The Mark McGwire Decision

[bedir than average]

Except that the standard of proof on entry into the Hall of Fame is nowhere near the standard of proof in a court of law. I feel the Hall should be for players for which there are not doubts.

[athleticsfan]

I was a big A's fan back in the day. I loved the Bash Brothers, the whole era really. But im going to be realistic here and say NO I would never vote in Mac. His only stats that put him there are the Home Runs. >500. If it wasnt for the roids he would not even be near there. Last 2 full seasons what he get? 120HR's or something. He's not worthy.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by bedir than average

Except that the standard of proof on entry into the Hall of Fame is nowhere near the standard of proof in a court of law. I feel the Hall should be for players for which there are not doubts.

But, again, there are no such people. You can't prove a negative; you don't know for sure that Orlando Cepeda or Steve Carlton didn't try steroids. Hell, we KNOW Mickey Mantle used amphetamines, as did most players from the 50's thru the 80's. Should Mantle be thrown out of the Hall of Fame?

[bedir than average]

No, because Mantle played defense, had power, and average, as well as footspeed. He drew walks not just due to pitchers fearing his power, but because he understood how to work the count.

The same can not be said of McGwire.

[Steve Avery]

Here is what is bothering me about the whole Bonds/McGwire argument.

I will say up front that McGwire is not even in the same stratosphere as Bonds as a player. Bonds would be a HOFer even if he hit only 400 HRs while McGwire's 583 are the core of his case. So this is not a racial thing or anything like that.

But I'm sick of people who are saying that McGwire doesn't get in on the basis of suspicion. Then you turn around on Bonds and here's what you get:

He never tested positive for steroids (but neither did McGwire)

He had a great career prior to steroids (we don't know this for a fact; we don't know that Bonds didn't take roids from day one or McGwire take them from day one)

McGwire was lousy before Congress (true - but Bonds didn't even get a call so it's hardly a fair comparison; besides - McGwire never admitted to a grand jury that he had done them even unknowingly)

Without those homers he hit with juice, McGwire is not a HOFer (well this ASSUMES he took steroids and yet he never had a positive test, which is always the first argument cited in favor of Bonds).

My take?

Asterisk the whole era and let 'em in.

And let Rose in while you're at it.

Does anybody think Rose was the only guy to ever bet on baseball?

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by bedir than average

No, because Mantle played defense, had power, and average, as well as footspeed. He drew walks not just due to pitchers fearing his power, but because he understood how to work the count.

The same can not be said of McGwire.

Oh, so now it's not about steroids, it's about qualifications again? Okay, just so we're clear on that, you're now saying Mark McGwire shouldn't be in because he's not good enough? Well, fine; let's look at the total record.

Now, I'm certainly not going to pretend Mark McGwire was as good a player as Mickey Mantle, but Mickey Mantle isn't the Hall of Fame standard; he's way, way above the standard. But McGwire, whether you like it or not, was better than at least half of all Hall of Famers. He was an awesome hitter; he got on base more often than George Brett (really, look it up) and had more power than Reggie Jackson. He was just as good a hitter, adjusting for context, as Jimmie Foxx, and if you were to argue Jimmie Foxx wasn't a Hall of Famer everyone would think you were insane. In fact, McGwire was a LOT like Foxx; two huge, strong guys, first basemen, who hit a lot of home runs and had health-shortened careers.

McGwire was a better hitter than Mel Ott. He was a better hitter than Mike Schmidt, Willie McCovey, or Harmon Killebrew. He was better than Vlad Guerrero has been so far; in fact, the only active players with a higher career adjusted OPS are Bonds and Pujols.

Of course, McGwire was not a speedster and he was not a defensive whiz (though he was a decent enough first baseman.) He did, however, do the two most important things a hitter can do exceptionally well; get on base and hit for power. So if that's one dimensional, so what? Lots of Hall of Famers were one dimensional. Rod Carew hit singles. Harmon Killebrew was basically Mark McGwire in the 60s. Hank Greenberg was Mark McGwire in the 30s and 40s. Harry Heilmann hit line drives and that was pretty much the extent of his ability. Ozzie Smith was a defensive expert. Lou Brock stole bases; he wasn't a terrific hitter and he was a bad fielder.

Being a one dimensional player doesn't mean you aren't a GREAT player, if you do that one dimension really, really well.

[WilsonC]

Well, McGwire always drew his walks, even as a young player, when Canseco was the guy you really feared in that lineup. And I think it's also safe to say Mantle was a rather feared hitter in his day. So I think it's safe to say that both men's walk rates are a mixture of patience and pitcher caution.

Dave Kingman comparissons really miss the mark on McGwire, as the only similarity between the two is that they were both power hitters as their primary skill. Kingman was a power hitter who was awful at just about everything else, where McGwire was a power hitter with very good on-base skills, and was actually about average in batting average, as opposed to the all-or-nothing slugger he's portrayed as. He doesn't get a whole lot of points for fielding, but was a pretty solid fielder early in his career. That's not to say that "better than Dave Kingman"'s the benchmark for a Hall of Fame slugger, but he was far better than Kingman, and in areas other than power too.

Now then, Kingman rant aside, on to my thoughts on McGwire's. There are three main arguments that I've seen used against him: performance, cheating, and character. There's some overlap in there, but each of the three deserves its own treatment.

First, on performance. I touched on the one-dimensional aspect in my Dave Kingman rant, but even if he's not as one dimensional as commonly percieved, he certainly did rely on power for any HoF case. His on-base skills were strong, but without his power, would not be enough for consideration. Should his unbalanced skillset be an important factor in HoF consideration, from a pure performance standpoint?

Well, what about Tony Gwynn? He had some defensive and baserunning skills early on, but had little power for a corner outfielder, and for most of his career, he was a pretty one dimensional player too. He'd certainly be nowhere near HoF consideration without his extreme contact hitting ability. I consider Gwynn very deserving despite an unbalanced skillset, so to use that argument for McGwire seems hypocritical to me.

Now, there's also the argument that McGwire's one dimension relied on PED's to achieve his results. There may even be some truth to that. My issue there is that, assuming he did use steroids, McGwire was a hitter using steroids, facing pitchers using steroids, competing against other hitters using steroids. We don't know whether the contextual adjustments for steroids are more favorable for pitchers or hitters overall, or what the true impact they've had is. It's naive to think PED's haven't played a role in the recent context of the game, but it's equally naive to assume that steroids are the only reason, or even the primary reason for increased offense. We don't know the impact of steroids on HR rates, nor the marginal gains a great player would get versus a fringe player, how widespread it was, or much at all on what the measurable effect of steroids on baseball is - just as we don't know what the impact of diluted talent due to segregation (a bigger problem than steroids, by far) was in early baseball. What we do know is that within the context of the era, McGwire was a dominant hitter. And we do know that every era has contextual advantages and disadvantages, as well as its own problems. From a performance standpoint, he needs to be judged against the context, and is worthy.

Next, was he a cheater? This is a trickier area, to be sure. On one side, he hasn't been caught, but there's enough smoke that it seems unlikely that he didn't at least try steroids during his career. There was no real policy in baseball, but it was illegal. Andro is sometimes brought up, but shouldn't be as it was legal both in Baseball and in his country of employment. Now forget burden of proof, forget semantics, forget whether or not steroids were officially against the rules. An important part of the question is what weight do we assign to that in voting?

The truth is that cheating and dirty play has never played a role in HoF voting, whether it's in the form of doctored balls, trick bats, spiking players, head-hunting, or whatever. The only exceptions to this rule are players who broke rules that explicitly banned them from baseball - i.e. Rose and Jackson. That's not an attempt to excuse cheating, but rather a recognition that it's not the cheating in and of itself that's at the forefront, but rather the stigma attached to this form of cheating that separates it from the more accepted traditional forms of cheating. In addition, there is a penalty now, but that penalty is not a lifetime banning for a first offender. It's a problem, for certain, but one that's blown out of proportion due to the ease at which it can be used as a profitable media source and an easy political agenda. And I would rather use the historical precedents of the HoF as a standard than the current media spin on the subject, or even personal opinions on the matter.

And lastly, the character clause. And the most common example given on this front is his "shameful" appearance in Congress. First of all, it's not hard to see that the steroid situation goes beyond steroids in baseball - it's about stars, scandals, fallen heroes, stories, political positioning, and much more. McGwire would rank just behind Bonds on the juiciness scale, meaning he'd be a clear target for an ambitious prosecutor looking to make a name for himself. Had he admitted to guilt, well, there's proof if someone tried to pursue it. Had he denied it, he could stand to face investigations for perjury much like Bonds is going through. Even if innocent, that doesn't mean he wouldn't face that type of harassment, and given the media circus the steroid coverage has been, I frankly don't blame him for choosing the safe legal route. He was completely correct in his stance that an admission or denial of guilt by any player would solve nothing, and was one of the few who stayed true to the focus of the hearing. He didn't lie, he didn't participate in the witch hunt or use the hearing as a means for personal publicity, and offered to act as a spokesman against steroid use for kids. He appeared shaken, sure, but the point of the hearing was to try to make a positive influence, not to incriminate former players, and he stayed true to that. The same can not be said for those in congress that seemed more interested in putting on a show to gain political favor by bullying a former player into talking than in finding real solutions. If showing humanity, being legally cautious, and refusing to give in to grandstanding for public approval is shameful, than so be it. But in my opinion, it is shameful that he's received more public scorn for his appearance that day than a man who tested positive just months after adamantly denying steroid use and a man who used the hearing as a platform to sell his book advocating steroid use.

