2026 Hall of Fame Ballot officially released!!

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by 49ersSF

I definitely would not say an open and shut case. That would be reserved for the absolute legends of the game.

Andruw Jones's case is highly debatable. While his defense is of HoF quality, it is the offense and length of career that put him in a questionable category. His career really comes down to 9 seasons. Outside those 9 seasons, he is a below-average player, hitting just .215, and many of those seasons, he was not the fielder he once was.

From 1998 to 2006, he was great on both ends. He hit .270 and averaged 35 home runs. He had a gold glove each season. The downside, he only finished once in the top 7 of the MVP vote. In the other 8 seasons of his career he had a total of 8.1 WAR, hit .215, and averaged 14 home runs. He managed 1 gold glove, which was more of a gift.

His career comes down to whether those 9 seasons are worthy of entry. I tend to think he is more hall of very good, but I wouldn't be too bothered if he got in. I do think there are many better players than Andruw not currently in the Hall of Fame which is one reason that sticks out as to why he should not get in at this point.

The vast majority of HoF have a 9 year peak and several down years. To single out Jones is unfair. Look at the whole body of work. It's smack dab in the middle of HoF standards. Not a first ballot guy, but not an eras committee selection. Right where he should be, getting in this year.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I used open and shut to his going in this year. Not that he is a first ballot HoF. Just that he will get in.

You said open and shut to you. And that's completely fair. Frankly, he's open and shut to me too.

In this case, I agree with both you and 49ers. Jones is not open and shut in the way Ruth, Mays, and Mantle are but he's clearly over the Hall of Fame line.

[jduds]

Originally Posted by corockies

Where's all the Chase Utley love? He was probably the best 2nd baseman for a good 10 year stretch. His career #s aren't upper echelon, but they are solid for the position.

He was the top 2B for maybe a 6-7 year stretch, and Pedroia provided some very strong competition in some of those years. I think he gets in eventually (trending that way), but with guys like Lou Whitaker and Jeff Kent on the outside looking in, it's not like he's a slam dunk. His overall stats are on the borderline, but his peak is strong enough to get in. I just think it takes a few more years to make it with only having under 40% of the vote last year. 2030 is a weak ballot, and I'd bet on that being his year rather than a massive jump this year.

[Handsome Wes]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I mean, while that isn't exactly accurate, he was the best defensive centerfielder in history. So if his case actually does come down to defense, it's a pretty compelling case. Throw in more than 400 HR and it's an open and shut case to me.

The problem with referring to Jones as the "best defensive centerfielder in history" is that it relies so much on unreliable advanced stats. Right now, the best two are basically him and Kevin Kiermaier.

Was he a great centerfielder? Sure! Can we attribute some of his greatness to playing behind pitchers such as Maddux, Smoltz, and Glavine? Probably as well!

All that to say, I'm largely of the "who cares anymore" stance towards the Hall of Fame. Put him in, who cares, the sun will still rise. I'll add a few more cards to my Hall of Fame album, update my database, and move on with my life.

[erock28]

I don't get the "Andruw Jones is a shoo-in" group. Don't get me wrong, he wouldn't diminish the Hall (Harold Baines took care of that for all modern era unworthy players), but what are you seeing that I don't see? He was an elite defender with a slightly better than average bat. A 111 OPS+ as a power first outfielder is arguably worse than average for the position. How in the hell is he gathering 65%+ of votes and knocking on the door while Jim Edmonds received a paltry 2.5% and never even saw a second ballot?!?! Edmonds too was an elite defender (8 GG to Jones' 10), but also added a 132 OPS+. Off the field, Jones had a DV arrest. Character issues are supposed to matter - yet he's very possibly going to get elected while Edmonds never had a chance?

