O/T 2026 HOF Contemporary Ballot

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

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.

Metrics on Garvey are brutal despite 6 200 hit seasons, 7 seasons over .300, 10 all star teams, and an MVP-1 and MVP-2.

[Knightlax5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Metrics on Garvey are brutal despite 6 200 hit seasons, 7 seasons over .300, 10 all star teams, and an MVP-1 and MVP-2.

I genuinely don’t know if that comment was sarcasm, but Garvey won’t likely get in for a long time. The whole impregnating multiple women at the same time wasn’t a great look. Plus anytime someone gets into politics, they’ll likely displease half of their fan base.

As a big WAR guy, its hard for me to get behind Garvey for the HOF. His JAWS WAR is 38.1, which is currently 51st all time for first basemen behind Boog Powell

[packs]

You have to assume at least one player is getting in. There would be no reason to select these specific players if none of them were to get in. That said I think it will be Mattingly.

[Yoda]

Why isn't Joe Shiabotkin's name on the ballot? Oops, Lucy just pulled the football away again.

[SyrNy1960]

I’ll never understand why anyone would want Barry Bonds in the HOF, considering his PED use resulted in him cheating the All-Time HR record away from Hank Aaron.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

This. Pettite’s waffling leaves the only evidence being the testimony of a convicted perjurer. I think Clemens did do it, but the evidence is much greater for Ortiz, who people really want to give a pass. While a test could be wrong, the odds are not high it is, and that it wasn’t supposed to be public doesn’t make much sense. It’s okay for Ortiz because we weren’t supposed to find out he flunked is a poor rationale for why it’s okay for him but not anyone else, even if the evidence is much less for those others.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Papi was better at 40 than he was at 25. Is it proof of anything? No. But.

[rhettyeakley]

Not weighing in in the steroid guys (Bonds, Clemens and Sheffield)

Of the rest Jeff Kent is the MOST deserving of the bunch and Fernando is the least.

My voting (if I were on the committee)…

Kent
Murphy
Mattingly (questionable)
(In that order)

The rest aren’t HOFers.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Mattingly and Murphy are the media darlings. Not my choices but I think they stand the best chance.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by SyrNy1960

I’ll never understand why anyone would want Barry Bonds in the HOF, considering his PED use resulted in him cheating the All-Time HR record away from Hank Aaron.

The Hall of Fame doesn't want him. They changed the rules to shorten the time on the ballot from 15 years to 10 to keep the steroid guys out. Now they changed the rules for the Veterans Committee to give them two chances. They know the players who are voting now don't want them. The steroid guys cheated them out of awards and honors. Once they are permanently off the ballot, then other players will get their chance to be voted on.

[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.

[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.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Papi was better at 40 than he was at 25. Is it proof of anything? No. But.

I'm not sure the fact that he was better at 40 is even anecdotal evidence of anything, or that it supports an inference of steroid use. MLB was testing for steroids after 2003, when Ortiz was not yet 30. It implemented HGH testing by 2013, when Ortiz was 37. While HGH testing was in place, he put up OPS+ seasons of 159, 141, 140, and 164.

To infer that Ortiz was using steroids or HGH to produce at a high level at age 40, you'd also have to infer that (1) MLB didn't test him, even though it was under heightened scrutiny at that point; (2) MLB tested him and he failed, but they buried the results because they liked him; or (3) MLB tested him but he somehow evaded detection.

To assume that Ortiz was juicing at age 40 because of a failed 2003 test (the accuracy of which has been disputed) is a logical leap. It's also a silly game to play when players like Ivan Rodriguez and Jeff Bagwell get a pass because their names weren't included in that particular leak. Mike Piazza even admitted to knowingly using andro (an anabolic steroid) and greenies during his playing career, but he's often left out of these debates because he wasn't on the list. There are so many unknowns and double standards about who was caught for what and when, and who admitted to juicing before certain substances were formally banned. It seems like a fool's errand to draw a line in the sand and put players on one side or the other.

[tod41]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Metrics on Garvey are brutal despite 6 200 hit seasons, 7 seasons over .300, 10 all star teams, and an MVP-1 and MVP-2.

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.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by tod41

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.

As, I surmise, would most men who were professional baseball players. People are so in love with metrics that it feels like such an important aspect as this is overlooked far too often. I for one am tired of metrics, WAR, etc.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

I'm not sure the fact that he was better at 40 is even anecdotal evidence of anything, or that it supports an inference of steroid use. MLB was testing for steroids after 2003, when Ortiz was not yet 30. It implemented HGH testing by 2013, when Ortiz was 37. While HGH testing was in place, he put up OPS+ seasons of 159, 141, 140, and 164.

To infer that Ortiz was using steroids or HGH to produce at a high level at age 40, you'd also have to infer that (1) MLB didn't test him, even though it was under heightened scrutiny at that point; (2) MLB tested him and he failed, but they buried the results because they liked him; or (3) MLB tested him but he somehow evaded detection.

To assume that Ortiz was juicing at age 40 because of a failed 2003 test (the accuracy of which has been disputed) is a logical leap. It's also a silly game to play when players like Ivan Rodriguez and Jeff Bagwell get a pass because their names weren't included in that particular leak. Mike Piazza even admitted to knowingly using andro (an anabolic steroid) and greenies during his playing career, but he's often left out of these debates because he wasn't on the list. There are so many unknowns and double standards about who was caught for what and when, and who admitted to juicing before certain substances were formally banned. It seems like a fool's errand to draw a line in the sand and put players on one side or the other.

I agree with your overall perspective, it seems self evident that for various reasons, users are excused or not detected, and the whole thing becomes a nighly imperfect, even biased exercise. As for Papi, though, there is surely at least some logic in saying someone who had better numbers at age 40 than he did at age 25 potentially was using. This is not a normal career trajectory. I did not mean to suggest it was conclusive, it isn't.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

No question, at the time Garvey was considered an elite player. And it's not like there weren't numbers to back that up.

[Svabinsky78]

Delgado was an excellent player but falls in the Hall of Very Good IMO....

Fernando was a very good player, and culturally significant, a Dodger icon, but there are pitchers that are not in - David Cone, Reuschel, Kevin Brown, Hershiser, Guidry, Tiant, Vida Blue, Santana, TJ, Schilling - that I would put in before Fernando.

Kent should be in. I think his sourpuss behavior, in part, kept him from getting more votes on the writers ballot. Also, when he was on the ballot, the ballot was pretty stacked which worked against him. And he was very pedestrian defensively speaking.....but offensively speaking, he was a monster as a 2nd baseman....especially in the HR and RBI dept.....2461 hits, 377 HRs, 1518 RBIs, 1320 runs, 560 doubles, 290 career BA, 855 OPS....just really great offensive stats for a 2nd baseman. I just don't know if he will get in....You need 12 of the 16 votes and I don't know if he will get there....not if the votes will get split....

It's a very strange group to be honest...

Two of the biggest PED poster boys in Clemens and Bonds...and Sheffield, who also has PED connections....

Two truly beloved players in Mattingly and a Murphy...but players who have always fallen a bit short because of their short peaks....

Then two players who really fall in the hall of very good, in Delgado and Fernando...What about Whitaker, Schilling, Lofton, Hernandez instead of these two? Just odd selections. For Fernando, it may have have been a sort of an honorary nomination, given his recent passing.

And then Kent, who, outside of the PED guys, is really the most deserving of the group....

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by Svabinsky78

What about Whitaker, Schilling, Lofton, Hernandez instead of these two?

Whether one likes the answer or not, it's that "character" part that sunk Schilling on the main ballot and partially on the Contemporary Ballot.

"Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

Having a group of his peers on the Contemporary Ballot committee voting on his merit didn't help either because the dude went out of his way for a long time to piss off his peers that had nothing to do with his off-field activities. He got hit by 2 sides on that one, though he probably got hit on 2 sides by the BBWAA vote pissing off reporters, too. It's a bit rare to see a guy so publicly dragged by his ex-teammates and peers without worrying about pissing off the rest of the boy's club...

[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.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

I'm not sure the fact that he was better at 40 is even anecdotal evidence of anything, or that it supports an inference of steroid use. MLB was testing for steroids after 2003, when Ortiz was not yet 30. It implemented HGH testing by 2013, when Ortiz was 37. While HGH testing was in place, he put up OPS+ seasons of 159, 141, 140, and 164.

