Lessee:

Greenberg 1628
Ray Schalk 1345
Rizutto 1588

And several others, mainly SS and C.

Okay, more to the point:

Times on base, career, HoF 1st basemen (quick-n-dirty, does not include HBP):

Sisler 3284
Terry 2730
Greenberg 2480
G. Kelly 2164
Bottomley 2977
Mize 2867
Cepeda 2939

Big Mac 2943

Run that argument by me again? McGwire got more "bang" out of those 1626 hits than almost anyone in the history of baseball.

Greenberg 1628
Ray Schalk 1345
Rizutto 1588

And several others, mainly SS and C.

And Ralph Kiner

McGwire hit more than .300 only twice and actually had a full season in 1991 (he played 154 games) in which he hit .201.

That's truly pathetic.

No player in the hall of fame for performance has EVER hit that low in a full season in the prime of his career.

Brooks Robinson.
Willie McCovey
Reggie Jackson
Mike Schmidt

Oh, wait, he said prime, as if that's supposed to matter.

OK then,

Roy Campanella

Mr. Mcgwire's career OBP was .394 and his SLG% was .588 (9th all-time). Has the author ever heard of these crazy new stats?

Sammy "They were just Flintstones Vitamins" Sosa has 609 home runs, 2,408 hits and 234 stolen bases. He had two 30-30 campaigns (1993 and 1995) and may have put together the most dominant five-year stretch in Major League history.

um, no.

My favorite part is:

"Bringing up a name from Chicago's baseball past, it's Dave Kingman-like. In fact, it's much worse than "King Kong," who was known as a homer-or-nothing hitter. Kingman had 442 career home runs and 1,575 hits, which is 28 percent."

So perhaps if McGwire had 100 fewer HRs but 100 more singles, he would have a better claim to the Hall of Fame, by this bizarro reasoning? That way his "percentage of hits that are HRs" would improve to just under 30 pct. And he'd still have 483 HRs.
I would have thought it more likely that someone would knock the player with the LOWEST pct of his hits that are HRs.

I wasn't even going to bother responding, assuming this was some high school kid's blog or maybe even a parody. But let's just say this isn't a clip I'd recommend if he ever wants to move out of Indiana.

The thing that bothers me more than the argument is the one-sentence paragraph.

I know a lot of sport columnists use them.

But seriously.

They create an air of portentousness about everything the writer says.

As if this comment is so weighty it must have a paragraph of its own.

Not so.

I thought the point of the one-sentence paragraph is that it helps a column take up more space.

That way, if you don't really have anything to say, you can still fill one column of the paper.

Plus, I think they're easier for less-literate people to read.

And those people seem to be the primary fans of sports columnists.

Most newspaper paragraphs are either one or two sentences.

On a newspaper column-width, a 4- or 5-sentence paragraph would fill up a huge amount of space, a massive chunk of black ink. Because of the layout, those long chunks are uninviting in a way that a 5-sentence paragraph on a book layout is not. Most people believe readers will skip articles that are just chunks of black ink. They may be right or wrong, but it's a training that goes way beyond columnists or sportswriters.

Most people believe readers will skip articles that are just chunks of black ink. They may be right or wrong, but it's a training that goes way beyond columnists or sportswriters.

GregD is absolutely correct. And it's not just a belief on the part of most people, it's a fact. Attention span is not humanity's strongest point.

I guess Greg is right.

I looked at some old Red Smith columns and they average two sentences to a paragraph. Sometimes one. Rarely more than three.

It's the white space in the Web layout that annoys me.

Portentous.

Pretentious.

Nobody ever white-spaced his way to a Spink Award.

Not in this man's Hall.

And stay off my lawn.

You could resize your browser so it's two inches wide.

It's true that the format that looks right in newspapers looks wrong on a computer screen. Until newspaper writers start rewriting (and not just posting) copy specifically for the web, I doubt it'll change, though.

(steve)

I think your column on McGwire misses a lot of his value, even you want to criticize his qualifications, you could talk about his lack of defensive value (one gold glove at the least strenous defensive position) or his short career. But you can't criticise his hitting, he was clearly one of the most valuable hitters in baseball history. Some stats that might clarify the case for you.

Player Batting Average/On Base Percentage
Dave Kingman .236/.302
Sammy Sosa .273/.344
Mark McGwire .263/.394

Mark was nothing like Dave Kingman as a hitter, Dave had a substantially below league average OBP during his career, while Mark was substantially above league average. Sosa was average.

Now look at their relative power.

Player Slugging Percentage/ABs per HR
Dave Kingman .478/15.1
Sammy Sosa .534/14.5
Mark McGwire .588/.10.6

Mark was a dramatically better hitter than Sosa during their careers, he got on base far more often and hit for significantly more power. To be fair to Sammy, he had a slow start to his career, and played longer, so there is more of his decline years bringing down his slugging percentage and OBP. But even cherry picking Sammy's best years doesn't match up to Mark's best years. Sammy had a little more defensive value though, playing an outfield position, and was a far better baserunner.

And a major factor I've never seen sportswriters address with McGwire is his home park. He played in one of the most extreme pitchers parks in the majors during his career, and even when he was traded to the Cardinals, the park was neutral. Hitting in Oakland was between 5-10% below league average during his years, predominately because of the huge foul area. McGwire's HRs and batting average would have been a little higher (say another 20 HRs, and a .270 batting average) had he played in any other park.

