Hall of Fame voting winners and losers: Scott Rolen is headed to Cooperstown — who else got good (or bad) news?
The 2023 Baseball Writers’ Association of America vote is in — and Scott Rolen is the newest member of the Baseball Hall of Fame. He joins Fred McGriff, who was elected in December via the inaugural contemporary baseball era committee.
ESPN MLB experts Buster Olney, Bradford Doolittle, Alden Gonzalez and Jesse Rogers examine the 2023 vote and what it means, and look ahead to what the future votes hold for this year’s candidates and those to come.
Let’s dive in.
Olney: Todd Helton, whose voting share took a major leap forward. With five years remaining on the ballot, it’s evident that he’ll get in next year, or maybe in 2025, based on his positional dominance in the middle of his career.
Doolittle: Helton, with Billy Wagner not far behind. Helton continues to gain support and is now at a level where it seems certain he’ll get over the threshold eventually. Wagner only has two years left so that’s a little more uncertain, but his percentage continues to grow. Also McGriff — though he’s so modest, he may actually think that makes him the big loser.
Gonzalez: Helton is the obvious choice because he’s nearing 75% and has enough time to get there, but I’ll go with someone else who’s getting close: Andruw Jones, who still has four years of eligibility remaining.
Jones has experienced relatively sizable jumps in four straight years, and that trend should continue for an obvious reason: He is one of the best center fielders of all time. We’re talking about a 10-time Gold Glover who accumulated 434 home runs, and whose peak — nine years, as one of the key members of dominant Atlanta Braves teams — lasted a lot longer than people might think.
Rogers: Carlos Beltran. About half the voters believe he should be in already. A certain portion undoubtedly didn’t vote for him in Year 1 of eligibility because of the aforementioned cheating scandal, but some of them will likely vote for him in the future. And he still has nine years to put distance between his career and that fateful final year in the majors. Meanwhile, he only needs to appear on 25% more ballots, assuming those that voted for him already continue to do so.
Who is the biggest loser from this year’s voting results?
Olney: Torii Hunter, who seems destined to be this year’s version of Jorge Posada — a player who will apparently be dropped off the ballot after inexplicably garnering less than 5% of the vote, with his percentage dipping each of the past two years. To review: nine Gold Gloves, five All-Star appearances, nearly 2,500 hits and more than 350 homers. He’ll be voted in by a special committee someday.
Doolittle: Immanuel Kant. You know, the guy who wrote about the power and limits of reason, because if he were still around and following baseball’s Hall of Fame voting, he might conclude that reason does not in fact exist. Just look at the disparate percentages going to Manny Ramirez and Gary Sheffield, and also Jones and Omar Vizquel. And what about poor Bobby Abreu? Not saying he should get in, but he gets named on about one ballot in five, while Jones is pretty close to getting over the top? And, yeah, Hunter falling off the ballot is just wrong.
Gonzalez: Abreu, once again. I don’t know if he’s a Hall of Famer, but he deserves far more consideration than what his consistently lacking support implies. Abreu did a little bit of everything — stealing bases, playing great defense, hitting for average and displaying power, all while averaging 156 games per season during a 13-year run that encompassed his peak. His accolades — two All-Star Game appearances, one Gold Glove and one Silver Slugger — don’t justify his greatness. Neither does his Hall of Fame support. Abreu sits at only 15.4% through four years on the ballot.
Rogers: Can it be anyone other than Jeff Kent? He didn’t come close to getting in despite hitting the most home runs by a second baseman in baseball history. And he’ll no longer be on the ballot, as this was his 10th and final year.
Full disclosure, I voted for him — and I’m OK with him not making it — but only appearing on 46.5% of the ballots? That’s just wrong. And his accomplishments came during the steroid era, which he was never linked to. OK, so he never won a Gold Glove, but if Ryne Sandberg is in, then Kent should be as well. Or at least a lot closer.
What is one trend that stands out to you from this year’s voting totals?
Olney: The voters seem to care less about defense despite the fact that we know more than ever about its impact — and even though they did vote Rolen in. Jones, Omar Vizquel and Hunter are all in the conversation for the best defenders ever at their respective positions.
