Dec 30, 2011, 11:55 AM EST
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.
- Hector Olivera’s camp denies any damage to ulnar collateral ligament 3
- UPDATE: Hunter Pence out 6-8 weeks with fracture in left forearm 21
- MLBPA: leaks are from people “who want to see Josh Hamilton hurt personally and professionally” 19
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene 145
- Report: MLB panel split on rehab for Josh Hamilton; one-year suspension is in play 45
- Joc Pederson goes 2-for-2 in Cactus League debut 6
- Braves scratch Mike Minor from start with more shoulder problems 6
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” 373
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” (373)
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene (145)
- Curt Schilling lowers the boom on some men tweeting threats against his daughter (137)
- That facts of Josh Hamilton’s case should not be a matter of public record (91)
- Billy Bean responds to Daniel Murphy’s comments (90)