Bee: Keep him out based on stats, not steroids

[VF21]

http://www.sacbee.com/100/story/104977.html

Keep him out based on stats, not steroids
Mark McGwire had too many mediocre seasons in his prime to be Hall worthy.
By Nick Peters - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PST Tuesday, January 9, 2007

The ballots are in, and we'll know this morning whether Cal Ripken and/or Tony Gwynn have become the first players to earn unanimous induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

We'll also learn if Mark McGwire sneaks in as the first candidate under steroids suspicion to join the elite at Cooperstown. According to preliminary polls, he won't make it, and performance enhancement will be the excuse.

It shouldn't be. This observer's ballot did not include "Big Mac," but for other reasons that might elude the adoring fans who watched him blast 135 home runs and amass 294 RBIs for St. Louis in 1998 and '99 as the poster boy of baseball's renaissance.

No, I also remember some awful years with the A's shortly after the far less bulky first baseman set a major-league rookie record with 49 home runs for Oakland in 1987. He certainly wasn't a Hall of Famer when he was traded in 1997.

McGwire revived his career with 52 home runs and a career- high .312 average in 1996, yet too many mediocre seasons preceded it. In a three-year period (1989 to '91) his batting averages were .231, .235 and .201.

For his 16-year career, McGwire had merely 1,626 hits, or 101.6 per year. Granted, he finished with 583 home runs, but 345 of them were walloped in a seven-season span (1995 to 2001) when he allegedly had a power boost.

Before steroid accusations became the vogue, this Hall of Fame voter faced a similar dilemma with Harmon Killebrew. His lifetime batting average was lower than McGwire's (.256 to .263), and he had merely 2,086 hits in 22 years.

I felt he wasn't worthy, but he got in on the strength of 573 home runs, a total that carried more weight a generation ago than McGwire's numbers do now. Plus, Killebrew was more consistent, with eight 40-homer seasons and six home run titles.

McGwire had six 40-homer seasons and four titles. Moreover, Killebrew enjoyed nine seasons with more than 100 RBIs. McGwire had seven, fewer than Jeff Kent. And, of course, "Killer" has the benefit of the doubt about doing it without chemical aid.

Moreover, McGwire no doubt damaged his chances with an ill-advised, lame appearance before Congress, when he declared, "I'm not here to talk about my past" when asked about steroid use.

Then again, some players are supportive. When former Cardinal Bruce Sutter was inducted last summer, he endorsed Mc- Gwire's candidacy and made his point by telling reporters: "Mark doesn't have to prove he is innocent; someone else has to prove he is guilty."

About the writer: The Bee's Nick Peters can be reached at npeters@ sacbee.com.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I agree with this article, sort of. I don't think McGwire belongs in the hall of fame based on his overall stats, especially when you consider that he stuck out in his first few seasons and then again in the twilight of his career (all times when the steroid/supplement use has been alleged). If there is some number for home runs that gains automatic entry then by all means put him in, but I think when you consider everything else he misses out.

I'm really curious though - Why is there so much outrage over what Mac and Bonds may have done, when the effect of steroids on hitting a fastball is rather debateable and yet the media seems to care less about players testing positive for steroids in football a sport where the benefits of taking steroids is far more obvious. I've seen people fawning over Merriman all season in San Diego the very season he sat out 4 games for testing positive. It seems ridiculous to me especially when you consider that the NFL seems to have eclipsed MLB in terms of interest and popularity.

 

[VF21]

FYI: Cal and Tony are in; Mark isn't. And I think that's right...

 

[6th]

FYI: Cal and Tony are in; Mark isn't. And I think that's right...

AFAIC, the only thing that was not right was that neither Cal nor Tony got a 100% vote. I cannot imagine someone leaving either guy off their ballot. Of course, Cal got over 98% and Tony got over 97%.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Nobody ever gets a 100% vote so that shouldn't be a total surprise. Tony should have gotten a higher vote than Cal. Towards the end of the streak Cal was hurting the Orioles by being in the lineup.

 

[slugking50]

AFAIC, the only thing that was not right was that neither Cal nor Tony got a 100% vote. I cannot imagine someone leaving either guy off their ballot. Of course, Cal got over 98% and Tony got over 97%.

Cal broke the all time rcord of 98% set by Tom Seaver. Thats not right. Stats wise, Cal isnt hall worthy Its the record that got him in.

Mays, Aaron never got that high for cryin out loud.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Cal broke the all time rcord of 98% set by Tom Seaver. Thats not right. Stats wise, Cal isnt hall worthy Its the record that got him in.

Mays, Aaron never got that high for cryin out loud.

