8 Players on Contemporary Era HOF ballot announced.

[BlowoutBuzz]

Originally Posted by Handsome Wes

Not that anyone wants my opinion, but...

...I think this is an attempt on the Baseball Hall of Fame's part to funnel votes towards Don Mattingly (and perhaps Dale Murphy).

I have spent way too much time in message boards and I am yet to see any serious arguments to be had in favor of, say, Carlos Delgado (as opposed to players such as Lou Whitaker, Kenny Lofton, etc.)

Given that the math is difficult (voters can only vote for three), having more "deserving candidates" would result in votes being split -- and no one gets in.

Example - suppose there were six equally worthy candidates. The 16 voters equally divide their vote among these six. They all wind up with a total of eight votes, and all fall short of induction.

Having "unworthy" candidates on the ballot effectively gives a boost to the ones who are -- no vote splitting here.

For what it's worth, Bonds and Clemens aren't going to get in. The Hall has basically made its stance known by changing its rules around a thousand times with them in mind. Just recently, they tweaked a rule saying that anyone who doesn't get at least five votes is removed from the ballot for an election cycle, and if they don't get five again, they are removed from all future ballots. They are only on this ballot so that process can be kickstarted.

It could result in nobody being picked. I could see that happening.

[BlowoutBuzz]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

And yet, everyone knows they are the headliners, including mlb.com -- they mention them first in the article. It's pretty ironic.

Alphabetical order ...

[JRX]

Originally Posted by mgip21

Funny, I thought the same thing, but then I went and looked at his baseball reference page yesterday and realized he had 7-8 great years. And his OPS plus even on those great years was not all that high. He had 3 more good years and He had six years where he was below league average. So before I looked it up yesterday I would have agreed with you, now I’m not so sure.

bbref really isn't great for capturing defense. If Raines is in, Lofton should be in.

[DioBrando]

Bonds and Clemens should have been in years ago, followed by Sheffield and Kent. Murphy, Mattingly, Delgado would be no and I am split on fernando. Have a feeling no one gets in from this group.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by BlowoutBuzz

Alphabetical order ...

"Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are among the eight players on this year’s Era Committee ballot unveiled Monday by the National Baseball Hall of Fame."

It's Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens and six other guys.

[Imnottheonly]

Kind of a joke to see Delgado on here ahead of someone like Kenny Lofton…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by mgip21

Funny, I thought the same thing, but then I went and looked at his baseball reference page yesterday and realized he had 7-8 great years. And his OPS plus even on those great years was not all that high. He had 3 more good years and He had six years where he was below league average. So before I looked it up yesterday I would have agreed with you, now I’m not so sure.

OPS+ doesn't capture his great base-running or defense in center field.

He was the best lead-off hitter in MLB in the 90s.

It can be argued his hitting value was suppressed due to the rampant use of steroids across the league in the 90s -- OPS+ is league adjusted. For example, his .817 OPS in 1996 was only good for a 107 OPS+ -- seems too low, right?

[hxcmilkshake]

Bonds, Clemens, Mattingly

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

[abaseballjunkie]

Originally Posted by Handsome Wes

Not that anyone wants my opinion, but...

...I think this is an attempt on the Baseball Hall of Fame's part to funnel votes towards Don Mattingly (and perhaps Dale Murphy).

I have spent way too much time in message boards and I am yet to see any serious arguments to be had in favor of, say, Carlos Delgado (as opposed to players such as Lou Whitaker, Kenny Lofton, etc.)

Given that the math is difficult (voters can only vote for three), having more "deserving candidates" would result in votes being split -- and no one gets in.

Example - suppose there were six equally worthy candidates. The 16 voters equally divide their vote among these six. They all wind up with a total of eight votes, and all fall short of induction.

Having "unworthy" candidates on the ballot effectively gives a boost to the ones who are -- no vote splitting here.

For what it's worth, Bonds and Clemens aren't going to get in. The Hall has basically made its stance known by changing its rules around a thousand times with them in mind. Just recently, they tweaked a rule saying that anyone who doesn't get at least five votes is removed from the ballot for an election cycle, and if they don't get five again, they are removed from all future ballots. They are only on this ballot so that process can be kickstarted.

FWIW, I think this ballot would be the end of the process for Bonds and Clemens (that might be what you're saying and I'm not reading it right). The explanation for how the voting goes and that five-vote rule, at the bottom of the Hall of Fame's page on this group, says that not getting five votes one time keeps you off the ballot within the next three-year cycle - and it specifies that previous era committee results prior to this one don't apply "to this rule". The Bonds/Clemens situation, where you're barred from future consideration if you don't get at least 5 votes in multiple appearances on the ballot, appears after the line about past results not counting toward the new rule and is pretty clearly separate.

Absolutely a petty decision of the HOF gatekeeping against some of the absolute best when others that were pretty good did the same thing but are already enshrined. Ticks me off.

[NHRonin]

I’m sure we can come up with more deserving names that have been overlooked.

I’ll start. Dwight Evans. Dewey had a 67.2 WAR. Career BA of .272 with 385 HRs. I’d agree his offensive stats are not enough to put him over the top, but he was a machine in right field with a cannon for an arm. 8x Gold Glove.

