Should Mark McGwire get into the Hall of Fame?

CharlasBaseball

Únete a LibraryThing para publicar.

Should Mark McGwire get into the Hall of Fame?

Este tema está marcado actualmente como "inactivo"—el último mensaje es de hace más de 90 días. Puedes reactivarlo escribiendo una respuesta.

1BOB81
Ene 24, 2009, 5:05 pm

Should Mark McGwire get into the Hall of Fame? I say yes: after all, if steroids were only banned in 2002, he never actually cheated, right? Any thoughts?

2mingfrommongo
Ene 25, 2009, 12:28 am

Steroids were banned by Baseball in 2002. Before that they were only banned by the government. Steroid apologists need to understand that.

But that doesn't answer your question.

Mark McGwire doesn't get into the HOF because he wasn't a good enough player. He hit a bunch of home runs for a few years - that doesn't make him worthy of mention when speaking of the all-time greats.

Now when Bonds becomes eligible - that will be an interesting debate.

3rocketjk
Ene 25, 2009, 3:32 am

No HOF for McGwire, sez I.

4theoria
Editado: Ene 25, 2009, 9:56 am

He's a lock for the PED HoF (sponsored by Pfizer) along with Lance Armstrong, Floyd Landis (and various other Tour de France riders), Marion Jones, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Ben Johnson, and the fellow who played Conan the Barbarian.

5jfetting
Ene 25, 2009, 11:42 am

theoria - lol! I'm in the "no" camp, too. ming is right - just not a good enough player.

6findundercan
Ene 25, 2009, 11:56 am

The penalty for steroid use or the use of any illegal drugs is not removal from Hall of Fame consideration, nor should it be. The Hall should be a museum of the history of baseball (good and bad) and its best players. It isn't even close on either count, but that's what it should be. Meanwhile, there doesn't seem to be the same level of indignation towards the various and sundry drunks, drug abusers, philanderers, racists, anti-semites, etc. that are already enshrined. Furthermore, the alleged Performance Enhancing Devices have not been proven to actually enhance performance, much less in a quantifiable manner, so we are left with, God forbid, what the man actually did during his career :

665 RCAA
162 OPS+
9.42 HR%
405 HR vs. the league average

Historically,
2nd in HR/100 outs (Ruth), 2nd vs. the league (Ruth)
1st in HR/100 PA, 1st vs. the league
1st in HR/100 AB, 2nd vs. the league (Ruth)
12th in OPS, 17th vs. the league
10th in SLG, 9th vs. the league

There is no question that he belongs in any legitimate Hall of Fame. You know, if we ever get one of those.

7theoria
Editado: Ene 25, 2009, 12:33 pm

6>
"(W)hat the man actually did during his career" is what is in question. I think the difference between the "sundry drunks, drug abusers, philanderers, racists, anti-semites" and McGwire is that the "illegal" drugs he injected or ingested aided his performance on the field. Of course, we can't know how much his performance was enhanced in any quantifiable way, but the stats you list are 'enhanced'. Hence, we are left to guess how good McGwire would have been if he were "clean." I think when this sort of doubt is raised about a player, his chances of election are slim. I suspect he may be added eventually by the Veteran's Committee once he's no longer on the active ballot and the controversy of the steroid/HGH era has faded from memory.

I think that if he had just admitted PED use (and it was clear what he was using during the 70 hr season) and explained his actions, he would have been forgiven. His refusal to state what is already obvious means he'll have to wait a very long time before giving an induction speech.

re the stats: I think he was a one-dimensional player unlike the other players with 500+ hrs (and the 500 hr threshold is the only numerical reason why he might deserve to be inducted).

8findundercan
Ene 25, 2009, 1:48 pm

McGwire freely admitted taking supplements which were legal at the time. He may or may not have taken illegal ones, but there is no conclusive evidence that taking any of those things helps you hit a baseball more effectively. Just because somebody labelled them as "performance enhancing" does not mean that enhance performance, which doesn't really mean anything in itself anyway. His admissions or lack thereof have no bearing on anything other than your personal opinion of him.

The stats reflect his offensive prowess. His OPS and slugging are among the best ever. He created 665 more runs than the average player over the course of his career. It doesn't matter how those runs were created. "Dimensions" don't show up on the scoreboard - just runs.

