One or the Other: Barry Bonds vs Pete Rose
 

If you had only one vote for the Hall of Fame, who would you pick? The admitted gambler in Pete Rose or the alleged steroid abuser in Barry Bonds? It's the hit king vs the home run king and both men are shrouded in controversey.

If it were up to FOFC who would go to the HOF? Or would either one of them have a shot?

Bonds. Gambling is *the* cardinal sin in baseball. This isn't even close in my eyes, and I pretty much despise Bonds. Let Canseco in before Rose.

I think if you look at Bonds numbers pre 2000 when this whole mess seems to have started he's already a no doubt hall of famer. If he would have retired then he'd have 2010 hits in 6976 at bats for a 288 average with 445 home runs, 460 steals and 3 MVP's. Not to mention 9 gold gloves and 9 all star apperances in only 14 seasons. Maybe a better question would be Sammy Sosa/Rafael Palmeiro/Gary Sheffield vs Pete Rose

Yep. Barry, if he was a user (and it seems 99.9% likely he was), was still attempting to help his teams win.

Anyone involved with gambling on their own sport and especially their own team carries the potential to rig the outcome. To me (and I think to most people), cheating to gain a competitive advantage (as is the case with using performance enhancers) is preferable to rigging the outcome of a game.

How can you say one or the other and then give a neither option? :confused:

I said you only get one vote between two guys or you just can decided F it and say neither one should get it and not vote.

Fuck Pete Rose, and the horse he bet to ride in on.

Bonds. Steroid use is comparable to throwing spitballs, and we have several suspected spitballers in the HOF (Perry, Sutton, and I think Whitey Ford, to name three right off the top of my head). It's a minor infraction compared to gambling on the game.

Definitely.

Bonds is a cheater. Baseball can, and always has, survived cheaters of various forms.

Screwing with the integrity of the game itself is 1000X worse. Even "betting on your own team" does that (and I believe 100% that the "he only bet to win" theory on Rose is bullshit anyway.)

Both...I kow not an option.
But I have no argument againsst eeither

I would never, never vote Rose into the hall of Fame. (assuming ihad a vote :) )

That's where I stand, though I'd use the word "sports" instead of baseball.

rose only gambled as a manager, yes?

the way i look at it, rose never cheated on the field. as a manager is one thing, but its a lot tougher to affect a game than if you are out there playing.

bonds cheated during the game.

i vote rose.

Oh, ok.. .he ONLY dragged the reputation of the results of the games into disripute as a manager... where of course he can't control anything (not lineups, when to pull pitchers, etc).

>4000 hits != >756 homers

Rose supposedly only bet his team to win, right?

While that isn't right, he bet to win, he played to win, he managed to win.

Bonds was jealous of McGuire's bloated arms and stats.

Asterisk them both.

Let them both in the hall of fame.

Place their plaques securely in urinals.

You can probably guess who I voted for.

Neither. They both should rot.

Oh, they will...in fact...we ALL will! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Is it not fair to assume that a number of pitchers that Bonds hit these homers against were also on the juice?

Lets take a look at the two issues of weight gain and longevity - Roger Clemens put on similar gains from his rookie season to current day weight and has displayed a similar ability to maintain strong performances far past a normal athlete's peak. Why do I rarely hear steroid allegations and never hear calls to keep Clemens out of the Hall?

Clemens was actually on the decline before he left Boston. The late 90's arrive and at the age of 35 he magically revives himself, dominating again for a number of years before baseball cleans itself up and he again suffers a decline in his abilities.

The same can be said for Randy Johnson. Take a look at his numbers leading up to the mid-90's and then his numbers beyond that, leading up to around 2004-2005 and then his numbers since. For his first ten years from 1988-1997, Johnson threw 300+ K's once. Starting in 1998 (at age 34) he threw 300+ K's for five straight seasons (from age 31-40, Nolan Ryan did not hit 300 K's in any season). Do we hear anything about Johnson?

As an aside, I don't believe that the FDA banned THG until 2003. So even if Bonds was on THG up until 2003, it would be akin to using creatine or protein supplements. How would that make someone ineligible for the Hall?

Rose should be a hall of famer PERIOD

Except that he violated the most fundamental rule in competitive sports PERIOD

Since I don't know how gambling can help you become the hit-king I gotta vote Rose

+1

Gambling damages the core element of sport - the idea that you're witnessing a contest where both teams/contestants are attempting to win and the results aren't jeopardized by someone attempting to fix the outcome.

