JAWS and the 2019 Hall of Fame Ballot: Barry Bonds
The following article is part of Jay Jaffe’s ongoing look at the candidates on the BBWAA 2019 Hall of Fame ballot. Originally written for the 2013 election at SI.com, it has been updated to reflect recent voting results as well as additional research. For a detailed introduction to this year’s ballot, and other candidates in the series, use the tool above; an introduction to JAWS can be found here. For a tentative schedule, and a chance to fill out a Hall of Fame ballot for our crowdsourcing project, see here. All WAR figures refer to the Baseball-Reference version unless otherwise indicated.
If Roger Clemens has a reasonable claim as the greatest pitcher of all time, then the same goes for Barry Bonds as the greatest position player. Babe Ruth played in a time before integration, and Ted Williams bridged the pre- and post-integration eras, but while both were dominant at the plate, neither was much to write home about on the base paths or in the field. Bonds’ godfather, Willie Mays, was a big plus in both of those areas, but he didn’t dominate opposing pitchers to the same extent. Bonds used his blend of speed, power, and surgical precision in the strike zone to outdo them all. He set the single-season home run record with 73 in 2001 and the all-time home run record with 762, reached base more often than any player this side of Pete Rose, and won a record seven MVP awards along the way.
Despite his claim to greatness, Bonds may have inspired more fear and loathing than any ballplayer in modern history. Fear because opposing pitchers and managers simply refused to engage him at his peak, intentionally walking him a record 688 times — once with the bases loaded — and giving him a free pass a total of 2,558 times, also a record. Loathing because even as a young player, he rubbed teammates and media the wrong way and approached the game with a chip on his shoulder because of the way his father, three-time All-Star Bobby Bonds, had been driven from the game due to alcoholism.
As he aged, media and fans turned against Bonds once evidence — most of it illegally leaked to the press by anonymous sources — mounted that he had used performance-enhancing drugs during the latter part of his career. With his name in the headlines more regarding his legal situation than his on-field exploits, his pursuit and eclipse of Hank Aaron’s 33-year-old home run record turned into a joyless drag, and he disappeared from the majors soon after breaking the record in 2007 despite ranking among the game’s most dangerous hitters even at age 43. Not until 2014 did he even debut as a spring training guest instructor for the Giants. The reversal of his felony obstruction of justice conviction in April 2015 freed him of legal hassles, and he spent the 2016 season as the Marlins’ hitting coach, though he was dismissed at season’s end.
Bonds is hardly alone among Hall of Fame candidates with links to PEDs. As with Clemens, the support he has received during his first six election cycles has been far short of unanimous, but significantly stronger than the showings of Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Rafael Palmeiro, either in their ballot debuts or since. Debuting at 36.2% in 2013, Bonds spun his wheels for two years before climbing to 44.3% in 2016 and 53.8% in 2017 thanks to a confluence of factors. In the wake of both Bonds and Clemens crossing the historically significant 50% threshold, the Hall — which in 2014 unilaterally truncated candidacies from 15 years to 10 so as to curtail debate over the PED-linked ones — made its strongest statement yet that it would like to avoid honoring them in the form of a plea to voters from vice chairman Joe Morgan not to honor players connected to steroids. The letter was not well received by voters, but Bonds gained just 2.6 percentage points. Like Clemens, he needs to recapture his momentum to have a shot at reaching 75% by the time his eligibility runs out in 2022.
| Player | Career WAR | Peak WAR | JAWS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Barry Bonds | 162.8 | 72.7 | 117.8 |
| Avg. HOF LF | 65.4 | 41.6 | 53.5 |
| H | HR | AVG/OBP/SLG | OPS+ |
| 2,935 | 762 | .298/.444/.607 | 182 |
Bonds was born on July 24, 1964 in Riverside, California — like his father — though he grew up further north, in San Carlos. Not surprisingly, he excelled in baseball once he reached high school. The Giants chose him in the second round of the 1982 draft, the same year that his father’s professional career ended with a brief stint for the Yankees’ Triple-A team. The younger Bonds chose not to sign with the Giants and instead headed for Arizona State, where he earned All-American honors. He was drafted again after his junior year, this time by the Pirates as the sixth pick behind B.J. Surhoff (Brewers), Will Clark (Giants), Bobby Witt (Rangers), Barry Larkin (Reds), and Kurt Brown (White Sox).
Bonds tore up the Class-A Carolina League that year, then spent two months doing the same in the Triple-A Pacific Coast League in 1986 before being called up to make his major league debut on May 30, 1986; he went 0-for-5 with three strikeouts and a walk against the Dodgers. However, on August 11 of that year he appeared in the 17th inning of a suspended game that had begun on April 20, driving in the winning run in what technically stands as his backdated “debut.”
As a 21-year-old, Bonds hit just .223/.330/.416 for the Pirates in 1986 and struck out 102 times, his only season reaching triple digits in that category. Batting leadoff most of the time, he did homer 16 times, steal 36 bases in 43 attempts, walk 65 times in 484 plate appearances, and play above-average defense in centerfield en route a respectable 3.5 WAR. Shifting to left field to accommodate the arrival of Andy Van Slyke in 1987, Bonds improved to 25 homers, 32 steals, 5.8 WAR, and a .261/.329/.492 line (114 OPS+). His plate discipline, and the respect accorded him by NL pitchers, advanced significantly over the next two years; he drew 14 intentional walks among his 72 overall in 1988 and 22 out of 93 in 1989, though he slumped to 19 homers and a .248 batting average in the latter year.
That winter, the Pirates and Dodgers discussed a trade that would have sent third baseman Jeff Hamilton and reliever John Wetteland to Pittsburgh for Bonds. He stayed in Pittsburgh, however, and broke out in 1990, earning All-Star and Gold Glove honors and hitting .301/.406/.565 — good for a league-high 170 OPS+ — with 33 homers (fourth in the league) and 52 steals (third). The 30–30 feat placed him in select company as one of 13 players to reach that dual milestone; his father had done so five times, joining Mays as one of two other players to that point who had done so twice. Bonds’ slugging percentage and his 9.7 WAR both led the league — his first of four straight years leading in the latter category — and he won his first MVP award in a nearly-unanimous vote where one stray first-place ballot went to teammate Bobby Bonilla. The two killer BBs helped the Pirates go 95–67, winning the National League East for the first time since 1979, though they lost a six-game NLCS to the Reds.
Bonds helped Pittsburgh repeat as NL East champions in each of the next two seasons as well, though the team fell to the Braves in a seven-game NLCS both times. He led the NL with a .410 on-base percentage in 1991 and led in both on-base and slugging percentage in 1992, hitting .311/.456/.624. For the first time, he also led the league in walks, with 127 (32 intentional). It’s tempting to attribute those latter totals to the departure of Bonilla for the Mets in free agency after the 1991 season, but the reality is that manager Jim Leyland batted Bonilla fourth and Bonds fifth (!) for most of the former’s final two years in Pittsburgh (Van Slyke hit third). After horrendous performances in his first two NLCS appearances, Bonds hit .261/.433/.435 with a homer and six walks in the 1992 series, but it wasn’t enough. He did take home his second NL MVP trophy, avenging his loss to the Braves’ Terry Pendleton the year before.
