Part One: Steroid-Era Players Should Be In the Hall of Fame

The 2010 class of the National Baseball Hall of Fame does more than highlight the need for a Hall of Very Good or it once again raise issues on how the Hall selects its members. It also raises the issue of selecting steroid-era players for membership in this elite club.

Mark McGwire received 23.7 percent of the votes from the BBWA, an increase over last year's balloting when "Big Mac" received 21.9 percent of the votes.

With McGwire recently admitting steroid use, much will be said about his Hall of Fame (HOF) candidacy, and with the periods of players' careers that are HOF-eligible starting to the ever-so-slightly overlap with what many to believe the height of steroid use in baseball.

The issue of even considering steroid-era players for baseball's HOF is as pertinent as ever.

I say put them into the Hall just like everyone else has been since 1936. No special wings in Cooperstown, no special monikers or colors or asterisks on their plaques. If those players eligible for HOF induction from the steroid-era have sufficient merit to join baseball's most elite class, put them in, no questions asked.

If a prospective HOF member has been photographed with bottles of androstenedione sitting in his locker—provided, of course, that he has significant statistical merit—he gets in.

If the player walks to the podium in Cooperstown to give his induction speech with a needle sticking out of his arm, he's in. And yes, even if a player has tested positive for steroid use or use of any other banned substances, they get in.

This last statement will be re-visited and explained later, as I would like to clarify some things first.

This is not a piece opining for the induction of Mark McGwire or the induction of any one specific steroid-era player when he should become eligible for HOF selection. Rather, this piece is more aimed at getting people to question why they might believe so whole-heartedly that no steroid-era player should be even considered for the Hall, much less one that tested positive.

I believe people need to ask themselves—and others—why they believe that steroid use in baseball has somehow "cheated" the game as well as questioning whether these players have cheated anyone or anything in particular more than any other era of baseball.

These are all questions that need to be asked and answered before anyone decides definitively what should be the fate of steroid-era players attempting HOF induction after the conclusion of their careers.

Instead, I feel that many people base their positions on this issue on unequivocal answers to the above questions by others of a deemed "higher" plane of knowledge of sports, namely ESPN and other baseball "purists."

Now, you will notice throughout this piece—if you haven't already—that the phrase "steroid era" will be used quite freely, and this is because I have no qualms with the notion that steroid use in baseball has been prevalent for some time and that many more players than we would like to believe were using them.

For clarity's sake, we can define the "steroid era" as beginning somewhere around 1993 and continuing on through the present day. Note, the beginning of the era is based on the statistical analysis done in Will Carroll's The Juice.

Additionally, the term "punish" will be used somewhat later to denote the denial of steroid-era players into the HOF based simply on their era, or whether they were caught with illegal substances instead of on their abilities as a baseball player.

Starting off, there is no real specific, individual consensus for excluding steroid-era players and users from the HOF. Rather, the general consensus against steroid users and general steroid use in baseball has morphed to apply to HOF voting.

From what I can gather, there are some specific points that people have and use to devalue the accolades placed upon steroid-era players that have been (and will be) used in the context of excluding steroid-era players from the Hall.

Let's assume that we are talking strictly about players that have tested positive for steroid use, as these points would still apply to those players only rumored to have used steroids:

1.) The player(s) took an illegal substance—both in the context of the MLB's drug policy and criminal law—in an effort to better themselves in ways not normally available or attainable given their physiological make-up, which allowed them to perform at a higher level than would be normally possible. Therefore, their ability to be even considered for HOF induction rests more on the shoulders of their steroid use than their normal abilities. They should thus be excluded from the HOF.

2.) The player(s) used a substance that is both illegal and not readily available for consumption by every player in their era, therefore they have "cheated" the game by taking a "shortcut" not available to all players. These acts were unethical as well as immoral, thus they should be excluded from the HOF.

3.) The player(s) used an illegal substance that was only made available through technological advancements outside of baseball, and their use of this advancement makes them "different" players from most of those that are already in the HOF. Therefore, they should be excluded from the HOF.

These are the roots of a number of arguments against praising and defying current steroid-era players and users as well as excluding them from the HOF.

They may be worded differently or combined in different ways but at their core at least one of the three above points will present itself. This is the why of "why steroid-era players/users should not be allowed into the HOF." 

Now, let's go through individually and see if these points actually hold true or are just flimsy-at-best arguments masquerading as self-evident truths; we'll start with No. 3 in this article and work backwards.

The overall point of No. 3 is probably the truest out of all the above points. All one needs to do look at a picture of Babe Ruth as compared to Alex Rodriguez to see the huge difference in body types hinted at in No. 3.

Truth be told, the purpose of point No. 3 is not just to speak on the use of steroids in baseball, but also on the whole of human athletic development, as well as developments in the equipment used in baseball.

This argument is also applied when talking about comparing time periods in baseball: Let's face it, Babe Ruth was a fat drunk that could absolutely pulverize a soft, squishy ball with a telephone pole of a baseball bat. Whereas A-Rod is a physical specimen to behold that can crush a tightly-wound baseball with a lighter bat.

Who would you rather have on your squad?

Personally, I would pick A-Rod, because while he has all the benefits of modern technology—including modern nutrition and athletic training—he is putting up gaudy numbers against pitchers throwing in the mid-90 mph range, whereas Ruth was hitting against similar players that could maybe hit 85 mph with a strong wind at their back.

However, my personal stance on the matter is not the point here, instead the point is: How different is the game now from x-number of years ago, and how different are the players?

Premise No. 3 would have you believe that steroids in baseball have effectively changed the nature of not only the game, but the players in the game. And because HGH wasn't available to the likes of Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, or Mickey Mantle—not that any of them needed it, but that's not the point, either—a player that is known to have taken steroids is of some different baseball species that is not comparable to past species because the differences between the past and present.

And, as  previously said, I take no issue with that sentiment. It is clear that steroids have had a definitive effect on the modern era of baseball. But should that be a reason to exclude steroid users?

Think about this question: What effects did the integration of baseball have on the nature of the game and its players, and has (should) anyone been punished for playing in one era of baseball and not the other?

Since the full integration of the MLB, there has been a definite upward trend in many offensive categories, so not only did the overall face of the players change, but the landscape of the game, as well.

Where is the crying out against the enshrinement of pre-integration players in the HOF? Why are people not skeptical when a pre-integration player—Babe Ruth—is heralded as one of the best to ever play the game?

Or how about the advancements in nutrition and weight training, the addition of a 162-game season along with transcontinental road trips and jet lag?

Here's the point: The face and landscape of baseball had seen many outside changes before the evolution of designer steroids, yet there has been little—if any at all—talk or skepticism of players from those eras being included with those from the preceding one.

Yet for some reason, skepticism is at an all-time high when it comes to steroid-era players being included with those from the preceding eras, even though steroids have been far from the first thing to outwardly change the game of baseball. 

So then it becomes an issue with the extent to which steroids have changed the game of baseball, as it seems people are willing to accept a certain extent of game-changing abilities, but nothing after some phantom line in the sand.

We can see that premise No. 3 is little more than a purely subjective, indefinite stance against steroid-era players and users in the HOF, one whose parameters will be ever-changing to suit the goals of whomever is applying it.

Thus, it is not a meritorious argument to keep steroid users out of the HOF. I will continue on with premises two and three in the next piece, so be sure to check that out.

As always, be sure to check out 643 Sports every Monday night at 7 p.m. CST at www.blogtalkradio.com/643Sports for some of the most entertaining and in-depth sports talk on the Internet.