2023 Contemporary Era Ballot Nominees

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

[packs]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

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.

[isiahfan]

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

[G1911]

Originally Posted by isiahfan

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.

[clydepepper]

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!



.

[Jim65]

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

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Jim65

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

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by bnorth

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.

[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

[BobC]

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

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!".

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by BobC

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.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

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.

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.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by BobC

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.

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.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by BobC

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.

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.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by dgo71

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.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

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.

[lampertb]

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.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by lampertb

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.

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.

[G1911]

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.