I'm all for banning players if you have definitive proof of every player who did and did not take steroids. Since this does not exist for the next generation of players coming up for HOF voting, they should be voted in if they deserve it. There is only circumstantial evidence for McGwire. The androstendione or whatever it was he admitted to taking during the late 90s was legal at the time. No need to punish him for that. If you're going to vote against one player for allegedly taking steroids, you have to vote against all the players because there is no evidence they didn't take steriods.
They put in announcers for doing good things for the game, so I think Mark should be in. He is questionable, but he basically saved baseball in the late 90's. Does it really matter if he goes in or not?
It all goes back to being able to wait a little longer to start your swing. The later you can start the better chance you have at figuring out the ball's trajectory and what kind of spin it has. The more information you can take in about a pitch before swinging the better your judge of where it will be when it crosses the plate. That's how being stronger helps a batter swing at better pitches. I liken it to whenever there is an announcement about an asteroid or comet that could be on path to slam into the Earth (the plate). The astronomers make the announcement often soon after they first discover the object and get a rough estimate of it's path (the ball first leaving the pitcher's hand). Then more observations are made and the trajectory of the object is refined and the object is then declared not in danger of hitting Earth (pitch a ball). But say the president had to decide to launch missiles at the asteroid or do nothing and hope it misses Earth based solely on the initial information (swing the bat). There's a greater chance he will make the wrong decision (swing at a ball or take a strike) because he is working with limited information than if he could wait longer and get a better path of the object.
There are doctors who prescribe steroids to help IMPROVE EYESIGHT though. The only thing he has going for him his the massive hoerun numbers. He was a below average fielder, and only hit .263.
I've thought that before as well, as memory seems to be that he wasn't all that good in the field. Certainly not one of the better fielders, like Jeff Bagwell. Looking at the statistics, I'm pretty surprised by McGwire's numbers. Same fielding percentage as Bagwell, and has comparatively good numbers relative to other first basemen. Check it out: http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mcgwima01.shtml
Yeah, but fielding pecentage can be a missleading stat at times. It does nothing to show range. For example, if Bagwell tracks a high pop foul down the line half way out to right field an makes a diving catch, great but his fielding percentage doesn't show it. If on the same foul ball, McGuire takes 3-4 steps, realizes he'll never get there, and stops, he is not penalized for not making it to a ball that others may have.
I agree completely. I was mainly surprised that he didn't have more errors (I know, that's also a subjective stat), and totally forgot he had a Gold Glove in 1990. Speaking of great Stros first basemen, I've been impressed with Berkman's progress at 1B. He's turning into on helluva fielder.
I haven't really been following the Stro's much lately. I'm sure you already know that I'm a long time Red Sox fan. I'm glad to hear Berkman doing well though, I think he is a great ballplayer and a classy individual as well. Maybe I should start paying more attention to Houston though, at least they didn't completely implode down the stretchl.
Apparently you don't believe in following the rules. So what if "everybody" did it. That is a really stupid reason for doing something - particularly taking drugs. That is not an arguement for trash-canning the drug policy or the gambling policy for that matter. Both McGuire and Rose are adults who have to take responsibility for their actions as we all do. They knew the rules and they knew what they were doing. There is no point in having rules if they are not going to be enforced, and these rules are good for sports. By the way, not "everybody" had to take performance-enhancing drugs to perform. Just ask Sammy Sousa.
