Mark McGwire....

[Good Catholic]

I'm a Cubs fan, but my favorite AL team is the A's. Nothing would PO me more then to see Big Mac wear a STL cap into the hall. He played the majority of his career with Oakland. He should have the "A's" on his cap.

[nightal]

I'm a Cubs fan, but my favorite AL team is the A's. Nothing would PO me more then to see Big Mac wear a STL cap into the hall. He played the majority of his career with Oakland. He should have the "A's" on his cap.


Cardinals of course. Nolan Ryan played the majority of his games with 3 other teams but wore a Rangers cap. Reggie Jackson played the majority of his games with the A's, but he wore a Yankees cap.
These are just 2 examples, I'm sure there are others.
:D

[ElHalo]

It has to be the A's. There'd be absolutely no sense in putting him in a cap for a team he played two full seasons and parts of 3 others for.

[nightal]

It has to be the A's. There'd be absolutely no sense in putting him in a cap for a team he played two full seasons and parts of 3 others for.


But I'm sure YOU had no problem with Reggie donning a Yankees cap.

[DoubleX]

I agree, that based on service and number of good years, he McGwires should definitely go in as an Atheltic, but McGwire broke the record and became an American icon in a Cardinals uniform and I think the average fan remembers him as a Cardinal and not an Athletic, thus I believe he will be a Cardinal in the Hall. Two examples come to mind with this - Reggie Jackson and Gary Carter. Reggie should most definitely be an A in the hall, but he's a Yankee due to the level of his exploits during his time there and his post-retirement association with the team. While Carter wanted to be a Met, and I think due to the New York market and the great Met teams of the 80's, Carter is better remembered as a Met, but alas he's in the hall as an Expo due to years of service. Of these two examples, I believe McGwire is more like Reggie - a much larger figure than Carter who created some very memorable moments in baseball lore with a team he didn't spend much time with. So again, I believe he'll be a Cardinal and not an Athletic.

Speaking of the A's getting shafted by former players, I'm always annoyed when I think about how the A's don't properly honor their rich history, which is easily one of the best 5 (I've longed thought that the A's should have one big night where they honor the true greats of the distant past (Foxx, Grove, Gehringer, Simmons, and others) while also praising their more recent heroes (Jackson, Rickey, Eckersley, and McGwire). They might draw a better following if they played up their rich history which might be second to only the Yankees (quite possibly the Cardinals too). At least they finally honored Jackson this year.

[ElHalo]

But I'm sure YOU had no problem with Reggie donning a Yankees cap.

I actually have a problem with Reggie being in the Hall at all. I don't think outfielders with .262 career averages should be in the lineup, much less the Hall.

I'll leave my comments on first basemen with .263 career averages, like McGwire, for another day.

[cws55]

Cardinals cap...those were the best days...the years that meant the most and brought baseball back. Of course thats all in my opinion.

[west coast orange and black]

It has to be the A's. There'd be absolutely no sense in putting him in a cap for a team he played two full seasons and parts of 3 others for.

were you kidding, then, eh, about rickey going into the hall possibly depicted in a bluejays cap?

anywaze, about big mac: if the hof committee listens to mcgwire, then he is entering in a cardinals cap... but supposedly they do not take to being lobbied.

[ElHalo]

were you kidding, then, eh, about rickey going into the hall possibly depicted in a bluejays cap?


Yes, of course. He has to go in as A. The only other one that's even semi-logical is the Yankees, and he certainly ain't a Yankee.

I picked the Blue Jays because I believe he only played there for about two months of his career. Though they were an exciting two months.

[west coast orange and black]

aw, i knew that you were just funnin'.

[DoubleX]

I actually have a problem with Reggie being in the Hall at all. I don't think outfielders with .262 career averages should be in the lineup, much less the Hall.

I'll leave my comments on first basemen with .263 career averages, like McGwire, for another day.

Errg, always with this blind bias for shiny averages. First, Jackson actually batted 6 points above league average. Had he played during the 1930's, 6 points above league would make him a .300 career hitter, and then you're silly blind bias would have no problem with Jackson. You're unfairly punishing him for his era while you unjustly reward players of earlier eras when high averages were the norm - you can't have it both ways! If you're going to reward a .300 hitter in a .295 league then you can't hold it against a .265 hitter in a .260 league, it essentially means the same thing! Plus, in Jackson's case, for the bulk of his prime, he routintely batted at least 20 points above league and often batted over 30 points above league average - his career average is skewed by his first few years and his decline after he left the Yankees.

Now on to why Jackson is a hall of famer...He had a +139 OPS (plus his OBP was over 90 points higher than his average and over 30 points higher than league OBP, meaning that he knew how to get on base), an MVP (and 7 top ten finishes), 14 all-star games, 4 homerun titles, 14 times in the top ten in homeruns, and retired with the sixth most homeruns ever! Had Jackson played in a more offensive friendly era, he might have hit 700 homeruns. Jackson was the preeminent slugger of his day (along with Schmidt), and one of the greatest homerun hitters of all time. He wasn't just a good slugger and good homerun hitter, he was one of the most prolific sluggers the game had seen when he retired, not to mention that he was the centerpiece of 3 pennants won by your Yankees, and that's why he's in the hall of fame.

[Imapotato]

"Thanks GNC"

That's his cap

[Imapotato]

I actually have a problem with Reggie being in the Hall at all. I don't think outfielders with .262 career averages should be in the lineup, much less the Hall.

I'll leave my comments on first basemen with .263 career averages, like McGwire, for another day.

You are consistent.

But are you seeing a pattern here with 1970's players?
Low Averages, Slightly high power that looks minisule today?

Jackson and Schmidt are ALOT alike...both are HOFers, both are not the greatest at their position.

[dgarza]

Mac broke the record as an A!

He became a face on People magazine as a Card (I don't know if he made People magazine, but I hope you know what I'm getting at.)

[west coast orange and black]

Mac broke the record as an A!

He became a face on People magazine as a Card (I don't know if he made People magazine, but I hope you know what I'm getting at.)

i think that you are saying that although mcgwire established the single-season homer record as a cardinal, he put up most of his numbers while with the a's. ok, coolio. but my earlier remarks were pointed to mcgwire's own words - that he wanted (still wants?) to be inducted as a cardinal.

btw: i do not read people; i can not recall the last time that i saw a people cover; i do not get your drift.

[dgarza]

i think that you are saying that although mcgwire established the single-season homer record as a cardinal, he put up most of his numbers while with the a's. ok, coolio. but my earlier remarks were pointed to mcgwire's own words - that he wanted (still wants?) to be inducted as a cardinal.

btw: i do not read people; i can not recall the last time that i saw a people cover; i do not get your drift.
Talkin' 'bout that 87 record

[RuthMayBond]

I thought the Hall had the final decision on which cap, no matter what the player may want. I'm sure they try to get one mutually agreeable.

[west coast orange and black]

Talkin' 'bout that 87 record

oh, his rookie record. the one that i expect not to be broken.

um, do rookie records really amount to much on their own? i do not think so. there have been many players who had the world on a string as rookies but then simply did not measure up or who even greatly faltered. now, mcgwire is certainly not one of them, but by and large hardly anyone speaks of rookie records, much less points to one as a hall of fame credit.

the fact that few (no?) major mlb records are owned by rookies attests to this. (awkward sentence; thanx for staying with me.)
:radio

[west coast orange and black]

I thought the Hall had the final decision on which cap, no matter what the player may want. I'm sure they try to get one mutually agreeable.

the hall voters have the final say, sure. but some big-leaguers have gone so far as to say that they would boycott his own induction if the selected cap was not to his liking. (most recently, clemens.) this is out-and-out petitioning.

[dgarza]

regarding Reggie:
8 of the 20 (it is 20, right?) players with 500+ HRs batted under .280 life-time

just a note...

[santotohof]

He'll probably avoid the conflict and proudly wear a GNC hat.Why not? I saw him at a celebrity golf tourney in Jersey 1.5 years after his retirement and ,while he was still a large man, he looked like someone had stuck a pin in him

[MudvilleMike]

Errg, always with this blind bias for shiny averages.


This kind of thing just kills me, but it was so much worse years ago. I think we'll be pretty much done with the BA bias in the near future.

[SlickJ]

I think he'll wear an A's hat at his Hall of Fame induction.

I believe Big Mac holds the Oakland A's record for most home runs (overall A's franchise record is Jimmie Fox, I think) so it would make sense for him to wear the A's cap.

I could be wrong though.

Jason Maier

[prof93]

He shouldn't wear any cap, he will be an outsider looking in

[ElHalo]

He shouldn't wear any cap, he will be an outsider looking in

Care to explain that? Or are you one of those people who believe steroids should automatically disqualify you?

[prof93]

One dimensional(.263BA) K every 4th AB, and the Andro.

[burger eater]

Care to explain that? Or are you one of those people who believe steroids should automatically disqualify you?

This could be the future of baseball... a passive approach to steroid abuse. Maybe when a batter steps to the plate on TV, they'll not only show his BA, HR & RBI totals, but have an additional stat that displays steroid use.

like this

Barry Bonds, LF
BA .580 HR 45 RBI 120 steroid user: Yes

[RuthMayBond]

He shouldn't wear any cap, he will be an outsider looking inThank goodness we have an official ruling from the prof93 committee

[RuthMayBond]

This could be the future of baseball... a passive approach to steroid abuse. Maybe when a batter steps to the plate on TV, they'll not only show his BA, HR & RBI totals, but have an additional stat that displays steroid use.

like this

Barry Bonds, LF
BA .580 HR 45 RBI 120 steroid user: YesWe don't even need to wait on evidence. burgermeister can start the job now

[west coast orange and black]

This could be the future of baseball... a passive approach to steroid abuse. Maybe when a batter steps to the plate on TV, they'll not only show his BA, HR & RBI totals, but have an additional stat that displays steroid use.

like this

Barry Bonds, LF
BA .580 HR 45 RBI 120 steroid user: Yes


i think that one loses much credibility when a statement like this is made.

[burger eater]

Man, you guys need to lighten up... that was a joke. I'm not interested in whether Barry or anybody else takes/has taken steroids. It's their gamble if they are. I was just having fun and used Barry as an example because he's a candidate. Geez


i think that one loses much credibility when a statement like this is made.
?? I guess my grand jury testimony just won't hold up now...

[RuthMayBond]

?? I guess my grand jury testimony just won't hold up now...Nah, if they'll take Stengel's, they'll take anyone's :laugh

[west coast orange and black]

Man, you guys need to lighten up... that was a joke. I'm not interested in whether Barry or anybody else takes/has taken steroids. It's their gamble if they are. I was just having fun and used Barry as an example because he's a candidate. Geez


?? I guess my grand jury testimony just won't hold up now...

yeah, ok, fine, man. the joke's on me. it's just that i did not gather that you were joking when you used bonds merely as "a candidate" with the inclusion of your "bonds - yes".

[MudvilleMike]

One dimensional(.263BA) K every 4th AB, and the Andro.

:rolleyes:

[dreifort]

story about his chances... (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ismarkmcgwireahalloffame&prov=tsn&type=lgns)

[west coast orange and black]

what i want to know is: how does he write this:

"At this point, I'm disinclined to vote for any recent sluggers on the first ballot, given the uncertainty surrounding their accomplishments."

and then later justify it with this:

"I don't know who used performance enhancers."

also, "A borderline Hall of Famer [player], dominant in the pre-steroid era, never has looked so good." tells me that rosenthal oughtta dig deeper into the steroid picture.

"Wonderful sport." are his closing words. try "wonderful world" or "culture" or "nation".

[pacewon]

Ridiculous.

If we're gonna keep guys out of the Hall because they might have used steroids, we better take out all the pitchers from the 20th century who doctored the baseball. There are a bunch of them in the Hall.

[julusnc]

I have a firm belief that most players that will end their careers in the next ten years with Hall of Fame numbers will be put under the magnifying glass.

If voters start crimminalizing players without proof then Cooperstown will have some years without inductions.

The whole issue of steriods and drugs at all levels of baseball has always been a topic that the powers that be have not wanted to face because it will place a black eye on sports in general.

The steriods will continue as there are many designer drugs developed each year that baseball will not be able to detect until the players have switched to new ones....Its a cycle that will be hard to stop.

[Brad Harris]

If voters start crimminalizing players without proof then Cooperstown will have some years without inductions.

Neither is "new" to Hall of Fame voters. Both have happened before. Both will happen again.

[Matthew C.]

Until somebody a little more credidable, with less of an axe to grind...which is everybody compared to Canseco, claims any of these players were on steroids, they all deserve to be in the HOF. This includes McGwire, Palmeiro, Rodriguez, and Clemens.

[The Commissioner]

Until somebody a little more credidable, with less of an axe to grind...which is everybody compared to Canseco, claims any of these players were on steroids, they all deserve to be in the HOF. This includes McGwire, Palmeiro, Rodriguez, and Clemens.

Why does this always seem to come down to an either/or situation here?

I'm convinced that they all deserve to be in the Hall of Fame despite the fact that I also believe they all did steroids.

[leecemark]

--I believe steroid use has been common enough in baseball over the last 10-15 years that users did not have a huge competitive advantage. I might be less inclined to vote for a borderline candidate I thought was a user, but it wouldn't deter me from voting for someone clearly over the line (which is the case with all the above examples). I suppose if there was a borderline candidate who could somehow prove they WEREN'T using and had a competitive disadvantage I might give them some extra credit, Pretty hard to prove that negative though.

[Edgartohof]

suppose if there was a borderline candidate who could somehow prove they WEREN'T using and had a competitive disadvantage I might give them some extra credit, Pretty hard to prove that negative though.

Hadn't really thought of it that way, and probably in part because of how hard it would be to prove.

[MikeCameronFAN]

Until it can be proven that steriods are, in fact, performance enhancers, this shouldn't be an issue. Because, the reality is that, nobody knows the effect that steriod use has on baseball players. Until there is scientific evidence that player X took steroids *and* that the use of steroids do in fact enhance baseball performance, to me, this isn't an issue.

[Metal Ed]

The evidence that McGwire actually used steroids is...... well, nonexistent. There's simply no evidence. All we have are allegations made by Canseco, who has little credibility.

McGwire's bulking doesn't arose the same suspiscion as Bonds. Bonds gained about 18-20 pounds of muscle in a single (4 month long) off season at an advanced age (36). This is a very rapid rate of gain for an already experienced weight trainer, and a very rapid rate of gain for a man at that age. At that age, a natural decline in testosterone and growth hormone makes even slow gains in muscle very difficult, let alone 20 lbs in 4 months.

McGwire's build-up, in contrast, was a lot slower, taking place over the course of several years, and at a younger age (during his mid to late 20's). McGwire went from a rookie weight of 225 lbs. to a listed weight of 250 lbs. in 1998. Jose "the Oracle" Canseco alternately states that McGwire was 270 lbs., then later, 280 lbs., during the 1998 season.

A man in his 20's can gain 25-50 lbs. of muscle over the course of several years without steroids, using simple honest hard work and lots of eating. I know this, because I have done so, without steroids, and I am not even a professional athlete - in fact I have horrible genetics for body building.

Please, let's see a little evidence of wrong doing on McGwire's part. So far I have seen not a shred. What -exactly- has the man done wrong? He has broken no laws, neither of society nor of baseball. He took nothing illegal. No federal grand jury testimony has him admitting to steroid use; no one has anything on him. Please, let's stick to "innocent until proven guilty."

[J W]

--I believe steroid use has been common enough in baseball over the last 10-15 years that users did not have a huge competitive advantage. I might be less inclined to vote for a borderline candidate I thought was a user, but it wouldn't deter me from voting for someone clearly over the line (which is the case with all the above examples). I suppose if there was a borderline candidate who could somehow prove they WEREN'T using and had a competitive disadvantage I might give them some extra credit, Pretty hard to prove that negative though.

That's about where I sit. Anabolic roids will hurt my all-time rankings of modern players (and provide further credit for league-relative stats) more than hurt their chances to get into my HOF.

Rosenthal's piece simply looks like the rantings of a voter who's unsure of his stance. I wouldn't put any credence into it until he makes up his mind. He's got a radio show; call him up and speak yours.

[julusnc]

--I believe steroid use has been common enough in baseball over the last 10-15 years that users did not have a huge competitive advantage. I might be less inclined to vote for a borderline candidate I thought was a user, but it wouldn't deter me from voting for someone clearly over the line (which is the case with all the above examples). I suppose if there was a borderline candidate who could somehow prove they WEREN'T using and had a competitive disadvantage I might give them some extra credit, Pretty hard to prove that negative though.

I agree Mark.

[west coast orange and black]

Until it can be proven that steriods are, in fact, performance enhancers, this shouldn't be an issue. Because, the reality is that, nobody knows the effect that steriod use has on baseball players.

Until there is scientific evidence that player X took steroids *and* that the use of steroids do in fact enhance baseball performance, to me, this isn't an issue.
i'm with you pre-break but do think that steroids are an issue, mcf.
that we are talking about it inherits that it is an issue, no?

[antihipster]

It has not really been credibally documented that McGwire has been doing steroids. McGwire deserves to be in the Hall.

Here is his ERA Adjusted Value [ops/league ops/park adjustment]
136.620

This means that McGwire was 37 percent ahead of the league average in this category. Since he had a pretty long career, I do not think he did steroids very long [if that is true]. It is too hard on your body to use steroids for a long period of time, which would mean an early retirement. :radio

[stevethesoxfan]

Until it can be proven that steriods are, in fact, performance enhancers, this shouldn't be an issue. Because, the reality is that, nobody knows the effect that steriod use has on baseball players. Until there is scientific evidence that player X took steroids *and* that the use of steroids do in fact enhance baseball performance, to me, this isn't an issue.

I'm not a doctor or scientist, but at least anectdotally I strongly believe steroids enhance baseball performance.

