Barry Bonds and the Hall of Fame

[LHG]

I know, I know - this conversation has been done to death. I was reading this article - A Hall of Fame Without Barry Bonds Isn’t a Hall of Fame - and the very beginning brought up a not new argument for why it was obvious Barry used steroids and HGH - the argument based on numbers. However, that line of thinking has brought up a question in my mind that no one seems willing to answer - or give a satisfactory answer. If Bonds was obviously on the roids based on his late career numbers, then how come there has never been serious questions about Hank Aaron's late career numbers.

The article mentions Bonds' age 36 and 37 seasons (2001 & 2002, but his 2004 season was better than both, but I'll focus on the two years the author brings up). His OPS those two years were 1.379 and 1.381. Spectacular numbers, both 250 points higher than his age 35 season. (For the record, it wasn't like his numbers were declining before then, he had OPS over 1.000 every year since his last season in Pittsburgh and his only season since 1992 with an OPS under 1.000 was in 2006, his 2nd to last season, and that OPS was .999.)

Compare this to Hank Aaron. He only had 5 seasons where his OPS was at 1.000 or greater. The first two of those seasons were at age 25 (1959) and age 28 (1962). From that season, his OPS started a downward slide. He went from 1.008 in 1962 to .895 in 1966, with only an upward bump from 1964 to 1965. His OPS went up to .933 in 1967 before dropping to .852 in 1968, the 2nd worst season of his career (after only his rookie season in 1954). By now, Aaron was 34 years old and looked like he was going into the twilight of his career. However, something happened and in 1969, at the age of 35, he saw a resurgence in his numbers, posting an OPS north of 1.000 for the first time in 7 seasons. It was his best season to date in his 30s. His numbers did drop a bit at age 36, by 45 points, but ranked as his 2nd best season in his 30s, behind only the previous year. Then came his age 37 year, in 1971. This was the season he posted arguably the best numbers of his career, set a career high 1.079 OPS. He had a decent season as well at age 38, with an .904 OPS, but would come back to have the 2nd best season of his career at age 39, in 1973.

I am not trying to argue whether or not Barry Bonds used performance enhancing drugs. I am not even attempting to argue whether those drugs really gave him a boost. My contention is that if people are going that Bonds did use drugs, they did benefit him, those benefits are found in his late career numbers and all that means he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame then there should be questions asked about Hank Aaron as well. There have been allegations made on the fringes of the baseball world that Aaron did use drugs that were available in the late 60s, early 70s but those allegations have never found traction. Why? Is it only because the baseball world has cemented his career in a romantic grand drama and are afraid to change it or are they just incapable of seeing that other generations of baseball players were as capable of "cheating the system" as their favorite scapegoat generation of ballplayers?

I've never been a fan of players trying to get advantages with use of questionable or potentially unhealthy means but I'm also not a fan of picking and choosing how players are selected to the Hall based on subjective means of morality and I've wondered how much have these drugs really worked in enhancing performance. If the baseball world is unwilling to ask the hard questions about previous generations of Hall inductees then maybe they need to stop crusading against the ones whose numbers clearly show Hall worthy careers.

 

[Mays-Fan]

It's been mentioned before, but the Hall of Fame currently does not include:

1. The all-time home run leader
2. The all-time hits leader
3. A seven time Cy Young award winner

Not arguing for any of these individually, but taken together, something is wrong.

 

[SFGRTB]

I know, I know - this conversation has been done to death. I was reading this article - A Hall of Fame Without Barry Bonds Isn’t a Hall of Fame - and the very beginning brought up a not new argument for why it was obvious Barry used steroids and HGH - the argument based on numbers. However, that line of thinking has brought up a question in my mind that no one seems willing to answer - or give a satisfactory answer. If Bonds was obviously on the roids based on his late career numbers, then how come there has never been serious questions about Hank Aaron's late career numbers.

The article mentions Bonds' age 36 and 37 seasons (2001 & 2002, but his 2004 season was better than both, but I'll focus on the two years the author brings up). His OPS those two years were 1.379 and 1.381. Spectacular numbers, both 250 points higher than his age 35 season. (For the record, it wasn't like his numbers were declining before then, he had OPS over 1.000 every year since his last season in Pittsburgh and his only season since 1992 with an OPS under 1.000 was in 2006, his 2nd to last season, and that OPS was .999.)

Compare this to Hank Aaron. He only had 5 seasons where his OPS was at 1.000 or greater. The first two of those seasons were at age 25 (1959) and age 28 (1962). From that season, his OPS started a downward slide. He went from 1.008 in 1962 to .895 in 1966, with only an upward bump from 1964 to 1965. His OPS went up to .933 in 1967 before dropping to .852 in 1968, the 2nd worst season of his career (after only his rookie season in 1954). By now, Aaron was 34 years old and looked like he was going into the twilight of his career. However, something happened and in 1969, at the age of 35, he saw a resurgence in his numbers, posting an OPS north of 1.000 for the first time in 7 seasons. It was his best season to date in his 30s. His numbers did drop a bit at age 36, by 45 points, but ranked as his 2nd best season in his 30s, behind only the previous year. Then came his age 37 year, in 1971. This was the season he posted arguably the best numbers of his career, set a career high 1.079 OPS. He had a decent season as well at age 38, with an .904 OPS, but would come back to have the 2nd best season of his career at age 39, in 1973.

I am not trying to argue whether or not Barry Bonds used performance enhancing drugs. I am not even attempting to argue whether those drugs really gave him a boost. My contention is that if people are going that Bonds did use drugs, they did benefit him, those benefits are found in his late career numbers and all that means he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame then there should be questions asked about Hank Aaron as well. There have been allegations made on the fringes of the baseball world that Aaron did use drugs that were available in the late 60s, early 70s but those allegations have never found traction. Why? Is it only because the baseball world has cemented his career in a romantic grand drama and are afraid to change it or are they just incapable of seeing that other generations of baseball players were as capable of "cheating the system" as their favorite scapegoat generation of ballplayers?

I've never been a fan of players trying to get advantages with use of questionable or potentially unhealthy means but I'm also not a fan of picking and choosing how players are selected to the Hall based on subjective means of morality and I've wondered how much have these drugs really worked in enhancing performance. If the baseball world is unwilling to ask the hard questions about previous generations of Hall inductees then maybe they need to stop crusading against the ones whose numbers clearly show Hall worthy careers.

You bring up many great points, LGH. The hypocrisy of baseball writers is so damn frustrating. Many of them romanticize players from their younger generation and can't see past their greatness (like many Giants fans with Bonds, though the 3 titles I think softened everyone up a bit). As you said, they also love to whip the players from the steroid era now, but they never raised a red flag back then. It's not like they saw players sticking needles into each other, but no one wanted to ask what the heck was going on with all these dudes?

People keep saying that Aaron, and many players from that era were using things that were legal for them, but the things Bonds and company were using in the steroid era were legal at the time too. Baseball players have been finding ways to cheat the game since the dawn of its creation. Someone wrote recently that baseball isn't golf. It's not a gentleman's game, it's a kids game and kids cheat!

I honestly don't really care if players took steroids or not. It was a crazy era of baseball to watch, and honestly paved the way for the game we have today. Baseball made so much money in that time period, and they are feeling the benefits of it still. (Sorry, got a little off-track there!)

 

[LHG]

You bring up many great points, LGH. The hypocrisy of baseball writers is so damn frustrating. Many of them romanticize players from their younger generation and can't see past their greatness (like many Giants fans with Bonds, though the 3 titles I think softened everyone up a bit). As you said, they also love to whip the players from the steroid era now, but they never raised a red flag back then. It's not like they saw players sticking needles into each other, but no one wanted to ask what the heck was going on with all these dudes?

People keep saying that Aaron, and many players from that era were using things that were legal for them, but the things Bonds and company were using in the steroid era were legal at the time too. Baseball players have been finding ways to cheat the game since the dawn of its creation. Someone wrote recently that baseball isn't golf. It's not a gentleman's game, it's a kids game and kids cheat!

I honestly don't really care if players took steroids or not. It was a crazy era of baseball to watch, and honestly paved the way for the game we have today. Baseball made so much money in that time period, and they are feeling the benefits of it still. (Sorry, got a little off-track there!)

