Is Rafael Palmeiro a HOFer?

[Hitman23]

I heard last night some analysts arguing this. I don't get it. A guy who is going to finish his career with 500 home runs and 3000 hits should be a lock. A lifetime .293 avg to date? Apprx 100 runs scored and 100 ribbies every year.

This should be no contest. Can someone legitimately tell me why he shouldn't be in the HOF??

[Rookie23]

Is Rafael Palmeiro a HOFer?

Yes. Maybe even first ballot.

[Bub]

He's risen to the occasion many times, and I believe...HE'S IN!

[wexy]

Agreed

[Hitman23]

Originally posted by Rookie23


Yes. Maybe even first ballot.

That's exactly my thought. I don't understand the arguement against. I don't even think there is one. 17 seasons and he's still a feared hitter.

[Spiker]

Raffy is the first test of the rising theory that 500 homers just doesn't mean what they used to. Take away the 500 homers and he's a terrific hitter but probably not a HOFer. His career OPS is below .900. He was far from the best hitting first baseman of his era. He's spent his entire career in great offensive ballparks, surrounded by good hitters, which has pumped his RBI numbers. He's only been an All-Star four times, and never finished higher than fifth in the MVP balloting and only finished in the Top 10 three times.

I think he probably gets in but he's not the lock some of you think, and he's almost certainly not a first-ballot selection.

[Rookie23]

Originally posted by Spiker
I think he probably gets in but he's not the lock some of you think, and he's almost certainly not a first-ballot selection.

If 500 HRs and 3000 hits is not a lock then the system needs to be changed.

[Hitman23]

Originally posted by Rookie23


If 500 HRs and 3000 hits is not a lock then the system needs to be changed.

That is exactly how I feel!! No matter what the circumstance they are both difficult milestones to achieve by themselves. Doing both is IMO phenominal.

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

Originally posted by Hitman23
That is exactly how I feel!! No matter what the circumstance they are both difficult milestones to achieve by themselves. Doing both is IMO phenominal.

I disagree. As Spiker pointed out, they're not necessarily that difficult to achieve anymore if you have longevity. His point above about all-star selections is very telling in my opinion. Only 4 times in his career has Palmeiro been considered among the best in the game. Unless there's been some conspiracy to keep him out of the all-star game when he belonged there, he simply has not been a consistent great.

Random question - does anyone have any idea what the fewest number of all-star appearances by anyone in the HOF is? I bet it's more than 4.

[Soriambi]

Originally posted by Hitman23


That is exactly how I feel!! No matter what the circumstance they are both difficult milestones to achieve by themselves. Doing both is IMO phenominal.

Palmeiro is a first ballot HOF, no doubt. 500 homers and 3000 hits are both amazing accomplishments. If they're not difficult, why do so few players have them? The reason that he's argued is that he doesn't have the name value of some players, he's underrated severely and does his work quietly. He averages .293-33-106.

Carl Yaztremski averaged .285-22-90.

Frank Robinson averaged .294-34-105.

Micky Mantle averaged .298-36-102. (Less hits by over 200 than Palmeiro has now in one more season.)

Harmon Killebrew averaged .256-38-105 (only 5 more HRs with a BA of just under .040 points lower.

Reggie Jackson averaged .262-32-98. (100 less hits in THREE more seasons.)

Eddie Mathews averaged .271-35-98 and only collected just over 2300 hits in as many seasons as Palmeiro has played now, about 300 less than Palmeiro has.

Ernie Banks averaged .274-33-105 and had LESS hits (and probably less HRs after this year) than Palmeiro has now in two more Seasons.

Far less people doubt these players HOF credentials than do Palmeiro's, but numbers do not lie.

[JfromJersey]

Numbers might get Raffy into the Hall, but if you judge him against his contemporaries, I don't think it's a slam dunk. If he put up those numbers 20 or more years ago, I think he would be a definite first ballot HOFer. You can only judge a player in his own time. That's why a Brooks Robinson is in, despite less than gaudy offensive stats. In his time, he was considered the best 3rd baseman.

