Which Astros/ex-astros will make the HOF?

You need to review his career a little more closely. As a rookie, he hit 49 home runs -- a still-standing record, and before the generally regarded beginning of the "steroids era", although he could certainly have been juiced to the hilt in '89. He also hit for average and had good OBP, even before the 98 madness.

I'm not saying he's Jeff Bagwell by any stretch. But he's a Hall of Famer, IMO.

 

What about Brad Assmus?

 

have you ever seen ausmus call a game? HOF LOCK. i mean honestly, where would oswalt have been if ausmus wasn't his catcher coming up? I think we all know.

(edit: joking aside, i am actually a fan of ausmus and think he was given more crap than he deserved, even though his hitting was terrible)

 

Roger for sure, no?

Unless he gets the Barry Bonds treatment, which would be fine with me. But like Bonds, he had a hall of fame career before the whole steroid thing.

 

His rookie year was 1987, and that was a great year. He then hit a combined .233 over the next four years. He bottomed out in 1991 with .201BA .383SLG and 22HR. He bounced back in 1992 to have an Adam Dunn type season, then suffered injuries and came back in 1995 and had a great HOF 5 years before getting hurt in 2000, and hitting .187 in 97 games in 2001(over half his hits were HR). At best I'd say he had a 6.5 years out of a 14yr career that he was a great player.

I'm not enamored by HRs. His totals look great aside from BA, but I hate that it came from having half a HOF career, and half from an average to below average player. If anything it is having a ridiculous career OPS that would make him deserving. Sosa has a similar case, but he played RF, and was a 30-30 guy, so I want to give him a pass, but maybe he doesn't deserve that either. I don't consider his totals as impressive either.

Actually all this stat looking up has made me appreciate how truly great Bags was and how consistent over his career.

 

Craig and lance

If craig had played for the pinstripes, they(evil western sports media) would treat him like god instead of debating if he's a first ballot hof.

Lance. well, he is my favourite astro ever. And I can listen to him talk about anything.

 

Nice guy, but you could go beat the lines to the pisser or the concession stands anytime that Everett-Ausmus-pitcher combo was due up to bat. He was a total zero at the plate. Not to mention his hard grounders to short or to the 2nd basemen everytime we had runners on base resulting in double plays.

 

I have been victimized by my own selective memory. I thought I remembered him hitting 49 bombs in 89 and never looking back; and I was clearly way off. Thanks for correcting me! And with that information, I have to concede to you that Mac's case is pretty shaky. At least in my (newly adjusted) opinion.

You'll get no argument from me here. He is an all-time great.

 

second this. Craig won't get overlooked. Bagwell will suffer the Dale Murphy status type ranking, but Lance will have very HOF #'s when all is said.

 

i get what you're saying. Don't forget to throw in the stolen base #'s on top of the D. He had two 40-30 seasons, and I think is the only 1st baseman to have a 30-30 year, much less 40-30. Over 200 steals all time.

To me, that's especially important to consider when you are saying that this guy was among the better power hitters during his era at a power position that had NO one stealing bases like him.

 

That is a stupid reason. While nobody is above suspicion, you can not blame those that have not been named. I have no reason to think anyone was clean, but I hope many were. Every era has had different advantages & disadvantages.[/QUOTE]

There is no connection between Lance Berkman and Rafael Palmeiro whatsoever. Palmeiro was mired in the Texas Rangers' roid craze of the nineties, including such suspected/caught players as Jose Canseco, Juan Gonzalez, and Pudge Rodriguez. Bagwell gets suspected because of his extremely close relationship with Ken Caminiti and Luis Gonzalez. Caminiti at the end of his career admitted to using steroids and suspected half the league of doing so before ODing on drugs in . Gonzalez never hit over 31 home runs except for his "magical" year of 2001 when he hit 57. Apparently Baggy worked out with these guys and had a "magical" increase in power production of his own in the strike-shortened year of 1994.

Is it unfair to suspect players with no more evidence than simple aberrations on their career arcs? Sure. But we've no other recourse at this point. Based on the eyeball test, Bagwell surprised many people when he first came up by have an unsuspected outburst of power. On the other hand, big Fat Elvis has always had that power growing up being Fat like the Babe. In my diehard late-90's Astros Fan's opinion, Berkman has never used steroids in his life, while Bagwell might have/probably did. In this case, Berkman is more deserving for such recognition as is bestowed upon those elected to the Hall.

