Hall of Fame for the Big Mac??

The sandwich... Definitely.

The baseball player... Probably not.

Mark McGwire is eligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame for the first time this year. A survey recently done by the Associated Press reveals that only one in four Hall voters will vote McGwire into the Hall of Fame. The reason why voters are voting against him... character issues (read: steroids).

What do you guys think? Should Big Mac go to the Hall of Fame? Is he being judged fairly?

-------------------------------------------------

ESPN story below...

McGwire good for only 1 out of 4 for Hall of Fame voteAssociated Press


NEW YORK -- For one glorious summer, Mark McGwire was bigger than baseball itself. America stopped to watch each time he came to the plate, and cheered every time he sent a ball into orbit.



And then came that day on Capitol Hill. Over and over, the big slugger was asked about possible steroid use, and his reputation took hit after hit as he refused to answer, saying he wouldn't talk about his past.


Now, with Hall ballots in the mail, McGwire's path to baseball immortality may have hit a huge roadblock.

The Associated Press surveyed about 20 percent of eligible voters, and only one in four who gave an opinion plan to vote for McGwire this year. That's far short of the 75 percent necessary to gain induction.

"There is a clause on the ballot indicating that character should be considered and after his nonperformance at the congressional hearings his character certainly comes into play," said the Dayton Daily News' Hal McCoy.


"He doesn't want to talk about the past?" he said, "Then I don't want to consider his past."


McGwire, who hit 583 career home runs, headlines the ballot released Monday along with Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn. Results will be announced in early January.


"Mark fits the criteria, just like everyone else," Hall chairman Jane Forbes Clark said. "We've been very pleased with the judgment exercised by the writers over the past 70 years of voting.


"The ballot says a player's record of achievement, contributions to the teams, the game, their character, longevity and sportsmanship should be considered. I think this year's balloting will be interesting," she said.


The AP contacted, via e-mails and telephone, about 150 of the approximately 575 present or former members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America who are eligible to cast ballots. Of that number, 125 responded, including 25 AP sports writers. Most of the voters' names were obtained in the Major League Baseball media directory.


And the breakdown was:

• 74 will not vote for McGwire.
• 23 will vote for him.
• 16 are undecided.
• 5 refused to say.
• 5 aren't allowed to vote by their employers.
• 2 will abstain from voting.

That means if all the undecideds and those refusing to say voted for McGwire, and everyone else voted, McGwire would need 84 percent of the rest to get into the Hall.


Chaz Scoggins of The Sun in Lowell, Mass., was among McGwire's supporters.


"He wasn't breaking any baseball rules during his career," he said. "As for using performance-enhancing substances, the fact that so many pitchers have been detected using them kind of evens the playing field."


The St. Louis Cardinals, McGwire's last team, suggested calls for McGwire be left with his business manager, Jim Milner. A message left Monday at Milner's office was not returned.


Baseball commissioner Bud Selig wouldn't address McGwire specifically, saying it was unclear how this generation of home run hitters will be judged.


"Time will tell. We'll have to work our way through all of it," he said Monday night. "All we can do realistically is take care of the present and the future."


McGwire played in the majors from 1986-2001, the first 12 seasons with the Oakland Athletics and the rest with the Cardinals.


When he hit 70 homers in 1998 -- breaking the mark of 61 Roger Maris had set 37 years earlier -- McGwire became a national hero for his Paul Bunyan-like physique and feats. A year later, part of an interstate highway in St. Louis was named after McGwire. Large signs at both the current and previous Busch Stadium called attention to "Big Mac Land," ads for McDonald's referencing McGwire.


But his reputation plummeted following allegations by former teammate Jose Canseco, who claimed in a 2005 book and subsequent interviews that the Bash Brothers used steroids together while playing on the A's.


And then came McGwire's testimony to a congressional committee on March 17, 2005, when he repeatedly avoided questions, saying time after time: "I'm not here to talk about the past."


That appearance and those allegations are still fresh in the minds of many voters.


"He won't get my vote this year, next year or any year," said the Chicago Tribune's Paul Sullivan.


When the AP conducted a survey of Hall voters during the week following McGwire's testimony, 56 percent of the 117 voters who gave an opinion said they would support his induction.


Ballots will be mailed to voters this week and must be postmarked by Dec. 31. Results will be announced Jan. 9, and inductions will take place July 29.


Players who have appeared in 10 seasons and have been retired for five years are eligible for consideration by a six-member BBWAA screening committee, and a player goes on the ballot if he is supported by at least two screening committee members.


A player remains on the ballot for up to 15 elections as long as he gets 5 percent of the votes every year. McGwire appears to be in no danger of missing that mark.


Gwynn and Ripken are considered virtual locks for election. Canseco also is on the ballot for the first time but is not expected to come close to election.


Gwynn isn't sure whether McGwire used steroids.


"I think he's a Hall of Famer, myself," Gwynn said. "He hit 500 or so homers, almost 600. I think we have no proof whether he did or not. Canseco said he did. He didn't perform well at the congressional hearing, and I think that will stick with people more than anything else. He's on the ballot, too. I have no control over that."


Hall voters will face additional questions when other players accused of steroid use go on the ballot. Sammy Sosa and Rafael Palmeiro become eligible for 2011 and Barry Bonds, who plans to play next season, sometime after that.


Others view it as a matter of baseball rules. Baseball did not have an agreement with its players' union to ban steroids until after the 2002 season.


Some writers say they might vote for McGwire in future years but won't consider him on this ballot, not wanting to give him the extra honor of getting elected on the first ballot.


"I don't plan to vote for him on the first ballot, but I do plan to vote for him," said former Chicago Tribune writer Jerome Holtzman, baseball's official historian.


Some players have seen their support increase over time. Jimmie Foxx got 10 votes when he first appeared on the ballot in 1947, then was elected with 179 votes four years later.


Dave Kingman (442) has the most home runs for a player who has been on the Hall of Fame ballot and was not elected -- he received three votes in his only appearance, in 1992, and was dropped.


Among the 33 players above Kingman on the career home run list, 20 are in the Hall, seven are active (Bonds, Ken Griffey Jr., Frank Thomas, Jim Thome, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez and Gary Sheffield), four haven't been retired the necessary five years (Sosa, Palmeiro, Fred McGriff and Jeff Bagwell) and two are on the ballot for the first time (McGwire and Canseco).


Eleven of the 15 Hall of Famers with 500 homers were elected on the first ballot. The exceptions were Mel Ott (third ballot), Harmon Killebrew (fourth ballot), Foxx (fifth ballot) and Eddie Mathews (sixth ballot).



Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press

Well I say yes, there's more money potential in narcotics than anything else.....oops wrong forum!!

But I say yes. Shawn Merriman of the San Diego Chargers, who is an amazing 3rd yr player, was recently suspended for illegal steroid use. Are we to automatically say that he is already ineligible in just the 3rd yr of his career? If Mac is kept out then anyone else who has used has to automatically be disqualified from the hall.

I would say yes too for 1 simple reason, "he's innocent until proven guilty." Sure many people have suspiscions about him since his Senate hearing (which he didn't come out looking good of), but again, there's no proof. Same thing with Barry Bonds. Hate them all you like, call them cheaters, etc. but is there any PROOF? Show me some proof and I wouldn't vote him into the Hall of Fame. And one last thing, Jose Canseco's book doesn't count as proof

If I had a vote, I would vote no. He took Andro which he even said he took it. Even though it wasn't banned in baseball at the time he still took things to get an advantage so that alone should net get him in.

I was a big McGwire fan in '98 and cheered him on when he broke Maris' record. I was in Veterans Stadium that year in May when he launched three moonshots.

However, sadly, I would vote no. A preponderance of the evidence strongly suggests his use of performance enhancing steroids. His embarrassing evasion of the question,"Did you ever use anabolic steroids?" may not sustain a criminal conviction, but is tantamount to taking the Fifth Amendment. In fact, his answer was designed to avoid a perjury charge while not having to admit to the use. When he was not under oath, he emphtically denied the use of steroids as chronicled in Canseco's book. Before the Senate he sang a different tune, and has avoided the topic since then.

