(The Baseball Hall of Fame balloting will be announced today. Here's some thoughts on Mark McGwire that were originally published on Nov. 29.)It's interesting to see the media squirm when the subject of Mark McGwire and the Baseball Hall of Fame comes up.
Real life caught up to Mark McGwire, just like it did to Ben Johnson in 1988. In his prime, most fans wanted home runs, or at least the owners thought that's what they wanted. His teams paid him to hit home runs. The media wasn't loath to fetishizing the home run (either that, or Sports Illustrated was just into sadomasochism in 1998, the year it featured McGwire on the cover five times and made him co-Sportsman of the Year with Sammy Sosa).
When McGwire retired after the '01 season, the steroid talk was just beginning -- no one had named names yet -- but there was no talk of him not having Cooperstown-worthy numbers.
So it's interesting, at least to a stat geek, to see some people taking the slightly revisionist tack that Big Mac didn't have Hall-worthy numbers. Here's a sample of columnists from Toronto's three major papers, with how an intelligent fan should react:
Dave Perkins, Toronto Star:
"The feeling here is that McGwire simply has very borderline numbers, even including his home-run exploits. Hitting it over the fence was his strength. Period. From 1988 to 1992, he batted, in order, .260, .231, .235, .201 and .226. You could certainly pitch to him. His on-base percentage those years was .352, .339, .370, .330 and .385, or somewhere between Reed Johnson and Alex Rios...
(snip)
"He was a little more than the Dave Kingman of his era -- before he began juicing."
Smart fan's reaction: All together now, over-45 sportswriters: Batting average doesn't matter. Besides, you know who else had some lousy batting averages early in his career? Michael Jack Schmidt, the greatest third baseman of all time, had years of .196, .249, .251 and .253 in his first six seasons.
Bob Elliott, Toronto Sun:
"Looking at the raw numbers and stepping back from the magic of September 1998, McGwire reminds us in a way of Dave Kingman, who had 442 career homers and 1,575 hits.
"Kingman was light years short as a Hall of Famer, getting 0.7% of the vote in 1992 and being dropped from the ballot.
"McGwire will do better than than, but 1,626 hits doesn't cut it.
"He doesn't get my vote."
Smart fan's reaction: Elliott is almost unfailingly an incisive and entertaining baseball writer, but is he saying that you can pick one stat at random and base your vote on that. If you don't like the guy, pick something he didn't do well.
Why not evaluate Tony Gwynn, a singles hitter, on his meagre home run totals? Three thousand hits or not, Gwynn hit only 135 home runs in his career -- fewer than another outfielder who's also on the ballot for the first time, ex-Jay Devon White. So let's vote for Devo instead of Gwynn, then! (Note the sarcasm.)
Or why not base your opinion of power-hitting shortstop Cal Ripken on his base stealing? Ripken had only 36 career steals, some 210 fewer than another shortstop of similar vintage, ex-Jay Tony Fernandez.
You see the sarcasm. Evaluating McGwire on his career hit totals is pretty specious. Besides, there's something called "secondary bases" -- bases made on extra bases on hits, walks, steals, hit-by-pitches.
McGwire had 3,417 secondary bases. For what it's worth, Gwynn had 2,251.
Oh, and what's with the multiple Dave Kingman references? How big a dick was this guy Kingman? Well, pretty big, actually.)
Jeff Blair, globesports.com:
" 'Punishing' McGwire by not voting for him on the first ballot but doing so on subsequent ballots is worse than not voting for him at all because in some ways it smacks of an admission of guilt on the part of the voter -- an admission that he or she should have been more vigilant. Fool me once, that type of thing.
"Baseball fans are smart enough to know what to make of McGwire and time will place his achievements and his blemishes in perspective. It always does. Let the parents and fans who make the trek to Cooperstown to supply cautionary tales, if they wish. It's not up to the voters, who must put McGwire the player in perspective, not McGwire the person. But don't bet on that happening."
Smart fan's reaction: The Globe, wisely, plays it down the middle. There's never been a perfect time in baseball -- how is what McGwire did any more scandalous than the systematic barring of African-Americans from the game prior to 1947?
For good or ill, the Hall of Fame and who's in it reflects the game, warts and all. Like Negro Leagues legend Satchel Paige said when he was inducted in 1971, "The only thing the Hall of Fame has done is turn Paige from a second-class citizen to a second-class immortal."
Stephen Brunt, globesports.com:
"The Hall of Fame is a place reserved for very good baseball players, not necessarily the same thing as very good human beings. Pete Rose is excluded because he violated a rule that is written on every clubhouse wall. McGwire did no such thing. There was no rule...
"McGwire ought to be in Cooperstown, where his plaque can serve as a permanent reminder of the hypocrisy of the times.
"Shame on him. Shame on baseball. Shame on the commissioner. Shame on the press. Shame on those who perpetuated the myth and prospered."
Smart fan's reaction: So maybe McGwire should go in as a tainted, tarred immortal. That's the point. Go ahead and draw a line in the sand and take a moral stance, but don't try to say that McGwire's stats aren't worthy. People aren't so stupid. Find the appropriate reasons to dislike him, please.
(Batter's Box, of course, has a good thread going.)
That's all for now. Send your thoughts to neatesager@yahoo.ca.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment