What does this have to do with my point? All I said is that most people in government clearly thought Saddam had WMDs, not that it was a justification for the invasion.

I just get tired of people giving the Bush admin. somewhat of a pass on the war because "everyone thought it was necessary." I don't really care what Clinton or Albright or Pollack thought. They weren't in charge in 2003 and didn't invade.

If that wasn't your point I apologize.

the only reason people thought that Hussein posed a threat to the US was b/c of the Bush administration

This was your claim. I've shown you that claim is false. Before the Bush administration, people in the Clinton administration were arguing that Hussein was a threat, and imminently a nuclear one. You're now engaged in impugning one of those people, but that's a different kind of argument, and one, IMHO, that distracts from your other fair points. Yes, the Bush administration exaggerated the intelligence; yes they committed what Pollack refers to as "omissions," but no, at the time, many people OUTSIDE the administration, including the French and German governments, considered Hussein a threat.

Oh, and just to make bc happy -- Bagwell is an absolute slam dunk, no-brainer for the HOF. He's easily one of the top 10 1b in history. Maybe top 5-6. So the premise of this article is kind of dumb.

JC and Zim are Hitler-loving Nazi Republicans.

You'd think that would go w/o saying.

This was your claim. I've shown you that claim is false.

When I said "people," I meant the majority of americans who supported the war. Not think tank scholars and pundits inside the beltway. The reason most americans supported the war was because of the claims and arguments made by the Bush admin. post 9/11. Did Pollack and others indirectly influence public opinion through the Bush admin.? I suppose. But I don't think their influence is all that important.

So the premise of this article is kind of dumb.

Actually, if you read the article, you'll see that the writer thinks he should be a lock, but seems to be writing knowing that many people and writers seem to not view Bagwell as a lock. I think he is right about that.

Well, maybe. Pollack's book was pretty successful in influencing the wider public. I always like to exaggerate the influence of scholars and pundits.

First of all, he had counsel. Second, it was noted by many media-types that Sammy faded in and out of English when questions he didn't want to answer were posed.

Christ, he wasn't facing a firing squad made up of Inuit-only speakers.

I cannot believe we still have people that use this against Sammy. I've specifically addressed kevin about this in the last Sosa thread.

I'm in Tokyo right now. We're auditing an accounting group. I've had many conversations with the Director of Finance. Great guy. His English is outstanding. He's invited us to their holiday party, told us retaurants to go to, etc. When it comes time to interview him about the monthly closing process, he starts using a translator and won't say a single word in English. Does this mean he's cooking the books or has something to hide? (Does this mean he's using steroids?)

Sosa (or more likely, his attorney) was smart not to speak English in front of Congress. Like I said before, there's plenty of other "evidence" we can use against Sosa. This language stuff is just ########.

Chattanooga, no evidence pointed to Iraq WMDs.

Dan S. explained it in #105. Prior to Blix's expedition, it was a given assumption that there were still Iraqi WMDs. Every politician from Democratic to Republican said so, and we had the circumstantial and hearsay evidence to prove it. Yet, after Blix and the invasion, we found bupkis.

Now draw the line from the evidence that was being used to say Saddam still had WMDs to the evidence that's being used to say that Slugger A's a juicer.

Rafael Palmeiro tested positive for steroids, and wasn't a power threat until Jose Canseco joined his Rangers team in '93 (the Cubs traded him, saying they thought Mark Grace would provide more pop with the bat). As with the others, I feel comfortable declaring Palmeiro a juicer. I feel less comfortable saying the same about Bagwell, because such a claim would be unsupported by evidence.

You're willing to give Bags a pass, when for all we know, he was one flunked test from sitting next to Raffy in the Dunce Corner. If hitting a lot of homers is all the evidence you need to start suspecting someone, then where do we draw the line: 50 homers? 40? 30? Anyone with a slugging percentage north of Neifi Perez? We know for an actual legitimate fact that juicing covers a wide swath from Palmeiro to Manny Alexander to Rafael F. Betancourt. So it escapes me why someone so eager to throw McGwire and Sosa under the bus would be just as eager to give Bagwell a free pass.

Do I think Bags juiced? I'd like to think he didn't. He'd get my HoF vote. But I have this notion of innocent until legitimately proven guilty, so McGwire and Sosa would get my vote too.

The Cubs traded him because he was sleeping with Sandberg's wife. Palmiero hit 14 HR in less than full time play in 1987, he hit 41 doubles in 1988, and he hit 26 HR and 49 doubles in 1991. He had a well established nascent power base prior to 1993.

In light of this evidence, I think we have no choice but to assume that Sandberg's wife was the Patient Zero of illicit steroids.

i don't give a **** if bush is more evil then hitler and stalin and pol pot and idi amin all smushed together but take it somewheres else. like a yankees/mets/redsox thread. or the petco thread

Ladies and gentlemen, I give the American Body Politic Mindset! Huzzah!

Well... politics is about politics. A thread about Jeff Bagwell is not about politics.

Sosa (or more likely, his attorney) was smart not to speak English in front of Congress. Like I said before, there's plenty of other "evidence" we can use against Sosa. This language stuff is just ########.

No, it's not. Being comfortable enough to converse with practically everyone on the planet outside of Congress in English and, then, claiming inability to habla ingles smacks of duplicity. And it's not like he has some Jack-Armstrong rep before all that noise anyway. Combined with the Calvin and Hobbes transmogrifier-like change in his body structure from the beginning of his career to the sad-ass end of it, he is one of the poster boys for better living through obvious chemistry.

I liked the conversation about whether Jeff Bagwell was the best first baseman in National League history. I miss the conversation about whether Jeff Bagwell was the best first baseman in National League history, dammit!

