Hall of Fame

Ditto for me

Absent McGwire. After that Congressional hearing, I have no ability to support his candidacy.

By the way, if Goose doesn't get in, someone should storm the castle and burn the Hall of Fame to the ground. Bruce Fucking Sutter, seriously?

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 7, 2007 9:59 AM EST reply actions

I think

Melky should be voted in this year.

Great Success!

by ReLaunch on Jan 7, 2007 11:18 AM EST reply actions

He has to retire first, but according to Econolodge's predictions, once he develops into the power that he has yet to even remotely show at this point, then he should hit about 650 career bombs. That will make him a surefire first ballot HOFer.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 7, 2007 11:32 AM EST up reply actions

I agree

"That was pure youth, speed and recklessness." --Mike Mussina on Melky Cabrera's 6/5 sprint for home

by JaneKnowles on Jan 7, 2007 3:47 PM EST up reply actions

McGuire deserves to be in.

So far, no one has proven that he has done something wrong. All we have is speculation based on a congressional hearing that turned into a witch hunt. Mac is being vilified for keeping with the spirit of the point of having the hearings in the first place: preventing PED use among the youth of America.

Without all this media hoopla, McGuire would be going to the HOF easy. Instead, he suffers because the media wanted to create a story instead of cover it.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 12:18 AM EST reply actions

Gotta disagree

If we elect McGwire, it's cause he's got 500 homers, right? (I read this arguement a couple of months ago, and I apologize to whomever I stole it from). I think of Reggie as the ultimate, "500" man. All those homers, all those strikeouts, lousy average and OBP (for a HoFer), not much D.
So let's compare Reggie and Big Mac.

G H RBI SB CS OBP SLG AVG
McGwire 1874 1626 1414 12 8 394 588 263
Jackson 2820 2584 1702 228 115 356 490 262

I feel that I can build a McGwire free Hall based on games played, hits, and the one-dimensionalness of his on-field skills (offense, baserunning, defense).

For the record: my dream ballot is Gwynn and Ripken (grudgingly) because I want the Hall of Fame to be for the true inner circle immortals of the game.
My real world ballot is based on the number of times the player appeared in the top 10 MVP or Cy Young voting, plus career numbers, plus some emotional/anecdotal/subective stuff.
Gwynn, Ripken, Blyleven, Gossage, Tommy John.
Apologies to Rice, Mattingly, Dale Murphy, Paul O'Neill (seriously, go look at his stats, he's closer than you think OPS>800 9 of 15 seasons), Lee Smith.

Have faith in the Yankees my son. Think of the great DiMaggio.

by jscape2000 on Jan 8, 2007 1:30 AM EST up reply actions

McGwire

Had 12 steals in 1874 games. That is pretty funny.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 8, 2007 7:05 AM EST up reply actions

McGwire

Rob Neyer wrote an excellent column on McGwire's "one-dimensionalness" (subscription required). Basically if you call the one dimension, offense, McGwire was one dimensional. He walked a ton and as your data shows his OBP and SLG were both higher than Reggie. There are plenty of such one dimensional players in the Hall (Mazeroski, Ozzie on the defensive side, Killebrew on the offensive side). McGwire sticks out well in this crowd.

by stusviews on Jan 8, 2007 8:49 AM EST up reply actions

If we're going to exclude 1-dimensional players

then shouldn't we exclude Gwynn too? He was a singles hitter. A great singles hitter, but that's still all he did. Why does Mac get the one-dimensional treatment instead of Gwynn?

Bruce Sutter was as one-dimensional as it gets. He threw 1 inning, and primarily survived because of 1 pitch: the split-finger. Mariano Rivera is very similar in that regard (although Mo is vastly superior than Sutter). Should we exclude them too?

McGwire wasn't even one-dimensional. The guy was a big walker and got on base like crazy. Your comparison of Reggie and Mac even shows that Mac was BETTER than Reggie. Look at the SLG and OBP numbers if you're not convinced.

It doesn't matter how many dimensions a player had. What matters is how he performed, and if he performed at an elite level, one-dimension and all, he should be considered.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 2:42 PM EST up reply actions

Another gem from our resident Jerry's kid

Gwynn was a five time Gold Glove winner and, despite his girth, was also a stolen base threat. Yup, just a singles hitter.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 8, 2007 2:50 PM EST up reply actions

A quote from Joe Sheehan

"The other automatic is Tony Gwynn, who fits the classic mold of a high-average hitter who didn't contribute as much in other areas, leading him to be a bit overrated during his career. That doesn't mean he doesn't belong in the Hall--he absolutely does--just that he's not really an inner-circle guy. Gwynn had a five-year stretch in the middle of his career in which he slugged .415, .424, .415, .432 and .415. You won't find many corner outfielders in the Hall of Fame who did that in any era. On the other hand, his career WARP of 124.3 is almost a dead match for a borderline Hall of Famer like...well, Alan Trammell.

"I make this point about Gwynn not to denigrate him or his candidacy. I don't know him personally, but what I do know about him aside from his stat line I like a lot. He was an analytical player, one of the first to use video to improve his game. He's impressed me as a broadcaster, although his path there may be curtailed by the lack of a velvet throat. The idea of "loyalty" is an overwrought one, but there is something...attractive...about a player who spends 20 years in one uniform. Well, six or seven uniforms--this was the Padres, after all--but all for one team.

"No, I make the point about Gwynn to cut off one line of attack against the fifth name on my ballot. There's been some revisionist analysis of Mark McGwire that argues he was a one-dimensional player, a home-run hitter with little else in the way of skills. Now, a year ago, the BBWAA elected Sutter, the most one-dimensional player to ever be so honored. Sutter's case rested on two poles--he succeeded in a highly-limited role and he specialized in one particular pitch. The argument that a player is "too one-dimensional" to be elected rings a bit hollow the year after that.

"To use that argument against McGwire--who drew 1300 walks and had a career .394 OBP--is laughable on its face. But to make a "one-dimensional" argument against McGwire while at the same time allowing Gwynn to pass through is just comic. Gwynn was a singles hitter, a batting-average specialist who was so known for slapping singles that the Padres drew a "56" on the infield in the last days of his career to represent Gwynn's favorite hole. Gwynn wasn't one-dimensional throughout his career, but you can point to swaths of it, such as 1990 through 1992, when his batting average was his entire value.

"McGwire isn't the most one-dimensional player who's a deserving candidate on this ballot, and pasting that label on him while letting Gwynn pass is either ignorant or biased."

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5794&PHPSESSID=5c61b11fa9d39ea13c9d0dd6f 84620f9

Apparently, I'm not alone.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 2:57 PM EST up reply actions

Again

Not saying that Gwynn wasn't a one dimensional hitter, just saying he isn't accurately described as a singles hitter. That implies that all he could do was hit for average. The Gold Gloves and the stolen bases shows that wasn't the case.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 8, 2007 3:02 PM EST up reply actions

Fair enough

but being that Gwynn's candidacy rests on his batting average, I don't think that McGwire should be slandered for being 1-dimensional while Gwynn is put on a pedestal.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 3:09 PM EST up reply actions

I agree

The back of Big Mac's baseball card makes him a no-brainer. However, after that Congressional hearing, it is also a no-brainer that he was juicing. That is my basis for exclusion. To me, it is just Pete Rose with a different crime.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 8, 2007 3:13 PM EST up reply actions

A crime for which there's no proof of

Mac doing steroids is all speculation. There's no proof that he did it.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 3:23 PM EST up reply actions

I can see

why you would feel that way, and he may not get in because of folks who share your opinion, but Rose and McGwire should both be in.

This explains why better than I can:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070103

by matthaggs on Jan 8, 2007 3:24 PM EST up reply actions

An addendum

If Gwynn was a stolen base threat worthy of the Hall, he would have been his entire career. As it turns out, Gwynn never stole more than 17 bases past the age of 30.

I suppose he was a "threat," but he certainly wasn't a "base-stealer." Otherwise he would have done it more often.

Gwynn should still go to the hall, but not based on his stolen bases.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 3:01 PM EST up reply actions

Reggie

played his prime years in an awful hitters' park in an era when things were tilted much more towards pitchers than they are today. He was far greater than his numbers indicate.

by flipster on Jan 9, 2007 7:34 PM EST up reply actions

Wow, I thought

my spelling was bad. First, redeculous, now Mcguire.

Great Success!

by ReLaunch on Jan 8, 2007 6:49 AM EST up reply actions

McGuire

is any easy mistake to make. We had an entire thread going spelling it wrong a few months ago, and I only realized it when I went to look up his stats.

Have faith in the Yankees my son. Think of the great DiMaggio.

by jscape2000 on Jan 8, 2007 7:53 AM EST up reply actions

Indeed

Just like the late Marquette coach and pimp ass basketball announcer Al McGuire.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 8, 2007 8:28 AM EST up reply actions

Thank you

I didn't realize it was McGwire either. But I also didn't realize that we were going to be hounded for our spelling on a blog.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 2:43 PM EST up reply actions

I never wrote "redeculous"

I wrote "rediculous." If you're going to mock me, at least get it right.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 2:44 PM EST up reply actions

Its funnier

with the two e's. Anyways, I have agreed with most of your comments until the Melky Cano thing.

Great Success!

by ReLaunch on Jan 8, 2007 2:51 PM EST up reply actions

100% Hall of Famer

McGwire was one of the most feared hitters in 90's. Like it or not he was part of a momentous time in MLB history when he broke the homer run record. And it wasn't a one season wonder he had many great offensive seasons.

McGwire may have take illegal steroids, and definitely took some sort of performance enhancing chemical. But that was part of the game.

Either Mac is in or you have to ban a lot of players from the 80's and 90's. Is there anyone saying no to McGwire that is totally sure that Roger Clemens never took "unknown" substances?

The only guys from the era that are definite HOFers w/o the taint of substance abuse are Jeter, Mo and Pedro.

by collink on Jan 8, 2007 1:46 PM EST reply actions

Mac on 'roids is all speculation

There's been no proof of this at all. Perhaps there should be more definitive proof before we start dragging a great player's name in the mud.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 2:46 PM EST up reply actions

Did you see his testimony?

I don't know how anyone can doubt his guilt regarding steroids after watching his "I am not hear to talk about the past" trainwreck-a-thon. Hell, even Sammy "I forgot English all of a sudden" Sosa came off as more credible.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 8, 2007 2:53 PM EST up reply actions

"I am not here to talk about the past"

Read the rest of the article I just linked (if you can, that is; it's premium content). I quoted the relevant passage.

