Does McGwire get elected to the HOF?

jmbkb4

I enjoyed reading the postings RE: Frank Thomas and Biggio in the last few weeks. Now, with McGwire, Congress, and all the steroid hoopla, what do you think of McGwire's chances? I initially assumed he's be a shoe-in, but what do you guys think?

67standup

On personality alone, he shouldn't be allowed in.

DeutscherGeist

"On personality alone, he shouldn't be allowed in."

I don't see this mentioned often. Character and sportsmanship are part of the HOF criteria, so I like seeing some people recognizing that. It's not all stats.

McGwire is a HOF since from the very beginning of his career he was a big home run threat. He had good on base percentages and a stellar glove. He would have gotten more gold gloves had it not been for Don Mattingly--competing against him is competing against the all-time great defensive first baseman. He had his share of off years and injury riddled seasons, but he played long enough to show at least 10 solid seasons.

Sure McGwire used some supplements, but it was legal at the time and no big secret. Did he take steroids? It has never been proven, but would he need to if he was already taking supplements. I don't know. Steroids were not illegal in MLB during his playing years, but I don't think that it makes it right.

I wonder about something though. He had a lot of injury riddled seasons, so he had to do a lot of rehab work after those surgeries. I think he might have used steroids to help the rehab program under a doctor's supervision. Maybe that is when he decided to use it after the rehab because it was so effective. He kind of got hooked. That is just a scenario. We can only speculate. It is not nice to accuse someone of something without proof.

lawnmowerman

No question, he will be in the hof. I never heard of him having a bad attitude or not being very nice. I enjoyed watching him over the years as I am sure alot of others did as well.

Matt

jrdolan

<< <i>On personality alone, he shouldn't be allowed in. >>


True, but personality alone won't be the critera, and should not be.

If personality and attitude were allowed to outweigh career accomplishments, Ty Cobb wouldn't be in the HOF. The kindest thing anyone has ever said about Cobb's personality is that it was "unpleasant." Eddie Murray wouldn't be in the HOF, despite being in the 500-HR Club and being the most consistently excellent hitter of his era. Public relations was not among the things he cared about.

We can all think of HOFers with extraordinary careers who were lacking in people skills. To be sure, the voters weigh factors other than pure stats -- being a role model for kids, being an ambassador for the game, being civil to reporters, not being rude to fans who ask for your autograph. Certainly being a "beloved" player or a "team leader" on a historically signficant club counts for something. We can all think of HOFers whose career numbers were not overwhelming, but who were important to their teams and fans in other ways.

When it comes to 70 HRs in a season and 583 HRs in a career, these are numbers that a surly attitude simply cannot push aside.

Taking supplements to make your muscles bigger, whether they're steroids or some other drug, is another matter. The game will have to decide (or the voters will decide, informally) whether that should be a disqualifier if it's proven or you admit it. Maybe you just look at the stats with a different yardstick. Would those 583 HRs be only 510 if he hadn't taken pills and merely lifted weights? Hard to quantify, but you could safely say McGwire would have hit a LOT of dingers.

Heck, being bulky has been shown to reduce the flexibility of athletes, and to increase their time on the disabled list. Maybe McGwire would have got around faster on many pitches, got wood on the ball a few hundred more times instead of striking out, without those overlarge muscles. How many of those few hundred might have gone out of the park? He certainly would have not had his career hampered by injuries nearly so much. How many more HRs would he have hit, if he hadn't spent so much time on the DL?

Hard to say what a slightly leaner, more flexible, more healthy Mark McGwire would have done. We might have a clue from the early days of his career, and he was leaving the yard with great frequency then, too. Unfortunately, all we know for certain is what he DID do, and that he admittedly took steroids for part of his career. And that it was not a prohibited practice until after he retired. Most of us would call it cheating. But if MLB didn't call it cheating during his time, can it keep him out of the HOF for doing it?

