Once again, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens weren't voted into the Hall of Fame by the writers. This is not surprising news. It was their 10th and final year on the ballot, so they won't be the constant source of debate around Hall of Fame time that they've been for the past decade anymore. But that doesn't mean the debate is over. Far from it. In fact, the debate's probably gonna get a whole lot fiercer now.
Their fate now rests in the hands of the Today's Game Committee, which will meet in December for the induction Class of 2023. It seems unlikely that they'll be elected this year, but they'll presumably be on the Today's Game ballot again in 2024, then in 2027, then in 2029, etc., until they're voted in, assuming they ever are.
The ironic thing about Bonds and Clemens falling off the writers' ballot now is that had they not reduced the amount of time a player stays on the ballot from 15 years to 10, their chances of getting in via the traditional route would've actually been pretty good. When they first appeared on the ballot in 2013, Clemens received 37.6 percent of the vote and Bonds got 36.2 percent. Neither one crossed 50 percent until 2017--their fifth year on the ballot--and they didn't cross 60 percent until 2020.
This year, Bonds received 260 votes and Clemens 257. That's a little over 65 percent each. As everyone knows by now, you need 75 percent. Making that 10 percent jump in five years isn't unheard of, especially since candidates like Bert Blyleven and Tim Raines got in on their 15th and last try after years of increasing support.
And, frankly, their chances of getting in over the next five years probably would've been better in the writers' hands. The Hall of Fame electorate has been getting younger and younger, and those younger voters, by and large, have tended to support Bonds and Clemens more than the long-time voters. That's why their totals progressively went up each year. So, it would've stood to figure that as more younger, more forgiving voters started filling out ballots, their support would go up even more...and potentially end in election.
Instead, their fate lies entirely in the hands of 16 of their peers. The make-up of the Today's Game Committee changes with each election, but it always includes a mix of former players, managers and executives, as well as writers and broadcasters. And you can bet there will be some pretty strong opinions on those two among the members of that group.
If you think about it, reaching the 75 percent threshold is actually tougher with the Era Committees than it is with the BBWAA. All it takes is five "No" votes. With Bonds and Clemens, that seems likely. At least in the beginning. Will they get there eventually, though? Only time will tell.
But you can bet the debate's going to rage on. Because there's still that camp that will always be a "No" on both of them who you'll never be able to convince to change their minds. Likewise, there are those (like me) who'll always be a "Yes." And there are those in the middle (yes, there are still some of them) who view Bonds and Clemens in a broader historical context. Can you write the history of baseball in the 80s and 90s without them? No, you cannot.
What makes the whole thing so much harder is that anyone who saw either one of them play knows that, "enhanced" or not, they were two of the absolute best players of their era! When you watched them, you knew you were watching an all-time great. They were worth the price of admission. Every! Single! Time! Both were no-doubt-about-it, sure-fire first-ballot Hall of Famers...until they weren't.
For a lot of fans and even some writers and media personalities, the fact that neither one has been elected in the 15 years since he retired is asinine. And their argument is really based around one common point--how can the Hall of Fame call itself a museum that "preserves baseball history" when the all-time single-season and career home run leader isn't a part of it?
Continuing to exclude Bonds and Clemens, some worry, could also be setting up a situation where the Steroid Era is forgotten. That may be exactly what some people want, but you can't just erase an entire era of baseball history! Especially in a history museum! Some also find it entirely hypocritical that Bud Selig, who knew exactly what was going on and turned a blind eye to it, was elected to the Hall of Fame while the players are continually being left out.
Major League Baseball essentially told the writers, "It's your problem now," which, frankly, was entirely unfair. To both the writers and those players. Some have taken a hardline stance and won't vote for anybody they even suspect. Others are more selective about who they vote for. And, with all the Steroid Era players retiring right around the same time, and many of them unlikely to get in, it was going to create a ballot backlog. That's one of the reasons they reduced the amount of time on the ballot from 15 years to 10. Which is another thing that hurt the players.
All of this has essentially guaranteed that the Bonds/Clemens debate will continue to rage on. The writers had their say. It was a "No," but perhaps not as emphatic a "No" as some expected. Which is why there's still some hope for Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. They were widely disliked (and just as widely admired) while they were playing. Then they became the poster children for the Steroid Era. But their fate now lies with their peers, who know as well as anybody how difficult it is to hit a baseball or throw one 95 mph.
We're still months away from the 10-person ballot that the Today's Game Committee will consider even coming out. Likewise, we don't even know who's on the committee. So, it's way too early to handicap their chances later this year (or in any other future election). And we've also seen that it's sometimes more about who you know, which is how Harold Baines ended up getting elected. That could work in their favor or it could work against them.
Eventually, though, I think the anger over the Steroid Era will subside and the Today's Game Committee will vote both Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens into the Hall of Fame. It may take a while, but it'll happen sooner or later. Their numbers, which should speak for themselves, dictate that they belong. And when you put that era in context, when it was impossible to know who was doing what, it's clear that they were the faces of it (in more ways than one).
As for the writers, they no longer need to wrestle with the Bonds and Clemens question year after year. And who knows? With the ballot cleared up, maybe that helps a guy like a Scott Rolen or an Andruw Jones or even a Jeff Kent. And don't worry. The Hall of Fame/steroid debate has now moved on to A-Rod. A guy with his own complicated history that they'll have nine more years to think about until he, too, moves on to the Today's Game Committee.
No comments:
Post a Comment