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

I understand what all of you are saying. And whether or not you agree with them being in the HOF is your opinion, just like I have my opinion. I realize JDV lives in this Utopian world where he has all his hair, people care what he thinks and McGwire should be in the Hall of Fame. That's fine. But JDV, you don't have a vote (neither do I, for that matter). Will the "oh we can't do anything about it," cause gain traction? Sure. Will a lot of voters vote for Bonds because of what he did pre-steroids? Sure. Was Bonds the best player we've seen since Willie Mays? Sure.

But getting 75 percent of the vote to get into the HOF is difficult. I don't think it happens. We couldn't get 75 percent of the sportswriters to decide on a pizza topping. If 3 out of 10 voters don't vote Bonds, he doesn't get in. It's not like the majority rules here.

I'd be interested to see a poll of voters on Bonds. I don't think he gets in like you suggest Cranberry. The public will they eventually soften their view? Yeah. But we sportswriters can be pretty cynical. I just don't think he pulls the 75 percent. If you got inducted based on 50 percent, he's in. Seventy-five percent is an awfully big leap from 50.

But I've been wrong twice this decade, so it's possible. ;D

 

I've got a vote. I've been saying for some time that Pete Rose the player, should be in the hall. Raffy, although I've never been a big fan of his, gets in but not on first ballot. Bonds, if he breaks Aaron's mark and gets 3000 gets in as well. And I have to admit it, I'll probably vote him in on the first ballot. I'll do it under protest, but it's difficult not to ignore him.

 

Too many factors to say for sure ... In the next six years (assuming this will be Bonds' last season), we'll need to see what comes out publicly, how attitudes have changed (for better or worse), how Bonds will act (a recluse, stay a prick, try to cozy up to the media/voting members), if McGwire/Palmeiro get in, etc.

In today's climate, I don't think he'd be a first-ballot Hall of Famer. But get back to me in six years and let's see what other shoes have dropped or just gone away.

 

Not to be snarky, but since votes are anonymous, what difference does it make if a vote is "done under protest?" And what exactly does that mean? - it's either a vote or not a vote, there are no caveats attached. Saying a vote is done under protest seems like just a way to cop out.

 

I think the one thing that annoys me is when people say so-and-so should get in, just not on the first ballot. If I had a vote (and I never will), if I don't think you're worthy the first time, I don't think you should get voted in any time after that. Why does it matter if it's a first-year ballot or not? Not trying to start a brawl; I'm just curious.

 

There are down years, just like with something else.

Those are the years the Bruce Sutters of the world get in.

Going in on the first ballot -- like it or loathe it -- has been a special honor reserved for very few.

 

Agreed... I just remember having dinner with an old school voter when I was covering baseball. The writer in question was one of the few who had not voted for either Seaver or Carlton on the first ballot, I don't remember which one and he barked "Joe D. had to wait a year. They can wait a year..."

Since you have to cover baseball for a long time to get a HOF vote, there are a lot of grumpy 60-somethings out there who do this kind of stuff.

Then there are guys like Jayson Stark who vote for 10 guys almost every year.

 

I don't think McGwire gets in. To get two-thirds of the voters who said no the first time to change their mind will take a lot. I'm not sure Palmeiro gets in. The finger-wagging is going to haunt him, and his numbers have more to do with his longevity than being one of the best players of his era. He has never won a major award, and was usually lacking on Ranger teams that made the playoffs.

I think Bonds gets in because in retrospect, he was one of the best players of the era with or without steroids. The MVP awards, average, walks records, homers, steals are going to be too much to overlook.

 

Mizzou just made my point without even realizing it. This is why I don't think Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro or Sosa make the HOF. Those "grumpy guys" are going to withhold their votes because of the steroid scandal.

 

Bravo, Columbo.

If Pete Rose's betting slips are enough to withhold him, then the same standard should apply to Bonds' grand jury testimony (or other proof of his guilt).

From where I stand, it's pretty clear (or is that cream?).

 

If you want to hold the steroids against Bonds without a positive test or an admission based on the public reports that are out there, fine. But if you do that and care about being consistent, you should go with the accepted timeline which has Bonds beginning to use illegal performance enhancers in 1998.

We constantly hear about the big head and all the muscles as evidence. Neither of those was the case when Bonds was the best player in the game in the early '90s.

And, like it or not, there are cheats in the Hall of Fame. Are you telling me a single one of the voters who put Gaylord Perry in didn't know he cheated? I sure hope none of the writers voting were that ignorant. If you want to make it a zero tolerance thing, then how can you justify leaving Bonds out when Perry is in?

 

Kick his Vaseline-slathered ass out.