With the release of the 2026 BBWAA Hall of Fame ballot earlier this week, we've officially entered Cooperstown deliberation season.
There are now two ballots up for consideration. While the writers' process tends to soak up most of the attention, the contemporary baseball era committee ballot -- announced Nov. 3 -- is more urgent and intriguing. The results will be determined by a yet-to-be-named committee just before the upcoming winter meetings in Orlando, Florida, and announced on Dec. 7.
Though the writers have until the end of the year to determine their choices for the primary ballot, the era committee process will be upon us not long after the coming Thanksgiving holiday. Each of the Hall's era committees meet every three years, and this year, the contemporary era committee is considering player candidates from 1980 on. It's the stronger ballot; the eight candidates average 74.1 career bWAR, while the 33 candidates on the primary ballot average 41.3. Even if you just take the top eight on the main ballot, that group averages 70.4.
Much of the attention has been focused on two candidates: Don Mattingly and Dale Murphy. Heck, the Murphy constituency has its own web site, which among other things features documentaries narrated by country singer Jason Aldean and sportscaster Ernie Johnson.
I get it. Mattingly and Murphy were MVPs in the 1980s who attracted legions of fans in their time, many of whom considered one or the other their favorite player. As the captain of the New York Yankees, Mattingly had a huge following, while Murphy's fan base was national thanks to the Atlanta Braves' omnipresence on SuperStation WTBS, as it was known then. I have a Murphy model ballglove I got in junior high that I still use all these years later.
Still, the attention sphere around this ballot should be fixed on two other players, who might just be respectively the best hitter and best pitcher who ever played.
Let's go to the bWAR leaderboard.
2025 ERA COMMITTEE BALLOT
Barry Bonds (162.8 bWAR)
Roger Clemens (139.2)
Gary Sheffield (60.5)
Jeff Kent (55.4)
Dale Murphy (46.5)
Carlos Delgado (44.4)
Don Mattingly (42.4)
Fernando Valenzuela (41.4)
We all know why Bonds and Clemens (and Sheffield) remain Hall candidates rather than Hall members, but that's all the more reason that we should be on fire, right now, relitigating the issues surrounding their candidacies. It's as if even those who support the candidacies of Bonds and Clemens in particular have slipped into numb acceptance in a "they should be in, but we all know how it is" sort of way.
The thing about this cycle is that the stakes have changed. Last year, the Hall announced a tweak to their era committee process, something they've done many times over the decades. As things stand now, this could be the second-to-last shot for Bonds and Clemens -- ever.
The new rule:
"Beginning in 2025, any candidate who appears on a ballot and does not receive votes from at least five of the 16 voters will not be eligible to be placed on the ballot within the Era Committee's following three-year cycle. Additionally, beginning in 2025, any candidate that does not receive at least five of 16 votes in multiple appearances on Era Committee ballots will not be eligible for future ballot consideration."
So if Bonds, Clemens or Sheffield fall short of five ballots out of the 16 that will be cast in Orlando, they won't be eligible the next time their era group comes up in 2028. Then 2031 will be their last chance, if they are nominated.
Most fans are firmly entrenched on this issue. To me, the idea that the Hall of Fame would not include baseball's all-time home run king and one of the top five pitchers ever, when both are eligible and both have official playing records that are intact, means it will forever be less than what it should be. Given the new guidelines, it's a shadow that would loom over 25 Main Street forever.
At any rate, only 16 people will comprise the committee that will deliberate over the era ballot in Orlando. We don't yet know who they are -- this will be announced in early December -- but the makeup of the committee will tell you a lot about how things are likely to go. It always does, which has always been the primary problem with the various incarnations of the veterans and era committees over the years.
To move from committee to Cooperstown, all of the candidates will need to be named on at least 12 of the 16 ballots. But each member is limited to three names. All eight of the players on ballot have their advocates, so even without the looming presence of Bonds and Clemens, it's a tough road.
There is no one right way to approach this, but over time, I've developed a method to working through how to deal with these ballots -- whether it's an era ballot or the writer's ballot. These are only exercises to inform my writing about the process, as I have never cast a Hall of Fame vote.
I think of the process as a kind of flow chart consisting of three regions, which are: 1. Eligibility; 2. Objective case; 3. Deep dive.
Each region works as a kind of funnel: You filter out some players, others slip through, unless their cases become clear. At each juncture, you're asking, "Who's in?" and "Who's out?" If the player falls in neither category, he slips through the funnel into the next region.
Let's apply this approach to the current era ballot.
Region 1: Eligibility
For our purposes as voters (let's all call ourselves that to get into the spirit), this is done for us. We can only vote for those on the ballot. Write-in votes are not permitted.
So why bother to break this out? It's all about the character clause:
"Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."
Some of these things are more concrete than others. We don't have time for a debate on moral philosophy, but for me the key is simply this: Any baseball writer, commentator, reporter, historian, player, manager, executive or anyone else who finds themselves puzzling over a Hall of Fame ballot is qualified to assess baseball. The rest, as former commissioner Faye Vincent once opined, is "hopelessly vague."
