My 2017 Hall of Fame ballot (Rodriguez among trio elected)

There is no greater responsibility in this job than serving as a Hall of Fame voter. In the seven years since I first qualified, once I had been a member of the Baseball Writers' Association of America for 10 consecutive years, I have put a whole lot of time and energy into this. And I'm not alone in that regard. Every fellow voter I've ever discussed this with feels the same way and puts the same time and effort into voting for the Hall of Fame.

Now it's a cardinal rule of journalism that you're not supposed to become part of the story, and I take that seriously. It's why even though my ballot is submitted in late December, I don't reveal my picks until after the results are officially announced.

This day is about the men who received at least 75 percent of the vote and earned election to Cooperstown. And that's why the focus right now should be on the just-announced Class of 2017: Jeff Bagwell, Tim Raines and Ivan Rodriguez.

It's a strong class, one that includes a pair of inductees who had to wait a long time to receive this honor, with Bagwell on the ballot for the seventh time and Raines on the ballot for the 10th (and final) time. And it includes the first Nationals player to be headed to Cooperstown in Rodriguez, who spent the final two seasons of his illustrious career (2010-11) wearing a curly W cap.

And this very nearly was a five-man class instead of a three-man class. Bagwell (86.2 percent), Raines (86 percent) and Rodriguez (76 percent) cleared the bar. But Trevor Hoffman (74 percent) and Vladimir Guerrero (71.7 percent) came awfully close and are well-positioned to be elected next year.

For those who don't know how the voting process works, a quick primer:

* There were 34 players on this year's ballot, 15 returning from previous years and 19 first-timers. In order to remain on the ballot, a player must receive at least 5 percent of the vote.

* Voters may select up to 10 players, but are not required to vote for that many. In fact, a few submitted blank ballots, which count against the total percentages. Many voters say they would have picked more than 10 players if allowed, but despite formal requests from the BBWAA to change that longstanding rule, the Hall of Fame has decided to keep the 10-player limit intact. (I only voted for nine players this year, but I do support unlimited voting. There should be only one question involved in this process: Is Player X a Hall of Famer?)

* The criteria for making selections reads as follows: "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." Those 23 words have been parsed perhaps as much as any ever written besides those that make up the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They are quite vague, and every voter has the ability to interpret them however he or she chooses, which makes for some really tough decisions and some really compelling debate.

So, with all that in mind, here's an explanation of my vote on all 34 players on this year's ballot. You certainly won't agree with every single one of these, but I certainly hope you'll respect the time and effort that went into each of them...

JEFF BAGWELL - YES
Bagwell first appeared on the ballot seven years ago, the first year I became a voter, and I've happily voted for him every time. It was a slow march, but the Astros first baseman finally cracked the 75 percent threshold this year, and so he's at last headed for induction in Cooperstown. And deservedly so. Bagwell is one of only 10 players in history with 400 homers, 400 doubles and 200 stolen bases. He's third all-time with 1,704 assists at first base and was a far better defensive player than many remember. And though he falls just short of being only the 19th player in history with a .300/.400/.500 slash line over at least 5,000 plate appearances, he's still one of only 22 players with a .297/.400/.500 slash line. Everybody else on that list is a Hall of Famer in my book (minus the PED guys and Shoeless Joe Jackson). About PEDs ... Bagwell has forever been the subject of whispers, but there has never been any actual accusation or evidence against him. It's unfortunate that speculation alone likely kept him out of the Hall the last six years, but thankfully enough voters got over that hump this time.

CASEY BLAKE - NO
He didn't become a full-time big leaguer until age 29, after which he put together a solid career, all things considered. But sorry, a career .264 hitter with 167 homers and a .778 OPS isn't getting into Cooperstown without a ticket.

BARRY BONDS - NO
If you've read my pieces on this subject before, you know my stance on this. But if you haven't, a quick summary: I don't vote for anyone who either admitted taking PEDs, failed a league-sponsored drug test or has otherwise been reasonably proven to have taken them through reliable research and reporting. Bonds may never have failed a test, but he did admit to a grand jury he took "the cream" and "the clear" (though he claimed he didn't know they were PEDs) and the reporting on him in the book "Game of Shadows" is extensive and convincing. Yes, he was perhaps the greatest hitter in a half-century. Yes, he might well have produced a Hall of Fame career before ever taking anything illegal. But he still took the stuff. And he did so purely in a selfish attempt to boost his own performance, in the process threatening the integrity of the game. But didn't the Today's Game Era Committee just vote in Bud Selig, who turned a blind eye to steroids for more than a decade and helped facilitate this era of cheating? Yeah. Why should that have any bearing on whether Bonds deserves to go in or not? The voting body I'm a part of had no say in that decision. The voting body I am a part of does have a say in this one. And if the Hall of Fame tells me I'm supposed to evaluate a player's "integrity, sportsmanship and character," then I'm going to follow the rules and not vote for somebody who clearly didn't follow the rules.

