The HOF is going to mean less and less as long as these holier-than-thou, ignorant writers continue to vote this way. And in 5-10 years, if we don't still have guys like Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, and ARod in the Hall, why should it even be taken seriously anymore? You can't exactly have a legitimate HOF without the best players in the sport's history.
I also love the attempts that some of them have made to tie Bagwell without evidence to steroids, even though Alomar played in the same era and is just as likely to have taken PEDs as anybody.
The Baseball Hall of Fame Official Criteria:
http://baseballhall.org/hall-famers/rul ... tion/bbwaa
5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
Roberto Alomar spit on an umpire. Mark McGwire took PEDs like a majority of the players in his era did. Not that I necessarily agree, but both actions can be argued to be poor reflections on their integrity, sportsmanship, and character. Why has one player gotten a pass for his "indiscretion" from the writers and the other hasn't?
Also, who decided that the punishment for steroid users would be a ban from the HOF? Why isn't the suspension sufficient? Every other form of cheating has been virtually ignored by writers over the history of baseball and yet it's steroids that push everyone to one side? We've now even gone from indicting players based on name leaks to pure speculation (Bagwell). It's just the same level of ridiculous ignorance from the media that we've seen for the past decade and it will only apparently continue. Time to stop paying attention.