I don't even love Belle...but you all are selecting only numbers that support your arguments while ignoring others..

10 elite years is a long run

I would take 10 years of 100R/40HR/120RBI/.300 over 16 years that barely equal those put up in 10

If Griffey or Thomas retied after 2002 you would all say they are in....not sure I see a big difference...other than he was a complete ass

Long and steady accummulated #'s are great...but I'd take 10 elite years and 6 average over 16 great...the numbers will also show this as per my above comparison

Belle did not put up that stat line over 10 years. He hit only 1 of those 4 metrics as his average over those 10 years.

He was also simply not elite for 10 years. 1992, 1997, 2000. A 109 OPS+ is not elite, I'm sorry.

Yes, we would say that for Griffey and Tomas. I have said it over and over again for Belle too. I would vote for Albert Belle even though he had a brief career.

Apparently, some people don't know that Sammy Sosa was caught corking his bat as well.

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

Investing In The Contemporary Baseball Era Hall of Fame Candidates

Hmmmmmmmm! Okay, but why absolutely nothing about the likes of McGwire and Sosa, and them being left off the ballot? If you're going to ignore the cheating/PED issues, and the "not so nice human being" issues, in regard to who ends up on this ballot, the numbers this duo put up in their careers outshines more than some of those who did make the ballot IMO. Plus, to their credit, they were seen by many as sort of saviors to the game by bringing back positive interest and fans in the aftermath of the 1994-95 strike, with their perceived head-to-head competition as MLB's home run kings at the time. They were actually embraced and celebrated by MLB at the time, with the subsequent change to their perception and treatment highlighting the often hypocritical nature that fans and MLB can exhibit.

As others have asked/mentioned, I understand there is a 16 person committee to do the final voting, but who/how did they first decide who would go on this ballot? Simply taking the players who just dropped off the regular ballot after 10 years of not getting voted in, and immediately adding them to this ballot in the very next year, seems to run 100% counter to the purpose and intention of these "veteran" type committees. If their intent is to review the eligibility and worthiness of certain players who failed induction under the regular ballot procedures, by later on going back and re-assessing and re-evaluating their careers and achievements in light of changing views and context over time, I'm all for it. But immediately adding players who just dropped off the regular ballot is stupid and insulting to the BBWAA who just went through 10 years of not finding them worthy of induction. What time has passed to re-assess them? There is no "later" to allow for consideration of changing views or opinions of their careers, nor any time passing to really allow for any different views as to the context surrounding their possible induction. It is also then unfair to those kept off such a veteran committee ballot who have seen time pass since their opportunity for regular ballot induction was denied, and an actual change and re-evaluation of their HOF worthiness may be warranted and have taken place over that ensuing time they were not on any ballots.

If any of the four players who just dropped off the regular ballot get immediately elected to the HOF by this Contemporary Era committee, I view that as an insult and slap in the face to the BBWAA voters, and almost as an indictment against using them for the HOF voting going forward. If anything, it would seem more appropriate if there were a reasonable waiting period following a player's unsuccessful 10 straight year failure to be elected to the HOF via the regular ballot voting, before then making them eligible for induction through such a veterans committee. To me, at least a five year additional waiting period would not be inappropriate, or onerous.

By the way Mike, did enjoy the article and your writing. The differing values of some of those player's rookie cards was really interesting, and speaks to how at least one segment of the public views the HOF worthiness of certain players over others. What's the old saying, "Put your money where your mouth is!".

Thanks BobC. I personally agree that it's "too soon" for the guys who just dropped off the ballot. Even a wait for the next cycle in 3 years would have helped...and likely led to their chances of election to increase.

On McGwire/Sosa...I didn't want to write a book, so I had to cut my list at a certain point...but these were likely the two next names I'd have mentioned. I kind of get the impression that Bonds/Clemens will be the first of the "steroid era" guys to get in, with others like McGwire/Sosa to follow.

And of course, Bud Selig being in the Hall of Fame but keeping the steroid crowd out is silly...since he happily looked the other way and let it all happen.

Of course, that raises the "Why is Palmeiro on the list?" question. Replacing him with a clean player from my list of snubs would have been better. I also don't love that several players are getting their third appearance on the ballot before some others get a first look.

It's an imperfect system, for sure. And the whole mess with PEDs, legal issues, politics, etc. makes it so ugly. I miss the old days when just what a player did on the field was PLENTY for us to argue about.

And yeah, based on rookie card value, pretty clear collectors don't think Albert Belle is a Hall of Famer. :D

I had several friends kids at that game. It was some High School trip to Chicago and they got to go to a Cubs game.

I believe he is also the only player to hit 60 or more HRs in a season 3 times.

