Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Curt Schilling and Sammy Sosa are on the ballot for their 10th and final time, with their candidacies highlighting the questions many voters faced as they filled out their ballots. For just the ninth time in history and the first time since 2013, no players were voted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame in 2021. Could the same happen in 2022?
Advertisem*nt
We asked those of our writers who vote for the Hall to share their ballots and to write a few words about one particular candidate they find particularly interesting or compelling. Here’s how their votes stacked up.
The Baseball Writers’ Association of America’s results will be announced on Jan. 25.
Rob Biertempfel’s ballot
Todd Helton
Joe Nathan
Scott Rolen
Curt Schilling
Billy Wagner
Being a National League beat writer, I didn’t see Nathan pitch very often. His numbers are impressive — 377 saves (eighth most in history), 89.3 save percentage (tops among relievers with 250-plus saves) and a six-year run over which his 14.2 fWAR was second only to Mariano Rivera. And yet, Nathan didn’t really break out as a dominant closer until age 29 and his 787 career games rank just 57th. I need more time to evaluate his case and to gather intel from writers, players and coaches who know him best. I voted for him not so much because I think he’s a slam-dunk Hall of Famer, but because I want him to reach that 5 percent threshold and stay on the ballot for another year.
Complete breakdown of Biertempfel’s ballot
Steve Buckley’s ballot
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Todd Helton
Andruw Jones
Jeff Kent
Andy Pettitte
David Ortiz
Scott Rolen
Curt Schilling
Billy Wagner
There was a time, back in the day, when I thought I’d be conflicted about the looming Hall of Fame candidacy of Ortiz. He did, after all, test positive for … for something when MLB and the Players Association conducted a confidential testing survey in 2003. I now believe the survey was flawed, its results murky and, if that’s all you have on Ortiz, it means you have nothing. No hands were wrung in the making of this selection: Ortiz was an easy choice.
Dan Connolly’s ballot
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Todd Helton
Torii Hunter
Andruw Jones
David Ortiz
Scott Rolen
Jimmy Rollins
Gary Sheffield
Billy Wagner
I’m probably on an island here, similar to the one for Torii Hunter last year, but I think Rollins, a first-timer on the ballot, deserves to be a candidate for the next few years so we can properly dissect his career. So in a sense, he gets my checkmark to make sure he has a better chance of appearing on 5 percent of submitted ballots. But I’d select him anyway because I’m all about well-rounded candidates, and he was the whole package. Rollins could hit, could run, had pop, played great defense, had off-the-charts character (he was the 2014 Roberto Clemente Award co-winner) and absolutely hated to lose. He’s one of those players, especially paired with double-play partner Chase Utley, who seemingly willed his team to win. His overall numbers are a little light for a Hall of Famer but add in the extras to give him my vote.
Advertisem*nt
Rustin Dodd’s ballot
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Todd Helton
Andruw Jones
David Ortiz
Manny Ramirez
Alex Rodriguez
Scott Rolen
Curt Schilling
Gary Sheffield
When I revealed my ballot on Twitter, the most common question surrounded the absence of Sosa, which is fair. If you look at who I voted for, I’m not particularly worried about links to performance-enhancing drug use or, in the case of Ramirez and Rodriguez, violations of MLB’s policy. I thought long and hard about my votes for Ramirez and Rodriguez, but we do not have an official accounting of which players used which drugs, how many drugs they took, how the drugs affected their performance, etc. Both players were such obvious Hall of Famers, and if I’m going to vote for Bonds and Sosa, I ultimately landed on “yes” for Manny and A-Rod.
But back to Sosa. I think there is an argument to vote yes for him. He hit 600 homers and made an indelible impact on the game’s history. Ultimately, though, his overall statistical case didn’t quite measure up to the players I voted for. (Even just looking at offense, for instance, he finished with a career 128 OPS+.) The simple reason I didn’t vote for Sosa: There were 10 players who I wanted to vote for before him.
Matt Gelb’s ballot
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
David Ortiz
Manny Ramirez
Alex Rodriguez
Scott Rolen
Curt Schilling
Gary Sheffield
Sammy Sosa
Billy Wagner
The more logic I attempted to apply to my ballot, the more twisted it became. This forced me to evolve how I think about the process. I have been steadfast in voting for Bonds and Clemens, but I had excluded Ramirez because I drew the line where Major League Baseball did; Ramirez tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs after the league instituted a substance policy. Now comes Rodriguez, and I could not reconcile supporting Bonds while omitting Rodriguez. Maybe that’s twisted, too. But I am appreciative of Jeff Fletcher, who articulated what I could not: “The Hall of Fame is perfectly capable of making its own character judgments before giving me a ballot.” He’s right. The proliferation of legalized sports betting and MLB’s profiteering from it probably forces some to reconsider Pete Rose’s place. As Fletcher wrote, “If the Hall wants to decide that other offenses – besides betting on baseball – are so egregious that it should exclude players from the Hall, they can take those players off the ballot.” So, that is where I stand.
