Not till he comes clean...Too many sportswriters want the truth and won't vote for him till that happens...If he ever tells what he knows, he'll go in subsequent years.
Got to be honest Mark!
OBTW...Pete Rose should go in!!!!
2007-01-06 03:15:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by camaulds 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'd say that it is very possible, but the chances are definitely less than 50%. McGwire had a lot of HRs throughout his entire career and helped the league to recover the fans it lost during the 1994 strike. However, with the whole steroids issue becoming more and more important, it'll probably keep him out of the Hall. Remember, Pete Rose, arguably the greatest contact hitter in history didn't make it in because of his actions off the field.
I'd also like to make the point that McGwire's avg. was only .263.
2007-01-06 04:14:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by x 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
He should get their eventually, but he has issues going against him. Steroids being the primary one , did it inflate his home run total? If it did he really does not have much else to make him a strong candidate. He never was mvp, wasn't a great fielder, won only one series. And his embarrasing perormance in front of congress is what he is known for best at this time.
Edit.
Honestly their is no comparison between McGwire and Bonds on the field. Bond is a 7-time MVP wheras McGwire has nil.
2007-01-06 02:59:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by Frank R 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
There's no easy answer. I like McGwire, but he basically admitted with out admitting he did steroids. There's no chance for him to make it on the first ballot. And then the issue becomes will he even get enough votes to be considered on the next ballot or will it fall to the seniors committee? Also, sports writers have to consider if they let McGwire in don't they have to put Bonds in, Palmeiro? What about Canseco? All have HOF numbers. Two were caught red handed two weren't but we still consider them all guilty.
2007-01-06 03:06:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jimmy 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I was an A's season ticket holder from '83-'91 and watched McGwire go from a tall kid to a muscular hunk in his first two seasons. The A's claimed it was a great weight lifting program, but anybody who looked closely knew it had to be more.
At the time (he may have done steroids, remember, he has never said one way or another if he did) it did not carry the same penalty it does now.
This may be his only saving grace, and may be his only loophole in.
It was a thrill to watch both he and Canseco launch them into the stands...Even if they were juiced.
Bottom line...I'd like to see him in the Hall.
2007-01-06 04:17:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by Mike A F 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
NO unlike Barry Bonds he was not a hall of famer before the steroids. if you take the home runs away from both players Bonds will prolly get in on defense credentials however Mark would not. however Mark did help pull Baseball from the basement so they may make an exception. he also may have a chance if apologizes for his cheating and his testimony.
2007-01-06 03:58:30
·
answer #6
·
answered by sigmapi_razz 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
No!! There a big sign outside of the hall that says "Just say no" drugs are bad for you moron.
Hopefully all of the steroids Mac has taken hasn't screwed up his ability to read.
2007-01-06 09:15:55
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think he and Sosa will both go in eventually. Though both are scumbags, (Bonds too) the two of them saved baseball in 98 and it was a season I personally will never forget, watching them duke it out, but it was a bit disturbing how they cuddled each other all the time. Sammy I can still hear you saying MAMMAWIRE YOU DAMAN MAMAWIRE....
2007-01-06 03:11:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by all in on the flop 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well as one sports writer wrote "If McGwire is not willing to discuss his past. I am not willing to review his past for the HOF."
I think that says it all...
2007-01-06 08:31:44
·
answer #9
·
answered by krchamp 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
i hope not steroids is not a good reason to get into the hall of fame.now if they had a hall of shame there`d be alot of players on steroids in it
2007-01-06 02:55:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by lily 4
·
0⤊
0⤋