Barry Bonds is Hall of Fame Eligible
The question becomes: will voters overlook the steroid era when looking at Bonds resume (or Roger Clemens and Sammy Sosa for that matter)? Arguably, Bonds is a Hall of Fame player even before the steroid era had begun, but because he is viewed as tainted or damaged goods by most in the sports media industry, he may not receive the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he doesn't deserve it -- but baseball will be hard pressed to simply erase about a decade from its history.
Some believe they should just accept it for what it was, the steroid era that is, and accept the truly remarkable performers of the era. Admit those who deserve the bid to the Hall, and leave those who do not behind. Sosa may not deserve the nod if it had not been for his steroid use and the same may go for Mark Mcguire. However, both Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were dominant forces at their respective positions for years prior to their alleged steroid use.
Will writers take that into consideration? Or will the voters not allow themselves to look past the fact that most players who have become eligible could be viewed as steroid abusers and therefore non-deserving of the ultimate post-career honor?
Most assume Bonds won't make it. At least in the first year of eligibility. But will it even be a close vote? Bonds, if not for steroid-linked years, could be considered the best player of all time. There was never a player who drew as much respect at the plate as Bonds did. He set the record for overall and intentional walks in a season. And even when he did see pitches, he managed to hit above .315 at such a constat rate it was remarkable.
Steroids do not provide a player with increased skill, just power. Bonds may be guilty of steroid use, but he is certainly one of, if not the most skilled player to ever set foot on a baseball field. There is no denying he is a Hall of Famer - but he probably won't get there on his first try.