I suspect as time passes, there will be a shifting evaluation regarding the Steroid Era. And if someone who tested positive from that era is inducted, it should be noted on his plaque. Lastly, the Hall’s Era Committees have moved on the spectrum toward “Big Hall” voting practices (while still curiously excluding Dick Allen), and this prompted me to reconsider “bubble” candidates. Wagner, a dominant reliever whose career spanned much of the Steroid Era, makes my ballot for the first time.
Chad Jennings’ ballot
Bobby Abreu
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Todd Helton
Andruw Jones
David Ortiz
Scott Rolen
Gary Sheffield
Sammy Sosa
Billy Wagner
It’s been three weeks since I put my ballot in the mail and already I’m wondering if I should have marked it differently.
Advertisem*nt
What I submitted, I think, was my most honest opinion. I voted for 10 players last year, and all 10 were back on the ballot this year. I needed to make room for Ortiz — who, after careful consideration, was an easy checkmark for me — and my solution was to eliminate Schilling. I still think Schilling is a Hall of Famer, but if I have to drop someone, I’d rather drop the guy who said he doesn’t want my vote. I’ll continue my support for Helton and Abreu as admittedly borderline candidates.
I kind of wish I’d found a way to vote for Nathan, which I didn’t at all expect when I began the process. Nathan has a case, though. By the numbers, he looks at least as good as Hall of Famers Lee Smith and Bruce Sutter, maybe as impactful as Rollie Fingers, and he isn’t totally out of place alongside Trevor Hoffman. He’s actually pretty similar to Billy Wagner (close in JAWS, WAR, WPA and IP), but I think Wagner was more dominant, so I kept Wagner on my ballot despite not finding room for Nathan. Really, I think Hall of Fame voters are still figuring out what to do with modern relievers and their relatively limited innings, and I was relieved to find noted Hall of Fame thinker Jay Jaffe was similarly moved by Nathan’s case. At the very least, I think Nathan has a surprising but compelling argument for Cooperstown. I’m not absolutely sure he belongs in the Hall of Fame, but I kind of wish I’d helped him stay on the ballot for at least one more look.
Keith Law’s ballot
Barry Bonds
Todd Helton
Andrew Jones
David Ortiz
Manny Ramirez
Alex Rodriguez
Scott Rolen
Gary Sheffield
The all-time home run king, fourth all time in WAR among all players (behind only Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson and Cy Young — all of whom played before baseball was integrated), recipient of seven MVP awards and deserving of two more, seventh all time in on-base percentage, eighth all time in slugging percentage, still the only member of the 500 HR/500 stolen base club … this isn’t about Bonds’ statistical case, though. His Hall of Fame candidacy has become a referendum on the “steroid era,” which is a misleading moniker, at best. We don’t know who did or did not use performance-enhancing drugs in most cases. Bonds himself never tested positive for anything, and the vast majority of players who tested positive were decidedly less than superstars. The only argument whatsoever to omit Bonds from a ballot is based on a broad reading of the character clause, and in his case, I don’t think that argument suffices to keep out of Cooperstown one of the best players in MLB history and someone who was on a Hall of Fame track even before his physical appearance seemed to rapidly change.
Complete breakdown of Law’s ballot
David O’Brien’s ballot
Todd Helton
Andruw Jones
Jeff Kent
David Ortiz
Scott Rolen
Curt Schilling
Billy Wagner
Voting for Jones is not a difficult decision for me and hasn’t been since he appeared on the ballot, but I do find it interesting that so many others view him as a borderline-at-best HOF candidate. The common criticism is that Jones’ performance declined precipitously after age 30. While that’s true, it neglects to note that he debuted at 19, and at age 21 he hit 31 homers and won the first of 10 consecutive Gold Gloves. If he’d instead debuted at 22 and excelled through his age 33 season, would that criticism be negated? Considered by many to be the greatest defensive center fielder of all time — Willie Mays himself told Jones as much — the longtime Brave had a decade that few other outfielders can rival. From 1998 through 2007, Jones averaged 34 homers (67 extra-base hits) and 103 RBIs, while winning 10 consecutive Gold Gloves, posting an .847 OPS and playing an average of 158 games per season, including 161 of 162 in three consecutive seasons and never fewer than 154.
