"Extortion" is a bit strong, isn't it? By this definition, pretty much any social interaction is extortion.

And all economic interaction is coersion. So what?

As for the rest of us, let’s at least be honest about what we require here.

Please be honest about the "rest of us" you speak for: It's sportswriters. Very few people outside that group act like McGwire owes them anything.

And all economic interaction is coersion. So what?

It renders the term meaningless. I guess if Ratto just wants to ramble on about something completely pointless, that's his prerogative.

Blackmail is such an ugly word. I prefer extortion. The 'x' makes it sound cool.

Mark McGwire must perish in flame- only then will he be cleansed.

Build a bridge out of him.

Ahh... but can you not also build a bridge out of Barry Bonds?

Please be honest about the "rest of us" you speak for: It's sportswriters. Very few people outside that group act like McGwire owes them anything.

Read the comments at an MSM site about the McGwire hiring.

edit: Not to mention the public comments of FBI agents.

"Very few people outside that group act like McGwire owes them anything."

I think there are two fairly widespread misconceptions about Mark McGwire which are held by a lot of ordinary baseball fans, not just sportswriters:

1) That his numbers are just not all that good and thus he does not merit HOF inclusion; and
2) But for steroids, he never would have been a candidate for the Hall.

The first is easier to knock down. I don't think his HOF worthiness case is as obvious as a Rickey Henderson, a Barry Bonds or a Roger Clemens. He is far more marginal than those players. He was for most of his career an adequate* defensive first baseman, which probably adds up to zero (neither a plus nor a minus). And he retired a bit young, so his sum-up totals are not all impressive, outside of home runs. (For example, he is only 124th all-time in total bases.) But his hitting averages really do stand out to me: 68th all-time in OBP (among retired players); twice led his league in OBP; 7th all-time in career slugging (among retired players); 4 league slugging titles; 8th all-time in career OPS (among retirees); twice won league OPS crowns; 8th all-time in HRs (tied with A-Rod at 583); 36th in career BBs; 12th in career OPS+; and he was 12 times an all-star.

Second, of course he used steroids to improve his performance. So did most of his contemporaries, including the pitchers he faced. And in his day, Willie Mays was known for using illegal speed ("red juice") to improve his performance. The guy who has never driven 57 mph in a 55 mph zone has the right to condemn him for that. Yet I think a lot of "speeders" are standing in judgment against McGwire. (Part of the reason he is held in such contempt is because, for most of his career, he came across as a quiet, angry douche,whether he was or was not.)

*One gold glove.

I think this is right on. It's not just sportswriters. It's obviously the FBI where the spirit of Jedgar still roams the halls. It's certainly Congress and the political culture. And about half of the baseball fans I know buy into this. Bonds and McGwire bad. Eckstein and Punto good. I think there's something to this. It just makes all kinds of people feel better if there are pariahs out there, and so we make them.

we’ve heard it a googolplex

Fun fact: Even if you made each digit the size of an atom, there would not be enough room in the entire universe to write out a googleplex (1,000,000,000....).

Read the comments at an MSM site about the McGwire hiring.

I'm convinced you wrote that just to see if you could trick someone into subjecting themselves to that kind of experience.

Fun fact: Even if you made each digit the size of an atom, there would not be enough room in the entire universe to write out a googleplex (1,000,000,000....).

Correct. There are 10^100 zeroes in a googleplex. There is only 10^80 atoms in the observable universe. Now, most of the universe is empty space (or dark matter/dark energy), but the empty space is not 10^20 greater than the space occupied by visible matter.

I think there are two fairly widespread misconceptions about Mark McGwire which are held by a lot of ordinary baseball fans, not just sportswriters:

1) That his numbers are just not all that good and thus he does not merit HOF inclusion; and
2) But for steroids, he never would have been a candidate for the Hall.

You use the word "misconception" as though you have proven beyond a doubt that the people who disagree with you are wrong. I think reasonable people can disagree as to whether McGwire merits election to the Hall of Fame on his performance. He was not necessarily the best first baseman over the course of his career. He's not the best eligible player not in the Hall. He's not the best first baseman not in the Hall, whether active, BBWAA-eligible or VC candidate. He's not even the best Cardinal first baseman not in the Hall.

McGwire's home run hitting was the biggest part of his game by far. He was an exceptionally one-dimensional hitter, even among career home run leaders, as evidenced by things like his low RBI to HR ratio. Home run hitting was the part of baseball most closely associated with steroids and greatly aided by steroids. People rightly or wrongly talk about athletes setting an example; McGwire was the inspiration for Bonds to begin taking steroids.

No one can know for sure what McGwire's numbers would have been without steroids. However, the rules for BBWAA election state, "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." Alleged steroid use by McGwire was not necessarily sportsmanlike, even if it was not against the rules.

Second, of course he used steroids to improve his performance. So did most of his contemporaries, including the pitchers he faced.

Do you have proof that "most of his contemporaries", i.e., over 50% of the major leaguers playing between 1987 and 2001 were using steroids? Really?

Do you have proof that "most of his contemporaries", i.e., over 50% of the major leaguers playing between 1987 and 2001 were using steroids? Really?

No. I don't have proof McGwire took steroids, either. My conclusion that most players took steroids is based on the admissions of many players. Also, my reasoning is deductive. If they made you play better, then most people would do what they had to do to play better because playing better is what every player wants to do. Mike Schmidt, for example, who retired before the benefits of taking steroids on performance were well known, said (I paraphrase) that he probably would have taken them if they were around in his day. That's the nature of competition. You do what you have to do to compete as best you can. That is, I think, a logical deductive argument.

I don't think the claim of Canseco that 85% of players juiced or Caminiti's claim that 50% were using steroids are proof. I think those are probably just guesses. No one knows for sure. But I think it's unreasonable to think their use was not very widespread; and I think it is unreasonable to think most players today are not taking whatever they can get away with to improve their performances.

He was not necessarily the best first baseman over the course of his career. He's not the best eligible player not in the Hall. He's not the best first baseman not in the Hall, whether active, BBWAA-eligible or VC candidate. He's not even the best Cardinal first baseman not in the Hall.

