Why would voters want to “wait” on Jeff Bagwell?

20 Comments

I promise: this is my last Hall of Fame post for the day. If there is other big news I’m neglecting, please let me know. In the meantime:

I’ve seen a few references to voters wanting to “wait and see” on Jeff Bagwell’s Hall of Fame case. Or to give it more time. Or to think it over more or what have you.  While I’d normally applaud such thorough consideration, Bagwell strikes me as not a particularly close case for election. He should be in on the first try.  The same went for Roberto Alomar last year too. We get one like this every once in a while and when we do, I ask myself why people think we need to wait to pull the lever in the guy’s favor when, by almost any objective standard, the guy is far above typical Hall of Fame standards. With any given voter, I’m guessing it usually comes down to one of two explanations (or a combination of them):

  • People don’t want  to elect the guy on the first ballot because they consider that to be an extra-special honor and they see the guy as a less-than-inner-circle Hall of Famer; or
  • There was something about the guy, be it an incident in his career, or this manner with the media or something in his personal life that rubs the voter the wrong way.

In the past voters have explicitly said that they didn’t think someone was a first-ballot Hall of Famer and have deferred their vote for another year.  I find this totally unacceptable because the rules that accompany a voter’s ballot explicitly say that there is no distinction between first and later-ballot inductees.  I think some people will always withhold “the honor” of a first-ballot election, however, because the voting pool is huge and unwieldy and some of them don’t have a lick of sense.

The second category can be anything.  I think Alomar fell into it with some because of the spitting incident. I wonder if Jeff Bagwell falls into that category because people want to wait and see if his name comes up in association with steroids.

No one has accused Bagwell of juicing that I know of. He certainly hasn’t come up as part of any of the official steroids investigations or reports. No Hall of Fame voter has said that they won’t vote for him because they suspect he took PEDs. But at the same time, he was an elite power hitter in the 1990s with big-ass arms.  Unless you’re Frank Thomas and you’ve been highly vocal about the matter, at some point someone is going to suspect you of something if you fit that description. I wonder if any Hall voters suspect Bagwell, even if they’re too polite to admit their suspicion.

I take an innocent-until-proven guilty approach to such matters. And as I said before, I don’t think PED associations should disqualify someone from the Hall of Fame even if they are proven guilty. But I’ve been accused of being a steroid apologist in the past, probably with some good reason.  Others aren’t as forgiving as I am, however, and I wonder if they aren’t (silently) holding Bagwell’s candidacy in abeyance to see if history catches up to their intuition.

Noah Syndergaard is concerned about climate change

Getty Images
Leave a comment

Mets starter Noah Syndergaard has been on the disabled list for most of the season so it’s not like “sticking to baseball” is an option for him. The man has a lot of time on his hands. And, given that he’s from Texas, he is obviously paying attention to the flooding and destruction brought by Hurricane Harvey and its fellow storms in recent weeks.

Last night the self-described “Texan Republican” voiced concern over something a lot of Republicans don’t tend to talk about much openly: climate change and the Paris Accords:

The existence of Karma and its alleged effects are above my pay grade, but the other part he’s talking about is the Trump Administration’s decision, announced at the beginning of June, to pull out of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement on climate change mitigation. Withdrawal from it was something Trump campaigned on in 2016 on the basis that “The Paris accord will undermine the economy,” and “put us at a permanent disadvantage.” The effective date for withdrawal is 2020, which Syndergaard presumably knows, thus the reference to Karma.

Trump and Syndergaard are certainly entitled to their views on all of that. It’s worth noting that climate experts and notable think tanks like the Brookings Institution strongly disagree with Trump’s position with respect to tradeoffs and impacts, both economic and environmental. At the same time it’s difficult to find much strong sentiment in favor of pulling out of the Paris Agreement outside of conservative political outlets, who tend to find themselves in the distinct minority when it comes to climate change policy.

I’m not sure what a poll of baseball players would reveal about their collective views on the matter, but we now have at least one datapoint.

 

Video: Luis Perdomo and Wil Myers made a fantastic play last night

MLB.com
Leave a comment

There are a lot of things we dislike about instant replay. The delays. The way in which it has turned that little millisecond in which a player bounces off the bag on a slide into a reviewable thing. The silliness of making it a game involving a finite number of manager challenges. It’s not a perfect system, obviously.

But it’s worth it’s doing what it’s designed to do and correcting thing when a play is called wrong on the field. That’s especially true when it’s a great play like the one Luis Perdomo and Wil Myers of the Padres made in last night’s game against the Dbacks.

Perdomo — channeling Mark Buehrle – deflected a grounder off his leg but recovered and flipped it to first baseman Wil Myers, who stretched to get the out. The first base ump called the runner safe. Understandably, I think, as in real time it really did look like Myers came off the bag. If the play happened before replay there may have been a half-assed argument about it, but no one would rave about an injustice being done. On review, however, Myers’ stretch was shown to have been effective and Perdomo’s flip vindicated.

Nice play all around: