Willie Stargell is a good name. He didn't hit the milestones (just shy of 500 homeruns and didn't get 3000 hits.) He also played for the Pirates. The Pirates. Come on Art. Are you really suggesting there is a bias out there that favors the Pirates over the Astros?
Wade Boggs..... Dave Winfield.....Catfish Hunter.... Phil Rizzuto... all either got in to the Hall of Fame earlier or in period in part because of the teams they played for.... Curt Schilling will be joining the list as well....
You're confusing bias with exposure. The Red Sox and Yankees are two of the most prominent teams in all of sports; they routinely play on baseball's biggest stages. So, yes - he'd absolutely go in first ballot because his exposure would be exponentially greater. But that's not a bias. It's an unfortunate by-product of how sports is both covered and consumed in this era. Bagwell is going to have to marinate, unfortunately. Many media members absolutely did not see him play on a consistent basis. And without the "automatic" milestones, his viability requires these fat, lazy, self-righteous goofballs to actually do their jobs, which they hate. But the fact he has some pretty prominent media members on his side (Posnanski, most assuredly; Stark, Verducci; sadly - Richard Justice, now that he's on MLB) gives me great hope his day is coming.
The Pirates back then did not draw up the same images as the Pirates of today do. Roberto Clemente (HOFer), Bill Mazeroski (HOFer), Al Oliver, Willie Stargell (HOFer), Dock Ellis - were all on the 1972 team.
The bias favors memorable teams... it is not unique to baseball... having said that, I doubt Pops would have gotten in playing for a bad Angels or Rangers club. It is just how it works, attention often times breeds fondness.
Wade Boggs and Dave Winfield both got 3000 hits. Magic numbers. Phil Rizzuto got elected by the veterans committee in 1994. He waited a wee bit longer than Bagwell has thus far. Catfish Hunter got elected 8 years after his last season. Bags is only at 7 thus far. Curt Schilling is unlikely to get elected on the first ballot. If he does, I'll agree with you that it is a joke. Bad examples.
No, it still is a "bias"... by it's very definition. Perhaps you mean the bias is not the same bias you were expecting.
I'll ask you Ric... Please point to the Yankee or Red Sox who went in on the first ballot without 500 homeruns or 3000 hits that you think is good to suggest that Bagwell would be in if he were a Yankee or Sox.
I'm more or less on your side here - a bias would imply a pervasive (negative, in this case) opinion about the Astros and, frankly, I don't think a good majority of the BBWA members care enough about the team to really have an opinion either way. But, exposure, IMO, is undeniable. The Yankees and Red Sox absolutely get maximum exposure and, as such, their players' accomplishments are absolutely more widely known and celebrated. I say that without an ounce of anger or frustration – it is what it is. And I absolutely believe that had Bagwell accomplished the same thing on that stage that he did in Houston, he absolutely would have gone in first ballot. Keep in mind: the East Coast (especially with the rise of ESPN), absolutely has a stranglehold on BBWA membership. So seeing him on a daily basis (as opposed to trying to properly contextualize his career after the fact with statistics) would have made a TREMENDOUS difference. Again, I don’t think it’s a bias; I’m not ranting and raving about it. But I think it is most definitely a factor in his thus far not getting in. In terms of your question, I would counter this is a rather new-ish phenomenon, consistent with the rise in 24-hours sports programming, which is really only 20-30 years old. So I'm not sure there's a "career" Yankee and/or Red Sox contemporary in Bagwell's class that would qualify. I mean, we’re talking about, IMO, the 2nd best NL first baseman of all-time – what Yankee and/or Rex Sox in the last 10-15 years went into the HoF with similar credentials? So I don’t really have anyone to compare him to. (BUT I do agree, Schilling will be an interesting test case. Bagwell’s candidacy absolutely laps Schilling’s - if he goes in first ballot, I think it would be impossible to ignore the impact of his exposure to the east coast media.)
justtxyank and Ric -- excellent points these last two pages, especially this: If it goes 10 years, it will absolutely be an unforgiveable travesty. I think I'm hypersensitive because of the PED witchhunt (which was where my particular "bias" comment hung its hat, btw). But I love your description of the voting process and how, warts and "self-righteous goofball"ness (to quote Ric) and all, it has kept the baseball hall more credible than others. As far as the list: back in '04 or so someone over at Astrosdaily.com (Ray Kerby maybe?) did a side-by-side comparison of HoF 1B and Bagwell. I still remember the read, it was great. It did not, however, list the year of eligibility in which each got in. What a solid point and you're right--without knowing that, it's not possible to criticize today's voters objectively.
