I’m Just Saying
This has been done before, most often by Craig Calcaterra, but after reading a host of articles about why this writer or that writer is not voting for Jeff Bagwell, I’m compelled to offer the following comparison.
Morris, writing about Raul Ibanez last summer:
Thirdly, it’s time for me to begrudgingly acknowledge the elephant in the room: any aging hitter who puts up numbers this much better than his career averages is going to immediately generate suspicion that the numbers are not natural, that perhaps he is under the influence of some sort of performance enhancer. And since I was not able to draw any absolute parallels between his prodigously improved HR rate and his new ballpark’s hitter-friendliness, it would be foolish to dismiss the possibility that “other” performance enhancers could be part of the equation.
Sorry Raul Ibanez and Major League Baseball, that’s just the era that we are in — testing or no testing.
Dan Graziano, writing for AOL FanHouse.
No, I didn’t vote for Jeff Bagwell for the Hall of Fame. Yes, it’s for the reason everybody loves to hate. I don’t know for sure that Bagwell took steroids or any other performance-enhancing drugs to help him attain his Hall of Fame-caliber numbers. I don’t have evidence, like we do against Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro. But I’m suspicious. And this year, that suspicion was enough to make me send back my ballot without the Bagwell box checked.
Morris was publicly eviscerated for his comments, and the entire concept of blogging was condemned by many professional writers. If we’re really about being objective and consistent, I can see no reason why those who railed against Morris should not also now take to the airwaves to assault Graziano. The only difference between Morris’ piece and Graziano’s is that Morris provided alternative theories and presented steroids as simply one possible explanation, while Graziano simply says he thinks Bagwell cheated, and that’s that.
Morris’ piece is by far the more fair, balanced, and well-reasoned article of the two. If anyone embarrassed the writing profession with his veiled accusation, it was not the blogger, but instead, the professional journalist. Worse, Morris’ opinion had no effect on Ibanez’s life, while Graziano is a gate-keeper to the Hall Of Fame. If either of the two should be held to a higher standard, it should be the latter, no?
Intellectual honesty and consistency of opinion. That’s all we really want.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
Same thing happened with Damian Cox accusing Bautista.
It’s a shameless attempt to garner attention. It’s also their (writer’s) way of grasping at things with a holier-than-thou attitude. Maybe people should start questioning how writers managed to achieve their position for so long while not staying current or adapting to their profession.
I would almost prefer if a writer came out and said, “I enjoyed watching Morris play more than Bagwell, and that’s why I’m voting for him.” At least be honest with yourself.
Ah, the era of guilty until proven innocent.
I love when baseball writers channel their best Joe McCarthy.
Concur with Chopster.
Has it really come to this?
Now, any doubt is justification for being left off the HOF ballot?
What do you mean “Now”? The voting for the HOF has always been infested with arbitrary and vacuously-justified rules that exist only in the minds of certain voters (“X didn’t make it in on the first ballot so nobody should”, etc). PEDs just give them the most intellectually lazy justification of all.
Well the whole point of the article is that you don’t use the same standard of proof for giving someone an award as you do for convicting someone of a crime. It would be bizarre to argue that you should.
And “…while Graziano simply says he thinks Bagwell cheated”?
Absolutely not what Graziano said and it’s irresponsible to put it that way. He clearly says that he doesn’t know one way or the other. Suspicions can be rational grounds for taking action. When more evidence may be forthcoming and not voting him in has no real consequence for 14 more years, he prefers to wait for more evidence. This is a rational position. Recall the hounds Cameron.
I agree with Luke. I think it’s pretty crappy that this is affecting someone like Bagwell because there’s basically no evidence whatsoever that he was cheating. With that being said, writers don’t have to, nor should they, be using the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard when voting on the HOF. We use that standard in the criminal justice system because our society considers it a high priority not to put innocent ppl in jail. I don’t really think there’s equal injustice to not making it into the Hall.
