MLB 2016

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Yes.

I think Houston and Detroit fans would strongly disagree with you. 

[GGGG]

"I don't care if Marquette finished 7th in the Big East and missed the post season.  They finished first in point differential!!!"

[tower912]

I think Houston and Detroit fans would strongly disagree with you.

Detroit fan here.   Yeah, it would be difficult for you to be more wrong.     

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Detroit fan here.   Yeah, it would be difficult for you to be more wrong.   

Me???

[🏀]

You honestly believe that a team that won 84 games and missed the postseason had a better season than a team that finished 11 games ahead of them in the standings, won their division and finished with the best record in the AL?

That's impossibly stupid.

Are you shocked?

[tower912]

Me???

I am agreeing with you about Houston and Detroit fan perspectives.    Not obvious?

[GGGG]

I am agreeing with you about Houston and Detroit fan perspectives.    Not obvious?

No.  You said "it would be difficult for you to be more wrong" when quoting his post.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

I am agreeing with you about Houston and Detroit fan perspectives.    Not obvious?

I thought you said it would be difficult for me to be more wrong instead of the original poster. 

No worries.

[tower912]

Doh. Mea Culpa.   I agree with you, VBMG.   

[MUDPT]

Texas wasn't good, they were lucky. That's all.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/games/situational.cgi?from=1901&to=2016&0=2&1=3&rsgtlt=gt&rs=5&ragtlt=gt&ra=5&2=6&trgtlt=gt&tr=10&3=9&mvgtlt=lt&mv=1&4=10&owlsgtlt=gt&owls=.500&sortby=WP&teams=team&years=each&submit=Run+Situation

If they were .500 like any normal team in 1 run games, they would have not won the division or been in the playoffs.

Sultan, Marquette will never finish 7th in the Big East with the best point differential.

[buckchuckler]

So you don't believe that teams have any capacity to control their results in 1 run games?

Fact is they weren't .500.  They were much better than that.  The problem with putting too much emphasis on predictive stats like run differential, is that they aren't real.  Their record is real.  That is how they fared over the longest season in sports.  That seems like a fair representation of how good they were. 

[CTWarrior]

So you don't believe that teams have any capacity to control their results in 1 run games?

Fact is they weren't .500.  They were much better than that.  The problem with putting too much emphasis on predictive stats like run differential, is that they aren't real.  Their record is real.  That is how they fared over the longest season in sports.  That seems like a fair representation of how good they were.

Baseball statheads think run differential is a better measure of the true quality of a team than is W-L record because run differential is a better predictor of future results.  Teams do not have a magic ability to win close games.  Most people think a great bullpen is what gets you to win close games, but some teams win close games because their bullpen turns 8-3 leads into 8-7 wins.

Of course, all that matters in reality is W-L record, because the team with the best W-L record wins the division, and the one with the better W-L record in the playoff series wins the series.  So while run differential may be a better indicator of true quality, nobody would rather have a better run differential and a worse record than someone else.

[MerrittsMustache]

Jeff Bagwell? Tim Raines? The Hall of Very Good continues to open its doors to new members!

[buckchuckler]

Jeff Bagwell? Tim Raines? The Hall of Very Good continues to open its doors to new members!

Did you know that over the course of baseball history about 1.5% of players are enshrined in the Hall of Fame.  Since 1980, it is less than 1% that have been accepted into the Hall.  If anything the standards are getting tougher and tougher. 

Bagwell's career slash line was .297/.408/.540 (that is an OPS of .948).  He did that over 15 seasons.  488 Doubles, 449 HR, 1529 RBI.  He walked over 1400 times.  He averaged 33 doubles 30 HR, over 90 BB and over 100 RBI per season.  Not quite sure what you are looking for from a HOFer.

Raines' biggest fault always seemed that he wasn't Ricky Henderson.  He did everything well, and did it for a long time.

[Spotcheck Billy]

Did you know that over the course of baseball history about 1.5% of players are enshrined in the Hall of Fame.  Since 1980, it is less than 1% that have been accepted into the Hall.  If anything the standards are getting tougher and tougher. 

I blame expansion.

[jmayer1]

Jeff Bagwell? Tim Raines? The Hall of Very Good continues to open its doors to new members!

The best post WWII 1b (after Pujols) shouldn't be in the HOF?!?!

[GGGG]

The best post WWII 1b (after Pujols) shouldn't be in the HOF?!?!

Depends on how you classify Stan Musial, Frank Thomas and Miguel Cabrera. 