To infer that Ortiz was using steroids or HGH to produce at a high level at age 40, you'd also have to infer that (1) MLB didn't test him, even though it was under heightened scrutiny at that point; (2) MLB tested him and he failed, but they buried the results because they liked him; or (3) MLB tested him but he somehow evaded detection.

To assume that Ortiz was juicing at age 40 because of a failed 2003 test (the accuracy of which has been disputed) is a logical leap. It's also a silly game to play when players like Ivan Rodriguez and Jeff Bagwell get a pass because their names weren't included in that particular leak. Mike Piazza even admitted to knowingly using andro (an anabolic steroid) and greenies during his playing career, but he's often left out of these debates because he wasn't on the list. There are so many unknowns and double standards about who was caught for what and when, and who admitted to juicing before certain substances were formally banned. It seems like a fool's errand to draw a line in the sand and put players on one side or the other.

Alex Rodriguez was rumored to have failed a 2003 test, them was tested for the rest of his career and never failed. He admitted to using steroids from 2001-2003 and 2010-2012.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by rats60

Alex Rodriguez was rumored to have failed a 2003 test, them was tested for the rest of his career and never failed. He admitted to using steroids from 2001-2003 and 2010-2012.

The thing is most don't understand how a drug test actually works. They are super easy to pass as proven by all the Olympic athletes and bicycle riders.

PEDs are like recreational drugs as there are many many kinds. When a test is done it is only for one very specific steroid so as long as they did not take that specific steroid they will pass the drug test even if they are on 6 different types of PEDs. A friend since the 80s actually works in one of the labs in Las Vegas that tests athletes for PEDs so I really do know how the tests work.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by rats60

Alex Rodriguez was rumored to have failed a 2003 test, them was tested for the rest of his career and never failed. He admitted to using steroids from 2001-2003 and 2010-2012.

A-Rod failed a test for illegal stimulants in 2006, but it was not made public because he was technically a 1st time offender, because the 2003 test was supposed to be a freebie. Also, there was boatloads of actual evidence connecting A-Rod to Peds.

The absolute arrogance and entitlement of A-Rod’s behavior, even when they started cracking down on PEDS is kind of mind-blowing.

Also, it seems everyone forgot his act kicking and screaming about how he still wanted to get paid while he was serving his suspension from baseball after all the obvious evidence came to light in the Biogenesis scandal, and the reports of his cronies flying back and forth from the Dominican with his requested gear.

I’m a Yankees fan and A-Rod certainly was a huge part of the 2009 title winning team, but the evidence against him is about 3 Miles higher then it is for Big Papi, who was perhaps the biggest Yankee killer ever.

[mainemule]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

Whether one likes the answer or not, it's that "character" part that sunk Schilling on the main ballot and partially on the Contemporary Ballot.

"Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

Having a group of his peers on the Contemporary Ballot committee voting on his merit didn't help either because the dude went out of his way for a long time to piss off his peers that had nothing to do with his off-field activities. He got hit by 2 sides on that one, though he probably got hit on 2 sides by the BBWAA vote pissing off reporters, too. It's a bit rare to see a guy so publicly dragged by his ex-teammates and peers without worrying about pissing off the rest of the boy's club...

I've stated before his post career behavior has been at times repugnant.

But I know first hand he was a devoted supporter of our troops (visited my brother in law and his unit in Baghdad when our military took over Sadaam's palace during 2nd Gulf War) and was a Clemente Award winner during his career.

Ridiculous that he wasn't selected during early eligibility on the BBWAA ballot as his credentials 100% make him worthy. He remains only pitcher with 3,000+ ks (other than Clemens and Verlander, Scherzer, Kershaw) not in.

[ceast]

Dale Murphy was my childhood idol. I got to see him play in ATL several times in the late 70s-80s. Even though I am a lefty and my forte was pitching rather than hitting, I perfected the little bat waggle he did at the plate. He didn’t smoke, cuss, drink or chew tobacco. An absolutely awesome role model for kids.

As an adult, I got to meet and interact with him twice in the last 20 years at functions. And he absolutely validated my childhood adoration of him. He signed autos for everyone, took pics with everyone, and regaled us with stories and answered all of our questions (except he never would say which pitchers he liked to face because he didn’t want to come across as badmouthing them).

