And Bagwell's stats improved over last year. I can't explain why they do what they do, just that they do it.
who said you need to get certified? you already are. you clearly know zip about what makes a great baseball player. The large fonts only call more attention to your ignorance and stupidity.
Without further ado, here's this year's scorecard. The Worthy 1. Jack Morris: Sadly, it looks like that unsightly 3.90 ERA is going to continue to haunt him. This guy is one who's much better if you were around to witness it. The back of his baseball card just doesn't do him any justice. Morris had great games, great seasons (seven times he received Cy Young votes) and a great decade. He was the ace of three different World Series-winning teams and he started 14 Opening Days. Some will argue that's a meaningless statistic, and while it certainly does depend on circumstance, the only others who've started as many are Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, Randy Johnson, Walter Johnson and Cy Young, a quintet of all-time greats. 2. Barry Larkin: He's a 12-time All-Star. That's twelve times. Some might say that's a matter of circumstance too. But considering how he overlapped the Ozzie Smith era, the circumstances weren't always all that great for him. He also was the first shortstop to go 30-30; he won nine Silver Sluggers, three Gold Gloves, an MVP, batted .338 in the postseason, stole 379 bases and had more walks than strikeouts. For good measure, he is one heckuva a good person (he was a winner of the Roberto Clemente and Lou Gehrig awards). 3. Tim Raines: One issue is, he seemed to have had two careers -- one in which he was a superstar for seven years; the other when he was just a good player for a very long time. Taken all together, he makes it for me, though. While I don't tend to favor compilers, he was a seven-time All-Star and did finish in the top 20 in MVP balloting seven times. Doesn't hurt either that he's fifth all-time with 808 steals, or that his steal percentage of 84.7 is second best all-time for those with 300 attempts. 4. Don Mattingly: Some will argue this is geographic bias. But if anything, it's greatness bias. I like players who were great for a little while a lot more than those who were merely very good forever. He didn't last forever because of a bad back I suspect was earned twisting his 185-pound body into a power hitter. Some of his total numbers aren't overwhelming, but they look a lot like those of Kirby Puckett, an obvious Hall of Famer. Was maybe the best player in the game for three straight years (he won the Sporting News Player of the Year 1984-86) and also was one of the two greatest fielding first basemen of all time. A lot of greatness there. 5. Dale Murphy: He was great for a while (two straight MVPs), but is also known as one of the greatest guys to ever play the game. He did a lot of things right (he won five Gold Gloves and stole 161 bases), and he did them every day (he played 162 games four straight years). His refusal to take a day off (not to mention his clean living) may have led to a steeper, quicker decline. But he still represented a whole era of Braves baseball. The Almosts 6. Fred McGriff: I feel a little guilty about this one. He's 26th in both home runs and RBI, a consistent and pure power hitter. He didn't quite make 500 home runs; he had 493. But that shouldn't be the barometer. He ranked among the top five in OPS for seven years. Not bad. But alas, it feels like something's missing. It's not really fair, but his Q rating is low and his totals aren't flattered by the steroid set. Another clean liver (according to all anecdotal evidence and someone I knew who was close to him), and I will be sure to take a very close look year after year. 7. Jeff Bagwell: The percentages (.540 slugging, .408 on-base) are worthy, and that he won only one Gold Glove and one MVP may have been a matter of timing and the era. Also gets points for uniqueness; not many huge first basemen could run like him (202 stolen bases, 100 runs in eight seasons). Still thinking about it. 8. Bernie Williams: Tremendous hitter who benefited by being in the right place at the right time. He is first all-time in postseason RBI and second in home runs. A lot of hardware, and some unreal moments. Very close. 9. Juan Gonzalez: He may be the greatest player only to receive 5 percent of the vote in any year, as he did last year to barely stay on the ballot. Had a .561 career slugging percentage and was two-time MVP. Just can't quite do it. 10. Alan Trammell: You probably had to be there to even understand why he's close to worthy. But he is. The argument that the Tigers never would have traded him straight-up for Ozzie Smith (which I believe) is close to a compelling one. Close. 11. Edgar Martinez: Maybe this is a little low as a reaction to the campaign on his behalf, but I don't think so. His percentages were great (.515 slugging and .418 on-base) and I'm not going to hold it against him that he was the fourth-best player on a team that never reached the World Series (I did vote for Ron Santo eventually). But he was a DH. And he only finished in the top 10 in MVP voting twice. (Some will say that's repeating an injustice, but I don't think so.) A great hitter, yes, but in my estimation he didn't leave a mark that was quite great enough. 