8 Players on Contemporary Era HOF ballot announced.

[Tom Oates]

Orel Hershiser has better career stats than Fernando. Seems his career falls in the correct time span for this committee. Am I missing something?

[jdandns]

Originally Posted by PuddleMonkey

Doesn't Strawberry have 4 rings?

And a 42.2 WAR.
What's a couple of cocaine suspensions between friends?
Good enough...

[blackvodka]

Originally Posted by JustinVerlander07

No Whitaker is laughable.

That was my first thought. He really should be on that ballot.

Sent from my motorola razr 2024 using Tapatalk

[Skipscards]

A couple of things…

Overall, I like the ballot. Everyone has a strong HOF argument. We could actually get another two deserving HOFers. The analysis below all goes out the window depending on who is on the Committee.

Bonds and Clemens received fewer than 4 votes last time. Meanwhile Schilling got 7 votes and isn’t on this ballot. Last year, the rules changed where getting fewer than 4 votes means you can’t appear on the next Era ballot. And if it happens again, you never appear again. Based on votes alone, Schilling was a far more logical choice vs Bonds or Clemens. But, they know neither will get the votes this time and therefore won’t be on the next Contemporary Ballot in 3 years. This is an attempt to end the Clemens/Bonds debate permanently by rushing another no vote.

It also allows them to focus on the other candidates without Schilling syphoning any votes.

Fernando over Orel. Yes, Fernando just died. That’s why he’s here now. Orel had a better statistical career, but Fernando’s legacy is larger and more important than Orel’s. Doesn’t matter, he ain’t a serious candidate this round.

Sheffield. He ain’t getting in this round but this gives the Committee a chance to weigh in on whether they buy Sheff’s long standing PED defense. If he manages 5 votes, that would be surprising but telling as to where the Vets Committee line is. Could also impact Pettitte long term.

Jeff Kent. All-Time HR leader for 2nd baseman. Deserves to be in. Just not as popular as the others on the ballot. Could get votes from any anti-Bonds folks in the room.

Carlos Delgado. Blue Jays get to the World Series. Why not have a candidate? He’s essentially 97% of Fred McGriff. He’ll get in one day, I’ll just be surprised if this year is it.

Don Mattingly and Dale Murphy. Got good support last time. Without Schilling on the ballot I could see one or both get in this year. They, along with Whitaker, are the last three obvious HOF players from the 1980s. Frankly, I really hope they both get in so we can stop talking about their obvious oversight and recognize them while they are still alive. I also think this ballot was constructed in a way to help them get in.

Another plus on Murphy and Mattingly, while people can argue “so and so” is a better candidate, both are two of the most likable players in history and at the very least nearly everyone would be happy for them.

Yes, there are a ton of Contemporary players who are missing, Schilling, Keith Hernandez, Whitaker, Lofton, Evans, Randolph, Garvey, Orel, Gooden, McGwire, Palmiero, Edmonds, Berkman, Stieb, Johan, Damon, Strawberry, and on and on. But they only allow 8 so there will always be guys with HOF arguments not on the ballot. The PED ballot logjam and expansion created ballot issues that are now being felt in the Era Committees, and that has made them way behind in inducting players.

[Retired hobbist]

Originally Posted by jdandns

Fernando only.

There is no way Fernando has a stronger case for induction than Mattingly. They both broke down early but Mattingly didn't drift down to a journeyman until his career was all but over while Valenzuela was putting up journeyman numbers halfway through his career.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

A couple of things…

Overall, I like the ballot. Everyone has a strong HOF argument. We could actually get another two deserving HOFers. The analysis below all goes out the window depending on who is on the Committee.

Bonds and Clemens received fewer than 4 votes last time. Meanwhile Schilling got 7 votes and isn’t on this ballot. Last year, the rules changed where getting fewer than 4 votes means you can’t appear on the next Era ballot. And if it happens again, you never appear again. Based on votes alone, Schilling was a far more logical choice vs Bonds or Clemens. But, they know neither will get the votes this time and therefore won’t be on the next Contemporary Ballot in 3 years. This is an attempt to end the Clemens/Bonds debate permanently by rushing another no vote.

It also allows them to focus on the other candidates without Schilling syphoning any votes.

Fernando over Orel. Yes, Fernando just died. That’s why he’s here now. Orel had a better statistical career, but Fernando’s legacy is larger and more important than Orel’s. Doesn’t matter, he ain’t a serious candidate this round.

Sheffield. He ain’t getting in this round but this gives the Committee a chance to weigh in on whether they buy Sheff’s long standing PED defense. If he manages 5 votes, that would be surprising but telling as to where the Vets Committee line is. Could also impact Pettitte long term.

Jeff Kent. All-Time HR leader for 2nd baseman. Deserves to be in. Just not as popular as the others on the ballot. Could get votes from any anti-Bonds folks in the room.

Carlos Delgado. Blue Jays get to the World Series. Why not have a candidate? He’s essentially 97% of Fred McGriff. He’ll get in one day, I’ll just be surprised if this year is it.

Don Mattingly and Dale Murphy. Got good support last time. Without Schilling on the ballot I could see one or both get in this year. They, along with Whitaker, are the last three obvious HOF players from the 1980s. Frankly, I really hope they both get in so we can stop talking about their obvious oversight and recognize them while they are still alive. I also think this ballot was constructed in a way to help them get in.

Another plus on Murphy and Mattingly, while people can argue “so and so” is a better candidate, both are two of the most likable players in history and at the very least nearly everyone would be happy for them.

Yes, there are a ton of Contemporary players who are missing, Schilling, Keith Hernandez, Whitaker, Lofton, Evans, Randolph, Garvey, Orel, Gooden, McGwire, Palmiero, Edmonds, Berkman, Stieb, Johan, Damon, Strawberry, and on and on. But they only allow 8 so there will always be guys with HOF arguments not on the ballot. The PED ballot logjam and expansion created ballot issues that are now being felt in the Era Committees, and that has made them way behind in inducting players.

This is a good analysis. I think your reasoning is correct on Schilling. Dropping him means Mattingly or Murphy gets in, possibly both. Bonds, Clemens and Sheffield are set up to get no votes, speeding up the process to where they will never be on another ballot. The three new guys will be a test of who has enough support to keep appearing on future ballots (probably Kent and Delgado) and who doesn't (probably Fernando). If Mattingly and Murphy get in, it will set up for Lofton and Whitaker to get their chance.

[tyrith]

Some of those guys mentioned aren't eligible for the era committee yet IIRC; their clock doesnt start on the committee until their 10 years would be done if they were still on the BBWAA ballot.

[VinnyH]

First I'll point out that I'm 70, making me old school.
That being said, Mattingly, Murphy, and Kent would be my picks for this committee.
The Baseball Hall of Fame has been the gold standard for honoring baseball through it's players. It's not the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame where anyone with a big record label gets you in, even if you aren't even a rock star. It really should just be the Music Hall of Fame with the diverse inductees. Joni Mitchell was not a rocker. I digress...
Bonds and Clemens are in my Pete Rose category of players who cheated or defamed baseball with their actions. Rose was the greatest singles hitter ever but he broke a main rule by gambling, which he admitted, after a while. The obvious ped users upset statistics in baseball forever. Hank Aaron was the greatest home run hitter, not Barry Bonds. Not on this ballot but Arod used peds, threw his trainer under the bus, sued MLB, and people treat him like all is fine.
Is the Hall of Fame there to honor baseball and it's players for the best skills and qualities of the game, or who could get a bigger contract through any means?
Oh, so many analogies, with today's climate.
Rant over,
Vinny

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by VinnyH

Bonds and Clemens are in my Pete Rose category of players who cheated or defamed baseball with their actions. Rose was the greatest singles hitter ever but he broke a main rule by gambling, which he admitted, after a while. The obvious ped users upset statistics in baseball forever. Hank Aaron was the greatest home run hitter, not Barry Bonds. Not on this ballot but Arod used peds, threw his trainer under the bus, sued MLB, and people treat him like all is fine.
Is the Hall of Fame there to honor baseball and it's players for the best skills and qualities of the game, or who could get a bigger contract through any means?
Oh, so many analogies, with today's climate.
Rant over,
Vinny

But people paid to see Bonds, Clemens and Rose play -- they were stars of the game. They helped immensely to make the game a success during their playing days. So it's a double edged sword.

