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

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

BL - you saying George Foster was juiced in 1977?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/fostege01.shtml

 

[OH10]

Because it's a sport's hall of fame, not the "life" hall of fame (which, come to think of it, probably wouldn't have a morals clause either given the many scoundrels who have achieved lasting fame). And if baseball didn't want a guy like McGwire to represent the sport, they should have done something years ago to keep steroids and other performance enhancers out of the game.

I think Pete Rose should be in too, but at least he was offically banned by the league.

So you're saying baseball should accept another black eye? Or are you saying its ok for baseball to have done nothing?

Here's a question for those that support Mac for the Hall: Do you think it was 'right' for him to use steroids to enhance his performance? I'm not asking if you think it should be taken into account, just whether or not you think it was right. (and yes, for those nonbelievers out there, this is assuming he was, in fact, a roid head.)

 

[Best Buckeye]

NO NO NO NO NO NO.
Anything that is accepted as a record in view of Rule "bending" breaking is an insult to the sport, every player in the history of that sport, and to that sport.
It would be a slap in the face for everone involved and the (prior) record holder.
Just how much of his "greatness" can be contributed to the cheating , and how much is the player himself? No one can tell.
The answer is NO.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Of course it's not "right"

I could argue that putting your life at risk to excel in your sport takes a certain degree of dedication, but I wouldn't be being serious.

 

[jwinslow]

No.

Of course it's not "right"

I could argue that putting your life at risk to excel in your sport takes a certain degree of dedication, but I wouldn't be being serious.

Sounds 'courageous' :p

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

No.Sounds 'courageous' :p

Well, it's not like playing with strained ligaments in your finger, but it's something.

 

[tyrus]

I have no idea why you said we must keep out those bolded above. As for Bonds, I'm fine with keeping him out, and I'd imagine so are 99% of those saying McGwire has no business being in.

The reason why? Because they played in the roid era and they are the 1st HOFers that came to mind from the 90s. They have been convicted of exactly the same wrong-doings as McGwire, nothing. So if McGwire is a victim of the era he played in, so are the rest of the players who are HOF worthy based on numbers. Plus, Clemens' name has been thrown around with steroids. Do you think it is natural for a pitcher to be better after he turns 40? The argument could be made, not w/o help.

I would address this, but the name calling makes it useless. Personally, I would say the statement that keeping out McGwire means you have to keep out Maddux is the "ridiculous" "ignorant" statement.

Buck...ignorant means uninformed. If that is name calling, sorry to affend. I didnt realize yo were that thin-skinned. I am not name calling, just when I see "uninformed" posts, I provided some facts. And, as I said above, the reason Maddux was mentioned is b/c he has HOF numbers that were acheived in the 90s...thats all. It has nothing to do with his physique. I apologize if you think I was name calling, maybe I should've said "uninformed"

 

[tyrus]

His homer totals are his criteria, and I think you would agree to that. Despite your excellent research into fielding statistics (which didn't take into account his lack of lateral movement, only his mistakes when he got to the ball), one Gold Glove does not a HOFer make. Therefore, as James Carville might say, "it's the homers stupid."

And the homers are not an accurate historical reflection. They are inflated. The 500 plateau is not the standard anymore. Therefore, more subjective factors need to be taken into account, like expansion, steroids and the smaller parks. All of those factors work against McGwire.

If McGwire didn't have 500 homers, he's not a legit candidate for the Hall. I don't see those numbers as a fair indication of his accomplishments, and therefore, his credentials are an issue even before you get to the obvious moral question.



Both had an impact on the game beyond measure and moved the game through decades of development. They were dicks, and I think that should be taken into account. But certainly, with hindsight, it's clear that their impact should be reflected in the Hall of Fame.



Cheaters, criminals and dickheads shouldn't get in without a compelling historical reason or awesome accomplishment. In my book, that disqualifies a few guys that you've mentioned. But I didn't get to vote then and I don't get to vote now.



Everyone's a suspect in this era. But I would bet the farm on Mac's guilt, and that's enough for me.

Stadium...MM doesnt have 500 HR, he has 583, good for 7th all-time. I dont understand the argument about "if he didnt have 500 HR, or take away his HR and he wouldnt be in" Well, no shit. Lets get rid of Ty Cobb's 4000 hits and he wouldnt get in, or Cy Young's 500 wins. Hell, Michael Jordan wouldnt be that good if you took away his 30, 000 points.

And yes, I know 1 GG doesnt make him a HOFer, but there was a guy named Don Mattingly that took home most of those in the AL and then Snow in the NL. And how many balls did you see him not get to that he should've? I provided this fact to show he was a good defensive player.

Please look at the other 1B already in the HOF....hell, they couldnt field the ones they did get to, so your defensive argument is terrible.


MM HR/AB is by far and away the best. He was considered the best at his position in his generation. Yeah, numbers may have been inflated, but again, why should he be punished b/c of the era he played in? Plus, he was hitting HRs before all of the roid talk.

Again, he played by the rules, just like everyone else did, from Cap Anson to sammy Sosa.

 

[akronbuck]

if there going to ban MARKYMARKYJUICE THEN MAKE THE LIST LONG AS HELL. bASEBALL DIDN'T CATCH IT SO WHO SHOULD THEY BAN A FEW OR ALL OF THE LOOK.