9mingfrommongo
Editado: Ene 28, 2009, 10:24 pm

>8 findundercan: You're right - there have been no studies on how steroids affect the ability to play baseball. So all those studies that show how they can help make a person stronger, faster, heal quicker from injuries mean nothing because they didn't study baseball players specifically playing baseball.

Without the steroids, McGwire would have hit a lot of long outs, spent more time on IR, and been out of baseball a lot sooner. All of those things would have negatively impacted all of those wonderful stats.

>6 findundercan: But I do agree with your snark about the legitimacy of the HOF. McGwire gets in if attendance goes down.

10mikevail
Ene 25, 2009, 2:34 pm

8
If there was no evidence of these drugs enhancing performance why did McGwire take them? And if he didn't think he was cheating why did he evade questions about it at the Senate hearing? He cheated.
Does anyone want to give Ben Johnson back his gold medal? Any chance drugs enhanced his performance?

11DromJohn
Ene 25, 2009, 3:10 pm

6>

Selective rate stats. McGwire had a moderately short career by HoF standards, with several years reduced by injury.

By counting stats McGwire is not a no doubt HoFer.

OTOH, I'm a big hall guy, so I'd vote for McGwire with Allen, Grich and Oliva of the past, Rice and John of 2009.

12BOB81
Ene 25, 2009, 4:52 pm

>4 theoria:
Lance Armstrong! Lance Armstrong? Oh no you dtn't!

I also think it's unfair to characterize McGwire as a one dimensional player: he won a Gold Glove in 1990, and was generally regarded as a very good defensive player. I'd also bet there are people here who would have Pete Rose, but not Mark McGwire, in the Hall. Does it matter that Rose was an amphetamine fiend?

And here's one Performance-Enhanced player/cheater already in the Hall of Fame.

13rocketjk
Editado: Ene 25, 2009, 6:57 pm

#2 > "Steroids were banned by Baseball in 2002. Before that they were only banned by the government. Steroid apologists need to understand that."

I agree with your overall point. And technically, Fay Vincent issued a letter in June 1991 that added steroids to baseball's banned substance list. From the Mitchell Report http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/news/mitchell/report.jsp?p=88):

In September 1989, Francis T. ("Fay") Vincent was elected to succeed A. Bartlett Giamatti as Commissioner, after Giamatti's sudden death. Vincent was the first Commissioner to expressly include anabolic steroids among the substances prohibited under baseball's drug policy, which he did in the June 1991 version of the memorandum.130 Steroids were added to the drug policy at that time, apparently as a result of the enactment of the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990. Under that statute, anabolic steroids had been reclassified as Schedule III controlled substances, and the illegal use of them became subject to substantially increased criminal penalties.

Vincent's Policy Statement begins at page 5 of this .pdf file which also contains Vincent's testimony before the Mitchell Commission: http://www.sfgate.com/templates/types/blogs/pages/sfgate/newsevents/pdf/vincent....

14findundercan
Ene 25, 2009, 7:40 pm

4> It's convenient to list the big names associated with PEDs, but what about the MLB players that have actually tested positive :

Alex Sanchez
Jorge Piedra
Agustin Montero
Jamal Strong
Juan Rincon
Rafael Betancourt
Rafael Palmeiro
Ryan Franklin
Mike Morse
Carlos Almanzar
Felix Heredia
Matt Lawton
Yusaku Iriki
Jason Grimsley
Guillermo Mota
Juan Salas
Neifi Perez
Neifi Perez (again)
Ryan Jorgenson
Mike Cameron
Jose Guillen
Jay Gibbons

Impressive list, no?

9> Being stronger doesn't necessarily mean hitting more home runs. If it did, the game would be dominated by body builders. Take a look at the list above. Did PEDs help Neifi Perez on his way to the worst RCAA in the modern era? You can speculate all day long, but you do not know what the effects are, just as you do not know that McGwire took anything illegal.

10> I don't know why anybody does anything. I imagine he took what he has admitted to taking because he believed they would help him. Most people do. That doesn't make it true. If he took anything else, it was probably for the same reason. Or maybe they just gave him a happy feeling.

11> RCAA is not a rate stat. Nor is HR vs. the league. And I don't believe RCAA, OPS, SLG, and HR rates are selective or irrelevant. On the contrary, I would argue that they are some of the strongest indicators of offensive performance, especially when compared to the league average.

