Gammons: Bagwell deserves Hall of Fame call

[Houston]

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20101226&content_id=16368866&vkey=perspectives&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

[Limey]

Thanks for this.  Glad to see that Gammons has moved off his inexplicable position of Thomas yes, Bagwell no..

Game over:

Tracy turns to the conventional statistical line: His .297/.540/.408 should be an automatic pass key, as every eligible player with .290/.500/.400 is already in the Hall. Bagwell scored 1,517 runs and knocked in 1,529. Every eligible player with 1,500 runs and 1,500 RBIs is already in Cooperstown. The other 15 players who hit the 1,500/1,500 level for one team are all in the Hall.

[roadrunner]

Fantastic article.  Gammons is respected in the baseball media world, so hopefully this helps Baggy's cause.

[Mr. Happy]

Glad to see that Whitey got one right.

[jester9450]

Nope don't think it will happen.

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

Nope don't think it will happen.

Honestly, you're probably right, at least this year.  But the Bagwell-Biggio joint entry in 2012 will be a thing of beauty.

[HudsonHawk]

Honestly, you're probably right, at least this year.  But the Bagwell-Biggio joint entry in 2012 will be a thing of beauty.

I hope I'm wrong, and I should be.  But I think it's time to start bracing yourselves for the reality that Bagwell ain't gettin' in.  Ever.

[Mr. Happy]

I hope I'm wrong, and I should be.  But I think it's time to start bracing yourselves for the reality that Bagwell ain't gettin' in.  Ever.

Why do you think that it is time to start thinking that Bagwell will never get into the HOF?

[Astroholic]

I hope I'm wrong, and I should be.  But I think it's time to start bracing yourselves for the reality that Bagwell ain't gettin' in.  Ever.

ever is a long time.

[HudsonHawk]

Why do you think that it is time to start thinking that Bagwell will never get into the HOF?

Because I don't think he will.

[astrosfan76]

I hope I'm wrong, and I should be.  But I think it's time to start bracing yourselves for the reality that Bagwell ain't gettin' in.  Ever.

Footer tweets:

After spending the better part of the last 2 days reading about who HOF voters voted for this year, I'm ready to make my Bagwell prediction.

I'm predicting he gets between 46-50 percent of the vote, which falls short of the 75 percent needed.

However, if he gets that high of a percentage this year, it probably means he'll get in next year.

Unless something truly heinous comes out, he's virtually a lock if he can get close to half this year.

[Reuben]

Footer tweets:

Unless something truly heinous comes out, he's virtually a lock if he can get close to half this year.

that's about what barry larkin got last year, right? Be interesting to see what he gets this time.

I've seen some dumb-ass reasoning for not voting for Bagwell. Phil rogers said he's not voting for him but noted that being traded ( and therefore playing in the Dome instead of Fenway) probably cost him the big numbers that would gaurantee making it. Uh, Phil, if you can recognize that, then why aren't you voting for him?

[HudsonHawk]

Footer tweets:

Unless something truly heinous comes out, he's virtually a lock if he can get close to half this year.

I disagree. But I hope you're right.

[astrosfan76]

that's about what barry larkin got last year, right? Be interesting to see what he gets this time.

I've seen some dumb-ass reasoning for not voting for Bagwell. Phil rogers said he's not voting for him but noted that being traded ( and therefore playing in the Dome instead of Fenway) probably cost him the big numbers that would gaurantee making it. Uh, Phil, if you can recognize that, then why aren't you voting for him?

Writers will come up with any reason to create a sense of pseudo-sanctity for the Hall.  I don't believe they should water down the process like other sports, but when no player has come within 5 votes of being unanimous, something is wrong. 

[Houston]

If Bagwell doesn't get in this year, his competition next year is very weak. Here the list for next year's first-year eligible players:

2012
Edgardo Alfonzo, Pedro Astacio, David Bell, Jeromy Burnitz, Vinny Castilla, Scott Erickson, Carl Everett, Jeff Fassero, Alex S. Gonzalez, Danny Graves, Rick Helling, Dustin Hermanson, Jose Hernandez, Brian Jordan, Matt Lawton, Javy Lopez, Bill Mueller, Terry Mulholland, Jeff Nelson, Phil Nevin, Brad Radke, Joe Randa, Tim Salmon, Ruben Sierra, Jose Vizcaino, Bernie Williams, Eric Young.

But two years from now, look out!
Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Craig Biggio, Curt Schilling, Sammy Sosa, Mike Piazza, Kenny Lofton, among others.

[Mr. Happy]

Because I don't think he will.

I ascertained that you didn't think that he would ever get in. What I was looking for was your rationale for your position.

[HudsonHawk]

I ascertained that you didn't think that he would ever get in. What I was looking for was your rationale for your position.

I think too many voters will view him in that "very good, but not HOF" category.

[Mr. Happy]

I think too many voters will view him in that "very good, but not HOF" category.

The points that Whitey made may be sufficient in and of themselves to offset the lack of the "automatic" numbers of 3,000 hits and/or 500 home runs. I see your point, though, and I believe that Fuckhouse is correct--he won't get in this year.

[austro]

2012
Edgardo Alfonzo, Pedro Astacio, David Bell, Jeromy Burnitz, Vinny Castilla, Scott Erickson, Carl Everett, Jeff Fassero, Alex S. Gonzalez, Danny Graves, Rick Helling, Dustin Hermanson, Jose Hernandez, Brian Jordan, Matt Lawton, Javy Lopez, Bill Mueller, Terry Mulholland, Jeff Nelson, Phil Nevin, Brad Radke, Joe Randa, Tim Salmon, Ruben Sierra, Jose Vizcaino, Bernie Williams, Eric Young.

If Danny Graves had played his entire career at MinuteMaid, he'd be in the HOF.

[Ron Brand]

If Bagwell doesn't get in this year, his competition next year is very weak. Here the list for next year's first-year eligible players:

2012
Edgardo Alfonzo, Pedro Astacio, David Bell, Jeromy Burnitz, Vinny Castilla, Scott Erickson, Carl Everett, Jeff Fassero, Alex S. Gonzalez, Danny Graves, Rick Helling, Dustin Hermanson, Jose Hernandez, Brian Jordan, Matt Lawton, Javy Lopez, Bill Mueller, Terry Mulholland, Jeff Nelson, Phil Nevin, Brad Radke, Joe Randa, Tim Salmon, Ruben Sierra, Jose Vizcaino, Bernie Williams, Eric Young.

So you're saying that in 2012 it'll be Bernie Williams, Javy Lopez and Jeff Bagwell?

[astrosfan76]

So you're saying that in 2012 it'll be Bernie Williams, Javy Lopez and Jeff Bagwell?

What a crock that would be if Bernie Williams was a 1st-year inductee and Bagwell wasn't.

[Houston]

What a crock that would be if Bernie Williams was a 1st-year inductee and Bagwell wasn't.

But Williams has the intangibles! He played in NY. He played guitar. He's a Latino guy named "Bernie Williams." How can you keep him out of the HOF?

[astrosfan76]

But Williams has the intangibles! He played in NY. He played guitar. He's a Latino guy named "Bernie Williams." How can you keep him out of the HOF?

You've convinced me.  No way he gets less than 90% on his first ballot.  Really, it's that he played "classical" guitar that does it.  Any guy can pick up a Martin with bronze phosphor strings, but how many make music with nylon strings?  The Hall is about uniqueness, and Bernie has punched his ticket.

[Limey]

You've convinced me.  No way he gets less than 90% on his first ballot.  Really, it's that he played "classical" guitar that does it.  Any guy can pick up a Martin with bronze phosphor strings, but how many make music with nylon strings?  The Hall is about uniqueness, and Bernie has punched his ticket.

Conversely, Bagwell autotunes himself at karaoke; definitely un-HoFish.

[astrosfan76]

Conversely, Bagwell autotunes himself at karaoke; definitely un-HoFish.

Have you seen his B-boy stare, though?

[Houston]

Have you seen his B-boy stare, though?

That's Killer B-boy to you!

[Arky Vaughan]

I think too many voters will view him in that "very good, but not HOF" category.

Notwithstanding the general obtuseness of the voters, I think the only reason Bagwell would never get in is if strong evidence surfaces that he used steroids, in which case he might up in the same boat as McGwire and Palmeiro.

The BBWAA has never put a player of Bagwell's caliber in the "very good, but not HOF" category.

50 players have at least 1,500 runs scored in their careers. Of the 38 of those players eligible for induction, 36 (95%) are in the Hall of Fame.

70 players have at least 1,500 RBI in their careers. Of the 55 of those players eligible for induction, 50 (91%) are in the Hall of Fame.

47 players have at least 400 home runs in their careers. Of the 29 of those players eligible for induction, 24 (83%) are in the Hall of Fame.

137 players have at least 2,300 hits in their careers. Of the 112 of those players eligible for induction, 80 (71%) are in the Hall of Fame.

99 players have at least a .500 slugging percentage in their careers. Of the 55 of those players eligible for induction, 36 (66%) are in the Hall of Fame.

58 players have at least a .400 OBP in their careers. Of the 43 of those players eligible for induction, 26 (61%) are in the Hall of Fame.

None of these numbers is an automatic ticket to Cooperstown, but the majority of players achieving them get in, and I would be surprised if any player who had achieved all of them has ever been excluded unless extenuating circumstances, such as gambling or steroids, were involved.

Keeping a player like Bagwell out would be unprecedented.

[Noe]

Notwithstanding the general obtuseness of the voters, I think the only reason Bagwell would never get in is if strong evidence surfaces that he used steroids, in which case he might up in the same boat as McGwire and Palmeiro.

The BBWAA has never put a player of Bagwell's caliber in the "very good, but not HOF" category.

50 players have at least 1,500 runs scored in their careers. Of the 38 of those players eligible for induction, 36 (95%) are in the Hall of Fame.

70 players have at least 1,500 RBI in their careers. Of the 55 of those players eligible for induction, 50 (91%) are in the Hall of Fame.

47 players have at least 400 home runs in their careers. Of the 29 of those players eligible for induction, 24 (83%) are in the Hall of Fame.

137 players have at least 2,300 hits in their careers. Of the 112 of those players eligible for induction, 80 (71%) are in the Hall of Fame.

99 players have at least a .500 slugging percentage in their careers. Of the 55 of those players eligible for induction, 36 (66%) are in the Hall of Fame.

58 players have at least a .400 OBP in their careers. Of the 43 of those players eligible for induction, 26 (61%) are in the Hall of Fame.

None of these numbers is an automatic ticket to Cooperstown, but the majority of players achieving them get in, and I would be surprised if any player who had achieved all of them has ever been excluded unless extenuating circumstances, such as gambling or steroids, were involved.

Keeping a player like Bagwell out would be unprecedented.

And, from the "I got no numbers, but just a hunch" seats (namely me), I do believe the players committee will eventually show Mr. Bagwell the entrance door to the Hall.  Just my hunch.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

This guy convinced me. Can Jeff Bagwell making it to the Hall Of Fame?

[Ron Brand]

This guy convinced me. Can Jeff Bagwell making it to the Hall Of Fame?

That treatise would absolutely get an A+ in Mrs. Endwike Nkuluchamu's English class at PS 4 in Lesotho. Good find.

[subnuclear]

How did Bagwell find his way out of all those All-star fixtures?

[Bench]

This guy convinced me. Can Jeff Bagwell making it to the Hall Of Fame?

"The fact steers the thought home that the player is truly capable to get through the vote ballots for the Hall of Fame."

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

[HudsonHawk]

Notwithstanding the general obtuseness of the voters, I think the only reason Bagwell would never get in is if strong evidence surfaces that he used steroids, in which case he might up in the same boat as McGwire and Palmeiro.

The BBWAA has never put a player of Bagwell's caliber in the "very good, but not HOF" category.

50 players have at least 1,500 runs scored in their careers. Of the 38 of those players eligible for induction, 36 (95%) are in the Hall of Fame.

70 players have at least 1,500 RBI in their careers. Of the 55 of those players eligible for induction, 50 (91%) are in the Hall of Fame.

47 players have at least 400 home runs in their careers. Of the 29 of those players eligible for induction, 24 (83%) are in the Hall of Fame.

137 players have at least 2,300 hits in their careers. Of the 112 of those players eligible for induction, 80 (71%) are in the Hall of Fame.

99 players have at least a .500 slugging percentage in their careers. Of the 55 of those players eligible for induction, 36 (66%) are in the Hall of Fame.

58 players have at least a .400 OBP in their careers. Of the 43 of those players eligible for induction, 26 (61%) are in the Hall of Fame.

None of these numbers is an automatic ticket to Cooperstown, but the majority of players achieving them get in, and I would be surprised if any player who had achieved all of them has ever been excluded unless extenuating circumstances, such as gambling or steroids, were involved.

Keeping a player like Bagwell out would be unprecedented.

Again, I hope you're right.  But I can't help but feel voters are going to develop a whole new group from this era, which will include guys like Bagwell, Larry Walker, and Fred McGriff, who didn't play in NY, Boston, Chicago or LA.  .  I realize that Bagwell meets all of those arbitrary "milestones", and I agree that he's no-brainer deserving.  I'm just not convinced that everyone else sees it too. 

[Ebby Calvin]

That treatise would absolutely get an A+ in Mrs. Endwike Nkuluchamu's English class at PS 4 in Lesotho. Good find.

"Will Jeff make it past the preliminary round? Only time will tell."

Ah, got it.  Thanks for the wonderful insight.  Now come closer so I can punch you in the junk.

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

through a trade deal that saw veteran relief pitcher Larry Anderson move the other way.

Huh.  Never knew Larry went the other way.

[astrosfan76]

He last made an appearance for the Astros' in 2005. He was 42 years old at the time, and the team was competing in the World Series.

So, he was drafted in '89, when he was 26.  The guy must have really liked college.

[MusicMan]

That treatise would absolutely get an A+ in Mrs. Endwike Nkuluchamu's English class at PS 4 in Lesotho. Good find.

Who the hell gave Fredia a blog?

[ValpoCory]

Honestly, you're probably right, at least this year.  But the Bagwell-Biggio joint entry in 2012 will be a thing of beauty.

Biggio is not eligible until 2013.

[ValpoCory]

If Danny Graves had played his entire career at MinuteMaid, he'd be in the HOF.

Had he played at Minute Maid, the bullpen bathroom would still reek from cigarette smoke.

[ValpoCory]

I hope I'm wrong, and I should be.  But I think it's time to start bracing yourselves for the reality that Bagwell ain't gettin' in.  Ever.

Is your statement restricted to the 15 years of voting by the writers, or does it include Veteran's Committee and whatever other committees they come up with?

[Limey]

If Danny Graves had played his entire career at MinuteMaid, he'd be in the HOF.

Oh, I meant to say this earlier...

FUCK DANNY GRAVES!

[OregonStrosFan]

Crasnik talks with Bagwell about steroids: LINK

[Bench]

Interesting column about Bagwell addressing steroids.

Bottom line:  he's irritated (kind of the defualt for Bagwell's opinion on anything).  But this bit I thought was very interesting:

"You know how I feel about it, truthfully? If a guy is making the minimum salary and he looks across the field and thinks he has to take something to stay in the big leagues, I have no problem with that. You're trying to do the best you can. As baseball players, we don't have an earning power for years to come. If you have to do something for your family, I have no problem with that.

"Now, if you're the best player in game and you start taking stuff? I still don't have that big a problem with it. I know you took it, but it doesn't matter."

[Guinness]

Is one Cabrera'ed if you post the same article within less than a minute of the other guy?

[Ebby Calvin]

Is one Cabrera'ed if you post the same article within less than a minute of the other guy?

OSF is Cabrera.

[Bench]

Is one Cabrera'ed if you post the same article within less than a minute of the other guy?

I think word count wins for same minute posts.  Noe?

[Ron Brand]

As much of a clueless cocksucker as Shaughnessy is, I'm still stunned that fucker left Bagwell off of his ballot. Jeff Pearlman should be castrated, although someone may have already gotten to that task.

[hostros7]

Jeff Pearlman should be castrated, although someone may have already gotten to that task.

Yes, and his name was god and/or genetics depending on your worldview.

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

Crasnick's other Bagwell piece is good, too: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof11/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=5962248


This quote got me: "I hear stuff about me all the time in Houston, Texas," Bagwell told ESPN.com. "If you're 5-11 with a goatee, you're Jeff Bagwell. I don't even know this person. I couldn't even tell you how to get to Pasadena, and this guy is saying he was with Roger and Andy and he knows me? Are you kidding me?"

In summary: no one in their right mind goes to Pasa-gitdown-dena.

[HudsonHawk]

In summary: no one in their right mind goes to Pasa-gitdown-dena.

Hey...my parents live in Pasadena.

[Russe]

Crasnik talks with Bagwell about steroids: LINK

Warning: if you value your sanity, stay far, far away from the comments. 

[DVauthrin]

Hey...my parents live in Pasadena.

Same goes for most of my mother's relatives.    My mother grew up there.

[Noe]

"In the end, it's a difficult task for Hall of Fame voters to decide on certain players even without the added baggage of steroid rumors."

