User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 1.0467 seconds
48 querie(s) executed
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Friday, December 15, 2006
MLB: Molony: Why Bagwell should be in Hall of Fame
Is Jeff Bagwell the greatest 1B in NL history?...Jim Molony (not that one) makes the case.
But Bagwell’s candidacy for the Hall and the basis for the case that he’s the best all-around first baseman in NL history goes beyond the awards and the popular measuring sticks. There have simply been precious few first baseman who not only compiled Hall-worthy numbers at the plate, but ones who were also All-Stars when it came down to fielding, baserunning and all of the little things that make a complete player.
There have been first basemen with more power and some who drove in more runs than Bagwell. There are some with better career batting averages and/or on-base percentages than Bagwell. In fact, Bagwell doesn’t have sole possession of the lead among Hall of Fame first baseman in any single statistical category, but I challenge you to find a first baseman in the Hall with 400 or more homers, a .290 or better career batting average, 1,500 or more RBIs and 200 or more stolen bases.
Repoz
Posted: December 15, 2006 at 09:53 PM | 128 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags: astros, hall of fame
Tags: astros, hall of fame
Login to submit news.
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: The AL MVP race is closer than you think
(26 - 11:45pm, Aug 15)
Last: sunday silence (again)
Newsblog: Twitter: Andres Gimenez makes a great, heads-up play
(3 - 11:06pm, Aug 15)
Last: My name is Votto, and I love to get Moppo
Newsblog: Rangers fire manager Chris Woodward in midst of fourth straight losing season
(17 - 11:05pm, Aug 15)
Last: Jaack
Newsblog: OMNICHATTER for the week of August 15-22, 2022
(15 - 10:46pm, Aug 15)
Last: The Duke
Newsblog: Fernando Tatis Jr. offers ridiculous lie as excuse for cheating
(16 - 10:18pm, Aug 15)
Last: Dillon Gee Escape Plan
Newsblog: Major League Baseball's postseason schedule could feature latest calendar date in World Series history
(14 - 9:42pm, Aug 15)
Last: Jose is Absurdly Correct but not Helpful
Newsblog: OT Soccer Thread - European Leages Return
(39 - 8:29pm, Aug 15)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale
Newsblog: 2022 NBA Playoffs thread
(4163 - 7:41pm, Aug 15)
Last: 57i66135 is a hard word for me.
Newsblog: Forecasting The 2022-23 Qualifying Offers: Position Players - MLB Trade Rumors
(12 - 6:31pm, Aug 15)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns
Newsblog: Twitter: Wynton Bernard makes the major leagues [video]
(5 - 4:45pm, Aug 15)
Last: ReggieThomasLives
Sox Therapy: Predictions of Ridiculousness
(73 - 4:12pm, Aug 15)
Last: Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful
Newsblog: Hochman: Ozzie Smith, '82 Cardinals celebrate 40 years since World Series title | Benjamin Hochman | stltoday.com
(6 - 3:40pm, Aug 15)
Last: Walt Davis
Newsblog: Journeyman Wynton Bernard keys Colorado Rockies win after 10 seasons in minors
(3 - 3:29pm, Aug 15)
Last: Walt Davis
Newsblog: GM Mike Elias: Orioles Will “Significantly Escalate The Payroll” During Offseason
(13 - 3:25pm, Aug 15)
Last: Walt Davis
Newsblog: Yankees in desperate need of jolt as feeble slide continues to grow concern
(3 - 3:17pm, Aug 15)
Last: Walt Davis
(26 - 11:45pm, Aug 15)
Last: sunday silence (again)
Newsblog: Twitter: Andres Gimenez makes a great, heads-up play
(3 - 11:06pm, Aug 15)
Last: My name is Votto, and I love to get Moppo
Newsblog: Rangers fire manager Chris Woodward in midst of fourth straight losing season
(17 - 11:05pm, Aug 15)
Last: Jaack
Newsblog: OMNICHATTER for the week of August 15-22, 2022
(15 - 10:46pm, Aug 15)
Last: The Duke
Newsblog: Fernando Tatis Jr. offers ridiculous lie as excuse for cheating
(16 - 10:18pm, Aug 15)
Last: Dillon Gee Escape Plan
Newsblog: Major League Baseball's postseason schedule could feature latest calendar date in World Series history
(14 - 9:42pm, Aug 15)
Last: Jose is Absurdly Correct but not Helpful
Newsblog: OT Soccer Thread - European Leages Return
(39 - 8:29pm, Aug 15)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale
Newsblog: 2022 NBA Playoffs thread
(4163 - 7:41pm, Aug 15)
Last: 57i66135 is a hard word for me.
Newsblog: Forecasting The 2022-23 Qualifying Offers: Position Players - MLB Trade Rumors
(12 - 6:31pm, Aug 15)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns
Newsblog: Twitter: Wynton Bernard makes the major leagues [video]
(5 - 4:45pm, Aug 15)
Last: ReggieThomasLives
Sox Therapy: Predictions of Ridiculousness
(73 - 4:12pm, Aug 15)
Last: Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful
Newsblog: Hochman: Ozzie Smith, '82 Cardinals celebrate 40 years since World Series title | Benjamin Hochman | stltoday.com
(6 - 3:40pm, Aug 15)
Last: Walt Davis
Newsblog: Journeyman Wynton Bernard keys Colorado Rockies win after 10 seasons in minors
(3 - 3:29pm, Aug 15)
Last: Walt Davis
Newsblog: GM Mike Elias: Orioles Will “Significantly Escalate The Payroll” During Offseason
(13 - 3:25pm, Aug 15)
Last: Walt Davis
Newsblog: Yankees in desperate need of jolt as feeble slide continues to grow concern
(3 - 3:17pm, Aug 15)
Last: Walt Davis
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I don't think you need a four-pronged list to conclude Bagwell's a HoFer.
Of ~77,000 people asked on ESPN.com, 56% of the country thinks he should get in. Pretty even split considering how much of a lock he should be.
Not that the moron voters will think the same way.
Cue inevitable reference to Mike Piazza...
Willie Mays.
Yeah, I know, but I can't turn down a challenge.
Is there any reasonable case to be made that he was greater than Johnny Mize? I guess maybe it depends on whether you give the Big Cat wartime credit for missing three seasons right smack in the middle of his prime.
Well, if you're debating "greatest 1B in <u>NL</u> history", then you'd eliminate Mize's years as a Yankee. If you do that, Bagwell's career is basically 50% longer than Mize's NL career. Mize is better and, as you say, war credit will cover some of that gap. But I think you could make a case that Bagwell was a better <u>NL</u> first baseman than Mize. By the way, how was Mize as a fielder?
The following players, not just firstbasemen, have all of the above:
Bagwell
Aaron
Mays
F. Robinson
A Rod
Sheffield
Not a bad group. Of course Bags ranks at or near the bottom among these guys in every category, and he's got less defensive value than anyone as well, but that's still no shame. Even relaxing the standards a bit brings in more players, but nearly all HOFers.
That still doesn't mean he's the best firstbaseman ever.
Meaning that Dave Concepcion was better than Bagwell, too :)
Aaron
Mays
F. Robinson
A Rod
Sheffield
Barry Bonds says hi.
Doh!! I wrote Bonds, I know I did. Somehow he got cut. Must have highlighted with the cursor which overwrote him when i entered Mays.
Not to mention Hernandez, Bottomley and a few years of McGwire.
Until there is a reason to think so, I have no reason to believe he did.
Barry Bonds never says hi. He's a cookie full of arsenic.
Of course, all of this could have happened naturally and none of it comes close to qualifying as 'evidence', and Bags will always be one of my favorites unless something concrete emerges; I just think it's absurd that so many people have labeled Sammy a juicer when there are dozens of others - big name guys, too - that are just as suspicious and never even get mentioned.
Maybe Dial is going to post a scoop.
