Steroid Era Greatest Players and the HOF

[Jayhawk Bill]

Which players of the Steroid Era should make the Hall of Fame?

 

First, one reasonable answer is that proof of steroid/hGH use should disqualify a player from the HOF. Another reasonable standard is that presumption of steroid/hGH use on the part of the BBWAA voter would be reason for disqualification.

 

For a moment, let's consider two other standards:

 

1) Using MVP Award shares as a metric of excellence that balances generations and standards, who from the Steroid Era would qualify, accepting that PED use was very much a part of the game; and

 

2) Again using MVP Award Shares, which players, if any, could qualify strictly on their excellence OUTSIDE the Steroid Era, disqualifying their Steroid Era accruals due to questions regarding PEDs?

 

Let's start with definitions. Let's call the Steroid Era 1995-2004, from after the strike when McGwire and Sosa rejuvenated baseball with their home run record race up to the institution of effective (albeit later to be improved) steroid testing in 2005. An MVP Award Share is the fraction of the points required for a unanimous first-place pick received by a player in a given annual voting cycle. (Ted Williams won the 1946 MVP with a 0.67 Award Share because nobody scored higher; he lost in 1941 and 1942 with higher Award Shares to the Yankee-of-the Year because DiMaggio and Gordon got slightly more votes despite having OPS over 200 points lower in each case).

 

Here are the top MVP Award Shares earned in MLB history:

 

[table]Rank | Player | MVP Award Shares

1 | Barry Bonds# (7 wins) | 9.30

2 | Stan Musial* (3 wins) | 6.96

3 | Ted Williams* (2 wins) | 6.43

4 | Willie Mays* (2 wins) | 6.06

5 | Mickey Mantle* (3 wins) | 5.79

6 | Hank Aaron* (1 win) | 5.45

7 | Lou Gehrig* (2 wins) | 5.44

8 | Joe DiMaggio* (3 wins) | 5.43

9 | Alex Rodriguez# (3 wins) | 5.02

10 | Mike Schmidt* (3 wins) | 4.96

11 | Frank Robinson* (2 wins) | 4.83

12 | Frank Thomas# (2 wins) | 4.79

13 | Jimmie Foxx* (3 wins) | 4.21

14 | Albert Pujols# (1 win) | 4.07

15 | Yogi Berra* (3 wins) | 3.98

16 | Eddie Collins* (1 win) | 3.86

17 | Hank Greenberg* (2 wins) | 3.69

| Brooks Robinson* (1 win) | 3.69

19 | Pete Rose (1 win) | 3.68

20 | Charlie Gehringer* (1 win) | 3.55

21 | Rogers Hornsby* (2 wins) | 3.33

| Eddie Murray* | 3.33

23 | George Brett* (1 win) | 3.30

| Willie Stargell* (1 win) | 3.30

25 | Reggie Jackson* (1 win) | 3.28

26 | Harmon Killebrew* (1 win) | 3.22

27 | Ken Griffey# (1 win) | 3.20

28 | Dave Parker (1 win) | 3.19

29 | Mike Piazza# | 3.15

| Jim Rice (1 win) | 3.15

31 | Joe Morgan* (2 wins) | 3.04

32 | Al Kaline* | 2.92

33 | Jeff Bagwell (1 win) | 2.89

34 | Paul Waner* (1 win) | 2.86

35 | Vladimir Guerrero# (1 win) | 2.84

36 | Ernie Banks* (2 wins) | 2.83

37 | Carl Hubbell* (2 wins) | 2.82

38 | Roberto Clemente* (1 win) | 2.80

| Dizzy Dean* (1 win) | 2.80

40 | Johnny Bench* (2 wins) | 2.77

41 | Juan Gonzalez (2 wins) | 2.76

42 | Mel Ott* | 2.75

| Manny Ramirez# | 2.75

44 | Bill Terry* | 2.72

45 | Mickey Cochrane* (2 wins) | 2.69

46 | Lou Boudreau* (1 win) | 2.66

47 | Frankie Frisch* (1 win) | 2.58

48 | Kirby Puckett* | 2.56

49 | Walter Johnson* (2 wins) | 2.54

50 | Roy Campanella* (3 wins) | 2.52

| Gabby Hartnett* (1 win) | 2.52[/table]

 

* HOF player

# active player

 

 

I cut this off at 2.50 Award Shares because right below that one gets into players such as Steve Garvey and George Foster who clearly aren't HOF-caliber players. Above 2.50, of HOF-eligible players we have these exceptions:

 

Pete Rose: gambling; considered very unsportsmanlike and reviled by many during his career

Dave Parker: cocaine use; mid-career performance reduced due to drugs

Jim Rice: very short on league-leading years in key metrics for a player considered best in his sport for a while; declined badly in his mid-30's, leaving him short on career counting stats

 

Let's look at just the Steroid-Era players:

 

[table]Rank | Player | MVP Award Shares

1 | Barry Bonds (7 wins) | 9.30

9 | Alex Rodriguez (3 wins) | 5.02

12 | Frank Thomas (2 wins) | 4.79

14 | Albert Pujols (1 win) | 4.07

27 | Ken Griffey (1 win) | 3.20

29 | Mike Piazza | 3.15

33 | Jeff Bagwell (1 win) | 2.89

35 | Vladimir Guerrero (1 win) | 2.84

41 | Juan Gonzalez (2 wins) | 2.76

42 | Manny Ramirez | 2.75[/table]

 

Any of these players may later be accused of PED abuse, but the two bolded players--Bonds and Gonzalez--look to be the nexus of controversy.

 

Note that there are several great players of the Steroid Era not listed here. The Steroid Era's 20 greatest by MVP Award Shares 1995-2004:

 

[table]Rank | Player | MVP Award Shares

1 | Barry Bonds | 5.32

2 | Alex Rodriguez | 3.18

3 | Mike Piazza | 2.72

4 | Sammy Sosa | 2.46

5 | Albert Pujols | 2.35

6 | Manny Ramirez | 2.33

7 | Juan Gonzalez | 2.25

8 | Jason Giambi | 2.15

9 | Chipper Jones | 2.06

10 | Ken Griffey | 1.93

11 | Jeff Bagwell | 1.87

12 | Vladimir Guerrero | 1.70

13 | Gary Sheffield | 1.66

14 | Frank Thomas | 1.66

15 | Nomar Garciaparra | 1.63

16 | Albert Belle | 1.60

17 | Jeff Kent | 1.54

18 | Mo Vaughn | 1.48

19 | Miguel Tejada | 1.36

20 | Larry Walker | 1.24[/table]

 

Sammy Sosa and Jason Giambi don't make the 2.50 cutoff; McGwire and Palmeiro don't even make the list.

 

But here's the thing: Bonds earned 3.98 MVP Award Shares before 1995--he'd racked up HOF stats in that respect before his alleged steroid use began. No other steroid-era position player is in that situation; among pitchers, only Roger Clemens might be in similar circumstances.

 

***

 

I mentioned four possible standards. By two, no PED user would qualify, with differing standards of proof. By a third, Bonds is overwhelmingly eligible and Juan Gonzalez probably makes the cut, but not most of the other known PED abusers. By the fourth standard, disqualifying Steroid Era MVP Award Shares, Bonds still ranks in the "Inner Circle" of HOF members.

[Soxfan1]

Bill how long does it take you on average to make a post?

[Jayhawk Bill]

Bill how long does it take you on average to make a post?

 

 

Relative to what I would've looked at anyway, given my curiosity? Maybe 30 minutes for something like this, organizing my research so that it's something that I might share.

 

Overall? Less time than you'd think: I research and analyze pretty quickly. I think that that concept and research for this took no more than another hour, tops, multitasking as I went along with data collection.

