I hit .300 and led the majors in home runs. My team went to the World Series, and there I was in the Game 1 lineup.
Batting ninth.
Why?
Batting ninth.
Why?
I dunno..were you a pitcher? For the 1917 Red Sox perhaps?
(Now I have to look that up)
(Now I have to look that up)
Geez, other than the '17 Sox finishing 2nd in the AL, and George Herman hitting just 2 home runs, I was close...
it's times lie this I almost wished I drank coffee
it's times lie this I almost wished I drank coffee
Well, in his other 1918 World Series start, Ruth batted sixth. Platoon, maybe? That was my first thought, and it was indeed Hippo Vaughan, a very fine lefty who started Game 1 for the Cubs. But the Cubs game 5 starter was Lefty Tyler...
Ruth pitched a shutout in Game 1, and took a 3-2 lead into the 9th inning in Game 5. When the first two batters reached, Joe Bush came in to pitch and Ruth moved to LF, replacing George Whiteman. Ruth also came in to replace Whiteman in LF in the middle of the eighth inning in Game 6. No apparent reason, but the previous play was a foul pop to the shortstop - perhaps there was a collision and Whiteman was shaken up.
Ruth hit 11 HRs in 1918 - 2 as a pitcher, 2 as a first baseman, and 7 as an outfielder (mostly CF). It appears that when he played CF, he hit 3rd or 4th, but when he was pitching, he was hit 9th.
Ruth pitched a shutout in Game 1, and took a 3-2 lead into the 9th inning in Game 5. When the first two batters reached, Joe Bush came in to pitch and Ruth moved to LF, replacing George Whiteman. Ruth also came in to replace Whiteman in LF in the middle of the eighth inning in Game 6. No apparent reason, but the previous play was a foul pop to the shortstop - perhaps there was a collision and Whiteman was shaken up.
Ruth hit 11 HRs in 1918 - 2 as a pitcher, 2 as a first baseman, and 7 as an outfielder (mostly CF). It appears that when he played CF, he hit 3rd or 4th, but when he was pitching, he was hit 9th.
It appears that when he played CF, he hit 3rd or 4th, but when he was pitching, he was hit 9th
Reducing the pressure on Ruth so that he could maintain his focus while pitching, or mindless adherence to convention? My money is on the latter, but youneverknow.
Reducing the pressure on Ruth so that he could maintain his focus while pitching, or mindless adherence to convention? My money is on the latter, but youneverknow.
mindless adherence to convention?
That would be my guess. Ruth didn't pitch nearly as much as 1919 (just 15 starts). He hit 2 HRs as a pitcher, and he was batting clean-up (which seems to be his regular batting order spot in 1919) for the one we have info on.
That would be my guess. Ruth didn't pitch nearly as much as 1919 (just 15 starts). He hit 2 HRs as a pitcher, and he was batting clean-up (which seems to be his regular batting order spot in 1919) for the one we have info on.
With McGwire's admission that he used that used steroids during the 1989-90 off-season and then again during and after his injuries beginning in 1993, a McGriff/McGwire WAR table is in order. Bear in mind that McGriff and McGwire were both born in October, 1963. The steroids evidently worked, as they did for Ben Johnson:
| 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 00 | 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | |
| McGriff | -0.1 | 1.4 | 6.1 | 6.6 | 4.9 | 3.7 | 5.2 | 4.2 | 4.7 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 0.1 | 2.2 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 4.0 | 1.4 | 0.0 | -0.6 |
| McGwire | -0.2 | 5.4 | 2.7 | 3.3 | 5.7 | 1.9 | 6.8 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 5.5 | 6.5 | 4.9 | 7.2 | 5.5 | 4.5 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
Y'all may remember my big McGriff-McGwire piece from 2008 - their careers ran in such perfect parallel that it's to resist. Copy, and paste, and here's what they did through age 30....
McGriff was quite clearly the better player. It's not even all that close. He was better and he was much more durable.
Here's what they did from age 36 onward....
But here's what happened over that odd five year period, ages 31-35, in mid-career.
The notion that McGwire was a better player than McGriff is based entirely - entirely - on those five seasons, from 1995-1999. Otherwise, it's absurd.
G B R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BAVG OBP SLG TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP RC OPS+
McGriff 1147 3984 703 1136 202 16 262 710 45 23 679 920 .285 .389 .541 2156 2 32 94 17 89 860 153
McGwire 990 3342 546 834 137 5 238 657 6 7 585 756 .250 .361 .507 1695 3 47 49 29 83 640 143
McGriff was quite clearly the better player. It's not even all that close. He was better and he was much more durable.
Here's what they did from age 36 onward....
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BAVG OBP SLG TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP RC OPS+McGriff wasn't quite as productive per at bat, but he was so much more durable than McGwire - McGriff has almost four times as many plate appearances - that he was clearly much more valuable to his teams.
McGriff 563 1971 255 544 87 4 103 358 4 4 260 410 .276 .360 .481 948 0 16 35 8 50 344 119
McGwire 186 535 108 128 12 0 61 137 1 0 132 196 .239 .394 .604 323 0 8 15 10 12 141 126
But here's what happened over that odd five year period, ages 31-35, in mid-career.
Player G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BAVG OBP SLG TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP RC OPS+
McGriff 750 2802 391 810 152 4 128 482 23 11 366 552 .289 .371 .483 3113 0 23 42 14 87 500 119
McGwire 698 2310 513 664 103 1 284 620 5 1 600 644 .287 .438 .702 5026 0 23 86 36 52 748 191
The notion that McGwire was a better player than McGriff is based entirely - entirely - on those five seasons, from 1995-1999. Otherwise, it's absurd.
