MLB Notebook: One man's Hall of Fame ballot

Now that (most) of the outrage has died out over the election of Harold Baines to the Baseball Hall of Fame, it's time to start some new arguments.

In a few weeks, results from the Baseball Writers Association of America ballots - the more traditional method of induction into Cooperstown -- will be tabulated and announced.

In the last four years, the BBWAA has eased some of the ballot logjams by electing 13 players, among the biggest group of inducted players in a similar span in history. It's expected that at least three more newly-elected players will join Baines and Lee Smith -- both elected by the veterans' committee earlier this month -- to create another crowded stage next July.

It seems as though Hall of Fame voting has become more scrutinized and debated in the last decade. That's come as a result of more public ballots, access to these ballots (and the voters) via the internet and more statistically advanced methods made available for evaluation and comparison.

A big part of the controversy, of course, stems from the presence of players on the ballot who are either known performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) users or suspected PED users. Arguably the two best players of the last 30 years -- Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds -- have yet to gain election after six years on the ballot because of their association with PEDs. (Players may remain on the ballot for 10 years.) Needing to be named on 75 percent of the ballot, Clemens and Bonds have yet to reach 60 percent.

It's a measure of just how fascinated fans are with the process that the Baseball Hall of Fame engenders more debate -- however unhinged it may sometimes get -- than the football, basketball and hockey halls of fames combined. For that, baseball should be grateful.

This year marks the 20th year I've been eligible to vote and I consider it both an honor and a privilege. Like virtually all of my colleagues, I spend a lot of time researching and considering the players on the ballot.

For years, I considered myself a "small hall'' voter -- that is, someone who tended to vote for the truly obvious players, rationalizing that if I had to think too much about a player, that player, by definition, fell short of the necessary obligations.

But more recently, I've widened my net to be more inclusive. And, not incidentally, a year ago, I dropped whatever reservations I had about PED-tainted players and began voting for those I felt were worthy of Cooperstown. After years of believing that I shouldn't reward a player for cheating, I came to the realization that we don't know -- and may never know  -- who used PEDs, for how long and to what gain.

I respect those who have yet to -- or never will -- come to the same conclusion I did. These voters are not, as some allege, self-righteous or punitive. Rather, they're interpreting their responsibility differently, which is their right.

I've also come to abhor the notion of  "scoring'' which ballots are good and which aren't. As statistically-based as the voting process is, the act of determining those Hall of Fame-worthy is an entirely subjective process. There are no "good'' or "bad'' ballots; there are only ones with which you agree or disagree.

With all of that out of the way, here's a look at my choices for the Class of 2019, listed alphabetically.

Barry Bonds: Once you get past the PED issue, Bonds is the epitome of a no-brainer. No one in the game's history has hit more homers or drawn more walks. He has the fourth-best on-base percentage and the fifth-best slugging percentage. He won seven National League Most Valuable Player Awards, eight Gold Gloves and a dozen Silver Slugger awards. He owns the single-season homer record and a lifetime OPS of 1.051. His career WAR is a staggering 162.8, which ranks behind only Babe Ruth among those who were position players or mostly position players.

Roger Clemens: Take all of the dominance shown by Bonds as a position player, transfer that brilliance to the mound and you have Clemens -- right down to the PED taint. Clemens won seven Cy Young Awards and finished in the Top 3 three other times. Clemens is third in career strikeouts and won 354 games. He was both dominant and durable, falling 83.1 innings shy of 5,000 for his career while pitching for 24 seasons.

Roy Halladay: The only blemish against Halladay is that his career was relatively brief. In his fourth season in the big leagues, he fell back into the minors to fix things and he only qualified for his league's ERA title eight times. But Halladay packed a lot of excellent into a period of about 10 years. He won 20 or more games three times and 19 in two other seasons. He won two Cy Young Awards and finished second twice more. And, of course, he flourished despite pitching in the AL East, facing the Red Sox and Yankees frequently when the two teams featured the most fearsome lineups in the game.

Andruw Jones: This was the name that drew the most criticism from my ballot a year ago and I suspect it will be more of the same this time. Yes, Jones' period of dominance was somewhat brief (about 10 years) and his career OPS of .823 is modest for a Cooperstown candidate. But Jones was one of the two best center fielders of his time -- Ken Griffey Jr. was the other -- and he had enough power to slug 434 homers. Given the importance of his position defensively and his offensive might, Jones qualifies as a Hall of Famer to me.

Edgar Martinez: This is the last chance for Martinez, who has fallen short in his first nine tries, but last year, narrowly missed out on being elected. That upward trend, coupled with the notion that this is his final year of eligibility, will probably be enough to get Martinez elected. For a number of years, I was slow to come around on Martinez, believing that, as primarily a designated hitter, he fell short. But what a DH Martinez was. His .418 OBP is eye-popping. In 12 seasons, Martinez played 100 or more games and in 10 of those, he hit .300 or better.

Mike Mussina: As was the case with Martinez, I am a late covert when it comes to Mussina's Cooperstown credentials. For too long, I got hung up on the fact he didn't win 20 games until his final season and never won a Cy Young award. But that was missing the point -- Mussina was highly consistent and, pitching for Baltimore and New York, pitching exclusively in the AL East with its smaller ballparks and power-packed lineups. His ERA-plus -- which measures a pitcher's effectiveness relative to his contemporaries and takes into account ballparks and opponents -- is 123, meaning he was nearly 25 percent better than average for his career. That's good enough for me.

Mariano Rivera: There's been so much attention paid to whether Rivera will be the first unanimous selection in the Hall's history (prediction: he won't), it's served to distract from Rivera's greatness. Simply put, he was the best at his position for a period of 17 seasons and his career postseason ERA of 0.70 looks like some typographical error. By now, you know the old line: more people have walked on the moon than scored against Rivera in the postseason. Even if you argue that the modern closer's role has been made too easy by the one-inning save or that saves themselves are overvalued, there's no disputing Rivera's place in the game's history.

Curt Schilling: As I noted last year, I don't hold Schilling's post-career notoriety -- his business failure at the public's expense or his increasing mean-spirited verbal attacks on others -- against him when it comes to voting for the Hall. For me, those don't detract from what he accomplished on the mound. Schilling is one just 16 players with 3,000 or more strikeouts and in the modern era, is fourth-best all-time when it comes to strikeout-to-walk ratio. Add in his brilliance in the postseason (11-2, 2.23) and Schilling is deserving.

Toughest omission

Larry Walker. I'm starting to come around on Walker, but I'm not quite there yet. For now, he falls a bit short on power (especially for a right fielder) with 383 homers, despite playing nine full seasons in Coors Field. He was a very good defender and his .565 career slugging percentage catches your attention. But in 17 seasons, he finished in the Top 10 in MVP voting just four times, which gets to the issue of dominance. Walker has some eligibility remaining and I could vote for him next year.

Meanwhile, I'm far from convinced on Scott Rolen, who is gathering momentum and has become the darling of voters who rely extensively on advanced metrics. To me, Rolen was a very good player but he managed to play more than 130 games just eight times in 17 seasons. And without any sustained brilliance (one Top 10 MVP finish), he comes up short.