12. Lee Smith: A very consistent closer for eight teams. One always to be counted on, as evidenced by his third-best save total (478). 13. Larry Walker: Terrific talent whose .565 slugging percentage is 13th all-time and who won seven Gold Gloves and stole 230 bases. On the numbers, a case could be made. Feels like Coors helped a little too much, though. Very good but not great 14. Tim Salmon: Nice career. Really nice. But not a Hall of Famer. 15. Javy Lopez: His .491 slugging percentage for a catcher ain't bad. 16. Ruben Sierra: Had some really nice years before he started squabbling with Joe Torre. 17. Vinny Castilla: Very good hitter made to look even better in Colorado. 18. Brian Jordan: Tremendous all-around athlete and one extremely nice man. 19. Brad Radke: Very competent pitcher, but wasn't good enough for long enough and was never great. 20. Jeromy Burnitz: He did hit 30 home runs four years in a row, even if no one remembers. Ballot busters (not sure why they made the ballot) 21. Bill Mueller: Did win a batting title, and you can't take that away from him. 22. Terry Mulholland: Did start an All-Star Game, and you can't take that away from him, either. 23. Phil Nevin: Was the No. 1 overall pick in the Derek Jeter draft. Also seemed to have a very good time being a major-league ballplayer. 24. Tony Womack: Had huge hit to help the Diamondbacks win the 2001 World Series. But I'm going to guess the .317 on-base percentage and .356 slugging percentage work against him. 25. Eric Young Sr.: A better player than Womack. Woulda made it, but ... 26. Mark McGwire: On accomplishment alone, he would be the top guy on my ballot. Just can't do it. The 70 home runs were a mirage. 27. Rafael Palmeiro: I will never vote for him, period. I don't know how to say it more clearly than that. Never. For more MLB news and rumors from Jon Heyman, follow @JonHeymanCBS.
McGwire and Palmeiro at the very bottom of the list with the steroid allegations and scandals. But I have to be honest, it's really hard for me to pick more than 7 players out of the other 24 who had better careers than both guys, especially McGwire. Mark McGwire is easily amongst the top 5 on that list, if not the best. 12x All-Star and 5x, he was an in the top 10 for MVP candidates. 10th all time in OPS. 8th all time in slugging. 10th in home runs. Did he not revolutionize the game or transcend his own time period?
I wouldn't put McGwire or Sosa in the Hall. Neither would have been Hall of Fame bound without the help of PEDs. Undecided on Palmeiro. I would vote for Bonds, A-Rod, and Clemens.
Geesh with Bonds, Clemens, Sosa Piazza, Biggio and Schilling all coming up next year I'd think that would hurt Bagwell but perhaps the writers will vote both Houston guys? Will be interesting for sure...
McGwire admitted it, but MLB never actually caught him with steroids. They did catch him with a substance that wasn't banned at the time. Again, you cannot make such a claim, because no one is able to quantify how much PEDs or steroids effect, one's performance overall, while no one knows the exact dates. Even more so, how come lesser or even other good players were also using (or possibly using) steroids, yet never came close to those home run totals. Players have always cheated in baseball, to gain and upper edge in some form or fashion, maybe not steroids or HGH. It was common for players, during the 70s and 80s to use greenies (amphetamines). Some of those players are currently in the Hall of Fame. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_drug_trials http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/content/sports/epaper/2006/04/02/PBP_AMPHET_0402.html
McGwire admitted to using steroids and HGH, to stay healthy. From 1992-1996, McGwire missed an average of 91 games per season. From 1997-1999, when he played in 156, 155 and 153 games, he hit 58, 70, and 65 homers. Without those three healthy seasons, there's no way he makes the Hall of Fame. He'd be remembered as a nice player, a Dave Kingman/Frank Howard time of player. As for Sosa and Palmeiro, they both tested positive. Steroid use won't make you a good hitter, but it will allow you to add more muscle mass. More muscle mass = higher bat speed. Higher bat speed = higher batted ball speed. Higher batter ball speed = longer fly balls. Longer fly balls = higher HR/FB rate