That was the end of Bonds’ time in Pittsburgh. Now 28 years old, he signed a six-year, $43.75 million contract with the Giants, setting records for the largest deal ever (surpassing Cal Ripken‘s $32.5 million) and the highest average annual value (beating Ryne Sandberg’s $7.22 million). Mays offered to un-retire No. 24 for him to wear, but Bonds instead opted for the No. 25 that his father wore as a Giant from 1968 through 1974. He lived up to his new contract with another MVP-winning season in 1993, hitting .336/.458/.677; he led the league in the latter two categories, as well as homers (46), RBIs (123) and intentional walks (43). San Francisco won 103 games but lost out to the 104-win Braves for the NL West flag thanks to a pair of homers by Dodgers rookie Mike Piazza on the final day of the season.
Helped along by more league-leading walk totals, Bonds posted on-base percentages of .426 or better and slugging percentages of .577 or better in each of the next four years, averaging 38 homers per season in spite of the 1994–95 players’ strike; he led the league in WAR in both 1995 and 1996. Only in 1997 — the year second baseman Jeff Kent joined the team — did the Giants reach the playoffs, and they were swept by the Marlins in three games.
Off the field, Bonds went through a divorce from his first wife, Sun Bonds, in 1995. During the trial, Sun alleged at least five episodes of spousal abuse dating back to at least 1988, including being kicked while eight months pregnant. Bonds denied the allegations, which were rarely discussed later in his career. It’s fair to wonder what kind of trajectory his career might have taken if Major League Baseball’s current policy had been in place back then; he might well have been suspended, and faced public ridicule. This would not be the last time such allegations surfaced.
Bonds hit a fairly typical .303/.438/.609 with 37 homers, 28 steals, and 130 walks in 1998, but his performance was lost amid the McGwire-Sosa home run chase. The story that later emerged from reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams in their book Game of Shadows is that the attention accorded to those two sluggers motivated Bonds to take performance-enhancing drugs to keep up; after that season, he began training with Greg Anderson, a weightlifter and steroid dealer. Amid his intense training regimen, he tore a triceps tendon in his right elbow, costing him seven weeks of the 1999 season, but he still hit 34 homers in just 102 games. He set a career-high with 49 homers in 2000 — second in the league, one short of Sosa’s total — and hit .306/.440/.688, good for 7.7 WAR (third in the league). Playing their first year in Pac Bell Park, the Giants won the NL West but fell to the Mets in the Division Series. Bonds also lost out on the MVP award to Kent, who hit .334/.424/.596 with 34 homers and 7.2 WAR but drove in 125 runs, 19 more than his teammate.
With precise strike zone judgment, a swing that was more compact than ever, and the ability to dig in at the plate (enhanced by a bulky elbow guard), Bonds put up video game numbers in 2001: a .328/.515/.863 line with 73 homers and 177 walks, with those last three marks all setting records. His sixth home run of the year, off the Dodgers’ Terry Adams on April 17, made him the 17th player to reach 500 homers, and it came in a flurry of six consecutive games with a home run. Bonds matched that streak in May, this time hitting nine homers over a six-game stretch. At one point, he hit 38 home runs during a 61-game stretch, a 101-homer pace if projected to 162 games. His 71st blast, off the Dodgers’ Chan Ho Park on October 5, 2001, broke McGwire’s three-year-old record, but it — and his 72nd homer, also off Park — came in the same game in which San Francisco was eliminated from postseason contention.
Still, Bonds became the first four-time MVP in baseball history and kicked off another stretch of four straight years in which he led the league in WAR, finishing the season with a career high 11.9.
Bonds never again reached 50 homers in a season, as managers grew increasingly wary of pitching to him. From 2002-2004, he batted a combined .358/.575/.786, averaging 45 homers and 193 walks per year, 83 of them intentional; in 2004, he drew an astounding 232 walks, 120 of them intentional, en route to a .609 on-base percentage, all records. He took home MVP honors in each of those years, running his total to seven.
On Aug. 9, 2002, Bonds hit his 600th homer off the Pirates’ Kip Wells, joining Ruth, Mays and Aaron on that select plateau. He reached the World Series for the first time that year and hit .471/.700/1.294 with four homers and 13 walks in a losing cause against the Angels. The last of those homers came in the sixth inning of Game 6 and gave the Giants a 4-0 lead and a shot at their first championship since 1954. In the eighth inning, however, his misplay of a bloop by Garret Anderson abetted a decisive rally that evened the series, with the Giants losing Game 7.
Bonds passed Mays with his 661st homer off Milwaukee’s Ben Ford on April 13, 2004, and he hit No. 700 off San Diego’s Jake Peavy on September 17. Even at 40, it was apparent that he still had enough ability to surpass Aaron’s mark of 755 home runs. But by that point, he also had plenty of heat on him. In September 2003, Bonds’ name surfaced as one of six major league players and 21 other athletes connected to the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, which was at the center of a doping scandal involving previously undetectable steroids. In December 2003, Bonds testified in front of a grand jury that he had received two such steroids, “the Clear” and “the Cream,” from Anderson during the 2003 season but said that he had been told that they were flaxseed oil and a rubbing balm for arthritis. When confronted with documents — including lab test results, schedules of use and billing information — allegedly detailing his steroid regimen from 2001 through 2003, he claimed to have no knowledge that any substance he had ingested was illegal. All of this information was supposed to remain under court seal, but it was leaked to the media illegally.
An entire cottage industry devoted to covering the BALCO scandal sprang up, and the case dragged on for years. Meanwhile, Major League Baseball began cracking down on performance-enhancing drug use by instituting testing and suspensions. Bonds’ involvement in BALCO led the House of Representatives’ Government Reform Committee to omit him from its list of players and executives they called to testify in March 2005; committee leaders feared his presence would overshadow the proceedings.
Bonds had other problems by then. After undergoing a minor cleanup on his left knee in October 2004, he had surgery on his right knee in January 2005, then suffered new tears in the menisci in that same knee, requiring yet another surgery on March 17, the same day as the hearings. He needed a third surgery in May to clean out an infection and didn’t return to the Giants until September 12; he homered five times in 14 games, running his career total to 708. With routine days off incorporated into his schedule, he hit .270/.454/.545 with 26 homers and a league-leading 115 walks in 130 games in 2006. During spring training, a lengthy excerpt from Game of Shadows was published in Sports Illustrated, detailing Bonds’ steroid use and relationship with BALCO and dampening enthusiasm for the barrage of milestones that would follow. In that same issue, SI’s Tom Verducci wrote:
Delivered with the blunt force of a sledgehammer, Game of Shadows is to Barry Bonds what the Dowd Report was to Pete Rose in 1989—it destroys the reputation of one of baseball’s most accomplished players. Whether Bonds never hits another home run or hits 48 more, which would give him the most of all time, he never can be regarded with honor or full legitimacy. Shadows painstakingly catalogs him as a serial drug cheat, and thus the eye-popping stats that he has accrued stand all too literally as too good to be true.
Bonds soldiered on nonetheless. His May 28 homer off Colorado’s Byung-hyun Kim, the 715th of his career, pushed him past Ruth, and he finished the year with 734 homers, setting him up for his final push toward Aaron’s total the following year. No. 755 came against the Padres’ Clay Hensley in San Diego on August 4, 2007, snapping a six-game homerless drought full of live TV cut-ins to virtually every one of his plate appearances and landing him on the cover of SI. No. 756 finally came in San Francisco against Washington’s Mike Bacsik on August 7.
Bonds’ 28 homers brought his career total to 762, and while he had hit .276/.480/.565 (leading the league again in on-base percentage), the Giants decided that the 43-year-old free agent was too expensive and too much trouble to keep. Despite his desire to continue playing, the rest of the industry shunned him — perhaps colluding to do so, though in 2015 Bonds finally lost a suit against MLB alleging that — at least in part because a federal grand jury indictment on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in November 2007; Bonds pleaded not guilty in December. Flaws in the drafting of the indictment led to three more rounds of indictments and not-guilty pleas, the last of them in March 2011. His trial began on March 21 of that year, and he was found guilty on one count of obstruction of justice for giving an evasive answer when asked if Anderson had given him anything that required him to inject himself. The judge declared a mistrial on three remaining counts of making false statements to the grand jury.
During Bonds’ perjury trial, his girlfriend from 1994 to 2003, Kimberly Bell, testified in graphic detail the physical and emotional changes she observed in him during the course of their relationship, which she attributed to his PED usage. Furthermore, she alleged that she was the recipient of his repeated verbal abuse and threats of violence.
Bonds’ legal issues lingered. Bonds’ conviction was upheld by a federal appeals court in September 2013; he began serving his 30 days of house arrest and two years of probation even while continuing to appeal. In September 2014, an 11-judge panel of the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals expressed skepticism regarding the prosecution’s case. “I don’t see how there’s sufficient evidence (of obstruction) when the same question was re-asked immediately and answered repeatedly,” said Judge Susan Graber, who was on the panel.
The 9th Circuit finally overturned the conviction in April 2015 by a 10–1 vote. It’s estimated that the government spent at least $50 million of taxpayer money to investigate BALCO via a prosecution whose misconduct with regard to due process and the right to privacy was far more odious than any of Bonds’ sins.
…
The legal morass aside, Bonds’ numbers make a case for him as the greatest position player of all time. He holds the records for homers and walks, and ranks second in times on base (5,599) and extra-base hits (1,440), third in runs scored (2,227), fourth in RBIs (1,996) and total bases (5,976), and a still-impressive 34th in steals (514). In addition to his seven MVP awards, he made 14 All-Star teams. Among batters with at least 7,000 plate appearances, his .444 on-base percentage ranks fifth all-time behind Williams, Ruth, Slidin’ Billy Hamilton, and Lou Gehrig, and his .607 slugging percentage fifth behind Ruth, Williams, Gehrig, and Jimmie Foxx. His 182 OPS+ ranks third behind Ruth (206) and Williams (190).
Thanks to his abilities on the base paths and in the field, Bonds’ 162.8 WAR is not only tops among left fielders but is also higher than any player besides Ruth (162.1 as a hitter and another 20.4 as a pitcher), Cy Young (168.0) and Walter Johnson (165.2). Bonds’ career WAR outdistances that of Williams, the second-ranked left fielder, by a whopping 39.7 wins, and his 72.7 peak WAR outdoes the Splendid Splinter by 3.5 wins.
The extent to which Bonds’ numbers owe something to PED use is unknowable, but whether he’ll get into the Hall of Fame has more to do with how the voters view his relationship to the drugs. In the eyes of many voters, Bonds and every other PED user is a cheater, beyond redemption in the context of recognizing the game’s greats. As I outlined when I undertook this series in 2012 at SI.com, and at greater length in the books Extra Innings and The Cooperstown Casebook, I take a more nuanced view. I believe that voters should distinguish between PED use that came during baseball’s “Wild West” era — when it took a complete institutional failure on the part of the players’ union, team owners, the commissioner, and the media to prevent a coherent drug policy from being implemented — and use that came after testing began in 2004 (though the first penalties weren’t imposed until 2005). From what we know, Bonds’ usage occurred in the context of many other dopers, pitchers as well as hitters. He is a none-too-flattering reflection of the era in which he played. Even so, he’s no Lance Armstrong or Ryan Braun, PED users who intimidated or smeared those who gave evidence against them.
If you want to play the “He was a Hall of Famer before he touched the stuff” game, consider only what Bonds did through 1998: His 411 homers, 1,917 hits, 445 steals and .290/.411/.556 line were good for 99.9 career WAR (which would rank third among left fielders), 62.6 peak WAR (second) and 81.3 JAWS (third behind Williams and Rickey Henderson). That’s still a Hall of Famer.
Bonds didn’t come close to election on his first ballot in 2013, as eight other candidates—including first-timers Clemens, Piazza, Craig Biggio, and Curt Schilling — received a higher share of the vote than his 36.2%. Nine candidates topped both his 34.2% in 2014 and his 36.8% in 2015. Like Clemens, he jumped in 2016, coming in at 44.3% (for some reason, he got four fewer votes than the Rocket thanks a few expert hair-splitters). That gain appeared to owe to two factors: a softening of attitudes from among returning voters, and the Hall’s decision to take away the vote from writers more than 10 years removed from covering baseball.
Using the great @NotMrTibbs Ballot Tracker, we can illustrate these trends:
| Vote | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 202 | 195 (-7) | 238 (+43) | 238 (0) |
| No | 347 | 245 (-102) | 204 (-41) | 184 (-20) |
| % | 36.8% | 44.3% (+7.5%) | 53.8% (+8.5%) | 56.4% (+2.6%) |
While Bonds’ 2016 vote total dropped by seven relative to the year before, the number of voters dropped by 109 (from 549 to 440); according to BBWAA secretary/treasurer Jack O’Connell, the number of voters purged by the rule change was 90, so the rest of the attrition owed to other reasons (at least five 2015 voters passed away, for example). The net loss of 102 “no” votes was huge, because each of those requires three “yes” votes to offset to reach 75%.
In 2017, a new force came into play. The election of Bud Selig by the Today’s Game Era Committee ballot quickly triggered some reconsideration from voters; anointing the commissioner who oversaw the proliferation of PEDs while keeping those who used outside felt like a double standard. By their reasoning, if the black marks against the former commissioner (which also included his involvement in the late-1980s collusion scandal) weren’t enough for the Today’s Game voters to withhold their votes while citing the “character, integrity, sportsmanship” requirements, then the same should be true for the BBWAA voters. Said past BBWAA president Susan Slusser on Twitter, “Senseless to keep steroid guys out when the enablers are in Hall of Fame. I now will hold my nose and vote for players I believe cheated.” Wrote NY Sports Today’s Wallace Matthews, “If Bud Selig’s in the Hall of Fame, anything goes. Open the doors and let ’em in.”
With Bonds and Clemens climbing bast 50% — historically such a strong indicator of future election that only one player currently not on a ballot, Gil Hodges, has surpassed it without election — in 2017, the Hall decided to put its thumb on the scale in the form of Morgan’s letter to voters, sent the day after the 2018 ballots were mailed. Among other things, Morgan’s belated, simplistic, and disingenuous plea ignored baseball’s long history of amphetamine abuse — and amphetamines are most definitely PEDs, illegal without a prescription since 1970 — and the presence of such users in the Hall of Fame. So much for Hall president Jeff Idelson’s 2011 declaration that “the chips will fall as they fall” when it comes to voting for candidates in light of the character clause.
(Here it’s worth remembering that the so-called “character clause” — Rule 5 for BBWAA voters, which reads, “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” — was introduced in 1944 by Hall founder Stephen Clark and Commissioner Kenesaw Landis, a man so brimming with integrity, sportsmanship, and character that he spent his 24-year tenure upholding the game’s color line.)
Between the efforts of Morgan and the Hall’s 2017 decision not to accept a BBWAA resolution to publish every ballot (two weeks after the election results were announced), it’s apparent that the institution will find ways to give cover to those voters who reject Bonds but won’t publish their ballots. According to the Ballot Tracker, 75.1% of voters published their ballots either before or after the election results were announced; they supported Bonds and Clemens at a 61.2% clip. By comparison, the 24.9% of voters who did not publish gave Bonds just 41.9% support (and Clemens 45.7%).
Where the hope lies for both is in the turnover of the electorate. Notably, over the past two election cycles, 24 out of 28 first-time voters have included Bonds (25 of 28 for Clemens); meanwhile the net total of votes shrank by 18 in that span, as voters at least 10 years removed from coverage were removed from the rolls. Both trends figure to continue, as the first wave of internet-based writers gets the vote (this scribe included, in 2021) and the ranks of those who covered their careers and feel personally misled continue to dwindle. Nonetheless, those trends alone probably won’t be enough to get the pair to 75% by 2022. Additional minds will need to be changed along the way.
As I wrote in regards to Clemens, the election of Bonds won’t please everybody, but the Hall of Fame has never been a church. If it can withstand Selig, if a museum dedicated to telling the story of the sport can withstand the segregationists, amphetamine users and other miscreants, it can surely withstand the entry of Barry Lamar Bonds, all-time home run leader.
Brooklyn-based Jay Jaffe is a senior writer for FanGraphs, the author of The Cooperstown Casebook (Thomas Dunne Books, 2017) and the creator of the JAWS (Jaffe WAR Score) metric for Hall of Fame analysis. He founded the Futility Infielder website (2001), was a columnist for Baseball Prospectus (2005-2012) and a contributing writer for Sports Illustrated (2012-2018). He has been a recurring guest on MLB Network and a member of the BBWAA since 2011, and a Hall of Fame voter since 2021. Follow him on BlueSky @jayjaffe.bsky.social.
Put all the worthy supposed steroid users in, starting with Bonds. Lots of great baseball was played then even though some writers would rather forget about the whole era.
Bonds was the must watch player that baseball hasn’t had since he retired. Remember Bonds home run chase? His at bat vs. Gagne? I was in a karaoke bar once when the crowd shouted down the KJ and made him put the game on for a Bonds at bat. We will never see a hitter as dominant again. Celebrate the so called steroid era by enshrining its best player.
I don’t agree with this, but I find it a much more compelling argument than this whole “let’s put in the best of the cheaters and leave the rest out.” If you’re willing to ignore the character clause because it was the “wild west”, it makes sense to put in McGwire and Sosa in too. I mean, either it matters or it doesn’t.
McGwire and Sosa have JAWS problems, if I’m not mistaken. McGwire in particular.
These two guys are, to me, good illustrations of how while JAWs and other statistical measures are very powerful arguments for evaluating whether a player is worthy of HOF induction, there should be a little room for the “wow” factor. Specifically, those two guys when they were playing just plain smelled like HOF guys, and that matters also. And its not like these two guys advanced statistical profiles were so far below standards int he HOF that they’d have looked out of place.
This is all in an alternate universe where PEDs does not enter the discussion for whatever reason.
Sosa had a career wRC+ of 124, and 60 WAR…because he wasn’t good before he started using or after they started testing.
He didn’t have as good a career as guys like Jim Edmonds or Kenny Lofton, not to mention Andruw.
Oh, and he corked his bat!
McGwire’s got a better case…but his 66 career WAR is closer to Dick Allen’s than Frank Thomas’s (and he doesn’t even crack the 2000 hit line), because he destroyed his body with years of steroid abuse, averaging just 123 games in his 15 full seasons.
Bonds would have been an inner-circle guy if he’d retired before he started using in 1999.
McGwire and Sosa are meaningfully different cases, because Sosa wasn’t good pre-drugs…and it’s hard to think that any “pre-drugs” version of McGwire exists.
We don’t even know about the best of the cheaters, because they have avoided detection.
No, I mean the best performers.
There are two general reasons why HOF voters won’t vote for suspected steroid users – the character clause (“I don’t vote for cheaters”) and the authenticity clause (“His stats don’t count because he was assisted by the PEDs”.)
A consistent way for voters to deal with both is to entirely discount the stats accrued during the time of suspected PED usage. This has the double effect of filtering out players who only have HOF stats based on their non-steroid-assisted seasons, as well as administering a “cheating penalty” for those voters who care about the character clause. After all, if Bonds had not used steroids at all post-1998, it’s not like he wouldn’t have still accumulated WAR/stats. Maybe he would have accumulated an additional 30 WAR instead of 60 without the steroids. Discounting those years entirely provides when considering his candidacy provides the “character penalty”. But Bonds was already HOF-worthy by 1998, when he reportedly started using. Sosa & McGwire were not.
This assumes that we know with some degree of certainty which seasons players used steroids and when they did not, which of course is usually not the case. But I don’t see anything inconsistent about the argument.
I actually think the biggest reason people don’t vote for these guys is that they created an unfair playing field for everyone else and forced other players down a path of taking PEDs or not having a job.
In the former category – if you assume pujols was clean, how many MVP awards does he win without having to compete against PEDers?
In the latter category are many marginal players who have been quoted saying they had a stark professional choice to make
It’s not really about would have gone in without using PEDs.
My solution is wait until they die and then indict them. Everyone gets what get they want.
The Duke’s argument is my main concern, and the solution is my preferred solution too. It’s only history when everyone alive at the time is gone.
Agreed. Put them all in, or leave them all out. I vote keep them OUT. The Hall of fame will lose credibility if it puts these cheaters in. Yes, there are a couple that got in, but lets not celebrate that.
Oh please, you’re creating heroic performance porn about a cheater.
Dude isn’t just a HOF-er. He’s on the short list for GOAT. Blows so far by so many other HOF-ers that it doesn’t even matter if every PED accusation is true. By all means highlight the scandal, but put the man in Cooperstown
My opinion only. Your mileage may vary.
Obviously Bonds had a HOF-worthy on field performance, and it all comes down to what each of us thinks about how the character clause for admission applies to the PED era.
In that light, I very much appreciate your last comment about “miles varying,” which implicitly was respectful of the right of others to disagree in good faith.
He was a jerk, which helps to make the media root against him, but come on… Bonds has to be in the Hall. If he started taking in 1998, which some have alluded to, his pre-’98 years are still Hall worthy.
Bonds was amazing even before 1998.
Wish I could find the original article, but I seem to recall Rob Neyer making the case – in the late 90s – that Bonds was the greatest active ball player (versus Griffey, who was certainly great and tended to get all the press).
Even more than Clemens, I find myself wishing that Barry Bonds had stayed clean. Power-Speed Bonds was much more fun than Roided Bonds. And the home run chase was the most joyless pursuit of a record possibly in the history of major sports. I just hope that anyone voting for Bonds is doing so out of some sense of obligation, and not because they want to relive those memories, because that was awful.
Both the single season and all time HR records being fallen felt like seeing a villain kill your favorite hero.
So I had a weird view of Hank Aaron during the season Bonds broke the all-time record, due to some, uh, “technical” work appreciating Aaron’s greatness at the time. I don’t think anyone needs me to tell them what an incredible player Hank Aaron was, his poise in the face of seemingly overwhelming racism, or that he’s a true class act. That stuff is all pretty well-known. But there is one thing I learned: Despite the public statements, Hank Aaron absolutely loathes Barry Bonds and would like nothing more than to see him drop off the face of the earth. I mean, really, really loathes the guy. But then, who wouldn’t in his situation?
