"Our third certifiably bright guy, Bob Boone, attended Stanford University. He was the only catcher I'm aware of who was a better fielder in his thirties than in his twenties. The Historical Abstract reports that he 'was a very smart receiver, who worked as hard to stay in shape as anyone who ever played baseball.' The Historical Abstract also says that Boone's teammate Steve Carlton "was the hardest working, best-conditioned baseball player of his generation...[who] used to exercise by jogging twenty minutes in dry ice[;] every step was a marathon.' Well, there's a coincidence. Both Carlton and Boone somehow made themselves into better players circa 1980-81 via intense exercise regimens. Carlton went on to have some of his best years in his mid-thirties, and the weak-hitting Boone was able to extend his career far beyond what anyone would have expected at the time. It's stories like these we need to hear to remind ourselves how hard ballplayers work to keep their dreams alive."

I wouldn't vote for any close cases (which I believe him to be) who look deserving only because they aged what would be unusually well, except that at the height of steroids, it wasn't so unusual.

I don't think using makes them bad people, But I also don't think that's what we want to commemorate. I also realize aging well isn't proof, but I think proof should not be the standard.

If the Hall served mostly as a reward for the players, perhaps more proof should be required. But it doesn't, the Hall serves to codify and keep in memory that which we think is the best of baseball. For the public (and the people who own and run the NBHOF). That the players themselves benefit from it is incidental.

Under those conditions, I don't think Kent is what we should choose to remember his era by, except when considering how we can do better.

Uh, what?? I don't even understand what you're saying here... I think you might be saying you think Jeff Kent doesn't deserves to be in the HOF because he MIGHT have taken PEDs... because he aged well? I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but that seems very silly to me. Jeff Kent is one of the best 2B ever. Without question he belongs in the Hall of Fame. And anyway, ANY player might have used PEDs from this era. Alex freaking Sanchez tested positive. Paul Byrd and Jason Grimsley and many other guys besides the HR hitters tested positive or were named by Mitchell's report... Ken Caminiti used, and yet, he didn't age too well... he died at 41.

I prefer to stick with what we know, rather than what we suspect with no basis whatsoever.

If you're a mayor of a town, planning to name a new park after some prominent citizen and then news came out that looked like there was an 85% chance or so that the guy was a crook, wouldn't you want to name the park after somebody else? I don't give a fuck what Kent deserves and the constant framing of the question in those terms is just wrong. The question is what do our descendants deserve? When they look to see whom we decided was most worth remembering for what they did on the field in the late 1900s into the 2000s, is Jeff Kent one of the people we want them to include.

And saying it's no basis whatsoever is just burying your head in the sand. I doubt if you exclude the 1990s and early 2000s, you could find 6 non-pitchers in all of baseball history who peaked as late as as a whole bunch of them did then. Probably nor a single one peaked as late and as sharply as Kent. And then suddenly, when testing started, people aged normally again. Is it provable? No. But to pretend it wasn't by far the most likely explanation is impossible unless you really, really, really don't want to know.

I think people's misplaced pity for Pete rose must have warped how we talk about who should be in the Hall. Regardless of whether you think Rose should be in, the decision shouldn't be based on whether it's good for him; it should be based on whether it's good for the public. Fairness and the perception of fairness are a part of that, so I understand a desire impartially apply fixed standards, but unlike in criminal proceedings, that should not be the primary concern.