Doolittle: After we get past the obvious current starting pitcher Hall candidates at some point down the line — Justin Verlander, Clayton Kershaw, Max Scherzer, et al. — I wonder if we’ll go through a long period of voters trying to figure out what a Hall of Fame starter looks like. I don’t think there were any Hall of Fame starting pitchers on this ballot but it’s still striking how little support they received.
Gonzalez: I’m going to be really curious about Alex Rodriguez’s year-to-year Hall of Fame support. He has clear PED ties, of course, but also the type of resume that might ultimately transcend it. A-Rod — like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens — can make a case for the greatest player ever at his position (in his case, we’ll say shortstop).
It’s a case that comes with a major caveat, but the BBWAA as a whole is slowly becoming more lenient toward PED use both with the passage of time and with the entry of new, younger members. Will A-Rod eventually break through? It’s easy to think otherwise, given that he gained only four votes from last year. But he has eight more years ahead of him.
Rogers: Really, it’s a continuing trend. Anyone linked to steroids is going to have a really hard time getting in. That’s especially true for those who failed one or more tests. Like Bonds, a case could be made that Rodriguez was a Hall of Fame player before he juiced, but voters don’t seem to care. And any argument over the years for accepting the steroid era as simply part of baseball history, and players still had to perform, has fallen on deaf ears. Voters have said no once again.
Which one player’s vote total is most surprising to you?
Olney: Rodriguez polling close to 40%. Despite his PED suspension, MLB views him as a member in good standing — and the Hall of Fame sees him the same way, putting him on the ballot (unlike Pete Rose, whose name has never appeared on a ballot following his lifetime ban).
It’s only in the eyes of the baseball writers that Rodriguez is persona non grata — in the face of the commonsense reality that the sport’s history post-World War II was saturated with PED use, and that a lot of current Hall of Famers were users. Bizarre. Rodriguez clubbed 696 homers, collected 3,115 hits, scored 2,021 runs and drove in 2,086. He’s one of the best players of all time.
Doolittle: Sheffield. Really surprising that he picked up so much support, not because I don’t think he is qualified for the Hall but just because of the old PED connection and how it has impacted other players. I just don’t really know where voters are drawing the line on this topic. Sheffield has one more try left and I hope he gets in.
Gonzalez: It’s Hunter for me. Similar to Abreu, I just expected more support for someone who was so well-rounded, both as a player — a nine-time Gold Glover who surpassed 20 home runs 11 separate times — but also as someone who was beloved by teammates and media alike. It’s a sad reality about Hall of Fame voting that sometimes it feels as if we don’t truly appreciate certain players simply because they fall short of an exceedingly high bar. Maybe he isn’t ultimately a Hall of Famer, but at least he got just enough support (6.9%) to remain on the ballot another year.
Rogers: Kent. See above. Home runs aren’t the be-all and end-all but only one player at each position around the diamond can be the all-time leader in a category. Kent is it for second baseman. He was a power bat at a position that still doesn’t generate much — even less than shortstops do nowadays. That’s a huge luxury for a team. Great offensive and defensive second basemen don’t grow on trees. He was good enough at second and great in the batter’s box. Voters missed the boat with Kent.
The PED era continues to loom over Hall of Fame voting, what impact do you think it had on this year’s ballot?
Olney: This reflects the growing confusion over what actually qualifies a player for the Hall of Fame. On one hand, you’ve got a handful of candidates busted for PED use who didn’t come close to election — but on the other hand, you almost certainly have a number of current Hall of Famers who share the stage of honor despite using PEDs. Two of the best players in baseball history, Bonds and Clemens, are out of the Hall, based on a once-obsolete character clause written by someone who worked from a position of power to keep the game segregated.
Doolittle: I’m with Buster here. During these years of hand-wringing over PED-connected candidates, among other controversies, voters have lost track of what a Hall of Fame career does or does not look like. It doesn’t help that the Era committees have put in a number of players whose careers reside squarely in the gray zone where there are a lot of overlapping candidates who don’t get in but have cases as strong as those who make it. On top of all that, the game itself has changed and so some of the iconic standards we used to watch for may no longer apply. The whole process could use some kind of reset.
Gonzalez: It feels as if the players who inflated their numbers by cheating have set the Hall of Fame bar unreasonably high despite not gaining entrance because of their cheating. It’s my best attempt to rationalize why it’s taking so long for the likes of Helton and Jones — and, before today, Rolen — to get in. The inconsistencies of moral policing continue to stand out.
Last year, we had David Ortiz symbolize ill attempts at deciphering PED ties. This year, another dilemma was embodied by Beltran. We praise A.J. Hinch and Alex Cora as managers, celebrate the 2022 Houston Astros as legitimate World Series champions, and yet Beltran — the eighth-best center fielder in history by Baseball-Reference WAR — didn’t get in largely because of his ties to the sign-stealing scandal. (A scandal, by the way, that did nothing for his own career numbers.)
Rogers: The steroid era has muddied the waters, but it’s a shame the Hall didn’t grow by at least one in 2023. In fact, maybe that should be a rule: At least one BBWAA selection entrant is required every year. The Hall of Fame is supposed to grow despite it still being an exclusive club. Some years there will be more deserving candidates than others. That’s OK. In the end, the large size of the voting group offers legitimacy to the final vote: No one is sneaking in. But when there isn’t an entrant, it shifts the focus to the voters. Nobody wants that.
Based on this year’s results, do you think anyone will get in on next year’s ballot?
Olney: Wagner will get in within a couple of years, and perhaps Helton after that. They’ll join two players who should be first-ballot, can’t-miss selections — Adrian Beltre and Joe Mauer. In fact, I think you could make a case Beltre should be a unanimous selection, after a career of 3,166 hits, 477 homers and five Gold Gloves, as well as 93.5 WAR, which is more than Al Kaline, George Brett, Chipper Jones and Ken Griffey Jr.
Doolittle: I could actually see it being a fairly crowded class. Helton should get in, Wagner has a good shot and I could definitely see Jones joining the group. And based on this year’s change in percentage, I wouldn’t be shocked if Sheffield gets there, though he could end up at that close-but-no-cigar level. And among first-timers, I would think Beltre is probably a lock.
Gonzalez: Beltre will be eligible for the Hall of Fame next year, and he should definitely get in. By then, Helton should have already accumulated enough votes. Perhaps Wagner and Jones can get there too. And if the BBWAA comes to its collective senses, Beltran will be close. I’d expect a crowded field. I’m hopeful for it, at least.
Rogers: Yes. Kent falling off the ballot might garner a vote or two for someone else while we did see a couple of players with remaining eligibility get close. There’s no reason to believe we’re entering some longer-term trend where there will be multiple years with no inductees.
-
Bill Connelly
Back in May, ESPN’s team of college football reporters voted on the sport’s best coaches for 2025. The results were about as you would expect: Start with the three active guys who have most recently won national titles (Georgia’s Kirby Smart, Ohio State’s Ryan Day, Clemson’s Dabo Swinney), move on to guys with recent top-five finishes or national title game appearances (Notre Dame’s Marcus Freeman, Texas’ Steve Sarkisian, Oregon’s Dan Lanning, Alabama’s Kalen DeBoer, Penn State’s James Franklin), then squeeze in a couple of long-term overachievers at the end (Utah’s Kyle Whittingham, Iowa State’s Matt Campbell).
The rankings made plenty of sense, but I couldn’t help but notice that the top eight coaches on the list all work for some of the richest, most well-supported programs in the country. There are some epic pressures associated with leading these programs — just ask Day — but there are also major advantages. It might only take a good head coach to do great things in those jobs, while at programs with smaller alumni bases or lesser historic track records, it might take a great coach to do merely good things. They’re such different jobs that it’s almost impossible to even know how to compare the performance of, say, Matt Campbell to Steve Sarkisian. Could Campbell have led Texas to back-to-back CFP semifinals? Could Sark have brought ISU its first two AP top-15 finishes?
The May rankings made me want to see if there were a way to apply stats to the conversation. If you think about it, we’re basically measuring two things when we’re gauging coach performance: overall quality and quality relative to the expectations of the job. I thought it would be fun to come up with a blend of those two things and see what the results told us.
