Hall of Fame establishes "Contemporary Era" ballot

[Bozo Texino]

An eight-player "contemporary era" ballot will be voted upon by the sixteen members of the Contemporary Baseball Era Players Committee at the Winter Meetings on December 4th. You can read more about the process here.

The eight players are...

Albert Belle
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Don Mattingly
Fred McGriff
Dale Murphy
Rafael Palmeiro
Curt Schilling

What say you, SoSH - who gets in?

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Why?

 

[mwonow]

They are jealous, and want their own Radomski's Lounge?

 

[luckiestman]

Bonds and Clemens are no doubt HOF guys. Crime Dog, and Schil would be next 2 I have.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Sure. Add a Cheaters Wing and include Rose, too.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Happy (?) coincidence that the Contemporary Committee gets their turn in the rotation the year all the most controversial guys fell off the BBWAA ballot. No idea why there is a rush to get those guys on yet another ballot when there are older and certainly deserving players like Dwight Evans being left off to make room. Like Bonds, Clemens and Schilling can't wait four more years so a 72-year-old can get another shot?

I'm rooting for McGriff to get the nod from these guys and no one else (okay, maybe Dale Murphy but he's borderline deserving at best).

 

[CoffeeNerdness]

Why?

A baseball HOF w/o Bonds and Clemens enshrined is ridiculous so they're providing a different avenue to remedy their silly blackballing.

Who's on the committee? Looks like each player will need 12 votes.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

Feel like this leads to Mattingly and Murphy getting in.

 

[Leather]

Clemens and Bonds deserve induction based on numbers but...

Schilling deserves induction based on numbers but...

Palmeiro deserves induction based on numbers but...

The other guys aren't really good enough. McGriff is closest and I wouldn't be too annoyed by it, but he's the definition of Hall of Very Good. 277th all time career WAR below guys like Jack Clark; no really impressive personal accolades...

 

[Leather]

Feel like this leads to Mattingly and Murphy getting in.

Neither belong. At all. Mattingly's biggest credential is that he was "Yankees Best Player During Their 80s Down Years". He was a premium player for 6 years. Six.

Murphy at least has multiple MVPs and had a *slightly* longer peak than Mattingly but it's effectively the same argument. More than numbers, theri case boils down to: guys a lot of now in-charge people liked growing up and are remembered as being even better than they were because of it.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

Neither belong. At all. Mattingly's biggest credential is that he was "Yankees Best Player During Their 80s Down Years". He was a premium player for 6 years. Six.

Murphy at least has multiple MVPs and had a *slightly* longer peak than Mattingly but it's effectively the same argument. More than numbers, theri case boils down to: guys a lot of now in-charge people liked growing up and are remembered as being even better than they were because of it.

Completely agree.

 

[Sad Sam Jones]

Since similar committees have given us Jack Morris and Harold Baines, I figure this one gives us Dale Murphy. Not that I'm saying he deserves it, but he was a better contemporary than both.

 

[Leather]

The names seem pretty arbitrary, too. Why no Dwight Evans? Will Clark? Johann Santana?

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

Since similar committees have given us Jack Morris and Harold Baines, I figure this one gives us Dale Murphy. Not that I'm saying he deserves it, but he was a better contemporary than both.

I think that’s somewhat subjective. So much of baseball is about the postseason and winning on the biggest stage, and I think Morris certainly gets extra credit there. Circumstances obviously somewhat beyond one’s control, but what’s the narrative on a Dale Murphy HOF pitch? Good player and great guy on a bad team? Totally agree on Baines who does nothing for me. So much of what seems to often get a guy in the HoF is his story, I can see it with Morris or a guy who a short career like Puckett and certainly Schilling before he went nuts …but Baines or Murphy? Mattingly? Meh

 

[Bozo Texino]

FWIW, I'd vote only for Bonds and Clemens.

 

[8slim]

I really don't understand the purpose of this. If the writers-based election process is flawed then it's probably time to alter that. Otherwise all these special committees just appear to be alternate ways for people to get enshrined by their pals.

And why these 8 in particular?

With Baines in the Hall one can make a case for all of them. Except Mattingly.

 

[EvilEmpire]

Schilling probably gets in. Not sure about the cheaters.