Is the best eligible player not in? I would vote for Tim Raines ahead of him, and Bert Blyleven, and maybe a couple of other people. But the HoF should be electing more than one per year anyway. As for the rest of the above: why should comparing him to Thomas and Bagwell and Palmiero matter? They're not eligible yet; they'll have their opportunities later. Being the best at his position in his time has never been required for the Hall of Fame - was Snider the best CF of his times? Frank Robinson the best corner outfielder? And trying to compare McGwire to Pujols is like saying that Joe DiMaggio shouldn't have been elected because he wasn't Willie Mays.

Is McGwire the best eligible 1B? In Hall of Merit elections, we chose 20 first basemen. We then went back to rank-order those 20 and voted McGwire 11th. All 10 of those ahead of him - Gehrig, Foxx, Anson, Mize, Brouthers, Connor, Greenberg, Murray, McCovey, and Leonard- are in the Hall of Fame. Some famous Hall of Famers ranked behind him: Killebrew, Sisler, Terry. Now, it is true that we had Dick Allen 12th in that ranking, and about a third of our voters did have Allen ahead of McGwire, so he's not that far out in front of our non-HoF list. But then 2/3 of us did rank McGwire ahead of Allen. We did pick some other non-HoF first basemen, notably Will Clark (15th) and Keith Hernandez (17th). (Were you talking about Hernandez with your reference to Cardinal first basemen? We think he belongs - but his glove isn't enough to make up for McGwire's bat.)

Contrast this to the public perception in 1999, when the two first basemen on the fan-voted "all-century team" were Gehrig and McGwire. Sure, that was an overrating of McGwire, and an insult to Foxx and Mize, but that's how he was perceived. It's silly to suggest that McGwire's accomplishments fall short of what usually gets someone elected to the Hall of Fame.

If your position is, "I will never agree that McGwire belongs in the HoF because of the steroids - full stop," then that's your position. I may disagree, but I'll never argue you out of it. But all the arguments I've ever seen belittling McGwire's playing record start and stop in the same place. These arguments all start with the notion that McGwire shouldn't be in the HoF because of the steroids, and then they hunt for flaws in the playing record to be stretched and shaped into the claimi that it's not a HoF playing record. I don't believe the intellectual honesty of any of those arguments. They're all just excuses.

He was an exceptionally one-dimensional hitter,

No, he wasn't. He walked a ton, giving him an above-average park adjusted OBP for every season except his first and last. Now, it is true that he was perceived as one-dimensional, but perception wasn't reality.

15: your deduction is incomplete. To "prove" your point you need to assert that people will cheat when the punishment is not severe and/or the chance of getting caught is low. (Those people however are scum.). I think even if they weren't caught, there was some stigma to injecting yourself in the ass and ending up crippled from the drugs.

16: I think there's a sense, despite what is written, that McGwire would be a no-brainer HOFer, but for the steroids issue. (Where are the legions of Sosa and Palmeiro and Bonds fans to support their cases?). The argument "best X not in the hall (player, first baseman)" undercuts the sense that some gross injustice is being perpetrated here. McGwire is no Blyleven or Dick Allen or Keith Hernandez.

17: "He walked a ton, giving him an above-average park adjusted OBP for every season except his first and last."

I cannot wait to see this in bronze on his Cooperstown plaque. McGwire walked 1,317 times, 36th among players with at least 7500 PAs.

He walked in 17.2% of his PAs. Others with more than 7500 PAs: Eddie Yost walked in 17.6%. Jason Giambi 15.5%, Brian Giles 15.1, Jimmy Wynn 15.3.

I cannot wait to see this in bronze on his Cooperstown plaque. McGwire walked 1,317 times, 36th among players with at least 7500 PAs.

You said he was a one-dimensional player. I conclusively showed that he was at least a two-dimensional player. I didn't say he was the Max Freakin' Bishop of walks.

I think bobm doesn't like Mark McGwire.

Re: 22

You're just upset because I don't like Tony La Russa :)

The only question that an unjuiced McGwire would have faced from actual HOF voters would have been career length. In that respect, he's somewhat akin to Albert Belle or Dick Allen, who are comparable offensive players without much defensive merit. But McGwire's career was longer than either of theirs, and his raw career OPS was a lot higher. Basically, guys with a career OPS of .982 tend to get elected to the Hall of Fame.

Re 24:

Where do you think Todd Helton will stand with voters?

Helton: .994 OPS in 7,761 PA

McGwire: .982 OPS in 7,660 PA

"Extortion" is a bit strong, isn't it?

If he mentions extortion again, have his legs broken.

DB

Where do you think Todd Helton will stand with voters?

Before or after he's accused of being a steroids user?

DB

McGwire is no Blyleven or Dick Allen or Keith Hernandez.

And coke is so much cooler than steroids.

DB

But this happy middle ground—sit down, talk to us, tell us what you did and absolution can be yours—is neither happy nor middle. It is a ransom demand.

Eggs-actly.

The people who want him to "tell us what he did" and "apologize" really need to get serious medical attention, if not lives.

I think reasonable people can disagree as to whether McGwire merits election to the Hall of Fame on his performance.

No, they can't.

Case opened: He is a first baseman with a 163 OPS+ in 1874 games and an incredible peak. Case closed.

He was not necessarily the best first baseman over the course of his career.

Irrelevant even if true, given the value of his offense. Any negative points from his defense are completely swamped by that.

McGwire's home run hitting was the biggest part of his game by far. He was an exceptionally one-dimensional hitter,

You're either lying or you're unfathomably stupid. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.

He averaged 114 walks per 162 games. There's your second dimension.

As if "one-dimensional" is a coherent argument in the first place.

Do you think McGwire was Dave Kingman or something?

even among career home run leaders, as evidenced by things like his low RBI to HR ratio. Home run hitting was the part of baseball most closely associated with steroids and greatly aided by steroids.

You're assuming your conclusion.

Were the walks "greatly aided by steroids" as well?

People rightly or wrongly talk about athletes setting an example; McGwire was the inspiration for Bonds to begin taking steroids.

They wrongly talk about that, and you haven't the foggiest clue about that second part - as if it matters - but whatever.

No one can know for sure what McGwire's numbers would have been without steroids.

How about: he would have had the exact same numbers whether he took steroids or not.

Where do you think Todd Helton will stand with voters?

Helton: .994 OPS in 7,761 PA

McGwire: .982 OPS in 7,660 PA

Someone apparently doesn't understand anything about park effects. Or league and era effects.

As I said: stupid or lying. There's no other conclusion.

I cannot wait to see this in bronze on his Cooperstown plaque. McGwire walked 1,317 times, 36th among players with at least 7500 PAs.

This is a train wreck. Have you seen Ted Williams's plaque? It talks about how many times he led the league in walks.

Rickey Henderson's plaque talks about his "plate discipline" and the fact that he set a record for unintentional walks.

You don't like McGwire or that he may have used steroids. Fine. You'd be better of sticking with that argument, rather than trying to pretend that he wasn't a great player.

I cannot wait to see this in bronze on his Cooperstown plaque. McGwire walked 1,317 times, 36th among players with at least 7500 PAs.

He walked in 17.2% of his PAs. Others with more than 7500 PAs: Eddie Yost walked in 17.6%. Jason Giambi 15.5%, Brian Giles 15.1, Jimmy Wynn 15.3.

Jebbus, what a crap retort. How many of those players hit nearly 600 HR?

Ray DiPerna:

"He walked a ton, giving him an above-average park adjusted OBP for every season except his first and last."
I cannot wait to see this in bronze on his Cooperstown plaque.

McGwire led his league twice in walks. "[Ted Williams] led AL ... in Bases on Balls 8 times" IS impressive. "An above-average park adjusted OBP..." will not appear on any plaque any time soon. Are you really that humorless? Or are you just so defensive? You might as well as try to quote me properly.

Case opened: He is a first baseman with a 163 OPS+ in 1874 games and an incredible peak. Case closed.

Dick Allen is a 1B/3B with a 156 OPS+ in 1749 games with an MVP and a not-too-shabby peak. So McGwire's not the only one getting shafted. I guess it's too bad for them that the BBWAA electors and the Veterans' Committee haven't been replaced by an Excel spreadsheet of career batting statistics sorted by OPS+ in descending order.

Home run hitting was the part of baseball most closely associated with steroids and greatly aided by steroids.


You're assuming your conclusion.

Were the walks "greatly aided by steroids" as well?


People rightly or wrongly talk about athletes setting an example; McGwire was the inspiration for Bonds to begin taking steroids.


They wrongly talk about that, and you haven't the foggiest clue about that second part - as if it matters - but whatever.


No one can know for sure what McGwire's numbers would have been without steroids.


How about: he would have had the exact same numbers whether he took steroids or not.

If you don't think that the surge in home run hitting in GENERAL, ACROSS BASEBALL was the part of baseball most closely associated with steroids, then you are disingenuous and you are as stupid as you wrongly accuse me of being. I think you'd have to be living in a cave somewhere to dispute this association.

Do you really believe the increase and decrease in home runs in the past two decades throughout MLB is totally unconnected to the spread of steroids and the subsequent crackdown on steroids. Really?!?

With respect to the walks, don't you think it's possible that feared home run hitters draw more walks due to their skill and due to pitchers working carefully to home run hitters? Steroids do not just help build muscle. When you get your medical degree and finish your residency, then you can tell me with credibility that steroids do not improve eyesight or hand-eye coordination enough to help a talented batter walk more than he otherwise would.

Basically, guys with a career OPS of .982 tend to get elected to the Hall of Fame.

Where do you think Todd Helton will stand with voters?
Helton: .994 OPS in 7,761 PA
McGwire: .982 OPS in 7,660 PA
Someone apparently doesn't understand anything about park effects. Or league and era effects.
As I said: stupid or lying. There's no other conclusion.

I understand perfectly about park effects, league and era effects. Why don't you look at the quote I was responding to, regarding an unadjusted OPS? Steroids will be considered an "era effect" to McGwire's detriment, whether you like it or not.

I have no personal feelings about McGwire. He was a great player. I enjoyed seeing him hit a tremendous 500-foot home run at Shea in 1999 off the outfield scoreboard, some 60 feet up. However, I don't like the mindless, vitriolic, reactionary arguments in defense of McGwire's case for the Hall of Fame. They won't help him, and the venom is pathetic.

Dick Allen is a 1B/3B with a 156 OPS+ in 1749 games with an MVP and a not-too-shabby peak. So McGwire's not the only one getting shafted. I guess it's too bad for them that the BBWAA electors and the Veterans' Committee haven't been replaced by an Excel spreadsheet of career batting statistics sorted by OPS+ in descending order.

Allen had a slightly shorter career, didn't hit quite as well, didn't have the home runs and records that McGwire did (which the voters normally would love), and had huge off the field issues.

Allen is only one data point, and a not-very-useful one at that. If McGwire is Don Mattingly, there is no way in hell he wouldn't sail in. Please with this.

If you don't think that the surge in home run hitting in GENERAL, ACROSS BASEBALL was the part of baseball most closely associated with steroids, then you are disingenuous and you are as stupid as you wrongly accuse me of being. I think you'd have to be living in a cave somewhere to dispute this association.

Do you really believe the increase and decrease in home runs in the past two decades throughout MLB is totally unconnected to the spread of steroids and the subsequent crackdown on steroids. Really?!?

Pretty much. That's the theory that is most reasonable to me. Offense shot up overnight between the 1992 and 1993 seasons, so thinking steroids were responsible only makes sense if one also thinks players suddenly discovered steroids that winter. Secondly, we've had testing for years now, and offense/HR hasn't come back down. Thirdly, I can't find any pattern among players accused of using steroids and players not accused; players accused or found to have used are hitters, pitchers, stars, scrubs, durable, injury prone, old, young, major leaguers, minor leaguers, fast guys, slow guys, power hitters, banjo hitters.

Why don't you give me a good reason to believe that steroids significantly impact baseball performance?

With respect to the walks, don't you think it's possible that feared home run hitters draw more walks due to their skill and due to pitchers working carefully to home run hitters? Steroids do not just help build muscle.

