The PED Conundrum
Should players of the "steroid era" be enshrined in Cooperstown?
First of all, that is a HUGE question to attempt to tackle in a single Substack post.
Second of all, I have a lot of thoughts and sometimes contradictory feelings about how to answer that question.
In order to synthesize all those thoughts and feelings and try to formulate a coherent argument, I had a chat with my new friend Google Gemini. I asked it some questions, hoping that its responses might help me articulate my answer to that question. And maybe it would bring up some things I had not thought about before. So, before I offer my opinions, I thought I would share that conversation with you all, and then follow up with my opinions in a post later this week.
Here is my conversation with Gemini on the topic of whether players who used PEDs should be inducted into the Hall of Fame (the text has been edited for length and clarity; Gemini is not great with keeping its punctuation consistent):
Question: What are the arguments for and against recognizing baseball players like Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire in the Hall of Fame and in the record books, given their use of performance enhancing drugs during their careers?
The debate surrounding Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire's Hall of Fame induction and their place in the record books is one of the most contentious in baseball history. Their use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) during the "Steroid Era" (roughly the mid-1990s to early 2000s) has created a deep divide among fans, players, and voters.
Here's a breakdown of the arguments for and against their recognition:
Arguments for Recognition:
Statistical Dominance:
Unparalleled Achievements: Bonds and McGwire put up numbers that were historically great, even before the widespread suspicion of PED use. Bonds holds the all-time home run record (762) and the single-season record (73), along with numerous other offensive records and MVPs. McGwire broke the single-season home run record in 1998 with 70, in a thrilling race with Sammy Sosa, revitalizing interest in baseball after the 1994 strike.
Pre-PED Performance: Supporters argue that both players were Hall of Fame caliber even before their alleged PED use. Bonds had multiple MVP awards and Gold Gloves prior to his most statistically dominant seasons.
Context of the Era:
Widespread Use: It's widely acknowledged that PED use was rampant and unpoliced in MLB during the Steroid Era. Many argue that Bonds and McGwire were simply operating within the norms of the time, and singling them out is unfair when so many others were likely using. Some suggest that "50-90% of players" were using.
No Formal Rules: At the peak of their suspected use, MLB did not have a robust testing program or clear penalties for PEDs. While steroids were illegal in the US, baseball had no specific ban until 1991, and league-wide testing with penalties didn't begin until 2004. Bonds himself stated, "In my era, there were no rules."
MLB's Culpability: Many argue that MLB and its commissioner at the time, Bud Selig, turned a blind eye to PED use because the offensive explosion, particularly the home run race of 1998, brought fans back to the game after the 1994 strike. They contend that MLB benefited financially from the "steroid era" and shouldn't now punish players for what was tacitly allowed.
Impact on the Game:
Revitalization of Baseball: The home run chase of 1998 between McGwire and Sosa, followed by Bonds' record-breaking seasons, generated immense excitement and media attention, drawing fans back to the sport during a crucial time.
Historical Accuracy: To exclude them would be to create a "Hall of Shame" that ignores a significant period of baseball history. The Hall of Fame's mission is to preserve the sport's history, and a true accounting of that history, even the controversial parts, should include these dominant figures.
Hypocrisy in Voting:
Selective Punishment: Some point to other players, like David Ortiz, who reportedly tested positive for PEDs in anonymous survey testing in 2003 (before penalties were in place) but were still inducted into the Hall of Fame. This is seen as inconsistent application of "character clause" standards.
Other Forms of "Cheating": Throughout baseball history, players have used various means to gain an edge, from "greenies" (amphetamines) to corked bats and scuffed balls. While PEDs are a different category, some argue that the moral outrage is disproportionate given the historical context of rule-bending.
Arguments Against Recognition:
Cheating and Integrity of the Game:
Unfair Advantage: The primary argument against is that PEDs provide an unfair competitive advantage, enhancing strength, power, and recovery time beyond natural human limits. This directly compromises the integrity of the game and devalues the achievements of "clean" players.
Tainted Records: Their record-breaking statistics are seen as illegitimate and should not stand alongside those achieved without artificial enhancement. Many feel that putting an asterisk next to their names in the record books, or simply disallowing their records from being considered "true" records, is appropriate.
