It’s Over: Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens Fall Far Short of the Hall of Fame

Today in San Diego, the Hall of Fame’s Eras Committee made it abundantly clear that two of the greatest players in the history of baseball, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, are not going to get into the Hall of Fame anytime soon.

Bonds and Clemens were two of the eight candidates of the Contemporary Baseball Players Eras Committee ballot who were considered for election to receive a plaque in Cooperstown, New York. The 16-member committee unanimously elected slugging first baseman Fred McGriff to the Hall of Fame, while also conferring eight “yes” votes to first baseman Don Mattingly, seven to pitcher Curt Schilling, and six to outfielder Dale Murphy. A minimum of 12 out of 16 votes (75%) were required for enshrinement.

Bonds and Clemens, along with first baseman Rafael Palmeiro and outfielder Albert Belle, all received “less than four votes,” which is the Hall’s way of not embarrassing anybody who might have gotten zero.

This committee balloting process (known as the Contemporary Baseball Eras Committee) represented a “second chance” for the eight players on the ballot, all of whom fell short of 75% when they appeared on the BBWAA (Baseball Writers Association of America) ballot.

If the voting decisions that were made today were only about deeds on the diamond, Bonds and Clemens would have been easy choices. But, clearly, the members of this committee decided to draw an indelible line in the sand that they did not feel like players who were linked to Performing Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) had any business being honored with plaques in Cooperstown. The fact that McGriff (who hit 493 home runs in an excellent but not “all-time great” career) received 16 out of 16 votes while Bonds (the all-time home run king with 762) received a maximum of 3 out of 16 votes made it crystal clear. The Hall of Fame as an institution does not want Bonds or Clemens (or any other PED-linked players) in the Hall.

Back in January, Bonds and Clemens (along with Sammy Sosa and Schilling) were on the BBWAA ballot for the 10th and final time. Bonds got 66.0% of the vote, Clemens 65.2%. In most elections, getting nearly two-thirds is a “win,” but not for the Hall of Fame. Players need 75% or more to get enshrined in Cooperstown. Now, as a practical matter, until this year, every player in the history of the Hall of Fame balloting who once got at least 50% of the BBWAA vote has wound up getting elected later on by the Eras Committee (which used to be known as the Eras Committee). That has changed (at least for now) with Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling (who got 71.1% of the BBWAA vote in 2021) all falling short of the Hall of Fame with this Contemporary Baseball Players Committee.

The outcome today was not hard to predict. Once the Hall announced the identities of the 16 members of the Contemporary Baseball Eras Committee, it seemed clear that the odds were slim for Bonds or Clemens (and especially Palmeiro, who failed a PED test in 2005). There were six Hall of Famers on the committee (Frank Thomas, Ryne Sandberg, Alan Trammell, Greg Maddux, Jack Morris, and Lee Smith), seven MLB executives (Paul Beeston, Theo Epstein, Arte Moreno, David St. Peter, Ken Williams, Derrick Hall, and Kim Ng) and three members of the BBWAA (La Velle Neal, Susan Slusser, and Steve Hirdt).

Among the seven ex-players on the committee, four (Thomas, Sandberg, Morris, and Williams) had previously publicly offered strongly negative views about players who used PEDs. While the feelings of most of the others were unknown, it felt to many Hall of Fame observers as if the proverbial “fix” was in to make sure that neither Bonds nor Clemens would get anywhere near the 12 votes needed for the Hall of Fame.

What is unknown is whether “the room” decided early that Bonds and Clemens didn’t have 12 “yes” votes and whether even though who might have been in favor (including Neal and Slusser, who voted for both players on the 2022 BBWAA ballot) decided not to waste their precious votes and focused on the five “clean” candidates instead. Regardless, it’s crystal clear right now that the BBWAA represented the best chance for Bonds and Clemens to make it. Now that they’re in the Eras Committee eligibility zone, they’ll have to wait three years until the next Contemporary Baseball Players ballot convenes.

The BBWAA Hall of Fame Debates

During every BBWAA voting cycle from 2013-2022, there were two concurrent debates. The first was for the writers to determine who were the (up to) ten most worthy players to be selected for the Hall. The second debate was whether two of the greatest players in the history of the game (Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens) were worthy of the sport’s greatest honor. It was (and continues to be) a debate that pits writer against writer, fan against fan, and Hall of Fame legend against Hall of Fame legend.

In a universe without PEDs or a universe in which they were tolerated or accepted, both Barry and the Rocket would have been first-ballot selections to the Hall of Fame in 2013. But that’s not the universe we live in. Two of the greatest poster boys for the PED era appeared on the BBWAA ballot ten times, and ten times they fell short of the Hall of Fame.

