I would again point out that Kirby Puckett was elected to the Hall of Fame on the first ballot.
Yeah, Kirby was a jolly guy who was liked by people, but with the scenario; about the same length of career (12 years for Kirby; 1998 was Bonds’s 13th season) and a career ending injury, why would the BBWAA not vote for a guy with 3 MVP Awards when they voted for a guy with none?
While Kirby was a well liked player whose sexual harassment problems were still ahead of him at that time, Bonds in 1998 didn’t have the same aura of stink about him as he does now and anyway five years in retirement will soften an image.
Are we assuming that his career would have proceeded another 10 years at approximately the same level of output? Then I think most likely yes. If his career ended in '98, probably not.
What are you basing that on, solely on the number of hits he had? Care to respond to any of the people in this thread that have laid out pretty fleshed-out arguments for why a 3-time MVP with over 400 HRs and a .290/.411/.556 slash line and exceptional defense would be a no-brainer for the Hall of Fame?
“Most likely”? He’d have been the greatest hitter of all time with no PED-related marks. He’d have easily reached 750 HR and over 3300 hits!
Well, I hedged based on the shortened career because I don’t know he’d be a lock for first ballot, especially coming from a small market team. I’d fully expect him to get in sooner or later. It would depend on who else is in his retirement class.
“Most likely” - that was supposed to be a humorous understatement. I should’ve used a smiley.
Rick, you’re right. I went back and looked at his numbers to the point when it’s generally assumed that he started doping, and it was a more impressive body of work than I remembered.
My “gut” feeling was that he was a good, but not great player, up until he started roiding. Actually he was better than that. Point taken.
I’ve read speculation that it was at least partly because he felt slighted and under appreciated that Bonds started using PEDs. I don’t know whether that’s why he used PEDs, but it sure does seem to be the case that lot of people seem to have had the impression that Bonds was just a “very good” player through the late 90s, instead of giving him his due as one of the very best players in baseball.
The HOF election of 2004 included Paul Molitor with 85% of the vote and Dennis Eckersley with 83%, both on their first ballots. Assuming he retired after the 1998 season, I would have taken Bonds ahead of both of them.
Again, one must point out that Bonds had won three Most Valuable Player Awards and eight Gold Gloves through the 1998 season. In the nine seasons from 1990 to 1998 Bonds was in the top ten in MVP voting every year but one. He was quite well appreciated. By way of comparison, Mark McGwire won precisely no MVP Awards.
According to some accounts, Bonds did feel slighted by the attention paid to Sosa and McGwire during the 1998 home run craze. * But what Bonds perceived has nothing to do with his Hall of Fame chances,* especially when it’s related to the 1998 home run nuttery, as opposed to his career in general. Nobody was saying Bonds was just a good player - you don’t give just good players MVP Awards three times - they were just distracted by the home run festival. For whatever reason, apparently, that made Bonds furious. Had you asked 100 baseball writers in 1998 which guy had had the greater career, Bonds, Sosa or McGwire, they would have thought the question was a joke. Bonds isn’t the BBWAA, and given the fact that he’s well known to be a bit paranoid, his word that he was hard done by is hardly meaningful.
Bonds was somewhat underrated, in that the consensus best player of the 90s among the mainstream press was Ken Griffey Junior (who was a very good player, just not as good as Bonds).
RickJay: I have no doubt the BBWAA would have voted him in to the hall; as you said, most sportswriters appreciated his achievements. The “lot of people” that I was referring to as being unappreciative is average baseball fans, an impression that seems to have been confirmed by a lot of the posts in this thread.
I’ve also heard it argued that, because Bonds was then playing in San Francisco, where many of his games ended in the wee hours (to those in the Eastern and Central time zones), that he may not have gotten as much attention from the national press (and the everyday baseball fan) as he might have if he had been playing in New York or Boston.
I am absolutely one of those people who did not realize the incredible numbers and awards he had compiled before he began doping. Three reasons I can think of. For much of the time he was compiling those numbers (late 80s and early 90s) I was living outside of the country and not following baseball that closely. Secondly, he played his first 5 or so years in Pittsburgh, which was not getting a lot of national attention. Third, I’m just a dumbass who has such a negative image of Barry Bonds that it blinded me to his early accomplishments.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is either hopelessly biased or a member of the “eensy-weensy tiny Hall” faction, where there are 10 players and nobody ever visits.