David Schoenfield: Denying Jeff Bagwell would be a travesty

[ValpoCory]

Sorry if Cabrera'd.

In spring training of 1991, Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe wrote a glowing profile of Jeff Bagwell, suggesting that the Red Sox would one day lament the trade of Bagwell for 37-year-old relief pitcher Larry Andersen.

"Bagwell could be big one that got away," read the headline.

The story appeared in March. Bagwell had yet to play a regular-season game in the major leagues, but the picture was already clear: Red Sox general manager Lou Gorman had made a mistake of potential historic proportions.

"Jeff Bagwell owned New Britain," wrote Ryan. "He hit .333. He led the Eastern League in hits and doubles. Everybody said he was the best prospect in the league, maybe the best in all of Double-A. A year or so in Pawtucket, and then The Bigs."

Bill James raved about Bagwell, foreseeing him as a hitter capable of winning batting titles. "Gorman has heard it all," wrote Ryan, "and he is quite prepared to live with the consequences of the deal. 'In the seven years I've been here,' (Gorman) contends, 'I don't think any young player has come back to haunt me yet.'"

Last year, his first time on the Hall of Fame ballot, Bagwell received 41.7 percent of the vote. As Hall of Fame chances go, that isn’t necessarily a distressing starting point. Jim Rice got 29.8 percent his first year; Gosse Gossage received 33.3 percent and Gary Carter 42.3 percent; Andre Dawson didn’t begin much higher, at 45.3 percent. Bert Blyleven notoriously started at just 17.8 percent. The writers would eventually vote all those players into the Hall.

The vote total, however, drew much outrage across the Internet, and understandably so. For a player of Bagwell's abilities and accomplishments to receive such a low vote total was ... well, something of historic precedent.

Using Baseball-Reference's ranking of players via its Wins Above Replacement statistic, Bagwell rates as one most dominant players since World War II. Here are the position players ranked No. 11 through No. 30 and how many years it took them to get voted into the Hall of Fame:

11. Joe Morgan, 103.5 WAR (1st)
12. Eddie Mathews, 98.3 WAR (5th)
13. Al Kaline, 91.0 (1st)
14. Cal Ripken, 89.9 (1st)
15. Albert Pujols, 89.1 (not eligible)
16. Wade Boggs, 89.0 (1st)
17. Carl Yastzremski, 88.7 (1st)
18. George Brett, 85.0 (1st)
19. Roberto Clemente, 83.8 (1st)
20. Chipper Jones, 82.9 (not eligible)
21. JEFF BAGWELL, 79.9 (41.7 percent)
22. Rod Carew, 79.1 (1st)
23. Ken Griffey Jr., 78.5 (not eligible)
24. Robin Yount, 76.9 (1st)
25. Frank Thomas, 75.9 (not eligible)
26. Pete Rose, 75.3 (not eligible)
27. Paul Molitor, 74.8 (1st)
28. Reggie Jackson, 74.6 (1st)
29. Jim Thome, 71.4 (not eligible)
30. Johnny Bench, 71.3 (1st)

Wins Above Replacement may not be a perfect statistic, but I don't think anyone can argue that the above list represents anything other than a list of the greatest players of the past 50-plus years. As you can see, other than Eddie Mathews, every eligible candidate cruised into Cooperstown in his first year of eligibility. Furthermore, the following players, all with a career WAR below 70.0, also made it in their first year: Brooks Robinson, Tony Gwynn, Eddie Murray, Willie McCovey, Ozzie Smith, Ernie Banks, Dave Winfield, Willie Stargell and Kirby Puckett.

And yet Bagwell couldn't receive 50 percent of the vote, which indicates one of two things:

1. A large percentage of voters just don't realize how great Bagwell was.
2. A large percentage of voters didn't vote for him because he had big muscles.

In 1990, the year Lou Gorman would trade him to the Astros, Bagwell played at Double-A New Britain (Conn.). While he did indeed hit .333 (second in the league) and lead the league with 34 doubles, he also hit just four home runs. This factoid has been cited as evidence that Bagwell must have turned himself into a slugger who mashed 449 career home runs with the help of steroids. After all, a year after hitting four home runs in Double-A, he hit 15 home runs for the Astros and won the National League Rookie of the Year Award. He would end up topping 30 home runs nine seasons in the major leagues.

You know how many home runs the 1990 New Britain Red Sox hit? Thirty-one. Bagwell was second on the team; Eric Wedge hit five. The team featured eight position players who would reach the majors, including future Red Sox shortstop John Valentin. He hit .218 with two home runs in 351 plate appearances. New Britain was an impossible place to hit. Ryan suggested because of that Bagwell wouldn't be intimidated by the Astrodome.

"It can't be worse in the gaps than New Britain," Ryan quotes Bagwell as saying. "The ball doesn't go anywhere down there."

The year before, New Britain had hit 42 home runs (Mo Vaughn hit just eight). They hit 34 in 1988. Bagwell -- who Ryan describes in the article as having "something approaching a hockey build" -- didn't lack power; he was just playing his minor league games in the Grand Canyon.

Bagwell has denied using steroids. He never tested positive once testing was initiated late in his career. He wasn't mentioned in the Mitchell report. He played 156 or more games in 10 of his 15 seasons. Other than his freakishly awesome 1994 season in which he hit .368 in the strike-shortened season, his career shows a rather normal curve of improvement, peak value and slow decline starting in his mid-30s.

But he had big muscles.

Since it would seem rather presumptuous to assume guilt without evidence, I'll assume the majority of voters somehow missed Bagwell's greatness, like they did with Mathews for a few years or with Blyleven for so long. These things happen, but fortunately usually correct themselves. Bagwell didn't reach the magic 3,000-hit barrier, he didn't even hit 500 home runs. Some of his value is tied into being an excellent baserunner and solid defensive first baseman, things that can be overlooked in Hall of Fame voting.

But I assume the voters will eventually come around and realize Bagwell is just one of 22 players with 1,500 RBIs and 1,500 runs scored since World War II (his 152 runs scored in 2000 are the most in one season since the 1930s). And of those 22, he ranks seventh in OPS and eighth in adjusted OPS (behind guys named Bonds, Mantle, Musial, Aaron, Mays, Ramirez and Robinson).

So, yes, Bagwell will eventually get elected to Cooperstown.

Because he wouldn't be denied admittance because he had big muscles.

Right?

[juliogotay]

Bob Costas would beg to differ. Because he had big muscles.

[Houston]

Here on the East Coast, I've been surprised by the absolute ingorance of Bagwell's career. I've talked to people who know more about baseball than most people, yet they have no idea of Bagwell's career numbers. They know more about Biggio because he was on ESPN a lot when he reached 3,000 hits.

After last year's HOF vote announcement, I heard a local guy mention Bagwell among a group of players who were "good but not good enough." I emailed him the stats and he emailed me back and admitted he didn't know the numbers were that good!

That is what Bagwell is up against. Ignorance, arrogance, and pride of ignorance and arrogance.

If Bagwell doesn't get 75% this year, we need to begin our own campaign to educate the voters. Believe me, they need to be educated because they honestly don't know.

[astrosfan76]

Here on the East Coast, I've been surprised by the absolute ingorance of Bagwell's career. I've talked to people who know more about baseball than most people, yet they have no idea of Bagwell's career numbers. They know more about Biggio because he was on ESPN a lot when he reached 3,000 hits.

After last year's HOF vote announcement, I heard a local guy mention Bagwell among a group of players who were "good but not good enough." I emailed him the stats and he emailed me back and admitted he didn't know the numbers were that good!

That is what Bagwell is up against. Ignorance, arrogance, and pride of ignorance and arrogance.

If Bagwell doesn't get 75% this year, we need to begin our own campaign to educate the voters. Believe me, they need to be educated because they honestly don't know.

Footer went off on those same folks, as well:

Some writers simply think Bagwell was a very good player, but not among the best ever. A friendly reminder to the voters who actually watched Bags play in person 10, maybe 12 times during his 15-year career: there is good baseball played all over the country, played by Hall of Fame-worthy players who spent their entire careers in places other than the Northeast. That their feats weren’t televised nationally on a regular basis doesn’t make them less worthy of being recognized for what they accomplished.

She doesn't think he'll make it in this year, either.  Though there must be a moderately-sized contingent of voters who think his numbers just weren't Hall-worthy, sadly, the majority of vocal naysayers are playing the steroid card.  Granted, talk of steroids garners more attention than, say, discussion of actual contributions, but you just don't hear much talk of that.  Personally, I'd much rather have a discussion with someone about his career-worthiness than about whether his career should be marred by assumptions.  At least you can reason with someone who is looking at his career. 


http://footer.mlblogs.com/2012/01/03/new-year-new-blog-fanfest-caravan-astroline-bagwell-will-the-hall-call/

[Houston]

I failed to mention that the "local guy" was the afternoon co-host on the ESPN-affiliated radio station, so he wasn't just some guy sitting next to me at a ballgame. He also has a national sports radio show.

He didn't know, but at least he was willing to listen to a reasoned argument. That's why I think there's hope for Bagwell if we get involved. We don't need to convince everyone and not even the 42% who voted for him last year. We only need an additional 33% -- one in three -- who didn't vote for him the last time.

[Randy Watson]

The fact that Bagwell and Tim Raines are not in the HOF, speaks to the ignorance of the voters.

[strosrays]

Some caller on Inside Pitch today said whether Bagwell used or not (not an open question anymore, I didn't think, if it ever was), he did not deserve to go in because 1.) Bagwell 'benefited' from all the other guys around him who were using at the time (he really diodn't elaborate on this point), and 2.) Bagwell helped 'cover up' for all the guys using at the time, instead of reporting them to, um, whomever.

How the fuck do you argue with logic like this?

[astrosfan76]

Some caller on Inside Pitch today said whether Bagwell used or not (not an open question anymore, I didn't think, if it ever was), he did not deserve to go in because 1.) Bagwell 'benefited' from all the other guys around him who were using at the time (he really diodn't elaborate on this point), and 2.) Bagwell helped 'cover up' for all the guys using at the time, instead of reporting them to, um, whomever.

How the fuck do you argue with logic like this?

Cover their mouth, eventually they'll run out of oxygen.

[Ron Brand]

Some caller on Inside Pitch today said whether Bagwell used or not (not an open question anymore, I didn't think, if it ever was), he did not deserve to go in because 1.) Bagwell 'benefited' from all the other guys around him who were using at the time (he really diodn't elaborate on this point), and 2.) Bagwell helped 'cover up' for all the guys using at the time, instead of reporting them to, um, whomever.

How the fuck do you argue with logic like this?

Beat them to death with a tire iron. That'll thin the fucking herd.

