Here's My Baseball Hall Call for 2019

^
As I have gotten older (and hopefully, but not necessarily) wiser, I have tried hard to not get too worked up about stuff I can't control. The state of politics in this country makes that challenging many days, but I'm trying.

And so it is for the Baseball Hall of Fame.

This might have been my last year as a voter, as rules that were put in place a few years ago aim to slowly weed out "fossils" like 58-year-old me. I follow the major leagues as closely as I ever have -- perhaps more closely now, because I don't have the kind of Cubs/White Sox tunnel vision I had for most of my writing career. I take the responsibility seriously, I think I do a good job of vetting candidates, and I respect both the Hall and the process.

However, I do understand that other ex-sportswriters might not follow the game as closely as they once did, and I understand how that concerns the Baseball Writers Association of America and the Hall.

So if this is my last year as a voter (it might not be, but one year soon it will be), I'm not going to get worked up about it. It will have been a good run.

Along those lines, I didn't get my undies in a bundle last month over the selection of ex-White Sox slugger Harold Baines by the "Today's Game Era Committee."

Baines was a very good ballplayer, but there was a reason he was rejected by hundreds and hundreds of Hall voters for several years: His career was not Hall of Fame material. Led by White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf, however, 3 of the 16 people on the committee had close ties to Baines and lobbied hard to get him into the Hall.

It is not supposed to be an old-boy's network, and this certainly diminishes the stature of the most-watched and most-respected Hall of Fame in all of sports.

But again, I can't do anything about it, it doesn't affect my life, and if that's what the Hall wants to do, well, whatevs.

I will admit that as I looked at this year's ballot, I found myself saying a couple of times, "This guy's not a Hall of Famer, but if Harold got in ... " I decided not to change how I vote, though. 

As always, I couple my first-hand knowledge of a player's career with his statistics, and I make my selections.

Having said all that, let's get to this year's ballot, starting with the newcomers whom I did NOT choose:

TODD HELTON had a dominant 7-year stretch for the Rockies from 1998-2004, averaging 35 HR and 118 RBI. But his stats were SO much better in the thin air of Colorado that it's difficult to not look at his overall numbers as somewhat artificial. He also saw a pretty significant performance decline in the second half of his career. 

LANCE BERKMAN had a fine career, mostly with the Astros. He put up some good run-production numbers and finished in the top 10 of MVP voting 6 times. With six 100-RBI seasons in 15 years compared to three in 22 years for Baines, Berkman seems every bit as deserving of the Hall as Harold. But I've already said Harold isn't deserving, so I'm not going to lower my bar.

ANDY PETTITTE had enough success over a long pitching career to receive some consideration, but I'm going to invoke my 5-year rule for steroid cheats and not even think about voting for him until the 2024 class ... if he is still on the ballot and/or if I am still a Hall voter then.

ROY OSWALT had a great first 8 years to his career (2001-08), pitching kind of like a poor man's Pedro Martinez. He finished in the top 5 of Cy Young voting 5 times, had a 129-64 record with a 3.13 ERA, and averaged 200 IP and 167 whiffs (OK, OK ... a VERY poor man's Pedro). But injuries derailed his shot to be Hall-worthy. 

FREDDY GARCIA and JON GARLAND played major roles in Chicago's first World Series-winning team in 88 years and first pennant winners in almost a half-century ... but they weren't close to being Hall of Famers.

TED LILLY rates special mention ... but only for his hilarious Tanner/Bad News Bears, glove-slamming exhibition after giving up a soul-crushing 3-run homer to Arizona's Chris Young in the 2007 NLDS.

Other first-time Hall candidates who have no chance: RICK ANKIEL ... JASON BAY ... TRAVIS HAFNER ... DEREK LOWE ... DARREN OLIVER ... JUAN PIERRE ... PLACIDO POLANCO  ...  MIGUEL TEJADA ... VERNON WELLS ... KEVIN YOUKILIS ... MICHAEL YOUNG. Hey, at least Baines has all of them beat!

As for those who have been on the ballot for multiple years but have not earned my check mark, I discussed them in last year's article: HERE.

I did vote for two players in their first year of eligibility:

MARIANO RIVERA

Duh. The greatest relief pitcher ever, and it's not even close. I'm not going to waste my time and yours by reciting his stats.

ROY HALLADAY

In an era that introduced the coddling of starting pitchers, Halladay was a throwback: a workhorse who wanted the ball every 5th day and always wanted to finish what he started. 

In the 10 seasons after he became a regular in Toronto's rotation in 2002, he averaged 17 wins and 219 innings, had a 2.97 ERA, won the Cy Young Award in each league (AL 2003 with Toronto, NL 2010 with Philadelphia), and was selected for 8 All-Star Games. He led his league in complete games 7 times, and innings and shutouts 4 times each. 

Halladay also pitched the 20th perfect game in MLB history, and threw the second postseason no-hitter ever. 

An outstanding, Hall of Fame body of work for a man who died too young (plane crash, November 2017, at age 40).

My other five selections are holdovers from last year and were discussed in previous years' editions of The Baldest Truth.

Here are the 7 players who received my check marks for the Baseball Hall of Fame Class of 2019:

BARRY BONDS

ROGER CLEMENS

ROY HALLADAY

EDGAR MARTINEZ

MIKE MUSSINA

MARIANO RIVERA

CURT SCHILLING

The Hall of Fame will announce its 2019 class on Jan. 22.

** A quick look-ahead to next year: 

Derek Jeter is a slam dunk, but otherwise the newcomer list will look pretty unimpressive: Bobby Abreu, Jason Giambi, Adam Dunn, Cliff Lee.

After Jeter, the best newcomer to the 2020 ballot will be Paul Konerko, the captain of the 2005 champion White Sox.

Even though I really like Konerko, my knee-jerk reaction is: Not a Hall of Famer. Then again ...

His numbers are at least as good as (and in most cases better than) those of Harold Baines.
^

Jim Thome gets my Hall call, and so do 7 others - including one previous 'reject'

^
Because of fairly recently changed rules that mostly affect lifetime Baseball Writers Association of America members - in other words, old guys like me - I'm not sure how many more years I'll be allowed to vote for the Hall of Fame. 

It's a shame that many former long-time journalists are being pushed aside, as most of us have remained active observers of the game. Thanks to technology, I follow the sport every bit as closely now as I used to, even though I haven't actively covered baseball for more than 7 years. I believe us oldsters provide nice balance to the voting process. I take my responsibility as a Hall voter very seriously.

But hey ... nobody asked me what I think. And one of these years, I'll be told, "Thanks, but no thanks. Now go try to find your car keys."

I had many of these same thoughts a year ago, and one thing that kept going through my mind was this:

At the very least, I hope I get to vote for the Class of 2018, because I really want to check the box next to the name of JIM THOME.

Jim Thome: Great guy, great hitter.
(Photo from nbcsports.com)

I covered Thome for a long time. I like "The Pride of Peoria" as a person and I admire what he accomplished as a ballplayer. He finished with 612 HR (8th most all-time), 1,699 RBI (26th), and a .956 OPS (18th). And he did all that without be stained by steroid allegations. 

Thome played the game hard, he played it right, and he should be a slam dunk for the Hall.

Another obvious choice in his first year on the ballot: CHIPPER JONES. 

His credentials are so good that I don't feel like wasting my time or yours reciting them here.

Chipper Jones delivers again for the Atlanta Braves.
(Photo from newyorkmetsreport.com)

Thome and Jones were 2 of 8 former stars to earn check marks on my ballot, and I'll talk about the others in a second. First, a few words about some of the ballot newcomers who did not get my vote ...

++ Omar Vizquel ... A slick-fielding, slap-hitting shortstop in the mold of Ozzie Smith ... except he wasn't quite as good as Smith. Advanced stats doom Vizquel's candidacy. As stated in a recent article by MLB.com's Jordan Bastian:

Separation comes into play when considering the context of the eras in which they played. Vizquel has an 82 OPS+, which means he was 18 percent below the MLB average over his career. Smith, even with very similar rate and counting statistics, posted an 87 OPS+. Vizquel rated as above average in two of his seasons, while Smith had four such campaigns.

Among the 135 Hall of Famers with at least 4,000 plate appearances, Vizquel's OPS+ would be tied for last with Luis Aparicio and Rabbit Maranville.

Using Baseball-Reference.com's calculation of WAR, there was not only a considerable gap offensively (47.8 oWAR for Smith, compared to 32.2 oWAR for Vizquel), but also defensively (43.4 dWAR for Smith and 28.4 dWAR for Vizquel). This is not to say Vizquel's defensive WAR is subpar. In fact, it would rank eighth among all Hall of Famers. Smith's dWAR was just otherworldly, ranking first among all Hall of Famers regardless of position.

++ Andruw Jones ... A precipitous falloff after a torrid start to his career. Frankly, I don't think his numbers are as good as Jim Edmonds' were - and Edmonds got such little love from BBWAA voters two years ago that he immediately fell off the ballot.

++ Scott Rolen ... During Rolen's prime, my friend Ron Santo often said Rolen was the best 3B in the game. He was a superior fielder and a good (but not great) hitter, but I'm afraid he'll probably meet the same lack-of-love fate that Edmonds did. I was tempted to vote for him just to try to keep him on the ballot past his first year, but that's really not the best reason to vote for somebody.

++ Chris Carpenter ... Not enough wins, too high an ERA.

++ Johnny Damon ... It's cool that he won World Series with both the Red Sox and Yankees, and he compiled a lot of stats over a long career. But he doesn't rank in the top 50 in just about any important hitting or fielding category. 

++ Jason Isringhausen ... Just another in a long line of good relievers who aren't Hall material.

++ Carlos Lee ... A good run-producer and terrible outfielder whose numbers fall short.

++ Hideki Matsui ... The second-best Japanese import in MLB history, he lacks Ichiro's Hall resume.

++ Jamie Moyer ... The guy pitched for 25 years and made one All-Star Game appearance. Nuff said.

++ Johan Santana ... Kind of the Andruw Jones of pitchers. Awesome start to his career, then fell off a cliff.

++ Kerry Wood, Carlos Zambrano ... The former Cubbie hurlers follow each other alphabetically on the ballot, and I assume they will follow each other off the ballot after one year. Both had tremendous promise, especially Wood, but injuries and other woes kept both from reaching their potential. Although Wood pitched one of the greatest games ever (20 strikeouts, 1 disputed hit) and Zambrano threw a no-hitter, they also will be known as participants in one of the most infamous choke jobs in baseball history. Wood even used the word "choke" to describe his performance in Game 7 of the 2003 NLCS.

As for those who have been on the ballot for multiple years, I discussed my reasons for excluding them in last year's The Baldest Truth post. 

One player I have not voted for in the past who is getting my check mark this time:

EDGAR MARTINEZ.

Edgar Martinez gets ready to take another mighty cut.
(Photo from SI.com)

I have tried to be consistent during the decades I have voted for the Hall, but every once in awhile I have had to adjust on the fly - as was the case this time with Martinez.

So many baseball people I respect are making such strong arguments for the former Mariners star - mainly through advanced stats such as WAR, OPS+ and JAWS - that I felt compelled to make him one of my choices this time. SI.com's Jay Jaffe makes one such case that traditional stats don't tell the whole story about Edgar.

See, you can teach an old BBWAA voter new tricks!

My other five selections are holdovers from last year and were discussed in previous editions of The Baldest Truth.

Here are the 8 players who received my check marks for the Hall of Fame Class of 2018:

Barry Bonds

Roger Clemens

Vladimir Guerrero

Chipper Jones

Edgar Martinez

Mike Mussina

Curt Schilling

Jim Thome

Here's hoping that the BBWAA lets me cast a ballot next year for Mariano Rivera - not that the most dominant closer in baseball history will need my vote to crash the Hall.

^

Mad About Vlad For Hall Of Fame ... Plus: 'Roidz Boyz' Bonds & Clemens

^

Even with increasing reliance on advanced statistics and technology, Major League Baseball often lives in the past. And that's usually grand, as I'm a 50-something guy with fond memories of eons gone by. Indisputable evidence of the old-schoolness of the game: The Baseball Writers Association of America only accepts Hall of Fame ballots sent via U.S. mail. That's right: No email, no faxes. 

What? They couldn't work out a deal with the Pony Express? Carrier pigeons are on strike?

As a 30-year BBWAA member and a 20-year Hall voter, I dutifully dropped my 2017 ballot in the mail this week, thereby beating the mandate that it be postmarked by Dec. 31. When's the last time you actually mailed something that required it be postmarked by a certain date? For me, it was last year's Hall ballot!

Of course, by necessity, the process of Hall voting also embraces the past. We voters were tasked with analyzing the records of ballplayers who have been out of the game for at least five years. And in the case of the two biggest names on the ballot - Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens - they have been retired for a full decade.

This year, for the first time, the Roidz Boyz got my vote.

Like 99% of intelligent baseball observers, I have no doubt that Bonds and Clemens were big-time juicers. I also have no doubt they were Hall-caliber players. I fully understand and respect why some of (maybe even the majority of) my voting colleagues will continue to ignore the Roidz Boyz. But for me, it's time.

Two years ago in The Baldest Truth, I explained my then-new policy for Steroid Era candidates:

1. If a player is the subject of completely unsubstantiated rumors (think Frank Thomas, who some thought "must be on steroids because he's so big"), I will tune out the noise and consider him as early as his first year on the ballot.

2. If a player is the subject of steroid whispers that conceivably might have merit (think Mike Piazza), I will not consider him as a first-ballot candidate to see if any new information gets fleshed out. If, after a year of additional scrutiny no new information is presented, I will consider him beginning in his second year on the ballot.

3. If a player likely was a steroid cheat but all available evidence showed that he had a Hall-worthy body of work before the juicing began (think Bonds and Clemens), I will consider him but only beginning with his fifth year on the ballot. I want to allow plenty of time before checking that box.

4. If I am convinced that a player could not have compiled his seemingly Hall-worthy stats without him having been a rampant juicer (think Mark McGwire), I will not vote for him because his entire career is a sham.

Simply stated, Bonds and Clemens were two of the best players I saw during my long career as a baseball reporter and columnist. That was the case even before they reportedly started taking steroids. Furthermore, for what it's worth, both have been publicly exonerated - Bonds by the courts and Clemens by Congress.

I suppose I could invoke the "character" clause to keep them off of my ballot. And again, I don't blame others who do just that. But lots of racists and drunks and scoundrels and druggies and cheaters and criminals have been enshrined. Should Cooperstown kick out Ty Cobb? Babe Ruth? Gaylord Perry? The dozens upon dozens of players who practically lived on greenies?

While the Roidz Boyz finally get my votes, a few other tainted former stars do not. I firmly believe that neither Sammy Sosa nor Gary Sheffield would have had Hall-worthy numbers had they not used their tushies like pincushions. As a bonus, Sammy also got caught corking his bat. Cheater, cheater, Flintstones Vitamins eater!

As ballot newcomers, Manny Ramirez and Pudge Rodriguez fall under Rule 2 above. Pudge was the best catcher I've seen and I'll consider him more thoroughly next year. I'm less excited about Manny's candidacy.

Before I reveal all of my choices, let me explain the reasons I didn't check the boxes next to a few other Hall candidates ...

Trevor Hoffman, Lee Smith, Billy Wagner. Because the save is one of the most overrated statistics in the sport, it's not easy for a reliever to get my vote. He had to have been a transcendent figure (like Mariano Rivera), and/or had to have been a good starter at one point in his career (like John Smoltz), and/or had to have regularly recorded multiple-inning saves (like Rollie Fingers). None of the current candidates met any of those requirements. Hoffman has a decent shot at getting in this year, and I don't begrudge him the honor. This is Smith's last year on the ballot and he probably will fall well short. Wagner has only a slightly better chance at being a Hall of Famer than Joe Borowski does.

Jorge Posada. He was a leader and a winner for the Yankees, but he just doesn't have the stats. Other fine players who don't quite have HoF numbers include Jeff Kent, Derrek Lee, Magglio Ordonez and Larry Walker.

Edgar Martinez. Of those who didn't get my vote, he was the toughest omission because he was a heck of a hitter. However ...

His "similarity scores" on BaseballReference.com compare him to Will Clark, John Olerud, Moises Alou, Magglio Ordonez, Bob Johnson, Matt Holliday, Bernie Williams, Paul O'Neill, Lance Berkman and Ellis Burks. Those guys also were outstanding hitters, but there isn't a Hall of Famer in the bunch. I am willing to vote for a DH (as I showed with my first-ballot vote for Frank Thomas), but Thomas' numbers were considerably better than Martinez's. Edgar never won a pennant and only once did he finish in the top 5 in MVP voting. Mostly, his career stats just aren't strong enough for me; he doesn't rank in the top 120 in HR, RBI or WAR. 

So here are the 7 players who received my check marks on the 2017 Hall of Fame ballot:

Jeff Bagwell

Barry Bonds

Roger Clemens

Vladimir Guerrero

Mike Mussina

Tim Raines

Curt Schilling

I already have talked about Bonds and Clemens. Bagwell, Mussina, Raines and Schilling are repeat selections for me, and I discussed them in detail in my Dec. 24, 2013 post. (Read It.) This is Raines' final season on the ballot and he came pretty close last year, so I hope one of his generation's best table-setters gets in at the final buzzer.

Which brings me to Vlad the Impaler ...

After the ballot was released publicly, my son called to talk about a few of the new candidates. "How about Vlad Guerrero?" My knee-jerk reaction: "Maybe, but I kinda doubt it." That's usually my initial reaction unless a guy is an absolute lock, such as Ken Griffey Jr. last year. It's the classic, instant "does he feel like a Hall of Famer" feeling. After I look into the numbers more, though, a candidate's case sometimes becomes more compelling. Such was the case with Vlad.

For example, I always thought of him as a free swinger who struck out a lot. Well, he was a free swinger ... but he never struck out even 100 times in any season and he fanned significantly less often than all 10 of his BaseballReference.com "similars" - including Hall of Famers Willie Stargell, Jim Rice, Billy Williams and Duke Snider. Meanwhile, his on-base percentage was better than the first three and only .001 lower than Duke's. His .931 OPS ranks 34th all-time.

His 449 HR (38th most in history) are the exact same as Bagwell's total and more than the totals of Rice, Williams and Stargell. His 1,496 RBI put him ahead of Rice, Williams and Snider. Guerrero played 16 seasons - the same as Rice, fewer than his other comparables and one more than Bagwell.  - and he didn't go long past his prime. 

In 2010, his next-to-last season, the 35-year-old Guerrero batted .300 with 29 HR, 115 RBI and an .841 OPS to help the Texas Rangers reach the World Series for the first time in franchise history. He was 11th in MVP voting - the eighth time he finished at least that high. He won the award in 2004 with the Angels and had four other top-6 finishes (two with the Expos, two with the Angels).

Those who say that he was an error-prone (albeit strong-armed) right fielder and that his career batting stats make him a borderline Hall of Fame candidate ... I can't argue too strongly with them. 

It says here, however, that his statistics give him a solid HoF resume - and drop him on the right side of the border. 

