Mark McGwire faces Hall of Fame voters this coming year and many sportswriters have indicated that they will vote for him on the first ballot. Others believe that they cannot vote for him because they believe he used steroids (which, I think is pretty much a given). Some make a Kingman comparison in which McGwire is just a new steroid filled version of Dave Kingman. Both were products of USC and converted pitchers.
As I look at the career stats, it's a compelling argument. Early in McGwire's career, he was a low batting average, high strikeout power hitter. If you translate out his early years to a full career, you pretty much mimic Kingman's numbers.
Then comes steroids and the largesse that follows. McGwire's deep flyballs become extra base hits and HRs and check swings and broken bat contact become bloop base hits. Thus batting average improves somewhat, but is probably impossible to exactly quantify.
The comparison of career numbers:
Kingman 6677 AB, 901R, 442 HR, 1210 RBI, 85 SB, .236BA, .478 SLG
McGwire 6187 AB, 1167R, 583 HR, 1414 RBI, 12 SB, .263BA, .588 SLG
Neither player was anything special in the field defensively. The question, then, is: how much does taking steroids add to the statistics?
I would argue that the statistics are pretty close as they are. Take out a 60, and 70 HR McGwire season fueled by steroids and the numbers are eerily close. Jose Canseco claimed that McGwire was using steroids for literally 5+ years, at least.
Now, I have nothing personal against McGwire. I liked him as a player but lost all respect for him with his tap dancing in congress. He should have owned up to the steroid use that is so apparent in his responses. I am of the belief that the steroid junkies should be passed over by the writers and left to the Hall of Fame members to decide their fate.
The only point I'd like to make is that, if McGwire gets into the Hall, Kingman should as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment