http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/...21705&n8pe6c=2
I agree, McGwire is a HOFer.
Printable View
http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/...21705&n8pe6c=2
I agree, McGwire is a HOFer.
Wow, boomboom, I totally didn't know that was your stance. (tee-hee) McGwire seemed to be the poster boy for PED usage, which is kind of unfair, with never having failed a test and his substances not being banned at the time. But after all, a Hall of Fame election would just congratulate McGwire on things he did in the past, and as well all know, he doesn't want to think about, dwell on, discuss, or be recognized for things in the past.
I'm glad I don't have to vote on this HOF stuff; it's a murky pool.
Here's a summation that helps your case:
I would add the silly congressional hearings, which of course affected public opinion of McGwire, and painted him as more of a scared, emotional chick than a tough baseball player.Quote:
ARGUMENTS FOR MCGWIRE’S ADMISSION:
Once hit 70 home runs in a season
500+ career home runs
One of the highest offensive peaks of all time
Most famous player in baseball, late 90s.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST MCGWIRE’S ADMISSION:
Might have taken something that wasn’t illegal.
But, of course, that has nothing to do with baseball...I'm not sure he single-handedly "saved the sport", but his numbers are HOF worthy.
nah, it was a few things, like the 95' Mariners, whoever watched the sport in 95' remember those Amazing Mariners, how about the Yankees Rise to domination and then the Home Run Chase of 98'
1994 could have been the best year in the history of the Sport, 5 guys had a shot at Maris Home Run Record, Williams, Junior Griffey, Thomas, Bonds and Bagwel. Gwynn had a shot at .400, (finished with something like a .394 Batting average, and then the Expos.
1995 was a year that a lot of people thought that Baseball had died. 1995 had one of the best AL divisonal series ever, (Mariners Vs. Yankees) , had one of the best charges in the history of the game (August 11th, Mariners were something like 13 games back), 1996 (well it started in 1995), was the year the Yankees took charge, the yankees won 4 of the next 5 WS, with the Marlins in the middle ;).
Then 1998, the Chase. Led by McGwire and Sosa, and in the AL, Griffey Junior hit 56 homers both in 1997 and 1998...so close yet soo far.
So yes, McGwire and the chase were part of what saved baseball after the strike. Now we have an all time high in Attendance...thanks to that. All of it.
I subjected McGwire to the Keltner list created by Bill James. I hope that experts on 1990s baseball will help me answer these questions better:
1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anyone, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
Well, Dusty Baker was very impressed and Sammy Sosa called him "the man". I don't remember anyone calling him the best player around at the time, bar none. As for suggestions that he was the best, other baseball players seemed more impressed by his home runs than of his all-around power as a player. We have to be very iffy about Question #1.
2. Was he the best player on his team?
Yes, but not often with the Oakland Athletics who also had Jose Canseco, Rickey Henderson, et. al. I'd say he was the best player on the A's in 1987 and 1990, but his run of greatness really came starting in 1996, which was when he started to post massive power numbers. He was Oakland's best player in 1996, and St. Louis's best from 1997-99. In 2000 and 2001, he didn't play enough to be considered the best player. Overall, question #2 is a definite "yes".
3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
I don't think so. Arguments can be made that Jeff Bagwell, Will Clark, Frank Thomas, or Rafael Palmeiro were better first basemen, depending on what league you care to look at. McGwire's history of injuries hurts him here.
4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
He was a contributor to the great Oakland teams of the late 80s, but didn't contribute to the great Cardinal teams until his career was virtually finished. A qualified "yes".
5. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?
I look at a player's "Prime" as being passed at age 33. He had two great seasons at or after age 33 and then basically fell apart. "No" on this one.
6. Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
No. I would have rather had Bert Blyleven than Mark McGwire, and the sabermetric argument is that Blyleven is the best player not in.
7. Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?
The most similar players to Mark McGwire:
Jim Thome -- should go in
Jose Canseco -- might have a chance, but his open steroid use would kill any chance
Carlos Delgado -- outside chance
Harmon Killebrew -- is in
Willie McCovey -- is in
Jason Giambi -- just not good enough
Juan Gonzalez -- we'll know in 2010
Norm Cash -- no
Dave Kingman -- no
Manny Ramirez -- will definitely go in barring scandal
I'll give the edge to McGwire on this one. Thome's similarity to McGwire is in the 800s and a true sign of a HOFer is that there is no player *truly* similar to him. Although it's odd that among the top 10 are two known steroid users (Canseco, Giambi) and a strictly one-dimensional hitter (Kingman).
8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
Black ink: 36 (HOF standard: 27)
Gray ink: 110 (HOF standard: 144)
HOF standards: 42.1 (Average HOF: 50)
HOF monitor: 166.5 (likely HOF: >100)
I'd say, "yes".
