I don’t know how many baseball fans there are here, but Mark McGwire was denied a spot in the Hall of Fame this year. He received less than 25% of the votes when 75% are needed to make it in.
Personally, I disagree. His numbers say he should be in. He’s never been caught using. Even if he did juice, it was before baseball banned it. Also, he helped revive baseball and the love of the game in 1998.
I really don’t see how he gets kept out. Was he really denied based on suspicion only? I think the writers didn’t vote him so they can also not vote for Barry Bonds(who, even though I can’t stand the guy, definitely deserves to be in the hall).
I love how the writers are so quick to pass judgement, too, based mostly on size gains. To them, certain players “just look like” they juice. What about Cal Ripken? The guy played over 2,000 straight games. Isn’t it possible(likely?) that he had some “assistance” with his recovery?
If the sports writers chose not to vote him in for steroid reasons, they are voting against baseball.
Baseball today would not be where it would be without the home run race and the home run era between McGwire and Sosa. He brought baseball back from the strike of 1994 where fans and writers lost hope in baseball. Baseball’s popularity was an all time low after the strike. Arguably, he brought the game to the forefront of America.
McGwire did not cheat on Baseball. The rules set out by MLB at the time didn’t include steroids. He might of broke the law, but he didn’t cheat the game. He played by baseballs rules.
If you don’t vote in McGwire and question the numbers of home runs of other athletes in this generation, you must now look at the numbers from the past.
Home run hitters like Jim Rice and Andre Dawson didn’t live in the steroid era and don’t have numbers that have been inflated. The steroid era brought inflated numbers and voters now must readjust these numbers for players in their era.
Rice and Dawson should be in the HOF based on their numbers alone before the steroid era. It’s crazy that they are not.
Considering how many degenerate womanizing drunkards there are in the hall, the fact that perhaps the greatest power hitter of all time is being barred due solely to SUSPICION is absurd. Had he failed testing during his career, you could make a case. However, considering that no testing even existed at that point is absurd. It’s based on the merit of play, not on the quality of the person.
And besides, I’m sure there were numerous pitchers that he was batting against that were juiced up as well, so it wasn’t a one-sided problem.
First of all, steroids have never been allowed in baseball. The issue was always an actual testing program, which was not happening due to the ungodly strength of the MLB players union.
Second, I think it is fairly clear that McGwire used. I’m not talking about just the notion of size on his part, since that is not nearly enough to go on. While there is no clear test result to go on or patent admission by McGwire, circumstances certainly show otherwise.
The stats:
He has a sudden power jump (although not a slouch prior to that point) in 1996 at the age of 32 and then his numbers only go up at that point. Sure, we can talk about better conditioning or supplements or whatever, but from 1996 on, those are some radically increased numbers at an age when 90% of the players begin to show signs of some decline.
In addition, while you certainly cannot convict anyone in a court of law on such testimony, the fact that McGwire horrifically stumbled through the congressional steroid hearings with pretty weak, incoherent and incredibly evasive statements tells me a lot. He could not answer a single direct question posed to him, so if he really never used… why was it such a problem?
I have absolutely zero problem if people decide to make the choice in their own lives to use steroids. No big deal to me. I do, however, have a problem with it in athletics (even though they still remain prevalent) because it taints the achievements of all players, clean or not. In addition, all sports (outside of the Olympia which ain’t a sport) have rules against steroids… so if you go ahead and use anyway, you’re an idiot and I cannot drum up much sympathy for you on my part.
I know a lot of people on this site (which is clearly a lot more pro-steroid than the general public) will disagree with me on this, and that’s fine.
To me, the black eye on baseball was the looking the other way of owners, players, the union and fans… not the fact McGwire didn’t make it into the HOF.
Also, don’t be surprised if McGwire makes it in on a ballot in the future…
How are they[the vaunted sports WRITERS, not sports doers] supposed to determine who used steroids and didn’t during their careers prior to testing? Keeping Big mac out is pure bullshit. No one who played in the league during the 80’s and beyond is above suspicion, do we keep all of them out? What happens when Bonds’ turn comes?
[quote]throwloud wrote:
Considering how many degenerate womanizing drunkards there are in the hall, the fact that perhaps the greatest power hitter of all time is being barred due solely to SUSPICION is absurd. Had he failed testing during his career, you could make a case. However, considering that no testing even existed at that point is absurd. It’s based on the merit of play, not on the quality of the person.
[/quote]
But that’s really two different arguments though, right? You have the “Lawrence Taylor” side of things where you decide whether or not the quality of the person matters. So there, it’s a great players but a less-than-stellar human being.
