Skip to content

Three more Hall voters accuse Jeff Bagwell of being a juicer

Jan 3, 2012, 10:37 AM EDT

Jeff Bagwell AP

Via The Platoon Advantage, we come across three more Hall of Fame voters, all from Chicago, who have determined based on either (a) nothing; or (b) rumor or information that they posses but don’t feel is up to the standards of being published in a piece of ethical journalism,* that Jeff Bagwell did steroids and thus isn’t worthy of the Hall of Fame. They are Philip Hersh and Paul Sullivan of the  Chicago Tribune and Scot Gregor of the Daily Herald.

Hersh says “I’m still too suspicious about Jeff Bagwell to include him.”  Sullivan lumps Bagwell in with the “unindicted but suspected contributors to the PED mess.”  Gregor says “[s]uspicions of using “performance enhancing drugs” weigh heavily on my decision to leave off productive players such as Bagwell, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro and Juan Gonzalez.”

Hey, their ballots. They can use ‘em how they want to. I just hope for their sake no one judges their careers’ worth in such a fashion, because it’s totally harsh and unfair and I’d hate for them to have to go through that.

Anyway, if that makes you feel all icky, go read Posnanski’s take on such Hall of Fame votes in historical context. I think he hits it on the head when he talks about how these guys see themselves as something more than mere assessors of baseball performance and something more like gatekeepers with an inflated sense of their place in the process.

But hey, at least they’re keeping us and history all safe from, well, something.

 

*Hopefully this point is not considered controversial. Because it’s nothing more than simple logic. By definition, people either have actual information establishing that Bagwell did steroids or they do not.  If they do have it, they have not published it. And given how newsworthy such information would be, the only plausible reason they haven’t published it is because their newspapers would not allow them to do it because the information is thin and/or uncorroborated. So: such a stance as the one shown by these gentleman is necessarily either one taken with no information or with information that falls short of the standards to which they usually adhere in their daily work.

  1. Travis Reitsma - Jan 3, 2012 at 10:45 AM

    I love the hypocritical nature of this. Roberto Alomar got in last year and I have yet to figure out why he isn’t lumped into the same category as Bagwell…I mean, he did see a suspicious increase in his home runs in the late ’90s. The point is, it’s all hearsay and BS…not only does Bagwell deserve to be in because he’s never been caught doing anything, but so do the players who DID get caught because we just don’t know who did and didn’t and making judgments based on suspicion is akin to complete idiocy.

    • 78mu - Jan 3, 2012 at 12:05 PM

      If I had a wall on the internet I would be banging my head against it after reading about these writers. You are right that this is complete and utter BS.

      Should these writers honestly look at what they say, they should not be voting for anyone anytime. There were a lot of players that would have trouble hitting the ball to the wall much less over it that were named in the Mitchell Report (Fernando Vina, Cody McKay). And anyone that played in the 1960s and 1970s is tainted by greenies.

      Attitudes like theirs are reason number one people want a change in HOF voting.

    • Jack Marshall - Jan 3, 2012 at 1:14 PM

      Boy, do I hate hate hate this line of reasoning. Players who cheated shouldn’t be held accountable because not every cheater has been caught. Ridiculous. We don’t use that flawed logic in criminal law; schools that catch cheaters in exams don’t shrug and let them graduate because other heaters got away with it. We don’t, or shouldn’t, excuse elected officials who accept bribes because we know a lot of them never got caught.

      I happen to support the character clause in the HOF criteria, because baseball has decided that it wants to enshrine heroes and credits to the game, not just statistical standouts. The treatment of Bagwell, as Craig says, is unconscionable, but “if we can’t find all the cheaters, then we should ignore cheating” is a corrupt argument, in the Hall of Fame and everywhere else.

      • CJ - Jan 3, 2012 at 1:27 PM

        I think it’s safe to say everyone here is all for holding “players who cheat” accountable during their playing careers, and many, such as myself, would agree with taking that into retirement as well within some semblance of reason. Said reason, you’d have to agree, is missing from the arguments of the three writers noted in the article.

        Also, it’s worth noting, “players who cheat” doesn’t describe Jeff Bagwell based on any evidence obtained up to this point.

      • cur68 - Jan 3, 2012 at 1:32 PM

        Mr. Marshall, the HOF isn’t a criminal court. Its a hall of sentimentality which has set out standards that it has ignored throughout its history. If character was such a big deal what’s Ty Cobb doing in there? If cheating was big deal what’s Gaylord Perry doing in there? If illegal drugs were a big deal what are Babe Ruth & his enshrined peers (alcohol during prohibition), Hank Aaron & his enshrined peers (amphetamines) doing in there? That last applies for PED use as well.

