2023 Contemporary Era Ballot Nominees

packs · #1 11-08-2022, 02:02 PM

Absurd in what way? I think it's absurd to hold everyone to one standard, which the HOF obviously does not do. So, why is it then a problem to discuss peak when talking about specific players? As you said, there are already players in for their peak. Why is it taboo to discuss?

To answer your question, yes, I think Duke could have retired at 31 and been in the HOF without playing anymore seasons. He had a 22nd place MVP finish and one last all star appearance in the seasons after that, none of which I think tipped the scales for him.

G1911 · #2 11-08-2022, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

Absurd in what way? I think it's absurd to hold everyone to one standard, which the HOF obviously does not do. So, why is it then a problem to discuss peak when talking about specific players? As you said, there are already players in for their peak. Why is it taboo to discuss?

To answer your question, yes, I think Duke could have retired at 31 and been in the HOF without playing anymore seasons. He had a 22nd place MVP finish and one last all star appearance in the seasons after that, none of which I think tipped the scales for him.

You keep changing the argument. I did not say that we cannot consider peak, that I would vote for Belle quite obviously means I am valuing peak. What I actually said is that Peak is not the "only" thing, as you chose to assert, for players who did not hit a major milestone. Again, there are plenty of guys in the hall for their career performance who missed 3,000 hits or 500 homers.

I have never said you can't discuss peak or that it is some great taboo. Nowhere could a reasonable person see this bizarre claim in what was actually said. Please show this in the public transcript!

packs · #3 11-08-2022, 02:10 PM

You said peak is not everything a player has, but sometimes it is and that's what I've been saying. You can discuss peak in relation to HOF for players who only have their peak to discuss.

G1911 · #4 11-08-2022, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

You said peak is not everything a player has, but sometimes it is and that's what I've been saying. You can discuss peak in relation to HOF for players who only have their peak to discuss.

Yes. I said it is not everything. I cannot fathom why you would read that as "peak is nothing".

Sure, you can discuss peak however you want, or in relation to HOF players who only have peak.

Sounds like we finally agree on the abundantly obvious fact that Belle has a very short career and is a peak only guy. Yay.

packs · #5 11-08-2022, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes. I said it is not everything. I cannot fathom why you would read that as "peak is nothing".

Sure, you can discuss peak however you want, or in relation to HOF players who only have peak.

Sounds like we finally agree on the abundantly obvious fact that Belle has a very short career and is a peak only guy. Yay.

I didn't read it as anything other than what it said. I believe peak can be everything, has been everything, and probably will be again for somebody.

G1911 · #6 11-08-2022, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

I didn't read it as anything other than what it said. I believe peak can be everything, has been everything, and probably will be again.

Then you are well aware that nowhere did anyone claim that it is taboo to discuss peak or that you can't.

Yes, for players like Belle who had very short careers and nothing else. It is clearly not the only thing that is looked at. We're finally looping back to what I actually said originally in 10. He's an only peak player.

isiahfan · #7 11-08-2022, 02:36 PM

I don't even love Belle...but you all are selecting only numbers that support your arguments while ignoring others..

10 elite years is a long run

I would take 10 years of 100R/40HR/120RBI/.300 over 16 years that barely equal those put up in 10

If Griffey or Thomas retied after 2002 you would all say they are in....not sure I see a big difference...other than he was a complete ass

Long and steady accummulated #'s are great...but I'd take 10 elite years and 6 average over 16 great...the numbers will also show this as per my above comparison

G1911 · #8 11-08-2022, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by isiahfan

I don't even love Belle...but you all are selecting only numbers that support your arguments while ignoring others..

10 elite years is a long run

I would take 10 years of 100R/40HR/120RBI/.300 over 16 years that barely equal those put up in 10

If Griffey or Thomas retied after 2002 you would all say they are in....not sure I see a big difference...other than he was a complete ass

Long and steady accummulated #'s are great...but I'd take 10 elite years and 6 average over 16 great...the numbers will also show this as per my above comparison

Belle did not put up that stat line over 10 years. He hit only 1 of those 4 metrics as his average over those 10 years.

He was also simply not elite for 10 years. 1992, 1997, 2000. A 109 OPS+ is not elite, I'm sorry.

Yes, we would say that for Griffey and Tomas. I have said it over and over again for Belle too. I would vote for Albert Belle even though he had a brief career.

clydepepper · #9 11-08-2022, 02:34 PM

If the 'standards of character' are to be so lowered to include ANY of them, then Mattingly, McGriff and Murphy should be replaced by Manny, Sammy & A-Rod and 'give up the ghost'.

They can let McGwire wait 'til next time.

Excuse me while I go vomit!

.

Jim65 · #10 11-08-2022, 03:06 PM

Apparently, some people don't know that Sammy Sosa was caught corking his bat as well.

bnorth · #11 11-09-2022, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim65

Apparently, some people don't know that Sammy Sosa was caught corking his bat as well.

I had several friends kids at that game. It was some High School trip to Chicago and they got to go to a Cubs game.

I believe he is also the only player to hit 60 or more HRs in a season 3 times.

Mike D. · #12 11-09-2022, 10:03 AM

I wrote an article on the candidates and their cards, if anyone is interested:

Investing In The Contemporary Baseball Era Hall of Fame Candidates

BobC · #13 11-09-2022, 01:16 PM

Quote:

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!".

lampertb · #14 11-09-2022, 04:11 PM

Crime Dog should be a no-question here; I've thought that for years.
Otherwise, if you look at those "peak moments" at "clutch time" (like Mazeroski getting in for 1 key homer, for example), then Schilling has a pretty good argument: '93 WS game 5 up against the wall + 2001 w/Arizona for goodness' sake + bloody sock in '04... pretty amazing track record in the big moment.

Mike D. · #15 11-09-2022, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lampertb

Crime Dog should be a no-question here; I've thought that for years.
Otherwise, if you look at those "peak moments" at "clutch time" (like Mazeroski getting in for 1 key homer, for example), then Schilling has a pretty good argument: '93 WS game 5 up against the wall + 2001 w/Arizona for goodness' sake + bloody sock in '04... pretty amazing track record in the big moment.

Honestly, I think if one person gets in on this ballot, it's McGriff. If two do, it's McGriff and Schilling.

That being said, with only three votes per voter, it's going to be REALLY tough to get to 75% for anyone.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
2023 National Sports Collector Convention less than 365 days away	mrreality68	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	24	07-04-2023 04:43 PM
Its On! Mid-Atlantic Get Together + Pre-War Baseball Trade Event - February 18, 2023	Rhotchkiss	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	115	02-20-2023 04:29 PM
MLB 2023 rule changes...PeeWee league?	KCRfan1	Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk	16	09-12-2022 03:59 PM
2013 Thread of the Year Nominees	vintagetoppsguy	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	14	12-13-2013 10:41 AM
Veterans' Committee Nominees	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	37	06-18-2006 08:53 AM