Is McGwire a HoFer?

Axtell

Even without the steroid allegations, would you consider him a HoF'er?

Career .263 hitter, .394 OBP, .588 SLG, 1626 hits (1/3 of his hits were HRs!), 1596 strikeouts (nearly as many strikeouts as hits).

Is this man a HoFer?

aro13

Yes.

Axtell

I should have qualified:

Is McGwire a HoFer? Why or why not?

CardsFan

Yes, he was "the" home run slugger of his era. Was a major key in bringing fans back to baseball, after the strike. No doubt first ballot HOFer.

CardsFan

As for his numbers you need a HOF reference compare them to Killebrew:

McGwire - 263 hitter, .394 OBP, .588 SLG, 1626 hits, 1596 strikeouts
Killebrew- 256 hitter, .370 OBP, .509 SLG, 2086 hits, 1699 stirkeouts

Brian48

Yes. As it stands now, he hasn't admitted to steroid use yet and there's no concrete proof. It's all circumstantial and although we all might have our suspicions, that isn't enough to hang the guy.

On the other hand, if it comes out that here is evidence of steroid use (besides Andro), I think he should excluded. At the minimum, an asterisk should appear next to his records. You'll never know when public perception regarding steroid use might change in the next 30-40 years.

jamesy

One trick pony-couldn't field or run the bases. Broke a sacred record-but Maris is not in the hall and he was the holder of the record and won 2 MVP's. Mcguire's career home run numbers will get him in, but the recent cloud about steriods may make him wait a couple of ballots.

megatron

I for one believe that he did take steroids, but it does not change my opinion at all. He hit 49 home runs as a "thin as a toothpick" rookie, and went on to become the most prolific home run hitter of all time (as measured by home runs per 100 at bat - which stands at 9.42). All the steroids did was allow him to hit home runs 450 feet rather than 415 feet. He will be a first ballot hall of famer although I don't think it will be as much a slam dunk as some people think. Why?

For one, as jamesy mentioned, he was a one trick pony. He hit monster home runs. He only has one gold glove to his credit and never won a MVP award. When he hit all those home runs in 1998 and 1999, he was also #3, and #6 respectively in the league in strikeouts.

Also, as Axtell mentioned, this guy is a career .263 hitter, and had nearly as many career strikeouts as he did hits.

Overall, Regardless of the steroids issue, he will get in on the first ballot, although it may not be much above 90%.

What amazes me is what exposure can do to a player. Some idiots out there seem to think that just because a player is on ESPN all the time during their playing days (McGwire, Ripken) then they will be the unanimous choice for the HOF. People are such victims of availability bias. If Ted Williams, Willie Mays, and Hank Aaron were not unanimous choices, McGwire will also not be.

I also agree with McGwire's comparison to Killebrew. Two monsters who were one dimensional. Me, I would rather have much more consistency (McGwire was often injured) in the form of Palmeiro.

Axtell

I didn't realize McGwire's career average was so bad, and that he didn't even have 2000 career hits.

I don't see how these numbers can be ignored when looking at 583 hr's.

aconte

No.

A probable juicer.

aconte

CardsFan

<< <i> didn't realize McGwire's career average was so bad >>



He had a really poor four year stretch in Oakland starting in 1988, supposedly right after he started juicing, I guess it took awhile to get used to his new muscles, because he only hit .232 during those years. Take away that stretch and he hit .278 the rest of his career.

murcerfan

Yes.

His and Sosa's incredible season of 1998 belong in there anyways.

Hard to find a more "famous" player of his era.

fair to other more statistically significant careers... or non-juicers ??...probably not...

megatron

<< <i>

<< <i> didn't realize McGwire's career average was so bad >>



He had a really poor four year stretch in Oakland starting in 1988, supposedly right after he started juicing, I guess it took awhile to get used to his new muscles, because he only hit .232 during those years. Take away that stretch and he hit .278 the rest of his career. >>



Plus, McGwire represents every little boy's dream (and every grown man's dream as well). The guy was 6'5" and 225 pounds – such an imposing sight. His body was nothing but muscle. It was common for him to hit home runs near or over 500 feet. The home run has to be one of the most beloved acts of American sports and McGwire was king of the home run in his day. Every little kid on the sandlot dreams of hitting this majestic home run and McGwire had this capability in the pros.

