Earlier this week, I reviewed the Veterans Committee ballot ahead of their upcoming December 7th announcement. Part 1 (which can be read here) covered the cases of Gary Sheffield, Carlos Delgado, Fernando Valenzuela, and most-likely inductee Jeff Kent; Part 2 (which can be read here) covered the new rules shenanigans that are likely to impact the candidacies of Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Don Mattingly, and Dale Murphy. Check both of those out if you haven’t already, I think I did a pretty good job on them!
And now, we finally have the final piece of the puzzle: earlier this week, the Hall of Fame officially announced the sixteen people who will be serving as voters for the vote this weekend. If you haven’t been following the most recent iteration of Veterans Committee elections as closely, this has kind of become a big deal over the last few years. The VC has always been unique in that they meet to discuss votes in person, and these conversations can have a notable impact on the final results as members try to strategize or campaign for certain candidates. Of particular note was the 2019 election, where Harold Baines swung a surprise induction while going in front of an especially-favorable set of voters.
Nothing since has been quite that shocking, but looking at the committee can sometimes give you clues to what’s on the horizon. For example, last year’s sixteen panelists tilted me towards predicting Dave Parker would make it in, which did indeed happen. It’s not a guarantee to have an effect (I thought last year’s panelists might be sympathetic to Luis Tiant too, which did not occur in the slightest), but it’s always worth taking a look. This year’s set of voters is:
Hall of Fame Players: Fergie Jenkins, Jim Kaat, Juan Marichal, Tony Perez, Ozzie Smith, Alan Trammell, and Robin Yount
Executives: Owners Mark Attanasio and Arte Moreno, plus General Managers Doug Melvin, Kim Ng, Tony Reagins, and Terry Ryan
Writers: Jayson Stark and Tyler Kepner of The Athletic, plus historian Steve Hirdt
I don’t know that there’s one overriding theme this time, in the way that there was with the Baines ballot. However, that has been kind of the norm since then; I think the Hall realized that it was a bad look (even if probably unintentional), and has been going out of its way to avoid a repeat. But there are smaller trends that can play a part, and sometimes add up. Going through my thoughts on those, roughly in order that they occurred to me:
1. That set of voting players doesn’t really intersect with the candidates in a notable way, as far as teams go. Usually this doesn’t happen, but this set seems particularly separated (unless there was an incidental overlap somewhere that I didn’t notice). The closest thing that I can see to a potential supporter is Giant Marichal voting on noted Giants Barry Bonds and Jeff Kent, but he also is the most-separated voter from this era, retiring before any of them started playing. It’s possible he met them while doing stuff for the team and feels inclined to vote for them, but that seems like a stretch. And on the other hand, one of the actual hard overlaps we do have is Yount and Sheffield both playing for the late-’80s Brewers, but that may not work out in Sheffield’s favor (more on that in a moment).
2. These players are pretty heavy on 1970s and ‘80s guys, so the temporal overlap is a little greater. Maybe most of them weren’t teammates with the guys they’re voting on, but playing against a guy seems to also factor into voters’ considerations some times (I think it mattered a little for Parker last year, for instance).
This year’s set is on the older side of things. I imagine that works toward the favor of Valenzuela, Murphy, and Mattingly, who were all at their peak at the same time as a lot of these committee members (and even Kaat, whose playing peak was much earlier, was doing a lot of broadcasting work in the ‘80s and early ‘90s, still tying him to this range). Clemens and Bonds were also stars then, even if their reigns extended far beyond that era. Meanwhile, Kent, Delgado, and Sheffield weren’t really their best selves until everyone here had retired.
3. If we expand our scope to the Executives, I do actually notice two small “blocs”. We’ve got a Brewers owner, front office guy, and legend in the former of Attanasio, Melvin, and Yount. And we also got an Angels duo, between owner Moreno and former GM (and still involved in the team’s front office) Reagins. It would be silly to say this guarantees they’ll vote the same way… but it may mean that one of them could find some friendly ears if they do have a particular candidate that they want to support.
Or… not support. I alluded to the overlap in Yount and Sheffield’s Brewer tenures earlier. It’s notable that that period ended because Sheffield didn’t want to stay in Milwaukee, and he later admitted that he (being pre-free agency) played poorly to help speed up a trade to somewhere else (which eventually happened, sending him to San Diego). This does not strike me as the type of thing that would have won Yount’s favor, but I suppose anything is possible. And while Melvin and Attanasio don’t align with Sheffield’s time in Wisconsin, I wouldn’t be shocked if they defer to Yount here. Given that Sheffield was probably going to need a lot of luck in his favor anyway, I wouldn’t think this is a good sign.
And what do we make of the Angels duo? No one here has ever been involved with the team (except for one late-career season from Valenzuela), but there are several guys from their cross-town rivals the Dodgers here; and for anyone who says “the Angels aren’t really cross-town rivals with the Dodgers because they’re in Anaheim”, know that Moreno disagrees, as he’s the guy who came up with the whole “Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim” name.
Kent had some great years in blue right after Moreno assumed ownership; I don’t think he’ll need much help really, but it's still worth thinking about. Sheffield’s tenure just missed him. And of course, Valenzuela was working the Dodgers’ booth the whole time while also being a city fixture. It’s also maybe worth mentioning that Moreno is a Mexican-American guy from the Southwest, which lines up with a lot of the biggest impacts of Fernandomania. Moreno himself was in his mid-30s when that happened, so it’s not like he grew up watching him, but I can also see him appreciating the man’s legacy. And at the very least, it’s not hard to imagine them crossing paths in the 2000s/2010s LA Baseball scene. I searched a little but couldn’t find any statement from Moreno on Valenzuela either way, so now I’m curious. Watch this space, I guess?
4. There is actually one very-direct connection I can see in the Executive set. Don Mattingly worked as Manager of the Marlins directly under Kim Ng, while she was General Manager of the team. Granted, Mattingly was there before she arrived (2016 to 2022, while Kim’s tenure was 2021 to 2023), and she ended up replacing him with Skip Schumaker before the team’s surprising 2023 run to the playoffs, but it did happen! And it’s possible that that rift left bad blood, but if so, it hasn’t been made public at all; given that, I’d chalk it up as a positive for Mattingly until we hear otherwise.
5. And what about the media members? Again, I’m not sure that there would be any hard bias there, but it’s possible that being around a team or player as a beat writer ends up making them more sympathetic to a candidate, in the same way that playing against them does. Stark and Kepner have covered national beats lately; both are at The Athletic now, and Stark was at ESPN for a long time before then. Before that, he was in Philly, and the only Phillies players from that era here are Murphy and Valenzuela, who both stopped there for a brief stint well after their peaks.
Kepner, meanwhile, mostly covered baseball for the New York Times before then, spending some time on both the Yankees and Mets beats (although primarily the former) before moving to the national level. It would have matched up with Sheffield and some of Clemens’ seasons there, as well as Mattingly’s time as a coach. And while we’re on the subject, it’s worth mentioning that prior to returning to Minnesota, Kaat also worked with the Yankees’ broadcast team for a while back in the ‘80s. That also seems like a positive indicator for Mattingly.
6. We actually have some prior votes we can refer to here, too! However, it may not be as many as you think. Stark has the longest voting tenure here, as I could find his BBWAA vote in every year present in the Ballot Tracker from Ryan Thibodaux and his team. In that time, he recorded votes for Bonds, Clemens, Kent, Murphy, and Sheffield. He mentioned that he gave Delgado a “long look” in his 2015 column as well. I couldn’t find any evidence he’s voted for Mattingly, but that might be for space reasons; Stark has always been more of a “Big Hall” guy, and has used the full ballot frequently even before things got super crowded in 2013. Unfortunately, the columns accompanying his pre-2013 ballots have been taken down by ESPN, so I can’t confirm if it was a case of Mattingly always being his eleventh choice or just a general coolness to his case. Either way, Stark seems to support most of the ballot’s options, and I suspect his vote will be used at least somewhat strategically to those ends.
Kepner has only started voting more recently, after all of these players fell off the ballot. I couldn’t find any (non-paywalled) columns where he explained his view on steroid players, although I could find a few columns where he noted other voters were still polarized against them in a way that would make induction difficult. Hirdt is similarly difficult to get a read on; he votes in what seems like every BBWAA and VC election, but he’s never made his vote public from what I can find.
