McGwire up for HOF vote
November 27th, 2006This year’s Baseball Hall of Fame candidates include Tony Gwynn, Cal Ripken Jr. and Mark McGwire.
Gwynn and Ripken are locks. But what about McGwire? If you had a vote, would you vote for him?
41 Responses to “McGwire up for HOF vote”
That depends. If we are going to include all the chemically enhanced, then most certainly. if we aren’t then I would not vote for McGwire.
The difference between Bonds and McGwire is that if Bonds never touched a drop of the ‘clear’ or a dab of the ‘cream’ he would have been a Hall of Famer. Not so with McGwire.
True, Zoner. But don’t we have more evidence that Bonds is guilty than we do for McGwire?
I’m not saying that McGwire is clean, by the way. I’m just saying that the evidence against Bonds is much more damning.
What then do you make of McGwire’s weepy testimony (or lack thereof) to congress? I think most people view that as his admisssion to juicing.
What I was trying to say was that I highly doubt Bonds was juicing until late 90’s. By that time he already had 3 MVPs and a slew of Gold Gloves and stolen bases, etc.
But McGwire was never anything but a power hitter and obivously had a career surge around the time many of the players found the juice.
I agree that Ripken and Gwynn are locks. No way would I vote for Canseco or McGwire. There are too many doubts about both of them to justify a vote. Other that those, I’d probably have Hershiser on my ballot if I had one to cast.
I’d vote for McGwire. I’d also vote for Pete Rose.
Gotta separate the man’s personal life from his professional accomplishments.
Isn’t that what we’re told about Clinton?
No way.
Tony I agree with separating personal life from professional life. I believe Rose should be in the HOF, but McGwire taking steriods (although hasn’t been proved) is his professional life. That is why he did it to improve his professional life. I probably wouldn’t vote for McGwire this time around, but that’s not to say I would never vote for him. I would like to let this steroid scandal play out some more.
I would vote no to Mark and Sammy and Rafael and Barry.
Yes to Tony and Cal and Orel and Lee (Smith)
Pete? Penalty Box time expired. Let him in.
I am with the Zoner. McGwire’s “testimony” in Congress and the out-of-nowhere power surge when his career appeared dead are enough evidence for me. Same for Sosa. The evidence on Bonds in Game of Shadows is even stronger.
Rose is an absolute disgrace. Let him in as soon as hell freezes over.
Guys like Ripken and Gwynn are why I’m a baseball fan.
McGwire does not belong. His personal life happened to have a marked effect on his professional life. At what point to we separate profesional and private? Isn’t integrity important no matter what the culture says? If I teach high school students and I point them toward a loving relationship with Jesus, inspiring them to enjoy literature, YET I go home each night and surf for underage porn, how can the separation between the two be justified?
Is taking steroids as detrimental to as many people as a teacher with a porn addiction? The consequences are not as severe and can’t be compared so easily. But we must remember that integrity matters in all circumstances, and that professional athletes are role models whether Charles Barkley thinks so or not. If I want to train horses I have to put up with the smell and the flies. McGwire cheated. Gaylord Perry should not be in the Hall either. Pete Rose should not be in the Hall because Giamatti understood that the issue was not Rose’s inadmission or his lousy character, but the message sent to all fans of baseball, and all kids who wish to grow up to World Series glory, and the integrity of a man in a leadership position. It was Rose’s demonstration of total disregard for anyone but himself and his total and blatent disrespect for the history of the game, the integrity of leadership, and his selfish deceitful practices that Giamatti was concerned with. Regardless of the accomplishments of the man with the most all time hits record, he knew the consequences and lived as if the rules did not apply to himself. Ty Cobb was banished for life at one point for beating a man who was handicapped. The man shouted racial slurs at Cobb during a game. Cobb ran from the field during his at bat, jumped into the stands and began to beat and spike the man. He was told that the man did not have any hands, and Cobb beat him even worse. The Tigers hated Cobb, but they needed his talent and so they threatened a strike. The league complied and reinstated Cobb. Cobb was a hateful and racist man. Did it effect his playing ability? His hatred drove him to greatness on the field. But one day on the field his personal life collided with his professional life.
