snopes.com Post new topic  New Poll  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » Non-UL Chat » Amusement Bark » Should Mark McGwire be in the Hall of Fame? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Should Mark McGwire be in the Hall of Fame?
Mr. Furious
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mr. Furious   Author's Homepage   E-mail Mr. Furious   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Even betting on his team to win can have a negative impact. Say he has money riding on a game, and there are players that really need a day off - a relief pitcher that's thrown a lot of innings lately, a guy who busts his ass every day and is nursing some nagging injuries, etc. He's more likely to play those guys, to the detriment of the next game or the rest of the season, so that he wins his bet.

--------------------
"He's not gonna let me in, I'm Mr. Dirty Mouth!"
- Jeffrey Coho (Craig Bierko), Boston Legal

Posts: 8729 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
stalker
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for stalker     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lainie:
quote:
Originally posted by Monza305:
I guess it just bugs me because I do feel Rose should be in the HOF. Yeah, he bet on baseball, and by some accounts, on his own team. But there is nothing at all that indicates that he threw games, or made dumb decisions to help his team lose. I can't find any cites, but from what I've seen about it, he usually bet that his team would win.

Irrelevant. He was booted for betting on baseball, not for throwing games.

Leaving the regulations aside, personally I would be happier if the manager of any team I support in any sport lost $10,000 if the team didn't win. It would be one hell of a motivator.

--------------------
Fetishists Unite! Anti-Fetishists Untie!

Posts: 215 | From: London, England | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mr. Furious
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mr. Furious   Author's Homepage   E-mail Mr. Furious   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by stalker:
Leaving the regulations aside, personally I would be happier if the manager of any team I support in any sport lost $10,000 if the team didn't win. It would be one hell of a motivator.

If they lost $10,000 for every game they lost, or maybe if they were picked randomly and not disclosed to the manager, but not if they got to pick and choose which games.

--------------------
"He's not gonna let me in, I'm Mr. Dirty Mouth!"
- Jeffrey Coho (Craig Bierko), Boston Legal

Posts: 8729 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
pob14
Jingle Bell Hock


Icon 1 posted      Profile for pob14     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
HeroMike, I agree with everything you said. I just get tired of hearing "it wasn't against the rules" as an argument, especially one supporting Barry Bonds' case.

I don't think these players should be made ineligible, and I certainly don't think any records should be erased. How would you do that, anyway? "Let's see, dock Bonds 20% of his home runs in 2002 . . . wait, three of those came off of Clemens, we gotta add those back in . . . [Confused] I do think the voters should take their acts into account in assessing whether they are worthy of the game's highest honor.

--------------------
Patrick

Posts: 576 | From: Illinois | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Monza305
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Monza305   E-mail Monza305   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I guess I'm one of those people who feel the punishment should fit the crime. Why is the punishment the same for betting on baseball as it is for those who threw a World Series? Which is worse? I know it's because that is what the rules say, but geez! Pete Rose is an ass, we all know that. I've never considered myself a big fan of his, but he has an important place in baseball history. I feel a lifetime ban is just too much. Gambling on some games probably didn't affect his numbers much, if at all, unlike the possible effect of steroids on some other players.

--------------------
I've got a pen in my pocket does that make me a writer?
Standing on the mountain doesn't make me no higher.
Putting on gloves don't make you a fighter.
And all the study in the world doesn't make it science. -Paul Weller

Posts: 199 | From: Kalamazoo, MI | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
pob14
Jingle Bell Hock


Icon 1 posted      Profile for pob14     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Monza305:
I guess it just bugs me because I do feel Rose should be in the HOF. Yeah, he bet on baseball, and by some accounts, on his own team. But there is nothing at all that indicates that he threw games, or made dumb decisions to help his team lose.

In 1986, Manager Rose gave 237 at-bats to a player with a .219 batting average and .270 slugging percentage. Of course, that was probably a sentimental decision, given that the player's name was Peter Edward Rose . . . . [lol]

quote:
Originally posted by Monza305:
I guess I'm one of those people who feel the punishment should fit the crime. Why is the punishment the same for betting on baseball as it is for those who threw a World Series? Which is worse?

They are exactly the same. The only reason the 1919 World Series was thrown is because people were gambling on it. That's why baseball is so paranoid about gambling (remember when Willie Mays was banned from MLB ballparks because he worked for a casino?), and hasn't embraced it like football has.

