>Dr. Dave: Ok, I give up. Explain to me why in the world Bobby Bonds
>deserves to be a Hall of Fame member.
I never said he *deserves* it; I said I think he'll get in eventually. There's
a big difference there. What will happen is that the Veterans Committee (or
some future equivalent) will discover that he and Willie Mays are the only 300
HR/300 SB players, and decide that Bonds must have been great. This sort of
thing has happened a number of times already. Look through the Hall of Fame
enrollment--there are players in there who never led the league in *anything*,
in their entire careers! Practically anyone with a lifetime .310 average is
in, despite the fact that some of them played when the league average was .295
or so. Outfielders on the order of Ralph Garr are in; pitchers on the order
of Mickey***ch are in. It's practically an equal opportunity establishment.
As for who *deserves* to be in, I'm currently working on my own "Hall of Fame"
(I'll have to come up with a different name for it). If anyone's interested,
I'll send (or post) a copy when I'm done...
David M. Tate | "The concept of weight of evidence was central
| 32 other publications [of mine]. What I say 33
"A Man for all Seasonings" | times is true." -- I. J. Good.