[Soriambi]

Originally posted by Mr. Mxylsplk

I disagree. As Spiker pointed out, they're not necessarily that difficult to achieve anymore if you have longevity. His point above about all-star selections is very telling in my opinion. Only 4 times in his career has Palmeiro been considered among the best in the game. Unless there's been some conspiracy to keep him out of the all-star game when he belonged there, he simply has not been a consistent great.

Random question - does anyone have any idea what the fewest number of all-star appearances by anyone in the HOF is? I bet it's more than 4.

Of the players ELECTED by the writers, Robin Yount had 3. So did Bill Terry. Rabbit Maranville, who was elected by the writers despite not collecting as many hits as Palmeiro has in SIX more seasons, was never in one, but he only had two chances to make one (his last two years) Al Simmons, who played the final 11 years of his career in the ASG Era appeared in three. Paul Waner, also in his final 11 years made four. Mickey Cochrane only played in it twice, but he only had five chances at the tail end of his career. Palmeiro has been a consistent great, as you can see in the evidence in my last post, he is just underrated.

[Soriambi]

Originally posted by JfromJersey
Numbers might get Raffy into the Hall, but if you judge him against his contemporaries, I don't think it's a slam dunk. If he put up those numbers 20 or more years ago, I think he would be a definite first ballot HOFer. You can only judge a player in his own time. That's why a Brooks Robinson is in, despite less than gaudy offensive stats. In his time, he was considered the best 3rd baseman.

I agree. How many players in his time period are going to hit 500 homers and collect 3000 hits?

[Bozidar]

Originally posted by Soriambi
numbers do not lie.

Yes, they do.

the HOF committe and the veterans association will STRONGLY take under advisement that Raff here has played in one of the best hitter's eras since the game began.

[djhitman01]

I definitly think he's a hof. Michael Kay is an idiot. He said "But Palmero has compiled those numbers over time". Well duh!!!!!?????? Hey Kay maby we should let Mattingly in the HOF because he had 5 great years. I bet you Kay thinks Mattingly should go.

[Hitman23]

Originally posted by Mr. Mxylsplk
I disagree. As Spiker pointed out, they're not necessarily that difficult to achieve anymore if you have longevity.

Isn't that what being elected to the HOF is about? Being great over a long period of time? Why would that be held against him? 17 seasons of being the hitter he is, to me is amazing.

Originally posted by Mr. Mxylsplk
His point above about all-star selections is very telling in my opinion. Only 4 times in his career has Palmeiro been considered among the best in the game. Unless there's been some conspiracy to keep him out of the all-star game when he belonged there, he simply has not been a consistent great.

I don't think the point is to be the best. With him going up against big names like McGwire, Mattingly, Olerud, Giambi, Thomas, and Tino it's tough. We all know the ASG is about popularity. (not saying any of those guys didn't deserve to be in the games they were in)

[Bozidar]

Steve, the point is to be among the best. He's led the league in.. runs, one year. He led the league in hits, one year.

quite honestly, that's the extent of it

No world series berths, some gold gloves, one of which he stole from Tino.

He's a very good player, but many people, myself included, think that very good players aren't what the hall of fame is for.

[Soriambi]

Originally posted by Bozidar
Steve, the point is to be among the best. He's led the league in.. runs, one year. He led the league in hits, one year.

quite honestly, that's the extent of it

No world series berths, some gold gloves, one of which he stole from Tino.

He's a very good player, but many people, myself included, think that very good players aren't what the hall of fame is for.

I think that the HOF should be very exclusive as well, only great players should get in. Palmeiro is a great player, just underrated.

[Hitman23]

what the hell happened to my post? it looked fine before! did you accidentally edit me Brian?

on edit: ok I fixed it.

[Hitman23]

Originally posted by Bozidar
He's a very good player, but many people, myself included, think that very good players aren't what the hall of fame is for.

I guess that's where we disagree. You consider him a very good player, I consider him great. Here, according to baseball-reference.com, here is some interesting info:
Similar Batters:
Billy Williams
Willie Stargell
Willie McCovey
Al Kaline
Ernie Banks

All HOFers

Similar batters through age 37:
Eddie Murray (896) *
Billy Williams (854) *
Fred McGriff (842)
Frank Robinson (836) *
Carl Yastrzemski (822) *
Al Kaline (819) *
Reggie Jackson (812) *
Mel Ott (787) *
Andre Dawson (775)
Dave Winfield (771) *
* signifies HOFer

HOF Monitor: Batting - 139.0 (Likely HOFer > 100)
HOF Standards: Batting - 51.1 (Average HOFer ~ 50)

[djhitman01]

Palmero is a great player. But he's always been oversahdowed by the Robby Alomar's, the Albert Belle's, the Alex Rodriguez's, Pudge, and the Juan Gonzalez's. Any team would be doing cartwheels if they had a Raffy palmero playing first base for them, well most teams.

[Hitman23]

One more point to make Brian, because I know you are such a pro-Bernie in the HOF person. (as am I) Bernie never finished better then 7th in MVP voting. He's won one batting title, the only offensive title he has. Been to 4 AS games. Has 4 Gold Gloves. If you compare their offensive production over the years, they are very similar. And Palmiero has Bernie in home runs, hits, and RBI. Bernie has the avg. by 9 points. But that is a difference in a few seasons. I think Bernie will finish very similar minus the home runs.

I know there is the position thing, CF is harder, and there is the 4 rings. I'm just proving to you that Bernie has not been considered the best in the game any more then Palmeiro has been. And the offense is the same. if you can make a case for Bernie using numbers, you can for Palmeiro.

[Yankees Empire]

I think this goes to show just how important it is for a player to have a World Series ring if he wants to get into Cooperstown. If Rafael Palmiero had a World Series ring, I doubt we'd be having this discussion.

Think about it. Unless you really dominate (Ted Williams, Ernie Banks), you just might get left out if you don't have post-season hardware. Does anyone think that Kirby Puckett would be a Hall of Famer if he didn't have 2 World Series rings on his resume? Maybe he would and maybe he wouldn't but you've got to think the rings helped him big-time. Of course you've got to be a great player but if a guy's on the borderline, World Series rings put him over the top.

Maybe if we had two levels in the Hall of Fame we could solve some problems. You'd have the Hall of Fame for the Palmieros, the Robin Younts, and the Kirby Pucketts and then you'd have the Inner Circle (instead of plaques, these guys get statues) for the Babe Ruths, Ty Cobbs, Walter Johnsons- the guys that are the very best of all time. This way, perhaps we could honor the really good players without tarnishing the honor for the truly great.

Just a thought.

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

Originally posted by Hitman23

Isn't that what being elected to the HOF is about? Being great over a long period of time? Why would that be held against him? 17 seasons of being the hitter he is, to me is amazing.

Being great over a long period of time? Sure. I don't see that. I see a guy who's been very good over a long period of time. Like Boz, I think there's a big difference between the two, and I don't think being very good for a long time is HOF material.

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

Originally posted by Hitman23
One more point to make Brian, because I know you are such a pro-Bernie in the HOF person. (as am I) Bernie never finished better then 7th in MVP voting. He's won one batting title, the only offensive title he has. Been to 4 AS games. Has 4 Gold Gloves. If you compare their offensive production over the years, they are very similar. And Palmiero has Bernie in home runs, hits, and RBI. Bernie has the avg. by 9 points. But that is a difference in a few seasons. I think Bernie will finish very similar minus the home runs.

Boz can clarify for himself, but my feeling about Bernie is that if he hung it up today, he wouldn't belong in. For the same reason as Palmeiro. Very good player. Not regularly among the top guys in the league, which is what I think the HOF should be for. Of course unlike Palmeiro, Bernie has a lot of time left, and may still be getting better. I think it's quite possible that when done he could have HOF credentials. I don't think he has them yet.

[Hitman23]

Originally posted by Mr. Mxylsplk

Being great over a long period of time? Sure. I don't see that.

