Excerpts from a new book depict Barry Bonds as a violent, tax-dodging, racist, spoiled-rich-kid, adulterer who cheated his way to baseball's home run crown. Other than that, he's apparently a nice guy. I didn't need a whole book to clue me in that Barry Bonds's physical changes involved more than just standard weight training. Looking at two baseball cards convinced me. Apart from the obvious changes to Bonds's physique, there are some facial changes, particularly to his jaw line, that seem consistent with facial changes in users of human growth hormone. Did you really think mere mortals could acquire the superhero chin without the aid of pharmaceuticals?
Based on the revelations in Game of Shadows, ESPN.com's Gene Wojciechowski says: "the only way he gets into Cooperstown is if he spends the $14.50 for a Hall of Fame admission ticket." But even if Bonds had retired before the 1999 season, when it is alleged that he started using steroids, he would have been a lock for the Hall of Fame. He had already won eight Gold Gloves, stolen 445 bases, and hit 410 home runs. And if baseball refused to even suspend steroid users when Bonds allegedly used, how can baseball lock Barry Bonds out of its Hall of Fame?
Simply put: Barry Bonds is not just a Hall of Famer, but one of the greatest baseball players ever to lace up a pair of spikes. Without steroids, he is the best baseball player of the past thirty years. With them, he may be the best ever. Unless your name is Babe Ruth or Willie Mays, Barry Bonds is a better baseball player than you. Don't feel bad, though. A new book says that he is a worse person.
Baseball doesn't control who gets into the HoF so they can't lock him out. The only thing they could do that would cause that is to ban Barry for life from baseball, which they of course can't do since he didn't violate their rules.
The HoF may or may not put him/McGwire/Sosa/Palmeiro in. I suspect they will all have to get in for the reason that it is impossible to know anything for sure regarding them and steroids wasn't even banned by baseball. However, I can't predict how these sportswriters will vote (if it were up to the veterans committee I doubt any of them would get in).
The test will of course be this offseason when McGwire becomes eligible for the Hall . . . along with Cal Ripken Jr., and Tony Gwynn, which will make it a very interesting election indeed. Gwynn and Ripken are sure first ballot HoFers as McGwire would/should be. So the reaction of having 2 of the best examples af the game in its purity up there with Big Mac after all this mess will be rather unfortunate actually. I love the sport and so hate to see that conjunction. The stuff hitting the fan with Bonds could get the sportswriters in a foul enough mood by the time the offseason comes around that they just say screw McGwire and the obvious dopers.
I have to say more on this, thought 2 posts was easier.
I think your being way too blithely dismissive of Bonds cheating Dan. Maybe spoken like a true football fan? Heh-heh.
Baseball is all about the numbers, which are supposed to mean true excellence (in a very serious fashion, like the Greek sense of arete) and Bonds, et. al. have stolen those records from the fans just as much as the 1919 White Sox stole from us the knowledge of who should really have been declared the World Series winners of 1919.
That being said, I have to also disagree with your assessment of Bonds as clearly being the best player of the last 30 years. I will assume that you mean the range of choices to include only players that played the bulk of their careers after the 1960's and if still playing have already logged at least, what, say 15? full seasons. With those strictures I would list the best as Ken Griffey, Jr., and have second almost a toss-up between Rod Carew, Bonds, and Rickey Henderson (I give the edge to Carew and am sympathetic to the case for Henderson over Bonds), with Reggie Jackson and George Brett right there as well.
As I reckon things Bonds has robbed us of the ability to accurately project out what his natural capabilities would have allowed him to do beyond his 33rd birthday. If we just go by his stats until he turned 33 then Jr. had 71 more home runs, and was equivalent in most categories except SBs, which has as much to do with batting order as anything else. Griffey was clearly the superior defender as well.
1. MLB doesn't control the Hall of Fame, but baseball does.
2. Rod Carew doesn't belong in the same sentence as Barry Bonds. Greats Wade Boggs, George Brett, Tony Gwynn, and Rod Carew belong in the same sentence. Super-greats Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Babe Ruth, and Barry Bonds belong in the same sentence. Carew didn't hit for power and he wasn't a great fielder. Bonds did everything but pitch.
3. There is nothing that Reggie Jackson did better than Barry Bonds. Hit for power? No. Hit for average? No. Field? No. Run? No. His teams won more games--and he helped win more big games--but team wins involve teams and not lone individuals. Perhaps a juiced up Jackson beats a juiced up Bonds in power numbers, but Brian: Jackson's career batting average was .262. And that from a guy who spent 630 games at DH, a position Bonds has never played. What might Bonds's numbers have been had he played in the AL?
4. I agree that steroids in baseball has done a disservice to historical comparisons and the record books. I lay primary blame upon MLB for not outlawing steroids or enforcing existing rules. I don't lay the primary blame on players who broke "rules" that didn't exist. Having said that, Bonds, Canseco, Caminetti, etc. all knew they were doing something wrong. Offenses against the traditions of the game are in this case more egregious than actual transgressions against rules.