Despite this handicap Mark rates very high in important career batting stats. Despite that so-so batting average, he's 78th in career on base percentage. Far better, he's 9th all time in slugging percentage. I'm not sure if you are familar with OPS, but it's a shorthand statistic to provide a rough gauge of a batters value, by adding OBP and Slugging percentages. Mark has the 11th highest OPS of all time. But of course one problem with comparing players across eras with raw statistics are the ever changing parks and the eras in which the statistics were amassed. Just as he was hurt by his home park, Mark also benefited from an era where it was "easier" to accumulate home runs, hits and walks. Fortunately there is a way to adjust for these differences. A more useful version of OPS has been created, called OPS+, where it adjusts for the era/park the player played in, such that a 100 on the OPS+ scale is a league average hitter. Let's look at our three players again.

Player Career OPS+
Kingman 115
Sosa 128
McGwire 162

You can see that not only was Dave Kingman only a bit better than the average hitter during his era (because his prodigious power was offset by his poor plate discipline and batting average), but the low scoring environments he played in meant his hitting value wasn't as far from from Sosa's as their vastly different raw statistics would make you think. But McGwire's performance is dramatically better than both, in fact Mark McGwire has the 11th highest OPS+ of all time (tied with Pete Browning). That's HOF caliber hitting by any measure, so clearly McGwire would belong in the HOF if you ignored the steroids issue.

And we know the steroids issue is likely to keep McGwire out of the HOF. But it's hard for me to think that steroids accounted for a significant part of his excess performance for a couple of reasons. First is that he hit 49 home runs in only 150 games as a 215 pound rookie who hadn't used steroids at that point according to Canseco. So clearly he had tremendous raw power and was destined to hit a lot of home runs had he stayed healthy. Players tend to hit more home runs in their thirties as they mature and add strength naturally anways. Secondly, HR rates have only come down about 4% since testing began. That clearly indicates that there are other forces driving the surge in home runs, including smaller parks, thinner bat handles, etc.

I believe the key factor has the widespread acceptance of weight training in baseball. Previous generations though lifting weights would hurt your swing and make you musclebound, but that started to change in the 80s. Players got stronger, could hit the ball harder, and home rates skyrocketed. Clearly many players (over 50% by all estimates) also used steroids so they could work out harder and more often, including pitchers like Clemens (allegedly). So I percieve McGwire as having little advantage over other players of his era. So I would not weight that issue heavily in my ballot, but understand the viewpoints of others who would.

I like how having a high percentage of your hits be home runs is somehow a bad thing. The lengths people are going to to try and discredit McGwire based on stats are ludicrous.

I worked with Gorches for a brief time at the Post Tribune. Nice guy. Wouldn't have ever imagined him getting a Primer thread, though I should never put any link past Repoz.

so does this mean your an indiana primate as well?

so does this mean your an indiana primate as well?

Yes Meat. I live in Portage.

Sure he had 2800 homers, but that's 100% of his career hits. That's no hall of famer.

Valuearb, you have the patience of a saint.
And of course your approach is the only one that has a chance of educating this gentleman.

So kudos.

I also like telling stat-limited people to look at runs. You know McGwire's walks have value because he scored more runs than you'd think, averaging 101 runs per 162 games. Not an historic amount but way above Kingman's 75. Not an historic number or anything; he wouldn't get in the HOF scoring 101 runs/162 games if he didn't have his power, but a sign that his getting on base meant something.

wasn't even going to bother responding, assuming this was some high school kid's blog or maybe even a parody. But let's just say this isn't a clip I'd recommend if he ever wants to move out of Indiana.

Howie, as hard to believe as it might sound, some of us are quite content to live in Indiana.

That's right, he had only 1,626 hits. You tell me a Hall of Famer who had that only many hits. It's also easily the highest percentage of any player with more than 500 career home runs.

"You tell me" how many Hall of Famers had 583 home runs. How many had a .394 OBP and a .588 SLG.

And MSM writers criticize the blogosphere for "having their head in a stat book". No statgeek makes stat-based arguments that are this absurd.

Sosh,
You need to read that more carefully.
I didn't say he SHOULD want to move out of Indiana.

But if he was a fellow who wanted to move on to a much larger newspaper market, he'd have to leave Indiana (or you might say technically he could commute from Merrillville or such to the Chicago papers, but in my visits there the traffic seems to get worse and worse. So thay may not be practical). And I doubt this clip would help, IF he was so inclined.

And my wife's a Hoosier.

I'd criticize the blogosphere for making use of too many initials because they can't bear to type out words.

Or am I just old?

But if he was a fellow who wanted to move on to a much larger newspaper market, he'd have to leave Indiana (or you might say technically he could commute from Merriville or such to the Chicago papers, but in my visits there the traffic seems to get worse and worse. So thay may not be practical). And I doubt this clip would help, IF he was so inclined.

Fair enough. I confess to getting a little defensive about perceived slights at Indiana and Midwest life, particularly when the dismissal comes from folks who have never lived/been here (which obviously you have).

FWIW, I travel farther than Steve would have to do every day, and it's not to much of an issue. I'd rather commute from NW Indiana than the western suburbs.

And what part of the state does your wife hail from?

No offense taken, Sosh. I figured why you might have gotten that sense.

And I'm not sure of the exact spot you could be in northern Indiana to make a Chicago job manageable. And of course that was a digression anyway.

Mrs. Howie's a Valparaiso native, grew up in Merrillville and then the Chicago western suburbs.

I've visited Chicago maybe 75-80 times, a total of 9 months or so of my life without ever living there, and have spent a TON of time all over the Midwest. The people are almost universally nicer than East Coast, and smarter than West Coast (uh oh, I'll get slammed for that, lol).

