Chicago just not a fan of Bagwell Three more from Chicago. [rQUOTEr]They are Philip Hersh and Paul Sullivan of the Chicago Tribune and Scot Gregor of the Daily Herald. Hersh says “I’m still too suspicious about Jeff Bagwell to include him.” Sullivan lumps Bagwell in with the “unindicted but suspected contributors to the PED mess.” Gregor says “uspicions of using “performance enhancing drugs” weigh heavily on my decision to leave off productive players such as Bagwell, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro and Juan Gonzalez.”[/rQUOTEr] Sullivan: [rQUOTEr]After receiving my Hall of Fame ballot, I made a copy, pulled out a black Sharpie and proceeded to cross out all the "shrinkage" candidates. Gone with a whisk of the Sharpie were Rafael Palmeiro, Mark McGwire and a few other unindicted but suspected contributors to the PED mess, players whose numbers otherwise would merit serious consideration. Sorry, Jeff Bagwell, but you shrunk more than most.[/rQUOTEr] Hersh: [rquoter]Happy to omit Mark McGwire for the sixth straight year and Rafael Palmeiro for the second; I never will pick either doper. And I'm still too suspicious about Jeff Bagwell to include him.[/rquoter] Gregor: [rquoter]As for other familiar candidates such as Lee Smith, Jeff Bagwell, Tim Raines and Edgar Martinez, they were all standout players. You have to be great to make the Hall of Fame, in my opinion, so I’ll stick with Larkin and Morris. Suspicions of using “performance enhancing drugs” weigh heavily on my decision to leave off productive players such as Bagwell, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro and Juan Gonzalez. This has become an annual problem, and we voters receive no guidance on the PED issue. Until there are clearer guidelines, suspected players will not be getting my vote.[/rquoter]
I have no idea who Barry Bloom is, but Mr. Bloom, you should expect a strongly-worded email in your inbox very shortly for making what may very well be the single dumbest statement ever made in the entire history of mankind. I have a strong, sinking feeling, he's basing that on.... I can barely muster the strength to type it out... batting average (.297 to .294).
This guy is the worst of them. His vote should be pulled. How can you exclude an entire era? Not to mention, can anyone with 100% accuracy, tell me when steroids were introduced into baseball and exactly who used them?
The very last paragraph from his latest blog entry... http://barrybloom.mlblogs.com/2011/12/28/my-hall-of-fame-ballot-for-2012/
Because Garvey had better teams and won MVP of a meaningless game. I see. Maybe it was the mediocre OPS for a 1B and no great accumulated totals that kept Garvey out. Just maybe...
Here's what I just emailed Barry: Barry, Barry, Barry… My intention here is to remain civil and engage; not rant and rave and hurl insults, no matter how well-deserved they may be. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, their own perspective; their own conclusion. As I constructed this email, again and again and again, I tried to honor that very conceit, pushing myself to stay on a course that would not raise blood pressure but awareness; that would not close communication lines but open them; that would not end debate but spark it. Having said that… “And just a note on Jeff Bagwell: Rumors about possible steroid use don’t bother me. I just think he’s a very good player, but not of Hall of Fame caliber. His numbers are very similar to Steve Garvey.” Before writing this email, I did copious amounts of research: I spent the better part of two consecutive weekends at my local library, pouring over voluminous tomes detailing the many intricacies of the written word and its various evolutions; I spoke to scholars, engaged published authors and solicited the feedback of tenured professors with years and years and years of literary experience; I tore into the very history of our langue, it’s origins and various manifestations throughout the centuries; I met with archeologists on remote dig sites to explore hieroglyphics and early forms of communications; I traveled the world to spend time soaking in other cultures and ethnicities, burying myself – at times, neck-deep in their unique languages and means of communicating