Bonds - Hall of Famer before steroids...?

Question

I have been hearing this over and over, especially at the All Star game. If this is true, shouldn't Pete Rose be elected to the Hall of Fame? After all, he was HOF material before he transgressed the spirit of the game.

( Don't give me a dissertation on Bonds or about the difference between gambling and steriod violations)

While Bonds is referenced, this is not a Bonds question- It requires a Pete Rose answer

Top contributor Craig S- you disappoint me. Bonds admitted to use the cream and the clear during his grand jury testimony. These are steroid products, he did violate the spirit of the game. That is undeniable by all but the most ardent Bonds supporters. Don't tell me that was secret testimony either, after all as was noted earlier Rose accepted a ban to prevent his indescretions from becoming public but we all acknowledge them and hold him accountable for them. (Maybe this is a Bonds question)

Craig S- thanks for the banter

but that's why I worded my question the way I did, the spirit of the game bit and all. This shouldn't be about "the rules" Maybe this is a societal problem- the need to have a clearly defined rule for every action. What happened to ethics.

Answer 1

I believe so. Bonds definitely played clean and "dirty", but steroids and HGH had no hand in his performance. If everyone here proves right, then the A,AA,AAA steroid users would have the same skills as Barry Bonds and there would be nobody left in the farm systems if their enhanced skills meant callups.

Pete Rose just threw a couple of bucks here and there, dealt with shady bookies, but that was all..... No throwing of games, no betting on or against the Reds or Phillies, or anything unusual that gamblers usually do when betting on sports.

Both should deserve induction into the HOF.

Answer 2

Well, for one thing, whether or not Bonds was HOF worthy pre-roids is questionable for a number of reasons.

However, in relation to Rose, you can't say he was HOF material before gambling, because you can't say definitively when he started gambling on baseball. I find it hard to believe that someone who is constantly changing his story of events and has such a gambling problem could ever possibly be truthful about when he started betting on baseball. I figure he probably had a habit most if not all of his career. Regardless, when exactly do you point to in order to say, "This is where he started gambling, so anything he's done up to this point should be considered in a case for the HoF."

Not just that, but what Rose did didn't make him a more productive player. Sure, as manager he pencilled himself in the lineup, but do you really that that if the Reds were willing to sign him as player-manager, they wouldn't also let him continue his pursuit of Cobb with another skipper at the helm? Not that I think that condones what Rose did, or makes him worthy of entrance to the hall, because I most certainly do not think that he deserves to be in the HoF.

Now, with regards to what people are saying about Bonds. If what his ex-mistress says is true, that he started juicing before the 99 season, there's still a debate whether it's HoF-worthy.

1986-1998 - 13 Seasons - up to 34 y.o.
G-1898
AB-6621
R-1364
H-1917
2B-403
3B-63
HR-411
RBI-1216
BB-1357
K-1050
SB-445
CS-130
AVG-.290
OBP-.411
SLG-.556

Now, let's consider some numbers that, for the most part, get you into the HoF. Lifetime average of .300+? No. 500 HR club? Well he got to 400, but not to 500. 3000 hits? Nope, and still not there. Now, don't get me wrong...he's got good numbers up to that point. But trying to chart a "clean" history past that point is all conjecture. You can't say what may have been different without steroids. To that point in his career, per season he was averaging 104.92 R, 31.62 HR, 93.54 RBI, 34.23 SB, and a .290 average. Not bad 5x5 numbers. But is it REALLY HoF worthy, no questions asked? I don't think so. Really, the only thing you can point to is that he is in the 400 HR/400 SB club. He is still the only person who has done that, so give him credit for that. Maybe that on its own gets him in the Hall. All I'm saying is that none of that is guaranteed to get him in the hall.

However, if you consider that that would have gotten him in, the other problem is that what Rose did was against the rules his entire life, let alone his career. What Bonds did didn't technically break any rules. So regardless of what you want to say about Bonds, when it comes down to it, the comparison doesn't hold water.

Answer 3

OBVIOUSLY FROM YOUR COMMENTS, YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR THE TRUTH! CRAIG S IS CORRECT!

Pete Rose actually broke the rules and Bonds did not. People want to compare the two but they are vastly different cases. Baseball had no rules at the time against what Bonds supposedly did. Now there are rules against it today (implemented in recent years) so if he got caught today then he should be treated the same. However at this time, like I said, Bonds broke no rules and Pete did! End of Story, NO COMPARISON!

So what if you think he did something immoral in your eyes and heart. That has nothing to do with the Hall of Fame and the rules of baseball. There are lots of shady characters in the HOF. Your "Spirit Of The Game" comment has nothing to do with your question.

A question to you...Do you think when players were taking greenies 50 years, do you think they transgressed the spirit of the game? What about Willie Mays and red juice? Hank Aaron and greenies? Hank admitted this in his own book!

Answer 4

Bonds became right into a universal pollHOF ordinary in the previous the steroids element. however the steroids are the reason he will injury the all-time checklist that Hank Aaron labored challenging and easily to get. And as for Arod, he will on no account be somewhat what Bonds is. Bonds hit maximum of his homers in a time while 30 homers became right into a attainable league chief. A Rod is doing it while 30 homers with the help of All massive call injury is conventional.

Answer 5

I hate to say this but, Pete Rose should not be in the HOF. He did something against the game of baseball (gambled on games he played in).
Bonds while I think he is the biggest cheater ( worst than Rose) it has not been proved. Right now he is HOF material. I can only Boo the man.
The day they prove it he should not be in the Hall of Fame

Answer 6

Your question is faulty in that it compares Bonds to Rose.

In other words, you're comparing someone who never failed a drug test, and who has never been punished by MLB, to a guy who was banned from the game for admitting that he gambled.

So, your whole "spirit of the game" argument falls flat, since Bonds has done nothing to violate that spirit.

Jsied - I believe Bonds used the cream and the clear, too - I'm not blind to that. At the time, though, they weren't illegal, while Rose violated a rule that had been around since the early 20th century.

Answer 7

We all know Bonds cheated but unless he tests positive he's a lock for the HOF. Foget his homeruns just look at life time batting average, hits, and on base %. Theres no denying he's getting in but not without some opposition.

Oh yea Rose....unfogivable. Sorry but he there are some things you just don't do regardless of the fact that he is the second best hitter of all time.

Answer 8

Heck yes. Easly a 500 HR-500 SB player if he didnt bulk up like he did, and how many of those are around in the history of baseball?

And yes, Pete Rose should be in the hall AS A PLAYER. I dont belive there has ever been any proof that Rose gambled as a player.

Answer 9

He was first ballot long before 1999.

There is a huge difference between Bonds and Rose. But since you don't want to know why it's different, I won't go into detail.

By the way, Rose voluntarily took the lifetime ban, in order for the reports of his gambling to remain undisclosed.
.

Answer 10

Bonds was a hall of famer before steriods. But now hes a fat big headed lard.