And I'm not sure of the exact spot you could be in northern Indiana to make a Chicago job manageable. And of course that was a digression anyway.

I guess it depends on your what you consider managable. I do Portage to Oak Brook. It's about an hour each way, though fortunately I only have to be in the office about 3.5 times a week. If I worked downtown, then the South Shore would be my preferred mode of transportation, along with hundreds of others.

It's really kind of annoying how nobody gives a damn about "hit totals" until the HoF discussion comes up. I mean, 1996 was a long time ago, but I don't recall anyone saying "Look at that bum McGwire! He only has 130 hits! What a loser!" Or in the heat of the HR race I don't remember anyone saying "yeah, the guy is going to break Maris's record, but only 150 hits? That's not a special season..."

But now that Mac is retired, for some reason, hit total is all these guys care about.

t's really kind of annoying how nobody gives a damn about "hit totals" until the HoF discussion comes up. I mean, 1996 was a long time ago, but I don't recall anyone saying "Look at that bum McGwire! He only has 130 hits! What a loser!" Or in the heat of the HR race I don't remember anyone saying "yeah, the guy is going to break Maris's record, but only 150 hits? That's not a special season..."

But now that Mac is retired, for some reason, hit total is all these guys care about.

That's nothing. Mac got MVP votes in a season in which he had a mere 44 hits.

I'd criticize the blogosphere for making use of too many initials because they can't bear to type out words.

Or am I just old?

IDK

McGwire's walks have value because he scored more runs than you'd think, averaging 101 runs per 162 games

Interesting. Vince Coleman, for instance, scored 100 per 162 games. Tim Raines scored 102. Tony Gwynn scored 92. It's just a raw number, unadjusted for any context, but it tends to indicate that McGwire wasn't clogging any basepaths.

It's just a raw number, unadjusted for any context,

Like scoring on your own HR's.

Like scoring on your own HR's.

Well, those runs count, too, don't they?

Well, those runs count, too, don't they?

Sure they do, but they have nothing to do with how valuable his walks were.

Sure they do, but they have nothing to do with how valuable his walks were.

True, but they have plenty to do with how valuable McGwire was overall.

True, but they have plenty to do with how valuable McGwire was overall.

Of course they do. But this is nonsensical:

You know McGwire's walks have value because he scored more runs than you'd think, averaging 101 runs per 162 games. Not an historic amount but way above Kingman's 75. Not an historic number or anything; he wouldn't get in the HOF scoring 101 runs/162 games if he didn't have his power, but a sign that his getting on base meant something

Mac hit 51 HR per 162 games, Kingman 37. So, a little over half the difference between the two's runs scored rate has nothing to do with walks. Some percentage of the rest is era driven. Teammate effects are unknown. So, pointing to his total runs scored rate without accounting for these effects as evidence of anything is nonsense.

Man, low-hanging fruit. My list of objections:

1. Not nearly purple enough, and I can smell an odor of smoked salmon, which I hate.

2. Get me off this consarned boat!

3. A fistful of sunlight would melt your hand.

4. No-one counted my hits in Little League, and yet I grew up to be the genius I am.

5. Obsequiousness has no place in the modern discourse.

6. If God is ineffable, what exactly is effing?

7. For instance, have you ever been effably sad?

8. Seriously.

So, pointing to his total runs scored rate without accounting for these effects as evidence of anything is nonsense.

Fair enough. We've had this conversation at least three times recently, haven't we? It seems to me that if you want to point to his runs scored as evidence of his total value, that's fine - there are obvious problems with it, but the fact that he scored runs at a comparable pace to Tim Raines or Tony Gwynn has some value in a discussion about how valuable McGwire was offensively. But you're right, of course, that it makes no sense to claim that value is because of his walks, when half of McGwire's runs scored (almost exactly) were cases where he drove himself in.

it makes no sense to claim that value is because of his walks

Well, the walks are a factor. If McGwire scores 101 and Kingman 75, half of that is HR and some is era, and some is walks. (The difference in their batting averages is almost entirely the extra HR.)

McGwire is hard to compare to anyone else because nobody ever hit home runs at that rate. His OBP includes a very substantial fraction (.076!) when he wasn't "on base" at all: his home runs. The only real point is that a comparison to Dave Kingman is way off the mark, because McGwire was a much tougher out and scored way more runs.

And my wife's a Hoosier.

Cue Eraser-X for some sophomoric rant...

"some of my best friends are hoosiers"

A couple more things to consider, is that Big Mac played in a tough park to score runs, and after his sixth season played most of the rest of his career on lousy offensive teams. And that was despite the enormous contributions he provided, which means the other hitters on those teams were horrible. Even a faster baserunning with base stealing skills isn't going to score much more if there is no one to drive him in.

Cue Eraser-X for some sophomoric rant...
"some of my best friends are hoosiers"

..........

I dunno, friends is one thing, but if you MARRY one, I think you're covered.

:)

He answered.

Thanks for reading ...

My reply to you is simple. There is no one in the hall who hit .201 in a full season in the middle of their prime and there is no one in the hall as a hitter (not a pitcher) with as few career hits as 1,626. That's all I wanted to point out instead of all the steroid talk. That's what is great about baseball ... that we can have different opinions on something like this but neither of us can necessarily be right or wrong.

Also, Sosa had a slow home run start but he stole most of his 234 bases at the beginning (probably steroids related, but I won't mention that). McGwire couldn't steal a base if he had a gun.

Steve T.

Please don't flame Steve. Keep things rational here. He's been considerate enough to respond, I'm working on an equally considerate reply.

