don't know, tens of players in the group, instead of 5.

FTR, it is simply a combination of the all-time "batting" stats available here  at ESPN.  I did not list doubles and triples as it does not change the result, and I did not include the negative stats of caught stealing and strikeouts for the same reason.

I also posted those who join the group if you ignore stolen bases - i.e. just hitting stats - and it swells to about 15 people.  All of whom you'll know.



Did you even read the rest of my post??  Or did you just react to that first sentence and quote it out of context?  Bagwell is clearly one of the all-time greats ... top 3 or 4 at 1B probably ... but the data mining approach of choosing a player's stats in several categories as the floor for some comparison is simply bogus.  Even when it (more or less accidentally) reflects pretty good company that is deserved.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Arky Vaughan on November 03, 2006, 12:07:10 pm
Quote:

Last in that group in every category.  5th all-time, ahead of every other major leaguer ever.  If it was so easy there'd be, I don't know, tens of players in the group, instead of 5.



But he's not fifth all-time based on some independent, objective criteria. Rather, he's one of five players to exceed certain levels in certain categories selected specifically based on Bagwell's own statistics.

I don't think anybody is trying to diminish Bagwell's achievements -- I've been arguing that Bagwell was one of the top five first basemen of all-time, and perhaps the best in National League history, for several years -- and I think it's clear that for the lesser time he played compared to those players, he was very much in their class. I think it's also not unfair to speculate that had his shoulder not ended his career, he'd approach those guys in some of those categories.

But if you take any accomplished player and base the criteria of evaluation on his own statistics, you'll be able to do much the same thing.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: HPFRic on November 03, 2006, 12:12:27 pm
Quote:

Among contemporaries, Thomas, McGriff, Palmeiro, McGwire, and Thome??? Who else?


i'd throw helton in there, as well as will clark, off the top of my head.

bagwell is the greatest 1b in NL history; i've said this for years. he deserves to go into the HoF five years from the date of his retirement.

btw, in "the new bill james historical baseball abstract," in which james lists the 100 best players overall, bagwell ranks 45th (4th all-time among 1b). biggio ranks 35th (5th among 2b).
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Arky Vaughan on November 03, 2006, 12:40:18 pm
Among Bagwell and the 18 first basemen in the Hall of Fame, Bagwell ranks:

In career totals:

8th in runs
10th in hits
5th in doubles
17th in triples
6th in home runs
9th in runs batted in
4th in walks
7th in stolen bases

Per 162 games:

7th in runs (114)
13 in hits (174)
6th in doubles (37)
16th in triples (2)
5th in home runs (34)
7th in RBI (115)
2nd in walks (106)
7th in stolen bases (15)

Bagwell also ranks:

12th in batting average
5th in on-base percentage
5th in slugging percentage
5th in OPS
7th in OPS adjusted for era and ballpark

For the stat geeks, he ranks:

5th in runs created
6th in runs created per 27 outs

In other words, whether you do it by career totals or rate stats, Bagwell plugs very nicely into the first basemen already inducted into the Hall of Fame.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Froback on November 03, 2006, 12:48:23 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Among contemporaries, Thomas, McGriff, Palmeiro, McGwire, and Thome??? Who else?


i'd throw helton in there, as well as will clark, off the top of my head.

bagwell is the greatest 1b in NL history; i've said this for years. he deserves to go into the HoF five years from the date of his retirement.

btw, in "the new bill james historical baseball abstract," in which james lists the 100 best players overall, bagwell ranks 45th (4th all-time among 1b). biggio ranks 35th (5th among 2b).


Anyone else find it interesting that 2B, traditionally a weak hitting position, has 5 players in the top 35 and 1B, traditionally a strong hitting position, has only 4 in the top 45?

This according to Bill James, of course.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Trey on November 03, 2006, 12:52:40 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Among contemporaries, Thomas, McGriff, Palmeiro, McGwire, and Thome??? Who else?


i'd throw helton in there, as well as will clark, off the top of my head.

bagwell is the greatest 1b in NL history; i've said this for years. he deserves to go into the HoF five years from the date of his retirement.

btw, in "the new bill james historical baseball abstract," in which james lists the 100 best players overall, bagwell ranks 45th (4th all-time among 1b). biggio ranks 35th (5th among 2b).


Anyone else find it interesting that 2B, traditionally a weak hitting position, has 5 players in the top 35 and 1B, traditionally a strong hitting position, has only 4 in the top 45?

This according to Bill James, of course.



James's rankings were overall rankings, not just for hitting, IIRC
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Bench on November 03, 2006, 01:06:19 pm
And he had his own  corn maze. I bet no more than five other first basemen have ever had that.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Arky Vaughan on November 03, 2006, 01:09:05 pm
Quote:

Anyone else find it interesting that 2B, traditionally a weak hitting position, has 5 players in the top 35 and 1B, traditionally a strong hitting position, has only 4 in the top 45?



