Buster Olney on ESPN 1000 regarding HOF

[Abe Frohman]

Olney mentioned that he will be voting for Mark McGwire for HOF because he is:

 

a) voting for the best players

 

b) avoiding the "slipperly slope" of either voting for the best players during the steroid era, or not voting for the best players of that era. He makes a good point that you would never know who did/didn't use PED's from that era, and it wouldn't be fair to single a guy like McGwire/Bonds out because they have been the focus of the media, etc.

 

Having said that, he mentioned that he didn't think that either Bonds, Sosa, or McGwire will be in the HOF (did I hear him right?) - but he chooses not to be biased in his voting against players from the "Steroid Era."

 

Thoughts?

[USSoccer]

I agree with his reasoning, not that I particularly care about the HOF or who gets in.

[cubs121]

i seriously did not understand the part where he wouldnt mention names.. and then just threw some out there...

 

note to buster: if you are not going to say the names... than dont say em at all :shock:

[UK1679666180]

If you feel that a player did use steriods, then you have that right to vote yes or no as far as that player getting in.

 

If I was to rank how low likely each one was to get in, it would be impossible.

 

Most productive:

1)Bonds

2 or 3) Sosa or McGwire

 

Most likely to have been on steroids:

1)Bonds

2)McGwire

3)Sosa

 

It's a slippery slope on that one.

 

It gives writers a chance to voice an opinion that extends beyond normal everyday occurances for them, which isn't always a good thing.

[kente777]

Is McGuire truly deserving to go into the Hall, steroid issue aside? What did he do other than hit home runs? IMO, he was a one-dimensional player not deserving the honor. The steroid issue only puts icing on the cake.

[goonys evil twin]

Is McGuire truly deserving to go into the Hall, steroid issue aside? What did he do other than hit home runs? IMO, he was a one-dimensional player not deserving the honor. The steroid issue only puts icing on the cake.

 

McGwire hit .263/.394/.588 for his career. He led his league in OBP twice, OPS twice, OPS+ 4 times. He had a career OPS+ of 163. Glenallen Hill was a 1 dimensional HR hitter, so was Kingman. McGwire was an extremely productive hitter for a dozen years.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Steroids issue aside, McGwire is a HOF. Yes he has a 263 BA, but a 394 OBP for his career.

 

The only question for many is did steroids make him a HOFer? Without that cloud hanging over him, he's in.

 

No one doubts Reggie Jackson is a HOF, and he has a 262 career BA and a much lower OBP.

 

If Reggie is HOF, so is McGwire unless you think the roids made him that good. Then there is a question.

[Abe Frohman]

I don't think the roids made him that good, but they did make him a bit better. I venture to say they probably prolonged his career a little allowing him to accumulate the needed statistics to be a HOFer.

 

The degree to which he was aided (IF aided) by PED's will never be known. Regardless, I would have a hard time explaining to my kids why a person who alledgedly cheated is being honored.

 

Examples need to be made. McGwire should not be exempt.

 

I would vote NO to McGwire for HOF. It's on HIM, not the writers and fans, to clear his name.

[goonys evil twin]

Regardless, I would have a hard time explaining to my kids why a person who alledgedly cheated is being honored.

 

What do you do about all the others?

 

Why do you have to explain it to your kid?

[Abe Frohman]

Regardless, I would have a hard time explaining to my kids why a person who alledgedly cheated is being honored.

 

What do you do about all the others?

 

Why do you have to explain it to your kid?

 

Because I want to raise my kid with standards.

[goonys evil twin]

Regardless, I would have a hard time explaining to my kids why a person who alledgedly cheated is being honored.

 

What do you do about all the others?

 

Why do you have to explain it to your kid?

 

Because I want to raise my kid with standards.

 

I would suggest using nothing to do with major league baseball as standards for raising your kids. I don't think there's much to be gained from teaching them lessons about what happens within any sports league. But if you must, you could teach them about innocent until proven guilty, you could teach them about the dangers of doing anything for glory citing the immense level of criticism against Big Mac in comparison to all the adulation before. There is sure to be a massive backlash if he is elected, which would give you a chance to teach them about the consequences of your current choices in the future.

 

I wouldn't want to teach my kids (which I don't have), that bad guys always face punishment and only good guys succeed. It's not true.

[Chris]

I would have a hard time explaining to my kids why a person who alledgedly cheated is being honored.

 

Do you really want your kids to draw a conclusion on someone based on an accusation?

[Abe Frohman]

I would have a hard time explaining to my kids why a person who alledgedly cheated is being honored.

 

Do you really want your kids to draw a conclusion on someone based on an accusation?

 

Didn't you see where I said "alledgedly?" I put it there for a purpose. I'm not really going to debate on the way I raise my kids, but you ought to catch my drift. I know (and they will too) that it is not fair to judge a person, much less judge a person based on rumors.

 

That being said, I am not an idiot. Collective baseball fans are not idiots. If someone does not believe that drugs (steroids, amphetamines, etc.) were not, and possibly still are not parts of professional baseball, collegiate baseball, and sadly - even high school baseball - that person doesn't really have their eyes open wide enough.

 

I enjoyed reading Canseco's book for one reason. I saw it as an opportunity to see what a former ML baseball player has to say without the influence or loyalty to the "Union." Not saying that I believe everything Canseco said was true, but I am pretty sure that more of it is true than false.

 

I love baseball, and I love coaching kids. It is unfortunate that in order to get to the "next level," a kid needs breaks. By breaks, it is who you know, where you play, who sees you, etc. Lots of kids still juice up to get the edge. Unfortunately, that is how it is in baseball.

 

Hell, I play in a men's baseball league now, and there are guys who are on roids. It's pathetic.

[CubinNY]

Olney mentioned that he will be voting for Mark McGwire for HOF because he is:

 

a) voting for the best players

 

b) avoiding the "slipperly slope" of either voting for the best players during the steroid era, or not voting for the best players of that era. He makes a good point that you would never know who did/didn't use PED's from that era, and it wouldn't be fair to single a guy like McGwire/Bonds out because they have been the focus of the media, etc.

 

Having said that, he mentioned that he didn't think that either Bonds, Sosa, or McGwire will be in the HOF (did I hear him right?) - but he chooses not to be biased in his voting against players from the "Steroid Era."

 

Thoughts?

 

My question to Rosenthall and other who won't vote in McGwire is: Will they vote for Clemens or other pitchers who pitched in the steriod era on the first ballot?

 

Why limit it to hitters?