His bust should one day be in the HOF, as he is one of the 50 greatest players of all time. The veterans committee should consider him, however, posthumously.

That said, I’m totally with the guy on the cold, though. I hate the cold. For that, I vote for Pete. Who’s been iced for plenty long.

Anyway, I’m pretty sure the back of this cereal box says I’m qualified to vote.

Trout’s 2012 OPS was .963. He was also subjected to drug testing throughout the season and faced a 50 game suspension if caught using PED’s. No such punitive measures were in place in 2000, when Hidalgo posted 1.028 OPS. Those gaudy OPS numbers from Hidalgo barely stood out in 2000. One can say with a much stronger degree of certainty that Trout is the real deal. Hidalgo’s knee injuries and subsequent decline, also, follow a pattern that is not unfamiliar among roiders. Suggesting Hidalgo may have taken steriods is not the most speculative proposition.

Again, if Bonds took nothing but amphetamines, would he have the HR records?

The most live ball in the world would not have produced the gaudy numbers during the steriod era, which peaked right around 2000. Steroids work. During the era, runs scored and HR’s increased by over 20 percent. I won’t attribute this primarily to Rawlings’ chicanery.

Flukes happen and baseball is a greater game because of them. Dickey may just be the most unlikely success story in baseball history and has been a joy to watch over the last three seasons.

A reasoned criticism of ball-focused argument is that the effects of roids on offensive production is minimized. Sure, a livelier ball will skip past more infielders and extend more innings. Based on discussions with former players and the raw data from a 20 year stretch, I believe those focusing on the ball as the primary reason for an offensive spike are overlooking the room’s elephant. Steroids, taken by world class athletes, warped the game in a way that nothing else has done or has the potential to do. The game is exponentially cleaner and the numbers have reverted.

According to ‘Game of Shadows’ he started taking steroids in 1998 because that’s when the Balco boys started helping him but… is it too much of a leap of faith to think he started earlier? I mean after all, he is a liar so why should we give him the benefit of the doubt that he started in 1998? Couldn’t he have started taking in 1997, or 1996, or 1995? The Balco steroids were the designer steroids of the times… virtually untraceable but there were other steroids available at the time so again I ask… Is it too much of a leap of faith to think that a lying steroid taking cheater would actually take maybe a lesser quality steroid prior to 1998? What exactly is in Bonds history that anyone should give him the benefit of the doubt?

His power numbers were only “ok”.. he hit 176 over those first 7 Pirate years for an average of 25/year. Also a number a far ways from HOF.

So, if you’re going to tell me somebody who hits 25 home runs a year and steals 35 bases a year is a HOFer I’d have to say no, he’s not. And that was the player Bonds was during the time we know, or reasonably think, he was clean.

The rest of his numbers have to be adjusted because of their abnormal spiking when compared to what guys like Aaron, Ruth, Mayes, Robinson, & Kilebrew were able to accomplish during their primes and ends of their careers.

Again, the raw numbers just do not make a strong enough case for Bonds to make the HOF. He needs his PED numbers and those are the numbers that are keeping him out.

But to suggest that juiced balls had a greater impact on offense than juiced players seems to be quite a stretch.

Why? For every Barry Bonds there’s an Alex Sanchez, and for every Jason Giambi there’s a Jeremy Giambi. Just taking steroids doesn’t make you from AAAA player to MVP. I provided evidence that showed a spike in run scoring could have more to do with outside factors than steroids. Where’s the numbers to disprove it?

Richard Hidalgo

This is evidence? A person who has zero ties to steroids having one good year is proof he took them? Cur already took care of the knee injury part, but looking at his bref page I also noticed he tended to never be healthy. He played in 150 games once in his career, and that was the year he put up big numbers. Isn’t it possible that he was finally healthy for once, and that’s his potential was?

