O/T 2026 HOF Contemporary Ballot
 

Hey the HOF just release the 2026 contemporary ballot which will be picked at the winter meetings. If my memory is correct, a max of 3 guys can get in if voting works out perfectly.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/...ary-era-ballot

The ballot is:
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Don Mattingly
Dale Murphy
Carlos Delgado
Jeff Kent
Fernando Valenzuela

Who do you think gets in from the 2026 Contemporary Era’s Committee? As much as i’d like to see Bonds and Clemens get in, I think Don Mattingly is the only one who gets in this year out of those 8.

I think Mattingly potentially gets in and maybe Carlos Delgado but I doubt it. Was hoping to see Kenny Lofton on the ballot.

Do we know who is on the selection committee? This can certainly impact who is selected- think Baines selection.

To me, Valenzuela is the least HOF-like, despite Fernandomania.

Bonds and Clemens no doubters if peds are overlooked. Probably Sheffield too (who is inadvertently omitted on OP's post).

None of the others "scream" HOF to me but all have worthiness about them.

Disappointed Dewey Evans not on the list.

Where's Sweet Lou? Still ridiculous to me Tram is in but he's still not.

Looking at the list, I don't think any get voted in this year

Not yet, that will be announced soon though.

For the 2024 committew that elected Dick Allen and Dave Parker, the members were Paul Molitor, Eddie Murray, Tony Pérez, Lee Smith, Ozzie Smith and Joe Torre; major league executives Sandy Alderson, Terry McGuirk, Dayton Moore, Arte Moreno and Brian Sabean; and veteran media members/historians Bob Elliott, Leslie Heaphy, Steve Hirdt, Dick Kaegel and Larry Lester. Hall of Fame Chairman of the Board Jane Forbes Clark served as the non-voting chairman of the Classic Baseball Era Committee.

My very first question when I saw this list is "Where's Sweet Lou?"!!


On my end, Lou, Mattingly and Murphy are already sorted into the HOF binders in my collection...even if none of the three ever get there.

I won’t argue Whitaker isn’t a HOF’er. My question is where is Keith Hernandez? The best defensive player at every other position is in, so why not Keith? i think with Gil Hodges and Buck O’Neill in, Keith will get in eventually. The playing career and broadcasting career in total is a HOF career. He is also getting hurt by the fact the 1980 date was used as the cut off date for contemporary and classic eras. Its directly in the middle of his playing career

And his contribution to Seinfeld can't be overstated.

I think his plaque should only say “I’m Keith Hernandez”

No Kenny Lofton...*shrug*

It wouldn't surprise me if no one on this list got in.

No Kenny Lofton is criminal.

Kenny Lofton not being on this list and Kenny Lofton being a 1-and-done HOF ballot guy are both insults to his career.

Given the other names on the list, Don Mattingly seems likely to make it into the Hall of Fame.

Based purely on stats, Bonds and Clemens would be locks. The voters will almost certainly take other things (PEDs, personality, etc.) into consideration, though.

I think Mattingly and Murphy get in. Those guys are both Hofers. If they elect two, that will open up slots for more deserving guys like Lofton. Them when the vote down the dopers again, it will open more slots.

I find these committees very confusing. I thought the last time Bonds and Clemens got nixed by a Frank Thomas led committee they wouldn't be eligible again for many years. I thought Murphy would not be eligible again so soon as well.

I think only Mattingly has a shot, Murphy just hasn't moved anyone in so many tries, although I wouldn't bet on Mattingly either for the same reason.

Outfielder with not much power playing for smaller market teams, you can see why the bias against him. Not saying it's justified.

My prediction is none of them get in. I'd vote for Bonds and Clemens, but [spoilers] I'm not on the committee.

Here are the votes that the 4 returning players got last time:

Barry Bonds (<4 votes last time)
Roger Clemens (<4 votes last time)
Don Mattingly (8 votes last time)
Dale Murphy (6 votes last time)

It's surprising that Bonds and Clemens are back on the ballot again. The following rule changes were made earlier this year, but they must not apply to previous ballots.

"Any candidate on the eight-person ballot who receives fewer than five votes from the 16-member panel will not be eligible for that committee's ballot during the next three-year cycle, the hall said Wednesday. A candidate who is dropped, later reappears on a ballot and again receives fewer than five votes would be barred from future ballot appearances."

Poll
 

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.:D

Carry on.

I believe Gary Sheffield is on the ballot as well

I think only Bonds and Clemens are deserving (ducks*)

Yet, the HOF is so watered down now let them all in who cares

Mattingly is most likely to get in, especially since he just helped the Jays get to the WS. I'd love to see Murphy get in as well. This may be his last shot. It will be very interesting to see what happens with Bonds and Clemens. No way of predicting that before knowing who's on the voting committee. And Fernando Valenzuela? Where the heck did that come from? Lofton or Jim Edmonds would have been better picks. Ditto for Whitaker, Evans, the list goes on and on.

Only one non-PED-associated pitcher who is eligible with 3,000ks not already elected. That is a bigger crime than Lofton not being on this ballot.

PS- I don't care about his off-field "douchiness" post career. He won the Clemente award during his career.

Fernando had a pretty good run and deserves his cult hero status and his cool as hell Rookie Cards....but c'mon man. :D

Schilling was already on both ballots. Even his peers don't like the guy and he didn't get the votes. He's a HOF quality pitcher by the numbers, though...

David Cone keeps missing these lists and discussions, though...probably room for him in a HOF discussion.

Yup, and that's all that should matter, though we know it doesn't in his case.

Watch Jeff Kent squeeze by all these guys.. maybe it’s time for bonds with the reinstatement of Rose etc.. ??? Who knows

Who peed in your Cheerios this morning :)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.
.
.
.

-
Would be poetic justice to see Kent get in before Bonds with all the stuff he had to put up with Barry and his Barcalounger.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

My parts in red

Clemens and Bonds need in and add the others if we want more Hall of OK members.

I have never got the PED thing. They are ALL on PEDs to this day and have been for many many decades. PED tests are more of an IQ test than anything. If you don't think so remind me how many PED tests Lance Armstrong failed.:eek::)

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.

During his cross-examination in the 2012 Roger Clemens federal perjury trial, former teammate Andy Pettitte conceded that there was a "50-50" chance he might have misunderstood a key conversation in which he claimed Clemens admitted to using human growth hormone (HGH). This admission was a major point for the defense and significantly weakened the prosecution's case.

I don't really get the Mattingly love and the lack of regard for Hernandez at this point. Hernandez has higher OPS plus, Jaws, War and was likely the best fielding first basemen of all time. Mattingly was a good fielder but Hernandez stats dwarf him in that regard - its not even close - career runs saved - Mattingly - 31 - Hernandez - 211.

Out of this group my pics would be;

Clemens
Bonds
Mattingly

I would love for Pete Rose to get in along with Steve Garvey get in one day.