2023 Contemporary Era Ballot Nominees
 

Pretty good list of names this time, I think, for voting next month. Belle, Bonds, Clemens, Mattingly, McGriff, Murphy, Palmeiro and Schilling. None of whom would be an egregious choice, though I wouldn't vote for all of them. Will they finally let Bonds and Clemens in now that steroids are openly ignored if a favored Red Sock does them?


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

Fingers crossed on Albert getting in. I've got a pretty tough rookie if he does:

https://live.staticflickr.com/4712/3...f8fa35f47a.jpg

Will be interesting to watch and see the results

Some interesting names and well qualified. Just have to see how the committee votes. 12 votes and they are in

3 steroid guys.

2 political/social “problems”.

3 guys who are judged on their actual performance.

I have no idea what the committee will do, if they will ignore steroids or controversial personalities and ignore media dislike. I don’t see on the Hall site the actual names of the 16 voters to see who they are and then figure what they’ll likely do.

I’d probably vote for everyone except Murphy and Mattingly, but if the committee leans towards punishing political and steroid offenses, it might be their year as there are only 3

Don't go holding your breath. Anyone caught using corked bats, throwing balls at fans, and chasing down trick-or-treaters who egged his house for not having candy and actually telling the local cops he'll kill these kids if he catches them first, is likely not going to get a lot of sympathetic votes. At least he shouldn't.

But if that were all in play wouldn't he not be chosen for the committee vote? It's my understanding these candidates are hand picked.

McGriff should be in most deserving and least controversial and has the stats to go with it.

Belle has the next best chance IMO

Mattingly not healthy long enough and dope and politics gets in the way with others that might have been deserving

I’ve never understood how McGriff isn’t in. The steroid users are punished and kept out for the most part, but then so is McGriff essentially for not being as good as the Palmeiro’s who were cheating.

I hope he is selected, I am rooting for him.

I think Belle should be a lock but will not be surprised if he doesn't get in. I think he was far better than Vlad and any other non-500 home run club member. He hit 50 homers and 50 doubles in one season and is the only player ever to do that. At the time, only him, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx had ever hit 30 homers and driven in 100 runs for 9 seasons in a row. He was only 5 RBI's short of driving in 100 runs for a decade straight.

But I understand everything going against him, of course.

My only issue with Belle is the brevity of his career. I think the strength of his peak is enough to overcome and warrant induction anyways. He was one hell of an offensive force. I would also vote for him, but not over everyone else on this stacked ballot.

Don't disagree, but frankly not sure why they picked him in the first place based on all that known and factual bad history he has. It came out that all his bats were corked at one time, and all he really got for it was a rather short, multi-game suspension, that most people totally forgot about because the '94 player's strike kicked in right after he got caught. If he was willing to go to that level to cheat, what would make you ever think he completely stopped cheating somehow after that?

I have a sort of complementary piece to go along with your Joey Belle card. The big local rock station in town, WMMS, 100.7 FM, put out a large sticker that said "JOEY" on it back in the day to sort of commemorate/mock Belle. It also included a picture of the station's mascot, a cartoon buzzard. Actually a neat piece you don't really see anywhere.

Wasn’t there a couple of studies put out that basically said, corked bats didn’t do sh#t? Might even have led to worse outcomes LOL.

I would personally vote for every single one of them!


Steve

Fred McGriff, Roger Clemens, and Barry Bonds should already be in and I hope they make it in this way.

Have heard that also, but regardless of whether it really helped him or not, everyone knew it was illegal and considered cheating, but he did it anyway.

I think Albert Belle is going to get in. I've been thinking about it, and I don't know why the committee would choose him otherwise. Bonds and Clemens and Schilling will all get eyes on the vote. But there was really no reason to choose Albert Belle otherwise. He only lasted two official votes. That would be pretty unusual if they didn't intend to vote him in.

I don't think a player's personality or politics should be considered. Plenty of jerks and a holes already in. It's about on field performance.

I do however, think the steroid guys should be excluded because that is an integrity of the game issue. Yes, I know a few are already in. I don't think they should be.

This. The political party, views, and personality of a player are irrelevant. It’s a silly virtue signal or vendetta to make it about this.

As noted in the main forum...Belle had a 10 year...Frank/Griffey-esque....run...Pujols-like you might say as well. I don't call that brevity...some people want to claim Koufax is the greatest of all time for 5 stellar years after many average at best...I digress.

For comparison take Puckett...both played about 10 years before an injury/illness took the game away from them. I don't see a universe where I take Kirby over Belle for their best 10 year runs...not even close....and most consider KP a true HOFer. Nicer guy...sure...better than Belle....C'mon man.

