Options
The Official Mark McGwire HOF discussion thread
frankhardy
Posts: 8,046 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
It's coming real soon - the voting for the 2007 class for the Hall of Fame.
SHOULD Mark McGwire be elected to the Hall of Fame?
WILL Mark McGwire be elected to the Hall of Fame? First ballot?
Please ignore the fact that I am a Cardinals fan, but I think he SHOULD be in the Hall of Fame. Before I get into why he should, let me say that no other player commanded more attention at the plate than he did. When the Cardinals were playing, no matter what I was doing, when McGwire stepped up to the plate, I stopped what I was doing to watch. I think if you look at just numbers and impact alone, I don't think that there is any question that he should be in the Hall of Fame. I think the issue is the steroids controversy and the congressional hearings.
Let's just say (for arguements sake) that his numbers make him a lock, and the only thing holding him up from getting elected is the controversy. If Mark McGwire should not be elected, then NOBODY from the steroids era should be elected. Why? Because nobody can prove who did and who didn't. How many little guys in the last couple of years have tested positive? A bunch. How many PITCHERS (yes, pitchers) have tested postitive? A bunch. I mean, we are talking about little lead off second basemen have tested positive. That just goes to show that before testing, we don't know who was on the juice and who wasn't. Are we to believe that McGwire and Canseco were the only two? No way, Jose!
So, if we are going to be consistent, either McGwire gets in or nobody does. Look, a cloud will automatically be placed over the "steroid era". I say he SHOULD be elected.
Now, WILL he be elected? I really am not sure. Something tells me that he will not be elected this year. I will say this, if he loses momentum in the second or third year, he may never get in.
That's just my 2 cents.
SHOULD Mark McGwire be elected to the Hall of Fame?
WILL Mark McGwire be elected to the Hall of Fame? First ballot?
Please ignore the fact that I am a Cardinals fan, but I think he SHOULD be in the Hall of Fame. Before I get into why he should, let me say that no other player commanded more attention at the plate than he did. When the Cardinals were playing, no matter what I was doing, when McGwire stepped up to the plate, I stopped what I was doing to watch. I think if you look at just numbers and impact alone, I don't think that there is any question that he should be in the Hall of Fame. I think the issue is the steroids controversy and the congressional hearings.
Let's just say (for arguements sake) that his numbers make him a lock, and the only thing holding him up from getting elected is the controversy. If Mark McGwire should not be elected, then NOBODY from the steroids era should be elected. Why? Because nobody can prove who did and who didn't. How many little guys in the last couple of years have tested positive? A bunch. How many PITCHERS (yes, pitchers) have tested postitive? A bunch. I mean, we are talking about little lead off second basemen have tested positive. That just goes to show that before testing, we don't know who was on the juice and who wasn't. Are we to believe that McGwire and Canseco were the only two? No way, Jose!
So, if we are going to be consistent, either McGwire gets in or nobody does. Look, a cloud will automatically be placed over the "steroid era". I say he SHOULD be elected.
Now, WILL he be elected? I really am not sure. Something tells me that he will not be elected this year. I will say this, if he loses momentum in the second or third year, he may never get in.
That's just my 2 cents.
Shane
0
Comments
No juicers in the Hall.
BTW SI has a very good story on this up right now.
If he gets in, good for him. If he doesn't, serves him right.
Swing ... and a miss
McGwire likely to fall far short in Hall of Fame vote
Posted: Monday November 27, 2006 9:00PM; Updated: Monday November 27, 2006 9:32PM
When Mark McGwire appeared before a congressional committee in March 2005, he repeatedly avoided questions about steroids use, saying, "I'm not here to talk about the past."
AP
Quote, Unquote
Members of the Baseball Writers Association of America explain why they will -- or won't -- vote Mark McGwire into the Baseball Hall of Fame.
NEW YORK (AP) -- For one glorious summer, Mark McGwire was bigger than baseball itself. America stopped to watch each time he came to the plate, and cheered every time he sent a ball into orbit.
He could do no wrong, it seemed. Surely he would be a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame someday.
And then came that day on Capitol Hill. Over and over, the big slugger was asked about possible steroid use, and his reputation took hit after hit as he refused to answer, saying he wouldn't talk about his past.