with one another. All because I did not want to speak from a place of ignorance, nor did I want hyperbole to seep into my comments and render them flaccid. And having done my due diligence, I can now say, without an ounce of malicious intent, that your quote above is the single dumbest thing anybody has ever said/written in the entire history of mankind. I don’t even sincerely know where to begin; trying to wrap my head around its ignorance has rendered me less smart than I was prior to reading it. So here goes nuthin’… Let’s begin here: In a paragraph in which you proclaim Bagwell’s numbers to be “very similar” to Steve Garvey’s, you list their home run totals but fail to note the I would think blindingly obvious 177 differential; their RBI totals and the glaring 221 differential. These numbers are not similar. Meanwhile, you don’t bother to mention that Bagwell scored 374 more runs (sort of, kind of the object of the game, isn’t it?) or stole 119 more bases (as a first baseman; at a 71% success rate, no less – which is roughly on par with Lou Brock’s success rate). These numbers are also dissimilar. That’s plenty dumb, to be sure – but you weren’t satisfied with mere dumb here, were you? No, no, Mr. Bloom – you had your eyes on a certain mythical level of dumb, didn’t you? And here it is: While citing/not citing all these *counting* statistics; ie stats that accumulate - you completely ignore that Steve Garvey played in 182 MORE games than Jeff Bagwell. Let me repeat that, in all caps because it deserves such an obnoxious emphasis: STEVE GARVEY PLAYED IN 182 MORE GAMES THAN JEFF BAGWELL. Never mind that the numbers are certifiably NOT similar in a purely 1:1 comparison…Garvey’s inferior numbers – which, again are *counting* statistics – were accumulated in MORE games. (And yes, Garvey’s era was more depressed, offensively. But, as you might recall from the Dodgers’ old NL West days, the Astrodome was a notorious pitcher’s park (Garvey, for instance, hit 4 HRs and slugged .323 in his 492 career ABs there) - and roughly 2,400 of Bagwell’s 7,797 career ABs occurred there. That, of course, was also not mentioned.) Oh, but the dumb didn’t stop there. Nope. You then had to reveal yourself to be nothing beyond an old, lazy journalist who doesn’t consider new statistics to be a viable means to help make better, more accurate determinations about players such as Bagwell and Garvey. There is no mention of Bagwell’s decided advantage in the following categories: on-base percentage (.408 to .329); slugging percentage (.540 to .446); OPS (.948 to .775); OPS+ (in which a score of 100 is considered roughly league average – 149 to 116); or WAR (which measures the number of wins a player added to his team – 79.6 to 35.9; again, I need to mention this is a counting stat and that STEVE GARVEY PLAYED IN 182 MORE GAMES THAN JEFF BAGWELL). Nope, you’ve hung your hat on batting average. How very 1950s of you. More dumb: You cite team accomplishments as a means to measure individual performance, which makes about as much sense as, well comparing Jeff Bagwell to Steve Garvey by using nothing beyond batting average. Worse, you don’t even seem remotely aware of how good the Astros were during Bagwell’s tenure. The team, which had been to the postseason twice in its first 29 years of the existence prior to Bagwell’s arrival, went 7 times during his career, including their first and only World Series appearance. In fact, no team, save for the Braves and Yankees, won more games between 1997 and 2005 than the Houston Astros. They won 4 division titles during a nine-year stretch and won their first, second and third postseason series in team history. All during Bagwell’s career. That is not a wild coincidence. Further, while you do cite Garvey’s individual accomplishments, you fail to list any of Bagwell’s, which are quite comparable, if not superior. He won Rookie of the Year; Garvey did not. They both won an MVP but Bagwell actually finished in the top 10 six times to Garvey’s five. No, Bagwell did not win a prestigious All-Star MVP (I can’t believe you’d even have the gall to mention that – did Garvey also win a spring training batting title?) but he did win three Silver Slugger awards – one fewer than Albert Pujols. Granted, the