In the context of the hall of fame, a 10 year run (9 really, his last season his bat was 9% over the league) is brief. He would rank near the bottom of position players for games.

I think context is important though. He was doing something that only Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx had ever done (9 seasons in a row with 30 homers and 100 RBIs). So while you might call that brevity it was only accomplished by three of the greatest hitters of all time (up to that point).

That’s not relevant. Within the context of the hall of fame, he has a brief career. That is a fact. There is no real argument he had a career, within the context of the hall of fame, of medium or great length. His career is brief. I would vote for him, as I said yesterday, because of the strength of his peak, but his level of accomplishment during that peak is utterly irrelevant to the brevity of his total career. He has a brief career for a HOFer, as a statement of actual fact.

If Belle had stuck around for 5 more mediocre years, would that really matter?

Playing more if you suck doesn’t help much. Playing more at league average can help reach major milestones and usually isn’t held against guys. Hence most HOFers have a late career falloff but still produce and only have 1-2 negative years at the end before they have to retire or be dropped.

Belles career, in the context of the HOF, is factually brief. If one thinks that shouldn’t matter and the Hall should be a reward of peaks instead of total career, that’s their argument to make. If Belle had had a normal length career, he would probably be in or at least gotten a sizable amount of votes. 41st in JAWS for his position is not exactly stellar, he ranks pretty low in most all career metrics because he didn’t play much.

But that hasn’t hurt lesser sluggers like Chuck Klein, Hack Wilson, or Ralph Kiner.

They also had short careers and are in the bottom length tier of the Hall. For like the fifth time, I too would vote for Albert Belle. That does not mean his career was not brief, it was. The former is an opinion, the later a fact.

Was Snider that good for longer than 10 years?

Yes. Belle at 10 credits his 109 OPS+, so Sniders streak ends with his 115+ year in 1963. By my quick count he has a 15 year straight run, 50% more.

As they are wildly different era's and its the bat that really matters for these two, here's the OPS+ count:

Seasons 170 or over OPS+: Belle 3 (1 was 194, only season over 179 for either), Snider 1.

Seasons 160 or over OPS+: Snider 3, Belle 3

Seasons 150 or over OPS+ Snider 4, Belle 4

Seasons 140 or over OPS+: Snider 7, Belle 6

Seasons 130 or over OPS+ Snider 11, Belle 7

Seasons 120 or over OPS+ Snider 13, Belle 8

Seasons 110 or over OPS+: Snider 15, Belle 9

Seasons 100 or over OPS: Snider 15, Belle 10

Seasons below 100 OPS+ (all partial): Belle 2, Snider 3

I don’t see in the dataset a case that Snider’s productive career was anywhere near Belle’s in length.

Belle’s absolute peak is perhaps a little better than Sniders, which is entirely independent of career length. He has the best single season, but after that it’s a draw until Snider’s longevity has him winning the bottom half by ~50% margins.

They do not seem to be similar type careers.

Looks to me he fell way off after 1957.

Yeah that analysis of Snider may be factually correct but I think it's pretty misleading. After his 30th birthday, Duke Snider was pretty average at best. His OPS numbers are gaudy but not his actual numbers. From 1958 to 1964 he averaged 103 games, 72 hits,13 homers, and 47 RBIs despite still compiling an average OPS+ of 127.

1958: 126 OPS+
1959: 140 OPS+
1960: 134 OPS+
1961: 138 OPS+
1962: 148 OPS+
1963: 115 OPS+

What an amazing fall off! If these years don't count, well Belle's 10 years just became 5.

Look at all the numbers though. He did post an OPS+ of 148 in 1962 but he played 80 games and had 5 homers and 30 RBI's.

Are we taking out Belle's 194+ top mark because he played 106?

If you want to argue Belle's peak is better, I agree with you. That's why I would put Belle in, his peak was utterly fantastic and I think overcomes his brief career to make him worthy as a Puckett type HOFer.

If we want to argue their careers are similar trajectory or effective length, they are clearly not. Snider played over 600 games more and many more productive years.

But why not talk about production AND OPS+? Belle's 106 game season was clearly superior. 1994 was a strike season. He didn't play 106 games because that's all he could be in the field for. And he hit 36 homers, drove in 101 runs, scored 90 runs while hitting 357.

Clearly leaps and bounds ahead of Snider's 80 game output.

Yes it was superior. But if we are dismissing part-time production, than it needs to be done for both. We're counting Albert's 109 OPS+ season and partial seasons, but trying to cut Snider off when he was outhitting the league by leaps and bounds. It must be consistent and have a consistent standard, not a different one for each player to writ the desired outcome.