1. Dave Kingman and Frank Howard, really good players and outstanding home run hitters for their time. But, both together had only 7 all star appearances, while McGwire had 6 in his first 7 seasons. While, he had two more in 95 and 96, then finished with 12 overall. 2. Beyond sports, such drugs are used to recover from injuries, which is why it's a reason alot of professional wrestlers said they used steroids for, not only for cosmetic reasons. When they were on 320-400 day tour schedule taking really hard bumps in the ring and performing dangerous maneuvers. Bret the Hitman Hart talked about it in a some details. 3. Steroid use won't make you a good hitter, but it will allow you to add more muscle mass. More muscle mass = higher bat speed. Higher bat speed = higher batted ball speed. Higher batter ball speed = longer fly balls. Longer fly balls = higher HR/FB rate I actually am in the group that believes that steroid doesn't significantly make you a better baseball player, because of the degree of hand eye coordination, batting mechanics, and pure skill/instinct needed to succeed in such a sport. Pro Position http://www.sciencebuzz.org/blog/do_steroids_help_barry_bonds_hit_home_runs Star Tribune sports columnist Pat Reusse - "The truth is, there were so many guys taking steroids for a few years, and they couldn't hit like Barry Bonds. In my opinion, a guy hitting with a corked bat is taking a bigger advantage than someone who was on steroids,” said Twins outfielder Shannon Stewart. "If Bonds was doing all of this ... you still have to hit the ball. He still was going to hit 40 or 50 (each season), with or without steroids." Tony Oliva, 8x MLB All Star - “I hope baseball can soon stop talking about steroids. What I do know is the ballparks (today) are smaller and the ball is harder. I know those are two reasons for more home runs. Maybe steroids were the third reason. I don't know.” Robert Nishihara, Baseball writer - “A good hitter must identify a pitch to hit, know enough about the pitcher and the game situation to give himself the best chance to succeed, and put hands and hips into motion to drive the pitch. Nowhere does Williams mention that muscle mass aides in any of those critical elements. Williams, himself, of course, was rail-thin, and yet, he managed to crank out 521 career homers.” “Sure, added muscle mass may increase the distance a player is able to hit a baseball, but what negative effect does that added mass have in altering the fluidity of the player's swing and, thus, his ability to hit the ball in the first place? A popular baseball refrain cautions fast players who have deficiencies in the batter's box that one cannot steal first base. Similarly, a power hitter cannot hit a home run if he cannot hit the ball. And hitting a baseball is a unique skill in the world of sports. It is a powerful act that does not require extraordinary muscle strength. Instead, it is primarily dependent on technique, reflexes, and hand-eye coordination, not brute strength. It is a correlation that so many people are failing to make these days.” Jack Mankin, Batting Instructor: The study covered nine years and literally thousands of hours. The first two years I spent charting the swings of 185 professional players. I would video tape games shown on television and replay the swings back in frame by frame action. By placing a piece of clear plastic over the screen I was able to trace the movement of each part of the body and the bats reaction for each video frame of the swing. From the time the swing was initiated to contact required from 4 to 6 frames depending on the mechanics of the batter. To me, one of the most important findings to come from the research was that a player's swing mechanics was far more important in determining batting potential than the player's athletic abilities. Even a 6 foot, 4 inch, 230 pound Mark McGwire performed just as poorly as other players with the same swing classification in 1991 when he hit .201 with 22 homeruns. I discovered that whenever a hitter went into a batting slump, there would be a notable change in his mechanics and he was just performing according to his new swing classification. http://www.batspeed.com/about.html
Con position: http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2005/01/baseball_yes_st.php Direct Evidence One sometimes hears the argument made that we can't and don't have direct evidence of how steroids help performance. This is true enough, as far as it goes. For example, we can show directly how velocity helps a pitcher get strikeouts: you can measure batters' reaction times and show how increasing velocity makes it harder to make contact. Or, you can simply watch a guy who throws 95+ blow pitches even past guys who are looking for them. That kind of "see the causation with your own eyes" evidence doesn't exist for steroids and performance in baseball. Statistical Proof Where direct evidence of causation isn't available, of course, statistical proof of correlation can be good enough. A classic example of this from the intersection of law and medicine is the fact that we still don't have direct evidence that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer (i.e., scientists can't show how it happens), but the statistical evidence shows a fairly overwhelming connection between smoking and increased likelihood of getting lung cancer. Statistical proofs of correlation are pervasive in baseball - to use our example above, it would be easy to do a study showing that pitchers who regularly throw above 95 mph get a lot more strikeouts, and are much more likely to generate large numbers of strikeouts, than pitchers who rarely or never crack 90+ mph. That correlation is so powerful that it will show up in almost any study. Other correlations are trickier, which is why a reliable study has to use a large enough sample size to be able to generalize, and has to ensure that truly comparable players are being compared, so that different outcomes can't be explained