Hey wait ... isn't lifting weights ALSO a way of making your muscles larger than they would ordinarily be? Should working out at the gym be regulated for professional athletes? No more than X number of evolutions, X number of reps, per day? Maybe players who sit on the couch and eat pizza between games should have their stats count for more, because it's harder when you're fat and slow?

All food for thought... some of it amusing, some of it stupid, some of it makes you wonder.

Making a long, rambling story short, I guess I would not automatically keep someone out of the HOF for doing something (along with many of his contemporaries) that was not banned at the time. But I would weigh his accomplishments a little differently than players who made do with their natural physical gifts.

stevek

Yes, first ballot.

julen23

Based on perception of media and his fan-base, not gon' happen any time soon.

Why the hell did he go to Capital Hill anyway, what a moron.

Julen
______
Collecting:
1980 Topps: Over 4,000 cards from vending and wax boxes awaiting a giant bonfire
1969 Topps: Master # 1 1
1987 Kraft Dinners Home Plate Heroes

GoBravesGo

because of the steriod issue, and especially his performance at the congressional hearings, it will be a closer vote than it once would have been, but I still think that he will end up getting in on First Ballot.

Mantlefan

The HOF criteria includes a clause on character and conduct. Many electors will use this as an excuse not to vote for McGwire based on his congressional testimony.

GoBravesGo

<< <i>The HOF criteria includes a clause on character and conduct. Many electors will use this as an excuse not to vote for McGwire based on his congressional testimony. >>

jrdolan

Thus, if you are bound for the Hall of Fame, follow this script carefully:

Q. "Have you ever used sterioids?"

A. "Of course not."

Because the penalty for telling the truth is worse than for lying. Big Mac didn't know that, but Sosa and others who watched him know it now.

glmueller

He will be elected to the hall on the 1st ballot.

jmbkb4

I'm just worrying that McGwire may be my generation's Pete Rose.

zef204

1st ballot. Steroids were not against the rules of baseball when(edited to say: alledgedly) he was taking them therefore he did not break the rules of the game.

Let's not even discuss character as his actions showed far better character than any of the other recent 60+ HR guys. Those other 2 guys wouldn't make friends in a preschool.

pb19991

Big Mac should be a first ballot Hall Of Famer, i'll be curious to see if the writers penalize him for the congressional hearings.He was a Home Run Hitting Machine way before any steroid talks he still holds the All Time Rookie HR record with 49. wow what an amazing feeling it must be to be able to hit a baseball that far.

kuhlmann

ROIDS or not i always be a huge fan of BIG MAC because of what he did for the game and what he gave back to the fans! also what he gives back to the kids! he is an awesome person!

first ballot hall of famer!

Mac53

<< <i>ROIDS or not i always be a huge fan of BIG MAC because of what he did for the game >>



I agree. His conduct when he broke the Maris record was a neat thing to watch, and the way he honored Maris and the Maris family was exemplary. The race with Sosa was thrilling.

Stone193

The steroid issue is too complicated for me. But one thing is very simple....ya still gotta have great skill to hit the ball anywhere.

mike

Cubfan

If he doesnt make it on the first ballot, he will on the second.

Remember, there were writers who did not vote for Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Frank Robinson, etc. No unanimous votes. Add to those the ones who feel that Mac "cheated" and you might stretch to 25%. But only one time.

dallasactuary

<< <i>I'm just worrying that McGwire may be my generation's Pete Rose. >>



For two reasons, I don't think that will happen.

First, Pete Rose violated a written rule, the most important rule in baseball IMO, that had been on the books for decades and was well-known to him and to everyone associated with MLB. McGwire, as fas as I can tell, was trying to stay within the rules and the law. He pushed the envelope, and what he did can certainly influence one's opinion of his character, but the case for keeping Rose out of the HOF is much more solid (air-tight, I would say) than is the case against McGwire.