Cheating, while distasteful, is still done with the intent of trying to win. Gambling could lead to one attempting to sabotage the chances of winning.

Bonds, one of the few best hitters ever, steroids or not.

Rose, roid-meister aside Bonds is just a plain jackazz to 98% of the people I've ever heard or seen him interact with. In his mind he's roids gift to baseball.

This isn't necessarily true. Betting on individual games could lead you to manage in a fashion that maximizes win potential in one game (excessive use of relievers, bringing back an injured player too soon) but sacrifices the team's long term record.

I went with Rose. I am judging this solely based on on the field performance. Bond's on the field performance was allegedly enhanced by steroids, Rose's wasn't.


I vote Rose, I wish everyone played the game the way he did.

I voted Rose because given the choice he would be it but I totally agree with this argument. I was a Bonds fan ( as much as I could be considering my waning interest in the sport over those years ). I was also a Bobby fan so I was rooting for his son.

The cheating thing though, man that's too much. It would be one thing if it didn't set a huge record but it galls me that one of baseballs most respected records will be in the hands of a cheater ( also, again, if it's never proven that he juiced of course he belongs in the hall ). See, to me, a statistician by nature, I find the records far, far more important to maintain integrity than merely gambling.

Gambling is more about the team's record and while that's pretty much conventionally thought of as the only stat that matters but baseball to me has always been more about the stats than the teams ( I never had a home team growing up ). The stats mean something to me and when I consider the history of the sport I think far more of players than teams.

We have Babe and the Georgia Peach and "lets play two" Banks and the Wizard of Oz.

With teams, not so much. We have the Miracle Mets and the Gashouse Gang and the Yankees as a collective but not as many by far or for the most part as interesting.

In fairness, I did grow up in a very gambling friendly environment ( though I turned out to not enjoy gambling at all ) so it would be odd for me to be too offput by the mere implications of the word.

[tangent]
My grandfather had one of my favorite quotes, btw. Someone was telling him how stupid he was for betting on Jai Alai because everyone knows it's rigged and he said "yes, but how am I supposed to know that the guy I'm betting on isn't the guy that's rigged to win?".
[/tangent]

I just realized actually how much this really is my issue because I've always felt Gaylord Perry belonged in the hall and he cheated but he didn't really directly damage the integrity of the game because his cheating did not directly put a tainted record in the books. Bonds, not so much but if he retired one hr shy of Aaron I'd be a Bonds apologist absolutely.

PS:

The cynical part of me wants to think that the people who get worked up about gambling questioning the integrity of the sport to be well, gamblers. Those are the guys who would really worry about stuff like this.

Fact is, I've seen so many unfair sporting results that aren't gambling related that the set of unfair sports results is far bigger than the subset unfair gambling sports results and I really don't think that gambling is over half of the bigger set. Doesn't make gambling right of course but most gamblers don't get to fix games ( which Rose wasn't accused of anyway ) and we should punish those that do but to consider even the promoting for a casino to be a bannable offense is silly.

Yep, this post rambles and is all over the map but I'm submitting anyway. :D

I dunno, aren't all 9 players on both teams attempting to fix the outcome? ;)

This argument is incredibly wierd. I'm not sure how putting a "tainted" record on the books damages the integrity of the game? One can argue that Aaron was on amphetamines, allowing him to recover much quicker, and thus 755 is a tainted record as well, and the Babe should have it instead. Then again, Babe Ruth played in an era when blacks weren't allowed to play, so that's tainted to.

Then again, I really don't see the big deal about steroids (or rather I see it, but I just don't care), so it becomes easy for me. Based solely on numbers, it is easily Bonds (and was so before 2000 as well).

Good post. I'll go a step further and make a devils advocate argument and say:

Barry Bonds did not cheat regardless of what he took.

Barry Bonds watched Mcguire and Sosa get huge beyond their build entering baseball, and saw them kill HR records in their chase for 61. Bonds watches them get treated as heroes and thinks to himself, well they are doing it and no one cares, why don't I do it as well? How did Bonds cheat the game when he saw the game celebrate steroids in the chase for 61?

Bonds use of substances that were not properly policed while athletes who took juice were/are celebrated is as much cheating as going 56 mph in a 55 while being passed by all other cars is breaking the law.

For the record, I voted neither, but the "everybody else was doing it too!" argument is not very convincing to me.

