2007-08-12 22:30:47 · 10 answers · asked by mojo569 4 in Sports ➔ Baseball
I honestly don't think McGwire should be in the Hall period. Other then his homeruns, I don't think he was all that great.
Bonds was a great player before all the steroid accusations started. Even if he didn't take them, he probably would have ended up a Hall of Fame player.
2007-08-12 23:48:02 · answer #1 · answered by Dave 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
MM was a career .262 hitter. Bonds without the steroids was a .288 hitter in his prime. Now, after the BALCO bust, he is back down to .274. BB had other skills to enhance his stats but those skills are largely gone now.
Neither man has ever failed a drug test but the testing program is so weak that it's easy to avoid getting caught. MM has been on the ballot once and got about 23% (IIRC), finishing 9th. Several non-Hall-deserving guys finished higher so unless there is some turn around in the minds of the voters, his chances look slim.
Before Bonds becomes eligible for the HoF the evidence of his drug use will come to light and he won't get into the Hall either.
2007-08-13 00:55:45 · answer #2 · answered by harmonv 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because McGwire was a legitamite home-run hitter who could break the record without steroids! He broke the rookie record as a skinny rookie! McGwire took andro - an over the counter supliment available at Wal-Mart. McGwire's workout regimine was legendary and it still took him 15 years to get big- slowly!. Bonds blew up in one day like he got inflated at the gas station!
2007-08-13 01:09:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
In my personal opinion, neither should be. However, McGwire admitted taking performance enhancing drugs. Bonds continues to deny "knowingly" taking any. Things might go better on Bonds if he would finally be honest with the people.
2007-08-12 22:47:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't think either should, sadly, Bonds was probably a Hall of Famer before he started juicing.
2007-08-13 00:03:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Simple... whatever McGwire (with a "W") was taking, if anything, wasn't against the rules at that time.
Several pro players (and amateurs) have been associated with illegal substances even though they were prescribed by their doctors (as Lance Armstrong).
Most sportswriters that signed off on McGwire at voting time did so because of the DC hearing.
If they don't say what you want to hear... well... you know how that goes.
2007-08-13 00:56:36 · answer #6 · answered by Jay9ball 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Nope, I cannot, because I consider both of them Hall-worthy.
2007-08-13 05:10:36 · answer #7 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who said he should be there? A huge majority of the HOF voters are already on record as saying they wouldn't vote for him.
2007-08-13 00:02:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I can't tell you why because McGwire shouldn't be there either. Both are cheaters.
2007-08-13 04:50:13 · answer #9 · answered by Indy Yankee Fan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They BOTH should be sitting on the bench with "Charlie Hustle" !
2007-08-13 02:07:03 · answer #10 · answered by 1wiseguy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