Skip to content

Will Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens ever get into the Hall of Fame?

Jan 9, 2013, 3:31 PM EDT

Barry Bonds Convicted Of One Count Of Obstruction Of Justice Getty Images

If you had asked me before 2pm today I would have guessed that Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens would have received around 50% of the vote. Not a lot given their baseball accomplishments, but a healthy vote for two players so thoroughly associated with PEDs.  But they fell far short: Clemens received 37.6% of the vote, Bonds 36.2%.

I think there are two distinct groups of voters who voted no on these guys this year (1) the never ever voters; and (2) the not this year voters.  The never ever voters will, obviously, never-ever vote for a PED user. They have drawn a bright moral line and will not consider these two no matter what happens.   The not this year voters are voters who took Bonds’ and Clemens’ first year on the ballot as an opportunity to lodge a protest vote. I recall reading many columns by these sorts, all of whom said some version of “I may vote for them in the future, but I don’t know what to do with them now …” or something like it.

For Clemens and Bonds to make it in, that second camp has to be gigantic. And frankly, I can’t see it being such a large group of people that it will allow them to jump up by nearly 40% in the vote be it next year or ten years from now.  Given how low their vote totals are the never ever camp has to comprise more than 25% of the electorate, and it only takes one more than 25% of the electorate to block a player.

Maybe attrition changes this, but I have my doubts. It’s fashionable to say that the “old man” voters oppose Bonds and Clemens and then assume that, over time, those voters will die off while younger, more progressive voters fill the BBWAA’s ranks. But I don’t necessarily buy that. There are a lot of “old man” voters who don’t think PEDs are a mortal sin. Maybe because they remember segregation and its after effects, greenies, cocaine and all manner of other bad things and know damn well that there are worse things in baseball than someone taking steroids.  Meanwhile, there are a lot of Hall of Fame voters south of 50 who are among the most virulent anti-PED guys as you’ll find anywhere.  Even if you’re counting on attrition, it’s going to take longer than the 14 years Bonds and Clemens have on the ballot to make a difference.

No, the only chance those two have to make the Hall of Fame is for some sort of fundamental change in the process to happen. For the BBWAA to alter the composition of its electorate, for MLB and the Hall of Fame to come out with some sort of formal diktat that PED use should not be considered in Hall of Fame voting or for the BBWAA to have the Hall of Fame vote taken away from it altogether.

I don’t see any of those three things happening. And for that reason, I don’t see Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens getting into the Hall of Fame without a ticket any time soon.

132 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. jkcalhoun - Jan 9, 2013 at 3:36 PM

    What is this Hall of Conflicting Standards you keep talking about? And who pays to keep it open? Frankly, it sounds pretty weird, and I’d rather go see this.

  2. Rich Stowe - Jan 9, 2013 at 3:36 PM

    I would not be suprised if all the “roiders” have to wait for the veteran’s committee and even then, some of the old timers might not still let them in

    • bigsuede - Jan 10, 2013 at 8:57 PM

      I don’t think age will do anything. I was in high school when mcgwire and sosa hit 68 and 70- and when my friends and I talk about the steroid guys- we all think they are jokes.

      Also the teens growing up now are even more against steriods. If you look on youtube- the most popular bodybuilders with the most viewers are anti-steroid (natural bodybuilders)

      People need to understand- everything they watched was fake- it was meaningless- forget 1990-2005- it didnt matter.

      • jarathen - Jan 11, 2013 at 8:29 AM

        You can’t just whitewash 10-15 years of history because it affected the game or because a certain brand of cheating was en vogue. It happened. Good and bad. Put it up there.

  3. goskinsvt - Jan 9, 2013 at 3:38 PM

    ” I recall reading many columns by these sorts, all of whom said some version of “I may vote for them in the future, but I don’t know what to do with them now …” or something like it.”

    Reminded me of Tom Verducci’s column this morning

    “I try to be fair. Speculation alone is dangerous. I’ll use Jeff Bagwell as an example. He’s a guy I voted for again. But here are some facts about Bagwell: he hired a bodybuilder (later hired by Luis Gonzalez) in 1995 to make him “as big as I can,” flexibility be damned; took the steroid precursor andro (as well as supplements such as creatine, HMB, zinc, etc.), underwent a massive body change; maintained a bodybuilder weightlifting regimen; called the whistle-blowing in 2002 by Caminiti “a shame” and the one in 2005 by Jose Canseco “very disappointing . . . whether it’s true or not;” promulgated the red herring that drugs don’t help baseball players (“Hand-eye coordination is something you can’t get from a bottle,” he said of his andro use); and as recently as 2010 in an ESPN interview openly endorsed steroid use by anyone from a fringe player (“I have no problem with that”) to superstars such as Bonds and McGwire (“I know you took it but it doesn’t matter”) as well as the HGH use by an injured Andy Pettitte (“That’s not a performance enhancer”).

    I disrespect his position on steroids and wonder why someone of a bodybuilder mindset who endorses steroid use would walk right up to the steroid line himself without crossing it. His comments, right before his first year on the ballot, bothered me so much that I didn’t vote for him that year — I needed more time to process his candidacy, a kind of deferral that is not uncommon. Without subsequent information, I have voted for him since. No, voting isn’t easy. This is the kind of toxicity the players left behind from The Steroid Era.”

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 9, 2013 at 4:04 PM

      Holy crap what is Verducci on. Is he really using all that as a justification for his “belief” because he couldn’t be more wrong. “Hires a bodybuilder to get as big as he can” is entirely irrelevant. And holy shit can we knock off this crap about adding muscle makes you slower/less flexible? Seen the guys in the 100m/200m dash lately? Are they all built like David Eckstein or are they all 190-200lb muscle bound freaks? Seen any male gymnasts lately? Do they look not flexible?

      Oh no, he took Andro. A perfectly legal supplement that was sold at GNC. Then he mentions creatine (produced naturally in the human body) and ZINC! Oh no!

      So much of that argument is false on it’s face. Yet I shouldn’t be surprised because we have a writer who thinks pimples = steroids.

      • paperlions - Jan 9, 2013 at 4:10 PM

        Andro doesn’t even do anything. Yes, it contains a testoterone precursor, but human physiology doesn’t actually convert that precursor into testosterone. All studies on that supplement show that it doesn’t increase testosterone production, muscle mass, strength, or recovery from workouts. Aside from the fact that it was legal and not banned when MLB players was using it… didn’t do anything (not unlike a lot of the crap you can buy at GNC).

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 9, 2013 at 4:44 PM

        Yeah I pretty much try to stay out of the actual chemical/chemistry stuff, and leave that to you and cur68. I just wish others would actual read your comments and not repost this same crap we’ve been refuting for months now.

    • slappymcknucklepunch - Jan 9, 2013 at 5:09 PM

      Hey Peeps

      @goskinsvt;Nice post.I like Verducci and his writing but I have a problemn with his disengenuous analagies.I have posted before about the “writers”inability from 1960 on to the present to show old columns they wrote showing WHY it was such an anathema to their delicate little palsied hands to even vote for these modern day lumberjacks who”USE THE PILL”I disagree with.

      @paperlions,I have read enough of your posts to grock an inkling you may even BE a filthy journalist(whom has no vote)and I have often wondered if you have a newspapers research password or if you are that dedicated to research that you do it on your own?Either way,color me impressed.Also,how do you know so much about PED’s?Personal or research?Any way,I just want to throw a shout out to Cur68 as your compadre in arms as another future DR.of PED’s whom I believe between the 2 of you I form some of my opinions.

      P.S.Another S.O. to Old Gator,just because.

      • cur68 - Jan 9, 2013 at 6:11 PM

        All in all, I’m not a researcher on steroids. I do use them a lot at work and am well aware of effect. The funny thing is that I’m also aware of ball changes and how neatly they line up with performance spikes. We needn’t look at steroids to see see why in the mid 80’s baseballs started jumping out of yards. On scrutiny the ball itself is different enough from its earlier counterparts to answer the question as to why all those HRs happened. I just don’t understand why people feel the need to latch on to a chemical reason when there’s perfectly reasonable, verified physical reasons for balls to be hit further.

        Steroids on the other hand have been around since the 1930’s and were widely used in pro sports in the 60’s onwards: if the spike in performance was due to them it would happened somewhere around the late-’50’s when they dominated the Olympics and came into vogue in the ’60’s for pro sports.

