Some leftover thoughts about the Hall of Fame results from this year, and a look into the near future:
1. Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds still have a pathway ... but it won't be easy.
Now that Clemens and Bonds, having failed to reach the required 75 percent threshold, are off the BBWAA ballot for good, they aren't necessarily barred from Cooperstown for good.
This December, the Today's Game Committee, covering 1988 to the present, will meet to consider as many as 10 names. In recent years, the committee has elected Alan Trammell, Jack Morris and Harold Baines. So there's precedent for players who narrowly missed out on gaining entrance by the BBWAA to have their cases heard by a (mostly) different group of voters.
The 16-person committee is comprised of executives, members of Hall of Fame, and media members. The same percentage of votes -- 75 percent -- is needed for election, though, obviously, from a much smaller group.
No one is arguing that the numbers for Clemens and Bonds are Cooperstown-worthy. But what kept them from gaining admission was their association with PEDs.
Here's the bad news for the players: most Hall of Fame players have clear that they take an even dimmer view of PED use than do BBWAA members. So the notion that Clemens and Bonds are going to be elected by a jury of their peers is hardly guaranteed.
It's possible, of course, that even it may only take the support of one or two Hall members for the pair to get in, assuming they get more across-the-board support from the executives and writers. But that, too, isn't at all a given.
2. Curt Schilling, too, will get another chance.
Schilling doesn't have any known ties to PED use, so that won't be an issue. In fact, Schilling was quite outspoken again players using PEDs, which could help him with the former players.
But if Schilling -- who petitioned the HOF to be removed from the BBWAA ballot, only to be denied -- has long placed his bet on the committee to rescue him from what he believes is some agenda on the part of writers, maintaining that we're all biased and not worthy to judge him.
Um, Curt? I have some bad news.
You can run from the BBWAA, but you can't hide. A handful will be part of the 16-man committee, and will have influence on the outcome. Maybe those will be writers who voted for him all along, as I did. But maybe they won't.
Schilling's case looks less problematic than those of Clemens and Bonds. But again, it's far from a sure thing.
3. Bonds and Clemens ran out of time.
In their 10th and final time on the ballot, Bonds was at 66 percent and Clemens at 65.2 percent. That left them 36 and 39 votes shy, respectively.
If the Hall of Fame hadn't reduced the number of years on the ballot from 15 years to 10 -- which it did in 2014, ostensibly to reduce the issue of clogged ballots -- it's likely that both would have eventually been elected by the BBWAA. Every year, somewhere around 10 or a dozen new voters are added, and those voters tend to be younger and less likely to take PED use into account when casting their ballots.
Evidence of this: over the last five years of voting, Bonds and Clemens got 86 percent of first-timer's votes. Even if they didn't change any more minds, they could have picked up eight or nine "new'' votes per voting cycle, and eventually gotten to the magical 75 percent plateau.
But unlike, say, Jim Rice and others who benefited from a longer period on the ballot, Bonds and Clemens didn't get that extra time.
4. It's not looking good for either Manny Ramirez or Alex Rodriguez.
Ramirez has already spent six of his 10 years of eligibility and had 28.9 percent of the votes Tuesday, a tiny uptick from 28.2 percent the year previous. The 28.9 percent represents his peak percentage to date, suggesting that Ramirez couldn't possibly make the leap to 75 percent in his final four years of eligibility.
Rodriguez, who made his debut on the ballot this year, got 34.3 percent, at least has the advantage of nine more years. But his 34.3 percent is a low starting point and means he's got a lot of ground to make up in a hurry.
It would seem -- and I don't want to speak for others -- that many voters did as I did, drawing a line in the sand for those who tested positive for PEDs after MLB and the MLB Players Association agreed to implement a testing and punishment program in place in 2004. Thus, many voters who were more comfortable voting for Bonds and Clemens weren't as likely to extend the same courtesy to Ramirez and Rodriguez.
5. Scott Rolen gaining speed.
The third baseman was at 63.2 percent in this, his fifth year on the ballot. That represented an almost 10 point jump from last year (53.9 percent) and is leaps and bounds above where he was on his first year of eligibility.
One other who made up ground of late: Todd Helton, now at 52.2 in just his fourth year.
It helps that there aren't many obvious newcomers to the ballot in the foreseeable future, which should aid both Rolen and Helton, and perhaps Billy Wagner (51 percent after seven years) and Andruw Jones (41.4 percent, fifth year).
Next year, first-time players will include Carlos Beltran, Matt Cain, Andre Ethier, John Lackey, Mike Napoli, Jhonny Peralta, Francisco Rodriguez, Huston Street, Jared Weaver and Jayson Werth. Among those, only Beltran and perhaps Rodriguez are serious candidates. That, too, will help Rolen, Helton et al in their campaigns.
6. Here's comes another "scandal.''
While Rodriguez, Ramirez and a few other PED-tainted players remain on the ballot, the arrival of Beltran introduces a new variable into the process.
Beltran, you'll recall, was implicated in the Houston Astros' elaborate sign-stealing campaign in 2017. That later cost Beltran the job of managing the New York Mets, who hired him, then summarily fired him before he could manage so much as a spring training game when they learned of his involvement.
Based on his playing career, Beltran is a strong candidate (435 homers, 312 stolen bases, three Gold Gloves, a career .837 OPS), but is hardly a no-doubt, slam-dunk pick.
Will his involvement with sign-stealing cost him election? We'll see.