9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
If it's true that he used steroids -- not andro (which was legal in MLB) but real, honest-to-goodness steroids -- then he *might* have been worse than his statistics indicate. How significantly is a matter of conjecture for chemists and physicists.
10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
Frank Thomas is still playing. Bagwell will be eligible in three years. If McGwire can't get voted in before Bagwell and Thomas become eligible, he'll fall farther behind.
11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
He never won an MVP award. He came close three times, however, in 1992 and 1998-99. However, he was second in 1998 for the MVP -- beaten out by Sammy Sosa.
12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?
He was a six-time All-Star starter at first base. All together, he was selected 12 times and played in nine All-Star Games. Almost everyone who has been selected 12 times is in the HOF; those that aren't are either waiting to get in or on the ineligible list.
13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
I would say "yes".
14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
McGwire introduced the "superpowered hitter" era of major league baseball. He's virtually synonymous with that era of history, so McGwire has to get credit on #14.
15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?
The three factors are integrity, sportsmanship, and character. Getting a "no" on this question can kill your candidacy depending on how bad that "no" is. This is where Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose falter.
McGwire's declining to answer questions about steroid use has almost scuttled his candidacy, particulary the phrase "I'm not here to talk about the past." The problem is that the Hall of Fame is just that, about talking about a player's past and accomplishments. He said he wouldn't talk about the past more than a dozen times, refusing to say anything about any player's use in steroids, comparing it to a witch hunt.
However, he refused to say anything even about his own use. A "I might not be believed, but my fans should be assured that I did not use steroids" would have helped. But his failure to take a position even on his own career hurt him.
In short, statistically, I wouldn't be averse to voting him in. (As Bill James said about Phil Rizzuto "he wouldn't be the worst player in the HOF".) However, it's that Question 15 that kills his candidacy in my eyes.
This is the part that gets me the most. The media likes to clamor on and on about how performance-enhancing drugs ruined the sport and what not, yet, obviously, the fans don't care as much as the media makes it seem. If they did, they wouldn't be showing up at the ballpark in record numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
I think, in 1998, despite what the lousy MVP voters say, he was very much regarded as the best player in baseball. I mean, there wasn't much of a distinction between Sosa and McGwire in terms of reputation, but people definitely suggested that he was the best player in baseball for some years.Quote:
Originally Posted by petrel
Agreed.Quote:
Overall, question #2 is a definite "yes".
Yeah. In specific years, he was the best first basemen. But, for the length of his career, there were a couple other better all-around first basemen.Quote:
3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
I don't think so. Arguments can be made that Jeff Bagwell, Will Clark, Frank Thomas, or Rafael Palmeiro were better first basemen, depending on what league you care to look at. McGwire's history of injuries hurts him here.
Agree on the yes.Quote:
4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
Agreed.Quote:
5. "No" on this one.
This is definitely fair.Quote:
6. Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
No. I would have rather had Bert Blyleven than Mark McGwire, and the sabermetric argument is that Blyleven is the best player not in.
I have to go with a definite "yes" on this. B-R's similarity scores are rather shaky, and of the players most similar to McGwire - like Killebrew, Reggie Jackson, Jim Thome - low average, high-OBP sluggers - they're nearly all HOFers.Quote:
7. Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?
According to James breakdown of the Keltner List in his Politics of Glory/Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame? book, this question specifically refers to the HOF Standards metric, where McGwire doesn't meet the average, but this metric underhands sluggers in the Big Mac build. Just take a look at Harmon Killebrew and Willie McCovey. They're two definite HOFers, yet don't meet 50 either. So, this question depends on how you interpret it - specifically the HOF Standards metric, or a combination of it and the other metrics.Quote:
8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
Black ink: 36 (HOF standard: 27)
Gray ink: 110 (HOF standard: 144)
HOF standards: 42.1 (Average HOF: 50)
HOF monitor: 166.5 (likely HOF: >100)
I'd say, "yes".
Good points. This question, as well, is kind of ambiguous. James, in his book, seems to be talking specifically about things like "leadership" on the positive side and like "clubhouse cancer" on the negative side. But, I'm sure it's fair to extend the question beyond "intangibles" to things like steroids.Quote:
9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
If it's true that he used steroids -- not andro (which was legal in MLB) but real, honest-to-goodness steroids -- then he *might* have been worse than his statistics indicate. How significantly is a matter of conjecture for chemists and physicists.
Of the currently eligible players, this is a definite "yes" for McGwire.Quote:
10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
Frank Thomas is still playing. Bagwell will be eligible in three years. If McGwire can't get voted in before Bagwell and Thomas become eligible, he'll fall farther behind.
