McGwire not even close...
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof07/...ory?id=2725461
Sucks for McGwire, he may not be in there even on the 2nd ballot. I'm glad to see Tony Gwynn get in, he was one of the best hitters of the past few years in baseball along with George Brett. I loved watching him play. I'm also glad to see Ripken in there too, what a class guy.
Had Henderson stayed retired, he would have been part of this class. Does any know which class he's part of now? Knowing what I know of Ricky, he'll probably stay active long enough to notch a class where he's the only HOF elected. He wouldn't want to share the spotlight, being the "great player in the world" and all...
Also, who are the pompous jackasses who didn't vote for Ripken or Gwynn on their ballot? I guess I never paid too much attention to the voting process, but if there were ever two players deserving of unanimous induction it's these two. Nothing but ambassadors for the game. Spent their entire careers on the same team. Never complained, only inspired. Without question of the statistical credentials. No, they don't have a le, but does that mean players like Scott Brocious are deserving simply because they have a ring(s)?
Whomever they are, they should be tracked down and have their voting privelages stripped. Save for being in a coma for the better half of the last 25 years, there's no justification to not voting either in first ballot.
Unassuming greatness is still greatness. I guess had they been pretentious, they'd have garnered 100% of the vote
If I recall correctly, no one has ever been voted in unanimously. Some of these writers definitely need to be stripped of their credentials. I remember an interview with one guy who didn't vote for Nolan Ryan out of protest for Don Sutton being snubbed in the first year of his eligibility (or something like that).
A big problem is that HOF voting credentials are for life. Some old fart could have covered baseball from 1955 to 1965 then not watched a single pitch after that, and he'd still get an annual HOF vote.
Tony Gwynn said that's unfair, given baseball's stance on the subject for most of McGwire's career. He thinks McGwire, who broke Roger Maris' 37-year-old home run record in 1998, deserved to join him and Cal Ripken Jr. in the Hall this summer.
"In the late 1980s and early '90s, we had no rules," Gwynn said Tuesday on a conference call. "We knew, players knew, owners knew, everybody knew and we didn't say anything about it.
"As a player I kind of focused on what was going on on the field, and as far as I'm concerned he dominated an era."
What I don't get is that there were actually people who didn't put Gwynn and Ripken on the ballot.
This is why its a joke. The writers - the fat, donut eating, never played in their life, self gloriating writers, are the ones that decide the HOF. The same exact writers who were falling over each other to praise Mac as the savior of baseball in 1998 after ratings were at an all time low and a WS was cancelled due to labor strike, are the ones that are now riding the high horse and not voting him in or leaving a ballot blank because "Even Babe Ruth or Cy Young weren't unanimous."
These people are so hypocritical. The same people who want Mac not to be in the HOF because he's a cheater, will write articles praising Merriman and but him 2nd in the Defensive Player of the Year and an All Pro/All Star. These are the same people that vote and remember fondly Gaylord Perry, voted into the HOF, yet he was infamous for doctoring the ball and was even suspended a few times because of it. It's not the "Hall of Squeaky Clean Baseball Players," it's the "Hall of Fame." Babe Ruth was a notorious womanizer. Mickey Mantle (forgive me Mick) was an alcoholic and admittedly played almost everyday under the influence. I know there is a character clause on the Hall of Fame ballot, but I don't want to hear about it. Writers have been ignoring that part of the equation for decades and it seems patently unfair to change that for modern era because everyone has their panties in a bunch over steroids.
It has been proven Barry Bonds took something. It has been proven Palmero took something. It has been proven Jason Giambi took something. It has never been proven Mac took anything. Do I think he did? Most likely. However, he is just about the ONLY major figure under speculation that it has NEVER been proven he did anything. There is no tangible proof that McGwire ever took an illegal performance enhancing substance.
Look, I saw what you saw when Mac faced the U.S. Congress. He looked like a guilty man. Looking guilty is not the same as being proven guilty. I know the concept of "guilty until proven innocent" really only applies to the legal system, but I think it is also a fair way of looking at the world. We may all believe that McGwire is guilty, Lord knows I do, but "believing" something is not the same as "knowing" something. Anyone can believe anything they want but knowing something implies that there is factual proof that backs your position. I believe Mark McGwire took steroids, but I don't know for a fact that he did.
Even if he did take steroids, Mac did not break any Major League Baseball rules in doing so. Major League Baseball had no steroids policy during McGwire's career so no matter what he did there were no baseball rules broken. Should someone's baseball accomplishments be diminished or go unrecognized even though he did not break any rules of the game in achieving them? If you assume that he did in fact use steroids, then obviously it means he broke the law. We're not talking about whether or not he should have been prosecuted had he been caught, we're talking about whether or not his accomplishments within the game were done within the rules of that game.