Also, if we’re going to look at outlier years, here’s a person who was the single season HR leader. The year he broke the record, he increased his highest HR total by 1.5 times! No, it’s not Barry Bonds, it’s Roger Maris. It’s baseball, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of games have been played. When you get to that high amount, you get absurd things happening, like Fernando Tatis hitting 2 Grand Slams in one inning, Brett Boone and Mike Cameron both hitting 4 HR in one game, RA Dickey throwing multiple one hit games in a month, etc.

Ryne Sandberg is in the HOF, there is no reason everyone else should be kept out

Take your personal little grudge and learn the facts before you caste judgements.

I have no bias towards Rose and he wasn’t my favorite player growing up, so I am not an apologist. What he accomplished as a player deserves enshrinement in the Hall. What he did as a manager should keep him out of the game.

Because Bonds is primarily considered a power hitter

Your initial premise is wrong, so unfortunately much of what follows is incorrect. Bonds was a legitimate GG caliber LF with plenty of speed on the base paths. It’s widely assumed he started juicing in ’99 after the McGwire/Sosa HR chase. So taking his statistics from 1986 to 1998, we get a hitter who put up:

.290/.411/.556 for a .966 OPS and 164 OPS+ (11th all time)
403 2bs
411 HR
445 SB (how many members of the 400/400 club are there?)
1357 BB/1050 Ks

That’s Hall worthy if he decided to quit right there, let alone suffer any sort of decline phase. The guy already had 3 MVPs, 8 GGs and probably could have had another 1-2 MVPs. Would it have mattered if he didn’t hit 500 HR (89 in the next 3 years?)

What the peoject showed me and isn’t arguable is his true numbers wouldn’t be anywhere close to what they are today. Heck, his most powerful Pirate year was 34-home runs in 1992 7-years into his career.

A guy had his peak years at the age when players peak? This is a new revelation?

From a 2001 Rob Neyer article: And of course, eventually Kenesaw Mountain Landis, baseball’s new commissioner, permanently suspended all eight of the so-called “Black Sox” from organized baseball. However, none of them were officially ineligible for Baseball’s Hall of Fame. It wasn’t until 1991, in response to the Pete Rose “situation,” that the Hall ruled that players on baseball’s ineligible list would not be considered for election. And so finally, after 70 years, the Hall of Fame’s doors were officially barred to Shoeless Joe Jackson.

With respect to Rose, he didn’t actually agree to a “life-time ban”, he agreed to be put on the ineligible list; there is no such thing as a lifetime ban, per se because being put on the list does not come with a priori durations. A LOT of people have been removed from the ineligible list, some with a year of going on the list, others after slightly longer times.

Maturo is right about one thing–ultimately MLB, like any other business, only cares about the bottom line. Their worst nightmare is having people start thinking that the results of games are fixed because it could relegate MLB to a niche sport like boxing. I’m not saying Rose did any of the things I listed above, but MLB simply does not care; they will not take the risk of allowing such perceptions.

HOF Rules History
Feb. 8, 1991: Persons on baseball’s ineligible list cannot be eligible candidates.

So, just to get an idea of how much baseballs affect hitting performance check out the “Dead Ball ERA” (pre 1920) vs the “Live Ball Era” (after 1920). Wikipedia has an excellent review of the whole business. As you might expect the difference is stark from when a player could see the ball vs when they could not but for a long time people assumed the ball had been physically changed. Its a sort of similar controversy to the “Juiced ball” vs “steroid” argument. However, ignoring that it would be 1920 and steroids weren’t developed till 1930, you could also say “STEROIDS did it!” and ignore rule changes & ball use. Assuming that one factor explains everything isn’t based in fact.

Now, Richard Hidalgo. I cannot find any evidence from any failed test, admission of guilt, or eye witness accounts that Richard Hidalgo used steroids. I do find considerable evidence of a knee problem, though. I’m going to say that its pretty hard to keep up a torrid hitting pace if you can’t stand up. In the course of my searches I found an article by Perry Schwartz which lists the 25 most significant steroid driven careers:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/533418-the-top-25-most-significant-steroid-driven-seasons-of-all-time

He’s got Bagwell, Piazza, Hidalgo, Brady Anderson, and others on a list of steroid users without any evidence. Please note: spike in power for lots of these guys co-incide with the critical ~1993 “juiced” ball being introduced.

