Do you think Barry Bonds shoud be in the Hall of Fame?
371144
Yes...steroids or not, he was one of the best before the steroids era.  Hate the guy, but he is a great baseball player.  Pete Rose should be in as well....for his ON field accomplishments.
222782
People who don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame have continually been admitted since its inception. Rogers Hornsby, for Christ's sake, didn't get in on the first ballot. For the most part, the Baseball Writers Association of America has done a great job. The Veterans Committee, on the other hand, has reeked of favoritism. \n\nWhen Frankie Frisch, the all-star second baseman from the 20's was on the Vet committee in the early 70's, he just about admitted every Cardinals teammate he had. Hell we just admitted Bill Mazeroski to the Hall for hitting one memorable home run. We should have remembered that he hit .250 for his career despite having a great glove.\n\nAnyway, to answer your question, I would definitely admit Pete Rose. If we have a biggot in the Hall (Ty Cobb) and a womanizing alcoholic who probably bet on baseball as well (Babe Ruth), then I see no reason why we shouldn't admit Rose. We make such a fuss about Bonds taking an illegal substance, but the Babe was a lush when there was a constitutional amendment against alcohol! \n\nI'd also admit Shoeless Joe Jackson, Ron Santo, Tommy John, and Bert Blyleven. Ron Santo is better than half the 3rd basemen in the Hall already, Shoeless Joe hit over .350 for his career, and Tommy and Bert had better win percentages than Nolan Ryan and almost as many wins. Shoeless Joe may have taken money to throw the 1919 World Series, but the numbers show that he played quite well. Tim Raines was a fabulous player with a high on-base percentage and lots of stolen bases. He was the epitome of a lead-off man, but he had the misfortune of playing his career in the shadow of Rickey Henderson.
230499
First of all I do not support steroid use and personally yes I do believe Barry Bonds knowingly took steroids.  However, just because he juiced up did not mean he did not have the ability to hit these homeruns, just because he "juiced" up did not make him able to see the ball better etc.  He has to have natural ability and has to be a great athlete to accomplish what he has.  Yes the steroids made him stronger but he still had to have the abilty to make contact with the ball and steroids did not cause that to happen.  So no I do not think they should take his record away, just like I do not believe it is right for Pete Rose to be banned from the "Hall of Fame".  Yes it says in the rules it is illegal to bet on baseball games as a player or manager but NOWHERE does it say if caught you will be banned from being in the Hall.  Which is something he earned as a player before he was ever caught betting on baseball
57570
If he wins Superbowl XL (or any in the future), hands-down Yes, Cowher in the HOF. If he never wins one, he'll retire as one the best to never put on the ring, but I think he still gets in. Two Superbowl trips, some AFC championships and countless trips and most of all (so rare these days), longevity.
652229
I will say yes, he already is a Hall of Fame player. That said, he should also retire, though it would be tough to do because of injury. He has had a great career, and it would be foolish for him to risk his long-term health further.
348281
Barry Bonds is better.  I don't know the statistics but I know that Barry Bonds (according to my dad) was a good young player in the '90's and he was skinny.  He was able to play well and just didn't get that much attention, that's all.  I would say he is a better player because he would've passed Babe Ruth's record even without steroids; it's just that now that everyone knows he took steroids to get attention, he looks bad.  He also to most people looks like all his home runs came from steroids, but 'tis false in my opinion.  He just wanted attention for being big and powerful QUICKLY, so took the short way and did steroids to have immediate attention.  He is still a better player, but just made the wrong choice.  He could've begun to get attention when he was getting closer to the home run record; he already was the sole member of the 400-400 club (400 home runs, 400 stolen bases), and eventually he would've gotten attention and been inducted into the Hall of Fame for his accomplishments; THEN everybody would see how great he was.  But now it's all negative attention.  I repeat, though, that Barry Bonds is a better player.
705892
Gwynn and Ripkin are shoe-ins for the hall.  McGwire will not make it for at least for a few years if ever.  When he faced congress a couple of years ago he really hurt himself when confronted about his possible use of steroid.  Of course he admitted to the use of a certain steroid in 1998 when he "broke" Maris record.\n\nOne of my biggest concerns is that there are players that should be in the hall and for whatever reason have yet to be voted in.  Among my own personal list are players like, Jice Rice, Dave Parker, Don Mattingly, Dwight Evans, Lee Smith, Alan Trammell, Jack Morris, and of course the "Goose" Rich Gossage.\n\nSomebody please tell me why these guys are not hall of famers????