[Ebby Calvin]

Cover their mouth, eventually they'll run out of oxygen.

I like this approach.

Beat them to death with a tire iron. That'll thin the fucking herd.

But this seems more appropriate.

[Gizzmonic]

They were talking about this on MLB Network radio this morning. Memolo, who is as big of a Cubs homer as anyone, said his numbers were definitely Hall-worthy.  He said suspicion about the whole era would be the only thing to keep him out.  I don't understand the grandstanding by the writers, especially for a guy who 1)has absolutely no evidence 2)was not the 1-trick HR pony like Sosa or McGuire.

[MusicMan]

Several Chicago guys on the "we think he juiced" bandwagon.

Of course, I've seen no evidence to prove that they aren't child molesters like at least one of their BBWAA bretheren, so I'll have to assume for the time being that they are.

[strosrays]

Several Chicago guys on the "we think he juiced" bandwagon.

Of course, I've seen no evidence to prove that they aren't child molesters like at least one of their BBWAA bretheren, so I'll have to assume for the time being that they are.

This is the kind of non-intellectualism among the BBWAA membership that gets to me.

If you are a member of the BBWAA and think Bagwell shouldn't go to the HOF because he just wasn't good enough, okay.  I disagree, but it is at least a valid point from which to begin a discussion.

If you are going to refuse to consider him because of a baseless rumor you choose to believe steadfastly without any corraborating evidence, well, I guess that is your right.  But what does that say about you as a writer and/or as a reasonably intelligent and objective observer of the sport you write about?

You don't want me to answer that.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

This is the kind of non-intellectualism among the BBWAA membership that gets to me.

If you are a member of the BBWAA and think Bagwell shouldn't go to the HOF because he just wasn't good enough, okay.  I disagree, but it is at least a valid point from which to begin a discussion.

If you are going to refuse to consider him because of a baseless rumor you choose to believe steadfastly without any corraborating evidence, well, I guess that is your right.  But what does that say about you as a writer and/or as a reasonably intelligent and objective observer of the sport you write about?

You don't want me to answer that.

It's situations such as this (like discussing baseball with Yankee, Cubs, or Red Sox fans) that I try to keep in mind that "fan" is an abbreviation for fanatic.  Most sportswriters see themselves as the "ultimate fan" of the team they cover. The definition of fanatic seems completely relevant at that point:

fa·nat·i·cal
   [fuh-nat-i-kuhl] Show IPA
adjective
motivated or characterized by an extreme, uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.

Also, fanatic.

Origin:
1540–50; fanatic  + -al1

Related forms
fa·nat·i·cal·ly, adverb
fa·nat·i·cal·ness, noun
non·fa·nat·i·cal, adjective
non·fa·nat·i·cal·ly, adverb
un·fa·nat·i·cal, adjective

EXPAND
Synonyms
enthusiastic, zealous, frenzied, rabid. See intolerant, radical.

I think I will begin calling myself a student of the art of baseball, rather than a baseball fan.  It seems more appropriate.

[juliogotay]

It's situations such as this (like discussing baseball with Yankee, Cubs, or Red Sox fans) that I try to keep in mind that "fan" is an abbreviation for fanatic.  Most sportswriters see themselves as the "ultimate fan" of the team they cover. The definition of fanatic seems completely relevant at that point:

I think I will begin calling myself a student of the art of baseball, rather than a baseball fan.  It seems more appropriate.

I have to disagree that the sportswriters see themselves as fans of the team they cover.  To most I think it's a job and they really couldn't care less if the home nine wins or not. Most all have a poor relationship with at least some team members, maybe even the manager, and love to see them fail. Many would rather not even be doing baseball because they have to work every night. And if they love the game they may be from Chicago and be a Cubs or Sox fan. I remember playing softball many years ago with Phil Rogers of the then Dallas Times Herald and was surprised how little of a MLB fan he was. He was writing a Sunday notes column at the time about MLB. 

[strosrays]

It's situations such as this (like discussing baseball with Yankee, Cubs, or Red Sox fans) that I try to keep in mind that "fan" is an abbreviation for fanatic.  Most sportswriters see themselves as the "ultimate fan" of the team they cover. The definition of fanatic seems completely relevant at that point:

I think I will begin calling myself a student of the art of baseball, rather than a baseball fan.  It seems more appropriate.

I thought 'fan' was an abbreviation of 'fanboy.'  Maybe just in St. Louis.

[Houston]

I did encounter some reasonable perspective twice this evening. First, on MLB Network's "Clubhouse Confidential" (make sure watch it if you're a stat geek), Jay Jaffe from Baseball Perspectus was the guest. He said his analysis showed that Bagwell is the fifth-best first baseman of all time after Lou Gehrig, Albert Pujols, Jimmy Foxx, and Cap Anson. That's high cotton!

Then in the latest ESPN The Magazine issue, writer Peter Keating came up with a stat he calls Wins Above All-Star Level (WAAS). With this, he said he's able to measure truly treat players, not just good players (or all-stars). Of the players on the ballot this year, Bagwell had the highest WAAS at 45.2 (he considered 20.0 to be all-star level and anything above that was Hall of Fame worthy). Edgar Martinez was next at 34.8, Alan Trammell (32.1), Barry Larkin (31.7), Mark McGwire (28.3), Tim Raines (27.0), Rafael Palmeiro (26., and Bernie Williams (21.1). Fred McGriff, Juan Gonzalez, and Jack Morris fell below that 20.0 threshold.

