Options
Does Bonds finally get in?
parthur1607
Posts: 202 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
I say let him in. Ok, so he probably did use steroids. The fact is he still hit over .300 for his entire career and I’ve never heard anything about steroids increasing hand-eye coordination, which allows you to put the bat on the ball. Let’s say steroids helped him hit 200 HRs, even 250, yet he still hit 500 HRs! That’s better than most hitters in the HOF! The fact is nearly everyone during that time period used SOMETHING they probably weren’t supposed to and plenty of others have been inducted from that era. Let him in!
2
Comments
Bonds is the only player who can reasonably be compared to Ruth as the best player of all time. There are far, far worse players with more credible cheating allegations already enshrined. Winning MVP three times in four years would be sufficient, but then he had another string of four consecutive MVPs. He clearly belongs.
No, he won't get in.
Agreed with both posts. Let him in, the HOF has far less deserving players in as it is. It’s watered down to a ridiculous level, putting guys like Bonds in is putting more quality players in and that is a good thing.
Does Bonds finally get in?
Iffy at best in this final year. All you need is 25.1% of the baseball writers adamantly opposed to a PED user or suspected user being inducted, and his and others' chances are toast.
It’s funny to me that WRITERS get to decide who goes into the HOF. Most of those writers probably couldn’t hit a beach ball with a tennis racket, much less a baseball going 90+ mph!
At least admit that letting a baseball writer decide who gets into the HOF makes more sense than allowing an accountant or actuary to decide.
How exactly was Ruth or Bonds the BEST player of all time?
There are far, far worse players with more credible cheating allegations already enshrined.
I'm curious to know who they are, can you list them? Can you elaborate on the "far, far worse" part?
Winning MVP three times in four years would be sufficient, but then he had another string of four consecutive MVPs. He clearly belongs.
NO, he does not "clearly belong".
You can easily Google or use DuckDuckGo to see how much stuff he used during his baseball career. Stunning!!
MCMLV: Were you drinking heavily before you posted? Really, we all wanna know.
Does Bonds get in? Does Rose get in? Both of them cheated with Rose committing the cardinal sin of betting on games.
I would vote no on Bonds, but I know I am in the minority. Henry Aaron should still be the all-time home run leader. He got there honestly. Bonds didn’t.
If you post something, you should be able to back up your statements. Did you (as the board spokesman) find something in my highlighted text that didn't directly make an inquiry into the poster's own words in his comments?
BTW, I rarely drink.
i just love it when these conversations invariably turn to, "i can justify Bonds being let in because the preponderance of players were gaming the system." when i read stuff like that i honestly wonder if some of you guys who truly love the game of baseball realize what it is that you're actually saying. am i the only one who thinks that the hallowed halls of Cooperstown turn very hollow with that line of thinking? maybe i need someone to check my temperature, but i've always been of the notion that there should be an ethical element baked into the cake when such an honor is bestowed upon a baseball player. oh, integrity meant nothing to him? he blatantly and repeatedly showed his middle finger to the very sport that is going to place him on an everlasting pedestal for every child who walks through those Hall doors to see? what exactly is a father supposed to tell his impressionable offspring when they come to Barry Bonds' plaque?
"son, let me tell you about this guy. one of the best players of my generation. possessed a God-given set of skills. perhaps only his throwing arm prevented him from checking every Branch Rickey 5-tool box with a permanent, fade-resistant marker. dude was a supreme m****r f****r who cheated so profoundly that his head grew to the size of an overgrown watermelon. now let's go find Roberto Clemente."
i don't give two rips (maybe three) what his numbers say: Barry Bonds was a metastatic cancer to the sport of baseball, thus his chances of being enshrined should be tantamount to what mine are
Exactly. And reason why we have the committees.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
The baseball writers have become a complete joke. Last year they voted zero players in. Saying that NO ONE was worthy, but yet THEY are worthy to have a vote
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Ivan Rodridguez is clearly a far worse player than Bonds but is already enshrined. Your mileage may vary on the "more credible" aspect however.
Nobody's ever been better than Bonds was from 2001-2004. Nobody. He reached base 284 times those four years on intentional walks alone. He faced a significantly wider pool of talent than Ruth did in terms of race and country of origin. He faced relievers throwing 100. Over that span, he hit 207 homers - the same as Ruth did over his best 4-year stretch. And Bonds did it while walking more often, striking out less (less despite facing significantly more difficult pitching!), and slugging for a higher %. AND Bonds won two batting titles in that stretch.
Even assuming Bonds was juiced to the gills, what he did was remarkable. He'd see one pitch to hit per game - and mash it. Incredible stuff.
Bonds is the only member in history in the 500/500 club. I guess all those steroids helped him steal bases
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
You are so spot on!!
Not to get political, but the fact that one man, the MLB Commissioner, with the stroke of a pen, can change the venue of the All-Star game because the Georgia Legislature made, what many here (yes, I live in Georgia), believe were improvements to the voting system that he disagreed with, is yet another example of too much power in the hands of political or otherwise deeply opinionated hacks. I might add that for months, the local news was touting the wonderful ceremony that was planned to honor Hank Aaron during the All-Star game here...all gone poof. Aaron played for the Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves for 21 years, and holds the MLB record for All-Star appearances, 25. A disgrace to dishonor such an incredibly talented man who is held in such high esteem here as to be almost Saint-like.
Ironically, Colorado has more restrictive voting laws than Georgia.
I too live in Georgia and have been a Braves fan since Sid Bream scored that famous run against Pittsburgh! Which reminds me Bonds was the left fielder and he had just given Andy van Slyke the finger when van Slyke told him to move up so nothing fell in front of him. Thanks for that memory Barry!
Anyway back to Georgia and the voting laws that caused the All Star game to be moved. I was so mad because I was planning to go to that game and the commissioner decided that showing your ID in order to vote was voter suppression!! Politics have no place in sports. If the athletes want to support something or oppose something that’s fine but the organizations should stay out of it. My Braves gave a big middle finger back to Manfred by turning things around at the all star break and winning it all!
Rant over. Back to the topic at hand. I used to hate Bonds and I stood by the rhetoric that he cheated to break Aaron’s record and maybe he did. That record aside all of the other stats he put up were unreal. Striking out less than 100 times in a season on multiple occasions is extremely impressive, especially for someone that swung out of his shoes when he did swing! He certainly didn’t need to cheat to be great. I don’t even know how much I would call it cheating. To cheat is to use an unfair/immoral tactic to get an advantage over an opponent. If the pitchers were juiced also then I call that an even match!
Maybe.
No on Bonds. Yes on Rose.
Dave
I don't follow the logic here. Why Rose and not Bonds?
I only wish I knew who (among these posters) ever played baseball to at least the high-school level. Some of you clearly know nothing about the game (but you might know something about Topps baseball cards -- lol). Anyone who questions the greatness of Barry Bonds should automatically be disqualified from any conversation about baseball. OK, I feel better now. Whew.
I did play through high school and I am currently a high school baseball coach. That being said I believe everyone has a right to voice their opinion on this subject, which is why I began the thread. I may not agree with the reasons certain people say he should or should not be inducted but I’m not going to bash them personally, except the writers that vote on the hall of fame of course, which I already did. Please don’t suppress opinions in this post by attacking fellow posters personally. Respectfully disagree with them. Thanks
Paul
lets everyone keep in mind that Steroids, Hgh and Amphetamines were not against MLB rules until 2005, 2005 and 2011 respectively. unless a player tested positive, admitted use or was proven to have used after those years, the did not break the rules.
any ped bonds did pre 2005 was not cheating or against the rules. same goes for mcgwire, bagwell, piazza, mays, mantle, ruth, schmidt or aaron.
before that year, no ped rule had ever been collectively bargained by the MLB and players union. as MLB has antitrust exemption, all rules have to be collectively bargained, at least since 1973 I believe. so no collective bargaining=no rule=no cheating.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
.......
I think I might be able to help with the "was mcmlv drinking dilemna @mcmlv used bold on his responses and the other text were all questions or statements by someone else. @charliej2356 might be assuming that the bold statements are quotes.
.............
Made me think of this.
https://youtu.be/0EjqOCpM7d8
Excellent points.
You make good points in the steroid debate. Have you even talked to one of the voters about it who are anti steroids induction?
The one point I always go back to Bonds is that he had a clear HOF career before any steroid use was even in the picture.
However, to be fair, the clause in the HOF voting criteria in regard to character could be applied to steroid use even if it wasn't against the written rules. However, again, I believe that clause is useless if it is only used to punish a player and never used to put high character borderline players such as Gil Hodges or Dale Murphy into the HOF.
i never have had the opportunity. i would jump at the chance though. it is funny, because when it all came to light 15 or so years ago, I was very much in the anti PED camp, as in, keep them all out of HOF.
as the years passed and I looked deeper into the issue, I ended up changing my view on the matter. i am of the opinion that if something was not in the rule book at a certain point in time, it was not a rule, so no cheating. if we get into retroactively enforcing rules, we will get into a huge dilemma as far as numerous rules, and the enforcement of such. you can also imagine that some things that are taken/done today will be deemed against the rules in the future. we cannot legislate the past on the rules of today.
I guess it goes to show that an old dog can change his views. I am not quite as hard-headed as some may think.
just don't tell my wife...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
@tabe I believe Roids is a bigger sin. I think that keeps Bonds out. I expect Rose will get in, after he passes away. Just one man’s opinion.
Dave
They actually were against the rules.
In 1990, Congress cracked down on anabolic steroids with the Anabolic Steroids Control Act, which effectively made them an illegal drug. The next year in 1991, MLB Commissioner Fay Vincent made it clear in a memo that this was very much relevant to baseball.
Via ESPN.com:
read what Fay Vincent himself said about his memo. I have posted it before.
Vincent has said that the memo was intended as a "moral statement" to the players rather than a "legal one"
"the only way a change could be made was through collective bargaining" "when I left baseball, there was no written policy on drug activity in baseball"
Vincent has said that he in no way banned steroids from MLB, but just passed along the information that congress considered the substances illegal without a perscription. the 1991 absolutely did not ban the use of PED.
to reiterate, there can be no rules in MLB without collective bargaining between the union and mlb. that did not happen until the 2004 offseason to go into effect in the 2005 season.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Steroids is a bigger sin than betting on your own team, as a player and manager, and sleeping with underage girls?