Steroids or no steroids, Bonds is a Hall of Famer. Wojciechowski is way off-base stating that Bonds will never get in. That's impossible; unless Bonds fails a test Palmeiro-style, I don't see how MLB can ever crucify him publically, particularly when it's obvious that the past decade has been filled with juicers: McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, Canseco, Caminiti, Brady Anderson, Luis Gonzalez, Juan Gonzalez, Ivan Rodriguez, and God knows who else I'm missing. I mean, there's numerous 50, 60, and even 70-homer seasons, multiple MVP's, and some World Series titles in the group above, and it's just impossible to erase those accomplishments from baseball history. I'm also willing to bet that at some point McGwire, Sosa, and Ivan Rodriguez get to Cooperstown, so there's no doubt about Bonds. That said, the question shouldn't be whether Bonds is enshrined in Cooperstown, but rather whether he physically makes it there: if he consumed the amount of steroids this new book suggests, Bonds should be dead in the next decade or so.
Bonds should never get in. His HR record means nothing.
Dan,
I don't know what your point 1 means. How can "baseball" control the HoF if MLB doesn't? The HoF has always been a separately incorporated non-profit museum. The only way they allow MLB control over inductions is by respecting MLB imposed lifetime bans on players. Otherwise, it is up to the elections committee, that means first select writers and then HoF'ers themselves decide by vote.
I understand you think Bonds is a sure HoF and, what's more, one of the few greatest of the sport. But I think that his admittance to the Hall depends to a large extent on if McGwire gets in this fall. If Mc does, then there will be no grounds for the writers to keep any of the others out. Either they make a stand this coming offseason or they won't be able to in the case of Bonds in 2013 or so.
Your point 2 is the best part of your argument since I did suggest that I might give Carew an edge to Bonds, however, I didn't do the same for Jackson so I assume your deflection away from my argument that Griffey, Jr. was better than Bonds is an unintentional one caused by midsreading my claim. I put Griffey first, then Carew/Henderson/Bonds as 2nd adding I might give Carew or even Henderson the edge, then put Brett and Jackson "right there as well," but both coming up short compared to the other three. I could have been clearer on that.
But as far as this bar stool fight you picked, over best ballplayer in the past 30 years, how can you ignore my direct claim that Jr. was better?
Finally, I think you are talking of Bonds as if it is easy to project what the end of his career would have been like if he hadn't decided to start taking steroids in 1998. It is not at all easy. The articles coming out indicate that his eyesight improved b/c of juice (I had never heard of that effect before but it is very important), that he recovered from injury quicker, never fatigued, maintained musculature w/ less effort, the obvious improved strength, etc. Bonds himself has robbed us of the ability to accurately assess where he stands in comparison to the other great players of the past 30 years. I suspect that Bonds would have been seen w/o the juice as on par with maybe Frank Robinson as one of the 10 best players ever, maybe top 6-7. But to see him as legitimately on par with Ruth/Aaron/Mays, the great triumvirate of baseball, is simply not justified since he entered that rarefied air only after prolonging his career (his dad fell apart and retired at 35) and improving it through chemistry. You seem to be having trouble returning to what would have been a fair assessment of him prior to 1999, I don't blame you, his feats have been astounding over the last 8 years and they have corrupted are perception of him.
The Griffey argument is more of a problem because Bonds and Griffey might have been seen as parallel players until they reached the late part of their careers at which point Griffey completely fell apart and Bonds thrived. Obviously, their parallel careers that suddenly diverged into two different directions begs a discussion about steroids. Griffey, by all accounts, never did them. Bonds, by most opinions, did them. And at the same time Griffey was breaking down, Bonds was taking off. The fact that both players had poor relationships with the media and had fathers who were memorable players (but not Hall of Famers) begs comparisons between them too.
They are both first ballot Hall of Famers, but Bonds is better. He was more of a threat on the base paths, hit for average better, produced more runs, and hit for power better. Both were great fielders, but Griffey is an all-time great fielder whereas Bonds is just a great fielder in relation to other '90s outfielders. So, Griffey gets the edge there--but only there.
Brian, just consider that when Bonds retires, there's an excellent chance he will hold the all-time home run record; a fair chance he will hold the all-time runs scored record; and an outside shot that he will hold baseball's RBI record. He won eight Gold Gloves and seven MVP awards. He is the only player in the 500/500 club (and the only player in the 400/400 club for that matter). Next to the definition of "five-tool player" is a picture of Barry Bonds.
You write: "I think you are talking of Bonds as if it is easy to project what the end of his career would have been like if he hadn't decided to start taking steroids in 1998." No, I'm saying that if he decided to stop playing baseball after the 1998 season (by which time he had racked up 400+ SBs and HRs, eight Gold Gloves, and three MVP awards), he would have been a first ballot Hall of Famer anyhow. You don't have to imagine what Barry Bonds would have been like without steroids because, as his '86-'98 career demonstrates, we know the answer to that question: the best player in baseball.
