Copyright Arkansas Online
PITTSBURGH -- Along with strategy, suspense and uneven economics, major league baseball specializes in irony. Make a great defensive play? Lead off the next inning. Ignore splits? Get ready to get burned. It's no different with the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, where voting has sports writers invoking a morality clause -- in fairness because it's part of the official rules for election established by the Hall and the Baseball Writers' Association of America. The irony will soon arrive in Cooperstown, as Pete Rose, "Shoeless" Joe Jackson and other deceased players from MLB's permanently ineligible list will have those bans lifted. But think about that for a second. If Rose and Jackson are there, if Ty Cobb's there, and we're citing the morality clause to keep Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and others out ... what are we doing here? Barry Bonds should be in the Hall of Fame. Clemens and others, too. Sports writers adjudicating morality is absurd. And I've never understood lowering on-field standards but lacking feel for off-field stuff. In other words, you can't paint a physical picture of baseball or tell the sport's story without its most prominent figures -- flaws and all. Build a cheaters' wing for all I care. On-field success should determine entry. Everyone can form their opinions from there. Why we're talking about this now involves Monday's announcement that Bonds and Clemens will appear along with Don Mattingly, Dale Murphy and others on the Contemporary Baseball Era Committee for Hall of Fame election for the Class of 2026. They're joined by Carlos Delgado, Jeff Kent, Gary Sheffield and Fernando Valenzuela, and the candidacy of those eight will be considered by a 16-person committee on Dec. 7 at MLB's Winter Meetings in Orlando, Fla. It's how Dave Parker got in last year and Jim Leyland before that. Twelve votes are needed for enshrinement. Bonds and Clemens got fewer than four the last time they were on this ballot in 2022. A couple things have changed this time around, however. In March, the Hall of Fame announced a new rule that any era committee candidate who doesn't get at least five votes will be removed from the ballot during the subsequent three-year cycle. If that happens twice, the candidate won't be eligible for future ballots. Roughly two months later, MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred announced Rose and 16 others had their lifetime bans lifted because they're deceased. It will certainly be interesting to see how voters react to the changes, as well as our ever-evolving society and whether it could impact how players such as Bonds and Clemens are viewed. Remember, while three years ago was quiet, Bonds did peak at 66% of votes in 2022, his 10th year on the BBWAA ballot. You have to be in the BBWAA for 10 years to get a Hall of Fame vote. I switched over to baseball in May 2019, so I'm still a ways away from getting one. Most younger voters support Bonds and Clemens getting in, while it's typical for older ones to opposite it. But will those guys remain eligible while older voters retire and younger ones acquire Hall of Fame votes? It's why the five-vote rule could matter. There's also fascinating context with Rose, Jackson and others suddenly brought into the Hall ... but others excluded due to morality. One of the last times Bonds spoke publicly on this was in August 2024, when he returned to Pittsburgh for induction into the Pirates Hall of Fame. With seven National League MVP awards, not to mention more home runs (762) and bWAR (162.8) than anyone else, Bonds is comfortable with what he's accomplished. "I don't hope for anything," Bonds said that afternoon at PNC Park. "I hope to breathe. I'm 60 years old. I don't have to worry about those things any more more in my life. "[I] spend time with my grandchildren and my children. [Hall of Fame] hopes, I don't have them any more. I hope to breathe tomorrow and make it to 61." Bonds was later asked to articulate his understanding when it comes to why he's not in Cooperstown. "I don't have to answer that question," Bonds said. "Ask Cooperstown. Or ask you guys. The writers are the ones who make decisions. Last time I checked, it's not Cooperstown. It's not even MLB. It's in this group. You guys figure that problem out." If I had the chance, I'd absolutely vote in favor of Bonds, who was a two-time MVP and might've been a Hall of Famer already when he left Pittsburgh. There should be some deeper introspection among the group of Hall of Famers, executives, media members and historians who comprise the 16-person panel. With the two latest changes, might it be time to drop or amend the morality clause, allowing inclusion to a group of players inextricably linked to the sport's story? I think so. But I'm not about to start holding my breath. If anything, Bonds and Clemens' candidacy will be tougher with an older crowd than a younger one. It's just wild to me that, in the same year, we could see the Hall of Fame soften its stance on those who broke the game's ultimate rule -- gambling -- even if they're deceased, while excluded players with their own sizable legacies who for at least part of this took advantage of MLB's indifference and lack of a strict testing policy. Call me crazy, but it's almost like we should weigh most what happens on the field, then allow individuals to feel however they wish about everything else.
