My 2021 Hall of Fame ballot

There's no greater privilege in this business than serving as a Hall of Fame voter. And there's no greater feeling than seeing one of baseball's greatest get the news of his election, knowing you played a small role in making it happen.

So it's always disappointing to put the time and effort into voting in a given year and then find out nobody was elected. Unfortunately, it does happen from time to time. Not by design, but by a confluence of events including an excess number of players elected in prior years, a weak class of first-time candidates and returning candidates with debatable Cooperstown cases.

And it turns out 2021 is one of those years.

None of the 25 players who appeared on this year's ballot received the necessary 75 percent support from members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America to be elected. That doesn't mean it'll be an empty stage in upstate New York this summer, though. Because the 2020 induction ceremony was postponed, Derek Jeter, Larry Walker, Ted Simmons and Marvin Miller will finally have their moment in the sun in 2021.

Curt Schilling came the closest to joining the group off the 2021 writers' ballot, but the controversial right-hander received only 71.1 percent support, one year after he was named on 70 percent of ballots. Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, in their ninth attempt to gain induction, remain stuck in neutral, receiving 61.8 percent and 61.6 percent support. The two steroids-tainted stars will have one more shot at election by the writers next year before their cases move on to another committee that reviews the cases of older players and other key figures in the sport's history.

Writers, as always, are allowed to vote for up to 10 players. I've used up my full allotment at times in the past, but this year I only voted for three players, all of them players I've voted for several times before. None of the 11 first-time candidates met the standard in my mind. And once again, several would've received my vote based on their playing performance but ultimately didn't because they didn't meet the standard for "integrity, sportsmanship and character" the Hall of Fame instructs voters to consider. I didn't go into this expecting to vote for so few; it just worked out that way.

These are difficult decisions, and everyone has different opinions on what makes someone worthy of a place in Cooperstown. That's what makes the process so special. This isn't an objective exercise. It's a subjective one. There are no right answers or wrong answers. There are no good ballots or bad ballots. In the end, we each determine our standards for election and vote accordingly.

For the 11th time, it was my privilege to participate in the process. And for the 11th time, I'll explain my ballot choices ...

BOBBY ABREU - NO
The career totals (2,470 hits, 574 doubles, 288 homers, 400 stolen bases, .291 batting average, .395 on-base percentage) are impressive, no doubt. But here's the problem: He did this during an era in which plenty of players did more. Among all big leaguers with at least 5,000 plate appearances during his career, Abreu only ranked only 36th in OPS (between Magglio Ordoñez and Luis González). That maybe explains why he was only named to two All-Star teams and finished in the top 20 in MVP voting only four times (never finishing higher than 12th).

BARRY BONDS - NO
If you've read this annual column before, you know my position on this matter. If you don't, here's the abridged version: The Hall of Fame instructs us to consider, in addition to on-field play, character, integrity and sportsmanship. To me, if you knowingly broke the rules - and U.S. law - by taking performance-enhancing drugs in a selfish attempt to boost your own individual performance, you did not display the character, integrity or sportsmanship the Hall has deemed necessary for induction. Bonds is the greatest offensive hitter of the last half-century, and I don't like the fact he's not in the Hall. But the evidence against him is clear and convincing, and we seem to have reached the point where nobody is changing his or her mind about this. He has one more year of eligibility. Perhaps enough voters will change their tune and push him over the 75 percent hump. But to date, there's been very little evidence that's likely to happen.

MARK BUEHRLE - NO
Though I knew this year's ballot didn't include any slam-dunk first-time candidates, I felt like there were a few guys who had legitimate cases. And Buehrle was among those on that list. I went into this exercise thinking I might vote for him. But in the end, his case just wasn't strong enough. Though he was a model of consistency during a long and successful career, he rarely was dominant. (Yes, he threw two no-hitters, one of them a perfect game. Obviously, those were dominant performances. But they represent 0.4 percent of his career big league starts.) Buehrle received Cy Young Award votes only once, finishing fifth in 2005. He ranked in the top 10 of his league in ERA only four times, never finishing higher than third. His 3.81 career ERA ranked 14th among all qualifying pitchers during that span, behind James Shields and Dan Haren. His 1.281 WHIP ranked 16th, behind Shields and Javier Vázquez. To be sure, Buehrle was a workhorse, a throwback who topped 200 innings for a remarkable 14 consecutive years and even tossed four complete games in his final season. But longevity and volume alone do not make a Hall of Famer. He doesn't quite make the cut in my book.

A.J. BURNETT - NO
Now here's a guy who had an eventful career. Threw a no-hitter for the Marlins (despite walking nine batters!) as a 24-year-old in 2001. Led the American League in strikeouts for the Blue Jays in 2008, then led the league in walks for the Yankees the following year. Won a World Series with New York in 2009 (despite lasting only two innings in his Game 5 start). Led the National League in losses (18) for the Phillies in 2014, then received his one and only All-Star selection for the Pirates in 2015 as a 38-year-old before retiring. That's a lot of ups and downs for one guy.

