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?

[Goalpost]

Statistically, I would say Bonds is better, due to the power figures, and the ridiculous walk totals. His WAR is much better. However, Pete wins on intangibles. Running to 1st base on walks. Head 1st slides. Running over Fosse. His game winning homer in the series where he fought with Harrelson. 17 time All Star at 5 positions. 3 World Series...MVP in '75. It's the 'way' Pete played that doesn't show up on a stat sheet. Even though the 4256 is the main accomplishment,

[samhain]

I agree with Truck on this one. If Barry Bonds never opted to enhance himself and wreck his legacy, he'd be considered one of the greatest all around players ever to lace up cleats. Like probably a top ten all time player, maybe even better. He was a HOFer before he ever put on slabs of muscle late in his career. He cheated himself more than he cheated the game, IMO. Everyone knows what he did and sees his roided up seasons in a skewed context, but what's really concealed is his overall greatness as a ballplayer before that for a considerable period of time. Now he's just the BALCO guy who was always a jerk to everyone.

Pete is a HOFer, no doubt and has a record that may never be broken, but while his impact on a game is very significant, he's not what Bonds was to a lineup. Not many ever have been.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Samhain hit it perfectly; just insane numbers, even without the juice.

Goalpost, what you wrote makes him endearing to the fans and popular (which he clearly is, no doubt), but that absolutely does not make him a HoF in the slightest; his numbers and accolades do.

Eric Hinske (my favourite player and idol) also did things like run people over, hustle 100% on every play (save for groundballs to second during a slump, which he was prone to), dive headfirst CONSTANTLY, but you know what people remember him for? His massive contract with the Jays and his awesome HR in a losing effort, in 2010.

Intangibles mean nothing for the HoF, sadly; Rose deserves to go in for his numbers and accomplishments, period.

[J24]

Of course Bonds over Rose every day of the week but Rose is definitely a HOF player in his own right as well.

[McC]

(06-16-2020, 02:02 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: 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?

Bonds had one of, it not the most, beautiful swing in the history of the game.  It was virtually impossible to throw an inside fastball by him. 

He won 7 MVPs, 8 Gold Gloves.  The only man to ever compile over 500 steals and 500 HRs.  He's so far beyond Rose it's ridiculous to even bring up the comparison.

In 2002, he had a season like no one ever had:

He won the NL batting title with a career-high .370 average and struck out only 47 times. He hit 46 home runs in 403 at-bats. ... Bonds broke Ted Williams' major league record for on-base average with .582. Bonds also hit his 600th home run, less than a year and a half after hitting his 500th.

He even won the same number of batting titles as Rose.  Rose never even approached a single season average of .370.

It seems you were arguing with out and out homers or just plain idiots.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Indeed and thank you, McC.

Basically, I guess I hit on the topic so often because I'm a Bengals fan (the Cincinnati connection), but I tell everyone that they MUST take their hometown/popularity bias out, when talking about stats and ability; everyone loves to root for the hustler, the guy with no quit, etc., but when there are better players, there are simply better players, period: I personally think that the entire Reds fanbase has such a chip on their shoulders re: Rose and the HoF, that they have mythified (not a word, I know) him even more than necessary and put him on an even bigger pedestal than before.

Bonds is nearly untouchable in almost everything and the entire world forgets that he was a multiple MVP-winner (and runner-up), YEARS before he juiced.

Again, a legendary player.

[guyofthetiger]

I think Rose was more durable than Bonds. Rose played 110 percent all the time. Bonds got lazy near the end.

[samhain]

I will say one thing that I'm surprised nobody's mentioned about Peter Edward in the Bonds debate: WS titles. Pete does have that on Bonds. He has two with the Reds and one with Philadelphia. Now, I'll give you that Pete played on one of the greatest offensive teams ever assembled when he won two of them, but it's still a factor.

I'll also grant that in baseball, careers are probably judged on the number of titles accumulated less so than in football.

Bonds played on some good Pittsburgh teams and went to at least one Series with SF. Still, you have to wonder how much about stories of him being a malignant presence in the clubhouse affected his teams' ability to succeed in the long haul. Pete did some turdly things, too, but you rarely heard about him being a clubhouse cancer from his teammates.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(06-18-2020, 10:20 PM)guyofthetiger Wrote: I think Rose was more durable than Bonds. Rose played 110 percent all the time. Bonds got lazy near the end.

See, this is the type of BS I'm talking about above; who cares?

A hustling, 110% Pete Rose, still isn't in the same realm as a lazy Barry Bonds.

(06-19-2020, 05:19 AM)samhain Wrote: I will say one thing that I'm surprised nobody's mentioned about Peter Edward in the Bonds debate: WS titles. Pete does have that on Bonds. He has two with the Reds and one with Philadelphia. Now, I'll give you that Pete played on one of the greatest offensive teams ever assembled when he one two of them, but it's still a factor.

I'll also grant that in baseball, careers are probably judged on the number of titles accumulated less so than in football.

Bonds played on some good Pittsburgh teams and went to at least one Series with SF. Still, you have to wonder how much about stories of him being a malignant presence in the clubhouse affected his teams' ability to succeed in the long haul. Pete did some turdly things, too, but you rarely heard about him being a clubhouse cancer from his teammates.

Indeed; WS titles seem to mean nothing, unless you are the Yankees (for HoF consideration).

Bonds in the playoffs was weird; he seemed to not be able to translate his regular season play into the playoffs, until he went to SF.

Those Pirate teams folded big time in the playoffs, always; aside from 1997, Leyland's teams always seemed to fold when the going was tough.

As much as it was great to see so many deserving Angels win the title in 2002 (Tim Salmon! <3), the Giants were the more-deserving (and outright better) team, in 2002; Bonds, Kent, Aurilia, Lofton, J.T. Snow, all put in a ton of work for years and they only ever got one shot (well, not for Lofton lol), only to lose to an inferior team that played well-above their ability (also doesn't help that playoff stalwart, Livan Hernandez, completely folded).

I mean, at the time they were darlings, but who today remembers Brendan Donnelly, Scott Spezio and Chone Figgins? Benji Gil went 4/5 in the series, the majority of guys were young or in their prime, who hadn't paid their dues or anything like the Giants (I know, that means jack **** in sports).

But, like with Leyland, Dusty Baker teams have always been regular season heroes, playoff, "shit-the-bedders;" 22 years as a manger, only 1 pennant (in 2002) and no WS wins.

That's awful.

[Circleville Guy]

Bonds had more raw talent than Rose did, by far. Rose was determined and worked his ass off. Rose was probably up there with Williams on baseball knowledge. I hate what Bonds did because he had Griffey Jr. type talent. He took the short cuts and didn’t have to worry about any injury or tiredness recovery time. Plus, if you add 60 pounds of muscle, you’re gonna hit the ball further. That’s silly to say that physical strength doesn’t aid in hitting a ball harder. What’s more impressive is what Williams done while missing those prime years. Then you have Mantle who was the opposite of Bonds and used drugs that zapped his power and coordination. Think of him without the booze and on steroids instead... man oh man.. and as a switch hitter... he and josh Hamilton were two huge what could have been. I’d guess that Hamilton used steroids too though. Pete was so versatile with the 5 positions and being a switch hitter. Pete was good in the playoffs too and Bonds had one good playoff season out of about 8 while Pete had one bad year out of as many playoff years. Bonds probably would’ve hit 500-600 HRs without steroids. I’m more of a fan of Hank Aaron than of Bonds.