8 Players on Contemporary Era HOF ballot announced.

[Handsome Wes]

I will admit that I was wrong when I suggested that I thought both the ballot - and the committee - were designed to put both Murphy and Mattingly into the Hall of Fame.

The results, though, indicate that the process is even more of a joke.

For Carlos Delgado to receive more votes than both Murphy and Mattingly is mind-boggling. Delgado only went to two All-Star games and only received top five MVP votes twice in his career.

Dale Murphy has as many MVP awards as Delgado has All Star Games!

And it's not like Delgado has a vastly superior WAR either - 44.4 (avg. 3.5 per year) compared to 42.4 / 3.8 for Mattingly and 46.5 / 3.5 for Murphy.

Delgado - fine career and all - but he got 3.8% of the vote on his lone appearance on the ballot back in 2015, and absolutely no one -- no one! -- in the ten years since then has said "you know who really got jobbed on the HOF vote? Carlos Delgado."

And yet he just leapfrogged both Mattingly and Murphy in terms of votes!

It suggests to me that voters took his top-line numbers: 473 home runs, .929 OPS, and jotted his name down, because yes, it is superior to Don & Dale. But that ignores the fact that DM & DM played in an era bereft of offense, and Delgado did not.

The HOF committee was supposed to give extra examination to a particular era. Instead, they lumped a bunch of candidates from multiple eras into one group -- and then had voters *who weren't even from any of these eras* decide on who got in.

Like I said, it is a total joke.

There is not one baseball fan who looks at the Hall of Fame and says "yep, they got it right."

And you can talk about cheaters and scoundrels and such, but come on, all of that is selective outrage.

[Handsome Wes]

Originally Posted by erock28

He benefited from being able to play at a fairly high level until he was 40.

Yeah, it's really the "Hall of Good Players Who Kept Themselves in Fine Shape in Their Mid-to-Late 30s" than a "Hall of Fame."

[Tom Oates]

Originally Posted by JustinVerlander07

If the HOF doesn't want steroid users in, why did they vote David Ortiz first ballot? Why did Pudge Rodriguez walk right in? All the guys who played back in the day using PEDs, why is that ok?

You forgot Bagwell

[JRX]

Originally Posted by Handsome Wes

Yeah, it's really the "Hall of Good Players Who Kept Themselves in Fine Shape in Their Mid-to-Late 30s" than a "Hall of Fame."

Unless the writers have a strong affinity for someone like Koufax etc

[JustinVerlander07]

Originally Posted by Handsome Wes

I will admit that I was wrong when I suggested that I thought both the ballot - and the committee - were designed to put both Murphy and Mattingly into the Hall of Fame.

The results, though, indicate that the process is even more of a joke.

For Carlos Delgado to receive more votes than both Murphy and Mattingly is mind-boggling. Delgado only went to two All-Star games and only received top five MVP votes twice in his career.

Dale Murphy has as many MVP awards as Delgado has All Star Games!

And it's not like Delgado has a vastly superior WAR either - 44.4 (avg. 3.5 per year) compared to 42.4 / 3.8 for Mattingly and 46.5 / 3.5 for Murphy.

Delgado - fine career and all - but he got 3.8% of the vote on his lone appearance on the ballot back in 2015, and absolutely no one -- no one! -- in the ten years since then has said "you know who really got jobbed on the HOF vote? Carlos Delgado."

And yet he just leapfrogged both Mattingly and Murphy in terms of votes!

It suggests to me that voters took his top-line numbers: 473 home runs, .929 OPS, and jotted his name down, because yes, it is superior to Don & Dale. But that ignores the fact that DM & DM played in an era bereft of offense, and Delgado did not.

The HOF committee was supposed to give extra examination to a particular era. Instead, they lumped a bunch of candidates from multiple eras into one group -- and then had voters *who weren't even from any of these eras* decide on who got in.

Like I said, it is a total joke.

There is not one baseball fan who looks at the Hall of Fame and says "yep, they got it right."