A few years ago, it looked like Bonds and Clemens were gaining momentum in terms of changed hearts and minds but that momentum stalled in their final years on the ballot. Bonds got just twelve more votes in 2022 than he did in 2021, with Clemens getting ten more. That was minor forward progress (the result of some new, younger voters replacing older ones) but it’s not what they needed. Bonds fell 36 votes shy of the 75% needed for induction into Cooperstown this January; Clemens was 39 votes shy.

Bonds and Clemens became the second and third players in the history of the BBWAA voting to finish with over 50% but less than 75% in each of their final six years on the ballot; the other was Jim Bunning, who was later inducted by the Veterans Committee. (Schilling, who also debuted on the BBWAA ballot in 2013, finished with over 50% but less than 75% of the vote in his last five years on the ballot).

This piece is mostly about the ever-changing politics of the Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens conundrum, including a bevy of quotes from the scribes who are tasked with voting on the Hall of Famers. Before we get to that, here’s the “Cooperstown Cred” for each player. Nothing more is needed to show that Bonds and Clemens were, on the field, two of the best players in the history of baseball.

Cooperstown Cred: Barry Bonds (LF)

10 years on the BBWAA ballot (received 66.0% of the vote in 2022)

• Pirates (1986-92), Giants (1993-2007)
• Career: .298 BA, .444 OBP, .607 SLG, 762 HR, 1,996 RBI, 514 SB
• Career: 182 OPS+, 162.8 WAR (Wins Above Replacement)
• 762 HR and 2,558 BB are the most in baseball history
• 73 home runs in 2001, the most for a single season in MLB history
• Only player in MLB history with over 400 HR and over 400 SB
• Career 162.8 WAR is the most for position players in MLB history
• 7-time N.L. MVP (1990, ’92, ’93, ’01, ’02, ’03, ’04)
• 8-time Gold Glove Award Winner
• 12-time Silver Slugger
• 14-time All-Star

Embed from Getty Images

Cooperstown Cred: Roger Clemens (SP)

10th year on the ballot (received 65.2% of the vote in 2022)

• Boston Red Sox (1984-96), Toronto Blue Jays (1997-98), New York Yankees (1999-2003, 2007), Houston Astros (2004-06)
• Career: 354-184 (.658 WL%), 3.12 ERA, 4,672 strikeouts
• Career: 143 ERA+, 138.7 WAR (Wins Above Replacement)
• Won 20 or more games 6 times
• Only pitcher ever to strike out 20 batters in a game twice
• Career 139.0 WAR is 3rd most all-time for pitchers (Cy Young, Walter Johnson)
• 7-time Cy Young Award Winner (1986, ’87, ’91, ’97, ’98, ’01, ’04)
• Won 1986 A.L. MVP (24-4, 2.48 ERA)
• 11-time All-Star
• Won Pitching Triple Crown (Wins, ERA, SO) in 1997 & 1998

Embed from Getty Images

The 16 People on the Contemporary Baseball Players Committee

In the previous section, I alluded to the anti-PED sentiment that was already known among the 16 members of the committee.

Now, as previously noted, we do know that two of the media members on the committee (La Vell Neal and Susan Slusser) did vote for both Bonds and Clemens in their final turn on the BBWAA ballot this January. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they voted for them on this committee ahead of other candidates, but it does mean that they probably weren’t leading the charge against them.

With one exception, not much was previously known about how the six executives (Paul Beeston, Theo Epstein, Arte Moreno, David St. Peter, Derrick Hall, Kim Ng, and Ken Williams) felt about whether PED users should be enshrined in Cooperstown. The one exception is Williams, the longtime General Manager and current Executive Vice-President of the Chicago White Sox. Prior to joining the White Sox organization as a scout in 1992, Williams had a six-year MLB career, playing for the White Sox, Tigers, Blue Jays, and Expos. In this quote from 14 years ago, Williams did not address the specific issue of putting PED users in the Hall of Fame, but he did indicate that he wasn’t a fan of the practice.

“First and foremost, I would not knowingly bring in someone I thought or suspected of doing something.”

— Ken Williams (Chicago Tribune, 1/27/2008)

In the article, the author (Mark Gonzales) notes that Williams had previously said that he believes he was let go by the Tigers during his playing career in favor of a player who he suspected was chemically enhanced. This didn’t necessarily mean that Williams was an automatic “no” for Bonds and Clemens, but it’s a really strong indicator, given the final results.

Williams’ tenure with the White Sox intersected with the playing career of first baseman Frank Thomas, who, as a player, was a vociferous proponent of testing players for steroids. However, it shouldn’t be assumed that Thomas came into the meeting on Sunday as a guaranteed “no” against Bonds and Clemens. He seemed to soften his position on the matter in 2017 when Jeff Bagwell and Ivan Rodriguez were elected to the Hall. Although there are no definitive links with respect to either player, there was suspicion that both players used PEDs.

“They (Bonds and Clemens) should be in now, as far as I’m concerned. They’ve let a few people in already we all know. It’s uncomfortable at this point. I’m sure this year’s going to be uncomfortable because we’ve got two great players going in, but they know. It’s no secret. If they didn’t do it, they would be stomping and kicking and in interviews saying ‘I didn’t do it.'”

— Frank Thomas (Associated Press, January 28, 2017)

So, let’s consider Thomas’s predispositions an unknown. However, I will say this: if the Big Hurt made an emphatic case in front of the 15 other committee members to not elect PED users, his would have been one of the strongest and most persuasive voices.

As for the other players on the committee (Greg Maddux, Jack Morris, Alan Trammell, Ryne Sandberg, and Lee Smith), there are two who had been quoted as being against putting PED users into Cooperstown.

Morris was specifically asked about Rafael Palmeiro shortly after Palmeiro’s suspension but he was fairly emphatic about how he felt in general terms:

“They’re all cheaters, in my opinion. One of the credentials for the Hall of Fame is integrity, credibility and character. You tell me what that says about Rafael. … I played the game with my heart. I focused on winning. That’s all that I cared about.”

— Jack Morris (espn.com, August 10, 2005)

Morris also said that he didn’t even want to be in the Hall if someone known to have used steroids was inducted as well. “It’s my life. I can say what I feel, and I don’t believe in cheating,” Morris added.

Ryne Sandberg was also on record (much more recently) against putting steroid users into the Hall.

“No steroid guys should be in the Hall of Fame. It’s about stats, integrity and playing by the rules. There’s no cheating in Major League Baseball or the Hall of Fame.”

— Ryne Sandberg (Fansided, October 4, 2018)

I couldn’t find anything from Maddux, Trammell, or Smith about the Bonds/Clemens controversy. There was a seventh player on the committee (Chipper Jones) who had previous public statements both in favor and against, but he was replaced by Derrick Hall at the last minute due to an illness.

Anyway, if Thomas, Morris, Sandberg, Williams, and just one other committee member made it clear to the rest of the group that they would not support Bonds and Clemens, then the path to 12 votes and the Hall of Fame was closed. It’s possible that even those who might have been pre-disposed to vote in favor decided not to bother.

The Four Voting Blocs with respect to PEDs

This piece was originally posted on January 1, 2018. With the exception of the updated “Conclusion” at the end, most of the balance of the piece is from the January 2022 version of the article, which discusses how the politics of Bonds and Clemens changed with respect to the members of the BBWAA (Baseball Writers Association of America).

Generally speaking, with respect to the writers of the BBWAA and the general public, there have been four different voting perspectives when it comes to players linked or suspected of using Performance Enhancing Drugs.

#1 — “Zero tolerance” voters

For some writers and fans, the choice of whether to vote for Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens is easy. There is no angst whatsoever. Theirs is a zero-tolerance policy. Bonds, Clemens, and others cheated the game and their fellow players and should not be rewarded with the sport’s ultimate honor, plaques honoring their careers in Cooperstown. The zero-tolerance voters will not cast a ballot for a player that they even suspect might have used PEDs. For these writers, even the slightest suspicion of PED use will result in a “no” vote. For this voting bloc, zero tolerance means that you’re guilty until proven innocent. Besides, of course, not voting for Bonds or Clemens, these writers generally did not vote for the “suspected,” the recently inducted Mike Piazza, Jeff Bagwell, and Ivan Rodriguez.

It’s not easy to argue with those who espouse this point of view. In their minds, the Hall of Fame represents the ultimate honor, one that should not be tainted with the presence of those who didn’t honor the game.

“I tend to be an absolutist when it comes to performance-enhancing drug users: If you are a cheat, you can’t be in the Hall of Fame. It’s also important to note that the Hall of Fame isn’t a court of law; you do not need to believe someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt not to vote for them. No one’s freedom is at stake… I would never vote for Bonds or Clemens, and I’m appalled that close to two-thirds of my colleagues who do vote chose to put aside the damage that duo and their blatant fellow users did to the game.”

— John Feinstein (Washington Post, Jan 28, 2022)

(Feinstein no longer votes on the Hall of Fame because the Washington Post doesn’t allow its reporters to do so)

“I have been clear in my position on cheaters. I don’t vote for them. Whether or not they have been caught using steroids or other PEDS, Bagwell and Rodriguez have long been associated with steroids.”

