Thread: Bonds should be in the HOF

I think Barry Bonds should be in the hall of fame... best home run hitter of all time.

Definitely, he creamed a lot of balls and hit them clear out of the parks.

I think he should be too. I think you put him in and note that he played during the steroid era.

I've heard a lot of people defending Armstrong lately with the defense that he never failed a single drug test, well neither did Barry. Bonds belongs in the hall...

I think someone should kick him in his tiny little shriveled nuts.

What type of Hall-of-Fame do you have if it excludes the all-time hits leader, the all-time home run leader, a player who achieved both 3,000 hits and 500 HRs, a seven-time Cy Young Award winner, etc. all because they broke/allegedly broke the rules? A joke is what you have,

Whether Bonds does or does not go in, I don't really care. I've made my peace with the steroid era. But if known cheaters like Bonds and A-Rod go in, don't dare give me some sanctimonious b.s. about Jeff Bagwell not going in because of whispers that have no proof behind them - not one positive test, not once named in any official report and not one credible accuser (Jeff Pearlman is not credible).

If you want to tell me you wouldn't vote for Bagwell because he didn't reach 500 HRs and didn't hit over .300, I would say that's a tenable position but if you want to say he shouldn't go in because of whispers yet Bonds and A-Rod are worthy of induction despite much stronger evidence of cheating, that's just garbage.

Pete Rose should be too.

Originally Posted by OrangeHoof

What type of Hall-of-Fame do you have if it excludes the all-time hits leader, the all-time home run leader, a player who achieved both 3,000 hits and 500 HRs, a seven-time Cy Young Award winner, etc. all because they broke/allegedly broke the rules? A joke is what you have,

Whether Bonds does or does not go in, I don't really care. I've made my peace with the steroid era. But if known cheaters like Bonds and A-Rod go in, don't dare give me some sanctimonious b.s. about Jeff Bagwell not going in because of whispers that have no proof behind them - not one positive test, not once named in any official report and not one credible accuser (Jeff Pearlman is not credible).

If you want to tell me you wouldn't vote for Bagwell because he didn't reach 500 HRs and didn't hit over .300, I would say that's a tenable position but if you want to say he shouldn't go in because of whispers yet Bonds and A-Rod are worthy of induction despite much stronger evidence of cheating, that's just garbage.

Bagwell is in that McGriff crowd. No one knows if they took PED's, but if they did...then their numbers arent quite as impressive.


Overall I agree. To have a HoF without Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, Rose, Palmeiro, etc, is bogus. I get the whole PED thing and why it pisses off the voters that are "old school". But if they opened their eyes I'm sure they'd find that players have been taking stuff since the beginning of time. It may not have been steroids, but no one goes through spring training, the regular season and maybe the post-season without taking something to help.

If we're keeping Bonds and Rose out for being ********, then I wont argue. They are both dicks...but what they did on the field...gambling and PED's aside...is still impressive

This is why I find the whole PED argument so asinine. It's impossible to quantify - there are a million grey areas, we don't know who did or who didn't...

I personally think we ought to let everyone juice in every sport. That's what science is all about. All of the statistical purists are nerds.

Originally Posted by CoachChaz

Bagwell is in that McGriff crowd. No one knows if they took PED's, but if they did...then their numbers arent quite as impressive.


Overall I agree. To have a HoF without Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, Rose, Palmeiro, etc, is bogus. I get the whole PED thing and why it pisses off the voters that are "old school". But if they opened their eyes I'm sure they'd find that players have been taking stuff since the beginning of time. It may not have been steroids, but no one goes through spring training, the regular season and maybe the post-season without taking something to help.

If we're keeping Bonds and Rose out for being ********, then I wont argue. They are both dicks...but what they did on the field...gambling and PED's aside...is still impressive

if being a dick kept guys out of the hall of fame there would be a lot more empty space in that place

You can't tell me that there isn't one player in the Baseball HoF that didn't bet on Baseball or use a form of PED.

Well, I guess you can tell me that, but your pants would catch on fire.

He was a first ballot Hall of Famer before steriods. Clemens as well.

Originally Posted by Buff

This is why I find the whole PED argument so asinine. It's impossible to quantify - there are a million grey areas, we don't know who did or who didn't...

I personally think we ought to let everyone juice in every sport. That's what science is all about. All of the statistical purists are nerds.

I'll top that. I think PEDs should be mandatory in professional sports. The Halls should have a before and after era.

Originally Posted by Buff

This is why I find the whole PED argument so asinine. It's impossible to quantify - there are a million grey areas, we don't know who did or who didn't...

I personally think we ought to let everyone juice in every sport. That's what science is all about. All of the statistical purists are nerds.

This is an interesting point, but not probably why you think I might say it is interesting.

The only "numbers" I can think of that are really that sacred affected by steroids is home runs. And that we don't really know how it affected. Players didn't weight lift at all much before the Bash Brothers in Oakland in the 80s. I'm sure some did, but it was prevalent enough for anyone to notice. I have a hard time saying steroids is absolutely the reason why they began to hit more home runs. Do the numbers bare it out some, sure, but not as much as you might think. Plus, if the pitchers were doing it too, then how did it really affect the ebb and flow of the game?

Bonds would have topped 600 home runs with or without steroids. Would he have topped Aaron without steroids. We can't know that.

And what incredible record did Roger Clemens break? So who cares about the numbers. He was a great pitcher long before steroids entered the picture, and we still don't know the full affect they might have had on him and his performance. There are hundreds of examples of players well before the steroids era pitching into their 40s. Why couldn't Clemens just have been one of those? The answer is we don't know. Effing Satchel Paige was throwing gas at 45, much more than Roger Clemens. Was he juicing?

The problem with allowing steriod use is that down the road when these guys break down or whatever there will be a backlash and a "who's at fault" for allowing them to do so. Personally i dont care as sports in general are a risk one way or another. But i can just see lawsuits coming a mile away when some dude either beats his girlfriend/wife to death or blames MLB for allowing it and he cant function properly at age 50 or more.