Mark McGwire and Baseball Writers

by OKCardsfan on Dec 1, 2006 1:54 PM EST Comment 4 comments

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/brennan/2006-11-29-brennan-mcgwire-hall_x.htm

I came across this article in the USA Today recently. I really made me angry. It made me angry for two reasons. First reason was that Mark McGwire was a Cardinal and he broke Roger Maris' single season record for homeruns. I'm not mad that he did that. I'm upset because he "possibly" cheated. The second reason I'm upset is the baseball writer in this instance says they can make up for this by not voting him in to the Hall of Fame. That people who are good at formulating their thoughts into sentences, that are good at using words to create a picture, have a say in the induction of a person into the Hall of Fame. I personally think they should have no say in the matter but that is how it is right now.

My thoughts in this whole thing are muddied with "what-if's." Peter Gammons on ESPN said the "Steriod Era" in his mind lasted for 20 years.

How can you "make an example" out of a player that first of all you know he did andro only?

The problem with this is that for every argument, there is an equal argument against. (Ex. Mark McGwire did Andro which is a banned substance. Argument: It wasn't illegal in baseball then.) I have no idea if he should be a Hall of Famer. It would be hard to throw out 20 yrs of baseball and pretend like it never happend. But if they induct anybody in that era, then I think they would have to induct Mark McGwire.

0 recs | Comment 4 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Link is broken

Link should be:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/brennan/2006-11-29-brennan-mcgwire-hall_x.htm

Anyway, who cares what she thinks? She doesn't even get to vote, and is obviously cranky about that.

I despise Jim Caple, but I actually like his take on the issue:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=caple/offbase/061129

Basically, he says if you can't let players from the "steroids era" into the Hall "on principle", you can't let sportswriters who were writing at the time VOTE on the hall, "on principle", because they are hypocrites and sycophants for not taking MLB to task about the steroids issue when it was possible to do something about it.

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring." -Rogers Hornsby

by SleepyCA on Dec 1, 2006 2:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

hypocrites

That's what the voters will be if McGwire doesn't get in the HOF but Bonds does.

If Mac doesn't get in because of possible "steroid use" than Bonds certainly shouldn't.

by KYCards on Dec 1, 2006 9:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

As much as I enjoyed

watching McGwire play, he really is only marginally quailified to be in the Hall of Fame....sorry. I see him as one dimensional-just a home run hitter. Hitting lots of home runs is a great thing, a beautiful thing, and a helpful thing to your team, but I really don't think that feat alone qualifies you. Don't assume if he isn't voted in, its because of possible steroid use. There are legitimate reasons to say he just isn't quite Hall of Fame caliber.

by jillsinmo on Dec 2, 2006 12:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Agree with you

Plus I'm pretty sure Roger Maris isn't even in the HOF. So that record is not worthy of getting in on it's own. My problem is that sports reporters who some have never played the game get a vote about the matter. I'm not sure about McGwire, personally don't care. The point I was trying to make was about people who said Tigers in Three get to vote about it.

Here Comes the King! Here Comes the Big #1! Budweiser Beer the King is Second to None!

by OKCardsfan on Dec 2, 2006 3:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs