Thursday, January 11, 2007
On Standards (updated)
Mark McGwire was a Paul Bunyonesque slugger, of this there is no doubt. But...that is not, and should not be everything to the hallowed grounds of Cooperstown. He was a mediocre hitter -- with a lifetime batting average of .263. In his entire career, he generated only 1,600 hits and drove in 1,414 runs. He was productive, but certainly not "other-worldly." He was never an outstanding fielder. Average would be too generous. In fact, if not for 2 extraordinary years of hitting the ball out of the park and knocking in runs, there really wouldn't be any interest in McGwire as a Hall of Fame candidate at all. And he had a couple of absolutely atrocious years well, during what should have been the prime of his career. And the problem is that in the 2 exceptional years of 1998 and 1999, all historical batting standards seemed miraculaously to vanish. We do not know why. It may have been new fitness standards. It may have been performance enhancing steroids or other drugs. More likely, there was at least some of both. And there may also have been new standards applied in ball manufacturing which had an impact (ahem).
The point is, until substantial time has passed and one can understand statistically whether 1998 and 1999 were peculiar statistical anomalies which inflated everybody's performance, it will be impossible to pass judgment on McGwire's overall career. If, as I suspect, those were aberrant years for a number of reasons, than we should reflect on his career and somehow normalize for those aberrations. Were we to do so based only on speculation today, I don't think McGwire would ever be inducted. But I am certainly willing to change my mind. Certainly there have been people of lesser character that have been admitted to Cooperstown. I don't think McGwire was or is a bad guy, nor am I appalled at the possibility that he may have used performance enhancers in professional sport. In his Congressional testimony, he was undoubtedly advised by counsel to watch his words carefully, considering what Barry Bonds was going through and the Balco legal investigation. I can't blame him for not being terribly candid, as some press guy might. I just don't think he was that great a ballplayer.
UPDATE:
I was surprised to find that our friends at the Corner (Andy McCarthy) and PowerLine (Paul Mirengoff) linked to us over here on the McGwire question. In Paul's case, I am staring down the barrel of a knowledgeable sports fan who disagrees. Gulp. I better defend myself well. So here I go.
Paul is correct when he talks about the importance of McGwire's walks and his on base percentage and slugging percentage. But still, I am left wanting. Here's why.
First, he was not an impact fielder or baserunner. That, I think, is beyond dispute. He is a candidate based exclusively upon his hitting and run production. His hitting was unimpressive outside of his gargantuan home run production. Yes, he walked a lot. On the other hand, he struck out plenty too. Whereas say a Barry Bonds has walked 2400 times, he struck out far fewer times, about 1600. By contrast, McGwire struck out modestly more than he walked (1600 to 1300). in only 7 of his 15 seasons did he kncok in more than 100 runs. Very, very good. Very. Unbelieveable by today's standards? I don't think so. Manny Ramirez has done it 11 times in 12 full seasons of play. Now that's a guy hanging up ridiculous HOF numbers in the current era.
Now, let's talk about consistency. McGwire basically had a 15 year career. He got off to a very strong start, with exceptional performance in 1987 and 1988. He then fell off markedly between 1989 and 1991. While I appreciate Paul's argument that based upon OPS (OPS + Slugging)1989 and 1990 weren't outright fiascoes, for a guy who's resume is all about hitting, 3 straight years under .235 is pretty weak. In 1992, McGwire recovered and had a very good year, only to be followed by 2 injury plagued years in 1993 and 1994. In 1995, he performed well, but the season was truncated by the strike. 1996 through 1999 were the years that McGwire delivered consistent hall of fame performance. 2000 and 2001 we again injury shortened years which culminated in his retirement.
To me, the hall of fame is about consistent excellence delivered across the span of an entire career. I would also like it to be about playing the entire game with great skill, but will concede that extraordinary feats at the plate beg for special attention. In addition, I also believe exceptional performance in the post season deserves some consideration as well. McGwire never delivered the big post season. He was never league MVP. He was not Mr. October. All of which say to me that his HOF candidacy is marginal even before you consider the fact that the traditional standards of measurement for baseball hitting seemed to get inflated in the 1990s for a number of reasons. So call it a holistic analysis of his career which simply doesn't move me irrespective of his likely consumption of performance enhancers. One could just as easily take the position that in light of his likely performance enhancement consumption, smaller ballparks, a hardened ball, diluted pitching due to expansion and so forth, he should have produced more, over a longer period of time, more consistently. Why shouldn't the standard for him be 650+ homers? I mean if he is a Killebrew equivalent, Harmon hit 573 homers when the mound was higher and pitchers could still win 30 games. From 1959 to 1972, Killebrew delivered consistent, hall of fame numbers at the plate with only one lost year due to injury (1968). He more than anyone save perhaps Tony Oliva led the Twins to the promised land.
Again, this is why I think in the end, the full spectrum of players from the McGwire era and their related statistics have to graduate and retire to make a fair assessment of what the appropriate standard for Hall of Fame level excellence and induction requires of this cadre of players. And I simply don't think McGwire will cut it.
