Where would you draw the line, though? What if a prospective HoFer was involved in an OJ Simpson-esque fiasco? When does a player stop being a "selfish jerk" and start being a "psychotic misogynist"?

Are there rules in place preventing the induction of convicted felons or the mentally unfit, or can a player be as bad a person as there ever was, as long as he doesn't do anything considered directly detrimental to the sport of baseball?

Last time I looked, no writer has walked on water, or taught a whole village to fish.

True, but the 44.6% Solution has to count for something, right?

It seems jerks are tolerated, until they stop producing. Perhaps we need a Hall of Fame and a Hall of Shame.

Perhaps we need a Hall of Fame and a Hall of Shame.

The Hall of Shame entries would be more contentious than the HoF entries.

I hate Kirby Puckett. I always have.

I agree with Tango.

Perhaps we need a Hall of Fame and a Hall of Shame

We already have a Baseball Hall of Shame. I remember loving those books...

What if a prospective HoFer was involved in an OJ Simpson-esque fiasco?

I hardly think that being framed for murder by racist cops should count against one's chances of making the HOF... ;-)

Maybe they should just rename it The Hall Of People Who Are Good At Baseball.

Unless you are in favor of tossing some old HOF'ers out, such as Ty Cobb, then the morals clause is really worth nothing except as a tie breaker (ie: in cases like Canseco when a guy is on the bubble).

Btw, before it comes up, Pete Rose doesn't count here as he broke a major rule of the sport, which is what is keeping him out - not his morals. Thus steroid use by McGwire is 'OK' while anyone taking them now is not 'OK' if you want to get technical.

The point about how McGwire was given an easy ride by the media is a good one though. He did use andro with no doubt, and odds are pretty good that if he used that he used other stuff too that just didn't make sense to keep in his locker. To me, the Canseco book is probably more accurate than not, but due to his credibility being suspect a lot of guys will survive but not sue.

At a gut level, one has to consider that because McGwire is white he's been given better media treatment than Bonds, because if you lived in the Bay Area during the McGwire years you'd know that McGwire was at times just as surly as Bonds. It's not like McGwire was McPleasant. It's really a fascinating question, one that should not be ignored, but one which most people would not want to go near, especially in the mainstream media, for obvious reasons. Or have we all forgotten the "White Jays" saga?

I was interested in Barry Bons because I thought that what he did was truely amazing. Not that I know the truth, I can't care any less.

Let's get straight what we're talking about here.

The Rules for Election state (at Rule 5) that "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

Let me betray my biases here - I think it's a bad rule, but not because it says that character, sportsmanship, and integrity count - instead, it's a bad rule because it's much too vague. It seems that three of these considerations - record, ability, and team contributions - are paramount. This needs to be addressed.

But I think that character, sportsmanship and integrity should count. They should count in the Hall of Fame just as they count in life. (I say this knowing well my own deficiencies in all of these.) These are important factors, and they should be taken into account. They will be taken into account regardless - it's a part of human nature - so allowing them to be discussed openly will have the effect of placing the proper emphasis on them. A low emphasis, probably, in almost all cases.

You can't make me believe that a playing record compiled with a corked bat or a steroid-pumped body is deserving of the same respect as a playing record compiled without those illegal advantages. I don't think anybody believes it, in their heart of hearts.

Do I think character issues ought to be enough to keep a player out in some cases? We know already that they have - Dick Allen isn't in because he was unlikeable. But the point of the rule should be to make sure that the Dick Allens of the world get in - Allen was such a great player that this other stuff should be rendered insignificant. For another guy, a borderline guy like Dave Parker (who I would vote for), it's more questionable. Should character issues keep Dave Parker out? I don't think so, others do, and it's good to have a debate about it. Which, if it's not a criterion, you don't get.

Look, none of this matters in the long run. McGwire (whose steroid use will be a principal subject of the upcoming Canseco book), Bonds and Sheffield are all going into the Hall of Fame, just as Gaylord Perry did, as Cobb and Speaker did, as others did whose character we judge harshly from our vantage point (anyone up for a character assassination of Babe Ruth? I'm game....)