If we accept McGwire's explanation that he used steroids for injuries -- it is entirely conceivable that he could have obtained an MD willing to prescribe steroids (and the HGH he also admitted to using) to help speed his healing (I don't believe that he did, or if he admitted that he used them illegally). He probably didn't, but let's imagine that he did, instead of seeking out a sympathetic MD (see: Jackson, Michael).
How is this different from a pitcher searching out TJ surgery (which we've heard about HS kids)? I don't see it. TJ is a modern, very invasive surgical technique. Steroids, when used and not abused, appropriately are relatively safe drugs compared to many other drugs used by physicians.
The reason why I mention this is because Griffin ticked me off in his piece today when he wrote, that McGwire is not a HoFer because "if he had not played when he did and not done what he did, it's likely injuries would have forced him from baseball..." by that logic, Griffin must not vote for any pitcher who has had TJ as those pitchers would, if they did not play when they did, and done what they did, they'd have been forced from baseball by injury.
How is this different from a pitcher searching out TJ surgery (which we've heard about HS kids)? I don't see it. TJ is a modern, very invasive surgical technique. Steroids, when used and not abused, appropriately are relatively safe drugs compared to many other drugs used by physicians.
The reason why I mention this is because Griffin ticked me off in his piece today when he wrote, that McGwire is not a HoFer because "if he had not played when he did and not done what he did, it's likely injuries would have forced him from baseball..." by that logic, Griffin must not vote for any pitcher who has had TJ as those pitchers would, if they did not play when they did, and done what they did, they'd have been forced from baseball by injury.
How is this different from a pitcher searching out TJ surgery
Well, one of the differences is that Victor Conte actually went to prison for illegal drug distribution. I don't think they're about to round up Dr Andrews.
Well, one of the differences is that Victor Conte actually went to prison for illegal drug distribution. I don't think they're about to round up Dr Andrews.
It's actually fairly remarkable that Conte and Anderson did go to jail. This looks like one of those areas where the law hasn't caught up to the technology. They're inventing new drugs faster than you can ban the old ones, and you end up filing money laundering charges just to be sure you can make something stick. It's a little like going after Al Capone for tax evasion.
Drugs have been and doubtless continue to be designed for the specific purpose of evading modern testing methods. Which sure sounds, from a layman's perspective, something like a criminal conspiracy. But I don't know if that's actually against the law.
Lawyers! Speak!
Drugs have been and doubtless continue to be designed for the specific purpose of evading modern testing methods. Which sure sounds, from a layman's perspective, something like a criminal conspiracy. But I don't know if that's actually against the law.
Lawyers! Speak!
it is entirely conceivable that he could have obtained an MD willing to prescribe steroids
It's hard to fathom that he'd intentionally omit such a thing in his "confession".
It's hard to fathom that he'd intentionally omit such a thing in his "confession".
Magpie, I am certainly not a criminal lawyer, but it does seem that doctors have sometimes faced criminal prosecution for this.
The notion that McGwire was a better player than McGriff is based entirely - entirely - on those five seasons, from 1995-1999. Otherwise, it's absurd.
Yes, but that is selectively throwing out McGwire's best five years at an OPS+ of 191, which rank with the best five years (hitting only) anyone, ever, has managed. Mantle had a five year peak at an OPS+ of 190, and Ruth, Gehrig, Bonds, Williams, and Hornsby surpassed it, but over a five year period, that's incredible. Perhaps McGwire was suited incredibly well to take advantage of his era (like some players likely benefitted more from the amphetamines from the past), but still. Players who have never managed a single year at a 191 OPS+ include Albert Pujols, Ken Griffey Jr, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, Willie Mays...all came close, of course.
If steroids routinely made such feats possible, we would have routinely seen them. McGwire achieved an OPS+ at that level while many others were using too, since he's being compared to a "pumped up" league average. Again, I don't doubt that he was uniquely well suited to power hitting benefits from steroid use, but I also don't think I hold that against him anymore. Willie Mays, sometimes considered the greatest player ever, is supposed to have used and possibly distributed amphetamine, a drug at least as dangerous as steroids. And perhaps he (or others of his era, when use was widespread) benefitted more than most from them. I don't really care at this point, each era is what it was. And a massive peak for McGwire shouldn't be ignored because it suits a narrative.
Yes, but that is selectively throwing out McGwire's best five years at an OPS+ of 191, which rank with the best five years (hitting only) anyone, ever, has managed. Mantle had a five year peak at an OPS+ of 190, and Ruth, Gehrig, Bonds, Williams, and Hornsby surpassed it, but over a five year period, that's incredible. Perhaps McGwire was suited incredibly well to take advantage of his era (like some players likely benefitted more from the amphetamines from the past), but still. Players who have never managed a single year at a 191 OPS+ include Albert Pujols, Ken Griffey Jr, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, Willie Mays...all came close, of course.
If steroids routinely made such feats possible, we would have routinely seen them. McGwire achieved an OPS+ at that level while many others were using too, since he's being compared to a "pumped up" league average. Again, I don't doubt that he was uniquely well suited to power hitting benefits from steroid use, but I also don't think I hold that against him anymore. Willie Mays, sometimes considered the greatest player ever, is supposed to have used and possibly distributed amphetamine, a drug at least as dangerous as steroids. And perhaps he (or others of his era, when use was widespread) benefitted more than most from them. I don't really care at this point, each era is what it was. And a massive peak for McGwire shouldn't be ignored because it suits a narrative.
If steroids routinely made such feats possible, we would have routinely
seen them. McGwire achieved an OPS+ at that level while many others
were using too, since he's being compared to a "pumped up" league
average.
