Over at the New York Times, Tyler Kepner writes about how the Hall of Fame and the Baseball Writers Association of America is wrestling with the issue of performance-enhancing drugs and the Hall of Fame. Kepner breaks down the glut of current and future candidates into four categories:

• Virtual locks, barring evidence of steroid use
• Possible, barring evidence of steroid use
• Doubtful, based on playing career, voting track record or both
• Left out because of performance-enhancing drugs

And in that latter category, he breaks the candidates down into subcategories: based on suspicion, based on admission, based on evidence, and based on admission/evidence/playing career.

The names might be open for debate -- I'd be surprised if Mike Piazza were kept out, for example, even if a few writers want to throw him in the water and see if he floats -- but it's an interesting way to break down future candidates.

The only thing we know for sure is that it's going to get a whole lot more messy and convoluted next year. This year was a quiet, civil discussion at the Algonquin Roundtable compared to next year.