Barry Bonds?

Question

Should he be able to be in the hall of fame or he shouldnt be able to?

Answer 1

No way

Answer 2

Let's explore the hurdles.

1. Not yet officially retired, so we don't know when he'll first qualify for that ballot -- but the earliest will be 2013, and by then the voters will have strung up Palmeiro, and maybe he will be enough blood, even recognizing that Bonds has a huge "Kick Me" target taped to his back.

2. He has not yet, to public knowledge, contravened any of Major League Baseball's rules and regs such that permanent ineligibility (expulsion, suspension, banishment, call it whatever) is a justifiable punishment. Selig (or whomever is the next commissioner) might have broad powers under the "best interests of baseball" clause, but there really are limits to what he can impose upon a player without documented, supportable cause, and even then he might run up against the players union (remember Rose was a manager when he signed his ineligibility agreement, so not only did he agree to the sanction, he had no MLBPA to watch his back).

3. The Hall doesn't put just anyone on the ballot, but it is hard to imagine Bonds wouldn't make the cut, if he is eligible.

4. And then, at last, we come to the writers, the Hall's primary electorate. When faced with Bonds' name on the ballot, they have to weigh, among other things:
a. Bonds was a devastating, Hall-class player well before the first hints of PEDs crept into his career;
b. MLB had no rules, at the time, that Bonds was violating (this really is important);
c. the stats -- oh, the stats -- how many homers did Bonds hit off juicing pitchers? Really! Because those should, oh, count double or something... stepping past that nonsense, recognize that MANY players were using magic waters. It doesn't ALL fall upon Bonds' back, he's just the nail standing out the most and so is the one who gets hammered the hardest;
d. a better perspective of Bonds' era from a longer remove in time (at least six years from now);
e. the outcome of his legal issues. Perjury is no proud thing (and in this matter I have no sympathy for him whatsoever), but it doesn't really affect what he did on the field. No doubt some voters will use it (regardless of verdict) as an excuse not to vote for him.

It'll be interesting to watch when it happens, but there are SO many factors playing in that there is no reliable way to predict how a Bonds vote will go. I do think, eventually, his career is simply overwhelming, and the plaque will be his. But I cannot say when that will be.

Answer 3

Unless he is banned from the list, if he's eligible, he should be in.

When the beef about Bonds comes up, the discussion comes around all the home runs. However, the discusion should truly be ONLY about the difference the steroids made to Bonds.

He had hit 46 home runs in a season up until 98, so his 49 in 2000 may not have been that far of a stretch. 73 of course we all know is a ridiculous amount, but he only hit 50 or more in a season ONCE. Sammy Sosa had 3 seasons of 60.

When I look at Bonds and look at the reasonable amount of effective decrease that he should have experienced, I can see taking away about 100 home runs from his career total.

That leaves him at 662, plus 500 SB.
He would have (likely) had less walks (as the HR threat wouldn't have been so great), therefore more AB in that regard. Less AB in the regard that the 'cream' probably helped him heal faster to play more games.

So, he would have lost 100 HR, perhaps 300-400 BB, maybe lose some hits to drop his average from .298 to perhaps .290.

Would have lost some Runs, but probably not RBIs.
Without drugs, he probably wouldn't have won any of the MVPs (although, without steroids, who may have), let's give him 1 of the 4.

Effectively, I would see this as Bonds' career so far,
662 HR, 514 SB, .290 BA, 2100 BB, 2000 RBI, 4 MVPs, 7 Gold Gloves.

That's a hall of famer for sure.

Lastly, we need to remember that Bonds' largest crime seems to be a criminal one, baseball is hardly blameless in the steroid era and it took so long just to get ineffective testing and punishment into the game.
While it's a test of moral character to walk away from an opportunity to cheat, we seem to put higher standards on celebrities and sports figures for some reason.

Answer 4

He should be able to be in the Hall of Fame. I do not care what you take, it will not help yo make the actual contact with the bat. As long as I have watched Barry bat, I have known that he has one of the top best swings in baseball period. Over and over his swing is so damn impressive. He got those stats through skills. Batting is not something that muscle enhancers can help with. Now perhaps it improved his strength to the point where he could hit it harder. But without his incredible skill to hit the ball. He would be swing the bat pretty hard at nothing and strike out or ground out.

Answer 5

No, he shouldn't.

Luis T - Steroids are a "performance enhancer." This means the obvious; they enhance your performance. He may have had the most beautiful swing you've ever seen, but whether you choose to believe it or not, the drugs gave him far more power than he would have had otherwise to hit as many homeruns as he has. The point is that he took steroids, ILLEGALLY, which as a result has crowned him the new homerun king. He didn't achieve that feat fair and square. So maybe he would have done just as well or similarly if he hadn't taken steroids. Are we ever going to know? No. Because he chose to cheat at the game. How can you respect someone like that, ESPECIALLY when you're such a lover of the game?

Answer 6

We'll...

If it were only for his achievements on the field, he really should be in the HOF...

Even before the steroids thing, he was considered a sure bet for the Hall of Fame, but he just had to be jealous of McGwire and Sosa, and start taking steroids too... I think HE was a player that didn't need steroids to be great... Canseco needed steroids to be great, McGwire needed steroids to be great... BONDS didn't!! but he had to... SHAME!

Now, Bonds indictment will be a big problem...

Like Bonds... Pete Rose was a great ballplayer, but had a problem with gambling that hurt baseball...

Personally, I think both Bonds and Rose belong in the Hall of Fame... BUT, If Bonds gets elected, most of the people are going to DEMAND that Pete Rose gets inducted too, and I don't know how MLB will handle that...

Bottomline... Bonds and Rose deserve to be HOFamers, but if Bonds gets elected... Rose should too!

Cheers!!

Answer 7

should or shouldnt doesnt really matter cause he wont, even if his case is thrown out
once upon a time he was a shoe in, the early part of his career was so prolific, but then his attitude started making it a bit iffy, and now the fact that its known there are at least two positive tests for steroids, no way, not in a million years, he may or may not make the ballot some day, but hell never get the neccesary votes

Answer 8

He deserves to be in the HOF because his indictment is only for lying to the Grand Jury, and not steroid use. That's an offense that can truly be forgiven. Regarding drug use, that will definitely come out during the trial and we'll all know the solid truth of the "hows/when/how much/where he got them then.

Answer 9

That will be a decision the commissioner will have to make and will depend on his guilt. If Bonds is found guilty there is a strong possibility he will be removed for consideration from the HOF. There is also a strong possibility he would never be voted in even if he was eligible.

Answer 10

why shouldn't he?
he has a career .300 average
the home run record
over 300 stolen bases
all time walks record and season walks record
near 3000 hits
several MVPs and Gold Gloves
what reason do have not to put him in the hall?

by the way.............he's never tested positive for steroids, nor where they even banned in baseball the years he is accused of using them.
he did hit his 755th home run off a pitcher who has tested positive though...........ironic?

Answer 11

No way....when you go back and look at guys like Aaron & Mays and see there physical make-up (in their prime) and then look at Bonds in a Pittsburgh uniform and then in a Giants uniform. C'mon...! It sickens me to see guys who did it the right way get over-shadowed and it sickens me even more to see Willie Mays cover for Bonds.