Pete Rose doesn't count here as he broke a major rule of the sport, which is what is keeping him out - not his morals

Lack of contrition is not "a major rule of the sport", which is the only thing keeping Pete Rose out of the Hall. :) I know what you mean; but we oughtn't pretend that Pete would still be out if he showed remorse instead of defiance.

See, I think of the character clause as being some high and mighty clause. How better to empower a writer than give him discretionary power? Even if it was spelled out
(steroid users: out,
andro users: in if used pre-2001,
creatine users: in, contribute 10 million$ to children's charities: in,
protects his kid from a reporter pushing him around: out),
I don't like it. If MLB allows said players to perform and pay millions of dollars, it's not up to the writers to then blackball him after his career is over! Imagine Jeff Kent in a HOF and Bonds not.

Cobb was so great, that we'll forgive his poor character.

But, who are we to judge someone for "eternity"?

The writer is judging Reggie White and Barry Bonds... but, how does he judge him? He's projecting his own ethics onto someone else, and determining if said player passes some character test.

Is OJ's name still listed as winning the Heisman? Does Rose still have his World Series rings?

Leave history for the historians to judge. Heck, in 100 years, steroids might be mandated usage!

As keepers of the now, don't project your morals in establishing the virtue of someone's performance.

You can't make me believe that a playing record compiled with a corked bat or a steroid-pumped body is deserving of the same respect as a playing record compiled without those illegal advantages. I don't think anybody believes it, in their heart of hearts.

Craig, you're the exception for the on-line baseball community. It's now beyond a simple "innocent until proven guilty" issue. No matter how unscrupulous the "leaked" grand jury testimony was, the fact remains: Bonds used steroids. The impression I got from BP and other leaders in sabermtric circles was that they simply chose not to believe, that it didn't matter Bonds had used the juice. All that mattered was how great Bonds has been. I will allow that no matter how much of a jerk Bonds is does not matter one bit; it's harder to root for him because of that, but it in no way diminishes his accomplishments. But as Craig says, the steroid use will follow Bonds his whole life. I guess I'm more cynical than Craig, because I do believe that Bonds apologists, found primarily in the "alternative baseball media," do believe in their heart of hearts that it doesn't matter.

The paradoxical thing for Bonds is that he didn't even need to use the stuff; he would have been just as great. Why he felt he had to be so much better than anybody else is a complete mystery to me.

I reaize this is crossing sporting barriers, but the Conventional Wisdom in Dallas is that Michael Irvin didn't get into the Hall last weekend for some mythical "morals clause" that didn't apply to, say, Lawrence Taylor -- probably because Taylor redefined his position while Irvin was simply great.

If Aikman gets in next year and Irvin just misses again, inevitably the race card will be played. But there is a Grand Unified Anti-Cowboy Conspiracy Theory about the NFL Hall, which affects whites (Charlie Waters, Cliff Branch) and blacks (Irvin, Bob Hayes, Rayfield Wright, Ed "Too Tall" Jones) alike, so there are plenty of people you'll never convince either way.

I should be clear: as Craig says, Bonds should be, and will be, a HOFer. Probably he'll be unanimous, too, because the numbers he put up are simply too breat-taking to be ignored, 'roids or not.

I don't think anybody believes it, in their heart of hearts.


Actually, I do believe it. What about "greenies". Seems no one is denying the widespread use of amphetamines, and this goes back decades to today. Steroids allows your body to recover faster (you still have to do the weightlifting), but amphetamines lets your body do things that you might not ever be able to do.

The major points are:
- our only qualification is to judge the win impact of a player's performance
- we are NOT qualified to judge the player himself

LT... I keep saying Reggie White, but I think LT was the one the reporters had issues with.

Tango, come on. I thought I was the only guy who still talked about amphetamine use!

I'm the last guy who would say that those guys' performances weren't/aren't tainted by their use. This stuff counts - it all counts - but it's how it counts that matters. My argument isn't *about* steroids. It's about cheating. I'm just saying that a clean performance - by the rules - is better and more commendable than a dirty one. I think we all agree on that.

I agree with Craig entirely. Just a few additional thoughts in support.