--------------------
Patrick

Posts: 576 | From: Illinois | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jay Temple
It Came Upon a Midnight Clearance


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jay Temple     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by pob14:
That's why baseball is so paranoid about gambling (remember when Willie Mays was banned from MLB ballparks because he worked for a casino?), and hasn't embraced it like football has.

*snerk* Yeah, baseball is so paranoid about gambling that one of the party areas at Busch Stadium is sponsored by the Casino Queen, and casinos advertise regularly on the broadcasts.

Oh, and to tie this in somewhat with the main topic of discussion, Viagra advertises on broadcasts and had a sign in at least one ballpark. Doesn't sound to me like baseball is all that concerned with "performance"-enhancing drugs.

--------------------
"Well, it looks we're on our own ... again."--Rev. Lovejoy

Posts: 3572 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Towknie
We Three Blings


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Towknie   E-mail Towknie   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Not too long ago (sometime around 2000) the Padres were officially "Sycuan Casino presents the San Diego Padres." That brought a little chunk of change, so MLB didn't seem to have a problem with it.

--------------------
Towknie: Ryda-certified as wonderful, enlighted, and rational.

Posts: 1011 | From: Frisco, TX | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Pogue Ma-humbug
Happy Christmas (Malls are Open)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Pogue Ma-humbug   E-mail Pogue Ma-humbug   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Monza305:
Pete Rose is an ass, we all know that. I've never considered myself a big fan of his, but he has an important place in baseball history. I feel a lifetime ban is just too much. Gambling on some games probably didn't affect his numbers much, if at all, unlike the possible effect of steroids on some other players.

Pete Rose has admitted he used amphetamines during his playing days, and he was well known as a pill-popper and booze hound. Why do you think he got the nickname "Charlie Hustle?" (It wasn't meant as a compliment.)

Do you think taking speed would impact his on-field performance?

Pogue

--------------------
Let's drink to the causes in your life:
Your family, your friends, the union, your wife.

Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Hero_Mike
Happy Holly Days


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Hero_Mike         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Lainie - as far as I know, the ban on gambling extends to all on-field people such as coaches and managers, and probably extends to the front office jobs as well. Umpires would also fall in this group.

Mr. Furious, there's a writer for ESPN named Rob Neyer who writes some really good baseball columns - they are now part of subscription-only content but used to be free. Mr. Neyer would cite statistics and attack the myths of baseball, like a "clutch" hitter whose batting improves by a greater percentage than others, when there are men on base. It's a myth. Another myth had to do with the "ground ball pitcher", and it basically proves out that if a player makes contact with the ball, his chances of getting a hit are pretty much independent of who is pitching and who is playing defense. (Recall that bad fielders don't result in more hits, but rather, more errors.)

Barry Bonds has always hit well, walked a lot, etc. The biggest change in his statistics, in terms of numbers, is his walk rate, and slugging percentage - almost all related to his greater home run rate. All because of greater strength, right? Well, the point is that since 2000, Bonds is hitting well above his career average. As many of those extra home runs, as they are singles. Nobody is forcing the other pitchers to groove him fastballs - as indicated by the walks and intentional walks. He's hitting the ball more often when he swings, and getting more hits out of that - of all kinds. There's no steroid, vitamin, or training regimen which can do that for a player. That he is doing it at his age is a testament to his uniqueness as a player. I have little doubt that Bonds actually took some performance enhancing supplements - maybe steroids, maybe HGH - but he didn't have a one-year flash-in-the-pan improvement, nor did he suddenly bulk up like, say, Jose Canseco did in the late 80's.

If steroids had that effect on Bonds, then I'm sure that other top players would have had the same overall improvements.

A better example of steroids would be a player like Brady Anderson - who hit 50 homers in 1996, having never hit more than 21, and never more than 24 after despite playing full seasons. His batting average grew roughly 30 points that year, but his walk total was down (he walked a lot anyway - he was a leadoff hitter), hit no more doubles than usual, and had *one* intentional walk. That is the steroids talking, and nothing more.

--------------------
"The fate of *billions* depends on you! Hahahahaha....sorry." Lord Raiden - Mortal Kombat

Posts: 1587 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
pob14
Jingle Bell Hock


Icon 1 posted      Profile for pob14     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay Temple:
quote:
Originally posted by pob14:
That's why baseball is so paranoid about gambling (remember when Willie Mays was banned from MLB ballparks because he worked for a casino?), and hasn't embraced it like football has.

