barry bonds hall of fame.JPG
Barry Bonds won't get the vote from Ron Chimelis for the Baseball Hall of Fame, but nine other candidates might.
(AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez, File)
With all due respect to the designated hitter, the most natural number in baseball should be 9.
Nine players in the field, nine innings in a game. But nine Baseball Hall of Fame votes on the same ballot?
That is my quandary as I consider my ballot for Cooperstown, which must be filed by Dec. 31.
My moral dilemma is not with guys who have been credibly tied to steroids. My checkmark will never be seen next to the names Clemens, Bonds, McGwire, Sosa and Palmeiro.
My issue is sheer numbers, and so I am reaching out to baseball fans who might help me with this question: for an honor that is special for its exclusivity, is voting for nine players in one year acceptable?
The rules say yes. Voters can choose a maximum of 10.
Until this year, I had never given much thought to the rule. My unofficial guideline has been three to five, but that is not so easily done this time unless I say that guys I endorsed in past years - and whose records have not changed in 12 months - suddenly don't measure up.
This year, the ballot includes 300-game winners Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine. They are no-brainers, though incredibly, there seems to be some doubt that Glavine will make it.
Frank Thomas hit 521 home runs, which equals Ted Williams' number, and hit .301 lifetime. He has never been smeared with steroids, and in fact spoke out against them when most colleagues were wearing blinders.
Thomas played 971 games at first base but spent much of his time as a DH. My rebuttal to the anti-DH argument is this: had Thomas been born in 1938 and not 1968, he would have played in the pre-DH era, and he would have played first base all the time.
A man should not be penalized by circumstances he neither created nor controlled. To me, Thomas is in.
My other first-time choice would be Mike Mussina, who won 270 games in the era of five-man rotations.
Whitey Ford and Sandy Koufax are among the Hall of Famers who did not win 270. Mussina was clean, and if I am to eliminate guys who used steroids, it makes sense to give the benefit of the doubt to clean candidates who seem like borderline cases, but put up very good numbers against guys who cheated.
Now comes the dilemma. With those four players are five others I voted for in past years - Craig Biggio, Tim Raines, Jack Morris, Jeff Bagwell and Fred McGriff.
Biggio had 3,000 hits and should have made it last year. Raines stole 808 bases, which ranks fifth all-time in a category that has had meaning in baseball for more than 135 years.
This is the last year of eligibility for Morris, a 254-game winner and one of the game's great postseason pitchers. I cannot logically defend voting for Morris in past years, then arbitrarily deciding that this year he no longer meets the standard.
Bagwell won't make it, mostly because he is widely suspected of using steroids. Beyond gossip and unproven speculation, there is no evidence he did - no list, no eyewitness account, just rumor.
Sorry, I need more than that to indict a guy. There is barely more reason to suspect Mike Piazza, but enough doubt for me to withhold a Piazza vote and pledge to review his case in the future.
I have also voted for Fred McGriff, who has no chance. That's not fair to a clean slugger whose 493 home runs matched Lou Gehrig, only to find that number ignored because other guys hit more on steroids.
So there is my dilemma. Even with nine, I am leaving out Edgar Martinez, Lee Smith, Curt Schilling and Jeff Kent, among many other interesting candidates.
My definites start with Maddux, Glavine, Thomas and Biggio. I won't abandon Morris or Raines.
Dumping Bagwell would mean following the crowd, which is a lousy way to vote. I won't do that, either.
That leaves McGriff, who is arguably last among the holdover candidates, and Mussina, who will be back on the ballot next year. But I have already declared one a Hall of Famer, and my gut has told me the other is too.
My inclination is to go with nine, but that's so many more than I had ever intended when I first began voting in 2011. Many colleagues have no problem adding or discarding names, but isn't that a sign of inconsistency?
I have until Dec. 31. Should I stay with nine, or whittle out some guys, and if so, who?
Your comments and emails are welcomed. Maybe you, the public, can help me see the light.