OT: Baseball HOF - Last year of BBWAA eligibility for Bonds and Clemens. Yes? Or No?

[XXtwindad]

Read an interesting article on Sox legend Minnie Minoso today. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/15/s...l-of-fame.html

Certainly, he seems worthy of induction for his stats and contributions to the sport. Something else in the article caught my eye. This is the last year of eligibility for Bonds and Clemens by the BBWAA. (And for Curt Schilling and Sosa as well)

Some of my favorite writers on this site (MattTuck, CGolvin, FlashUNC etc...) differ on the matter. I have vacillated on the subject. Do you think steroids don't have a profound effect? Check out the "career year" of Brady Anderson, circa 1996. Or Ken Caminiti's career year, (also 1996) when he won the MVP. Caminiti's frank admissions on doping earned him a ticket into oblivion.

I'm still on the fence about Schilling. Two World Series MVPs and 3,000 plus career strikeouts. Sosa was a one-dimensional player a la McGwire.

But Bonds was quite simply the most dominant force of his era. A four-tool player before the "cream and the clear." Clemens was also one of the dominant pitchers of his era before juicing. (Clemens, Pedro, The Big Unit, Maddux. Pick one pitcher and make your case)

The problem, as with a certain cyclist, is that they were misanthropes. And that might be charitable. Journalists didn't like them. But Bonds and Clemens had the stats to merit inclusion before the advent of the Steroid Era. And how is one to judge who really doped and didn't? There are a few recent inductees who always had a patina of scandal about them.

And what of Bud Selig? He was fiddling while long-hallowed numbers were being incinerated at the Altar of Attendance.

So: Bonds. In. Clemens. In. Close an era at the Hall.

[bigbill]

Bonds is a cyclist now, he's in. Clemens was dominate, but meh, don't see him on a bike.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by bigbill

Bonds is a cyclist now, he's in. Clemens was dominate, but meh, don't see him on a bike.

Yes. I have a few friends who have ridden with Bonds. Post retirement he seems much more down to earth. And slimmer.

[trener1]

I did a big Zwift ride with Reggie Miller a couple of weeks ago and Bonds was there as well.
I think he deserves to be in the hall, in my opinion he was the fall guy for the owners to show that they did something about drugs (which we all in fact know they did nothing).

[bronk]

First, Pete Rose. Should have got slapped on the wrist but not banned from the Hall of Fame. But now that Draft Kings, Fan Duel, etc. are partnering with MLB, there should be no debate.

[eddief]

You know a nice modern (big) building with professionally done exhibits, memorabilia, statues, statistics. Like a museum. And then all the fans of all the cheaters could go pay money to see their heroes. If you build it, they will come.

[bronk]

Originally Posted by eddief

You know a nice modern (big) building with professionally done exhibits, memorabilia, statues, statistics. Like a museum. And then all the fans of all the cheaters could go pay money to see their heroes. If you build it, they will come.

I think you're on to something. You could include not just athletes (don't forget Ben Johnson and Tonya Harding) but also politicians (resisted temptation to put names), business people (e.g., Bernie Madoff), celebrities (Lori Loughlin), etc....

Would be a big place. Great idea.

[DeBike]

Right or wrong, I believe neither will get the necessary votes. Both had contentious relationships with the press, I believe the main reason they will not get there for now.

I, like many people, see both sides of the issue. I believe they both have valid points. I do not have a vote, so, it does not matter, so it does not concern me.

[yinzerniner]

Originally Posted by bronk

First, Pete Rose. Should have got slapped on the wrist but not banned from the Hall of Fame. But now that Draft Kings, Fan Duel, etc. are partnering with MLB, there should be no debate.

Thing to remember with Rose is that HE IS THE REASON HE'S NOT IN THE HALL. It's no one else's fault - Rose made himself ineligible because he chose the lifetime ban rather than proof of his guilt being released.

As for the others, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa and Schilling all should be in the hall. They all have their character flaws but you can't write baseball history without them, and unlike Rose or Shoeless Joe they don't have lifetime ban against them.

