Big Mac's HOF chances

by BigdJC on Aug 2, 2006 12:04 PM EDT

Let me first go on record (once again) and state that Mark McGwire has always been my favorite player. It all started back when I was a LittleJ and I went to a game in Oakland and watched him hit a grand slam over the Center field wall. Being only 8 years old and watching that, I fell in love with him before I knew what women were.

Now on to current times. I don't know if anyone saw the Sunday conversation on SC last Sunday, but they interviewed a number of Baseball writers about Big Mac making into the Hall of Fame. If you ask me, this is a no-brainer. Not only did he hit 583 home runs, but he helped bring baseball back to what it is now thanks to that epic chase of Maris in '98. Yes, his "performance" on Capitol Hill was a joke, but McGwire played before the times that steroids was illegal in baseball. Also, there is no proof that he took steroids (besides andro, when MLB allowed to take andro). In my humble opinion, McGwire should be in the HOF. If you are going to hold out players who allegedly take steroids, you have to hold out Bonds, Sosa, and company. Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

What does Cardinal Nation think? Does McGwire belong in the Hall? Feel free to comment. Thanks!

Poll

If you were a Baseball writer, would you allow Mark McGwire into the Hall of Fame

Yes, first ballot.

29 votes

Yes, but not on the first ballot.

21 votes

No, not at all. He cheated. Keep him out.

12 votes

62 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 41 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

For what he did

For what he did in 98' should be enough. Him and Sosa brought people back to baseball. I quit watching baseball after the strike of 94. This is what brought people back to baseball.

by DimitroffVodka on Aug 2, 2006 12:46 PM EDT reply actions

I agree

'98 was amazing. I wasn't watching baseball a whole lot after the strike, but '98 got me hooked on it again. I agree that what he did in '98 should be enough...but something tells me that he may be left out, which would be a damn shame.

by BigdJC on Aug 2, 2006 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Mac belongs

in the HOF... but I don't think the writers will vote him in next year.

Is it possible that Mac used steroids during his career? Sure! It may even be likely... BUT the only known "performance enhancers" Mac used were andro and creatine. At the time, not only was andro not "banned by baseball"... it was readily available over the counter LEGALLY as a "food suuplement!" In 1998, ANYBODY could walk into their local GNC and buy andro! It wasn't until later that the feds restricted the sale of andro; just as no sports governing body had yet to put andro on the "ban" list as a "steroid precursor." As far as I know, creatine remains a legal food supplement... it's found in red meat. Saying Mac used anything else is just conjecture... we have no proof.

Another point that needs to be made is that baseball had no restrictions on "performance-enhancing" drugs during McGwire's career! I don't care if Mac had a nuclear reactor installed next to his heart... even if he did, he didn't break any of baseball's existing rules!!!!! Even IF Mac (or Sammy or anybody else) broke federal/state laws by illegally obtaining and using steroids, they are still entitled to the presumption of "innocent until proven guilty."

I remember the previous "drug scandal" in baseball... the 1980's trials of cocaine-using ballplayers in Pittsburgh. A quick check of the Hall of Fame Players Roster shows no players from that trial in the Hall. Is that because the writers "boycotted" those players... or is it because their on-field performances weren't good enough for entrance into the Hall? The Hall has alcoholics on the roster (Pete Alexander, Ed Delahanty, the recovering Dennis Eckersley, Jimmie Foxx, Mickey Mantle, and Hack Wilson.)

If there's a "morals clause" for entrance into the HOF, it's pretty elastic... Cap Anson was largely responsible for the despicable "color bar" that kept African-Americans (and dark-complected Hispanics) out of MLB until 1947 and Jackie Robinson. Ty Cobb was a vicious racist with a violent temper that led him into what would today be considered criminal assualt. Poor Orlando Cepeda was convicted of a minor drug charge... yet he is in his rightful place in the Hall. Hell, Gaylord Perry admiited he threw an illegal pitch (the spitter!) most of his career... and he's in the Hall!

Big Mac was a big bopper from the start of his career... remember, he hit 49 home runs his rookie season to win the AL's Rookie of the Year award. Here's what he looked like hitting his first grand slam with the A's in 1988:

Did Big Mac get bigger throughout his career? Sure... but so do most players. McGwire was also well-known for his work in the weight room... trying to make himself bigger and stronger. But he had tree-trunk arms even as a rook!

