MLB: Barry Bonds Not a HOF Until Steriods??

[mplscyclone]

Hey all,

I was listening to Perrault and Miller on the radio last night. They were discussing baseball, Sammy Sosa, and the hall of fame. They got in an argument when they discussed Barry Bonds. Miller seemed to think Bonds would eventually get into the HOF since he was a HOF player prior to using steriods. Perrault, said that his numbers were not good enough.

Now, for the purposes of this argument, lets say Bonds starting taking steriods after the 1998 season.

From 1986-1998, he had been to 8 All Star Games, Got 3 MVPs, and 8 Gold Gloves.

Also, from 1986-1998, he had hit 411 HR, 1216 RBI, Stole 445 Bases, and had a .290 Career Average.

I know people hate Bonds, but lets say his career was cut short after 1998. Would he have made it into the HOF? I think he would, not just from the stats, but during the era the debate was him or Griffey for best player in the sport.

I just couldn't believe Matt Perrault is really can't see that. But then again, he believes Jason Varitek is HOF..

 

[CycloneErik]

I would like to think he would. The man was simply incredible.

He was a terrible post-season player in the years you've cited, and that may be something the voters would have held against him.

 

[TarHeelHawk]

Matt Perrault taking the contrarian position? No way!!!!!

 

[CylentButDeadly]

Yeah, Perault is dead wrong on this one. If you take everything before '98-'99, Bonds was easily a shoe-in for the HOF. He was the second guy ever to do 40-40, and he presumably did it without PEDs. He struggled in the postseason, but there are a handful of HOFs who never even made the postseason, Ernie Banks probably being the most noteworthy.

I'm trying to find it, but there was a stat guy that projected Bonds career #'s using the '97 season as his last clean season and he came up with Bonds hitting for more than 500HR, 400SB, 1400RBI, etc. Easily HOF #s.

 

[RayShimley]

Hey all,

I was listening to Perrault and Miller on the radio last night. They were discussing baseball, Sammy Sosa, and the hall of fame. They got in an argument when they discussed Barry Bonds. Miller seemed to think Bonds would eventually get into the HOF since he was a HOF player prior to using steriods. Perrault, said that his numbers were not good enough.

Now, for the purposes of this argument, lets say Bonds starting taking steriods after the 1998 season.

From 1986-1998, he had been to 8 All Star Games, Got 3 MVPs, and 8 Gold Gloves.

Also, from 1986-1998, he had hit 411 HR, 1216 RBI, Stole 445 Bases, and had a .290 Career Average.

I know people hate Bonds, but lets say his career was cut short after 1998. Would he have made it into the HOF? I think he would, not just from the stats, but during the era the debate was him or Griffey for best player in the sport.

I just couldn't believe Matt Perrault is really can't see that. But then again, he believes Jason Varitek is HOF..

>75% of the voters aren't going to care how good Bond's stats were "before" he took steroids. By taking steroids, he became the poster boy for everything that was wrong with baseball during the "steroid era" and he managed to tarnish the two most hallowed MLB records along the way. No one is going to forgive him (and Sosa + McGuire) for cheating Maris and Aaron out of their records.

 

[TarHeelHawk]

>75% of the voters aren't going to care how good Bond's stats were "before" he took steroids. By taking steroids, he became the poster boy for everything that was wrong with baseball during the "steroid era" and he managed to tarnish the two most hallowed MLB records along the way. No one is going to forgive him (and Sosa + McGuire) for cheating Maris and Aaron out of their records.

Bonds didn't tarnish those records any more or less than McGwire and Sosa did in 1998. The difference is that Bonds is widely perceived to be an *******, while McGwire and Sosa were very popular among the fans, and got along with the media.

If Bonds tarnished the single season home run record, and all time record, then so did McGwire when he broke it in 1998, and I believe McGwire also has the rookie record for home runs.

The difference is perception.

 

[isuno1fan]

This isn't even a discussion. Bonds makes it first ballot with or without PED.

 

[RayShimley]

Bonds didn't tarnish those records any more or less than McGwire and Sosa did in 1998. The difference is that Bonds is widely perceived to be an *******, while McGwire and Sosa were very popular among the fans, and got along with the media.

If Bonds tarnished the single season home run record, and all time record, then so did McGwire when he broke it in 1998, and I believe McGwire also has the rookie record for home runs.

The difference is perception.

I mentioned them both and I don't think either will get into the HOF. Bonds will be eligible for that first ballot in 2012, a lot of stuff could happen between now and then. I don't think he's as much a lock as you think, HOF induction is not an objectice process and there won't be much of an outcry for Bonds outside of SF.

 

[mplscyclone]

I mentioned them both and I don't think either will get into the HOF. Bonds will be eligible for that first ballot in 2012, a lot of stuff could happen between now and then. I don't think he's as much a lock as you think, HOF induction is not an objectice process and there won't be much of an outcry for Bonds outside of SF.

I'm not saying does he get in now.

I'm saying if you go back in time, and he has some career ending injury in 1998, does he get into the HOF.

The debate was that Miller said Bonds was a HOF player before he starting using PEDs, while Perrault said that Bonds was a HOF only AFTER he started using PEDs...

The debate isn't should he be voted in now.

