Mark McGwire....

[baseball junkie]

I can't think of any reason Mark McSteriods shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame.

[blslivewire]

Since when is there a distinction between real fans and casual fans. Both pay the same amount of money to come to games, both are valued the same in ratings, both pay the same amount for jerseys. The only difference is how often each buys tickets, watches tv, buys merchandise, and due to McGwire the "casual" fans were engaging in these acts as often as the real fans.

I address that in the post. Casual fans come and go.

I dont thnk that the emergence of PED will have that large of an effect on baseball in the longterm. At some point in the next 10-15 years, Bud Selig will either create a legitimate code that severely punishes steroid users, or there will be a new commisioner who enacts such a code. Sure, steroid will have cast doubt on the players of this generation, some injustifiably so , but this experience will eventually cause the complete eradication of PED from baseball. PED inevitably would have been used at some point in baseball history, it just conveniently happened when baseball needed the "pick-me-up"

First, if Bud Selig is still the commishioner in 10-15 years, I'll become a soccer fan.

Secondly, I think you're giving Selig way too much credit if you think he's capeable of such progress.

And third, only time will tell what kind of impact PEDs will have on the game in general in the long term. I don't see how anything good can come from it.

[Bronxbombers]

First, if Bud Selig is still the commishioner in 10-15 years, I'll become a soccer fan.

Secondly, I think you're giving Selig way too much credit if you think he's capeable of such progress.

And third, only time will tell what kind of impact PEDs will have on the game in general in the long term. I don't see how anything good can come from it.


I worded it poorly. I meant that before Selig leaves, which will be 5-10 years, he will either install a new PED code or will leave and his replacement will set up such a code in his first 5 years as commisioner. I've already explained that it is illogical to think that PED would never come up in baseball. It was going to happen at some point, and you have to agree that the time when it first came to prominence (McGwire-Sosa race) was convenient for baseball as it attracted the casual fans to baseball after they had left it a few years earlier.

[blslivewire]

I worded it poorly. I meant that before Selig leaves, which will be 5-10 years, he will either install a new PED code or will leave and his replacement will set up such a code in his first 5 years as commisioner. I've already explained that it is illogical to think that PED would never come up in baseball. It was going to happen at some point, and you have to agree that the time when it first came to prominence (McGwire-Sosa race) was convenient for baseball as it attracted the casual fans to baseball after they had left it a few years earlier.


I see what your point and that's definately one way of looking at it. But I submit to you that because the McGwire/Sosa chase helped baseball so much, it hurt baseball in the long run by making newer fans accustomed to high offense and making most players feel that they had to cheat.

And you're right that PEDs and any other form of cheating are inevitable in any sport but that doesn't mean we should accept it.

[Bronxbombers]

I see what your point and that's definately one way of looking at it. But I submit to you that because the McGwire/Sosa chase helped baseball so much, it hurt baseball in the long run by making newer fans accustomed to high offense and making most players feel that they had to cheat.


I believe that was only problem in the short run. Even in the dying days of PED's(steroids) that we are in now, offensive numbers are up.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I believe that was only problem in the short run. Even in the dying days of PED's(steroids) that we are in now, offensive numbers are up.

Lets not be naive. The labs will always be one step ahead of the testers, and the players with motive have enough money to acquire desired substances.

The game itself is set up for offensive numbers. Players on PED's is just icing.

[flash143817]

So you could say that stealing gum and stealing a car are both acts that remove something without permission. How are they different?





I believe stealing gum would still constitute a crime of shoplifting like stealing a car would be grand theft auto, so in that respect they are both crimes.

I just usually tend to judge things more based on intent than on results. In both cases, the participant is intending to gain an illegal and unfair advantage. I also think your gum/car example is a little more extreme than 'roiding and corking or 'roiding and ball doctoring.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I believe stealing gum would still constitute a crime of shoplifting like stealing a car would be grand theft auto, so in that respect they are both crimes.

I just usually tend to judge things more based on intent than on results. In both cases, the participant is intending to gain an illegal and unfair advantage. I also think your gum/car example is a little more extreme than 'roiding and corking or 'roiding and ball doctoring.

Not at all. Its the same principle. There is a scale. Cheating is cheating and stealing is stealing, right? Grand theft auto is only the label that is put on the crime to desribe it, since a car was involved. Shoplifting describes where you took something from and is pretty petty actually. The scale remains though. I think corking a bat would be right next to scuffing a baseball, and pretty far from taking steroids.

You look at intent rather than result? Good thing you're not a judge ;)

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I would be qualified to serve as a judge in a criminal court, in a pinch. If I had jurisdiction over baseball crimes, taking steroids would be one of the biggest. No, it wouldn't be a capital offense, like throwing games. (See Tris Speaker, Joe Jackson, Joe Wood, Eddie Cicotte.) It also wouldn't be a life-in-prison offense, like being a manager who bet on his own team and managed every game in regular seasons like they were Game 7 of the World Series, burning up his pitching staff in the process.

Anyone who's tempted to disagree about the seriousness of steroids need only look at before/after pictures of McGwire, Sosa, Bonds and a boatload of others, along with the massive number of new-and-exciting stats compiled from 1994 to the present. (See my previous posts.) I'm not talking "death penalty" stuff here, but I am talking "20 years in prison" stuff, whereas a single corked bat or isolated incident of doctoring a ball would be a "2 to 5 years in prison" stunt, at most. Were I the sentencing judge, I'd be inclined to give some bat corkers or ball doctorers--those with no criminal history--felony probation and 6 months in the county jail. Not so for the steroid and HGH cheats, even if they're among my favorites... as was Tris Speaker, before I learned that he helped throw Game 6 of the 1912 World Series, one of the gravest and most outrageous crimes in baseball history.

BHN

[Bronxbombers]

Lets not be naive. The labs will always be one step ahead of the testers, and the players with motive have enough money to acquire desired substances.

The game itself is set up for offensive numbers. Players on PED's is just icing.


No one said that the labs werent ahead. But you cant say that using PED's is more prevalent now than in the last few years.

[flash143817]

No one said that the labs werent ahead. But you cant say that using PED's is more prevalent now than in the last few years.

I don't think anyone truly knows because cheating will always be one step ahead of the curve more than testing is.

That's part of the reason I say just legalize all steroids in sports so that there is no confusion about who might have taken them. Give everyone the same opportunity and if the players think risking their lives and their future health is worth it, then so be it. I've always been a strong believer in personal responsibility so everyone should be able to do what they want with their body, as long as it's not endangering others, which steroid use wouldn't be.

[Elvis]

I don't think anyone truly knows because cheating will always be one step ahead of the curve more than testing is.

That's part of the reason I say just legalize all steroids in sports so that there is no confusion about who might have taken them. Give everyone the same opportunity and if the players think risking their lives and their future health is worth it, then so be it. I've always been a strong believer in personal responsibility so everyone should be able to do what they want with their body, as long as it's not endangering others, which steroid use wouldn't be.

I agree. I also think they should legalize cocaine for players too--it would really help the pitchers regain a healthy balance to keep up with the juiced hitters. Heroin would be readily available to players after the game to help with those aches and pains and help get them "down" after the coke. I would also sell weed and pipes at the concession stands so the fans could be pretty mellow while enjoying the game. It would really boost the food sales too--an added revenue plus.

[blslivewire]

I agree. I also think they should legalize cocaine for players too--it would really help the pitchers regain a healthy balance to keep up with the juiced hitters. Heroin would be readily available to players after the game to help with those aches and pains and help get them "down" after the coke. I would also sell weed and pipes at the concession stands so the fans could be pretty mellow while enjoying the game. It would really boost the food sales too--an added revenue plus.

And don't forget the acid so that Royals games can be watchable.

[Whitesoxnut]

Lots of McGwire haters on this site.

Because someone doesn't think Mcgwire shouldnt be in the HOF doesn't mean they "hate him". I'd bet nobody here "hates him", or even knows him. Another point to keep him out of the HOF is he was atrocious in the playoffs in his career.

In the second half of 1998, when McGwire's chase was at its zenith, Fox ratings went up 11%. Baseball itself reported earning an extra 1.5 billion dollars through the home run chase. McGwire's popularity was unprecedented at that time. In fact, he made numerous appearances in pop culture events, including books, sitcoms, and news shows. Don't say McGwire was not the cause of the increase in sales. It wasn't interleague, which most casual fans dont even care about, it wasnt new ballparks, can you point to one particular ballpark which was responsible for the difference in attendance and ratings between 1997 and 1998. What you dont realize is yes the fans' money saved the teams, but it was McGwire and Sosa that compelled the fans to spend the money

MLB had, up to that point, its largest attendance and revenue numbers in 1993, the year before the strike. While I dont question the steroid derby had an impact on TV revenues, or when SF, STL, or the Cubs, played in certain cities. There is no proof the derby increased general MLB revenues. Why would someone in NYNY go to a Mets game because STL was in Chicago to play the Cubs? Baseball is a very popular game in America and it was only a matter of time before the game regained its pre-strike numbers.

To crown a guy like McGwire, or even worse Sosa or Bonds, as "Kings who nobly came to the rescue of baseball" is kinda ludicrous. First off they cheated to put up the numbers and I really doubt they cheated to save the game of baseball. At least Bonds gets an "A" for honesty. He came out and said he wanted to use 'roids "to get his money and then get out of the game".

And it worked! They all "got their money" including MLB, most of all MLB.

[StanTheMan]

There is only one reason to NOT vote Mark McGwire in the HOF next year.

If you believe he took Steroids (not ANDRO) then you can't vote him in regardless of the fact that his numbers mean he is a no doubt HOF'er, IMO. I believe he did much more than Andro, and I therefore do not think he is a HOF'er. Neither is anyone else who took them. If there is a suspicion, even a slight one, then use the multiple ballots to buy some time....

I for one would absolutely love it if McGwire recieved 5%, and only 5%, and BARELY remained on the ballot for next year. What a terrific message that would be. He'll get more than that of course, but should absolutely not make it on the first ballot.

And incredibly, how can any of you place Steroid use on the same level as doctoring a ball? First of all, doctoring a ball CAN be caught midgame, and dealt with. The umpires, or the members of the other team can see it. You can see the marks on the ball, etc. Steroids cannot be caught mid-game, EVER. It is the sinister nature of taking them, and the immeasureable improvement in performance (not that it is off the charts, but rather it cannot be quantified) that makes it so serious, IMO.

And for those who support the stealing a pack of gum and stealing a car are both stealing, so McGwire really didn't do that much wrong, argument, look at it this way.

Tonight, player X goes to the plate with a corked bat. He gets a base hit/HR, whatever to win the game.

Is his "crime" similar to Rafael Palmeiro's?

How could anyone possibly think so? A corked bat could break, and all is revealed. The league could ask for the bat to be checked even if it is not broken. The opposing manager could ask for the bat to be checked. It could make a less than normal crack when player X connects with the ball, and the umps confiscate the stick and send it to the league office. You could see evidence of the corking on the end of the bat, etc. Bottom line is, you could be caught right then and there in various manners. In some cases, like Sosa's you are caught BEFORE your batted ball even stops rolling.

Now, unless Steroid users emit a certain noise when they walk announcing to all who can hear that they have juiced, perhaps a batted ball hit by a juicer turns jet black when hit, or if being hit by a pitch causes a steroid user to bleed flourescent green blood automatically, no matter if it was a Roger Clemens fastball or a Jamie Moyer curve, or some other undeniable IN GAME funtion of Steroid use could be immediately identified, then two are not even close in comparison. Thinking that they are is both moronic and shortsided..... (it's the ARGUMENT that is so, not the person, ok?)

One transgression is a lego house built in three minutes by my 8 year old daughter. The other is Khufu's Great Pyramid at Giza. I know which is which

[CTaka]

McGwire was/is as phony as a $4 bill. The only thing he could do on a baseball field was hit the ball over the fence and even this has been shrouded by the 'roids controversy. On defense he did work hard to become an adequate 1st baseman. But he only won one gold glove at the position and he was never a HOF fielder.

Barry Bonds on the other hand was a HOF 5 tool player before he ever started taking 'roids.

McGwire was almost totally one dimensional. And even with that he is an embarrassment. I dont think he deserves to get into the HOF.


ONLY one gold glove?? How many did Tony Perez, Willie Stargell, Orlando Cepeda, Willie McCovey, or Harmon Killebrew win? I'm not saying that they were all "one-dimensional" players, but they were known primarily for their ability to hit the long ball. Doesn't that sound like McGwire to you? For a "one dimensional" player to win a gold glove, lead the league in OBP twice, adjusted OPS+ four times, RBIs once, and three times finished in the top three in total bases, that's not a shabby career.

Based on his on field accomplishments, I think Mac is a slam dunk hall of famer. But because of the steroids controversy, I think it will be a long time, if ever, before he gets voted in. I think that many of the writers are sick over the whole steroids mess and one key method they have of stressing that feeling is to withhold votes from the people most closely linked to steroids. Big Mac is in the leadoff position for that.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Y'all are a lot more sanguine about the system's honesty than I am. I think it will be a long time, if ever, before McGwire SHOULD be voted in, despite the fact that on his numbers alone, he's a slam-dunk Hall of Famer as the game's greatest "pure" (yeah, great word choice, Jim--barf) HR slugger.

But I also think the HOF Committee will elect him in his first year of eligibility, and I further think the smiling faces at ESPN will say maybe one line about a "controversy" over "performance enhancing drugs," before they go on and on and on about the great big (white) guy whose booming HR's everybody loved to watch. And they'll say he was like Dave Kingman, only he hit the ball even farther and even more frequently, and he could field his position, and his teammates and fans didn't come to hate him, and he broke Ruth's "untouchable" career record for HR/AB ratio.

And I'll throw up.

[flash143817]

I agree. I also think they should legalize cocaine for players too--it would really help the pitchers regain a healthy balance to keep up with the juiced hitters. Heroin would be readily available to players after the game to help with those aches and pains and help get them "down" after the coke. I would also sell weed and pipes at the concession stands so the fans could be pretty mellow while enjoying the game. It would really boost the food sales too--an added revenue plus.

I'd get into this argument with you, but it would really stray off topic and probably start getting political which I'd rather not do. I know you think you are being facetious here, because I fail to see (with the possible exception of cocaine as a stimulant) how these drugs are performance enhancing like steroids would be. Basically...why would players even want the option to take these other drugs while playing?


That's as best as I can do to keep this on topic. I'll just say that as a personal belief, I don't think someone should be standing over my shoulder telling me what I can and can't put in my body, so long as I'm not harming anyone else by taking it. And I say that while being able to honestly say I've never taken any type of narcotic drug, so don't get the impression that I'm saying that because I'm just a big druggie and it would benefit me. I just believe in personal responsibility and not a "big brother" that watches over me.

[mtortolero]

Being McGuire the main image of this juiced era, if he can obtain his plaque in the HOF in the writers 15 years period then Sosa and Palmeiro will be waiting by theirs own too. Anyway, in 15-20 years all this second half of the 90´s juice noise will be only in the minds of some few stats geeks and old sportwriters and if they are not yet inside, the Veterans Comitte will give them the pass.

[HOOTIE]

Lots of bad posts in here. McGwire is a top 5 1b all-time easy.

His EQA, BRAA, FRAA beat Mccovey/Killebrew to name a few. GG are meaningless. Mark was only -30 FRAA career. MCcovey, Killebrew were much worse.

Sosa does not compare to McGwire, not even close.

Mac was a skinny kid who hit 49 hrs. Andro was street legal when he took it. It was in his locker, just like Mays red juice. McGwire was never suspended, never busted. He's not more guilty then druggies like Mays. The HOF will soon be a joke if McGwire/Bonds are kept out.

[Sliding Billy]

What interests me most about the steroid issue is the completely different response by baseball culture to the greenie issue. Why is that?

Is it that greenies are not perceived as very effective PED's?
Or that greenie use was an open secret for a long time and then not a secret at all?
Or is it that the baseball world was thrilled by the Sosa-McGuire assault on Ruth's record, and by Barry Bonds's phenomenal season, and feels that it was duped and betrayed?
Or is it something else?

Obviously, the two are not identical. Equally obviously, they have a great deal in common. So why are the responses poles apart? Why are the differences important and the similarities unimportant in shaping the collective responses?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

If steroids only made you feel stronger, then perhaps more people would draw a parallel.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Or, if greenies made you the size of a small mountain, doubled your head size and caused heart palpitations, and if the pervasive use of greenies from 1994-2005 had annihilated all sorts of records and hugely increased the number of people with a .700+ single-season slugging average, 50+ HR's in a season, 100+ XBH's in a season, etc., etc.,, then perhaps more people would draw a parallel between the two.

But that's not how it is. Greenies never caused a fairly good player like Sosa or Kent suddenly to become a tremendous player. Greenies never took the game's all-time greatest combination of power and speed, a guy who also was its greatest defensive left fielder, and turned him into a giant-headed, freakishly-muscled, second coming of Babe Ruth at a transparently incredible age. They never caused a fairly good player like Sosa suddenly to become a very good player, and then a tremendous player who hit over 60 home runs in a season THREE times... and win ZERO home run crowns in those years. And they never caused an already very good HR hitter like McGwire to become a candidate for the strongman in a circus freak show, and to hit baseballs like they were golf balls, and do so at an all-time record pace.

People who compare this stilling perversion of baseball to the effect of greenies or spitballs/scuffballs--to say nothing of Babe Ruth's violations of Prohibition, as one poster has done on another website (I'm not joking)--are being deliberately blind. Not all crimes are created equal, and what's happened to the record books in the last 12 years proves that fact emphatically. That's not to condone cheating in any form, and I've said all along that Gaylord Perry's election to the Hall was its darkest day, but the elections of McGwire and Sosa will trump Perry's election by a huge margin.

Bonds is another story. As I've said many times before on this site, he obviously belongs there on his legitimate merits, and I'd put him in on his first year of eligibility because he was one of the 15 or 20 greatest players of all time, even if you erase his 2000-2006 seasons. I'd put a huge * by all of his "records" from those seasons, but I don't think MLB should deny any of his great feats through the end of 1999. This is not Tris Speaker we're talking about.

BHN

[Sultan_1895-1948]

So Bonds' HOF plaque will have a footnote that says: excluding 2000-2006(7)? Or will all his career totals be listed only through '99?

I believe this applies nicely here. http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=569138&postcount=100

Once you make that decision, its all tainted imo. Even though I would whole heartedly agree that before '00 he was easily top 20 all time. Makes the story that much more disappointing imo.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

So what do you call that? Mount Flushmore?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

lol, yeah something like that. Should have made it rain money and found a way to put Selig in the shot.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

So Bonds' HOF plaque will have a footnote that says: excluding 2000-2006(7)? Or will all his career totals be listed only through '99?

I believe this applies nicely here. http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=569138&postcount=100

Once you make that decision, its all tainted imo. Even though I would whole heartedly agree that before '00 he was easily top 20 all time. Makes the story that much more disappointing imo.

So, if you accept my word for it that Timothy Gay's book pretty much NAILS Tris Speaker, Smoky Joe Wood, Harry Hooper and others (especially Wood) for throwing Game 6 of the 1912 World Series, what would you say should be done? I mean, throwing Game 6 of a World Series is about as big a baseball crime as there is. And they had to face Christy Mathewson in Game 7. Yes, they rallied in the bottom of the 10th to beat him in Game 7, but that was very lucky and so what? They threw a Game Six!

Should Tris Speaker and Harry Hooper be expelled from the Hall, and should Joe Wood be forever banned from it? What they did was much, much worse than anything McGwire, Sosa or Bonds ever did.

BHN

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Throwing a game is brutal. No place for that in the game. However that did nothing to enhance their numbers or make them appear better than they were as ballplayers. I think that's a character issue for the HOF, and I could see the argument for them not getting in because of it. I don't see it as being worse than what the steroid users did though, because of the previously mentioned "as ballplayers" comment.

[Sliding Billy]

If steroids only made you feel stronger, then perhaps more people would draw a parallel.
I see your point.

Of course I haven't read any studies on the effects of amphetamines on athletic performance, and it may be that people who are enraged about steroids and not about greenies reached this conclusion after studying the subject and can say with documented certainty that, say, the records broken during the 60's and the widespread use of amphetamines at the same time had nothing to do with each other.

On the other hand, amphetamines are almost universally banned because of their performance-enhancing effects; athletes have nevertheless widely used them, at the risk of their careers, for decades; and their use has prompted drug scandals in other sports. Maybe it's all drug-induced fantasy. I don't honestly know.

I may be completely wrong about this, but it strikes me that many of the people who are outraged by steroid use are eager to believe that greenies are worthless and consequently not part of the issue. Frankly, it seems to me that for many, the feeling that amphetamine abuse is relatively inconsequential precedes the reasoning, rather than the other way around.

Particularly what makes me think so are claims that "there's no comparison between steroid and amphetamine abuse." I just cannot see how this hyperbole could seriously be intended to persuade anyone except the claimants themselves. Obviously, they are different in effects and in effectiveness. However, they are obviously similar in points that have been vehemently raised in the steroid argument: They are illegal; they are taken in order to enhance performance; their covert use puts fans in a false position; condoning this use perpetuates a double standard for athletes and non-athletes. Moreover, I think it's simply true that the team-sanctioned dispensing of amphetamines created a climate in MLB culture that facilitated cocaine and, later, steroid use, so there is, to me, a clear link between them.

In other words, it seems to me that there could have been two visceral responses to the steroid scandals: (1) a general disgust with all drug use in MLB or (2) a radical exceptionalism for steroids that effectively cleans the slate for all other kinds of drug use. I'm curious why the second, rather than the first, is the prevailing one.

(Another reason that occurs to me is the widespread contemporaneous use of greenies, not by muscle-bound pinheads, but by the overweight or depressed and by college students pulling all-nighters, i.e. by people like us.)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I'm not so sure that greenies are being completely excused. Simple matter of impact and what helps more. In this era especially, the benefit of steroids would seem to crush all competition in the PED department. The strength and endurance with that strength, added to the mental edge of knowing you're bigger and stronger than your competition. Can become very addicting.

Lets say you have a strained muscle or you're just dog tired. You take a greenie. You're essentially fooled into thinking you're 100% but you're still running on that same sore/strained muscle. Much like a pitcher who takes a cortisone shot. Steroids actually alter you muscularly. Totally different world. Much like corking a bat is altering the tool, with steroids, you become the tool.

btw: You mentioned a bunch of records being broke in the 60's. What records do you speak of?

[flash143817]

I'm not convinced that greenies are as worthless or as meaningless as others think. Mays, Aaron, and Schmidt have all admitted to taking them and those are top 10 all time quality players and the best of their eras. Who's to say that they would have still been alltime great players without the greenies?

I don't think anyone can say for sure with concrete proof and I would put greenie use as being similar to steroids until people can prove how much less they help than steroids.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Well, Aaron admitted to trying them one time.

I wouldn't hold your breath for a controlled study of the two, involving major leaguers before and after use of both.

Comes down to this imo. We know that steroids make you bigger and stronger and add endurance. We know how much being bigger and stronger and having that added muscular endurance can help a ballplayer in the here and now, and over the course of 162 game season. You can take all the greenies you want, go workout like a madman, and you're not going to see different results than you naturally would. They don't actually change you. They make you feel refreshed and more energetic temporarily, and the player comes to rely on them even when they're feeling fine.

Is it an edge, sure it is, but it also depends on the user. Some who try greenies might feel too jittery or can't deal with the heart pounding like that. They might be too focused and their brain works in over-drive which can hinder performance. You want to stay free and loose with an ease of mind in the box, just reacting to what you see and letting your natural abilities take over.

I wonder how many steroid users get big and strong and don't like the superhuman feeling it gives them. From all accounts, they want more and more. Very psychologically addicting.

They're both wrong imo, but at different ends of the spectrum. Like finding out your girlfriend called her ex-boyfriend behind your back, or finding out she cheated on you with him. Both aren't good, but different levels of bad.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I'm not convinced that greenies are as worthless or as meaningless as others think. Mays, Aaron, and Schmidt have all admitted to taking them and those are top 10 all time quality players and the best of their eras. Who's to say that they would have still been alltime great players without the greenies?

I don't think anyone can say for sure with concrete proof and I would put greenie use as being similar to steroids until people can prove how much less they help than steroids.

You're talking about an impossible type of proof. And the notion--not espoused by you, so please don't read this as a response to you--that people are willfully blind to amphetamines because they want to protect sacred cows from the '50's and '60's, is at least nonsense in the big majority of cases, and it's certainly nonsense in my case. I grew up on Willie Mays and the firm belief he was #1 all time, but it's long been obvious to me that Babe Ruth, though a less multi-dimensional superstar, was a much better player than Mays. And while I still have Mays at #2, I'm seriously entertaining the thought that the man with 2200+ runs and 1900+ RBI's, yet only 112 HR's (Ty Cobb), should be #2.

As a middle-aged criminal defense attorney, I don't need to be told about the dangers of amphetamines. One in particular, meth, is the worst drug in all creation... and by a big margin. ANY criminal lawyer on either side, or any seasoned cop, will tell you the same thing--and for very good reasons. Coke is also much worse than its users fancy it to be, for reasons I could could write thousands of words about, but it's nothing like crank. Yet as a baseball fan for almost 50 years now (since age 5), I find it astonishing that anyone could claim greenies and other stimulants have an effect on the integrity of the game which is remotely akin to what steroids have done to it.

That's plainly not so. Now, 10 or 20 years down the road, which drug will be worse on the players' cardiovascular systems? I haven't a clue, though we might want to consult Ken Caminiti's widow and physician. But I'm sure both groups of drugs will ravage the players' systems. As to their effects on the game, however, as I've said previously, one need only review what was done to the record book in the past 12 years. And review the number of new guys who've hit 50 HR's in a season, the number of new guys who've slugged .700 in a season, the number of new guys who've amassed 100 extra base hits in a season, etc., etc. Nothing remotely akin to that happened in the 1960's, and I was around then, so I know.

Have players always had larcenous hearts and found ways to violate both the game's laws and Mother Nature's rules? Yes. But steroids and other PED's have taken it to an entirely different plane, and we only know half the story, so far--if that. We only know about PED's sad but comical effects on power, with middle infielders hitting opposite-field HR's 15 rows deep into the seats and big guys crushing balls like they're Babe Ruth. We DON'T know much of anything, yet, about the extent to which this garbage has perverted modern pitching. And you can bet Selig and the other panjandrums of MLB will do what they can to keep us from learning. But I believe the truth eventually will come out, even if it's a bad thing for us all, and even if guys we've long admired--like, in my case, Roger Clemens--take the fall.

It's been such a sad time to be someone who has spent his life studying and loving the game's history.

[blslivewire]

Wait a minute.

The Hall of Fame is for honoring players and their accomplishments-their past accomplishments.

And we all know he doesn't like talking about the past so we'll save him the trouble.

[Brannu]

Unfortunately, for the legalities of this country, and individuals that are under the scrutiny of court systems and federal indictments, we have moved into a more concentrated state of "guilty until proven innocent" rather than the opposite - which happens to be the law of the land. Yet, with all types of laws being broken and bypassed by people in federal positions, it doesn't seem outlandish that this new form of judgement has become the rule.

Mark McGwire should be in solely on the current law of the land: Innocent until proven guilty. In my mind, it is really as simple as that. If the BBWAA has any issues with his being inducted, as most do, then they should ask for a federal investigation as is being done against Bonds. If not, to solely leave someone out that normally would have been in, simply because of your own personal beliefs that are completely unfounded ... is prejudice. And that should never be a precedent to decision making. Let him in, and if he is found to be guilty of the accusations against him ... take him out. Very simple.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Unfortunately, for the legalities of this country, and individuals that are under the scrutiny of court systems and federal indictments, we have moved into a more concentrated state of "guilty until proven innocent" rather than the opposite - which happens to be the law of the land. Yet, with all types of laws being broken and bypassed by people in federal positions, it doesn't seem outlandish that this new form of judgement has become the rule.

