Clueless Homers, you said 58 right, I easily accumulated 105 in very short order. Therefore, 105-58=47 Quit talking and start doing, take 47 names off that list and get back to me with your rationale, then we will start the debate. Ironically, I left off a heck off a lot of better players than Thomas from the list, I just wanted to see your reactions to his obviously better numbers, back to back MVPs says a lot in my book to give the edge to Thomas, but I don't actually think he is top 100 or Catfish Hunter, just put them on to show how subjective all of this is as Hunter had a 5 year stretch that rivals anything Bagwell ever accomplished, plus he is 3-time world series champion (3 in a row I might add). I take that over Bagwell any day of the week. So take 47 players off my list, and then we will start the debate - remember 58 was the proclamation - but trust me when you look back at the numbers put up in the history of baseball, there are probably 200 players with better offensive hitting numbers than Bagwell - especially when you adjust for era and supplements. Hitting near .400 cuts through eras, ballparks, supplements - it has always been the real standard in baseball. Not taking a bunch of roids, hitting pop fly's that find the moved in seats with live balls that fly out without being barreled, and where shortstops and part time players hit 20 plus home runs in an era. So put up, or shut up!
Maybe you guys will start learning about the history of baseball before you were born - thus, recency bias.
You assume ppl don't know something because they hold a different opinion from yours. (Even when those ppl have already provided more information about said topic than you have!) You then label them "clueless homers". That's called ad hominem. Look it up if you need to. "Here's my list of 100 guys better than your guy!' "Ok, here are some statistics and logic for one of the guys on your list that show he's clearly inferior." "Oh yeah?! Well, I left guys off that are better than that guy AND your guy! You don't know anything about history!" Wait--I thought that was your list of 100 best guys? Which is it? That's called a moving target. You can look that up, too, if you need to. I don't know about others, but I'm interested in logical discussion, not this prepubescent BS.
During an attempt to prop his hero, a guy claimed the 1980's was the Dead Ball Era. Then, the same guy calls other people Clueless Homers.
I think it’s best that we just move on. Even if 99% of the population that understands baseball says Bagwell is a top 100 player of all time there will still be that 1% that dismisses the truth. We’re also not experts either so our opinion isn’t correct. However, the same guy that reportedly called Pedro Guerrero the “best hitter God has made in a long time” also has Bagwell in his top FIFTY of all time. http://baseballevolution.com/top100s/billjames100.html
Dead ball era defined Clueless Homer 1986 (NL AL) Mike Schmidt+ (PHI) 37 Jesse Barfield (TOR) 40 1985 (NL AL) Dale Murphy (ATL) 37 Darrell Evans* (DET) 40 1984 (NL AL) Dale Murphy (ATL) • Mike Schmidt+ (PHI) 36 Tony Armas (BOS) 43 1983 (NL AL) Mike Schmidt+ (PHI) 40 Jim Rice+ (BOS) 39 1982 (NL AL) Dave Kingman (NYM) 37 Reggie Jackson+* (CAL) • Gorman Thomas (MIL) 39 1981 (NL AL) Mike Schmidt+ (PHI) 31 Tony Armas (OAK) • Dwight Evans (BOS) • Bobby Grich (CAL) • Eddie Murray+# (BAL) 22 versus: 2007 (NL AL) Prince Fielder* (MIL) 50 Alex Rodriguez (NYY) 54 2006 (NL AL) Ryan Howard* (PHI) 58 David Ortiz* (BOS) 54 2005 (NL AL) Andruw Jones (ATL) 51 Alex Rodriguez (NYY) 48 2004 (NL AL) Adrian Beltre (LAD) 48 Manny Ramirez (BOS) 43 2003 (NL AL) Jim Thome+* (PHI) 47 Alex Rodriguez (TEX) 47 2002 (NL AL) Sammy Sosa (CHC) 49 Alex Rodriguez (TEX) 57 2001 (NL AL) Barry Bonds* (SFG) 73 Alex Rodriguez (TEX) 52 2000 (NL AL) Sammy Sosa (CHC) 50 Troy Glaus (ANA) 47 1999 (NL AL) Mark McGwire (STL) 65 Ken Griffey+* (SEA) 48 1998 (NL AL) Mark McGwire (STL) 70 Ken Griffey+* (SEA) 56 1997 (NL AL) Larry Walker+* (COL) 49 Ken Griffey+* (SEA) 56 1996 (NL AL) Andres Galarraga (COL) 47 Mark McGwire (OAK) 52
Dead Ball was closer to 1880 than 1980. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead-ball_era The fact you only consider hitting when speaking position-players makes you appear even more foolish. Keep up the good work.
