Barry Bonds

#1      
Doug Glanville: Why I'm OK with Barry Bonds not being elected to the Hall of Fame

ESPN link

Doug wrote a very interesting article. What he says has merit. There is no way to know for sure but some of those that were hurt by PED use were the journeyman players who were lost their jobs to players who juiced.

BACK IN 1997, when I was in my second year with the Cubs, I vividly recall watching batting practice when Mark McGwire stepped in the cage for the Cardinals. It was awesome. I saw how far the ball flew, and, like so many of us, I suspended disbelief. It was like watching a good horror movie, before we knew how wrong things could go.

Over time, a cloud of doubt seeped into clubhouses. Suspicion about whether that teammate beating you out is playing fair. Records became mere placeholders. Every home run hit a little too far brought a hitter's integrity into question. We stopped trusting the game, and, worse, we lost our sense of awe in it. Even as the fans came back post-strike, it was still eroding.

For weeks before the vote was announced, I imagined watching a parade of PED players walk up to the podium to tell us about their journey, knowing they represent a force that accelerated the demise of so many players who played it straight. Congratulations?

It was the same powerlessness I felt facing an opponent who had an unfair advantage. But this time, it was mixed with the disorientation of having no idea where to direct that frustration. I could no longer take it out on a baseball. Instead, I could only swing at ghosts.

There is a lot more to the story read it on the ESPN website.
 
#2      
ESPN link

Doug wrote a very interesting article. What he says has merit. There is no way to know for sure but some of those that were hurt by PED use were the journeyman players who were lost their jobs to players who juiced.



There is a lot more to the story read it on the ESPN website.
I don't entirely disagree and don't feel bad for Bonds, Clemens, or even McGwire who I've always been a fan of. But the lines being drawn are kind of arbitrary. Ortiz just got elected to the HOF and he's been linked to PED use. And then there's the widespread use of amphetamines as a performance enhancer going back to the 50s and involving huge names like Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, Hank Aaron, Mike Schmidt and many more. It's just convenient for the MLB to blame the most famous PED cases and ignore the culture that encouraged this type of behavior going back decades. Glanville kind of addresses this in the article, but not really. Why do we feel ok with celebrating Mays, but not Bonds?
 
#3      
Excluding suspected PED users is asinine. It happened. Everyone knew. No one did anything about it. It would be more honorable to acknowledge it, and own the shortcomings of the league.

Its also pretty far from the most scandalous and immoral things that have happened in baseball history. The Hall of Fame is full of people who excluded people of color from participating and colluded to ensure players remained tied to one team and paid a fraction of their actual worth to a franchise for decades.

In the case of Bonds, I saw a stat that said if you turned each of his homeruns into outs, his OBP would still be higher than David Ortiz's. (Who is going to be inducted)
 
#4      
I don't entirely disagree and don't feel bad for Bonds, Clemens, or even McGwire who I've always been a fan of. But the lines being drawn are kind of arbitrary. Ortiz just got elected to the HOF and he's been linked to PED use.
This is what bothers me. Why are Bonds and Clemons ostracized, but Ortiz - who, if you were looking just at his on-field accomplishments, would be a frankly borderline Hall pick, and certainly not a first ballot-er - gets in right away. Ortiz wasn't anywhere near as good as the other primarily DH picks to make it in - Frank Thomas, Paul Molitor, Edgar Martinez. It's hypocrisy. How can Glanville even write that article today without addressing Ortiz?

Andruw Jones was a year younger than Ortiz and a far better player than Ortiz up to his 30th birthday. Then Jones' numbers started to sag, and Ortiz kept plugging along - even getting better to some degree. And we're just supposed to assume it's because Ortiz was, what? Better conditioned? A better ball player? Had better genetics? We know Ortiz tested positive for PEDs in 2003, coinciding with his first 30 HR, .900+ OPS season at age 27. Why do we give him the benefit of the doubt? Just a late bloomer, I guess. Ortiz gets in on the first ballot, while Jones - arguably the greatest defensive outfielder of all time - is now 0 for 5.

Glanville criticizes the willful suspension of disbelief we engaged in with Bonds, while completely ignoring that BWAA just inducted a guy that we know tested positive at one point and later had a .620 slugging and led the AL in doubles as a 40 year old.
 
#5      
This is what bothers me. Why are Bonds and Clemons ostracized, but Ortiz - who, if you were looking just at his on-field accomplishments, would be a frankly borderline Hall pick, and certainly not a first ballot-er - gets in right away. Ortiz wasn't anywhere near as good as the other primarily DH picks to make it in - Frank Thomas, Paul Molitor, Edgar Martinez. It's hypocrisy. How can Glanville even write that article today without addressing Ortiz?

Andruw Jones was a year younger than Ortiz and a far better player than Ortiz up to his 30th birthday. Then Jones' numbers started to sag, and Ortiz kept plugging along - even getting better to some degree. And we're just supposed to assume it's because Ortiz was, what? Better conditioned? A better ball player? Had better genetics? We know Ortiz tested positive for PEDs in 2003, coinciding with his first 30 HR, .900+ OPS season at age 27. Why do we give him the benefit of the doubt? Just a late bloomer, I guess. Ortiz gets in on the first ballot, while Jones - arguably the greatest defensive outfielder of all time - is now 0 for 5.

Glanville criticizes the willful suspension of disbelief we engaged in with Bonds, while completely ignoring that BWAA just inducted a guy that we know tested positive at one point and later had a .620 slugging and led the AL in doubles as a 40 year old.
There's a lot of factors that really shouldn't be a part of it at play I think. Ortiz was a media darling, playing for a team that gets outsized press coverage due to it's underdog history and east coast placement. Clemens and Bonds were both a bit prickly with the press and not necessarily the most likable people. Should this matter? No. Does it? Probably.
 
#6      
Excluding suspected PED users is asinine. It happened. Everyone knew. No one did anything about it. It would be more honorable to acknowledge it, and own the shortcomings of the league.

Its also pretty far from the most scandalous and immoral things that have happened in baseball history. The Hall of Fame is full of people who excluded people of color from participating and colluded to ensure players remained tied to one team and paid a fraction of their actual worth to a franchise for decades.

In the case of Bonds, I saw a stat that said if you turned each of his homeruns into outs, his OBP would still be higher than David Ortiz's. (Who is going to be inducted)
PEDs didn’t just impact HRs. Bond’s BA and walks went up pretty drastically in large part because of PEDs, so his OBP would not have been nearly as high.

I was happy to see Bonds and the others kept out and think Ortiz should have been too. The argument that the Hall is a museum and thus these guys should be put in because they’re part of baseball history doesn’t sway me either. The Hall is more than just a museum. They can have an exhibit that talks about the PED era and the numbers put up by the guys who are generally linked to PEDs for the historical aspect but the players should not be enshrined. Heck that exhibit can even talk about how the summer of McGuire and Sosa helped rebuild the popularity of baseball if they want, but the individual players should not be enshrined. I think it is similar to a player breaking some hitting record and his bat being sent to Hall for historical purposes. The player isn’t enshrined too.

Just my opinion and I realize it seems to be getting more unpopular as time goes on.
 
#7      
There's a lot of factors that really shouldn't be a part of it at play I think. Ortiz was a media darling, playing for a team that gets outsized press coverage due to it's underdog history and east coast placement. Clemens and Bonds were both a bit prickly with the press and not necessarily the most likable people. Should this matter? No. Does it? Probably.
Ortiz got in on the first ballot because of the "Boston Strong" moment, and because he's a friendly, smiley guy who's played by Keenan Thompson on SNL.

And I'm OK with that.

I just think it's stupid that the voters who are so mad about steroid abuse in baseball that they're willing to keep arguably the all-time greatest hitter and all-time greatest pitcher out of the Hall haven't said one word about Ortiz being inducted. And mathematically, a fairly significant chunk of voters who didn't vote for Bonds and Clemons must have voted for Ortiz. I just don't understand the mental gymnastics that went into being able to vote that way.
 
#8      
PEDs didn’t just impact HRs. Bond’s BA and walks went up pretty drastically in large part because of PEDs, so his OBP would not have been nearly as high.