Mark McGwire should be in solely on the current law of the land: Innocent until proven guilty. In my mind, it is really as simple as that. If the BBWAA has any issues with his being inducted, as most do, then they should ask for a federal investigation as is being done against Bonds. If not, to solely leave someone out that normally would have been in, simply because of your own personal beliefs that are completely unfounded ... is prejudice. And that should never be a precedent to decision making. Let him in, and if he is found to be guilty of the accusations against him ... take him out. Very simple.

Thats a nice premise, but "innocent until proven guilty" only works if there is a way to find somebody guilty. Big difference here. Short of an admission, how are you going to find him guilty.

[UTforever22]

without steriod being taken into consideration, big mac is a HOFer. however, roids change everything. is Baseball wants to prove that it is beyond the steroids era, it must not allow steroid users into the hall

[Brannu]

Thats a nice premise, but "innocent until proven guilty" only works if there is a way to find somebody guilty. Big difference here. Short of an admission, how are you going to find him guilty.

This is why I think they need to do an investigation. If the investigation comes up emtpy ... you have to let him in. I think that the limits of this investigation is found in the fact that not only the big names have been involved and you run into players protecting each other - for their own sake. Yet and still, I don't think anyone can be condemned on belief alone. If we stop using positive proof as a determinant of judgement, we begin going against the law and putting EVERYONE (yes, even everyday citizens such as ourselves) at risk for contrary judgement.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Unfortunately, for the legalities of this country, and individuals that are under the scrutiny of court systems and federal indictments, we have moved into a more concentrated state of "guilty until proven innocent" rather than the opposite - which happens to be the law of the land. Yet, with all types of laws being broken and bypassed by people in federal positions, it doesn't seem outlandish that this new form of judgement has become the rule.

Mark McGwire should be in solely on the current law of the land: Innocent until proven guilty. In my mind, it is really as simple as that. If the BBWAA has any issues with his being inducted, as most do, then they should ask for a federal investigation as is being done against Bonds. If not, to solely leave someone out that normally would have been in, simply because of your own personal beliefs that are completely unfounded ... is prejudice. And that should never be a precedent to decision making. Let him in, and if he is found to be guilty of the accusations against him ... take him out. Very simple.

Mark McGwire is not in a criminal courtroom--where, by the way, I make my living. The presumption of innocence does not apply here. Neither does the burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But even if it did, American courtrooms allow people to be convicted when the circumstantial evidence can only rationally be reconciled with their guilt... and that is exactly the case with the former circus side-show strongman freak of the St. Louis Cardinals... the guy who routinely hit baseballs like they were golf balls in the final years of his career. A career which took him from being a very good HR hitter to suddenly being a preposterously great HR hitter with no remote historical parallel, routinely annihilating the ball, racking up huge slugging percentages despite an almost total lack of 2B's and 3B's, and being walked constantly.

Take everything you know about his career, including what you saw on TV, and put it all together. Do all of those events, and all of the pieces of information--including the Congressional hearing where, it sadly seems, the only honest man was Jose Canseco--strike you as ones which rationally can be reconciled with a finding of non-use?

Me, either.

BHN

[Seattle1]

I just feel like you can't separate out the performance enhancing drug issue from his career. It's not possible to look at it like that. It's too closely intertwined.

[Elvis]

I just feel like you can't separate out the performance enhancing drug issue from his career. It's not possible to look at it like that. It's too closely intertwined.

Especially with McGwire. He was probably doped up on something or another before he even made the bigs.

[Brannu]

Mark McGwire is not in a criminal courtroom--where, by the way, I make my living. The presumption of innocence does not apply here. Neither does the burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But even if it did, American courtrooms allow people to be convicted when the circumstantial evidence can only rationally be reconciled with their guilt... and that is exactly the case with the former circus side-show strongman freak of the St. Louis Cardinals... the guy who routinely hit baseballs like they were golf balls in the final years of his career. A career which took him from being a very good HR hitter to suddenly being a preposterously great HR hitter with no remote historical parallel, routinely annihilating the ball, racking up huge slugging percentages despite an almost total lack of 2B's and 3B's, and being walked constantly.

Take everything you know about his career, including what you saw on TV, and put it all together. Do all of those events, and all of the pieces of information--including the Congressional hearing where, it sadly seems, the only honest man was Jose Canseco--strike you as ones which rationally can be reconciled with a finding of non-use?

Me, either.

BHN

Still, in my mind, not enough EVIDENCE. You are still using suspicions, beliefs, heresy and Canseco's opening of a can of worms to punish someone. If Canseco hadn't come forth and began the conversation ... and the congressional hearings didn't commence to move eyes away from all of the wrongs committed by our government ... we wouldn't be having this conversation. He would be in.

[Sliding Billy]

btw: You mentioned a bunch of records being broke in the 60's. What records do you speak of?
Two that come to mind are Ruth's single-season home-run record and Cobb's single-season stolen base record. Of course under the favorable auspices of the 1963-68 strike zone, strikeout records were broken right and left, and Tiant set a record for fewest hits/inning in '68. From the little I know of amphetamines, I wonder if batters' use of greenies might have affected the strike out record, but that's just speculation.

As a middle-aged criminal defense attorney, I don't need to be told about the dangers of amphetamines. One in particular, meth, is the worst drug in all creation...

Yet as a baseball fan for almost 50 years now (since age 5), I find it astonishing that anyone could claim greenies and other stimulants have an effect on the integrity of the game which is remotely akin to what steroids have done to it. . . .

As to their effects on the game, however, as I've said previously, one need only review what was done to the record book in the past 12 years. And review the number of new guys who've hit 50 HR's in a season, the number of new guys who've slugged .700 in a season, the number of new guys who've amassed 100 extra base hits in a season, etc., etc. Nothing remotely akin to that happened in the 1960's, and I was around then, so I know. . . .

Have players always had larcenous hearts and found ways to violate both the game's laws and Mother Nature's rules? Yes. But steroids and other PED's have taken it to an entirely different plane, and we only know half the story, so far--if that.


BHN, it's a pleasure to meet a middle-aged criminal defense attorney still capable of astonishment. :) I guess a lot depends on what "the integrity of the game" comprises. It seems that your grounds for putting steroids in a whole 'nother category applies to pre-ban use as well, and the question of legality doesn't really arise at all. Steroids changed the game tremendously, most noticeably in the record books, but only most noticeably, and for that reason they are a thing apart. Is that a fair paraphrase?

The reason I'm raising all these questions is that, duh, I don't know the answers. As others have pointed out, when it all shakes down, a fair and consistent response would have to be a nuanced one. Given the history of MLB, that is unlikely to happen, but even so, it seems to me a good idea to get ready by examining the various components of our revulsion and considering how they apply in other situations.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Two that come to mind are Ruth's single-season home-run record and Cobb's single-season stolen base record. Of course under the favorable auspices of the 1963-68 strike zone, strikeout records were broken right and left, and Tiant set a record for fewest hits/inning in '68. From the little I know of amphetamines, I wonder if batters' use of greenies might have affected the strike out record, but that's just speculation.



BHN, it's a pleasure to meet a middle-aged criminal defense attorney still capable of astonishment. :) I guess a lot depends on what "the integrity of the game" comprises. It seems that your grounds for putting steroids in a whole 'nother category applies to pre-ban use as well, and the question of legality doesn't really arise at all. Steroids changed the game tremendously, most noticeably in the record books, but only most noticeably, and for that reason they are a thing apart. Is that a fair paraphrase?

The reason I'm raising all these questions is that, duh, I don't know the answers. As others have pointed out, when it all shakes down, a fair and consistent response would have to be a nuanced one. Given the history of MLB, that is unlikely to happen, but even so, it seems to me a good idea to get ready by examining the various components of our revulsion and considering how they apply in other situations.

You'd want to toss in the fact that they were ALWAYS violative of federal law, and that, IMO, one would have to be buried in denial or too mentally deficient to play the game in order not to know that turning oneself into a small mountain range, and thereupon giving rise to the inevitable freakish changes in one's stats, is just not cool. No amount of weightlifting could do that, or all sorts of previously so-so (pun intended) RF's would turn into big HR hitters, and then into monsters who hit 60+ HR's three times--without winning a single crown in those years. And then there's what Bonds did after his 35th, and especially after his 36th, birthday.

OK, there's a scrofulous moral vacuum at the top of MLB. But that garbage was illegal under federal law--and anyway, does one need a Ph.D. in Philosophy to realize chemically converting oneself to a freakshow's muscleman, and adding 100+ feet to the distance of one's drives, is not OK? I mean, if it's ok, why don't they all talk about it on TV? Because they know it's NOT ok, that's why. Because they know that all of the great HR hitters of the past--and not just those who may have taken the vastly less effective greenies in the 50's and 60's--did it the honest way, not the Schwarznegger way.

BHN

[Sliding Billy]

You'd want to toss in the fact that they were ALWAYS violative of federal law, and that, IMO, one would have to be buried in denial or too mentally deficient to play the game in order not to know that turning oneself into a small mountain range, and thereupon giving rise to the inevitable freakish changes in one's stats, is just not cool. No amount of weightlifting could do that, or all sorts of previously so-so (pun intended) RF's would turn into big HR hitters, and then into monsters who hit 60+ HR's three times--without winning a single crown in those years. And then there's what Bonds did after his 35th, and especially after his 36th, birthday.

OK, there's a scrofulous moral vacuum at the top of MLB. But that garbage was illegal under federal law--and anyway, does one need a Ph.D. in Philosophy to realize chemically converting oneself to a freakshow's muscleman, and adding 100+ feet to the distance of one's drives, is not OK? I mean, if it's ok, why don't they all talk about it on TV? Because they know it's NOT ok, that's why. Because they know that all of the great HR hitters of the past--and not just those who may have taken the vastly less effective greenies in the 50's and 60's--did it the honest way, not the Schwarznegger way.

BHN
OK. So greenies were illegal and no one actually talked about them on TV, but they were kind of . . . nudge-nudge wink-wink items, rather than deeply shameful. There's a droll anecdote in Ball 4, I think about a pitcher losing it on the mound over a disputed ball call, and someone in the bullpen observes, "So-and-so's greenie must've just kicked in." But since they didn't deform the game, their illegality is by itself not scandalous.

On the other hand, steroids did deform the game and the players in ways that we know and others we suspect, so in that case illegality kicks in, so to speak, compounding the offense. Chicanery has always been part of the game, but when it is so effective, so overpowering, then it's time to rise up and smite it. Is that a fair representation?

What about this scenario?

"Problems, Kid? You look like you just struck out with the bases loaded."
"Gee, Champ, I just don't understand it. I've been working out all winter, and I've still got, ulp, Warning Track Power."
"Warning Track Power, Kid? Are you still using that silly green stuff? Try some of these, instead."
"Bu-but I thought Anabolic Steroids were illegal, and they made your head look funny."
"Illegal? [chuckle] So are those little green pills, Kid. [stern] You don't want to let the team down, do you? If it takes a sore arm or a little acromegaly to win, that's what it takes."
"Well. . . if it's for the good of the team . . . I guess I could. . . ."
[Later that same season]
"Hey, Champ, you were right. My Warning Track Power is a thing of the past. I'm going to tell all my banjo-hitting friends about Anabolic Steroids."
"That's my boy. . . . Uh, just don't mention it to Skip. I don't think he'd want to know."

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Yes, that's a fair representation of how I feel about it. And as someone who has followed both the game and its history in the 47 years since I was 6, it makes me sick.

[Appling]

Let him in, and if he is found to be guilty of the accusations against him ... take him out. Very simple.

There is no historical precedence for this. ONce elected to any national Hall of Fame, it seems you are in for life -- no matter what new facts may have been found later.

O.J. Simpson is in the Football Hall of Fame at Canton Ohio. If OJ had been convicted of killing his wife, I am sure that he would still be enshrined in Canton.

But I don't see a major change in McGwire's homerun power starting 1997 or 1998. He had one of the highest HR/AB ratios prior to the 1998; he just had a career of back injuries which severely limited his playing time.

I recall he was openly using some sort of steroid to control his back pain, and that is how he was able to play a full season in 1997-98-99. I don't think Mark even tried to hide that substance. (Android?)

[terribledude]

Yeah that is very typical of an android. And I don't know if the HOF rules explicit exclude them from induction.

I say he's in, android or not.

[leecemark]

--McGwire has refused to speak to the Mitchell Committee currently investigating steroids in baseball. His right not to, but it doesn't add to his credibilty.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

"Well. . . if it's for the good of the team . . . I guess I could. . . ."


The decision to take or not take has nothing to do with their teammates imo. Its about them. Their numbers. Their fame. Their contract. Their records. Their legacy. Team. Puh-lease ;)

[Sliding Billy]

The decision to take or not take has nothing to do with their teammates imo. Its about them. Their numbers. Their fame. Their contract. Their records. Their legacy. Team. Puh-lease ;)
True, but as the steroid plague got started, a player who didn't want to take steroids in the prevailing culture would have to deal with that pressure as well.

[CaliforniaCajun]

I think McGwire's career compares favorably with that of HOF Ralph Kiner.
Kiner won 7 HR titles, McGwire had 4. Kiner had five seasons with 40 or more homeruns, McGwire had six. Kiiner had two seasons with 50+ homeruns (1947 & 1949); McGwire had four seasons over 50 (1996-97-98-99)/

Kiner had 369 homeruns in 5205 career AB -- 36.9 per season and 14.1 AB per homerun.

McGwire had 583 homeruns in 6187 AB (16 seasons but several with injuries); Mark averaged 36.4 per season but 10.6 homeruns per AB. Yet there is that one murky cloud over McGwire.

I see next year's HOF vote as a forerunner of the first Bonds ballot. It will be a preview of how HOF voters look on the PED issue, even though Bonds was clearly the better all-around player. If McGwire is elected on the first ballot, Bonds will also be elected on the first ballot. If McGwire falls short on the first ballot, so will Bonds.

Did baseball look the other way to win fans back with home runs after 1994? Nobody's clean on this issue.

The only thing I think steroids gives you is rapid healing of injuries. If McGwire could hit 70 with them, he could hit 60 without them. Is it coincidental that McGwire and Bonds became cripples after they became suspects?

Some players of the past would have taken these performance enhancing drugs if they were available.

The difference between Ralph Kiner and Mark McGwire is that Kiner is better liked and McGwire's stock has fallen since his congressional testimony last year. Some of these people who get to vote for Hall of Famers aren't held accountable for their decisions and I think they should be prepared to explain to help ensure that true Hall of Famers will get in there.

[vasprtsfn]

HOF voter Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe, probably said it best on the SPORTS REPORTERS this morning-Mark McGwire doesnt want to talk about the past, so dont ask me to evaluate his past.

[sturg1dj]

if we ignore steroids, then McGwire is like a less consistant Harmon Killebrew, and Harman had to wait, so why not McGwire?

[west coast orange and black]

^^ this thing about killebrew having to wait:
was it a simple matter of the chips falling where they may... or a deliberate move to not allow entrance in his first year?

. . . . . . . . .

i believe that voters who would purposely withhold a vote for mcgwire but then vote for him in the second year of eligibility ought to have their voting right recinded: the retired player is either hof material, or not. he ain't gonna step into the box and enhance or dilute his performance any more.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I agree with West Coast, because, as I've said before on this thread, McGwire's numbers at face value just scream "HALL OF FAME!"

McGwire had a very good career OBP. He had a fantastic career slugging average. He had the greatest HR/AB ratio in the history of Major League Baseball. He hit an enormous number of HR's. If, like the vast majority of Hall of Fame applicants, he is to be judged on his numbers alone, he is a mortal lock for the Hall of Fame. He is WAY ahead of Harmon Killebrew, who also was a one-dimensional but great HR hitter, and averaged 1 HR every 14.22 AB's--which, though great, was a long way short of McGwire's career figure, as were Killebrew's career OBP and slugging average.

So again, strictly on the numbers, McGwire is a slam-dunk Hall of Famer. That is every bit as true now as it will be in 5 or 10 or 100 years. It will never change.

Meanwhile....

If you are as disgusted as I am by what Mark McGwire did to get the strength and bat speed to go from being a very good HR hitter to being a HR hitter nonpareil, shattering Ruth's unbreakable HR/AB record (1/11.76, with Kiner next at 1/14.11) and having one of the all-time greatest slugging percentages, there is no reason why that disgust should become mitigated through the years. If you think his numbers are phony now, they will become no less so with time. This is not a matter like that of Pete Rose, whom many, including me, feel has served the right amount of time for his egregious offenses and should be put in the Hall. If you think McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro and others are frauds who don't belong in the Hall, that perspective should not diminish with time.

So I agree with West Coast. McGwire cannot become any more or less legitimate a Hall of Famer in his second, fifth or twentieth year of eligibility. If he's to be punished for PED's, he should be punished for eternity. If not, he should get in at once--and by a near-unanimous margin. He will never be any more or less Hall-worthy than he is right now.

BHN

[Appling]

I McGwire cannot become any more or less legitimate a Hall of Famer in his second, fifth or twentieth year of eligibility. If he's to be punished for PED's, he should be punished for eternity. If not, he should get in at once--and by a near-unanimous margin. He will never be any more or less Hall-worthy than he is right now.

BHN
I agree -- Mark won't get any better with "aging".

But what action would you take as a voter -- is he IN or OUT?

[luv4thegame9]

MCgwire does not deserve to be in the HOF he's a shame to baeball! IT pete rose gets banned, then so should mcgwire! he's a crook.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I agree -- Mark won't get any better with "aging".

But what action would you take as a voter -- is he IN or OUT?

Oh, Luke, I've said repeatedly on this thread: If there were only one vote and I got it, hell would freeze over before he got in.

[CandlestickBum]

MCgwire does not deserve to be in the HOF he's a shame to baeball! IT pete rose gets banned, then so should mcgwire! he's a crook.

I don't get how so many want to link Rose and McGwire. To me it's like comparing felony theft to felonious assault.

And I ain't saying who is which.

But one was flirting with the integrity of teams, games and seasons, the other messed with his own personal body, which effected his team. Bottom up or top down.

I believe top->down problems are much more serious and management should be given much less leeway than players.

McGwire was so one dimensional.........damn good debate for sure, both sides.

Me, I watched him as one of the bash brothers and am still suprised how his public persona changed when he got to St. Louis. Don't know if it was him, or simply the press. I still sit on the fence as far as HOF, right now would like him to stew for a decade or so which would allow ALL of US and the voters to get some perspective as well I think.

[Appling]

Me, I watched him as one of the bash brothers and am still suprised how his public persona changed when he got to St. Louis. Don't know if it was him, or simply the press.
I agree -- the trade to St. Louis was the best thing that ever happened to McGwire. Same with Scott Rolen and probably many others.

I'll bet the Cardinals would even like to get A-Rod, and they would make him a hero again.

[GhostShip]

You know...

I have a little more respect for Mark then every other person that stepped up in front of Congress and lied there asses off that day. MLB and Congress were also very careful who appeared Congress, notice the lack of Bonds on that list? Barry would have either lied or done what Mark did, instead Mark got all the "heat" for not admitting to the steriods.

There is a true distinction between lying and not wanting to talk about it. Consider Pete Rose's denials for so long and then coming clean. Mark isn't denying he did it, nor is he confirming it.

I don't absolve Mark for what he's done, but doesn't it seem like he's being held to a higher standard than all the other guys in that era that bulked up on steriods? Just because Mark had the spotlight shown on him, does that make him more guilty than all the others that got by without attention getting focused on them? Let's face it, the sport was dirty for a long time in the 90s, and a lot of folks turned a blind eye to it.

Food for thought.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

As critical as I obviously am of McGwire, I agree with the above post. It's been said by many that "Jose Canseco was the only honest man in the room," but that's not true. McGwire chose not to lie, and while he's no Einstein, he's also certainly no moron. He HAD to realize what that performance would do to his cherished legacy, and yet he gave that Nixonian stonewall performance nonetheless, basically asserting his 5th Amendment right without actually doing so, and breaking down emotionally in the process.

That was a lot more honest than what various others were doing in there, including the Lords of Baseball who preceded the players, not to mention MLB's doctor, whose testimony one member of Congress called something like "uniquely unpersuasive."

BHN

[shawnofthedead]

Given the strong doubts I have about the origin of his Home Run explosion I say no..and here is why:

unlike other suspicious guys like Palmeiro or Bonds, McGwire could only do one thing well, hit Home Runs. If you look at his other numbers they are Dave Kingman like, in fact, maybe worse..for a few years in the early 90's he became Rob Deer, hitting around .200 and then suddenly "rediscovered his stroke"...sounds fishy. He had very few other extra base hits, struck out a ton, had a low BA, a virtual Lou Pinella on the base paths, and played only a passable first base that became downright terrible late in his career when his 270 pounds of bulk caught up with his knees. Honestly, Canseco was a better ball player but a jerk and got blackballed. McGwire got much more press and the accolades because he was a nice guy.

Guys like Palmeiro or Bonds probably would have made the Hall without the juice which is the tragic part. They both had great strokes and were all around better hitters, runners, and fielders...

[shawnofthedead]

Did baseball look the other way to win fans back with home runs after 1994? Nobody's clean on this issue.

The only thing I think steroids gives you is rapid healing of injuries. If McGwire could hit 70 with them, he could hit 60 without them. Is it coincidental that McGwire and Bonds became cripples after they became suspects?

Some players of the past would have taken these performance enhancing drugs if they were available.

The difference between Ralph Kiner and Mark McGwire is that Kiner is better liked and McGwire's stock has fallen since his congressional testimony last year. Some of these people who get to vote for Hall of Famers aren't held accountable for their decisions and I think they should be prepared to explain to help ensure that true Hall of Famers will get in there.

not true that all steroids or HGH gives you is a fast recovery. They can make you stronger, quicker, faster, burn fat, and under the right supervision turn you from a good ball player to a great one. They turned Ben Johnson from a mere Olympian to the worlds fastest man. Also remember that the majority of Major Leaguers use HGH, its very expensive designer drug that most of the general public cant afford..a month supply can be 10k. Its undetectable by the tests baseball employs and also can slow down the aging process..(see Bonds, Barry)..it doesnt have nearly the side effects of traditional steroids.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Shawn,

Can't you go online and buy a month long supply of HGH patches for like 75 bucks?

Just found a link.

http://www.ageforceseal.com/

obviously not the exact stuff the pros are using, but would the difference be that much? From 75 bucks all the way to 10K? Gotta think you'd get somethin' else for your money for 10K. Maybe the difference is hush money ;)

[shawnofthedead]

Shawn,

Can't you go online and buy a month long supply of HGH patches for like 75 bucks?

Just found a link.

http://www.ageforceseal.com/

obviously not the exact stuff the pros are using, but would the difference be that much? From 75 bucks all the way to 10K? Gotta think you'd get somethin' else for your money for 10K. Maybe the difference is hush money ;)

the HGH being sold online is a rip-off, its not true HGH. Nearly all the supplements online proporting to having "steroid like" effects are either placebos or the neccessary ingredients are at such a low level that you would have to take a whole bottle at once for it to do anything. What most "athletes" like pro wrestlers and apparently many major leaguers have used is a designer version that basically should only be used on an animal the size of a horse.

the difference between something like andrestendione and a real injectible steroid is night and day. The real deal is about 1000 times more potent. Same with HGH.

I am not talking through my butt here..been a personal trainer and serious lifter for years. I havent gone down the drug route but know enough who have and done enough research through the years to know what is bogus and what isnt.

[LouGehrig]

Shawn,

Can't you go online and buy a month long supply of HGH patches for like 75 bucks?

Just found a link.

http://www.ageforceseal.com/

obviously not the exact stuff the pros are using, but would the difference be that much? From 75 bucks all the way to 10K? Gotta think you'd get somethin' else for your money for 10K. Maybe the difference is hush money ;)


The site sells a precursor to HGH, not HGH. The problem with precursors is that they are supposed to stimulate one's own glands but their effectiveness varies with one's genetics.

There are two amino acids, ornithine and arginine, that are precursors to HGH. The amino acids are legal, but to get real "benefits," between 25 and 30g must be taken daily.

One must be crazy to take this junk.

[Skin & Bones]

What interests me most about the steroid issue is the completely different response by baseball culture to the greenie issue. Why is that?

Is it that greenies are not perceived as very effective PED's?
Or that greenie use was an open secret for a long time and then not a secret at all?
Or is it that the baseball world was thrilled by the Sosa-McGuire assault on Ruth's record, and by Barry Bonds's phenomenal season, and feels that it was duped and betrayed?
Or is it something else?

Obviously, the two are not identical. Equally obviously, they have a great deal in common. So why are the responses poles apart? Why are the differences important and the similarities unimportant in shaping the collective responses?

Greenies are very effective PED'S that enhance performance. It's pretty much a proven fact. Studies have been done proving that powerspikes occured more frequently in the " amphetamines era " than today's current era. Baseball players including a current one who plays today have said they without question enhance athletic performance.

Here's a post I made about this subject with links I posted from comments a professional ballplayer made.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=628330&postcount=44

But remember, the people who view steroids as " worse " usually are elder fans who want to believe mays or aaron's great career stats weren't a bit enhanced.

The truth hurts, but it's reality.

[Skin & Bones]

I believe stealing gum would still constitute a crime of shoplifting like stealing a car would be grand theft auto, so in that respect they are both crimes.

I just usually tend to judge things more based on intent than on results. In both cases, the participant is intending to gain an illegal and unfair advantage. I also think your gum/car example is a little more extreme than 'roiding and corking or 'roiding and ball doctoring.

Actually, ball doctoring helps a lot. The proof is within league run scoring and ERA marks when the game banned the activity.

[Skin & Bones]

not true that all steroids or HGH gives you is a fast recovery. They can make you stronger, quicker, faster, burn fat, and under the right supervision turn you from a good ball player to a great one. They turned Ben Johnson from a mere Olympian to the worlds fastest man. Also remember that the majority of Major Leaguers use HGH, its very expensive designer drug that most of the general public cant afford..a month supply can be 10k. Its undetectable by the tests baseball employs and also can slow down the aging process..(see Bonds, Barry)..it doesnt have nearly the side effects of traditional steroids.

Actually, the main and best benefit of Anabolic steroids is faster recovery. Because of this, they allow you to work out harder and make yourself stronger quicker than you would without them. That's the big-time benefit of steroids.

And I agree that there's many faux supplements out there that won't help you build muscle, but there's also ones that do help a lot. That I could speak from personal experience.

[CandlestickBum]

You know...

I don't absolve Mark for what he's done, but doesn't it seem like he's being held to a higher standard than all the other guys in that era that bulked up on steriods? Just because Mark had the spotlight shown on him, does that make him more guilty than all the others that got by without attention getting focused on them? Let's face it, the sport was dirty for a long time in the 90s, and a lot of folks turned a blind eye to it.

Food for thought.

MORE guilty? Higher standard? Please show me anything in print that makes that case. Cite? He's been given a pass for god's sake and you're feeling sorry for him?

If he is being held to a higher standard he sure isn't being hurt badly for it is he? Almost zero active animosity towards him isn't there? Compare that to a Canseco, Pameiro or Bonds or even Sosa. The man's been given a pass for his conduct in comparison to others as far as I'm concerned.
How often do you hear people make the case to lay off critisizing Bonds and Sosa because "it's part of an era"? If I made that case for Bonds I'm sure you'd scoff at me.

I'm not saying the press should hound him more or he should get vilified more, just that you as a fan of MM should count your blessings, not complain about persecution.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

You are exactly right. However....

As one looks at the names in your post, one obvious explanation occurs for the disparity. BUT, it also could be the way the media has conditioned all of us, and the fact McGwire is like a John Wayne figure, and John Wayne was THE great American hero who, decades after his death, had some people driving around with bumperstickers saying "God Bless John Wayne."

Now, mind you, I hated draft-dodger John Wayne and almost everything he stood for, but it's a fact he was a great American icon. And he was a huge (6'4"), rugged (on screen), macho, all-American guy. McGwire, after he magically became so enormous, was 6'5" tall, much broader than Wayne ever was, once listed Oliver North as his #2 (I believe) personal hero, and had that same sort of big, rugged Wayne appeal--except that unlike Wayne, McGwire never spewed a bunch of odious racist rhetoric. (As late as the early 1970's, Wayne told Playboy he favored requiring blacks to pass IQ tests before they could vote.)