Although I appreciate and respect the desire to establish completely objective and impartial standards for admission, I don't think it's inappropriate for an element of subjectivity to be part of the Hall criteria. I'm a little concerned, frankly, with the growing trend to retroactively criticize long-past HOF, MVP, and Gold Glove decisions ("Marty Freakin' Marion?") based on modern statistical understanding of value in baseball. Especially since park adjustments, era adjustments and essentially all defensive statistics basically still amount to guesswork -- well-founded and sophisticated guesswork, certainly, but still guesswork.

Case in point: Harry Hooper. I'm reading Glory Of Their Times right now -- it's wonderful -- and although I understand that it's saturated with nostalgia and "unreliable" oral histories, the unanimity with which his colleagues view Hooper as by far the pre-eminent defensive right fielder of their lifetimes at least, to my mind, calls into question those who cite his mediocre Range Factor numbers as a reason to complain about his unjust election to the Hall.

Getting back to character...I suppose I'm silly enough to believe that it does have at least a marginal impact on the on-field results of one's team. I'm not so naive to think that the success of a typical championship club has much to do with harmony, as opposed to ability; but neither do I believe that it has nothing to do with harmony.

Let's assume that David Ortiz and Dick Allen made exactly equivalent on-field statistical contributions to their clubs. I would posit that not only would I (as a GM) rather have a David Ortiz than a Dick Allen on an emotional level, I think the rest of my team would get along better and, yes, perform better with the gregarious Papi as a teammate, rather than the abrasive Allen. "Abrasive," of course, doesn't quite do Allen justice; he was like a cross between Alexei Yashin and Latrell Sprewell.

You can't make me believe that a playing record compiled with a corked bat or a steroid-pumped body is deserving of the same respect as a playing record compiled without those illegal advantages. I don't think anybody believes it, in their heart of hearts.

Amen.

The impression I got from BP and other leaders in sabermtric circles was that they simply chose not to believe, that it didn't matter Bonds had used the juice. All that mattered was how great Bonds has been. I will allow that no matter how much of a jerk Bonds is does not matter one bit; it's harder to root for him because of that, but it in no way diminishes his accomplishments. But as Craig says, the steroid use will follow Bonds his whole life. I guess I'm more cynical than Craig, because I do believe that Bonds apologists, found primarily in the "alternative baseball media," do believe in their heart of hearts that it doesn't matter.

I think this is right. Two observations:

1) There is no doubt that the discrepancy in public image between Bonds and Mac has more to do with race than with character or pharmacological properties of their supplements. From that perspective, Barry's been unfairly demonized.

2) There is also, I'm afraid, no doubt that Gitz is right that because Bonds has been so great, many in the online media have held Barry to no standards of accountability, be it character-related or even rule-related (i.e., illegal substances). I would argue that if Bonds had gambled rather than taken steroids, I can't help but speculate that these scribes would've softened their current "no sympathy for Rose, ever" stance.

Because he has been so great.

See, I think of the character clause as being some high and mighty clause. How better to empower a writer than give him discretionary power?

But it's all discretionary. There almost no rules whatsoever dictating who gets to go to the HOF and who doesn't. You have to play a certain length of time (unless you die early), you can't have broken certain rules, but that's about it. There are no rules that say "If a player has X home runs, Y RBIs and Z hits, he will be inducted to the hall of fame." There are unwritten standards, and some players are almost guaranteed election, but everything else is up in the air. Whether Jack Morris, Bert Blyleven, Alan Trammell or Lou Whittaker are elected is entirely discretionary.

Given all that, I think it's fair for writers to say "Player X may not have been a purely elite player, but his extensive charity work made him an exemplary ballplayer."

I'm sorry to ask a very naive question, but were steroids banned in mlb(prior to the last few years)? And if they were not banned, were you cheating if you took steroids?

There is no doubt that the discrepancy in public image between Bonds and Mac has more to do with race than with character or pharmacological properties of their supplements.

This is not exactly right. I, for one, doubt it.

For the record : I do not think that race plays a significant factor in the respective portrayals of Bonds and McGwire (vis-a-vis their drug use, or other factors).