Perhaps. But that means that McGriff is being compared to a "pumped up" league average as well. AWeb, I think you do a decent job of arguing McGwire's case regarding the Hall of Fame, but you do not convince me that McGwire's peak years show that he was a better player than McGriff.
Where saying that a guy like Mac should not be "penalized" for using steroids becomes problematic is when not penalizing the juicers necessarily means penalizing the clean players. Sure, McGwire was the best of the cheaters, but not everyone in the game was cheating. The "pumped up" league average that McGwire is being compared to is not pumped up evenly across the board. A guy like McGriff, by not cheating, brings down the league average, making McGwire's OPS+ look better than it would if everyone was on an even playing field.
And it's not as if McGwire was "uniquely suited" to take advantage of steroids in a way that Fred McGriff was not. There's no way of knowing what McGriff would have done if he had gotten huge. So, what, because McGriff stayed clean and didn't discover the power to get up to, let's say conservatively, OPS+ 160, he does not get hall of fame recognition, whereas a guy like McGwire puts up numbers that are so huge that we give him the benefit of the doubt that even without cheating he would be a HOF talent? That does not seem right to me.
Perhaps. But that means that McGriff is being compared to a "pumped up" league average as well. AWeb, I think you do a decent job of arguing McGwire's case regarding the Hall of Fame, but you do not convince me that McGwire's peak years show that he was a better player than McGriff.
Where saying that a guy like Mac should not be "penalized" for using steroids becomes problematic is when not penalizing the juicers necessarily means penalizing the clean players. Sure, McGwire was the best of the cheaters, but not everyone in the game was cheating. The "pumped up" league average that McGwire is being compared to is not pumped up evenly across the board. A guy like McGriff, by not cheating, brings down the league average, making McGwire's OPS+ look better than it would if everyone was on an even playing field.
And it's not as if McGwire was "uniquely suited" to take advantage of steroids in a way that Fred McGriff was not. There's no way of knowing what McGriff would have done if he had gotten huge. So, what, because McGriff stayed clean and didn't discover the power to get up to, let's say conservatively, OPS+ 160, he does not get hall of fame recognition, whereas a guy like McGwire puts up numbers that are so huge that we give him the benefit of the doubt that even without cheating he would be a HOF talent? That does not seem right to me.
So , if we all look the other way and vote for McGwire, are we not then as guilty as Selig or the reporters or the players or the fans who knew or guessed but did not want to see what was going on ? The one difference, between them and us, is hopefully we know better and that we don't cheat ourselves.
RE: A Trivial Question ... Did my manager err in filling out the lineup card ?
AWeb, steroids appear to take bronze medal winners like Ben Johnson and make them into world record holders. It takes lesser runners and makes them into better ones. If you look at the careers of McGwire and Caminiti, it sure seems to work the same way for hitters.
McGwire's peak is, of course, not unprecedented. Bonds, post 1999, had a historic late peak.
McGwire's peak is, of course, not unprecedented. Bonds, post 1999, had a historic late peak.
McGwire's peak is, of course, not unprecedented. Bonds, post 1999, had a historic late peak.
Semantic point, perhaps, but that means Bonds' peak was not unprecedented, since it came later (thought just a tad) ... McGwire's late peak, unless I am missing someone, truly was unprecedented.
Absolutely right, Mick. The caffeine had not yet worked its magic on me. Hmm, I wonder if the Law Society will institute caffeine testing for lawyers.
...steroids appear to take bronze medal winners like Ben Johnson and make them into world record holders.
Sure, of course they do, if no one else is using. And Ben Johnson appears to have been uniquely suited to the benefits from steroids in his era. But all the other sprinters were using them too, Johnson was just using them stupidly near the Olympics. The US track and field body has been shown to have covered up a long series of test results over most likely decades, and the 1980's for sure. Ben Johnson has said that everyone in the 1988 final was using, and why not believe him? IT's clear that some of the others, including Carl Lewis, were almost certainly cheating as well, they just weren't caught (or as fast while using, apparently).
Am I supposed to hate McGwire more for getting a larger benefit from what most were doing? Obviously, I'd like to see McGriff remembered more fondly than he is, and I assume McGriff stayed clean (buit it wouldn't shock me to learn otherwise, not all steroid users become physically huge like McGwire), but McGwire had those incredible years. They happened, and his best years were from ages 28 to 35. That is hardly an unusual time for peak performance, although his was unusually pronounced. McGriff also had an unusual career, peaking a second time from ages 35-38 (OPS+ 129) after four rather blah years for him from 31-34 (OPS+ 114).
Or to put it so it sounds suspicious (and again, I don't think it is), McGriff had seven years with 30+ HR in a typical peak age (24-30), then four years of declining numbers and production, and then four more years averaging 30 HR in his late thirties.
Sure, of course they do, if no one else is using. And Ben Johnson appears to have been uniquely suited to the benefits from steroids in his era. But all the other sprinters were using them too, Johnson was just using them stupidly near the Olympics. The US track and field body has been shown to have covered up a long series of test results over most likely decades, and the 1980's for sure. Ben Johnson has said that everyone in the 1988 final was using, and why not believe him? IT's clear that some of the others, including Carl Lewis, were almost certainly cheating as well, they just weren't caught (or as fast while using, apparently).
Am I supposed to hate McGwire more for getting a larger benefit from what most were doing? Obviously, I'd like to see McGriff remembered more fondly than he is, and I assume McGriff stayed clean (buit it wouldn't shock me to learn otherwise, not all steroid users become physically huge like McGwire), but McGwire had those incredible years. They happened, and his best years were from ages 28 to 35. That is hardly an unusual time for peak performance, although his was unusually pronounced. McGriff also had an unusual career, peaking a second time from ages 35-38 (OPS+ 129) after four rather blah years for him from 31-34 (OPS+ 114).