I'd recommend we all leave it up to ValueArb.
I don't see any other hope for progress, and not sure that works, either.

Maybe mention the HOF hitters who have fewer hits, for starters?
I think the relative lack of value of SBs is probably over his head, alas.

Steve,

Thanks for taking time to read my e-mail and to respond. Let me cover your points as quickly as I can.

"there is no one in the hall as a hitter (not a pitcher) with as few career hits as 1,626"

Hank Greenberg (1628)
Phil Rizzuto (1588)
Mickey Cochrane (1652)
Jackie Robinson (1518)
Johnie Evers (1659)
Joe Tinker (1687)
Hack Wilson (1461)

That's just a smattering, there are actually many more. Hack Wilson is actually a good comp for Mark, as they were both devastating hitters with short careers, and McGwire broke his NL season HR mark. Hack's career was shortened by alchoholism, McGwires by heel and back injuries.

"There is no one in the hall who hit .201 in a full season in the middle of their prime "

This is actually true, but slightly misleading. Mark's OBP that year was actually .330, above the league average and his SLG was just a hair below league average (and if you believe in BABIP, he was very unlucky). His OPS+ that year was 103, which made him a slightly above league average hitter, essentially Eric Byrnes in todays terms. Some other hall of famers who've had single bad seasons similar to Marks.

Ernie Banks hit .227 at age 32 (OPS+ 94)
Willie Stargell hit .237 at age 28. (OPS+128)
Reggie Jackson hit .194 at age 37 (OPS+ 74).
Harmon Killebrew hit .210 at age 32 (OPS+124)
Roy Campenalla hit .207 at age 32 (OPS+74). He hit .318 the next year.
Gary Carter hit .235 at age 33 (OPS+ 83) and .183 in a short season at age 35 (OPS+ 51).
Joe Tinker hit .221 at age 26 (OPS+ 65).

Mark did produce greater than league average production as a hitter that year (esp. given that OPS+ probably undervalues OBP). And no one goes to the HOF based on a single season. Only eight hall of famers have better career hitting production than McGwire. Isn't that what he should be judged on, not a single mediocre year?

"Also, Sosa had a slow home run start but he stole most of his 234 bases at the beginning (probably steroids related, but I won't mention that). McGwire couldn't steal a base if he had a gun."

Sometimes it's beneficial not to steal bases. Sammy got caught 107 times in 341 attempts (68%). Creating an out and losing a baserunner costs a team's offense more than getting a runner from first to second gains it. Sammy's steal % was just barely enough to be mildly beneficial, but it certainly didn't add enough to overcome McGwires large advantage in getting on base much more often in the first place.

Oh, and I'm sure you know about www.baseball-reference.com, but in case you don't, it's just the greatest site in the world for digging into player's complete statistics, it has stats on virtually every player, even those in the formative leagues in the 1800s. It's also great at looking at league averages, and seeing how baseball has changed over the years.

Once again, thanks for listening,

Is now the time to remind everyone? From 1999, the All-Century Team:

C: Johnny Bench
Yogi Berra
1B: Lou Gehrig
Mark McGwire
2B: Jackie Robinson
Rogers Hornsby
3B: Mike Schmidt
Brooks Robinson
SS: Cal Ripken, Jr.
Ernie Banks
OF: Babe Ruth
Hank Aaron
Ted Williams
Willie Mays
Joe DiMaggio
Mickey Mantle
Ty Cobb
Ken Griffey, Jr.
Pete Rose
P: Nolan Ryan
Sandy Koufax
Cy Young
Roger Clemens
Bob Gibson
Walter Johnson
Added by the panel of experts:
SS: Honus Wagner
OF: Stan Musial
P: Warren Spahn
Christy Matthewson
Lefty Grove

Yes, it was a fan vote, and yes, there are lots of problems with it. (Starting with the fact that the fans picked Griffey over Bonds, and including that those five had to be added by the "panel of experts," or that anyone, anywhere, would think that Ryan was better than Spahn or Seaver, or that the experts picked Matthewson ahead of Alexander) There was plenty of grousing about this at the time, although a lot of the grousing was about the omission of Clemente.

But look at that 1B: Just two names, and the one after Gehrig was McGwire. Not Greenberg. Not Mize. Not Foxx. Not McCovey. Now, I'm not going to seriously argue that McGwire should have been selected ahead of Foxx. But with Greenberg, Mize, and McCovey, I think we've got an argument (and I think the only way to even get Greenberg into the argument is to credit him with what his production might have been during the WWII years in which he was in the military.)

Lots of writers lately seem to be willing to chime in with "McGwire wasn't even that good, anyway." Many of those same writers were around in 1999. Can anyone dredge up a column any of them wrote in response to the All-Century Team?

I think the "wasn't good enough anyway" line is sour grapes - the classic Aesop version of that. If you can't have McGwire (because of your assumptions and attitudes about steriod use), then give this as the rationalization.

In modern baseball history (since the advent of the AL) McGwire is, among first basemen with at least 7500 PA, first in home runs, third in SLG and OPS+, tied for fourth in RCAA, is fifth in OBP and RCAP. To suggest his numbers aren’t Hall-worthy even if they were accomplished absent PED is beyond ridiculous. As I’ve said before, I’m loath to rip on fellow scribes but it is getting ridiculous. To suggest that a player who is top five in so many categories among his positional peers in modern history didn’t have a Hall of Fame career is inverse rectal-cranial disorder at its worst.

Bear in mind that RCAA, RCAP and HR are all counting stats.

The following are top five (first on one category, close to top five otherwise) at their positions using the same criteria: Mickey Mantle (CF), Mel Ott (RF), Ted Williams (LF), Yogi Berra (catcher) … get the idea? Absent steroids, McGwire’s numbers are easily first ballot worthy.

Best Regards

John

Lots of writers lately seem to be willing to chime in with "McGwire wasn't even that good, anyway." Many of those same writers were around in 1999. Can anyone dredge up a column any of them wrote in response to the All-Century Team?

I think the "wasn't good enough anyway" line is sour grapes - the classic Aesop version of that. If you can't have McGwire (because of your assumptions and attitudes about steriod use), then give this as the rationalization.

More evidence that they thought he was good enough at the time. Mac got MVP votes every year he qualified for the batting title sans 1, the .201 year, and even some years when he didn't like 1995 and 1997 (He got votes from NL writers despite a mere 51 games in the league).

Baeb Ruth is only 39th all-time in hits. How can he be one of the greatest players ever? Lou Brock, Rafael Palmeiro, Jake Beckley, Zach Wheat all out-hit him.

Bear in mind that RCAA, RCAP and HR are all counting stats.

Are RCAA and RCAP really counting stats or are they rates stats designed to resemble counting stats? You can't lose doubles you've already hit or bases you've already stolen. But you can lose RCAA you already earned by playing poorly.

Yes, TomH, but hardly any of Brock's hits were HRs, compared to McGwire, so that makes Brock better.

Apparently.

:)

5. Obsequiousness has no place in the modern discourse.

Truer words were never spoken. Kudos to you, good sir! We are not fit to post within five posts of your posts.

Maybe a better approach I should have taken. McGwire is currently 442nd in career hits, hardly hall of fame numbers. But he's 35th in walks. And not only is he 35th, he did it in only 7660 plate appearances. Every player above him on the walks list has over 9100 PAs, except for some young punk named Thome (8427). Frank Thomas is 9th, with only 200 more walks than McGwire, but in 2200 more plate appearances.

Even better, walk percentage as BB/PA. I'll call it the "inner circle of plate discipline"

Williams .206
Bonds .203
Ruth .194
Yost .176
Mantle .174
Thome .173
Thomas .166
Ricky .164
Morgan .164

McGwire .172

Ouch, I miscalculated this the first two times. But still it's a great argument for Big Mac. Greatest home run hitter per at bat, top ten walker per plate appearance, i.e. very disciplined. No one can say he was only great at one aspect of the game.

Are RCAA and RCAP really counting stats or are they rates stats designed to resemble counting stats? You can't lose doubles you've already hit or bases you've already stolen.

Just because you don't have a time machine doesn't mean the rest of us don't. Mike Greenwell originally had 308 career homers, but I went and took some back.

I'll call it the "inner circle of plate discipline"

Ah, but was he as feared as Jim Rice?

Max Bishop is at an even .200, ValueArb. Gene Tenace is .178. Not sure how many PAs you would set as a minimum, but both were over 5,000. There may be others ... none of which detracts much from McGwire.

Max Bishop is at an even .200, ValueArb. Gene Tenace is .178. Not sure how many PAs you would set as a minimum, but both were over 5,000. There may be others ... none of which detracts much from McGwire.

I used only players above him on the walk list, which is essentially makes Mark's PA's the lower limit. And 7700 PA's is barely twelve or thirteen full seasons, so I don't think I'm cherry picking too much here. Even if he's behind some 5000 PA guys as well, he's still very close to top 10.

It's silly to view walks for a guy like Mac without regard to whether they led to runs and wins. Standing alone, since Mac was a very poor runner, the walks don't say a lot; indeed, only in Mac's era would walking instead of swinging the bat (and striking out so much) have been given the free pass they're given. His approach would have subjected him to criticism in any other era, and the numbers are plainly impacted by the approach.

Compare 1980 to 1998. There are dramatic differences in strikeouts, walks, and homeruns (and stolen base attempts for that matter). It was a less athletic game in Mac's era and a game in which the ball was put into play without going over the fence far less often. Mac is a product of that era, perhaps its symbol.

the walks don't say a lot

I still don't quite understand this line. I recognize that there is a certain point, reached in the case of Barry Bonds since 2001 or McGwire in '98 and '99, where the defense gladly accepts a walk as a tactical concession – particularly when the next batter is relatively no threat. And so the walks accumulated by these guys are not quite as valuable as those accumulated by, say, Rickey Henderson, whom you'd have to be crazy to walk.

But geez, every walk is another out avoided and another problem for the defense. The fact that neither Bonds nor McGwire had Lou Gehrig hitting behind him doesn't mean that their walks were somehow less valuable than Babe Ruth's.

But geez, every walk is another out avoided and another problem for the defense. The fact that neither Bonds nor McGwire had Lou Gehrig hitting behind him doesn't mean that their walks were somehow less valuable than Babe Ruth's.

Wait, wouldn't that be exactly why their walks were less valuable than Ruth's?

But geez, every walk is another out avoided and another problem for the defense. The fact that neither Bonds nor McGwire had Lou Gehrig hitting behind him doesn't mean that their walks were somehow less valuable than Babe Ruth's.

To the degree McGwire's walks were a problem for the defense we can measure it more directly through his runs scored off them. Sure this depends on the quality of hitters after him, but so do a lot of things players do. If no one behind him was good enough to knock him in, McGwire should have learned how to do things other than walk, strike out, or hit a homer. If he had, he would have been a much better player.

A walk by McGwire is of about as little value as a walk can be given the fact that he had no speed. He couldn't steal a base and if the offense needs sequence, his lack of speed can be a liability. Merely attributing an aggregate "expected value" of a walk completely misses the point when it comes to a slow guy hitting cleanup.

Why do the walks not mean much, but his low amount of singles is a strike against him?

If no one behind him was good enough to knock him in, McGwire should have learned how to do things other than walk, strike out, or hit a homer. If he had, he would have been a much better player.

If he has converted 50 walks per season into singles, would you think he was a "much better player"?

He would provide a little more value, but not a great deal.

His low amount of singles IS a strike against him.

Singles always move baserunners. Walks move baserunners only sometimes. Moving baserunners contributes to runs. Runs contribute to wins. Etc.

Moving baserunners contributes to runs

Know what else contributes to runs? Walks.

Know what else contributes to runs? Walks.

Not as much as singles. And a McGwire walk is not a particularly valuable walk. And as discussed above, the impact of the McGwire walks can be measured more precisely and directly.

Look, there's no question that the beer-league style of play, personified by McGwire, is straight out of the the sabermetrics handbook. But that handbook isn't perfect.

Then measure the impact of his walks precisely and directly. Show us how little value his walks are compared to a normal walk.

Look, there's no question that the beer-league style of play, personified by McGwire, is straight out of the the sabermetrics handbook. But that handbook isn't perfect.

Please send me a copy of the handbook.

Then measure the impact of his walks precisely and directly. Show us how little value his walks are compared to a normal walk.

The burden's not on me, it's on those who are overvaluing walks and not paying attention to the fact that a Rickey Henderson walk is more valuable than a Mark McGwire walk.

a Rickey Henderson walk is more valuable than a Mark McGwire walk.

This again? I love when people say that fast guy on base is better than a slow guy on base and think that it's some kind of groundbreaking discovery.

Look, there's no question that the beer-league style of play, personified by McGwire, is straight out of the the sabermetrics handbook. But that handbook isn't perfect.

I know! I keep telling these guys they're all hypocrites for liking Tim Raines.

The burden's not on me, it's on those who are overvaluing walks and not paying attention to the fact that a Rickey Henderson walk is more valuable than a Mark McGwire walk.

Oh, I thought you wanted to make a point with facts and stuff.

So, if we start with the premise that you are correct then those who disagree have to prove you wrong?

About once a year I bother to respond to StupidBear. I guess I'm done for 2008.

The burden's not on me, it's on those who are overvaluing walks and not paying attention to the fact that a Rickey Henderson walk is more valuable than a Mark McGwire walk.

Okay, what the hell. Here goes. First, I apologize if the table doesn't show up. The numbers here are all from BB-Ref. The first number is total plate appearences. McGwire had a relatively short career which is a legitimate negative to his HOF case. The next two numbers are Runs and RBI per 162 games. McGwire scored 101 runs per 162 games and drove in 122.

Now, what about context, you say? McGwire played in the silly-ball era, you say. The next number is a BB-Ref creation called "AIR" which measures the average run environment that a player played in - it's just like a park factor, so over 100 is high-scoring, below 100 is low-scoring. McGwire's AIR is 101 - the high offense of his leagues is offset in part by playing in pitchers' parks.

Next R/162* and RBI/162* are the R/162 and RBI/162 columns divided by AIR times 100. Then, in the last column, I just added the adjusted R and RBI numbers.

I've put in some comparisons of Hall-of-Famers who have similar career length and defensive value to McGwire. I also added some comparisons of some guys who are very different types of players, including Rickey Henderson, since you mentioned him.

Not as much as singles. And a McGwire walk is not a particularly valuable walk. And as discussed above, the impact of the McGwire walks can be measured more precisely and directly.

1: No one says walks are worth as much as a single.
2: No simply measuring McGwire's runs scored totals do not directly measure how valuable his walks were.

A walk does not use up an out, a walk taken by one batter leads to an extra PA for the team, which may do something with that extra PA.

A walk can advance a runner already on first- and guys with sky high walk totals do pick up walks that advance runners. Let's say McGwire walks and moves a runner to 2nd- and that guy then scores on a single- that's not accounted for in McGwire's personal run scored #s.

An unintentional walk makes the pitcher throw more pitches that inning- a lot of pitchers have a tipping point- their effectiveness collapses after a certain # of pitches in an inning.

Briefly stated-

a walk adds a baserunner- who may later score,

can advance someone from 1st to second, and from 2nd to 3rd if two men are on, and from 3rd to home if bases are loaded (per BBREF McGwire walked 222 times with a man on first, + 183 times with runners on 1st & 2nd, + 40 times with runners on 1st & 3rd + 26 times with bases loaded)

a walk makes the pitcher throw more pitches

a walk doesn't use up an out- which means extra PAs for the team- McGwire drew 1317 walks, that meant over 1000 extra PAs for his teams, the odds that those extra PAs yielded no extra runs for his teams is approximately zero.

Sure a walk to McGwire is not as "valuable" as a walk to Juan Pierre, but that doesn't mean it's valueless.

Kiko,

How does any of that information tell us the value of a McGwire walk, since so much of that data is going to be heavily influenced by McGwire's home runs (and in the case of the last column, twice)?

Then measure the impact of his walks precisely and directly. Show us how little value his walks are compared to a normal walk.

The burden's not on me,

Yes it is.

No one is saying a McGwire walk has as much value as a Rickey Henderson walk, so you are attacking a strawman that doesn't exist (ok maybe BDMG).

How does any of that information tell us the value of a McGwire walk, since so much of that data is going to be heavily influenced by McGwire's home runs (and in the case of the last column, twice)?