It obviously affects public opinion some, but I do not think it has a large impact there either.

I used to think this, but after a long time thinking about it, I don't think it's the case. I think the root of some of this is due to race - Bonds's soured relationship with the fans and media in Pittsburgh may well be, in part, due to questions of race. And it is that poisoned relationship that (in my mind) lies twinned at the root of the media's antipathy for Bonds. Its twin is Bonds's antipathy for reporters, which may well have grown out of this original, ill-fated relationship.

The antipathy, I should add, is largely not felt by the fans. Bonds has become (will he remain?) one of baseball's most popular players for the fans. I know this isn't reported much, but it's true - Bonds routinely receives accolades from fans as a visiting player that are given to very, very few players.

But this is just me pontificating. Season to taste with salt.

To put what I said above more bluntly - it is common to lay a charge of racism at the feet of the media or the public when it is confronted with an angry black man.

I just don't think it's the case. The problem that [white] people have isn't with the "black" - it's with the "angry". When that is compounded by accusations of racism - and Bonds is now a regular player of the race card vis-a-vis the media in particular - it seems to compound [white] people's distaste. People generally don't like to be insulted, and we all feel that accusations of racism (no matter how honestly felt) are insulting.

It is utterly disingenuous to hurl accusations of racism - no matter how well-founded - and then to say "I'm disliked because I'm black". That is hitching the horse at the back of the proverbial cart.

There is no question that our society, and our media as an institution thereof, are still tainted with racism. It's a much more open question as to how much of that seeps over into the reactions we have to individuals. But once the relationship between a celebrity and the wider public is poisoned by allegations of racism (this goes either way - sometimes it's the public that taint the celebrity with racism) any meaningful analysis of the part that race itself plays is impossible, because the signal gets drowned in the noise of the accusations and counter-accusations.

do believe in their heart of hearts that it doesn't matter.

Question: Does it matter any more than Gaylord Perry's ball scuffing or Graig Nettles corked bat?

I think a lot of people think that everyone is likely juicing (at least as far as power hitters are concerned), so it's unfair to single Bonds out in particular.

In fact, I would go as far as to say that there are likely only a few players in the big leagues that haven't cheated at some point in their careers, whether it be greenies or greasing up pitches or lying about your age or having someone do your assignments for you in college so you have more time to practice. In that case the discussion should be about how bad juicing is relative to other forms of cheating, which is largely a subjective question.

Well, I clearly overreached with my use of "no doubt." The different relationship between the media and Mac, and the media with Bonds, is probably the most significant factor for their different public images. Is Bonds more surly, or is he simply reported as being more surly? And if it's the latter, why has this been the case?

Mike D., as one voice from the Bay Area, I assure you: Bonds is NOT any more surly than McGwire was. And like Bonds, McGwire was not overly-endearing to the fans. I'd be curious to see what impressions other people in the Bay Area had.

In fact, I would go as far as to say that there are likely only a few players in the big leagues that haven't cheated at some point in their careers, whether it be greenies or greasing up pitches or lying about your age or having someone do your assignments for you in college so you have more time to practice.

Well, if everybody's doing it, I guess that makes it OK.

And I don't think that there only a few major leaguers who haven't cheated. What did Canseco say? "Everybody does it"? Automatically slash that number in half because Canseco's nuts, then maybe lob of another 25 percent just for the heck of it. That leaves us about 25 percent, and that is somewhat believable.

Of course, I can't prove that. But only a few players that haven't? I find that cynical. Even for me!

I think a lot of people think that everyone is likely juicing (at least as far as power hitters are concerned), so it's unfair to single Bonds out in particular.

I'm going to steal a line from Robert Dudek here: If that's true, that doesn't mean Bonds isn't a cheater. That means that cheating is rampant.

I think there is a huge difference between greasing a ball and and crafting a physique with steroids, personally. But even if you disagree, Moffatt, I don't agree with the let's-throw-our-hands-up-and-just-accept-everybody's-behaviour solution. If relativism is uncomfortable or imprecise, does that require the conclusion that we never hold anybody to any standards of fair play.

What if Bonds had some rocket-powered device in his bat that added 100 feet to every pitch with which he made contact? Even then, would it still all be about the OPS?