*snerk* Yeah, baseball is so paranoid about gambling that one of the party areas at Busch Stadium is sponsored by the Casino Queen, and casinos advertise regularly on the broadcasts.
I should have said "had been so paranoid". What Baseball has been thinking of in the Selig years, I have no idea.

--------------------
Patrick

Posts: 576 | From: Illinois | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Monza305
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Monza305   E-mail Monza305   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pogue Mahone:
Pete Rose has admitted he used amphetamines during his playing days, and he was well known as a pill-popper and booze hound. Why do you think he got the nickname "Charlie Hustle?" (It wasn't meant as a compliment.)

Do you think taking speed would impact his on-field performance?

Pogue [/QB]

Of course it could have affected his performance. "Greenies" were pretty pervasive in baseball back in that time period, he certanly wasn't the only player taking them. Kinda parallels the steroid situation that we are also discussing. Who was, who wasn't taking 'em? Should we hold it against them? Bringing amphetamines into the discussion seems like a slippery slope to me. What else can we bring up to hold against him or anyone else?

--------------------
I've got a pen in my pocket does that make me a writer?
Standing on the mountain doesn't make me no higher.
Putting on gloves don't make you a fighter.
And all the study in the world doesn't make it science. -Paul Weller

Posts: 199 | From: Kalamazoo, MI | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
keokuk
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for keokuk     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hero_Mike:
Barry Bonds has always hit well, walked a lot, etc. The biggest change in his statistics, in terms of numbers, is his walk rate, and slugging percentage - almost all related to his greater home run rate. All because of greater strength, right? Well, the point is that since 2000, Bonds is hitting well above his career average. As many of those extra home runs, as they are singles. Nobody is forcing the other pitchers to groove him fastballs - as indicated by the walks and intentional walks. He's hitting the ball more often when he swings, and getting more hits out of that - of all kinds. There's no steroid, vitamin, or training regimen which can do that for a player. That he is doing it at his age is a testament to his uniqueness as a player. I have little doubt that Bonds actually took some performance enhancing supplements - maybe steroids, maybe HGH - but he didn't have a one-year flash-in-the-pan improvement, nor did he suddenly bulk up like, say, Jose Canseco did in the late 80's.

Not to get into a side debate, because I completely agree with the assessment that steroids alone cannot improve a player's timing, hand-eye coordination and swing, but couldn't an argument be made that in the case of a player like Bonds, who was already one of the all-time greats, that the extra power could have extended line outs and soft-rollers into harder-hit base hits out of the infield, accounting for the difference in average?
Posts: 345 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mr. Furious
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mr. Furious   Author's Homepage   E-mail Mr. Furious   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hero_Mike:
As many of those extra home runs, as they are singles.

No they're not. Pre-2000 Bonds: 53.6% of his hits were singles, 22.1% were home runs. 2000-present Bonds: 44.0% were singles, 34.8% were home runs.

All the Brady Anderson thing demonstrates is that Anderson didn't stick to the steroid regimen like Bonds did.

ETA: And I agree that Bonds is a unique player. He would've been a Hall of Famer, and possibly one of the greatest players of all time, without the steroids. But, if Game of Shadows is any indication, his jealousy of the attention Sosa and especially McGwire were getting wouldn't let him settle for that.

--------------------
"He's not gonna let me in, I'm Mr. Dirty Mouth!"
- Jeffrey Coho (Craig Bierko), Boston Legal

Posts: 8729 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
snopes
Return! Return! Return!


Icon 401 posted      Profile for snopes   Author's Homepage   E-mail snopes       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Debate surrounding McGwire, Hall of Fame intensifies

This year baseball-pure debates are secondary as the steroid era meets Cooperstown. Mark McGwire is a first-time candidate, so Hall of Fame discussions have lost their innocence: Voters must put steroid suspicions into historic perspective.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2006-12-04-mcgwire-cover_x.htm

Posts: 36029 | From: Admin | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Pogue Ma-humbug
Happy Christmas (Malls are Open)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Pogue Ma-humbug   E-mail Pogue Ma-humbug   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Monza305:
Bringing amphetamines into the discussion seems like a slippery slope to me. What else can we bring up to hold against him or anyone else?

You are the one arguing that Rose should be in the HOF becuase of his on-field accomplishments. I was simply pointing out that his on-the-field accomplishments may not have been all honest, either.

Pogue

--------------------
Let's drink to the causes in your life:
Your family, your friends, the union, your wife.

Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  New Poll  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2