Now, with Hall ballots in the mail, McGwire's path to baseball immortality may have hit a huge roadblock.
The Associated Press surveyed about 20 percent of eligible voters, and only one in four who gave an opinion plan to vote for McGwire this year. That's far short of the 75 percent necessary to gain induction.
In fact, that total would put McGwire, for all his 583 career home runs, closer to the 5 percent needed just to stay on future ballots.
"There is a clause on the ballot indicating that character should be considered and after his nonperformance at the congressional hearings his character certainly comes into play," said the Dayton Daily News' Hal McCoy.
"He doesn't want to talk about the past?" he said, "Then I don't want to consider his past."
McGwire, Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn headline the ballot that was released Monday. Results will be announced in early January.
"Mark fits the criteria, just like everyone else," Hall chairman Jane Forbes Clark said. "We've been very pleased with the judgment exercised by the writers over the past 70 years of voting.
"The ballot says a player's record of achievement, contributions to the teams, the game, their character, longevity and sportsmanship should be considered. I think this year's balloting will be interesting," she said.
The AP contacted 125 of the approximately 575 present or former members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America who are eligible to cast ballots.
And the breakdown was:
• 74 will not vote for McGwire.
• 23 will vote for him.
• 16 are undecided.
• 5 refused to say.
• 5 aren't allowed to vote by their employers.
• 2 will abstain from voting.
That means if all the undecideds and those refusing to say voted for McGwire, and everyone else voted, McGwire would need 84 percent of the rest to get into the Hall.
Chaz Scoggins of The Sun in Lowell, Mass., was among McGwire's supporters.
"He wasn't breaking any baseball rules during his career," he said. "As for using performance-enhancing substances, the fact that so many pitchers have been detected using them kind of evens the playing field."
The St. Louis Cardinals, McGwire's last team, suggested calls for McGwire be left with his business manager, Jim Milner. A message left Monday at Milner's office was not returned.
McGwire played in the majors from 1986-2001, the first 12 seasons with the Oakland Athletics and the rest with the St. Louis Cardinals.
When he hit 70 homers in 1998 -- breaking the mark of 61 Roger Maris had set 37 years earlier -- McGwire became a national hero for his Paul Bunyan-like physique and feats. A year later, part of an interstate highway in St. Louis was named after McGwire. Large signs at both the current and previous Busch Stadium called attention to "Big Mac Land," ads for McDonald's referencing McGwire.
But his reputation plummeted following allegations by former teammate Jose Canseco, who claimed in a 2005 book and subsequent interviews that the Bash Brothers used steroids together while playing on the A's.
And then came McGwire's testimony to a congressional committee on March 17, 2005, when he repeatedly avoided questions, saying time after time: "I'm not here to talk about the past."
That appearance and those allegations are still fresh in the minds of many voters.
"He won't get my vote this year, next year or any year," said the Chicago Tribune's Paul Sullivan.
When the AP conducted a survey of Hall voters during the week following McGwire's testimony, 56 percent of the 117 voters who gave an opinion said they would support his induction.
Ballots will be mailed to voters this week and must be postmarked by Dec. 31. Results will be announced Jan. 9, and inductions will take place July 29.
Players who have appeared in 10 seasons and have been retired for five years are eligible for consideration by a six-member BBWAA screening committee, and a player goes on the ballot if he is supported by at least two screening committee members. A player remains on the ballot for up to 15 elections.
Gwynn and Ripken are considered virtual locks for election. Canseco also is on the ballot for the first time but is not expected to come close to election.
Gwynn isn't sure whether McGwire used steroids.
"I think he's a Hall of Famer, myself," Gwynn said. "He hit 500 or so homers, almost 600. I think we have no proof whether he did or not. Canseco said he did. He didn't perform well at the congressional hearing, and I think that will stick with people more than anything else. He's on the ballot, too. I have no control over that."
Hall voters will face additional questions when other players accused of steroid use go on the ballot. Sammy Sosa and Rafael Palmeiro become eligible for 2011 and Barry Bonds, who plans to play next season, sometime after that.
Others view it as a matter of baseball rules. Baseball did not have an agreement with its players' union to ban steroids until after the 2002 season.
Some writers say they might vote for McGwire in future years but won't consider him on this ballot, not wanting to give him the extra honor of getting elected on the first ballot.
"I don't plan to vote for him on the first ballot, but I do plan to vote for him," said former Chicago Tribune writer Jerome Holtzman, baseball's official historian.
Some players have seen their support increase over time. Jimmie Foxx got 10 votes when he first appeared on the ballot in 1947, then was elected with 179 votes four years later.
Dave Kingman (442) has the most home runs for a player who has been on the Hall of Fame ballot and was not elected -- he received three votes in his only appearance, in 1992, and was dropped.
Among the 33 players above Kingman on the career home run list, 20 are in the Hall, seven are active (Bonds, Ken Griffey Jr., Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez and Gary Sheffield), four haven't been retired the necessary five years (Sosa, Palmeiro, Fred McGriff and Jeff Bagwell) and two are on the ballot for the first time (McGwire and Canseco).
Eleven of the 15 Hall of Famers with 500 homers were elected on the first ballot. The exceptions were Mel Ott (third ballot), Harmon Killebrew (fourth ballot), Foxx (fifth ballot) and Eddie Mathews (sixth ballot).
By Mike Celizic
MSNBC contributor
Updated: 10:41 p.m. CT Nov 27, 2006
My Hall of Fame ballot arrived in the mail last week. I haven’t filled it out yet, but when I do, I’ll be checking the box next to Mark McGwire’s name.
According to the Associated Press, I’m in the minority among my fellow 10-year members of the Baseball Writers Association of America. The great majority of those surveyed — I was not one of them — said they would ignore McGwire’s 70 home-run season, his 583 lifetime dingers and the rest of his credentials because, in their minds, he took steroids. In other words, he cheated.
It’s not clear how many voters are making a statement by leaving him off this year’s ballot but intend to vote for him in coming years. But a substantial number feel that way. Hall-of-Fame voters are funny that way. Some always find a reason not to vote for one player or another, especially in the first year of eligibility. If Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio, Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron weren’t elected unanimously, you can’t expect McGwire to be.
But he belongs in the Hall because he meets the criteria. He hit a lot of home runs, and he didn’t break any of baseball’s rules in doing it. If I could uncover a reason not to vote for him, I’d be on it like a leach, but I can’t. Since I don’t believe in making players wait a year to vote for them, I can’t not vote for McGwire.
I’ll also vote for Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken, the other two slam-dunks among the list of newly eligible players. I won’t vote for any other the other newbies, either now or later. But I will continue to vote for Jim Rice and, with Bruce Sutter getting in last year, I’m adding Goose Gossage. If Sutter’s in, Gossage has to be.
But that’s an issue for another day. Between now and the end of December, hundreds of baseball writers will be marking their ballots and sending them in. And no name on the list is fraught with more controversy than McGwire’s.
To me, it should be easy: he’s a Hall-of-Famer, end of argument. I know I’m in the minority on this, but, then, I’ve never been one to swim with the current. In this case, though, it seems to me I’m one of the few voters who’s applying cold logic to this; most are turning this vote over to their emotions, and we all know how messy that can be.
The case against McGwire, such as it is, states that he probably took performance-enhancing drugs in the same sense, and I use “probably” in the same sense that I would in saying, “Boston’s fine harbor probably had something to do with it’s being an important colonial town.” Therefore, he doesn’t belong in Cooperstown.
I don’t get it. I’ve said this before, but since so few people seem to understand the logic of the situation, I’ll say it again: McGwire didn’t do anything that was against the rules of the game of baseball. I know that steroids were and are against the moral code of many of the people who say they won’t vote for him — at least not on the first ballot — but if baseball didn’t care, I don’t, either.
McGwire almost certainly isn’t the first player who “probably” used steroids to be on the ballot, and when and if he gets in, I’d lay my house against a burger-flipper’s paycheck that at least one of the people in ahead of him also used sports’ magic potion. Any time a substance that will improve your game is out there and isn’t against the rules, you can bet athletes are using it.