Does he look guilty? Yes. And that would be a negative mark on his character. The work he's done for charities and the amount he's given to help children is a positive mark on his character. He was never a problem team mate, another positive mark. There's a lot more that goes into a person's character than a single unethical decision to gain a professional advantage. Do the positives outway the negatives? A subjective call that's difficult for any to answer without knowing the man. Again, character is rarely considered when looking at the Hall of Fame voting, and there are plenty of shady characters in the Hall. History is filled with players who used whatever competitive edge they could find. McGwire, a strongly suspected but unproven example of this, is currently one of the few shouldering the burden for the problems of this era. I've seen no reason to believe that he's a man of less character than a typical Hall of Famer.

As a summary, I see a private, seemingly decent man who in all likelihood made a poor ethical decision regarding steroid use. I see that man as being shamed to an extent far greater than his suspected transgression warrants simply because he hasn't said what the public wants him to say. I also see an outstanding talent who had a career worthy of enshrinement, despite the cloud that will surround him.

[bedir than average]

RickJay, no it was always about both issues, not just the one. I have doubts and therefore his greatness must be unquestionable. The doubts rise from his likely PED use. The questionable skills come from the fact that he was not an average defensive firstbaseman, but a bad one for the majority of his career. His on-base skills upon review were more than decent as they were .062 points higher than league average. To compare Kingman's was below average by 027 points.

So a two-skill player, good at one, great at the other.

Gwynn on the otherhand in a paragraph above is called a one skill player that had good baserunning/speed and good defense. That's kind of funny, not laughable, but odd...Gwynn had four of the five tools for his peak at well above average, and if one is to include the zone judgment (walks v Ks) Gwynn was exceptional at that.

Maybe I'm just one of those wacky people who think the Hall needs a cleaning with so many not great players in it. If I were a writer with a vote McGwire might be my stand. We'll find out next year though, because unless his total doubles, there is little reason to think he will go in the Hall.

Both of you, well put by the way.

[WilsonC]

It's true that early in his career Gwynn had other skills, that's undeniable. Rather, my contention about Gwynn as a one dimensional player is more due to the following:
1. His speed and defensive abilities declined significantly by mid career as he started gaining weight, before he was particularly close to a HoF resume.
2. Following 1, for over half his career, he was no longer a defensive asset or anything special on the basepaths. His only truly plus skill by mid career was his contact hitting.
3. Even his batting eye was heavily reliant on his extreme ability to make contact.
4. Hypothetically speaking, if we freeze his batting average and reconstruct his career making him a mediocre defender and baserunner from the start, is he a HoFer? .338 hitter, 3219 hits, I would guess that with those numbers, he would receive almost as much support as he really did.
5. Hypothetically speaking, if we freeze his everything except his batting average and reconstruct his career with a batting average of .300 - still very good, but not an extreme outlier - is he a HoFer? Certainly not a clear choice. He'd be a .300 hitter, have about 2785 hits, half a career of good baserunning and defense - basically Andre Dawson with a little more batting average, less time in center field, and a lot less power.

So yes, calling Gwynn a one dimensional player is oversimplifying, probably even more so than McGwire, but the similarity is that both players relied so heavily on a single dimension being such an extreme outlier for any real HoF case. Note that this is not intended to be a slight on Gwynn. Gwynn's a player for whom I have a great deal of respect, and a clear HoFer. Rather, it's an asserion that greatness as a player is based on the sum of a player's skills, rather than the balance. Both Gwynn and McGwire achieved a much higher percentage of their resume off a primary skill than most HoF players, but in both cases, that skill is so extremely good that it's worth a lot.

[DiamondDave]

Hypothetically speaking.. his accomplishments are not hypothetical, but indeed real

[WilsonC]

Of course his accomplishments are real. No one is suggesting otherwise, as it would be foolish to do so. However, given that McGwire's highly asymetric skill set is probably the most common non-steroid counter argument against him, it warrants examination as to whether a balance of skills is an important consideration. The hypothetical examples are not intended to undermine any accomplishments by Gwynn, but rather to show how much of his career depended on his greatest skill.

