Baseball HOF selections announced today.

[dirty dug 0]

I hear that McGwire had less than 25% of the vote.

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/news/200...ion/results.htm

[Odie 0]

 

baseball may have gotten something right

[Stumpnov 0]

Quite the opposite. One of the reasons that guys use steroids and HGH is that they allow for shorter recuperation times from injuries (large and small).

Right, there are many reasons they use them and one is to get bigger and stronger. A lot of his injuries were of the type associated with being overly strong for the frame and the greater weight and strength would aggravate the injury more then more steroids could help.

 

For the record I don't think he should be in based on my perception of him as a I player. I just really don't care for the augment as it makes a lot of assumptions that I don't see being entirely logical.

[Strike 5,565]

If I have a vote I vote for those I think are worthy. If I think you did steroids you don't get in. This isn't a court of law and I don't have to "prove" anything to exclude someone I think did something that hurt the game. If baseball doesn't like MY criteria they can decide not to allow me to vote next time, along with a bunch of others using similar criteria.

[Stumpnov 0]

If I have a vote I vote for those I think are worthy. If I think you did steroids you don't get in. This isn't a court of law and I don't have to "prove" anything to exclude someone I think did something that hurt the game. If baseball doesn't like MY criteria they can decide not to allow me to vote next time, along with a bunch of others using similar criteria.

Certainly. I would simply ask your criteria for your decision on whether or not a player used steroids and if you apply it equally.

[Strike 5,565]

Certainly. I would simply ask your criteria for your decision on whether or not a player used steroids and if you apply it equally.

 

I certainly would not apply it equally. I would judge each case on it's own merits. A lot of it would have to do with whether or not I felt the steroid use inflated a persons stats and if I felt that their steroid use was detrimental to the game. I don't think there's any doubt that the actions of Mcgwire, Sosa, Bonds, and some others have had a huge detrimental effect on the game. For that, much like Pete Rose, they need to pay a price. The fact that they are unrepentent for the harm they've done to the game just makes it even worse.

[Stumpnov 0]

I certainly would not apply it equally. I would judge each case on it's own merits. A lot of it would have to do with whether or not I felt the steroid use inflated a persons stats and if I felt that their steroid use was detrimental to the game. I don't think there's any doubt that the actions of Mcgwire, Sosa, Bonds, and some others have had a huge detrimental effect on the game. For that, much like Pete Rose, they need to pay a price. The fact that they are unrepentent for the harm they've done to the game just makes it even worse.

The McGwire - Sosa home run race was one of the things that rejuvenated the game after the strike. I have seen no evidence that they have had any detrimental effect. As far as I can tell most people don't really care.

[Snoopy1 0]

I certainly would not apply it equally. I would judge each case on it's own merits. A lot of it would have to do with whether or not I felt the steroid use inflated a persons stats and if I felt that their steroid use was detrimental to the game. I don't think there's any doubt that the actions of Mcgwire, Sosa, Bonds, and some others have had a huge detrimental effect on the game. For that, much like Pete Rose, they need to pay a price. The fact that they are unrepentent for the harm they've done to the game just makes it even worse.

 

 

I agree with Strike!!!

[dirty dug 0]

I certainly would not apply it equally. I would judge each case on it's own merits. A lot of it would have to do with whether or not I felt the steroid use inflated a persons stats and if I felt that their steroid use was detrimental to the game. I don't think there's any doubt that the actions of Mcgwire, Sosa, Bonds, and some others have had a huge detrimental effect on the game. For that, much like Pete Rose, they need to pay a price. The fact that they are unrepentent for the harm they've done to the game just makes it even worse.

 

Harm to the game? Are you serious? They (McGwire/Sosa) are forefront in why the game is actually as popular as it is right now. You can't be serious!

[Strike 5,565]

Harm to the game? Are you serious? They (McGwire/Sosa) are forefront in why the game is actually as popular as it is right now. You can't be serious!

