Hall of Fame Ballot Announced
 

I can't believe no one has mentioned that the Hall of Fame ballot has been announced.

https://baseballhall.org/discover/co...er-ballot-2023

It will be interesting to see how Curt Schilling does. I'm rooting against the steroid guys -- Bonds, Clemens, and Palmeiro.

Yep. If we ignore it, then it never happened!

Not ignoring it, but not rewarding it either.

I am good with Clemens, Schilling, Bonds, and Palmero.

CONTEMPORARY...Please be clear about that...only need 12/16...taking the juice out the equation....because well I feel it was just part of the era for each

My votes:

Obvious Yes
Bonds - Top 10 ATG OF
Clemens - Top 10 ATG SP

Yes
Palmiero - Look at his #'s...only 4 AS???...IN

Leaning towards Yes
McGriff - Better numbers than those listed below...quiet but stats don't lie
Belle - Man...Feels like a no because of the narrative...but dude had a 10 year run of total domination...right there with Frank and the Kid suring that time. Puckett didn't dominate like this for 10 years...actually not many did.

No
Schilling - wasn't super consistent and total numbers just aren't there for me...great postseason success doesn't equal HOF
Mattingly - Total numbers and lenght of dominant run just don't add up
Murphy - Great guy...but again total numbers just don;t do it for me

There was a thread in the Sports watercooler.

Bonds and Clemens both deserve to be in the hall IMO.

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.

My understanding is that there are 16 voters, who get a maximum of 3 votes each. This leads to a total of 48 votes maximum.

Players must get 75% to get in (i.e. 12 or more of the 16 voters).

So at most 4 players can get in (48 divided by 12).

Somebody double check my math here, I have not had my morning coffee yet.

Schilling should get in.

All worthy in their own way that is why they are on list
But with doping, politics, and injuries effecting longevity (Mattingly) they all have questions.
McGriff and Shilling should be the Easy in but it will be interesting to see what happens with them and the rest.
Look forward to Dec announcement
Just wish we knew who the voters were and wish all ballots were made public

McGriff's association with Halle Berry should be worth something.

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.

Don Mattingly was the greatest hitter I ever saw. You could throw loose dimes across the outfield and Donnie Baseball could hit them with a batted ball. All this nonsense about hitting against the shift / ban the shift would have meant nothing to Mattingly. He could put a ball on the field wherever he wanted to.

How are these eight like Baines?

3 are obviously statistically HOFers, but have the David Ortiz problem that was just ignored.

2 are punished for personality and/or politics.

2 are questionable but are the opposite of Baines; Mattingly and Murphy are peak players not accumulators.

McGriff comes the closest, but he hardly seems to be a Baines type choice at all.

Schilling, if elected, will be elected for his 79.5 WAR and statistical performance, not for being an “all-time moron”.

Couldn't agree more, aside from my feeling that Schilling is the only deserving candidate of the lot. Having polarizing opinions is completely separate from your achievements in your career.

How does Ortiz just get in so effortlessly? It pisses me off. I never liked the guy, not that my opinion matters in the equation of his being inducted when all the other users aren't. None of them or all of them. You can't have it both ways. If Ortiz could be revoked, I would be a happy guy.

So for me the whole steroid thing boils down to this: There is a rule that any player banned from MLB is not eligible for the HOF - think Rose or Shoeless Joe. Bonds, Clemens and Palmiero are not banned from MLB and could in theory play again next year if they could make a roster. If MLB has a problem with them, then make a statement and ban them from the game. That would solve the HOF issue.

But just like the lame Bud Selig who did nothing when steroids were raging, MLB continues to turn a blind eye and not take a strong stance. Yes, I know there are now stronger penalties, but it took a congressional hearing to push the league to do something.

There is no longer even a pretense of objectivity. A political enemy is to be kept out for that reason, a steroid user who failed tests is to be kept out only if the media doesn’t like them or doesn’t care about them. A user who they salivate over is to be forgiven. Actually not even forgiven, the crime (treated as such for everyone else) is simply ignored. The blatant corruption and cronyism of the writers today is as bad as the Frisch days VC’s.

I am agnostic on if roiders should go in, I think it just be, ya know, logically consistent. Yes for Ortiz and no for Bonds and Clemens is nothing but an absolute joke.

Is Ortiz the only one who is in who had some chemical enhancement?

I thought Rickey was accused of also being on the sauce. And probably my paisan Piazza too.

But maybe the case for Ortiz being on something is a bit more obvious?

Question 1 is, of course, impossible for me to know. I can’t divine or know every action every player has taken in their life. I use a reasonable evidentiary basis as any reasonable person would.

Piazza has been accused. I don’t know about Rickey. Pudge I suspect probably did use. Bagwell has had suspicion. Ortiz though, failed a test unlike Bonds (who the evidence is for is common sense compelling) that the media got their hands on. That would seem to be reasonable evidence. He was the first one with real direct evidence to get in, and that event was just memory holed in the press as his much more accomplished peers were barred from admittance for the media darling to be shoveled in without any regard for consistency.

I thought Canseco had accused Rickey in his book. Of course, we can debate how much weight to give to this source. But it's not nothing.

I don’t know, I think I read one of his books half way and threw it out for being nauseating gossip. Only Ortiz falls into this category, of material evidence and it being ignored. There is no evidence the writers have instituted a gossip standard, where any player someone has said something about are excluded. They have for guys for which there is compelling evidence like failed tests, their plugs testimony in court, order records, etc. That is what has kept a long list of names out, and for which this clear standard was ignored to induct a person they liked.

Gotcha.

