The Bohr-Einstein debates is a popular name given to what was actually a series of epistemological challenges presented by Albert Einstein against what has come to be called the standard or Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Since Einstein's closest friend and primary interlocutor in the "school" of Copenhagen was the physicist Niels Bohr, and since it was Bohr who provided answers to most of the challenges presented by Einstein, what was actually a friendly and fruitful series of exchanges of ideas has taken on the label of a "debate".
Einstein's position with respect to quantum mechanics is significantly more subtle and open-minded than it has often been portrayed in technical manuals and popular science articles. Be that as it may, his constant and powerful criticisms of the quantum "orthodoxy" compelled the defenders of that orthodoxy to sharpen and refine their understanding of the philosophical and scientific implications of their own theory.
Einstein's natural reference point, as mentioned above, was always Niels Bohr, as the person who, more than other members of the School of Copenhagen, was animated by a particular interest for the philosophical and epistemological aspects of the theory and drew inspiration from the surprising aspects of the microscopic world in order to present daring hypotheses about reality and about knowledge, such as his idea of complementarity. These two giants of scientific thought nurtured a profound respect for each other and they were both extremely attentive to the acute and penetrating observations of the other. The debate is not only of historical interest: as we will see Einstein's attacks often provoked reactions on the part of Bohr which called into question the crucial elements of the formalization of QM and of its interpretation. This articulated process, in which many other important scientists, from Ehrenfest and Heisenberg to Born and from Schrödinger to John von Neumann, took part, brought more and more detailed attention on certain particularly problematic points of the theory.

The principle of indeterminacy applied to time and energy
At the sixth Congress of Solvay in 1930, the indeterminacy relation just discussed was Einstein's target of criticism. His idea contemplates the existence of an experimental apparatus which was subsequently designed by Bohr in such a way as to emphasize the essential elements and the key points which he would use in his response.
Einstein considers a box (called Einstein's box; see figure) containing electromagnetic radiation and a clock which controls the opening of a shutter which covers a hole made in one of the walls of the box. The shutter uncovers the hole for a time Δt which can be chosen arbitrarily. During the opening, we are to suppose that a photon, from among those inside the box, escapes through the hole. In this way a wave of limited spatial extension has been created, following the explanation given above. In order to challenge the indeterminacy relation between time and energy, it is necessary to find a way to determine with an adequate precision the energy that the photon has brought with it. At this point, Einstein turns to his celebrated relation between mass and energy of special relativity: . From this it follows that knowledge of the mass of an object provides a precise indication about its energy. The argument is therefore very simple: if one weighs the box before and after the opening of the shutter and if a certain amount of energy has escaped from the box, the box will be lighter. The variation in mass multiplied by will provide precise knowledge of the energy emitted. Moreover, the clock will indicate the precise time at which the event of the particle's emission took place. Since, in principle, the mass of the box can be determined to an arbitrary degree of accuracy, the energy emitted can be determined with a precision ΔE as accurate as one desires. Therefore, the product ΔEΔt can be rendered less than what is implied by the principle of indeterminacy.
The idea is particularly acute and the argument seemed unassailable. It's important to consider the impact of all of these exchanges on the people involved at the time. Leon Rosenfeld, a scientist who had participated in the Congress, described the event several years later:
It was a real shock for Bohr...who, at first, could not think of a solution. For the entire evening he was extremely agitated, and he continued passing from one scientist to another, seeking to persuade them that it could not be the case, that it would have been the end of physics if Einstein were right; but he couldn't come up with any way to resolve the paradox. I will never forget the image of the two antagonists as they left the club: Einstein, with his tall and commanding figure, who walked tranquilly, with a mildly ironic smile, and Bohr who trotted along beside him, full of excitement...The morning after saw the triumph of Bohr.
The "triumph of Bohr" consisted in his demonstrating, once again, that Einstein's subtle argument was not conclusive, but even more so in the way that he arrived at this conclusion by appealing precisely to one of the great ideas of Einstein: the principle of equivalence between gravitational mass and inertial mass. Bohr showed that, in order for Einstein's experiment to function, the box would have to be suspended on a spring in the middle of a gravitational field. In order to obtain a measurement of weight, a pointer would have to be attached to the box which corresponded with the index on a scale. After the release of a photon, weights could be added to the box to restore it to its original position and this would allow us to determine the weight. But in order to return the box to its original position, the box itself would have to be measured. The inevitable uncertainty of the position of the box translates into an uncertainty in the position of the pointer and of the determination of weight and therefore of energy. On the other hand, since the system is immersed in a gravitational field which varies with the position, according to the principle of equivalence the uncertainty in the position of the clock implies an uncertainty with respect to its measurement of time and therefore of the value of the interval Δt. A precise evaluation of this effect leads to the conclusion that the relation , cannot be violated.