Hall of Fame balloting has always been screwy anyway. Joe DiMaggio didn't get in until his 3rd year of eligibility. It took Jimmy Foxx nine years or something r****ded like that. If Jack Morris gets in in the next two years, it'll be far worse than if Bags has to wait a little longer. Sportswriters have always been morons.
0% chance Smoltz is a first ballot HOF. Only 210 wins, and his ERA isn't ridiculously impressive. I doubt Pedro makes it first ballot either. Only 219 wins, but only 100 losses, and was flat out dominating. He led hi league in ERA 5 times and WHIP 6 times. Deserves to be, but I'm not sure he will be because of his career totals.
Thinking about it...... Schilling actually has a pretty decent case for admission. Bernie Williams is probably a much better litmus test as I don’t think he belongs at all. (I believe he's eligible next year.) So it’ll be interesting to see how much support he gets. I think this is the crux of everyone’s frustration. Personally, I think the idea of a gaggle of goofball baseball writers playing scientist and detective in the midst of a baseball discussion is revolting. Remove the cloud of steroids and Bagwell is a Hall of Famer. It's really not even up for much debate; we’re talking about the second greatest NL first baseman of all-time. As fans of the guy, that's monumentally frustrating. And I do believe the writers would be a little more forgiving had they covered Bagwell. In fact, he would have been revered. And that's absolutely a component of too many of them being stationed in the east and not getting ample exposure to him. Again, I’m not suggesting there’s evil collusion at play here; just a matter of simple geography and numbers.
Bernie was eligible this year, he got <10% of the vote. He'll fall off the ballot in two-three years.
Baseball HOF is one of my favorite topics to discuss so I love this time of year. This is one of my favorite points and think everyone needs to remember it. The baseball HOF is really one of the last truly prestigious honors in sports. I know football players take their HOF seriously and I know John McClain is a legend in his own mind since he gets to vote on it, but nothing compares to the baseball hall. They still make mistakes, but I gladly take the mistakes and hiccups they make along the way over the ones that happen in the other sports. Getting into the baseball HOF is really difficult and it's not because their little committee has to get in every mediocre player who ever charmed a sports writer from a particular city like the NFL.
Bernie Williams got negligible votes and will be gone soon despite being adored by Yankee fans and and the best player on a team that won 3 straight WS titles. I would absolutely debate this. I've looked at guys who got in on the first ballot and Bags doesn't hit the numbers to get in that class. I'm planning to look at guys who got in on the second ballot to see where Bags fits in there.
Smoltz may not get in 1st time because of the class but I think when you combine he wins AND saves + Cy Young winner + 3000 Ks + postseason stats = he's getting in sometime soon. Pedro? 3 Cy Youngs, an ERA and WHIP that was off the charts during an era where that is not common = 1st ballot IMO. Should have been pulled without asking in that WS game but as you say, he was dominating.
I'll be stunned if Pedro doesn't get in first ballot. People should read some of Bill James's writing on the HOF process. Pedro nails it in in Sandy Koufax category. He may never have hit the historical milestones, but his prime was so amazing that it can be argued for a stretch he was the best pitcher of all time.
Just to clarify since I can't recall if I've ever actually offered my stance, I do believe Jeff Bagwell is a Hall of Famer. If I had a vote he'd get it. I am in no way trying to denigrate his legacy in this thread or imply he wasn't great, only offer analysis as to how the voting process works and why Astro fans should not feel slighted by his current standing in the votes.
Yep, I saw this shortly after my post. Hold up - let's clarify some things. I'll happily debate Jeff Bagwell's HoF credentials with you 24/7. But let's not confuse that with the collective opinion of the BBWAA, which I cannot and will not defend. *I* think he's a no-brainer first ballot Hall of Famer; at the same time, I knew that he had no chance of actually being elected into the Hall of Fame on his first ballot because the BBWAA is populated with far too many self-righteous goofballs.
