Skip to content

Will anti-McGwire stance among Hall voters soften over time?

Jan 9, 2012, 3:09 AM EDT

mcgwire--mark-120108.standard[1]

The announcement of the Hall of Fame vote will come in at 3 p.m. ET on Monday, and it will be interesting to see who is elected to Cooperstown.

Will it be Barry Larkin and no one elsePerhaps. Some even suggest that no one will be elected, which would be bad news for those who have been waiting awhile, what with a monster class coming in 2013 that will include Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mike Piazza, Sammy Sosa, Craig Biggio and Curt Schilling.

One thing is for certain: Mark McGwire isn’t going to get in – not this year anyway. The man with 583 career home runs, a .394 on-base percentage and .982 OPS doesn’t have a prayer. Not with the steroid stain on his resume. Some people thought McGwire would get a boost among voters after he came clean about his PED use, but his vote totals dropped to 19.8 percent last year, down from 23.7 percent in 2010. The stance of writers on PEDs seems to be mostly hardening over time, not softening.

But the 15-year window for induction into Cooperstown is a long one, and perception can change over time.

Look at Bert Blyleven. Over the 14 years he was on the ballot, voters began to realize that the stats being cited to keep him out of Cooperstown (chiefly winning percentage and home runs allowed) were not as important as ERA and WHIP and WAR, not to mention his impressive longevity.

Of course arguing statistics is not the same as taking on the issue of steroid cheats, and it seems unlikely in the current climate that opinions will change enough to ever earn McGwire a nod to Cooperstown, but you never know. Case in point:

In the wake of the St. Louis Cardinals’ stunning and surprising run to the World Series, the New York Times’ esteemed George Vecsey wrote a brief and interesting blog post titled “Rethinking McGwire.”

In it, Vecsey admitted that despite his issues with McGwire’s use of performance-enhancing drugs as a player, he enjoyed watching the ex-slugger in uniform, coaching the Cardinals hitters on the way to a championship. The whole thing gave Vecsey, as he put it, “a positive vibration.”

That didn’t mean Vecsey would change his mind about McGwire – “or some other bulked-up sluggers of the past generation” – being worthy of the Hall of Fame, but he admitted that his perception has changed – if only slightly.

“Maybe I’m getting soft-hearted or soft-headed, but I found myself glad to see him in uniform.”

George Vecsey, a strong voice against putting steroid users in Cooperstown, has softened a bit. It’s a small thing, perhaps, but interesting and surprising nonetheless. It makes you wonder if perceptions could eventually change enough to earn McGwire that trip to Cooperstown. If a championship won quietly and humbly as a one-of-the-guys hitting coach can help McGwire soften the heart of one baseball writer, what will the passage of time bring?

The steroid era is a murky one, made even more difficult by the fact that it is impossible to tell who juiced and who didn’t. Everyone assumes that Ken Griffey Jr. never took anything, while many seem to assume that Jeff Bagwell did – yet there has not been any evidence made public to support either theory. And there have been enough less-than-bulky players implicated (Ryan Franklin, Jason Grimsley, to name two) to destroy the notion that you can spot a juicer just by looking at him.

We simply don’t know.

It’s confusing as hell, and voters are left to fend for themselves. Do you let in the otherwise no-doubters who have been connected to PEDs – like Bonds and Clemens – and if so, where do you draw that line? Do you punish only those players who have failed tests or admitted drug use, or do you punish the whole era and elect no one? Do you rely on your own eye test – a horribly flawed method that some will undoubtedly employ – to pick and choose? Or do you just assume the playing field was level and elect the best players from the era?

There are no clear-cut answers to these questions, and methods for how voters handle them are going to spend a good many years evolving. As the voting field changes, as new information comes to light – not just as to who was using, but as to the actual impact of PEDs on on-field performance, as opinions change and new voices are heard, the process will evolve.

Will it evolve enough for Mark McGwire to get his wish? He has nine more years on the ballot, and then there is always the Veterans Committee after that. It seems unlikely now, but hardly impossible.

Only time will tell.

You can follow Bob on Twitter here, or if Facebook is your thing, be his friend here.

  1. lgwelsh1 - Jan 9, 2012 at 5:11 AM

    I think Mark has made peace with himself and really doesn’t care about the HoF. Mark is a good man who made a mistake. He has done a great job being a hitting coach and was a big part of the Card’s winning the World Series.

    Players look up to him and he is revered among the current and ex players. If he gets in great, if he doesn’t I’m sure he isn’t losing any sleep over it.

    • ptfu - Jan 9, 2012 at 9:21 AM

      “I think Mark…really doesn’t care about the HoF.”
      I’ll bet he wants to be in the HoF, but I can believe that he’s at peace whether he’s in or not. This is pure speculation, so if you got a quote that says otherwise then please share.

      “Players look up to him and he is revered among the current and ex players.”
      The Veterans Committee has a lot of players on it. If Big Mac impressed those guys then that’s his ticket in, if he exhausts his 15-year BBWAA window.

  2. tominma - Jan 9, 2012 at 6:41 AM

    I sure hope the stance doe NOT soften!! These guys cheated and their performances are tainted. Personally, I dont think that any of the cheaters should be elected to the Hall of Fame while they are alive. *

    • The Baseball Idiot - Jan 9, 2012 at 7:13 AM

      So what your saying is, you’ve never personally done anything wrong in your entire life, that you have regrets for, and which now gives you the right to pass judgement on everyone else?

      As well as just being a sanctimonious prick?

      • dexterismyhero - Jan 9, 2012 at 11:12 AM

        We won’t be elected into the Baseball HoF or any other HoFeither.

        I’m sure everyone sans Barry Bonds has regrets on doing something wrong or stupid.

        So my answer would be an absolute “NO” also.

        Talk about being a sanctimonious prick. Eff Off Bball Idiot

      • bozosforall - Jan 9, 2012 at 1:13 PM

        Go EFF yourself, Dexterisahomoe. You are one of the most santimonious pricks here.

    • paperlions - Jan 9, 2012 at 7:46 AM

      The problem is that dozens of cheaters are already in the HOF, and most of those seem to bother absolutely no one…so if cheaters already in the HOF (and people in the “know” say that steroid users have already been elected, though they refuse to say who) don’t bother people with opinions like yours, why would other cheaters getting into the HOF bother you?

      I really do want to know this, because it is logically inconsistent….especially considering that the evidence strongly suggests that steroids are not even the most effective PED for baseball players.

    • henryd3rd - Jan 9, 2012 at 7:46 AM

      I’m sure McGuire really looses sleep over what you think. Especially while he cashes his deferred compensation from MLB. Look he was a entertainer and nothing he did was illegal at the time. Plus most of the suits in MLB knew what was going on and they looked the other way while the turnstiles turned and the dollars rolled in.

      Plus so many folks who have their hackles up about McGuire seem to have forgotten that he never lied under oath, beat his girlfriend / wife or molested any children. Better than I can say about a lot of louts who are presently enshrined in the HOF.

      • aceshigh11 - Jan 9, 2012 at 10:04 AM

        Did nothing illegal?

        Isn’t procuring steroids without a prescription “illegal”?

      • CJ - Jan 9, 2012 at 10:42 AM

        aces, Andro was an over the counter thing at that time and I believe there’s not enough evidence of anything illegal in his case IIRC. could be wrong tho.

      • aceshigh11 - Jan 9, 2012 at 10:59 AM

        Thanks for the info.

        I remember him also being scrutinized for using creatine as well, which was also over-the-counter.

        I’m falling into the trap of mixing fact with hearsay, since Canseco has described “shooting up” McGwire when they were on the A’s, and I’m guessing anything injectable was illegal at the time.

  3. spoiledbratswhosuck - Jan 9, 2012 at 7:12 AM

    MAJOR LEAGUE sports is nothing than major league $$$$$$. Cheating players are to be revered. The end justifies the means. Why would any fool pay $10 for a hot dog and $100 for a ticket to watch crap like that?

    • Old Gator - Jan 9, 2012 at 8:27 AM

      Why would anyone pay $10 for a ballpark hot dog anyway? Ten bucks worth of tendons, ligaments, lips, snouts, rectal linings….byproducts the buzzards wouldn’t settle on. Ten bucks to gulp carcinogenic preservatives like sodium nitrite and so-called flavor enhancers that are really flavor suppressants to keep you from gagging on the natural taste of ground up pig snouts, nutrient-negative bleached flour stale buns and processed sugar or sodium-heavy condiments? Ten bucks worth of converting your esophagus into a little Love Canal? Ten bucks worth of fertilizer for your tumor garden? Hey, and be sure to drink some pond water the next time you visit Mexico while you’re at it!

