O/T 2026 HOF Contemporary Ballot

[packs]

Not sure if Toronto winning the series and getting his ring would have helped any but here’s to hoping Donnie gets in.

And building off the Murphy post as a lifelong fan of Mattingly it has been doubly sweet knowing he’s such a nice guy. I’ve been to Marlins and Dodgers spring training camps while he was managing and no matter what else happened that day you always knew Mattingly was going to stop and sign and chat with his fans.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by bk400

That's would be a head in the sand approach on the part of Kepner, but I see your point. I suspect that Ozzie Smith is going to have a lot of influence in the discussions, and he's about as publicly anti-steroid as anyone can be.

There are quite a few writers that followed Kepner's line of thinking (including Stark I think). Their argument is that before MLB started testing for PEDs, if they weren't going to enforce anything then why should the writers. It also let's them point to something concrete when not voting for a player instead of relying on speculation which is definitely stronger for some players than others.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by jayshum

There are quite a few writers that followed Kepner's line of thinking (including Stark I think). Their argument is that before MLB started testing for PEDs, if they weren't going to enforce anything then why should the writers. It also let's them point to something concrete when not voting for a player instead of relying on speculation which is definitely stronger for some players than others.

The inclusion of Kepner and Stark will certainly give Bonds and Clemens a more sympathetic audience, but I do think that the type (and era) of players on the committee this time around will more than offset that sympathy.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by bk400

The inclusion of Kepner and Stark will certainly give Bonds and Clemens a more sympathetic audience, but I do think that the type (and era) of players on the committee this time around will more than offset that sympathy.

I don't expect Bonds and Clemens to get enough votes either. We'll find out this coming Sunday night.

[BioCRN]

Bonds may never make the HOF in my lifetime, but wow...fun to watch.

A lot of guys were on PEDs, but only Bonds was doing what Bonds was doing.

120 IBB in 2004 (with a .609 ob%). 4 seasons in a row of .500+ ob%. ...and of course the 73 homers in 2001. Wow.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

A lot of guys were on PEDs, but only Bonds was doing what Bonds was doing.

What! I assume you're saying that a lot of guys were on PEDs, but only Bonds was doing what Bonds was doing while he was on PEDS. Meaning, PEDS benefitted Bonds more than the other guys?

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by jayshum

I don't expect Bonds and Clemens to get enough votes either. We'll find out this coming Sunday night.

While both did superhuman things after they started juicing (Bonds around 2000; Clemens in '97?), did they do enough pre-roids to get in?

Bonds seems to be a yes 15 seasons in. Clemens was 213-111 w/ 3 CYs in 13 years before Toronto — probably not enough.

I think it's time to get over the moral issues and let them in. Whether it's speed or juice, dirty players are already in. Yes, they're also a couple of a-holes, but there's plenty of them in too.

Would love to see Mattingly get in for the full career body of work.

[packs]

I think people are mad at Bonds because he had no real reason to take PEDs. He just wanted to prove something to himself I guess.

Clemens was most likely washed before he started juicing. From age 30 to 32 he failed to throw 200 innings in any season, despite doing so for every season before then. His ERA jumped to 3.83 over that time as well.

In 1996, at age 33, he managed to throw 240 innings and lead the league in strike outs again.

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by packs

I think people are mad at Bonds because he had no real reason to take PEDs. He just wanted to prove something to himself I guess.

Clemens was most likely washed before he started juicing. From age 30 to 32 he failed to throw 200 innings in any season, despite doing so for every season before then. His ERA jumped to 3.83 over that time as well.

In 1996, at age 33, he managed to throw 240 innings and lead the league in strike outs again.

Yeah various interviews and Jeff Pearlman's Bonds bio suggest he did it because he was jealous of all the attention McGwire and Sosa got in '98. Gotta give it to him, he became the Hulk and crushed them all.

[Beercan collector]

Not to throw the thread off But if Clemens and Bonds get in does that mean Arod,McGwire,Palmeiro and Sosa follow ? They do have Hall of Fame numbers.

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by SyrNy1960

What! I assume you're saying that a lot of guys were on PEDs, but only Bonds was doing what Bonds was doing while he was on PEDS. Meaning, PEDS benefitted Bonds more than the other guys?

Yeah, in a sea of PEDs users, Bonds outpaced them all.

He was challenged in his 4 straight MVP roid'n seasons by Sosa (01), Randy Johnson (02), Pujols (03), and Beltre+Rolen (04). In all 4 of those seasons, Bonds is the clear choice for MVP. While those other guys had stellar seasons, it didn't match what Bonds did at the plate. Some of those guys are assumed to not be roids users, some are, but regardless Bonds was tuned in at the plate and feared like no batter I've seen.

Even when he wasn't chasing a record during those times, his ABs were events.

[packs]

I do think Aaron Judge is not getting the credit he deserves because of Bonds.

If you eliminate Bonds, the last time any player in baseball had an OPS+ over 200 was in 1994, when both Bagwell and Frank Thomas did it, EXCEPT that was a strike shortened season. Bagwell played 110 games and Thomas 113.

Judge has now had an OPS+ over 200 in three different seasons. You have to go all the way back to Mantle and Ted Williams to find another player other than Bonds to have done that.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Beercan collector

Not to throw the thread off But if Clemens and Bonds get in does that mean Arod,McGwire,Palmeiro and Sosa follow ? They do have Hall of Fame numbers.

I've been wondering the exact same thing. These conversations always seem to stall out, as there are clearly 2 "camps" when it comes to the 'Roiders getting inducted...

The first camp wants to ignore the players' decisions to use steroids. They focus on whether the player had HOF stats (or was on a HOF trajectory) prior to his steroid use. That is their determining factor.

The second camp considers their steroid use a "non-starter" regardless of how good the player was prior to using. The fact that they even turned to steroids voids their eligibility, and removes their right to be inducted into the Hall.

When these two separate factions argue their cases, it usually goes nowhere because of the philosophical differences in their ideology. So it will be interesting to see which faction wins out. If Bonds and Clemens do get in, I would surmise that A-Rod, Palmeiro, McGwire, Sosa (and probably Sheffield) eventually will as well.

[Brent G.]

Imagine if they didn't intentionally walk Bonds 250 times from 2002-04. He might've had four straight 65+ HR seasons.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by packs

I think people are mad at Bonds because he had no real reason to take PEDs. He just wanted to prove something to himself I guess.

Clemens was most likely washed before he started juicing. From age 30 to 32 he failed to throw 200 innings in any season, despite doing so for every season before then. His ERA jumped to 3.83 over that time as well.

In 1996, at age 33, he managed to throw 240 innings and lead the league in strike outs again.

No idea how reliable it is, but the story I heard was that he was he was pissed that he had done everything he had done to that point in his career and Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa were getting all the love when everyone in the game knew they were juicing. Hard to fault the logic, "if everyone loves them while they're on the juice, wait'll they get a load of me." Problem was it made him so great it made a mockery of the game.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Beercan collector

Not to throw the thread off But if Clemens and Bonds get in does that mean Arod,McGwire,Palmeiro and Sosa follow ? They do have Hall of Fame numbers.

Actually McGwire, and Sosa are a lot more borderline than you would think, at least if WAR is important to you. Even Palmeiro isn't a slam dunk though he's at a level that normally gets in. When Brady Anderson and Luis Gonzalez are hitting 50 home runs, your 60 isn't so far above the norm that it jacks your WAR outrageously. WAR is comparing you to the league average, as the average goes up, what you have to do to kill it in WAR rises correspondingly.

[GeoPoto]

It seems reasonable to me to believe that Bonds and Clemons were/would have been HoF without steroids, while also believing that Palmeiro, Sosa, and McGuire only achieved HoF stats because of steroids. So I'm not convinced that inducting the former assures the election of the latter.

Sosa hit 60 home runs three times, but never led the NL in home runs. If you followed baseball prior to the late 90's, it's hard to wrap your head around that.

Sent from my Pixel 10 Pro using Tapatalk

[Beercan collector]

I’m not saying they deserve to get in but 1835 RBIs and 3000+ hits are Hall of Fame numbers and 609 home runs is a Hall of Fame number - agree McGwire is borderline At 583 home runs but he did some Hall of Fame stuff and he had a Hall of Fameish 982 OPS

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by packs

I think people are mad at Bonds because he had no real reason to take PEDs. He just wanted to prove something to himself I guess.

A former player from that era told me, not too long after that era, that Bonds felt that since he was getting paid to be the best and the droid guys were out doing him, he needed to do what it took to be the best.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by perezfan

I've been wondering the exact same thing. These conversations always seem to stall out, as there are clearly 2 "camps" when it comes to the 'Roiders getting inducted...

The first camp wants to ignore the players' decisions to use steroids. They focus on whether the player had HOF stats (or was on a HOF trajectory) prior to his steroid use. That is their determining factor.

The second camp considers their steroid use a "non-starter" regardless of how good the player was prior to using. The fact that they even turned to steroids voids their eligibility, and removes their right to be inducted into the Hall.

When these two separate factions argue their cases, it usually goes nowhere because of the philosophical differences in their ideology. So it will be interesting to see which faction wins out. If Bonds and Clemens do get in, I would surmise that A-Rod, Palmeiro, McGwire, Sosa (and probably Sheffield) eventually will as well.

Kinda a third camp. Those that can't figure out why when everyone has always cheated and/or done PEDS why they are only focusing on a few "select" players over a very short time frame. I also can't figure out why Tony Gwynn is never brought up as his insane increase in performance in his mid/late 30s was every bit as impressive as Mr Bonds was. Oh that's right Tony took extra batting practice.LOL

[Beercan collector]

Originally Posted by perezfan

I've been wondering the exact same thing. These conversations always seem to stall out, as there are clearly 2 "camps" when it comes to the 'Roiders getting inducted...

The first camp wants to ignore the players' decisions to use steroids. They focus on whether the player had HOF stats (or was on a HOF trajectory) prior to his steroid use. That is their determining factor.

The second camp considers their steroid use a "non-starter" regardless of how good the player was prior to using. The fact that they even turned to steroids voids their eligibility, and removes their right to be inducted into the Hall.

When these two separate factions argue their cases, it usually goes nowhere because of the philosophical differences in their ideology. So it will be interesting to see which faction wins out. If Bonds and Clemens do get in, I would surmise that A-Rod, Palmeiro, McGwire, Sosa (and probably Sheffield) eventually will as well.

Can probably add Manny Ramirez also

[packs]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Kinda a third camp. Those that can't figure out why when everyone has always cheated and/or done PEDS why they are only focusing on a few "select" players over a very short time frame. I also can't figure out why Tony Gwynn is never brought up as his insane increase in performance in his mid/late 30s was every bit as impressive as Mr Bonds was. Oh that's right Tony took extra batting practice.LOL

I don’t see anything about Gwynn’s last seasons that suggests any PEDs. What do you see? He hit 17 homers in 1997 but the pitching was also pretty terrible. The average ERA for the NL that season was 4.20. In 1998 the average NL went up a little more too. Gwynn was the elite of the elite with a bat in his hands playing against expansion teams.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by packs

I don’t see anything about Gwynn’s last seasons that suggests any PEDs. What do you see? He hit 17 homers in 1997 but the pitching was also pretty terrible. The average ERA for the NL that season was 4.20. In 1998 the average NL went up a little more too. Gwynn was the elite of the elite with a bat in his hands playing against expansion teams.

Tony was elite from age 22-32. Then for the next 5 years 33-37 he became the elite of the elite player many think of. Are there any other elite players that had by far their best 5 year stretch form 33-37 not named Tony Gwynn?

[bk400]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Tony was elite from age 22-32. Then for the next 5 years 33-37 he became the elite of the elite player many think of. Are there any other elite players that had by far their best 5 year stretch form 33-37 not named Tony Gwynn?

Ichiro average 5 WAR per season from age 33-37. Not quite his best 5 year stretch, but darn close.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Tony was elite from age 22-32. Then for the next 5 years 33-37 he became the elite of the elite player many think of. Are there any other elite players that had by far their best 5 year stretch form 33-37 not named Tony Gwynn?

If you don't mind slightly tinkering with the age range so that it's similar as opposed to exact, there have to be at least a small handful of greats to whom this applies.

[packs]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Tony was elite from age 22-32. Then for the next 5 years 33-37 he became the elite of the elite player many think of. Are there any other elite players that had by far their best 5 year stretch form 33-37 not named Tony Gwynn?

What are your reasons for believing Gwynn's 33 to 37 seasons were the best stretch of his career? He did lead the league in batting 4 seasons in a row, but he'd also previously led the league in batting three seasons in a row from age 27 to 29.

His best statistical seasons when looking at WAR occurred before he was 31 years old.

He received MVP votes three times in the period you reference but had received MVP votes in six seasons previous to your timeline.

He was clearly a superior player earlier in his career. You are only looking at home runs to decide he was better later. His average climbed because expansion teams entered the league at the same time you're referencing.

[triwak]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

Sosa hit 60 home runs three times, but never led the NL in home runs. If you followed baseball prior to the late 90's, it's hard to wrap your head around that.

Sent from my Pixel 10 Pro using Tapatalk

Sosa actually led the majors in home runs in 2000 with 50. He also led the NL with 49 in 2002. But it is fascinating that none of his 60+ HR seasons accomplished that!

[BioCRN]

Let's not forget this whole "roids thing" goes far back. I mean, we can go back to the 1800s with Pud Galvin, but more realistic to this conversation we can very safely point at Jose Canseco (and a few others) in the 1980s.