That’s the problem with calling out people for steroids without any evidence of actual use. We assume performance = use, do we? Might as well get on with calling Mike Trout a ‘roider if we’re going down this road. Doing so ignores other factors that explain performance spikes and subsequent fall off.

That being said, if you are willing to allow PED users in (and this extends to guys like AROD), I don’t see how you can continue to keep Rose out. If guys who knowingly cheated are allowed in, why wouldn’t he? As far as I know, it was only ever proven that he bet ON the Reds, not against them. Although insanely stupid because of the obvious possible losses, doesn’t prove he threw any games. If anything, he’s of done anything to win them. If they are getting in because their numbers are so good, it is just ridiculous to keep them out, you can’t not apply that logic to the all time hit leader (with nobody else even close)

About a year and a half, maybe two years back I decided to take on a project of determining Bonds true statistics minus his steroid use. At the time, I didn’t have any idea of what it would entail or how big my project ended up being.

Because Bonds is primarily considered a power hitter, I decided to compare his stats to those of the top-5 power hitters of all time who played in non-PED eras to get to some numbers I knew I could trust as non-PED enhanced from the very best of all time. Then, I broke their careers into thirds:
1. start of their career
2. prime of their career
3. end of their career

Next, I averaged out out each segment to get a percentage of change from one segment to another. As these were the greatest power hitters of all time the percentage of change showed what was possible (non-enhanced) from the very best.

I used those percentages of changes and applied them to Bonds career through the same stages. Because Bond’s Pirate years are pretty much considered non-PED years, I allowed Bonds his initial Pirate years statistics without adjustment. I used the date mentioned in the “Game of Shadows” book to start adjusting for his PED years.

Interestingly, after adjustments, Bonds didn’t hit 500 total home runs, and all his corresponding numbers also dropped i.e. RBI’s, batting average, etc.

So… whether or not he would have made the Hall of Fame is really still up for grabs and arguable. What the peoject showed me and isn’t arguable is his true numbers wouldn’t be anywhere close to what they are today. Heck, his most powerful Pirate year was 34-home runs in 1992 7-years into his career.

Now, factor in that he did cheat and in my book he doesn’t get in.

Richard Hidalgo

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hidalri01.shtml

Check out his 2000 season in the context of his larger career. Were these numbers a product, primarily, of ball composition or alleged steriod use? He posted a 1.028 OPS at age 25 and was done at age 30. Are we to attribute this spike and decline largely to ball composition?

http://steroids-and-baseball.com/changing-baseball.shtml

Highlights:
-the synthetic fill of the “juiced” ball allows less moisture. Synthetic appears in balls from 1989, 1995 & 2000.
-The core, or “pill”, of the “juiced” ball bounces 1/3 again higher than than non-juiced counterparts.
-It is unclear when this “juiced” ball was introduced, but the ones tested were from 1995 & 2000. 1995 is pretty much the start of the official “steroid” era but, as COPO points out, it was actually 2 years earlier.
-Rawlings’ website stipulates only wool in the baseballs and does not describe the cork “pill” as being changed or different from the older Spalding ones. This is patently false, given the very different materials and performance found in dissected baseballs from 1989, 1995 & 2000.

There is some argument to made for age affecting the baseballs. However balls from 1963 & 1970 (7 years apart) performed the same and balls from 1995 & 2000 (5 years apart in age) performed the same. If age was affecting the balls then there would be differences within those 2 groups.

If I was an MLB hitter, I know which ball I’d like to be hitting.

The character clause was not added to the voting rules until 1945. So the voters who elected Ty Cobb, John McGraw, etc. were not instructed to take their characters into account.