Contemporary Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot 2026

It totally depends on who is on the committee

The composition of the committee completely determines what the voters value and are willing to overlook.

 

If Mattingly got in i would have no problem with it. He was clean. He was famous. He was part of the story of baseball. But he lacks numbers and lacks the rings. So I have no problem with him not getting in either. Same could be said for Valenzuela whose impact and legacy were as much off the field as on it.

Not a fan of letting the cheaters in.

 

These committee ballots are often designed with an end-goal in mind - ie Fred McGriff several years ago. I think this one is clearing a path for Dale Murphy, who has *a lot* of support and is loved with the baseball community - by players, coaches, writers...

 

I don't know how much I believe there is a conspiracy, but I do believe there us a strong hope by those who are involved that Murphy becomes a H.O.Fer.

I have nothing against Murphy but 46.5 bWAR, 2111 hits, less than 400 hrs only 7 seasons above 115 OPS+?

He looks very much like hall of very good to me.

Maybe that would open up discussions about guys like Berkman and Bobby Abreu who didn't even get enough votes to stay on the ballot.

Good or bad? I don't know

 

I think Dale Murphy is one of the last battles of the old heads and that's probably gonna carry him in.

I've never liked any of these post denial small council votes. Even when I kind of agree with one like Fred McGriff, after a wide ranging vote is taken you shouldn't be able to just circumvent it with backroom cronyism.

 

There’s an argument - I’m not making it but one could - that he was the best hitter of the 80s. And he did win two MVP awards and had 2 other top 9 finishes.

The case with Murphy is unique: he is universally LOVED in baseball circles by literally everyone, and, like Ryne Sandberg, he really benefited from early cable TV exposure when WTBS (& WGN) was broadcasting Braves (& Cubs) games every day before baseball was everywhere.There are a lot of people that grew up watching Dale Murphy more than practically any other player of that era. (Again, minus maybe Sandberg,)

 

He was an amazing sure-fire HOFer, who fell off a cliff after 30. Is there any other 2-time MVP not in the HOF, other than PED/ineligibles?

That said, he is pretty similar to a Berkman or Jimmy Wynn, who didn't get a single HOF vote, he just has those MVPs and more all-star games. Not that those things weren't deserved.

 

I know what you are saying. But it takes much more than 2 seasons, even MVP seasons.

I know technically the only requirement is 10 years of service but In my opinion there must be both exceptional seasons and longevity to make an impact over a larger time period.

Either one alone is not HOF worthy.

The level of each is fuel for debate but in my opinion, Murphy lacks the second.

 

Roger Maris

 

What about Sandy Koufax? Are there any comparable HOF batters? Obviously lots of people had shorter careers from the old days due to segregation and military service, but like from the 1960s on? I too agree that Murphy doesn't belong, but I think you can be good enough in your peak for longevity to not matter.

Like if Mike Trout had walked after 10 years, I think he'd have been a no-doubt HOFer. If Aaron Judge never played again, I think he'd be a no doubt HOFer. Of course those guys have numbers that are HOF among HOFers.

 

Along those lines...Bonds and Clemens (maybe ARod, I'd have to look stuff up) were HOF before they touched PEDs, do they belong?

 

Murphy's 8-year peak ('80-'87) is *really* good: .891 OPS; 140 OPS+; 42.2 bWAR; 2 MVPs; 5 Gold Gloves; two other top 10 MVP finishes. And, like I said, was, in many ways, the face of baseball throughout that period.

I'm not arguing *for* him... But I think he's getting in, and the above + how much he's loved, is going to be the reason why.

 

Puckett was the first one that popped to my mind - only 12 seasons; was only good+ for 10. He's a player whose postseason performance really elevated his case.

 

Honestly I go back and forth on them. I think Bonds and Clemens belong, and ARod can go to hell. All 3 have personality issues, though I like Bonds (and I do love Rocket for his time in Houston). I do think you can play yourself out of the HOF sometimes, and that is what happened to Bonds and Clemens. If they retire in 1998, they are both beloved HOF players. Instead they decided to take PEDs and got caught.

I really despise ARod. He's such a phony person and known liar. Clemens lied obviously, but Clemens never came off as a fake person. ARod though pretends to be a good person, and he's just not. And with him, he was probably a great player before PEDs, but we know he was taking them in his mid-20s, so he built the vast majority of his career using them, possibly even from the beginning.

I think eventually they get in, but maybe after they die. Similarly with Pete dead, I expect him to get in. It is a way to remember what they meant to the sport, but not reward them for their misdeeds.

 

2 MVPs is a lock for me (assuming deserved). I'd rather have a small amount of greatness in the Hall of Fame than the better-than-average for a long time, but never truly great players.

 

The problem with using MVP's is that its an award that is voted on.

So often players with better seasons did not win

And players have had amazing seasons that would have won in many years but happened to be up against another amazing season

 

I'm for getting players that have amazing seasons in. I don't really care for longevity.

Here is Murphy and Jeter's year ranked by best fWAR.



Murphy was basically Jeter's equal on their best seasons, but Jeter was on a better team, and Jeter racked up a lot of 4 WAR seasons. When I see a 4 WAR season, I don't think Hall of Fame. Maybe Jeter is a bad example because of the playoff success. However, if Jeter should be in the Hall based on his regular-season contributions (if ignoring playoff success and great teams), Murphy should be in as well. Murphy was really great when he was great and he was great as long as Jeter was great. I just always assumed Murphy was already in the Hall because he was great.

Granted, I have no love for longevity, such that Jeter being a good, not great player for a long time doesn't faze me. Jeter is in the Hall of Fame because of his 5 best years and the success the Yankees had with him. Well, also some people value longevity and being good not great for a long time more than me.

I don't think cumulative WAR should be used for the Hall. The Hall should be about greatness and just being better than replacement level for a long time is not greatness in my opinion. Maybe use a WAGP (Wins above a Good player) such that WAR accumulated above 4 WAR is only counted if looking for an objective measure.

 

As I have said, I think it needs to be both greatness and longevity.

Off the top of my head, I would say at least 25 WAR over 5 best seasons, and at least 10 seasons of 3+ WAR to get on the ballot.

To b get my vote it would likely be 30 WAR over 5 and at least 10 seasons of 4 WAR.

 

If Mattingly got in. And no offense to him. I collected his cards as a kid. They need to hold an emergency election and get the Puma in immediately.