Imagine this: a Hall of Fame ballot so underwhelming that it leaves even the most seasoned voters scratching their heads. But here's the twist: in a year where no first-timer is expected to make the cut, I found myself voting for the maximum allowed—10 players. And this is the part most people miss: it’s not because I’m a fan of a ‘big Hall,’ but because the standards for induction have become so stringent that the Hall is actually shrinking. Historically, the top 1% of players should be enshrined, but we’re falling short of that mark. Most of the recent controversial inductees came through the Veterans Committees, not the annual writers’ vote.
This year’s ballot may lack a slam-dunk legend like Ichiro Suzuki or Albert Pujols, but there are still 15 or so players with compelling cases. In 2013, when the writers failed to induct anyone, 10 of those players eventually made it into the Hall. The same could happen this year.
Controversial Take Alert: I’m not convinced all 10 of my votes are future Hall of Famers, but I am certain they deserve to stay in the conversation. The Hall’s rule of limiting ballots to 10 names feels unfair—why not give every player a fair yes/no evaluation? Here’s my list:
- Bobby Abreu: Often overlooked, Abreu’s 250 homers and 400 stolen bases place him in elite company. His career mirrors Tony Gwynn’s, yet Gwynn is a first-ballot Hall of Famer while Abreu struggles for recognition. Is it because Abreu moved teams? Or because his era valued batting average over on-base skills?
- Carlos Beltrán: His role in the 2017 Astros sign-stealing scandal is undeniable, but should it overshadow his entire career? A.J. Hinch and Alex Cora are back in the game—should Beltrán be punished more severely?
- Mark Buehrle: Fourteen straight 200-inning seasons are a modern-day anomaly. His consistency and durability make a strong case.
- Cole Hamels: One of only three lefties with 2,500 innings, 2,500 strikeouts, and a 120 ERA+. His peak performance is hard to ignore.
- Félix Hernández: From 2005-2014, he was the best pitcher in baseball. Should his decline after age 29 disqualify him?
- Andruw Jones: A power-hitting center fielder with an elite glove, Jones dominated for a decade. His off-field issues and early decline complicate his case, but his peak was Hall-worthy.
- Andy Pettitte: His postseason success and traditional stats make him a strong contender, despite his PED allegations.
- Manny Ramirez: His on-field brilliance is undeniable, but PED suspensions stain his legacy. Should we recognize his career despite the controversy?
- Alex Rodriguez: Like Ramirez, A-Rod’s talent is unimpeachable, but PED use casts a long shadow. Is it fair to exclude him while players like Bonds remain out?
- Chase Utley: A defensive standout and elite baserunner, Utley’s all-around game was Hall-worthy, even without the Gold Gloves.
Thought-Provoking Question: Should players like Hernández and Jones, who peaked early, be judged differently than those whose careers were cut short by injuries? And should PED users be held to a different standard than those who played in the pre-testing era?
This ballot forced me to grapple with these questions and more. What’s your take? Who would you vote for, and why?
