Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Violet
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Maroon
  • Orange
  • Gold
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal

Welcome to the upgraded message boards!  Please note: if you have been using a username to sign in that is different than the handle (display name) displayed on the boards, you must now sign in with either your handle (display name) or the email address associated with your account.  If you don't know what this means, then it probably doesn't affect you!

Sign in to follow this  
Solomon

Better than I will ever be able to say it

Recommended Posts

Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame.

 

 

 

To me, the fact that McGwire did not "lie" under oath to the Congressional investigators is one of the biggest "strikes" against him (no pun intended). He knew what perjury meant and declined to answer the questions--not out of a sense of integrity but out of fear of legal repercussions. As a result, he became the goat of the entire hearing. There he sat, refusing to "talk about the past," clearly and obviously guilty--even though he decided to "talk about the past" when he tried to mention the millions he had contributed to boys clubs and youth activities in St. Louis. THE QUESTION WHICH WAS ASKED BY CONGRESSMAN CLAY OF MCGWIRE'S ST. LOUIS DISTRICT, AS THE HEARINGS WERE BREAKING UP, IS THE ONE WHICH RESONATES WITH ME: "HOW COULD YOU LOOK THE MARIS FAMILY IN THE EYE?" It brought back to me the closing days of the home run chase when the Maris family was brought in to cheer and acknowledge McGwire's successful pursuit of the record. Yeah, we were duped--but think about the Marises.

 

My advice to the writers: If you love baseball, vote against Rose and the dopers ("More and longer home runs through chemistry!") If you love baseball as showbusiness, vote them in. In McGwire's case, it really doesn't matter, he has dropped out of sight--like Bonds, Rose and the others, he put his OWN asterisk beside his records.

Edited by Augielio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

To me, the fact that McGwire did not "lie" under oath to the Congressional investigators is one of the biggest "strikes" against him (no pun intended). He knew what perjury meant and declined to answer the questions--not out of a sense of integrity but out of fear of legal repercussions. As a result, he became the goat of the entire hearing. There he sat, refusing to "talk about the past," clearly and obviously guilty--even though he decided to "talk about the past" when he tried to mention the millions he had contributed to boys clubs and youth activities in St. Louis. THE QUESTION WHICH WAS ASKED BY CONGRESSMAN CLAY OF MCGWIRE'S ST. LOUIS DISTRICT, AS THE HEARINGS WERE BREAKING UP, IS THE ONE WHICH RESONATES WITH ME: "HOW COULD YOU LOOK THE MARIS FAMILY IN THE EYE?" It brought back to me the closing days of the home run chase when the Maris family was brought in to cheer and acknowledge McGwire's successful pursuit of the record. Yeah, we were duped--but think about the Marises.

 

My advice to the writers: If you love baseball, vote against Rose and the dopers ("More and longer home runs through chemistry!") If you love baseball as showbusiness, vote them in. In McGwire's case, it really doesn't matter, he has dropped out of sight--like Bonds, Rose and the others, he put his OWN asterisk beside his records.

 

 

 

 

Mark McGwire from 1986-1995, when he was at Oakland and weighed 230 pounds, most of this before the players strike, which issued in the "Steroid Era":

 

3,387 at bats, 256 home runs---1 homer every 21.0 at bats. (This ratio would not put him in the top 20 of baseball's home run hitters.)

 

Mark McGwire from 1996-1999, post-strike, weighing 250-260 pounds, playing mostly in St. Louis:

 

1,993 at bats, 245 home runs-- 1 homer every 8.134 at bats. (This is the highest ratio of all time.)

 

 

 

Coincidence?

Edited by Augielio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Steroid Era", that was my point. I think very few people think McGwire, Sosa Bonds and many others were not on the juice. And you can find many examples of these dramatic improvements in players stats in this "era". And that was my point, where do you draw the line. Just because Bonds, Sosa and McGwire were the poster boys and had better results than others, it does not make them more guilty. The whole sport was tainted, including Pitchers who seen to draw a bye when steroid talk comes up, so do you leave everyone in the steroid era out?

