Welcome Chatkop readers! After wasting my time during winter break doing stuff and watching hours and hours of Breaking Bad, I am back along with my colleagues Hirsch and Chengez for another edition of Chatkop
In the wake of todays Major League Baseball's Hall of Fame election, a hot button issue that analysts and fans of the game talk about hours on end was raised by me and my colleagues
Does Barry Bonds deserve to be in the Hall of Fame?
HP: Yes. Just look at the numbers and it shouldn't even be a question. People in general point to the steroid issue (when they clearly don't know anything about it) but it doesn't mean anything. The substances that Bonds took weren’t even banned at the time and there are no tests indicating that Bonds did anything of that sort. We're just saying he did based on the fact that "he got bigger"
AS: I think its pretty hard to dispute whether he took PED's or not looking at the dramatic change of his traits as a player and his shape and size
CK: Let's clear up a few things here: First of all, his numbers were Hall of Fame worthy BEFORE he began allegedly taking the PED's
Second of all, the Hall of Fame is a museum representing the history of baseball throughout its different eras. There is no question we have just exited, or are towards the end of a steroid era, as baseball has started to crack down on the use of these substances. But the problem is everyone was doing it. It was universally accepted in the baseball community and we have no way of knowing who was lying and who's getting away with it.
So justifying voting for someone who we don’t THINK took any steroids could be someone who did and leaving someone out based on allegations means we could be taking away the Hall of Fame spot of someone who is in reality innocent. And one more point that occurs to me is people were using other types of drugs such as amphetamines in the 60's and 70's and voters at that time had no problem letting those players in [the Hall of Fame] so why do writers today, especially the older "traditionalists", think it’s their duty to "protect" the hall of fame from athletes who don't match the integrity of the game, when players decades ago like Ty Cobb slid right through? I mean, didn’t he allegedly murder someone?
AS: Ok i have 3 points
I think it’s pretty hard to dispute whether he took PED's or not looking at the dramatic change of his traits as a player and his shape and size. Like you said Chengez, he was worthy of a HOF even before the allegations came swarming in. However, you cannot just base these allegations without concrete evidence.
What Major League Baseball did to Barry Bonds is to make him a poster boy for the entire anti-drug policies that Bud Selig and company established during the early 2000s. I concur with your point that we have no idea who was taking drugs during the steroid era. I was reading a Sports Illustrated article a year ago where there are some Major League Baseball players from the 70s and 80s who actually said they were compelled to take them because so many of their teammates would to gain an edge during spring training and these are testimonies not from superstars but from players with little or no hope of even getting a chance to play in the major leagues. So if that is the case, how can we ever possibly know that every single baseball player that has been elected into the Hall of Fame has been "clean"?
The voting and election needs consistency, and that consistency comes not from someone’s moral judgment or whether someone "thinks" a player deserves it or not. It comes from statistics and mathematics, because that is concrete. And that gives you consistency when it comes to judgment.
For me, the Hall of Fame is like a highlight book that talks about the history and the highs of the game divided into eras. And if that’s the case, the man who has more Home Runs than any other player in the history of the game is not deserving of a mention in that highlight book? I don’t think so. He was the face of the Giants franchise and the face of baseball for more than a decade.
HP: I love the point about eras. We need to celebrate the successful players of each one no matter what the atmosphere is. As mentioned earlier, steroids or HGH was a norm in baseball at that time. Barry Bonds was NOT an outlier. Just because a player like him may have used substances at that time does not mean we should be punishing them in this way. Also, in regard to the eras, think about it this way. Babe Ruth played in the segregation era but he is considered to be the best baseball player of all time in some peoples' eyes. Should we not allow him in the Hall of Fame because he did not play against African Americans and Latinos?
We can easily say Frank Thomas was a juicer based on the fact that he was massive but he was a first ballot Hall of Famer simply because he hasn't tested positive? He wouldn't be the only person who hasn't tested positive…
The traditional Hall of Fame voters keep talking about voting people with integrity, class, and a high level of sportsmanship yet they were responsible for inducting alcohol abusers, drug addicts, racists, and cheaters from years before. This is nothing but a prime example of a double standard.
Also the last point i would like to make is that two people gave a vote to Armando Benitez. That means he got the same amount as Eric Gagne. There is no way someone can argue the point that Gagne and Benetiz should have the same percent chance of making the Hall of Fame. It doesn't make sense. If anyone in the world was stupid enough to vote Benitez into the Hall of Fame, they should have their rights revoked.
CK: And let me point out we're not just talking about Bonds, players like Clemens and McGuire are also being left off because of this false morality voting process. Many writers have very little reason to even own the right to vote for the Baseball Hall of Fame, while many respected journalists and sabermatricians do NOT have a vote despite having a much greater knowledge of the sport.
