 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Should McGwire get in?
scaffdog
Should McGwire get in?
December 01, 2006 at 12:20AM View BBCode
He is eligible this year. do you guys think he should get in? 1st ballot? 2nd? Vets Committee?
lvnwrth
December 01, 2006 at 12:23AM View BBCode
I have a bigger problem with his batting average than the andro issue. It was neither illegal nor banned by MLB, and he never made a secret of his use of the stuff. If there's any evidence he was on steroids, that's a different issue.
barterer2002
December 01, 2006 at 02:34AM View BBCode
Of course McGwire should get in on the first ballot. He won't because sportswriters are somewhat santimonious but he's certainly a HOF caliber player.
scaffdog
December 01, 2006 at 05:51AM View BBCode
I think that McGwire should definately get in, the guy almost hit 600 HRs, Im not quite sure I thin the guy is a first ballot HOFer with only 1626 hits, but he definately deserves to get in.
FuriousGiorge
December 01, 2006 at 05:56AM View BBCode
What ballot you go in on is a meaningless distinction. If you're a Hall of Famer you're a Hall of Famer.
scaffdog
December 01, 2006 at 06:24AM View BBCode
I disagree, it is an honor to go in on the first ballot.
rkinslow19
Seriously, I'm tired of this first ballot crap.
It's not like statistics earn interest or anything.
December 01, 2006 at 06:36AM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
What ballot you go in on is a meaningless distinction. If you're a Hall of Famer you're a Hall of Famer.
Seriously, I'm tired of this first ballot crap.
It's not like statistics earn interest or anything.
Faceman
First ballot matters even if not to you. Yes I know there is no section roped off in the HoF for "first ballot guys" but it does make a difference at the time.
December 01, 2006 at 04:28PM View BBCode
It may not matter to you guys. . . but it does to the members and those who vote on it. .First ballot matters even if not to you. Yes I know there is no section roped off in the HoF for "first ballot guys" but it does make a difference at the time.
FuriousGiorge
December 01, 2006 at 04:40PM View BBCode
It makes a difference to dinosaur baseball writers who think they're sending some sort of message about how no one today stacks up to players way back when. That's why Cal Ripken won't get 100% of the vote - not because anyone thinks he's not a Hall of Famer, but because a few writers feel it's their duty to make sure no one gets a unanimous selection since they want to make sure that all of us peons realize that no one is better than Joe fucking DiMaggio. It's a dumb distinction, but it's what you get when you allow the narrowest, most cliqueish swath of people (newspaper writers) to keep the keys to the kingdom.
max_fischer
How does Whisk E. Bear respond to this?
December 01, 2006 at 04:48PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
the narrowest, most cliqueish swath of people (newspaper writers)
How does Whisk E. Bear respond to this?
Smocko
December 01, 2006 at 05:40PM View BBCode
Speaking of quibbling, I find it hard to believe that even St. Gibson can argue that McGwire's BA makes him a poor candidate. [url=http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/OPS_career.shtml]What a disaster.[/url]
Faceman
Agreed.
And they are stupid.
December 01, 2006 at 06:00PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
It makes a difference to dinosaur baseball writers who think they're sending some sort of message about how no one today stacks up to players way back when. That's why Cal Ripken won't get 100% of the vote - not because anyone thinks he's not a Hall of Famer, but because a few writers feel it's their duty to make sure no one gets a unanimous selection since they want to make sure that all of us peons realize that no one is better than Joe <b>[Censored]</b> DiMaggio. It's a dumb distinction, but it's what you get when you allow the narrowest, most cliqueish swath of people (newspaper writers) to keep the keys to the kingdom.
Agreed.
And they are stupid.
scaffdog
December 01, 2006 at 07:32PM View BBCode
The point is that because of those writers and thier soapboxes, the first ballot has become a thing of honor.
barterer2002
December 01, 2006 at 07:49PM View BBCode
Actually the point is that because of that, the BBWAA can do no more than insult deserving all time greats such as Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa by not electing them when they become eligible. The voters may think they're "making a statement" but in reality they're not, they're just making themselves feel bigger than they really are.
FuriousGiorge
December 01, 2006 at 07:54PM View BBCode
Um...I'm not going to go as far as calling roid monkeys McGwire and Sosa "deserving all-time greats". I mean, I think I'd vote for them, but that's only because I'm unwilling to condemn a person based on circumstantial evidence (which is, it should be said, close to overwhelming). I'd personally rather that writers do their job with the least amount of moralizing possible, but I'll understand if they're not that forgiving. My problem comes in when a writer will deliberately leave McGwire off the first ballot to "send a message" only to vote for him on the second, and I think a lot of writers will do that. It's a meaningless distinction - either take a stand on his steroid use, or let him in based on his achievements.
barterer2002
December 01, 2006 at 07:58PM View BBCode
and I'm saying let him in based on his achievements. there was no steroid policy in baseball during the nineties and whether or not these players used steroids prior to 2003 is irrelevant to me. I'm judging them against their peers who were also using.
scaffdog
December 01, 2006 at 08:26PM View BBCode
steriod allegations aside, I dont think the guy deserves the "honor" of being a first ballot guy.
max_fischer
December 01, 2006 at 08:31PM View BBCode
Doesn't Chipper Jones have a raft of illegitimate children?
barterer2002
That's just indefensable. If you're going to say he doesnt' deserve the "honor" of being a "first ballot guy" then you have to base that argument on steroids. Clearly you can not base it on the field. Whatever crieteria you want to use for hall of fame consideration on the field, McGwire clearly qualifies. Peak season, check. Career counting numbers, check, Best player in the game at some point in his career, check, record setter, check. There is no way to keep him off the ballot, any ballot in a defensible position other than arguing steroids.
December 01, 2006 at 09:04PM View BBCode
Originally posted by scaffdog
steriod allegations aside, I dont think the guy deserves the "honor" of being a first ballot guy.
That's just indefensable. If you're going to say he doesnt' deserve the "honor" of being a "first ballot guy" then you have to base that argument on steroids. Clearly you can not base it on the field. Whatever crieteria you want to use for hall of fame consideration on the field, McGwire clearly qualifies. Peak season, check. Career counting numbers, check, Best player in the game at some point in his career, check, record setter, check. There is no way to keep him off the ballot, any ballot in a defensible position other than arguing steroids.
scaffdog
No base it on the fact that he had 1626 career hits in 16 seasons, never won the MVP(closest he came was '98 when he got 2nd but only had 2 first place votes), and played 1st base.
Every 1st baseman in the Hall of Fame who wasnt in WWII, the Negro Leagues, or played in the 1800s has more than 500 more hits than McGwire and Harmon Killebrew is the only one of those to hit less than .270.
As a power hitter he was great, compared to other 1st Basemen in the Hall he is average. I think his power numbers entitle him to a plaque, but I dont think, again, that he is a first ballot guy.
December 01, 2006 at 10:46PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
Originally posted by scaffdog
steriod allegations aside, I dont think the guy deserves the "honor" of being a first ballot guy.
That's just indefensable. If you're going to say he doesnt' deserve the "honor" of being a "first ballot guy" then you have to base that argument on steroids. Clearly you can not base it on the field. Whatever crieteria you want to use for hall of fame consideration on the field, McGwire clearly qualifies. Peak season, check. Career counting numbers, check, Best player in the game at some point in his career, check, record setter, check. There is no way to keep him off the ballot, any ballot in a defensible position other than arguing steroids.
No base it on the fact that he had 1626 career hits in 16 seasons, never won the MVP(closest he came was '98 when he got 2nd but only had 2 first place votes), and played 1st base.
Every 1st baseman in the Hall of Fame who wasnt in WWII, the Negro Leagues, or played in the 1800s has more than 500 more hits than McGwire and Harmon Killebrew is the only one of those to hit less than .270.
As a power hitter he was great, compared to other 1st Basemen in the Hall he is average. I think his power numbers entitle him to a plaque, but I dont think, again, that he is a first ballot guy.
FuriousGiorge
December 01, 2006 at 11:03PM View BBCode
You're going to judge Mark McGwire on his total number of base hits? Why not just judge him on the sharpness of his business suits, or how many billiard balls he can fit in his mouth at one time?