My strong presumption is that Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens will not make the Hall of Fame this year. I think, at best, they get about 50% of the vote and stay in that limbo-land until the anti-PED crowd’s fever breaks.
But I just read something that makes me wonder if I’m being too pessimistic. It’s a column from Ian O’Connor of ESPN New York in which he takes the “Bonds and Clemens were so good that you have to vote for them even though they juiced” tack. Kind of a “discounter” argument which, while obviously flawed, makes some degree of sense and allows one to differentiate between guys like McGwire and Palmeiro on the one hand — guys who may not have had Cooperstown numbers without PEDs — and Bonds and Clemens on the other, who were gonna make it regardless.
This is somewhat surprising coming from O’Connor, because he has, in the past, given off all the indications of a “PED use = disqualification” kind of guy. Back in 2010 he demanded that Mets general manager Sandy Alderson offer a public apology for being complicit in allowing “the monstrous steroid culture to grow fangs on his watch.” Earlier that year he eviscerated Alex Rodriguez as a player who “cheated the game, cheated the fans and cheated himself” and wrote that nothing could “absolve him of his not-so-venial steroid sins.”
I know there is a vast, silent block of Hall of Fame voters who don’t actively write columns and tweet like O’Connor does and who do not, per their job description, think all that much about baseball. As such, he may not be truly representative of the electorate and thus it may be premature to view O’Connor’s surprising reasonableness about Bonds and Clemens as some sort of harbinger.
But it is interesting. Very, very interesting.