[Aribasebal]

I am a lifelong Mattingly growing up in the 80s so I would love to see him in. I know he doesn't have the stats as most HOFs but what he loses in stats he makes up for in integrity and how he played the game and what he meant to the fans. He was not a bum like Clemens or Bonds but rather played the game the right way. The only reason why his career ended the way it did was due to a back issue. It was not his fault he wasn't surrounded by great talent. In addition, the fact that he was one of the greatest defensive first basemen ever with 9 gold gloves should not be overlooked. You also should consider his coaching career as well. He had a very respectable managerial career for the Dodgers and Marlins and was a key coach to the Blue Jays World Series success this year. Nearly all these other candidates once their career was done stepped completely away from baseball. Mattingly has been a baseball lifer whom everybody in the MLB respects. Again I am probably biased but if you're letting guys like Larry Walker and Harold Baines in Mattingly deserves a place as well.

[fabiani12333]

Murphy and Mattingly are what I would describe as the good vibes candidates -- ones with statistically cases that are weak, but older folks still feel should be in the Hall of Fame.

When it comes to the era committees -- who make up only a small number of voters -- it's better to have good vibes than good numbers.

It's all about the vibes, as the kids say these days.

[carlo16]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

But people paid to see Bonds, Clemens and Rose play -- they were stars of the game. They helped immensely to make the game a success during their playing days. So it's a double edged sword.

So I guess the players that didn’t take steroids would be like the small market teams?

Full disclosure. I don’t care about steroids but saying steroid users are good for the game but large vs small market team disparities is not is a little hypocritical?

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by carlo16

So I guess the players that didn’t take steroids would be like the small market teams?

Well, Bonds and Clemens reportedly only started juicing mid-career when steroid use became rampant, and Rose was only reported to have used amphetamines, which were widely used by players during his career, so the analogy doesn't work

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by carlo16

Full disclosure. I don’t care about steroids but saying steroid users are good for the game but large vs small market team disparities is not is a little hypocritical?

Star players were more evenly distributed throughout the game back then -- the game was more popular as well. Specifically, there were a lot more black stars like Bonds and Griffey -- black participation has tanked since then. Neither of them played for the highest payroll team like the Yankees. They were beloved by their local smaller markets, as well as nationally.

[carlo16]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

Well, Bonds and Clemens reportedly only started juicing mid-career when steroid use became rampant, and Rose was only reported to have used amphetamines, which were widely used by players during his career, so the analogy doesn't work

Were non steroid users on and even playing field with steroid users?

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by carlo16

Were non steroid users on and even playing field with steroid users?

Yes, because steroids only enhanced performance of those who used them -- it didn't create a two-tiered league of roiders and clean players. There were middling players who juiced and became good, and there were great players who didn't juice and were still great. An appropriate analogy would be mid-marker teams boosting their payroll while the high payroll teams still outspent them.

Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were still great players regardless of their reported steroid use. They used later in their careers, when players are typically in decline. They used when it had already become commonplace. They were just keeping up with the trends in the game.

[carlo16]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

Yes, because steroids only enhanced performance of those who used them -- it didn't create a two-tiered league of roiders and clean players. There were middling players who juiced and became good, and there were great players who didn't juice and were still great. An appropriate analogy would be mid-marker teams boosting their payroll while the high payroll teams still outspent them.

Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were still great players regardless of their reported steroid use. They used later in their careers, when players are typically in decline. They used when it had already become commonplace. They were just keeping up with the trends in the game.

OoooooooooK. I already have 4 walls in this room. I’ll talk to one of them.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by carlo16

OoooooooooK. I already have 4 walls in this room. I’ll talk to one of them.