 

That must be why baseball is the third most popular major sport in the U.S., out of three. Or is it fourth behind soccer?

[dirty dug 0]

That must be why baseball is the third most popular major sport in the U.S., out of three. Or is it fourth behind soccer?

 

Yeah, it's McGwire and Sosa and Bonds' fault. Couldn't be the strike, the ridiculous salaries, lack of fair playing field or the fact that it's easaily the most boring sport of the three. Nope, it's McGwire's fault.

 

Laughable. You need to go back to 1998 and look at what McGwire/Sosa did again and how the country received it. Revisionists.

[Stumpnov 0]

That must be why baseball is the third most popular major sport in the U.S., out of three. Or is it fourth behind soccer?

How are you measuring popularity? Do you dispute that the McGwire - Sosa HR race increased intrest in baseball?

[Strike 5,565]

How are you measuring popularity? Do you dispute that the McGwire - Sosa HR race increased intrest in baseball?

 

I have no doubt it increased the popularity of the game when they were battling for the home run record and stuff. Of course, at the time noone was worrying about whether they did steroids. Dirty Dug's assertion is that those players are responsible for the popularity of the game NOW. I submit that any benefit those players may have had for the game in the short run has been easily destroyed with the revelations and scandal related to steroids, with interest. Do you think Bonds still playing is actually beneficial for the game, knowing that he is or was juiced?

[Stumpnov 0]

I have no doubt it increased the popularity of the game when they were battling for the home run record and stuff. Of course, at the time noone was worrying about whether they did steroids. Dirty Dug's assertion is that those players are responsible for the popularity of the game NOW. I submit that any benefit those players may have had for the game in the short run has been easily destroyed with the revelations and scandal related to steroids, with interest. Do you think Bonds still playing is actually beneficial for the game, knowing that he is or was juiced?

How do you quantify this detriment, because I don't see it? Attendance? TV viewership? The fact that a bunch of people, bored at work, are discussing baseball during a slow off season?

 

As far as I can tell there is a vocal minority that is making a big deal over this. Most people don't really care and have agreed to scapegoat Bonds, Sosa and McGwire in order to get the minority to drop it.

 

So, is Bonds playing a benefit? Probably, it gets people talking about baseball and will help attendance as people show up to boo him and wave their syringe signs.

[NewbieJr 541]

Yeah, it's McGwire and Sosa and Bonds' fault. Couldn't be the strike, the ridiculous salaries, lack of fair playing field or the fact that it's easaily the most boring sport of the three. Nope, it's McGwire's fault.

 

Laughable. You need to go back to 1998 and look at what McGwire/Sosa did again and how the country received it. Revisionists.

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/3443/dy...picture2re2.jpg

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

How do you quantify this detriment, because I don't see it? Attendance? TV viewership? The fact that a bunch of people, bored at work, are discussing baseball during a slow off season?

 

As far as I can tell there is a vocal minority that is making a big deal over this. Most people don't really care and have agreed to scapegoat Bonds, Sosa and McGwire in order to get the minority to drop it.

 

So, is Bonds playing a benefit? Probably, it gets people talking about baseball and will help attendance as people show up to boo him and wave their syringe signs.

 

During that period, people were entertained and drawn by the long ball. Take a look at the commercials and the Home Run Derby at the All-Star Game. McGwire and Sosa were definitely a short-term draw. However, they went the way of the dot.com. A flash in the pan that was good for a short period of time, but exposed for the frauds that they are.

 

The long-term viability of baseball has nothing to do with guys who can hit it far. The game can sustain itself if it retains its purity. It does not need gimicks like puff-upped players, juiced balls, or aluminum bats.

[Stumpnov 0]

During that period, people were entertained and drawn by the long ball. Take a look at the commercials and the Home Run Derby at the All-Star Game. McGwire and Sosa were definitely a short-term draw. However, they went the way of the dot.com. A flash in the pan that was good for a short period of time, but exposed for the frauds that they are.