The only reason not to accuse Bagwell of steroid use seems to be that he didn't hit as many HRs as Bonds, McGwire or Sosa. That's the "evidence." Pretty damn stupid if you ask me.
If he did use steroids, he seemed to have started early. Peak at age 26, then slow decline, slight bump at age 31, then fairly rapid decline.
OPS+, from age 32 to age 37 - 152, 141, 137, 127, 117, 96. Seems pretty normal to me.
I have him behind Anson and Connor. Though I don't know how Anson would look if you take out his NA years.
Yes, because we should all go before the legislative body and testify by ourselves using a language that we aren't quite fluent in.
That true for most caught (read, tested positive) steroids users as well.
This guy is a first ballot type.
Didn't understand the questions, my ass
Let us hope you never have to testify in front of a legislative body or court skilled in the manipulation of the subtleties of language without counsel and speaking in a language other than your mother tongue.
Christ, he wasn't facing a firing squad made up of Inuit-only speakers.
Using judgement as evidence isn't a great idea when these people also thought that those cheerleader sketches were anything close to entertaining.
They probably didn't invite him because I doubt they could have wedged another super-sized player into that room without worrying the walls might burst.
Hoss, if you have anything post it. If not--the socratic thing doesn't work for you.
You're going to need a bigger boat.
I'll give your input the appropriate consideration. thank you for your concern.
bulked up significantly, became power-hitting outfielder.
funny, he wound up
on the 1992 texas rangers.
interesting who else was on that roster ...
This retro-speculators' speculative speculation is pretty bogus. But, if Barry Bonds had ever attributed a completely unprojected power jump to eating Froot Loops, we'd still be hearing about it in every other thread.
As for the steroids talk?
Pass.
That true for most caught (read, tested positive) steroids users as well.
I didn't know that. Hey, it works for Manny Alexander - peak at age 26, decline, then falls off tiny cliff that he was on. Of course, his "peak" was an 85 OPS+. And he didn't test positive IIRC... he had steroids in his glove box... for a friend... he and another player just switched jackets at a party... Granted, they didn't test then anyway.
I am not advocating looking at every player's career path to determine whether they took steroids, by the way. But a lot of people will point to supposedly abnormal career paths and be absolutely convinced. It can definitely get ridiculous.
Bruce Bochy - peak at age 27, then decline, then bump at age 30, bigger bump at age 31! Fell off cliff at age 32, probably because of roid injury!! And he has a giant head! He was a roider!!1!!!111!!!
No. Unless I missed someone, no other firstbaseman has a seasonal P/S number above 30.
While perusing that list on BBREF, I found some interesting 30/30 guys:
Larry Walker 1997
Shawn Green 1998
Barry Larkin 1996
Jose Cruz Jr. 2001
Joe Carter 1987
Dante Bichette 1996
One of the best descriptions of Bagwell I've heard is "the first five-tool first baseman."
Bagwell did not bulk up quickly; it was over several years. What has been lost in all the steroids talk is the fact that someone can gain a bunch of pounds of muscle through weight training and the right kind of diet (strong in protein, etc.) over many years. He lost a lot of weight at the end of his career when he could not lift heavy weights anymore because of his shoulder.
Bagwell could have been on steroids. But we have no idea. And I think the circumstantial "evidence" is against it.
Yes, or at least since George Sisler, who had a similar range of skills in a much different era. Sisler didn't have nearly as great a career as Bagwell, but for a few seasons there he was a pretty well-rounded first baseman.
(repost from my comment in an earlier thread)
I'm concerned that he could end up as this generation's Ron Santo.
The similarities are ominous...
-They had impressive peaks but injuries and/or chronic health issues led to early decline and shortish careers by superstar/HoF'er standards.
-They fell short of key milestones in big counting stats.
-They were very good at everything but not the best at anything... they are not associated with any notable records or remarkable statistical accomplishments.
-They played in relative obscurity, in MLB backwaters(the Cubs were not OMGZ TEH CUBS!!1! before Superstations). They were not especially popular or famous outside of their home cities.