PAT BURRELL - NO
The No. 1 pick of the 1998 draft never realized his full potential to become one of the greats, but he did fashion a nice, solid career in the end: a .253 average, 292 homers, 976 RBIs, .834 OPS and World Series rings with both the Phillies (2008) and Giants (2010).

ORLANDO CABRERA - NO
A very good shortstop for a long time with the Expos, Angels and then several other teams at the end of his career. Hit .272 with 123 homers, 459 doubles and 216 stolen bases. Also had 11 hits for the Red Sox during their memorable 2004 American League Championship Series comeback against the Yankees.

MIKE CAMERON - NO
You've got to be pretty highly regarded to be the key return in a trade for Ken Griffey Jr. in his prime. And Cameron was just that. Never hit for a high average (.249) but he had a very good power-speed combo (278 homers, 297 stolen bases) and played an excellent center field.

ROGER CLEMENS - NO
The numbers are overwhelming: 354 wins, 4,672 strikeouts, seven Cy Young Awards, seven league ERA titles. But this isn't about the numbers. It's about convincing evidence that Clemens took PEDs, as extensively outlined in the Mitchell Report and through Andy Pettitte's undisputed testimony. And that keeps him out by my standards. What about the "He Already Would Have Been a Hall of Famer Before He Started Taking Steroids" argument? Sorry, it's not about what the numbers would have been without steroids. It's about the fact he took them in the first place, and in doing so called into question the integrity of the game. Besides, if we're going to apply this logic to Clemens and Bonds, then aren't we essentially inviting Mike Trout to start taking steroids in a couple more years, once his Hall of Fame credentials are secured? What message does that send?

J.D. DREW - NO
A very good player for more than a decade, Drew finished with a .278 batting average, .384 on-base percentage, .873 OPS and 242 home runs. He's not a Hall of Famer, but he probably deserves more attention and credit than he receives.

VLADIMIR GUERRERO - YES
I think most have viewed Guerrero as a Hall of Famer for a long time, but I'm not sure everyone appreciates just how great he was. Consider the numbers: a career .318 batting average, .379 on-base percentage, .553 slugging percentage, .931 OPS, 449 homers, 1,496 RBIs, 2,590 hits, 477 doubles, 181 stolen bases. He won an MVP and was a top-five MVP finisher four times. He was a nine-time All-Star and an eight-time Silver Slugger. Now this: Guerrero is one of only six players in history to hit at least .318 with at least 449 home runs in his career. The others: Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Stan Musial and Jimmie Foxx. And we haven't even talked about his arm in right field yet. Man, what a player. It's disappointing he came up short in his first attempt, but he should be a lock to make it next year.

CARLOS GUILLEN - NO
A three-time All-Star, Guillen hit .285 with a .355 on-base percentage and 124 homers during a solid career spent entirely with the Mariners and Tigers. He delivered big in October, too, hitting .344 with seven RBIs in 19 career postseason games.

TREVOR HOFFMAN - YES
There are some who don't believe relievers are worthy of the Hall of Fame. Not because they didn't excel at their jobs, but because their jobs inherently encompass only a small part of the game. I get that. But is it Hoffman's fault that he only pitched 1,089 1/3 innings in his career, when the average Hall-of-Fame pitcher threw 3,801? He, like all players, is a product of his own time. And during his time, nobody not named Mariano Rivera was better at being a relief pitcher than Hoffman. He had 601 career saves, second only to Rivera in history. His save percentage was 88.8 percent, third-best in history among anyone with at least 300 career saves (behind only Rivera and Joe Nathan). Yes, he spent his career pitching one inning at a time. But he did that as well as almost anyone who has ever held that role has done it. And though he came oh so close this year, falling five votes short, it's hard to imagine he won't make it next year.

