Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Mark McGwire Rejected to Hall of Fame

Rate this topic


BaseballGenius

Recommended Posts

Mark McGwire had an opportunity to be elected into the Baseball Hall of Fame today, but instead was denied. He only received 128 votes of the 528 possible votes(23%), and a minimum of 75% must be reached to get in.

Obviously the steroid issue was the main factor in a lot of these voters decision because McGwire's stats show his ability and worthiness of the Hall of Fame, with his 583 career home runs(7th on the overall list) and 70 home runs in a single season. Steroids, however, may or may not have been a contribution to his success. Thats the problem: there is no solid, factual evidence proving McGwire ever took steroids. Factual evidence in this case could be if he tested positive for a certain drug, an admission from him, or significant details discovered if an investigation happened. But there is no proof besides McGwire's testimony at the court hearing on the steroid scandal. Essentially, he evaded certain questions and instead repeated a few times throughout the hearing, "I am not here to talk about the past". This is not conclusive evidence proving McGwire took steroids, and the best one can do is make an assumption. An assumption should not be considered good enough to those voters, and the steroid issue should have been dismissed from their decision completely.

Another important fact to focus on is the year steroids were first banned by the Major League, which was 2002. McGwire retired in 2001, so there is no possible way he could have been breaking the rules. How can you deduct from a players merit a legal action(in baseball) he committed?

I understand the most crucial point these voters felt obligated to make was to ultimately discredit ball players who ingested steroids, and it was especially important in recent voting because players from the "Steroid Era" are now starting to become eligible for the Hall. They didnt want to give the fans the impression that they would let these acts slide, while risking MLB's reputation. If you are going to reproach certain players- especially in such significant situations as this- then at least do so with proper means of justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steroids were first banned in 1991 by Major League Baseball. Mark McGwire based on his own statements is of questionable character. I would not vote for him.

Article discussing the first steroid ban.

http://blogs.chron.com/sportsjustice/archi...ids_were_a.html

In this article(1), they say, "Before 2002, Major League Baseball had no official policy on steroid use among players."

Either way, with or without a steroid policy, there is still lack of proof of McGwire ever taking steroids. And to say you wouldnt vote for him based on his character is absurd. First, McGwire was one of the nicer guys in baseball. Second, several several players who were as mean spirited as they come have been elected into the Hall of Fame. 99% of the time, the voters decision is determined mainly on stats and/or ability.

1. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/20...id-policy_x.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hall of Fame is a subjective award and is therefore pretty unimportant.

Subjective, how? And dont just use very rare examples of this.

Personally, I think it would be a great honor to get elected into the Hall of Fame. I would already feel a great sense of pride if I accomplished those numbers, but receiving the recognition of that magnitude would probably intensify my feelings. It would be a great day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its subjective in that it rests on the vote of a group of people who, while guided by certain principles, don't use absolute criterion in choosing inductees. It would not be so "subhective" if when you reached a certain amount of stats you were automatically assured to get into the hall of fame. SO then basically, being in the hall of fame would mean "you have achieved this much objective greatness in the sport of baseball, based on these criterion."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a memo sent to every team in 1991 banning steroids.

http://www.businessofbaseball.com/docs/199...ion_Program.pdf

Mark McGwire retired in 2001 and never tested positive for steroid use. Major League Baseball didn't start testing until 2002. My earlier statement concerning the character of Mark McGwire is a result of his public statements and testimony to congress concerning his use of steroids. The Hall of Fame is a recognition of ability, we can not be sure of Mark McGwire's ability. I would not vote for him.

Continue to evade reality at your own peril.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with CmdrBretz. Furthermore, if I were in charge of publishing a sports records book, I would include neither him nor Barry Bonds in any discussion of home run records. The purpose of sports is to show off your natural or developed abilities...ones that you have honed, through hard work. Steroids are a shortcut. There is no reason to give them the honor of being in the same league (no pun intended) as men who did it without taking shortcuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its subjective in that it rests on the vote of a group of people who, while guided by certain principles, don't use absolute criterion in choosing inductees. It would not be so "subhective" if when you reached a certain amount of stats you were automatically assured to get into the hall of fame.

There is a rough criteria that experts are familiar with: 400 home runs, 3000 hits, 250 wins, etc, but those arent mandatory minimums. A players' overall stats are main determinates though. Say he gets 2500 career hits but also hit 390 home runs and hit over .300. He may get enough votes. Or the player who hits 410 home runs, but is one of the leaders in career strikeouts and has a low batting average. He may not get in. Thats why there cant be exact numbers that dictate a players worthiness, because its a combination of stats that need to be judged.

There are other variables as well, of course, such as if a player gets a career-ending injury. His stats wont meet that criteria because he wouldnt have played in enough games. So instead the voters look at how consistently dominant he was in the years he did play, and project a reasonable outcome of what his stats may have ended at if he played longer.

Another exception is catchers. They dont play as many games as regular position players, and their position is also more tiring and injury-prone than the others. This is why the standards to get into the Hall of Fame for catchers is lower.

There are other variables as well. But ultimately it comes to down basic standards for the specific player.

Edited by BaseballGenius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hall of Fame is a recognition of ability, we can not be sure of Mark McGwire's ability. I would not vote for him.

The difference between our decisions is yours is based on assumptions and mine is based on facts. With the evidence that is out there on Mark McGwire, the only way one can come to the conclusion of him taking steroids must be based on assumptions. Also, one doesnt need to give proof for a negative. Because there is unsatisfactory proof of steroid ingestion, the issue shouldnt be factored in the decision whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with CmdrBretz. Furthermore, if I were in charge of publishing a sports records book, I would include neither him nor Barry Bonds in any discussion of home run records.

Because of your assumptions? If they tested positive for steroids at some point, then I would make a note of it, but until then its not right to discredit them. For example, Rafael Palmeiro, who had over 500 home runs and 3000 hits, actually tested positive for a steroid, and I would make it shown that he was a steroid user.

I understand you may have your doubts of certain ball players integrity to the rules, which I do too, but a doubt that is unsupported by fact is kept to myself when making an objective decision on the situation.

The purpose of sports is to show off your natural or developed abilities...ones that you have honed, through hard work.

First, it depends what the rules of the sport are. If there is no rule against steroid usage, it could be moral to take them. The purpose of playing in a sport is to play to the best of your ability that is according to the rule. Why should one be discredited for taking steroids when they are not against the rules? Because they improve your ability? They are supplements just like protein powders and sports drinks, should you be thought of as an immoral person if you take those supplements too?

Second, just because someone takes steroids doesnt make them a great ball player suddenly. Their skills still mostly matter on natual ability, work ethic, and mindset. Look at Jason Giambi. He tested positive for steroids a couple years ago, and yet last year he put up nearly the same stats as he did during his steroid years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...