Writing a column about my Hall of Fame ballot without a long section dedicated to Larry Walker feels very strange.My first vote was for , and I did not vote for Walker. My 10th spot was basically a coin flip between Walker and Vladimir Guerrero, who actually had a shot at being elected, so I felt a vote for him carried more weight. Guerrero finished a handful of votes shy, but was easily elected the next year. George Kittle Jersey I voted for Walker each of the next three years, each time spending considerable words on the pros and cons of his resume. And I was thrilled to see that, as the ballot cleared up a bit, Walkers vote totals rapidly improved to the point where he was elected as part of the cla s of 2020, in his 10th and final year on the ballot. So there is no Larry Walker section in this years ballot explanation. But for those of you who tolerate (maybe enjoy?) my long-winded internal discu sions on how I arrive at my decisions, have no fear. This years edition is still nearly 7,000 words, about the nine players I voted for and eight of those I pa sed on.MORE: Here are the nine, in alphabetical order by last name: Bobby Abreu, Barry Bonds, Mark Buehrle, Roger Clemens, Tim Hudson, Manny Ramirez, Scott Rolen, Curt Schilling and Gary Sheffield.Before you go any further, as always, three quick thank-you notes: First, to for creating his JAWS system, which , and all the work he has done breaking down the candidates on the ballot. Invaluable resources. Second, to , which is eternally awesome and e sential (subscribe to Stathead!). And, finally, to Ryan Thibodaux and his crew for their indispensable (referenced often in this column as "The Tracker").And now, my thoughts on this years ballot. If you're curious, here are my previous ballot explanation columns: for the , for the , for the and for the . You'll see similar thoughts on players who are ballot hold-overs.Hall of Fame votes for cla s of 2021Barry Bonds and Roger ClemensThoughts: I grouped Bonds and Clemens together in my first ballot column, and Ive taken the same approach every year since then. Why separate them? Next year, as you know, will be the last I write about that duo in this context. A suming they dont get elected this year spoiler: they wont the vote for the cla s of 2022 will be their 10th and final time on the BBWAA ballot. That ballot, of course, marks the debuts of David Ortiz and Alex Rodriguez.Yep, thatll be interesting.Anyway, heres what Ive written in the past. Nothings changed.As always, Im grouping these two together because their cases are e sentially identical. On the field, they produced like few players in the history of this great sport. Bonds won the MVP award a record seven times no other player has more than three MVP awards, which were first handed out in 1931 and finished in the top five on five other occasions. Clemens won the Cy Young award a record seven times no other pitcher has won more than five and finished in the top six on five other occasions.Their counting stats are jaw-dropping and their advanced metrics are elite. Theyre also forever linked to performance-enhancing drugs. Some people think that disqualifies them from the Hall of Fame and some people dont. I see both sides of that debate, and I had long vacillated on this i sue before my first ballot.But the Hall is full of two things: Players who displayed "character flaws" in all aspects of their lives, and players who used every po sible advantage legal or illegal to achieve greatne s. The only difference with Bonds and Clemens is that the advantages available to them were more impre sive than the advantages that were available to the generation that popped greenies on game day, or the generations that scuffed and spit on the baseball. Is a spitball the same as using PEDs? Of course not, not as it impacts the game on the field. But the decision-making proce s that results in players choosing to use those advantages is e sentially the same. Ive voted for Bonds and Clemens all four (update: five) years Ive had a ballot, and Im at ease with that decision.Manny RamirezThoughts: The focus of the 2022 ballot additions of A-Rod and Ortiz always seem to center around Bonds and Clemens, but the biggest impact might actually be on Ramirezs candidacy.He wasnt just suspected of taking PEDs, he was actually busted and suspended by MLB twice (as was A-Rod), in 2009 and 2011. For a lot of voters, thats the separation. Anyone officially busted after testing in 2005 is off their list. I cant argue that. Its logical. Honestly, with the crowded ballot of years past, it was only natural to look at negatives as reasons to eliminate players from your ballot instead of solely judging the positives of a resume. If you thought, for example, 14 people deserved to be elected but you could only vote for 10, reasons like PED suspensions work as well as anything to whittle down a list.To me, though, Ramirez was about a month shy of his 37th birthday when the first positive test happened. Heading into that 2009 season, he already had 527 home runs, a .314 average, 1.004 OPS and 66.5 WAR. How is that different from Rafael Palmeiro, you might ask? Palmeiro already had bona fide Hall credentials when he was suspended for steroid use in 2005, his Age 40 season, and that suspension crushed his Cooperstown chances. The answer is this: Maybe its not very different. But I didnt have a vote when Palmeiro was on the ballot, so I didnt have to deal with that decision. I have to deal with Ramirez now, and its impo sible to have watched him for his entire career and come to the conclusion that he was anything but one of the best hitters in MLB history.And when we think of Ramirez as a hitter, its easy to get caught up in the counting stats of home runs and RBIs. Especially the eye-popping RBIs. He had five seasons with at least 41 homers and he had 12 seasons with at least 100 RBIs; he had at least 144 RBIs three times, including a career-high 165 in 1999. His batting averages almost get lost in the mix, but he hit at least .300 in 11 seasons, including seven of at least .321.For historical context, only six hitters in MLB history played at least 2,000 games and produced a slash line of at least .310/.410/.575. Manny is one of the six, with a .312/.411/.585 slash line. The other five: Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Lou Gehrig, Rogers Hornsby and Jimmie Foxx. Yeah. Manny is the only slugger who played after 1960 in that club. Think about that. Baseball hasnt seen a better career slash line than his in 60 years.Mannys resume isnt all about traditional back-of- Fred Warner Jersey baseball-card stats, of course. His adjusted OPS+ of 154 is tied for 25th all time, with Hall of Famer Frank Robinson. His wOBA of .418 is 28th all time. His ISO of .273 is ninth all time. The list goes on. His WAR number takes a