When Murray Chass writes a blog post in which he, himself, is not the most unreasonable person speaking, well, you know you’re on to something special.
Today he writes about voters who voted for either Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens, but who did not vote for both. It’s a topic I’ve personally been fascinated with and have written about it a couple of times here myself.
Chass spoke to a couple of these guys, and here is the justification one gave for voting for Roger Clemens but not voting for Barry Bonds:
“I’ve always believed PEDs shouldn’t be used as a factor in voting, so I went with Clemens and Bonds in the past,” he said in an e-mail. “But, honestly, my head is spinning when I’m researching these guys. So this year I deemed there were numerous strong candidates and decided to invoke the character clause with Bonds, deeming him a jerk who perhaps doesn’t meet Hall standards.
”Look, I know he belongs on merit, but I just had trouble voting for him. I know there are other less than perfect guys but Bonds is way worse. Fact is, I have trouble being consistent year to year with my principles.”
PEDs are not a factor, but Bonds gets the character clause thrown at him for being “a jerk.” Between that and his admission that (a) this so-called expert can’t research the matter at hand without his head spinning; and (b) has no grasp on even his own principles, we are either witnessing the work of the worst Hall of Fame voter in history or else a cleverly subtle intentional public forfeiture of his voting privileges.