Mark McGwire....

[digglahhh]

Chris, people should get mad because certain players are cheating. If their anger is pertains to whether the player is chasing a record, they need to get their priorities straight. Players should all be held to the same standard when it comes to cheating. Using steroids to break a record is no worse than using steroids to improve one's play in order to win more ballgames. It is still cheating, no matter how good the player involved is.

Amen.

I don't know how many times it has to be said. The cheating is in the intent, the intent to use disingenuous and often illegal means to better your performance. The extent of the success does not determine the original sin.

[538280]

Chris, people should get mad because certain players are cheating. If their anger is pertains to whether the player is chasing a record, they need to get their priorities straight. Players should all be held to the same standard when it comes to cheating. Using steroids to break a record is no worse than using steroids to improve one's play in order to win more ballgames. It is still cheating, no matter how good the player involved is.

I think, in an ideal world, you're right. Just for cheating a player should be held to the same scrutiny. But that's just not the way it is in reality IMO. Do you really think Giambi wouldn't be under more heat if he was about to break the career HR record? Or do you really think Bonds wouldn't have less heat if he had, say, 300 career HRs instead of 735 or how ever many he has now.

[ChrisLDuncan]

When was the last time you heard an alleged rapist say the following to any type of investigatory panel, formal or otherwise.......

"I don't want to talk about the past."

If a suspected rapist DID say this, would you change your opinion of him at all? If not, you are the only one.

And what if said rapist said he was willing to do "whatever it takes" to help the youth of America overcome the epidemic that is rape.

And they the subject does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR MORE THAN 550 DAYS.

That's what McGwire has done.


Let's compare rape to roids...they're totally the same thing.

[AstrosFan]

I think, in an ideal world, you're right. Just for cheating a player should be held to the same scrutiny. But that's just not the way it is in reality IMO. Do you really think Giambi wouldn't be under more heat if he was about to break the career HR record? Or do you really think Bonds wouldn't have less heat if he had, say, 300 career HRs instead of 735 or how ever many he has now.

I don't really care if he would be under more heat. Any person that adjusts his or her opinion of a person based on how close they are to breaking a record is an idiot.

[StanTheMan]

Let's compare rape to roids...they're totally the same thing.

Hey, take it out on Flash143234235235 or whatever his name is. He brought it up, not me. If you missed out on my posts point, which was to help him/her see the errors of his/her ways.... not my prob.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Borderline HOF, steroids or not. Good hitter, I've seen those words. Where is that, he was all or nothing and he wasn't so hot before his alledged steroid use in the mid 1990's. So he hit 49 in this rookie year 1987, only 53 at bats in 1986.
Look at home many home runs were hit by MLB in 1987.

MLB Home runs, a few years before and after 1987.
1985------3602
1986------3813
1987-----4458
1988------3180
1989------3083
1990------3317

Useless to debate what change in the game, rules or ball took place in 1987, thats not the point. The point it's obvious the long ball was definately easier in 1987.

Mac.----------------AB/HR---------Slg.----------OBA
1986----1995---------13.20--------.523----------.369
1996----2001----------8.26--------.683----------.428

That is some reduction in AB/HR ratio from a very respectable 13.20 to that off the chart 8.26 after 1995. As for his great OBA whats to be expected, thats a by-product of a hitter that went on a home run rampage in the mid 1990's that some believe was steroid boosted
Was it steroids that put him into orbit in the second half of the 1990's not proven but lets face it the voters are human like it or not, they saw him go off the chart in the mid 1990's and there was talk of steroid use. Is he innocent, I say yes in a court of law but voting HOF is not bound by the same standards.

Again, an all or nothing guy, no base running ability at all, so so as an all around player, borderline HOF.

[natsnsoxfan]

He'll get in eventually probably 3 or 4 years down the road.

[soberdennis]

Yes, Rose, McGwire played in a big HR era. You mention that quite often. The problem is that even in the context of his era McGwire was one of the best HR hitters/sluggers of all time. McGwire got his 583 HRs in 6187 at-bats. That is 10.61 AB/HR and it's #1 all time and is an unbelieveable number even in the context of this era. McGwire's .588 SLG is awesome as well even compared to this era's norms. The leauge average SLG for McGwire's career is .408. McGwire has a 144 rel. SLG. That is 9th all time. Even in the context of this huge slugging era McGwire's SLG is still 9th all time.

That along with his great on-base skills as well (rel. OBP is 40th all time), make McGwire, based on his numbers alone, one of the best hitters of all time based on his career rates. Yes, it is true that McGwire was not a good runner or worth much in the field (though he wasn't a bad 1Bman, he won a GG). Yes, it is true that he played in a big HR era. The thing is though, and you just don't seem to understand this, is that even in the context of his era he still is easily one of the best sluggers ever.

All of this is without the steroid caveat of course. If you want to keep McGwire out of the HOF because of steroids I can understand. But you have stated multiple times that even if he was 100% clean you would keep him out. To me that is ridiculous.
I have said for quite a while that there should be three people inducted this year.

[John Shoemaker]

[QUOTE=soberdennis;886119]I have said for quite a while that there should be three people inducted this year.[/QUOTE

I agree completely.

[538280]

Borderline HOF, steroids or not. Good hitter, I've seen those words. Where is that, he was all or nothing and he wasn't so hot before his alledged steroid use in the mid 1990's. So he hit 49 in this rookie year 1987, only 53 at bats in 1986.
Look at home many home runs were hit by MLB in 1987.

MLB Home runs, a few years before and after 1987.
1985------3602
1986------3813
1987-----4458
1988------3180
1989------3083
1990------3317

Useless to debate what change in the game, rules or ball took place in 1987, thats not the point. The point it's obvious the long ball was definately easier in 1987.

Mac.----------------AB/HR---------Slg.----------OBA
1986----1995---------13.20--------.523----------.369
1996----2001----------8.26--------.683----------.428

That is some reduction in AB/HR ratio from a very respectable 13.20 to that off the chart 8.26 after 1995. As for his great OBA whats to be expected, thats a by-product of a hitter that went on a home run rampage in the mid 1990's that some believe was steroid boosted
Was it steroids that put him into orbit in the second half of the 1990's not proven but lets face it the voters are human like it or not, they saw him go off the chart in the mid 1990's and there was talk of steroid use. Is he innocent, I say yes in a court of law but voting HOF is not bound by the same standards.

Again, an all or nothing guy, no base running ability at all, so so as an all around player, borderline HOF.

I don't understand how you can say he's borderline steroids or not. Like I said you can keep him out for steroids if you want. I'm not going to debate that. But just based on his accomplishments? You say McGwire was a "good hittter" and that you've heard that before. He was a little more than just a good hitter. His OPS+ was 163 which is tied for 11th best all time with Jimmie Foxx. McGwire was a tremendous hitter over his career, you can say he was one-dimensional, all he did was HRs but although that does seem to be his image today you would be wrong IMO. He had HR power but he also had another key which separated him from Dave Kingman: that was that he got on base at a tremendous rate. His career OBP was .394 and his relative OBP is 40th all time. He is one of the best hitters ever, even in context of the big HR era. It's easy, as many have done with McGwire, to just throw his power numbers out the window to the "big HR era". Right, his OPS+ is still 11th all time and his relative SLG is in the top 10. Those are relative numbers which means in context of that "big HR era".

McGwire wasn't a good runner or not a particularly good fielder or runner over his career (even though early in his career he was a good fielding 1B). It doesn't really matter when you're among the top 20-25 hitters of all time. Through his hitting McGwire was about 60 runs above average per year. That's about 6 wins over the average player per year from offense. On defense you could say, if he was extremely bad at both that he was 2-3 wins below average there. He's still 3-4 wins above average per year for about 40 above average over his career. That's still HOF territory. Regardless of anyone's image of what a great baseball player ought to be, Mark McGwire over his career did by far enough to help his teams win to be a HOFer, based on just his stats. You can say steroids and I don't have so much of a problem like that but saying that he's not in on his numbers alone is just backlash against non-complete players. There's value in fielding and running that being complete brings to the table, but there's no extra value that a player brings just because he is complete. Hitting brings something to the team, fielding does, and running does. But it's the sum of those that makes up a player's total worth; there's nothing extra just because substantial contributions are made in all three areas.

[csh19792001]

But it's the sum of those that makes up a player's total worth; there's nothing extra just because substantial contributions are made in all three areas.

But see, that's simply one (monolithic) perception of "worth", which you unfortunately still seem to perceive as one with greatness. The schism here is due to the fact that most fans don't view the game- and its players- as entirely encompassed/defined by the number of runs in and runs out.

Once again....the old value/greatness dichotomy.....

The issue is not really whether McGwire is a HOFer; that's ancillary here. The fact is that juxtaposed with the standards set by the HOF bretheren, McGwire was bereft of talent in pretty much every facet of the game (besides hitting the ball over the fence and trotting around the bases). Well, at best, he was barely passable at certain things. He was one of the slowest players I've ever seen, he was a lumbering inept baserunner who couldn't do things like take the extra base, break up the double play, or create runs from nothing. He couldn't throw well on the rare occasions where he was required to, and had a career average that was atrocious for a HOF caliber hitter.

More importantly, though, is the question as to how well would McGwire have done if conditions had not been entirely conducive/amenable to his one dimensionality. How about if they were set antithetical to his singular talent? A HOF player (i.e., one of the best who ever lived) should be the greatest player- or very close to it- irrespective of era and conditions. How would McGwire have done playing from, say, 1900-20 at Fenway Park? How many homeruns would he have hit playing in the old parks which were 470 to center and usually the same distance to the power alleys? How much of his value was drawn from walks? Answer: A great deal of it. How many walks would he have drawn without the omnipresent HR threat playing in today's bandbox parks with the juiced baseball, steroids, and expansion pitching? Answer: Much, much fewer, and the diminishing effect on McGwire's value would have been additive. He'd be hitting a ton of flyouts and his greatness as a player (the threat he posed) would be minimized. He really had no other distinguished (ML level) skills to fall back on. A slugger like Babe Ruth was walked a ton in large part because he was also an awesome all around hitter, and in fact did the little things well in the batters' box when the situation warranted it. Ruth had 113 sacrifice hits in his career and at very least 43 bunts for hits. McGwire bunting for hits? I seriously doubt he ever did, or could have.

Speaking of conditions, consider that over 1,100 of Babe Ruth's career batted balls would have been homeruns under today's rules and in an average park of today. It's entirely documented here, flyball by flyball, homerun by homerun:

The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs: Recrowning Baseball's Greatest Slugger (http://www.amazon.com/Year-Babe-Ruth-Home-Runs/dp/0786719060)

Excerpt:
"This point should be taken to its natural conclusion by inverting the process. How would a modern player fare in the original Yankee Stadium configuration Babe Ruth faced? Who better to analyze than Barry Bonds, the best of all contemporary sluggers? In 2004, Barry hit forty-five homers. But what would have happened had he played all his games at the old Bronx ball yard? The answer is sobering. Only twenty-two of Bonds's homeruns that season would have been out of the park in Ruth's Yankee Stadium!! In fairness to Barry, approximately four other batted balls that were not homers in 2004 would have cleared the short right field fence in the House That Ruth Built. That would give Bonds a total of twenty-seven for the year.

Moreoever, Barry Bonds has NEVER hit an official home run that would have cleared the original Yankee Stadium deep left center or CF fences. From 1923-34, Ruth hit fifty seven balls into the seats in those areas."

In fact, Bonds has only hit 36 balls more than 450 feet in his 20 plus year career; and prior to the 2000, he'd only hit three balls that flew more than 450 feet, and all three were significantly wind-aided (the author then goes on to discuss the three homeruns in detail). Ruth had many, many balls hit 450 feet in his career that ended up as F-8's in the scorebook- Babe hit 198 balls 450 feet in his career. Every single 450 foot shot would be an easy homerun in today's parks. And I have yet to see a single piece of evidence to suggest the ball was comparatively liveiler in Ruth's day. Consider that only two balls were hit into the right center field bleachers at the Polo Grounds (home of the Giants) between 1909 and 1920- and that's despite the fact that two major league teams played there for most of that time! In 1921 all of the center field fences in the American League ranged from 455 to 488 feet!