        The BBWAA havn’t a leg to stand on but they manage to jump up and down pretty effectively none the less.

      • wegonnadoitbaby - Jan 3, 2012 at 3:07 PM

        Agreed!

      • CJ - Jan 3, 2012 at 3:11 PM

        cur68, that post brings back memories of the old Monty Python classic The Holy Grail.

        It’s only a fleshwound!

        That goofy knight trying to fight with no arms or legs? Yep, that’s the perfect illustration of the BBWAA on this one.

      • myopinionisrighterthanyours - Jan 3, 2012 at 4:17 PM

        I also like cur68’s statement and CJ’s imagery from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I also liken it to Dr. Evil’s diatribe in counseling in Austin Powers. “He would accuse chestnuts of being lazy and make outrageous claims like he invented the ‘question mark.’ … The kind of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament.”

      • davebrownspiral - Jan 3, 2012 at 4:23 PM

        Players like Bagwell who may or may not ever get voted into the hall of fame based on suspicion of PED usage have nobody to blame but themselves. The MLBPA knew that alot of it’s members were shooting juice for years, and nobody ever stepped up to clean up the game, always hiding behind the “collective bargaining” issue. The stats were inflated, big fat contracts were being handed out, Brady Anderson was hitting 50 HR’s; times were good.

        Since nothing was done regarding the PED’s infiltration of baseball (both the MLBPA and the owner’s fault) it has opened up the Hall of Fame voting to this type of subjective suspicion based on rumors and innuendo. I am not saying that it is right, because it isn’t, but baseball could have avoided all this by policing itself. Unfortunately it didn’t, and has opened up HOF voting to innuendo and suspicions. Don’t blame the voters, blame baseball.

      • stlouis1baseball - Jan 3, 2012 at 4:59 PM

        Jack: Explain how it is cheating when there are NO rules broken. I mean that sincerely.
        And just to save you some time…spare me the “in the eyes of society and law enforcement” argument. Otherwise, the Cocaine users (see the 70’s and 80’s)…the Wife Beaters (see any number of players who have been convicted) and the Amphetimine users (60’s & 70’s) would ALSO be lumped into your argument. Not to mention all those convicted of DUI’s.

      • cur68 - Jan 3, 2012 at 5:08 PM

        psst, dave: the BBWAA were there, too! They could have covered this as major news when it was going on…they did not. Hence they are as culpable in what happened as those who got away with it. Its like reporters standing around while crimes are being committed and not reporting it…actually it’s EXACTLY reporters standing around while crimes are being commited and not reporting it! They themselves are complicit in the steroid taking.

        More to the point though, they have no evidence against Bagwell, they reported nothing about steroids and Bagwell from back in the day and they still haven’t a leg to stand on now: not precedence, not moral outrage, not even a shred of actual proof. Either the BBWAA make with the proof and form a logical coherent argument, or get off their no-legged moral high horse.

    • marshmallowsnake - Jan 3, 2012 at 1:38 PM

      Wasn’t Bagwell rumored as a user in Game of Shadows book? I vaguely remember him being named there for some reason. Maybe I am mis-remembering?

      • bigleagues - Jan 6, 2012 at 6:29 PM

        For what its worth my buddy (honest to fault and loathes PEDs & cheating) played with and against “Bagpipes” in High School and college never thought Bagwell to be a juicer.

    • pjmarn6 - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:50 PM

      The Catholic Priest Pedophiles never got caught for how long????? And if you think all this is completely new forget it. Look at the analysis of Hank Aaron’s home runs and at bats when he was 40-41. The stats are completely off the wall! The rumors are supported by facts and science.
      No player from that area can be said to be clean and the whole time frame is suspect. Sure a lot of clean players are going to hurt. However the players refused to police themselves and didn’t call out individually or collectively for drug free baseball. Now they are tarred with the same brush. They got their millions and “fame”, stats and records, What does a little thing like not being elected to the tarnished and now ridiculous HOF mean to them. They can’t invest that little plaque or eat it. They sure as hell took baseball for everything they could when they played the game. The Hall of Fame should take the records from the time of the suspect use of drugs and put them in a room called the HALL OF SHAME!

