Why thank you sir.

Lasik surgery and contacts aren't against the laws of the USA.  That's the difference.

Let's stick with the rules of the MLB rather than the laws of the USA.  The latter really opens up a whole new can of worms.

Posted by jfranco77 on 4/21/2011 3:56:00 PM (view original):
It's a ridiculously hard thing to figure out. Does everyone think Barry Bonds took steroids? Absolutely.

So then do you look at the "when" of the steroids question? Did Bonds start in 2001? If so, he was a borderline HoFer before that. Does that matter? Who decides?

Borderline?  Are you kidding me?  He was already on pace to be an easy first-ballot HOFer with probably a 95%+ vote.  Before 2001 Bonds was already the best all-around player of his generation.

I'm with dahsdebater.

Maybe I'm a little too black and white, but it seems to me cheating is cheating. Pete Rose broke the rules and he's paying for it, but what he did did not influence his salary, win more games for his teams, etc. If the "cheat" codes really did exist in WIS, and certain players won a disproportionate amount of games using them, I don't think many of us would stand still for that. I just get the feeling that in the long run the "users" are going to get a pass, and that in my mind diminishes the great players of yesteryear who played the game straight. I also agree with dahsdebater, Bonds was in before his steroid use, if we use 2000 as his benchmark.

Posted by doubletruck on 4/22/2011 1:12:00 PM (view original):
The evidence is that steroid use did improve eyesight and did add distance. If you believe they juiced, then you can't legitimately discount the positive effects they gained in performance.

If you buy that, then the questions are whether Bonds was HoF worthy before 2000 and whether steroid use should disqualify him in any event.

BTW, McGwire hardly became indestructible, as the end of his career showed. McGwire is also an interesting case, because he apparently used stuff when it was not against the written rules, whereas Bonds apparently juiced after it was banned. Should that make a difference in how we judge them?

What evidence are you referring to?  Because I'm pretty sure that's just plain wrong.  Steroids - at least the banned "performance enhancing" variety - do not impact eyesight.  And they don't "add distance."  The primary benefit is improved recovery time that allows players to work out more and harder.  The player still has to put in the effort.  Do the steroids let you become a better power hitter than you would have been without them?  Undoubtedly.  And it definitely helps you extend your effective career.  The ability to maintain muscle mass to a greater age is a huge benefit.  I think it's now becoming abundantly clear that the lengthening careers during the '90s and early 2000's were not, in fact, an overall result of improving medicine and training techniques but largely a result of steroid use, because players are starting to age visibly in their mid-30s again now that steroids are generally out of the game.  But I'd still say it's overwhelmingly likely that without steroids Bonds would still have hit well over 600 HRs in his career, and he'd still have his 500 steals.  Let's not forget that he led the league in OPS 5 times during the '90s.  For the 9-year period from 1992-2000 he hit .304/.441/.626 with 352 homers, 259 steals, over 950 RBIs and over 1000 runs.  He was a HOF lock.  So I don't see "whether Bonds was HoF worthy before 2000" as a real question.  He could have retired after 2000 and been in, and even if he slowed down rather than speeding up after that he would have been an easy first-ballot guy, as I mentioned above.  Am I fan of Bonds?  Absolutely not.  But I think the steroid use has let some people seriously diminish his accomplishments.  The fact that multiple guys on this thread - guys I know to be serious students of the game, and not in a casual way but in a fairly serious sense and with a great knowledge of baseball history - would suggest that there was any question as to whether Bonds was a HOFer or at least on a HOF track prior to his steroid use attests to that.  Even normalizing against steroid use and the era he played in, I personally put Bonds in the top tier of hitters of all time, along with only Ruth, Cobb, and Williams.  The only real question is whether all steroid users are going to be blackballed.

Posted by llamanunts on 4/22/2011 2:18:00 PM (view original):
Let's stick with the rules of the MLB rather than the laws of the USA.  The latter really opens up a whole new can of worms.

I don't understand.  What can of worms are you talking about?    

There are lots of guys in the hall who broke lots of laws.  My bad-ish, though.  It's not a direct counter to what you were saying with respect to surgery (let's throw TJ surgery into the mix) and contacts.  Still, if you want to use lawbreaking as a bright line, you run into trouble pretty quickly unless you're willing to kick a slew of people out.  For a more direct corollary, insert "But greenies!" speech here.

Posted by dahsdebater on 4/22/2011 2:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jfranco77 on 4/21/2011 3:56:00 PM (view original):
It's a ridiculously hard thing to figure out. Does everyone think Barry Bonds took steroids? Absolutely.

So then do you look at the "when" of the steroids question? Did Bonds start in 2001? If so, he was a borderline HoFer before that. Does that matter? Who decides?

Borderline?  Are you kidding me?  He was already on pace to be an easy first-ballot HOFer with probably a 95%+ vote.  Before 2001 Bonds was already the best all-around player of his generation.

Was Bonds better than Griffey in the 1990's?

Posted by napolean on 4/22/2011 2:27:00 PM (view original):
Maybe I'm a little too black and white, but it seems to me cheating is cheating. Pete Rose broke the rules and he's paying for it, but what he did did not influence his salary, win more games for his teams, etc. If the "cheat" codes really did exist in WIS, and certain players won a disproportionate amount of games using them, I don't think many of us would stand still for that. I just get the feeling that in the long run the "users" are going to get a pass, and that in my mind diminishes the great players of yesteryear who played the game straight. I also agree with dahsdebater, Bonds was in before his steroid use, if we use 2000 as his benchmark.

Part of the problem is that you, I, and everyone else have no idea exactly who used and who didn't.  How many of the pitchers that Juicer X hit bombs off were juicing?  How many of the fielders who made leaping snares of Juicer X's line drives were juicing?  Do you limit it to guys with positive tests?  That leaves Bonds in good standing.  Do you go with chatter, rumors, assertions, almost-certainty?  Where do you draw the line?

I say: What happened on the field happened on the field... and it happened with the tacit endorsement of MLB, the organization whose sacred rules we're going to great lengths to defend.  Nuance is your friend.