Mark McGwire should not be in the Hall of Fame. Was steroid use allowed then? Just because something is legal or overlooked or allowed does not make it right or ethical. Ethics matter. Doing what is right matters. Integrity matters. If someone is allowed to cheat, they should not be praised for doing it. Slavery was legal in America once. Adultery is not a crime in America, and if it is it is not often punished.
Was Big Mac considered a HOFer before he turned into Colossus?
If not, then he doesn’t belong…
Before the Congressional hearing, I probably would have voted for BigMac. But his so-called testimony ruined his image, if it wasn’t already.
I wouldn’t even consider voting for him now.
I hope that Cal and Tony get in their first times around.
Here’s to hoping the following see the Hall:
Tony Gwynn
Cal Ripken
Andre Dawson
Jack Morris
Orel Hershiser
Steve Garvey
For a sentimental vote I would include Mattingly and Eric the Red. I still have preserved their 1988 Topps baseball cards from my old factory set, the first year I started collecting cards and following and playing baseball. I loved to watch Eric play when healthy. Could have been one of the greatest ever had he stayed away from injuries.
And Donnie Baseball. I love Don Mattingly.
I hope that the Veteran’s Comittee votes in Dale Murphy. He deserves it.
All I know is Canseco is a lock to get in.
A lock? I seriously doubt that. Especially after his idiot book.
No.
Didn’t McGwire hit 49 dingers as a skinny rookie back in his A’s days?
Glad everyone here has a good grasp on the concept of sarcasm. Sheesh.
I thought it was funny Chris.
One season of 49 homers doesn’t deserve a Hall of Fame induction.
Dale Murphy does not merit induction into the HOF. Perhaps the nice guy HOF, but not the baseball HOF. Don Mattingly should not get in either. And I’ve come to grips–and changed my stance–that Andre Dawson does not merit induction.
Hershiser did not have the sustained excellence that I think is needed for the Hall. But he was great for a short window. I love Lee Arthur Smith but doubt he will make it either. OK.
Point being, 49 is record setting power, pre-steroid era. Everyone had the same opportunities that McGwire and Sosa had, but they’re the ones that hit 66 and 70, respectively. Baseball has always been a game of finding the edge, spitball, pine tar, corked bat, HGH, whatever. We act all indignant, “how dare they cheat”, but if we were the ones gaining the difference between of $10MM (just picking a number out of the sky) between contracts, we may be singing a different tune. Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t say that I wouldn’t take that chance…not taking performance enhancers and being down $10MM versus taking them and having $10MM more.
If you put any stock in what Canseco says, then that 49-homer season was juiced, too.
After taking a closer look at a lot of the guys on the list, I realize how silly it is for people here in St. Louis to talk about Edmonds making the Hall. If someone like Dawson can’t make it, then everyone here in the Lou needs to let go of that pipe dream.
I don’t think Edmonds for the Hall is so far-fetched. Winning a world series does loads for chances of induction.
Chris are you saying that Dawson’s numbers are better than Edmonds? I’m not saying that Edmonds belongs in the HOF. I’m disputing your statement that if Dawson can’t make it then Edmonds doesn’t deserve it. Here is a 162 game avg comparison.
Dawson Edmonds
HR 27 33
RBI 98 102
BA .279 .289
OBP .323 .382
SLG .482 .539
Fldg % .983 .990
Zoner - take a look at what Edmonds has done in the two World Series he’s played in. So what if the rest of his team won one of them?