      • paperlions - Jan 9, 2013 at 8:29 PM

        There is this crazy thing called the internet….and if you know how to use it, you can learn lots of stuff. Of course, for some topics it is difficult to craft searches that distinguish between BS put out by companies that are trying to sell their products (many of which have no benefits to healthy adults, like HGH) from actual research. Being a biologist by trade, regularly using google scholar, and working at a university that subscribes to the vast majority of medical journals does help.

        If you just want to read some general stuff about the history of power production and steroids in baseball you can start with

        The basic page is really long, but if you are interested there is a lot of information in there, including a LOT of links that go into more detail about particular issues.

  4. cur68 - Jan 9, 2013 at 3:41 PM

    Well shit. If you’re right Craig, then two of the best baseball players MLB has ever seen will never be recognized as such. Lofton’s off now, too. Fuck this. I’m never going to Cooperstown. Its pointless.

    • Jeremy T - Jan 9, 2013 at 5:36 PM

      I’ve never been to Cooperstown, but it’s always been near the top of my list of places that I’d like to visit. It’s still on the list, just because from all accounts the actual museum part is quite nice, but all of this nonsense has certainly knocked it down a few spots.

    • raysfan1 - Jan 9, 2013 at 9:49 PM

      Cooperstown is great, Cur. Problem is that if the BBWAA succeeds in killing it by driving away too many fans, a lot of baseball history/it’s artifacts/it’s archives die with it. I’ve been harping on this a lot today,I know, but this is the part that truly pisses me off.

  5. deiong - Jan 9, 2013 at 3:41 PM

    well depends, if thats the case there may not be another player let in ever… theyll cave in eventualy, after they make it seem they fought a good fight before folding. for the publics perception sake.

    • stercuilus65 - Jan 10, 2013 at 2:34 AM

      Yeah public perception is majority anti roider.

  6. fissels - Jan 9, 2013 at 3:42 PM

    Both would have gotten in had they not gone on the roids, IMO. I doubt they ever will now.

  7. goskinsvt - Jan 9, 2013 at 3:44 PM

    Also, there would never have been a controversy had neither of them ever cheated, so let’s not put this all on the BBWAA.

    • raysfan1 - Jan 9, 2013 at 9:56 PM

      Writers who knew players were using did nothing (other than one or two pre-2003 articles), the MLB front office which knew and did nothing, the team front offices which knew and continued paying more for increased production regardless of reasons for it…yeah, plenty of blame for the steroid era to go around…plus of course the players and fans.

  8. jm91rs - Jan 9, 2013 at 3:47 PM

    At what point do these guys fall off the ballot and onto the Veterans committee’s (or whatever it’s called) radar? That might get them in if actual baseball guys are doing the voting.

    • raysfan1 - Jan 9, 2013 at 10:03 PM

      They become the vet committe’s after 15 years on the BBWAA ballot and still not elected or if they draw less than 5% of the vote.

    • stercuilus65 - Jan 10, 2013 at 2:36 AM

      You thik “actual baseball guys” are going to view them anymore positive.

  9. mianfr - Jan 9, 2013 at 3:50 PM

    It’s a good thing we had all those indictments that resulted in convictions for relevant charges to make sure they had a fair shake at the Hall of Fame.

  10. brazcubas - Jan 9, 2013 at 3:56 PM

    If the Best Pitcher of the 80s can get 67%, then surely one of the best since the deadball era can muster 75%, no?

    • paperlions - Jan 9, 2013 at 4:07 PM

      Orel Hershiser got 67% of the vote?

      • largebill - Jan 9, 2013 at 4:14 PM

        You sure he isn’t talking about Steib, Viola, Gooden, or Saberhagen?

      • paperlions - Jan 9, 2013 at 4:16 PM

        Nope, not sure at all….just took my best guess.

      • paperlions - Jan 9, 2013 at 4:19 PM

        Did you hear that Luis Sojo is in the HOF? I know I read that somewhere. If Luis can get in, then these guys ought to make it eventually.

      • cur68 - Jan 9, 2013 at 4:29 PM

        Jimmy Key? Fernando Valenzeula?

      • brazcubas - Jan 9, 2013 at 4:45 PM

        A common misunderstanding, but I bear some of the blame, since I forgot the quotation marks. I was actually talking about the “Best Pitcher of the 80s.” Its a thing, like “Official Beverage” or “Troll-in-Chief” and should not be confused with the actual best pitcher of the 80s.

