Which athletes were great at times, even dominant and unstoppable sometimes, but pretty much everyone agrees they don’t belong in the hall of fame for their sport?
Here are my picks:
NFL: Bo Jackson, Randall Cunningham
MLB: Darryl Strawberry
NBA: Shawn Kemp
Eric Davis.
Don Mattingly
Terrell Davis (a 2000 yard rusher who won a Super Bowl for the Broncos, but who just didn’t have enough great seasons to be a Hall of Famer)
Ron Guidry and Dwight Gooden both had a few seasons that made them look like future Hall of Famers, but just didn’t have the endurance.
Tony Oliva looked like a future Hall of Famer after a few seasons, too.
Are talking about dominant athleticism in this thread, or just a few great years/a good-but-not-great career? Because if it’s the former, I don’t think Don Mattingly qualifies. (Don’t know enough about Oliva one way or the other.)
Dominant, although they got their dominance the wrong way:
Barry Bonds
Sammy Sosa
Mark McGwire
Roger Clemens
Lyle Alzado
Lance Armstrong 
:: d&R ::
Bonds was dominant long before steroids. He’ll also coast into the Hall of Fame, and he deserves to.
MLB:
Jose Canseco-one of the best players in the game for a couple years. Steroids, idiocy, and wasted potential are his real legacy
Dale Murphy - 2 MVPs. No shot at the HOF
NFL
Kurt Warner - SB winner, couple of great years. Too little and too late for HOF
Lots of one or two year wonders that don’t have a chance
I am not so sure he will coast into the hall. Many will think he should be punished. Other reputed steroid users like Canseco and McGwire are finding it tough to overcome.
Dan Quisenberry. Totally dominant reliever, tops in the AL over a 6-year period, but just too short to be considered Hall-worthy.
Bonds’s achievements before and after the taint of steroids blow Canseco and McGwire out of the water. By pure performance, he’s one of the three greatest hitters the game has ever seen. His career up through 1999 would itself be enough to put him near the Hall of Fame inner circle.
Yes, but the thinking (which I heartily endorse) is that illicit behavior overrules all previous good behavior.
If I for example am an exemplary bank customer, the best customer in the history of a bank, through age 35, but then I come in one day wearing a ski mask, carrying a sawed-off shotgun and screaming “EVERYBODY GET ON THE MOTHERFUCKING FLOOR AND OPEN THOSE VAULTS NOW!!!” I believe I should no longer be eligible for induction into the Bank Customers’ Hall Of Fame. YMMV.
Given what he turned into and what he represents, I agree that he might not coast.
Fernando Valenzuela was a dominant pitcher for a few years, but not going to the HoF.
prr:
My mileage does vary. And I’ll bet you any amount that you care to name that if the facts on the ground remain as they are – that is, if Bonds is not banned from baseball or it turns out that he killed puppies to use them as bongs – he’ll be elected to the Hall of Fame within the first four years of his eligibility.
As he should be.
I’d never bet that HoF voters aren’t fools, idiots, feebs, morons, jackasses, jerks, imbeciles, or well-meaning but misinformed observers of sport.
The rules, though, clearly indicate that “character” is a quality valued for HoF voting, and Bonds (and Rose and Joe Jackson) plainly (to me) demonstrate no acquaintance whatsoever with that concept. Think of the children!
You should be happy to take the bet, then.
Steroids, by the way, is on a whole different ethical/character plane than “trying to lose,” whatever else you want to say about it. It would be perfectly consistent for the writers to feel the need to punish one (although, as I said, both Rose and Jackson were banned from baseball anyway, which Bonds is not and won’t be) and not the other, just as the failure to induct Joe Jackson doesn’t make hypocrites out of those who voted for Ty Cobb and his vicious, spikes-up method of running the bases, or Burleigh Grimes and his spitball.
To say nothing of all the true jackasses devoid of positive character traits who are nevertheless enshrined.
(And if you object to the Grimes example because spitballing was legal at the time – as was steroids, arguably, when Bonds supposedly started with it – try Whitey Ford and his scuffballs.)
This is incorrect, unless you mean Bonds started using steroids before 1991. In that year, Fay Vincent sent all ballclubs a memo stating, without ambiguity, that the possession, sale or use of steroids was prohibited.
Fair enough!
I agree but he also committed the ultimate crime, he was nasty to sports writers. It is not about performance .McGwire has the numbers but he was evasive in front of congress. Bonds will not have it so easy.