It would be great for Hammerin’ Hank to still be alive when Trout hits home run #763…..
I don’t know if that happens unless he signs with the Phillies, since he’s about 500 shy and already 26. If he hits 40 a year for 10 years, that still puts him 100 shy. That’s pretty big since he’s only hit 40+ homers once, and I don’t know if he can top that in a stadium with a neutral park factor.
Stanton sort of has a similar chance, since he’s 2 years older with about 60 more homers. You could easily imagine him continuing to slug 40-50 homers every year for the next 8 years. But that’s still not ideal, plus he gets hurt a lot.
Part of why Bonds was able to do this was because he hit a lot of home runs when he was roided out, but also because steroids allowed him to defy everything we know about aging. With better testing, it’s hard to see anyone continuing long enough to pile up the counting stats. To beat 763, you need someone to hit the major leagues when they’re about 20 (like Hank Aaron did) and stay healthy and productive enough to play for about 20 years (like Aaron did). That’s a near-impossible combination, and keep in mind, Aaron wasn’t even any good in his last two years (he played 22 in total), and he got an extra 30 or so homers that way. This makes even someone like Eloy Jimenez a long shot since he’s already 22. Someone like Acuna or Vlad Jr. or maybe even Soto could theoretically have a shot, but this gives you an idea of how small the pool of possible players is.
I think the key to surpassing 762 HR are the decline years from age 35-40+. Guys like Griffey and A-Rod reached 500 home runs at very young ages, well before Aaron did. But they both aged poorly in their mid 30’s, especially Griffey. Aaron moved to Fulton County Stadium as he was entering his mid 30’s which allowed him to continue to pump out big home run years. In Atlanta Aaron had seasons of 47, 44, 44, 40, 39, 38, and 34 home runs. The 47 home run season came at age 37 and the 40 home run season came at age 39. Aaron only had three 40+ home run seasons in Milwaukee when he was in his 20’s. How many sluggers have had consistent 40 home run power after age 35? That’s very rare.
If Mike Trout hits 35 homers a year for 15 years, he will finish with 765 homers. 15 years is far too long to be forecasting though. Trout will turn 42 in August of 2033. He doesn’t have to sign with the Phillies, but that would help. Philadelphia is the closest MLB team to his hometown of Vineland, New Jersey. About 40 miles away.
Bonds is, quite literally, Trout plus an aggressive steroid regime.
The only issue with the comparison is that his wRC+ during his first peak was depressed…by steroid users!
It’s like the hits record, guy could play 21 years and average 200 hits a year and still be behind Rose.
Ironically, of course…it’s hard to find a better comparison than Trout for pre-rounds Bonds.
Hank Aaron used amphetamines . . .
Jay great honest balanced article. What was particularly fresh for me 1) what a great top of the class ’82 draft 2) I’d love to know more about who illegally leaked on Bonds and others, who wasn’t leaked, and why. I suspect that’s an interesting story.
A lawyer named Troy Ellerman, who was representing BALCO founder Victor Conte at the time, leaked the testimony of Bonds, Giambi and Sheffield to Williams and Fainaru-Wada. He was apparently dealing with drug, alcohol and depression problems in his own life. He served 16 months of a 30-month sentence for criminal contempt, obstruction of justice and filing a false declaration. See
http://www.espn.com/mlb/news/story?id=4456448 and
http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/news/story?id=6229509
Jay, thanks for the follow up.
Balanced? No. Comprehensive in its description of Bonds’ career, sure, but there are all kinds of statements and choices in the article that make clear Jay is advocating for Bonds’ election.
That includes:
1) “It’s estimated that the government spent at least $50 million of taxpayer money to investigate BALCO via a prosecution whose misconduct with regard to due process and the right to privacy was far more odious than any of Bonds’ sins.”
That is a value judgment call that Jay has made in Bonds favor. Others are entitled to conclude that Bond’s sins are far more odious.
2) “I take a more nuanced view. I believe that voters should distinguish between PED use that came during baseball’s “Wild West” era — when it took a complete institutional failure on the part of the players’ union, team owners, the commissioner, and the media to prevent a coherent drug policy from being implemented — and use that came after testing began in 2004 (though the first penalties weren’t imposed until 2005).”
That is a clear advocation for Bonds’ election, and is completely unnecessary in the context of an article that would mean to leave it up to the reader to decide.
3) Jaffe repeatedly makes comparisons to others’ behavior and excuses Bonds’ behavior in light of what he has determined is less egregious behavior – e.g., Bud Selig and amphetamine users.
4) Jaffe criticizes others for any stance that Bonds should not be elected, such as Joe Morgan and the BBWAA.
5) Jaffe paints the election of Bonds as “the hope” when he says “[w]here the hope lies for both is in the turnover of the electorate.”
6) Jaffe even concludes with what amounts to an out-and-out endorsement of Bonds’ election: “[the hall] can surely withstand the entry of Barry Lamar Bonds, all-time home run leader.”
Jay is of course entitled to his opinions, and he is entitled to write about them here on FanGraphs. But let’s not pretend that he does not have a horse in this race – he is clearly advocating for Bonds.
5) If I said that the hope for the Phillies lay in picking up either Machado or Harper would you assume that I was rooting for the Phillies?
I won’t say that is my strongest point, but I included it as a point of evidence that even Jay’s word choices belie what he is arguing for. He chose to orient that sentence from Bonds’ and Clements’ point of view and use the word “hope’ with respect to their election. He could have said “An area for potential new votes for Bonds and Clemens comes from voter turnover.” That would be more or less neutral. He could have even said “The fear for Bonds’ and Clements’ election is in the turnover of the electorate.” That would be oriented from that anti-election point of view. He chose a certain point of view and words that went along with it – it is hardly a leap to suggest it is because that is the one he identifies with.
“Balanced” does not mean the writer can’t express opinions. Just that those opinions should not be presented as facts. Which in this case, they are not, at least not to anyone with reading comprehension skills. (not an accusation)
Jaffe presents an overview of Bonds’ career, making plenty of points that could be used to either endorse his HOF candidacy (his performance), or deny it (character issues, cheating, domestic abuse). That he additionally expresses which of those sides he subscribes to does not mean the article isn’t balanced.
Even if he’s “advocating”, Jay presents Barry Bonds the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Few baseball fans (and I suspect writers) are without viewpoints on PEDs. I appreciated the fact based recap.
I should also add that if we’re concerned about people smearing their accusers like Armstrong and Braun, then Clemens certainly seems to qualify. Yet another reason why Clemens sucks.
Clemens had a unique smear – his wife. What a guy!
Just imagine if current Billy Hamilton could run a .455 OBP like Slidin’ Billy
He’d probably also steal 100 bases haha
In his last full year in the minors, Current Billy Hamilton had an OBP over .400 between A and AA ball. He stole over 150 bases.
If there was a young Rickey Henderson in the game today would any team today actually allow him to steal 100 bases?
If they were good enough at stealing efficiently and on base often enough…maybe? I think the steal is actually undervalued right now. Need to do some more looking into that.
Bonds obviously belongs in the Hall, whether you want to take pre-1999 Bonds only or look at his whole career. We can induct men who cheated African Americans out of the chance of even playing Major League Baseball for decades (Landis, Yawkey, Cronin, many more, not to mention the players who benefited from facing weaker competition), thus diminishing the sport, but we can’t induct one of the two or three greatest position players of all time (an African American, by the way) because he cheated to make himself and his teams better? Ridiculous.