I guess there's also some question about the list that Ortiz was on, since it was never made public, right? And his being on that list was in some ways a bit of gossip?

It wasn't supposed to be public, but as these things usually go, the media got their hands on the list.

If we adopted a standard where this doesn't count because it wasn't intended to be public, well, most things that happen and get caught wouldn't be admissible. Clemens order receipts and Bonds' private dealings with his trainer/drug supplier weren't supposed to be public either. And yet here we are.

I thought that was Dave Justice.

Yes for Bonds (best player since Ruth)
Yes for Clemens (best pitcher since WaJo)
Yes for Schilling (top 25 pitcher)

I'm basically neutral on everybody else in that group.

Because of favoritism along with being the three without any baggage, I see the M & M & M boys getting in, that's it.

These would definitely not be my choices, I would go with Bonds & Clemens as no doubters.

I'm not saying he should or shouldn't be in, but where is Sammy Sosa? If other (suspected) PED users are on the ballot, where is Sammy? Or McGwire?

I know it will never happen, but I would love to see Dale Murphy get in. He was hands down my favorite player growing up (even over Kent Hrbek and Kirby Puckett!). I collected as many of his cards as I could. Just an all around great guy, and an above average player. I don't think his stats will get him in, but I'm happy he's on the ballot.

Bill

This is the way I lean -- if baseball (and the union) didn't feel that PEDs were sufficiently identified as unacceptable that banning was appropriate, then it falls in the "I'll do anything I can to help my team win (and make myself money)" category. In 1998, Bonds (likely without PEDs) became the first player in MLB history to get 400 HRs and 400 SBs. Everybody was too busy celebrating the McGuire/Sosa assault on 61 HRs to notice Bonds. La Rusa was shaming sports writers for violating the sanctity of the clubhouse and writing about McGuire's cream. Bonds, not unreasonably, decided he could do what they were being lauded for.

It not only wasn't intended to be public, but Manfred has also said it likely wasn't entirely accurate, because it wasn't fully vetted. It served its purpose as anecdotal information but wasn't managed and adjudicated the way it would have been if it was expected to be used as evidence against a specific player.

Of course Manfred said that, he had too because that was the deal that was agreed to and got the Players to take tests in the first place. MLB cannot "fully vet" and certify them without breaking the agreement. It's an appeal to an impossibility, like when classified intel is leaked and the CIA won't confirm it.

If this test is anecdotal, then so is the case against Clemens that relies mostly on others testimony without any failed test or direct evidence. This argument just shifts the double standard to be a different double standard, not a not double standard.

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

good recap just depends on the opinion the voters have on steriods. to me Schilling should be in

Was Lou Whitaker not eligible for this committee since he started in 1977 ? What was the cut off year ?

It’s for players whose “primary contribution” was after 1980, so I think Whitaker would have qualified to be considered for this final ballot. That he started in 1977 shouldn’t put him into the pre-1980 primary contribution group.

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

Somewhat amazingly, the writers gave Curt 71.1% of the vote in 2021, which seems high based on the comps that you mentioned. Particularly for the writers, who seem to be pretty picky of late.

Whitaker was on the last ballot (2020) and received 6 votes -- more than Murphy and Mattingly combined. My advice is to not try to make sense of the process or the decisions. There is no logic to piece together.

Mel Harder and Billy Pierce were friends of mine. Both were salt of the earth-caliber humble. While I often looked at Mel's numbers and all those years with just one club, I'm reminded what that writer said about Early Wynn in the "Worst HOFers" article recently posted in another thread. It was something akin to longevity does not always equal greatness. I think Mel's numbers do come close and are certainly comparable to some HOF pitchers. Bob Feller told me he thought Mel should be inducted, but there's no way to account for a bit of bias there. But, as we know, Feller was as outspoken as they come, and called things as he saw them, so it's hard to say. Just remember that he did personally witness the majority of Harder's pitching career.

On a personal level, I'd be thrilled for my old friends if they were enshrined, but realistically, it would make no sense. I was completely floored when Billy's name came up for serious consideration in a recent voting. Really? Billy Pierce? Like I said, a complete sweetheart of a human being, but I've never associated him as having anywhere near a HOF-caliber career.

What if 75% of the voters (the dirty dozen) are on steroids? Will anyone care if these dudes are in the HOF in fifty years?

The 2020 ballot used a different era system than the ‘reconstituted for like the 20th time’ new committees.

I’m not really a Whitaker advocate but I have a very hard time seeing how he’s out if Trammell is in. Whitaker has to get in at some point… maybe…

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.

None of them get in IMO.

I hope clemens and bonds never get in.

Jose was never the same after that ball bounced off his noggin over the fence.:D

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.

You're joking, right?

Check out YouTube for his acceptance speech. It's a thing of beauty.

"I would like to thanks the member of the Halls of Fame..."

"...and 33 steal!"

"...the San Diego Padre!"

"I guess Moms do knows best!"

Just remember, this guy is somehow in possession of one of the most brilliant baseball minds in history! No wonder he kept playing into his 50's; it's the only world where he felt comfortable.

Yes, joking. He dropped character.

He was way more entertaining when he spoke in the third person!

facepalm.jpg

Who are you referring to?

No strike, no PED’s. Let them in!

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

:p 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.

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 ?

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

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/

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

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

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 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.

Sos
 

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 :D

Thanks for sharing.

Chad

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 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.

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 :)

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?

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.

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.

delete

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.

my two centavos
 

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...

McGriff: 1986-2004

Bonds: 1986-2007

Palmiero: 1986-2005

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

I laughed

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

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.