His career world series stats are: 9 Games, 32 At Bats, 3 Runs, 5 Hits, 2 2B, 0 3B, 0 HR, 4 RBI, 7 Total Bases, 4 BB, 14 Strikeouts, 0 SB, .250 OBP, .219 SLG, .156 AVG. Hardly Hall of Fame worthy. You can’t get in on your World Series stats alone, which is good for him. And, I doubt that it really matters how good the other 24 guys on your team is when it comes to the voting.
Zoner,
Hershiser has over 200 victories and 2,000 strikeouts. That alone is not enough to get him inducted (Rick Reuschel has done that) but add on his awesome performance during the ‘88 season and his record of scoreless innings and his World Series acumen, I’d say let him in.
Andre Dawson is the epitome of what a HAll of FAmer should be- his heart.
And of course, there is always Ron Santo.
In ten years or so when Edmonds is eligible for the hall, writers will not remember his poor WS performance. But they will remember he won a championship. That’s what I meant by that. He will be considered one of the better if not best players at his position in his era and I think that’s what a lot of voters look at.
I really doubt Hershiser will get in, but you could be right. 85-89 he was one of the top pitchers in the game, but I just don’t think it’s enough. Dawson is certainly in my HOF too–I bleed cubbie blue.
If Brooks Robinson is in the hall, Santo should be too. He was a better player than Robinson.
This should just be an “Ask the Zoner” post at my site.
Sure, his team won a championship - but they won it in spite of him.
Seems like I remember Edmonds getting a timely double in game 3 of the World Series to put the Cardinals up 2-0 in that game.
Sure, he didn’t have the best series, but I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to say they won it “in spite of him.”
Well, I just don’t see how one double in the middle of a .156 average should warrant a legitimate reason to get those extra votes into the Hall.
For example, because John Smoltz only won one World Series when he played in 5 or so, does that mean he should lose votes? Because of what the team he played on did? I don’t think so.
Who said Edmonds’ double was enough to get extra votes for the Hall of Fame? You said the Cardinals won the World Series in spite of Edmonds. I simply showed that that’s not true, and that Edmonds did indeed make a contribution, however small, to the team.
I never said he should get extra Hall of Fame votes because of it.
In the 2006 World Series here is a brief summary of what Edmonds did to contribute to the victory.
.235 avg, 2 doubles, 4 RBI, 3 BB
Defensively he had 12 putouts.
In an important game 1 victory @ Det he went 2 - 4 with an RBI and a run scored.
In a game 3 victory Edmonds went 1 - 2 with a double, 2 RBI and 2 BB
I would say he contributed to the World Series victory.
Scotty–take it down a notch (Dr. Evil)
See how quickly we deviated from the original subject?
Chuck, that still shouldn’t gain him extra points for the Hall of Fame. So what if he did great for a few games? I bet Mendoza (of the term, “The Mendoza Line (.200)”, one of the worst hitters who regularly played, did great in a few games.
And The Zoner obviously feels that it does. “I don’t think Edmonds for the Hall is so far-fetched. Winning a world series does loads for chances of induction.” Zoner, why don’t you explain your reasoning?
Scott –
Let me try this again. I don’t know why you’re having such a hard time with this.
Chuck is not saying that Edmonds’ World Series performance should get him extra votes for the Hall of Fame. Nor is Zoner, for that matter.
Chuck is responding to the same thing I responded to. You said the Cardinals won the World Series in spite of Edmonds. Chuck and I showed that your statement is not true. End of story.
Now, as for Zoner’s statement about Edmonds, he is simply saying that a World Series championship bolsters Edmonds’ credentials. That’s all. If two players with identical stats are candidates for the Hall, and one of them has a World Series title while the other one doesn’t, the one with the World Series title is going to get extra consideration. That’s just the way it works. You may not agree with it, but that’s reality.
And, Zoner already explained it when he said, “In ten years or so when Edmonds is eligible for the hall, writers will not remember his poor WS performance. But they will remember he won a championship.”
Now, Tom is right. This discussion has deviated from the original subject for too long. So consider this the end of the debate about whether Jim Edmonds belongs in the Hall of Fame or not.