That said, I wouldn’t be a Good Red Sox Fan if I didn’t point out that Williams is a lot closer to Bonds in total WAR (might even eke him out) and surpasses him in peak if he doesn’t lose most of five seasons to war service.
It’s worth noting that steroids were incredibly prevalent in baseball at least since the late 50s. Mantle used steroids provided by “Dr. Feelgood”, the man who caught Aaron’s record breaking home run is on record stating that he and several of his teammates were users, and Congress first investigated the matter in 1972. It is an absolute certainty that there were steroid users in the Hall of Fame long before Bonds signed with the Giants, or even before Canseco first suited up for Oakland.
Also, any journalists who covered baseball in the 80s/90s who claims to have been “misled” by Bonds and other steroid users is a gigantic lying hypocrite.
What? Steroids weren’t even prevalent in weightlifting and bodybuilding by that time … until the arrival of Dianabol (aka, muscle candy).
Baseball players didn’t really even lift weights until the mid/late 80s.
I am both incredibly skeptical and highly interested in this statement.
To write it with such confidence implies strong evidence. You should share it with us.
^this. Steriods were available in the ‘60’s, East Germany, Russia (just look at some of them woman olympians from the 60’s and 70’s). A single sport doesn’t exist in a vacuum, I find it hard to believe that players weren’t on to it way way way before 1998. And if that’s the case, then I find the whole point moot, because we’ll never know who used and when. Did Ripken, while he set his record game streak, to aid in his recovery time? None of us know. It took players like Canseco, McGwire and Sosa to go so far over the top, to make it obvious and start an ‘arms race’, that couldn’t be ignored.
Well, I thought it basically all started in 1988 with the bash brothers sticking each other is the butt. Lenny dykstra was another early user and players like dalton, incaviglia and others were in on it early. Before then I don’t think so. Nobody even hit 50 in the 70s and 80s except Foster and that was during an expansion year. Bonds also benefitted from expansion (94 n 98) and tight baseballs for his HR numbers on an absolute basis but on a relative basis he was still a beast. A very unlikable nasty beast but I guess you have to put him in.
The reason no one got huge and hit a fuckton of dingers back then isn’t a lack of steroids, it’s a lack of weight training. That was the real innovation of guys like Canseco and McGwire, not steroids. Steroids were so prevalent in baseball that Congress intervened in 19 fucking 73.
Man, you can’t just drop this ‘knowledge bomb’ and not share some sources. I MUST KNOW MORE!
“From 2002-2004, he batted a combined .358/.575/.786, averaging 45 homers and 193 walks per year”
Those are beyond video game numbers.
Averaging 45 home runs isn’t that hard in video games. The 193 walks are another question.
I hate steroids. I hated watching Bonds break all those records.
But no one has ever done what he has and no one ever will. My opinion doesn’t change that. If the best to ever play a position isn’t in the Hall of Fame, then it really isn’t that great of a Hall (though I also think Rose should be in, so whatever I guess).
Might be careful with the ‘no one ever will’ line; every time a record is set someone comes along to break it. I’m sure plenty of people were saying Ruth’s HR record would never be broken for a long time. Then…
That’s alright. I’ll leave it stand and watch (hopefully with more joy this time) as someone proves me wrong. No one ever gonna touch Ryan’s K record either. I’m throwing that one in just for fun, to see what we can do in an age with more Ks but less inning pitched haha
Part of me wishes that Bond had been using from the beginning. I mean, look how dominant he was using as an old man. If he had been doing that since he was young, he would have broken the game! Like, a thousand career home runs (or he would be walked all the time). It would have been like some mad experiment in extremes.
Just part of me though.
In that scenario I wonder what his final hat size would have been? He might have become the only player with an elastic hat.
Reminds me of the guy who applied Coors park factors to Bonds’ individual season stats. Imagine combining them into a full career both juiced and in Coors… I can’t even imagine how insane those numbers would be!
I don’t know very many people that “like” steroids or “like” that athletes use steroids.
I do know A LOT of people that enjoy the games/sports that include PED using athletes … and almost NONE of those fans are willing to give back the titles/awards their team won while having PED using athletes.
It’s an era. Lots of award winners admitted to or were highly connected to steroid use. We have to acknowledge that steroid use during the era was likely more prevalent than we would care to admit. Many of our favorite players likely used.
I, personally, do not feel that a HoF without Bonds and Clemens is legit. They were, by far, the best of their era, the best of their peers, and among the very best in baseball history.
“I, personally, do not feel that a HoF without Bonds and Clemens is legit.”
Agreed 100% – keeping those two out diminishes the Hall at least as much as it diminishes them. And I add ARod to that list, who – his recent public-friendly image-rehabilitation efforts notwithstanding – may face a similar uphill climb to election.
“I don’t know very many people that “like” steroids or “like” that athletes use steroids.”
ME!!
I’m still in shock the courts overturned Bonds’ collusion case. You’ve got to be incredibly stupid to not see he was colluded against.
Maybe, but you need some actual evidence if you expect to win a court case beyond the obviousness of it all. Emails, letters, recorded phone calls, something needed to be found, and I don’t think anything in particular was. Baseball owners got busted for collusion in the 1980s, so they knew what not to do, and what evidence to destroy, so it would be hard to lose a case again.
Several teams had strong interest in signing Bonds. The A’s were VERY close to signing Bonds in the fall of 2007. This was reported in the local papers. The D-Rays also showed strong interest as well. Then Bonds was indicted and the A’s had second thoughts.
Sure, just like how there have been a number of teams who were “close” to signing Kaepernik.
If you take Bonds through age 31, and Bonds at age 32+, and treat them as separate players, you get a JAWS score of 72.7 for the former and 73.3 for the latter. Those two players would rank behind only Williams, Henderson, and Yaz. He’s two top-5 all time LFs.
Those three are also the only LFs with a WAR7 greater than 50. In his 22 year career, Bonds never had a stretch of 7 consecutive seasons where his WAR in that window dipped below 50.
I love that. I also loved when someone (and I forget who it was) looked at Even-Year Bonds and Odd-Year Bonds and both were clear HOFers
I won’t bother with all the steroid debate, but unlike other candidates, one can erase the entirety of Bond’s big-head era and he’s still a HOFer. I can understand (although disagree) people who claim that player success due to PEDs are tainted, but even with said penalty Bonds was a generational star.
I can see voting for Bonds if someone says he was already HOF player without the roid boost. If someone doesn’t want to vote for him because of PEDs that is fine by me as well. The argument I can’t stand is “just put the roid players in and move on.”
Why not? People in earlier eras were all jacked up on speed and coke and we put them in (“juicing” was a term referring to amphetamine after all). The pitchers Bonds had to face were more likely to be juicing as well. We can’t know if a player didn’t use steroids (all we know is that they were never on a list, or they never failed a test. That’s not the same thing as not using) so all players from like 89-05 basically have to be skipped over.
If you want to leave every player out who played during those 15 years, you’ve got a logical argument. If you’re just going to pick and choose who you think should get in because you’re pretty sure they didn’t juice, you’re just guessing.
It sucks that the heroes of the era weren’t flawless. Don’t care, just put the roid players in and move on.
“the pitchers were more likely juicing as well.” That is a major assumption. I’d rather go by the actual evidence. I’m not going to lump all of the players from that time range together, there is no reason for that. That is illogical and irresponsible.
That sentence should have read “more likely to be juicing as well”. Huge difference in implication than your edited version.
