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

[Thump]

I never said, "take away his 500 HRs and see how good he is." I recognize that the homers are his credentials for the Hall - but they are his only credentials. I just don't find his numbers to be all that compelling considering the factors which allowed him to hit so many. If he had something else on his resume... like, I don't know, "great ambassador of the game".... maybe that would be sufficient for me. But he and others like him have had a terrible impact on the game and I fail to see how that is not important.

You can't use MJ as an example. It's absurd. That's where you lose credibility. His point totals are compelling. His leadership was compelling. His championships are beyond compelling. And, despite the fact that he had plenty of skeletons in his closet, he was a great ambassador of the game.

Sorry if I pointed out that your invocation of Michael Jordan was way of the mark.

The dude's Top 10 in MLB history for homers, what other credentials does he need?

 

[Thump]

A link to batting averages of all time HR leaders.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlbhist/alltime/leaders?breakdown=2&year=0&type=0&sort=8


If McGwire doesn't deserve to be in on numbers then I guess guys like Reggie Jackson, Harmon Killebrew and Mike Schmidt don't deserve entry as either.

 

[OH10]

The dude's Top 10 in MLB history for homers, what other credentials does he need?

1. Those numbers are inflated as I've stated many times. It's not really debatable. I've always been adverse to saying that there is some magic number to admittance into the Hall of Fame.

2. He didn't have a positive impact on the game. In fact, he's had quite the opposite. His record breaking year, in my opinion, is the second biggest black mark on baseball of the last 25 years outside of the '94 strike.

Admittedly, I feel cheated and bitter about 1998. Of course, that is going to play a large factor on my opinion on this subject. But it's not irrelevant.

 

[PrincetonBuckeye]

1. Those numbers are inflated as I've stated many times. It's not really debatable. I've always been adverse to saying that there is some magic number to admittance into the Hall of Fame.

2. He didn't have a positive impact on the game. In fact, he's had quite the opposite. His record breaking year, in my opinion, is the second biggest black mark on baseball of the last 25 years outside of the '94 strike.

Admittedly, I feel cheated and bitter about 1998. Of course, that is going to play a large factor on my opinion on this subject. But it's not irrelevant.

That is pretty astonishing to me about your opinion on '98.....I thought that was one the best times in sports in my lifetime.....I thought the race between him and Sosa was magical for baseball.....

 

[OH10]

That is pretty astonishing to me about your opinion on '98.....I thought that was one the best times in sports in my lifetime.....I thought the race between him and Sosa was magical for baseball.....

Performance enhancing drugs are the single greatest threat to the integrity of baseball right now (well, outside of the Red Sox and Yankees). That was the defining year for the problem. And it was "magical" for baseball? If by 'magical', you mean a mastadon taking a shit all over the Mona Lisa, then I agree.

 

[PrincetonBuckeye]

I can see you have a VERY storng opinion on this topic.......so you think Mark and Sosa have ruined the integrity of baseball by the 'roids allegations...so Barry Bonds is in the same category?

 

[BayBuck]

Performance enhancing drugs are the single greatest threat to the integrity of baseball right now (well, outside of the Red Sox and Yankees). That was the defining year for the problem. And it was "magical" for baseball? If by 'magical', you mean a mastadon taking a shit all over the Mona Lisa, then I agree.

Pre-1998 baseball was the Mona Lisa in this analogy? I think maybe you're idealizing the days of your youth, and exaggerating the potential damage to the 'integrity' of the game. 1998 was the only time in the past 2 decades many Americans even gave a darn about baseball.

 

[Bucklion]

Quite possibly one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

 

[OH10]

Pre-1998 baseball was the Mona Lisa in this analogy? I think maybe you're idealizing the days of your youth, and exaggerating the potential damage to the 'integrity' of the game. 1998 was the only time in the past 2 decades many Americans even gave a darn about baseball.

FREE STEROIDS FOR EVERYONE THEN!!!

...so Barry Bonds is in the same category?

Of course.

 

[PrincetonBuckeye]

FREE STEROIDS FOR EVERYONE THEN!!!



Of course.

see I have a stronger feeling about Bonds than Mark or Sosa.....Although ou can see a physical change in both of them they were never caught......Everyone in Bonds' circle is in jail or awaiting trial...Mark was always a good size guy (not as big as his last years) but look at Bonds from when he played at Pittsburgh to now....

 

[BayBuck]

FREE STEROIDS FOR EVERYONE THEN!!!

Or better, how about steroid testing for everyone? If McGwire was breaking the rules somehow, it was MLB's responsibility to put in place the mechanism to prove that violation and punish him for it; he was never suspended for steroids, and I'm not dismissing his legal on-field accomplishemts based on post-retirement conjecture.

 

[Thump]

Feel free to expound on what I said.

 

[Thump]

His record breaking year, in my opinion, is the second biggest black mark on baseball of the last 25 years outside of the '94 strike.

I would venture to guess that 99% of the general public disagrees with you.

That chase is thought by many to have brought baseball back to the forefront after the strike in 94.

I can't think that was a bigger black mark than the Pete Rose scandal.

 

[akronbuck]

FREE STEROIDS FOR EVERYONE THEN!!!



only for men that want to feel bigger down low.
YOUR BUCKNUTS SAY GOOD BYE:!

 

[BB73]

I think Bonds having the record with 73 is a much bigger shame for baseball than McGwire hitting 70.