Players have been seeking a performance edge through chemical means since they started popping greenies in the '50s. The line Bonds is accused of crossing is no different than any player that used speed to improve their ability to play. I place Barry above real cheaters like Mike Scott (ball scuffer) and Albert Belle (bat corker).

Rose is just a douchebag that violated a rule the penalty for which was posted in every major league club house. Bannination for life (and beyond) is exactly what he deserves.

I agree that it seems weird and it was pretty much stream of consciousness but here's one difference I see.

Steroids do seem to be a much bigger deal because I perceive that the performance boost given for steroids is far greater than for any other cheat. Maybe that's wrong, I really don't know but that's the perception that I get about them.

Another thing is that it will create a dampening of enthusiasm for records. Really, who cares about Cy Young's win record? It was so inflated that the record itself is meaningful only for the occasional "gee whiz" stat.

Stuff like the home run record, season and career though, look at the excitement caused by these every season. It keeps up interest because it's an exciting record.

That's gone now and not because of a change in the way the game is played but because of a cheater. If steroid use is ever effectively banned from the league you'll see numbers drop back into a more normal range and you'll know that no records are going to be broken and not because of a "gee whiz" story, but of a lousy cheater. That's kinda sad. If course, this isn't exactly threatening the integrity of the game I'll admit but to me, since the numbers are my primary interest, from that viewpoint, I've lost a lot more interest but since I am not a MLB customer it's no loss to them that I'm even less of one now. :)

I used to be though.

Thats understandable, but keep in mind the argument isn't just "everybody else was doing it!" it was that "people were/are doing it and were celebrated for it by those who are suppose to police the rules; despite the obviousness that they were doing it."

Baseball didn't just police poorly, they gave medals to those that were clearly "breaking the rules." How can a person be punished, either in actuality or in public opinion, when they are just following the example of the rules as set forth by those who make the rules?

I went Bonds, but I would have rather said Both.

Rose was a lot more fun to watch.

Steroids is compared to a spitball?

I'll take Rose as a player. Most of his allegations were as a manager, not a player...

This one is easy... Bonds is in.

Rose broke the ONE rule that is plastered on every clubhouse door, you CANT BET ON BASEBALL...PERIOD. Rose is out for good.

Bonds is a AUTOMATIC 1st ballot HOFer, I cant see any logical argument against letting him in. Tell me what rule MLB had in place that he broke???
Show me the test that proves he was on something that was banded by MLB.

If you go by the suspision he was doing something wrong than EVERYONE that has this non proven suspision cant go in either which is totaly rediculas and whould never happen.

At the end of the day unless Bonds comes out and admits he broke a MLB law he will be HR king and HOF 1St Ballot .

+1

Rose admited betting on baseball as a player as well, even if he made 1 bet as player and 500000000 as manager doesnt matter. He is cooked.

Rose loves baseball with all his heart (or at least appears to). Bonds sometimes acts like he hates baseball. The right answer is neither, of course. But a hall of fame that had Rose and not Bonds is much, much closer to my idea of a hall of fame than a hall of fame that has Bonds but not Rose - the latter is just a joke and an insult to fans.

So you're cool with Bonds breaking federal laws then?

How about, he turns people off of baseball, as opposed to Rose who turned on a generation of fans.

Rose wasn't half the player Bonds was even before Bonds started taking steroids. He was a great player and fun to watch, and would be a deserving first ballot HOFer without the gambling. But he is probably also the most overrated player in baseball history. In addition to having a lot more power, Bonds was a better fielder, got on base more, and was a better base stealer than Rose. The only thing Rose could do better than Bonds was hit for average, and his hits were mostly singles. Bonds more than made up for that by getting walks with his plate discipline.

I think the thing that you (along with the rest of society) seem to be forgetting is that THG wasn't banned by the FDA (or any other agency for that matter) until 2003.

So with that in mind, an athlete could have been using the substance under the premise that it was not illegal to do so (either by MLB or federal standards) and upon declaration of its banned status in late 2003, stopped using it.

Following that, we decide to punish the athlete retro-actively for his actions by signaling him out, labeling him a cheater, demand asterisks to any records he sets, and calling to keep him out of the Hall of Fame all because he was rumoured to have used a performance enhancing drug at a time when it was not illegal to use that product, either by baseball or federal standards. Not to mention that at the time he was supposedly using it, everyone else in baseball (and sports) was using it as well.

Am I the only one missing something here?

+1

So he stopped using it in 2003?

Ok.