This is a ballot where no one should get in - unless they want to finally let the A list roids guys in. A Bonds/Clemens/A-Rod grouping would be sensational. If Beltran's cheating a$$ gets in before those guys...baseball really needs to evaluate it's voting process.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by erock28

I don't get the "Andruw Jones is a shoo-in" group. Don't get me wrong, he wouldn't diminish the Hall (Harold Baines took care of that for all modern era unworthy players), but what are you seeing that I don't see? He was an elite defender with a slightly better than average bat. A 111 OPS+ as a power first outfielder is arguably worse than average for the position. How in the hell is he gathering 65%+ of votes and knocking on the door while Jim Edmonds received a paltry 2.5% and never even saw a second ballot?!?! Edmonds too was an elite defender (8 GG to Jones' 10), but also added a 132 OPS+. Off the field, Jones had a DV arrest. Character issues are supposed to matter - yet he's very possibly going to get elected while Edmonds never had a chance?

This is a ballot where no one should get in - unless they want to finally let the A list roids guys in. A Bonds/Clemens/A-Rod grouping would be sensational. If Beltran's cheating a$$ gets in before those guys...baseball really needs to evaluate it's voting process.

Brooks Robinson had a 105 OPS+
Ozzie Smith had a 87 OPS+

There's plenty of precedent for a stud defender with a 111 OPS+ to be in the HOF.

And FWIW, Edmonds belongs in as well, as does Dwight Evans.

[TBTC Baseball]

Originally Posted by erock28

Character issues are supposed to matter - yet he's very possibly going to get elected while Edmonds never had a chance?

Anyone else laugh at this?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by erock28

I don't get the "Andruw Jones is a shoo-in" group. Don't get me wrong, he wouldn't diminish the Hall (Harold Baines took care of that for all modern era unworthy players), but what are you seeing that I don't see? He was an elite defender with a slightly better than average bat. A 111 OPS+ as a power first outfielder is arguably worse than average for the position. How in the hell is he gathering 65%+ of votes and knocking on the door while Jim Edmonds received a paltry 2.5% and never even saw a second ballot?!?! Edmonds too was an elite defender (8 GG to Jones' 10), but also added a 132 OPS+. Off the field, Jones had a DV arrest. Character issues are supposed to matter - yet he's very possibly going to get elected while Edmonds never had a chance?

This is a ballot where no one should get in - unless they want to finally let the A list roids guys in. A Bonds/Clemens/A-Rod grouping would be sensational. If Beltran's cheating a$$ gets in before those guys...baseball really needs to evaluate it's voting process.

Edmunds should get in and I believe will eventually. That doens't mean Jones shouldn't.

[erock28]

Originally Posted by TBTC Baseball

Anyone else laugh at this?

I suppose I should have clarified his infidelity came years after he was eligible for the Hall, i.e. already off the ballot. Fair enough to call me out for how I wrote it though

[49ersSF]

Looking at the peaks...

Jim Edmunds 1995-2005 (8 Gold Gloves - 2 top 5 MVP finishes

5207 AB 326 HR .293 BA/.388 OBA/.942 OPS
-----
Andruw Jones 1998-2006 (9 Gold Gloves - 1 top 5 MVP finish)

5331 AB 319 HR .270 BA/.347 OBA/.860 OPS

Given that Jones career numbers drop heavily, I concentrated only on the peak, so you got the best of his career. The issue is that it is debatable whether he was even better than Jim Edmunds during his peak. The fact Edmunds received just 2.5% of the HoF vote his only time on the ballot makes it tough for me to see how Jones should be a clear case for the HoF.

[erock28]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Edmunds should get in and I believe will eventually. That doens't mean Jones shouldn't.

My whole point though was to say those two should have been in lockstep as their careers were so similar. I'm not a huge Jones for the Hall guy, but I could understand his inclusion - it wouldn't be a disservice to the Hall. Same for Edmonds. But one is inching towards being inducted by the writers while the other gets 12 total votes and sees only one ballot? Makes no sense.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by hammertime

I guess we're all going to ignore Jones' domestic violence conviction which has undoubtedly affected his candidacy?

And this is clearly why he hasn't gotten voted in yet -- his vote totals have only gone up incrementally the last three years, while others like Beltran have shot up:

Andruw Jones:
2025: 66.2% (8th year)
2024: 61.6%
2023: 58.1%

Carlos Beltran:
2025: 70.3% (3rd year)
2024: 57.1%
2023: 46.5%

[erock28]

Originally Posted by mfw13

Brooks Robinson had a 105 OPS+
Ozzie Smith had a 87 OPS+

There's plenty of precedent for a stud defender with a 111 OPS+ to be in the HOF.