Anyway, what I'm saying is that perhaps not all people who treat McGwire differently than Bonds, Sosa, Sheffield, Palmeiro, etc., in terms of their steroids/HGH cheating and in terms of the Hall of Fame are guilty of racism. The sports MEDIA are guilty of racism in this regard, and have puffed up McGwire while demonizing the aforementioned black and Latino cheats. And that fact will send McGwire sailing into the HOF in his first year, I'm quite certain.

I've said repeatedly that I would never let McGwire in the Hall, and I'll say it once more. I just wanted to mention here, because it's so easy to infer racism from the way the names line up on that previous post (though absolutely no accusation of racism was made, nor, of course, should it be), that the media has pounded it into our heads that Big Mac is a special, lovable kind of guy who's different from the rest. And I also wanted to mention there are cultural, non-racist reasons why MANY white Americans, steeped in America's own macho culture (I'm not denying that all Latino nations I know of are mega-macho, too), find a guy like Big Mac very appealing: super-patriotic, massively big, strong but silent (oh, SO silent), etc.

NONE of that makes Big Quack any less loathsome for his fraud, in my eyes. But it does show that guys who like Big Mac and regard him differently from the four other cheaters named above, and want him put in the Hall of Fame but strongly DON'T want, for instance, Bonds put in, are by no means necessarily racist.

Now, I'm supposed to be on an indefinite leave from post-making, and I mean for at least several weeks, and probably for several months--and, dammit, I am on leave--but I saw these posts and felt this needed saying, before people started feeling like this was a matter of calling/being-called racist. And again, I know that nobody had (yet) thrown out accusations of racism in general, much less in particular, and nobody had given any indication he/she was going to make such accusations. But read back a few posts and I think you'll see this needed saying.

BHN

[ESPNFan]

Greenies are very effective PED'S that enhance performance. It's pretty much a proven fact. Studies have been done proving that powerspikes occured more frequently in the " amphetamines era " than today's current era. Baseball players including a current one who plays today have said they without question enhance athletic performance.

Here's a post I made about this subject with links I posted from comments a professional ballplayer made.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=628330&postcount=44

But remember, the people who view steroids as " worse " usually are elder fans who want to believe mays or aaron's great career stats weren't a bit enhanced.

The truth hurts, but it's reality.

Actually the reality is that as Buster Olney stated earlier this season, the recent ban has caused lots of players to realise that Ampetamines were simply providing a placebo effect and has switched to legal over the counter alternatives for a pregame pick-me-up. This is due to the feelings of euphoria which the drug can provide. And as we know a placebo effect can provide some results, considering the way amphetamines effect the central nervous system this is not surprising. When asked about how amphetamines would help a baseball player specificily noted scientist Dr. Charles Yesalis said he really couldn't explain exactly how they would, a problem he doesn't have when relating the benifits of steroids to ball players. And then there are the ballplayers who have come out and stated that amphetamines did nothing but make them feel sick or even like they were even having a heart attack, which is consistant with the way these drugs effect the players standing heart rate and respiration.

The actuall truth of the matter is that there are many many more facts that support anabolic steroids helping baseball players abilities far surpass what would be possible than amphetamines and if the season wasn't as long as it currently is or as the travel as unrelenting would players even feel the need to take them at all?

[ESPNFan]

Actually, the main and best benefit of Anabolic steroids is faster recovery. Because of this, they allow you to work out harder and make yourself stronger quicker than you would without them. That's the big-time benefit of steroids.

And I agree that there's many faux supplements out there that won't help you build muscle, but there's also ones that do help a lot. That I could speak from personal experience.

Again your off here. Just look up any of the medical studies related to Anabolic Steroid/HGH treatments of patients suffering from conditions that cause a wasting effect on the body and you will see that there are many more effects on a persons body that these substances can provide.
Many of these people can't excersize much if at all and in many cases the wasting they experienced before can be stopped and even reversed with actuall mass and muscle being gained.

What your describing in terms of how steroids help is very narrow in scope and is actually a more accurate description of what creatine can do.

And you really can't begin to compare anything that is sold over the counter with legitimate Anabolic substances. They may help buodl muscle but no where near as fast or as effectively as Anabolics which is why athletes routinely risk their health and reputations bu susing them.

[Solair Wright]

I do not think the Cardinals should retire his number or get into the Hall of Fame. You want to know why?

He admitted to steroid use last month, crippling his chances for the Hall of Fame. In addition, look at his fielding skills. He could perfectly DH, but at first base he had trouble...97 career errors out of 103 total. Of course he isn't a Chuck Knoblauch, but his fielding is just sometimes not there. I wouldn't want a roidboy in my Hall of Fame, so I'll vote for a person who didn't cheat or juice - Bert Blyleven. Even though he allowed 50 a career high in home runs, but he has HoF potential.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

He admitted to steroid use last month

He did? Do you have a link to that story?

[Skin & Bones]

Actually the reality is that as Buster Olney stated earlier this season, the recent ban has caused lots of players to realise that Ampetamines were simply providing a placebo effect and has switched to legal over the counter alternatives for a pregame pick-me-up. This is due to the feelings of euphoria which the drug can provide. And as we know a placebo effect can provide some results, considering the way amphetamines effect the central nervous system this is not surprising. When asked about how amphetamines would help a baseball player specificily noted scientist Dr. Charles Yesalis said he really couldn't explain exactly how they would, a problem he doesn't have when relating the benifits of steroids to ball players. And then there are the ballplayers who have come out and stated that amphetamines did nothing but make them feel sick or even like they were even having a heart attack, which is consistant with the way these drugs effect the players standing heart rate and respiration.

The actuall truth of the matter is that there are many many more facts that support anabolic steroids helping baseball players abilities far surpass what would be possible than amphetamines and if the season wasn't as long as it currently is or as the travel as unrelenting would players even feel the need to take them at all?

Buster olney, who the heck cares about Buster Olney ?

I'm going to take the legitimate opinions of professional ballplayers who witness this stuff daily, and have used the stuff and seen results, over some quack once said soriano is a better " overall " player than Albert Pujols.

There also have been studies done, including one by myself, that shows powerspikes occured more frequently in the so-called " amphetamines era " than today. Take that as you will.

I also can't fathom why you keep comparing steroids and greenies, when that's not what I've been doing.

The simple fact is, studies have been done, proving amphetamines clearly enhance performance. I could Bombard this thread with hundreds of articles backing up my claims, half of them being swimmers or runners who seen very good results after taking the drugs.

Maybe we should take this discussion to hiddengem's thread, and let's see what he has to say about this whole topic.

[Skin & Bones]

Again your off here. Just look up any of the medical studies related to Anabolic Steroid/HGH treatments of patients suffering from conditions that cause a wasting effect on the body and you will see that there are many more effects on a persons body that these substances can provide.
Many of these people can't excersize much if at all and in many cases the wasting they experienced before can be stopped and even reversed with actuall mass and muscle being gained.

What your describing in terms of how steroids help is very narrow in scope and is actually a more accurate description of what creatine can do.

And you really can't begin to compare anything that is sold over the counter with legitimate Anabolic substances. They may help buodl muscle but no where near as fast or as effectively as Anabolics which is why athletes routinely risk their health and reputations bu susing them.


Again your off here. Just look up any of the medical studies related to Anabolic Steroid/HGH treatments of patients suffering from conditions that cause a wasting effect on the body and you will see that there are many more effects on a persons body that these substances can provide.

Not off at all, the weight gain seen was probably water retention.

Many of these people can't excersize much if at all and in many cases the wasting they experienced before can be stopped and even reversed with actuall mass and muscle being gained.

Was the weight gain actual muscle ? If so, please link me the article proven that these patients gained a significant amount of pure solid muscle with steroids ( and what types, BTW), and how much ?

This is certainly a first, and I would like to see this article.

What your describing in terms of how steroids help is very narrow in scope and is actually a more accurate description of what creatine can do.

No, not really, and creatine is very beneficial in a steroid cycle.


And you really can't begin to compare anything that is sold over the counter with legitimate Anabolic substances. They may help buodl muscle but no where near as fast or as effectively as Anabolics which is why athletes routinely risk their health and reputations bu susing them

Over the counter ? LOL, if you mean by " over the counter " joke of supplements MLB " endorses " then hell yeah, I can't compare them.

But there's definitely supplements out there that produce fantastic results, and I never once compared it to steroids, so I don't know why you even brought this up.

[ESPNFan]

Buster olney, who the heck cares about Buster Olney ?

I'm going to take the legitimate opinions of professional ballplayers who witness this stuff daily, and have used the stuff and seen results, over some quack once said soriano is a better " overall " player than Albert Pujols.

There also have been studies done, including one by myself, that shows powerspikes occured more frequently in the so-called " amphetamines era " than today. Take that as you will..

Buster Olney has more access to what is going on inside baseball than you or I. He talks to these same ballplayers daily and is in the clubhouses. He is relating the legitimate opinions of the ball players to us. The fact that you take a unrelated cheapshot at him shows that you know what he says is very damaging to your argument and that you somehow must try to margianalise/trivialize him to minimize the damage. Nice try.

Hank Aaron said he took them once and thought he was having a heart attack (which is consistant with the way amphetamines effect your body)and Jim Boulton, the man who exposed baseballs secret speed habit, said he only did them once because they made him jumpy. From the mouths of ballplayers.

I also can't fathom why you keep comparing steroids and greenies, when that's not what I've been doing..

Uhh you were the one who brought up both topics in the same post, which I quoted. You said the following: Greenies are very effective PED'S that enhance performance. and then you said
But remember, the people who view steroids as " worse " usually are elder fans who want to believe mays or aaron's great career stats weren't a bit enhanced. Try and stay focused.

The simple fact is, studies have been done, proving amphetamines clearly enhance performance. I could Bombard this thread with hundreds of articles backing up my claims, half of them being swimmers or runners who seen very good results after taking the drugs..

Yes and those studies focus mainly on activities with a high emphasis on cardiovasular endurace. Not exactly something that baseball players depend on during a game. Scientificly this is backed by the statements of Dr. Charles Yesalis who refers to amphetamines and their benifits for ballplayers:
Yesalis suggested the research has raised as many questions as it has answered.

"I can clearly tell you how anabolic steroids improve performance in baseball, but I can't make a strong case for amphetamines being performance enhancing," he said. "It's more of an enabler."

You mention swimming which is funny given the fact that The East German Olympic doping machine set record after record using anabolics. If amphetamines worked just as well why not use those? Because they don't work as well or as predictably and thier sideffects degrade performance while being physicaly and mentally addictive.

Maybe we should take this discussion to hiddengem's thread, and let's see what he has to say about this whole topic.

I talked to him not only in his thread but in messages as well. If you would like to revisit it and he would agree I'd be happy too.

[ESPNFan]

Not off at all, the weight gain seen was probably water retention.
.
No I afraid the article I'm going to link clrealy states it was muscle.



Was the weight gain actual muscle ? If so, please link me the article proven that these patients gained a significant amount of pure solid muscle with steroids ( and what types, BTW), and how much ?.

Sure thing.
People with HIV who are treated with anabolic steroids to prevent AIDS wasting may realize modest gains in weight and muscle mass, a new review shows.
http://www.hbns.org/getDocument.cfm?documentID=1170

Two anabolic steroids available in the United States, nandrolone decanoate and oxandrolone, have been used to help increase weight and muscle mass in small studies of people with wasting.

And keep in mind that these studies are done with levels of Steroids intake that are much lower than what an athlete who is unhindered by health concerns.

If you want more studies there are many at NCBI.


No, not really, and creatine is very beneficial in a steroid cycle..

Yes really. Very simply, Creatine is basicly a substance that is in your muscles. When you excersize its broken down and enrgy is relased. If you have more creatine stored you can work out/exersize longer.

And yes creatine can be very benificial when combined with steroids because their effects compliment each other.



Over the counter ? LOL, if you mean by " over the counter " joke of supplements MLB " endorses " then hell yeah, I can't compare them.

But there's definitely supplements out there that produce fantastic results, and I never once compared it to steroids, so I don't know why you even brought this up.

By over the counter I mean any supposedly anabolic substance that you can buy with out a perscription and that are not illegal/or soon to be illegal.

I agree that there are products that can help a person looking to help improve their bodies but none of them compare to legitimate anabolic stubstances.
So why did you bring up legal suppliments then if you weren't making a comparison?

[538280]

I was thinking about the steroid issue the other day, particularly as it applies to Bonds but it could apply to McGwire as well. Cheating has been done in all forms in baseball since the game began.

Rogers Hornsby was once quoted that he cheated in almost every game

Whitey Ford, Gaylord Perry, Don Drysdale have admitted to cheating on the mound.

Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Mickey Mantle were rumored to use amphetamines

Mike Schmidt supposedly used speed

My point is that all these people as least supposedly cheated in some form at some point in their careers. My question is how is this different from Bonds ? As far as I'm concerned it's only different because he's the guy who's threatening to break the records and he's the guy who no one likes. I've heard people say Hank Aaron supposedly used drugs, which is true, yet people claim this is nothing but useless speculation. Well Bonds' has been proven, but then there was also a huge investigation on him. My point is that to be fair there has to be an invesigation done. Many people say such claims have no proof, well there was no proof on Bonds either until recently. Now that there's proof everyone hates him. The claims on Aaron were just as substantiated as the claims against Bonds until recently, for no other reason than because Bonds was investigated.

[Skin & Bones]

Buster Olney has more access to what is going on inside baseball than you or I. He talks to these same ballplayers daily and is in the clubhouses. He is relating the legitimate opinions of the ball players to us. The fact that you take a unrelated cheapshot at him shows that you know what he says is very damaging to your argument and that you somehow must try to margianalise/trivialize him to minimize the damage. Nice try.

Hank Aaron said he took them once and thought he was having a heart attack (which is consistant with the way amphetamines effect your body)and Jim Boulton, the man who exposed baseballs secret speed habit, said he only did them once because they made him jumpy. From the mouths of ballplayers.



Uhh you were the one who brought up both topics in the same post, which I quoted. You said the following: and then you said
Try and stay focused.



Yes and those studies focus mainly on activities with a high emphasis on cardiovasular endurace. Not exactly something that baseball players depend on during a game. Scientificly this is backed by the statements of Dr. Charles Yesalis who refers to amphetamines and their benifits for ballplayers:


You mention swimming which is funny given the fact that The East German Olympic doping machine set record after record using anabolics. If amphetamines worked just as well why not use those? Because they don't work as well or as predictably and thier sideffects degrade performance while being physicaly and mentally addictive.



I talked to him not only in his thread but in messages as well. If you would like to revisit it and he would agree I'd be happy too.


Buster Olney has more access to what is going on inside baseball than you or I. He talks to these same ballplayers daily and is in the clubhouses. He is relating the legitimate opinions of the ball players to us. The fact that you take a unrelated cheapshot at him shows that you know what he says is very damaging to your argument and that you somehow must try to margianalise/trivialize him to minimize the damage. Nice try.


That's great for Olney, but doesn't help his case at all. And FTR, I actually do know a writer who lives in seattle, and is good friends with Mike schmidt, and has talked to him about amphetamines before, and it's benefits. As well as hidden gem, who again, has already said he's seen players improve drastically on amphetamines.

Buster is just an apologist, I remember when he and Jeff Brantley had an " arguement " about cheating in BBT, and he was BLATANTLY ( like you) defending the cheating antics of old-timers.

Guess it's an old guy thing, eh ?

Hank Aaron said he took them once and thought he was having a heart attack (which is consistant with the way amphetamines effect your body)and Jim Boulton, the man who exposed baseballs secret speed habit, said he only did them once because they made him jumpy. From the mouths of ballplayers.

Gary Sheffield said steroids didn't help him at all, Barry said they did nothing, so did Tom House.

Anyone can lie.

Uhh you were the one who brought up both topics in the same post, which I quoted. You said the following: and then you said
Try and stay focused.

Right, but in no way did I compare them both. I never said " well greenies could do this better than steroids, or vice-versa ".

Yes and those studies focus mainly on activities with a high emphasis on cardiovasular endurace. Not exactly something that baseball players depend on during a game. Scientificly this is backed by the statements of Dr. Charles Yesalis who refers to amphetamines and their benifits for ballplayers:

LOL, it went from amphetamines not helping athletes at all, to not just ballplayers.

and FYI, there's articles with pitchers discussing how greenies improved their fastball, including an anonymous pitcher in the minors. If I find that article, I will post it. Not to mention hiddengem's post when he's said he's seen pitchers throw 3-4MPH harder after taking one greenie. Sounds like pretty powerful stuff, eh ?

You mention swimming which is funny given the fact that The East German Olympic doping machine set record after record using anabolics. If amphetamines worked just as well why not use those? Because they don't work as well or as predictably and thier sideffects degrade performance while being physicaly and mentally addictive.

Um, they probably used both, as with grimsley. You pointing out how someone broke " records " while on steroids proves nothing to me, Mike schmidt hit 500+ homeruns while popping greenies like candy. Jim Leyritz in an article ( and on the mike and mike show) said he saw a drastic improvement in his performance after taking his greenies.

Hell, chad curtis teammate said he couldn't PERFORM without them, that right there says enough for me.

talked to him not only in his thread but in messages as well. If you would like to revisit it and he would agree I'd be happy too

Anytime, anyday.

[Skin & Bones]

No I afraid the article I'm going to link clrealy states it was muscle.




Sure thing.
People with HIV who are treated with anabolic steroids to prevent AIDS wasting may realize modest gains in weight and muscle mass, a new review shows.
http://www.hbns.org/getDocument.cfm?documentID=1170



And keep in mind that these studies are done with levels of Steroids intake that are much lower than what an athlete who is unhindered by health concerns.

If you want more studies there are many at NCBI.



Yes really. Very simply, Creatine is basicly a substance that is in your muscles. When you excersize its broken down and enrgy is relased. If you have more creatine stored you can work out/exersize longer.

And yes creatine can be very benificial when combined with steroids because their effects compliment each other.

And keep in mind that these studies are done with levels of Steroids intake that are much lower than what an athlete who is unhindered by health concerns.

And higher levels of steroids doesn't necessarily mean better performance. I recently had a video of a guy who used steroids in low dosages for years and saw great results, If I find the video, I'll link it.




By over the counter I mean any supposedly anabolic substance that you can buy with out a perscription and that are not illegal/or soon to be illegal.

I agree that there are products that can help a person looking to help improve their bodies but none of them compare to legitimate anabolic stubstances.
So why did you bring up legal suppliments then if you weren't making a comparison?

No I afraid the article I'm going to link clrealy states it was muscle.


Fair enough, but then again, I could post articles saying the weight gain seen is water retention, that's the beauty of the net, anyone can find anything.

B]People with HIV who are treated with anabolic steroids to prevent AIDS wasting may realize modest gains in weight and muscle mass, a new review shows. [/B]
http://www.hbns.org/getDocument.cfm?documentID=1170

Thank you sir, I will peruse this later.

Yes really. Very simply, Creatine is basicly a substance that is in your muscles. When you excersize its broken down and enrgy is relased. If you have more creatine stored you can work out/exersize longer.

I know what certain creatines do, I use it on a daily-basis.

By over the counter I mean any supposedly anabolic substance that you can buy with out a perscription and that are not illegal/or soon to be illegal.

There's a lot of " legal " things that should be illegal, including performance enhancing substances. Hiddengem had discussed once in a thread that he used a PED before it was banned, like andro ( which doesn't do much).

I agree that there are products that can help a person looking to help improve their bodies but none of them compare to legitimate anabolic stubstances.


If you mean hardcore gear, to a certain extent, I agree.


So why did you bring up legal suppliments then if you weren't making a comparison?

Because there is legal supplements out there that provide fantastic results. But I never once said they compare to illegal steroids.

[Skin & Bones]

I was thinking about the steroid issue the other day, particularly as it applies to Bonds but it could apply to McGwire as well. Cheating has been done in all forms in baseball since the game began.

Rogers Hornsby was once quoted that he cheated in almost every game

Whitey Ford, Gaylord Perry, Don Drysdale have admitted to cheating on the mound.

Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Mickey Mantle were rumored to use amphetamines

Mike Schmidt supposedly used speed

My point is that all these people as least supposedly cheated in some form at some point in their careers. My question is how is this different from Bonds ? As far as I'm concerned it's only different because he's the guy who's threatening to break the records and he's the guy who no one likes. I've heard people say Hank Aaron supposedly used drugs, which is true, yet people claim this is nothing but useless speculation. Well Bonds' has been proven, but then there was also a huge investigation on him. My point is that to be fair there has to be an invesigation done. Many people say such claims have no proof, well there was no proof on Bonds either until recently. Now that there's proof everyone hates him. The claims on Aaron were just as substantiated as the claims against Bonds until recently, for no other reason than because Bonds was investigated.


Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Mickey Mantle were rumored to use amphetamines


Aaron admitted to using greenies, They found red juice in Mays locker, and mantle said steroids might have caused him a " growth spurt " as a kid.

Mike Schmidt supposedly used speed


He said he did in his book, on the mike and mike show, and to a professional ballplayer who vists this site.


My point is that all these people as least supposedly cheated in some form at some point in their careers. My question is how is this different from Bonds ? As far as I'm concerned it's only different because he's the guy who's threatening to break the records and he's the guy who no one likes. I've heard people say Hank Aaron supposedly used drugs, which is true, yet people claim this is nothing but useless speculation. Well Bonds' has been proven, but then there was also a huge investigation on him. My point is that to be fair there has to be an invesigation done. Many people say such claims have no proof, well there was no proof on Bonds either until recently. Now that there's proof everyone hates him. The claims on Aaron were just as substantiated as the claims against Bonds until recently, for no other reason than because Bonds was investigated

Because aaron isn't statistically the player who has a case over Ruth. Only Bonds does. Dayn Perry once wrote a good article discussing this issue, though he was a bit out of line.

[538280]

Because aaron isn't statistically the player who has a case over Ruth. Only Bonds does. Dayn Perry once wrote a good article discussing this issue, though he was a bit out of line.

I agree. The more I look into this, the more I think the big swirling storm around Bonds is there for no other reason and 1.He's the one breaking and threatening records, and 2.There's been a full scale investigation on him.

One thing that I've heard anti-Bonds people say is that by Bonds using steroids he has "harmed the integrity of the game". I completely disagree. If you want to place blame for the steroids issue, put in on the commissioner or the Players' Union for not clamping down on it, or perhaps even blame the players in general. Don't blame Barry Bonds.

[ESPNFan]

That's great for Olney, but doesn't help his case at all. And FTR, I actually do know a writer who lives in seattle, and is good friends with Mike schmidt, and has talked to him about amphetamines before, and it's benefits. As well as hidden gem, who again, has already said he's seen players improve drastically on amphetamines.

Buster is just an apologist, I remember when he and Jeff Brantley had an " arguement " about cheating in BBT, and he was BLATANTLY ( like you) defending the cheating antics of old-timers.

Guess it's an old guy thing, eh ?.

And I bet I can name the writer you know. If you want to name drop, I know multitpe people in baseball and ESPN and could tell you things you don't hear on the TV or Radio or in the papers. You want to know why alot of players take greenies? Its not to cheat. Its because they were out till 4:00 AM partying and need to get over the hang over and get bright.

Hmmm "Cheating antics of old timers"...where have I heard that line before....?



Gary Sheffield said steroids didn't help him at all, Barry said they did nothing, so did Tom House.

Anyone can lie.

Yes anyone can lie, but when certain people have no reason to then it lends more to their statements. Aaron was clean as far as anyone knew and there was no pressure for him to admit to anything. He admitted to trying "pep pills" in his auto biography with no pressure to do so. Look at Wally Joyner admitting to trying steroids once and then never taking them again. I believe him because he came out on his own with nothing to gain and admitted it. Its not a "old timers" issue, its a credibility issue.

Also Aaron's and Boulton's statemets about speed makign them feel jumpy and like they are sufferign a heart attack are consistant with what many have said before and are backed up by the scientific fact.

Bonds and Sheffiled had been both outed in the Balco scandal and caught in a situtation where their reputations were in jepordy. The had a reason to lie and evidence to prove other wise.

Tom House was and is IMO a schill who was trying to get his name in the press to sell his books/products and get some P.R. for his pitching school. His statements make little sence and reak of a man telling tall tales.

[LOL, it went from amphetamines not helping athletes at all, to not just ballplayers.

and FYI, there's articles with pitchers discussing how greenies improved their fastball, including an anonymous pitcher in the minors. If I find that article, I will post it. Not to mention hiddengem's post when he's said he's seen pitchers throw 3-4MPH harder after taking one greenie. Sounds like pretty powerful stuff, eh ?.

There is no doubt that they work for some people. And they are a powerful drug, that if taken incorrectly can kill you in one dose. But again I'll ask the question, why does it work for a ballplayer? Why does it increase a fastball when the science behind them doesn't reflect that. Dr. Yesalis' statement that scientificly he can't explain how amphetamines help a ball player again backs up Buster's statement that the players are getting a benifit that is basicly a placebo. I'd venture to guess that the euphoric feeling people get when they take speed has alot to do with it.

Um, they probably used both, as with grimsley. You pointing out how someone broke " records " while on steroids proves nothing to me, Mike schmidt hit 500+ homeruns while popping greenies like candy. Jim Leyritz in an article ( and on the mike and mike show) said he saw a drastic improvement in his performance after taking his greenies.

Hell, chad curtis teammate said he couldn't PERFORM without them, that right there says enough for me.

Not just someone broke records. A Whole Team.
East Germany went from finishing behind Hungary in total medals in the 1968 Summer games, to beating the US and finishing 2nd in total medals(to the USSR who also had state run doping) in the 1976 summer olympics. East Germany dominated the Olympic summer games and finished ahead of the US again in 1988. Jim Lyeritz? If you want to put Jim Leyritz on a platform and say that East Germany transforming itself into an athletic superpower on state run Anabilc doping "means nothing" just exposes you as fatally irrational. Your credibility is seriously damaged.

Chad Curtis' statement says more about his teammates addiction problems, chemical depandance and off feild activities, than the power of the drugs performance enhancement.

[ESPNFan]

Fair enough, but then again, I could post articles saying the weight gain seen is water retention, that's the beauty of the net, anyone can find anything.

Yes that is why in my post I directed you to NCBI. The national Center for Biotechnology information is a place where your going to beable to find anything unless its scientificly sound and verifiable, I'd also send you to Pubmed.com. Trust me it shows when people dig up something to support their point of veiw from a dubious local on the net.


I know what certain creatines do, I use it on a daily-basis. Fine then you agree that your statement is much more applicable to what creatine does than Anabolic Steroids.

By over the counter I mean any supposedly anabolic substance that you can buy with out a perscription and that are not illegal/or soon to be illegal.

There's a lot of " legal " things that should be illegal, including performance enhancing substances. Hiddengem had discussed once in a thread that he used a PED before it was banned, like andro ( which doesn't do much).

Yes which is why I made the Illegal/soon to be Illegal distiction. I have posted on this topic and DSHEA before.
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/dshea.html
Basicly DSHEA lets comapnies get away with selling steroidal/Anabolic products until the Food and Drug administration catches on to them. And Andro doesn't do much unless your taking it with another anabolic and then it most certainly works. It's a revelation that makes McGwire's use of the product particularly damming.


Because there is legal supplements out there that provide fantastic results. But I never once said they compare to illegal steroids.

I agree, but those products results are never going to be enough to keep ahtletes from moving on to Steroids. And thats why we are going to constantly have problems in MLB until the comissioner gets serious about the problem and stops pretending to deal with the issue. His statements on the topics have been laughable.

[Skin & Bones]

And I bet I can name the writer you know. If you want to name drop, I know multitpe people in baseball and ESPN and could tell you things you don't hear on the TV or Radio or in the papers. You want to know why alot of players take greenies? Its not to cheat. Its because they were out till 4:00 AM partying and need to get over the hang over and get bright.