Or to put it so it sounds suspicious (and again, I don't think it is), McGriff had seven years with 30+ HR in a typical peak age (24-30), then four years of declining numbers and production, and then four more years averaging 30 HR in his late thirties.
All the other sprinters that Johnson faced were using steroids in 1988? I don't think so. I am sure that many others were.
McGwire and Caminiti used steroids in 1996. I am fairly sure that many others did, but I am also fairly sure that many others did not, at least at that time. And if you want to argue that McGriff's 1999-2002 power resurgence is suspicious, that is fine. But, if you do not see any causality between McGwire's admitted steroid usage and his unprecedented power display, that is where we differ. For myself, the combination of the statistical anomaly and what I saw before and after is more than enough.
McGwire and Caminiti used steroids in 1996. I am fairly sure that many others did, but I am also fairly sure that many others did not, at least at that time. And if you want to argue that McGriff's 1999-2002 power resurgence is suspicious, that is fine. But, if you do not see any causality between McGwire's admitted steroid usage and his unprecedented power display, that is where we differ. For myself, the combination of the statistical anomaly and what I saw before and after is more than enough.
And so what if others are using. Why can't we just have a universal standard of what good sportsmanlike behaviour is and penalize any we catch not adhering to it. Of course you don't catch everyone. Of course some get pilloried more than others or more than they deserve. We're not gods. We're just saying here are the standards if you cheat there are consequences. I really really don't understand what all the apologists for McGwire are on about. He took a risk. He won. He was very happy to live with those consequences. He was discovered. He finally admitted it. But he seems to want it both ways. He makes out like the biggest loser is him. He is a victim of his times. The homers he says are legit.
WHAT???
Earth to Big Mac: You aren't a victim. You cheated and you got caught. Be a man about it.
WHAT???
Earth to Big Mac: You aren't a victim. You cheated and you got caught. Be a man about it.
If you think that McGwire should be in the Hall of Fame, but not McGriff, I really think you need to believe one of three things:
1. McGriff was likely using himself.
2. A clean McGwire would still have been a much better player than McGriff.
3. McGriff should have been using, in order to share the advantage McGwire had in an era where MLB didn't test.
I don't agree at all with any of these three points. But I'm not sure I can think of any other argument for "McGwire in, McGriff out" that isn't truly, fundamentally unfair to Fred McGriff.
All the other sprinters that Johnson faced were using steroids in 1988? I don't think so. I am sure that many others were.
The ones in the final probably all were, and if you don't think that is fair, that's up to you. From what we've seen so far with regards to baseball, only those saying it was far more extensive than anyone liked to think have been shown to be accurate so far.
For the record, again, as I said, McGriff's late career surge was most likely nothing other than some good years from a great player - they happen. McGwire's surge didn't "just happen", it's clearly in a context of steroid use. I never said otherwise, I just was taking issue with characterizing it as unusually late in his career. It wasn't his age that made it unusual, it was the heights he achieved over and above everyone else at the same time.
And so what if others are using.
It's all about what other's are doing in a sport - the level of competition and how far players go is always determined by what the other players are doing (starting in elementary school at recess). There are always those players who will push it an extra bit to gain an advantage over those that won't (who just want to have fun, perhaps). Often they are cheating, or at least getting others to agree to play by the same version of the rules. Pro sports is virtually nothing but those that push the envelope of competition their whole lives, that's who makes it these fields. Again, players have been taking performance enhancing drugs, widely, since the 1960s. Steroids use had taken it too far, and apparently advantaged the hitters too much, and the push back happened in the last five years to some degree.
But I don't hold extreme success in that environment against McGwire much more than I hold pitching stats against guys who had the advantage of the higher mound. You succeed or fail in the environment you are in - steroids were in wide use, and McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, and Bonds seemed to gain the most ridiculous success from them (others had less lofty all-time great heights, but were certainly helped as well).
People liked McGwire, they were excited by his exploits - not just the number of HRs, but the awe-inspiring regularity of his tape-measure blasts. It turned out that he was doing something illegal (although possibly not cheating if the rules in baseball didn't actually ban the drugs he was taking) that others were doing too. People felt betrayed, and turned on him. His exploits made others look minor in comparison. I get it. But I figured he was cheating at the time, and so did a lot of other people.
I don't have to believe that a clean McGwire was better than a clean McGriff to think that McGwire was a better player. They both had a choice to make, and they both made it (probably different choices). McGwire's choice made him a much, much better player than he had been. Did using steroids make McGwire a terrible person? I don't think so. But they certainly made him a better player, a more valuable player, a superior, all-time great (for five years, anyway) player. So yeah, McGriff is "punished" for not taking every advantage he could find to become even better. He chose not to take steroids, many others shared his choice. Unless they were blind, all of those choosing to not take steroids knew the possible consequences of that choice. Integrity and possibly long-term health in exchange for a lesser statistical career and likely less money.
I know people of good faith can disagree on this topic, obviously, so I don't expect to change minds. But at what point does cheating become so rampant that not cheating becomes a bad choice for an athlete? Example - NHL goalie pads were way oversized for many years, way past the rules at the time (they are still huge, but that's a different rant). The rules simply weren't being enforced properly, so goalies had giant shoulder pads, leg pads, gloves, jerseys, etc. For those that didn't make or didn't stick in the NHL because they stuck to regulation equipment, do you congratulate them? I certainly wouldn't.