The Hall is already the home of dozens of players who took amphetamines, a drug just as illegal as steroids, but one that the game started testing for only this past season. Mickey Mantle took them. Willie Mays took them. Darned near everybody took the pills known as “greenies” and kept in bowls like M&Ms in every trainer’s room in the game. (Willie, by the way, had a liquid amphetamine concoction he called “red juice.” No matter what you called it and what form it took, it did a bang-up job of knocking the cobwebs out when you were on short sleep.)
Few fans ever cared about amphetamines because there was never any indication that they helped players hit more home runs. They just helped players wake up.
Other players cheated their way into the Hall. Don Sutton was one of that ilk, as was Gaylord Perry. So was Whitey Ford and who knows how many other pitchers who cut, scuffed, lubricated and otherwise did things to baseballs that would make them curve in ways not intended by nature. Unlike the players popping pills and shooting up with stanazolol, the pitchers actually broke the stated rules of the game. They even bragged about it. Instead of being thought of as the embodiment of evil, such pitchers were viewed as legends of the game. They cheated fair.
So the objection to McGwire can’t be about using illegal substances or cheating. Neither of those activities have ever kept anyone else out. Why should they keep Big Mac out?
I know the answer: McGwire broke the most sacred record in baseball’s hallowed book; he hit more home runs than anyone had hit before.
If the fans and media could climb on Roger Maris, who never did anything wrong and was as upstanding a man as you’ll find in the game, when he was chasing Babe Ruth, it’s no surprise they’d get on McGwire, too. That’s baseball’s problem for being so wrapped up in sacred numbers, not McGwire’s problem for having rendered the numbers 60 and 61 meaningless. If you challenge the sacred home run record, you better be ready to take a lot of grief. (You can double check on that with Hank Aaron; he’ll tell you the same thing.)
That shouldn’t be held against McGwire. Even when he was a tall but relatively skinny kid first-baseman with the A’s, he was the prototypical power hitter. It’s probably 15 or 20 years since I first wrote that he was the kind of hitter who could break Maris’ single-season record. With or without the juice, he was one of the premier power hitters we’ve ever seen.
And the juice is irrelevant. Again, baseball had no rules against using drugs, so that’s not even up for debate. The game wanted a lot of home runs, and he obliged it. Along the way, he pulled in fans in record numbers and helped restore the game to health after the 1994 strike.
OK, he embarrassed himself in front of Congress, but that was four years after he retired. It’s irrelevant.
That’s really all there is to it. McGwire played by the rules, which is more than can be said of a lot of other members of baseball’s shrine. He hit more home runs than anybody. He belongs in Cooperstown, and I’m doing my part to put him there.
Mike Celizic writes regularly for MSNBC.com and is a freelance writer based in New York.
Shane
<< <i>No juicers in the Hall. Period. And I don't buy this "we'll never know who did and who didn't" crap either. >>
But that is the point - we DON'T KNOW who did it and who didn't. Some little bitty guys DID. And some HUMONGOUS guys DIDN'T!
I am not here to say McGwire DIDN'T juice. I actually believe he did. I am saying that since we don't know who did and who didn't, then steroids shouldn't be an issue, unless you tested positive AFTER the rules were into effect.
Shane
- while not the only guy of alleged "juicer" era, physically he is the most symbolic. No player from his era shows more blatant physical changes than "before" and "after" McGwire pictures.
- his testimony at Congress will haunt him forever.
- look at his stats from 1988 to 1992, his alleged pre-juice era and they are horrendous.
2) His actual performance merits induction.
3) The Hall of Fame has criteria other than performance...and I believe things like integrity, sportsmanship, etc... are all part of the criteria. Going by the letter of the criteria for HOF, there is strong merit for NOT inducting him. The backers say that he didn't break any baseball rules, true, but he did break some laws, and by the mere fact that he refused to speak about it shows that it is on the wrong side of the ethical mountain. If you are doing something and you are hiding it, then you know it is wrong. When you start lying about it(or have Larussa lie for you), then it gets worse. SO he certainly would not qualify for the Hall based on this level of criteria.
4) Does that mean everybody from this era should not make it? Tough call with no clear answer. What can you do but take it on a case by case basis? Bonds. He was a Hall of Famer before juicing...and while he was juicing he was absolutely on another planet(even compared to the other juicers), so Bonds may get an o.k. from many. Palmeiro? No. He was borderline even with juicing(never was near the best hitter), and he was clearly NOT a Hall of Fame type player before juicing. His debacle at the end of his career when he got caught...NO WAY will he make it, or deserve to make it.
5) McGwire? THe man was a spectacle for a few years, and was excellent other years. ALso had some nice pre juicing years. If I agreed to his induction, it would have to come with something. There would have to be some mention on his plaque about artificially enhancing his body. The sad thing is that he probably didn't need to juice, and he would have made it anyway. The juicing just turned him into something he wasn't.
6) There is no right answer.
<< <i> There is no right answer. >>
You said that right. I just gave my opinion. That's the sad thing. There probably isn't an answer.
Shane
I know his run to 70 was huge for baseball, but the guy he was chasing (Maris) isn't in the Hall and he won 2 MVP's and broke Ruth's record in New York.
Putting together a set of 61 Fleer Basketball PSA 7 or better.
Trade references: T,Raf12,Coach Vinny,Iceman,McDee2,Lantz,JSA
I know his run to 70 was huge for baseball, but the guy he was chasing (Maris) isn't in the Hall and he won 2 MVP's and broke Ruth's record in New York.
I take pretty much the same stance. I do not think he would have reached 500 w/o the juice and just like Kingman, would simply not have the numbers.
Never was a fan of his grandstanding either ....
I don't buy that logic. The guy hit 583 home runs! Harmon Killebrew was the same way. He is in.
Shane
He was also an excellent On Base Machine, as he has an excellent career OB%, and he lead the league twice, and finished in top ten twice.
His one trick is strongly tied to his HR....his SLG%, in which he lead the league four times, finsihed second twice, and had two other top tens.
He is in no way Dave Kingman. Dave Kingman's lifetime OB% was .302...compared to a league average of .329. McGwire is the complete opposite.
Dave Kingman finished ninth one time in SLG%...and thats it.
He was a very slow baserunner.
<< <i>Well, since Tony Gwynn could only do one thing well (hit for average), I guess he shouldn't get in either.
I don't buy that logic. The guy hit 583 home runs! Harmon Killebrew was the same way. He is in. >>
Based upon the numbers hit hit, yeah, Mcgwire's in, even though he was one demensional, that one demension was so outstanding you'd have to put him in, when he had those great years he was as dominent as anyone ever was. the issue is not with his numbers, but with how he aquired them. Let's be real honest here: he cheated. We all know it. He cheated. As far as pitchers scruffing the ball or greenies or guys stealing signs, yes that's cheating to, and i'm not here to defend that, but to me (and alot of others) Mcgwire's cheating seems so much more wrong. I know that sounds weird, but it's true. How many people were complaing Mays shouldn't make the Hall because of his red drink? No one. Mcgwire (and Bonds, Sosa, Raffy, Canseco et al.) did it on a level that in my opinion should keep them out of the Hall.
*sigh* this is a difficult conversation to have, there are so many angles. But I just can't see rewarding people who have cheated so bad by putting them in the Hall.
Killebrew is an interesting comparison-I think he was more of a gamer than Mac and not juiced, also he played until 1975 and was elected into the Hall in 1984-not a first ballot guy.
Putting together a set of 61 Fleer Basketball PSA 7 or better.
Trade references: T,Raf12,Coach Vinny,Iceman,McDee2,Lantz,JSA
<< <i>He lost his chance, in my opinion, when he said, "I'm not going to go into the past and talk about my past." >>
Exactly. If he is not going to consider the past then I can't consider his past efforts as a professional baeball player.
I think you are giving sportswriters too much credit if you think their goal is to protect the integrity of the game. McGwire not getting in the HOF is not a new story, it's already been played. McGwire getting in and the spectacle to follow, will make these guys jobs easy for the next six months.
I never understood why a guy is not a HOF one year, but becomes one the next year. Either he is a HOF or not.
Interesting perspective.