And yes, I think steroids are closer to the rocket-powered bat than to the greased ball. But reasonable people can disagree.

Having lived in Canada and US, I can say that the race issue is a far bigger issue in the US than Canada. No one bats an eye in Canada with Fuhr, Carter, and other notable blacks. Arthur Ashe and other blacks in heavy white-dominated sports is another matter in US.

(But, Canada does have its language issue. I suppose every country has some cultural issue.)

***

Anyway, ok, it is more commendable that Dale Murphy was a model human being, whose body couldn't take it after he turned 34, while McGwire had questionable character who became even stronger at that age. And maybe if Murphy took more amphetamines, maybe we'd remember him with a brighter star.

***

Yes, it is discretionary how you use the evidence. But, the writers are given discretionary power to actually *see* the evidence. It's not like the writer is thinking "Hmmm... he hit 700 HR, but I really would only count 500 of them". No writer would argue something like that. If he wants to argue that his character caused other players to perform worse (though how do you explain the 70s A's), fine. Even Jeff Kent would want Bonds on his team every day. He'd certainly prefer Bonds over Shane Spencer, or Moises Alou.

***

The fans have no problem with Bonds. It's only the holy writers.

The fans have no problem with Bonds. It's only the holy writers.

That is wrong. Have you been to a Giants game in San Francisco? Trust me. The fans don't like him. They do have a problem with him. They are conflicted, because they like how good he is. They like how he pounds the ball 450 feet. They like how he (used to) play left field. But they do not like him. It's really that simple. And if Giants fans don't like him, do you expect folks in Arizona or Cincinatti to "like him"?

I'll concede two points, Tango. First, that the 70's A's are the best counter-example to my "intangibles/harmony" point. And second, that no amount of character issues could possibly affect Barry's contribution to his clubs, given his overwhelming productivity.

But in close cases, I'll take the good guy(s), and not just for sentimental reasons.

I know you're a paisan, Gitz, but there's one "t" in "Cincinnati."

(Note to self: Stop alienating the only Roster member ever to agree with you.)

It's easy, and tempting, to throw out all the other variables at play and chalk up any differences in the public perception of McGwire and Bonds to race, and otherwise leave both men off the hook. But to do so would be counterproductive.

The way in which the public views each man is a product of their circumstances. That McGwire is white and Bonds black may provide some of the answer, although it leaves one wondering why Sammy Sosa received so much affection for his role in the home run chase in 1998. Was the McGwire of 1998 the same McGwire who made life difficult for the Oakland media? It seems to me any mellowing on his part would form part of the media's narrative and influence their coverage of him.

And consider that in 1998, baseball was widely believed to need a hero, and any good news story would be spun as a great athletic triumph. Were Bonds to have made his assault on the record books in 1998, he may have been the one to receive the media's accolades. And what of the difference in perception of the men whose records they are chasing? McGwire caught Roger Maris, who I think it is fair to say was never held in great esteem by the media, whose record was always considered faintly illegitimate by the sporting press. That the record was captured first by McGwire, and then by Bonds, seemed fitting, insofar as the greatest of records was now held by a legendary all-time slugger. Bonds, on the other hand, now chases two of the most beloved ballplayers in history, Aaron and Ruth. That such legendary players might find themselves surpassed by this unlikeable fellow surely plays a role in how the media frames its stories.

And there are a whole host of variables besides. Which is why I think it silly when it always gets reduced to race, an argument that purports only to end, rather than promote, debate.

(Note to self: Stop alienating the only Roster member ever to agree with you.)

My advice? Get off the Gizzi train immediately. Its conductor is a lunatic, his ideas not welcome on the fringes, and yet he STILL spits them out.

I should add, Tango, that I mean no disrespect by the "That is wrong" comment. Clearly, this is just my impression, as somebody who has been privy to the Bonds/McGwire years. That, in and of itself only gives me more anectodal evidence; it does not in any way make me less of an auhority, or even an authority at all. I realize the Internet can make for some confusion, but over a drink, there would be no confusion. Because, over a drink, everything is grand!