Vlad Guerrero gets my check mark, and I will be very curious to see how my BBWAA peers treat him.
^

Don't blame me for Griffey not being a unanimous Hall of Famer or for Edmonds being off the ballot

^
Ken Griffey Jr. was named on the Hall of Fame ballots of all but three Baseball Writers Association of America voters -- giving him the highest percentage ever. I'm still trying to figure out how those three justified omitting perhaps the greatest center fielder ever -- not to mention one of the very best players of an entire generation, and an icon with a squeaky-clean reputation.

Oh well. There's no exact science. I mean, it took Joe Freakin' DiMaggio four tries to get enshrined.

A couple of weeks ago here, I discussed why I voted for Jim Edmonds. It's a shame he didn't get enough votes to stay on the ballot for next year -- my check mark was one of only 11 he received, and he needed exactly twice that many.

Edmonds was twice the ballplayer Jeff Kent and Fred McGriff ever were, yet they got significantly more votes and will stay on the ballot. Edmonds was as likely to save a game with a great defensive play as he was with a clutch hit, something Kent and McGriff certainly couldn't say.

I guess it doesn't really matter, because Kent and McGriff will never get named on 75% of the ballots (as is mandated for enshrinement). Neither will Lee Smith, Larry Walker nor Edgar Martinez, other very, very good big-leaguers whom I didn't rate as worthy as Edmonds.

Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds remained well short of the votes they needed but they did get a higher percentage than they did previously. I am 95% certain I will vote for both of them next year, their fifth on the ballot. I discuss my reasoning in earlier posts here on TBT.

Aside from Griffey and Edmonds, I also voted for:

Mike Piazza, who will join Griffey as the only two BBWAA-elected players in this year's class; Jeff Bagwell, who finished 15 votes short; Tim Raines, who missed by 23 votes; Curt Schilling, who was named on 52% of the ballots; Mike Mussina, 43%; and Alan Trammell, a great guy and very good ballplayer who didn't get in on his final year on the ballot.

The Hall of Fame, in conjunction with the BBWAA, has changed rules to weed out some voters. I will be one of those eventually weeded out because I'm no longer an active baseball writer. But I pay attention, I take it seriously, and I sure as hell didn't leave Ken Griffey Jr. off of my ballot.

+++

Tuesday was my favorite day of 2016 so far.

First, my Scholars Academy Eagles played one of our better games in my three years as coach, easily vanquishing our opponent to improve to 6-0 on the season.

Our team motto is Work Hard! Play Right! Have Fun! and the "Play Right" part is always the most elusive. My girls work harder than anybody and they are a great group that has a lot of fun. But they are 11-to-14 year old girls, and it's not always easy for them to play "right." Even in some fairly decisive wins, we have been error-prone.

On Tuesday, we minimized our mistakes and really did a great job of moving the basketball. It was a pleasure to watch. Three times, I drew up plays or made suggestions, and they executed each of them, so they were very coachable, too.

We play again Thursday, and I'm really interested in seeing if we can do it again.

Later Tuesday, a small Charlotte contingent of Marquette alums got together with a small group of Providence alums to watch the Marquette-Providence game. We were 0-2 in the Big East with two pretty bad losses, and Providence was ranked No. 8 in the country. Plus, the Friars were the hosts. Honestly, I didn't give my lads much of a chance.

But Marquette outworked and outplayed Providence most of the game. Most impressively, after Providence rallied to take an 8-point lead with about 6 minutes to go, the young Marquette team fought back, took the lead in the final minute and held on to win by a point.

It was the "signature victory" so far for Marquette under second-year coach Steve Wojciechowski, who starts three freshmen and a sophomore.

After the final horn sounded and the Warrior fans exchanged high-fives, I didn't do too much trash-talking to our friends from Providence.

A little, but not too much!
^

Mike's Hall Call: Griffey (obviously), but how 'bout Edmonds and Hoffman?

^
Seven of my 10 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot slots were easy to fill.

There are the six guys I voted for in the past who are still trying to join baseball's most exclusive club: Jeff Bagwell, Mike Mussina, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Curt Schilling and Alan Trammell. You can read the cases I made for them in previous years here and here.

There is this year's no-brainer newcomer: Ken Griffey Jr. He is such an obvious Hall of Famer that I won't waste my time and yours explaining why.

Beyond that, I had a lot to think about.

First, there are Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Last year, I wrote this:

If a player likely was a steroid cheat but all available evidence showed that he had a Hall-worthy body of work before the juicing began (think Bonds and Clemens), I will consider him but only beginning with his fifth year on the ballot. I want to allow plenty of time before checking that box.

This is Year 4 for both and I actually considered voting for them after Bonds' obstruction of justice conviction was overturned. But I decided my heart wouldn't be broken if they had to wait one more year, and I'm sticking to my five-year rule.

So the two players whose candidacies are really rattling around in my mind are ballot newcomers Trevor Hoffman and Jim Edmonds.

Hoffman is an interesting case. The only thing he really has going for him is the save statistic -- he had 601, behind only Mariano Rivera -- and most of us know how flawed that stat is. You come into a 5-2 game with nobody on in the ninth inning and you get a save? Whoop-de-do.

Hoffman was a classic "stat-compiler." He pitched forever, so he had lots of saves. He racked up 119 saves during his final four seasons pitching not so great (3.51 ERA, 1.118 WHIP, 12-20 record) for lousy teams. Unlike truly dominant relievers such as Goose Gossage or Bruce Sutter or Rollie Fingers or Rivera, he rarely was asked to get more than three outs. Unlike Dennis Eckersley and John Smoltz, Hoffman couldn't hack it as a starter.

I have read articles that convincingly argue that Billy Wagner, another first-timer on the ballot, was the better reliever. And I'm not voting for Wagner, either. Hoffman is a borderline case, and he's not crossing my border this year.

Now let's go to Edmonds.

When a friend asked me a few weeks ago about Edmonds, my knee-jerk reaction was "no way." But then I remembered all of his amazing catches and I decided to look into his career more closely.

He ranks in the top 60 all-time in slugging percentage, OPS and HRs. He was a hard-nosed, valuable player for some outstanding Cardinals teams, including the 2006 champions. At age 38, he was still an extremely valuable player for the division-winning Cubs, driving in 49 runs in only 250 at-bats after they picked him up during the season.

I believe ballplayers deserve recognition for the long, outstanding stretches of their careers. For me, Edmonds gets plaudits for his 11-season stretch with the Angels and Cardinals in which his WAR was third in all of baseball behind only Bonds and Alex Rodriguez. And unlike Bonds and A-Rod, there were no serious steroid allegations. During those 11 seasons, Edmonds averaged 30 HRs, slugged .554 and won eight Gold Gloves.

Oh, and in 64 postseason games, Edmonds, had 13 HRs, 42 RBIs and a .513 slugging percentage.

