armchairgm
all sports, all you
+ Add Friends
You are not logged-in.
Sign Up - Log In
Main Page
Sports
Write
Articles
Hot Links
Images
Meet People
Fun
Explore
MLB - NFL - NBA - NHL - College Basketball - College Football - Soccer - Nascar - Other
Article - Locker Room Discussion
All Articles - New Articles - Today's Articles
Submit a Link - Approve Links
Picture Game - Ratings - Polls - Pick Game - Quiz Game - Spring Silliness
Random Page - Random Image - Random Fan
Edit
Page history Discuss pageWhat links here

The Bags Under Our Eyes

17
Vote

by Tyduffy

The Houston Astros retired Jeff Bagwell's #5 in a ceremony before today's game at Minute Maid Park.  His relatively brief, but brilliant career  places him as perhaps the greatest player ever to don an Astros' uniform.

During his 15-year career, Baggs won a Rookie of the Year (1991), an MVP (1994) and was an all-star four times (due to the crowded position he played and lack of notoriety in Houston).  He finished with a .297 career average, along with a .408 OBP and 449 HR.  He had five seasons with an OPS over 1.000, nine seasons with 30 or more home runs, and eight 100+ RBI seasons.  He also won one Gold Glove at first base.

Pundits unhealthily obsessed with career numbers will point out that Jeff failed to reach the magical 500 HR mark, more due to his career being cut short by injury than a lack of ability.  Numbers alone, his sustained period of excellence as one of the best first basemen in the game would likely make him a first ballot Hall of Famer.

Despite being a fan-favorite and generally likeable fellow, Bagwell has not escaped the steroid bug entirely.  In 2004, Asher B. Chancey of Baseball Evolution accuses, with little firm and corroborating evidence of course, that Jeff was not just a user of steroids but the harbinger of steroids into baseball, through his juicing and subsequent success.

Though Bags has not been linked to the use of any steroids.  There is some circumstantial evidence.  He was weight-lifting in order to get bigger, which like it or not arouses suspicion.  In 1991-3, he had home run totals of 15, 18, and 20 respectively.  However, in 1994 he exploded for 39 HR despite playing only 110 games, and put up similar numbers for essentially the rest of the 1990's.  He was friends and long-time teammates with Ken Caminiti who admitted steroid use.  He also experienced a pre-mature breakdown of his body, with a deteriorating arthritic condition in his shoulder.  For anyone searching for evidence of steroid use, those facts may be enough to brand him a cheat.

Even a Bagwell defender like Richard Justice of the Houston Chronicle felt compelled to address the steroid issue in his blog in February 2006, relying upon the now aged maxim among the delusional and the romantic "as far as I know, he never tested positive for steroid use."  Though he does acknowledge that Bagwell was "hitting the weights," much like a lot of other players were during that period as well.

There is no substantiated evidence that Jeff Bagwell achieved his great career through steroid use.  Yet, insinuation, imagination, and our eyes still cast a skeptical glance over his numbers.  Baseball writers continue to insist that Mark McGwire's and Barry Bonds' Hall of Fame voting will cast the legacy of the era.  However, the true test will be a guy like Bagwell, with no explicit evidence except our own wildest imaginations.

Originally published here.


