I looked up the offensive stats, Thomas has better numbers, you mean when bagwell couldn't throw the ball from first anymore because of his bum shoulder. This isn't a position award, best 100 baseball players in total. I could have picked guys like Manny Ramírez, David Ortiz and many other players who are in the hall of fame - this is a subjective undertaking at best - and the Athletic's only purpose was to build subs from each city, they compiled this list with that purpose in mind, just follow the money - you Houston Homers fell right into their trap - go sign up for their service to read all about Bagwell's great accomplishments in baseball that make him number 58 all-time!
I didn't penalize Bagwell for using steroids, he just isn't that special even among his own steroid brethren - there are other players during this steroid era who I put ahead of him who may or may not have used steroids, it didn't factor in, these players we will call grey area, there are just better players than Bagwell numbers wise during his own era who didn't test positive either for roids.
Whether he is 58th or not is clearly up for debate, but as a baseball player, Bagwell did many more things much better than Frank Thomas.
You guys never thought this through, I could easily add another 25 players who were better hitters in early baseball, sure they don't have a lot of the power stats, but it was a different era, these are good hitters. Just think about having the advantages of protein powder alone - 50 grams of pure protein in a glass, much less Creatine, Andro products and a bunch of other supplements that MLB management didn't even know existed for about 6 years after every kid in the world was integrating these supplements into their training regimen, this doesn't even get into the area of steroids, designer steroids, and HGH which flew under the radar even after the steroid mess with players blew over.
Yeah, if you’re going off numbers like you say. Well over half of your list is worse than Bagwell. Most credible lists (you posted) have him top 100. You are way underselling Bagwell as an all around player, even as just an offensive threat he had one of the best 10 year stretches of all times. That’s excluding fielding, base running and overall game. You are just flat out wrong and hating just to hate.
Yeah I noticed just from the discussion here that Astros fans really focus on this comparison, and I wasn't even going to include Thomas, but I looked at his numbers, and they are just better, I think Thomas was just going through the motions for a bunch of his seasons being on bad teams, but first base isn't really a defensive minded position anyway. I included him, but I am sure I could substitute better players than him, was working on other stuff, and didn't really do an exhaustive search on this list. The whole point was that Houston Fans overrate Bagwell because they grew up watching him, and place more emphasis on the numbers he put up, in an obvious inflated era of baseball stats - see Sammy Sosa. This is what I meant by recency bias versus the 1920s, or some other era in baseball history.
Playoff-great, Pedro Guerrero, is only 100 points (OPS) better in the postseason than the sorry sucky Jeff Bagwell. The great contact-hitter, Pedro Guerrero, has a worse career K-BB ratio than the flailing fool named Jeff Bagwell -- despite playing in an era that produced more walks and fewer strikeouts.
Well Garvey certainly tried to prove that with many of the womenfolk of San Diego... How truly sheltered we were back then, to think that Steve Garvey was the epitome of out of wedlock fatherhood. Garvey isn't even a bad year for Antonio Cromartie. Pedro did have one really, really good year. Just not enough of them.
The 'Well, actually...' is strong on the Internet. I did laugh out loud when he brought up BR as a cite, and meant Bleacher Report.
I thought greenies were straight amphetamine, not methamphetamine? It does make a difference. Thank you though for bringing up greenies. So many of the Steroid Era torch-bearing mob forget their heroes were on just as many pharmaceuticals as the guys in the 90s-00s. Yet that didn't make what Bob Gibson did unclean, or unworthy of the Hall.
Kudos for making a list, Joe Smith. I really didn't think you'd do it. It's just as subjective as you're accusing others of being, but you're actually giving us documentation of your subjectivity while the alleged subjectivity can only be speculated upon. You underrate Bagwell because you're still bitter about the 90s playoffs. Anyone who disagrees with you, most of whom have provided actual facts versus your rhetorical BS, is a "Houston Homer." You stated earlier how much analysis would be required, then you come up with a list that's just as subjective as any other, only far less informed. Since you're picking on us over Thomas: You rate Thomas over Bagwell, stating Thomas's numbers are better. When Bagwell retired, Thomas had a career-threatening injury as well. At the time, their numbers were eerily similar. Each had 15 years of playing time. Each had 449 bombs (but those don't count in your world...). The avg, slg, and obp were remarkably close. At the plate, one really couldn't tell the difference. But, then this is Major league BASEBALL, not Major League Hitting. Bagwell's baserunning is laughably, hilariously superior to Thomas. Bagwell's defense was feared. If it weren't for JT Snow he'd have 5 or 6 gold gloves. Thomas? More at-bats at DH, cause dude was a hack defensively. Then Thomas came back in '07 from his injury and padded his counting stats for a couple years. That's why the comparison is significant for us: it exposes ignorance quick. If you seriously think Thomas is a better player, one doesn't have to take your opinion seriously. It's biased. Not by "recency", but in your case by October bitterness. A mountain of facts puts Bagwell in at least the top 80 all-time. One could do a similar exercise with half the names on your list. But this isn't about statistical evidence or facts: you said so yourself. It's subjective. You have gave us your standards: they have to seem to have done well in the playoffs, they have to seem to be good contact hitters in your memory (because statistically, Bagwell's better at that than a heap of your list, but you know, statistics are meaningless...). And, evidently, they have to have not played for the Astros after the year 1981. Can't argue with the subjectivity though. It's your list. Well done for the effort.
lolllll I’ve seen it all “I can name 100 players better than Bagwell” *Days later* “Here are a few links that says Bagwell is anywhere between 41 and 69. Too much variance!!!” *Moments later* “If only (insert player from the 70s) played during Bagwell’s era” lollllllll thanks for letting me know you were never serious about having a good debate on this.
it happens when people come in with their own hot take that counters the OP’s thread but fails to make any credible claims. Frank Thomas better than Bagwell lol might as well say Mark McGwire was a better 1st baseman than Bagwell too
