A Different Point of View on Barry Bonds
| 11
|
by user Kelsdad
I've been a member of the ArmchairGM community since last November, I believe, and hopefully I have contributed positively in that timeframe. As an opinion based website, we are always right, because our own ideas are unique to us as individuals. We may disagree with what someone else may say, but again, its their opinion. Speaking for myself, I've sometimes posted a comment without fully understanding the author's point, and ended up looking like an idiot. Maybe not as big an idiot as Billy Donovan, but an idiot nonetheless.
Where we can be wrong is when someone posts an article which is based at least partially on fact. Facts can't be disputed. We can agree to disagree on the circumstances leading up to the facts, or what occurred after the fact, but facts are infact facts. I used to have a friend who was a die-hard Cincinnati Reds and Pete Rose fan, and when he was suspended denied up and down and sideways Rose was guilty. Less than a month after his banishment, the Dowd report* was excerpted in Sports Illustrated, and a list was included on some of the more damning evidence he had uncovered. So I would say to this guy, "how can you explain his handwriting on the betting slips?" And then he would say something stupid, and it would go on like this until I finally had enough, and told him not to call me until Rose went into the Hall of Fame, which means we'll never talk again.
Which leads us to Barry Lamar Bonds and his band of accused cheaters. I'm not going to argue whether or not he did in fact cheat (he did), or whether or not it was intentional (it was), or if he was the only one, (he isn't). I'm not going to argue if he's an asshole, (he is), whether or not he was a Hall of Famer before the juice, (I'd say so), or if he's a better player, pre or post steriods, than Hank Aaron (not even in a wet dream).
What we'll discuss, hopefully with an ongoing sense of intelligence, is the voting criteria for the Baseball Hall of Fame, and how Mr. Bonds may or may not be perceived when it comes time for him to be considered for election. As we saw this past season with both Mark McGwire and Albert Belle , rumored involvement in steriod use and a general lack of character can and will impact the voting committee.
Rule 5 of the Hall of Fame Voting Criteria states;
"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."
Bonds fails on three of the criteria. The rules are plain, and are in English. As mentioned above, we can interpret the meaning of a fact, or the context in which it is written, but we can't deny its existence. Barry can hit 1000 homers for all I care, if the voters do their job, and use their voting priveleges to the extent in which they are given, then Barry and the Boys should be on the outside looking in.
But I'm an agreeable guy, so I support a comment posted by, I think, Tyrone Briggs on a previous discussion; let's let all the druggies in the Hall, on the condition if they are indicted on a steriod charge, named in someone's book, whatever, that they get kicked to the curb with the daily trash. Kick them out. Remove any link they have to the Hall, treat them all like Mario Mendoza. As an afterthought. Take away their licensing rights, (see Barry Bonds=character), make it a crime to possess an autographed item which links them to the Hall of Fame, take it all away. They pissed on baseball, now its baseball's turn to piss on them.
- The flunky Pete Rose was hanging with, Giosa or whatever, is a convicted steriods dealer. Baseball's steriod investigation is not limited to 1998 or 1994, it is open to whatever date is mentioned. So don't be surprised at all if players from the late 1980's are dragged into this mess.
The voting thing is not hardline. "integrity, sportsmanship, character" are all different for everyone and more importantly some people may value playing things more than those less tanglible characteristics...
Do i think bonds et al should be in? No...but I'm not voting nor do i have decades of baseball writing experience, professionally or whatever...
Perhaps the best method would be a litmus test of current HoFers and decide from there...Ty Cobb comes to mind...great great player....integrity, sportsmanship, character? you tell me...