And you can talk about cheaters and scoundrels and such, but come on, all of that is selective outrage.

When you're putting in guys like Harold Baines, Jack Morris, Fred McGriff etc you know the process isn't working.

[49ersSF]

Originally Posted by Hootiefish

Steroid discussion notwithstanding (because none of us will ever get an answer that we are satisfied with), in what world is Jeff Kent a Hall of Famer but Dale Murphy, Don Mattingly and Lou Whitaker are not?

Murphy and Mattingly obviously didn't get in on this ballot. Whitaker (somehow) fell short a few years ago. Here are Kent's metrics when compared to the other three:

Kent: .290/.356/.500, 123 OPS+, 55.4 WAR; MVP, 4x Silver Slugger, 5x All Star

Whitaker: .276/.363/.426, 117 OPS+, 75.1 WAR; ROY, 4x Silver Slugger, 5x All Star, 3x Gold Glove

Murphy: .265/.346/.469, 121 OPS+, 46.5 WAR; 2x MVP, 4x Silver Slugger, 7x All Star, 5x Gold Glove

Mattingly: .307/.358/.471, 127 OPS+; MVP, 3x Silver Slugger, 6x All Star, 9x Gold Glove, Batting Title

Murphy and Mattingly both compare more favorably to their respective contemporaries than Kent does. Whitaker blows Kent away in terms of career WAR. None of them have the baggage (personality wise nor the Bonds-sized shadow) that Kent has.

Not saying all of these players deserve to be in the HOF. Maybe none of them do. Just saying they all have a better case than Jeff Kent.

Jeff Kent (compared historically all-time to other 2nd basemen)

Career HR - 1st
Career RBI - 3rd (close behind Nap Lajoie and Rogers Hornsby)
Career SLG - 2nd (Rogers Hornsby #1)
Career OPS - 4th (Behind Hornsby, Jackie, Gehringer)

Mattingly (compared historically all-time to other 1st basemen)

Career HR - 71st
Career BA - 41st
Career RBI - 55th
Career SLG - 97th
Career OPS - 91st

Murphy

Career HR - 9th
Career RBI - 15th
Career SLG - 41st
Career OPS - 60th

Mattingly should be off the ballot. Dale Murphy should be more closely considered on the next ballot. Jeff Kent is an obvious Hall of Famer.

[erock28]

Originally Posted by 49ersSF

Jeff Kent (compared historically all-time to other 2nd basemen)

Career HR - 1st
Career RBI - 3rd (close behind Nap Lajoie and Rogers Hornsby)
Career SLG - 2nd (Rogers Hornsby #1)
Career OPS - 4th (Behind Hornsby, Jackie, Gehringer)

Mattingly (compared historically all-time to other 1st basemen)

Career HR - 71st
Career BA - 41st
Career RBI - 55th
Career SLG - 97th
Career OPS - 91st

Murphy

Career HR - 9th
Career RBI - 15th
Career SLG - 41st
Career OPS - 60th

Mattingly should be off the ballot. Dale Murphy should be more closely considered on the next ballot. Jeff Kent is an obvious Hall of Famer.

Obvious? I don't know about that. In year 2025 with who we've seen enter the Hall the last 10-15 years? Kent makes a lot of sense. To say that Mattingly should be off the ballot based off career stats only, and ignoring his tremendous peak is taking too narrowed of a view. Mattingly was arguably the best player in baseball for a 4-year stretch (84-87). MVP, MVP runner-up, top 7 both other years. Three gold gloves. A batting title, RBI title, two-time hits champ, three-time doubles champ, OPS+ of 155ish, average WAR of just under 6.5. His back injury in 1987 completely sapped his power and took away his longevity. It's impossible to figure out "what could have been" if he hadn't decided to clubhouse wrestle with Bob Shirley...but we do know for a 4 year stretch he was elite. Kent was good to very good his entire career, and was able to play to 40. Mattingly was the best in the game for four seasons, then good for a few before retiring at 34. The older I've gotten the more of a 'Big Hall' guy I've become...and I see room for Kent in it. But there's also room for Donny Baseball.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by 49ersSF

Mattingly (compared historically all-time to other 1st basemen)

Career HR - 71st
Career BA - 41st
Career RBI - 55th
Career SLG - 97th
Career OPS - 91st

You're completely ignoring Mattingly's defense....he won 9 Gold Gloves.