I agree, again, that Belle's peak is better than Snider's, that when he was on the field Belle was a better hitter. That does not change the reality that Snider's effective career is much, much longer than Belle's. Snider is not a brief-time producer like Belle. They are very different type players.

For the fiftieth time, Albert would have my vote. But he is a brief peak player, as any reasonable look at the dataset will tell anyone.

What separates them so much in your mind, though? From 22 to 30, Snider was a great player and his career stats for that length of time are eerily similar to Albert Belle's. But you're saying they weren't similar players. In what way?

Also, I only see one half-way decent season from Snider after his 30th birthday. he was decent in 1959 but pretty pedestrian every other season. I don't believe his peak was all that longer than Albert's. maybe one season.

I don't know how many ways I can say this. BElle's career is very brief, Snider's is not. Snider played 604 more games in a time when the season was shorter (their period of being junk is roughly equal), and he played them effectively. 604 games would constitute 39% of Belle's career. That is a huge difference, 39%.

I get that you like Belle. I would vote for him too. But reality is reality, his career is very short. It is obviously way shorter than Snider's. It is very, very easy to look at the records. It's right there, in the Games column. This is an absurd thing to argue, that their careers are the same length or that in the context of a HOF discussion, Belle's career is not short.

I'm not in an argument. I'm just asking why you can't consider peaks over entirety? And if we're not talking about milestone numbers (like 500, 3,000, etc.), why does it matter if they played 6 or so pedestrian seasons at the end of their career? How did it factor into their HOF case?

As said earlier, if one wants to argue that peak is all that matters and longevity doesn't, and that the Hall should reward X year peaks, then that is your argument to make. It has nothing to do with the fact that Belle's career is factually short that you repeatedly objected too, even as I said I would vote for him.

Snider did not play another 6 pedestrian seasons. His extra time was all at an excellent rate, with a higher OPS+ than what you're counting for some of Belle's 10 year run. If you want to dismiss 120, 130, 140 OPS+ for Snider you must do the same for Belle to be reasonable. Snider's extra time was not him hitting .220 and being a detriment. His extra 39% is not like Pujols just hanging around and being league average or below.

How does it factor into their HOF case? Because as constituted the HOF rewards a career. Hence why Belle hasn't done well and would likely struggle even if he wasn't a prick and Snider is in, the career metrics all have Snider as having a more valuable career. He's got like 1/3 more WAR, and WAR thinks Snider was an atrocious CF.

Guy's who play 1,500 games in modernity have a hard time making the Hall. Maybe that's wrong. But it is so.

Afraid you may be right. His numbers clearly show his offensive talent, and had he not suffered from early career ending injury/medical issues there is no telling what kind of final career offensive numbers he may have ended putting up. The blatant corked bat cheating is what turns it for me though. No telling how long he had been cheating like that before AND after he was caught.

And though I'm not a big, advanced metrics and statistics fan, his career WAR over a 12-year career is only 40.1. That ties him for 533rd on the all-time career WAR list. Oddly enough, current Indians player Jose Ramirez already has a higher career WAR (40.3) than Belle, and he's done that in two fewer seasons than Belle had for his career.

Meanwhile, Belle's contemporary Indians teammates, Manny Ramirez and Jim Thome, had total WAR numbers over just their first 12 seasons of playing MLB of 50.7 and 47.6, respectively, both significantly higher than Belle. Thome deservedly got elected to the HOF after hitting 612 home runs and putting up a 73.1 WAR for his career, putting him alone at 89th on the all-time career WAR list. Ramirez ended his career with 555 home runs, a .312 career batting average, 12 time all-star, 9 time silver slugger, two WS championships helping break Boston's Curse of the Bambino, AND a WS MVP, to go along with his 69.3 WAR putting him all alone at 108th on the all-time career WAR list. And despite Ramirez's last 6 seasons playing being mediocre at best, he still bested Belle soundly in career AVG, OBP, SLG, OPS, and OPS+.

The Contemporary Committee has other PED users on the potential list for HOF induction. And though still on the regular HOF ballot, Ramirez is coming up on his 7th year on it in 2023. And based on the 28.9% of votes he got in the 2022 HOF voting, I don't see him suddenly getting elected before his time on the regular HOF ballot runs out, even with Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, and Sosa getting dropped off it in 2023. Based on just the numbers alone though, it would seem Ramirez is way more deserving than Belle of getting into the HOF. The idea of Belle possibly having a chance to go in before Ramirez seems ridiculous to me.

