What cap will he wear in the HOF? III

[Lathum]

Last week Ken Griffey Jr. went in as a mariner by a 70% margin. Link below.

This weeks should be a little interesting. I give you Mark McGwire. Passed up once allready will he be snubbed again, will the veterens comittee eventualy let him in, and if so what hat does he wear?

Ken Griffey Jr,

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=58304&highlight=cap

Roger Clemens

http://fof.sportplanet.gamespy.com/f...&highlight=cap

[path12]

I picked no HoF. I think he's going to be the main scapegoat for the steroid era.......

[Chubby]

I picked As but I really hope he doesn't get in since his stats are beyond tainted to me.

[MikeVic]

This one is hard. You can make a case for each of the options. I have no idea what to pick.

[sabotai]

Mark McGwire will not make it into the Hall Of Fame.

[MikeVic]

Mark McGwire will not make it into the Hall Of Fame.

Yeah, I'll agree with this.

[Maple Leafs]

Ten years from now, we will know much more about steroid use in baseball, not to mention how naive we were about the NFL. I bet at that point there's a lot of support for him get in -- "well, he had better numbers than all of the other cheaters", etc.

[RainMaker]

Steroids or not, does McGwire really deserve to be in? His numbers are great from a homerun perspective, but everyone was hitting 40+ homers in that era. He was also one dimensional, and had one ability. On the other hand, if it wasn't for McGwire (and Sosa), would baseball even be where it's at right now? Would it have shriveled down to what hockey is and made way for other sports to become more popular?

[Atocep]

Steroids or not, does McGwire really deserve to be in? His numbers are great from a homerun perspective, but everyone was hitting 40+ homers in that era. He was also one dimensional, and had one ability. On the other hand, if it wasn't for McGwire (and Sosa), would baseball even be where it's at right now? Would it have shriveled down to what hockey is and made way for other sports to become more popular?

He most certainly belongs in based on numbers. He has 4 seasons with an OPS+ of 200 or more and a career OPS+ of 163. This puts him among the top 5 of all-time first basemen. His numbers were insane when healthy and even when you factor in his injuries he's still good enough to easily get into the hall.

I have a major problem with making him the scapegoat for the steroid era. Hold him out a year or two, fine. But completely shutting him out of the HoF when god only knows how many other players from the '90s were using isn't right.

With that said, I think he goes in as an A. He only played roughly 550 games with the Cards and around 1300 with the A's. Also won a world series there.

[Toddzilla]

I think he will certainly get in to the HOF - saying he "only hit home runs" is the standard cop-out by people who can't make a legitimate case against a power hitter. Very few sluggers "only" hit home runs. Rob Deer comes to mind immediately. Dave Kingman to a lesser degree. But McGwire? No way:

11-time All Star
1987 AL rookie of the year
5 times in the top-5 MVP voting
2 times led league in OBP
4 times led league in SLG
4 times led league in HR

Bill James "Hall of Fame Monitor (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#hof_monitor)" score = 169.5, a likely HOFer = 100.

And I firmly believe that players in that era were practically encouraged to take whatever performance enhancers they could get away with. Mark McGwire - like Barry Bonds - never failed a drug test. He looked like an ass in fromt of congress, but this isn't the "House Sub-Comittee Testimony Hall of Fame".

Mark McGwire is a 100% guaranteed bona-fide Hall of Famer.

The voters will make a state,ent and not send him in on the first ballot, which is fine by me, but he'll get in.

Wearing a Cardinals cap.

Full disclosure: I hate Mark McGwire. I hate the Cardinals, and by proxy I despised McGwire. I thought it was kind of neat that he passed up his chance to be the first rookie to hit 50 HR in order to attend the birth of his first kid, but thats where it ends for me. I'd be happy on some level if McGwire never got into the HoF, but the baseball fan in me knows he deserves to be in.

[sabotai]

Has any player in the past made it to the Hall Of Fame when they got less than 25% of the votes on his first year of eligability?

[Atocep]

Has any player in the past made it to the Hall Of Fame when they got less than 25% of the votes on his first year of eligability?

Billy Williams. In '82 he received 23% of the votes (roughly the same as McGwire) and was voted in with 85% in '87.

[dime]

people say McGwire "only hit home runs" because he was slow, became a poor defender (after he, erm, bulked up he could hardly move), and was not a good situational hitter. all his teams ever asked him to do was, well, hit home runs.

as far as a HOF case against McGwire, I find it hard to vote for someone who hit .201 as a 27-year old in his 6th pro season and .188 in 3 world series appearances. and yeah, he made the all-star game the year he hit .201, which tells you how much that acclaim should be valued.

it would be interesting to see how mcgwire's career would have unfolded without his unnatural bulk. I'm thinking he could have had a solid career along the lines of richie sexson...a nice slugger, but not someone you'd seriously consider for the HOF.