"In his testimony, McGwire held to a point--"I'm not here to talk about the past"--that was actually in keeping with the theoretical spirit of the hearings. After all, if advancing public policy was the desired effect, if preventing PED use among the youth of America was the goal, the actions of a retired player during his career would have little bearing on the matter. McGwire offered his name and his image to campaigns that would further the goals of education and prevention. He also showed a humanity and a vulnerability that had no place in an arena so vicious.

"He didn't feed the beast. McGwire refused to participate in the dog-and-pony show by parroting the acceptable lines or by making himself a cautionary tale. He made perhaps the most accurate statement of the day: "Asking me or any other player to answer questions about who took steroids in front of television cameras will not solve the problem." "

-----------

And since the media didn't get what it wanted - a confession and an apology - they vilify him in the paper. Now all of America thinks not only did he take steroids, but they were responsible for all of his achievements, and they base it on the flimsiest of evidence: a non-confession.

I'm amazed that America is willing to crucify McGwire for taking steroids, even though there's no proof of it, and will then turn around and praise NFL linebacker Shawne Merriman, who tested positive for steroids. It's disgusting.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 3:22 PM EST up reply actions

C'mon man

Did you see that bumbling, stumbling train wreck of an appearance? I think OJ comes off as more innocent and he turned his wife into a Pez dispenser.

Giambi "apologized" for taking steroids, but since he didn't actually say the word "steroids" does that make him innoncent too?

I agree about the NFL though. The double standard is appalling.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 8, 2007 3:32 PM EST up reply actions

I did see it

and he was made out to be a criminal while saying nothing. It's appallilng that the media created this story when his intention was to help remove PED's from sports. The whole damn thing was a sham. Congress wasn't there to remove steroids; they were there to get on television and appeal to voters by acting like they care about this issue. And by parading in those MLB players and retired players just to interrogate them on their past use, Congress made the whole thing into a circus while doing nothing to further their supposed cause.

I don't care what Mac looked like on TV; I'm not going to rely on the deceptive power of observation. Until there's a confession or a drug-test result, there's little reason to keep him out of the HOF.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 3:41 PM EST up reply actions

An addendum

I prefer a more intellectual approach to figuring out if a person took steroids instead of, "Well, he looked guilty."

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 3:55 PM EST up reply actions

What did he have to hide?

Why would he answer those questions if he weren't hiding something? Also, I am not basing it on his looks, just his words. If I were drawing conclusions based on his looks, I would come to the conclusion that someone walked on his face with golf spikes.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 8, 2007 4:12 PM EST up reply actions

It doesn't matter what he had to hide

What matters is why he was there. I'm sure you meant "Why wouldn't he answer those questions if he weren't hiding something," and the reason is because the congressional hearing was not intended to label retired players as steroid users. The hearing's supposed intention was to figure out how to fix the "steroid problem." If it was about figuring out who did an didn't use steroids, then they picked the wrong forum.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 5:39 PM EST up reply actions

You have

to be kidding me. Now the media is at fault for him looking guilty? If you want to believe he should be in the hall, fine. But to act like he is innocent of taking steroids is just plain stupid.

Great Success!

by ReLaunch on Jan 8, 2007 4:36 PM EST up reply actions

I'm not saying he's really innocent

but until he's proven guilty, he should not be viewed as a steroid user, even though it may be really popular to believe he is.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 5:29 PM EST up reply actions

OJ hasn't been convicted either

But it is hard to find anyone who thinks he is innocent. Do you think Bonds is clean too?

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 8, 2007 6:14 PM EST up reply actions

Yes,

Bonds is clean because he has never been caught. It is all the medias fault. Hello, that is the medias job!

Great Success!

by ReLaunch on Jan 8, 2007 6:18 PM EST up reply actions

OJ's in the Hall of Fame though

As a lawyer you should know, as Tom Cruise once said, "It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can PROVE."

Big Mac should be in.

And that steroid hearing was a total sham. It was more comical than most SNL sketches.

by matthaggs on Jan 8, 2007 6:27 PM EST up reply actions

Have to disagree

If you've watched it recently, you'll see SNL is actually getting better. :)

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 7:55 PM EST up reply actions

There's a ton of evidence against OJ

There's little to no evidence saying McGwire was a user. All there is is speculation.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 8:06 PM EST up reply actions

There is evidence that Bonds wasn't clean

in the form of the BALCO investigation and (regrettably) leaked grand jury testimony, which I believe implicates Bonds as a 'roid user.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 8:23 PM EST up reply actions

As for the media

if it weren't for them we wouldn't be talking about this. They decided to create a story instead of cover it.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 5:41 PM EST up reply actions

Damn that C-SPAN

and their partisan cameras. I can't believe how political they made those hearings with the way that they set up that camera on a tripod in front of McGwire and then pressed "record." Providing a live video feed and then broadcasting McGwwire's testimony in its live, unaltered state was just shameless reporting. Especially in light of the fact that C-SPAN has never televised Congressional testimony before. I mean, they specifically went out of their way to show a Congressional hearing. How outrageous!

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 8, 2007 6:13 PM EST up reply actions

C-SPAN?

Are you kidding me? It was on ESPN. And they did lengthy bits with talking-heads on this stupid hearing.

C-SPAN is not the media. CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, FOX News; that's the media. In the case of sports, ESPN and FSN are the televised media. When anyone says the media, do you really think he or she is talking about fucking C-SPAN? Please....

Political media outlets have no business (or desire, actually) talking about sports figures. All the bullshit put out on McGwire is by sports writers and reporters. No one from C-SPAN is actually talking about McGwire.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 8:04 PM EST up reply actions

C-SPAN

It was broadcast on C-SPAN with no commentary and McGwire's "performance" was fucking atrocious. The media didn't need to spin jack shit to make him look like a slimy cheater. His squirming, pockmarked, terrified appearance accomplished that all by itself.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 8, 2007 8:19 PM EST up reply actions

"make him look like a slimy cheater"

Well, I guess if he looks like a cheater, he must be one, right? Nevermind the fact that he's never been one for liking attention, or that being on television in this forum would likely make a lot of people uncomfortable. Let's forget the lack of evidence and just pass judgment on what he looks like. In fact, I think Jorge Posada looks like a wife beater. Therefore, he must be one.

My guess is you thought he was a cheater before this whole fiasco and wanted more reason to think he is. The fact that you got no confession or denial from him just made you want to slander him more.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 8:31 PM EST up reply actions

Look,

I understand your reasoning on why he should be in the hall. But to say he didn't do steroids in comical. When he was asked point blank questions, all he had to do was say yes or no. He said I don't want to talk about the past.

Great Success!

by ReLaunch on Jan 8, 2007 8:35 PM EST up reply actions

And he shouldn't want to talk about the past

because that's not why he was called in! Or at least, so he was told.

I personally don't care whether he did or didn't use steroids, and I'm not calling him clean either. He may have used them, he may not have. But I think it's best that we not refer to him as a steroid user when there's no definitive proof that he was.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 8:44 PM EST up reply actions

Roids

I agree that he probably did steroids. But where do we draw the line? Clemens? Bagwell? Pudge? If you put a gun to my head, I'd guess all of them juiced at some point. The only place I can see to draw a line is failing a test. So for me Palmeiro is out while all the others (who are good enough) are in.

by stusviews on Jan 8, 2007 8:44 PM EST up reply actions

Excellent point

We can speculate all we want about Mac, but we can do the same about a lot of players. Until there's some definitive proof, all it is is mere speculation, and that sort of thing should not bar admittance to the HOF.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 8:58 PM EST up reply actions

How about the andro in his locker?

And the fact that Canseco called him out and explained his steroid use in great detail? I understand Canseco's credibility can be questioned, but it is disingenuous to portray the well founded suspicions about Big Mac as some random pin the tail on the donkey approach to just pointing fingers at random players.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 8, 2007 9:25 PM EST up reply actions

Andro was not a banned substance

I find it hard to call him a cheater for using a legal substance. You can't call him a 'roid user for using Andro.

Canseco was largely considered a buffoon while a player and was never given any credibility until he gave the media a story they wanted to hear. Canseco is a scoundrel that will say anything to make a dollar and should never be taken seriously.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 9:35 PM EST up reply actions

Two things

I realize it was legal, but is called his "training regimen" into question, thereby naturally leading to
As I said, I realize Canseco has credibility issues, but he has turned out to be the most truthful and accurate member who spoke on this issue. He got assailed for calling out his former teammates McGwire and Raffy, yet turned out to be dead right on both of those guys.

I am sure that there is a transcript of McGwire's testimony available online. It won't do it justice because you won't get to watch him squirm like a hooker in church, but you should go back and read it. If you can get through it and still say with a straight face that McGwire did nothing wrong because he hasn't failed a piss test, then you are beyond hope.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 8, 2007 9:39 PM EST up reply actions

Reading a transcript of his testimony

doesn't prove anything. All it proves is that he didn't want to answer questions that he wasn't called in to answer and don't solve the problem, and that he probably sucks at public speaking.

And whether I think he did something wrong is immaterial. What matters is whether he actually did do something wrong.

If Canseco lacks credibility, how is he the most truthful? Because you believe it? And considering there is no proof of McGwire doing 'roids, I'm suprised you used the phrase "dead right" when talking about Canseco's claims against McGwire. Usually that implies beyond a reasonable doubt. With no definitive proof, there's every reason to doubt he was a user.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 9:52 PM EST up reply actions

You are correct

While I doubt that it should be considered public speaking, I think you are right that what really matters is whether or not he took steroids. He hasn't been convicted of a crime, so beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't really apply here unless the BBWAA has some criminal enforcement arm that I am not aware of. Rather, the question is whether there is enough evidence to reasonably conclude that he took steroids and I would submit that there is more than enough. When you bury your head in the sand, you sound as ludicrous as Bonds.

Also, I am not sure if you are familiary with Congressional subpoenas but our fine federal legislators don't need to explain to you why you are being called in and can ask you about anything the fuck they want to, so the whole "he wasn't called in for that" is complete bullshit. The hearing was about steroids in baseball and to say that he shit the bed during the hearing is a tremendous understatement.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 8, 2007 10:10 PM EST up reply actions

They may ask whatever they want

but they apparently can't compel him to give a yes or no answer. So whether he shit the bed or not is immaterial: it does not make for evidence of whether he used steroids or not. All it is is a layman's speculation of what he looked like at the hearing. No one should get labeled a steroid user for being a nervous nellie at a hearing.