 

[egami]

Hey all,

I was listening to Perrault and Miller on the radio last night. They were discussing baseball, Sammy Sosa, and the hall of fame. They got in an argument when they discussed Barry Bonds. Miller seemed to think Bonds would eventually get into the HOF since he was a HOF player prior to using steriods. Perrault, said that his numbers were not good enough.

Now, for the purposes of this argument, lets say Bonds starting taking steriods after the 1998 season.

From 1986-1998, he had been to 8 All Star Games, Got 3 MVPs, and 8 Gold Gloves.

Also, from 1986-1998, he had hit 411 HR, 1216 RBI, Stole 445 Bases, and had a .290 Career Average.

I know people hate Bonds, but lets say his career was cut short after 1998. Would he have made it into the HOF? I think he would, not just from the stats, but during the era the debate was him or Griffey for best player in the sport.

I just couldn't believe Matt Perrault is really can't see that. But then again, he believes Jason Varitek is HOF..

Matt's been doing a much better job here than in Omaha imo. I was huge critic of his over there, so I've actually grown to like him more.

That said, this is the exact type of thing that drives me nuts about him. And, not only will he take the contrarian position for the sake of doing so, when he digs in there is NO backing down.

But this is just an asinine position...lets face it, it's not like its terribly hard to get into the HOF. There are some guys with some pretty marginal numbers in there.

 

[RayShimley]

I'm not saying does he get in now.

I'm saying if you go back in time, and he has some career ending injury in 1998, does he get into the HOF.

The debate was that Miller said Bonds was a HOF player before he starting using PEDs, while Perrault said that Bonds was a HOF only AFTER he started using PEDs...

The debate isn't should he be voted in now.

Then yes, in that hypothetical situation, I think being 400/400 would have probably got him into the HOF easily.

 

[egami]

It's pretty cut and dried to me that a lot of analysts circa 1998 had Bonds in their top five of all time.

 

[JonDMiller]

Bonds was a HOF'er in 1998.

 

[ajk4st8]

Have any current HOF players been linked to steroids?

 

[mplscyclone]

Have any current HOF players been linked to steroids?

No. But something that people do not talk about is that football players have been using steroids since the 1950s. There are links to steriods going that far back.

Who is to say that baseball players could not have been doing this as well. The single thing that ticks me off the most about the steroids discussion is people act like it started in 1995 or something. Maybe in the 1990s is when it got more widespread, but I just can't be so naive to think that it only started then.

Athletes have a history of trying to get an edge. In baseball, it was spitballs, sandpaper, vaseline, corked bats, greenies and other amphetamines, steriods, etc.

If we want to call McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, A-Rod, etc., cheaters I am ok with that, but I think there are a lot more cheaters on a lot of different levels that we do not know about. I wouldn't be surprised if there was someone in the HOF that used some kind of PEDs. The problem is that the only testing we have is 2003 and onward, so you can't go back and prove whether people did it. But I do wonder if Cal Ripken was taking something to keep him in the lineup everyday? I mean, going that many years without taking a day off is pretty rough. I guess we'll never know for sure.

 

[Gordyo5]

Bonds is one of the best players if not the best of a generation with or without steroids. He was unreal before his "growth spurt", now if he gets in first ballot is a different story.

 

[egami]

What surprises me most is the fact that the media didn't get on to the steroid thing much, much sooner. I mean, I am not rocket surgeon, but I knew in the late 80's and early 90's that kids in Podunk, Iowa had access to these. And here the media was largely claiming and investigating the balls being juiced. I had thought for a very long time it was steroids/peds when I saw the home run spike. I know SOME media did, but it wasn't very prevalent at all.

I mean, come on, Bo Jackson? I remember taking a lot of crap for claiming he was a steroid product when he was in his prime. Some of the guys that played sports and had been around it never gave me grief, but by and large the media and bulk of the fan base were just so enamored with the resurrection of baseball that maybe they didn't want to believe.

 

[mplscyclone]

Matt's been doing a much better job here than in Omaha imo. I was huge critic of his over there, so I've actually grown to like him more.

That said, this is the exact type of thing that drives me nuts about him. And, not only will he take the contrarian position for the sake of doing so, when he digs in there is NO backing down.

But this is just an asinine position...lets face it, it's not like its terribly hard to get into the HOF. There are some guys with some pretty marginal numbers in there.

What's the point of doing this though? It makes you look like an idiot. A big baseball fan such as myself just shakes his head and thinks this guy doesn't know anything about baseball.

When you're considered the best player in the game (or at least one of the best) for over a decade, that's good enough to be HOF.

Look at Griffey. He is no doubt a first ballot HOF'er, but it's almost all from what he did in his first 10-11 years in the game: 10 Allstar Games, 10 Gold Gloves, 1 MVP. 398 of his 617 career HR, 1152 of his 1791 RBI, 1742 of his 2716 career hits....

Since 1999 he has been to 3 All Star Games, and got no other postseason awards. Injuries really slowed him down obviously, but he's no question a first ballot HOF'er, not just because of the 600+ career HR, but because he was one of the best players in the game for 11 years...

I'm just glad that Perrualt isn't a baseball writer or anything like that LOL.