Okay, I'm going to try to resurrect the conversation about whether Jeff Bagwell was the best first baseman in National League history.

Here are the other contenders, as mentioned in this thread:

Cap Anson - if you exclude the NA (which isn't really the NL), then you get 2,276 games at .329/.395/.446, with an OPS+ of 140.

Dan Brouthers - 1,673 games (although 2 years were in the PL and AA), .342/.423/.519, OPS+ of 170

Roger Conner - 1,997 games, .317/.397/.486, OPS+ of 154

Johnny Mize - if you exclude his Yankee years, he's at 1,403 games (I'm ignoring his last partial season, because I'm too lazy to add it in), .324/.409/.588, OPS+ of 168

Willie McCovey - 2,588 games (11 in the AL), .270/.374/.515, OPS+ of 148

Stan Musial - 3,026 games, but only 1,016 at 1B, .331/.417/.559, OPS+ of 159

Compared, then, to Jeff Bagwell: 2,150 games, .297/.408/.540, OPS+ of 150

So, Musial's obviously a better overall baseball player, but he played only half as much at first base. Likewise, Mize is probably better, but played 50% fewer games in the NL. That leaves McCovey - and Bagwell edges him out 150-148 on OPS+, although McCovey played more games.

My bias is to downgrade the ABC boys just because they were playing in the 19th century, but even if you don't do that, Bagwell beats Anson in OPS+ 150-140 in a similar number of games (Anson's were, of course, spread over more, shorter seasons). Bagwell's very similar to Connor (OPS+ 154-150 Connor, but Bags had a few more games). Brouthers is similar to Mize, but with a few more games and a touch higher OPS+. I think just about any timelining at all pushes Bagwell clearly ahead of all of these guys.

So there you go. Jeff Bagwell just may be the best first baseman in National League history.

Discuss.

I think he was a little like Pujols, who was bad at 3B, average at best in LF, but is a very good 1B. I don't think Pujols' arm was the reason he wasn't that good at the other postions, but I could be wrong.

I know this thread has taken a turn into Wackyland, but to address this: Pujols, at least when he came up, had a tremendously strong arm--not always the most accurate, but a cannon nonetheless. In 2003, though, he partially tore his UCL, which was one of the reasons he was moved to first base.

DCW3--interesting. How was he at 3B? He looks good enough at 1st to see him being an acceptable 3B.

DCW3--interesting. How was he at 3B? He looks good enough at 1st to see him being an acceptable 3B.

My memories of him at third are of him having nice range but being awfully error-prone (in his career, he's made 16 errors in 96 games at 3B). After 2001, in which Pujols was moved all over the place, the Cardinals' announced plan prior to the 2002 season was to make Pujols the full-time third baseman and put Placido Polanco in left field. This raised some eyebrows, since, again, Pujols made a lot of errors at third, while Polanco was an excellent defensive infielder who had never played the outfield. After a few spring training games, the team decided that this wasn't working out, and switched the two players. Then, in the middle of the year, the Cardinals picked up Rolen, which ended Pujols's days at 3B for good.

No, it's not. Being comfortable enough to converse with practically everyone on the planet outside of Congress in English and, then, claiming inability to habla ingles smacks of duplicity. And it's not like he has some Jack-Armstrong rep before all that noise anyway. Combined with the Calvin and Hobbes transmogrifier-like change in his body structure from the beginning of his career to the sad-ass end of it, he is one of the poster boys for better living through obvious chemistry.

You're missing my point. I'm not saying Sosa didn't juice. Alledge away based on the physical changes, the corking, the Rick Reilly ####. I'm not interested in having that discussion. All I'm saying is that there's a real and legitimate reason for him not saying anything in front of Congress. Better people than Sammy do the same thing in the face of the scrutiny by people completely irrelevent (such as myself). His performance adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.

Raoul Duke Posted: December 17, 2006 at 12:58 AM (#2263633)

Sosa (or more likely, his attorney) was smart not to speak English in front of Congress. Like I said before, there's plenty of other "evidence" we can use against Sosa. This language stuff is just ########.

No, it's not. Being comfortable enough to converse with practically everyone on the planet outside of Congress in English and, then, claiming inability to habla ingles smacks of duplicity.


cmon raoul

get real. you really think there is ZERO difference between being "comfortable" saying a few baseball cliches to a reporter and having your ass hauled up in front of a foreign country's government where they gonna ask you if you been committing FELONIES? or are you pretending that shooting illegal roids, maybe even bringing them into this country is some SERIOUS felonies? even if you never did any of that, you don't want to make freaking positive certain you understand the question 100% AND you answer the question right for these LAWYERS when you don't know nothing about HOW to answer right?


reporter - so sammy, how you feelin
sammy - eez good. am sweengeng good and Gow weeleng we finally get da team on da sem pej
reporter - so sammy you got struck out. how come?
sammy - thee peetcher he trowin feelthy slider een dert. sam times jou jes gotta teep dee cap jou know ahm sayin

if YOU had to go in front of a foreign government even if you spoke enough of their language to get by like sammy do, you would REALLY be stupid enough to not have an official translator? would you go in front of the dominican legislators without no translator even IF you thought you had nothing to hide hadn't done nothing wrong? would you ever even worry you might could even say one word that sound like a different word and that get you into SERIOUS trouble? what if one person who askin you questions uses slang you don't know, uses legal words you don't know are even legal words, speak with an accent you don't really get all the words right you give the wrong answer to what you THINK is the question. you REALLY think anyone gonna believe you when you say you misunderstood the question?

you wanna convict sammy of being a felon because he put on muscle after he was 20 which is something normal males never mind pro athletes don't never do and improved his hitting or whatever go right ahead. but complaining he used a translator in front of congress is just plain bull. you sound like you down with the john rocker "speak english" stuff