I for one, would love to travel to Wrigley Field to watch my Cubs take on McGwire and the Cards. The stadium would literally have thousands present to watch McGwire simply take batting practice. That is the power and mystique that he held.

I sure some sports writers were part of this male fantasy.

WinPitcher

He had a really poor four year stretch in Oakland starting in 1988, supposedly right after he started juicing, I guess it took awhile to get used to his new muscles, because he only hit .232 during those years. Take away that stretch and he hit .278 the rest of his career. >>


huh? he started in 87 hitting 49 homers, from 88 to 93 he hit almost 150 more. their are 2 years 94 and 5 i think (hurt back) that he missed major time. please check his stats! THE difference between his 230 average and the 270 is 20 hits per year with his at bats.

then he came back and was hitting them like crazy! did he juice? prolly, does he still belong in the hall? we will see. If i was to vote Id say yes.

1420sports

I never thought McGwire was all that great a player. He will get in the Hall, but not on the first ballot with the recent cloud.

I think MLB is going to be interesting this year. Bonds will be asked about steroids every game, and he will hear it - especially in Philly .

Skinpinch

Yes he is. A couple of things....

-When comparing to Killebrew, make sure you put the numbers into context. That should be elementary.

-A strikeout, comapared to a non-strikeout out, is worth about .02-.03 runs less. So for every 100 strike outs, McGwire is costing his team two to three runs compared to a contact out. The act of striking out is way over inflated. Sure, in little league it matters, but not in MLB where 98% of playable balls are converted to outs, just making contact doesn't matter much. What matters is times on base OB%, and SLG%. His strikeouts in no way take him out of the Hall. They are just a tiny blemish on his stats. Again, many objective studies can show that quite easily for anyone who I'm sure will discount that info.

-Palmeiro is far closer to Harold Baines than he is to Mark McGwire. No need to beat a dead horse on that... But, if a guy plays 25 years, goes 125 for 500 every year, he has 3,000 hits to go with his .250 batting average (not that that is what Palmeiro did, but just being consistent doesn't make you superior to a better player). Since Palmeiro and McGwire played in the same era, it is very easy to determine which of the two were worth more runs, even considering the time McGwire missed. McGwire beats him.

-McGwire was a clog on the base paths, especially in his Cardinal years. That is certainly a knock on him, especially compared to a guy like Bagwell who could score far more often from second, and go from first to third more as well.

-In his era, only Thomas and Bagwell can be said in the same breath. Since we are dealing with same era players, and not the tricky cross era(where McGwire's status gets hurt a lot), he is easily in the top three, and probably the number one. I believe Bill James Win Shares has him number one in his time. I also believe Total Baseball does too. Again, since it is not cross era(where the mistakes are always made), he is there.

-Roids, yeah he did them. He was pretty good before the ROids, as was Bonds. I charted Bonds's career and showed that the Roids only helped a small amount. IT was the decline in available population(by ten million from 1985 compared to 2000), and the increase of four teams that was a culprit for big numbers(too much expansion!!!). It was also juicier BALLS, and smaller Parks, and smaller strike zones. IN FACT, if you took out the 20 best hitters from 2000, and then compared the league SLG% to 1990, then 2000 WILL STILL have a higher SLG% than 1990, and that is without the 20 best hitters. So it is EVERYONE that benefited from this era, and steroids were not used by everyone, so there are certainly other causes, and the ones I mentioned are right in this paragraph. Yeah, the roids create a cloud over all of these guys, but that is only one of MANY factors that caused the inflation of numbers, and people are forgetting that!

