O/T 2026 HOF Contemporary Ballot

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

A WS title as a coach has always proved meaningless to such matters.

[theshowandme]

[G1911]

Very nice to see Kent get in, he was the most meritorious if one ignores the moral crusade guys. Nice to see Delgado get an honest look too. He's very borderline, but it was not fair he was 1 and done like Lofton on the writers ballot - he certainly clears the bar of meriting a sincere look and consideration.

I thought they were cooking it for Mattingly, so happy to be wrong.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

But but but I thought greenies were OK. You never hear anyone bitching and moaning about Aaron, Mays and probably that whole generation of our heroes.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But but but I thought greenies were OK. You never hear anyone bitching and moaning about Aaron, Mays and probably that whole generation of our heroes.

They didn't transform your body like PEDs.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jayshum

They didn't transform your body like PEDs.

Amphetamines are PEDs according to most sources.

Sure, they work by a different mechanism than anabolic steroids.

Anyhow, the longer this goes on, the more I think it's not really consistent or coherent to worship the men who regularly took amphetamines and to revile the men who partook of the next generation of performance enhancers. We've had the argument ad nauseum of course, and people's views largely are what they are and all are entitled to respect.

For me there's also the whole overlay of all the users who don't get caught, or the players with the same level of evidence against them who are forgiven versus those who are not.

I would just drop the whole damn thing, and move on.

[bk400]

Regardless of the relative performance enhancing value, greenies weren't banned until 2005. Steroids were banned in 1991. You used roids after 1991, you assumed the risk that your legacy would be tainted. And if your legacy is tainted, there's a chance you don't get voted in by your peers.

Sounds fair to me.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by bk400

Regardless of the relative performance enhancing value, greenies weren't banned until 2005. Steroids were banned in 1991. You used roids after 1991, you assumed the risk that your legacy would be tainted. And if your legacy is tainted, there's a chance you don't get voted in by your peers.

Sounds fair to me.

LOL, Oh my so taking an illegal controlled substance(greenies) was ok because it wasn't against baseballs rules. The stuff people post to make PED use ok for certain eras is amazing.

[tod41]

Originally Posted by packs

I think it's a mistake to compare Mattingly and Hernandez that way. For me, it's a lot simpler.

For a time, Mattingly was the best player in the league. Keith Hernandez was never the best player in the league.

Edge to Mattingly.

Mattingly was better than Rickey Henderson? Did Mattingly deserve MVP over Brett in 85?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

That would be awesome but there is no way all those guys talking crap about the "known" PED guys are going to admit to their regular use.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

LOL, Oh my so taking an illegal controlled substance(greenies) was ok because it wasn't against baseballs rules. The stuff people post to make PED use ok for certain eras is amazing.

One group are our heroes, the other are villains. Of course we are going to make whatever arguments we can.

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

Greenies and Steroids being in the same category of conversation to me is hilarious. 54 current mlb players "Have ADHD" and are using something very similar to Greenies to concentrate in 2025. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess if any MLB player walked into their doctor and said "hey doc I'm having trouble concentrating" they would have a prescription in minutes. And mlb would clear those requests no questions asked. That's literally the MLB saying concentration drugs are allowed. Steroids are NOT allowed. That is the difference. Any legacy players that used greenies are absolutely in the clear in my book.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by tod41

Mattingly was better than Rickey Henderson? Did Mattingly deserve MVP over Brett in 85?

Yeah, I was gonna ask if we're talking about some alternate timeline where Rickey didn't play at the same time as Mattingly...

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Personally, I think it is wrong to let Kent in and leave Mattingly out. Mattingly played three less years than Kent but he was on one more all star team.He was not only an MVP but in the top 5 in MVP voting two other times.He was a lifetime .307 hitter and also an eight time gold glove winner. He still holds the record for consecutive games with a HR and grand slam HRs in a season. If his back had not started hindering him halfway through his career he would have been an easy first ballot enshrinee.

How about the guy with 71 more homers in 800 fewer ABs and a higher OPS+ that played at the same time - Kent Hrbek?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Tabe

How about the guy with 71 more homers in 800 fewer ABs and a higher OPS+ that played at the same time - Kent Hrbek?

