I can't find the hr numbers from his first year at A ball in 1989, but he slugged .419 with a .109 iso slg percentage, so probably not that many. In AA he hit 4, but a couple things about the context of those numbers. He hit 37 doubles and 7 triples, so he obviously had power, but it just didn't manifest itself in the hr totals. As he got older, filled out (due to whatever) and hit his prime, the doubles and triples became homeruns as they do with many young players. The 2nd thing to consider is that New Britain in the Eastern League was a pitcher's park in a pitcher's league. So his power numbers there naturally would be repressed. His rookie year he hit 15 in the astrodome and had a 139 OPS+ (exactly equivalent to the 288 /.397 /.568/39 hr line he put up in 2001 at Minute Maid Park). His major league lines and career path doesn't seem abnormal to me (no late career peak and seemingly normal peaks and decline phases). I don't know if he used PED or not, but he was a star from the day he set foot in the majors. He obviously developed more hr power than could be expected from his prospect days, but there were indications from his minor league days that he had the potential for more power than the hr total he put up at AA.
Who said it was so, other than a second-hand rumor of watercooler conversation from a guy who's already denied it on the record multiple times?
And that proves what? That he improved each year he was in professional baseball? That there was no huge jump, a la Brady Anderson? Look, I'm no idiot. There's a pretty good chance that Bagwell did use steroids. I have yet to see concrete proof. This trainer has been known to brag about his clients. He's got a pretty good reason to lie. Bagwell's shrinkage coincided almost exactly with the time that his shoulder got to the point where he couldn't lift if above his head. By the way, the shoulder problem he has is most likely genetic. His father had the same problem.
He hit 2 in 89 with that .419 slg. I would not be surprised if Bagwell used PED's. I would not be surprised if as many as 50% of players used them during the mid 90's which at this point seems likely. They'll just have to start taking all this into account when all these players start coming up for Hall of Fame consideration. I still think that even if he did use that he deserves to be in. The guy was that good. Same with Bonds and Clemens. It's a shame they didn't do anything about this stuff from the start because they sure have a real mess on their hands.
I didn't need this 'report' to know that he used some form of performance enhancer. His body went through drastic changes that were only typical of a steroid user. That being said, I don't really care. I liked Bags but that whole era was 'roided up, at least it seems like the biggest names are all implicated somehow. Let's see: the greatest hitter (Bonds) and the greatest pitcher (Clemens); you can pretty much close the book on that era right now. Era dismissed...
I guess because they are both hof 1st baseman from the same era they have somewhat similar career stats. That should be expected although I not really sure why you would name palmeiro, as there are dozens of players who statistics and career paths follow bagwell's much more closely than palmeiro's did. Frank Thomas immediately comes to mind as eerily close. To start with Bagwell was just a much more valuable hitter. He hit for a higher average and got on base about 10% more of the time than Palmeiro. Of course Bagwell was also a much better runner. Without looking at indepth fielding stats I would guess that Palmeiro (due to his reputation) was a better fielder, although before he hurt his arm Bagwell was pretty good in the field as well. When you say that they are similar in stats I assume you mean in career counting stats like hrs, rbi's, etc. And i guess they are somewhat close, but they got there in very different ways. Bagwell had a much higher peak value than Palmeiro did. Bagwell career followed a basically traditional career path. He was a all-star caliber hitter in his rookie year at 23, career year at 26, peaked 26-31 and entered decline at 32-36. Palmeiro on the other hand didn't have near as good a peak as Bagwell, but had much better longevity. If you look at Bagwell top 5 individual OPS + seasons they occur (in order) at age 26, 28, 29, 31 and 30. Palmeiro's are much more spread out as he was as good a hitter at 37 as he was at 27. His top 5 OPS + season by age: 34, 26, 28, 37, and 33. In fact if you looked as their best 3 year hitting period (by ops+) bagwell occurred at his aged 26-28 seasons, while Palmeiro occurred in his aged 33-35 seasons. It is much much more traditional to peak as a ballplayer in your 26-30 years compared to your mid-30 like Palmeiro did. They might have ended up with somewhat similar career counting stats, but how they got there was vastly different.
i'm not going to respond to everything, here's a post I wrote two years ago on this rafael palmeiro who we know used steroids at least recently has very similar stats to bagwell. low hr numbers to start out career then a steady stream of high 30s, low 40s. no real spike. I would post the stats but I don't know how and I'm not going to type them out, just this, for their careers bags has a .0576 her per at bat avg and palmeiro has a .0543. when I went to baseball reference one of the hitters who comes up similar to palmiero is bagwell. edit: lastly, this was a counter to the "spike in production" steroid argument.
I love it when The Cat is involved in a debate with Bias. If Bags were a yankee his entire career instead of an Astro, The Cat would be convinced that Bags juiced.
I'm willing to admit I'm biased to Bagwell. I could be completely drinking the Kool Aid but I just think Bags has been a class act his career and will give him the benefit of the doubt. There's some rumors with nothing substantiated and until I see something more concrete I'm not going to believe that he was roided up.