Role Models: Inducting players who cheated sends the wrong message to aspiring young athletes, implying that illicit means are acceptable for achieving success.
Violation of Rules (Even if Unenforced):
Illegal Substances: Regardless of MLB's testing policies at the time, anabolic steroids were illegal under federal law. Players who used them were breaking the law.
"Character Clause" of the Hall of Fame: The Hall of Fame's voting criteria include "integrity, sportsmanship, and character." Opponents argue that using PEDs demonstrates a clear lack of these qualities, disqualifying them from baseball's highest honor.
Damage to Baseball's Reputation:
Public Perception: The steroid era cast a dark shadow over baseball, leading to widespread public distrust and cynicism. Including these players without proper context or acknowledgement of their cheating is seen as downplaying the severity of the scandal.
Disrespect to Clean Players: Enshrining players who used PEDs is seen as an insult to those who played clean and competed fairly, some of whom may have had their own numbers overshadowed.
Difficulty in Comparison:
Altered Performance: It's impossible to definitively separate their "clean" performance from their "enhanced" performance, making it difficult to accurately compare their achievements to players from other eras or to clean players from their own era.
Skewed Statistics: The increased home run rates and other offensive numbers during the Steroid Era created a statistical anomaly that makes direct comparisons across eras challenging.
Question: What rules and/or guidance is given to the baseball writers who are voting players into the hall of Fame?
The Baseball Hall of Fame's voting process for recently retired players is primarily handled by the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA). The BBWAA's rules and guidelines are publicly available and cover various aspects of the voting process.
Here's a breakdown of the key rules and guidance given to the baseball writers:
Eligibility for Players:
Playing Time: A player must have been active in the major leagues for at least ten (10) major league championship seasons.
Retirement Period: A player must have ceased to be an active player in the major leagues at least five (5) full calendar years preceding the election. (There are exceptions for players who die during this period, allowing for earlier consideration).
Not on Ineligible List: Any player on Major League Baseball's "ineligible list" (like Pete Rose) is not an eligible candidate. This is a Hall of Fame rule, not a BBWAA rule, and means the writers don't vote on such players.
Voting Criteria:
The official BBWAA rules state:
"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's break down these elements:
Record and Playing Ability: This refers to the player's on-field performance, statistics, and overall talent. This is typically the most objective measure.
Integrity, Sportsmanship, and Character ("The Character Clause"): This is where the controversy largely lies, particularly for players associated with PEDs.
Interpretation: The interpretation of these terms is left to each individual voter. There is no official definition or specific guidance from the Hall of Fame or the BBWAA on how to weigh these factors, especially concerning off-field conduct or, more pertinently, the use of substances that were later banned.
Historical Context: The "character clause" was implemented in 1945. Its application has been inconsistent throughout history, with some voters arguing it should apply primarily to on-field conduct, while others extend it to off-field behavior or adherence to the spirit of the game. For many voters, PED use falls squarely under a violation of integrity and sportsmanship, as it provides an unfair advantage and arguably devalues the records of others.
Contributions to the team(s) on which the player played: This considers a player's impact on their team's success, beyond just individual statistics, such as leadership, clutch performance, and overall influence.
Voting Process:
Ballot Size: Voters can vote for a maximum of 10 eligible candidates. There is no minimum number, so blank ballots can be submitted.
Threshold for Induction: Any candidate receiving votes on at least 75% of the ballots cast shall be elected to membership.
Remaining on Ballot: A player must receive at least 5% of the votes to remain on the ballot for the following year.
Ballot Limit: Players can remain on the BBWAA ballot for a maximum of 10 years. If they do not reach 75% within that time, they are removed from future BBWAA ballots.
The PED Conundrum and the "Character Clause":
The use of the "character clause" has been the primary reason why many voters have withheld their votes from players like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, despite their undeniable statistical dominance. Voters who oppose their induction argue that using PEDs constitutes a fundamental breach of integrity and sportsmanship, making them unworthy of the Hall of Fame's honor.
Conversely, voters who support their induction argue that the "character clause" is too subjective, or that it shouldn't be applied retroactively to an era when MLB had no formal testing or penalties. They might also point to other enshrined Hall of Famers who had character flaws or engaged in questionable practices that were not held against them.
Question: Aside from the PED conundrum, are there players who have the statistics to be voted into the Hall of Fame, but have not been voted in for other reasons?
