hall-imagn.png
Imagn Images

My 2026 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot has been mailed -- yes, we snail mail it still -- and will be revealed here on CBS Sports Wednesday. Before we get to that, let's tackle some reader questions regarding the Hall of Fame.

Snee asks: Will [Kenny] Lofton get in on the veterans committee?

Snyder response: I'm not confident. He only got 3.2% of the vote his one year on the BBWAA ballot and though it was a crowded ballot and I don't feel like that was a fair shake for one of the most, in my opinion, dubious Hall of Fame omissions. That said, the committees usually put players on those ballots who lasted a long time on the BBWAA ballot and/or got close to the 75% needed for induction. Bobby Grich is a player from several years before Lofton who has gotten similar treatment. On the flip side, Lou Whitaker only got 2.9% of the vote in his one chance with the BBWAA and he was on a Committee ballot in 2020, so maybe there's hope. 

Snee also asked: Should baseball go to automatic five get in every year like NFL?

Snyder response: Plenty of baseball fans who already, incorrectly, love to say the Hall is getting watered down and this could kick things into overdrive. While there are a decent number more players I'd love to see in the Hall -- such as Lofton, Grich and Whitaker, to name three -- I still think five every single year from the BBWAA ballot would be too many and we'd get to the point of the Hall truly being watered down.

Adam R. asks: Many HOF writers mention how they have to really dive into a player's numbers and career to make final decisions. How thorough is that research? What does that process entail and how much time does it take for borderline candidates? Are you provided any research assistance?

Snyder response: To answer the last question first, the Hall of Fame includes a packet with statistics for every player on the ballot with the ballot we receive in the mail, but it isn't overly extensive. Nor should it be. We have so many tools these days. Going to the JAWS pages on Baseball Reference is an easy way to get a decent idea of the players on the ballot (here's second base, just so curious readers can see what it looks like). I do not, however, think any single stat like this is the so-called be-all and end-all. Any player who is even close gets extensive research from me and that includes reading the opinions of others. I will seek out as much information as possible and sometimes I change my mind. I've already noted in this voting cycle that I added Félix Hernández. I didn't vote for him last year and did so this year. It wasn't because I put extra weight on first-year votes (he was a first-year guy last year) and it wasn't because I "caved" or something. I just think I made a mistake and rectified it. On players close like this, I spend hours, sometimes multiple days, on research. 

Dan wonders: We know that position matters a high degree in HOF voting (i.e. the second baseman with the most HRs) but what influence should batting order play, especially as the game evolves? I.e. should leadoff men be judged v. cleanup? Is this different in '90s v. 2010s?

Additional context. Leadoff men until the '00s were nearly *always* slap-hitting middle infielders. Managers fell into a stereotype. Shouldn't they be judged exclusively compared to their peers, as is the case with position-by-position voting?

Snyder response: First things first, thank you to Dan for throwing a pitch right in my wheelhouse. I have a book out, Leadoff Man, that was published just over a month ago. I do think some leadoff men over the years have been overlooked a bit in Hall of Fame voting. Tim Raines took far too long to make the Hall when his biggest on-field crime was not being Rickey Henderson, the G.O.A.T. leadoff man. Lofton getting less than 5% in his first year was a total farce. He should be in. 

Overall, for me, I think we can make concessions based on batting order at times in judging players for the Hall of Fame. For example, for a few years with Andre Dawson on the ballot, I heard people pointing out his sub-par (.323) on-base percentage. As a middle-of-the-order hitter, though, through the '80s and into the early '90s, he wasn't supposed to walk. He was tasked with driving in runs.

Leadoff men for a long time, as you said, were supposed to be light-hitting guys who got on base and drove the pitcher crazy. In my book, I call it the "pest factor." Over the years, plenty of the greatest leadoff hitters like Henderson, Raines, Paul Molitor, Lou Brock and on down to the likes of Richie Ashburn and Earle Combs have made the Hall, but I do think if we're having this discussion that perhaps Brett Butler could've gotten more run for the Hall of Fame. How about Bobby Bonds in being a trendsetter as one of the first power-speed combos at the top (only his son went 30-30 as many times)? This year, I've been stumping for Jimmy Rollins, both as an all-time great leadoff man but also a "heart and soul of his team" guy. 