Not a Yankee fan favorite, nah.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Amphetamines are PEDs according to most sources.

Sure, they work by a different mechanism than anabolic steroids.

Anyhow, the longer this goes on, the more I think it's not really consistent or coherent to worship the men who regularly took amphetamines and to revile the men who partook of the next generation of performance enhancers. We've had the argument ad nauseum of course, and people's views largely are what they are and all are entitled to respect.

For me there's also the whole overlay of all the users who don't get caught, or the players with the same level of evidence against them who are forgiven versus those who are not.

I would just drop the whole damn thing, and move on.

Well said Peter! Well said!

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Amphetamines are PEDs according to most sources.

Sure, they work by a different mechanism than anabolic steroids.

Anyhow, the longer this goes on, the more I think it's not really consistent or coherent to worship the men who regularly took amphetamines and to revile the men who partook of the next generation of performance enhancers. We've had the argument ad nauseum of course, and people's views largely are what they are and all are entitled to respect.

For me there's also the whole overlay of all the users who don't get caught, or the players with the same level of evidence against them who are forgiven versus those who are not.

I would just drop the whole damn thing, and move on.

You are right, people are just beating a dead horse at this point. There is a system in place for the HOF. Writers have earned the right to elect who they want to the Hall of Fame. Why can't those who haven't, accept it. Is there anyone whose Hall of Fame matches those elected exactly? I doubt it, but only fans of certain players throw a fit on these boards.

[bk400]

I am heartened by the notion that the roid boys will need fellow players to elect them to the Hall.

If their peers think they deserve it, I'm cool with it.

Personally, equating greenies with roids is absurd. Ben Johnson's 9.79 wasn't eclipsed clean for 11 years. Ben Johnson without roids was a consistent 10.1 sprinter.

Again, the players know it. Bonds and Clemens will never get in.

[bk400]

Correction -- Ben Johnson's best time before roids was 10.25, according to Charlie Francis.

Roids can turn a never was into a world's best.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by bk400

I am heartened by the notion that the roid boys will need fellow players to elect them to the Hall.

If their peers think they deserve it, I'm cool with it.

Personally, equating greenies with roids is absurd. Ben Johnson's 9.79 wasn't eclipsed clean for 11 years. Ben Johnson without roids was a consistent 10.1 sprinter.

Again, the players know it. Bonds and Clemens will never get in.

Never say never. Oh, they will get in. Most likely after I’m gone (I’m 65).

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by tod41

Garvey excelled at what was considered important at the time. Had it been known that metrics like War would have been important it certainly possible that Garvey would have improved on those metrics when he played. The guy was a super clutch player with impressive counting stats for the time he played. He has a slightly higher OPS than Mantle in the post season. He was a dominant player in his era.

Garvey didn't know what WAR was in 1980 because nobody did; it didn't exist.

Though I would vote likely for both of them, I would posit that 1B's like Hernandez and Garvey aren't in because they don't have the power numbers expected of the position. Garvey has 272 homers, Hernandez only 162. Voters traditionally seem to want 1B HOF'ers to have a resume like Willie McCovey. Even Hodges, who besides being one of the most popular players and managers of his era - took forever to get recognized despite 370 homers, 8 AS appearances, and 3 Gold Gloves.

Edited to add: I totally would agree that Garvey was considered a dominant player in his time, if not the single best 1B in baseball for the better part of a decade. He's unfortunately a prime example of a player who was a superstar, but possibly just for not quite long enough - and then that plus his personal off-field stuff just sunk him in the early BBWAA voting. After that, the various iterations of the VC's have been leery.

[jchcollins]

This is neither here nor there at this point given the conversation, but it's always been surprising to me that Bill Freehan hasn't been on one of these Eras or VC votes.

He only had one shot at the writer's ballot, but got a ridiculously low %-age and was dropped from the list in the 1980's.

Greatest AL defensive catcher of the 1960's and early 70's; 11x AS, 5 GG's. Doesn't have Bench or Fisk power numbers obviously, that may be the main drawback. But this guy seems to not even be on the radar anywhere anymore.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

This is neither here nor there at this point given the conversation, but it's always been surprising to me that Bill Freehan hasn't been on one of these Eras or VC votes.