And FWIW, Edmonds belongs in as well, as does Dwight Evans.

Dewey is the biggest 70s-90s snub IMO, followed by Whitaker. I don't think Jones or Edmonds belong in before him...but if they do get inducted Dewey better not be far behind.

I'd argue your Brooks/Ozzie based on those two were almost unarguably the best two defenders - ever - at any position. dWar backs that up. Ozzie obviously wasn't a great hitter, and his OPS+ reflects that, but he did steal nearly 600 bases which helped get his WAR over 75 - significantly higher than Jones. Robinson too was a "meh" hitter, but was steady enough to compile 2800+ hits and finished top 7 of the MVP race 6 times with one win. Jones was top 7 once with no wins.

While Jones career dWar number ranks him 22nd all time, which is outstanding, it is right by another guy with similar offensive value numbers in Buddy Bell. I don't think too many people are championing Buddy Bell for the Hall, but his 66.3 bWar/23.8 dWar/109 OPS+ are eerily similar to Jones' 62.7/24.4/111.

[erock28]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

And this is clearly why he hasn't gotten voted in yet -- his vote totals have only gone up incrementally the last three years, while others like Beltran have shot up:

Andruw Jones:
2025: 66.2% (8th year)
2024: 61.6%
2023: 58.1%

Carlos Beltran:
2025: 70.3% (3rd year)
2024: 57.1%
2023: 46.5%

Not to inject the steroid conversation in here - pun intended - but if they elect that cheat Beltran while the roid boys rot on the sidelines, I'd be completely done with the current process. I've thought it to be a joke for the better part of 10-15 years, but that would be the final straw. So you have a PED epidemic in which likely hundreds of players were using...you want to punish them and keep them out of the Hall for cheating? Fine. But if a player devises a creative off the field way to steal signs...that's okay? To hell with that. Cheating is cheating. Cost him the Mets job, should also cost him the Hall until the roid boys get in. Bonds, Clemens and A-Rod are three of the greatest to ever play the game. Beltran isn't even close to their league.

[Handsome Wes]

Originally Posted by erock28

My whole point though was to say those two should have been in lockstep as their careers were so similar. I'm not a huge Jones for the Hall guy, but I could understand his inclusion - it wouldn't be a disservice to the Hall. Same for Edmonds. But one is inching towards being inducted by the writers while the other gets 12 total votes and sees only one ballot? Makes no sense.

To quote "Into the Spider-Verse": "All right, people, let's do this one last time."

It makes sense if you remember that the Hall had the stupid rule that said you could only vote for a maximum of ten players.

Jim Edmonds debuted on a ballot that featured twelve Hall of Famers (not counting Schilling / Clemens / Bonds).

For what it's worth, Kenny Lofton was on a ballot with ten (plus the aforementioned three, and also Don Mattingly and Dale Murphy, who might be inducted soon). Same with Johan Santana, and Lance Berkman was on there with nine (I think).

Not saying that all four are Hall of Famers, but all four definitely deserved to have their candidacies debated for longer than zero days.....

[erock28]

Originally Posted by Handsome Wes

To quote "Into the Spider-Verse": "All right, people, let's do this one last time."

It makes sense if you remember that the Hall had the stupid rule that said you could only vote for a maximum of ten players.

Jim Edmonds debuted on a ballot that featured twelve Hall of Famers (not counting Schilling / Clemens / Bonds).

For what it's worth, Kenny Lofton was on a ballot with ten (plus the aforementioned three, and also Don Mattingly and Dale Murphy, who might be inducted soon). Same with Johan Santana, and Lance Berkman was on there with nine (I think).

Not saying that all four are Hall of Famers, but all four definitely deserved to have their candidacies debated for longer than zero days.....

I'm well aware of the 10 max rule, and also the stacked years. The larger classes of late/PED guys falling off have certainly cleared a backlog. But 11 votes/1 shot compared to where Jones is today is mindboggling given their similarities. If anything, I guess I would ask why the hell has Jones gone up so much? Just because there aren't as many clear cut guys doesn't mean his career got that much better.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by erock28

I don't get the "Andruw Jones is a shoo-in" group. Don't get me wrong, he wouldn't diminish the Hall (Harold Baines took care of that for all modern era unworthy players), but what are you seeing that I don't see? He was an elite defender with a slightly better than average bat. A 111 OPS+ as a power first outfielder is arguably worse than average for the position. How in the hell is he gathering 65%+ of votes and knocking on the door while Jim Edmonds received a paltry 2.5% and never even saw a second ballot?!?! Edmonds too was an elite defender (8 GG to Jones' 10), but also added a 132 OPS+. Off the field, Jones had a DV arrest. Character issues are supposed to matter - yet he's very possibly going to get elected while Edmonds never had a chance?

This is a ballot where no one should get in - unless they want to finally let the A list roids guys in. A Bonds/Clemens/A-Rod grouping would be sensational. If Beltran's cheating a$$ gets in before those guys...baseball really needs to evaluate it's voting process.

Jim Edmonds has a Total Zone Rating of 83. Dwight Evans has a Total Zone Rating of 82. Kevin Kiermaier has a Total Zone Rating of 71. Andruw Jones has a Total Zone Rating of 254. That is more than Ozzie Smith or anyone not named Brooks Robinson. Their defense is not comparable. Jones should have been in long ago on his defense alone (like 1st ballot Ozzie Smith). His 434 HRs make his ommission even more puzzling. How someone can vote for CC Sabathia and not Andruw Jones is ridiculous.

Edmonds and Evans are well within the realm of HOF standards, but their case is not as clear as they were very good offensively and defensively, but great at neither.

I would vote for Jones, Beltran, Utley and Francisco Rodriguez. A Reliever with an ERA+ of 148 and 437 saves belongs if you are putting in Lee Smith ERA + 132, Bruce Sutter ERA + 136 and Rollie Fingers ERA + 120.

[erock28]

Originally Posted by rats60

Jim Edmonds has a Total Zone Rating of 83. Dwight Evans has a Total Zone Rating of 82. Kevin Kiermaier has a Total Zone Rating of 71. Andruw Jones has a Total Zone Rating of 254. That is more than Ozzie Smith or anyone not named Brooks Robinson. Their defense is not comparable. Jones should have been in long ago on his defense alone (like 1st ballot Ozzie Smith). His 434 HRs make his ommission even more puzzling. How someone can vote for CC Sabathia and not Andruw Jones is ridiculous.

Edmonds and Evans are well within the realm of HOF standards, but their case is not as clear as they were very good offensively and defensively, but great at neither.

I would vote for Jones, Beltran, Utley and Francisco Rodriguez. A Reliever with an ERA+ of 148 and 437 saves belongs if you are putting in Lee Smith ERA + 132, Bruce Sutter ERA + 136 and Rollie Fingers ERA + 120.

I'll be the first to admit I don't fawn over the new generation stats, and would have to dig into all the variables of TZR...which I'm entirely too lazy to do. That said, WAR is accepted as a very solid approximation of overall value. Is it a be all/end all stat? No. But it does a fairly accurate job of grouping players. Miguel Cabrera was hands down one of the best hitters the first quarter century, but a complete hack in the field. Career WAR just above Jones, 67 to 62. If TZR is the best stat out there, then clearly there is a disconnect between it and dWAR. Why would Jones have ~60% the career dWAR of Smith and Robinson but be in their grouping of TZR? Saving more runs by robbing XBHs? Point is, back to Edmonds vs. Jones vs. Evans, they're all in a similar overall WAR bucket. You mentioned and I wholly agree - Evans and Edmonds were very good at both. Said great at neither which I'd argue based on GGs and the eye test. But if Jones is truly great at D - like all-time great - then his offense/base running must be worse than surface levels would suggest to pull his WAR back to the Evans/Edmunds level. And while I value defense as much as anyone - I love how the Brewers are constructed with defense being a huge MO - any player can impact a game far more offensively than with the glove.

[Noles939913]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

You said open and shut to you. And that's completely fair. Frankly, he's open and shut to me too.

In this case, I agree with both you and 49ers. Jones is not open and shut in the way Ruth, Mays, and Mantle are but he's clearly over the Hall of Fame line.

Am I wrong that Jones would already be in if not for the character clause?

[JustinVerlander07]

Originally Posted by 49ersSF

Johan Santana would get elected if on this ballot. Instead, he gets 2% of the voted and is one and done.

No he wouldn't. He pitched from 2002 to basically 2010 (he had 117 innings in 2012, but nothing in 2011 and nothing after 2012). He was a great pitcher, not enough body of work and a very short peak (which was terrific)

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by erock28

I'll be the first to admit I don't fawn over the new generation stats, and would have to dig into all the variables of TZR...which I'm entirely too lazy to do. That said, WAR is accepted as a very solid approximation of overall value. Is it a be all/end all stat? No. But it does a fairly accurate job of grouping players. Miguel Cabrera was hands down one of the best hitters the first quarter century, but a complete hack in the field. Career WAR just above Jones, 67 to 62. If TZR is the best stat out there, then clearly there is a disconnect between it and dWAR. Why would Jones have ~60% the career dWAR of Smith and Robinson but be in their grouping of TZR? Saving more runs by robbing XBHs? Point is, back to Edmonds vs. Jones vs. Evans, they're all in a similar overall WAR bucket. You mentioned and I wholly agree - Evans and Edmonds were very good at both. Said great at neither which I'd argue based on GGs and the eye test. But if Jones is truly great at D - like all-time great - then his offense/base running must be worse than surface levels would suggest to pull his WAR back to the Evans/Edmunds level. And while I value defense as much as anyone - I love how the Brewers are constructed with defense being a huge MO - any player can impact a game far more offensively than with the glove.

For what it’s worth, dWAR isn’t actually WAR. Also, the creator of WAR even disavows it.

[49ersSF]

Originally Posted by JustinVerlander07

No he wouldn't. He pitched from 2002 to basically 2010 (he had 117 innings in 2012, but nothing in 2011 and nothing after 2012). He was a great pitcher, not enough body of work and a very short peak (which was terrific)

Andruw Jones had essentially 9 years. The rest of his career he hit .215 and was not anything remotely like the defensive player he was. He's received 60% of the HoF vote.

Johan had 9 years as well. He was injured at 31 and was forced to retire by age 33 after missing a full season and attempting a comeback.

I do not see much difference in the career length of these two. On the otherhand, Johan Santana was a multiple time Cy Young winner while finishing in the top 5 five times. He was one of the most dominant pitchers of his era doing so while facing batters during the peak PED era. I'd say his contribution to the game outweighs that of Jones.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by erock28

I'm well aware of the 10 max rule, and also the stacked years. The larger classes of late/PED guys falling off have certainly cleared a backlog. But 11 votes/1 shot compared to where Jones is today is mindboggling given their similarities. If anything, I guess I would ask why the hell has Jones gone up so much? Just because there aren't as many clear cut guys doesn't mean his career got that much better.

I think it can be argued the 90s era of MLB was historically stacked with talent: https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/pag...seball-history

Regardless of the prevalence of PED use in the game at the time, the amount of elite talent in the game during that time made the 10-vote rule for HoF voters insufficient in being able to sufficiently recognize all the players from that era who were deserving of Hall of Fame consideration.

Players like Jim Edmonds, Kenny Lofton and Andruw Jones got lost in the crowd of great players.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by 49ersSF

Andruw Jones had essentially 9 years. The rest of his career he hit .215 and was not anything remotely like the defensive player he was. He's received 60% of the HoF vote.

Johan had 9 years as well. He was injured at 31 and was forced to retire by age 33 after missing a full season and attempting a comeback.

I do not see much difference in the career length of these two. On the otherhand, Johan Santana was a multiple time Cy Young winner while finishing in the top 5 five times. He was one of the most dominant pitchers of his era doing so while facing batters during the peak PED era. I'd say his contribution to the game outweighs that of Jones.

Jones was much more durable than Santana. Jones had 10 seasons of 150+ games started, while Santana only had 5 seasons of 30+ games started.

[blackvodka]

For me personally the hold up on Jones is his production fell off a cliff. In 05 he easily could have won MVP but that was Pujols time. In 07 he had an OK season then woof; he was pretty bad.

Sent from my motorola razr 2024 using Tapatalk