Arguing Jeff Bagwell’s Hall of Fame Candidacy
January 1, 2012 by Andrew Martin · 26 Comments
Initially, I was going to write a piece breaking down my non-existent Baseball Hall of Fame vote, with the announcement of the 2012 inductees just days away. Instead, I have been flabbergasted by the lack of support for the one player on the ballot that I believe should be the biggest slam dunk, and instead will take to my keyboard in his defense. The player in question is Jeff Bagwell, and anyone who doesn’t think he is a worthy Hall of Fame candidate are clearly out of their collective minds.
The best and simplest argument in favor of Bagwell, are like most Hall of Famers, found in his numbers. In 15 major league seasons, he played in 2,150 games, hitting .297 with 449 home runs and 1,529 RBI. Other notable Bagwell stats include his 2,314 base hits, 488 doubles, 202 stolen bases, 1,401 walks, and .948 OPS.
Bagwell’s numbers are even more impressive when placed into historical context. His 79.9 WAR (Wins Above Replacement) is good for 37th all time amongst position players and 57th among all players. He also places high all time in OPB (22nd), home runs (35th), RBI (46th), walks (28th), runs created (37th with 1,788), and extra base hits (41st with 969).
Offensive numbers are not the only highlights on Bagwell’s Hall of Fame resume, as he was also an excellent fielder. His 2,111 games at first base represent the 10th highest total of all time. Additionally, he ranks highly in other defensive categories like putouts (25th) and assists (2nd), while only committing 129 total errors, good for a .993 career fielding percentage.
I have seen a variety of arguments stating why Bagwell doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame, but they are all easily debunked.
He was probably one of the “steroid guys”: It is true that Bagwell played during the height of PEDs in baseball. Is it possible that he did use performance enhancers that positively impacted his career? Sure. However, there has never been a shred of evidence connecting him to such substances, and any allegations to the contrary are rumor and innuendo until proven otherwise.
When Bagwell first came up to the majors, he was a slender hitter without much power, but he eventually developed into a muscular slugger. Suggestions that this was achieved by weight lifting and hard work are typically met with raised eyebrows, sarcasm, or both. However in the absence of contrary evidence, that explanation is as plausible as any.
Not only is there an absence of proof linking Bagwell to PEDS; there is no scientific evidence quantifying the impact they have on users. Additionally, voters and fans concerned with unfair advantages never mention major leaguers who prior to 1947, were prevented from competing against black players.
He “only” made four All-Star games: Shockingly, Bagwell was an All Star in just four seasons- 1994, 1996-97, and 1999. However, this reflects more the deep first base position in the National League, and how lesser candidates were sometimes chosen because of popularity, or the need to represent every team on each squad. Bagwell played during the primes of star first basemen like Mark McGwire, Todd Helton, Andres Galarraga, and Fred McGriff; making competition stiff for All Star berths.
Bagwell was also outright stiffed at times when it came to All Star selections. In 2000, Bagwell hit .310 with 47 home runs, 132 RBI, 107 walks, and a league leading 152 runs scored. In 2001, he hit .288 with 39 home runs, 130 RBI, 106 walks, 43 doubles, and 126 runs scored. He failed to make the All Star squad in either season; while first baseman like Sean Casey and Ryan Klesko made it. While they had fine seasons, they were nowhere near Bagwell’s production- and tellingly were their team’s lone representative.
His production came from playing half his games in a hitter’s stadium: Bagwell did play his home games in hitters’ parks and his numbers were better there- but not by much. In 1,083 home games he hit .303 with 234 home runs, 779 RBI, and a .978 OPB. Conversely, his 1,067 road games resulted in a .291 batting average with 215 home runs, 750 RBI, and .919 OPB; a more than respectable split, and proof he was a dangerous hitter no matter where he played.
He didn’t win enough awards or big games: I agree that Bagwell didn’t get all the recognition he deserved awards-wise during his career, but he still did okay for himself. He won the 1994 MVP Award and was a top-10 finisher in five additional seasons. He was also the 1991 National League Rookie of the Year, a three time Silver Slugger recipient, and while I don’t put much stock in them, also won a Gold Glove.
Bagwell never won a championship, but was part of six playoff teams. In 33 career playoff games he struggled, hitting .226 with 2 home runs and 13 RBI, but was not the primary reason his teams didn’t advance further. As long as Houston had an offense led by the Killer B’s of Bagwell and Craig Biggio, their lineup was always sufficient. However, their teams were often limited by their lack of pitching depth.