[Reuben]

I keep forgetting about those other guys on the ballot. I hope Larkin makes it this year- seems like he will- and I think Raines and Trammell should be in as well, although I doubt if either will make it before their 15 years are up. Dunno about Edgar, granted he's got some impressive numbers- .312 lifetime average, great OBP, good slugging, lots of runs, doubles, RBI.

[strosrays]

I keep forgetting about those other guys on the ballot. I hope Larkin makes it this year- seems like he will- and I think Raines and Trammell should be in as well, although I doubt if either will make it before their 15 years are up. Dunno about Edgar, granted he's got some impressive numbers- .312 lifetime average, great OBP, good slugging, lots of runs, doubles, RBI.

I always felt Raines was hurt by playing at roughly the same time as Rickey Henderson.  In any other era, he would have been celebrated widely as the greatest leadoff hitter of his time; but he was playing at the same time as the greatest leadoff hitter, ever.  Also, in offensive starved Montreal, they eventually started moving him to the middle of the order to take advantage of his modest power.  Maybe better for the club, not better for Raines HOF chances.   I used to think the cocaine use hurt him, but that is so overshadowed by suspicion of PED use by writers now, I don't think the cocaine thing is a factor at all.

To me, he is clearly the most HOF worthy guy lingering on the ballot.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Several Chicago guys on the "we think he juiced" bandwagon.

Of course, I've seen no evidence to prove that they aren't child molesters like at least one of their BBWAA bretheren, so I'll have to assume for the time being that they are.

In addition to known child molester Bill Conlin, you have Chicago scribe and ESPN jabber-mouth, Jay Marriotti arrested for beating on his girlfriend and ESPN writer Howard Bryant arrested for beating on his wife and fighting with arresting officers. Man, it appears that baseball writers as a group are just common criminals lacking any kind of decency or any moral compass. Until we as a country of Americans can sort out who is a criminal and who isn't -- for the good of the country and baseball -- we should put all writers in prison and only let them out when we are sure they will vote for Bagwell are innocent of any crimes. And meanwhile, Craig James still hasn't denied killing 5 hookers while at SMU.

[geezerdonk]

In addition to known child molester Bill Conlin, you have Chicago scribe and ESPN jabber-mouth, Jay Marriotti arrested for beating on his girlfriend and ESPN writer Howard Bryant arrested for beating on his wife and fighting with arresting officers. Man, it appears that baseball writers as a group are just common criminals lacking any kind of decency or any moral compass. Until we as a country of Americans can sort out who is a criminal and who isn't -- for the good of the country and baseball -- we should put all writers in prison and only let them out when we are sure they will vote for Bagwell are innocent of any crimes. And meanwhile, Craig James still hasn't denied killing 5 hookers while at SMU.

Post of the Decade

[Limey]

I have to disagree that the sportswriters see themselves as fans of the team they cover.  To most I think it's a job and they really couldn't care less if the home nine wins or not. Most all have a poor relationship with at least some team members, maybe even the manager, and love to see them fail. Many would rather not even be doing baseball because they have to work every night. And if they love the game they may be from Chicago and be a Cubs or Sox fan. I remember playing softball many years ago with Phil Rogers of the then Dallas Times Herald and was surprised how little of a MLB fan he was. He was writing a Sunday notes column at the time about MLB. 

From personal experience (and imperial evidence in the Limey Time section), my creative juices flow a lot more when the team's losing than when it's winning.  It's a lot harder to be interesting and entertaining when writing about yet another win.

[Duke]

From personal experience (and imperial evidence in the Limey Time section), my creative juices flow a lot more when the team's losing than when it's winning.  It's a lot harder to be interesting and entertaining when writing about yet another win.

Oh for the days when it was difficult to be interesting and entertaing....

[Ebby Calvin]

Jayson Stark voted for Bagwell:
Not posting a link because I'm on my phone, but you can find the article at espn.com

- Jeff Bagwell: The best assessment of Bagwell's HOF credentials I've ever read just appeared on this site, from the ever-eloquent Schoenfield. But let me add: What we have here is a guy who has vehemently denied he used any illegal PED, and who didn't appear in the Mitchell report even though star witness Kirk Radomski worked for the Astros. What we also have here is a player whose Hall of Fame qualifications couldn't possibly be more clear-cut. How many first basemen are in the 400-homer, 200-steal club? Just one: Jeff Bagwell. How many first basemen have ever ripped off at least 12 straight seasons with an OPS-plus of 130 or better? Only two: Bagwell and Gehrig. Not to mention this fellow was a rookie of the year, an MVP, a Gold Glove winner and the Simba-esque leader on a team that went to the postseason six times. So why are so many people NOT voting for him again?

[astrosfan76]

Jayson Stark voted for Bagwell:
Not posting a link because I'm on my phone, but you can find the article at espn.com

Pretty sure he voted for him last time, also. I'm really hoping to see more voters come out and say "this is why I voted for him this year." Unfortunately, I don't think too many "steroid?" voters are going to change their mind after one year. They've already put the player in a position where they have to prove their innocence when it is impossible to do so (how do you improve on no evidence). After how many years does a player lose suspicion among the voters? With a guy whom the voters simply feel doesn't quite makes it based on qualifications, writers can honestly say that they went back and upon further review, saw evidence that changed their mind. With a guy like Bagwell, there is no further review. All the definitive evidence that will be revealed has been revealed.

