• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why Mark McGwire SHOULD be in the HOF

Ilmater

Diamond Member
For those of you that don't believe McGwire doesn't deserve a spot in the hall, consider the following points. I would love to hear the arguments against this because I just don't see why you can logically deny his place. Enjoy:

- Baseball not testing for or even banning steroids from the game is like the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy; if you say you're doing it, it's illegal, but they don't care if you do it and don't tell anyone about it. They may not have told players to do it, but in professional sports if you don't know people are going to try to get an edge, you're an idiot. They knew, and they didn't care. I would go as far as to say that Bud Selig saw it happening and was happy.

- EVERYONE was doing it. Pitchers, hitters... everyone. That entire era of baseball was different than others. IN HIS ERA, the whole of which was tainted by a drug, he was one of the best players on the field. You don't get that good because of a drug. 90% of that is skill wrought by natural talent and constant practice. Maybe androstene alone can't get you to that level, but it can get you close, and it was legal for a long time. You've heard the argument, but it's completely valid: if you deny him, do you deny EVERYONE you suspect in the era? The whole reason I believe Bonds started was because he finally decided that if everyone else was going to do it, he was too.

- There is no proof - other than one guy trying to sell books - that he ever took it. You say, "Look at the guy! Of course he did steroids!" What are you talking about?! Have you looked at professional body-builders? Can you pick out the steroid users from the non-steroid users? Some freaks, maybe. But there are PLENTY guys out there that train to excessive levels through the use of NON-STEROID supplements. It's not like the guy has massive veins popping out of his neck. People look at him and say that his size is proof that he used. Why? He is by absolutely NO stretch of the imagination at such a size that he HAD to be taking steroids to achieve. I put on muscle mass very quickly, and every time I get back into my gym days, I build up fast. I don't take steroids. Some people are just able to build muscle better than others.

- As for his not talking to Congress, why should he? Even assuming he did do it, he was asked there to discuss the role of steroids in baseball and talk about how it can be avoided, how prevalent it was, etc. And, as much as we like to berate what he said, he WAS there to talk about the future and what can be done, not about the past. I understand that he looked bad, but he went there expecting one thing and ran into something completely different - a witch hunt. What should he have done? Admit it? People crucify him for not admitting it, but NOBODY has admitted it. Palmeiro is twice as bad because not only did he use it, but he CONTINUED using it. Canseco "admitted" it, but he was just doing it to make money. He sold out his credibility by doing that. Asking McGwire to be that guy, of course, is understandable since he is kind of the poster boy of the era (if not Bonds). However, you should also understand he is human. If he did use, I'm sure he never planned to wear that badge on his sleeve the rest of his life.

- I also think people look at this like it was a seriously bad thing they were doing. Not everyone smokes pot, but when you're in college, doesn't at least half of the freaking place smoke pot and 80% of them not care that the rest of them do? Pot is illegal, but in college everyone just kind of accepts it as not a big deal. I'm not saying they're exactly the same issue (nobody is cheating by smoking pot, quite the opposite), but the mindset is the same and I'd bet the usage of steroids in baseball was about as rampant as marijuana use in college. Everyone's doing it, everyone is CERTAINLY trying to get an edge, and even though in the back of their minds they knew it was wrong, I think baseball players, in their very different world, were getting the impression that people didn't really care, and if the fans just wanted to see HRs and MLB was clearly fine with it, maybe it wasn't such a big deal.

- Finally, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what steroids does, I believe. If you inject steroids tomorrow, you can't suddenly lift 600 pounds. It helps you build FASTER, and it helps you train longer because your muscles don't wear down as quickly (you maintain your peak performance longer), but you are not instantly strong. Look at McGuire when he entered the league. He hit 46 freaking home runs. 49!!! Even if he was taking steroids like a madman, you can tell by looking at him back then that he wasn't all that strong. He has just always had a gift for the long-ball. Even if he took steroids, can you honestly say that a guy that starts his career with 49 HRs as a scrawny 21-year-old NEEDS steroids to hit HRs? Of course not! So, the argument that steroids made him into a great player is completely bogus. Maybe it's not even an understanding about what steroids do, it's just that when you say someone takes steroids, the immediate thought is they are super-humanly strong, and they're cheating. People don't think enough about what they really do and how they would actually affect a player's performance.

So maybe you disagree, but I would like to hear why.

