Does McGwire deserve the HOF??????

#26
#26
I honestly believe the MLB would have continued to flounder without that event. Like a small step above the NHL or something.
 
#29
#29
I think it's been banned since, but there isn't any evidence yet that McGwire did anything illegal.

People are voting against him because they didn't like his character, which I thought was against the voting rules for the baseball HOF?

And I'm a Cubs fan, making the case for why a Cardinal should be in the HOF. I think that should tell you how strong McGwire's case ought to be.
 
#32
#32
g8terh8ter_eric said:
FOR WHAT??? Did a court prove he was guilty of anything?? I guess in this country you are guilty till proven innocent.
Click to expand...

Don't let common sense ever creep into your head. If you think it is ok for a steroid user to go into the HOF, that is fine for your opinion. If you think he did not use steroids, you are foolish.
 
#33
#33
allvol123 said:
Don't let common sense ever creep into your head. If you think it is ok for a steroid user to go into the HOF, that is fine for your opinion. If you think he did not use steroids, you are foolish.
Click to expand...

Did OJ do it....Hell yes. Did McGwire take Steriods??? I don't know. No one but himself and other teammates do. For you to say otherwise like you were there when he "supposedly" shot-up is ridiculous. I do know that Jose Canseco used steriods, but does that make McGwire guilty by association?? I think not.
 
#34
#34
I don't see why people feel so outraged by merely the suspicion that McGwire juiced. Do people really believe that the history of sports is so pristine and that suddenly this issue crosses the line? Painkillers, Amphetemines and supplements have been around forever.
 
#35
#35
milohimself said:
Has nobody else considered the importance of the homerun race of '98? I honestly believe that race between McGwire and Sosa is among the most important and impactful events in the history of baseball.

And for that alone, I'd vote both of them in.
Click to expand...
i agree with this...
allvol123 said:
Baseball would have made it without that, it just expedited the process.
Click to expand...
no it wouldn't have. baseball was floundering big time...attendance was down, ratings were down....no one cared about it until then...it gave everyone a reason to watch.

one other thing to consider when discussing the likes of MM, SS, BB (strange, they all have first and last names that start with the same letter??? weird) during their remarkable runs and scandalous downfalls:

What exactly was MLB's reaction to all the rumors and inuendos? they did basically nothing.

and i have to wonder why.

if those guys are guilty of using the juice, and deserving of some "punishment" by not being allowed in to the hall, then MLB and the player's union is equally deserving of some such punishment as well.

MLB had a viable interest in these guys performing the way they did at the time they did. as already stated, MLB was in a rut, there was no buzz and people largely lost interest due to the strike. and then 98 came along and everyone got enamoured with the HR race...

regardless of what was legal or not at the time, anyone capable of rational thought could determine that if either SS or MM came up with a positive HGH or Steroids test, that would have been detrimental to the league. So MLB and the Player's union by virtue of doing nothing and turning a blind eye for mutual gain are at least as guilty as the pawns they used to turn around their sport.

IF baseball was so serious and comitted to cleaning up the sport....they would have started long, long ago. instead, there wasn't even a rule in the books until 2002 and guys already mentioned, among others obviously were "allowed" to continue so long as it was good for business. then Ken Camaniti dies of steroid related issues. Then Canseco comes out with his book and national book selling campaign, and then Balco, then fed. grand jury testimony "leaked" etc, etc, etc.....all the sudden, SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE...we will not stand for this..........says MLB. yeah right. so long as it was good for business, everything is great....as soon as it goes bad....that blind eye becomes a glaring snear and turned up nose.

so in short. let them all in. they did it for the good of the game. baseball is a joke and you have MLB, Bud Selig and the Players' Union to thank for it.
 
#36
#36
allvol123 said:
I guess because the way you(not just you), but anyone has to throw all the disclaimers up like, never failed a drug test or steroids were not illegal until 02. Just crap like that. OJ was never criminally convicted of murder, but I am pretty sure he did it.
Click to expand...
So, OJ shouldn't be in Canton? On the field, McGwire did great things. Until anything is proven, we can all dislike guys like McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds. However, take an objective look at what the players have done on the field. As of right now, there is no hard, objective reason why McGwire should not be in the Hall of Fame.
 