Hopefully, I am underestimating the voters ability to do the right thing and that the "steroid?" voters are more of a vocal minority than they appear, but it seems like it's going to be an uphill battle.

[Reuben]

I'm predicting he gets 52% this year.

[Reuben]

Only 6 out of mlb.com's 15 writers voted for Bagwell. There was one who voted for McGriff, Palmeiro, and McGwire, but not Bags. And another who thinks he wasn't dominant enough because he only led the league in one major offensive category, RBI in 1994.

Then again, what level of intelligence do you expect from a club that includes Richard Justice (who did vote for Bagwell, granted)? Lots of dumbass explanations alongside the votes.

[MusicMan]

Lyle Spencer, and anyone else who votes for Mattingly but not Bagwell, should be beaten with a tire iron.

[ValpoCory]

Pedro Gomez voted for Bill Mueller but not Jeff Bagwell.   

[jbm]

Pedro Gomez voted for Bill Mueller but not Jeff Bagwell.   

I probably should know who he is, but the name isn't ringing any bells. 

[Bench]

I probably should know who he is, but the name isn't ringing any bells. 

Pedro Gomez was the guy who had to cover Barry Bonds every day for a few years.

[jbm]

He applied the cream?

[HudsonHawk]

Pedro Gomez voted for Bill Mueller but not Jeff Bagwell.   

Then Gomez is as big an idiot as John P. Lopez.  And that's saying something.

[MusicMan]

Then Gomez is as big an idiot as John P. Lopez.  And that's saying something.

To be fair, following Bonds for that long is the equivalent of a prefrontal lobotomy.

[Jose Cruz III]

I probably should know who he is, but the name isn't ringing any bells. 

He's a homo. NTTAWWT And an idiot. NTTAWWTE

[BatGirl]

tom haudricourt just tweeted:

"My HOF ballot: Larkin, Morris, Smith, Raines, McGriff. After listening to others I respect, regret not including Bagwell. Next year, I will."
and
"The knowledgable and reasoned opinions of others I respect made me realize I should have included Bagwell."

[Houston]

Maybe as a baseball writer, he should have actually paid attention to baseball and not just the team he was covering at the time.

[MusicMan]

Footer says Bagwell got 56%.  What 42% of voters are demonstrably stupid.

[Limey]

Maybe as a baseball writer, he should have actually paid attention to baseball and not just the team he was covering at the time.

This.

It's amazing, given the availability of...oh...every single game to watch and stat to read in real-time, that these clowns can be ignorant of the achievements of any player.  It just goes to show how far up their own arses their heads are.  How did the guys do it in the 19th century?  I guessing they read the newspaper reports of games they did not see first hand - which were probably written by someone who knew what the fuck they were talking about.

EoR

[OregonStrosFan]

If there is a silver lining (and make no mistake, I consider the fact that Bagwell was not a First Ballot HOF'er) is that this gives us the real possibility that Biggio and Bagwell will be inducted to the HOF together.  Not only does that just 'feel' right to me, it'd save a heck of a lot on travel costs...

And if I haven't said it for a while... FYB!!!

[HudsonHawk]

If there is a silver lining (and make no mistake, I consider the fact that Bagwell was not a First Ballot HOF'er) is that this gives us the real possibility that Biggio and Bagwell will be inducted to the HOF together.  Not only does that just 'feel' right to me, it'd save a heck of a lot on travel costs...

And if I haven't said it for a while... FYB!!!

I think Bagwell's vote total will go down the next few years.

[Limey]

I think Bagwell's vote total will go down the next few years.

Yep.  Plus, with Roidy the Clown hitting the ballot, it's only going to re-energise the those who have already convicted Bagwell by association.  "If I won't vote for Sosa, I can't vote for Bagwell."

[MusicMan]

I think Bagwell's vote total will go down the next few years.

I think the Biggio storyline pushes him through next year.  If he doesn't make it next year, he's in trouble.

[Limey]

I think the Biggio storyline pushes him through next year.  If he doesn't make it next year, he's in trouble.

You're making the very bold assumption that these retards will vote in Biggio next year.  That's a lot of chicken-counting...

[Astros Fan in Big D]

Dallas Morning News listed its voters' ballots:

Cowlishaw and Fraley voted for Bagwell.  Grant and Gosselin did not.  

I emailed Grant last year about Bagwell; he emailed back and said for him it was not about the question of PEDs but strictly baseball.  I guess I'll email him again.

[HudsonHawk]

Yep.  Plus, with Roidy the Clown hitting the ballot, it's only going to re-energise the those who have already convicted Bagwell by association.  "If I won't vote for Sosa, I can't vote for Bagwell."

Some of that, but I think the ballot will just be crowded the next few years with legit candidates, and Bagwell will get replaced on many.

[jbm]

I think Bagwell's vote total will go down the next few years.

 

I haven't followed this through the years, but does this happen often?   I'd assume most get more votes as the years pass.

[BatGirl]

Per Tom Verducci on The Baseball Network:
only player to get more than 50 pct of HOF vote and not get in eventually was Gil Hodges.

[Houston]

Dallas Morning News listed its voters' ballots:

Cowlishaw and Fraley voted for Bagwell.  Grant and Gosselin did not.  

I emailed Grant last year about Bagwell; he emailed back and said for him it was not about the question of PEDs but strictly baseball.  I guess I'll email him again.

You're assuming he can read. You may need to call him.

Talk slowly.

