Does this controversial player get your HoF vote #4: Barry Bonds

[KurtBevacqua]

OK, it's time for the mac daddy of controversial ballplayers himself. Should I even bother listing the credentials? Oh well, I'll list some of them.

7-time NL MVP
14-time all star
all-time home run leader
8 gold gloves
2 batting titles
6th all-time slugging
4th all-time OPS
3rd all-time in runs scored
4th all-time in total bases
4th all-time in RBIs
1st all-time in walks
1st all-time in runs created
single season home run record
Pretty much destroys all the HoF numerical measures

Why he belongs in the Hall
- His onfield measurables probably place him in the top three batters of all-time along with Ruth and Williams. There is absolutely no question of his Hall worthiness as a player

- The old "He was a Hall of Fame Player before he took steroids" argument

- Also the old "steroids weren't banned by baseball when he took them" argument

- The old "But Barry didn't know he was taking steroids" argument

Why Barry shouldn't be in the Hall
- There is a mountain of circumstantial evidence suggesting that Barry Bonds indeed did use performance enhancing drugs

- Bonds admitted in testimony that he indeed did take performance enhancing drugs, although he also maintains he did so unkowingly

- He was indicted for perjury in relation to his testimony on whether or not he took illegal performance enhancing drugs

Shall I outline the details of the allegations and circumstantial evidence against Bonds? Maybe in another post.

[KurtBevacqua]

I'm not gonna outline them, here's the link to the excerpts from the book. Read it and decide for yourself.

SI.com - Magazine - The Truth About Barry Bonds and Steroids - Tuesday March 7, 2006 4:28PM

[KurtBevacqua]

Sometimes these "should they or shouldn't they be inducted arguments" come down to a cut and dried did they do the alleged deed or not. But in the case of Rose we see people who agree he is guilty yet still would vote for him because of when he did the deed and exactly what deed did he do. There is a logical argument to be made in support of his induction despite his guilt. In the case of Jackson it seems to come down to what degree was he involved in the plot. With McGwire it seems to be a did he or didn't he argument. What I find fascinating with Bonds is an awful lot of people don't care whether he did or didn't take the juice, they'd still vote him in with some very shaky rationale. I'd be curious as to how people argue that out here. If McGwire can't be inducted because he took roids than why does Barry belong even if you think he did take them? I've argued about this with sportswriters and am fascinated by how far their rationality bar slides on this issue from one player to another.

[1998 Yankees]

Kurt, My apologies for not bothering to read all that. Usually what you say is interesting, but I'm beyond pros and cons concerning this individual. I'm first to vote, so I am proud to be the first to vote "NO." No admission for this fellow, not as a man, not as a teammate, not as a ballplayer. A poster child for "Me First" mentality, he is leaving the game worse for having been a part of it. Even some humility and contrition would have counted in his favor but no, not from him. Be gone.

[Cooleyvol]

''

I didn't read your posts either, b/c honestly, it would make no difference in my vote.

[Big Hugg]

EDIT: double post, see below

[Big Hugg]

Originally Posted by KurtBevacqua

If McGwire can't be inducted because he took roids than why does Barry belong even if you think he did take them?

I'd personally put both in, but if I had to make the argument, I think you can make a decent case that steroids saved Mark McGwire's career. He couldn't stay healthy and was routinely hitting about .230. Now, who knows when he started taking them, but I would say that I think you could easily say that he wouldn't be a hall of famer without them, whereas Barry already was one when he started taking them (based on the assumed start point).

I think there's a huge difference between their credentials with or without steroids. I feel pretty comfortable in saying that without steroids, McGwire's career ends up looking like Dave Kingman's with a better on base percentage (and possibly less home runs)

[The Professor]

There is a mountain of circumstantial evidence suggesting that Barry Bonds indeed did use performance enhancing drugs

There is a mountain of evidence - not just circumstantial - that a large number of MLBers, including some Hall of Famers, used performance enhancing drugs.

