Despite Steroids, McGwire Doesn't Belong

The Hall of Fame voting provides fodder for endless discussion at work with fellow baseball fans and one thing I keep hearing around the water cooler AND among the bloggers/articles is this notion that McGwire is somehow being denied a shot at the Hall of Fame. The din regarding this subject was less this year than last, but I'm still hearing it. I'm here to say that even with steroids, McGwire's numbers were not Hall of Fame caliber. He stands out as a player in your mind because of a couple of magical seasons in the late '90s, but aside from that brief period, his stats are underwhelming.

Here are the numbers (click the pic for a larger view or visit here):

Alright, so obviously the 583 career HRs pop out. The .982 career OPS is not bad either. McGwire was clearly a HR hitter from the very start of his career and, in fact, his rookie record of 49 homeruns remains the record to this day. I suspect (and McGwire has said as much) that he started taking steroids as a result of injury-riddled seasons from 1993-95 in attempts to heal his body more quickly. It worked because he played in almost every game from '96 to '99.

For the sake of my argument, I'm going to lead you through an exercise. From 1987 to 1992 McGwire played in most of the games during those seasons and averaged 36.16 HRs and 99.8 RBIs per year. From 1996 to 1999, McGwire again played in a vast majority of the games in those seasons but his averages went up to 61.25 HRs and 132.5 RBIs. So, let us assume that steroids accounted for that increase in production (even though I'm not entirely sold on that idea). That's ~25 less HRs per year and ~32.7 less RBIs per year. If you make those adjustments to McGwire's career numbers, 100 less HRs and 130 less RBIs, McGwire's numbers, though still admirable, do not look Hall worthy.

483 HRs, 1,067 Rs, and 1,284 RBIs aren't nearly the eye-popping numbers we see now on the stat sheet. Not only that, you'd have to make subsequent adjustments to the SLG% and OPS numbers. Towards the bottom of the Baseball-Reference page is a short summary of a given player's HOF credentials. Among the 4 categories, McGwire's numbers as they stand make him a pretty average HOFer, but if you take away some of the possibly enhanced figures, I bet his credentials would be a little more shaky, especially since the HOF monitor takes into account things like, "leading the league in HRs" and other similar "stats." The bottomline for me is that none of the numbers I quoted above (483/1067/1284) are HOF worthy, especially given the inflation some of those numbers have gone through over the past several years. The bar is generally thought to be 500 HRs, 1200Rs or 1500 RBIs and even with some inflated numbers, McGwire only meets the standard in one of those categories.

I think until Cooperstown itself comes out with a statement on the Steroid Era, there will continue to be this divide amongst the writers. Even if Cooperstown comes out with something there will still be a divide, but it will be lessened. The issue is going to come to a head here within a few years because eventually we're going to have the likes of Bonds and A-Rod on the ballot and it will be impossible to keep them out of the Hall (not they should be kept out anyway). So if some known Steroid users are allowed in the Hall but others are not because of Steroid use, there is going to be this very odd double-standard which creates a big mess. The Hall should nip this all in the bud and address it now.

Buster Olney the THIEF!!!

Well, well, well...a couple of days after I spoke about the travesty that is Baseball Writers voting on the Hall of Fame, Mr. Olney from ESPN comes along and steals the idea. It's an Insider article, so here's a few short blurbs from the article.

"First and foremost, it's a clear conflict of interest. As a writer, I should be reporting on the news and not making it. It's Journalism 101 (I assume, since I was a history major). It's not my place, as a reporter, to determine whether Andre Dawson is inducted into the Hall of Fame, no more than it would be for a Capitol Hill reporter to cast a vote on health-care legislation while reporting on it."

"But really, the most important reason why the writers should not be voting is that it has become increasingly evident that the voters, as a group, don't really have a clear understanding of what the standards for the Hall of Fame are, particularly in this time, as the ballot gains more and more players touched by the steroids issue."

"The Hall of Fame should form its own committee that determines who gets a plaque. The plaques should include information, written in neutral language, about feats and achievements, and about bans and suspensions and admissions."

Olney finished everything by saying that these things will never happen because the Hall, and Baseball, like the debate because it keeps people talking about the sport. Whatever. Eventually, if it hasn't happened already, the Hall of Fame will become a meaningless thing because no one will respect the award. At the very least, some criteria needs to be laid down. McGwire and the like are being shunned for cheating while players like Ty Cobb and Gaylord Perry are in despite accusations (and admissions) of cheating in their time.

Hall of Popularity

Can we change the name of the "Hall of Fame" to what it actually is at this point?? Given yesterday's pathetic voting results it is clear that the Hall of Fame has become more of a 'Hall of Popularity' or a 'Hall of Baseball-Politics.'

This year's chosen one is Andre Dawson. I've got nothing against 'The Hawk,' he was a great player and is very deserving of the honor that has now, after 9 previous years of eligibility, been bestowed on him. My only question is this: if he's a Hall of Famer now, in 2010, why wasn't he a Hall of Famer in 2001? For that matter, Roberto Alomar, a player with no-doubt-about-it Hall of Fame credentials does not get elected because certain writers feel that he does not deserve the honor or being a first-ballot Hall of Famer. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?? A HOFer is a HOFer is a HOFer. Yeah, I would agree that there is a small distinction in being elected when you're first eligible, but it's not that substantial.

Another case which is personal to me because he played for the Twins, is Bert Blyleven. Bert is going to get in the Hall. I thought it was going to happen this year but he fell a painful 5 votes short. With 287 career victories, he deserves to be in. Alan Trammell deserves to be in. Jack Morris, on the strength of his 1991 Game 7 performance alone, deserve to be in (hyperbole there folks).

Anyway, as you can see, I'm kinda sick of the whole thing. I was talking with Domedog yesterday and he jokingly said that we should have a computer decide. Since baseball lends itself more heavily to statistics than other sports, I don't think it's all that bad of an idea. Baseball Reference already has a sort of rubric towards the bottom of every players' page that projects their chances at the Hall of Fame. Why not use a system? Why not have an actual rubric for the voters to follow instead of leaving it up to the individual writers to come up with their own criteria? I leave you with Bert.