      A little high school physiology was more than enough to disabuse me of eating a superfund site on a bun many, many years ago.

      • Old Gator - Jan 9, 2012 at 8:32 AM

        Incidentally, while we’re at it, you can vector this same fine nutrition to your cells for maybe forty cents a glurp! at Publix or Winn Dixie or Kroger by buying family packs of gutreamers – and then, instead of spending another ten or fifteen bucks on an overpriced scorecard or yearbook, you can buy some tabloids at the checkout counter and do the same thing to your brain that you’re doing to the rest of your system!

      • Old Gator - Jan 9, 2012 at 8:33 AM

        …and don’t even get me started on those horrible horsemeat and Velveeta™ sandwiches.

      • WhenMattStairsIsKing - Jan 9, 2012 at 1:25 PM

        Gator, you’re making me want to go vegan :)

  4. Gardenhire's Cat - Jan 9, 2012 at 7:46 AM

    So you’re telling me there’s a chance… *YEAH!*

  5. paperlions - Jan 9, 2012 at 7:50 AM

    Considering that Vescey still does not appear to have studied steroids, what they do, and what they don’t do, and chooses instead to stay firmly mounted on his high horse….I’ll vote for him being soft-headed. It is clear that he enjoys moralizing and seems to prefer to do so in ignorance, as it is much more challenging to moralize when you become informed on a subject.

  6. CJ - Jan 9, 2012 at 8:31 AM

    If Bagwell doesn’t get in, which seems likely, then I’m not sure why next year’s class is referred to as “monster” in the article.

    Bonds, Clemens – very high-profile and well documented cases
    Sosa – not sure offhand if there’s ever been any substantiative proof, but there’s far more evidence against him than Bagwell.
    Piazza – well documented cases of back acne clearly indicate he has no place in the hall.
    Biggio – played alongside Bagwell for years and years. Had to have done the same stuff Bagwell did.
    Schilling – was an angry man (roid rage?). And besides everyone knows you can’t pitch on a bleeding ankle like he did without roids. Clearly this proves that none of them belong in the hall.

    Yes, that’s almost entirely sarcasm and it highlights the fact that if they don’t start putting even suspected users in the hall like Bagwell then it’ll be quite some time before another year where more than one candidata gains entry into the Hall. And that’ll cause such a severe backlog of deserving candidates that they won’t possibly be able to catch up from and it could potentially destroy the HOF if they’re not careful. They need to get this right this year or there will be a huge problem down the road. Give them their own wing if that’s what it takes to get the voters off of their high horses, but get it right for crying out loud.

  7. stoutfiles - Jan 9, 2012 at 8:47 AM

    If we’re going to let people who lied about cheating and then later confessed…if we’re letting them in the hall then we might as well let Pete Rose in as well. All or nothing.

    • The Baseball Idiot - Jan 9, 2012 at 8:51 AM

      Rose didn’t cheat. He bet on baseball, and his own team. That is the cardinal sin of baseball.

      Big difference between that and steroids.

      Besides, if you let Rose in, then you have to let Shoeless Joe in.

      • CJ - Jan 9, 2012 at 9:06 AM

        I’d be fine with both. Rose did his time and Shoeless Joe should never have been banned for throwing the series when he went .400 during the thing. His induction is about a century overdue IMO.

      • tomtravis76 - Jan 9, 2012 at 12:28 PM

        Too bad everyone is dead who would have any knowledge of truth about Shoeless Joe. A Re -trial would be great with todays technolgy. Sounds like an ESPN Film.

    • JBerardi - Jan 9, 2012 at 10:24 AM

      Why are people so convinced that Rose never used steroids, anyway? Steroids existed during his career, and Rose’s whole thing was a willingness to do anything to win. Does anyone really think that Rose would have turned down the opportunity to inject himself with something that would make him stronger/faster/angrier? He would have jumped on that in half a second… and he just might have.

    • bozosforall - Jan 9, 2012 at 1:14 PM

      Aaron admitted to cheating by using “greenies”. You gonna lobby to kick him out?

  8. brewcrewfan54 - Jan 9, 2012 at 8:57 AM

    These guy don’t care about the Hall as much as us fans do. They didn’t do steroids to get in the Hall of Fame they did them to keep getting that Major League paycheck. Since nobody is taking away the money they made so it is still mission accomplished. Besides, the voters have let several fringe guys in lately so the award has become watered down anyways. Maybe a year of nobody getting in is a good thing.

    • CJ - Jan 9, 2012 at 9:57 AM

      I think that’s oversimplifying just a tad. If you think that one’s status as an HOFer has absolutely no bearing on any future earning oppurtinities, or that it doesn’t have any impact on memoribilia values that some businesses actually depend on, then that’s just not the case.

      In addition, no one getting in would be a bad thing because, whether any of us like it or not it’ll set a precedent that will make it difficult–if not altogether impossible–for multiple candidates to be inducted at any point in the next 5-10 years at least.

      Yes, the hall is watered down, but that doesn’t we should shut the doors and not let anyone in for the next several years. And if you think the Hall is suffering financially now, just give another 5 years with a max of one inductee per year and see what happens.

      • brewcrewfan54 - Jan 9, 2012 at 10:16 AM

        Come on. These guys weren’t roiding up for post career money making opportunities. Yes it goes with it but it was all at the moment type thing and I certainly wont blame them for it. And if nobody is deserving of being in the Hall why elect someone just to elect someone? The Hall of Fame is supposed to be the highest honor a player can achieve for accomplishmenton the field. They shouldn’t just put someone in because he just happens to be the best they have to choose from that year. That being said I inderstand it is also a business and they nedd to do what they need to do to keep it going. And I fail to see how not electing someone this uear would affect letting in multiple candidates next year or down the road unless maybe my understanding of the voting process is lacking.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 9, 2012 at 10:19 AM

      They didn’t do steroids to get in the Hall of Fame they did them to keep getting that Major League paycheck

      Answer honestly. If you were making $20K a year at a job, hoping for one day to make it into management at some company you’ve wanted to work for your entire life, and someone told you they had a way to make it, increase your salary 10-15 fold, without doing anything against the rules, are you saying you wouldn’t take that opportunity?

      • brewcrewfan54 - Jan 9, 2012 at 10:33 AM

        If you read what I wrote I said I don’t blame them. If there was a pill I could take to be better at my chosen profession you better believe I would take it in a headtbeat.

      • stlouis1baseball - Jan 9, 2012 at 1:30 PM

        Church: You are 100% on the money.
        Put another way…MLB doesn’t test.
        You are a 31 year old Centerfielder who has a 25 year old “hulked up” Lou Ferigno biting at your ankles to take your spot.
        It’s your livliehood on the line.
        What are you gonna’ do?

    • CJ - Jan 9, 2012 at 10:40 AM

      if you read my comment, I didn’t say they did used to get in the HOF. But you stated that nobody is taking money from them, which isn’t exaclty true either.

      Bagwell is deserving in any year, but I can see you’re asking for me to clarify. I’m going to suppose that about 40% of voters are OK with letting users in, based on some of the numbers from previous years and what I expect to see happen this year.

      Suspected users that I’d expect to be on approximately 40% of ballots next year: Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Piazza, Bagwell.

      The fact that some combination of those 5 names (and potentially others I may have missed) could easily be on 40% of the ballots next year makes it incredibly more difficult for deserving “clean” candidates to be on 75% of the ballot.

      • brewcrewfan54 - Jan 9, 2012 at 10:54 AM

        Considering voters can vote for up to 10 players I don’t see it ever being much of a problem.

      • CJ - Jan 9, 2012 at 10:59 AM

        so if 40% disagree on the first 5 they’re going to magically agree on the next 5? How is that reasonable to assume?

        Oh and I left of Biggio, which then leaves 4 spots.

      • brewcrewfan54 - Jan 9, 2012 at 11:06 AM

        You’re turning this into a math problem based on the voters just wanting to make suspected or known steroid users wait a couple years to get in.

      • CJ - Jan 9, 2012 at 11:31 AM

        it took you 5 posts to figure that out?

        It’s simple math based on the number of voters who think they should go in compared to those who don’t. And that simple math will affect the candidacy of the innocents, especially beginning next year when many suspected users are up, which in turn will create a log jam that will prevent deserving candidates from getting in for years. It’s not opinion, it’s math.

        If you have a problem with using math, then don’t look at WAR, average, ERA or anything else to determine candidacy either.

      • brewcrewfan54 - Jan 9, 2012 at 12:11 PM

        You’re looking at things a little to scientifically. The deserving guys will get in and the undeserving and borderline guys wont. Doesn’t seem like such a problem to me.

      • CJ - Jan 9, 2012 at 1:47 PM

        the “deserving guys” can’t get in if there’s enough of a vocal minority voting for the guys that don’t.