You know, I've often wondered why they allow guys who are scribes and basically can't find their way on a baseball field of play to "judge" who is HOF worthy.  Not that I have anything against writers, but in short, what makes *them* good choices as judges?  Some of these writers aren't on par with Stark, Gammons and some of the better ones in terms of baseball.  Good to great writers some of them, but Hall of Fame (Baseball) wise beyond measure that they can judge a great player from a good player?

Hardly.

The whole process is flawed and a big ol' sham if you ask me, and in some ways just as hypocritical as the steroid hysteria most of them helped to create.

[OregonStrosFan]

Graziano (an HOF voter) did not vote for Bagwell to be in the HOF.  LINK

No, I didn't vote for Jeff Bagwell for the Hall of Fame. Yes, it's for the reason everybody loves to hate. I don't know for sure that Bagwell took steroids or any other performance-enhancing drugs to help him attain his Hall of Fame-caliber numbers. I don't have evidence, like we do against Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro. But I'm suspicious. And this year, that suspicion was enough to make me send back my ballot without the Bagwell box checked. I'd rather withhold the vote based on suspicion than vote the guy in only to find out later that he cheated and I shouldn't have.

FUCKER!!!

[JimR]

steroid hysteria?

[Ron Brand]

I can't help but think that this is some form of revenge. This is the bent worldview of the kid who always got picked last, the kid who was regularly depantsed, the kid whose tuba was pissed in every week and he ended up writing for a living - a nomadic, low-paying and unappreciated job that is threatened by progress. It's no more well thought out than the instinctual tripping of the nerd as he makes his way to the chalkboard, except we feel the sting this time instead of him.

Fucking twit. There is far more gravity and importance on the celebration of the history of baseball than clowns like this can ever begin to serve, much less uphold. At least Bagwell is comfortable with his place in history and he knows you can never do enough to make jackasses like Graziano appreciate him.

[cougar]

So is that Graziano asshole going to vote for anyone who played in the 90s or 00s?  After all, that is the "Steroid Era" he's so paranoid about, so everyone should be judged the same as Bagwell.  I like how suspicion is enough for him in Bagwell's case, but he was more than happy enough to vote for a guy who perpetrated one of the most disgusting and reprehensible acts ever on a baseball diamond in Alomar.

[Ty in Tampa]

Graziano (an HOF voter) did not vote for Bagwell to be in the HOF.  LINK

No, I didn't vote for Jeff Bagwell for the Hall of Fame. Yes, it's for the reason everybody loves to hate. I don't know for sure that Bagwell took steroids or any other performance-enhancing drugs to help him attain his Hall of Fame-caliber numbers. I don't have evidence, like we do against Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro. But I'm suspicious. And this year, that suspicion was enough to make me send back my ballot without the Bagwell box checked. I'd rather withhold the vote based on suspicion than vote the guy in only to find out later that he cheated and I shouldn't have.

FUCKER!!!

This only goes to show that not only is this guy, and many other people who hold the honor of a HOF vote, an idiot but he's also an elitist dickhead to boot. What makes him think that his "suspicion" is any valid reason to withhold a vote for an otherwise worthy candidate. By what ground rules for voting does this fit?

[Ron Brand]

This only goes to show that not only is this guy, and many other people who hold the honor of a HOF vote, an idiot but he's also an elitist dickhead to boot. What makes him think that his "suspicion" is any valid reason to withhold a vote for an otherwise worthy candidate. By what ground rules for voting does this fit?

Exactly. It's the deliberate suspension of logic and fairness until an unattainable proof surfaces on his terms. Morons like this should have their vote taken away.

I just felt the chill of politics. Crap.

[Alkie]

I just felt the chill of politics. Crap.

Check your tuba, tubby.

[Noe]

steroid hysteria?

See post right above yours.

[Rebel Jew]

Graziano (an HOF voter) did not vote for Bagwell to be in the HOF.  LINK

No, I didn't vote for Jeff Bagwell for the Hall of Fame. Yes, it's for the reason everybody loves to hate. I don't know for sure that Bagwell took steroids or any other performance-enhancing drugs to help him attain his Hall of Fame-caliber numbers. I don't have evidence, like we do against Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro. But I'm suspicious. And this year, that suspicion was enough to make me send back my ballot without the Bagwell box checked. I'd rather withhold the vote based on suspicion than vote the guy in only to find out later that he cheated and I shouldn't have.

FUCKER!!!

This is an obvious comment I know, but what evidence is there to believe that Robby Alomar wasn't a juicer?  By this logic, how can you vote for ANY 90's player?

[Limey]

Check your tuba, tubby.

[Arnie] It's not a tuba. [/Arnie]

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

This is an obvious comment I know, but what evidence is there to believe that "roid rage" Robby wasn't a juicer? 

FIFY

[JimR]

See post right above yours.

that is where i got the phrase.

it will be interesting to hear your theory about use of steroids in MLB being "hysteria" created by the media.

[Trey]

Posnanski says "in" and has interesting things to say about his 8 definites:

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/12/30/hall-of-fame-the-eight-definites/

[Ron Brand]

The beauty of the Hall of Fame voting is also the biggest problem with it: It’s messy. You have several hundred people (539 last year) with different standards, different ideals, different priorities, different moral attitudes, different point of views. They all vote based on what they are and what they believe. This leads to all sorts of interesting, sometimes bizarre, sometimes shameful individual votes — you already know that some people did not vote for Willie Mays or Hank Aaron or Stan Musial — but the hope is that the large number of Hall of Fame voters, and the high threshold of 75% needed for induction, will give us the worthiest candidates.

Bingo.

On Bagwell:

He was a breathtaking offensive player, almost without weakness. He hit for average, he hit for power, he drew walks, he stole bases, he scored runs, he drove in runs, and he looked like a serious badass doing all of it.

Double bingo.

[astrosfan76]

Posnanski says "in" and has interesting things to say about his 8 definites:

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/12/30/hall-of-fame-the-eight-definites/

Good article.  The question all this raises is:  "If he has question marks 'now', at what point do the writers believe he's innocent?"  They have a mindset that they don't know, so they won't vote for him.  5 years down the road, if nothing has come out, do they still say "I don't know, so no vote."  10, 15 years down the road?  Are they expecting some new Mitchell Report-type evidence to come out on him this long after his career has ended?  The only way they get an answer is if they get the answer they want.  There is no way to be proven innocent.  

[Jose Cruz III]

Posnanski says "in" and has interesting things to say about his 8 definites:

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/12/30/hall-of-fame-the-eight-definites/

Although I don't agree with all of his choices, I have to say that is a very well thought out written article.

[OregonStrosFan]

Jeff Pearlman. Jackass! LINK

Calceterra counterpoint. LINK

The question of the day is though, if Bagwell had been with the Yankees, Red Sox, etc., would these idiots be 'taking their stand?' How much of this do you think has to do with a premise along the lines of 'Bagwell played with the Astros so noone really gives a shit anyway...".

[Ron Brand]

The question of the day is though, if Bagwell had been with the Yankees, Red Sox, etc., would these idiots be 'taking their stand?' How much of this do you think has to do with a premise along the lines of 'Bagwell played with the Astros so noone really gives a shit anyway...".

I think that's the entirety of Shaughnessy's stance.

[Trey]

Jeff Pearlman. Jackass! LINK

Reality: No two teams in baseball had more PED connections than the Texas Rangers and the Houston Astros

What is this based on?  Maybe I've got my head in the sand, but outside of Caminiti, what "connections" did the Astros have?

[Limey]

What is this based on?  Maybe I've got my head in the sand, but outside of Caminiti, what "connections" did the Astros have?

Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Miguel TeHGHada.

Of course, that was all prior to their "connection" with the Astros, but why let a little perspective ruin a juicy theory?

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

Yeah, the pre-BeaneBall A's would like a word with Pearlman.

[OregonStrosFan]

I was echoing the same thoughts last night on Twitter...

Calceterra: Jeff Bagwell’s Hall of Fame candidacy has ushered in the age of steroids McCarthyism

[Houston]

Graziano (an HOF voter) did not vote for Bagwell to be in the HOF.  LINK

No, I didn't vote for Jeff Bagwell for the Hall of Fame. Yes, it's for the reason everybody loves to hate. I don't know for sure that Bagwell took steroids or any other performance-enhancing drugs to help him attain his Hall of Fame-caliber numbers. I don't have evidence, like we do against Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro. But I'm suspicious. And this year, that suspicion was enough to make me send back my ballot without the Bagwell box checked. I'd rather withhold the vote based on suspicion than vote the guy in only to find out later that he cheated and I shouldn't have.

I'm guessing this guy will NEVER be selected to serve on a jury.

[astrosfan76]

Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Miguel TeHGHada.

Of course, that was all prior to their "connection" with the Astros, but why let a little perspective ruin a juicy theory?

Clemens, Pettitte, Giambi, David Justice, Knoblauch, and add in Mike Stanton and shouldn't we start throwing throwing suspicion at Jeter?  No one suspected Brian Roberts of juicing, either.  Just following their logic.

[Rebel Jew]

and shouldn't we start throwing throwing suspicion at Jeter?  No one suspected Brian Roberts of juicing, either.  Just following their logic.

You know, freaking know that Jeter will be held up as the anti-roids guy, the guy who did it with grit while everyone around him was juicing.

[astrosfan76]

You know, freaking know that Jeter will be held up as the anti-roids guy, the guy who did it with grit while everyone around him was juicing.

Oh, I know he'll maintain his golden child image.  But, it's more than a little suspicious that he went from being a terrible fielder to a Gold Glover right around the time that he played with those guys.

[Trey]

Oh, I know he'll maintain his golden child image.  But, it's more than a little suspicious that he went from being a terrible fielder to a Gold Glover right around the time that he played with those guys.

Steroids didn't turn him into a Gold Glover.  The NY on his shirt did.  And neither changed his fielding ability.

[VirtualBob]

Steroids didn't turn him into a Gold Glover.  The NY on his shirt did.  And neither changed his fielding ability.

Eggzackly

[astrosfan76]

Steroids didn't turn him into a Gold Glover.  The NY on his shirt did.  And neither changed his fielding ability.

Don't read it so literally.

[Noe]

that is where i got the phrase.

it will be interesting to hear your theory about use of steroids in MLB being "hysteria" created by the media.

It's simple actually, if I stood up before you, a barrister, and said I sold steroids to Jeff Bagwell, you would react professionally and appropriately.  If I did the same before a media member, while some would be professional, the tear between making the news and reporting the news is there.  It matters not who you take down, it is about selling papers or air time and being the first to report X or Y.  In your profession, you have sinsiter people I'm sure and the way to mitigate that is to police yourself.  Who polices the media?

They are free to make a story that needs to be reported into hysteria.  It can be steroids, chicken flu, just about anything that sells to the public.  The more sensational the better.  Is the public to blame for being gullible?  Yes, in part.  The media knows who to sell the news to unfortunately and they have no restraint whatsoever.

So now I ask you, you think the media has acted with the proper restraint when they send out their indictments of men like Bagwell?

[Noe]

I was echoing the same thoughts last night on Twitter...

Calceterra: Jeff Bagwell’s Hall of Fame candidacy has ushered in the age of steroids McCarthyism

Ahum, do tell.  You mean he's indicting the media for steroid hysteria?  Get out of town!

[Arky Vaughan]

I don't know whether Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker really threw games like some people think they did, but I think all these assholes on their high horses should petition for a recall election so they can keep Cooperstown above any whiff of suspicion.

[Arky Vaughan]

Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Miguel TeHGHada.

Of course, that was all prior to their "connection" with the Astros, but why let a little perspective ruin a juicy theory?

Better yet, Google Bagwell and Grimsley and see how many asshats have accepted the erroneous accusation that Bagwell and Grimsley were teammates other than in spring training in 1993.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Ken Rosenthal has a policy; some years voting for first timers, some years not--apparently dictated by his feelings, and not the merit of accomplishments on the baseball field.

[JimR]

I admit to having suspicions about Bagwell, but I would require proof before acting on them.

[Ron Brand]

I'm no fan of BP, but links from another article led me to two BP articles that speak to Bagwell and the question of voting on his enshrinement and the surrounding circus.

Jay Jaffe looks at eligible first basemen on the ballot, using JAWS, and concludes:

Bagwell never had a positive test; his career barely overlapped with the introduction of testing and penalties. He wasn't named in the Mitchell Report (though latter-day teammates such as Andy Pettitte and Roger Clemens were) or any other investigation, nor was his name leaked from the supposedly anonymous list of 104 players who tested positive during survey testing. There's simply no credible evidence connecting him to PED usage. Withholding a vote for him on that basis is ludicrous, particularly when his case is compared to some of the other names on this ballot.

Christina Kahrl writes about the mechanism of the vote and how that relates to the question of Bagwell this year.

What has been especially noxious this time around is the treatment of Jeff Bagwell from some quarters as he arrives on the ballot. What he has been subjected to is little better than character assassination, where even the lack of any actual evidence, any scintilla of contemporary complaint from the writers themselves, or the especially self-serving “he didn't rat on teammates to me” tack is being held against him.

It's nice to see BP weigh in with support for his election.

[Noe]

I admit to having suspicions about Bagwell, but I would require proof before acting on them.

Bagwell was known to use over the counter supplements (GNC products) when it was not banned by the MLB.  I'm pretty sure that was the extent of what anyone ever said about him and how he gained his weight outside of a crazy lifting regime.

[Noe]

... but I think all these assholes on their high horses...

*applause*

[MusicMan]

Apparently all 7 of the Chicago Tribune voters (stop a second... why the blue fuck does one crappy newspaper get seven voters??) left Bagwell off their ballots, and not one said it was for steroid suspicion.  Phil Rogers proved that he is irretrevably stupid by pronouncing Larry Walker a better all-around player.

[chuck]

I am about to lose my motherfucking mind.

[JaneDoe]

I am about to lose my motherfucking mind.

Watching the Texans again?

[geezerdonk]

I don't know why anyone is in the least surprised. These are newspaper writers. They are perverse by nature. Stupidity is the prime job (and I use that term loosely) qualification. Expecting them to act ethically or rationally is like expecting an alligator to be a vegetarian.

[Limey]

I don't know why anyone is in the least surprised. These are newspaper writers. They are perverse by nature. Stupidity is the prime job (and I use that term loosely) qualification. Expecting them to act ethically or rationally is like expecting an alligator to be a vegetarian.

A scorpion asks a bear to carry him across a river, because he cannot swim and would never make it against the current.  The bear refuses.  "You'll sting me," he exclaims.  "Why do you think that?" asks the scorpion.  "Because you're a fucking scorpion!" replies the bear.

The conversation goes back and forth like this for a while, with the scorpion protesting his innocence and promising not to sting the bear.  "Do you reeeealy promise not to sting me?" asks the bear nervously.  "On my honour," says the scorpion, raising a claw to emphasise his point.

The bear accedes, and carries the scorpion across the river.  Half way across, the scorpion stings the bear.

"Agghhhh!  You fucking stung me you little shit!  You said you wouldn't!"

"Scorpion..." shrugs the scorpion.

[Outlawscotty]

So the bear was on steroids because he was allergic to scorpion stings, right?  And the scorpion plays the part of the evil trainer who tells the media about the injections and why the HOF needs to keep the bear out because he didn't help the Yankees cross the river.  I'm starting to understand.

[EasTexAstro]

A scorpion asks a bear to carry him across a river, because he cannot swim and would never make it against the current.  The bear refuses.  "You'll sting me," he exclaims.  "Why do you think that?" asks the scorpion.  "Because you're a fucking scorpion!" replies the bear.

The conversation goes back and forth like this for a while, with the scorpion protesting his innocence and promising not to sting the bear.  "Do you reeeealy promise not to sting me?" asks the bear nervously.  "On my honour," says the scorpion, raising a claw to emphasise his point.

The bear accedes, and carries the scorpion across the river.  Half way across, the scorpion stings the bear.

"Agghhhh!  You fucking stung me you little shit!  You said you wouldn't!"

"Scorpion..." shrugs the scorpion.

Earlier that day, the bear is taking a poop by a tree in the woods. A rabbit squats beside him and starts doing his thing. The bear looks at the rabbit and asks, "Do you have a problem with poop sticking to your fur?"

The rabbit responds, "No."

So the bear picks up the rabbit and wipes his butt.

See, the bear wasn't completely innocent.

[Alkie]

Earlier that day, the bear is taking a poop by a tree in the woods. A rabbit squats beside him and starts doing his thing. The bear looks at the rabbit and asks, "Do you have a problem with poop sticking to your fur?"

The rabbit responds, "No."

So the bear picks up the rabbit and wipes his butt.

See, the bear wasn't completely innocent.

Once I got a bear drunk just to have sex with it.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Once I got a bear drunk just to have sex with it.

Did the bear have a big dick?

[Alkie]

Did the bear have a big dick?

What do you think?   

[Bench]

What do you think?   

And did you know how to work the bear's dick?

[chuck]

Earlier that day, the bear is taking a poop by a tree in the woods. A rabbit squats beside him and starts doing his thing. The bear looks at the rabbit and asks, "Do you have a problem with poop sticking to your fur?"