Einstein's second criticism

Main article: Hidden variable theories Second stage

Main article: Photon entanglement Third stage
In 1935 Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen developed an argument, published in the magazine Physics Review with the title Is the quantum description of physical reality complete?, based on an entangled state of two particles. Before coming to this argument, it is necessary to formulate another hypothesis that comes out of Einstein's work in relativity: the idea of locality. The elements of physical reality which are objectively possessed cannot be influenced instantaneously at a distance.
The argument of EPR can be summarized as follows:
1) Consider a system of two photons which at time t are located, respectively, in the spatially distant regions A and B and which are also in the entangled state of polarization described above:

2) At time t the photon in region A is tested for vertical polarization. Suppose that the result of the measurement is that the photon passes through the filter. According to the reduction of the wave packet, the result is that, at time t+dt, the system becomes:



3) At this point, the observer in A who carried out the first measurement on photon 1, without doing anything else that could disturb the system or the other photon, can predict with certainty that photon 2 will pass a test of vertical polarization. From assumption (R), it follows that photon 2 possesses an element of physical reality: that of having a vertical polarization.
4) According to the assumption of locality, it cannot have been the action carried out in A which created this element of reality for photon 2. Therefore, we must conclude that the photon possessed the property of being able to pass the vertical polarization test before and independently of the measurement of photon 1.
5) At time t, the observer in A could have decided to carry out a test of polarization at 45°, obtaining a certain result, for example, that the photon passes the test. In that case, he could have concluded that photon 2 turned out to be polarized at 45°. Alternatively, if the photon did not pass the test, he could have concluded that photon 2 turned out to be polarized at 135°. Combining one of these alternatives with the conclusion reached in 4, it seems that photon 2, before the measurement took place, possessed both the property of being able to pass with certainty a test of vertical polarization and the property of being able to pass with certainty a test of polarization at either 45° or 135°. These properties are incompatible according to the formalism.
6) Since natural and obvious requirements have forced the conclusion that photon 2 simultaneously possesses incompatible properties, this means that, even if it is not possible to determine these properties simultaneously and with arbitrary precision, they are nevertheless possessed objectively by the system. But quantum mechanics denies this possibility and it is therefore an incomplete theory.

The argument of EPR
Bohr's response to this fascinating and elegant argument was published, five months later than the original publication of EPR, in the same magazine Physical Review and with the exact same title as the original. The crucial point of Bohr's answer is distilled in a passage which he later had republished in Paul Arthur Schilpp's book Albert Einstein, scientist-philosopher in honor of the seventieth birthday of Einstein. Bohr attacks assumption (R) of EPR by stating:
the statement of the criterion in question is ambiguous with regard to the expression "without disturbing the system in any way". Naturally, in this case no mechanical disturbance of the system under examination can take place in the crucial stage of the process of measurement. But even in this stage there arises the essential problem of an influence on the precise conditions which define the possible types of prediction which regard the subsequent behaviour of the system...their arguments do not justify their conclusion that the quantum description turns out to be essentially incomplete...This description can be characterized as a rational use of the possibilities of an unambiguous interpretation of the process of measurement compatible with the finite and uncontrollable interaction between the object and the instrument of measurement in the context of quantum theory.
As John Bell later pointed out, this passage is almost unintelligible. What does Bohr mean, Bell asks, by the specification "mechanical" that is used to refer to the "disturbances" that Bohr maintains should not be taken into consideration? What is meant by the expression "an influence on the precise conditions" if not that different measurements in A provide different information on the system in B? This fact is not only admitted but is an essential part of the argument of EPR. Lastly, what could Bohr have meant by the expression "uncontrollable interaction between the object and the measuring apparatus", considering that the central point of the argument of EPR is the hypothesis that, if one accepts locality, only the part of the system in A can be disturbed by the process of measurement and that, notwithstanding this fact, this process provides precise information on the part of the system in B? Is Bohr already contemplating the possibility of "spooky action at a distance?" If so, why not declare it explicitly? If one abandons the assumption of locality, the argument of EPR obviously collapses immediately.
In any case, very few among the illustrious protagonists of the debate on the foundations of quantum theory were able to grasp the true sense of the profound analysis of Einstein. Pauli dismissed it with a few words and Born completely misinterpreted it. But Einstein's defeat represents one of the highest points of scientific research in the first half of the twentieth century because it called attention to an element of quantum theory, quantum non-locality, which is absolutely central to our modern understanding of the physical world.

