I’ve read the same. Despite the acknowledged greatness of Mariano Rivera, the modern-day Yankees have closed out games at about the same rate as the great teams of the '20s and '30.
The circumstantial “case” against Bagwell was how much he bulked up over the course of his career and that he didn’t hit for power in the minors. I’m not saying that proves a thing, but I do think that speculating about his PED use is not completely without any basis. And, in case it was lost in my last post, I do agree if that’s all we ever have, this speculation, he shouldn’t be kept out because of it. But I can understand a gun-shy reaction, a “wait and see” approach. He became musclebound in the steroid era, after never having been a power hitter. It’s not crazy speculation, even if it’s speculation.
Eh. If all of a sudden, GMs started handing out $1 million to players every time they successfully get a bunt single, that would raise the stat to a previously-unheard of level of attention, and give high profile to any player with the talent to do so. It wouldn’t make the bunt single or the increased number of bunts a statistically important category in any meaningful way.
I’m aware, and I recognize that we’ll never know unless Bagwell did something and admits it. I don’t think that compares to the implausible changes in Sosa’s body and the course of his career. Changing your hitting style and body type as a minor leaguer is very much different from adding 30 home runs to your total when you turn 30.
I agree, in case my post implied otherwise.
In his MVP season he went from 20 HRs in 609 PAs to 39 HRs in 479 PAs. Extrapolate that out to a full 162 game season and it is damn near 30 HRs overnight. That’s about the same time that Caminiti admitted to starting on steroids. He also played with Luis Gonzalez. All three guys saw precipitous climbs in their power numbers starting in the mid-90s and cresting in 2000. Caminiti claimed 50% of his teammates were on steroids, so these guys would fall into the likely group if that’s true. Bagwell suffered form a lot of injuries that are associated with steroids.
It’s thin, it’s circumstantial, it’s unconfirmed but it’s also more substantial than a bunch of other guys who’ve been flagged.
Well, that’s a bit of a strawman, isn’t it?
It doesn’t line up perfectly, but just because a lot of people seem to think Saves are important doesn’t actually make them important. I don’t want to get into another “lord do I hate Wins” tangent (because I’ll get lost down that rabbit hole), so I won’t. But the only reason saves are good is so that we can keep track of most of the pitchers who are really only good at throwing an inning at a time. And unless you’re REALLY good at doing that, you’re extremely expendable once you flub up. Smith never flubbed up, but that doesn’t mean he was ever REALLY good at it - he just did it for a long time, and was never dominant at doing it. There are plenty of pitchers out there with 1200+ innings out there and 3.03 ERA, 1.256 WHIP, 2.57 K/BB and 7.9 H/9 numbers that aren’t even close to the discussion of the HOF. That’s because 1200 IP means jack unless you’re putting up crazy Koufax numbers.
If it’s all that important or noteworthy because he held the record for 13 years, why isn’t Thigpen getting any love for holding the single season record for 18 years?
Just looking at Sutter’s stats, I’d say Lee was equally dominant for a similar stretch. Sutter won a Cy Young, Lee was runner up once. Lee’s career K/9 was better than Sutter’s, 8.7 to 7.4. The only reason you could say Lee was less durable is because by the late 80s teams were using closers one inning at a time. I can’t hold that against him.
The way I see it, the closer is a position in MLB and it deserves recognition. Saves are a popular stat. They mean something. I feel the same way about the DH and kickers and punters in the NFL. It’s hard to say Smith didn’t dominate the position when he held the saves record for 13 years. He earned it.
Probably for the same reason Maris doesn’t get HOF love.
I generally think only two or three “main ballot” players should be inducted per year, so I voted for Smith and Raines. If required to pick more, I’d have added Larkin, Walker, Bagwell, Martinez, Trammell, Williams, Morris, and Murphy, in that order.
I don’t think that’s right. Lee was far more durable and consistent than Sutter (Lee played 6 more seasons), but wasn’t nearly as dominant, in the sense that Sutter pitched a lot more innings per season. I don’t think Sutter was at all worthy of a Hall vote though - so if you want to put him in on the “if X is in and Y is at least as good as X, then Y should be in”, I can absolutely understand that.
Catcher is a position. Pitcher is a position. Third base is a position. A closer is not a position - it’s a role. And it’s a minor role at that, that tends to be misused on a regular basis.
Maybe, but they sure don’t mean anything meaningful. If managers weren’t pressured by GMs (who are pressured by agents), but rather used their best reliever in the highest leverage situations and we called that a save (when successful), I’d agree with you. But they don’t, so we don’t.
For good reason - Maris isn’t a HOFer by any standard.
Barry Larkin, Jeff Bagwell, Tim Raines, Edgar Martinez, Alan Trammell, Larry Walker, Mark McGwire are the guys I’m sure about.
Williams, Murphy, McGriff and Palmeiro are all on the cusp for me.
Smith I’d think about, too.
Morris? I don’t get the love for him. One playoff game doesn’t make someone a Hall of Famer.
No problem. But then, I find it kinda dumb to keep out players who really did admit to using or tested positive.
This what you are talking about?
http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/11/26/the-age-of-the-setup-man/
The percentage is more like 95%, but the point remains valid. Protecting a lead in the ninth is just not that much of an accomplishment.
That’s definitely what I was thinking of even though I got the comparison wrong.
That’s a reasonable argument. I think Bagwell is being shafted a bit here, but that’s not nothing. And I do think he will get in eventually. This year, though, Larkin is going in by himself.
He was 26. It isn’t rare to have a power breakout at that age. Want me to show you players with similar profiles throughout the history of baseball. Or perhaps you can show me admitted steroid users with similar breakouts around that age. It isn’t like Mcgwire, Palmeiro, Bonds, or Arod have remotely similar statistical profiles to Bags.
Two players who broke out when they weren’t with the Astos. Caminiti in fact was much worse before and after he was a padre. He also was taking all sorts of other stuff. Bagwell taking cocaine too?
Bagwell has stated that he believes the injuries are related to weighlifting. That would seem to make sense too no? Of course Bagwell did admit take androstenedione so maybe that led to problems to. A substance which was allowed at that time. Or maybe it was just something about him. It isn’t like all these other sluggers developed shoulder problems.
Did Bagwell have additional help? Perhaps, but it just leads to more questions What did he take? Was it illegal? Was it banned by baseball at the time? Did it help? How much? How long did he take it for? All vital questions in determining how to treat Bagwell in history. Ones completely ignored with the simplistic bulky + home-runs = bad, logic.
I’m not contending Bagwell is clean or dirty. I’m just stating the circumstantial case. Which is at least as strong as a dozen other guys who don’t get as much of a strident defense.
That said, I think Caminiti’s estimates of people using PEDs is probably pretty close to the mark. Everyone was probably on something and I think the guys on androstenedione were probably on a dozen other things and bounced back and forth between legal and illegal. I knew about 8 guys on my HS football team that used PEDs in 1994. The shit was everywhere.
That’s the maddening problem here - well, one of them. You can’t be sure *anybody *was clean, no matter what they say. Palmeiro denied it as insistently as anybody, and didn’t look like he used either, but we know what happened. You also can’t know who just maybe tried it once or twice, and who drank gallons of it for breakfast every morning. So the only way to be sure you’re not letting a user in is not to let *anybody *in from that period.
And the other problem is the hypocrisy you have to maintain in order to uphold the no-users standard. Who here can really claim with a straight face not to have known steroids were rampant in MLB for decades? Who here didn’t share the jokes about it? Who here didn’t like what they did to the game? Who didn’t enjoy watching the McGwire-Sosa race, for instance? IOW, cut the shit, folks,* you’re* just as much a part of the problem as any player ever was. And are you willing to banish every player who ever used amphetamines, while you’re moralizing?
Nope, the only way out is a blanket amnesty, distasteful as it may be, and even that doesn’t bear much discussion. Yeah, Bagwell probably used, but so what? He was one of the dominant players of his era. It is worthy of comment only that the game as it was played during his era involved rampant steroid use; that is still what the game was.
I’ve gone back and forth on Smith, but ultimately decided that he is not worthy.
Saves are a very overrated stat imo and it didn’t mean that much when Smith broke the record because teams didn’t use closers like they do now before Smith’s time.
Now, compared to Sutter and Fingers, yeah, he should be in imo. But they shouldn’t be in either.
Smith had more rWAR than Sutter by 5.3 based on him pitching about 25% more while only being about 4% less effective according to ERA+. Fingers pitched a lot more innings, but wasn’t nearly as effective as either Smith or Sutter.
Hank Aaron had an odd surge in power late in his career while he played for a Braves team that featured Tom House. He said that he and several of his teammates used steroids. So Aaron is associated with House just as much as Bagwell is with Caminiti. They both have some odd numbers. Both played in era’s where there was lots of PED usage. Draw your own conclusions.
Most people prefer the mindset of ignorance is bliss when it comes to pre 90’s baseball, though, and just like to focus their wrath on the past 20 years while pretending that before then baseball was pure.
There are already many people in the HOF that used amphetamines which are/were dangerous, illegal, and performance enhancing. I’m also confident that there are people in the HOF that have used steroids, and there will be plenty more elected even if the writers continue with their hard stance against electing known or suspected users.
Cheating has been going in baseball since the early phases of the sports and it has been largely encouraged with lines of thinking such as if you aren’t cheating, you aren’t trying, or it’s not cheating if you aren’t caught.
MLB, the media, and to a lesser degree the fans were all aware of PED usage in baseball going back to the 50’s and 60’s when greenies were commonly found in clubhouses, they were aware of steroid usage in the early 90’s at the latest. But no one seemed to care.
What led to people finally getting up in arms over this was an unlikable guy breaking records and being obvious about his cheating due to his size. McGwire and Sosa were pretty obvious as well, but they were likable and it was a great story that helped bring back baseball from the strike.
So cheating was never really a problem. PED usage was never really a problem. But that became a problem when it became too effective and too obvious and was being benefiting a “bad” person.
So everyone looked the other way all these years, but now a lot of those same people have been up in arms over this issue and want these guys punished.
It’s very hypocritical and illogical imo.