Hunt: Bonds in Hall, McGwire out

Michael Hunt gives us a hint as to how his ballot for the Hall of Fame will be filled out when Mark McGwire (stats) and Barry Bonds (stats) are eligible for the Hall of Fame. To make it short, Hunt will be voting for Bonds and not for McGwire.

Why?

These two have to be bound together as one and the same by Hall of Fame voters. Hunt's logic is that McGwire was entire career was a product of steroids, but Bonds' was a future HOF'er early in his career and only jumped on the steroids band wagon late in his career. My first question for Hunt is what proof do you have for this assertion? Bonds was clearly a thicker man in 1993 when he broke 40 home runs for the first time, 7 years into his career. Not as thick as today, but much thicker than the scrawny kid that broke into the majors in 1986. Meanwhile, McGwire, who also came up as scrawny kid, hit 49 in his very first season. Hunt has no proof that Bonds' steroid use began very late in his career, and I think a study of Bonds body would indicate that he started much earlier. On top of that, late in a career is the most crucial time to be on steroids. Normally, a body starts to slow down after 35. Bonds didn't. In fact, he accelerated. He has hit over well over 260 home runs since his 35th birthday, and that's more than any other 5 year period of his career.

I suspect a little subconscious reverse racism in the pro-Barry anti-McGwire trend of late, but I have no proof, so I'll leave it at that, a suspicion. If not reverse racism, them maybe a misguided sense of 'make good' for the way the country treated Hank Aaron as he chased down Ruth. But irregardless of that, these guys have had pretty parallel careers, minus the MVPs. If you vote for one, you've got to vote for the other. If you vote against one, vote against them both.