Fourth stage

Afshar's experiment
Complementarity
Copenhagen interpretation
Double-slit experiment
EPR paradox
Quantum eraser
Schrödinger's cat
Uncertainty principle
Wheeler's delayed choice experiment

The Insurance Hall of Fame is an international list of business leaders in the insurance field. It was founded in 1957 and now has more than 100 inductees; it is kept by the University of Alabama in the United States. Its first inductee was Benjamin Franklin presumably for his efforts in establishing fire insurance companies in Philadelphia. The founder of GEICO, Leo Goodwin, Sr. is also on the list.

Independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) is a term for an axiom of decision theory and various social sciences. Although exact formulations of IIA differ, intentions of the usages are similar in attempting to provide a rational account of individual behavior or aggregation of individual preferences.
IIA is also known as "Chernoff's condition" or Sen's property α (alpha)
Under one common formulation, the axiom states that:
If A is preferred to B out of the choice set {A,B}, then introducing a third alternative X, thus expanding the choice set to {A,B,X}, must not make B preferred to A.
In other words, whether A or B is better should not be changed by the availability of X, which is irrelevant to the choice between A and B. This formulation appears in bargaining theory, theories of individual choice, and voting theory. It is controversial for two reasons: first, some theorists find it too strict an axiom; second, experiments by Amos Tversky, Daniel Kahneman, and others have shown that human behaviour rarely adheres to this axiom.
A distinct formulation of IIA is that of social choice theory:
If A is selected over B out of the choice set {A,B} by a voting rule for given voter preferences of A, B, and an unavailable third alternative X, then B must not be selected over A by the voting rule if only preferences for X change.
In other words, whether A or B is selected should not be affected by a change in the vote for an unavailable X, which is thus irrelevant to the choice between A and B. Kenneth Arrow (1951) shows the impossibility of aggregating individual preferences ("votes") satisfying IIA and certain other apparently reasonable conditions.

Voting theory
A related criterion proposed by H. P. Young and A. Levenglick is called local independence of irrelevant alternatives. It says that if one candidate (X) wins an election, and a new alternative (Y) is added, X will still win the election if Y is not in the Smith set. In other words, the outcome of the election is independent of alternatives which are not in the Smith set. Note that this neither implies nor is implied by the independence of irrelevant alternatives criterion; in fact, the two are mutually exclusive.
No deterministic ranked methods satisfy IIA, but local IIA is satisfied by some methods which always elect from the Smith set, such as ranked pairs and Schulze method.

Local independence
Many voting theorists believe that IIA is too strong a condition. The majority criterion is incompatible with IIA. Consider
7 votes for A > B > C
6 votes for B > C > A
5 votes for C > A > B
Without loss of generality, suppose a voting system satisfying the majority criterion chooses A. If B drops out of the race, the remaining votes will be:
7 votes for A > C
11 votes for C > A
and C will win under the majority criterion, even though the change (B dropping out) concerned an "irrelevant" alternative candidate who did not win in the original circumstance. This is an example of the spoiler effect.
Some text of this article is derived with permission from http://condorcet.org/emr/criteria.shtml