Enable Comment Auto-Refresher
RomiezzoLegend
836 days ago
Score 0+-
Jeff Bagwell is the man! I love that guy. He deserves to have his number retired. He had one of the best careers ever by an Astro, and was one of their best players of all time, and will probably be considered an Astro legend/hero.
Permalink | Reply
Dominator528JV Squad
836 days ago
Score 1+-
Maybe Jeff was getting something extra from his little brother Marcus - or as we all knew him as Buff "The Body" Bagwell from NWO and the WWF
Permalink
RomiezzoLegend
836 days ago
Score 0+-
He's buff, he's tough, he's the stuff, and you're just not enough. Typical quote from a wrestler.
Permalink
Ea34Div-I Stud
835 days ago
Score 1+-
Jeff Bagwell deserves every accolade he gets. The circumstantial evidence you presented doesn't prove a thing, but it certainly raises some questions. Based on his close friendship with Ken Caminiti, the fact that he did get quite a bit bigger during his career and the kind of injuries he was plagued with late in his career, it wouldn't be shocking if he used performance enhancers. Would that cheapen his accomplishments? Maybe to some. But the more we learn about the steroid era, the more apparent it becomes that to overreact to every instance of a star having maybe juiced up will be a pretty big waste of time.
Permalink
RomiezzoLegend
836 days ago
Score 1+-
Oh, and to defend Jeff Bagwell about steroid use, don't you gain weight when you take steroids? Jeff Bagwell was already 195 lbs in 1991. In 2000, he weighed 195, when he hit his career high 47 homers in a season. 5 years later, Bagwell weighed about 215. And the following year after that big year in '94, he hit only .290 with 21 homers an 87 RBIs, a .078 average drop, an 18 homer drop, and a 29 RBI drop; he was injured that year, I think, but those stats are compared to '94, where he played 4 more games than in '95. In my opinion, he might have TRIED steroids in '94, but that's it. Look at his career numbers. The stats show everything, and his prime was in '97-99, and then the stats dropped as time went by after that.
Permalink | Reply
Kwitt11Varsity Captain
835 days ago
Score 1+-
Apparently, I have to keep pointing this out...Alex Sanchez was the first MLBer busted for 'roids, and he was 5'10", 180 lbs. Not being huge does not mean you didn't use steroids.
Permalink
RomiezzoLegend
836 days ago
Score 0+-
Oh, and to defend Jeff Bagwell about steroid use, don't you gain weight when you take steroids? Jeff Bagwell was already 195 lbs in 1991. In 2000, he weighed 195, when he hit his career high 47 homers in a season. 5 years later, Bagwell weighed about 215. And the following year after that big year in '94, he hit only .290 with 21 homers an 87 RBIs, a .078 average drop, an 18 homer drop, and a 29 RBI drop; he was injured that year, I think, but those stats are compared to '94, where he played 4 more games than in '95. In my opinion, he might have TRIED steroids in '94, but that's it. Look at his career numbers. The stats show everything, and his prime was in '97-99, and then the stats dropped as time went by after that.
Permalink | Reply
Cornfed78Draft Pick
836 days ago
Score 0+-
I seriously hope the Buff Bagwell comment was a joke Dominator.
Permalink | Reply
RomiezzoLegend
836 days ago
Score 0+-
I'm convinced that he was joking. :) I just had a thought. Maybe Bagwell critics think Bagwell is a steroid user cuz his "brother" gave him steroids.
Permalink
Dominator528JV Squad
836 days ago
Score 2+-
Oh absolutely. I have a lot of respect for Jeff as a player for what he does between the foul lines and off. I always enjoy following a player that sticks with his team for that long as well. Now as far as the two being brothers - that is true (Jeff and Momma Bagwell were on a Wrestlemania with Buff). I do not think Jeff ever partook in steroids. I think that sometimes technology and years of training progress can ACTUALLY help a player develop naturally and not EVERYONE cheats/
Permalink
RomiezzoLegend
836 days ago
Score 0+-
Good analysis. And WHOA!! Marcus and Jeff Bagwell? I'm surprised Jeff doesn't have a big ego, then. lol. You're right. I believe, that at least most of the years Bagwell played, his weight stayed the same, and the Astros needed power. So I guessed he got working and developed into a power hitter after three years of playing. I wonder how many homers Bagwell would've hit in '94 if the season didn't end early.
Permalink
RomiezzoLegend
836 days ago
Score 0+-
If the season continued, he would've been on the verge of hitting 57.4 homers. Imagine that.
Permalink
RomiezzoLegend
836 days ago
Score 0+-
And Matt Williams (leader of homers that year) would've been on the verge of hitting 62 homers!
Permalink
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
834 days ago
Score 0+-
Williams hit 62 in that one year period (August '93 - August '94)
Permalink
TyduffyRed-Shirting
836 days ago
Score 1+-
Jeff Bagwell was one of my favorite players growing up as well. But McGwire and Sosa were also very well liked individuals.

Romiezzo, I don't quite understand your argument. Gaining 20lbs, for a guy in as good of shape as Bagwell, isn't significant weight gain? It is borderline impossible for an adult male to add straight 20lbs of muscle naturally.

It would break my heart to see him linked to a steroid investigation, but he was one of the first guys who was "lifting the weights" and we know steroids were in the Astros locker-room at that point. So I don't think that it can be ruled out.
Permalink | Reply
RomiezzoLegend
836 days ago
Score 0+-
What I mean is, when he first started hitting homers, he stayed the same, but as he got older, he started gaining weight, like many players. He hit only 27 homers for his final full season, and that was the time he started to gain weight. Critics say that he gained weight. All I'm saying is that he didn't gain weight til the mid '00s, after his prime. That's what I meant.
Permalink
Kdark11Varsity
835 days ago
Score 2+-
I have to believe Bagwell was a clean player. He was easily one of the best to play for the Astros. Good for Bagwell a real class act.
Permalink | Reply
KelsdadAll-Star
835 days ago
Score 1+-
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Bagwell is not a Hall of Famer.
Permalink | Reply
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
835 days ago
Score 0+-
If so then it is time to shutdown Cooperstown.
Permalink
Cornfed78Draft Pick
835 days ago
Score 0+-
The only I "KNOW" Bagwell did was drink. I believe his drinking was well documented in the Houston area.
Permalink | Reply
KelsdadAll-Star
835 days ago
Score 1+-
Fine with me, if it means putting in one more player who doesnt belong.
Permalink | Reply
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
835 days ago
Score 0+-
Why isn't Bagwell a HOF?
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
835 days ago
Score 0+-
Because he posted numbers far less impressive than other players (Thomas, Thome) in an offensive era, steriods or not. He did so playing most of his career in a hitters park (yes, Astrodome favored hitters because of the turf) and for most of his career was not the best player on his own team. (Biggio, Berkman, Kent, etc). If Rice and Murphy and Parker and Mattingly can't get in, then Bagwell shouldnt either
Permalink | Reply
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
835 days ago
Score 0+-
Rice and Murphy WAAAY before Bagwell. YES!
Permalink
Kwitt11Varsity Captain
834 days ago
Score 1+-
Bagwell's career OPS+ (a stat that adjusts for both era and ballpark) is 150, 30th all-time and 6th-best of the era. I would say he was one of the more underrated hitters of the era. Oh, Rice is tied for 175th, and Murphy is barely in the top 300.
Permalink
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
835 days ago
Score 1+-
Bagwell (if he isn't a steroid user) is the perfect example of "Benefitted from the Offensive Era"

I won't cry if he gets in, but Fred McGriff better go in first!!!!

