MORE FUZZY McGWIRE MATH

Add the Chicago Tribune's Mike Downey to the list of mostly over-45 sportswriters who trying to trot out the weak argument that Mark McGwire lacks the numbers for the Baseball Hall of Fame, based on his low hit total.

This already debunked when some Toronto sportswriters tried it recently. Why can't these guys just object to McGwire on moral and ethical grounds and leave it at that? Don't use fuzzy math and logic because you can't nut up and admit Major League Baseball and the media were way too deep in a symbiotic relationship for anyone to hold McGwire and the other suspected cheaters feet to the fire back in the late 1990s. Don't play readers for fools.

Here's Downey (in a column that includes "I" or "me" 19 times, by the way):

"Lifetime hits: 1,626.

"That's it? Are you serious?

"... The brawny McGwire's career batting average is a scrawny .263. His RBI total of 1,414 is not all that hot for a slugger. It pales next to (Rafael) Palmeiro's. It is more than a couple of hundred shy than that of Harold Baines."

The real kicker is that Downey is sideswiping McGwire as part of his effort to build a case for former Montreal Expos star outfielder Andre Dawson. Why does it have to be an either/or question, especially when Hall of Fame voters can list up to 10 players on their ballot?

At least someone is making a case for Dawson, who should be in the Hall of Fame (he fell about 73 votes shy last year). However, if the case for The Hawk is so strong, let it stand alone. Don't sully it by including it in some half-assed comparison.

Just how half-assed?

"Andre Dawson's hit total is more than 1,100 higher than McGwire's. He had twice as many doubles. His average is 16 points higher. He has 177 more RBIs.

"Dawson also won eight Gold Glove awards at his position. McGwire won one."

Hit total? Who cares! (See, I can write short sentences too.) As for the other offensive stats, Dawson had 3,740 more at-bats than McGwire. Of course he would have more doubles and RBI.

As for the 16-point difference in batting average, it's an ass-kicking in secondary average -- for McGwire. (See below for explanation.)

McGwire had a secondary average of .552. Dawson's secondary average was a respectable .346 -- 206 points behind McGwire's.

Let's see. Sixteen points in batting average, 206 points in secondary average. Throw in the Gold Gloves and the "character" element, and we'll call it even.

Like I said, if you want to object to McGwire on grounds of character, fine. Just don't justify it with fuzzy math and revisionist history.

(Secondary average is a player's extra bases on hits, bases on balls, hit by pitches and steals divided by at-bats. McGwire had 3,417 secondary bases in 6187 career at-bats. Dawson had 3,438 in 9,927 at-bats.)