Even in the "Steroid Era" Mac's feats stood out from the crowd. The assumption made by most people who cover baseball is that steroid use has been widespread since the early 90's. If that is true, and there is no reason to believe otherwise, then doesn't the fact that McGwire stood out from the rest of the juiced up crowd mean something? Even in a league where lots of sluggers were sticking needles in their behinds, Mac's numbers blew everyone away. The only way to truly and fairly judge a player's accomplishments is to compare them to their peers. If McGwire's peers were also cheating, doesn't that mean he wasn't gaining as much of an "unfair advantage" as some would have you believe?
Hitters weren't the only ones cheating. One of the things that burns me most about the people who cover Major League Baseball is the way they completely ignore the fact that pitchers have been cheating just as much as hitters. The only time anyone goes on a rant about steroid users is when it has something to do with a power hitter. Pitchers, especially power pitchers, have also gotten a great advantage over the years by using performance enhancers. It could be argued that pitchers actually gain more from steroid use than hitters do. Pitchers gain endurance, velocity and the ability to recover more quickly between outings when they use things like steroids or human growth hormone. That means they have better stuff, they maintain it deeper into games and they have their "best" stuff more often than they otherwise would. Doesn't that level the playing field? Doesn't that mean that the accomplishments of hitters may not be as bloated as many think they are? I would answer yes to both questions. How can it be that McGwire had an "unfair advantage" when he wasn't the only one cheating? Is it really an advantage if they guy you're facing is doing the same thing?
We have no real measure of what the use of steroids means to a Major League ballplayer. How many extra feet per fly ball does a player get from using steroids? How many miles per hour does a pitcher gain? How many extra stolen bases can someone get by using performance enhancers? How many extra games will they play because their muscles recover more quickly than they otherwise would? Without definitive answers to those questions, how can we decide what is legitimate and what is not? Steroids certainly come with benefits or athletes wouldn't take them, but how much of a difference does using them make? Without that kind of information it is impossible to deterime how much any single player gained by the use of steroids or similar performance enhancers.
Bottom line is, we are condemning a man simply because Jose Canseco says he is guilty.
Please tell me since when has Jose Canseco become the basitian of moral activity and the undeniable informative source for you, because you all seem to be taking his word for gospel.
Henderson will be on next years ballot. And 2 writers turned in blank ballots, ing es. Baseball used McGwire to get fans back, and now even in this country where innocence is presumed before proven guilty, he is getting nailed to the wall without any proof that he did anything. With his numbers and what he did for baseball, its a shame that he might not get in
I have no problem with McGwire being left out. The one thing baseball had over football was that its statistics mattered. Nobody outside of Indy cared about Manning's passing TD record & few could tell you whose sack record Michael Strahan broke (it was Gastineau's).
But numbers like .400, 61, 2130, & 56 held meaning in baseball and in the sports world in general.
Thanks to McGwire, Sosa, & Bonds, baseball's stats now have a cartoony feel that nobody cares about anymore.
It wasn't illegal in baseball, so Mac wasn't suspended, he didn't lose out on any money. But he doesn't get to receive baseball's highest honor, that's his pennance.
As for the guilty until proven innocent - in the court of public opinion, taking the 5th amendment to a very straightforward and simple question is pretty incriminating evidence.
Actually, most fans and sports writers though Canseco was full of crap until Mac took the 5th amendment. There was only one reason for Mac to do that, and as such, we know what his answer to the question would have been.
Then, Jose was further vindicated when Raffy tested postive.
It was the hearing that did Mac in, not his former bash brother.
Because if they voted for Ripken & Gwynn, you wouldn't know a thing about them. Since they didn't vote for them, they get to take the talkshow tour around america.What I don't get is that there were actually people who didn't put Gwynn and Ripken on the ballot.
I actually heard one a-hole say that he didn't vote for Cal because he wanted to honor the sportswriters before him who didn't put anybody in unanimously. ?????? While it's not the moral equivalent, that makes about as much sense as a person saying that they want to continue lynchings because of their rascist parents before them.
That idiot Skip Bayless even said that without the streak, Ripken has no business in the HOF. I guess 3000 hits, 400 HRs (most of which were pre-steroid/juiced ball era), 2 MVPs, 2 Gold Gloves, 19 All-Star Games, 8 Silver Sluggers, finishing his career as likely the second best offensive shortstop of all time (behind Honus Wagner), and oh yeah, he completely revolutionized the shortstop position that would later allow big guys like Jeter, A-Rod, Garciapparra, and Tejada to play the position doesn't have the meaning that it used to...
You do realize he took the 5th not to implicate anyone else, correct?
Where'd you get that?
You need to read the cons ution, the 5th amendment only applies to SELF incrimination.
Besides, the question was directed SPECIFICALLY towards Mac. They weren't asking him about others.
Jose answered in affirmative without implicating others at the hearing (he used his tell-all book to do so).
Last edited by K-State Spur; 01-11-2007 at 03:16 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