He only had one shot at the writer's ballot, but got a ridiculously low %-age and was dropped from the list in the 1980's.

Greatest AL defensive catcher of the 1960's and early 70's; 11x AS, 5 GG's. Doesn't have Bench or Fisk power numbers obviously, that may be the main drawback. But this guy seems to not even be on the radar anywhere anymore.

Totally agree. Defense is underrated, especially as time passes and people forget. Defensive stats just don't resonate the same way as offensive stats.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by SyrNy1960

Never say never. Oh, they will get in. Most likely after I’m gone (I’m 65).

I order to get in, they have to be on the ballot. They will come up for a vote in 2031,get fewer then 5 votes and never appear on another Hall of Fame ballot.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Does anyone seriously think every guy who has been elected to the Hall from the steroid era was completely clean?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bk400

Correction -- Ben Johnson's best time before roids was 10.25, according to Charlie Francis.

Roids can turn a never was into a world's best.

Speaking of Johnson, he was stripped of his medals, right? Maybe there is no mechanism, but why hasn't MLB taken any action with respect to all the titles and awards won by Bonds, Clemens, A Rod, etc.?

[bk400]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Speaking of Johnson, he was stripped of his medals, right? Maybe there is no mechanism, but why hasn't MLB taken any action with respect to all the titles and awards won by Bonds, Clemens, A Rod, etc.?

It's trickier for team sports, I suppose. If you take away Bonds' stats, what does that mean for the SF Giants record? What happens to Jeff Kent, who batted behind Bonds? It makes it easier because the Giants never won a championship with Bonds on the roster, but vacating stats in a team sport opens up a huge can of worms.

Perhaps that's why the pressure is on the HOF to put the asterisks on the cheaters' careers. Your team gets the stats, but you never get the ultimate prestige.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bk400

It's trickier for team sports, I suppose. If you take away Bonds' stats, what does that mean for the SF Giants record? What happens to Jeff Kent, who batted behind Bonds? It makes it easier because the Giants never won a championship with Bonds on the roster, but vacating stats in a team sport opens up a huge can of worms.

Perhaps that's why the pressure is on the HOF to put the asterisks on the cheaters' careers. Your team gets the stats, but you never get the ultimate prestige.

MVPs and Cys could be revoked like gold medals without affecting the team.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by rats60

I order to get in, they have to be on the ballot. They will come up for a vote in 2031,get fewer then 5 votes and never appear on another Hall of Fame ballot.

Somehow, someway, a change will be made that opens the door for those guys.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Does anyone seriously think every guy who has been elected to the Hall from the steroid era was completely clean?

No, but the voters can judge the circumstances around each candidate and vote his or her conscience. Big Papi gets in, but Bonds doesn't. The HOF is basically a fraternity, especially when 7 of the 16 voters in the Era committee are living HOF players.

The public can independently decide whether election to the Hall is prestigious or not, hypocritical or not.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bk400

No, but the voters can judge the circumstances around each candidate and vote his or her conscience. Big Papi gets in, but Bonds doesn't. The HOF is basically a fraternity, especially when 7 of the 16 voters in the Era committee are living HOF players.

The public can independently decide whether election to the Hall is prestigious or not, hypocritical or not.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

Right. And this member of the public is just saying it seems hypocritical or at least inconsistent.

[Beercan collector]

Originally Posted by bk400

No, but the voters can judge the circumstances around each candidate and vote his or her conscience. Big Papi gets in, but Bonds doesn't. The HOF is basically a fraternity, especially when 7 of the 16 voters in the Era committee are living HOF players.

The public can independently decide whether election to the Hall is prestigious or not, hypocritical or not.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

Yep I’m one that believes the hall of fame gets too much respect.
I think I’ve seen where Spaeth noted (forgive me if I’m wrong)
That it’s mostly a popularity contest .
Two players from the Red Sox, One is a big lovable character The other is a perpetual grump Who didn’t kiss enough butts.

[Beercan collector]

Bonds - grouch
Palmeiro - grouch
Clemens - grouch
Ramirez - unstable loon
ARod - weirdo that likes to smell his own farts
Sticking with the Cynical theme - Jeff Kent, the teammate that didn’t like bonds and got in a fight with him is elected

[packs]

The public loved Manny though. Manny being Manny wasn't really something somebody said because Manny was hated. It was playful and endearing.

