Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

New Hall of Fame ballot includes Will Clark, Albert Belle, McGwire, Hershiser, Baines & Selig

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

Austin

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2008
5,706
41
Dallas, Texas
New Hall of Fame ballot includes Will Clark, Albert Belle, McGwire, Hershiser, Baines & Selig

- Associated Press

NEW YORK -- Mark McGwire is among several recent stars who are getting another swing at the Hall of Fame.

McGwire joins Harold Baines, Albert Belle, Will Clark, Orel Hershiser, Davey Johnson, Lou Piniella, John Schuerholz, Bud Selig and George Steinbrenner on the "Today's Game Era" ballot to be considered for election to Cooperstown in December.

The announcement was made Monday by the Baseball Hall of Fame. The ballot is part of changes to the election process announced by the Hall's board of directors in July. It includes five players, three executives and two managers who made their biggest impact from 1988 on.

Voting is Dec. 5 during the winter meetings in Maryland. To be enshrined, candidates must receive votes on at least 75 percent of the ballots cast by the 16-member Today's Game Era Committee.

Those voters, appointed by the Hall of Fame board, will be announced this fall.

The Era Committee process provides an avenue for Hall of Fame consideration to managers, umpires and executives, as well as players retired for more than 15 seasons -- like McGwire. Today's Game Era was one of four Eras Committees outlined in July when the Hall detailed its latest set of election changes.

Finalists on the ballot revealed Monday were selected by the Historical Overview Committee appointed by the BBWAA, made up of 11 veteran historians.

Any candidates elected Dec. 5 would be inducted into the Hall of Fame on July 30 next year along with any players voted in by the BBWAA. Those results will be announced Jan. 18, 2017.
 

Mighty Bombjack

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
6,115
12
Very interesting. The crucial next step is selecting the committee, which will be tasked with deciding whether or not to enshrine PED users.

My gut says McGwire has to wait a title longer, probably the next "Today's Game" committee, but those 90s PED users are getting in eventually no doubt in my mind.
 

Zan

Active member
Aug 12, 2008
3,067
0
NY, NY
Do not like at all. What's the point of this? There are executives and umpires in the veterans committee ballot, right? What's the point of putting these players on the ballot again if they gave spent 15 years without 75%, or got less than. 5% of votes.

Also, if this ballot is happening where is Raphael Palmeiro. Statistically had a better career than any other player on that list
 

psj

Active member
Jul 24, 2015
2,058
0
Long Island
Yea, I dont understand this either. Everyone of those players have already spent time on the ballots, and didnt receive enough votes to stay on, or even get close to getting in. Nothing new has happened with them, so why have them in a special ballot??
 

Mighty Bombjack

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
6,115
12
Do not like at all. What's the point of this? There are executives and umpires in the veterans committee ballot, right? What's the point of putting these players on the ballot again if they gave spent 15 years without 75%, or got less than. 5% of votes.

Also, if this ballot is happening where is Raphael Palmeiro. Statistically had a better career than any other player on that list

The point is that the Hall can decide when PED users will be enshrined, sanctimonious writers be damned.

I agree about Raffy. Appears he is being punished for actually failing a test. McGwire and Bonds will pave the way in for him eventually.
 

Mighty Bombjack

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
6,115
12
Yea, I dont understand this either. Everyone of those players have already spent time on the ballots, and didnt receive enough votes to stay on, or even get close to getting in. Nothing new has happened with them, so why have them in a special ballot??
It isn't obvious?
 

bstanwood

Well-known member
Sep 24, 2016
3,666
332
Mystic, CT
I'm not sure I see the point of doing it like this, especially to Zan's point if we leave off some it seems even more shady in my eyes. I think Palmeiro is far more controversial because despite all he did on the diamond I only see him waving his finger like a d-bag on capitol hill knowing he was a liar. Having said that open this thing up to everyone whos off the ballot or why even bother. Also what about Alan Trammel? I'm not sure I'd vote for him but in my mind he is at least as deserving to be considered as Will Clark.
 

bstanwood

Well-known member
Sep 24, 2016
3,666
332
Mystic, CT
not 100% certain , but i think he is in one of the other 3 veteran oversight era groupings .....don't recall all the details , but i do recall reading about the upcoming changes and reclassification of the eras some time last year....