C. Trent Rosecrans’ ballot
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Todd Helton
Andruw Jones
David Ortiz
Manny Ramirez
Alex Rodriquez
Scott Rolen
Gary Sheffield
Sammy Sosa
I never voted for Sosa before this, his 10th and final year. I’ve been persuaded over the last few years, especially as my thinking has evolved with those who reached their peak during the steroid era. I have Bonds, Clemens, Sheffield, Ramirez and Rodriguez on my rogues ballot, so it’s not the steroids issue. To me, it had mainly been peak production vs. career production with Sosa falling short on career production. But I’ve gotten to where I feel the peak was so high that it can’t be ignored. Sosa had always been behind other players on my ballot, although I didn’t vote for 10 last year and regretted that. I honored Schilling’s request to not vote for him and that allowed me to check Sosa’s name.
Daniel Barbarisi’s ballot
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Todd Helton
Andruw Jones
David Ortiz
Scott Rolen
Curt Schilling
Billy Wagner
Back when I was a baseball beat writer, the players I spent the most time talking to were the ones on the fringes of the roster — the middle relievers, backup catchers, utility infielders. For the most part, they were the most relatable guys in the clubhouse, and they had figured out how to squeeze the most out of their oft-limited talent in order to reach this level. Conflicted on how I should vote when the time came, I would at times raise the issue, and ask those guys what they thought. Many seemed angry at what Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens represented.
Advertisem*nt
As a Hall voter, until now I’ve opted against including those biggest names, partly because I think — based on these and other conversations — that stars of their reputation and status using pushed a lot of borderline players into a difficult choice. Many of those Four-A guys straddling that line between the minors and majors were compelled to partake just to keep up and maintain their livelihood.
I still think that’s true. But looking at and discussing the case of Ortiz forced me to re-examine my stance, how I vote and who really bears more of the blame here.
Ultimately, I’ve come to believe the system and rewards structure in place at the time forced unenviable choices on everyone. At the time when Bonds and Clemens put up outsized numbers, there was no real enforcement mechanism, no consequences, no material disincentive for using; and there were significant benefits to doing so, especially when MLB itself was celebrating their supercharged achievements.
Ortiz’s case — by the regular and postseason numbers, and the impact, I think he’s a Hall of Famer, but he has that 2003 test, despite its issues — is on many levels similar to those of Bonds and Clemens. The hypocrisy implicit in voting for him and keeping Bonds and Clemens out (all three of them players who operated before baseball explicitly said “no”) instantly struck me as too great, and would require tying myself in one too many logical knots. So I thought and talked a lot about it, and came away more acutely conscious of the distinction between players who might have taken performance-enhancing drugs before there were established rules with real consequences, and those who came after testing and punishment programs were codified. Until that point, baseball not only looked the other way, but lauded and cashed in on the record-breaking feats of the era. And the players shouldn’t be unduly vilified for that.
So, Bonds, Clemens, Ortiz in; A-Rod and Ramirez out (and Gary Sheffield jusssst on the other side of my arbitrary line based on performance relative to era and unremarkable postseason production).
Do I feel “right” about it? Not really. But I feel a little less wrong.
Joe Smith‘s ballot
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Todd Helton
Andruw Jones
David Ortiz
Manny Ramirez
Alex Rodriquez
Scott Rolen
Gary Sheffield
Billy Wagner
This seems like it gets harder every year. I took Schilling off because he asked last year to be removed from the ballot. I think he’s a HOFer by his numbers but chose to add someone else worthy instead (Todd Helton). The toughest call for me has been Sosa. I’ve voted for Bonds and Clemens, and have since added Ortiz and Rodriguez. They were all dominant at their positions for a long time (Ortiz being the rare DH to be considered). For me, I’m not keeping Sosa out strictly because of performance-enhancing drug suspicions or corked bats. To borrow wisdom from my colleague (and Hall of Famer) Jayson Stark, Sosa’s biggest comparable is Mark McGwire, who was a bigger offensive force and didn’t come close to election. I only had 10 choices and wasn’t ready to remove one of them for Sosa, who I will continue to consider and hear arguments for.
(Photo of Roger Clemens: Ron Vesely / MLB Photos via Getty Images)
