Bonds over Rose?

[Truck_1_0_1_]

So last night on Twitter, one of the Bengals community posters (IE; post Bengals content, but doesn't work for them or any outlet), either Blake Jewell or someone, posted simply, "does Barry Bonds deserve to be in the HoF?" Nothing about Rose, nothing about anyone else, just simply Bonds.

After 3 well thought-out responses, the Reds homers piled on with, "Not before Pete, Rose is a better player (which he isn't)," and the most-ridiculous answer of all, "NO, BECAUSE THE BEST HITTER IN MLB HISTORY ISN'T IN." etc.

I then wrote a perfectly calm response to the guy who wrote the response in caps above, that Rose isn't even a top 25 player ever, let alone the best hitter (you know, the discussion I had with a few of you, a couple of weeks ago).

So I posted my song and dance of numbers that completely do shit on Rose's numbers (obviously, not hits or runs, 'cause those shit on Bonds lol) and when actually looking at the two... wow, Bonds truly was an all-time, legendary player... like how he led the league for 7 years straight in IBB... WHEN HE WASN'T JUICING.

I had no idea of a stat like that; if that doesn't prove he was a feared hitter, I don't know what does (and the stats back it up), not to mention his WAR is 4th all-time (2nd for position players).

So, that made me think; in terms of stats and outright career, is Bonds more deserving of HOF entry, than Rose? Throw out all of the outside nonsense (neither should be penalised for their, "transgressions," as Rose really didn't do anything that bad and the world and their mother were jusicing from 1985-2004 or so), just on numbers and accomplishments, who is more deserving of the Hall?