PDA

View Full Version : Big Mac staying home in 2007?



mr.miracle
07-31-2006, 02:41 PM
Courtesy of Rob Neyer from ESPN, it looks as if Big Mac won't be joining Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn at the HOF in 2007. If early survey results are any indication at least. Looks like the 2005 congressional hearings really did him in. That or the absolutely stupid advice that he received from his attorney's or advisors to not talk about the past.

McGwire's HOF chances appear bleak

http://espn-att.starwave.com/i/story/design05/insider_byline.gif (http://insider.espn.go.com/insider/index)
http://espn-att.starwave.com/i/columnists/Neyer_Rob_30.jpg (http://x.go.com/cgi/x.pl?goto=http://search.espn.go.com/keyword/search?searchString=rob_neyer&name=SEARCH_m_archive&srvc=sz)
By Rob Neyer
ESPN Insider
Archive (http://x.go.com/cgi/x.pl?goto=http://search.espn.go.com/keyword/search?searchString=rob_neyer&name=SEARCH_m_archive&srvc=sz)
http://adsatt.espn.go.com/ad/sponsors/ESPN_In_House_Marketing/Jul_2006/espn-146x46-0033.gif (http://log.go.com/log?srvc=sz&guid=DF09BF3A-0D5D-437E-A497-78D56DF5CC6A&drop=0&addata=1332:53574:241993:65&a=1&goto=http://mobile.espn.go.com/mort/?campaign=mobile&source=ESPN_ROS_146x46_Football_Mort_Advisor_Green )




Last week, I sent the following questionnaire to roughly 100 baseball writers:
1. Are you eligible to vote in the next Hall of Fame election?
2. Whether you answered yes or no to Question No. 1, will/would you vote for Mark McGwire in his first year of eligibility?
3. If you answered no to Question No. 2, will/would you vote for McGwire in his second year of eligibility?
Bonus Question: Would you like to add a brief explanation of your answers?

http://espn-att.starwave.com/media/mlb/2001/0725/photo/a_mcgwire_i.jpg
AP Photo
Mark McGwire hit 220 of his 583 career home runs as a member of the Cardinals.



When these surveys have been conducted, they've included only Hall of Fame voters. But I decided to include non-voters as well, because their opinions are, I suspect, representative of voters. Also, many and perhaps most of the non-voters will be voters within a few years, and thus will have to answer the yes-or-no question for real at some point.
Let's first dispense with the basic question Will Mark McGwire be elected to the Hall of Fame in 2007?
Answer: No. And it's not going to be close. Among the 73 writers who responded, those voting Yes were far outnumbered by the undecideds and the undecideds were far outnumbered by the Nos. There were 44 definite Nos, 2 Probably Nots, 17 Undecideds, seven Yeses, and three Yes, Probablys. It's clear that McGwire easily will clear five percent, and thus stay on the ballot. But it's equally clear that he'll not come close to the 75 percent necessary for election.
The three most common comments -- aside from the basic "He cheated, so I'm not voting for him." -- are typified by the following:
Lynn Henning (Detroit News): I will not vote for McGwire. Although he was certainly free to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights during the 2005 hearings, I am likewise free to interpret that nondisclosure as an admission that McGwire, at the very least, has something to hide with respect to steroid-use suspicions. I wrote two months ago (as Barry Bonds closed in on Babe Ruth) that I feel used, as well as gullible, for having participated in the coverage caravan that followed McGwire on his 1998 pursuit of Roger Maris. It is difficult for me to believe that home-run marks associated with either McGwire or Bonds are authentic. The steroid cloud is really more than a cloud. It's the air we've collectively been breathing for too many years, air they could have cleansed with a bit more candor and a lot less obfuscation. The Hall of Fame still has within it enough integrity to make McGwire's candidacy far too suspicious for this voter.
Don Burke (Newark Star-Ledger): I'm not voting for McGwire because I don't think he deserves to go in with Cal Ripken or Tony Gwynn given the allegations and suspicions that surround him. I think his presence would take away from the day that those two players, who represent what was good about the game, deserve. His hulking figure would turn a positive into a negative and would vastly overshadow the accomplishments of two very deserving players.
Is that no vote a no vote forever? Probably, but I'm not 100 percent sure yet. Normally, I only vote for players in their first year of eligibility -- the reason being that they didn't get any better as a player after their fifth year away from the game. They're either first-ballot Hall of Famers or they don't belong at all. If it could ever be proven that McGwire didn't take steroids then I would have to reconsider whether to vote for him or not. Reconsider, but not automatically vote him in.
Paul Sullivan (Chicago Tribune): He was a one-dimensional player who cheated, or else he'd be a no-dimensional player. McGwire was just a super-sized Dave Kingman.
*****************
There were a great many more thoughtful responses, some of which we'll publish below. Just a few of my own observations first:
There is one common sentiment with which I'll quibble. McGwire was about more than just power. Twice he led his league in walks, and twice he led his league in on-base percentage the single most important statistic in the game. But yes, it's certainly true that without the home runs, McGwire would not be a Hall of Fame candidate. Not close.
The other common sentiments, though: They're opinions, not facts, and generally they are opinions I understand, and in many cases share. McGwire probably did cheat, and it probably would be a shame if he shared a stage in Cooperstown next summer with Ripken and Gwynn.
There's not a uniformity of opinion regarding what was against the rules and what wasn't, during McGwire's career. Some voters believe that steroids were not against the rules when McGwire played. Some voters believe steroids were against the rules, but since there wasn't any testing the rules were irrelevant. And yes, it's far from clear-cut. When I posed this question to Will Carroll, he responded this way: "It depends on what you think of Fay Vincent's now-famous memo. If you think it's valid, then McGwire was allegedly in the wrong. If not -- where I am, since it was clearly something that had to be bargained -- then he's OK by rule, if not by law. There was no binding, bargained policy until 2003."
There's a tendency, when a Hall of Fame voter doesn't agree with you, to assume simply that he hasn't thought about a candidate for as long and hard as you think he should. Certainly, I'm guilty of levying that charge (particularly when it comes to Bert Blyleven, the best eligible candidate who hasn't been elected). But I can confidently report that the voters -- or most of them anyway -- do take their responsibility seriously, and do consider each significant candidate with some care. I still say the BBWAA is wrong about Blyleven, and was wrong about Gary Carter and Ryne Sandberg for too many years. But trust me: the voters care at least as much as you and I do.
A number of voters (and likely future voters) made an excellent point There's still plenty of time. We do tend to get wrapped up in whether somebody's in the Hall of Fame now, but really what's the big rush? Sandberg's credentials didn't change one bit during the years it took for him to be elected, and it's hard to understand why so many voters changed their opinions in those years. But when it comes to McGwire -- and many of his contemporaries -- there are things we just don't know yet. We'll never have perfect knowledge. But waiting for more strikes me as a perfectly reasonable thing to do. A Hall of Fame plaque lasts forever.
**************
"I'm not voting for McGwire because I don't think he deserves to go in [the Hall of Fame] with Cal Ripken or Tony Gwynn given the allegations and suspicions that surround him. I think his presence would take away from the day that those two players, who represent what was good about the game, deserve. His hulking figure would turn a positive into a negative and would vastly overshadow the accomplishments of two very deserving players." -- Don Burke, Newark Star-Ledger


Bill Plaschke (Los Angeles Times): I voted on the Hall for years, but recently my newspaper has decided that we can no longer be involved in any award voting, of any kind. But if I was voting, I would not vote for McGwire, not now, not ever. (Back when I could vote, I wrote that same thing.)
Anonymous: I am thoroughly convinced that McGwire was a steroid user. Power was his only Hall-of-Fame "tool." Without the strength he developed from performance-enhancing drugs, I don't think he was a Hall-of-Famer in any facet of the game.
Jorge Ortiz (USA Today): I'm not yet eligible to vote for the Hall of Fame. If I were, I wouldn't vote for McGwire in his first, second or any year on the ballot. My reasoning is simple: Before a career resurgence that we later learned was most likely chemically fueled, he had not accomplished enough to be considered a Hall of Famer.
McGwire was a prodigious home run hitter from the very beginning, but because of injuries or whatever reasons, had several ups and downs after that. He had only three 100-RBI seasons in his first nine [seasons] (granted, in one of those he fell only one short). He also had averages of .231, .235 and .201 in seasons 3-5, suggesting big holes in his swing.
Considering the questionable nature of his astonishing power display from 1996-1999 -- which he declined to address in his pathetic performance before Congresss last year -- I think we must concentrate on his achievements before those seasons in gauging his Hall worthiness. In my opinion, he falls short.
Anonymous: Without the power numbers, would McGwire be a Hall of Famer? No, I don't think so. He was a solid enough defensive player, but this is also a guy who was feast or famine at the plate often in his career (a .200 batting average one full year), a guy I don't think would have hit enough homers to merit Hall of Fame consideration without steroids (again, this is strong suspicion on my part, with no actual proof).
Dan Shaughnessy (Boston Globe): I am a voter. Don't want to commit on McGwire or any of these guys until I absolutely must, which will be Dec. 31. But I can tell you I do not believe in the withholding system. For me, a guy is in or out, and the "first ballot" thing is stupid.
Paul Hoynes (Cleveland Plain Dealer): I am eligible to vote for the Hall of Fame. I will not vote for McGwire on his first year of eligibility unless evidence is uncovered about his use or non-use of steroids and what influence they did or didn't have on his stats. I will keep an open mind for the future regarding McGwire.
Bob Nightengale (USA Today): Yes, I am eligible to vote for the Hall of Fame, and no, I will not vote for Mark McGwire on the first ballot.
I likely will vote for McGwire on the second ballot and will definitely do so in the future.
The reason I won't vote for McGwire on the first ballot is that while he had nine "Hall of Fame caliber'' seasons, he had too many injury-plagued years. Yes, he was dominant during his time when healthy, but 284 homers were hit in a four-year period from 1996 to 1999 that very well may have been steroid-inflated numbers.
For those reasons, I don't believe he has the right to walk in with Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken into the Hall of Fame. Yet, since McGwire played in the heart of the steroid era, he certainly was hitting home runs off pitchers who were juiced. And considering so many players were on steroids, he still was the premier power hitter. I will eventually vote for him, but just not on the first ballot.
Anonymous: I'm not eligible to vote yet. However, if I could vote, I would vote for McGwire on the first ballot. If baseball and the union had been serious about the integrity of the record book and the candidacy of HOF candidates, they would have instituted a steroid policy in the mid-1990s. Since they did not, I'm inclined to think you have to accept the whole era at face value and let the people who visit the Hall in future years judge it for themselves when they see certain plaques. McGwire was a dominant player who did things no one had done before.
Jerry Izenberg (Newark Star-Ledger): I am a voter. No, I will not vote for him. His disgraceful performance before the Congressional committee seriously hurts him. The Commisioner looks bad as well because during McGwire's record-setting year. Bud Selig was the only sports leader on the planet not to outlaw andro because his product needed McGwire and Sosa to get back the fans that left during the strike.
I don't see how I could change my mind in future elections, but I will think about it.
Art Spander (Oakland Tribune): I probably would hold off voting for McGwire in Year 1. I would vote for him in Year 2 if he came out and made an admission or gave a legitimate explanation. Same thing with Barry, although he's probably more deserving, off his baseball contributions. Both were players who changed the game. With all the questionable players, I think in time people forgive, if not forget. I also think Pete Rose belongs in the Hall. And for a flyer, Shoeless Joe Jackson, who I researched for a column many years ago.
Tim Kawakami: (San Jose Mercury News): I'm not a HOF voter, which is fine by me, but I guess I'll be voting in another couple of years. Actually, I'm not sure I want the vote for Tainted Era players.
I would not vote for McGwire, if I was a voter.
I also would not vote for McGwire in Year 2 of his eligibility.
My reasoning, as I've written, is that if you're going take a close and possibly very skeptical look at Bonds, Rafael Palmeiro, and Sammy Sosa when they come up for HOF consideration, there's no way you can let McGwire in. No way.
McGwire's the first, best test case for the steroid era. If you're the test case, it's unfortunate, but you carry all the baggage of everybody else who's coming down the pike in following years.
By my reckoning, if you ration out McGwire's output with a steroids era slide ruler, he comes out to about 440-480 absolutely clean home runs. That's Kingman. That's Andre Dawson. That's borderline, and I'm going to be very tough on borderline Steroids Era power hitters. (Bonds I put at about 575 to 600 slide-rule adjusted homers.) In my book, that means no deal for at least the first two or three McGwire HOF votes.
Greg Johns (King County (Wash.) Journal): No, I'm not eligible to vote in the next Hall of Fame. But if I had a vote, I would certainly vote for McGwire in his first year. Based on his performance, McGwire surely deserves to be elected. And I don't feel comfortable trying to eliminate suspected steroid users when nobody knows how many other players were using.
Hall of Fame voters can't pretend to be God. They can't dismiss certain players based on suspicions, no matter how strong the evidence, when they have no way of knowing if other players they're voting for were using performance-enhancers or not. Original suspicions that only the sluggers were using steroids were way off base. It's naive to think no prospective Hall of Fame pitchers ever used steroids. Or that many of the position players accumulating Hall of Fame-consideration numbers through lengthy careers in this era have been completely clean.
So how can you single out McGwire? Hall of Fame voters traditionally look at players who dominate their position for a period of time. So look at McGwire this way. He was the dominant power hitter during the steroid era. And the guy did hit 49 home runs and have 118 RBI when he was 23 years old back in 1987, so it's pretty clear he wasn't simply a product of weird science.
T.R. Sullivan (MLB.com): Having covered baseball now for 18 years, I do get to vote for the Hall of Fame. I do so every December. I get the ballot, go over each name, call up their stats on baseball-reference.com and review them. Even if I did not vote for them the year before, I go over them one more time. Done it every year for Blyleven.
Then I vote and with the exception of the obvious or non-obvious, I really don't make up my mind until that moment.
"I probably would hold off voting for McGwire in Year 1. I would vote for him in Year 2 if he came out and made an admission or gave a legitimate explanation. Same thing with Barry , although he's probably more deserving, off his baseball contributions. Both were players who changed the game." -- Art Spander, Oakland Tribune


Couple of things about McGwire because as the BBWAA Prez in 2004-2005, I was asked a lot about my Hall vote. One thing I've said repeatedly is this about all these guys: It's hard to pass judgement now because you don't know what more is going to come out, either through the grand jury or through the George Mitchell Committee or another source. This thing is just not over yet.
I don't know about McGwire. It's easy if you go by stats, but the shadow is there. Nothing has been proven that is rock-solid, but it can't be just dismissed. It's just going to come down to what all we know by that date and just what my gut feeling is. I could give you an answer either way but I can tell you that until you have that ballot in hand and remember what is at stake and know it's time to decide, you really can't give the true answer.
By the way, I'm not big on that first ballot thing. They are either a Hall of Famer or not.
[B]Joe Strauss (St. Louis Post-Dispatch): I am eligible to vote, but I'm also uncomfortable answering yes or no five months short of when ballots must be returned. I will say that McGwire may influence my vote by addressing issues that have so far been ducked or obfuscated. I'm reluctant to vote for any player shadowed by the steroid issue, especially when the BBWAA allows a candidate to remain on the ballot 15 years. I do not believe in the first-ballot boycott. If I thought McGwire was a Hall of Famer in every sense, I would have no problem including him on my December list. However, I am among a group which believes McGwire owes it to the public and the game to clarify his practices during his career. Even if he were to admit to steroid use, I believe facing the issue rather than ducking it would enhance his chance for recognition.
I guess you can summarize my stance by saying I'd prefer to wait for more facts. Without them, I see no need for a rush to judgment at this time Once a player is in, he's in. But even if denied a number of years (Don Sutton, Phil Niekro, Eddie Mathews), nothing precludes a change in opinion.
Bruce Jenkins (S.F. Chronicle): I'm a Hall of Fame voter and I will vote for McGwire at the first opportunity. There was a steroid era in baseball -- ongoing, for all we know -- and while the notion is disturbing, it was a time in which hundreds of players used performance-enhancing drugs. I treat it like any other era, trying to determine the players who were truly dominant. People try to view the mid-to-late '90s as some type of cartoon, but it wasn't; it was real, hard-nosed baseball, just like any era. Some players stepped up, some didn't. Some benefited from steroids, some ruined their bodies (and, in some cases, their minds). McGwire was a heroic figure during this time and rose to great heights. For all I know, half of his 70 homers were hit against steroid-using pitchers that year. There is far too much uncertainty to simply write off his feats as meaningless.
Steve Buckley (Boston Herald): I was asked this question a couple of weeks ago by Jack Curry of The New York Times. Here's the article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/sports/baseball/23mcgwire.html). I hate to be redundant, but that has been my standard answer: Whenever I am asked to expand on why I will not vote for McGwire, I simply say I am not here to talk about the past.
First ballot, second ballot, third ballot I have no plans to vote for Mark McGwire.
Jeff Horrigan: (Boston Globe) While I begrudge the era that tolerated this far more than the individual offender, McGwire's St. Patrick's Day tears indicated to me a guilt that is likely far deeper than mere Andro use. Until he's willing to begin talking about the past, his chances of getting my vote have passed.
Tim Sullivan (San Diego Union-Tribune): I am eligible to vote for the Hall of Fame, but decided last year I would not vote on any more sports awards -- in large measure because of Mark McGwire and the steroids era.
I've always been uncomfortable with the ethical position of journalists casting votes to determine sports awards. Professionally, we're supposed to act as detached observers rather than involved participants, and it always has been hard for me to rationalize acting otherwise. I have voted in 14 or 15 Hall of Fame elections, but finally recused myself last year. McGwire's evasive appearance before Congress forced me to confront my own misgivings. While I think his career is certainly of Hall of Fame attainment, I could not ignore the steroid suspicions he failed to address. I didn't like the idea of being put in a position of voting on a player whose guilt was widely assumed, but unproven. I didn't like the idea that as a supposed journalist, I was being asked to make a value judgment that would be heavily influenced by suspicion instead of proof. So rather than rendering a judgment on incomplete evidence, I did what I probably should have done from the beginning and withdrew from the process.

ham1963
07-31-2006, 02:46 PM
Lets see what happens when the vote does count. I think Pete Rose belongs in the hall before the cheaters like McGwire and you know who. At least he did not cheat to become the hits king.
John

trsent
07-31-2006, 03:02 PM
Lets see what happens when the vote does count. I think Pete Rose belongs in the hall before the cheaters like McGwire and you know who. At least he did not cheat to become the hits king.
John

Prove that comment, really how do you know Pete Rose didn't cheat?

mr.miracle
07-31-2006, 03:10 PM
If Pete Rose cheated I certainly hope he did not do so with steroids because he is by no means a ringing endorsement for what steroids can do for power hitters. :D I doubt that Steroids Are Us is looking to sign Pete to a contract as a spokesman for the benefits of their product.

Brett

ironmanfan
07-31-2006, 03:52 PM
Pete Roses' name has never even appeared on a HOF Ballot. The writer's couldn't vote for him even if they wanted to (which I don't think very many would anyway).

ham1963
07-31-2006, 04:40 PM
One thing for sure we never saw a major changes in Rose's body unlike a particular SF. Giants outfielder. Plus I dont think that Pete had the money to spend on roids after paying for his gambling debts:D

cjmedina1
07-31-2006, 05:38 PM
If I had a vote I would vote yes.What ever happen to innocent until proven guilty?:confused: The only way I see a voter not voting him in is if theres hard core evidence that proves he infact did take steriods.The people who are voting for the HOF need to put hands over their eyes and just listen to what Mr. Mcgwire had accomplish.The first thing they would probally say is I what to see his accomplishments for them selves.Baseball can do that.What baseball can not do is prove to the HOF voters that Mr Mcgwire did take steriods.The only thing they can show is a book from The other bash brother and a tape from congress.

On a side note if these voters are voting on hear say and not hard evidence that they can see,They all need to be on jury trials here in CA.Maybe we will have less predators and murders here in the public

R. C. Walker
07-31-2006, 06:59 PM
What ever happen to innocent until proven guilty?:confused: The only way I see a voter not voting him in is if theres hard core evidence that proves he infact did take steriods.

McGwire was on a performance enhancing drug (or if you prefer, supplement) Androstenedione. It was in his locker for all to see. Including the ones that vote for the HOF: The Baseball Writers of America.

Andro was not banned by baseball at that time, yet I believe voters will not vote for McGwire due to the cheating aspect towards the game.

sylbry
07-31-2006, 07:54 PM
If I had a vote I would vote yes.What ever happen to innocent until proven guilty?:confused:

Last time I checked the Hall of Fame voting process was not a court of law.

staindsox
07-31-2006, 10:09 PM
Rose DID use greenies...and I don't care if "everyone" uses them. They are illegal and it is cheating. Besides this is apples and oranges. Be it placing bets from the manager's office for or against your own team or injecting illegal drugs into your body to cheat the record books, both should keep you out of the Hall. Neither deserves to hang in the same gallery as Matty, Ruth, Aaron, Jackie Robinson, Clemente, or Lou Gehrig. You don't go into the Hall on numbers alone. Keep Rose out...and every juicer with him.

mr.miracle
07-31-2006, 11:09 PM
The thing with Big Mac using Andro is that anybody else who could get to GNC could do the same thing. Since it was not on the banned substance list and anybody could buy it over the counter at the time, that substance cannot be held against him anymore than a player using creatine, B12 or any other substance that can be bought at GNC.

The irony is that many people would probably wonder about this entire era in sports anyway, but if not for Jose Canseco's book naming names and the subsequent fiasco in front of Congress where people did not want to talk about the past, others forgot how to speak English, others vehemently denied ever using steroids and were later found to have apparently lied, McGwire would probably be headed to the hall at this point.

I find it very, very difficult to simply dismiss the fact that Big Mac hit 583 homers for his career which would punch his ticket automatically under any other circumstances. If the voters are not going to put him in which still remains to be seen, then do they also deny Palmeiro, Sosa, Bonds etc. which using their standards would seem to be the case. Like him or not, until Bonds is definitively proven to have used a PED, I just don't see how he could be denied entrance with over 720 career homers and seven MVP awards. The next couple of years will prove to be very interesting as all of these issues are weighed by the voters.

Brett

cjmedina1
07-31-2006, 11:26 PM
McGwire was on a performance enhancing drug (or if you prefer, supplement) Androstenedione. It was in his locker for all to see. Including the ones that vote for the HOF: The Baseball Writers of America.

Andro was not banned by baseball at that time, yet I believe voters will not vote for McGwire due to the cheating aspect towards the game.

Andro was not banned by baseball at that time.Well when was it.If Mcgwire taking this after it was banned then yes not a first ballot HOF and not a HOF period.But infact he was taking Andro when it was not banned by BASEBALL or the GOVERMENT.So wheres the fault?He was just going about the rules that was in front of him.I can not say as to why he stop taking Andro.Maybe some one can shed some light on this

mr.miracle
07-31-2006, 11:31 PM
If memory serves me correctly, the Andro was discovered in McGwires locker deep into the 1998 season when he and Sosa were pursuing Maris's single season record. Whether or not he wanted it discovered is a matter of some debate but that is another story. After it was discovered, I know there was some negative press directed toward Big Mac. At the time, Andro was perfectly legal in baseball and in the U.S. being sold over the counter at GNC. There was some dispute over its long term health affects and the negative press was directed at McGwire over the fact that this was sending a bad message to young kids and young athletes. Shortly thereafter McGwire announced he would no longer use Andro. It was not banned by baseball or the Federal Government until several years later.

