I've got it!!!

We all know that certain players who shall not remain nameless - Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds - had wonderful Hall-Of-Fame careers before they decided to juice it up. Well... do they then have to pay with their entire careers for what amounts to a proportional mistake?

Here's what needs to happen: allow the voters to cast a vote that is lower than the whole number of one. They may decide how to portion out their vote, but here is what I would suggest:

1. Determine a date upon which hard evidence suggests that the use of performance-enhancing drugs began.

2. If a player had already achieved what appeared to be HOF status before this date, then total up the number of ABs or innings pitched that occurred before that date, and calculate the percentage of pure, good playing time in proportion to the totals of their entire careers.

Then a voter may cast something like 60% of a vote for a player instead of making some broad, general statement to ignore that player's accomplishments entirely because he got caught up in a trend that Bud Selig and the owners allowed to get out of control. Or ignored, or turned a blind eye to... whatever you want to call it. This would make it much harder for the worst offenders to get elected, guys like Sosa and McGwire and Palmiero who probably had no chance at the highest glory without the PEDs. And I like the fact that the percentage is skewed even further against the offending player, because PEDs also prolonged their careers, thereby further lowering the percentage of this vote.

We shall discuss Pete Rose at some later date.