You would submit that there's enough evidence that he used steroids, and your key pieces of evidence are 1) the claims of an non-credible witness, 2) the fact that he used a legal substance that's not a steroid, and 3) he didn't answer any questions as to whether he did or didn't do steroids and looked awful in the process. Hmmm, I'm sorry, but I don't call that "more than enough" evidence. Maybe "just enough," but even that's a stretch.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 10:34 PM EST up reply actions

Not sending him to jail

or even getting a civil verdict. I am merely asserting that there is more than enough credible evidence for a voting member of the BBWAA to conclude that he used steroids, which in my opinion, is a form of cheating that should serve as a bar to enshrinement.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 8, 2007 10:38 PM EST up reply actions

Fair enough

I disagree.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 10:43 PM EST up reply actions

Econolodge,

do you do steroids? See, its very easy, its a yes or no question. When he was asked, he said he wanted to talk about the past. And please, enough of how he is a shy private guy crap. Remember 98? remember all the press conferences, invterviews, hugs, celebrations he was doing in front on thousands to millions of people? Obviously you don't remember any of that.

Great Success!

by ReLaunch on Jan 9, 2007 6:50 AM EST up reply actions

So that's it?

We're going to crucify a guy because he chose not to answer a question? A question that had little to do with why anyone was in that room? Look, I know it's really popular to say that guys who hit a lot of homeruns did steroids, but to base your opinion on evidence as flimsy as a non-answer is really dubious to me. You may talk about how his body changed or how his performance changed as a player, but no one thought he did steroids back then, so why are we considering it now? This witch hunt is an absurd waste of time.

by Willton on Jan 9, 2007 9:40 AM EST up reply actions

He has been linked to steroids

Since the Bash Brothers days with Canseco. This wasn't some "save the honor of Roger Maris" witch hunt.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 9, 2007 9:44 AM EST up reply actions

But without the hearing

you wouldn't think twice about that. In fact, without that abortion of a hearing, we wouldn't be having this discussion. So again, you're basing your conclusion on how he looked.

by Willton on Jan 9, 2007 10:00 AM EST up reply actions

But...

"After all, if advancing public policy was the desired effect, if preventing PED use among the youth of America was the goal, the actions of a retired player during his career would have little bearing on the matter."

If McGuire was actually clean, then his message to the youth of America would have been very clear and positive: work hard, play by the rules and you can not only make it, but possibly become a legend. That message might have had a positive impact on kids, which is where actions during his playing days would have bearing on the matter.

But instead, his non-denial denial clouded his legacy and his accomplishments. Was the media reaction overblown? Sure. But the evil media didn't put those words in his mouth. He did.

Ultimately, having someone who is under a cloud of suspicion address the issue without a clear indication of their behavior is unwise and pointless. This was the GOP's fault for putting on this dog and pony show.

McGuire said what he said, and has to live with the consequences.

Scholars see baseball as a force for passing along the essential value of democracy. Baseball reveals significant themes like class and race.

by sanchez96 on Jan 8, 2007 6:21 PM EST up reply actions

"A cloud of suspicion"

That's all it is: suspicion. (I prefer to call it speculation.) I don't think being a suspicious character should deny one's admittance to the Hall of Fame. If it did, there's a good number of HOFers that should have their busts removed.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 8:14 PM EST up reply actions

Preponderance of evidence suggests he juiced

I would like to hear from him on this issue and not allow his testimony to be the final word.

Scholars see baseball as a force for passing along the essential value of democracy. Baseball reveals significant themes like class and race.

by sanchez96 on Jan 8, 2007 8:25 PM EST up reply actions

A preponderance of the evidence?

Don't you think there should be a higher standard for this sort of thing than whether it's more likely or not? Using steroids is a crime in this country, last I checked.

And if we're going to talk in legal terms, I'd like to know what acceptable evidence you would use to show this.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 8:39 PM EST up reply actions

Preponderance of evidence

is good enough for civil matters, which this discussion is essentially about. I'm not suggesting McGuire be subject to criminal charges, but rather questioning if he did do steroids.

Evidence, not for court, but rather for the court of public opinion:

When given the chance to admit/deny, under oath, if he juiced, he issued a non-denial denial, despite previously telling papers he did not (while not under the pains and penalties of perjury).

The fact that he won't clarify his contradictory statements.

Physical changes in his body from the 80's until he retired.

He hit 277 homers in his first 3,600 or so at-bats, but hit 306 in his last (aprox) 2,500 at bats.

A former teammate (Canseco) says he did.

Do you think he juiced?

Scholars see baseball as a force for passing along the essential value of democracy. Baseball reveals significant themes like class and race.

by sanchez96 on Jan 8, 2007 9:42 PM EST up reply actions

List of reasons why not

His non-denials were also non-confessions, so they could be construed either way, even though they look more like he used. However, I still defend his right not to answer, especially since it was the wrong forum for that type of question.
His statements do not contradict. In fact, they don't even address the question.
I'm not sure exactly what changed, but the guy has always been big, and body-building can be done without PED's.
Players' performances fluctuate from year to year all the time. Pointing to changes in performance lends little credence to 'roid use, especially when plenty of players have drastic changes in performance without the help of steroids.
Some players are late bloomers. Jeff Kent and Melvin Mora are good examples. Kent hit more HR's in the latter part of his career, and I don't see a whole lot cries of him using 'roids, especially since he has maintained his power and has yet to fail a drug test.
Anything Canseco says should never be taken seriously.

Do I think he juiced? I guess so, but I think it's really irresponsible to bar him from entry to the HOF based on somebody's guess.

Besides, even if he did use 'roids, I'm not convinced that his performance would have changed much if he hadn't used them, especially if you remove all the 'roided pitchers he had to face.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 10:14 PM EST up reply actions

That is slightly more sane

I can see one saying "he used roids, but we don't know who else did," but to bend over backwards to make his train wreck of a display at the hearing into anything other than a guilty man squirming and twisting his words is just delusional. It is just simply not rational to think that he is clean.

It reminds me a lot of all the Schiavo idiots who acted like she was going to walk out of the hospital at any moment because she twitched in a way that sort of looked like a blink if you stand in the right spot and tilt your head a certain way. That is the kind of crazy shit that you have to do to find any plausible way of portraying McGwire's abhorrent display in DC as anything other than what it was.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 8, 2007 10:31 PM EST up reply actions

And I think you're making it more than what it was

and I believe that's because you believed he had done steroids prior to the hearing, and you think his behavior confirms it. I did not think he did steroids prior to the hearing, and while I'm not so sure now as ther is evidence that lends credence to the idea that he did, it shouldn't bar him from getting into the HOF. Call me when you get some definitive proof.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 10:42 PM EST up reply actions

All of MLB is in the mud

I don't mean to single out Mac with my speculation. I speculate that the majority of MLB players were involved with steroids and performance enhancing drugs to some degree or the other.

Until a definitive factual history of the late 80's and 90's is decided upon most of the players from that era should be looked at equally.

MLB is tainted by steroids not just one or two players.

by collink on Jan 8, 2007 3:03 PM EST up reply actions

Blyleven has been slighted for far too long

The guy is on the short list of most career strikeouts. He also had great control and durability. He's being punished for something he has no control over: run-support. His W/L record is not sparkling because of his ability and willingness to pitch deep into games (therefore giving him an above-average amount of decisions), and a history of pitching for teams with bad offenses. Too much emphasis is being placed on his W/L record by the codgers of the BBWAA.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 2:52 PM EST reply actions

I also think

Kaat should be in. He wasn't a dominant pitcher, and he played for a long long time, but his defense was supposedly unparralleled, and he pitched well.

Have faith in the Yankees my son. Think of the great DiMaggio.

by jscape2000 on Jan 8, 2007 5:34 PM EST up reply actions

No to Kaat

Yes, he was a fine pitcher, but he's not good enough in my opinion. Kaat pitched in an era pretty devoid of offense (league average ERA's of the 60's and 70's were in the 3.50 range), and he was merely above average during his prime years. He also didn't strikeout enough batters to warrant consideration. And however good he was with the glove, a pitcher's fielding ability does not have enough impact on the game to excuse merely above average pitching.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 5:52 PM EST reply actions

Oops

should have been a reply to Jscape.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 5:53 PM EST up reply actions

Goose & Rice: Yes. (Great or just good?)

I love HOF debates, and this years is getting hijacked by steroids (which I don't care about.)More important is where does one set the bar for entry into the HOF?

Does a player have to be an all time great, or is being one of the best players of a particular time enough?

Two guys from my youth who I think should be in are Goose and Rice.

Goose was one of the original dominant relief pitchers and performed at a high level for many years.

Rice is not one of the all time great hitters, but he was one of the greatest hitters from '76 to '86.

If a player dominated his time for more than a few years I think they've got to be in the HOF.

by collink on Jan 8, 2007 6:22 PM EST reply actions

Mattingly?

Scholars see baseball as a force for passing along the essential value of democracy. Baseball reveals significant themes like class and race.

by sanchez96 on Jan 8, 2007 6:24 PM EST up reply actions

too biased

I'm too biased to even bring that up. In my world I cannot conceive of a Baseball Hall of Fame that doesn't enshrine Donnie Baseball.

by collink on Jan 8, 2007 6:34 PM EST up reply actions

As good as Mattingly was,

he wasn't good enough for long enough.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 8:15 PM EST up reply actions

I reluctantly agree.

If he had 2 or 3 more good years, he would have been a likely candidate...

Scholars see baseball as a force for passing along the essential value of democracy. Baseball reveals significant themes like class and race.

by sanchez96 on Jan 8, 2007 8:22 PM EST up reply actions

Ripken vs. Mattingly

I understand that Ripken is sure bet HOFer. But besides playing for a longer time, you'd be hard pressed to show a dramatic difference between Mattingly and Ripken in their primes.

I saw both of them play in person, and watched a lot of their games, and I don't buy that Cal is so much better than Donnie.

That said being able to stay healthy for as long Cal did does count as something special.

by collink on Jan 8, 2007 8:31 PM EST up reply actions

Puckett and

Mattingly had almost the exact same numbers. Puckett did though win 2 world series.

Great Success!

by ReLaunch on Jan 8, 2007 8:34 PM EST up reply actions

the post season thing cuts both ways

Yeah you're right about Kirby, but he should definitely be in the HOF.

The value of post season performance cuts both ways.

In arguing HOF worth for Yankees like Jeter, Bernie and Mo the critics will say it shouldn't count much. But for Mattingly the critics will hold his lack of playoff exp. against him.

I say post season performance should count.

by collink on Jan 8, 2007 8:39 PM EST up reply actions

Post season performance should count,

but not to the point where it's more important than regular season performance.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 8:48 PM EST up reply actions

Puckett also played CF

which is a position where it's much harder to find a good bat.

Puckett also had more good years than Mattingly.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 8:53 PM EST up reply actions

Mattingly

and Puckett's numbers are very similar, including games played and at bats.

Great Success!

by ReLaunch on Jan 8, 2007 9:17 PM EST up reply actions

Mattingly petered out

as his career came to a close. Puckett was still a great hitter when he was forced to retire. And again, Puckett played CF, which is a more difficult defensive position and one that is harder to find good offensive production like his.

Puckett's is really a sad story. Glaucoma robbed him of his career. He had all the skills to perform at a high level and no way to use them.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 9:26 PM EST up reply actions

Another big reason why Ripken > Mattingly

Ripken played one of the toughest defensive positions in the game, while Mattingly played possibly the easiest next to DH.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 8:52 PM EST up reply actions

Position matters

Ripken played short so his offensive numbers don't need to be as dominant.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 8, 2007 9:27 PM EST up reply actions

My personal criteria

Personally, I think a player should have to be significantly better than his peers at his position for several seasons. Or be named Melky Cabrera.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 8, 2007 6:28 PM EST up reply actions

Rice had great stats in Fenway

Not so much away from that park. I say no to Rice.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 8:16 PM EST up reply actions

Rice is a great test case

He's one of the guys that a rational arguement can be made either way.

by collink on Jan 8, 2007 8:32 PM EST up reply actions

As for Goose,

he was actually better than Sutter. By that reason he should be in.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 8:17 PM EST up reply actions

Goose

He is so much better than Sutter. Before last year he was a borderline candidate depending on how you felt about relievers. Now with Sutter in, he is a no-brainer.

by stusviews on Jan 8, 2007 8:42 PM EST up reply actions

I think that big mac should be elected

Yankees win! Theeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Yankees win! -John Sterling

by goyankees on Jan 8, 2007 7:53 PM EST reply actions

Solid week for Econolodge

From extolling the mystery power of Melky while discounting any of Cano's success as luck to actually arguing that McGwire isn't guilty as sin. Shall we take bets on what is coming later in the week to conclude the Hat Trick of Insanity?" Perhaps why Kei Igawa will win the Cy Young this year? Surprise us please......

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 8, 2007 10:40 PM EST reply actions

Boy, you love to speak in hyperbole

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me insane, or even wrong. I'm sure you think you're always right, but that kind of pompous, arrogant behavior doesn't score you any points.

by Willton on Jan 8, 2007 10:50 PM EST up reply actions

How quickly the Tarheel worm turns...

Let's turn back the clock to a recent post of pfisty...

"Way to be"

"Econolodge! The island of logic and reason is growing in population!!"

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 03:08:29 PM EST

Does this mean you're voting Econo off the island? I'm sure he'll be devastated.

Trying to defend McGwire's guilt or innocence is besides the point here. He is NOT GUILTY because regardless of the preponderance of circumstantial evidence, he has never been caught red-handed. PERIOD. Did he look like a dummy at the hearing? Yes. Did everyone else? Yes. Actually, Palmiero looked awesome at the hearing, but afterwards didn't go so well for him.

Did I think he took steroids? Absolutely. But until you prove that he did, and until you prove that the rest of the players he competed against did not, then he must be included in the Hall of Fame. His numbers require admittance. And these fat loser holier than thou writers have no business keeping him out.

by matthaggs on Jan 9, 2007 1:17 AM EST up reply actions

What can I say?

He was doing so well, then he went all batshit insane on us. I understand your take on McGwire, I just happen to wholeheartedly disagree. To me, once there is enough evidence regarding a player's cheating that is is downright impossible to deny it with a straight face, that is enough to justify his exclusion.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 9, 2007 7:20 AM EST up reply actions

The only reason you think I'm insane

is because I say stuff you disagree with, and you're conceited attitude doesn't allow you to realize the people may have a difference of opinion.

Again, your evidence is 1) the claims of non-credible witness, 2) his use of a legal substance, and 3) how he looked at a congressional hearing. That's really weak.

Personally, I think you are biased in that you want to believe he did steroids. In fact, I bet you have your torch burning right now and you're just ready to pick up your pitchfork and march over to McGwire's house. "BURN HIM! BURN HIM! HE'S A STEROID USER!" Sorry, I don't prescribe to McCarthyism with regard to steroid users.

^ Now that's acting a little crazy.

by Willton on Jan 9, 2007 9:56 AM EST up reply actions

Withholding an honor

is by no means a persecution. The Hall of Fame is the pinnacle of the sport and should not be a place for cheaters. I could care less if the feds or anyone else go after McGwire, I just don't think he belongs in the HOF when his inflated numbers are the result of cheating.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 9, 2007 10:09 AM EST up reply actions

Where do you draw the line?

Is being accused enough for you to withold your vote?

I'm gonna go ahead and assume that your HOF will not include Bonds and Sosa.

Is Pudge out? Did dropping 40 lbs. in one offseason arouse enough suspicion, or does he make it?

Clemens? If Canseco is a credible witness, then Grimsley must be right?

Tejada?

by matthaggs on Jan 9, 2007 10:17 AM EST up reply actions

Slippery slope

I realize that is is a slippery slope, but I think you have to look at it individually like the HOF does. For me, McGwire's guilt is pretty clear cut, so he gets the thumbs down from me. I think that the other side of the argument just validates cheating.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 9, 2007 10:22 AM EST up reply actions

If you're not cheating

you're not trying. Ask Gaylord Perry and Phil Neikro what the Hall thinks of cheaters.

Have faith in the Yankees my son. Think of the great DiMaggio.

by jscape2000 on Jan 9, 2007 1:10 PM EST up reply actions

Goose got hosed

What complete bullshit.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Jan 9, 2007 2:29 PM EST reply actions

Good News for Goose

I am also disappointed that Goose didn't make but his increase is very encouraging. I don't think anyone with 71% of the vote ever didn't eventually make it. This is particularly encouraging since there are no no-brainers on next year's ballot. He should go in next year (possibly with Jim Rice).

by stusviews on Jan 9, 2007 3:01 PM EST up reply actions

McGwire got 23.5%, well short of 75%

Cal Ripken Jr. 537 98.5
Tony Gwynn 532 97.6
Rich Gossage 388 71.2
Jim Rice 346 63.5
Andre Dawson 309 56.7
Bert Blyleven 260 47.7
Lee Smith 217 39.8
Jack Morris 202 37.1
Mark McGwire 128 23.5
Tommy John 125 22.9
Steve Garvey 115 21.1
Dave Concepcion 74 13.6
Alan Trammell 73 13.4
Dave Parker 62 11.4
Don Mattingly 54 9.9
Dale Murphy 50 9.2
Harold Baines 29 5.3
Orel Hershiser 24 4.4
Albert Belle 19 3.5
Paul O'Neill 12 2.2
Bret Saberhagen 7 1.3
Jose Canseco 6 1.1
Tony Fernandez 4 0.7
Dante Bichette 3 0.6
Eric Davis 3 0.6
Bobby Bonilla 2 0.4
Ken Caminiti 2 0.4
Jay Buhner 1 0.2
Scott Brosius 0 0
Wally Joyner 0 0
Devon White 0 0
Bobby Witt 0 0

Scholars see baseball as a force for passing along the essential value of democracy. Baseball reveals significant themes like class and race.

by sanchez96 on Jan 9, 2007 2:31 PM EST reply actions

All of these voters...

Tony Fernandez 4 0.7
Dante Bichette 3 0.6
Eric Davis 3 0.6
Bobby Bonilla 2 0.4
Ken Caminiti 2 0.4
Jay Buhner 1 0.2

Should never be allowed to vote again. It's readily apparent they don't take this seriously.

Am I the only one who finds this annoying? That these assholes don't realize what a priviledge and responsibility it is to have a vote?

by matthaggs on Jan 9, 2007 2:37 PM EST up reply actions

WTF! 0 for Brosius?

by collink on Jan 9, 2007 2:38 PM EST up reply actions

WTF! 0 for Melky?

by flipster on Jan 9, 2007 8:07 PM EST up reply actions

By next

year, Melky will have made all the requirements for cooperstown so be patient my friend.

Great Success!

by ReLaunch on Jan 9, 2007 8:26 PM EST up reply actions

Concepcion?

He was good and all, but to put him ahead of Mattingly and O'Neill, despite obvious bias, is ridiculous. Same goes for Steve Garvey, who was horribly inconsistent.

But, the worst of all is putting Andre Dawson ahead of Bert Blyleven. Even though I believe he deserves it, Blyleven will never make the Hall. The BBWAA obviously feels threatened by the uprising of advanced statistical analysis, since they're loaded with morons who can't keep up. So they'll never vote Blyleven, a sabermetric poster boy, into the Hall.

Off the Facade
An interesting alternative to the mainstream.

by PinstripePowerhouse on Jan 9, 2007 2:51 PM EST reply actions

Blyleven continues to get slighted

Andre Dawson and Jim Rice were put ahead of Blyleven? Does no one in the BBWAA have any respect for one of the best strikeout artists in history? Hell, he's a better pitcher than a good number of guys already in the HOF. What is up with their standards?

Can someone please inform the BBWAA that starting pitchers aren't even half-way responsible for wins and losses?

by Willton on Jan 9, 2007 3:02 PM EST up reply actions

Idiots

Paul Ladewski was one of them.

Incidentally, the article I linked to used to show up as No. 2 if you Googled the guys name (which means he undoubtedly read it). Too bad he created his own hoopla with the blank ballot thing.

Off the Facade
An interesting alternative to the mainstream.

by PinstripePowerhouse on Jan 9, 2007 4:02 PM EST reply actions

I don't get it. Was Ripken

the greatest player every or something?

Everything looks nicer when you win. The girls are prettier. The cigars taste better. The trees are greener. --Billy Martin

by garp on Jan 9, 2007 8:53 PM EST reply actions

Nah,

but I think the point he's trying to make is that in this class, he probably should have been a unanimous choice. I really don't care, as long as you get in one way or the other.

Great Success!

by ReLaunch on Jan 9, 2007 9:28 PM EST up reply actions