JEFF KENT - NO
Kent has his supporters, those who correctly point out he hit more home runs (351) than any other second baseman in history, with a .509 slugging percentage surpassed only by Rogers Hornsby. My problem is this: Compared to all hitters during his time, Kent's offensive numbers don't really stand out. Among all qualifying hitters who played during his career, he ranks 74th in batting average (behind Frank Catalanotto and Mark Grudzielanek) and 49th in slugging percentage (behind Carlos Lee and J.D. Drew). Yes, he was one of the best power-hitting second basemen ever. But he didn't bring a whole lot else to the table. And he didn't really stack up with the best hitters of his time.

DERREK LEE - NO
Let's pause for a moment to gawk with amazement at Lee's 2005 numbers with the Cubs: a .335 batting average, 1.080 OPS, 46 homers, 107 RBIs, 199 hits, 50 doubles and 393 total bases. (Plus a Gold Glove.) And he only finished third in MVP voting, behind Albert Pujols and Andruw Jones. Sweet fancy Moses!

EDGAR MARTINEZ - YES
When I first started voting for the Hall of Fame, I left Martinez off my ballot. My hang-up was that his performance, while great, wasn't lasting because he didn't become a big-league regular until age 27. But I changed my mind a few years back, for two reasons: 1) I learned more about the manner in which the Mariners stashed Martinez away at Triple-A for three seasons even though he clearly was ready for the majors, and 2) He was, quite simply, one of the best designated hitters in baseball history. Maybe the best. And if you're in the conversation for "Best XXXXX in Baseball History," I think that locks up your place in Cooperstown. (A career .312/.418/.515 slash line - making him one of only eight hitters in history to do that - doesn't hurt, either.)

FRED McGRIFF - NO
The Crime Dog presents a tricky debate, because had he played in a different era, his 493 homers, 1,550 RBIs and .509 slugging percentage would have made him a surefire Hall of Famer. But he didn't play in a different era. He played from 1986-2004, and we all know what happened to offensive numbers during that era. Among his peers, McGriff ranked 109th in batting average, 48th in on-base percentage, 36th in slugging percentage (behind Kevin Mitchell and Ellis Burks) and 31st in OPS (behind Ryan Klesko). As far as we know, McGriff played the game clean. But because many others didn't, his career numbers lose much of their luster. That's truly unfortunate.

MELVIN MORA - NO
For a three-year stretch from 2003-05, Mora hit .312/.391/.513 with an average of 23 homers and 80 RBIs. That, however, was easily the peak of an otherwise nice-but-unspectacular career.

MIKE MUSSINA - NO
This one isn't going to be popular with a lot of people, especially locals who for a long time have been among Mussina's strongest supporters. What I can tell you is that this is my toughest call every year. Every year, I go back and re-examine his career and try to find something that gets me over the hump. And every year, he comes up just short in my mind. Here's what I think it boils down to: Though Mussina was consistently very good for a long time, he rarely (if ever) was dominant in the manner I believe Hall of Famers should be. He finished top-five in Cy Young voting six times - but he finished better than fourth only once. He finished top-four in ERA seven times - but he finished better than third only once. He's 19th all-time in strikeouts - but he ranked better than third in his league only once. Among the 40 pitchers with at least 2,000 innings during his career, Mussina ranked 11th in ERA (behind Kevin Brown, Tim Hudson and David Cone) and 13th in strikeout rate (behind Javier Vazquez, Chuck Finley, Jeff Fassero, Andy Benes and Kevin Millwood). Now, there's an argument made out there that Mussina spent his entire career in the tough American League East. So I dug deeper into that. It didn't help his cause. Yes, he faced the Blue Jays of the early '90s, the Yankees of the late '90s and the Red Sox of the '00s. But he didn't face the good Orioles lineup of the '90s or the good Yankees lineup of the '00s, because he was on those teams. His career stats against AL East opponents: 10-8 with a 4.83 ERA against Baltimore, 21-17 with a 3.66 ERA against Boston, 6-8 with a 3.38 ERA against New York, 25-12 with a 3.26 ERA against Toronto. For me, it's just not enough to lift Mussina over the hump.

MAGGLIO ORDONEZ - NO
The guy could hit - .309 batting average, .502 slugging percentage - but injuries disrupted the second half of his career and took him out of serious discussion for Cooperstown.