It’s less direct, but we do have some past Veterans Committee votes to look at, too! Mattingly and Murphy were on the 2018 and 2020 ballots but did not reach enough votes to have their totals publicly released either time. In 2018 (where we know they fell below 7 votes), Yount, Hirdt, and Stark were all voters. In 2020, Smith, Yount, Melvin, Ryan, and Hirdt were all voters, and we know both players finished below 3 votes. Meanwhile, Trammell, Ng, Moreno, and Hirdt were all on the 2023 ballot, which is the one where Mattingly got 8 votes, Murphy got 6, and Bonds and Clemens fell into the unreported “less than 4” range.
Of course, writing this off as “the first two sets of voters are against Mattingly and Murphy, the last set is for them” is too oversimplified. Even if we could see who voted for who, the tight vote limits make it hard to know if the non-votes were over a lack of ballot space or a disagreement on the players’ merits.
It’s also worth noting that in both 2018 and 2020, Mattingly and Murphy were regularly finishing below Marvin Miller, Ted Simmons, Jack Morris, and Alan Trammell, all big vote-getters who have since been inducted. They also finished behind Dwight Evans and Lou Whitaker in 2020, but as I griped last time, those two aren’t back on the ballot this time, for some reason. That might be as much a reason for their 2023 improvement as anything. Of course, that still wouldn’t help much for Bonds and Clemens’ cases.
Where does that all leave us? Last time, I mentioned that Jeff Kent was my pick for most-likely inductee on this ballot. He didn’t come up a lot in this column, but I’m still not changing that prediction; I don’t really think he needs the extra credit (although the little bit that he got here seems to be mostly good news).
You know who would need that extra push over the hump, though? A guy who’s going up for his nineteenth Hall of Fame election, like Don Mattingly. This scenario feels like it could benefit him a lot, and it makes me think he’s the second most-likely inductee. I’m not sure I’d put his odds above 50/50, but that still looks like a better chance than he’s had at induction in ages.
Fernando Valenzuela still seems like a dark horse; I can see a world where things align for him, but it will rely on some factors that we just can’t know ahead of time, like “does he have someone in his corner willing to really advocate his case”, “how does the vote for Mattingly go” and “how do voters work around the 5-vote minimum rule”*. Remember, we’re still dealing with only 48 ballot slots, so things will get tight. The opportunity for coordination means it’s not impossible to see , but voters may also be “wasting” more votes than usual to keep certain names from slipping into ineligibility. And there’s a chance that, like with Tiant last year, I’m just totally imagining a sympathy vote that never materializes and he falls below the 5-vote line.
*Go back and read more about this in Part 2 if you missed it, but as a quick refresher: starting this year, candidates have to reach 5 votes or risk becoming ineligible the next time voting for their Era comes up in the rotation. And failing to reach the mark twice in a row renders them permanently ineligible for the Hall.
Given all of that, four inductees is just out of the question. We aren’t getting a perfect usage of votes like that. I wouldn’t rule out a case for Dale Murphy, but I don’t see a world where he makes it in alongside Kent, Mattingly, AND Valenzuela. He’d have to slip past one or both of Mattingly and Valenzuela. I think he’s better than Mattingly, but Mattingly’s extra edges seem like they’d make a difference in something like this. Maybe he has someone on the committee who will really push for him, and I’m just not seeing it.
Bonds and Clemens might not drop below the 5-vote line this time; I can even imagine configurations where two players get in and it happens (for example: Kent-16, Mattingly-12, Murphy-10, Bonds/Clemens-5). But I also wouldn’t guarantee that at all; indeed, if Valenzuela, Murphy, and Mattingly all have strong showings, it basically can’t happen, even if all three of them end up falling short of the 12 votes they need for induction (and of course, this is still assuming that the Hall of Fame’s board hasn’t been trying to weigh things against them even further behind the scenes). An induction this go-around seems totally out of the question. Delgado and Sheffield seem very likely to not make that 5-vote line, unless voters are feeling VERY generous and really work to spread things out.
If you want that broken down to “which outcomes are the most likely”, it probably comes out to “only Kent gets in” just ahead of “Kent and Mattingly”. I also wouldn’t rule out combinations of “Kent and Valenzuela”, “Kent and Murphy”, or “Kent, Mattingly, and one of the other two”, but I think they’re all long shots. Whatever the results, I’ll have a breakdown here following the announcement; if you’d like to be notified when that goes up, you can join the mailing list with the box below.
A Baseball Blog - Scientific and Speculative Thoughts from Third Base
No comments:
Post a Comment