You are still refusing to really face what the steroids issue does to assessing Bonds career. I never disagreed that he was a 1st ballot HoFer in 1998, I agree. But your list in the 3rd paragraph above conflates "records" that he will have BECAUSE of steroids with his status as an elite player pre-juice. You are begging the question of how we assess his career given the impact of steroids on it. He may "hold the all-time home run record; a fair chance he will hold the all-time runs scored record; and an outside shot that he will hold baseball's RBI record." But all of these records will have been broken by Bonds BECAUSE of steroids, otherwise it is exceeding unlikely he could have done that. "He won eight Gold Gloves" all before he started the juice!, and "seven MVP awards" but 4 of them came after he started the juice. Your final paragraph says you want to restrict the assessment of Bonds to pre-juice, okay, we agree if that means he was a HoFer then and we can have our argument over Griffey (I will address that later, need to look at stats some first). But you can't throw out his career accomplishments in the 3rd paragraph and conflate the pre- and post-juice records.
We have to come to some way to figure out what the juice does to those records, I think it is tough to say, but Barry should not be given the benefit of the doubt as far as his status in relation to the greats b/c of the difficulty, after all, he is the one who has robbed us of the ability to accurately admire his baseball excellence.
Finally, here is the nub for me. The numbers "6" and "180." That is Hank Aaron's height, 6 feet even, and his weight, 180 when he has pursuing and breaking Ruths HR record and establishing himself as the greatest hitter ever. I have long had a grudge against Hammerin' Hank since he was a jerk to me when I met him as a kid, but think about it. What are we really supposed to think the night in April/May 2007 when Bonds breaks Aaron's HR record in San Fran and circles the plate and Hank will be there to greet him. And He will HAVE to be there. How can he not be? We can't erase these records the juicers set. But seriously, think of that. When that juiced freak hulk with the misshapen head crosses home plate and embraces Aaron, the dimunitive older man who used his God-given talents honestly and takes over that coveted title of "all-time home run king" how are all baseball fans not supposed to be outraged? Forget being a fan of the sport, it is simply indecent. This is about the natural human desire to recognize and admire excellence. Bonds was an excellent player but he has destroyed our ability to appreciate him fairly, and, what's much much worse, he is destroying our memories of the accomplishments of greats like his godfather and Aaron who set their records honestly.
He will certainly stay until he beats Ruth as he is a racist and nothing would give him more pleasure in life. He will very probably stay until he beats Aaron since he has an unlimited ego and zero dignity. And that is just sad. That is the story here.
I'm not conflating the argument, which, if you remember, is: Barry Bonds a Hall of Famer, yes or no? I say yes. I say yes even if he retired before the 1999 season, which is when he allegedly began taking steroids. I add that not only would Bonds had made the Hall of Fame if he retired in '99, but he would have been a first ballot Hall of Famer. Is there something higher than a first-ballot Hall of Famer? No. So my point is: Barry Bonds was a first ballot Hall of Famer as of spring training '99, Barry Bonds is a first ballot Hall of Famer as of spring training '06. His numbers are even gaudier now, but that's irrelevant as he already scored a perfect on the baseball test--first ballot Hall of Famer--and now he's just tacking on extra credit.
The real shame is that when we look back on this era 20 years from now, "clean" players will be grouped into the "steroid era". Hitters such as A-Rod and Manny Ramirez will unfairly be bunched together with Bonds/McGwire/Sosa/Palmeiro et al.
I think we are agreeing then in the basics. My point was that what you call extra credit (his jusiced accomplishments) is what made you claim that he was the best player of the last 30 years, and better than all but Ruth and Mays in your original post. Your concession that injecting Jr. in the mix makes it more interesting and that Bonds being a first ballot HoF'er pre-juice is enough to make your point brings our views closer together.
I definitely say though that the story is the juice, what they do to the records, what we are supposed to think about him setting records on steroids, etc. The HoF issue will work itself out w/o any input from us fans.
If Bonds goes into the Hall, the Hall, and major league baseball are a JOKE.
Any fantasy baseball geek debate about stats misses the larger point: there has to be some overriding standard above mere stats for entry into the Hall (Dan, you've stated as much to me in a conversation about Pete Rose years ago). Call it what you want--a moral or a character standard. THere comes a point that someone's behavior is so egregious that the gaudy stats get trumped. Should someone who commits a double murder receive baseball's highest honor because he had 500 home runs? Try explaining that one to your kid on a trip to Cooperstown.
Cheating is bad enough by itself. Cheating through the use of an illegal substance is surely egregious enough to disqualify someone for the hall.
And what is the source of Bond's "Fame"? Arguably he will now be just as famous for steroids as for his on field accomplishments.
It will be interesting to see if the sycophant fans who have been cheering this guy in the face of mounting evidence of his steroid use will continue to do so. I expect they will, given our society's increasingly sickening propensity for worship of celebrities and sports stars, even when they engage in behavior we wouldn't tolerate in our own personal lives.
CB writes: "Should someone who commits a double murder receive baseball's highest honor because he had 500 home runs?" I can see no reason why not.