The rabbit responds, "No."

So the bear picks up the rabbit and wipes his butt.

See, the bear wasn't completely innocent.

Once an interviewer asked Elvis Costello if he believed in the supernatural. He thought for a minute and replied, Well, I saw Al Green once...

Similarly, I once saw Chuck Berry. I'd told the people I was going with that Chuck Berry is a scatological nutcase and they didn't much believe me. In the middle of the set and for no apparent reason he told the joke that ETA has shared.

Also, after about three songs he broke a string on his 335. A roadie hustled out with another one. He'd started with red; the replacement was black. The drummer counted off the beat and they launched into the next song. It was TERRIBLE. I couldn't immediately tell what the fuck the problem was. It was as if the guitar was wildly out of tune but my ears weren't hearing mis-tuning, just something godawful. After a song or two of misery he pauses, maybe to tell another shit related joke (he'd just given us about ten minutes of a shit related joke, come to think of it...) when peering down the neck of the guitar he suddenly exclaimed, Hey! There's my pick! I've been looking for that! The pick of course had been threaded through the strings on the first or second fret and this kook had simply not noticed as he merrily played and duckwalked around the stage.

[Alkie]

And did you know how to work the bear's dick?

Why do you think I got him drunk first?

[astrosfan76]

I read a quote that "if you're the smartest man in the room, you're in the wrong room."  Apparently, that is why Gammons left ESPN.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof11/news/story?id=5984898

Seriously, Lee Smith?

[JackAstro]

Why do you think I got him drunk first?

Did the bear let you call him Chuck, or were you not using real names that particular evening?

[MusicMan]

I read a quote that "if you're the smartest man in the room, you're in the wrong room."  Apparently, that is why Gammons left ESPN.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof11/news/story?id=5984898

Seriously, Lee Smith?

10 votes for Larkin.  8 for Bags.

Was there any point, in either of their careers, that you would have traded Bagwell for Larkin, straight up?

[astrosfan76]

10 votes for Larkin.  8 for Bags.

Was there any point, in either of their careers, that you would have traded Bagwell for Larkin, straight up?

Push Smith's career back 8 years (to adjust for peaks) and I wouldn't have traded Bagwell for Smith and Larkin combined.  Larkin was a very good player, but he wasn't the difference maker Bagwell was.  Fair or not, he spent a lot of time as a #3 hitter and was not that great of a run producer.  He never drove in 90 and only hit more than 20 HR once. 

Smith only had 5 full seasons (out of 17) with an ERA under 3.  That was almost exclusively as a reliever.  He was bad in the postseason, as well.  The only thing he has going for him is a long career that allowed him to rack up a ton of saves, including a record he no longer owns.  That he would receive more votes than Bagwell is absurd.

[Houston]

It's interesting that ESPN's most knowledgeable baseball guys - Tim Kurkjian, Jayson Stark, and Buster Olney - all voted for Bagwell. At least they maintain credibility.

[MusicMan]

It's interesting that ESPN's most knowledgeable baseball guys - Tim Kurkjian, Jayson Stark, and Buster Olney - all voted for Bagwell. At least they maintain credibility.

Not sure why they have 15 other clowns with votes.

[Houston]

Not sure why they have 15 other clowns with votes.

Quotas.

[Limey]

Not sure why they have 15 other clowns with votes.

Care in the Community.

[Rebel Jew]

10 votes for Larkin.  8 for Bags.

Was there any point, in either of their careers, that you would have traded Bagwell for Larkin, straight up?

Edgar Martinez and Tim Raines also got 8.

[Waldo]

Larkin over Bagwell is insanity.

[Trey]

I read a quote that "if you're the smartest man in the room, you're in the wrong room."  Apparently, that is why Gammons left ESPN.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof11/news/story?id=5984898

Seriously, Lee Smith?

Barry Stanton voted for: B. J. Surhoff

Barry Stanton did not vote for: Alomar, Blyleven, Larkin, L Smith, Bagwell, or Raines

[MusicMan]

Barry Stanton voted for: B. J. Surhoff

Barry Stanton did not vote for: Alomar, Blyleven, Larkin, L Smith, Bagwell, or Raines

Holy shit.  Surhoff, Mattingly, Tino, and Edgar.  This guy should have his ballot revoked, immediately.

ETA: This guy has also previously resigned due to plagiarism.

[austro]

Barry Stanton voted for: B. J. Surhoff

Barry Stanton did not vote for: Alomar, Blyleven, Larkin, L Smith, Bagwell, or Raines

Barry Stanton writes for the The Onion, right?

[hostros7]

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/04/who-the-heck-is-barry-stanton/

Fuck this guy.

[Ron Brand]

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/04/who-the-heck-is-barry-stanton/

Fuck this guy.

And fuck the BBWAA for letting jackasses like him continue to vote without pruning their list of eligible voters to remove the ones who haven't covered baseball in years or who consistently use their votes as a joke.

[astrosfan76]

It's interesting that ESPN's most knowledgeable baseball guys - Tim Kurkjian, Jayson Stark, and Buster Olney - all voted for Bagwell. At least they maintain credibility.

Yep, the only ones I recognized voted for Bagwell and were almost unanimous with Alomar and Blyleven, as well.

[chuck]

And fuck the BBWAA for letting jackasses like him continue to vote without pruning their list of eligible voters to remove the ones who haven't covered baseball in years or who consistently use their votes as a joke.

From that same article: "... a lot of people marvel at the breadth of the BBWAA’s Hall of Fame electorate."

I guess that's one way to put it.

[Arky Vaughan]

Larkin over Bagwell is insanity.

I disagree. Larkin and Bagwell are both eminnently qualified candidates.

The fact that Larkin didn't get in on the first ballot and may have trouble this year further enshrines the collective stupidity of the BBWAA.

[Arky Vaughan]

10 votes for Larkin.  8 for Bags.

Was there any point, in either of their careers, that you would have traded Bagwell for Larkin, straight up?

Maybe not Bagwell, but how about Biggio? Here are their averages per season from ages 27 to 36 (Biggio, 1993-2002 and Larkin, 1991-2000). See any resemblance?

Player   Avg   OBP   Slg   OPS  OPS+  2B  3B  HR    R  RBI  BB  SB  CS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Larkin  .304  .392  .478  .869   128  27   5  14   82   61  66  25   5
Biggio  .294  .388  .459  .847   122  37   4  16  110   68  71  27   8

It is a very difficult argument to make that Biggio was a better player than Larkin when both players were in their primes, and I think nobody here would contend that Biggio does not belong in the Hall of Fame. Granted, Biggio got 3,000 hits and Larkin did not, but that is not Biggio's primary Hall of Fame credential for those of us who watched him play his entire career.

That Larkin edged out Dante Bichette for the 1995 MVP award is an achievement that we should all take pleasure in not merely out of appreciation for Larkin’s performance that season but more importantly because the baseball writers suffered a momentary lapse of sanity and recognized that a Gold Glove middle infielder playing like Larkin did that season is significantly more valuable than a chunky slugger hitting home runs at high altitude.

Larkin should have been elected last year without difficulty. The fact that Larkin was not inducted last year and may not be this year suggests a lot more about the BBWAA’s voting competence when it comes to players not spending their careers in the Northeastern media markets than it does about whether Larkin had a career worthy of the Hall of Fame.

[Reuben]

Yep, the only ones I recognized voted for Bagwell and were almost unanimous with Alomar and Blyleven, as well.

Buster Olney, I know he's kind of a blowhard but at least he seems to pay attention most of the time, for some reason did not vote for Larkin or Blyleven, but did vote for Morris, McGwire, and Palmeiro.

Of course, he looks like the child of Einstein and Socrates compared to that Barry Stanton jackass. I really hope this serves as a wake-up notice to the BBWAA.

[MusicMan]

Maybe not Bagwell, but how about Biggio? Here are their averages per season from ages 27 to 36 (Biggio, 1993-2002 and Larkin, 1991-2000). See any resemblance?

Player   Avg   OBP   Slg   OPS  OPS+  2B  3B  HR    R  RBI  BB  SB  CS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Larkin  .304  .392  .478  .869   128  27   5  14   82   61  66  25   5
Biggio  .294  .388  .459  .847   122  37   4  16  110   68  71  27   8

It is a very difficult argument to make that Biggio was a better player than Larkin when both players were in their primes, and I think nobody here would contend that Biggio does not belong in the Hall of Fame. Granted, Biggio got 3,000 hits and Larkin did not, but that is not Biggio's primary Hall of Fame credential for those of us who watched him play his entire career.

That Larkin edged out Dante Bichette for the 1995 MVP award is an achievement that we should all take pleasure in not merely out of appreciation for Larkin’s performance that season but more importantly because the baseball writers suffered a momentary lapse of sanity and recognized that a Gold Glove middle infielder playing like Larkin did that season is significantly more valuable than a chunky slugger hitting home runs at high altitude.

Larkin should have been elected last year without difficulty. The fact that Larkin was not inducted last year and may not be this year suggests a lot more about the BBWAA’s voting competence when it comes to players not spending their careers in the Northeastern media markets than it does about whether Larkin had a career worthy of the Hall of Fame.

My point was not that Larkin is not HOF-worthy by any means.  My point is that Bagwell is far worthier, and yet is getting significantly fewer votes.

[Bench]

I really hope this serves as a wake-up notice to the BBWAA.

Hope in one hand, jack-off with the other. 

[Arky Vaughan]

Of course, he looks like the child of Einstein and Socrates compared to that Barry Stanton jackass. I really hope this serves as a wake-up notice to the BBWAA.

Fat chance. Municipal elections in 1960s Chicago were more legitimate than BBWAA balloting. There may not be any deceased voters on the BBWAA rolls, but there are certainly more than a few braindead electors.

[Arky Vaughan]

My point was not that Larkin is not HOF-worthy by any means.  My point is that Bagwell is far worthier, and yet is getting significantly fewer votes.

I would say they are more or less equally worthy. Larkin is probably getting significantly more votes now because the BBWAA already got to show off its feathers and dick Larkin around last year by not letting him in on the first ballot, so they'll do this cock-and-bull dance and admit him somewhere around his third or fourth year of eligibility.

[Limey]

There may not be any deceased voters on the BBWAA rolls...

[Curly] Day ain't over yet. [/Curly]

[MRaup]

[Curly] Masturbating like a redassed monkey watching the Banana Channel [/Curly]

CIFY

[ValpoCory]

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/04/who-the-heck-is-barry-stanton/

Fuck this guy.

"The fact that he’s from Westchester is a possible explanation for his vote for Surhoff, who was a Westchester prep star."

Sheesh.  Even John Lopez thinks that is fucked up reason to vote for a guy.

[Bench]

Caple.. the voice of reason?

Another justification I hear a lot is that just because we don't know the names of every player who took every possible PED doesn't mean we can't take a stand against the ones we suspect took some. After all, we don't stop prosecuting any criminal because we can't convict every criminal.

That sounds OK at first, but who do you suspect? Someone like Jeff Bagwell, because he has big muscles? If so, why not Frank Thomas, who has even bigger muscles? Is it because Bagwell started hitting lots of home runs as the steroids era kicked in after he had not hit many in the minors? Then why not Jim Thome, who had a similar career track?

Why not Cal Ripken Jr., whose streak would have benefited with something that aided recovery? Why not Nolan Ryan, who was throwing no-hitters in his mid-40s? Why not Tony Gwynn, who hit a career-high 17 home runs at age 37 after reaching double figures only twice in his 15 previous seasons? All these Hall of Famers enjoyed success in the steroid era (which we know started in the late '80s). Why not suspect them? Just because they're such good guys we can't believe they cheated?

[MusicMan]

The plagiarist is also incapable of a rational defense of his ballot:

I have voted for Mattingly since he's been on the ballot. Same with Jack Morris, who is a better pitcher than Blyleven was.

I chose Tino because he was at the heart of a 4-time world championship team.

As for Alomar, I did not vote for him last year and seriously considered changing my vote for him. I expect him to get in on this election, so I won't have a chance to vote for him next year, but I'm fine with that.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof11/news/story?id=5988529

[Ron Brand]

The plagiarist is also incapable of a rational defense of his ballot:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof11/news/story?id=5988529

He is, at best, a gibbering fool.

[JimR]

CIFY

someone should post that classic again

[astrosfan76]

Stanton might be rivaled by this guy:

Note on Jeff Bagwell: His numbers are very similar to Steve Garvey -- Bags .297 batting average to .294 for the Garv, 2,314 hits to 2,599, 449 homers to 272, 1,529 RBIs to 1,308 . But Garvey had two NL Championship Series MVPs, an NL MVP, an All-Star MVP, the longest consecutive game playing streak in NL history (1,207), one of the highest fielding percentages as a first baseman (.996) and an errorless season (1984). Garvey also played on five NL pennant winners and a World Series winner in '81 with the Dodgers. Bagwell did almost none of this with the Astros. And Garvey didn't get a sniff from the writers for the HOF. That's why I didn't vote for Bagwell.

http://barrybloom.mlblogs.com/archives/2010/12/my-hof-ballot-for-2011----why-i-voted-them-in.html#comments

[ValpoCory]

Stanton might be rivaled by this guy:

http://barrybloom.mlblogs.com/archives/2010/12/my-hof-ballot-for-2011----why-i-voted-them-in.html#comments

We all know 449 homers are "very similar" to 272 homers.

[austro]

But, wait, now we get this gem from Pearlman:

Among the current nominees for the Hall, former Astros slugger Jeff Bagwell finds himself facing the most PED-related doubters. A handful of media types (and I have been among them) cite his staggering power numbers, his Randy (Macho Man) Savage physique as a player (as opposed to his Screech Powers physique as a retiree), his many years with a franchise that, inside the game, was known to be a hotbed for steroids. When I recently called a former Major League contemporary of Bagwell's to ask if one was right to question to four-time All-Star, he laughed. "Absolutely," he said.

I'd like to see some of his evidence for the "hotbed of steroids" claim.

[Jacksonian]

But, wait, now we get this gem from Pearlman:

I'd like to see some of his evidence for the "hotbed of steroids" claim.

He called Caminiti via the Dionne Warwick hotline.

[austro]

We all know 449 homers are "very similar" to 272 homers.

He conveniently left off any reference to OBP (.408 vs .329 (!)) or runs scored (1517 vs 1143), too, or the fact that Garvey used four or five more seasons to accumulate his counting stats.

[Bench]

He conveniently left off any reference to OBP (.408 vs .329 (!)) or runs scored (1517 vs 1143), too, or the fact that Garvey used four or five more seasons to accumulate his counting stats.

Or Bagwell's 202 SB while only getting caught 78 times to Garvey's 83 stolen bases while getting caught 62 times.

[MusicMan]

He conveniently left off any reference to OBP (.408 vs .329 (!)) or runs scored (1517 vs 1143), too, or the fact that Garvey used four or five more seasons to accumulate his counting stats.

Garvey had 2 top-10 seasons in slugging (10th and 9th) and none in OBP.  Bags had 8 top-10 in OBP and 6 in SLG.

Comparing Steve Garvey to Jeff Bagwell does nothing but display the ignorance of the person initiating the comparison.

[MusicMan]

At least Shaune weighed in on the matter

[Alkie]

At least Shaune weighed in on the matter

Honestly, I'm surprised she said that.   I wonder how much he paid her.

[MusicMan]

Honestly, I'm surprised she said that.   I wonder how much he paid her.

Attention whores rarely need much other motivation.

[HurricaneDavid]

I'd like to see some of his evidence for the "hotbed of steroids" claim.

Jeff Pearlman blogs at jeffpearlman.com. He can be reached at [email protected]

[austro]

At least Shaune weighed in on the matter

I am afraid to know how you found that.

[MusicMan]

I am afraid to know how you found that.

Searched for "Jeff Bagwell" on Twitter.  The name and content jumped out.

[BUWebguy]

Attention whores rarely need much other motivation.

I hope she gets the attention she needs from her 20 Twitter followers.

[MusicMan]

I hope she gets the attention she needs from her 20 Twitter followers.

It was 10 when I found the link, you bunch of pervs.

[Limey]

We all know 449 homers are "very similar" to 272 homers.

...and that pennants are won by a single player.  On his own.  Without any help.  From anyone.  Especially if fielding first base.

[Limey]

At least Shaune weighed in on the matter

Great tweet.  How come it wasn't scrawled across her boobs?

[OregonStrosFan]

Pearlman can also be found on Twitter at: @jeffpearlman

Asked him to back up these 2 statements, we'll see if he does...

"No two teams in MLB had more PED connections than TEX & HOU."

"with a franchise that...was known to be a hotbed for steroids".

[Arky Vaughan]

Garvey had 2 top-10 seasons in slugging (10th and 9th) and none in OBP.  Bags had 8 top-10 in OBP and 6 in SLG.

Comparing Steve Garvey to Jeff Bagwell does nothing but display the ignorance of the person initiating the comparison.