Steroids increase strength, without question. I work out, and I see steroid users in my gym pushing insane poundages. And added strength will make you hit a ball farther. I do not use steroids, but I can tell you the story about how I spent one winter lifting weights heavily. When I started playing in my organized softball league that spring, the ball was jumping off my bat and traveling an extra 15-20 feet -- and that's softball! My teammates made open remarks about it. Imagine the added jump when hitting a 90mph baseball!

I agree 100% that steroids will not help you make more contact, but if you are a major league hitter who already is making contact (ie Bonds, etc), your warning track balls are going to end up in the stands. Your added strength makes your bat feel lighter, and you are able to increase your bat speed because of it. I don't know how anyone can argue otherwise.

That said, I say "innocent until proven guilty" with Big Mac.

[Bigfly]

Here is a link to theDaily News story. I find it detailed, documented, and damning. I'm not as put off by steroid use as many fans, but I find this enough justification to keep McGwire from enjoying first ballot status. If I had a vote, I would make him wait.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/breaking_news/story/289502p-247838c.html

[DoubleX]

Check out this article on ESPN.com about how a sample (about a quarter of the total) of the BBWAA would vote for Bonds and McGwire given all the steroids drama:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2020890

Apparently, over 80% of this sample would still vote for bonds, while only 55% intend to vote for McGwire. I suppose it makes sense, given all the sudden negativity surrounding McGwire (that's nothing new for Barry), and steroids or not, Bonds is flat-out a much superior player. But still, the following excerpt from the article struck me more than anything else:

"I will not vote for Mark McGwire," Bill Plaschke of the Los Angeles Times said. "It's obvious from his own statements he used some form of performance-enhancing drugs and it's obvious from his statistics he did not become a Hall of Fame-type player until he did so."

Other than seeing Bill Plaschke yell and rant on some of those ESPN shows with the other yellers and ranters, I'm not too familiar with him, but its comments like this that really make me question the baseball knowledge of the BBWAA and anger me that they're in charge of deciding the Hall of Fame status of players. Unless Plaschke knows McGwire was using steroids in college or in the minor leagues, this statement is totally ridiculous, especially the reference to statistics and that they experienced a sudden change in mid-career. Is Plaschke unaware of McGwire's 49 homeruns as a ROOKIE which came in a decade in which only one other person hit as many as 49, and no one hit 50! It seems to me that from the very beginning, McGwire's statistics showed that he had the potential for Hall of Fame power. Errg, that really bothers me. Sorry for the rant, any thoughts?

[abacab]

Unbelievable - one sportswriter said he wouldn't vote for McGwire even if he was clean, because McGwire "just isn't good enough."

Who in his right mind would say Mark McGwire, evaluated only based on what he did on the field, is not a Hall of Famer???

I think that most members of the BBWAA are intelligent and rational, and take their jobs seriously, but they have more than their share of bad apples (or complete idiots).

[cubbieinexile]

Big Mac always had his detractors and even in a world in which PED's was never brought up Bonds would get more votes then Mac. A lot of writers have never liked the skillset that Mac had especially when you compare it to Bonds skillset.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Big Mac always had his detractors and even in a world in which PED's was never brought up Bonds would get more votes then Mac. A lot of writers have never liked the skillset that Mac had especially when you compare it to Bonds skillset.
Fortunately, there are more people in awe of what McGwire could than there are his detractors who focu on what he couldn't do. Harmon Killebrew got in eventually. I don't see McGwire having any more of a problem than Killer did, unless the steroid issue weights too heavily. Frankly, I think there is so much misinformation out there about steroids and the like anyone with a vote should find out the facts before passing judgement.

Hmm, any possibilities of crossing a pig and an eagle anytime soon?

[DoubleX]

McGwire's career was certainly very interesting. His rookie year showed that he was gifted power rarely seen in baseball, and steroids or no steroids, he would have been a very likely candidate to break 50 homeruns and the most likely candidate of the past 40 years to pass Roger Maris. The other side of the steroids is (assuming he did indeed use them) that I believe they caused McGwire to injured as often as he was in the early and mid 90's. He barely played at all in '93 and '94 and missed significant time in '95 and '96. If he was not on steroids and healthy during this period, he could very well have ended up with the same amount of homeruns anyway. His surge in the last 90's could be seen as making up for lost time in some ways.

[Brad Harris]

This article (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=2021157), by ESPN.com columnist Jayson Stark, is the most reasonable approach I've read by anyone all month. The logic is easily extended to Bonds, even though he isn't specifically mentioned in the article.

Nice to know at least one voter has some rational thoughts worth sharing.

[DoubleX]

This article (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=2021157), by ESPN.com columnist Jayson Stark, is the most reasonable approach I've read by anyone all month. The logic is easily extended to Bonds, even though he isn't specifically mentioned in the article.

Nice to know at least one voter has some rational thoughts worth sharing.

Good article, but I think it's wrong to put McGwire and Perry in the same category of cheating. Both cheated, yes. Perry's (and others) doctoring of the ball however, are isolated instances. He doctored a ball (and probably not as often as people think) and throws it a couple of times (with no guarantee that it's going to be a good pitch anyway) at most. McGwire on the other, gave himself an advantage that is always there. The muscles, the reflexes, the speed, is not something that he summons in a few instances, its something that is always with him in all situations and gives him an indefinite advantage at all times.

[leecemark]

--Another difference between Perry and McGwire's form of "cheating" is that Perry actually did his on the field. Wetting the ball while on the mound and getting away with it can almost be described as a playing skill. Secretly shooting up with illegal drugs to give you an advantage over your competitors is something else.

[cubbieinexile]

How is it different? How is shooting up not a skill when scuffing the ball is? You can't simply inject yourself with drugs and then proceed to hit 70 home runs in a season. The drugs allowed McGwire and others to do more with their body then they could without them, but the players had to do more to get more. Working out everyday for eight hours and eating a certain diet. The skill has to be there for it to be enhanced.

To me scuffing the ball is more artificial then drugs. Gaylord didn't sit in his basement scuffing balls for hours everyday like someone like Bonds does to get the full amount from PED's. If anything scuffing the ball is worse because it allows pitchers who could not or should not be pitching at the major league to pitch at that level. While I have yet to see a major league batter who did not deserve to be at the major league level before he took steroids. Not saying that they don't exist but hitters still have to posess the most important skill of all hitting skills, and that is being able to squarely hit a ball.

[leecemark]

--I agree steroids don't help a player unless he is also willing to work very hard while doing them. However they do give that player a huge boost over players who choose not to break the law and endanger their health.
--Scuffing or wetting a ball is something that a player actually does on the field and which opposing teams or umpires have an opportunity to detect and thwart. Also, if it inspires imitation in order to compete at least it doesn't endanger those who follow along.

[cubbieinexile]

Scuffing the ball gives the cheater a huge boost over those who do not cheat as well. If anything it gives the player a bigger boost. Think of it this way if Andy Sheets takes steroids he is not going to suddenly become a .320 hitter with 40 home runs. He might hit a few more home runs instead of doubles or long singles, and maybe his average goes up a little but he is still Andy Sheets the dreadful hitter. A pitcher with an ordinary 88 mph fastball can suddenly become an all-star if not future hof candidate by scuffing the ball.

Physically endanger? Probably not, perhaps some pitcher injures himself because he throws the ball differently. But just like Steroids what about the economic, social, and psychological impact of cheating? What about the minor leaguer who doesn't cheat and is better then a pitcher who is worse then the minor leaguer when he doesn't cheat, but is cheating and thus has the minor leaguers spot on the roster? That minor leaguer gets paid 20,000 or so dollars while the cheaters is at least making 330,000 dollars. Don't you think that is a big difference? That it is going to effect each player for years to come? What about the minor leaguers psyche? Here is a player that played the game honest but got shafted by a cheater. How easy is it to let go of that fact? For some it would be harder.

AS for the detection aspect, steroid users suffer from the same risks. If not moreso, afterall steroid use is against the law, thus they must be obtained illegaly.

[leecemark]

--I don't think scuffing the ball is such an advantage that a guy who otherwise wouldn't be in the majors is elevated to greatness. The spitball has largely disappeared from the game because it did basically the same thing as the legal splitter does. I find it hard to beleive that Perry was using the spit ball frequently and NEVER caught in his 5,000+ innings of work. It was more of a pychological edge than anything else.
--Anyway, whether the scuff or spit ball confers a large or small benefit it is still something that the pitcher has to do on the field of play. Steroids are a form of cheating done away from the game which alters how it is played on the field. A significant difference to me.

[cubbieinexile]

How is that different? Both forms of cheating need a player who is prepared ahead of time to cheat. A Pitcher has to glue, tape, smear, sharpen, or file something and hide it. Cheating on the mound is not some spantaneous act, an act that never entered the pitchers mind until the very moment he cheats. A pitcher must practice and master scuffing. He must learn how to control a pitch. Are you telling me that a pitcher on the mound cheating does not alter the game that is being played? A pitcher that must face the eintire opposing lineup as opposed to one batter cheating in a lineupe of 9? A pitcher cheating has more effect on a game than a individual hitter cheating.

As for the splitter and the spitter I think it is a simplification to say the splitter is doing basically what the spitter did.


Scuffing the ball allows a pitcher to get a greater break on his pitches. How is that not valuable? Look at pitchers like Maddux and Moyer, players who do not have a fastball. They would not be in the majors if it wasn't for their control and movement. AM I saying that they are cheating? No, what I am saying is that a pitcher who has good control and good movement can play baseball at the major league level. Doctoring the ball gives a pitcher good movement. So now if you have good or even decent control suddenly with scuffing you now have good to great movement on your pitches. Steroids do not make a .200 hitter a .300 hitter. IF you can't hit a major league pitch to begin with then steroids are not going to do much for you in that department. Steroids will give a player more power but the skill still needs to be there in order for a hitter to hit the ball.

[Appling]

The other side of the steroids is (assuming he did indeed use them) that I believe they caused McGwire to injured as often as he was in the early and mid 90's. He barely played at all in '93 and '94 and missed significant time in '95 and '96. If he was not on steroids and healthy during this period, he could very well have ended up with the same amount of homeruns anyway.
As I recall, some chemicals were found in McGwire's locker during or after the 1999 season, and he freely admitted using something -- not to improve his power or bat speed, but to help him play thru pain.
McGwire was plagued by a bad back almost all his career -- following that terrific rookie season. I don't think his back pain was caused by use of PED's.
What Mark should have said to Congress is that he never used any chemical which was outlawed by MLB. It may also be true (I hope) that he had a doctor's prescription for any form prescription drug he ever used.

I just wish he had said that!

[Cougar]

This article (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=2021157), by ESPN.com columnist Jayson Stark, is the most reasonable approach I've read by anyone all month. The logic is easily extended to Bonds, even though he isn't specifically mentioned in the article.

Nice to know at least one voter has some rational thoughts worth sharing.

Absolutely agree. Stark has a tendency to be too cute and self-indulgent -- seems to me he's being asked to produce more columns than he can do well.

When he's on his game, though, he's one of the most insightful and thoughtful writers in the business. This is an A-plus example.

[DoubleX]

IF you can't hit a major league pitch to begin with then steroids are not going to do much for you in that department. Steroids will give a player more power but the skill still needs to be there in order for a hitter to hit the ball.

That's not necessarily true. Steroids can improve ones ability to hit the ball. Steroids don't just add brute strength, they add quickness and sharpness. A player can react more quickly to a pitch than normal because the muscles are able to react much quicker. So not only will a player hit the ball further on steroids, but he'll hit the ball better and more often by being able to react faster to the pitch, and that makes a huge difference.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

That's not necessarily true. Steroids can improve ones ability to hit the ball. Steroids don't just add brute strength, they add quickness and sharpness. A player can react more quickly to a pitch than normal because the muscles are able to react much quicker. So not only will a player hit the ball further on steroids, but he'll hit the ball better and more often by being able to react faster to the pitch, and that makes a huge difference.
Steroids increase the level of testosterone in a male. How does this "add" quickness and sharpness? Also, what exactly is "sharpness"? Stronger muscles don't necessairly make them "quicker"...

[cubbieinexile]

If you don't have the skill to put bat on the ball then no amount of strong or quick muscles is going to help you.

Carl Lewis had perhaps some of the quickest muscles fibers in a natural man (if he was natural), that does not mean he could be a .400 hitter.

The hand-eye coordination is in part a skill and another part genetic. So far I haven't heard of anyone injecting steroids into their eyes. Steroids are an enhancer they cannot enhance what is not there. I cannot take PED's work my butt off for a year or two and suddenly run 100 meters in 9.8 seconds. I will not be able to throw 95 mph, or bat .350.

[DoubleX]

Steroids increase the level of testosterone in a male. How does this "add" quickness and sharpness? Also, what exactly is "sharpness"? Stronger muscles don't necessairly make them "quicker"...

Muscles are able to react quicker to things. The reaction process is carried out quicker on steroids because the muscles can react and generate energy quicker. Try doing a google search for something along the lines of "steroids and reaction time" and you'll get numerous articles explaining how and why steroids improve reaction and reflexes. A person that can react more quickly to a pitch than they normally could, certainly has an unfair advantage in baseball.

[DoubleX]

If you don't have the skill to put bat on the ball then no amount of strong or quick muscles is going to help you.

Carl Lewis had perhaps some of the quickest muscles fibers in a natural man (if he was natural), that does not mean he could be a .400 hitter.

The hand-eye coordination is in part a skill and another part genetic. So far I haven't heard of anyone injecting steroids into their eyes. Steroids are an enhancer they cannot enhance what is not there. I cannot take PED's work my butt off for a year or two and suddenly run 100 meters in 9.8 seconds. I will not be able to throw 95 mph, or bat .350.

You're right, hitting a major league fastball does require a phenomenal amount of natural skill. However, increased reflexes and reaction time, no matter how miniscule, can make a huge difference in a game where the slightest difference in timing can have a huge impact on a result. Faster reflexes combined will allow a player on steroids to better time pitches and get the bat around on the ball sooner. Seriously, do a google search for steroids and reaction time/reflexes, and you'll see what I'm talking about - they unquestionably aid in hitting a baseball better than normal.

[cubbieinexile]

Where does any legitimate doctor or scientist say that Steroids increase reflexes?

[DoubleX]

Where does any legitimate doctor or scientist say that Steroids increase reflexes?

Did you try the google search?

Bottom line, steroids in baseball are a clear example of risk/reward. Why scores of players knowingly put their health at risk if there was not some kind of proven reward? People don't use steroids and cheat for no reason - they do it to get ahead, and they wouldn't do it unless there was a good chance they would get ahead. Steroids might not turn a .250 hitter into a .300 hitter, but the added strength, muscle reaction time, and confidence, could turn a .250 hitter into say a .280 hitter, and that could mean millions of extra dollars for that player and a better chance to play the game for more years.

[cubbieinexile]

Yes I have done research on PED's and I haven't come across credible doctors or scientists who say that reaction time is improved.

[DoubleX]

Yes I have done research on PED's and I haven't come across credible doctors or scientists who say that reaction time is improved.

I think I might have confused this conversation a little. I didn't quite mean hand-eye coordination is improved, as so much in that the reaction time of the muscles is improved. Swinging a bat requires the muscles perform a physical process. The time it takes for the muscles to start that process depends on how fast they can react to the brain synapses that tells them to begin the process. While the actual brain synapses are probably not any faster with PEDs, the time it takes the muscles to act upon the brain synapses, start the physical process, and then carry out the physical process, will be greater with PEDs because the muscles will have more strength and energy. So when I meant reaction time, I was strictly talking about the physical process that the muscles work through, not the neurological one. The ability for the muscles to act more quickly upon the brain synapses can make a pretty big difference in baseball and allow a batter to put a better swing on pitches that they normally might be late on.

Do I make sense? It's like you see a 96 MPH fastball coming at you, your brain analyzes it, relays a message to your body telling you to swing at it. So the muscles hear that message and get your body to swing at the pitch. However, depending on when the message was sent by the brain, the muscles might not be able to act quickly enough to the 96 MPH pitch to hit it solidly, and could likely be a tick too slow resulting in a less than desirable outcome for the batter. On the other hand, with PEDs in the system, the muscles have the energy and strength to carry out the brain's message to swing a little bit more quickly, and that slight difference in muscle catalyst can be the difference between a solid hit and a weak pop-up (or even swing and a miss).

Plus steroids help with strength conditioning by allowing users to work longer and harder than most of their peers who haven't given their body that extra juice to work harder and longer.

Another steroids benefit is recovery time. New Orleans Saints coach Jim Haslett, recently came out that he briefly used steroids in his playing days and said that steroids allow the muscles to heal much much faster than normal after a workout, thus allowing a person to workout more and subsequently build up more strength and stamina than they normally would, as well as recover more quickly from the normal muscle strains and aches they get from playing. A tweaked muscle might normally slow a player down for a few days and hurt their statistics, with PEDs, that tweaked muscle could feel much better by the next day and cause no lingering ill-effects on the players on-field performance.

[cubbieinexile]

How many players at the major league level are deficient enough in their hand-eye coordination that the nano-second of speed they add with quicker muscles is going to make a large impact? Or even a medium impact? Yes a muscle will be quicker, but a hitter still has to identify the pitch, where it is going, and then put the bat in front of the ball. If you can't do that well to begin with you are not going to be in the major leagues.

I'm not saying that PED's do nothing, I am saying that PED's add power and bat speed but neither one is as important as being able to hit the ball squarely consistently. In terms of batting average I don't think it is as simple as a .250 hitter becoming a .280 hitter. Generally speaking the players we know to have been on steroids do see a rise in batting average. But it is not because they are suddenly hitting more gappers or more shots into the hole. They are seeing their power numbers go up. Meaning instead of a soft liner to a fielder or a lazy flyball the power turns it into a laser to the wall or over the wall. I seriously doubt that they are hitting the ball squarely more often, I think it is more like their strength is increasing the distance and speed of a hit ball. Two things that make it more difficult to catch.