  2. jarathen - Jan 3, 2012 at 10:47 AM

    What gets me is the double-standard it creates. You can’t vote in McGwire, Palmeiro, and Bagwell because they are all known (or suspected) juicers, but presumably legitimate players like Fred McGriff and Alan Trammell wait to be passed over because their statistics don’t match up with the supposed juicers. I just don’t get how everyone loses because you were either a great player who possibly fails the character clause or you weren’t as good as supposed juicers so you’re locked out.

    Posnanski is right, of course, but he usually is. It’s all crap.

    • drewsylvania - Jan 3, 2012 at 2:21 PM

      “You can’t vote in McGwire, Palmeiro, and Bagwell because they are all known (or suspected) juicers, but presumably legitimate players like Fred McGriff and Alan Trammell wait to be passed over because their statistics don’t match up with the supposed juicers. ”

      This is amazingly awesome. I hope you use Twitter.

    • pjmarn6 - Jan 5, 2012 at 12:58 PM

      You know cops are dirty. You know that there is a code, that cops don’t give cops tickets or to family members. You know that cops steal and cover for each other. What you don’t know is how far in it goes. But you do know 100% that cops give cops breaks, that the normal public doesn’t get.
      Well this same rottenness hit baseball over 50 years ago. There was a “GOLDEN SILENCE” nobody ratted out the cheaters. They wanted the good money and the adulation and they sure as hell didn’t want to rock the boat. EVERY PLAYER KNEW that they would be out on their ear if they said one word or even if anonymously it got back to them so they ALL COVERED UP FOR EVERYONE ELSE. And more everyone is taking sides and crying woe is me and woe is them and woe is the game, woe is HOF and woe for the stats and woe for the 50 years of cheating.
      Anyone who doesn’t understand the logic of throwing everything out and not caring that the innocent who kept their mouths shut and allowed this to happen is as guilty as the juicers is either blind or complicit.

  3. canucks18 - Jan 3, 2012 at 10:47 AM

    Maybe the Hall of Fame voting/process needs to be changed to maybe eliminate some of these so called “qualified” voters from personal grudges/unsupported “suspicious” acts that are keeping players out of the Hall. If the guy doesn’t deserve it then fine but the voting is brutally flawed and as a baseball player myself I can’t stand that the writers are the ones with the vote. It’s a complete joke!!!

    • cur68 - Jan 3, 2012 at 1:04 PM

      Your point, sir. Seriously, we know more about it than some of those voters. At least we like baseball and write about it everyday (ok, we rant, but still).

      I think we should start an HBT Hall of Fame. Voting membership will include not being a troll, Canadian citizenship (after all, we’re objective) & evidence of interest in baseball.

      • drmonkeyarmy - Jan 3, 2012 at 2:56 PM

        I would like to nominate myself for the HBT Hall of Fame.

      • cur68 - Jan 3, 2012 at 3:59 PM

        Proof of citizenship, sir?

      • stlouis1baseball - Jan 3, 2012 at 5:13 PM

        Cur: I am voting myself in as well. And don’t give me that “proof of citizenship” crap.
        If you make me prove I am a citizen you are a “proven” racist.
        I mean…look at Arizona! Gasp!

      • cur68 - Jan 3, 2012 at 7:00 PM

        This is an outrage. The proceedings for voting for the HBT HOF are so inconsistent as to be farcical. . .which do not distinguish them from the BBWAA’s proceedings in any way, so we may well carry on…

      • cur68 - Jan 3, 2012 at 7:07 PM

        Oh, & while I’m back on this post I should take a moment to clarify what i meant by the HBT HOF: its for baseball players that we HBT commenters think should be enshrined. IOW, our own Cooperstown as voted on by us. Ours will have a simple web address as opposed to that elaborate mouse maze that Googlemaps give you to the real one.

        And, just to establish that I said it first: Joe Jackson is a first ballot entry into the HBT HOF.

        I’m all for having a HOF for us commenters, but I fear that I’ll just vote for myself out of vanity or spoil my ballot if I’m not on it out of sheer spite.

      • drmonkeyarmy - Jan 4, 2012 at 8:30 AM

        Despite Cur’s clarification, I still nominate myself for the HBT Hall of Fame.

    • pjmarn6 - Jan 5, 2012 at 3:43 PM

      And you are a player??????? How many juicers did you know and didn’t make a formal written complaint about and why? Being in the “BUSINESS” you weren’t shocked to see OLD MEN outperform the great new talent? You weren’t the least bit suspicious. You didn’t want to protect the dignity of the game.
      OF COURSE NOT. YOU WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THROWN OUT ON YOUR EAR AND BANNED FOR FINKING ON FELLOW PLAYERS.
      Give me a break. You can’t have the mental patients running the nut house!

