Will Mark McGwire make the HoF?

[K_Mac]

Just curious what you baseball guys think about his chances? He was a god here in St. Louis for a couple of years, but his unwillingness to say he had not used steroids was pretty much an admission of guilt, at least to most of the baseball world. Will he make it? Should he make it? I don't know. What do y'all think?

[Bass XL]

that is a tuff question

[Grey Wolf]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Valascus]

Nope. He will not make it. Let me quote Rule No. 5 on the HOF voting rules that must be considered by the voters.

"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

Mark McGwire's lack of integrity and character SHOULD be more than enough to keep him out of the hall. On that same token, Bonds, Sosa, Palmeiro, and any other "Hall Worthy" slugger sullied by the use of steroids should have absolutely NO CHANCE of getting in.

[Cajun1977]

no

[Got Bass?]

WHO??? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[5bass]

I like the guy and all but I say no.....if they keep McGwire out because of the steroid scandal,hopefully that will keep Bonds out too.

[nboucher]

I don't think there's an easy answer to this one. Think about it: given the prevelance of steriod usage during the 80s and 90s, where do you draw the line? Do you ban all hitters from that era from the Hall? What are the criteria? Named in Canseco's book? Convicted of violating steroid policy (and what was the policy back then?) or admitted usage? What about Clemens, Garciaparra, and other guys who suspiciously filled out during that era? If Palmiero used, he doesn't have a steroids build, so maybe that's not the telltale sign either.

My point is: if using performance-enhancing substances is grounds for being excluded from the Hall of Fame, who's in and who's out from that period?

[Daniel My Brother]

I agree with nboucher. There's no way of knowing how many players used steroids. I don't know how you can keep out every great player who was accused of using.

But even if Big Mac makes the Hall, it will be a hollow victory. He is no longer loved or even respected in St. Louis, and that's just unfortunate. We all have to live with the choices we make.

[Valascus]

It may not be an easy question to answer, but the fact of the matter is that these folks cheated. Plain and simple. They have used substances that are not only banned in MLB, but are ILLEGAL. There is no place for cheaters in the Hall Of Fame. How you determine who was using and who wans't...well that is a pretty hair can 'o' worms. I almost think you have to assume that most weren't using since there is no way to tell. Players who have been strongly believed in the public eye and have some credible evidence of usage of these substance, however, should not only be denied the Hall of Fame, but also prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Now random steroid testing can help keep those kind of players out of the Hall. The bigger problem is HgH. Aside from the huge increase in size, there is no way to even begin to figure out who is using or who to even suspect...yet. Players who are clean need to help rebuild the credibility of the game by volunteering to be tested more often to show the fans that a true effort is being made to clean up the game and that not every player should be placed under suspiscion of usage.

[nboucher]

HgH and greenies, as I believe one of the most popular substances is called. I agree that cheaters should be kept out of the Hall and that people who break the law should be prosecuted. The problem is that, aside from three or four players, we don't really know who these cheaters are. Sosa probably won't get in based on merit, and many of the cheaters just weren't good enough to be eligible, so we can rule them out.

And what about pitchers? Most of the expos és have focused on hitters, but supposedly performance-enhancing substances were as common among pitchers. Who are the cheaters there?

My knowledge about all this stuff is pretty thin. I should read more about it to really know what I'm talking about, but what about all those owners and the commissioner himself who looked the other way. If a crime was committed, aren't they responsible for covering it up? Aren't they accessories?

I think we can agree that this is a big mess, and baseball is not willing to really get to the bottom of it. Random drug testing will help, but look at the pressure it took to get Selig to agree to it, and look at the mild penalties he proposed until Congress really turned on the heat. Too many people made too much money from 70-home-run seasons.

[Guest the_muddy_man]

I bet he does and Rose doesnt and that STINKS' I dont buy the argument "well they were all doin it" my Mother had the best rebuttal for that argument " If they all said the were jumpin off the Brooklyn Bridge, would that make it OK for you to do it?' ;  What Bonds,Palmero,Clemens,McGuire and Sousa did is a lot worse than anything Gaylord Perry put on the ball

I believe not only should any of them go to the HOF but all tier records should be negated  AT THE MINIMUM AN ASTRIK LIKE MARIS HAD TO ENDURE

My humble.02

[K_Mac]

Thanks for the input guys. I still don't know how I would vote; there are compelling arguments on both sides. I don't get a vote so it doesn't matter much what I think. : Daniel I think you are right, either way it is an unfortunate situation.

[BD]

I think he'll make it.....whether or not that's right is another matter.

[senile1]

According to this article McGwire's election to the HoF isn't looking good.  

BASEBALL HALL OF FAME | Numbers low in poll of voters

Outlook dim for McGwire

For one glorious summer, Mark McGwire was bigger than baseball itself. America stopped to watch each time he came to the plate and cheered every time he sent a ball into orbit.

He could do no wrong, it seemed. Surely he would be a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame someday.

And then came that day on Capitol Hill. Over and over, he was asked about possible steroid use, and his reputation took hit after hit as he refused to answer, saying he wouldn't talk about his past.

Now, with Hall of Fame ballots in the mail, McGwire's path to baseball immortality may have hit a huge ro***.

The Associated Press surveyed about 20 percent of eligible voters, and only one in four who gave an opinion plan to vote for McGwire this year. That's far short of the 75 percent necessary to gain induction.

In fact, that total would put McGwire, for all his 583 career home runs, closer to the 5 percent needed just to stay on future ballots.

There is a clause on the ballot indicating that character should be considered, and after his nonperformance at the congressional hearings his character certainly comes into play, said the Dayton Daily News' Hal McCoy.

He doesn't want to talk about the past? Then I don't want to consider his past.

McGwire, Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn headline the ballot that was released Monday. Results will be announced in early January.

Mark fits the criteria, just like everyone else, Hall chairwoman Jane Forbes Clark said.

The ballot says a player's record of achievement, contributions to the teams, the game, their character, longevity and sportsmanship should be considered. I think this year's balloting will be interesting.

The AP contacted 125 of the approximately 575 present or former members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America who are eligible to cast ballots. Just 23 said they would vote for McGwire.

That means if all the undecideds and those refusing to say voted for McGwire, and everyone else voted, McGwire would need 84 percent of the rest to get into the Hall.

Big Mac voting

Results of a survey conducted by The Associated Press among eligible baseball Hall of Fame voters on whether they plan to vote for Mark McGwire on the upcoming ballot. Of the 125 voters contacted, 97 gave an opinion:

Yes: 23

No: 74

Undecided: 16

Not allowed to vote by their employers: 5

Won't say: 5

Won't vote: 2

[roadwarrior]

He may eventually make it into the Hall of Fame, but it won't be this year.

[Matt Fly]

Personally, I say no to all users period.

But in this great country, you are innocent till proven guilty, which few have been caught that are eligible for the HOF.

I watched baseball growing up and up into my late 20's.    I no longer care for the game because of the issues in the past.

They already have a job that most kids who plays any baseball would dream of having, and they sure make enough to support 20 families, and they wanted more.

I have been to numerous ball parks in my early years, and it cost enough just to get a decent seat with out the extras to begin with.

Baseball has been trying to bury this issue for years, they turned their backs on the issues with minimum testing that only identifies some of the banned substances.

If baseball wants any of my support back, do the right thing, test for everything, those tests aren't gonna break any players bank account or owners pockets either.

The bash brothers are guilty, and I have no proof of McGuire using anything that wasn't banned, his Creotine wasn't a banned substance at the time.

I'd say yes to all that haven't been found guilty on HOF balloting.    Only because of the principals of the judicial systyem.    Innocent till proven guilty.

Matt.

[Daniel My Brother]

The saddest part about this is McGwire's numbers were very good BEFORE he was suspected of using steroids. He set the rookie record for homers when he was just a skinny kid with Popeye forearms. He may have made the Hall legitimately without ever touching steroids, but we'll never know. The man cheated himself as bad as he cheated baseball.

[senile1]

The same can be said for Barry Bonds.  He had all of the tools just like Willie Mays:  power with the bat, hitting for average, speed on the base paths, a great glove, and a great arm.  But being a great all-around player wasn't enough.  Home runs garnered all of the attention and that's what Bonds wanted.  Thirty to forty home runs a year wasn't enough.  

[Hookem]

If I were voting....

Nyet!

[cart7t]

No here too.

I'm not sure how you can maintain the intergrity of the HOF if you allow inductees whose records have been tainted with performance enhancing drugs.  If you let them in, you completely skew the level of the bar that future inductees have to reach to get there without the aid of the same drugs.

McGuire had his opportunity to put that all to rest with the congressional hearings. He failed to do so, his inability to say NO is an indictment in my mind of his guilt.  No to the HOF for him.

[Guest avid]

This is America.

Innocent untill proven guilty.

To my knowledge it has never been proven that he juiced.

It infringes on the integrity of the HOF itself to rule him out based on suspicians regardless of how guilty he may appear.

Personally, I don't see how they can keep him out for too long if no "smoking gun" emerges during his period of eligibility.

[Guest the_muddy_man]

Hey Avid he has admitted to use certain " Enhancement cocktails" but he didnt know what was in them. Yea and I didnt know how those meatballs got from the pot to my hero on Sunday either

[Guest avid]

"Enhancement cocktail"

I like that

It sounds so much better than "I tied off my arm with a shoelace and mainlined"

So you bringing meatballs to the fork or you just gonna brag about 'em?    My sources tell me you make them from  

[srv1990]

He definitely won't get in on the first ballot, but I agree with some others, he will probably get in eventually. Like most of the players that many people strongly believe cheated, there isn't any concrete proof that I'm aware of, i.e. failed tests. Yet his "testimony" in front of Congress all but made it look like he was guilty without coming out and saying it.

As far as integrity of the player goes, if that criteria were taken seriously over the years there would probably be quite a few LESS players in the H o F. Many from older generations were heavy boozers, womanizers, and dirty players, to name a few less-than honorable traits. Sadly some of those vices were not really frowned upon back then.