|
Post by GEO on Jan 17, 2007 17:21:38 GMT -5
The most recent vote for the Baseball Hall of Fame has Mark McGuire only getting 23% of the vote, far below the 75% needed to get inducted. It seems that voters want to keep cheaters out, and I must say, I respect them for that.
But is Mark a cheater? Where's the proof?
Most people credit McGuire for boosting baseball in 1998, but that might have not been the only thing he boosted. When asked if he ever took steroids, Mark "pleaded the 5th" and even though he didn't say it, most of the world felt they knew the answer.
He has said that he took performance enhancing drugs, but the drug he took wasn't illegal back when he hit his home runs.
Another side to the debate, is that if he gets in, he'll have the fourth fewest hits out of EVERYBODY in the Hall of Fame. The only stat he does have is being argued about.
So should he get in?
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Jan 17, 2007 17:55:29 GMT -5
Well, judging from the most recent inductions, the answer would be no. He recieved a very low percentage of votes (23.5% to be exactl), not even close to the necessary 75%. While the media, along with every other TV analyst says that Big Mac didn't get votes because of his congressional fiasco, I think it's because he truly doesn't deserve it. While he did a lot for the game back when he and Sammy were going blow for blow with homers, that's not saying much. Plenty of guys 'did a lot for the game,' regardless if it was good or bad. Babe Ruth did a lot for the game. Heck, Pete Rose did a lot for the game (or rather 'to' the game). In an interview, Tony La Russa even said he "wasn't surprised" that Mark didn't make it. While his stats aren't bad by any means, his only strength of numbers would be his homers (seventh on the all-time career list). That may be good, but steroids weren't banned when he played so why should we count a single one of them as legit. McGuire has even admitted to taking performance enhancing substances. How much more guilty can you get? True, they weren't banned when he played, they are now. That makes all the difference.
I argued against Barry and I'm arguing against this. Mark McGuire, while being a good player and said to be a good teammate, should not make the Hall of Fame because he cheated, has been quoted as admitting to taking steroids and will forever be guilty (whether proven or not) of taking performance enhancing drugs. These drugs polished his game for a few years, but will tarnish his legacy forever.
|
|
|
Post by philliesphan on Jan 17, 2007 20:33:38 GMT -5
I don't think Mark McGuire is a cheater. A cheater is somebody who breaks the rules, right? Well, he didn't break any rules. As much as I think it wasn't right for him to do it, everything he did was legal then. Babe Ruth could have even used them or Reggie Jackson, or Lou Gehrig or every other baseball legend from back then, could have used them. The difference between him and Barry Bonds is that Barry took steroids after they were illegal.
How do I know that Mark stopped taking steroids before they were banned? In '98 he hit 70 homers, and in '99 he hit 65. In 2000, he only hit 32, and then just 29 the next year. So as much as I don't like the guy for taking steroids, he didn't do anything wrong.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Jan 18, 2007 14:58:19 GMT -5
We don't have proof that Barry really used steroids either, so what's your point?
It actually makes a difference, but not the way you're talking about. Here's a radical example:
In ten years, they ban players from chewing gum. They can't penalize the people who were breaking the rule before the rule was actually a rule. It's like wearing a hat to school. A week later, they say it's no longer allowed. But they know you wore one a week earlier, so they put you in detention. It makes a difference. Baseball players do everything they can to get ahead. You don't think Derek Jeter has ever done anything to help his game? It probably wasn't illegal, but one day it could be.
|
|
|
Post by philliesphan on Jan 18, 2007 15:26:31 GMT -5
We don't have proof that Barry really used steroids either, so what's your point? We have enough evidence that he did though...
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Jan 18, 2007 16:17:36 GMT -5
That won't win you the debate. Link me to the evidence. Link me to the news reports.
|
|
|
Post by Nyi28nhl on Jan 19, 2007 0:44:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Jan 19, 2007 14:54:33 GMT -5
Not really. Regardless of what happens to those two, Bonds is going to get in even if he's caught with steroids.
No one else cares to debate?
|
|
|
Post by BlackOps on Jan 19, 2007 19:31:37 GMT -5
Mark McGwire should make the hall of fame because he has the credentials to make the hall of fame and he helped the game. He should NOT make the hall of fame because there is not evidence or because it hasn't been proven or disproven he took steroids. He should make the hall of fame because he was a great player. If guys with similar stats like Reggie Jackson, Harmon Killebrew, and Willie McCovey can get into the hall of fame, keeping McGwire out on speculation is not a real good excuse. Gaylord Perry is in the hall of fame. Perry acknowledges illegally doctoring baseballs, which was illegal at the time, AKA, cheating. Reggie Jackson is Barry Bonds' cousin. What if he used steroids. I think he did. So did Willie Mays because he's Bonds' godfather and his father Bobby did! Kick them all out! Speculation is useless. People say, "Why didn't he just confess?" He already said why not right before his statement about not talking about the past, "Asking me or any other player to answer questions about who took steroids in front of television cameras will not solve the problem. If a player answers 'No,' he simply will not be believed; if he answers 'Yes,' he risks public scorn and endless government investigations."
GEO... I don't understand what you're saying. Are you defending McGwire or what?
BWW, please show me the quote where he admitted to using steroids.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Jan 19, 2007 21:01:25 GMT -5
I'm not defending McGwuire and I'm not attacking him. I'm just challenging your points to the bone.
And how does Mark have credentials? He has home runs, that's it. Show me another great stat he has. (Bonus points if it was before the time people think he took steroids)
|
|
|
Post by BlackOps on Jan 19, 2007 21:46:22 GMT -5
Why don't you click on the links I gave and tell me what stat, besides home runs, stands out to you. Add in Willie Stargell, too.
You can't have a double standard. If players with the same boring old stats get in, why shouldn't McGwire? If speculation is the reason, you're going to have to do better to get me to change my mind.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Jan 20, 2007 12:18:47 GMT -5
Just because there are guys in there who you feel don't deserve it, it doesn't mean we lower our standards. That's how it becomes the "Hall of Very Good."
Maybe those guys don't deserve to get in, but even though they are, it doesn't mean we have to make the same mistake.
|
|
|
Post by BlackOps on Jan 20, 2007 12:59:55 GMT -5
I never said they don't deserve to get in. I said they're in with the same stats as McGwire. That means McGwire should be in, too.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on Jan 20, 2007 13:29:06 GMT -5
No, it means that they probably didn't deserve it either. Sadly, they didn't have the disadvantage of using the 5th against Congress.
|
|
|
Post by BlackOps on Jan 20, 2007 13:45:47 GMT -5
So while a number of guys with "mediocre" (as you seem to see it) stats get in, we're giving one guy the short end of the stick because of what happened outside of baseball?
|
|