So, for you to make an argument that steroid use created a two-tier league, you'd have to identify those who did or didn't use steroids and how it impacted their performance. The main benefits steroid use provides to athletes is increases in strength, stamina and recovery. This translates to more consistent performance on the field day-to-day and better overall numbers. It doesn't suddenly make a slap hitter a slugger. In order to boost power, a player would have to bulk up via dedicated weight lifting and human growth hormone. We saw this with certain players, which is why they were able to break home run records. But the steroids alone did not make them great hitters or give them god-like hitting power. Mark McGwire still hit 49 home runs as a rookie in 1987. Barry Bonds still hit 46 home runs in 1993. Sammy Sosa still hit 33 home runs in 1993.

[TBTC Baseball]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

So, for you to make an argument that steroid use created a two-tier league, you'd have to identify those who did or didn't use steroids and how it impacted their performance. The main benefits steroid use provides to athletes is increases in strength, stamina and recovery. This translates to more consistent performance on the field day-to-day and better overall numbers. It doesn't suddenly make a slap hitter a slugger. In order to boost power, a player would have to bulk up via dedicated weight lifting and human growth hormone. We saw this with certain players, which is why they were able to break home run records. But the steroids alone did not make them great hitters or give them god-like hitting power. Mark McGwire still hit 49 home runs as a rookie in 1987. Barry Bonds still hit 46 home runs in 1993. Sammy Sosa still hit 33 home runs in 1993.

<Luis Gonzalez and Brady Anderson have entered the chat>

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by TBTC Baseball

<Luis Gonzalez and Brady Anderson have entered the chat>

A steroid user can have a freak outlier season, just like non-steroid users.

Davey Johnson hit 43 home runs in 1973 and never hit more than 18 the rest of his 13-season big league career.

Brady Anderson hit 50 home runs in 1996 and never hit more than 24 the rest of his 15-season big league career.

Luis Gonzalez hit 57 home runs in 2001 and never hit more than 31 the rest of his 19-season big league career.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

So, for you to make an argument that steroid use created a two-tier league, you'd have to identify those who did or didn't use steroids and how it impacted their performance. The main benefits steroid use provides to athletes is increases in strength, stamina and recovery. This translates to more consistent performance on the field day-to-day and better overall numbers. It doesn't suddenly make a slap hitter a slugger. In order to boost power, a player would have to bulk up via dedicated weight lifting and human growth hormone. We saw this with certain players, which is why they were able to break home run records. But the steroids alone did not make them great hitters or give them god-like hitting power. Mark McGwire still hit 49 home runs as a rookie in 1987. Barry Bonds still hit 46 home runs in 1993. Sammy Sosa still hit 33 home runs in 1993.

That is because McGwire and Bonds were doping. Sosa hit 33 HRs, then 66 when he was doping. What's your point? Steroids clearly helped these guys put up Hall of Fame numbers when they wouldn't otherwise?

[jdandns]

Despite my personal aversion to cheating, there's no denying that all of the nominated players, especially Bonds and Clemens, and many of the others mentioned in the thread worked very, very hard to perfect their craft, over a long period of decades, sacrificing physically and in terms of time away from family. In that sense, given their sustained excellence, they all merit induction.

In Mattingly's case, he's remained a beloved figure in baseball for 30 years since his playing days, much like Fernando did. Shouldn't that get them both some extra consideration? I'm for all of them, and Hideo Nomo, first Japanese starter to jump to MLB. Rookie of the Year. No-hitter at Coors Field, then another for the Red Sox. Paved the way for not only Darvish, Ohtani, and Yamamoto, but all that followed, including Ichiro. That's lore the Hall of Fame needs. Not everything has to be 3000 hits, 500 homers, 300 wins.

You know what?
All of them fellas are in my own personal Hall of Fame.
Yeah. I'm gonna make a little building.

[ottobord]

Mattingly is my man but I can't honestly say by my standards he deserves it. I hope he can manage again and win one so it could be justified. Kind of like Torre. AS for the rest obviously Bonds and Clemens are just there to tease everyone. I can make a case for Kent. But I'm a small Hall guy so it's a no for me.

[duwal]

Bonds, Clemens, Kent. Done

[TBTC Baseball]

Originally Posted by jdandns

You know what?
All of them fellas are in my own personal Hall of Fame.
Yeah. I'm gonna make a little building.