Theory 1: Because they don’t want performance enhancing drug users in the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Well, this is the one that immediately jumps to the surface: The Hall of Fame leadership has been very coy about the steroid question, tending to hide behind the BBWAA’s staunch and literal reading of the character clause. I have suspected for a while that deep down Hall of Fame management agrees with this staunch and literal reading and does not want known steroid users in its plaque room.
Why not? A couple of reasons. First, much of the Hall of Fame’s mission revolves around a good relationship with its alumni. It’s a symbiotic relationship. Getting elected to the Hall greatly enhances a player’s value as a speaker, as an autograph signer, a fantasy camper and so on. At the same time, the Hall of Fame needs Hall of Famers to come to Cooperstown (and other places) for Hall of Fame events to help keep the Hall vibrant and alive. I think the directors know that the vast majority of living Hall of Famers do not want steroids users in their club.
Second is the embarrassment factor. The last time the Hall of Fame changed a voting rule was 1991, and that was to make sure that no player on baseball’s permanently ineligible list (see: Rose, Pete) should be included on the Hall of Fame ballot. Some in the BBWAA moaned but the Hall acted because even the slight chance of having Rose elected to the Hall was an embarrassment the Hall of Fame could not afford. The Hall of Fame has a close relationship with MLB, but it is a separate entity – the last thing they wanted to do was infuriate the commissioner and other baseball leaders by inducting Pete Rose just after baseball had spent so much effort banning him.
And even beyond that, I think the Hall of Fame saw a Hall of Fame ceremony surrounding Pete Rose as a potential public relations disaster. I suspect many at the Hall see a ceremony surrounding Roger Clemens or Barry Bonds the same way.
By reducing the limit from 15 to 10 years, they are basically eliminating any possibility of players like Mark McGwire (entering his 9th year on the ballot) being elected, and they are SIGNIFICANTLY reducing the chances for players like Bonds and Clemens (each entering their third years). Their only hope, slight as it was, came with time, a decade or more, and voters easing their views on PED use. It wasn’t likely to happen in the dozen or so years they had left. It almost certainly won’t happen now with five fewer years.
But to be honest, I don’t think the steroid users were a prime consideration here. The Hall leadership may not want Bonds or Clemens elected, but it never really looked like they would be anyway. And I don’t think the Hall of Fame directors are manipulative in this way. I’m sure they’re not weeping for Bonds or Clemens, but I don’t believe that was the impetus here.