Thanks SFGRTB. What really bothers me about the current method of determine who is Hall worthy is innuendo. Was this player thought to take steroids? Then don't vote for him. Do I think he was clean? Okay, I'll vote for him. Juan Gonzalez was long rumored to be a user based on how frequently he was injured. What does that say about Griffey, Jr? Don't think he wouldn't feel the pressure that everyone says Bonds felt? I'd rather judge from a perspective of innocent until proven guilty. However, if MLB wasn't going to set up rules for usage, why should the players be penalized when it comes to the Hall?
I do have a problem with players using steroids because it makes it more palatable for kids to be okay with taking it. And when it has negative effects and, I believe, negligible positive effects, there is no need for it in baseball. I'm all for cleaning up the game but make rules for how the game is policed. Unspoken rules are ridiculous.

 

[calsnowskier]

Thanks SFGRTB. What really bothers me about the current method of determine who is Hall worthy is innuendo. Was this player thought to take steroids? Then don't vote for him. Do I think he was clean? Okay, I'll vote for him. Juan Gonzalez was long rumored to be a user based on how frequently he was injured. What does that say about Griffey, Jr? Don't think he wouldn't feel the pressure that everyone says Bonds felt? I'd rather judge from a perspective of innocent until proven guilty. However, if MLB wasn't going to set up rules for usage, why should the players be penalized when it comes to the Hall?
I do have a problem with players using steroids because it makes it more palatable for kids to be okay with taking it. And when it has negative effects and, I believe, negligible positive effects, there is no need for it in baseball. I'm all for cleaning up the game but make rules for how the game is policed. Unspoken rules are ridiculous.

This is really the crux of the argument for me.

Rose broke Rule Number One. It doesn't matter that he did it while in a different capacity. He broke THE rule, and was given a life ban. I can't even begin to think about his inclusion until his death (or the ban is lifted). Once his sentence is over, though, I am not sure he even gets my vote then. He still committed The Biggest Sin.

Bonds never broke a baseball rule. He allegedly used prescription drugs with the assistance of a physician. That is even questionable if it is illegal by law. But there was no rule on the books in baseball against it. There was, however, a memo written by the commissioner about 10 years prior saying, essentially, "Drugs are bad, MmmKay...". That's it.

The writers and their holier-than-thou attitude pisses me off so much. There really isn't any logical argument for keeping Bonds and Clemens out. I understand Palmeiro. I understand ARod. I understand Manny and Sosa. They all broke rules that were on the books at the time of their getting caught.

But the voters had no issue with Niekro or Fingers.

 

[calsnowskier]

And as a side note...

I didn't want to include it in my last post, because it would have broken the flow, but I am kinda surprised that more Rose apologists don't bring up Mays in their argument. While I believe there was a difference, I acknowledge that there is enough there to at least bring him into the argument.

 

[Sandisfan]

On the Bonds front even in the prosecution of Bonds their claim was that Bonds was jealous of lesser players, McGwire, Sosa, as the reason that Bonds started using. Well in the real world The union who had rejected any testing (they screwed up when they allowed partial testing with random players for what they thought was a one time occurrence but which showed the depth of the usage..screwed up->meaning they weren't expecting it to be used to bring so much pressure the union would give in and allow regular testing) and the league were making lots of dough on the Home run binge bringing in more customers says, to everyone(IMO), that usage was not something to be upset about. With Bonds alleged (I think he did some) usage his Hall credentials were already enough for induction and with tacit approval of the union and the league and with some but not strong enough coverage by the media. Who are they to now judge what they themselves gave benign approval of the usage that brought eyes to their organizations and ad revenue. Except for a few top guys early, Canseco, Mcgwire(who I think with his almost 50 home run rookie year would have attained similar totals but I believe his bulking up unnecessarily brought on more weight that made him miss more time than he would have for with foot problems) many of the most prolific users were lesser players understandably using in order to make very good money compered with what they would have made without usage. For the most part this was a bottom up story, that is lesser players using which put pressure on the level of players above and so forth. No one including the Media can escape some blame for the situation and some of those who were in a position to nip this in the bud are now judge and jury about the era as though they were not in some part, apart of the whole situation.