Bagwell deserves it more than Biggio - but neither is "Yeah, that guy was a HALL of Famer" to me...

Weird thing - Bagwell and Frank Thomas have the EXACT same birthday!
Permalink | Reply
KelsdadAll-Star
835 days ago
Score 0+-
His MVP and Gold Glove both came in 1994. What's special about 1994? It was a strike year. Its entirely possible he wouldnt have won either award in a full season. Even so, that was the year Matt Williams had something like 42 homers in 119 games, if he had come close to 60 he would have been MVP.

Like Manny said, guys like Bagwell (and Jeff Kent, for that matter) are perfect examples of guys benefitting from an offensive era.

Another example of a guy who put up stupid numbers who won't be a HOFer (and shouldn't be) is Todd Helton. The voters do take into consideration where he played. A .380 lifetime average at home carries less weight than his .270 lifetime average on the road. Biggio had 3000 hits, he got them on the road and at home. Bagwell's offensive numbers were mostly accrued at home, where he had a clear advantage. The guy made four All Star teams, one as the starter. He was a nice player, but not HOF worthy.
Permalink | Reply
Kwitt11Varsity Captain
834 days ago
Score 1+-
The Astros played in the Astrodome for the entire '90's, which was a fairly extreme pitcher's park. Enron/Minute Maid is a hitter's park, which does partly balance that out, but both Bagwell and Biggio played their prime years in a pitcher's park. Certainly not comparable to Todd Helton.
Permalink
TyduffyRed-Shirting
835 days ago
Score 2+-
Kelsdad - Bagwell hit 39 HR in 1994 in only 110 games before he broke his wrist. There is benefitting from an offensive era, and there is putting up five seasons with an OPS over one.

The All-Star Game argument is a ridiculous one. How many times would he have made it had idiot fans not been voting in McGwire every year? We have numerous examples of how the selection of players is flawed, so how exactly does one use that as a measure?

Also why don't you look up the stats before making comments like that? Bagwell's Home Stats (.303 234 HR 779 RBI .417OBP). Bagwell's Away Stats (.291 215 HR 750 RBI .398 OBP). Yes, he was better at home (as most players are), but he was no slouch on the road.
Permalink | Reply
TyduffyRed-Shirting
835 days ago
Score 2+-
The emphasis on career numbers is also ridiculous. Bagwell's body gives out right after his prime so he only gets to 449HR which keeps him out, yet if he manages to hang on for another few years playing horribly (like his buddy Biggio) to get to a milestone he somehow becomes a better player?
Permalink | Reply
KelsdadAll-Star
834 days ago
Score 1+-
Mattingly's body gave out early, most people feel he is not a HOFer because of the shortened career, and he was a FAR SUPERIOR player to Bagwell, in every category. Defend him if you wish, and nitpick everything while your at it, but the bottom line is Bagwell is not a Hall of Famer.
Permalink | Reply
Kwitt11Varsity Captain
834 days ago
Score 1+-
Really? Superior in which categoryies, exactly? Bags has a 50-point edge in OBP and a 70-pt edge in SLG, which is partly because of when he played but mostly wasn't - the league OBP was 9 points higher and the league SLG 20 points higher in Bagwell's era. Mattingly's best OPS+ was 161 (127 for his career); Bagwell's career OPS+ was 150. Mattingly hit one HR every 31.5 AB; Bagwell hit one every 17.4. Mattingly's RC27 was 6.1; Bagwell's was 8.1. Mattingly's WARP2 (adjusted for era) was 88.3; Bagwell's was 131.7. According to the BP.com stats, Bagwell was a much better fielder, too (123 FRAA, compared to Mattingly's 63).

According to pretty much every category I can find, Bagwell is FAR SUPERIOR to Mattingly. Now, Mattingly isn't a HOFer, so that alone doesn't prove a whole lot, but if you look at just how good Bagwell was, he should definitely be in.