Everyone who had numbers with hall of fame credentials and had "career Years" during this time, or who amazed us as they revived their careers--remember a few years ago (and even now) when all the late 30 over 40 year old players (exp pitchers) were suddenly playing like they were in their prime. But like it or not in America you are innocent until proven guilty, not innocent until it looks like you are guilty and everyone is sure you are guilty (ask OJ). I've got no problem (and I don't think he does either) if McGwire doesn't make HOF, but I think it sets a precedent and voters will have to make judgement calls on not only numbers but also if they think these numbers were "enhanced", which then hurts the few who put up HOF numbers clean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tuesday is the day when Mac is voted on going into the H.O.F.,some voters have been polled and there is no way he is going to get enough votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he were to get in it would be a black eye to MLB. They will make him sweat for a few years and then let him in. Is it not a shame that we even have to deal with this. He never had to cheat to get in and that is my opinion. The whole thing is really sad. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he were to get in it would be a black eye to MLB. They will make him sweat for a few years and then let him in. Is it not a shame that we even have to deal with this. He never had to cheat to get in and that is my opinion. The whole thing is really sad. :thumb:

 

Here's one for you.

 

There is a voter in Chicago that has stated he will not vote for any steroid era players because all are under suspecion. He turned in a blank ballot this year. (Including no vote for Gossage - incredibly stupid.)

 

There is another guy who determines his voted by pulling names out of a hat. I repeat, he pulls names out of a hat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another nice article by Jayson Stark of ESPN.com. About the only person to me whose opinion matters more than this guy in the baseball world is Peter Gammons.

 

Link

 

It felt so uncomfortable to be casting a Hall of Fame vote for Mark McGwire, it made me realize just how bizarre baseball's Hall of Fame elections have now become.

 

It's hard to believe it's actually easier not to vote for the seventh-leading home run hitter of all time than to vote for him. But it is.

 

It's easier to pick out a guy who looks and feels and smells like a cheater than it is to process all the tricky shades of gray that are going to surround this process for the next 20 years. So, close to 300 more voters are going to snub this man than will vote for him.

 

Well, I totally understand the thinking of everyone who chose not to check the box next to McGwire's name. I've read, and listened to, the thoughts of many of those voters, and I respect their thinking.

 

When he swatted 70 home runs in 1998, Mark McGwire seemed destined for Cooperstown.It isn't my intent to belittle anybody or give some big spiel about why I'm right and why they're wrong. This is a tough, complicated decision, dumped in our laps by a sport that left it up to us to deal with its mess.

 

So there's no right and no wrong choice here. We probably can't do the right thing no matter what we do about Mark McGwire. But here's why I voted the way I did:

 

The fact is, people have oversimplified this issue, to the point that, if you listen to the way most folks talk about it, you'd think there were only 10 players taking any kind of performance-enhancing drugs in the '90s.

 

But we know that, in truth, there were probably hundreds. So should I cast votes only against players who happened to get mentioned in Jose Canseco's book, or who got subpoenaed by Congress? What about all the other players who I might suspect were doing something but whose names have never come up in this conversation?

 

Should I vote only against players who hit a bunch of home runs, or broke home run records? What about all the pitchers we know were taking something? Do we care about them or not? Should I vote against them if I just think they might have done something?

 

See, this is the essence of the problem. Mark McGwire is the first prominent player tied to performance enhancers with Hall of Fame numbers to show up on this ballot. But he's only the beginning. So how do we know where to draw the line? How do we know which guys we should or shouldn't vote for if we want to make some kind of statement?

 

It was baseball that allowed all of this to happen. In a sport with no rules, no testing and no punishment for using the hottest substances of the day, this was no tiny problem, involving a few obvious home run trotters. This was the culture inside the game, just as amphetamines were part of the culture in the '60s and '70s and '80s (and beyond).

 

It was baseball that allowed all this to go on, and it never furnished us with any evidence whatsoever of who did what when. So we hardly know anything concrete about what McGwire may or may not have done. And that's the truth.

 

We know how his appearance changed. We know when his numbers soared. We know he gave some horrible answers to some members of Congress. We know he has vanished nearly as completely as Amelia Earhart since he gave those answers.

 

But in reality, we hardly know anything about what anyone in the sport may or may not have done during those anarchic 1990s.

 

So just as baseball allowed Gaylord Perry to go out and cheat his way to 300 wins -- and eventually admire his plaque in the Hall of Fame -- it allowed McGwire and a host of other players to compile their stats, break their records, earn their money and listen to all those roaring crowds.

 

And now here it is, Hall of Fame election time -- and cleaning up this glop is supposed to be our problem? Sorry, the only way to be consistent about this generation is to apply the Gaylord Perry standard -- and evaluate what the sport allowed to go down on the field. Either the '90s happened or they didn't. And we all saw them happen.

 

We saw hitters on steroids face pitchers on steroids, as hundreds of players all around them used the same stuff, looking for the same edge. But we've never heard most of their names. So I feel more comfortable voting for players like McGwire than I do trying to pick and choose who did what, and when, and why.

 

If more evidence emerges, I always reserve the right to change my mind. But for now, I've cast an uncomfortable vote for McGwire -- and I might very well find myself doing the same for every great player of an obviously tainted generation.

 

If I could prove the innocence of the players I believe were clean as easily as I can assume the guilt of the men I think were cheaters, I might vote differently. But sadly, none of us can really prove much of anything.

 

So do we really want to be consistent about this issue? Well, if we do, we should either vote for all the best players of that era or none of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another nice article by Jayson Stark of ESPN.com. About the only person to me whose opinion matters more than this guy in the baseball world is Peter Gammons.

 

Link

 

 

That's what I was trying to say, it is more a commentary on a sad period of baseball than an individual. But what about the guys who didn't cheat and how do we know who they are. The guy who votes for no one, he has a point, but this punishes the deserving candidates who did not cheat, and we don't know who they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I was trying to say, it is more a commentary on a sad period of baseball than an individual. But what about the guys who didn't cheat and how do we know who they are. The guy who votes for no one, he has a point, but this punishes the deserving candidates who did not cheat, and we don't know who they are.

 

I noticed on ESPN that Gammons voted for Mac too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muffin I agree. Solomon I am disappointed in you. In your zeal to remain loyal to the Cardinals you have sacrificed your principles for the sake of "Mark I will lie to congress while under oath Mcgwire". Very disappointed. My ideas about you were that you were a purist who would protect the integrity of the game but alas I was wrong. Let me ask all of you guys a question. If a guy was in the world series of poker and he was caught with an ace up his sleeve what would happen? If Jeff Gordon was found to have put dry ice and nitros in his engine what do you think would happen? If a President sent men to brake into the Democratic National headquarters and steal campaign plans what do you think would happen? Wait a minute that did happen, sorry remember Watergate. I know what you are going to say. Mcgwire has never officially been caught and I am sure you believe that one half of the Bash Brothers deserves the benefit of the doubt but unlike Mcgwire Jose Canseco told the truth and that at least deserves some minimal respect although he profited from it. No one who cheats should be honored or recognized. If Shoeless Joe Jackson who played his but off in the 1918 series but just took the money can not get in then do not give me all of this doubletalk crap from some biased liberal sportswriter. When a man compromises his principles and those things that he holds dear to his heart like character, integrity, and loyalty then there is no more room for that man to grow. Solomon the game should not be played at a win at all costs mentality. If the Redsox never win another World Series and play the game the right way I will be fine. But if I was to find out that Manny and Papi were on steroids in 04 then I would be crushed. It is about character Solomon. Never forget that. :lol:

 

 

None of these men have ever been proved guilty of anything, until then they all belong in the hall. And this is coming from the #1 Bonds hater in the world. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

Announcements



×
×
  • Create New...