grrr...

haven't read the excerpt, or anything so far, just the title, I don't know who this guy is(I'm horrible with names) but the title suggests to me a modicum chance of a well thought out ballot, maybe a mistake here or there, but something in which is defensible. I just know that he won't have Jack Morris, and that Raines and Larkin will be givens(I saw the first line, so I know he's agonizing on Bagwell)

We have seen tens of players like Bagwell break down physically in their late 30s.

Yeah, because that sure never happened before the 1990s and the 2000s, right? Star players never, ever had the the twilight of their careers in their late 30s due to the physical toll the game exacts -- the long seasons, the grind of playing 6 or more times per week. Nope. That's some powerful evidence against Jeff Bagwell right there.

Sigh.

I'm having a good day, another guy I don't agree with, but who makes a good argument/case for his point of view. And I do agree with enough of his point of view that I'm only mildly upset he voted for Rice(still there is no justification for Morris---talk about a compiler---he is the text book definition of compiler, he's the Harold Baines of Pitchers)

I honestly don't see how you can pick Jim Rice and not pick Jeff Bagwell, even if you look at traditional stats. Jim Rice batted .298 for his career; Jeff Bagwell batted .297 (Bagwell, of course, crushes Rice in OBP and SLG). Rice hit 382 HRs; Bagwell hit 449. Rice drove in 1,451 runs, Bagwell drove in 1,529. Bagwell scored almost 300 more runs (1,517 - 1,249). They won the same number of MVP awards. Neither of them played on a World Series winner. I just don't see how you can look at these two guys and conclude that Jim Rice was (a) better, and (b) enough better that you can draw your HOF in/out line between them.

I honestly don't see how you can pick Jim Rice and not pick Jeff Bagwell,

He flat out states that Bagwell is worthy by the numbers, just doesn't want the potential embarrasment of a steroid leak happening after he goes in. He also says that he will vote for him sometime in the future, possibly next year or the year after(if he goes in with Biggio, it wouldn't be so bad)

Again I don't agree with him, but unlike most of the mouth breathers with voting privileges, he can actually articulate his opinion in a way that is logically consistent. (I don't know his reasoning for voting for Rice, but he does admit to some potential hometown bias)

Kiko, are we limited to traditional stats AND no league adjustments? Because Rice and Bagwell are closer on traditional stats if one includes a mental adjustment for..... THE STEROID ERA.

He flat out states that Bagwell is worthy by the numbers, just doesn't want the potential embarrasment of a steroid leak happening after he goes in.

Okay, I think that's taking the steroid witch hunt far too far, but if you're a "steroid users must be kept out at all costs; better safe than sorry" guy, I guess I can see it. I don't agree with it (either voting for Rice or against Bagwell), but I guess I can see it.

Because Rice and Bagwell are closer on traditional stats if one includes a mental adjustment for..... THE STEROID ERA.

Granting that we all agree that, of course Bagwell is better than Rice and any arguments to the contrary are absurd, I guess I can see how one could say that Rice having numbers superficially close to Bagwell (although they're not really) in a lower-offense environment (although he wasn't - I'm pretty sure Fenway in the 70s-80s was higher-offense than the Astrodome that Bagwell spent the first half of his career in) makes him a better choice than Bagwell.

Somewhat related, it's kind of stunning to me to see how badly Bagwell generally did in racking up awards: only 4 All-Star games, 1 Gold Glove, although he did win a RoY and had a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in MVP voting (but fairly little MVP love outside those three years).

Okay, I think that's taking the steroid witch hunt far too far, but if you're a "steroid users must be kept out at all costs; better safe than sorry" guy, I guess I can see it. I don't agree with it (either voting for Rice or against Bagwell), but I guess I can see it.

He at least admits that he has no real justification of not voting for Bagwell, he also says something about he's a fan of the 15 year ballot and believes in using all 15 years. He also says that he received criticism for changing his vote (the player hasn't gotten another hit in five years, if he wasn't worthy last year, then he shouldn't be worthy this year--type of argument) as he is voting for Larkin this year after not voting for him last year.

Yes he's a steroid purist and will never vote for McGwire or Palmeiro, but at least he draws a line between those two and Bagwell(and I would assume Sosa when he gets on the ballot)


Again, I don't share his opinion, but I at least respect the way he delivers his message, and that it seems like he's actually caring instead of just going through the motions.

Somewhat related, it's kind of stunning to me to see how badly Bagwell generally did in racking up awards: only 4 All-Star games,

The all-star games total is partly a function of just how many great first basemen were in the game during most of his tenure. In the NL, he was competing at times with McGriff, McGwire, Galarraga, Clark, Helton, Pujols, plus a lesser star such as Grace (3X all-star). If you're not getting voted in, it's easy to get passed by when there is so much talent at the position.

