McGwire and the HOF

[cmaff05]

I agree, except I think it'll be the other way around. Bonds is much more hated than McGwire, and might have more voters reluctant to write him down, at least the first time, but Big Mac will already be in by the time Bonds is eligible (I agree with those who think he'll be 2nd or 3rd ballot. Personally I think he'll make it easily on the 2nd), and that will make it impossible for Bonds to be kept out for more than one ballot.

IMO if Bonds doesn't go on the first ballot it's a travesty.

[wexy]

In the future when scientists discover that steroids are actually good for you

[LuckyLopez]

If Bonds goes in, I don't see how they can keep McGwire out...or Sosa, or Palmeiro.

Bonds was better though. The common thought is also that he started using steroids only late his career after he had already put up HoF caliber numbers. Its easier to dismiss those other three because their cases aren't as strong. Although Palmeiro's 500/3000 case is pretty good as is McGwire's. Its easier to look past the wrongs if the accomplishments are greater. And if you think the stats are split and Bonds is in before the steroids.

It depends on whether its just a question of "cheaters shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame" or if its about voters trying to figure out what numbers are real and what are artificially enhanced.

[yanksphan]

Is it? By protecting his rights to not testify under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, who knows who he was really protecting? Maybe he had knowledge of some illegal activity, and could have compromised someone's position. Just because someone used their Fifth Amendment rights, doesn't necessarily make them guilty.

To date, there is still no proof. The more points that are brought up, the more you are proving my point. Personally, do I think he took steroids? Yes. Do I believe they are/were running rampant over the last 15 years? Yes. So, if during the "Steroid Era" they were prevailant, and as many pitchers as hitters were taking them, why the witchhunt on a few people?

Case closed. Great post Reggie Smith.

[JL25and3]

Even if we assume that McGwire was using steroids, the uncomfortable fact is that they weren't against the rules at the time. Illegal, yes; cheating, unfortunately, no. The powers that be in baseball obviously knew that such things were going on at the time, but they turned a blind eye to steroid use - implicitly sanctioned it, I believe - because McGwire and Sosa were "saving the game" (ie making tons of money for both owners and players). Now MLB is shocked, shocked! at the idea that steroids were being used, and they're hanging McGwire out to dry. I think it stinks.

And I would have a real problem withholding my vote from a guy because he was doing something that wasn't against the rules.

[Reggie Smith]

Bring down the big witch?

Well, she did turn me into a newt. But, it got better.

[Reggie Smith]

That seems to be the way it works....let the guy twist in the wind for awhile to somehow make-up for whatever wrongs that were committed (proven or alledged).

If Bonds goes in, I don't see how they can keep McGwire out...or Sosa, or Palmeiro.

Palmeiro tested positive for a banned substance, so that's a different can of worms. I agree with Bonds and Sosa, personal opinions aside.

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

IMO if Bonds doesn't go on the first ballot it's a travesty.

I think there's a good chance he will. But I also think there's a decent chance enough guys will hold their votes on the first ballot so he won't.

[Reggie Smith]

If they send a message and don't elect him on the first ballot, I wouldn't have a problem with that. It's semmantics, but I do feel he deserves to be put in.

The history of the HoF voting is filled with weird votes. I don't recall the exact numbers, but the first elected class didn't all go in unanimously. I think Yaz got more % votes than Babe Ruth......

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

The history of the HoF voting is filled with weird votes. I don't recall the exact numbers, but the first elected class didn't all go in unanimously. I think Yaz got more % votes than Babe Ruth......

Not quite, but close. Ruth got 95.1%, Yaz got 94.6%. Both were second in their voting year, Ruth behind Cobb (98%), and Yaz behind Johnny Bench (96%). Being the first year, Ruth was obviously in a much better class, with Honus Wagner (same % as Ruth) Christy Mathewson, and Walter Johnson all going in, the biggest voted class ever. (To give you an idea of how good a class it was, Gehrig was named on only 22% of the ballots). Yaz and Bench were the only two elected in their class.

[Reggie Smith]

Not quite, but close. Ruth got 95.1%, Yaz got 94.6%. Both were second in their voting year, Ruth behind Cobb (98%), and Yaz behind Johnny Bench (96%). Being the first year, Ruth was obviously in a much better class, with Honus Wagner (same % as Ruth) Christy Mathewson, and Walter Johnson all going in, the biggest voted class ever. (To give you an idea of how good a class it was, Gehrig was named on only 22% of the ballots). Yaz and Bench were the only two elected in their class.

Thanks for clarifying. I was lazy and didn't research it, but I knew there was some suprising numbers in there.

Think about it, though. 4.9% of the voters thought the Babe didn't deserve it....Must've been those rumors of all the hot dogs and whether they enhanced his performance

[sweet_lou_14]

To give you an idea of how good a class it was, Gehrig was named on only 22% of the ballots

Given that the vote was in 1936 and he was still an active player, what's most surprising is that he was on any ballots at all!

[Mr. Mxylsplk]

Given that the vote was in 1936 and he was still an active player, what's most surprising is that he was on any ballots at all!

I hadn't even that caught that, good point. There were several other active guys on that ballot - wierd. None who were elected though.

[hobokenfish]

Is it? By protecting his rights to not testify under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, who knows who he was really protecting? Maybe he had knowledge of some illegal activity, and could have compromised someone's position. Just because someone used their Fifth Amendment rights, doesn't necessarily make them guilty.

The Fifth Amendment doesn't give anyone the right to protect others. It is the right to not incriminate yourself. It states that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." This is why Bonds's trainer went to jail -- because he refused to testify against his friend (not himself). Although the fact that McGwire did not testify does not "necessarily" mean he's guilty, one can draw his own conclusion.