IIA in social choice
The independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) in econometrics is a property of the multinomial logit and conditional logit models in econometrics; outcomes that could theoretically violate this IIA (such as the outcome of multicandidate elections or any choice made by humans) may make multinomial logit and conditional logit invalid estimators.
IIA implies that adding another alternative or changing the characteristics of a third alternative does not affect the relative odds between the two alternatives considered. This implication is not realistic for applications with similar alternatives. Many examples have been constructed to illustrate this problem, including Beethoven/Debussy (Debreu, 1960; Tversky, 1972), Bicycle/Pony (Luce and Suppes, 1965), and Red Bus/Blue Bus (McFadden, 1974).
Consider the Red Bus/Blue Bus example. Commuters initially face a decision between two modes of transportation: car and red bus. Suppose that a consumer chooses between these two options with equal probability, 0.5, so that the odds equal 1. Now suppose a third mode, blue bus, is added. Assuming bus commuters do not care about the color of the bus, consumers are expected to choose between bus and car still with equal probability. But IIA implies that this is not the case: the probability of commuters that take each of the three modes equals one third. (Based on Wooldridge 2002, pp. 501-2.)
Many modeling advances have been motivated by a desire to alleviate the concerns raised by IIA. Generalized extreme value (McFadden, 1978), Conditional probit (also called multinomial probit) and mixed logit are alternative models for nominal outcomes that do not violate IIA, but often have assumptions of their own that may be difficult to meet or are computationally infeasible. The conditional probit model has as a disadvantage that it makes calculation of maximum likelihood infeasible for more than five alternatives as it involves multiple integrals. IIA can also be relaxed by specifying a hierarchical model, ranking the choice alternatives. The most popular of these is called the nested logit model (McFadden 1984).
Generalized extreme value and multinomial probit models possess another property, the Invariant Proportion of Substitution (Steenburgh, 2007), which suggests similarly counterintuitive individual choice behavior.

IIA in econometrics

Examples

Approval voting

Borda count

Instant-runoff voting

Kemeny-Young method

Minimax Condorcet

Plurality voting system

Range voting

Two-round system

Many diseases in humans are thought to be directly or indirectly related to nutrition, These include, but are not limited to, deficiency diseases, caused by a lack of essential nutrients.
Additionally, several diseases are directly or indirectly impacted by dietary habits, and require very close attention to the nutrient content of food.

Overnutrition (eating too much)

Vitamin poisoning Vitamins

Iron overload disorder Microminerals and Macrominerals

Deficiencies (eating too little)

protein-energy malnutrition

• kwashiorkor
  marasmus
  Mental retardation

Licentiate of Canon Law (J.C.L) is the title of an intermediate graduate degree with canonical effects in the Catholic Church offered by pontifical universities and ecclesiastical faculties of canon law.
The usual prerequisites for a license in canon law are that a candidate must have the bachelor of sacred theology degree (S.T.B.) master of divinity degree (M.Div.), master of arts (M.A.) in Catholic theology, or juris doctor (J.D.) and undergraduate level education in Catholic theology and scholastic philosophy. In order for a candidate to become a Licentiate of Canon Law, he or she must complete in a three-year program of canonical studies, pass an oral exam, and write a thesis on a particular theme that demonstrates the students ability to function professionally in the field.
The license in canon law is required for a person to teach canon law in a pontifical university or seminary. The license is also the prerequisite to the doctorate (J.C.D.) in the same field. Furthermore, the degree is a prerequisite for several officers of Catholic ecclesiastical courts: judges (including the judicial vicar), the promoter of justice, and the defender of the bond all must at least possess this degree.
Notable faculties which offer the license in canon law include the Catholic University of America, Saint Paul University in Canada, the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum), the Pontifical Gregorian University (Gregorianum), the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross (Santa Croce), the Pontifical Urban University (Urbanianum), the Pontifical Lateran University (Lateranum), the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium, and the Institut Catholique de Paris.
Associate's degree (U.S.) · Foundation degree (U.K.) · Bachelor's degree · Master's degree
Licentiate · Specialist degree · Engineer's degree · Professional degree · Doctoral degree

Seattle Central Library Netherlands Embassy in Berlin
Remment Koolhaas (born November 17, 1944 in Rotterdam) is a Dutch architect, architectural theorist, urbanist and "Professor in Practice of Architecture and Urban Design" at the Graduate School of Design at Harvard University, USA. Koolhaas first studied scriptwriting at the Dutch Film Academy, and was then a journalist for the Haagse Post before starting studies, in 1968, in architecture at the Architectural Association School of Architecture in London, followed, in 1972, by further studies at Cornell University in New York. Koolhaas is the principal of the Office for Metropolitan Architecture, or OMA, and of its research-oriented counterpart AMO, nowadays based in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. In 2005 he co-founded Volume Magazine together with Mark Wigley and Ole Bouman.

Early architectural career

Theoretical position
Delirious New York set the pace for Koolhaas's career. His work emphatically embraces the contradictions of two disciplines (architecture and urban design) that have struggled to maintain their humanist ideals of material honesty, the human scale and carefully crafted meaning in a rapidly globalising world that espouses material economy, machine scale and random meaning. Instead, Koolhaas celebrates the "chance-like" nature of city life: "The City is an addictive machine from which there is no escape." As Koolhaas himself has acknowledged, this approach had already been evident in the Japanese Metabolist Movement in the 1960s and early 1970s.
Another key aspect of architecture Koolhaas interrogates is the "Program": with the rise of modernism in the 20th century the "Program" became the key theme of architectural design. The notion of the Program involves "an act to edit function and human activities" as the pretext of architectural design: epitomised in the maxim Form follows function, first popularised by architect Louis Sullivan at the beginning of the 20th century. The notion was first questioned in Delirious New York, in his analysis of high-rise architecture in Manhattan. An early design method derived from such thinking was "cross-programming", introducing unexpected functions in room programmes, such as running tracks in skyscrapers. More recently, Koolhaas (unsuccessfully) proposed the inclusion of hospital units for the homeless into the Seattle public Library project (2003).

Delirious New York
The next landmark publication by Koolhaas was S,M,L,XL, together with Bruce Mau and Hans Werlemann (1995),a 1376-page tome combining essays, manifestos, diaries, fiction, travelogues, and meditations on the contemporary city. The layout of the huge book transformed architectural publishing, and such books - full-colour graphics and dense texts - have since become common. Ostensibly, S,M,L,XL gives a record of the actual implementation of "Manhattanism" throughout the various (mostly un-)realized projects and texts OMA had generated up to that time. The part lexicon-type layout spawned a number of concepts that have become common in later architectural theory, in particular "Bigness": 'old' architectural principles (composition, scale, proportion, detail) no longer apply when a building acquires Bigness. This was demonstrated in OMA's scheme for the development of "Euralille" (1990-94), a new centre for the city of Lille in France, a city returned to prominence by its position on the new rail route from Paris to London via the Channel Tunnel. OMA sited a train station, two centres for commerce and trade, an urban park, and 'Congrexpo' (a contemporary Grand Palais with a large concert hall, three auditoria and an exhibition space). In another essay in the book, titled "The Generic City", Koolhaas declares that progress, identity, architecture, the city and the street are things of the past: "Relief … it's over. That is the story of the city. The city is no longer. We can leave the theatre now..." For Koolhaas architecture and the city are said to be superseded by Bigness.

S,M,L,XL
Koolhaas's next landmark publications were a product of his position as professor at Harvard University, in the design school's "Project on the City"; firstly the 720-page Mutations (Actar, Barcelona); followed by The Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping (2002) including his designs for the Prada shops, the Seattle Public Library, a plan to save Cambridge from Harvard by rechanneling the Charles River, Lagos' future as Earth's third-biggest town, as well as interviews with Martha Stewart and Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown.

Project on the city
In the late nineties, while working on the design for the new headquarters for Universal (currently Vivendi), OMA was first exposed to the full pace of change that engulfed the world of media and with it the increasing importance of the virtual domain. It led Rem Koolhaas and the Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA) to create a new company, AMO, exclusively dedicated to the investigation and performance in this realm. He is heading the think tank ever since with Reinier de Graaf.

AMO
In 2005 Rem Koolhaas co-founded Volume Magazine together with Mark Wigley and Ole Bouman. Volume Magazine - the collaborative project by Archis (Amsterdam), AMO Rotterdam and C-lab (Columbia University NY) - is a dynamic experimental think tank devoted to the process of spatial and cultural reflexivity. It goes beyond architecture's definition of 'making buildings' and reaches out for global views on architecture and design, broader attitudes to social structures, and creating environments to live in. Volume Magazine creates the agenda. The magazine stands for a journalism which detects and anticipates, is proactive and even pre-emptive - a journalism which uncovers potentialities, rather than covering done deals.

Volume Magazine
Following the signing of Treaties of Nice in May 2001, which made Brussels the official capital of Europe, the then President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi and the Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt invited Koolhaas to discuss the necessities and requirements of a European capital.
During these talks and as an impetus for further discussion, Koolhaas and his think-tank AMO – an independent part of OMA – suggested the development of a visual language. This idea inspired a series of drawings and drafts, including the "Barcode". The barcode seeks to unite the flags of the EU member countries into a single, colourful symbol. In the current European flag, there is a fixed number of stars. In the barcode however, new Member States of the EU can be added without space constraints. Originally, the barcode displayed 15 EU countries. In 2004, the symbol was adapted to include the ten new Member States.
Since the time of the first drafts of the barcode it has never been officially used by commercial or political institutions. During the Austrian EU Presidency 2006 it was officially used for the first time. The logo has already been used for the EU information campaign which will also be continued during the Austrian EU Presidency. There was initially some uproar caused, as the stripes of the flag of Estonia were displayed incorrectly.

Architecture, Fashion, and Theatre

Reference to the article 'Generic city', a critic to current mode of urbanization: "People can inhabit anything. And they can be miserable in anything and ecstatic in anything. More and more I think that architecture has nothing to do with it. Of course, that's both liberating and alarming. But the generic city, the general urban condition, is happening everywhere, and just the fact that it occurs in such enormous quantities must mean that it's habitable. Architecture can't do anything that the culture doesn't. We all complain that we are confronted by urban environments that are completely similar. We say we want to create beauty, identity, quality, singularity. And yet, maybe in truth these cities that we have are desired. Maybe their very characterlessness provides the best context for living." —interview in Wired 4.07, July 1996 Quotes
In 1952, when Rem Koolhaas was eight, his parents moved to Jakarta, Indonesia, and lived there for four years. His father, in his writing, had strongly supported the Indonesian cause for autonomy from the colonial Dutch, and when the war of independence was won he had been invited over to run a cultural programme for three years. 'It was a very important age for me,' Koolhaas recalls. 'And I really lived as an Asian.'

Awards
Koolhaas's projects include:

Torre del bicentenario(bicentenary tower),Mexico city, 2007-2010
Córdoba International Congress Center (Córdoba, Spain)
Milstein Hall, Cornell, currently in the planning phase
Seoul National University Museum of Art (Seoul, 2003-2005) [1]
Casa da Música (Porto, 2001–2005)
Seattle Central Library (Seattle, 2004)
CCTV HQ (Beijing, Construction Commencing 2004)
Retail design for Prada stores (New York: 2003, Los Angeles: 2004)
McCormick Tribune Campus Center, IIT (Chicago, 1997-2003)
Royal Dutch Embassy (Berlin, 2003)
Guggenheim Museum (Las Vegas, 2002)
Second Stage Theatre (New York City, 1999)
Maison à Bordeaux (Bordeaux, 1998)
Educatorium (Utrecht, 1993–1997)
Kunsthal (Rotterdam, 1993)
Nexus Housing (Fukuoka, 1991)
Euralille (Lille, 1988)
Netherlands Dance Theater (The Hague, 1988)

Jeffrey Robert Bagwell (born May 27, 1968) is a former Major League Baseball first baseman, who spent his entire major league baseball career with the Houston Astros. After retirement as a player, he remains with the Astros as an assistant to the General Manager.

Houston Astros (1991-2005)
NL MVP: 1994
NL Rookie of the Year: 1991
NL All-Star: 1994, 1996, 1997, 1999
Gold Glove Award (1B): 1994
Silver Slugger Awards (1B): 1994, 1997, 1999
Houston Astros Career Leader in Home Runs (449), RBI (1,529), Walks (1,401), Runs Created (1,715), Sacrifice Flies (102) and Intentional Walks (155).
Holds Houston Astros single season records for Batting Average (.368 in 1994), On-base percentage (.454 in 1999), Slugging Percentage (.750 in 1994), OPS (1.201 in 1994), Runs (152 in 2000), Total Bases (363 in 2000), Home Runs (47 in 2000), Walks (149 in 1999), Times on Base (331 in 1999), Intentional Walks (27 in 1997) and At Bats per Home Run (10.3 in 1994)
Ranks 44th on MLB Career On-base percentage List (.408)
Ranks 34th on MLB Career Slugging Percentage List (.540)
Ranks 23rd on MLB Career OPS List (.948)
Ranks 54th on MLB Career Runs List (1,517)
Ranks 56th on MLB Career Total Bases List (4,213)
Ranks 52nd on MLB Career Doubles List (488)
Ranks 33rd on MLB Career Home Runs List (449)
Ranks 41st on MLB Career RBI List (1,529)
Ranks 24th on MLB Career Walks List (1,401)
Ranks 33rd on MLB Career Runs Created List (1,715)
Ranks 31st on MLB Career Extra-Base Hits List (969)
Ranks 46th on MLB Career Times on Base List (3,843)
Ranks 32nd on MLB Career Hit By Pitch List (128)
Ranks 23rd on MLB Career Sacrifice Flies List (102)
Ranks 33rd on MLB Career Intentional Walks List (155)
Ranks 52nd on MLB Career At Bats per Home Run List (17.4) Early life