The issue here isn't with Bonds, though; I believe he had the skills to have been the best or close to it in any area. He's simply the best comparison given his incredible homerun hitting/slugging exploits since 2000.

Today we have small middle infielders hitting 40 homeruns in a year, broken bat homeruns, tons of opposite field homeruns......even aside from the steroid use, which was obvious to anyone with any common sense, McGwire's "worth" was largely a product of his era. He's somewhat the inverse of Wee Willie Keeler.

Value or "worth" is bound by conditions and context, and some players are far more diminished by and subject to their lack of adaptability to different contexts given their range of skills and abilities. Ergo, value/worth and greatness are correlative but not synonymous.

You're far too intelligent and involved NOT to open up your mind, broaden your definitions, and think more abstractly when evaluating players, Chris! :happy:

[538280]

But see, that's simply one (monolithic) perception of "worth", which you unfortunately still seem to perceive as one with greatness. The schism here is due to the fact that most fans don't view the game- and its players- as entirely encompassed/defined by the number of runs in and runs out.

I don't either. I view players as people who try their best to do what they can for the team in their own conditions and try their best to take advantage of those conditions.

Once again....the old value/greatness dichotomy.....

The issue is not really whether McGwire is a HOFer; that's ancillary here. The fact is that juxtaposed with the standards set by the HOF bretheren, McGwire was bereft of talent in pretty much every facet of the game (besides hitting the ball over the fence and trotting around the bases). Well, at best, he was barely passable at certain things. He was one of the slowest players I've ever seen, he was a lumbering inept baserunner who couldn't do things like take the extra base, break up the double play, or create runs from nothing. He couldn't throw well on the rare occasions where he was required to, and had a career average that was atrocious for a HOF caliber hitter.

Not disputing any of this. McGwire wasn't a bad fielder in his youth but other than that I don't disagree.

More importantly, though, is the question as to how well would McGwire have done if conditions had not been entirely conducive/amenable to his one dimensionality. How about if they were set antithetical to his singular talent? A HOF player (i.e., one of the best who ever lived) should be the greatest player- or very close to it- irrespective of era and conditions. How would McGwire have done playing from, say, 1900-20 at Fenway Park? How many homeruns would he have hit playing in the old parks which were 470 to center and usually the same distance to the power alleys? How much of his value was drawn from walks? Answer: A great deal of it. How many walks would he have drawn without the omnipresent HR threat playing in today's bandbox parks with the juiced baseball, steroids, and expansion pitching? Answer: Much, much fewer, and the diminishing effect on McGwire's value would have been additive. He'd be hitting a ton of flyouts and his greatness as a player (the threat he posed) would be minimized. He really had no other distinguished (ML level) skills to fall back on.

This is what I don't understand and I don't agree with (even though it is all what your subjective definition of greatness is). I don't see why transporting a player to a totally different circumstance from where he actually was has anything to do with the player himself. Mark McGwire was what he was; he played from 1986-2001. He did what he did in that era. You can say that you don't think he would have done well if the game wasn't the same as it was then, and you'd be right (I'm not disagreeing with you there). But Mark McGwire, as a player (or any other player) really doesn't care about how he would be if he was around 80 years earlier. It has nothing to do with who the player is, it has nothing to do with how he is viewed by his manager or the fans or the GM or his teammates. It has nothing to do with how he develops his skills. It has nothing to do with the approach he takes. It has nothing to do with his preparation for each game, nothing to do with his offseason workouts or how he tries to improve himself. It has nothing to do with anything except in the minds of those who have some romantic vision of what a truly great baseball player ought to be. I think it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything any player does how they would do in the 1910s. The HOF is there to celebrate the history of the game. It is there to highlight what was great about baseball in each era. it is there to highlight stars of those eras. It has nothing to do (and you might even say it is contrary to) it's mission, to look at plaques of players and say, well, this guy was sure great in the 1990s, but, well, I can't say he deserves to be here because he wouldn't have been able to do the same in the 1900s or 1910s. I just don't think that has anything to do with what makes Mark McGwire (or any player) great. Players are great because they are great when they have a chance in their own era. They're not great because they would have been better at another time. I don't buy into this theory that players are only great because they have adaptability. It has nothing to do with the game that the actual players played in. It's not fair at all. Mark McGwire was great in what he actually did but he deserves to be dismissed because he wouldn't have done well in this time or that time-which have nothing to do with the goal of what Mark McGwire accomplished in reality. I don't agree with it.

A slugger like Babe Ruth was walked a ton in large part because he was also an awesome all around hitter, and in fact did the little things well in the batters' box when the situation warranted it. Ruth had 113 sacrifice hits in his career and at very least 43 bunts for hits. McGwire bunting for hits? I seriously doubt he ever did, or could have.

Speaking of conditions, consider that over 1,100 of Babe Ruth's career batted balls would have been homeruns under today's rules and in an average park of today. It's entirely documented here, flyball by flyball, homerun by homerun:

The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs: Recrowning Baseball's Greatest Slugger (http://www.amazon.com/Year-Babe-Ruth-Home-Runs/dp/0786719060)

Excerpt:
"This point should be taken to its natural conclusion by inverting the process. How would a modern player fare in the original Yankee Stadium configuration Babe Ruth faced? Who better to analyze than Barry Bonds, the best of all contemporary sluggers? In 2004, Barry hit forty-five homers. But what would have happened had he played all his games at the old Bronx ball yard? The answer is sobering. Only twenty-two of Bonds's homeruns that season would have been out of the park in Ruth's Yankee Stadium!! In fairness to Barry, approximately four other batted balls that were not homers in 2004 would have cleared the short right field fence in the House That Ruth Built. That would give Bonds a total of twenty-seven for the year.

Moreoever, Barry Bonds has NEVER hit an official home run that would have cleared the original Yankee Stadium deep left center or CF fences. From 1923-34, Ruth hit fifty seven balls into the seats in those areas."

In fact, Bonds has only hit 36 balls more than 450 feet in his 20 plus year career; and prior to the 2000, he'd only hit three balls that flew more than 450 feet, and all three were significantly wind-aided (the author then goes on to discuss the three homeruns in detail). Ruth had many, many balls hit 450 feet in his career that ended up as F-8's in the scorebook- Babe hit 198 balls 450 feet in his career. Every single 450 foot shot would be an easy homerun in today's parks. And I have yet to see a single piece of evidence to suggest the ball was comparatively liveiler in Ruth's day. Consider that only two balls were hit into the right center field bleachers at the Polo Grounds (home of the Giants) between 1909 and 1920- and that's despite the fact that two major league teams played there for most of that time! In 1921 all of the center field fences in the American League ranged from 455 to 488 feet!

The issue here isn't with Bonds, though; I believe he had the skills to have been the best or close to it in any area. He's simply the best comparison given his incredible homerun hitting/slugging exploits since 2000.

Today we have small middle infielders hitting 40 homeruns in a year, broken bat homeruns, tons of opposite field homeruns......even aside from the steroid use, which was obvious to anyone with any common sense, McGwire's "worth" was largely a product of his era. He's somewhat the inverse of Wee Willie Keeler.

I'm not disputing any of this, and the Ruth research is very interesting, but I don't see what it really has to do with McGwire.

Value or "worth" is bound by conditions and context, and some players are far more diminished by and subject to their lack of adaptability to different contexts given their range of skills and abilities. Ergo, value/worth and greatness are correlative but not synonymous.

Not synonymous by your definition of greatness, which is not set in stone or a fact. That context you speak of should not, IMO, be removed when you compare players. That is what players actually performed under. It is taking them out of reality to place them in a abstract, construced, fantasy context of "adaptability". iI has nothing to do with what they actually did or the actual games.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I don't understand how you can say he's borderline steroids or not. Like I said you can keep him out for steroids if you want. I'm not going to debate that. But just based on his accomplishments? You say McGwire was a "good hittter" and that you've heard that before. He was a little more than just a good hitter. His OPS+ was 163 which is tied for 11th best all time with Jimmie Foxx. McGwire was a tremendous hitter over his career, you can say he was one-dimensional, all he did was HRs but although that does seem to be his image today you would be wrong IMO. He had HR power but he also had another key which separated him from Dave Kingman: that was that he got on base at a tremendous rate. His career OBP was .394 and his relative OBP is 40th all time. He is one of the best hitters ever, even in context of the big HR era. It's easy, as many have done with McGwire, to just throw his power numbers out the window to the "big HR era". Right, his OPS+ is still 11th all time and his relative SLG is in the top 10. Those are relative numbers which means in context of that "big HR era".

McGwire wasn't a good runner or not a particularly good fielder or runner over his career (even though early in his career he was a good fielding 1B). It doesn't really matter when you're among the top 20-25 hitters of all time. Through his hitting McGwire was about 60 runs above average per year. That's about 6 wins over the average player per year from offense. On defense you could say, if he was extremely bad at both that he was 2-3 wins below average there. He's still 3-4 wins above average per year for about 40 above average over his career. That's still HOF territory. Regardless of anyone's image of what a great baseball player ought to be, Mark McGwire over his career did by far enough to help his teams win to be a HOFer, based on just his stats. You can say steroids and I don't have so much of a problem like that but saying that he's not in on his numbers alone is just backlash against non-complete players. There's value in fielding and running that being complete brings to the table, but there's no extra value that a player brings just because he is complete. Hitting brings something to the team, fielding does, and running does. But it's the sum of those that makes up a player's total worth; there's nothing extra just because substantial contributions are made in all three areas.

I never said he was a good hitter, I may have gave that impression with my choice of words. If I did say that it was in error.

Great power hitter thats all I can credit him with, all around hitter down the list in his time period.

He did receive a good number of walks but it's obvious they still thought they could ge him out, lots of strike outs. In his time period he was third in walks but considering his power down the list in IBB. IBB he was 9th behind Chili Davis, Will Clark, Fred McGriff to name a few.

He was 14th on the list in reaching base, even with 1317 walks, one dimensional, hit it out don't expect too much in other aspects of hitting

You mention Foxx and Mac with that 163 OPS+, thats where the comparison ends. Foxx had one of the higher averages in his time, high on the list in OBA .428, 4th in reaching base and 6th in hits and a slugger at that.

All Mac could do was hit them out, way out all around hitter below average and nothing on the base paths.

[TRfromBR]

Again serving as evidence that the naked numbers, when viewed decades later, do not tell the entire story- and often don't approach evincing the truth.

As usual, our picture of him today will be more accurate than that of people decades from now who never saw him play looking at a bunch of numbers, who weren't privy to everything going on in the baseball world, and had no real firsthand feel of the context of the times. People with absolutely no visceral, tangible sense for the player and his era. People who watched him play for 15 years- who covered him from spring training through october, day in and day out, are privy to one hell of a lot more than someone glancing at a stat line 20, 50, or 100 years from now.



What an excellent observation, and example, csh, of how extremely valuable, and even essential, contemporaneous opinion is in the assessment of a ballplayer. There are just too many factors that can't be statistically modeled or replicated with sufficient accuracy or reliability.

[TRfromBR]

Chris, people should get mad because certain players are cheating. If their anger is pertains to whether the player is chasing a record, they need to get their priorities straight. Players should all be held to the same standard when it comes to cheating. Using steroids to break a record is no worse than using steroids to improve one's play in order to win more ballgames. It is still cheating, no matter how good the player involved is.

I see your point, and that of digglahhh's, but don't you think that huge cheating with the specific motivation of breaking a hallowed record, like Bonds is, is far more damnable and worthy of disgrace, than lesser use by players of far less import and consequence?

If a Marine were to lie & cheat his way to a Medal of Honor, for example, I would certainly regard that a more troubling offense than his getting one too many tatoos in between tours of Bagdad. And if somebody were to lie & cheat his way into the presidency, for instance, I would think that an issue of slightly greater concern than some local councilman who also cheated, and still lost.

I think it's patently unrealistic to think or expect that Bonds' highly unlawful and ill-motivated assault on Baseball's most sacred records should be treated as some run-of-the-mill offense of no lasting consequence. It flies in the face of commonsense.

[digglahhh]

And if somebody were to lie & cheat his way into the presidency, for instance, I would think that an issue of slightly greater concern than some local councilman who also cheated, and still lost.

That an unfair comparison, guys playing baseball aren't important on a global scale - and really, neither are their all time records.

[digglahhh]

Chris and Chris,

I actually think you both have valid points. Elder Chirs, you know I agree with you on the standards of true all-time great status. But, I do also believe that raw productivity is a pretty substantial component of a HOF argument. I also believe in the "compared to your peers" perspective, which basically subsumes the concept of your value within the context of the game at the time you played.

In a case like McGwire, I think he is, at face value, a HOFer. I don't consider him an inner circle guy though. I guess I make a distinction between players who are adaptive and players who are not, but once you reach a certain level of producivity, I'm not going to oust you from the Hall over being a product of your time.

At McGwire's time, he was one of the most valuable players in the entire sport to have on your team. That is the very bare bones basics of a HOF argument.

All-time, Inner Circle Great? No.
Legit HOFer at face value? Yes.

[538280]

All-time, Inner Circle Great? No.
Legit HOFer at face value? Yes.

I agree with that. I don't have McGwire quite in my top 100 as it is now, right outside. If I took everything at face value he'd probably be in the 70s, solid HOFer but not inner circle.

[538280]

I never said he was a good hitter, I may have gave that impression with my choice of words. If I did say that it was in error.

Great power hitter thats all I can credit him with, all around hitter down the list in his time period.

He did receive a good number of walks but it's obvious they still thought they could ge him out, lots of strike outs. In his time period he was third in walks but considering his power down the list in IBB. IBB he was 9th behind Chili Davis, Will Clark, Fred McGriff to name a few.

What do IBBs have to do with anything? IBBs help a player's value somewhat. The fact McGwire wasn't intentionally walked all that often may show you his walks were a result of an actual skill on his part and perhaps not just freebes from the pitcher (though I'm sure some of his walks were of the "unintentional intentional" variety).

He was 14th on the list in reaching base, even with 1317 walks, one dimensional, hit it out don't expect too much in other aspects of hitting

Who cares? When you have a .394 OBP and nearly a .600 SLG for a 163 OPS+, 11th all time, he's obviously getting on base plenty and doing a ton to move runners along-and that's how teams score runs. That McGwire did that with relatively few hits (low BA) doesn't mean anything, because he was still moving runners along just as well with those hits because his power was unbelieveable, his relative ISO is above 200. And he was walking enough that his OBP is still fantastic (40th all time in relative OBP). He was all around a run producing machine as a hitter. The strikeouts are an eyesore to some, but not a detriment towards what he did for his team.

You mention Foxx and Mac with that 163 OPS+, thats where the comparison ends. Foxx had one of the higher averages in his time, high on the list in OBA .428, 4th in reaching base and 6th in hits and a slugger at that.

I agree McGwire is not close to Foxx. Foxx had a much longer career than McGwire, more great seasons, much more durability/consistency, and was a much more complete player, better fielder/runner. I just mentioned his OPS+ is 11th all time tied with Foxx to show how great his hitting really was while he was playing. It was at the level of a guy like Foxx. Foxx and McGwire were the same in relative OBP, Foxx's being higher is a function of when he played. McGwire's relative OBP is 119 (actually 118.7), and Foxx's 118 (118.2). They're essentially the same.

All Mac could do was hit them out, way out all around hitter below average and nothing on the base paths.

Hit them out and get on base at a great rate. Those things make a run producing machine.

[digglahhh]

Hit them out and get on base at a great rate. Those things make a run producing machine.

I think a lot of us, for semantic purposes, are a lot more comfortable with "incredibly productive offensive player" as opposed to "great hitter."

[TRfromBR]

That an unfair comparison, guys playing baseball aren't important on a global scale - and really, neither are their all time records.

Which proves the very point that levels of vigilance and punishment must be tailored to the significance of the offense. The more significant the offense, the more vigilance and punishment is required. That's why Bonds' prodigious cheating must be dealt with more seriously than if some Texas Leaguer pops a No-Doz.

P.S. America allowing its "premier" sports star to so flagrantly cheat is of severe global consequence. It undermines our ever-eroding moral high ground ... what's left of it.

[csh19792001]

I'm not disputing any of this, and the Ruth research is very interesting, but I don't see what it really has to do with McGwire.

It has everything to do with McGwire because he was a product of his era; he wouldn't have hit NEARLY AS MANY homeruns playing when the average AL CF fence was 470 feet, the "power alleys" were 50+ feet deeper than they are today, and conditions were completely set antithetical to his unifaceted skill set. His "worth" is predicated entirely on conditions being set so that his one skill is completely augmented.

That's not indicative of one of the greatest few players who ever lived; that's the marker of a player who was largely a product of his era. Again, see inverse Wee Willie Keeler, who you'd take every opportunity to bash because he wouldn't do well in today's era.

How ironic!!! Unilateral historical projectionism.


Not synonymous by your definition of greatness, which is not set in stone or a fact. That context you speak of should not, IMO, be removed when you compare players. That is what players actually performed under. It is taking them out of reality to place them in a abstract, construced, fantasy context of "adaptability". iI has nothing to do with what they actually did or the actual games.

"Actually" and "actual" have to be your two favorite words when talking about baseball history and its players. Abstractionism and historical projections are clearly lost to you.

That's really unfortunate.

[csh19792001]

I agree with that. I don't have McGwire quite in my top 100 as it is now, right outside. If I took everything at face value he'd probably be in the 70s, solid HOFer but not inner circle.

And I agree with these also (Derek and Chris).

But as I said in my original post, that's ancillary to the larger principle here in evaluating baseball players across 135 years of history; I try to look at how great they would have been in any era, and McGwire would not have been very "valuable" at all playing at any time during the first 50 years of baseball history.

[csh19792001]

I think a lot of us, for semantic purposes, are a lot more comfortable with "incredibly productive offensive player" as opposed to "great hitter."

Thank you.

And it took me how many lines to try to delineate these two concepts? :)

Brevity is the soul of wit.

[west coast orange and black]

stantheman: "I don't want to talk about the past."

mcgwire was invited to appear before the house government reform committee for a specific reason - to speak generally of current steroid use - and he accepted the offer.

it was when congressman william clay ambushed mcgwire with a question of mcgwire's own honesty and integrity that the 8 words were uttered. mcgwire had every right to not speak to something to which he did not agree; he had every right to not speak of himself. the next questions were undoubtedly going to be requests for mcgwire to name names.

i think that mcgwire did the right thing:
he answered the way that almost all ballplayers would have;
the way that every american citizen ought to have.

[John Shoemaker]

stantheman: "I don't want to talk about the past."

mcgwire was invited to appear before the house government reform committee for a specific reason - to speak generally of current steroid use - and he accepted the offer.

it was when congressman william clay ambushed mcgwire with a question of mcgwire's own honesty and integrity that the 7 words were uttered. mcgwire had every right to not speak to something to which he did not agree; he had every right to not speak of himself. the next questions were undoubtedly going to be requests for mcgwire to name names.

i think that mcgwire did the right thing. he answered the way that almost all ballplayers would have. the way that every american citizen ought to have.

Thats what I think too.

[538280]

It has everything to do with McGwire because he was a product of his era; he wouldn't have hit NEARLY AS MANY homeruns playing when the average AL CF fence was 470 feet, the "power alleys" were 50+ feet deeper than they are today, and conditions were completely set antithetical to his unifaceted skill set. His "worth" is predicated entirely on conditions being set so that his one skill is completely augmented.

Again, like I said in the past reply, that's not really an issue to me. McGwire did what he did in his own era. There is no worrying to me about how he would have done in the 1920s. In the 1920s Mark McGwire the baseball player is a totally different thing from the real Mark McGwire. Mark McGwire in the 20s takes a totally different approach to the game and works on different things. Mark McGwire in the 1920s is not nearly the same as the real Mark McGwire, 1920s Mark McGwire is an abstract creation that has nothing to do with anything except a fantacized image to meet your ideals.

That's not indicative of one of the greatest few players who ever lived; that's the marker of a player who was largely a product of his era. Again, see inverse Wee Willie Keeler, who you'd take every opportunity to bash because he wouldn't do well in today's era.

How ironic!!! Unilateral historical projectionism.

I would say Keeler faced suspect competition (which he did). I would not penalize him because his style of play isn't set for the modern game-I don't think that's appropriate.


"Actually" and "actual" have to be your two favorite words when talking about baseball history and its players. Abstractionism and historical projections are clearly lost to you.

That's really unfortunate.

Unfortunate that I can focus on reality and not fantasies? I think it's a differing in style; neither is unfortunate IMO.

[mwb]

I know it's been mentioned before but McGwire hit 49 HRs in his rookie year when he was as skinny as a toothpick.

Starting in the early 90's many players were hitting HRs at a record pace. I think that is just as much a result of smaller parks & expansion.

Guys like McGwire & Bonds became better hitters as their careers progressed. These guys were not only hitting HRs but they were hitting for higher averages even over .300. Bonds' hitting is amazing this year. He seems to guess right at the pitches & doesn't miss. This is without steriods (unless he's foolish enough to keep taking them).

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I know it's been mentioned before but McGwire hit 49 HRs in his rookie year when he was as skinny as a toothpick.

Starting in the early 90's many players were hitting HRs at a record pace. I think that is just as much a result of smaller parks & expansion.

Guys like McGwire & Bonds became better hitters as their careers progressed. These guys were not only hitting HRs but they were hitting for higher averages even over .300. Bonds' hitting is amazing this year. He seems to guess right at the pitches & doesn't miss. This is without steriods (unless he's foolish enough to keep taking them).


Not going to take it away from the guy, one of the best sluggers in the game. But 1987 was a strange year, some of the thoughts on the home run explosion that season. Not my ideas, others sayng the ball was tampered with and some saying there was an adjustment in the strike zone.

What ever the reason it doesn't matter, we know there was a one year explosion in home runs in 1987. My post of 05-06-2007 and numbered #41 gives some numbers in a few years before and after 1987 and 1987 was a spike a real spike

In the years from 1985 to 1995 the highest home runs in a season, out of the top six, three of the highest totals were from the season 1987.

Top 6 highest home run total for a season from 1985-1995.
1990---51
1995---50
1987---49
1987---49
1989---47
1987---47

Now it's possible that had 1994 and 1995 been full seasons, not strike shortened these seasons may have made the list. What ever balls flew of the parks in 1987 like never before. From 3813-Hrs in 1986 to 4458 Hrs in 1987 to 3180 in 1988.

It took Mac 5 more years to get back to 40 home runs in a season. Some injuries in his career but in the seasons 1988 to 1991 he average about 510 at bats a season and did not hit 40 again till 1992.

I still think he may get into the HOF some day.

[538280]

Not going to take it away from the guy, one of the best sluggers in the game. But 1987 was a strange year, some of the thoughts on the home run explosion that season. Not my ideas, others sayng the ball was tampered with and some saying there was an adjustment in the strike zone.

What ever the reason it doesn't matter, we know there was a one year explosion in home runs in 1987. My post of 05-06-2007 and numbered #41 gives some numbers in a few years before and after 1987 and 1987 was a spike a real spike

In the years from 1985 to 1995 the highest home runs in a season, out of the top six, three of the highest totals were from the season 1987.

Top 6 highest home run total for a season from 1985-1995.
1990---51
1995---50
1987---49
1987---49
1989---47
1987---47

Now it's possible that had 1994 and 1995 been full seasons, not strike shortened these seasons may have made the list. What ever balls flew of the parks in 1987 like never before. From 3813-Hrs in 1986 to 4458 Hrs in 1987 to 3180 in 1988.

It took Mac 5 more years to get back to 40 home runs in a season. Some injuries in his career but in the seasons 1988 to 1991 he average about 510 at bats a season and did not hit 40 again till 1992.

I still think he may get into the HOF some day.

1987 was an offensive explosion year, and like all players we should compare McGwire to the league averages that year, which were higher. McGwire still led the leauge in home runs and slugging and had a 164 OPS+. Through 1992 McGwire had a 141 career OPS+. He was a solid fielder from 1B, better than he was later. He won a 1990 GG. There was a good chance McGwire was going to be a HOFer even through those years, before his explosion of performance.

People seem to just be using the argument that since McGwire played in a high HR/slugging era (1987 and then post 1993) that we can just write off his accomplishments. His numbers, like any other players, should be compared to the norms of the era he played in and will be brought to earth by that, but the thing with McGwire is that even in that huge era of HRs/slugging he STILL emerges from the pack as an all time great hitter. Even before his supposed steroid usage he was still a very good hitter who could have been a borderline HOF candiate even in a short career.

[mwb]

Perhaps McGwire was just a great player. Babe Ruth's stats in 1927 were off the charts compared to league averages & trends but no one suspects the Babe was on steriods. It seems today, every great player has a dark cloud over him before being found guilty of anything.

[John Shoemaker]

Perhaps McGwire was just a great player. Babe Ruth's stats in 1927 were off the charts compared to league averages & trends but no one suspects the Babe was on steriods. It seems today, every great player has a dark cloud over him before being found guilty of anything.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

[BiggestYankeeFan_in_Memphis]

McGwire shouldn't be in the Hall. His numbers are not that appealing. Only 1626 hits in 16 seasons. A .263 BA and he never won an MVP, and he played 1st Base, people be real. I think two things hurt his chances tremendously, the whole steroid or PED's accusations that may linger about him (true or not) and he never won an MVP. And his number of strikeouts is pretty high as well Top 25 in that.

[StanTheMan]

stantheman: "I don't want to talk about the past."

mcgwire was invited to appear before the house government reform committee for a specific reason - to speak generally of current steroid use - and he accepted the offer.

it was when congressman william clay ambushed mcgwire with a question of mcgwire's own honesty and integrity that the 8 words were uttered. mcgwire had every right to not speak to something to which he did not agree; he had every right to not speak of himself. the next questions were undoubtedly going to be requests for mcgwire to name names.

i think that mcgwire did the right thing:
he answered the way that almost all ballplayers would have;
the way that every american citizen ought to have.


Sure you don't want to change that last part to.... (at least this is the way I see it)

i think that mcgwire did the right thing for him... specifically to not be forced to perjur himself with later questions, and to let the congressmen and women know he was not going to answer, so don't ask.:
he answered the way that almost all ballplayers would have; which certainly does not make it right... if a ballplayers own WIFE... the most important person in the world to him suddenly asked him which of his teammates sleep around on the road, I'm willing to be 99 of them would/have lied about the subject. Just because "most" ballplayers would answer a question a certain way, does not result in said answer being beyond critique.
the way that every american citizen ought to have especially if they are themselves guilty, and have commited the crime relating to the topic of the discussion


Mac had the right to answer the way he did, there is no doubt about that. I still contend his explicit denial to speak of his own actions, and subsequent 475+ days of silence on the subject is closer to an admittance of guilt than an exoneration.

From the moment any ballplayer decided to stick the needle in (take the pill, rub the cream on, etc) he will/should be under the microscope WHENEVER he is asked about the subject for the rest of his life. It was he who made the choice to commit a crime, and must live with the consequences.

[BiggestYankeeFan_in_Memphis]

Sure you don't want to change that last part to.... (at least this is the way I see it)

i think that mcgwire did the right thing for him... specifically to not be forced to perjur himself with later questions, and to let the congressmen and women know he was not going to answer, so don't ask.:
he answered the way that almost all ballplayers would have; which certainly does not make it right... if a ballplayers own WIFE... the most important person in the world to him suddenly asked him which of his teammates sleep around on the road, I'm willing to be 99 of them would/have lied about the subject. Just because "most" ballplayers would answer a question a certain way, does not result in said answer being beyond critique.
the way that every american citizen ought to have especially if they are themselves guilty, and have commited the crime relating to the topic of the discussion


Mac had the right to answer the way he did, there is no doubt about that. I still contend his explicit denial to speak of his own actions, and subsequent 475+ days of silence on the subject is closer to an admittance of guilt than an exoneration.

From the moment any ballplayer decided to stick the needle in (take the pill, rub the cream on, etc) he will/should be under the microscope WHENEVER he is asked about the subject for the rest of his life. It was he who made the choice to commit a crime, and must live with the consequences.



Hear Hear, I second this motion. Notice the original poster is West Coast Orange and Black. I will say one thing in Big Mac's defense at least he didn't use the statement "I may have UNKNOWINGLY taken steroids". That is admitting you used steroids. That's like a guy killing someone and claiming temporary insanity, he still killed someone and he still gets consequences.

[StanTheMan]

Hear Hear, I second this motion. Notice the original poster is West Coast Orange and Black.

The fact that WC O and B thinks McGwire was AMBUSHED by a congressman's question, really says all you need to know about his opinion on the matter, if you ask me.

He was invited to talk to Congress about the current state of Steroids in baseball. There were all kinds of players invited.... those who were supected of using, and those who at the time, were not suspected of using.

Did he think Congress wanted his Chocolate Chip Cookie Recipe, or wanted to know what is his favorite kind of Danish? Boxers or Briefs? Snooze or no Snooze? Shemp or Curly? What's Big Mac's opinion of New Coke? Was Saturday Night Live better in 1994 or 1995?

Ambushed... LOL.

I've gone round and roudn with WC O and B about Bonds and McGwire before. He's probably a decent guy.... we just disagree significantly. He usually restricts himself to the word play games, beginning letter games and vote off games... but then gets in on the sterioid threads. To each his own, I guess.

[BiggestYankeeFan_in_Memphis]

The fact that WC O and B thinks McGwire was AMBUSHED by a congressman's question, really says all you need to know about his opinion on the matter, if you ask me.

He was invited to talk to Congress about the current state of Steroids in baseball. There were all kinds of players invited.... those who were supected of using, and those who at the time, were not suspected of using.

Did he think Congress wanted his Chocolate Chip Cookie Recipe, or wanted to know what is his favorite kind of Danish? Boxers or Briefs? Snooze or no Snooze? Shemp or Curly? What's Big Mac's opinion of New Coke? Was Saturday Night Live better in 1994 or 1995?

Ambushed... LOL.

I've gone round and roudn with WC O and B about Bonds and McGwire before. He's probably a decent guy.... we just disagree significantly. He usually restricts himself to the word play games, beginning letter games and vote off games... but then gets in on the sterioid threads. To each his own, I guess.

When being summoned before a council for anything (even more so for Congress) you usually get some notice of when it takes place and it usually describes the reason why. Ambushed? I don't think so. From what i have heard and remembered he was actually summoned. I don't believe being summoned is being Ambushed. You gotta love Giants fan and their love of the contribution of steroids. Bonds is to baseball as the apple was to Adam and Eve.

[jalbright]

When being summoned before a council for anything (even more so for Congress) you usually get some notice of when it takes place and it usually describes the reason why. Ambushed? I don't think so. From what i have heard and remembered he was actually summoned. I don't believe being summoned is being Ambushed.

Maybe ambushed isn't the best term--but the truth is, there was hardly even a pretense that this would be a fair hearing. Congress wanted good sound bytes, and by God, they got them. It was a variation on the old McCarthyite tactics, or, if you prefer, a Stalinist show trial, albeit with less dire results. However, all the above cared far more about the show than the largely preordained results. Congress wanted to embarrass baseball and Selig in those hearings, and they succeeded.

The players were pawns in that game, and Congress didn't really care how well or poorly they handled those pawns. I don't think anyone should be held accountable for refusing to answer questions meant to be the equivalent of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" If you can't win (and McGwire couldn't in that situation), often the best choice is not to play.

Jim Albright

[BiggestYankeeFan_in_Memphis]

Maybe ambushed isn't the best term--but the truth is, there was hardly even a pretense that this would be a fair hearing. Congress wanted good sound bytes, and by God, they got them. It was a variation on the old McCarthyite tactics, or, if you prefer, a Stalinist show trial, albeit with less dire results. However, all the above cared far more about the show than the largely preordained results. Congress wanted to embarrass baseball and Selig in those hearings, and they succeeded.

The players were pawns in that game, and Congress didn't really care how well or poorly they handled those pawns. I don't think anyone should be held accountable for refusing to answer questions meant to be the equivalent of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" If you can't win (and McGwire couldn't in that situation), often the best choice is not to play.

Jim Albright
Now this is true. Congress didn't show any care as to how baseball in general looked after "their" trial, but McGwire can be blamed for not clearing his name, pleading the fifth legally does not pronounce your guilt but in the minds of many people (especially fans) IT SCREAMS IT. (i.e. Giambi)

[BiggestYankeeFan_in_Memphis]

My opinion is that I hope he doesn't make it in.
I second this

[Mike Hoban]

One reason that I have been awaiting the results of the BBWAA election this year was to see how Mark McGwire would make out. Would his percentage of votes this year show a dramatic increase from last? Or would the writers show some consistency in his case?

Well, the results are in and it does appear that the writers are holding firm. The percentage of votes for Big Mac this year did not change appreciably from last year. So, what does this mean? Can we conclude anything from this? My conclusion is as follows: MARK MCGWIRE WILL NOT BE ELECTED TO THE HALL OF FAME BY THE BBWAA.

As reluctant as I am to think that the majority of writers could agree on any firm principle, I am concluding now that most of them (rightly or wrongly) will not vote for a candidate implicated in the "steroid scandal."

I am not saying that I believe that this is good or bad. But what it says to me is that if a writer will not vote for McGwire, why would he vote, for example, for Palmeiro or Sosa or Bonds or Clemens? Fairly or not, a good number of elite players have been negatively affected by this issue. And if McGwire is not elected, why would we think any of the others would be?

Author of BASEBALL'S BEST: The TRUE Hall of Famers

[Fuzzy Bear]

Over time, the writers may come to their senses and stop the hysteria over steroids. McGwire was one of the 10 best first basemen of all time, easily; to leave him out of the HOF is preposterous. After a while, this will become evident. Mac may well have a long wait, however.

[MedicCook]

I think as time goes by things may change.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

McGwire's lack of votes this year was very interesting indeed, but I'm not convinced that it means anything...yet. While the voters did stick to their guns, I am not convinced that they will continue to do so for 15 years. Steroids were popular topic of conversation a year ago, and they're an even more popular topic of conversation right now. Eventually, the issue will die down somewhat. 13 years is a long time, and it's hard to predict how McGwire will fare in the voting that far into the future.

Supposing your theory is correct about McGwire, it will not necessarily hold true for all of the other suspects. Some voters may be passing on McGwire because they don't believe he would have HOF numbers without PEDs. Although probably wrong in that thinking, those voters probably wouldn't feel the same about Bonds and Clemens. The only way anyone could pass on those two is if they simply didn't want PED users in the HOF.

[Fuzzy Bear]

McGwire's lack of votes this year was very interesting indeed, but I'm not convinced that it means anything...yet. While the voters did stick to their guns, I am not convinced that they will continue to do so for 15 years. Steroids were popular topic of conversation a year ago, and they're an even more popular topic of conversation right now. Eventually, the issue will die down somewhat. 13 years is a long time, and it's hard to predict how McGwire will fare in the voting that far into the future.

Supposing your theory is correct about McGwire, it will not necessarily hold true for all of the other suspects. Some voters may be passing on McGwire because they don't believe he would have HOF numbers without PEDs. Although probably wrong in that thinking, those voters probably wouldn't feel the same about Bonds and Clemens. The only way anyone could pass on those two is if they simply didn't want PED users in the HOF.

I agree that this is how things will eventually play out. What remains to be seen is how long "eventually" turns out to be.

It's going to dawn on people soon enough that if we keep up our hysteria about Vitamin S, we'll have a HOF that has excluded the greatest players of a generation. There will be a huge hole in baseball history that, in truth, will constitute a dishonest telling of baseball history for the sake of tut-tut, hoidy-toidy misguided moralism run amok. People have a way of coming to their senses and abandoning such foolishness, but not until they can do so without having to admit they were wrong for once being/feeling/thinking that way.

[Mattingly]

I see that Mark McGwire infamously got 23.5% in 2007, and now in 2008, he gets 23.6%. In how many years do people here feel he'll get the required 75% to be in? Or will the past truly be forgotten?

Link to percentages (http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080108&content_id=2341502&vkey=news_nyy&fext=.jsp&c_id=nyy), in Goose Gossage article from yankees.com.

[White Knight]

I'm sick to my stomach that he only got 23% again. :(

[Appling]

One reason that I have been awaiting the results of the BBWAA election this year was to see how Mark McGwire would make out. Would his percentage of votes this year show a dramatic increase from last? Or would the writers show some consistency in his case?

But what it says to me is that if a writer will not vote for McGwire, why would he vote, for example, for Palmeiro or Sosa or Bonds or Clemens? Fairly or not, a good number of elite players have been negatively affected by this issue. And if McGwire is not elected, why would we think any of the others would be?

Author of BASEBALL'S BEST: The TRUE Hall of Famers
Why focus only on the STAR players?

In fact, the HOF should blackball ANY PLAYER whose performance MAY HAVE BEEN ENHANCED by use of illegal drugs or banned substances. McGwire's HR success may have been helped by drugs, but not as much as PED's surely helped some less talented players. We cannot know FOR SURE whether any player is truly CLEAN. Therefore, we must ban ALL PLAYERS who played after 1994. In a few years we can then close the Hall of Fame. This seems to be the baseball method of operating, ever since the days of Judge Landis: Guilty unless proven without doubt to be innocent.

Or maybe -- grant amnesty to all players who are suspected but were never proven (by testing) to be guilty??? (This would seem to include all players who are now retired -- unless they CONFESS their guilt.

I don't see any reasonable middle ground!

[Brad Harris]

Over time, the writers may come to their senses and stop the hysteria over steroids.

ROTFLMAO

And I thought I was a hopeless romantic! :D

[Brian McKenna]

Does this amnesty give future transgressors a bullet-proof vest?

I have no problem with granting active players amnesty today as long as it comes with complete disclosure. I don't even care about the contrition - just the facts.

However, what would we exactly be giving McGwire and retired players amnesty from? Criticism?

McGwire is under no threat of prosecution, so why does he need amnesty?

You can't tell fans what to think, you can't tell those in the media what to think. The BBWAA votes for potential HOFers. Those are people. People who have to deal with what the players did. I can't begrudge them opinions as I hope they wouldn't begrudge me mine.

Are we now going to judge the voters for their inability to praise McGwire and force them to vote for him? Make them vote for McGwire?

Amnesty is granted by an administrative body. It in no way dictates how individuals view information and circumstances. Nor can we force them to vote along a certain line.

[Paul Wendt]

Regarding the eventual election of Mark McGwire, or Rafael Palmeiro, or whom?

What proportion of the BBWAA turns over every year? Most nine-year members survive to become voters and some veteran members retire from the association or die. The turnover may be about 5% per year, which adds up numerically. It may add up electorally so that McGwire needs a reversal of position from nothing close to 51.4% of voters. Perhaps 30% reversals will elect him.

How many people feel that McGwire and Palmeiro lied to congress, or showed contempt for that institution? Many people do, but how many BBWAA voters feel strongly about that? Votes that these two candidates lose may not be lost to all players implicated as PED users.
These men are not charming liars or deft prevaricators a la Bill Clinton. Rather a bit insolent, which is decisive for some number of voters (entirely unguessable for me).

[White Knight]

Regarding the eventual election of Mark McGwire, or Rafael Palmeiro, or whom?

What proportion of the BBWAA turns over every year? Most nine-year members survive to become voters and some veteran members retire from the association or die. The turnover may be about 5% per year, which adds up numerically. It may add up electorally so that McGwire needs a reversal of position from nothing close to 51.4% of voters. Perhaps 30% reversals will elect him.

How many people feel that McGwire and Palmeiro lied to congress, or showed contempt for that institution? Many people do, but how many BBWAA voters feel strongly about that? Votes that these two candidates lose may not be lost to all players implicated as PED users.
These men are not charming liars or deft prevaricators a la Bill Clinton. Rather a bit insolent, which is decisive for some number of voters (entirely unguessable for me).


Mac didn't talk about the past, so he didn't lie to Congress. Palmeiro on the other hand said he never used PED's, then gets cought testing positive. I suppose his defense can say he never used them up until that point, or that he did them against his will (extremely unlikely, but he said "never knowingly used").

[White Knight]

Hey guys, what would happen if Mac had 17 more HR's in his final year, and held out for 600? Would he be in the HOF now? If not, would he have gotten much more then 23%? I bet if Mac had known the results, he would have put retirement on hold for another season.

Also, suppose his knees didn't fail, and he instead retires in 2007 at age 44, with 820 HR's? Then what?

[OleMissCub]

Am I alone in thinking that he's not a HOFer, regardless of the steroid issue?

[cardsfanatic]

Am I alone in thinking that he's not a HOFer, regardless of the steroid issue?

LMAO! And Andre Dawson is??? And you call me biased. Sheesh.

[Mike Hoban]

Am I alone in thinking that he's not a HOFer, regardless of the steroid issue?

If you do not think Mark McGwire has the numbers for the HOF, then I suspect that you are in a very small minority.

The News HOF Gauge has McGwire as the #56 best position player of the century. And look at the five players just below him.

56. Mark McGwire 298
57. Dave Winfield 298
58. Johnny Bench 297
59. Roberto Clemente 296
60. Ryne Sandberg 295
61. Tony Gwynn 294

Aside from the steroids question, does he have HOF numbers? I think so.

Author of BASEBALL'S BEST: The TRUE Hall of Famers

[White Knight]

Am I alone in thinking that he's not a HOFer, regardless of the steroid issue?

Yes you are. Averaging a HR every 10.6 at-bats (best in history, and Ruth's second best is more than a full at-bat difference), hitting a total of 583, hitting 500 in fewest at-bats, hitting 50+ four times, and 65+ two times. Come on that, that's a HOFer if I ever saw one.

[Brad Harris]

And as someone who had to follow that despicable Oakland dynasty in the late Eighties, let me say that McGwire's biggest asset remains the fact he's not Jose Canseco.

[Los Bravos]

I think Palmeiro has a much better overall case, but his going all Uncle Sam in the hearing and then having that finger subsequently jammed down his gullett will hurt him more than McGwire's verbal equivalent of curl into a fetal position.

The arguments that fly best against McGwire, apart from the baseline steroids accusation itself, are that he was too much of a one dimensional hitter and player and that the bump his career got in St. Louis, (which in many people's minds is suspicious and tainted, now), is what got him to his level where his numbers merit a serious look. Which stands in marked contrast to Bonds, who could have moved to Ecuador after the '98 season and would have a plaque in the Hall right now.

[Einstein'sCurve]

My conclusion is as follows: MARK MCGWIRE WILL NOT BE ELECTED TO THE HALL OF FAME BY THE BBWAA.

As reluctant as I am to think that the majority of writers could agree on any firm principle, I am concluding now that most of them (rightly or wrongly) will not vote for a candidate implicated in the "steroid scandal."

I am not saying that I believe that this is good or bad. But what it says to me is that if a writer will not vote for McGwire, why would he vote, for example, for Palmeiro or Sosa or Bonds or Clemens? Fairly or not, a good number of elite players have been negatively affected by this issue. And if McGwire is not elected, why would we think any of the others would be?

Author of BASEBALL'S BEST: The TRUE Hall of Famers

Is the Baseball HOF even relevant other than an promotional tool of MLB?

The BBWAA, HOF, and MLB all co-exist in mutual support. Some of the BBWAA aren't allowed to vote by their employers, which sort of floats a growing perception that these writers aren't even the best baseball writers.

The least best writers electing the "best" baseball players?

Aren't these BBWAA boys part of the steroid scandal? They pretty much ignored all the juicing and juking of the game by the owners so they could write warm and fuzzy showcase features of the boys of the summer and daily homerun horse race updates. It wasn't until Bonds suddenly morphed into Monster Mash that most of these fellas even knocked the sleep out of their eyes.

Albert Belle only lasted 2 yrs on their ballots before being rejected post haste. That pretty much sums up their veracity.

I wouldn't want to wager on any "credentialed" hofer as defined by James for example not ever getting in based on BBWAA votes, because the Veteran committee can also elect players. That and the HOF can also change the rules of procedure as easily as artifact exhibits, or owners can change park dimensions or MLB can change strike zones.

[OleMissCub]

LMAO! And Andre Dawson is??? And you call me biased. Sheesh.

I was calling you bias as a joke dude, did you miss the TWO posts I made regarding it??

But yes, I'd rather have Dawson in his prime on my team than Big Mac. Dawson was a 4-5 tool player, Big Mac had one thing he did, and that was to mash the hell out of the ball.

[cardsfanatic]

I was calling you bias as a joke dude, did you miss the TWO posts I made regarding it??

But yes, I'd rather have Dawson in his prime on my team than Big Mac. Dawson was a 4-5 tool player, Big Mac had one thing he did, and that was to mash the hell out of the ball.

Ok, I'll let it drop. However, I do find it hilarious I get a warning for typing "unmitigated gall" in my post pre-edit by Mr. Albright and you can throw a curse word in there -- H-E-Double Hockey Sticks -- and come out scot free. Awesome!

[OleMissCub]

Ok, I'll let it drop. However, I do find it hilarious I get a warning for typing "unmitigated gall" in my post pre-edit by Mr. Albright and you can throw a curse word in there -- H-E-Double Hockey Sticks -- and come out scot free. Awesome!

And that's my fault??????

GO attack someone else, fella.

[cardsfanatic]

And that's my fault??????

GO attack someone else, fella.

I, uh, didn't attack you.

[jalbright]

cardsfanatic and OleMiss:

My issue with both of you at this point is that your bickering has become personal, and I'm not going to tolerate it--on either side. Please act accordingly. Thank you.

Jim Albright

[Ghost of Hans]

What gets forgotten sometimes is the fact that the Hall of Fame is an honor, not an entitlement. It's not like the critics for a player's enshrinement are trying to dock that player's salary or anything. If the player wants to shoot up with steroids, fine, but he shouldn't expect to receive a plaque for his juiced-up numbers. The game's already made him rich and famous -- why does he need its approval as well?

[Darren]

My father seems to think Mark McGwire should be in the Hall of Fame. I feel that even if he was not on steroids, he should not make it for the following reasons:


1)His prime was really from 1987-1992. He hardly played in 1993 and 1994, and he suddenly re-emerged in 1995. He exploded in 1996 and that continued through 1999.

2)His fielding was mediocre at best. He had several seasons with 10+ errors.

3)From 1989-1991, his batting average was pathetic. He batted .231, .235, and .201. This was all while playing in at least 143 games.

4)He was known for striking out constantly. He struck out 100+ 10 times, 130+ 4 times, and 140+ 3 times, and 150+ 2 times.

5)He didn't walk that much. Prior to joining St. Louis, he walked 100+ only twice.

6)Even with his huge home run seasons, he did not drive in many runs. On 4 ocassions, he hit 30+ home runs, but failed to drive in 100+ RBI's.

7)He did not score many runs. He scored 100+ runs, only 3 times. In 1996, he hit 52 home runs, but scored 104 runs(meaning 50% of his runs came off his home runs). In 1998, he hit 70 home runs, but scored 130 runs(meaning 53.8% of his runs came off his home runs). In 1999, he hit 65 homeuns, but scored 118 runs(meaning 55.1% of his runs came off his home runs).

[1905 Giants]

Alright, let's see how I do in defending McGwire:

1) Considering that from 1987-1992 McGwire was in his early to late 20's, it makes sense that that would represent his peak, and in 16 seasons, he only fell under a 100 OPS+ once (his rookie year).

2) First Basemen and defense don't always go together, and McGwire is hardly the only one. Also, fielding statistics are very unreliable, including just the raw number of errors. Besides, his fielding average was one-point higher than the league average, and his Range Factor by games played was 8.67, compared to a 7.09 Range Factor by games played for the league average. Also, for his entire career he only averaged .0625 errors per game (DH games, of course, do not count)

3) Batting Avergae is highly overrated. McGwire's On-Base percentage for his career was 62 points higher than the league average, his batting average was 1 point above league average, and his slugging percentage was 179 points higher than league average! His OPS+ is 162, which is 12th on the all-time list. Besides, a lifetime .263 average isn't THAT horrible.

4) Striking out a lot may make a player look horrible, but in all fairness it DOES just represent one out, and Mcgwire was only in the top ten for Grounding into Double Plays once (1989). Also, McGwire was only in the top ten in strikeouts twice.

5) McGwire is 40th on the all-time intentional walks list, and finished in the top 10 6 times, and he's also 35th on the all-time walks list, with 8 top-ten finishes.

6) RBIs also depend on teamwork, and thus are difficult to use in rating hitters. ANyway, he had 6 top-ten finishes and is 65th on the all-time list.

7) OK, he only had 2 top-ten finishes in runs, but like RBI, it does depend on teammates.


If steroids were not an issue, McGwire would earn the Hall easily.

[blacksilverfan12]

He reminds me of Ryan Howard or Adam Dunn. I don't think any of them are Hall-Of-Famers

[jjpm74]

There are two types of HOFers: guys who do a lot of things well and guys who do one thing amazingly well. McGwire belongs to the latter group. He was a guy who could hit home runs. Thing is, he hit them with more frequency than anyone else in the history of baseball by a sizable margin:

Rank Player (age) At Bats per Home Run Bats

1. Mark McGwire 10.60 R
2. Babe Ruth+* 11.80 L
3. Barry Bonds* (43) 12.90 L
4. Jim Thome* (37) 13.60 L
5. Adam Dunn* (28) 13.90 L
6. Ralph Kiner+ 14.10 R
7. Harmon Killebrew+ 14.20 R
Alex Rodriguez (32) 14.20 R
9. Albert Pujols (28) 14.40 R
10. Sammy Sosa (39) 14.50 R

McGwire also has one of the highest slugging percentages in the history of baseball:

Rank Player (age) Slugging % Bats

1. Babe Ruth+* .6898 L
2. Ted Williams+* .6338 L
3. Lou Gehrig+* .6324 L
4. Albert Pujols (28) .6195 R
5. Jimmie Foxx+ .6093 R
6. Barry Bonds* (43) .6069 L
7. Hank Greenberg+ .6050 R
8. Manny Ramirez (36) .5892 R
9. Mark McGwire .5882 R
10. Joe DiMaggio+ .5788 R

McGwire struck out a lot, had a short career relatively speaking, was slow and wasn't much on the field. However, he did something better than anyone else in the history of the game. He belongs.

[1905 Giants]

He reminds me of Ryan Howard or Adam Dunn. I don't think any of them are Hall-Of-Famers


I've shared my thoughts on Dunn on his own thread, and Howard hasn't played long enough for a fair comparison.

[jjpm74]

2) First Basemen and defense don't always go together, and McGwire is hardly the only one. Also, fielding statistics are very unreliable, including just the raw number of errors. Besides, his fielding average was one-point higher than the league average, and his Range Factor by games played was 8.67, compared to a 7.09 Range Factor by games played for the league average. Also, for his entire career he only averaged .0625 errors per game (DH games, of course, do not count)


McGwire also had a gold glove earlier in his career and while he lacked range, was not the defensive liability some people seem to think.

[blacksilverfan12]

I've shared my thoughts on Dunn on his own thread, and Howard hasn't played long enough for a fair comparison.

Dunn and McGwire seem like the same kind of player to me, and maybe Howard. We'll see in a couple more years

[1905 Giants]

We'll see in a couple more years

I look forward to the debate that will ensue if he continues to put up his standard numbers.

[dgarza]

1)His prime was really from 1987-1992. He hardly played in 1993 and 1994, and he suddenly re-emerged in 1995. He exploded in 1996 and that continued through 1999.

So that's 10-11 solid, prime years. Plus a few less than prime years.
Doesn't sound like much of a negative to me.
Maybe it wasn't the longest career, but he was no flash in the pan either.

[STLCards2]

McGwire's OB% and Slug% are both well above the average HOF firstbaseman. McGwire was also a solid defender at first during the first half of his career. McGwire is a definite HOFer without steroids.

McGwire traditional had better OB numbers than Howard or Dunn. He was also a better defender than Howard. McGwire was also far more prolific of a HR hitter than Dunn, and unlike Howard and Dunn, played his whole career in big pitcher's parks, not the bandboxes that Dunn and Howard play in. McGwire also has longevity on Dunn, and tons of longevity on Howard.

[Freakshow]

One basic stat OPS+.
McGwire is #10 all-time!:eek:

All-time top 25 in OPS+, minimum 7500 PA:

Cnt Player OPS+ PA From To
+----+-----------------+----+-----+----+----+
1 Babe Ruth 207 10616 1914 1935
2 Ted Williams 191 9791 1939 1960
3 Barry Bonds 182 12606 1986 2007
4 Lou Gehrig 179 9660 1923 1939
5 Rogers Hornsby 175 9475 1915 1937
6 Mickey Mantle 172 9909 1951 1968
7 Dan Brouthers 170 7658 1879 1904
8 Ty Cobb 167 13072 1905 1928
9 Jimmie Foxx 163 9670 1925 1945
10 Mark McGwire 162 7660 1986 2001
11 Stan Musial 159 12712 1941 1963
12 Tris Speaker 158 11988 1907 1928
13 Frank Thomas 157 9965 1990 2008
14 Willie Mays 156 12493 1951 1973
15 Hank Aaron 155 13940 1954 1976
16 Joe DiMaggio 155 7671 1936 1951
17 Mel Ott 155 11337 1926 1947
18 Frank Robinson 154 11743 1956 1976
19 Manny Ramirez 153 8724 1993 2008
20 Roger Connor 153 8837 1880 1897
21 Ed Delahanty 152 8389 1888 1903
22 Honus Wagner 150 11739 1897 1917
23 Nap Lajoie 150 10460 1896 1916
24 Jim Thome 149 8759 1991 2008
25 Jeff Bagwell 149 9431 1991 2005

He's #3 in the modern era.

Top 25 in OPS+, minimum 6000 PA, 1948-2008:

Cnt Player OPS+ PA From To
+----+-----------------+----+-----+----+----+
1 Barry Bonds 182 12606 1986 2007
2 Mickey Mantle 172 9909 1951 1968
3 Mark McGwire 162 7660 1986 2001
4 Frank Thomas 157 9965 1990 2008
5 Dick Allen 156 7314 1963 1977
6 Willie Mays 156 12493 1951 1973
7 Stan Musial 156 9380 1948 1963
8 Hank Aaron 155 13940 1954 1976
9 Manny Ramirez 154 8732 1993 2008
10 Frank Robinson 154 11743 1956 1976
11 Jim Thome 149 8771 1991 2008
12 Jeff Bagwell 149 9431 1991 2005
13 Alex Rodriguez 148 8801 1994 2008
14 Jason Giambi 147 7535 1995 2008
15 Vladimir Guerrero 147 7184 1996 2008
16 Edgar Martinez 147 8672 1987 2004
17 Mike Schmidt 147 10062 1972 1989
18 Willie Stargell 147 9026 1962 1982
19 Willie McCovey 147 9686 1959 1980
20 Chipper Jones 145 8501 1993 2008
21 Albert Belle 143 6673 1989 2000
22 Harmon Killebrew 143 9831 1954 1975
23 Eddie Mathews 143 10101 1952 1968
24 Todd Helton 142 7114 1997 2008
25 Gary Sheffield 142 10382 1988 2008

[Paul Wendt]

4)He was known for striking out constantly. He struck out 100+ 10 times, 130+ 4 times, and 140+ 3 times, and 150+ 2 times.
I don't recall his being known for striking out but never mind. For most people it's the other side of the coin to walking a lot.
5)He didn't walk that much. Prior to joining St. Louis, he walked 100+ only twice.
Hmm. Eddie Stanky did every year in his prime, so McGwire wasn't Eddie Stanky.

On the other hand, he did average 114 walks per 162 games. Rickey's average was 115!

How many games should be the minimum? Say 250 games.
. . .
Through 2006, there were 19 players with 250 games played and 0.7 walks per game (113+ per 162).
Rickey Henderson and Mark McGwire were 16th and 19th with Joe Morgan between them. Stanky was sixth. Here are the top ten.

Walks per game (250 games minimum)
0.881 Ted
0.861 Max Bishop
0.848 Barry
0.823 Babe
0.794 Bill Joyce
0.791 Eddie Stanky
0.785 Ferris Fain
0.768 Jack Crooks
0.765 Eddie Yost
0.760 Muggsy

There. The top ten go down to 121 walks per 162 games and McGwire is in the next ten.


100 bases on balls in a season . . . that has been done 501 times through 2006
35 home runs is slightly more common and 50 steals is slightly less common. Essentially, those marks have been equally frequent over the long course of mlb history.
. . .
McGwire has five seasons with 100 or more walks. 24 players have more than five.
Going back to Yaz there are 12; five from the 1950s; six from the Babe's day; and Roy Thomas.

27 people have more than five seasons with 35 homeruns (including McGwire).
Going back to Harmon Killebrew there are 18; six from the 1950s; Foxx, Gehrig, and Ruth.

23 people have more than five seasons with 50 steals (not including McGwire).
Going back to Maury Wills and Lou Brock there are ten then no one until Max Carey.

[dgarza]

2)His fielding was mediocre at best. He had several seasons with 10+ errors.

He did indeed. 5 of them, in fact.

So did 7x GG winner Bill White.
11x GG winner Keith Hernandez had 6 10+ error seasons.
8x GG winner George Scott had 11 10+ error seasons at 1B.

Not that we shouldn't look at errors, but they certainly don't tell the whole story.

[dgarza]

5)He didn't walk that much. Prior to joining St. Louis, he walked 100+ only twice.

He did walk often. From 1987-1996, he drew 785 walks, 7th out of all major leaguers, 5th in the AL alone.

A player does not have to walk 100 times in a season to be considered good. 80 walks is very good too.

[dgarza]

3)From 1989-1991, his batting average was pathetic. He batted .231, .235, and .201. This was all while playing in at least 143 games.

I'll give you that, although I'd like to hear your take on Killebrew and Reggie Jackson.

[STLCards2]

I'll give you that, although I'd like to hear your take on Killebrew and Reggie Jackson.

Darren is right here. McGwire was not a HOF calliber player from 1989-1991. Not just because of the average, but everything. 1987-1988, 1992, 1995-2000 on the other hand...

[dgarza]

7)He did not score many runs. He scored 100+ runs, only 3 times. Batting 4th can do that.
And McGwire was not known for his speed.

Once again, tell me about Reggie...

[Brad Harris]

My father seems to think Mark McGwire should be in the Hall of Fame. I feel that even if he was not on steroids, he should not make it for the following reasons:

1)His prime was really from 1987-1992. He hardly played in 1993 and 1994, and he suddenly re-emerged in 1995. He exploded in 1996 and that continued through 1999.

2)His fielding was mediocre at best. He had several seasons with 10+ errors.

3)From 1989-1991, his batting average was pathetic. He batted .231, .235, and .201. This was all while playing in at least 143 games.

4)He was known for striking out constantly. He struck out 100+ 10 times, 130+ 4 times, and 140+ 3 times, and 150+ 2 times.

5)He didn't walk that much. Prior to joining St. Louis, he walked 100+ only twice.

6)Even with his huge home run seasons, he did not drive in many runs. On 4 ocassions, he hit 30+ home runs, but failed to drive in 100+ RBI's.

