Hall of Fame establishes "Contemporary Era" ballot

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
82,381
Oregon
I wonder if Theo voted for Schilling

Fred McGriff 16 votes, (100%)
Don Mattingly 8 votes, (50%)
Curt Schilling 7 votes (43.8%)
Dale Murphy 6 votes (37.5%)
Albert Belle Less than 4 votes
Barry Bonds Less than 4 votes
Roger Clemens Less than 4 votes
Rafael Palmeiro Less than 4 votes


fewer
 

worm0082

Penbis
SoSH Member
Sep 19, 2002
4,213
Would anyone really be shocked if Clemens actually pitches an inning or Bonds gets an at bat next year? Satchel Paige/ Minnie Minoso style? Their Hof ballet clocks reset.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
7,286
Would anyone really be shocked if Clemens actually pitches an inning or Bonds gets an at bat next year? Satchel Paige/ Minnie Minoso style? Their Hof ballet clocks reset.
I would be. Bonds couldn’t get a roster spot a year after he had a 1045 ops, can’t imagine he can get one now.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
17,341
Pittsburgh, PA
The strange fixation on Fred McGriff, a shining example of the Hall of the Very Good, has been exceeded in recent years only by the Good Ol' Boys of Baseball deciding they were putting in Jack Morris come hell or high water, and no minding what those eggheads in the BBWAA thought.

I imagine their next cause celebre will be Omar Vizquel.
 

Sad Sam Jones

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
1,763
This is always a pointless waste of time. The very nature of it is to make a group of old baseball guys gather in a room and feel important enough they think they must elect someone who is going to be one of the worst inductees in the hall.

The in-person election process is how a candidate's old cronies grab the bully pulpit and get them in (see: Harold Baines). If it was check a box or two and mail it, these committees might not ever elect anyone.

There was no chance of the steroid guys getting in soon. Aside from the writers just spending a decade emphatically saying no to them, these committee members are guys who think PED users ruined their perfect pastime. It's going to take at least a decade to reach a generation of members who might have a different attitude. Going back to my previous paragraph, the process probably still makes it impossible for them to even have a calm and rational conversation about Bonds and Clemens.

I don't think anyone should have been inducted, but McGriff was pretty close to a given because of the nature of the exercise. I'm just a little surprised Murphy didn't come close.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,486
NH
Who would you rather take an AB as a DH in 2023 for the Red Sox? Dalbec or current state Bonds?

I vote Bonds
I wouldn't have wanted Bonds back in 2001. He'd have absolutely killed my ability to watch the team.
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,486
NH
McGriff isn't a terrific pick but he's 100x better than Harold Baines. The hall kind of lost me when they put Baines in. Might as well put anyone in. Might as well have put guys like Pedro Guerrero, Ron Cey and Reggie Smith in at that point. Just pick random all stars from 1982.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
82,381
Oregon
I wonder if he'll wear a Baseball World cap on his plaque
 

Comfortably Lomb

Koko the Monkey
SoSH Member
Feb 22, 2004
12,239
The Paris of the 80s
McGriff isn't a terrific pick but he's 100x better than Harold Baines. The hall kind of lost me when they put Baines in. Might as well put anyone in. Might as well have put guys like Pedro Guerrero, Ron Cey and Reggie Smith in at that point. Just pick random all stars from 1982.
That's not fair to Reggie Smith. He was a MUCH better player than Baines.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
65,705
Oh, that's what Baseball World is? Sorry, didn't know that, would have credited you.
 

BigJay

lurker
Jul 22, 2022
50
Was this a 'one and done' type deal or all these guys indefinitely eligible, or are they just going to make it up as they go.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
82,381
Oregon
Was this a 'one and done' type deal or all these guys indefinitely eligible, or are they just going to make it up as they go.
Some have been eligible in earlier votes of such committees. How they come up with the lists in future years, I'm not sure.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
6,675
CA
As a Hall of fame geek who has memorized all 269 (now 270!) members on Sporcle, the addition of Fred McGriff is really not a big deal. The guy was a great, if all be it boring and effective baseball player — there are many lesser players in the HoF than Fred McGriff who got in because of cronyism, being on the Yankees, etc. That isn’t some new phenomenon that is ruining the Hall, it has always been that way.
 

Ale Xander

doesn't like to back it in
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
57,320
So is McGriff now the co-answer to the trivia question, with Mariano, of the only unanimous inductees? How does that work exactly?
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,138
Here is the thing about McGriff. If it wasn’t for the 1994 strike he would have had over 500 home runs and the writers probably would have put him in.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
17,341
Pittsburgh, PA
Yes, one plaque ... such a huge addition
It's a strange remark if anyone has actually been to the BB HOF. There's one fairly-large room that has all the plaques on the walls, some of them above eye height, but they clearly have plenty of room to work with. But most of the Hall, like 95% of the square footage, is a series of museum exhibits tracing the history of the game and its different eras, telling the story of major influences on the game, and how the game influenced other things, and leaving you with a cohesive story in your mind the way any good museum does. There's some interactive exhibits, some rotating exhibits, maybe some things are displayed that are on loan. A gift shop, obviously. But the shrine with all the plaques is, frankly, the least important and least interesting part of the entire getup. It's just that without it, they couldn't have a huge induction bash on one weekend every summer. And it gives you a chance to take a picture in front of the plaque of your childhood faves (or whatever). That's it.

That said, I will spend a lot of time arguing about who deserves to be inducted or not, because it's fun. But the Hall of Fame stands on its own like any other monument, regardless of who is or who isn't inducted. The only disaster is if they happen not to have anyone to induct in a given year.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
That said, I will spend a lot of time arguing about who deserves to be inducted or not, because it's fun. But the Hall of Fame stands on its own like any other monument, regardless of who is or who isn't inducted. The only disaster is if they happen not to have anyone to induct in a given year.
That's my point. The plaques don't take up any space. It's the BIG HALL that concerns me. I loved Crime Dog and not because of his nickname, I wasn't 10 years old when he played. But I loved Nomar and Freddy Patek and Harold Reynolds (as a player) and none of those 4 belong in the Hall of Fame, IMHO.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
14,535
UWS, NYC
Posnanski and Schur had a fun rundown of the players selected to the committee, and both predicted McGriff was the only surefire electee.

Not to go all V&N, but it's apropos here -- Posnanski made the conspiracy case that they intentionally selected 7 ballplayers who are on the record as being especially anti-steroids era (Sandberg, Chipper, Maddux, Morris, Lee Smith, Frank Thomas... actually they weren't sure about Trammel) in order to vote down Clemens/A-Rod/Bonds/Palmeiro and then take them off the table for the forseeable. He further predicted that the player that had the next best shot of getting elected was Schilling, on the (reasonable) assumption that those seven guys likely were aligned with, or at least unmoved by, much of Schilling's pontificating.

All made sense to me.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
14,535
UWS, NYC
Some have been eligible in earlier votes of such committees. How they come up with the lists in future years, I'm not sure.
I believe they're organizing a committee to consider candidates on a rotating basis from different constituencies -- this year was contemporary players, 2023 (for the 2024 class) is managers/executives, 2024 will be classic-era players... and I think the cycle starts up again after that.
 

Ale Xander

doesn't like to back it in
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
57,320
Posnanski and Schur had a fun rundown of the players selected to the committee, and both predicted McGriff was the only surefire electee.

Not to go all V&N, but it's apropos here -- Posnanski made the conspiracy case that they intentionally selected 7 ballplayers who are on the record as being especially anti-steroids era (Sandberg, Chipper, Maddux, Morris, Lee Smith, Frank Thomas... actually they weren't sure about Trammel) in order to vote down Clemens/A-Rod/Bonds/Palmeiro and then take them off the table for the forseeable. He further predicted that the player that had the next best shot of getting elected was Schilling, on the (reasonable) assumption that those seven guys likely were aligned with, or at least unmoved by, much of Schilling's pontificating.

All made sense to me.
nugenix guy is against artificial assistance?
hmmm
 

SemperFidelisSox

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2008
26,981
Boston, MA
Not to go all V&N, but it's apropos here -- Posnanski made the conspiracy case that they intentionally selected 7 ballplayers who are on the record as being especially anti-steroids era (Sandberg, Chipper, Maddux, Morris, Lee Smith, Frank Thomas... actually they weren't sure about Trammel) in order to vote down Clemens/A-Rod/Bonds/Palmeiro and then take them off the table for the foreseeable future.
Before the announcement, Harold Reynolds asked Josh Rawitch what they were looking for when selecting the 16 member committee. He said they look for people who are open minded, willing to listen, and aren’t necessarily deeply connected to one candidate. “We don’t want it to be very obvious who they’re going to vote for.”

As you mentioned above, most of these players have made it very clear how they feel about the steroid era.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
9,466
Before the announcement, Harold Reynolds asked Josh Rawitch what they were looking for when selecting the 16 member committee. He said they look for people who are open minded, willing to listen, and aren’t necessarily deeply connected to one candidate. “We don’t want it to be very obvious who they’re going to vote for.”

As you mentioned above, most of these players have made it very clear how they feel about the steroid era.
He said "We don't want it to be very obvious who they're going to vote for", not "vote against." :)
 

Strike4

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,054
Portland, Maine
Murphy also holds the distinction of being one of just 13 players to win consecutive MVP awards:
  • Jimmie Foxx
  • Hal Newhouser
  • Yogi Berra
  • Mickey Mantle
  • Ernie Banks
  • Roger Maris
  • Joe Morgan
  • Mike Schmidt
  • Dale Murphy
  • Barry Bonds
  • Frank Thomas
  • Albert Pujols
  • Miguel Cabrera
Hell of a list to be on.
So before the last few got on there, this was like the grand daddy of sports trivia questions since there were 9 of them and you could field a lineup, with Murphy being the last. It is insane to me that he didn't get voted in, in the 80's he was one of just a few players who you would pretend to be in whiffle ball games. (This was pre-Bonds etc.)