Yes, absolutely! The Baseball Hall of Fame, despite the emphasis on statistics, has numerous examples of players with strong statistical cases who have been kept out for reasons other than performance-enhancing drug use. These reasons often fall under the "integrity, sportsmanship, and character" clause, or are due to other quirks of the voting process and voter sentiment.
Here are some of the most prominent categories and examples:
Character Clause & Off-Field Conduct (Non-PED):
This is a broad category where voters interpret "character" in a way that excludes players, even if they had excellent on-field careers.
Gambling:
Pete Rose: This is the most famous example. Rose is the all-time hits leader (4,256) and has a resume that would be a no-doubt first-ballot Hall of Famer. However, he was permanently banned from baseball in 1989 for betting on games while he was a player and manager. MLB's rule 21 strictly forbids gambling on baseball, and the Hall of Fame has a rule stating that anyone on the MLB ineligible list cannot be on the ballot. His exclusion is solely due to this severe infraction.
"Shoeless" Joe Jackson: A star outfielder on the 1919 Chicago White Sox, Jackson was one of eight players banned from baseball for his alleged role in throwing the World Series (the "Black Sox Scandal"). Despite a career batting average of .356, he remains ineligible for the Hall of Fame due to the ban, even though his guilt is still debated by some.
Controversial Behavior/Personality:
Curt Schilling: A dominant pitcher with three World Series titles, 216 wins, and over 3,000 strikeouts, Schilling had a strong statistical case. However, his outspoken and often controversial political and social views, particularly in his post-playing career, alienated a significant number of voters. Many BBWAA members openly stated they withheld votes due to his perceived lack of "character" or "sportsmanship" off the field. He famously fell just short of the 75% threshold in his final year on the ballot.
Dick Allen: A powerful slugger and MVP winner, Allen had a career 156 OPS+, which is elite and comparable to many Hall of Famers. However, his career was marked by clashes with management, racial tensions, and a perceived "difficult" personality. This led to him being labeled a "disruptive" player, which impacted his initial BBWAA support. He has come close in Veterans Committee votes but has yet to be inducted.
Shortened Careers / Peak vs. Longevity:
Some players had incredible peaks of dominance but didn't play long enough to accumulate the traditional counting statistics (like 3,000 hits or 300 wins) that often guarantee induction.
Thurman Munson: The Yankees' captain and an MVP winner, Munson was a seven-time All-Star, three-time Gold Glover, and two-time World Series champion. His career was tragically cut short when he died in a plane crash at age 32. While his rate stats and impact were undeniable, his relatively low career totals due to early death have kept him out, though many feel he's a strong Veterans Committee candidate.
Don Mattingly: "Donnie Baseball" was one of the most beloved and dominant players of the mid-1980s, winning an MVP and multiple batting titles. Injuries, particularly to his back, severely curtailed his career after about six elite seasons. His prime was Hall of Fame caliber, but his overall career numbers (1,583 hits, 222 HR) don't meet traditional Hall of Fame thresholds.
Johan Santana: For a period in the 2000s, Santana was arguably the best pitcher in baseball, winning two Cy Young awards and leading the league in multiple categories. Like Mattingly, injuries (especially to his shoulder) cut his career short, preventing him from accumulating the innings and wins often expected of Hall of Fame pitchers. He fell off the ballot quickly.
Voters' "Logjam" or Ballot Limits:
In some years, the ballot has been so crowded with worthy candidates that deserving players simply don't get enough votes to stay on the ballot (needing 5%) or reach the 75% threshold, even if they'd be easy inductees in a less crowded year.
Kenny Lofton: An elite leadoff hitter, center fielder, and base stealer, Lofton compiled 2,428 hits, 622 stolen bases, and a career .299 batting average. He also won four Gold Gloves. Despite his strong all-around game and high WAR, he fell off the ballot after just one year in 2013, a notoriously crowded ballot year.
Lou Whitaker: The long-time second baseman for the Detroit Tigers, Whitaker formed one of the most iconic double-play combinations with Hall of Famer Alan Trammell. Whitaker has very strong WAR totals for a second baseman, comparable to or exceeding several Hall of Famers, and was a consistent All-Star and Gold Glover. His case has gained significant traction with sabermetrics, but he struggled to get votes during his time on the BBWAA ballot. Trammell eventually got in via the Modern Baseball Era Committee, leading many to believe Whitaker deserves the same.
