Bill Shaikin talks to Hall of Fame voters about the first ballot for Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens:

In a Los Angeles Times survey of a small group of BBWAA members, 10 said they planned to vote for Bonds and Clemens and eight said they did not. Others declined to reveal their votes.

The survey, while not a statistically valid sample, foreshadows a polarizing election with one side leaning toward recognizing the dominant players of the era and another side leaning toward barring any player tainted by allegations of steroid use, even if that player never failed a drug test.

I suppose the good news is that Bonds and Clemens don’t need to worry about falling off the ballot. I tend to come down on the side of Jose de Jesus Ortiz:

“I’ve decided to vote based purely on statistics,” Ortiz said. “Despite what some consider a mountain of evidence against some guys, I refuse to pretend I can determine which guys accomplished their feats without the help of performance-enhancing drugs.

“My experience tells me that some of the guys people assume are clean actually weren’t, so why would I punish others?”

On the other hand, one could argue that Barry Bonds was a Hall of Famer before his big home run seasons, while Sammy Sosa was not. This makes the whole process tough, trying to decide who really used, who would have been in the Hall anyway, and who turned themselves into an all-time great. I get to vote for candidates in the IBWAA election, and for now I’ll continue to vote for people like Bonds and Clemens, and probably Sosa when he comes on board.