Aye, caramba. Typos that change meanings. "That does not make me MORE of an authority" is how that should read.

(And back off, all you Freudians.)

I agree with Craig. The character clause is too vague, potentially allowing voters to consider off-field conduct (promiscuity?, draft dodging??). However, cheating in relation to the game, whether it be throwing a game, scuffling a baseball, corking a bat, or taking performance-enhancing drugs is relevant. How relevant the cheating is will depend on the conduct and the context.

Those of us who spend a fair bit of time on statistics know that context adjustments are very important. That is why the same performance standards do not apply to the players of the teens and sixties than of the twenties and the nineties. I do not see that it makes sense to say that scuffed balls were legal in the teens and resulted in lower ERAS, and we discount the pitching stats of those who pitched in the teens as a result, whereas the same activity was contrary to the rules in the sixties and seventies, but we will not discount the pitching stats of Gaylord Perry because he successfully circumvented the rules.

When I said...

The fans have no problem with Bonds. It's only the holy writers.

...I meant that they have no problem with Bonds playing baseball. The Giants attendance on the road is a direct result of Bonds, and nothing else.

No one in Montreal liked Claude Lemieux, and no one liked Dale Hunter... but every team wants them on their team (as long as they perform, of course).

I'm going to steal a line from Robert Dudek here: If that's true, that doesn't mean Bonds isn't a cheater. That means that cheating is rampant.

Yes. So?

But even if you disagree, Moffatt, I don't agree with the let's-throw-our-hands-up-and-just-accept-everybody's-behaviour solution.

Who suggested such a thing?

The Giants attendance on the road is a direct result of Bonds, and nothing else.

This will be harder to prove this year, now that the Giants have MIKE MATHENY.

The last comment quoted by Mike seems to be the issue: that somehow, by voting an admitted steroid-user is the same as condoning it.

My point is that writers are not qualified to judge or condone anything. That's up to MLB to decide what to do with these guys. The constant slap on the wrists, over the last 150 years, that allows such an atmosphere to exist is an issue between MLB and its players.

Us outsiders, we're here to evaluate the performances, and nothing else.

So, character clause? Begone. The HOF is not heaven... it's Iowa... (er, Cooperstown).

I'm not entirely convinced that character, separate and apart from the character clause, has no place in Hall of Fame selection.

As tango points out, the HOF is not Heaven... which means that we're under no compulsion to get it exactly right. That a player like Dick Allen, who objectively belongs in the Hall, has not been elected represents no great crime, and is no cause for moral outrage.

The Hall is just one of the myriad ways in which baseball celebrates its history. The baseball community is free to honour exactly whom it likes, and should it choose not to lionize certain individuals whose personalities were unsavoury, then it should be free not to reflect additional glory on those men. I agree that we should avoid as much as possible standing in judgement of another person's ethics or lifestyle choices, but baseball is one means by which we expressly ourselves culturally. If we as a culture decide certain behaviour should be held in disrepute, and as a result are disinclined to heap additional honours on such an individual, I for one am not overly concerned about it.

Would I kick out all the miscreants? Absolutely not, not least because it doesn't serve the game to tell a whitewashed history. The Ty Cobbs serve to give the game some of its flavour. But does every villain deserve a place, does every scoundrel have a story that bears telling? I'd answer that in the negative.

It's not a question of condoning cheating; it's putting a context on performance, as rules form part of the context of the game. How 'bout two examples, no names?

Ballplayer 1 establishes prior to any use of performance-enhancing drugs by 10 years of performance that he is a HoF quality player, and then after use of these drugs improves signficantly. Ballplayer 2 has a mediocre minor league record, takes steroids from his arrival in the major leagues and becomes a HoF quality player.

Is it not right that the performances of Ballplayer 1 and Ballplayer 2 be put in their context?

That's up to MLB to decide what to do with these guys.

I agree 100%. Not just for the HOF, but all of MLB.

The important thing is that we have rules that make sense, and the rules apply to everyone.

If steroids are really the equivalent of the rocket bat, then lobby MLB to make steroid use punishable by lifetime expulsion from the sport.