Particularly, I think the standard/threshold on these questions should be pretty low. I mean, since we pretty much have acknowledged that some guys in the HOF cheated (i.e. Perry) and don’t kick them out, it seems unlikely that we would kick a player out of the HOF for admitted steroid use. So as a writer I may not want to elect Kevin Brown to the Hall for fear that 10 years down the road we find that most of his career was assisted by PED use, to add to the current evidence we have on him specifically, and then we’ve put a guy in the Hall we don’t want and can’t take back.
So once again, I agree with Dave anecdotally on this particular instance but let’s not compare this to “guilty until proven innocent” either.
Dear the BBWA, please kick Dan Graziano out, immediately.
FACT: Jeff Bagwell’s arc of HR totals is 100% natural looking, and looks identical to those in the HOF during the non-roid era. “Suspecting” without evidence is un-American and makes me sick to my stomach.
That’s a dangerous line of argument, though. If you want to support certain players because their arc was “natural looking,” you have to be willing to indict other players because their arc was not “natural looking.”
There’s just no evidence.
Not really; saying a data point is probably valid because it isn’t an outlier does not in any way necessitate asserting the reverse, that outliers must be invalid. There’s simply no logical connection there.
If you are asserting the presence of such a thing as an “outlier,” then you are asserting the existence of a true data trendline — that which they lie out from. But no one has yet offered a model by which players can be proven to be steroid users simply by analyzing their career stats. Similarly, no one has yet offered a model by which they can be exonerated.
Agree with Alex. Saying someone who is not an outlier definitely did not do steroids ignores the presence of luck, and thus rendering the data points to be absolute. Therefore, by proxy, he’s also arguing that any player who is an outlier did steroids.
THIS.
Kick him out.
Although, this further reinforces that I can’t wait for Barry Bonds and the HOF voting. That will be an exercise in epic FAIL and will so illustrate why certain members of the BBWAA should be removed of their posts, immediately.
Even if Bagwell DID use, plenty of career minor leaguers and absolutely bad players used and yet Bagwell-type numbers weren’t par for the course.
In other words, Bagwell’s a HOF caliber player regardless of whether something that is absolutely unproveable is true.
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphsw.aspx?playerid2=1274&playerid3=&playerid4=1011586&playerid5=1000001
So by your argument, A-Rod didn’t use steroids because his career performance arc looks identical to HOFs in the non-roid era?
I would vote Bagwell in the HOF. My view, one that is shared by many, is that the steroid-era needs to be viewed in a vacuum. The best from that era deserve to be in the hall just like the best players from the dead-ball era are in the hall. Their stats might be inflated but stats from other eras were deflated.
“I would vote Bagwell in the HOF. My view, one that is shared by many, is that the steroid-era needs to be viewed in a vacuum. The best from that era deserve to be in the hall just like the best players from the dead-ball era are in the hall. ”
My position exactly. Induct at historical rates the best players of the era.
Blue, that’s your position, as well as some other people’s positions. But this is not a cut/dry situation. Based on the comments, it seems like people simply can’t accept that others would have a different opinion than their own.
Personally, I would vote for him – but I can see why people would hold off for a little while.
Not only do I completely agree but I find it bizarre that this is not the consensus. Voters should simply assume that all players either did use or may have used steroids and simply compare their statistics to each other. Voters should not pass judgment. The problem with the steroids era is that it is difficult to compare statistics of a player from the 1940s to a player from the 1990s, but this is not a new problem for baseball statistics, as you pointed out in your reference to dead ball era statistics.
It’s also bizarre that voters are unable to recognize the tremendous financial incentive to use steroids during this time period and, even more so, that they are unwilling to acknowledge that, if they were in this player’s shoes, they would have very likely made exactly the same decision. Mark McGwire appears to be a very decent human being and he used them. The hypocrisy is obvious and, boy, can I not stand hypocrisy. Jason Giambi, if he has managed his money responsibly, has assured his children, his grandchildren, his great-grandchildren, and maybe beyond a high standard of living and a head start in the rat race known as life. Good for him.