-Neither one won a ring... and both were blamed(unfairly) in part for the underachievement of talented teams. The late 90's/early 00's Astros were better than the late 60's Cubs but still widely regarded as not having lived up to their potential. While both were considered to be solid citizens and good teammates, they were not seen as especially "clutch" or somehow "better than the stats show."
-Both are seen as no-brainers by serious saber/seamhead types but are regarded as borderline by mainstream sportswriters... i.e. the guys with the BBWA votes...
Frank Chance once led the league in steals while ranking in the top ten in home runs. With three.
Of course, while Bagwell was obviously a great player, calling him the first five-tool first baseman isn't that much of a compliment--it's just that five-tool players are usually too good of athletes to get stuck at first base.
Bagwell did not bulk up quickly; it was over several years. What has been lost in all the steroids talk is the fact that someone can gain a bunch of pounds of muscle through weight training and the right kind of diet (strong in protein, etc.) over many years. He lost a lot of weight at the end of his career when he could not lift heavy weights anymore because of his shoulder.
Bagwell could have been on steroids. But we have no idea. And I think the circumstantial "evidence" is against it.
Mac and Sammy hit all those HRs, and the pretext is that Bonds was jealous so he roided too. Which certainly implies that he knew those guys were using. And Wally Joyner knew who was and where to get them; as did every MLB clubhouse (according to Wally Joyner). So Caminiti, who WAS USING, comes over to Houston for the 1999 season, and Bagwell has his best season in 5 years, and his highest HR total. When did he hurt his shoulder? Could he have tried steroids to improve his shoulder, or could he have experienced steroid-related injury to his shoulder? And that was still in the Astrodome - he didn't just switch parks.
With the 100+ players that have been caught using steroids - *WITH ANNOUNCED TESTING* - I am asked to believe that there weren't 300+ using before testing - despite the evidence that it wasn't surrepticious *in the clubhouse* (Joyner says everyone knew and knew where to get it, and Steve Phillips has indicated he had his ideas), then there is Grimsley and HgH.
If "everyone in the clubhouse knows", as Joyner and others have said, and a large percentage is using (40-75%), how can you possibly sort out the users and non-users.
And IIRC, if a player knows of gambling and doesn't report, he's a party to it, so I'd think in a media-vigilante way, those that knew and didn't blow the whistle were giving silent approval.
I doubt very seriously that Jeff Bagwell didn't know whether or not Caminiti was using.
I have him behind Anson and Connor. Though I don't know how Anson would look if you take out his NA years.
Also Dan Brouthers.
Karlmagnus might recommend Jake Beckley. ; )
Of course if things continue the way they've been going, that title will pass to Albert Pujols in a few years....
If "everyone in the clubhouse knows", as Joyner and others have said, and a large percentage is using (40-75%), how can you possibly sort out the users and non-users.
And IIRC, if a player knows of gambling and doesn't report, he's a party to it, so I'd think in a media-vigilante way, those that knew and didn't blow the whistle were giving silent approval.
Yes, yes, yes. Answer: you can't. So the writers have to say "pass" too all of the 1990s. Sorry, Cal, you were in the room when Brady was shooting up, you knew: gone. Tony Gwynn, weren't you Caminiti's teammate? You must of known: see ya!
Man, this'll really crimp the Hall's style in the 2010s and 2020s. But no worries, they'll have a seance/teleconference with Frankie Frisch and Billy Terry and find some real good sports to induct. Irish Meusel, Fat Freddie Fitzsimmons, and Pepper Martin are still on the outside, you say? Bingo 2016's taken care of.
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I was just saying that Caminiti did not start using until he left the Astros and went to the Padres, according to what Caminiti himself said. I'm not saying Bagwell didn't know Caminiti was using. I'm saying that if Bagwell had been using in the phase of his body change and power surge (1994ish), he probably would have gotten his buddy Caminiti involved before he left for San Diego.