For the sake of argument, here are some counting stats at the time he retired :

583 HR, 7th all time
3639 TB
1317 walks, 33rd all time
1167 runs
1414 RBI, 59th all time
16 seasons
7660 PA
6187 AB

I'd call those HoF numbers. Your mileage may vary.

12> Some forms of cheating are OK, some forms aren't. Apparently. And it depends on who you are. And when you did it. And if you admitted it. And the alignment of Mars and Jupiter.

Or we could just evaluate players based on what they actually did on the field.

15TeacherDad
Ene 25, 2009, 7:57 pm

#4: "...the fellow who played Conan the Barbarian."

Yeah, whatever his name was... wondering what he's doing now?

16TeacherDad
Ene 25, 2009, 8:12 pm

But more to the point of the thread--

McGwire has the numbers and has the cred: he was considered among the best at his position (slugging 1st baseman, emphasis definitely on the "slugging" but not a bad fielder) for several years during his career, perennially ranking high in MVP votes...

17krolik
Ene 26, 2009, 4:45 am

He has not only Hall-level offensive numbers but, as >12 BOB81: pointed out above, won a Gold Glove and was not so one-dimensional as some suggest.

My pet solution for guys like him (and Rose) is to send them to ego purgatory. That is, elect them to the Hall, but posthumously.

18BOB81
Ene 26, 2009, 7:37 am

ego purgatory

I was thinking the exact same thing about Rose last night. Eerie.

19rocketjk
Ene 26, 2009, 2:12 pm

14> Some forms of cheating are OK, some forms aren't. Apparently. And it depends on who you are. And when you did it. And if you admitted it. And the alignment of Mars and Jupiter.

The idea that all forms of cheating are the same strikes me as about the same as saying that all forms of crime are the same. Jaywalking and armed robbery: same, same.

So let's compare Gaylord Perry with steroid abusers for a second. Gaylord Perry threw an illegal pitch, a spiiter, so he cheated. The punishment for being caught throwing a spitter is expulsion from the game at hand. I don't know, maybe there's a fine as well. If you wanted to "keep up" with Gaylord Perry, you had to take the time to learn to throw the spitter as well as he did. Your risk? Being discovered and being kicked out of a game. Maybe a fine.

But in the age of steroids, the steroid users, who were breaking federal law and, as of 1991 violating MLB's drug policy (see post 13), were putting themselves above the rest of their teammates and opponents via their willingness to take poison to get ahead. Now, if you were a player with the talent and work ethic to rise to the very top of baseball performance, that was no longer good enough. You would only be able to rise to the top of your profession if you, too, were willing to take poison to do so.

The difference in scale between abusing steroids and throwing a spitball is enormous, in my opinion.

20KromesTomes
Ene 26, 2009, 3:33 pm

rocketjk: I beg to differ ... from a purely baseball standpoint, both Perry and McGwire cheated to improve their performance ... the fact that different penalties were involved is, in my opinion, irrelevant.

For Perry, just like McGwire, the "talent and work ethic to rise to the very top of baseball performance ... was no longer good enough."

Perry could only "rise to the top of his profession" if he enhanced his performance illegally. Which he did.

21mingfrommongo
Ene 26, 2009, 8:32 pm

>14 findundercan: Those guys aren't getting in either.

For someone who already can hit a major league pitch better than the average human, being stronger does mean more home runs. For me, maybe not so much, but certainly for McGwire. That calls into question all his slugging stats. And without those, he's nothing.

He gets the scorn as a "big name" just as he got the praise before. It's just his luck to be the first of the "big name" users to be eligible for HOF voting.

22findundercan
Ene 26, 2009, 9:01 pm

19> The punishment for being caught throwing a spitter is expulsion from the game at hand. I don't know, maybe there's a fine as well.

The penalty for either infraction does not include removal of consideration for the Hall of Fame, which is the issue at hand. That penalty is inflicted arbitrarily by the BBWAA, even against those who have not been proven to have committed any infraction.

21> For someone who already can hit a major league pitch better than the average human, being stronger does mean more home runs.

It sounds like it would and that's good enough for most people to draw the conclusion, but there is no actual evidence that correlates steroid use to hitting more home runs. For all we know, when those who can already hit a major league pitch better than the average human experience a rapid increase in strength, it may decrease flexibility, lower bat speed, and alter the motion of the swing resulting in dramatically lowered offensive output.

23TeacherDad
Ene 26, 2009, 10:16 pm

equating spitballs and steroids? not even close...

a spitball or a scuffed ball or stealing signs-- part of the game since way back, something most kids, and most future sportswriters, tried if not in Little League then out on the corner lot; but steroids/hgh/ped were the bigger and better kids, the athletes that grew up to get unbelievably huge paychecks for "playing a game", crossing the line and taking a corrupting advantage to get even more.

The reasons the fans and writers balk and cry out at steroid use is they no longer can say "yeah, I played ball with that guy, knew he'd be good" or "y'know, if it wasn't for this elbow..." -- the gap was widened illicitly and unfairly. That's where the problem with voting any questionable guy in, especially with a hero figure like McGwire, and even with an ass like Bonds, because we can't wax poetic, cherish and relish his part in baseball's lore, we can't extoll his virtues without the "but..."

and that's too bad, for all of us...

24mikevail
Ene 26, 2009, 10:21 pm

22
"For all we know, when those who can already hit a major league pitch better than the average human experience a rapid increase in strength, it may decrease flexibility, lower bat speed, and alter the motion of the swing resulting in dramatically lowered offensive output."
You're right; if Bonds hadn't been robbed of vital bat speed he could have hit 120 HR and batted .580 in 03'. The fact that the six highest one season HR totals were accounted for by three "suspected" steroids users is a testament to those players' ability to overcome the debilitating effects of steroid use. Its time we recognized their dedication to the game.

25BOB81
Ene 26, 2009, 11:12 pm

Would you say that seeking a unique advantage over your opponent was "part of the game since way back?" What is the important moral difference between spitballs, amphetamines (nobody likes to talk about amphetamines), and steroids?

and that's too bad, for all of us...

We all knew that as a rookie, Sammy Sosa weighed 175 pounds soaking wet, and that just a few years and 50 pounds later, he could hit 60+ homers on a regular basis; maybe we shouldn't feel too bad for us.

26TeacherDad
Ene 26, 2009, 11:32 pm

if it was a "unique" advantage, we wouldn't be debating an entire generation of ballplayers and their numbers; and yes, "seeking advantage" goes way back, even beyond Cobb's slashing spikes and McGraw's grabbing belts.

one important difference is that you can't, or we haven't, assumed/concluded (if not in undeniable scientific fact then in general presumption) that popping amphetamines helped Joe Morgan or Pete Rose or Willie Stargell attain their HOF-worthy numbers, which we do for McGwire, et al.

I do feel bad for baseball, which includes players and fans, because we can't appreciate how Sosa went from a teenager raised in poverty (i.e without a full fridge, vitamins, personal weight coach in high school) to a well-fed, full-time-state-of-the-art-training, stud-athlete of a man who picked up the wrong bat one day...

27BOB81
Ene 26, 2009, 11:47 pm

So do we begrudge Sosa/McGwire/Bonds because they found the most effective way to cheat?

28TeacherDad
Ene 27, 2009, 12:17 am

I suppose you could call it that, but I would think "most effective" would include not getting caught... ;)

and of course "caught" can open a whole 'nother thread...

29krolik
Ene 27, 2009, 3:09 am

I think you're right to bring up amphetamines (>25 BOB81:) because they're more a part of the continuum than spitters or scuffed balls. It's a question of normalizing a certain kind of drug culture in the sport, which became part of the business. Use of amphetamines has been widely known for almost 40 years. See Ball Four or Curt Flood's The Way it Is. They both talk of amphetamines. Steroids were a "natural" next step.

Personally, I regret this and dislike the power-style game facilitated by steroids. But that's how things evolved. There was a don't ask, don't tell policy for many years. Owners gladly looked the other way because it was perceived as good for business. I think of the gendarme Louis in Casablanca, telling the police that he is shocked--shocked to hear of illicit gambling!

Baseball was one of the last sports to try to clean up its act, and this came about when it was perceived as bad for business.

How to digest all this crap? Well, as much as I enjoy baseball stats, they have to be put in the context of their era. Along with the unpleasant recognition that it's not just about a few bad apples.

30BOB81
Ene 27, 2009, 9:58 am

>29 krolik:
"But everybody's having such a good time." Believe it or not, I was (again) thinking the exact same thing last night. I hadn't thought about amphetamines as baseball's gateway drug, but I think you're right about that too.

It's about time we came to grips with the whole Steroid Era: we watched; we cheered; we were joyous; we knew.