[DoubleX]

How many players at the major league level are deficient enough in their hand-eye coordination that the nano-second of speed they add with quicker muscles is going to make a large impact? Or even a medium impact? Yes a muscle will be quicker, but a hitter still has to identify the pitch, where it is going, and then put the bat in front of the ball. If you can't do that well to begin with you are not going to be in the major leagues.

Why do you think players retire as they get older? It's not for a lack of strength, its for a lack swing speed and reaction time. It makes a difference. As a player gets older, there body reacts more slowly to a pitch and that small difference in timing is what causes a player to have a statistical decline as they age. Same thing applies to a player in their prime with PEDs - steroids allow their body to react more quickly than they normally could to a pitch, and that small difference bolsters their statistics. Identifying a pitch is not the issue here, it's the speed at which the muscles can react and carry out the swinging process. If it was simply a matter of identifying and had nothing to do with the process the muscles go through, than players would never retire. Body processes are slowed with age and are sped up with steroids and either way, the difference is very evident in the statistics, be it a player that's in a decline due to age, or a player that's experienced a sudden statistical boost in mid-career due to alleged use of steroids.

[cubbieinexile]

Players retire because there body or mind no longer can handle a season of play. Steroids helps stall the breaking down of your body through age and the rigors of athletic events. Imagine you are X fast, now then imagine you pull a muscle in your back. Now you are X-100 fast. At age 23 it might take you 7 days to overcome that pulled muscle. At age 38 it might take you 5 weeks to overcome that pulled muscle. With steroids at age 38 it might only take you 7 days to overcome that pulled muscle. So instead of swinging a bat poorly for 5 weeks you are only swinging the bat pororly for 7 days. Wouldn't that make an impact on a players batting average? But the steroids didn't actually make you have faster reflexes at age 38 it just allowed you to bounce back faster. At the older age every bruise, bump, knick, and cut linger longer and have more impact on a person then they do at a younger age.

Steroids in all probability helps with your bat energy. I say energy because with strength comes power which means more energy is being brought to bear on the ball, and with proper training and stretching is in all probability faster as well. An older player is able to maintain his ability not because he is faster but because he can maintain his strength. As you yourself have said PED's help with recovery time. A 38 year old male should not be able to workout 8 hours a day, every day. With PED's he can which means he is constantly adding strength or maintaining strength. When in reality he should be losing strength because his workouts should be less intense as he gets older.

But again the key is being able to hit the ball at the major league level. I really don't know what we are debating here. I am not saying that PED's do nothing or that there impact is minimal. I am just saying that the most important part of hitting a baseball is hitting the ball squarely. An event that steroids does not play a huge role in. Does it play a role? Sure but so does the bat, your shoes, time of day, and your age.

My basic argument was that the skill has to be there for it to be enhanced. In otherwords Rey Ordonez was/is not going to break the home run record simply because he is taking drugs.

[DoubleX]

Players retire because there body or mind no longer can handle a season of play. Steroids helps stall the breaking down of your body through age and the rigors of athletic events. Imagine you are X fast, now then imagine you pull a muscle in your back. Now you are X-100 fast. At age 23 it might take you 7 days to overcome that pulled muscle. At age 38 it might take you 5 weeks to overcome that pulled muscle. With steroids at age 38 it might only take you 7 days to overcome that pulled muscle. So instead of swinging a bat poorly for 5 weeks you are only swinging the bat pororly for 7 days. Wouldn't that make an impact on a players batting average? But the steroids didn't actually make you have faster reflexes at age 38 it just allowed you to bounce back faster. At the older age every bruise, bump, knick, and cut linger longer and have more impact on a person then they do at a younger age.

Steroids in all probability helps with your bat energy. I say energy because with strength comes power which means more energy is being brought to bear on the ball, and with proper training and stretching is in all probability faster as well. An older player is able to maintain his ability not because he is faster but because he can maintain his strength. As you yourself have said PED's help with recovery time. A 38 year old male should not be able to workout 8 hours a day, every day. With PED's he can which means he is constantly adding strength or maintaining strength. When in reality he should be losing strength because his workouts should be less intense as he gets older.

But again the key is being able to hit the ball at the major league level. I really don't know what we are debating here. I am not saying that PED's do nothing or that there impact is minimal. I am just saying that the most important part of hitting a baseball is hitting the ball squarely. An event that steroids does not play a huge role in. Does it play a role? Sure but so does the bat, your shoes, time of day, and your age.

My basic argument was that the skill has to be there for it to be enhanced. In otherwords Rey Ordonez was/is not going to break the home run record simply because he is taking drugs.

So it seems we are closer on this than I had thought. I agree with you that it takes a tremendous amount of skill to hit a baseball and that steroids aren't going to suddenly help someone identify a pitch. I believe that steroids help the body react more quickly to what it identifies, allowing a batter to put a better swing on a pitch that they might just miss without steroids. That small difference in timing might only lead to 15 extra hits in a year, but just think what those 15 extra hits could do to a batting average. A player who normally would get 150 hits in 550 ABs would bat .272, but then pick-up 15 extra hits with the help of steroids (because their body can react more quickly to the pitches the mind identifies) for a total of 165 hits which would be a .300 average. That's a huge difference for a player in terms of stature and pay-day. Swinging a bat is a physical process that requries muscle energy - steroids give the muscles the energy to make the physical process be carried out just a little bit quicker, and that little difference in reaction time over 162 game season could be huge.

[cubbieinexile]

To me that boost in average has more to do with the fact that he is hitting the ball harder with steroids then because of any minimal gain in relfexes steroids might add. To me steroids add x to reflexes and adds x times 10 to power. The batting average goes up because instead of a flyball out it becomes a home run or a rocket instead of a soft liner. You can have the fastest muscles in the world, muscles that allow you to wait until the very last nano second to start your swing but if you can't control the bat and get it to hit the ball squarely then you are not going to do anything with that ball besides make an out. To me relexes are not just about response time, reflexes in this case is also about responding correctly. To put the bat where it needs to be is a visual skill.

[DoubleX]

To me that boost in average has more to do with the fact that he is hitting the ball harder with steroids then because of any minimal gain in relfexes steroids might add. To me steroids add x to reflexes and adds x times 10 to power. The batting average goes up because instead of a flyball out it becomes a home run or a rocket instead of a soft liner. You can have the fastest muscles in the world, muscles that allow you to wait until the very last nano second to start your swing but if you can't control the bat and get it to hit the ball squarely then you are not going to do anything with that ball besides make an out. To me relexes are not just about response time, reflexes in this case is also about responding correctly. To put the bat where it needs to be is a visual skill.

True enough. I think we're pretty much in agreement then (just differ in how we got there) - ultimately steroids gives a player an advantage that helps raise their stats. Which brings us back to the original point - how is scuffing balls on par with his (or worse) as you asserted in much earlier posts?

[cubbieinexile]

I would think it is obvious. Scuffing a ball increase the break on a thrown pitch. The pitcher already has the advantage and now he has increased it. Whats worse is that he does not have to devote 8 hours a day everyday to get this advantage.

The only thing going for the pitchers is that cheating has become a tradition and does not have the stigma of "drugs" so it has become acceptable. It shouldn't be but humans are funny that way. That is why we had human sacrifices for hundreds if not thousands of years.

AS for the stigma part, if instead of drugs we had corked bats producing these results the uproar wouldn't be so loud, and we most certainly would not be having congressional hearings on the matter. We as a nation are mesmerized by drugs and give them special attention and importance.

[DoubleX]

I would think it is obvious. Scuffing a ball increase the break on a thrown pitch. The pitcher already has the advantage and now he has increased it. Whats worse is that he does not have to devote 8 hours a day everyday to get this advantage.

The only thing going for the pitchers is that cheating has become a tradition and does not have the stigma of "drugs" so it has become acceptable. It shouldn't be but humans are funny that way. That is why we had human sacrifices for hundreds if not thousands of years.

AS for the stigma part, if instead of drugs we had corked bats producing these results the uproar wouldn't be so loud, and we most certainly would not be having congressional hearings on the matter. We as a nation are mesmerized by drugs and give them special attention and importance.


Yes, but a pitcher does it once or twice and only for a very small handful of pitches before the ball is replaced. If a pitcher habitually did it throughout a game (or for many games in close proximity), he would undoubtedly be exposed at some point. Plus, there is no guarantee that a doctored pitch will be a good pitch and that the batter will even swing at it. Could very well be a ball. On the other hand, steroids enhance the physical attributes of a person, giving them an advantage at all times that shouldn't be there.

[cubbieinexile]

We don't know how often a pitche doctors the ball. Which is also a problem as well. Since hitting is a matter of timing and location. If you always know that a ball will break by 12 inches then it really doesn't matter that you can get a ball to break by 12 inches. The hitter will adjust and factor in the break. Now then if you can get a pitch to break 12 inches a few times, 8 inches a couple more times, and 6 inches the rest you are disrupting the hitter. Whats worse is the fact that the hitter knows you are a cheater but doesn't know when you are going to cheat, thus making it even more difficult to hit the ball. Whereas a steroid user as you yourself say is always on, he is a known quantity. Thus he can be accounted for and adjusted against.

Also so what if the pitcher is exposed? There is no process in baseball in which a pitcher doctoring the ball will be kicked out of baseball for long periods of time like a steroid user. How many games did it cost Burdette, Drysdale, Perry, and Ford? Did Perry stop cheating after his first suspension? Did any of them lose stature because of their cheating? Did they risk their salaries by cheating or did they increase their value by cheating? A pitcher who cheats has an unfair advantage that is with him at all times precisely because the opponent doesn't know when he is going to cheat.

[DoubleX]

Whereas a steroid user as you yourself say is always on, he is a known quantity. Thus he can be accounted for and adjusted against.

And how do you propose to adjust against someone with physical advantages? Intentionally walk?

[DoubleX]

Cubbie,

I opened a poll in the History forum about our little debate. I figured we monopolized and distracted from the McGwire/Bonds topic of this thread for long enough. So if you want, we can continue our discussion over there.

[cubbieinexile]

Its a known quantity. If you have Rey Ordonez at the plate you know enough about him to be able to pitch to him in a certain way. You know he can do this with a pitch like that, and can't do this with a pitch like that so on and so on. Same goes for Barry only the outcome is more dangerous. You know Barry likes a pitch in a certain spot so you try not to put a ball there. Steroids do not really change that. Giambi had holes in his swing even with steroids. Whereas how do you adjust to a pitcher that cheats? I'm not saying the adjustment totally negates steroids or that it means that steroids are okay to use as long as we know about them. Pitchers in the teens were allowed to cheat at will the result of which we call the "deadball" era, even though the ball itself was not the problem. To me that shows pretty clearly the power of doctoring the ball.

[Lindseynelson]

After his breakdown in front of America , in a suit btw he could certainly not have worn 18 mos prior, he should pay the price. His finger pointing at the one guy who was on the level(Canseco),his boo hooing while not actually admitting anything reminds me of Pete Rose , although Pete never shed a tear. Petey always said " I never bet against the REDS" UmmPete ,every time you DID NOT bet ON the REDS it was , in the bookies eyes, a bet against.This is something he never can quite get his brain around. Mac had his greatest years as a one dimensional player. Long ball, period. Would he hit 70 sans steroids in Busch? Jack Clark was a pretty fair power hitter who never came close.Apples and oranges , sure , but if your sole ticket to Cooperstown is based on the long ball and you end up looking like the Michelin man in a Cardinal uni then lo and behold the minute you get a whiff of testing your knee causes you to retire and lo and behold again, 6 months later at a Celebrity Golf Tourney you look like your little brother , sorry .He wants in let him buy a ticket.

[Tigerfan1974]

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. One season does not a career make.
Mark holds the record for most home runs in a rookie season w/ 49 and was Rookie of the yr.
He has well over 500 plus home runs. maybe some are tainted, but it was never proven like Palmeiro or Canseco.
Plus Mark is a great Ambassador for the game. How many All star games? plus 1 gold glove, 3 silver sluggers and how many times did Mark lead the league in numerous offensive and defensive categories.

If you want to talk about one dimensional how about Ripken? Now don't get me wrong, I think he belongs in too! But his major claim to fame, besides being a lifelong Oriole which is very commendable, is the consecutive game streak. I say the streak was broken whenever the players went on strike. There was a game to be played and Ripken did not show. Streak broken.

Baseball needs to deal with what players do on the field, as the NFL does.
And don't tell me there are NFLers that don't do 'roids, among other illicit drugs.

And BTW, Pete belongs in the Hall also.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. One season does not a career make.
Mark holds the record for most home runs in a rookie season w/ 49 and was Rookie of the yr.
He has well over 500 plus home runs. maybe some are tainted, but it was never proven like Palmeiro or Canseco.
Plus Mark is a great Ambassador for the game. How many All star games? plus 1 gold glove, 3 silver sluggers and how many times did Mark lead the league in numerous offensive and defensive categories.

If you want to talk about one dimensional how about Ripken? Now don't get me wrong, I think he belongs in too! But his major claim to fame, besides being a lifelong Oriole which is very commendable, is the consecutive game streak. I say the streak was broken whenever the players went on strike. There was a game to be played and Ripken did not show. Streak broken.

Baseball needs to deal with what players do on the field, as the NFL does.
And don't tell me there are NFLers that don't do 'roids, among other illicit drugs.

And BTW, Pete belongs in the Hall also.
How is a shortstop with over 3000 career hits and 400 home runs, and an underrated defensive one at that, one dimensional?

Funny, I thought when gambling on baseball involves gambling on what happens on the field.

[Tigerfan1974]

Every player is more than a one dimensional player.
The only pure one dimensional player I can recall is Herb Washington of the mid 70's A's.
His card states his position as pinch runner. That is all he ever did.
(Thanks for the anomaly Charley Finley!)

McGuire is NOT just a homerun Machine and deserves the Hall just as much as 'roid poster child Barry Bonds will.

And how do you keep the all-time hit leader and holder of some 20 plus records, I believe, out?

[leecemark]

--CCn made a point with Ripken. It doesn't really apply to McGwire. Big Mac could hit HRs and had a good eye. He couldn't hit for average and wasn't a very good defender or baserunner. He had numerous injury problems that made him less than dependable. He slumped so bad after his hot start that his career seemed in jeopardy and it could be argued that it was only steroids that saved him. As for the hit king, you can keep him out because he broke the games cardinal rule.

[Tigerfan1974]

It is called the National Baseball Hall of Fame!
Have any of you ever even been there? I have!!

It is for all of baseball, hence Josh Gibson and Casey Stengal, etc.
It is NOT the MLB Hall of Fame!

Rose, Joe Jackson and maybe others, broke a MLB rule, NOT a rule of baseball.
Baseball is a game that will continue even if MLB disappeared tomorrow.

Rose deserves to be in!
Jackson too!
McGuire also,and even Bonds when his time comes.

[leecemark]

--Negro Leaguers are only the the Hall of fame because MLB decided they deserved to be (and rightly so, they were as major a league as men of color could aspire to at the time). Even if the Hall wasn't dominated by MLB I think most would agree that betting on your games is clearly a huge no no and players who do so are gambling with their honor as much as their money.

[Barnstormer]

If the election was held the day after his non-testimony in Congress, Mac would have had trouble crossing the 5% threshold. I imagine in a year those sentiments will change, but not enough for him to get elected in ´06 with Ripken and Gwynn. But he'll get there eventually.

[runningshoes]

First Ballot?

Not a chance, and rightly so.

[Captain Cold Nose]

--CCn made a point with Ripken. It doesn't really apply to McGwire. Big Mac could hit HRs and had a good eye. He couldn't hit for average and wasn't a very good defender or baserunner. He had numerous injury problems that made him less than dependable. He slumped so bad after his hot start that his career seemed in jeopardy and it could be argued that it was only steroids that saved him. As for the hit king, you can keep him out because he broke the games cardinal rule.
Well said, Mark.

[Brooklyn]

It is called the National Baseball Hall of Fame!
Have any of you ever even been there? I have!!

It is for all of baseball, hence Josh Gibson and Casey Stengal, etc.
It is NOT the MLB Hall of Fame!

Rose, Joe Jackson and maybe others, broke a MLB rule, NOT a rule of baseball.
Baseball is a game that will continue even if MLB disappeared tomorrow.

Rose deserves to be in!
Jackson too!
McGuire also,and even Bonds when his time comes

.

Look at the rules for enshrinement:

Cooperstown website (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/rules.htm)

3A, under eligible candidate says the player mus have been active in the major leagues, so it is not a baseball HOF, it is a ML HOF. If it were just baseball, why no Japanese players, college players, minor league players, etc? (although I'm not sure they couldn't elect a Japense player, I couldn't find Major Major Leagues defined on the site)

And look under 5, voting. Integrity, sportsmanship and character are included as things to be considered. No way Rose passes the Integrity test, nor the character test. Neither does Jackson. Anyone proven to take steriods doesn't pass integrity, sportsmanship lor character issue. Now, it is up to the voters to weigh these negatives against the players playing record and determine where they think they come up. In the case of Rose or Jackson, that decision was made for the writers as they are ineligible. But in the case of McGwire, the writers have the right to not elect him based on other issues. I think with McGwire it would be tough to keep him out because 1) it was never proven, and 2) he has so many other HOF qualities. The better example is Palmeiro. Before the steroid issue, he was considered a border-line HOFer would would probalby make the cut. Weighing that against his steroid use will be enough to change many voters minds about him

[Lindseynelson]

The point I wanted to get across about McGwire was much better put by the fellow who pointed out that mac was after a few good early seasons on the fast track downhill. He hit 201 one year and was hurt often until suddenly he gained those cartoonish muscles and a lot of warning track fly balls became expensive souvineers. McGwire a baseball ambassador? Not after that bogus routine he pulled in front of Congress. I'd admire him and give him more credence had he owned up to his use .Ripken (is it me or is he morphing into the guy Steve on Springers show?) is a better ambassador in my eyes.......As for Pete I still don't know why they don't let him in as a player but keep him out of the game in any official manner. Heck, that old mercenary Pete probably prefers not to be voted in it keeps him in the $ making limelight every year. Had he been honored for his playing days noone would care at this point. Someone made a reference to gambling having to be done with a game but you fail to see how it would work. Example-Petes bookies give him a " shut off " time say 45 minutes earlier than other bettors. Pete decides to layoff the REDS after betting on them for 2 or 3 straight. Now the bookies can make their own bets against the REDS knowing that Pete is not on them today. Pete keeps his version of a conscience clean by saying he never bet against his club but big money is bet against his club because he stays off. No bet by Pete is a bet against the REDS.