 

[Easy Ed Cota]

I need Carlos Delgado to get another look

 

[Chainsaw318]

After watching the whole Jon Bois thing on Dave Steib, I’d like him considered for a list like this.

 

[Sad Sam Jones]

I think that’s somewhat subjective. So much of baseball is about the postseason and winning on the biggest stage, and I think Morris certainly gets extra credit there. Circumstances obviously somewhat beyond one’s control, but what’s the narrative on a Dale Murphy HOF pitch? Good player and great guy on a bad team? Totally agree on Baines who does nothing for me. So much of what seems to often get a guy in the HoF is his story, I can see it with Morris or a guy who a short career like Puckett and certainly Schilling before he went nuts …but Baines or Murphy? Mattingly? Meh

By all numbers, raw or league-adjusted, Jack Morris is the worst pitcher in the Hall of Fame. After the writers established that he wasn't Hall of Fame worthy, a special committee immediately ignored them and put in because:

• He had one really good game in the World Series . Which ignores that he had several really bad post-season games (it's incredible how the '92 Blue Jays won a World Series championship despite having him in their rotation).
• The bullshit narrative that he was the best pitcher of the '80s. Even if we ignore such an arbitrary accolade, he wasn't nearly as good as Dave Stieb, who I don't think has ever received any support for the HoF.
• The absolute bullshit narrative that he "pitched to the scoreboard" to excuse away that he was a product of strong run support on some very good teams.

He has 3.90 career ERA, 105 career ERA+ and a 3.94 career FIP. He was slightly better than average pitcher for several good teams for a long time, with a prime that conveniently spanned the '80s. Again, I don't think Dale Murphy belongs in the Hall of Fame, but since they've already put guys in for fake decade-oriented titles, Murphy was a better player of the '80s than Morris. It's disappointing thing is that since Baines got inducted the next year, Morris has largely escaped being a lightning rod for all-time worst Hall of Fame decisions.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I really don't understand the purpose of this. If the writers-based election process is flawed then it's probably time to alter that. Otherwise all these special committees just appear to be alternate ways for people to get enshrined by their pals.

I think the original purpose of the Veterans Committee was to address the players who the BBWAA never got to vote on at all. Or ones that fell through the cracks in the early years because there a) wasn't always an annual vote and/or b) ballots were quite crowded so garnering 75%+ was more difficult for some deserving candidates.

I think that outside of addressing the Negro Leagues (way too late IMO), the committees have overstayed their usefulness. Now all they exist to do is put players "snubbed" by the writers in the Hall anyway, which only serves to dilute the honor. Especially when they select players like Baines and Morris instead of more worthy, but still borderline candidates like Dwight Evans and Lou Whitaker.

 

[Leather]

I think the original purpose of the Veterans Committee was to address the players who the BBWAA never got to vote on at all. Or ones that fell through the cracks in the early years because there a) wasn't always an annual vote and/or b) ballots were quite crowded so garnering 75%+ was more difficult for some deserving candidates.

I think that outside of addressing the Negro Leagues (way too late IMO), the committees have overstayed their usefulness. Now all they exist to do is put players "snubbed" by the writers in the Hall anyway, which only serves to dilute the honor. Especially when they select players like Baines and Morris instead of more worthy, but still borderline candidates like Dwight Evans and Lou Whitaker.

Yeah. If the purpose of these committees (the ones without a valid purpose like the re-examining the Negro Leagues) is simply to "Let guys in that maybe should have gotten more support with the benefit of hindsight", then put that process in place and make it objectively fair. Something like... "with a petition of 5% of the voters, a player who has previously dropped off the ballot may be added for a 3-year period of voting during which they are considered along with other eligible candidates for the HOF, with the same voting criteria. Players may only be so selected once every 10 years" or something.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

I largely agree on Morris but 3 WS rings, and a major role in two of them (including a WS MVP) gives him a pretty big boost. He’s the Eli Manning of the MLB; clearly without the post season success he wouldn’t be in; and I’d imagine a Dale Murphy with a WS MVP would be; fair or not .