      • cur68 - Jan 9, 2013 at 5:47 PM

        So…I was right? Jimmy Key? Or was it Gooden? It was Gooden, wasn’t it? Dang! I always vote Beaver Pitcher even when I KNOW Gooden was better than pretty much everyone in the 80’s. The one guy who WASN’T the best pitcher in the ’80’s of course was the guy with the 3.66 ERA since Gooden had a 2.64, Orel Hershiser a 2.69, and and so on till we come to the guy with the 3.66 after many others (names like Saberhagen, Blyleven, Clemens, Ryan, Stieb and others; all ahead of Mr. 3.66). Of course Jimmy Key is better than Ole 3.66 with a 3.36, so I don’t feel TOO bad.

      • brazcubas - Jan 9, 2013 at 7:47 PM

        Well, using the only measure that really matters (games I saw) then it would have to be either Frank Viola or John Tudor.

        I lived in El Salvador in the 80s, and the only MLB we “Who Could Not Afford Satellite Dishes” got to watch was the World Series, and since I was an infant for much of the decade the ’87 series is the only I can clearly remember. I could look up the numbers, or try to find some old video on YouTube for the other WS I watched, but I”m not a SABR-monkey beholden to the tyranny of numbers, so the way I figure it, if I have no clear memory of all those other pitchers, then they must have all been uniformly mediocre.

        So it’s either Viola or Tudor.

        Oh, and Bert Blyleven gave me the willies.

    • thereisaparty - Jan 9, 2013 at 4:26 PM

      Actually, Nolan Ryan is a first-ballot HOFer

      Nolan Ryan fWAR ’80-’89: 46.1
      Jack Morris fWAR ’80-’89: 36.1

      • paperlions - Jan 9, 2013 at 4:33 PM

        Man, you gotta ruin everybody’s fun with your “facts” (we were trying to ignore him and just point out guys that were better than Morris than never sniffed 5% of the vote).

      • thereisaparty - Jan 9, 2013 at 4:46 PM

        Oh terribly sorry.

        ummm Frank Tanana?

      • paperlions - Jan 9, 2013 at 5:25 PM

        Damn right, Frank Tanana.

  11. dpd363 - Jan 9, 2013 at 4:07 PM

    These two think they are fooling the writers and the public when all you have to do is look at ’em to see they are roiders. They should never be allowed in the HoF, period.

    • Jeremy T - Jan 9, 2013 at 5:46 PM

      Um… I don’t think too many people are arguing whether or not, at some point in their careers, Bonds and Clemens took steroids. Most of the argument (I wish I could call it a “discussion”, but discussions theoretically involve some give and take) about the two of them has been about what that actually means.

      That being said, neither of them ever tested positive, and they’ve won every relevant court case. I realize that, despite all of the melodrama to the contrary, the Baseball Hall of Fame isn’t as serious as a court of law, but any argument that consists in its entirety of “all you have to do is look at ’em” sets a kind of terrifying precedent.

  12. Detroit Michael - Jan 9, 2013 at 4:09 PM

    The only logical answers to the question posed by this article’s headline are “yes” “maybe” and “I don’t know.”

    If someone is tempted to answer “no”, let me remind you that Deacon White retired in 1890 and will be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 2013.

    I’m surprised that Craig’s article on the topic managed to avoid the words “veterans’ committee” too.

  13. plmathfoto - Jan 9, 2013 at 4:13 PM

    I think Raines & Hernandez et al have been kept out and or received far less support than they should have because of cocaine violations, any disagreement there?

    • largebill - Jan 9, 2013 at 4:19 PM

      Yes, considerable disagreement. Hernandez wasn’t elected because he had a very weak case for election. While a great defensive first baseman, he didn’t provide anywhere near the offense expected from a Hall of Fame corner infielder.
      Raines’ support level has been growing and for a career like his does not show much if any penalty for cocaine usage. Biggest thing hurting Raines has been that the most similar player to him, Henderson, was a much, much better player. Voters lack of understanding of OBP hasn’t helped either.

      • jarathen - Jan 11, 2013 at 8:32 AM

        I love this idea that one of the most efficient on-base and base-stealing machines in baseball can’t get in time and time again.