  4. proudlycanadian - Jan 3, 2012 at 10:53 AM

    I am withholding my support from those three sportswriters because I suspect that they drink a lot of alcohol. I have no proof; however my suspicion is based on the fact that they are sportswriters for newspapers and they are from Chicago the home of Al Capone. I could be wrong; however, until proven otherwise to my satisfaction, I cannot support them.

    • dlevalley - Jan 3, 2012 at 1:17 PM

      My best friend’s sister’s boyfriend’s brother’s girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who’s going with the girl who saw Hersh, Sullivan and Gregor getting wasted at 31 Flavors last night.

      I guess it’s pretty serious.

  5. trevorb06 - Jan 3, 2012 at 10:56 AM

    I hope the wives of those three Hall voters find out they’re husbands are cheating on them. What? They have all the tools to do so, until they prove they’re clean they’re guilty.

    • pjmarn6 - Jan 5, 2012 at 3:49 PM

      You all got the game you wanted lots of hits, great juiced ball players, records shattered, liars, cheaters and all of the all star games, playoffs and world series don’t mean a damn as the players were juiced and artificially inflated the numbers and made their teams appear better than others.
      Reminds me WWW with the ridiculous wrestling matches and the champion parading around the ring with that huge gilded belt. But at least everyone knew it was a put up.
      Hey you know there is a school all play acting wrestlers have to attend and graduate from? They are taught how to fall, take a punch, how to body slam other people without hurting them or their opponents and they have to take ACTING LESSONS!
      It is not a sport, you are looking at clowns.
      How war is baseball from WWW?

      • pjmarn6 - Jan 5, 2012 at 3:51 PM

        Gee did I hurt anyone’s feelings?

  6. contraryguy - Jan 3, 2012 at 10:58 AM

    New news is awesome. *cough*

    http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/12/30/jeff-bagwells-hall-of-fame-candidacy-has-ushered-in-the-age-of-steroids-mccarthyism/

  7. steve7921 - Jan 3, 2012 at 11:06 AM

    Since we are now determining if players are eligible for the HoF based on steriods, are we going to throw out any players in the HoF that did “greenies” back in the day? They were never “caught” but everyone suspected them of doing it or they have admitted to popping them before games….what is the difference?

  8. winkeroni - Jan 3, 2012 at 11:18 AM

    If there is reasonable doubt that OJ didn’t kill his ex-wife and that Casey Anthony didn’t kill her daughter than there is reasonable doubt that Jeff Bagwell didn’t use PED’s. If baseball writers were jurors, everyone would be guilty.

    • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Jan 3, 2012 at 11:31 AM

      I think your point works in the favor of the sportswriters’ position. Sometimes, even without all of the hard evidence, a certain suspicion makes sense. What they are really saying is that they want more time. If they were prosecutors, they would not bring these guys to trial right away, but would reserve the right to do so in the future. Since the HoF votes are on a clock (or calendar if you will) they are not afforded the luxury of waiting for more evidence unless they withhold their votes now.

      • deathmonkey41 - Jan 3, 2012 at 11:49 AM

        I agree- we’re not in a court of law here. There is no innocent until proven guilty. People can make assumptions based on the facts they see before him. I’m not sure about any of you, but I didn’t need to wait until McGuire came out and admitted taking steroids to know that he did.

    • Chris Fiorentino - Jan 3, 2012 at 11:54 AM

      In the OJ case, there was no “reasonable doubt”…there was a racist jury who voted not guilty because he was black. In the case of Casey Anthony, the stupid prosecution went too far with their charges, with what little HARD evidence they had, and paid the price.

      Like the previous two posters said, however, in the case of Bagwell and other Hall of Fame votes, unfortunately, there is no “right” to be in the Hall of Fame and dickweeds like these BBWAA writers are going to make shit up just because they are scumbags and were hoodwinked and feel ashamed and embarrassed that they didn’t say or do anything while steroid use was prevalent. So they are doing what they think is right and instead look like incompetent jerks.

