As the hours wound down on 2021, uncertainty dawned for three of the best baseball players of the late 1990s and early 2000s. How would Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Curt Schilling fare in their 10th and final year of Hall of Fame eligibility on the writer’s ballot? And if they fell short, what kind of Cooperstown path could be carved by the cantankerous trio?

The answers: Not well. And none.

It took almost all of 2022 for the latter answer to be presented to Bonds, Clemens and Schilling in the form of the decisive losses they absorbed on Dec. 4, when the Contemporary Baseball Players Committee met and unanimously elected Fred McGriff. The longtime slugger known as “The Crime Dog” is scheduled to be officially enshrined at Clark Sports Center on July 23 along with any players elected via the BBWAA ballot, which closes tonight.

An indefinite waiting game has just begun for Bonds, Clemens and Schilling, who, barring another rejiggering of the Veterans Committee format by the Hall of Fame, won’t be eligible for election again until the Contemporary Baseball committee meets again in December 2025.

But nothing in this month’s results should offer any of the men anything resembling optimism. Despite their overwhelming credentials — in case you forgot, Bonds is the all-time home run king, Clemens ranks third all-time in strikeouts and ninth in wins and Schilling’s 2.23 postseason ERA ranks third all-time among pitchers with at least 10 starts — none of them came close to joining McGriff in Cooperstown.

Only Schilling’s final vote total — seven out of 16, five shy of the 12 needed for induction — was even released. Bonds and Clemens, along with fellow PED-stained stars Albert Belle and Rafael Palmeiro, each received fewer than four votes.

In a vacuum, those meager totals aren’t necessarily a finishing blow for their hopes. Don Mattingly placed second behind McGriff with eight votes three years after he was listed among those who didn’t have their vote totals revealed.

Except, of course, Bonds, Clemens and Schilling have the baggage that makes it difficult to imagine any of them ever mounting a Mattingly-esque surge. While they never failed a drug test, Bonds and Clemens were credibly linked to PED usage during their late-career surges.

Their convincing defeats this month were the latest reminder the Hall of Fame has made it abundantly clear it is reluctant to welcome Bonds and Clemens, who rank first and fourth in WAR among players who debuted after World War II.

Prior to the 2015 election, a player’s maximum stay on the ballot was reduced from 15 years to 10 years, a move viewed by many as a way to burn clock for PED-era superstars who might benefit in their later years of eligibility as the electorate grows younger and more lenient about steroids. Neither Bonds nor Clemens received more than 66 percent of the vote in their 10 years on the ballot.

Prior to the 2018 election, Hall of Famer Joe Morgan, then the vice-chairman of the Hall of Fame’s board of directors, sent a letter to voting members of the BBWAA asking them not to vote for “known steroid users.” And the Contemporary Baseball Era, along with the other modern versions of the Veterans Committee, are appointed by the Hall of Fame board and chaired in a non-voting capacity by Hall of Fame Chairman of the Board Jane Forbes Clark.

In other words: There is no conceivable path to election at any time in the foreseeable future for Bonds and Clemens. Maybe there will be a change in Hall of Fame leadership at some point, and perhaps the approach to PED-era stars will soften to one of understanding and a mutual sense of shared responsibility between those that played, observed and celebrate the game regarding a complicated time. Frankly, it’s difficult to envision which scenario is less likely.

Schilling’s path to a potential Sunday afternoon at the Clark Sports Center is both clearer and even cloudier. Schilling maxed out at 71.1 percent of the vote in his penultimate year on the ballot in 2021. Usually, that’s close enough for an individual to begin writing his acceptance speech. Since annual elections resumed in 1966, every candidate who has received at least 70 percent of the vote has eventually been elected, either by the writers or a Veterans Committee.

But Schilling, as we have noted many times here, spent his years on the ballot becoming a more and more polarizing figure due to his political beliefs. Schilling received just 58.6 percent of the vote last year, 12 months after…well, you know.

The initial thought upon Schilling transitioning to the era ballots was his political beliefs were unlikely to be an impediment with an electorate comprised at least partially of fellow ex-players, who tend to lean more to the right than the BBWAA electorate. But the 16-person committee also includes big league executives as well as media members, meaning even a handful of voters unhappy with Schilling’s stances could sink his candidacy.

Schilling falling well short of enshrinement was also a reminder he tested the patience of his peers and employers long before social media was a thing. The player nicknamed “Red Light” regarding his penchant for finding the cameras was once dubbed a horse on the day he pitches by Ed Wade, who said he was a horse’s you-know-what the other four days.

Given Schilling’s ubiquity, the three years between Contemporary Era ballots could benefit him if he’s able to maintain a low profile. But that has always been easier said than done for Schilling, which means he heads, along with Bonds and Clemens, into the far clearer uncertainty presented by 2023 and beyond.