(Oh, wait - I forgot "True Yankeeness" as a category. Mattingly's TRUY is an astounding 100.36, while Bagwell's is -3.7. That changes everything!)
Permalink
Davis21wylieMVP
834 days ago
Score 2+-
Wait for it... wait for it...
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
834 days ago
Score 2+-
Apparently Bagwell's greatest sin was not wearing a Yankee uniform, thus closing the door to the HOF...
Permalink
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
834 days ago
Score 0+-
Mattingly was WAAAAY better of a fielder and hitter than Jeff Bagwell ever dreamed of being - anyone who saw them play can tell you that - and while I hate the Yankees, Mattingly WAS that good!
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
834 days ago
Score 2+-
Bagwell's goatee was far more intimidating than Mattingly's 'stache!
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
834 days ago
Score 1+-
Game isn't played on a computer, KWitt, unless your doing Strat o Matic or something. What Bill James and the Baseball Prospectus geeks know about baseball wouldn't fill a thimble. I like popping a brew and reading their stuff, but when it comes to what happens on the field they are clueless.
Permalink | Reply
Davis21wylieMVP
834 days ago
Score 2+-
Ah, another timeless Kelsdad "stats are for pencil-necked geeks" response! Yep, you can set your watch by it, really. And extra ++ for going back to the tried and true cliche well that is "baseball isn't played on a computer/calculator/N-Gage/etc." Great stuff all around!!
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
834 days ago
Score 0+-
Truth hurts, huh?
Permalink | Reply
Davis21wylieMVP
834 days ago
Score 0+-
You tell me.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
834 days ago
Score 0+-
How would I know, I'm not a pencil necked stat geek.
Permalink | Reply
Davis21wylieMVP
834 days ago
Score 2+-
That's my point, you're always running head-on into inconvenient truths that destroy your arguments! It must hurt.
Permalink
Kwitt11Varsity Captain
834 days ago
Score 1+-
So, Mattingly was better than Bagwell in every category except for statistics? Is that what you're saying? Because I can't really come up with any other categories...
Permalink | Reply
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
834 days ago
Score 0+-
Mattingly was a better player than Bagwell. Hands down. I don't care what the stats say, it isn't close!
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
834 days ago
Score 3+-
And if the uniforms are reversed.... ?
Permalink
Davis21wylieMVP
834 days ago
Score 2+-
Remember, it's not about winning or losing, it's about how the players make us feel. And Mattingly's warm-and-fuzzy ratio was miles ahead of Bagwell's!
Permalink
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
834 days ago
Score 1+-
Hey, Mattingly played 14 seasons with the Yankees and saw ONE playoff series - cut him some slack! Mattingly was the best player in baseball for several years - Bagwell was one of many good players... Stop the google-eyed hero love! Bagwell wasn't any more special because he was an Astro all those years. And there's no way ANYONE can honestly say he's 100% steroid free... - and yes, his partying exploits are well documented.
Permalink
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
834 days ago
Score 1+-
and Donnie Baseball made my insides turn gooey when he flashed the leather and I melted with his patented swing of fury. He was a baseball machine given to us as a gift from the gods...
Permalink
Kwitt11Varsity Captain
834 days ago
Score 1+-
So, we can claim all the players for the Yankees were great because they led their teams to lots of playoff victories/titles, but we also have to cut Mattingly some slack when his team doesn't make the playoffs? Have it one way or the other... Mattingly was not the best player in baseball for several years. You could make a reasonable argument that he was the best in the AL from 84-86 - he didn't deserve the MVP he won in 85 (Brett was much better that year), but you could make a good case for him in 86, and he was very good in 84. But those were really the only years where he was even close to the best player in the AL.
Permalink
Kwitt11Varsity Captain
834 days ago
Score 1+-
Oh, and you can keep people out of the Hall for "partying"? So long, Babe Ruth!
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
834 days ago
Score 3+-
When the Mets ruled New York, who was the brave Yankee that to counter-attack the sauveness of Keith Hernandez? Don Mattingly, that's who! And when Mattingly is named manager of the Yankees, he vows to get the Yankees back into the playoffs in at least once in the next 14 years as well!
Permalink
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
834 days ago
Score 1+-
KWitt, I remember the 80's - he DEFINITELY deserved his MVP in 85 AND he was ROBBED of the MVP in '86 from Roger Clemens.

Maybe you don't know what a healthy Mattingly meant to baseball...

And the "cutting him a break for being a Yankee" is sarcasm - the '83-'95 Yankees are my favorite period of Yankees teams (They all sucked)
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
834 days ago
Score 0+-
Yup, 100% true. Yankee fans in the 80s-early 90s used to riot just to get into the Stadium to watch Mattingly routinely go 1-2 with an infield single and a couple of walks. Mr. Consistency indeed!
Permalink
Kwitt11Varsity Captain
834 days ago
Score 0+-
George Brett, 1985: .335/.486/.585, 1.022 OPS while playing 3B

Mattingly, 1985: .307/.358/.471, .939 OPS while playing 1B

Mattingly gives up almost 100 points of OPS and plays the weaker defensive position. He ended up with a pretty big edge in RBI because Brett batted in an absolutely atrocious Kansas City lineup (nobody else had a BA above .280 or an OBP above .350), but Brett had by far the better year.
Permalink
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
834 days ago
Score 0+-
The Yankees won more games than the Royals, led by a more significant leader...

I remember 1985, they got it right. Mattingly had more RBI that year than anyone had in over 30 years. RBI were still important statistics back in the day...

