PDA

View Full Version : If they elect Mark McGuire into the Hall of Fame


Holt Politician
11-27-2006, 06:12 PM
Should they elect Pete Rose?

One, possibly, cheated on the game (steroids). While the other bet on the game, with no evidence that he tried to purposely lose to gain on his bets.

I know cheating is common around these parts, so I'd certainly like to hear some opinions by the pro-ucming crowd of pimp, lucky, rob, and the like.

Gelton
11-27-2006, 09:35 PM
Those are two different offenses and should be treated differently. Not 'if one is okay, the other is' (or vice versa). Thats a falacy in this situations and in most. they have no relevance to each other, only that they both broke rules.

Kind of how since you think think its okay to drop items on ppl because they UCM. Most people with life lessons would say do unto others (in this case youre opening UCM with open arms), not an eye for an eye (in this case you're just getting revenge, pointless to any cause).

Who have you helped (or slightly annoyed) by doing this?
Who has the MLB helped (or disgraced) by letting cheaters into the hall of fame?

JJC
11-28-2006, 12:22 AM
There is no legitimate reason to keep Rose out of the hall of fame. His accomplishments that would place him in there are removed from gambling and taking them into consideration is bad sportsmanship on behalf of the HoF members. He wouldn't be inducted as a manager but as the player and the player is clearly HoF material. But this is about personalities, the rule forbidding his entry was enacted because of him after all, and as such he won't get into the HoF til well after his death.

McGwire, on the other hand, is a borderline HoF canidate from the gate without the steriod issue. Replace him with Bonds and you have a much better question. Bonds did do steriods according to at least one account he has given but did so unknowingly. I'm not buying that account. You can't take steroids and not know it and despite the claims it didn't do anything for him there is plenty of photographic proof that it did. The difference between Bonds and McGwire is that Bonds intentionally broke the rules where McGwire, with substances like andro, intentionally skirted around them. Andro wasn't illegal at the time he was using it but I've never been fond of that excuse.

JJC

Erica
11-28-2006, 07:25 AM
How can someone unknowingly take steroids? Not notice the bulk and personality change, not to mention the performance? He's not the first one to claim he didnt know he took them, reminds me of Clinton saying yes he smoked pot, but he did not inhale! And nevermind his disclaimer that he did not have sex with Monica, (she did the inhaling) America to me, seems more like Canada every day now.

Holt Politician
11-28-2006, 07:38 AM
, (she did the inhaling)

To be fair to Monica, I doubt she inhaled that cigar. ;)

Sledge
11-28-2006, 09:24 AM
There is way too much pushing integrity out the door these days.

Bonds and McGuire and Rose and Clinton all knew exactly what they were doing.

They either didn't care, expected that they wouldn't get caught, and/or expected that they would get a little slap on the wrist if they did get caught.

For these reasons, I would vote to never let any of them into the HoF. (especially Clinton)

When a person lives their life, all they ever have that is unique to them is their integrity. Once a person has given that away, there is nothing but an empty shell left behind.

These were not in the order of 'accidents'. Once is an accident. A pattern of these actions is done on purpose.

My 2p.

Gelton
11-28-2006, 08:01 PM
Nice point sledge. While gambling (no direct affect on the game) and steroids (indirectly change the game) are two completely different situations, there is the point of integrity. They have none regardless =)

I don't think integrity should change on whether you enter the HoF because thats obviously a moral opinion of others and shouldn't have an affect on business whatsoever. Betting shouldnt get you kicked out of the HOF, it just exposes the integrity of your actions. People can have their opinons, but changing the play of game is something different. If you change the game in an illegal fashion, then you should get the boot.

BUT this should be decided by the proper authorities, not taken into the hands of people who are just upset over what THEY think is wrong/right. There is no justifying an opinion over morality, no matter how much you believe in it.

Gengis
11-29-2006, 06:44 AM
Rose - yes. If the HoF was a museum of saints, there would be many who would not have made it. He made some mistakes as a manager, but as a player, he deserves to be there for sure. Put him in a separate wing and state that he later bet on baseball, but he deserves to be inducted based on how he played.

McGuire / Bonds - no. They cheated while playing the game, so you can't trust their statistics. If you can't trust their statistics, how can you rate them vs the others already in the hall? How many homeruns would Willie Mays have hit had he used steroids? How much longer could Mickey Mantle have played? If you cheat to get your stats, you can never be justly weighed with others based on stats.

JJC
11-29-2006, 10:12 AM
> Betting shouldnt get you kicked out of the HOF, it just exposes the integrity of your actions.

He never bet as a player and it is for those reasons he should be in the HoF. If you removed all of the people who had faults that would expose the integrity of actions the HoF would be empty. Rose wasn't a great players, skills being considered. He just played the game harder than anyone else. What he lacked in talent he made up for in drive, heart and love for the game. He is the fallen hero of MLB and deserves to be honored for his accomplishments while being shunned for his transgressions. Put him in the hall of fame and keep him out of baseball. Nobody is asking that his records have the astrick by them so keeping him out of the hall of fame makes little sense.

JJC

Sledge
11-29-2006, 01:24 PM
The arguments are good for allowing Rose to go into the HoF.

What he did as an honest player(as far as we know) should be recognized.

I would only like to see him inducted after his death.

That way, he would be an example to those that may follow.

Remember, it took him years and years to finally admit that he screwed up royally.

Erica
11-30-2006, 09:59 AM
To be fair to Monica, I doubt she inhaled that cigar. ;)
Perhaps, but we all know she did'nt exactly swallow that "cigar" either lol. Seriously though, Clinton cant be compared because it was the heat of the moment that clouded his thinking, and I'd still take him over Bush, any day.

Gengis
11-30-2006, 10:38 AM
How did Bill Clinton get on this thread lol? I don't get it, but if you're asking for my take on Billy Boy, he should NOT get into the Baseball HoF. That is based on his Baseball Career, not what he may or may not have done when he was in the Oval Office.

Erica
12-01-2006, 07:42 AM
I brought Clinton up, as a reference, that the, "I didnt know I took steroids" routine reminded me of his false statements, but I didnt say him as an inductee to the HOF, his would be the HOS, (hall of shame) , lol.

Gengis
12-01-2006, 09:16 AM
:)

While we're on the subject of Baseball...we could discuss MVP voting. Pujols said recently that he believes that an MVP should only be awarded to a player on a playoff team, because he felt snubbed this year in the MVP voting.

Should a MVP only come from a playoff team? I can see the point, but I don't agree. I'm not sure I would award to a last place team, but to any team in contention, I think its ok.