These things can mean different things to different people, but I believe that the time for deciding whether certain transgressions eliminate a candidate from Hall consideration should fall during the pre-ballot process. You don't want certain people in your Hall of Fame? Then don't put them on the ballot. Once they land on the ballot, then it's all about the baseball part of a person's story.
The Hall does eliminate from consideration anyone on the ineligible list -- those banned from the game -- so there are acknowledged limitations. But if the player lands on a ballot, then for me the case moves onto the matters related to winning baseball games and accolades, things that are all a matter of the sport's official record.
As for this era ballot, obviously the eligibility region neither anoints anyone, nor rules out anyone. So all eight move onto the next region.
Region 2: Objective case
Far more has been written about the objective judgment of Hall of Fame candidates than any other consideration. And let's face it, this is the fun part.
I want to be clear about one thing: WAR should never be the only consideration for Hall membership. Neither should win shares or home runs or hits or win probability added, or pitcher won-loss record or career saves. You must look at a player's career holistically and in context, using various criteria and then go from there. In fact, the Hall's guidelines explicitly prohibit the inclusion of anyone based strictly on some predetermined objective standard.
What we're looking for are the outliers, both positive and negative -- those who are no-brainers to get in, and those whose cases aren't strong enough to move them into our third region. There won't be any eliminations in this section today, but this step would help us sort out the primary ballot.
As for no-brainers, you can guess where this is headed.
Bonds: He ranks fourth all-time in bWAR (162.8), first in home runs (762), fifth in OPS (1.051), first in walks (2,558), first in runs created (2,892) ... and so on. Recognition in one's own time is a crucial indicator when looking at an era candidate, and of course Bonds has that too. His seven MVP awards are three more than anyone else and he ranks first in award shares for MVP voting.
Clemens: He ranks eighth in bWAR (139.2) and third in pitching bWAR (138.7), won 354 games, ranks third on the strikeout list (4,672) and ranks first in award shares for Cy Young voting.
Yeah, they're in. These are the performance records of no-doubt Hall of Famers who should not be on this ballot in the first place. Either they should have been in long ago, or they should have been deemed ineligible. But here they are, and their cases remain as clear-cut as ever.
Everyone else moves onto the final region.
Region 3: Deep Dive (aka The Keltner List)
Now we're into the gray area -- candidates who might be Hall worthy or might not. Because of the presence of two no-brainers on the ballot, and the limitation of only being allowed to list three candidates, we're down to one precious slot.
The Keltner List is a series of questions developed by Bill James in his seminal book on the Hall of Fame, "The Politics of Glory." The questions are all closed-ended, so for each we land on yes or no. We'll run through the questions and list the "yes" players for each one. Then we'll tally it up and see where we land.
1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball?
Remember, we've already anointed Bonds and Clemens above, so they are not subject to any of these questions. As for the rest, I give credit for this one to Mattingly and Murphy.
It's not clear-cut, but Murphy won back-to-back MVPs and would clearly have been in any "best player" conversation during that time (1982 and 1983) and perhaps beyond. Mattingly was AL MVP in 1985, and from 1984 to 1986 he created 20 more runs than any other player in baseball and won two Glove Gloves. Many would have argued he was baseball's best player at that time.
Yes: Mattingly, Murphy
2. Was he the best player on his team?
This is a yes for everyone except Kent, whose best seasons came as Bonds' teammate. Kent did win NL MVP in 2000, but hitting behind Bonds (49 homers, .440 OBP) was a boost to his stat line and Bonds had a higher bWAR even in that season.
Perhaps worth mentioning is Valenzuela, who can at least stake claim to this category for his rookie season (1981) when he won the NL Cy Young Award and led the champion Los Angeles Dodgers in bWAR.
Yes: Sheffield, Murphy, Delgado, Mattingly, Valenzuela
3. Was he the best player in baseball (or in the league) at his position?
Everyone gets a yes here. Kent, Murphy and Mattingly won MVP awards. Valenzuela won a Cy Young. These are strong indicators. Sheffield was baseball's best right fielder in 2003, at the very least. He was probably the top third baseman in 1992. Delgado was the top AL first baseman once or twice. Frankly, for a ballot like this one, this criteria is a fairly low bar.
Yes: Sheffield, Kent, Murphy, Delgado, Mattingly, Valenzuela
4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
Increasingly, because of the larger playoff formats of the recent era, I'd fold playoff appearances and performance into this question. The murky part is the "a number of" component. Murphy played on a lot of lousy teams and got into only one playoff series. Same for Mattingly, though he raked when he got there. Delgado had a huge 2006 postseason for the New York Mets but that was his only playoff appearance.
I'm giving a yes here to Valenzuela and Sheffield for coming up big for championship teams. Kent didn't get a ring but hit well over 49 postseason games.
Yes: Valenzuela, Sheffield, Kent
5. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?
This is a yes for all of them, as all played regular roles well into their 30s. Mattingly's career was truncated because of his ongoing back trouble, but that shortened his peak more than anything. He still played until he was 34 and was the Yankees' regular first baseman the entire time.
