Bonds begins HOF campaign

No, I did not. I did see Bagwell play, up-close, throughout his entire career and always admired him as a player. So I think our relative biases cancel each other out here.

Mind you, I'm not trying to denigrate Carew's career here. He is a worthy Hall of Famer.

But Bagwell is also much better than many people seem to think.

Plenty. You can only reliably compare a player to his own peers, in his own era.

And the truth is, Bagwell was much more productive offensively relative to his peers than Carew was to his:

Bagwell, 149 career OPS+
Carew, 131 career OPS+

That's a huge difference.

As you say, Carew did one thing — hit for average — better than anyone in his era. He famously made a long run at one of the most magical numbers in sports for one summer, which cements his reputation in the minds of anyone who was a fan at that time. He was productive enough for long enough to reach another magical number later in his career, and that moment gets replayed regularly on national television, even 25 years later.

Bagwell did not do one thing better than anyone, but he did just about everything better than most players. His best season was cut short by a season-ending strike, and he happened to play the same position in the same league as a cartoon character whose steroid-fueled exploits captivated the nation for one summer. His one appearance in the World Series spotlight was at the very end of his career and hampered by injury.

Our society tends to value specialists more than generalists, especially in sports, because that makes it easier to define their greatness.

But Bagwell was the more productive offensive player, even accounting for the difference in their run-scoring environments, their ballparks and their positional expectations (which aren't that great, because Carew spent more time at first base than second base.) He was one of the most powerful offensive forces of his era, a Gold Glove first baseman, a superb baserunner — a four-tool player. Couldn't throw, of course, because of that bum shoulder. But he did everything else extremely well.

He was statistically better in his era than Carew was in his — even though Carew was perceived to be better. Which is mostly because Carew was the best at one particular skill, and Bagwell was not the best at any one skill. We always struggle to define players like Bagwell.

No, it tells you (a little) about how they were perceived in their own eras.

Carew was a great player, and he was (is) beloved. That's why he was selected every year, even after he stopped being a dominant second baseman and turned into an above-average first baseman for most of a decade. Cal Ripken's last truly great season was in 1991, but he made 10 more All-Star Games after that. He was also quite beloved.

All-Star Games really don't mean that much. Wade Boggs made the same number of All-Star appearances (12) as Mike Schmidt. But it's inarguable among the sane, or even Chris_L, that Boggs is even remotely in Schmidt's class as a third baseman.

Carew's last full-time season at second base was 1975, when he was 29 years old.

He actually played more games at first base (1184) than he did at second (1130).

Your perception makes him better than he was, by placing him at a more demanding defensive position for longer than he was actually there. At second base, he was well on his way to being a Hall of Famer. At first base, he was sometimes great but more often just good.

 

as is the case in every sport in the world guys can cheat and get away with it. usually the ones who get caught are the ones who are punished. but since you don't know where to draw the line i guess that means Manny also gets in.

 

Honestly, that wouldn't bother me that much. Of course, I also think Joe Jackson should be in and I agree with the idea of putting Rose in, but not until after he's gone. As a player, he deserves it. As a man, he doesn't deserve to benefit from it.

 

This is very well argued. Carew has perception on his side, but a deeper, more objective analysis will tell you Bagwell was better. They are both Hall of Famers, though the voters have screwed it up with Bagwell so far.

 

We went to A's games every time the Angels were in town for one reason... Carew... He was my second favorite player growing up behind George Brett and he was one of those guys who you felt like something big was about to happen every time he came up. I don't remember feeling that way with Gwynn or Boggs, the two guys Carew is most often compared to.

I also felt the same way about Tim Raines.

 

That says more about your objectivity, or lack of it in this case, than it does about Carew.