Stats:

---

Year   G   AB    R    H   2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB  SO   BA   OBP   SLG   

+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+--

 1986 22   73    9    18   4  0   3   12   1  1   4   6  .247  .295  .425

 1987 84   221   32   61  15  1  14   30   2  2  20  26  .276  .336  .543

 1988 152  580   75  178  41  5   8   53  12  2  38  34  .307  .349  .436

 1989 156  559   76  154  23  4   8   64   4  3  63  48  .275  .354  .374

 1990 154  598   72  191  35  6  14   89   3  3  40  59  .319  .361  .468

 1991 159  631  115  203  49  3  26   88   4  3  68  72  .322  .389  .532

 1992 159  608   84  163  27  4  22   85   2  3  72  83  .268  .352  .434

 1993 160  597  124  176  40  2  37  105  22  3  73  85  .295  .371  .554

 1994 111  436   82  139  32  0  23   76   7  3  54  63  .319  .392  .550

 1995 143  554   89  172  30  2  39  104   3  1  62  65  .310  .380  .583

 1996 162  626  110  181  40  2  39  142   8  0  95  96  .289  .381  .546

 1997 158  614   95  156  24  2  38  110   5  2  67 109  .254  .329  .485

 1998 162  619   98  183  36  1  43  121  11  7  79  91  .296  .379  .565

 1999 158  565   96  183  30  1  47  148   2  4  97  69  .324  .420  .630

 2000 158  565  102  163  29  3  39  120   2  1 103  77  .288  .397  .558

 2001 160  600   98  164  33  0  47  123   1  1 101  90  .273  .381  .563

 2002 155  546   99  149  34  0  43  105   2  0 104  94  .273  .391  .571

---

You don't consider those stats great??

[Spiker]

Originally posted by Hitman23
One more point to make Brian, because I know you are such a pro-Bernie in the HOF person. (as am I) Bernie never finished better then 7th in MVP voting. He's won one batting title, the only offensive title he has. Been to 4 AS games. Has 4 Gold Gloves. If you compare their offensive production over the years, they are very similar. And Palmiero has Bernie in home runs, hits, and RBI. Bernie has the avg. by 9 points. But that is a difference in a few seasons. I think Bernie will finish very similar minus the home runs.

I know there is the position thing, CF is harder, and there is the 4 rings. I'm just proving to you that Bernie has not been considered the best in the game any more then Palmeiro has been. And the offense is the same. if you can make a case for Bernie using numbers, you can for Palmeiro.

I think you're underrating how important the position thing is in HOF voting. With Griffey apparently fading away, Bernie is arguably the best hitting centerfielder of his era. Raffy just isn't, not really even close. In any case, Bernie isn't a HOFer YET. He's still got to put in 4 seasons at least like the last few before he's even considered and then he's no lock in most people's minds.

As for the lessening importance of 500 homers: I went through a list of big power hitters last year and came up with a list of guys who stand decent chances of making it to 500. Guys like Jeff Bagwell, Helton, Shawn Green, even Chipper Jones has an outside chance. For god's sakes, Mike Piazza has a chance to hit 500 and he's a catcher and spent his entire career in extreme pitchers' parks. Delgado has a good chance. Thome is almost certain to make it. Frank Thomas has a chance. ARod and Manny are locks to make it, health permitting. 500 dingers is going to become nearly commonplace over the next decade, and all of these guys are not HOFers. Bagwell is a terrific player but no HOF, Thome the same. Delgado, no way. And the fact that Raffy hit so many of his homers in Texas and at Camden Yards when it was a hitter's park further diminishes the luster. In the context of his time and where he played, Raffy is at best a borderline HOFer.

[djhitman01]

From 1991 to present Palmero has averaged 37 bombs and over 100 rbi's with a slg% over 500, those arn't great numbers????

[Soriambi]

Originally posted by Yankees Empire

Maybe if we had two levels in the Hall of Fame we could solve some problems. You'd have the Hall of Fame for the Palmieros, the Robin Younts, and the Kirby Pucketts and then you'd have the Inner Circle (instead of plaques, these guys get statues) for the Babe Ruths, Ty Cobbs, Walter Johnsons- the guys that are the very best of all time. This way, perhaps we could honor the really good players without tarnishing the honor for the truly great.

Just a thought.

I've always had this idea and I believe it is a great one. Guys like Yount deserve recognation, but they are not even close to the league that Babe Ruth or Lou Gehrig are in. There should be two levels to the HOF, as you said, imo.

