If you want to make the argument that McGwire shouldn't be in the hall because of steroids, that's fine (relatively speaking). But to say he wasn't a good player is just absurd.

He has a career OBP of 400. He has a career SLG of 600. He was a ridiculously awesome offensive force. And his defense wasn't bad either.

Ok... what do you mean by relative speaking lol.

He really wasn't a great fielder. I may have went a little far saying he wasn't good, but the OBP and SLG stat is greatly influenced by steroids. Who knows he could have had similar numbers if he wasn't on steroids, but we will never know because he WAS on steroids.

jesus man, grow up. don't you know anything about human nature at all?

LOL... I know you gotta lie, cheat, and steal to make the big bucks.

Yea, it's possible... but it dosen't really happen. There are 4 guys besides MM who have done it in history, one of which was a juicehead... so yes... it can happen... but the players who get there are either the best of the best or on the junk (bonds may have been both).....

The question is, does he get there without steriod use, and I think the answer is absolutely not.

I also think his prodigous power hitting makes his high OBP misleading... he was pitched around a lot... Between 98 and 99 he had 50 IBB. So it may be fair to say without the roids... his obp would not be that high either

First of all, McGuire didn't steal from anyone. Second of all, if you want to DQ him from the hall of fame, for lying, then you have to disqualify basically every person in major league baseball, because players and managers lie virtually every time they are asked a tough question, giving you bland, vanillia, untruthful answers. So what were are talking about here is cheating, don't confuse the issue.


So.. No, you don't "Gotta" cheat, but the temptation to do so in that position is immense, particularly when MLB was turning a blatant blind eye to it. And acting like they personally betrayed you in doing something that was in their own and their family's best interest, and hurt you ( in real terms) not one bit, is childish.

Hey tanner,

How do you feel about Cap Anson being in the hall of fame? Statistically speaking, he was worthy. But he was also instrumental in keeping black players out of the major leagues. He even refused to take the field in exhibition games if the other team had a black player.

Did his racism make him hit the ball any further?

It made him hit the ball more often, because he got to hit against scrub white pitchers instead of elite black ones.

By that logic, no one who played before 1947 should be eligable for the hall of fame.

I think you're backwards on the logic.

MLB created the environment, so they shouldn't punish guys for adapting to it.

White players shouldn't be kept out of the hall of fame because they played in an all-white league just like juicers shouldn't be kept out since they played in the steroid era.

No, I never said that. I never said a thing about if he should or shouldn't be in the hall of fame, just that he was playing against inferior competition that racistly excluded a huge part of the potential talent pool. Which is an inarguable fact.



Players suitability to the hall of fame is a subjective thing, and one of the things that has to be taken into consideration is the era. How much of a better player was a person than the other players of his era... not of other eras, because you can't compare players from the 90's to players of the 60's to players of the 30's, because the game is so different, in so many different ways. And that's why I think McGuire should be in the Hall of fame.. not because of how he compares to players like Babe Ruth or Mickey Mantle.. but how he compares to players of his era... and was the best home run hitter of his era. By far. And he also had a monstrously good OBP. That should be recognized by the hall. It should also be noted, right on his plaque or blurb at the hall talking about his career, that he was a central figure in the steroid era. His story, the good and bad, are part of baseball history, and his accomplishments were historic, and he and they shouldn't be ignored, whitewashed or blackballed.

At one time, It was a MLB rule that black players were not allowed... how is this similar to the steroid era? Was there ever a rule that ll players had to take steriods?

How? The statement was made that the guy had an advantage because he he didnt have to face elite black players. Neither did anyone before 1947

But we can't just assume all the players were taking steriods... dont know that for sure. He was the best hr hitter of his era, and he used steriods to become so.

I mentioned earlier as well. that that OBP is a little deceptive... it is partially a product of his HR hitting ability, which was enhanced by steriod use.

which is exactly why he should be in the hall. That he used steroids to become so should also be noted, in his hall of fame display. It doesn't matter what could have been, what he might have been with out steroids, or what other players could have been with them. What matters is he was the best power hitter of his era. Period. What ifs don't matter. What is and what was does matter, and what was... was that McGuire was the best home run hitter of his generation.


Recording history is ultimately is the purpose of a hall of fame. To record who is the best, of each era, and to provide a narrative about baseball history. You might not like it, but the steroid era is part of baseball's history, and expelling steroid users from that era ( particularly when MLB turned a blatant blind eye to it, and enormously benefited from it financially) is willfully ignoring history.

You guys are getting into a circular arguement here.


Tanner, McGwire won a Gold Glove in 1990, he was a great fielder in his early years, above average in his middle year, and adequate later on when his body was breaking down.