award was first presented in 1980, past Garvey’s prime – but it is of note that he did not win one his final seven seasons. Garvey did have the advantage in Gold Gloves – by one. And yes, his consecutive games streak is impressive – but Bagwell did have a nine-year stretch in which he missed only 31 games, playing in 1,427 of a possible 1,458 contests. Garvey had six full seasons of playing every game; Bagwell four - so it’s hard to argue Bagwell wasn’t an equally durable player. While I sincerely do admire your stance, regarding the PED issue, and respect that my Hall of Fame standards are different than yours and that there is plenty of room for us to respectfully disagree on his worthiness (I would passionately argue that Bagwell was, prior to Pujols, the greatest National League first baseman in history), I ask that you please consider this email and retract what is a factually inaccurate statement about Bagwell and Garvey. Their numbers are not similar. Bagwell was a decidedly better player by any and every measure. Thanks for taking time to read; I would appreciate your feedback. Ric
Honestly? I respect this approach far more than the selective, uninformed witch hunt others are conducting. I've argued this previously but Greg Maddux is going to fly into the HoF. And numbers-wise, he, of course, deserves to. But he pitched effectively into his 40s and no one, not a single soul, has raised the specter of steroids about him. And why? Because he didn't grow big muscles. Never mind that maintaining an effective pitching career well into your late 30s is, on the surface, every bit as suspicious as hitting 70 HRs in a season. According to our cadre of amateur scientists, no muscles = no steroids. So I rather admire an either all or none take on the guilty/innocent of the era. NONE OF THEM should be above suspicion; we cannot distill a complex drug down to some silly, surface-level understanding.
Yeah, I was kind of proud of that one.... But, SERIOUSLY! An All-Star game MVP??????? Oh my gosh.........
On the steriod issue...if they were caught or admitted then I can understand some apprehension but you must presume innocent until proven guilty. Personally I think there is some truth even though he wasn't mentioned on any reports, but I would not base any decision, like a HOF vote, on my gut feeling...I don't think anyone should. And the hall already has "over-the-line suspects". Here are just a few of the known stories - they laugh about the cheating now. http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/cheaters/ballplayers.html Whitey Ford admitted having made illicit concessions to age: "I didn't begin cheating until late in my career, when I needed something to help me survive. I didn't cheat when I won the twenty-five games in 1961. I don't want anybody to get any ideas and take my Cy Young Award away. And I didn't cheat in 1963 when I won twenty-four games. Well, maybe a little." Ford used his wedding ring to cut the ball, or had catcher Elston Howard put a nice slice in it with a buckle on his shin guard. Ford also planted mud pies around the mound and used them to load the ball. He confessed that when pitching against the Dodgers in the 1963 World Series, "I used enough mud to build a dam." He also threw a "gunk ball," which combined a mixture of baby oil, turpentine, and resin. He kept the "gunk" in a roll-on dispenser, which, the story goes, Yogi Berra once mistook for deodorant, gluing his arms to his sides in the process. Gene Tenace, who was Gaylord Perry's catcher with the Padres, said the ball was sometimes so loaded he couldn't throw it back to the mound. Indians president Gabe Paul defended Perry: "Gaylord is a very honorable man," he said. "He only calls for the spitter when he needs it."
ArtV, I appreciate your point here and I've made it time and time again myself. It's hypocritical to ostracize the PED users and continue to revere the guys who cheated by every other means they could get away with. Mantle, for example, may have never played a game where he wasn't hopped up on some sort of upper. In the 80s everybody hopped up on pseudoephedrine.
Mike Scott Joe Niekro Billy Hatcher Brian Moehler We've had a few cheaters. Surprised by no mention of Sosa's corked bat.
