To date, the only other steroid candidates on the ballot are pretty open-shut cases.

Not really. Would anybody really be surprised to find out that somebody already elected was a user?

Like Paul Molitor?

Most BBWAA members seem to think that steroids didn't exist before the 1990s.

Like Paul Molitor?

Not that it would surprise me in the slightest if Paul Molitor used steroids, but is there a specific reason you'd bring him up?

Would anybody really be surprised to find out that somebody already elected was a user?

No. But I was just thinking of people perceived as or wondered about as steroiders.

Just in terms of overall career impact at face value, the most comparable player to Bagwell might be one unmentioned in TFA, Willie McCovey:



With a lot of caveats about era, park, speed, defense, and the like, obviously. McCovey's career had a different trajectory, but each of them had an MVP season when they were flat-out brilliant. They were roughly comparable players – McCovey hit more home runs, Bagwell a higher average and more doubles – and though Bagwell's peak is a bit less impressive, his defense and baserunning are a lot more impressive.

Which implies a pretty strong if-then argument, because McCovey gets no serious resistance to the idea that he's a HOFer.

As to the steroids issue, it's a kind of weird situation. Either there's evidence that people won't share (unlikely given how much sharing goes on these days), or people just don't want to vote for any homerun hitter, as if only homerun hitters would have been using PEDs.

This whole steroids thing is silly. There is nobody that surprises me as a potential PED user. In fact, you could argue that the use of steroids by some players had a positive impact on the statistics of those who did not use PEDs:

1) PED hitters wearing out bullpens, which helps everybody;
2) more runs scored and RBIs, because of PED hitters around you being on base, and driving you in;
3) PED pitchers able to pitch more and/or better innings, saving wear-and-tear on non-PED pitchers;
4) we know the batting averages and OBPs of players go up when there are runners on base, so when PED hitters get on base, it helps the non-PED hitters, too.

It is impossible to completely strip out the impact of PEDs on the game.If Johnny Damon gets to 3,000 hits, for example, and becomes a decent HOF candidate in the eyes of many, will those four years in Boston, where he gets a WS ring, scores lots of runs, get lots of hits, etc., be discounted because of the indirect help he received from Ortiz and Ramirez? He has certainly recevied some help from that dynamic...but how much? How can you know?

And guys like Clemens? Who cares if he took PEDs, in terms of his HOF-wrthiness? Like Bill James said about Rickey Henderson, if you split Clemens into two players, you'd have two HOF'ers. Nobody is claiming he took PEDs while with the Red Sox. When he left the Sox, his stats were:
192-111,3.06 ERA, ERA+ of 145, 382 GS, 100 CGs, 2,776 IP, 2,590 Ks

Let's say he started doing tons of PEDs the day he signed with Toronto. So what? You don't think he's a HOF? Move on, already!

In fact, you could argue that the use of steroids by some players had a positive impact on the statistics of those who did not use PEDs:

Only in a counting sense (and even then, every positive stat for someone is a negative for someone else). But it's definitely not true in a rate (or comparative) statistic.*



* Assuming, of course, that PEDs EP.

Just in terms of overall career impact at face value, the most comparable player to Bagwell might be one unmentioned in TFA, Willie McCovey:

Actually, McCovey IS mentioned in TFA.

Prior to Bagwell, the battle for the best NL first baseman fell to either some 19th-century guys like Cap Anson and Roger Connor, or Johnny Mize or Willie McCovey. Credible cases could be made for all, but a reasonable case could be made for Bagwell over them.

The 19th-century guys played too far back in a much weaker overall league. Mize was a lot like Bagwell—power, average, walks—but had an even shorter career. Bagwell had fewer homers than McCovey, but more extra-base hits, more times on base and fewer outs. In his New Historical Abstract, Bill James ranks Bagwell the third-best first baseman ever, first among all NL ones.

Personally, I might take McCovey over him due to the difference in eras (McCovey played in the pitcher-happy 1960s), but if there’s a credible case that Bagwell is the best at his position in the history of his league, that’s an argument for induction. His best challenge to the title is the guy who emerged later on, Albert Pujols.

Let's say he started doing tons of PEDs the day he signed with Toronto. So what? You don't think he's a HOF? Move on, already!

It's not about whether any of these guys are worthy of the HOF, its about punishment.

In fact, you could argue that the use of steroids by some players had a positive impact on the statistics of those who did not use PEDs:

Perhaps this was meant as tongue-in-cheek, but if not, this strikes me as one of the more tortuous apologies I've ever encountered.

1) PED hitters wearing out bullpens, which helps everybody;

Unless you happen to be a relief pitcher.

2) more runs scored and RBIs, because of PED hitters around you being on base, and driving you in;

So it helps unless you are a starter or a relief pitcher. Except it doesn't really help, since you're not paid by the RBI or run, you're paid based on your performance relative to your peers.

3) PED pitchers able to pitch more and/or better innings, saving wear-and-tear on non-PED pitchers;

Managers should really catch on to this handy excuse: "Hey, I'm not benching you because you suck, I'm benching you to save you wear-and-tear, yeah, right! You should be thanking me!"

4) we know the batting averages and OBPs of players go up when there are runners on base, so when PED hitters get on base, it helps the non-PED hitters, too.

See #2.

So PEDs help everyone, as long as you aren't a starting pitcher, reliever, bench player or a hitter.

Sorry I missed the McCovey refs, Chris. Damn you, CTRL+F! :)

Prior to Bagwell, the battle for the best NL first baseman fell to either some 19th-century guys like Cap Anson and Roger Connor, or Johnny Mize or Willie McCovey. Credible cases could be made for all, but a reasonable case could be made for Bagwell over them.

That's pretty astonishing, on its face (that Bags could be the best NL 1B ever, a possibility I don't dispute). I've always considered him and teammate Biggio to be pretty even (WAR gives Bags a slight edge peak and career, probably on the diffs between their gloves), but wouldn't consider Biggio anywhere close to the best NL 2B ever.

I've always considered him and teammate Biggio to be pretty even (WAR gives Bags a slight edge peak and career, probably on the diffs between their gloves), but wouldn't consider Biggio anywhere close to the best NL 2B ever.

Well, yeah. Bagwell wouldn't be close to being the best NL 1B ever if Gehrig played in the NL. Hornsby and Morgan spent their entire careers in the NL.

That's pretty astonishing, on its face (that Bags could be the best NL 1B ever, a possibility I don't dispute). I've always considered him and teammate Biggio to be pretty even (WAR gives Bags a slight edge peak and career, probably on the diffs between their gloves), but wouldn't consider Biggio anywhere close to the best NL 2B ever.

It's interesting. Mize is still probably the best once you consider that he lost his age 30-32 seasons to WWII. And yet Mize was never voted in by the writers (despite being voted to start the All-Star game eight times) and had to wait for the VC to put him in the Hall of Fame.

Biggio is far from the best NL 2B ever but that's just because the crop is so good. He really isn't that far off from Bagwell in terms of career value.

Well, yeah. Bagwell wouldn't be close to being the best NL 1B ever if Gehrig played in the NL. Hornsby and Morgan spent their entire careers in the NL.

and of course Pujols came along right when Bagwell career ended, even if he is arguably the best, it was a short lived tenure, is there any doubt that Pujols (even after leaving the NL) is the best firstbaseman in NL history?

That's pretty astonishing, on its face (that Bags could be the best NL 1B ever

Once upon a time, it was rare for a player to start his career at 1B unless he was already big and slow. The big and slow ones tended not to last too long.

Greatest AL 1B is Gehrig and then it's, what, Murray? Oh, OK, that Foxx guy was pretty good. Anyway, I'm not sure how well P-I does games at position but, 1900 or later, it finds only 18 guys with at least 2000 games at 1B. Bagwell is #2 in OPS+. Todd Helton has a case as the #3 NL 1B of all-time. 7 of the 18 started their careers 1985 or later (plus Hernandez and Murray). Between 1940 and 1969, no 1B began a career that lasted 2000 games there.

That's still not bad but you do get 16 SS with 2000+ games.

Huh. If Willie McCovey is arguably the best 1Bman in NL history--and I loved McCovey the player--that's a weak position.

Huh. If Willie McCovey is arguably the best 1Bman in NL history--and I loved McCovey the player--that's a weak position.

He's not, really, even before Bagwell. Johnny Mize's NL WAR is higher than McCovey's, and that's without giving any credit for his three years missed to WW2.

If Willie McCovey is arguably the best 1Bman in NL history--and I loved McCovey the player--that's a weak position.

With the obvious caveat that Willie McCovey can, in no way, be viewed as having had a "weak" career, it's true. As noted above, the best 1B in history were mostly ALers - Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg, Murray, Killebrew (yeah, big drop from Foxx to those last three). I would describe Bagwell as the best NL first baseman of the 20th century. That avoids having to compare him to Anson, Brouthers, and Connor, and recognizes that Pujols has almost certainly passed him (even granting that he's probably played his last NL game).