And you can't talk about Edmonds without spending plenty of time talking about his all-out, life-or-limb defense at an important position. Did any center fielder who played in the '90s and '00s produce more highlight-reel catches? He was on SportsCenter more than Chris Berman was. Among CFs since 1954, he ranks in the top 20 in assists, putouts and double plays. His "Ultimate Zone Rating" was eighth all-time among CFs, and his arm was rated second-best ever at the position. But if you spent any time watching him, you didn't need all those new-fangled metrics to know you were watching an amazing outfielder.

If we can enshrine Ozzie Smith mostly because of his defensive prowess at shortstop, we can't give Edmonds serious props because of his defensive prowess in center field ... AND his 393 HRs AND his .527 slugging percentage and his .903 OPS?

Despite all of that, I have a feeling that Edmonds will not get much love among my BBWAA voting peers, and I simply think he was too good a player to be 1-and-done. So I feel doubly good about giving him my vote.

Here, then, are the eight players who received check marks next to their names on my 2016 Hall of Fame ballot:

Jeff Bagwell

Jim Edmonds

Ken Griffey Jr.

Mike Mussina

Mike Piazza

Tim Raines

Curt Schilling

Alan Trammell

---

And speaking of the Hall of Fame ...

I agree wholeheartedly with MLB commissioner Rob Manfred's decision to keep Pete Rose out of the game. Rose gambled on baseball when he was the Reds' manager, lied about it for years and years, finally admitted to doing some of it but still lied about the depth of his gambling activity, and only begrudgingly admitted more about it after being caught in lies again.

For a long time, I believed that Rose should be kept out of baseball for his gambling as a manager but that he should be eligible for the Hall of Fame because there had been no credible evidence that he had gambled as a player.

Earlier this year, however, ESPN's Behind the Lines did produce credible evidence that Rose did bet on baseball during his playing days.

Given that I have every reason to believe the ESPN report and no reason to believe Rose -- a pathological liar and self-promoter -- I am very glad he has never eligible for enshrinement.
^

My Hall of Fame ballot ... and my new steroid policy

^
When I sat down to fill out my annual Baseball Hall of Fame ballot, I knew one thing for certain:

The 10th box I checked next to an ex-ballplayer's name would be merely a symbolic choice.

Each Baseball Writers Association of America voter can make only 10 selections in a given year ... and I have a better chance of shooting a 72 at Pebble Beach than any player I considered for that final choice has of getting into the Hall.

So it came down to this:

Do I vote for a guy who had a very good career and was considered a credit to the game, or do I vote for a guy who I'm pretty sure cheated? Or do I just stop at 9? (Voters don't have to vote for 10. Heck, we don't have to choose anybody, and several of my peers turn in blank ballots every year.)

Why do I know my vote won't really matter? Because after the top few candidates, none will come close to getting support from 75% of the BBWAA electorate. It's kind of like voting for the Libertarian or Green Party candidate -- you know he or she has no chance of winning, so you do it because it feels good or to make a statement.

My choices came down to Barry Bonds, who was convicted of obstruction of justice in connection with his long-time steroid use; Roger Clemens, who was named as a steroid cheat in the Mitchell Report but was found innocent of lying to Congress about his juicing; and Alan Trammell, a good guy and good player who helped usher in the modern era of offensive-minded shortstops.

Unlike some of my colleagues, I will consider Bonds and Clemens because I firmly believe they were Hall of Fame players even before they allegedly began juicing. However, in the absence of firm Steroid Era guidance from the Hall or the BBWAA, I recently established my own policy:

++ If a player is the subject of completely unsubstantiated rumors (think Frank Thomas, who some thought "must be on steroids because he's so big"), I will tune out the noise and consider him as early as his first year on the ballot.

++ If a player is the subject of steroid whispers that conceivably might have merit (think Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza), I will not consider him as a first-ballot candidate to see if any new information gets fleshed out. If, after a year of additional scrutiny no new information is presented, I will consider him beginning in his second year on the ballot.

++ If a player likely was a steroid cheat but all available evidence showed that he had a Hall-worthy body of work before the juicing began (think Bonds and Clemens), I will consider him but only beginning with his fifth year on the ballot. I want to allow plenty of time before checking that box.

++ If I am convinced that a player could not have compiled the stats that made him seem Hall-worthy without him having been a rampant juicer (think Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa), I will not vote for him.

So, under my steroid policy, Bonds and Clemens are ineligible for my serious consideration until I fill out my ballot two years from now.

That left me to decide between Trammell or no 10th choice at all.

I decided to go with Trammell. I know him, I like him and I respect the way he went to work day after day, month after month, season after season. He was a fine fielder whose bat had some pop, kind of a poor man's Cal Ripken Jr. He was the face of the Tigers franchise for 20 years. And he was the 1984 World Series MVP.

Let the record show that I have not voted for him in the past, and I'll say right now that I might not vote for him again next year, which will be his final turn on the ballot. I also will say that I could have voted for any number of other fine ex-ballplayers here, including Edgar Martinez, Don Mattingly, Lee Smith, Jermaine Dye and Larry Walker. Like Trammell, none of them ever will get to 75%, either.

And so, here are the 10 players who received my check marks:

Jeff Bagwell

Craig Biggio

Randy Johnson

Pedro Martinez

Mike Mussina

Mike Piazza

Tim Raines

Curt Schilling

John Smoltz

Alan Trammell

Bagwell, Biggio, Mussina, Piazza, Raines and Schilling were holdovers from last year. Details about why I chose them can be found in my post from Dec. 24, 2013.

As for the three newbies -- Big Unit, Pedro and Smoltz -- I consider them to be such no-brainers that I don't feel it's necessary to justify selecting them. I can't imagine why any voter would leave any of them off his/her ballot.

+++++++

In a related subject ...

One of my best friends in the business -- actually, like me, he is now out of the business -- decided not to cast a vote this year because he no longer felt he was qualified. I'm not going to name him because he didn't give me permission to do so. His reasoning, and I'm paraphrasing here, is that back when he was an active member of the media, he thought some voters who had become ex-sportswriters grew out of touch, and now he feared he would be that voter.

My response to him was that he would be that voter only if he let himself be that voter.

Speaking for myself, I still follow baseball closely and I still care about who gets into the Hall of Fame. In some ways, I can follow the game better now because I'm not almost exclusively watching Cubs and White Sox games.

Moreover, the guys who are coming up for vote now are the very players I witnessed first-hand during the prime of my career. I was there when John Smoltz dueled Jack Morris in the Game 7 of the the best World Series I've ever seen. I admired the brilliance of Pedro Martinez and the consistency of Craig Biggio. I didn't need to see the Big Unit in person to know he was a Hall of Famer ... but it didn't hurt.