The ones in the final probably all were, and if you don't think that is fair, that's up to you. From what we've seen so far with regards to baseball, only those saying it was far more extensive than anyone liked to think have been shown to be accurate so far.
For the record, again, as I said, McGriff's late career surge was most likely nothing other than some good years from a great player - they happen. McGwire's surge didn't "just happen", it's clearly in a context of steroid use. I never said otherwise, I just was taking issue with characterizing it as unusually late in his career. It wasn't his age that made it unusual, it was the heights he achieved over and above everyone else at the same time.
And so what if others are using.
It's all about what other's are doing in a sport - the level of competition and how far players go is always determined by what the other players are doing (starting in elementary school at recess). There are always those players who will push it an extra bit to gain an advantage over those that won't (who just want to have fun, perhaps). Often they are cheating, or at least getting others to agree to play by the same version of the rules. Pro sports is virtually nothing but those that push the envelope of competition their whole lives, that's who makes it these fields. Again, players have been taking performance enhancing drugs, widely, since the 1960s. Steroids use had taken it too far, and apparently advantaged the hitters too much, and the push back happened in the last five years to some degree.
But I don't hold extreme success in that environment against McGwire much more than I hold pitching stats against guys who had the advantage of the higher mound. You succeed or fail in the environment you are in - steroids were in wide use, and McGwire, Sosa, Clemens, and Bonds seemed to gain the most ridiculous success from them (others had less lofty all-time great heights, but were certainly helped as well).
People liked McGwire, they were excited by his exploits - not just the number of HRs, but the awe-inspiring regularity of his tape-measure blasts. It turned out that he was doing something illegal (although possibly not cheating if the rules in baseball didn't actually ban the drugs he was taking) that others were doing too. People felt betrayed, and turned on him. His exploits made others look minor in comparison. I get it. But I figured he was cheating at the time, and so did a lot of other people.
I don't have to believe that a clean McGwire was better than a clean McGriff to think that McGwire was a better player. They both had a choice to make, and they both made it (probably different choices). McGwire's choice made him a much, much better player than he had been. Did using steroids make McGwire a terrible person? I don't think so. But they certainly made him a better player, a more valuable player, a superior, all-time great (for five years, anyway) player. So yeah, McGriff is "punished" for not taking every advantage he could find to become even better. He chose not to take steroids, many others shared his choice. Unless they were blind, all of those choosing to not take steroids knew the possible consequences of that choice. Integrity and possibly long-term health in exchange for a lesser statistical career and likely less money.
I know people of good faith can disagree on this topic, obviously, so I don't expect to change minds. But at what point does cheating become so rampant that not cheating becomes a bad choice for an athlete? Example - NHL goalie pads were way oversized for many years, way past the rules at the time (they are still huge, but that's a different rant). The rules simply weren't being enforced properly, so goalies had giant shoulder pads, leg pads, gloves, jerseys, etc. For those that didn't make or didn't stick in the NHL because they stuck to regulation equipment, do you congratulate them? I certainly wouldn't.
So yeah, McGriff is "punished" for not taking every advantage he could find to become even better. He chose not to take steroids, many others shared his choice. Unless they were blind, all of those choosing to not take steroids knew the possible consequences of that choice. Integrity and possibly long-term health in exchange for a lesser statistical career and likely less money.
I don't disagree with this, AWeb. But why should the Hall of Fame bless McGwire's choice, which has the effect of punishing McGriff's choice? McGwire gets to keep all his stats and all his money. Exclusion from the Hall of Fame actually seems like a very small price to pay for his lavish success.
Did using steroids make McGwire a terrible person? I don't think so.
It's important to point out that it's very possible to make the anti-HOF case for Mac without believing him to be a "terrible person." When I got a speeding ticket, it didn't make me a terrible person; but neither did the extent (if any) to which I am a good person exempt me from the consequences of driving over the speed limit.
It's important to point out that it's very possible to make the
anti-HOF case for Mac without believing him to be a "terrible person."
When I got a speeding ticket, it didn't make me a terrible person; but
neither did the extent (if any) to which I am a good person exempt me
from the consequences of driving over the speed limit.
Well said, Mike D. That is exactly the case that I am making.
Parenthetically, I no longer believe that McGriff belongs, not because he wasn't a great hitter (he was). Rather, it is because his overall value, taking into account position, defensive ability and baserunning wasn't high enough. The key item is position. While McGriff arguably would qualify looking at the first basemen who have been admitted by the Hall's standards, the standards do not take sufficient account of the defensive spectrum. And if McGriff doesn't go, neither should McGwire.
Well said, Mike D. That is exactly the case that I am making.
Parenthetically, I no longer believe that McGriff belongs, not because he wasn't a great hitter (he was). Rather, it is because his overall value, taking into account position, defensive ability and baserunning wasn't high enough. The key item is position. While McGriff arguably would qualify looking at the first basemen who have been admitted by the Hall's standards, the standards do not take sufficient account of the defensive spectrum. And if McGriff doesn't go, neither should McGwire.
Exclusion from the Hall of Fame actually seems like a very small price to pay for his lavish success.
I can't actually disagree with that if it was written down somewhere. But the baseball HoF is, in my mind, to celebrate achievements in playing baseball. I've also seen fairly convincing arguments for McGwire being a borderline HoF case not involving much steroid talk. But since when is essentially being banned from the HoF a punishment for taking drugs while playing? I again raise the name of Willie Mays as a well known example of a guy who took greenies before games. Mays >> McGwire, obviously, but still...where's the outrage? I suspect that if McGwire had been caught while playing and punished with a 50 game suspension like some of the current crop, then people would feel like he's been punished and let it go. But because he escaped punishment while playing, the writers have taken it upon themselves. I just think it's a silly thing. Oh, and that McGriff is good enough to put in the HoF anyway. So what if there are tons of firstbasemen there already, that's where great players get stashed to avoid wear and tear.
