My post on Mark McGwire was getting way too long and I don't have the will to finish it. You can see what I have here.
Basically, I think it makes sense to discount McGwire's accomplishments because he played under conditions favorable to home run totals, and there's no reason to think he benifitted from that less than anyone else.
I think the most apt discount would be to compare his relative accomplishments (in terms of awards, All-Star appearances, league leadership) to that of other power hitters, and see where that places him. His HR total would ordinarily suffice to get him in the Hall of Fame, but not under these circumstances. If he led the league in home runs as often as, say, Mike Schimidt or Ralph Kiner, he should be in. If it's more like Jim Rice or Dale Murphy, then he should share their fate.
My cursory look at McGwire puts him closer to the near Hall of Famers than the Hall of Famers, a borderline candidate. But then he's got pretty much nothing else going for him, so I don't think he should be in.
Monday, December 11, 2006
McGwire Post Summary...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
i thing judging his numbers relative to peers and era is wise. character though, i don't see as a qualification for the HOF. if we got rid of the assholes, the hall would be rather bare.
It's true that character isn't a qualification, but good character can push a borderline candidate over the top.
And in the case of McGwire, I don't seen any evidence to grant him that.
The Congressional testimony shouldn't disqualify him, but I don't think it's unreasonable to remember that McGwire had an opportunity to clear the air, and he increased the fog.
so (steroids), the (steroids) 2000 (steroids) pound (steroids) gorilla (steroids) in (steroids) the (steroids) room (steroids), we don't talk about that?
okay.
seriously, though, let's hope that there is a "gentleman's agreement" amongst the selectors that has already black-balled the guy.
Post a Comment