 

Cami's admitted steroid years were with San Diego, and Luis's 57 came in Arizona. But guilt by association is cool, though. It worked great for McCarthy.

He matched or bested that number 6 more times in his career. There is *nothing* in his career production that looks like a one-year roids-induced aberration. Get your facts straight.

We most certainly do. If you don't recognize any other recourse and want to continue your witch hunt, then bully for you. But there most certainly is another "recourse".

...that's just stupid.

Bagwell had one full season in the minors. One. How much can you learn about a player in one year? Do you even know what kind of league he played in, with what kind of pitching, and in what kind of park?

He was fast-tracked because it was obvious to everyone with a clue what a talent he was. And there was no "unsuspected outburst of power", but rather a steady climb from his rookie season: 15, 18, 20, 39. And please do spare us the calling 15 jacks an "unsuspected outburst". 15 would be an outburst for Adam Everett, who was *only* touted as a defensive prospect.

You have no factual basis for either opinion. You have your "eyeball test", where you gaze upon pictures on the Internet and are suddenly an expert on the physiological changes brought upon by the use of PEDs on people's bodies for whom you have no medical chart and ignore things like hereditary degenerative shoulders. So, circumstancial surmise and conjecture carries the day. Kudos, Senator McCarthy.

Well, I'm the guy who would put Barroid, ARod, and possibly McGwire and Sosa, so this part isn't really relevant to me. (But I don't expect you to concur with my feeling on this.)

 

Bagwell is an absolute lock, much moreso than Berkman or Oswalt.

I've tried to discuss that before, but there's no point. It's a witchhunt of epic proportions. It doesn't matter that he hasn't been accused, named, or even had the slightest connection of any kind. Nope, he once got big, then he got small again... STEROIDS!!!! LOCK HIM UP!!!! Clearly, this never happens for legitimate reasons.

If nothing else, these conversations are worthwhile, because they reveal the conspiracy nutjobs who aren't worth taking seriously.

Yes, you do. It's called let them actually be accused, named, or even have the slightest bit of actual evidence shown against him, much like the other users have. If it's there, it will come out.

My God, I sincerely hope you've never worked anywhere remotely close to a legal system, because that's one of the most frightening and bizarre arguments I've ever heard.

 

yeah, there's no connection, he played with caminiti,

his shoulder fell apart, his weight loss is obvious, and he has terrible acne.

 

jason schmidt played with bonds

his shoulder fell apart. he hasn't been the same since. omg!!! ROIDS.

 

so you just ignore the other common sense evidence? I mean I really don't care if bags makes the hall of fame or if he used or not but now we're going to break out the "witchhunt" term. that's ridiculous, you guys can say what you want but bagwell is the classic case of a steroid user.

secondly just as silly as it is to claim he's used because he's never showed up on any of these reports, its just as silly to claim he didn't because he's not on any of the reports, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE DON'T KNOW EVERYONE ON THESE REPORTS.

 

You said because has been outspoken against steroids it made you feel that he was clean. People said the exact same thing when Palmeiro testifyed. Sad part is it should have been obvious considering how his HR totals jumped in Texas where he had his connection with Canseco. People still believed him because he looked and sounded believable. Sadly being outspoken against steroids and vehement denials mean nothing. I don't know if Lance uses or not. I hope he doesn't and choose to believe he doesn't. The same goes for Bagwell.

Virtually every player from the 1970s on can be suspected, but without more concrete proof in regards to these players you can't pick and choose. You could throw out the entire era, but that wouldn't be fair, especially when you consider there will never be a time when there isn't an undetectable PED. You have to compare the players against their own era. If they dominated in their era, they are HOF deserving. If there is concrete proof, I would consider borderlines to be out, but the likes of Clemens/Bonds to be in.

 

this is the bottom line, so it doesn't make since to get riled up because your favorite player is suspected. I don't get why some people are so defensive about bagwell suspiscions.

yeah, its not bonds, mcguire, a rod, sosa, clemens, but those guys just happened to either get caught or have very damning evidence against. if anything, the more guys get caught, the more universal suspicison

 

I didn't pick Bags because many members of the baseball writers association have an agenda against all suspected steroid users and a hardon for the number "500".

If it were up to me, even lima-time would get in.