      • Roger Moore - Jan 3, 2012 at 1:18 PM

        Two words: Rampart Scandal. At the same time the OJ trial was taking place, officers in the LAPD’s Rampart division were actually engaged in planting evidence and framing suspects, often for crimes actually carried out by the LAPD officers themselves. It certainly makes the suggestion of the LAPD planting evidence and trying to frame OJ more plausible in retrospect; maybe that “racist” black jury was just more aware of what was happening on the street than the average white guy. I still think OJ was guilty, and I don’t think the LAPD was guilty of anything more than sloppiness (and the officers of racism in other contexts) in the OJ case, but I think the police corruption angle was a smart defense tactic given just how corrupt LAPD really was.

        Complete disclosure: I have a peripheral associate with the OJ case. My boss’s boss was a potential expert witness for the prosecution in the criminal trial and did testify for the plaintiff in the civil trial.

      • schlom - Jan 3, 2012 at 2:05 PM

        The Rampart Scandal actually broke in the late 1990’s, not the early 90’s so it had nothing to do with the OJ case.

      • Roger Moore - Jan 3, 2012 at 4:19 PM

        @schlom:

        Yes, the scandal broke in the late ’90s, but the underlying crimes go back further than that. People who found out about Rampart through the news didn’t know LAPD was framing blacks until then, but the people who were living with the abuses knew about the corruption long before the news broke to the rest of us. And if you think Rampart was an isolated case, I have a friend in Nigeria with a business proposition you might find interesting.

      • stlouis1baseball - Jan 3, 2012 at 5:15 PM

        Not sure what those thumbs downs are all about Fiorentino cause’ you are dead on.

  9. sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Jan 3, 2012 at 11:26 AM

    Honestly, if people are going to try to exclude all PED users from the hall, I don’t have a huge problem with leaving Bagwell off the ballot. Remember, we didn’t have evidence against McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, ARod, David Ortiz etc, until we did. Once these guys are in the hall, they won’t be coming out if the hard evidence comes out later.

    I think the bigger problem is in trying to exclude all of the PED users in the first place. Did they cheat? Sure, but it was the kind of cheating that had the institutional “thumbs-up” from teams, other players, MLB and the sportswriters themselves (lest we forget the SI co-sportsmen of the year from 1998, and all those MVP awards to the likes of Giambi, Sosa, Canseco and Bagwell). If it was good enough for everybody back then, it seems disingenuous to levy righteous rage at these guys now.

    Looking at the Mitchell Report, it is obvious that the guys who ‘looked like’ users we not the only ones using. Brian Roberts, for crying out loud! Since we will never eliminate all of them, let’s just look at the era for what it was and vote for guys based on what they did on the field. Add a sentence to the plaques of the guys who are proven users, but don’t ignore an entire era of baseball history.

    • deathmonkey41 - Jan 3, 2012 at 12:08 PM

      Hey, David Ortiz didn’t take steroids…he just innocently drank tainted milkshakes in the Dominican Republic. You know, with him being a big loveable teddy bear, stand-up guy and all…

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Jan 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM

        Of course, and Manny was just trying to get himself pregnant!

    • JBerardi - Jan 3, 2012 at 3:17 PM

      I think the bigger problem is in trying to exclude all of the PED users in the first place. Did they cheat? Sure, but it was the kind of cheating that had the institutional “thumbs-up” from teams, other players, MLB and the sportswriters themselves (lest we forget the SI co-sportsmen of the year from 1998, and all those MVP awards to the likes of Giambi, Sosa, Canseco and Bagwell). If it was good enough for everybody back then, it seems disingenuous to levy righteous rage at these guys now.

      Quoted for truth.

  10. mojosmagic - Jan 3, 2012 at 11:27 AM

    Some guys are just so obvious, and Bagwell falls into that category.

    • paperlions - Jan 3, 2012 at 11:35 AM

      ….and Frank Thomas and Ricky Henderson? No one was more sculpted than those two.

      • ricofoy - Jan 3, 2012 at 2:08 PM

        Big difference. Frank and Ricky were sculpted as 20 year olds. Bagwell was not and now he looks like Olive Oyl.

      • baseballisboring - Jan 3, 2012 at 2:48 PM

        Ugh. Everyone gets bigger from age 20 on, and it can definitely be done without roids. My best friend is 5’6″ and has little man syndrome, and within about a year and a half he became one of the most jacked kids I know from hitting the gym.

        And besides…was Bagwell really *that* big?? I’m looking at pictures of him on google images right now, obviously he looks strong but he’s not quite Barry Bonds. I mean, 6 feet tall, 215 pounds…sounds about right to me.

    • baseballisboring - Jan 3, 2012 at 12:37 PM

      Shut up.