 

I guess that I try to post original article-quality research because I believe that sites I frequent deserve the support. It takes time. :dunno:

[Cocos Disciples]

And I thank you for it. Your posts are of high quality and you are obviously wicked smaht.

[rician blast]

Interesting topic that is certainly going to affect who gets in/doesn't get in going forward.

 

I think there are a number of problems that HOF voters are going to run into as they assess players linked or suspected of PED use. Forgive me if I drift a bit from the exact nature of this thread...

 

(1) Can anyone say when the 'roid era really began? If a players big years came in, say, the late 80's and early 90's, will voters assume that he was 'roid free? As I've stated before I know of a long list of amateur athletes that were using as early as the mid 80's...I'd have to assume there were some significant numbers of pro's using as well. Not sure...I can't prove it, but it would be a surprise to me if HS and college athletes were using but MLB players were not. I can see some issues with attempting to define a 'roid era.

 

(2) Were hitters in the roid era in some ways levelling the playing field in that pitchers were using...and vice versa? A hitter that benefited from 'roid use, had he not used, could have been at a disadvantage when facing pitchers who used...and the same would apply for pitchers who did not use, but had to face hitters who did.

 

(3) Some heavy users of PEDs will likely get away with it...meanwhile some minor users may get caught. If the criteria for HOF admission includes whether a player was caught there is opportunity for players who would have made it anyway to be omitted and players who would not have made it without PEDs to be granted entry. IMO Barry Bonds is a HOF player...talent-wise anyway (his ability would have put him in the HOF, with or without PEDs, IMO). Assuming he has used PEDs ( I believe he did...a lot) is he automatically excluded based on the evidence before the voters? And for comparison, let's say, just for sake of argument, it turned out Ryne Sandberg was a heavy 'roid user but never got caught...just go with me here. Would he have made it if he hadn't juiced? There is great opportunity for unequal treatment.

 

Shooting from the hip here (since I have to go out in a few to a Xmas party...I'll possibly revisit this thought when I have more time)...I think a potential solution, albeit likely unpopular, would be not to dictate how voters vote...don't designate a steroid era, don't say that anyone implicated absolutely is out.

 

Now on a prospective basis? Sure, establish rules governing PED use...any use of banned substances WILL exclude a player from HOF consideration.

 

Just some thoughts.

[YAZMAN]

 

Relative to what I would've looked at anyway, given my curiosity? Maybe 30 minutes for something like this, organizing my research so that it's something that I might share.

 

Overall? Less time than you'd think: I research and analyze pretty quickly. I think that that concept and research for this took no more than another hour, tops, multitasking as I went along with data collection.

 

I guess that I try to post original article-quality research because I believe that sites I frequent deserve the support. It takes time. :dunno:

 

 

It's almost like you do it for a living.

[Soxfan1]

And I thank you for it. Your posts are of high quality and you are obviously wicked smaht.

 

Agreed. Otherwise I would not have asked you to come here.

[MDF3530]

Frank Thomas.

 

And I'm not saying that just because I'm a White Sox fan. He didn't cheat.

[Thumper]

The way I see it, unless they are proven guilty of, or admit to using, they should be allowed in. Should they admit to it or be found guilty after induction, it should be revoked.

 

In addition I feel all numbers put up during the time of their using should be erased.

[a700hitter]

I have heard the argument from Buster Olney, that since PED useage was so widespread it would be unfair to keep out those who were named but to vote for those who might have been using but were never named or caught in a drug test. It's a persuasive argument, but just like the law which is often selectively applied for a deterrent effect, I think the named players and those who failed tests should be excluded from consideration from the Hall. Is it selective justice? Yes, but as cheaters they are not deserving of fairness. They risked their careers by messing with the stuff and they lost their good names. They got caught, so they don't belong. Others got away with cheating, but hopefully future players will see what happened to Clemens, MGwire, and Bonds and will not use the protection of the Union to cheat.