I was happy to see Bonds and the others kept out and think Ortiz should have been too. The argument that the Hall is a museum and thus these guys should be put in because they’re part of baseball history doesn’t sway me either. The Hall is more than just a museum. They can have an exhibit that talks about the PED era and the numbers put up by the guys who are generally linked to PEDs for the historical aspect but the players should not be enshrined. Heck that exhibit can even talk about how the summer of McGuire and Sosa helped rebuild the popularity of baseball if they want, but the individual players should not be enshrined. I think it is similar to a player breaking some hitting record and his bat being sent to Hall for historical purposes. The player isn’t enshrined too.

Just my opinion and I realize it seems to be getting more unpopular as time goes on.
I used to think this too, but these players' stats are also being compared to players who were hopped up on amphetamines. Daryl Strawberry described the effects of amphetamines like this: "You take amphetamines, and the ball looks so big. It's like you could hit anything."

So not only do we continue to let players who had that advantage stay in the HOF. When electing new members, we compare their stats to these known PED users to see how they stack up. We expect them to be on par with known PED users, but punish them for seeking out the same advantage.
 
#9      
This is what bothers me. Why are Bonds and Clemons ostracized, but Ortiz - who, if you were looking just at his on-field accomplishments, would be a frankly borderline Hall pick, and certainly not a first ballot-er - gets in right away. Ortiz wasn't anywhere near as good as the other primarily DH picks to make it in - Frank Thomas, Paul Molitor, Edgar Martinez. It's hypocrisy. How can Glanville even write that article today without addressing Ortiz?

Andruw Jones was a year younger than Ortiz and a far better player than Ortiz up to his 30th birthday. Then Jones' numbers started to sag, and Ortiz kept plugging along - even getting better to some degree. And we're just supposed to assume it's because Ortiz was, what? Better conditioned? A better ball player? Had better genetics? We know Ortiz tested positive for PEDs in 2003, coinciding with his first 30 HR, .900+ OPS season at age 27. Why do we give him the benefit of the doubt? Just a late bloomer, I guess. Ortiz gets in on the first ballot, while Jones - arguably the greatest defensive outfielder of all time - is now 0 for 5.

Glanville criticizes the willful suspension of disbelief we engaged in with Bonds, while completely ignoring that BWAA just inducted a guy that we know tested positive at one point and later had a .620 slugging and led the AL in doubles as a 40 year old.
To put Ortiz in the same PED category as Bonds and Clemons is pretty crazy. The dude supposedly tested positive in 2003 under the closed testing program (it could have been Ritalin, it could have been a false positive, it could have been supplements) and then never tested positive during the actual program which ran during the rest of his career when all of his major accomplishments happened. Ortiz, umm, didn't exactly have the build and body of HGH or anabolic steroid user, right? It's not like he hit age 27 and then became muscle bound like Bonds and his hands and feet grew 5 sizes. Bonds played 17 years before there was any testing. Ortiz probably stayed healthy and productive for a long time probably because he just played DH all the time. Whether media bias or not, he hit 500 hr, won 3 world series, and is one of the best postseason hitters of all time. He hit 0.688 in the WS win over the Cardinals in 2013 even though they barely would pitch to him - probably a top 3 playoff individual series hitting performance of all time.

Is that first ballot? Maybe, maybe not. Well, it helps when the rest of the ballot has no other inductees. Ortiz has the same career WAR as Mariano Rivera who was another "specialist". All of Ortiz stats suggest he is a hall of fame and the DH argument is a relevant one, but the postseason success is way more high profile than not playing a below-average first base.
 
#10      
Jose Canseco, while being a self-serving slimeball and a shameless self-promoter, has actually turned out to be truthful in pretty much every statement he's ever made about steroids in baseball. He's been saying for a decade that there are already steroid users in the Hall of Fame. If you look at who his teammates were, you can make a pretty good educated guess as to who he's referring to, too.
 
#11      
Jose Canseco, while being a self-serving slimeball and a shameless self-promoter, has actually turned out to be truthful in pretty much every statement he's ever made about steroids in baseball. He's been saying for a decade that there are already steroid users in the Hall of Fame. If you look at who his teammates were, you can make a pretty good educated guess as to who he's referring to, too.
Pudge.
 
