How is McGwire not in baseball's Hall of Fame and Michael Irvin is in football's?
Question:McGwire has never been convicted or even charged with anything. Sure, most of us believe he was on steroids, but "innocent until PROVEN guilty" a popular little catchphrase in the USA (supposed to be the law as well, but whether or not it's treated that way it debatable). Michael Irvin, on the other hand, was charged multiple times for drug-related offenses. I guess a proven coked-up receiver is deserving, but an alleged steroid user isn't?
Answers:
"In the park HRs" and "out the park HRs"?
Because the people that vote on this stuff in baseball are too high and mighty to see through clouds of suspicion and vote someone in or out based on individual achievement. Saying that they are suspicious of Big Mac, even though it was never proven he took 'roids gives these idiots an out for not being able to decide if he should be in based on his #s, which I would debate, too. (He did admit to taking another product, Andro, that's proven to make you bigger, but that's no big deal).Just like with Bonds, show me the proof and we can decide one way or the other about his records, but until then, let's enjoy it, get Hank in the stands, b/c it would be good for baseball, and move the f*ck on. Too many guys were probably doing it back in the day to single a few out.
Long live the long ball.
Do you think there are more Mets fans than Yankee fans?
I don't believe Michael Irvin is in the HOF in Canton. Besides, Irvin came clean about his drug use. Everyone knows he did it including him. Also his cocaine addiction did not potentially damage the integrity of the game itself. McGwire using steroids, which he still denies or ignores when asked, damages the sport because he broke records unnaturally. Again, Irvin is not in the pro football HOF, and hopefully neither will make it in.How do I find out how much my signed baseball is worth?
Two words...Grand Jury...The cloud of steroid use over MLB is the reason he is not in. Mike got in finally, but not the first time. His of the field antics didn't impact the game the way Big Mac's alleged steroid use does.
Who else thinks the Red Sox get rid of too many good players.?
Michael Irving's drug use did not make him a better player...just a bad boy that likes to do blow...after all he was a Hurricane..glad to see THE PLAYMAKER in the Hall of Fame!IF and I say IF McGwire was doing roids.that would be performance enhancing...therefore cheating the sport
Kinda funny the "break Maris' record" race...is not happening anymore since the whistle blew.
Plus baseball is tougher that the NFL on these things anyways...look at the Pete Rose
Cocaine isn't performance enhancing.it's recreational...i am pretty sure he didn't do it during the game...he would have blown his heart out on the field.
Are all new york yankee fans thugs at heart? are they jealous of boston?
McGwire and Irvin are two different issues. No, McGwire hasn't been proven guilty of using steroids, but on March 17, 2005, when asked before Congress if he had taken steroids, he said "I'm not here to talk about the past". That meant , yes he had taken steroids. If he had said "no", that would have been perjury if it is proven one day he had taken steroids. Sportswriters gave him about 27% of the votes he needed to get into the Hall of Fame.I am not an Irvin fan. I change the channel whenever he's on ESPN, I never could stand him. Because of his drug charges and legal problems, he had to wait two more years before the sportswriters voted him in, and now he made it.
As much as I do not like Irvin, cocaine does not help performance like steroids do. McGwire had a great rookie season then got worse over the next several years before he bulked up. Steroids made him the player he was when he hit 70 home runs. Irvin may have been "coked up", but his performance was not enhanced by that. And as much as I hate to admit it, he worked hard to be a great receiver .
I highly doubt that Irvin was "coked-up" on the field. Does coke make you bigger as in the case of Bonds or McGwire? No. Does it make you faster, as with Ben Johnson? No, and a player on coke will get his butt kicked by someone who's clean every day of the week. Do you really believe that a player who is high, will have a physical or mental edge over a guy who is clean? Come on, you are smarter than that. If that was true, why don't all players snort coke before a game? And BTW a coke high will not last an entire game, unless Irvin snorted in the locker room at halftime And if Irvin took crack during a game, he would have to be taking it about every 10 minutes as the high produced by crack is very short but powerful, which makes it the most addictive stimulant out there.
Get educated about this stuff before you even try to challenge me.
Scoreboard!! Irvin won the rings. Also, and addiction is a different animal then a guy who bulks up to get an edge on others.
The Yankees in last place for their division.. How funny is that?
the Baseball HOF has higher standards than Footballs HOF.Even Jim Rice isn't in the hall for reasons ill never understand.
Micheal Irvin is in the hall of fame and mark does have a ring with Oakland. but the debate will always be there. Mark probably took steroids and for that he is going to have to be judged for the rest of his life.Irvin did cocaine 2 very different drugs. In baseball they only want the classiest people in the hall of fame or Pete rose would be in it which he should be because he never did anything illegal to influence the outcome of a game. Now football on the other hand is a contact sport and the players are rougher around the edges and because of that you are going to have some less than desirable people in the hall of fame take Lawrence Taylor for instance probably 1 of the greatest defensive players ever if not the greatest and he has a tarnished reputation. It comes down to baseball not wanting the guys in the HOF that might tarnish its image
Because the MLB and NFL are different. In the NFL they tolerate the bad boy image more than in MLB. I understand what you're trying to say, but that's just how it is.
Does anyone know who the marketing guy is at the White Sox?
Reporters saw drugs on his locker in 1998.So yes he has been charged with something.NFL will let anybody in the HOF.
Big Mac might make it once he is dead and gone.
Who is considered to be the best to ever play the game of baseball?
First of all, I wouldn't consider McGwire's overall career anything outstanding. Seriously, what did he do besides home runs?1) Does a player with a career batting average of .263 legitimately belong in the Hall of Fame?
2) Does a player with 6 triples in almost 6200 career at-bats legitimately belong in the Hall of Fame?
3) Does a player with 12 stolen bases in 16 seasons legitimately belong in the Hall of Fame?
The ONLY impressive things about McGwire were 70 HR in a season and 583 in his career. And when suspicion is cast as to whether artificial means were used to collect those stats, thereby discrediting their authenticity, exactly what do you have left that can justify putting him in Cooperstown? The baseball writers like all-around players. McGwire was not an all-around player by even the wildest stretch of the imagination. Even without the steroid issue, I think many of them would have a hard time voting him in based on his overall record. You can say that every 500 HR player got in, but no other 500 HR player in MLB history ever hit below .270 for his career.
Irvin doesn't REALLY deserve to be in, either. But they voted for him.
JAR, you claim that Pete Rose never did anything illegal to influence the outcome of a game. Wake up! Pete Rose BET on Cincinnati Reds' games, sometimes AGAINST the Cincinnati Reds, while he was MANAGER of the Cincinnati Reds! #1, betting on baseball is in fact illegal in the state of Ohio, which is where the Cincinnati Reds play. #2, if you think that a manager can never influence the outcome of a game, you don't know a thing about baseball.
More Questions & Answers...