[rician blast]

The way I see it, unless they are proven guilty of, or admit to using, they should be allowed in. Should they admit to it or be found guilty after induction, it should be revoked.

 

In addition I feel all numbers put up during the time of their using should be erased.

 

Problem is that it allows users who weren't caught to get in. I posted earlier that you could have guys who barely used, but were caught, kept out of the hall...and heavy users who went uindetected get in simply because they got away with it. I think this can only be enforced on a prospective basis.

 

Of course, IMO, there are probably many, many players using HGH now and they'll continue to do so until a test is introduced which catches HGH...then the chemists will develop something else.

 

Tough issue and there are certain to be unfair results..

[Thumper]

Problem is that it allows users who weren't caught to get in. I posted earlier that you could have guys who barely used, but were caught, kept out of the hall...and heavy users who went uindetected get in simply because they got away with it. I think this can only be enforced on a prospective basis.

 

Of course, IMO, there are probably many, many players using HGH now and they'll continue to do so until a test is introduced which catches HGH...then the chemists will develop something else.

 

Tough issue and there are certain to be unfair results..

 

Well the thing is it's that whole "innocent until proven guilty thing." Now common sense does prevail in me in that Bonds, Clemens, and any others who obviously juiced but haven't admitted to it should be disallowed entry into the Hall of Fame. But legal technicalities, they haven't been "proven" guilty of the crime. Therefore you'd have a big ol ordeal if you don't allow them in if they weren't proven to have used. And I know it's not the court judge's job to induct members, but hopefully the BBWAA or Veterans Committee have enough common sense to not induct obvious juicers.

[Jayhawk Bill]

...hopefully the BBWAA or Veterans Committee have enough common sense to not induct obvious juicers.

 

Thumper, your perspective is shared by many, but I've been waiting for wording such as this to reenter the discussion.

 

I chose MVP shares as a metric because it's independent of standards of the game. Home runs go up and down depending on size of ballparks and construction of the baseballs. Strikeouts vary with height of the mound and the pattern of pitcher use. MVP shares are removed from all that: it's a simple measure of "Who's best?" whatever the current standards of the game.

 

Here's the deal: Juan Gonzalez, in an era of PED use, rose to the top of the game to a degree that's always been indicative of near-automatic enshrinement in Cooperstown. Should he be excluded from the HOF because there are allegations that he juiced?

 

Barry Bonds, before any rumor of PED use, achieved absolute-lock HOF credentials by the metric of MVP share. After such rumors--not proof under the Basic Agreement, excepting amphetamines, just rumors--he dominated his era and was, for four years, the greatest batter in the history of the game. Should the greatest hitter ever be excluded because of rumors?

 

The only player who approached Bonds's level of excellence by MVP share who didn't make the HOF was Pete Rose--and Rose achieved, through his entire career, fewer MVP award shares than Bonds did in the part of his career before the "steroid era."

 

***

 

An additional point:

 

Pete Rose was banned from baseball--his name was never on the HOF ballot. The BBWAA never had a chance to vote for or against Rose.

 

Should steroid users be removed from the HOF ballot, or should the voters have their chance? If they should be removed, what should the standard be: failure of a single test for PEDs, banning from MLB for continued PED use, conviction in Federal court of illegal PED use, or some other standard?

[Thumper]

Thumper, your perspective is shared by many, but I've been waiting for wording such as this to reenter the discussion.

 

I chose MVP shares as a metric because it's independent of standards of the game. Home runs go up and down depending on size of ballparks and construction of the baseballs. Strikeouts vary with height of the mound and the pattern of pitcher use. MVP shares are removed from all that: it's a simple measure of "Who's best?" whatever the current standards of the game.

 

Here's the deal: Juan Gonzalez, in an era of PED use, rose to the top of the game to a degree that's always been indicative of near-automatic enshrinement in Cooperstown. Should he be excluded from the HOF because there are allegations that he juiced?