But his problems were just too loud to ignore.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Beercan collector

Yep I’m one that believes the hall of fame gets too much respect.
I think I’ve seen where Spaeth noted (forgive me if I’m wrong)
That it’s mostly a popularity contest .
Two players from the Red Sox, One is a big lovable character The other is a perpetual grump Who didn’t kiss enough butts.

Kent was largely disliked even by his own teammates.

[Beercan collector]

Originally Posted by packs

The public loved Manny though. Manny being Manny wasn't really something somebody said because Manny was hated. It was playful and endearing.

But his problems were just too loud to ignore.

I changed it from “grouchy weirdo” to “unstable loon”

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

The public loved Manny though. Manny being Manny wasn't really something somebody said because Manny was hated. It was playful and endearing.

But his problems were just too loud to ignore.

Manny being loved had everything to do with his prodigious bat and little to do with the man, IMO. It was in the nature of, OK forgive him his weirdo side, the dude just flat out kills it at the plate. Ortiz being loved was a combination and the love for the man was real. After his Boston Strong thing I doubt there was one person in Boston who would have said anything negative about Papi.

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by peter_spaeth

amphetamines are peds according to most sources.

Sure, they work by a different mechanism than anabolic steroids.

Anyhow, the longer this goes on, the more i think it's not really consistent or coherent to worship the men who regularly took amphetamines and to revile the men who partook of the next generation of performance enhancers. We've had the argument ad nauseum of course, and people's views largely are what they are and all are entitled to respect.

For me there's also the whole overlay of all the users who don't get caught, or the players with the same level of evidence against them who are forgiven versus those who are not.

I would just drop the whole damn thing, and move on.

100%. Enough with the moral gymnastics and hypocrisy. 2026 should be Amnesty Year for juicers, bettors, and Series-throwers.

[D. Bergin]

Hypocrisy is a word too easily thrown around. We're all hypocrites in one form or another...and not quite as pragmatic as we think we are to ourselves.

Shades of grey is more apt.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Hypocrisy is a word too easily thrown around. We're all hypocrites in one form or another...and not quite as pragmatic as we think we are to ourselves.

Shades of grey is more apt.

....

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

....

Probably closer to 52 to 53.....

[doug.goodman]

Love the HOF or hate it, it's the best thing we have and a visit to the museum is a wonderful thing.

[jchcollins]

I will admit I've never had much love for ARod, thought he was cocky as a player and he's pretty awful by anyone's standard as an announcer - but I do respect the fact that he's open about his steroid use and the mistakes he made, and when asked even recently about the HOF he just said "I have no one to blame but myself."

At least he can be honest, unlike the other most famous suspected roiders who simply leave their heads in the sand.

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

Love the HOF or hate it, it's the best thing we have and a visit to the museum is a wonderful thing.

It is, and if they ever figure out a way to display or tell the story of the bazillion baseball cards they've been purchasing and hording over the decades it would be a bit more interesting.

They low-key have one of the biggest collections of baseball cards in the world.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

It is, and if they ever figure out a way to display or tell the story of the bazillion baseball cards they've been purchasing and hording over the decades it would be a bit more interesting.

They low-key have one of the biggest collections of baseball cards in the world.

They did. I believe it’s called Shoebox Treasures? This whole section of the Hall with a bunch of different exhibits and even some interactive stuff. All related to cards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Beercan collector

Yep I’m one that believes the hall of fame gets too much respect.
I think I’ve seen where Spaeth noted (forgive me if I’m wrong)
That it’s mostly a popularity contest .
Two players from the Red Sox, One is a big lovable character The other is a perpetual grump Who didn’t kiss enough butts.

While popularity doesn't hurt, Manny also had 2 PED suspensions while Ortiz had none. That probably factored into a lot of voters' decisions as well.

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

They did. I believe it’s called Shoebox Treasures? This whole section of the Hall with a bunch of different exhibits and even some interactive stuff. All related to cards.

Oh sweet. I'm only 6 years behind on that "news." Thanks.