away by some other factor. A. Do Steroids Help Build Strength? This much is not seriously disputed, which is one reason why steroids are banned in the NFL and the Olympics, where physical strength and speed can be shown to connect directly to performance. There are certainly debates about precisely how and to what extent steroids help, but few serious people would debate that taking them helps build stronger muscles. B. Does Strength Help In Hitting A Baseball? This is really the crux of the argument. It is often said that you can't take a drug to help you hit a curveball, which is true but totally beside the point. The issue isn't whether steroids will help you or me become a major league ballplayer; the issue is whether guys with the pre-existing skills to play professional baseball will have those skills enhanced. To deny that, among other things, you have to argue that strength has no impact on the ability to hit for power. Of course, this is ridiculous. Since the introduction of the home run as a regular part of the game in the 1920s, it has always been the case that big, strong guys with powerful chests and arms have tended to be home run hitters, and skinny little guys have not. To deny that steroids have an impact on hitting for power in particular, you have to look at all the home runs hit by the Gehrigs and Foxxes and Mantles and Kluzewskis and Killebrews and all the singles hit by the Willie McGees and Vince Colemans and Nellie Foxes of the world, and argue that it is just a coincidence that physical strength has always been so strongly correlated with home run power. You have to not only look at Bonds and Giambi and all the other guys who have been placed under one sort of cloud or other and say that whatever they took or were given didn't matter; you actually have to say that all the muscle Barry Bonds has added has had nothing to do with his power surge, that Jason Giambi's increased power production as he gained muscle was just a coincidence. Sorry, I'm not buying that. Basic physics: force equals mass times velocity acceleration. The force you hit a baseball with is affected by the weight and speed of the bat. Stronger players can generate greater bat speed, or generate the same bat speed with a heavier bat. Yes, bat speed is a variable affected by other factors - the arc of your swing, reflexes/reaction times . . . and yes, it's true that muscle mass sometimes gets in the way of greater bat speed. But again: if strength has nothing to do with power, why have stronger players always, as a class, hit for more power? The Bonds Issue I would stress, again, that I don't have anything but the sketchy information in the public record on what Barry Bonds took and when, and how it helped him. And it's true: Bonds' late career surge has had other causes, from better bats to a greater uppercut in his swing. But I've been disappointed at some of the efforts from otherwise reasonable people to obscure the fact that Bonds' increased strength has had an impact on his unprecedented late-30s power surge. I meant to get to this when it ran in mid-December: the New York Times editorial by Will Carroll of the Baseball Prospectus (discussed here on his blog). I like and respect Carroll from his work at BP, but the Times piece has some serious issues. One is the point I make above: Carroll essentially implies that he is agnostic on whether strength helps with power hitting, contrary to 85 years' experience: [W]e have little or no idea what these drugs accomplish. Do stronger players hit the ball farther, swing the bat quicker or throw the ball harder? Does using steroids reduce fatigue so that they can do any of those things more effectively than "clean" players? While there is no doubt that these chemicals are effective at their stated goal, albeit with significant complications, the question of how their effects manifest themselves in a baseball game has not been answered. There are no credible studies that connect drug use to improved performance, nor any that determine what cost these athletes may be paying. Much more problematically, Carroll uses some seriously misguided examples to imply to the Times' readers that Bonds' power surge is not so unprecedented: It is true that Bonds's performance over what many would expect to be the twilight of his career has been incredible. Instead of a slow decline as he approached 40, Bonds has done what can only now be described as superhuman. . . . The raw numbers, however, only reflect his increased home-run production; they do not say whether he hits more homers that fly significantly farther. What of this late-career surge? Certainly we can point to that with an accusing finger, sure that Bonds's numbers in the record books have been written with some "cream" or "clear" substance. It's much easier to point than to find facts. According to Clay Davenport, a researcher at Baseball Prospectus, Hank Aaron's best year for home runs - when he had the most homers per at bat - was 1973, when he was 39. His second best was in 1971, at age 37. Willie Stargell had his best seasons after age 37. Carlton Fisk put his best rate in the books when he was 40. Even Ty Cobb had his best home run rate at age 38, though the end of the