2018 mock HOF ballot: A large class is coming, but larger problems exist

I don't have a say on who goes into the Hall of Fame, since I'm not a 10-year member of the Baseball Writers' Association of America. But like many baseball fans, the players enshrined in the Hall of Fame is something I care deeply about.

With the Hall's potentially historic 2018 class set to be revealed Wednesday, it's time to reveal my mock 2018 Hall of Fame ballot. Though it has no bearing on the actual election, I've followed the Hall's voting rules and used all 10 available spots. But putting this ballot together also exposed some grave flaws in the system. I knew many of these flaws existed, but I didn't fully understand them before trying to fill out my pretend ballot.

Below are the players I'm voting for on my mock ballot, a dive into two major issues facing all voters, and detailed looks at each player getting the call - including two of the tougher selections.

Mock ballot

• Barry Bonds
• Roger Clemens
• Vladimir Guerrero
• Chipper Jones
• Edgar Martinez
• Mike Mussina
• Curt Schilling
• Johan Santana
• Jim Thome
• Larry Walker

Getting to that final list was difficult, in part because of two big problems - including being limited to a maximum of 10 votes.

The 10-man rule has to go

My view that the 10-man maximum rule isn't working has been confirmed by making this mock ballot. Nearly half the names on this year's ballot were, in my eyes, worthy of a closer look before casting my vote; I could've comfortably voted for at least 12 or 13 if allowed.

The 10-man rule worked fine during the 16-team era, when there were only about 400 major-league players at any given time. Since 1961, however, baseball has expanded to today's 30-team form, and that expansion has created more jobs, and more opportunities for Hall of Fame-caliber players to reach the majors.

None of this is to suggest a "Big Hall" is the solution; on the contrary, induction should still be reserved for the best of the best. It's just that the "best of the best" pool of players is bigger than ever, and as a result the 10-man rule has not only been rendered obsolete, but is actively harming the chances of many deserving candidates.

Johan Santana, Scott Rolen, and Andruw Jones - all with legitimate arguments for induction - are in danger of falling off without getting proper consideration, just like Kenny Lofton and others in years past. Meanwhile, Billy Wagner, Fred McGriff, Larry Walker, et al, are barely hanging on in the teens and 20-percent range year after year. They too deserve better.

The Hall mad a mistake in rejecting a BBWAA proposal to allow a 12-man ballot a few years ago. The Hall is simply burying its head in the sand, and many players worthy of baseball's greatest honor are paying for it. For the good of the institution's future, change must come fast, or the problem will only get worse on future crowded ballots.

Character, schmaracter

Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are on my ballot. Joe Morgan can write all the unsolicited think-of-the-children letters he wants because it won't change the fact that they - and many others from the so-called steroid era - not only belong, but will soon arrive at Cooperstown's doors. If I'd had room for other suspected pre-testing greats, I'd have voted for them too.

But hey, speaking of character ... there are some rather unsavory gentlemen on this ballot who ran afoul of the Hall's character clause in ways that make injecting themselves with PEDs look like charity work. Rule 5 on the Hall ballot explicitly states:

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.

My ballot already contains steroid users, suspected steroid users, alleged domestic abusers, players who had extramarital affairs, and players who hold sociopolitical viewpoints that I personally find disgusting.

Whoops.

One example in particular highlights the character clause problem. Voters have used Rule 5 as a way not to vote for Curt Schilling after his many off-field incidents in recent years, and I can't argue with them. Voting for Schilling has weighed on me greatly, as I considered whether to use his transgressions, views, and/or beliefs, which I consider revolting, as grounds for invoking the clause against him.

Some of the transgressions I had to weigh against Schilling's legendary and Hall-worthy pitching career include calling for the lynching of journalists on social media - an action that prompted many real Hall voters to stop voting for him - and his having previously expressed anti-transgender views, as well as his suggestion earlier this year that Orioles outfielder Adam Jones lied about hearing racist taunts at Fenway Park. I don't endorse any of these views or beliefs in any way, shape, or form, and the clause requires me to take all of this into account when considering him for the Hall.

But how can I, or any actual voter, isolate Schilling using the clause because of views I disagree with vehemently, while giving a pass to the other unsavory citizens on the ballot? Is it hypocritical to do it to Schilling? More to the point, is the Hall itself being hypocritical of its own standards by listing numerous nefarious men, including Schilling, as candidates underneath the very clause that, in theory, should prevent them from being considered?

If the Hall is so serious about the clause as grounds for election - which Morgan's letter indicated - then it should stop listing Schilling as a candidate. Because while Schilling, the citizen, runs afoul of the clause beyond comprehension, Schilling, the pitcher, is a Hall of Famer, and if voters believe this, then they have a responsibility to vote for him, and others who have less than stellar off-field records. Until the Hall decides to create a ballot featuring nothing but model citizens who happened to be good at baseball, their so-called "character clause" is rendered meaningless.

With all that in mind, there's a real chance that on Wednesday the Hall will see its first five-man class elected by the BBWAA since the inaugural year. Four of the five in position to get the call made my final 10. Here's a detailed look at the players I'm voting in:

The Easy 8

Barry Bonds: More than just the home-run king, Bonds was arguably the greatest all-around player ever, and most certainly the greatest we'll ever see. See above for the PED thing.

Roger Clemens: Arguably the greatest pitcher ever, and most certainly the greatest right-hander we'll ever see. See above for the PED thing.

Vladimir Guerrero: If you watched Vlad play for even a minute - especially during his prime in Montreal, something I had the privilege of doing in person many times as a youth - you just knew he was a Hall of Famer, because there was simply nobody like him. He passes easily on both stats and the eye test.

Chipper Jones: A great third basemen, and one of the greatest switch-hitters of all time, Jones is an absolute first-ballot no-brainer.

Edgar Martinez: He defined the DH position to the point that MLB named its annual DH of the Year award after him. This, finally, should be Edgar's year - but it shouldn't have taken this long.

Mike Mussina: He failed to win a Cy Young and retired before reaching some important milestones, but Mussina quietly built a Hall of Fame resume over 18 years spent entirely in the difficult AL East. His deserved day is coming.

Curt Schilling: He's a member of the 3,000-strikeout club, was a dominant workhorse during his career, and is regarded as one of the greatest postseason pitchers ever - a career 2.23 ERA in October, the 1993 NLCS MVP, and the 2001 World Series co-MVP, among other accolades. As discussed above, on baseball merits this is an easy call.

Jim Thome: Ranking eighth all-time in home runs, Thome was one of the most feared sluggers of his time - and he did it without even a whiff of PED suspicions. This Hall-worthy player and person is sailing in Wednesday.

Tough love

With two spots left and way more than two names still under consideration, I had to be strategic. This vote may not count, but in the spirit of keeping this as realistic as possible while following the real rules, I had no choice, as two incredibly worthy candidates need some help.

Larry Walker: He was more than just Coors Field (1.068 OPS at home, .865 on the road). Walker was consistent on both sides of the ball, won an MVP, and three batting titles. His stats - already pretty excellent - would've been even greater without injuries. That he continues to stall out in the 20-percent range is mystifying, and he has just a single year of eligibility left after this one. As long as he's still on the ballot, I have to give him a vote.

Johan Santana: Here are two pitchers' careers:

(WAR courtesy: Baseball Reference)

Pitcher A compiled 46.1 WAR during his seven-year peak, while Pitcher B's peak WAR was 44.8. Pitcher A's JAWS score is 47.5; B is 48.1. Both won multiple Cy Young Awards, threw a no-hitter, and pitched for 12 seasons.

Pitcher A is Hall of Famer Sandy Koufax. Pitcher B is Johan Santana, who's fighting an uphill battle but should be there too.

Rings aside, Koufax's and Santana's careers are similar in many ways, from brief stretches of utter dominance to career-changing injuries - but while Koufax rode his incredible five-year stretch to Cooperstown, Santana's about to go one-and-done. If Koufax is such an easy call, then why the hesitancy on Santana, who was just as good during his unbelievable peak in Minnesota in a high-offense era?

Because he not only has a great case, but is also in the most desperate need of support to stay alive, Santana gets my last vote.

Sincere apologies to Rolen, Wagner, Trevor Hoffman, Andruw Jones, and Gary Sheffield who fell just short on my mock ballot. I hope I can give each of them (aside from Hoffman, who's probably going in this year) a "vote" in 2019.

(Photos courtesy: Getty Images)