Jump to content
Brewer Fanatic

Bonds, Sosa, Clemens on the HOF Ballot


adamb100

Well this is set to be an interesting year for the Hall of Fame. Sammy Sosa, Roger Clemens, and Barry Bonds are going to appear on the ballot together.

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8686344/barry-bonds-roger-clemens-sammy-sosa-listed-hall-fame-ballot-first-time

 

Do you think any of these 3 will get in the Hall on the first chance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

Above and beyond the steriods stuff, Sosa DID get caught using a corked bat too.

 

I just wrote an entire post on why Biggio to me isn't a HOF, he was just simply a slightly above average player for 20 years, so his overall numbers are ok, but how he really isn't worthy....only to have the site erase it when I submitted it. Ugh. I'll fill in the stats later, but something like a

 

.280 average (only 4 seasons over 300)

averaged about 15 HR a season

At 2 relatively weak positions, made the All Star team only 7 times, not once in the last 8 years of his career

3 top ten MVP placing

4 Gold Gloves

1900 runs - 15th best all time

 

He has over 3,000 hits and leads MLB in HBP...but if he had 61 less hits, would he be worthy? Doesn't seem like it to me.

Nothing about that to me says one of the greatest players of his generation or a top player in the history of the game. I think he'll get in, but I don't really think he's worthy. Is he really any better than say Fred McGriff?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biggio gets in sooner than he otherwise would because other players were more obviously involved in PEDs...but guys like him and Bagwell pose another interesting question - what sort of fallout will come with players whose primes happened during the steroid era that weren't directly implicated with taking? There are going to be questions for all these players since there wasn't a testing program in place during their best seasons. Do the statistical requirements simply get inflated for these sort of players? Based on stats alone, players like Biggio and Bagwell would be first ballot, no doubt HOFers had they put their career stats up in different eras.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Community Moderator

I don't expect anyone accused of steroid use to get many more votes than McGwire and Palmeiro. Maybe in a few years from now it will be different, but for now they will all be under 25%.

 

Piazza is a more interesting case because he is suspected of doing steroids but was never implicated in any of the rumors. I can see him getting closer to 50% but he's definitely out this year also. Like Bagwell, he's probably gets in around the third ballot.

 

My opinion is that they should be all out or all in. If somebody like Piazza gets in because he was better at concealing his use, that's just ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care how self righteous you are about steroids, not voting for Barry Bonds is just laughable. If Bonds isn't a unanimous first round selection then it pretty much seals the deal on the Hall of Fame being meaningless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every single player who played in that era is under suspicion of steroids. Just because one guy got more publicity than another doesn't mean jack squat. Most likely there are already dozens of players who cheated and are in the HOF. The HOF voters are laughable at best so I don't expect them to look past this any time soon, just something we have to live with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bonds was a HOFer before he got pissed that McGwuire and Sosa got roided up to inflate their stats and started using himself. McGwuire and Sosa have HOF numbers because they used PEDs. Bonds wouldn't have ended up with the HR totals he did without using, but he still would have finished his career with 1st ballot HOF numbers had he stayed clean.

 

Ender, that's the joke of HOF voting during this era - there was no testing program in place and because of it we only know a few prominent stars who used (or have a strong suspicion of using). I'd argue that there were probably more players on something during this entire era that weren't before the drug testing program started having some teeth to it. Because of that I'd be more inclined to judge players' merits based on how they stacked up to their peers within this era, not by comparing their #'s to HOFers from different eras. Guys like Bonds and Clemens are more than deserving of being in the HOF based on that criterion, whether they're cheaters or not. The problem with HOF voting for this era for me is that many of the same writers who will undoubtedly not vote these players in claiming righteous indignation are the same ones who glorified the summer of McGwuire and Sosa's home run chase. The writers were among the group of people who simply looked the other way when it was all too obvious something unnatural was going on throughout baseball during this era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guilty until proven Innocent, right? Sucks there is such a cloud hanging over Bonds, but until he's proven to have cheated he shouldnt be denied the HOF. Pete Rose cheated, it was known, it is known, and its why he'll never get into the HOF.