 

[Rice4HOF]

By all numbers, raw or league-adjusted, Jack Morris is the worst pitcher in the Hall of Fame. After the writers established that he wasn't Hall of Fame worthy, a special committee immediately ignored them and put in because:

• He had one really good game in the World Series . Which ignores that he had several really bad post-season games (it's incredible how the '92 Blue Jays won a World Series championship despite having him in their rotation).
• The bullshit narrative that he was the best pitcher of the '80s. Even if we ignore such an arbitrary accolade, he wasn't nearly as good as Dave Stieb, who I don't think has ever received any support for the HoF.
• The absolute bullshit narrative that he "pitched to the scoreboard" to excuse away that he was a product of strong run support on some very good teams.

He has 3.90 career ERA, 105 career ERA+ and a 3.94 career FIP. He was slightly better than average pitcher for several good teams for a long time, with a prime that conveniently spanned the '80s. Again, I don't think Dale Murphy belongs in the Hall of Fame, but since they've already put guys in for fake decade-oriented titles, Murphy was a better player of the '80s than Morris. It's disappointing thing is that since Baines got inducted the next year, Morris has largely escaped being a lightning rod for all-time worst Hall of Fame decisions.

I've ranted against Jack Morris many times. Don't get me started. I had the misfortune of growing up listening/watching to Tigers radio/TV and disliked him since early in his career. Aside from that one really good game in the WS, his playoff record is 6-4 with a 4.26 ERA. Here's a link to what I wrote about him a few years ago, with some recent updates.

 

[Petagine in a Bottle]

I've ranted against Jack Morris many times. Don't get me started. I had the misfortune of growing up listening/watching to Tigers radio/TV and disliked him since early in his career. Aside from that one really good game in the WS, his playoff record is 6-4 with a 4.26 ERA. Here's a link to what I wrote about him a few years ago, with some recent updates.

True, but he was nails in the 84 (2-0, 2.00 era) and 91 (2-0, 1.17 era) WS, and that’s pretty much why he’s in the HOF.

 

[Rice4HOF]

I largely agree on Morris but 3 WS rings, and a major role in two of them (including a WS MVP) gives him a pretty big boost. He’s the Eli Manning of the MLB; clearly without the post season success he wouldn’t be in; and I’d imagine a Dale Murphy with a WS MVP would be; fair or not .

Bah. Luis Sojo has 4 WS rings! Lonnie Smith has 3 and played a major role in two of them as well. (He would also have another ring if he knew how to run the bases, and might have kept Morris out of the Hall, but alas).

 

[SemperFidelisSox]

The committee will be made up of HOF players, executives and media. I’d imagine it might be difficult for some of the voters to make decisions on players they were teammates with, or had good/bad personal relationships. If Tom Glavine and John Schuerholz are on the committee, can they objectively look at Fred McGriffs numbers and not be swayed by him being someone who helped them win a World Series?

 

[E5 Yaz]

The names seem pretty arbitrary, too. Why no Dwight Evans?

Evans was on the Modern Era ballot the last time they voted in 2020, and received eight votes from the 16-member panel. He's eligible again next winter.

wiki:

The cutoff for election to the Hall of Fame remained the standard 75%; as the Modern Baseball Era Committee consisted of 16 members, 12 votes was the minimum for selection. The 16-member Hall of Fame Board-appointed electorate charged with the review of the Modern Baseball Era featured Hall of Fame members George Brett, Rod Carew, Dennis Eckersley, Eddie Murray, Ozzie Smith and Robin Yount; major league executives Sandy Alderson, Dave Dombrowski, David Glass, Walt Jocketty, Doug Melvin and Terry Ryan; and veteran media members/historians Bill Center,[25] Steve Hirdt, Jack O’Connell[26] and Tracy Ringolsby.[24]
The 2019 vote elected former catcher Ted Simmons, and Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) leader Marvin Miller, who died in 2012.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I'm not sure of the wisdom of adding three players who were on the writers ballots and didn't make the cut last year. Give them a year or two (especially because it's not like Bonds, Clemens or Schilling are elderly) to cool their jets and then add them to ballot.

If I was going to vote, I'd add McGriff and Murray. But I'm a big Hall guy, the more the merrier, I say.

 

[bsj]

Really? Already? I thought we would get a break from this debate for a while.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Evans was on the Modern Era ballot the last time they voted in 2020, and received eight votes from the 16-member panel. He's eligible again next winter.