31findundercan
Ene 27, 2009, 11:36 am

Well, this has apparently turned into a thread about steroids, so I'll summarize the McGwire HoF issue and be done with that.

There are two relevant questions and the facts are clear :

1) Is he eligible for the HoF? There is no controversy here. He is eligible, without question.

2) Does his career support inclusion? His stats are a matter of record. You might think he did steroids. You might think steroids affected his stats. You don't know either of those things. All you know is the numbers he produced. By my estimation, they place him among the best offensive players in history. You may disagree with the cutoff point, but to judge him by hearsay, rumor, and suppositions is just as disingenuous as any cheating he is accused of.

32rocketjk
Editado: Ene 27, 2009, 1:04 pm

#20> rocketjk: I beg to differ ... from a purely baseball standpoint, both Perry and McGwire cheated to improve their performance ... the fact that different penalties were involved is, in my opinion, irrelevant. . . . For Perry, just like McGwire, the "talent and work ethic to rise to the very top of baseball performance ... was no longer good enough."

KronmesTomes, I think you missed the main point I was making, which was that in order to keep up with McGwire and the other steroid abusers, you had to take poison. You had to take risks to your health and your life expectancy. That's a devil's bargain that player's shouldn't have to consider, but that was the position the steroid abusers were putting their colleagues in. Even from a purely baseball standpoint, I still say that to consider every sort of cheating as exactly the same is akin to considering every sort of crime exactly the same. "Breaking the law is breaking the law!" But we don't say that. We consider the scale of the offense when weighing judgment. I personally don't see why baseball or any other forum should be different.

#22> The penalty for either infraction does not include removal of consideration for the Hall of Fame, which is the issue at hand. That penalty is inflicted arbitrarily by the BBWAA, even against those who have not been proven to have committed any infraction.

From the official criteria for Hall of Fame consideration (http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/bbwaa.jsp):

"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

If you consider taking steroids to be cheating, or if you simply rest on the fact that it was against MLB's official drug policy as of 1991 and federal law before that, you may easily and legitimately decide not to vote for a steroid abuser, in my opinion.

If you look at McGwire's stats, season by season, and remember all the injuries that seemed to have brought his career to a halt, and then consider when he began his steroid use, one could easily come to the conclusion that without the steroids he fades out around 1993. Got no proof, but it's what I believe. You look at McGwire's frame in his early career and then look at what he turned into, and when you consider his pathetic performance in front of Congress, well, one may call it "hearsay, rumor and suppositions," but to me it's pretty clear stuff. It wouldn't be enough for a court of law, but we're not in a court of law. Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't vote for him for the HOF.

33findundercan
Editado: Ene 27, 2009, 1:18 pm

>24 mikevail: The fact that the six highest one season HR totals were accounted for by three "suspected" steroids users is a testament to those players' ability to overcome the debilitating effects of steroid use.

HR totals are meaningless without context. What Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa did relative to the league average is not singular. In fact, they pale in comparison to Ruth. The following is a listing of the greatest differences in single season HR totals vs. the league. The columns are season, difference, player total, league average, percentage higher than the league average, the next three highest totals (or in Sosa's case, the three closest), and the percentage higher than the second highest total.

1 Barry Bonds 2001 58 73 15 387% 64 57 52 14%
2 Mark McGwire 1998 56 70 14 400% 66 56 50 6%
3 Babe Ruth 1927 55 60 5 1100% 47 30 30 28%
4 Babe Ruth 1921 53 59 6 883% 24 24 23 149%
5 Babe Ruth 1920 50 54 4 1250% 19 17 15 184%
6 Jimmie Foxx 1932 49 58 9 544% 41 38 38 42%
T7 Babe Ruth 1928 48 54 6 800% 31 31 27 74%
T7 Mark McGwire 1999 48 65 17 282% 63 48 47 3%
9 Sammy Sosa 1998 47 66 19 247% (70) 56 50 -
T10 Hank Greenberg 1938 46 58 12 383% 50 36 34 16%
T10 Sammy Sosa 2001 46 64 18 256% (73) 57 52 -

So, by raw numbers, the steroid era sluggers aren't hitting significantly (if any) more HR vs. the league average than players in the 20s and 30s. By percentages, it's not even close. Check out Ruth in 1920. He hit 1250% more HR than the league average. 400% is impressive, but it's not in the same ballpark. Now look at the next closest totals. Ruth hit 184% more HR than the next best. Bonds? 14% McGwire? 6% and 3%. The numbers really aren't that damning when you put them in perspective.