514891
Without steroids, Barry Bonds would have made the hall of fame. He's that good of a ball player. Without steroids, however, he wouldn't have come close to Aaron's Home Run record. Does he deserve to be the Home Run king? No. Will he be? Yes. Sad to say, the deed is done, he took steroids, and he will break the record next year. This whole fiasco makes the Pete Rose lifetime ban from baseball a big joke.
542461
I would be surprised if he beats Barry Bonds record this season and hits 74 HR. He could defeat Bonds recods when the San Francisco Giants come to St. Louis on the weeked between Friday to Sunday, September 15 to 17.
529106
Bonds seems like a selfish kind of guy (he collects hella memorabilia of himself if I understood that right on "Bonds on Bonds"), but like most athletes I have to assume he wants a championship more than anything. If he was simply about records, you'd think he'd want to go to the AL so he could DH.
284381
id guess about a million. bonds cant touch the babe, or any other one of the greats for that matter. Go 'Stros!
449095
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.  \n\nIs 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. \n\nFurthermore, 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).  \n\nSome 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 Negro 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.  \n\nThe 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?
1017509
There are many, many more deserving NL outfielders than Barry Bonds. Here are a few examples:\n--- Andruw Jones - ATL\n--- Ken Griffey Jr. - CIN\n--- Jim Edmonds - STL\n--- Carlos Lee - MIL\n--- Jason Bay - PIT\n--- Alfonso Soriano - WSH\n--- Carlos Beltrán - NYM\n--- Bobby Abreu - PHI\n--- Adam Dunn - CIN
593159
Pujols is an amazing athlete and I do think he will beat Bonds single season record. He is a class act and his setting the record will be a good thing for baseball. Then we can start watching as he begins to eclipse the various milestones to one day be the all time home run leader.
614519
Also don't forget that Babe Ruth was an all-star pitcher for the first 2 or 3 years of his baseball career, so bonds hasn't matched anything in my mind.  If he can go out and win 20 games in the next 2 or 3 years pitching the baseball then he may have matched the record. Even at that he is a steroid using cheater.
1114116
Yeah, probably, at least according to his numbers posted in the steroid/HGH era (ca. 1986 - present).  But then again, considering all that has been discovered over the past two seaons, I have the strong right to wonder if he were/is probably on some illegal performance enhancer himself.  So I would be hesitant to put his name on the top of the list.  In fact, I don't think any player of this same era should have any record in the record books, considering that there is just way too much of a cloud of doubt surrounding just about every single baseball star who has played during this period.  \n\nPersonally, I find it kind of strange that Clemens seemed to be on the decline of his career in the early-to-mid 90s only to re-surface as an amazingly dominant pitcher again a few years later with Toronto.  I mean, the Red Sox must have known that he was on his way out -- sure, teams make mistakes all the time (and the 1990s Red Sox weren't exactly the smartest team around), but not to the point where an organization would have been so entirely, utterly wrong about the future of a franchise player.  It's all just too fishy.  So, that said, I don't think we can ever really judge the extent of Clemens' "greatness".  Which, by the way, is the same reason why I'm not sure how easy it is to gauge any player's "greatness", because many "great" players have either found ways around the rules (corked bats, spit-ball pitchers, etc.) or have just benefitted from favorable conditions unavailable to players of other generations (such as pitchers during the dead-ball era, or sluggers during the Coors Field/Jose Canseco "juiced" era).
804916
Clemens will probably be selected to the Hall of Fame with the highest percentage of votes ever. Seven Cy Young awards says it all.\n\nNo, he's not hurting his legacy at all, especially since he's still a dominant figure while he's out on the mound (even though he only goes 6 innings at the most)...\n\nEven if he was hurting his legacy, what right does anyone else have to tell him not to?  It's his life, it's his legacy, isn't it?  None of us lose anything by having him pitch as long as he has.\n\nI saw Willie Mays hit a home run when he was playing for the Mets in 1972...it didn't matter to me that he was 41 years old at the time, and a mere shadow of his former self... hey, I saw the great Willie Mays hit a home run...  Clemens is a far better player since turning 40 than Mays was (Mays actually had an excellent year at 40, but slipped badly as a 41 and a 42 year old)... but it doesn't matter...he has long since been a shoo-in to be a first ballot Hall of Famer... the fact that he's pitching so great at his age simply means that he will approach or exceed Nolan Ryan and Tom Seaver's vote percentages, in my opinion.