Axtell

<< <i>

-Roids, yeah he did them. He was pretty good before the ROids, as was Bonds. I charted Bonds's career and showed that the Roids only helped a small amount. IT was the decline in available population(by ten million from 1985 compared to 2000), and the increase of four teams that was a culprit for big numbers(too much expansion!!!). It was also juicier BALLS, and smaller Parks, and smaller strike zones. IN FACT, if you took out the 20 best hitters from 2000, and then compared the league SLG% to 1990, then 2000 WILL STILL have a higher SLG% than 1990, and that is without the 20 best hitters. So it is EVERYONE that benefited from this era, and steroids were not used by everyone, so there are certainly other causes, and the ones I mentioned are right in this paragraph. Yeah, the roids create a cloud over all of these guys, but that is only one of MANY factors that caused the inflation of numbers, and people are forgetting that! >>



I think the biggest thing we have seen in these roid sluggers is when their careers should be tailing off due to age, the roids have allowed them to maintain at levels (and even higher!) at 35+...this just does not happen naturally, I don't care what type of nutrition, training, whatever....you don't go 50% above your previous career HR season best after you've hit 35...it just doesn't happen.

1420sports

where is BKAH with all of this?

megatron

<< <i>Yes he is. A couple of things.... >>



Oops, my fault. Correct post is below.

megatron

<< <i>Yes he is. A couple of things....

-When comparing to Killebrew, make sure you put the numbers into context. That should be elementary. >>



You are correct and that is what I did when I confirmed someone's comment. Since you asked, I provided a rudimentary analysis here. Bear in mind that I never saw Harmon play so I do not know if he was a pull hitter or not. This can be important when I mention the parks he played in. Also, I need to get back to work, so I’m sure I left out many points that can be argued.

After my analysis, I have concluded that Killebrew and McGwire are very similar and that the differences between the two have already been stated here by other members. Overall, McGwire was a slugger in the purest sense, while Killebrew had better results in other categories, such as scoring runs.

I analyzed 7 categories from www.baseball-reference.com and the results are listed below. The 7 categories were (1) top 10 MVP finishes, (2) on base %, (3) slugging percentage, (4) OPS, (5) runs, (6) home runs, and (7) adjusted OPS. The number of times the respective player finished in the top 10 followed by a #1 finish is listed below

MCGWIRE

1. Top 10 = 6, #1 = 0
2. Top 10 = 4, #1 = 2
3. Top 10 = 8, #1 = 4
4. Top 10 = 7, #1 = 2
5. Top 10 = 2, #1 = 0
6. Top 10 = 10, #1 = 4
7. Top 10 = 6, #1 = 4

KILLEBREW

1. Top 10 = 7, #1 = 1
2. Top 10 = 9, #1 = 1
3. Top 10 = 11, #1 = 1
4. Top 10 = 12, #1 = 0
5. Top 10 = 9, #1 = 0
6. Top 10 = 13, #1 = 6
7. Top 10 = 10, #1 = 0

The glaring items that jump out include McGwire's dominance in slugging % and adjusted OPS. Although Killebrew has more top 10 finishes in these respective categories, it is Mcgwire's dominance that jumps out at you. Of note, Killebrew was more consistent in these categories, but McGwire was just a monster in these categories. In regards to McGwire, his slugging percentage was #7, and #9 in 2 years in which he ranked in the top 10. In contrast, Killebrew was never below #5, except for 1972 when he was #10 and near the end of his career. Also, Killebrew never had an adjusted OPS title, but he ranked in the top 5 in every year that he was in the top 10. Once again, however, McGwire simply dominated the category when he ranked #1.

Also, let's not forget the 6 home run titles that Killebrew won compared to McGwire's 4. Sure, Killebrew played more seasons, but he also played in much larger ballparks as well. When he played with the Senators, Griffith Stadium was 388 to left field, 421 to center field, and 320 to right field. At Metropolitan Stadium, the same respective dimensions were 343, 430, and 330. Compare that to McGwire's venues (Oakland and St. Louis) which were both 330 to the foul poles and 400 to center (Oakland) and 402 to center (St. Louis).

Now, I did state that it probably would not have mattered for these players as they hit mammoth home runs anyway, but a 430 foot center field must be considered. Once again, I don't know if Killebrew was a pull hitter or not.

Overall, my statement is this: "If you are going to be a one dimensional player like McGwire, you might as well dominate the categories that sluggers dominate, which are slugging and OPS. And McGwire sure did dominate." Now, they made Killebrew wait until 1984 for election to the hall of fame, but that will not be the case for McGwire.

If I was an owner, I would rather have Killebrew for his consistency. But as a fan, I would rather watch McGwire and his Greek God-like stature blast home runs out of the ballpark.

BigKidAtHeart

<< <i>where is BKAH with all of this? >>


I have better things going on
in my life right now than to
worry about this or the forums
that I now only half-heartedly
check once in a while.

You guys have fun, but I am not involved.

megatron

<< <i>

<< <i>where is BKAH with all of this? >>


I have better things going on
in my life right now than to
worry about this or the forums
that I now only half-heartedly
check once in a while.

You guys have fun, but I am not involved.
>>



Good luck on the pending adoption. What you are doing is very special indeed.

1420sports

Before Bonds was CAUGHT you had all the time in the world

Skinpinch

Megatron, pretty good analysis. Once the numbers are put into context, McGwire falls below Killebrew. Yes, Killebrew was very consistently excellent in the OPS rankings. His consistency puts him higher than McGwire, because Killebrew had finishes of 2,2,2,2,3,4,4,4,5, 10,10 in OPS+. Now that is great consistency, and this type of consistency easily overcomes McGwires 1,1,1,1,2,6. There really isnt much difference between finishing one and two, but there is a big difference between finishing one and tenth.


Compare that to Palmeiro's consistency of 3,5,5,9,9,10,10 and you see he is closer to Harold Baines 5, 9, 10,10 than he is to the two Hall of Famers above. The only thing missing from Baines is three more top ten finishes of 3,5, and 9, and they are of equal dominance!

Axtell

Why are we comparing McG to Killer? Why don't we look at the relative eras in which they played? This type of reasoning is what is keeping worthy HoF'ers like Jim Rice out of the Hall.

DirtyDog48

Does McGwire belong in The Hall?......Maybe when they open up the "Better Baseball Through Chemistry Wing".

Coinhusker1

I think it is entirely possible that McGwire bulked up on legal substances -- andro and creatine, and avoided steriods altogether. If that were the case (hypothetically) would you still put McGwire in the HOF, and would his records not be "tainted"?

In my mind the records are tainted anyway, because those substances still are "shortcuts", are potentially dangerous, and were not available to Maris and Ruth. But they were legal, so what can you do?

Axtell

Even if he injected steroids every day, I wouldn't say that taints his records...they were not banned by MLB at the time and therefore wasn't cheating.

Strictly looking at his numbers, I'd say no, he shouldn't be in the hall.

On a related note, Mike Greenwell (runner up to Jose Canseco when he won his MVP) is now saying HE should get that MVP award because Canseco took steroids.

Coinhusker1

<< <i>Strictly looking at his numbers, I'd say no, he shouldn't be in the hall.

On a related note, Mike Greenwell (runner up to Jose Canseco when he won his MVP) is now saying HE should get that MVP award because Canseco took steroids. >>



Are there any HOF eligible players with 500 hrs NOT in the HOF? I thought 500 was as automatic as 3000 hits and 300 wins.

I'm a Red Sox fan, and I still think Greenwell as MVP is kind of laughable. It won't happen. Must have been a thin field that year if he got second.

Back to steriods, if Brady Andersen was not on them when he hit 50 hrs, what WAS he on??

CardsFan

<< <i>Are there any HOF eligible players with 500 hrs NOT in the HOF? I thought 500 was as automatic as 3000 hits and 300 wins. >>



Those are still automatic. We may see the day when 500 homers doesn't equal automatic but it won't start with McGwire.

GoBravesGo

<< <i>We may see the day when 500 homers doesn't equal automatic but it won't start with McGwire. >>

hopefully it will start with Griffey Jr. - what a washed up waste case.

GoBravesGo

<< <i>Even if he injected steroids every day, I wouldn't say that taints his records...they were not banned by MLB at the time and therefore wasn't cheating. >>

When did MLB offcially ban steriod use?

Axtell

<< <i>

<< <i>We may see the day when 500 homers doesn't equal automatic but it won't start with McGwire. >>

hopefully it will start with Griffey Jr. - what a washed up waste case. >>



You are kidding, I hope?

