Voting for the 2018 Baseball Hall of Fame class concluded at the turn of the new year, but the results won't be revealed until Jan. 24 on MLB Network. One thing we know in the meantime is that the 1980s and 1990s are historically underrepresented in the Hall of Fame compared to prior decades, meaning that there are lots of candidates on the current ballot who merit induction. 

Given the backlog of qualified candidates, Big Hall proponents likely believe upwards of 15 or more players on the BBWAA Hall of Fame ballot this year should be in. There's a 10-vote limit per ballot, however, so many voters will send in their ballots wishing they had more spots. 

Knowing this along with the ballot counters out there on the internet (such as Ryan Thibodaux's excellent Ballot Tracker), an argument could be made to "game" the ballot. 

We know at this point that Vladimir Guerrero, Jim Thome and Chipper Jones are all getting at least 93 percent of the vote -- with Chipper up over 98 percent -- and are locks to be inducted. 

Couldn't a voter back on Dec. 30 see this and decide to leave all three off his or her ballot and instead give those spots to players like Larry Walker, Scott Rolen and Andruw Jones because they need the votes more than Guerrero, Thome and Chipper do? 

In a way, this is essentially voting for 13 instead of the maximum of 10, since Vlad, Thome and Chipper are still getting in. 

Is there any harm in this? Would you do it? Would you frown on or praise voters doing it? The CBS Sports baseball writing team weighs in. 

Matt Snyder's take: 

I'm a no on this. I definitely want more than 10 players from this ballot to make the Hall of Fame, but it feels wrong to game the ballot. My stance is to just vote for who I believe are the 10 best candidates and let the chips fall where they may. If a player never gets 75 percent of the vote, maybe my judgement on the player in question wasn't shared by enough people to make him a Hall of Famer. It's not supposed to be easy to get in. 

Perhaps I'm a simpleton here, but gaming the ballot just feels wrong and I'll never do it. I'm a big "to each his own" guy, though, so I wouldn't frown on someone else doing it. It's just not for me. If I get a ballot and I'm told to vote for the 10 best candidates, that's exactly what I do. 

R.J. Anderson's take:

I'm not inclined to shame anyone who puts thought into their votes. My issue is more with this being an actual conversation voters have to have with themselves during the process. 

I understand the impulse to "game the system," but I think voters having to resort to these tactics shows the current system is broken. I've never seen a good argument for why the Hall of Fame limits voters to 10 names. As such, while I applaud the voters trying to usher as many deserving candidates as possible to Cooperstown, I don't understand why they have to go to such lengths in the first place.

Mike Axisa's take:

I personally would not do it, but I have no problem with anyone who games the system with their ballot. Hopefully they are doing it for a good reason, like trying to prevent Andruw Jones or Johan Santana from falling off the ballot in their first year, rather than throwing Jamie Moyer a charity vote or something like that.

Of course, voters have to game the system because the system is broken. The 10-man limit is very outdated, but the Hall of Fame has rejected recent overtures to increase the ballot size, so a 10-man limit it is. And as long as the 10-man limit exists, it might take a few voters gaming the system to ensure the proper players stay on the ballot and get a fair shake at the Hall of Fame.

Dayn Perry's take: 

I wouldn't do it, and I think voters should just vote for their top 10 (or top whatever lower number). That said, 10 is pretty arbitrary, and I always come back to Derrick Goold's wonderfully simple idea of just voting yes or no for each candidate on the ballot. This way you're evaluating each candidate's case in isolation without worrying about the rest of your ballot. I also like that it forces you to say "no" as opposed to merely passing over a name. You own your ballot a bit more this way. Of course, I can't see such a major change happening, which is too bad considering the obvious flaws of the current process.    

Jonah Keri's take:

Game to your heart's content, I say!

Look, the BBWAA recently approached the Hall of Fame with a very modest plan: Expand the number of players you can vote for from 10 to 12. Twelve arguably still isn't enough to cover the number of worthy candidates on this year's ballot, and I'd just as soon make it so voters can make as many choices as there are eligible players. But OK, 12. The Hall, without a good reason, said no.

The voters should likewise be free to do whatever the hell they want. If a voter thinks Scott Rolen is the 11th-best candidate on the ballot, and Chipper's a mortal lock, then sure, pick Rolen instead. Or Walker. Or Andruw Jones. Or whoever.

The voters have no obligation to bail the Hall out for its shortsighted stubbornness. 

Where do you, the readers, stand on this? Would you game the ballot? Do you think it's a good idea or just plain wrong? Let's us know!