Jeff Bagwell - HOF?

Kirby Puckett, meet Jim Rice.

 

All four of those mentioned deserve to be in, based on excellent numbers along with the uncertainty that will cloak offensive inductees tthe next 15-20 years.

 

I understand the first part, though the voters seem to disagree with you. What does the 2nd half have to do with them? Should it also help borderline candidates from the 60s & 70s?

 

Just pointing out a fact. Not stating an opinion one way or another here.

 

If offensive players of this era are all suspected, possibly lesser players because of steroids, I think that brings those people back into consideration.

Like how I believe that 275 wins will be the new 300, since, after Clemens, Maddux and Glavine, there may not be another one for 20 years.

 

Again, I don't know what you're talking about. No one who ever played with Jim Rice was accused of using steroids, what does it have to do with him? Does Ken Boyer get no-steroids points too?

 

As long as you are OK with a few years with no one getting in.

Then, I guess I'm fine with it.

 

Exactly.

There is definitely a case to be made against Bagwell as well as for him. Boots, my problem with your approach is the criteria you seemed to be basing your opinion on.

To say a guy isn't a Hall of Famer just because one team underestimated the guy's abilities and traded him away while he was a minor leaguer is absolutely ridiculous.

The point that the Red Sox also once felt Babe Ruth was expendable applies fairly well here. The Red Sox also thought they were better off using one of the most dominant hitters in baseball history as a pitcher. As great as he was on the mound, does anybody here actually think he should have stuck with pitching all the way through his career?

The only other argument you were making was that he is part of the steroid era. But there is no evidence whatsoever that Bagwell used any performance enhancers. Are you just going to make the assumption that he cheated because of the era he played in?

Those are both ridiculous arguments and if they are the true basis of your opinion that he is not a Hall of Famer, then you really should stick to exploring your neighor's naughty areas and leave the voting (I'm assuming you are telling the truth about having a vote) to people who are willing to take a reasonable approach to the process.

Now if you want to say he wasn't dominant enough in his era, fine. If you want to say his statistics were inflated because he played in a time of offensive dominance, I can see that one, too. Those make sense. The points you were making before do not.

 

That seems to be presuming that Puckett is in because he was cooperative with the media and Rice is excluded because he wasn't. Neither is correct.

 

Right.

Say good night, Gracie.