Perceived Insufficiencies in "Traditional" Stats:
Voters, particularly older ones, sometimes rely heavily on traditional counting stats (300 wins for pitchers, 3,000 hits, 500 home runs) even when advanced metrics (like WAR, OPS+, ERA+) show a player's true value.
Bobby Grich: An outstanding defensive second baseman with good power for his position and a high on-base percentage, Grich's WAR totals are among the best for second basemen not in the Hall. However, he never reached the significant hitting milestones that often sway voters, leading to a lack of support.
Ted Simmons: A catcher with excellent offensive numbers, including over 2,400 hits and a strong OBP for his position. Catchers often struggle to accrue "big" offensive numbers due to the demands of the position, and Simmons's case was often overlooked by BBWAA voters. He was eventually inducted by the Modern Baseball Era Committee.
Question: What is the role of the Modern Baseball Era Committee, and have they voted in players who were shunned by HOF voters during their time of eligibility?
The Modern Baseball Era Committee (and its predecessors, often referred to collectively as the "Veterans Committee") plays a crucial role in the Baseball Hall of Fame induction process. It serves as an alternative pathway to Cooperstown for players, managers, umpires, and executives who were not elected by the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA) during their eligibility period.
The Role of the Modern Baseball Era Committee:
The Hall of Fame's election process is structured into "Eras Committees" to ensure that deserving individuals from all periods of baseball history, and in all roles, have a chance for induction. The committees pertaining to players are:
Contemporary Baseball Era Players Committee (1980-Present): This committee considers players whose greatest contributions were made from 1980 to the present, and who are no longer eligible for the BBWAA ballot (i.e., they've been off the BBWAA ballot for more than 15 years, or exhausted their 10 years of eligibility). This committee meets every three years.
Classic Baseball Era Committee (Pre-1980): This committee considers players, managers, executives, and umpires whose greatest contributions were made prior to 1980, including Negro Leagues and pre-Negro Leagues stars. This committee also meets every three years.
Key aspects of their role:
Second Chance: They provide a "second chance" for players who fell short of the 75% threshold on the BBWAA ballot, or who fell off the ballot early (e.g., received less than 5% of the vote).
Smaller Electorate: The committees consist of 16 members, typically comprised of Hall of Famers, executives, and veteran media members. This smaller group allows for more focused discussion and often a different perspective than the larger BBWAA electorate.
Different Criteria Emphasis: While the overall criteria (record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, contributions) remain the same, the committees can sometimes weigh these factors differently. For instance, a player whose career was cut short by injury but had a dominant peak might find more favor with a committee.
Addressing Historical Oversights: Especially the Classic Baseball Era Committee, they are crucial for addressing historical oversights, particularly for players from the Negro Leagues whose careers were not fully documented or recognized during their playing days due to segregation.
To be elected by an Era Committee, a candidate must receive votes on 75% of the ballots cast by the committee members (12 out of 16 votes).
Players Voted In After Being Rejected by BBWAA Voters:
Yes, this is precisely why these committees exist, and they have successfully inducted many players who either struggled to gain traction or completely fell off the BBWAA ballot. Here are some notable examples:
Lou Whitaker (still awaiting, strong candidate): The longtime Detroit Tigers second baseman had a career 75.1 WAR, which is higher than many Hall of Fame second basemen. He only appeared on the BBWAA ballot once, receiving just 2.9% of the vote in 2001. He's been a candidate on Modern Baseball Era Committee ballots and is widely considered a deserving candidate.
Alan Trammell (inducted 2018 by Modern Baseball Era Committee): Whitaker's long-time double-play partner, Trammell was on the BBWAA ballot for 15 years, peaking at 40.9%. He eventually received the call from the Modern Baseball Era Committee. His induction often fuels the argument for Whitaker.
Harold Baines (inducted 2019 by Today's Game Era Committee - predecessor to Contemporary): Baines was a very good hitter with over 2,800 hits and 384 home runs. However, his Hall of Fame case was often debated due to his limited defensive value (primarily a DH later in his career) and relatively lower WAR compared to many Hall of Famers. He never received more than 6.1% on the BBWAA ballot. His induction was controversial to some, but it showed the committee's willingness to prioritize specific statistical milestones or long, productive careers.