A voter's treatment of McGwire based on steroid use is largely a decision based on his personal belief system. The weight to put on the suspicion of steroid use, the burden of proof needed, the suspected impact of illegal substances on his performance - these are all judgment calls based on each person's perspective, opinions that can be debated but not really refuted. The argument against him based on asymetry of skills, however, is contrary to how players have always been voted in. The one-dimensional specialist argument ignores all precident, and seems rather biased.

[DiamondDave]

But who's career does NOT rely on their greatest skill???

I hate to see truly great ones torn down like this.... "what if he only hit .300"... well, the fact is he did not and the fact is that he has one of the highest career averages of all time....

A balance of skills can and should be a consideration for a player such as Nomar for example... or maybe a Kirby Puckett who did not put up lofty totals....

I guess what I am saying is the the player needs to be looked at for the accomplishments he has done with the skills he has.... Ozzy (though I don't agree with him as a HoFer) is in because of his flashy defense.... Killebrew because of his power.... Ripken for his durability and his changing of a positional stereotype....

[WilsonC]

That's exactly right, DiamondDave. We're actually in agreement here. I'm not trying to suggest that Gwynn is any less of a player because he relied so much on his ability to make contact. He was a truly great player exactly because of his ability to hit for such an exceptional average. It's not a criticism of the player to identify that his greatness stems mostly from one exceptional skill.

My problem is not with Gwynn's reliance on batting average, but when that same logic is cast aside in calling someone like McGwire a one-dimensional slugger because of his reliance on power. He DID rely heavily on power, but his HR/AB ratio was the highest of all time. That, coupled with his on-base skills, was downright impressive. It's one thing to question the validity of his numbers, but my assertion is simply that the 'too one-dimensional' argument for McGwire's performance - something that I've seen used a number of times - is inconsistent with the standards that have always been in place.

[MikeV]

Originally Posted by WilsonC

Well, McGwire always drew his walks, even as a young player, when Canseco was the guy you really feared in that lineup. And I think it's also safe to say Mantle was a rather feared hitter in his day. So I think it's safe to say that both men's walk rates are a mixture of patience and pitcher caution.

Dave Kingman comparissons really miss the mark on McGwire, as the only similarity between the two is that they were both power hitters as their primary skill. Kingman was a power hitter who was awful at just about everything else, where McGwire was a power hitter with very good on-base skills, and was actually about average in batting average, as opposed to the all-or-nothing slugger he's portrayed as. He doesn't get a whole lot of points for fielding, but was a pretty solid fielder early in his career. That's not to say that "better than Dave Kingman"'s the benchmark for a Hall of Fame slugger, but he was far better than Kingman, and in areas other than power too.

Now then, Kingman rant aside, on to my thoughts on McGwire's. There are three main arguments that I've seen used against him: performance, cheating, and character. There's some overlap in there, but each of the three deserves its own treatment.

First, on performance. I touched on the one-dimensional aspect in my Dave Kingman rant, but even if he's not as one dimensional as commonly percieved, he certainly did rely on power for any HoF case. His on-base skills were strong, but without his power, would not be enough for consideration. Should his unbalanced skillset be an important factor in HoF consideration, from a pure performance standpoint?

Well, what about Tony Gwynn? He had some defensive and baserunning skills early on, but had little power for a corner outfielder, and for most of his career, he was a pretty one dimensional player too. He'd certainly be nowhere near HoF consideration without his extreme contact hitting ability. I consider Gwynn very deserving despite an unbalanced skillset, so to use that argument for McGwire seems hypocritical to me.

Now, there's also the argument that McGwire's one dimension relied on PED's to achieve his results. There may even be some truth to that. My issue there is that, assuming he did use steroids, McGwire was a hitter using steroids, facing pitchers using steroids, competing against other hitters using steroids. We don't know whether the contextual adjustments for steroids are more favorable for pitchers or hitters overall, or what the true impact they've had is. It's naive to think PED's haven't played a role in the recent context of the game, but it's equally naive to assume that steroids are the only reason, or even the primary reason for increased offense. We don't know the impact of steroids on HR rates, nor the marginal gains a great player would get versus a fringe player, how widespread it was, or much at all on what the measurable effect of steroids on baseball is - just as we don't know what the impact of diluted talent due to segregation (a bigger problem than steroids, by far) was in early baseball. What we do know is that within the context of the era, McGwire was a dominant hitter. And we do know that every era has contextual advantages and disadvantages, as well as its own problems. From a performance standpoint, he needs to be judged against the context, and is worthy.

Next, was he a cheater? This is a trickier area, to be sure. On one side, he hasn't been caught, but there's enough smoke that it seems unlikely that he didn't at least try steroids during his career. There was no real policy in baseball, but it was illegal. Andro is sometimes brought up, but shouldn't be as it was legal both in Baseball and in his country of employment. Now forget burden of proof, forget semantics, forget whether or not steroids were officially against the rules. An important part of the question is what weight do we assign to that in voting?

The truth is that cheating and dirty play has never played a role in HoF voting, whether it's in the form of doctored balls, trick bats, spiking players, head-hunting, or whatever. The only exceptions to this rule are players who broke rules that explicitly banned them from baseball - i.e. Rose and Jackson. That's not an attempt to excuse cheating, but rather a recognition that it's not the cheating in and of itself that's at the forefront, but rather the stigma attached to this form of cheating that separates it from the more accepted traditional forms of cheating. In addition, there is a penalty now, but that penalty is not a lifetime banning for a first offender. It's a problem, for certain, but one that's blown out of proportion due to the ease at which it can be used as a profitable media source and an easy political agenda. And I would rather use the historical precedents of the HoF as a standard than the current media spin on the subject, or even personal opinions on the matter.

And lastly, the character clause. And the most common example given on this front is his "shameful" appearance in Congress. First of all, it's not hard to see that the steroid situation goes beyond steroids in baseball - it's about stars, scandals, fallen heroes, stories, political positioning, and much more. McGwire would rank just behind Bonds on the juiciness scale, meaning he'd be a clear target for an ambitious prosecutor looking to make a name for himself. Had he admitted to guilt, well, there's proof if someone tried to pursue it. Had he denied it, he could stand to face investigations for perjury much like Bonds is going through. Even if innocent, that doesn't mean he wouldn't face that type of harassment, and given the media circus the steroid coverage has been, I frankly don't blame him for choosing the safe legal route. He was completely correct in his stance that an admission or denial of guilt by any player would solve nothing, and was one of the few who stayed true to the focus of the hearing. He didn't lie, he didn't participate in the witch hunt or use the hearing as a means for personal publicity, and offered to act as a spokesman against steroid use for kids. He appeared shaken, sure, but the point of the hearing was to try to make a positive influence, not to incriminate former players, and he stayed true to that. The same can not be said for those in congress that seemed more interested in putting on a show to gain political favor by bullying a former player into talking than in finding real solutions. If showing humanity, being legally cautious, and refusing to give in to grandstanding for public approval is shameful, than so be it. But in my opinion, it is shameful that he's received more public scorn for his appearance that day than a man who tested positive just months after adamantly denying steroid use and a man who used the hearing as a platform to sell his book advocating steroid use.

Does he look guilty? Yes. And that would be a negative mark on his character. The work he's done for charities and the amount he's given to help children is a positive mark on his character. He was never a problem team mate, another positive mark. There's a lot more that goes into a person's character than a single unethical decision to gain a professional advantage. Do the positives outway the negatives? A subjective call that's difficult for any to answer without knowing the man. Again, character is rarely considered when looking at the Hall of Fame voting, and there are plenty of shady characters in the Hall. History is filled with players who used whatever competitive edge they could find. McGwire, a strongly suspected but unproven example of this, is currently one of the few shouldering the burden for the problems of this era. I've seen no reason to believe that he's a man of less character than a typical Hall of Famer.

As a summary, I see a private, seemingly decent man who in all likelihood made a poor ethical decision regarding steroid use. I see that man as being shamed to an extent far greater than his suspected transgression warrants simply because he hasn't said what the public wants him to say. I also see an outstanding talent who had a career worthy of enshrinement, despite the cloud that will surround him.

This is quite possibly one of the best breakdowns that I've ever read about the McGwire issue. Bravo to you.

[nanwynnfan]

"He was just as good a hitter, adjusting for context, as Jimmie Foxx, and if you were to argue Jimmie Foxx wasn't a Hall of Famer everyone would think you were insane."

That's ridiculous. McGwire was nowhere near the versatile athlete Foxx was. Foxx played 1B, 3B; he caught - [all competently] even pitched some. Foxx had an eye, plate discipline, made contact and hit for average, and with power, in larger parks.

The Kingman-McGwire debate is unfortunate. All-around, Hernandez, Galarraga, Mattingly, Kluszewski, McGriff, Grace and Clark would have been better subjects for HoF debating at 1b against Bic Mac.