Comments on: No, bloggers don’t have Bagwell groupthink

By: oldmanduggan

oldmanduggan — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 09:49:49 +0000

Again, point missed. dsmaxsucks was the brander–possibly in jest as I was clearly misreading this all. That is what happens when you don’t go to bed until past 11:00 am and wake up again a couple of hours later. I was totally reading this as a bloggers-(sub)consciously-applying-steroid-tag-to-Bagwell piece and am clearly as dumb as dsmaxsucks was implying we all are…

By: mtner77

mtner77 — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 09:12:00 +0000

No sense of humor at all.

How “pretigious” of you.

My reply was meant to be half in jest. (I guess the BBA is now the new BBWA??)

And I never “branded” all bloggers as anything.

You need to lighten’ up (or least get over your hangover). Best of luck to you on both fronts.

PS: Look forward to seeing more of you on this blog…. Craig will be live from Sioux City!

By: oldmanduggan

oldmanduggan — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 01:07:30 +0000

Point missed. My bad.

By: oldmanduggan

oldmanduggan — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 23:50:38 +0000

There are 270+ sites listed there. Many have multiple authors. There were 154 ballots cast. At most, half of the members voted in this thing.

As a member, the BBA is a networking tool for me. I didn’t vote in this, but I find this tired “these dumb basement-dwelling bloggers are automatons” line that this column took aggravating. Comments from random hate-spewing non-contributors knocking this “pretigious” organization and branding all bloggers as dumb is simply a by-product of such catty response to what is ultimately a non-story.

Moreover, branding a 62% vote on Bagwell isn’t really indicative of groupthink, as you charge, Craig. You are basically charging that a ten or 15 person sampling of a group of 154 people who elected to vote but not vote for a deserving candidate in Bagwell is indicative of some widespread mindless conformity. Really? That would be like blaming every mainstream sportswriter for some uninformed rant that Tony Kornheiser makes or some divisive statement that Dan Schaughnessy extols.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 13:20:54 +0000

Well, 5 and 15 both do have the 5 in them.

Instead of repeatedly showing that you didn’t pay enough attention to realize how great Bagwell was, you could actually take a look at his performance and compare him to players you did pay attention to.

By: cdrydie

cdrydie — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 06:14:59 +0000

and with about a 5 year longer career i think he would have been a shoe in.

By: mtner77

mtner77 — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 05:37:45 +0000

I was surprised to learn that there is something called the Baseball Bloggers Alliance. After viewing the “whole membership list”, it appears to be a very pretigious organization. It makes you wonder where they hold their annual convention. The Grand Ballroom of the Waldorf Astoria? Maui? Or maybe some place even more “exotic”, like Sioux City? Live coverage of this exciting event Craig (ala the GM meetings in Orlando), would be huge service to HBT. (If you like, you can even make it seem like your own idea. I wouldn’t want any credit at all. Really.)

By: paperlions

paperlions — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 22:41:11 +0000

Seriously?

How about a .408 career OBP, which is 40th all time. You know that not making outs is important, right?

Or maybe a a .535 carreer slg%, which is 35th all time. You know that hitting with power is important, right?

Maybe the 149 career OPS+, tied for 34th all time.

Maybe his 79.9 brWAR, which is 79th all time.

The guy did just about everything, hit, hit for power, walked, excellent on the bases, good defender. He was a force. Better (meaning more productive/valuable) than Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, Derek Jeter, Ken Griffey, and host of other “no doubt” HOFers.

By: cdrydie

cdrydie — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 21:11:25 +0000

I liked Bagwell as a player when i was a kid and new he was good, I can easily see Houston Astros hall of fame, but someone please tell me what stats he has that makes him a Hall of Famer, as far as i can tell the 2000 hit club and or the 400 home run club doesnt cut it. 3000 hits yes. Home runs are tough to deal with during the steroid era, but many not steroid era hitters hit more. He was a good player, but simply does not have the numbers for the Hall.

By: dsmaxsucks

dsmaxsucks — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 18:27:54 +0000

Maybe bloggers are as dumb as everyone else says they are?

By: JM Lattanzi

JM Lattanzi — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 18:11:43 +0000

I'm sure that's part of it. Also throw in four seasons of 1.000+ OPS in the Astrodome (out of 5 career). Biggio may have gotten more hits, but Bagwell was feared.

By: schlom

schlom — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 18:02:21 +0000

I wonder if people are forgetting about his Astrodome years and just assuming that his huge offensive numbers were just a product of Minute Maid Field? Plus his best season came during the strike shortened 1994 season (post 1900, only Bonds, Ruth, Williams, Gehrig, Hornsby, Mantle and McGwire topped his 213 OPS+).

By: adenzeno

adenzeno — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 17:49:46 +0000

Agreed-Bags is a no doubt HOF guy, playing in the Astrodome for many years yet STILL beaing a great hitter.Sad that so many voters are choosing to invoke their “suspicions” to not vote for him.

By: JM Lattanzi

JM Lattanzi — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 17:35:47 +0000

This doesn’t make sense to me. Bagwell, at least in my opinion, is a no-brainer. Suspicion of alleged steroid use can’t be all that is causing people to vote against him, or at least ‘hold back’ for a couple of years.