I can't actually disagree with that if it was written down somewhere. But the baseball HoF is, in my mind, to celebrate achievements in playing baseball. I've also seen fairly convincing arguments for McGwire being a borderline HoF case not involving much steroid talk. But since when is essentially being banned from the HoF a punishment for taking drugs while playing? I again raise the name of Willie Mays as a well known example of a guy who took greenies before games. Mays >> McGwire, obviously, but still...where's the outrage? I suspect that if McGwire had been caught while playing and punished with a 50 game suspension like some of the current crop, then people would feel like he's been punished and let it go. But because he escaped punishment while playing, the writers have taken it upon themselves. I just think it's a silly thing. Oh, and that McGriff is good enough to put in the HoF anyway. So what if there are tons of firstbasemen there already, that's where great players get stashed to avoid wear and tear.
Well, McGwire's peak came at ages 31-35 with his previous peak year being at age 28 with a 176 OPS+ (age 29 was at 225 but just 27 games).
Bonds' peak, on the other hand, came at ages 35-39 (age 40 might have been the same but for an injury). Cut to top 4 years and you get ages 36-39 with an OPS+ of 256 (231-268) when his previous peak was 205 & 204 at ages 27/28 (as per the usual aging patterns). Wow. Those are the top 3 seasons EVER for OPS+ plus the 10th best. Only Ted Williams and Babe Ruth cracked 210 past the age of 30 before these two, with Honus Wagner the only other 200+ guy over the age of 32 (he was 34).
Yeah, what McGwire and Bonds did was way out of the norm - historically so. Williams age 38 season was the only real comparable (1957 OPS+ of 233, just good for 2nd in MVP though to Mickey Mantle). Ruth's late peak came during the live ball era of the very late 20's/early 30's when MLB figured out that homers sold tickets but not enough players had figured out how to do it or that it was that valuable.
Bonds' peak, on the other hand, came at ages 35-39 (age 40 might have been the same but for an injury). Cut to top 4 years and you get ages 36-39 with an OPS+ of 256 (231-268) when his previous peak was 205 & 204 at ages 27/28 (as per the usual aging patterns). Wow. Those are the top 3 seasons EVER for OPS+ plus the 10th best. Only Ted Williams and Babe Ruth cracked 210 past the age of 30 before these two, with Honus Wagner the only other 200+ guy over the age of 32 (he was 34).
Yeah, what McGwire and Bonds did was way out of the norm - historically so. Williams age 38 season was the only real comparable (1957 OPS+ of 233, just good for 2nd in MVP though to Mickey Mantle). Ruth's late peak came during the live ball era of the very late 20's/early 30's when MLB figured out that homers sold tickets but not enough players had figured out how to do it or that it was that valuable.
I'm so rarely an absolutist that this to me feels so open and shut that I'm going there.
It's all about what other's are doing in a sport - the level of competition and how far players go is always determined by what the other players are doing (starting in elementary school at recess).
To say that McGwire did an OK thing to me is akin to saying the executive class in Enron did an OK thing or that the bankers/brokers behind this monetary crisis did an OK thing. Each was in an environment where many were doing whatever it took including immoral and at times illegal things to better themselves. It's understandable and who knows what any of us would have done in similar circumstances.
That's because doing the right thing is HARD. It should be hard. If it was easy it wouldn't be important. Anybody can be moral if there are no potential ill consequences or if there are no competitors ready to bite your head off.
I don't care that fans were entertained. I don't care that watchdogs weren't effective. I don't care about any number of consequences or circumstances.
The important point to me is that you have to make a choice about what's right.
I know I don't always live up to these standards and probably no one does all the time. But to say "everyone else was doing it" or "it was entertaining" or "I was in a competitive environment" is missing the point of what the problem is here.
It's different if you can't feed yourself or your family. But for the rest of us we need to take personal responsibility for our own choices.
It's all about what other's are doing in a sport - the level of competition and how far players go is always determined by what the other players are doing (starting in elementary school at recess).
To say that McGwire did an OK thing to me is akin to saying the executive class in Enron did an OK thing or that the bankers/brokers behind this monetary crisis did an OK thing. Each was in an environment where many were doing whatever it took including immoral and at times illegal things to better themselves. It's understandable and who knows what any of us would have done in similar circumstances.
That's because doing the right thing is HARD. It should be hard. If it was easy it wouldn't be important. Anybody can be moral if there are no potential ill consequences or if there are no competitors ready to bite your head off.
I don't care that fans were entertained. I don't care that watchdogs weren't effective. I don't care about any number of consequences or circumstances.
The important point to me is that you have to make a choice about what's right.
I know I don't always live up to these standards and probably no one does all the time. But to say "everyone else was doing it" or "it was entertaining" or "I was in a competitive environment" is missing the point of what the problem is here.
It's different if you can't feed yourself or your family. But for the rest of us we need to take personal responsibility for our own choices.
Each was in an
environment where many were doing whatever it took including immoral
and at times illegal things to better themselves.
That's where punishment and regulation come in. The rules and testing weren't in place (regulation), so no punishments were possible at the time. Now the baseball writers are punishing McGwire - that's their choice and I obviously don't agree, but it is their right. But what are they going to do with everyone from the era who might have cheated? Those for whom there are no admissions or positive tests, but only suspicion? Because until Monday, that's where McGwire was. And the writers were consistent the last four years with the HoF voting (at least as a whole) with regards to McGwire.