It's as if the last 30 years of proliferation in the understanding of baseball statistics totally whizzed past Bloom. Of course, as my learned friend Noe would note, you don't have to look at a single statistic to understand that Garvey and Bagwell aren't comparable types of players. I wouldn't be surprised if Bloom hadn't even heard of Bagwell until the ballot arrived in his mailbox.

Alas, 10 years of membership in the BBWAA is nothing approaching a proxy for expertise about who should be inducted into the baseball Hall of Fame.

[sporadic]

It was 10 when I found the link, you bunch of pervs.

you have to be a member to follow, right?  too much effort...

[sporadic]

Great tweet.  How come it wasn't scrawled across her boobs?

I would put out the effort to follow her if that were the case.  I turst you will inform me when that does occur...

[Arky Vaughan]

Pearlman can also be found on Twitter at: @jeffpearlman

Asked him to back up these 2 statements, we'll see if he does...

"No two teams in MLB had more PED connections than TEX & HOU."

"with a franchise that...was known to be a hotbed for steroids".

Well, Ken Caminiti played for the Astros, and so did Miguel Tejada, Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte. Jason Grimsley was in the organization. So there you go.

[Limey]

I would put out the effort to follow her if that were the case.  I turst you will inform me when that does occur...

It happened about 5 years ago.

[MusicMan]

Stanton might be rivaled by this guy:

http://barrybloom.mlblogs.com/archives/2010/12/my-hof-ballot-for-2011----why-i-voted-them-in.html#comments

So much for "taking his ballot seriously."  He notes that Bagwell is similar to Steve Garvey, who didn't come within sniffing distance of the HOF.  So go all  the way back... two posts previously... in his own blog:

http://barrybloom.mlblogs.com/archives/2010/11/garv-boss-my-picks-on-new-hall-of-fame-ballot.html

But if I was on the 16-member Expansion era committee, which is charged with voting by the Dec. 6 Winters Meetings in Orlando, Fla., the choices would be easy: I'd go with the Garv and the Boss.

Why Steve Garvey never made it during his 15 years on the Writer's ballot has always been a mystery to me. I voted for him every time, although he always finished somewhere in the middle of the pack. Despite his obvious impact on Major League Baseball, this is George Steinbrenner's first time on a ballot considered by any configuration of the Vets committee with the express purpose of voting for owners.

The Garv: National League MVP in 1974, All-Star MVP in 1974 when he won his spot as a write in, NL Championship Series MVP twice -- once in 1978 for the Dodgers and again in '84 with the Padres when he had the single best offensive NLCS game I've ever seen: 4-for-5, 5 RBIs, and a walk-off, two-run homer to win Game 4 in San Diego against the Cubs. Still an NL record 1,207 consecutive games played. Need I go on?

He's not just ignorant.  He's a hypocrite.

[OregonStrosFan]

Well, Ken Caminiti played for the Astros, and so did Miguel Tejada, Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte. Jason Grimsley was in the organization. So there you go.

Cammy is a given.  Grimsley what, a spring training with Hou. Clemens and Pettitte were nailed more for their pre-HOU days.  Tejada? Also from pre-Houston days.  Plus, none of these guys, sans Cammy, were playing with him during his monster years (the ones to which these comments would seem to be "relevant" to).  What, are folks throwing in a veiled Luis Gonzales reference here?

[Arky Vaughan]

So much for "taking his ballot seriously."  He notes that Bagwell is similar to Steve Garvey, who didn't come within sniffing distance of the HOF.  So go all  the way back... two posts previously... in his own blog:

http://barrybloom.mlblogs.com/archives/2010/11/garv-boss-my-picks-on-new-hall-of-fame-ballot.html

He's not just ignorant.  He's a hypocrite.

It's doubtful whether a group of commenters from Pinwheel's blog would be significantly less qualified to elect players to the Hall of Fame than the BBWAA 10-year members are. Bloom certainly wouldn't distinguish himself in a crowd of those yokels.

[VirtualBob]

I would put out the effort to follow her if that were the case.  I turst you will inform me when that does occur...

It would have to be scrawled somewhere else to make following her do any good.

[VirtualBob]

Cammy is a given.  Grimsley what, a spring training with Hou. Clemens and Pettitte were nailed more for their pre-HOU days.  Tejada? Also from pre-Houston days.  Plus, none of these guys, sans Cammy, were playing with him during his monster years (the ones to which these comments would seem to be "relevant" to).  What, are folks throwing in a veiled Luis Gonzales reference here?

The sarc alert level was raised to red ... you must have missed that.

[OregonStrosFan]

The sarc alert level was raised to red ... you must have missed that.

I'm in 'pissed off at the world (or 'journalists') mode now.  Completely blew passed it.  My apologies AV!

[Reuben]

Well, Ken Caminiti played for the Astros, and so did Miguel Tejada, Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte. Jason Grimsley was in the organization. So there you go.

Right, forget the A's and the Giants and BALCO. 'Roid Central was right in the teeny little state of Texas, boys!

[austro]

Right, forget the A's and the Giants and BALCO. 'Roid Central was right in the teeny little state of Texas, boys!

Of course it was. That gives the coasters another reason to marginalize and ignore it.

[subnuclear]

Cammy is a given. 

Just as a side note, Cammie said he started taking steroids in 1996, after he was traded to SD.  Not sure if he said anything about when he came back (and didn't play very much).

[MusicMan]

Just as a side note, Cammie said he started taking steroids in 1996, after he was traded to SD.  Not sure if he said anything about when he came back (and didn't play very much).

You are dealing with facts.  Facts are irrelevant to the discussion.

[Arky Vaughan]

Right, forget the A's and the Giants and BALCO. 'Roid Central was right in the teeny little state of Texas, boys!

Which team did Andy Pettitte, Roger Clemens, Jason Giambi, Alex Rodriguez, Jose Canseco, Jason Grimsley and Chuck Knoblauch all play for?

This must mean Derek Jeter used steroids, hot bed logic and all.

[Ebby Calvin]

At least Shaune weighed in on the matter

This really is a fascinating discovery.  Her previous tweet:

The mood is unadulterated-unembellished-glamour. The accessories gleam platinum, like starlight on chrome.

I don't know what she's talking about, but I want to know more, dammit.

[Ty in Tampa]

This really is a fascinating discovery.  Her previous tweet:

I don't know what she's talking about, but I want to know more, dammit.

Did she really use up 10 syllables on just 2 words? Amazing!

[Limey]

You are dealing with facts.  Facts are irrelevant to the discussion.

Wrong!  Facts are relevant.

You extract your opinion from your rectum, then find facts to support your anus.

[Houston]

It's as if the last 30 years of proliferation in the understanding of baseball statistics totally whizzed past Bloom. Of course, as my learned friend Noe would note, you don't have to look at a single statistic to understand that Garvey and Bagwell aren't comparable types of players. I wouldn't be surprised if Bloom hadn't even heard of Bagwell until the ballot arrived in his mailbox.

What do you mean they aren't comparable? Facts -- both men, both white, both big forearms, both right-handed, and both American. What more do you need?

[Noe]

So much for "taking his ballot seriously."  He notes that Bagwell is similar to Steve Garvey, who didn't come within sniffing distance of the HOF.  So go all  the way back... two posts previously... in his own blog:

http://barrybloom.mlblogs.com/archives/2010/11/garv-boss-my-picks-on-new-hall-of-fame-ballot.html

He's not just ignorant.  He's a hypocrite.

The Grav?  Not just ignorant and a hyprocrite, but just downright stoopid too!  Moran!

[Limey]

What do you mean they aren't comparable? Facts -- both men, both white, both big forearms, both right-handed, and both American. What more do you need?

Bagwell's birth certificate?

[Noe]

Just as a side note, Cammie said he started taking steroids in 1996, after he was traded to SD.  Not sure if he said anything about when he came back (and didn't play very much).

John J. Moore, owner, San Diego Padres... from Houston where he made his millions.  Basically... hotbed!  Moores must be a supplier then.

[Arky Vaughan]

Sarcasm aside, the circumstantial evidence that Jeff Bagwell used PEDs appears to be as follows: Bagwell (1) had a muscular physique (2) playing in the PED era (3) putting up big power numbers (4) for a franchise employing admitted or strongly suspected PED users, such as Caminiti, Clemens, Pettitte and Tejada (notwithstanding whether such use is alleged to have occurred while those players were Bagwell's teammates).

How does that same fact pattern not also implicate any number of other players? Indeed, how is that not a dead-on description of Albert Pujols? Pujols is as muscular as anyone. His career has overlapped with the PED era. His numbers are eye-popping. And Mark McGwire, one of the most notorious admitted PED users of all time, played for the same franchise, is a darling of the fans there, and had a close relationship with the same manager who has a close relationship with Pujols. Pujols and McGwire were teammates Pujols' rookie season.

None of this constitutes credible evidence that Pujols used PEDs, any more than the same circumstances prove or strongly suggest that Bagwell used PEDs. Like Bagwell, Pujols has never been publicly reported to have tested positive and has not appeared on the various lists that have identified so many other players as PED users. No one has come forward with reasonably reliable evidence that Pujols or Bagwell used PEDs other than the foregoing circumstantial evidence.

If people want to get on their high horse about Bagwell, then they better saddle up for Pujols as well. Pujols is perhaps the only first baseman standing between Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx on one hand and Bagwell on the other hand in terms of all-time great first basemen. But I doubt Pujols will face the same scrutiny by Hall of Fame voters that Bagwell has unless hard evidence about Pujols surfaces in the next several years.

It is perfectly reasonable to believe both Bagwell and Pujols are clean. Foxx had arms like a gorilla, and we can be pretty sure PEDs were not circulating in the A's and Red Sox clubhouses in the '30s and '40s. Both Bagwell and Pujols deserve a presumption of legitimacy if such circumstantial evidence is all the naysayers have to go on.

[Noe]

Sarcasm aside, the circumstantial evidence that Jeff Bagwell used PEDs appears to be as follows: Bagwell (1) had a muscular physique (2) playing in the PED era (3) putting up big power numbers (4) for a franchise employing admitted or strongly suspected PED users, such as Caminiti, Clemens, Pettitte and Tejada (notwithstanding whether such use is alleged to have occurred while those players were Bagwell's teammates).

How does that same fact pattern not also implicate any number of other players? Indeed, how is that not a dead-on description of Albert Pujols? Pujols is as muscular as anyone. His career has overlapped with the PED era. His numbers are eye-popping. And Mark McGwire, one of the most notorious admitted PED users of all time, played for the same franchise, is a darling of the fans there, and had a close relationship with the same manager who has a close relationship with Pujols. Pujols and McGwire were teammates Pujols' rookie season.

None of this constitutes credible evidence that Pujols used PEDs, any more than the same circumstances prove or strongly suggest that Bagwell used PEDs. Like Bagwell, Pujols has never been publicly reported to have tested positive and has not appeared on the various lists that have identified so many other players as PED users. No one has come forward with reasonably reliable evidence that Pujols or Bagwell used PEDs other than the foregoing circumstantial evidence.

If people want to get on their high horse about Bagwell, then they better saddle up for Pujols as well. Pujols is perhaps the only first baseman standing between Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx on one hand and Bagwell on the other hand in terms of all-time great first basemen. But I doubt Pujols will face the same scrutiny by Hall of Fame voters that Bagwell has unless hard evidence about Pujols surfaces in the next several years.

You know what, sadly the world we live in does kind of work like that.  Pujols = Dominican.  Dominican ballplayers = liars (age) and well known PED abusers.  Pujols = older than he really is, but not to worry, he takes plenty of stuff to keep him young and vibrant.  You have to wonder why a man struggles with planter facitis or whatever the name of his Achilles boo-boo is.

[Limey]

Sarcasm aside, the circumstantial evidence that Jeff Bagwell used PEDs appears to be as follows:

You omitted his reduction in body mass at the same time as the introduction of more stringent any kind of testing.  That we all know this to be coincidental as well as circumstantial makes no difference.  These fuckers cannot see beyond their own, stilted narrative.

What they are saying is this:  Bagwell = never played for big media market team = scrub who "used" in order to hang on with a small market team.

[JimR]

one other fact: Bagwell's body changed dramatically.

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

The difference between Pujols and Bags (other than the publicity that Pujols has benefitted from, thanks to his butt-buddy manager), is that by the time he's a HoF candidate, this whole "oooh, how shall we vote for people from the Steroid Era" kerfuffle will largely be settled.  The consensus will be that suspicious candidates are either in or not, and he'll benefit/fall victim to that conclusion.

[Limey]

You know what, sadly the world we live in does kind of work like that.  Pujols = Dominican.  Dominican ballplayers = liars (age) and well known PED abusers.  Pujols = older than he really is, but not to worry, he takes plenty of stuff to keep him young and vibrant.  You have to wonder why a man struggles with planter facitis or whatever the name of his Achilles boo-boo is.

Pujols suffers from larussa cum anusis.  NTTAWWT.

[Limey]

one other fact: Bagwell's body changed dramatically.

Cabrera uses PEDs. 

[Noe]

The difference between Pujols and Bags (other than the publicity that Pujols has benefitted from, thanks to his butt-buddy manager), is that by the time he's a HoF candidate, this whole "oooh, how shall we vote for people from the Steroid Era" kerfuffle will largely be settled.  The consensus will be that suspicious candidates are either in or not, and he'll benefit/fall victim to that conclusion.

"Down in Texas, where I come from, we just go out and get a man and string him up."

[Arky Vaughan]

one other fact: Bagwell's body changed dramatically.

True enough. But PEDs are not the only possible explanation for that. He says he hit the weights hard at that time. He also said he had to slow down as his shoulder degenerated. I do not know whether he is telling the truth. I also understand that evidence that is circumstantial still has probative value.

I do find it odd that Bagwell, if he in fact used, never turned up in the Mitchell report, the Canseco and Grimsley lists, various leaks from investigations and testing, etc. Many if not most of the other players from Bagwell's generation who were strongly suspected or admitted using appeared in the report or on the lists.

It would be naive to assume that Bagwell absolutely did not use, but until harder evidence is found, I think it unjust to penalize him in Hall of Fame voting.

As for how that compares to Pujols, I do not know what Pujols looked like before breaking into the big leagues.

[Noe]

True enough. But PEDs are not the only possible explanation for that. He says he hit the weights hard at that time. He also said he had to slow down as his shoulder degenerated. I do not know whether he is telling the truth. I also understand that evidence that is circumstantial still has probative value.

I do find it odd that Bagwell, if he in fact used, never turned up in the Mitchell report, the Canseco and Grimsley lists, various leaks from investigations and testing, etc. Many if not most of the other players from Bagwell's generation who were strongly suspected or admitted using appeared in the report or on the lists.

It would be naive to assume that Bagwell absolutely did not use, but until harder evidence is found, I think it unjust to penalize him in Hall of Fame voting.

As for how that compares to Pujols, I do not know what Pujols looked like before breaking into the big leagues.

Scawny third baseman in A Ball, bulked up in AA and made the major league team that same spring.  Very Caminiti-like.  Of course, I don't believe Pujols is a user any more than I believe Bagwell is one.  Too much media surrounding the issue and too many people wanting to be the next whistle blower to make it easy for a man to get away with this sort of thing over time.

[Limey]

As for how that compares to Pujols, I do not know what Pujols looked like before breaking into the big leagues.

Here ya go.

[Astros Fan in Big D]

The Dallas Morning News Baseball Writer, Evan Grant, published his ballot this morning. (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/baseball/rangers/stories/010511dnspograntcol.8e1fc3.html)

I emailed him and asked him about Bagwell.  He responded pretty quickly and said that steroids were not an issue with him.  He felt Bagwell fell just short on numbers, but said that several of his fellow voters got him to reconsider after the ballot was cast.  Specifically, Jeff's stats compared favorably to Andre Dawson, whom Grant voted for in the past.  I'm optimistic that with enough cajoling and convincing from his fellow writers he could switch his vote.  

Other encouraging news is that the ESPN video coverage had Onley and Kurkijan incredulous at the 41.7%.  Hopefully they'll champion his cause in the coming year.
  

[Bench]

one other fact: Bagwell's body changed dramatically.

Another fact I see highlighted is that his power numbers "increased dramatically" especially after arriving in the major leagues. 

[ValpoCory]

The Dallas Morning News Baseball Writer, Evan Grant, published his ballot this morning. (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/baseball/rangers/stories/010511dnspograntcol.8e1fc3.html)

I emailed him and asked him about Bagwell.  He responded pretty quickly and said that steroids were not an issue with him.  He felt Bagwell fell just short on numbers, but said that several of his fellow voters got him to reconsider after the ballot was cast.  Specifically, Jeff's stats compared favorably to Andre Dawson, whom Grant voted for in the past.  I'm optimistic that with enough cajoling and convincing from his fellow writers he could switch his vote.  

Other encouraging news is that the ESPN video coverage had Onley and Kurkijan incredulous at the 41.7%.  Hopefully they'll champion his cause in the coming year.

 

I've stumbled all over today, so I apologize if this came from this thread/board, but here's another guy who left Bagwell off the ballot this year, but will vote for him next year ...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/marinersblog/2013849644_jeff_bagwell_poses_new_hall_of.html

[astrosfan76]

Another fact I see highlighted is that his power numbers "increased dramatically" especially after arriving in the major leagues. 

His first stop at the minors was at Rookie-level ball.  He hit .316/.409/.368 in 19 AB.  The Red Sox moved him to the FSL for the rest of the season, where he hit .310/.384/.419 over 64 games (210 AB).  He hit 13 doubles, 2 triples, and 2 HR with a 23/25 K/BB ratio.  The next season, and his last in the minors, he hit .333/.422/.457.  In 481 AB, he hit 34 doubles, 7 triples, and 4 HR.  He had 73 walks to 57 K's to go along with 6 HBP and 12 intentional walks.  The ball wasn't flying out of the park regularly, but he was hitting the ball harder and was already becoming a feared hitter.

His rookie season, he hit 15 HR but, with 26 doubles and 4 triples, had the same number of extra-base hits in 73 more at-bats as he did at AA.  Decent jump in homeruns, but not a dramatic jump in power (OPS was 55 points lower in '91, SLG% was 20).  Plus, gap power turning into homeruns at 23 isn't that rare.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

one other fact: Bagwell's body changed dramatically.

Yet, his hat size remained the same.

[roadrunner]

The only thing that makes me feel better is reading that awesome piece on ESPN that is just Bagwell speaking.

[ValpoCory]

This really is a fascinating discovery.  Her previous tweet:

I don't know what she's talking about, but I want to know more, dammit.

Tramplicate?

[Ty in Tampa]

Tramplicate?

Profundicate.

[JimR]

True enough. But PEDs are not the only possible explanation for that. He says he hit the weights hard at that time. He also said he had to slow down as his shoulder degenerated. I do not know whether he is telling the truth. I also understand that evidence that is circumstantial still has probative value.

I do find it odd that Bagwell, if he in fact used, never turned up in the Mitchell report, the Canseco and Grimsley lists, various leaks from investigations and testing, etc. Many if not most of the other players from Bagwell's generation who were strongly suspected or admitted using appeared in the report or on the lists.

It would be naive to assume that Bagwell absolutely did not use, but until harder evidence is found, I think it unjust to penalize him in Hall of Fame voting.

As for how that compares to Pujols, I do not know what Pujols looked like before breaking into the big leagues.

agreed

[Noe]

Another fact I see highlighted is that his power numbers "increased dramatically" especially after arriving in the major leagues. 

For most ballplayers, this is not an uncommon occurrence. There is a very worn, over used phrase for most of these guys: "The light switch went on!".  Sometimes it happens in the minors, sometimes it goes on in the majors.  Face it, all these guys have talent.  They are unique, but what will determine success is the ability to apply knowledge, comprehension about the game with said talent in order to have "the light switch turn on!".  Bagwell easily states to anyone who will listen that he had help when he got to the majors.  It was one Rudy Jaramillo who took the young hitter with his immense talent and turned him into a major league hitter that he was.

You got to have good people around you.
You've got to have the ability to listen and apply.
You got to have talent to begin.

"Luck" in baseball is opportunity meeting preparation.  What came full circle last year for Baggs was that he played the role of Jaramillo to those who would listen on the young 2010 Houston Astros.  CJ, Castro, Wallace and to some extent Gunther too.  To understand this is to understand what seems strange to everyone else in terms of numbers changing is really not that strange at all.  Of course, we live in a cynical world where everything seems to be explained by cheating or bad behavior.  We can't believe hard work has anything to do with it.

[Bench]

Posnaski rant:  The Willie Mays Hall of Fame.

I cannot tell you how many times in my life, much less in the last month, I have received emails that basically say something like: “Willie Mays — now THAT is a Hall of Famer. That is who I have in mind when I think of the Hall of Fame not (Player X) who you wrote about.”

So, that’s my mission here — to create The Willie Mays Hall of Fame.

Neyer rant:  Change will roll into the Hall, someday

I just don't believe this can stand, forever. Drawing a line between amphetamines and steroids is intellectually indefensible. A Hall of Fame that doesn't include Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens -- not to mention Jeff Bagwell, Rafael Palmeiro, etc. -- is, in the long run, both irrelevant and untenable.

[Noe]

I just don't believe this can stand, forever. Drawing a line between amphetamines and steroids is intellectually indefensible. A Hall of Fame that doesn't include Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens -- not to mention Jeff Bagwell, Rafael Palmeiro, etc. -- is, in the long run, both irrelevant and untenable.

He is absolutely right about the rampant use of "greenies" in the MLB being much more pervasive and yes, it is a performance enhancing drug (in that it keeps the player in an alert state instead of the natural tendency to be tired after a long road trip, et. al.)  Why the one is not newsworthy and has the disdain of the media and the other is, well, maybe because fans won't really care about "greenies" as much.  That's like saying it is wrong to take aspirin if you have a headache to some folks.  Steroids is like saying "heroin" to the same folks.  I've been vocal about my belief the media likes a good story because it sells, but by and large, it is also the responsibility of the fan to know what is being said and done by players before one gets on a high horse and judges with impunity.  If we want to judge, we need not turn a blind eye to everything, instead we must consider it all.

And throw out a ton of HOF'ers from the hall right now too.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Remember when Lou Gehrig hit 20 homers his rookie season, then hit 16 his second full year, and the jumped up to 47 his third season? Remember that? The fuck was he on?

[Reuben]

Remember when Lou Gehrig hit 20 homers his rookie season, then hit 16 his second full year, and the jumped up to 47 his third season? Remember that? The fuck was he on?

Hell, Ruth didn't even hit 20 until what, his 4th year? Guy got real big too. Who else did he turn on to the stuff? Murderers' Row- ha! 'Roiders' Row is more like it!

[Arky Vaughan]

Posnaski rant:  The Willie Mays Hall of Fame.

That's one of the best baseball columns I've ever read.

[JaneDoe]

Posnaski rant:  The Willie Mays Hall of Fame.

I cannot tell you how many times in my life, much less in the last month, I have received emails that basically say something like: “Willie Mays — now THAT is a Hall of Famer. That is who I have in mind when I think of the Hall of Fame not (Player X) who you wrote about.”

So, that’s my mission here — to create The Willie Mays Hall of Fame.

Neyer rant:  Change will roll into the Hall, someday

I just don't believe this can stand, forever. Drawing a line between amphetamines and steroids is intellectually indefensible. A Hall of Fame that doesn't include Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens -- not to mention Jeff Bagwell, Rafael Palmeiro, etc. -- is, in the long run, both irrelevant and untenable.

Thanks for the links.  Great reads.

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

Remember when Lou Gehrig hit 20 homers his rookie season, then hit 16 his second full year, and the jumped up to 47 his third season? Remember that? The fuck was he on?

And that speech!  He'd never said anything eloquent or poignant before then!  He must've joined Toastmasters or something.  And EVERYONE knows how steroids are connected with Toastmasters.

[austro]

Here's a nice article (nice, because it coincides with my opinion) that was published in the Statesman this morning, written by a New Yorker no less:

Is Jeff Bagwell Getting a Raw Deal From Hall of Fame Voters?

Even our buddy Bernie Miklasz (sp?) was pissed about Bagwell's treatment yesterday.

[Ron Brand]

Hopefully the effect of this outrage plus the first-ballot bias will be enough to get him voted in next year. Placing faith in sportswriters' sensitivity to ethics and shame is one of the defintions of a 'fool's errand' though.

[BudGirl]

They have a whole year to forget why they should have voted for him.

[Alkie]

Here's a nice article (nice, because it coincides with my opinion) that was published in the Statesman this morning, written by a New Yorker no less:
Is Jeff Bagwell Getting a Raw Deal From Hall of Fame Voters?

For the record, that article actually ran in the NY Times and was on the front webpage for a day.

[Limey]

Even our buddy Bernie Miklasz (sp?) was pissed about Bagwell's treatment yesterday.

From the article:

And that's what we're doing to Bagwell. And the problem will only get worse. Just wait until obvious steroids cheats are voted in, which will fully expose the hypocrisy and the whimsical application of ethical standards.

Douche-Rod?

[Limey]

Hopefully the effect of this outrage plus the first-ballot bias will be enough to get him voted in next year. Placing faith in sportswriters' sensitivity to ethics and shame is one of the defintions of a 'fool's errand' though.

They are also whores to the whims of readers.  If they get a whiff of a groundswell of objection to their "no" votes on Baggs, they will change.

[austro]

From the article:

Douche-Rod?

Sooner: Bonds. His career numbers make him a no-doubt-about-it, first-ballot Hall-of-Famer if not for the steroids. The only way he doesn't get in is if a sufficient number of voters believe that his steroid trumps his on-the-field accomplishments. And if he *does* get in, then 75%+ of the voters are saying that steroids don't matter. And in that case they shouldn't matter for anybody.

So if he's in, they're saying that steroids don't matter.

[Bench]

Sooner: Bonds. His career numbers make him a no-doubt-about-it, first-ballot Hall-of-Famer if not for the steroids. The only way he doesn't get in is if a sufficient number of voters believe that his steroid trumps his on-the-field accomplishments. And if he *does* get in, then 75%+ of the voters are saying that steroids don't matter. And in that case they shouldn't matter for anybody.

So if he's in, they're saying that steroids don't matter.

Clemens too, and they're both up for first ballot the same year, I believe.  They'll be on the 2013 ballot with Biggio.

[Limey]

Clemens too, and they're both up for first ballot the same year, I believe.  They'll be on the 2013 ballot with Biggio.

Beautiful.  So they'll vote in Bonds, Clemens, Biggio and Bagwell in the same year - and the hangover will be that Bagwell got in because they finally forgave the roiders.  I want to kill them all.

[Guinness]

  I want to kill them all.

Roid rage?

[Limey]

Roid rage?

Evolution.

[chuck]

For the record, that article actually ran in the NY Times and was on the front webpage for a day.

Front page?

[austro]

Front page?

I think he means front page of the NY Times, which people actually consult, as opposed to the mythical front page of SnS.

[ValpoCory]

That's one of the best baseball columns I've ever read.

Agreed.  In-fucking-credible.

[Guinness]

Evolution.

atheist

[subnuclear]

Sooner: Bonds. His career numbers make him a no-doubt-about-it, first-ballot Hall-of-Famer if not for the steroids. The only way he doesn't get in is if a sufficient number of voters believe that his steroid trumps his on-the-field accomplishments. And if he *does* get in, then 75%+ of the voters are saying that steroids don't matter. And in that case they shouldn't matter for anybody.

So if he's in, they're saying that steroids don't matter.

The problem with Bonds is that he started taking steroids at the end of his career (and we have a pretty clear picture when that was) when he already had HoF numbers.  Voters can say "I'm voting for the pre-steroids Bonds" and you can probably make the same argument for Clemens.  Whereas Bagwell, if he took steroids, took them his whole career and therefore his whole career is suspect.  Not that the BBWAA writers who didn't vote for Bagwell are capable of such logic, but its there to be argued.

[Limey]

atheist

Rubbish!  I believe in the front page.  I've never seen it, but it's a matter of faith.

HEATHEN!

[Ron Brand]

I saw it. Once. Why do you think my hair is like this?

Stay away from the Forbidden Zone!

[Houston]

Beautiful.  So they'll vote in Bonds, Clemens, Biggio and Bagwell in the same year - and the hangover will be that Bagwell got in because they finally forgave the roiders.  I want to kill them all.

Sammy Sosa will also be on the ballot that year for the first time. With Bonds, Clemens and Sosa, it'll be the most chemically enhanced ballot ever. Probably won't fit in the mailbox.

[Limey]

Sammy Sosa will also be on the ballot that year for the first time. With Bonds, Clemens and Sosa, it'll be the most chemically enhanced ballot ever. Probably won't fit in the mailbox.

With Sammy on the ballot, it's going to be a corker!

[Jose Cruz III]

Sooner: Bonds. His career numbers make him a no-doubt-about-it, first-ballot Hall-of-Famer if not for the steroids. The only way he doesn't get in is if a sufficient number of voters believe that his steroid trumps his on-the-field accomplishments. And if he *does* get in, then 75%+ of the voters are saying that steroids don't matter. And in that case they shouldn't matter for anybody.

So if he's in, they're saying that steroids don't matter.

Bonds will struggle too, I believe. Most of these writers are not only idiots, but they are self righteous, too.

[BlownRanger]

The problem with Bonds is that he started taking steroids at the end of his career (and we have a pretty clear picture when that was) when he already had HoF numbers.  Voters can say "I'm voting for the pre-steroids Bonds" and you can probably make the same argument for Clemens.  Whereas Bagwell, if he took steroids, took them his whole career and therefore his whole career is suspect.  Not that the BBWAA writers who didn't vote for Bagwell are capable of such logic, but its there to be argued.

The BBWAA intelligentsia has already begun emitting this crap as a preemptive strike against charges of hypocrisy when they gleefully enshrine A-Rod on the first ballot.  Some dork was on MLBTV immediately after the votes were released.  After defending leaving Bagwell off his ballot (against some fairly stiff on-air criticism) he was asked point-blank about A-Rod:  "I imagine what most voters, including myself, will do is look at a player's career and separate the pre-steroid numbers from the steroid numbers and vote acordingly. That makes A-Rod, as well as Clemens and Bonds, no-brainers".  How the hell does anyone know when A-Rod starting juicing?

He went on to state a couple of times "a Baseball Hall of Fame without Bonds, Clemens, and A-Rod is unthinkable".  If this guy's take represents a significant portion of the voters, all of the "they can forget Cooperstown" talk in regard to Bonds and Clemens might have been wrong.

[Limey]

How the hell does anyone know when A-Rod starting juicing?

He told us, and we can trust him.

Of course, when Bagwell says he never did steroids...he's clearly lying.

[SoonerJim]

The BBWAA intelligentsia has already begun emitting this crap as a preemptive strike against charges of hypocrisy when they gleefully enshrine A-Rod on the first ballot.  Some dork was on MLBTV immediately after the votes were released.  After defending leaving Bagwell off his ballot (against some fairly stiff on-air criticism) he was asked point-blank about A-Rod:  "I imagine what most voters, including myself, will do is look at a player's career and separate the pre-steroid numbers from the steroid numbers and vote acordingly. That makes A-Rod, as well as Clemens and Bonds, no-brainers".  How the hell does anyone know when A-Rod starting juicing?

He went on to state a couple of times "a Baseball Hall of Fame without Bonds, Clemens, and A-Rod is unthinkable".  If this guy's take represents a significant portion of the voters, all of the "they can forget Cooperstown" talk in regard to Bonds and Clemens might have been wrong.

A-Rod admitted to steroids while he was with Texas, and stopped when he realized it was wrong. That doesn't count as baseball exposure since he's been "clean" with the Yankees, and his Texas tenure was merely a high-priced rental until he found himself, in pinstrips.

I await the writers' mental contortions to square HIS induction rationale.

[Limey]

I await the writers' mental contortions to square HIS induction rationale.

When they induct Simplex A-Rod, the Hall will dissolve in a flood of tears from the BBGs.

[Bench]

Of course, when Bagwell says he never did steroids...he's clearly lying.

How?  Andro isn't steroids. 

[austro]

When they induct Simplex A-Rod, the Hall will dissolve in a flood of tears from the BBGs.

Couldn't we just have the voters incinerated by a phalanx of lighting bolts instead?

[Limey]

Couldn't we just have the voters incinerated by a phalanx of lighting bolts instead?

+1

[OregonStrosFan]

(http://a2.twimg.com/profile_images/1202843088/DJB.jpg)

Courtesy of AndyP on Twitter.  AWESOME!

[Arky Vaughan]

From the article:

Douche-Rod?

If Knoblauch was using, then how can anyone be sure Alomar or Biggio was not?

[S.P. Rodriguez]

If Knoblauch was using, then how can anyone be sure Alomar or Biggio was not?

I appreciate what you are saying.  At this point, we're the choir, preaching to each other.  The only conclusion I can take from the BBWAA vote is that a HoF vote is a license for flagrant hypocrisy and self-serving arrogance. 

[Mr. Happy]

I appreciate what you are saying.  At this point, we're the choir, preaching to each other.  The only conclusion I can take from the BBWAA vote is that a HoF vote is a license for flagrant hypocrisy and self-serving arrogance. 

I couldn't have said this better myself. The voters are trying to make themselves relevant when the spotlight is supposed to be on the players.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Even our buddy Bernie Miklasz (sp?) was pissed about Bagwell's treatment yesterday.

I've been reading Miklasz off and on for 20 years. He's not a horrible writer. Usually his opinion seems formulated by the patented, which-approach-will-alienate-the-most-readers. This is one of the rare times I agree with him, but suspect he's just trying to piss off his base by pimping an Astro and forever denying a Cardinal.

[Limey]

The only conclusion I can take from the BBWAA vote is that a HoF vote is a license for flagrant hypocrisy and self-serving arrogance. 

See Justice, Richard

[Limey]

I've been reading Miklasz off and on for 20 years. He's not a horrible writer. Usually his opinion seems formulated by the patented, which-approach-will-alienate-the-most-readers. This is one of the rare times I agree with him, but suspect he's just trying to piss off his base by pimping an Astro and forever denying a Cardinal.