Second, it would make absolutely no sense to keep McGwire out unless the intention was to keep out a substantial number of others in the future. Of the players with HOF-worthy stats who are suspected of violations of MLB rules and/or various laws, McGwire is (1) the most popular, (2) the least likely to have actually violated those rules/laws (because he was playing while those rules/laws were easier to get around), and (3) he has been the most honest (although not entirely) about what he has done. The prospect of Mark McGwire excluded from the HOF while Bonds is allowed in is so absurd that I can't believe it is even being contemplated. In short, excluding McGwire will necessarily lead to the exclusion of many others in the future and to the implied admission that MLB was a sham for a decade or so; I don't believe that MLB wants to admit this. If anyone is denied admission over this issue, and I doubt that anyone will be, it will be Punkinhead Bonds because, like Rose, he is a world class a**hole and the fallout from the fans would be relatively minor.

yawie99

McGwire diminished his own legend with that pitiful performance on Capitol Hill, but he's still certainly a Hall of Famer. It's conceivable that the steroid issue will keep him from being a first-ballot guy. And not that I've met him or anything - though my wife once saw him in the supermarket - but I never got the impression that he was surly. Aloof and private, for sure, but not surly.

jrdolan

What about pitchers who put spit and snot and vaseline and whatever else they could find on a baseball, before the rules prohibited it? Shall we discuss their "character"? (Not even getting into the HOF pitchers who continued to do it, surreptitiously, AFTER the rules were adopted)

We may not personally care for the method a player used to make his muscles bigger, but I don't see how we can penalize him when he did it before it was against the rules.

Besides, the shortened careers, time on the disabled list, and reduced flexibility that comes along with bulking up (however you choose to do it) may well balance out the increased power production. It is impossible to prove, but Big Mac might be a prime example of that.

These guys were doing what their colleagues were doing, even what some personal trainers were recommending (in Bonds' case). Some have paid for their use of supplements with health problems and even early death. It's a sport-wide problem that now has been addressed with rules and testing and penalties -- but you can't make it retroactive.

Axtell

McGwire will be a first ballot HoFer. His testimony did give his credibility a hit, but many writers know what his home run chase with Sosa meant to the game, and how it brought baseball fully back from the strike that ended the season.

While some will frown and keep him from first ballot, I really don't think enough are going to say to keep him out of the first ballot.

zef204

Do you know who had the highest % on the first ballot entry? He finished higher than Mays, Mantle, Aaron and all the others.




































Tom Seaver. Isn't that crazy.

MiniMaster

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!

It's a sham to hear threads that condem Mark McGwire for the Capital Hill moment! Like anyone on this planet has been completely honest their entire life? Please! Kudo's for individuals relating the stories about the Cobbs of baseball, pitchers that doctor the ball, players that cork bats, players that take supplements, players that gambled and drank to much, pine tar incidents, players that used drugs and were given 3rd and 4th chances and still ruined their careers yet found the HOF? You can talk about all kinds of negative things players and owners and managers have done throughout the age of baseball. Everyone is all over the steroids now. It will be something else in the future! Most of it ignited by media hype that listeners get sucked into and start throwing their stones at those that have "allegedly" done wrong? I didn't see any stones flying McGwire and Sosa's way when they were tagging the dingers in 1998 and looking very beefed up! Since when do we dish out guilt before the proof has been provided? Gee, I'm sure our court system whould flourish if that's the way things worked??? Most of what these star athletes have done in their careers has been music to our ears. It's awfully strange how quick some are to pass judgement when something is reported without proof? Or is it the media's ability to mold those that invite the augmented stories that could very well be a fabrication to enhance their ratings and thefefore line their pockets with the almighty dollar!

Perhaps everyone should consider the size of stone we will be getting hit with when it's our turn for judgement!

McGwire should be an obvious unanimous first ballot entry to the HOF.

I'm off the podium

frankhardy

There was one player that I STOPPED everything that I was doing just to watch him bat - his name is Mark McGwire!!!

First ballot Hall of Famer!

Hey, somebody needs to add up the votes on this thread.