— Murray Chass (www.murraychass.com, formerly of the New York Times, Dec. 31, 2017)

“Once, I had zero problem with athletes juicing to better entertain the paying customers. Their bodies, their choice. But the more disgusting it became every time the Basketball Hall of Fame inducted some rotten cheating coach, the more clear it became that people who illegally manipulate the outcomes of games, whether alleged or convicted, should not be rewarded with immortality. So there will be no vote for otherwise obvious Hall of Famers Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Roger Clemens, Manny Ramirez or David Ortiz.”

— Jack McCaffrey (Delco Times, Nov. 17, 2021)

#2 — “Whispers are OK, definitive links are not” voters & the Ortiz/Canseco Exceptions

Here’s where it gets murky. This bloc of voters gave the benefit of the doubt to Piazza, Bagwell, and Rodriguez but not to players for whom they have no doubt. For this group of voters, players hauled in front of Congress (Mark McGwire, Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro) are out. Players who were named in the George Mitchell Report on Steroids (Bonds, Clemens, Palmeiro, and Gary Sheffield) are out. Players who failed drug tests (Palmeiro, Manny Ramirez) are out.

For most in the bloc, however, being named in Jose Canseco’s book Juiced is not enough evidence to deny a Hall of Fame plaque. This is the “Canseco exception.” I-Rod, considered by most to be the greatest defensive catcher in the history of the game, was outed by his former Texas Rangers teammate but he became a first-ballot Hall of Famer anyway, getting nearly 100 more votes than either Bonds or Clemens when he was first eligible in 2017.

“I sheepishly voted for Pudge Rodriguez…. because, though Pudge’s name appeared in Jose Canseco’s book, it did not appear in the more credible Mitchell Report.”

— Dave Albee (marinij.com, Dec. 28, 2016)

“My hand hovered above the Bonds box, the Clemens box and the Sosa box…. I know the tide is turning, and, oh, did I come close… But I couldn’t do it… Jose Canseco, who, sadly, has been proven right on these matters more often than he has been proven wrong, has outed Pudge as a PED guy. I’m choosing to ignore it. I told you this was tricky business.”

— Bob Ryan (Boston Globe, Jan. 5, 2017)

As Ryan said, it’s tricky business. I read both of Canseco’s books, Juiced and Vindicated, the second of which he published after his derided claims in Juiced turned out to be mostly true. Canseco said he injected Rodriguez with steroids. I cannot think of any reason that he was making this up. It was not fake news. And yet, there are a lot of voters who drew a line between Senator Mitchell and the baseball pariah Canseco.

On the 2022 ballot, there was a new player who also got a carve-out with these voters. It’s David Ortiz, who was named in a New York Times article for having failed a “survey” test in PED, the results of which were supposed to be permanently anonymous. However, late in Ortiz’s final campaign (in 2016), Commissioner Rob Manfred said it was “unfair” for the Red Sox slugger’s legacy to be “tarnished” by that report, given that there were 10 false positives in the survey sample. “Even if your name was on that (anonymous) list,’’ Manfred said, “it’s entirely possible that you were not positive.” Manfred’s statement was good enough for some writers to check Ortiz’s name on their ballots but not the names of Bonds and Clemens. Ortiz was a first-ballot inductee to the Hall of Fame, getting 77.9% of the vote this January.

“The steroid era did permanent damage to the sport. It also hurt the players who followed the rules and were thus competing at a severe disadvantage. Not only that, it hurt former players such as Hank Aaron, who was the all-time home run king and was passed by Bonds. So why is David Ortiz on this writer’s ballot?… In 2009, the New York Times reported that Ortiz was among the list of players who failed a 2003 anonymous drug test. Commissioner Rob Mandred says there were 10 false positives in the survey testing and it is possible that Ortiz was one of them.”

— Marc Narducci (MLB Trade Rumors, Dec. 17, 2021)

This group of voters has not had to make the distinction between “whispers” and “links” since the election of Rodriguez and Bagwell. There have been no candidates in the last few years to hit the ballot who are in that “whisper” category.

What about Sammy Sosa?

In the last 10 years, there was an exception to the “whispers are OK” group and that exception was Sosa. Slammin’ Sammy never failed an official drug test and he wasn’t named in the Mitchell Report but has never gotten the benefit of the doubt. In terms of documented PED links, the only one with Sosa is the same survey test on which Manfred gave Ortiz a pass. If there’s a double standard regarding Sosa, it’s for these reasons.

First, there’s the eye test. If you look at before and after pictures of Sosa’s physique, it defies rationality to explain his Greek God body of the late 1990s/early 2000s to anything but PEDs.

Whatever he did, Sosa overdid it. Sosa hit 60 or more home runs in 3 out of 4 seasons (1998, 1999, 2001). There’s virtually nobody (myself included) who believes that he achieved that feat authentically. This is despite some compelling research I recently read that makes the case that the impact of steroids on home run hitting is significantly overstated.

The second reason is this: the difference between Sosa and Ortiz is that Ortiz passed 12 years’ worth of drug tests; the vast majority of his career occurred after the implementation of the sport’s drug-testing policy while Sosa only played for two seasons under the drug testing regime and his power game evaporated in those two seasons. Thus, Sosa remains on the outs (he received just 18.5% of the vote in his 10th and final year on the BBWAA ballot this January), while Ortiz got the I-Rod treatment and delivered a speech in Cooperstown this July.

#3 — “Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens exception” voters

Over the last several years, this slowly become the biggest voting bloc among the BBWAA voters. Generally, this group did not vote for McGwire or Palmeiro and they don’t vote for Sosa, Ramirez, or Sheffield (although Sheff made some gains in the 2020 and 2021 votes). These writers voted for Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens for a couple of reasons.

First, there’s the indisputable fact that these were two of the sport’s all-time great players. The Rocket had already won 3 Cy Young Awards and an MVP trophy before he allegedly started using PEDs. Before his alleged dive into steroids, Bonds had already won 3 MVPs, 8 Gold Gloves and had become the first (and only) member of the 400-400 club (400 home runs and 400 stolen bases).

There are a great number of voters who transitioned from the “zero tolerance” group or the “whispers are OK” group to the “Bonds-Clemens exception” group after Commissioner Bud Selig was elected to the Hall of Fame by the “Today’s Game” Committee in December 2016. Whether it’s fair or not (mostly not), there were a great many writers who felt that, if the commissioner who oversaw the steroid era was suitable for a plaque in Cooperstown, so too should be the very best players of that generation. At the same time as the Selig rationale was taking root, there was the 2016 induction of whisper candidate Piazza and the looming elections of whisper candidates Rodriguez and Bagwell in 2017.

To me, this is a highly rational position. If you believe that Rodriguez, Bagwell, and/or Piazza used PEDs and yet you voted for them anyway, how do you justify withholding a vote for Bonds and Clemens?

“Yes, I’m voting for Bonds and Clemens for the first time… It’s a Bud Selig thing. If he’s in, Bonds and Clemens must go in. Selig did a ton of good during his years as commissioner and is Hall of Fame-worthy, but he also presided over the game during the height of the steroid era.”

— Steve Buckley (Boston Herald,Dec. 23, 2016)

“I understand that it’s complicated. I understand that it’s messy. I understand there would be a powerful backlash if Induction Weekend ever arrived for these two men. But they played baseball at a time when we know that hundreds of players were taking something or other — and by the way, there’s like a 100 percent chance we’ve already elected some of them. Right? I don’t know the best way to handle that mess. So I’d rather just vote for two of the greatest players in history and let the Hall of Fame figure out how to explain the PED era.”

— Jayson Stark (The Athletic, Jan. 17, 2020)

“I’ve voted for Bonds and Clemens every year since 2013. My support for them has been unwavering. Yes, I realize using steroids gave hitters (and a good number of pitchers) an unfair advantage. I don’t condone cheating. Anyone who tests positive or confesses to juicing is automatically stricken from my ballot. If there’s no substantive proof of PED use, I’m willing to give a candidate a closer look… If the commissioner’s office (and, in Clemens’ case, the federal government), couldn’t deliver evidence gainst the two, that’s good enough for me. I’m not a prosecutor. I’m not a pharmacist. I work with data, no suspicion.”

— Bob Klapisch (nj.com, Dec. 26, 2021)

“I’ve written about these two often, and they are easy to group together. Yes, I’m bothered by the steroids usage. Yes, I consider it cheating. But I believe they excelled in their careers before taking performance enhancers. I think they are two of the best players of their generation and most of their careers occurred before MLB testing.”

— Dan Connolly (The Athletic, Dec. 28, 2021)

While I have no doubt about Bonds, Clemens and others having achieved with the use of illegal supplements, I made a determination that I would draw the line at 2003. Starting in 2004, MLB, with acquiescence (finally!) of the Players Association, instituted a strict policy that, for the first time, included regular testing and stringent penalties. If players are so brazen and/or stupid to have used from 2004 on, and were caught, that eliminates them from my consideration. Thus, Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez are not part of my ballot.

— Sean McAdam (Boston Sports Journal, Dec. 17, 2021)

Many of these voters also voted for Ortiz on the basis of Manfred’s statement about the possible false positives in the 2013 survey testing but have withheld their votes from Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez because of their actual suspensions for PED use.

#4 — “Performance Only” Voters

This is a smaller bloc but it’s a handful of writers who vote based on performance only. They vote as if the steroid era did not exist. The philosophy is that nobody knows for sure who was or wasn’t using. Even when it’s obvious, such as in the case of Sosa for instance, what’s not so obvious is how many pitchers he was facing who were also juicing. Writers who vote this way all voted for Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. They vote for Rodriguez and Ramirez and some also voted for Sosa.