Maybe, one day, I will feel I am too removed from the game to be an effective voter, but that day is a long way away.

I enjoy being part of what I consider a very effective process for choosing Hall of Famers. I take it seriously. And, frankly, I do a pretty darn good job.
^

Hall Call: Maddux (duh!), but not Jacque Jones (double-duh!)

^
I thought I would struggle greatly when filling out my Hall of Fame ballot this year, but it turned out to be a lot easier than I thought.

First, I put check marks next to the four guys I voted for a year ago: 

CRAIG BIGGIO ... JACK MORRIS ... TIM RAINES ... CURT SCHILLING

Biggio is a no-brainer, a veritable stats machine during his playing days. He barely missed last year when he was done in by a combination of those who never vote for first-ballot guys and by anti-steroid protesters who refused to vote for anybody. I'm guessing he gets in fairly easily this time, as he should.

Morris is making his final ballot appearance and it'll be close -- he received 67.7% of the vote last year (75% is required). I know his ERA is a little too high for some and his victory total is a little too low. Still, his status as a workhorse during an era in which both baseballs and bodies were juiced, and his postseason performances (especially for the 1991 Twins), put him over the top for me.

Raines simply is one of the best leadoff men ever, a dynamic game-changer for most of his 23 seasons. Every eligible player with an OBP as high as Raines who reached base as often as he did is in the Hall. Plus, he's the second-most successful base thief ever.

Schilling, like Morris, is a borderline pick and I can understand why he didn't get more votes last year, his first on the ballot: low-ish win total, a less-than-spectacular ERA. Nevertheless, he did have fine regular-season numbers (3,116 K, the second-best K-to-BB ratio in history), and I can't deny his postseason numbers: 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA, including 4-0 and 1.37 in five elimination games. I love clutch.

+++

Next, I voted for two guys I passed on last year (with the promise that I would revisit their candidacies in the future):

JEFF BAGWELL ... MIKE PIAZZA

Bagwell, despite playing most of his career in the pitcher-friendly Astrodome, ranks in the top 40 all-time in slugging, HR, OBP and walks, and he teamed with Biggio to turn the once-horrible Astros into annual contenders. In giving Bagwell my vote this time, I have been influenced by proponents of JAWS, a wins-above-replacement metric that compares a player to others historically at his position. Bagwell's JAWS score ranks second only to that of Albert Pujols among post-World War II first basemen. Plus, he's now been on the ballot for four years and nobody has been able to amplify any of the steroid whispers. 

Piazza, arguably the best offensive catcher in history, belongs in the Hall of Fame. Because he made his debut on the ballot last year alongside so many infamous juicers, I wanted to give it another year to see if anything came of the long-stated rumors about Piazza's use. Nothing did, so it's an easy choice.

+++

Then, I went with three first-year candidates, each of whom I consider a slam-dunk selection (though I'm sure others would disagree, as others always do!):

TOM GLAVINE ... GREG MADDUX ... FRANK THOMAS

Glavine won 305 games, had five 20-win seasons, won two Cy Youngs and was a stalwart for the Braves teams that ruled the NL in the 1990s. He also was 1995 World Series MVP (2-0, 1.29). Despite all of that, he might not get in immediately because of Maddux's presence on the ballot, which would be ridiculous.

Maddux, well, you know ... I'm not even going to bother throwing any stats out there. If he doesn't get in, it's time to take the vote away from me and my peers.

Thomas had a .301 career average, 521 HR, 1,704 RBI, .419 OBP, .555 SLG, back-to-back MVPs, 11 seasons with 100+ RBI. Nevertheless, some say he's not a Hall of Famer. Please. Even if voters want to use his DH status against him, he had monster stats from 1992-97 as the White Sox's first baseman. How can there even be a debate? 

+++

Finally, it got a little more difficult. Should I stop at nine? Or should I add one more to reach the maximum votes we can cast? I've been a Hall voter since the mid-'90s, and only once, when I was much younger and less selective, did I opt for the maximum. Would voting for 10 now somehow make me an easy mark?

If I did go with 10, would I check the box next to the name of "accidental" juicer Barry Bonds or longtime suspect Roger Clemens? How about squeaky-clean first-time candidate Mike Mussina?

One could argue quite convincingly that Bonds and Clemens already were Hall of Famers before their alleged cheating began. And while circumstantial evidence is strong in Clemens' case, he actually was exonerated in a court of law. I very well might vote for one or both as early as next year. But for now, I decided to hold off to see if any new information gets presented in the next 12 months. 

Mussina? Now there's an interesting one.

The very first thing I do when perusing my Hall ballot every year is the "feel test." Does this guy "feel" like a Hall of Famer? And I must admit that, at first blush, Mussina didn't. His numbers are very good (270-153, 3.68 ERA, 2,813 K), but not one of them screams: "I'm a Hall of Famer!" He had only one 20-win season (his last, at age 39), he never won a Cy Young and he never won a title. 

Then again ...

In many key sabermetrics, Mussina compares quite favorably to Glavine and comes out well ahead of Morris. He also had more wins, a lower ERA, more strikeouts and fewer walks than Morris. The more I delved into the numbers, the more I felt guilty about the prospect of voting for Morris but not for Mussina.

Then there's this: I didn't want to contribute to Mussina getting knocked off the ballot for good. If a candidate doesn't get 5% of the vote in any year, he no longer can be considered in the future. Given that it often takes years for voters to warm up to certain candidates -- Bert Blyleven was named on only 17.5% of the ballots his first year but finally made it in his 14th try -- I didn't want Mussina to go away forever. 

So, MIKE MUSSINA, welcome to my Hall of Fame "team."

+++

Every year, there are a few guys on the ballot that make you say, "Really?" This time, that list includes Amando Benitez, Paul Lo Duca, Mike Timlin and ... wait for it ... Jacque Jones.

That's right: Jacque Jones, a real good guy with a real bad arm. 

In three decades covering baseball, I've never seen a worst outfield arm. More times than not, the poor guy would throw the ball almost straight down into the ground. It was the damnedest thing I ever saw. 

Although his offensive numbers weren't anywhere near Hall-worthy -- .270, 165 HR, 630 RBI -- they actually were better than I thought because I mostly remembered him striking out repeatedly.

I liked Jacque as a person, though, and maybe enough members of the Hall ballot selection committee did, too.

That's the only explanation I can come up with for him being listed at all.

