Should McGwire be in the Hall?

No problem

 

ya still chewin' aren't ya

 

Good point on McGwire and Bonds.

I look at baseball with the same glasses as football. It's just that football gets to wear a teflon jacket when it comes to PHDs.

 

What About Ron Santo???

I'm not here to talk about the past, either. IMO McGuire should not be elected to the Hall. And when are the sportwriter's gonna get their act together and let Ron Santo in????? He should have been in a long time ago.

 

Santo was a very good player, but I don't know that he was "great." I think his health problems and the fact that he seemed like such a good guy have earned him a lot of public sympathy, but his numbers were definitely good.

 

If we are talking about performance only, here is food for thought:

Games Average HR RBI
Mark McGwire 1874 .263 583 1414 (15 seasons)
Reggie Jackson 2584 .262 563 1551 (21 seasons)

McGwire also won a gold glove at 1st base. He also holds the all time record for HR's per at bat @ 10.6.

 

McGwire and Jackson played in different eras. Jackson's home run numbers were actually more dominant compared to his era than McGwire's, and that's without even getting to the fact that McGwire cheated with steroids.

Then regarding his "gold glove," Bill James showed statistically that it was a completely bogus award. All fielding measures (plus anyone who actually watched him play first) can tell you that McGwire wasn't just not good in the field, he was actually horrible. Honestly, he was a butcher.

And lastly regarding HR per at-bat, you don't get extra credit for being injured. If he hit 50 home runs in 400 at-bats and missed the rest of the season, that doesn't make him much better if any than a guy who hit 50 home runs over 600 at-bats. Also, it's worth noting that Babe Ruth is the only player from before the steroid era who ranks in the top ten of HR per AB.

 

Again, I don't disagree with your comments and one could say the same thing about Jackson's HR's vs the "dead ball " era. Personally, I don't know how you vote in a member that has a .262 average, but the voting members have used the 500 HR mark as a criteria for induction and McGwire accomplished that.

I used Reggie Jackson as an example because the two players are similar. Although McGwire's defense earlier in his career was not horrible, he did become a "butcher". And Jackson did have a strong arm, but his fielding could become an adventure; and the term "hustling" would never be associated with Jackson.

The problem I have with Baseball voting members is the process is purely subjective. In a business that hangs their hat on statistics, the measuring of those statistics change from era to era.

The other thing that confuses me is something that Shrapnel brought up. Why is a player not worthy of HOF induction one year, but 5 years down the road he is?

As far as McGwire is concerned my opinion is this. If his performance warrants HOF induction, then so be it. If it doesn't, it doesn't. If he is voted in and it is proven that he took steroids, then strip him. But let the vote be about his career, not an alleged media indictment.

Wait until the media rifle is pointed at Pujols...as he gets close to breaking records, the guy doesn't stand a chance.

 

I already think that Pujols, Clemens, and maybe A-Rod have used steroids, but the difference is that there's just suspicion with them whereas we know from multiple witnesses that McGwire definitely used.

As for the other part, I completely agree with you about the balloting. Who cares if Babe Ruth didn't get a unanimous vote? If you think a guy deserves to be in, vote him in. I understand that sometimes a person makes a case that persuades you to vote for or against someone you didn't before, but for the most part they should remain consistent from year to year.

 

Years ago, under the old board, you changed my mind about Pete Rose. I'll never forget that and I'll never be a supporter for Rose in the HOF again...so I guess it can happen the opposite way