ROGER CLEMENS - NO
Like Bonds, my feelings on this matter haven't changed much over the years. Clemens is one of the very best pitchers of all time, and if the decision was based on playing performance only, he'd be the easiest Hall of Fame pick ever. But the decision isn't based solely on playing performance. And like Bonds, there is clear and convincing evidence Clemens broke the rules and U.S. law in taking performance-enhancing drugs to selfishly boost his own personal career. Yeah, he probably already had a Hall of Fame case before he ever started taking anything, but that doesn't matter. The fact he took them at all is disqualifying in my book. To enshrine Clemens (or Bonds) is to gloss over what he did and essentially tell future generations of great players it's OK to start taking PEDs once you've already put up Hall of Fame numbers over the first decade of your career. That's not a message we should be endorsing.

MICHAEL CUDDYER - NO
The Chesapeake, Va., native was among the first in a wave of major leaguers to come out of the Tidewater area, paving the way for Ryan Zimmerman, David Wright and the Upton brothers a few years later. Rarely spectacular but consistently productive, Cuddyer finished with 197 homers, 333 doubles, an .805 OPS and two All-Star appearances during a 15-year career with the Twins, Rockies and Mets.

DAN HAREN - NO
Nationals fans don't remember Haren fondly, and that feeling is justified. Signed for $13 million in 2013 to help bolster an already elite rotation, he wound up suffering through the worst season of his career, going 10-14 with a 4.67 ERA and openly revealing his lack of confidence in his pitching abilities along the way. Thing is, Haren actually was a consistently good starter for the vast majority of his career. From 2005-11, he went 101-74 with a 3.49 ERA and 1.151 WHIP while making at least 33 starts each season. Haren's closest career comp, according to Baseball-Reference.com: Jake Peavy. He deserves to be remembered in a more positive light, even if he was a disappointment in D.C.

LaTROY HAWKINS - NO
Though he was a baseball nomad, pitching for an astounding 11 clubs across 21 seasons, Hawkins was one of the most well-liked teammates of his generation. A failed starter early in his career with the Twins, he wound up resurrecting himself as a reliable setup man and occasional closer. His ERA in 98 starts: 6.11. His ERA in 944 relief appearances: 3.32.

TODD HELTON - YES
I did actually vote for three guys this year, I swear! And here's the first one, at least alphabetically. Helton has made my ballot each of the three years he's been eligible, and support for him is starting to build. To me, it's a pretty simple argument. If you have a .316/.414/.539 career offensive slash line - the only others to ever do that are Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Lou Gehrig, Jimmy Foxx, Rogers Hornsby and Stan Musial - you're a Hall of Famer. What about the Coors Field effect, you ask? If you've read my Hall of Fame columns over the years, you know my take on that. But for the first-timers: I don't believe it's fair to penalize a guy based on the ballpark he called home. Nobody's ever penalized Sandy Koufax or Don Drysdale for pitching at Dodger Stadium, which clearly helped lower their career ERAs. Why are we penalizing those who hit at Coors Field? Besides, Helton was still a really good hitter away from Colorado. His career OPS on the road was .855, which was better than Dave Winfield, Eddie Murray, Al Kaline and George Brett did away from home. Yes, Helton benefited from Coors Field. But he wasn't solely a product of it.

TIM HUDSON - NO
I'll admit I kind of always thought I'd vote for him. Anytime I glanced at his numbers and recalled his career in my mind, I thought he'd probably meet the criteria for induction. But once I really sat down and examined it closely this winter, I realized Hudson didn't quite get there. His numbers are very good: 222-133 with a 3.49 ERA. And he pitched very well for a long time. But he's just a little too far down the list when ranked with his contemporaries. Among all pitchers with at least 2,000 innings during his career (1999-2015), Hudson is eighth in ERA (behind Roy Oswalt) and 16th in WHIP (behind Shields and Vázquez). He finished better then fifth in ERA in his league only once. He finished better than seventh in WHIP only twice. If you believe in a big Hall and are OK with honoring guys who were consistently good but rarely great, there's a case for Hudson. But that wouldn't be consistent with my particular voting standards.

TORII HUNTER - NO
An elite center fielder who won nine Gold Glove Awards and a good hitter who racked up 353 homers, 498 doubles and 2,452 hits, Hunter was a joy to watch play and a joy to listen to speak. Proof you don't have to be a Hall of Famer to be good for baseball and to make a positive impact on the sport.