Hmmm "Cheating antics of old timers"...where have I heard that line before....?





Yes anyone can lie, but when certain people have no reason to then it lends more to their statements. Aaron was clean as far as anyone knew and there was no pressure for him to admit to anything. He admitted to trying "pep pills" in his auto biography with no pressure to do so. Look at Wally Joyner admitting to trying steroids once and then never taking them again. I believe him because he came out on his own with nothing to gain and admitted it. Its not a "old timers" issue, its a credibility issue.

Also Aaron's and Boulton's statemets about speed makign them feel jumpy and like they are sufferign a heart attack are consistant with what many have said before and are backed up by the scientific fact.

Bonds and Sheffiled had been both outed in the Balco scandal and caught in a situtation where their reputations were in jepordy. The had a reason to lie and evidence to prove other wise.

Tom House was and is IMO a schill who was trying to get his name in the press to sell his books/products and get some P.R. for his pitching school. His statements make little sence and reak of a man telling tall tales.



There is no doubt that they work for some people. And they are a powerful drug, that if taken incorrectly can kill you in one dose. But again I'll ask the question, why does it work for a ballplayer? Why does it increase a fastball when the science behind them doesn't reflect that. Dr. Yesalis' statement that scientificly he can't explain how amphetamines help a ball player again backs up Buster's statement that the players are getting a benifit that is basicly a placebo. I'd venture to guess that the euphoric feeling people get when they take speed has alot to do with it.



Not just someone broke records. A Whole Team.
East Germany went from finishing behind Hungary in total medals in the 1968 Summer games, to beating the US and finishing 2nd in total medals(to the USSR who also had state run doping) in the 1976 summer olympics. East Germany dominated the Olympic summer games and finished ahead of the US again in 1988. Jim Lyeritz? If you want to put Jim Leyritz on a platform and say that East Germany transforming itself into an athletic superpower on state run Anabilc doping "means nothing" just exposes you as fatally irrational. Your credibility is seriously damaged.

Chad Curtis' statement says more about his teammates addiction problems, chemical depandance and off feild activities, than the power of the drugs performance enhancement.


And I bet I can name the writer you know. If you want to name drop, I know multitpe people in baseball and ESPN and could tell you things you don't hear on the TV or Radio or in the papers. You want to know why alot of players take greenies? Its not to cheat. Its because they were out till 4:00 AM partying and need to get over the hang over and get bright.

Yes, and it's because they enhance performance. Leyritz took it for the reason, aaron did, and many others. And who's the name of the writer I'm talking about, and what's his website ?


Hmmm "Cheating antics of old timers"...where have I heard that line before....?



From someone who speaks the truth ?


Yes anyone can lie, but when certain people have no reason to then it lends more to their statements. Aaron was clean as far as anyone knew and there was no pressure for him to admit to anything. He admitted to trying "pep pills" in his auto biography with no pressure to do so. Look at Wally Joyner admitting to trying steroids once and then never taking them again. I believe him because he came out on his own with nothing to gain and admitted it. Its not a "old timers" issue, its a credibility issue.

Fair enough, but it still doesn't tell me amphetamines don't enhance performance. As Hiddengem pointed out in another post, they, like steroids, benefit different people in different ways.

Also Aaron's and Boulton's statemets about speed makign them feel jumpy and like they are sufferign a heart attack are consistant with what many have said before and are backed up by the scientific fact.

This proves nothing. It has negative side-effects, big deal, so do steroids.

Bonds and Sheffield had been both outed in the Balco scandal and caught in a situtation where their reputations were in jepordy. The had a reason to lie and evidence to prove other wise.

Bonds said steroids didn't help back in 2002 BEFORE we heard about the BALCO Mess.

Tom House was and is IMO a schill who was trying to get his name in the press to sell his books/products and get some P.R. for his pitching school. His statements make little sence and reak of a man telling tall tales.

Right, aaron admitting to greenies was just to do it, House is because he wanted publicity to " help " his books/products. Right.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with this. Hiddengem knows Tom House, we should see what he has to say, eh ?

There is no doubt that they work for some people. And they are a powerful drug, that if taken incorrectly can kill you in one dose. But again I'll ask the question, why does it work for a ballplayer? Why does it increase a fastball when the science behind them doesn't reflect that. Dr. Yesalis' statement that scientificly he can't explain how amphetamines help a ball player again backs up Buster's statement that the players are getting a benifit that is basicly a placebo. I'd venture to guess that the euphoric feeling people get when they take speed has alot to do with it.


Dr Yesalis' is an expert on steroids, not amphetamines. And also many people have a problem with His comments regarding the drugs, but to each is own I guess.

And Buster's comment tells me nothing. As far as I'm concerned. Jeff Brantley once said a case could be made amphetamines does more than steroids, but what does that prove ?

Nothing.

[Skin & Bones]

Yes that is why in my post I directed you to NCBI. The national Center for Biotechnology information is a place where your going to beable to find anything unless its scientificly sound and verifiable, I'd also send you to Pubmed.com. Trust me it shows when people dig up something to support their point of veiw from a dubious local on the net.


Fine then you agree that your statement is much more applicable to what creatine does than Anabolic Steroids.



Yes which is why I made the Illegal/soon to be Illegal distiction. I have posted on this topic and DSHEA before.
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/dshea.html
Basicly DSHEA lets comapnies get away with selling steroidal/Anabolic products until the Food and Drug administration catches on to them. And Andro doesn't do much unless your taking it with another anabolic and then it most certainly works. It's a revelation that makes McGwire's use of the product particularly damming.




I agree, but those products results are never going to be enough to keep ahtletes from moving on to Steroids. And thats why we are going to constantly have problems in MLB until the comissioner gets serious about the problem and stops pretending to deal with the issue. His statements on the topics have been laughable.

Yes that is why in my post I directed you to NCBI. The national Center for Biotechnology information is a place where your going to beable to find anything unless its scientificly sound and verifiable, I'd also send you to Pubmed.com. Trust me it shows when people dig up something to support their point of veiw from a dubious local on the net.

I know what you directed me too, and it's still information on the net.


Fine then you agree that your statement is much more applicable to what creatine does than Anabolic Steroids.

To a certain extent, yes.

Yes which is why I made the Illegal/soon to be Illegal distiction. I have posted on this topic and DSHEA before.
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/dshea.html
Basicly DSHEA lets comapnies get away with selling steroidal/Anabolic products until the Food and Drug administration catches on to them. And Andro doesn't do much unless your taking it with another anabolic and then it most certainly works. It's a revelation that makes McGwire's use of the product particularly damming.


Right, and adding products to your steroid cycle makes it even more powerful.

I agree, but those products results are never going to be enough to keep ahtletes from moving on to Steroids. And thats why we are going to constantly have problems in MLB until the comissioner gets serious about the problem and stops pretending to deal with the issue. His statements on the topics have been laughable

Well ofcourse not, a steroid cycle is great, and with these PED'S, it's even better.

I honestly don't know one steroid user who just solely used steroids, they usually take a bunch of other stuff on the side to get effective results.

Ofcourse, this brings up the real issue on why steroids are banned, health.

Not just someone broke records. A Whole Team.
East Germany went from finishing behind Hungary in total medals in the 1968 Summer games, to beating the US and finishing 2nd in total medals(to the USSR who also had state run doping) in the 1976 summer olympics. East Germany dominated the Olympic summer games and finished ahead of the US again in 1988. Jim Lyeritz? If you want to put Jim Leyritz on a platform and say that East Germany transforming itself into an athletic superpower on state run Anabilc doping "means nothing" just exposes you as fatally irrational. Your credibility is seriously damaged.

Not looking for " credbility " online, but thanks for showing me your true colors. It's pretty sad when a grown man has to resort to insulting me during an arguement, what's next, fat jokes ?

As to the east german's, fair enough, but then again, there was also an article about swimmers, runners, etc, who saw better results when on amphetamines, infact, here' s the article right here.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/260756p-223278c.html

To many anti-doping experts, as well as players, there is no question that amphetamines enhance performance. A landmark 1960 study at Harvard University found that among swimmers, throwers and runners given amphetamines, 75% of the athletes showed improvement in their performances.


"Yes, they actually work," Wadler said.

Ofcourse, this is one of HUNDREDS of articles on amphetamines enhancing performance. Anytime you want the links, let me know. I'll PM them to you, or post them right here.

Chad Curtis' statement says more about his teammates addiction problems, chemical depandance and off feild activities, than the power of the drugs performance enhancement.

Not really, someone saying they can't perform without a certain drug shows enhancement to me.

[Skin & Bones]

Double Post.

[ESPNFan]

Yes, and it's because they enhance performance. Leyritz took it for the reason, aaron did, and many others. And who's the name of the writer I'm talking about, and what's his website ?

Keith Dumbroski and his site is legalball. I have seen it posted here many times before.

Hmmm "Cheating antics of old timers"...where have I heard that line before....?



From someone who speaks the truth ?

Not very likely

Fair enough, but it still doesn't tell me amphetamines don't enhance performance. As Hiddengem pointed out in another post, they, like steroids, benefit different people in different ways.

Yes, different ways if their mind allows it.

This proves nothing. It has negative side-effects, big deal, so do steroids.

This proves that if the euphoric feelings don't take on a user the feelings of the actuall effects of the drugs may actually make someone feel disabled by them. That's is hardly enhancing because raising your standing heart rate and respiration is what they do. Steroids have no side effects that instantly make a user feel like they are going to die. In fact most of the serious Steroid side effects wont be seen untill years of use have happened. Thats a trade most athletes are willing to make.

Right, aaron admitting to greenies was just to do it, House is because he wanted publicity to " help " his books/products. Right.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with this. Hiddengem knows Tom House, we should see what he has to say, eh ?

Un have you seen what House trys to sell? It's pretty suspect.
http://www.jumpusa.com/tomhousevideos.html

How a guy can claim that his book and ball will add 5ph to your fastball but steroids won't is beyond me. Plus this is a dubious bit of endosements:
Hitters can work out with former Oakland A's and currently NY Yankee Jason Giambi's strength trainer Bob Alejo. Do the same plyoball workout as home-run record holder Mark McGuire and build up bat speed and slugging power. Terrific for abs, trunk, back, and arm strength!
LOL nope Steroids never helped Giambi or McGwire either.. LOL

Dr Yesalis' is an expert on steroids, not amphetamines. And also many people have a problem with His comments regarding the drugs, but to each is own I guess.

And Buster's comment tells me nothing. As far as I'm concerned. Jeff Brantley once said a case could be made amphetamines does more than steroids, but what does that prove ?

Nothing.
Dr. Yesalis' title is Professor Emeritus of Health Policy and Administration, and Exercise and Sport Science. If you want to think he knows nothing about amphetamines your reaching. Buster's comments tell me that players are probably using other legal substances in place of greenies to get their buzz. Guarana, Taurine, Caffine etc.. There are now literally tons of energy related products on the market that would provide an athlete many of the benifits of ampetamines with out the inherrent health risks.

[Skin & Bones]

Keith Dumbroski and his site is legalball. I have seen it posted here many times before.



Not very likely



Yes, different ways if their mind allows it.



This proves that if the euphoric feelings don't take on a user the feelings of the actuall effects of the drugs may actually make someone feel disabled by them. That's is hardly enhancing because raising your standing heart rate and respiration is what they do. Steroids have no side effects that instantly make a user feel like they are going to die. In fact most of the serious Steroid side effects wont be seen untill years of use have happened. Thats a trade most athletes are willing to make.



Un have you seen what House trys to sell? It's pretty suspect.
http://www.jumpusa.com/tomhousevideos.html

How a guy can claim that his book and ball will add 5ph to your fastball but steroids won't is beyond me. Plus this is a dubious bit of endosements:

LOL nope Steroids never helped Giambi or McGwire either.. LOL


Dr. Yesalis' title is Professor Emeritus of Health Policy and Administration, and Exercise and Sport Science. If you want to think he knows nothing about amphetamines your reaching. Buster's comments tell me that players are probably using other legal substances in place of greenies to get their buzz. Guarana, Taurine, Caffine etc.. There are now literally tons of energy related products on the market that would provide an athlete many of the benifits of ampetamines with out the inherrent health risks.


Keith Dumbroski and his site is legalball. I have seen it posted here many times before.

This proves that if the euphoric feelings don't take on a user the feelings of the actuall effects of the drugs may actually make someone feel disabled by them. That's is hardly enhancing because raising your standing heart rate and respiration is what they do. Steroids have no side effects that instantly make a user feel like they are going to die. In fact most of the serious Steroid side effects wont be seen untill years of use have happened. Thats a trade most athletes are willing to make.

Interesting, yet in another thread, when the professional ballplayer asked you to name five people who died because of amphetamines abuse, you named none.

But whatever floats your boat.

And BTW, steroids do cause negative side-effects RIGHT away.

Un have you seen what House trys to sell? It's pretty suspect.
http://www.jumpusa.com/tomhousevideos.html

House is well respected around the league, by pitchers, managers, just about everyone, for you to bash him is ridiculous. He had NOTHING to gain by admitting to using steroids.

Buster's comments tell me that players are probably using other legal substances in place of greenies to get their buzz. Guarana, Taurine, Caffine etc.. There are now literally tons of energy related products on the market that would provide an athlete many of the benifits of ampetamines with out the inherrent health risks

And those were buster's comments. Brantley's comments were that amphetamines have a case as a better PED over steroids, comments are comments, not proof.

Here's an interesting comment from someone though.

The trainer, who spoke anonymously, said amphetamines "are more performance-enhancing than steroids." He said, "An average ballplayer on steroids is still an average ballplayer, with a little more power. An average ballplayer on greenies has increased awareness, increased hand-eye coordination and increased energy."What's more, the trainer said amphetamines are far more prevalent than steroids, ticking off various greenie options: "There's 24 hours, eight hours and time release." The trainer said, "If 50 percent do steroids, maybe 80 percent do amphetamines."

http://www.newsday.com/sports/columnists/ny-spflash164116960jan16,0,5743176.column?coll=ny-sports-columnists

[ESPNFan]

I know what you directed me too, and it's still information on the net.

I would hope you would know the difference between a site where doctors post their research and any old place on the net.


Right, and adding products to your steroid cycle makes it even more powerful.
Yes but with Andro that was the only way it wold work. Big Difference.


Well ofcourse not, a steroid cycle is great, and with these PED'S, it's even better.

I honestly don't know one steroid user who just solely used steroids, they usually take a bunch of other stuff on the side to get effective results.

Ofcourse, this brings up the real issue on why steroids are banned, health.

So if baseball is only concerned about health why not ban Chew? Thats bad for you. Its banned because its cheating and a possibly the most effective way to do it.

Not looking for " credbility " online, but thanks for showing me your true colors. It's pretty sad when a grown man has to resort to insulting me during an arguement, what's next, fat jokes ?.

Sorry, but when you dissmiss a valid point without researching it you look like an unreasoning zealot. Go read your responce and tell me if it doesn't sound uninformed and biased. And about fat jokes, come on really? Wait are you fat? ;)

As to the east german's, fair enough, but then again, there was also an article about swimmers, runners, etc, who saw better results when on amphetamines, infact, here' s the article right here.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/260756p-223278c.html

To many anti-doping experts, as well as players, there is no question that amphetamines enhance performance. A landmark 1960 study at Harvard University found that among swimmers, throwers and runners given amphetamines, 75% of the athletes showed improvement in their performances.


"Yes, they actually work," Wadler said.

Ofcourse, this is one of HUNDREDS of articles on amphetamines enhancing performance. Anytime you want the links, let me know. I'll PM them to you, or post them right here.

But the question is can Wadler tells us how they work for a ballplayer?

I have read many articles and books on the subject and the more I read them the more I feel that any amphetamines perfroamce enhancement is beacue of the way they effect perception and their physical effects are a drawback. Add in the addiction, side effects and need for more and more and its a no brainer that these drugs are no where near as helpful as some think.

Not really, someone saying they can't perform without a certain drug shows enhancement to me.

Someone who says they can't play or do anythign for that matter, without a drug is a textbook case of addiction its as simple as that.

[Skin & Bones]

I would hope you would know the difference between a site where doctors post their research and any old place on the net.



Yes but with Andro that was the only way it wold work. Big Difference.




So if baseball is only concerned about health why not ban Chew? Thats bad for you. Its banned because its cheating and a possibly the most effective way to do it.



Sorry, but when you dissmiss a valid point without researching it you look like an unreasoning zealot. Go read your responce and tell me if it doesn't sound uninformed and biased. And about fat jokes, come on really? Wait are you fat? ;)



But the question is can Wadler tells us how they work for a ballplayer?

I have read many articles and books on the subject and the more I read them the more I feel that any amphetamines perfroamce enhancement is beacue of the way they effect perception and their physical effects are a drawback. Add in the addiction, side effects and need for more and more and its a no brainer that these drugs are no where near as helpful as some think.



Someone who says they can't play or do anythign for that matter, without a drug is a textbook case of addiction its as simple as that.

I would hope you would know the difference between a site where doctors post their research and any old place on the net.

You can find a lot of " research " by doctors on the net.


So if baseball is only concerned about health why not ban Chew? Thats bad for you. Its banned because its cheating and a possibly the most effective way to do it.

Because chew doesn't cause man tits, bacne, and is not abused by athletes the way steroids are.

Sorry, but when you dissmiss a valid point without researching it you look like an unreasoning zealot.

Never dimissed a thing bub, never once.

But the question is can Wadler tells us how they work for a ballplayer?

I have read many articles and books on the subject and the more I read them the more I feel that any amphetamines perfroamce enhancement is beacue of the way they effect perception and their physical effects are a drawback. Add in the addiction, side effects and need for more and more and its a no brainer that these drugs are no where near as helpful as some think.
You could ask him. Or ask professional ballplayers who take the time to chat with fans, I think there's one on this site who firmly believes greenies enhance ballplayers/pitchers performances.


I have read many articles and books on the subject and the more I read them the more I feel that any amphetamines perfroamce enhancement is beacue of the way they effect perception and their physical effects are a drawback. Add in the addiction, side effects and need for more and more and its a no brainer that these drugs are no where near as helpful as some think.

very true, ofcourse, the same is said of steroids. I could post many articles where experts discuss that while beneficial, roids negative side-effects easily outweigh any potential benefit.

Someone who says they can't play or do anythign for that matter, without a drug is a textbook case of addiction its as simple as that

Sure, as an apologist view. Ofcourse if someone said that about steroids, you;d be the first here using that statement as " proof " how great these drugs really are.

[ESPNFan]

I would hope you would know the difference between a site where doctors post their research and any old place on the net.

You can find a lot of " research " by doctors on the net.

Its clear that you can say nothing to refute the site other than cast aspersions on the net as a whole. I'm sorry but these sites I have posted are as legitimate as they get. The Federal Goverment reviews work posted on these sites when deciding to award research grants.


Because chew doesn't cause man tits, bacne, and is not abused by athletes the way steroids are.

No its just causes disfiguring cancer and death. Me personally I'd opt for "man tits and bacne" over this anytime...
http://www.oralcancerfoundation.org/news/images/addicted-to-chew.jpg
And Chew may be more abused in baseball than steroids or amphetamines.

BTW are "man tits and bacne" techincal terms? :D

Never dimissed a thing bub, never once.

I'm sorry this was your responce to the East German Olympic teams accomplishments, AND I QUOTE: pointing out how someone broke " records " while on steroids proves nothing to me
Thats being dismissive.

very true, ofcourse, the same is said of steroids. I could post many articles where experts discuss that while beneficial, roids negative side-effects easily outweigh any potential benefit.

Of couse the can outweigh benefit, but the serious side effects usually take a while to materialise.


[Sure, as an apologist view. Ofcourse if someone said that about steroids, you;d be the first here using that statement as " proof " how great these drugs really are.

Its a realists veiw. Anyone who can't do a certain task without a chemical substance is an addict, steroid, speed, booze, its a reality, not just a point in an argument.

[Skin & Bones]

I would hope you would know the difference between a site where doctors post their research and any old place on the net.



Its clear that you can say nothing to refute the site other than cast aspersions on the net as a whole. I'm sorry but these sites I have posted are as legitimate as they get. The Federal Goverment reviews work posted on these sites when deciding to award research grants.




No its just causes disfiguring cancer and death. Me personally I'd opt for "man tits and bacne" over this anytime...
http://www.oralcancerfoundation.org/news/images/addicted-to-chew.jpg
And Chew may be more abused in baseball than steroids or amphetamines.

BTW are "man tits and bacne" techincal terms? :D



I'm sorry this was your responce to the East German Olympic teams accomplishments, AND I QUOTE:
Thats being dismissive.



Of couse the can outweigh benefit, but the serious side effects usually take a while to materialise.




Its a realists veiw. Anyone who can't do a certain task without a chemical substance is an addict, steroid, speed, booze, its a reality, not just a point in an argument.


Its clear that you can say nothing to refute the site other than cast aspersions on the net as a whole. I'm sorry but these sites I have posted are as legitimate as they get. The Federal Goverment reviews work posted on these sites when deciding to award research grants.

I never tried to refute the site lol, there you go assuming yet again.

Let's discuss what's actually being said, eh ?


No its just causes disfiguring cancer and death. Me personally I'd opt for "man tits and bacne" over this anytime...
http://www.oralcancerfoundation.org/news/images/addicted-to-chew.jpg
And Chew may be more abused in baseball than steroids or amphetamines.

BTW are "man tits and bacne" techincal terms? :D

Right, and it's not abused the way steroids and greenies are by athletes.

And Chew may be more abused in baseball than steroids or amphetamines.

Proof ?

I'm sorry this was your responce to the East German Olympic teams accomplishments

No, dimissing it would be me saying that the article is totally false and holds no merit. Never once did I say that.

Stop assuming things.

Of couse the can outweigh benefit, but the serious side effects usually take a while to materialise.

For some yes, for others, no.

Its a realists veiw. Anyone who can't do a certain task without a chemical substance is an addict, steroid, speed, booze, its a reality, not just a point in an argument

I'm sorry, but I disagree.

[Solair Wright]

He did? Do you have a link to that story?

I actually meant last March. Stupid me, how did I get "month" from "March"?

[ESPNFan]

Its clear that you can say nothing to refute the site other than cast aspersions on the net as a whole. I'm sorry but these sites I have posted are as legitimate as they get. The Federal Goverment reviews work posted on these sites when deciding to award research grants.

I never tried to refute the site lol, there you go assuming yet again.

Let's discuss what's actually being said, eh ?


No its just causes disfiguring cancer and death. Me personally I'd opt for "man tits and bacne" over this anytime...
http://www.oralcancerfoundation.org/news/images/addicted-to-chew.jpg
And Chew may be more abused in baseball than steroids or amphetamines.

BTW are "man tits and bacne" techincal terms? :D

Right, and it's not abused the way steroids and greenies are by athletes.

And Chew may be more abused in baseball than steroids or amphetamines.

Proof ?

I'm sorry this was your responce to the East German Olympic teams accomplishments

No, dimissing it would be me saying that the article is totally false and holds no merit. Never once did I say that.

Stop assuming things.

Of couse the can outweigh benefit, but the serious side effects usually take a while to materialise.

For some yes, for others, no.

Its a realists veiw. Anyone who can't do a certain task without a chemical substance is an addict, steroid, speed, booze, its a reality, not just a point in an argument

I'm sorry, but I disagree.

When you sit here and say You can find a lot of " research " by doctors on the net. your casting doubt.

And I was discussing what was bing said in the articles. When you could do nothing to refute it your the one who brought up the internet's reliability.

Chewing Tobacco is doesnt have to be abused to kill you. It kills you just by using it exactly the way its designed to be.

The proof is that Chew is prevelant at every level of baseball.

And the point still stands. Its a substance thats bad for your health and baseball hasn't banned it so your point about steroids is wrong.

As far as your comment goes I don't are what you say now, Your comment at the time was condesending and dissmissive and ultimately wrong.

And feel free to disagree about addiction, but know your staring facts in the eyes as you do so.

[Skin & Bones]

When you sit here and say your casting doubt.

And I was discussing what was bing said in the articles. When you could do nothing to refute it your the one who brought up the internet's reliability.

Chewing Tobacco is doesnt have to be abused to kill you. It kills you just by using it exactly the way its designed to be.

The proof is that Chew is prevelant at every level of baseball.

And the point still stands. Its a substance thats bad for your health and baseball hasn't banned it so your point about steroids is wrong.

As far as your comment goes I don't are what you say now, Your comment at the time was condesending and dissmissive and ultimately wrong.

And feel free to disagree about addiction, but know your staring facts in the eyes as you do so.


your casting doubt.


No, you took it was you wanted to.

And I was discussing what was bing said in the articles. When you could do nothing to refute it your the one who brought up the internet's reliability

I know I brought up the internet's reliability, but in no way shape or form did I dimiss the article you posted.

Chewing Tobacco is doesnt have to be abused to kill you. It kills you just by using it exactly the way its designed to be

My grandfather's 67, and has chewed it for years. Still alive, and living well. Guess it effects people in different ways like all drugs.

The proof is that Chew is prevelant at every level of baseball.

No it isn't, you said it was more rampant than steroids/greenies, prove it to me.

And the point still stands. Its a substance thats bad for your health and baseball hasn't banned it so your point about steroids is wrong.

It isn't wrong at all, Had steroids never killed a sole, and caused the serious damage to the human body that it does, it would indeed be legal. MLB would have absolutely no reason to ban it, and if the cheating issue was brought up, MLB still wouldn't have to comply because it's legal in this country.

Ofcourse, it isn't, so MLB has to ban it.

As far as your comment goes I don't are what you say now, Your comment at the time was condesending and dissmissive and ultimately wrong.


You took it the wrong way.

And feel free to disagree about addiction, but know your staring facts in the eyes as you do so


I know about addictions, and I've never seen an alcoholic or a pothead say they can't play sports without those drugs. Amphetamines and steroids on the otherhand, I've seen that manytimes before.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Questioning the prevalence of chew in baseball? Sounds like questioning whether players use wood bats in MLB. Goes with the territory. I believe its even written into the CBA, that chew CANNOT be banned in MLB the way it is in lower levels of ball. Even though its banned there, I'd bet the use is still near 50%.

Not sure if they've actually done a poll on the subject as it relates to MLB, but here's one thing I was able to find....

http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/resources/grantsreport.jsp?filename=035833.htm&iaid=143&gsa=1

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

Greenies still being compared to steroids? David vs. Goliath.

[PoseidonsGrace]

Look. If Mcgwire gets into the HoF, Bonds, Sosa, Palmeiro and the rest should be inducted too.You have no idea how many HRs that were hit on the juice or off the juice or whatever. The mere fact they failed their tests should mean they should be disqualified. If it seems harsh look at it this way: Players like Ken Griffey Jr are still out there. Has anyone even heard RUMORS of Griffey on the juice? No. Besides when you say that people like Whitey and Aaron and Hornsby cheated, bear in mind their idea of steroids is EXTREMELY different from the idea of steroids today. The flip side is, even if all these guys used steroids, they still needed to be exceptional hitters to realize what the pitch was, determine if it was a strike or ball, swing at the ball, and make good contact within a tenth of a second. All steroids do is make the ball go further, not make you actually see it. SO maybe these guys deserve to get in just based on their talent for seeing the ball... its complicated

[Tony Robbins]

He's the all time leader in career atbat per homeruns ratio, and has hit 583 career homeruns. He also held the single season homerun record until Barry Bonds broke it in 2001. His career has been tainted by his admission of andro, and now allegations of steroid abuse. Is Mcgwire still Hof worthy?

Feedback is greatly appreciated.

[KCGHOST]

This is going to be a tough one. First, he didn't admit to Andro as much as he was caught with it during an interview at his locker. He is alleged to have used steroids, but not caught. The Congressional hearing thing was a disaster in public relations.

Some of his counting numbers are very weak (PA's under 8K, hits under 1700, etc). But then when he was in there he was enormously productive. His RCAA of 660 is well into the "HoFers only" range. His OPS+ of 163 is the same thing. HIS WARP3 of 109.5 is not, though. His low score there speaks to his lack of overall playing time and his limitations as a defender.