7 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Jan 11, 03:04:00 PM:
I agree with your assessment of McGwire. But let me ask you, do you believe that Bonds should be admitted to the Hall?
On another topic, what I'd really love is a really big name pitcher to get busted for steroid use. It isn't just the hitters who are/were juicing, and many people seem unaware of that.
On yet another unrelated note, it really baffles me why people have this desire to look up to professional athletes (who are really just professional entertainers of a certain kind) as role models for society. Then they act so shocked when they are just like everyone else and it is revealed that they will do whatever it takes to stay on top. I can't think of many NFL, MLB, or NBA players I would want any kid of mine to look up to. There have to be better places to find your heroes.
By , at
Thu Jan 11, 03:25:00 PM:
I used to be one of the Oirole Faithful ... started when the Orioles beat the Dodgers 4 straight in 66 when I was 7 years old.
Then one day they traded away Curt Schilling and Steve Finley in the same day for Storm Davis' adopted brother who never ammounted to a pinch of crab poop.
I did make it back for the final series at Memorial Stadium and got to shake hands with Rip and Junior who were actually greeting fans at the gate.
But I don't know if that team will ever be the one I grew up with again.
By 
Assistant Village Idiot, at
Thu Jan 11, 10:47:00 PM:
Phrizz's question is an interesting one. I am not especially interested in putting Big Mac in the HoF for some of the reasons you mentioned. I try to estimate where he would have finished for career stats if he hadn't juiced. Because of his many walks and thus good OBP, McGwire inches up to be a marginal candidate for the Hall, no better.
Bonds, on the other hand, already had a career heading in HoF directions before he got greedy about it. If you chart the possible normal trajectories of his career by the usual sabermetric tools, he was likely going to Cooperstown.
But then, so was Joe Jackson.
By Cardinalpark, at
Fri Jan 12, 09:08:00 AM:
I think Bonds is a shoo in absent some revelation which makes it clear he broke the law and it sends him to jail. And even then he will eventually get in. His numbers, MVP awards and obvious and extraordinary talent are all hall of fame caliber, even if he is a jerk and steroid user.
To me, the touhgest call out there today is Rafael Palmeiro. He hit over 500 homers and had more than 3000 hits. He was a pretty slick fielder. His grave sin was a deadly, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman moment," when he testified to Congress with wagging finger about not using performance enhancing drugs. Shortly thereafter, he tested positive. And minutes later, he vanished from baseball.
That 3,000 hit, 500 homer dual accomplishment is a pretty awesome standard. He will pay in the short term viz the hall of fame. But over time, will he overcome the sin?
By , at
Fri Jan 12, 09:13:00 AM:
CP -- I agree with your analysis. McGwire's career stats look more like Dave Kingman than they do a HOF player.
As for Bonds vs. Joe Jackson, Bonds had the opportunity to have more than twice the plate appearances that Jackson did, gving him the chance to build his resume, even without the aberration of 2001 and the continuation of his career beyond a "normal" span.
Bonds will make it. A more interesting question for me is whether Sosa will amke the HOF.
TIGOBLUE
By , at
Fri Jan 12, 11:01:00 AM:
I also agree that Mac was a very good player - just not HoF material. One more element that should also be factored in to the relative Home Run banquet we have witnessed in the past ten years is the ever-decreasing size of the ball parks. If you think about how cavernous the parks were when Ruth was playing (Yankee Stadium now has a shrine out in Centerfield behind the new wall that takes at least 40-50 feet out of deep center)or even those odd parks of the 60's and 70's (Three Rivers, Astro Dome, Cinci's park, etc.) these were much bigger fields only to be replaced by fan and homer friendly parks.
I must say the one element to this entire discussion that drives me crazy is the "holier than thou" sports writers. An odd bunch of people to begin with, who almost take this personally that a player would take a performance enhancing drug to either extend his career or cash in on the big money. A Faustian deal this is not, but it is definitely not something I want my own boy doing.. unless I knew that it would keep him from injury and he was doing it with some sort of clinical help where abuse was kept in check and long-term side affects were minimized...
By , at
Sat Jan 13, 08:58:00 PM:
Just one point about the phenominal '98-'99 seasons. The sluggers mentioned, McGwire, Sosa, Bonds - were all national league veteran players. The National league expanded by two teams in '93, and two more in '98. Actually, Milwaukee moved to the NL in '98, but they had an expansion team pitching staff. That affected every team in the league, with fifth starters serving as #2's and guys who belonged in triple-A as fourth and fifth starters. By '98, Mcgwire and Sosa had already seen over 50,000 pitches thrown at them in their careers, and knew what to do with the large number of bad pitches thrown by weak pitching staffs. Bonds' record year was the first year he didn't play half his games at Candlestick, a park old-timers will tell you cost Willie Mays 50-75 homers in his career. McGwire's numbers are actually borderline HOF quality, and had the presence to make other hitters in the lineup better.
