David Ortiz elected to Baseball HOF but…

The baseball HOF decided along time ago that rather be a shine to greatness—which takes on many forms, some quite ugly—it would be a meddling joke.

As long as Pete Rose is out, it is not a hall of fame. It’s a sham.

Can you let us all know exactly what date did Bonds start injecting? Since, it seems so clear to you that he was tailing off, and you have a clear date that his HR production would have let up. It is such an odd number to pick out HR #445.

And your premise is that only Bonds and Clemens juiced?

For those saying Bonds never tested positive:

Skimmed the thread and may have missed someone already saying this, but Bonds was caught up in the BALCO scandal, during which

A) his personal trainer was indicted for providing steroids to his athletes,

B) Bonds himself testified (his sealed testimony leaked) that he took steroids unknowingly,

C) his girlfriend testified that Bonds told her he was using steroids, and

D) Bonds was convicted of perjury for lying/incomplete responses to questions about his steroid use.

I have no opinion on whether he should be or not, it depends on what the HOF is supposed to be about I guess. Just pointing out why Bonds is in a different boat when it comes to the certainty/proof of his steroid use.

Did you look up the slg? In the 7 yrs 1993-99, Bonds had a higher slg than Griffey in three. 1997 was the only year that Griffey was markedly greater than Bonds, .646 v .585. In the other years their numbers were essentially the same. There’s really no stats argument you can provide to argue Griffey was much better. I’m not saying Bonds was much better either, but your narrative that Griffey was the star and Bonds was washed up and on the decline is laughable.

To compare Bonds to Adam Dunn or Fred McGriff. Hahahahaha.

Ok, enough of me being trolled….clown show you must not have actually watched much baseball.

I think we're petty much in agreement. The primary point I've been trying to make is that Bonds' steroid years can be completely disregarded and he still had a HOF career. 400 or so home runs, 500 or so steals. 3 MVPs, lots of all-star games. several gold gloves. For that reason, he should be in the HOF.

I definitely agree his steroid years put him on a level never reached by Griffey or maybe anyone not named Babe Ruth, if him even.

Youwrong wrote:

These are interesting debates but remember the fact that Nixon could have won the election in 1972 without Watergate did not mean he was not going to have to pay a price for it. Just saying…If Bonds deserves to be in the HOF, the argument that he was good enough without cheating is irrelevant to me. That said, I can see the argument for his inclusion.

Nixon did win the election in 1972, 49 states to 1.

Yes, we agree, but even if Bonds HR production dropped to a half of his usual numbers starting in 2000, he would have been well over 500 HRs and probably close to 600 or more by the time he retired. He was a HOF lock without steroids, that’s for sure.

carmine9 wrote:

Youwrong wrote:

These are interesting debates but remember the fact that Nixon could have won the election in 1972 without Watergate did not mean he was not going to have to pay a price for it. Just saying…If Bonds deserves to be in the HOF, the argument that he was good enough without cheating is irrelevant to me. That said, I can see the argument for his inclusion.

Nixon did win the election in 1972, 49 states to 1.

Thank you Captain Obvious. That was my point.

Youwrong wrote:

carmine9 wrote:

Nixon did win the election in 1972, 49 states to 1.

Thank you Captain Obvious. That was my point.

"...remember the fact that Nixon could have won the election in 1972 without Watergate..".

carmine9 wrote:

Youwrong wrote:

Thank you Captain Obvious. That was my point.

"...remember the fact that Nixon could have won the election in 1972 without Watergate..".

Yeah that is the point. Are you stupid?

BTW, The Sporting News did name Bonds, and not Griffey, the MLB player of the decade 1990-1999. See the July 12th, 1999 edition. Guess they did not agree that Griffey dominated Bonds during most of the 90s.

Wise Old Man wrote:

Yes, we agree, but even if Bonds HR production dropped to a half of his usual numbers starting in 2000, he would have been well over 500 HRs and probably close to 600 or more by the time he retired. He was a HOF lock without steroids, that’s for sure.

Yep. He could have limped his way to at least 500 home runs.