Jeff Jacobs seems like a nice guy and a thoughtful voter (like others have said, I respect his arguments though I don't agree with them), but I am a bit troubled why Bagwell is getting the "wait and see" treatment despite no concrete evidence of PED use, while Larkin gets his vote right now.

Bagwell and Larkin both played through the steroid era: Bagwell 1991-2005, Larkin 1986-2004. Larkin doesn't fit the "classic profile" of the PED user, but how do we know that the classic profile is correct (obligatory Alex Sanchez/Manny Alexander reference)? Larkin had a lot of injuries. He also suddenly hit 33 home runs in 1996 at the age of 32, after never before (and never again) hitting more than 20. Isn't there at least some chance Larkin dabbled in PEDs and a vote for him could "backfire in an ugly way," like he is worried a vote for Bagwell could?

I guess what I'm saying is that if he's so worried about accidentally inducting a PED user, why is he so confident that Larkin is NOT one?

I guess what I'm saying is that if he's so worried about accidentally inducting a PED user, why is he so confident that Larkin is NOT one?

From the relatively simplistic viewpoint of roids equals homers or the ability to recover faster to get you healthy and play more games(in your prime that is) . And of course the all famous "look at his numbers before and after"....whatever time period you want to point out.

And of course the all famous "look at his numbers before and after"....whatever time period you want to point out.

But by just about any measure, Bagwell's career was consistent and had a perfectly "normal" shape, with a few years of improvement, a peak from ages 26 to 32 (best two years by WAR were ages 26 and 28), and a decline in his late 30s. From age 32 on, he was aided by a better hitters' park, which masks his decline a bit.

Bagwell might have been using PEDs his entire career (we could say the same for Larkin -- or any other player for that matter) but otherwise I don't see an obvious inflection point where he suddenly became a different player.

But by just about any measure, Bagwell's career was consistent and had a perfectly "normal" shape, with a few years of improvement,

Bagwell's argument usually stems from his minor league days and his rookie year. Although it's not so much numbers as his physique that is pointed out.

I probably should have listed "look at him" as the argument. It's a stupid argument either way. I mean I absolutely guarantee that Hank Aarons hat size was bigger when he retired than when he started playing, but apparently Bonds is the only person who has done the physically impossible and got a bigger head.

I mean if you think about it, you are a young player and you have to go to the cheapest gym possible, you might have to work a second job, or go to class (if in school) then all the sudden you finally make it to the majors, and your first year is just learning how to behave, second year is fitting in, and partying a little bit(leading to sophomore slumps) third year you hit the weights more because you don't want to be a flash in the pan, fourth year you get your first 'big' contract, can hire a trainer or a nutritionist, get the best exercise equipment, etc.... hey guess what, you didn't know what the heck you were doing before, this guy is teaching you a lot more and you put on fifteen pounds of useful muscle, seems perfectly likely to me...but nowadays that happens and it's automatically "roids".

I'm not the best person to defend these silly positions. But there is more suspicion on Bagwell than there is on Larkin, just like there was more suspicion on McGwire than Eckstein. No matter how many times you try to explain to the writers or other fans, that pitchers are the single most caught position for roid users(by a good margin, assuming you are counting minors and majors) it doesn't matter.

Stating the obvious:

I thought it was well established that Bagwell was a fanatical weight lifter and worked with hard core weight lifter trainers (achieving significant and dramatic results, and allegedly led directly to a serious shoulder injury). While I do not, some people make the leap that Bagwell used steroids.

Bagwell might be the guy who pays the price for the Ryan Braun vote.

bagwell is the guy who has pre-paid for the ryan braun vote

people are obsessed with roids - in anyone who hits home runs, that is. there is just no discussing differences in the baseball, the parks, the umps, anything.

no one cares if taking roids makes you hit more singles or strike out more guys or run faster or stay in the lineup for a record number of times in a row.

i've heard the old saying that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like duck, it must be a duck. with bagwell, the saying has changed to - if it flies, it must be a duck.

(or as they say in latino) ipso fact ergo some suck

Let's just make it the Hall of Skinny Guys. They can have an entire wing for (s)crappy utility infielders.

I wonder... has anyone ever considered that maybe we collectively as a species ought to just sigh, grit their teeth, and get over the whole steroids thing?

Sometimes I think I'd be happy if every "major" CT newspaper columnist just forgot how to write.

I put a lot of thought into what to prepare for dinner tonight. Researched all my options, consulted with renowned chefs, and then slaved over a hot stove all day. In the end, here it is: A pine cone, lightly blanched and covered in Béchamel sauce, then presented on a seasonal bed of assorted bolts and screws. Bon Appetit!

Just now looking at the full list of eligibles. Mike Remlinger? Really?

Anyway, I've looked at the list for about 30 seconds:

Larkin, Bagwell, Raines, Trammell, Walker, McGwire, McGriff, Palmeiro, Bernie Williams

Nothing agonizing about it.

Jacobs: "What seems to be the problem officers?"
Officer Eddie: "That's enough out of you smart guy."
Officer Lou [pointing his gun]: "Reach for your license... slowly."
Officer Eddie: "Well well, Jeff Jacobs, from Hartford."
Officer Lou: "I heard some guy got killed in Hartford and they never solved the case, but you wouldn't know anything about that, would you Jeff?"
Jacobs: "But there's hundreds of unsolved murders in Hartford."
Officer Lou: "You don't know when to keep your mouth shut, do you Jeffy boy?"

Ah, one of my favorite Simpsons jokes. Thanks for bringing that one up, Bob.

Larkin, Bagwell, Raines, Trammell, Walker, McGwire, McGriff, Palmeiro, Bernie Williams

Pretty good...but you didn't have to agonize over Edgar?

Okay, I think that's taking the steroid witch hunt far too far, but if you're a "steroid users must be kept out at all costs; better safe than sorry" guy, I guess I can see it. I don't agree with it (either voting for Rice or against Bagwell), but I guess I can see it.

Ryan Braun testing positive smack dab between getting the MVP and HOF voting season does not bode well for Jeff Bagwell.

EDIT: Coke to Dag Nab and bbc.

I guess it's not suprising, but it is very disappointing that this guy spends as much time worrying about his own reputation as a voter as he does about the players he's voting for/not for.

Pretty good...but you didn't have to agonize over Edgar?

More HR than Rogers Hornsby
Higher BA than Mickey Mantle
More RBI than Joe Morgan
Same OPS+ as Willie McCovey and Mike Schmidt
More SB than Joe DiMaggio!

Easy HOF'er. ;-)

More HR than Rogers Hornsby
Higher BA than Mickey Mantle
More RBI than Joe Morgan
Same OPS+ as Willie McCovey and Mike Schmidt
More SB than Joe DiMaggio!

Easy HOF'er. ;-)

Fewer HR than Jeromy Burnitz
Lower BA than Bibb Falk
Fewer RBI than Del Ennis
Same OPS as Ryan "Cheater, cheater, pumpkin eater" Braun
Fewer SB than Vince DiMaggio

While I think it's completely ridiculous and unfair that anyone would deny someone an honor they clearly deserve without even a shred of evidence, Bagwell really did LOOK like your classic roider. It's not just that he gained like 50-60 pounds from the beginning to the end of his career - hell, almost everyone weighs a lot more at 35 than they do at 22 - it's how his body changed. Look at presumedly clean players like Griffey or Maddux; they gained weight in their 30's too, but theirs just looked like gangly guys in the 20's filling out in their 30's and getting a bit of a paunch as they hit middle age, just like pretty much every man does. But look at pics of Bagwell from say, 1991, compared to the early 2000's. He was a skinny guy with a narrow face who developed a barrel chest and MASSIVE legs, and even his face seemed to bloat out, same way that McGwire's and Sosa's and Bonds' did (though growing the goatee did hide it a bit). Anyone with more time or computer savvy than me willing to post pics of Bags from the early 90's and the early 2000's?

Again, don't get me wrong; Bagwell was one of my favorites and I think it's criminal that people aren't voting for him simply cuz he might fail the looks test (by that logic, we shouldn't vote for Randy Johnson cuz he LOOKS like a 7 foot rat with a mullet and a pedo stache). Hell, I don't even agree with keeping players out who WERE proven to have juiced during baseball's "blind eye" period. I'm just saying, it really isn't hard to lump Baggie in with the roiders if you're one of those irresponsible people that doesn't care about evidence or fairness. And sadly, it appears that a lot of HOF voters are.

More SB than Joe DiMaggio!

Seriously? [checks] Good god, you're right. I know there wasn't much of a running game back in Joe's day, but that's ridiculous.

Bagwell's 1991 rookie card makes Jeff look like he's pretty strong.

While I think it's completely ridiculous and unfair that anyone would deny someone an honor they clearly deserve without even a shred of evidence, Bagwell really did LOOK like your classic roider.

There you go. A shred of evidence apparently exists.