But were the voters privvy to that information prior to voting them in? I sincerely don't know the answer. I don't know, man... my biggest issue with Bagwell's exclusion, as it relates to PEDs, is that there is not a shred of verifiable evidence. He hasn't been mentioned in any books, reports, investigations; no former teammates, opponents, associates or (and this is the big one for me) ex-wives have ever implicated him. The BBWAA have been on a PED witch hunt for at least 10 years... and there isn't a single confirmed link to Bagwell. If I'm pushing Bagwell based on a lack of evidence... it feels hypocritical of me to then ignore confirmed evidence of a guy like Rose. I'm comfortable drawing that line. (And isn't his record part of the Hall; he's just not inducted, right?)
I don't know, and for me it doesn't matter. indeed! sorry, I was commenting on the part of the conversation that had deviated to discussing roiders like the ones already mentioned. I don't for a second have a judgment on Bagwell because, as you point out, there is not one shred of verifiable evidence. And, barely even any hearsay. Just... nothing. Bagwell gets in because he is among the top *two* NL 1B in its flippin' history, and the other guy played 3B (poorly) for his first few seasons. And they're a hypocritical bunch. This witch hunt is really ridiculous. I hear what you're saying. And whatever works to serve getting Bagwell in the Hall where he's deserved to have been for the last three years, so be it. But for me, I'm pushing Bagwell based on his career. I can't for the life of me see how someone could include Frank no-defense-no-speed Thomas and not include Bagwell. His career is a Hall of Fame career--full stop. Forgot about that. But again, for me, I can't take the "Hall of Fame" seriously when they plug their fingers in the ears and exclude the Bondses and Clemenses and Roses while they leave in the McGraws and Perrys and Cobbs. And if they add to that the ridiculous exclusion of Jeff Bagwell, they will have lost the few shreds of credibility and respect they have left from me.
Thomas getting in before Bagwell really was a tragedy. Bagwell is one of the top 5 first basemen of all time, Thomas was a DH....a part time baseball player who wasn't even the offensive weapon that Bagwell was despite being able to focus 100% of his attention to that side of the game.
Whats upsetting about that situation is, if Bagwell isn't getting in because of steroid suspicion, why is Thomas NOT only a HOFer, but a 1st ballot HOFer nonetheless? I mean, just look at him. There is the same amount of evidence for Bags as there is Thomas: zero. Yet, both were huge. That type of hypocrisy makes me not give a damn about the BBWAA. They're the definition of a joke organization. Why is Thomas in the HOF? Because he played in Chicago. If Bags stayed in BOS, or NY, or CHI, he'd be in. But he spent his entire career in Houston, and these writers dont give a damn about us.
There are three definitively better 1B: Gehrig, Foxx and Pujols. I think Greenburg, Killebrew, Mize and Murray are in the mix. Still, it's not as outrageous a claim as most think, and even if you rate each of those guys ahead of Bagwell, he's top 8 all-time and top 3 among NL 1B. People are really asleep when it comes to how remarkably good Bagwell was; I just had a discussion with a guy on Twitter who was so far off base, I finally had to walk away.
Thomas did a very smart thing: he openly spoke out about PEDs at the time. That won him the benefit of the doubt, which has continued. Also, and I'm not arguing against your claim, but Thomas and Bagwell's size was not 1:1. Thomas was, independent of any bulk, a naturally big guy (6'5"); Bagwell was listed as 6'0" but was not 6'0". Adding bulk to his frame looks a lot less natural than Thomas. Again, I agree with you, generally, as I think a bunch of hack baseball writers trying to crack the steroid code from miles away is just ridiculously silly. But I can at least understand why Thomas wouldn't, on the surface, fall under the same suspicion as Bagwell. I don't buy it. Mike Piazza (a slam dunk, first ballot guy, too) can't get in and he played in NY *and* LA. And the Boston writers are huge Bagwell supporters because he's a local guy who came up through the Sox system. The problem is PEDs. That's it. He'd be in if there was no suspicion. In terms of Bagwell v Thomas, I think the answer is much easier than that (beyond Thomas being on record as anti-PEDs): Thomas stood out more. His individual seasons were huge, including still-fawned over batting averages, home runs and RsBI. He won two MVP awards and finished top 4 three other times, so the writers were very familiar with him. Bagwell got lost in a crowded NL, where guys like McGwire, Helton, Pujols & McGriff (just among 1B; there’s Bonds, Sosa, Walker…) put up equally insane numbers. What AL 1B/DH was in Thomas' class? Tino Martinez? He had two contemporary peers (off the top of my head): Griffey and ARod. He was easily a top 2-3 AL hitter in the 90s. Bagwell was, too – but you have to sort of dig to uncover it: his greatness was consistency. But he’s overshadowed by remarkable individual seasons. People *think*, for instance, that Sammy Sosa was better. But only his 2-4 year peak was. Bagwell greatness lasted much longer. I do think he flew under a lot of radars playing in Houston; it didn't help that he was an all-business, personality-less figure who never really transcended, and that when he did get on the big stage, he and the team failed too often. But I think the NY/LA media bias thing is overblown. Too many think he did PEDs.
