Options
Mark McGwire Poll - Hall of Fame or not?
frankhardy
Posts: 8,046 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
As we all know, Mark McGwire will be eligible for induction into the Hall of Fame next year. When he retired, I just knew he was an automatic pick. With McGwire, everyone around my house stopped what we were doing just to watch him bat. He brought more excitemen to baseball than anyone that I can remember.
Even though there is no evidence, it seems that he is guilty of steroids. In the court of public opinion, he IS guilty.
Having said all of that, I have some very mixed emotions about him going into the Hall of Fame. He was one of the most feared sluggers of all time, yet was it done honestly?
So, here is the poll.
Hall of Fame?
No Hall of Fame?
Mixed Emotions?
Me? Mixed Emotions. I really do not know whether he should go in or not.
Even though there is no evidence, it seems that he is guilty of steroids. In the court of public opinion, he IS guilty.
Having said all of that, I have some very mixed emotions about him going into the Hall of Fame. He was one of the most feared sluggers of all time, yet was it done honestly?
So, here is the poll.
Hall of Fame?
No Hall of Fame?
Mixed Emotions?
Me? Mixed Emotions. I really do not know whether he should go in or not.
Shane
0
Comments
I don't see how you can keep him out on suspicion alone.
And please don't cite Pete Rose. There was evidence of his betting on baseball. He just denied it for years.
And on the line of Rose, Pete would have garnered a lot more credibility had he come clean soon after his banishment rather than 15-20 years later. Does Big Mac run the risk of walking the same line?
What if he gets in next year and then decides to come clean and say that he did in fact 'juice?'
Would there be a way to remove him from the Hall?
This is all just hypothetical, as I was a big McGwire supporter during his career, and I am not brandishing him as guilty. He did lose a lot of credibility with me though after his Congressional testimony.
<< <i>Even Killebrew, whose numbers are very similar to McGwire's, had to wait a few years berfore enshrinement and his numbers are undeniably honest. >>
Even Killebrew, whose numbers are better than McGwire's, had to wait a few years before enshrinement and his numbers are undeniably honest.
OK, that sounds better.
Remember these Chuck Norris Facts
1. When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down
2. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, Chuck Norris can actually roundhouse kick you yesterday
3. There are no such things as lesbians, just women who have not yet met Chuck Norris
Will he get in next year? No
shawn
<< <i>Having said all of that, I have some very mixed emotions about him going into the Hall of Fame. He was one of the most feared sluggers of all time, yet was it done honestly? >>
This is going to be an ethical problem that MLB has to deal with for the next decade and beyond. How many of the last generation of ballplayers will have the cloud of steroids hanging over them and their statistics forever? Can you really put McGwire in the Hall if he spent his whole career cheating? What about Bonds being the all-time HR leader (no doubt he is a cheater)...I don't know how they can handle this, but unless some more info comes out about McGwire - I vote no.
<< <i>This is going to be an ethical problem that MLB has to deal with for the next decade and beyond. How many of the last generation of ballplayers will have the cloud of steroids hanging over them and their statistics forever? Can you really put McGwire in the Hall if he spent his whole career cheating? What about Bonds being the all-time HR leader (no doubt he is a cheater)...I don't know how they can handle this, but unless some more info comes out about McGwire - I vote no. >>
So if you vote no, aren't you putting the burden on the player to somehow prove he didn't cheat?
If his stats warrant a HOF induction, and all you have is a suspicion of cheating, but you have no proof, how can you keep him out?
Baseball has always been a sport with a strong history behind it. A history which can be discussed, compared, debated, and most importantly, passed on. In my mind the greatest thing about the game is when its story and legend is told and passed down from generation to generation. A father to his son. A grandfather to his grandchildren, and so on.
That being said, I really dont see much importance to whether or not Mcgwire gets in. The history and lore of his on the field accomplishments will be passed on regardless. We really dont need a hall of fame to be able to impart the good feelings the game has given all us fans over the years. I think as time goes on, and Mcgwire is talked about, and asked about by the next generation, we will pass on many things. We will tell our children and grandchildren about his mythic strength and power. We will talk about his massive shots, and about the fear and excitement he gave us while watching him bat. We will also pass on the less glamorous tales of his allegged steroid use.
To me it is more important that the next generation, and the one after that knows the good of Mcgwire, as well as being taught the bad. We need to tell our kids what joy he brought to us watching him, but also inform them of the pitfalls of abusing steroids or any other drugs.