JORGE POSADA - NO
Let's be clear about this: Posada was a very good hitter and key contributor on great Yankees teams that won five World Series titles. All of which makes him worthy of recognition. But let's not elevate him to something he wasn't (a Hall of Famer). He just doesn't stack up with the very best catchers in history, the guys who are deservingly in Cooperstown.

TIM RAINES - YES
What a long, strange trip it's been for Raines to get to Cooperstown. When he first appeared on the ballot in 2008, he received only 24.3 percent of the vote. And that number actually went down to 22.6 percent the next year. But it's been a slow and steady march up the ladder since then, culminating with his election in his 10th and final year of eligibility. What changed? Well, more and more voters came to appreciate what longtime Raines supporters (myself included) felt all along: He was the most effective base stealer of all time (his 85 percent success rate is best among anyone with at least 400 steals). His .385 on-base percentage was among the best in the game at a time when that skill was not preached the way it is now. He had 713 career extra-base hits (again, a very high number for a leadoff guy at a time when that wasn't expected). And, of course, my favorite Tim Raines stat: He reached base more times in his career than Tony Gwynn did in his career, in a nearly identical number of plate appearances. Congratulations to Rock, and congratulations to a generation of Expos fans who deserve this day as much as their favorite player does.

EDGAR RENTERIA - NO
He may not be a Hall of Famer, but I'd be curious how many of those enshrined in Cooperstown would give up that honor in exchange for what Renteria has: the game-winning hits in two World Series clinchers, including the walk-off winner in Game 7 of the 1997 Fall Classic. That's a pretty good claim to fame.

MANNY RAMIREZ - NO
The only right-handed hitters in history with 500 homers and a .300 batting average: Jimmie Foxx, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Frank Thomas, Albert Pujols and Manny Ramirez. Now that's an impressive list. Alas, Ramirez also resides on another list none of those other great hitters does: suspended two separate times for failing drug tests. You can make a case for guys who took steroids before Major League Baseball instituted testing and punishment. You can't make a case for guys who took them after. Certainly not one who even after getting caught and suspended once still did it again and got caught and suspended again.

ARTHUR RHODES - NO
Pitched in 900 career major league games, 24th most in history. Posted a career 4.08 ERA, fifth-worst among those 24 pitchers.

IVAN RODRIGUEZ - YES
Who's the best catcher in baseball history? Johnny Bench? Carlton Fisk? Yogi Berra? Ivan Rodriguez? No matter your answer to that question, you have to acknowledge Rodriguez deserves to be in the conversation. He hit .296 with 311 homers, 2,844 hits, 1,354 runs and 572 doubles. He was a 14-time All-Star and a 13-time Gold Glove Award winner who threw out 46 percent of base stealers in his career, better than anybody who played the position since the 1960s. There's really only reason a voter would have to keep Pudge out: suspicion of steroids use. Problem is, that suspicion stems from only one on-the-record allegation ever made (by Jose Canseco, in his book), Rodriguez's slimmed-down physique when he reported for spring training after MLB instituted drug testing and a vague answer he once gave when asked if he was among the players on the confidential 2003 list for testing positive during baseball's trial season: "Only God knows." Look, do I think it's possible Rodriguez took PEDs during his career? Yes, of course. Do I have enough concrete evidence to say it with any semblance of certainty? No. I can't in good conscience keep him out of Cooperstown based on that. And thankfully my colleagues agreed, voting him into the Hall on his first try.

FREDDY SANCHEZ - NO
Did you know Sanchez won the 2006 National League batting title? Didn't think so.

CURT SCHILLING - YES
Let me make this abundantly clear, with no room for doubt in anyone's mind: The things Curt Schilling has said, written, tweeted, re-tweeted and otherwise published for public consumption in the last few years are horribly offensive, demeaning and in some cases bigoted. I personally denounce all of it and have zero respect for the man from whose mouth or fingers those words came from. And these are not "political" statements. They are vile, hurtful and offensive statements, no matter what political party or candidates you support or don't support. Now, let me also make this abundantly clear: I voted for Schilling for the Hall of Fame each of the previous four years, I voted for him again this year and I intend to continue voting for him as long as he's on the ballot. Because I believe his performance throughout his career - 3.24 ERA during his peak (fourth-best in MLB), 1.075 WHIP (third-best), 4.38 strikeout-to-walk ratio (best among any pitcher since the 1800s) and 11-2 record with a 2.23 ERA in 19 career postseason starts - without having done anything to threaten the integrity of the game while he played makes him worthy of being in the Hall of Fame. His words and actions since retiring from the sport, no matter how vile and offensive they are, should not be taken into consideration into an evaluation of his playing career. I think Curt Schilling, the player, deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. But if that ever happens, I certainly won't be celebrating Curt Schilling, the man.