That MVP was a huge joke, by the way. How 30 voters actually thought Sosa was better than McGwire that year just shows how incredibly hooked on batting average and RBI the voters are. Big Mac had almost 100 points of OBP on Sosa. That vote still baffles me.Quote:
11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
He never won an MVP award. He came close three times, however, in 1992 and 1998-99. However, he was second in 1998 for the MVP -- beaten out by Sammy Sosa.
Anyway, he never won an MVP award. I'd say he had 6 "MVP-type" seasons - 1987, 1992, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.
Yep.Quote:
12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?
He was a six-time All-Star starter at first base. All together, he was selected 12 times and played in nine All-Star Games. Almost everyone who has been selected 12 times is in the HOF; those that aren't are either waiting to get in or on the ineligible list.
Definitely.Quote:
13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
I would say "yes".
Sure.Quote:
14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
McGwire introduced the "superpowered hitter" era of major league baseball. He's virtually synonymous with that era of history, so McGwire has to get credit on #14.
This is definitely the sticking point. Personally, even with a "No" here, I vote for McGwire. The entire era was riddled with steroid use, and it was ignored by those in the game and the media covering the game, and I don't think it's fair to scapegoat players when that's the case, especially considering that there were no punishments in the rules for steroids.Quote:
15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?
Yup, I could care less what happened, no rule, no foul. If steriods hadn't allowed people to break hallowed home run records, the media wouldn't be talking about it either. They're making an issue of it because it gives them something to write about. They'll be sorry when Barry Bonds has truly gone away. As it is, if they can't think of anything to write about, they can always churn out another "I hate Barry Bonds" column. It's their safety net. What'll they do when he's gone?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Technically, rules were broken, as the MLB prohibits the use of illegal drugs, and the steroids we're questioning were illegal. However, there was no testing, and there were no guidelines for punishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by lkcostas
At the time thou, Andro wasn't illegal and neither was HGH.
McGwire is not a HOFer. Avg. too low, not even close to enough hits, wasn't great at defense. 500 HRs isn't the automatic in to the hall that it used to be.
That is true, but people are assuming McGwire did more than what we know he did (Andro).Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
He had an OBP of .394. He didn't merely hit 500 HRs. He hit 583, at the highest rate of all-time. His OPS+ was 162, with career highs of 216, 200, 196, 177, 176 and 170. Harmon Killebrew had a low average and not a lot of hits, but he's a Hall of Famer because there's more to offense than that. If you walk a lot and hit tons of home runs, it makes up for an "average" batting average (which is exactly what McGwire had - .263 career while the league average was .262).Quote:
McGwire is not a HOFer. Avg. too low, not even close to enough hits, wasn't great at defense. 500 HRs isn't the automatic in to the hall that it used to be.
your kidding me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Owens
Then Roger will never be in the HOF Then
I'm not actually. It's the same thing with Thome.Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
Than you lack a fundamental understanding of offense...Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Owens
And what exactly is wrong with a .281 batting average (Thome's)?
Not high enough. He doesn't even have close to enough hits, either. He's not a great hitter with RISP, not a very good fielder and has been lately been playing DH mostly. He only has 507 HRs.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
what about his OBP?
If you only pay attention to Batting Average, you are looking only at a part of the offense.
Is his OPS high enough? If you know what that is.
Only one player who has hit above 500 home runs, has not be elected to the HOF (and that one player is McGwire....)
I am not going into the debate of "worthiness" nor "does PED's affect HR production"* but simply state that McGwire has 15 years to get inducted (he is in year 2) .Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
At this moment in time,his induction,IMO,would send out the wrong messages in light of his actions & supposed actions (his Capitol Hill testimony,association with Canseco,Canseco's subsequent revelations & his usage of Andro) & the image of the HOF.
this pretty sums it up,I think
Quote:
Nightengale points out that McGwire has barely more than 1,600 career hits, a low total by Hall-of-Fame standards, and that many of his home runs came after he's alleged to have begun using. The implication is that McGwire, without the help of PEDs, wouldn't have a case for enshrinement. "He's just a different guy than (Barry) Bonds or (Roger) Clemens," says Nightengale.
Nightengale didn't vote for McGwire in 2007 or 2008, but he says he will vote for Bonds and Clemens on the first ballot because they were, in his mind, Hall of Famers before their alleged forays into drug use.
* although I think the 2 are linked i.e. his worthiness is linked to whether his taking or NOT of PED's (& thus did or did not allow him to hit 500+ HRs).....Quote:
"I don't believe the Mitchell report had much influence on the Hall-of-Fame balloting. There was nothing new on Mark McGwire in the report, and his vote total barely changed. In the years to come, if it becomes clear that an overwhelming majority of players used steroids, my guess is that some voters — including myself — might have to look at the entire era differently. McGwire, Barry Bonds and others would benefit if steroids were viewed as deeply embedded in the game's culture. At that point, it would be more difficult to single out individuals as unworthy Hall of Famers."
