What will happen the year Bonds becomes eligible for the hall of fame?
What are his chances of getting in?
he has the numbers, but does he have the heart of any/enough voters?
Printable View
What will happen the year Bonds becomes eligible for the hall of fame?
What are his chances of getting in?
he has the numbers, but does he have the heart of any/enough voters?
He'll get in. I don't know about in the first year, but he gets in. His career was just too good. And frankly, if the writers **** this up and don't induct any of the steroid guys, the Hall of Fame is going to be very bare and without some of the biggest names ever. I know I wouldn't want to visit the Hall when I'm older if it's devoid of the major stars of my childhood.
I agree 100 percent.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
That's like not letting guys in that threw a spit ball in the early 20th century.
it's a part of the game, it happened, changes were made after.....Bonds is possibly, one of the greatest hitter of all time....you just CAN'T not let him in.
I agree. But will he actually get in?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
;)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
It's hard for even the dumbest of writers to deny what this guy accomplished
He cheated. Done.Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
Can we not have this guy in because he's a complete douche?;)
fuuuuuuuuuuuQuote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
;)Quote:
Originally Posted by President
I hated Bonds as a player, but his career was just too good. His peak was phenomenal... any writer who doesn't vote for him during his first year should loose there voting rights..IMO
In the first 12 yrs (commonly dubbed the "clean years") Bonds was well on his way to the HOF.
.288/.408/.551/.959 with 374 HR, 417 SB and a 1227-958 BB/SO ratio.
If HGM pipes in again than he will be able to provide more stats (WAR, OPS+)
[QUOTE]In the first 12 yrs (commonly dubbed the "clean years") Bonds was well on his way to the HOF.
.288/.408/.551/.959 with 374 HR, 417 SB and a 1227-958 BB/SO ratio.
[QUOTE]
He is in. Also, I think McGwire and Sosa are in also. Bonds was so friggin good before, he has to be in. M and S saved baseball hitting HRs after the strike. Nobody complained then. As stated earlier, remove steroids, remove almost every great player.
That said, Clemens is 100% in.
2nd all-time with 171.4 WAR, 0.6 behind Babe Ruth (who gets 18 WAR from his pitching career, so Bonds has the highest WAR accumulated as a position player...and it isn't close, as Ty Cobb would be next, 12.1 wins behind).Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexington
In my humble opinion Bonds should be in with out even so much as a batting of the eye as should every player that excelled in the so called steroid era. Why? because it appears on the surface that much of the league was doing something or other if not steroids per se to enhance performance. Players always have and always will use medical technology to try to gain a competitive edge.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
HGM-What was Bond's WAR through 1997? In your opinion what would be a reasonable WAR for him if his progression was more typical?
94.1 through 1997.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexington
I don't know really what would be "reasonable." By 1997, he had already posted 3 10 WAR seasons. In his 2001-2004 peak, he posted 3 12 WAR seasons and another 10 WAR season. He obviously was an all-time great before any alleged steroid use, capable of producing at a 10 WAR level, so I don't know if a 12 WAR peak is really unreasonable, although it did come at a very late age.
There's no way to mess with the numbers though to make his career not Hall of Fame caliber. Even if you knock off the entire second half of his career, he's a deserving Hall of Famer.
This my feeling as well. It seems to be that a great number of players were using somekind of PED. Pitchers and hitters alike. To be able to pick and choose is just too hard. The only player I would question would be Raffi as he did actually fail a league test and was suspended. To be honest I'm not sure of his worthiness even without the steriod allegations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
I think Palmeiro is plenty worthy...and there's no doubt he'd get in if it wasn't for the steroid thing. The voters wouldn't think much after seeing 3,000/500.Quote:
Originally Posted by yomamaimontv
As said. Bonds was a Hall Of Famer even before the steroid/HGM years (allegedly). From my point of view, you can't discount the PED era because as said before players having been using whatever they could use to get better. If they really keep Bonds out, then every player already in should be put up for reelection and have their careers looked at again.
HGM years? :confused:
I think he means HGH hahahahahha.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Forgot he also had 3,000 hits. He just kinda flies under my radar for some reason. When you think of the biggest stars of the era his name doesn't really come up....Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I completely agree. I was wondering where he might've fallen among the all-time great's if his progression was more natural. Up to '97 he already proved he was one of the most dangerous hitters ever and the best power/speed threat ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
He was just very good for a long time. He was never at the top of the league. A career candidate through and through.Quote:
Originally Posted by yomamaimontv
Even if he just stayed at the 170/180 OPS+ level he had established (as early as 1990 and as late as 2007), he'd still end up an inner circle player and the best left fielder ever. He just wouldn't have had the highest offensive peak ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexington
I made an error here. Ruth's 172 WAR WAS as a position player. The 18 as a pitcher should be ADDED to that, giving him 190 total WAR, not subtracted as I did. So, Bonds is 2nd all-time among position players, 0.6 behind Ruth (which is pretty much nothing and close enough to go either way).Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
hahah HGM years, he has you on the mind ;)
I am just hoping the writers agree with you, and the year after Bonds gets in, I am betting McGwire gets a big increase in votes.
Absolutely should get in, and I think that he will, but I'm not sure it's a lock. I've learned not to undersetimate the stupidity and dickishness that some writers are capable of.
I think just having McGwire back being involved in baseball again will have a big impact. He went in hiding for awhile. He won't get in this year but very soon in the near future, I think he'll get in before Bonds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
The HGM Era - When crazy stats and super advanced scouting ruled the game. :cool:
Bonds gets on the ballot for 2013. I don't see McGwire's vote totals jumping from 20% to 75% in just 3 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by yomamaimontv
Bonds won't get in on the 1st ballot. I can almost Guarantee it. Mcgwire being on the staff in STL. He will be dealing with the media on a daily basis. They will grow to like him again and he will be voted in. What really hurt him was his admittedly pathetic appearance in front of congress. Then he went into to hiding for years. He's back now so.....
I'm gonna say it...
Don't get angry please...
I'm a little unsure about a lot of the guys from this era.
Getting in or that you would vote for them?
I really want to ignore the steroids and vote for them based on their numbers. It's really really difficult though.
Well for Bonds, you can look pre-alleged steroids.
Furthermore, you can throw the blanket that we don't know who did it or who didn't so we have to go in voting that maybe he was facing an entire era of pitchers who took steroids.
And that time period is "alleged" based on...well...practically nothing. It's just assumed that Bonds saw McGwire and Sosa getting all the love in 1998 and thus decided he wanted to best them so he did steroids. Talk about flimsy evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
That's the problem with this. We don't know much, and for what we do know, it's pretty much "This guy did some amount of some type of performance-enhancing drug (which was not tested for or governed by any MLB rules) at some point in his career for some length of time and may or may not have gotten some benefit."
And some of the evidence is, imo, tainted by illegal government activities (this list that keeps releasing names).Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
It's a **** show of terrible PR, strange politics, and Bud Selig ****ing things up.
I just don't see how you can really hold it against the player's if what they did was legal or not monitored by baseball. We have no way of really knowing who did what. Unless there are specific instances where you know certain details, you can't just say none of them can get in.
I don't see why Mark McGwire gets so few votes.
Personally, I don't give a crap anymore, BUT...it WAS NOT LEGAL. Last I checked, the law of the country supersedes the rules of a sports league.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25