Showing posts with label Jeff Bagwell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeff Bagwell. Show all posts

Monday, January 10, 2011

Pearlman Continues to Make Reckless Accusations


There are few baseball topics that actually make my blood boil.  The accusatory nature in which certain members of the mainstream baseball media make assumptions about who did or did not do steroids happens to be one of them.   Jeff Pearlman of Sports Illustrated is famous for his scorch the earth anti-steroid rhetoric, and he certainly didn't downplay his rhetoric with Mike Silva of New York Baseball Digest. 
For the record, Pearlman reiterated his position on Jeff Bagwell saying he was “so certain he used steroids from being around that team, era, and researching his Clemens book.” He would go on to tell me that if Bagwell didn’t use then the “world is flat.”  When I asked him if Craig Biggio falls into the same category as Bagwell because he played for Houston, a team that he said earlier in the show was hotbed for PED use, he said yes.
Those are some pretty ballsy accusations.  It would be one thing if either Bagwell or Biggio had tested positive for steroids; been implicated in the Mitchell Report; or been fingered as users by Jose Canseco or another player.   They haven't.  His entire argument against Bagwell is that he (a) was an avid weight lifter and therefore looked like a steroid user; (b) became a power hitter in the majors despite only hitting six home runs in 205 games in the minors; and (c) played with Clemens for three seasons.  If that isn't the thinnest argument in the world, it's certainly one of them. 

First of all, there are a lot of avid weight lifters around that don't use steroids.  Bagwell, as a professional athlete, has the benefit of having a personal trainer, additional free time to workout, dietitians, and access to the best legal (and I stress legal) supplements where most of us non-professional athletes do not.  Additionally, as a professional athlete, he likely has a genetic predisposition to be able to build muscle mass at a faster rate than the typical human.  That doesn't make him a steroid user, that just makes him genetically gifted.

Secondly, despite only hitting six home runs in 205 minor league games, Bagwell still managed to hit 48 doubles and slugging .436 in 859 plate appearances.  As the more knowledgeable baseball fans know, players with raw power that hit for a lot of doubles in their early-20s in the minor and major leagues, frequently develop the ability to hit for power in their mid-to-late-20s.*  Not surprisingly, this is precisely what happened with Bagwell.  During his age-23 through age-25 seasons he hit 15, 18, and 20 home runs.  In 1994, his age-26 season, he finally harnessed his power potential by breaking out with 39 home runs.  He continued to hit at an incredibly high level through the end of his prime in 2001 (his age-33 season), and held on as a better than average player for the next three before succumbing to injuries in 2005.  This doesn't appear to be an irregular development and aging pattern.  Each stage of career followed a pattern typical of Hall of Fame caliber player (pre-steroid era).  While this doesn't mean he didn't use steroids, it certainly doesn't hurt his case.

* Power is typically the last of the five tools to develop.  You would think that someone who writes about baseball for a living.  I guess not. 

Lastly, I'm not sure how simply playing with Clemens justifies Pearlman's accusations against either Bagwell or Biggio.  I'm also not sure how the Houston Astros clubhouse could be considered a "hot bed for PED use" when only two players from the Clemens era (Clemens and Pettitte) were either named in the Mitchell Report or had credible accusations made against them.  Perhaps he's going all the way back to the early to mid-1990s when Ken Caminiti manned third base for the Astros?   I'm not sure.  Still, it's a weak connection at best.  Players like Carney Lansford, Walt Weiss, and Dave Stewart played with McGwire and Canseco during those great A's teams during the late-80s and early-90s.  You don't see anyone making accusations against them just because they played with two admitted steroid users.  We also don't hear accusations against Rickey Henderson who not only had an incredible physique, but also played the game at an incredibly high level for 15-20 years.  I hope Rickey didn't do steroids, but there's no way to know for sure.  If he did, I wouldn't think any less of him.  I just wanted to point out that writers pick and choose, almost without rhyme or reason, who they feel is guilty of steroid use.

As I mentioned to Kevin (a commenter) under Corrye's piece on Jeff Bagwell's Hall of Fame predicament, the thing that bothers me most about the steroid situation is that there are far too many BBWAA members that are not only serving as the morality police, but also speculating about potential users based on anecdotal and/or circumstantial evidence. At the same time, they've created a line of distinction between two classes of drugs--steroids and amphetamines. Using one is considered acceptable by the BBWAA because it's not considered to be a PED (which it is), while using the other is considered to be a crime against humanity.  Personally, I don't see a distinction.  Amphetamines give players an additional boost of energy, which allows them to handle the rigors of a 162 game season.  Otherwise, they would fall prey to more frequent slumps and exhaustion.  If that's not performance enhancing, I'm not sure what is.

These misdirected steroid accusations are not only unproductive and reckless, but unethical.  If any baseball writer (in particular Pearlman) has hard evidence proving that any player (not just Bagwell or Biggio) used performance enhancing drugs, they need to be forthcoming with that information.  Withholding said information under the guise of innuendo and fear of legal action is both unacceptable and obstructive.  As I've mentioned numerous times before, outside of the few players who've admitted using, I don't know who did or did not use steroids.  Furthermore, I don't know what effect steroids had on each player's performance, nor do I claim to know.  That's the difference between Jeff Pearlman and me--not the only difference, I hope.  Whereas I prefer to wait until I have as much information as possible before making an informed, rational opinion, he'd rather make baseless claims with nothing to back it up. 

Saturday, January 8, 2011

Jeff Bagwell Gets a RAW DEAL from HOF voters


There's a great line at the beginning of the campy 80s flick Raw Deal starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. When his wife throws a cake at his head and misses, Ah-nuld turns to his wife and says, "You should not drink and bake."

Some of the sports writers who didn't cast a vote for Jeff Bagwell for the Baseball Hall of Fame this past week shouldn't drink and vote. I mean that's the only explanation I can think of why they wouldn't have voted for him. They had to have been severely intoxicated.
For 15 years the first baseman known to his teammates as "Bagpipes" dominated the position like no one since Willie McCovey. While 449 HR is impressive, to me what stands out is his SLG of .540 and a lifetime OBP of .408. Furthermore, Bagwell was an incredibly patient batter at the plate especially as his career progressed, walking a league leading 149 times in 1999. While not particularly speedy on the basepads, Bagwell nonetheless managed to score 1,517 runs in his career with the Astros and accumulate 2,314 hits. And even with 1500+ career RBI, Bagwell demonstrated he could hit for average as well, boasting a .297 lifetime batting average.

Aside from winning the Rookie of the Year in 1991 and the MVP in 1994, Bagwell was a solid defensive first baseman and a three time Silver Slugger Award winner. Bill James (you know the Bill James of the New Historical Baseball Abstract) rated him the fourth best first baseman of all time. Let me state that again in Kanye West terms: THE FOURTH BEST FIRST BASEMAN OF ALL TIME! OF ALL TIME!

Why oh why then does this guy get a measly 41.7% of the votes for the HOF????

The answer is of course, steroids, and it is the worst answer since former President Bill Clinton said he didn't inhale. People who make their living as professional writers in newspapers and magazines have apparently forgotten what Connecticut men's basketball coach Jim Calhoun already knows: get your facts right.

But hey, since when in the last twenty years or so has any writer let the facts get in the way of a good story? Well here are some facts I'd like to lay out for the sports writers of America who didn't vote for Bagwell for the HOF because they suspected him of using steroids:

FACT: Jeff Bagwell has never tested positive for steroids.
FACT: Jeff Bagwell has never been linked to the Mitchell Report.
FACT: Jeff Bagwell never hit 50 HR in a season.
FACT: Jeff Bagwell has never been linked to steroid use either directly or indirectly.

It is fairly obvious that the baseball writers in America are clearly jaded over the use of steroids during the 90s and early 2000s. Though even I don't understand that because so many of them obviously turned a blind eye to the problem for years. Let's face it these are the same writers who voted Barry Bonds MVP four years in a row. And now they are taking the moral high ground and directing their misguided effrontery on Jeff Bagwell?

What a bunch of hypocrites.

The writers have nothing more than a hunch when it comes to Bagwell. They are "outraged" over being "duped" during the 90s and 2000s and now they are making other people pay for it. As New York Times writer Tyler Kepner pointed out the whole thing is just intellectually dishonest. If their attitude is that anyone who played during the steroid era shouldn't be in the HOF, then where was their righteous indignation three years ago when they voted Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn into the HOF? They clearly didn't believe either one of them did but what proof do they have? They have nothing more than a "hunch" that Ripken and Gwynn didn't use steroids. For the record I don't think Gwynn or Ripken did steroids but I don't know for sure. Neither do the sports writers, and that is the whole point. This situation cuts both ways. Sportswriters cannot arbitrarily vote someone into the HOF or withhold a vote simply because "they have a feeling." It is disingenuous, illogical, and shows a marked lack of integrity.

You know why I hate the steroid issue so much? It is not because of the players that used them. It is the legacy that the rest of us have to deal with. As a result of their actions, I am forced to write articles like this one defending Jeff Bagwell because too many sportswriters in America are afraid every baseball player is the Boogieman. THAT'S what I hate the most.

The real losers in this whole situation are people like Jeff Bagwell. Unfortunately in this day and age where we have social networking, digital media, and a news station that somehow feels the need to proclaim themselves "fair and balanced," the sordid details of everyone's lives are out there for the world to see. What's worse is that people in the media will spin that information any way they want to. As a consequence the facts get lost in the shuffle and we end up with a ballot like we did on Thursday.

To all the writers who voted for Jeff Bagwell and didn't allow the court of public opinion and various news media outlets to cloud your judgement I say bravo. To the rest of you kangaroo court, morally relativistic, small minded producers of pseudo-intellectual sports pablum I saw good day.

And to "Bagpipes"? Don't sweat it Jeffy-boy, the votes, the votes will be calling you to the glen of Cooperstown someday.