    • stex52 - Jan 3, 2012 at 2:15 PM

      Obviously what? And what is your certfication of expertise?

      Give me a break!

  11. kopy - Jan 3, 2012 at 11:28 AM

    FWIW, I went down the right-hand side in Joe Pos’s column and answered all the “Should _______ be in the Hall of Fame?” polls. Nobody was over 75%. Larkin was highest at 70% – Raines 64%, Bagwell 60%. I don’t know who the people are reading Joe Pos, but in our collective opinion, nobody should be inducted this year (I voted yes quite a few times).

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 3, 2012 at 1:04 PM

      Go to his other website, his own blog and you get:
      Larkin – 2705 – 83%
      Bagwell – 2597 – 80%
      Raines – 2646 – 81%

      http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/

  12. theonlynolan - Jan 3, 2012 at 11:34 AM

    Three more writers guilty of plagiarism, commonman. Book ‘em.

    • The Common Man - Jan 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM

      Not guilty, nolan. At this point, they’re only suspects.

      • bozosforall - Jan 3, 2012 at 2:18 PM

        Might as well consider them guilty…or at least treat them as such and avoid reading their crap to the point that they can’t benefit from any fame gained from any of their past work.

  13. kellyb9 - Jan 3, 2012 at 11:56 AM

    Let’s just go a step further and assume that everyone used PED’s during that era. There, now we’ve officially taken PED’s out of the equation, and we can just vote on who belong in the hall. This is getting completely ridiculous.

    • thomas2727 - Jan 3, 2012 at 12:19 PM

      Problem is when does the PED era begin and end? If you take PEDs out how do you judge the guys in the grey area of era’s? Dale Murphy, Dave Kingman, Dave Parker etc

      This is a mess that will never be resolved.

      “Mr. Milkshake” is already in the Hall of Fame. And some writers are just dragging their feet “waiting” for more guys to get caught. Because you can always put a player in later. But can you take an enshrined cheater out later?

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Jan 3, 2012 at 12:28 PM

        Here is a concept: vote based on the guy’s baseball playing. Then you don’t really need to launch investigations about PED, decide what exactly counts as a PED etc.

  14. jmarcus7 - Jan 3, 2012 at 12:03 PM

    Craig, could you please ask Philip Hersh how he thinks he is qualified to vote on the HOF when he hasn’t covered baseball in nearly 30 years?

    Also: good post.

  15. Jonny 5 - Jan 3, 2012 at 12:40 PM

    He isn’t built like a Juicer….

    http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/33/8/AAAAAq9XGwgAAAAAADOFMw.jpg?v=1171842362000

  16. budro99 - Jan 3, 2012 at 12:55 PM

    I think what is forgotten, by bloggers and the rest of us, is that we don’t get access to locker rooms the way these sports writers do. There is the unwritten code of these writers NOT to write about everything they see going on in a locker room. However, when it comes to them voting someone into the hall of fame, they can use that info that they have as they wish.
    Personally, it’s a tragedy that a player like Palmeiro doesn’t get into the Hall but Barry Larkin might realistically make it…..Barry Freaking Larkin. What’s next? Are they going to vote in Bert Blylevin? Oh wait…..

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 3, 2012 at 1:10 PM

      Personally, it’s a tragedy that a player like Palmeiro doesn’t get into the Hall but Barry Larkin might realistically make it…..Barry Freaking Larkin. What’s next? Are they going to vote in Bert Blylevin? Oh wait…..

      Not sure if serious, but on what planet are Larkin and/or Blyleven not worth of the HoF?

      There is the unwritten code of these writers NOT to write about everything they see going on in a locker room

      Unless they directly saw Bagwell use steroids, which I doubt unless he was an idiot of the highest order, there’s nothing you can see in a locker room that will make you absolutely more confident in a person’s extracurricular activities than the average joe. Alex Sanchez, he of the 5’10 180lbs, was busted with steroids.

      We need to stop using the same information we all received back in high school about steroids, based on 60s/70s information. People don’t just pump needle after needle into themselves like the East German [wo]man’s olympic team. Cycling, taking other steroids/drugs to prevent side effects has completely changed the game. It’s not as simple as Big + Acne = ‘Roids

      • budro99 - Jan 3, 2012 at 1:21 PM

        you think Barry Larkin should be mentioned in the same breath as Willy Mays, Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson…. I guess I am just romanticizing here a little, but I liked it more when the Hall of Fame was for the truly exceptional…not just the “Hall of the Best of their Era”

        Obviously I am making no judgements on Bagwell as I have no evidence. But their are many times where players extra-curricular activities are well-known in the clubhouse but not outside of it….generally it becomes known after they are busted for something.