omg Here, let me google that for you. But, carry on calling other people clueless. Really, thanks for the entertainment. That's the funniest thing I've seen on here in quite a while.
"You people didn't think this through!" "You people don't want to learn anything about baseball history!" "You people suffer from recency bias!" "The deadball era was in the 1980s, clueless homer!" It doesn't get any better than that. Comedy genius.
OTE="Houstunna, post: 12826963, member: 57411"]Dead Ball was closer to 1880 than 1980. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead-ball_era The fact you only consider hitting when speaking position-players makes you appear even more foolish. Keep up the good work.[/QUOTE] Everything is relative, live ball, dead ball, juiced ball, juiced players, etc - once you start introducing the magic of supplements, moving in fences, juicing players and balls, leading to 20 home run guys start hitting 70 out of the park - which you guys are so "our sh@@@t don't stink" please... Bagwell benefited from this era, and his numbers are inflated just like ken caminiti. Moreover, players who played during the era where power hitters like Andre Dawson, Dale Murphy and Pedro Guerrero played their numbers are deflated, these guys home run numbers would all be much higher if they played during Bagwell's era. To deny this is ignorance, stupidity or just plain stubbornness driven by psychological factors - studies have shown that people will believe what they want despite contrary evidence, ok - so Bagwell was pure as the given snow, (meanwhile high school baseball players were on Andro and creatine products), and he never benefited from the era of inflated numbers, that is the definition of a homer. Since, nobody is going to actually take my challenge, bunch of "all talk wussies" then I am done here, and moving onto more productive discussions.
Hey, Joe. No one is denying the 1980s numbers are deflated compared to the steroid era. But you called it the Deadball Era. That's inaccurate. And, you did so after lambasting others for not knowing their history. Can you not see the beautiful dripping irony there? Numbers DO exist for comparing players from different eras, although they are far from perfect. There are statistics that draw how a baseball player performs against everyone else who played in an entire season, then takes the delta of a player's individual performance from the league-wide norm. Taking this number, the most common of which is WAR, one can compare how far a player in 2009 distanced himself from his peers versus how far a player in 1946 distanced himself from his peers. Get it? Most of us in here have looked at these things. Some of us did exhaustive research on it after some great Astros retired, because we wanted to see how they really stacked up against the greats. If you want to pretend these metrics don't exist, or dismiss them with a sweep of the hand while calling others "clueless homers", you're welcome to. And, if you're "done with us all-talk wusses", I don't think anyone will be sad to see you go. But, thanks for the deadball era laugh.
WAR doesn't do what you think it does, the biz of baseball stats promotes a lot of fallacies in thinking - sabermetrics as an industry is fraught with more charlatanism than actual scientific rigor. People quote these metrics like candy for discussions, but don't realize the limitations and shortcomings behind each metric and its application. A whole lot of pseudo statisticians walking around the baseball world these days.
Don't worry MSN - I like your discussion - you are smart, have passion, and no hard feelings for you guys making arguments for your favorite players. Wussies is tongue and cheek
This is the single dumbest ******* thing I've seen all day. You never answered my question: who are the 9 Astros better than Jeff Bagwell? Or you're just a retread troll, whichever makes you happy.
If you wanted to be really helpful, you'd link my original post. I have no idea which thread it's in, or who I responded to initially. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.
