O/T 2026 HOF Contemporary Ballot

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Who is more corrupt and worthless?

1. The Hall of Fame and their committee's opinions.

2. Net54 and their countless Hall of Fame thread's opinions.

A consensus of opinion in both groups is both meaningless and impossible.

For those of you who participate in the latter, I do not hold a grudge.

Carry on.

Who peed in your Cheerios this morning

[G1911]

Barry Bonds/Roger Clemens/Gary Sheffield - Obviously numerically deserving, vote/decision is entirely 100% based on steroids and ones opinion of that.

Don Mattingly/Dale Murphy - Fan favorite, career numbers aren't there, but odds are decent they'll make it anyways from a committee of insiders.

Carlos Delgado - Clearly deserving of a genuine look, especially if the steroid guys are being kept out. Blocking the steroid guys and then also blocking the guys in that B tier of star hitters without drug problems doesn't make much sense and leads to very few selections compared to other eras. Travesty Delgado was one and done on the writers ballot.

Jeff Kent - One of the top hitting 2B, should be in already. Easy yes.

Fernando Valenzuela - Lol. Lmao. Clearly undeserving, Jim Kaat level 104 ERA+ performance with like 1,500 less innings.



A small insider voting committee and constructing ballots with repeating names effectively ensure poor outcomes and getting certain guys in eventually.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I love Fernando. Fernando is not a HOF'er, he'd be an even worse pick than Jack Morris and that's saying something.

You don't see Kevin Brown or Bret Saberhagen get a lot of mentions this time of year, though I did see Cone get a shout out. All much more HOF worthy than Fernando (and Morris) Hell David Wells is no HOF'er but he's almost the identical pitcher to Jack Morris except he was BETTER in the postseason than Morris. Morris has the famous start that everyone remembers but his total numbers in the postseason clearly mirrored his regular season numbers. Wells SERIOUSLY outperformed his regular season numbers come playoff time with an ERA nearly a full run lower and a WHIP more than .1 lower.

[GasHouseGang]

It's too bad Pete Rose can't be on the regular ballot. He's now eligible. Unfortunately, his only path to the Hall of Fame is through the Era Committee.

[Beercan collector]

If the powers to be say Pete Rose is eligible he should’ve been in the Hall of Fame yesterday

[Fred]

Why not Jeff Kent? He put up similar numbers to Harold Baines in 5 seasons less than Baines.

In my mind, once they let Harold Baines in, that opened it up for just about any player with longevity and a lot of stats. Baines only topped 100 RBI/season 3x and never scored 100R/season in 22 seasons. Sorry if there are Harold Baines fans that think he's worthy, but my guess is if there was a pole on who shouldn't be in the HOF, he'd be at or near the top of the list for players that played in the last 50 years.
.
.
.

[whitehse]

Originally Posted by G1911

Barry Bonds/Roger Clemens/Gary Sheffield - Obviously numerically deserving, vote/decision is entirely 100% based on steroids and ones opinion of that.

Don Mattingly/Dale Murphy - Fan favorite, career numbers aren't there, but odds are decent they'll make it anyways from a committee of insiders.

Carlos Delgado - Clearly deserving of a genuine look, especially if the steroid guys are being kept out. Blocking the steroid guys and then also blocking the guys in that B tier of star hitters without drug problems doesn't make much sense and leads to very few selections compared to other eras. Travesty Delgado was one and done on the writers ballot.

Jeff Kent - One of the top hitting 2B, should be in already. Easy yes.

Fernando Valenzuela - Lol. Lmao. Clearly undeserving, Jim Kaat level 104 ERA+ performance with like 1,500 less innings.



A small insider voting committee and constructing ballots with repeating names effectively ensure poor outcomes and getting certain guys in eventually.

Not trying to start a fight but why would a guy like Sheffield, a guy who purposely did all he could to be traded out of Milwaukee including dogging it in the field and blowing fielding chances get into the hall? In my opinion, anyone who admits to trying to doing what he did should take his millions and go home and but a ticket to the Hall and not be elected to it. There is allot to be said for the integrity of the game and its exactly why the PEDs players have not seen the hall yet.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Cards (no Delgado, no Valenzuela, to date I have valued their chances of election at zero).

