Quote Originally Posted by earlywynnfan View Post
I think the idea behind Bonds and Clemens but not the others is that there is a very clear line as to when they, uh, raised their careers to another level. But with Bonds and Clemens, they both had HOF careers before this happened. I'm not saying I would vote this way, it's just what I've read.

As for McGriff and Kent, if you are looking at stats on a piece of paper, McGriff wins. But if you put it on the field, Kent was far more valuable in terms of position. How many all-time teams do you pick before you get to Kent? How many 1B are there in front of McGriff? (And I love McGriff, and Raines.)

Ken
No they didn't and for sure Bonds didn't.
Look at the stats again and ask yourself if you would vote either of them in the HOF if they quite before taking roids. Bonds was a 25-30 HR type player with the Pirates before steroids. I have no idea where people get the idea Bonds was so great before his San Fran days and roids. I believe his first full season taking roids was 1993, his first year with the Giants.
No way he was HOF worthy in just 7 good years with the Pirates.
Clemens didn't have the body of work to be a HOFer before his first bought with steroids either. If he started taking them in 1997 as most believe then look at his stats before that. No way a HOF player. A good pitcher for several years but in definite decline until the magic juice.