Comments on: Jeff Bagwell isn’t getting into the Hall of Fame anytime soon

By: BC

BC — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 14:52:26 +0000

Alomar (even though he tanked with my Mets) was the best fielding second baseman I’ve ever seen, and was an elite offensive player for over a decade. He HAS to get in.

By: bigtrav425

bigtrav425 — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 23:25:01 +0000

Robby alomar getting in the HoF would be a travesty??…Sounds like you were hitting the sauce a lil bit hard before you commented.Robby was THE best 2nd basemen of his era hands down.The guy gets in with no problem…thats the diff between him and bagwell. Robby was the best at his position but you cant say the same about Bags.Not because he wasnt good just becasue of how many good 1st basemen there was in his era

By: JM Lattanzi

JM Lattanzi — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 17:17:55 +0000

How so? He was easily the best second baseman of his era, better than Craig Biggio. who will probably get in by virtue of his 3,000 hits.

By: Dave Dickson

Dave Dickson — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 16:23:51 +0000

the travesty is roberto alomar getting in the HOF.

By: Kevin S.

Kevin S. — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 14:24:46 +0000

Completely. The man isn’t worth the page click.

By: professorperry

professorperry — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 13:14:48 +0000

Bagwell’s one of the greatest hitters in baseball history, by the numbers. So if a BBWAA doesn’t vote for him, either they can’t read numbers (and we’re talking things like RBIs and AVG, not better stats like OPS+), or they are voting against him for some other reason.

But you’re right – we shouldn’t assume that the Chicago 7 are competent.

By: terryindallas

terryindallas — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 11:29:40 +0000

Change that to “take themselves so seriously.”

By: alexo0

alexo0 — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 08:06:54 +0000

While it’s not fair for writers to speculate without evidence that certain players used performance enhancers, I don’t think it’s quite fair for you to insinuate that these writers are not voting for Bagwell because they think he did steroids, without your own evidence to back it up.

By: mangothefruit

mangothefruit — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 04:43:21 +0000

It probably doesn’t mean anything, but Wrigley Field was Bagwell’s worst ground. He hit .258/.395/.438 there in 96 games, compared to his carer line of .297/.408/.540. But that’s probably not why they didn’t vote for him.

By: Ari Collins

Ari Collins — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 04:26:29 +0000

Actually, isn’t Phil Rogers just generally an idiot? I’m genuinely asking, since I might be confusing him with someone else. But that was my impression.

By: Roger Moore

Roger Moore — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 03:55:58 +0000

I think you forgot:

4) Traditional sportswriters are the best choice to vote for the HOF because they take their obligation so seriously.

By: JBerardi

JBerardi — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 03:31:49 +0000

So let’s recap here.

1. Writers, owners, fans, and all of their grandmothers turn a blind eye to rampant steroid use for like a decade plus.
2. Writers, owners, grandmothers, etc are shocked, SHOCKED, to learn that players from that decade plus might have used steroids.
3. Jeff Bagwell must be punished! But not because he did anything… just, you know… because. We can’t talk about it.

By: Roger Moore

Roger Moore — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 03:02:41 +0000

Maybe it’s because Walker played outstanding defense in the outfield, while Bagwell played outstanding defense at first base. It’s a legitimate point in Walker’s favor, even if it is less important than all of the legitimate points in Bagwell’s favor.

By: RickyB

RickyB — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 01:49:24 +0000

So Phil Rogers lauds the complete player that Larry Walker was, yet finds Bagwell lacking? Must have been that Bagwell hit fewer homers … uh, wait, fewer doubles … uh, no. How about fewer RBIs? Nope. True, Bagwell had just 202 stolen bases to Walker’s 230, but also walked nearly 500 more times and had nearly 200 more hits. Of course, Bagwell played at least 155 games in 10 seasons, Walker never did, and Bagwell had 1,401 more plate appearances. Bagwell had three top 3 MVP finishes, Walker just one. Both were considered very good fielders. Must be because Bagwell hit “just” .297 to Walker’s .313. Better OBP, however. Oh, and yes, Bagwell played how many years in the Astrodome? Calling Walker a complete player and Bagwell lacking is ridiculous. Just say it Phil — you didn’t vote for Bagwell because you think he took steroids. We’re not stupid. Bagwell will be lucky to get 30 percent this year, and Palmeiro won’t even get the 5 percent to stay on. I disagree with both.

By: Roger Moore

Roger Moore — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 01:47:39 +0000

I’m not sure that Bagwell is such a shoo-in. He played in an era of big slugging 1B/DH types. He had a relatively fast decline compared to a bunch of those guys, and his raw numbers are depressed compared to them from playing so long in the Astrodome. If you appreciate how badly his numbers were hurt by his home park, he looks very good, but a lot of HOF voters aren’t going to look that deep. When you look at his raw numbers, he’s going to get lost in the crush.

By: JM Lattanzi

JM Lattanzi — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 01:46:57 +0000

This is a travesty. Bags should be in with this class. What kills me is that these guys are Chicago writers and thus should have seen Bagwell more frequently due to intra-divisional play.

Not a single one put Bagwell on, huh?