It’s not a major assumption. I was not trying to say most pitchers were juicing, or even that most players were, just that they’re more likely to have been on the roids than players of other eras. We know the usage was widespread among players as many players and staffers have told us so. Most players caught for PEDs have been pitchers. There is no logical reason to assume that this cheating was exclusively held to hitters. The bolder assumption is that only hitters were cheating for some reason.
Many of the guys you want to call out never failed a drug test. We have a whole lot of assumptions, and very few clear facts. I have a whole pile of opinions on the matter, informed as best they can be, but the most logical choice I’m able to make from the data given to me is “there were a whole lot of players both known and unknown on PEDs , just like players of other eras, and I don’t want to just paint over the whole time period like nothing ever happened of note”.
I was not attempting to edit your sentence. Wasn’t trying to play the grammar game at all. Yes pitchers have been caught. I’m simply saying that without any evidence on a player I’m not going to assume they were a cheat. With evidence I am happy to condemn.
Not going to comment on PEDs or anything like that, but the one thing I always think of about Bonds and his utter dominance is this:
Whenever you hear anything, anywhere, about how “hot” a hitter is some arbitrarily small sample size (over the past 10 games, 3 weeks, or whatever), in nearly every case, Bonds was better over a 4 YEAR period from 2001 to 2004.
Christian Yelich had a pretty decent September this year, right? That’s basically what Bonds did in a period about 25 times as long. It’s just insane.
Bonds is still by far the most fun Baseball Reference page to look at; though Babe Ruth’s is up there as well of course. Hitting 400 is all well and good but getting on base at a 609 clip is much more impressive.
The most compelling case against steroid use is not about “character” (do we really want to open up that Pandora’s box of historical iniquities?) or specious notions of what is or isn’t “natural” (as though lifting weights or surgically relocating tendons is totally natural). It’s that players shouldn’t be forced to choose between success in their careers and their long-term physical well-being. If steroids and other PEDs had no adverse long-term effects on users, there would be very little reason (aside from PR problems arising from entrenched public opinion) to ban them.
But that’s a systemic problem, and morally it’s not all that different from home-plate collisions and takeout slides (except for the lying and character assassination, i.e. Mr. Braun). It was wrong of Bonds to lie about whether he knew he was taking steroids, although I understand why he did (if he did), and I can’t say with any confidence that I wouldn’t have lied about that myself, given how much was at stake. But to hold him responsible for a broken system that incentivized PED use to the potential long-term detriment of the players’ health–that’s beyond the pale.
What’s left over is the baseball, and I think we can all agree the baseball was spectacular, in the truest sense of the word. I don’t know what he “deserves” as a person, and I’m glad it’s not my business to determine that, but he belongs in the Hall.
Of all the PED users, Bonds sticks out because of the physical changes in his body in his late 30s. People’s heads don’t grow in their late 30s. With other players, there was uncertainty. Bonds’ early 2000s run was so obviously PED fueled, I feel it insulted a lot of baseball fans.
He’s a HOFer though.
Maybe the solution isn’t to attempt to purge the Hall of any unseemly characters and conduct, but rather to dispense with the “hallowed shrine” bullshit in the first place. “Fame” is a usefully neutral criterion morally; let’s check the sanctimony at the door, shall we?
There’s only one active player who can hold a candle to the dominance Bonds exerted on the field either before or after starting steroid use, and that’s Mike Trout. So clearly better at baseball than everyone else. Put him in.
dont really care about the HOF stuff as that involves a different question from the quality of the player in question, but Bonds stats is endlessly fascinating.
would love to see statcast etc info on Bonds at the height of his powers. even the diminished last years offer a glimpse that captivates.
As a 42 year old, Bonds had a 4.4% swinging strike rate, a 91% zone contact rate, but abysmal BABIP because of how slow he was, as well as how high a proportion his hits went out of the park and thus out of the BABIP formula.
42 years old and still putting up contact rates that wouldn’t be out of line in a Mookie Betts page, all the while putting up an ISO near 0.300. that’s amazing.
Yeah, that’s the idea – put Rose, Bonds and Clemens in the Hall of Great Stats, or HOGS, for short.
We will never know what Bonds’ career numbers “should” have looked like had he not used steroids. But the benefit of the doubt is not his. To channel a little Bill Burr, I don’t count those numbers. Without those last 9 years he might still belong, but his cheating denies us the chance to properly evaluate a shortened career.
All we are left with is a player who helped to ruin the integrity of the game, because of his poor judgement, his choices.
Same category as Pete Rose and Joe Jackson, great players who by virtue of their own actions should be kept out of the Hall.
Agree with everything you said until the Rose comment. I’m all for him being in.
Not to mention Shoeless Joe, who carried that Black Sox team in the World Series.
Two things. First who leaked the 2003 mlb tests? Arod, Manny, Ortiz, and bonds all are listed as positive test results from that season.
Second. Was it a joyless march to the record by Giants fans? Bob Costas made that statement in Ken Burns 10th inning. In the same segment Bonds points out everywhere he played the stadiums were packed.
I don’t pretend to speak for ALL Giants fans, but for me (who has always placed being a baseball fan first) it was.
For me watching Bonds as a Giants and all his accomplishments were more exciting and brought me more joy than any of the 3 World Series the Giants won from 2010-2014.
The obvious collusion against him after his final season with the Giants and an easy chance for 3,000 hits still infuriates me. I was hoping this punishment for his past “sins” would be the end of things and that when HOF voting came he would get in after a few years. Doesn’t look that way and I have my doubts about whether it will happen at this point. The HOF and MLB have done just about everything possible to keep him out. Enjoy that Harold Baines ceremony though.
Here’s a fun joke/story I heard a couple years ago:
“A boy goes to Cooperstown for the first time with his father. They enter the wing of the museum where the hall of fame members’ plaques reside. The boy turns to his dad and asks:
‘Dad can we see the plaque of the player with the most hits all time?’ The dad responds ‘Sorry son, there is no plaque for him here.’
The son then asks “OK, can we see the plaque for the pitcher with the most Cy Young awards?’ The dad tells his son ‘Sorry son, there is no plaque for him either’
The son, annoyed, asks ‘Well in that case we see the plaque for the player with the most MVP awards?’ The dad explains ‘No son, his plaque also isn’t here.’
The son, extremely confused asks his dad ‘Dad, are you sure this is the hall of fame?”
If I were the dad, I’d say ‘The man who did all that did it by cheating. A lot. That’s why he isn’t here. Cheating shouldn’t be rewarded.’
1. The question of whether what Bonds/Clemens did (but especially Bonds) constituted cheating is not exactly settled. Yes, they did use performance enhancers but that in itself doesn’t mean they cheated.
2. The hall of fame has already openly rewarded cheating over and over again. So if you are trying to teach your children lessons maybe bringing them to the hall of fame isn’t the best idea.
You won’t find the guy who won the most Tour de France races in his sport’s institution, either, for much the same reasons.
Actually, you will, on the revised list. Miguel Indurian’s five are now tied for the most, and anyone who followed the sport closely doesn’t have much doubt. The 90s were the steroid era in baseball; they were the EPO era in pro cycling.
That year I was rooting for him to be walked in every plate appearance so he couldn’t get near the records because he didn’t deserve them.
No, no, no. And I’m a Giants’ fan. It’s alarming that fans are even considering voting him in. He cheated. A lot. Really a lot. That just isn’t acceptable.
