Master Index of Archived Threads


HOF Voting - Contemporary Era Ballot

Gwreck Nov 07 2022 11:55 AM

https://baseballhall.org/discover/contemporary-era-player-ballot-2023 Eight former big league players comprise the Contemporary Baseball Era player ballot to be reviewed and voted upon Dec. 4 at the Baseball Winter Meetings. Albert Belle, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Don Mattingly, Fred McGriff, Dale Murphy, Rafael Palmeiro and Curt Schilling are the candidates the Contemporary Baseball Era Players Committee will consider for Hall of Fame election for the Class of 2023. All candidates are living. Any candidate who receives votes on 75 percent of the ballots cast by the 16-member Contemporary Baseball Era Players Committee will earn election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame and will be inducted in Cooperstown on July 23, 2023, along with any electees who emerge from the 2023 Baseball Writers' Association of America election, to be announced on Jan. 24, 2023. The Contemporary Baseball Era Players Committee is one of three groups eligible for consideration as part of the Era Committee process, which provides an avenue for Hall of Fame consideration to managers, umpires and executives, as well as players retired for more than 15 seasons. The Contemporary Baseball Era features two distinct ballots: One for players (considered this fall) and one for managers, executives and umpires (considered in the fall of 2023). Following the restructuring of the Era Committee process in the spring of 2022, the two Contemporary Baseball Era ballots were instituted, along with the Classic Baseball Era, which includes all candidates whose primary contribution to the game came prior to 1980. The Classic Baseball Era Committee will meet for the first time in the fall of 2024. There are some very big names here who the writers failed to elect…but how did Don Mattingly and Fred McGriff wind up here? Or, more particularly, how could either one of those guys be considered ahead of Keith Hernandez? (Or, for that matter, Mark McGwire).

Edgy MD Nov 07 2022 12:31 PM Re: HOF Voting - Contemporary Era Ballot

There are, for whatever reason, two Contemporary Baseball Era ballots. So if you're on one ballot, you automatically sit out the next one. Among the Mets who've appeared on the alternate ballot or are eligible to be added to one or the other are Hernandez, along with Kevin Appier, David Cone, Dwight Gooden, Randy Myers, John Olerud, Willie Randolph, Jeff Reardon, Bret Saberhagen, Frank Tanana, Robin Ventura, and Frank Viola. Spring training Met Andrés Galarraga is also in the pool. All of those guys have one decent argument or another going for them, but most are longshots. There's a bunch of other guys being tossed around the pool who have lesser credentials, including several Mets players and managers. The top of the class, though, is Lou Whitaker. For my money, anyhow.

Marshmallowmilkshake Nov 08 2022 08:12 AM Re: HOF Voting - Contemporary Era Ballot

Albert Belle, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Don Mattingly, Fred McGriff, Dale Murphy, Rafael Palmeiro and Curt Schilling This will be interesting. Curious to see how people who are not writers judge the PED crowd. And, if Bonds and Clemens get it, does that open the door for ARod, Manny and the others to get in via the writers? Obviously you can make a solid case for every one of the players on this ballot. And Schilling likely would have gone in had he not said he didn't want to get elected by writers. If I had to guess, Murphy, McGriff, Schilling and maybe even Mattingly get in while the PED guys still get debated. No one liked Albert Belle.

MFS62 Nov 08 2022 08:30 AM Re: HOF Voting - Contemporary Era Ballot

=Marshmallowmilkshake post_id=112590 time=1667920325 user_id=119] No one liked Albert Belle.

I did. And he's probably the only one I might vote for, especially for the way he pissed off the writers.

He played the required more then ten years, and while he played, there were very few (if any) better. And the HOF rule says anyone who demonstrated superior performance for the time he played deserves to be in there.

Especially because there was no PED usage. He was just a mean dude with a 'tude.



Later

Edgy MD Nov 08 2022 08:45 AM Re: HOF Voting - Contemporary Era Ballot

I don't know where to begin. That a player has never been caught using PEDs doesn't mean there "was no PED usage." It means there was no established PED usage. That goes for everyone. It's not a mark against his record, but I can't see how it somehow be a mark for someone. But more importantly, he is established to have cheated, just not, as far as we've been able to establish, with PEDs, so the moral superiority goes right out the window. He was caught red-handed, as few have ever been. The ten-years rule is simply about qualifying for the ballot, not for the Hall. A lot of less-than-worthy candidates have played ten or more years. To read the qualifications merely as "the HOF rule says anyone who demonstrated superior performance for the time he played deserves to be in there" is very disengenous. I disagree that allegedly upsetting writers is a Hall of Fame quality, let alone a leading quality.

MFS62 Nov 08 2022 09:52 AM Re: HOF Voting - Contemporary Era Ballot

I stated the ten year thing because he had a short career. His career was cut short because of a degenerative illness at the age of 33. But in that time he averaged 40HR, 130 RBI, 4.9 WAR and had an OPS+ of 144. You know I'm an iconoclast. We've looked at a lot of things differently since I've been here. I would have voted for him. Later

Edgy MD Nov 08 2022 11:14 AM Re: HOF Voting - Contemporary Era Ballot

I don't "know" you're an "iconoclast." Please don't presume to speak for me. Believing allegedly upsetting writers is a Hall of Fame quality is not iconoclasm. Neither is pretending "the HOF rule says anyone who demonstrated superior performance for the time he played deserves to be in there." It's just making an indefensible argument in an attempt to have an interesting opinion. It has nothing to do with you. It's a forum. We are all asked to back up our positions. I don't know how this isn't clear.

MFS62 Nov 08 2022 11:18 AM Re: HOF Voting - Contemporary Era Ballot

Edgy MD wrote: I don't "know" you're an "iconoclast." Please don't presume to speak for me. Believing allegedly upsetting writers is a Hall of Fame quality is not iconoclasm. Neither is pretending "the HOF rule says anyone who demonstrated superior performance for the time he played deserves to be in there." It's just making an indefensible argument in an attempt to have an interesting opinion. It has nothing to do with you. It's a forum. We are all asked to back up our positions. I don't know how this isn't clear. You're right. Ten years is the minimum to be considered (eligible), not deserves. I think he deserves it because of the numbers I posted. If you didn't know the name, but just saw the numbers, would you have voted for him? Later

Marshmallowmilkshake Dec 04 2022 06:23 PM Re: HOF Voting - Contemporary Era Ballot

Welcome to Cooperstown, Fred McGriff -- the only player elected by this committee.

Johnny Lunchbucket Dec 04 2022 06:30 PM Re: HOF Voting - Contemporary Era Ballot

He was a good power hitter and generally overlooked so good for the crime dog

Fman99 Dec 04 2022 06:56 PM Re: HOF Voting - Contemporary Era Ballot

All the known 'roiders continue to get the short shrift. Good, I says

nymr83 Dec 04 2022 07:45 PM Re: HOF Voting - Contemporary Era Ballot

Good for McGriff, by all accounts a really nice guy, who today was voted in by the "committee of friends of really nice guys" including teammate Greg Maddux. You need 12 votes out of the 16 member committee. Mattingly had 8, Schilling 7, Murphy 6 and nobody else 4+ (they only announce 4+ votes so you wont know who got 0/1/2/3) - So you'd think Mattingly maybe could get in if this committee were more stacked with ex-yankees or other friends of his but it becomes less likely from there - and nobody is yet ready for the confirmed roid users. I'm not really a fan of these committees. All of these guys were shunned recently enough by the much larger body of regular voters that i dont see why a small group in a proverbial smoke filled room should elect them now. a much stronger argument can be made for revisiting the candidacies of neglected negro leaguers and of major leaguers who were on the ballot before we could view their careers through the lens of modern analytics (though many of those analytics, particularly defensive metrics, can't be applied retroactively)

Edgy MD Dec 04 2022 08:49 PM Re: HOF Voting - Contemporary Era Ballot

I think the Hall of Fame has spent a lot of time revisiting the candidacies of neglected negro leaguers and of major leaguers who were on the ballot before we could view their careers through the lens of modern analytics. Like, a lot. But "modern analytics" is certainly a regularly changing notion, so it's fair to say that what counted for modern analytics when Don Mattingly and Fred McGriff were on the BBWAA ballot are different from what is considered modern now. For my money, the real story here is Curt Schilling. He was two ticks short of being elected by the writers, had every reason to believe he'd get in with any sort of repeat of the final-year-on-the-ballot boost that most holdover candidates get, but he couldn't shut his mouth, told the writers to stick it, saying he'd only accept being inducted by the players, and it turns out that after he burnt that bridge, the player/voters support him even less than the writer/voters.