Actually, it wasn't a rule that black players were not allowed; it was just something the owners did. Partially due to players like Cap Anson who refused to play with or against black players. So a bunch of players won't play with black players so the owners go along with it because the fans aren't going to come to the games if the stars aren't playing and that will cost them money.

In the steroid era, a bunch of players take steroids which makes them better players which brings in more fans which means more money for the owners, so MLB turns the other way to steroids.



I meant your conclusion was backwards. I'm not arguing to exclude everyone, I'm arguing to include everyone.

(Not literally everyone.)

Yes exactly. I don't understand why people are so eager to punish and exclude people, and ignore the historic importance of what they did.

but we are talking about two different things here.Baseball was a white man's game.. this diluted the talent pool, but it didn't artifically enchance the players ability to play the game. It also didn't give some men on the field a bigger edge than others.

As long as Gaylord Perry, a true (and admitted) cheat whose actions directly affected the game (unlike steroids which have a more indirect effect), is allowed to be in the HOF then the argument for keeping out steroid guys is garbage.

A baseball Hall of Fame without Barry Bonds is a joke. Tanner, you have to be kidding.

This is a much better argument IMO.

Agreed, I was going to bring up Perry next after someone provided a rational and meaningful distinction between the amphetamine use in the 60s and 70s and steroids in the 90s (a distinction which I don't think exists anyway).

I know he didn't steal anything. I was joking with the quote I made since I thought you were joking with your quote.

I'm not DQ'ing anyone. If I had a vote it would be my personal opinion to not vote for him. I think steroids contributed too much to his game. He is known as a home run hitter, and I don't think he would have hit as many home runs, or lasted as long as he did without them. In other words I don't think he would have had a hall of fame career without steroids.

It is not scientific fact that he wouldn't have been good, but we can not know if he would have been great or not since his amazing performances were all on steroids.

I understand that MLB contributed a lot to it, hell I would have probably done it if I knew I could be a multi-millionaire. But after he is caught, why try and keep hiding it? Why keep lying?

Barry Bonds is a different story because he did enough to be a hall of famer before he was known for being a home run hitter. I wouldn't vote for him for because of the steroids though, just my opinion. And no I'm not kidding Canebrain.

I think I've made my point or tried to, so I'm going to stop posting in this thread because I know you guys will ruin me with your counter-arguments and I'm obviously in the minority with my opinion.

Bonds as much as i hate him is in...he was stud long before he got into steriods. The fact that he was one of the bigest assholes to play the game doesn't merit keeping him out.

McGuire i don't believe gets there. He said he had taken steriods off and on for some time. he said he had good years and bad years with and without them...to me this indicates use for a much longer period of time and in my opinion leaves him out.

Re: Bonds.

What's the reaction if he comes out with this statement or press conference?

"Listen, I was the best player in the game for a decade. I won three MVP's and should've had one more. Then here come guys like McGwire, who everybody knows is on something, and he's hitting home runs left and right and now that's all anyone and Major League Baseball cares about anymore. So what would you have me do? Just sit back and let them take my money and my awards because they're doing something 'illegal' and baseball doesn't even want to test for it? No, I'll tell you what I do; I level the playing field. I do what they're doing and I show them what happens when a real baseball player has the same advantages they have. Yes, I took performance enhancing substances from 2000-2005, but no, I will not apologize for it."


p.s. I have no basis for the 2000-2005 period.

He's still in, because his career numbers before that point still make him a hOFamer.. so even if we nix those years, it dosen't even really matter.

But that would be a really shitty excuse. imo. I never really understood how guys can accept accomplishments with PED's.... unless your like mcguire and convince yourself that youd have been the same hitter.

I like the A-Rod excuse: I'm getting paid an amount no one has EVER been paid, I feel like I need to do something no one has EVER done. It's so wonderfully demented and perfectly sums up his weird psyche.

The Hall of Fame has decided that Dawson is going into the hall as an Expo even though Dawson wanted his plaque to show a Cubs hat.

Link

I've known that the hall has always had final say on these matters, but I've never known them to go against the wishes of the player.

This Guy

Dawson: I mean seriously, the Expos? That's embarrassing. In 50 years people will be like, 'The What-spos?'

Well, those people will be shitty baseball fans...so who cares anyway.

My roommate and I probably spend at least an hour a week having a conversation that starts like this:

Wang: "Hey, did you bring home a fat chick last night? I went to bed early, and I swear around 3 in the morning it sounded like somebody was skinning a cat, man."

Roommate: "Six oh nine."

Wang: "Yeah whenever I think about it I just want to throw up."

Roommate: "Six. Oh. Nine."

