Hall of Fame Ballot Announced

[bmattioli]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I used to be against Bonds, Clemens and Palmiero getting in the HOF but now that we have a known PED cheater in, its unfair to keep them out.

McGriff should get in, Belle and Schilling are deserving but probably do not get in.

Who are you referring to?

[jamest206]

No strike, no PED’s. Let them in!

[michael3322]

Surely Harold Baines will give up his place in the HOF for any of these far more deserving players…surely…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fred]

Originally Posted by kkkkandp

BTW - I would like to see Rickey Henderson get in because he is the King of Stolen Bases....and just so he can give his entire acceptance speech in the third person.

Rickey is in, but now that you mention it, I feel like looking for his induction speech on Youtube to see if he was being Rickey during the speech.

Maybe in the future there will be a change for PED users.

Rafael looked pretty stupid lying to congress about his "alleged" steroid use.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAxo4pCITRM

The denials from the abusers probably doesn't sit well with the BB writers. I'm not a Bonds fan, but if he didn't use PEDs, he probably would have been a HOFer with the raw talent he had. I just don't get how those guys could deny the use when their bodies were pretty much saying "yeah, I use PEDs".

One PED user was honest about it. McGwire, at least, admitted to PED use and didn't deny it like the others. And he's not in the HOF.

[Misunderestimated]

Maybe I missed, it but does anyone know the identities of the voters for this one ?
Is it a meeting where the voters get together, or do they just cast ballots without formal communications ?

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I thought that was Dave Justice.

Oh, Peter, you are so right. My deepest apologies to Halle.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by bmattioli

Who are you referring to?

David Ortiz.

Ortiz himself has confirmed he failed a test. It's not a rumor, it's not "supposedly", etc.

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/d...sted-positive/

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by jingram058

I don't see any of them as HOFers. Want another Harold Baines fiasco? The HOF is suffering from credibility as it is. Especially Schilling. He shouldn't get in on the strength of being an all-time moron. Right or wrong, that's how I feel.

LOL. What absurdity. This is ridiculous. Pretending baines was the first going a friend a favor moment with the hall is hysterical.

[scotgreb]

Originally Posted by Misunderestimated

Maybe I missed, it but does anyone know the identities of the voters for this one ?
Is it a meeting where the voters get together, or do they just cast ballots without formal communications ?

Brian - Per the HOF . . .

Rules for Election for Players for Contemporary Baseball Era Candidates to the National Baseball Hall of Fame

Name: The Contemporary Baseball Era Players Committee ("The Committee") shall refer to the electorate that considers retired Major League Baseball players no longer eligible for election by the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA) whose greatest contributions to the game were realized from the 1980 to present era.

Membership: The Contemporary Baseball Era Players Committee shall consist of 16 members, comprised of members of the National Baseball Hall of Fame, executives, and veteran media members. The Chairman of the Board of Directors of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, Inc. shall act as the non-voting chairman of the committee and shall act as non-voting Secretary of the Committee.

Method of Appointment: The Hall of Fame's Board of Directors shall appoint the Committee.

Term – Each appointee is to serve for a renewable term, with the Committee scheduled to meet on a cycle of once every three years.

Time and Place of Election – Beginning in 2022, an election for Contemporary Baseball Era Player candidates shall be held once every three years at the Major League Baseball Winter Meetings. A quorum will consist of three-fourths of the total membership of the committee. Proxies are permitted in emergency situations only. In the absence of a quorum, a conference call with absent committee members will be permitted.

No word on the committee members (that I have found) but the prior members, under the previous process, were disclosed.

Scott

[Mike D.]

I wrote an article on the candidates and their cards, if anyone is interested:

Investing In The Contemporary Baseball Era Hall of Fame Candidates

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Tabe

David Ortiz.

Ortiz himself has confirmed he failed a test. It's not a rumor, it's not "supposedly", etc.

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/d...sted-positive/

I believe the current version of the narrative from Ortiz fans is that it doesn’t count because MLB won’t certify it (they can’t) and it wasn’t supposed to be public (like basically all wrongdoing in human history, and every players use). Thus Ortiz should be let off the hook, but everyone else who is not a Red Sox player or media darling can be punished. You know it’s a loser of a case when this is the argument they are left with.

[drmondobueno]

Why not Rose and Joe Jackson?

Using the old arguments are at least hypocritical and at best self serving.

Besides, I want a price bump on my Rose collection when he goes into the hall

[MuncieNolePAZ]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I wrote an article on the candidates and their cards, if anyone is interested:

Investing In The Contemporary Baseball Era Hall of Fame Candidates

Thanks for sharing.

