Numbers on Steroids: Jeff Bagwell

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Numbers on Steroids is a look at baseball players during the 90s to see if anything screams out at you.

It's time to look at one of my favorite cases, Jeff Bagwell to see if the numbers scream at you. We're going to look at his per game out puts rather than season totals. This will give you a better idea of what he averaged in his prime and the tale off at the end.

Per Game Says: Massive Increase in 94, Massive Decrease in 04? Hmmm....

Career Averages Says: Wow that slugging percentage sure crashes starting in 01.

Explaining It Away

Here's our attempt to explain away the stats. Obviously not all rookies explode onto the seen in full force. Some take a few years to jump up and Bagwell did just that. The massive jump in numbers in 1994 could also be the benefit of the shortened strike season and the benefit of not going through any prolonged slump that year. The numbers and avearages fluctuate some over his prime years but nothing out of the ordinary and then plummet in 2004, which coincides with steroid testing. It also coincides with Bagwell's shoulder practically falling off, and his inability to lift his arm above his head. That probably doesn't help the batting totals much.


Bagwell certainly had the look and feel of a Steroids guy. Prospect at third base that all of a sudden gets way too big to play the Hot Corner and moves across the diamond. He becomes injury plagued at the end of his career after having some supreme power years.

If it Walks Like a Duck and Quacks Like a Duck... Than It's Probably a Duck

Posted by Simon at 11:58 AM   Digg! submit to reddit BallHype: hype it up!


You do know that it was not because Bagwell was "too big" to play third... He was moved to first in order to get to the majors faster.... if he was "too big" to play third, then what was Caminiti ever doing at the hot corner?

Anonymous said...
3:51 PM  

Baseball is full of guys having fluke years. Is Bagwell a 50/175/
.375 hitter? No. But he is a 30/120/.290-.300 guy all day long. He was a great hitter who had one season where he played out of his mind. In all these Fed reports and steroid dealers rolling for the Feds, not once do you hear about Bagwell.

Anonymous said...
4:09 PM  

Boy, this is silly and slanderous. Bagwell's number's show no anomalies at all. He won ROY in 1991 with a very good season and got progressively better, peaked in '94, had SEVERAL good seasons after that and that his numbers dropped as his shoulder condition worsened due to ARTHRITIS. A condition that runs in his family. I hate seeing a good guy get his name soiled with something as silly as this.

Anonymous said...
6:35 PM  

When Bagwell came up Caminitti was the best fielding 3rd baseman in the National League. Bagwell had a great spring his rookie season and Art Howe was getting his bat in the lineup. Considering your speculation without presenting any evidence is just pure slander.

Anonymous said...
8:33 PM  

The spike/topping off of his numbers circa 1994 coincides with him getting a broken wrist from a hit-by-pitch. I believe it happened three years in a row, and that he was forced to modify his stance and swing, as well as wear large batting gloves.

Anonymous said...
7:08 PM  

This artcle has to be one of the most idiotic pieces I have ever read!

Anonymous said...
10:11 AM  

Are you kidding me? Not only is this slander, the so-called proof you tried to present is absolute crap. He didn't get too big for third base. He agreed to switch because he wanted to play sooner. The Astros had Ken Caminiti at third and if you remember, he WAS using steroids so your claim that Bagwell was too big is just wrong. The decline in his career couldn't just be due to injuries. Oh no! It has to be steroids. Anyone that does well must be juiced. Give me a break! People like you should not be allowed to express your opinion since you have proven that you like to spread lies. People like you are a cancer to society. In the future, maybe you would be better served by keeping your f-ing mouth shut!

Tony said...
1:34 PM  

I provide no proof... make no case about providing proof. And its not really slanderous. It's a pure opinion piece and you could easily say the stats / muscle growth are a source of hardwork and dedication. For which I hope you are correct.

Simon said...
12:41 PM  

And honestly if I was a HOF voter, he would be on my ballot because there is no proof he did anything even if he is one player whom you have to be suspicious about.

Simon said...
12:42 PM  

I also had a post in which I said he should be in the Hall...

Simon said...
6:45 PM  

Post a Comment

Advertise Here!