If we’re taking this path: Where do you stand on Tim Raines? He was an admitted user and possesser of cocaine, a felony. Is he therefore out of consideration?

If I throw a baseball at someone’s head in retaliation for something he did on the baseball field … i’m not getting arrested on the spot for assult with a deadly weapon am I? Even the baseball player who hurled the bat at another player didn’t have any legal ramifications to his actions. Therefore, I don’t think “steroids are against the law” has much credence here because there is a difference between “baseball laws” and “legal laws.” How come none of these alleged steroid users were ever charged with possession of a controlled substance, if steroids are illegal and they all seemingly have been “proved” to have used them?

And here’s the other problem I have generally with steroids. They’re completely legal with a prescription. As are cortisone shots and HGH. Each substance inarguably helps people recover from injury/illness and improve their performance. So why is one illegal but the other legal?

Thats why i still think my Perry versus Bonds arguments holds weight; one type of “cheating” was acceptable, almost admired. The other reprehensible.

There is no ‘allegedly’ with Barry Bonds. An entire book was written about everything he did and he couldn’t sue because it was all factual.

Maybe we could agree with a separate wing in the Hall for people like that. You could include Bond, Clemons and add other people where it’s also relevant like Shoeless Joe Jackson & Pete Rose. I could live with that so long as their not inducted at the same time as the others.

What’s the fundamental difference between what Gaylord Perry did for most of his career and what Barry Bonds did? Perry played for years in open defiance of clearly stated rules of the game. Bonds allegedly (remember, no positive tests!) abused a drug which was not explicitly banned nor was it being tested for at the time he used it. Why is one form of cheating considered “ok” but the other is the scourge of the game?

If you want to use that character clause explicitly, then you have to explain why spit ballers, racists, adulterers, felons, alcoholics, and rampant amphetimine abusers have been welcomed with open arms for years.

As others have said; for me the Hall of Fame isn’t some moral high ground where only the nicest men who played baseball get to be honored. No; its SUPPOSED to be a historical account of the game. The PED era happened, just as the deadball era happened. We don’t discount Cy Young’s 511 wins because they happened in a completely, vastly different era of the game; no we understand how the game has changed and understand that we may struggle to get another 300 game winner for his career, let along a 500 game winner.

One last thing; isn’t it also a fact that this ballot decision and the very loud and wide ranging argument over the Hall of Fame worthiness of these players is nothing but a benefit to the Hall and to baseball itself? I’m almost to the point where I’m beginning to believe that the BBWAA is purposely keeping the vague character clause and purposely keeping the voting standards secretive and uber restrictive entirely to keep themselves in the national media. And I’m just another sucker continuing the argument by posting about it.

Me, I’m looking forward to next year where 2 or 3 guys get in pretty easily. Actually, if you go to the dictionary and look up ‘First Ballot Hall of Famer’ there’s a picture of Greg Maddox.

There’s quite a few people who make the same distinction you do (Bonds/Clemens were good enough pre PEDs while Sosa/McGwire were not): you can see it in the vote totals.

I try not to be indignant about what these writers are doing. I understand it. And I think that if the voting were not “secret ballot” we would see a LOT different voting patterns. Because there’d be accountability and every writer who witholds a vote for a legend would have to answer for it. But until that day, you’re going to see writers secretively vote their own personal agendas year after year.

As for the Hall of Fame …. I was surprised after visiting it how little the actual “hall” of enshrined players meant to the whole experience. I hate to say it, but MLB has so watered down that hall of idols with veterans committee inductees and obscure Negro league players that I would challenge that you don’t recognize nearly half the damn plaques in there. As others have pointed out … you spend hours upstairs going through the museum portion, where there is no distinction between a player who is “banned” from the Hall of Fame and one who isn’t. Pete Rose is in the museum. Shoeless Joe Jackson is in the museum. As are all the home run kings of the 90s. So for me … the only thing that becomes diluted is the hall of plaques … which is already ridiculously diluted.

I’m goign to work on my hall of fame blog posting from my visit a couple years back. Lots of pictures.

I think in a certain extent Vladimir Guerrero may have a similar issue eventually. He’s out of baseball by age 36, just a couple years removed from a 3rd place MVP season … but yet i’m left with this enduring image of Guerrero hobbling around the bases and unable to play the field (he was 100% a DH in 2011). I still can’t believe nobody picked him up for 2012. Now imagine in 2017 … what’s the Guerrero narrative going to be? He’s got a career 140 OPS+ and a career 55 war. Is he going to be similarly forgotten?

Biggio: I dont’ think playing in Houston hurt these guys (him or Bagwell). The Astros were in the playoffs 6 times in 8 years between 1997 and 2005. That was a pre-eminent franchise in the game for a long time.