It makes me wonder if there are "sources" behind the scenes who won't go on the record that are linking Bagwell to steroids.
Sources don't have to go on record; their information only has to be corroborated. I, and previously, The Cat, have gone a round or two with Jeff Pearlman on this issue, who swears up and down Bagwell used but won't publish what he knows (meaning he either has a single source but can't find a second; or his source's information is second-hand/heresy and thus not reliable enough to print). This is the problem with the PED witch hunt: there is literally zero evidence linking Jeff Bagwell to steroid use, something journalists for some reason can’t seem to understand (despite it being an unbelievably simple concept).
The idea of the Hall of Fame is so overhyped. What the hell does it matter if their plaques are hung up on a wall in a building. It's a marketing tool for the sport, nothing more. BFD. The writers want to act like they can erase the steroid era. Maybe that was possible before television and 24-hour highlights. We all know what they accomplished. If Hall of Fames are such a big deal to people, the only solution is an independent, democratically-led Hall of Fame where players of all eras are acknowledged solely for their on-field performance. Otherwise -- if character is part of the induction -- then every player would be on a Donald Sterling witch hunt for bad behavior.
not everyone feels that way. for many, including me, it is a collection of stories and history that is very meaningful. Agreed, if not worse. The writers are so very off base on this. Well, it very nearly is that right now. It is completely independent of MLB, but I wouldn't call it "democratically-led". And it supposedly aims to enshrine players of all eras based solely on on-field performance (or front-office prowess), but clearly--as in the case of Rose--they are no longer doing that. That's why, for me, the Hall is hemorrhaging credibility. Indeed. And, Ty Cobb, Gaylord Perry, and countless other slime and cheaters are currently enshrined. Pull those guys out, or put Rose and Rocket in. If they want it both ways, they are hypocrites. And that's what this current crop of BBWAA are: hypocrites.
Quite similar feelings on most points. The Hall (and the writers) to me have very little credibility. It's an old boys' club -- but boys with major egos. i worked for the Hall one summer years ago and I left with a sour taste for a number of reasons (some of which I alluded to earlier). While they keep harping on how they're "independent" of MLB...they're simply not. Whatever line that exists that separates the two as independent entities is very thin. The writers could simply induct Rose without him being reinstated -- but imagine the backlash from MLB. Selig wouldn't stand for it. I don't have any particular "juicy" details with regards to the induction process or operations overall -- I just know that from my experiences and with the way things were -- and are -- run...the Hall is just as disgraceful as the writers are in my book. Really turned me off baseball.
Yes. Biggio is almost a guarantee IMO. He was only a few votes shy and it is highly unlikely he lost votes, but it is possible. I think he will be under 80% though. 74.2% for Bagwell, while it would be shy of induction, that would be a result that everybody should be extremely happy about. Once you get that high a number you are basically a lock to get in eventually, usually the next season. Having said that, I highly doubt Bagwells number stays anywhere near that. I would say 60% is the over under. If he gets under 60% things would look bleak, but if he gets over it would signify that he is gaining momentum and likely to get in at some point.
Actually, I believe the gizmo is based off current votes and shows each player's current standing. [Here's]http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/newsstand/[/URL] the site link. With 13.8% of the vote (public ballots released on Twitter or other mediums), Biggio is currently at 82.3 and Bags is at 73.4.
The gizmo is up to 16.5% of votes collected Biggio is at 83.0% Bagwell is at 73.4% Last season it ended up collecting 36.7% of the ballots. They projected Biggio at 79.4%, he ended up with 74.8%. They projected Bagwell with 56.5%, he ended up with 54.3%. These early results for Bagwell are very encouraging given how close they were to his number last season. He's not gonna get in this season, but if he could end up around 65% that would bode very well for future induction.