It basically boiled down to a public relations/image issue for him. That to the best of my knowledge is what happened with the Andro.

Bret

staindsox
07-31-2006, 11:37 PM
I absolutely agree about Brett's Andro point. Nobody can get on Mac's case for that because it was legal. I also believe there is enough evidence to keep him out. Remember that every man Landis banished from the game, not just the 8 Black Sox, were never proven guilty in any court of law. Mac may have been using since his earliest days in the bigs. If he were really honest and really clean, he would have had nothing to hide in front of Congress.

What really is ironic and sad is that Canseco has been the most open and honest about the streroid issue...I personally think he is slime. He pointed a finger at Mac, Sosa, Palmeiro, Giambi, Bonds, Gonzalez, Pudge, Tejada, and Clemens. Only Clemens name has remained clean thus far...and likely because he is an untouchable. Did Canseco lie in his book??? Has anything he said been proven wrong??? If these men were innocent, why are they not persuing Canseco in court??? No law suits, hmmm. Maybe these guys don't want to go in front of a judge. Why are they not defending their name??? The public will never know the complete truth because baseball is doing its best to hide and sweep under the rug.

I loved Mac and Sosa, but I loved Rose too. I got through the denial awhile ago. Cheating and lying cannot be tolerated. Look what it has already done to baseball in the past five years!!! Judge Landis was right. Baseball's best move would be to clean house, but that won't happen. The Hall of Fame symbolizes more than statistics. Enshrining any of these men would cheapen this honor.

b.heagy
07-31-2006, 11:48 PM
Only my opinion for what its worth. Guys like Ruth, Aaron, Mays, Williams and the list goes on did not use PERFORMANCE ENHANCING drugs/supplements. Their game was NATURAL skill. Modern players such as Mac put Performance Enhancing drugs into ther body to bring their game to a higher level. In my eyes it doesn't matter how you look at it, they were trying to improve their game. Natural skill was not good enough and they felt the need to enhance their skill. Natural ability stands above all. The players themselves felt the need to somehow bring their game to a level that the TRUE greats had naturally. Banned or not banned at the time does not matter to me. Give guys like Ruth, Aaron, Mays, and Williams PED and how many home runs would Bonds still be chasing ? And lets not set aside the Home runs Williams and Mays would have with lost time to the service (WOW!)

Nathan
08-01-2006, 12:04 AM
Andro was available as an OTC supplement until early 1999 and wasn't pulled from the market (and subsequently outlawed) until after that point. Although it does appear to stimulate testosterone production to a very limited extent, the actual effects (positive and negative) are still unknown.

During "the chase", andro was not outlawed by either MLB OR the federal government (unlike synthetic testosterone or other similar compounds). It is now, but to condemn someone in an ex post facto manner seems slightly odd to me.

The other issue being brought up is McGwire appearing before Congress. The simple fact is that he did not belong there with other active players. Questions directed toward him regarding the current state of MLB, the MLBPA, and drug testing had no application to him at all and justified the "I'm retired" answers he was giving. And the questions of "Did you use steroids" while everyone else was being asked "do you use steroids" (past vs present) was nothing more than bringing a certain amount of tabloid exploitation to Congressional hearings.

Did McGwire use compounds stronger than andro during his career? Possibly. However, what possible basis could there be (during hearings being held to determine the course of future policy based on the present) for asking questions regarding his career, which has ended three years prior by that point? If he says yes, what has anyone gained? Certainly the future of MLB policy wouldn't be in any way influenced by it; it looked like baiting for a scoop to me. If he says no, then has there been any gain by anyone there? Will MLB policy have been improved by him answering any of those questions at all? The answer is no.

cjmedina1
08-01-2006, 12:13 AM
I guess Mr.Mcgwire needs to talk to the public as to why he was taking Andro.Your right about what if Ruth,Mantle would have taking care of there health instead of living the Bar life(Read this in books).For me I would say Ted Williams could have gave Aaron a heck of a time catching him for all time HR and he is my hero hands down.Not only giving up baseball to fight for your country but in his HOF speech he did mention that the negro ball players deserve to in this HOF to not keep out cause a race.I'm a 31 old young man who wish he could go back in time and watch real baseball when most players played hard,Play through injury and cared about the fans.Sorry I'm getting of topis:o
Carlie Meidna III
carliemedinaiii@sbcglobal.net

cjmedina1
08-01-2006, 12:37 AM
One last thing before I go to bed.What do you all think will happen to Mcgwires Game used value.Will it go up or will it go down.
Also still looking for my unicorn.A real 1998 sign game used bat of Mcgwire:p
Carlie Medina III
carliemedinaiii@sbcglobal.net

staindsox
08-01-2006, 12:41 AM
Do you think McGwire got that big on Andro? Come on now. Just like Bonds. Yeah, a guy who lifts all year round and already takes every legal supplement available is suddenly going to put on 40-50 pounds of muscle in three months??? Andro also won't make your skull grow several sizes larger. Bottom line: Mac juiced...and I wish it weren't true. That doesn't make him a terrible human being, but it also doesn't buy him a spot in the Hall. Well he would have hit ___ anyway. And Tony Oliva would have done ___ if it wasn't for his knees and Conigliaro would have done ___ if he wouldn't have been beaned and Ray Fosse would have ___ if it weren't for that collision and Thurman Munson would have ___ if he hadn't have crashed in that plane..."would have" doesn't get you in Cooperstown.

staindsox
08-01-2006, 12:46 AM
As far as the 1998 McGwire gamer bats go, I doubt they will ever reach the value they once held, but will always be quite valuable and expensive. A Pete Rose game used corked bat sold at auction a year or two ago...quite valuable and significant. A '98 gamer will always be a significant piece, regardless the context in which it is viewed. This will guarantee it to remain highly sought and, as a result, an expensive addition to any collection.

BoneRubbedBat
08-01-2006, 01:44 AM
If we barred every player whose career was enhanced or prolonged by modern medicine, we wouldn't have much of a Hall of Fame from here on out. Is having Lasik surgery to enhance vision considered cheating? It is most certainly a performance-enhancing procedure, more so than using anabolics. Is rotator cuff surgery to prolong a career considered cheating? It would prolong a career more predictably than human growth hormone would. If it is not illegal when they do it, it should not be considered "cheating." Everyone wants to have an edge, especially in this age of multi-million dollar contracts. Where is the line drawn?

People have a hard time differentiating between an illegal substance and something that is obtained illegally. To clarify, testosterone is a legal medication. Every pharmacy carries it. It comes in various forms from topical gel (aka "the clear"), to patches, to oral troches. I write prescriptions for it almost daily for legitimate uses. Ordering it via the internet from Botswana is illegal. Human Growth Hormone is legal and has legitimate uses, but is extremely expensive (around 4K per month). Any player could be on HGH and MLB would never know it since there is no standardized way to assess extrensic HGH usage as of yet. Any player who is returning from an injury plagued season and is doing well could be under suspicion for HGH usage (Frank Thomas, Griffey Jr., etc) since it assists with healing. Illegal substances are those such as crack, meth, etc.

It should take more than speculation to keep guys out of the Hall. We have an entire generation of players that are currently under the microscope. As of right now, every player with over 500 HR's that is not already in the HOF is the subject of that speculation (except Griffey). Palmeiro doesn't count - he was using multiple performance-enhancing drugs including Viagra. Any player in this generation with exceptional numbers is automatically assumed to have cheated. How is this fair? Who's next? A-Rod? Pujols?

I am not that naive to think that it is not occuring though. I do think there are many players out there that are using various substances for non-therapeutic conditions, but I will continue to base my final opinions on fact rather than speculation.


Mac didn't juice, Sosa didn't juice, and OJ didn't do it.;)

mr.miracle
08-01-2006, 07:45 AM
Marcus makes an excellent point. Even though Palmeiro got caught and there are questions surrounding several other big time HOF calibre players, the facts remain that 1. these other players have never been caught doing anything illegal which makes it very difficult to play the assumption game and sanction anyone. 2. We will never, ever know the full scope of just how far reaching the steroids/HGH scandal has gone.

