1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Hate to say it but Barry is a can't miss for the Hall of Fame

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by boots, Jan 29, 2007.

  1. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Rose is a completely separate issue from Bonds. There are good reasons that baseball has no tolerance for betting on the games. Fans for the most part have shown that they don't care about the performance enhancing drugs. I think the reaction would be very different if it came out that a player, players or a manager had actually thrown a game due to gambling interests.

    I'm not saying the use of performance enhancers should be ignored. Just that it is not quite the same level of threat to the game's integrity as gambling.

    There is also a very big difference between Bonds and McGwire and Palmiero. Bonds is a much better player than either of them. It's not even close. And it's not just his skills as a hitter.

    Bonds was a better defensive player in his prime. He was a also a difference-maker on the bases, something neither of those guys could ever provide.

    Take performance enhancers out of the equation and McGwire and Palmiero probably get in, maybe not first-ballot though. If not for his attitude and BALCO, the only think that would keep Bonds from being unanimous his first year is those "nobody should be unanimous" jackasses that refused to vote for Ripken and Gwynn this year.
     
  2. SCEditor

    SCEditor Active Member

    Before McGwire's testimony, he was probably a lock for the HOF. Now he got, what, 25 percent of the vote? Something like that? I don't think McGwire, Bonds or Palmeiro get in unless the veterans committee puts them in. I don't see essentially 50 percent of the sportswriters who vote changing their opinion on steroids and letting any of them in. And I don't blame them. Sure, the HOF is not an election for the pope. But there's a stipulation for integrity (look up the word in the dictionary John) and that's going to keep all three and anybody else linked the steroids scandal out of the HOF.
     
  3. John D. Villarreal

    John D. Villarreal New Member

    An almost perfect post OOP

    Props to that - not much to add or critique.

    I still think Pete should be in - yeah betting is bad, but you still can't take away all those hits & wins - oh well different topic
     
  4. SCEditor

    SCEditor Active Member

    Seventy-five percent of the voters are not going to take performance enhancers out of the equation. And that's why none of the three will get voted in. If the veteran's committee votes them in, then they'll get in. But there is no way 75 percent of the voters will agree to led them in because of performance enhancers. Should they be in? My opinion, no. Your opinion? Yes. I'm fine with that. I'm not arguing if they should be in or not. I just believe they won't get voted in.
     
  5. John D. Villarreal

    John D. Villarreal New Member

    Then you and they have learned nothing in the last month & few years.

    Moreover, you are saying that most HOF voters are either too stupid to learn about a complex subject or too prideful & stubborn to change their votes/minds in the face of new evidence.

    Let's review a few things

    1.) Drugs have been in MLB for a LOOOONG time and are STILL there - duh. There is no one small "scandal" or 4-7 year steroid "era" - that is the funniest thing I have heard all day.

    2.) How many players in the end do you think will be "linked" to your little scandal bc at last count we are well over 120 & the numbers will rise. Ban them all?

    3.) I think people are smart and the thinking is evolving on this as more info comes out.

    Look, I can't go point for point on this as I have done it so many times on this board already.

    Check OOP's post above for short answer
     
  6. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    It's silly to make projections based on McGwire's initial vote. Most of the voters don't see the issue as black-and-white as you apparently see it. In fact, I bet if you polled the voters today, Bonds would be a lock for HOF entry.
     
  7. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    You could be right. I'm just saying if you look at the players' actual accomplishments on the field, the case for Bonds is a lot stronger than Palmiero or McGwire.

    Bonds was a Hall of Famer when he was still a skinny guy stealing 50-plus bases for the Pirates in the early '90s.

    I believe Bonds, McGwire and Palmiero all used performance enhancers. But I also believe Bonds did not start doing that until the late 90s, after he had already built up a hell of a resume for the HOF.

    I don't think he gets either home run record without them, but he would definitely have been a first-ballot Hall of Famer without ever taking any performance enhancers.

    I think it would have been a different story for McGwire and Palmiero. I remember a skinny McGwire struggling with inconsistency (look at the averages, not just the homers) and injuries early on. And Palmiero was Mark Grace with an outfielder's glove until 1993, his seventh season in the majors.

    Take the big power numbers away from all three and only Bonds is still a Hall of Fame caliber player. I think all three get in eventually, but Bonds belongs the first year he is eligible.
     
  8. Oz

    Oz Well-Known Member

    Agreed. McGwire posted some terrible numbers with Oakland, and it's not like he ever hit for a great average. Bonds, on the other hand, always hit for a great average, stole bases, hit for power and basically did everything you could have wanted, short of not being a jerk. A much better, more polished resume than McGwire's.
     
  9. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    You can make an argument (and some, like Ray Ratto do) that McGwire is not a Hall of Famer even without the steroid controversy.

    Bonds was a dead, solid lock in 1998 and I think that has to be taken into consideration. I think controversy is enough to keep Palmeiro and McGwire out and maybe Sosa.

    Bonds has to get in. He's probably the best player I've ever seen play. For those of us who are too young to remember Willie Mays, Bonds is the best player of our lifetime.

    My guess is he'll have to wait one year and then get in the next year...
     
  10. Shaggy

    Shaggy Guest

    Bonds is a fascinating experiment on just how much steroids can help. They made a great player out-of-this-freaking-world amazing.

    He's a HOFer, and a good chemistry experiment.
     
  11. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I think attitudes toward steroids are going to soften. It's hard to predict, though. If he was up for a vote today, I don't think Bonds would get in. In 6 or 7 years, who knows where we will be? I am guessing that the "we can't do anything about it, so we might as well accept it" attitude is going to have gained traction by then. And if you are accepting of the fact that he used, Bonds has the numbers to be in. Also, most people believe he would have been a Hall of Famer even if he hadn't cheated, and that will factor into votes. I think ultimately, most voters will be looking for reasons to vote a guy in they know cheated, so they don't have to be the arbiters anymore. And Bonds will be the easy one to do that with, on the rationale that he was a Hall of Famer before he cheated.
     
  12. HejiraHenry

    HejiraHenry Well-Known Member

     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page