I don't know what I am going to do.

[DoubleX]

I was in awe of McGwire going back to when he was a rookie and he hit 49 homeruns. I thought that if any player could break the homerun record, it was McGwire (I actually remember stocking up on his rookie cards in the early 90s in the belief that he would one day break the record and they'd be worth a bunch). I can't recall any player hitting homeruns like McGwire.

But just as he embodied what was amazing about the game when he was doing it, he now in retrospect, embodies what was wrong with the game.

If I had a vote, I would certainly not vote for him on the first ballot. This would not be a punitive measure, it would be so I can have more time to get a better understanding of what exactly happened during the mid 90s-early 00s, and what the numbers actually meant. I have a feeling that as time goes on, we'll learn more and more about that period, especially as more players retire and feel more comfortable sharing what they saw and/or did.

Nevertheless, despite the thick cloud of suspicion,I do see a few things going for McGwire which could prompt me to vote for him one day (if I had a vote). If he was not using performance enhancers, I still believe that he possessed very unique power - a rookie does not hit 49 homeruns, tied for the most in MLB during a 13 year stretch, unless he has some serious ability. So without the performance enhancers, perhaps he would have stayed healthier throughout his career, played more regularly and longer, been a better fielder throughout his career (he did win a GG), and still have amassed 500+ homeruns (or, perhaps he still would have been injured and he would have been forced out the game early like Frank Howard; though this is less likely because McGwire, unlike Howard, could have gone to a team with the DH).

[hubkittel]

i would put him in but not on the first ballot and, for me, this is a totally punative action. his punishment for the andro, the steroids allegations, the "not here to talk about the past" thing is to take away what would have been a guaranteed first ballot HoF status.

without a clear admission from mcgwire, we'll never know what really happened as far as peds. we can't erase the records. we're not going to start throwing * into the record books. we can't ban him from the game because he technicly didn't violate any rules. but there has to be some form of punishment for his involvement in tarnishing the image of baseball.

besides the fact that all of the suspected and caught steriod users are or will be persona non grata, the best form of punishment for mac, sammy, barry, et al will be to deny them an honor that goes only to the best players in baseball history (and an honor that they would have been given without the cloud of suspicion). another aspect of this form of punishment is that, depending on who comes up on the ballot in following years, it may be possible for players like mac and sammy to get lost in the shuffle for several years as the writers honor their non cheating peers.

i have no problem with making mcgwire wait (and wait and wait...). put him in but let him sweat it out for awhile.

[Colorado Express]

I don't know why, but I've just never thought of him as "hall of fame worthy". I think he was too one-dimensional for me.

[LostWorld]

I don't know why, but I've just never thought of him as "hall of fame worthy". I think he was too one-dimensional for me.

How so? Hitting is the most important tool for a position player, and Mcgwire did that better than many players in history. Career 163 OPS+, and .335 EQA. His 1998 season is one of the best seasons in NL history. If you ignore steroids, he's a first ballot lock.

[Colorado Express]

How so? Hitting is the most important tool for a position player, and Mcgwire did that better than many players in history. Career 163 OPS+, and .335 EQA. His 1998 season is one of the best seasons in NL history. If you ignore steroids, he's a first ballot lock.

I'm sorry, but I don't see it. McGwire had 4-5 GREAT seasons, but take out those great seasons out and he was Dave Kingman. I want to see a player with 10 great seasons before they would get my vote. Just because a guy can hit the ball 500 feet, doesn't make him HOF-worthy.

[hubkittel]

96-99 was a pretty good peak. mcgwire has seven seasons with 100+ rbi, five seasons with 49+ hr, five seasons with an ops+ over 200. a 12 time all star, three silver slugger awards, a gold glove. lead his league in hr 4 times, obp twice, slg% 4 times, ops twice, rbi once, bb twice, adjusted ops+ four times, hr/ab eight times. 583 hr, 1414 rbi. a career ops of .982 and ops+ of 163. played for three pennant winners and one world series champion.

those are first ballot HoF numbers. but, of course, i'm not here to talk about the past.

[538280]

I'm sorry, but I don't see it. McGwire had 4-5 GREAT seasons, but take out those great seasons out and he was Dave Kingman. I want to see a player with 10 great seasons before they would get my vote. Just because a guy can hit the ball 500 feet, doesn't make him HOF-worthy.

No, he was nothing like Dave Kingman. He had one key skill which Kingman did not-the ability to get on base. If you take his career through 1994, which is basically taking out his great seasons, his career OPS+ is 143. Kingman's was around 118 I believe. McGwire was a much better hitter than Kingman was, even before his peak.

McGwire was one of the best hitters of all time on a PA for PA basis, and his hitting peak was monumental. Strictly statistically there's no question he's a HOFer. The only doubt with him is steroid questions.

[brett]

Lat I heard, McGwire's lawyer claimed that within a few years, Mac would be "ready" to tell the whole truth to the public. Given that statement, he has to wait to go to the Hall until he makes that public statement.

Now one twist I heard is that McGwire truly never used any illegal substance at any time<>but that he is protecting others, and unwilling to "rat out" former teammates and stoop to the level of Canseco who he despises.

Interesting because another one I heard is that Bonds specifically justified his steroid use because McGwire was breaking records and no one was saying anything, and if people weren't getting punished for using steroids, it was almost his DUTY to use them to give his team the same advantages as McGwire's and Sosa's.

<Andro was perfectly legal, and available to the general public, and does have steroid like effects. Furthermore, unlike Bonds, we had articles discussing McGwire's body-building workouts, and millions of Americans have built similar amounts of muscle from intense training without steroids- 6-5 260 is not huge anymore>

[Skin & Bones]

Lat I heard, McGwire's lawyer claimed that within a few years, Mac would be "ready" to tell the whole truth to the public. Given that statement, he has to wait to go to the Hall until he makes that public statement.

Now one twist I heard is that McGwire truly never used any illegal substance at any time<>but that he is protecting others, and unwilling to "rat out" former teammates and stoop to the level of Canseco who he despises.

Interesting because another one I heard is that Bonds specifically justified his steroid use because McGwire was breaking records and no one was saying anything, and if people weren't getting punished for using steroids, it was almost his DUTY to use them to give his team the same advantages as McGwire's and Sosa's.

<Andro was perfectly legal, and available to the general public, and does have steroid like effects. Furthermore, unlike Bonds, we had articles discussing McGwire's body-building workouts, and millions of Americans have built similar amounts of muscle from intense training without steroids- 6-5 260 is not huge anymore>


Brett, there was very detailed article I seen before that was based on Barry's workout regimen before the start of the 1997 season. He bulked up, was benching 315, and lowered his body fat from 12% to 8%. This is before he allegedly started taking steroids in 1999.

If I find that article, I will post it.

[Seattle1]

A resounding "no."

[cubsfan1073]

i voted yes, but not on first ballot
but i still dont understand it-wats the big deal w/ lettin em in on first ballot
if they're gonna get in anyway let them in on first ballot, the voters shouldnt change their mind on first ballot
anyone who said no i cant imagine y
even w/ the steroid allegations he was still a great hitter and took wat was legal @ the time

[W_Marone]

I said no, for the fact that, with the swirling steroid alligations I dont think that the writers will let him in, and if it gets to the HOFers voting him in I dont think he'll get in, I've heard they have a tendancy to not vote anyone in that they dont want in, McGuire in this case, they dont want the HOF legacy ruined by an alleged steroid user, those are just my thoughts on the McGuire situation.

[Bench 5]

This is going to be a tough call since there are several HOF candidates from this generation that are suspect steroid users. I definitely would not vote him in on the first pass. I think he hurt the game of baseball with his wimpy cop-out during the congressional hearings. If he told the truth, people would have respected him more and over time he would have been forgiven. As it stands I tend to believe most of what Canseco said about Big Mac. He probably wasn't using steroids for the first few years of his career but I didn't consider him a future HOF'er circa 1993 either.

[dl4060]

I'm sorry, but I don't see it. McGwire had 4-5 GREAT seasons, but take out those great seasons out and he was Dave Kingman. I want to see a player with 10 great seasons before they would get my vote. Just because a guy can hit the ball 500 feet, doesn't make him HOF-worthy.

He also had an incredible batting eye. There are really four elements to offense, hitting for power, hitting for average, plate discipline and the ability to steal bases. Of those four, stealing bases is by far the least valuable. Mcgwire was among the best in baseball history at two of the other three. He was not what I would call similar to Dave Kingman.

[Dalkowski110]

No, due to steroid allegations. I would not put him in. However, I do see sportswriters voting for him and making the argument that they don't think he did steroids. A more tantalizing question would be if you put Jason Giambi or Rafael Palmeiro in, both of whom are PROVEN steroiders. If they put either of these guys in, IMO, that would be truly undermining the integrity of the game.

[Colorado Express]

No, he was nothing like Dave Kingman. He had one key skill which Kingman did not-the ability to get on base. If you take his career through 1994, which is basically taking out his great seasons, his career OPS+ is 143. Kingman's was around 118 I believe. McGwire was a much better hitter than Kingman was, even before his peak.

McGwire was one of the best hitters of all time on a PA for PA basis, and his hitting peak was monumental. Strictly statistically there's no question he's a HOFer. The only doubt with him is steroid questions.

I'm sorry that so many people took me so literally with my Dave Kingman statement...maybe I should have said Darrel Evans.

We all have our own opinion as to what makes a HOFer. In my opinion, it's dominance over a 10 year span (approximately). I don't give much consideration to longevity unless they also exhibited dominance, but 3000 hits, 400 HRs, 300 wins, etc. mean little to me.

McGwire was a GREAT hitter, but for 4 years. If you subtract those 4 great years, here is what you are left with:

Averages based on his other 12 years:
350 AB
28 HR
74 RBI
.250 AVG
.379 OBP
.533 SLG

I'm not saying he wasn't a very good player and he's certainly one worth of consideration for the HOF, but I just don't think he was as great as many people give him credit. He had 4 of the most impressive years that we will ever see, but his others were less than spectacular. Based on my criteria for the HOF, those of you that think McGwire should get in, should believe that Pujols gets in if his career were to end today. Now, let's face it, you're likely not using my criteria.

Secondly, I'm a huge believer in OBP as a valuable stat, but I want my power hitter to HIT the ball. I want my 1 and 2 hitters to get on base - I want my 4 hitter to clear the bases. So as much as I appreciate that he walked alot, I appreciate it a little less considering that he was a 4 hitter.

[Colorado Express]

96-99 was a pretty good peak. mcgwire has seven seasons with 100+ rbi, five seasons with 49+ hr, five seasons with an ops+ over 200. a 12 time all star, three silver slugger awards, a gold glove. lead his league in hr 4 times, obp twice, slg% 4 times, ops twice, rbi once, bb twice, adjusted ops+ four times, hr/ab eight times. 583 hr, 1414 rbi. a career ops of .982 and ops+ of 163. played for three pennant winners and one world series champion.

those are first ballot HoF numbers. but, of course, i'm not here to talk about the past.

Here are some comparisons to other sluggers that AREN'T in the HOF either:

All-Star ROY MVP Gold Glove Silver Slugger MVP Top 10
Dawson 8 1 1 8 4 4
Rice 8 0 1 0 2 6
Parker 7 0 1 3 3 6
McGwire 12 1 0 1 3 5
Murphy 7 0 2 5 4 4


Top 10 Finishes (led league in parentheses)
AVG OBP SLG OPS R TB HR RBI R Created
Dawson 5 0 8 6 4 10(2) 9(1) 8(1) 7
Rice 6 2 8(1) 6(1) 6 9(4) 7(3) 9(2) 7(1)
Parker 5(2) 3 7(2) 5(1) 3 7(3) 4 9(1) 6(1)
McGwire 0 4(2) 8(4) 7(2) 2 3 10(4) 6(1) 5(1)
Murphy 2 5 6(2) 6(1) 6(1) 7(1) 9(2) 6(2) 7(4)

You, like me, may think that some and/or all of these players belong in the HOF, but he's not much different from them. I tried to take meaningful stats (each of us may feel different in regards to what's "meaningful") and as I looked closely at them, I see that McGwire fairly falls into this group and as I would argue, slightly below them.

For the argument that "he reached base alot"...that's great, but not if he's not driven in by the players behind him. As you can see, he led his league in R, RBI and Runs Created the fewest amount of times out of this group.

Please don't think that I'm knocking McGwire, he was a very good player, I just have high expectations for HOFers. I like the guys that bat .300 and hit 30 HRs during their prime (or the equivalent for their era).

I'm sorry, I just noticed that the columns don't line up.

[hubkittel]

McGwire was a GREAT hitter, but for 4 years. If you subtract those 4 great years, here is what you are left with:

Averages based on his other 12 years:
350 AB
28 HR
74 RBI
.250 AVG
.379 OBP
.533 SLG


Secondly, I'm a huge believer in OBP as a valuable stat, but I want my power hitter to HIT the ball. I want my 1 and 2 hitters to get on base - I want my 4 hitter to clear the bases. So as much as I appreciate that he walked alot, I appreciate it a little less considering that he was a 4 hitter.

i'm not a mcgwire apologizist. i have serious problems with the guy based on his alledged ped usage and the damage that has done to the game. however i don't think it's accurate to say the guy was a great hitter only for four years. mac was a great hitter through out his career. his first six full years he avg 36 hr and 100 rbi (and that includes his awful 1991 season). over the next three seasons, due to injury, he only played in 178 g (and hit 58 hr with 139 rbi). this was followed by his run from 96-99 when he avg 61 hr and 132 rbi per season. his last two years were again injury plagued (186 g, 61 hr, 137 rbi). i think the numbers you presented are skewed because they include his 93-95 injury plagued seasons in the averages.

you say you want your power hitter to hit the ball? how would you like your power hitter to hit the ball out of the park at a faster rate than any other player who's played the game? mcgwire hit home runs at a faster rate than any other player who ever played the game. he had fewer at bats per home run than ruth, bonds, aaron, mays, etc. mcgwire was a slugger. this is what defines him. and if you go by at bats per hr, he was the greatest home run hitter who ever lived.

[hubkittel]

Dawson
Rice
Parker
McGwire
Murphy

You, like me, may think that some and/or all of these players belong in the HOF, but he's not much different from them.

Please don't think that I'm knocking McGwire, he was a very good player, I just have high expectations for HOFers. I like the guys that bat .300 and hit 30 HRs during their prime (or the equivalent for their era).


i like all the guys you mentioned and have fond memories of all of them. but there is a big difference between mcgwire and the rest of them.

slg obp ops+
McGwire .588 .394 163
Dawson .482 .323 119
Rice .502 .352 128
Parker .471 .339 121
Murphy .469 .346 121
note: these are career numbers
there's just no comparison here-mcgwire was a much better hitter than all of these guys. yes, mcgwire has a lower career batting avg than all of them but he was still gitting on base more than any of them. and he was hitting for more power.

and you don't have to apologize for your opinions. everybody has their own view of things and, based on that, you make the best argument you can. that's what makes this place fun.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What makes Mark McGwire look like a roider is not his stats or his muscles, but his pitiful performance testifying before Congress. Eegad!

That being said, I don't believe steroids will be the big deal with HOF voters, and McGwire will get in on the first ballot. He may not get much over 75 percent, but he'll make it. Gah-ron-teed!

[CROM]

hell get in.. not first ballot though.. not with gwynn and ripken on it.. 2nd ballot possibly..

[plask_stirlac]

however i don't think it's accurate to say the guy was a great hitter only for four years. mac was a great hitter through out his career. his first six full years he avg 36 hr and 100 rbi (and that includes his awful 1991 season). over the next three seasons, due to injury, he only played in 178 g (and hit 58 hr with 139 rbi). this was followed by his run from 96-99 when he avg 61 hr and 132 rbi per season. his last two years were again injury plagued (186 g, 61 hr, 137 rbi). i think the numbers you presented are skewed because they include his 93-95 injury plagued seasons in the averages.

That sums it up. Yes, 36 and 100, but two stats can't make any HOF-level seasons by themselves. Other than that he was quite good in a pitcher's league and park, but for a slow first baseman he wasn't off the charts. Guys like Ruben Sierra weren't far off at the plate.

Then he started missing a lot of time, then he had some of the best years at the plate in league history but it's tough to love them in that era, and he made things a bit harder on himself with andro. If he's taking aids that can help him go from the 58 HR level that was very rare but not extremely improbable (Greenberg, Maris, Foxx, Ruth 2x, Hack almost) to 70 HR, that's kind of disappointing even if MLB hadn't banned them yet. He obviously had trouble staying healthy.

[AlecBoy006]

To add to the majority thing.

Jim Bunning played more as a Tiger. Guess who is wearing a Phillies cap?

[Seth1000]

If Gaylord Perry is in, why shouldn\'t mac be in? What about Don Sutton and whitey ford who cheated? Do pitchers get an unfair free pass?

I think they do

[mwiggins]

If Gaylord Perry is in, why shouldn\\\'t mac be in? What about Don Sutton and whitey ford who cheated? Do pitchers get an unfair free pass?

I think they do

Gaylord Perry shouldn't be in. And I wouldn't have put Sutton in, just because his numbers aren't good enough. But one mistake doesn't make another one right.

[hudsonharden]

Maybe Mac should be in, but not this year. This is a unique situation, because while his numbers will not change, the perception of his character and how he acheived those numbers has yet to be written. McGwire has not been upfront about any possible substance use, neither confirming nor denying it. Even if McGwire admits PED use, I think it will only help his chances of being inducted. Honesty is always preferable to avoiding the subject and refusing to talk about the past.

[AlecBoy006]

Well, Sutton has 300 wins.

[mwiggins]

Well, Sutton has 300 wins.

Yeah, and an ERA+ of 108. And he was only in the top 10 in Cy Young voting 5 times. And he was only a 4 time all-star. And his winning % is only .559.

He has 300+ wins simply because he was a pretty good pitcher for a LONG time. He was never considered the best pitcher in his league, and was rarely even considered one of the best.

[AlecBoy006]

A long time is a long time. It's still 300 wins. And I can't see why anybody would be kept out of 300 wins...

[Brooklyn]

I usually don't advocate making players wait for election. It should be a black line to each voter. If they are good enough to get in, they should vote them in. If not, they should leave them off. I never understand players that gain momentum year after year, when there is nothing new. (ignoring for a second the voter that already has 10 on his ballot, then I can see him adding more the following year when some get in, but I don't think this is the norm)


However, in the case of the PEDs, I fully endorse waiting to see what shakes out. Even if you are pro-McGwire, what can it hurt to wait a few years to see how everything plays out? 1 for one would like to have more information before voting for him.

If I had to vote for him today, I'd say yes. but I like the option of waiting to see if more information is revealed.

[Brooklyn]

A long time is a long time. It's still 300 wins. And I can't see why anybody would be kept out of 300 wins...

Cy young was 511-316. what if he was 316-511. Would you still want him in?

[mwiggins]

A long time is a long time. It's still 300 wins. And I can't see why anybody would be kept out of 300 wins...

And that's why he got in. Voters and tradition has established 300 wins as as basically an automatic induction. Right or wrong, that's the way it is.

Is he any better than Blyleven? The numbers say no. If Glavine retires today, he's had a better career than Sutton. Is he a better pitcher if he comes back for one more year and goes 10-15 with a 4.82 ERA and gets his 300th win?

[brett]

If its better than the next best guy they have.

Is he a better pitcher if he comes back for one more year and goes 10-15 with a 4.82 ERA and gets his 300th win?

[AlecBoy006]

Cy young was 511-316. what if he was 316-511. Would you still want him in?

Yes I would

[Sliding Billy]

Yeah, and an ERA+ of 108. And he was only in the top 10 in Cy Young voting 5 times. And he was only a 4 time all-star. And his winning % is only .559.

He has 300+ wins simply because he was a pretty good pitcher for a LONG time. He was never considered the best pitcher in his league, and was rarely even considered one of the best.
Well, this is a matter of taste, I guess, but to be pretty good for that long is to be great, IMO. He never had as many wins in a season as Koufax, or Denny McClain, or Herb Score, or Mark Fydrich. But he essentially didn't miss a start for 22 years. Longevity for a pitcher isn't just a matter of not running into walls and playing well enough to stay in the lineup. Having a pitcher you can always count on is a rare intangible that you can actually put a number on. Over the course of his career he was of immense value to his teams. If he didn't have any peaks, he didn't have any valleys, none of those 6-11 seasons that afflict even the greatest. He'd never carry a team to a pennant, but he'd never blow up in the middle of of a race, either.

[StanTheMan]

I'll try to keep this brief, but when you ask this Cards fan why Mac should not be in the HOF... the keyboard just jumps to life.

Above all else... the HOF is NOT a court of law. The HOF, the writers, etc. absolutely do NOT need "beyond a reasonable doubt." There is far too much speculation to make McGwire a 1st ballot HOF'er. IMO. I advocate the "once you are in you cannot be taken out" theory, so we should work hard to get it right. What I know know about McGwire is upsetting. What may come to light later may be in his favor, maybe not. Waiting is the smart thing to do for the game, and for the wonderful American institution known as the Baseball HOF.

Firstly, Perry and McGwire. There are absoutely different levels of cheating.... Standing on the mound with a foreign substance in your glove, pocket etc.... where you could most definitely be caught and ejected is one thing. What you are doing is in full view of the other team, if they look. Stealing signs from the dugout, peeking at the catchers signs while batting....same thing. Get caught, and enjoy the chin music during your next at bat. Taking PED's in the privacy of your own home, locker room, or island in the Carribean in Sosa's case is very different, IMO. How??? There are different levels of, say, theft. i.e. a kid stealing a candy bar, as compared to an executive stealing millions from a retirement fund. Cheating in baseball is the same.... different levels of severity. Those of you who still have a hard time wrapping your mind around this, try to steal one pen from work tomorrow. The next day, steal EVERY pen in the building. Then take one ream of paper... and then EVERY freaking sheet of paper in the place. You'll understand the difference quickly. Also, an Ump cannot go to the mound to check for PED's. Sandpaper check? Sure.

Stealing a sign is certainly very low on the "sinfullness" scale, with doctoring the ball, corking a bat further on down the scale, and PED's at or near the end of the list, IMO.

Second... PED's were against the freaking law on every square inch of soil that we call the USA yesterday, last year, and the year before that. Last time I checked, you could stand in the town square and rub baseballs, basketballs, cricket balls, your own ----- :eek: with an emory board, or sandpaper, or whatever, and you would get nothing but odd looks. The next day, try injecting youself with a PED in the town square and see if anyone reacts differently. Is there a law against POSSESSING sandpaper? No.. PED's??? Laws against selling sandpaper? PED's? The laws of the United States supercede any lack of PED testing in MLB, are enough to keep a man out of the HOF.

If McGwire did nothing wrong, then why not come out and admit it? After a game, for instance. After hitting a 500 bomb... "I crushed it. Thanks to my PED, it went pretty darn far and really recover fast from my workouts.... my confidence is sky high."

Lastly, He does not want to talk about the past. The HOF IS baseball's past. If he can't even TALK about it, how can we honor it? I for one, cannot, and may never be able to do so.

[Skin & Bones]

I'll try to keep this brief, but when you ask this Cards fan why Mac should not be in the HOF... the keyboard just jumps to life.

Above all else... the HOF is NOT a court of law. The HOF, the writers, etc. absolutely do NOT need "beyond a reasonable doubt." There is far too much speculation to make McGwire a 1st ballot HOF'er. IMO. I advocate the "once you are in you cannot be taken out" theory, so we should work hard to get it right. What I know know about McGwire is upsetting. What may come to light later may be in his favor, maybe not. Waiting is the smart thing to do for the game, and for the wonderful American institution known as the Baseball HOF.

Firstly, Perry and McGwire. There are absoutely different levels of cheating.... Standing on the mound with a foreign substance in your glove, pocket etc.... where you could most definitely be caught and ejected is one thing. What you are doing is in full view of the other team, if they look. Stealing signs from the dugout, peeking at the catchers signs while batting....same thing. Get caught, and enjoy the chin music during your next at bat. Taking PED's in the privacy of your own home, locker room, or island in the Carribean in Sosa's case is very different, IMO. How??? There are different levels of, say, theft. i.e. a kid stealing a candy bar, as compared to an executive stealing millions from a retirement fund. Cheating in baseball is the same.... different levels of severity. Those of you who still have a hard time wrapping your mind around this, try to steal one pen from work tomorrow. The next day, steal EVERY pen in the building. Then take one ream of paper... and then EVERY freaking sheet of paper in the place. You'll understand the difference quickly. Also, an Ump cannot go to the mound to check for PED's. Sandpaper check? Sure.

Stealing a sign is certainly very low on the "sinfullness" scale, with doctoring the ball, corking a bat further on down the scale, and PED's at or near the end of the list, IMO.

Second... PED's were against the freaking law on every square inch of soil that we call the USA yesterday, last year, and the year before that. Last time I checked, you could stand in the town square and rub baseballs, basketballs, cricket balls, your own ----- :eek: with an emory board, or sandpaper, or whatever, and you would get nothing but odd looks. The next day, try injecting youself with a PED in the town square and see if anyone reacts differently. Is there a law against POSSESSING sandpaper? No.. PED's??? Laws against selling sandpaper? PED's? The laws of the United States supercede any lack of PED testing in MLB, are enough to keep a man out of the HOF.

If McGwire did nothing wrong, then why not come out and admit it? After a game, for instance. After hitting a 500 bomb... "I crushed it. Thanks to my PED, it went pretty darn far and really recover fast from my workouts.... my confidence is sky high."

Lastly, He does not want to talk about the past. The HOF IS baseball's past. If he can't even TALK about it, how can we honor it? I for one, cannot, and may never be able to do so.

This arguement is very weak. PED'S like steroids are illegal in this country because they kill. If that's the base of your arguement as to " why steroids are worse ", then it's weak. Going by logic, let's kick Paul Molitor out for using Coke.

[Seth1000]

Gaylord Perry shouldn't be in. And I wouldn't have put Sutton in, just because his numbers aren't good enough. But one mistake doesn't make another one right.

It just doesn't seem fair. The substance he used was NOT illegal when he used it!

So, on that note, how did he cheat? I believe that is called ex post facto law (I very well might be wrong with that term lol). It can't be held against him.

The substance he used WAS LEGAL when he used it, but is now illegal, so please explain to me how you should hold that against him and call him a cheater?

Gaylord Perry is a proven cheat! And he's in, there's no prooof Mac cheated and he's out? what sense does that make??????????

[StanTheMan]

This arguement is very weak. PED'S like steroids are illegal in this country because they kill. If that's the base of your arguement as to " why steroids are worse ", then it's weak. Going by logic, let's kick Paul Molitor out for using Coke.

That's not the basis of my argument.... even though there is certainly evidence of steroids being a health hazard.

Do you not see how taking steroids, to improve your performance, with absolutley no possiblility of being "found out" on the field of play is different than an emory board?

There is more to the equation why I feel taking PED's is a more severe act than other "cheating" but the above is part of it.

[Skin & Bones]

That's not the basis of my argument.... even though there is certainly evidence of steroids being a health hazard.

Do you not see how taking steroids, to improve your performance, with absolutley no possiblility of being "found out" on the field of play is different than an emory board?There is more to the equation why I feel taking PED's is a more severe act than other "cheating" but the above is part of it.

I see the difference, and now with legit testing in place, it isn't as easy as it was before. Any way, to me that's irrelevant. The impact on the statistics is what matters, and there's more evidence that the banning of Doctored Pitches has had a larger effect on the numbers than PED'S.

[StanTheMan]

It just doesn't seem fair. The substance he used was NOT illegal when he used it!

I don't think we're talking about Andro... the stuff you could legally have in your locker in 1998. Heck, you could drink an Andro Milkshake in the on deck circle if you wanted too, I suppose. THAT was legal at the time.

But did McGwire take more than that? I believe he did, and he is NOT a HOF'er because of it.

[Skin & Bones]

It just doesn't seem fair. The substance he used was NOT illegal when he used it!