Whatever the reliability of Canseco's claims are, the fact that he is saying that 70-80% of players in the 90's were using steroids or some type of PED leads us to believe that many, many players were on something. As Marcus said, how do you make that determination of what is cheating and what is not and how do you sanction a player because you think he was cheating, but have no definitive proof? How many other players never attained superstar status yet spent much of their careers using some type of PED? Performance enhancing drugs will not make an average player a superstar, they will make a superstar even better. Many average players probably used something which allowed them to stay in the league a few more years. We simply will never know the depth and extent to which this issue goes.

Therefore, the question is, do we disregard the past 20 years in MLB and state that everyone could be guilty of cheating so nobody goes into the HOF? That is simply ridiculous, probably as ridiculous as the speculation that this person or that person cheated so based on our suspicions players A, B, and C should not go into the Hall. It all goes back to one issue, MLB dropped the ball 15 plus years ago when there were suspicions that players were on something. Now everyone wants to point fingers and lock people out of the HOF. We cheered for 15 years as these herculean numbers were put on the boards and now we want to scream cheater at everyone and punish them for attaining levels that were unrealistic to begin with. We turned a blind eye because it was fun to watch. Now we want someone to hang for this. It all seems a bit odd to me. I am in no way trying to justify cheating or using PED's, just some food for thought.

Brett Herman

JimCaravello
08-01-2006, 08:54 AM
I love Sullivan's comment - "he's a super sized Dave Kingman".....one of the best quotes I have heard in a long time - he just doesn't belong in the HOF......as I have said in the past, Roger Maris still holds the single season HR mark ( in my humble opinion..... ).......Jim

staindsox
08-01-2006, 09:10 AM
We also need to understand the difference in why a player is using HGH or steroids. Mickey Mantle is the perfect example. The number of issues he had with his knees, do doctor would have surely prescribed them for rehabilitation purposes. Barry Bonds has Greg Anderson buying the stuff off of aids patients in the Bay Area. Nobody can see the difference here? LEGALLY acquiring medication is the key. Nobody should say a word against McGwire because of Andro, it was LEGAL at the time. Lasik is also LEGAL. Buying HGH from aids patients in the parking lot of Gold's Gym is NOT LEGAL...there is your difference.

Since 1869 to 1994, how many men hit 50 homeruns in a major league season? How many have done it since? Toss every juicer for life. Baseball did drop the ball, but sweeping it under the rug solves nothing. This will not erase all of the Hall of Famers like so many seem to be worried about. Only 1% of major leaguers become enshrined, only 1%!!!. There have been years where nobody has been enducted. There are plenty of guys that did it clean where their number DID diminish with age, like every other Hall of Famer. Henderson, Ripken, Gwynn, or how about Greg Maddux or Randy Johnson? There will always be Hall of Famers. We don't need McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, or Bonds in the Hall of Fame. We have plenty of players who did it clean.

staindsox
08-01-2006, 09:13 AM
Jim,

All I have to say is Amen, Amen. I could not agree more. I too still say Maris holds the single season record. His hair fell out because of stress, not illegally obtained drugs.

mr.miracle
08-01-2006, 09:29 AM
One issue I find very interesting that was pointed out in an earlier post, is the fact that once Canseco's book hit the shelves there was a great deal of speculation that everyone named in the book would sue Canseco. In fact several players Palmeiro included and I believe McGwire at one point indicated that they would do just that. Nobody ever sued Canseco or anyone else for that matter. By comparrison, Lance Armstrong has been named by various French writers, newspapers etc. and has subsequently sued everyone and won lawsuits on three occasions against those making these doping allegations against him. Lance has vehemently denied and repeated fought and won against those falsely accusing him of something never, ever proven. If any or all of these players named by Canseco or various other sources are not guilty, why would they not file a lawsuit? Heck, it is the American way to file lawsuits against everyone you can for anything you can. It does my make me wonder just what is hiding in the closet that they don't want to come out. If and when any of those cases ever made it to court, who knows just what would hit the fan.

I cannot wait for MLB's investigation finding to come out whenever that happens. I am sure we will find so much conclusive evidence that will provide closure to this entire episode. :rolleyes: Yeah, that's it.

Brett

mr.miracle
08-01-2006, 09:30 AM
Good thing we did not have Rogaine back then or Maris might have found himself suspended.

Nathan
08-01-2006, 11:11 AM
mr.miracle,

Even funnier when you consider that Jose Theodore of the Montreal Canadiens was banned from the 2006 Olympics after testing positive for the active ingredient in Propecia, which is classified as a performance enhancer.

BRB,

You bring up a good point. Steroids are legal only with a prescription; for anyone without one it's classified in the same grouping as heroin and cocaine.

Also, the dosage is vastly different between an anabolic compound and pharmaceutical testosterone issued to a hypogonadal man. The pharmaceutical stuff is something like 15 mg/day, while the stuff given out in a brown bag behind World Gym is one dose usually between 100-1000 mg right there.

staindsox
08-01-2006, 11:34 AM
Nathan,

Awesome points...and I didn't realize Jose Theodore was banned for that.:D :D :D Good thing Wade Boggs is out of the game now.

sportscentury
08-01-2006, 05:17 PM
it looks as if Big Mac won't be joining Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn at the HOF in 2007.

I was up in Cooperstown for the Induction Weekend. There wasn't a Hall of Famer or Media rep (at least not one who spoke on the subject) in favor of Mac going into the Hall. I wonder if he'll get in at all ... but he won't go in next year. Jim Rice or Goose Gossage may join Cal and Tony, but not Mac.

As a side note, the crowd last year was 60,000 for Ryno and Wade. This year it was 10,000 for Sutter and the 17 Negro League and pre-Negro League players. Next year, they are expecting 100,000, the largest attendance ever for an Induction Weekend. I actually feel bad for Tony ... a great guy, incredible hitter, and wonderful representative of the game ... but he'll be entirely upstaged by Cal and Cal's fans next year. Interestingly, Wade was upstaged by Ryno last year (interesting because Wade was a first ballot inductee and Ryno was a second-ballot inductee).

Reid

staindsox
08-01-2006, 08:32 PM
I worked at the Hall for a summer as an intern in the library and they say the biggest induction was Brooks Robinson, on account of Baltimore being right there...Cal is gonna break another record. The day he announced he was going to retire, people were calling for reservations for induction weekend. It is going to be amazing!!! I would prefer Mac not be there anyway. Both Tony and Cal as A#1 classy and they should not have one once of controversy on their day. Anyone going?

Chris

mr.miracle
08-01-2006, 10:10 PM
I would not miss this induction ceremony if I had to sleep in a tent and walk 15 miles into town. (That might not be too far of a stretch)

Brett

sportscentury
08-02-2006, 12:28 PM
I would prefer Mac not be there anyway. Both Tony and Cal as A#1 classy and they should not have one once of controversy on their day.

Chris,

I agree. Cal and Tony are too good to be inducted with Mac. I wouldn't mind Jim Rice, Goose, and a few others guys being inducted eventually, but I'd be happy to just see Cal and Tony.

I'm going to try to go...but don't have a place yet and there were no vacancies to be had when we just up there looking.

Reid

sportscentury
08-02-2006, 12:29 PM
I would not miss this induction ceremony if I had to sleep in a tent and walk 15 miles into town. (That might not be too far of a stretch)

Brett

Brett,

You are not alone ... not by far. Next year will be absolute madness. Best of luck with finding a place. It is grim.

Reid

mr.miracle
08-02-2006, 02:33 PM
I am or was planning to go up on Thursday through Sunday or Monday after the induction ceremony. Depending on how far away I have to stay (say Albany) and drive down, I may rethink those plans. As much as I love Cooperstown, the thought of dealing with crowds in excess of 100,000 people in a small town like Cooperstown is overwhelming. I may end up just going for the HOF ceremony on Sunday and returning at a later date to take everything in. You are right Reid, this is going to be very, very ugly up there.

Brett

camarokids
08-10-2006, 08:13 AM
I had the "great honor" of meeting McGwire in 1997 spring training and was hoping to get his auto . Didn't even come close to getting his signature , McGwire was a joke , all he would do is walk around and grunt like a cave man . You could see and feel his anger built up inside himself . Not to mention the acne scars on his face , which is usually a tell tale sign of steroids use. Maybe he was having a bad day ????

trsent
08-10-2006, 08:20 AM
I had the "great honor" of meeting McGwire in 1997 spring training and was hoping to get his auto . Didn't even come close to getting his signature , McGwire was a joke , all he would do is walk around and grunt like a cave man . You could see and feel his anger built up inside himself . Not to mention the acne scars on his face , which is usually a tell tale sign of steroids use. Maybe he was having a bad day ????

Wow, Mac grunted?

I didn't know acne scars were a sign of steroid use. Is this documented somewhere? I didn't notice any scars on Barry Bonds, Ralphy Palmiero, Frank Thomas (who I had cocktails with last year so I saw him up-close), Ivan Rodriguez, etc...

psmachetti
08-10-2006, 09:29 AM
Wow, Mac grunted?

I didn't know acne scars were a sign of steroid use. Is this documented somewhere? I didn't notice any scars on Barry Bonds, Ralphy Palmiero, Frank Thomas (who I had cocktails with last year so I saw him up-close), Ivan Rodriguez, etc...

Uhhhh......yeah. Acne on the back and sometimes on your face is a telltale sign and side effect of steroid use. So is losing your hair, so is an abnormally rapid change in the size of your body. Steroids are a synnthetic version of male hormone testosterone , which is what males start to produce at puberty. What happens when you reach puberty ? You get acne for one thing and your hairline starts receding(although it's not a noticeable thing at that stage in development) So you take abnormally large amounts of this and you accelerate those things that puberty causes.
Paul

trsent
08-10-2006, 09:38 AM
Didn't Mac have acne issues before anyone accused him of using any drugs?

I wanted to know what other players accused of being abusers had acne issues.

staindsox
08-10-2006, 07:08 PM
Several sources say Bonds has bad back acne. I don't know about Sosa, Giambi, Palmeiro, etc. It sounds like the heavier the dose, the worse the side-effects...sounds obvious enough. Canseco didn't inject as much or as often as Bonds, so he may not have as bad an acne issue.

sportscentury
08-10-2006, 07:48 PM
The only way I see a voter not voting him in is if theres hard core evidence that proves he infact did take steriods.

Carlie,

I know you're a big McGwire fan, but you should know that many (not just a few) of the baseball writers who have votes have already gone on the record stating that they will never vote for McGwire. I'll be blown away (absolutely flabbergasted) if he gets in this year ... and I would not be too surprised if he does not get in at all (though I'll bet he gets in eventually). I'm not trying to argue with you; but you should prepare yourself for a long road.

Reid

cjmedina1
08-10-2006, 08:09 PM
Reid
Thanks.I have a feeling its going to be a real long road.Sign me up for your emails that you send out.Thanks again Reid chat later.
Carlie Medina III
carliemedinaiii@sbcglobal.net

sportscentury
08-10-2006, 10:30 PM
Reid
Thanks.I have a feeling its going to be a real long road.Sign me up for your emails that you send out.Thanks again Reid chat later.
Carlie Medina III
carliemedinaiii@sbcglobal.net

Carlie,

Thanks. These days, I don't send out my list unless someone requests it. I'll be happy to forward it to you. I have been planning to post the list on GUF for a while, but I haven't gotten around to it. It is substantially different from when I first posted it several months back.

Best,
Reid

metsbats
08-11-2006, 12:37 AM
I had the "great honor" of meeting McGwire in 1997 spring training and was hoping to get his auto . Didn't even come close to getting his signature , McGwire was a joke , all he would do is walk around and grunt like a cave man . You could see and feel his anger built up inside himself . Not to mention the acne scars on his face , which is usually a tell tale sign of steroids use. Maybe he was having a bad day ????


I read that "anger" is a side effect of steroids.

"Rage, anger, flying off the handle, uncontrollable, unconsolable, and weight gain. "

Perhaps that would explain the grunting like a cave man too.

-David

Nathan
08-11-2006, 10:15 PM
I can only hope that with the amount of information on steroids available everywhere that people can do a bit more research before posting here.

First off, acne scars are NOT a telltale sign of anything except that someone once had acne (probably as a teenager) and was impatient in getting rid of it. The three guys I know with the worst acne scars are hardly on steroids; one had a hormonal imbalance that caused an unusual amount of acne, the other would use a straight-edge razor to cut acne off his face (gross, I know), and the third has a skin condition in which heat can cause the re-emergence of faded acne scars.

Acne in unusual places and concentrations is a better sign. Most men suffer sizable drops in the amount of testosterone between age 25-35, which is why so few men of that age or older have anything resembling acne. Believe me, I've seen quite a few heavy steroid users (as in I actually know they use them)...we're talking men in their late 30s and older who have enormous patches of acne in strange places (back of the shoulders are a good place, but far from the only place).

Rage and anger hardly are telltale signs of steroid use. Bizarre mood swings in the absence of other mental issues (i.e. Mike Tyson) are a better indicator, but just take a look at some of the people involved in road rage incidents and think "Oh yeah, that guy's probably hanging out with Ben Johnson".

Mr. Smachetti,

Anabolic steroids are synthetic testosterone, but the BALCO investigation has focused on much more than simply steroids. Anyone want to take a guess as to where Clomid comes from? (HINT: it's pretty bizarre, and if anyone using it knew where it came from they'd never do it again)

camarokids
08-12-2006, 05:31 PM
Did you all have a bad day http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/images/icons/icon13.gif? Trying to bite off my ass here or what :eek:, some of you out there need to lighten up ! I do believe I said "usually a tell tale sign" ! I am referring to muscle bound people here ! I was merely making a comment on my observation of watching the over-paid idiot for two hours , wasn't claiming to know a lot about steroids , nor care to ! Anger , rage , moody or mad , who cares , no matter how you describe it , he did not look HAPPY ! Why don't you completely read someone's post and research it word for word before posting around here !!!!! Have you ever lifted a weight before or even been inside a gym . At the gym's I have been to and frequently worked out at over the years , I have seen quite a few muscle bound guys with scars on their backs and face . Acne scars can be from teenage years , NO SH*T , but when you see a lot of these guys with their shirts off and theres the scars http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/images/icons/icon5.gif , I think thats where I got the USUALLY from . I have even had friends who admitted to have taken the crap and have seen their backs . So quit trying to act all smart http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/images/icons/icon13.gif and trying to put someone else down , go kick your dog .

mr.miracle
08-12-2006, 05:52 PM
Unless some type of significant evidence comes out one way or the other prior to the deadline at the end of the year for HOF voter ballots, it appears clear based on current writer informal poll results that Big Mac won't need to pack his bags for a trip to Cooperstown this year if at all. Reid is right, it appears fairly obvious that voters will not vote for him perhaps to make a statement who knows. My problem despite the fact that virtually everyone believes that McGwire took some type of PED's at some point in his career is that we simply have no proof that he took anything that was illegal at the time either outlawed by MLB or the Federal Government or both. As I stated in an earlier post, how can we use that type of logic on McGwire and keep him out of Cooperstown when there are certainly other players that used PED's during the past 15 plus years that we also have suspicions about? Do we keep them all out because we have our suspicions? Simply on numbers alone it sounds completely absurd that we would even consider not voting for Barry Bonds with 7 MVP's and 720 plus homers. If no conclusive proof is ever found that Bonds took PED's then how can he not be voted into the HOF simply due to someone's suspicions.

This is just a very, very slippery slope. Is anyone ultimately safe if somebody decides to name an athlete in a book or to a reporter etc. as being a possible steroid/HGH user then is that players career irreparabibly ruined due to this happening?

I agree that if anyone is found conclusively to have taken steroids or PED's of some sort, then they should not be voted into the HOF and most likely never will be. However going on suspicions alone probably will not cut it. Johnny Bench was on ESPN radio last week and was asked directly about this issue. Unlike the vast majority of current HOF members who seem pretty adament about not having any cheaters in the HOF, Bench echoed these sentiments that unless someone is conclusively proven to have used PED's of some sort, it is simply irresponsible to not vote for that person on suspicions alone.

While I too agree that players like Ripken and Gwynn who are absolutely class acts should probably have the stage by themselves next year and certainly not have a complete circus atmosphere in Cooperstown if McGwire is elected due to the steroid questions and allegations that are bound to be present, at this point, I am just not sure how you cannot vote McGwire into the HOF at some point unless more conslusive evidence comes to light.

As a previous poster said, McGwire had 49 homers his rookie year in 1987 and looked more like Dave Kingman in terms of build at that point. Unless he was juicing in 87 which is highly unlikely due to his build at that point, it is not much of a stretch to suggest that going from 49 homers as a rookie to 70 at some point in ones career is possible. McGwire never had this hugh spike in homers as he averaged 50 plus in the years leading up to 70. Meanwhile, Bonds went from low to mid 40's up to 73 in one season which seems more than a little odd. Of course what is more odd than Brady Anderson going from 16 to 50 homers in one season and never having more than 24 total in a season after that? Makes one question those couple of years as well. There are just too many unanswered questions for the past 15 plus years. I will be very, very curious what will happen as players like Bonds, Sosa, Palmeiro, Giambi, McGwire all come up for consideration over the next year to 6 or 7 years down the road.

Brett

Nathan
08-13-2006, 05:42 PM
Did you all have a bad day http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/images/icons/icon13.gif? Trying to bite off my ass here or what :eek:, some of you out there need to lighten up ! I do believe I said "usually a tell tale sign" ! I am referring to muscle bound people here ! I was merely making a comment on my observation of watching the over-paid idiot for two hours , wasn't claiming to know a lot about steroids , nor care to ! Anger , rage , moody or mad , who cares , no matter how you describe it , he did not look HAPPY ! Why don't you completely read someone's post and research it word for word before posting around here !!!!! Have you ever lifted a weight before or even been inside a gym . At the gym's I have been to and frequently worked out at over the years , I have seen quite a few muscle bound guys with scars on their backs and face . Acne scars can be from teenage years , NO SH*T , but when you see a lot of these guys with their shirts off and theres the scars http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/images/icons/icon5.gif , I think thats where I got the USUALLY from . I have even had friends who admitted to have taken the crap and have seen their backs . So quit trying to act all smart http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/images/icons/icon13.gif and trying to put someone else down , go kick your dog .

No, I didn't have a bad day. Why do you ask?

I need to lighten up...yet reading your response I can practically see steam pouring from your ears. Are you the pot or the kettle?

McGwire doesn't look happy, and that's evidence for steroid use....reading your response (which indicates anger), I therefore can infer your own excessive steroid use, right?


Not to mention the acne scars on his face , which is usually a tell tale sign of steroids use.
Silly me, I must have missed that place where you "obviously" only referred to back acne scars being a sign of steroid use. Maybe I can re-read that and find it....nope, still can't. How about now? Hang on....nope, not there. Silly me, I must be going blind.

Let's see here...I played varsity sports and worked out with Division 1 athletes in college, and my field of study is exercise science. Nope, I've never lifted weights and never been inside a gym before. Please tell me more about this mysterious place I'm completely unfamiliar with.

I'll quit trying to act all smart when I have no clue what I'm talking about. And as for my dog, he's laying at my feet resting calmly. I think you could learn a lesson from him.

earlywynnfan
08-14-2006, 01:20 AM
Am I the only one who doesn't consider him a true HOFer WITHOUT even counting the steriods/supplements issues???

I mean, sure, he hit a lot of home runs, but what else did he do? I know '98 was exciting, but '91 was painful!

Perhaps I'm the only one who wants more than just one dimension from a HOF player?

Ken

JimCaravello
08-14-2006, 07:23 AM
Ken - I agree with you 100%. I would put Santo, Oliva, Hodges, Dawson and even Mattingly in before McGwire ever even sniffed the place.........Jim

mr.miracle
08-14-2006, 08:20 AM
Am I the only one who doesn't consider him a true HOFer WITHOUT even counting the steriods/supplements issues???

I mean, sure, he hit a lot of home runs, but what else did he do? I know '98 was exciting, but '91 was painful!

Perhaps I'm the only one who wants more than just one dimension from a HOF player?

Ken

I guess my only question is without looking up the individual OPS/Slugging/ONBase etc. for all members of the 500 homer club, if 500 homers has been in the past an automatic ticket punch to the HOF why would McGwire steroids aside here not go in? His HR/AB ratio is I believe one of the top 2 of all time perhaps even better at this point than Babe Ruth I would need to double check that. If McGwire would not have missed nearly 3 full seasons to injury, we are looking at a 650-700 homer guy and as it stands now he nearly hit 600. I don't agree with the reference to a supersized Dave Kingman. They are not even comparable. Kingman was a horrible fielder McGwire won a gold glove and was considered better than average at 1st. Check Kingman's slugging and on base vs. McGwire. Not even close McGwire blows him away and in addition has over 100 more homers in about the same number of at bats.

Take steroids out of it and answer this, Is 500 homers no longer an instant HOF ticket punch? I don't know the answer to that but one dimensional or not the man hit 583 career homers so based on historical voting it would seem that he would have to go in if there was no steroid issues.

Brett Herman
brettherman2131@hotmail.com

mr.miracle
08-14-2006, 08:44 AM
Just as a follow up, here are a few interesting stats that without the steroid argument make a clear case for Big Mac in Cooperstown.