Any institution in which one argued criteria for entry starts with “If Bud Selig and Harold Baines are in, then why not. . .” is an institution that is hard to care about. Jay’s articles are great, but the more I think about candidates like Bonds, the less I care about who gets elected. It’s like saying “we already shamed ourselves and you didn’t mind much, so we won’t lose your esteem if we do that some more.”
Not really covered in this article is how disliked Bonds was by his own teammates. With his notorious locker room BarcaLounger and unfriendly demeanor, he harmed his teams in ways not measured by WAR or counting stats. It may be hard to measure the benefit of chemistry, but the harm from dis-chemistry can often be, to use a word made infamous by Bonds, clear. Although this reflects on Bonds’ character, or lack thereof, it was all omitted from the article. Further, although the article touches lightly on Bonds’ problems with women, some of which would not be viewed so lightly today, it omits some of his more well-known comments to the women in his life, which in themselves were bullying and threatening and could be considered a form of abuse.
If Barry Bonds is going to be added to the lowest common denominator of “If Harold Baines and Bud Selig are in,. . .” it will further reduce the stature of being a member of the Hall of Fame.
These were some amazing steroids
My Bonds story: In 2002 (I think), went to see him play in an interleague game vs. the Bluejays, in Toronto. We went very early, watched him take BP, and during BP, he briefly signed autographs for whoever leaned over next to the dugout. He quite angrily signed without saying a word. He scowled. He grimaced. He glared. He spoke once the entire time, growling at an 8-year old boy, “if you want me to sign something, you GOTTA give ME A PEN!” The poor kid started crying and ran back up into the stands. Immediately after that incident Bonds glared angrily and victoriously at the rest of us, most with mouths agape at what we just saw, then he wordlessly sauntered back to the cage and proceeded to hit five of the farthest homers I’ve ever seen on the next 7 BP pitches. He’d go on to homer late in the game and the Giants won. I was hoping to get his autograph before the game, had even followed his career since the early Pittsburgh days, but Bonds permanently retired my fandom of him that day in Toronto.
Great story, though personally I think those sorts of personality traits are likely quite beneficial to someone like Bonds’ on field performance; nice guys can only achieve OPS’s south of 1200.
I encourage people to actually click the link regarding the spousal abuse allegations. I am enlightened, and incensed.
Jay nice article. However, I cannot disagree more. Bonds, Clemens, A-Roid, McGuire were the biggest cheaters of their day. You cannot compare players use of “speed” to steroids. Steroids aids in the re-coop process whereas “speed” is a burst of energy that players used on occasion when fatigued. In addition, the dire after effects of taking speed kept many players from taking it. Steroids use after effects are still being learned.
None other than Henry Aaron, baseball’s true homerun king, said that if he had taken steroids he could have blasted at least another 100 homers. Nothing galls me more than to see the “face” of MLB on national TV – Alex Rodriguez.
As a final note – baseball is one sport that is dominated by statistics. Stats are used to compare players, eras, and teams. Taint those stats and the appeal of the game is damaged.
Those bums should never be allowed a whiff of the Hall.
Sure, steroids can have more of an effect than greenies. But if players took greenies when they were not allowed, how can you argue that they wouldn’t have taken steroids if they had played when those drugs were available? Pete Rose at least had the honesty to respond, when asked if he would have, “that’s a damned good question”.
Aaron has no idea how many more HR he would have hit on steroids–particularly if the pitchers in his era were also taking them. It might have been another 100, it might have been more, but it also could have been a lot less.
As far as stats go, traditional stats change according to many factors. E.g., a few years ago, HR were down in large part because of a larger strike zone. Now they’re up again, maybe because the ball is different. It’s common knowledge that the era Ruth played in was far more favorable to impressive stats than, say, the late 60s.
That’s one of the great values of modern analytics. We can control for these factors much more when comparing eras.
I find it interesting that many people are happy to keep Schilling out because he is a reprehensible asshole (and he is) but the same people vote for Bonds and Clemens.
The argument around those two is soley PED’s. No one ever seems to bring up Bonds’ alleged domestic abuse or the overall garbage human being Clemens is (remember when he cheated on his wife with a 15 year old? Or joked that all the dry cleaners were closed because Japan and Korea were playing in the WBC? Or threw a fucking bat at Piazza for no reason?).
If you are holding those two to the same standard as Schilling you dont even need the PED argument.
On the other hand…Schilling should absolutely be in the Hall of Fame.
where are all the 50, 60 and 70 home run seasons now? I’ll tell you. back in the bottle.
I chuckled at this line…”most of it illegally leaked to the press by anonymous sources”
Bonds is a cheater, period.
The 70 home run seasons will come back when MLB juices the ball sufficiently, again.
There is extremely strong evidence that steroids make your head big and your nads small. There is essentially zero evidence that they help you hit baseballs effectively. Nobody seems to care about this.
There is strong evidence (much of it compiled by Eric Walker) that the general increase in home runs during the late 90s and early 2000s was directly attributable to changes in the baseball — the kind of changes that we have recently seen can be within the tolerances of legal ball specs. Nobody seems to care about this either. It’s just so much easier to be indignant.
Agree completely.
You don’ t hit baseballs with your strength. You hit them with your hand-eye coordination, reaction time, and bat speed. Benching 400 pounds has no bearing on one’s ability to swing a 2-pound stick at the right time and in the right place.
“Roid rage”, it seems to me, is exactly the opposite of an advantage when it comes to hitting. How will that phenomenon help you attain the serenity that good hitters often talk about? How will rage help you experience the patience of laying off a pitch that’s just off the plate? Or the quick reactions it takes to swing when the pitch *is* crossing the plate?
Bonds was the most patient, most selective hitter I’ve ever seen (and I saw Ted Williams). His ability to distinguish between a hittable pitch and one to ignore was astonishing. Sure, there were a lot of intentional walks, but far more of his BB were due to his refusal to offer at pitches that weren’t strikes (even if they were very, very close).
Thanks to Jay Jaffe for this thoughtful article and to FanGraphs readers for good comments.
It seems to me that sports fans often have “childhood heroes,” the players they admired with the innocence of youth when they first fell in love with the sport. For me, those are the Durocher-Era Cubs; Banks, Santo, Williams, and the rest. When I grew up, I discovered that players are just as human as the rest of us. I still stayed a Cub fan, and have enjoyed watching baseball, but I no longer have illusions. Yet I can’t help still seeing those 1966-72 Cubs through the idealistic eyes of a kid.
What I think has happened with regard to Barry Bonds and other PED-era players is that the ranks of people who think about and write about baseball increasingly include those young enough to have watched them in their “childhood hero” days. As the older folks, many of whom are disgusted by Bonds et al., depart from the scene, I expect that nothing will stop Bonds, and probably a few of the other PED players, from being elected to the Hall of Fame. The rational arguments, some of which were nicely presented by Jay Jaffe, will be accepted with thoughtful nods. But in my opinion the foundation of the arguments is ultimately “My God, I loved watching Barry Bonds when I was a kid!”
I’m not saying this is a bad thing. The work of Bill James and of Jaffe himself have made me look at the Hall with detachment. It’s just not that big of a deal to me any more, though still amusing to argue about.
In closing, please permit me a little snark about one of Jaffe’s arguments: As I read it, he essentially said “Kenesaw Mountain Landis was a white supremacist, therefore the Hall’s character clause is irrelevant.” I can’t decide whether this is a red herring or a non sequitur, but it’s not one of stronger arguments in favor of Bonds’ induction…