The ESPN crawl just now said Cal was 3rd highest all time so I'd really like to know who the two higher players are. Cal's high vote seems to be a complement to the McGwire backlash. I think the record is induction worthy on its own though, just shocking that so many voters agreed considering the ultra high standards they seem to have for so many other players they won't let sniff the hall.

I wish people would acknowledge in the McGwire discussion that the MLB didn't officially ban steroids until 2003 and so any use before then does not constitute "cheating" by the book.

 

[Spike]

How DOES the Hall of Fame balloting work? Is it simply a check box? Are there only a certain number of people you're allowed to vote for?

 

[kupman]

I agree with this article, sort of. I don't think McGwire belongs in the hall of fame based on his overall stats, especially when you consider that he stuck out in his first few seasons and then again in the twilight of his career (all times when the steroid/supplement use has been alleged). If there is some number for home runs that gains automatic entry then by all means put him in, but I think when you consider everything else he misses out.

You have got to be kidding. This article is shear idiocy. Does not belong in the HOF based on stats?:

-12 All-Star teams (every guy in the history of baseball that has made 12 all-star teams is in the HOF)

-7th on the all-time HR list

-9th highest slugging percentage in the history of the game

-The very highest HR per 100 AB in the history of baseball.

The baseball HOF is becoming a big joke really fast. There is the Pete Rose deliema and now this. I guess that Sosa, Raffy and Bonds will not get-in either? Give me a break.

All of this and nobody has ever actually proven that they took steriods (except Raffy) or that taking steriods actually improves baseball performance.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

All star teams mean nothing - that's largely determined by fan voting. The guy's career basically comes down to home runs. I said if that's good enough then let him in - my opinion is that its not. The old standard was a decade or more of greatness. McGwire had 7 great seasons when it came to hitting home runs and a pretty mediocre career batting average. I don't get why you say the HOF is becoming a joke while arguing for lowering the standards.

Sosa doesn't belong anywhere near the hall, Raffy is borderline with McGwire, and Bonds is one of the greatest players to ever play and should be a first ballot guy. The difference between Bonds and the others is enormous, the guy was the total package long before he bulked up and started chasing Aaron. Pete Rose has admitted what everyone wanted and should get in as well.

 

[kupman]

All star teams mean nothing - that's largely determined by fan voting.

IMHO All-Star teams mean a whole bunch. It represents who the fans love to see play.

Big Mac was great for the game for more than a decade. He is one of the few players that made people stop what they were doing at the time to see him hit. After his plate appearance, most people would go back to what they were doing.

Baseball, like all major sports, is about entertainment. So statistics aside (like being 9th on the all-time slugging percentage wasn't enough) Big Mac belongs in the HOF because he was a great guy to watch play. He is probably one of the few guys that I watched play in my youth that I will end-up telling my grandchildren about when talking baseball.


note: the same could probably be said for Sosa.

 

[Bricklayer]

That's a silly argumnet -- Big Mac is in the Top 10 all time in homers. Everyone above him is in. Everone below him for a long way is in. He at one point smashed an astonishing 70 to break Babe Ruth's record, was a rookie of the year, won a World Series etc. Other than my now faded NorCal sprotwriter lore seeming to recall Peters as a big time Giants apologist, there is no numerical excuse to keep Big Mac out.

Its about the steroids dummy. Kind of refreshing actually since the baseball watching public can barely be stirred from their homer barrages to care. Think it would be kind of nice if all of the obvious chemical babies missed on their first chance, up through and including Barry, who's numbers will be ridiculous.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

That's a silly argumnet -- Big Mac is in the Top 10 all time in homers. Everyone above him is in. Everone below him for a long way is in. He at one point smashed an astonishing 70 to break Babe Ruth's record

It was Roger Maris's record. Roger Maris is not in the hall of fame.

But the main argument against him is that all those other players had far better batting averages and were well rounded players. Mac was nothing special defensively and his batting average was nothing special. The only person with a comparable batting average was not a first ballot guy. That's the argument, I have no say in the matter but its nice to keep the same standards, IMHO.

Let's also consider that during his HR explosion everybody else was setting career highs for HRs as well and weigh that in against the career numbers. If 5 or 6 players are hitting 50+ homeruns a year for a 5 year period it is going to skew the numbers big time and you end up letting in guys who had a very narrow window to artificially beef up their stats, steroids or not. That's why I personally think a guy like Bonds who hit for average, was a 40-40 guy before the HR explosion and also a solid fielder for the majority of his career is a no brainer while a guy like Sosa who was a nice but nowhere near great player before the long ball years and then couldn't find a job when it ended don't belong. Mac is somewhere in the middle - a strong start to his career and a strong close bookend a somewhat mediocre middle period. I'm fine if he's in or out.

