I understand the argument. I just don’t see a difference in it. If Mays is loved despite his amphetamine usage, and Aaron’s HR record is accepted despite his greenie usage, there is absolutely zero reason Bonds should be singled out. THAT would be purely emotional.
If Williams had missed the 3 peak years to injury i would have voted Bonds, however, he bookends his ww2 time in 10 war seasons. It is reasonable to assume those 3 years are also 10+ and I think close the gap one the war7. I think Williams has a solid argument for 3, but Bonds gets my vote on next runoff for sure.
Solid argument. Thank you.
IF the argument against Bonds is PEDs, it is purely emotional. But Mebert stood behind his vote and offered a solid argument for his vote for Williams. And I am not against Bonds losing to Williams at 3. Or to whomever at 4, 5, 6, etc. I just don’t want it to be because of PEDs, because that is not a valid argument, imho.
It is early, but it looks like we may not even need a runoff for 4.
I don’t hold that opinion (as you know), but someone looking at Williams and coming to their own conclusion that he was better is not the same as saying Paul ONeill is better than Bonds.
Looking at the early returns for #4, I don’t believe the Anti-Bonds contingent is that deep. It is definitely there (and that is disappointing, because that, imho, is almost a troll maneuver), but my hope is that isn’t a large enough contingent to make a major swing in the polls.
But “where he doesn’t belong” is a completely subjective measure.