This is where it really gets confusing because Dale Murphy was much more a contemporary of Dewey than nearly any of the rest of the guys on the new ballot (Dewey played '72-'90, Murphy '76-'93). Is the "Contemporary Era" defined as only players who retired in the last 30 years so Murphy barely squeaks in and Dewey is barely squeaked out? Still doesn't account for Lou Whitaker's absence, though ('77-'95).

 

[Seels]

I'd not vote for any of them. Actually I enjoy any way to irk Clemens and BOnds.

 

[Leskanic's Thread]

I'm not sure of the wisdom of adding three players who were on the writers ballots and didn't make the cut last year. Give them a year or two (especially because it's not like Bonds, Clemens or Schilling are elderly) to cool their jets and then add them to ballot.

If I was going to vote, I'd add McGriff and Murray. But I'm a big Hall guy, the more the merrier, I say.

Yeah, it doesn't feel like too much of an ask to put another five-year waiting period before they are considered again. Otherwise, you're just saying you want a smaller committee to overrule the writers.

For those who may want to look, here's a bigger breakdown of the rules and guidelines for the Era Committees:

https://baseballhall.org/hall-of-famers/rules/eras-committees

The cutoff for "contemporary" is 1980, FWIW.

As for who gets in...again, on principle, I would be against enshrining any of the players who just fell off the regular ballot. That said, I'd ultimately be in favor of Bonds and Clemens getting in. Asterisk their plaques, but they are HoF-level.

My petty stance is I also think Schilling deserves to be in, but I don't want it to happen while he's alive to accept the honor.

 

[DanoooME]

Neither belong. At all. Mattingly's biggest credential is that he was "Yankees Best Player During Their 80s Down Years". He was a premium player for 6 years. Six.

Sandy Koufax was a premium player for 5, maybe 6 years if you count 1961. That's probably the big argument for Mattingly getting in. Both had injury issues after those premium years (Koufax was done, Mattingly diminished). I'm not saying it's a good argument, just that it's an argument.

 

[bakahump]

I always wondered why with the "Cheaters" they didnt just say. "Pete Rose will never be admitted into the BBHOF except posthumously.

Dont let those guys have their day in the sun. No one fawning over them. No speech. No Gold jacket (Do they even do that for MLB?).

Basically Rose/Bonds/Clemens are (a BIG) part of Baseball history.....but they should never be able to enjoy those fruits.

I suppose a Clemens Autograph (and the $25 bucks he makes off it) would hold some value knowing that EVENTUALLY he would get in. But not sure I would want to spend my $25 to wait 20-30 years.

 

[Daniel_Son]

Can we just establish a Steroids Wing in the HoF and put these guys in and be done with it? I mean come on - no matter which side of the fence you're on, you have to admit that debating this every single goddamn year is getting tedious.

 

[Leather]

Sandy Koufax was a premium player for 5, maybe 6 years if you count 1961. That's probably the big argument for Mattingly getting in. Both had injury issues after those premium years (Koufax was done, Mattingly diminished). I'm not saying it's a good argument, just that it's an argument.

Yeah, if Mattingly can rummage around and find a few World Series titles and some post-season heroics, as well as a credible claim to "Best Hitter Ever" based on those six years, I'd be more than willing to reconsider.

 

[luckiestman]

Dont let those guys have their day in the sun. No one fawning over them. No speech. No Gold jacket (Do they even do that for MLB?).

Why not? They were at the pinnacle of their sport.

 

[Max Power]

I'm not sure of the wisdom of adding three players who were on the writers ballots and didn't make the cut last year. Give them a year or two (especially because it's not like Bonds, Clemens or Schilling are elderly) to cool their jets and then add them to ballot.

I guess, but it's a different group voting on them. The writers didn't think steroid guys should get plaques. Maybe their peers who make up this committee have a different view of things. Waiting a couple of years wouldn't make much difference.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I guess, but it's a different group voting on them. The writers didn't think steroid guys should get plaques. Maybe their peers who make up this committee have a different view of things. Waiting a couple of years wouldn't make much difference.

IDK. I think that the point of these panels are to give players another look. We've been through whether Bonds and Schilling and Clemens are worthy for the last ten years. All of those debates are still warm. Chances are the opinions of the panel are similar or at least still "tainted" (not sure if this is the right word, but the spirit is there) from the last decade plus of arguments. Give them a couple of years--maybe you're right, maybe it wouldn't make much of a difference--but I'd be shocked if any of those three were elected this year. They're still radioactive, I think.

