Keiper's Pit

But, Bagwell also had the advantage of playing 1B in the NL for his entire career except for the occasional interleague DH's. Other than Galarraga, no other sluggers in his range had that chance.

 

I'd still put McCovey ahead of Bagwell, when comparing the time periods. Plus, McCovey slowed down in the end of his career. If he played in the last decade, he could have magically gotten stronger like that current Giant.

 

I guess Cap Anson and Brouthers are in there, also... but, I don't know how one can properly rate players from the 19th century.

Willie McCovey definitely has one of the best arguments. For three years, McCovey was absolutely the most feared hitter in the National League. Bagwell edges McCovey in OPS+, 150 to 148. Bagwell would gain an advantage when it comes to fielding and especially baserunning. It's close, but even if McCovey beats Bagwell that is not much of a black mark.

 

Players of the 19th Century are hard to rate, yes. You tend to look at Anson's totals and assume that he also competed in a dead ball era. The average runs scored per game in the National League from 1993-2006 range from 4.49 to 5.0 even. In Anson's era however, runs per game ranged from 4.54 to 7.36! Only three years did the league average of runs scored in Anson's career fall below five runs per game. So you need to discount his offense somewhat, but you can't dismiss it. I tend to think Anson and 90% of the 19th Century players could not dominate the way they did today. The structure of the game was not as competitive as today.

Out of curiosity, how much stock do you put in a player’s postseason performances when pondering stuff like this? (Example: Bagwell was great, but he faded in the playoffs. Or at least that’s according to my memory.)

Out of curiosity, how much stock do you put in a player’s postseason performances when pondering stuff like this? (Example: Bagwell was great, but he faded in the playoffs. Or at least that’s according to my memory.)

I don't think there is a player in baseball whose candidacy is determined by their postseason performance. Bagwell indeed performed poorly in the postseason, hitting .226 in 33 games. But how much stock can you honestly place on 33 games? I'm not confident that it reveals much about Bagwell besides some bad luck in big games. Another thing to consider is most of that was built in his first four postseasons, consisting of 14 games. In those 14 games he faced Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine three times apiece, John Smoltz and Kevin Brown twice, and starts against Kevin Millwood and Andy Ashby. Bagwell faced enormously difficult pitching in the postseason.