[DoubleX]

I do think three players will be elected next year, but the third won't be McGwire (the three will be Ripken, Gwynn, and Gossage). Assuming that nothing else comes out about McGwire, I think he will get in one day as more time grows away from the steroids debacle of the last two years and his hearing in front of Congress.

I think for many of the voters, it will be too soon to make such a definitive judgment about McGwire, and I think they're going to want to wait and see if they learn anything more about McGwire and the game in general during the 90s. Imagine if the voters put McGwire in next year, then 2 years later a lockeroom videotape or something like that emerges showing McGwire injecting himself with steroids? I think the voters are going to wait on McGwire because it's too soon given everything that's happened the last few years.

[RuthMayBond]

Look at the rules for enshrinement:

Cooperstown website (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/rules.htm)

3A, under eligible candidate says the player mus have been active in the major leagues, so it is not a baseball HOF, it is a ML HOF.You might wanna tell jalbright, although I don't know how they can get Josh Gibson etc. in

[leecemark]

--The presence of Negro Leaguers would suggest the NeL are considered to have been "major". No reason why the Japanese Leagues couldn't also be given that status by the Hall.

[RuthMayBond]

--The presence of Negro Leaguers would suggest the NeL are considered to have been "major".Only if they majorly catch up on electing them to the Hall, which we'll see next month

[KCGHOST]

And how do you keep the all-time hit leader and holder of some 20 plus records, I believe, out?

Not even difficult. You just don't vote for him.

[KCGHOST]

--The presence of Negro Leaguers would suggest the NeL are considered to have been "major".

Not in the least. It is no different than any of the existing minor league levels. They all have future HoFers in them.

Electing Japanese players by using their Japanese statistics is just nonsensical. The HoF is not the Worldwide HoF. It is the American version. The Japanese should (and do) have their own HoF with their own requirements. It certainly doesn't bother me that they have requirements that make it difficult for Americans to get in it.

[RuthMayBond]

It certainly doesn't bother me that they have requirements that make it difficult for Americans to get in it.Not to mention "requirements" that make it difficult for Americans to break any of their records

[west coast orange and black]

i agree with xx's prediction that ripken, gwynn and gossage'll get in next season. but not for the same reasons.

either a player gets in by merit, or not.

it ought not take the voters any additional time than next year's regularly-scheduled voting date to vote on the merits of mcgwire. to think that it might be "too soon" to make a decision about mcgwire is antithetical to why players are awarded entrance -- the accomplishments.

for every "what if a videotape is discovered?" there is a "what if there is not?"

xx: just how long do you think is a reasonable time to wait and see?
what length of time is reasonable to put a man's (hof) achievement on hold?

[Edgartohof]

I just love it when a person says that a player "doesn't have a chance" to get into the HOF (especially if they do end up there). It's one thing to say that you don't think they will get in, or that you don't want them to get in (or in this case, at least not on their 1st ballot), but unless you know for sure that they will not get in (in which case, please enlighten us to your information), personal statements that are opinions, need to be stated as opionions, and not as facts.

[DoubleX]

xx: just how long do you think is a reasonable time to wait and see?
what length of time is reasonable to put a man's (hof) achievement on hold?

There's obvious extenuating circumstances about McGwire and about the game in general from the past 15 years that are surfacing, and there is likely a whole more yet to surface. Given the strong and well-grounded suspicions surrounded McGwire and the game from the past 15 years, I don't blame the writers if they want to take more time to see if they learn anything else. You want to put him in because of his accomplishments? Well there is reason to suspect that his accomplishments as well as the accomplishments of a number of his peers are suspect and tainted. I wouldn't want to rush to put someone in the Hall of Fame, the place the honors the best of the game, if there is strong reason to believe they cheated the game and cheated the fans. More will come out in the coming years about the game during the 90s, and I for one would like to know more about this very suspect era before I start honoring some of the more suspicious players of the era.

Because of what's been surfacing about the 90s (and the speculations and suspicions about McGwire), more time is needed than the usual 5 years, because time is needed to get a better idea of just what went on during the 90s.

[west coast orange and black]

despite the extenuating circumstances, xx, i feel that unless something specific becomes known prior to the vote, the voters ought to vote upon the merits of the candidates.

i, too, do not want to see players rushed into the hallowed hall, but isn't that partly why there is the 5-year waiting period?

if, as you reasonably say, that more information might be learned -- in general and of specific players -- then we go from there. namely, the indoctrination is hollow, and that player, despite being enshrined, receives fewer handshakes and pats on the back and applause in the coming decades.
(think he would show up to the hall of fame game?)

rules are made to be followed.
many point to such regarding the banning of pete rose, f'rinstance.
i do not see how we can simply take it upon ourselves (read: how the voters can simply take it upon themselves) to alter the rules.

[RuthMayBond]

I just love it when a person says that a player "doesn't have a chance" to get into the HOF (especially if they do end up there). It's one thing to say that you don't think they will get in, or that you don't want them to get in (or in this case, at least not on their 1st ballot), but unless you know for sure that they will not get in (in which case, please enlighten us to your information), personal statements that are opinions, need to be stated as opionions, and not as facts.Like Dazzy Vance?

[DoubleX]

despite the extenuating circumstances, xx, i feel that unless something specific becomes known prior to the vote, the voters ought to vote upon the merits of the candidates.

i, too, do not want to see players rushed into the hallowed hall, but isn't that partly why there is the 5-year waiting period?

if, as you reasonably say, that more information might be learned -- in general and of specific players -- then we go from there. namely, the indoctrination is hollow, and that player, despite being enshrined, receives fewer handshakes and pats on the back and applause in the coming decades.
(think he would show up to the hall of fame game?)

rules are made to be followed.
many point to such regarding the banning of pete rose, f'rinstance.
i do not see how we can simply take it upon ourselves (read: how the voters can simply take it upon themselves) to alter the rules.

But we've learned a few things during that 5-year period that deserve further investigation. We have learned things during those 5 years that indicate that McGwire may have been cheating; and that's very extenuating compared to most players that come up for induction. So we need more time to A) Learn more about what happened; and/or B) More time to consider how to evaluate McGwire based on what we're learning about the game of the 90s and him. If a report came out a week before the voting that a player was likely using steroids (but without confirmation), what you go ahead and vote for that player, or would you want more time to see what's going on and then evaluate. For me, the matter is that something is going down, there is strong reason to believe that McGwire is part of that something, and I need to know more to know how to evaluate McGwire.

[64Cards]

here's something I heard from one of the local sports talk guys, not that it has a single thing to do with MM's HOF qualifications. Back in the late 90's, Flair [and for those of you unfamilar with pro wrasslin' Flair has been one of the most colorful stars of the show, going back to the late 60's, I'd guess] and his teenage son came to the Cards locker rooms after a game. Many of the players, who no doubt had been watching Flair on tv since they were kids, were excited to meet him and Flair asked the Cards PR guy if his son could meet McGuire. Everyone kinda wondered what would happen, cause eveidently MM was a jerk about meeting people. he finally came over, acted annoyed, consented to have his picture taken with Flair's son, didn't smile and finally Flair said. "if I was 15 years younger, I'd have your ass for breakfast." Then Flair told the PR guy to go bring a dozen balls, over, which he told MM to autograph. After he was done and walked away, Flair said, "What an a..hole!"

I might add, I was at a game around this time, may be the same one and Flair was sitting a few rows in front of me. Happily signed autographs, ahd his picture taken and visited with fans the entire game.

That being said, MM hit the longest damn HR's I've ever seen. I'm more upset about him being a complete jerk than the 'roids. I guess maybe we may all have a price we would pay to the devil.

[yanks0714]

It is called the National Baseball Hall of Fame!
Have any of you ever even been there? I have!!

It is for all of baseball, hence Josh Gibson and Casey Stengal, etc.
It is NOT the MLB Hall of Fame!

Rose, Joe Jackson and maybe others, broke a MLB rule, NOT a rule of baseball.
Baseball is a game that will continue even if MLB disappeared tomorrow.

Rose deserves to be in!
Jackson too!
McGuire also,and even Bonds when his time comes.
Will you please spell it M-c-G-w-i-r-e. If ya don't know how to spell it I can't assume you know very much about him. Maybe you are referring to Deacon McGuire, maybe? Or one of the McGuire Sisters???

[DoubleX]

here's something I heard from one of the local sports talk guys, not that it has a single thing to do with MM's HOF qualifications. Back in the late 90's, Flair [and for those of you unfamilar with pro wrasslin' Flair has been one of the most colorful stars of the show, going back to the late 60's, I'd guess] and his teenage son came to the Cards locker rooms after a game. Many of the players, who no doubt had been watching Flair on tv since they were kids, were excited to meet him and Flair asked the Cards PR guy if his son could meet McGuire. Everyone kinda wondered what would happen, cause eveidently MM was a jerk about meeting people. he finally came over, acted annoyed, consented to have his picture taken with Flair's son, didn't smile and finally Flair said. "if I was 15 years younger, I'd have your ass for breakfast." Then Flair told the PR guy to go bring a dozen balls, over, which he told MM to autograph. After he was done and walked away, Flair said, "What an a..hole!"

I might add, I was at a game around this time, may be the same one and Flair was sitting a few rows in front of me. Happily signed autographs, ahd his picture taken and visited with fans the entire game.

That being said, MM hit the longest damn HR's I've ever seen. I'm more upset about him being a complete jerk than the 'roids. I guess maybe we may all have a price we would pay to the devil.

That's a neat story, though I don't know if it's a good argument to keep McGwire out of the Hall. I too saw McGwire hit a tremendous home run in person. It was when he was still on the A's and he took Mariano Rivera very, very deep into the black seats behind CF in Yankee Stadium (it's extremely rare that a ball reaches those black seats). Easily the biggest homerun I've ever seen.

[leecemark]

--Making McGwire wait a year or two would hurt nothing but his pride, and that seems fair enough. He doesn't really deserve to share the stage with a couple of class acts like Ripken and Gwynn. On the other hand, once he is voted in there is no gettting him out if evidence of long term cheating does surface.

[west coast orange and black]

while it is true that mcgwire might have cheated, the voters have voted in plenty of players who absolutely cheated. if something stops 'em now, with mcgwire, they would be hypocrites, likely doing so merely because of the media's spotlight.

if a report came out a week before the voting that it was likely that a specific player used, i would absolutely vote for him, without hesitation. i would not refrain from voting a guy in based on likeliness.
perhaps this is nothing more than my own personal values, or my own conscience. i dunno.

i do not expect any additonal information about mcgwire to surface, btw.

[west coast orange and black]

leecemark, i have read and heard the terms "long time cheating" and "long term cheating".

when does cheating become "long term cheating"? one full season? two?
i just want your take on it. thanx.

[Captain Cold Nose]

So McGwire signs a dozen balls for a guy but he's a jerk? His biggest crime is not fawning over Flair like his teammates. And he didn't want to break from his routine to sign that many baseballs. And Flair calls McGwire a a*****e?
McGwire probably refused to kiss his ring, too.

[leecemark]

--WCO&B, I can be forgiving about a player who took steroids to help get back from an injury. I can even understand an aging player tryign them to keep his career alive or a marginal player trying them to get a shot at or stay in the show. They deserve punishment if caught, but it doesn't bother me that much. Mostly I suppose because it doesn't affect the records and legends of the game.
-- For a player to build a Hall of Fame career by using is troublesome to me. Barry Bonds, for example, has had an unpresedented run of late career success. He has been a much better hitter in his late 30s than he was at any previous time in his career and that is allowing him to challenge the games greatest records. I have a hard time putting that into context. Bonds, of course, was a Hall of Famer without steroids so it matters only to where I rank him amoung the all time greats.
--Palmerio and McGwire also clearly have Hall of Fame numbers. In Palmerio's case, however, they are strictly the result of compiling them over many good/very good, but not great. seasons. If his career has been artificially extended then his Hall worthiness is very much in doubt. If he was juicing inhis prime then he would never get my vote (if I had one and if it could be proven, both of which likely won't apply).
-- McGwire is somewhat unique in that his entire Hall case is built around his power and that is one thing that steroids definately gives a boost to. I also think there is fairly good evidence that he started juicing early. back when canseco was still with Oakland and McGwire's career had taken a nasty downturn. I realy don't need new evidence to withhold my (imaginary) vote. He is the first known roid boy to come up for the vote and will (desrvedly IMO) be a symbol of public distaste for the whole sordid mess.

[johnny]

It's not a dishonor to not get in to the HOF on the first ballot. To get considered let alone get elected is the honor. In the case of Big Mac, his conduct before the Congress was exhibit A on why he should not go in as a so called 'baseball ambassador.' He put the taint on himself. How many serious fans will look upon Mac's induction -and yes, I think he will eventually get in- as something to celebrate.

Mac and Sosa and Bonds did do one thing: they made the case for exactly just how great a year Roger Maris had. So, by having to cheat to beat him, they paid tribute to him.

[digglahhh]

So McGwire signs a dozen balls for a guy but he's a jerk? His biggest crime is not fawning over Flair like his teammates. And he didn't want to break from his routine to sign that many baseballs. And Flair calls McGwire a a*****e?
McGwire probably refused to kiss his ring, too.

I agree. You won't catch me defending McGwire's character too often but, refusing to gawk at (pseudo)celebrities and pander to the desires of their spoiled, bratty children is not something I see as an indicator of poor character. I, in fact, like it. Why should Ric Flair's kid get a ball and a pic, and his dad get a box of autographed balls just cause his daddy is famous? The gesture would probably mean a whole lot more to an average child whose father does not spend time with celebrities all the time.

Ironically, Mark McGwire's homers are about as legitimate as Ric Flair's victories.

[west coast orange and black]

leecemark: I can be forgiving about a player who took steroids to help get back from an injury.
if your favorite player tested positive this august and he admitted to using, explaining that it was his first time and that he did so to overcome a bum knee, what would your feelings be?


Mostly I [am not bothered] because it doesn't affect the records and legends of the game.
so, it's not the acts against baseball's rules but the gains?
i kinda understand why many fans think this way, leecemark. but what to the notion there is no way of knowing if a world series, for example, was in part won because of a steroid-using, lesser-player's rbi bloop single?
it seems that the big concern comes 'round when only the homerun records and the biggest* sluggers are involved.
*pardon the pun

I also think there is fairly good evidence that he started juicing early. back when canseco was still with Oakland and McGwire's career had taken a nasty downturn.
i hope that you do not include canseco's claim that he and mcgwire injected each other.

[leecemark]

-I would be disappointed if my favorite player was to take steroids to overcome an injury. I would probably continue to like that player if he was honest about the situation when caught though. We've all done some things we aren't proud of.
--Sad as this may be, I do think Jose Canseco has more credibilty than McGwire on the steroid issue. Perhaps that alone disqualifies McGwire from consideration:laugh .

[DoubleX]

[COLOR="gray"]I also think there is fairly good evidence that he started juicing early. back when canseco was still with Oakland and McGwire's career had taken a nasty downturn.
i hope that you do not include canseco's claim that he and mcgwire injected each other.

ESPN.com and ESPN the Magazine about two months ago did a great expose on the whole steroids think, going back to the late 80s, and I believe there were stories in that expose about McGwire in the late 80s/early 90s. I have to go back and check it out to be sure, but you might want to take a look at it as well. It's all very interesting, especially what Wally Joyner has to say on what he did and what he saw other players doing.

[DoubleX]

--Sad as this may be, I do think Jose Canseco has more credibilty than McGwire on the steroid issue. Perhaps that alone disqualifies McGwire from consideration:laugh .

I have to agree with that. Canseco has created a reputation for himself as, well as a slimeball I suppose, and as such, he likely has no compunction about telling the truth and ratting out his fellow players. He has the "If I'm going down, I'm going to bring everyone with me, and profit from it" attitude.

[west coast orange and black]

leecemark: I would be disappointed... I would probably continue to like that player if he was honest...
fair enough.



I do think Jose Canseco has more credibilty than McGwire on the steroid issue.
while canseco knows lots of specific things about lots of specific players, to me he undermined his credibility when he spoke of injecting in the bathroom stalls before games.

those stalls were barely big enough for one player. more importantly, it makes no sense whatsoever that they would be injecting before games, as if the effects of steroids take effect right away. they do not.

steroid use can be very risky. it was certainly more risky back then, health-wise, than today.
but there is another type of risk - getting caught.
why take the risk of injecting anywhere near the ballyard?

[digglahhh]

If we start basing our opinions on what we think did and didn't happen on whether or not the alleged activity and circumstances thereof are consistent with sound logic and good judgment, we will conclude that many things that did in fact happen could not have.

[west coast orange and black]

xx, canseco admitted to (bragged about) using steroids when he was out of the game. i do not see where he had much to lose by admitting use. it's not like he put himself in jeopardy of gaining entrance to the hall of fame or anything. he had already declared that coaching or managing was not in him.

i think that he had everything to gain by writing his book and doing signing tours.
being a reality show contestant was one of the payoff$, f'rinstance.

[DoubleX]

[COLOR="Gray"]
steroid use can be very risky. it was certainly more risky back then, health-wise, than today.
but there is another type of risk - getting caught.
why take the risk of injecting anywhere near the ballyard?

