A New Statistic

Baseball writers have nothing to write about in January, so they write about the Hall of Fame. I don't have much to write about either, so I write about writers writing about the Hall of Fame. It's a vicious cycle.

Today's selection is Steve Gorches, who is going to explain why Mark McGwire shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame (via BBTF).

"Sorry, but unlike some of my colleagues in this business -- those who have a Hall of Fame ballot but might not use it -- it's not about the inflated muscles.

With Mark McGwire, it's all about his flawed numbers.

McGwire has gotten exactly 128 votes (23 percent) each of the last two years in hall of fame voting. It should never get any higher and any intelligent baseball fan can see it with his or her own two eyes."

It immediately becomes clear that I am not an intelligent baseball fan. Neither is he. Nor he. Not intelligent.

It's always good to start an article by a) apologizing, and b) insulting the majority of your audience.

"Big Mac" had 583 home runs, but those are the most worthless 583 home runs in Major League Baseball history. In fact, no one who has hit more than 500 home runs is as worthless as McGwire."

When I read this, I figured we were going to get the A-Rod "not clutch" argument- all his HRs were in the 8th innings when his team was down 7-1. I was wrong.

"His 583 towering shots were almost 36 percent of his career hits total of 1,626."

I absolutely love how baseball writers completely ignore VORP, EqA, Win Shares, etc., because those are stupid, geeky stats made up by guys who have never seen a baseball game in their lives. They say that you can't look at numbers; you have to watch the games.

They proceed either to cite Wins, RBIs, and batting average to make their points, or make up these ridiculous "formulas".

This one is fantastic. "High slugging % = selfish & bad."

"That's right, he had only 1,626 hits. You tell me a Hall of Famer who had that only many hits."

Okay. There are plenty. Ralph Kiner. Hack Wilson. You know why they're in the Hall of Fame? Because they hit at lot of HRs and walked a lot. Too bad McGwire doesn't bring either of those things to the table.

Also- do we not have editors anymore? When did this happen?

"It's also easily the highest percentage of any player with more than 500 career home runs."

Let's be clear on what Gorches is saying here. McGwire had 583 HRs, and 1,626 hits; 35.9% of his hits were HRs. If 83 of those homers had been singles, his SLG would go from .588 to .548. This would *help* his Hall of Fame case, because his HR/H ratio would decrease to 30.8%.

Eddie Murray had 504 HRs and 3,255 hits in 11,336 career ABs. McGwire produced his totals in 6,187 ABs. So:

AB/HR: McGwire 10.6, Murray 22.5

But Murray's homers are "worth" more, because (remember, a high percentage is bad!):

HR/H: McGwire, 35.9%, Murray 15.5%

You know what this reminds me of?

"Raines’ case was hurt by his reluctance to run in all situations, as Rickey Henderson did. Raines seemed at times too concerned about preserving his stolen-base percentage."

Steve Gorches and Gerry Fraley should be friends.

Edit: My brother points out a portion of Gorches' article that I forgot to include:

"The lowest number of hits for a 500-home run guy is 1,925 by Jim Thome of the White Sox, but he's still playing. So he can improve that number a little."

He is getting old, so his HR rate will likely decrease. This is an improvement. Unbelievable.