Griffey Jr. absolutely DOMINATED the game for over a decade...and truly the case of a natural talent who loved the game. There were few more feared in the 90s, and he owned center field.

Axtell

Steroids became a substance of issue in the 2003 season.

CardsFan

<< <i>Griffey Jr. absolutely DOMINATED the game for over a decade...and truly the case of a natural talent who loved the game. There were few more feared in the 90s, and he owned center field. >>



I have to agree with Axtell on this one. Great player and a classy guy. Plus his accomplishments are even greater because he doesn't have the shadow of steriods cast over him.

Skinpinch

It will start with Palmeiro. The other 500 home run players of this era, really were MVP type players as well being in the 500 club.

As for Brady Anderson, this is where baseball fans fall into traps all the time. People need to realize that there is a LOT of randomness in baseball, and it doesn't stop at 162 games. Brady Anderson wasn't much different than Richard Hidalgo, or Terry Steinbach, or Mike Lowell. Very often players will play well above ability level for a full season, and that is why you can't evaluate a guy based on one year. It takes about three or four seaons of play to start to weed out the randomness that occurs in baseball. Think SAMPLE SIZE.

I see it time and time and time again. People always base how good a guy will be this year based on his previous year! I kind of like that, as it is kind of like taking money from the blind. Example: a local radio station is all excited about the Cubs getting Jerry Hairston. They are just googly eyed over his .378 OB% of last year. They are thinking LEADOFF HITTER. Two things they don't realize is that 1) He played only half the year, so it was a small sample size, so that doesn't mean much, and 2) They forgot to look at his .320something OB% in his previous 1,000 at bats(those numbers are off of memory). Is it possible he turned the corner? Sure, but based on hundreds of examples in baseball history, if he has 600 plate appearances, he will be far close to the .328 OB% than he will be to the .378!

Same for Brady Anderson! I remember the following year after his 50 homers, how high everybody had him rated in the fantasy world. I rated him based on his previous two years, combined with his big year, and thought of him as a28 homer guy. Most people thought he would just automatically be close to 50 again, because he did it once. Not true.

Lots of this stuff can be explained by other things other than steroids. I repeat, STEROIDS IS ONLY ONE OF MANY CONTRIBUTING FACTORS IN THE INFLATION OF STATISTICS IN THIS ERA! There is a lot of statistical noise that you have to work through to do a good study. You have to recognize all of the variables that can have caused certain things. In one or two year wonders, it is usually statistical randmoness that is the culprit.

DirtyHarry

Yes... Questionable, but similar stats to other HOF'ers. He did admit to taking over the counter muscle enchancing stuff, but that was OK. Forget the Cansceo BS. McGwire was a force in saving fan interest in the game when it was going down the tubes. That has to mean a lot. He was an impact player in his era with BIG HR stats. Vote him in. Regards.

GoBravesGo

<< <i>Steroids became a substance of issue in the 2003 season. >>

"substance of issue"? is that a ban? When did MLB make it an official rule, in their little rule books that said using steroids or growth hormones was against their rules? I thought last season was the first one.

CardsFan

<< <i>It will start with Palmeiro. >>



Skinpinch,
Did something happen between you and Palmeiro? It's starting to sound personal

megatron

<< <i>

<< <i>It will start with Palmeiro. >>



Skinpinch,
Did something happen between you and Palmeiro? It's starting to sound personal >>



I've been asking myself the exact same thing for a week.

Axtell

<< <i>

<< <i>Steroids became a substance of issue in the 2003 season. >>

"substance of issue"? is that a ban? When did MLB make it an official rule, in their little rule books that said using steroids or growth hormones was against their rules? I thought last season was the first one. >>



Meaning the first offense wasn't even a suspension...so it became a banned substance, but the first iteration of rules against steroids was so weak it was laughable.

BigKidAtHeart

<< <i>Before Bonds was CAUGHT you had all the time in the world >>

1420sports,
You OBVIOUSLY have never adpoted a child
Especially from China (amazing amount of time and paperwork)
(You probably do not even have kids.)

Believe it or not my life does not
revolve around sports, cards, forums
and what people think.