Playing career
Bagwell was selected in the 4th round of the 1989 draft by the Boston Red Sox. On August 30, 1990 the Red Sox traded him to the Houston Astros for 36-year old relief pitcher Larry Andersen to gear up for their playoff run. That trade is now regarded as one of the most one-sided of all time. Although Andersen pitched well down the stretch in 1990 (allowing three runs in 22 innings of relief) and helped the Red Sox win the AL East division title on the last day of the season, Boston was swept in the American League Championship Series and then lost Andersen to free agency (in part because of a so-called collusion settlement).
Bagwell had been considered a good prospect, but his route to the majors was blocked by established Red Sox third baseman Wade Boggs and prospects Mo Vaughn, Scott Cooper and Tim Naehring.

Red Sox prospect
Bagwell blossomed in Houston, becoming one of the best players in Astros franchise history. Bagwell spent his 15-year career in a Houston uniform and, along with teammate Craig Biggio, was synonymous with the Astros throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s.
Bagwell hit and threw right-handed. His batting style was exaggerated and unusual; he actually stepped back with his front foot as he began his swing. Bagwell had a unique wide-open, crouched stance, which started in a low position with his knees bent, looking somewhat as if he were sitting on an invisible bench. Sliding his front foot backward, he would rise from his stance and swing.
Developed as a third baseman, he was shifted to first base during spring training because the Astros already had an established third baseman in Ken Caminiti. Debuting on opening day, Bagwell hit .294 with 15 home runs and 82 RBI, led the 1991 Astros in several offensive categories, and was named the 1991 National League Rookie of the Year.
The best year in Bagwell's professional career was the strike-shortened 1994 season when he was unanimously named National League Most Valuable Player after batting .368 with 39 home runs, 116 runs batted in and 104 runs scored, in just 400 at-bats. He became the first National Leaguer to finish first or second in batting average, home runs, RBI, and runs scored since Willie Mays in 1955. His .750 slugging percentage in 1994 ranks as the 11th best single-season mark in major league history. Bagwell's hand was broken by a pitch on August 10, just before the players' strike began; had the season continued, he would likely have missed the remainder of the year and would not have won the MVP. But because of the timing of his "lucky break," Bagwell became just the fourth player in National League history to win the award unanimously. Bagwell was also the runner-up for the 1999 MVP, and was third in 1997.
Bagwell's unique stance made him vulnerable to inside pitches. His left hand was broken by pitches in 1993, 1994, and 1995. But rather than change his successful style, he began wearing a heavily-padded protective batting glove.
Bagwell had nine seasons with over 30 home runs, eight seasons with 100 or more RBI, and nine seasons with over 100 runs scored. In six consecutive years, from 1996 through 2001, he reached all three marks in every season. He drew at least 100 walks for seven straight seasons, and had six seasons with a .300 batting average.
Bagwell was also considered a strong fielder, winning a Gold Glove award in 1994, and compiling a career .993 fielding percentage. He also exhibited above-average speed and baserunning skills for a first baseman, stealing 202 bases over his career, including two seasons (1997, 1999) in which he stole at least 30 bases, and five seasons (1994, 1996-99) in which he stole at least 15. In 1997, he became the first full-time first baseman to steal 30 bases while hitting 30 home runs.
Bagwell was teammates with Craig Biggio for the entirety of his major league career. While Derek Bell was on the team from 1995-1999, the trio was sometimes called "The Killer B's." The nickname was later revived to include Lance Berkman and Carlos Beltran.
In 2001, Bagwell signed a five-year extension with Houston. By 2005, Bagwell was the seventh highest-paid player in the sport, receiving $18 million in the fourth year of the deal. However, shortly after the season began, a persistent arthritic condition in his shoulder sidelined him for three-quarters of the season. This same condition, which began to affect him in 2001, turned the former Golden Glove winner into a defensive liability at first base, forcing him to "push" the ball instead of throwing it. Teams began taking advantage of Bagwell's defensive weakness caused by the arthritic condition. As the condition worsened, Bagwell's offensive production became affected, as well, therefore pressure mounted to bench the perennial All-Star. Although unable to throw, Bagwell was reactivated in September 2005 as a pinch hitter and played a small but symbolic role in the Astros' successful drive to capture the National League pennant. Bagwell was the Astros' designated hitter in the first two games of the World Series versus the Chicago White Sox, and a pinch hitter in the two games played in Houston.