[Reuben]

 

I haven't followed this through the years, but does this happen often?   I'd assume most get more votes as the years pass.

I think Hudson has decided that Bagwell will never, ever come close to getting in, and this is his way of coping with the surprisingly-high 56% total this year. Gil Hodges is the only player to get more than 50% of the vote and not eventually get in, and Bagwell is there in just his 2nd year on the ballot. I think that's pretty encouraging if you think about it objectively.

[HudsonHawk]

I think Hudson has decided that Bagwell will never, ever come close to getting in, and this is his way of coping with the surprisingly-high 56% total this year. Gil Hodges is the only player to get more than 50% of the vote and not eventually get in, and Bagwell is there in just his 2nd year on the ballot. I think that's pretty encouraging if you think about it objectively.

I didn't say he'd never get in, I said I think his vote totals will decline for the next couple of years.

[austro]

You're making the very bold assumption that these retards will vote in Biggio next year.  That's a lot of chicken-counting...

I'm with Limey here. I'll be very surprised if Biggio gets in on the first ballot. There appear to be many voters who feel that first-ballot induction is reserved only for the likes of Babe Ruth.

[HudsonHawk]

I'm with Limey here. I'll be very surprised if Biggio gets in on the first ballot. There appear to be many voters who feel that first-ballot induction is reserved only for the likes of Babe Ruth.

And there were those who didn't think even he was HOF worthy.

[cougar]

Footer says Bagwell got 56%.  What 42% of voters are demonstrably stupid.

And the other 2% are....?

[BizidyDizidy]

And the other 2% are....?

Sampling error.

[MusicMan]

And the other 2% are....?

People like the quoted writer whobasically said "well, I screwed up."

[ValpoCory]

I'm with Limey here. I'll be very surprised if Biggio gets in on the first ballot. There appear to be many voters who feel that first-ballot induction is reserved only for the likes of Babe Ruth.

I won't be surprised.  3,000 hits without steroid allegations is too strong to ignore, in my opinion.  Of course, I've been wrong before.

[Reuben]

I won't be surprised.  3,000 hits without steroid allegations is too strong to ignore, in my opinion.  Of course, I've been wrong before.

I can't wait to read the explanations from those who don't vote for him:

"I can't vote for a guy with only a .281 lifetime average", or "He's got great numbers, but he played all those years in a Coors-Field type park", or "he didn't steal as many bases as Roberto Alomar" maybe.

[austro]

I won't be surprised.  3,000 hits without steroid allegations is too strong to ignore, in my opinion.  Of course, I've been wrong before.

But, but, but... He hung on longer than he should have just to get those hits. And he had bad numbers in the playoffs. And his helmet was dirty.

[Bench]

I can't wait to read the explanations from those who don't vote for him:

"I can't vote for a guy with only a .281 lifetime average", or "He's got great numbers, but he played all those years in a Coors-Field type park", or "he didn't steal as many bases as Roberto Alomar" maybe.

He shouldn't be rewarded for hanging on way past his prime just to get milestone numbers.  Just because he played a long time doesn't make him a hall of famer. 

[Limey]

But, but, but... He hung on longer than he should have just to get those hits. And he had bad numbers in the playoffs. And his helmet was dirty.

He shouldn't be rewarded for hanging on way past his prime just to get milestone numbers.  Just because he played a long time doesn't make him a hall of famer. 

Dead heat!

[Ty in Tampa]

Compare Biggio with first-ballot HOFer Robin Yount. Any voter that can look at that and not vote him in deserves a soap-bars-in-a-pillow-case party.

[MusicMan]

Any voter that can look at that and not vote him in deserves a soap-bars-in-a-pillow-case party.

In other words, a majority of voters.

[Bench]

Compare Biggio with first-ballot HOFer Robin Yount. Any voter that can look at that and not vote him in deserves a soap-bars-in-a-pillow-case party.

Tucked behind the "character clause" is the lesser known, but more concrete, "ability to grow facial hair clause."

[Reuben]

Compare Biggio with first-ballot HOFer Robin Yount. Any voter that can look at that and not vote him in deserves a soap-bars-in-a-pillow-case party.

Yount is his #1 comp on bb-ref. Jeter is 2nd.

To me, 5th all-time in doubles is just as impressive a stat as 3,000 hits.

Also pretty good: 8 years of 20+ HR, 9 years of 20+ SB. 13th all-time in Runs. And the HBP thingy.

[Ty in Tampa]

Tucked behind the "character clause" is the lesser known, but more concrete, "ability to grow facial hair sport a filthy porn-star 'stache clause."

[MusicMan]

People like this are voters.

This might be the last year I vote because of the steroid/PED issue. I might change my mind over the years, but right now, I don’t think any juicer should be in the Hall of Fame. And we know who most of those are. But we also know that, starting next year, there are going to be some high-profile known users on the ballot, and also some who have certainly had rumors about drug use connected to their names.

My problem is this. If I decide I’m not going to vote for juicers, and then we (the Baseball Writers Association of America) put in a player who’s never been known to juice, and it turns out later on that he did juice, well, then what do we do? Do we go back and put Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez into the Hall?

I also have a major problem with these guys being allowed in, but Pete Rose not being allowed in. That’s a different story for another day.

So my ballot, on which you can vote for as many as 10 players, went in this year with one name checked: Don Mattingly. I know he’s not going to get in because a lot of voters think his career body of work wasn’t good enough. But when he played, in his prime, he was the best player in baseball. And there are guys in the Hall, and guys on the ballot now, who were never that. Never considered dominant, or among the top two or three players in the game at any point in their career. And I’m pretty sure Donnie Baseball didn’t juice.