[Chris-Counts]

Sweet Lou should be on there, as well as Dwight Evans.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Chris-Counts

Sweet Lou should be on there, as well as Dwight Evans.

How is Dwight constantly overlooked? I'm biased because he was my favorite player growing up, but the numbers are there if you look. In his quiet, modest way, he was a dominator in the 1980's. There was always someone else to steal the spotlight, but that was seemingly fine with him. New England still took notice, as did many others.

Darrell Evans has been completely forgotten about. It goes without saying there are lots of more deserving players than Darrell, but as someone else noted, and has been noted to death, putting in Baines just means that practically anybody who played long enough should be eligible. I really need Harold Baines to dress up as Oprah: "YOU get inducted, YOU get inducted, YOU get inducted!".

I wasn't around to bear firsthand witness to Frank Frisch's cronyism which allowed for some pretty infuriating HOF selections, but Baines was at least an equally poor choice and simply due to more cronyism.

What rhymes and has no place in a hall of fame? Haines and Baines.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by whitehse

Not trying to start a fight but why would a guy like Sheffield, a guy who purposely did all he could to be traded out of Milwaukee including dogging it in the field and blowing fielding chances get into the hall? In my opinion, anyone who admits to trying to doing what he did should take his millions and go home and but a ticket to the Hall and not be elected to it. There is allot to be said for the integrity of the game and its exactly why the PEDs players have not seen the hall yet.

I think it's pretty obvious that players with 500 Home Runs and his slash line are HOF tier. If you'd like to draw some moral line to exclude him, as I said, that is what it is really about.

PED players have already been elected, such as David Ortiz who failed a steroid test but is given a free pass because the media adores him.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think it's pretty obvious that players with 500 Home Runs and his slash line are HOF tier. If you'd like to draw some moral line to exclude him, as I said, that is what it is really about.

PED players have already been elected, such as David Ortiz who failed a steroid test but is given a free pass because the media adores him.

The "failed" test is far from that cut and dry though. I used to feel the same way about Ortiz, but the more and more I read about the 2003 survey testing the more I dislike holding that against anyone.

"In the years after MLB began testing more rigorously and punishing PED users in 2004, Ortiz never tested positive for any kind of banned drug. In 2016, MLB commissioner Rob Manfred said it was possible that Ortiz never registered a positive test in 2003 because of the questionable accuracy of those tests. He also said the 2003 testing should not come into play when determining players’ legacies (or Hall of Fame candidacies)."

This on top of the fact that these were supposed to be anonymous and the results were leaked. Plus, unlike future testing, there was no confirmation testing done and the entire system was a little more haphazard because this was merely a survey to determine how widespread the issue was to help come up with an actual testing program, it was never intended to be a definitive diagnosis of cheating for any one result.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

The "failed" test is far from that cut and dry though. I used to feel the same way about Ortiz, but the more and more I read about the 2003 survey testing the more I dislike holding that against anyone.

"In the years after MLB began testing more rigorously and punishing PED users in 2004, Ortiz never tested positive for any kind of banned drug. In 2016, MLB commissioner Rob Manfred said it was possible that Ortiz never registered a positive test in 2003 because of the questionable accuracy of those tests. He also said the 2003 testing should not come into play when determining players’ legacies (or Hall of Fame candidacies)."

This on top of the fact that these were supposed to be anonymous and the results were leaked. Plus, unlike future testing, there was no confirmation testing done and the entire system was a little more haphazard because this was merely a survey to determine how widespread the issue was to help come up with an actual testing program, it was never intended to be a definitive diagnosis of cheating for any one result.