So, on that note, how did he cheat? I believe that is called ex post facto law (I very well might be wrong with that term lol). It can't be held against him.

The substance he used WAS LEGAL when he used it, but is now illegal, so please explain to me how you should hold that against him and call him a cheater?

Gaylord Perry is a proven cheat! And he's in, there's no prooof Mac cheated and he's out? what sense does that make??????????

Actually it was illegal ( assuming your talking about steroids and not Andro). It was illegal in baseball since 1991.

[Los Bravos]

Well, this is a matter of taste, I guess, but to be pretty good for that long is to be great, IMO. He never had as many wins in a season as Koufax, or Denny McClain, or Herb Score, or Mark Fydrich. But he essentially didn't miss a start for 22 years. Longevity for a pitcher isn't just a matter of not running into walls and playing well enough to stay in the lineup. Having a pitcher you can always count on is a rare intangible that you can actually put a number on. Over the course of his career he was of immense value to his teams. If he didn't have any peaks, he didn't have any valleys, none of those 6-11 seasons that afflict even the greatest. He'd never carry a team to a pennant, but he'd never blow up in the middle of of a race, either.Glad someone else gets that.Cy young was 511-316. what if he was 316-511. Would you still want him in?Isn't that Nolan Ryan's record?

[AlecBoy006]

Lol @ the Ryan comment.

Oh, and while we have Ryan in the mix. Sutton and Ryan both won 324 games, but Sutton had fewer losses to Ryan's 292.

[Wee Willie]

Lol @ the Ryan comment.

Oh, and while we have Ryan in the mix. Sutton and Ryan both won 324 games, but Sutton had fewer losses to Ryan's 292.
Sutton played on good teams most of his career, whereas Ryan played on many poor ones. All in all, I have Ryan a little higher.

[KCGHOST]

A real problem we have in discussing McGwire is that we don't stay focused. We drag in other players who are not implicated in using PED's and try to make their crime the same issue. Just like in real life, all crimes are not equal, so you cannot sensibly ask why did a murderer get the death penalty and the burglar only get five years. Thus we shouldn't drag ball scuffers/wetters into a conversation about steroid use.

What we should do is focus on what is the acceptable punishment for a PED's user. And should it be something that automatically bans you from the HoF or should we leave it up to the sportswriters.

[cardsfanatic]

I don't think we're talking about Andro... the stuff you could legally have in your locker in 1998. Heck, you could drink an Andro Milkshake in the on deck circle if you wanted too, I suppose. THAT was legal at the time.

But did McGwire take more than that? I believe he did, and he is NOT a HOF'er because of it.

How would you feel if you went into work tomorrow and some co-worker had started a nasty rumor about you that got back to your boss. Your boss calls you in and says "we're going to have to let you go because what you did is against company policy, sorry."

No proof. Nothing to say you did it. The boss just says "dooderz, I just believe it, kkkkk."

Real fair, right? I'm sure you'd call news stations, lawyers, newspapers and everyone you could... because (gasp) that scenario would be as unfair as what people like you are trying to do to Big Mac.

If the guy's numbers warrant it (which, they do) he should be in the HOF. Period. What you BELIEVE he did doesn't matter. If you can't prove it then shut up about it -- I'm sure if the tables were turned you'd be asking for the same courtesy.

[cardsfanatic]

Actually it was illegal ( assuming your talking about steroids and not Andro). It was illegal in baseball since 1991.

Ah, another one of the "memo" guys. The comissioner's office sent out a memo about steroids but there was never any rule prohibiting the use of steroids and it was never in a CBA. Which, it would have to be for it to be enforced. The writing on that memo was worth less than the paper it was written on.

[hubkittel]

A real problem we have in discussing McGwire is that we don't stay focused. We drag in other players who are not implicated in using PED's and try to make their crime the same issue. Just like in real life, all crimes are not equal, so you cannot sensibly ask why did a murderer get the death penalty and the burglar only get five years. Thus we shouldn't drag ball scuffers/wetters into a conversation about steroid use.

What we should do is focus on what is the acceptable punishment for a PED's user. And should it be something that automatically bans you from the HoF or should we leave it up to the sportswriters.

the reason the discussion loses focus is because there is no concensus on what kind of "crime" ped usage is. some people think it's murder, some think it's manslaughter, some think it's burglary, and some think it's jaywalking. so everybody's coming from all over the place. mcgwire, gaylord, corked bats, and stealing signs. some see black and white and some see shades of gray. we will never come to a decision about an acceptable punishment for ped usage or HoF admittance for ped users until we reach that consensus.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I love what the Hall of Fame has turned into. What great moral arbiters, the Hall of Fame voters and baseball fans have become in deciding the fate of all time greats.

[Skin & Bones]

Ah, another one of the "memo" guys. The comissioner's office sent out a memo about steroids but there was never any rule prohibiting the use of steroids and it was never in a CBA. Which, it would have to be for it to be enforced. The writing on that memo was worth less than the paper it was written on.

Well, there was no testing for the drugs, so your point makes sense. However, that does indeed show how Baseball ignored steroids though. They were prohibited, just not enforced.

[Elvis]

Unlike Bonds, whose pre-PED numbers were already HOF worthy, McGwire's pre-PED numbers were not even remotely close. What was his career BA pre-PED, like .230?

[Los Bravos]

How would you feel if you went into work tomorrow and some co-worker had started a nasty rumor about you that got back to your boss. Your boss calls you in and says "we're going to have to let you go because what you did is against company policy, sorry."

No proof. Nothing to say you did it. The boss just says "dooderz, I just believe it, kkkkk."Especially if the rumor was started by a guy who was up on the rooftop shouting about how he'd done the same thing he was accusing you of doing.

My guess is that the writers will use a one year shunning to punish him, then accord him the place he's entitled to by his career. The fact that he's going to be initially eligible alongside two guys considered (rightly) paragons of modern Baseball probably won't help him much, either.

[Skin & Bones]

The whole " first ballot " thing is overrated anyway. If your in, your in. That's how I personally see it.

[EvanAparra]

My personal problem with McGwire vs. Bonds is that Bonds was legitimately great in other areas than just power and Big Mac wasn't... Also, Bonds was a HOF caliber player before the roids, Big Mac, again, wasn't.

[antihipster]

To me the logical thing to do w/McGwire's potential hof induction is to vote no on the first ballot [and possibly beyond] and wait to collect more information before seeing if he will be accepted or rejected. There are currently a lot of empty spaces where the blanks need and in the future will be filled in by credible sources.

[ESPNFan]

This arguement is very weak. PED'S like steroids are illegal in this country because they kill. If that's the base of your arguement as to " why steroids are worse ", then it's weak. Going by logic, let's kick Paul Molitor out for using Coke.

Injecting your self with Liquid Plummer will kill you too. Why is it that I can go to the Grocery Store and still buy it? Because injecting yourself with that substances does not grant you enhanced athletic abilities. Steroids can kill because people abuse them. Thats why they are a health hazard and that is why the are illegal and banned.
Again you keep repeating this same tired flawed logic. Nobody's buying it.

[ESPNFan]

Well, there was no testing for the drugs, so your point makes sense. However, that does indeed show how Baseball ignored steroids though. They were prohibited, just not enforced.

The memo serves as a point of refrence. Fay Vincent probalby knew he wasn't going to get the owners and more importantly the players union to agree to anything on the topic of testing and wrote the memo to adress it, basicly going on record in stating that these drugs should be out of the game.

To me enforcability of the memo is not an issue. Its the fact that the subject was addressed. The main reason we didn't get testing until we did is that ultimately the players union held the power to help impose testing and regulations and they chose not to. They chose to look the other way and now the mob mentality that will paint an entire era of baseball with suspicion is what they have to show for it.

[ESPNFan]

As for Mcgwire, Aside from Power, what makes him stand out for hall consideration? The single attribute that Anabolic substance abuse effect the most for a batter is why he is a candidate. When you end up having to decide how much these drugs helped the only reason why he is being considered, its probably best not to consider him at all.

And lets not forget that Character and Sportsmanship are also factors in the voting as well. To me, lawyering up infront of Congress, when asked a direct question about this subject and his involvement doesn't make a good case for either.

[Skin & Bones]

Injecting your self with Liquid Plummer will kill you too. Why is it that I can go to the Grocery Store and still buy it? Because injecting yourself with that substances does not grant you enhanced athletic abilities. Steroids can kill because people abuse them. Thats why they are a health hazard and that is why the are illegal and banned.
Again you keep repeating this same tired flawed logic. Nobody's buying it.

Nothing you have said has proven me wrong on anything. The evidence is on the 1991 memo right then and there. No slipshod excuse you use changes anything. Nothing on the memo mentions anything about it being an " unfair advantage " and the penalty was to see the team's physician. That's it, nothing more. If there was more to the story, it wasn't on the memo.

[ESPNFan]

Nothing you have said has proven me wrong on anything. The evidence is on the 1991 memo right then and there. No slipshod excuse you use changes anything. Nothing on the memo mentions anything about it being an " unfair advantage " and the penalty was to see the team's physician. That's it, nothing more. If there was more to the story, it wasn't on the memo.

So if nothing I said has proven you wrong, why do you refuse to answer the point behind the question. If health reasons were the sole reasoning behind the ban why hasn't baseball banned chewing tobacco? Many more people have died from the RECOMENDED AND INTENDED USE of that product than the ABUSE and MISUSE of anabolic steroids.

If Steroids are such a health risk as you say why is it that they are still perscribed to people for a variety of medical conditions?

The truth is that almost all of the suspected health related problems that are associated with Steroid use stem from the ABUSE of them related to improving athletic performance.

[Appling]

What I believe is that Mark McGwire used Andro but not any "outlawed" PEDs.

He admitted to using Andro. He never admitted using anything else. He probably used poor judgment in refusing to "talk about the past" but he probably had legal advice to do what he did before that congressional committee.

I wish Mark had said something more like:
"I used some chemicals that helped control my back pain, but I never used any substance that was outlawed by baseball or by Federal Law at the time I used it."

But that would have only raised more questions from the Committee.

Shades of Joe McCarthy: to be convicted because you refuse to testify against yourself!

I believe the 1998 NL HR race between McGwire and Sosa did as much for baseball as anything achieved by Cal Ripken Jr. That is worth a lot to me!

[SamtheBravesFan]

I love what the Hall of Fame has turned into. What great moral arbiters, the Hall of Fame voters and baseball fans have become in deciding the fate of all time greats.

*points his sarcasm-o-motron at this statement and gets a ? reading*

You being sarcastic or not?

[Skin & Bones]

What I believe is that Mark McGwire used Andro but not any "outlawed" PEDs.

He admitted to using Andro. He never admitted using anything else. He probably used poor judgment in refusing to "talk about the past" but he probably had legal advice to do what he did before that congressional committee.

I wish Mark had said something more like:
"I used some chemicals that helped control my back pain, but I never used any substance that was outlawed by baseball or by Federal Law at the time I used it."

But that would have only raised more questions from the Committee.

Shades of Joe McCarthy: to be convicted because you refuse to testify against yourself!

I believe the 1998 NL HR race between McGwire and Sosa did as much for baseball as anything achieved by Cal Ripken Jr. That is worth a lot to me!

Mcgwire didn't admit to anything. A reporter found a bottle of the stuff in his locker. What was he supposed to say ? That he had it there for decoration ?

[cardsfanatic]

Injecting your self with Liquid Plummer will kill you too. Why is it that I can go to the Grocery Store and still buy it? Because injecting yourself with that substances does not grant you enhanced athletic abilities. Steroids can kill because people abuse them. Thats why they are a health hazard and that is why the are illegal and banned.
Again you keep repeating this same tired flawed logic. Nobody's buying it.

Actually, I think steroids are illegal for the same reason marijuana is. The government can't regulate and tax the market because the stuff is so easy to get on the black market. Otherwise, why is cigarrettes and alcohol sold freely? Or enriched foods and transfatty foods (the #1 health hazard to America). I don't doubt that the health risks associated with steroids played some part but you can look at everything the government does and see that if there's a buck to be made they couldn't really give a crap less about the health affects.

Steroids have and always will be a black market drug. Also, steroids are a type C drug -- so it's not even a drug they crack down on hard. They go after the dealers but the users are typically not targets. Not all "illegal" drugs are created equally.

[ESPNFan]

Mcgwire didn't admit to anything. A reporter found a bottle of the stuff in his locker. What was he supposed to say ? That he had it there for decoration ?

Uh yes McGwire did admit to using it. Infact after he admitted to using it Ando sales went through the roof.
Also the reporter also didn't ask McGwire about it immediately after he saw the Bottle in his locker. If I remember correctly the reporter had no idea what it was and jotted down the name of Andro and asked around to find out what it was. It was after the reporter found out what it was it was Then that McGwire and the Cardnials were asked what it was and then McGwire admitted it.

But why would you let facts get in the way of your argument. :rolleyes:

[ESPNFan]

Actually, I think steroids are illegal for the same reason marijuana is. The government can't regulate and tax the market because the stuff is so easy to get on the black market. Otherwise, why is cigarrettes and alcohol sold freely? Or enriched foods and transfatty foods (the #1 health hazard to America). I don't doubt that the health risks associated with steroids played some part but you can look at everything the government does and see that if there's a buck to be made they couldn't really give a crap less about the health affects.

Steroids have and always will be a black market drug. Also, steroids are a type C drug -- so it's not even a drug they crack down on hard. They go after the dealers but the users are typically not targets. Not all "illegal" drugs are created equally.

My point was that the fact that steroids are health risks is not the only reason why they are banned from athletics and made a controlled substance. They are because people have decided to use them for things other than they were designed for. And its thought these uses that the problems arise. There are plenty of things that are health hazards that baseball will never do anything about. You make a good example by listing foods with transfats. Is baseball going to ban Ding Dongs, Twikies and Oreo's because they are a health risk? Should we go back and re-evaluate John Kruk's career because of his Taco Bell habit? Nope, Nope and Nope.
The health ramifications are secondary. The reason why things like drugs are banned is because they reflect negatively on baseball. And cheating by using Steroids most definetly has reflected negatively on baseball. The related health issues are a concern but since they stem from the abuse of the drugs through cheating, they are most certainly secondary.

[StanTheMan]

How would you feel if you went into work tomorrow and some co-worker had started a nasty rumor about you that got back to your boss. Your boss calls you in and says "we're going to have to let you go because what you did is against company policy, sorry."

No proof. Nothing to say you did it. The boss just says "dooderz, I just believe it, kkkkk."

Real fair, right? I'm sure you'd call news stations, lawyers, newspapers and everyone you could... because (gasp) that scenario would be as unfair as what people like you are trying to do to Big Mac.

If the guy's numbers warrant it (which, they do) he should be in the HOF. Period. What you BELIEVE he did doesn't matter. If you can't prove it then shut up about it -- I'm sure if the tables were turned you'd be asking for the same courtesy.


Completely irrevelant..... The next time Big Mac calls news stations, lawyers, newpapers and everyone he can to argue his case......

It will be the first time.

He is arguing his case, and trying to cear his name, about as effectively as OJ is searching for the real killer.

The HOF does NOT need beyond a reasonable doubt.... it is NOT a court of law, but one of the most treasured institiutions in the USA, IMO.

I do agree with you on one point, what I believe does not matter. I agree. But thankfully, what the Writers believe DOES matter, and they will do the right thing, and NOT vote McGwire in.

Just for fun, and to compare with the McGwire situation....Lets' say for one moment that the above scenario IS true. I was wrongfully accussed, and FIRED from my job today. And then I scream bloody murder, call the newspapers, 20-20, and even Geraldo Rivera himself.

THEN, the NATIONAL COMMITEE (read...Congress) who has a tremendous influence and is VERY interested in the particular type of transgression I committed calls together all their members for a televised, HISTORY making hearing, and starts asking me questions about what me and other high profile co workers did, and did not do.

And my answer is..... "I don't want to talk about the past."

Would you then still support me? Or would I lose a large amount of support like Mac Did?

[GhostShip]

The stench of the hypocrisy on this issue makes me hold my nose.

For years, baseball knew that some substances had been enhancing players and refused to take serious action or investigate. They were happy with the status quo.

For years, the players union knew their players were using some substances, yet they were happy with the status quo and did nothing about it.

For years, the PRESS (as a collective) knew that players were abusing performance enhancing substances, yet they refused to seriously push the issue. They were happy reporting homerun record chases, rather than why all these records were being broken.

And yes, for years the government knew something was at issue with these enhancing substances and did not devote serious attention to it, pass the laws needed, or even really care how it was being used in sports.

So for years we have a situation where all the leaders and people that should have been held accountable for the situation did absolutely nothing, whether for monetary gain or sheer neglect. Yet, after all is said and done and the issue finally comes to a boil long enough and enough noise is made -- EVERYONE decides to get into the act of how to fix the problem and point the finger.

Strangely enough, all those people whose ultimate responsibility was to keep the sport clean escaped punishement. The baseball commisioner, union leaders, government officials, and even the press suffered no serious punishment for their lack of action and complicity in the status quo. Instead, we have chosen to lay the blame squarley at a few players who can be held up to be blamed for the problem.

Mark McGwire is a symbol of the steriod abuse problem. He was put into a position to testify before Congress and was made a scapegoat for invoking his 5th admentment rights to avoid self-incrimination. The simple fact that they did not call Barry Bonds to testify so he could do the same, speaks volumes about how far the hypocrisy continues to go. Congress could have given McGwire immunity and compelled him to testify, yet they refused to do so. Were they really interested in the truth? Or perhaps just someone to blame -- to divert attention away from everyone else.

Mark McGwire is not a saint. He made a mistake and used a substance he should not have. Was it illegal at the time, was everything known that should have been known? No, not really. Doesn't holding him up as the poster boy to be punished for all the sins associated with this issue seem wrong to anyone else?

Furthermore, what really gets me is the same press people that should have gotten to the bottom of this issue a long time ago are the very ones that will be voting on McGwire. The same folks that have managed to squeek by without any accountability on their own part...

Personally, I think on his accomplishments -- Mark McGwire is a hall of famer -- no questions asked. But what you really have to ask yourself, should Mark be held up and punished when few of the others that were really responsible for allowing this situation to happen were not?

[ESPNFan]

Ghostship,
I agree with you on many points. There is enough blame pie to go around for just about everyone.

However I still believe that ultimately the first and biggest piece of that pie is reserved for the players that chose to take the drugs.

So I don't see Mark McGwire as somone who if being unfairly victimized.
The people who I feel are the real victims are the players of this era who were playing clean and will have their career achivements discounted by the "experts" because of the questions that widespread PED use have created.

[CROM]

how do we know when or even if he used though? is it far fetched that he hit 70 HRs in a year when he hit 49 in 1987 at the age of 24? the only thing keeping him out in the minds of most are his answers at the congessional hearing ( i hope he fired that lawyer BTW if he in fact was the one who gave him that silly advice)..
in 6 seasons from 1987-1992 he hit 217 HRs.. thats an average of 36 a year.. in 87 he hit 49 and in 1992 he hit 42..
after the 92 season he had 2 injury plagued years.. in another span of 6 years starting at age 32 1995-2000 he hit 316 Hrs.. an average of 52.6 a year.. this is his suspected steroid era im presuming..
anyways.. the point im trying to make is that if he would have continued his original HR pace at 36 a year and didnt have those 2 injuy plagued years in 1993 and 1994 he still would have reached the 500 HR mark in a span 14 season which is remarkable..
the only reason im saying all of this is because everyone seems to be giving barry bonds "pre-roids" credit and saying he was putting up HOF numbers before the suspected roids era while mcgwire was doing the same but in different fashion..

[StanTheMan]

Mark McGwire's numbers are IN the HOF right now. As are Barry Bonds'. Home Run totals, hit totals, the records are on display. I've been there... saw them.

But a plaque with these players likeness in the most hallowed room in all of baseball?

I say no way.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Well in all fairness there was no policy against PEDs, not that I'm condoning it or anything...

[StanTheMan]

So if nothing I said has proven you wrong, why do you refuse to answer the point behind the question. If health reasons were the sole reasoning behind the ban why hasn't baseball banned chewing tobacco? Many more people have died from the RECOMENDED AND INTENDED USE of that product than the ABUSE and MISUSE of anabolic steroids.

This is just silly..... Do you think if Steroids were avaiable, legal, marketed and advertised for a century, and only cost about 2 bucks a pack at six Gazillion-Bazillion-Mac-Zillion Retail locations around the world... that steroid deaths would not outnumber cigarette deaths?

[dgarza]

This is just silly..... Do you think if Steroids were avaiable, legal, marketed and advertised for a century, and only cost about 2 bucks a pack at six Gazillion-Bazillion-Mac-Zillion Retail locations around the world... that steroid deaths would not outnumber cigarette deaths?
even if, they still wouldn't compete with tobacco. a much smaller segment of the population would want steriods than tobacco even if steriods were free.

[Skin & Bones]

Uh yes McGwire did admit to using it. Infact after he admitted to using it Ando sales went through the roof.
Also the reporter also didn't ask McGwire about it immediately after he saw the Bottle in his locker. If I remember correctly the reporter had no idea what it was and jotted down the name of Andro and asked around to find out what it was. It was after the reporter found out what it was it was Then that McGwire and the Cardnials were asked what it was and then McGwire admitted it.

But why would you let facts get in the way of your argument. :rolleyes:

What the heck is the point here ?

The reporter found the bottle in his locker, and asked Mcgwire about it. Again, what was he supposed to say ?


When a sports reporter saw a bottle of the stuff in McGwire's locker room, it didn't take long for his fans to think there might be a connection between the supplement and their idol's impressive power and strength.

http://www.tinajuanfitness.info/articles/art032100.html

I guess Mcgwire could of used the " unknowingly excuse " but maybe he was smart enough to realize that nobody would believe him. So Mcgwire didn't " admit " to anything - That's like saying Matt Lawton admitted to steroids because he took responsibility for his actions when he tested positive for the drugs.

[Skin & Bones]

My point was that the fact that steroids are health risks is not the only reason why they are banned from athletics and made a controlled substance. They are because people have decided to use them for things other than they were designed for. And its thought these uses that the problems arise. There are plenty of things that are health hazards that baseball will never do anything about. You make a good example by listing foods with transfats. Is baseball going to ban Ding Dongs, Twikies and Oreo's because they are a health risk? Should we go back and re-evaluate John Kruk's career because of his Taco Bell habit? Nope, Nope and Nope.
The health ramifications are secondary. The reason why things like drugs are banned is because they reflect negatively on baseball. And cheating by using Steroids most definetly has reflected negatively on baseball. The related health issues are a concern but since they stem from the abuse of the drugs through cheating, they are most certainly secondary.

Not necessarily true. It was a common misconception then that even a small dosage of anabolic steroids was a serious health risk, and thus no athlete in any sport should use it.

You can keep ranting all you want about how " cheating " is the main issue here - It will never change the fact that these drugs were banned, as well as Amphetamines for the sole reason of health - Infact, in the 1991 memo there wasn't a single thing mentioned about cheating, where as the banning of Greenies recently did indeed spark a debate about unfair play.

But of course, according to you, Amphetamines don't enhance performance - Despite mountains of evidence showing that they clearly do to a very high degree.:D

[dgarza]

At this point in time, all of McGwire's MLB records are sanctioned by MLB.
McGwire never made them Official, MLB did and MLB continues to do so.
I feel so small when I stand in MLB's shadow.

[ESPNFan]

This is just silly..... Do you think if Steroids were avaiable, legal, marketed and advertised for a century, and only cost about 2 bucks a pack at six Gazillion-Bazillion-Mac-Zillion Retail locations around the world... that steroid deaths would not outnumber cigarette deaths?

Stan thats not the point I was trying to make. My point is that Steroids are a health risk because they are abused and its because they are prome to this abuse for cheating/doping that they are banned/illegal. Skin & Bones repeated contention is that Steroids are only illegal and banned from sports because they are harmful. Its a completely erronious statement because basicly the only way Anabolic Steroids become a serious health hazard is if you abuse them. So its because these drugs became widely abused for athletic doping that they are banned and made a controlled substance.
To further prove the point, there are plenty of substances that pose legitimate and seroius health risks when used exactly how they are supposed to that baseball has no policy reguarding. Smokeless tobacco is the example I used. Baseball doesn't care about oral cancer as long as your Redman/Skoll isn't boosting your testosterone levels.

But If you want an answer to your question, yes steroids would kill less people than cigarettes, probably by a wide margin.

Steroids, taken in the perscribed doses, are given to many different people by doctors for a variety of health problems with very few serious effects.

Smoking, done in exactly the way the product is supposed to be used, has been the suspected cause of how many deaths? Not to mention second hand smoke.

[Skin & Bones]

Well then I guess cocaine, weed, LSD, and whatever other drug out there is banned because of performance enhancing attributes as well. After all, Chew is Legal. :D

[dgarza]

.

Smoking, done in exactly the way the product is supposed to be used, has been the suspected cause of how many deaths? Not to mention second hand smoke.
Not to mention accidental fires either.

[ESPNFan]

What the heck is the point here ?

The reporter found the bottle in his locker, and asked Mcgwire about it. Again, what was he supposed to say ?




http://www.tinajuanfitness.info/articles/art032100.html

I guess Mcgwire could of used the " unknowingly excuse " but maybe he was smart enough to realize that nobody would believe him. So Mcgwire didn't " admit " to anything - That's like saying Matt Lawton admitted to steroids because he took responsibility for his actions when he tested positive for the drugs.


Sorry you made a blatnatly wrong and uninformed statement.
You said: Mcgwire didn't admit to anything
McGwire did infact admit to using Andro.

[Skin & Bones]

Sorry you made a blatnatly wrong and uninformed statement.
You said:
McGwire did infact admit to using Andro.

Fine, since your questioning this site...Here's another.

For the Associated Press reporter who noticed that fateful bottle of "Andro" pills in Mark McGwire’s locker inadvertently confronted American society with the conflicted (and hypocritical) attitude toward performance enhancing substances that has become an integral part of our pharmacological way of life.

http://www.thinkmuscle.com/articles/hoberman/mcgwire.htm


Again, he had to acknowledge that he used it if it was found in his locker. Had he pulled the unknowingly card, he wouldn't have been believed.

[jalbright]

Personal attacks are not permitted here, and part of the previous post was in that mode. As such, that part of the comment in post #59 has been deleted. Remember the Albright rule on personal attacks: once you cross the line of talking about the post to talking about the person who made it, you're on thin ice. Right now, we're just at slap on the wrist territory, but if this kind of exchange continues, it won't be for long. I hope this will prove a word to the wise.

There are few more contentious issues than steroids in baseball, and folks can also get quite emotional about the candidacies of their favorites for the HOF. This thread combines both. I understand that, but if this thread is to continue, the need to be civil must be observed, regardless of your emotional response to the thread's issues and personalities.

Jim Albright

[ESPNFan]

Not necessarily true. It was a common misconception then that even a small dosage of anabolic steroids was a serious health risk, and thus no athlete in any sport should use it.

You can keep ranting all you want about how " cheating " is the main issue here - It will never change the fact that these drugs were banned, as well as Amphetamines for the sole reason of health - Infact, in the 1991 memo there wasn't a single thing mentioned about cheating, where as the banning of Greenies recently did indeed spark a debate about unfair play.

But of course, according to you, Amphetamines don't enhance performance - Despite mountains of evidence showing that they clearly do to a very high degree.:D

A common misconception among who? See now your reaching with overly general statements because you clearly can't support your claims.

Cheating is the main issue because its through the misuse of Steroids to Dope or Cheat that health issues become an issue. If Steroids were of no use to Athletes looking to cheat/dope you can bet that they would have never been made a controlled substance or banned from athletics. It's that simple yet you are so desperate in looking for excuses you cant admit it.

And I have said that Ampetamines can enhance performance.

I have said that they can enhance performance as well. My contention has been however that the way they work prevents them from being used by everyone, and the way they effect the central nervous system actually degrades performance with repeated and increased use, quickly negating benefits. I can go on if you like....