And led the league in none of those three seasons. His titles were his 50 and 49 years, oddly.

Yes, they should make those guys dropping of the regular ballot after 10 years kind of go and get in the back of the line again, so to speak. LOL

But if one of them gets elected on this first ever Contemporary Era committee ballot now, that really does negatively reflect on and impact the value and opinions of the BBWAA voters. Will be interesting to see how the hand-picked 16 members of this committee decide. And since as I now understand it, these committee members are being chosen by the Directors of the HOF, it essentially means the HOF Board of Directors is effectively deciding who gets in.

Hof
 

Crime Dog should be a no-question here; I've thought that for years.
Otherwise, if you look at those "peak moments" at "clutch time" (like Mazeroski getting in for 1 key homer, for example), then Schilling has a pretty good argument: '93 WS game 5 up against the wall + 2001 w/Arizona for goodness' sake + bloody sock in '04... pretty amazing track record in the big moment.

I'm sure they don't have total control, but I have to imagine the HOF would like to put the whole steroids thing to bed...it's bad for business not to have the best players from that era in the hall, and it's even worse for business when 75% of all HOF conversations are about steroids.

Honestly, I think if one person gets in on this ballot, it's McGriff. If two do, it's McGriff and Schilling.

That being said, with only three votes per voter, it's going to be REALLY tough to get to 75% for anyone.

With the voter list a secret at present, it seems the odds are fairly high no one makes it in because of differing priorities. It only takes 5 who vote for politics, or 5 hardliners on steroids to block the top statistical half of the ballot. Those 5 would need a majority of the rest to vote for the statistical bottom along with them to elect anyone.

Can't disagree with you, but if they decide who goes on the committee, you figure they probably know the people and have some idea how they think, and thus how they may vote.

And you're probably right about the steroid issue as well. I know I wouldn't want to be stuck in their position either. Problem is, whatever happens and is decided, either way a large number of people will still be unhappy with them. They have no win-win outcome.

Couldn't agree more and this was my main, and really only, problem with this ballot. I would have enjoyed a break from the stink of the steroid era to see guys like Dwight Evans, Keith Hernandez or Lou Whitaker get their chance at consideration. There are plenty of eligibles worthy of at least a deeper look before jumping back into the PED cesspool.

I agree that Dwight Evans and Keith Hernandez are worthy of a vote.

I wonder how the Committee's "contemporary" focus being from 1980 onward affected their chances of getting a vote. Evans' rookie year was '72 and while his best years were in the 1980s, they may not have considered "contemporary" enough. Hernandez' MVP year was '79, so the same goes for him.

The "Classic" baseball Committee is supposed to consider players "whose greatest contributions to the game were realized prior to 1980", so they may get passed up again for being too contemporary.

So it seems Evans and Hernandez could be stuck in no man's land.

Great point(s). Wonder how the HOF and these Committees would respond if someone ever directly asked them exactly how they were going to treat player's careers that fall into both the Classic and Contemporary eras, and decide which Committee's ballot they would belong on as a result.

Also got me thinking about another potential question. With a 1980 start/cut-off date, that means the Contemporary Committee era covers the last 42-43 years, a fairly long time over which we've seen major changes to how the game is played. So three years from now when the Contemporary Committee comes up again to vote, do they just keep the same 1980 start/cut-off date, or do they possibly move it to say 1983, so as to actually make the term "Contemporary" at last least somewhat accurate and relevant? At 42-43 years already, that's getting close to almost encompassing two entire generations. That doesn't exactly fit the definition of what I normally think of as "contemporary". But it is just part of the title for one of these veteran committees, and may never have been intended to have any true relevance after all.

I assume the committee didn't choose every fringe player because they don't have questions about their candidacy. I think the questions around Hernandez and Dwight Evans have been talked about to death and there isn't anything left to debate.

People might have the same opinions about Mattingly and Dale Murphy, but the voters clearly saw something left to discuss.

So are you referring to Dwight Evans and Keith Hernandez as "fringe players"?

I am not sure what you mean by "the questions around Hernandez and Dwight Evans have been talked about to death and there isn't anything left to debate."

Keith Hernandez has yet to be included on a Veterans Committee ballot, unlike Mattingly, Murphy and others who have already been considered by the Veterans Committees in the past.

In the last couple of years, Hernandez was induced to the Cardinals Hall of Fame and had his number retired by the Mets. Lots of people think he has a stronger case than Mattingly.

As far as Evans goes, Bill James wrote an open letter in 2012 calling for Evans’ enshrinement in the Hall of Fame. And Adam Darowski inducted Evans into his Hall of Stats, writing "It’s not that Dwight Evans was a unique hitter. His 352.7 (Baseball-Reference) WAR Batting Runs have been matched by 89 other players. His fielding skills weren’t very unique, either. 194 players have more WAR Fielding Runs than Evans’ 66.3. But only 18 players in the history of the game have surpassed him in both categories."

Fringe HOF-candidates. That letter from Bill James was a decade ago. Yes, I believe both of their cases have been talked about to death. Keith Hernandez is one of the first players people point to, along with Garvey, when they question standards. It's not a new discussion.

I don't disagree that the same thing can be said of Mattingly. But the committee obviously feels differently.

What do you mean by "Keith Hernandez is one of the first players people point to, along with Garvey, when they question standards."

Do you not believe Evans and Hernandez deserve consideration?

Is it untrue people often talk about Keith Hernandez and Steve Garvey as being stiffed by the HOF?

I don't believe either player is a HOFer either, but I don't think that factored into the committee's decision not to revisit their cases.

People talk about Hernandez being stiffed by the writers. But he has never even been considered by any Committees. And his case is significantly stronger than Garvey's.

Maybe he hasn't been considered because his case isn't seen as being strong? That's what I've been saying.

Evans and Hernandez are clearly fringe candidates, as are Mattingly and Murphy. There are only 8 slots, and in recent years the writers have failed to elect some obvious hall of famers and true greats. No list of 8 is going to include everyone with a decent argument. If anything 8 is too many, it may well be a 0 electee year with too many split priorities for anyone here to get 12/16.

I am presuming that the current Contemporary Committee feels that way. But I don't agree with them, and also don't think it is fair to keep including the same people in Committee votes. Hernandez does quite well with modern sabermetrics because of his extremely high career OBP (.384) and solid WAR (60.3).

Its unfortunate that the Committee doesn't appear to recognize this. If they did, Whitaker would be on the ballot as well.

Sure, but you're cherry picking. WAR?

https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...nidedu01.shtml

Keep in mind that Belle's "10 year elite" run includes WAR's of 2.5, 2.0, 1.5, and 0.6.

Looks like a significant drop off there.

Sure, it's a fall from his peak, but these are very good productive time. Snider's peak did not last 15 years. I cannot imagine why we would think it would? We got maybe 5, 10 guys in all of baseball history who had that. But it's a very strong fall, far outperforming the league. If Belle had that at the end of his career, we'd have little discussion about him.

His highest war in your falloff is 3.5, which is better than 5 of Belle's "elite" 10 years. So If this is to Snider's detriment, then, exactly as I said using your cherrypicked stat instead of my cherrypicked stat, Belle's elite 10 just became elite 5.

You guys are doing an awful lot of debating and arguing for nothing. With 16 voters having 3 votes each, that comes to 48 total votes. And as someone already pointed out, with 12 votes needed for induction, the most number of players that could possibly be inducted from the 8 that are on the ballot are just 4 (48 / 12 = 4). And based on the probabilities and numbers, that isn't even remotely likely to happen. If I had to guess, I'd say they may be lucky to elect 1 new inductee, with the chance of a 2nd being elected being remote, at best. So a lot of this debating is going to end up being mute, with maybe no one getting in on this ballot.

Another issue/problem is we have no idea yet who the 16 committee members doing the voting will be, and thus no idea of their thoughts on alleged PED users, those who may have cheated in other ways, or how they view those who weren't always the nicest of humans.

And some of you mention how the committee put the 8 players they did on this Contemporary Era ballot, and thus it seems they have some obvious reasons/desires to want them on it and may therefore plan to vote for them. But remember, it is not the Committee doing the voting that picked and put these 8 players on this Contemporary Era ballot. To my knowledge no one has been selected for the 16-person voting committee yet, and I would assume (and hope) that no one involved in picking the 8 players on the ballot is included as part of that committee either.

Late to the party on Evans, but I'm fairly sure the Hall would put him in the pre-1980 grouping. Whitaker I think would have been on the Contemporary ballot if he'd been selected by the committee.

As in Lou Whitaker?

What other Whitaker do you think a person might propose as a hall of fame candidate?

The whole idea of these committee is to review guys who have been talked about to death. We just spent a decade talking about Bonds and Clemens. How many chances did Gil Hodges need to get in? All I'm saying is that if you're going to revisit guys who have been through the BBWAA process, pick some guys that haven't been recently discussed.

I agree with you on that point. There should be more time between Falling off the ballot and showing up so soon on the next committee ballot. Perhaps a waiting time of 5 years

I don't disagree. I also think someone like Mattingly had their shot too. I would also like to see guys like Kenny Lofton and Jorge Posada get a second look over Bonds.