Rob Neyer has an article on ESPN Insider that talks about McGwire and how even though he is “one dimensional” he may still belong in the hall.  Here are a few quotes and my rebuttal to each…

“If by “one-dimensional” you mean “all he did was hit home runs,” then no, that’s not precisely true. McGwire drew more than 1,300 walks, and eight times he ranked among the top 10 in walks in his league.” 

Rebuttal – 512 of those walks were in the years 1996-1999 the extremely suspect years of his career.  He was generally a patient hitter but since when is the HOF about walks?

“McGwire was not the all-or-nothing slugger we might see in our mind’s eye. Yes, he batted .201 in 1991, his worst season, and .187 in 2001, his last season. He also batted .289 as a rookie in 1987, .312 in 1996 and .305 in 2000. McGwire’s .263 career batting average was dead-on with his leagues’ averages (one of which includes pitchers hitting, obviously, but still …).”

Rebuttal - McGwire spent 11.5 of his 16 seasons in the AL (not the NL).  His average should be measured against that league. His 1st full rookie year 1987 was a decent average .289.  McGwire did exceed the league average 11 times, however, only in 1987, 1996, 1998 and 2000 did he exceed it by any appreciable, or noteworthy amount.  Are Hall of Famers the ”league average” hitters?  I think not.

“Here’s the bottom line: The two most telling statistics in baseball are on-base percentage and slugging percentage. You probably won’t be surprised to learn that McGwire led his league in slugging percentage four times. But you might be surprised to learn that he also led his league in on-base percentage twice.”

Rebuttal - He lead the league in OBP in 1996 and 1998.  Suspect years. And only cracked the top 10 in 4 years overall 1995, 1996, 1998 and 1999.  All in his suspect years. As for Slugging Percentage, he lead the league in 1987, 1992, 1996 and 1998 and placed 2nd in 1995 and 1999.  Do we see a pattern here regarding the time period after age 31 (1995)?   

“We also might compare McGwire to Hank Greenberg, who lost nearly four seasons to World War II. Give him those four seasons, and his career would not be dissimilar to McGwire’s. Greenberg, of course, is in the Hall of Fame with Mize. . . . Hank Greenberg was a one-dimensional player, and so was Bill Mazeroski. If you’re good enough at your one dimension, you’re in.”

Rebuttal - Mazeroski was not elected to the Hall of Fame.  The veterans committed put him in there. As for Mize and Greenberg, to say McGwire compares statistically with these players does a disservice to those who were not on Steroids.

“McGwire didn’t just hit 500 home runs. He hit nearly 600 home runs.”

Rebuttal - McGwire hit 245 Home Runs from 1996 to 1999.  If you assume he would hit his career norm, or less, based on declining age, then his expected total in that time period would have been approximately 140-150 HR. Subract those extra 95 to 105 Home Runs and McGwire finishes his career with 488 – 498 Home Runs. Not as impressive.

“Of all the currently active power hitters, only four are good bets to catch McGwire: Ken Griffey (563 home runs), Jim Thome (472), Manny Ramirez (470) and Alex Rodriguez (464).”

Rebuttal - Should the fact that McGwire’s alleged steroid use inflated his home run totals be used to judge the talents of today’s home run hitters? McGwire’s overall HR total is impressive but it is tainted.     

McGwire was, in one sense, a one-dimensional player. All he did was hit. But you know, he really hit. Maybe you don’t believe one-dimensional players belong in the Hall of Fame, and if so, you’re not by yourself. But that standard has never been applied.  And so if we’re looking purely at performance on the field, there simply isn’t any real precedent for keeping a player like Mark McGwire out of Cooperstown.

Rebuttal – While his performance on the field may have made him worthy of the Hall.  The off the field performance (alleged steroid use) significantly altered that on the field performance.  How can those factors be denied or discounted?  Perhaps this is the precedent that needs to be set.  If you are a steroid suspect, you have to show us something that indicates that your numbers are the product of talent not chemistry.

I hate to be McCarthy-like with the steroid brush, but in this case what else can be said.  Granted, ball-park dimensions shrunk, pitching was dilluted by expansion etc. But the fact is, if you are “only here to talk about the future” and have no statitstics to support your candidacy post steroid testing, then I have to assume your numbers to not represent your true talent.  Feel free to live off the fame and fortune of the great HR chase of 1998, but don’t expect any tickets to Cooperstown any time soon.