#12      
To put Ortiz in the same PED category as Bonds and Clemons is pretty crazy. The dude supposedly tested positive in 2003 under the closed testing program (it could have been Ritalin, it could have been a false positive, it could have been supplements) and then never tested positive during the actual program which ran during the rest of his career when all of his major accomplishments happened. Ortiz, umm, didn't exactly have the build and body of HGH or anabolic steroid user, right? It's not like he hit age 27 and then became muscle bound like Bonds and his hands and feet grew 5 sizes. Bonds played 17 years before there was any testing. Ortiz probably stayed healthy and productive for a long time probably because he just played DH all the time. Whether media bias or not, he hit 500 hr, won 3 world series, and is one of the best postseason hitters of all time. He hit 0.688 in the WS win over the Cardinals in 2013 even though they barely would pitch to him - probably a top 3 playoff individual series hitting performance of all time.

Is that first ballot? Maybe, maybe not. Well, it helps when the rest of the ballot has no other inductees. Ortiz has the same career WAR as Mariano Rivera who was another "specialist". All of Ortiz stats suggest he is a hall of fame and the DH argument is a relevant one, but the postseason success is way more high profile than not playing a below-average first base.
Neither Barry Bonds nor Roger Clemons ever tested positive for steroids, too. Both had clear Hall of Fame resumes prior to the seasons that it's generally assumed they started taking steroids (Clemons in 1997, Bonds in 2000). Steroids weren't even officially banned by MLB until 2005.
 
#13      
Neither Barry Bonds nor Roger Clemons ever tested positive for steroids, too. Both had clear Hall of Fame resumes prior to the seasons that it's generally assumed they started taking steroids (Clemons in 1997, Bonds in 2000). Steroids weren't even officially banned by MLB until 2005.
But this also makes my point, Barry and Roger were not subject to testing for the vast majority of their careers. Ortiz played in league with a testing protocol for 490 of his 541 HRs. Now, I also agree that Clemons and Bonds were hall of famers even if they had never taken steroids - steroids didn't make the hall of famers, but it certainly enhanced their profile significantly especially since longevity of excellence is really important in building a HOF career. But Bonds only hit ~50 of his home runs under the testing protocol. If you think the testing protocol was/is a big part of ensuring compliances, Ortiz thrived while the protocol was in place.
 
#14      

pruman91

Paducah, Ky
Excluding suspected PED users is asinine. It happened. Everyone knew. No one did anything about it. It would be more honorable to acknowledge it, and own the shortcomings of the league.

Its also pretty far from the most scandalous and immoral things that have happened in baseball history. The Hall of Fame is full of people who excluded people of color from participating and colluded to ensure players remained tied to one team and paid a fraction of their actual worth to a franchise for decades.

In the case of Bonds, I saw a stat that said if you turned each of his homeruns into outs, his OBP would still be higher than David Ortiz's. (Who is going to be inducted)
images - 2021-03-26T174415.754.jpg
 
#15      
But this also makes my point, Barry and Roger were not subject to testing for the vast majority of their careers. Ortiz played in league with a testing protocol for 490 of his 541 HRs. Now, I also agree that Clemons and Bonds were hall of famers even if they had never taken steroids - steroids didn't make the hall of famers, but it certainly enhanced their profile significantly especially since longevity of excellence is really important in building a HOF career. But Bonds only hit ~50 of his home runs under the testing protocol. If you think the testing protocol was/is a big part of ensuring compliances, Ortiz thrived while the protocol was in place.
Let's forget Ortiz for a minute. Mike Schmidt has admitted to using amphetamines as a performance enhancer, and the evidence against Mays is as compelling as the evidence against Bonds. If Bonds' PED use warrants exclusion from the hall, doesn't the PED use by Schmidt and Mays warrant removal?
 
#16      

bdutts

Houston, Texas
Will be interesting to see what happens with Alex Rodriguez on this year's ballot.
 
#19      
Football hall of fame.....Lawrence Taylor, Ray Lewis...not exactly role models. Hard to call this bunch a Hall of Fame??
 
#20      
Neither Barry Bonds nor Roger Clemons ever tested positive for steroids, too. Both had clear Hall of Fame resumes prior to the seasons that it's generally assumed they started taking steroids (Clemons in 1997, Bonds in 2000). Steroids weren't even officially banned by MLB until 2005.
Ever see pictures of Bonds at Pittsburgh, and then SF.....looks double in size....