        We’ll find out next year what happens I guess. My guess is over the next decade 8 people get in at the most, barring a radical change either way regarding the suspected users. I think that seriously jeopardizes the future of the HOF both in terms of its legitimacy and sustainability. You don’t seem to think so. Neither’s going to convince the other, so we’ll just see what happens.

  9. popibrown - Jan 9, 2012 at 10:17 AM

    I have an opinion no one seems to have addressed. Steroids, PED’s, whatever, certainly increase size, strength, endurance, etc. What they do not do is increase the one thing necessary to succeed in the major leagues; talent. They don’t help your ability to hit a baseball, which is quite a talent. To pick up the spin right out of a pitcher’s hand, to anticipate the next pitch in the constant chess match between pitcher and hitter. Yes, you are stronger; but the ability to hit period already exists and is not amplified. Given that, I am torn between allowing these players into the HOF or not. They were cheaters. A difficult issue that will not be resolved to anyone’s complete satisfaction.

    • paperlions - Jan 9, 2012 at 10:30 AM

      This has been stated by many people, but those that vilify steroids just ignore it….just as they ignore the fact that no one has been able to isolate a PED signal based on data (indeed, the strongest signal to date is the decline in offense than coincided with testing for amphetamines) and that data suggest that changes in ball composition have had a much greater effect on power numbers through the history of baseball than anything else.

      As soon as you try to understand the possible effects steroids might have had instead of just frothing at the mouth at the mention of steroids, you are immediately labeled a steroids apologist.

    • CJ - Jan 9, 2012 at 10:34 AM

      you’re exactly right. And there are people that have cheated that are already in the HOF, using greenies, etc.

      For that reason, and for the reason that NOT electing them will result in setting a scary precedent that will create a huge logjam that will potentially result in adversely affecting the HOF for years, I don’t see how they can legitmately keep these guys out, morally or otherwise. It’s a no win situation, really. The BBWAA will either have to live with themselves for letting cheaters in, or they’ll need to live with the consequences of not doing so, which will likely prevent legitimate candidates that are deserving from getting in for many years and causing additional apathy toward the hall which would certainly negatively impact it’s already somewhat bleak-looking bottomline.

      It’s my position that the former is the lesser of the two evils.

    • davidpom50 - Jan 9, 2012 at 1:51 PM

      You’re very, very, VERY wrong. Simple statistics and science: Greater muscle mass = greater bat speed = greater ball velocity off the bat = greater BABIP. All proven facts. To say “the ability to hit period already exists and is not amplified” is wrong. Yes, it already exists, but it is absolutely, without a doubt amplified. No, steroids won’t turn me into Mark McGwire or Barry Bonds, but they’ll absolutely turn a guy with a peak as a good high school player into a fringe college, a guy with a peak as a career minor league player into a fringe Major League player, a guy with a peak as a decent Major League player into an All-Star, and a guy who’s a surefire 1st ballot Hall of Famer into late-30s Barry Bonds.

      • CJ - Jan 9, 2012 at 2:00 PM

        We would be “very, very, VERY wrong” if greater muscle mass was a side effect of many of the steroids that these men have been ACCUSED of using. But it isn’t, so we’re not.

        Thanks for trying though!

      • davidpom50 - Jan 9, 2012 at 2:06 PM

        Except that every study ever proves anabolic steroids absolutely increase muscle mass and strength. A short list:
        http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101
        http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2876%2990001-5/abstract
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11701431

        Care to back your statement up with a single published study?

      • davidpom50 - Jan 9, 2012 at 2:09 PM

        Oh yeah, I should mention that while I think it’s good MLB has attempted to get ‘roids out of the game, I think keeping users out of the Hall is a really bad idea.

      • CJ - Jan 9, 2012 at 2:22 PM

        I’m more than familiar with clinical research, thank you. I sort of do that for a living :)

        but in the cases being named in this article we’re not talking about anabolic steroids are we?

        Care to back up your accusation with substantive proof?

      • CJ - Jan 9, 2012 at 2:23 PM

        I should’ve used the more general “performance enhancers” term, but you mentioned steroids and I thoughtlessly regurgitated the same term in my post. Sorry for the murkiness.

      • davidpom50 - Jan 9, 2012 at 2:31 PM

        Uh… I thought the post was about McGwire, who admitted using anabolic steroids… Let me go back and check.

        Yep. McGwire. Anabolic steroids.

