Quote:
Originally Posted by the 'stache
I think it's generally accepted that Bonds started using once he got to San Francisco. If there's compelling evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it. But he'd already achieved greatness before putting on a Giants uniform. In the three seasons prior to his move out west, he'd been a two-time MVP, an MVP runner up, a three-time Gold Glove winner, and was a 30-30 player twice. His 162 game averages between 1990-1992 clearly establish him as one of the best two or three players in the game: .301 AVG, 113 runs, 36 doubles, 34 home runs, 122 RBI, 49 SB, 120 BB, .990 OPS, 177 OPS +, 8.9 WAR. While there's no way for sure to know what he'd have done had he remained in a Pirates uniform, barring injury, he was on the fast track to the Hall of Fame.
|
I am aware that he had a great 7 years in Pittsburgh, but that's actually my point. 7 great years does not a HOFer make. If that's the case put Don Mattingly in right now. "Well on your way to the HOF" and "worthy of the HOF" are completely different things, just ask Darryl Strawberry, Doc Gooden, etc. If all we should look at are the 7 years Bonds was supposedly clean (which is debatable, because whether it's generally accepted or not, who really knows) then I don't think he deserves HOF enshrinement any more than any other player who was very good (or even great) for such a short period of time. Dale Murphy was a two time MVP as well, with 5 Gold Gloves and 7 All-Star appearances, easily one of the top players in the league for the same amount of time that Bonds was a Pirate. Yet Murphy did it clean by all accounts, and is punished for hanging around the game and experiencing the natural decline in performance, even though his career stats make a compelling arguement for induction. Why should the track Bonds was on before allegedly using be viewed any differently than the track Murph was on?