The bigger point is that it is all conjecture. Someone's body changed and he hit more home runs, so it must be steroids. He "couldn't" have been lifting weights with good nutrition, and he "couldn't" have discovered he could still hit for average despite taking a bigger and bigger swing. (Look at Bagwell's swing over the years; when he started his trademark squat-and-swing-from-the-heels approach coincided with his power increases.) I was just pointing out how circumstantial evidence can be used to make a conjecture on the other side, too.
His raw numbers were better, but his .343 EqA wasn't his best since '94 (.385), it was right in line with what he'd been doing (.355, .342, .335).
Suff,
it was. that shouldn't read as reflecting on anything you said. I was just saying that when Caminiti came back, Bags would have learned.
Greg,
sure, but he's also gotten older. His raw 2000 numbers were really high as well.
and as for all this supposed weight baggy gained
i can't believe i am having to say this to a bunch of MALES but i wanna see just ONE of you who is at least 30 years old who is an athlete who weighs and looks exactly like he did when he was 19 or 20. i go to fan fests, i actually SEEN some of these guys and even in the late 90s baggy he had skinny legs and he didn't have no giant chest or bulging muscles. i do not believe for one second that he weighed 200 pounds. or that he is 6' tall neither.
or someone saying that because baggy hit better the year cammy came back that baggy used roids, hit better, even though he didn't LOOK no different. yall forgetting that by the time cammy came back, baggy and biggio they was the righteous team leaders and cammy he was a drunk and druggy and he and baggy wasn't exactly buds. baggy he was REAL careful about his image by that time. now if this had been 5 or 6 years earlier when baggy was still a good ol boy hangin with strippers and hos and, um, eating out (hahahaha) at ricks, well then, that would be different
now i KNOW that how a guy looks got nothing to do with whether he used steroids - see alex sanchez, manny alexander, ryan franklin, etc
so sure baggy or biggio or even st jeter could have used and we don't know. we only KNOW bout guys who either said they did do roids or tested positive.
so have we got to the place where we gonna insist that any guy who gets better or has a fluke year or suddenly got worse in 04 or 05 is good enuf to get into the Hall they MUST have done roids??? or are we not gonna give a good goddammm if a guy do roids as long as he ain't good enuf to get into the hall and that is the only time it really matters?
But as kevin pointed out, throwing arm is one of the tools. If he had the arm, why would a good defensive player who could run and throw be put at first base? Was it so that they could keep Gerald Young's bat in the lineup?
I'm sure it's easier to transition from third to first base in 2 weeks than infield to outfield. Bagwell didn't start playing 1B until a couple of weeks before the season started. Once he proved to be very good defensively and to hit well enough to be the 1B, why change?
- ok lets answer the question. don't think gerald young mattered. and he was RF anyhow. seems i am remembering them talkin bout eric anthony and dave rohde all the time as the Next Big Thing out there and ok i was just in 4th or 5th grade or something and maybe i disremember rightly.
baggy got put at first in the first place because he was an AA guy and first was the only place we had a hole.
so i guess you are asking why in 1992 after his roy year at first we didn't put him at ss since what we had was andujar cedeno and rafael ramirez (you talk bout suck...) - biggio was at second and cammy was still at third. so put incaviglia??? at first. well, i would guess that inky wasn't exactly a good 1B, we didn't really have no one else to put at first and probably baggy was not a good SS even if he could have gone back to third. i mean it is ok to have a lousy bat at first instead of ss IF the big bat you put at ss is a good fielder. or else it is a dumb move.
or do you mean in 95 right after his mvp gold glove year?
well we had dave madagan and chris donnels at third and they both hit great. we had orlando miller at SS who sucked with bat and glove, so ok big hole there.
but you know, i got NO idea if baggy could play SS - usually guys who are playing third are guys who couldn't play SS in the first place.
until lance berkman came up we really didn't have a guy on the team who could have been a full time big bat at first and we had good hitting 3B until 2000 when chris truby was there.
but you DO know that by 97 that baggy and biggio ran the team and drayton wasn't gonna let nobody move baggy if he didn't wanna be moved. you DO know this right????
