Palmeiro just digging his grave deeper

[waroriole]

What you consider baseless assumptions I say are statistical evidence along with personal association with known steroid users. Another former Bagwell teammate was Jason Grimsley, an admitted HGH and steroid user after his house was raided by government officials. Numerous other former teammates of Bagwell were named in the Mitchell Report. And let's not forget former Bagwell teammates Andy Pettitte and Roger Clemens.

Stop with all the self-righteous crap though. I'm not making a call on whether it was right or not morally, I'm just saying that the guy hit a lot of home runs for a guy who's power was considered his only missing tool as a hitter when drafted, developed and why the Red Sox traded him.

Now if you don't feel the PEDs effected him enough to stop him from being a HoFer is up to each individual, but to claim outrage that someone would link him to PEDs is naive at best.

All these guys were also teammates with Biggio and Berkman (except Caminiti), yet nobody is dragging their names through the mud. The only difference is that Bagwell is a big guy who hit alot of HR. To me that is not even close to being evidence.

[The Wedge]

I don't think it was a PR move per se. My understanding is that the inclusion of steroids was more of an addendum to a document that was primarily addressing the use of recreational drugs. You may remember the cocaine scandal in the '80's. I could be wrong about that interpretation though.

You are absolutely correct insofar as any prohibition without a genuine attempt at reliable testing is, practically speaking, little better than lip service.

Maybe not strictly a PR move, but even adding the addendum without giving any real teeth makes it a move that really only helps make MLB look better by outlawing the drugs without them actually doing anything about any potential problems.

[Tony-OH]

Of course every bit of that circumstantial evidence could be explained by just being a really good player who developed at the age a lot of really good players develop, and his peak was so long because he was a really good player.

I find it difficult to withhold HOF support from someone on the basis of evidence like this, when you can find many cases of similar development prior to 1970. Would you withhold support from Yaz, who went from 16 homers to 44 at age 27? Stan Musial more than doubled his career high in homers at age 27 (from 19 to 39) and was still putting up 950 OPSes at 37, in 1958.

Holy Crap, you to Jon???? You are using Musial as a comparison for Bagwell? Really?

I give up. The world has gone freakin' mad. I already went over Yaz's development and it is nowhere close to the rest of these guys because he peaked when he should have peaked and didn't hold onto it until he was 39 years old.

Seriously, you are too smart for this kind of lazy comparisons.

It's not about a sudden jump in power for a few years during peak years, it's about a major jump in power that was sustained over a much longer time than a normal peak. Unless you are willing to say that Palmeiro and Bagweel were Ruth/Musial talents then your comparisons are ridiculous.

[Dipper9]

Holy Crap, you to Jon???? You are using Musial as a comparison for Bagwell? Really?

I give up. The world has gone freakin' mad. I already went over Yaz's development and it is nowhere close to the rest of these guys because he peaked when he should have peaked and didn't hold onto it until he was 39 years old.

Seriously, you are too smart for this kind of lazy comparisons.

It's not about a sudden jump in power for a few years during peak years, it's about a major jump in power that was sustained over a much longer time than a normal peak. Unless you are willing to say that Palmeiro and Bagweel were Ruth/Musial talents then your comparisons are ridiculous.

Putting aside the steroid question for just a moment, Raffy is one of only four men EVER in the HISTORY of baseball to hit 500+ homers and 3000+ hits. How does this not qualify him as one of the greatest hitters in the history of baseball?

[MrOrange82]

I don't know about the hot dogs, but pretty much anyone (and/or Wikipedia) can tell you about how/why MLB changed the ways in which baseballs were manufactured and how often they were replaced during games...which directly contributed to Ruth's already-prodigious power translating to greater numbers of HRs.

Seriously? No one? Ray Chapman?

And who were the murderers and rapists, Gordo? I'm skeptical, but curious.

It's been a while since I've seen so many specious/hyperbolic arguments go unchallenged on OH...

[CrimsonTribe]

I tend to think that Jeff Bagwell was one of the best hitters ever.

Holy Crap, you to Jon???? You are using Musial as a comparison for Bagwell? Really?

I give up. The world has gone freakin' mad. I already went over Yaz's development and it is nowhere close to the rest of these guys because he peaked when he should have peaked and didn't hold onto it until he was 39 years old.

Seriously, you are too smart for this kind of lazy comparisons.

It's not about a sudden jump in power for a few years during peak years, it's about a major jump in power that was sustained over a much longer time than a normal peak. Unless you are willing to say that Palmeiro and Bagweel were Ruth/Musial talents then your comparisons are ridiculous.

At least with Bagwell, I think he did that. I tend to agree.

[DrungoHazewood]

Unless you are willing to say that Palmeiro and Bagweel were Ruth/Musial talents then your comparisons are ridiculous.

I'll go on record as saying that Palmeiro and Bagwell were Musial-type talents. Sure, they're probably top-100 type players while Musial is a top-20. But they're all among the top tiny fraction of 1% of all baseball players ever.

I'm not sure anyone besides Ruth has ever been a Ruth-type talent.

Palmeiro and Bagwell were two of the better players of their era. Why wouldn't they have talent in the same range as the best players of other eras?