Career Leaders for At Bats per Home Run
Leaderboard Index (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/): Single-Season (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/ABpHR_season.shtml) Career Active (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/ABpHR_active.shtml) Progressive (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/ABpHR_progress.shtml) Year-by-Year League (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/ABpHR_leagues.shtml)
Click on the Player for career stats and accomplishments.
+ - Indicates Hall of Famer. Bold indicates active player
* - bats left-handed, # - switch hits, ? - unknown, else - bats right-handed
Minimum of 1000 IP, 3000 PA and 100 decisions for career and active leaderboards for rate statistics. RankPlayer (age)At Bats per Home RunBats1.Mark McGwire (http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mcgwima01.shtml) 10.61R2.Babe Ruth+ (http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/ruthba01.shtml)* 11.76L3.Barry Bonds (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bondsba01.shtml)* (40)12.91L4.Jim Thome (http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/thomeji01.shtml)* (34)13.77L5.Manny Ramirez (http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/ramirma02.shtml) (33)14.08R6.Ralph Kiner+ (http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/kinerra01.shtml) 14.11R7.Harmon Killebrew+ (http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/killeha01.shtml) 14.22R8.Sammy Sosa (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/sosasa01.shtml) (36)14.29R9.Alex Rodriguez (http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/rodrial01.shtml) (29)14.44R10.Ken Griffey (http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/griffke02.shtml)* (35)14.68L11.Albert Pujols (http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/pujolal01.shtml) (25)14.70R12.Ted Williams+ (http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/willite01.shtml)* 14.79L13.Carlos Delgado (http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/delgaca01.shtml)* (33)14.98L14.Juan Gonzalez (http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/gonzaju03.shtml) (35)15.11R Dave Kingman (http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/kingmda01.shtml) 15.11R16.Mickey Mantle+ (http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mantlmi01.shtml)# 15.12B17.Richie Sexson (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/sexsori01.shtml) (30)15.16R18.Jimmie Foxx+ (http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/foxxji01.shtml) 15.23R19.Mike Schmidt+ (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/schmimi01.shtml) 15.24R20.Jose Canseco (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cansejo01.shtml) 15.27RRankPlayer (age)At Bats per Home RunBats21.Albert Belle (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/belleal01.shtml) 15.36R22.Ron Kittle (http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/kittlro01.shtml) 15.39R23.Frank Thomas (http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/thomafr04.shtml) (37)15.53R24.Mike Piazza (http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/piazzmi01.shtml) (36)15.62R25.Hank Greenberg+ (http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/greenha01.shtml) 15.69R26.Willie McCovey+ (http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mccovwi01.shtml)* 15.73L27.Troy Glaus (http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/glaustr01.shtml) (28)15.98R28.Vladimir Guerrero (http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/guerrvl01.shtml) (29)16.05R29.Jay Buhner (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/buhneja01.shtml) 16.17R Cecil Fielder (http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/fieldce01.shtml) 16.17R Darryl Strawberry (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/strawda01.shtml)* 16.17L32.Lou Gehrig+ (http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/gehrilo01.shtml)* 16.23L33.Jim Gentile (http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/gentiji01.shtml)* 16.32L34.Hank Aaron+ (http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/aaronha01.shtml) 16.38R35.Willie Mays+ (http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mayswi01.shtml) 16.49R36.Jason Giambi (http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/giambja01.shtml)* (34)16.53L37.Hank Sauer (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/sauerha01.shtml) 16.65R38.Eddie Mathews+ (http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/matheed01.shtml)* 16.67L39.Willie Stargell+ (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/stargwi01.shtml)* 16.69L40.Jim Edmonds (http://www.baseball-reference.com/e/edmonji01.shtml)* (35)16.79LRankPlayer (age)At Bats per Home RunBats41.Todd Helton (http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/heltoto01.shtml)* (31)16.83L42.Rob Deer (http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/deerro01.shtml) 16.87R Mo Vaughn (http://www.baseball-reference.com/v/vaughmo01.shtml)* 16.87L44.Frank Howard (http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/howarfr01.shtml) 16.98R45.Frank Robinson+ (http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/robinfr02.shtml) 17.08R46.Greg Vaughn (http://www.baseball-reference.com/v/vaughgr01.shtml) 17.19R47.Steve Balboni (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/balbost01.shtml) 17.24R48.Bob Horner (http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hornebo01.shtml) 17.33R49.Jeff Bagwell (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bagweje01.shtml) (37)17.37R50.Roy Campanella+ (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/camparo01.shtml) 17.38R51.Rocky Colavito (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/colavro01.shtml) 17.39R52.Gus Zernial (http://www.baseball-reference.com/z/zernigu01.shtml) 17.43R53.Gorman Thomas (http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/thomago01.shtml) 17.45R54.Lance Berkman (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/berkmla01.shtml)# (29)17.51B Andruw Jones (http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/jonesan01.shtml) (28)17.51R56.Reggie Jackson+ (http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/jacksre01.shtml)* 17.52L57.Dick Stuart (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/stuardi01.shtml) 17.53R58.David Ortiz (http://www.baseball-reference.com/o/ortizda01.shtml)* (29)17.56L Gary Sheffield (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/sheffga01.shtml) (36)17.56R60.Duke Snider+ (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/snidedu01.shtml)* 17.59LRankPlayer (age)At Bats per Home RunBats61.Kevin Mitchell (http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mitchke01.shtml) 17.67R62.Fred McGriff (http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mcgrifr01.shtml)* 17.76L63.Norm Cash (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cashno01.shtml)* 17.79L64.Dean Palmer (http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/palmede01.shtml) 17.83R65.Tony Clark (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/clarkto02.shtml)# (33)17.93B66.Johnny Mize+ (http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mizejo01.shtml)* 17.95L67.Larry Walker (http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/walkela01.shtml)* 18.03L68.Dick Allen (http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/allendi01.shtml) 18.04R69.Jeromy Burnitz (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/burnije01.shtml)* (36)18.05L Chipper Jones (http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/jonesch06.shtml)# (33)18.05B71.Ernie Banks+ (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bankser01.shtml) 18.40R Rafael Palmeiro (http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/palmera01.shtml)* (40)18.40L73.David Justice (http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/justida01.shtml)* 18.44L74.Mel Ott+ (http://www.baseball-reference.com/o/ottme01.shtml)* 18.50L75.Matt Williams (http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/willima04.shtml) 18.52R76.Roger Maris (http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/marisro01.shtml)* 18.55L77.Todd Hundley (http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hundlto01.shtml)# 18.66B78.Chris Hoiles (http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hoilech01.shtml) 18.68R79.J.D. Drew (http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/drewj.01.shtml)* (29)18.78L80.Matt Stairs (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/stairma01.shtml)* (37)18.82LRankPlayer (age)At Bats per Home RunBats81.Eric Davis (http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/daviser01.shtml) 18.87R82.Joe DiMaggio+ (http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/dimagjo01.shtml) 18.89R83.Brian Giles (http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/gilesbr02.shtml)* (34)18.93L84.Henry Rodriguez (http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/rodrihe02.shtml)* 18.94L85.Gil Hodges (http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hodgegi01.shtml) 19.00R86.Paul Konerko (http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/konerpa01.shtml) (29)19.02R87.Wally Post (http://www.baseball-reference.com/p/postwa01.shtml) 19.08R88.Danny Tartabull (http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/tartada01.shtml) 19.13R89.Mickey Tettleton (http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/tettlmi01.shtml)# 19.18B90.Pat Burrell (http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/burrepa01.shtml) (28)19.28R Ryan Klesko (http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/kleskry01.shtml)* (34)19.28L92.Tony Conigliaro (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/conigto01.shtml) 19.40R Al Rosen (http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/rosenal01.shtml) 19.40R94.Hack Wilson+ (http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/wilsoha01.shtml) 19.51R95.Glenn Davis (http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/davisgl01.shtml) 19.57R96.Eric Chavez (http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/chaveer01.shtml)* (27)19.62L97.Derrek Lee (http://www.baseball-reference.com/l/leede02.shtml) (29)19.63R98.Joe Adcock (http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/adcocjo01.shtml) 19.66R Bob Allison (http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/allisbo01.shtml) 19.66R100.John Jaha (http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/jahajo01.shtml) 19.68R
In addition, McGwire ranks 10th all time in Slugging % everyone currently eligible for the HOF is in the HOF that is ahead of him in this catagory. His Adjusted OPS ranks 11th tied with some guy named Jimmie Foxx :rolleyes: . One dimensional or not, if you out homer every player in MLB history in terms of homers per at bat, I think that qualifies you for a vote into the HOF. Just some food for thought. McGwire's OBP is .394 good for 70th something all time. Obviously, he did not tear up the league as a single,double and triple hitter. Although 1300 plus walks in a little over 6000 career plate appearances is not too shabby either.

Brett Herman
brettherman2131@hotmail.com

Nathan
08-14-2006, 04:28 PM
I don't think 500 home runs is automatic at this point. The main "automatic" numbers are based off of what amounts to 20 years of above-average production. 300 wins is 20 years of 15 wins, 3000 hits is 20 years of 150 hits....but 500 home runs is 20 years at 25 home runs. I'd say for players who've played in the last 15-20 years, it'd have to be somewhere in the 600-700 home run range to be "automatic".

mr.miracle
08-14-2006, 08:27 PM
The thing with 600 plus homers, if we look at current players and project forward, the only current players that will most likely reach 600 plus homers at this point are Ken Griffey Jr. virtually a lock, Alex Rodriguez, Albert Pujols assuming the latter two stay healthy and that is pretty much it. Even though we have seen a great increase in the number of players putting up incredible stats, remember McGwire had only 16 total seasons and lost almost 3 full seasons to injury. If we are looking at his stats alone we are talking about nearly 600 homers in 13 seasons of baseball. That is just a staggering number. Even to play 20 years takes incredible luck, ability, etc. I know there was a great deal of debate about three years ago when Fred McGriff was on the verge of 500 career homers and I believe finished at 491 or 493. I would say in that case he would not qualify as an instant HOF player but reaching the high 500's at this point I would think would still punch ones ticket. Players like Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, etc. will run out of time to get to 600 career homers. Just my two or three cents.

Brett