Based on this thread and previous other ones, it seems to me that you want to discount steroids use in baseball at every possible turn. It's like you're in denial. Every report, every speculation, everything, you find some excuse or some way to dismiss it. Don't you think the growing amount of information that is coming out about the 90s and steroids use is indicating that something was going on, and that something very widespread was going on? Sure, there may be few hardcore and substantiated facts, but the amount of circumstantial and heresay evidence is mounting all the time and is too great to summarily dismiss, ignore, or to deny that something widespread was going on. Exactly how widespread the problem was and who was using? I don't know. But I have a feeling that if the last two years indicate anything, it's that we'll continue to learn more about how widespread and who..And that's why it's too early to assess McGwire and other player with whom strong suspicions are attached.

[west coast orange and black]

so, according to digglahhh's thinking, there is no reasonableness to canseco's claim of injecting steroids just before a game.

[DoubleX]

[COLOR="gray"]I also think there is fairly good evidence that he started juicing early. back when canseco was still with Oakland and McGwire's career had taken a nasty downturn.
i hope that you do not include canseco's claim that he and mcgwire injected each other.

This is an excerpt from ESPN.com's and ESPN The Magazine's story on steroids:

"Wenzlaff's training-session notes show he put McGwire on a mix of Winstrol V, testosterone and the veterinary steroid Equipoise."

McGwire (and Canseco) were clients of Wenzlaff, a phyical-trainer and admitted steroids dealer.

Here's a link to the complete ESPN.com feature on steroids. (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=steroids&num=1) It's pretty revealing in some ways (though disappointing in others).

[west coast orange and black]

discount steroid use, xx?
what are you talking about?

it has long been my claim that perhaps up to 75% of 1990-1999 players used.

my questioning of canseco's statements is based on facts regarding steroid use.
it makes no sense to me that the two of 'em would shoot up just prior to games. steroids do not work like uppers. if canseco had said that they popped pills just before game time that would be a totally different story - one that could be credible.

[DoubleX]

xx, canseco admitted to (bragged about) using steroids when he was out of the game. i do not see where he had much to lose by admitting use. it's not like he put himself in jeopardy of gaining entrance to the hall of fame or anything. he had already declared that coaching or managing was not in him.

i think that he had everything to gain by writing his book and doing signing tours.
being a reality show contestant was one of the payoff$, f'rinstance.

That's exactly my point. Canseco lacks integrity, and thus he has no compunction about selling out his former comrades for profit, whereas the honorable thing to do among them is probably to keep quiet (I won't tell if you won't tell). That's why I think it's very true. Canseco experienced and knew things about others that he knew he could profit from, and unlike others who would remain tightlipped, he'd rather sell them out and profit.

[west coast orange and black]

That's why I think he's telling the truth.

there are things that canseco says that make sense, even though they can not be proven.
shooting up steroids just before game time, however, makes no sense.
his credibility suffers greatly with me when he gets to some specifics that are totally unreasonable.

[digglahhh]

WCOAB,

Quite the contrary actually.

My point is that I am certainly not prepared to dismiss Canseco's claims aobut injecting before the game because it doesn't seem logical, or consistent with the pharmocological effects of the drug. You on the other hand are prepared to dismiss them because of the...size of a bathroom stall.:confused:

If logic was the governing force behind condemable activity, and the desire not to get caught trumped all...

Why would any rapist not use a condom?

Why would anybody sell drugs in a "school zone" where the sentence doubles?

Why wouldn't burglars wipe clean their prints?

...and so on and so forth.

Just because something is irrational, illogical or downright stupid doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[DoubleX]

That's why I think he's telling the truth.

there are things that canseco says that make sense, even though they can not be proven.
shooting up steroids just before game time, however, makes no sense.
his credibility suffers greatly with me when he gets to some specifics that are totally unreasonable.

Since you like to ask other's questions about their posts, let me ask a couple about yours....

1) How many Major League games have you played in?
2) How many steroids have you taken?
3) What experiences do you that tell you that you should not inject steroids before playing in a Major League Baseball game?
4) Even if it is ill-advised, isn't it entirely possible that players would shoot up before a game anyway, since they are already obviously desperate for a boost by taking steroids at all? Isn't it possible that a player abusing steroids would, as part of their abuse and need to gain an edge, shoot up before the exact time that they need the edge (game time)?
5) If you think 75% of players in the 90s were using, why are you ok with honoring them with Hall of Fame selection as soon as they are eligible? 75% is a big number of players that were cheating, so I would think that you would be naturally suspect of most any player from the 90's that comes up for Hall of Fame induction. If you think the players were cheating, then I don’t understand how you could not want to wait to learn more about the extent of the cheating, before honoring them, especially since we're just beginning to learn about these things.

What makes no sense to me is that you believe 75% of the players were cheating, yet you want to make excuses about why they deserve to be honored anyway. I don't understand, if given your suspicions, why you wouldn't want to learn more before putting those players on pedastal with the greats of the game.

[DoubleX]

As we have seen in the past 2 years, this steroids thing has a snowball effect, and there is no reason to believe that in the course of the next few years, that more people won't step up and reveal more about the game and players of the 90s. Just focusing on McGwire, we've already seen the snowball effect. We have Canseco, then we have McGwire's testimony during the hearing last year, then the comments in the ESPN.com piece, and there will be more. Once it starts, more people will come forward and say what they know and say what they witnessed. That's why I think we need to wait on McGwire and others that we have strong suspicions about. There is more to be learned, and more will come out.

[digglahhh]

Perhaps the shooting up before a game thing is psychological. I have done some poetry readings in the past, and at first I was nervous. I thought drinking a little bit, or maybe not more like a decent amount, before would help me, in retrospect it probably didn't. But at the time, I though it did, so actually it kind of did.

What I'm getting at here is the possible placebo effect here.

[DoubleX]

Perhaps the shooting up before a game thing is psychological. I have done some poetry readings in the past, and at first I was nervous. I thought drinking a little bit, or maybe not more like a decent amount, before would help me, it retrospect it probably didn't. But at the time, I though it did, so actually it kind of did.

What I'm getting at here is the possible placebo effect here.

That's exactly my point. I mean if these players are abusing steroids in the first place, obviously they have this psychological need to gain an edge to play baseball. In that context, it seems very possible that in the interest to gain that edge, they would go so far as to convince themselves that they need to shoot up before a game in order to have an edge.

[west coast orange and black]

digglahhh: Just because something is irrational, illogical or downright stupid doesn't mean it didn't happen.

agreed.
but i think that if something that can not be proven is very unreasonable, then the likelihood that it actually happened is lessened.

a number of canseco's statements in his book are flat-out wrong. incorrect.
i do not know for certain that his claim that he and mcgwire shot up just prior to playing is one of them, but because steroids do not give immediate effect, it strikes me as very odd that they would do so, especially when they had the opportunity to do so in many places that provided much privacy.

[leecemark]

--XX, if 75% of all players were using steroids that would actually make me more likely to ignore that when considering Hall worthiness. Most of the competitive edge would be lost to the user (although it would greatly increase my regard for a borderline candidate who I was convinced - hard as that might be to do - was not using). I think 75% is probably an awfully high estimate though.
--If we are talking about everybody who ever tried them, then I wouldn't argue against an estimate as high as 50%. If we are talkign about regular users, then I doubt the figure was more than 10%. Depending on what you consider regular use, of course. Unfortunately my percents, as well as WCO&B are nothing more than guess work. We'll never have all the facts on this mess.

[west coast orange and black]

digglahhh: Perhaps the shooting up before a game thing is psychological.

steroid users, by and large, follow a very strict regimen and tend to be very ritualistic.
even those who use who are not under physician's care have a routine.

canseco's specific claim of injecting mcgwire just prior to a game breaks away from that. also, it is canseco's claim, (per 60 minutes interview, i believe) that the bathroom thing was a one-time thing.

as i said, there is much that canseco is legitimately knowledgeable of and shamelessly candid about, but this one does not hold water with me.
sensationalism over truth.

[west coast orange and black]

it's true, leecemark, that we'll never have all the facts on this mess.
and it's also true that my 70% guesstimate is just that, a guess.

but that percentage is based on what quite a few players have told me.
these players have detailed drug use from the 60s through the present. they have been candid and i have no reason to doubt them.

[west coast orange and black]

i agree, xx, that more will be learned about steroid use. but i think that this will be only related to things general, not specific.

perhaps i am leaning too heavily on my politics* or ethics* when it comes to accusing someone or restricting him without solid proof.

*for lack of better word

[west coast orange and black]

DoubleX:
1) How many Major League games have you played in?
none.

2) How many steroids have you taken?
none of your business.

3) What experiences do you [have] that tell you that you should not inject steroids before playing in a Major League Baseball game?
none.

4a) Even if it is ill-advised, isn't it entirely possible that players would shoot up before a game anyway, since they are already obviously desperate for a boost by taking steroids at all?
um, yeah.
players can shoot up any time they'd like. pull out a syringe and drop 'em right there while on second base. only, steroids do not give anyone a "boost", and the player is almost always following a controlled regimen, and the effects of steroids do not kick in to assist with a player's performance. so, it is not reasonable for a player to shoot just prior to a game.

4b) Isn't it possible that a player abusing steroids would, as part of their abuse and need to gain an edge, shoot up before the exact time that they need the edge (game time)?
possible, yes. but only a player unaware of the benefits of steroids and how they work. players who would be curious about steroids and those actually discovering for the first time the properties of steroids would quickly discover that shooting up just before game time yields no benfits. so to me, doing so would be agreat unneccessary risk.
this is steroids being discussing, not uppers.

5) If you think 75% of players in the 90s were using, why are you ok with honoring them with Hall of Fame selection as soon as they are eligible?
i did not say that i was ok with it.
rather, i do not see what can be done to keep a man out absent proof.

75% is a big number of players that were cheating, so I would think that you would be naturally suspect of most any player from the 90's that comes up for Hall of Fame induction.
yes. that is correct.

If you think the players were cheating, then I don’t understand how you could not want to wait to learn more about the extent of the cheating, before honoring them, especially since we're just beginning to learn about these things.
because there is a system in place that must be honored.
i guess i liken the 5-year wait as a statute of limitations, so to speak.

What makes no sense to me is that you believe 75% of the players were cheating, yet you want to make excuses about why they deserve to be honored anyway.
i think that anyone not found to have broken baseball's rules and guidelines for hall membership deserves to be voted upon in an honest way, on career achievements.
i do not consider that an excuse.

I don't understand, if given your suspicions, why you wouldn't want to learn more before putting those players on pedastal with the greats of the game.
to the contrary, xx, i believe that i have gathered more info than most.
it is simply that if it comes time to vote for a guy, then it's time to vote for that guy.
if it is later found that he cheated, though, he deserves the treatment.

i am a strong believer in obeying the governing rules.
perhaps the hall could pass a new rule stating that any player voted in but then later found to have used gets booted.
that would address both voting on a player in a timely fashion, and taking action against wrongdoers after the fact of gaining entrance.

[DoubleX]

i am a strong believer in obeying the governing rules.
perhaps the hall could pass a new rule stating that any player voted in but then later found to have used gets booted.
that would address both voting on a player in a timely fashion, and taking action against wrongdoers after the fact of gaining entrance.

I think that's a tremendous point. Under the governing rules, a player stays on the ballot for 15 years (assuming he gets 5%, and McGwire will get more than 5%). Given that we have that 15 year cushion in place, and given that there will be plenty of people who will vote for McGwire anyway next year based surely on his numbers, I'd like to take advantage of the governing rules and defer making my mind up on McGwire until I have learned more. In McGwire's case, I feel 5 years is premature because it is only now that the information is beginning to surface. If a few more years goes by and no new info has surfaced about McGwire, I'd probably then vote for him. I'd probably wait until at least the 3rd election until I'd be comfortable supporting McGwire. So yeah, I'd be operating under the governing rules as well. :)

[DoubleX]

--XX, if 75% of all players were using steroids that would actually make me more likely to ignore that when considering Hall worthiness. Most of the competitive edge would be lost to the user (although it would greatly increase my regard for a borderline candidate who I was convinced - hard as that might be to do - was not using). I think 75% is probably an awfully high estimate though.
--If we are talking about everybody who ever tried them, then I wouldn't argue against an estimate as high as 50%. If we are talkign about regular users, then I doubt the figure was more than 10%. Depending on what you consider regular use, of course. Unfortunately my percents, as well as WCO&B are nothing more than guess work. We'll never have all the facts on this mess.

I agree that 75% is probably a high estimate, but I think 10% is probably a very low estimate. Based on things that guys like Wally Joyner and Ken Caminiti and others have said, I think regular steroid use in baseball was pretty widespread, perhaps as high as 50%. Just look at the type of players that were caught last year. Other than Palmeiro, none were the big, muscular type that we'd normally associate with steroids. They were small players, speedy players, utility players, and even pitchers. To me that shows that steroids was pretty widespread throughout the game and the different types of players.

[johnny]

Also look at palmero. he wasn't conseco-ish in terms of size or power. Yet he got nailed for using.

[Dontworry]

I'd vote him in.

He was a better offensive player than gwynn.

Screw steroids, this whole " scandal " is nothing but a joke, something that has been overblown by the media and some " fans ".

[west coast orange and black]

DoubleX: I'd like to take advantage of the governing rules and defer making my mind up on McGwire until I have learned more.

if you were on the committee would you omit him from your ballot altogether?
a 10th-spot vote that would be obvious to everyone that it was your protest vote.
then in 2007 you could bump him to 9th, if no additional damning evidence was put forth.
in 2008, 8th place, and so on.

what would you do, xx?

[west coast orange and black]

DoubleX: "[Those caught] were small players, speedy players, utility players, and even pitchers. To me that shows that steroids was pretty widespread throughout the game and the different types of players.
bless you for posting that, xx.
too many here seem to believe that it's been just the big boys.

[DoubleX]

DoubleX: I'd like to take advantage of the governing rules and defer making my mind up on McGwire until I have learned more.

if you were on the committee would you omit him from your ballot altogether?
a 10th-spot vote that would be obvious to everyone that it was your protest vote.
then in 2007 you could bump him to 9th, if no additional damning evidence was put forth.
in 2008, 8th place, and so on.

what would you do, xx?

If I were voting, I, like most of the writers, probably would not use all 10 of my votes. So let's say its next year...My ballot would have (in no particular order):

Cal Ripken Jr
Tony Gwynn
Goose Gossage
Alan Trammell
Bert Blyleven
Andre Dawson
Dale Murphy (I'm wavering on him though)

Like I said though, if no new information emerges about McGwire after a couple of years, I'd add him on because his numbers are deserving. There's no question that he has the numbers. I just feel like we're at the beginning of a period where we're learning a lot of things about players and game from the 90s, and especially McGwire, so I just want some extra time to see if anything materializes. If not, then I'd put McGwire in.

Also, me leaving McGwire off is not meant to be a protest. It's just meant to say that at this time, I'm undecided on McGwire and that I reserve the right to make my decision later.

[DoubleX]

I'd vote him in.

He was a better offensive player than gwynn.

Gwynn has the highest batting average compared to league average since Ty Cobb. Essentially, Gwynn is the best base-hitter since Ty Cobb. That says a lot IMO.

Though, McGwire when healthy, was a Ruthian force when it came to slugging.

[west coast orange and black]

DoubleX: If I were voting >>> I reserve the right to make my decision later.

that's decent enough. coolio.
if i had your position, i think that i would position mcgwire's name last on my ballot.
my intention would be clear to all, and it would be recorded.

your average hall of fame vote-caster, though, knows lots of what has been going on.
i am very interested to see how the sportswriters carry out their mission.

[DoubleX]

[COLOR="Gray"]
that's decent enough. coolio.
if i had your position, i think that i would position mcgwire's name last on my ballot.
my intention would be clear to all, and it would be recorded.


Ah, you're going under like an MVP type voting format, and not the Hall of Fame format, right? So in your hypothetical each player, 1-10, is awarded points based on their ranking, right? That's different from the Hall of Fame, in which any player listed on a writer's ballot (up to 10 players) receives 1 point, regardless of preference.

So if I were to do my voting under your MVP format, I would include McGwire somewhere in the latter 5. I'm thinking probably 7th or 8th. And then, if after a few years nothing new has surfaced and he's still not elected, I'd probably bump McGwire up into the top 3.

However, if the vote i the Hall of Fame format - each player listed gets 1 point, I'd leave McGwire off altogether. Not in protest, just because I haven't decided on him yet, and as such, he doesn't go on my ballot.

[west coast orange and black]

mvp-style. right, xx.

mcgwire's name appears last.
if he gets in, he gets in. at least my position would be recorded.

let's say that nothing new about mcgwire is learned.
is it possible for you to tell me how many years would need to pass before you would include his name on your ballot?

[DoubleX]

mvp-style. right, xx.

mcgwire's name appears last.
if he gets in, he gets in. at least my position would be recorded.

let's say that nothing new about mcgwire is learned.
is it possible for you to tell me how many years would need to pass before you would include his name on your ballot?

Like I said, if it's MVP style, he'd be on my first ballot, but near the end.

If it's Hall of Fame style (which is what we're really talking about here anyway), I'd say I'd leave him off for at least the first 2 years.

[west coast orange and black]

ok, got it. thanx, man.

[Dontworry]

Gwynn has the highest batting average compared to league average since Ty Cobb. Essentially, Gwynn is the best base-hitter since Ty Cobb. That says a lot IMO.

Though, McGwire when healthy, was a Ruthian force when it came to slugging.

In My Opinion there's a difference between a great hitter and a great offensive force.

A guy like Rod Carew was a great hitter, but he wasnt as good of an offensive force as someone like Albert Belle.

Mcgwire was a beast during his prime, his hr/ab ratio's were record breaking. He was also the best player in the league in 1998, gwynn was never the best player in the league.


I dont care about steroids really, they are only banned because of health, they are more of a placebo than anythingelse in My opinion.

Anyway " cheating " has gone on in ALL sports for years, it's human nature to gain an edge, I'm not penalizing Mcgwire for something im sure EVERYONE does, which is trying to gain an edge.

I'd vote for him in 2007.

[64Cards]

I agree. You won't catch me defending McGwire's character too often but, refusing to gawk at (pseudo)celebrities and pander to the desires of their spoiled, bratty children is not something I see as an indicator of poor character. I, in fact, like it. Why should Ric Flair's kid get a ball and a pic, and his dad get a box of autographed balls just cause his daddy is famous? The gesture would probably mean a whole lot more to an average child whose father does not spend time with celebrities all the time.

Ironically, Mark McGwire's homers are about as legitimate as Ric Flair's victories.
I think it's just indicative of McGwire's personality. Flair had been invited into the locker room and as the guys told the story, quite a few players were having a lot fun visiting with him. His son idolized MM, so what's the big deal about coming over, saying hi, and getting your picture taken? It's really not hard to be a nice guy.

As far as getting the baseball's autographed, I think Flair did it mostly to piss him off.:laugh

[DoubleX]

Assuming McGwire one day makes the Hall, which hat does he wear? He spent the vast majority of his career with the A's, put up a number of very good years with the A's, was part of three pennant winning teams and a World Series champion, and was rookie of the year. However, his two most memorable seasons, including one of the most memorable in recent baseball history was with the Cardinals.

[leecemark]

--I vote for a black hat with the logo "Rx".
--WCO&B, there is no numbering of ballots of the Hall. It is a simple yes or no, in which a voter can include up to 10 yes votes. Putting a guy #10 on your ballot would only record that you voted for him, not that you considered him 10th best amoung the eligible candidate or that you were protesting him.

[Imapotato]

No his character is in question and thats all it takes

Hell Albert Belle was a better player then McGwire...yea look him up

and he will never sniff the HOF

[leecemark]

--If "character being in question" was all it took keep a guy out of the Hall it would be much smaller. Bye bye Cobb, Hornsby, Ruth and many others. I've been anti-McGwire in this thread, but we have to assume that he would not be a hal of fame player without steroids to not vote for him.

[Bench 5]

At this point in time I vote nay to McGwire. Sans steroids I think he would have still jacked 30-40 a year for several years but I think ability-wise he was closer to a Dave Kingman than to a true all-time great. He had some years when he barely hit .200. When he first came up to the majors he had great power but his homers were more the high majestic type in the 400-425 range. By the mid-90s he was hitting the ball 475-500 feet every other day.

To be honest part of me thinks that its all or nothing. Either you vote players in based soley on performance and ignore the steroid link. In that case he is a HOF'er. But voting is a subjective thing anyway so if I decide that a player isn't worthy and it turns out I was wrong about their steroid use, then so be it. Life isn't always fair and you have to make judgements anyway. So for that reason he doesn't get my vote.

[Imapotato]

--If "character being in question" was all it took keep a guy out of the Hall it would be much smaller. Bye bye Cobb, Hornsby, Ruth and many others. I've been anti-McGwire in this thread, but we have to assume that he would not be a hal of fame player without steroids to not vote for him.


I think it was pretty much understood that "character and integrity" meant in relation to baseball

McGwire's character in relation to baseball is in question

[538280]

I think it was pretty much understood that "character and integrity" meant in relation to baseball

McGwire's character in relation to baseball is in question

And Cobb and Hornsby's character "in relation to baseball" wasn't in question? Cobb once was part of a one man strike against baseball, he got into numerous fights, spiked players on the bases. All that may be worse than taking drugs to try to get ahead of the competition.

[Dontworry]

I think it was pretty much understood that "character and integrity" meant in relation to baseball

McGwire's character in relation to baseball is in question

I doubt his " character " would hurt his chances, Mcgwire's a saint compared to atleast half the players in the HOF.

Ty cobb, Hell I dont even need to explain him. He makes Modern day pricks like Barry Bonds and Rickey Henderson seem like jesus.

Hank aaron was a bitter drunk during his early playing days.

Ruth wasnt exactly a role model, cap anson wasnt either,and gaylord perry and whitey ford cheated. Not to mention the greenies users ( and maybe steroids) already in the HOF.

The only possible reason I can see them not voting him in is the " steroid era ", IN my opinion it's a very weak reason, but I dont have say in that issue.

[DoubleX]

Hank aaron was a bitter drunk during his early playing days.

Whoa, that's the first I've ever heard about this. I did a quick Google search for Hank Aaron and various ways to say drinking or drunk or alcoholic, and got nothing. Your statement is a very bold one. Where are you getting it from?

[leecemark]

--I've been a fan since the middle of Aaron's career and I've never heard that either.

[johnny]

I also haven't heard or read anything about Hammerin Hank having issues with booze. Are you sure of that? If so, could you cite a source.

[west coast orange and black]

i want to address one thing, xx:

you said that it seems to you that i "want to discount steroids use in baseball at every possible turn ... like [i'm] in denial ... [and with] every report, every speculation, everything, [i] find some excuse or some way to dismiss it."

what i have not ever done is defend a player who has either admitted to using or who tested positive.

what i have tried to do is separate the fiction from the fact.

[DoubleX]

i want to address one thing, xx:

you said that it seems to you that i "want to discount steroids use in baseball at every possible turn ... like [i'm] in denial ... [and with] every report, every speculation, everything, [i] find some excuse or some way to dismiss it."

what i have not ever done is defend a player who has either admitted to using or who tested positive.

what i have tried to do is separate the fiction from the fact.

You're right, I spoke incorrectly. When I made the post, I was quickly recalling some posts you've made about Barry Bonds, and I totally forgot that your attempts at refuting people's claims that Bonds did steroids were not meant as an excuse, but to clear up the truth (and I forgot that when I first read those posts, way back when, I misinterpreted your intentions then as well). So my mistake and my apologies to you. I'll try not to let it happen again. :)

[west coast orange and black]

thanx for that acknowledgement, xx.

thank you very much.

[Dontworry]

Whoa, that's the first I've ever heard about this. I did a quick Google search for Hank Aaron and various ways to say drinking or drunk or alcoholic, and got nothing. Your statement is a very bold one. Where are you getting it from?

From a friend of mine, A baseball writer for years.

I at the moment forgot his website, If I talk to him soon I'll give it to you as soon as possible.

When I give it to you, you can write him a note asking him about aaron.

[yanks0714]

From a friend of mine, A baseball writer for years.

I at the moment forgot his website, If I talk to him soon I'll give it to you as soon as possible.

When I give it to you, you can write him a note asking him about aaron.


Since I've nevr had a whiff of anything like this and it appears that none of the other posters have either, I'd have to say your 'friend' is either greatly misinformed, has no idea of what he speaks, enjoys spreading malicious rumors, or flat out lying. :mad:

[west coast orange and black]

leecemark: there is no numbering of ballots of the Hall...

thanx, leecemark. i was unaware.

[Lindseynelson]

I have never heard a whiff of the Hank allegation ,ever. 1998 I think Sosa was the better player than Mac. He hit nearly as many dingers ,had more ribbies and hit well over 300 while playing every day in right field with very little protection in the lineup. He had some real "who's he?' hitting behind him .Henry R was the only stick from 5 down.

[DoubleX]

From a friend of mine, A baseball writer for years.

I at the moment forgot his website, If I talk to him soon I'll give it to you as soon as possible.

When I give it to you, you can write him a note asking him about aaron.

I see...

Being a baseball writer does not automatically give credibility. Look no further than Hall of Fame balloting results every year.

Not that I know anything about your writer friend, but there are still a lot of people out there who are resentful that Aaron broke Ruth's record, and will do their best to bring Aaron down.

[west coast orange and black]

i have never heard even a whisper of aaron and booze. never ever.

[Dontworry]

I see...

Being a baseball writer does not automatically give credibility. Look no further than Hall of Fame balloting results every year.

Not that I know anything about your writer friend, but there are still a lot of people out there who are resentful that Aaron broke Ruth's record, and will do their best to bring Aaron down.

I doubt he made that up about aaron.

He's half black, and his family are all braves fans.

Right now he's in Tampa Bay, If I can get a hold of him and get his website I'll give you the link and you can write him a note asking him about aaron.

Just because you never heard of aaron and the booze doesnt necessarily mean it's not true. After all, Before Tom House confessed to taking steroids in the 70's Nobody would of ever expected it was used backthen.

[yanks0714]

I doubt he made that up about aaron.

He's half black, and his family are all braves fans.

Right now he's in Tampa Bay, If I can get a hold of him and get his website I'll give you the link and you can write him a note asking him about aaron.

Just because you never heard of aaron and the booze doesnt necessarily mean it's not true. After all, Before Tom House confessed to taking steroids in the 70's Nobody would of ever expected it was used backthen.

Half black, eh? I see. Or, rather, I don't see.

I strongly believe he either made it up {or} heard about this highly scurrilous comment elsewhere and took it as the truth.

As well, just because HE heard of Aaron and the booze doesn't necessaeily mean it IS true.

[DoubleX]

I doubt he made that up about aaron.

He's half black, and his family are all braves fans.

Right now he's in Tampa Bay, If I can get a hold of him and get his website I'll give you the link and you can write him a note asking him about aaron.

Just because you never heard of aaron and the booze doesnt necessarily mean it's not true. After all, Before Tom House confessed to taking steroids in the 70's Nobody would of ever expected it was used backthen.

You're right, just because I haven't heard of it, doesn't not mean it is untrue. But the fact that no one else here, in a community of very dedicated students of the history of the game, have ever heard anything along those lines, says a lot to me. The failed google searches do as well. Sure it's possible, but it must be a very, very well kept secret.

[StanTheMan]

With all the information we now have....McGwire should not be in the Hall of Fame, unless he buys a ticket. Simple as that.

The HOF is not a court of law... they do not need reasonable doubt.

The HOF is all about honoring the past. There is nothing BUT the past at the HOF. The walls, the floors, the ceilings at the HOF are dripping with the past.

But Mark does not want to "talk about the past." So how then can we honor his past???? I simply cannot do it, not until I know more about what really happened. And I loved watching the guy play, and every Cardinal player since I began going to games in the 70's. My son had a Big Mac Little League Bat, cards, a rug on his bedroom floor, T Shirts, etc. But our Big Mac Christmas ornaments never made it out of the boxes this year......

I went to the HOF in 2004. It is a wonderful place. It would not be as wonderful if ANYONE even remotely connected to Steroids was inducted in this day an age on the first ballot.

Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro (should NEVER get in, BTW) Giambi (who won't get in anyway)... none of them would ge it if I had vote.

And please, please don't come back with the "it wasn't illegal at the time" or it "wasn't against the rules of baseball at the time..." :grouchy

Steroids were, and are, ILLEGAL in the United States of America, and therefore are illegal to inject in yourself if you are a first baseman, a plumber, or a bagger at a grocery store.....


Let's see what happens, and what new information surfaces in the next 5 years..... and go from there.

[west coast orange and black]

by your logic, stan, the players who used amphetamines do not belong in the hall.

*that footstep echoing is caused by all that extra room now available in cooperstown*

[DoubleX]

by your logic, stan, the players who used amphetamines do not belong in the hall.

*that footstep echoing is caused by all that extra room now available in cooperstown*

That's only if you equate the effect of amphetamines to the effect of steroids. :) Otherwise, I'm not sure how you can connect them from Stan's post? Are you referring to amphetamines, like steroids, being illegal? Because there are plenty of legal amphetamines (trust me).

[west coast orange and black]

in no way am i equating the substances, xx.
lemme try it again.

"by your logic, stan, all players who used illegal substances, including illegal amphetamines, do not belong in the hall."

xx, the thrust of stan's post is that illegal substances have been used, not what the effects have been.

*that footstep echoing is caused by all that extra room now available in cooperstown*

[Dontworry]

That's only if you equate the effect of amphetamines to the effect of steroids. :) Otherwise, I'm not sure how you can connect them from Stan's post? Are you referring to amphetamines, like steroids, being illegal? Because there are plenty of legal amphetamines (trust me).

Some actually speculate that greenies can benefit a player more than steroids, but that's a whole other arguement.

" Are you referring to amphetamines, like steroids, being illegal? Because there are plenty of legal amphetamines (trust me). "

There is also legal steroids.

[DoubleX]

in no way am i equating the substances, xx.
lemme try it again.

"by your logic, stan, all players who used illegal substances, including illegal amphetamines, do not belong in the hall."

xx, the thrust of stan's post is that illegal substances have been used, not what the effects have been.

*that footstep echoing is caused by all that extra room now available in cooperstown*

Ok, with the "illegal amphetamine" qualifier, it makes more sense to me. :)

Also, even though there are plenty of legal amphetamines, they are likely obtained illegally by many of the players (given that prescriptions are needed for most legal amphetamines), so the illegalality could hold true in that sense as well.

However, I don't know to what extend greenies and such were illegal in the 60s. They could very well have been over the counter at that time, so in that instance, all the players popping greenies at that time (which according to Jim Bouton, was most players), they should slide on the illegality theory.

[runningshoes]

--I've been a fan since the middle of Aaron's career and I've never heard that either.

I heard talk, years ago, of a drinking problem while he played.

I don't remember where I heard this cause we're probably going back 20 years and I'm not saying I lend any credence to it but this is not the first time I've heard it said.

[StanTheMan]

I have no doubt that Steroids do enhance a players performance. I don't think any modern, intelligent individual doubts that.

I will admit that I do not know what "greenies" did for the players that took them. If they were illegal, and if it can be proven that these "greenies" did measurably enhance a players performance, then, absolutely no player who is taking them now should be voted in, just like no player who is taking Steroids now should be voted in.

Unfortunately, there was a time in baseball, and in America, when what a player did off the field was not only left unreported by the media, but wildly unpoliced by baseball, and even the teams themselves.

That era is over, and there are new rules......

A player could have taken these "greenies" in the 60's 70's 80's and no one knew, or at least no one cared. Allegedly, their use was rampant.

I am not saying that players who are ALREADY in the HOF should be booted out because of them, I am saying that no player currently even remotely considered to be a part of these types of performance enhancing activities should NOT be VOTED INTO the Hall of Fame. This includes McGwire, at least it includes him based on what I know now, and specifically his testimony to Congress.

Racism is certainly less prevelant today, than say, 75 years ago. To say Ty Cobb was racist and should not be in the hall is shortsided, in my opinion. To say that Al Campanis should not be in the Hall is 100% accurrate. Different Eras for Ty and Al, and much different reactions to the types of racist activities and or statements made by the two, right. And that means different reactions by society for alleged amphetamine/greenie users and the juiced up players of today.

It's the only way to clean up the game. Hold these guys to very RIGID, but DIFFERENT standards. I can see many of you having issue with this line of thinking, and I see your point.... rules and standards should be the same, or at least very similar reactions by society for players taking similar actions in different eras... but the reality in American Society in general, is the fact that as eras evolve, society and cultural judgement lines change.


Greenie users stay in, and McGwire should not be VOTED in. There is a difference. The modern baseball writer's job is not to police his predecessor's decisions.

Good discussion in the last dozen or so posts everyone.

[DoubleX]

StanTheMan,

Reading your quote from Musial at the end of your posts, makes me think that Musial saw the movie Cobb. :)

[StanTheMan]

StanTheMan,

Reading your quote from Musial at the end of your posts, makes me think that Musial saw the movie Cobb. :)

Not sure.... the Costas/Musial exchange was on the Radio, and I believe had something to do with All Century Team announced at the 1999 All Star Game at Fenway, I think.

Did "Cobb" have a similar line in a movie?

[DoubleX]

Not sure.... the Costas/Musial exchange was on the Radio, and I believe had something to do with All Century Team announced at the 1999 All Star Game at Fenway, I think.

Did "Cobb" have a similar line in a movie?

Yup. In the movie "Cobb" Ty said the exact same thing, and I think the movie predates your Musial quote. Whether or not Ty actually said the comment or whether it was added to give some humor to the movie, I don't know. Bill Burgess would know.

[Dontworry]

I have no doubt that Steroids do enhance a players performance. I don't think any modern, intelligent individual doubts that.

I will admit that I do not know what "greenies" did for the players that took them. If they were illegal, and if it can be proven that these "greenies" did measurably enhance a players performance, then, absolutely no player who is taking them now should be voted in, just like no player who is taking Steroids now should be voted in.

Unfortunately, there was a time in baseball, and in America, when what a player did off the field was not only left unreported by the media, but wildly unpoliced by baseball, and even the teams themselves.

That era is over, and there are new rules......

A player could have taken these "greenies" in the 60's 70's 80's and no one knew, or at least no one cared. Allegedly, their use was rampant.

I am not saying that players who are ALREADY in the HOF should be booted out because of them, I am saying that no player currently even remotely considered to be a part of these types of performance enhancing activities should NOT be VOTED INTO the Hall of Fame. This includes McGwire, at least it includes him based on what I know now, and specifically his testimony to Congress.

Racism is certainly less prevelant today, than say, 75 years ago. To say Ty Cobb was racist and should not be in the hall is shortsided, in my opinion. To say that Al Campanis should not be in the Hall is 100% accurrate. Different Eras for Ty and Al, and much different reactions to the types of racist activities and or statements made by the two, right. And that means different reactions by society for alleged amphetamine/greenie users and the juiced up players of today.

It's the only way to clean up the game. Hold these guys to very RIGID, but DIFFERENT standards. I can see many of you having issue with this line of thinking, and I see your point.... rules and standards should be the same, or at least very similar reactions by society for players taking similar actions in different eras... but the reality in American Society in general, is the fact that as eras evolve, society and cultural judgement lines change.


Greenie users stay in, and McGwire should not be VOTED in. There is a difference. The modern baseball writer's job is not to police his predecessor's decisions.

Good discussion in the last dozen or so posts everyone.

" have no doubt that Steroids do enhance a players performance. I don't think any modern, intelligent individual doubts that. "

Depends what type of steroids you are talking about, certain steroids help a player or pitcher to a certain extent.

" I will admit that I do not know what "greenies" did for the players that took them. If they were illegal, and if it can be proven that these "greenies" did measurably enhance a players performance, then, absolutely no player who is taking them now should be voted in, just like no player who is taking Steroids now should be voted in. "

I dont think it matters which enhances performance more ( although some suspect greenies does, but that's another arguement). The point is simple, if it's illegal in baseball it's cheating. They are both banned because of the health risk they pose, nothing more.

" I am not saying that players who are ALREADY in the HOF should be booted out because of them, I am saying that no player currently even remotely considered to be a part of these types of performance enhancing activities should NOT be VOTED INTO the Hall of Fame. This includes McGwire, at least it includes him based on what I know now, and specifically his testimony to Congress. "

Horrible logic, the fact that you would spew out rubbish like that is ludicrous.

" Racism is certainly less prevelant today, than say, 75 years ago. To say Ty Cobb was racist and should not be in the hall is shortsided, in my opinion. To say that Al Campanis should not be in the Hall is 100% accurrate. "

Very weak arguement, it's as almost if your condoning cobbs devilish behavior. The man was a lunatic, doesnt matter what time he lived in. If I wanted to use your logic, I should say that steroid use today was " condoned " because " everyone did it " as canseco would say.

[Dontworry]

As for Hank aaron, doublex I'm sorry if I " offended " you in anyway because of the comment, but I was only stating what I heard.

[Bench 5]

Yup. In the movie "Cobb" Ty said the exact same thing, and I think the movie predates your Musial quote. Whether or not Ty actually said the comment or whether it was added to give some humor to the movie, I don't know. Bill Burgess would know.

I remember hearing that line attributed to Ty Cobb as a kid in the 1970s so that quote definitely predates Musial. I think Cobb said it in the late 1950s. I've heard others use the same line over the years as well. Its such a good line that it's possible that Cobb may have not been the first to use it either.

[DoubleX]

I remember hearing that line attributed to Ty Cobb as a kid in the 1970s so that quote definitely predates Musial. I think Cobb said it in the late 1950s. I've heard others use the same line over the years as well. Its such a good line that it's possible that Cobb may have not been the first to use it either.

In the movie it was used in the late 50's in a nightclub in Reno after Ty was called up on stage by the MC.

The movie is based on Al Stump's book about Cobb (which I keep meaning to read), so perhaps that will shed some light on this issue.

[Lindseynelson]

I've heard it , the age line , attributed to Joe D and Ted W. Both times it was " oh about 280 or so " then the tag line " but remember I'm 60 whatever". I bet these guys all heard it at a HOF dinner and grabbed on. My favorite line along those lines was when (I think it was) Fran Healy asked Joe D, who was famous for his contract squabbles , how he would negotiate with George Steinbrenner. Joe said he'd walk in and just say " Hiya, partner"

[Zito75]

I read this article today, which was essentially a small portion of Mike's new book:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2347366

Do you guys agree/ disagree with Schmidt?

[DoubleX]

Drawing a line like this is always a tough call. I think McGwire was the more talented player, and absent any kind of enhancements, probably would have been the more likely Hall of Famer of the two. Hitting 49 homeruns as a rookie, steroids or no steroids, is very impressive. Palmeiro was just never a really a great player. You get the feeling that with or without steroids, McGwire would have put up prolific numbers and quite possibly Hall of Fame power numbers. Palmeiro on the other hand, was a very good player for a long time, albeit never great. Even before the steroids thing came out about him, people were already questioning if he was a Hall of Famer based purely on the numbers. So one would think if with the numbers he is questionable, without them he is very doubtful - so in his case, some might say that without the steroids, he would not have been able to put up Hall of Fame numbers.

Of course this all runs down a slippery slope as it's all just speculation. You don't know who did what, when, and for how long. Yeah, Palmeiro got caught, but it still doesn't answer the question of his history with steroids and how much of his career was fueled by steroid use.

[dl4060]

Raffy is difficult because he seemed to become not just better, but different as a hitter. He had a great 1991, as a line drive hitter with enough pop to hit 26 HR, but at that point did anyone think he would hit 37 or more HR 10 times? His power seemed to explode right around 93 which is around the time Canseco was in Texas..... Mcgwire is much easier to accept, but Raffy seemed nowhere near hall of fame levels until the steroid era.

[Dontworry]

Raffy is difficult because he seemed to become not just better, but different as a hitter. He had a great 1991, as a line drive hitter with enough pop to hit 26 HR, but at that point did anyone think he would hit 37 or more HR 10 times? His power seemed to explode right around 93 which is around the time Canseco was in Texas..... Mcgwire is much easier to accept, but Raffy seemed nowhere near hall of fame levels until the steroid era.

A lot of players numbers went up in 1993, that was an expansion year.

[Chisox]

Does anyone else but I find it interesting that Schmidt sticks up for Pete Rose, but now is trying to block Palmeiro?

[2Chance]

That's personal. Schmidt and Rose became good friends while teammates in Philly. I don't think Schmidt has a relationship with Raffy.

[KCGHOST]

Well, the guy is entitles to his opinion, but if you are going to tar one guy with the steroids brush you should tar them all.

[Zito75]

Does anyone else but I find it interesting that Schmidt sticks up for Pete Rose, but now is trying to block Palmeiro?

I was wondering about that myself. What the hell???:noidea

[dl4060]

A lot of players numbers went up in 1993, that was an expansion year.


Yes, but most of those people had demonstrated more power previously. Palmeiro went from a guy who had never hit more than 26 to a guy that hit 37 or more 10 times. That is a power increase of 140 percent or so. Yes alot of other players went up but not buy that margin at that age. If that had been a career high, or he had had afew more seasons like that I could accept it. That would be a normal peak, with an adjustment for the era, and maybe another adustment because of an extraordinary work ethic. But Raffy's improvement was so extraordinary that I cannot atribute it only to expansion. Griffey went from 27 to 45 that year, but he was only 23, so it is normal for someone in that age group to show huge improvement. Raffy became a completely different player. Right around the time he met Canseco. American league homeruns went from 1776 to 2074 from 92 to 93, so that in and of itself should not have been enough to change Palmeiro as a hitter.

[futurehalloffamer]

I was never so sure that Palmeiro was a lock for the Hall (like Rose was before his scandal) until he got his 3,000th hit. Before then I always thought he may have been the first player to get 500 HRs and be rejected for the Hall. McGwire I always though was a sure thing, although I'm not so sure about the first ballot after his teary eyed "I'm not here to talk about the past" incident.

[Dontworry]

Yes, but most of those people had demonstrated more power previously. Palmeiro went from a guy who had never hit more than 26 to a guy that hit 37 or more 10 times. That is a power increase of 140 percent or so. Yes alot of other players went up but not buy that margin at that age. If that had been a career high, or he had had afew more seasons like that I could accept it. That would be a normal peak, with an adjustment for the era, and maybe another adustment because of an extraordinary work ethic. But Raffy's improvement was so extraordinary that I cannot atribute it only to expansion. Griffey went from 27 to 45 that year, but he was only 23, so it is normal for someone in that age group to show huge improvement. Raffy became a completely different player. Right around the time he met Canseco. American league homeruns went from 1776 to 2074 from 92 to 93, so that in and of itself should not have been enough to change Palmeiro as a hitter.

Palmerio was 29 in 1993, taking advantage of diluted pitching sort of like roger maris in 1961.

I'm not saying he didnt " juice " back then, but an easy logical explaination for his " increase " was diluted pitching. The ballpark in arlington didnt hurt either.

I find it interesting that you say he wasnt the same " player " before 93, when the second best adjusted OPS+ of his career came in 1991. He posted a 155 OPS+.

Doesnt mean anything, but the guy could hit before and after his meeting with canseco.

[Cougar]

As a kid, Schmidt was my hero.

As an adult, I realize that he was a truly great ballplayer, probably the best third baseman ever, but every time he opens his mouth I realize that he's a horse's ass as well.

Ah, the lost innocence of my youth.

[Senor Octobre]

Lets leave out steroids for this one (even though i think big mac juiced), but steroids aside who would you rather have(or have had) on your team? Sure, Big Mac had his 96-99 years and a few other good ones, but thome for the most part imho has been more consistent than mcgwire was. Granted mcgwire had plenty injuries, but thome has been no stranger to them either. As far as defense goes mcgwire has that one Gold glove (deserved or not) at first base, whilst thome made the switch from third to first. Call me crazy but all things aside i'm going with Thome on this one.

some numbers...

McGwire...

yrs........ 16
games... 1874
avg....... .263
hits....... 1627
runs...... 1167
2b......... 252
hr......... 583
rbi........ 1414
bb........ 1317
obp...... .394
slg....... .588
ops...... .982

Thome (thru 06)...

yrs........ 16
games... 1820
avg....... .282
hits....... 1751
runs...... 1220
2b......... 336
Hr......... 460
rbi......... 1270
bb......... 1313
obp....... .409
slg....... .566
ops...... .975

I guess my reasoning for this post was that before the steroids scandal came to light ( i suppose a lot of us suspected Mac and probably even thome before the hearings, although i for one don't think thome juices) in the mahorities mind's mcgwire seemed to be a HOF lock, and to this day people are still questioning Thome's credentials. For whatever reason its clear to me that thome is a superior player to mcgwire. thoughts?

[Say Hey]

I would go with Thome. He has got better numbers in almost every category. And the categories they are not better in, they are just about equal. Thome has also played in less games (not a lot less) but put up alot of good numbers. There is a big differential in home runs but that is not the part that I really focused on.

[DoubleX]

Given that both are/were pretty much leadfooted 1Bman for most of their careers, and they both have had roughly the same amount of ABs at this time (with Thome surpassing McGwire this year), OPS+ is pretty much the be all and end all of this conversation for me since both have little else to offer other than their prolific offense. McGwire is a 163 while Thome is a 149 in roughly the same amount of ABs. So McGwire takes the cake here. McGwire also gets some credit for the more impressive peak, and one of the best peaks of all-time in terms of OPS+.

It is interesting to consider this conversation without the specter of steroids. The knocks mentioned against McGwire in the original post (injuries; poor fielding) probably had something to do with steroid use (assuming he used steroids). If not for steroids (again, assuming McGwire used - I'm not stating this as a matter of fact), McGwire would not have been the stud power hitter he was when healthy, but he may have been healthier and an all-around better and more athletic player. With that added health, he probably would not have been hitting 60 and 70 homeruns, but he would have played more and perhaps longer and could have ended up with a similar career home run total to what he actually achieved. There is no denying that McGwire naturally had great and very rare power - 49 homeruns his rookie year when he was pretty slim and during a time when 35-40 homeruns was a big deal and before all these new parks with smaller dimensions littered the MLB landscape, demonstrates just how great a natural slugger McGwire was.

[KCGHOST]

I think the edge goes to McGwire for now. He leads noticeably in RCAA, somewhat in WARP3, and probably in Win Shares. Thome could certainly wipe all that out with a couple good years.

[GiambiJuice]

S T E R O I D S

[LouGehrig]

It is claimed thatMark McGwire, based SOLELY on his career, is a questionable Hall of Famer at best.

http://baseballpiggies.blogspot.com/2006/07/mcgwire-why-or-why-not-harold-friend.html

[KCGHOST]

Outside of the pharmaceuticals issue, McGwire is definitely an HoFer to me, but will agree that his lack of counting numbers in certain areas dilutes at what tier we consider him. In McGwire case his walks (1317) makes up for a lot of missing singles.

[Appling]

I think McGwire's career compares favorably with that of HOF Ralph Kiner.
Kiner won 7 HR titles, McGwire had 4. Kiner had five seasons with 40 or more homeruns, McGwire had six. Kiiner had two seasons with 50+ homeruns (1947 & 1949); McGwire had four seasons over 50 (1996-97-98-99)/

Kiner had 369 homeruns in 5205 career AB -- 36.9 per season and 14.1 AB per homerun.

McGwire had 583 homeruns in 6187 AB (16 seasons but several with injuries); Mark averaged 36.4 per season but 10.6 homeruns per AB. Yet there is that one murky cloud over McGwire.

I see next year's HOF vote as a forerunner of the first Bonds ballot. It will be a preview of how HOF voters look on the PED issue, even though Bonds was clearly the better all-around player. If McGwire is elected on the first ballot, Bonds will also be elected on the first ballot. If McGwire falls short on the first ballot, so will Bonds.

[Myankee4life]

If Sosa is not a HOF neither is Mcgwire.

[Whitesoxnut]

McGwire was/is as phony as a $4 bill. The only thing he could do on a baseball field was hit the ball over the fence and even this has been shrouded by the 'roids controversy. On defense he did work hard to become an adequate 1st baseman. But he only won one gold glove at the position and he was never a HOF fielder.

Barry Bonds on the other hand was a HOF 5 tool player before he ever started taking 'roids.

McGwire was almost totally one dimensional. And even with that he is an embarrassment. I dont think he deserves to get into the HOF.

[W_Marone]

For me the mere speculation of steroids and his showing at the congressional hearings is enough for me to say No. I know there is no hard evidence he did steroids, but it's hard to think he didnt juice. I think he screwed himself infront of congress not wanting to talk about the past. Mark why not just say "I dont want to talk about the past becuase I know I'll be found out." First Ballot HOF, I think not IMO but, as things progress and if we find out he did or did not definantly do steroids, then he will definantly be in or out depending on that.

[StanTheMan]

This 35 Year Old Cardinal Fan has a Strong Opinion on the topic.... bear with me. I don't understand how anyone can think he should be voted in next year.

As much as it pains me to say, I don't think McGwire is a HOF'er with the information we have at this time. My kid loved him, had a McGwire bat, cards, T-Shirts, Big Mac Christmas ornaments, posters on the wall, etc. I stood and heartily cheered for the man as well.

But he sat in front of Congress and said he did not "want to talk about the past."

In case I am mistaken, he will not be playing First Base for any MLB team this evening, so I am done with him.

The HOF honors the past, his past, and the past of every player who ever played, especially the greatest of the great. He does not want to talk about his past... HOW in the world can we then HONOR HIS PAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS!!!

NO WAY should he be a first ballot HOF'er. And he won't be... you watch.

For me, there are several reasons why he should NOT be voted in at this time.

Precedent---- Eddie Matthews hit 500+ Home Runs and did not get in until the 4th ballot. 500+ HR's is not a guarantee of first ballot entry. And from what I have read, Eddie Matthews was not a bad teammate, much less had a could of suspicion hanging over him for any illegal activities.

The cloud of suspicion and the permanancy of election---- you can only vote someone IN... you can't vote them OUT. If I had a vote, I would be DARN sure that the guy did not take PED. At this time, no reasonable human being can say FOR SURE that he did not take them. Previously, this was based on rumor and allegations from less than substantial sources... but when McGwire was speaking to the legislators of this country, he balked, BIG TIME. Do you think his lawyer mentioned the word PERJURY to him? Why would he not come out and say he did not take them? If not in that forum, then why not in ANY other forum? In my opinion, he probalby took them. And if he did he is NOT a HOF'er... noone who took PED should be allowed in. I don't care if Bonds hits 900 HR"s. If he took them (I believe he did so with the facts that I know at this time) then he should not make it in either.

The HOF is NOT a court of law------ the do not need "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt." It is not up to the HOF to prove he did it. He is innocent until proven guilty with regards to the police in his hometown, or federal investigators, or Bud Selig's dog and pony show. He is NOT innocent until proven guilty when it comes to the HOF. Just the mere WHISPER of suspicion is enough to keep someone out ON THE FIRST BALLOTT!!! As well it should be.

There are other bad guys in the HOF------ big freaking deal. I wish the racists, and the womanizers, and the other neredowells in the HOF would get their due, be thought of as lesser men, etc. but in fact they are thought of that way. Have you heard any father in the last 75 years tell his son to be JUST LIKE TY COBB in every Way Possible? Uh.... Yeah. Tyr this one on for size. In a courtroom, a criminal (you pick the offense) tells the judge "80 years ago a guy did (same offense) and he is honored and has a statue in his hometown, and a plaque on the wall in this great museum in New York. I did the same thing, or at least something similar, and I would like to NOT even be on trial because 80 yeras ago that one guy got away will all kinds of bad stuff." And the judge would say.......... the same thing we should say about all the jerks in the HOF. The writers made a mistake/looked past those transgressions. Does that mean that we should ignore the transgressions of today's players? Because writers who are LONG since dead chose to do so, or their society chose to do so? That would be completely moronic.

He was a HOF'er before he "allegiedly" took PED------ but the minute he took them, he was no longer a HOF'er, IMO. Try this the next time you get pulled over for speeding. "Hello officer, I have never, ever sped on this road before. I have driven down in thousands of times. I sped today. I'm good right? I am not a speeder because I was not a speeder for such a long time before today? How bout I just go about my way?" That won't fly wiht the cop. And it does not fly with McGwire either. Rose's gambling was fine until he placed that first bet on a BASEBALL game, whenever that was. Once he did that, he became a different man.

PED were NOT against the rules of baseball at the time----- This one is my favorite and belongs in the dimwitted baseball fan HOF. The laws of the United States of America take precedent over the rules of MLB. Was it against the rules of baseball to break your bat during BP, and then plunge the razor sharp bat handle into the thigh of an opposing player? No, but you would be charged with assault, possibly tried, and convicted by Law Enforcement in your area. Possessing, distrubuting, selling, of PED was ILLEGAL in the USA for every moment of Mark McGwire's MLB career. They are still illegal today. Last I knew, every square inch of batter's box he ever stood in, every bleacher seat pelted by one of his HR's, and every square inch of every house he ever lived in falls under the jurisdiction of that same law. If it was OK to use them, why not inject yourself in the batters box? When asked by a reporter after the game about your walk off HR, why did Mark not answer "well, it was a fastball middle in, I was looking for it, and thank goodness I'm at the peak of a cycle of (the Cream, the Clear, Clomid, HGH, some sort of Fish Tranqilizer... whatever) right now, because I hit the sh1t out of the ball... by the way, has it landed yet?" If taking them was ok... then this answer would be ok as well. The "it was not against the rules of baseball is just an incredible statement IMO." I sometimes simply walked away from people who have uttered it.

