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

[PrincetonBuckeye]

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

 

[Thump]

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

Agree.

 

[redskinbucksfan]

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.

I don't agree with many of StadiumDorms' opinions, but he's spot on here.

 

[Thump]

Admittedly, I feel cheated and bitter about 1998.

More cheated than in 94 when there wasn't even a World Series?

TOTALLY disagree.

 

[PrincetonBuckeye]

More cheated than in 94 when there wasn't even a World Series?

TOTALLY disagree.

Totally agree Thump....

 

[Bucklion]

Agree.

Why is that? Bonds hasn't been caught or convicted of anything either.

 

[Thump]

Why is that? Bonds hasn't been caught or convicted of anything either.

Well, his trainer was thrown in prison for steroid-related charges and he admitted to using the cream and the clear.

 

[Bucklion]

Well, his trainer was thrown in prison for steroid-related charges and he admitted to using the cream and the clear.

He never tested positive though did he? And Mac admitted to using Andro as well, which wasn't banned but certainly built muscle mass, I think we can all agree. I don't see much of a difference, really, if you take insinuation without documentation out of the equation.

 

[Thump]

He never tested positive though did he? And Mac admitted to using Andro as well, which wasn't banned but certainly built muscle mass, I think we can all agree. I don't see much of a difference, really, if you take insinuation without documentation out of the equation.

The cream and the clear was documented to be illegal steroids. That's what Giambi admitted to using.

Andro at the time was legal and not even on the league's list of banned substances.

 

[Dryden]

I'm in the minority and will probably go off on a tangent, but here goes ...

I don't especially care about the '94 strike or consider it a black mark on baseball. I'm bitter that it probably cost us the chance to see Tony Gwynn bat .400, it torpedoed Jeff Bagwell's season, which would've been among the most statistically obscene single seasons of any player in any era, and probably already qualifies despite only 110 games and 400 ABs, and lastly, it doomed the Expos franchise. It robbed Matt Williams and Ken Griffey Jr the pursuit of Maris's record, and it resulted in a lot of players going to Japan. It had to happen though, and it had a positive effect. The injection of good MLB players into Japan in '95 has resulted in the growth of Japanese stars like Ichiro and Matsui, which ultimately is much better for MLB than the loss of about 900 games, one World Series, and some of the most awful pennant races in the history of MLB.

You can generally find positive outcomes from bad things happening in baseball. The strike will ultimately prove to be the catalyst in the way baseball is played and financed around the world today. The steriod scandal and McGwire & Sosa's HR chase in '98 will prove to be a good thing as they raise awareness to performance enhancing drugs at all levels of sports for all ages, whether it's OTC supplements to anabolic injections.

IMHO, the biggest black mark for baseball in the past 25 years was the All Star Game that ended in a tie. Not only was that a traveshamockery to the fans, the sport, and an indictment that the players didn't care about being there for one of the sport's showcase games, but nothing good came out of it, which is far worse. It precipitated even dumber things from MLB as a response. The outcome of an All Star Game determining home field advantage is among the most asinine sports conventions ever. BCS bowl games and polls make more sense then having an All Star Game result set up the World Series, while simultaneously including a ridiculous rule such as having every team represented. In the last three years there have been a number of dubious "All Star" selections from really, really bad teams that are even more perplexing since the game supposedly now matters.

That 2002 All Star game was sickening. Everything it represents, everything it spawned, right down to Bud Selig sitting there in his home town under the leaky roof of a monument to sports excess and failing franchises. It was a sad end to what many people forget was one of the most thrilling weekends in baseball; from Slammin' Sammy Sosa launching 525-foot moonshots in the HR derby to Torii Hunter robbing Barry Bonds of a HR right out of the gate in the game itself.

I never cared less about baseball than in the immediate aftermath of that game.

 

[OH10]

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

They're both a shame on baseball. However, McGwire duped America into falling in love with him. That never happened with Bonds, mainly because of his abrasive personality.

As many have stated, 1998 felt like a magical summer, but the magic trick has been exposed. You can't condemn steroids and embrace the effects at the same time. That's a disturbing message to send to our young people.

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.

I would venture to guess that you have made an outrageous estimation.

Here's where I'm getting confused about the position on the summer of '98: We all agree that steroids are bad and that it's a good idea that MLB stood up and started policing its abuse. But yet we are celebrating a well documented abuse of steroids as a shining light for baseball. It doesn't fit. It's either a blackmark, or you would have to say that steroids are good for baseball. Which is it?

 

[BayBuck]

Here's where I'm getting confused about the position on the summer of '98: We all agree that steroids are bad and that it's a good idea that MLB stood up and started policing its abuse. But yet we are celebrating a well documented abuse of steroids as a shining light for baseball. It doesn't fit. It's either a blackmark, or you would have to say that steroids are good for baseball. Which is it?

Neither: you are assuming there were steroids or some other illegal substance involved with McGwire in 1998, but in truth we will likely never know for sure (even you admit to only having a gut feeling on the matter). Don't assume your little dichotomy (98 a black mark vs. steroids are good) is all-inclusive.

 

[Thump]

But yet we are celebrating a well documented abuse of steroids as a shining light for baseball. It doesn't fit. It's either a blackmark, or you would have to say that steroids are good for baseball. Which is it?

You do realize that almost every player back in the 70's and 80's took speed right?

There have been players doing illegal things to get an advantage since the beginnings of baseball.

Be it sharpened spikes, spitballs, corked bats, speed, pine tar, or steroids, there has always been something going on in the background that damages the purity of the game.

 

[OH10]

You do realize that almost every player back in the 70's and 80's took speed right?

There have been players doing illegal things to get an advantage since the beginnings of baseball.

Be it sharpened spikes, spitballs, corked bats, speed, pine tar, or steroids, there has always been something going on in the background that damages the purity of the game.

The everybody's-doing-it-so-that-makes-it-ok defense. I love it. Are you trying to defend McGwire or are you trying to convince me that baseball is a sport devoid of integrity?

Neither: you are assuming there were steroids or some other illegal substance involved with McGwire in 1998, but in truth we will likely never know for sure (even you admit to only having a gut feeling on the matter). Don't assume your little dichotomy (98 a black mark vs. steroids are good) is all-inclusive.

This isn't a court of law. It's the court of public opinion. And with a gun to my head, he used steroids. Heck with a water pistol to my head, he did it.

There's two main things that pissed me off about McGwire's Congressional testimony: 1. That he didn't answer the question. 2. That he was allowed to get away without pleading the 5th.

So you're right, it's a gut feeling. If Big Mac wants to overcome my gut, tell him to deny using steroids. Then at least I might be able to take his word for it.

 

[Thump]

The everybody's-doing-it-so-that-makes-it-ok defense. I love it. Are you trying to defend McGwire or are you trying to convince me that baseball is a sport devoid of integrity?




This isn't a court of law. It's the court of public opinion. And with a gun to my head, he used steroids. Heck with a water pistol to my head, he did it.

There's two main things that pissed me off about McGwire's Congressional testimony: 1. That he didn't answer the question. 2. That he was allowed to get away without pleading the 5th.

So you're right, it's a gut feeling. If Big Mac wants to overcome my gut, tell him to deny using steroids. Then at least I might be able to take his word for it.

Not saying it is OK, just wondering why you are taking the moral high ground on this issue versus all of the others that have damaged the integrity of baseball?

You mean Big Mac's testimony bothers you than Palmeiro lying to congress on National Television?