And just for the record, I was a huge Mac fan when he broke onto the scene and watched with baited breath as he chased Maris's record. I've got nothing against the guy. Nor do I care about steroids.

 

[Bricklayer]

Nor do I care about steroids.

This being the unfortunate thing about the whole mess -- the exposure of the baseball watching public as part of the problem. If 10 years from now we invent bionic arms and a bunch of guys have surgery to put them on, will you not care?

In any case, the bulk of Mac's mediocre years were injury related, and many a mediocre in other aspects slugger has hit the HOF. Reggie Jackson batted .262 with 563 Homers and no great shakes on defense. Mac .263 with 583 homers and was actually a very good defensive first baseman in his early years. Its not there in the stats. 500+ homers is legendary power if you bat .100. Maris BTW only had about 2-3 good years and finished with fewer then 400 homers. That's not an apt comparison.

And Barry would have certainly been a HOFer before he started cheating. But then he started cheating. And severely damaged the game because of it. Well at least among some fans, and the rest of the world. Damaging the game held Shoeless Joe out, held Pete Rose out. I doubt it will hold Barry out, but I think there would be a certain rough justice there. Having him in there, standing above Hank Aaron, is going to be a permanent embarrassment for baseball. The steroid era forever immortalized front and center.

 

[Heuge]

If you dont let Mac in, where does it end with this generation of baseball. How do we know other future hall of famers are nor guilty of juicing. How do we know that Ripken and TGywnn didnt. We dont. All we know is that they were not in Jose's book.

I just dont get how one can make a judgment about Mac that is conclusively against is HoF status. And any argument about Mac's stats not getting him in is idoitic.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

This being the unfortunate thing about the whole mess -- the exposure of the baseball watching public as part of the problem. If 10 years from now we invent bionic arms and a bunch of guys have surgery to put them on, will you not care?
*snip*
And Barry would have certainly been a HOFer before he started cheating. But then he started cheating.

How is it cheating if it isn't against the rules? There were no rules specifically banning steroids or allowing for testing until 2003. That's the big problem with this whole mess. Yes, we knew they were bad. Yes, practically every other sport under the sun had banned them. But baseball didn't. You almost wonder if they encouraged in until congress got ready to step in.

Hopefully they would ban bionic arms - but to some extent we're already allowing crap like that - laser eye surgery allows better than 20/20 vision and there are a few people with perfect vision who have undergone the surgery to get to better than 20/20. Should laser eye surgery be illegal? If laser eye surgery is not illegal then why should bionic arms be illegal?

eta: Just for the record - this was posted before I caught today's Bonds news

 

[Bricklayer]

How is it cheating if it isn't against the rules? There were no rules specifically banning steroids or allowing for testing until 2003. That's the big problem with this whole mess. Yes, we knew they were bad. Yes, practically every other sport under the sun had banned them. But baseball didn't. You almost wonder if they encouraged in until congress got ready to step in.

In any athletic competition doping is cheating if there were no rules whatsoever. Its an artificial external enhancement that does not exist in nature (in concentrated ingestible form) created for the explicit purpose of giving a lesser athlete the abilities of a greater one. The only possible way they can NOT be cheating is in an environment when they are used universally. And the players all knew. Please. They are making backroom deals, working the black market, sneaking off in corners, never talking about it until Canseco finally blew the lid off.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

In any athletic competition doping is cheating if there were no rules whatsoever. Its an artificial external enhancement that does not exist in nature (in concentrated ingestible form) created for the explicit purpose of giving a lesser athlete the abilities of a greater one. The only possible way they can NOT be cheating is in an environment when they are used universally. And the players all knew. Please. They are making backroom deals, working the black market, sneaking off in corners, never talking about it until Canseco finally blew the lid off.

So you believe the official line that we're talking 1-2 players per team or maybe a chunk of players on 2-3 teams and the rest of the league was in the dark? That just seems really naive to me.

I find it more likely that you've got a bunch of players taking supplements like Andro and Creatine and others with stuff like "the clear" and "the cream" which they may or may not know is a "steroid" but they do know it produces reults. With today's advanced science we're not talking about guys running around in secret shooting up in their butts. Not to mention there are legitimate medical uses for steroids in small doses or that amphetamines are made from many of the same ingredients as my allergy medicines. So where exactly do you draw the line? And what about a legitimate procedure like laser eye surgery? In the not too distant future we'll probably have kids who were put on HGH cocktails to trigger growth spurts emerge as super athletes. How will you even be able to detect these kinds of things and is the kid turned super athlete a cheater because what his parents did to him?

 

[kupman]

I think you are pretty much on the money here pdx. The days of 'black and white' and 'right and wrong' are over. They have been for quite some time. It is now a world of grays.