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=689126&highlight=Amphetamines#post689126

[sds416]

Every single era has been plagued by some sort of "questionable" activity, and the so called "juiced player era" will become part of the landscape of history and fade into a far more relevant place in it, rather than dominating the landscape, as it does now. And I might add that the day that happens can't come soon enough.

The argument could easily be made that there are a bunch of HOF members guilty of far greater crimes, committed during their active playing days. Read "Ball Four" and then look me in the eye and tell me that you can say Mac is more guilty than HOF members from another era. You've got HOF's from the 70's and 80's who had coke problems, probably possessed it in the clubhouse, hell maybe even shared it with other players, and you never hear a peep about that, Mac has admitted to using a substance that was 100% legal to purchase and consume at the time he used it, yet he is called into question? Its hypocricy at its highest level.

[StanTheMan]

Hipocrisy, Schmipocrisy!! (nothing personal... just passionate!! :rolleyes: )

I have yet to meet, talk to, or read a post from someone who feels McGwire should not be in the HOF, and who also even remotely considers the Andro thing as part of his/her argument. IMO, Andro is NOT part of the equation, nor should it be. Steroids and PED's in the traditional sense (like those which get you kicked out of the Olympics... and those which were, and still are, Illegal in the USA) are the issue here. Don't tell me I need proof, either. We're not talking about a court of law, here, but rather a PERMANENT appointed honor.

To me, the fact that some feel their were no rules, or very lax rules as to what was illegal in baseball at the time, is irrevelant, and a shortsided way to say Mac should be in. There is no MLB rule against breaking your bat in BP, and jamming it several inches into the thigh of the opposing team's best hitter or pitcher before the game, but laws against assault would supercede the MLB rulebook... same with illegal PED's.

And anyone who TRULY believes that McGwire NEVER took anything other than Andro... please post as such. I'm looking for 100% Certainty that you feel he took nothing but Andro. Do you have some doubt like the rest of us? Major doubt like me?

So, knowing what i know now (which admittedly is not always 100% clear - but it does NOT need to be 100% clear to be enough IMO), adding McGwire's testimony to Congress, his extremely loud silence ever since his testimony, and his inability to do "whatever it takes" (my words, not his) to address the issue after his testimony... i.e. help the kids of America, help fight the problem of steroids, whatever he said.... He's not doing it... it all adds up in my, and writers' minds, and creates suspicion.

Not proof, but suspicion. The HOF is not a court of law, and does NOT need beyond a reasonable doubt. Period, end of story.

Eddie Matthews hit 500+ HR's and waited several ballots. Why not wait on McGwire until all the FACTS emerge? It is the right thing to do!!

His records are in the HOF. His name is on the wall with the other great HR hitters, as is should be. I've seen it with my own eyes, and have no problem with it. I don't know anyone that does.

But a plaque on the wall is very different, IMO. Records will be broken. The HOF and the Plaques on the wall are FOREVER.

The writers will get it right. He cannot be inducted right now. Nor can Bonds, Palmeiro, etc.

And I abosutely LOVE the "there are other ******** in the HOF. Racists, womanizers, sign stealers, ball scuffers," argument. Makes me laugh every time.

#1 these are lesser trangressions..... FACT!! The own punishments handed down by MLB prove so. Does anyone get a lifetime ban for stealing signs three times in a career? Or 50 games for doing it once? You get just that for a steroid test. Regardless of when these punishements became rule... the fact that the two most severe penalties are for #1 Gambling on the game and #2 Steroids speaks to me loud and clear. Why others aren't listening, I don't understand.

#2 Try this next time you are in trouble with the law. "Judge/Officer... Did you know that a long time ago a guy committed (your transgression - speeding, murder, extortion, whatever, cheating ) and he got away with it? I would like the same treatment please.!" Uh... yeah.

The "other cheaters/bad guys are in, so Mac must be in" argument is trying to do just that.

The HOF will be around forever. The writers have a DUTY to the great game of baseball to get it 100% correct when it is their turn, REGARDLESS of the idiocy of the past... if you even want to call it that. As foreign as racism is to most people in today's society, it was VERY common in, say, the 1920's. Many voters were probably racists themselves, and it was viewed as a much lesser harm that it is today.

Was it a big deal to a writer/voter to vote FOR a known racist on the ballot, and then get on a segregated bus to ride to a ballpark, to see MLB played by WHITE MEN ONLY, drive by a segregated school on the way, past a black man walking down the street who could not vote, see blacks in a segregated section at the ballpark, see drinking fountains/restrooms/restaurants/hotels for white people only..... then call visit his grandfather after the game who used all sorts of horrible racist words in everyday conversation and may have owned slaves himself, and then go to sleep comfortable, and content with his actions, in that he voted to ELECT player X to the HOF? You better believe it, and to think otherwise, or to think that society in the early part of the 20th century should have ANY bearing whatsoever on HOF voting in 2006, is moronic, IMO.

Far, far, from hipocrisy.

[Dalkowski110]

I don't want to get involved in this one...I do have an opinion...but I'll say something I think we'll all agree on. If McGwire is elected, it'll be a media circus with tons of criticism. If McGwire isn't elected, it'll be a media circus with tons of criticism.

[ESPNFan]

I don't want to get involved in this one...I do have an opinion...but I'll say something I think we'll all agree on. If McGwire is elected, it'll be a media circus with tons of criticism. If McGwire isn't elected, it'll be a media circus with tons of criticism.

Yet if McGwire is elected the circus will build the big top right over the podium where other deserving players will be recivier their honors.

[ESPNFan]

Hipocrisy, Schmipocrisy!! (nothing personal... just passionate!! :rolleyes: )

I have yet to meet, talk to, or read a post from someone who feels McGwire should not be in the HOF, and who also even remotely considers the Andro thing as part of his/her argument. IMO, Andro is NOT part of the equation, nor should it be. Steroids and PED's in the traditional sense (like those which get you kicked out of the Olympics... and those which were, and still are, Illegal in the USA) are the issue here. Don't tell me I need proof, either. We're not talking about a court of law, here, but rather a PERMANENT appointed honor.

To me, the fact that some feel their were no rules, or very lax rules as to what was illegal in baseball at the time, is irrevelant, and a shortsided way to say Mac should be in. There is no MLB rule against breaking your bat in BP, and jamming it several inches into the thigh of the opposing team's best hitter or pitcher before the game, but laws against assault would supercede the MLB rulebook... same with illegal PED's.

And anyone who TRULY believes that McGwire NEVER took anything other than Andro... please post as such. I'm looking for 100% Certainty that you feel he took nothing but Andro. Do you have some doubt like the rest of us? Major doubt like me?

So, knowing what i know now (which admittedly is not always 100% clear - but it does NOT need to be 100% clear to be enough IMO), adding McGwire's testimony to Congress, his extremely loud silence ever since his testimony, and his inability to do "whatever it takes" (my words, not his) to address the issue after his testimony... i.e. help the kids of America, help fight the problem of steroids, whatever he said.... He's not doing it... it all adds up in my, and writers' minds, and creates suspicion.

Not proof, but suspicion. The HOF is not a court of law, and does NOT need beyond a reasonable doubt. Period, end of story.

Eddie Matthews hit 500+ HR's and waited several ballots. Why not wait on McGwire until all the FACTS emerge? It is the right thing to do!!

His records are in the HOF. His name is on the wall with the other great HR hitters, as is should be. I've seen it with my own eyes, and have no problem with it. I don't know anyone that does.

But a plaque on the wall is very different, IMO. Records will be broken. The HOF and the Plaques on the wall are FOREVER.

The writers will get it right. He cannot be inducted right now. Nor can Bonds, Palmeiro, etc.

And I abosutely LOVE the "there are other ******** in the HOF. Racists, womanizers, sign stealers, ball scuffers," argument. Makes me laugh every time.

#1 these are lesser trangressions..... FACT!! The own punishments handed down by MLB prove so. Does anyone get a lifetime ban for stealing signs three times in a career? Or 50 games for doing it once? You get just that for a steroid test. Regardless of when these punishements became rule... the fact that the two most severe penalties are for #1 Gambling on the game and #2 Steroids speaks to me loud and clear. Why others aren't listening, I don't understand.

#2 Try this next time you are in trouble with the law. "Judge/Officer... Did you know that a long time ago a guy committed (your transgression - speeding, murder, extortion, whatever, cheating ) and he got away with it? I would like the same treatment please.!" Uh... yeah.

The "other cheaters/bad guys are in, so Mac must be in" argument is trying to do just that.

The HOF will be around forever. The writers have a DUTY to the great game of baseball to get it 100% correct when it is their turn, REGARDLESS of the idiocy of the past... if you even want to call it that. As foreign as racism is to most people in today's society, it was VERY common in, say, the 1920's. Many voters were probably racists themselves, and it was viewed as a much lesser harm that it is today.

Was it a big deal to a writer/voter to vote FOR a known racist on the ballot, and then get on a segregated bus to ride to a ballpark, to see MLB played by WHITE MEN ONLY, drive by a segregated school on the way, past a black man walking down the street who could not vote, see blacks in a segregated section at the ballpark, see drinking fountains/restrooms/restaurants/hotels for white people only..... then call visit his grandfather after the game who used all sorts of horrible racist words in everyday conversation and may have owned slaves himself, and then go to sleep comfortable, and content with his actions, in that he voted to ELECT player X to the HOF? You better believe it, and to think otherwise, or to think that society in the early part of the 20th century should have ANY bearing whatsoever on HOF voting in 2006, is moronic, IMO.

Far, far, from hipocrisy.

Stan I agree with almost everything you said.

However on the subject of Andro, I believe that we need to consider it because it was used by the East Germans to boost testosterone immediately before athletic events. This is relevant because its come to light that taking Andro alone will not supply these results, but using it inconjuction with other Anabolics has this effect. IMO its another bit of evidence that points to use by McGwire. After McGwire's use of the product became known, it was then that this product became looked on by the masses as a standalone suppliment and from that point on I see useage as purely incidental.

[Dalkowski110]

"Yet if McGwire is elected the circus will build the big top right over the podium where other deserving players will be recivier their honors."

Okay, I'll come out and say it. I don't want him in the Hall, for reasons people have already stated. But that's not the point I'm trying to make. What I'm trying to say is that the Hall will get criticized, no, BASHED, by the media if McGwire is either inducted or not inducted. Darned if they do put him in, darned if they don't.

[HOOTIE]

McGwire has never flunked a drug test.
Mcgwire has never been suspended.
Andro was street legal when he took it.

McGwire is a top 7 1b easy. To exclude him would make the HOF a bigger joke then it already is.

The HOF writers are hypocrites, as are many of the fans.

Ruth cheated.
GPerry cheated.
Schmist/Aaron admitted using greenies.
Mays/Stargell were huge drug users (greenies).

The HOF is so filled with cheaters, it's a joke. To imply McGwire is not worthy is even a bigger joke.

[ESPNFan]

McGwire has never flunked a drug test.
Mcgwire has never been suspended.
Andro was street legal when he took it.

McGwire is a top 7 1b easy. To exclude him would make the HOF a bigger joke then it already is.

The HOF writers are hypocrites, as are many of the fans.

Ruth cheated.
GPerry cheated.
Schmist/Aaron admitted using greenies.
Mays/Stargell were huge drug users (greenies).

The HOF is so filled with cheaters, it's a joke. To imply McGwire is not worthy is even a bigger joke.

If McGwire is clean as you seem to be asserting why did he lawyer up infront of congress. If the man refuses to defend himself from these suspicions, why should anyone else. Remember character and sportsmanship are considerations.

And how is it exactly that Ruth cheated?

[plask_stirlac]

I'm not very enamored with his play before 1993, but he did show the potential to be a dominant hitter and was in some seasons. He took legal andro, and it's possible that's all he needed along with league factors (more home runs via parks, ball density or markings, etc.) that provided more home runs than say in 1990 to STAY HEALTHY and be an incredible slugger.

If someone asks me if he was a good enough hitter to meet the HOF standards, I'd say yes. Because he took PEDs, at least andro, and put up phenomenal years can't bring me to say he wasn't a great hitter, HOF type.

But if we're using the hall to enshrine and commemorate, focusing on the good, then maybe he shouldn't go in. I don't need a glowing memory of the 1998 HR race to get by, it can be gilded and I'm okay with that. Obviously Shoeless, Rose, and McGwire are quite famous, important parts of the game and elite as players in their day. But the HOF criteria can exclude them and it's passable.

[Brannu]

Here's an excellent article on the subject that was in The San Francisco Chronicle today.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/12/06/SPGECMQBMP1.DTL

[Lindseynelson]

number one
He sat in front of the world , about 70 lbs less then his playing weight
He, Mac, could have said ," I used a great many things that were not outlawed by MLB in an effort to be the best I could be.Did I do wrong? No , not as the rules were at the time.
I decided , as an adult to do everything I could to ENHANCE my performance."
That would have won my praise not his woe is me routine
Guys like McGriff are to this day having their production weighed against the numbers of those players that the same folks that are outraged about the "cheating"
What is it?
How do you determine pre testing?

[bigtrain]

McGwire has never flunked a drug test.
Mcgwire has never been suspended.
Andro was street legal when he took it.

McGwire is a top 7 1b easy. To exclude him would make the HOF a bigger joke then it already is.

The HOF writers are hypocrites, as are many of the fans.

Ruth cheated.
GPerry cheated.
Schmist/Aaron admitted using greenies.
Mays/Stargell were huge drug users (greenies).

The HOF is so filled with cheaters, it's a joke. To imply McGwire is not worthy is even a bigger joke.

If it is a joke then why do you care.

[bigtrain]

Here is why he will be elected.

http://www.sportspickle.com/features/volume6/2006-1206-mcgwire.html

[Evangelion]

Outside his SLG., OBP., HR and BB; why do people believe he's good enough to get into the Hall of Fame? It's just another example how much people care about the HR total. McGwire can get into the Hall, but Jim Rice and Dwight Evans can't make it even though they have over 700 plus more hits than him and, in Evans' case, a superior fielder.

[Chisox]

Outside his SLG., OBP., HR and BB; why do people believe he's good enough to get into the Hall of Fame? It's just another example how much people care about the HR total. McGwire can get into the Hall, but Jim Rice and Dwight Evans can't make it even though they have over 700 plus more hits than him and, in Evans' case, a superior fielder.
and produced FAR fewer outs. Exactly how much more goes into hitting?
McGwire got on base at a .394 clip, Evans .370, Rice .352.
McGwire slugged .588 to Evans .470, and Rice .502
McGwire outhomered them 583 to Evans 385 to Rice 382.
McGwire produced 5,043 bases to Evans 5,752, to Rice 4,921.
McGwire got out 4,797 times to Evans 6,965 outs to Rice 6,221.
McGwire produced 1.05 bases per out to Evans .826 to Rice .791.
How exactly are either of them better offensive players than McGwire?
Rice was a poor LF, Evans a great RF. Evans has a much better case than Rice, although I'm a little perplexed how either beats McGwire.

[StanTheMan]

I believe the writers themselves have painted themselves into a corner on this one, and McGwire will get the necessary votes to stay on the ballot, but not nearly enough to get elected. I'd say about 45%.

Think of it this way.

How many writers, and the media in general have been practically SCREAMING about the years from 1998-The Bonds Era, and asking -- "Why didn't baseball do anything? Why didn't the owners? Why didn't the media (apparently excluding themselves in some cases) don anything about it? We could all SEE how bodies were changing, we heard the rumors... noone did anything? Terrible!! It's the national pastime! How could this have happened? Etc, Etc, Etc. At this point I usually change the channel, change the radio station, or move to a different article in the paper/magazine.

We all know some of the answers to the above, but those writers who have been asking these types of questions, are now the people who will decide McGwire's fate.

How can they point the finger at others for NOT doing anything, and then Vote McGwire into the HOF, which would essentially be DOING NOTHING ABOUT THE SITUATION themselves.

[HOOTIE]

If it is a joke then why do you care.

I care because i love bb. The hyprocrisy is sickening.

[HOOTIE]

If McGwire is clean as you seem to be asserting why did he lawyer up infront of congress. If the man refuses to defend himself from these suspicions, why should anyone else. Remember character and sportsmanship are considerations.

And how is it exactly that Ruth cheated?

I'm not saying he's innocent or guilty. I'm saying he never flunked a drug test, or was suspended. So you can't come in after the fact and say he's guilty, no HOF. He's as innocent, or guilty as say Mays.

Ruth had a bat found in 1983 that was corked. Ban Johnson banned Crawford bats and corked bats, in large part because of Ruth, who used 4 pieces of wood glued together. While drinking isn't cheating, Ruth broke federal law drinking during prohibition. He was no choir boy.

This whole thing of McGwire isn't HOF worthy because we think he cheated, paints a terrible picture on the hyprocrisy of writers. GPerry admitted in his book, without cheating (spitball), he was going to be sent to minors. He cheated his way to the HOF, yet the writers said, no biggie. But now roids are a biggie. Yet everyone turned their head on them. The players union (750 strong), voted to keep drug testing for roids and greenies out of their way, until 2003 for roids. It took longer to get tested for greenies. It's a joke. McGwire deserves his spot, with Bonds, and Sosa.

That 1991 memo btw, was as worthless as the paper it was written on.

[ESPNFan]

I'm not saying he's innocent or guilty. I'm saying he never flunked a drug test, or was suspended. So you can't come in after the fact and say he's guilty, no HOF. He's as innocent, or guilty as say Mays.

Ruth had a bat found in 1983 that was corked. Ban Johnson banned Crawford bats and corked bats, in large part because of Ruth, who used 4 pieces of wood glued together. While drinking isn't cheating, Ruth broke federal law drinking during prohibition. He was no choir boy.

This whole thing of McGwire isn't HOF worthy because we think he cheated, paints a terrible picture on the hyprocrisy of writers. GPerry admitted in his book, without cheating (spitball), he was going to be sent to minors. He cheated his way to the HOF, yet the writers said, no biggie. But now roids are a biggie. Yet everyone turned their head on them. The players union (750 strong), voted to keep drug testing for roids and greenies out of their way, until 2003 for roids. It took longer to get tested for greenies. It's a joke. McGwire deserves his spot, with Bonds, and Sosa.

That 1991 memo btw, was as worthless as the paper it was written on.

Here is a post that explains the corked/Crawford bat.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=650856&highlight=Ruth+corked#post650856

Production and distribution of booze during prohibition were illegal but drinking wasn't and since were talking about PED's I don't see how Ruth drinking enters into the mix.

And yes the players union willfully prevented drug testing and now they have to reap the suspsion and the doubt that those actions have sewed.

The 1991 memo is important because the commisioner of baseball goes on record stating that steroids were not welcome in baseball.

[the flatbrush rep]

no. he was too one dimensional. without those steroid/andro aided hr's, the guy would of never had a hall of fame case.

[Dalkowski110]

Ruth cheated by consuming ALCOHOL???? Excuse me, but wouldn't that INHIBIT his performance, versus making him better????

[ESPNFan]

Ruth cheated by consuming ALCOHOL???? Excuse me, but wouldn't that INHIBIT his performance, versus making him better????

LOL you know I actually remember an infamous poster on ESPN.com's boards argue that Ruth's boozing was performance enhancing because it "expanded his mind".

Some people will attempt to argue agisnt reality as long as it suits their arguments.

[Rose4theHall]

This line often comes up in the much talked about McGwire HOF conversation, but what if he was just one of the first to take advantage of the blind-to-roids/expansion/long-ball era? If you look at it, in 5 years, 10 years and beyond he is going to quickly drop FAR down that list, here's the short list of locks to pass McGwire by the end of their careers:

Griffey Jr.
Thome
Manny
A-Rod
Delgado
A. Jones
Vlady
Pujols

Sheff and Thomas maybe will if they squeeze 3 or 4 more years out of their careers. So that puts Big Mac 17th and falling, all within the next 10 years. In 20 years he probably wont even be in the top 30.

500 HR, not a big thing anymore. Unless pitchers master the gyroball and we cut 2-4 teams, its going to stay that way too.

Other guys who have a better than average shot to reach 500+ over the next 10-15 years:
Piazza
Chipper Jones
Giambi
Shawn Green (haha you never know, he might decide to hit HR again)
Todd Helton
Sexson
Rolen
Glaus
Tejada
Konerko
D. Lee
Dye
Berkman
Eric Chavez
Ortiz
Beltran
Soriano
Dunn
etc etc etc

There are currently 20 players with 500+ HR. In 10 years that number could easily double, and very soon 583 HR wont even look like that great a number, 600+ will be the new marker. When this starts happening and in 15 years when Mac is 27th all time in HR, making his entry to the Hall will look like a clear mistake.

[dl4060]

His entry will only look like a mistake if their are 50 guys above his OPS+ level of 163. His ratio of homeruns to atbats is greater than anyone who ever played the game and that is not going anywhere soon. If you actually read what people are saying about Mcgwire, you will notice that it is far more than his rank on the counting list of homeruns that he has going for him.

As for your locks:

Griffey will almost certainly. But you never know, he has had so many injuries that it would not stun me if he were to suddenly retire. Mcgwire's retirement came out of the blue.

Thome is 36 and needs 112 more homeruns. He missed almost the entire 2005 season, so I would not garuntee his health. He has a good shot, but I would not call him definite. He is at an age where a sudden decline would not be out of the question. At the same age Mcgwire had just hit 65 homeruns with an OPS+ of 178. Mcgwire seemed a shoe-in for 600, with an outside shot for 700. I would say the Mcgwire of 1999 seemed like he had alot more left than the Thome of 2006.

Manny probably will beat 583, but I would not say definitely. He has two years left, then he will be 36 going on 37. Some guys hang it up at that point. He is a much better bet than Thome, but I would not call it a garuntee. I would be surprised if he does not get their. I also would have called mike schmidt a lock for 600 after 1987.

Arod will, barring an injury.

Delgado is 34, he has 407, so he would need to average about 35 or 36 a year for the next five years to beat Mcgwire. Considering he has averaged 36 a year for the last four years at an age much closer to his prime it would be very difficult for him to do that. Calling him a lock is really stretching.

Andruw Jones would need to average 40 a year for the next six years. That would be tough. He is only 30 in April, so he may get better, but I doubt it. I think he could hit 35 a year for the next four, which would still leave him well short. He has a shot if he maintains his peak level longer than one would expect, but I cannot fathom calling him a lock to beat 583.

Vlady has averaged 34 a year for the last 5 years. He needs to either up his game or show incredible longevity. A great player, but I doubt he will he 583.

Pujols seems like a good bet, but he is a very long way away. He is young enough that he should not even be brought up yet. He is definitely not a lock, as many things can happen.

As to your list of 500 HR candidates....The majority of those guys will not come close to that level. It would not surprise me if not a single player on that list does. Piazza is still 81 away, with a battered body.

[Seattle1]

It makes me feel very relieved that McGwire wasn't elected on the first ballot, and that it wasn't even close. I hope his percentage of votes drops every year until he drops out of contention altogether. That would be a huge relief.

[538280]

Yes, Rose, McGwire played in a big HR era. You mention that quite often. The problem is that even in the context of his era McGwire was one of the best HR hitters/sluggers of all time. McGwire got his 583 HRs in 6187 at-bats. That is 10.61 AB/HR and it's #1 all time and is an unbelieveable number even in the context of this era. McGwire's .588 SLG is awesome as well even compared to this era's norms. The leauge average SLG for McGwire's career is .408. McGwire has a 144 rel. SLG. That is 9th all time. Even in the context of this huge slugging era McGwire's SLG is still 9th all time.

That along with his great on-base skills as well (rel. OBP is 40th all time), make McGwire, based on his numbers alone, one of the best hitters of all time based on his career rates. Yes, it is true that McGwire was not a good runner or worth much in the field (though he wasn't a bad 1Bman, he won a GG). Yes, it is true that he played in a big HR era. The thing is though, and you just don't seem to understand this, is that even in the context of his era he still is easily one of the best sluggers ever.

All of this is without the steroid caveat of course. If you want to keep McGwire out of the HOF because of steroids I can understand. But you have stated multiple times that even if he was 100% clean you would keep him out. To me that is ridiculous.

[John Shoemaker]

I believe McGwire will get in the HOF in several years. I don't think the writers wanted to keep him out - many just didn't vote for him this year because they didn't want to take a chance he might get in on the first ballot. He certainly deserves to get in.

[mtortolero]

This line often comes up in the much talked about McGwire HOF conversation, but what if he was just one of the first to take advantage of the blind-to-roids/expansion/long-ball era? If you look at it, in 5 years, 10 years and beyond he is going to quickly drop FAR down that list, here's the short list of locks to pass McGwire by the end of their careers:

Griffey Jr.
Thome
Manny
A-Rod
Delgado
A. Jones
Vlady
Pujols

Sheff and Thomas maybe will if they squeeze 3 or 4 more years out of their careers. So that puts Big Mac 17th and falling, all within the next 10 years. In 20 years he probably wont even be in the top 30.

500 HR, not a big thing anymore. Unless pitchers master the gyroball and we cut 2-4 teams, its going to stay that way too.

Other guys who have a better than average shot to reach 500+ over the next 10-15 years:
Piazza
Chipper Jones
Giambi
Shawn Green (haha you never know, he might decide to hit HR again)
Todd Helton
Sexson
Rolen
Glaus
Tejada
Konerko
D. Lee
Dye
Berkman
Eric Chavez
Ortiz
Beltran
Soriano
Dunn
etc etc etc

There are currently 20 players with 500+ HR. In 10 years that number could easily double, and very soon 583 HR wont even look like that great a number, 600+ will be the new marker. When this starts happening and in 15 years when Mac is 27th all time in HR, making his entry to the Hall will look like a clear mistake.

Why not Ryan Howard? At his currently rate of 50 homers per season he only needs just a hair more than 8 seasons to get 500 Hrs and he looks as going in his prime in the next five or six years.

[Sockeye]

This line often comes up in the much talked about McGwire HOF conversation, but what if he was just one of the first to take advantage of the blind-to-roids/expansion/long-ball era? If you look at it, in 5 years, 10 years and beyond he is going to quickly drop FAR down that list, here's the short list of locks to pass McGwire by the end of their careers:

Griffey Jr.
Thome
Manny
A-Rod
Delgado
A. Jones
Vlady
Pujols

Sheff and Thomas maybe will if they squeeze 3 or 4 more years out of their careers. So that puts Big Mac 17th and falling, all within the next 10 years. In 20 years he probably wont even be in the top 30.

500 HR, not a big thing anymore. Unless pitchers master the gyroball and we cut 2-4 teams, its going to stay that way too.

Other guys who have a better than average shot to reach 500+ over the next 10-15 years:
Piazza
Chipper Jones
Giambi
Shawn Green (haha you never know, he might decide to hit HR again)
Todd Helton
Sexson
Rolen
Glaus
Tejada
Konerko
D. Lee
Dye
Berkman
Eric Chavez
Ortiz
Beltran
Soriano
Dunn
etc etc etc

There are currently 20 players with 500+ HR. In 10 years that number could easily double, and very soon 583 HR wont even look like that great a number, 600+ will be the new marker. When this starts happening and in 15 years when Mac is 27th all time in HR, making his entry to the Hall will look like a clear mistake.

All of the players you listed will hit 400+ home run with one exception. Jermaine Dye is not likely top reach 400 (much less 500). My guess is that he'll end up around 375-380

Lets examine

Dye has 236 home runs through age 32. During his career he has hit 1 HR every 20.7 at bats. He needs 264 home runs to reach 500. Keeping at his career pace he would need 5465 more at-bats. Even if he plays until age 40 he would have to average 684 at bats per season. Not possible!

Other players that will surpass the 400 home run level include Adrian Beltre, Miguel Cabrera (should reach 500+), Jim Edmonds, Carlos Lee, Aramis Ramirez, & Mark Teixeira (should reach 500+)

[Fuzzy Bear]

The 600 HR barrier is daunting as all getout. Mac was ALMOST there, when his knee went kersplat all at once.

Lots of guys make a run at it, but their careers die quietly and quickly. Sosa. Palmiero. McGwire. All of those guys seemed like locks for 600. Griffey is a bit unlikely, given his health.

