Bonds gets on the ballot for 2013. I don't see McGwire's vote totals jumping from 20% to 75% in just 3 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by yomamaimontv
Printable View
Bonds gets on the ballot for 2013. I don't see McGwire's vote totals jumping from 20% to 75% in just 3 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by yomamaimontv
Bonds won't get in on the 1st ballot. I can almost Guarantee it. Mcgwire being on the staff in STL. He will be dealing with the media on a daily basis. They will grow to like him again and he will be voted in. What really hurt him was his admittedly pathetic appearance in front of congress. Then he went into to hiding for years. He's back now so.....
I'm gonna say it...
Don't get angry please...
I'm a little unsure about a lot of the guys from this era.
Getting in or that you would vote for them?
I really want to ignore the steroids and vote for them based on their numbers. It's really really difficult though.
Well for Bonds, you can look pre-alleged steroids.
Furthermore, you can throw the blanket that we don't know who did it or who didn't so we have to go in voting that maybe he was facing an entire era of pitchers who took steroids.
And that time period is "alleged" based on...well...practically nothing. It's just assumed that Bonds saw McGwire and Sosa getting all the love in 1998 and thus decided he wanted to best them so he did steroids. Talk about flimsy evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
That's the problem with this. We don't know much, and for what we do know, it's pretty much "This guy did some amount of some type of performance-enhancing drug (which was not tested for or governed by any MLB rules) at some point in his career for some length of time and may or may not have gotten some benefit."
And some of the evidence is, imo, tainted by illegal government activities (this list that keeps releasing names).Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
It's a **** show of terrible PR, strange politics, and Bud Selig ****ing things up.
I just don't see how you can really hold it against the player's if what they did was legal or not monitored by baseball. We have no way of really knowing who did what. Unless there are specific instances where you know certain details, you can't just say none of them can get in.
I don't see why Mark McGwire gets so few votes.
Personally, I don't give a crap anymore, BUT...it WAS NOT LEGAL. Last I checked, the law of the country supersedes the rules of a sports league.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
If you are just correcting someone's argument fine - which I think is your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
But if you think that breaking the law is actually a reason to not let someone into the Hall, then the Hall of Fame is going to get very small. Especially if you include all the players that are only suspected of breaking a law, not convicted. Ruth drank during prohibition, Raines did cocaine, and getting ahead of ourselves, Lincecum has now been given a ticket for marijuana possession. Seriously, Cobb may have, or may have not, killed someone. If he is in the Hall, suspicion of breaking the illegal substances act is entirely irrelevant.
Yep, was just correcting the post. It wasn't legal, period, so let's stop saying it was.
The only thing we KNOW McGwire did was androstenedoine, which people still like to "use against him", and it WAS legal AND unbanned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic Blast
my 2 cents..bonds should get in first ballot.
do i think he will...no. especially based upon him basically being blackballed from mlb the past couple seasons. i think that exemplifies the hatred towards him.
Again, I wasn't referring to a specific case or person, but this particular line from Jeffy's post :
In cases of proven steroid use, that WAS NOT legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25