GARY SHEFFIELD - NO
Excellent career numbers: 509 homers, 1,676 RBIs, 2,689 hits, .292 batting average, .514 slugging percentage. Undone by the fact he's an admitted PED user, having received "the cream" from BALCO on the advice of Barry Bonds.

LEE SMITH - NO
I personally feel bad for Smith, who over the last 15 years has seen his Hall of Fame support climb from 36 percent to 50 percent and then back down below 30 percent. He was a very good reliever, one of the best of his time, and he deserved better than to keep showing up on the ballot every year without ever having a realistic shot at election. But here's one comparison that shows why I never voted for him: In his career, Smith had a 3.03 ERA, 1.256 WHIP, 8.7 strikeouts per nine innings, 3.4 walks per nine innings and an 82 percent save conversion rate. Rafael Soriano in his career had a 2.89 ERA, 1.078 WHIP, 9.1 strikeouts per nine innings, 2.8 walks per nine innings and an 84 percent save conversion rate.

SAMMY SOSA - NO
Unlike some who don't think Sosa produced Hall of Fame numbers, I do. The guy hit 609 home runs with 1,667 RBIs and 234 stolen bases. But, as has hopefully been made clear, I don't vote for anyone for whom there is convincing evidence of PED use. And, according to a New York Times report that has never been questioned, Sosa tested positive for PEDs in 2003.

MATT STAIRS - NO
I've just gotta say that I think it's really cool a guy like Stairs gets to be on the Hall of Fame ballot. No, he wasn't a Hall of Famer. Nothing close to one. But he had a very nice career, was immensely popular with all the guys he played alongside on a bunch of different teams and deserves a brief moment in the sun to celebrate that.

JASON VARITEK - NO
Varitek was a very important part of two World Series championship teams in Boston, including a key figure that helped the Red Sox break the curse in 2004. On an individual level, though, his performance just doesn't stack up with the best of the best.

BILLY WAGNER - YES
Why doesn't Wagner get anywhere close to the support Hoffman does? Because, believe it or not, they were actually quite similar pitchers. And in some ways, Wagner was better. He had a 2.31 ERA, 442 saves and a 0.998 WHIP that is the best in baseball history for anyone who pitched at least 500 innings. No, he didn't last as long as Hoffman. But the man did spend parts of 16 seasons in the big leagues. And he was pretty darn dominant during that time.

TIM WAKEFIELD - NO
What a remarkable career the knuckleballer had. He burst onto the scene as a rookie with the Pirates in 1992, was out of a job two years later, caught on with the Red Sox in 1995 and then stayed with Boston through 2011, starting 430 games.

LARRY WALKER - YES
With Raines now in the Hall of Fame, perhaps others will join the bandwagon of my other pet project over the years. Few really do recognize how great a player Walker was. So here's my argument, for those who have never heard it: Walker is one of only 17 players ever with a .300/.400/.500 career slash line and at least 8,000 plate appearances. Everybody else on that list is either in the Hall of Fame, took PEDs or is named Edgar Martinez. He was a five-time All-Star, a seven-time Gold Glove Award winner, a three-time batting champion, an MVP and a very good baserunner (230 career steals). The primary knock on Walker is that he played a good chunk of his career at Coors Field, which inflated his stats. Well, yes and no. Do you know what his career slash line was away from Coors Field? How about .282/.372/.500. Yes, he slugged .500 away from Coors Field. (That's what Ernie Banks slugged in his entire career.) And consider that 69 percent of his career plate appearances were taken someplace other than Coors Field. Besides, why is it fair to penalize somebody for playing a big part of his career in a great hitter's park when we don't penalize somebody for playing a big part of his career in a great pitcher's park? Did you know that Sandy Koufax's career ERA at Dodger Stadium was 1.37, but only 3.38 everywhere else? Has anyone ever suggested Koufax wasn't worthy of Cooperstown because his numbers were inflated by his home ballpark? In the end, no matter where he played, Walker was a great player.