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...