#37
#37
therealUT said:
So, OJ shouldn't be in Canton. On the field, McGwire did great things. Until anything is proven, we can all dislike guys like McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds. However, take an objective look at what the players have done on the field. As of right now, there is no hard, objective reason why McGwire should not be in the Hall of Fame.
Click to expand...

Why do you say OJ shouldn't be in Canton?
 
#38
#38
therealUT said:
So, OJ shouldn't be in Canton. On the field, McGwire did great things. Until anything is proven, we can all dislike guys like McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds. However, take an objective look at what the players have done on the field. As of right now, there is no hard, objective reason why McGwire should not be in the Hall of Fame.
Click to expand...
i don't buy the OJ arguement...for one simple reason. what he did, character wise, had no impact on his performance in the games he played.

if it is ever undisputably proven that bonds, sosa, mcguire did use steroids...then that has a direct affect on performance...

not saying OJ is deserving or less deserving...just pointing out the difference in the two...that's all.
 
#39
#39
I asked earlier, but no one answered. Are voters for the HOF supposed to look at things like character, or are the supposed to not look at such things as this?
 
#40
#40
I think therealUT was using OJ as an example by saying that no matter what he did off the field, he's still a Hall of Fame player despite what happened in a court room.
 
#41
#41
tidwell said:
I think therealUT was using OJ as an example by saying that no matter what he did off the field, he's still a Hall of Fame player despite what happened in a court room.
Click to expand...
oh, i know, i was just stating my case, i guess in support of his opinion...
 
#42
#42
allvol123 said:
I asked earlier, but no one answered. Are voters for the HOF supposed to look at things like character, or are the supposed to not look at such things as this?
Click to expand...
yes...they do look at things like that, but it is not, from my understanding, the ultimate determining factor.

most voters i have heard interviewed have only said that they wouldn't make McGuire a 1st ballot HOF....as if that's some "real" punishment or something. he'll get in eventually i think.
 
#43
#43
allvol123 said:
I asked earlier, but no one answered. Are voters for the HOF supposed to look at things like character, or are the supposed to not look at such things as this?
Click to expand...


From what I heard before the baseball writers are instructed to look at character while the football rules are supposed to be strictly on field accomplishments. I saw this on like around the horn one of writers who had a hall of fame vote mentioned it.
 
#44
#44
jaybird_1981 said:
From what I heard before the baseball writers are instructed to look at character while the football rules are supposed to be strictly on field accomplishments. I saw this on like around the horn one of writers who had a hall of fame vote mentioned it.
Click to expand...
you are correct...i remember that as well.
 
#45
#45
jaybird_1981 said:
From what I heard before the baseball writers are instructed to look at character while the football rules are supposed to be strictly on field accomplishments. I saw this on like around the horn one of writers who had a hall of fame vote mentioned it.
Click to expand...
Which is what is keeping Rose out, unfortunately.
 
#46
#46
tidwell said:
Which is what is keeping Rose out, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Yes I guess so but like I said they use it to keep some guys out when some guys who are in are just as bad. Ty Cobb was the first person elected to the hall, if thats not setting a precedent I don't what is. And Gaylord Perry was a cheater known for throwing a spitball.
 
#47
#47
tidwell said:
Which is what is keeping Rose out, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
well, that and the lifetime ban imposed on him for breaking a long time standing rule in baseball. he's not elligible for induction...big difference.
 
#49
#49
tidwell said:
I kinda viewed that as a character issue. One of those silly baseball codes.
Click to expand...
but it's not just a code or character issue...betting on baseball is a rule...that supposedly everyone who ever played understood that that was a big no no.

he broke that rule. and was banned from MLB all together, including the HOF.
 
#50
#50
I still think it is viewed as a character issue. Even if it wasn't a rule and it was known that he bet on games when he was the manager of the Reds, you still could've questioned his character and things that he did while managing.

Amazingly, he should've just taken steroids instead of betting on baseball, and he'd have been a-ok.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top