Dick Allen (inducted 2021 by Golden Days Era Committee - predecessor to Classic): A supremely talented and powerful slugger, Allen was an MVP winner whose career was often overshadowed by off-field controversies and clashes with management. He never gained significant traction on the BBWAA ballot, but his statistical dominance and impact were eventually recognized by the committee.
Dave Parker (inducted 2025 by Classic Baseball Era Committee): "The Cobra" was a two-time batting champion, MVP, and a key figure on the "We Are Family" Pirates. Despite a very good career, he fell off the BBWAA ballot after six years, never topping 25%. He was finally elected by the Classic Baseball Era Committee in December 2024.
There is no clear consensus among the Modern Era Committee regarding the induction of players from the PED era. It remains a highly divisive issue, reflecting the same split seen among BBWAA voters. Here's why there's no consensus and what the committee's actions have indicated:
Why No Clear Consensus:
"Character Clause" Interpretation: Just like the BBWAA, the Era Committees are bound by the Hall of Fame's "integrity, sportsmanship, and character" clause. The individual members of these committees (who are often Hall of Famers themselves, executives, or veteran media members) have their own personal interpretations of how this clause applies to PED use.
Some committee members may believe that PED use fundamentally violated the integrity of the game and should be an absolute bar to entry.
Others might take a more nuanced view, considering the context of the era (lack of testing/rules), the player's pre-PED accomplishments, or the financial benefit MLB derived from the "steroid era."
Still others might argue that the committee's role is to rectify BBWAA oversights, and if a player's on-field performance was historically dominant, that should outweigh the PED cloud, especially if they were never officially suspended or caught after testing began.
Committee Composition: The specific members of each Era Committee rotate. While there might be some overlap, the composition changes for each ballot, leading to potentially different voting dynamics and varying degrees of leniency or strictness on the PED issue.
Lack of Public Explanation: Unlike BBWAA writers who often explain their votes publicly, Era Committee members do not typically release individual votes or detailed explanations for their choices. This makes it harder to discern a collective "stance."
What Committee Actions Have Indicated:
No PED-Tainted Player Has Been Inducted (Yet): As of the most recent inductions, no player with strong, widely acknowledged ties to PED use (like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, or Rafael Palmeiro) has been elected by any of the Era Committees.
Both Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were on the Contemporary Baseball Era Players ballot in December 2022. Neither received the necessary 75% of votes (12 out of 16). In fact, reports indicated they received fewer than five votes, meaning they are now ineligible for immediate future consideration on that ballot. This suggests that a significant majority of that specific committee's members are still unwilling to vote for players associated with PEDs.
In that same 2022 committee vote, Fred McGriff was unanimously elected. McGriff's career was entirely "clean" of PED suspicion, making him a safe choice and further highlighting the committee's reluctance on the PED issue.
Focus on Non-PED Oversights: The Era Committees have primarily served to induct players who were overlooked for other reasons (shortened careers, traditional vs. advanced stats debate, crowded BBWAA ballots, or personality issues not related to cheating on the field).
The "Clean" Bar: The committees seem to maintain a relatively high "cleanliness" bar, similar to what ultimately prevented Bonds and Clemens from getting into the Hall via the BBWAA ballot. The "taint" of PEDs, whether proven or strongly suspected, appears to be a major hurdle that the Era Committees, thus far, have not been willing to clear for the most prominent figures of the steroid era.
In summary, while the Era Committees offer a pathway for players shunned by the BBWAA, they have not, to date, shown a willingness to open the doors for the most prominent figures of the PED era. The "character clause" and the lingering controversy surrounding steroid use continue to be major obstacles, even with a smaller, more focused voting body. The upcoming Contemporary Baseball Era Players ballot in December 2025 will be the next opportunity to see if this stance begins to shift, though the recent exclusion of Bonds and Clemens suggests it's unlikely in the immediate future.
If anything, I think this little chat with the AI bot only made it more difficult to try to answer the question of whether those who used PEDs should be inducted into the Hall of Fame. Gemini brought up issues that I had not even considered in attempting to formulate an opinion.
I guess I’ve got a lot of thinking to do…