He's a hockey blogger, by the way.

[Ty in Tampa]

Yount is his #1 comp on bb-ref. Jeter is 2nd.

To me, 5th all-time in doubles is just as impressive a stat as 3,000 hits.

Also pretty good: 8 years of 20+ HR, 9 years of 20+ SB. 13th all-time in Runs. And the HBP thingy.

7 out of 10 of his comps are HOFers and 1 is a sure first-ballot.

[MusicMan]

7 out of 10 of his comps are HOFers and 1 is a sure first-ballot.

7 out of 10 voters have probably never checked bb-reference.

[Limey]

People like this are voters.

He's a hockey blogger, by the way.

This guy isn't going to vote for anyone other than Mattingly because of the known juicers on next year's ballot, doesn't mention Bagwell as a juicer, doesn't vote for him and doesn't explain why.  (See also, Larkin, Barry).

Did any of these people go to journalism school?  Very few if any seem to be able to explain themselves with any hint of coherence.

[ValpoCory]

Another interesting tidbit from this year's ballot is that a 2-time MVP with 434 career home runs, over 1400 RBI, a .295 lifetime batting average, and a .904 career OPS failed to reach 5% of the vote in just his 2nd year on the ballot, removing him from future ballots.

[HudsonHawk]

 

I haven't followed this through the years, but does this happen often?   I'd assume most get more votes as the years pass.

It happens all the time when there's a strong rookie class.  Witness 1999, for example.  That year Nolan Ryan, Robin Yount and George Brett all went in on the first ballot.  But other guys' vote totals declined from the previous year, even guys with strong cases who eventually got in.  For example:  Gary Carter's percentage went from 42.3 to 33.8 and Jim Rice from 42.9 all the way down to 29.4.  I fully expect Bagwell to get less than 50% next year, maybe even less than 40%.

[Reuben]

It happens all the time when there's a strong rookie class.  Witness 1999, for example.  That year Nolan Ryan, Robin Yount and George Brett all went in on the first ballot.  But other guys' vote totals declined from the previous year, even guys with strong cases who eventually got in.  For example:  Gary Carter's percentage went from 42.3 to 33.8 and Jim Rice from 42.9 all the way down to 29.4.  I fully expect Bagwell to get less than 50% next year, maybe even less than 40%.

So who do you think is going in on the first ballot next year?

[HudsonHawk]

So who do you think is going in on the first ballot next year?

I think Bonds, Maddux, Piazza and Schilling go in next year.

[Andyzipp]

I think Bonds, Maddux, Piazza and Schilling go in next year.

No way Bonds gets in next year.  Schilling shouldn't.

[Bench]

I think Bonds, Maddux, Piazza and Schilling go in next year.

I think Maddux and Biggio.

Schilling is a borderline HOFer, at best.  Certainly not a first ballot.  Bonds will be "punished" or whatever, and I think the ensuing conversation will envelop Piazza as well.

[Astros Fan in Big D]

Another interesting tidbit from this year's ballot is that a 2-time MVP with 434 career home runs, over 1400 RBI, a .295 lifetime batting average, and a .904 career OPS failed to reach 5% of the vote in just his 2nd year on the ballot, removing him from future ballots.

The Dallas Morning News' HoF story centered around this.  Nobody on their staff voted for him (Juan Gonzalez).  Get ready for the sequel with Palmeiro.

[Arky Vaughan]

I think the Biggio storyline pushes him through next year.  If he doesn't make it next year, he's in trouble.

He's not ultimately in trouble. He'll get in during the next few elections unless meaningful evidence of his alleged steroid use surfaces. The BBWAA pedophiles* are lemming-like, and will eventually run over the cliff in sufficient numbers for Bagwell once momentum builds. It's already clear that he doesn't face the kind of broad opposition that McGwire and Palmeiro do, and that Sosa and perhaps Bonds and Clemens will. Barring a tectonic shift in attitude among the writers, confirmed steroid users like McGwire and Palmeiro are not going to get in until some committee is assembled in 20 or 30 years to go back and pick through the wreckage left behind during this period of sanctimony.

*Until proven otherwise.

[Reuben]

I think Bonds, Maddux, Piazza and Schilling go in next year.

Wow, I completely disagree about Bonds. Maddux isn't eligible until 2014, and Schilling almost certainly wouldn't be a first-ballot HOFer, if he ever makes it. After all, he has fewer Wins (216) than David Wells (239) who's also on the ballot then for the first time.

I just don't see Bagwell losing votes next year. I think Biggio and Piazza are the only newcomers to get more votes than Bags did this year.

[BudGirl]

So, Sosa using a corked bat really doesn't hurt his chances?

[Arky Vaughan]

Wow, I completely disagree about Bonds. Maddux isn't eligible until 2014, and Schilling almost certainly wouldn't be a first-ballot HOFer, if he ever makes it. After all, he has fewer Wins (216) than David Wells (239) who's also on the ballot then for the first time.

I just don't see Bagwell losing votes next year. I think Biggio and Piazza are the only newcomers to get more votes than Bags did this year.

Schilling may be one of the people that benefits from the steroid era. With the BBWAA excluding so many players for actual or alleged steroid use, pressure is going to build to let somebody in. Schilling has the kind of credentials favored by the BBWAA, especially postseason success and "grittiness." Be prepared for an avalanche of stories about that goddamned bloody sock.