And Mattingly DID get robbed in '86 when Clemens got the MVP - starting pitchers just aren't MVPs, sorry!
Permalink
Kwitt11Varsity Captain
834 days ago
Score 1+-
I don't know what you mean by "a more significant leader", but Brett was amazing offensively, and the rest of the Royals offense was awful, and the Royals did win their division. By the way, that season is a perfect example of why RBI are meaningless.
Permalink
Yakob878MVP
834 days ago
Score 0+-
Bagwell has my favorite batting stance out of any mlb player
Permalink | Reply
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
834 days ago
Score 0+-
your standards are low...
Permalink
DwalbertVarsity Captain
834 days ago
Score 1+-
yak, if you play any of the newer baseball video games you will find out that there are about 50 old school badass batting stances that are waaaay better than the simple short guy crouching stance. carew for life.
Permalink
Kwitt11Varsity Captain
834 days ago
Score 0+-
Craig Counsell!
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
834 days ago
Score 0+-
That atrocious Royals lineup played in the Series, so I guess they weren't that bad.
Permalink
Kwitt11Varsity Captain
834 days ago
Score 0+-
Statistics to the rescue! The Royals scored 687 runs that year, 13th out of 14 AL teams (and that's with the best offensive player in the league). They made the playoffs because of their pitching (3.49 ERA, 2nd in the league).
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
834 days ago
Score 0+-
Mattingly's better than Bagwell if Bagwell was a Yankee and Mattingly a Red Sox. How's that, Tyrone?

Has nothing to do with uniform colors.

you're always running head-on into inconvenient truths that destroy your arguments.

Not sure what that means, Davis, but whatever. If you told me you thought Bagwell was better and could back it up because he turned the 3-6-3 better, or because he could hit righties better than lefties, then fine, I'll respect your opinion. But if your telling me Bagwell is better because your effin' computer said so, then take the criticism like a man and deal with it.

I love your work, Davis, everything you've presented is top shelf. Not that I agree with it all, but that's kind of the point, isn't it?

If you stood on a street corner in East Dumbshit, and asked 1000 people who was better, 990 would say Mattingly. If you stood on the corner across the street and asked 1000 people what VORP was, 1000 would tell you its sounds like a venereal disease.

Go figure.
Permalink | Reply
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
834 days ago
Score 4+-
Uniform colors has EVERYTHING to do with the HOF!

No way a uniform this UGLY gets into Cooperstown. Ever. If Bagwell wanted to get into the HOF, he should've requested a trade. Damn idiot!

astros.jpg
Permalink
Kwitt11Varsity Captain
834 days ago
Score 2+-
I'm saying Bagwell is better because he hit for more power and got on base better. I know this because we have things called "statistics" that help us keep track of who does these things well, so we don't have to rely on just our subjective opinions. In the past 10-20 years, some people have used "computers" to combine various statistics into more comprehensive statistics that more accurately portray how good a player is. Even if you look at the raw stats that describe just what a player did on the field, without any analysis (like BA, OBP, SLG, and OPS), Bagwell still is much better than Mattingly.
Permalink
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
834 days ago
Score 1+-
This arguing is like saying Eddie George is a better running back than Bo Jackson because the numbers say so - the numbers only say what you want them to, this time they say "jack shit"...

There are times when you know that a guy was better than his "numbers"

Ted Williams was better than his numbers. Mickey Mantle was better than his numbers. Reggie Jackson was better than his numbers. Kirby Puckett, Mike Schmidt, Dale Murphy, Jim Rice, on and on... Don Mattingly is one of those guys.
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
834 days ago
Score 2+-
Pete Rose was a better gambler than the IRS will ever know...
Permalink
Kwitt11Varsity Captain
834 days ago
Score 0+-
Jeff Bagwell was better than his numbers, too. Really, that's all I have to say? Wow, this is easy!
Permalink
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
834 days ago
Score 0+-
KWitt, Bagwell played his career almost entirely AFTER expansion, in a clearly offensive era. Mattingly played his (healthy part) career in one of the deadest offensive decades, the 80's...

Clearly Bagwell played a longer career and established greater lifetime numbers, but Mattingly played for years with back problems. If he had remained healthy for a whole career, there would be ZERO arguing/debating this subject.