Wang: "Two hundred and thirty two walks."

Roommate: "It makes me physically ill."

Wang: "I think my favorite thing about that seasons is, if you replaced every one of his hits with outs, his OBP would still be well above league-average. He walked in more than thirty-seven percent of his plate appearances."

Roommate: "That's just... can you figure out what his value would have been if all of his singles had been outs and all of his extra-base hits had been singles?"

Wang: "Off the top of my head, I know his OBP is just shy of .500, and his SLG would have been something like .200. I bet that's at least a league-average player."

Roommate: "He is just so awesome. We don't talk about it enough."

Wang: "We talk about it an hour a week."

Roommate: "Not enough. Like Charles Woodson at Michigan. Not enough."


We've also had a few conversations about the perfect way for him to drop the truth-hammer on everyone, and we've pretty much decided it would be perfect if he did exactly what you suggest, maybe with a little more racial hostility. The fact remains, you could have juiced up every player in the game, and I have no doubt that Bonds would have still been, far and away, the best of all of them.




I'm glad they threw him in as an Expo. I know Jonah Keri was really happy about that. I thought there was a much better argument for him going in as an Expo than a Cub -- he spent his prime and had his best years in Montreal, but had some solid years and won an MVP in Chicago -- but since he made it pretty clear that he wanted to go in as a Cub, I figured he'd get his wish. I'm kind of curious as to why MLB made that decision, but I am satisfied by it.

We really should have been appreciating the awesomeness of Barry Bonds instead of focusing on whether he did was everyone else was doing. I wish they had stats like "number of times a ball was hit directly square" just so Bonds amazingness could be put in even better perspective.

Pete Rose should be in.

Barry Bonds should get in.

Obviously Griffey is in, the real question is, how high do we rank him in the all time out fielders list? I would put him 3rd at centerfield, and in the top fifteen over all.

here's my list..

Rickey, Bonds, , Ruth, Aaron, Frank Robinson, Stan Musial, Willie Mays, Ty Cobb , Ted Williams and maybe mel ott and manny.

+100%

I'd like to see a list based purely on offensive skills and one on defensive skills, just to see how much cross-over there is.

yeah, the problem with that is I have no idea how good of fielders anyone before I was born is.

also ,do we rank griffey's fielding on the first half of his career ( which was better than just about anyones) or the second half ( so bad that he had to leave the naitional league.)

But...doesn't this just mean that you know you're wrong and don't want to be convinced of that fact? Isn't that a bad way to...you know, live?



He has to be knocked down a peg or two for going so far downhill, but he was so good in the field for so long that the slide can be mostly forgiven.

I just can't get into discussions on how good someone was defensively. I can't get past the fact that the likely correct answer is: we really don't know. Especially when it comes to any old-timers.

That being said, Griffey was certainly fun to watch. I would love to see an outfield with Griffey and Ichiro out there together in their respective primes.

Then again, Franklin Gutierrez might end up being the best Mariners outfielder of them all.

I understand that we don't know when it comes to players we never got to watch, but what do you mean that we don't know in general? You mean because fielding stats haven't been perfected and it's too subjective?

I am guessing he is talking about comparing Griffey to Mays, since none of us saw Mays play, what is our barometer for defensive prowess since stats only go so far.


Darren Lewis was one of the best defensive center fielders ever, if not the best, but he never gets discussed because his offense was horrific.

In 13 seasons he had 16 errors

Griffey had 94 in 22 seasons

Mays had 154 in 22 seasons

just to compare. (actually games played would be better, but I am lazy)

Because the metrics are so new and appear to take a long time (many seasons) to converge, I think it is fair to say that we don't know statistically.

Within the problem of subjectivity, there's the fact that it is hard to separate the team's effect on the player's performance, managerial decisions about defensive alignments, luck, the Jeter effect where a play that would be simple for a better fielder looks more impressive/athletic when a worse fielder makes it, etc. With the data we do have, it is looking more and more like intuition-based evaluations of defense may be severely flawed. [citation needed]

Can we throw out some players since 1980 that have been spectacular defensively to make a top whatever list?

Griffey
Hunter
Edmonds?
Mathews Jr.
Suzuki?
White?

I would add Andre Dawson to that list. When he was an Expo, he was unreal, and had the best arm in the outfield in baseball. His knees bothered him as a cub, but he still made some spectacular throws. Won 8 straight gold gloves, from 80 to 88.

Should 1500 RBI be considered a benchmark HOF stat such as 3,000 hits, 300 wins, and 500 HR's?

I think it should, moreso than, or perhaps equal to, 500 HR's.

Yes, I agree that we should determine who the best players are based on who has the best teammates.