Some power hitters draw walks, some don't. Some light hitters draw walks, some don't.

When you get your medical degree and finish your residency, then you can tell me with credibility that steroids do not improve eyesight or hand-eye coordination enough to help a talented batter walk more than he otherwise would.

Cite?

RIFKIN: "I don't think his HOF worthiness case is as obvious as a Rickey Henderson, a Barry Bonds or a Roger Clemens. He is far more marginal than those players."

bobm: "McGwire led his league twice in walks. [Ted Williams] led AL ... in Bases on Balls 8 times" IS impressive."

Unless someone is trying to say McGwire is an inner-circle caliber HOF candidate, like a Ted Williams or a Barry Bonds, I don't see why you would dismiss him because he doesn't match those guys. He is, in my estimation, an outer-circle HOFer, but an HOFer nonetheless. (A mid-circle HOFer would be a player with McGwire's offensive numbers and more defense or baserunning.)

And one small note on Williams: While I don't deny his greatness in any respect, he played in a league with only 8 teams. That alone makes collecting black ink much easier than playing in a league with 14 or 16 teams.

Also, for McGwire, he played in the same era as Barry Bonds, who led his league in walks 14 times, which is, I don't know, 20 times as impressive as leading one's league in walks 8 times when the league was about half as big. (McGwire never finished 2nd in walks. So I am not trying to suggest but for Bonds he would have had more black ink.)

Unless someone is trying to say McGwire is an inner-circle caliber HOF candidate, like a Ted Williams or a Barry Bonds, I don't see why you would dismiss him because he doesn't match those guys. He is, in my estimation, an outer-circle HOFer, but an HOFer nonetheless. (A mid-circle HOFer would be a player with McGwire's offensive numbers and more defense or baserunning.)

While I don't think I could locate the distinction between "mid-circle" and "outer circle" with any confidence, I think that what I said in post 16 about our Hall of Merit ranking (11th out of 20 elected 1B, behind McCovey but ahead of Killebrew) is at least somewhat consistent with this. As for the notion that the way to be a little better than McGwire is "the same offensive numbers and more defense or baserunning" - that isn't a very likely combination. Instead, how about lower offensive rates and peaks, but a LOT more playing time and hence career value - say, Eddie Murray?

There really aren't very many inner circle first basemen, maybe only Gehrig and Foxx (and Musial if you treat each outfield position is different and assign him to his plurality position). There are more inner circle players at most other positions.

I think even if they weren't caught, there was some stigma to injecting yourself in the ass and ending up crippled from the drugs.

There would be, if using steroids ends up with the user being crippled.

He walked in 17.2% of his PAs. Others with more than 7500 PAs: Eddie Yost walked in 17.6%.

So he walked only slightly less often than a player whose entire game was built around walks, and who was nicknamed "The Walking Man", and that's supposed to be an argument against induction?

Where do you think Todd Helton will stand with voters?

Well, Helton hasn't had an OPS of .994 in several years. He's tenth in career OPS at the moment, but after the 2004 season he was fifth. Helton is on a slide out of the ultra-elite group in unadjusted OPS. Active players on the decline are not good counters in a HOF argument.

And at that, if Helton plays another five years as a regular, even if his OPS drops all the way down to .900, he's got a career on the surface a lot like that of McCovey, Stargell, Killebrew (with a much higher BA but fewer HR, of course). Yes, that's a decent HOF case, for sure.

Pretty much. That's the theory that is most reasonable to me. Offense shot up overnight between the 1992 and 1993 seasons, so thinking steroids were responsible only makes sense if one also thinks players suddenly discovered steroids that winter. Secondly, we've had testing for years now, and offense/HR hasn't come back down.

In the NL, home run frequency HAS com back down to 1994 levels. In the AL, home run frequency is down, but not back to 1994 levels. However, offense has also increased since 1992 due to expansion and the changeover from cookie cutter / donut stadiums to smaller parks (foul territory and outfield dimensions.) These factors would work against any decreases from eliminating steroid use.

Why don't you give me a good reason to believe that steroids significantly impact baseball performance?

Steroids are used to build muscle mass. How would that not help athletes' baseball performance?

Exhibit A: Barry Bonds. His OPS+ peaked at age 27/28 in 1992/1993, then declined through his age 34 season, then increased to new peaks in his age 36/37 seasons. Yeah, that had nothing to do with steroids.

Year Age OPS+
1986 21 103
1987 22 114
1988 23 148
1989 24 126
1990 25 170
1991 26 160
1992 27 205
1993 28 204
1994 29 183
1995 30 168
1996 31 188
1997 32 170
1998 33 178
1999 34 155
2000 35 188
2001 36 259
2002 37 268
2003 38 231
2004 39 263
2005 40 174
2006 41 156
2007 42 170

36: I was pointing out the erroneous comparison between two different types of accomplishments: "Williams leading the league in walks" and "McGwire having many seasons of an above-league-average OBP." One is black ink performance on a leader board stat; the other is not.

McGwire did finish 2nd in walks once.

Bases on Balls
1989 AL--83--10th
1990 AL--110--1st
1991 AL--93--6th
1992 AL--90--9th
1995 AL--88--8th
1996 AL--116--4th
1998 NL--162--1st
1999 NL--133--2nd
Career--1317--36th

38:

I think even if they weren't caught, there was some stigma to injecting yourself in the ass and ending up crippled from the drugs.


There would be, if using steroids ends up with the user being crippled.

I wouldn't want to be a guinea pig in a steroids trial.

It was said that the Ken Caminiti's fatal heart attack may have been brought on in part by enlargement of the heart, possibly related to steroids abuse.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/ResearchReports/Steroids/anabolicsteroids4.html#health

Possible Health Consequences of Anabolic Steroid Abuse
Hormonal system

Men

infertility
breast development
shrinking of the testicles
male-pattern baldness

Women

enlargement of the clitoris
excessive growth of body hair
male-pattern baldness

Musculoskeletal system

short stature (if taken by adolescents)
tendon rupture

Cardiovascular system
increases in LDL;
decreases in HDL
high blood pressure
heart attacks
enlargement of the heart's left ventricle

Liver
cancer
peliosis hepatis
tumors

Skin
severe acne and cysts
oily scalp
jaundice
fluid retention

Infection

HIV/AIDS
hepatitis

Psychiatric effects

rage, aggression
mania
delusions

To get back to the point of the article, I am amazed at how much A-Rod's (and David Ortiz's) public statement, completely true or not, has resulted in a large measure of absolution by the media.

