I respect Laurila’s take, but I think Schilling has to go in if Bonds and Clemens do.I wonder if Schilling would have faired better if this wasn’t an election year and his antics weren’t so much more in the news.
It's not because of the PEDs, which I don't really care about, or that there's any real daylight between his view of Schilling or mine, but because of Bonds' domestic violence and Clemens' unseemly relationship with an underaged girl.
The Hall is in a real bind here. Bonds and Clemens are two of the very greatest players to ever play the game, but both were guilty of serious on-field and off-field ethical lapses — indeed, crimes!
So at that point, you really have to decide what the Hall is and what its membership means.
For me, I would prefer it to become more of a historical museum and less of a Legion of Honor. So Bonds is in because he (well, him or Mays) is the best player of the integration era. The Hall is meaningless without him, or worse, it becomes so defined by his absence that it might be more about him with him excluded than it would be with him enshrined. You need to include him in a way that is responsible, and comments on the good and the bad in his record. I think one would need to do the same with Schilling.