View Full Version : Would you vote Barry Bonds into the Hall of Fame?
TheImpossibleMan
09-03-2008, 06:16 PM
It's been five years since he retired and now it's time to vote. Do you check the little box next to his name?
Yes. He was a Hall of Famer before the first time anyone said he stuck a needle in his arm just like Pete Rose was a Hall of Famer before the first time he laid down a bet on baseball. Barring being banned from baseball in similar fashion I'd have him enshrined for what he did with potential notice of what he may have *cough* done.
Da Raider
09-04-2008, 02:11 PM
I don't understand how anyone could say that Barry shouldn't be in the Hall. Yeah, he's a prick, and yeah, he cheated, but that would mean we would have to get rid of half of the Hall.
jimdog99
09-04-2008, 04:30 PM
I don't understand how anyone could say that Barry shouldn't be in the Hall. Yeah, he's a prick, and yeah, he cheated, but that would mean we would have to get rid of half of the Hall.
Well said...
goldsoundz
09-04-2008, 04:33 PM
if he cheated as speculated, then no. cheaters should not be rewarded regardless if they deserved it before they cheated.
Yes. Just like McGuire should get in. It was the "steroids era" and baseball has no one to blame but themselves for turning a blind eye at the time they needed fans. They knew about it. The records and stats count and those players should be in.
Yes. Just like McGuire should get in. It was the "steroids era" and baseball has no one to blame but themselves for turning a blind eye at the time they needed fans. They knew about it. The records and stats count and those players should be in.
The records and stats counting is a VERY different statement. I don't mind saying that Barry Bonds isn't the real HR king or whatever, but saying he isn't a Hall of Famer is ignoring the massively good body of work he had before hand.
Genius
09-04-2008, 04:45 PM
Yeah, he gets in. Then we never have to talk about him again, ever. We wash our hands, move on. Pretend he never existed, unless it's absolutely necessary to bring him up. We don't revere him like Babe Ruth or Willie Mays. And we don't joke about him being an asshole or a cheater like Ty Cobb or Gaylord Perry. And we certainly don't make a movie about what a raw deal he got like we did Shoeless Joe Jackson. We vote him in, then we ignore him for eternity. Justice served.
Yeah, he gets in. Then we never have to talk about him again, ever. We wash our hands, move on. Pretend he never existed, unless it's absolutely necessary to bring him up. We don't revere him like Babe Ruth or Willie Mays. And we don't joke about him being an asshole or a cheater like Ty Cobb or Gaylord Perry. And we certainly don't make a movie about what a raw deal he got like we did Shoeless Joe Jackson. We vote him in, then we ignore him for eternity. Justice served.
I guess he is sort of the Ann Coulter of baseball, the guy who almost seems to strive to be hated for the attention (I suppose others would say ARod, but I think that's mostly crap).
Satan
09-04-2008, 06:56 PM
Should he get in? Yes. Would I vote for him to get in? Absolutely not.
dick_darlington
09-04-2008, 07:01 PM
he would have gotten in if he didn't do roids in the first place.
so i vote no.
he would have gotten in if he didn't do roids in the first place.
so i vote no.
http://api.ning.com/files/5djVmBZKbZRVVJ-naB2t2ZPHkVwtFf68adl0x9eJrxfkO78JgZAc3yicq0bEa7MhO j2SZsxS1MMfx3hDFYC8Xuh6EJigA8ZB/13195.jpg
Zilchoid
09-05-2008, 07:46 AM
Based on my support of a sports world with no steroids or illegal drugs of any kind, I would be forced to vote "No." I would cast the same vote for Michael Irvin, Lawrence Taylor, and Mark McGuire.
However, each of those names would have been shoo-ins for HoF's had it never come out that they used illicit materials while playing.
Wait, maybe not Irvin. I hate that guy.