[Mephisto]

Originally Posted by hxcmilkshake

Oh this thread.

Paul Molitor was injured for most of the 80s. So when he got to be full time DH he played more and put up great #s. Its not that big of a mystery.

Or will someone now say he used steroids to stay healthy.


Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

He also started hitting on the faster moving Astro turf the last 1/3 of his career. His splits those seasons show his home batting average definitely helped pull his numbers up.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by jdandns

Another Califiornia kid makes good.
Congrats to Jeff Kent.
I wonder if he'll wear a Giants hat or choose to go in with a blank one like Maddux, Mussina, Halladay, and McGriff did.

He already said the Giants. He credits Dusty for making him a Hall of Famer.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by erock28

Obvious? I don't know about that. In year 2025 with who we've seen enter the Hall the last 10-15 years? Kent makes a lot of sense. To say that Mattingly should be off the ballot based off career stats only, and ignoring his tremendous peak is taking too narrowed of a view. Mattingly was arguably the best player in baseball for a 4-year stretch (84-87). MVP, MVP runner-up, top 7 both other years. Three gold gloves. A batting title, RBI title, two-time hits champ, three-time doubles champ, OPS+ of 155ish, average WAR of just under 6.5. His back injury in 1987 completely sapped his power and took away his longevity. It's impossible to figure out "what could have been" if he hadn't decided to clubhouse wrestle with Bob Shirley...but we do know for a 4 year stretch he was elite. Kent was good to very good his entire career, and was able to play to 40. Mattingly was the best in the game for four seasons, then good for a few before retiring at 34. The older I've gotten the more of a 'Big Hall' guy I've become...and I see room for Kent in it. But there's also room for Donny Baseball.

Exactly. Murphy was the best player in baseball and handed the torch to Mattingly. Neither’s Hall of Fame case is about career totals, it’s about peak.

Though for Murphy, his career totals would have been fine if not for the Steroid Era. He retired with the 27th most HRs in history. That’s 100+ years to get 27 players with 398+ HRs. Since 1989 we’ve had 27 more do it. That’s 36 years to do what took over 100 years previously.

[49ersSF]

Originally Posted by erock28

Obvious? I don't know about that. In year 2025 with who we've seen enter the Hall the last 10-15 years? Kent makes a lot of sense. To say that Mattingly should be off the ballot based off career stats only, and ignoring his tremendous peak is taking too narrowed of a view. Mattingly was arguably the best player in baseball for a 4-year stretch (84-87). MVP, MVP runner-up, top 7 both other years. Three gold gloves. A batting title, RBI title, two-time hits champ, three-time doubles champ, OPS+ of 155ish, average WAR of just under 6.5. His back injury in 1987 completely sapped his power and took away his longevity. It's impossible to figure out "what could have been" if he hadn't decided to clubhouse wrestle with Bob Shirley...but we do know for a 4 year stretch he was elite. Kent was good to very good his entire career, and was able to play to 40. Mattingly was the best in the game for four seasons, then good for a few before retiring at 34. The older I've gotten the more of a 'Big Hall' guy I've become...and I see room for Kent in it. But there's also room for Donny Baseball.

Mattingly had a great stretch. For 4 years, he was one of the top players in the game without a doubt. I should say that I do believe Donnie Baseball should have always been up for legit consideration, but I do believe at this point that it's pretty clear he does not quite cut it for Hall of Fame entry.

I am not one who thinks you need a lengthy career to be in the Hall of Fame. Players who have tremendous peaks should be considered more closely. I do think Mattingly was given that extra consideration. Someone like Will Clark, whose career numbers are better than Mattingly's, was off the ballot in one single year, while Mattingly continues to get a chance simply based on his peak.