 

Barry Bonds, before any rumor of PED use, achieved absolute-lock HOF credentials by the metric of MVP share. After such rumors--not proof under the Basic Agreement, excepting amphetamines, just rumors--he dominated his era and was, for four years, the greatest batter in the history of the game. Should the greatest hitter ever be excluded because of rumors?

 

The only player who approached Bonds's level of excellence by MVP share who didn't make the HOF was Pete Rose--and Rose achieved, through his entire career, fewer MVP award shares than Bonds did in the part of his career before the "steroid era."

 

***

 

An additional point:

 

Pete Rose was banned from baseball--his name was never on the HOF ballot. The BBWAA never had a chance to vote for or against Rose.

 

Should steroid users be removed from the HOF ballot, or should the voters have their chance? If they should be removed, what should the standard be: failure of a single test for PEDs, banning from MLB for continued PED use, conviction in Federal court of illegal PED use, or some other standard?

 

 

Well like I said before, as much as I'd hate to see it, unless players are proven to have used, not alleged, have no reason not to be in, whether it's Bonds or Gonzalez. And as much as you "know" they juiced, they just weren't proven. And yeah it would suck to see that happen. The only time I'd call an arguement would be if someone was found guilty of using steroids and still inducted, even if it was a 1 time failed test, you still did it. You can't pick and choose a degree of how bad someone did it and whether or not that determines their punishment. It's all or none, I choose all. I don't think any federal charges would be needed, but loss of Hall of Fame bid, if applicable, and erasing of any records, awards, and numbers achieved during the time found of using.

 

Another thing, I know Rose was banned, and I know there's not much that can be done, but the day a guilty juicer is inducted is the day Pete Rose better get unbanned.

[Jayhawk Bill]

You can't pick and choose a degree of how bad someone did it and whether or not that determines their punishment. It's all or none, I choose all. I don't think any federal charges would be needed, but loss of Hall of Fame bid, if applicable, and erasing of any records, awards, and numbers achieved during the time found of using.

 

Another thing, I know Rose was banned, and I know there's not much that can be done, but the day a guilty juicer is inducted is the day Pete Rose better get unbanned.

 

Greenies are a PED. Should every admitted greenie user be treated as if they had used steroids or hGH?

 

If I follow your logic, every MLB player who used greenies without prescription should have their records erased. That would leave an awful lot of white space where players' careers used to be listed over the past half-century. From an interesting piece by Mike Celizic at MSNBC:

 

You can’t even talk about taking away his records or diminishing them. He did what he was allowed to do. No one can get punished for that. If you take away his MVPs and home runs, then take away Don Sutton’s and Gaylord Perry’s Hall of Fame plaques. Take way (sic) Norm Cash’s batting title. Take away Mike Scott’s perfect game. They all cheated, just as surely as Bonds and Giambi did, as surely as Ken Caminiti did. As surely as more players that you want to know about did.

 

What Bonds and these others did was deeply rooted in the game. Pete Rose and most players of his generation couldn’t take batting practice without first downing a handful of “greenies” — amphetamines. Willie Mays kept a bottle of “red juice” in his locker — the same stuff as greenies, but in a liquid form. We can’t say Hank Aaron was clean, because we don’t know what stimulants he took, if any. We can’t vouch for anyone’s purity.

 

That’s the reality, folks.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6642822/

[a700hitter]

Problem is that it allows users who weren't caught to get in. I posted earlier that you could have guys who barely used, but were caught, kept out of the hall...and heavy users who went uindetected get in simply because they got away with it. I think this can only be enforced on a prospective basis.

 

Of course, IMO, there are probably many, many players using HGH now and they'll continue to do so until a test is introduced which catches HGH...then the chemists will develop something else.

 

Tough issue and there are certain to be unfair results..

