Who's LEAST deserving of the HOF, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, or Pete Rose?

J

jay

Active member
Joined
May 16, 2008
Messages
1,374
Reaction score
0
Points
36
List from 1-3 whos the least deserving to the most desering (add why or why not) my list:
1. Roger Clemens : Without steroids i think hes a average pitcher at best imo
2.Barry Bonds- because b4 steroid use he was still a great player (think present day justin upton)
3. Pete Rose- easy choice all time hits leader (Mr.4000) and all he did was gamble even if it may have been agianst his team
 
Seriously? ALL Rose did was gamble against his own team? Clemens and Bonds may have broken the rules, but at least they were still doing their best to try to win. I think the worst thing you can accuse a professional athlete or manage of doing is intentionally trying to lose.

So

Rose
Clemens
Bonds

I think it's close between Clemens and Bonds.
 
All three are least deserving -
1a - Bonds broke milestone records - with PEDs
1b - Clemens remains arrogantly adamant he did nothing wrong even though his trainer and Pettitte say otherwise. His "I am better than anyone else" attitude was characterized by throwing broken bat back at Piazza in W.S.
1c - Rose broke a cardinal rule in baseball - no gambling (on any team)

All three project a very similar persona - "It's all about me and I'm too good to play by the rules".
 
Rose by far is the least deserving. The PEDs issue is clouded by MLB's handling of it. And, as has been pointed out, the taking of PEDs by players was in an attempt to win. Rose is the undisputed jerk of the game.
 
Pete Rose. He 'knew' what gambling would do. He knew he'd get banned for life. Unless he'd never heard of the Black Sox...
Clemens and Bonds both broke the law, but so did EVERY player who took steroids, or amphetamines for that matter.
In fact, Barry Bonds might 'not' have broken the law, if he only took new steroids that hadn't been banned yet...
 
Back
Top