BooBooBear
09-05-2008, 08:27 AM
I think he should be voted in and I feel Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame as well.
janois
09-05-2008, 08:56 AM
Yes, for pretty much the same reasons as everyone else said.
smahoo
09-05-2008, 10:21 AM
Of course, what a ridiculous poll
jimdog99
09-05-2008, 01:43 PM
Guys,
I fucking hate Barry. Hate can not describe the way I feel about his. BUT, he is one of the best to play the game. He was a four tool player. BA, HR's, Good Glove and Speed. All he lacked was a arm. He was extremely disciplined @ the plate. He could hit .350 with 45 hrs, 125 RBI and have over 100 walks. Those are Ruthian type numbers. Not even Hammerin' Hank had those numbers.
Did I say I hate him?
He does belong in the hall. Being a lowly Padre fan in all, He deserves it on his first 15 yrs. alone.
Soup Nazi
09-05-2008, 01:58 PM
Whenever this question comes up, I look down at Bonds' career and see a solid 17 year career, 4 mvp's and 8 gold gloves. Why do these #'s seem low? Because whenever I view his career I eliminate 2001-2004, those years to me do not count. I don't care if everyone else was doing it. I don't care if he still would have hit X amount of HR's and had X Slugging %. I just don't care, those years are lost on me.
However, even when eliminating those years, he is still worthy of being a first-ballot HOFer, and there really is no debate about that.
mongo
09-05-2008, 02:41 PM
what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Draven X 23
09-05-2008, 02:43 PM
HoF? Yes. 1st Ballot? No.
billysocal
09-05-2008, 03:02 PM
Yeah, those numbers don't equate to 1st ballot. And he's not a shoe-in. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't get voted in for the first few ballots.
Oh, and I wouldn't vote for him.
Genius
09-05-2008, 03:18 PM
Anyone who says he deserves to be in but not on the first ballot is an idiot. What does it matter when he gets in? Are you trying to teach him a lesson by making him wait? What's the point? That's why it baffles me when someone like Goose Gossage gets in. The writers pretty much stay the same. So did his numbers get better somewhere along the line? I know the interpretation of some player's careers will change over time, but Gossage's shouldn't, and neither should Bonds'. You have five years to decide if he's worthy enough. You shouldn't play some chickenshit game with whether or not he gets in on the first ballot. He's either a Hall of Famer, or he's not. Don't be bitch, vote your heart, or your vote should be revoked.
Fletch
09-05-2008, 03:27 PM
He should definitely be in, but there's no way the writers vote him in first ballot. They will be a bitch, and think they are teaching him some lesson just because he wasn't nice to them. It's not right, like you said Genius, either he's in or not....but I think they're going to hold that grudge for a long time.
Genius
09-05-2008, 03:32 PM
Sportswriters are children, and behave thus, especially baseball writers. Has it always been this way?
Fletch
09-05-2008, 03:39 PM
I'm not sure...but that Dr. Z guy from SI basically admitted that the reason he finally voted for Art Monk for the NFL HoF was pretty much peer pressure from writers and fans.
It's the one time writers have a direct impact on someone's career. Maybe they like that power over guys, especially ones who never treated the media well.
hatepoppy
09-05-2008, 03:39 PM
if he cheated as speculated, then no. cheaters should not be rewarded regardless if they deserved it before they cheated.
the hall of fame isnt a reward for players that do well. it is not, either, a punishment for players that do not. it's an enshrinement of those that were hugely successful or impactful in the game.
raise your hand if you think henry rodriguez (or any moderately successful player with no obvious cheating history) is a hall of fame player. is he being punished by not getting in? nope. just wasn't remarkably significant.
see anyone blogging about how neifi perez should NEVER be allowed in the hall of fame? no? that's bc he was an insignificant player that cheated.
bottom line, a player's significance, not integrity, is paramount in deciding hallworthiness.
Yeah, those numbers don't equate to 1st ballot. And he's not a shoe-in. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't get voted in for the first few ballots.
Oh, and I wouldn't vote for him.
I'd love to know how the 10th best era adjusted offensive player who is ALSO the greatest defensive left fielder of all time is not a 1st balloter to you.
And again, he may have hit a career ending injury at some point (like in 05) and he might have aged out of baseball before his career reached as far as it did on roids, but he would've played baseball for at least a period (on a normal aging curve, but still) so you get to add even more to those numbers. There is no way a 500 HR (where he'd be even with bad older years and not for long) .280/.400/.550 hitter whose the greatest defensively at his position ever (and has 500 SB to boot) doesn't get in 1st ballot. It's just that after that he acted like a dumbass and did drugs.
MORE STATS STAX! I AM NOT YET CONVINCED!
Satan
09-05-2008, 03:59 PM
what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Is this a court of law?
MORE STATS STAX! I AM NOT YET CONVINCED!
So wait, home run count, traditional split AVG/OBP/SLG, and 'greatest defensive player' is too many stats for you Limp? Should we just... Elect the guys with the best narrative or something, it's hard to get simpler than those #s.
jimdog99
09-05-2008, 04:28 PM
the hall of fame isnt a reward for players that do well. it is not, either, a punishment for players that do not. it's an enshrinement of those that were hugely successful or impactful in the game.
raise your hand if you think henry rodriguez (or any moderately successful player with no obvious cheating history) is a hall of fame player. is he being punished by not getting in? nope. just wasn't remarkably significant.
see anyone blogging about how neifi perez should NEVER be allowed in the hall of fame? no? that's bc he was an insignificant player that cheated.
bottom line, a player's significance, not integrity, is paramount in deciding hallworthiness.
Tell that to these sportswriters who think they are a god... McGuire, Palmero and especially Bonds should be in the hall.
Every year I still write in Pete Rose on to the All Star Ballot. Sounds stupid I know. But the point is is that Pete should be right there also.
The GWD
09-05-2008, 04:32 PM
I voted no by accident, but I assure you I meant yes.
I grew up idolizing the guy before he became a monster.
mongo
09-05-2008, 07:19 PM
Is this a court of law?
if it was, they'd keep him out just for being black.
Satan
09-05-2008, 07:24 PM
Just like god intended it
mongo
09-05-2008, 07:26 PM
Just like god intended it
hopefully they'd keep out the asians and the jews as well!
BooBooBear
09-05-2008, 07:53 PM
hopefully they'd keep out the asians and the jews as well!
Asshole.
mongo
09-05-2008, 08:19 PM
Asshole.
stfu ******!
Draven X 23
09-05-2008, 08:28 PM
Anyone who says he deserves to be in but not on the first ballot is an idiot. What does it matter when he gets in? Are you trying to teach him a lesson by making him wait? What's the point? That's why it baffles me when someone like Goose Gossage gets in. The writers pretty much stay the same. So did his numbers get better somewhere along the line? I know the interpretation of some player's careers will change over time, but Gossage's shouldn't, and neither should Bonds'. You have five years to decide if he's worthy enough. You shouldn't play some chickenshit game with whether or not he gets in on the first ballot. He's either a Hall of Famer, or he's not. Don't be bitch, vote your heart, or your vote should be revoked.
Mark McGwire is not in the Hall. He hit 49 HRs in his rookie season. So sure later he cheated but we all knew he had huge power. So would McGwire be a HoF if he didn't cheat? Sure. But he isn't in yet so I wouldn't vote for Bonds on the 1st ballot.
And yes to the huge headed ego of barry Bonds thats a huge slap in the face. Might not be for you since you weren't told by everyone that you are a sure fire 1st ballot HoFer.
Swurgen
09-05-2008, 08:37 PM
Yes. He was a Hall of Famer before the first time anyone said he stuck a needle in his arm just like Pete Rose was a Hall of Famer before the first time he laid down a bet on baseball. Barring being banned from baseball in similar fashion I'd have him enshrined for what he did with potential notice of what he may have *cough* done.