But Jeff Bagwell should be in the HOF. 

[MerrittsMustache]

The best post WWII 1b (after Pujols) shouldn't be in the HOF?!?!

The best post-WWII 1B should be in the HOF. That's not Bagwell though.

In no particular order, Pujols, Musial, Cabrera, McCovey, Murray, Thomas - all better 1B than Bagwell. There are also guys like Rod Carew, Ernie Banks  and Harmon Killebrew who spent a lot of time at 1B who I'd rank ahead of Bagwell.

[jmayer1]

Depends on how you classify Stan Musial, Frank Thomas and Miguel Cabrera. 

But Jeff Bagwell should be in the HOF.

Musial only played about 1/3 of his games at first, Cabrera is about 1/2 currently, and Thomas was 42% so wasn't really considering them true 1b. It's also a debate whether either of the last 2 are better than Bagwell overall.

There's a few others that you can toss in the hat too (Thome, McCovey, Palmeiro), but their peaks don't quite measure up IMO. If Bagwell could have overcome the shoulder injury and hung around for 3 or 4 more years at slightly above replacement level to rack up some counting stats, that doesn't make him a better player I don't think.

[CTWarrior]

I think both Raines and Bagwell were overdue.  Ivan Rodriguez surprised me, both as a first ballot guy and as a probable steroid user.  Canseco called him out as a regular steroid user, and everyone that could be verified that he called out turned out to be steroid guys. So why is he in and Bonds/Clemens not?  The only real difference is that Bonds and Clemens ended up having ridiculous stats and Ivan Rodriguez only very good ones.

[wadesworld]

Bagwell is very deserving.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

I actually think Fred McGriff has an argument to get in.  493 HRs, 441 doubles, 2,490 hits, 1,305 BBs, and a career slash line of .284/.377/.509/.886.  Per 162 averages of 32 HRs and 102 RBIs.

[buckchuckler]

Musial only played about 1/3 of his games at first, Cabrera is about 1/2 currently, and Thomas was 42% so wasn't really considering them true 1b.It's also a debate whether either of the last 2 are better than Bagwell overall.

Hmmm.  I would say it is debatable, but it would be much more difficult to be on the side of the debate that Bagwell is better than either Thomas or Cabrera. 

[CTWarrior]

Bagwell is very deserving.

Agree.  OPS+ for selection of first basemen listed above since WW2 (plus some others not mentioned)  OPS+ in on base % + Slugging % then normalized for the era and parks where you played, which allows a fair comparison between eras.  The first number is their all-time rank among all players.

11 - Mark McGwire 163 (63% better than an average MLB hitter over the course of his career)
15 - Stan Musial 159
18 - Albert Pujols 157
21 - Dick Allen 156 (very underrated.  Played in the pitching dominated 60s in poor hitters parks and had a relatively short career, all of which makes his numbers look much less impressive)
21 - Frank Thomas 156
24 - Miguel Cabrera 155
37 - Jeff Bagwell 149
42 - Willie McCovey 147
42 - Willie Stargell 147
42 - Jim Thome 147
57 - Harmon Killebrew 143
62 - Frank Howard 142
118 - Prince Fielder  134 (If he didn't get hurt, I think it is safe to say his career ranking would have declined steadily as he aged.)
118 - Fred McGriff 134

So in theory, this makes Bagwell among the top 40 offensive players on a per rate basis in history, and it is safe to say he was a better defensive first baseman than any of the others on the list.

Hard to see how he is not a HOFer, unless you believe the steroids accusations, which is why he wasn't inducted sooner. 

[buckchuckler]

I actually think Fred McGriff has an argument to get in.  493 HRs, 441 doubles, 2,490 hits, 1,305 BBs, and a career slash line of .284/.377/.509/.886.  Per 162 averages of 32 HRs and 102 RBIs.

More than an argument.  I would say he should certainly be in.  I would say he and Kent are both deserving (as well as Vlad, Hoffman, and Mussina.  Probably Edgar as well.  I am unsure on Wagner and Schilling...)

If I had a ballot it would have been:
Bagwell, Raines, Vlad, Hoffman, Mussina, McGriff, Kent and Edgar.  If I was voting (I haven't had the time since I am not) I would dig more into Wagner, Schilling and Larry Walker. 

Funny side note on Raines, he was a guy, that when he was on the Sox, I never felt like I was watching a HOF-er.  But his years with the Expos were his prime where he was a truly great player.