The dude was one of the best to ever play, on and off of steroids. And the hypocritical sports writers who pretend to care now about steroids didn't say shit when it was happening, nor did the commissioner at the time who is also in the HOF.
Ted Williams never won a World Series, should he not be in the HOF? For that matter, Tony Gwynn, Ichiro, Griffey Jr and on an on - tons of great players never won. Shit Mike Trout had one of the greatest stretches in history and will no doubt be a 1st ballot HOF'er but he could barely drag his team to the playoffs, and won nothing. Baseball is one sport that a great player simply can't take over and drag his team to victory, so I don't get this point.
Also, Ty Cobb was not only one of the greatest hitters ever, but an ornery prick to a lot of people especially in the press. He never won, should he not be in the HOF?
Sorry dude, your logic is flawed and inconsistent. This sort of just comes off as you having an unhealthy autistic obsession with a specific player.
So let's examine your claims.
If you had actually taken the time to read through my post, then you would have noticed the following:
"Now if you add in his first 3 years before the 11 year prime above and also account for steady decline in his last 8 years (throwing out his steroid-influenced stats and replacing them with a more "natural" curve) post the prime, then I think he ends up with 600 + homers and a career WAR of around 110 or so. Again, these would be first ballot Hall of Fame numbers on their own so even adjusting for steroids there is no question that he had a Hall-worthy career."
So yes, even without steroids and significant postseason success, I've already agreed that on the merits of his achievements on the field (without steroids) he deserves to be a 1st ballot Hall of Famer.
Baseball is a team sport where 1 player simply cannot drag his team to the promised land.
However what that 1 player can do, is to maximize their own performance and to be a force multiplier in the locker room through leading by example and setting the tone for the team's effort level and competitive zeal.
You're brought up Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, Tony Gwynn, Ichiro Suzuki, Mike Trout and Ken Griffey Jr. as examples of players who have not had postseason success but who have clear candidacy cases for the Hall of Fame. Let's deep dive into their careers.
Ted Williams had 1 postseason appearance where he slashed 0.200/0.333/0.200 and an OPS of 0.533. Definitely not great when placed against his regular season dominance however it's known that Williams was injured during that World Series with severe arm swelling after getting hit by a pitch during an exhibition game in October of that year.
You assert that
Ty Cobb was an "ornery prick" but it appears that there isn't a consensus on this. For example:
"Some historians, including Wesley Fricks, Dan Holmes, and Charles Leerhsen, have defended Cobb against unfair portrayals of him in popular culture since his death. A noted case is the book written by sportswriter Al Stump in the months after Cobb died in 1961. Stump was later discredited when it became known that he had stolen items belonging to Cobb and also betrayed the access Cobb gave him in his final months. As a result of the movie "Cobb", which starred Tommy Lee Jones, there are many myths surrounding Cobb's life, including one that he sharpened his spikes to inflict wounds on opposing players. This accusation was common for many decades before the movie was released."
I'm open to hear any accounts that you have about Cobb that place him anywhere near the type of abject cruelty that Bonds has shown to so many people around the sport (not just sportswriters). I'm very confident that you won't find anything even remotely close to people going on record as to saying "I wish he would die", as in the case of Bonds.
Tony Gwynn played in 27 postseason games and slashed 0.306/0.339/0.398 with an OPS of 0.737. He may not have won a World Series but he certainly did his part.
Ichiro Suzuki played 19 postseason games and slashed 0.346/0.400/0.436 with an OPS of 0.836. He performed when it mattered.
Mike Trout has played 3 postseason games and slashed 0.083/0.267/0.333 with an OPS of 0.600. He was unable to perform when it mattered.
Ken Griffey Jr. played 18 postseason games and slashed 0.290/0.367/0.580 with an OPS of 0.947. He also performed when it mattered.
None of the players above have the steroid issues or general baggage that Bonds has. So let's analyze Bonds' postseason performance before he started juicing.
Between 1990 to 1997, Bonds played 23 postseason games and slashed 0.200/0.319/0.288 with an OPS of 0.607. This is a far cry from his dominance during the regular season.
Even
Ty Cobb, who played in the dead ball era played 17 postseason games and slashed 0.262/0.314/0.354 with an OPS of 0.668.
So let's put this in context: In an 8 year period, Bonds' team as a whole was good enough to get him to 23 postseason games, which is more than all of the players that you have named played in their entire careers with the exception of Gwynn.
Every other player has better postseason stats other than Ted Williams, who was hurt in his only postseason campaign and Mike Trout, who has spent his entire career with the hapless Angels and their dumbass owner.
Therefore it can be concluded that the black mark on Bonds' credentials about being a terrible postseason player is entirely reasonable.
I will reiterate my earlier claim that even with being such an objectively terrible postseason player, his regular season dominance before steroids is still good enough to be termed a Hall of Fame resume, at least on pen and paper.
So here's the part where we have to step away from the world of pen and paper and into the real world. The reality is that whether we like it or not, the character of the athlete and how they represented themselves and their teams factors into decision-making on honoring said players.
If a great player turned out to be a child molester, then you cannot in good faith argue that a reasonable person should be unable to take that into consideration.
A cursory study of the many incidents that Bonds has been directly involved in is baffling. It wasn't just the press that hated him. His team-mates hated him. People working for the organization hated him. The press was just the cherry on top.
His detrimental impact on teams is truly something to behold. In magnitude as well as direction, it was as diametrically opposed to a true force multiplier such as Tom Brady as one can imagine.
Go back and read the incidents that I've compiled and bear in mind that this is simply the tip of the iceberg. Bonds is hated for completely understandable reasons.
So based on the entirety of who he was as a ballplayer and a person, I don't have any issues with him being left out of the Hall of Fame. You can disagree and that's fine, you do you.
I mean, there are people on this planet who enjoy getting fucked in the ass and eating shit (literally). Abhorrent as I may find it, who am I to tell some retard what his happiness should be ?
