I just see it differently and I think the HOF should present the players that most showed how the game should be played and did it the best. Bonds (for example) just doesnt meet those qualifications. He WAS on that path, but he CHOSE to go another direction. That really is different than Shoeless Joe or Rose, who did something that was not really related to Baseball performance but did things that brought into question the integrity of the game / results.
The 5-10% you say is just a number, my point is that Bonds really is more like 50% in those years. He could reasonable have been expected to put up 140 down to 125 OPS+ in those years (extrapolating the curve), but instead he jumped up to 250 or so. The article you quote actually talks about increases in offense in those years, but that is factored out in this calculation. OPS+ shows how he did against other players at that time, so if offense goes up or down year to year in the league that is already factored in (i.e. an OPS comparison of a deadball era player and modern player are wildly differnt, but the OPS+ is still a valid comparison). I wasnt trying to say the idea of an increase is wrong, I just think it is much, much larger the 5-10% advantage that was gained and Bonds' numbers show that, closer to 50%.
I agree Bonds is a small sample size, I actually picked him because his OPS+ profile is so strangely smooth. Other guys have 1 year aberations that make it hard to examine, but his is actually pretty smooth, which is a SSS issue. I think in general it is understood that players start with a certain skill level, it maxes sometime in the late 20s and then starts to decline in the 30s until their career ends. Obviously this is a SSS, but over the large amount of data of all players it is shown.
This is the basis of the fact that we simply disagree. I understand your reasoning, but I completely disagree. Bonds forfeited his HOF status because he unrepentantly cheated, and the fact that he could have retired in 1999 and walked into Cooperstown is not relevant. I don't think what he did demonstrates himself to be a "great baseball player". We clearly disagree, not saying anyone is wrong, but to me it is clear. At some point all of these guys will get in the Hall (Bonds, Clements, etc.) but to me it decreases the quality of the institution.
A-Rod shouldnt even be allowed to buy a ticket to enter the HOF he was so laughably unrepentant, but that is another discussion. At least Bonds and Clemens tried to cover it up (Clemens I dont think was ever caught so I think an argument can be made for him just like maybe Dykstra, who everyone knows and was obvious, but he was never actually caught).