There is also the possibility that the baseball will be deadened a bit. A tighter baseball is one of the reasons for the HR explosion. Baseball may see it in its interest to deaden the ball a bit to bring back offensive/defensive balance in the game.

The only guy I see as young and healthy enough to crack 600 is A-rod, and even then, he plays a demanding defensive position.

[John Shoemaker]

Sammy Sosa is making a comeback this year - he's currently working out with the Texas Rangers - so hopefully he'll break the 600 barrier this year.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Other guys who have a better than average shot to reach 500+ over the next 10-15 years:
Piazza-No way
Chipper Jones-No
Giambi-Maybe
Shawn Green (haha you never know, he might decide to hit HR again)-No
Todd Helton-No
Sexson-No
Rolen-No
Glaus-no
Tejada-no
Konerko-no
D. Lee-no
Dye-no
Berkman-Maybe
Eric Chavez
Ortiz-No
Beltran-Maybe
Soriano-No
Dunn -No
etc etc etc

About three of these guys even have a decent chance at 500 HRs. The rest, no way.

[Rose4theHall]

Fine, I will show you all why I listed these guys. I mean, I feel Mac lied in court and shouldnt be in because of roids, but the whole reason why I wrote this (that many of you convieniently ignored) was because people kept saying "He is 7th all time in HR". I KNOW his AB/HR ratio is ridiculous and he had a ton of walks and should probably be in because of that, but I still think if Kingman played in the 90's and had used PED's he would have hit 583 HR too.

Obviously Im not saying all these guys will getn to 500, but they do have A chance, if they play til they are 39+ and dont miss whole seasons due to injury:



Griffey Jr. - needs 48 top top Mac, 07 will be his age 37 year and he will play at least 3 more seasons.

Thome - whoever bought up his SOLE injury interrupted season is really nitpicking here. He is healthy and is really mashing right now. He will be 36 next year and is 111 away from Mac. If he plays until he is 40 (and why wouldnt he?) he will only have to average 25 HR a year over the next 5 years to reach 600, and if you dont think he will then you are grossly underestimating him.

Manny - Thome has 2 more HR than him, and Manny is a year younger. He shouldnt be any doubt in anyone's mind he will get to 600.

A-Rod - If he averages 23.6 HR over the next 10 years he will get to 700. You know he's going to hit many more than that.

Delgado - needs 177 to top Mac. Thats averaging 35 HR a year from age 35-39 years, and may tack on a few more after that.

A. Jones - a mere 241 away from Mac, with 10+ seasons left, and is currently mashing heavily with no fall off in sight.

Vlady - 245 away from Mac with 9 or 10 seasons left. No issue

Pujols - has 250 HR and is entering his age 27 season. Aaron is on notice.

Sheff - 128 from Mac, thats averaging 32 a year for 4 years. Will be DHing most of the time in Detroit. Not a lock but has the chance to do it.

Thomas - 96 away from mac and says he wants to play until hes 42. Not a lock but very close.

Piazza - Now he is a DH we will see what he's really capable of. He boasted a terrific .906 OPS+ away from SD last year and has either the best or 2nd best OPS in interleague play against the AL, where he will be playing full time now. 81 HR from 500, thats averaging 27 a year over the next 3 years.

Chipper Jones - 143 away from 500, entering his age 35 season in 07. Its not silly to think he will avg 27 HR a year over the next 5 years, he is still an incredible hitter when healthy.

Giambi - 150 away and in his age 36 year this year. Blasted 37 last year and his skills aernt diminishing at all. Not a great hitter for average, but can still mash.

Shawn Green - skeptical if he can return to his 98-02 form but if he does he is 182 away and in his age 34 season in 07.

Todd Helton - similar to Green, if by chance he decides to mash like he did from 99-04, he's 214 away at his age 33 season. You never know....

Sexson - 227 away from 500 with a good 10 years left. Shouldnt be a problem.

Rolen - 247 away with 9 or 10 years left, its not silly to say he will get there.

Glaus - 243 away with 10+ years left, shouldnt be a problem.

Tejada - borderline, but has 10 years left and needs 260.

Konerko - needs to average 25 a year over the next 10, has been mashing heavily over the last 3 with no signs of slowing down.

D. Lee - If he can get back to mashing 40+ a year then anything can happen with him.

Dye - while 264 away, his power numbers have been rising year after year. Isnt a lock by any means but stranger things have happened.

Berkman - 275 with 10 years left is kinda a long shot, but if you have a few more 45 HR seasons that becomes more of a formality to get 500.

Eric Chavez - needs 288 and has about 12 years left.

Ortiz - needs 269 and is only 31 in 07. Has hit 142 in the last 3 years.

Soriano - needs a couple more 40+ HR years but is in the prime of his career. We will see how high he pushes the bar in the next 3 years.

Beltran - see Soriano.

Dunn - Has 198 entering his age 27 year, if you hit 40 HR a year every year like he has done over the last 3, then yes you should be considered a decent shot to hit 500.

[KCGHOST]

....... but I still think if Kingman played in the 90's and had used PED's he would have hit 583 HR too.


A totally unproveable assumption.

[hubkittel]

Why not Ryan Howard? At his currently rate of 50 homers per season he only needs just a hair more than 8 seasons to get 500 Hrs and he looks as going in his prime in the next five or six years.

what about chris duncan? at his currant rate, he only needs 23 more seasons to pass mcgwire. :D

[Sockeye]

Griffey Jr. - needs 48 top top Mac, 07 will be his age 37 year and he will play at least 3 more seasons.

Griffey will play at least another 2 years and possibly 3 or 4 more. He'll pass McGwire's total easy and is a fairly sure bet to reach 600+

Thome - whoever bought up his SOLE injury interrupted season is really nitpicking here. He is healthy and is really mashing right now. He will be 36 next year and is 111 away from Mac. If he plays until he is 40 (and why wouldnt he?) he will only have to average 25 HR a year over the next 5 years to reach 600, and if you dont think he will then you are grossly underestimating him.

He'll make it to 500 easiliy. I wouldn't bet on him reaching McGwire at 583. 600 would be a long shot. Once players get to their late 30's skills seems to go all of a sudden. Expect somewhere around 550 for Thome

Manny - Thome has 2 more HR than him, and Manny is a year younger. He shouldnt be any doubt in anyone's mind he will get to 600..

Manny Ramirez will reach 500 this season and should still have another 3-4 productive years left in him. I'd bet on him to surpass 600 finishing around 630. Only thing that would stop him is if he all of a sudden decides he doesn't want to play anymore.

A-Rod - If he averages 23.6 HR over the next 10 years he will get to 700. You know he's going to hit many more than that

Everybody thought the same thing about Griffey then all the injuries hit. It's doubtful that Payrod would have the same bad luck as Gimpy though so 700+ looks to be well in reach. He he stays healthy, productive, and wants to play long enough 800 or even 850 could be in reach for him.

Delgado - needs 177 to top Mac. Thats averaging 35 HR a year from age 35-39 years, and may tack on a few more after that.

35 a year is a lot of expect from any player at any time. Much less a player between the ages of 35-39. Expect another couple 30-35 homer seasons from Delgado. After that 25-30 is more likely as he reaches his late 30's. 500+ for him is a safe bet. Would bet on him finishing with more than 530-540

A. Jones - a mere 241 away from Mac, with 10+ seasons left, and is currently mashing heavily with no fall off in sight.

Andruw Jones stands a great chance at 600+ Should easily pass McGwire.

Vlady - 245 away from Mac with 9 or 10 seasons left. No issue.

Similar to Andruw. Won't hit quite as many as Jones but 600 should be in reach for Guerrero.

Pujols - has 250 HR and is entering his age 27 season. Aaron is on notice..

Stands the second best chance at passing Aaron. Only Rodriguez should hit more among active players. 800 could be in reach just as long as he wants to play that long.

Sheff - 128 from Mac, thats averaging 32 a year for 4 years. Will be DHing most of the time in Detroit. Not a lock but has the chance to do it.

No chance! Not at his age. 500 is possible for Sheffield if he plays 2 more years.

Thomas - 96 away from mac and says he wants to play until hes 42. Not a lock but very close.

I'd be surprised if he plays until age 42. If he plays another 3 seasons he'd need to average 32 per season. A bit much to ask at his age. 500 is a lock barring a career endiing injury. My guess is he'll finish around 550.

Piazza - Now he is a DH we will see what he's really capable of. He boasted a terrific .906 OPS+ away from SD last year and has either the best or 2nd best OPS in interleague play against the AL, where he will be playing full time now. 81 HR from 500, thats averaging 27 a year over the next 3 years.

Piazza hasn't hit more than 22 home runs in any of the past 4 seasons. I highly doubt he'll average 27 for the next 3 seasons. I expect 1 maybe 2 more years for Piazza. He should end up around 440-450

Chipper Jones - 143 away from 500, entering his age 35 season in 07. Its not silly to think he will avg 27 HR a year over the next 5 years, he is still an incredible hitter when healthy.

Chipper was very productive when in the lineup last season. Still with his recent injury history I would think 143 from age 35 on to be a bit unlikely. 400 is a lock, 450 is possible.

Giambi - 150 away and in his age 36 year this year. Blasted 37 last year and his skills aernt diminishing at all. Not a great hitter for average, but can still mash.

Not gonna happen. Should have another 2-3 seasons left in him. 400 is well within reach. Most I could see him hitting is 420-425.


Shawn Green - skeptical if he can return to his 98-02 form but if he does he is 182 away and in his age 34 season in 07.

Highly unlikely he'll pull a Darrell Evans return to his career best form. He'll get 400 but not much more than that.

Todd Helton - similar to Green, if by chance he decides to mash like he did from 99-04, he's 214 away at his age 33 season. You never know....

I think his days as an elite hitter are over. Still a very good hitter and if he stays in Colorado he shouldn't have any trouble reaching 400 maybe even 430.

Sexson - 227 away from 500 with a good 10 years left. Shouldnt be a problem.

10 years left? He'd have to play til age 42. I wouldn't bet on that happening. I could see him playing another 6-8 years averaging 25 a year. That would put him around 425-475.

Rolen - 247 away with 9 or 10 years left, its not silly to say he will get there.

253 in his first 11 seasons. Can't see him hitting another 247 after the age of 31. Might have another 170-180 in him. That would put him around 425-430.

Glaus - 243 away with 10+ years left, shouldnt be a problem.

Agreed! 500 is extremely possible for Troy Glaus.

Tejada - borderline, but has 10 years left and needs 260.

240 in his first 10 seasons. 260 more is a bit much to ask. 450 is a more reasonable total to expect from Tejada.

Konerko - needs to average 25 a year over the next 10, has been mashing heavily over the last 3 with no signs of slowing down.

245 in his first 10 seasons. 255 more is a bit much to ask. 450 is a more reasonable number to expect from Konerko.

D. Lee - If he can get back to mashing 40+ a year then anything can happen with him.

500 is very unlikely for Derrek Lee. 400 is reachable. Maybe 425 but I wouldn't expect many more than that.

Dye - while 264 away, his power numbers have been rising year after year. Isnt a lock by any means but stranger things have happened..

Beware of career years. It's more important to look at a players career as a whole. He has only hit 30+ home runs 3 times in his career. Barring a minor miracle 400 is out of reach for him. 500 is no where close to possible.,

Berkman - 275 with 10 years left is kinda a long shot, but if you have a few more 45 HR seasons that becomes more of a formality to get 500.

A few 45 home run seasons makes 500 possible for most players. But it isn't very likely. Should easily reach 400 and possibly make a run at 500 just falling short ending up around 480-485

Eric Chavez - needs 288 and has about 12 years left.

He very well could play another 12 years and averaging 24 a season is very possible. Should be very close to the 500 number.

Ortiz - needs 269 and is only 31 in 07. Has hit 142 in the last 3 years.

Similar to Tejada and Konerko. Just don't see him hitting 269 more home runs. Could make a run at it but again I think he'll fall a little short. Say 460-470 for Ortiz

Soriano - needs a couple more 40+ HR years but is in the prime of his career. We will see how high he pushes the bar in the next 3 years.

Needs 292 home runs after the age of 31. Only 7 players in the history of the game have ever done that. He'll manage 400, maybe 425. That's as high as he'll go though.

Beltran - see Soriano..

A year younger than Soriano. Needs 297 home runs for 500. Not very likely. Like Soriano he'll manage 400, maybe 425. That's as high as he'll go though.


Dunn - Has 198 entering his age 27 year, if you hit 40 HR a year every year like he has done over the last 3, then yes you should be considered a decent shot to hit 500...

If Adam Dunn can hit 126 home runs the next 3 seasons as he has over the past 3 seasons he'll have 324 home runs before the age of 30. If that happens then 600 is within reach for this guy. As it stands how he has an excellent chance at 500+ home runs. Maybe even 550 or higher.

Other players you are overlooking

Miguel Cabrera: 104 home runs at the age of 23. Stands an excellent chance at 500+

Jim Edmonds: No real chance for 500 but should manage 400+

Carlos Lee: 221 home runs at the age of 30. 500 would be a bit of a stretch but 450 should be well within reach for him.

Aramis Ramirez: 196 home runs at the age of 28. Similar to Eric Chavez. Could play another 12+ seasons. 500 isn't out of the question for him. I'd predict more like 475 for him.

Mark Teixeira: 140 home runs at the age of 26. Has averaged 35 a year for his first 4 seasons. With 6-8 seasons of his prime left 500 is very possible for him.



[/QUOTE]

[dl4060]

As players age they tend to get hurt more. Very few guys will be playing past the age of forty. A number of the players you have mentioned do indeed have shots at high career totals. But that requires health and longevity. Players like Hank Aaron who maintain their productivity levels past age forty are extremely rare. You seem to be projecting best case scenarios for these guys. Lots of around thirty you seem to think have ten years left, when they probably have five or six. Some of the great players will last, but many will not. At age 35 I would have expected Bagwell to finish with around 550. Then his shoulder deteriorated. There are examples of good players lasting into their early forties, like Steve Finley, but even most great players will not play that long. I doubt Vlad Guerrero has ten years left. He might, but I wouldn't bet on it. When people suddenly fall off that is the rule, not the exception. Furthermore, people tend to play less as they get older. It is extremely unlikely that Mike Piazza will have another season with 500 AB's and an ops of .900.

Leaving Mcgwire out for steroid reasons is one thing. But to think that he will be looked back upon as a mistake based on his production is absurd, kind of like thinking Stan Musial is a better hitter than Ted Williams. You are really stretching. The vast majority of people who trumpet Mcgwire on this board do so because of his HR/at bat ratio, and his walks, NOT because he is 7th on the all-time list. It will not matter if lots of people pass him. You seem irrationally upset about this issue, I am really not sure why. Arod, Griffey, and Manny are the only guys who are likely to pass Mcgwire, and I would bet that only two out of those three do.

Sosa is actually a very good example. He seemed a lock for 650 afew years ago.

[538280]

I still think if Kingman played in the 90's and had used PED's he would have hit 583 HR too.


Fine, great, but that doesn't prove that Kingman is anywhere near the hitter than McGwire was. Kingman was awesome at hitting HRs, and in that department it wouldn't surprise me is he was pretty close to McGwire at least in relative terms. The problem is that as an overall hitter he's still not even close.

They may have looked similar or been similar to watch, but McGwire was just doing far more to drive his teams to victory. Kingman's BA was just flat atrocious, McGwire's was actually about at the leauge average. McGwire walked a ton and had an awesome OBP, Kingman never walked and had a horrible OBP. Kingman was a huge out maker, McGwire wasn't. McGwire was a competant fielder, Kingman wasn't. The ONLY things they have in common as far as playing attributes is that they were both great home run hitters. And Kingman's overall offensive game was entirely that while McGwire had another dimension of getting on base. Even approach wise they were actually very different. McGwire was a basher but a smart one; he waited for his pitch to drive and realized that it didn't to make much sense to swing at what he couldn't hit. He waited for his pitch to drive and if he didn't get it just didn't swing. He resisted chasing at bad balls in an effort to jack them out. Kingman was anyhing but a smart hitter, he just went up there trying to jack everything and anything out of the park, and he had no discipline or ability to actually hit it. Just when he did make contact it went a long way. Dave Kingman was not a great hitter at all. Mark McGwire was. That should be easy to see.

If you want to keep McGwire out for steroids then I have no problem, but saying that he's even close to not in just statistically is just wrong IMO, and the constant Kingman comparison which you bring up is not relevant in the least.

[DoubleX]

I disagree with those who believe that McGwire likely would not have been a Hall of Famer without steroids. The guy just had awesome power. He hit 49 homeruns as a rookie, which was tied for the highest in MLB during a 13 year stretch, and the highest in the AL during a 21 year stretch. Plus, steroids alone do not explain why McGwire alone put up such all time great power rate stats during the 1990s as 538280 already pointed out, as well as a great ability to get on base. Sure, steroids and the era helped to inflate, but there is no denying IMO that McGwire possessed extraordinarily rare power in the context of the game's history. I believe, had he not used steroids, he could have very well had a Hall of Fame career, as he likely would have been healthier and a better all around player (as in more like the player that won the Gold Glove in 1990). His homerun numbers would not have been as prodigious, but given that he would have been healthier and had a longer career, he may very well have still hit 500+ homeruns.

However, when discussing whether he belongs in the Hall, I vote no. If McGwire doesn't wish to acknowledge and speak about his past, then I don't see why we should honor it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Leaving Mcgwire out for steroid reasons is one thing. But to think that he will be looked back upon as a mistake based on his production is absurd, kind of like thinking Stan Musial is a better hitter than Ted Williams. You are really stretching. The vast majority of people who trumpet Mcgwire on this board do so because of his HR/at bat ratio, and his walks, NOT because he is 7th on the all-time list. It will not matter if lots of people pass him. You seem irrationally upset about this issue, I am really not sure why. Arod, Griffey, and Manny are the only guys who are likely to pass Mcgwire, and I would bet that only two out of those three do.

Once the image of McGwire before Congress fades, and his stats are front and center, he will be inducted.

One of the hypocrisies of sportswriters is their spanking of McGwire in the face of their protesting the HOF rule that players under suspension (Rose) are ineligible for the HOF. C'mon now.

[csh19792001]

Once the image of McGwire before Congress fades, and his stats are front and center, he will be inducted.


Again serving as evidence that the naked numbers, when viewed decades later, do not tell the entire story- and often don't approach evincing the truth.

As usual, our picture of him today will be more accurate than that of people decades from now who never saw him play looking at a bunch of numbers, who weren't privy to everything going on in the baseball world, and had no real firsthand feel of the context of the times. People with absolutely no visceral, tangible sense for the player and his era. People who watched him play for 15 years- who covered him from spring training through october, day in and day out, are privy to one hell of a lot more than someone glancing at a stat line 20, 50, or 100 years from now.

I'm glad he didn't get in, and hopefully if the voters retain any perspective and integrity, he never will.

And hopefully Rose will never get in, either.

[vtbub]

1626 hits, a lifetime BA of .263, only seven real full seasons, a .217 post-season hitter.

He had four great years. Steroids or no, he's not a HOF'er, unless you think Kingman is too.

[dl4060]

Kingman's batting average was 26 points below the league average. Mcgwire's was about average. Kingman's OBP was 27 points below the league average. Mcgwire's was 62 points above his league average. Dave Kingman and Mark Mcgwire are miles apart in value and in HOF worthiness.

[cashwrapper]

McGwire should have gotten a higher percentage of the vote.

[CROM]

Cal Ripken was an amazing player, but comparing Rikpen's career and McGwire's, it's a no-brainer. Anyone else agree?

i agree.. cal ripken is a no brainer... wait...

[John Shoemaker]

I agree - Mark McGwire shoud have gotten a much higher percentage. I can't believe the BBWA are going to keep him out of the HOF very long. He was too great a player.

[Seattle1]

My opinion is that I hope he doesn't make it in.

[princethomas]

It strikes me that some people are overestimating how long people can play. While there are plenty of people that play until they are 40 almost all do not.


Delgado is 35 and he's kind of an old 35. He has back injuries. I wouldn't be surprised if he had only 2 or 3 decent years left. Frankly. I think 500 is not certain for him.

Griffey is really close to done. I think 600 is going to be tough.

Vlad is another one. He sure seems old for only being 31. I don't see him lasting until 40. 500 yes. Much more than that. I don't know.

Thome had a good year, but I think he is almost done.

A Rod is great though, and is almost 32. He will be the youngest ever to 500 I think 800 is actually a possibility.

Manny is awesome, yes he is weird, but he loves to play. Hes in good shape. I think he will hit 650 or so.

Andruw will be interesting to watch he seems like hes coming on now. But hes still pretty far away.

Pujols is just too far away. But I'm betting their are numerous back injuries in this guys future. (not to mention HGH allegations) I think this guy will retire early.

[bluezebra]

McGwire..Career Batting Average .263; hit over .300 ONCE in a full season; copped-out on answering questions at the Congressional hearing on steroids, etc.

NO WAY, Jose.

Bob

[flash143817]

McGwire should have been first ballot on stats alone. The BA junkies just can't see his overall worth as a hitter.

Now the steroids thing hurts him obviously, but I'd still put him in. He never tested positive for any steroid, and the only substance he was known to take was andro, which was legal at the time he was taking it.

Steroids are just like rape in this country in that you are guilty by accusation, even if there is no proof.

[Skin & Bones]

Pujols is just too far away. But I'm betting their are numerous back injuries in this guys future. (not to mention HGH allegations) I think this guy will retire early.

What allegations? His trainer? Deadspin apologized for that mistake - It was Clemens strength Coach, not Pujols trainer, that was "allegedly " dealing illegal drugs to athletes.



http://deadspin.com/sports/baseball/a-deeply-regrettable-wrong-204519.php

[philipthegreat]

like many have said few players play at forty. Vlad looks very injury prone. rose4thehall I think that you are grossly over estimating players carrer spans at thirty years old I think I have one or two stagnant seasons and then the decline. That's without roy campanella lou gerhig and kirby puckett situations. also the chances are in the NL I would be phased out and in the AL I would last 2 0r 3 seasons.

In the cases of griffey delgado thome thomas etc those guys are very muchin the last 1 to three seasons at the very most. Sosa needs a marginal season to get it and with DH you could speculate a 2008 run where he plays a little bit. A-rod is having a massive start an at this rate he will have 156 homer season. just joking. a-rod might have his best sesons in pinstripes and though I may be bein stupid does 55-60 homer season sound in the realm of possiblilty? that many would push him into 500 hr. At age thirty two. think about that.

Albert puljos is two young but I have the feeling that he won't be so lucky. Tejada isn't good enough.
Green rolen Dye no.
most of the rest are no's unless they produce some magical seasons

[John Shoemaker]

McGwire should have been first ballot on stats alone. The BA junkies just can't see his overall worth as a hitter.

Now the steroids thing hurts him obviously, but I'd still put him in. He never tested positive for any steroid, and the only substance he was known to take was andro, which was legal at the time he was taking it.

Steroids are just like rape in this country in that you are guilty by accusation, even if there is no proof.

I agree with you completely. I'm sure he'll get in within the next few years - I think the writers just didn't want him to get in on the first ballot.

[STLCards2]

This is Derrek Lee's 11th major league season, and he has hit 40+ homeruns exactly once. Not exactly "if he can get back to mashing 40+ a year" form. Getting back? In fact, he has only hit over 32 once.

[StanTheMan]

Steroids are just like rape in this country in that you are guilty by accusation, even if there is no proof.

When was the last time you heard an alleged rapist say the following to any type of investigatory panel, formal or otherwise.......

"I don't want to talk about the past."

If a suspected rapist DID say this, would you change your opinion of him at all? If not, you are the only one.

And what if said rapist said he was willing to do "whatever it takes" to help the youth of America overcome the epidemic that is rape.

And they the subject does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR MORE THAN 550 DAYS.

That's what McGwire has done.

[mwb]

I think McGwire should be in. He hit 49 HRs in his rookie year when he was as skinny as a toothpick. He's a natural HR hitter, with or without HGH or steriods. I think many players have used growth hormone or steriods & they haven't hit 50 Hrs a year. There is still some skill involved to hit a HR.

The same could be said for Bonds. I know what the allegations are against Bonds & I'm not as supportive of Bonds. But until they find something on him, his records should be respected. He's still had an amazing career & it takes more than steriods to hit a HR.

[538280]

When was the last time you heard an alleged rapist say the following to any type of investigatory panel, formal or otherwise.......

"I don't want to talk about the past."

If a suspected rapist DID say this, would you change your opinion of him at all? If not, you are the only one.

And what if said rapist said he was willing to do "whatever it takes" to help the youth of America overcome the epidemic that is rape.

And they the subject does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR MORE THAN 550 DAYS.

That's what McGwire has done.

I find it hard to believe it could have turned out any better for McGwire no matter what he said. Seriously, people were going to think he did steroids even if he took the "adamant denial" path (a la Rafael Palmeiro, while before he tested positive not many were certain on him doing steroids, I don't think any people who thought he was a juicer before that were changed by his adamant denial. If McGwire had taken that path he would have maybe had a bit more credibility but I think most people still would think he took steroids. I don't see how him saying that has any effect other than if he said anything else; I think either way people would still believe he was a juicer.

[John Shoemaker]

I think McGwire should be in. He hit 49 HRs in his rookie year when he was as skinny as a toothpick. He's a natural HR hitter, with or without HGH or steriods. I think many players have used growth hormone or steriods & they haven't hit 50 Hrs a year. There is still some skill involved to hit a HR.

The same could be said for Bonds. I know what the allegations are against Bonds & I'm not as supportive of Bonds. But until they find something on him, his records should be respected. He's still had an amazing career & it takes more than steriods to hit a HR.

I agree completely.

[StanTheMan]

I find it hard to believe it could have turned out any better for McGwire no matter what he said. .

Watch a Jason Giambi AB on the road..... nowhere near the booing that Bonds and Palmeiro get/got. Admittedly, there is more to the equation here re: fan reation... but Giambi came clean, took his lumps and the forgiving American public, for the most part, have moved on with him.

McGwire is on the slippery slope, chugging along in a boat named "Ballplayer's Denial." Captain Pete Rose at the controls..... and has been for 14 years.

[538280]

Watch a Jason Giambi AB on the road..... nowhere near the booing that Bonds and Palmeiro get/got. Admittedly, there is more to the equation here re: fan reation... but Giambi came clean, took his lumps and the forgiving American public, for the most part, have moved on with him.

McGwire is on the slippery slope, chugging along in a boat named "Ballplayer's Denial." Captain Pete Rose at the controls..... and has been for 14 years.

I don't think there's nearly as much reason for the fans to boo Giambi as there is for the others. McGwire was the first to break Maris' long standing record of 61 HRs in a season with 70, the '98 HR chase was supposed to be so great for baseball, I think now that people hear McGwire was probably on steroids it infuriates them hugely. Sosa was also a part of that chase, so he naturally would infuriate people as well. Bonds is the current holder of that record and is challenging all sorts of career records such as the career HR mark. Again there's ample reason for people to hate him with a passion when it comes to steroids. Palmeiro not many people believed were on steroids before he tested positive. I remember an ESPN Poll before the testimoines and something like 75-80% of people said they believed Palmeiro. Palmeiro was always a low profile star and the ONLY reason it's a big deal with him is becaues of his adamant denial and then later testing positive. If he hadn't tested positive I think we would have been left right where right where we started with allegations against him nothing but pure speculation.

There is no real reason for fans to hate Giambi with a passion like there is for Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, and Palmeiro. Giambi is not a holder or a challenger of any major record. He has performed relatively well after MLB has institued its testing. I don't think the public would be outraged at Giambi at all under any set of circumstances (especially given he still is in the majors now and doing well), while I think they have every reason to hate McGwire.

[AstrosFan]

Chris, people should get mad because certain players are cheating. If their anger is pertains to whether the player is chasing a record, they need to get their priorities straight. Players should all be held to the same standard when it comes to cheating. Using steroids to break a record is no worse than using steroids to improve one's play in order to win more ballgames. It is still cheating, no matter how good the player involved is.