One way to properly evaluate steroids era statistics is to make the same sorts of adjustments that we already make for ballparks. Surely this has been done? Sure, it’s not fair to players who never used steroids to adjust their statistics in this way, but what alternative is there? The alternative that seems to be the preferred method of current voters is a subjective determination of the likelihood that each individual player used steroids, and, if it is whimsically determined that an individual player used steroids, then that player is punished. And the obvious problem with this logic is the point of this and many other such articles.
If somebody has adjusted for steroids and has posted the results, I’d love to see them. If not, that would be a fun exercise for somebody. I’d love to see a revised WAR ranking system for all players, all time, and see where the steroids era players stand then. Many such players will still have WARs that are over the threshold of 50 or so, and then we can just go from there. Jeff Bagwell, for instance, surely still has a WAR of at least 65 or 70, which should make him a no-brainer first ballot HOFer. The list of players with WARs of at least 65 who aren’t in the Hall is an extremely short list: Bill Dahlen, Pete Rose, Lou Whitaker, Bobby Grich, Alan Trammell, and Ron Santo.
Not only are you asking man to not abuse or extend his power/authority. But you’re asking them to be self-limiting in that regard.
Bagwell has over a decade of eligibility before he falls off the ballet. I don’t see a problem with someone holding him off the ballet this year because of the suspicions. It’s not like he’s saying Bagwell can never make it into the Hall – he’s just saying that he won’t vote for him this year.
Bagwell might have had a normal HR arc, but he didn’t have a typical physique arc. Maybe he worked his a$$ off the natural way, maybe he cheated – who knows.
One thing is being left off of the article, as well as the comments: The blogger made his point about Ibanez simply because of his atypical production. Going into the season, the phillies were ridiculed for the contract they gave Ibanez. Next thing you know, he was outproducing even the most optimistic predictions. The blogger concluded that he might be using ‘help’ because the production came out of nowhere.
With Bagwell, the suspicion is due to his body. He had a body builder’s physique – not on the Lou Ferigno level, but he would be the biggest guy in plenty of gym’s. That’s what got people suspicious – not just his production.
I hate the “his physique changed so he used” line of thinking. Does nobody go to the gym and lift weights? You’ll be amazed at how much your physique can change in 4 months going 3 or 4 days a week with some weights and a protein shake. Now imagine that you are a professional athlete…your job is your body. He should be the best built guy in most gyms because that his job and his life. These guys can afford a state of the art gym, a top of the line personal trainer, a nutritionist, and a personal chief to cook all of his designed meals.
No proof is no proof. You can’t prove you didn’t take steroids.
As one that worked in a gym during my college days, I was amazed by how many people who were at the gym 3-4 days per week for a year, and their physique never changed.
For a guy in his early 30s to have a physique transformation, something drastic has to occur. Either it’s the greatest workout program ever combined with serious dedicated effort and committment to nutrition, or it’s “something else”. Given the proliference of the “something else” in that time period.
My 1st thought wouldn;t be “the hard work way”.
If 4 monthes of hard work in the gym were all it took to be a BMF, there’d be a whole lot of BMF’s walking around. There aren’t. Which is why steroids are so appealling, even for the everyday lifter.
Pick up an exercise physiology book and look at the rate of natural muscle gain that can be expected. Then look at the rate for a guy in hie early 30s.
Don’t say “4 monthes” unless you can demonstrate that it can and does regularly happen in 4 monthes.
I’m just sayin’.
A pound a week is A LOT in terms of adding muscle (not just adding weight, just adding muscle), and that’s for someon in their optimum growth time (early/mid 20s).
16 pounds of muscle in 4 monthes would be considered OUSTANDING progress and would dramatically improve your physique. Adding 30 pounds in one off-season would be inhuman.
Word. Up.
Me Likey. Alot.
That argument didn’t hold water when it was made a couple years ago…professional sportswriters have made these unfounded accusations for years. Unfortunately, Morris wasn’t prepared to fight back with that assertion at the time.
Ironically, the Ibanez thing was just a classic SSS issue. He ended up with pretty good numbers in ’09, but it really was just a hot start, and he’s been pretty mediocre since then.
When professional writers condem the concept of blogging, I smell fear. If you’re a professional writer working for a paper in a medium sized American city right now, you should realize the the blogosphere and craigslist are are about to put your paper out of business. Single professional writers cannot compete with a group of people willing to do their job for free, or nearly so.
That partisanship should play a role here is consequently no surprise. Professional writers aren’t about to undermine each other. They’re acting in their self-interest, and acts on behalf of one’s self-interest are often unfair. Honestly, I’d rather be a blogger who doesn’t get enough respect than a writer who’s probably going to lose his job in a world with little market for his skills before 2020.
Jeff Bagwell is no lock for the hall anyway. These players get paid millions of dollars, are idolizedby fans, have hot women throw themselves at them because they play baseball….now i’m supposed to feel sorry for Jeff Bagwell because he’s not getting in on the first ballot because he may or may not have done steroids?
“have hot women throw themselves at them because they play baseball”
Are you 15?
Don’t you watch Seinfeld?
“I’m Keith Hernandez. I’m a baseball player, I can do whatever I want.”
I hate this cartoon version of what it is like to be a professional baseball player.
Most professional baseball players never reach the big leagues. Of those that do, most never reach free agency, or they reach free agency because they are released by their team because they are not worth the major league minimum salary. Those that do reach free agency mostly sign short term contracts.
Only playeres in at last group are apt to match the average college graduate in terms of the amount of money they make as a baseball player. They travel constantly, and unlike ninth nine percent of Americans they will eventually be demoted from their job. Being a baseball player isn’t being a dish washer, but let’s not pretend like they’re mostly living out a (fifteen year old boy) fantasy of smoking pot rolled into one hundred dollar bills while getting blow jobs from swimsuit models.
“Being a baseball player isn’t being a dish washer, but let’s not pretend like they’re mostly living out a (fifteen year old boy) fantasy of smoking pot rolled into one hundred dollar bills while getting blow jobs from swimsuit models.”
No, but many of them are earning a living wage while getting a tumble with minor league groupies in their mobile homes!
Only free agents match the average college graduate? The average college graduate this year will make approximately $45-50K, while the Major League minimum is $400K.
Sure it’s tough in the minors– fair enough–but you can have your point w/o twisting the numbers.
It’s one of the perks i’m jealous of Jon Y.
Why does a writer for AOL Fanhouse have voting privileges?
Here, here. Fanhouse is the sports equivalent of People magazine. Who reads that and thinks they are actually taking in serious and reasoned opinions?
It’s hard to even compare the two. Morris offers a fair, detailed argument presenting evidence why he feels a player may have cheated. Graziano says “I think he cheated and that’s that.” The only difference between Graziano and the average sports radio mouth breathing caller is that someone granted Graziano a HOF vote.
Sorry to drag politics in but it’s the same as saying “I won’t vote for Obama because I am concerned his policies regarding healthcare, economics and foriegn policy will bankrupt the country” versus “I’m not voting for him because he’s a secret muslim.”
But since you did I would argue that both statements are equally silly.
You believe Obama is secretly a muslim?
I don’t know for sure, and I don’t really have evidence for or against this, but for a fact, Dan Graziano killed Elvis and got Arrested Development cancelled.
So during the 98 home run chase the main stream media was at fault for believing the fairy tale. Now they are at fault for not having hard evidence before raising an eyebrow in suspicion? We can’t have it both ways.
What’s the with the idea that you can leave a player off the ballot because they’ll get in eventually? That’s absolutely ridiculous. If they’ll get in eventually, why not just vote them in now? The self-righteous attitude that comes along with the, “they used steroids, so I’ll hold them off my ballot for a few years as punishment” argument is absolutely disgraceful. Who said these writers had the power to punish the players? It’s that holier than thou attitude.