 

The long-term viability of baseball has nothing to do with guys who can hit it far. The game can sustain itself if it retains its purity. It does not need gimicks like puff-upped players, juiced balls, or aluminum bats.

The same can be said of the DH, expansion, lowering the mound, one inning closers, foreign players, the All Star game determining home field in the World Series, the 162 game schedule, the wild card and Interleague play. The steroid era was beneficial to MLB, the juiced era is acknowledged and will be judged as a separate era, just as other eras are when comparing across them. I am failing to see the detriment that steroids caused to a sport where cheating is part of it's legacy.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

The same can be said of the DH, expansion, lowering the mound, one inning closers, foreign players, the All Star game determining home field in the World Series, the 162 game schedule, the wild card and non standard playing fields. The steroid era was beneficial to MLB, the juiced era is acknowledged and will be judged as a separate era, just as other eras are when comparing across them. I am failing to see the detriment that steroids caused to a sport where cheating is part of it's legacy.

 

Ummm, not really. Apples and oranges. We are not talking about changing the game to address a need. We are talking about taking drugs to enhance your individual performance while endangering your life.

 

DH - still in place after 30+ years

expansion - ditto

lowering the mound - pushing 40 years

one inning closers - 20 years

foreign players - many years

All-Star game and home field - TBD, but that could easily be out the door soon

162 game schedule - 40+ years

Wild card - 20+ years

Non-standard playing field - since the beginning of the game. Have you not been paying attention?

 

Steroids and focus purely on the long ball - 5-6 years

Chewing tobacco - 100 years and gone

Amphetamines - 40+ years and gone

The spit-ball - unless your Gaylord Perry it is gone

[Stumpnov 0]

Ummm, not really. Apples and oranges. We are not talking about changing the game to address a need. We are talking about taking drugs to enhance your individual performance while endangering your life.

 

DH - still in place after 30+ years

expansion - ditto

lowering the mound - pushing 40 years

one inning closers - 20 years

foreign players - many years

All-Star game and home field - TBD, but that could easily be out the door soon

162 game schedule - 40+ years

Wild card - 20+ years

Non-standard playing field - since the beginning of the game. Have you not been paying attention?

 

Steroids and focus purely on the long ball - 5-6 years

Chewing tobacco - 100 years and gone

Amphetamines - 40+ years and gone

The spit-ball - unless your Gaylord Perry it is gone

Steroids addressed a need that baseball felt, it boosted excitement and brought fans back to the game after the disastrous 1994 strike. The fact that the era was shorter then others does not diminish the fact that it was a valid era that the fans enjoyed and was good for the game.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Steroids addressed a need that baseball felt, it boosted excitement and brought fans back to the game after the disastrous 1994 strike. The fact that the era was shorter then others does not diminish the fact that it was a valid era that the fans enjoyed and was good for the game.

 

You are mistaken and naive if you really think steroids brought fans back to the game. The fans came back after the strike because baseball has been ingrained in all of us since we were kids and our parents were kids and our grandparents were kids. Prior to McGwire and Sosa, there was the Ripken streak. Fans were already back by the time that McGwire and Sosa put on their show.

 

They don't call it the Great American Pastime because some guys broke Maris' record. It achieved that status because it is a game that can be appreciated by the entire family during the summer and has been a item to bridge the gap between generations.

 

The players are "larger than life", not because they are bulked up, but because of what our minds makes us think of them. The game was tarnished by steroids and you need no further proof of that by the fact that the MLBPA agreed to steroid testing and punishment. The MLBPA is the most selfish and strongest union in sports and even those dumbasses realized that steroids are not good for the image of the game or the health of their players.

[Stumpnov 0]

You are mistaken and naive if you really think steroids brought fans back to the game. The fans came back after the strike because baseball has been ingrained in all of us since we were kids and our parents were kids and our grandparents were kids. Prior to McGwire and Sosa, there was the Ripken streak. Fans were already back by the time that McGwire and Sosa put on their show.