It's more evidence than is being used to keep out other players, who never failed any test of any kind. If this test belonged to Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens (the evidence against which is almost entirely the testimony of a convicted perjurer), or Gary Sheffield, it would be used as proof to keep them out. 'It's not enough proof for Ortiz but almost no proof for anyone else is enough' is a rather ridiculous standard that the Hall and the media has adopted. I don't much care what standard is drawn - just that it is applied across the board instead of to carve out media favorites as a separate class.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I just don't feel that this holds up to any real scrutiny:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christi...-indisputable/

[rats60]

Originally Posted by G1911

It's more evidence than is being used to keep out other players, who never failed any test of any kind. If this test belonged to Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens (the evidence against which is almost entirely the testimony of a convicted perjurer), or Gary Sheffield, it would be used as proof to keep them out. 'It's not enough proof for Ortiz but almost no proof for anyone else is enough' is a rather ridiculous standard that the Hall and the media has adopted. I don't much care what standard is drawn - just that it is applied across the board instead of to carve out media favorites as a separate class.

Bonds and Sheffield admitted to cheating, taking the clear and cream. So, they have confirmed their failed tests.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by G1911

It's more evidence than is being used to keep out other players, who never failed any test of any kind. If this test belonged to Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens (the evidence against which is almost entirely the testimony of a convicted perjurer), or Gary Sheffield, it would be used as proof to keep them out. 'It's not enough proof for Ortiz but almost no proof for anyone else is enough' is a rather ridiculous standard that the Hall and the media has adopted. I don't much care what standard is drawn - just that it is applied across the board instead of to carve out media favorites as a separate class.

Andy Pettitte also testified that Clemens told him about being injected with HGH by his trainer, Brian McNamee. While Clemens denied that he ever told Pettitte that, it is more evidence from a more reliable source than McNamee.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

The "failed" test is far from that cut and dry though. I used to feel the same way about Ortiz, but the more and more I read about the 2003 survey testing the more I dislike holding that against anyone.

"In the years after MLB began testing more rigorously and punishing PED users in 2004, Ortiz never tested positive for any kind of banned drug. In 2016, MLB commissioner Rob Manfred said it was possible that Ortiz never registered a positive test in 2003 because of the questionable accuracy of those tests. He also said the 2003 testing should not come into play when determining players’ legacies (or Hall of Fame candidacies)."

This on top of the fact that these were supposed to be anonymous and the results were leaked. Plus, unlike future testing, there was no confirmation testing done and the entire system was a little more haphazard because this was merely a survey to determine how widespread the issue was to help come up with an actual testing program, it was never intended to be a definitive diagnosis of cheating for any one result.

Ortiz admitted he failed the test.

Manfred said that as a way to cover for Ortiz because he's a media darling whom MLB wanted in the HOF. Kinda the way the NFL does whatever it can to protect Ray Lewis.

[mattsey9]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Ortiz admitted he failed the test.

Manfred said that as a way to cover for Ortiz because he's a media darling whom MLB wanted in the HOF. Kinda the way the NFL does whatever it can to protect Ray Lewis.

And the NBA for Kobe Bryant.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by whitehse

Not trying to start a fight but why would a guy like Sheffield, a guy who purposely did all he could to be traded out of Milwaukee including dogging it in the field and blowing fielding chances get into the hall? In my opinion, anyone who admits to trying to doing what he did should take his millions and go home and but a ticket to the Hall and not be elected to it. There is allot to be said for the integrity of the game and its exactly why the PEDs players have not seen the hall yet.

Randy Johnson did the same thing, he just didn't publicly say it.

[shagrotn77]

Have the committee members been announced yet?

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by shagrotn77

Have the committee members been announced yet?

Not announced yet. I'm not really sure how much time they have to even prepare to vote. They do it in-person during the Winter Meetings. I'm not sure we knew who was on the committee in 2022 until they voted, but I only remember looking a few times pre-vote.

[Bigdaddy]

Personally, I'd like to see Mattingly and Murph elected. They both had incredible peaks and were among the best in their leagues. I know, I know, their peaks were too short. Not for me.

As far as Clemens and Bonds, they will get there as the older voters give way to a younger generation. They both steadily climbed from about 36% to 66% the years they were on the writers' ballot. I don't see that trend changing.