HoF ballot released...

[Stroehms]

You can't ignore his Slugging and OPS.

How about having extreme success in both leagues?

[Coug00]

Quote: Originally Posted by Tomahawk

How about these meaningless talents for McGwire since fielding doesn't matter? Career Rankings... On Base Percentage: .394 - 77th best and not bad for a career .263 hitter Slugging Percentage: .588 - 9th best OPS: .982 - 11th best

Its not that fielding doesn't matter, its that Gold Gloves are the most useless award in all of sports. When its no longer a popularity contest and actually awarded based upon someone's play in the field the GG award will become credible.

I'm not a huge fan of taking HR's, OBP, SLG, and OPS and comparing them against players over the last 110 years of baseball. At the end of McGwire's career the game was completely different even from when he entered the league in '87. Apples and Oranges. The best you can do for those kinds of numbers is comparing them against his peers during the same era.
McGwire's HOF Monitor Rating is favorable for him as a HOF'er, however, looking at other's ratings he falls behind players like Piazza, Palmiero, Ichiro. And he's slightly ahead of players like Craig Biggio, Jeff Bagwell, Gary Sheffield, Jim Thome, and Larry Walker. Do you think all of those players are Hall worthy?

Its close with Mac...anybody could argue either way and have a very fair argument. Unfortunately for him, he's got the "steroid" stigma hanging over his head.

[CMH]

Who said I was ignoring his other stats? I only said he had one talent and that was hitting homeruns.

Surely, a guy with 600 homeruns is going to have a high SLG and OBP.

He was very good at drawing walks and hitting homeruns. There.

Still don't consider him a Hall of Famer. Very good player? Heck yea. I'd want Mack on my team without a doubt. But I also want Adam Dunn on my team and I don't think he's a potential Hall of Famer.

As for fielding...gosh if we must. Gold Gloves are totally useless. They measure popularity moreso than fielding ability. Mark McGwire might not have been a cement block at 1B, but he wasn't exactly nimble either. I have no arguments against his fielding, though. He was solid enough from what I recall.

[EnigmaNemesis]

Quote: Originally Posted by stroehmerbasebal

Uh, Babe Ruth hit .393 one year and had a career average of .342 http://www.baseball-almanac.com/play...php?p=ruthba01 McGwire didn't have those numbers but he was part of baseball's resurrection.

I understand that, and guys were also not throwing 95+ MPH back then, or had the range of most players do now.

Not to mention the juiced ball was part of the resurrection as well.

*runs and hides*

[Stroehms]

Quote: Originally Posted by EnigmaNemesis

I understand that, and guys were also not throwing 95+ MPH back then, or had the range of most players do now. Not to mention the juiced ball was part of the resurrection as well. *runs and hides*

What? I find that highly doubtful.

[EnigmaNemesis]

Quote: Originally Posted by stroehmerbasebal

What? I find that highly doubtful.

When you hear old timers talk about pitchers of today, they say they are lucky they never seen heat that "common" in the league. (they could also just be talking very modest)

And just look at their windups ... most of the funky windups could not incorporate that much velocity just for pure mechanics reasoning ... but it was more for deception of the release points.

But we will never know without a gun... all I know is the old videos I watched, the ball never popped like it does now. Or those small gloves they had, there would be many broken hands on the catchers.

[Stroehms]

Quote: Originally Posted by EnigmaNemesis

When you hear old timers talk about pitchers of today, they say they are lucky they never seen heat that "common" in the league. (they could also just be talking very modest) And just look at their windups ... most of the funky windups could not incorporate that much velocity just for pure mechanics reasoning ... but it was more for deception of the release points. But we will never know without a gun... all I know is the old videos I watched, the ball never popped like it does now. Or those small gloves they had, there would be many broken hands on the catchers.

Ok I gotcha.

My dad collects old-school gloves and has a couple of catchers mitts. The things are huge, idk how they caught with them. Maybe 2 hands? Idk, lol.

Ex:

[EnigmaNemesis]

ROFL I know what you mean ... I actually wore one when I was doing a piece for old school baseball gear ... and let me tell you ... the padding around the rim was great, though hard to catch if you were not dead on ... but if you caught with it dead center ... OUCH! The center had no room for error.

I am sure it was a art where they would squeeze the ball just as it hit to absorb the impact.

Then again, you look at the Marines in WWII ... and how rugged us men were 80 years ago ... they sure dont make them like they used to.

So I dunno how those guys could have sustained constant 90+ MPH pitches back then.