HOF -> Bonds & clemens

[EvilKing00]

Interesting article on the hof

https://www.google.com/amp/deadspin....1790600514/amp

If you had a vote, would u vote bonds and or clemens into the hof?

[bnorth]

I voted yes for both. Clemens is my second all time favorite player so I am very biased. Barry was such a super star that they would cut from the game on TV to show his at bats when he was putting up video game #'s.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Both were at the absolute top of their games well before they likely started juicing. Yes.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Both were at the absolute top of their games well before they likely started juicing. Yes.

That's what makes it a less than easy choice. Both were pretty amazing even before, and neither was all that popular with the press. Bonds was ..........Bonds. And Clemens played for a long time in Boston where being unpopular with the press is almost required. (The whole "it's not about the money.......unless it's 7 million, then it is" thing didn't help either.

I tried one time to figure out when Bonds started, and found an interesting uptick after a fairly normal string of years. Did a bit of figuring and came to the conclusion that he'd have had the career HR record 2-3 years after he actually got it if he'd stayed straight. If he'd been a bit nicer, he might even have stuck around that long.
One very odd thing was the year after the strike Topps did some computer simulation to extend the stats for an insert. They had Bonds with 70+ and that was probably pre juice.

Clemens I thought had found a novel career end formula. I actually liked the part where he'd play for his hometown team, but only from partway through the year and only home games. I think that was an interesting late career option. From the teams side, who wouldn't want a proven performer for only a few months and heading into the postseason fairly fresh instead of worn down by the long season?

I think eventually they'll be in, and we'll always have the debate about how to compare their eras to before and after.

Steve B

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Both were at the absolute top of their games well before they likely started juicing. Yes.

I voted NO for both, even though they WERE 'at the absolute top...' 'well before they likely started juicing.'

Making a decision like this is a slippery slop regardless of which way you vote.

I have always thought that the actual Hall-of-Famers should have votes.

Truly, they would be the best judges on who should be in and who should not be in.

Pete Rose WAS a lock...Rafael Palmeiro WAS a sure thing - where do you draw the line?

The rules that are in place are for everyone, not just the desperate border-line Major Leaguers searching for some way, any way, to stick around.

My opinion has not changed over the last 18 years...since the 'Home Run Race' and I admit I got into that!

I bet a lot of folks willing to vote for Clemens and Bonds are not willing to admit their own hypocrisy during that same time period.

Again, a very slippery slop.

I believe that Joe Jackson was guilty, though he may not have been sure of what had been asked of him. Still guilty...we're all grown-ups here.

I never really though Piazza or Bagwell were juicing - they did not have sudden spikes in their numbers, but rather, were very steady throughout their careers until age or injury lowered their production.

I think the same about Jim Thome and, especially Jr. Griffey.

IMHO
Their 600+ Home Runs are 100% legit.
As was Greg Maddux's 355 Wins and Nolan Ryan's 5,714 Strikeouts.

Being in the Hall of Fame is an honor not a right. It's bad enough, we can't look at the All-Time Lists the same anymore...those responsible should not be rewarded for that.

McGwire lied to Mrs. Maris's face and a great man like Hank Aaron deserves better than to be thought of as second to a spoiled and arrogant jerk who stood on the shoulders of greater men who are not mentioned nearly as often as he.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Being in the Hall of Fame is an honor not a right. It's bad enough, we can't look at the All-Time Lists the same anymore...those responsible should not be rewarded for that.

Couldn't agree more. Nobody is taking anything from these guys. They have their records, their awards, their millions of dollars, their fans (apparently, as so many are willing to forgive and refuse to hold them accountable for their actions) and they aren't banned from the game and can hold jobs in baseball. Why bestow the greatest honor the game has to give on these guys when they tarnished it by cheating? I see a lot of people say "I don't condone cheating..." followed almost immediately by "but they should be in." Anyone who thinks they should receive this honor is absolutely condoning cheating, because that's saying it's ok to cheat as long as it makes you really, really good. It's hero worship and it's sickening. These guys made the conscious decision to cheat. Let them lie in the bed they made. The Olympics strip cheaters of their medals, and have done so for years, it's embarrassing it took baseball as long as it did to address the issue.

Oh, and thinking these guys were HOFers before using is pure speculation. Nobody knows when they started using, period. And nobody knows what they would've done had they not used. The idea that Topps or anyone thinks they can extrapolate the stats is ridiculous. Look at Don Mattingly, sure fire future HOFer until his back gave out, then he stuck around and had subpar seasons (by his standards, many players would've killed for a down Mattingly year) and now his HOF chances are non-existent. Nothing saying the same wouldn't have happened to Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Manny, etc. We don't know, we'll never know, and the players that cheated are to blame for that.

No to both, I hope they never even get close.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Why was it ok to use amphetamines?

[owen21]

Bonds was a HOF even prior to PED use


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[quinnsryche]

Neither - Never.