Jon H. wonders: What is the most important metric when weighing someone's Hall of Fame potential? Hitter and pitcher

Snyder response: I don't think there's ever one stat that defines a player and I want to see the most complete picture possible. I do start with WAR and JAWS (as noted above), as it is one number that is very easily sortable by position. I can't reiterate enough that I would never take just one stat as the be-all end-all. This is only a starting point before diving into more metrics. I'd say next for hitters I'd look at the triple-slash line (AVG/OBP/SLG) with OPS+ so there's context behind the number that accounts for the era in which the player played. From there I'm always going to look at the major counting stats like hits, doubles, triples, home runs, RBI, runs and stolen bases. It's all important. For pitchers, similarly, I'd go to ERA and ERA+ next before diving into innings and strikeouts. I'll still glance at wins and losses -- and saves for relievers -- but those are becoming less important in the current era. 

Everyone is different, but for me, "less is more" doesn't really apply. I want to study as much as possible about a player.

James H. asks: Given that we've likely seen the last pitcher to reach 300 wins in their career, has a new criterion taken its place ala quality starts or career ERA? Are there any other criterion that have evolved since you began covering baseball?

Snyder response: This piggybacks nicely with the previous answer. For me, I want to look most at what an individual player can control and how good he is at controlling it. The old mantra "a pitcher's job is to win" is archaic given that the pitcher needs run support in addition to help from the bullpen these days. That means the W-L record loses its luster. A pitcher's job is to put his team in the best position to win by limiting the runs by the opposition. He can do that by not allowing baserunners (WHIP), by striking out opposing hitters and by working as deep into the game as his team allows (IP). Things like ERA, ERA+ and FIP and xFIP measure the run prevention and the innings, strikeouts and WHIP are very important as well. Newfangled numbers like WAR and JAWS attempt to take everything into account. As noted some in the previous answer, I like the biggest picture possible. 

Further, with workloads being much more limited in these most recent generations of starting pitchers, I think lowering the standard a bit for starting pitchers and the Hall of Fame needs to happen.

Rich B. wonders: Can playoff stats get someone into the Hall of Fame? Let's say regular-season starts are a little better than average but postseason stats are incredible. Obviously games played in the postseason affects it, but is that something writers consider when it's a borderline candidate?

Snyder response: I don't think a player who wasn't even close to a Hall of Famer in the regular season should get enough credit for stellar postseason numbers to push him into the Hall of Fame. As an example, let's say George Springer retired right now. He's one of the most prolific playoff performers of all time at this juncture, but his regular-season numbers show him as a very good player who isn't a Hall of Famer. He'd still fall short to me. 

I don't think there's anything wrong with giving bonus points if a player is close, though. From this ballot, let's look at Carlos Beltrán. I think he should've been a Hall of Famer in his first try anyway -- though the sign stealing scandal damaged him more than anything else, so let's ignore that for a second -- but let's suppose that you aren't fully sold on him as a Hall of Famer based on the regular-season numbers. In 65 career playoff games, Beltrán hit .307/.412/.609 with 15 doubles, 16 homers, 42 RBI, 45 runs and was 11 for 11 in steals. You've gotta award him bonus points for that, right? 

To answer your question specifically, if I had a borderline candidate and his numbers looked like Beltrán's in the playoffs, I'd let that clinch my decision and throw that player a vote. On the flip side, it's such a small sample and there are always so many factors involved that if a player was a lower-tier Hall-worthy candidate and had awful postseason numbers, I wouldn't penalize him. 

I'm sure that might not sound fair to some people, but I'd never hold bad playoff stats against a player while I'm open to giving bonus points to excellent playoff numbers. This is a good illustration of my mindset. I'm a positive guy. I'm a Big Hall voter. I'd err on the side of more votes rather than fewer.