they were saying that Mark McGwire shouldn't be in the hall.I would like to know your opinions?And your reasons behind it
2006-08-02 11:41:52 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Baseball
Many of the writers believe that he shouldn't go in on his first year of eligibility because Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken Jr will be going in the same year. They believe that those 2 outclass McGwire by a lot (i do too). He may go in after more time has passed and/or when there aren't as many prominent people in the same group.
If he would just admit it and/or apologize, he'd have a much better chance. Giambi apologized (though he didn't say what for, in order to not incriminate himself) and most seems to be forgiven. Although McGwire pled the 5th during the hearings, it pretty much implies that he did use steroids, even though he didn't admit it one way or the other.
2006-08-02 12:41:38 · answer #1 · answered by Aemilia753 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame in my opinion because of the clout surrounding his '98 season. Because of the way he answered questions in front of Congress (his "forget the past" strategy, attempting to shy around saying yes or no), I think that there's a certain level of uncertainty as to whether or not his home run power was natural, or enhanced, and for that reason, he shouldn't be allowed in the HoF until we know for sure he never used steroids.
2006-08-02 18:59:56 · answer #2 · answered by Nowhere Man 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Until he answers the questions about steroids, he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. He was a .250 hitter with some power and then his stats jumped suddenly without an explanation. Bonds was a Hall of Famer before steroids.
2006-08-02 18:52:48 · answer #3 · answered by Tommy D 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think he should be in the hall cuz hes great at the sport he does
2006-08-02 18:44:58 · answer #4 · answered by emily b 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
IF HE SHOULD THE SO SHOULD DAVE KINGMAN AT LEAST HE DID NOT USE 'ROIDS
2006-08-02 20:56:13 · answer #5 · answered by tony tedeschi 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