There is no reason to sugar-coat Bonds or Mac's induction. As players, Bonds is a no-brainer Hall of Famer. Mac, I'd give a tentative "yes" to at this point. Let both players stand at the entrance to an educational wing devoted to baseball's dark side, to its scandals, and to its drug users if necessary.

[KurtBevacqua]

Originally Posted by The Professor

There is a mountain of evidence - not just circumstantial - that a large number of MLBers, including some Hall of Famers, used performance enhancing drugs.

There is no reason to sugar-coat Bonds or Mac's induction. As players, Bonds is a no-brainer Hall of Famer. Mac, I'd give a tentative "yes" to at this point. Let both players stand at the entrance to an educational wing devoted to baseball's dark side, to its scandals, and to its drug users if necessary.

Which current Hall of Famers does solid evidence exist that they used performance enhancing drugs? I don't doubt there are people in the Hall who did it, I just don't recall anyone in the Hall who has had serious evidence brought forth in the court of public opinion to implicate them.

[Dagrims]

Originally Posted by The Professor

As players, Bonds is a no-brainer Hall of Famer.

"

[fantom1979]

So is Pete Rose

[CommishJoe]

I really dislike Bonds, but I'd still vote yes. His numbers before he blew up like a balloon were already on pace to be hall worthy. The roids brought him from a great ballplayer to a demi-god.

[Prodigal Son]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

So is Pete Rose

"

The Hall is about more than just how you did on the field. That's not to say that there aren't raging a-holes and even criminals in the Hall, but lines have been drawn in the past, and we should continue to draw lines in the future. After all, letting in cheaters from days past is not good justification for doing so in the future. The Hall of Fame should be a place of dignity that honors great players and great men. As I've said before, it shouldn't be the Hall of VORP. Dale Murphy should be in and Barry Bonds shouldn't have a chance. I say put Fred McGriff--probably Barry Bonds' and the steroid era's biggest victim--in the Hall instead.

[mikev]

Originally Posted by Prodigal Son

"

The Hall is about more than just how you did on the field. That's not to say that there aren't raging a-holes and even criminals in the Hall, but lines have been drawn in the past, and we should continue to draw lines in the future. After all, letting in cheaters from days past is not good justification for doing so in the future. The Hall of Fame should be a place of dignity that honors great players and great men. As I've said before, it shouldn't be the Hall of VORP. Dale Murphy should be in and Barry Bonds shouldn't have a chance. I say put Fred McGriff--probably Barry Bonds' and the steroid era's biggest victim--in the Hall instead.

So, you're in favor of removing Ty Cobb, right?

[Prodigal Son]

Originally Posted by mikev

So, you're in favor of removing Ty Cobb, right?

I don't think I'm in favor of removing guys who are already in. And I haven't studied Cobb's legacy much other than what I hear tossed around that he was generally an a-hole. But yeah, if he cheated, committed crimes, or was generally a terrible citizen, then of course I'd be ok with keeping him out if he came up for voting today. I thought I just said that?

[1998 Yankees]

I don't suppose 14 counts of perjury will change anybody's mind here? Perjury about how he cheated to attain much of his supposed hall of fame numbers? Gee, I wish I could vote again. Not differently, just again.

[jaxmagicman]

Never broke any baseball rule, so without a question, yes.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

Never broke any baseball rule, so without a question, yes.

Okey dokey!

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by KurtBevacqua

Which current Hall of Famers does solid evidence exist that they used performance enhancing drugs? I don't doubt there are people in the Hall who did it, I just don't recall anyone in the Hall who has had serious evidence brought forth in the court of public opinion to implicate them.

From what I've heard, Mays was a greenies user, and Aaron tried them too.

Of course, if we want to get technical, tons of players took player enhancing drugs... caffeine, maybe, if you were drowsy in the dugout .

[KurtBevacqua]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

From what I've heard, Mays was a greenies user, and Aaron tried them too.

Of course, if we want to get technical, tons of players took player enhancing drugs... caffeine, maybe, if you were drowsy in the dugout .

I hadn't heard any specific players named. I know a generation of players have been accused of greenies, but I never saw specific names tossed in the mix. If they have I'd love to read the source.