Mattingly redefined the position and how it was played. He is the finest fielding first baseman ever to sack up.
Permalink
Davis21wylieMVP
834 days ago
Score 2+-
Dancing With The Stars is also a mega-popular TV show, which shows how much the public at large knows. Besides, we started basing truth on popular opinion when, exactly? Here's the (non-statistical) deal: Mattingly was a much, much better contact hitter than Bagwell. He was a significantly better fielder than Bagwell. He was also nowhere near as powerful a hitter as Bagwell, and had nowhere near the plate patience of Bagwell. Bagwell was also a better baserunner. Agreed? So how do all of those skills come together to win games? That's where you have to look at the numbers! Mattingly's edges in batting average and fielding are nice (nicer when you adjust for era), but Bagwell's power and patience advantages are simply more important to creating runs and, consequently, winning games. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
834 days ago
Score 2+-
Was Neifi Perez better than his numbers as well? Scotty Boras is gonna luv this new argument!
Permalink
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
834 days ago
Score 0+-
Take both of them at their best and you'll pick Mattingly every time. I'm not saying Mattingly belongs in the Hall, but he was DEFINITELY a better player than Bagwell. I'll bet you large amounts of money, Bagwell would say the exact same thing...
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
834 days ago
Score 2+-
Mattingly was more "scrappy" than Bagwell. Agreed?
Permalink
Kwitt11Varsity Captain
834 days ago
Score 1+-
@Manny - That's why we have stats like OPS+, that compare players against other players from their era. Bagwell beats Mattingly in those stats, too. And I bet Keith Hernandez would have something to say about your fielding comment. Bagwell had a lot more range than Mattingly, too, though he made fewer errors.
Permalink
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
834 days ago
Score 0+-
KWitt, stats DON'T correlate across eras. If you think they do, you failed some very simple arguments - a 1.000 OPS+ in 1985 and a 1.000 OPS+ in 1995 does not translate when your bases are completely different TEAMS, pitchers, stadiums, umpires, rules, social, scientific and innovative differences.

Guys get pitched differently, have different guys to help them (Bagwell got walked a lot because he DIDN'T have anyone to protect him like a Dave Winfield)

If you think stats can translate pound for pound across time and era, you are a fool.

The WHOLE league changes every week, every month, every year! Ballpark effects, league averages are all altered by skewed data (September callups, pennant races, injuries) that varies from year to year... it can't be accurately baselined with so many variables...
Permalink
Kwitt11Varsity Captain
834 days ago
Score 0+-
You're confusing OPS with OPS+. Here's the definition:

OPS measured against the league average, and adjusted for ballpark factors. An OPS+ over 100 is better than average, less than 100 is below average. (http://www.h...ossary/#ops+)

So, a player with a .900 OPS in a league where the average OPS is .900 will score exactly the same as a player with a .700 OPS in a league where the average is .700 (after adjusting for park effects). Therefore, you can use it to compare players from different ballparks and eras.
Permalink
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
833 days ago
Score -1+-
No, YOU CAN"T use that to compare different eras!!! You can only compare how much one was closer/farther to average for that season based on the calculations used.

You can't have it both ways. There is no statistical tool that can accurately compare two eras by comparing league averages for two different years - every factor is different - it's apples and triangles!

The only tool that can compare them is HUMAN EYES and complete objectivity in comparing the two - I hate the Yankees - Mattingly was a far superior baseball player - Bagwell more compares to McGwire (who also walked alot - so did he have "great patience" too?) than Mattingly (whom if he stayed healthy would have been compared to Lou Gehrig)

And NO, the eras do not compare- for example

Top HR total in AL/NL during the 80's vs 90's (including strike seasons)

  • 1980 - 41/48
  • 1981 - 22/31
  • 1982 - 39/37
  • 1983 - 39/40
  • 1984 - 43/46
  • 1985 - 40/37
  • 1986 - 40/37
  • 1987 - 49/49
  • 1988 - 42/39
  • 1989 - 36/47

Now let's look at the 90's

  • 1990 - 51/40
  • 1991 - 44/38
  • 1992 - 43/35
  • 1993 - 46/46
  • 1994 - 40/43
  • 1995 - 50/40
  • 1996 - 52/47
  • 1997 - 46/49 (doesn't include McGwire's 58 because he was traded)
  • 1998 - 56/70
  • 1999 - 48/65


So the 80's HR LEADER'saverages AL/NL- 39.1/40.1 the 90's AL/NL - 48.6/47.3

Those are 10 YEAR averages...

Unless you think that there are valuable, accurate tools for comparing a great player (with physical limitations) in a crappy offensive era is the same as comparing a good player in a great offensive era, Mattingly was a MUCH better baseball player than Bagwell. Bagwell may have had a better statistical career, but that doesn't make him a better player. Not an argument, just a fact.
Permalink
Kwitt11Varsity Captain
833 days ago
Score 1+-
Sorry. Apparently, I'm not allowed to form any opinions on any players who played before 2000, because I didn't personally see them play. That sucks. If you're not comparing players to how the average player of their era did...then how exactly are you comparing them? Isn't a player whose stats are 50% better than the average player of their era better than someone whose stats are 20% better than the average player of their era? If you're just using your own eyes to compare players, your perception of them will be skewed by whatever games you happen to remember - it's just human nature. Unless you saw every game of Mattingly's and Bagwell's career, you pretty much need statistics at least partially to compare players.
Permalink
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
833 days ago
Score -1+-
Look if you want to play strat-o-matic with their career stats then by all means, pick Bagwell - if you're playing baseball in heaven, or an Iowa cornfiled where you can pick the players at their natural best ability, and you get to choose first baseman - take Mattingly

Or maybe I'll put it this way - If someone put a gun to my head and said

"Who had better stats, Mattingly of Bagwell?" I would say Bagwell...

If they put a gun to my head and said "Who was a better baseball player, Mattingly or Bagwell?" - It's Mattingly - there's nothing to figure out.