[woodworker]

Originally Posted by yinzerniner

Thing to remember with Rose is that HE IS THE REASON HE'S NOT IN THE HALL. It's no one else's fault - Rose made himself ineligible because he chose the lifetime ban rather than proof of his guilt being released.

As for the others, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa and Schilling all should be in the hall. They all have their character flaws but you can't write baseball history without them, and unlike Rose or Shoeless Joe they don't have lifetime ban against them.

Umm, I think "He is the reason that he's not in the hall" applies to the others as well. No one forced them to cheat. Bonds in particular had the natural ability to be a HOFer without the steroids but decided to cheat anyway.

Not sure that Caminiti's great years would've occurred without the juice.

...sidenote: sat in front row seats along the third base line at Jack Murphy and watched Caminiti throw a rope to first base from his knees. He had quite an arm.

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by woodworker

Umm, I think "He is the reason that he's not in the hall" applies to the others as well. No one forced them to cheat. Bonds in particular had the natural ability to be a HOFer without the steroids but decided to cheat anyway.

Not sure that Caminiti's great years would've occurred without the juice.

...sidenote: sat in front row seats along the third base line at Jack Murphy and watched Caminiti throw a rope to first base from his knees. He had quite an arm.

Caminiti was a tragic figure. Beloved by his teammates and haunted by addictions. He told the truth at a time when the Powers That Be wanted no part of it.

Really compelling read here: https://syndication.bleacherreport.c...eller.amp.html

[yinzerniner]

Originally Posted by woodworker

Umm, I think "He is the reason that he's not in the hall" applies to the others as well. No one forced them to cheat. Bonds in particular had the natural ability to be a HOFer without the steroids but decided to cheat anyway.

Not sure that Caminiti's great years would've occurred without the juice.

...sidenote: sat in front row seats along the third base line at Jack Murphy and watched Caminiti throw a rope to first base from his knees. He had quite an arm.

You've lost the plot - it has nothing to do with if someone cheated or broke the rules for eligibility, Rose accepted a lifetime ban as part of a plea deal.

Rose 100% belongs in the hall but he's ineligible because of his own decision, NOT the decisions of others. It's similar to saying that Superman Lopez deserved to be on the podium of the Tour, even though he pulled himself out of the race. YES, his form for the most part looked like it would allow him to hang on but he lost the opportunity because he voluntarily pulled himself out of the running.

To wit:
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-...ll%20of%20Fame.

Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, McGwire, A-Rod, Manny, et al all cheated the game in one way or another but they are/were all eligible for the hall and the voting process because they didn't accept a lifetime ban.

[Spaghetti Legs]

Well I'm a long time Giants fan, so I'm biased. Some mixed feelings on this but I think Bonds should be in. You just can't pretend that he didn't exist he had such an impact on the game. Of course it turns into a doping argument and really you might have to put an asterisk next to every major offensive category leader from the era, maybe pitching too. The personality thing of course, is also a factor but I always got the impression that with Bonds it was more of a case of an upbringing in somewhat rarefied air and really lousy interpersonal skills rather than simply being a jerk, but maybe that's just the Giants fan in me talking.

[eddief]

not. He doped and he was an arrogant jerk. Don't give in to your "Giants fan."

Originally Posted by Spaghetti Legs

Well I'm a long time Giants fan, so I'm biased. Some mixed feelings on this but I think Bonds should be in. You just can't pretend that he didn't exist he had such an impact on the game. Of course it turns into a doping argument and really you might have to put an asterisk next to every major offensive category leader from the era, maybe pitching too. The personality thing of course, is also a factor but I always got the impression that with Bonds it was more of a case of an upbringing in somewhat rarefied air and really lousy interpersonal skills rather than simply being a jerk, but maybe that's just the Giants fan in me talking.

[prototoast]

I think they should all be in. Can't just pretend that 20 years of baseball didn't happen. The game results still stand, the record books still stand, and it's just completely arbitrary who's in and who's out. I can't say for certain whether Jim Thome, Larry Walker, or Edgar Martinez doped any more or less than Barry Bonds did, but I do know he hit a lot more home runs.

And Roger Clemens is excluded, but his longtime manager Joe Torre is voted in?

The games were played, the players did great, the baseball writers who vote are arbitrary, let them all in.