It was said that the Ken Caminiti's fatal heart attack may have been brought on in part by enlargement of the heart, possibly related to steroids abuse.

While it's possible that steroid abuse may have been a factor in Caminiti's death, I think that it's far more likely that his alcohol/cocaine/everything he could drink/snort/smoke/inject addiction were the cause.

McGwire's career WAR (per AROM's #s) is 63.2, and that's including -29 runs on defense. That's in no way a slam dunk HOF. There is a very reasonable case that he is borderline.

McGwire's career WAR (per AROM's #s) is 63.2, and that's including -29 runs on defense. That's in no way a slam dunk HOF. There is a very reasonable case that he is borderline.

That depends on what you mean by "borderline". If you remove steroids from the equation but leave McGwire's stats unchanged, there is absolutely no chance that Mark McGwire would not be in the actual Hall of Fame right now. If you're talking about your hypothetical Hall, then maybe you can make an argument depending on the size of your hypothetical Hall. Per AROM's numbers, that 63.2 career WAR for McGwire puts him 87th all-time among position players and 126th including pitchers, between Jim Palmer and Jackie Robinson. That seems to be pretty solidly inside the in/out line for a reasonably-sized Hall of Fame.

106 position players have WARs of 60 or higher. Of those, 37 are not in the Hall. Of those 37, 22 (including Rose and Jackson) are not yet eligible for the Hall of Fame, which leave 15 that are. Of those 15, the omission of most of them from the Hall is viewed as a mistake by the HoM and by many other people around here. The remaining 16 are (in order) Dahlen, Whitaker, Grich, Trammell, Santo, Raines, Reggie Smith, McGwire, Dwight Evans, Graig Nettles, Dick Allen, Keith Hernandez, Buddy Bell, Bando, and Randolph.

Looking at that list, with the exception of Bell, those are HoF quality guys.

That depends on what you mean by "borderline".

In Rich's contention in #9 and Ray's in #30, they made it sound like McGwire belonged without question. I mean that there's a reasonable case to made that he doesn't belong.

If you're talking about your hypothetical Hall, then maybe you can make an argument depending on the size of your hypothetical Hall. Per AROM's numbers, that 63.2 career WAR for McGwire puts him 87th all-time among position players and 126th including pitchers, between Jim Palmer and Jackie Robinson. That seems to be pretty solidly inside the in/out line for a reasonably-sized Hall of Fame.

I'm talking about the real HOF, but I am talking about whether he deserves it. McGwire resides in a range where some guys are in and some guys are out. The comp of Jackie Robinson is pretty useless because of the other circumstances of his career. Other guys in that range include Reggie Smith, Dwight Evans, and Kenny Lofton.

Other guys in that range include Reggie Smith, Dwight Evans, and Kenny Lofton.

Reggie Smith and Dwight Evans are both in the Hall of Merit, and Kenny Lofton isn't eligible for either Hall yet (I think). I'm not seeing them as arguments that McGwire doesn't "deserve" to be in the real Hall of Fame.

106 position players have WARs of 60 or higher. Of those, 37 are not in the Hall. Of those 37, 22 (including Rose and Jackson) are not yet eligible for the Hall of Fame, which leave 15 that are.

This really skews things by grouping McGwire in with everyone above him. It's like looking at players between 40 and 65.

Of those 15, the omission of most of them from the Hall is viewed as a mistake by the HoM and by many other people around here. The remaining 16 are (in order) Dahlen, Whitaker, Grich, Trammell, Santo, Raines, Reggie Smith, McGwire, Dwight Evans, Graig Nettles, Dick Allen, Keith Hernandez, Buddy Bell, Bando, and Randolph.

Really? Most people here think Nettles, Smith, Hernandez, and Evans belong in the Hall? I haven't seen that, particularly from small Hall guys (like Ray for example). I think most people here agree that it makes little sense players like Rice are in but these guys are not, not necessarily that these guys belong in.

#43 note the word "possible". Recycled material now:

There's an interesting series of posts by Steve Patterson (who appears to know what he's talking about) in the Braves newsgroup.

Quoting now:

"Dick Sidbury wrote:
> Are steroids dangerous? What is the state of objective scientific
> opinion in this area (assuming that objective and opinion make sense
> together in this context). I've heard the claim that roids are not
> particularly dangerous when taken correctly.

I agree with that claim. Steroids have a legimate medical use and with
normal people they are safe when used properly. Some people have
adverse reactions and in general 'roids increase risk of infection,liver
and kidney problems but if used properly they appear to be pretty safe,
particularly for short term use. At least that's the Reader's Digest
version."

(And in a subsequent post discusses therapeutic index -- again quoting)

"For pretty much every substance there's an administration level below
which no effect can be observed.

With drugs there are always undesirable effects that we observe once the
drug reaches a certain concentration in the patient.

In drug development we determine what is called a therapeutic index.
This is the ratio of the concentration where desirable effects are
achieved and the concentration where undesirable (side) effects are
observed. With some medications the therapeutic index is quite low...

Steroids have a very low therapeutic index compared to many drugs...
IIRC the antiinflammatory 'roids are usually at about 150 or less.

Compare that to antibiotics which have TI that is often 100 times that."

And elsewhere in the same thread:

"There are other issues that IMO make use of anabolics/androgenics as
performance enhancers a bad idea, but that isn't what was asked. I've
commented on this before in this group and won't repeat myself. I don't
think it's necessarily immoral for people to do unwise things to their
own bodies, or for people to ingest substances that improve performance.