Shane
I still remember the hypocrisy shown by SI's Rick Reilly when he tried to get Sosa to take a drug test. This is the same guy that wrote a brown nosing column about how much a workout warrior Bill Romanowski was, a confessedd steroid user.
<< <i>I have a feeling the writers are going to vote him in. Not because they want to reward a steroid user, but because the sideshow it would create at Cooperstown would give them something to write about. Can you imagine what he could say during his speech? A confession?
I think you are giving sportswriters too much credit if you think their goal is to protect the integrity of the game. McGwire not getting in the HOF is not a new story, it's already been played. McGwire getting in and the spectacle to follow, will make these guys jobs easy for the next six months.
I never understood why a guy is not a HOF one year, but becomes one the next year. Either he is a HOF or not. >>
While I respect your view, I think you'll find the exact opposite. The story will be how painfully low the percentage of the vote McGwire will get. Don't forget that these sportswriters have created the highest standard for any sports Hall of Fame. I bet McGwire's support will be nowhere near the 75%.
no he doesnt get in.
and no he doesnt deserve to get in anytime soon.
tainted with the juice. his testimony sure didnt help.
I do hope that Jim Rice gets in on the Veterans committee
i dont know how many of you have ever drove on the mark mcgwire expressway. i do it every morning.
I am a fan of mcgwire, have a lot of him in psa9 and bgs9. i have as many cansecos too.
Mark mcgwire put things in his body that were not designed(?), they were fruits and vegtables, herbs and spices [anyone for lion genitalia or fertile frog eggs].(?) Mcgwire was dedicated and a true champion's champion(?) Mcgwire is a humanitarian.(?) Mcgwire took the gentleman's approach to topping maris.(?) Mcgwire is a father.(?)
believeing these traits to be possessed by mcgwire a majority will vote him in the hall before gywnn and ripken.
I think many writers may take the stance that the "steroid era" was the sign of the times. These guys will always have steroids tagged to their name...many possibly undeservingly so. That alone may be their punishment or maybe their albatross hanging around their neck.
I dont think they will ignore the steroid factors but I dont think it will ever be strong enough to not vote a player in. Are they not going to vote Bonds in? Of course they will. And if they have ANY will to vote him in, every other player from that era should be fairly considered as well.
I think the steroid era makes it hard to single out any player. McGwire was never caught or proven to have taken anything.
Though I agree that Palmeiro will feel the most wrath, and has no chance of ever making it. I actually believe Sosa will have a hard time as well. He was faaar below average before the roids, while many of the other guys were superstars already(excpet Palmeiro). I think Big Mac makes it eventually, and I would put the over/under at a five year wait...as people will want more info that is coming out slowly.
It is possible that this factor is every bit as a culprit as steroids for their outlandish numbers.
Giving a batter one more aspect of the plate to cover may seem small, but it can be all the difference in the world.
Steroids help, but it is hard to tell how much, and I am sure it has different effects on different bodies. It is just one more reason, coupled with about ten others, that make a baseball historian take the results with grains of salt.
<< <i>Actually, the one thing that gives these batters a HUGE advantage over previous era sluggers is the body armor factor. Guys like Bonds, McGwire, and Bagwell literally take the inside part of the plate away, and a pitcher can't get anything by them on the outside by virtue of them being so close. >>
Biggio is the master of body armor and taking one for the team
Furthermore - and I'm sure this will put me in a very small minority - I'm not sure that I even care what chemicals were fueling the long ball frenzy of McGwire, Sosa, et al. We cling to this romantic notion of the pure, naturally blessed athlete, but I'm guessing it's impossible to watch a sporting event or read a sports publication without learning of the benefits of a magic elixir that will calm our hyper children, elevate our flagging mood or keep us hard all night long. In a sense, doping is just a natural extension of much larger social forces.
If McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, whoever say they took x for x years, apologize, do something for the community, anything... I would be disappointed but would regain some respect. At least they won't have that cloud of suspicion hanging over their heads.
"I'm not going to go into the past and talk about my past" is admitting it without acknowledging it. At least Sosa pulled the "No habla Engles". It just made this worse IMO.
If they do, I believe they would have a better shot at making the hall than they do now.