Why do we care what the value of a McGwire walk is? We care what McGwire's value is, period. As Pops said above, the notion that a McGwire walk is less valuable than a Rickey Henderson walk is pretty obvious. And yes, McGwire's greatest value was his ability to drive himself in. That's pretty damn valuable.

Why do we care what the value of a McGwire walk is? We care what McGwire's value is, period. As Pops said above, the notion that a McGwire walk is less valuable than a Rickey Henderson walk is pretty obvious. And yes, McGwire's greatest value was his ability to drive himself in. That's pretty damn valuable.

OK, then how does the part you quoted, which dealt specifically with McGwire's walks, relate to your post?

OK, then how does the part you quoted, which dealt specifically with McGwire's walks, relate to your post?

Walks are part of McGwire's value. I suppose it would have been more accurate to quote SugarBear in #64: "Runs contribute to wins".

As for McGwire's walks specifically, we've had this debate at least three times already this year, it seems to me. The last time we had it, somebody looked at every one of McGwire's walks in his last season (2001) and estimated how many runs he contributed to - it was clearly a positive number and there were plenty of situations where McGwire walked with two outs giving the next hitter an opportunity to drive in runs that McGwire neither scored nor drove in.

So, if we start with the premise that you are correct then those who disagree have to prove you wrong?

No, the premise we're starting with is that McGwire's walks contributed materially to his value.

A walk does not use up an out, a walk taken by one batter leads to an extra PA for the team, which may do something with that extra PA.

Or it may not. And we can measure directly whether it did, rather than indirectly. There's no need to measure by aggregation or expected value that which can be measured directly.

A team is going to make 27 outs in a game (or 24) regardless of who makes them. The walk doesn't "save" an out, it just pushes it off to someone else. (The extra pitches the walk uses up in a starter -- if it's a starter's walk -- may have some value, although that's a beer-league concept.)

Player PA R/162 RBI/162 AIR R/162* RBI/162* (R+RBI)/162*
McGwire 7,660 101 122 101 100.0 120.8 220.8
McCovey 9,686 77 97 95 81.1 102.1 183.2
Kiner 6,256 107 112 105 101.9 106.7 208.6
Greenberg 6,096 122 148 113 108.0 131.0 238.9
Foxx 9,670 122 134 114 107.0 117.5 224.6

Henderson 13,346 121 59 98 123.5 60.2 183.7
Raines 10,359 102 63 98 104.1 64.3 168.4
Gwynn 10,232 92 76 98 93.9 77.6 171.4

This double-counts RBIs that result from a guy hitting himself in via a homerun. McGwire was certainly good at that.

Sure a walk to McGwire is not as "valuable" as a walk to Juan Pierre, but that doesn't mean it's valueless.

Nobody ever said they were valueless, speaking of strawmen. The only claims are that:

1. Walks are less valuable than singles, which they plainly are; and
2. Walks to a slow guy (who's paid to knock in runs, not contribute a small amount to scoring himself) are less valuable than walks to a fast guy.

Singles always move baserunners. Walks move baserunners only sometimes. Moving baserunners contributes to runs. Runs contribute to wins. Etc.

If you look at McGwire's splits, you'd see what a simplistic arguement this is.

1. For a single to be more valuable than a walk, runners must be on base. Almost half of McGwire's walks were with the bases empty.
2. For a single to score a run, runners almost have to be in scoring position. McGwire hit .285 with RISP (a not insignificant increase), but also walked 2.23% of PA vs. 1.27% in other ABs; given these two stats, either he's being much more selective (with an OBP of .444) with RISP, or he isn't getting anything to hit (because he hits it so hard when he does).

Really, it could be argued that McGwire didn't get the full value of those walks because of the crappy hitters behind him (much like his RBI totals are held down by the crappy hitters in front of him) - that he's actually undervalued because of the walks, not overvalued as you seem to be arguing.

If there's second and third, one out, McGwire at the plate, do you want him walking or singling? (And I understand you'd rather have him homering than anything and he was admittedly excellent at that.)

This double-counts RBIs that result from a guy hitting himself in via a homerun. McGwire was certainly good at that.

From the team's perspective, isn't a home run just as good as back-to-back doubles? If you're talking about counting actual runs scored, if you're going to give credit to both batters in the latter case, it seems only fair that the batter should get both credits in the former case.

If there's second and third, one out, McGwire at the plate, do you want him walking or singling? (And I understand you'd rather have him homering than anything and he was admittedly excellent at that.)

1. With runners on 2 & 3rd, McGwire hit .349; 18 of his 29 hits were singles.
2. He also walked in 1/3 of such PAs (50/152), bringing his OBP to .546; should he be penalized because pitchers didn't want to pitch to him?

the notion that a McGwire walk is less valuable than a Rickey Henderson walk is pretty obvious.

Aside from intentionals, which have less value than a normal walk, McGwire's walks were just as valuable as Rickey's. It's what Rickey does after the walk thats a lot more valuable.

Really, it could be argued that McGwire didn't get the full value of those walks because of the crappy hitters behind him (much like his RBI totals are held down by the crappy hitters in front of him) - that he's actually undervalued because of the walks, not overvalued as you seem to be arguing.

We have a different conception of "full value." If McGwire walked and no one knocked him in, the walk had very little actual value. That is a different concept than noting that a walk has, in the aggregate, value. Just because a walk is embedded in the useful concept of OPS doesn't mean we shouldn't dig deeper.

If I have McGwire and I have crappy hitters behind him, I don't want McGwire walking, even though walks have value.

