Hall of Fame Poll: Juan Gonzalez

I think for me, it’s a case by case basis. I don’t really view it as a moral issue – yes, it was against the law, but my inner libertarian can’t be too bothered. Throughout the ages, pretty much every player will have tried to find an advantage, this was just the 1990s version. That said, I think there should be an even playing field, and there is a part of me that says there should be a certain integrity to the game. Also, MLB, fans, writers all turned a blind eye ad condoned it for a number of years, especially after the strike when HRs brought fans back. So it’s complicated – I don’ t think users should get a free pass, but they shouldn’t have the door slammed either.

I think the first step is to look at the numbers and ask how strong the case is, after accounting for inflated offense. If it’s borderline, and a player were connected to steroids, I wouldn;t give them the benefit of the doubt. Rafael Palmeiro is an example.

If the case is pretty strong, my next approach would be to ask what the career was like before steroids. This is obviously not easy, but take Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds. Clemens put up 74 WAR as a Red Sox, before his body transformed from a mix of conditioning/steroids. Bonds – if he had retired in 1999, rather than start taking steroids, he had already put up 107.4 WAR. That’s a first ballot, inner circle career right there. Now, both of these guys have the added complications of legal issues resulting from steroids, which hurt their efforts. I certainly don’t condone perjury, but I have a hard time saying they shouldn’t be in when Ty Cobb’s plaque is there.

If it’s still not clear after these two tests, then I’d lean against, but I’d have an open mind. The other thing is, the student of history in me says that rather than try to shove the Steroid Era into the closet and pretend it never happened, baseball should recognize it as a part of the past.