ANDRUW JONES - NO
There's a growing list of ballplayers who fit into a particular category that is really difficult to evaluate: guys who were brilliant for 8-10 years, then never came close to doing it again. Don Mattingly, Dale Murphy and Johan Santana all qualify. And Jones is right there with them. For nine seasons (1998-2006), he averaged 35 homers and 104 RBIs and played as brilliant a center field as ever has been played. He was going to be a surefire Hall of Famer. Except he's not, because his career completely nosedived after that. After turning 30, Jones was a .214 hitter who averaged 15 homers and 44 RBIs and won zero Gold Gloves. Some will say 8-10 years of brilliance is enough to make it to Cooperstown. I just don't believe it's enough. I don't know what the magic number is, whether it's 11 years or 12 or 13. Maybe 8-10 years of brilliance plus a few more solid years would do the trick. All I know is that I can't bring myself to place a checkmark next to the names of guys like Jones who truly looked like Hall of Famers for a while but couldn't quite stick the landing.

JEFF KENT - NO
He hit home runs, more than any other second baseman in history. But that's pretty much all he did to merit consideration. He ranked 46th in OPS among all players during his career (behind Mike Sweeney and Ray Lankford). He topped .900 in OPS only three times. And he was dreadful in the field, with minus-53 Defensive Runs Saved over his career.

ANDY PETTITTE - NO
Pettitte undoubtedly was one of the most significant members of the Yankees dynasty of the late '90s, not to mention a member of the Astros' 2005 pennant-winning rotation. He made the teams he pitched for better, no question. But was he one of the very best pitchers of his time? No. His 3.85 ERA ranked 12th among all starters with at least 2,500 innings during his career (just ahead of Bartolo Colon), while his 1.351 WHIP ranked 19th (behind Kevin Millwood and Tim Wakefield). On top of that, Pettitte admitted in 2007 to (and apologized for) taking hGH while recovering from an injury in 2002. He handled his admission and apology as well as anyone who has been in his situation, but that doesn't absolve him from having done it in the first place.

ARAMIS RAMÍREZ - NO
Had a better career than you probably remember. Played 18 seasons in the big leagues, hitting .283/.341/.492 with 386 homers and 495 doubles. During a five-year stretch with the Cubs from 2004-08, he averaged 32 homers, 105 RBIs and a .302/.366/.554 slash line. He was a bit of a butcher at third base, charged with 246 errors over his career. But Baseball-Reference.com considers his closest career comps to be Carlos Lee, Ron Santo, Scott Rolen and Andres Galarraga. That's some pretty good company for a guy who it appears didn't get as much credit as he deserved.

MANNY RAMÍREZ - NO
Ramirez, Albert Pujols and Mike Trout are probably the best right-handed hitters of the last 50 years. And Pujols and Trout will be slam-dunk choices for the Hall of Fame once they become eligible. Manny? He would be, as well, if only he hadn't been suspended twice for failing PED tests. I mean, there's a perfectly valid argument to include guys like Bonds and Clemens, who were never subject to suspension for PED use. But I just don't see how anyone makes the argument for Ramirez, short of declaring steroid use irrelevant for Cooperstown consideration.

SCOTT ROLEN - NO
This one has become my annual toughest decision. And it's purely performance-based. There's no character issue to debate here. A growing number of voters say Rolen deserves to be in because he was one of the best all-around third basemen in history. I suppose that's accurate in this sense: Few third basemen have ever been as good as Rolen both at the plate and in the field. But I get hung up on this follow-up: Rolen was good both at the plate and in the field, but he wasn't great. Certainly not at the plate, where his .855 OPS ranks below Derrek Lee and Paul Konerko. He was better defensively, and maybe I'm not giving him enough credit there. But he's 45th all-time in Defensive WAR. Only once during his 17 seasons did he rank better than sixth in the NL. And he's sixth all-time among third basemen, behind Brooks Robinson, Adrián Beltré, Buddy Bell, Clete Boyer and Graig Nettles. So when you consider all that, I just don't think Rolen makes the cut. I understand those who believe he does. But to include him would require including a bunch of other players who just don't rise to the level I deem Hall-worthy.

CURT SCHILLING - YES
Sigh. It gets harder and harder to place that checkmark next to Schilling's name each year, and it's entirely his fault. He continues to demonstrate a staggering level of inhumanity with his hateful and offensive words and actions post-career. This isn't about political views. It's about decency and respect for your fellow citizens, of which he appears to have little. And yet I just can't in good conscience take away my vote for someone based on his post-career words and actions. I believe it's fair to judge a player's character, integrity and sportsmanship - as it pertained to the game being played on the field. I know some of my colleagues feel otherwise, and I certainly respect their opinion on the matter. I took no pleasure voting for Schilling this year, especially knowing he was going to wind up really close to the 75 percent threshold. But I can't deny that as a pitcher, he was worthy of that vote. He was one of the best pitchers of his time, was the all-time leader in strikeout-to-walk ratio until recently and was as good as anyone's ever been in the postseason. I just really wish he was a better human being.

