But what does Mike Crudale think?

How does McGwire's admission affect Frank Tanana?

OK, I forgive McGwire too.

Piniella on the other hand ...

Didn't Piniella cheat Rick Burleson by pretending to see Remy's flyball? Sure, there was no explicit rule against it at the time, but good people of conscience know where the ethical line is.

Piniella said that McGwire worked very hard on honing his own batting style. That experience will help him relate to hitters.

“He worked on his swing endlessly,” Piniella said. “He swung and missed a lot early in his career. He learned how to make contact more and more.

Which is why McGwire's three highest strikeout totals were in 1997 (159), 1998 (155) and 1999 (141). Obviously he improved in other ways as a hitter, but making contact wasn't particularly one of them.

Piniella MIGHT have a point, although I don't know that I'd want to argue it against St. Nick here. For the first few years of his career, the biggest feature of Mac's offense is that his batting average was dropping down towards, and almost made it to, the Mendoza Line, in spite of whatever steroids he was doing (one of the things that hurts the "he only hit those homers because of steroids" argument). Meanwhile, his walk rates were going up. His strikeouts, after a drop following his rookie season, were holding about even, well within the boundaries of chance. If Lou were to argue that the reason this was happening to the average and the walks is that pitchers were refusing to throw him strikes, he could then argue that Mac's ability to keep his strikeouts level represents an improvement. Not the best argument, but Lou could play the trump card that the stats are misleading and Lou saw what he saw. Like I said, not the best argument, but it's not nothing.

The big thing here is that in 1997, in Oakland, Mac's strikeout rate went way up, and stayed up after he moved to St. Louis. His strikeout rate is MUCH higher in STL than in OAK. That's what Nick is noticing, but it only starts in 97. Before then, he had the years I mentioned and then the big injury years. - Brock Hanke

Brock, all I was doing was responding to what Piniella was saying about "learning how to make contact more and more," which when you look at McGwire's K rate, clearly wasn't the case. If Piniella was trying to argue that Mac's batting eye improved during his last years in Oakland, that's one thing, but the way he put it doesn't make that clear. As you say, there may have been observational reasons for Lou to have seen an improvement in Mac's batting eye, but it doesn't show up in his K rates.

Contact rate and K-rate are not the same thing. They certainly correlate highly, but it's theoretically possible that someone could improve their contact rate while striking out more, assuming some kind of shift in plate approach towards more called strikes. To pick a random example, compare the career numbers of Gregor Blanco and Joey Votto (via fangraphs):

Votto:

K%: 20.7%
CT%: 76.7%

Blanco:

K%: 22.8%
CT%: 85.9%

Blanco strikes out a bit more, but is also much more likely to make contact when he actually takes the bat off his shoulder. Thus if a player were to go from Votto-like to Blanco-like, they would fit Pinella's paradigm.

Not saying this same principle applies to McGwire (fangraphs doesn't have CT% back that far), but merely pointing to K-rate doesn't directly address Pinella's claim.

Jolly, having read comment #7, I do believe that we are in complete agreement. That is, what I was trying to say is what I read your saying in that comment. So let's agree to agree, OK? So much more fun than the other "agreement." Oh, and Barnaby does make a very nice distinction there that can be important in stuff like this. - Brock

Jolly, having read comment #7, I do believe that we are in complete agreement. That is, what I was trying to say is what I read your saying in that comment. So let's agree to agree, OK?

Fine with me, Brock. I don't need to invent disagreements when they don't exist. Barnaby's point is well taken, and in any case (and for whatever reasons), it's clear that McGwire became a flat out better hitter as his career progressed.

#8, One thing worth noting. McGwire struck out less frequently than guys in the same general contact range because he was more likely to have resolved the plate appearance before reaching two strikes. He only reached two strikes in 39% of his PAs.

Most specifically, he went after the first pitch quite a bit more frequently than any TTO guy I'm aware of.

Most specifically, he went after the first pitch quite a bit more frequently than any TTO guy I'm aware of.