Don't get so analytical that you miss the obvious. The numbers are clay, you can mold them however you please, water 'em down and make 'em softer if you want.

You can form all the opinions you want about players you never saw (I do it too), just don't act surprised when someone who DID see them play (at their VERY best) tells you what you thought was "absolutely true" is really "blatently wrong".

As a guy who spent a fair amount of his life on a pitcher's mound, YOU DON'T play baseball on a calculator - and when the game is being played, you don't care what a guy's OPS is, because it WILL change with this at bat, one way or the other.
Permalink
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
833 days ago
Score -1+-
and "average player" numbers can be skewed by guys hitting 60-70 HRs, by better or worse pitching seasons, injuries, years when typically statistical monster players had off years, changes in the balls, bats, equipment, rules, el Ninos, new ballparks, changes in ballparks, medical advancements, technological advancements, umpires, QuesTec being introduced, solar flares, bad plane flights during road trips, false alarms at the team's hotels...

Brady Anderson skewed the "league averages" a couple times, Vinny Castilla, Dante Bichette, Greg Vaughn, Brad Fullmer, etc. When you have a league full of these guys tainting the data, how can you find USEFUL information with it?

Just because a stat is there, doen't mean it's saying anything valuable...

Sometimes a baseball player is just a baseball player.

There are SO MANY things skewing each season that it is only THEORETICALLY possible to calculate a baseline.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
834 days ago
Score -1+-
Here's the (non-statistical) deal: Mattingly was a much, much better contact hitter than Bagwell. He was a significantly better fielder than Bagwell. He was also nowhere near as powerful a hitter as Bagwell,(true) and had nowhere near the plate patience of Bagwell (false). Bagwell was also a better baserunner (false). Agreed? So how do all of those skills come together to win games? That's where you have to look at the numbers! Mattingly's edges in batting average and fielding are nice (nicer when you adjust for era), but Bagwell's power and patience advantages are simply more important to creating runs and, consequently, winning games. Sorry, but that's the way it is.(false)
Permalink | Reply
Davis21wylieMVP
834 days ago
Score 1+-
Whoops, you're right, I forgot to think about "True Yankeeism," which boosts all True Yankees' weaknesses and turns them into strengths. Well played, good sir!
Permalink
Kwitt11Varsity Captain
834 days ago
Score 1+-
Bagwell drew 1401 walks, Mattingly drew 588. Bagwell stole 202 bases, Mattingly stole 14. I'd say Bagwell has a huge edge in plate discipline and baserunning. And every single study has shown that hitting for power and getting on base are more important than making contact and having a high fielding percentage.
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
834 days ago
Score 1+-
Except when discussing Yankee great Don Mattingly. So all of that is declared void!
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
834 days ago
Score 0+-
This has nothing to do with the Yankees, Davis.
Permalink | Reply
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
834 days ago
Score 0+-
I agree with KD...

Bagwell was the best player and captain on teams with stars/potential HoFers in Biggio, Kent and Berkman...

Mattingly was the best player and captain on teams with BONAFIDE Hall of Famers (Winfield, Ricky Henderson, Wade Boggs)
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
834 days ago
Score 1+-
Yup, Wade Boggs played the best years of his career as a NY Yankee. He even got to ride a NYPD horse in Yankee Stadium! How cool is that?
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
834 days ago
Score 1+-
And Steve Howe! Don't forget about him....
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
834 days ago
Score 0+-
Baserunning and stolen bases have nothing to do with each other. Talking to your computer again, KWitt?
Permalink | Reply
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
834 days ago
Score 3+-
100% correct. Nobody, I mean NOBODY, ran the bases more eloquently with style and grace than Don Mattingly. Its not how fast a baseball player rounds the bags but rather how good he looks doing so. Hell, I remember watching highlights with Mattingly going around second in slow-mo with Chariots of Fire in the background. Oh how his mane flowed freely underneath the helmet with the 'stache fluttering defiantly against the breeze. What a lion! And Bagwell? Puhlease, the guy looked like a Clydesdale with a broken hip trying to steal second.
Permalink
Kwitt11Varsity Captain
834 days ago
Score 0+-
You are correct that SBs and baserunning aren't the same thing...but they're usually pretty closely related. And unless you have any proof that the SB numbers lie, there's no reason to assume they do.
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
834 days ago
Score 1+-
Aw com'on now, you damn well know that total career stolen bases are skewered. Its not Don's fault that he had guys like Winfield to knock'em out of the park and bring him home without having to get the uniform dusty sliding into second...
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
834 days ago
Score 1+-
We need to consult Julio Franco on this discussion. After all, this guy played against both players in their prime.
Permalink | Reply
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
834 days ago
Score 1+-
Ask Derek Jeter!
Permalink
Manny StilesMajor Leaguer
834 days ago
Score 0+-
or like I said, ask Bagwell himself - he'll say Mattingly was better too!
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
834 days ago
Score 1+-
Jeter is a biased. Deep down he resents Mattingly's superior 80s metrosexiness!
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
834 days ago
Score 0+-
Still waiting for the new Maxim, Tyrone?
Permalink | Reply
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
834 days ago
Score 2+-
Why? Is Mattingly's wife posing in a special issue of baseball MILFs?
Permalink
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
834 days ago
Score 0+-
Auditions for the role of Don Mattingly in "Pride of the Yankees, Part II" are now closed! tom_selleck_3.jpg
Permalink | Reply
KelsdadAll-Star
834 days ago
Score 0+-
Not that I know of, but after three kids and in her 40's, you can look at her if you want. I was referring to "metrosexiness." Sure sign of someone needing relief.
Permalink | Reply
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
834 days ago
Score 0+-
Don Mattingly was a big pioneer in making it "okay" to care about one's appearance in a baseball uniform. Jeter and A-Rod are eternally grateful. (btw - metro does not equal homo)
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
834 days ago
Score 0+-
I know what it means.
Permalink | Reply
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
834 days ago
Score 0+-
Hell, with my wife now 6 months pregnant, even Mrs. Don Shula in those NutriSystem commercials is starting to look like a hot piece of ass!
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
834 days ago
Score 0+-
See, told you so!!!
Permalink | Reply
Kwitt11Varsity Captain
833 days ago
Score 1+-
Or maybe I'll put it this way - If someone put a gun to my head and said

