|
Post by technohawk on Jan 10, 2007 21:46:10 GMT -8
Seems to be big news that Mark McGwire didn't make the baseball hall of fame. Almost certainly due to the steroid usage.
Do you think that was a good call or a bad call? And do you think any athlete that uses steroids should be denied awards and recognition?
|
|
|
Post by LostPeon™ on Jan 10, 2007 22:45:15 GMT -8
I, for one, was glad to hear it.
|
|
|
Post by Compbasher on Jan 11, 2007 0:05:57 GMT -8
Shouldnt be big news. For whatever excuse steroids have in this ordeal, the fact remains that Cal Ripken Jr and Tony Gwynn were simply better players and had better, more prominent careers.
McGwire will likely get elected, but not for years to come.
|
|
|
Post by stellartrip on Jan 11, 2007 12:28:57 GMT -8
I wouldn't be surprised if used corked bats too.
|
|
|
Post by Prone on Jan 11, 2007 15:07:47 GMT -8
I, for one, think that he deserved it. Well, he managed to score 70 home runs back in 1998, along with sammy's 66. Well, he got to that record by using something that was and is still illegal.
Take the record front for example. The last person to hit 61 home, before sammy, mark, or bonds, was roger marris back in 1961. before that was babe ruth back in 1927 with 60.
To score a little on babe truth. He came out of a rehabilitation center for young delinquents (Spelling?), scored big when boston snatched him up, and eventually went on to new york. He was among the best both in hitting, and pitching. Yet even then, he only got to 60 home runs.
After the dead ball era (the balls became close to what they are now, something around 1923-25), the balls started flying farther and farther. Before this era, the highest homerun record was 26 (I believe) by babe himself. The year after the dead ball era, he hit 54 home runs, and the second best person before him hit a measly 26 (about) homeruns.
Now, if you take that accomplishment, and put it on Mark Mcgwire, there is no way he would have gotten to 70 all on his own. It just doesn't seem that believable. So, in my opinion, he shouldn't make the cut. No matter how great the homerun ammount.
|
|
|
Post by Compbasher on Jan 11, 2007 23:00:07 GMT -8
I, for one, think that he deserved it. Well, he managed to score 70 home runs back in 1998, along with sammy's 66. Well, he got to that record by using something that was and is still illegal. Take the record front for example. The last person to hit 61 home, before sammy, mark, or bonds, was roger marris back in 1961. before that was babe ruth back in 1927 with 60. To score a little on babe truth. He came out of a rehabilitation center for young delinquents (Spelling?), scored big when boston snatched him up, and eventually went on to new york. He was among the best both in hitting, and pitching. Yet even then, he only got to 60 home runs. After the dead ball era (the balls became close to what they are now, something around 1923-25), the balls started flying farther and farther. Before this era, the highest homerun record was 26 (I believe) by babe himself. The year after the dead ball era, he hit 54 home runs, and the second best person before him hit a measly 26 (about) homeruns. Now, if you take that accomplishment, and put it on Mark Mcgwire, there is no way he would have gotten to 70 all on his own. It just doesn't seem that believable. So, in my opinion, he shouldn't make the cut. No matter how great the homerun ammount. Sad thing is that you, along with most of the voters, used this speculation, since that is all it is, as proof enough to decide he was not good enough to make the cut. Maybe if he actually testified in front of Congress, voters and fans alike would still admire him as they did in the recent past. Like I said, he will make the cut(granted the speculation stays that way). Now is just not his time.
|
|
|
Post by technohawk on Jan 12, 2007 0:32:54 GMT -8
Well he did testify at the congressional hearings.
He just kept on refusing to comment on his own alleged use.
Statements from him during that hearing:
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."
During the hearing, McGwire repeatedly responded to questions regarding his own steroid use with the line, "I'm not here to talk about the past.
But at the same time, the steroids weren't illegal in the MLB until 2003. So it's his fault for taking them and MLB's for allowing him to do so.
Since most would still consider it cheating he may not ever get in. Pete Rose still hasn't.
|
|
|
Post by Prone on Jan 15, 2007 10:50:44 GMT -8
Hmmmm, Mcgwire retired after the '04 season. Do you think he should have made the cut since he was doing steroids before they were illegal, or do you think that he shouldn't of made the cut?
To me, I think its denied either way.
One of the most notable differences between Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa is that Mark took steroids, and Sammy was taking Protein supplements. Sammy's case is different, because he wasn't taking steroids. Mark, on the other hand, is simply caught red-handed.
If you'll take a look back before 1998, with ty cobb's 5174 strikeouts, Hank Arron's 755 bangers, and Ruth's excellent hitting/pitching prowess, many of the past records have almost been broken, in the field of home runs. The others, I'm not so certain.
When you mention Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa, those players have certain won the home run crown, but only recently. Records are all about how you play yourself in the field, not by giving yourself the advantage to do it. The preservation of those records have been taken by steroids, and thats not really fair at all, is it?
I'd like him to be in the hall of fame, and you can quote me on that, I just don't think that he's hall of fame material, considering what he's been doing.
|
|
|
Post by Compbasher on Jan 15, 2007 16:42:51 GMT -8
Hmmmm, Mcgwire retired after the '04 season. Do you think he should have made the cut since he was doing steroids before they were illegal, or do you think that he shouldn't of made the cut? To me, I think its denied either way. One of the most notable differences between Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa is that Mark took steroids, and Sammy was taking Protein supplements. Sammy's case is different, because he wasn't taking steroids. Mark, on the other hand, is simply caught red-handed. If you'll take a look back before 1998, with ty cobb's 5174 strikeouts, Hank Arron's 755 bangers, and Ruth's excellent hitting/pitching prowess, many of the past records have almost been broken, in the field of home runs. The others, I'm not so certain. When you mention Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa, those players have certain won the home run crown, but only recently. Records are all about how you play yourself in the field, not by giving yourself the advantage to do it. The preservation of those records have been taken by steroids, and thats not really fair at all, is it? I'd like him to be in the hall of fame, and you can quote me on that, I just don't think that he's hall of fame material, considering what he's been doing. Ill agree that in this era of baseball, homeruns seem to be amongst the leader in determining a worthy Hall of Fame potential candidate. But thats where it ends. What legitimate proof do you have that Mark took steroids while Sammy did not? Let me help you, NONE. Speculation and accusations do not add to cold hard facts. Opinions must definitely do not. As for McGwire gracing the Hall of Fame form, I believe its justified. Anyone with good stats and a elusive career can be entered on the balet but it takes 75% of the votes to get in, which has been proven to be difficult for those not presenting the strongest case.
|
|
|
Post by Prone on Jan 15, 2007 18:56:11 GMT -8
It is proof, not speculation, as I may have done in other threads, that sammy sosa was taking supplements instead of steroids. www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/317/7160/702Look the site over if you don't think these are reason enough for proof.
|
|
|
Post by doom3x on Jan 15, 2007 20:35:10 GMT -8
Let's see. As far as Mark getting in. I'm on the fence. He hit big dinger numbers even before it was alleged that he took steroids (all the way back in the early years of his career he was regularly knocking 30+ homers a year, 49 in his rookie season for example, and 42 later on). That's still a far cry from 70, but it's not an unbelievable increase, in my opinion. Sammy on the other hand, was never, to my knowledge, a huge homerun producer. He did hit for power in his career, but not to the same degree as McGwire. And yet all of a sudden in the latter part of his career, he started to crank them out, which seems to me incredibly dubious. Would I deny it to Mark, probably not...to Sammy? Not really sure. To Bonds? Absolutely. He definitely never produced 60+ numbers earlier on his career, and what with Balco, you have to be gullible to believe he didn't take something, whether knowingly, or not.
The truly sad thing is what someone else already posted...homers are a leading determinant of Hall of Fame entry. Bonds, long before his current incarnation of home-run king, was regularly making it into the 40-40 club (40 Homers and 40 stolen bases in one season), which he did once to my knowledge and also notched several 30-30 seasons. On top of that, he's in the very exclusive 300-300 club of 300 homers and 300 stolen bases. These are all *incredibly* difficult thing to do because it requires power and speed, and only a handful of players have done it. In my mind that's arguably more impressive than 70+ homeruns and a billion walks. But to Bonds it probably wasn't enough...which my money says led to the 'roids. Take a look at Gwynn...his major hitting statistic, high batting average, is not something you can improve with steroids (accuracy rather than power), which again is something I find more impressive for its reliance on raw talent. I can tell you right now that Gwynn never touched the junk because his impressive stats are in areas the junk wouldn't have helped. That's why he gets in and why Mark gets to wait.
|
|
|
Post by rbobatar on Feb 19, 2007 19:55:15 GMT -8
RBOB DEMANDS THAT MARK McGwire SHOULD BE INSTALLED IN THE HALL OF FAME TODAY. EVERYONE IN BASEBALL USES STEROIDS AND THE FACT IS MCGWIRE WAS THE BEST OF THE BUNCH. THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE VOTED AGAINST MCGWIRE TO JOIN THE HALL OF FAME MUST BE SENT TO THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC WHERE THEY WILL BE TORTURED TO DEATH AND HAVE THERE FINGERS FED TO CROCODILES
|
|
|
Post by Dr.Klitschko on Mar 1, 2007 16:55:27 GMT -8
McGuire was a newb 10 years ago when he grew popular and still is a newb!
|
|
|
Post by tehn00b on Mar 7, 2007 17:24:52 GMT -8
"RBOB DEMANDS THAT MARK McGwire SHOULD BE INSTALLED IN THE HALL OF FAME TODAY. EVERYONE IN BASEBALL USES STEROIDS AND THE FACT IS MCGWIRE WAS THE BEST OF THE BUNCH. THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE VOTED AGAINST MCGWIRE TO JOIN THE HALL OF FAME MUST BE SENT TO THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC WHERE THEY WILL BE TORTURED TO DEATH AND HAVE THERE FINGERS FED TO CROCODILES "
LOLLER COASTERz... anyone care to join me in bashing barry bond's bald head with thunderstix/noise clapperz?
|
|
|
Post by Prone on Mar 8, 2007 22:33:01 GMT -8
This thread is about Mark Mcgwire getting into the hall of fame. You can't really blame a guy if you want him in the hall of fame at the same time though. In my opinion, as stated way before this post, I think he shouldn't get in.
|
|