      • nategearhart - Jan 3, 2012 at 1:39 PM

        “you think Barry Larkin should be mentioned in the same breath as Willy Mays, Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson…. I guess I am just romanticizing here a little, but I liked it more when the Hall of Fame was for the truly exceptional…not just the “Hall of the Best of their Era””

        So you liked the Hall more before 1945?

        http://joeposnanski.si.com/2012/01/03/the-future-and-past-of-the-hall-of-fame/

        Not to mention, your logic is faulty if you say the above but are hope for Palmeiro’s enshrinement. How can he be one of the “truly exceptional” if he wasn’t even the “best of his era”? OH! I see. You’re just looking at hits and home runs in a vacuum, right?

      • The Common Man - Jan 3, 2012 at 1:44 PM

        That’s ridiculous. The Hall of Fame was never really about the exceptional. At least not since Tommy McCarthy, Jack Chesbro, and Tinker and Evers and Chance were elected in the 1940s.

      • sherifaligater - Jan 3, 2012 at 3:20 PM

        right, so the hall of fame should be only for players of the same caliber as willie mays.

        http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/01/06/the-willie-mays-hall-of-fame/

    • CJ - Jan 3, 2012 at 1:34 PM

      I guess we can remove Mike Piazza from consideration altogether becuase of his well documented back acne then. Too bad no one wrote about Jeff Bagwell’s bare back during his playing days or we’d all know for sure…

      • ricofoy - Jan 3, 2012 at 2:06 PM

        How do you know Bagwell’s back was bare? Did he have big balls too?

      • CJ - Jan 3, 2012 at 2:34 PM

        bare back as in shirtless.

        you can read right? I didn’t say brokeback. sheesh

    • ptfu - Jan 3, 2012 at 2:42 PM

      budro99 said: “There is the unwritten code of these writers NOT to write about everything they see going on in a locker room.”

      On Aug 22, 1998, amidst the ’98 home run derby, Sports Illustrated published an article on Mark McGwire, andro, and what we now call PEDs. The article began, “Sitting on the top shelf of Mark McGwire’s locker, next to a can of Popeye spinach and packs of sugarless gum, is a brown bottle labeled Androstenedione.”

      Clearly your unwritten code has been toothless for a long time, and writers did and do write about what they see in locker rooms.

      http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/1998/08/22/mcgwire_supplement/

  17. nightrain42 - Jan 3, 2012 at 1:10 PM

    Look, players of the old days took greenies or uppers, Gaylord perry admits to cheating. If that’s the case, then alot of players need to not be in the hall. Ty Cobb did everything illegal that cld b done. Get over it people.

    • ptfu - Jan 3, 2012 at 3:06 PM

      Kick out the Babe. He boozed it up during Prohibition. I’ll bet lots of other players did too. /sarcasm

  18. klbader - Jan 3, 2012 at 1:34 PM

    This line of thinking is hypocritical. These writers conclude that Bagwell must have done PEDs because of some very thin evidence or just a hunch. But then they confine that hunch to just the player being evaluated. So they conclude that Bagwell succeeded because he did PEDs. But they don’t take their assumption far enough.

    If we can conclude based on a hunch that Bagwell did PEDs, shouldn’t that hunch extend to all (or most) baseball players during that era? These writers seems to operate under the assumption that only the great players used PEDs. They never extend their hunches to the rank and file players who were not great. Their line of thinking is that Jeff Bagwell doesn’t deserve to go into the HoF because his greatness was the product of PEDs. I think it would be a lot more consistent to vote FOR Jeff Bagwell because he was great in an era where many players did PEDs, and he was one of the greatest during that era.

    The Mitchell Report didn’t only name stars after all. I am sure there are a number of players like Larry Bigbie, who made it the majors or stuck around there because they used PEDs. Not everyone who uses PEDs puts up the same numbers as Jeff Bagwell. So who cares whether Bagwell did or did not do PEDs? Compare him to the rest of the players in his era, many of whom, whether stars or journeymen, did PEDs. Was Bagwell better than them? Of course he was. He deserves to go in, regardless of what he did or did not put into his body.

  19. crisisjunky - Jan 3, 2012 at 1:34 PM

    Craig; out of curiosity,
    A) how is one credentialed for Hall voting again?
    B) If you switch to covering Curling, could you qualify?

