Do players (specifically Mark McGwire) who are purported to have done steroids, belong in the Hall of Fame?
Brent Nelson Mark McGwire Enthusiast
So, you're not going to be voting for Mark McGwire because of what he may or may not have done. That's fantastic. I understand that you said if more information comes out you're less inclined to vote for him. Which is great. If sloppy reasoning is a great reason to keep someone out of the Hall of Fame.
So, you wouldn't have voted for Don Drysdale, Gaylord Perry or Babe Ruth to be enshrined in the Hall of Fame. And, while we're at it (since you want to blame the clean players fro this era) there would be no Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays or Ty Cobb in the Hall either? Who exactly would be in your Hall of Fame? We can't have anyone who had a competitive advantage over anyone else, can we? I believe some hall of famers used contacts and glasses to be able to see the ball. If they hadn't used those, they wouldn't be there. Get them out!
What about Tommy John surgery? I believe that anyone who had Tommy John surgery shouldn't be in the Hall, because players of yesteryear may have been better had they had the medicine we have today. Wait, why stop at Tommy John surgery? If anyone had any sort of medical procedure that was unavailable to players at the turn of the century, they shouldn't be allowed in.
Now, let's take it a step further. Even though there were no rules against steroids at the time in MLB (before you bring US regulations in this, there are plenty of "laws" that are broken everyday by everyone, so that's not an accurate argument) we're going to hang him for this? Well, let's say they make wearing batting gloves illegal this year, because it offers the batter too much advantage. Now, everyone who has ever worn a batting glove, though it was perfectly legal at the time, has all their records banned, because of what is illegal now. Does that make sense to you? That's essentially the argument you're making!
It's like on the episode of the Simpson's with Stampy, Bart's elephant. The prices were originally $1 to see the elephant and $2 to ride it. Then, Homer jacked up the prices to $100 to see it and $200 to ride it, when he found he couldn't afford to feed it.
Homer: Uh, Milhouse saw the elephant twice and rode him once, right?
Mrs. Van Houten: Yes, but we paid you $4.
Homer: Well, that was under our old price structure. Under our new price structure, your bill comes to a total of $700. Now, you've already paid me $4, so that's just $696 more that you owe me.
Mr. Van Houten: Get off our property.
Does that argument make sense to you? Are you the Homer Simpson of Sportswriters on this issue? I hope not. Because McGwire has garnered our respect and deserves to be enshrined in the Hall, regardless of his "cheating". Even if he did do steroids, they were not illegal and, even if they were, the Hall is filled with "cheaters".
Brodie Miller Scottsdale Sun-Herald
Since when does wearing contacts or glasses elevate your level of play....from what I understand they bring you on an even keel with those of us with perfect vision? I find it hard to believe you can compare fixing a "disability" to injecting yourself with steroids to elevate yourself above everyone else.
The bottom line is that you could argue this for years....there's no way to prove a negative, that somebody didn't do something.
Brent Nelson Mark McGwire Enthusiast
Are you saying wearing glasses doesn't elevate your level of play? If I go out there, with 20/600 vision, you can sure as hell bet that my level of play will be elevated when I put glasses on. Wearing glasses or contacts elevates your level of play based on where you would be "naturally".
There has never been an "even keel" of a playing field. If there were, everyone would have to be clones of each other. Some people will always have an advantage and some will always make an advantage for themselves. Everyone is different, has different abilities and different limits. If Giambi works out an hour more a day than Eric Davis, does that mean Giambi is getting an unfair advantage? If someone has a family, and they spend time with them, instead of in the cages, is that an unfair advantage? Should there be limits on how hard people can work, to maintain an "Even Keel"?
It's true that you can never prove that these players didn't do anything. This is why this whole “guilty until proven innocent” thing is a load of crap. This will be argued for years, but I really don't think anyone has made a good point to keep these players out of the Hall, if their stats merit inclusion.
Brodie Miller Scottsdale Sun-Herald
You cannot possibly compare wearing glasses to enhancing your level of play by shooting yourself up with steroids. There is a huge difference between the two. I did not mean that every player in the league was on an even keel, obviously they aren’t otherwise there would be no competition in baseball whatsoever, but using glasses arguably can bring players vision on an even keel with that of the rest of the players.
Regardless if using steroids back then was legal or not there still will be a shroud around the players in the league that were big home run hitters in that era no matter if you like it or not. Society can accept a player that uses acceptable artificial enhancements, such as glasses to enable him to correct his vision. They understand this. They realize that there is not any scientifically proven skill or work ethic a player can ever participate in to correct his vision. What they don’t understand is using a quick fix to help correct other physical shortcomings such as being weak by using an artificial substance. A player can improve his physical abilities by working out more and putting the time in the gym. Arguably he still won’t be even with everyone, but at least that player’s abilities are based on just that, his OWN abilities and not the amount of substance in a vial.
Your argument saying it wasn’t illegal at the time has no bearing at all on the Hall of Fame voting. The rules specifically state that “voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, INTEGRITY, sportsmanship, CHARACTER, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.” You can’t say that with all the allegations being thrown around that some reporters will question McGwire’s character and integrity. Reporter’s have every right to weigh such factors in their voting. Also you may argue that regardless, based on McGwire’s stat’s he should be in, but voting cannot be based simply on stats alone since the rules also state, “no automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.” So it may be sad that a player like McGwire is caught up in all this, but ultimately illegal or not such allegations may keep him out of the Hall.
Brent Nelson Mark McGwire Enthusiast
"What they don’t understand is using a quick fix to help correct other physical shortcomings such as being weak by using an artificial substance."I didn't realize you spoke for all of society and what they can or cannot understand. That's interesting, because as part of society, I find steroid use perfectly acceptable. I guess we're part of two different societies.
I already did. There are different reasons to do both, but they are similar. If one person has better vision than you, wouldn't you want as good of vision as him, if not better? If one person has better genetics than you, wouldn't you want to do what it takes to make your body chemistry as good as his, if not better?"You cannot possibly compare wearing glasses to enhancing your level of playby shooting yourself up with steroids."
"Regardless if using steroids back then was legal or not there still will be a shroud around the players in the league that were big home run hitters in that era no matter if you like it or not."I agree, there is a cloud of distrust, but there shouldn't be. Is there distrust for the pitching records created during the 50's and 60's because of scuffing the ball? No. Why should this era be any different?
"Arguably he still won’t be even with everyone, but at least that player’s abilities are based on just that, his OWN abilities and not the amount of substance in a vial."As with most people, you have a very simple view of how steroids work. Just injecting yourself does not in itself make you huge. Otherwise we'd have mammoth people walking all over the place. What it does do is give you a little extra boost and helps you recover quicker, which allows you to work out more. The same thing can be said of rest. People need to understand that you still have to have your fitness and nutrition in order to get the most out of steroids. They do help, I won't deny that. But they're not the end all; cure all that some people make them out to be. I don't see Hulk Hogan or HHH hitting 500 homers. But maybe my glasses aren't fitting right.
"The rules specifically state that “voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, INTEGRITY, sportsmanship, CHARACTER, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.'"I understand that and made that argument. As Ken pointed out, integrity is a judgment call. As is character. You (and the rest of your society) can say McGwire had neither. I say he did. I look at steroids as an extension of gym work, along with post-workout shakes, meal replacements and the such. I think McGwire showed great reverence when he broke Maris's record and treated that situation fantastically. Again, these are strictly judgment calls, and I am of the opinion that steroids do not equal bad integrity and character. What about Drysdale, Ruth, and Perry? All Hall of Famers. Ruth used an illegal bat. Perry and Drysdale were spitball pitchers. Do you think they show integrity and character with those moves?
I agree with you that this could, in theory, keep McGwire out of the Hall, but that doesn't make it right. He has done nothing wrong (and we're going on the word of a jealous Jose Canseco). Yet, we're already tarnishing his image. It's sad and undeserved. McGwire is Hall of Fame material.
Brodie Miller Scottsdale Sun-Herald
You obviously misunderstood what I was saying. I was not speaking for all of society, but I do believe the MAJORITY of society would have that viewpoint. I was trying to just show you that there are other very valid viewpoints to the whole steroid thing.
I do believe that steroids are illegal now. I do believe that legislators make laws. I also believe that legislators are elected by the majority of society. I didn't see any law made prohibiting glasses. Therefore it is a pretty logical assumption that the majority of society does not view a steroid user and someone of high integrity and character in the same person.
The whole point with the vision thing is that you are not getting BETTER vision you are getting the SAME vision as everyone else. You totally didn’t even address that fact.
Maybe if I analogized my arguments to the level of Simpson’s or Saved by the Bell you would've understood………
Brent Nelson Mark McGwire Enthusiast
Maybe I did misunderstand, by taking direct quotes from you. Yes, yes, I see how that works.
I see there are other viewpoints and it's great that people have them. They're just flawed on this issue. You can argue (heaven for bid someone lighten it up with a reference to pop culture!) all you want, but it's not going to convince me.
"I do believe that steroids are illegal now."
Correct. We agree here.
"I do believe that legislators make laws."Again, I have no argument here.
"I also believe that legislators are elected by the majority of society."This is fascinating. It's like Civics class all over again!
"I didn't see any law made prohibiting glasses."
I don't think anyone ever made this claim, but whatever.
"Therefore it is a pretty logical assumption that the majority of society does not view a steroid user and someone of high integrity and character in the same person."Wow. That is quite a leap there. OK, now let me make sure I follow exactly what you're saying, because I don't want to "take your words out of context". You're saying that...
a) The people elect the legislators
b) The legislators then make the laws
c) The majority of people then agree with these laws
d) If you break these laws, you do not have high integrity and character.
This seems to be the logic and argument you're making. This is fine. But I sure see a hell of a lot of people driving (over the speed limit, set by those trusty legislators) who have low integrity and no character. For shame. I hope the all get smitten to hell for breaking that law that the people I elected made! For shame! I can hardly be in the same room as those bastards! They make me want to throw up!!
"The whole point with the vision thing is that you are not getting BETTER vision you are getting the SAME vision as everyone else. You totally didn’t even address that fact."Prove it. My vision with contacts is 20/15. Normal vision is 20/20. My vision without contacts is 20/600. Contacts can correct vision up to 20/10. How is that not better? But regardless of that fact, the point is that you're taking something that doesn't occur naturally and using it to your advantage, whether it's to make yourself even with people or push yourself over the top. That point is irrelevant.
It's like that episode of Saved by the Bell, when Jessie gets addicted to caffeine pills. She was using them so she could get better grades than the other kids, so she could get into a better college. Is that cheating? Should Harvard not let her in, because she wasn't trying to use the pills to stay awake long enough to get the same grades as the other kids, she was using them to stay awake longer and study better?
Posts
1 comment:
"I don't get it" - Tom Hanks in "Big"
Post a Comment