In my opinion, keeping McGwire out of the Hall of Fame because of suspected steroid use is utter hypocrisy. Have we all forgotten this?

The "Maris Chase" brought fans back to the ballparks after the disastrous strike of 1994. Baseball became fun again... it became acceptable to talk about baseball again. Since 1998, crowds are up (to record levels), income is up, and the game is in better economic shape than ever before. MLB owes a lot of that to McGwire and Sosa. They don't owe a thing to Jose Canseco, Barry Bonds, Raffy Palmeiro, or Jason Giambi... because the "rebirth" of the game's popularity was NOT a result of anything those players did.

For the sake of the argument, let's assume both McGwire and Sosa were "juicing." SO WHAT?! Do we know how many pitchers were "juicing" in 1998? No, we don't. The Babe never had to face black pitchers, or split-fingered fastball relief specialists, or cross-country travel. Roger Maris got to face "expansion" pitchers in 1961. Every are is different. Is McGwire a Hall of Famer, compared to the other players of his era? There's no doubt in my mind.

But I think the writers will make an example of Mac... even though some of them probably had their suspicions in 1998, and said bupkis at the time.

"A man should live forever, or die trying." -- Mike Callahan

by The Ol Goaler on Aug 2, 2006 1:45 PM EDT reply actions

Good Post

I think the most frustrating thing about Mac's hall of fame bid is the fact that many writers will try and "stand on principle."

I'm all for having principles, but let's have principles that mean something, and lets apply them consistently. (as you point out, there are lots of unscrupulous ball players in the hall)

by Ray Lankford on Aug 2, 2006 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions

I almost guarantee

that the sportswriters are going to wait till second or third ballot for him--a very easy decision to make, considering that they have Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn to vote for this time around. Some will use the example argument, and others will use the argument that he shouldn't be allowed entry alongside those two guys

by Valatan on Aug 2, 2006 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions

Thanks Ol Goaler

For your thoughts. I agree with you 100%. Baseball is what it is today because of Mac and Sammy. One thing, though, wasn't andro banned from other sports like Hockey and football? I thought it was.

Most players in the hall have their faults, you are right, but we cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that McGwire, Sosa, etc have ever taken steroids. You can argue successfully that McGwire did get bigger throughout his career, but I am not sure it had an effect on his home run numbers. As you stated, he hit 49 home runs in his rookie year. After '98 when he hit 70, he hit 65, and this was when he was supposedly stopped taking andro. In my opinion, McGwire was the most dominant player in his time, and I just cannot fathom him being left out of the Hall. But, like I said earlier, and like you said, the baseball writers could easily make an example of him. My argument for that is if you do that to McGwire, you must do it to Bonds.

by BigdJC on Aug 2, 2006 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions

The Hall

If McGwire took steroids, that's one thing. But as far as I know, he hasn't. His congressional testimony doesn't change the fact that he never tested positive. Do I think he took them? Yes. Should he be kept out of the hall because people think he took them? No, not without more.

Bonds, however, is a different situation. On the one hand, Bonds has an impressive career, but on the other, Bonds has been the subject of ongoing investigation, and many people closely associated with him are being indicted. It's hard to imagine his trainers and athletic supply company being indicted without there being a link to him.

Bottom line: his congressional testimony shouldn't keep him out of the hall without more. If it does, then Bonds, Palmerio, Giambi (who admitted steroid use), and any other player thrown into the rumor mill should rest assured they will not get in either.

by Ray Lankford on Aug 2, 2006 1:52 PM EDT reply actions

Agreed

I personally think he took them, but he hasn't been proven guilty...so he deserves the presumption of innocence.

I don't know how good of a player he was other than the homeruns. Not a great defensive player - I'm not sure he was considered a dominant hitter of his era. He hit an insane amount of homeruns for one season. 500 homeruns is not the landmark it once was. There are many, many current players that will reach the plateau. Arod might reach it next year, as a 31 year old. I'm not sure he's a hall of famer in my book. If you want to put in a one dimensional player - then McGwire was great at that one dimension...maybe he deserves to be in just for that, I don't know.

by Toddius396 on Aug 2, 2006 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions

So long as he keeps up his current production

for a few more years, there is no doubt that a-rod is a HOFer--his numbers are just to absurdly good to doubt it--you said it yourself, he could be at 500 HR by 31--he could make a run at Aaron, and he's a shortstop/3B.

by Valatan on Aug 3, 2006 8:03 AM EDT up reply actions

I'm torn

But if I had to decide, I would say no. But not because I don't want him there, I would love for him to get in, but to keep the Canseco's Bonds's, Sosa's, and Palmerio's out. KEEP THE HALL CLEAN!!!!

R.I.P. Chris Collins

by viva el rojo pajaro 42 on Aug 2, 2006 3:07 PM EDT reply actions

I agree!

Someone needs to get Gaylord Perry out of the hall as soon as possible!

by DanUpBaby on Aug 2, 2006 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions

but the difference with

Palmero and Bonds is that they are suspected of taking roids AFTER they were made illegal.

I also have a hard time believing that Big Mac would take anything illegal along with the THEN LEAGAL andro. If your taking a suppliment that is obviously working, then why would you take something thats illegal along with it?

~Fox~

by pujols5 on Aug 2, 2006 3:18 PM EDT reply actions

Good Point

"I also have a hard time believing that Big Mac would take anything illegal along with the THEN LEAGAL andro. If your taking a suppliment that is obviously working, then why would you take something thats illegal along with it? "

That actually is really a good point. Thier is no point what so ever to take Andro and Steroids at the same time. Since Andro is just a crappy version of Steroids.

If Mark was so into bodybuilding then he would know that.

by DimitroffVodka on Aug 2, 2006 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions

another opinion

if what mcgwire did --- whatever it was --- wasn't wrong, then why is he ashamed to talk about it? doesn't matter to me whether or not he goes into the hall. as long as he tries to hide from the truth, he's no hero to me.

by lboros on Aug 2, 2006 3:30 PM EDT reply actions

the press

lets say that Mark, at the congressional hearing, said something to the like: "i do anmit to using andro, but i'll also say that it's perfectly leagal and aproved by the baseball comission." thats all the media, and the baseball public needs to hear to say that he's guily: "he said it, he said he's using andro." they don't want to hear the seccond part, they just need something to twist into some jucy, something that they can twist into a consperiousy, something that would sell.

why the hell would Mac want to open this up for disscusion? it would be suicide.

~Fox~

by pujols5 on Aug 2, 2006 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions

he'd be hailed as a hero

if he spoke honestly to the fans instead of insulting their intelligence the way selig and fehr and sosa and palmeiro and the rest of the game has done. here's what he'd say: "i took PEDs because there were a million incentives to do so, and no deterrents. the way the game was being run back then, PED use was tacitly encouraged. the long HRs and gaudy HR totals were selling tickets, and so the whole industry --- from the commissioner's office to the owners to the TV networks and the print media --- catered to that demand. the fans wanted to see it; the industry wanted to profit from it; so we gave it to you." it would take courage --- the courage to speak the truth. "Big" Mac could truly live up to his nickname if he'd show that courage.

by lboros on Aug 2, 2006 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions

Big Mac

Courage? Yes. Stupidity and Craziness? He'd need those too.

by lopey986 on Aug 2, 2006 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions

why stupid and crazy?

if the argument is that he would go to jail, i think not. if no prosecutor has gone after jose canseco, who is a) broke, and b) unsympathetic, then whose going to go after mcgwire, who has the $$$$ to win the case and who --- in the wake of his courageous stand --- would be a universally lauded figure?

by lboros on Aug 2, 2006 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions

what you said is

completely wrong. there's a huge difference in taking andro - which is legal (or at least it was legal when mcgwire said he took it, Im not sure if it still is) and which mcgwire has admitted to taking - and taking steroids, which has always been illegal.

so the only way mcgwire could be hurt by saying, "I took andro, and thats it" was if the media says, "well if hes willing to take andro, hes willing to take steroids." and that is a terrible argument and one the media actively pursue.

much better evidence for proving mcgwire juiced up is his refusal to deny taking steroids, because he has nothing to lose by saying "I never took steroids" if he never did.

by PGeorge @ Viva El Birdos on Aug 2, 2006 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions

insert

"and one the media ^wouldnt^ actively pursue

by PGeorge @ Viva El Birdos on Aug 2, 2006 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions

Hall of Fame

If Lawrence "Crackhead, Prostitute Havin'" Taylor can be in the NFL Hall, why the hell would Big Mac be kept out. I'm sick of Sports Writers and their "principles". All these guys were more than likely fellating Mac and Sosa every article back in 98 and many saw and noted multiple times the bottle of Andro sittin' in Mac's locker at all times and no one had a problem with it then. Sports Writers make me sick when they just go along with popular opinion and don't have the balls to think for themselves.

