• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Do you think Mark McGwire should be in the Hall of Fame?

Jump to latest Follow Reply

Do you think Mark McGwire should be in the Hall of Fame?

  • Yes, he deserves it

    Votes: 26 41.3%

  • No, He lied and should be treated like Pete Rose

    Votes: 30 47.6%

  • I don't have an opinion

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I really don't care

    Votes: 7 11.1%
  • Total voters
    63
Sort by date Sort by votes
Earlier I said:
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;693099; said:
.... Lets contrast that with an obvious hall choice - Ty Cobb. (who, incidentally, is the career leader in Bill James' category "runs produced" which for some reason disregards the HR, and instead looks at Runs + RBI MINUS HR, which I don't understand... I can understand not counting HRs at all, in that the produced run is accounted for in the RBI, but subtracting them? That, to me, punishes power hitters for no reason... the run was still created)
Click to expand...

Figured out why he subtracts HRs from this statistic. A player's own run is captured twice in the Runs + RBI part. Obviously Runs are a player's own runs, and his own HR induced run is reflected in his RBI total also, thus his HR runs are represented twice, not just once as I earlier didn't notice. So, it is sensible to subtract HRs from the total.
 
Upvote 0
mooktarr;695212; said:
Mark refused to testify. Including not disputing Canseco.
Jose Canseco said Mark used them
Click to expand...

A failure of testimony is not proof of that which was not testified about.

Not sure Canseco should be held up as credible, either.
What you have is a belief, and you're entitled to it, of course. It's still not proof.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;695227; said:
A failure of testimony is not proof of that which was not testified about.

Not sure Canseco should be held up as credible, either.
What you have is a belief, and you're entitled to it, of course. It's still not proof.
Click to expand...

What do you think you are, an attorney?:wink2:
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;695227; said:
A failure of testimony is not proof of that which was not testified about.

Not sure Canseco should be held up as credible, either.
What you have is a belief, and you're entitled to it, of course. It's still not proof.
Click to expand...
There is just as much believe in this poll against Mcgwire as there was against Rose and that is what initially kept Rose out.
No keep him out.
 
Upvote 0
mooktarr;695212; said:
Mark refused to testify. Including not disputing Canseco.
Jose Canseco said Mark used them
Click to expand...

BTW - in terms of "not disputing Canseco"

Now that both Canseco and Giambi have admitted steroid use, is
it that far fetched to believe that McGwire used as well. McGwire
has immediately denied Canseco?s claim and former coach Tony
Larussa and former teammate Terry Steinbach have both come to
McGwire?s defense. Both stated that McGwire was an intense
gym rat that never put on a tremendous amount of muscle in any
short period of time.
Link
 
Upvote 0
McGwire implicated himself more with what he didn't say in court. That as much as said I'm guilty. He should not be in, more so because he wasn't a great baseball player. He was completely one dimensional, HR or nothing mostly. Was below average when playing 1B and had no base running ability. When comparing players I could name at least 25 position players that are still playing that are far better than McGwire ever was. Obviously I vote no.
 
Upvote 0
The Man;695285; said:
McGwire implicated himself more with what he didn't say in court. That as much as said I'm guilty. He should not be in, more so because he wasn't a great baseball player. He was completely one dimensional, HR or nothing mostly. Was below average when playing 1B and had no base running ability. When comparing players I could name at least 25 position players that are still playing that are far better than McGwire ever was. Obviously I vote no.
Click to expand...

I think your opinion is fine for what it's worth, but I have to insist that a failure of testimony on an issue is not proof of the truth of that issue. It's just as easy to say, as they said about Bush's cocaine use (which he also failed to address), he didn't testify regarding the truth as he found the question not worthy of a response. Now, I'm not arguing that was his reason, I'm simply saying there are a lot of reasons why one might not testify on an issue. It's why we have a 5th Amendment (And, no, I'm not arguing that the 5th is relevant in this context (though it would have been before Congress, but I guess McGwire refused to invoke it)).

Tyrus did a good job earlier in this thread outlining McGwire's "credentials" other than HRs.

You're welcome to your opinion, of course. It just pisses me off when people offer as "proof" an absence of evidence. Probably the lawyer side of me.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;695289; said:
I think your opinion is fine for what it's worth, but I have to insist that a failure of testimony on an issue is not proof of the truth of that issue. It's just as easy to say, as they said about Bush's cocaine use (which he also failed to address), he didn't testify regarding the truth as he found the question not worthy of a response. Now, I'm not arguing that was his reason, I'm simply saying there are a lot of reasons why one might not testify on an issue. It's why we have a 5th Amendment (And, no, I'm not arguing that the 5th is relevant in this context (though it would have been before Congress, but I guess McGwire refused to invoke it)).

Tyrus did a good job earlier in this thread outlining McGwire's "credentials" other than HRs.

You're welcome to your opinion, of course. It just pisses me off when people offer as "proof" an absence of evidence. Probably the lawyer side of me.
Click to expand...
I have read through this entire thread and one thing is clear, I am right and you are wrong. :wink2:
 
Upvote 0
I believe that people who break the rules hurt the game. I believe that people who believe that people who break the rules should get the rewards hurt the game.
There is no difference between sports. Players should all be treated the same and the game itself should be as pure as driven snow. That means that anyone who casts doubt , or dirt, on "the game should not be eliglble for largesse.
I believe that Mark used steroids. So in this poll ,which is asking for my opinion, and until something changes my mind, I would not let him in.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top