I mean, by putting Bonds in first aren't we basically then implying that steroid use isn't as bad as gambling?? I don't think betting on your team to win should be that big of a deal, if you're betting on them to lose then that's a different story but either way cheating to inflate your personal numbers should be viewed much more harshely than gambling
billhill1066
Favorite Answer
First of all, don't forget Shoeless Joe Jackson! Rose should already be in - as a first ballot inductee. If there is a Hall of Fame, then his playing career numbers are among the best in MLB history. Bonds should also get in. Assuming he took steroids, his pre seroid numbers easily qualify him for first ballot induction.
Is anyone opposing the induction of Rose and Bonds aware of the character flaws of prior inductees? Cobb allegedly killed his father in law. A high percentage of HOF members who played in the 70's through the 90's used "greenies" (available in the clubhouse!!!) - illegal without a medical prescription!!! A few pitchers (illegally) threw spit balls to enhance their careers.
Furthermore, arguably baseball wouldn't be as popular today without having gone through a steroids period. Consider that the cancellation of the World Series by the owners as an over reaction to a labor dispute created a bad odor over all of baseball. When MLB baseball resumed, fan interest had declined significantly. It wasn't until the (perhaps steroid induced) homerun barrage, highlighed by the colossal battle between McGuire and Sosa, that fans fully returnd their attention to baseball. So, perhaps steroids brought the fans back and fattened the pocket books of the owners (who are also complicid in this). If steroids were the reason, who lost (I don't for a moment discount the trajedy of some hero worshipping teen thinking steroids are ok; and then causing serious injury to his life).
Some argue that the concept of comparing statistics from one era to another is no longer possible and that records no longer mean anything. Well, even without steroids, it still would not be possible to accurately compare the statistis of one era to another. Yes, Ruth as unbelievable as his stats were, (hence the term "Ruthian"), still can't be compared to later day stats. Ruth didn't compete against the best athletes of his day - only the best white athletes (due to the racist rules of the owners)!!! (Interesting, as an aside, in the off season, while "barnstorming" he competed against ***** League all stars.) Also, Ruth played in few night games (there weren't any until the late '30s). Also there was no plane travel to the Left Coast. There were only 8 teams; none further west than St louis nor further south than Washingon (DC). Travel was relatively easy. In short, a players statistics can only be compared to those who played in his era.
The Hall of Fame is only for the top 1% of a particular era. And, in view of all the character flaws of the existing members of the HOF, voters have (and should continue to) only looked at what transpired "between the lines". Would anyone argue that Rose, Bonds AND Shoeless Joe Jackson were not in the top 1% of players in their respective eras?
f5rt65
no question he should. pete rose's gambling habits (after his playing career) had NOTHING to do with his unbelievable hitting. however, barry bond's steroid use had EVERYTHING to do with all home runs after about #550. had barry not taken steroids, however, he would be in the hall of fame anyway. he would have an estimated 600 HR and 600 SB - an amazing all around player
jsyankees12
Yes i dont like either of them but Barry Bonds used steroids help his performance. Pete Rose just gambled but it didnt affect his performance. Barry is a total cheatin jerk at least Pete Rose didnt change his performance
paul_e74
I think Pete Rose should be elected to HOF at first elegibilty regardless of his gambling past. His record as a player should speak for itself.
JayMonster
As much as it pains me to say this, Barry Bonds has not broken any rules (that can be proven). Even if you proved he took steroids, "in the past" technically up until last year, steroids while "illicit" was not "ILLEGAL" in baseball and was not on a banned substance list, so yes, Bonds SHOULD go in first.