The Roid Era, McGwire left out of the Hall

[hornitosmonster]

Good!

Mark McGwire fell far short in his first try for the Hall of Fame, picked by 23.5 percent of voters while Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken Jr. easily gained baseball's highest honor.

Tarnished by accusations of steroid use, McGwire appeared on 128 of a record 545 ballots in voting released Tuesday by the Baseball Writers' Association of America.

[Danbreeze]

That is excellent news.

Hopefully the same will happen for Barry Bonds.

[partagaspete]

I am certainly glad that he was not admitted especiall the same year Cal gets in. That would de-value the Hall of Fame IMHO. He cheated and should never be admitted. Again,IMHO.

T

[Twill413]

I don't know that these allegations alone are what kept him out of the hall. Being known for a hitter, nothing other than his power really stands out at all.

Career BA- .263 albeit with a slugging % of .588
Career Post Season BA- .217 With a slugging % of .349 and

583 Career homeruns.

If I were a voter I would be looking at stats like the post season HR (5 in 42 post season games, as opposed to 33 SO). With stats like that coupled with those allegations would be enough to cause me not to vote for him.

[kjd2121]

Good News - Hope they treat Barry the same.

[King James]

just to play devils advocate a bit.... Read an interesting thing in ESPN the magazine that said how the baseball hall of fame is sort of like a museum and leaving out the top hitters of the 90's would not be a good thing, despite the steriod use. He also went on to state something along the lines of you think that there are not others in the hall that did not cork bats or do other such things to give themselves an adavantage.

[Twill413]

Not to mention the fact that he did nothing illegal at the time. The stuff he was taking was not banned by MLB

[snowy]

He does not deserve to be in HOF.....

[King James]

Originally Posted by snowy

He does not deserve to be in HOF.....

Once again playing devil's advocate, may I ask why? Was he not one of the most prolific hitter of the 90's if not of all time? And is it not possible to believe that some of the greats of the past never did anything to cheat. As the magazine states, "Word is JFK cheated on his wife. Should we change the name of the airport and remove all his memorabilia from the Smithsonian."

[mikey202]

Originally Posted by trainwrek

That is excellent news.

Hopefully the same will happen for Barry Bonds.

ditto

[IHT]

we had this discussion earlier. a Poll, as a matter of fact, was put up about it. <-- a link!

here's something i wrote in that topic, and some other related responses.

Originally Posted by IHT

wow, i'm the only person that's voted "yes"??

here's his lifetime stats, which is what the HOF is based on, not just 1 good season.
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/stats/...ocator=mcgwire
i would also like to point out 2 stats when you all say, "but he didn't have as many ____ and ____ than ________ did!!"

1874 and 6187
that's how many games and at bats he had. when you compare that to the guys who have more _____ than he does, check out how many more games they played then he did.
take willie mays for example. 2992 games played. H. Aaron = 3298; Bonds = 2860; Ruth = 2503; Killebrew = 2435 (that's still nearly 600 more games played, or almost 4 yrs of games); Mantle = 2401....

not totally defending him, cuz i don't give a rip either way. just saying, look at the body of his work, not just 1 great season. look at what he did when he played... he put up a lot of stats (and that's what HOF voting is about) when he was playing.

Originally Posted by croatan

#7 on the all time home run list with far fewer games than anyone else in the top 25 says a lot to me. Unless you're going to say that the last ten years of baseball records don't mean a thing, and every "juiced" record is thrown out, acting like recent history didn't exist (which I think is pretty silly), I think he deserves to be in the hall.

Originally Posted by IHT

if we knew of EVERY player to "cheat" that's in the HOF, and cast them out (or for other bad deeds done away from the game), the Halls would be nearly empty.
how many pitchers do you think every scuffed up a ball, or used a "foriegn substance" that are in the HOF? uh... i'd venture to say a LOT of them.

now, how do we know for certain all these players are using steroids now? i remember the big blow up about mcgwire was the "andorstendione" in his locker (which isn't a steroid)... but he may have taken them, i don't know.

i DO know that todays athletes are all a lot more athletic, well built, harder trained, better suplements, which = bigger/stronger/faster/better players.

lets strike everyone from the HOF who used "Wheaties" in the 70s, damnit!!

Originally Posted by croatan

I think Jackson and Rose are more similarly situated. Jackson took money to throw the series. Did he play well? According to the numbers, sure. Did he play as well as he could have? Who knows. As far as I know, Rose never bet against his team.

The problem, as I see it, is that steroids (and other performance enchancers) has more or less been a part of professional (and amateur) sports for quite a while now. That doesn't make it right, but it's hard to say that none of these current players deserve to be in the hall. I think that everyone knows that McGwire, Bonds, and the like are tarnished; however, as far as I know Mark has only admitted to taking a dietary supplement that was not banned in baseball. Also, I'm not quick to crucify anyone for refusing to answer questions without blanket immunity.

Cobb liked to slide into second with his cleets pointed directly at the baseman. Gaylord Perry admitted to doctoring a baseball in every way imaginable and he's in the hall--also, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a pre-war pitcher in the HOF who didn't scuff, scrape, or moisten a ball.

He's got the numbers, he wasn't kicked out of baseball for violating any substance policy, I say let him in.

Originally Posted by niterider56

I think he should be in. How many of you agree with Mantle and Mays being in and both using amphetemines all the time to get "up" for a game. Isn't that cheating also. As far as answering questions from a bunch of lying, cheating, sex offending congressmen, F*&# em. Yes I believe Rose and as much as I don't like him Bonds also belong in the HOF. I think everyone in pro sports tries to gain an edge any way they can and for as long as they can get away with it.

just a few....

[hornitosmonster]

Not to mention the fact that he did nothing illegal at the time. The stuff he was taking was not banned by MLB

But it was and has been against the Law since 1991(?). Just because it wasn't in the rules of baseball does not mean it wasn't illegal. Because Mark got so low of a vote it leads me to think he will never get in. Bonds should be very concerned about this. I hope he doesn't get in as well

[Twill413]

Originally Posted by hornitosmonster

But it was and has been against the Law since 1991(?). Just because it wasn't in the rules of baseball does not mean it wasn't illegal. Because Mark got so low of a vote it leads me to think he will never get in. Bonds should be very concerned about this. I hope he doesn't get in as well

That very well may be, but if we start eliminating people from the hall for actions that are illegal off the field, you start clearing out some serious room. For everyone that cheated or beat on their wife that was never prosecuted, whoever used drugs, whoever drove while intoxicated, jaywalked, where do you draw the line? The Hall has nothing to do with your personal life, only that you did not violate any major rules inside the game(ala Pete Rose), and people think you did enough in your career to get in. Personal sentiment creeps in simply because people are human.

I couldn't give a flying dog turd if he gets in or not, but I feel that Barry deserves to be in the hall. He has done much more over the course of a career than Big Mac, at least IMHO.

[hornitosmonster]

I disagree. The NFL has a good drug policy program set in place. MLB has always had a shitty one.

[TMoneYNYY]

Personally, there are certain players that just have too much stacked against them. Everybody says, "There's no proof! Steroids were allowed then!" That's fine... but they're not now. I don't care what was/wasn't legal then... players from the '30's-'60's weren't really allowed to work out, let alone use steroids. It's obvious some players used steroids, and it was verified by Jose Canseco (although we don't like him, nobody has challenged the validity of his statements in his book). I would never vote for him, Palmeiro, Bonds or any other steroid user.