Didn’t Rose always bet on his team to WIN? Had he bet on them to lose certain games and they lost then you could make the argument he threw the games. He knew they had a beast of a team and he wanted to make some extra money. That’s no different than any of us placing a bet on a team to win. Rose rubbed too many people wrong with his playing style and attitude. It didn’t help that he didn’t like the press very much and those are the very people that control whether he gets in.
So I guess if a pitcher hits a batter with a pitch, the batter can pull out a pistol and shoot the pitcher. Nothing in the collective bargaining agreement specifically prohibits it.
Steroids were ruled an_ illegal drug_ in 1990 by Congress, after that anyone using them without a doctors prescription were violating the law.
That's really all there is to it. Baseball doesn't have to make any rulings at that point.
Furthermore the memo is quite clear (no matter what Vincent said later);
_ "Major League players or personnel involved in the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game"_
A potential discipline that could exclude permanent expulsion of the game is not a "moral" threat.
"Any illegal drug or controlled substance" that covers all of your PEDs that I can think of, so 1990 is the year.
That is not entirely accurate. Dowd was quoted stating that there was evidence that Rose also bet against the Reds, as well, but one of the conditions in the ban that Rose accepted was that the Dowd investigation would be stopped. It was also well known among bookmakers that Rose would not bet on the Reds when either Soto or Gullickson were pitching as he did not have confidence in either starter at that time.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Would a steroid or HGH user with a doctors note then be considered to not have cheated or not had a competitive advantage?
What would be the difference in competitive advantage then if someone had a doctors note compared to somebody who took them and did not have a note?
we know of some who did have doctors notes: Chris davis and the story goes Mr. Trout himself, though there is no hard evidence of it.
was Chris Davis cheating when he used amphetamines with a doctors note? I would say no, because it was within the rules.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
All you have to do is read what the Commissioner of baseball during the time said. He said there was no rule.
period.
organizations who are able to operate under anti trust exemption play by different rules than everyone else.
no collective barganing = no rule = no cheating.
Im sorry, its iron clad. dont take it from me, take it from fay vincent
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I have always been curious if Trout has used steroids. His head looks pretty large and his neck is really thick, a lot like Bonds looked…
I don't know about trout and steroids, but there have been lots of rumors about trout and amphetamines. no hard proof or admission, but there are rumors he has a doctors exemption for it
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
It's been explained over and over on this forum why that doesn't matter. It causes the manager to do things differently, playing for short-term won over long-term b team health.
Also, we only have Pete's word he only bet to win. And his word is mud.
The "committee" also put in Baines and Morris. I'd say the writers got that right. The "committee" is going to water down the Hall further. Watch
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Who can come close to Ruth or Bonds in sheer domination? I'm genuinely curious.
Piazza, Ivan Rodriguez, Perry. Nolan Ryan's career arc is extremely suspicious, unless you believe he figured out pitching at the age of 39. Bagwell and Henderson, maybe. If Ortiz gets in then the doors will have been blown off.
What about the seven MVPs are you disputing?
By the way, I don't think McGwire or Sosa belong, and am fine with Palmeiro and Manny Ramirez on the outside, but Bonds, Clemens, and Alex Rodriguez clearly belong in.
No, Rose didn't ALWAYS BET on his team to win. When he didn't bet, did he give it his full effort? Are you willing to take that chance?
I've said before and will say again that the committees couldn't possibly water down the Hall as much as was done in the early '70s. There are no truly awful HoFers from that period, but some of them weren't very good.
I've also said that we should shut down the committees except to bring them back every five or ten years to consider people whose greatest impact was off the field, like maybe Tony Clark. I fully understand that this leaves deserving candidates like Bobby Grich on the outside, but by now everyone has been considered by the BBWAA or by various Veterans committees at least fifty times. It's impossible that anyone has been overlooked, just that some have been found unworthy. Many mistakes, both of omission and (especially) commission, but I'm OK with that, if it means I never have to hear arguments like "Shawn Green was better than Baines so he should be a HoFer."
I am genuinely interested in your statements here. who exactly would you say were better than ruth overall and also bonds, at least offensively? they were both forces of nature offensively, then ruth puts himself on a pedestal of his own with his pitching.
It would be very very very hard to imagine a player being more dominant at bat than bonds from 01-04. he was a wrecking crew.
as far as Bonds winning 7 MVPs, how do you figure he "does not clearly belong"?
I truly don't understand
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
>
Reminds me of this incident:
Yep, no rule against bringing a machine gun onto the field and killing the opposing players, so that's ok too.
Joe, you are talking about laws. everyone else is talking about rules of a professional sports league.
the COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED rules. if you break one of those rules, you are cheating. plain and simple.
your murder scenario hyperbole is not germane to the discussion.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Actually, it is. The point is that MLB doesn't have to pass rules barring things that are already illegal.