i disagree. They are ALL factors to be used in determining who is eligible and who is not eligible. It is definitely subjective because HOW MUCH weight you give to each factor and under what circumstances (ie gambling, steroids, sign stealing, doctoring baseballs, etc) is up to each voter.
I’ll add this about voting for the HOF and steroids. The voters have been consistent. If there’s a “body of evidence” and/or an admission of steroid use those players have been consistently left out. However, if there isn’t a direct “body of evidence” they are let in. A good example of this is Jeff bagwell. One of his best friends was Ken Caminiti who has admitted to steroid use. However, that closeness/relationship on its own didn’t keep Bagwell out. My post which you quoted attempted to illustrate that the “body of evidence” regarding alleged steroid use is very different for those 4 guys I listed. It’s much more than “this guy failed the same test that the other guy did”.
I’ll end with this point (which will also answer the question you posed to me). If I were to “rank” those 4 players I would say Clemens and bonds are clearly 1/2. I personally give the slightest of edges to Clemens simply bc pitchers control the game more than an outfielder. However, I could see myself being convinced that Bonds is 1 and Clemens is 2. Then Arod. Then Ortiz. [If I “rank” them on clutchness and/or postseason performances then Ortiz is far and away number 1 and all three of the others are a distant 2,3,4.] However, overall rank that’s how I have them. It’s pretty clear that the majority of baseball writers feel the same way. Bonds and Clemens got over 60% of the vote to be inducted into the HOF but under the rules, that’s not enough to get in. Under the rules and the voting criteria that all players knew about and hasn’t changed in decades Ortiz is in and so far the other three are out. The other three knew those rules (and the risks) when they did steroids. They knew the potential consequences if they got caught. I suspect that’s why they all initially denied it until the “body of evidence” became overwhelming such that they could no longer deny it. I’m not in favor of changing the rules just to pacify those players and/or their supporters. They still have chances to get in that don’t involve just the writers. Let’s see what they say. Several HOFers like Joe Morgan say they shouldn’t be in
Also, I’m not swayed by the argument that “everyone was doing it” or it was “conveniently ignored”. Jeter wasn’t using. Mariano Rivera didn’t use. They both got in on the first ballot and Rivera was a unanimous selection. It’s a disservice to players like them to simply say “everyone was using so let’s allow these guys in”.