Right now, though, people seem to want to go beyond the scope of the rules to get a pound of flesh of Barry Bonds and only Barry Bonds.

Did you as a fan, and did his team, benefit from the player? Did you continue to benefit, even after you find out about it? What about cheaters who spike the ball or bat, and continue to do so, even after caught?

Let MLB deal with the players while their career is going on.

Let the keepers of the now reflect their MLB-accepted performances. MLB sanctions the results.

***

Players in the Olympics have had their medals stripped after the fact. Their record has been disqualified. Officially, Ben Johnson did not run 9.78.

Imagine if MLB imposes a rule like the IOC, that strips the medal of a Canadian hockey team if any player on that team was caught with a banned substance?

Until MLB removes Bonds' accomplishments from the record book, I have to accept that his performance counts. If that means that some people have to hold their noses, so be it.

No asterisks in my book.

Until MLB removes Bonds' accomplishments from the record book, I have to accept that his performance counts.

I agree in the sense that accomplishments are accomplishments. If a player hits 516 home runs, then he hit 516 home runs. A player's place in the record books, or on the leader boards, is assured, barring an official MLB change.

But: If we accept that records are records, and hard numbers are not subject to interpretation, why even bother with "electing" players to the Hall? The Hall already has exhibits for home run champs and perfect games; Pete Rose's accomplishments are recognized in the hall of fame, since whatever gambling he may have done doesn't alter the fact he had more hits than anyone else in the history of the game.

The voting, then, has to be about more than simply numerical records and accomplishments. We could say that while Jose Canseco may be on the cusp of a HOF-performance, his overall behaviour may exclude him. Don Mattingly may not have the numbers of a Frank Thomas or Jeff Bagwell, but perhaps he deserves to be in the Hall because he was an exemplary role model and great citizen. (Hypothetical examples, btw; I don't presume to claim one of the other is true)

Mike Green, I think that's right. I wouldn't keep Player 1 out of the Hall if those facts are true. But I wouldn't object to keeping Player 2 out if those facts are true.

Right now, though, people seem to want to go beyond the scope of the rules to get a pound of flesh of Barry Bonds and only Barry Bonds.

That's not true for me. That's not remotely true for me. However much Bonds' legacy is tainted by this revelation, the legacies of Giambi, Caminiti and Canseco should be similarly tainted.

Steroids aren't "equivalent to" the rocket bat. But they're closer to the rocket bat than they are to a shine ball, or (say) a stolen sign. I don't understand why it's somehow unacceptable to place steroids somewhere further along the cheating continuum than shine balls, simply because there is room for debate about where these actions should be precisely placed on the continuum. I don't buy that because some people anecdotally believe that every player has committed at least one minor infraction, nobody has any right to question the legacy of those who habitually commit major infractions.

Consider the severe and widely-understood risks of steroids at the time that Jason Giambi began scoping the black market for things with which to inject himself. Would these risks be worth it to Giambi if the net effect was tantamount to occasionally stealing signs? From what I can tell, he's a rational human being and not a competitive bodybuilder. It was only worth it for him because he thought it would give him a rocket bat, or something approaching one.

I'm fine with it being more than numbers... I'm not fine with it being more than baseball.

You want to argue that Dale Murphy's attitude contributed indirectly to his team playing better and winning more, fine. You want to argue that Bonds prevented Kent from "being all that he can be", fine. Quantifying that any way you want.

But, to discount a player's accomplishment because he doesn't meet some "character clause"? Character and sportsmanship has nothing to do with sports. (Unless MJ's trash-talking is yet another exception to sportsmanship; or Gretzky's "whining" to referees, etc).

It's this whole idea that someone can sit and judge another human being about that person's "character". Get Christ, Sister Theresa, and Gandhi to vote, and I'll accept it. Baseball writers?

Fair points, Tango. I'm getting closer to agreeing with you.

It's this whole idea that someone can sit and judge another human being about that person's "character".

But we make these judgements all the time, when selecting a mate, when choosing friends, when electing politicians, when deciding who to hire as an accountant or lawyer, when rooting for or against players. This world would be a sorry place to live in if character issues were completely out of bounds.

