Any word on Bagwell?

I have not heard a thing. Not sure if that is a good thing or not. I have been wondering if no news is good news or what?

 

Last I heard (last week) he was a few weeks away from exercising it. Right now all he is doing is stretching.

 

His career might never be the same. It's damn hard to rehab and fully recover at his age.

 

Am i the only one who wants him to just hang it up while he's on top.....well kinda on top. He's definantly a 1st ballot hall of famer regardless. I just don't want to see him keep dragging this thing out. Then again, maybe i'm just being selfish wanting the salary relief to replace him with Helton who we could get just for taking him off the Rockies hands.

 

I have mixed emotions. Bagwell deserves at least one more shot at playing in my mind. Should be interesting to see if he makes it back and when.

 

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=99356

Bagwell is doing some rehab. He has begun doing slow, controlled swings of the bat. That is, according to the article, the first step towards resuming baseball activities. There is no timetable for his return.

I wouldn't mind having him come off the bench during the stretch run. I believe that as long as he is on the 15 day DL and not the 60 day, he can be eiligible for the playoffs. That is if, and only if, he is close to 100%, which he may never be. The best thing would be for him to sit out and not try to rush things.

 

You're wrong about that. Bagwell will be lucky to make it into the HOF at all. For a 1st baseman, his number don't overwhelm anyone, especially when you consider that they were produced during the juice era. His playoff performances haven't made a lasting impression either. Also, playing in Houston his whole career hasn't helped - the media always seem to ignore us.

I think that his steal numbers, for a 1st baseman, do stand out. And the voters will take his personality into account. He has a chance, but to say that he's 1st ballot material is just wrong.

 

I agree with you completely that he is no first ballot hall of famer. Additionally, concerning the voters who select hall of famers, we don't really know who outside of the Barry Bonds/Roger Clemens type "automatics" will get in.

But in my opinion Bagwell has already earned it. Six consecutive years of 100+ RBI and 30+ HR -- the only other three guys to do it are HOF. Add to that 400+ HR, a nice average, incredible defense (pre-shoulder obviously), smarts and speed on the bases, and the intangibles, and you've got a great case.

Additionally, it can be argued (argued I said) that he is the best 1B of his generation. His offense does not match McGuire's (sp?), but his defense and baserunning *far* surpass him. Red was almost a one-trick pony. Bagwell's numbers also eclipse those of the Big Hurt, who is pretty much a fat guy playing 1B because you can't put that tub anywhere else.

I've got to be forgetting a couple of other compelling 1B from Bagwell's generation, so let's discuss. The Cat's numbers, at a glance, appear lesser than Bag's. Palmeiro has SO many games at DH, and 212 in the OF. Will Clark was a generation before Bagwell, and Helton a generation after.

 

Bill James has done a huge amount of research on who is in the hall of fame and what there stats are. He's come up a few rating systems to judge a players chance at the hall. Jeff Bagwell is a lock according to those systems. In fact, if he was not elected to the hall it would be unprecedented.

 

The problem is that the writers don't consult with Bill James or his statistical measures (that statement was not intended as a commentary on Bill James). Of course he's Hall of Fame worthy. The question is, will the writers elect him in?

 

They're going to elect him. There are no eligible players with a hall of fame monitor number equal to Bagwell that aren't in the hall. Players have a good shot at the hall with an hof monitor number greater than 100. Above 130, a player is considered a lock. Bagwell's number is 149.5. He's in.

 

Only first basemen ever to have 400 homeruns and 200 steals. I don't think he'll get in first ballot, but he definately deserves to be there.

 

But they don't look at this number.

Understand that I believe it's a no-brainer. It's just that I read some of these writers, and they *still* have Bagwell in the "maybe" category, or some of them in the "close, but no cigar" category.

IMO Bagwell and Biggio, even to someone who is not endeared to them, are absolute hall of famers if both of their careers end today.

 

The number is based on stats and accomplishments that writers do look at and no one with the stats and accomplishments that Jeff Bagwell has has been denied entry in to the hall.

 

Bill James' hall-of-fame monitor statistic isn't normative is the sense that it isn't based on his view of who should be a hall of famer or even the criteria/statistics he thinks are important in determining the productivity of a player. Rather, it's a predictive model that attempts to analyze the criteria and statistics hall-of-fame voters have historically used to elect members.

by historical standards bagwell appears to be a lock for the hall-of-fame as the hof monitor indicates. However, while, hof monitor statistics as a whole take into account black and grey ink factors, which accounts for a player's statistics relative to his contemptories, it also factors into account historical milestones which will, and perhaps should be, waterdown when analysing the statistics of a player from bagwell's era. Bascially there is no way now to tell how historically batting milestones that are factored into the hof monitor statistic will be viewed in the future. Many statistics such as 400 or 500 career hrs, 50 hr in a season, 100 rbis, etc, will not have near the same cache as future hof voters examine players current player's careers. There is no way to factor this into the hof monitor statistics that james employeed. I also believe that the more strigent standard just recently employeed by the veteran's committee might have an effect on the hof monitor as historically the vet. committee's inductions have dragged down the standards, and thus the statistics, of hall of fame players.

A couple factors, in my belief, will help bagwell signficantly. Fist, many of the concepts/statistics held in sabrametric "relvolution" that has pick up steam the past decade or so, will be the dominant/common view held by baseball organizations, baseball analysists, and the general fan of the next generation or so. Sabrametric analysis, see through statistics such as ops, winshares, vorp, runs created, etc. value bagwell productivity even more than traditional statistics such as avg, runs, sbs, hr, fielding percentage and rbi. hof votes in the next few decade will have a better understanding of this concepts and statistics and a better understanding of how to analysis a player's career through statistics. This will only help bagwell.

However, what helps him most is this: by any analysis, traditional leaning or more statistically progressive minded, Bagwell has been by a significant margin the best firstbaseman in national league history. Accepting that, there is no getting around his induction.

 

I'm always one of the first in line to heap praise on Bagwell, and I've always counted him in the top five at least. But dude: better than Gehrig?

 

I have to contribute so that I can edit. I just noticed you said "national league", not "major league".

 

Gehrig played for the yankees

 

nevermind