| 0 |
Subject: Bonds HOF
Posted by: Matt G
- [306442513] Wed, Aug 07, 2002, 15:18
Ok, I was reading an article on ESPN about the current labor situation, and one of the biggest problems seems to be drug testing, for steroids, crack, et al. Now I know there are a ton of rumors out there about Bonds recently juicing since he just all of a sudden became the most dangerous hitter in baseball. I have two questions for you, If Bonds is discovered to be juicing, and he admits he has been for a few years, does he deserve to be considered for the hall, or do we ban him like Pete Rose. My next question is, if Bonds never had the last few seasons, and we just based this off his time with the Pirates and first few years with SF, would those numbers warrant the HOF? any thoughs? |
| 1 | C.C.SOLDIERS
ID: 45242819
Wed, Aug 07, 2002, 15:25
|
I think he'd be borderline status if you look only at the years with the Pirates. Steroids, I'm thinking, is an illegal substance. Any player playing the game illegally should not be considered for the Hall. But why continue to beat on JUST Barry? Lots of players are hitting better than normal.
|
| 2 | Matt G
ID: 306442513
Wed, Aug 07, 2002, 15:28
|
Oh yes I agree that he isn't the only person hitting better, but he is the most obvious and borderline example i believe. I think his stats with the Pirates do get him into the hall, simply because of his MVP years down there, what was it 3 years he was MVP while a Pirate, I could be wrong, I'm guess.
|
| 3 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 19652912
Wed, Aug 07, 2002, 15:31
|
Steroids aren't illegal if they are prescribed by a doctor. I'm guessing that any player who test positive for 'roids will cough up doctors notes pretty quickly.
pd
|
| 4 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 256101115
Wed, Aug 07, 2002, 15:33
|
They are not illegal if you buy the roids and take them while in a different country either.
|
| 5 | biliruben
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Wed, Aug 07, 2002, 15:36
|
Are you wanting to exclude the last year and a half?
His 2000 season was nearly identical to his 1993 season, except that he stole more bases in 1993, so I see no empirical reason to exclude 2000.
Sure, I would think he is a HOFer excluding the last year and a half, without reservations.
Sure, I would think he is a HOFer if it is proven he was taking illegal substances while a major leaguer, particularly since it wasn't against MLB regs.
If you try and keep Bruce Smith out of Canton for snorting in his early years, I will be very very angry, and that was against NFL regs.
|
| 6 | C.C.SOLDIERS
ID: 45242819
Wed, Aug 07, 2002, 15:37
|
I dont think the Hall will buy those excuses. But good points. I did not know of those options.
|
| 7 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Wed, Aug 07, 2002, 15:51
|
Which "first few years" are you referring to? Bonds consistently hit around 35-40 HRs and 100+ RBI in his first 8 years with SFO, except '94 (only 112 games) and '99 (only 102 games), and even then he still hit 37 and 34 HRs, respectively. He also consistently stole around 30-40 bases a year up until '99. The point is that most people point only to 2001 when they talk about Bonds being juiced. I don't recall anyone saying it in 2000 when he had another "normal" year (quite similar to '93 actually). And even if you take 2001 away, you still have a guy with 494 HRs and 471 SB. Give him 3-4 more years and even without 2001, he will not only be the only 400/400 player, but also the only 500/500 player. If he still stole bases like he used to, it would have happened this year, and still might. Borderline HoF? Only to those who don't like the guy. If he's borderline, then a majority of players in the Hall are a joke, IMO. As far as steroids affecting a player's eligibility, it's hard to tell a player that it's ok to play the game while using steroids (there still is no policy against it) and then turn around and tell them that they don't qualify for the Hall because they used, which was still playing within the rules of the game. You can bet that every player using has a doctor's note on file (or will have one if testing starts), so the argument that steroids are illegal is pointless.
|
| 8 | Matt G
ID: 306442513
Wed, Aug 07, 2002, 16:05
|
Last year was an aberration if I've every seen one though, that's my point. I don't care if he uses, personally because you still gotta work at it. Bonds had MVP numbers up till last year, and won a few MVPS last year was just an aberration, and you can see that this year he has returned to his normal form, maybe because injuries have kept him down, only time will tell.
|
| 9 | The Left Wings
ID: 1668298
Wed, Aug 07, 2002, 16:17
|
So now he has a hamstring injury, and that makes last year an aberration? Did you see him limp around the bases last night? That looked BAD.
I think there are still people who still don't want Roger Maris' record to ever be broken. I think people will constantly bring up excuses like "of course he broke Maris' record, he took andro" or "of course he broke Maris' record, he took steroids."
If Maris could hit 61 homeruns in an era when there was no sophisticated weight/body/skill training, why can't some extraordinarily strong people hit more than 61 in our era? That type of people DO exist and they don't have to take steroids to be that big, you know.
600 homeruns, that's a hall-of-famer, no doubt. I will not take any particular season away just because of some accusations.
|
| 10 | Species
Sustainer
ID: 304521510
Wed, Aug 07, 2002, 16:28
|
This argument is a bit "apples and oranges" when comparing Rose and Bonds. Even if it is true that Bonds is juicing, I doubt seriously he'd be banned from the HOF. Remember, Baseball's rule on gambling is VERY VERY specific. You get caught gambling on Baseball, you are banned for life. Period. End of story on Rose.
|
| 11 | James K Polk
ID: 23722713
Wed, Aug 07, 2002, 16:37
|
Plus, Rose has an illegal haircut.
|
| 12 | patjams
ID: 54733713
Wed, Aug 07, 2002, 19:38
|
Why can't we just sit back and take last year for what it was, Barry Bonds was locked in at the plate more than any man ever before. He also set the records for walks which has nothing to do with steroids, but does have a lot to do with how he was seeing the ball. If he is on roids and they are helping him to such a degree that he is demolishing the competition because of them, why has he come back down to Earth this year to a "measly" 32 homeruns with 60 or so games left? The guy has 4 MVP awards (if he was more media friendly it would be 5) and there is talk about him not being in the Hall? No doubt he's a 1st ballot shoo-in and anything less would be a travesty.
|
| 13 | azdbacker
Donor
ID: 1832261
Wed, Aug 07, 2002, 21:15
|
I have made no bones about the fact that Bonds is among my least favorite people on Earth. That being said, he's the best baseball player I've ever seen. No question he's in, or they might as well close down Cooperstown.
|
| 14 | The Left Wings
ID: 1668298
Wed, Aug 07, 2002, 21:27
|
I'm sure Barry Bonds would rather do it by his numbers than sucking up on those no-good reporters to get an MVP award.
|
| 15 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300
Wed, Aug 07, 2002, 21:52
|
'Steroids are supposed to make you stronger, correct?
Do they make you see the ball better? Do they make your coordination after seeing the ball better? Bonds has been having great years since 1992 (will be 11th straight year with ops over 1.000). He also turned 28 in 1992. All my life I have heard baseball players (especially hitters) usually reach their prime around age 27-30.
I weighed 125 when I was 21. Played ball in the Navy. At 30, I weighed 160-165 and had a 32 inch waist. Does that mean I must have been on steroids?
Did Roger Maris take steroids in 1961? Never hit more than 39 any other year.
I have no proof one way or the other, but all the speculation kind of pi$$es me off. You look at home runs per plate appearance (and/or at bats) and 2001 might not even classify as an annomolly. I say you could make the argument (maybe a better one) all this started when he reached his prime (and filled out the way most humans do).
|
| 16 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300
Wed, Aug 07, 2002, 22:07
|
And I agree with azdbacker - in my time, he's the best 'overall' hitter I have seen. But I have never seen him in person. I am no special Bonds fan (or hater), just a baseball fan (for too many years). I've watched Mays, Aaron, Mantle, Musial, Frank Robinson and Mike Schmidt in person. Ted Williams was past his prime and only got to see him on TV (Athletics had bailed on Philly and no more Bosox), but my Dad and his Uncles always talked about Ted Willimas when I would bring up 'my' best players as a kid.
I've never seen anyone that appeared more zeroed in. Don't know if steroids can do that.
|
| 17 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Wed, Aug 07, 2002, 22:16
|
They are planning his entire wing in Cooperstown as we speak.
The fact that this question could even be conceived is a good argument for testing tho.
|
| 18 | rockfish
ID: 531038288
Wed, Aug 07, 2002, 23:39
|
Well I agree with Steve H. and I saw Williams play half a dozen times in B'more 57=58.
Steriods can't give a guy an eye for hitting. Perhaps he and others did muscle up some but a hitter is born.
|
| 19 | blue hen, almighty
Leader
ID: 27048221
Thu, Aug 08, 2002, 01:30
|
Remember, he was on the All-Century Team well before 2001.
While Bonds was breaking a rule that didn't exist, Rose has a similar stipulation. They didn't make the rule that you couldn't make the HOF if you were banned until after Rose was banned. So he wasn't actually breaking a HOF rule by gambling, only an MLB rule. That said, Bonds is on my ballot if he retires RIGHT NOW. Hell, probably even 4 years ago.
|
| 20 | cancermoon
ID: 42755622
Thu, Aug 08, 2002, 03:57
|
Wouldn't Bonds HR numbers possibly have been boosted by the simple fact he had a year when he got a lot of terrible pitching, and a higher than usual number of fast balls by relief pitchers?
If he wasn't pitched around so often this season his numbers would likely be just as high as this time last season, a players numbers are just as much affected by the pitching they get as it is on their power, Isn't that why TSN players chose not to pick up hitters playing Pedro, Schilling, RJ, Maddux etc, and they do pick up pitchers facing Helling ???
Bonds obviously deserves HOF, and I seriously doubt he roids anymore than most players.
|
| 21 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Thu, Aug 08, 2002, 10:00
|
Along the lines of what cancermoon is referring to, let's not forget that Bonds is the career leader in IBB's. Here are a few more career ranks for Bonds: OBP: 20
SLG: 9
OPS: 8
BB: 7
Adjusted OPS: 6
XBH: 10
Power/Speed Number: 1
And a few rankings for single-season numbers:
OBP: 8 (2001)
SLG: 1 (2001), 44 (2000), 53 (1993), 88 (1994)
OPS: 2 (2001, by just 0.0006 points), 49 (1993), 57 (2000)
BB: 1 (2001), 7 (1996), 17 (1997), 53 (1998), 66 (1992), 73 (1993)
Adjusted OPS: 1 (2001), 33, (1993), 38 (1992), 87 (2000)
XBH: 3 (2001), 64 (1998, 1993)
TOB: 7 (2001), 72 (1996), 82 (1993), 89 (1997), 98 (1998)
Power/Speed Number: 4 (1996), 7 (1990), 12 (1997), 23 (1992), 27 (1993), 54 (1994), 58 (1995), 60 (1998), 61 (1991) The amazing thing to me when I look at those rankings is the span of his career that the rankings cover. It's not like they all happened within the last year or 2, though 2001 was obviously a tremendous all-around year for him. The fact is that Bonds is an all-around player. He doesn't specialize in HR's while also specializing in K's like Sosa, Vaughn, Thome, Sexson, etc. He's also not just getting the BB's now in his career because of 2001 as shown by appearing on the single-season highest BB totals 6 times over the course of the last 9 seasons. And lastly, he has/had the speed to compliment his plate prowess. His Power/Speed Numbers show this. Rickey Henderson is/was highly regarded as a man who had a ton of speed and respectible power (290 career HR's) and his Power/Speed Number is about 40 points less than that of Bonds. The distance between Henderson and Mays (3rd place) is the same amount. Even if Bonds does/did take steroids, it's still not going to help him take balls and get walks. It's still not going to help him have a basestealer's instincts. It's still not going to help him get 8 Gold Gloves. It's still only going to help him so much towards having a list of "Similar Batters" that includes Mantle, Schmidt, Foxx, Robinson, Williams, Mathews, Ott, Stargell, Killebrew, and Jackson. By comparison, Sosa's list of "Similar Batters" includes Griffey Jr., D.Allen, Canseco, F.Howard, Colavito, Foster, Belle, J.Gonzalez, Burks, and Hodges. Interesting that at least 2 of those guys are either accused of, or have admitted to, taking steroids.
|
| 22 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300
Thu, Aug 08, 2002, 11:46
|
To add to KKB. Here is a (not all inclussive) list of career stats of Extrapolated Runs (less GIDP) per 27 outs. Does include most HR leaders and just some other HoF'ers that I felt like including. And just some others I felt like including at time I made this spread sheet. Most from Bill James old 'Historical Abstract Book'. Just had to update Bonds.
I included Bonds twice. Career and career less 2001 season just to show where Bonds was even before last season.
Pete Rose on there just to show that where he stands in comparison. Not meant to take away from his accomplishment of 4,256 hits
Extrapolated Runs per 27 outs.