--Ken Rosenthal
What, exactly, is a "high enough" batting average, for you? And, you do know that there's more to offense than batting average, right? And yeah, he only has 507 homers, but that works out to 41 homers per 162 games. Pretty darn good. His overall line is .281/.409/.565 with a 150 OPS+. With runners in scoring position, he's a .281/.436/.547 hitter. How is that not a great hitter with RISP?Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Owens
What about Frank Thomas? He "only" has 513 homers and was mostly a DH, but has a career .303/.421/.561 line (157 OPS+), and from 1991 to 1997, he was an absolute MONSTER with his lowest OPS+ being 174.
Interesting little tidbit about this. Lou Gehrig, Ty Cobb, and Babe Ruth are the only other players since 1901 with at least 7 consecutive seasons of an OPS+ of 170 or more. Ruth actually had two SEPERATE 7-season streaks. That's some **** fine company. :p
You're really showing a distinct lack of knowledge about offensive production...
That's actually a myth if you'll study the figures. After the strike there was a significant dip, but then figures started steadily rising until we get to the magical year of 1998. Attendance actually went DOWN after Sosa and McGuires year. Then one year later started rising again.Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
2003 and 2004's total figures are actually lower than in 1993.
I would posit the records set in 2006 and 2007 (which certainly have nothing to do with Mcguire and Sosa) are due to the explosion of Red Sox Nation than anything else.
A lot of HRs is not what it used to be. Today in baseball, there are way more HRs being hit than there used to be. If everyone who has hit over 500 HRs but less than 600 are inducted into the HOF, it's going to be incredibly crowded. Besides most of the other 500 HR hitters had a higher BA, more hits, or was better at defense. You have to compare him to the other players at his position too. If you look at players like Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Rafael Palmerio and Eddie Murray, they were all better hitters than Thome.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
There is only one eligible player with 500 HRs that is not in the Hall - McGwire. Bonds and Sosa would be in the Hall when their time comes if not for the steroid issue. Alex Rodriguez will be in the Hall. That leaves Frank Thomas and Jim Thome as the only other 500 HR hitters. Manny Ramirez and Gary Sheffield are the only other players that will definitly reach 500 HR. How in the world does that make the HOF incredibly overcrowded?Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Owens
Yes, home runs are up now, but this idea that there's all of a sudden tons of 500 HR hitters is just flatout wrong.
Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx are two all-time absolute greats. Most players compared to them aren't going to hold up.Quote:
Besides most of the other 500 HR hitters had a higher BA, more hits, or was better at defense. You have to compare him to the other players at his position too. If you look at players like Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Rafael Palmerio and Eddie Murray, they were all better hitters than Thome.
Eddie Murray. He hit .287/.359/.476 with a 129 OPS+. Thome has hit .281/.409/.565 with a 150 OPS+. I don't know about you, but I'd trade 6 points of batting average for 50 points of on-base percentage and 90 points of slugging. Yes, Murray had more hits, but, uh, that's what happens when you have 4,495 more at bats. Thome has more HR than Murray in that many less times at bat.
Palmeiro hit .288/.371/.515 with a 132 OPS+. Again, I'd trade 7 points of average for 40 points of OBP and 50 points of slugging. And yup, Palmeiro has more hits, but 3,631 more at bats.
Palmeiro had one season with an OBP of .400. Murray had 2. Thome has had 9. Murray had no seasons of .600 slugging. Palmeiro had 1. Thome has had 3.
You need to stop placing so little emphasis on on-base percentage. You just can't get around it with any rational argument. Jim Thome has been an incredibly valuable offensive force. Was he Lou Gehrig or Jimmie Foxx? No. But not many players are. Jim Thome has the 4th highest AB/HR ratio in history, behind Mark McGwire, Babe Ruth, and Barry Bonds. Combine his great home run power with his excellent ability to get on base, and there is no way around the fact that he is an incredibly good hitter, and very deserving of a Hall of Fame induction. He still has another 3-5 seasons left, as well and has shown no signs of slowing down offensively.
What about defense? He's not very good. He has to have some of that as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
He more than makes up for his defense with his offense. For first basemen, good defense is a plus. It's the lowest position on the defensive spectrum. If you hit like Thome, below average defense is acceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Owens
So with your standards of HOF worthy players, do you think John Olerud deserves it? What about Mo Vaughn?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Olerud, no. He was a good defender, but besides a couple seasons, was about an average hitter for a first basemen. Mo Vaughn, no. His career was too short and his peak was not high enough to compensate for a short career.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Owens
Vaughn and Olerud are not at all comparable to Thome and McGwire.
Interesting analysis you can also factor in the economy & the rise of the Hispanic middle class plus the development in the late '90's of new ballparks that stimulated the market place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
It will be interesting to see how the fans' react in light of the Mitchell report - logic would be a fall off.....