dead-ball era helped that. It is not uncommon, according to Mr. Davenport, for a slugger to change his mechanics as he ages, swinging for the fences as his ability to run the bases declines. These are terribly bad examples. First of all, Aaron in 1973, Stargell in 1978 and 1979 and Fisk in 1988 all had one thing in common: none of them were full-time, 500+ at bat players any longer, as they'd been in their primes. It's a lot easier for an older player to improve his production if he has a third to half of the season to rest as opposed to the years when he was playing every day, a fact that has absolutely zero to do with Barry Bonds. Let's take Stargell first, as he's the most egregious example. Willie Stargell's career best slugging percentages, both absolutely and relative to the league, came at the ages of 26, 31, and 33, well within the normal range. Stargell's home run rate improved slightly in 1978-79, at age 38 and 39, but his doubles - also a key power stat - dropped off sharply from 43 in 1973 to 18 and 19 in 1978 and 1979. Was he really hitting for more power? Also, Stargell had another thing going for him: while he wasn't, strictly speaking, platooned (his backup, John Milner, was also lefthanded), the decline in his playing time allowed him to see a much more favorable mix of pitchers: Stargell had 30.5% of his at bats against lefties in 1978 and 30.7% in 1979, as opposed to 39.5% in 1971 and 33.1% in 1973. For a guy with Stargell's big platoon splits, that's a significant advantage. Then there's Aaron. If you know the game's history, you already know that Aaron's late-career power surge was an illusion created by the improved offensive conditions of the 1970s as opposed to the 1960s, combined with his move in 1966 into homer-friendly Fulton County Stadium and out of pitcher-friendly Milwaukee County. Aaron hit 52 homers on the road and 37 at home in 1962-63; in 1971 and 1973, those figures were more than reversed to 55 at home and 32 on the road. But it doesn't stop there; with just 392 at bats in 1973 at age 39, the right-handed Aaron saw 44.4% of his at bats against left-handed pitching, up from 30.9% in 1971 and 26.5% as a full-time player in 1969. Then there's Fisk, whose "best" home run season was 253 at bats in 1988. Do I really need to explain why a catcher might hit better playing half the time? And yes, the right-handed Fisk faced lefties 36.5% of the time in 1988, compared to 22.9% in his actual best season, 1977. (Ty Cobb, whose career high in home runs was 12 but whose career high in slugging average was at age 24, is not even worthy of discussing at length). None of these guys - indeed, no other player in baseball history - compares remotely to what Barry Bonds has done, and it does no service to the debate to pretend otherwise. Prior to 2000, Bonds was 34 years old and had a career slugging percentage of .559, with his two best slugging percentages (.677 and .647) coming at age 28 and 29. Since then, he has slugged .781, a 40% improvement on his career average and a 15% improvement over a five-year stretch compared to his career best season. Neither Carroll nor Davenport could find an example anywhere, certainly not outside of guys who straddled the arrival of the lively ball in the 1920s, of an established player who had anything like a 40% improvement in his power numbers from age 35 to 39. (Bonds has also batted .358 over the past three years, compared to batting above .320 just once through age 35, also nothing like a normal aging pattern).
Mcgwire made the all-star game in a year when he hit .201 with 22 HR. He was down right terrible that year. He also made all-star games hitting in the .230s. In his 15 year career, Big Mac had 8 seasons with a .900+ OPS. Through age 30, he was a .250/.362/.507 hitter. I'd take that happily out of my 1B, but that isn't HOF caliber. Bags hit .304/.411/.538 through age 30. Bonds was .286/.398/.541. Both players were better defensively and at base running. After age 30, Mcgwire hit .278/.430/.683. Nobody gets that much better after age 30. He broke into the big leagues at age 22, so it isn't like he was some late comer to the party.
Pure hitting, McGwire had a slight edge on Bagwell in their primes. But for the whole game, Bagwell is head-and-shoulders the better player, and there's no contest. Unless you just don't care about defense and baserunning.
Jon Heyman is an idiot for ranking Don Mattingly, Dale Murphy and Fred McGriff above Jeff Bagwell on his list. Bagwell is one of the top first baseman of all time, and was a true 5 tool player until his shoulder gave out on him. Anyone who thinks Bagwell belongs in the almost category needs their vote stripped and their eyes examined.
I wouldn't call Bags a 5 tool player. While he did everything above average, his speed certainly wouldn't be considered a tool. And although he was a good defensive 1B, I don't think people classify being good defensively at 1B as a tool. Bags is definitely in over those guys. Mattingly shouldn't even merit consideration. His overall numbers aren't very impressive for a 1B. He had 4 years of great baseball, where he looked like a HOF, but then spent the rest of his career as a Tino Martinez level player at best.