PED's are just like stealing signs, or corking your bat --- rubbish. If you are caught sneaking a sign, or when leading off second you tip pitch location to the batter, while technically against the spirit of the game, these offenses are ALL punishable by chin music the next time you are up to bat. PED's are different, and undetectable unless you announce it to the world that you are using by having a syringe sticking out the backside of your uniform when you walk to the plate. But these guys did not do that. It was done is secret, behind closed doors, and denied, denied, denied.. for DECADES. There is a HUGE diffeference between PED's and other offenses, even bat corking and doctoring the ball.

Finally, HIS NUMBERS ARE ALREADY IN THE HOF. I was there. I saw his name on the wall listing the ALL TIME HR records. Leave that there, he did hit the HR's but getting your plaque on the wall in the Hall? Being announced for the rest of your life as Mark McGwire, Hall of Famer?

No thanks. Not in my HOF. OUR HOF. The great game of baseball's HOF.

Bryan in Indy

:grouchy

[LouGehrig]

But he sat in front of Congress and said he did not "want to talk about the past."

If McGwire doesn't want to talk about the past, why should fans who go to the Hall of Fame or discuss Hall of Famers have to talk about HIS past?

Just the mere WHISPER of suspicion is enough to keep someone out ON THE FIRST BALLOTT!!! As well it should be.

What if there were the WHISPER of suspicion on an individual that has a clean reputation but who is not liked by some, such as Cal Ripken Jr.? Does that mean malicious slander is enough to keep someone out on the first ballot?


Try this the next time you get pulled over for speeding. "Hello officer, I have never, ever sped on this road before. I have driven down in thousands of times. I sped today. I'm good right? I am not a speeder because I was not a speeder for such a long time before today?" That won't fly.

How about the judge who gives a transgressor a less stringent punishment because the transgressor is a first time offender with a clean record.


Possessing, distrubuting, selling, of PED was ILLEGAL in the USA for every moment of Mark McGwire's MLB career. They are still illegal today.

Barry Bonds has admitted using creatine phosphate. It is legal and is a PED. During the first 30 seconds of strenuous physical activity, the cells do not have a supply of adenosine triphosphate. The cells use CP (creatine phosphate), not ATP (adenosine triphosphate).

Hitting requires a rapid reaction to a pitch and a rapid reaction by the muscles to the stimulus. Taking creatine maximizes one's ability and increases one's efficiency. It is a LEGAL PED that one can purchase at GNC.




The above is a reaction to some of the post. I agree completely that McGwire should not be in the Hall of Fame, but for different reasons. The article the link leads to does not refer to PEDs. It attempts to make a case based on McGwire's performance, not on whether his performance was enhanced by substances.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Mark McGwire is a runaway HOF'er on his numbers. He's the #1 player of all time, well ahead of Babe Ruth, in career HR/AB... and I'd never dreamed I'd see that until he and his "wondrous" feats came along. He had a terrific .394 career OBP and an even better .588 career slugging average. The Hall of Fame is filled with guys who were one-dimensional power hitters, and--if you take his numbers at face value--Mark McGwire is the greatest such player of all time. He is Harmon Killebrew, only a great deal better.

The only question about McGwire and the Hall of Fame is the obvious one. And as I've said before, I would exclude him because in my opinion, he's obviously guilty as hell on that score. If they're going to hang Bonds--and they're sure trying--then they bloody well better hang McGwire. Bonds was a first-round HOF inductee before he started juicing after the 1998 or 1999 season. McGwire was an excellent power hitter, but NOT a Hall of Famer, until his sudden and wondrous explosion in the mid-90's.

BHN

[Whitesoxnut]

Sitting in front of that congressional committee and sniveling like that means I cant even respect the guy. McGwire was a hard-core juicer and if it wasnt for 'roids he wouldn't even have reached the 500 club. Even with the juice he was one dimensional. What was his lifetime avg? About .260 right?

Even tho McGwire has no connection with the BALCO investigation ,as far as MLB is concerned, you cannot penalize Barry Bonds without doing the same to McGwire. If anything McGwire was worse and used the juice longer to greater benefit. Bonds would have been remembered as one of the premiere players of his generation, juice or not. McGwire starting juicing what? Five years into his career? Who really knows? The guy may have started in high school. As far as I'm concerned everything about the guy is phony.

To the great credit of Cardinals fans, a great baseball town possessing midwest common sense and honesty, there are very few drones backing this guy for the HOF.

[Bronxbombers]

In 1994, there was a strike that crippled baseball and made many fans "ditch baseball. This problem carried into 1995,1996,and 1997. Halfway through the year of 1998, the problem gradually dissipated. What was the cause of the revitalization of baseball? The cause was Mark McGwire's epic chase for Roger Maris's esteemed home run record. Since then, baseball attendance is at an all time high, tv ratings are rather high, and fan interest is as great as ever. For this reason alone, Mark McGwire deserves consideration for the hall.

Now for Stats
583 Career home runs- 7th most
Career .982 OPS- 11th highest
World Series Ring
Rookie of the Year
Rookie Record for home runs
10.6 AB/HR- best ever
7 seasons of 1.000 OPS or better
163 Adjusted OPS+- 11th best all time
12 all star games
1 gold glove
3 silver sluggers
Blank ink and HOF Standards well above average Hall of Famer, while he just misses HOF Monitor and Gray Ink.


The steroid era was really a blessing in disguise for baseball. McGwire is a definite Hall of Famer. He should go second ballot though because he is not on the level of a Ripken or Gwynn.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Bonds would have been remembered as one of the premiere players of his generation, juice or not.

For sure. He would have been a HOFer without the alleged use. However when he goes into the HOF, his plaque will not say "1986-1999."

[blslivewire]

McGwire's in more troube than Bonds as far as the HOF goes since McGwire's entire career is in question where as Bonds was already a HOF before he got on PEDs.

[blslivewire]

In 1994, there was a strike that crippled baseball and made many fans "ditch baseball. This problem carried into 1995,1996,and 1997. Halfway through the year of 1998, the problem gradually dissipated. What was the cause of the revitalization of baseball? The cause was Mark McGwire's epic chase for Roger Maris's esteemed home run record. Since then, baseball attendance is at an all time high, tv ratings are rather high, and fan interest is as great as ever. For this reason alone, Mark McGwire deserves consideration for the hall.



The steroid era was really a blessing in disguise for baseball. McGwire is a definite Hall of Famer. He should go second ballot though because he is not on the level of a Ripken or Gwynn.

The "chicks dig the longball" thing helped get interest back in the game but at what cost? The ends don't always justify the means.

In the long run, PED hurt the game more than they will ever help it.

And in all likelyhood, the "fans" that waited 3 years to return to baseball just because of a home run chase aren't the real fans anyway. Sure they bring $$$ which some will say is all that matters, but they aren't the ones who watch every playoff game, All Star game or Series. They're the casual fans who come and go every few years and show up on Bobblehead night. They would have returned to baseball sooner or later with the rest of us and then wandered in out of interest.

[CardinalsForever]

I admit that I am a bit biased but I do think that McGwire should be in the HOF. His numbers in Oakland were very impressive. Everyone forgets that he hit 49 home runs in his rookie year. He also has a World Series Ring and was dominant in the '89 WS and he was the only player to show up in the '88 WS. Most importantly what most people forget is that he SAVED BASEBALL, when it was still struggling and basketball was becoming the second sport in the US (football being first). McGwire's 70 put baseball back on the sports map and he should be recongized for it. I know a lot of people disagree with this assumption which is fine it is just my opinion.

CFC

[Bronxbombers]

The "chicks dig the longball" thing helped get interest back in the game but at what cost? The ends don't always justify the means.

In the long run, PED hurt the game more than they will ever help it.

And in all likelyhood, the "fans" that waited 3 years to return to baseball just because of a home run chase aren't the real fans anyway. Sure they bring $$$ which some will say is all that matters, but they aren't the ones who watch every playoff game, All Star game or Series. They're the casual fans who come and go every few years and show up on Bobblehead night. They would have returned to baseball sooner or later with the rest of us and then wandered in out of interest.


Since when is there a distinction between real fans and casual fans. Both pay the same amount of money to come to games, both are valued the same in ratings, both pay the same amount for jerseys. The only difference is how often each buys tickets, watches tv, buys merchandise, and due to McGwire the "casual" fans were engaging in these acts as often as the real fans.

I dont thnk that the emergence of PED will have that large of an effect on baseball in the longterm. At some point in the next 10-15 years, Bud Selig will either create a legitimate code that severely punishes steroid users, or there will be a new commisioner who enacts such a code. Sure, steroid will have cast doubt on the players of this generation, some injustifiably so , but this experience will eventually cause the complete eradication of PED from baseball. PED inevitably would have been used at some point in baseball history, it just conveniently happened when baseball needed the "pick-me-up"

[Whitesoxnut]

What was the cause of the revitalization of baseball? The cause was Mark McGwire's epic chase for Roger Maris's esteemed home run record. Since then, baseball attendance is at an all time high, tv ratings are rather high, and fan interest is as great as ever. For this reason alone, Mark McGwire deserves consideration for the hall.

Please post the evidence to support this? The fans would have came back to the game anyways. If anything what increased attendance was inter-league play, new ballparks, wild cards in the playoffs...ect Players using 'roids didnt save the game nor will it ruin the game. To give guys like Bonds, Sosa, or McGwire credit for saving the game of baseball is ludicrous. It was fans coming back at $40 a pop that saved the game of baseball.

Time healed the wounds of the strike. And the homerun chases were nothing but a drug fueled, ego driven, fugazzi, WWF match on a baseball field.

[flash143817]

Lots of McGwire haters on this site.

If you are going to evaluate just the merits of his career, as stated by LouGehrig at the start of the thread, then his career achievements are clearly HOF-worthy. He is 11th all-time in OPS+. If you hold McGwire out of the HOF then only the top 10 hitters ever are surefire HOFers. Those are some damn high standards. Not to mention it will be a lonelier HOF without guys like DiMaggio, Aaron, and Mays if only the top 10 hitters ever are allowed in.

I can understand people wanting to hold Mac out of the HOF based on the steroid allegations, although I don't agree. But if you are just talking solely about his achievements regardless of steroids, then it is impossible to disclude him on his playing merits. He is a slam dunk first balloter just based on playing achievements.

And regarding McGwire's juicing, he has admitted to andro use. Andro was legal at the time in both MLB and the USA. It is still legal and available at your local GNC to this day, although it has since been banned from MLB. So the poster that stated otherwise earlier is vastly misinformed.

And LOL to the guy making a distinction between 'roiding and corking or 'roiding and ball doctoring. Cheating is cheating. Just because one way is chemical cheating and the other isn't doesn't make it different.

And coming to the plate with a needle in their ass to show they are 'roiding? Ludicrous. Do people with corked bats let everybody know they are corking? Do pitchers that doctor balls wear a big Vaseline advertisement on their jersey?

[leecemark]

The above is a reaction to some of the post. I agree completely that McGwire should not be in the Hall of Fame, but for different reasons. The article the link leads to does not refer to PEDs. It attempts to make a case based on McGwire's performance, not on whether his performance was enhanced by substances.

--Yes, but the article is complete nonsense. The whole argument is that McGwire is not a Hall of Famer because he wasn't as good as Stan Musial. If the Hall Of fame standard is "as good as Musial" then there would be what....a dozen guys residing in Cooperstown?

[Elvis]

...Cheating is cheating. Just because one way is chemical cheating and the other isn't doesn't make it different.


Disagree. "Cheating is cheating" isn't anymore accurate than saying "breaking the law is breaking the law". Last time I checked there were vastly different consequences for shoplifting than for capital murder. Likewise, there are vast differences between scuffing a baseball and doping yourself for virtually your entire career.

Why is it such a big deal when horses are found to be doped, but somehow when people do it's, "so what? Everybody was"

Makes no sense to me.

[Skin & Bones]

Disagree. "Cheating is cheating" isn't anymore accurate than saying "breaking the law is breaking the law". Last time I checked there were vastly different consequences for shoplifting than for capital murder. Likewise, there are vast differences between scuffing a baseball and doping yourself for virtually your entire career.

Why is it such a big deal when horses are found to be doped, but somehow when people do it's, "so what? Everybody was"

Makes no sense to me.

Disagree. "Cheating is cheating" isn't anymore accurate than saying "breaking the law is breaking the law".

Actually, this isn't a valid comparison at all.

Likewise, there are vast differences between scuffing a baseball and doping yourself for virtually your entire career.

Right, because one has been proven to kill, while the other does nothing but cheat the batter. Scuffing the ball doesn't kill a sole, it just hurts the batters numbers. Steroids while helping, can kill. The health issue is the reason why it's banned here, not because of it's " enhancing " ability. There's legal PED'S out there that aren't banned.

[Elvis]

Disagree. "Cheating is cheating" isn't anymore accurate than saying "breaking the law is breaking the law".

Actually, this isn't a valid comparison at all.


Of course it is.

[yankillaz]

I've recently concluded that the PED's were available to everyone, and according to the vile Jose Canseco everybody took it. Who can say otherwise? This makes me think that McGwire will be a HOF'er. Probably will windup with 76%, since Ripken will get 98% and Gwynn 96%.

[leecemark]

--I doubt he makes it to the podium with Ripken and Gwynn. Probably in his second try unless more damning evidence comes out to further damage his candidacy.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I've recently concluded that the PED's were available to everyone

And there is a bank available on every corner of America for people to rob as well. The apologist attitude is absurd around here. Not making a distinction between corking and knowingly altering your chemical makeup...priceless.

[flash143817]

And there is a bank available on every corner of America for people to rob as well. The apologist attitude is absurd around here. Not making a distinction between corking and knowingly altering your chemical makeup...priceless.

By saying "knowingly altering" you make it seem as though the corking was unknowingly. I think we can safely say that everyone that used a corked bat, except for Sammy Sosa :rolleyes: , knew that they were cheating when they did so.

As far as corking and 'roiding go, both are a knowing attempt to cheat to an advantage. They are both illegal in baseball's rules yet people try both in order to gain an unfair advantage over their opponents. How are they any different then?


And this is a somewhat separate issue, but I say make steroids completely legal in all sports. Most of the participants are using anyway and will find a way to cheat regardless. Just make it all legal so that there's no hiding and smoke and mirrors. Everyone would have the same choice and opportunity and be on the same level then so there would be no need for all of this speculation and different standards.

[LouGehrig]

--Yes, but the article is complete nonsense. The whole argument is that McGwire is not a Hall of Famer because he wasn't as good as Stan Musial. If the Hall Of fame standard is "as good as Musial" then there would be what....a dozen guys residing in Cooperstown?

We know each other a long time. The article uses Musial as an example of a Hall of Famer whose election cannot be questioned. The article's premise is that McGwire's career with respect to the Hall of Fame is questionable. And it is.

[leecemark]

--McGwire is obviously no Musial. However, if you don't apply a huge penalty for steroids then he is well above the standards for the Hall. Even with one, I think he is hard to keep out. He was a singular talent and had a huge impact on the game.

[yankillaz]

And there is a bank available on every corner of America for people to rob as well. The apologist attitude is absurd around here. Not making a distinction between corking and knowingly altering your chemical makeup...priceless.

Believe me Sultan, i've tried very hard to convince myself of this. If it was for me, and the game was pure and all, i banned Bonds, Sosa, Canseco, McGwire, Palmeiro, Clemens, Brown, Boone, Franco, heck, anyone who i'm dubious about. But since the game isn't, we have to search deep down. Who said let's say, Cecil Fielder didn't took them back in 1990. Or George Foster took something to hit what by today's standards might be 60-plus homers in 1977? The World may never know. So i won't judge the cheaters based on something MLB knew all along, and allowed it.

Any player with three fingers of forehead would've used them. If Mr. Ego Bonds used them, knowing he didn't needed them...that's something.

Again, the game's moral sucks!!!

[Bronxbombers]

Please post the evidence to support this? The fans would have came back to the game anyways. If anything what increased attendance was inter-league play, new ballparks, wild cards in the playoffs...ect Players using 'roids didnt save the game nor will it ruin the game. To give guys like Bonds, Sosa, or McGwire credit for saving the game of baseball is ludicrous. It was fans coming back at $40 a pop that saved the :noidea Time healed the wounds of the strike. And the homerun chases were nothing but a drug fueled, ego driven, fugazzi, WWF match on a baseball field.


In the second half of 1998, when McGwire's chase was at its zenith, Fox ratings went up 11%. Baseball itself reported earning an extra 1.5 billion dollars through the home run chase. McGwire's popularity was unprecedented at that time. In fact, he made numerous appearances in pop culture events, including books, sitcoms, and news shows. Don't say McGwire was not the cause of the increase in sales. It wasn't interleague, which most casual fans dont even care about, it wasnt new ballparks, can you point to one particular ballpark which was responsible for the difference in attendance and ratings between 1997 and 1998. What you dont realize is yes the fans' money saved the teams, but it was McGwire and Sosa that compelled the fans to spend the money

[soberdennis]

I am still not convinced that Mac did anything illegal. Nor am I convince that he should not be joining Cal and Tony next year.

[Bronxbombers]

I am still not convinced that Mac did anything illegal. Nor am I convince that he should not be joining Cal and Tony next year.

Are you saying that based on numbers alone, he shouldnt be in the hall?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

By saying "knowingly altering" you make it seem as though the corking was unknowingly. I think we can safely say that everyone that used a corked bat, except for Sammy Sosa :rolleyes: , knew that they were cheating when they did so.


You misunderstood me.



As far as corking and 'roiding go, both are a knowing attempt to cheat to an advantage. They are both illegal in baseball's rules yet people try both in order to gain an unfair advantage over their opponents. How are they any different then?


So you could say that stealing gum and stealing a car are both acts that remove something without permission. How are they different?


And this is a somewhat separate issue, but I say make steroids completely legal in all sports. Most of the participants are using anyway and will find a way to cheat regardless. Just make it all legal so that there's no hiding and smoke and mirrors. Everyone would have the same choice and opportunity and be on the same level then so there would be no need for all of this speculation and different standards.

Not a bad idea. We already can't compare eras.