McAdam: Three thoughts on the Baseball Hall of Fame voting

Some quick thoughts on the results of Tuesday's Hall of Fame voting and announcement:

1. The unanimous streak stops at one.

After decades without a player being named on every ballot, there appeared to be a chance for it happening twice in two years. Mariano Rivera made history last year as the first unanimous selection and Derek Jeter was given a reasonable shot at joining his former teammate in the most exclusive of clubs.

It didn't happen, however, as one voter didn't have Jeter on his/her ballots. Jeter was on 396 ballots but not a 397th, leaving him at 99.7 percent of all ballots. That represents the second-highest percentage of anyone in history.

I'll acknowledge up front: I can think of no reason for Jeter to be missing from a ballot. He's sixth all-time in hits, 11th in runs scored and was the captain of a dynasty which won five titles. He's an iconic figure and I couldn't, with great effort, imagine why he was left off by someone.

But as I've noted, I think it's also misguided to have the unanimous vote as the new standard of excellence. Jeter was a first-ballot Hall of Famer, is properly recognized as one of the all-time greats and won overwhelming support across the board.

To focus on why someone failed to vote for him is to miss the point. And while Jeter fans might be enraged over this slight, stopping the streak at one might be good for everybody.

2. Walker just makes it.

Outfielder Larry Walker, in his final year of eligibility, gained entrance by being six votes over the 75 percent threshold. That came as a pleasant surprise to supporters of Walker, who had feared that he might fall a vote or two shy.

Walker made a tremendous gain in his final year on the ballot, going from 55 percent last year to 76.6 percent. That's among the biggest jumps of any player in the history of the voting.

Walker was once viewed as a product of Coors Field, helping to bolster his offensive numbers. But his road OPS was a very good .865. That, and continued emphasis on his all-around play -- a superb defender with seven Gold Gloves and excellent baserunner with 230 stolen bases -- helped Walker get over the hump.

I had previously not voted for Walker, but with this being his final year of eligibility I was determined to give him some careful reconsideration. I'm glad I added him to my ballot this year.

3. Schilling on the cusp; Bonds, Clemens not.

Curt Schilling made a significant leap, getting to 70 percent and now seems virtually assured of election next year, his ninth year on the ballot. Naturally, this will mess with Schilling's narrative that he's being held out for political reasons.

In actual fact, Schilling hasn't been elected because he's not a surefire, no-questions-asked Hall of Famer. He never won a Cy Young award -- rare for a Hall of Fame starter -- and his victory total of 216 is relatively modest for Cooperstown-bound starting pitchers.

But Schilling has two things that bolster his candidacy: his dominance (as measured in strikeouts and his astounding strikeout-to-walk ratio) and his postseason brilliance (11-2, 2.23). I've voted for him every year he's been on the ballot and will continue to do so.

I just wish we didn't have to listen to him invent conspiracies about why he's yet to be elected.

If Schilling is a slam-dunk for next year, the future does not look encouraging for Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Like Schilling, Bonds and Clemens have two more years on the ballot; unlike Schilling, they're PED-tainted and show no significant jumps in support.

They inched up from about 59 percent last year to 61 percent (Clemens) and 60.7 percent (Bonds). That will require a significant leap for both players at a time when, it would seem, most voters have already formed their decisions about their worthiness.

They'll be helped by an uncluttered ballot next year, when the best first-time players on the 2020 ballot are Tim Hudson and Aramis Ramirez, meaning there will be no newcomers given serious consideration, or taking up votes from holdovers.

But if Clemens and Bonds get in, it will very likely come to the 10th and final year, a time when some voters, given one more opportunity, might re-assess.

And should Clemens and Bonds need to get in via the BBWAA, because the Veteran's Committee contains former players (and Hall of Fame members in good standing) are likely to take an even tougher view of their PED use.