I guess I see the players as entertainers - I don't care what the actors have done in their personal lives or how they got ready for a movie role (and lots and lots of actors have taken steroids to prepare for roles), it's how good the movie is that I care about. If McGwire broke laws, let him be punished by law enforcement. If he broke rules, let baseball (MLB) punish him. But to let the writers do it seems like cowardice on the part of MLB. Enron broke laws, pretended to be making money, and bankrupted thousands, ruining lives. McGwire hit homeruns in front of cheering crowds that paid to see him do it. If not making the HoF is the price, I guess I'd just like to see it officially spelled out, not left up to the whims of the writers.
That's where punishment and regulation come in. The rules and testing weren't in place (regulation), so no punishments were possible at the time. Now the baseball writers are punishing McGwire - that's their choice and I obviously don't agree, but it is their right. But what are they going to do with everyone from the era who might have cheated? Those for whom there are no admissions or positive tests, but only suspicion? Because until Monday, that's where McGwire was. And the writers were consistent the last four years with the HoF voting (at least as a whole) with regards to McGwire.
I guess I see the players as entertainers - I don't care what the actors have done in their personal lives or how they got ready for a movie role (and lots and lots of actors have taken steroids to prepare for roles), it's how good the movie is that I care about. If McGwire broke laws, let him be punished by law enforcement. If he broke rules, let baseball (MLB) punish him. But to let the writers do it seems like cowardice on the part of MLB. Enron broke laws, pretended to be making money, and bankrupted thousands, ruining lives. McGwire hit homeruns in front of cheering crowds that paid to see him do it. If not making the HoF is the price, I guess I'd just like to see it officially spelled out, not left up to the whims of the writers.
I can't actually disagree with that if it was written down somewhere.
In my opinion, it is; HoF voters are supposed to consider "character, integrity and sportsmanship." We may all have different ideas about what that means, but I consider steroids to bear very seriously on these particular criteria.
I again raise the name of Willie Mays as a well known example of a guy who took greenies before games. Mays >> McGwire, obviously, but still...where's the outrage?
Based on what I know, in terms of effect on the game, steroids are to greenies what drunk driving is to parking infractions (and I say this not to trivialize drunk driving with the comparison). Can I prove it? No. It's merely a somewhat educated opinion.
I don't feel at all bound by the relativist slippery slope where steroids are compared to spitballs or cortisone shots or laser eye surgery -- I think steroids are a clear cut above in terms of deliberate, significant and unfair performance enhancement. I feel the same way in terms of steroids vs. amphetamines, but I'd acknowledge that it's a murkier question. I think the bottom line is that one fundamentally changed the game and its statistical framework, and the other didn't.
For Mike D :
4. A dirty McGwire was a much more dominant hitter than McGriff, of whom nothing is known one way or the other.
I don't need to add anything else, because AWeb has been nailing this whole issue.
4. A dirty McGwire was a much more dominant hitter than McGriff, of whom nothing is known one way or the other.
I don't need to add anything else, because AWeb has been nailing this whole issue.
The rules and testing weren't in place (regulation), so no punishments were possible at the time.
This is a very common misconception -- the rules were in place, since 1971. But obviously, the testing wasn't in place, so you're absolutely right about that.
4. A dirty McGwire was a much more dominant hitter than McGriff, of whom nothing is known one way or the other.
That #4 is not a new category. That's a more carefully hedged #1.
AWeb is apparently in the #3 camp, albeit expressing the position more eloquently.
Yeah, that example... dealing in cocaine makes him a more complicated character than the average MD, I'd say.
If McGwire was legitimately injured I don't believe that "off-label" uses of medication are prosecuted or that the college of physicians could object. The use of anti-psychotic medication in aged individuals is a common, and disturbing, example of off-label use.
If McGwire was legitimately injured I don't believe that "off-label" uses of medication are prosecuted or that the college of physicians could object. The use of anti-psychotic medication in aged individuals is a common, and disturbing, example of off-label use.
It's funny. Buck Weaver was banned for life from the game in mid-career for "guilty knowledge", despite having tried his best and playing within the rules. Association with gamblers was rampant in the teens, and the number of players with "guilty knowledge" was probably large.
It seems to me that the sanction of not rewarding illegal behaviour which led to the "Hall of Fame level performance" is, in this context, the most tiny slap on the wrist that I could imagine.
It seems to me that the sanction of not rewarding illegal behaviour which led to the "Hall of Fame level performance" is, in this context, the most tiny slap on the wrist that I could imagine.
I'm curious to see the response of those defending McGwire's actions speak now that we can clearly see that use of steroids was banned in MLB. Since some of them were operating under the impression there were no "clearly" defined rules. It seems the rules were clearly defined, just not the punishments.
Aweb you're really good at defending McGwire. But I think you fail to connect the dots on your own arguments. You say it's OK because so many others were doing it and also it's kind of like wearing goalie pads that are too big. And you go on to say it's just entertainment -- give me the best product, just like in a movie you'd want a hero with a really fast car -- or how about a hero with really big muscles who can hit the ball a mile.
There is a sports world like that and it's called the WWF. All the wrestlers take on a persona that are entertaining and there's absolutely no credibility to anything that happens but everyone feels good in the end (I suppose.) Anyway the bad guy wrestler loses. And they all take steroids, the wrestlers all bring in illegal equipment and break the rules, harass the ref and everyone knows and nobody cares.
But part of the power of real sports is that it's not just made up personalites designed to entertain us and make us feel better about ourselves than we probably should -- it's real people and the outcomes have consequences. And your team loses all the time. And you star player gets injured or traded or makes a key error. Mark McGwire isn't playing someone called Mark McGwire. That's him out there.