Page, not everybody is holding off as a punishment. I’m sure plenty of writers are holding off so that they get more information. If they let him in and then it comes to light that they were heavy into ‘roids, you can’t kick them out of the hall. But if you hold off on voting him in until you believe he’s innocent, then you can vote him in later. I have no problem with writers feeling that way, even though I would vote for Bagwell in a heartbeat.
This is basically how I feel. The best comparator for Bagwell is Palmeiro. Palmeiro’s link to PED use is a drug test result, of course, but beyond that, he’s squeaky clean. There’s no evidence against Bagwell, but, like Palmeiro, no one would be shocked if something came out to the contrary.
Bagwell’s a victim of the era, and unfairly at that.
Well I was ranting more about writers who have voiced that they do in fact hold off as a kind of punishment. I totally agree with waiting for evidence to arrive (even though I dislike the guilty until proven innocent theory) because it’s only sensible. I just detest the writers who say, “alright, I’ll let you in, but not the first few times around because you were juicing”. It goes along with the self-imposed rules someone was talking about earlier (Player X won’t get in the first time because Player Y didn’t.).
Jeff Pearlman made these guys seem ethical today, and after going back and forth with him via email over, he allowed me to post a guest blog on Bagwell.
http://www.jeffpearlman.com/bagwell-iii/
Here’s hoping that Bagwell makes it in on the first ballot, (and all that didn’t vote for him can stuff it up their self-righteous asses).
I doubt he makes it in on the first go-around but he’ll get there eventually. Lots of guys dont make it as a 1st balloter so its not a big deal either way.
Great piece, I agree. Now personally, I do wonder how a hitter can go from 4 total HRs in the minors to being a slugger in the Majors. Also, he did a lot of weight lifting and I know from personal experience that steroids are around the weight room quite prevalently. He even lifted with McGwire and says himself he doesn’t object to a player getting help recovering from injuries and with his awful shoulder why wouldn’t he also seek that same help?
All that said, it is purely subjective and cannot be proven and should never be used when making a decision so important. I don’t have a HOF vote so my opinion doesn’t matter, but this guy needs to understand having a vote is a privilege and he is not respecting that privilege in my opinion.
He did hit a bunch of doubles in the minors and had good slugging numbers overall. And he was out of the minors by age 23. His HR totals are a pretty normal looking arc.
Yeah, its possible he juiced but thats the same for any other player in that era.
Great post, Dave.
According to hit tracker, Raul Ibanez by the numbers:
2006 (33 hr) = 399.3ft (AvgTruDist), 5NoDoubt/15PLenty/13JustEnough
2007 (21 hr) = 395.9, 4ND/9PL/6JE (2 not measured)
2008 (23 hr) = 400.0, 8ND/11PL/4JE
2009 (34 hr) = 402.0, 10ND/11PL/13JE
2010 (16 hr) = 402.6, 5ND/8PL/3JE
His avg distance doesn’t fluctuate too wildly and doesn’t correlate with number of home runs. By season starting with 2006, his ND+PL was 20,13(+1 or 2), 19, 21, 13. In 2010 his hr/fb was a career low and less than half of what it was in 2009 despite no change avg. in home run distance, BUT his pop-up % more than doubled. In both 30+ HR seasons, his “just enough” total sky-rocketed from mid-single digits to over a dozen. It seems to me not only does the evidence point away from steroid use, it actually supports that he was just really lucky in two different seasons.
Good post, but would it have killed you to have made the title “I’m just saying – Jeff Bagwell and the HoF”? That was probably the worst title I’ve ever seen for an article.
And you might just be the worst human being I’ve ever seen. Sad thing is I’ve never even seen you but know how horrible you are.
How good do you have to be to be still writing for AOL? Better than the writers at compuserve?
And shouldn’t there be more of a qualification to have a hall of fame vote than keeping a job as a baseball writer for ten years?