    Maybe this is too frivolous, but as long as the decisions will be left up to these
    Gatekeepers, can’t MLB just build an Asterisk Wing?
    All the Greats from the era could be included as they should because they WERE
    memorable, and did phenominal BASEBALL things.
    As importantly, we could have a place where people could marvel at Pete and Shoeless,
    and yes we would be obliged to slide Tyrus in there too.(At the very least attempted murder)
    A large disclaimer could be placed front and center at the entrance, to disuade those with a
    high moral outrage threshold.
    You could post a poll to vote for the name of the wing, (My suggestion, name it after W)
    or perhaps a specific relentlessly guilty BBWAA voter.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 3, 2012 at 1:56 PM

      A) how is one credentialed for Hall voting again?

      Was looking around and couldn’t find the exact terms for induction in the BBWAA, but after you are invited you need to be a member for 10 years before you get a HoF vote.

      Someone like TCM, who’s written a lot about the process/voting, might be able to confirm.

  20. drewsylvania - Jan 3, 2012 at 2:26 PM

    Hank Aaron did greenies. If you’re going to keep out Bags with no evidence, you kind have to kick out Aaron because with him there IS evidence.

  21. drewsylvania - Jan 3, 2012 at 2:28 PM

    Personally, I’d rewrite the entire Hall of Fame from scratch and make it a much smaller hall, reserved for players who were without question the greatest in their careers. You could venerate everyone else in the Hall as well, but not induct them as “Hall of Famers”.

  22. neelymessier - Jan 3, 2012 at 3:42 PM

    I’m not putting any weight on those rumors, but IMHO Bagwell is one of those who barely misses. Yeah he was ROY and then MVP and GG once. He only played in 4 allstar games. To top it off he was a .226 punch-n-judy hitter in the post season. Sorry Jeff, buy a ticket like everyone else.

    • drewsylvania - Jan 3, 2012 at 3:55 PM

      Is there anyone who *would* get on your ballot for this year?

      • neelymessier - Jan 3, 2012 at 4:01 PM

        Nope

      • drewsylvania - Jan 3, 2012 at 4:14 PM

        I’d have Bags in, because he was the best 1B in the NL for many years. But I’m glad you don’t have Bags out but somebody like, say, Jack Morris in.

    • bozosforall - Jan 4, 2012 at 11:33 AM

      @neelymessier,

      .226 “punch-n-judy hitter”? You mean like Jim Rice…oh wait, sorry, he only hit .225 in the playoffs. No ROY, no GGs, BS MVP (should have gone to Guidry).

      Sorry, neelymeister, but if Rice is in, then so is Bagwell.

  23. stlouis1baseball - Jan 3, 2012 at 4:56 PM

    Craig: I will do you one better.
    I do NOT care in the slightest if Bagwell, Bonds, McGwire, or Pokey Phuqing Reece did steroids and it is proven. Why? Because they broke ZERO MLB rules while doing so. How can someone be punished for breaking no rules? This shit is now beyond ridiculous.
    Now that MLB has rules in place…tar and feather the bastards.
    However, anything prior should be grandfathered.
    Why is this so hard for people to grasp? What is it that I am missing?
    Bud Selig and all of MLB turned their beady little heads while McGwire and Sosa were hitting 500′ bombs. They turned their beady little heads when Barry was hitting 73 home runs. Why?
    Because it suited them. They were having their cake and eating it too. They needed the fans to come back after the strike. McGwire and Sosa kept the turnstiles in perpetual motion with their mammoth home run duel while MLB looked the other way. Now…MLB wants to slap wrists and wave fingers. The BBWAA Members want to take a holier than though attitude. Horseshit.

    • bozosforall - Jan 3, 2012 at 6:19 PM

      Yep…the owners are the real ones to blame here because they let it get out of control…mostly to benefit themselves, the greedy basturds. The owners can stuff the Mitchell Report where the sun doesn’t shine as far as I am concerned.

  24. wood5050 - Jan 3, 2012 at 9:57 PM

    that,s why sport writers who never played the game shouldn’t have the right to vote on anything ,but the crappy stories they write

  25. Ted - Jan 4, 2012 at 10:03 AM

    Does anyone ever stop to consider? It’s called the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Honor and Saintliness. These guys ARE famous.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Giants, Royals took unique paths to WS
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. T. Ishikawa (2561)
  2. M. Bumgarner (2502)
  3. J. Shields (2148)
  4. Y. Molina (1947)
  5. L. Cain (1825)