And as for Belle's name going on the Contemporary Committee's ballot, why not McGwire, or even Sosa, instead? In McGwire's first 12 seasons he put up a 42.9 WAR, higher than Belle. Belle had a higher career AVG, but McGwire bested him in career HRs, RBIs, OBP, SLG, OPS, and OPS+. McGwire was also ROY, a 12-time all-star, 3-time silver slugger, has a WS ring, and actually won a Gold Glove. Sosa, though lagging behind Belle in most all the stats where McGwire bested him, still broke the 600 career HR barrier with 609 total, outdoing both Belle and McGwire and putting him in elite, HOF worthy company.

Given what I think are superior statistics/numbers by others to Belle's, and then add in his known other off and on the field issues, I don't understand his even getting on this Contemporary Committee ballot when there seems to be better, more deserving, player options out there. His only real claim to fame is his 50/50 season, which is a somewhat obscure and esoteric MLB record at best. He's actually only tied for 6th all time, along with five other players, at 103 extra base hits in a season, way behind both Ruth and Gehrig who top the list at 119 and 117 extra base hits, respectively. Belle is just lucky in how the breakdown of his extra base hits worked out. Had just 3 of his doubles turned out to be HRs instead, he'd have ended up with a 49/53 season, which no one would really still remember and talk about today.

I don't know why you're still citing Snider's OPS+ figures. Look at all the numbers. That's like saying I want to dismiss Albert Belle's first two seasons, which I'm happy to do. Anyone evaluating Snider's candidacy did not need to look at what he did in his final 5 seasons. They were inconsequential because he'd already put himself in the Hall during his peak.

It's my understanding that unless you're talking milestone numbers, peak is all you've got. Isn't that why Koufax is in? Isn't that why Dean is in? Isn't that why Catfish Hunter is in?

What stat would you like to use? Snider didn't suck for an extra 604 games, as any honest look will tell you. OPS+ works to Belle's advantage, that stat is very friendly to him and his game. OPS+ is an effective measure of offensive production for power hitters that contextualizes it to time and place. I get that you don't like the result.

Is your moving argument now that Snider would be in the Hall if only his first 1,539 games counted? You can make that case if you'd like, it has nothing to do with anything I've said. I am not speaking of a hypothetical Snider but the actual Snider who was effective for like another third of Belle's career. It's a big gap.

I think it is obvious that peak is not everything a player has. Obviously Dean and Koufax and Hunter are elected for peak. Numerous other players are in for their total careers who didn't reach 3,000 hits or 500 bombs. Unless we want to redefine peak as being any year in which a player produced effectively, this is absurd.

Absurd in what way? I think it's absurd to hold everyone to one standard, which the HOF obviously does not do. So, why is it then a problem to discuss peak when talking about specific players? As you said, there are already players in for their peak. Why is it taboo to discuss?

To answer your question, yes, I think Duke could have retired at 31 and been in the HOF without playing anymore seasons. He had a 22nd place MVP finish and one last all star appearance in the seasons after that, none of which I think tipped the scales for him.

You keep changing the argument. I did not say that we cannot consider peak, that I would vote for Belle quite obviously means I am valuing peak. What I actually said is that Peak is not the "only" thing, as you chose to assert, for players who did not hit a major milestone. Again, there are plenty of guys in the hall for their career performance who missed 3,000 hits or 500 homers.

I have never said you can't discuss peak or that it is some great taboo. Nowhere could a reasonable person see this bizarre claim in what was actually said. Please show this in the public transcript!

You said peak is not everything a player has, but sometimes it is and that's what I've been saying. You can discuss peak in relation to HOF for players who only have their peak to discuss.

Yes. I said it is not everything. I cannot fathom why you would read that as "peak is nothing".

Sure, you can discuss peak however you want, or in relation to HOF players who only have peak.

Sounds like we finally agree on the abundantly obvious fact that Belle has a very short career and is a peak only guy. Yay.

I didn't read it as anything other than what it said. I believe peak can be everything, has been everything, and probably will be again for somebody.

Then you are well aware that nowhere did anyone claim that it is taboo to discuss peak or that you can't.

Yes, for players like Belle who had very short careers and nothing else. It is clearly not the only thing that is looked at. We're finally looping back to what I actually said originally in 10. He's an only peak player.

If the 'standards of character' are to be so lowered to include ANY of them, then Mattingly, McGriff and Murphy should be replaced by Manny, Sammy & A-Rod and 'give up the ghost'.

They can let McGwire wait 'til next time.


Excuse me while I go vomit!



.

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.