[Bozidar]

Originally posted by Hitman23
I know there is the position thing, CF is harder, and there is the 4 rings. I'm just proving to you that Bernie has not been considered the best in the game any more then Palmeiro has been. And the offense is the same. if you can make a case for Bernie using numbers, you can for Palmeiro.

But the position thing is SO FRIGGIN HUGE! Don't ya get that? This guy is a first baseman! He's in a class with Giambi, Thome, Delgado, and Sweeney. Mark McGuwire too.

Bernie is in a class with Hunter, and Griffy Jr. Who else? Mark McLemore?

Bernie's a CF who's put up MORE consistant numbers, if not power numbers, than Raf. IMO, that production, from THAT position, is a great player.

[Bozidar]

and btw, i knew you'd say that I was already thinking it myself..

[Bozidar]

The hall should be a pyramid, as Bill Simmons suggested. The lowest levels are guys like Raf. The mid-lowers are guys like Giambi and Thome. The mid levels are your Gwynns. The lower-upper are guys like Johnny Bench, and Reggie Jackson. The upper level is reserved for the names of baseball. Kofax, Teddy, Cobb, and the Yankees.

[Hitman23]

Originally posted by Bozidar
and btw, i knew you'd say that I was already thinking it myself..

Well, you know I had to bring it up because Bernie is in the same boat as Palmeiro is. Yes I understand the position thing is a factor, but numbers are numbers. I don't think a position should really make that big of a difference.

I am also on the side of those who feel there should be levels of HOF status. i think it would definately give the guys that are the elite more recognition then the guys who are on the fence. You have to give guys like Ruth, Williams, Cobb, etc the respect they deserve by giving them a greater honor then say, Gary Carter.

[CommerceComet]

Originally posted by Yankees Empire
Maybe if we had two levels in the Hall of Fame we could solve some problems. You'd have the Hall of Fame for the Palmieros, the Robin Younts, and the Kirby Pucketts and then you'd have the Inner Circle (instead of plaques, these guys get statues) for the Babe Ruths, Ty Cobbs, Walter Johnsons- the guys that are the very best of all time. This way, perhaps we could honor the really good players without tarnishing the honor for the truly great.

I would also limit the admission to this Inner Circle to 5 players per decade. Otherwise, the same dilution of standards would occur that we are now seeing for the HOF. This part of the HOF should not be attainable by the merely great but only by the truly legendary.

[Hitman23]

Originally posted by CommerceComet
This part of the HOF should not be attainable by the merely great but only by the truly legendary.

Would you like to take a turn in the discussion? What defines legendary? I don't think I could answer that. Does Bonds fall there?

[Soriambi]

Originally posted by Hitman23


Would you like to take a turn in the discussion? What defines legendary? I don't think I could answer that. Does Bonds fall there?

Legendary would be a guy who you say his name and you think "HOF" Someone like Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb and I believe that Bonds is there, yes. When you say the name of someone like Palmeiro, it's not legendary, some would argue it. I would say that the top level should be reserved for players who get 95% or more of the writer's vote.

[Bozidar]

Originally posted by Hitman23
Well, you know I had to bring it up because Bernie is in the same boat as Palmeiro is. Yes I understand the position thing is a factor, but numbers are numbers. I don't think a position should really make that big of a difference.

And that's where you fall into the same category with Mike and the Mad Dog.

Position is huge. Ask Ozzie Smith.

[Hitman23]

Originally posted by Bozidar
And that's where you fall into the same category with Mike and the Mad Dog.

AHHH!!

Please, no! Out of all the burns you've thrown my way this is by far the worst.

[Hitman23]

Originally posted by Soriambi
Legendary would be a guy who you say his name and you think "HOF" Someone like Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb and I believe that Bonds is there, yes. When you say the name of someone like Palmeiro, it's not legendary, some would argue it. I would say that the top level should be reserved for players who get 95% or more of the writer's vote.

The % of vote? Interesting idea. But isn't that relative? Wouldn't lack of comp on a ballot tend to give someone who is worthy of the HOF, but really not in Bonds' league more of a vote simply because they all agree??

[CommerceComet]

Originally posted by Hitman23
Would you like to take a turn in the discussion? What defines legendary? I don't think I could answer that. Does Bonds fall there?