In many ways history, at least baseball history, may be passed on regarding Mcgwire much the same as with Pete Rose. We will all tell of how great they were as player, but also tell them that these players were human, and made mistakes. I would like my children to admire the game, and the talent, but not to put the players on a pedestal. The truth is that in most likelyhood a great deal of player already enshrined have some not so heroic points in their lives, on the field, and off. To me Mcgwire was one of the greatest sluggers ever, and I will tell my children that, but I will also tell them that in the end, he is still just a man, with flaws like the rest of us.
-- Yogi Berra
Unfortunately MLB has to wipe the slate and start over when it comes to the steroid issue. Those who were not caught before the new policy get a pass, including Bonds. The league made the bed and now must lie in it. There is no way that they did not know about the steroid abuse, and in fact even let it escalate to a level that was beneficial to the finances of teams and the league.
Chalk it up as another sports story of players and teams taking advantage of any chance to increase the odds of winning. It's sports. People cheat. They are stopped and others find another way.
Now. Does life imitate sports or does sports imitate life?
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
Big Mac
That said, I can see Mac having to wait a year - not because of what he might have ingested/injected during his playing days but because of that pitiful display on Capitol Hill last year.
One of the underlying principles of our country is that one is Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Mark McGwire has not been proven guilty of any wrongdoing, and until/unless he is PROVEN guilty, he belongs in the Hall of Fame!
Steve
<< <i>Will he get in? Yes
Will he get in next year? No
shawn >>
Shawn
I kind of agree.
I was watching ESPN2 last nite and two reporters admitted they would NOT vote him in - due both to his "apparent " steroid use and what he said to congress.
I say they will not vote him in first ballot, but myself? Vote him in - the guy's skills would have gotten him 500 HRs IMO.
He just got to hit them farther - but steroids, IMO, won't give you the skill it requires to hit them.
This is one disappointing chapter in my memory bank of experience with over 40 yrs. of baseball!
mike
Steve
YES FOR BIGMAC 100 TIMES MY VOTE!!
Unfocused, impulsive collector of everything ...
<< <i>He will get in next year! what he did for the game that year the memories... yes maybe tarnished by roids... but there is no proof of who didnt and who did them. >>
Some of you saying yes are missing the point a little.
It takes 75 % of the vote to get in the Hall!!!!
As I'm typing this, only 33% of us know-it-all's (15-45) are giving a definitive yes.
And although we don't get to vote, Mike hit the nail on the head....many voters are saying they are NOT going to vote for him next year.
So although I can join the rest of you by saying I think he's deserving and I do think he'll eventually get in, it more than likely won't be next year on the first ballot. JMO
Shawn.
<< <i>YES!!!!!
One of the underlying principles of our country is that one is Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Mark McGwire has not been proven guilty of any wrongdoing, and until/unless he is PROVEN guilty, he belongs in the Hall of Fame!
Steve >>
I take it you feel the same way about OJ Simpson right...afterall he has never been proven guilty of murder in a criminal court of law.
<< <i>He will get in next year! what he did for the game that year the memories... yes maybe tarnished by roids... but there is no proof of who didnt and who did them. plus he has always been loved by fans other then the cards and a's! the man was/is a class act! he has my 100% vote! big mac belongs in the HOF even if he is busted for roids.. then there are 2 ways of looking at him in there. the great person/ballplayer he was/is... vs. the person that took non illegal drugs at the time????? how many others before him took them?? let it go! its in the past, concentrate on the future and keep kids away now, knowing what you know about the drugs!
YES FOR BIGMAC 100 TIMES MY VOTE!! >>
I voted "Mixed Emotions". I want to go with your's and DiryHarry's take so badly. I guess that's the way I WANT to look at it, but my mind won't let me.
Shane
I agree that it will probably be on his 2nd opportunity. Writers might want to make a point based on the 'suspicion'.
* C. PASCUAL BASIC #3
* T. PEREZ BASIC #4 100%
* L. TIANT BASIC #1
* DRYSDALE BASIC #4 100%
* MAGIC MASTER #4/BASIC #3
* PALMEIRO MASTER/BASIC #1
* '65 DISNEYLAND #2
* '78 ELVIS PRESLEY #6
* '78 THREE'S COMPANY #1
WaltDisneyBoards
<< <i>
<< <i>YES!!!!!
One of the underlying principles of our country is that one is Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Mark McGwire has not been proven guilty of any wrongdoing, and until/unless he is PROVEN guilty, he belongs in the Hall of Fame!
Steve >>
I take it you feel the same way about OJ Simpson right...afterall he has never been proven guilty of murder in a criminal court of law. >>
Different situation...
We all know OJ was found not guilty in the criminal trial, but guilty in a civil trial. Neither affects his being in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Now, if the murder case had happened prior to his enshrinement.....who knows?????
