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

He needs a lot more than that. Besides, Joe's already got Furman Bisher on his side, in that regard. Joe also had Ted Williams on his side, for that matter.

Actually, he needs Bud Selig to grow a pair ... or die.

 

I understand and agree with the second part of the argument. I just don't think it should be a factor. If the guy deserves your vote, give it to him. That should be all that matters.

If it was only a matter of people being unable to agree, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I just don't think that is what keeps the no-brainer Hall of Famers from being unanimous. It is the Hall monitors (pun intended) who know the guy deserves the vote, but withhold it because they don't want to let a unanimous vote happen.

 

I think the act of holding out a vote because nobody should be unanimous is pretty stupid, but if people are holding out a vote because a first ballot nomination has to be somebody special, I can live with that. It's a tradition that has been set up over the last 25 years, so I wouldn't think of throwing a fit if a guy who maybe isn't the elite of the elite has to wait a year. But if I'm voting (and again, I'm not), if you don't make my ballot the second year, you probably ain't ever making it.

 

See, I don't agree with that, either, SC.

If a writer wants to take some time to review the guy's credentials and let time see how a guy's legacy holds up ... by all means. That's why a player gets 15 years on the ballot.

But this first-year thing is for the birds. It's not a "tradition" -- the "honor" doesn't exist except in the minds of the voters. There's not a Hall of Famer in the world who autographs his baseballs "first-ballot HOFer". It doesn't mean a damn thing.

If you're in, you're in.

 

One thing to remember: the HOF already recognizes individual accomplishments through various exhibits, etc. Just because Roger Maris isn't a HOFer doesn't mean his 61 wasn't recognized there. Just because Rose is banned and ineligible for membership doesn't mean his 4,192 isn't recognized.

McGwire's big season will be acknowledged. Raffy will be listed with the other 3,000/500 players. Bonds' many records will also be cited. Actual HOF membership has, historically, required a higher standard, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

The persecution of Bonds (for steroids/not talking about perjury) is ridiculous, steroids was a low level pharmaceutical misdemeanor and not banned by MLB. People are applying 2007 standards to acts committed in 1999-2004. Apply the standards in place at the time of the conduct.

Bonds is a HOF, with or without steroids enhancement. He won 3 MVPs in 4 years (should have been 4 in a row, Pendleton?) and was a dominant force for a long time.

 

I've never covered the MLB -- and I doubt I ever will -- so I've never met Bonds (and I doubt I ever will on that account, too). By all accounts I've seen and read, Bonds is a jerk, at least to the media. Do you think if Bonds was more engaging and easy to deal with, people would be more forgiving of his perceived steroid use?

 

Yes. I think that's the big reason why he won't get in. It's going to be up to sportswriter who he treated like shit. Grumpy, old men, as Mizzou called 'em. That's what's going to keep them out of the HOF.

 

And it has nothing to do with using illegal performance enhancers and then lying about it...

Sorry, there are legitimate concerns there. I'd vote him in, but to say anybody who doesn't is just being vengeful is unfair.

 

What are you talking about?

There are varying degrees of greatness.... in everything.

 

Once they get in, they are.... unfortunately.

 

It means something.

People use that vernacular.

And people know what it means.