Chad

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

I wrote an article on the candidates and their cards, if anyone is interested:

Investing In The Contemporary Baseball Era Hall of Fame Candidates

I appreciate you mentioning the players that didn't make the cut this time around. As you point out, Lou Whitaker and Kenny Lofton are strong candidates. I personally think they are more deserving than Albert Belle or Don Mattingly. Belle and Mattingly had very short careers and their career numbers are not strong. But Whitaker and Lofton have strong career numbers and decent peaks.

I also agree with you that David Cone and perhaps Kevin Brown deserve a second look.

[G1911]

The worst thing about Lofton is that he immediately fell off the ballot after getting 3.2% his only year. I have never understood some of the guys who fell off immediately and never got any real consideration.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by drmondobueno

Why not Rose and Joe Jackson?

Using the old arguments are at least hypocritical and at best self serving.

Besides, I want a price bump on my Rose collection when he goes into the hall

Because under the current HOF rules a person currently banned by MLB is ineligible for election to the HOF.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by BobC

Because under the current HOF rules a person currently banned by MLB is ineligible for election to the HOF.

Also, neither did much after 1980

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I appreciate you mentioning the players that didn't make the cut this time around. As you point out, Lou Whitaker and Kenny Lofton are strong candidates. I personally think they are more deserving than Albert Belle or Don Mattingly. Belle and Mattingly had very short careers and their career numbers are not strong. But Whitaker and Lofton have strong career numbers and decent peaks.

I also agree with you that David Cone and perhaps Kevin Brown deserve a second look.

The thing that bothers me with some of the players like Mattingly, Belle, and Murphy (all peak vs. longevity guys) is that this is their THIRD time on the ballot each...why not give others a chance and let more time pass before just throwing them on again?

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by G1911

The worst thing about Lofton is that he immediately fell off the ballot after getting 3.2% his only year. I have never understood some of the guys who fell off immediately and never got any real consideration.

You could put together a pretty good team of "one-and-done" players...just in CF you'd have Lofton and Jim Edmonds.

Last ballot we saw Tim Hudson and Joe Nathan get the treatment.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Also, neither did much after 1980

LOL

Right you are. I was just thinking in terms of these veterans' committees in general. That question is more pertinent a couple years from now when the non-contemporary Veterans Committee meets.

[philo98]

delete

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

You could put together a pretty good team of "one-and-done" players...just in CF you'd have Lofton and Jim Edmonds.

Last ballot we saw Tim Hudson and Joe Nathan get the treatment.

Lance Berkman and Carlos Delgado stick out in memory of recent years as two guys clearly deserving of an honest look, who didn’t get one.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by G1911

Lance Berkman and Carlos Delgado stick out in memory of recent years as two guys clearly deserving of an honest look, who didn’t get one.

Yes, I'm not sure either deserve to be elected, but certainly deserve better than one shot on the ballot.

[timn1]

Correct - I despise Schilling but if he had Clemens' numbers he would be in for sure. He's just not there stats-wise. I'd much rather see Orel Hershiser get in, or Billy Pierce, or Tiant.

McGriff played in an era of much less offense than the Bonds/Palmeiro group. He belongs in the Hall, I think. Mattingly I'm on the fence about. Murphy not quite...

Originally Posted by Jason19th

I will never understand the outrage about Shilling not being in and the assumption that it is because of his politics. Look at his numbers- the vast majority of guys with those numbers are not in and most have not been controversial exclusions- see Lew Burdette, Ron Guidry, Vida Blue, Kevin Brown, Orel Hershisrer, Mel Harder, Kenny Rodgers, David Wells, Luis Tiante, Wilbur Cooper, Mickey Lolich, Billy Pierce, Bob Welch, Dave Stewart, Denny McClain, Freddie Fitzimmons

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by timn1

McGriff played in an era of much less offense than the Bonds/Palmeiro group.

McGriff: 1986-2004

Bonds: 1986-2007

Palmiero: 1986-2005

[Mike D.]

By my count, there have been 19 pitchers with 200 career wins and 3,000 strikeouts.

Not in the HOF:

- Clemens (on this ballot)
- Schilling (on this ballot)
- Verlander (active)
- Scherzer (active)
- Sabathia (not yet eligible)

If you prefer WAR, Schilling is 26th all time among SP's.

Those above him not in the HOF:

- Roger Clemens

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

McGriff: 1986-2004

Bonds: 1986-2007

Palmiero: 1986-2005

I laughed

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

McGriff: 1986-2004

Bonds: 1986-2007

Palmiero: 1986-2005

It's those 2005-2007 years that make all the difference.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by G1911

Schillings 79.5 WAR is pretty deep into obvious Hall territory.

Some voters were writing opinion pieces specifically stating they weren’t voting for him for social politics, as I recall.

I find it difficult to pretend he got a fair shake and is kept out on statistical grounds.

He deserves to be in based on his numbers. I just looked at his stats and he had some really good years. His 2002 year was incredible, 23-7 with a 3.23 ERA in 259 innings, and amazingly 316 strikeouts and only 29 walks. Of course he might be in the hall already if he didn't tell the sportswriters not to vote for him.

"I will not participate in the final year of voting. I am requesting to be removed from the ballot," he wrote. "I'll defer to the veterans committee and men whose opinions actually matter and who are in a position to actually judge a player. I don't think I'm a hall of famer as I've often stated but if former players think I am then I'll accept that with honor."

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

He deserves to be in based on his numbers. I just looked at his stats and he had some really good years. His 2002 year was incredible, 23-7 with a 3.23 ERA in 259 innings, and amazingly 316 strikeouts and only 29 walks. Of course he might be in the hall already if he didn't tell the sportswriters not to vote for him.

"I will not participate in the final year of voting. I am requesting to be removed from the ballot," he wrote. "I'll defer to the veterans committee and men whose opinions actually matter and who are in a position to actually judge a player. I don't think I'm a hall of famer as I've often stated but if former players think I am then I'll accept that with honor."

Have a quote for the 9 years before that? Every time Schilling comes up, his tenth year ‘screw it’ is brought up in a vacuum as if the writers just politely respected his wishes all along. The context of how and why that quote was made are never brought up with it.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by G1911

Have a quote for the 9 years before that? Every time Schilling comes up, his tenth year ‘screw it’ is brought up in a vacuum as if the writers just politely respected his wishes all along. The context of how and why that quote was made are never brought up with it.

Schilling looked sure to get in until the whole "sharing a meme about hanging journalists" thing a few years prior. His vote total still went up every year after that, but I feel like the last year thing didn't really cost him as much as the meme a few years earlier did.

I don't know if that's factual or not, but that's my take. Open to other interpretations.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by G1911

Have a quote for the 9 years before that? Every time Schilling comes up, his tenth year ‘screw it’ is brought up in a vacuum as if the writers just politely respected his wishes all along. The context of how and why that quote was made are never brought up with it.

I thought I was clear with what I said. Schilling's numbers are good enough for the Hall of Fame and if he had kept his mouth shut he probably would have been voted in his last year. He chose to make a statement and blow up the process. Maybe you respect him for that, maybe you don't, but it was his decision.

We know the BBWAA is a fraternity and while many writers are stat-based and analytical, some are not. Players with positive attitudes that are good with interviews have always gotten bonus points for that, and likewise those with sour personalities get deducted for it. Nothing very insightful there, that is just the way it is. Rock Raines had to wait a long time to get in the Hall, Dick Allen is still not in.

My focus when looking at HOF credentials has always been to look at a player's value on the field. But if you are an ambassador to the game, like Ernie Banks maybe, that should count for something too. Certainly Jackie Robinson would deserve his spot in the hall even if he put up Rabbit Maranville numbers.

And on the other side, those who lessen the game by cheating, or otherwise putting the game in a bad light, should have that counted against them. Personally I don't think the controversial things Schilling has said since he retired from baseball should be much of a deduct, but on the other hand they sure don't help.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Schilling looked sure to get in until the whole "sharing a meme about hanging journalists" thing a few years prior. His vote total still went up every year after that, but I feel like the last year thing didn't really cost him as much as the meme a few years earlier did.

I don't know if that's factual or not, but that's my take. Open to other interpretations.

I agree with this, and I think it's what the record suggests is the case. He was unpopular for being outspoken in the opposite direction of the media (some of the claims about his positions are true, and some were just completely false htitpieces. I remember the fake news push that he was a Nazi with a huge collection of nazi memorabilia, as it turned out he collects World War II memorabilia from across the world, as do many people. He was in trouble shortly before this for comparing Islamic extremism to Nazism) and sometimes a dumbass. The meme gave the writers the reason to block an enemy, which they took. His frustration over it and the request sunk his last chance, but it's fairly clear what the actual problem is for at least 9/10 of the saga. I wish I didn't know athletes political views, hot takes, and triggering memes, and they could simply be evaluated on reasonable grounds of actual merit, instead of tribalism.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by G1911

I agree with this, and I think it's what the record suggests is the case. He was unpopular for being outspoken in the opposite direction of the media (some of the claims about his positions are true, and some were just completely false htitpieces. I remember the fake news push that he was a Nazi with a huge collection of nazi memorabilia, as it turned out he collects World War II memorabilia from across the world, as do many people. He was in trouble shortly before this for comparing Islamic extremism to Nazism) and sometimes a dumbass. The meme gave the writers the reason to block an enemy, which they took. His frustration over it and the request sunk his last chance, but it's fairly clear what the actual problem is for at least 9/10 of the saga. I wish I didn't know athletes political views, hot takes, and triggering memes, and they could simply be evaluated on reasonable grounds of actual merit, instead of tribalism.

Yes, I do miss the "good old days" of Hall of Fame debates, before steroids, politics, crime, gambling, sexual abuse, and all those other nasty things came into the equation.

As we've seen in the threads here, it's hard enough to find consensus on who should be in and out without all those outside variables.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

Yes, I do miss the "good old days" of Hall of Fame debates, before steroids, politics, crime, gambling, sexual abuse, and all those other nasty things came into the equation.

As we've seen in the threads here, it's hard enough to find consensus on who should be in and out without all those outside variables.

The stats debate is plenty contentious, has no easy line to draw, and is good fun. I like that debate.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by G1911

The stats debate is plenty contentious, has no easy line to draw, and is good fun. I like that debate.

Agreed. Cell phones ruined the bar argument, and steroids (and the other stuff) ruined the Hall of Fame argument.

[dealme]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

And now Fred McGriff is getting robbed of being wrongly accused of being Halle Berry's partner in crime, dog. There's no Justice in that.

Brian

I'm wondering if McGriff's chances haven't been hurt due to his fully endorsing Tom Emanski's defensive drills video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_LGZUmD2Hk

[mainemule]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

By my count, there have been 19 pitchers with 200 career wins and 3,000 strikeouts.

Not in the HOF:

- Clemens (on this ballot)
- Schilling (on this ballot)
- Verlander (active)
- Scherzer (active)
- Sabathia (not yet eligible)

If you prefer WAR, Schilling is 26th all time among SP's.

Those above him not in the HOF:

- Roger Clemens

3 WS rings, a 4th Series with the Phillies, broke the "Curse," crazy all-around playoff and WS numbers- these all matter.....

His post-career behavior has clearly kept him out.

He also won the Clemente award so he did have a period of good character for sure.

[rtsjr12534]

Mattingly dont know why people think he is a hofer just because he played for the yankees. lot more players belong in there before him.

dave parker belongs in wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more then him

[G1911]

Originally Posted by mainemule

3 WS rings, a 4th Series with the Phillies, broke the "Curse," crazy all-around playoff and WS numbers- these all matter.....

His post-career behavior has clearly kept him out.

He also won the Clemente award so he did have a period of good character for sure.

I'm pretty sure we are supposed to memory hole Schilling's charity work. People are not people anymore with strength and weakness and complexities, they are one dimensional heroes or villains based on today's narrative.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by rtsjr12534

Mattingly dont know why people think he is a hofer just because he played for the yankees. lot more players belong in there before him.

dave parker belongs in wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more then him

Since everyone loves WAR now, Mattingly is 45th among 1B with a paltry 42. Fred Tenney, Joe Judge, Ed Konetchy, and Dolph Camille are some of those above him. He wouldn't be the worst in, but I wouldn't vote for him and Murphy.

Dave Parker is in a similar boat. WAR absolutely hates Parker's glove. I think the pitching and defense components are highly questionable at best.

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

He deserves to be in based on his numbers. I just looked at his stats and he had some really good years. His 2002 year was incredible, 23-7 with a 3.23 ERA in 259 innings, and amazingly 316 strikeouts and only 29 walks. Of course he might be in the hall already if he didn't tell the sportswriters not to vote for him.

"I will not participate in the final year of voting. I am requesting to be removed from the ballot," he wrote. "I'll defer to the veterans committee and men whose opinions actually matter and who are in a position to actually judge a player. I don't think I'm a hall of famer as I've often stated but if former players think I am then I'll accept that with honor."

He admitted he is not a Hall of Famer and he is 100% correct!

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by rand1com

He admitted he is not a Hall of Famer and he is 100% correct!

Care to give a reason, based on his playing career, why?

Schilling is a no brainer HOFer. He also happens to be a loud mouth, but based on his play he belongs and if we are all being honest is pretty obvious.

[ejharrington]

Schilling checks all the boxes for being a HOFer.

[jayshum]

When Ed Wade was the Phillies GM, he described Schilling something like this - He's a horse every 5th day and a horse's ass the other four. Not sure if it's a direct quote, but apparently he wasn't beloved during his playing days. However, he did come up big in the postseason.

[G1911]

Let's compare to his direct contemporaries.

Tom Glavine - 80.7 WAR - Elected first year of eligibility with 91.9% of the vote

Mike Mussina- 82.8 WAR - Elected his sixth year of eligibility.

John Smoltz - 69.0 WAR - Elected in his first year of eligibility with 82.9% of the vote.

Curt Schilling - 79.5 WAR - Not a Hall of Famer at all.


Schilling is closer to Pedro Martinez the he is John Smoltz by WAR, but Martinez is an all-peak kind of guy and generally held in a different tier. While his career overlaps significantly with Halladay, I would not consider them the same generation. Including Halladay would further bolster Schilling's case. I have cut out the roiders, Clemens and Kevin Brown as they are not looked at for statistical performance, but for an on-the-field problem. Maddux and Randy Johnson are obviously and undeniably in the top tier of HOF greatness and blow everyone else out of the water.

I can't see a reasonable case that Schilling isn't a Hall of Famer. I can see a reasonable case that the Hall shouldn't include so many players and be much smaller, and Curt shouldn't be in that small hall, but that's not the Hall that actually exists. He clearly meets the standard of his generation. I will never understand the apparently numerous people who will deny anything if it doesn't suit their favored political narrative.

[jayshum]

Glavine is a 300 game winner which is basically an automatic entry to the HoF. Mussina won 54 more games than Schilling and was considered a questionable pick by a lot of people (from what I remember) when he was elected. Smoltz had almost the same win total as Schilling but also spent time as a closer and also has 154 saves. Glavine and Smoltz also won Cy Young awards which Schilling never did. I think his low win total compared to most starters already in the HoF worked against him with a lot of older voters even though several pitchers with comparable win totals have been elected more recently. He certainly didn't help himself with some of his comments, but I don't think that's the only reason he didn't get elected by the writers.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by G1911

I believe the current version of the narrative from Ortiz fans is that it doesn’t count because MLB won’t certify it (they can’t) and it wasn’t supposed to be public (like basically all wrongdoing in human history, and every players use). Thus Ortiz should be let off the hook, but everyone else who is not a Red Sox player or media darling can be punished. You know it’s a loser of a case when this is the argument they are left with.

If Ortiz was a vocal Republican then it would have been used against him and he would not be in...kind of like how Curt Schilling is being kept out. Writers have bias. Whoever on the committee will have bias. Its the nature of the beast. Some have it work in their advantage, some don't.

Ortiz should not be in while the other better players who may have used as well are not in.

If Schilling is not in due to his personality, then the same standard should be applied to every player, and then Dale Murphy should be in due to his personality being exemplary.

Nobody is a capable judge on someone else's character unless they see that person's actions 100% of the time and every second of their life. All they see is an incomplete picture either positive or negative. There are a lot of wolves in sheep's clothing and you never really know.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

If Ortiz was a vocal Republican then it would have been used against him and he would not be in...kind of like how Curt Schilling is being kept out.

Ortiz should not be in while the other better players who may have used as well are not in.

If Schilling is not in due to his personality, then the same standard should be applied to every player, and then Dale Murphy should be in due to his personality being exemplary.

The VC's numerous iterations have always made some poor choices, and had much corruption and cronyism. The writers, while I have disagreed occasionally, have done a generally good job with those they elected. The writers have really turned their vote into a joke now, by embracing that same corruption and cronyism to reward their pals and punish their enemies, with seemingly little regard for actual accomplishment.

If Ortiz is in, so should Bonds and Clemens and others who were undeniably better than Ortiz but kept out for being guilty of the same crime he is. Schilling being kept out as a political enemy is just as bad. If Schilling was an asshole who shared a meme joke about hanging Oath Keepers or whatever-the-boogeyman-of-the-day is, he would be voted in with little comment (actually, he'd probably be lauded for his 'brave stand'). It's not his 'personality', it's his personality as a political enemy. The writers used to treat the Hall as a baseball accomplishment; they no longer are. Perhaps one day we can return to rationality.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

Perhaps one day we can return to rationality.

Hope springs eternal!