2023 Contemporary Era Ballot Nominees

[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.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mike D.

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.

Can't disagree with you, but if they decide who goes on the committee, you figure they probably know the people and have some idea how they think, and thus how they may vote.

And you're probably right about the steroid issue as well. I know I wouldn't want to be stuck in their position either. Problem is, whatever happens and is decided, either way a large number of people will still be unhappy with them. They have no win-win outcome.

[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.

[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.

[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