In the afterglow of Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice's warm and fuzzy induction Sunday, there is this cold dose of reality: If neither Roger Clemens nor Barry Bonds plays again, both will be eligible for the Hall of Fame for the first time in No Hall of Fame vote in any sport will captivate the public as much as that one.
The vote here is yes. As it is, we get enough of that just from people who guess who the voters are. But a number of BBWAA members -- there were ballots cast this year -- support making the votes public. Last week I paneled some of the higher-profile Hall of Fame voters to ask them where they stood:.
Ken Davidoff, Newsday: "Honestly, part of the reason I [make my votes public] is because it drives traffic to my blog. But I did it even before I had a blog, because I think, simply, it's the right thing to do -- just about public accountability.
There's enough interest in the Hall that the public deserves to know how the votes went down. Bruce Jenkins, San Francisco Chronicle: "I generally write a column listing my votes, what went into my thinking, etc I'd like to see it go public, yes, to expose some of the idiocy that goes down each year. We've reached the point where there's a distinct line between writers who won't vote for any player connected with steroids Bill Madden being an example and those who will consider the vagaries of the steroid era and vote for the best players Tim Kurkjian and Buster Olney; I'm also in this group, and it appears we're a distinct minority.
When the likes of Bonds and Clemens come up for vote and are shot down, I think the public should know exactly who's keeping them out. It is an extremely important responsibility, voting for the Hall of Fame. I take great pride in it. I work very hard at it. So if anyone wants to know how I voted, I'm happy to oblige. The steroid issue has made the voting process harder than ever.