Never really thought about the laser eye surgery example. It is also funny that Curt Schilling used a steriod to perform one of the greatest baseball performances in recent memory and we all applaud him because cortisone is a 'medicine.' A bionic arm will probably remain science fiction for quite awhile, but gene therapy is not too far away.

On a related note - Andro does not work!......for anything but unwanted side-effects.

It really gripes me when the media brings up Andro, but never once have I heard someone in the media point out that clinical studies have failed to show that it has the desired effect of increasing muscle mass or strength.

 

[VF21]

I think you are pretty much on the money here pdx. The days of 'black and white' and 'right and wrong' are over. They have been for quite some time. It is now a world of grays.

The days of right and wrong aren't over. And they shouldn't be. The idea that settling for something less than legal because it makes your favorite sport more fun to watch is just wrong... This isn't going 66 in a 65. This is knowingly taking a substance that gives you an unfair advantage over your peers. And hiding it from everyone because you KNOW it's wrong but you do it anyway.

 

[kupman]

Well, there are things that are clearly right or clearly wrong. However, there are an increasing number of things that fall within the grey areas and I think that was the point that pdx was making.

 

[VF21]

Well, there are things that are clearly right or clearly wrong. However, there are an increasing number of things that fall within the grey areas and I think that was the point that pdx was making.

And intentionally hiding what you're doing doesn't imply a knowledge that it's wrong?

Sorry, kupman, but - predictably - you and I do not see this the same way.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

But are they even hiding it and does every athlete taking it even make the connection? We're long past the days of injecting steroids in discrete areas and now to the point where we're talking about rubbing a lotion on our arms or knees or mixing up a milkshake. You can do that out in the open and nobody would have a clue if its the latest designer steroid or Ben-Gay. We're also to the point that over the counter medications are banned for containing the same substances as illegal performance enhancers. But what if an athlete has a legitimate medical need requiring use of such a substance? What if by side effect of that need he becomes a better than average performer because of it?

And maybe, just maybe there is a case to be made to letting these athletes take this crap and become million dollar test cases to advance medical science for the general public.

My point is that we're just at the begining of this. It was black and white in the 70s and 80s and earlier when these performance enhancers would quickly kill you. Now the stuff is undetectable and cutting edge medical science. In another decade or two performance enhancers are going to be beyond our wildest dreams. And a lot of the same or similar science is going to be applied as conventional medicine. At some point we're eventually just going to have to accept it and move on.

 

[kupman]

The sports world is in quite a quandary. I can’t really say that I disagree with your perspective VF, as I held that perspective myself for a long time. I also do not like to take the side of purported steroid users either as the thought of drugs in sports really disturbs me.

However, the problem is not simple – not by a long-shot. I used to have the opinion that we should hunt down the drug users and penalize them harshly and treat them as social lepers. But then I realized that handling the issue this way does not correct anything.

Handling the issue this way will only encourage athletes to become more ‘sneaky.’ Furthermore, as the technology of using drugs becomes increasingly sophisticated it will become harder and harder to ‘bust’ people. There will athletes who get away with it. Athletes on drugs will actually set new records without ever being busted. I hardly see this as a level playing field for those that decide to take the high road and not use. Baseball has not been a level playing field for years and years as the commissioner and owners decided to look away. Therefore, the idea of creating a level playing field in any sport at this point is really just fantasy.

I also have a hard time castigating athletes who use drugs when I realize that I, as a fan, help foster an environment where drug use becomes a big temptation. The collective ‘we’ and the media nearly demand super-human performances. I cannot find myself becoming all appalled when an athlete uses under such circumstances without looking at myself and how I take part in creating such an environment first. We all need to accept responsibility for the current quandary. This is not to excuse the actions of the athletes, but we must assume some guilt as well.

The thought also crosses my mind ‘why not just let professional athletes use what ever they want to create the most level playing field possible.’ Most people would respond ‘because it is unhealthy.’ To this, I think that it might actually be healthier than going without drugs. We ask professional athletes to do things that are nowhere close to being healthy. I mean, spring training followed by a 162 game schedule and then the playoffs. Or pre-season, followed by 82 games and then the playoff in b-ball. The human body is not built to sustain this kind of physical stress – not even the body of an elite athlete. This kind of overtraining makes injury likely, if not inevitable. It is the anti-thesis of health. If there are drugs available to help athletes endure such a schedule better so that they do not get injured as often, who are we to say that they cannot use them?

Again, I do not like to take the side of the drug users. I have never used drugs. I have never been in a situation that tempted me. Drug use in sport goes against what I philosophically believe sports to be about. However, there is a giant quandary in front of us that is only going to get bigger with time. I do not have the answers, but I do not think just hunting down and busting drug users and then treating them like they are a social scourge is going to solve anything.