IF ANY FAN of COMMON SENSE OR KNOW A TOP WEIGHT LIFTER/HIGH SCHOOL PLAYER THEN YOU KNOW ABOUT STEROIDS/NATURAL STERIODS.

I have friends that compete bigtime and never tested postive. I just laugh at them but, they make stupid money doing it. So I get the laugh back at me.

Its a joke and makes me laugh. I've had back pain for years and keep doing the stuff I was told to stop but, keep doing and I get spinal steroid shots or shots. I don't lift a weight at all but, I'm 36 and everyone thinks I'm trying out for the INDIANS. For those kinda slow baseball/juice.

There is to many ways to hide the use but, they can't hide the pictures of improvement or the stats.

Face it steroids was a huge part of pro baseball and who are we to pick the bad guys when, it was beyond us. Let them all in.

 

[harrydangler]

I think Will Clark (to late now) and Don Mattingly should go in over McGwire and Palmeiro. No steroids...great numbers..class acts....

With steroids I struggle to put either Mac or Palmeiro in the hall...with out steroids I don't think either is even close.

 

[PrincetonBuckeye]

I think Will Clark (to late now) and Don Mattingly should go in over McGwire and Palmeiro. No steroids...great numbers..class acts....

With steroids I struggle to put either Mac or Palmeiro in the hall...with out steroids I don't think either is even close.

Why is Will Clark too late????? Mattingly will get in don't worry about him......You have your opinion about the 'roids issue.......but Pete Rose isn;t in the Hall because he bet on baseball....Mickey Mantle is in the Hall and he did the same....With Roses # he definiately deserves to be in the Hall....So you penalize one or the other? It sounds hypocritical to me....

 

[harrydangler]

Why is Will Clark too late????? Mattingly will get in don't worry about him......You have your opinion about the 'roids issue.......but Pete Rose isn;t in the Hall because he bet on baseball....Mickey Mantle is in the Hall and he did the same....With Roses # he definiately deserves to be in the Hall....So you penalize one or the other? It sounds hypocritical to me....

Will Clark didn't make the cut last year so he's off the ballot. I doubt Mattingly will at this rate...maybe with the Vet's committee in 10 years. I don't think he's cracked 60% has he?

I agree..the entire Hall of Fame process is one big mess. I'd put Pete Rose in the hall in two seconds. Gambling isn't nearly as detrimental to the game as steroids.

My problem with McGwire is that I think he's borderline Hall worthy with steroids...so that makes him a big question mark assuming he did it. Bonds on the other hand would be in the hall whether he did steroids or not. Palmeiro's just an all around jerk off who shouldn't even sniff the hall.

 

[Bucklion]

BL - you saying George Foster was juiced in 1977?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/fostege01.shtml

Uh...well, Foster hit 52, then followed that with 40 the next year. In fact, his 5 year #s were 29, 52, 40, 30, 25. Anderson hit 52 in between years of 16 and 18, and only hit as many as 20 in 2 other seasons (21 and 24). So if you want to think that Anderson just magically found double power in the height of the "supposed" steroid era, go ahead, but I can't seem to see that myself. As for Foster, he hit 50 one season, which was huge back then, but good power hitters of that era usually tallyed between 25 and 40, and he was within that for at least half a dozen seasons.

One other interesting tidbit about the "eras"...Foster that year hit 52, drove in 149, stole 6 bases, walked 61 times, hit .320, had 33 other extra base hits and ran away with the MVP award. Anderson hit 50, drove in 110, stole 21 bases, walked 76 times, hit about.300 and had 42 additional extra base hits and finished 9th in the MVP voting...seem a bit strange to you?

 

[Bucklion]

The reason why? Because they played in the roid era and they are the 1st HOFers that came to mind from the 90s. They have been convicted of exactly the same wrong-doings as McGwire, nothing. So if McGwire is a victim of the era he played in, so are the rest of the players who are HOF worthy based on numbers. Plus, Clemens' name has been thrown around with steroids. Do you think it is natural for a pitcher to be better after he turns 40? The argument could be made, not w/o help.



Buck...ignorant means uninformed. If that is name calling, sorry to affend. I didnt realize yo were that thin-skinned. I am not name calling, just when I see "uninformed" posts, I provided some facts. And, as I said above, the reason Maddux was mentioned is b/c he has HOF numbers that were acheived in the 90s...thats all. It has nothing to do with his physique. I apologize if you think I was name calling, maybe I should've said "uninformed"

Has nothing to do with being thin-skinned...it has to do with not wasting my time arguing with people who resort to insults instead of debating a point with dialogue. Then after saying everyone that didn't agree that McGwire is God is ignorant, you threw Greg Maddux into a steroid argument. I wasn't offended, I just felt it didn't really require further comment.

 

[Bucklion]

I think Will Clark (to late now) and Don Mattingly should go in over McGwire and Palmeiro. No steroids...great numbers..class acts....

With steroids I struggle to put either Mac or Palmeiro in the hall...with out steroids I don't think either is even close.

All interesting thoughts...perhaps a real measuring point will be the result of Fred McGriff. He hit almost 500 HRs, was a decent fielder and a good hitter in general, and he is widely regarded as having been clean during that era. If you look at numbers alone within that era, he doesn't measure up, but it will be interesting to see what kind of play he does or doesn't get.

I don't think Mattingly or Clark will get in, but I would think it would be Clark if either does.