2004 and 2005 were Houston’s best chances of winning championships during Bagwell’s era, as they had Roger Clemens, Roy Oswalt, and Andy Pettitte in their rotation. Unfortunately these seasons were the last two of Bagwell’s outstanding career, and 2005, the year the team finally went to a World Series, was his last; an injury plagued campaign that saw him play in only 39 regular season games.
There have been 229 former major league players inducted in the Baseball Hall of Fame; 159 being position players. With statistics making such a strong case that Bagwell is among the 50 most productive players of all time, how can there be any argument that he does not deserve his own enshrinement?
Increasingly, campaigns have surfaced against some players as they become Hall of Fame eligible. Unfortunately, Bagwell has fallen into this grouping. He inexplicably received only 41.7% of votes cast last year, his first year of eligibility, and he faces an uphill battle going forward to improve upon that number, which flies in the face of his qualifications.
I have shown through just facts that Bagwell is a Hall of Fame player. In fact, I defy anyone to present a logical counter argument. Instead of reaching for shaky reasons to exclude him, people should review the information that demands his inclusion.
Andrew Martin is the founder of “The Baseball Historian” blog where he posts his thoughts about baseball on a regular basis. He can be reached at historianandrew@gmail.com. You can also reach him on Twitter at@historianandrew.
To me Bagwell is a marginal inductee at best. We are allowing too many players in that don’t belong, many of them by the veteran’s committee. Ron Santo and Phil Rizutto are two good examples. It would be nice if we could remove some of these pretenders and replace them with maybe Bagwell and Trammell and Morris to name three.
Hi Robert, thanks for reading. Using your argument, if Bagwell is admittedly better than some current HOFers, how do you keep him out? He is certainly on of the top 50-75 players of all time.
I think if Bagwell hadn’t played in the steroid era or wasn’t lumped in with those who juiced, he’d be a no-brainer Hall of Famer. I don’t understand what makes him marginal or borderline – he’s one of only 12 guys with 400 homers and 200 steals and he’s the only first baseman in the group; his OPS+ is better than those of Mike Schmidt, Willie McCovey, Willie Stargell, Alex Rodriguez, Harmon Killebrew, Eddie Mathews, Duke Snider and Reggie Jackson, to name a few; he’s one of only 29 batters with 1,500 runs and 1,500 RBIs and the rest are HOFers (among those who are eligible); only four of the previously mentioned are first basemen. I realize anyone can cherry-pick stats to make their case, but I think the BBWAA could do much worse than voting Bagwell into the HOF.
Andrew-
Good piece on Bagwell. His 152 runs scored in 2000 was the highest since Lou Gehrig in 1936. Also, Bagwell spent the prime years of his career playing in the Astrodome, a renowned pitchers park.
Thank you for reading. Yes, everyone seems to point out Bagwell’s benefit in playing in Minutmaid Park, but conveniently forget all the years he toiled in the Astrodome.
I’m shocked anyone would claim half his games were in a hitter’s park. Whoever told you that one — tell them he had 2832 PA’s in the Astrodome but only 1812 in Minute Maid. So if Minute Maid should be thought of as anything, they should see it as having helped normalize his stats after the Astrodome made him look worse, where he hit .303/.421/.546
>>I have seen a variety of arguments stating why Bagwell doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame, but they are all easily debunked.
He was probably one of the “steroid guys”: It is true that Bagwell played during the height of PEDs in baseball. Is it possible that he did use performance enhancers that positively impacted his career? Sure. However, there has never been a shred of evidence connecting him to such substances, and any allegations to the contrary are rumor and innuendo until proven otherwise.
When Bagwell first came up to the majors, he was a slender hitter without much power, but he eventually developed into a muscular slugger. Suggestions that this was achieved by weight lifting and hard work are typically met with raised eyebrows, sarcasm, or both. However in the absence of contrary evidence, that explanation is as plausible as any.<>Not only is there an absence of proof linking Bagwell to PEDS; there is no scientific evidence quantifying the impact they have on users.<>Mark, I’ve come across several interesting articles about steroids, etc. This one claims that users have more injuries in the NFL:
http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=nfl-players-who-use-steroids-have-m-2009-02-20
This one discusses several aspects of PED use:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-rod-steroids-better-athlete
This second article mentions that a possible side effect of steroid use is increased aggression (due to higher testosterone levels). This article:
http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100233431>1=31036
describes an association between addiction and risk-taking behavior. I’m wondering whether increased aggression is related to risk-taking (it seems to me it is), and whether this behavior is generally considered a good thing in an athlete. Are baseball players more susceptible to addiction than are non-athletes? Perhaps, the people who are artificially selected to play baseball are disposed to addiction.