Just an aside, is there data on how often Wade Boggs looked at the first pitch? I probably watched or listened to 75% of his PAs from 1987-1992 and it's my impression that he almost never swung at the first pitch. I'm curious to see what the numbers say.

Just an aside, but is there data on how often Wade Boggs looked at the first pitch?

Use this link here. It's the B-R splits data, and provides breakdowns by count. Be warned that it's limited to data from 1988 and later, so it'll only cover about half of his career.

For what it's worth, I recall Tony Gwynn commenting on how impressed he was with what a good average hitter McGwire had become ... which you could possibly date as far back as 95-96. That's probably what Piniella was noticing.

b-r has looking, swinging, etc. strikes and there's no obvious pattern for McGwire -- if anything, he had more swinging strikes later in his career. In 98, he nearly achieved perfect balance -- 26% looking strikes, 24% swinging, 25% fouled, 25% in-play.

He also had a 255 career BABIP. Even Endy Chavez blows that out of the water. :-)

Mark McGwire, if you are reading this- I will NOT forgive you until you personally apologize to me in person.

Just an aside, is there data on how often Wade Boggs looked at the first pitch? I probably watched or listened to 75% of his PAs from 1987-1992 and it's my impression that he almost never swung at the first pitch.

Todd Zeile never swung at the first pitch. Pitchers would just pump fastballs down the middle. He must have promised his dad that he would always take a pitch when he was 9 years old or something.

#15, don't you have some non-negotiable demands on what the apology must contain?

And do you plan to communicate those demands to McGwire or do you prefer that he try and guess whether his apology counts?

If McGwire apologizes to Void, I'll never forgive him!

#15, don't you have some non-negotiable demands on what the apology must contain?

The apology must contain tears, multiple references to his disgracing the game and himself, and acknowledgemnt of his destruction of youth baseball culture. A panel of elite sports journalists such as Jay Mariotti, Bill Plashke, and Phil Mushnick will then vote on whether or not this specific apology qualifies as sincere and hence "counts."

The big thing here is that in 1997, in Oakland, Mac's strikeout rate went way up, and stayed up after he moved to St. Louis. His strikeout rate is MUCH higher in STL than in OAK. That's what Nick is noticing, but it only starts in 97. Before then, he had the years I mentioned and then the big injury years. - Brock Hanke

It looks like the AB/K changed a lot as soon as Mark left Oakland, even midseason, though arguably a trend had started in 1996. Maybe the park factor accounts for the change a bit, though probably not enough. Oakland used to somewhat suppress strikeouts, and I think STL is more neutral.

This is probably a stupid theory, but I'll throw it out anyway: OAK has so much foul ground that a lot of foul balls turn into outs instead of pitcher's counts, which often in turn change into Ks or HRs for a guy like McGwire. Does anyone know if Mark fouled out with high frequency in Oakland, and the move to STL gave him many more chances to hit HRs and strike out?

Todd Zeile never swung at the first pitch. Pitchers would just pump fastballs down the middle. He must have promised his dad that he would always take a pitch when he was 9 years old or something.

Impressive. After his career stats are corrected for this, only a fool would refuse to vote for him for the Hall of Fame.

“He swung and missed a lot early in his career. He learned how to make contact more and more. With his strength, the ball flew out of the ballpark.”

That's complete bullarky. Marks % of strikes that were swinging strikes without contact gradually increased over his career (ranging from 16%-29%, and equating to 21% for his career). He was NEVER a contact hitter; he was ALWAYS a power hitter, and nothing more. Ozzie Smith was a contact hitter, as evidenced by his swinging strike w/o contact percentage of 5% for his entire career.

Every stat - AB/K, K per season, swinging strike % without contact - points to the fact that McGwire became slightly LESS of a contact hitter as his career progressed. Pinella's quote just validates Mark's insertion that the PED's didn't actually enhance his performance, which is the most insane thing I've heard anyone say about the steroid era. That's why Sweet Lou is so far out in LF it's not even funny.