"Who had better stats, Mattingly of Bagwell?" I would say Bagwell...

If they put a gun to my head and said "Who was a better baseball player, Mattingly or Bagwell?" - It's Mattingly - there's nothing to figure out.

Don't get so analytical that you miss the obvious. The numbers are clay, you can mold them however you please, water 'em down and make 'em softer if you want.</i>

Why is it "obvious" that Mattingly is better than Bagwell? If you believe that the stats are misleading and that Mattingly was the better player, despite what the stats say, that's fine...but that's just your opinion, and there's no proof that it's correct. Personally, I'll take Bagwell, because the stats show that he produced more on the field.

And, regarding your "average player" comment...I actually don't know if those stats use "average" or "median" as their baseline, but even if they did use the median, I bet it wouldn't change things much. The stats show that, relative to other players of his era, Bagwell produced more than Mattingly. That is a fact.
Permalink | Reply
Kwitt11Varsity Captain
833 days ago
Score 1+-
sorry, supposed to be in response to Manny's comment a little ways up.
Permalink
Anonymous Fanatic #1
828 days ago
Score 1+-
You folks might care to know that Don Mattingly averaged 368.5 outs a season in fourteen seasons and that Jeff Bagwell averaged 392.5 outs a season in fifteen. The difference is a mere 24 outs between them. The bottom line, and I saw both men play during their careers, is that Jeff Bagwell---playing a little over half his career in a home park that was far less friendly to hitters overall (oh, the Astrodome was yummy if you were a slap-and-tickle hitter with a fat batting average and not much else in the way of run production to show for it)---reached base a hell of a lot more often than Don Mattingly and used a few less outs to do it.

Bagwell created more runs per game than Mattingly by a considerable enough margin (8.1 for Bagwell to 6.0 for Mattingly); and, though I don't know you'd have thought of either man as a stolen base man, you can use their stolen base averages as a decent indicator of their baserunning abilities. And if you do, it's no contest. I submit Jeff Bagwell's teams were benefitted far more by the .721 stolen base percentage of the Clydesdale with the broken hip than Don Mattingly's teams were by the .608 of the free-flowing mane with the mustache fluttering defiantly.

Bagwell also took a boatload more walks than Mattingly and they weren't all intentional walks: Mattingly finished with 588 walks (average per 162 games: 53) including 136 intentional walks (average per 162: nine); Bagwell finished with 1,401 walks (average per 162 games: 106) including 155 intentional walks (average per 162: 12). I submit that Bagwell was the far more disciplined hitter and that the pitchers in his time feared him more.
Permalink | Reply
Anonymous Fanatic #1
828 days ago
Score 1+-
I should have noted, too, that Bagwell was actually a slightly better defencive first baseman, not to mention he had 58 more extra base hits that weren't home runs. And as for hitting discipline, well, how much more disciplined could Don Mattingly have been when his lifetime batting average was only ten points higher than Jeff Bagwell's despite playing in a far friendlier home park?
Permalink
Anonymous Fanatic #1
828 days ago
Score 1+-
Strike that "used a few less outs to do it"---I meant to edit that out! They actually used up the same outs on balance, but that makes Bagwell's case more compelling, anyway.
Permalink
Add your Comment
ArmchairGM welcomes all comments. If you don't want to be anonymous, Register or Login. It's free


Retrieved from "http://armchairgm.wikia.com/The_Bags_Under_Our_Eyes"

This page was last modified 05:54, 27 August 2007. Content is available under the GFDL.

Contribute

ArmchairGM's pages can be edited.
Is this page incomplete? Is there anything wrong?
Change it!

Edit this page Discuss this page Page history

Recent contributors to this page

The following people recently contributed to this article.

Embed this on your site

Main Page About Special Pages Help Terms of Use Advertise