“We know Manny was perhaps the greatest right-handed hitter of his generation… Was it all a product of PEDs? We just don’t know. And, we just don’t care… We started voting for Sammy, then stopped, now we’re back again. Was he among the most transcendent, recognizable players in the sport for nearly a decade?.. Was all or most of it a result of PED use? Almost certainly. We feel more guilty voting for Sosa because we feel, more so than Bonds, Clemens or Manny, he’s the product of a syringe. But it would be somewhat hypocritical not to vote for him and to vote for those other three.”

— David Borges (New Haven Register, Dec. 27, 2018)

“For this voter, the steroids issue is irrelevant. The Hall of Fame already has one admitted “cheater” in Gaylord Perry, who threw a spitball after it had been outlawed. It has some members suspected of using amphetamines, and some admitted users, substances which were illegal and performance enhancers.”

— Bill Ballou (Worcester Telegram & Gazzette, Dec. 12, 2021)

“We all know they (Bonds and Clemens) are two the best players in baseball history… I have voted for both players every year and am getting tired of it. Ten years is enough. Either get in or get off the ballot… There is no denying he (Rodriguez) used steroids. He admitted it. He got nailed not once but twice. So why do I vote for him? Because I refuse to sit in judgment of the Steroid Era.”

— TR Sullivan (Substack, Dec. 21, 2021)

“With apologies to ‘A Few Good Men,’ I’m off the wall. The HOF character clause was not important enough for MLB to take real action while all this was going on, so here we are in this mess with the HOF ballot. I’m done playing amateur PED detective.”

— Kevin Kernan (Ball Nine, Dec. 26, 2021)

Gary Sheffield has a unique case. He admitted (while he was still playing) that he had used steroids but that he didn’t realize that the “cream” substance that he used was in fact a steroid. He had never done very well on the ballot but had a bit of a surge in 2021 (from 30.5% in 2020 to 40.6%) before stalling in 2022 (40.5%).

The Hall of Fame Voting Trends for Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens

Below is a year-by-year progression of the Bonds and Clemens vote in their ten years on the ballot. You’ll notice that the two players have nearly identical voting percentages each year, which is not surprising since they’re both obvious Hall of Famers based on the numbers and also players who obviously used PEDs. I’ve added Sosa’s vote totals to the chart for comparative purposes.

WP Table Builder

For the first three years of the voting, it was pretty clear that the writers had drawn their respective lines in the sand and weren’t going to budge from their positions. After three years, it seemed pretty hopeless that either Barry or the Rocket would be able to ever get from the mid-’30s to the needed 75% of the vote to get into the Hall.

This looked like the abortion debate in politics. If one side is convinced it’s murder and the other side believes that a woman has the right to control her own body, it’s hard to move people from one position to the other. In the minds of voters, either Bonds and Clemens were cheaters and disgraced the game or you accept their PED use and recognize them for being the Hall of Famers that they already were before they started using.

Forward Progress in 2016

So what changed in 2016, when the two controversial figures bumped up to 44%-45%?  What changed was that the electorate shrunk.

WP Table Builder

For the first time, our two principal characters saw a relatively small, but meaningful, boost in their voting support. There were a few key differences between 2015 to help explain the difference.

• The 2016 ballot had just 440 voters (BBWAA members who had been inactive for 10 years were purged), creating (overall) a younger and perhaps more forgiving voting electorate. This means that Clemens and Bonds each received a higher voting percentage despite a smaller overall vote total.
• Both Bonds and Clemens saw a net gain of 14 new voters among the 310 who publicly revealed their ballots. All but one of the new supporters also voted for Mike Piazza, who joined Griffey in the HOF Class of ’16.

First Crack in the PED Wall

The induction of Piazza was to some the first crack in Cooperstown’s PED wall. Unlike Bonds and Clemens (who had congressional investigations tied to their abuse of steroids), Piazza had no link whatsoever. He wasn’t called to testify to Congress, he wasn’t named in Canseco’s tell-all books, and he wasn’t named in the Mitchell Report on steroids. No link at all. The case against Piazza was that he had acne on his back. The case against him was that he hit too many home runs for a catcher, that he was too strong, and that a 62nd-round draft pick shouldn’t have turned into the most powerful hitter for a catcher in the history of the sport.

The suspicions about Piazza were no longer a good enough reason for writers to exclude him from Cooperstown and, for some, it was also a legitimate reason to start voting for Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.

“I had never voted for Bonds or Roger Clemens or others with paper trails to performance-enhancing drugs, but I did vote for Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell, who didn’t have paper trails but were indirectly linked to PEDs through speculation, rumor or innuendo… Did they use PEDs? I have no idea, but it’s possible they did… How could I in good faith not vote for Bonds when I might be voting for other PED guys?”