As a player he was one of the top players in the decade of the 80s. But when his career statistics are compared to the current HOFers and to those who are currently on the outside looking in, his peak was short, and his falloff at the end was steep and fast (he certainly would have benefitted from even light PEDs to help injury recovery to prolong his career by a couple of years).

He is absolutely a HOFer in my eyes, but I can understand why he is unlikely to get in based on the numbers. Based solely on the numbers he should rank somewhere between 4th and 7th on this ballot. But if the voters are going to discount the on field performances of the PED folks on the ballot because of PEDs, then they should in theory credit Murph for his off-field contributions to the image of the league, and he was definitely on the of the faces of the league for much of the 80s.

Again, based on the numbers, I don’t see him getting in. But if he does, this 1970s-1980s kid will be at Cooperatown wearing a #3 Braves jersey watching his induction speech and reliving my childhood all over again. If he doesn’t get the votes, he will always be a Hall of Famer to me. Now I’m off to go grab my autographed Dale Murphy bat and hope I don’t wake up my wife as I take some practice swings.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

I think most everybody who grew up in our era wouldn't have a bad thing to say of Murphy and Mattingly (and my favorite, Dwight Evans). They were absolutely wonderful role models and have continued on this path as time has moved on.

From a personal standpoint, I wouldn't be as "offended" to see Dale or Don inducted as I would some other almost-deserving candidates, but they unfortunately fall short. I think Mattingly stands a better overall chance of getting in vs. Murphy. He's a lifer and still in the game.

I really think that Dwight Evans is more deserving than the other two. He was more consistent over his entire career. He was not a "loud" player, constantly overshadowed by teammates. I think that this is why he is so often overlooked; almost a footnote.

To echo others on here, where on earth is Whitaker (and Evans) on this ballot? It's rather pathetic that the two most deserving candidates didn't make the list. Are they to be relegated to some other kind of list? I don't understand.

At least Bobby Grich wasn't mentioned that I could see. Tell me something: before all this talk of his possible induction, when was the last time you even thought of Bobby Grich or heard his name? It was mentioned earlier in this thread that, had things like WAR been important in his era, Steve Garvey would have obviously adjusted his type of play to reflect that. Is Grich perhaps not the opposite of this? His numbers look great by modern metrics, but I have no recollection of anybody extolling his virtues when he was active. Maybe he received more regional praise than national and I simply missed out due to location, or that his best seasons were already behind him before I came along. My question is this: if a player's numbers suddenly look phenomenal using modern metrics, should that really even matter? If he was so incredible, why was he so forgettable for the past 40 years? Perhaps one could postulate that Grich's numbers, reflective of stats that weren't even taken into consideration when he played, make him appear ahead of his time, but is that not almost meaningless? I'm assuredly showing some of my ignorance by asking these questions, so perhaps some people may be able to help educate me on this.

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

At least Bobby Grich wasn't mentioned that I could see. Tell me something: before all this talk of his possible induction, when was the last time you even thought of Bobby Grich or heard his name?

Bobby Grich and Rick Reuschel are the "What, really?" of WAR stats...

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by rats60

Alex Rodriguez was rumored to have failed a 2003 test, them was tested for the rest of his career and never failed. He admitted to using steroids from 2001-2003 and 2010-2012.

I think it's quite possible that players like Ortiz continued using through retirement and weren't detected. My main point is that it also requires an inference that MLB made a conscious decision to look the other way, knowing full well that players can and do cheat the drug testing. It would mean MLB tested purely for show, to placate the public and perhaps get Congress off their backs.

That wouldn't surprise me at all... professional sports leagues have no guiding principle beyond maximizing profits. But it also makes it extremely difficult for me to condemn known users for violating the "integrity" of the sport, or to give players who flunk the eyeball test a pass. I just think it's logically inconsistent for voters to act like purists when it comes to individual players, while giving a moral pass to MLB, a co-conspirator that reaped the financial benefits of steroids and marketed the hell out of the most prominent users.

Bottom line: I think all the elite performers should be in the Hall, with a notation on their plaques that they played under the cloud of the steroid era. And if we're going to assume that certain players used PEDs after testing was in place, then we should also assume that MLB knew about it and ignored it to protect the product.