7)He did not score many runs. He scored 100+ runs, only 3 times. In 1996, he hit 52 home runs, but scored 104 runs(meaning 50% of his runs came off his home runs). In 1998, he hit 70 home runs, but scored 130 runs(meaning 53.8% of his runs came off his home runs). In 1999, he hit 65 homeuns, but scored 118 runs(meaning 55.1% of his runs came off his home runs).

1. A player doesn't reach his "prime" in his first few seasons. McGwire's best seasons - 1998 and the surrounding years - were, by definition, his prime. Virtually no one has a "prime" of 10+ years. Virtually all great players have off- or injured-plagued years at some time in their career. If you're discounting steroids then I don't know why you're trying to imply that his spike in his later years shouldn't count as the best years of his career?

2. Oh my God! Somebody call the leather police! Ten errors? Several times? You don't say! Annie, go get my shotgun, we're gonna blow a hole in first base as big as McGwire! Sheesh man...that's proof he couldn't field? Puh-lease. Big Mac had five seasons of 10-13 errors (13 was his single season high.) Never mind that first basemen can be charged for errors that aren't necessarily their fault (since the official scorer makes a subjective judgment in assigning errors). Let's look at the context those errors came in. At the age of 23, McGwire committed 10 errors amidst 3,710 outs made by him and his team. Considering he was the first baseman he was involved in more attempted plays than anyone else on the team. And he committed only ten? Someone's picking nits here. The other four seasons McGwire had 10+ errors at first were in his thirties after he'd slowed down a bit. I swear. What's next? His fielding percentage?

3. I don't suppose players are allowed to have a few seasons to adjust to learn to hit early in their career if they expect to reach the Hall of Fame later? They should just spring from momma's womb swinging away like Teddy Ballgame or the Bambino I guess. During those same seasons, McGwire's on-base percentage was about 20 points above the average American League hitter and his slugging percentage about 50 points higher. He averaged 31 home runs and 89 RBI during those years, was an All-Star in each of them and received MVP votes in two of the three years. Screw his batting average.

4. Throughout McGwire's 16-year career, 41 players made more outs than him though only two players drove in more runs than Mark and no one hit more home runs. I don't think his strikeouts affected his productivity too much. McGwire struck out 20% of the time at the plate, compared to 16% for the league average. However, he only made an out 61% of the time compared to the 67% league average. So how exactly do his strikeouts derail his accomplishments as a hitter?

5. You neglect to mention that McGwire was on pace to walk 100 times for Oakland in 1997 when he was traded (which he did, in fact, reach that season in split-leagues.) Never mind that he didn't walk much before going to another team is an argument with more holes than a slice of swiss cheese. McGwire walked a ton! In fact, at the time of his retirement, McGwire was 29th all-time in career walks. For a guy with a "short" career, that's pretty impressive. Of the 17,000+ players in major league history, only 28 of them drew a walk more often than Mark McGwire, but you say he "didn't walk that much." Wow.

6. How is McGwire responsible for how many people were on base when he hit those home runs? Should he not have hit those home runs because there were no baserunners at the time? Big Mac smacked 306 dingers with no one on base. Considering 468 of McGwire's homers came when he was batting 3rd or 4th, it's really that simple. His teams should have done a much better job of getting the 1-2-3 hitters on base for McGwire to drive in. Not as though hitters can "choose" when to hit a home run, but think McGwire should have "saved" some of those home runs for when they "counted more"? Big Mac hit 270 home runs to put his team ahead when they were trailing or tied.

7. McGwire reached base 2,360 times through walks, singles, doubles and triples. He scored 584 runs that aren't attributable to his own home runs. He scored less than 1-in-4 times he was on base. What's he supposed to do to score more runs? Steal home? If the players behind him in the lineup (usually the 5-6-7 guys) don't bat him in of course he's not going to score more runs. Again, how you demerit McGwire for this is baffling.

Your dad sounds like a pretty smart guy. You should listen to him more.

[jjpm74]

I don't recall his being known for striking out but never mind. For most people it's the other side of the coin to walking a lot.


I wouldn't say McGwire struck out "constantly", but he's 27th all time in strikeouts. The only person in the top 30 all time with less ABs than McGwire is Mike Cameron who is still playing.

[Chickazoola]

If McGwire didn't have the steroid stigma he would be a first ballot HOF'er. That's really it.

[dl4060]

He reminds me of Ryan Howard or Adam Dunn. I don't think any of them are Hall-Of-Famers

In much the same way Kenny Lofton reminds me of Ty Cobb. He played the same game Dunn plays, he just played it much better.

[Cougar]

If McGwire didn't have the steroid stigma he would be a first ballot HOF'er. That's really it.

Yep. No question about it.

[BlueBlood]

McGwire struck out a lot, had a short career relatively speaking, was slow and wasn't much on the field. However, he did something better than anyone else in the history of the game. He belongs.

He swung for the stands in every AB, hence the low batting average. He could've been a far more productive hitter otherwise. To me, he had no concern about winning ball games and every concern about smacking some dingers over the fence.

[SamtheBravesFan]

He swung for the stands in every AB, hence the low batting average. He could've been a far more productive hitter otherwise. To me, he had no concern about winning ball games and every concern about smacking some dingers over the fence.

What's wrong with attempting to do the most productive thing you can do on a baseball field? Sure, it's nuts if you do it all the time, but he could surely do it.

[Brad Harris]

He swung for the stands in every AB, hence the low batting average. He could've been a far more productive hitter otherwise. To me, he had no concern about winning ball games and every concern about smacking some dingers over the fence.
You sound as though you feel those two things are mutually exclusive?

[jalbright]

He swung for the stands in every AB, hence the low batting average. He could've been a far more productive hitter otherwise. To me, he had no concern about winning ball games and every concern about smacking some dingers over the fence.

Perhaps when he swung the bat he did as you suggest--but the record indicates he had the Ted Williams philosophy down--wait for a strike you can drive and go after it. If not, take the pitch and the walks that will come. Where guys really get into trouble swinging for the fences is being overanxious and going after bad pitches or at least ones they can't do anything with. McGwire didn't hamstring himself that way.

[Paul Wendt]

5. . . McGwire walked a ton! In fact, at the time of his retirement, McGwire was 29th all-time in career walks. For a guy with a "short" career, that's pretty impressive. Of the 17,000+ players in major league history, only 28 of them drew a walk more often than Mark McGwire, but you say he "didn't walk that much."
Of 4845 people who played at least 250 games, 1871-2006, eighteen drew a walk more often measured per-game. (Ten are listed above.)

Just ahead of Mark McGwire is number 18, Joe Morgan.

[Brad Harris]

It appears we have several posters here who seem to think that batters who draw walks are surrending hits in order to get them. Of course a hit is better than a walk, but when a batter takes "ball four" he's not surrendering a hit, he's surrendering the opportunity for a hit. So even the very best hitters are surrendering a 2-in-3 chance of making an out. Nevermind that a hitter draws the walk because the pitch, by necessity, is outside the strike zone and therefore usually not a good one to drive into (or out of) the field. And while any major league pitcher (i.e. above replacement level) can throw a pitch in the strike zone, walks are issued because the pitcher wants to avoid a quality hitter. How on earth is drawing a walk a bad thing? How is it a sign of someone who can't hit?

[fenrir]

yeah he's a hall of famer if you ignore roids, but far from a great player imo. he struck out a lot, hit for a very low average, and couldn't field and run for crap. he was also injury prone. it wasn't until his roid induced seasons where he became more durable and started to hit for a little bit of a better average. still his career batting average ended up a pedestrian .263.

[Moses Fleetwood-Walker]

He deserves to be there for his HRs alone, and he will be there soon.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/1998/62/coverfront.jpg
http://www.steinersports.com/ssm/p/01/225/01225_mcgwphs016022.jpg

[KCGHOST]

I guess I am having a tough time figuring out what all the hubbub is about McGwire walk rate. When you are a stone cold slugger and your career K:BB rate is 1.2 to 1 you don't have a problem. keep wailing. If you want to worry about walk rates then examine Juan Gonzalez. All of McGwire rate stats scream HoFer. The only thing in doubt is his counting numbers.

We are talking about putting a guy in the HoF who only has 1600+ hits. Tough to do much better than that when you only get 7600+ PA's. He had to have a phenomenal HR rate to even get in the discussion. When looking at the record you can see that historically McGwire is an okay choice for the HoF. He is about an middle-of-the-1B-pack if you look at the current list of HoF 1B's. If you look at him amongst 1B's of the last 25 years it is a little stickier. Since we are ignoring steroids is he better than McGriff, Clark, Bagwell, Palmeiro, F. Thomas, Jason Giambi, Jim Thome. And how many of those guys are you willing to induct?

To me if steroids are ignored I would induct him. But he isn't a Top Tier guy.

[Brad Harris]

I guess I am having a tough time figuring out what all the hubbub is about McGwire walk rate. When you are a stone cold slugger and your career K:BB rate is 1.2 to 1 you don't have a problem. keep wailing. If you want to worry about walk rates then examine Juan Gonzalez. All of McGwire rate stats scream HoFer. The only thing in doubt is his counting numbers.
When McGwire retired, only Aaron, Ruth, Mays and Robinson had hit more home runs in a career; how on earth are his counting numbers "in doubt"?

We are talking about putting a guy in the HoF who only has 1600+ hits. Tough to do much better than that when you only get 7600+ PA's. He had to have a phenomenal HR rate to even get in the discussion. When looking at the record you can see that historically McGwire is an okay choice for the HoF. He is about an middle-of-the-1B-pack if you look at the current list of HoF 1B's. If you look at him amongst 1B's of the last 25 years it is a little stickier. Since we are ignoring steroids is he better than McGriff, Clark, Bagwell, Palmeiro, F. Thomas, Jason Giambi, Jim Thome. And how many of those guys are you willing to induct?

To me if steroids are ignored I would induct him. But he isn't a Top Tier guy.
I think you have to put McGwire in there ahead of that whole group except Bagwell, Thomas and possibly Palmeiro (even ignoring the PED issues). McGriff belongs, arguably Clark (though he'll never get elected) and Thome has fashioned a Hall-of-Fame career. So you're looking at six first basemen over a 20-25 year span. Really, it's not that many, especially when you realize that these aren't just the best six first-basemen but six of the 10-20 best hitters of the era, period. Plus, keep in mind that voters do and will take PEDs into account, whittling that number down from six.

[1905 Giants]

yeah he's a hall of famer if you ignore roids, but far from a great player imo. he struck out a lot, hit for a very low average, and couldn't field and run for crap. he was also injury prone. it wasn't until his roid induced seasons where he became more durable and started to hit for a little bit of a better average. still his career batting average ended up a pedestrian .263.

Alright:

1) Batting Average is nowhere near the most important number for a hitter. If you look at the stats noted earlier, his On-Base and Slugging averages were far above league averages, and indeed his batting average is one point above the league average for his career.

2) McGwire was not as horrible a fielder as people seem to think. He wasn't great, but once again, stats indicate that he wasn't horrible (as unreliable as fielding stats may be).

3) So what if he can't run? His job was to drive in runs and hit, not steal bases.

4) Injury prone as he was, he put up some darn good numbers when he did play.

[DoubleX]

Steroids or not, McGwire was one of the greatest raw power hitters of all time. As a rookie he hit 49 homeruns - and that was a big deal then as that number was topped just once between 1965 and 1990 (George Foster in 1977).

The thing I find interesting about McGwire's career is that given his natural power, he may have ended up with just as many career homeruns if he didn't use whatever he used. His body frequently broke down, and that was likely the result of not being able to support all the muscle mass he put on. Had he maintained a better size, he may have stayed healthier, and though he may not have had the peak he did, he may have had a longer career.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Dunn and McGwire seem like the same kind of player to me, and maybe Howard. We'll see in a couple more years


Dunn is the same basic type of player as McGwire, but McGwire was far, far better.

There is no precedent for a 1B with a career .730 OWP with the counting stats McGwire put up NOT being in the HOF.