[Joe]

fuck big mac

[Anthony]

I have a major problem with making him the scapegoat for the steroid era. Hold him out a year or two, fine. But completely shutting him out of the HoF when god only knows how many other players from the '90s were using isn't right.


well, since he was given a great opportunity to at least engage in a discussion and dodged every chance to talk about his high suspect past then he deserves the HOF snub. anything he could have said would have been better than "i'm not here to talk about the past" over and over. all he needed to say, for my personal satisfaction, was "hey, we simply reached a point where science was vastly more advanced than the game could imagine. as you know, the game, in any era, has a history of players always looking for the next big thing to put them over the top, and i just think we got to a point where there were so many supplements and innovations available that it kind of blurred the line between giving a guy 'an edge' and blatant performance enhancement".

that's all. you acknowledge the fact that the game was in unchartered waters, acknowledged that the climate of the league was that with all these new designer supplements and chemicals - most of which weren't officially banned by the MLB - it was an "anything goes" kind of era, and that's it. you don't have to say yes or no, but at least acknowledge it. he dropped the ball when given the chance, and for that, he doesn't deserve the HOF.

[Atocep]

well, since he was given a great opportunity to at least engage in a discussion and dodged every chance to talk about his high suspect past then he deserves the HOF snub. anything he could have said would have been better than "i'm not here to talk about the past" over and over. all he needed to say, for my personal satisfaction, was "hey, we simply reached a point where science was vastly more advanced than the game could imagine. as you know, the game, in any era, has a history of players always looking for the next big thing to put them over the top, and i just think we got to a point where there were so many supplements and innovations available that it kind of blurred the line between giving a guy 'an edge' and blatant performance enhancement".

that's all. you acknowledge the fact that the game was in unchartered waters, acknowledged that the climate of the league was that with all these new designer supplements and chemicals - most of which weren't officially banned by the MLB - it was an "anything goes" kind of era, and that's it. you don't have to say yes or no, but at least acknowledge it. he dropped the ball when given the chance, and for that, he doesn't deserve the HOF.


The entire hearing was a joke. Schilling backed off all of his anti-steroid comments and was generally uncooperative, Sosa forgot how to speak english, Palmero lied, and Frank Thomas mailed in a taped statement. They managed to make Canseco look like the good guy there.

I fail to see what him admitting anything would have done. He answered the question without answering it. Is there any doubt now? You know he used, I know he used, everyone does. So does it really matter how he answered the question?

The last thing the baseball hall of fame needs is more bias and subjectivity. If the Hall of Fame wants to take a hard line stance on this issue then it throws everyone that played the bulk of their career in the '90s into question.

There's plenty of cheaters and liars in the hall of fame that played in all eras. Keeping McGwire out for steroid use or his comments at the hearing is making him a scapegoat so we can pat ourselves on the back and pretend like something was done for the good of the game or some other BS.

[clintl]

I don't know whether he'll get elected or not, but he was not a one-dimensional player. He was a very good defensive first baseman during his A's years, and he always had a great OBP, even in his years when his BA was lacking. The perception that he was stems solely from the fact that his skill as a slugger overshadowed the other things he was good at.

[Young Drachma]

I don't think he's a hall of famer. Take away his home runs and he's offering you nothing. Barry Bonds is far more complete a player and was for a longer period of time before any of this junk became a serious issue.

I don't think McGwire is a scapegoat, seems to me that he earned his title fair and square.

But that said? I voted an A though.

[clintl]

FWIW, I think McGwire is the hardest call of any of the players discussed so far. He played longer for the A's, but his best years were as a Cardinal.

[sterlingice]

as far as a HOF case against McGwire, I find it hard to vote for someone who hit .201 as a 27-year old in his 6th pro season and .188 in 3 world series appearances. and yeah, he made the all-star game the year he hit .201, which tells you how much that acclaim should be valued.

That's some stats cherry picking if ever there was any...

SI

[stevew]

He'll wear the ass-hat.

[sterlingice]

that's all. you acknowledge the fact that the game was in unchartered waters, acknowledged that the climate of the league was that with all these new designer supplements and chemicals - most of which weren't officially banned by the MLB - it was an "anything goes" kind of era, and that's it. you don't have to say yes or no, but at least acknowledge it. he dropped the ball when given the chance, and for that, he doesn't deserve the HOF.

I dunno. I disagree with this- I think if he said it, he would still be on the outside looking in. All the people saying "I'm not voting because he lied" would be saying "I'm not voting for him because he took steroids".

Sure, there's the sentiment that the public likes to forgive but that's with select samples. There are quite a few counters to that cliche and I think this would be one of them.

SI