GARY SHEFFIELD - NO
Sheffield wasn't on par with the aforementioned Manny Ramírez, Pujols or Trout, but he was only a notch below that terrific trio of right-handed hitters. He's one of only 19 players in major league history with 500 homers and a .900 OPS, and all of the others are either in the Hall of Fame, are shoo-ins for the Hall of Fame once they're eligible or have a PED connection. Alas, Sheffield falls into that final category. He admitted in 2004 to taking a testosterone-based steroid (i.e. "the cream") supplied by BALCO, having been introduced to that infamous lab by none other than Bonds. So he doesn't make the cut for me.

SAMMY SOSA - NO
I'm of the opinion that Sosa's production (609 homers, 2,408 hits, 1,667 RBIs) and role in the great home run chase of 1998 make him Cooperstown material. But I'm also of the opinion that he's a confirmed cheater. And I'm not even talking about his reported positive PED test during the 2003 trial program that was supposed to remain anonymous but got leaked to the New York Times years later. Sosa also was caught red-handed in a big league game when his bat shattered and a chunk of cork came flying out of its innards. You want to talk about character, integrity and sportsmanship ... you can't say Sammy showed any of those in that highly notable event.

NICK SWISHER - NO
I never had the pleasure of covering him, but those who did loved the gregarious outfielder/first baseman. A positive reputation with reporters, though, ain't getting you into the Hall. Not when it's paired with a lifetime .249 batting average and .799 OPS, the former of which would be the worst among any enshrined position player.

SHANE VICTORINO - NO
For a guy who only took 500 plate appearances in seven seasons, the "Flyin' Hawaiian" established an impressive legacy for himself. Victorino made two All-Star teams, won four Gold Glove Awards and earned MVP votes three times. And, of course, he was a starting outfielder on a pair of World Series championship clubs: the 2008 Phillies and 2013 Red Sox.

OMAR VIZQUEL - NO
Let's make this clear from the outset: This vote is based on Vizquel's playing performance, not on personal conduct (more on that in a moment). I've examined his case each year he's been on the ballot and to date have not landed on the argument that convinces me he deserves to be in. Yes, he's regarded as one of the best defensive shortstops ever, but that reputation is built more on longevity than elite play year in and year out. For example: Though he ranks ninth all-time in Defensive WAR, Vizquel ranked in the top 10 of his league only five times in his 24-year career. (He never led his league and only finished second twice.) He's third all-time in assists by a shortstop, but finished higher than fourth in only one season. He's the all-time leader in double plays turned by a shortstop, but only once finished higher than third. Offensively, he may not have been the black hole some claim, but neither was he a feared hitter. His 82 OPS+ (which normalizes OPS across different eras and accounts for league and ballpark factors) would be the lowest among all position players in the Hall of Fame. Only twice in his career (1999, 2002) was he considered an above-average hitter. So based on playing performance alone, he doesn't make the cut by my standards. The fact Vizquel also was the recent subject of a well-detailed article outlining alleged acts of domestic abuse certainly does nothing to help his public image. But even had that disturbing report not come out, mine still would have been a no vote.

BILLY WAGNER - YES
My third and final "yes" vote goes to someone I've supported every year he's been on the ballot. Wagner wasn't as good as Mariano Rivera. (Nobody was.) But he was every bit as good as Trevor Hoffman, who easily earned election on his third attempt. Better, in some ways. Wagner's 2.31 ERA was significantly better than Hoffman's 2.87 mark. Wagner also bests Hoffman in WHIP (0.998 to 1.058) and strikeouts per nine innings (11.9 to 9.4). For the record, nobody in modern history who has pitched at least 900 innings has a better WHIP or strikeout rate than Wagner. The knock on Wagner - if there is one - is that he didn't pitch as much as other great closers. It's true, but not egregious by any stretch of the imagination. During his 18-year career, Hoffman averaged 58 appearances and 61 innings. During his 15-year career, Wagner averaged 57 appearances and 60 innings. Now, maybe you just don't believe modern relievers other than Rivera deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. That's fine. But if you believe Hoffman deserves to be there, you have to believe Wagner does as well.

BARRY ZITO - NO
The quirky left-hander had a wonderful start to his career, going 61-29 with a 3.12 ERA in his first four seasons with the Athletics and winning the 2002 American League Cy Young Award. (Yes, the great "Moneyball" team actually had star players on its roster.) But Zito never came close to sustaining that early success. Over his final 11 seasons, he went 104-114 with a 4.43 ERA. And his seven-year, $126 million contract became a huge problem for the Giants, though they did still manage to win two World Series titles with him on the roster.