The Baseball Writers’ Association of America made a bold statement last week: Steroids are not welcome into the Hall of Fame. This is the sole reason that Mark McGwire was not allowed in, because his numbers alone are more than worthy of being inducted.
McGwire’s stats are mind-boggling. This is a guy who hit 49 home runs with Oakland as a rookie and never looked back. He's seventh all-time in home runs with 583. He's ninth all-time in slugging percentage (.588), and 11th all time in OPS (.982). It's impossible to believe that a player with these credentials could be rejected from the Hall of Fame solely based on statistics, unless the voters are extremely dense. No, it was because of the juice, and the suspicion that steroids boosted these numbers.
And understandably so. Baseball fans have a right to be incredibly suspicious of McGwire. After looking at his statistics of homeruns per at bats during his five prime seasons in succession (87'-91', while he was 24-28 years old), Mcgwire went yard every 14.87 at bats. After age 28 he started to slowly decline, which is normal as a player gets older. But taking samples of his twilight years as I like to call them ( 97'-01', while he was 34-38 years old), his homerun per at bat total jumped to an astounding homerun every 7.9 at bats. This is a very suspicious phenomenon, and one that should no doubt be looked under with skepticism. It is possible McGwire’s career resembles a fine wine, getting much better with age, just highly unlikely. But however improbable that career path is, the idea that Big Mac accomplished these feats using the juiced is nothing more than a suspicion.
McGwire’s rejection from the hall of fame brings up a very interesting issue. If The Baseball Writer's is discriminating against a likely steroids user, that means that based on principle, they must reject a whole generation of talent.
Barry Bonds, a sure Hall of Fame inductee prior to the steroid allegations, must be turned away if McGwire was, because Bonds is under more scrutiny for 'roids than McGwire, having broken the homerun total . This also means that writers would be rejecting Sammy Sosa, fifth all-time in home runs (588), and Raphael Palmeiro (9th all-time with 569).
Would Frank Thomas (23rd all time with 487 home runs) and Ken Griffey Jr. (10th all time with 563) also be rejected? Thomas did just hit 39 home runs out of no where for Oakland at age 38 last season. But it seems like Griffey and Thomas aren't under as much suspicion, but for all the fans know, they are just as likely to be on steroids as guys like Bonds, Sosa, and McGwire, based on their strong performance at a late age.
As I examined more statistics on these other players similar to what I did with McGwire, I came to the conclusion that the Hall of Fame must now reject Barry Bonds, Rafael Palmeiro, and Frank Thomas. Each of these players had very similar career paths as McGwire, hitting more home runs per at-bat than in their prime years (taking their five best years in succession and comparing it to their last five years of play).
But regardless of the levels of suspicion, there is still no hard evidence to ensure that McGwire definitely took steroids. He was rejected from the Hall of Fame based on suspicion. This suspicion may keep out a whole generation of talent, but deservingly so?
The effect of steroids on hitting is a hazy issue. Although steroids and supplements can pad stats, they are not all that goes into hitting. Steroids do not put a baseball player into the Hall of Fame. Players like McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, and Palmeiro were performing at extremely high levels very early in their careers. Their stats prior to steroid suspicion reflect this.
Let's assume that Mark McGwire did in fact use steroids for the last five years of his career, and they helped him hit and average of ten more home runs per year, for a total of fifty more in his career. If we subtract that fifty from his career total to give him a non-supplement career, that would give him 533, which would rank him 15th all time – right ahead of Willie McCovey. Five hundred and thirty-three still clearly still puts him into very favorable hall of Fame contention.
Jose Canseco took steroids and he's not going to get into the hall, as well as many other players like Ken Caminiti. There are countless small name players who were suspended for violating MLB's substance abuse policy, who even with 'roids aren't even close to Cooperstown.
A player who is surrounded by suspicions of steroid use is labeled as a cheater, but conventional players have huge advantages over past generations even if they don't take steroids. Players nowadays can legally take hundreds of other performance supplements, in addition to advanced diet options, and weight lifting that athletes in past eras didn't have access to. Every player who's on the field has an advantage over players of the past generation as a result of better information.
Ambiguous allegations that these advantages give a player a certain number of home runs over a career are unproven. How can we say what the clear-cut effects of steroids on a player's home run total are? And can a combination of other legal supplements complement weight lifting to give a player a similar advantages as of steroids? Are all the players who lift weights and take creatine cheaters? No one really knows the answers to these questions because they're hazy and complicated.
Players of today's generation are being punished severely based on suspicion and unclear assumptions to the exact effects of steroids on baseball players. But let's remember, this generation will be denied a pass into baseball immortality on a suspicion.
You can contact Erik at erik.zawojski@gmail.com.