Look at Bagwell's short stroke and short arms. I think Kevin is exactly right. Bagwell likely didn't have the arm to play third.
This is no knock on Bagwell - he was still a great player, just with 4 tools.
If those unrealistic home run totals aren't enough for you, throw in the fact that these three have been repeatedly implicated by former players, reporters who cover the team and have access to the clubhouses, federal investigators, and Congress. All evidence points to these guys as steroid users, you can't draw any other conclusion.
Bags, on the other hand, has never been implicated in any scandal. He displayed serious power, but nothing you wouldn't expect from a top-tier first baseman. And, despite what Chris Dial said, his power numbers in 1999 didn't change at all from his established level. A .591 slugging percentage was business as usual for him. He had a predictable peak (ages 26-31), and his homer total from '00 on is a function of park effects, not drugs. In addition, I believe he had been very outspoken about his dislike for juicers and the suspicions they put on guys like him, who worked their ass off to become great.
Let's stop dragging this guy's name through the mud. He abused pitchers from the time he was in the minors, and at his peak he was one of the most fearsome, five-tool players we've ever seen. That's a Hall of Famer.
Of ~77,000 people asked on ESPN.com, 56% of the country thinks he should get in. Pretty even split considering how much of a lock he should be.
There will probably be a similar division of opinion with respect to Biggio as well.
Not Sosa, unless you mean the pee and poop duo.
I hate it when players like Caminiti and Chris Truby take a position away from someone more worthy.
Seriously, though. If Bagwell didn't have the arm to play 3rd, then he could have gone to 2nd if his range was so good (was it, Dial?), but this wasn't going to happen with Biggio. I still think he just didn't have the arm to play elsewhere.
I didn't forget about him, I have Bagwell slightly ahead.
because we kept cammy there in 91? heck, the stros didn't even know if a AA guy could hit ML pitching.
so it would have been beyond stupid to get rid of cammy in 91 and play baggy at third.
it would have been beyond stupid to move baggy back to third in any year before 98 because we didn't have a better hitting 1B who obviously could not play anywhere else (like say giambi) AND we had good hitting 3B
explain PLEASE how not getting rid of good hitting 3B to put baggy there means that baggy didn't have an arm.
if it was brad ausmus at third then you got a point.
They chose to move Luis Gonzalez, a minor league 3B who had been battling Mike Simms (think) for the 1B job all spring, to the OF instead of Bagwell. Maybe Gonzalez had more OF experience than Bagwell. Maybe it was something else. But Gonzalez has played LF ever since and Bagwell is going to the HOF as a 1B, so I think it was the right decision.
I guess it's just a good thing the "five-tool 1B" thing isn't what Bagwell needs to hang his hat on to get in. It's his whole game, his MVP in '94, and the fact he should have won in '97 and '99 as well.
A 27 year old who hitting .242/.302/.309 (Caminiti's line in 1990) is not a good hitter, even in the Astrodome. He blossomed in his 30's true, but in 1991 he was no one's idea of a ML hitter, nor was there any reason to expect him to become one.
Page 1 of 1 pages
You underestimate how popular and overrated Caminiti was in Houston. He wasn't a very good player before he went to San Diego, but he was always treated like a star in Houston, even as a young, crappy, player.
I guess, but even Brad Ausmus would be embarrassed to have Cammy's pre-1991 batting line, which is the time frame we're talking about.
Rafael Palmeiro never hit more than 47 in a year.
All evidence points to these guys as steroid users, you can't draw any other conclusion.