11.84 _ Ruth, Babe
11.75 _ Williiams, Ted
10.34 _ Gehrig, Lou
9.61 _ Foxx, Jimmy
9.49 _ Bonds, Barry
9.44 _ Hornsby, R
9.13 _ Bonds, Barry ___(less 2001 season)
9.00 _ Mantle, Mickey
8.93 _ Greenberg, H
8.87 _ Cobb, Ty
8.82 _ Musial, Stan
8.72 _ McGwire, Mark
8.61 _ DiMaggio, Joe
8.57 _ Ott, Mel
8.48 _ Jackson, Joe
8.35 _ Speaker, Tris
8.27 _ Kiner, Ralph
8.06 _ Mays, WIllie
7.92 _ Robinson, Frank
7.83 _ Aaron, Hank
7.63 _ Collins, Eddie
7.54 _ Schmidt, Mike
7.52 _ Simmons, Al
7.33 _ Killebrew, Harmon
7.33 _ McCovey, Willie
7.25 _ Matthews, Eddie
7.15 _ Wagner, Honus
7.01 _ Sosa, Sammy
6.75 _ Yastrzemski, C
6.51 _ Jackson, Reggie
5.93 _ Rose, Pete
|
| 23 | Matt G
ID: 306442513
Thu, Aug 08, 2002, 15:07
|
I never said bonds doesn't deserve to be in the Hall, I'm a Huge Bonds fan and I in no way meant to say he didn't deserve. I just wanted to see if anyone out there thought possibly that something could happen. I do a lot of writing for papers around here so I have to be able to see both sides. Bonds is the best player in the game hands down right now, i think so, but I also had to look at accusations etc. I was just feeling around to see what other though. As for 2001 being an aberration, the only reason i said it was an aberration was because of the skyrocketing in HR's from a guy whos Career best was I believe 48 before that. I'm not saying he won't do it again, I hope he does, I was hoping for 75 this year, but again the Hammy. As for steroids, I don't think that he is on them, I think he went into a program that allowed him to use his strength and eyes better. ok, i just got a call so im lost as to where i was, im just gonna post this and you can rip it apart if you wish.
|
| 24 | rockafellerskank
Sustainer
ID: 456181014
Thu, Aug 08, 2002, 17:35
|
Hey Source, RE #22: Where does Rickey Hendrson rank on that list I'm sure he's gone down hill the past 2 years, but I'm interested to see how a speed guy stacks up.
rfs ®
|
| 25 | patjams
ID: 13744811
Thu, Aug 08, 2002, 18:27
|
Obviously, I'm biased as I have never seen guys like Mantle, Ruth, Gehrig, etc..., but I think that once Barry Bonds' career is over, he will have to be included in any conversation regarding the greatest player ever.
|
| 26 | steve houpt
ID: 32428300
Thu, Aug 08, 2002, 19:11
|
rsf - Rickey's still in good company.
7.11
Since we deal in totals alot, here are those. (less GIDP - because stat not kept early years, and 'adj' SH/SF). Using Jim Furtado's Extrapolated Runs
CAREER Extrapolated Runs (or Runs Created)
2,554 __ Aaron, Hank
2,535 __ Cobb, Ty
2,523 __ Ruth, Babe
2,437 __ Musial, Stan
2,331 __ Mays, WIllie
2,217 __ Williiams, Ted
2,213 __ Rose, Pete
2,205 __ Speaker, Tris
2,199 __ Yastrzemski, C
2,190 __ Henderson, R
2,143 __ Bonds, Barry
2,130 __ Robinson, Frank
2,124 __ Ott, Mel
2,101 __ Gehrig, Lou
2,069 __ Collins, Eddie
2,005 __ Foxx, Jimmy
1,955 __ Wagner, Honus
1,952 __ Bonds, Barry (less 2001)
1,931 __ Hornsby, R
1,928 __ Mantle, Mickey
1,802 __ Jackson, Reggie
1,770 __ Schmidt, Mike
1,706 __ Matthews, Eddie
1,675 __ Simmons, Al
1,672 __ Killebrew, Harmon
1,651 __ McCovey, Willie
1,527 __ McGwire, Mark
1,477 __ DiMaggio, Joe
1,333 __ Sosa, Sammy
1,226 __ Greenberg, H
1,155 __ Kiner, Ralph
1,061 __ Jackson, Joe
|
| 27 | Peter N.
Donor
ID: 1710123
Thu, Aug 08, 2002, 22:12
|
OT
Matt G, you are up to draft in the Sandbox Great Gurupies Football Keeper Draft. Just a FYI
|
| 28 | Peter N.
Donor
ID: 1710123
Fri, Aug 09, 2002, 11:30
|
butt
|
| 29 | Peter N.
Donor
ID: 1710123
Fri, Aug 09, 2002, 19:04
|
b.u.t.t. one more time for Matt G
|
| 30 | KrazyKoalaBears
Donor
ID: 266182910
Fri, Aug 09, 2002, 20:20
|
Wouldn't an "ATTN: Matt G" get his attention much quicker?
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|