And so while real sports are trivial compared to most other things -- they aren't the WWF -- and they have a lot of symbolic power. A LOT. And right now Mark McGwire sounds like a WWF wrestler who thinks he got cheated. And it's really truly embarassing that this guy just can't get over himself enough to say something decent like: "I'm sorry I cheated I'd really like Major League baseball to strip me of my records and give them back to guys who (for all we know) didn't cheat. And I'd like to encourage anyone else who cheated to come forward and say it out loud because it's the right thing to do." That's the fantasy I have.
There is a sports world like that and it's called the WWF. All the wrestlers take on a persona that are entertaining and there's absolutely no credibility to anything that happens but everyone feels good in the end (I suppose.) Anyway the bad guy wrestler loses. And they all take steroids, the wrestlers all bring in illegal equipment and break the rules, harass the ref and everyone knows and nobody cares.
But part of the power of real sports is that it's not just made up personalites designed to entertain us and make us feel better about ourselves than we probably should -- it's real people and the outcomes have consequences. And your team loses all the time. And you star player gets injured or traded or makes a key error. Mark McGwire isn't playing someone called Mark McGwire. That's him out there.
And so while real sports are trivial compared to most other things -- they aren't the WWF -- and they have a lot of symbolic power. A LOT. And right now Mark McGwire sounds like a WWF wrestler who thinks he got cheated. And it's really truly embarassing that this guy just can't get over himself enough to say something decent like: "I'm sorry I cheated I'd really like Major League baseball to strip me of my records and give them back to guys who (for all we know) didn't cheat. And I'd like to encourage anyone else who cheated to come forward and say it out loud because it's the right thing to do." That's the fantasy I have.
My final word on it (need to get work done today) - I'd like to see everyone come forward as well. What bothers me the most is that McGwire is being singled out (well, him and Bonds - doubled out?) for criticism. His apology seemed genuine to me - he might not be the most self-aware guy in the world, but he did what he could, and seemed to be honestly admitting what he did and when. The effects- well, he's kidding himself about them, but it's not a shock he's lacking self-awareness. People have let clearly diningenuous "apologies" from other players slide, apparently because they are still playing and/or didn't break records. No, they just helped decide pennants and World Series through direct participation, which McGwire never managed in his peak. I'm far more pissed that good Jays teams in the late 80's lost to the A's of that era, many of whom were likely already using. Should we take away those pennants and give them to the Jays? No - they happened at the time, as unfair as it might seem in retrospect. Also, take Ortiz and Manny off the mid-decade Sox teams, and the Jays might make the playoffs at some point. Take Pettitte, Sheffield, Giambi, Rodriguez, Clemens off those Yankee teams...it would be nice to get a do-over.
If we knew everyone who was using, which would be from some reports half of the league or more at one point, then perhaps it would be fair to go after all of them. McGwire is being singled out because he out-did everyone else in his era, he seems to have benefitted the most from what was happening, and because he let people down who believed in Mark McGwire - the lovable home run hitting man-giant, instead of Mark McGwire - the suspiciously large baseball player. McGwire wasn't a symbol to me, and I realize he likely was a childhood-era hero for many here (I'm a mid/late-80's sports hero guy...yay Nolan Ryan and Mike Schmidt!) As with other eras, all we can really do is look at the players in context (like OPS+).
And yes, the steroids were banned, but a rule without possible enforcement isn't much of a rule. Speed limits aren't useful useless speeders can be caught. Let's say police lost the use of radar guns tomorrow after a cancer link is established (or something) - does that change how fast you drive? Or more directly, MLB could have enforced the policy through testing or non-testing means, investigating doctors/trainers, screening luggage, etc. They showed no interest in doing so for a very long time. Players understandably got the message - "Sure it's cheating, but you know, wink wink, who's gonna' catch you? And we sure do like the long ball...just saying". That's the reality that brought McGwire (and many others) to where he ended up. Every player either used or knew others were using (I don't think that's an unreasonable statement) - ban them all for "guilty knowledge"?
Yes, HoF voting is explicitly supposed to include character issues, and that's fine. I just think it's silly to hold it against McGwire so specifically.
If we knew everyone who was using, which would be from some reports half of the league or more at one point, then perhaps it would be fair to go after all of them. McGwire is being singled out because he out-did everyone else in his era, he seems to have benefitted the most from what was happening, and because he let people down who believed in Mark McGwire - the lovable home run hitting man-giant, instead of Mark McGwire - the suspiciously large baseball player. McGwire wasn't a symbol to me, and I realize he likely was a childhood-era hero for many here (I'm a mid/late-80's sports hero guy...yay Nolan Ryan and Mike Schmidt!) As with other eras, all we can really do is look at the players in context (like OPS+).
And yes, the steroids were banned, but a rule without possible enforcement isn't much of a rule. Speed limits aren't useful useless speeders can be caught. Let's say police lost the use of radar guns tomorrow after a cancer link is established (or something) - does that change how fast you drive? Or more directly, MLB could have enforced the policy through testing or non-testing means, investigating doctors/trainers, screening luggage, etc. They showed no interest in doing so for a very long time. Players understandably got the message - "Sure it's cheating, but you know, wink wink, who's gonna' catch you? And we sure do like the long ball...just saying". That's the reality that brought McGwire (and many others) to where he ended up. Every player either used or knew others were using (I don't think that's an unreasonable statement) - ban them all for "guilty knowledge"?
Yes, HoF voting is explicitly supposed to include character issues, and that's fine. I just think it's silly to hold it against McGwire so specifically.