 

They don't call it the Great American Pastime because some guys broke Maris' record. It achieved that status because it is a game that can be appreciated by the entire family during the summer and has been a item to bridge the gap between generations.

 

The players are "larger than life", not because they are bulked up, but because of what our minds makes us think of them. The game was tarnished by steroids and you need no further proof of that by the fact that the MLBPA agreed to steroid testing and punishment. The MLBPA is the most selfish and strongest union in sports and even those dumbasses realized that steroids are not good for the image of the game or the health of their players.

I fear that we may be talking past one another, my argument is simply that the steroid era was not to the detriment of MLB. I am not arguing that the era continue, I am not arguing the era be ignored. Baseball has a tarnished past, it has since 1918, it is part of the charm and legacy of the game. All I am asking is, if the steroid era was detrimental to MLB, how has this detriment manifested itself?

[onejayhawk 3]

jack morris. alan trammell.

 

the tigers get routinely focked over, too.

Why Trammell? Whitaker was the better player, and no one touts him.

 

J

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I fear that we may be talking past one another, my argument is simply that the steroid era was not to the detriment of MLB. I am not arguing that the era continue, I am not arguing the era be ignored. Baseball has a tarnished past, it has since 1918, it is part of the charm and legacy of the game. All I am asking is, if the steroid era was detrimental to MLB, how has this detriment manifested itself?

 

The fact that we are having this debate at all is an example of how steroids have been detrimental to the game. No one trusts the records or accomplishments of those who participated during that era. That seems like a very serious detriment if you asked me.

[Stumpnov 0]

The fact that we are having this debate at all is an example of how steroids have been detrimental to the game. No one trusts the records or accomplishments of those who participated during that era. That seems like a very serious detriment if you asked me.

Is it detrimental to the game that Greg Maddux and Cy Young are discussed in the context of their respective eras? Was the Astrix debate over Maris needing 162 games to hit 61 detrimental to the game?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Is it detrimental to the game that Greg Maddux and Cy Young are discussed in the context of their respective eras? Was the AStrix debate over Maris needing 162 games to hit 61 detrimental to the game?

 

You are completely missing important facts that separate these items from the McGwire debate.

- Maddux pitched against players of his era and is compared with players of his era. No one compares him with Cy Young's stats

- Maris needed 162 games to hit 61 and so did EVERYONE else that played during his era

- Mark McGwire took steroids and I can guarantee you that, while he was not the only one, NOT EVERYONE was taking steroids during his era

 

Do you think that Norm Cash should have an asterisk next to his name for batting in 1961? I do.

[Stumpnov 0]

You are completely missing important facts that separate these items from the McGwire debate.

- Maddux pitched against players of his era and is compared with players of his era. No one compares him with Cy Young's stats

- Maris needed 162 games to hit 61 and so did EVERYONE else that played during his era

- Mark McGwire took steroids and I can guarantee you that, while he was not the only one, NOT EVERYONE was taking steroids during his era

 

Do you think that Norm Cash should have an asterisk next to his name for batting in 1961? I do.

No, I have the point. There is an acknowledged steroid era, no one should compare McGwire to Babe Ruth anymore then anyone should compare Maddux and Young they played in different eras and should be compared to their peers in that era. Ruth, Young and Maddux stand out as great players. McGwire is simply good.

 

Was the Amphetamine era detrimental to the game or was everyone on them?

 

On what basis would you asterisk Norm Cash? If you have a reason to speculate that he was cheating could it apply to everyone playing after 1961?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

No, I have the point. There is an acknowledged steroid era, no one should compare McGwire to Babe Ruth anymore then anyone should compare Maddux and Young they played in different eras and should be compared to their peers in that era. Ruth, Young and Maddux stand out as great players. McGwire is simply good.

 

Was the Amphetamine era detrimental to the game or was everyone on them?

 

On what basis would you asterisk Norm Cash? If you have a reason to speculate that he was cheating could it apply to everyone playing after 1961?

 

Norm Cash was using a corked bat in 1961. His stats do have an asterisk even today. He was cheating.