Yes: Sheffield, Kent, Murphy, Delgado, Mattingly, Valenzuela
6. Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
As long as Bonds and Clemens are on the outside, this question probably will remain a no for everyone who becomes subject to this inquiry.
Yes: None
7. Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?
This is where we turn to Jay Jaffe's JAWS data as it exists at baseball-reference.com. The answer for all is: No. None of our remaining six really come all that close to the average standards of existing Hall of Famers at their positions. There are some comparable Hall of Famers, but not most. This is not surprising, as an era ballot is by definition a second-chance process.
Yes: None
8. Do the players' numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
James' systematized this question in an ingenious way, and we'll lean on his standard of a score of 50 for our six hopefuls. We're left with two players who clear that bar.
Yes: Sheffield, Kent
9. Is there evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
I'm going to focus on peak value, which I've always weighed close to equal with career value, though with a higher bar. (Think: Sandy Koufax and his ilk of short-career greats.)
This helps Mattingly. His peak bWAR (35.7) is still below the Hall average at first base, but it's better than David Ortiz and Orlando Cepeda, and virtually even with Tony Perez, Fred McGriff and Frank Chance. These are all Hall of Famers. Delgado (34.5 peak bWAR) isn't far back, so it's really about where you want to draw the lines.
Meanwhile, Sheffield had a higher peak bWAR (38.0) than Hall of Famers Dave Winfield, Dave Parker, Enos Slaughter, Willie Keeler and Kike Cuyler, plus some other 19th century types further down the list. When you consider that Sheffield topped 500 homers (509) and has a career bWAR (60.5) that is borderline, his case is building.
Finally, Murphy gets a similar bump. His peak bWAR (41.2) ranks 18th among center fielders. He's above quite a few Hall of Famers.
Yes: Sheffield, Mattingly, Murphy
10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?
No one can claim to be the best hitter or pitcher not in. Zeroing in on specific positions, using JAWS, you can't quite get there for any of the six. Even if you discount active players and PED-associated candidates at first base, Mattingly and Delgado still have to deal with the specter of Keith Hernandez, John Olerud, Will Clark and others who, at the very least, are hard to separate. Kent is blocked in this area by Lou Whitaker and Bobby Grich, to start. None of the six clear this bar.
Yes: None
11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP Award? If not, how many times was he close?
We'll fold in Cy Young voting for Valenzuela and defer to the awards-share figures. We have award winners -- Valenzuela, Mattingly, Murphy and Kent -- and those are enough for a yes. Sheffield had three top-three MVP finishes and had more MVP shares than any of the three who won the award. Delgado just missed winning the AL MVP Award in 2003.
Yes: Sheffield, Kent, Murphy, Delgado, Mattingly, Valenzuela
12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star Games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go into the Hall of Fame?
Delgado played in only two All-Star Games and there aren't many Hall of Famers with only two ASG appearances. Everyone else played in many All-Star Games and land in peer groups comprising quite a few Hall of Famers.
Yes: Sheffield, Kent, Murphy, Mattingly, Valenzuela
13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
Yes: Sheffield, Kent, Murphy, Delgado, Mattingly, Valenzuela
14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
All of these players were historic in different ways, not all of them good. But I'm going to stay positive here and award one yes in a category that I view as extra credit. That goes to Valenzuela, whose impact in Latin America in general and Mexico in particular was immense, and it was pretty significant in Southern California as well.
Yes: Valenzuela
15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?
And so we come back, at the end, where many want to begin the discussion. And here, I'm OK with getting into traits such as clubhouse leadership and things like the Roberto Clemente Award and other areas of community impact. When you are comparing similar candidates, those are separating qualities and, I would argue, are germane to the primary task of baseball careers: winning games, pennants, and championships, but also establishing an identity in conjunction with the teams on which you play.
Even so, I'm loath to judge these players in these areas for the most part, so I will seek hard evidence. There, we find that Mattingly was a Yankees team captain. Murphy and Delgado were Clemente Award recipients.
Yes: Mattingly, Murphy, Delgado
So who gets the nod?
The Keltner List is meant to help you arrive at a thumbs-up or thumbs-down for each candidate put through that ringer. But here I'm taking a different approach. We've got three spots. Two of those were claimed early on by Bonds and Clemens, leaving me with one slot.
Well, the Keltner List left three players that landed nine yes votes among the 15 questions: Sheffield, Murphy and Mattingly. All of them are worthy Hall of Famers. But we have to whittle it down, so it comes down to picking one.
My pick: Murphy
Murphy had the highest peak value of the trio and had a stint in the conversation as the best player in the sport. He was an all-around player, as his five Gold Gloves will attest. His reputation in the sport, while not the top-line consideration for me, is something I very much honor.
I wish it didn't have to be only three and I will always believe that all Hall votes shouldn't be space-limited by rule. Either someone is a Hall of Famer, or they aren't. But for now, we have only so many lines to fill in and I'd fill mine with Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Dale Murphy.
Whether you agree with this approach probably comes down to your stance on the character clause. For me, this is the simple, direct way to approach the murkiest and most glorious of all baseball debates -- whether a player's career merits Hall of Fame induction.