I suppose that makes sense for trammel and the 15 years for palmier, but doesn't it all feel like we are overcomplicating a "fairly simple" thought process?? PEDs really screwed with this whole era. Either someone passes "the smell test" or they don't. Trammel, for example, had zero link to PEDs and he had his 15 chances. It still feels like it's too soon for second chances for the actual PED group but maybe I'm just bitter from being a devoted bonds fan for so many years to find out it was "kind of" a sham.
 

fordman

Well-known member
Feb 22, 2013
3,190
32
Ohio
Pete Rose should be mentioned here as well. Sounds like this is the HOF circumventing it's own rules and getting players in with know 'issues'. I dont believe Pete Rose will ever see his plaque in the HOf while he's alive. I'm wondering how Willie Mays and Hank Aaron will react to this new committee as they've been outspoken about players with issues getting in to the HOF.

Fordman
 
Last edited:

Austin

Well-known member
Aug 7, 2008
5,706
41
Dallas, Texas
Pete Rose should be mentioned here as well. Sounds like this is the HOF circumventing it's own rules and getting players in with know 'issues'.
No Kenny Lofton? Come on.
Lofton retired in 2007.
This particular ballot is for players who retired 15+ years ago and whose prominant years are from 1988 on. (It says all of this in the article.)

As for Rose, Earlier eras' ballots will happen in succeeding years, so I'd assume he'd be on one of those.
 

homerun28aa

Active member
Jun 8, 2011
19,072
8
A lot of people already subscribe to the viewpoint that you're either HOF worthy or you're not. Now not only do you get 10 years of being on the ballot, plus the VC (which I'm mostly for, they've inducted some very historically significant players over the years), you now also have this committee. The decision on the bulk of those players was already made, not sure why they're having another go at it. Someone like McGwire I guess I can understand because of the controversy with PEDs and Steinbrenner who was an iconic owner and figure but I'm not sure how someone like Will Clark makes this list.
 

Mighty Bombjack

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
6,115
12
Pete Rose should be mentioned here as well. Sounds like this is the HOF circumventing it's own rules and getting players in with know 'issues'. I dont believe Pete Rose will ever see his plaque in the HOf while he's alive.
I agree that he should be mentioned, and that he won't get in soon. I sense that the hall views those who used PEDs in the 90s/00s VERY differently than it views anyone connected to gambling. These committees are for the benefit of the former, the latter remained damned.


A lot of people already subscribe to the viewpoint that you're either HOF worthy or you're not.
Yes, a lot of people do subscribe to this viewpoint; the HOF itself does not. Fans often revere the hall and forget that it is a business that is constantly trying to stay relevant by keeping the conversation going. Controversy is good for them, as is a steady stream of new inductees, both of which these new committees will provide regardless of whatever the prevailing winds make the writers do with their collective vote.
 

homerun28aa

Active member
Jun 8, 2011
19,072
8
Yes, a lot of people do subscribe to this viewpoint; the HOF itself does not. Fans often revere the hall and forget that it is a business that is constantly trying to stay relevant by keeping the conversation going. Controversy is good for them, as is a steady stream of new inductees, both of which these new committees will provide regardless of whatever the prevailing winds make the writers do with their collective vote.

That's true enough but the HOF is the one entity that's supposed to uphold the highest integrity baseball has to offer through thick and thin. I'm not directing that at the PED users necessarily, I just don't see how there needs to be a different committee to evaluate the eligibility of someone like Will Clark.
 

homerun28aa

Active member
Jun 8, 2011
19,072
8
@homerun28aa , that's enough damn Will Clark bashing for today 

Ryan

Sent from my SM-G920V using Freedom Card Board mobile app

;)

Sorry, didn't mean to single him out in fact I think a couple of the other guys on the list would fit the same logic. I just personally think that when it comes to the HOF the "smell test" is accurate a very, very large percentage of the time and when it isn't we still have 10 opportunities for that person to get in and then we have the VC. I'm skeptical about this one
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top