and put up nice beefy numbers.

If he had played 15 years later,

1. he would have been in the big leagues 2-3 years earlier, rather than being held down by a racist Red Sox organization

1. he most likely would have hit 50 home runs in his big years rather than totals in the high thirties, because of smaller parks and expansion pitching.

The only reason he’s not in the hall already is that he treated the media like shit, and it’s the BBWAA that votes.

but he didn’t hold onto that level of play long enough to be a Hall of Famer. His teammate in right field was a better player and he’s getting almost zero consideration.

He didn’t play an important defensive position. He didn’t hurt the team defensively, that’s plenty good enough.

What I don’t get about the “one dimensional” argument is that his one dimension was the best possible dimension a hitter could hope to possess!

I mean, it’s like the “Art Monk only catches touchdowns” argument. Do people not realize how silly that sounds?

“Man, that McGwire, all he ever does is hit 500 foot bombs.”

but he still had a very reliable glove and a strong throwing arm …

Because he hit 49 homers as a rookie, and followed that with 32, 33, and 39.

And he refused to say what he had done to the Congress under oath— in my mind a clear admission of guilt.

Innocent until proven guilty. He admitted to Creatine, not to steroids. He has not so much as been charged with using steroids.

Other obvious problems with your post:
1. One of the accused-of-steroid-using pitchers is Roger Clemens. Not exactly a mediocre pitcher.

2. If A-Rod continues to play the way he has been, he’s a lock of a first balloter. You not being sure about him does nothing to damage McGwire’s case.

3. How do you know that the people you say are “clean” in fact are? The fact is you have no idea about any of it and are just going off of others’ conjecture.

4. “I know it when I see it.” Sad logic, and the justification for a lot of problems with our country. We have legal standards and practices for a reason.

The Hall of Fame is an undeniably relative standard.

1. If you believe Canseco’s account, shouldn’t you, if you’re being honest about it, believe ALL of his account. Because Canseco’s account was that about 85% of baseball was using. Do you think that anyone from that era should make it?

2. Not true. Mark McGwire had his second truly great season in 1992. 1993, though shortened by injury (and certainly a SSS) saw him post the best rate stats of his career. He started out tremendously in 1994 as well (an OPS of 1.002), though his overall numbers were weighed down by poor play after returning from injury. The only thing that changed in 1995 was his health. (which, granted, could have been the result of steroid use)

3. “He refused to say what he had done to the Congress under oath.” OF COURSE HE DID. He is not a moron. Congress refused to grant the player immunity, so they could not testify honestly without putting themselves and/or their teammates in legal jeopardy.

4. Again, if you believe Canseco, you believe Canseco. Canseco said that 85% of players were using — which means at least 70% of pitchers were using (Assuming 100% of hitters were). If you’re being honest about it, you cannot have it both ways. There was also that Clemens fellow … he was pretty good … so they weren’t all mediocre pitchers.

5. Your Bonds argument is retarded. I’m sorry, it is. If we were talking about a well past his prime player who was just trying to prolong his career, collect a couple of extra pay checks, that would be one thing, but that’s not it. How can you decide, based on how big a fella appears, when he started using? You can’t. It’s stupid. But if you want to look at performance, there was a huge jump in both Bonds’ power and batting eye from 1991 to 1992.

6. What possible reason do you have for believing that either Griffey or Thomas didn’t use? They might have, they might not have, but is there anything at all, other than your own personal prejudices, to lead you to believe that?

of his era in my book. The players of his era didn’t protest or talk about it. They should have objected if they were clean. I just believe there have been far too many users over the past 10-15 years to make that assessment.

And I certainly couldn’t blame some 22 year old kid wanting to cash in on a multi-year pay day by indulging in something he saw a vet do on a regular basis – lets say a young Giambi watching Mac. The stars set an example simply by cashing in and playing so well. No need to do a sales pitch when everyone around you can see the results. And who’s to remember whats right or wrong when 5 years at $15M is calling…I think use was a lot more prevalent than we want to imagine. I also think that’s why so few players have ever spoke ill of Bonds. Kids like Tejada and Giambi only had to look across the room in spring training to see some of the specimens the A’s put on the field. You’ve got 20 years of Oakland history since Canseco first showed up. If we mark him as the origin, do we really think all that followed were innocents, non-cheaters?

I don’t know how the hell we’re eventually going to define this era but I don’t think anything accomplished during it can pass unquestioned. I think it’s a safe bet to assume more than half the eras players used something at one time or another. And if that is true, is one player a cheater?And with all of the lawyers involved do you really think McGwire had an obligation to admit his use during Congressional hearings? He chose not to lie…because he was damned if he admitted it and damned if he didn’t.