P.S. Albert Pujols is getting that way - meaning I stop what I am doing to watch him bat!

Gemmy10

McGwire will be a first ballot HOFer. Why is this thread not in the Sports Talk forum instead?

WinPitcher

awfully strange how quick some are to pass judgement when something is reported without proof


yep

sayheykid54

Absolutely no question--1st ballott Hall-Of-Famer. Although his image has suffered greatly after his testimony, the performance enhancing drugs he apparantly took weren't illegal at the time he was using them.

zef204

Gemmy- If you haven't noticed alot more people frequent this board and only this board. Not to say that it shouldn't be there, but this is where a lot of people start as it is linked on PSA's website. Judging by the response I don't think people mind it is on this board either.

Tabe

<< <i>We may not personally care for the method a player used to make his muscles bigger, but I don't see how we can penalize him when he did it before it was against the rules. >>


Except that, if he did it after 1989, it was illegal when he did it. As in against the law.

Tabe

zef204

Tabe, I am not sure that is relevant and you should reference the Rose issue. What he did was not against the law, but was against the baseball law. Therefore he is a BAD BOY! I don't think you should confuse baseball laws with judicial laws as there already are or might be people who broke the judicial law in the Hall.

Griffins

He should be first ballot, but won't be. There are enough voters that will pass based on the Congressional testimony. 2nd year, for sure.

HoofHearted

Julen,

You asked, "Why the hell did he go to Capital Hill anyway, what a moron."

I just googled it to verify that he was subpoenaed and would have been arrested(?) if he didn't show. (I'm not lawyer and haven't been in tooo much trouble, so I'm not positive of what would have happened had he not shown up.)

I think he'll be elected, probably on the first ballot, because of the magic he helped to bring back to baseball...

hh

Tabe

<< <i>Tabe, I am not sure that is relevant and you should reference the Rose issue. What he did was not against the law, but was against the baseball law. Therefore he is a BAD BOY! I don't think you should confuse baseball laws with judicial laws as there already are or might be people who broke the judicial law in the Hall. >>


I don't necessarily disagree with you, but saying "it wasn't against the rules" isn't exactly a great defense when the action in question - using and possessing steroids - was against the law to begin with.

Think of it this way - does baseball need to ban pistol-whipping the first baseman so that he drops throws? No, they're already illegal.

FWIW, what Pete did actually IS illegal in lots of places.

Tabe

rmoss

It seems to me that when steroids first started to be used they were not illegal or questionable. I started smoking in 1960, then completely acceptable. Now I do good to find a bar I can smoke in. How can someone be held responsible for something that at concept was not a problem.

Axtell

<< <i>It seems to me that when steroids first started to be used they were not illegal or questionable. I started smoking in 1960, then completely acceptable. Now I do good to find a bar I can smoke in. How can someone be held responsible for something that at concept was not a problem. >>



Using steroids without a doctor's prescription may not have been against MLB's rules, but they were against the law in the US (a class 3 felony if I recall correctly). So federal law would stand over MLB's rules, thus the hearings trying to get to the bottom of why MLB had not banned a substance that was illegal to use in the US.

So therefore it was a problem in the eyes of the US judicial system, but not in the eyes of MLB.

rmoss

<< <i>

<< <i>It seems to me that when steroids first started to be used they were not illegal or questionable. I started smoking in 1960, then completely acceptable. Now I do good to find a bar I can smoke in. How can someone be held responsible for something that at concept was not a problem. >>



Using steroids without a doctor's prescription may not have been against MLB's rules, but they were against the law in the US (a class 3 felony if I recall correctly). So federal law would stand over MLB's rules, thus the hearings trying to get to the bottom of why MLB had not banned a substance that was illegal to use in the US.

So therefore it was a problem in the eyes of the US judicial system, but not in the eyes of MLB. >>



I stand corrected, I was thinking that they were at one time available over the counter. But I thiink you are correct in that they required a prescription. I mis-spoke.