Anyway, the MLB Hall of Fame is a frickin' joke until the day Pete Rose is inducted, I don't care if he is the biggest degenerate gambler of all time...the man is the all time hits record holder.

by lopey986 on Aug 2, 2006 3:34 PM EDT reply actions

then you must

feel that barry bonds' records should stand unchallenged too --- yes?

by lboros on Aug 2, 2006 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions

Sorry

But until there is a positive drug test...yes I do. You know somethin', he was a Hall of Famer before he hit the 70 homers.

by lopey986 on Aug 2, 2006 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions

fair enough

i have no problem with that --- as long as you apply the same standards across the board i'll accept the argument. i may not agree w it, but there's a fair case for it.

by lboros on Aug 2, 2006 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions

Why wait for a positive?

Dude, Bonds admitted to a grand jury that he took steroids. What more proof do you need?

The 26th Man

by 26thMan on Aug 4, 2006 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions

I have to agree

on Pete Rose. From what I understand, gambling is an addiction, similar to drug addiction. I never thought it was fair that Daryl Strawberry was given opportunity after opportunity to clean up and come back from his drug addiction, while Rose was given a lifetime ban from baseball due to his addiction.

I know Rose bet on baseball, but unless you can show me that Rose was throwing games, I think he should be in...

"I grew up in Oklahoma, and once you start runnin' out there there ain't nothin' to stop you" - Johnny Leonard Roosevelt "Pepper" Martin

by iron duke75 on Aug 2, 2006 8:21 PM EDT up reply actions

Betting on baseball

is the No. 1, inviolable rule of baseball. It is posted in every MLB clubhouse. The man walked by the sign every single day and ignored it.

Rose's denial for years that he bet on baseball is the equivalent of McGwire whining that he's not a history professor.

Screw 'em both. Keep 'em out.

The 26th Man

by 26thMan on Aug 4, 2006 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions

There's a MAJOR difference

in the Pro Football HOF and the Baseball HOF... according to SI writer Peter King, a football HOF voter, off-field character issues are not to be considered in their HOF votes... only the player's performance on the field is at issue.

Football's HOF selection process is also different... a much smaller number of voters meet, and winnow down their list of eligibles in what amounts to an extended committee hearing. Baseball HOF voters vote for 10 (or fewer) eligibles, with a 75% requirement for election. Dunno which method is "fairer," but you really can't compare one to the other.

"A man should live forever, or die trying." -- Mike Callahan

by The Ol Goaler on Aug 3, 2006 8:53 AM EDT up reply actions

I agree with the whole drug thing too

I mean if this is just about the illegal drugs than I bet a vast majority of the pitchers smoke weed. Don't you guys remember when they found a sack with DK's body?

As a person that works out extremly hard I can tell you that smoking a joint after a long workout is one of the most relaxing things ever. I have also personally taken Andro before also.

by DimitroffVodka on Aug 2, 2006 5:41 PM EDT reply actions

it's not about using drugs

off the field; it's about cheating on the field. a guy who achieved greatness by cheating has a dubious claim on Hall of Fame enshrinement.

but i think the situation is so complex, and so many people were complicit in the cheating --- including fans gms managers broadcasters etc, all the way to the commissioner --- that i give brownie points to the first player who is willing to speak openly and honestly about what happened. the cheating didn't occur in a vacuum; we all have something to answer for, even the fans.

by lboros on Aug 2, 2006 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions

so you should

give brownie points to ken caminiti (sp?) and jose conseco, not mcgwire. his admitting steroid usage wouldn't give us any additional knowledge

by PGeorge @ Viva El Birdos on Aug 2, 2006 6:51 PM EDT up reply actions

i do give credit

to caminiti --- who, by the way, was never hounded by prosecutors. and canseco may be a liar and a loser, but he's basically telling the truth about steroids. he's no hall of famer in any case, so that's a moot point . . . .

but we're in the post-congressional-hearing era now; there's a new level of scrutiny and a new attitude about the seriousness of these things. caminiti's confessions were the tip of the iceberg; we need someone of stature to hoist that baby out of the water.