When you look at how Mattingly compares to others at his position historically, it shows that he is more of a middle-of-the-pack guy. Whereas Kent is in the all-time leader in career home runs, and in the top 4 in RBI's, SLG, and OPS. When your name is ahead or on the same level as Rogers Hornsby, Jackie Robinson, and Nap Lajoie, it means you are really special at that position. As far as peaks go, Jeff Kent's peak (1997-2005) might be the greatest offensive peak in the history of the game for second basemen.

[erock28]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

Exactly. Murphy was the best player in baseball and handed the torch to Mattingly. Neither’s Hall of Fame case is about career totals, it’s about peak.

Though for Murphy, his career totals would have been fine if not for the Steroid Era. He retired with the 27th most HRs in history. That’s 100+ years to get 27 players with 398+ HRs. Since 1989 we’ve had 27 more do it. That’s 36 years to do what took over 100 years previously.

I didn't add Murph only because I could've written basically the same paragraph about him, lol. And with a pitchers touch, same for Santana. Only ding on Murphy is his career altering injury was at the backend of his prime - age 33 I think. But if he didn't have the knee issues and subsequent problems, no doubt he soars past 450 home runs and maybe approaches 500. He was effectively done at 35 - if he could've aged semi-gracefully to 38 maybe it would have been a different story when he was on the ballot. Regardless, his peak absolutely should put him in the Hall given the names that have gotten in the last 15 years.

[erock28]

Originally Posted by 49ersSF

Mattingly had a great stretch. For 4 years, he was one of the top players in the game without a doubt. I should say that I do believe Donnie Baseball should have always been up for legit consideration, but I do believe at this point that it's pretty clear he does not quite cut it for Hall of Fame entry.

I am not one who thinks you need a lengthy career to be in the Hall of Fame. Players who have tremendous peaks should be considered more closely. I do think Mattingly was given that extra consideration. Someone like Will Clark, whose career numbers are better than Mattingly's, was off the ballot in one single year, while Mattingly continues to get a chance simply based on his peak.

When you look at how Mattingly compares to others at his position historically, it shows that he is more of a middle-of-the-pack guy. Whereas Kent is in the all-time leader in career home runs, and in the top 4 in RBI's, SLG, and OPS. When your name is ahead or on the same level as Rogers Hornsby, Jackie Robinson, and Nap Lajoie, it means you are really special at that position. As far as peaks go, Jeff Kent's peak (1997-2005) might be the greatest offensive peak in the history of the game for second basemen.

I don't overly argue against Kent, he was easily the best offensive basemen of the modern era, arguably ever. If I'm a small Hall guy I say no way, but given the trend to increase inclusion, he belongs for sure. You're absolutely right about Will Clark - he was more an example of an "always good, sometimes very good" player for 15 years. He was dumped from the ballot because he wasn't elite, whereas Mattingly was VERY elite. Peak isn't given enough weight IMO. Mattingly and Murph are 80's examples, but Santana getting zero due is what really flipped me on this discussion. To not put the best pitcher in the game for a 5-year stretch, during the Roids era no less, in the Hall is crazy. Being elite for half a decade should trump being good/very good for 15 years, assuming the elite player has a few other good/very good years next to it.

[Handsome Wes]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

Though for Murphy, his career totals would have been fine if not for the Steroid Era. He retired with the 27th most HRs in history. That’s 100+ years to get 27 players with 398+ HRs. Since 1989 we’ve had 27 more do it. That’s 36 years to do what took over 100 years previously.

And it would have been great if a committee whose purpose was to evaluate players of specific eras had A) committee members familiar with that era and B) candidates from one specific era as opposed to multiple ones

[theshowandme]

[carlo16]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

Strange wording to lump greenies and steroids together and mention a 20 year span.

[JRX]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

Trump is more likely to be the democrat nominee in 2028 than that ever happening lol

[mfw13]

Or for the HOF to explain why Bud Selig is in the HOF when he and his fellow owners tacitly condoned PED usage because of all the extra revenue that Sosa/McGwire/Bonds/ARod were bringing in via all their home runs.

It's total hypocrisy, and is robbing the HOF of what little credibility it has left.

[49ersSF]

Originally Posted by erock28

Santana getting zero due is what really flipped me on this discussion. To not put the best pitcher in the game for a 5-year stretch, during the Roids era no less, in the Hall is crazy. Being elite for half a decade should trump being good/very good for 15 years, assuming the elite player has a few other good/very good years next to it.

You get no argument from me about Santana. His stretch was nearly 9 years, though. Out of those 9 years, he won the Cy Young twice and was literally robbed of it in 2005, which should have made 3. He was in the top 7 in voting 6 straight years. His career ended while he was still one of the top pitchers due to injury at the age of 31. He attempted a comeback, but another shoulder iunjury ended his career.

Santana is a great example of a guy whose 9-year peak should be enough for the Hall of Fame. Yet, no mention at all as people continue to ignore him while they pine for Mattingly, Rose, and the steroid guys. Even Dale Murphy was ignored for the most part until this recent vote.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

Happy they elected someone. Happy for Jeff Kent. He definitely deserves to be in Cooperstown. Disappointed they didn’t get another guy in. Would have loved to see Delgado, Murphy, or Mattingly to get in too.

Jeff Kent becomes the only Hall of Famer Barry Bonds ever played with.

Kent was the most deserving of the candidates with no PED association.

The committee's purpose is to identify and elect those who were overlooked by the writers. Kent -- like Fred McGriff before him -- fit that description the most. His numbers and accomplishments make him deserving, but he was overshadowed by the many players with PED association.

Murphy and Mattingly were not overlooked by the writers -- they were widely viewed as great players during their prime who didn't have the longevity or consistency needed to make them Hall-worthy.

Delgado isn't on the same level as Kent -- he wasn't considered the best at his position during his prime.

[JustinVerlander07]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

Kent was the most deserving of the candidates with no PED association.

The committee's purpose is to identify and elect those who were overlooked by the writers. Kent -- like Fred McGriff before him -- fit that description the most. His numbers and accomplishments make him deserving, but he was overshadowed by the many players with PED association.

Murphy and Mattingly were not overlooked by the writers -- they were widely viewed as great players during their prime who didn't have the longevity or consistency needed to make them Hall-worthy.

Delgado isn't on the same level as Kent -- he wasn't considered the best at his position during his prime.

With this logic why on earth did they let Baines in?

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by erock28

I didn't add Murph only because I could've written basically the same paragraph about him, lol. And with a pitchers touch, same for Santana. Only ding on Murphy is his career altering injury was at the backend of his prime - age 33 I think. But if he didn't have the knee issues and subsequent problems, no doubt he soars past 450 home runs and maybe approaches 500. He was effectively done at 35 - if he could've aged semi-gracefully to 38 maybe it would have been a different story when he was on the ballot. Regardless, his peak absolutely should put him in the Hall given the names that have gotten in the last 15 years.

True. And not just the last 15 years, more like the last 80 years.

[fabiani12333]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

What would his WAR be without his own PED use?

Kent had no PED association -- he was very outspoken about the league testing players: https://www.sfgate.com/sports/shea/a...cy-2726346.php

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by fabiani12333

Kent was the most deserving of the candidates with no PED association.

The committee's purpose is to identify and elect those who were overlooked by the writers. Kent -- like Fred McGriff before him -- fit that description the most. His numbers and accomplishments make him deserving, but he was overshadowed by the many players with PED association.

Murphy and Mattingly were not overlooked by the writers -- they were widely viewed as great players during their prime who didn't have the longevity or consistency needed to make them Hall-worthy.

Delgado isn't on the same level as Kent -- he wasn't considered the best at his position during his prime.