(base stats from the Complete Baseball Encyclopedia)

ETA : sorry about the table formatting - the spacing just seems to disappear

34findundercan
Ene 27, 2009, 1:17 pm

32> "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

I wasn't going to say any more about McGwire, but you are right in this point. Integrity, sportsmanship, and character are judgement calls, so if you feel that he was less than forthcoming, then you have legitimate cause to exclude him. I still would not make that call without knowing all the facts. Furthermore, I feel that clause is very dangerous since some players lives are more open to scrutiny than others and you are prone to exclude a guy who popped greenies while admitting a guy who beat his wife behind closed doors. My personal feelings, notwithstanding, however, you are correct in the letter of the rules.

35krolik
Editado: Ene 27, 2009, 1:33 pm

Re >33 findundercan: Thanks for this serious number-crunching. This was partly what I was alluding to when I mentioned context in >29 krolik:.

Perversely, though, maybe I'll play devil's advocate against myself. It's not exactly news that Ruth was special. Singular. Verging on extra-terrestial, in his context.

But there are at least a couple of other factors that affect context: first, it wasn't the same power game in his day, thus the differential compared to his peers might not be as relevant as it is now. Second, although Ruth would no doubt be exceptional in any era, the general average level has gone up. Which also mitigates the relatively smaller differentials of Bonds, McGwire and Sosa.

That said--to come back to the main subject--I agree that McGwire's numbers are still very much Hall worthy. I don't see how one can seriously contest them.

As for the integrity and sportsmanship etc. mentioned in >32 rocketjk:, that's why I think the "purgatory" phase, alluded to earlier, is not a bad compromise.

36TeacherDad
Ene 27, 2009, 2:17 pm

interesting thought-- Ruth would no doubt be exceptional in any era

...or would his other-worldly talents not be enough, and his personality lead to over-indulgence, lack of dedication, and a wasted career? hmmm...

37KromesTomes
Ene 27, 2009, 2:28 pm

rocketjk: I understand the point your making ... but, IMHO, even assuming that what McGwire did was "worse" than what Perry did, what Perry did was still bad enough to keep him him out of the Hall if we're keeping cheaters out.

findundercan: regarding the difference in home runs when comparing an individual with the league, do you think McGwire/Sosa showed less of a difference here because the widespread use of steroids lifted the entire league's performance? (Brady Anderson anyone?)

38theoria
Editado: Ene 27, 2009, 5:27 pm

McGwire's use of steroids will keep him out of the HOF for the foreseeable future. There's really not much to debate until the controversy around players like Bonds, McGwire, and Clemens dies down. The only thing that can speed up the process would be the performance of a sincere mea culpa by McGwire. The statistical blitz simply won't suffice.

39BOB81
Ene 27, 2009, 7:01 pm

>36 TeacherDad:
Babe Ruth: Behind the Music

sincere mea culpa

Who would believe one?

40BOB81
Ene 27, 2009, 11:27 pm

>32 rocketjk:
Sorry it took so long for me to think of this but, having lived my whole life in the rural Midwest, I've seen firsthand plenty of people who have poisoned themselves terribly with amphetamines.

41mingfrommongo
Ene 28, 2009, 12:34 am

>29 krolik: we watched; we cheered; we were joyous; we knew.

I knew, I watched. I didn't cheer (not the users anyway) and I certainly wasn't joyous.

The first person who says "But Ming, that's just cuz you're an Indians fan" gets it - POW!

42mingfrommongo
Ene 28, 2009, 12:46 am

Re: Perry vs. McGwire - The inclusion of one player should not be an argument for or against another. Being better that the worst player in the HOF doesn't get everybody in. Nor should it. Letting in one cheater does not obligate the BBWAA to let them all in.

43BOB81
Editado: Ene 28, 2009, 1:38 am

>41 mingfrommongo:
Never, ever cheered for Albert Belle? Ever?

POW!

Your threats don't scare me Ming! I've got the counterpuncher, and he's right here on LibraryThing! No steroids needed.

44findundercan
Ene 28, 2009, 12:16 pm

37> regarding the difference in home runs when comparing an individual with the league, do you think McGwire/Sosa showed less of a difference here because the widespread use of steroids lifted the entire league's performance? (Brady Anderson anyone?)