Ric, I have to chime in here. I've been watching baseball for over 45 yrs. I'm a diehard Astros fan, and my favorite players over the yrs were Bagwell & Cesar Cedeno. Like you, I'm extremely disappointed that Baggy didn't get voted in this yr. IMO he should have been voted in last yr, but that's a different debate. Like you, I also think that this Mr Bloom is misinformed when evaluating Bagwell's career. He's especially off base comparing Baggy to Garvey!! That said, what was your objective when you wrote Mr Bloom? I would hope that it was to possibly give this man some facts to consider that he may be overlooking when deciding which way to vote on Baggy? I have NO idea who this Mr Bloom is, and if he would be willing to put his pride aside to consider other opinions about Bagwell and whether or not he's a HOFer. Obviously if a player isn't voted in (whether the 1st yr eligible or yrs after) he's going to need voters to change their mind to increase the percentage necessary. I've seen countless voters explain why they were swayed to vote "yes" on a player after voting "no". Some of these voters take their vote very serious, and one of the many reasons that makes baseball SO awesome is comparing players from one generation to the next. In this context...are they HOF worthy? Back to your objective and why you took time out of your day to write Mr Bloom. You stated right off that "my intent here is to remain civil". I think it's quite clear that you failed to meet your objective. That is unless you feel that calling someone "dumb" and "ignorant" is civil? Not only did you call him "dumb", but you also said "mythical level of dumb". Again, do you think you were accomplishing your intent of civility saying, "you reveal yourself to be nothing beyond an old, lazy journalist"? Lesson here Ric. For the future, if you want someone to be open minded to your opinion, and to take you seriously, calling them "dumb" & "ignorant" and "lazy" isn't going to cut it. All you've done here is make yourself feel better by attacking this man and his opinion. There's a reason why Pride is one of the seven deadly sins. This Mr Bloom may be willing to put your personal attacks aside and consider your reasons why he should vote Baggy in, but if I had to guess, this isn't going to happen. My experience with people who are attacked on their opinions usually take their focus off the subject of debate and why they could be wrong to being attacked and feeling disrespected and digging their feet in further and not budging. You also might be thinking to yourself, "who cares, Mr Bloom is just one voter"? I've heard many voters (Gammons, Stark, Olney, etc) over the yrs say that they share their opinions with different voters and more importantly they share comments they receive from the fans as well. Again you still might say to yourself, "who cares"? A few votes one way or another could be the difference from Baggy being voted in. Every pt that you made to Mr Bloom was definitely things that he should take into consideration when evaluating Baggy. The point is you failed at your objective in writing Mr Bloom. Again, if your intent was to remain "civil", than I would think anyone that reads your letter would say you came up short in the civility department BIG time!!!! Next time you disagree with someone you might try killing them with kindness to possibly change their opinion. Let me close in saying, on behalf of Jeff Bagwell fans, PLEASE do not write any other HOF voters who voted "no" on Bagwell. The idea is to get these HOF voters who have voted "no" to change their mind to a "yes", and this is done by engaging in civil thoughts and pts to ponder that they might not have done in the past when evaluating specific players.
Thanks, the shark. I was genuinely torn as to which way I should go. To Bloom's credit (and something I discovered after sending the email), he has politely responded to a great # of comments in his blog. While he continues to reveal himself to be a dullard (outright dismissing not only OPS+ but OPS as well, which is about as basic a stat as there is), he has also admitted to being open to reevaluating Bagwell in the future, which is admirable (as well as hopeful). I don't believe an email - a 100 emails, n fact - from people are going to sway a good # of these writers. These are, collectively, a gaggle of self-righteous goofballs who form opinions - no mater their legitimacy - and then dig in, come hell or high water. That he not only compares Bagwell to Garvey but openly insists Garvey is a Hall of Famer places him firmly in the "Beyond help" category, IMO. I will say that, in my ever-so slight defense, I never called him dumb; just his statement. Smart people say dumb things a lot. I doubt he respected that fine line - but it nonetheless exists. Also, it felt REALLY good to unload on the guy, who might as well as been EVERY BBWAA who isn't voting for Bagwell, as far as I'm concerned. It burns me up and, at this point, likely something I simply can't be civil about.