1. For a single to be more valuable than a walk, runners must be on base. Almost half of McGwire's walks were with the bases empty.
2. For a single to score a run, runners almost have to be in scoring position. McGwire hit .285 with RISP (a not insignificant increase), but also walked 2.23% of PA vs. 1.27% in other ABs; given these two stats, either he's being much more selective (with an OBP of .444) with RISP, or he isn't getting anything to hit (because he hits it so hard when he does).

Well, you can be very pro-walk and write it this way. Or you can write it that a walk is never more valuable than a single.

If McGwire walked and no one knocked him in, the walk had very little actual value.

Still more valuable than an out, even if he's stranded, just because it allows more people to come to bat.

1. With runners on 2 & 3rd, McGwire hit .349; 18 of his 29 hits were singles.
2. He also walked in 1/3 of such PAs (50/152), bringing his OBP to .546; should he be penalized because pitchers didn't want to pitch to him?

Are these career numbers?

Why do you assume Mac walked because pitchers didn't want to pitch to him? The best hitters are the ones who can get a hit in that situation on a so-so pitch they might take with no outs, bases empty. Maybe Mac didn't have the ability to adapt to different situations like that. He's certainly the type of hitter/athlete you might guess would fit that category.

If you're going to discredit walks that don't end up as runs you must do the same for bases empty singles as well.

Maybe Mac didn't have the ability to adapt to different situations like that.

How is a .349 batting average evidence that McGwire couldn't adapt? (and to answer your question, yes, those are his career numbers)

Still more valuable than an out, even if he's stranded, just because it allows more people to come to bat.

Correct.

Why do you assume Mac walked because pitchers didn't want to pitch to him?

In that example? 1/3 of PAs with runners on 2nd and 3rd?
Give me a break, it's a pretty damn safe assumption that pitchers didn't want to pitch to him.

There's been a lot of work done in recent years on how often pitchers actually throw in the strike zone to some batters as opposed to others- and there can be a great discrepancy from batter to batter.

How is a .349 batting average evidence that McGwire couldn't adapt? (and to answer your question, yes, those are his career numbers)

It's not. It wasn't proffered to be, rather to answer whether a person should be penalized for walking.

Batting average is a little misleading there, because there's an upward skew because of sac flies, and it looks like he had about 15 of them. Still a worthy performance, though a lot of walks -- 50 as against 18 singles. In a vacuum, I'd prefer the singles.

Career second and third performance would be an interesting comparison with other HOF types. If Mac beats them, that would be good for his case, though we might be getting a little too close to "clutch hitting" for the zealots. I'd be curious about the walk/single/sac fly/RBI ratios. IOW, there might be an empirical answer to the questions posed above.

No one is saying a McGwire walk has as much value as a Rickey Henderson walk, so you are attacking a strawman that doesn't exist (ok maybe BDMG)

Hey wait! :) Read #59, the only time I mentioned Henderson, I conceded that McGwire's walks weren't quite as valuable as Henderson's.

But the point, again, is that McGwire was a lot better player than Dave Kingman, even though both were primarily known for the home run. He was not as good a player as Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, or Rickey Henderson, but so what?

Why do you assume Mac walked because pitchers didn't want to pitch to him? The best hitters are the ones who can get a hit in that situation on a so-so pitch they might take with no outs, bases empty.

The absolute best hitters (Williams, Bonds) never give in to a "so-so" pitch. The main effect of swinging at so-so pitches is that you make more outs. Williams said something like "A good hitter can hit a pitch in a good spot three times better than a great hitter can hit a ball in a questionable spot"; actually he said a lot of things like that, but that was the first good one I Googled just now :)

1. For a single to be more valuable than a walk, runners must be on base. Almost half of McGwire's walks were with the bases empty.
2. For a single to score a run, runners almost have to be in scoring position. McGwire hit .285 with RISP (a not insignificant increase), but also walked 2.23% of PA vs. 1.27% in other ABs; given these two stats, either he's being much more selective (with an OBP of .444) with RISP, or he isn't getting anything to hit (because he hits it so hard when he does).

Well, you can be very pro-walk and write it this way. Or you can write it that a walk is never more valuable than a single.

You could also note that McGwire hit 84 points over his career average in those situations, so he most certainly getting alot of "value" out of them.

Why do you assume Mac walked because pitchers didn't want to pitch to him? The best hitters are the ones who can get a hit in that situation on a so-so pitch they might take with no outs, bases empty.

First, I assume that because even though he's walking at almost 3X the rate with no RISP, he's also hitting almost 100 points higher than with no runners on. Most important to this discussion, though, his increase in BA is entirely in singles; his "single rate" (1b/AB) rises 90 points from his career average, while his "XBH rate" goes up 3 points.

It sure looks like he's swinging at pitches he can't drive (almost doubling his singles rate), and still walking an inordinate amount of the time.

The absolute best hitters (Williams, Bonds) never give in to a "so-so" pitch. The main effect of swinging at so-so pitches is that you make more outs. Williams said something like "A good hitter can hit a pitch in a good spot three times better than a great hitter can hit a ball in a questionable spot"; actually he said a lot of things like that, but that was the first good one I Googled just now :)

Well to me this is the interesting question. Just to throw numbers out, would we rather see a .330 hitter swing at a ball in the .270 zone with guys at second and third ... or take it as he would with the bases empty? Would the answer change if the numbers changed? If one lumbering first baseman's numbers are .280 BA but can hit a close ball at, say .240, is he preferable to a guy with the same BA, but who hits only .150 on close balls. If so, by how much?

Indeed, is the ability to adapt your approach based on the situation a valuable skill?