What you say is true, but why should we look to apply a system of equity to a bunch of juicers. You can never positively identify all the users. Does that mean that no one should get punished? Punish those who got caught. That's all that can be done. That should be a deterrent to those who didn't get caught and those who might think about using PEDs in the future. Pete Rose is probably not the only guy to bet on baseball while playing it, but his ass was banned for life, and he is a stark example of what happens when you get caught. The guys who got caught should get shunned. They took the risk got caught and are paying the price. The others who did not get caught are presumed innocent. Blame the Union that protected the players. If it had not been for their irrational stance on protecting users, more users would have been exposed and justice would be meted out to more than just a select group. Tough s*** for Clemens and the rest that got caught. I laugh that his attorneys are doing an investigation of others who might have testified before the Mitchell Committee as a way to impeach MCNamee's testimony. IIf you want to clear your client's name bring a defamation suit or STFU and go away. In the end, this charade will hurt Clemens more than if he were to come clean, because like Rose he will add the stigma of liar to his already tainted resume. Roger, you are in a hole. Stop digging.

[schillingouttheks]

In the end' date=' this charade will hurt Clemens more than if he were to come clean, because like Rose he will add the stigma of liar to his already tainted resume. Roger, you are in a hole. Stop digging.[/quote']

 

Or.... Roger, please keep going.

[rician blast]

Punish those who got caught. That's all that can be done. That should be a deterrent to those who didn't get caught and those who might think about using PEDs in the future.

 

I think we're in agreement. As I posted earlier:

 

"you could have guys who barely used, but were caught, kept out of the hall...and heavy users who went undetected get in simply because they got away with it. I think this can only be enforced on a prospective basis."

 

Prospective...meaning from here on, you get caught, you're excluded from the HOF.

 

As a side note, I'll bet the whole idea of making the HOF is an afterthought for many players. First concern is just making the bigs, other goals ramp up as the player progresses and puts up numbers. My thought is that many think if they can juice and get away with, thereby imrpoving their stats and making more money, they''ll do it...striving for the HOF likely comes much later for most....at some point where they've seen that their performance to date might have them on track for the Hall.

[a700hitter]

As a side note' date=' I'll bet the whole idea of making the HOF is an afterthought for many players. First concern is just making the bigs, other goals ramp up as the player progresses and puts up numbers. My thought is that many think if they can juice and get away with, thereby imrpoving their stats and making more money, they''ll do it...striving for the HOF likely comes much later for most....at some point where they've seen that their performance to date might have them on track for the Hall.[/quote']It is sort of like retirement planning. Most people don't even think about it until they are 50-55 -- a good 10 to 15 years after the time they should have begun planning. Most people live for today without a thought about tomorrow. The players are looking to max out their earnings. Clemens is at the end, and being banned from the Hall would stain his legacy, and it would also impact his earning ability going forward. When it comes to Roger, it's always about the money. How ironic that Clemens has threatened to Boycott the Hall ceremony if they put a Boston hat on him. How ironic. I think he'd agree to have his head shaved bald on his plaque.

[jacksonianmarch]

I honestly think that steroids also give a player a psychological edge. A feeling of dependence that breeds results and then the player becomes superstitious. A feeling of, With Steroids, I am UNBEATABLE. And once they have success using them, they cannot stop.

[rician blast]

I honestly think that steroids also give a player a psychological edge. A feeling of dependence that breeds results and then the player becomes superstitious. A feeling of' date=' With Steroids, I am UNBEATABLE. And once they have success using them, they cannot stop.[/quote']

 

 

I would agree...athletes that I've known who took 'roids then came back for more said they felt like they could do whatever they wanted on the field. Some also stated they were addicted...they couldn't stop because of the feeling they got from them and the reaction they got (not just in terms of performance, also referring to the guys who do it to go to the beach and show off). The addictive nature of the drugs is another reason that I think even with testing guys are going to use PEDs while diligently seeking other chemicals.