If he gets even one Hall vote, it's time to drug-test BBWAA members!

^

Nobody is easier to hate than A-Roid

^
First Down

Alex Rodriguez says the last year has been a "nightmare." Poor, poor, pitiful him. I mean, could there be a less-sympathetic figure in sports than A-Roid?

Barry Bonds and Pete Rose look freakin' noble compared to this guy.

I'd rather root for Mike Tyson or Bill Belichick.

Why should anybody believe A-Rod didn't juice when he was a young player in Seattle? Because he says so? That's a good one! If he handed me a quarter, I'd assume it was counterfeit.

Second Down

I am seriously pissed at Time Warner Cable for denying me Showtime -- and the last few episodes of Dexter.

We'll all have the last laugh when cable companies are completely unnecessary, a time that is coming sooner than TWC and its brethren think.

Third Down

In his most recent "Real Time," Bill Maher used his main "New Rule" to rip the North Carolina GOP for its unapologetic, mean-spirited return of the state to the 1950s -- when blacks, Latinos and women knew their place (and knew it wasn't North Carolina).

And to think, I hated Chicago politics.

Fourth Down

Went into my local Costco the other day and they had a table with large, framed, autographed photos of NFL stars. The guy featured most prominently:

Tim Tebow.

In a Jets uniform.

No punchline. None necessary.
^

A Hall of a situation

^
Yes, it was headline-worthy that not one candidate was elected to the Hall of Fame ... but really, was it that big of a surprise?

Even if any of the Royd Boyz do eventually get in, it is not the least bit shocking they were denied on their initial year as candidates. I specifically said I wasn't going to give the likes of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens the special honor of being first-ballot HoFers, and I'm sure dozens (if not hundreds) of my fellow voters felt that way, too.

Craig Biggio also didn't quite make it on the first ballot, but he has an excellent chance next year because there are many, many BBWAA voters who save first-ballot HoF status for only the best of the best.

Other observations:

-- I knew Sammy Sosa wouldn't come close to getting in but I was surprised he received fewer votes than Mark McGwire did. While those two will be linked forever in baseball history, Sosa finished with better numbers and also had more skills than McGwire did.

-- Again, I'm not stunned that Jeff Bagwell didn't get in, but I did think he would get more votes. I was relieved he didn't miss by one, because I already am second-guessing my decision to leave him off my ballot.

-- Don Mattingly received enough votes to stay on the ballot for next year but Bernie Williams didn't. There is zero doubt in my mind that Williams was the better, more important Yankee.

-- Lots of get-a-lifers -- yahoos who spend a good chunk of their time obsessing about the HoF -- said only idiots would refuse to put the Royd Boyz in the Hall on the first ballot while stating we very well might vote for Bonds and Clemens in future years. Well, here's what another first-ballot candidate, Curt Schilling, told ESPN:

"I think it's fitting. If there ever were a ballot or a year to make a statement about what we didn't do as players, this is it."

Schilling went on to say that even players who weren't juicers were complicit in the Steroid Era and deserved to be denied Hall entry. And he went out of the way to include himself among the guilty.

Schilling, who finished just ahead of Bonds and Clemens, got my vote. And now I feel even better about it.

-- Sad to see two guys drop off the ballot: Dale Murphy couldn't get anywhere near enough votes during  his 15 years of eligibility but truly embodied all the great things in sports; and Kenny Lofton, a fine player during his prime who almost surely deserved more than one year as a candidate (he didn't get the required 5 percent of the vote).

-- I sure as heck hope that the one writer who checked the box next to Aaron Sele's name did so as a protest vote.
^

Hall Call: 4 get my vote; most big names don't

^

Being a Hall of Fame voter is never easy for anybody who takes the task seriously. And I do. 

Still, some years are more difficult than others, and this probably was the most challenging -- and most interesting -- ballot I've encountered in my nearly two decades as a BBWAA vote-caster. Between the steroid allegations and the sheer number of qualified first-year candidates, there were numerous tough calls.

Here's how I reasoned with myself as I first eliminated my non-candidates and then ultimately filled out my ballot. 

NOT HALL-WORTHY

SANDY ALOMAR JR. … Highly intelligent future manager, only decent numbers.

JEFF CIRILLO … Solid role player.

ROYCE CLAYTON … Good-fielding shortstop but soft hitter.

JEFF CONINE … Solid player but stats fall short.

SHAWN GREEN … 2,003 hits and 328 HR but lacking run production.

ROBERTO HERNANDEZ … 326 saves but not dominant enough.

RYAN KLESKO … Valuable role player but only decent stats.

JOSE MESA … 321 saves but hardly dominant.

REGGIE SANDERS … Above-average player but only 983 RBI.

AARON SELE … Only 10 W per season and 4.61 ERA.

MIKE STANTON … Mostly a middle reliever and set-up man.

TODD WALKER … Defensive shortcomings and only OK numbers.

RONDELL WHITE … Proved that steroids don't help everybody.

WOODY WILLIAMS … Solid starter but mediocre record and ERA.

IT'S NOT THE "HALL OF GOOD" (OR EVEN VERY GOOD)

STEVE FINLEY … Outstanding outfielder with 2,548 hits, 304 HR and 320 SB but only 2-time All-Star and one top-10 MVP.

JULIO FRANCO … .298 hitter over 23 seasons with 2,586 career hits, but not nearly enough run production.

KENNY LOFTON … One of the best leadoff hitters in recent history but well behind Raines in most categories. 

EDGAR MARTINEZ … Possibly the best DH ever but his career HR (309), RBI (1,261) and slugging (.515) were hardly eye-popping.

DON MATTINGLY … Outstanding player but injuries and lack of run-production during the second half of his career derails his candidacy.

FRED McGRIFF … Hard to argue with most of his numbers, including 493 HR, 1,550 RBI, eight 100 RBI seasons. But only one top-5 MVP vote (and no top-3) and no truly “magic” numbers (2,490 hits, 493 HR, .509 slugging). Also, one of the worst-fielding first basemen I’ve ever seen. Sorry, Crime Dog fans, but I can’t shake the image of so many horrific plays when I covered his time with the Cubs.

LARRY WALKER … He’s close in many categories, and had a strong .965 OPS, but he was not quite dominant enough among his peers. Plus, his huge production at Coors Field skews all of his numbers.

DAVID WELLS … A fat man’s Curt Schilling: good clutch pitcher with a high career winning percentage. But his high ERA, pedestrian WHIP figure and low K total put him behind Schilling and Morris.

BERNIE WILLIAMS … Fine contributor to winning teams but quite short in major statistical categories.