I cannot give you a precise definition of legendary anymore than I could give you a precise definition of great or good. A Justice from the U. S. Supreme Court once said that he could not define pornography but he knew it when he saw it. Legendary is a similar concept.

Soriambi's idea that a legendary player is one that is immediately recognized as a HOFer probably captures the idea. I would suggest that any player widely recognized as the best player or pitcher in baseball for a decade would qualify as legendary.

Because legendary is a difficult concept to define, I would suggest that if an Inner Circle of the HOF is created, a fixed (but low) maximum number of admissions be mandated. Assuming organized baseball began in the 1880s, there have been 12 full decades of organized baseball. If 5/decade are admitted, 60 current members of the HOF could be nominated for the Inner Circle. Thereafter, up to 5 new Inner Circle inductees could be added per decade from the pool of players not already in. The very limited number of possible inductees should limit the players considered to only the very, very best. With one open spot for the Inner Circle would any baseball writer seriously vote for Gary Carter if Mark McGuire is eligible?

Bonds certainly meets my definition of legendary.

[Soriambi]

Originally posted by Hitman23


The % of vote? Interesting idea. But isn't that relative? Wouldn't lack of comp on a ballot tend to give someone who is worthy of the HOF, but really not in Bonds' league more of a vote simply because they all agree??

Yeah, you're right. I was just looking at the percentages and to say the least a lot of guys who got over 95% are a LOT worse than guys who have gotten under 95%. For example, under the 95% rule, Ted Williams, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Stan Musial, and Rogers Hornsby would not be in while Carl Yaztremski, Steve Carlton, Mike Schmidt, and George Brett would be. While they're all great players, I believe that the group with less than 95% is better. So in short, I was just thinking out loud and I was wrong.

On a side note, Babe Ruth only had 95% of the vote when he was elected. who DOESN'T vote for Babe Ruth, or for Mays (also 95%) No one has had 100% of the vote ever. Not Ty Cobb (98%), Hank Aaron (98%) no one. These players SHOULD have gotten 98%, especially considering the GREAT Danny Tartabull even got a few HOF votes this year. Williams, Clemente, Musial all got less than 95%. Who DOESN'T vote for these guys?

[CommerceComet]

Originally posted by Soriambi


Yeah, you're right. I was just looking at the percentages and to say the least a lot of guys who got over 95% are a LOT worse than guys who have gotten under 95%.

It used to be the view of most sportswriters that no one should get in on their first year of eligibility. That idea has been abandoned, for the most part. Robin Yount wouldn't have had a prayer of being elected on the first ballot back in the 50s.

[Yankees Empire]

Perhaps the standard for the upper level of the Hall of Fame should be whether or not a reasonable case could be made that the player in question was the greatest at his postion.

For example, would you be mocked if you asserted that Yogi Berra was the greatest catcher of all time? No, you wouldn't. You might get an argument but noboby with any baseball knowledge at all would say you were nuts. Yogi Berra into the Inner Circle.

Would you be mocked if you said that Gary Carter was the greatest catcher of all time. Very bloody likely. I don't think any reasonable argument could be made for that statement. Still, Gary Carter's baseball career is worthy of some recognition- not Yogi Berra level but someting. Gary, no statue but here's your plaque.

Perhaps our panel of Hall of Fame voters, who are supposedly experts could hash out these distinctions and give us our two Hall of Fame levels.

[Bozidar]

Originally posted by Hitman23
AHHH!!

Please, no! Out of all the burns you've thrown my way this is by far the worst.

And yet, it wasn't supposed to be, because it's true...

[Bozidar]

Originally posted by Bub
He's risen to the occasion many times, and I believe...HE'S IN!

LMAO!! I just got that one!!

[Looie #19]

Raffy is a clear cut HOFer. It's amazing to think anyone could try to argue this. The only reason anyone could think he wasn't is if they made an honest effort to ignore the consistent level in which he's been one of the best hitters in the game.

This isn't arguing Donnie Baseball and his 6 years at the top, we're talking 12. Rafael is probably one of the most underappreciated talents in the game.