Cliffs:

- MLB not doing anything about it was basically saying that it was OK.
- With usage apparently so rampant, how can you pick whom to exclude and include?
- There is no concrete evidence that he used, and it is theoretically possible for him to not have used and be "that big" (I'm not naive enough to think it's not likely, but it is not a fact either).
- Congress was on a witch hunt, and he was backed into a corner when he was expecting to talk about baseball as a whole and not his own career.
- His mindset in believing that steroids weren't that bad is understandable given the circumstances.
- Steroids can't make a regular baseball player into a great one. McGwire was already great outside the numbers.

Edit: corrected HR stats from his first year and fixed spelling of his name... jesus that's bad

Edit 2: Let me also add that it doesn't really matter that steroids were illegal in the US. He could claim he only took them in Mexico. I realize this is ridiculous, but the fact is it's inexcusable for baseball to have not had a rule against them, and reliable testing.
 
1 and 2 - I don't care if it was explicitly against the rules of baseball, it was illegal in the United States, no? It may not be explicitly against the rules to have someone break the opposing pitcher's leg before a game, but I'd consider that cheating. 😉
3 and 4 - You have a point there. But this isn't a court of law. He's been accused of something, and if he wants people (especially the HOF voters) to believe he didn't do it, then he needs to come up with something better than "I'm not here to talk about the past."
5 - I don't like cheating in sports
6 - If there is anything that should nullify a person's accomplishments in sports, it is cheating

(I assigned numbers to you bullet points)
(there is already a thread about this)
 
His numbers aren't even that great even if he WASN'T cheating. All he had were HR numbers, his batting average, runs, on base percentage, and everything else were all average. In fact, most of his numbers were worse than Jose Conseco, who didn't even come close to making it. So unless you're putting Roger Maris in first, he doesn't belong there .. Add in the fact that he was in the roids, and he DEFINITELY doesn't belong there.
 
Look man, I want McGwire to get in too; And I think he will eventually. I think he would say the same thing as I am about to say: "He shouldn't have used Performance Enhancing Drugs". Granted they weren't illegal at the time, using the argument that everyone was doing it (Which is most definitely not true) is weak...he is a role model and should be above that.

He is a classy guy, and despite his mistakes, I believe one day, he will make it into HoF.

-Kevin
 
First off before I begin my entire speech of why McGwire & Bonds & Giambi & Sosa should not be in the HOF, I will first say that the OP's facts are wrong throughout his whole thread. Basic, indisputable facts. Doesn't even know how to spell McGwire's name correctly.
 
Originally posted by: Slick5150
His numbers aren't even that great even if he WASN'T cheating. All he had were HR numbers, his batting average, runs, on base percentage, and everything else were all average. In fact, most of his numbers were worse than Jose Conseco, who didn't even come close to making it. So unless you're putting Roger Maris in first, he doesn't belong there .. Add in the fact that he was in the roids, and he DEFINITELY doesn't belong there.

Just out of curiosity, Andruw Jones only had HR's and RBI's yet he almost beat the best player in baseball for the MVP a year ago. Whats up with that? The same thing happened this year as well (Except Ryan Howard actually did manage to get a halfway decent AVG and amount of Runs scored (Though his AVG with RISP or Runners On was pitiful)). (Not meant to discredit Howard, the guys is a great player and a classy player).

-Kevin
 
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
He Cheated.

/thread

Proof?

I'm no Big Mac fan and I think he probably did, but you shouldn't say he cheated unless you have PROOF.

Which we all know you don't.
 
Id vote him in, his homeruns was part of what saved baseball after that miserable strike. Everyone did roids at the time so let him in.
 
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Originally posted by: Slick5150
His numbers aren't even that great even if he WASN'T cheating. All he had were HR numbers, his batting average, runs, on base percentage, and everything else were all average. In fact, most of his numbers were worse than Jose Conseco, who didn't even come close to making it. So unless you're putting Roger Maris in first, he doesn't belong there .. Add in the fact that he was in the roids, and he DEFINITELY doesn't belong there.

Just out of curiosity, Andruw Jones only had HR's and RBI's yet he almost beat the best player in baseball for the MVP a year ago. Whats up with that? The same thing happened this year as well (Except Ryan Howard actually did manage to get a halfway decent AVG and amount of Runs scored (Though his AVG with RISP or Runners On was pitiful)). (Not meant to discredit Howard, the guys is a great player and a classy player).

-Kevin

You forgot to mention that he was the MVP of his team. What does:

MOST VALUABLE PLAYER mean? Does it mean number? Or does it mean leading his team on the field (Golden Glove), in the batters box (HR/RBI) and as a leader while other players are hurt (Chipper).