It is therefore a reasonable and logical inference that he did steroids.

I echo Klydon's sentiments. I was really jacked about the HR chase in '98. It was fun - it took the sting from the 1994 strike and cancelled World Series.

Irishman asked where the proof was. Although it was not illegal at the time, Big Mac made no attempt to hide the Andro in his locker. He was cheating, regardless of the fact that MLB was looking the other way at the time. No, it was not 100% ironclad proof, but it's reasonable to assume he juiced up somehow.

I say no and for reasons that Mark McGwire uttered himself: "I'm not here to talk about the past."

Come clean and be a man by admitting what you did and then I think many people would be back in your corner, Big Mac. Otherwise, sit in the back and take your medicine for your ridiculous display in front of Congress in March 2005. If you keep hiding and refuse to acknowledge the truth, then take a long hard look at Pete Rose's life post-baseball for what yours will look like.

But why, as you just said, Andro wasn't illegal at the time? You don't think other players take legal supplements to "get an advantage?"

goombah, "Although it was not illegal at the time, Big Mac made no attempt to hide the Andro in his locker. He was cheating, regardless of the fact that MLB was looking the other way at the time."

First let me start off by saying that I too believed McGwire cheated but I'm also positive he is not alone. If that is the case, why is Big Mac getting stuck with the bill? What about Sammy Sosa, Luis Gonzalez, Roger Clemens, Curt Schilling, etc?

My heart says no, but my head says yes.

Like klydon1, I cheered for him in '98. I cheered for Sammy Sosa too. They actually made me interested in baseball again.

But with the allegations that followed, the Senate hearings and everything else, you felt cheated as a fan. Was everything you cheered so hard for a farce?

But no, he hasn't been officially caught. There is a substantial amount of evidence that says otherwise, but no drug test has proven he has taken steroids (probably because they didn't have one back then ).

Character issues? Where do we exactly draw the line? We have cheaters (Gaylord Perry - spitballer) and racists (Ty Cobb) in the Hall now, why shouldn't we include a weasel who essentially hid behind the 5th amendment?

If I had to choose a side, I'd vote to let him in (but it really pains me). He's received his punishment - in the court of public opinion, there will always be an asterisk to his name:

* Cheater - Probably took steroids

It will probably diminish the Hall in some sense, but baseball is reaping what they sowed. They chose to ignore the steroid issue for such a long time and now it is caught between a rock and a steroid-induced hard place.

I agree DS. Should we allow players into the Hall based on their careers on the field or as human beings? I feel players should be voted in based on their performance and NOT character. As a result, LET PETE ROSE IN!

For the same reason I wouldn't even consider Rafael Palmeiro, one of only a few players to have hit 500 homeruns and 3,000 base hits.

He was adamant about telling the Senate panel that he never took steroids, but later tests positive on a sample taken not too long after he pointed his finger at the senators.

Palmeiro's homerun numbers take a dramatic jump during and after the season he started playing with Canseco in Texas around 1992 or 3. He was a guy who'd hit, as I recall, 18 to 24 homers a season -he met Canseco- and Boom! He starts hitting 40.

Sosa is another guy who's lied throughout his career. The corked bat story; leaving the stadium before the game was over on the final day of the season and lying about it. Who can believe a steroid denial from him.

While I think steroid use needs to be prohibited, I don't think a player's use should make him ineligible for the hall.

Its not really 'cheating.'

EDIT--I don't think you can legislate what someone does to their own body, on their own time, in their own homes. I also don't feel that most illegal drugs should be so. I don't see the logic in trying to prevent ppl from doing with their bodies what they will.

I don't think it really matters, if teh whole lot of them get in. Personally I think the baseball HOF is over rated. I think it is a bigger deal for the Baseball Writers of America than it is for the fans. With their whole I will vote for him but not on a first ballot maybe later bullcrap. How can the writers not give Cal Ripken or Tony Gywnn a unanimous vote for the Hall. Further more what happens when Griffey is eligible, is he going to get 93% of the votes? When he clearly deserves to be in the HOF.