Bonds and Rose are completely different. I despise Bonds with every fiber of my being but you're right that he was a HOF pre-needle where he doubled his HR/AB for the rest of his career. For that reason he probably belongs in the hall although I love the fact that the ball has a * on it. I wouldn't vote for him but I admit huge bias when it comes to him. He really rubs me the wrong way for some reason.
Rose specifically and gambling in general brings to mind the possibility that somebody could be holding his team back from playing their very best. That would really shake consumer confidence in the product and they just can't have that. Bonds inadvertently made his team better through chasing personal glory.
Bonds and Rose are completely different. I despise Bonds with every fiber of my being but you're right that he was a HOF pre-needle where he doubled his HR/AB for the rest of his career. For that reason he probably belongs in the hall although I love the fact that the ball has a * on it. I wouldn't vote for him but I admit huge bias when it comes to him. He really rubs me the wrong way for some reason.
Rose specifically and gambling in general brings to mind the possibility that somebody could be holding his team back from playing their very best. That would really shake consumer confidence in the product and they just can't have that. Bonds inadvertently made his team better through chasing personal glory.
Of course Rose and Bonds are different, I'm not saying their situations are the same but the result. Is there any real doubt that Pete Rose would be in the Hall but for his banning from baseball? Plenty of people are happy to look at his performance independent of his cheating and say he was a HoFer. Same applies to Bonds, the only difference being the performance actually AFFECTED some of his numbers.
Mark McGwire is not in the Hall. He hit 49 HRs in his rookie season. So sure later he cheated but we all knew he had huge power. So would McGwire be a HoF if he didn't cheat? Sure. But he isn't in yet so I wouldn't vote for Bonds on the 1st ballot.
And yes to the huge headed ego of barry Bonds thats a huge slap in the face. Might not be for you since you weren't told by everyone that you are a sure fire 1st ballot HoFer.
Mark McGwire was very good and should've been a first balloter, yes. But Bonds is so much better than McGwire, even without roids, it ain't even funny.
nuclearjew
09-06-2008, 09:49 AM
Mark McGwire is not in the Hall. He hit 49 HRs in his rookie season. So sure later he cheated but we all knew he had huge power. So would McGwire be a HoF if he didn't cheat? Sure. But he isn't in yet so I wouldn't vote for Bonds on the 1st ballot.
How do we know McGwire wasn't roided up in 1987?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3068/2616322817_61039ef738.jpg
what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
nuclearjew
09-06-2008, 09:58 AM
He's guilty. I mean, just look at him!
nuclearjew
09-06-2008, 10:10 AM
All-natural
http://whyfiles.org/090doping_sport/images/arm.jpg
He's guilty. I mean, just look at him!
if it was, they'd keep him out just for being black.
Same basic logic ;P
Titus_Pullo
09-06-2008, 10:47 AM
I voted no by accident, but I assure you I meant yes.
I grew up idolizing the guy before he became a monster.
Those damn werewolf bites.
mongo
09-06-2008, 10:49 AM
How do we know McGwire wasn't roided up in 1987?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3068/2616322817_61039ef738.jpg
bash brothers!
nuclearjew
09-06-2008, 10:49 AM
They used to bash needles into each others' asses.
mongo
09-06-2008, 10:52 AM
i'll bash a little prick into your ass.
nuclearjew
09-06-2008, 10:53 AM
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
mongo
09-06-2008, 10:54 AM
i'd vote andy van slyke into the hall. pirates of the late 80's ruled the school.
Lone Wolf
09-09-2008, 06:02 PM
I'd have an easier time putting him in before McGwire for some reason that I'm not altogether sure of
I'd have an easier time putting him in before McGwire for some reason that I'm not altogether sure of
The thing that's troubling about McGwire, at least for me, is I don't know with as much certainty when/if he started taking steroids. If he's just guilty of taking a then-legal supplement and acting like an ass before Congress, I don't care. But depending on when he started taking roids (if he did) it could muddy more of his numbers.
lce-man
09-21-2008, 05:35 PM
Why not, nobody seems to care.