Far too often voters overlook the complete player.

[itsbaytime]

If Pete Rose one day gets in and Barry Bonds doesn't it will be a very sad state of affairs.

[NickyCards]

Let Donny Baseball in. Regarding Clemens and Bonds, there are already suspected steroid users in the HOF. I wouldn’t be mad if Clemens and Bonds get in, but they better vote A-Rod in too then.

[atk825]

I am of the belief that if you invoke the morals clause to keep people out of the Hall that the morals clause should then get people in. Fernando was all the rage. He grew the game into Mexico and Latin American communities at large. And he was really good to boot.

[SaveMeTheGum]

Bonds, Clemens, Murphy is the right answer. I'd hear arguments for Sheffield because he's got 500 HRs. No on the rest.

Dwight Evans > Delgado or Kent or Mattingly

Dave Stieb > Fernando

[mgip21]

Yeah that makes sense. Just was thrown off a bit by the ops+. Definitely the juiced era hurt him coming through at the same time. He was a great lead off hitter!!

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

OPS+ doesn't capture his great base-running or defense in center field.

He was the best lead-off hitter in MLB in the 90s.

It can be argued his hitting value was suppressed due to the rampant use of steroids across the league in the 90s -- OPS+ is league adjusted. For example, his .817 OPS in 1996 was only good for a 107 OPS+ -- seems too low, right?

[JustinVerlander07]

Originally Posted by atk825

I am of the belief that if you invoke the morals clause to keep people out of the Hall that the morals clause should then get people in. Fernando was all the rage. He grew the game into Mexico and Latin American communities at large. And he was really good to boot.

I don't think you should get into the HOF for being a good guy. Because while ha had a good peak, it was only 6 seasons long.

[carlo16]

Originally Posted by itsbaytime

If Pete Rose one day gets in and Barry Bonds doesn't it will be a very sad state of affairs.

Please elaborate

[ScooterD]

Originally Posted by Rooftop

Put em all in and give em food stamps to

To…. What? To eat? To survive? To burn?

Originally Posted by itsbaytime

FWIW Kenny Lofton absolutely deserves to be in as well.

Agree here

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by NHRonin

I’m sure we can come up with more deserving names that have been overlooked.

I’ll start. Dwight Evans. Dewey had a 67.2 WAR. Career BA of .272 with 385 HRs. I’d agree his offensive stats are not enough to put him over the top, but he was a machine in right field with a cannon for an arm. 8x Gold Glove.

Far too often voters overlook the complete player.

He's a perfect example of how screwed up the veteran's committee process is.....Dave Parker was on FOUR ballots before getting (undeservedly) elected....Evans has still been on only one. This despite the fact that they played in the same era and their careers started within a year of each other.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by JustinVerlander07

I don't think you should get into the HOF for being a good guy. Because while ha had a good peak, it was only 6 seasons long.

Same for Mattingly and Murphy....there's a reason none of these guys even came close to getting elected by the writers.

Murphy's peak was 23.2%.
Mattingly's peak was 28.2%.
Fernando's peak was 6.2%, and he fell off the ballot after his second year.

While they were all very popular players, none of them belong in the Hall of Fame.

But then Harold Baines and Dave Parker didn't either.....so who knows.....

[coltsnsox07]

If you think What Yamamoto did was impressive, imagine him doing it with a freshly sutured into place tendon in his ankle.
One of his bloody socks is in the Hall Of Fame but Curt Schilling isn't, who made this planet?..

[jdandns]

Clemens and Sheffield won World Series, but were both cheaters.
Bonds was the greatest cheater ever, and still didn't win a title.
The rest of them weren't necessarily cheaters, but didn't win anything, except Fernando, only Fernando. Never mind his numbers. They are in and of themselves, not enough, but he should be in for his overall contribution to the game, Fernando-mania and all that. Tinker, Evers, and Chance are in because someone wrote a poem about them. Maybe someone can write a poem about Fernando.

[hxcmilkshake]

Originally Posted by jdandns

Clemens and Sheffield won World Series, but were both cheaters.
Bonds was the greatest cheater ever, and still didn't win a title.
The rest of them weren't necessarily cheaters, but didn't win anything, except Fernando, only Fernando. Never mind his numbers. They are in and of themselves, not enough, but he should be in for his overall contribution to the game, Fernando-mania and all that. Tinker, Evers, and Chance are in because someone wrote a poem about them. Maybe someone can write a poem about Fernando.

https://youtu.be/dQsjAbZDx-4?si=95yPHcBfby2ivS5d

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

[DaBaddestHic]

Let's go Delgado!

Not biased at all . Also not expecting it.

[PuddleMonkey]

Originally Posted by jdandns

Clemens and Sheffield won World Series, but were both cheaters.
Bonds was the greatest cheater ever, and still didn't win a title.
The rest of them weren't necessarily cheaters, but didn't win anything, except Fernando, only Fernando. Never mind his numbers. They are in and of themselves, not enough, but he should be in for his overall contribution to the game, Fernando-mania and all that.

Doesn't Strawberry have 4 rings?