        I think there needs to be more research into HGH, but you’re right about current knowledge on that one – which will probably mean players won’t keep using it, unless there’s a serious placebo effect involved for some of them. However, this article was about a guy who admitted using anabolic steroids.

      • davidpom50 - Jan 9, 2012 at 2:37 PM

        CJ, you’ve peaked my interest… what do you do for a living?

      • CJ - Jan 9, 2012 at 2:43 PM

        I work for one of the leading CROs in the pharma industry, helping design and build databases to cleanly, effectively and efficiently capture and manage the clinical trial data that’s used for submissions to regulatory authorities.

        That data is the used by regulatory agencies to determine the safety and efficacy of said drugs (among several other things) and is ultimately used to determine whether a drug makes it to market or not.

        Pretty cool stuff. Of course, if you’re familiary with the industry you’ll have no idea what the heck I just said, haha.

      • CJ - Jan 9, 2012 at 2:44 PM

        wow I butchered that last line.

        EDIT!

        “Of course, if you’re not familiar with the industry, you’ll have no idea what the heck I just said, haha.”

      • CJ - Jan 9, 2012 at 2:49 PM

        I must’ve missed his confession, but if that’s the case then yeah, we agree there and I take back the smart remark from earlier.

        Anabolic steroids are well noted to enhance performance, but in many of the cases of the other users (suspected and otherwise), the benefits of the substances they’ve been accused of using doesn’t help them hit home runs, but rather helps them recover faster and stay on the field.

        Yes, that does enhance performance, but it won’t help a guy hit 60 homers a year or anything like that.

  10. rkl0244 - Jan 9, 2012 at 10:34 AM

    Bonds doesn’t need in either. He’s just as guilty as McQuire. The difference is black and white.

    • kiwicricket - Jan 9, 2012 at 11:16 AM

      Please try again…

    • dexterismyhero - Jan 9, 2012 at 11:16 AM

      haha rkl!

      touche

  11. hopelessinseattle - Jan 9, 2012 at 2:55 PM

    Dude’s a juicer, how can you tell what his accomplishments would have been had he not juiced? Was the juice responsible for an extra 200 homers? I don’t know and neither does anybody else. As a result he can’t be in the HOF and its his own fault.

    • CJ - Jan 9, 2012 at 3:00 PM

      I hereby nominate you to be the one who will be informing Mr. Aaron he’s been kicked out of the HOF.

      All many of us here are asking for is consistency.

  12. qcubed3 - Jan 9, 2012 at 3:06 PM

    This debate seems incredibly disingenuous to me. Coming off the 1994 strike, baseball’s popularity was declining dramatically, but then the virtual miracle of the 1998 HR record chase between McGuire and Bonds catapults the game back into the American consciousness.

    The signs of steroid use were obvious, as players became giants and offensive records were being destroyed year after year. People returned to the ballpark, baseball’s revenues rose, and the commissioner and the owners rode the coattails of these players the whole time into the next golden era.

    Ultimately, the public’s disgust with steroid use, plus that disastrous Senate hearing, caused the commissioner and owners, and now the BBWOA, to turn against the very men who reinvigorated the game.

    I have no reservations in saying that steroids have been both good and bad for baseball. But I think caution should be exercised when making blanket statements about these men being “cheaters” and the like. These men were paid well to perform, and they did use substances that enhanced their performance and longevity, but the game itself was on its knees praying for a savior. It got it, and the game never cared to measure the size of the saviors’ biceps or the contents of the saviors’ locker.

  13. toosano - Jan 9, 2012 at 3:42 PM

    If we can prove that none of the previous HOF members never took PED’s then keep him out. SO, what’s really keeping him out? Stuck up, self righteous sports writers.

  14. aronmantoo - Jan 9, 2012 at 7:31 PM

    Cheaters do not belong in the HOF

    • dnc6 - Jan 9, 2012 at 11:11 PM

      Heroic men like Ty Cobb and Gaylord Perry never would have tried to break or even slightly bend the rules to gain an advantage over an opponent.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Who's to blame for Cubs tarp fiasco?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (3960)
  2. M. Cuddyer (2672)
  3. K. Bryant (2405)
  4. G. Richards (2200)
  5. A. Garcia (2097)
  1. W. Myers (2040)
  2. A. McCutchen (2035)
  3. J. Werth (2001)
  4. H. Ramirez (1902)
  5. Y. Molina (1868)