On another note, and perhaps more similar to the McGwire case, Lawrence Taylor is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Should his conviction for cocaine use (when you consider the fact that he "probably" played in games while under the influence), have precluded his enshrinement? His conviction occured before he was elected to the HOF.....he got in anyway (and I believe he was elected in his first year of eligibility).
Steve
<< <i>On another note, and perhaps more similar to the McGwire case, Lawrence Taylor is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Should his conviction for cocaine use (when you consider the fact that he "probably" played in games while under the influence), have precluded his enshrinement? His conviction occured before he was elected to the HOF.....he got in anyway (and I believe he was elected in his first year of eligibility).
Steve >>
LT is among the all time BEST defensive players to every play the game, yet he got into the HoF by ONE vote.
The football voters are instructed to ignore the players' off the field issues, and focus solely on what they did on the field....baseball does not.
McGwire will likely be held out, but it's hard to argue against a guy with those numbers who has never been found guilty of any wrong doing, but some voters will likely do it because they feel they are the guardians of the hall.
Unfocused, impulsive collector of everything ...
Leaving LT and Big Mac specifically out of the equation, I think it's a fair bet that nearly everyone who uses steroids does so for the purpose of improving their playing abilities and that the steroids do, in fact, improve their abilities (or, if they don't, the player would stop). Cocaine use, on the other hand, is taken for a variety of reasons which have nothing to do with making the user a better athlete, and the drug does not, in fact, make the user a better athlete (I'm not a doctor, so there may be exceptions to this I don't know about).
In other words, while the taking of either drug may be illegal, steroid use is a form of cheating in a way that cocaine use is not. So it's not so much that a steroid user would be kept out of the HOF for breaking the law, but for compromising the integrity of the game. Fair or not, I believe there will be a great many voters who will not vote for McGwire either because they already believe he cheated or because they do not want to regret that vote later if he is "proven" guilty at some point in the future.
Someday? Maybe. I think it will depend on how the whole steroid thing shakes out over the
next few years.
<< <i>I vote yes. Why not. The guy is a great individual, and helped save the fan base for MLB when it was sucking gas. He was a great icon for MLB when the fan base was eroding. He has not been convicted of anything, nor claimed anything. He was only a great player. Vote him in first ballot!!! >>
What image will most voters have of him when they see his name on the ballot? I would guess it will
be his dodging the questions performance at the steroid hearings and not trading home runs with
Sammy Sosa.
First ballot? I say impossible. Someday perhaps. The steroid thing is still too fresh in voters minds.
Now, my HOF philosophy is quite different than most of you here and, for that matter, the writers who's votes actually count. I think of the word "fame" an awful lot. I go by reputation among the players peers, empirical statistical value, and the peaks vs. valleys of a player. I also take into account talent to perform all of the tasks that the game demands. Lastly, the "famous" part is huge for me. My MOM knows who Mark McGwire is. That's incredible if you knew my Mom. For a spell, I thought "If Mac could ever get 500 appearances--he'd probably hit 65-70 HR's". This was when he was struggling to get 200 AB's. At that point, steroid suspicion was not in the equation. So, when he hit 70 HR's I really wasn't shocked. I always felt he could hit that many--even before the alleged drug use. I also respect how hard McGwire worked at being a better hitter. He was a one-dimensional hitter early on and he worked to become a high on-base guy and to power the ball straight away. THAT, more than steroids, took his numbers from impressive to other-worldly. He's a hard-working, prideful, sensitive, articulate athlete who has a thought occasionally. That coupled with the jurassic power numbers makes him a natural selection for the HOF in my mind.
**BTW, Jim Rice not in the hall is absolutely NUTS. The 1157 TB from 77-79 alone should get him on the doorstep. This is where some saber-geek steps in a starts teaching us about ballpark effect...
dgf
***Someone here mentioned Killebrew as similar and I agree. I do NOT agree with the fellow who stated that Harmon was emphatically BETTER.
Perhaps more consistent, but his totals are stretched some as he played longer and stayed healthier.
It's kind of hard to scream 'he shouldn't be in because he took steroids!' when there was no positive test. Is there speculation and suspicion? Sure. But I'd like to ask every voter who fails to vote 'yes' for his HoF induction to give reasons why.
<< <i>Everyone talks of steroid abuse, but where's the evidence he took it?
It's kind of hard to scream 'he shouldn't be in because he took steroids!' when there was no positive test. Is there speculation and suspicion? Sure. But I'd like to ask every voter who fails to vote 'yes' for his HoF induction to give reasons why. >>
Perception is a huge thing in something like this. guilt or innocence is decided by the voters in how they want to factor in the
steroid speculation in their voting. I would vote no on the basis of his dodging the questions at the steroid hearing.
Character counts for something.
Shane