Having served on many review boards related to the science of drugs I
can assure you that classification of drugs and decisions on how to
handle drugs is often arbitrary and emotional. These aren't moral
directives from God. They're decisions made by people. "

Also addressing the argument Andy in particular has championed, (again quoting from the Braves NG)

"amphetamines decrease reaction times, improve resistance to fatigue and
improve performace in quite a few sports related tasks. There is good
reason to believe that amphetamines can help people hit a baseball.
That is obvious from the medical literature.

see

Tokish, Kocher and Hawkins Am.J.Sp.Med 32:1543 (2004); and references
cited therein. "

Most people here think Nettles, Smith, Hernandez, and Evans belong in the Hall?

They're all in the Hall of Merit. It all depends on the size of your Hall of Fame, but I think that McGwire's closer to the 100th-best player of all-time than he is to 200th, and given that there are already well over 200 players in the Hall of Fame, you've got to get pretty small to leave him out. Is there a reasonable case for leaving Jim Palmer and Goose Goslin out of the Hall of Fame? Because going by WAR, those are the two eligible players not named Jackie Robinson who border McGwire.

But if he moved up a couple spots he'd be between Edgar Martinez and Larry Walker. The reasonable case against McGwire is that not everyone in his range of accomplishment is in.

You have to be living in some kind of a dream world to imagine that without the steroids cloud, McGwire would have been anything but an easy first ballot HoFer. Voters love "stories", and when the "story" is that "He and his buddy Sosa saved baseball," combined with breaking Maris's record and a lifetime 163 OPS+, that's about as much of a lock you're going to get this side of the top 40 or 50 players in history---BY THE STANDARDS OF THE REAL WORLD HOF VOTERS, NOT BY THE STANDARDS OF SOME METRIC THAT THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT AND DON'T CARE ABOUT. This is truly one of those cases of "if you have to ask, you'll never know."

The ONLY thing we don't know is how those 78% "no" votes divide up among the steroid blackballers (steroids disqualify you outright) and the steroid discounters (without steroids, your numbers would have slipped below the line). You'd have to interview each and every "no" voter to determine that, which nobody has done and nobody is likely to do.

Or to put it another way, do you think that Rich's implication that McGwire is just outside the Clemens/Rickey/Bonds circle? Or Ray's that a cursory look at his #s makes it a closed case?

(this was written before #55, which seems to be talking about something different.)

The reasonable case against McGwire is that not everyone in his range of accomplishment is in.

I think you're mixing two arguments. There are players in McGwire's range that have been under-valued by Hall of Fame voters. But Mark McGwire was never going to be one of those players. Larry Walker absolutely "deserves" to be in a 250-player Hall of Fame. The fact that he won't be elected to it doesn't really channge that.

Or to put it another way, do you think that Rich's implication that McGwire is just outside the Clemens/Rickey/Bonds circle? Or Ray's that a cursory look at his #s makes it a closed case?

Yes and yes---as long as you ignore the steroids factor.

This really skews things by grouping McGwire in with everyone above him. It's like looking at players between 40 and 65.

To break it down a bit further:

Between 40-50 WAR: 107 positional players - 28 Hofers, 13 not yet eligible.
Between 50-60 WAR: 61 positional players - 26 Hofers, 13 not yet eligible.
Between 60-70 WAR: 54 positional players - 25 Hofers, 15 not yet eligible.
Between 70-80 WAR: 18 positional players - 12 Hofers, 5 not yet eligible, and Bill Dahlen.

Of those in McGwire's group that have yet to be elected, the massive majority were players with broad bases of skills - the good in everything, great in nothing (except fielding) types. McGwire's omission from the Hall to date is very unusual for a player with his singular skill in power.

You have to be living in some kind of a dream world to imagine that without the steroids cloud, McGwire would have been anything but an easy first ballot HoFer

I agree with this, and said so last McGwire thread. W/o steroids, McGwire is in easily, and the mood/run-up to/about his induction is quite celebratory.

I think you're mixing two arguments.

My one argument is that, on the merits (advanced stats), McGwire's a borderline HOF (not the HOM).

52: Steroid abuse differs greatly from their legitimate use, supervised by a doctor. There's a wide gulf between a prescription, even for off label use, and buying steroids from a clubhouse manager and injecting them yourself.

You have to be living in some kind of a dream world to imagine that without the steroids cloud, McGwire would have been anything but an easy first ballot HoFer

I agree with this, and said so last McGwire thread. W/o steroids, McGwire is in easily, and the mood/run-up to/about his induction is quite celebratory.

I agree with this too. At the time, he was touted as one of the men who saved baseball, and was talked about by writers as posessing the ability to make pitchers pee themselves with sheer terror. Absent the assorted steroid claims/accusations, it is almost inceonceivable that he wouldn't have been ushered in on the first ballot.

McGwire's omission from the Hall to date is very unusual for a player with his singular skill in power.

McGwire's omission itself through three years of eligibility doesn't strike me as very unusual for a low BA/power guy - Killebrew and Mathews both had to endure several ballots before enshrinement (inexplicably, in the latter's case). What's unusual is his failure to progress toward election.

My one argument is that, on the merits (advanced stats), McGwire's a borderline HOF (not the HOM).

Among players currently eligible for the Hall of Fame, Mark McGwire ranks 98th in career WAR in major-league history.

McGwire's omission itself through three years of eligibility doesn't strike me as very unusual for a low BA/power guy - Killebrew and Mathews both had to endure several ballots before enshrinement (inexplicably, in the latter's case).

While my memory may be faulty, didn't both Killebrew and Mathews come up for election during the period where a much higher percentage of the writers were largely using the "Unless he's as good as the original class, he's not going in on the first ballot" standard? It seems in more recent years (from the mid 80s on), the BBWAA has been a lot more liberal about that.

In the 70s and early 80s, it wouldn't at all have been surprising to see someone like McGwire linger on the ballot for a couple years. Now, it seems odd.

Or to put it another way, do you think that Rich's implication that McGwire is just outside the Clemens/Rickey/Bonds circle? Or Ray's that a cursory look at his #s makes it a closed case?

Darren, you're ignoring his peak argument. I think 1850 games of a 162 ERA+ gets him in, but if you don't like that, his peak certainly does the trick.

I count 5 or 6 truly great seasons, some of them historic. It is insane to think there is a reasonable argument that he doesn't belong on merit.

