No doubt
2007-11-15 10:13:30 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Baseball
Yes. Famous, or infamous, he should still be there. He was a great baseball player already before all the steroids stuff started. There's always the asterix.
2007-11-15 10:21:30 · answer #1 · answered by Jon Skywalker 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's kind of an interesting question. If you look at his career-to-date as of 1998 (since he didn't start the 'roids until '99 by most accounts), he had a HOF career going - 411 career home runs, 1917 hits, .290 lifetime average, 3 MVP awards. He wasn't quite a shoo-in yet, but with 3 or 4 more years at his then-pace he would have been at 500 HR and around 2500 hits, which would have made him a certainty.
The question is whether his ensuing behavior and cheating negate all that earlier greatness. I would say yes - it's a similar situation to Shoeless Joe Jackson or Pete Rose, whose crimes against the game late in their careers were bad enough to taint them and keep them out. While there is no doubt that Pete Rose's achievement would put him in the Hall, it is the person who gets inducted, not their records, and to enshrine Bonds would be to give legitimacy to a tainted legacy.
2007-11-15 18:46:17 · answer #2 · answered by JerH1 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Can you say . . . yeah. He was good. Hell, he was great. But this whole thing today . . . He's as bad as the 1919 White Sox and Barry Bonds--no matter what I have posted elsewhere on here!!
2007-11-15 18:57:30 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
will all of you guys shut up about barry bonds who cares
2007-11-15 20:29:46 · answer #4 · answered by panthers91600 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure, with an asterisk.
2007-11-15 18:20:47 · answer #5 · answered by I|A|X 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
*
2007-11-15 18:20:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