— John Shea (San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 5, 2016)

For Bonds and Clemens, the 2015 to 2016 increase of their voting support by about 7.5% each was promising but not the kind of earth-shattering change that would lead to a 75% super-majority needed to get into the Hall. About 130 more hearts and minds would still need to be changed.

Another Surge in 2017

Well, it wasn’t 130 hearts and minds that changed but, in 2017, Barry Bonds got 43 more votes and Roger Clemens got 40 more.

WP Table Builder

The reasons for this shift were that more writers moved from the “whispers are OK but links are not” to the “Bonds-Clemens exception” bloc of voters. This shift occurred because of the reasons outlined above. First, Selig’s election to the Hall made some writers feel like hypocrites for not voting for Bonds and Clemens. Second, the induction of Piazza and the inevitable inductions of Bagwell and Rodriguez led others to feel that the dam had broken. For many voters, if you already have players in the Hall who you believe used steroids, you might as well let the best of the best join them.

So, with Baggy and I-Rod joining Piazza in the Hall in 2017, did that mean that the Cooperstown PED wall was crumbling down?

The 2018 Hall of Fame Vote

WP Table Builder

The answer, clearly, is that the positive voting momentum that Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens got in 2016 and 2017 came to a screeching halt in 2018. Both Bonds and Clemens saw their voting percentage go up slightly but that is clearly explained more by the expulsion of more older writers from the voting process and not by more minds being changed.

According to Ryan Thibodaux’s vote tracker, only four voters switched in favor of Bonds and Clemens from 2017 to 2018. Meanwhile, Bonds lost three supporters while Clemens lost one. Bonds fell 79 votes shy of 75%, Clemens 76 votes shy. A net gain of one vote each was not what their doctor ordered. The only good news is that the “new voter” trend continued in their favor. 11 out of the 13 new voters checked Barry’s name; 12 out of 13 voted for the Rocket.

Why Did Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens Stall in 2018?

This is the Hall of Fame question that matters most and it’s why we’re still debating these players 10 years after they first appeared on the BBWAA ballot.

There are a couple of theories about why their slow climb to 75% was stalled four years ago. The first theory is that there was no other event relating to the Hall of Fame that provided a catalyst to help switch votes in favor of the superstar duo. To recap:

• 2016: Mike Piazza (suspected of PED use) was elected to the Hall. Also, the BBWAA vote was pruned to eliminate voters who had stopped covering the game 10 years or more in the past.
• 2017: Bud Selig (the commish who oversaw the PED era) was elected by the Today’s Game Committee (what used to be known as the Veterans Committee). Also, voters had Ivan Rodriguez and Jeff Bagwell (suspected users) on their ballots.

In 2018, unlike the previous two years, nothing changed to help shift hearts and minds into the Bonds/Clemens camp. Jack Morris and Alan Trammell were elected by the Modern Baseball Committee. The two Tigers and the top four BBWAA candidates (Chipper Jones, Vladimir Guerrero, Jim Thome, and Trevor Hoffman) were all widely considered to have been clean.

The 2019-2022 Votes: Bonds and Clemens Remained in Voting Quicksand

We’ve shown previously that Bonds and Clemens were merely creeping upward. The increases in their vote percentages on the 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 ballots were inconsequential and insufficient.

In 2019, there were no other events to serve as a catalyst to switch anybody’s vote. In December 2018, The Today’s Game Committee inducted Lee Smith and Harold Baines. The latter was a controversial choice but only because of his performance on the field, not because of any suspicion of performance enhancement. Also, none of the four inductees voted on by the BBWAA (Mariano Rivera, Edgar Martinez, the late Roy Halladay, and Mike Mussina) have ever been linked to or suspected of PED use.

The same was true with the December 2019 Modern Baseball Eras Committee elections of catcher Ted Simmons and the late Marvin Miller. Last December, the Hall elected six new members (Buck O’Neil, Bud Fowler, Gil Hodges, Tony Oliva, Minnie Minoso, and Jim Kaat) but all played long before the PED era.

So, that means that voters had to change their minds “just because” and that hasn’t happened in the numbers needed to push Bonds and Clemens above 75%. The presence of Ortiz on the 2022 BBWAA ballot might have moved a few voters (Bonds got 8 “flipped” votes, Clemens 7 but each also lost two supporters). It wasn’t nearly enough. Also, as indicated earlier, the only good news for Barry and Roger was that most new voters were in their camp.

After the 2017 election, when each player advanced into the mid-50 percent range of the BBWAA vote, I felt fairly certain that they were both on an inexorable path to Cooperstown. I felt strongly that the Class of 2017, featuring Ivan Rodriguez and Jeff Bagwell, would turn the tide.

What obviously happened instead was the calcification of most writers’ positions. The gains that Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens made in 2017 were based on the Selig induction and the inevitable induction of Rodriguez and Bagwell. In that respect, those flip-flops were already baked into the cake with respect to the 2018-2022 voting. There were not enough new voters to replace older voters.

In the last six years, per Ryan Thibodaux’s vote tracker, 84% of all first-time BBWAA voters cast a “yes” ballot for Bonds, while 85% were in the affirmative for Clemens but the two stars ran out of time. In 2014, the Hall of Fame reduced the length of time players were eligible for the BBWAA ballot from 15 years to 10 years. This was widely viewed as a missile directed at steroid-linked players. In the case of Bonds and Clemens, they might have made it with a full 15 years on the BBWAA ballot but aren’t going to make it in 10.

My Two Cents about Bonds and Clemens

While sympathetic to the position that the Hall of Fame should not reward players who cheated the game and their fellow players by chemically enhancing their bodies, I’m in favor of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens getting into the Hall of Fame. I can’t get past the logic that the Hall already has plaques of PED users gracing its hallowed walls. And I’m not just talking about Piazza, Bagwell, and Rodriguez.

First of all, it’s not really fair to lump Piazza and Bagwell into the Rodriguez bucket; I-Rod was outed by a teammate who shared a first-person account of personally injecting him with steroids. Second of all, I’m certain that there are players who dabbled in PEDs that are in the Hall of Fame that we know nothing about.

Although it’s not really the same thing, I do know for an absolute fact that there are multiple amphetamine users who have been honored by the Hall. I am also resolute in my belief that a great number of the older Hall of Famers would have used steroids if that had been the culture of the game when they were playing.

The truth is that the entire world of baseball was in some way complicit in the steroid era. The players’ union was too slow to agree to drug testing. With the scars of the canceled 1994 World Series still fresh, Selig perhaps didn’t push the issue as hard as he should have. Those of us in the media didn’t push the issue hard enough; we were all getting high on the Great Home Run Chase of 1998 between McGwire and Sosa. I’m not saying it’s right but it’s understandable that Bonds would watch the ’98 Big Mac-Slammin’ Sammy show and feel like he wasn’t on a level playing field.

Conclusion (updated for the 2023 Contemporary Baseball Players Ballot)

With a big caveat (see below), if I were a member of the 2023 Contemporary Baseball Players Committee, I would have been in favor of voting for Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. They were all-time great players long before the reports of their initial PED use. With all of the other players who were juicing in the anything-goes 1990s and early 2000s, nobody approached the performance level of these two stars.

If I had been on that committee, I would have planned to use my third vote to induct Curt Schilling, who is also a controversial figure, but only for his political views, not because of any suspected PED use.  Based on performance only, Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling were (in my opinion) the best three players on the ballot, although one could make a compelling case for Rafael Palmeiro over Schilling.

My take: the committee should have ripped off the scabs and put Bonds and Clemens into the Hall, and put all of us out of the misery of re-visiting their faults every three years; based on the current Eras Committee rotation, players from 1980 and beyond will be considered again in December 2025 and December 2028.

OK, now for the big caveat (which I’ve alluded to earlier in the piece). In the House and the Senate of the U.S. Congress, leaders of each political party “whip” the votes of their caucus to make sure that the party’s position prevails. I would imagine that one of the 16 committee members next Sunday might have served as an unofficial “whip” for the Contemporary Baseball Players vote. If I were on the committee, I would have tried to count the “yes” votes for Bonds and Clemens. If it was clear to me that neither player had the support of 12 committee members, I’d be very vocal about that and suggest that, perhaps, their votes might be better cast elsewhere. Whether this is what actually happened is unknown; it may also be that almost every member of the committee was pre-disposed not to vote for Bonds or Clemens.

The worst outcome would have been if there had been 8 to 11 members of the committee who voted “yes,” making it harder for anyone else to get to 12 votes. That’s not what happened, of course. Fred McGriff, aka the Crime Dog, got 16 out of 16 votes with Don Mattingly, Curt Schilling, and Dale Murphy splitting the rest. McGriff was viewed by many as one of the Hall of Fame victims of the PED era, because his 493 career home runs were diminished by the exploits of Bonds, Sosa, Mark McGwire, and Palmeiro. He’s now gotten his “Cooperstown justice” by getting elected tonight.

As for Bonds and Clemens, they’ll probably be on the ballot again in December 2025, and they’ll probably fall way short, again. Then the question becomes whether the Hall even bothers to keep putting them on the ballot every three years.

At this point, I would be very surprised if either Bonds or Clemens ever make the Hall of Fame while they’re alive.

Thanks for reading.

Please follow me on Twitter @cooperstowncred.