Another question I might as well ask is, “Do we know how any of the PEDs affect mitochondrial characteristics, such as numbers of mitochondria per cell or numbers of DNA copies per mitochondrion?”<>Additionally, voters and fans concerned with unfair advantages never mention major leaguers who prior to 1947, were prevented from competing against black players.<>I defy anyone to present a logical counter argument. Instead of reaching for shaky reasons to exclude him, people should review the information that demands his inclusion.<<
I think I've made my case against Bagwell getting into the HOF with pretty good logic. All your other arguments are fine. Bagwell certainly has the numbers for election. He just doesn't have the character. Remember, I loved that guy for 17 years. I live in Houston. I have video footage of him doing amazing things. My son and I bought his rookie cards. I took my little boy to see him at ball games, and to get his signature on a photo. I'm crestfallen that I'm in the position of saying what I've said here. I'm just competely sad about what Mr. Bagwell has taught my son and me about himself.
Mark Wernick
713-666-6116
Half my post, above, was omitted when I submitted it, but the ending was included. I’ll try again.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The most damning evidence came from Bagwell himself. Here is an excerpt from a Jerry Crasnick interview of Jeff Bagwell a few days before the HOF vote. Based on what Bagwell says here about the use of PEDs, would you say he helped his HOF case? Will this interview add BBWAA votes to his total? For me, these comments put the nail in the coffin of my Bagwell vote – if I had a vote. I take this as his confession.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof11/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=5963276
“You know how I feel about it, truthfully? If a guy is making the minimum salary and he looks across the field and thinks he has to take something to stay in the big leagues, I have no problem with that. You’re trying to do the best you can. As baseball players, we don’t have an earning power for years to come. If you have to do something for your family, I have no problem with that.
“Now, if you’re the best player in game and you start taking stuff? I still don’t have that big a problem with it. I know you took it, but it doesn’t matter.
“People can say anything they want about Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire, but it was fun to watch. Barry Bonds is the best player I’ve ever seen. He would stand on first base and say, ‘If they throw that pitch again, I’m taking them deep.’ Then guess what? The next at-bat, he would take them deep. He could steal a base anytime he wanted to steal a base, and he was always safe. I’ve only seen three or four people who could ever do that.
“No matter what anybody says about Barry or Mark, who I love to death, they were great players and they were fun to watch. When you get older and stuff happens, maybe you think, ‘I have to do something now [to compete].’
“Here’s my whole thing when people ask me about the Hall of Fame: Would I be honored to death to be in the Hall of Fame? Of course I would. But it doesn’t consume me at all. I loved every single part of what I did as a baseball player. But I’ve got my kids, I’ve got my family, and getting in the Hall of Fame isn’t going to affect my life one way or the other. And it won’t make me feel any better about my career.
“I’m so sick and tired of all the steroids crap, it’s messed up my whole thinking on the subject. I hate to even use this word, but it’s become almost like a ‘buzz kill’ for me.
“So much has gone on in the last eight or nine years, it’s kind of taken some of the valor off it for me. If I ever do get to the Hall of Fame and there are 40 guys sitting behind me thinking, ‘He took steroids,’ then it’s not even worth it to me. I don’t know if that sounds stupid. But it’s how I feel in a nutshell.”
In these quotes, Jeff Bagwell may as well have just said, “I used steroids and screw anyone who thinks that’s bad.” As far as I’m concerned, in this interview Bagwell admits that he did use, in an inadvertent way, even as he denies using several paragraphs earlier. He says, “If I ever do get to the Hall of Fame and there are 40 guys sitting behind me thinking, ‘He took steroids,’ then it’s not even worth it to me. I don’t know if that sounds stupid. But it’s how I feel in a nutshell.”
It does sound stupid. Very stupid, because it is stupid. And he apparently realizes how stupid it sounds. Instead of being proud of himself for getting in while playing clean (like Ryne Sandberg was), he’ll feel bad “if” 40 guys are sitting behind him thinking he used. I’m thinking most especially if, numbered among those 40, are guys named Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa, Giambi, or Ramirez. Because I suspect Bagwell would feel guilty, knowing what those guys know about him, while he (unlike them) managed never to be caught or outed in any way. So if Bagwell does an end-run into the HOF around his pals, who are excluded because they’re the ones caught with their pants down, he’ll feel ashamed, not proud, as he’s enshrined in Cooperstown with baseball’s greatest honor in front of his peers who know the truth about him. It wouldn’t be worth it to him. So instead, he devalues the honor. He wouldn’t devalue the behavior of the people who dishonored the game, but he would devalue the honor itself. It reeks. It’s contemptible. There is absolutely nothing at all to respect about that stance.
What would be honorable would be to preserve the value of the honor itself by speaking out against those who used. He should be proud of himself for playing clean and getting into the HOF anyway even while surrounded by guys who posted bigger numbers playing dirty. Darn it, he should be proud of himself for getting in without using PEDs when he could have posted much bigger numbers by using. I just HATE what he said! And I’m telling you, I totally loved that guy throughout his career. I’m not speaking self-righteously about this. I’m flat out in pain here.
He’s defending his buddies who used, and he’s devaluing baseball’s greatest honor at the same time, because he thinks it’s okay that his buddies used, and that’s a very big problem for me. If he really did use, I’d much rather he come out and say so, and sit out the HOF along with his good buddies, than follow through on his proclivity to devalue the honor of getting into the HOF because he’s ashamed his peers will look down on him knowing he used and got in. Either that, or, if he didn’t use, then just say he now realizes he should never have condoned the improper behavior of his fellow professionals.
I’d feel a heck of a lot better if Bagwell would put some (verbal) distance between himself and those who were caught using. This interview is basically his confession, and the reason why he garnered such a low vote percentage from the BBWAA. His shame about being abducted over his fellow users prompts him to devalue the honor. Basically, he’s saying, “Don’t waste your vote on me if you won’t for Bonds, McGwire, et al. because I used too.” Only he lacks the guts to come right out and say it.
>>Not only is there an absence of proof linking Bagwell to PEDS; there is no scientific evidence quantifying the impact they have on users.<>Mark, I’ve come across several interesting articles about steroids, etc. This one claims that users have more injuries in the NFL:
http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=nfl-players-who-use-steroids-have-m-2009-02-20
This one discusses several aspects of PED use:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-rod-steroids-better-athlete
This second article mentions that a possible side effect of steroid use is increased aggression (due to higher testosterone levels). This article:
http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100233431>1=31036
describes an association between addiction and risk-taking behavior. I’m wondering whether increased aggression is related to risk-taking (it seems to me it is), and whether this behavior is generally considered a good thing in an athlete. Are baseball players more susceptible to addiction than are non-athletes? Perhaps, the people who are artificially selected to play baseball are disposed to addiction.
Another question I might as well ask is, “Do we know how any of the PEDs affect mitochondrial characteristics, such as numbers of mitochondria per cell or numbers of DNA copies per mitachondrion?”<>Additionally, voters and fans concerned with unfair advantages never mention major leaguers who prior to 1947, were prevented from competing against black players.<>I defy anyone to present a logical counter argument. Instead of reaching for shaky reasons to exclude him, people should review the information that demands his inclusion.<<
I think I've made my case against Bagwell getting into the HOF with pretty good logic. All your other arguments are fine. Bagwell certainly has the numbers for election. He just doesn't have the character. Remember, I loved that guy for 17 years. I live in Houston. I have video footage of him doing amazing things. My son and I bought his rookie cards. I took my little boy to see him at ball games, and to get his signature on a photo. I'm crestfallen that I'm in the position of saying what I've said here. I'm just completely sad about what Mr. Bagwell has taught my son and me about himself.
I don’t know why, but the second part of my post simply won’t reproduce here. I have sent Andrew Martin my complete post in a private -mail.
MW
Mark, Thanks for presenting such a thorough counter argument, however it doesn’t change my stance on the matter. The simple facts for me is that even if you believe the interview he gave is as good as a confession of guilt; it’s not. At the end of the day Bagwell has never admitted using PEDs, nor has he ever been associated with a positive test.
When I said that there is no direct evidence that PEDs can increase performance in baseball, I mean that there is no way to measure if such substances has a positive effect. For all we know, players who use them may actually suffer in performance because of them.
My whole stance is that the Hall of Fame should not come down to speculation. No matter what you personally feel about Bagwell, the things that you bring up are all speculation. I believe that in the absence of actual proof, his HOF candidacy should not be impacted.