The BBWAA is in holier-than-thou mode over the PED issue. They think they're muckrakers; what they are is petty and crass over the issue. On top of it all, McGwire's use of Creatine was use of a legal substance. It is nonsense how the BBWAA has treated McGwire. Someday, the writers will stop being sniveling children and revert to the kind of adults that can make reasonable decisions as to who the greatest players of an era were.

[Paul Wendt]

. . . historically McGwire is an okay choice for the HoF. He is about an middle-of-the-1B-pack if you look at the current list of HoF 1B's. If you look at him amongst 1B's of the last 25 years it is a little stickier. Since we are ignoring steroids is he better than McGriff, Clark, Bagwell, Palmeiro, F. Thomas, Jason Giambi, Jim Thome. And how many of those guys are you willing to induct?
Delgado is also in the picture, provisionally, which is the same as Giambi.

Real teams using the designated hitter could employ them all effectively, with the smaller numbers of contemporaries likely to be elected from other fielding positions. Not many DH regulars will be HOF candidates and Edgar Martinez will be the only strong candidate, I suppose. Does that matter to you?

[Domenic]

Mark McGwire batted .263/.394/.588 with a 162 OPS+, 583 HR, and 1414 RBI. McGwire finished second in the NL MVP vote in 1998, batting .299/.470/.752 with a 216 OPS+, a then-record 70 HR, and 147 RBI. In 1987, he won the AL ROY, hitting .289/.370/.618 with a 164 OPS+ and a rookie-record that still stands, 49 HR.

McGwire led his league in OBP twice, SLG four times (he ranks ninth all-time), OPS twice, HR four times, RBI once, BB twice, OPS+ four times, RC once, OWP twice, and AB/HR four times (he holds the all-time record).

A twelve-time all-star, McGwire ranks eighth on the all-time HR list, and is one of only two players to hit 70 in a season (Barry Bonds being the other), and one of three players with four 50 HR seasons (Sammy Sosa and Babe Ruth being the others).

I am sure that this has been done to death, but there has not been a poll taken since the release of the Mitchell Report, which did not list Mark McGwire. Further, the last poll (taken in 2006), was made in the wake of Game of Shadows and the initial petitioning of Mitchell to make the report... I feel that this poll deserves a clean start.

Should Mark McGwire be in the Hall of Fame?

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

If you ignore the PED issue, McGwire clearly has "inner circle" HOF numbers. He was one of the five greatest power hitters of all-time, and was also very proficient at drawing walks and getting on base. Thus, his case depends on how you view the PED issue. I am somewhat forgiving. I see PEDs as a dark cloud over the game of baseball during the late 1990s and early 2000s, but the star players shouldn't have to take the brunt of it. I look at is as something that affected an entire era of baseball. McGwire and Bonds weren't the only guys to use PEDs, they were just two of the best players who used them. No names like F.P. Santangelo used them too. The steroid era had its standout players, and McGwire was one of them. Furthermore, I genuinely believe that McGwire is a good guy and an otherwise good ambassador for the game of baseball. He had a lot to do with winning baseball's fan base back after the strike. I say put him in the HOF.

[henrich]

My only beef with McGwire is he only had 1600 hits, but his intentional walks shows the amount of fear in opposing managers and pitchers of his raw power. He does get over the 10,000 line for me, but not by much due to his low hit total.

# Last Name First H-Factor
1 Gehrig Lou 20504
2 Foxx Jimmie 16790
3 Murray Eddie 13756
4 Thomas Frank 13075
5 Anson Cap 12823
6 Mize Johnny 12524
7 Palmeiro Rafael 12333
8 Perez Tony 11940
9 Cepeda Orlando 11742
10 Banks Ernie 11717
11 Killebrew Harmon 11649
12 Bagwell Jeff 11606
13 Garvey Steve 11605
14 Greenberg Hank 11352
15 McGriff Fred 10948
16 Carew Rod 10930
17 Sisler George 10845
18 Hodges Gil 10839
19 McCovey Willie 10739
20 Brouthers Dan 10736
21 McGwire Mark 10477
22 Connor Roger 10438
23 Hernandez Keith 10427
24 Thome Jim 10319
25 Beckley Jake 10273

Surprisingly he scores very similar to a different type of hitter in Keith Hernandez.

[jalbright]

Multiple McGwire threads merged.

[White Knight]

Mark McGwire batted .263/.394/.588 with a 162 OPS+, 583 HR, and 1414 RBI. McGwire finished second in the NL MVP vote in 1998, batting .299/.470/.752 with a 216 OPS+, a then-record 70 HR, and 147 RBI. In 1987, he won the AL ROY, hitting .289/.370/.618 with a 164 OPS+ and a rookie-record that still stands, 49 HR.

McGwire led his league in OBP twice, SLG four times (he ranks ninth all-time), OPS twice, HR four times, RBI once, BB twice, OPS+ four times, RC once, OWP twice, and AB/HR four times (he holds the all-time record).

A twelve-time all-star, McGwire ranks eighth on the all-time HR list, and is one of only two players to hit 70 in a season (Barry Bonds being the other), and one of three players with four 50 HR seasons (Sammy Sosa and Babe Ruth being the others).

I am sure that this has been done to death, but there has not been a poll taken since the release of the Mitchell Report, which did not list Mark McGwire. Further, the last poll (taken in 2006), was made in the wake of Game of Shadows and the initial petitioning of Mitchell to make the report... I feel that this poll deserves a clean start.

Should Mark McGwire be in the Hall of Fame?

Very well said. He also led the league in HR's 5 times, counting 1987 (which he tied for the lead).

I'd also like to add he hit 245 HR's in a 4 year span. During those 4 years, he averaged more than 61 HR's a year! No one will ever do that again, no one.

[White Knight]

He was one of the five greatest power hitters of all-time...

You can name four better power hitters? I can possibly name one, and that's iffy. All I have to say is 10.61.

[sturg1dj]

I think assuming McGwire's records will never be broken is silly. Nobody thought Ruth's records would be touched and they were broken.

Who knows what kind of eras are waiting for us or what kind of numbers some player will put up. Heck, Roy Hobbs or Joe Hardy could start playing next season!

[Captain Cold Nose]

You can name four better power hitters? I can possibly name one, and that's iffy. All I have to say is 10.61.

When the sport is reduced to just home run hitting, we'll talk. I'd vote for him for the HOF, but to me power hitting involves more than just going deep every few at-bats. He's Harmon Killebrew or Ralph Kiner in a better offensive era. Or perhaps Hank Greenberg.

[Mike90]

My only beef with McGwire is he only had 1600 hits, but his intentional walks shows the amount of fear in opposing managers and pitchers of his raw power. He does get over the 10,000 line for me, but not by much due to his low hit total.

# Last Name First H-Factor
1 Gehrig Lou 20504
2 Foxx Jimmie 16790
3 Murray Eddie 13756
4 Thomas Frank 13075
5 Anson Cap 12823
6 Mize Johnny 12524
7 Palmeiro Rafael 12333
8 Perez Tony 11940
9 Cepeda Orlando 11742
10 Banks Ernie 11717
11 Killebrew Harmon 11649
12 Bagwell Jeff 11606
13 Garvey Steve 11605
14 Greenberg Hank 11352
15 McGriff Fred 10948
16 Carew Rod 10930
17 Sisler George 10845
18 Hodges Gil 10839
19 McCovey Willie 10739
20 Brouthers Dan 10736
21 McGwire Mark 10477
22 Connor Roger 10438
23 Hernandez Keith 10427
24 Thome Jim 10319
25 Beckley Jake 10273

Surprisingly he scores very similar to a different type of hitter in Keith Hernandez.

Do you really think that Fred McGriff, Gil Hodges, and Steve Garvey (how is he #13?) are better than McGwire?

[The Splendid Splinter]

I'd also like to add he hit 245 HR's in a 4 year span. During those 4 years, he averaged more than 61 HR's a year! No one will ever do that again, no one.

Ehh... Sammy Sosa had 243 HRs in a 4 year span. You never know.....

[sturg1dj]

Do you really think that Fred McGriff, Gil Hodges, and Steve Garvey (how is he #13?) are better than McGwire?

Mark McGwire had like 4-5 good seasons....but those seasons were great

other than that is was either low 30s for HR's or missing most of a season with injuries. There are a bunch of players who had an awesome peak, then tailed off or got hurt later.

I am a pro-McGwire hall-of-fame guy, so don't take this as McGwire bashing; but sometimes there is something to be said for a player who gives you 10-15 good seasons instead of 4-5 great ones.

[White Knight]

Ehh... Sammy Sosa had 243 HRs in a 4 year span. You never know.....

243 isn't 245. :)

[White Knight]

When the sport is reduced to just home run hitting, we'll talk. I'd vote for him for the HOF, but to me power hitting involves more than just going deep every few at-bats. He's Harmon Killebrew or Ralph Kiner in a better offensive era. Or perhaps Hank Greenberg.

So power and HR are two different things? What's more power than 10.61 at-bats? His era had little or nothing to do with it. 1998 Mac could have hit 70 this year too.

[White Knight]

I think assuming McGwire's records will never be broken is silly. Nobody thought Ruth's records would be touched and they were broken.

Who knows what kind of eras are waiting for us or what kind of numbers some player will put up. Heck, Roy Hobbs or Joe Hardy could start playing next season!

You can't compare the two. When people said that about Ruth, the sport was relitively new, and was mainstream only recently. People didn't know any better then. They stopped saying that when others got over 500 HR's.

[Captain Cold Nose]

So power and HR are two different things? What's more power than 10.61 at-bats? His era had little or nothing to do with it. 1998 Mac could have hit 70 this year too.

I think Harmon Killebrew and Ralph Kiner could have hit 70 in 1998 and this year, too.

McGwire was a hitter with great power. Of that there is no doubt. But as long as thr word "hitter" is part of that and there were sluggers who weren't that far back of McGwire who could safely make contact, not just go deep but drive it in general, at a much better rate than he could, he's not the greatest power hitter of all-time. Best at HR rate, sure. But that's not the one and only measure of a power hitter. Ted Williams and his HR rate isn't that close but McGwire's offesnive skills aren't that close to Williams's.

The man's a HOF'er. The greatest HR hitter of my baseball lifetime. But that's where it ends for him.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

I agree with most of White Knight's conclusions, but I arrive at them differently.

So power and HR are two different things?

The word power has no clear-cut definition in the context of baseball.

What's more power than 10.61 at-bats?

Call it "power" or whatever else you want to, but I think slugging percentage is a better measure of a hitter's value than at bats per home run ratio. McGwire happens to rate very highly in that category as well. However, although they didn't hit as many homers as McGwire did, guys like Ted Williams and Albert Pujols rate even higher.

His era had little or nothing to do with it. 1998 Mac could have hit 70 this year too.

I can't agree with that. He may have hit more homers than anyone else, but not 70 in 2008.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

The man's a HOF'er. The greatest HR hitter of my baseball lifetime. But that's where it ends for him.

That's succinct and well-put. I agree.

[peterg]

He'll get in sooner or later, but thats too bad.
actually, he does have that look of shame already. you know what, if you remember back to those farce home run years with sosa, he already had that "when is the bottom going to fall out" look upon his face (my boy sammy was just too dumb to realize the gig would eventually be up).

on a side note, baseball's steriod shame and the housing crisis are very simalar. each has 3 guilty parties and all 3 blame the other. the powers that be choose to look the other way (baseball owners liked the full ball parks, lending regulators liked selling loans); active participants ran 100 mph towards the wreck (players juicing up, lenders giving loans they knew would default); and a public that allowed itself to be lied to and then "acted" shocked later (baseball fans looking the other way as sosa, bonds, and mcgwire grew muscles and belted homers, then acting like 3rd greaders finding out dad was really santa, home buyers being turned down for mortgages and then taking subprimes loans with out understanding basic math, then acting victimized when they cant make the first payment).

anyway, this first came out of my mouth after a few drinks and seemed to make more sense then it does now.