Dec 30, 2011, 11:55 AM EDT
Not sure why it’s so hard for Hall of Fame voters to get on board with the ideas that (a) it’s not fair to assume someone was on steroids when there is no evidence of it; and (b) Jeff Bagwell, on the merits, posted a Hall of Fame career. But considering it’s highly unlikely he’ll be inducted this year, a healthy number of voters have a hard time with those concepts.
Thank goodness for Ken Rosenthal, then. I don’t agree with everything he says in his Hall of Fame column — what fun would that be? — but how anyone can disagree with this is beyond me.
When voting, one should only consider the facts at hand. If Bagwell is later revealed to have been a user, maybe I will stop voting for him, if he isn’t already in the Hall. There is little doubt that he is deserving otherwise, unless you’re somehow unimpressed by his .408 on-base percentage and .540 slugging mark, not to mention his baserunning, defense at first base and leadership of the Astros during his 15-year career … For now, all I know is one thing: I’m not withholding votes based on hearsay and innuendo.
- Mariners’ interest in Matt Kemp is “very real” 21
- Astros players upset over Mark Appel’s promotion to Double-A, bullpen session in Houston 38
- Four theories about the Hall of Fame voting changes 21
- Troy Tulowitzki is visiting a sports hernia surgeon 9
- Settling the Score: Saturday’s results 29
- Giants acquire Jake Peavy from Red Sox 55
- Maximum stay on Hall of Fame ballot changed from 15 to 10 years 66
- Jon Lester is willing to return to the Red Sox as a free agent even if they trade him 32
- Expert’s Corner: How to troll fans of all 30 teams (201)
- Verducci: baseball should think about an “illegal defense” rule to combat shifts (164)
- Yankees acquire Chase Headley from Padres (108)
- Who is the next Face of Baseball? (97)
- David Ortiz passes Carl Yastrzemski on the all-time home run list — is he a Hall of Famer? (92)