Besides, the writers don't speak with one voice on this, they never have. And those who take it into consideration will still take into consideration whether or not the clause is revoked, and those who discount it currently obviously will continue to consider only a player's on-field contributions.

I had no idea that by questioning your questions that I was taking away your rights.

Thank you for reminding me why I don't participate in conversations about steroids. :)

But we make these judgements all the time, when selecting a mate, when choosing friends

Those questions of character directly influence the rest of your life.

The holy writers' view of Bonds' character are immaterial to how Bonds should be treated by the HOF. The writers life will not be impacted by how they judge Bonds' character, so it's different from other life-character decisions we all make.

It's this whole idea that someone can sit and judge another human being about that person's "character". Get Christ, Sister Theresa, and Gandhi to vote, and I'll accept it.

All three of them are seriously distressed about Pete Rose and Gaylord Perry. (And Sister Teresa is having second thoughts about Princess Diana.)

Speaking of which, funny how millions mourn and cry for Di, and within a few days, Mother T dies, and that coverage could barely compare.

It's this whole idea that someone can sit and judge another human being about that person's "character". Get Christ, Sister Theresa, and Gandhi to vote, and I'll accept it. Baseball writers?

I don't think it is about "judging another human being". It is, in theory, about judging the impact that person had on the sport of baseball. That impact can be made by hitting a lot of home runs, but it can also be made in other ways: Making extra time to sign autographs, doing work in the community, acting as an spokesman and model for the game. I don't believe these things should be required of a baseball player, but I do think players who do them should be recognized.

Kids may idolize Barry Bonds for hitting mammoth home runs, but I bet more than a few diehard fans were created by a player tossing them a ball, signing a card after the game or coming to visit their school. It's not the only thing, nor the most important thing, but it is valuable.

Morals are what you make of them. I can easily make an argument that Princess Di was more moral than Mother Teresa (won't do it here as it would easily become an ugly argument which does not belong on this board).

In the end, the question becomes (for baseball) - did the player break the rules of the day, and was that breaking of the rules beyond what was accepted at that time. Thus the players who may or may not have fixed games in the 1800's are forgotten and I'm sure some are in the HOF, but Pete Rose isn't. Players who did steroids in the 90's are forgiven (McGwire) but ones who did them (or bragged about them) in the 00's are not (Canseco for brag, Giambi for did) and by the 10's might really be hit hard (lifetime ban perhaps).

If a lifetime ban for steroid use is put in place someday, should McGwire and Bonds and any others who make the HOF who were using steroids (assuming they were) be removed? I don't think so. I figure any 'tainted' records will be viewed as such by those who care, and just enjoyed by those who don't.

and was that breaking of the rules beyond what was accepted at that time

Accepted by who? Holy writers? We already know fans don't care, because they come out in droves when the Giants are in town. MLB hasn't done anything about it, like the IOC would have. (They could have been tougher during the CBA). Whatever rules were broken, MLB and the fans sanctioned the results. The holy writers aren't allowed to interject their morals over and above that.

***

It is, in theory, about judging the impact that person had on the sport of baseball.

I don't think anyone's been turned off by baseball, except by Bud Selig and Don Fehr. So, the character clause, as you describe it, can only be used for positive or neutral.

I know this discussion is primarily dead (on this board at least), but I think Tango is painting too wide of a swath at the "Holy Writers." Obviously, some writers in the "mainstream" are more sanctimonious than others -- just as there are some "alternative writers" who are more sanctimonious than others. But I bet Bonds makes it, first ballot, with an overwhelming majority -- high 90 percent range. The "Holy Writers" you keep disparaging are indeed worthy of some degree of scorn; but let us be thankful they are a small minority.

I agree with Gitz. Just as the holy writers like to make labels, because it's easier to tell their story, I like to call them holy writers.

And I remember when the LT issue came up, the holy voters were all talking about "will he be contrite?". And in the end, what happened? LT said basically to go f- yourself, and he ended up with 31 of 34 votes or so.

That's the whole point. The holy voters want to have some air of omnipotence, but there's always an LT, Howard Stern, or Barry Bonds to tell them that we're all humans, and don't you be the judge of my character.