Most likely steroids-linked player to enter the hall?

[Stotle]

I see 1989 .0404 HR per AB

1990 .022 HR per AB

1991 .064 HR per AB

It is a dramatic jump, but he was Age 20/21/22 for those years and a catcher at that.

Maybe he did do steroids. I won't be shocked to find out...but I won't be shocked if he was clean.

What is the crux of your argument with the bolded? Do catchers somehow develop monster power from out of nowhere at these ages? Not being difficult -- I just don't see what this has to do with his one-year transformation from projected gap-to-gapper to one of the better power prospects in all of baseball.

[TyCobb]

What is the crux of your argument with the bolded? Do catchers somehow develop monster power from out of nowhere at these ages? Not being difficult -- I just don't see what this has to do with his one-year transformation from projected gap-to-gapper to one of the better power prospects in all of baseball.

His first season in pro ball showed he had serious power.

Catchers spend more time on defense than other positional players.

[ccbird]

Clemens and Bonds will both make it. Both were HOFs before they were assumed to start taking steroids.

Now, this is just my opinion but Bonds numbers in the early part of this decade were so insanely good that I think his dominance should be acknowledged in an era when IMO a very high % of players were using PEDs. For a stretch, he was arguably the most feared hitter ever. It's doubtfull we'll ever again see a player given the respect Bonds was given for a 3 or 4 year period .

[Stotle]

His first season in pro ball showed he had serious power.

Catchers spend more time on defense than other positional players.

Eh, agree to disagree. Coming out of the draft he was projected as a gap-to-gapper that might not ultimately profile as a catcher but would be given the chance to stick there because his bat was questionable for 1B. Part of the reason he was selected as a draft-and-follow. Maybe the Dodgers always saw him as a big-time masher in the making. I don't know.

[Icterus galbula]

I don't think that in the public's eye ARod is equated with the steroid era as much as most of the others on this list. Maybe because he was a talent from day 1, maybe because his peak was later than many of the others, maybe because his implication was later, maybe because he isn't envisioned as a strict HR hitter that the stereotype has become.

I believe that the voters will hold a deep scorn against suspected steroid users, but that guys who came at the end of the wave will be less severely punished. I voted ARod as most likely, but I believe that others on this list will eventually get in.

I personally wouldn't ignore the careers that might've happened without steriods- that is I think Bonds (at minimum) was a HOFer no matter what he put in his body.

I think many voters will give the scarlet letter to any player who they believe used PEDs.

[Moose Milligan]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say Bonds won't make it. At least not on the first ballot anyway.

If we've learned anything this year, we've learned that writers LOVE to make examples out of ballplayers. Witness Alomar not getting in due to people still holding the spitting incident over his head. Look at Albert Belle and what happened there...I'm not saying he's a HoFer but I do believe he was a better player than being a first ballot bounce. Writers "got even" with him for all the years he acted like a jerk to them.

Now Bonds is leaps and bounds better as a player, there's no doubt about that. However I think writers will take it upon themselves to teach him a lesson and keep him out for awhile for a number of reasons...mainly the fact that Bonds is a raging dickhead and the fact that he was so brash and adament about his use of steroids despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Same with Clemens. I don't think they give him a first ballot entry for similar reasons.