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

The correct answer is "Everyone except Schilling", purely for the comedic value.

 

[GrandSlamPozo]

If Bonds and Clemens get in then Palmeiro should be in as well, obviously he wasn't quite on their level but he's still a slam dunk hall of famer if you're willing to forgive people for using steroids.

 

[Yaz4Ever]

Schilling should get in. Crime Dog and Murphy would be feel good stories, but not deserving of the HoF.

 

[RG33]

Bonds and Clemens are no-brainers. Palmeiro is right behind them.

Schilling, sadly, deserves it and will get in.

Delgado should be on the ballot ahead of McGriff (who is a tweener for me).

 

[Remagellan]

I hate Clemens, am neutral on Bonds, and hate Curt's politics but cannot forget that he was a pretty generous person when he first came on here, and I hope all three get in, because by performance, they all deserve it. I'm not a hand wringer when it comes to PEDS. Many of the tongue-cluckers about the steroid era were popping bennies when they played or covering such people and no one batted an eye about that. Both the owners and the MLBPA were responsible for allowing the steroid era to go on for as long as it did, so I can't see punishing Bonds and Clemens, who basically did it to extend their careers, when so many profited from their exploits when they were playing. And I am firmly in the "if they both dropped dead when they were ten years into their careers (when most believe they had yet to be introduced to steroids), they'd still be Hall of Famers".

Put whatever notation on their plaques required to satisfy the pearl-clutchers, but put them in.

 

[deanx0]

Can we just establish a Steroids Wing in the HoF and put these guys in and be done with it? I mean come on - no matter which side of the fence you're on, you have to admit that debating this every single goddamn year is getting tedious.

Can we establish a Greenies wing and move all the guys from the 60s and 70s into it, or are some illegal performance enhancing drugs ok?

 

[Daniel_Son]

Can we establish a Greenies wing and move all the guys from the 60s and 70s into it, or are some illegal performance enhancing drugs ok?

Well, seeing as amphetamines weren't added to the list of banned substances until 2005, they weren't really "illegal" in the same sense that anabolic steroids were during Bonds and Clemens' careers, right? Not to mention the massive difference between doping and mixing some Dexedrine into the clubhouse coffee.

 

[deanx0]

Well, seeing as amphetamines weren't added to the list of banned substances until 2005, they weren't really "illegal" in the same sense that anabolic steroids were during Bonds and Clemens' careers, right? Not to mention the massive difference between doping and mixing some Dexedrine into the clubhouse coffee.

Well, they were banned except for prescription use in the mid-60s, and were made a controlled substance in 1971, so I am not sure the not "illegal" excuse really resonates and again, I ask why some illegal performance enhancing drugs are acceptable and not HOF disqualifying while others are. I get this "massive difference", well I actually don't as no studies of any kind ever quantified it.

The tut-tutting of steroid use particularly by "clean" former players who absolutely got a boost from the use of Greenies is a massive pet peeve of mine.

 

[Philip Jeff Frye]

This looks like somebody with an axe to grind put together a list of players they're upset didn't get into the HOF, and then added Albert Belle so there would be one person who gets voted down to show that the whole thing isn't a complete rubber stamp.

And what is the "contemporary era"? Is it that these guys were all contemporaries? I guess so, but couldn't you say that about lots of other "veterans committee" candidates? What will they name the committee that lets in the "almost great" guys of today who don't make it past the baseball writers in 20 years? The Andrew McCutchens and Josh Donaldsons. The "post-contemporary era" committee?

I guess the good news is that if Palmeiro gets in, that should clear the way for Manny. The bad news is that it will clear the way for Afraud, too.

 

[scottyno]

The committee will be made up of HOF players, executives and media. I’d imagine it might be difficult for some of the voters to make decisions on players they were teammates with, or had good/bad personal relationships. If Tom Glavine and John Schuerholz are on the committee, can they objectively look at Fred McGriffs numbers and not be swayed by him being someone who helped them win a World Series?

And this is how Harold Baines got in. The people voting on his ballot included his manager, his gm, and his owner.