Skinpinch

It certainly seems I have something personal about Palmeiro looking at my posts. No, it isn't like a Dave Martinez and somebody's wife thing(though pre Viagra, it doesn't seem like Palmeiro would have gotten more than one chance to bag a women again).

Seriously, I am a rare bread, an unbiased sportsfan. Probably me and a friend of mine(who is actually a Palmeiro fan) are the only two unbiased sports fans that we have personally come across. So I call it objectively, and when the evidence is overwhelming, it is tough to deny it. Sure there are no absolutes, but when things are all weighed objectively and they point strongly towards a view, I tend to go with it. It' just that all the evidence in the last few topics I have posted on seem to indict Palmeiro as someone who is way inflated. Thats all. I wouldn't cry if he got in. I would just know that based on objective truth, he doesn't really belong. No hidden agenda.

P.S. Mcgwire was more than a home run hitter, as he had a very high OB%, and his homers were efficient(SLG%), as they weren't done as a result of having lots of at bats(ala Palmeiro). I had to throw Palmeiro in again.

Just a home run hitter is somebody like Dave Kingman, as he was below average in OB%, and his SLG% didn't blow people away. You know, just think if Kingman had played in this era.....He could honestly have a chance at 550+ homers. Think of it. How would the debates be about that topic?

beefcake210

<< <i>

<< <i>We may see the day when 500 homers doesn't equal automatic but it won't start with McGwire. >>

hopefully it will start with Griffey Jr. - what a washed up waste case. >>



Yes. People don't realize that 500 hasn't been the "automatic HOF" mark, it's been 450 up until this decade. Dave Kingman is the prototypical example of a player with huge HR total (442) but denied entrance. Now 500 is going to be the cutoff. We have Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro (551 - this guy has a shot at 600+), and Griffey all over 500, and all are going to the HOF.

The drop off occurrs in the 400 range - McGriff (493), Canseco (462), Kingman (442), and Dawson (438, though I think he should make it eventually). Active 400+ guys are Bagwell, Frank Thomas, Juan Gonzalez, Jim Thome, and Gary Sheffield. Look at each of them, and none of them are HOF worthy yet, but probably all of them will get in if they hit 500. People have to realize that Kingman had a .236 Career BA, and .302 OBP - aweful even at his era's rate. Bagwell is 297/408, Thomas 308/429, Gonzalez 295/343, Thome 284/410, Sheffield 298/400. They all need another STRONG 2-3 seasons to make it to 500, but if they get there, they're in.

One final note on Palmeiro - before last year, this guy had a streak of 9 straight 38+ HR/100+ RBI seasons. He hasn't played in less than 150 games since his 3rd season in the bigs (94/95 strike seasons excluded). People talk of him as though he's had 25 HR seasons for 20 years - the comparisons to Eddie Murray for instance (never over 33 HR) are just not valid. For all the talk of watered down numbers, Palmeiro will become just the 4th player this year with 3000 hit/500 HR. Aaron, Mays, and Murray. No question the guys from the 60s are all time greats, where Murray and Palmeiro are that second tier of HOFers, but they're all legit.

jaxxr

I believe Mac is the all-time HR per at bat ( or least at bats per HR, however you like to put it. ) leader. Ruth is second, I think.

That alone should qualify for the HOF !!!

Also I hope Raffy has an outstanding seaon to re-enforce his HOF credentials, regardless of what some might think.

lonroy

Mcgwire AVERAGED 50 HR a season for his career. Second is Ruth with a low to mid 40's number.

YES he should be in the HOF and YES he will be elected to the HOF.

The steroids fiasco with all of these modern day superstars will be a black mark on their records and accomplishments but it will not prevent them from going to the Hall.

frankhardy

"Is McGwire a HoF'er?"

I can't believe this is even a debate.

McGwire is a HOF'er, along with Griffey and Palmeiro.

And I am actually a guy that thinks the Hall of Fame is too crowded, but these guys belong, period.

1420sports

Ken Griffey Jr was on the verge of being one of the IMMORTALS. It is a shame that his injuries have kept him from achieving the false #'s Bonds, Sosa, Big Mac, and all the other dopers have under the belts.

BKAH - congrats on the adoption! Bonds is still a joke though