McGwire's omission from the Hall to date is very unusual for a player with his singular skill in power.

McGwire's omission itself through three years of eligibility doesn't strike me as very unusual for a low BA/power guy - Killebrew and Mathews both had to endure several ballots before enshrinement (inexplicably, in the latter's case). What's unusual is his failure to progress toward election.

Anyone who doesn't think that the BWAA would have voted him in absent steroids doesn't understand what they are looking at.

Put "value" (and of course steroids) aside. He had 583 HR, hit 70 for the record, broke Maris's record twice, had the anecdotal stuff (majestic power), many people stopped everything to watch his at bats, etc... He was sailing in.

While my memory may be faulty, didn't both Killebrew and Mathews come up for election during the period where a much higher percentage of the writers were largely using the "Unless he's as good as the original class, he's not going in on the first ballot" standard? It seems in more recent years (from the mid 80s on), the BBWAA has been a lot more liberal about that.

In the 70s and early 80s, it wouldn't at all have been surprising to see someone like McGwire linger on the ballot for a couple years. Now, it seems odd.

Yeah, I tend to agree McGwire would have gone in easily w/out the steroids due to more recent voting patterns. I'm just noting that, in a historical context, his wait isn't really that unusual. What's unique is his failure to progress.

The other thing that's interesting about McGwire vs. Bonds/Clemens is how much he's viewed as a steroids creation, whereas Bonds and Roger are more frequently viewed as Hall of Fame talents before they were suspected of juicing. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

And as much as McGwire shouldn't need to apologize (even if he was juiced to the gills, the only individuals who could possibly deserve an apology are the clean players of his era. He really did nothing to the rest of us), I do think that if he manages his coaching return well, it could give his HoF candidacy a nice boost. Just don't ask me how he's supposed to go about it. I'm pretty sure, however, it does not involve telling his tormentors to #### Off, per Ray's suggestion.

McGwire's omission itself through three years of eligibility doesn't strike me as very unusual for a low BA/power guy - Killebrew and Mathews both had to endure several ballots before enshrinement (inexplicably, in the latter's case).

While my memory may be faulty, didn't both Killebrew and Mathews come up for election during the period where a much higher percentage of the writers were largely using the "Unless he's as good as the original class, he's not going in on the first ballot" standard? It seems in more recent years (from the mid 80s on), the BBWAA has been a lot more liberal about that.

In the 70s and early 80s, it wouldn't at all have been surprising to see someone like McGwire linger on the ballot for a couple years. Now, it seems odd.

It would have surprising in ANY era for a player with McGwire's peak numbers AND career totals not to be a first ballot shoo-in.

There's a big difference between players like Mathews or Killebrew who chased 60 home runs for a few months in one or two years, and a player who smashes the old record by 9 home runs, and then hits 65 the next year for an encore. Again, I can't see how anyone could not get this---this guy broke a 34-year old record which was the most famous of all baseball records, had 583 career home runs and a 162 career OPS+, and you're comparing him to Eddie Mathews and Harmon Killebrew?

The other thing that's interesting about McGwire vs. Bonds/Clemens is how much he's viewed as a steroids creation, whereas Bonds and Roger are more frequently viewed as Hall of Fame talents before they were suspected of juicing.

McGwire led the league in home runs as a rookie, at the age of 23.

Ryan, no matter what standard you use Mathews' struggles were strange. At that point he was very clearly the best 3B of all time.

As for voters standards:

1974: Mantle(in), Ford(in), Roberts, Kiner, Hodges, Lemon, Slaughter, Reese, Mathews (32.3%)
1975: Kiner (in), Roberts, Lemon, Hodges, Slaughter, Newhouser, Reese, Mathews (40.9%)
1976: Roberts(in), Lemon(in), Hodges, Slaughter, Mathews (48.7%)
1977: Banks(in), Mathews(62.4%)

And then in.

OK I can see him failing to make it (sort of) in 1974. But the guys he's behind, the low totals and the time it took to build support is all strange.

There's a wide gulf between a prescription, even for off label use, and buying steroids from a clubhouse manager and injecting them yourself.

Same is true of any drug that needs a prescription. And drug delivery method is immaterial to that.

McGwire led the league in home runs as a rookie, at the age of 23.

I'm well aware of that Ray. I'm also aware that there are people (not all of them, mind you) who believe, absent steroids, Mark McGwire would not have put together a Hall of Fame-worthy career. There are far fewer (if any) who think that about Clemens or Bonds.

Ron, there are a million quirky reasons why anyone below the Ruth / Mays / Mantle / Aaron category sometimes don't make it on the first ballot, especially back before the 80's. And in many cases, their omission makes no rational sense. But the point is that none of those laggards you named ever smashed Roger Maris's record, not to mention "saving baseball." If you leave that out, you're missing the entire point. This is the Hall of Fame we're talking about, not the Hall of Merit.

Ray, Kiner's the obvious comp and it took him a long time to get in. He'd have fallen off the ballot under today's rules, getting 3 votes in his first try. (all the way up to 5 two years later. and hitting 15% on his 3rd try)

Andy, probably wasn't clear but I was addressing Ryan's contention that Matthews was failing on the "wasn't inner circle" standard. After all he didn't just fail once and he was getting less support than some distinctly less than inner circle players.

The HOF monitor is the best guess of likely voter intentions and McGwire does pretty well. Just behind Killebrew, Dickey, Mize, Morgan and Banks. Just ahead of Bill Terry, Reggie Jackson and Paul Molitor. IE, in the range of sure to go in, only question is whether it's first ballot. Most of the direct comps did relatively poorly in the voting (though of course all are in), but McGwire had some extra style points which I'd expect to translate into support. IOW I'd expect him get get high 70% to low 80% of the votes in his first year.

Re 73: "There's a wide gulf between a prescription, even for off label use, and buying steroids from a clubhouse manager and injecting them yourself. Same is true of any drug that needs a prescription. And drug delivery method is immaterial to that."

You don't get HIV or infections from a dirty tablet or capsule, do you?

As for voters standards:

1974: Mantle(in), Ford(in), Roberts, Kiner, Hodges, Lemon, Slaughter, Reese, Mathews (32.3%)
1975: Kiner (in), Roberts, Lemon, Hodges, Slaughter, Newhouser, Reese, Mathews (40.9%)
1976: Roberts(in), Lemon(in), Hodges, Slaughter, Mathews (48.7%)
1977: Banks(in), Mathews(62.4%)

And then in.

Hmmmm. Every player mentioned in that quote is now a member of the Hall of Fame. Except one.

Mind you, I'm not trying to derail the current discussion; nor am I trying to start a new one.

I'm just sayin'.

DB

Ron, Kiner didn't hit the home runs and break the records that McGwire did, and Kiner was done earlier.

Andy is right: 1998 really gets McGwire in, and there is no analog for that for the other players.

It's a blunt tool and mainly just for fun, but worth noting that Kiner scores a 136 on the HOF monitor, while McGwire scores a 170.

Ray, head over to this thread if you have any interest in meeting up for tonight's game to play pool or whatnot.

What Ray said. And Ron, don't get me wrong: I certainly think that Mathews (and Killebrew, and probably Roberts) should have gone in on the first ballot. But McGwire had the transcendency factor that none of those others did, which is often crucial with HoF voters. I can't see him getting below 90% without the steroids factor, and more likely 95% or above.

I believe Kiner was 5th on the career home run list when he retired. That is significant.

I believe Kiner was 5th on the career home run list when he retired. That is significant.

Kiner's problems were (a) he was seen as completely one dimensional, and (b)he had but a ten year career, all but the last (part time) one with dreadful teams.

Thanks, Lassus. I commented in that thread.

Kiner's problems were (a) he was seen as completely one dimensional

This is before my time, but I think it was also that many writers viewed that particular dimension (home runs) as less valuable than folks do today. When Ralph Kiner retired (in 1955), the home run had only been a significant part of major-league baseball for 35 years.

I believe Kiner was 5th on the career home run list when he retired. That is significant.

I thought he was 4th all time at his retirement but, importantly, the guys ahead of him were all miles ahead of him - Ruth, Foxx, and Ott. The closest to him on that list had almost 150 more HR than Kiner.

I thought he was 4th all time at his retirement but, importantly, the guys ahead of him were all miles ahead of him - Ruth, Foxx, and Ott. The closest to him on that list had almost 150 more HR than Kiner.

Through 1955, Ted Williams had 394 HRs to Kiner's 369.

Gehrig had him beat too.

Through 1955, Ted Williams had 394 HRs to Kiner's 369.

Thank you. I was just looking at guys who were retired before Kiner. Either way, this means that the other guy ahead of Kiner at Kiner's retirement ended his career miles ahead of him. Kiner was essentially fifth on a list for which only the first four names matter.

Gehrig had him beat too.

I have no idea how I missed Gehrig on that list. It's usually Ott I can't remember.

FWIW, Killebrew was fifth in career homers when he retired.

I wouldn't want to be a guinea pig in a steroids trial.

It was said that the Ken Caminiti's fatal heart attack may have been brought on in part by enlargement of the heart, possibly related to steroids abuse.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/ResearchReports/Steroids/anabolicsteroids4.html#health

Or it could be that Caminiti was addicted to whole range of drugs and died from various other drugs.

Many things could also be said about a whole host of drugs, including painkillers. It wasn't that long ago that the "expert" doctors that you claim can provide legitimate use claimed that steroids had NO beneficial athletic effects, but of course had all the side effects in your list.

Any drug, including painkillers, when used improperly comes with side effects. I could pull out a list of all the side effects of painkillers too, including death.

Since the subject of this thread is McGwire, do you see McGwire being "crippled"? Do you see users such as ARod "crippled"? Maybe the stigma of being crippled is YOUR stigma, not the stigma that existed among the players.

52: Steroid abuse differs greatly from their legitimate use, supervised by a doctor. There's a wide gulf between a prescription, even for off label use, and buying steroids from a clubhouse manager and injecting them yourself.

Yes, the wide gulf is if you inject it yourself, you might actually try to understand how the stuff works, from the people who have lots of actual hands on experience with the stuff, and actually know far better than a generic doctor about how the stuff works, instead of relying on some exaggerated stuff that is pulled off a website that is intended to scare monger about steroids, not approach the issue scientifically.

Re 73: "There's a wide gulf between a prescription, even for off label use, and buying steroids from a clubhouse manager and injecting them yourself. Same is true of any drug that needs a prescription. And drug delivery method is immaterial to that."

You don't get HIV or infections from a dirty tablet or capsule, do you?

I guess it depends what it was contaminated with. You don't get HIV from steroids, though, we know that. I mean, what kind of stupid argument is this? What do steroids have to do with needles shared with HIV-positive people?

What Ray said. And Ron, don't get me wrong: I certainly think that Mathews (and Killebrew, and probably Roberts) should have gone in on the first ballot. But McGwire had the transcendency factor that none of those others did, which is often crucial with HoF voters. I can't see him getting below 90% without the steroids factor, and more likely 95% or above.

And playing in the ESPN age as McGwire did was a huge advantage over someone like Kiner, as far as the voters were concerned. McGwire's at bats were an Event. ESPN would cut into its programming and show them, and people would stop to watch them. This kind of thing captivates voters. (That idiot Mike Lupica even wrote a book about it.)

This was before the Bonds at bats in 2001, which ESPN would also cut into but which didn't have the same cachet since people didn't like Bonds and since McGwire (and Sosa) had already broken the Maris record. It was before the Bonds at bats in 2007 as he chased Aaron, which didn't have the same cachet since people didn't like Bonds and since now people thought Bonds was on steroids.

1998 really was magical to the voters. I can't see him not getting in on the first ballot given that, which was a unique time period in baseball history.

This is before my time, but I think it was also that many writers viewed that particular dimension (home runs) as less valuable than folks do today. When Ralph Kiner retired (in 1955), the home run had only been a significant part of major-league baseball for 35 years.

They also cared even less about walks than they do today, which was, like it was for McGwire, the second dimension for this one-dimensional player.