[HudsonHawk]

No way Bonds gets in next year.  Schilling shouldn't.

Schilling *shouldn't* ever get in.  But I think he will.  On the first ballot. 

[HudsonHawk]

Wow, I completely disagree about Bonds. Maddux isn't eligible until 2014, and Schilling almost certainly wouldn't be a first-ballot HOFer, if he ever makes it. After all, he has fewer Wins (216) than David Wells (239) who's also on the ballot then for the first time.

I just don't see Bagwell losing votes next year. I think Biggio and Piazza are the only newcomers to get more votes than Bags did this year.

Oops on Maddux.  Some reason I had him in the same class with Biggio.  I think people will realize that Bonds was a HOFer, steroids or no steroids.  Schilling should never get in, but "should" wasn't the question. 

[Reuben]

Oops on Maddux.  Some reason I had him in the same class with Biggio.  I think people will realize that Bonds was a HOFer, steroids or no steroids.  Schilling should never get in, but "should" wasn't the question. 

Maybe people will eventually put Bonds in for that reason, but I'd be willing to bet you a large sum of money that he will not get in next year.

I'm curious why you think Schilling "should never get in"; to me he's borderline- and also when is the last time someone was elected on the first ballot that you thought should never get in?

[HudsonHawk]

I'm curious why you think Schilling "should never get in"; to me he's borderline- and also when is the last time someone was elected on the first ballot that you thought should never get in?

Schilling should never get in because he wasn't a HOF caliber pitcher.  As for the second question, I'm not sure....but we're entering a new era.  There will be plenty of players who should have been first ballot selections, but will never get in.  It's a topsy turvy world.

[MusicMan]

Schilling should never get in because he wasn't a HOF caliber pitcher.

I saw it pointed out that SChilling has a better career ERA than Glavine.  That shocked me.

[HudsonHawk]

I saw it pointed out that SChilling has a better career ERA than Glavine.  That shocked me.

Yeah, Glavine hung around a couple extra years to get his 300th win, at the expense of his career ERA.  Take away those last two years though, and Glavine's is better.  Glavine also had a 10 year stretch with 175 wins and a 3.12 ERA, something Schilling never even came close to.

[Arky Vaughan]

If Schilling had more or less the same accomplishments, but had not had some of them with the Red Sox, he would not be considered.

[HudsonHawk]

If Schilling had more or less the same accomplishments, but had not had some of them with the Red Sox, he would not be considered.

He'd be Jack Morris.

[Reuben]

If Schilling had more or less the same accomplishments, but had not had some of them with the Red Sox, he would not be considered.

I'm not sure I agree. His mug was all over the freaking place after the '01 Series. He won 20 games 3 times, had a great K-BB ratio and solid 3.46 ERA despite pitching in hitter-friendly parks in the 90's and 2000's. Which, by the way, is a lot more impressive than Morris' 3.90 ERA pitching mostly in the 80's. I'm on the fence about Schilling.

[Gizzmonic]

People like this are voters.

He's a hockey blogger, by the way.

Hockey bloggers?  If this is the standard, then all of our popes should have votes.  Actually, most of our clarks should have votes.

[roadrunner]

Buster had a nice writeup on the Bagwell situation today for ESPN Insiders.

I think Bagwell gets in eventually and not just for the 50%/Gil Hodges fact.  He has the most vocal and visible baseball writers on his side and I feel like the momentum will continue in his favor assuming Bonds and Clemens get in. 

[HudsonHawk]

Which, by the way, is a lot more impressive than Morris' 3.90 ERA pitching mostly in the 80's. I'm on the fence about Schilling.

Morris also pitched entirely in the AL, most of his career in one of the most hitter-friendly park in history.

[Reuben]

Morris also pitched entirely in the AL, most of his career in one of the most hitter-friendly park in history.

I think the AL in the 80's had about the same level offense as the NL in the 90's-early 00's. So let's call their environments about even. Schilling's 3.46 ERA>Morris' 3.90. Basically, Morris has the advantage in career length/innings (which I do think matters), and Schilling has the advantage in Win%, WHIP, K-BB , things like that. They were both innings-eaters; Morris led the league in CG's once and IP once. Schilling led in CG 4 times and IP twice. Schilling was a bit injury-prone whereas Morris almost always made 34+ starts. Morris went 7-4 with a 3.80 ERA in the playoffs, Schilling was 11-2 with a 2.23. Schilling struck out a lot more guys, including 300+ 3 times.

Both were great pitchers. I'm not sure either one belongs in the Hall of Fame, but I think Schilling has a better case. I also think there's almost no way he makes it in his first year, because he's not a slam-dunk HOF, and the writers have never (that I can recall) come close to electing anyone but a slam-dunk type on the 1st ballot.

[Jose Cruz III]

People like this are voters.

He's a hockey blogger, by the way.

And an idiot.

[HudsonHawk]

Both were great pitchers. I'm not sure either one belongs in the Hall of Fame, but I think Schilling has a better case. I also think there's almost no way he makes it in his first year, because he's not a slam-dunk HOF, and the writers have never (that I can recall) come close to electing anyone but a slam-dunk type on the 1st ballot.

I think they were both great too, and pretty similar.  I'm not sure either one belongs.  But I can't see including Schilling and not Morris, and I just think the Schilling bandwagon is too huge.