If I'm a voter, I vote no. And not just on the first ballot.

[Reggie Smith]

True, it protects against self-discrimination. However, items he said could have put others in danger as well. As long as the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defendant, as is stipulated in the Constitution, you cannot convict on heresay evidence. If Mark McGwire was brought to trial on any of the charges he has supposedly committed, it would be thrown out within minutes. I will still maintain that how anyone can commit someone based on Jose Canseco's word is perposterous.

[yanksphan]

True, it protects against self-discrimination. However, items he said could have put others in danger as well. As long as the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defendant, as is stipulated in the Constitution, you cannot convict on heresay evidence. If Mark McGwire was brought to trial on any of the charges he has supposedly committed, it would be thrown out within minutes. I will still maintain that how anyone can commit someone based on Jose Canseco's word is perposterous.

I believe that's self INcrimination.

I don't think there's any laws against self-discrimination.

[hobokenfish]

True, it protects against self-discrimination. However, items he said could have put others in danger as well. As long as the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defendant, as is stipulated in the Constitution, you cannot convict on heresay evidence. If Mark McGwire was brought to trial on any of the charges he has supposedly committed, it would be thrown out within minutes. I will still maintain that how anyone can commit someone based on Jose Canseco's word is perposterous.

But we're not talking about bringing criminal charges against him (and I will assume the term "self-discrimination" is a typo). We're not talking about the burden of proof either. We're talking about electing him to the Baseball Hall of Fame. If he was clean, he could have just said that he never took steroids. But he didn't. Nobody is saying he should go to jail. He just shouldn't go to the Hall of Fame.

[JL25and3]

But we're not talking about bringing criminal charges against him (and I will assume the term "self-discrimination" is a typo). We're not talking about the burden of proof either. We're talking about electing him to the Baseball Hall of Fame. If he was clean, he could have just said that he never took steroids. But he didn't. Nobody is saying he should go to jail. He just shouldn't go to the Hall of Fame.

On the other hand, the only real issue is whether he broke the law. He certainly didn't break the rules of baseball, because there were no rules regarding steroids at the time.

[Reggie Smith]

I believe that's self INcrimination.

I don't think there's any laws against self-discrimination.

Duh. A bit hungover...................

[hobokenfish]

On the other hand, the only real issue is whether he broke the law. He certainly didn't break the rules of baseball, because there were no rules regarding steroids at the time.

First, I believe there actually was an MLB rule regarding steroids at the time. Second, why is the only real issue whether he broke the law? To me, the real issue is whether his numbers were artificially inflated due to the use of performance enhancing drugs. Prior to his home run binge in the mid-to-late '90s, McGwire was a broken down player. Sure, he hit 49 homers in his rookie year, but by 1994 -- at age 30 -- he was broken down and had all sorts of physical problems. In 1996, at age 32, he became superhuman. And from what we know about that era, is it just a coincidence?

When I put the whole puzzle together -- including his Congressional testimony and admitted use of Andro -- I have to conclude that he doesn't deserve to be in the Hall.

[Reggie Smith]

If pitchers were on steroids, and the batters were on steroids, what advantage did he have. Seems to me more pitchers have been caught than hitters.

If everyone was on steroids, then are you going to keep them all out? Or, are we to say "He looks bigger" so he's out? Yes, baseball had a rule implemented in 1991(?) that steroids were illegal. Since there was no way to test for it, it was a moot point. Instead, you have hearsay evidence from a fraud that he took them. No proof.

The reason why it's look at from a legal perspective is if you are going to keep someone from an honor, I think you should have a reason for it. And, you should have some proof to back it up. This smacks of McCarthyism, and I hoped in this day in age we had gone past this type of witchhunt. Apparently not. It sounds like "Muscular Profiling".

[hobokenfish]

The reason why it's look at from a legal perspective is if you are going to keep someone from an honor, I think you should have a reason for it. And, you should have some proof to back it up. This smacks of McCarthyism, and I hoped in this day in age we had gone past this type of witchhunt. Apparently not. It sounds like "Muscular Profiling".

You must be joking. McCarthyism??

How much more proof do you really need that McGwire was on the juice? Reminds me of the Dave Chapelle skit when he is being interviewed as a potential juror for the OJ trial and the R. Kelly trial. Good times.

And I don't look at it as "keeping someone from an honor." It's not his to lose. To the contrary, it's a matter whether we believe he is worthy of baseball's highest honor -- enshrinemnent in the Hall of Fame. I say no.

[LuckyLopez]

How much more proof do you really need that McGwire was on the juice? Reminds me of the Dave Chapelle skit when he is being interviewed as a potential juror for the OJ trial and the R. Kelly trial. Good times.

Is there actually ANY proof? There's an accusation and McGwire pleading the 5th. Is there any actual proof? I haven't seen any bloody gloves or video tapes. Did I miss something? (Honest question.)

[hobokenfish]

Is there actually ANY proof? There's an accusation and McGwire pleading the 5th. Is there any actual proof? I haven't seen any bloody gloves or video tapes. Did I miss something? (Honest question.)

My goodness. Let's see.... Pleading the 5th when he had a chance to say he never did it (again, can't be charged with a crime, but it speaks volumes; and he still has never denied it). Canseco's book. The Andro. The back and neck acne. The physique (then and now). The massive squash. The brow. The various injuries. The career that saw him get better and hit for more power -- with insane numbers -- as he reached his mid-30s. Anything else? There may not be a video or a bloody glove, but let's be realistic here.

[In Mo I Trust]

Is there actually ANY proof? There's an accusation and McGwire pleading the 5th. Is there any actual proof? I haven't seen any bloody gloves or video tapes. Did I miss something? (Honest question.)

Would someone who didn't use steroids have reacted the way McGwire did when questioned?