Hall of Fame voting raises more questions than answers

The easiest part of filling out my first Hall of Fame ballot was who I thought deserved a vote. Much more difficult was deciding which 10 players would get my vote.

Because of the arcane rule limiting Hall of Fame voters to just 10 check marks on the ballot, there were at least six players who I felt were deserving of a "yes" vote that didn't appear on my ballot.

So, who is or isn't worthy of the Hall was the easy part, it was two different questions that were more difficult.

Here are the two big questions:

1. What to do with the steroid guys?

2. How to decide which 10 players get a check next to their name.

I'm not sure there are right answers to either of these questions, so instead I'll just explain how I came to my conclusions.

As for the steroid era, I believe performance-enhancing drugs work. I believe they were an unfair advantage used by many in the game — and continue to be used and abused in the game. What I don't know is who used and who didn't. We all have our suspicions and beliefs, but we don't know for sure.

In the end, what I know for sure is what happened on the field. So that is the only thing I know for sure and the only basis of judgment I can make.

I know plenty of people who disagree with this stance, voters and non-voters alike. I respect that point of view and even held it at one point. But as certain as I am that I'm letting in steroid users, I don't believe they'll be alone in Cooperstown and I do believe some of their accomplishments came against other players who were doing the same thing.

There is a character clause in the Hall of Fame voting, BBWAA Rules for Election No. 5 — "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

Am I ignoring that? Maybe. More than that, I'm punting. I've always believed morality is relative, and I do not like to impose my beliefs or judge the morality of others. It's hard enough to judge baseball performance; it's infinitely more difficult to judge character. If character were as important as play on the field, there's no doubt the likes of Joe Nuxhall and Dale Murphy would already be in Cooperstown.

That means both Barry Bonds — the best player I've ever seen (before and after his alleged turn to steroids in 1999) — and Roger Clemens — one of the best pitchers I've ever seen — will get my vote.

The evidence against them is damning. I believe both used steroids and I have strong convictions that others I've deemed worthy, also used.

The fact of the matter is, Major League Baseball and the Hall of Fame both recognize Barry Bonds as the all-time home run leader, and now they're trying to pass the buck on the BBWAA to shell out some justice. That's not a game I'm comfortable playing.

That means others who are tainted by steroids, including admitted steroid user Mark McGwire, are eligible for me. What will get interesting is how I mold this to players who were actually suspended, which I do find as a difference, because it did hurt the player's team. I don't know exactly how I will judge those players (like Manny Ramirez), but thanks to Rafael Palmeiro failing to receive 5 percent of the vote last year, that's a buck I can comfortably pass.

(And yes, I believe this is sort of a cop-out. Honestly, every justification I've heard for how to vote for the steroids guys has been a cop-out, this is just the cop-out I'm most comfortable with.)

That brings us to the Rule of 10 — BBWAA voters can check off no more than 10 names on their ballot. That rule was instituted in 1936. At that time, we had just 16 Major League teams, and people of color were not welcome in the game. Since 1936, baseball has not only opened the door to people of color, but also to people of the world — and it's opened 14 more teams. In 1936, the history of the game wasn't very long, there had been just 32 World Series played. The rule limiting writers to 10 votes is as antiquated as players leaving their gloves on the field after an inning was over.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch writer Derrick Goold has proposed a "binary ballot," meaning a voter would simply have to answer "yes" or "no" of whether that player is a Hall of Famer next to each player on the ballot. I support this wholeheartedly. It may not lead to a floodgate of players getting voted in — a 75 percent standard is still ridiculously high — but it would allow players to be judged on merit alone, as opposed to merit compared to others on the ballot.

I have at least 15 names of the 34 sent on the ballot to me that I believe meet my requirements to the Hall of Fame. That leads us, finally, to the second question. How to decide which 10 get check marks from me?

There's a way to game the system, and it would makes sense to think that because Randy Johnson is going to get in with or without my vote, perhaps I should send a vote to Alan Trammell, a player who deserves a vote and has just one more year of eligibility after this year, as a way to try to boost his numbers. The problem with that is I end up being the idiot who didn't vote for Randy Johnson, and I'm just not comfortable with that.

My solution (or rationalization or whatever you want to call it) is to rank the players 1-through-whatever with the top 10 getting my votes. It's simple and unfair. It's arbitrary and disappointing. It's all those things, and it's far from perfect. But it's the only way I can justify it.

So, if you skipped everything above just to get here, go back up and read the rest before you call me dirty names and at least understand my thinking, but here's my ballot (in order): Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza, Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina, Tim Raines, Larry Walker.

Yes, that means no John Smoltz, no Craig Biggio, no Alan Trammell and no Edgar Martinez. Those four are all, to me, Hall of Fame worthy players and they didn't get my vote. That breaks my heart a little bit, because I love and respect this game. I think they are all deserving, but the rules won't let me vote as I'd like. It's much more fun to debate baseball than it is process, but unfortunately the process has trumped the baseball.