As far as an endemic team issue, the early 90s Phillies are an easy target. The Phillies players "gym addictions" were commonly talked about.

Just look at what became of guys like Bobby Estalella and Len Dykstra, to pick on easy targets. Even though Estalella didn't put up "roids stats" his body got as cartoonish as some of the late-90s/early-00s known roiders.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Kinda a third camp. Those that can't figure out why when everyone has always cheated and/or done PEDS why they are only focusing on a few "select" players over a very short time frame. I also can't figure out why Tony Gwynn is never brought up as his insane increase in performance in his mid/late 30s was every bit as impressive as Mr Bonds was. Oh that's right Tony took extra batting practice.LOL

I mean, if we're making cases based on suspicious late career stats, Gwynn's doing well in his late 30s can't hold candle to Nolan Ryan's leading the league in strikeouts 7 times from ages 25-32 then 0 times for the next 7 years, then 4 years in a row in his 40s.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I mean, if we're making cases based on suspicious late career stats, Gwynn's doing well in his late 30s can't hold candle to Nolan Ryan's leading the league in strikeouts 7 times from ages 25-32 then 0 times for the next 7 years, then 4 years in a row in his 40s.

Isn't he considered the Lance Armstrong of baseball?

[GeoPoto]

Originally Posted by triwak

Sosa actually led the majors in home runs in 2000 with 50. He also led the NL with 49 in 2002. But it is fascinating that none of his 60+ HR seasons accomplished that!

Yes, thank you for the correction. I should have said didn't even lead the NL in the years he hit 60.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Kinda a third camp. Those that can't figure out why when everyone has always cheated and/or done PEDS why they are only focusing on a few "select" players over a very short time frame. I also can't figure out why Tony Gwynn is never brought up as his insane increase in performance in his mid/late 30s was every bit as impressive as Mr Bonds was. Oh that's right Tony took extra batting practice.LOL

Come on, it's perfectly normal for 3 of your 4 best home run rate seasons to be ages 37-39. I can think of hundreds of clean guys that have done that like uh....

As for Barry, I've always thought he started in 1993. He signs the big contract to go to Frisco, to a stadium where the ball doesn't carry, and he increases his career best in home runs by over 33%? And then his second-best the following year in 2/3 of a season?

[mainemule]

Tonight's the night.....

At most 4 elected.

It seems not a favorable committee make up for Bonds/Clemens and swell suggests Murphy and Mattingly have a shot.

To me, as I stated early in thread, only Fernando does not jump out to me as a HOFer, despite his strong contribution to the sport.

I'm gonna just "guess" only Murphy elected under the "good/great guy" header (and his overall 1980s performance).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Come on, it's perfectly normal for 3 of your 4 best home run rate seasons to be ages 37-39. I can think of hundreds of clean guys that have done that like uh....

As for Barry, I've always thought he started in 1993. He signs the big contract to go to Frisco, to a stadium where the ball doesn't carry, and he increases his career best in home runs by over 33%? And then his second-best the following year in 2/3 of a season?

The numbers support that theory for sure. That said, his former girlfriend said that he did not use until he became angry that Sosa and McGwire had captured the nation's attention despite him being a better player. And I believe the testimony such as it was, was from 1998 and on.

[Beercan collector]

I don’t wanna be one of them knuckleheads that determine steroid use buy stats,
But I believe bonds May have started Roiding as early as 1990 - he had been in the league long enough to establish himself as a 250 hitter who couldn’t get 60 RBIs - I have a clear memory of being confused why people were buying up his card back then

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Tony was elite from age 22-32. Then for the next 5 years 33-37 he became the elite of the elite player many think of. Are there any other elite players that had by far their best 5 year stretch form 33-37 not named Tony Gwynn?

Dazzy Vance.

Not disagreeing with your point about Gwynn, I just think Dazzy needs more love.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Svabinsky78]

I think that Kent stands the best chance, albeit, he will need someone on the committee to take up his cause.

Trammell did play with one of the best second baseman who is not and should be in the Hall, in Lou Whitaker, so maybe he appreciates how good Kent was for that position (at least offensively an all-time great), so Trammell may be the one pushing for Kent. Then again, Trammell may go the other way and say, not until Sweet Lou is in the Hall.

[Peter_Spaeth]

As the Hall gets further watered down/expanded (to use a more neutral term), it becomes increasingly difficult to argue against the induction of players who were really good all-star level for many years types, even if not what you would consider all time greats/elite. By that standard, I would support Kent, Mattingly and Murphy.

