Comments on: Big Mac: Worthy of the Hall? I think not…and here’s why

by: Dirty Carl Sports » Blog Archive » The McGwire Maelstrom Is Upon Us

Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:24:12 +0000

[…] Some say McGwire should be out, some say he should be in, some say they aren’t sure (though we’re not sure what information they’re waiting for). Our view is that McGwire is in, along with Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa and probably even Rafael Palmeiro, because steroids just don’t fire us up as much as they’re apparently supposed to. We promise this is the last time we’re going to mention that fact; we honestly just don’t care that much. […]

by: umass_amherst

Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:41:31 +0000

I think we’re all missing the point. Regardless of McGwire’s or Bonds’ stats and how PED’s affected them, their apparent use of them was irrevocably damaging to the game of baseball (I couldn’t find a copy of the BBWAA criteria, but it says something about positive contributions to the game). If the Hall of Fame is supposed to celebrate the positive contributions of those who played the game, you absolutely cannot elect guys who did so much damage to the sport, regardless of their statistics.

This alone should keep both of them out of the Hall. I understand how fine a line it is to walk with all the innuendo, but don’t sportswriters make these tough decision about someone’s worth based on much more subjective criteria when looking at a guys statistics? These types of judgement calls are exactly what they get paid to do it. I find it infuriating when writers say “you gotta vote for all of them or none of them…because we can’t know for sure who used them.” Really, but you perfectly comfortable electing Bruce Sutter to the Hall?

On another note, I hope the back lash against McGwire leads to more support for a clean, hard working player who was the most feared hitter of his generation…Jim Rice.

by: HFXBOB

Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:39:25 +0000

I agree completely that McGwire should not be in the Hall of Fame. Equating steroid use with laser eye surgery or Tommy John surgery doesn’t seem fair, though. I think the latter procedures, while involving new technologies, would be classified as restorative, putting the recipient’s tissue back in the condition of what is commonly accepted as ‘normal’ or ‘healthy’. Steroids on the other hand are used to enhance beyond what is commonly accepted as ‘normal’or ‘healthy’.

by: gary

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:14:54 +0000

I’m not a clemens fan by any means, but lumping him in with bonds, when one has the smallest of suspicions while the other has a train load of evidence behind him, seems a stretch.

by: tjrsfca

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:55:19 +0000

The players know who took steroids, and they know what steriods can do for you in the near term. They haven’t been forthcoming with these details so we now have terms like “steriod era” and deep suspicion of a breakout year.

There are lots of stories to this story, and one of them is the absolute lack of debate on the ethics of using steroids. There is a definition of ethics that we viscerally have, according to Plato and the test is simple: would you behave this way if everyone knew about it? Judging by McGwire’s performance at the congressional hearings, I would say he fails this standard. Unethical acts within he boundaries of the game are also known as “cheating” and that is the difference between using Tommy John surgery versus shooting steroids.

by: tinisoli

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:22:24 +0000

Yes, maybe Dom DiMaggio would’ve been even better had he not been four-eyed, and who knows what today’s orthopedic procedures would’ve meant for players of yesteryear, from the HOFers to the mere mortals, whose careers were ended by torn ligaments and cartilage issues that are mere bumps in the road in 2006. The fact is, McGwire, Bonds, Giambi, Sheffield, Palmeiro, and others knowingly used illegal PEDs and in doing so they earned records, honors, and tens of millions of dollars that they otherwise would not have earned. Whether or not MLB had an explicit or robust policy banning steroids is not particularly relevant because those drugs were already illegal in the U.S. and the players knew that. (Let’s remember that the BALCO case is about the distribution of illegal drugs–not cheating in sports.) All athletes should, like anyone, suffer the consequences of breaking any law, but perhaps especially when their actions compromise the integrity of their profession, devalue past achievements of other athletes, and encourage people to use dangerous chemicals.

Would we not want consequences and punishment for someone who, say, had a 4.0 GPA throughout high school but cheated on the SAT just to guarantee they’d get into Harvard? Would we say “Well, they had a great record and they’d probably have gotten in anyhow, so let’s just let them in on their past merits.” I don’t think so.

I would like to see HOF voters place the perfect asterisk on the career numbers of McGwire et al by either keeping them out of the Hall or voting no on the first ballot. If we can’t have actual asterisks alongside the numbers 73, 70, 66, and so on, we might as well have the unspoken asterisk of keeping these guys out of Cooperstown. If for the next year or two we still don’t have hard evidence about their cheating, well, let’s just wait to see what happens. If by 2011 we still don’t know anything from Bonds’ trainer or whomever, then maybe then we can determine if we have to let McGwire in.

The thing that seals my loathing of Big Mac is not the memory of him on the verge of tears in congress, it’s the more vivid memory of him hugging the Maris family after hitting 62. It was, to put it simply, a sham. I hope the voters will think about that moment. Somehow I suspect McGwire is haunted by that night, but we need to remind him that we are too, and we need to tell the other cheaters that their bullshit won’t be tolerated either.

by: redsoxtimes

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:33:47 +0000

I appreciate your stance on McGuire, and agree with it. But I think if you hold McGuire to those standards, you have to hold Bonds there as well.

I understand your thought process, but I just have a hard time placing a hard line on this issue myself. I think it is fairly clear that Bonds is as guilty as can be. Thus he shouldn’t be given that benefit of doubt.

On Clemens, I do agree with you. There is now a small cloud of suspicion, but is it enough to overshadow his HOF career? Not in my opinion.

To be truthful, I hate that it has even come to this.

I guess the statement I agree most with is:

It’s an imprecise formula, to be sure. But I’m not sure if I can think of another one that makes any more sense.

Tim
Red Sox Times