by lboros on Aug 2, 2006 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't see

what mcgwire can add to the steroid issue by coming out and admitting he took steroids. don't get me wrong, as a cardinal / mcgwire fan, I wish he'd come clean just so he wouldn't look like such a pathetic coward saying "im not here to talk about the past etc" but I only wish that bc I used to really like mcgwire as a baseball player. I dont think him admitting to using steroids will help clean up the game, or do anything to improve the overall steroid mess.

by PGeorge @ Viva El Birdos on Aug 2, 2006 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions

somebody of stature

has to come out and say: "this was wrong. i was part of it, i profited from it --- and it was wrong. i was wrong to take PEDs; the industry was wrong to tacitly accept, even promote, the widespread use of them."

until that happens, and people take responsibility for what happened . . . . it'll be an ongoing black eye for all involved.

by lboros on Aug 3, 2006 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions

I could see

I could see a lag in 2nd half performance because some many players used Amphetamines just to get by. Which they are now illegal?

How is using Amphetamines any different than Steroids?

Where do you draw the line between what keeps you out and what keeps you in?

by DimitroffVodka on Aug 2, 2006 6:36 PM EDT reply actions

that's a very challenging question

one distinction betw steroids and greenies is that greenies apparently did not have a profound effect on performance. guys on greenies did not turn the record book into a farce; guys on steroids did.

the inference i would draw --- and i'm no expert on the effects of these things --- is that greenies' effect is primarily compensatory: they ward off fatigue and let players play at their peak level of performance, but they don't elevate them above that peak. whereas steroids drive guys above their natural peak talent level; they alter physiology and exaggerate muscle mass, creating an unnatural advantage and leading to the freakish home-run totals we saw in the 1990s and 2000s.

by lboros on Aug 2, 2006 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions

I personally take

I understand what you are saying about greenies. Just that you don't play past your peak level but they do raise your ability past what it should be. Your body should be more fatigued and not be able to play at the peak level.

I still take Edphedra every day and it is the most imporant part of my workout routine. Just like you said it helps me stay near my peak level when I should be dropping off from fatigue.

by DimitroffVodka on Aug 2, 2006 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions

My view...

Who decides which players get on the ballot? It is my understanding that MLB decides that. Correct? If so, then I believe that a player that Major League Baseball has deemed worthy of consideration for the HOF should be judged by the writers according to their play on the baseball diamond.

If MLB has the desire to weed out 'cheaters', then they need to develop a system (some sort of trial?) to designate players that are guilty of 'behavior unbecoming a HOF candidate'.
Seeing that this has not happened and that MLB has taken NO steps against those accused of steroid abuse, I believe that McGwire should be judged according to his play only. And in that case, he is a hands down 1st ballot Hall-of-Famer.

We are talking about a guy that could arguably be the 1st or 2nd greatest right-handed slugger in the history of the game. His OPS+ ranks behind only Rogers Hornsby (another Cardinal) among retired right-handed players. In that same stat, he ranks above Musial, Aaron, Mays, Robinson, Dimaggio, Wagner, and a whole boat-load of other legendary players.

PS. there is one other right-hander that ranks above him in career OPS+, but he is not retired: Albert Pujos, another Cardinal.
It's strange that the top 3 right-handed sluggers in the history of baseball were all Cards.

by TaiwanGuy on Aug 3, 2006 1:30 AM EDT reply actions

I can't believe...

I wrote 'Pujos'. Umm..i meant 'Pujols.'

by TaiwanGuy on Aug 3, 2006 1:32 AM EDT up reply actions

that is

weird about the ops. I never would have guessed it.

And Im guessing Bonds and Ruth are at the top of the OPS list...

by PGeorge @ Viva El Birdos on Aug 3, 2006 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm torn on the guy

The problem is that every player that comes up is going to have a varying level of 'steroid-trustworthiness.' Especially for these guys, unless they admit using them, it's virtually impossible to prove that they did use performance enhancers. But at the same time, I can hardly justify putting in guys who almost certainly used them, while we leave out clean players that are manifestly deserving of getting into the hall, because their HR totals or whatever all of a sudden look inadequate.

As a disclaimer, I was alowas somewhat ambivalent about the guy. I was a loud advocate for trading him for pitching right after 1998--he would have been able to bring a pedro martinez/randy johnson type then (I realize now he almost certainly had a no-trade, but I didn't think about things like that in 1998). I just had a sense that the "mark mcgwire show" was a bigger deal than those cardinal teams, which didn't really hit their stride until he got hamstrung by injuries

by Valatan on Aug 3, 2006 8:18 AM EDT reply actions