I actually thought it was a veiled whinge at McTweets exclusion, using Bagwell as the example of why steroids shouldn't matter. 

[roadrunner]

I can't decide which is worse: baseball hall of fame voting or the BCS

Both are absurd and everyone knows it

[MusicMan]

I can't decide which is worse: baseball hall of fame voting or the BCS

Both are absurd and everyone knows it

The BCS makes the BBWAA look like the Algonquin Round Table.

[Reuben]

If Knoblauch was using, then how can anyone be sure Alomar or Biggio was not?

If Alex Sanchez was using, then how can anyone be sure any other MLB player was not?

from the article:Red Sox second baseman Mark Bellhorn said, "Anybody can do it. Everybody always thinks steroids are the big, bodybuilder type. Just because you take them doesn't mean you're going to be a huge dude."

Well said, Bellhorn.

[Ron Brand]

Red Sox second baseman Mark Bellhorn said, "Anybody can do it. Everybody always thinks steroids are the big, bodybuilder type. Just because you take them doesn't mean you're going to be a huge dude."

Yeah. Just look at Jerry Lewis.

[astrosfan76]

Yeah. Just look at Jerry Lewis.

Sly Stallone was busted with HGH in Australia and we thought Ivan Drago was the only juicer in Rocky IV.

[OregonStrosFan]

Jeff Pearlman just won't leave it alone (copied from Astros County)

Jeff Pearlman just won't leave it alone
So. Jeff Pearlman appeared on Mike Silva's podcast (link captip to AstroBrit) and reiterated his stance that Bagwell and, yes, Biggio were PED users:

For the record, Pearlman reiterated his position on Jeff Bagwell saying he was “so certain he used steroids from being around that team, era, and researching his Clemens book.” He would go on to tell me that if Bagwell didn’t use then the “world is flat.”When I asked him if Craig Biggio falls into the same category as Bagwell because he played for Houston, a team that he said earlier in the show was hotbed for PED use, he said yes.

Click the link to hear the podcast.

This is beginning to piss me off.

[BudGirl]

Jeff Pearlman just won't leave it alone (copied from Astros County)

Jeff Pearlman just won't leave it alone
So. Jeff Pearlman appeared on Mike Silva's podcast (link captip to AstroBrit) and reiterated his stance that Bagwell and, yes, Biggio were PED users:

For the record, Pearlman reiterated his position on Jeff Bagwell saying he was “so certain he used steroids from being around that team, era, and researching his Clemens book.” He would go on to tell me that if Bagwell didn’t use then the “world is flat.”When I asked him if Craig Biggio falls into the same category as Bagwell because he played for Houston, a team that he said earlier in the show was hotbed for PED use, he said yes.

Click the link to hear the podcast.

This is beginning to piss me off.

I've been reading your twitter, this isn't beginning to piss you off.  It has pissed you off.

[MRaup]

I've been reading your twitter, this isn't beginning to piss you off.  It has pissed you off.

Get a room, you two.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Jeff Pearlman just won't leave it alone (copied from Astros County)

Jeff Pearlman just won't leave it alone
So. Jeff Pearlman appeared on Mike Silva's podcast (link captip to AstroBrit) and reiterated his stance that Bagwell and, yes, Biggio were PED users:

For the record, Pearlman reiterated his position on Jeff Bagwell saying he was “so certain he used steroids from being around that team, era, and researching his Clemens book.” He would go on to tell me that if Bagwell didn’t use then the “world is flat.”When I asked him if Craig Biggio falls into the same category as Bagwell because he played for Houston, a team that he said earlier in the show was hotbed for PED use, he said yes.

Click the link to hear the podcast.

This is beginning to piss me off.

Hasn't Pearlman ventured far enough in his statements where there might be a case of libel/slander to be made?  I mean, as a writer, he's not likely to have a bloody syringe saved somewhere, just in case. 

[OregonStrosFan]

I've been reading your twitter, this isn't beginning to piss you off.  It has pissed you off.

Indeed it has, ma'am! 

In Pearlman's defense re: my 'Twitter Offensive,' he did give me his email address for me to pose questions to him, and responded promptly when I wrote to him.  However, he conditioned a defense of his comments on my agreement not to repeat the information that he provided me with.  When I explained that I would not be willing to do so and why, he politely withdrew his offer to back up his statements.

His comments have sufficiently drawn my ire at this point, just haven't decided how best to proceed at this point...

[OregonStrosFan]

Hasn't Pearlman ventured far enough in his statements where there might be a case of libel/slander to be made?  I mean, as a writer, he's not likely to have a bloody syringe saved somewhere, just in case.

No. Though supposedly possible, in reality a 'public figure' has no way to combat libel or slander by todays media. 

[astrosfan76]

Indeed it has, ma'am! 

In Pearlman's defense re: my 'Twitter Offensive,' he did give me his email address for me to pose questions to him, and responded promptly when I wrote to him.  However, he conditioned a defense of his comments on my agreement not to repeat the information that he provided me with.  When I explained that I would not be willing to do so and why, he politely withdrew his offer to back up his statements.

His comments have sufficiently drawn my ire at this point, just haven't decided how best to proceed at this point...

That's actually pretty trusting (or stupid, depending on your perspective) of him to offer what he deems as information that needs to remain confidential to a complete stranger.  You were honest to tell him that you wouldn't keep it to yourself, but what could have stopped you, outside of a conscience, from sharing his "information"? 

[EasTexAstro]

That's actually pretty trusting (or stupid, depending on your perspective) of him to offer what he deems as information that needs to remain confidential to a complete stranger.  You were honest to tell him that you wouldn't keep it to yourself, but what could have stopped you, outside of a conscience, from sharing his "information"? 

Actually, it gives him a plausible way to deny any responsibility for anything he said after that, allowing him to say whatever he wanted to to prove his point without actually having to give proof. If there is proof that this was supposed to be a confidential, off the record conversation, he can make up stories without having to prove anything. Stories that could be spread as rumors without him being held responsible for anything he said or implied. Otherwise, he would have to be ready to stand by what he said, and have a way to prove it.

[OregonStrosFan]

Actually, it gives him a plausible way to deny any responsibility for anything he said after that, allowing him to say whatever he wanted to to prove his point without actually having to give proof. If there is proof that this was supposed to be a confidential, off the record conversation, he can make up stories without having to prove anything. Stories that could be spread as rumors without him being held responsible for anything he said or implied. Otherwise, he would have to be ready to stand by what he said, and have a way to prove it.

Sort of, but not really.  Learned early on in my practice never to put ANYTHING in writing that you did not want to see blown up on a 4X6 board and shown before a jury.  I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.  If you want to relay information that you want to otherwise be able to deny or you don't want to be on record somewhere, the only real way to do it is via the telephone or in person (and even then, if it's being recorded you're screwed).  

ETA: My suspicion is that he was going to call out other folks, say stuff he did not have particular proof for, etc., but that by restricting my ability to repeat it or conversely strictly noting that the information was not being provided for my personal benefit and not for "public dissemination" that he would be limiting potential liability for libel or slander which, IIRC, requires that a statement be "public" to be actionable.

[OregonStrosFan]

but what could have stopped you, outside of a conscience, from sharing his "information"?

Not a thing...  Actually, that's not entirely true.  Having been raised by a Texas momma, I am constantly in fear that she will know immediately that I have lied about something (failed to open a door or give up my seat for a lady, etc.) - even though I'm 2500 miles away - and she'll fly up to Portland and kick my ass.  Btw... Anyone that claims not to have this same fear is either lying, or was not raised in Texas.  Just sayin'...

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Not a thing...  Actually, that's not entirely true.  Having been raised by a Texas momma, I am constantly in fear that she will know immediately that I have lied about something (failed to open a door or give up my seat for a lady, etc.) - even though I'm 2500 miles away - and she'll fly up to Portland and kick my ass.  Btw... Anyone that claims not to have this same fear is either lying, or was not raised in Texas.  Just sayin'...

Not afraid of the physical beating.  I'm afraid of the guilt that would be inflicted.  Potato, po-tah-to

[MusicMan]

I'm afraid of the guilt that would be inflicted. 

Texas Catholicism.

[OregonStrosFan]

Potato, potatoe

FIFY.

-Dan Quail

[MusicMan]

-Dan Quail

Dear God, I hope that was intentional.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Texas Catholicism.

Alas, I must confess

[Noe]

Is Pearlman the one who said that when he asked a former player on the Astros and a PED user if it were okay to have doubts about Bagwell, the answer was "absolutely".  So if this is the case, Pearlman is basically saying he trust his source until told otherwise by evidence.  That is what the media does and that is not necessarily the route of a litigator or prosecutor.  The media has a source, verifies as much as they can from said source and then defends their source if they believe the integrity of the source and the story they've been told.

It's who you believe at this point and Pearlman has chosen to continue this for either his own pleasure or sense of self-worth (to put himself in the middle of the story and not just report a story).

[chuck]

This dicknose Pearlman won't leave the steroids thing along for the same reason that the local tv news is filled with stabbings and house fires. He trades in this bullshit. He's written books about the two highest profile PED cheats in baseball and he serves himself by continuing to fan the flames.

And I'm OK with that, in a sense. I mean, I can ignore this guy just as easily as I can elect not to turn on the TV. But dicknose has a Hall of Fame vote. If he has proof - on Bagwell or anyone else - he needs to come forward with it. If not, his withholding votes for players who clearly possess the credentials for membership is a discredit to the entire process.

[BudGirl]

And I'm OK with that, in a sense. I mean, I can ignore this guy just as easily as I can elect not to turn on the TV. But dicknose has a Hall of Fame vote. If he has proof - on Bagwell or anyone else - he needs to come forward with it. If not, his withholding votes for players who clearly possess the credentials for membership is a discredit to the entire process.

+1!

[OregonStrosFan]

Finally, the Brits are coming to the rescue... 

[Limey]

His comments have sufficiently drawn my ire at this point, just haven't decided how best to proceed at this point...

Take off and nuke him from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure.

[Limey]

Finally, the Brits are coming to the rescue... 

Hey!  That fucker's stealing my gig!

Is there a lawyer in the house?

[Lurch]

Finally, the Brits are coming to the rescue... 

but with Bagwell and Biggio, Pearlman is using smoke and mirrors

ie, he's smoking crack.

[MRaup]

Hey!  That fucker's stealing my gig!

Is there a lawyer in the house?

Duck, unless you want to suffer death from 1000 papercuts via people throwing business cards at you.

[NeilT]

Hey!  That fucker's stealing my gig!

Is there a lawyer in the house?

I don't know, that Union Jack with the star is pretty nifty.  We might want to consider a trade.

Probably doesn't have your fundamentally sound conservative values though.

[Gizzmonic]

This dicknose Pearlman won't leave the steroids thing along for the same reason that the local tv news is filled with stabbings and house fires. He trades in this bullshit. He's written books about the two highest profile PED cheats in baseball and he serves himself by continuing to fan the flames.

And I'm OK with that, in a sense. I mean, I can ignore this guy just as easily as I can elect not to turn on the TV. But dicknose has a Hall of Fame vote. If he has proof - on Bagwell or anyone else - he needs to come forward with it. If not, his withholding votes for players who clearly possess the credentials for membership is a discredit to the entire process.

Yeah, if he has such great proof, why doesn't he come forward?  I mean, that's a big scoop, right?  One of the best players of the 90's used PEDs!  Let's goad him into spillin' the beans (if there are any beans to spill...I'm guessing what he has is more like floor sweepings).

[Houston]

Yeah, if he has such great proof, why doesn't he come forward?  I mean, that's a big scoop, right?  One of the best players of the 90's used PEDs!  Let's goad him into spillin' the beans (if there are any beans to spill...I'm guessing what he has is more like floor sweepings).

That's a good point. It used to be the goal of journalists to scoop their competition with an exclusive story, not to hide from a grand jury. If his story is fair and accurate -- no matter how damaging to Jeff Bagwell -- he will be protected. If he went to journalism school he knows that. On the other hand, if he's dealing in speculation and innuendo intentionally, he has something to worry about.

[Reuben]

Is Pearlman the one who said that when he asked a former player on the Astros and a PED user if it were okay to have doubts about Bagwell, the answer was "absolutely". 

One major quibble here- I'm pretty sure the player Pearlman claimed to have asked was "someone who was in the league at the same time as Bagwell"- not a teammate. I'm trying to find the article where he refers to that, but I think you're giving him too much credit for having a reputable/knowledgeable source.

[Noe]

One major quibble here- I'm pretty sure the player Pearlman claimed to have asked was "someone who was in the league at the same time as Bagwell"- not a teammate. I'm trying to find the article where he refers to that, but I think you're giving him too much credit for having a reputable/knowledgeable source.

Good catch, I go by memory most of the time so I am almost assuredly wrong when I make such proclamations.  What I'm really trying to say though is that Pearlman is using a method that would be welcomed in yellow journalism and not so much in mainstream journalism.  Having said that, the line between the National Inquirer and the New York Times has been blurred recently, and not in a good way.  Media people are pretty smart.. err... intuitive.  They know what sells as much as what is a credible story.  It's up to the individual journalist and his/her editor to decide what takes priority, what sells or what is true.  The onus is to at least, at minimum, at the lowest level... have a source.  Any source will do and then decide to run with it because if you're into the sensational selling to the masses (what did Caesar say "The people want their bread and circuses"), then as long as someone says it, you can call it a source and go with it.

My real point, I guess, is what sort of fan/reader/member of the masses are we (individually)?  When people stop reading rags and books like what Pearlman pens or stop watching shows like what Bravo likes to push on people (not Top Chef though, I like Top Chef), then they will go away and be backroom or back alley media that no one buys.  It's where they belong and it's where we should put them... but alas, Caesar might just be right.

[Limey]

My real point, I guess, is what sort of fan/reader/member of the masses are we (individually)?  When people stop reading rags and books like what Pearlman pens or stop watching shows like what Bravo likes to push on people (not Top Chef though, I like Top Chef), then they will go away and be backroom or back alley media that no one buys.  It's where they belong and it's where we should put them... but alas, Caesar might just be right.

The trouble with how the likes of Pearlman go about their business, is that the sensationalism is what drives readership.  You see the headline "Potential Hall of Fame Player Accused of Using PEDs!", and you click through the read it.  Once there, most will realise that it's baseless wankery, but by then it's too late.  Web readership is counted by click throughs, not click aways.

[Noe]

The trouble with how the likes of Pearlman go about their business, is that the sensationalism is what drives readership.  You see the headline "Potential Hall of Fame Player Accused of Using PEDs!", and you click through the read it.  Once there, most will realise that it's baseless wankery, but by then it's too late.  Web readership is counted by click throughs, not click aways.

Have you ever listened to Colin Cowherd?  If not, count yourself as lucky.  Here in Austin, they shove the guy on you if you listen to sports talk radio in the mid-morning.  Your choice is a really over the hill Dan Patrick and his schticky show on one station (followed by even more schticky Jim Rome... ugh!) or Colin Cowherd.  So the other day, after months of deciding I'm not listening to either one, I'll stick to music instead, I dial in just in time to hear Cowherd say this "Really, the guys who are media folks who don't try to irritate and be the bad guy in the press conference room are not what sells to the public.  Face it, I am paid to get audiences to listen in so they can sell advertising space.  The best way to do that is to be as controversial as you possibly can and make no friends with anyone you're interviewing or reporting on.  Those who don't do this in this business are bound for unemployment".

I was impressed he had the gonads to tell the truth about what radio sports media is all about and basically what media on the whole is all about.  As if we didn't already know.

[Ron Brand]

Another angle in all this is that we're giving his story legs and a crusade to expose him would only feed the beast some more. In his forum, he will control the medium just like a talk show host. To embarrass a public mea culpa from him would require pressure from different angles, say from other media sources. Those angles would also raise his profile beyond what he deserves.

I'm not sure what the best way to proceed is. Maybe the best route is to prepare some iron-clad qualifications and stiff rebuttals to Pearlman-like garbage, package it in a convincing format and carpet bomb the BBWAA voters when the next election cycle starts to ratchet up. We can spend a lot of time and whatever good will or reputation we have on stamping out one idiot's fire, or we can perhaps build on those two things by working positively to get more fence-sitters on board and drown out the stupidity.

[MusicMan]

I'm not sure what the best way to proceed is.

We could wage a land war by conventional means.  But that would take years, and cost thousands of lives.  Or... we could do what we do best: a juvenile, futile gesture.

[Ron Brand]

You're right. Toga party.

[MRaup]

We could wage a land war by conventional means.  But that would take years, and cost thousands of lives.  Or... we could do what we do best: a juvenile, futile gesture.

So you're saying we should shoot a horse in his office?

[Ron Brand]

Nah, enter a float in the HOF parade.

[Noe]

Another angle in all this is that we're giving his story legs and a crusade to expose him would only feed the beast some more. In his forum, he will control the medium just like a talk show host. To embarrass a public mea culpa from him would require pressure from different angles, say from other media sources. Those angles would also raise his profile beyond what he deserves.

I'm not sure what the best way to proceed is. Maybe the best route is to prepare some iron-clad qualifications and stiff rebuttals to Pearlman-like garbage, package it in a convincing format and carpet bomb the BBWAA voters when the next election cycle starts to ratchet up. We can spend a lot of time and whatever good will or reputation we have on stamping out one idiot's fire, or we can perhaps build on those two things by working positively to get more fence-sitters on board and drown out the stupidity.

There is always a remnant that will not bow the knee, a people who say "hey, that emperor is nekkid!"  The hope lies with the sanity of the few and not the laze fair of the many.  And really, the many aren't really that ignant, they are just non-caring about a lot of issues like this silliness of a HOF.  What drives the non-caring to a "hmmmm... this is something I should pay attention to" is buzz words that are used to perk the ear: steroids, SARs, ebola virus, Alkie.  That sort of thing.

The hope is always that some day people will acknowledge it was indeed, much ado about nothing.

[Ron Brand]

I think the objective is two-fold, and doesn't have much to do with laissez-faire or bending knees. Pearlman is a fool who is willfully spreading bullshit about a player we care about, and there are several HOF voters who appear to be on the fence when deciding Jeff Bagwell's worthiness to be enshrined. I know there are members here who are trying to decide whether and how to weigh in on it. I think what I'm advocating is a campaign of education among the BBWAA voters, who mostly will not be people who don't care.

It worked for Blyleven.

The new rallying cry, I suppose.

[JimR]

"laze fair?"

[geezerdonk]

a high tech eye surgeon with an average reputation

[Gizzmonic]

"laze fair?"

Formerly known as the Blaster Carnival

[Limey]

"laze fair?"

Forget it, he's rolling.

[Noe]

Forget it, he's rolling.

Eggszactly!  Grammar Nazis.... I hate Illinois Grammar Nazis....

[Noe]

Pearlman is a fool who is willfully spreading bullshit about a player we care about, and there are several HOF voters who appear to be on the fence when deciding Jeff Bagwell's worthiness to be enshrined.

How does one, with any semblance of common sense reconcile the first part "is a fool" with the second part "voters who appear to be on the fence".  Why, oh why, would anyone who is undecided listen to a fool to help them make a decision?  That is the part I truly don't understand.  There is a show that is a parody called "Life Coach" with Cheri Oteri.  It is funny at times and other times, it's really stupid.  The point is, they are making fun of people who truly feel the need to have such a thing... a life coach.  My wife, in passing, noticed I was watching to see what Oteri would do with this part... and she thought for a minute that I was watching a real show.  I told her, no... it's a parody... no one in their right mind would listen to such a person.  But, alas, some do.

Pearlman is the life coach parody that is getting way too much run and loving it.  Why would anyone of the HOF voters even listen to him?  I sincerely hope they won't... I mean... they can't be *THAT* stupid... can they?

[MusicMan]

Why would anyone of the HOF voters even listen to him?  I sincerely hope they won't... I mean... they can't be *THAT* stupid... can they?

We have had voters putting Mattingly and Tino Martinez ahead of Bagwell.
We have had voters claiming Jack Morris was the best pitcher of the decade.
We have had voters claim that "the only guy I'd want in Game 7 of the World Series" was the HOF critera.

And you still ask that question?

[austro]

Pearlman is the life coach parody that is getting way too much run and loving it.  Why would anyone of the HOF voters even listen to him?  I sincerely hope they won't... I mean... they can't be *THAT* stupid... can they?

41.7%

Somebody's listening to something that sounds an awful lot like Pearlman.

[Noe]

We have had voters putting Mattingly and Tino Martinez ahead of Bagwell.
We have had voters claiming Jack Morris was the best pitcher of the decade.
We have had voters claim that "the only guy I'd want in Game 7 of the World Series" was the HOF critera.

And you still ask that question?

So the problem here is not the fool, but the fools who listen to him... foolishly.  But several decided to not vote for Baggs because they, by their own standards, don't give *first time* ballot candidates a vote.  Hence why Alomar got in when he got a lot less votes his first time around.  I am not sure it's about being foolish as much as being stuck to traditions and customs for some.  For the select few though, yeah, they're stupid... so what are you gonna do?   Darwin awards typically take of these sorts, no?

[Noe]

41.7%

Somebody's listening to something that sounds an awful lot like Pearlman.

So what Gammons, Neyers and many others who speak eloquently about baseball have no voice for those same people?  I think this whole thing with Pearlman is a joke... to me he is not the rule, he's the exception.  And this exception is getting way to much credit, IMHO.  Of course, I could be wrong.  Been so before, will be so again many more times in my life.

[Bench]

So the problem here is not the fool, but the fools who listen to him... foolishly. 

Mr. T doesn't know which one to pity.

[Ron Brand]

How does one, with any semblance of common sense reconcile the first part "is a fool" with the second part "voters who appear to be on the fence".  Why, oh why, would anyone who is undecided listen to a fool to help them make a decision?  That is the part I truly don't understand.  There is a show that is a ...blah blah blah blah... and she thought for a minute that I was watching a real show.  I told her, no... it's a parody... no one in their right mind would listen to such a person.  But, alas, some do.

So the problem here is not the fool, but the fools who listen to him... foolishly.  But several decided to not vote for Baggs because they, by their own standards, don't give *first time* ballot candidates a vote.  Hence why Alomar got in when he got a lot less votes his first time around.  I am not sure it's about being foolish as much as being stuck to traditions and customs for some.  For the select few though, yeah, they're stupid... so what are you gonna do?   Darwin awards typically take of these sorts, no?

No. That is not what I am saying. I know this is a tarball, but please...slow down.

I said that there are some members of this site who are upset about what Pearlman wrote. They would like for him to change his mind, preferably publicly. They do not know how to accomplish this. I think that it cannot be accomplished and should be abandoned, partly because I don't think it can be done and partly because I think he's an outlier in a minority of BBWAA voters.

I said that there are really two objectives here. The first is getting Pearlman to change his mind - not gonna happen. The second is to help get the voters who are on the fence about Bagwell's enshrinement, for whatever reason, to vote for Bagwell. I think that a campaign of education aimed at those voters could make a difference. This campaign would be positive and hopefully productive, in contrast to an effort to bring sense or shame to Pearlman because that would be negative and divisive.

This doesn't have anything to do with voters who might be listening to Pearlman, because I think there aren't enough of those to matter. These two objectives I wrote about are not connected to each other. They don't follow each other in a logical argument. Tying them together is a misinterpretation of what I meant to say. I hope that I am making this clear.

[OregonStrosFan]

No. That is not what I am saying. I know this is a tarball, but please...slow down.

I said that there are some members of this site who are upset about what Pearlman wrote. They would like for him to change his mind, preferably publicly. They do not know how to accomplish this.

I'm definitely in the group that is upset about what Pearlman wrote.  However, I don't believe for a second he is going to change his mind about Bags, Biggio, or the Astros franchise.  With Pearlman, it is really more of a question of whether folks will sit by as he makes such incendiary and (seemingly) baseless claims about the Astros as a franchise and do nothing, or try in some manner to ensure that there is some accountability for his comments.  I'm in the latter camp, but don't have the foggiest idea of how to even begin to make that happen....

[OregonStrosFan]

So what Gammons, Neyers and many others who speak eloquently about baseball have no voice for those same people?  I think this whole thing with Pearlman is a joke... to me he is not the rule, he's the exception.  And this exception is getting way to much credit, IMHO.  Of course, I could be wrong.  Been so before, will be so again many more times in my life.

I think there was some '1st ballot' voters who left him off because of that, and I think there are many more that simply didn't pay attention to him or get to see him during his playing days and don't truly realize how dominant a player he was.  That said, the fact that all 8(?) Chicago BBWAA voters did not mark Bagwell on their ballot - despite getting to see him quite a bit - causes me some concern that there are a lot more of the Pearlman'esque voters out there than I'd like to believe...

[Gizzmonic]

So the problem here is not the fool, but the fools who listen to him... foolishly.  But several decided to not vote for Baggs because they, by their own standards, don't give *first time* ballot candidates a vote.  Hence why Alomar got in when he got a lot less votes his first time around.  I am not sure it's about being foolish as much as being stuck to traditions and customs for some.  For the select few though, yeah, they're stupid... so what are you gonna do?   Darwin awards typically take of these sorts, no?

Not nearly enough.

[OregonStrosFan]

Royal outlines Pearlman's 'proof' (from Pearlman's book) that Biggio used steroids.  LINK

[Limey]

Royal outlines Pearlman's 'proof' (from Pearlman's book) that Biggio used steroids.  LINK

As if to prove my point, the article leads with:

Yes, you read that right. Craig Biggio used steroids.

And then follows immediately with:

At least that's the latest allegation to come from Jeff Pearlman,

This shit is all about clicks, and nothing about information.  Which is annoying because the same article includes this perfect defeat of ignorant logic:

(Note, if there was a major league team that was a hotbed of PED use in the majors, it's the New York Yankees, which eagerly made use of such players as Jose Canseco -- the Johnny Appleseed of steroids -- Alex Rodriguez, Jason Giambi, David Justice, Kevin Brown, Chuck Knoblauch, Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte. So by the standard Pearlman has laid out to label Biggio as a steroid user, then Derek Jeter must be a steroid user.)

So, he should have lead with "Derek Jeter: Steroid User", and I would've been happy.

[Reuben]

Royal outlines Pearlman's 'proof' (from Pearlman's book) that Biggio used steroids.  LINK

Not one "Ed Wade is stoo-pud" remark snuck in that whole article? I am shocked.

He does make a good analogy though- OSF, have you asked Pearlman if he therefore thinks that Jeter used 'roids?

[OregonStrosFan]

As if to prove my point, the article leads with:

FWIW, I chatted with Royal before the article.  I don't think it had nearly as much to do with clicks as it did with the fact Pearlman is seemingly throwing out baseless accusations. The rest is just standard Royal writing style. 

[OregonStrosFan]

He does make a good analogy though- OSF, have you asked Pearlman if he therefore thinks that Jeter used 'roids?

I'm in regrouping mode right now, and have not started the dialog back.  Trying to approach this issue in an intelligently manner...

[OregonStrosFan]

BTW, Limey's 'brother from another mother' also contacted Pearlman regarding the quotes, and blogged about it here: LINK

[Reuben]

BTW, Limey's 'brother from another mother' also contacted Pearlman regarding the quotes, and blogged about it here: LINK

Hadn't noticed the Kepner NYTimes article linked in that piece before, where he quotes Ensberg saying Bagwell told him in 2004 he never used steroids. I'd been wondering if Ensberg was going to blog about the HOF vote, but it looks like his last entry was from late September...

[Limey]

Hadn't noticed the Kepner NYTimes article linked in that piece before, where he quotes Ensberg saying Bagwell told him in 2004 he never used steroids. I'd been wondering if Ensberg was going to blog about the HOF vote, but it looks like his last entry was from late September...

Just like his 2005 stat sheet then. 

[Sorry Morgan, couldn't resist that one]

[Alkie]

[Sorry Morgan, couldn't resist that one]

While we're talking to Ensberg, I'd like a helicopter.   Red.

[subnuclear]

Jeff Pearlman defending the internet from obnoxious Bagwell devotees:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/21/pearlman.online.civility/index.html

[Gizzmonic]

Jeff Pearlman defending the internet from obnoxious Bagwell devotees:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/21/pearlman.online.civility/index.html

I look forward to Jeff Pearlman's next article.  "Road rage is out of control...why, the other day, I cut off a bunch of people on the freeway, and some of them had the nerve to flip me off!"

[MusicMan]

I look forward to Jeff Pearlman's next article.  "Road rage is out of control...why, the other day, I cut off a bunch of people on the freeway, and some of them had the nerve to flip me off!"

Yeah, because that's the same as blind linking to hardcore porn.

[austro]

I find it interesting (and discouraging) that he apparently doesn't think that his public smearing of Bagwell without providing evidence isn't somehow equivalent. I guess that since he signed his name everything is cool.

[Gizzmonic]

Yeah, because that's the same as blind linking to hardcore porn.

On the internet?  Linking to hardcore porn is tame.  If he gets as much hate mail as he claims he does, he should know better than to click on random links.  BTW, there's no such thing as 'blind linking' unless the user decides himself to blindly click on links.  Whether or not people are justified in acting in such a classless manner is irrelevant.  It's the internet...and welcome to it Jeff Pearlman!

[MusicMan]

Whether or not people are justified in acting in such a classless manner is irrelevant. 

Sad that you think so.

[Gizzmonic]

Sad that you think so.

When you deliberately provoke people with a controversial position that you refuse to publicly justify, you're a troll. 

When you blindly click on links from random people who have already cursed you out, you're an idiot. 

And if you write a navel-gazing article psychoanalyzing them, you're Jeff Pearlman.

[Limey]

Sad that you think so.

I do not think that anonymous insults are appropriate.  Even to Jeff Pearlman, who at least signs his name and email address to his unsubstantiated insults.

However, he is familiar with Sasha Grey as an extreme porn star, hence his use of her as a benchmark to explain how disgusting the link he received was.  So porn is ok with him, just not all porn.  And if he truly did have his 7-year old daughter sitting with him at his computer - as he opened random email from the internet and followed the links included therein - then maybe people should quit emailing him, and email CPS.

[Bench]

A very cogent argument.... Why Jeff Bagwell Should Not Make The Hall Of Fame: An In-Depth Study

It really distills Pearlman's argument into something you simply can't argue against.

[MusicMan]

It's beautiful.

[moriartp]

Awesome.

[NeilT]

Do you think he's kidding?  I didn't.

[Reuben]

Do you think he's kidding?  I didn't.

Considering it's titled "An In-Depth Study" but is one sentence long, yeah, I'm pretty sure he's kidding.

[MusicMan]

Do you think he's kidding?  I didn't.

Did you also think Irish peasants should actually eat their babies?

[believin]

Did you also think Irish peasants should actually eat their babies?

Nominated.

[Ebby Calvin]

Nominated.

For what?

[Bench]

For what?

Nominated is the +1 of SnS at this point.

[subnuclear]

Nominated is the +1 of SnS at this point.

I may be wrong, but I think EC was confused by MusicMan's apparent sympathy for the Irish.

[Houston]

Did you also think Irish peasants should actually eat their babies?

It was modestly proposed.

[Bench]

I may be wrong, but I think EC was confused by MusicMan's apparent sympathy for the Irish.

I figured he was referring to mercurial and mythical nature of the actual POTWA.   

[Ebby Calvin]

I figured he was referring to mercurial and mythical nature of the actual POTWA.   

Yep.  Trying to draw Mark out of the woodwork.

[JimR]

Yep.  Trying to draw Mark out of the woodwork.

Mark is so busy at work that i doubt he has even lurked lately.

[Ebby Calvin]

Mark is so busy at work that i doubt he has even lurked lately.

Last I heard he became a Cubs fan.


That should do it.

[NeilT]

Apparently I need to invest in an ironymometer.

[Bench]

Apparently I need to invest in an ironymometer.

You can't be ironic about irony like that.

[MRaup]

Last I heard he became a Cubs fan.


That should do it.

I'd suggest getting out of town for a few days. All the overtime I've worked lately has made it a lot easier to afford a good hitman.

[MusicMan]

I'd suggest getting out of town for a few days. All the overtime I've worked lately has made it a lot easier to afford a good hitman.

I'd suggest you lie low for a while, find a relative to stay with or maybe a safe house.

[HudsonHawk]

I'd suggest you lie low for a while, find a relative to stay with or maybe a safe house.

Yeah, well things escalated quickly.  I mean they got out of hand fast.

[MusicMan]

Yeah, well things escalated quickly.  I mean they got out of hand fast.

There was a man on fire, and I killed Bud Selig with a trident.

[drew corleone]

There was a man on fire, and I killed Bud Selig with a trident.

If SnS did Reputation points, that would have earned you some.

[VirtualBob]

It was modestly proposed.

Nominated.

[VirtualBob]

Last I heard he became a Cubs fan.


That should do it.

Hide your spleen.  Now!!

[Jose Cruz III]

I'd suggest you lie low for a while, find a relative to stay with or maybe a safe house.

The TZ Protection Program. Where we shipping him too?

[austro]

The TZ Protection Program. Where we shipping him too?

The American League.

[ValpoCory]

Going back to the Bagwell Cooperstown topic, what is the over under on the Vote percentage Bagwell gets this year?   If he fails to go from 41.7% up to 50% this year in a weak freshman class, does that tilt the scales against him getting in via the writers vote?

For what it's worth, there hasn't been a single player who received at least 41.7% of the vote in year one go 0-for-15 in writers' voting.

[Reuben]

Going back to the Bagwell Cooperstown topic, what is the over under on the Vote percentage Bagwell gets this year?   If he fails to go from 41.7% up to 50% this year in a weak freshman class, does that tilt the scales against him getting in via the writers vote?

For what it's worth, there hasn't been a single player who received at least 41.7% of the vote in year one go 0-for-15 in writers' voting.

Well, if he's going to have a shot at making it in 2013 as part of a Biggio/Bagwell sentimentality vote, he's probably gonna need to get somewhere in the 50-60% range this year.

[Houston]

I really hope Bagwell gets voted in this time around. The Biggio-Bagwell sentimentality is interesting, but it won't mean much to voters in other parts of the country when he's going against these classes in the next two years:

2013: Craig Biggio, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mike Piazza, Curt Schilling, Sammy Sosa
2014: Tom Glavine, Jeff Kent, Greg Maddux, Mike Mussina, Kenny Rogers, Frank Thomas

[Andyzipp]

I really hope Bagwell gets voted in this time around. The Biggio-Bagwell sentimentality is interesting, but it won't mean much to voters in other parts of the country when he's going against these classes in the next two years:

2013: Craig Biggio, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mike Piazza, Curt Schilling, Sammy Sosa
2014: Tom Glavine, Jeff Kent, Greg Maddux, Mike Mussina, Kenny Rogers, Frank Thomas

I'm not saying it's right, and I'm not saying I agree with it, but Bonds, Clemens and Sosa will not be voted in during the 2013 vote.

[Ebby Calvin]

I'm not saying it's right, and I'm not saying I agree with it, but Bonds, Clemens and Sosa will not be voted in during the 2013 vote.

Agree with this.

[Reuben]

I really hope Bagwell gets voted in this time around. The Biggio-Bagwell sentimentality is interesting, but it won't mean much to voters in other parts of the country when he's going against these classes in the next two years:

2013: Craig Biggio, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mike Piazza, Curt Schilling, Sammy Sosa
2014: Tom Glavine, Jeff Kent, Greg Maddux, Mike Mussina, Kenny Rogers, Frank Thomas

Wow, I didn't realize 2014 was that strong. Rogers of course will never come close, but I think chances are pretty good Glavine, Maddux, Kent, and Thomas all go in that year. Mussina may or may not be a HOF, so he probably doesn't have a shot the first year at least. Same with Schilling in 2013, so maybe that allows Bagwell a chance to go in with Biggio and Piazza (unless the voters do him like they did Bagwell).

[hostros7]

Wow, I didn't realize 2014 was that strong. Rogers of course will never come close, but I think chances are pretty good Glavine, Maddux, Kent, and Thomas all go in that year. Mussina may or may not be a HOF, so he probably doesn't have a shot the first year at least. Same with Schilling in 2013, so maybe that allows Bagwell a chance to go in with Biggio and Piazza (unless the voters do him like they did Bagwell).

The argument for Frank Thomas as a first ballot HoFer, juxtaposed against hand-wringing over Bagwell ever being voted in by the writers, is somewhat lost on me. 

[Reuben]

The argument for Frank Thomas as a first ballot HoFer, juxtaposed against hand-wringing over Bagwell ever being voted in by the writers, is somewhat lost on me. 

I know, but most writers seem to have always assumed that Thomas was clean, just like they always assumed Griffey was. It probably helps that Thomas was always built like the child of Shaq and Refridgerator Perry. Bagwell, however, didn't spring from Zeus' head at birth as a fully-formed, jacked homer-mashing dude, so, you know, "he must be guilty".

[HudsonHawk]

Wow, I didn't realize 2014 was that strong. Rogers of course will never come close, but I think chances are pretty good Glavine, Maddux, Kent, and Thomas all go in that year. Mussina may or may not be a HOF, so he probably doesn't have a shot the first year at least. Same with Schilling in 2013, so maybe that allows Bagwell a chance to go in with Biggio and Piazza (unless the voters do him like they did Bagwell).

I like Schilling as much as the next guy.  But he's in no way, shape or form a Hall of Famer.

[roadrunner]

I like Schilling as much as the next guy.  But he's in no way, shape or form a Hall of Famer.

Does "the next guy" really like him?  I can't stand him and didn't think anyone could.

[austro]

I like Schilling as much as the next guy.  But he's in no way, shape or form a Hall of Famer.

But he pitched with a bloody sock! For Boston!

[HudsonHawk]

Does "the next guy" really like him?  I can't stand him and didn't think anyone could.

Probably not.  He's a first class prick.  So let me rephrase...I think Schilling was a fine pitcher.  But he's in no way shape or form a Hall of Famer.

[HudsonHawk]

But he pitched with a bloody sock! For Boston!

If Schilling gets in the HOF, Jack Morris should go to his house and chew on his ankles until he bleeds again.

[Ron Brand]

I like Schilling as much as the next guy.  But he's in no way, shape or form a Hall of Famer.

I feel this way too. 216 wins? Only won 20 three times? Yet by the metrics, he's in the middle of the pack for a HOF pitcher.

And then there's this.

Will Schilling and Smoltz make it? Schilling's a mortal lock. Baseball history is littered with examples of players who ride postseason success into Cooperstown.

Schilling's not nearly as questionable a candidate. His biggest critic might hold his lack of a Cy Young award against him. But James' Black Ink test, which adds up the number of times a player has led the league in key categories, has Schilling meeting the standards for an average Hall of Famer. The Gray Ink test, which expands to top-10 finishes in major statistical categories, gives Schilling the nod, too. Add in his career and peak numbers and his playoff accomplishments, and he's a deserving candidate. He'll make it, with ease.

[Guinness]

I feel this way too. 216 wins? Only won 20 three times? Yet by the metrics, he's in the middle of the pack for a HOF pitcher.

And then there's this.

And 20 years from now when people look at the members of the Hall, they'll see Schilling's name and say "Who...?"

[HudsonHawk]

I feel this way too. 216 wins? Only won 20 three times? Yet by the metrics, he's in the middle of the pack for a HOF pitcher.

And then there's this.

I think in general, the BBWAA does a pretty good job of electing HOFers.  But if they put in Schilling and leave out Morris, they're just idiots.  Like John P. Lopez kind of idiots.

[Andyzipp]

I feel this way too. 216 wins? Only won 20 three times? Yet by the metrics, he's in the middle of the pack for a HOF pitcher.

And then there's this.

Even though he may statistically be in the qualified, and even though he was never accused, I suspect he was juicing and will not vote for him.  #unsubstantiatedrumor

[Bench]

Even though he may statistically be in the qualified, and even though he was never accused, I suspect he was juicing and will not vote for him.  #unsubstantiatedrumor

I think his anger issues and the fact that he wasn't fazed by a bloody ankle confirm that he was a steroid user... or worse.

[JimR]

I think his anger issues and the fact that he wasn't fazed by a bloody ankle confirm that he was a steroid user... or worse.

so, you think it is impossible to tough it through pain without steroids?

[EasTexAstro]

I think his anger issues and the fact that he wasn't fazed by a bloody ankle confirm that he was a steroid user... or worse.

I can't speak for Schilling's use or non-use, but I know you don't have to be on drugs to keep performing your job with an injury, or have anger issues.

[moriartp]

I think his anger issues and the fact that he wasn't fazed by a bloody ankle confirm that he was a steroid user... or worse.

Cyborg?

[Bench]

Cyborg?

That's probably more likely.  Still, cyborgs should NOT be allowed in the HOF.

[Bench]

so, you think it is impossible to tough it through pain without steroids?

I thought we were being sarcastic. 

[Andyzipp]

I thought we were being sarcastic. 

I was.  I think.

What were we talking about?  Oh yeah...cyborgs.

[Reuben]

I was.  I think.

What were we talking about?  Oh yeah...cyborgs.

Waitasec! Schilling... Gerard Depardieu... it was staring us all in the face, right in our own Separated At Birth.... He's a Cylon.

[JimR]

I thought we were being sarcastic. 

maybe so. some of you Super Intelligent Intellectual Geniuses fool me all the time.

[Noe]

"You also have to be on drugs to participate in fan forums.  I am not voting for him." - self righteous blogger

[Ron Brand]

Waitasec! Schilling... Gerard Depardieu... it was staring us all in the face, right in our own Separated At Birth.... He's a Cylon.

I haven't seen him at any of the meetings.

[roadrunner]

The HOF voting is already a joke, but if Shilling gets in before Bagwell then I will vomit.

[Limey]

The HOF voting is already a joke, but if Shilling gets in before Bagwell then I will vomit.

Or if Thomas gets in and Bagwell doesn't...

[HudsonHawk]

The HOF voting is already a joke, but if Shilling gets in before Bagwell then I will vomit.

The BBWAA has always been excellent at electing members. We'll see how they do the next few years.

[Waldo]

Or if Thomas gets in and Bagwell doesn't...

Yeah, but Thomas got to 500 HRs and Bagwell didn't. /supposed"expert"

[Bench]

And to annoy you this fine Wednesday morning, BP takes a swing at Bagwell saying the Andro proves he used PED.

Caveat, I'm not a subscriber and have no idea what the rest of the article says and to be fair the author indicates at one point that he supports Bagwell's candidacy.  However, the fact that Bagwell took Andro when it was a legal substance both in the eyes of the government and MLB should have little to no bearing on "the PED conversation." 

[Ron Brand]

Fuck BP. Fuck 'em in the ear.

That said, the author supports electing Bagwell to the Hall. He points out that Baggy admitted using Creatine and Andro when they were legal and available on retail shelves all over the US, and that he never failed a drug test, wasn't mentioned in The List, wasn't otherwise implicated, etc. The author doesn't believe in applying retroactive morality.

Had Bagwell used andro in 2005, or flunked a drug test, I'd feel differently, but timing matters. He should be voted into the Hall of Fame. He won’t be this year, but it would be nice to see him surpass the 50 percent mark and build toward induction.

[Andyzipp]

Fuck BP. Fuck 'em in the ear.

That said, the author supports electing Bagwell to the Hall. He points out that Baggy admitted using Creatine and Andro when they were legal and available on retail shelves all over the US, and that he never failed a drug test, wasn't mentioned in The List, wasn't otherwise implicated, etc. The author doesn't believe in applying retroactive morality.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure that creatine still isn't illegal in baseball or in real life.

[Houston]

Yesterday on MLB Network's "Clubhouse Confidential," Bob Costas was the guest. Host Brian Kenney ran down the list of Hall of Fame candidates this year and asked Costas who he'd vote for. When they got to Bagwell's name, Costas said "when it doubt, keep him out." Kenney wasn't in agreement and said that Bagwell was a "no-doubt Hall of Famer." Still, Bob Costas contended there were questions that needed to be answered and until they were, Bagwell shouldn't be vote in.

I have a question for Bob that needs an answer: "Do you still wear women's underwear?"

Until I get a satisfactory answer, I'll have to assume he does.

[moriartp]

It seems Bob Costas has gone full Glenn Beck.

[Ron Brand]

"When in doubt, keep him out." Yeah, that's real catchy, reducing some bullshit concept to a phrase that rhymes. Kinda like "If it does not fit, you must acquit." Or maybe "If your arrogant asshole little face gets too close to mine, I'll take a swing at you, you little fuck."

Maybe I need to work on that last part.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

"When in doubt, keep him out." Yeah, that's real catchy, reducing some bullshit concept to a phrase that rhymes. Kinda like "If it does not fit, you must acquit." Or maybe "If your arrogant asshole little face gets too close to mine, I'll take a swing at you, you little fuck."

Maybe I need to work on that last part.

I disagree.  I think you hit the perfect note...

[geezerdonk]

I have a question for Bob that needs an answer: "Do you still wear women's underwear?"

It's not his fault. It's the only kind that fits him.

[Ron Brand]

FWIW, I'm pretty sure that creatine still isn't illegal in baseball or in real life.

I have no idea. Jaffe mentioned it in his article so I included it.

[BlownRanger]

Can't wait to hear Bobby's rationale for the thumbs-up he will undoubtedly give to A-Rod on his initial ballot.

[Limey]

Can't wait to hear Bobby's rationale for the thumbs-up he will undoubtedly give to A-Rod on his initial ballot.

[Ryan Braun] Those weren't PEDs, they were herpes medications [/Ryan Braun]

[S.P. Rodriguez]

[Ryan Braun] Those weren't PEDs, they were herpes medications [/Ryan Braun]

I'm pretty sure Wandy would have an annual strangle-hold on the Cy Young award if herpes meds helped a player perform like Braun.

[Limey]

I'm pretty sure Wandy would have an annual strangle-hold on the Cy Young award if herpes meds helped a player perform like Braun.

See Astacio, Ezekiel.

[remy]

See Astacio, Ezekiel.

That wasn't herpes, that was leprosy.

[Mark Arm]

Were there a philandering Hall of Fame, Mr. Bagwell's penis would doubtlessly be a first-ballot Hall of Famer.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Were there a philandering Hall of Fame, Mr. Bagwell's penis would doubtlessly be a first-ballot Hall of Famer.

Is that you Alkie?

[sporadic]

Were there a philandering Hall of Fame, Mr. Bagwell's penis would doubtlessly be a first-ballot Hall of Famer.

Can't really blame him for going outside his marriage for some action...from a health standpoint it was much safer.

[juliogotay]

"When in doubt, keep him out." Yeah, that's real catchy, reducing some bullshit concept to a phrase that rhymes. Kinda like "If it does not fit, you must acquit." Or maybe "If your arrogant asshole little face gets too close to mine, I'll take a swing at you, you little fuck."

Maybe I need to work on that last part.

The inane arguement that one must prove that they did not do something.

[Limey]

The insane arguement that one must prove that they did not do something.

FIFY

[JimR]

Were there a philandering Hall of Fame, Mr. Bagwell's penis would doubtlessly be a first-ballot Hall of Famer.

so, go fuck yourself.

[Mark Arm]

Boy, JimR sure does take the internet seriously.

[D.WARD]

Boy, JimR sure does take the internet seriously.

U FOO!

[Ron Brand]

Boy, JimR sure does take the internet seriously.

You don't get it, and it's likely that you never will because we aren't going to tell you why.

[geezerdonk]

Boy, JimR sure does take the internet seriously.

Great moments in dipshittery need to be recognized and highlighted. Somebody has to do it.

[astrosfan76]

This guy gets a vote? Garvey over Bagwell? At least he admits in the comments section (where there are surprisingly decent arguments, for the most part) that he may change his vote for next year's ballot.

http://barrybloom.mlblogs.com/2011/12/28/my-hall-of-fame-ballot-for-2012/

[NeilT]

This guy gets a vote? Garvey over Bagwell? At least he admits in the comments section (where there are surprisingly decent arguments, for the most part) that he may change his vote for next year's ballot.

http://barrybloom.mlblogs.com/2011/12/28/my-hall-of-fame-ballot-for-2012/

Do style points count?  Marcus Garvey had better uniforms.

[Ron Brand]

People like you getting a vote is what is ruining the hall of fame.

[Limey]

People who think that 449 homers “are very similar” to 272 homers shouldn’t be allowed to graduate elementary school, much less get a vote for the Hall of Fame.

[Limey]

You voted for Garvey, didn’t you?

Yes, that’s a matter of record.

[Reuben]

Bob Nightengale (sorry, I'm too disgusted still to go find it and link) says he doesn't believe in stone-walling proven OR suspected PED users, because we'll never know exactly who did what or how much or their competition was using. So ostensibly, he's voting just on what the player did, the numbers, etc.

Then, he votes for: Palmeiro and McGriff, among others.

...and does NOT vote for: Bagwell and McGwire.

How in the hell can a long-time, contemporary baseball writer be so dumb as to think that Rafael Palmeiro and Fred McGriff were both significantly better than Jeff Bagwell and Mark McGwire? Mystifying.

[Bench]

Jose de Jesus Ortiz (I always feel that I've got his names in the wrong order) will be hosting his HOF ballot discussion at Lucky's Pub today at 6:30.  If somebody is willing to transcribe the discussion, they would have all the pity in the world. 

[astrosfan76]

As far as Edgar is concerned that’s as much a vote for the DH. He was outstanding at a position that is not going away and needs to be recognized at some point. I’m very pro DH and think it needs to be adopted in the NL. But that’s another can of worms. I’ll re-evaluate Bags’ candidacy as time goes on. He has 13 more years.

I love this logic:  "I want to make a statement about the DH, so I'm going to vote for Martinez, every year that he's been on the ballot.  Bagwell, who has better numbers across the board (at least counting numbers), well, he has 13 more years.  So, no need to rush into things."

Now, Martinez was a heck of a hitter.  He hit over .320 for 6 consecutive seasons and missed having an OPS of 1.000 in each of those seasons by .006 in '98.  I'm not going to say that he's a "bad" pick.  But, using the HoF as a pulpit for pushing an agenda is shameful.  Bagwell still put up better offensive numbers while playing stellar defense.  Regardless of how he "feels", it's indefensible to say that Edgar Martinez is a first-ballot Hall of Famer while Bagwell is a third-ballot, at best.

[HudsonHawk]

Jose de Jesus Ortiz (I always feel that I've got his names in the wrong order) will be hosting his HOF ballot discussion at Lucky's Pub today at 6:30.  If somebody is willing to transcribe the discussion, they would have all the pity in the world.  

That doofus has often asked for folks to join his panel discussion, then recanted when he realized it may be folks from here, who actually have a clue.