Listening to a discussion about Mark McGwire's qualifications for the Hall of Fame on XM Radio's Hot Stove with Chuck Wilson, I couldn't help noticed the guest, Joe Sheehan from Baseball Prospectus, held his opinion much more passionately than the host of the show did.
It reminded me of a conversation we had a few weeks ago regarding scouts vs stats where a commentor said the statsheads come off as arrogant. (operational definition of "stathead": works at Baseball Prospectus.)
Mr. Sheehan definitely came off as...more passionate and convinced of his position. (ed: Isn't that almost the same thing as "arrogant"?) The host made a point that I find very wise. There are 15 years to determine whether McGwire should be in the HoF. What is the rush to place him permanently in the Hall?
The host also mentioned that McGwire's OBP coincided with his tremendous boost in HR totals. Mr. Sheehan didn't like that argument. I wish I knew his side better because I tend towards agreeing with the host. If a pitcher knows a hitter crushes the ball, isn't that pitcher more likely to pitch around the hitter?
Anywho, if a travesty of justice is visited upon McGwire by his exclusion from the Hall of Fame, wouldn't it become obvious with a year to stew on it? There is knowledge to be gained by being wrong.
Some would even say that I made a mistake by ranking Red Sox's catcher Jason Varitek so low. With that additional information, I can learn and apply it to my current rankings, couldn't I? And given I have just under three months until my draft, I could correct that mistake and be more confident in my belief.