Put Bonds, Big Mac, and Sosa in, we as fans know that every slugger from the 90's on has the steriod cloud over them.

While I am venting about the HOF, the voters should stop looking at the magic numbers to determine who is a HOF. Watch the game and you know. Palmerio is not HOF material. An above average player yes, but not elite during his time as a player. Same goes for The Crime Dog, Albert Belle, Bichette, and Mattingly.

Here is a criteria they should look at, if you haven't been in the top 5 for MVP voting at least 2 years or more you aren't good enough for the HOF.

I think ppl lose sight of the fact that 'baseball' and 'cheating' are synonymous terms.

I heard a pro say the other day on espn that if you keep Mac out for cheating w/ steroids then go ahead and close the doors to the hall of fame. Teams steal signals, pitchers scuff balls, players alter bats, etc, etc.

Plus, taking roids is not altering the gameplay or game essentials like altering the baseball(Kenny Rogers).

I agree. I don't see why so many drugs are deemed illegal and if people want to destroy their bodies, let them (same goes for prostitution). But in the sporting world, I think I would still make steroids illegal if not for the purity of the game

Interesting point.

Organized baseball has the right to include "character" as a deciding factor in choosing its Hall's members, but you pose a good question. WHERE do they draw the line?

Cobb, one of the best players to have ever played the game, was a racist bastard. BUT, he was elected to the Hall during the days when baseball was still a segregated sport. Of course that doesn't make it right but how in hell could baseball keep him out on the grounds that he was racist when they, in fact, were equally as guilty?

For arguments' sake, lets say that John Rocker was HOF material (stats-wise). I'd bet there'd be a big stink about him being picked (if he were eligible). I wonder if a racist player of Cobb's caliber would be kept out today, though.

The factors for choosing a player (off-field behavior) are too arbitrary. McGwire certainly has the numbers to be in the Hall but his (alleged) use of steroids has darkened his character. Is that fair?

(I have no answer for this... I'm just bringing up a point. What that point is I have no idea. ).

.

What is cheating then? Wasn't it against the rules?

Pete Rose is being kept out for cheating, so it has to make you wonder that they might keep Cobb out in present day America

[quote=Irishman12
Pete Rose is being kept out for cheating, so it has to make you wonder that they might keep Cobb out in present day America [/quote]

Pete is actually banned for placing bets on major league baseball games while serving as manager of the Reds. There has never been an allegation from the commissioner's office that he cheated or fixed games.

I wouldn't put Rose in Cobb's class, but your point is well taken. Shoeless Joe Jackson WAS in Cobb's class and he STILL is banned from the HOF.

"Cheating" (or gambling) is different from a personal trait that really has nothing to do with the game (albeit a poor personal trait - racism).

I'm sorry, you're right I got confused. We all this cheater talk I'm assuming every is. My mistake

What did Shoeless Joe Jackson do? I'm not familiar with him, just the name (I believe he played for the White Sox). Was he in the Black Sox scandel perhaps? Also, I agree that cheating is different from a personal trait and again, personal traits should not dictate who gets into the HOF and who doesn't. Evaluate what the men did on the field instead of who they are as human beings. Michael Irvin was a piece of sh*t but I bet he gets into the NFL HOF.

[quote=SC
Cobb, one of the best players to have ever played the game, was a racist bastard. BUT, he was elected to the Hall during the days when baseball was still a segregated sport. Of course that doesn't make it right but how in hell could baseball keep him out on the grounds that he was racist when they, in fact, were equally as guilty?


. [/quote]

A very good point. It illuminates the problem with imposing present day values on those from differennt eras.

Also, Cobb, who was inarguably a racist even by early 20th Century standards, had character flaws that didn't affect the game. He was disciplined by the commissioner, I beleve it was Mountain Landis,along with Tris Speaker for their apparent role in fixing a game.