What about Pete Rose?
HP: Pete Rose should be in it
CK: Rose reminds me about another point to bring up in all of this. The media, or in Rose's case, Bud Selig, had an agenda against a player based on how he acted off the field. Part of the hatred from the voters towards Bonds is because he was a jerk to them, but that’s no reason to leave him off. Rose broke rules, but it’s not like he was gambling against his team. He always counted on his team winning and played his heart out for the Reds and it showed in his ridiculously terrific numbers which are unfairly forgotten because he's been banned from the game.
AS: Yeah that’s what I’m saying. The media’s agenda over certain players will haunt them down for the rest of their lives. I stick with my point. You base things like these on merit, not on how nice a player is. It’s all about statistics, statistics, statistics.
HP: Haha, Chengez is stealing the words from my mouth. this is the media's way of getting back at Bonds. Yeah he was an egocentric maniac, but that's because the media mistreated him. You can't tell me that the media is trying to induct only well behaved players when Ty Cobb is in Cooperstown.
What made Bonds so special?
HP: When you look at his numbers, what he was doing was unreal. Steroids or not. You can't be walked 200+ times a season and still strike out less than 50 times a season. It's unheard of.
CK: His natural ability; he had a gorgeous swing with tremendous bat speed, incredible plate discipline, power, excellent base running ability and quickness, and tremendous defensive prowess, all before he began taking substances.
HP: Exactly. He had 8 gold gloves and 3 MVPs before this steroid fiasco started. Just on those merits alone, someone would vote him into the hall of fame
CK: While Bonds' steroid allegations date back to 2002, he became the only member of the 400-400 club all the way back in 1998!
HP: Yeah, what we had with Bonds was literally the most complete and perfect baseball player the game has ever seen. To rob him of his rightful spot in the Hall of Fame would be the biggest travesty in our nation's pastime.
Talking about this has made me really angry!
AS: Yeah, you guys have fun with your man crush.
CK: Barry took it to the next level, shattering everyone's idea of a good on base percentage, while creating the greatest combination of speed and power the game has ever seen.
HP: The perfect baseball player. He's a 7 tool player because his speed and power count as 2, they were that good.
As I zoned out of the conversation, Chengez and Hirsch kept admiring Bonds for the rest of the night. However, the consensus was that Bonds is, no doubt, a shoe-in for being inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.
In the wake of todays Major League Baseball's Hall of Fame election, a hot button issue that analysts and fans of the game talk about hours on end was raised by me and my colleagues
Does Barry Bonds deserve to be in the Hall of Fame?
HP: Yes. Just look at the numbers and it shouldn't even be a question. People in general point to the steroid issue (when they clearly don't know anything about it) but it doesn't mean anything. The substances that Bonds took weren’t even banned at the time and there are no tests indicating that Bonds did anything of that sort. We're just saying he did based on the fact that "he got bigger"
AS: I think its pretty hard to dispute whether he took PED's or not looking at the dramatic change of his traits as a player and his shape and size
CK: Let's clear up a few things here: First of all, his numbers were Hall of Fame worthy BEFORE he began allegedly taking the PED's
Second of all, the Hall of Fame is a museum representing the history of baseball throughout its different eras. There is no question we have just exited, or are towards the end of a steroid era, as baseball has started to crack down on the use of these substances. But the problem is everyone was doing it. It was universally accepted in the baseball community and we have no way of knowing who was lying and who's getting away with it.
So justifying voting for someone who we don’t THINK took any steroids could be someone who did and leaving someone out based on allegations means we could be taking away the Hall of Fame spot of someone who is in reality innocent. And one more point that occurs to me is people were using other types of drugs such as amphetamines in the 60's and 70's and voters at that time had no problem letting those players in [the Hall of Fame] so why do writers today, especially the older "traditionalists", think it’s their duty to "protect" the hall of fame from athletes who don't match the integrity of the game, when players decades ago like Ty Cobb slid right through? I mean, didn’t he allegedly murder someone?
AS: Ok i have 3 points
I think it’s pretty hard to dispute whether he took PED's or not looking at the dramatic change of his traits as a player and his shape and size. Like you said Chengez, he was worthy of a HOF even before the allegations came swarming in. However, you cannot just base these allegations without concrete evidence.
What Major League Baseball did to Barry Bonds is to make him a poster boy for the entire anti-drug policies that Bud Selig and company established during the early 2000s. I concur with your point that we have no idea who was taking drugs during the steroid era. I was reading a Sports Illustrated article a year ago where there are some Major League Baseball players from the 70s and 80s who actually said they were compelled to take them because so many of their teammates would to gain an edge during spring training and these are testimonies not from superstars but from players with little or no hope of even getting a chance to play in the major leagues. So if that is the case, how can we ever possibly know that every single baseball player that has been elected into the Hall of Fame has been "clean"?