I can’t see why everyone is condemming Big Mac now. This is the man who in 1998-1999 “saved” baseball. The man was huge then—was no one suspecious? Why the concern now? Do we have proof that he took steroids? Assumptions get you a lot of places—or maybe you say he cheated — but wasn’t the Niekro’s and Tommy John do just about everything to a baseball to get an advantage? I mean come on the old addage in baseball is “If you aint cheatin’ you aint trying”. Or is it the fact that his decision made him a less moral man? Ty Cobb is well documented a bigot and a racist. Or maybe his stats were overly inflated and he had unfair advantage over past players? Babe Ruth played in an era that did not allow blacks or latinos — do you think there would be an advantage now. All I am saying is that for all of those who embraced him not so long ago - and now shun him - with no concrete proof - I have a hard time believing your arguments. So then you say, well look at him he had to be on them– but would you have looked at Ryan Franklin and said — man he has to be juiced….or who looks at Ryan Howard and says take away his MVP hes huge, which means he has to be on the juice.
Wow, you hit a hot button with this one Tim!
First let me say that while I certainly don’t know them personally, I have spoken with both men on and off the playing field, and as a photojournalist have covered both men at the highs and lows of their careers.
I first met McGwire in Houston following his impressive rookie season with Oakland. He and I were both lost at Hobby Airport and I actually was able to help him find his gate. Back then no one seemed to recognize him in street clothes. He was very nice, and not nearly as big as he was the next time we crossed paths.
Fast forward to Busch Stadium on September 8, 1998, and it was a bigger and stronger McGwire that created a much needed magical moment for the strike-tarnished sport when he hit home run #62 on the season over the left field wall. After photographing the swing, I paused briefly to smile and soak up the ambience of the historic moment as 50,000 others in attendance stood and roared their approval.
I was also outside the Marion, Illinois Federal Prison the cold, snowy winter morning that Pete Rose walked out a free man after serving time, not for disgracing the game, but for cheating on his income taxes. And while I really admire the manner in which both of these men played the game I love, I have different opinions on why only one of the two should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame.
I believe Mark McGwire is a first ballot Hall of Famer, hands down. While he used androstene as a player in his heydey, it was not against the rules of Major Leagie Baseball at the time to do so. Regarding his congressional testimony, while it was nothing to be proud of, it certainly was not illegal. If one counts that as the biggest reason to not let him in the Hall, then it seems to me that there are a lot of men already in that should not be, for other, more serious character flaws.
Regarding Rose, it’s simple. Pete Rose was a great hitter. He epitomized the word “gamer” in the modern era, and didn’t get the nickname “Charlie Hustle” for nothing. But, let us not forget that he broke the “Cardinal sin” of Major League Baseball, HE BET ON THE GAME WHILE HE WORE A UNIFORM, AND WHILE HE HAD THE ABILITY TO EFFECT THE OUTCOME OF GAMES WHILE DOING SO.
Any serious student of the game knows that the ONE sign that greets each and every player, manager and coach as they enter both home and visitor clubhouses is - NO BETTING ON BASEBALL - The consequences are severe, as Rose found out.
Rose is an astute student of the game and certainly knew what he was risking when he violated that rule, yet he CHOSE to do it anyway. And, perhaps the saddest thing of all is that for years, and some would argue even to this day, Rose continued to deny that he had a gambling problem.
I raised my son to love and appreciate the way Pete Rose played the game of baseball. We were both saddened at his fall. Some are saying that like Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth before him, Rose’s personal life shouldn’t be measured with his professional life regarding Hall consideration. But sadly in his case, the two became woefully intertwined, never to be separated.
In a nutshell, while both McGwire and Rose have numbers that are Hall of Fame caliber, only McGwire is eligible. It’s as simple as that.
Wow, “Maris for the Hall”, very fascinating stuff and pretty compelling arguments. I might be swayed.