Jayson Stark of ESPN just posted a brief, but brilliant defense of why he voted for Bagwell this year:
“The best assessment of Bagwell’s HOF credentials I’ve ever read just appeared on this site, from the ever-eloquent Schoenfield. But let me add: What we have here is a guy who has vehemently denied he used any illegal PED, and who didn’t appear in the Mitchell report even though star witness Kirk Radomski worked for the Astros. What we also have here is a player whose Hall of Fame qualifications couldn’t possibly be more clear-cut. How many first basemen are in the 400-homer, 200-steal club? Just one: Jeff Bagwell. How many first basemen have ever ripped off at least 12 straight seasons with an OPS-plus of 130 or better? Only two: Bagwell and Gehrig. Not to mention this fellow was a rookie of the year, an MVP, a Gold Glove winner and the Simba-esque leader on a team that went to the postseason six times. So why are so many people NOT voting for him again?”
The full article: http://espn.go.com/mlb/hof12/story/_/id/7434381/jayson-stark-baseball-hall-fame-ballot
Cannot just look at stats against history across eras–need to look at where they were in their era, compared to their competition at the time. Raw number accumulation is meaningless. For instance, only when realizing Ruth was leading the league with homers and the next guy had half the total do we realize what “Ruthian” means. Bagwell had a 400 career OBA in an era where that is very good, but not auto-HOF.
To wit on Bagwell over his career…
Top 3 in BAvg: 1 time.
Top 3 in OBA: 3 times. Never #1.
Top 3 in OPS: 1 time.
Top 3 in HR: 3 times.
Top 3 in RBI: 3 times.
Looks like a couple/few statistically gorged years to me along with everyone else. And he didn’t have a niche to make up for all around lack of offensive dominance.
For comparison, here is Stan Musial:
3x MVP
Top 3 in BAvg: 14 times (7 times #1!)
Top 3 in OBA: 13 times
Top 3 in OPS: 11 times
Top 3 in HR: 2 times
Top 3 in RBI: 5 times
Top 3 in Doubles: 12 times
Top 3 in triples: 7 times
So even in an era of small ballparks, well made/tighter wound baseballs, mounds lower height, it’s clear one guy here in the comparison belongs, and it ain’t Bagpipes (as much as he was a cool likable player). Give me a break–the HOF has to be guys that dominated their competition, or a portion of the game in some way. And he did not do well against higher competition in the postseason. He is not hall-worthy.
Note: Raines was top 3 in runs scored 4 times, OBA 3 times (and twice #4), BAvg 3 times…
Bags wasn’t even in Raines’ league when it came to performance against peers. Not even close. Raines should be in–he changed the game of his era. Bagwell did not. A four time all star who hit .250 in that venue, and a .226 hitter in 6 years of postseason play.
Many others like him in his era. And this doesn’t even account for the hitter’s confines he played in…
@Frank – @Frank – Frabk, I respectfully disagree with your points. Bagwell was dominant, and all you need to do is look at his WAR (Wins Above Replacement) to prove that. WAR takes era and ballpark effect into account, and while not the end-all, be-all of stats, is a good measure of how good a player is.
Bagwell’s career WAR is 79.9 according to baseballreference.com, which is good for 37th all time among position players. Check out http://www.baseballprojection.com/war/top500.htm to see all the HOF players this puts Bagwell ahead of.
If Bagwell’s stats are not dominant, than by the criteria you are setting, the Baseball Hall of Fame should be a fraction of the size it currently is. It’s not, so Bagwell belongs, and it’s not even close.
I think that Jeff Bagwell should get in just for the fact that he was never injury riddled until he was past his prime and that he was so consistant during his whole career. Another thing to keep in mind is that Jeff truly had dominant years. Though his personal accolades dont reflect the fact as he was playing in the same league as Barry Bonds, Luis Gonzales,Jeff Kent, and Mike Piazza to name a few but also the same DIVISION as Mark Mcgwire, Sammy Sosa, and Barry Larkin. I think that if he had played in a more pitching oriented era like Andre Dawson, no one would be giving jeff a second thought. And another thing i find puzzling is that people say “Oh, Jeff played at Enron Field/Minute Maid Park so that means he got a boost from his ballpark.” Well also remember that he played in the Astrodome for 9 seasons and Minute Maid for about 6 seasons so that argument is only slightly revelant. I say Jeff Bagwell will take votes away from Craig Biggio next year sadly but to put a positive spin on that, Jeff will be inducted in the class of 2013.
Andrew, i also have a question. Why is Jack Morris not in the Hall? What valid argument do voters have against him?
@Parker – Well Parker, if those people are like me, they just don’t think he is a HOFer.
Morris’ 3.90 ERA, 1.30 WHIP, and 39.3 career WAR are three quick stats I can point to to back up my assertion that Morris is no HOFer. His career WAR is 139th all time for pitchers, and is bettered by pitchers like Tom Candiotti, Bob Welch, and Frank Viola.
Fully aware of WAR and its variations. Big problem though–it is NOT valid across statistically deficient seasons. That is, without true play by play stats prior to the early 70s, it is flawed as a comparison and devalues non-modern era relative contributions. THAT is proven. It is not an indispensable nor conclusive statistic across eras.
To repeatedly declare the HoF would be smaller if someone like Bagwell can’t get in is a false analogy. Raines SHOULD get in, for example. By your argument, he is a top 40 all time player by statistical comparison. Problem is, if you actually compare him to his peers during his era played, he was no where near as dominant as Musial, Williams, Ruth, Mays, Mantle, etc. Not even Raines, as I mentioned.
He was consistently very good, but never dominating compared to his peers.
That’s in fact what his relative performance ratings show. Cannot use WAR to compare modern players with pre-1974 players. Invalid and that is well known, even if reluctantly in the most rabid of Sabermatricians. And I’m a physicist, so certainly not at all biased against statistical approaches–but the limitations must be known before the black box calculation is employed.
Note–we can’t even have reliable double play, stolen base, sacrifice, type balls hit etc data from non-modern era players. Sorry but to equate a modern day biased stat is nonsense.
All that said–good blog…
Andrew, thanks for answering that question. I have one last burning question. What is the likelihood of Edgar Martinez getting elected to the Hall of Fame? I mean, he has the stats to qualify doesnt he?
I’m a hard-line anti-PED guy. I would never vote for Bonds, A-Roid, Clemons, Manny, McGwire or any other the other guys we have good (to me) evidence of PED use.
But I draw the line at rank speculation. I want SOME evidence before I convict Bagwell for PED use. In his case, we have ZERO evidence. Instead, he seems to fit the profile of PED users … maybe, but Stan Musial also enjoyed a power surge at about the same stage in his career. Does that prove he’s a roid user?
I can’t see a reason not to vote for Bagwell.
But I would add that he would come behind Tim Raines — the second-greatest leadoff man in baseball history — on my ballot.
@Frank – Frank, we will have to agree to disagree, but that’s one of the beauties of baseball. Appreciate you reading my stuff. Nothing better than a good baseball debate.
@Parker – Parker, I think Martinez should get in. Not a first ballot guy for me, but I think he belongs when you put him in the context of other players who have gotten in. Many say he doesn’t belong because he was a DH or “Specialist.” However, if someone like Bruce Sutter can get in as a closer, than they should start working on Martinez’s plaque.
@Al Featherston – Al, I agree with you all the way, except I have Bagwell above Raines on my ballot. Both are criminally overlooked as things stand right now.
Al,
I agree with you on most points. The difference between Musial and Bagwell is that Musial slugged .626 in his last season in the minors and had already displayed the type of power he’d eventually show in the bigs. Secondly, he slugged .542 in his first six years in the majors before jumping to .702 in 1948. From 1941-1947 (Musial’s first six full seasons, not counting the war, of course) only Williams, Mize and DiMaggio had higher slugging percentages. So Musial began his career as an elite slugger, then took his game to legendary levels. Bagwell slugged .436 in the minors, then .464 in his first three years in the bigs before jumping to .750 in 1994, and slugging .564 over the next 10 years. During his first three years, he ranked 13th in the majors in slugging, just behind Terry Pendleton. Heck even Paul Molitor had a better SLG than Bagwell. I’m not suggesting that Bagwell did anything but work his ass off in the weight room and take good care of himself, but his minor league numbers had “experts” comparing him to guys like Mark Grace and I don’t think anyone expected him to put up the numbers he did.
Having said that, he did put up those numbers and hasn’t been on any PED lists that I know of, so he’s a HOFer in my mind. But I would also put him behind Raines.
Not to mention Morris was a bit lucky in that he pitched for teams that gave him above average run support. His Neutral Win-Loss record is 232-208, similar to that of Dennis Martinez, Paul Derringer, Charlie Hough and Bobo Newsom, none of whom are Hall of Famers or deserve to be Hall of Famers. By contrast, Bert Blyleven’s Neutral Win-Loss record is 313-224. Had Blyleven been luckier, he would have been a first-ballot Hall of Famer, but he played for teams that couldn’t hit their way through a paper bag and he had to wait much longer than he should have for enshrinement.