Not to mention that half the team was traded and he and Chipper were the only real good players.
 
Originally posted by: BudAshes
Id vote him in, his homeruns was part of what saved baseball after that miserable strike. Everyone did roids at the time so let him in.

QFT.

Here's the problem...Baseball knew. They were aware of the situation years before.

It sold tickets and hyped up baseball! They only took action after Congress (why exactly were they involved?!??!) started sticking their noses in it. Now baseball all the sudden goes "oh yeah this is bad lets start testing".
 
I don't necessarily think it was the whole roids issue that didn't get him in. There are a lot of great players that don't get in on the first try. Do you think that he was good enough to be a first ballot hall of famer? I think he'll get in eventually, but now is not the time. Besides, I'm sure baseball doesn't want everyone all up in arms over the roid talk even more than they are now. Give it 4-5 years when nobody cares anymore, then he'll get in.
 
Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Originally posted by: BudAshes
Id vote him in, his homeruns was part of what saved baseball after that miserable strike. Everyone did roids at the time so let him in.

QFT.

Here's the problem...Baseball knew. They were aware of the situation years before.

It sold tickets and hyped up baseball! They only took action after Congress (why exactly were they involved?!??!) started sticking their noses in it. Now baseball all the sudden goes "oh yeah this is bad lets start testing".

Agreed... baseball did help create this monster. Its too bad it didnt destroy the game.
 
Almost nobody ever makes it in the first year they're eligible. Simple as that. Get over it. He'll probably get voted in in a few years.
 
i agree with your points OP. however fact of the matter is he used roids which compromised his statistics.

i believe he'll be remember in baseball history in the breath as Pete Rose; great but not HOF.
 
Originally posted by: Ilmater
- MLB not doing anything about it was basically saying that it was OK.
No, it doesn't.
Originally posted by: Ilmater
- With usage apparently so rampant, how can you pick whom to exclude and include?
You can exclude them all until more is known about the game during the 90's & into the new millenium. They always have the veteran committee to vote them in if the sportswriters dont.
Originally posted by: Ilmater
- There is no concrete evidence that he used, and it is theoretically possible for him to not have used and be "that big" (I'm not naive enough to think it's not likely, but it is not a fact either).
There's no concrete evidence that Shoeless Joe cheated, yet he is still banned from the game. You have a bottle of performance enhancing drugs in his locker, and you do have a witness, Jose Canseco, which as sad as it may be, appears to be the most honest and truthful about what's happened to the game.
Originally posted by: Ilmater
- Congress was on a witch hunt, and he was backed into a corner when he was expecting to talk about baseball as a whole and not his own career.
Then why did the other players not come out looking as tremendously guilty as he did? And if you actually watched those hearings, you would have realized it was not a witch hunt to convict them.
Originally posted by: Ilmater
- His mindset in believing that steroids weren't that bad is understandable given the circumstances.
Not acceptable, steroids are never something to believe in.
Originally posted by: Ilmater
- Steroids can't make a regular baseball player into a great one. McGuire was already great outside the numbers.
According to the only source, McGwire used steroids well before '98. So that would pretty much encompass his entire career except for a few of the early years. In other words, he had no numbers before starting steroids. One good season does not make a HOF career, so you can disclude his rookie year when he hit 49 as claim of his greatness.



The Hall of Fame is something that I believe goes far beyond the statistics and numbers of a player. It also should reflect the integrity of the game. And if the entire 90's era gets thrown out of the Hall because the facts can't be sorted out, then I would support that far more than to sit here and reward those who did take steroids just because there's not enough proof.
 
Actually, you know what pisses me off most about these steroid users? They all put themselves above the game. They all had the choice to take steroids or not, to take action against steroids or not. And the only thing any of them cared about was themselves. Their own "greatness". Even after retirement they are trying desparately to save any shred of dignity they think they still have, instead of doing the truely honorable things. And that should never be rewarded.
 
I think he SHOULD be in, but I'm alright with him not making it as long as Bonds doesn't either.
 
The whole thing is full of hypocrits. Baseball writers don't vote him in, yet they are falling all over themselves to talk about Bonds breaking the homerun record.

Maybe McGwire used drugs beyond the then-legal ones. We don't really know for sure. But we know Bonds has used them. Why then, is he going to be regaled as the homerun king if he breaks Aaron's record?

Too bad baseball STILL doesn't have a good drug policy.
 
Back
Top