So the Baseball Bloggers' Alliance, of which this is one of about a hundred member blogs, is doing its own Hall of Fame voting for the players on the current BBWAA ballot. I assume they'll announce the results around the same time the BBWAA does. I'll let you know. In the meantime, here's how I voted:

Roberto Alomar: Yes. Each "No" vote should be investigated. The only remotely sensible argument against him (ignoring the spitting incident -- which I'll continue to ignore as long as Ty Cobb and John McGraw are still in the Hall -- and the fact that he didn't run hard to first base this one time that this one guy happened to be watching) is that he burned out early, which he did, even for a second baseman. But he started early, too. Alomar has the fifth most plate appearances of anyone who has ever spent at least half his career as a second baseman. Three of the four ahead of him are in (the other is Biggio, who will be), and the three after him are, too. More than quantity, though, is the quality -- Alomar is one of the best hitters ever to have played the position, and played it well -- maybe not as well as his reputation at the time suggested, but certainly well enough. He's easily in the top ten all time at his position. This should be a no-brainer...but then, a couple guys didn't even vote for Rickey Henderson on the first ballot, so whatever.
(click here to read more)

Kevin Appier: No. Really good, underrated pitcher. Better than Jack Morris. But no.

Harold Baines: No. He burned out just 134 hits shy of 3000, saving us from having to learn the answer to the question: what will the voters do with a truly mediocre player who happens to hang around long enough to get 3000? Until Garret Anderson and/or Johnny Damon do it, that is.

Bert Blyleven: Yes. It's really baffling that of the 540 or so people who have been considered qualified to vote on this thing over the last several years, a significant amount more of them have thought that Bruce Sutter and Jim Rice were deserving than have thought Blyleven is. Bert fell 13 wins short of 300 while pitching mostly for very poor offensive teams. He's fifth all time in strikeouts and ninth in shutouts. He had a better adjusted ERA than Steve Carlton, Fergie Jenkins, Robin Roberts, or Nolan Ryan, among others. By Sean Smith's WAR, he's the 13th best pitcher of all time, just ahead of Christy Mathewson and Bob Gibson. This just has to be the year. Enough of all this silliness.

Ellis Burks: No. Better than Jim Rice, but no.

Andre Dawson: No. I think he'll probably get in, and it won't bother me. He's a strong borderline candidate. I just can't get behind a guy who spent most of his career at an offensive-minded position and couldn't keep his career OBP above (or even all that close to) league average.

Andres Galarraga: No. Awfully nice career, especially after looking totally done at age 29.

Pat Hentgen: No. His Cy Young year in 1996 was one of the best pitching performances of the 1990s American League, and if he'd been the pitcher he was from age 24-28 through about age 35, he'd have a case.

Mike Jackson: No. What, are they letting just anybody play 10 years in the Major Leagues now? Nah, he was a really good short reliever for a really long time. I hope he gets one or two of those Jim Deshaies respectful nod types of votes.

Eric Karros: No. Actually, it is kind of amazing that Karros lasted 10 years. He could hit a homer now and then. And that's all. His career totaled 9.1 wins above replacement, or 0.1 less than Albert Pujols' 2009 season.

Ray Lankford: No. Not close, obviously. But a Cardinals blogger recently made a tongue-in-cheek case for him that's actually quite a bit stronger than the for-serious cases for Morris.ye

Barry Larkin: Yes. Like Alomar, he's in the top ten all-time at his position. Like Alomar, he has a reputation for not playing enough -- but for Larkin, it was injuries, not burnout. And his reputation is more deserved than Alomar's, though Larkin still came to the plate more often than a whole bunch of Hall of Fame shortstops. At any rate, he was a very good hitter and defender and a great baserunner. He belongs. Fun fact: his career WAR is almost exactly equal to Derek Jeter's (68.8 for Barry, 68.7 for Jeter). Think Jeter would meet with much resistence in the vote five years from now if he retired today?

Edgar Martinez: Yes. Not because he's the best DH of all time (which of course he is). If you play a difficult position and are one of the best of all time at it, like Alomar and Larkin, that's worth something; if you play a position that makes you notable for what you don't do -- like DH and relief pitcher -- then you'd better get in by being so good at producing or preventing runs that you're among the best players who ever played. Edgar, I think, was that. Just an incredible hitter, one of the best in the league almost every year for about fourteen years. It's a closer case than Alomar or Larkin, but it's good enough for me.

Don Mattingly: No. Andres Galarraga has about as strong a case. Keith Hernandez, Will Clark, Jack Clark, Norm Cash, Gil Hodges, and the next guy on this list all have better ones.

Fred McGriff: No. I've gone back and forth on him (actually, to be honest, I may have voted for him in the BBA voting), but right now I'm leaning toward no. He was a great player from 1989 to 1993, one of the best hitters in the bigs, but he didn't hit enough to stand out among other first basemen in any other years, and didn't really do anything but hit. He's very close.

Mark McGwire: Yes. 583 homers. 162 career OPS+. He just belongs.

Jack Morris: No.

Dale Murphy: No. Not even quite a borderline case for me, though probably still better than Rice. He had five great years, and that's almost literally all.

Dave Parker: No. If he had more than two more years on the ballot and had been getting significantly more than 15% of the vote, I might be worried about a late "well, Jim Rice is in, so..." movement with Parker. They were pretty similar players with similar careers.

Tim Raines: Yes. Of course. Here's a site that ought to convince you. Fun fact: Tim Raines reached base 3977 times (2605 hits, 1330 walks, 42 HBP). Tony Gwynn reached base 3955 times (3141 hits, 790 walks, 24 HBP).

Shane Reynolds: No. I was kidding before, but I guess they really do let just anyone play ten years?

David Segui: No. Karros might actually have a better case. And with the steroid admission, Segui probably won't even get that one respect vote.

Lee Smith: No. I've said before that the only relievers I'm sure I'd let in are Rivera and Wilhelm. Lee Smith falls well behind those two, and Eckersley, and Hoffman, and Gossage. But that's probably it, so I guess you can make an argument. I just wouldn't get that far.

Alan Trammell: Yes. It's hard to imagine putting him in without his longtime teammate Lou Whitaker...but two wrongs don't make a right. Both absolutely deserve it. Trammell is just a tick behind Larkin all-time among shortstops, and much better than a lot of the shortstops already in. If the writers hadn't handed his 1987 AL MVP to George Bell for some reason, people might be paying more attention now.

Robin Ventura: No, though I was surprised by how close he is. He was a very good hitter throughout most of the 90's, and a Gold Glove-quality defender at third base throughout his career. He wouldn't be anything close to the worst third baseman in the Hall (but as long as Ron Santo and Darrell Evans stay out, he's even farther from being the best one not in).

Todd Zeile: No. But he's got all sorts of "firsts" and "lasts" and "onlys," according to the trivia section on his Wikipedia page. Very interesting player, just not a very good one.

So, the yeses: Alomar, Blyleven, Larkin, Martinez, McGwire, Raines and Trammell. I could be persuaded on McGriff and maybe even Dawson. Thoughts?