For me, it's just part of the game's history. Bonds competed in a PED era against a bunch of other players on PEDs and was vastly better than all of them. He should be there.

BTW, if you're of that opinion, you can't include any of the amphetamine users either on principle. That's a performance enhancer too and there are plenty of guys already in the HOF who have used those.

Yep. Just an incredible pitcher over a ridiculous length of time.

I am glad I don't have to decide. :D

I am not sure being wired really helped anyone, are you? I am pretty sure that it is conclusive that roids do though, right?

Maybe they should have a basement to the HOF for those guys?

Perhaps not, but there's no way to know for sure how much they helped him. What I do know is that no pitcher has ever been as good for as long as he was. Maybe his peak wasn't the all-time greatest (though it was pretty close), but his longevity gives him the edge at the top for me.

Damn, you missed your chance to sell it to Deadspin.

Depends how you define "helped." It seems to me that the cumulative effect of the energy gained from a season of amphetamine use would be pretty impactful on numbers, though.


Or just put them in (with an asterisk even) and stop the moralizing. It's not like anybody has any real idea whether most of these guys used PEDs (and that goes for the guys inducted today too).

I know it's a different era, but you have to look at guys like Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson to come close to his durability and dominance. It's a good argument.

But I always thought it was pretty clear Clemens started juicing when he got to Toronto. His career had started trending down in Boston once he hit age 30. His last 4 years there, Clemens was:

745 IP
3.63 ERA
717 K
1.29 WHIP
304 BB
40-39 record

Translates to a yearly average of:
186 1/3 IP
ERA/WHIP the same
76 BB
180 K
10-10 record

I think if the Rocket doesn't start juicing, his 30s continue to be a slide into mediocrity. He still is probably hall-worthy, but not 'best all time' worthy.

I'd say the same about Bonds. He was on track to be one of the top 25 position players of all time, BEFORE the roids. I won't crown him 'best ever,' but he still was hall-worthy.

You might be right that they wouldn't be held in such high regard if they never turned to PEDs, but they did. And in doing so, they were by far the best players in an era in which their peers were doing the same thing. That does count for something.

It's also really hard to say these things definitively about their careers when you don't really know when they started using or what exactly the effect of the PEDs on their numbers was. It wouldn't surprise me at all, for example, if Clemens started using PEDs before his Toronto days but improved his level for some other reason (it's not like pitchers haven't improved in their 30s before, heck look at another all-time SP great in RJ whose best years all came in his mid to late 30s). There are just a lot of questions and guesswork when you get into this stuff that can't be fully answered and never will be.

I was not in the industry yet when that change happened, but I talked to several of our guys about it for a story idea at SN (that ultimately was killed).

Every scout I talked to said they started seeing different stuff from Clemens late in that season in Boston and really in Toronto. That it seemed like he had found the fountain of youth, that the "Rocket" was back after being gone for a few years, etc. If you look at the way his K totals skyrocketed and his velo charts jumped up in that time period (the first you can look at ... the second I'd need to get back into the SN vault for), it matches up.

I don't hate him for it or anything, but it does change his perception, for me.

Have you ever done "speed" as we used to call it? It was available to us for survival purposes in the military. Maybe there is difference, but I wouldn't call it a performance enhancement, it just kept you awake and made me shaky.

I think there has to be some kind of separation to protect the old timers that were functioning on a hangover. :D

His stats were nowhere close to HOF worthy.

He'll probably get voted in by the Veteran's committee someday, though.

Regarding PED's, to me it makes a difference whether you were using before we collectively decided they were a bad thing and baseball started testing, or after. Guys like Palmeiro and Braun should not go to the hall of fame in my opinion, because they were using after tests started and after we all loudly and clearly decided these substances were forbidden.

During the PED era, the coaches, managers, GM's, owners, and executives all knew what was going on, and with a wink and a nod they condoned it. The players who used them felt they were given implicit permission to use them, and that they had to use them. It makes no sense to me that we're now punishing the players, but largely ignoring everyone else, and letting everyone else get away with acting like they were innocent and are SHOCKED that PED's were being used.

So, I'd vote in Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, all those guys, but I would not vote for people who knowingly use PED's in the current era.

Any news lately on Santana?

Mellinger in today's KC Star. He's calling out sports writers for not voting in the roid abusers like Clemens, Bonds, Sosa and McGwire. I disagree totally with his reasoning. "Greenies" are not PEDs. Greenies don't put 40 lbs of muscle on you and let you hit a ball an additional 50 feet. Greenies don't let you throw a 90 mph fastball into your late 30's. These PED players cheated for personal gain. Their agents told them to bulk up for the bucks. They did, and sold their souls -and eventually their bodies- for money. That's fine, but then don't expect to be forgiven for it later when your cheating comes into focus. It's also a slap in the face to players of that same era who were great WITHOUT cheating by using PEDs. Story is here:

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/01/08...-steroids.html

The problem with this line of thinking is that at the time, almost nobody cared or thought it was wrong. Its not like there was this dark taboo that they decided to violate for immoral gain, almost no one cared. Its easy to view the past from today's lens, but public opinion on this did change rather drastically.