In the McGwire example, it’s not about him as a quality of a person as much about whether or not he used a banned substance to achieve an unfair competitive advantage.
Hey if they’re gonna let McGwire in on his blatant abuse of steroids then they had better lift the ridiculous ban on Pete Rose, who in my opinion should have been instated YEARS ago!
[quote]juicyfruitred wrote:
Hey if they’re gonna let McGwire in on his blatant abuse of steroids then they had better lift the ridiculous ban on Pete Rose, who in my opinion should have been instated YEARS ago![/quote]
Blatant use of steroids…you should probably have to prove that, much like Rose’s gambling infractions were proven
Home run hitters like Jim Rice and Andre Dawson didn’t live in the steroid era and don’t have numbers that have been inflated. The steroid era brought inflated numbers and voters now must readjust these numbers for players in their era.
Rice and Dawson should be in the HOF based on their numbers alone before the steroid era. It’s crazy that they are not.
[/quote]
Great point.
One point that I would like to make is that people like to downplay the accomplishments of “alleged” users, when in fact the steroids themselves don’t make it any easier to hit a baseball. People don’t like to mention that the obviously- clean- beanpole Mark McGwire hit 49 dingers as a rookie in 1987. Merely making contact with a 95 MPH fastball is a very difficult task, and you can’t tell me that steroids helps one to make contact with the ball. Whether he juiced or not has much to do with his career stats, but the guy would have had a HOF career regardless. That goes for Bonds, too.
P.S. With the recent revelations of all the pitchers that were juicing too, was the playing field tilted in one direction?
[quote]Kuz wrote:
First of all, steroids have never been allowed in baseball. The issue was always an actual testing program, which was not happening due to the ungodly strength of the MLB players union.
[/quote]
Do you know where I can find evidence of this?
All I found was this;
A memo circulated in 1991 by baseball commissioner Fay Vincent said, “The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is strictly prohibited … [and those players involved] are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game… This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids?”[6] Some general managers of the time do not remember this memo, and it was not emphasized or enforced.
The same article states; …that amphetamines, usually in the form of pep pills known as “greenies”, had been widespread in baseball since at least the 1960s. Baseball’s drug scene was no particular secret, having been discussed in Sports Illustrated and in Jim Bouton’s groundbreaking book Ball Four…
[quote]Kuz wrote:
First of all, steroids have never been allowed in baseball. The issue was always an actual testing program, which was not happening due to the ungodly strength of the MLB players union.
Second, I think it is fairly clear that McGwire used. I’m not talking about just the notion of size on his part, since that is not nearly enough to go on. While there is no clear test result to go on or patent admission by McGwire, circumstances certainly show otherwise.
The stats:
He has a sudden power jump (although not a slouch prior to that point) in 1996 at the age of 32 and then his numbers only go up at that point. Sure, we can talk about better conditioning or supplements or whatever, but from 1996 on, those are some radically increased numbers at an age when 90% of the players begin to show signs of some decline.[/quote]
I don’t think the jump is that huge and I think a big part of it can be attributed to the fact he was staying healthy. Also, don’t dismiss the fact that he was traded the following year. Many players have shown production increase after being traded into a favorable environment.
[quote]
In addition, while you certainly cannot convict anyone in a court of law on such testimony, the fact that McGwire horrifically stumbled through the congressional steroid hearings with pretty weak, incoherent and incredibly evasive statements tells me a lot. He could not answer a single direct question posed to him, so if he really never used… why was it such a problem?[/quote]
Here I completely agree with you. His testimony was very weak. It’s too bad, too, because this is where he was convicted in the court of public opinion.
[quote]
I have absolutely zero problem if people decide to make the choice in their own lives to use steroids. No big deal to me. I do, however, have a problem with it in athletics (even though they still remain prevalent) because it taints the achievements of all players, clean or not. In addition, all sports (outside of the Olympia which ain’t a sport) have rules against steroids… so if you go ahead and use anyway, you’re an idiot and I cannot drum up much sympathy for you on my part.[/quote]
All sports? I would agree if you said “most,” but not “all.” That aside, personally, I like to see what is humanly possible, chemically assisted or not. I want to see monster numbers and and athletic freaks roaming the field.
Most people agree with me, too. Unfortunately the demonizing of steroids has made people think thats not what they want. The home run race of 1998 was sensational. Baseball loved it and the fans loved it. It’s just now that people are looking back and questioning themselves. In 1998, no one was worried about steroids involvement in the production that season.
[quote]
I know a lot of people on this site (which is clearly a lot more pro-steroid than the general public) will disagree with me on this, and that’s fine.
To me, the black eye on baseball was the looking the other way of owners, players, the union and fans… not the fact McGwire didn’t make it into the HOF.
Also, don’t be surprised if McGwire makes it in on a ballot in the future…[/quote]
I agree with this. I think he’ll definitely be in in a year or two. I think the writers were just trying to make a statement this year, albeit a weak one.
My biggest problem with the while thing is the guesswork being done by the writers. It’s not fair and it’s wrong to just sit back and point figures, guessing who juiced and who didn’t. Who are they to make that determination, especially when so many of the writers are completely ignorant on the subject.
Last year, with Ryan Howard chasing 61, many people claimed, if he did pass 61, he should be the real record holder since he is “obviously clean.” That’s ignorance at its best. You can’t tell just by looking at a person.
Another point is the juicing of pitchers. I know two wrongs doesn’t make a right, but don’t you think that kind of evens things out?
Finally, I hate the comparisons to players of yesteryear. It was a different time then. We know so much more about the human body know. The numbers have increased across the board in all sports. That isn’t steroids, that’s evolution.
[quote]Nick Danger wrote:
Did you see McGuire’s testimony to congress?
It’s pretty obvious he did use steroids.
He evaded the question. If innocent why not say so? To his credit he didn’t lie or pretend he didn’t speak english like Sosa.
Sosa is probably a steroids cheater (he was definately a corked bat cheater).
Andre Dawson should be in - for his numbers, for signing a blank contract with the cubs and then being MVP on a last place team that same year!
Dawson is an example of what baseball should be, McGuire is an example of what it should not be.
Ron Santo should be in too.
Yes, I’m a cubs fan.
[/quote]
Good points here. I’d also like to point out… how many of you have grandparents that are still alive or that you can remember a fair bit about? Now while you may think McGuire should be in, if your grandparents knew the whole story as well, do you think they’d want him in?
Past generations based a lot more on honor and integrity than current ones. I’m 25, for the record, not some old fart preaching here. Agree or disagree, I think that plays a role here.
[quote]eclypse wrote:
Nick Danger wrote:
Did you see McGuire’s testimony to congress?
It’s pretty obvious he did use steroids.
He evaded the question. If innocent why not say so? To his credit he didn’t lie or pretend he didn’t speak english like Sosa.
Sosa is probably a steroids cheater (he was definately a corked bat cheater).
Andre Dawson should be in - for his numbers, for signing a blank contract with the cubs and then being MVP on a last place team that same year!
Dawson is an example of what baseball should be, McGuire is an example of what it should not be.
Ron Santo should be in too.
Yes, I’m a cubs fan.
Good points here. I’d also like to point out… how many of you have grandparents that are still alive or that you can remember a fair bit about? Now while you may think McGuire should be in, if your grandparents knew the whole story as well, do you think they’d want him in?
Past generations based a lot more on honor and integrity than current ones. I’m 25, for the record, not some old fart preaching here. Agree or disagree, I think that plays a role here.[/quote]
What about old-timers that used sandpaper/file boards/thumbtacks to doctor the ball (Gaylord Perry, and others)
What about old-timers that used amphetamines? A report stating that amphetamine use has been in baseball since the 60’s has been put out.
And how the hell is some one’s non-admission in a congressional hearing supposed to condemn him? Screw that, if we condemn mcgwire and keep him out, then no other hitter or pitcher of that era goes in as not ever hitter or pitcher had to appear before a congressional panel and be questioned on their use of performance enhancers, utter bullshit.
If there is a cloud of suspicion over mcgwire, there is a cloud of suspicion over everyone as there is no definitive way to say who used and who didn’t. maybe Ripken and Gwynn used but they just weren’t asked. Palmeiro said he didn’t and we saw where that got him.
PS-Ron Santo does not belong in the Hall of Fame, this isn’t a frickin Oprah Book of the month giveaway…with all the assholes the Hall of Fame has in it, how can you claim a moral standing as any point of argument…Ty Cobb anyone?
I don’t feel sorry for McGwire at all. Ripken and Gwynn were class acts and the writers didn’t want McGwire in their company. Personally I think McGwire is too self-centered to care. His disappearance from the public eye and that stupid testimony last year made that apparent.
I’m disappointed that Goose Gossage isn’t in yet. I’m not completely sold on Jim Rice and Andre Dawson, but Dawson was quite a good hitter when I was a kid.
[quote]BFBullpup wrote:
I don’t feel sorry for McGwire at all. Ripken and Gwynn were class acts and the writers didn’t want McGwire in their company. Personally I think McGwire is too self-centered to care. His disappearance from the public eye and that stupid testimony last year made that apparent.[/quote]
I think Ripken and Gwynn were obviously juicing. Why do they get a free pass?