 

McGwire's stats in his era (roids or not) are just above HOF worthy. If you add in the fact that he was aided by steroids, then he is not HOF worthy. I stated it earlier with numbers and I stand by it. He does not belong in the HOF right now.

 

Everything else is a strawman.

[Stumpnov 0]

Norm Cash was using a corked bat in 1961. His stats do have an asterisk even today. He was cheating.

 

McGwire's stats in his era (roids or not) are just above HOF worthy. If you add in the fact that he was aided by steroids, then he is not HOF worthy. I stated it earlier with numbers and I stand by it. He does not belong in the HOF right now.

 

Everything else is a strawman.

I never stated that I thought McGwire belonged in the hall. In fact, I stated the opposite. I guess that makes your statement a strawman. You are attempting to put an argument that I never stated into my mouth. My argument is that the steroid era was not detrimental to MLB, you have offered no evidence to refute this.

[Strike 5,565]

I never stated that I thought McGwire belonged in the hall. In fact, I stated the opposite. I guess that makes your statement a strawman. You are attempting to put an argument that I never stated into my mouth. My argument is that the steroid era was not detrimental to MLB, you have offered no evidence to refute this.

 

Yes he did. He offered that the fact that we even had to talk about it proves it was detrimental. Records are being broken by people we know cheated to break them. If you think that isn't detrimental let me offer you a personal perspective. I grew up in Los Angeles during the Tommy Lasorda era. You can believe I loved the Dodgers and baseball. I'll never forget Kirk Gibson's grand slam. Nowadays, I don't give a crap about baseball. Much of that (not all) has to do with the fact that the last 10 years of the game are worthless and irrelevant. I still love baseball live. It's one of the most enjoyable live sporting experiences there is IMO. I live in Denver now and will go to Rockies games for the environment and the fun. I won't support baseball in any other way. They've lost me until they prove to me that they care about the game and it's traditions. A good first step would be clearing all records of known steroid users from the books.

[Stumpnov 0]

Yes he did. He offered that the fact that we even had to talk about it proves it was detrimental. Records are being broken by people we know cheated to break them. If you think that isn't detrimental let me offer you a personal perspective. I grew up in Los Angeles during the Tommy Lasorda era. You can believe I loved the Dodgers and baseball. I'll never forget Kirk Gibson's grand slam. Nowadays, I don't give a crap about baseball. Much of that (not all) has to do with the fact that the last 10 years of the game are worthless and irrelevant. I still love baseball live. It's one of the most enjoyable live sporting experiences there is IMO. I live in Denver now and will go to Rockies games for the environment and the fun. I won't support baseball in any other way. They've lost me until they prove to me that they care about the game and it's traditions. A good first step would be clearing all records of known steroid users from the books.

You are both part of the vocal minority. There are proponents and opponents and people who don't care in every era. They debate the game and the effects of the change of an era but they still enjoy the game. You yourself just said you still attend games, America agrees with you, they still attend, they still watch on TV, however they feel about the era they still love baseball. Did Sosa and McGwire jade people and make them angry? No doubt. Did some people completely give up on baseball because of it? Doubtful. Did it interest and excite a new generation of fans? Most likely. All I am asking is that someone show me the net detriment that steroids did to baseball. As far as I can tell debate and the effect on the records follows the change of all eras in baseball and the steroid era is no different. It hasn't harmed attendance, viewership or revenue, so, the net "damage" seems to be how to compare people across eras. If you can show me a measurable manifestation of the detriment to baseball I will concede the point immediately. I just refuse to accept that, because some people don't like it, is a bad thing as that can be said of any change in baseball.

 

 

Clearing the records of known users is not a reasonable request, who or what defines known? McGwire, Sosa and Bonds are not known users, they are assumed users with amble evidence. Alex Sanchez, Juan Ricon, Derrick Turnbow and Palmerio are the known users, no one is suggesting they go in the hall.

 

Also, as someone who grew up a little north of the bay I also remember Gibson (assuming grand slam was a typo and you meant Eck)

[Strike 5,565]

You are both part of the vocal minority. There are proponents and opponents and people who don't care in every era. They debate the game and the effects of the change of an era but they still enjoy the game. You yourself just said you still attend games, America agrees with you, they still attend, they still watch on TV, however they feel about the era they still love baseball. Did Sosa and McGwire jade people and make them angry? No doubt. Did some people completely give up on baseball because of it? Doubtful. Did it interest and excite a new generation of fans? Most likely. All I am asking is that someone show me the net detriment that steroids did to baseball. As far as I can tell debate and the effect on the records follows the change of all eras in baseball and the steroid era is no different. It hasn't harmed attendance, viewership or revenue, so, the net "damage" seems to be how to compare people across eras. If you can show me a measurable manifestation of the detriment to baseball I will concede the point immediately. I just refuse to accept that, because some people don't like it, is a bad thing as that can be said of any change in baseball.

 

 

Clearing the records of known users is not a reasonable request, who or what defines known? McGwire, Sosa and Bonds are not known users, they are assumed users with amble evidence. Alex Sanchez, Juan Ricon, Derrick Turnbow and Palmerio are the known users, no one is suggesting they go in the hall.

 

Also, as someone who grew up a little north of the bay I also remember Gibson (assuming grand slam was a typo and you meant Eck)

 

You do realize that the population in this country has grown significantly in the last 20-30 years? Maintaining approximately the same attendance is a net loss. Also, many people consider Baseball the lesser of the three major sports in this country. That wasn't the case 30 years ago. Heck, before Magic/Bird the NBA couldn't even get the finals televised live.

[Stumpnov 0]

You do realize that the population in this country has grown significantly in the last 20-30 years? Maintaining approximately the same attendance is a net loss. Also, many people consider Baseball the lesser of the three major sports in this country. That wasn't the case 30 years ago. Heck, before Magic/Bird the NBA couldn't even get the finals televised live.

Clarify for me, are we framing the debate within the context of the steroid era or the last 30 years? Or do you consider the last 30 years the steroid era?

[Strike 5,565]

Clarify for me, are we framing the debate within the context of the steroid era or the last 30 years? Or do you consider the last 30 years the steroid era?

 

The point is that you're saying attendance isn't down and I'm saying you have no basis for that because the population keeps growing. That applies to 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, however you want to frame it. You keep saying we're in the "vocal minority" but you have no proof of that either. You could be the vocal minority. Apparently the "vocal minority" just decided with a 77% showing the McQwire doesn't deserve to be in the hall of fame. I think that speaks for itself.

[Odie 0]

Heres a question to ponder about the mindset of the current MLB player..

 

What is their main priotory while being a professional MLB Player? Is it ...

 

1) Make as much money as you

2) Win as many World Series as you can

3) Have a successful , hall of fame worthy career.

 

As long as baseball has a financial structure the way it does, players will always look for the ultimate edge. The new science is always 3 steps ahead of whatever testing is available. In 10 years now, the hall of fame will become crowded with questionable players, thus, taking away the luster of what is the hall of fame.

[Stumpnov 0]

The point is that you're saying attendance isn't down and I'm saying you have no basis for that because the population keeps growing. That applies to 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, however you want to frame it. You keep saying we're in the "vocal minority" but you have no proof of that either. You could be the vocal minority. Apparently the "vocal minority" just decided with a 77% showing the McQwire doesn't deserve to be in the hall of fame. I think that speaks for itself.

I have said all along, compared to his peers McGwire does not deserve to be let in, he was good, not great. The fact that 77% of his peers voted against him speaks to the fact that there is a steroid era and McGwire did not distinquish himself during it.

 

You stated that McGwire and Sosa's actions were to the detriment of MLB, all I have ever asked for is an example of how. You have shown nothing other then baseball talk is increased this off season.