I'd have to go back and get the details. It was documented in the Glory of their Times by Lawrence Ritter, an outstanding chronicle of the early years of the game.

Jackson, who still holds one of the highest lifetime batting averages in history, was banned for his involvement in the 1919 Black Sox scandal.

His supporters, most notably Ted Williams, for his posthumous induction to the Hall, point out that he hit well over .300 for the Series. However, his average was poor in the games that the Sox lost to the Reds.

Yep. He was alleged to have taken part in throwing the 1919 World Series but it was never proved he took part in any "scandal". Some of his story is told in "Field of Dreams" (his character was portrayed by Ray Liotta).

I'd have to look it up but I believe he still has the third highest lifetime batting average EVER (.356). Just the fact that he was accused is enough to keep him from his proper place in the HOF.

IMO, its one of baseball's greatest injustices.

Do you own the book? Would you recommend it as a purchase? (for a baseball fan).

SC:
I own "The Glory of Their Times" and do recommend it as a must-have for baseball fans.

Irishman:
None of the other player you mentioned are eligible for the HOF yet. That's the only reason Big Mac is being singled out. Baseball created a helluva problem when it allowed rampant steroid use in the 80s and 90s. This will become a recurring debate when all the players you mentioned are HOF eligible. BTW, no way does Luis Gonzalez get in HOF without buying a ticket.

As to why this is such a big deal: baseball records are the most hallowed in sports, bar none. And the all-time HR record is at the top of that list. Many people, myself included, have a huge problem with Bonds being ready to break the record with much circumstantial evidence that he juiced up. The problem, at least in my eyes, is that Bonds can pass one of the all-time greats and classiest athletes in Henry Aaron. He was a pro's pro. And the HR record is cheapened by allegations of someone who took a shortcut to attain the record.

I too was captivated by the home run chase of '98 and was equally disappointed to later find out the probably reasoning behind it. I have to agree with Buster Olney, a great baseball writer for ESPN, in that he isn't going to hold steroid allegations against players from this era unless there is definitive proof, otherwise, he'd have to exclude everyone. Here's another reason why I would give McGuire a pass, even though I personally do believe he did use steroids, he was a great player even as the skinny rookie, bashing 49 homers in '87. Same as Barry Bonds, it's not like the guy went from a slap hitter to a slugger purely as a result of steroids.

As a coach, these athletes set a horrible precedent. Steroids have never conclusively been proven to guarantee home run success, though. Hitting a baseball is more about hand eye coordination than brute strength. It almost certainly can help, but it's not going to make a guy a great hitter. If anything, it would be easier for steroids to transform someone into a power pitcher than hitter, yet this angle seems to be overlooked at times. How many of those 70 home runs came of pitchers who were juicing as well?

It is a tough call, but I'll give Big Mac the benefit of the doubt, not because of his great '98 season, but because of his prior success, when he was still able to rotate his shoulder 360 degrees.

Yeah, I totally agree there. Joe should be in and after putting up stats like this: "He had a .375 batting average, threw out five baserunners, and handled thirty chances in the outfield with no errors during that series." And he does have the 3rd highest batting average.

Pete Rose for the hall of fame before these roid heads.

Well only against the rules b/c the substances happen to be deemed ILLEGAL by the United States government. But what about other supplements that have NOT been deemed illegal in a court of law? Those too give players a supposed 'unfair advantage' but are not prohibited in baseball b/c they are not against the law.

Again, if we consider Mac and others 'cheaters' who are thus ineligable for the hall, then the guys who steal signals, scuff balls, and cork bats are also cheaters who should not be allowed in the hall. This will make for a VERY small hall of fame.

Personally I think performance enhancing drugs can by logic only slightly enhance performance anyway, thus those who take them are not cheaters in the true sense of the word(as opposed to a pitcher who alters the ball). These supplements are a common part of our culture now and ALL athletes consume them. Unfortunately for Mac and Bonds, they took the ones that are illegal. This makes them law breakers in the eyes of the US legal system, it should not make them cheaters in the eyes of baseball.