Poll-y Annas

This story at SI.com boggles the mind.  Barry Bonds is "far from being a shoo-in" with Hall of Fame voters? Are they kidding? Or just drunk?

"I will not vote for Mark McGwire," Bill Plaschke of the Los Angeles Times said. "It’s obvious from his own statements he used some form of performance-enhancing drugs and it’s obvious from his statistics he did not become a Hall of Fame-type player until he did so."

Say what you will about McGwire (he’s a borderline hall guy in my opinion even if he didn’t take steroids), since he clearly accomplished a great deal more due to the use of canned goods, but with Bonds that argument fails – he was a HOFer before he ever (we think) used.  That might make his indulgence even more sad, but it doesn’t erase his pre-bulk accomplishments.

What’s next? Freddie Patek making it via the veteran’s committee?

9 comments… add one

  • It’s ridiculous on all counts. What, specifically, do we know about McGwire now that we did not know when he retired? He was never caught violating baseball rules then, and the only actual evidence that he did use steroids comes in Jose Canseco’s book. So what exactly has changed? That he refused to incriminate himself before Congress? It may seem clear that he was tainted, but it seemed pretty clear years ago, too, and who was was complaining then? You can’t change history retroactively.

    YF March 25, 2005, 3:35 pm
  • And who the heck is this guy, and what the f*ck is he talking about?
    To me, skinny Barry was as good as big Barry — he was good even before the questions arose about steroids. I covered skinny Barry for a long time and he was a heck of a player even before he got big.– John Perrotto, Beaver County (Pa.) Times
    Yeah, John, he was always great, but you can have the 1991 Barry who hit .292 with 25 homers and 107 walks. I’ll take the 2001 Barry who hit .323 with 73 homers and 177 walks. I hope our teams play.

    YF March 25, 2005, 3:50 pm
  • And I think we all know, based on the effects of steroids, which Barry Mrs. Bonds would take.

    SF March 25, 2005, 4:16 pm
  • Mr.McGwire is a fraud, why you ask? Somethings you take to the grave. Deny ,deny,& deny. He doesnt get my vote.

    El Duque March 25, 2005, 9:26 pm
  • Are they drunk? I think you guys should be subjected to the drug test.
    In case Pete Rose’s situation didn’t make it clear, your previous accomplishments really don’t mean much when you disgrace the game.
    Bonds is guilty of three things, in my eyes:
    1) using steroids
    2) lying about using steroids
    3) blaming others for his problems caused by lying about using steroids.
    This is a guy we want in the Hall of Fame?
    No way.
    http://www.potfry.blogspot.com

    Bob March 26, 2005, 3:26 pm
  • First of all, Bob, you’re not getting YF anywhere near a drug test. As for guys we “want” in the HOF, if that were the criteria for entry you’d be able to fit the plaques in a NY studio apartment. So that knocks off points 2 and 3 on your list, IMHO. As to his use of steroids, that, at the moment, remains a matter of hearsay, at least technically, and as far as I’m concerned technicalities matter, as does the fact that the legality of his steroid use is a matter of conjecture. But even if we assume that he was a big fat cheater, there’s SF’s compelling argument that his pre-roid performance already qualifies him for induction.

    YF March 26, 2005, 4:10 pm
  • There are plenty of well-known cheaters in the hall of fame now; are we going to remove them?

    Clay March 28, 2005, 4:21 pm
  • At the risk of sounding overly principled, it’s exactly that sort of rationalization that keeps this godforsaken merry-go-round spinning.
    If I follow your line of thinking, O.J. Simpson is just misunderstood.

    Bob March 28, 2005, 9:45 pm
  • Principles? Nothing’s been proven, just a lot of blabber and accusations by people who think they can tell a steroid user by the size of their head.

    Clay March 29, 2005, 1:12 pm

Leave a Comment