1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Fine piece on Mark McGwire

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L), Jan 12, 2009.

  1. I know Moddy doesn't want a thread per player but I think this fine piece of writing by Gordon Edes deserves its own thread.

    I don't have a HoF vote but if I did Mark McGwire would not be getting it. Edes does an excellent job explaining why McGwire is getting his vote this time around.


    Edes is one the best baseball writers in the business.
  2. I think that, while Gordon makes a good case for why Writer A should vote for McGwire, he makes a less solid case for why he's changed his mind. I'd be more interested in why he changed his mind beyond, "Time passes" and a quote from one of the Maris boys.
  3. I think Gordon's point was that many people during that period were using stuff and Edes doesn't see himself qualified to decide who was and who wasn't using. I've heard Peter Gammons make the same sort of statement. I disagree with that stance because I think a vote for McGwire is a slap in the face of players like Jim Rice and Andre Dawson who weren't users (my assumption but I think one which is safe to make). I disagree with his vote but I admired the way he made is case.
  4. I also don't disagree with you. Why after 2 years is Edes changing his mind versus waiting another year?
  5. I believe that Gammons has held to that position right from jump, correct?
    It would be interesting to extrapolate from Gordon's piece whether resistance to McGwire is softening generally among the voters.
  6. I'd guess that many are waiting to see if Jim Rice gets elected.

    I think many are looking at electing Rice as almost a make-up call. Rice's numbers look small next to the steroids guys but by electing Rice some think they are doing contrition. Once Rice is elected then McGwire and Clemens and the like could see more support from people who think their conscience has been wiped clean by 3 Hail mary's, two Our fathers and a vote for Jim Ed Rice.
  7. Interesting point on Rice. I've heard that argument made explicitly several times over the past week.
    Is there a corresponding pitcher out there? Some guy who isn't in but, because of the suspicions about Clemens, will get a second look this time?
  8. nmmetsfan

    nmmetsfan Active Member

    Clemens and McGwire should not make a bit of difference in whether Jim Rice gets elected or not.
  9. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    There are going to be a lot of players who come up for induction in the next 10-15 years who are going to have serious questions about whether they used steroids. How do you determine who is worthy and who is not?

    Does someone have to have admitted use or tested positive like Palmeiro?

    What about someone who was HOF worthy before they started using like Bonds and Clemens?

    Which players are going to face the same scrutiny?
  10. Blyleven comes closest to meeting the pitcher's criteria but his growing support is not steroids related as sabermetrics related.

    I don't consider myself a Blyleven guy but the fact that Hal McCoy is voting for him makes me think he's worthy.
  11. Hasn't he already given several, "To hell with it. Who needs it?" interviews in re" the Hall?
  12. Simon_Cowbell

    Simon_Cowbell Active Member

    Yes. Talk about your slippery slopes.

    Rice should be in though, because his numbers look damn good compared with the cheaters'.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page