Win shares, performance relative to peers (rather than relative to trusted standards like 500 HR), batting average, OBP, defense, baserunning, clutch play - while increased muscle mass and power helps all of these, they are not as distorted as HR's and artificially extended career numbers. If I had a vote, I would put more of my faith in these types of metrics.
Bosox1976
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Grote i must defend Big Mac here are you a bonds lover or what . Bonds was the mediocre player his wholle carreer untill the roids. You call mac one dimensional he had 47 hiomeruns his rookie year and was a consistent 30+ homerun a year hitter throughout his carrer. Bonds was a 20 = if that a year hitter. So the obvious stats show Bonds was the great benifactor of the juice .
PLUS WHAT PEOLE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE THE SUPPLEMENTS MCGWIRE TOOK WERE PERFECTLY LEAGAL BY MLB STANDARDS AT THE TIME. SURE THEY ARE BANNED NOW BUT MAC DID NOT HIDE IT AND MLB NEW ABOUT IT. SO QUIT WHINNING MAC DESERVERS THE HALL.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM EVERYBODY HAS THERE OPINION BUT WHEN ONE TRIES TO SAY BONDS WAS BETTER THE NUMBERS DONT LIE MAC WAS MORE CONSISTENT AND ALL AROUND BETTER THEN BONDS
IVE BEEN FORTUNATE TO MEET BOTH PLAYERS SEVERAL TIMES AND EVEN PERSONALITY WISE MAC IS GGOD FOR BASEBALL AND BONDS IS A MEMEME JERK OFF
Absolutely false. Bonds was a three-time league MVP and well on his way to becoming the only player with 500 homers and 500 SBs when he started juicing after the McGwire/Sosa HR chase. He may not have reached 714 homers, but he sure as heck would have finished with over 500 homers, 500 steals, and been a first ballot HOFer.
McGwire hit for power. Period. He was a below average fielder and if not for the juice he may not have even reached 450 homers for all we know. He's not even on the same level as Bonds, steroids or not.
I agree with you that Bonds is a total jerk, but those are the facts.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Surely, you can't be serious.
I am serious, and dont call me Shirley.
...and your saying Bonds wasnt a HOF before the roids? he was easily a first ballot guy, he didnt need the juice or did you miss all the MVP's he won prior to the juice...
But of course he'll eventually get in the Hall, there's no question about that - likely in one or two years.
The arguement that McGwire is better than Bonds is just silly. Without roids, McGwire is no better than Dave Kingman. Bonds was already a borderline HOF'er when he started taking them at the end of the 1998 season.
I wonder if Canseco's book will ever get the respect that it deserves.
How good was McGwire before he started, assuming he started, taking 'roids? Well, he was great from the moment he put on a uniform, and he got super-human great starting in 1995. If one of y'all knows when he started that would be helpful but unless the claim is that he started as a rookie, then there is no reasonable argument that he was not great without them. He was also, by the way, a Gold Glove first baseman and actually deserved more than the single one he was voted.
But as much greater as he was than Kingman - we're in Johnny Bench better than Bo Diaz territory here - he was not as good as Bonds. Even using steroids and if Bonds had never used them, he's not as good as Bonds. Someone, and I won't embarass them further by going back to see who it was, used "Bonds" and "mediocre" in the same sentence. Now there is nobody here who wishes injury or death if necessary on Barry Bonds more than I do, but I couldn't look at myself in the mirror if I let that comment stand. Barry Bonds was on track to be one of the best 10 or 15 players in history before he started using - somewhere in Lou Gehrig territory. That he wasn't satisfied with that is, to me, what makes him the most despicable player in MLB history.
what about all the pitchers who he faced who were surely juicing? To think it was just hitters on steroids is naive at best. So while he may have juiced, so were the pitchers throwing at him.
Let him in already. He's deserving. And none of this 'but he has to admit what he did!' crapola. No he doesn't. No. Stop with that crap. He doesn't owe you ANYTHING.
He deserves induction into the hall on his first ballot. END OF STORY.
Shane
I don't think he will face any jail time because Canseco or Raffy weren't jailed for steroids.
You think it's a coincidence that he's faded away since his retirement?
"I'm not going to go into the past and talk about my past."
If he gets in, might as well let Palmeiro in too.
McGwire doesn't need to come clean....he doesn't need to justify to anyone what he did, to 'come clean', he doesn't need to admit to anyone anything.
Since when did MLB and the HoF become the moral police? What about the number of known cheaters already in the hall? Why is there no outrage at their induction (and I'm thinking specifically about Niekro and Perry).
I think all those clamoring for McGwire to 'fess up' and admit his so-called 'wrong doing' are those who get off on seeing bigger than life figures fall in disgrace to make their own lives feel more meaningful.
Where was the rush to induct Pete Rose after he admitted to gambling on Rose? I don't see anyone who was against Rose's induction now for him because he 'fessed up' or admitted his 'wrong doing'.
McGwire deserves to be a first ballot HoFer....anyone who argues otherwise needs to get off their high horse, look at what he did as a player, and stop this nonsense about McGwire needing to admit ANYTHING.
<< <i>Why would you lump in a busted cheater (i.e. Raffy) to someone who never failed a drug test?
McGwire doesn't need to come clean....he doesn't need to justify to anyone what he did, to 'come clean', he doesn't need to admit to anyone anything.
Since when did MLB and the HoF become the moral police? What about the number of known cheaters already in the hall? Why is there no outrage at their induction (and I'm thinking specifically about Niekro and Perry).
I think all those clamoring for McGwire to 'fess up' and admit his so-called 'wrong doing' are those who get off on seeing bigger than life figures fall in disgrace to make their own lives feel more meaningful.
Where was the rush to induct Pete Rose after he admitted to gambling on Rose? I don't see anyone who was against Rose's induction now for him because he 'fessed up' or admitted his 'wrong doing'.
McGwire deserves to be a first ballot HoFer....anyone who argues otherwise needs to get off their high horse, look at what he did as a player, and stop this nonsense about McGwire needing to admit ANYTHING. >>
Interesting point of view coming from someone who has spent the past year on these boards bashing Giambi and others for cheating, whether or not they admitted it or were caught. Once again you show your inconsistency based on emotion and agenda.
-- Yogi Berra
Putting together a set of 61 Fleer Basketball PSA 7 or better.
Trade references: T,Raf12,Coach Vinny,Iceman,McDee2,Lantz,JSA
<< <i>
Interesting point of view coming from someone who has spent the past year on these boards bashing Giambi and others for cheating, whether or not they admitted it or were caught. Once again you show your inconsistency based on emotion and agenda. >>
Absolutely not the same thing.
Giambi is a self-admitted cheat who testified on the witness stand in grand jury testimony that he used steroids. Same with Sheffield. Raffy was busted by a drug test. Bonds admitted to taking steroids.
McGwire did NONE of these things.
Where's the inconsistency?
There's no agenda here - regardless what the yankee apologists want to believe. If you've failed a drug test, or admitted under oath you juiced - you're out.
McGwire did neither - didn't fail a drug test, didn't testify under oath to juicing. He's in.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Interesting point of view coming from someone who has spent the past year on these boards bashing Giambi and others for cheating, whether or not they admitted it or were caught. Once again you show your inconsistency based on emotion and agenda. >>
Absolutely not the same thing.
Giambi is a self-admitted cheat who testified on the witness stand in grand jury testimony that he used steroids. Same with Sheffield. Raffy was busted by a drug test. Bonds admitted to taking steroids.
McGwire did NONE of these things.
Where's the inconsistency?
There's no agenda here - regardless what the yankee apologists want to believe. If you've failed a drug test, or admitted under oath you juiced - you're out.
McGwire did neither - didn't fail a drug test, didn't testify under oath to juicing. He's in. >>
LOL yankee apologists.
First off I have openly and often criticized Giambi. That being said, lets figure out what you are saying here...
Because someone admits they cheated they are to be scorned, but when they LIE and wont admit it we should look the other way and pretend they are innocent ?
I for one have far more respect for those who admitted they cheated, no matter what the circumstances in which they admitted it, than a guy who goes in front of congress and the American people and continues to run from the issue and deny.
-- Yogi Berra