[NyMike]

I'm one of the guys who thinks most of the people in the Hall now, shouldn't be. If we keep thinking that numbers like 500 homeruns guarantee a guy a spot...then the situation will get even worse.

I'm not sure I like the "levels" or "tiers" because it's a little too complicated. I'd probably just make the players earn a higher number of votes if they want to get in. Certainly not by too much (we all know there's been nobody voted in unanimously).....but just enough to weed out the marginal players.

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by Spiker

Bagwell is a terrific player but no HOF,

Spiker, you know I agree with you about 99% of the time.

This is that one percent. You're dead wrong here. Jeff Bagwell is the fourth best first baseman, ever. I'm not just quoting Bill James here... it's pretty apparent.

Bagwell was ROY in 1991, MVP in 1994, and shoulda won MVP in 1996 and 1999. He put up HUGE numbers... and most of them in the Astrodome, the best pitchers park of the era. He doesn't just hit homers, but he walks, plays great defense, and can run (check out the 30 SB seasons!).

Hurt last year, Bagwell had a terrible season for him... .291/.401/.518.That's still an OPS over .900, and he almost had 100 RBI (98) and had over 30 HR. This year, like usual, he's tearing the cover off the ball. He's a leader if anyone is, and plays the game as hard as can be.

Jeff Bagwell is 35, but he'll retire with over 500 HR, probably over 1700 RBI and runs scored, and way over 500 doubles, while playing his prime in the ASTRODOME, which severely cut his offensive stats.

This guy is a first ballot HOF, no question.

[Spiker]

Originally posted by Rocketman


Spiker, you know I agree with you about 99% of the time.

This is that one percent. You're dead wrong here. Jeff Bagwell is the fourth best first baseman, ever. I'm not just quoting Bill James here... it's pretty apparent.

Bagwell was ROY in 1991, MVP in 1994, and shoulda won MVP in 1996 and 1999. He put up HUGE numbers... and most of them in the Astrodome, the best pitchers park of the era. He doesn't just hit homers, but he walks, plays great defense, and can run (check out the 30 SB seasons!).

Hurt last year, Bagwell had a terrible season for him... .291/.401/.518.That's still an OPS over .900, and he almost had 100 RBI (98) and had over 30 HR. This year, like usual, he's tearing the cover off the ball. He's a leader if anyone is, and plays the game as hard as can be.

Jeff Bagwell is 35, but he'll retire with over 500 HR, probably over 1700 RBI and runs scored, and way over 500 doubles, while playing his prime in the ASTRODOME, which severely cut his offensive stats.

This guy is a first ballot HOF, no question.

I believe all Yankee fans are morally obligated to have a NL team to root for (to better understand how the fans of a losing team feel), and when I was in law school I had a parttime job selling tickets at the Astrodome and saw the team play 81 games a year for three years running, I chose the Astros. Trust me, when I say this, Bagwell is a loser. The man is still looking for his first big hit. Come October, Bagpipes is looking for shelter. A bum. A worthless piece of ... Well, you get the idea. I hate Jeff Bagwell.
He does have pretty stats, though.

[Bozidar]

Originally posted by Rocketman
Spiker, you know I agree with you about 99% of the time.

This is that one percent. You're dead wrong here. Jeff Bagwell is the fourth best first baseman, ever. I'm not just quoting Bill James here... it's pretty apparent.

Bagwell was ROY in 1991, MVP in 1994, and shoulda won MVP in 1996 and 1999. He put up HUGE numbers... and most of them in the Astrodome, the best pitchers park of the era. He doesn't just hit homers, but he walks, plays great defense, and can run (check out the 30 SB seasons!).

Hurt last year, Bagwell had a terrible season for him... .291/.401/.518.That's still an OPS over .900, and he almost had 100 RBI (98) and had over 30 HR. This year, like usual, he's tearing the cover off the ball. He's a leader if anyone is, and plays the game as hard as can be.

Jeff Bagwell is 35, but he'll retire with over 500 HR, probably over 1700 RBI and runs scored, and way over 500 doubles, while playing his prime in the ASTRODOME, which severely cut his offensive stats.

This guy is a first ballot HOF, no question.