The voting and election needs consistency, and that consistency comes not from someone’s moral judgment or whether someone "thinks" a player deserves it or not. It comes from statistics and mathematics, because that is concrete. And that gives you consistency when it comes to judgment.
For me, the Hall of Fame is like a highlight book that talks about the history and the highs of the game divided into eras. And if that’s the case, the man who has more Home Runs than any other player in the history of the game is not deserving of a mention in that highlight book? I don’t think so. He was the face of the Giants franchise and the face of baseball for more than a decade.
HP: I love the point about eras. We need to celebrate the successful players of each one no matter what the atmosphere is. As mentioned earlier, steroids or HGH was a norm in baseball at that time. Barry Bonds was NOT an outlier. Just because a player like him may have used substances at that time does not mean we should be punishing them in this way. Also, in regard to the eras, think about it this way. Babe Ruth played in the segregation era but he is considered to be the best baseball player of all time in some peoples' eyes. Should we not allow him in the Hall of Fame because he did not play against African Americans and Latinos?
We can easily say Frank Thomas was a juicer based on the fact that he was massive but he was a first ballot Hall of Famer simply because he hasn't tested positive? He wouldn't be the only person who hasn't tested positive…
The traditional Hall of Fame voters keep talking about voting people with integrity, class, and a high level of sportsmanship yet they were responsible for inducting alcohol abusers, drug addicts, racists, and cheaters from years before. This is nothing but a prime example of a double standard.
Also the last point i would like to make is that two people gave a vote to Armando Benitez. That means he got the same amount as Eric Gagne. There is no way someone can argue the point that Gagne and Benetiz should have the same percent chance of making the Hall of Fame. It doesn't make sense. If anyone in the world was stupid enough to vote Benitez into the Hall of Fame, they should have their rights revoked.
CK: And let me point out we're not just talking about Bonds, players like Clemens and McGuire are also being left off because of this false morality voting process. Many writers have very little reason to even own the right to vote for the Baseball Hall of Fame, while many respected journalists and sabermatricians do NOT have a vote despite having a much greater knowledge of the sport.
What about Pete Rose?
HP: Pete Rose should be in it
CK: Rose reminds me about another point to bring up in all of this. The media, or in Rose's case, Bud Selig, had an agenda against a player based on how he acted off the field. Part of the hatred from the voters towards Bonds is because he was a jerk to them, but that’s no reason to leave him off. Rose broke rules, but it’s not like he was gambling against his team. He always counted on his team winning and played his heart out for the Reds and it showed in his ridiculously terrific numbers which are unfairly forgotten because he's been banned from the game.
AS: Yeah that’s what I’m saying. The media’s agenda over certain players will haunt them down for the rest of their lives. I stick with my point. You base things like these on merit, not on how nice a player is. It’s all about statistics, statistics, statistics.
HP: Haha, Chengez is stealing the words from my mouth. this is the media's way of getting back at Bonds. Yeah he was an egocentric maniac, but that's because the media mistreated him. You can't tell me that the media is trying to induct only well behaved players when Ty Cobb is in Cooperstown.
What made Bonds so special?
HP: When you look at his numbers, what he was doing was unreal. Steroids or not. You can't be walked 200+ times a season and still strike out less than 50 times a season. It's unheard of.
CK: His natural ability; he had a gorgeous swing with tremendous bat speed, incredible plate discipline, power, excellent base running ability and quickness, and tremendous defensive prowess, all before he began taking substances.
HP: Exactly. He had 8 gold gloves and 3 MVPs before this steroid fiasco started. Just on those merits alone, someone would vote him into the hall of fame
CK: While Bonds' steroid allegations date back to 2002, he became the only member of the 400-400 club all the way back in 1998!
HP: Yeah, what we had with Bonds was literally the most complete and perfect baseball player the game has ever seen. To rob him of his rightful spot in the Hall of Fame would be the biggest travesty in our nation's pastime.
Talking about this has made me really angry!
AS: Yeah, you guys have fun with your man crush.
CK: Barry took it to the next level, shattering everyone's idea of a good on base percentage, while creating the greatest combination of speed and power the game has ever seen.
HP: The perfect baseball player. He's a 7 tool player because his speed and power count as 2, they were that good.
As I zoned out of the conversation, Chengez and Hirsch kept admiring Bonds for the rest of the night. However, the consensus was that Bonds is, no doubt, a shoe-in for being inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.
0 comments:
Post a Comment