That leaves the following 14 for serious consideration:

Jeff Bagwell

Craig Biggio

Barry Bonds

Roger Clemens

Mark McGwire

Jack Morris

Dale Murphy

Rafael Palmeiro

Mike Piazza

Tim Raines

Curt Schilling

Lee Smith

Sammy Sosa

Alan Trammell

ALMOST, BUT NO

JEFF BAGWELL … Outstanding career numbers but behind Fred McGriff in most categories. His HR total, 449, is not extraordinary for a first baseman. There is steroid talk but no proof, so my decision on this borderline case was tipped by his poor postseason numbers for a Houston team that desperately needed more from its leader to win pennants. The one year the Astros finally made the World Series, they did it without an injured Bagwell. The fact that he got his numbers in 15 seasons (McGriff needed 19), that he played much of his career in the Astrodome (a pitcher’s park) and that he finished in the top-5 of MVP voting three times puts him very close. I could consider him in the future.

DALE MURPHY … One of the great guys and honorable competitors. That his final year on the ballot coincides with the first year of so many infamous juicers, it is very, very tempting to give him a symbolic vote. And he certainly has some impressive accomplishments, including consecutive MVP awards. But his numbers simply fall short in so many areas, including batting average, hits, HR, RBI, OBP and slugging. The clincher: He ranks in the top 50 in only one major statistical category -- strikeouts.

LEE SMITH … He retired as MLB's all-time saves leader (since eclipsed), and that alone warrants serious consideration. However, he benefited greatly from the relatively recent trend in which closers became one-inning specialists. Closers are so specialized, I need a guy to be flat-out dominating in the vein of Rich Gossage, Rollie Fingers or Mariano Rivera to give him my vote.

ALAN TRAMMELL … A super-solid player who helped usher in the era of shortstops making major offensive contributions. Regardless of position, however, I have trouble voting for a guy who had only one 100 RBI season, one 200-hit season and two 20 HR seasons. Not a single one of his career numbers screams “Hall of Fame.” Super-solid is admirable but doesn’t equate to an all-time great.

NO ... WITH ASTERISKS

BARRY BONDS … Statistical no-brainer but steroid use had a major impact on his numbers in the latter third of his career. Game of Shadows, the book that is considered the definitive chronicle of his juicing, said he began using in 1999 after he was jealous of the attention Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire received the year before. If that is true, and there is no reason to believe otherwise, Bonds already had incredible career numbers and was well on his way to a Hall of Fame career. Given all that, I almost surely will vote for him … just not this year. I never have been a voter who emphasized “first-ballot Hall of Famer” as being special, but I will in this kind of case.

ROGER CLEMENS … See my Bonds explanation regarding Hall of Fame numbers before he allegedly started juicing. Unlike Bonds, Clemens was completely cleared by a jury. Still, I’m guessing the true Clemens story has not been told yet, so I’m also going to deny him first-ballot Hall status. As an aside, one could argue that all the talk about him making a comeback next season is another reason to delay his Hall entrance.

MARK McGWIRE … He’s kind of the anti-Bonds/Clemens. His numbers were nowhere near Hall worthy until he started using his keister as a pin-cushion. An amazing 42 percent of his career HRs came during the four-year stretch when he was cheating and lying his head off. Given his one-dimensional skill set, it’s not especially difficult to leave the box next to his name unchecked. He’ll never get my vote, and it’s not just because of the cheating.

RAFAEL PALMEIRO … Although I try not to let steroid allegations alone overwhelm my ballot, I am quite convinced that pretty much his entire career was a fraud. So it’s easy for me to focus on his unimpressive OPS, WAR, slugging and postseason numbers and deny him my vote.

MIKE PIAZZA … For now, I’m going to hold off. There are enough steroid questions -- combined with a WAR ranked 179^th all-time and a five-year fade at the end of his career – to make him less than a first-ballot Hall of Famer in my eyes.

SAMMY SOSA … That he was outed as a steroid cheat by the New York Times probably is damning enough in the eyes of most voters. Even if he never had put needles in his rump, however, the fact that he was caught using a corked bat suggests there is nothing he wouldn’t do to gain an unfair advantage. He was a horrible teammate, too. The juicing puts his career accomplishments in doubt and his lack of character clinches it for me: He’s not deserving of enshrinement, 600-plus homers or not.

AND FINALLY ... MY CLASS OF 2013 SELECTIONS

CRAIG BIGGIO … The steroid whispers are barely audible and not a good enough reason to overlook the rest of his accomplishments. He has the fifth-most doubles ever (No. 1 among right-handed hitters), and also ranks in the top 21 in runs and hits. A multiple-threat player who had 291 HR and 414 SB. Unlike Bagwell, he was the spark plug of Houston’s drive to its only pennant. A multiple Gold Glover at second base who moved to other positions when the Astros had the need. Numbers are almost identical to those of Robin Yount, a first-ballot choice (albeit just barely).

JACK MORRIS … His stats – 254 wins, .577 winning percentage, 3.90 ERA – make him a borderline case. But he was a workhorse for the Tigers, Twins and Blue Jays, was one of the winningest pitchers in an increasingly hitter-friendly era and had some memorable clutch performances. I unashamedly admit that his 10-inning shutout of Atlanta in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series – probably the most exciting event I ever covered – has influenced my vote. 

CURT SCHILLING … Like Morris, not a slam-dunk choice. Given that he posted only 216 regular-season wins, I wish his ERA had been lower than 3.46. Still, his strikeout total (15^th all-time) and K-to-BB ratio (second ever) are impressive. As fewer and fewer pitchers worked deep into games, his nine seasons of 200-plus innings and 83 complete games also deserve mention. Finally, there was his incredible postseason success: an 11-2 record, the third-best postseason winning percentage ever, a 2.23 ERA and a crucial role on three World Series winners. In five postseason elimination games, he went 4-0 with a 1.37 ERA. How am I supposed to ignore those clutch numbers? I’m not, and I didn't.

TIM RAINES … In a team photo of best leadoff men ever, Raines would be featured prominently. His career numbers generally were more impressive than those of Lou Brock. Reached base more in his career than Tony Gwynn did and had an almost identical OBP. As ESPN’s Jayson Stark pointed out, every eligible player who reached base as many times as Raines did and had as high an OBP is in the Hall. Throw in his base-stealing – fifth ever with 808 and second all-time with a .847 success rate -- and he gets my vote.

So there you have it ...

Biggio, Morris, Schilling and Raines get my check marks; Bonds, Clemens and Sosa don't (though Bonds and Clemens might as early as next year).

Phew! That was exhausting!

^