 

You yourself say that baseball popularity has been declining for 30 years, yet you want to blame it on steroids. I simply acknowledge that there is no evidence that steroids have been bad for baseball and may have helped speed the recovery from the strike in '94.

[Strike 5,565]

I have said all along, compared to his peers McGwire does not deserve to be let in, he was good, not great. The fact that 77% of his peers voted against him speaks to the fact that there is a steroid era and McGwire did not distinquish himself during it.

 

You stated that McGwire and Sosa's actions were to the detriment of MLB, all I have ever asked for is an example of how. You have shown nothing other then baseball talk is increased this off season.

 

You yourself say that baseball popularity has been declining for 30 years, yet you want to blame it on steroids. I simply acknowledge that there is no evidence that steroids have been bad for baseball and may have helped speed the recovery from the strike in '94.

 

This is my last post about this and it will simply address the comment that talk is increased. Talk is not increased. The only reason this thread exists is because the HOF selections were announced today. Suggesting that the steroid use of baseball players somehow increases discussion of baseball in general is ludicrous.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I have said all along, compared to his peers McGwire does not deserve to be let in, he was good, not great. The fact that 77% of his peers voted against him speaks to the fact that there is a steroid era and McGwire did not distinquish himself during it.

 

You stated that McGwire and Sosa's actions were to the detriment of MLB, all I have ever asked for is an example of how. You have shown nothing other then baseball talk is increased this off season.

 

You yourself say that baseball popularity has been declining for 30 years, yet you want to blame it on steroids. I simply acknowledge that there is no evidence that steroids have been bad for baseball and may have helped speed the recovery from the strike in '94.

 

Wow, you don't get it do you?

 

77% of McGwire's peers did not vote against him. That was the press.

 

There is ample evidence against McGwire, Bonds, et al that they did roids.

 

There is ample evidence that steroids have been detrimental to MLB in the long term due to the fact that

1. the MLBPA agreed to testing and penalties

2. Congress got involved

3. The general population kept it on the front page of every paper. I think that you are of the mindset that any publicity is good publicity. You could not be further from the truth. Ask Enron.

4. Barry Bonds gets heckled on a daily basis

5. and, pay attention here, steroids are ILLEGAL. When I say that, I am not saying that they are illegal for players to use (i.e. cheating). I am saying that they are illegal for the players to possess and use and they should go to jail if they have them. If you think kids seeing guys making millions for using illegal drugs is not a detriment, then I am sure that you love the fact that NFL players are getting arrested on a regular basis and NBA players have a penchant for having guns with them on road trips.

[NewbieJr 541]

The 23% amount of votes for McGwire speaks volumes about the uphill battle the steroid-abusers will face to get into the Hall. This was the litmus test.

 

[paulinstl 296]

What criteria were the 8 writers who didn't vote for Ripken and the 13 who didn't vote for Gwynn using? Were they not voting for them because of a belief that no first ballot players should be elected?

 

The 23% amount of votes for McGwire speaks volumes about the uphill battle the steroid-abusers will face to get into the Hall. This was the litmus test.

 

 

Pure power hitters historically have had tough results in their first year of eligibility, but I agree that McGwire is paying the price for being the first of the suspected players to be eligible. I heard on writer who didn't vote for McGwyre say "My not voting for McGwyre is a statement to all players who abused steroids. Thye will not get in the HOF!" When told that McGwyre had never been proven to use any illegal substance, the writer repied "'So what?"

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

What criteria were the 8 writers who didn't vote for Ripken and the 13 who didn't vote for Gwynn using? Were they not voting for them because of a belief that no first ballot players should be elected?

 

Yup. Happens every year. They say that if Ruth, Williams, Cobb, Young, etc. did not get in via unanimous selections then, why should anyone.

 

I would be more p!ssed if I were a guy like Jim Bunning who originally did not get in because these guys turned in blank ballots, which brought his percentage to below 75%. If they had not turned in their ballot, he would have gotten in.

 

The "unanimous" selection thing is over-rated.