 

i'm tired, hungover, just woke up, my head hurts and i don't feel like discussing this in an intelligible manner. fuck you guys: carew hands down.
; )

 

I'm with TP. Rod Carew more than deserves his place in the Hall. Bagwell can only hope that the voters are kind enough to remember what he did as a player. And yes, I've bent a bit and can see the argument that Bagwell deserves a spot. Maybe he can sit with me, just kidding.

 

I don't think either of Manny's 2 tests were tainted. Is that enough? I mean I never saw him take PEDs so I can't be sure but I think I'll go with guilty. Anyone who isn't blind knows guys have used and never failed a test. So does that mean that Manny gets a pass because he was just that dumb or unlucky to test positive.
[/quote]

You just helped back up my point. We know guys have used and not gotten caught. At least not definitively. That is the problem with denying the ones we are sure of, like Manny. Where do you draw the line? Two failed tests? One failed test? None, but a lot of circumstantial evidence?
[/quote]

as is the case in every sport in the world guys can cheat and get away with it. usually the ones who get caught are the ones who are punished. but since you don't know where to draw the line i guess that means Manny also gets in.
[/quote]

Honestly, that wouldn't bother me that much. Of course, I also think Joe Jackson should be in and I agree with the idea of putting Rose in, but not until after he's gone. As a player, he deserves it. As a man, he doesn't deserve to benefit from it.
[/quote]

The thing is Manny, like Rose blatantly broke the rules. Of course there was nothing near a lifetime ban as the penalty for what Manny did. But the fact he got caught twice shows he could be the stupidest potential HOF or he just doesn't give a shit. The guys who cheat with PEDs are always a step ahead of the tests. So for a superstar to get caught twice that's saying something. If Manny does get in MLB should just make it OK to take steroids or at least lower the suspension by a lot. It's just a tad inconsistent when you say you're going to miss a third of the season but go ahead use PEDs again you'll get into the HOF.

 

I have had a vote for a while. I'm thinking Biggio from newbies. Last time, I voted for a couple of this year's holdovers, Raines and Morris, along with Larkin.

Re: steroids-era candidates, if there's doubt or suspicion or question or just funny-looking numbers, I put 'em in my 15-year club. That's the amount of time voters get to consider eligible candidates. They give us that for a reason (context, new info, whatever). It's no sin to take it and use it. (Only guy who got in without my votein the years I've been doing this: Rice. And I thought his numbers/career were borderline no vs. borderline yes.)

I vote for several candidates every year and generally vote for someone newly eligible. But somebody having to wait a little longer to get into the Hall, or getting in without my vote, doesn't seem harsh penalty. The "first year of eligibility" club is artificial and inconsistent anyway. I'd rather vote in a guy a year too late than put him in and then learn some big revelation after.

Ron Santo wound up with the lousiest deal among those who eventually get in, receiving the honor posthumously. So the Muscle Beach crowd can cool their heels, IMO.

To me, they'll command more attention and consideration when they're about to come off the ballot than when they come on. Everyone's in such a rush.

 

oh joe williams, i so fucking missed you.

 

Thanks, Tom!

Oh and I've said this before but the argument that guys such as Bonds and Clemens should go right in because they were bound for the HOF before they (allegedly) cheated ... whooooosh! That's the sound of it going right by me, a complete miss.

That's like saying you can't throw Wall Street crooks in jail because they already were rich.

BB & RC and their ilk had the most to gain from using PEDs and had the most to lose. Big reward, big risk. They (allegedly) overreached.

I'm more sympathetic to the Class AAA guy who felt pressure to use just to grab that last roster spot with the parent club and pull a few years of MLB minimum salary. It's the difference between white-collar crooks plundering millions and a desperate family guy knocking over the corner bodega for grocery money.

Actually, I'm even more sympathetic to the guy who topped out at Class AAA because he didn't use, while his teammate who did got called up, did. Many big-league steroid users cheated those guys who tried to compete clean. They also cheated those from the past who were clean when they filled the record book.

So I sit and research and observe and wait and keep my HOF votes dry. I've got 15 years to work with on every one of 'em.