So I can count on your help in finding those Iraqi WMDs?
but it wasn't like it is with mo ensberg now where if a guy don't hit like a HOF all the time the second he comes up the fans want him gone (except willy taveras for some strange reason.)
and cammy WAS real popular with the fans suff is right. (fans had a fit he got traded off to san diego) he was a skinny scrappy lil fighter - sort of a phil garner scrap iron kind of guy. he was a VERY good glove and i guess we coulda put him in the OF and played baggy at third, but then we STILL had a big hole at first. so like i said it wasn't like we had this big overflowing heap of great hitting 1B just ready.
i remember reading stuff written on baggy when he was a minor leaguer and i sure don't remember anyone saying stuff like he wasn't a good defensive player. so if i am wrong links please. cuz i been looking for half an hour now and i can't find nothing
- and about having luis gonzalez playing first - well, that would have not been as sensible as baggy playing first - i mean, gonzo was a lousy stick with no power. back then anyhow
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.
Bagwell had no business even pondering the possibility of winning in '97 or '99.
'97 VORP leaders:
Piazza 101.7Walker 95.9
Maddux 87.5
Martinez 86.6
Bonds 86.4
Biggio 80.1
Brown 72.8
Kile 71.7
Bagwell 70.0
'99:
Jones 104.3Johnson 95.8
Hampton 92.5
Bagwell 84.9
And just to twist the knife, '94:
Maddux 87.7Bagwell 86.0
You and they are wrong. 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.
there is more ways to judge a ballplayer for mvp then vorp. especially since there isn't no such thing as a replacement player in the first place
and miserlou - you right.
about trading palmeiro
because teams they do trade ballplayers for personal reasons it is not like fantasy ball
i don't know why people seem to think that all power hitters come up and hit 49 homers their rookie year and it goes up from there unless they on steroids and
oh yeah
oops
nevermind...
Clinton and Albright might have thought Hussein had something, but they didn't, you know, invade. Yes, lots of people thought Hussein might have had some WMDs or been trying to create more before the invasion, but the only reason people thought that Hussein posed a threat to the US was b/c of the Bush administration. Do you remember anyone saying even once during the 2000 campaign that Iraq posed a serious threat to the US?
At the end of the day, Bush, Cheney, and the rest of their admin. and cronies are 100% responsible for the war.
Mac, Sosa, and Bonds topped 60 homers six times over a four year span, including two seasons of 70 or more. In the 130 years or so of baseball before then, only two players had reached 60 homers, and just barely.
You could also say "Ruth topped 50 homers 5 times, including one time over 60. In the fifty or so years of baseball before that no one had even reached 30."
In addition, I believe he had been very outspoken about his dislike for juicers and the suspicions they put on guys like him, who worked their ass off to become great.
and Mark Foley had been very outspoken about sending sexually suggestive emails to teenagers.
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
Not quite accurate. Please see, for instance, kenneth Pollack's 2004 Atlantic article on who knew what when and so on. While he does agree that the Bush administration failed by "omission", he does acknowledge that the mainstream view was that Hussein was a threat, was closing in a nuclear weapon (this was the view in 1998, IIRC, according to his article), and that containment - largely b/c of the French (maybe he singles out the Russians or Germans too, I forget) - had failed. This is why Pollack, a Clinton guy, made the case for regime change.
And, once again, the BUSH ADMINISTRATION decided to invade, and they bear the responsibility for what's happened. Their supporters like Pollack, Kristol, et al also share in the guilt, but Bush is the commander in chief, and the one who actually made the decision. Bush likes to compare himself to Truman, so perhaps he agrees that the buck stops on his desk. (well, probably not)
Well, if you concede Pollack, you concede the point, which is merely that there was intelligence suggesting Hussein was a significant threat, and that intelligence pre-dated Bush. I have no stake in whether Pollack's an idiot (he works closely w/my neighbor whose boys play w/my kids). I doubt he is. But AT THE TIME that Saddam had to go was not a controversial position. That he had to go WHEN we invaded was certainly a bit more controversial.
As for Pollack, he went to all the best schools and I'm sure he's very smart. But Pollack and many of the other "best and the brightest" were dead wrong about Iraq, and lots of other people were right. I see little reason to trust Pollack's judgment on foreign affairs. Sometimes the "best and the brightest" don't have a lick of common sense.
JC and Zim are Hitler-loving Nazi Republicans.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main