2023 Contemporary Era Ballot Nominees

[packs]

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.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by packs

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."

[packs]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

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.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by packs

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?

[packs]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

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.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

[packs]

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

[G1911]

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.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

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.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by dgo71

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

[packs]

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.