They are in neither of each other career 10 similarity score. baseball-reference.com (#10 on palmeiro's similarity score is harold baines at 756, Bagwell's #10 score is 811) I certainly wouldn't call that "eerily similar" especially consider the entirely different career paths they took to obtain those statistics as I explain in my previous post. Furthermore, in reading your old post I don't think you looked very in-depth at their statistics if you truly believe what you just posted. Context matters. In Palmeiro's rookie year he slugged .543 with a .267 iso slg %. I don't know how to translate that to the context, but considering that it occurred in 80's I wouldn't be surprised if it was best power outpower of his career considering the other times he out slugged that season was in the late 90's at arlington park. So if palmeiro "best" power season occurred in his rookie year doesn't that kind of destroy your argument? As far as Bagwell, again context matters. Hitting 15-20 homeruns in the early 90's in the astrodome is easily on par with hitting mid-30 homeruns in Enron field in the early 2000's. If you look at any player who started their career in the 80 /early 1990 and went from one of the best pitchers parks to one of the best hitting parks of course their power/hr numbers are going to be deflated at the beginning of their career and inflated at the end. Bagwell's rookie year of 293/387/437 (15 hrs) is exactly equivalent in value to his 288/397/568 (39 hrs) in his age 33 season according to OPS+. Context matters. Just like hitting 20 homeruns in Dodger stadium in 1964 is different than hitting 20 hrs in Coors field in 2000. "low hr numbers to start out career then a steady stream of high 30s, low 40s. no real spike." This is wrong as it pertinents to Bagwell and highlights the main point i was trying to make in my previous post. Bagwell had a clear spike in the traditional "peak years" beginning at his aged 26 season. He clearly entered a decline at 32 (although the 31-32 aged seasons are masked by the move to Enron field). Palmeiro on the other hand didn't really have a sharp peak but basically maintained the same production from aged 23 to 38. If you had to give a multi-year timeframe when he peaked it would be during his mid-30's which is unusual. Again, they may have vaguely similar career counting stats, but how they got to that point was vastly different. One got there through very traditional career path that included a high peak (Bagwell), while the other got there through an abnormally long career with included a late career peak. They're not very similar at all.
Does it matter whether or not the source is credible? Just come out and admit it and suffer the consequences...
their paths aren't that different. jeff bagwell's 94 season is an anomoly. it takes palmeiro longer to get into jeff's production range but one he gets there they are both .300 hitters 35 hrs and both are similiar sluggers. wrigley field a bad hitters park? also you're right, i will take it with a grain of salt and andre dawson hit 49 homeruns the same season. bagwell splits dome/road have always been pretty equal edit: 126/263 or 48% I know your argument is they aren't similar, but if bagwell had the spike, lets remember what the context of this thread is. steroids
If you're using Bagwell's career #s path as evidence that there might have been steroids, then you might as well argue that 98% of players have used, because as Dickau mentioned, the majority of players peak during their 26-30 year old range. Players enter as rookies, usually either suck to decent play, and then improve until their bodies start to give out. Going by Bagwell's numbers, career-wise, I see nothing to indicate probable steroid use. As for the physical size issue...well, no one is ever going to convince someone they are wrong. Those of us that wish to remember Bagwell as a classy player that didn't cheat have the shoulder condition to explain his drop in body mass. It's not naive, it fits perfectly and there is no reason to indicate that the shoulder condition was not legit. For those that believe he juiced, seeing that size change is normally a red flag for a user, and they will always see the shoulder condition as meer excuse by a player that doesn't want to own up to usage. Neither side will convince the other, ever. If I see something more concrete than what this latest article states, then I might change my mind. Until then, I will continue to believe that Bags was clean.
So when you have no substance, go with a personal attack. Nice tactic. If you actually cared enough to debate facts instead of making unsubstantiated accusations and talking out of your ass, you'd know from my prior posts here that I've consistently given all players -- Bonds included -- the benefit of the doubt on the steroid issues. It's not about whether a player is an Astro. It's about actionable evidence instead of going on a witchhunt and judging players based on physique changes that just as easily could be caused by a number of other factors. Raven said it more succinctly than I have, so I'll quote him again. All of this is subject to change. But watercooler conversation (that has been denied on the record numerous times) by a guy who would have every reason in the world to lie when there are no consequences for doing so is not concrete evidence. As for your personal attack on me and my "bias," either show prior posts as evidence to make your case, or shut up. Thanks.
You guys keep saying that Bagwell did not have a sharp increase in hr's. You do realize that the 39 hr season was done in 100 games? He was on his way to a possible 60 hr season that year when previously he had 20 hr's. Of course by itself that means nothing as shown by what Maris did, but it needs to be said.
Cat. How is pointing out the fact that someone is using bias in their argument considered a personal attack? That isn't the definition of a personal attack. Very few human beings have the genetics to grow to the size and strength Bagwell grew to. A very high percentage of baseball players in his era took roids, why not, they weren't tested. And Bags shrunk once the roid era was over. If he did have these rare genetics that almost nobody has, then he would not have shrunk the way he did due to having a bad shoulder. And now you actually have someone come out and say they provided him with the juice? What else do you need to make an informed decision, Cat? I think Major said it best when he said that all of these "shady" characters who seem to have something to gain have all been right so far when they leaked their information.
In other news... un-named sources have alleged that Jimi Hendrix took illegal performance enhancing drugs in order to become a rock music legend....