The rankings were diversified by position.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: MusicMan on November 03, 2006, 01:12:25 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Among contemporaries, Thomas, McGriff, Palmeiro, McGwire, and Thome??? Who else?


i'd throw helton in there, as well as will clark, off the top of my head.

bagwell is the greatest 1b in NL history; i've said this for years. he deserves to go into the HoF five years from the date of his retirement.

btw, in "the new bill james historical baseball abstract," in which james lists the 100 best players overall, bagwell ranks 45th (4th all-time among 1b). biggio ranks 35th (5th among 2b).


Anyone else find it interesting that 2B, traditionally a weak hitting position, has 5 players in the top 35 and 1B, traditionally a strong hitting position, has only 4 in the top 45?

This according to Bill James, of course.



James's rankings were overall rankings, not just for hitting, IIRC



James has always had a hard-on for Biggio (NTTAWWT) due to his "hidden" values (HBP, low GIDP, etc.), and is still living down his "pass" description of Bagwell.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Bench on November 03, 2006, 01:14:12 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Among contemporaries, Thomas, McGriff, Palmeiro, McGwire, and Thome??? Who else?


i'd throw helton in there, as well as will clark, off the top of my head.

bagwell is the greatest 1b in NL history; i've said this for years. he deserves to go into the HoF five years from the date of his retirement.

btw, in "the new bill james historical baseball abstract," in which james lists the 100 best players overall, bagwell ranks 45th (4th all-time among 1b). biggio ranks 35th (5th among 2b).


Anyone else find it interesting that 2B, traditionally a weak hitting position, has 5 players in the top 35 and 1B, traditionally a strong hitting position, has only 4 in the top 45?

This according to Bill James, of course.



James's rankings were overall rankings, not just for hitting, IIRC



James has always had a hard-on for Biggio (NTTAWWT) due to his "hidden" values (HBP, low GIDP, etc.), and is still living down his "pass" description of Bagwell.



Did he ever give an explanation of the "pass" comment? I am admittedly biased, but I always interpreted it as "if you can't see that he's one of the all time greats on your own, any explanation from me won't help you."
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Arky Vaughan on November 03, 2006, 01:28:02 pm
Quote:

Did he ever give an explanation of the "pass" comment? I am admittedly biased, but I always interpreted it as "if you can't see that he's one of the all time greats on your own, any explanation from me won't help you."



The BP guys accused him of being lazy. James himself said he just didn't have anything much to say about Bagwell at the time.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Bench on November 03, 2006, 01:30:16 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Did he ever give an explanation of the "pass" comment? I am admittedly biased, but I always interpreted it as "if you can't see that he's one of the all time greats on your own, any explanation from me won't help you."



The BP guys accused him of being lazy. James himself said he just didn't have anything much to say about Bagwell at the time.



Wow. "Lazy" isn't a word I would ever expect Bagwell to be tagged with.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Arky Vaughan on November 03, 2006, 01:31:18 pm
Quote:

Wow. "Lazy" isn't a word I would ever expect Bagwell to be tagged with.



I had bad pronoun-antecedant structure there.

The BP guys accused James of being lazy for writing "pass."
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: strosrays on November 03, 2006, 03:14:51 pm
Quote:

Quote:

Wow. "Lazy" isn't a word I would ever expect Bagwell to be tagged with.



I had bad pronoun-antecedant structure there.

The BP guys accused James of being lazy for writing "pass."




Sometime after the new Historical Abstract came out, James did a phone interview on 610, and when asked about the Bagwell comment, James said pretty much what has been said here -- Bagwell was worthy of praise, but at the time he {James) couldn't think of anything original to say about him.  So he didn't.  He was kind of gruff about it.

Palillo wasn't present for the interview for whatever reason, but asked later if James' speech sounded slurred, and how early in the morning had they talked to him.  I took it to mean he was intimating James was a drunk.

I've never seen that anywhere else.
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: Reuben on November 04, 2006, 02:29:35 pm
 
Quote:

Heinrich Schtenker, the little-known but much hated amateur philosopher, famous for his epithet 'I exist therefore I am,' was run over by a tram in Vienna in 1893. Good job too.  


SR, is that from a Woody Allen story?
Title: Re: Bagwell: A Historical Perspective
Post by: SoonerJim on November 04, 2006, 03:28:18 pm
Quote:

Quote:



bagwell is the greatest 1b in NL history; i've said this for years. he deserves to go into the HoF five years from the date of his retirement.

 



These are my thoughts exactly. Greatest 1B in NL history, period. Third behind Gehrig and Foxx.