  14. 49ersgiants4life - Jan 9, 2013 at 4:21 PM

    I said it before why is there memorabilia of bonds and Clemens in the hall of fame then and now they don’t get plaques take it all or take nothing going part of the way just makes the hall look stupid

  15. largebill - Jan 9, 2013 at 4:35 PM

    Next year will tell how their chances will play out. If they stay right around where they are now (40%) then it might be a long 15 year wait. If they get a strong bounce off that base of support to 60% or higher then they might get in by 2020.

  16. jake1935 - Jan 9, 2013 at 4:41 PM

    Bonds and Clemons are cheaters and if they get in then Pete Rose should be inducted I mean cheating is cheating and there should be NO diff. Besides Rose did something in his time in the majors that no player EVER did and that alone should put him in

    • thereisaparty - Jan 9, 2013 at 5:22 PM

      Is this satire? Bonds and Clemens both have records. And their careers greatly overshadow Rose’s. Rose also has a lifetime ban, since he was caught breaking the rules of baseball. Rose has nothing to do with Bonds and Clemens. Should we kick the cheaters out of the HOF, since “cheating is cheating?” And what if the cheaters (Bonds and Clemens) didn’t break any specific rules nor were ever caught cheating?

      • nbjays - Jan 10, 2013 at 9:34 AM

        “Bonds and Clemens both have records.”

        And Pete Rose doesn’t?

        Or did you mean criminal records?

      • thereisaparty - Jan 10, 2013 at 11:11 AM

        I am well aware that Pete Rose has the career hit record. That was a direct rebuttal to this absurd claim: “Besides Rose did something in his time in the majors that no player EVER did and that alone should put him in.”

  17. namriverrat69 - Jan 9, 2013 at 4:42 PM

    They should let everyone in in all sports. Just notate that this was the era of PEDs.

    There were so many guys (and East German Women Swimmers back in the day) who used PEDs that no one checked their stats because they focused on the achievers, that it all evens out in the end. I’ll bet there are players used PEDs just to make it in the pros as an average player. No harm done except who they barely beat out who didn’t used PEDs.

    You can’t say Lance Armstrong and his guys were the only ones who took PEDs on the cycling tour. Back then a majority of them were taking them. Lance was the guy who came out on top as a result. The cycling world had such a hard on for Lance Armstrong they wouldn’t let it go. As sports fans of athletes who have been busted for these it hurts to see them rebuffed in spite of their accomplishments.

    Then again, I just saw a segment of Cheating Vegas on Stevin Smith who played BBall at ASU in the early/mid 90s. He shaved points in 4 college games and it came back to haunt him and cost him his pro career. He ended up serving a year in Federal prison. One dumb mistake by a young player who had gambled himself into a corner with a bookie. Does that mean he can never be trusted again? I wonder. Should everyone who’s been confirmed to have used PEDs get the hatchet and all they accomplished be cast aside. I don’t believe so. Just mark the time frame as the era of PEDs in sports.

  18. redbirdfan81 - Jan 9, 2013 at 4:51 PM

    Vote in Pete Rose, then, and only then, even consider the PED cheaters! Pete didn’t bet against his team & didn’t do it as a player. Put an * on his plaque if they must, but get him in. The NFL lets in all types of losers, just look at Lawrence Taylor & his life, not what he did on the field, but his life…a total mess. Again, vote Pete Rose, the ATHK, in and then consider these knuckleheads.

    By the way, Biggio, Bagwell & Piazza all deserved to get enshrined, so those 3 were screwed over this year.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 9, 2013 at 6:02 PM

      Pete didn’t bet against his team & didn’t do it as a player.

      Do you believe Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real too? What has Rose done in his life to get the benefit of the doubt about not betting on his team and/or while he was playing?

      • thereisaparty - Jan 9, 2013 at 8:30 PM

        I didn’t realize there were so many Pete Rose defenders. Truly shocking.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 9, 2013 at 9:32 PM

        My favorite thing about Rose defenders is they make asinine comments and then never return to defend them.

      • thereisaparty - Jan 9, 2013 at 11:50 PM

        He is a vile human who willingly and shameless broke the rules of baseball. But let’s defend the man because he has one record he achieved by penciling himself into the lineup

      • bigsuede - Jan 10, 2013 at 8:51 PM

        Pete rose defenders and Steroid defenders are equally nuts.

  19. conner1949 - Jan 9, 2013 at 4:59 PM

    The whole concept that Bonds, Clemens and so forth never get in because the know it all writers “know” they took PEDs is ridiculous. Take those “know it alls” and pump their asses full of every PED in the world and they couldn’t come close to doing what Bonds, Clemens, etc did. PED may have made them a little better, but they had to have talent or they could have never done what they did. Ask Michael Jordan. He tried baseball and found out that even for a super athlete like him it wasn’t easy. Pump MJ’s ass full of PED and he still couldn’t hit a curveball.

  20. gmenfan1982 - Jan 9, 2013 at 5:04 PM

    What needs to happen is the yearly limitation to how many players get in the HoF is gotten rid of and first ballot, second ballot and so on is done away with. If a player deserves to be in the HoF he deserves to be in no matter what year they are trying to get in. Each and every candidate this year deserves to be in the hall. Yes, that means Bonds and Clemens. Both had HoF careers before their suspected (and almost definite) steroid use.

  21. bubba703 - Jan 9, 2013 at 5:05 PM

    The 800 lb gorilla in the room preventing Clemen’s and Bond’s admission to the HOF is their arrogant attitudes. If they showed some class and admitted what everyone already knows, and apologizd for scarring the game, they’d probably get in.

    • Jeremy T - Jan 9, 2013 at 5:52 PM

      Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people said the same thing about McGwire.

  22. kurtsmommy - Jan 9, 2013 at 5:16 PM

    rose didn’t cheat, he gambled. these clowns cheated and lied. let’s NEVER forget that.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 9, 2013 at 6:04 PM

      so Rose told the truth about his gambling, and didn’t spend the next 15 years lying about it until he would write a book admitting it?

    • largebill - Jan 9, 2013 at 6:08 PM

      Wrong. Rose did cheat. He regularly broke the only rule of the game known to have permanent suspension as the punishment.

      Also, as far as we know Rose is just as likely to have used steroids or other PED’s to extend his career into his mid-40’s as most of the players on this ballot.

      • kurtsmommy - Jan 9, 2013 at 6:13 PM

        no, he did not cheat.

      • thereisaparty - Jan 9, 2013 at 8:32 PM

        Kurtsmommy said he didn’t cheat. Thus, he didn’t cheat.

    • paperlions - Jan 9, 2013 at 6:16 PM

      You are right. The Rose signed a document agreeing to be placed on the ineligible list. Anyone on the ineligible stays there forever until their petition to be removed from the list is accepted and they are re-instated. At the time of Rose signing that document, he knew that many players that had bet on baseball or that had gambling issues were never removed from the list. The HOF passed a rule that makes people on the ineligible list, ineligible for election. Even if EVERY writer wrote him on their ballot, the votes wouldn’t matter because the HOF has deemed it to be so as long as he is on the ineligible list.

      There is no statute for punishing PED users once they retire. None. If they are caught, they are suspended and that is deemed the end of their punishment as far as MLB is concerned. Writers choosing to punish them more than the rules require is a choice the writers make, not one suggested or recommended by MLB or the HOF.

  23. simon94022 - Jan 9, 2013 at 5:30 PM

    Where there is death, there’s hope.

    The octogenarian ex-writers who refuse to ever vote for Bonds and Clemens won’t be around forever.

    • Jeremy T - Jan 9, 2013 at 5:53 PM

      did you read the article? specifically, the part where he responded to this exact idea?

  24. sdfan91911 - Jan 9, 2013 at 5:46 PM

    Man!!! FUCK ALL THIIS BULLSHIT & let them get in the HALL man!!!!!

    • kurtsmommy - Jan 9, 2013 at 6:12 PM


  25. louhudson23 - Jan 9, 2013 at 5:59 PM

    They are bums and if they never get in,they have no one to blame but themselves.Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Wright (3155)
  2. G. Stanton (2553)
  3. M. Teixeira (2481)
  4. H. Olivera (2402)
  5. Y. Cespedes (2383)
  1. J. Fernandez (2351)
  2. K. Medlen (2179)
  3. Y. Puig (2128)
  4. G. Perkins (2083)
  5. J. Eickhoff (2059)