[jayshum]

Jeff Kent elected with 14 of 16 votes. Delgado got 9, Mattingly and Murphy 6, everyone else less than 5.

[mainemule]

Originally Posted by Svabinsky78

I think that Kent stands the best chance, albeit, he will need someone on the committee to take up his cause.

Trammell did play with one of the best second baseman who is not and should be in the Hall, in Lou Whitaker, so maybe he appreciates how good Kent was for that position (at least offensively an all-time great), so Trammell may be the one pushing for Kent. Then again, Trammell may go the other way and say, not until Sweet Lou is in the Hall.

You got it!

[jayshum]

Mattingly got 8 votes when he was on the ballot 3 years ago so he did worse with this year's committee when a lot of people thought he might get in.

Murphy got 6 votes this time and 6 votes 3 years ago

With the latest rule changes, Bonds, Clemens, Sheffield and Valenzuela are not eligible to be on the next ballot in 3 years because they got less than 5 votes. That should give some players who have been overlooked from even appearing on this ballot (Whitaker, Lofton, Grich and others) a chance to at least be considered.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Good for Kent. I am surprised Mattingly and Murphy came up so short. I wonder if they had real hopes. Clemens and Bonds could not have.

[nwobhm]

Jeff Kent
WAR 55.4 HR 377

Barry Bonds
WAR 162.8 HR 762

If we halve Bonds WAR and HR because we assume he broke the rules:
WAR 81.4 HR 381

Did Kent ever lead the league in anything at all?

I never cared for Bonds but he should be in. Clemens too.

Maybe add batboys and peanut hawkers to the next ballot.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

Jeff Kent
WAR 55.4 HR 377

Barry Bonds
WAR 162.8 HR 762

If we halve Bonds WAR and HR because we assume he broke the rules:
WAR 81.4 HR 381

Did Kent ever lead the league in anything at all?

I never cared for Bonds but he should be in. Clemens too.

Maybe add batboys and peanut hawkers to the next ballot.

LOL, we are getting close to that.

[BioCRN]

It's going to be damn hard to find a slew of players to vote in roiders.

When it's no longer guys like Ozzie Smith, Robin Yount, etc...and guys that actually played in the Bonds/Clemens era pitching to, hitting against, and/or competing for jobs vs roiders I'm not sure it's going to get easier.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

Jeff Kent
WAR 55.4 HR 377

Barry Bonds
WAR 162.8 HR 762

If we halve Bonds WAR and HR because we assume he broke the rules:
WAR 81.4 HR 381

Did Kent ever lead the league in anything at all?

I never cared for Bonds but he should be in. Clemens too.

Maybe add batboys and peanut hawkers to the next ballot.

I think the HOF is making it clear that if you're a cheater, you're not getting in. It's not about stats at all. I would love to know the break down of the votes. My instinct is that none of the former players voted for Bonds and Clemens.

[Beercan collector]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

Jeff Kent
WAR 55.4 HR 377

Barry Bonds
WAR 162.8 HR 762

If we halve Bonds WAR and HR because we assume he broke the rules:
WAR 81.4 HR 381

Did Kent ever lead the league in anything at all?

I never cared for Bonds but he should be in. Clemens too.

Maybe add batboys and peanut hawkers to the next ballot.

Yeah I don’t get it either - he led the league in Sacrifice flies two times,
So I thought maybe Fielding - he led the league In double plays one time and assists one time and errors four times

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by bk400

I think the HOF is making it clear that if you're a cheater, you're not getting in. It's not about stats at all. I would love to know the break down of the votes. My instinct is that none of the former players voted for Bonds and Clemens.

We have all watched real criminals get off on real crimes with substantially more evidence. Not saying they did it, not saying they didn’t. If MLB knows they cheated then why are they on the ballot at all? If they are on the ballot they should be assumed clean.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

We have all watched real criminals get off on real crimes with substantially more evidence. Not saying they did it, not saying they didn’t. If MLB knows they cheated then why are they on the ballot at all? If they are on the ballot they should be assumed clean.

I don't know the nuances of the rules that govern whether a player is on the ballot. But I wouldn't be surprised if the living players in the HOF are violently opposed to the cheaters getting in. And as former players, they probably have access to much more intel about what happens in the clubhouse or in the locker room. It's not a court of law, which is unfortunate for Bonds and Clemens, but arguably good for the game.

[bk400]

I don't know if any of the 2017 Astros players are on track for the Hall, but that will be an interesting test case also. Maybe George Springer? Although he's probably on outside looking in, in terms of his performance. Beltran?