The entire league's performance was lifted by a variety of factors. I strongly suspect that :

1) Park factors
2) Lower mound
3) Diluted pitching
4) The DH
5) differences in the bats and balls
6) improvements in medicine, nutrition, training equipment, scouting, and conditioning
7) differences in pitching and managing styles

had more influence than steroids. The increasing integration of the sport may have an effect as well, though it's hard to judge. We also don't know how many players were on what substances for how long.

One factor that is often overlooked is that many of the players who have actually tested positive have been pitchers. If we're assuming that PEDs do increase performance, then shouldn't the increased pitching power across the league at least ameliorate the offensive spike?

My personal feeling, with no basis in facts, is that there were many players on a variety of substances, but that the overall effect was minimal. I'm guessing a small handful of players had a statistically significant increase in power, some screwed up their swing trying to hit for more power, and most gained a minimal advantage that was ultimately indistinguishable from the other factors of the era.

If you take a look at the numbers, you would have to assume an awfully large power increase to get a significant boost in HR output. I ran a very rough idealized scenario once and it came out something like this :

Let's say you're a leadoff hitter, getting a historical amount of at bats (700) and, for some reason, teams are still pitching to you. Now, let's say you're also having historic seasons for average, HR%, and fly ball % : .426 (Lajoie 1901), 15.34% (Bonds 2001), and 62% (rough estimate). If you add a considerable amount of power (20%) that you can apply exclusively to balls that are near the fence but not already going out without affecting any of your other batted balls, you'll only see a net 13% increase in your HR total. For most players, the net increase will be substantially less and it will be absorbed into seasonal variation and other factors. Even for an elite player getting a strong boost in power, the actual increase is going to be in the single digits.

45TeacherDad
Ene 28, 2009, 1:37 pm

44> I'm guessing a small handful of players had a statistically significant increase in power, some screwed up their swing trying to hit for more power, and most gained a minimal advantage that was ultimately indistinguishable from the other factors of the era.

I think that accurately sums it up, at least in my opinion as well-- the Brady Anderson/Eric Gagne-like seasons weren't prevalent enough to completely discount the other factors that may have contributed to a player's success; some guys have "career years" and most players work very hard at their craft.

The best thing that could hapen for that tainted generation of players would be for Hamilton, Prince, and Pujols to put up some comparable numbers in the near future...

and keeping out or kicking out cheaters in the HOF? That would create some very empty hallways in Cooperstown...

46mingfrommongo
Editado: Ene 30, 2009, 1:46 am

>43 BOB81: Wow. I had suppressed all memories of him. So, thanks for bringing them back - I will get even. I remember cheering when they got him in the draft - he couldn't really be as bad as he was portrayed while at LSU, right? I admit I was thankful for his contributions, but I don't think anyone in CLE wasn't glad to see the back of him. Steroids wouldn't even make the top ten reasons not to cheer for Albert Belle.

>44 findundercan: a 20% boost in power applied to a ball hit to the track sends those balls, every one, over the fence. A player who hits a lot of long flies, like say, I don't know, a young Mark McGwire maybe, gets a lot of help. Much more than a singles hitter.

Pitchers would look to steroids for help because they help the body repair itself faster. And that is a huge benefit to pitchers, since pitching is very bad for arms. The statistic most influenced would probably be innings pitched. Again, the benefit would go mostly to guys who have skills to start with.

>6 findundercan: The penalty for steroid use or the use of any illegal drugs is not removal from Hall of Fame consideration, nor should it be.
For a first offense, it's a minimum fine of $1000 and imprisonment for no more than 1 year.

47BOB81
Editado: Ene 11, 2010, 9:44 pm

McGwire admits to steroid use.

He'll get in now, right?

48abealy
Ene 11, 2010, 10:27 pm

ha, ha. no.

49theoria
Ene 12, 2010, 6:55 pm

I still hold to what I wrote nearly a year ago in #7. He may get into the Hall of Fame via a "Veterans Committee" vote but I doubt he'll be inducted by the vote of sportswriters. That means fifteen years of limbo and then, maybe, when he's very old and grey, and steroids are 'so 1990s', he will receive his plaque, which will read "Mark McGwire: He's not here to discuss the past".

50BOB81
Editado: Ene 12, 2010, 7:11 pm

>49 theoria:
That works for me.