Houston Astros
On January 23, 2006, the Astros indicated that they would file a claim on an insurance policy on Bagwell's health, to collect approximately $15.6 million of the $17 million in salary Bagwell was owed for the 2006 season. Because of the language of the policy, the Astros could not release Bagwell without losing their settlement, nor could Bagwell take the field. The decision effectively eliminated Bagwell's chances of playing again in the major leagues.
Nonetheless, Bagwell still reported to spring training hoping he could contribute in some way during the upcoming 2006 campaign, and to test his own injured body. He wanted his play to determine his status, not the particulars of the Astros' insurance policy. Bagwell played several games with the Astros in spring training, batting .219 with two RBI. He never had to make any throws that were difficult enough to put notable stress on his shoulder, since the other infielders shifted toward him when they were playing. As expected, the Astros put him on the 15-day disabled list in late March. Bagwell said that he was only in good enough condition to play every several days, rather than every day. [1] Bagwell was paid the full amount of his contract, and that was never at issue. The Astros and the insurance company settled the claim the same day Bagwell announced his retirement.[2]
The Astros declined to pick up the $18 million club option for 2007, instead buying Bagwell out for $7 million. Bagwell filed for free agency in November 2006, but announced his retirement one month later. Astros owner Drayton McLane and general manager Tim Purpura announced that Bagwell would remain in the Astros organization, in the player development department, as one of the Assistants to the General Manager. [3]
Bagwell made his first public appearance at Minute Maid Park since the end of his career on June 28, 2007, when he was pulled out of the Astros dugout after the 7th inning by his former teammate and long-time friend Craig Biggio, who had just logged his 3000th career hit. Biggio wanted Bagwell to be with him "between the lines one more time" and to share the achievement and appreciation from the hometown Houston fans.

Health issues
The Houston Astros will retire his number 5 jersey on Sunday, August 26, 2007 in a game versus the Pittsburgh Pirates. Bagwell will be the ninth player in Astros history to have his number retired. Most recently, Jimmy Wynn's No. 24 was retired in 2005. [4].

Number Retirement

Career Statistics

NL MVP: 1994
NL Rookie of the Year: 1991
NL All-Star: 1994, 1996, 1997, 1999
Gold Glove Award (1B): 1994
Silver Slugger Awards (1B): 1994, 1997, 1999
Houston Astros Career Leader in Home Runs (449), RBI (1,529), Walks (1,401), Runs Created (1,715), Sacrifice Flies (102) and Intentional Walks (155).
Holds Houston Astros single season records for Batting Average (.368 in 1994), On-base percentage (.454 in 1999), Slugging Percentage (.750 in 1994), OPS (1.201 in 1994), Runs (152 in 2000), Total Bases (363 in 2000), Home Runs (47 in 2000), Walks (149 in 1999), Times on Base (331 in 1999), Intentional Walks (27 in 1997) and At Bats per Home Run (10.3 in 1994)
Bagwell's best seasons took place in the pitcher-friendly Astrodome, making his numbers even more impressive.
Baseball statistician Bill James, in his New Historical Baseball Abstract, listed Bagwell as the fourth best first baseman of all time, perhaps beginning the former Astros first baseman's trip to Cooperstown.