As far as I can tell the evidence that Bagwell wasn't a historically great player boils down to "he was so good he had to have been on drugs." And I just won't buy into that.

[The Wedge]

I think its dangerous to simply throw away comparisons due to any number of factors that have nothing to do with the player themselves but rather the level of competition they play with, the parks they play in, etc. You end up deifying players like Ruth.

[El Gordo]

Seriously? No one? Ray Chapman?

And who were the murderers and rapists, Gordo? I'm skeptical, but curious.

It's been a while since I've seen so many specious/hyperbolic arguments go unchallenged on OH...

As to the rapists you'd have to ask the women in their lives, a lot of what would be considered rape to day went unreported. Cobb was suspected of murder by some, and Old Hoss Radbourn was a drinking buddy of the James brothers. The point is that ballplayers particularly of the late 1800's amd early 1900's were a pretty scurrilous bunch. Hard to believe some of the above mentioned types didn't make it in to the HOF. Also hard to believe that sportswriters are saints as well.

[Flosman]

You know the topic that has not really been touched on is steroids are not a new thing. It really can't be known with certainty that players pre-Conseco where not using. The drugs where being used as early has the late 40s in organized sports. With the USOC officially developing a program during that time period. I don't think it was used often if at all during that time, however it can not be ruled out. Especially with the lack of surgical options for injuries during those times. Is it out of the question that a doctor would give a player these drugs as a therapy for various conditions and the player recover and get better result using them and continue to do so? I think it is likely that some players used long before that Oakland As group found them.

[TGO]

I'll go on record as saying that Palmeiro and Bagwell were Musial-type talents. Sure, they're probably top-100 type players while Musial is a top-20. But they're all among the top tiny fraction of 1% of all baseball players ever.

I'm not sure anyone besides Ruth has ever been a Ruth-type talent.

Palmeiro and Bagwell were two of the better players of their era. Why wouldn't they have talent in the same range as the best players of other eras?

As far as I can tell the evidence that Bagwell wasn't a historically great player boils down to "he was so good he had to have been on drugs." And I just won't buy into that.

Bagwell is a top 40 position player all time by WAR according to BB-Ref.

By the way, this is also a guy who has 200 career stolen bases, and at a 72% rate (I believe that is over or at least at the break even rate for his era, no?). :eektf: He's 34th all time in Power-Speed #.

He's not Stan Musial, but he's certainly worthy of being called one of the best hitters ever.

[waroriole]

Holy Crap, you to Jon???? You are using Musial as a comparison for Bagwell? Really?

I give up. The world has gone freakin' mad. I already went over Yaz's development and it is nowhere close to the rest of these guys because he peaked when he should have peaked and didn't hold onto it until he was 39 years old.

Seriously, you are too smart for this kind of lazy comparisons.

It's not about a sudden jump in power for a few years during peak years, it's about a major jump in power that was sustained over a much longer time than a normal peak. Unless you are willing to say that Palmeiro and Bagweel were Ruth/Musial talents then your comparisons are ridiculous.

It's not as outrageous as you're making it sound. Musial OPS+ 159, Bagwell OPS+ 149. Stan the Man was certainly a better hitter than Bagwell, but there is no reason that Bagwell's career can't take a similar trajectory without PEDs.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I've seen several people in the days leading up to the Hall of Fame vote call Bagwell arguably the best first baseman in National league history, pre-Pujols.

You don't get that by not being one hell of a talent.

[El Gordo]

It's not as outrageous as you're making it sound. Musial OPS+ 159, Bagwell OPS+ 149. Stan the Man was certainly a better hitter than Bagwell, but there is no reason that Bagwell's career can't take a similar trajectory without PEDs.

No reason for Pamleiro's either. I think some of this has to do with a change in approach from Musial's time to the present. In Musial's day being a good all around situational hitter was valued. So BA and hitting behind the runner were valued as well as power numbers, and K's were regarded as bad. I bet if Musial or Williams wanted to sacrifice BA and let the K's mount they could have hit more HR's than they did.

[Riggodrill44]

Ok, what if he started two years before? I could buy his jump in power around the age of 26-28 due to natural progression and the peak years situation, but the fact that he kept that peak until 38-years old is a big problem for me. Palmeiro did have a nice swing, and he hit a lot of doubles which did suggest he had more power, but one of the reasons the Cubs traded him was because of his lack of power for a first baseman.

I firmly believe Palmeiro was going to be a very good player regardless of PED use,but also firmly believe his numbers, including his extraordinarily long peak, certainly suggest he was PED user before his failed drug test.

It's a whole separate issue as to whether you believe guys during this ERA belong in the HoF or not, but I think there's more than just circumstantial evidence that Palmeiro was dirty long before it was proven.

You think taking a shot will make you a better baseball player.You can't bottle what it takes to play baseball at that level.

This whole mess reminds me of my youth.Someone is screaming at the top

of their lungs "He cheated" on the play ground.They just need to be heard and acknowledge but it doesn't change the facts.You don't know who did what and you will probably never know.You can only look at the numbers and do what those numbers say....HOF