- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Spinoff: should bonds be in the HOF?
Posted on 7/22/15 at 9:18 am to dukke v
Posted on 7/22/15 at 9:18 am to dukke v
quote:
That matters little...
Exactly. Players are a product of their time.
No need to Retroactively attempt to discredit or take away their numbers. Don't do it to Babe Ruth, Don't do it to Pete Rose, Don't do it to Barry Bonds.
Catch it before or during the game. After that, it is history.
I don't care what kind of person Bonds was. I don't care that he juiced. I know that he hit the ball over the fence more than any other player with nothing more than his body and a bat. Short of finding something wrong (cheating) with his play during the game, I see absolutely no reason why he shouldn't be in the HOF. 1st Ballot guy if I have ever see one.
2
Posted on 7/22/15 at 9:20 am to RedRifle
Leaving Bonds and Clemens out is worse than leaving Rose out.
ETA: and A-Rod for that matter.
ETA: and A-Rod for that matter.
This post was edited on 7/22/15 at 9:21 am
Posted on 7/22/15 at 9:25 am to 5thTiger
(no message)
This post was edited on 7/22/15 at 2:25 pm
Posted on 7/22/15 at 9:29 am to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:Exactly.. So many guys are already in the hall that had, shall we say, less than stellar character.
To reiterate the point, we're talking about voting a guy into the baseball HOF, the into elected office.
Posted on 7/22/15 at 9:37 am to Patton
quote:
Would all the numbers put up pre integration been possible without a color barrier? I don't know and neither do you.
This is true...
quote:
but to act like the pre integration players didn't bennifit from avoiding fantastic minority players in their day is disingenuous.
I am not arguing that...Do you agree that Ruth was WAY WAY better than anyone else in his era?????You can't say that about Bonds even after he started roiding....
Posted on 7/22/15 at 9:43 am to dukke v
quote:
..Do you agree that Ruth was WAY WAY better than anyone else in his era
Yes, but segregation is a big factor, the fact that fewer people played and hence you had fewer good players is also a factor. Not to take away from Ruth, he deserves the praise and ranking he gets.
quote:
You can't say that about Bonds even after he started roiding....
Different world, they now find players around the world, there a lot more people playing and knowledge of hitting, defense, pitching and technology (of baseball) are much better. All those shrink the gap between the top players. Ruth was so far ahead of his time (and that is to his credit). If he was playing today, he'd still be superstar, but also would not be as far out in front as he was in his day.
Posted on 7/22/15 at 9:46 am to dukke v
Just because Bonds was not as good as Ruth doesn't mean he doesn't deserve to be in the Hall. Can you quantify how much more of advantage Bonds had by roiding, than Ruth had by avoiding minorities? You brought up tainted as a reason Bonds doesn't deserve the hall. You can use the tainted argument for a lot of ball players. It isn't the baseball writers job to judge players on their morality. That shouldn't be a criteria for HOF consideration.
Posted on 7/22/15 at 9:46 am to dukke v
quote:4 straight MVPs, 7 total, next closest person has 3. One of those seasons, 2002, he hit .370, next closest NL player was .338… Over 500 stolen bases and the most career home runs.. How much is "way better?"
Do you agree that Ruth was WAY WAY better than anyone else in his era?????You can't say that about Bonds even after he started roiding....
ETA: Also, are you suggesting Ruth was "WAY WAY better" than Rogers Hornsby?
This post was edited on 7/22/15 at 9:55 am
Posted on 7/22/15 at 9:52 am to RedRifle
Steroid guys - yes.
Pete Rose - absolutely not.
Pete Rose - absolutely not.
Posted on 7/22/15 at 9:58 am to 5thTiger
quote:
I don't care what kind of person Bonds was. I don't care that he juiced. I know that he hit the ball over the fence more than any other player with nothing more than his body and a bat. Short of finding something wrong (cheating) with his play during the game, I see absolutely no reason why he shouldn't be in the HOF. 1st Ballot guy if I have ever see one.
I would say of the whole steroid era Bonds benefited the least from using drugs. He was a 1st ballot HOFer before and now drug accusation just taints his image. Guys like Sosa benefited much more from the roids.
Posted on 7/22/15 at 10:14 am to RedRifle
He should absolutely be in but he won't because the hall is a joke. How can you not let the homerun king in?
Posted on 7/22/15 at 10:16 am to dukke v
quote:
I am not arguing that...Do you agree that Ruth was WAY WAY better than anyone else in his era?????You can't say that about Bonds even after he started roiding....
That is pure garbage. Bonds was so far ahead of everyone else in all forms of hitting. Walks, Hits, Homeruns. Add in the fact that he had speed on the bases, and great defense.
Ruth did nothing on the bases..his best season had 17 steals. He did nothing in terms of defense. Hitting at best is a wash, and bonds added so much besides hitting at the plate.
Posted on 7/22/15 at 10:23 am to 5thTiger
quote:7 years between 1920 and 1929 Rogers Hornsby had the best batting average and in 1922 and '25 he hit more Home Runs than the Babe.. If that means Babe Ruth was WAY WAY better than Hornsby then I give up.
Hitting at best is a wash
Posted on 7/22/15 at 10:24 am to goldenbadger08
[quote]Also, are you suggesting Ruth was "WAY WAY better" than Rogers Hornsby?
quote]
Yes...Yes he was... Look at the stats............
quote]
Yes...Yes he was... Look at the stats............
Posted on 7/22/15 at 10:25 am to dukke v
quote:
Yes...Yes he was... Look at the stats............
quote:these stats?
7 years between 1920 and 1929 Rogers Hornsby had the best batting average and in 1922 and '25 he hit more Home Runs than the Babe..
Posted on 7/22/15 at 10:27 am to goldenbadger08
1925 was the year Ruth was sick, he still hit 25 home runs in 98 games
This post was edited on 7/22/15 at 10:30 am
Posted on 7/22/15 at 10:28 am to goldenbadger08
quote:
.. If that means Babe Ruth was WAY WAY better than Hornsby then I give up.
Well you might as well quit then............
1925 the Babe was injured most of the year.........
Just look at 1921....The Stats are the BEST ever recorded in one year.............By one player.......
Go ahead and try to compare...........
Posted on 7/22/15 at 10:31 am to dukke v
(no message)
This post was edited on 7/22/15 at 2:26 pm
Posted on 7/22/15 at 10:33 am to dukke v
quote:Okay,
Go ahead and try to compare...
1921 Babe Ruth:
152 games, 177 runs scored, 177 hits, 59 home runs, 168 RBI, .378 BA
1922 Rogers Hornsby:
154 games, 141 runs scored, 250 hits, 42 home runs, 152 RBI, .401 BA
(Only player to hit 40 home runs and bat .400 in a season.)
That is not "WAY WAY better" by any stretch...
Posted on 7/22/15 at 10:54 am to goldenbadger08
quote:
That is not "WAY WAY better" by any stretch...
Nice find... You did some homework.....Yet how many more years did Hornsby have like that compared to how many more years Ruth had stats like he had in 1921..... Anyway back on topic...If they want to put Bonds in the HOF...So be it...He was a great player before he started roiding...BUT why did he need them????? Did he NOT think he was that good??? What was he trying to prove by taking them????
Page 4 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News