Posted: July 10, 2014, 12:30 AM

PrinceFielderx1 Said:

If the Brewers don't win the division I should be banned. However, they will.

 

Last visited: September 03, 2014, 7:10 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guilty until proven Innocent, right? Sucks there is such a cloud hanging over Bonds, but until he's proven to have cheated he shouldnt be denied the HOF. Pete Rose cheated, it was known, it is known, and its why he'll never get into the HOF.

 

Well, Pete Rose didn't cheat. He broke a rule and lied out it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guilty until proven Innocent, right? Sucks there is such a cloud hanging over Bonds, but until he's proven to have cheated he shouldnt be denied the HOF. Pete Rose cheated, it was known, it is known, and its why he'll never get into the HOF.

 

Well, Pete Rose didn't cheat. He broke a rule and lied out it.

 

youre right, he gambled as a coach and bet on his own team, and admitted to it. Not necessarily cheating since he claims he never bet against the Reds...

Posted: July 10, 2014, 12:30 AM

PrinceFielderx1 Said:

If the Brewers don't win the division I should be banned. However, they will.

 

Last visited: September 03, 2014, 7:10 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it sucks that what he did as a coach overshadows what he did as a player, since what he did as a player is what would get him into the HOF...

Posted: July 10, 2014, 12:30 AM

PrinceFielderx1 Said:

If the Brewers don't win the division I should be banned. However, they will.

 

Last visited: September 03, 2014, 7:10 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest I still believe in the juiced ball theory more than steroids causing those huge years. Many players said the balls felt different and I don't for one second believe everyone suddenly got off steroids after just a few years when the testing didn't come until later. I 100% believe all 3 of those guys used steroids, don't get me wrong. But I think the record years were about a lot more than just steroids.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave Schoenfield has a good article about the mess that is the HOF voting system anymore.

 

It's a mess. You could hardly devise a worse system, one in which 500-plus voters with varying degrees of knowledge assess the pool of candidates with few guidelines.

 

You have voters who won't vote for players who used performance-enhancing drugs.

 

You have voters who won't vote for players they suspect used performance-enhancing drugs.

 

You have voters who won't vote for players who had big muscles.

 

You have voters who want to vote for more than 10 players but can't, because you're allowed a maximum of 10 players per ballot.

 

You have voters who refuse to vote for a player in his first year on the ballot.

 

You have columnists voting who mostly covered the NFL or NBA and saw maybe three baseball games a year and can't tell Edgar Martinez from Carmelo Martinez.

 

You have a pool of voters that doesn't include Vin Scully, Bill James, Bob Costas, John Thorn, Joe Torre or anybody else who isn't a 10-year member of the BBWAA.

 

You have voters with little or no sense of history of the Hall of Fame.

 

You have voters who simply vote for their favorite players.

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/31075/mike-schmidts-idea-to-fix-the-hall-of-fame

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Community Moderator

I think all they have to do is publish the voting rolls and there will be significant improvement (with regards to the guys that get stuck around 30-50%).

 

I do tend to agree with Schoenfield that the voting system needs some defined standards.

 

However, those who want reform seem to be the ones who think more players should get in, including the steroid users. Judging by this thread, people have varied opinions about whether all, some, or none of the steroid users should be elected. So if 75% of voters are intent on rejecting Clemens, Bonds, and company...then they are never going to get in no matter what system is devised. Some people will always think Pete Rose should be in, but the majority wins.

 

This voting problem is just a reflection of the real problem, which is that a large percentage of baseball players knowingly cheated over a decade and then everyone tried to forget about it and move on. The day of reckoning has finally arrived. The Giants already ignore Bonds' record and the Cardinals and Cubs never retired the numbers of McGwire and Sosa (yes, McGwire has made amends). But as for Bonds and Sosa, if their home franchises already cast this silent judgment on them, how can they be Hall of Famers? How awkward would their speeches be if they don't come clean in advance? Maybe it's better to leave it in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund
The Brewer Fanatic Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premiere Brewers community on the internet. Included with caretaking is ad-free browsing of Brewer Fanatic.

×
×
  • Create New...