Performance versus expectation
Gauging overall performance is easy enough. You could simply look at win percentage, and it would tell you quite a bit. From 2015 to 2024, the active coaches with the best FBS win percentages (minimum 30 games) were Day (.870), Lanning (.854), Swinney (.850) and Smart (.847). All ranked high in the May rankings. I tend to want to get fancy and use my SP+ ratings whenever possible, and they tell a similar tale. Looking at average SP+ ratings for the past decade, the top active coaches are Day (30.4), Smart (27.0), Lanning (22.3), Swinney (21.9), Franklin (20.3) and Freeman (19.0). They’re all in the May top 10 too.
Again, though, all of those coaches are employed by college football royalty. (Granted, Swinney gets bonus points for helping Clemson turn into college football royalty, but still.) Isn’t it more impressive to win 11 regular-season games at Indiana, as Curt Cignetti did in 2024, than to go 10-4 like Swinney did? Isn’t it probably harder to finish 12th in SP+ at SMU, as Rhett Lashlee did in 2024, than to finish fifth like Franklin did?
I’ve begun to incorporate teams’ performance against long-term averages into my preseason SP+ projections, and it seems we could use a very similar concept to evaluate coach performances. For each year someone is a head coach, we could compare his team’s SP+ rating for that season to the school’s average from the 20 previous years. (If the school is newer to FBS and doesn’t have a 20-year average, we can use whatever average exists to date. And for a program’s first FBS season, we can simply compare the team’s SP+ rating to the overall average for first-year programs.)
By this method, the 10 best single-season coaching performances of the past 20 years include Art Briles at Baylor in 2013-14, Jim Harbaugh at Stanford in 2010, Mark Mangino at Kansas in 2007, Bobby Petrino at Louisville in 2006, Greg Schiano at Rutgers in 2006 and Jamey Chadwell at Coastal Carolina in 2020 — legendary seasons of overachievement — plus perhaps lesser-remembered performances such as Gary Andersen at Utah State in 2012, Matt Wells at Utah State in 2018 and Brian Kelly at Cincinnati in 2007.
As far as single-season overachievement goes, that’s a pretty good list. And if we look at a longer-term sample — coaches who have led FBS programs for at least nine of the past 20 years — here are the 15 best performance versus baseline averages.
(Note: I’m looking only at performances within the past 20 years, so Nick Saban’s work at LSU (2000-04) or Michigan State (1995-99), for instance, isn’t included. I also went with nine years instead of 10 so Smart’s current nine-year run at Georgia could be included in the sample.)
Best performance vs. historic baseline averages for the past 20 years (min. nine seasons):
1. Chris Petersen, Boise State (2006-13) and Washington (2014-19): +12.8 points above historic baseline
2. Art Briles, Houston (2005-07) and Baylor (2008-15): +12.8
3. Gary Pinkel, Missouri (2005-15): +12.5
4. Nick Saban, Alabama (2007-23): +10.7
5. Jeff Monken, Army (2014-24): +10.3
6. Willie Fritz, Georgia Southern (2014-15), Tulane (2016-23) and Houston (2024): +10.0
7. Lance Leipold, Buffalo (2015-20) and Kansas (2021-24): +9.5
8. Bobby Petrino, Louisville (2005-06), Arkansas (2008-11), Western Kentucky (2013) and Louisville (2014-18): +9.5
9. Gary Patterson, TCU (2005-21): +8.6
10. Jim Harbaugh, Stanford (2007-10) and Michigan (2015-23): +8.5
11. Blake Anderson, Arkansas State (2014-20) and Utah State (2021-23): +8.5
12. Steve Spurrier, South Carolina (2005-15): +8.2
13. Greg Schiano, Rutgers (2005-11 and 2020-24): +7.8
14. Jeff Brohm, Western Kentucky (2014-16), Purdue (2017-22) and Louisville (2023-24): +7.7
15. David Cutcliffe, Duke (2008-21): +7.7
If we are looking for pure overachievement and aren’t in the mood to reward coaches for winning at schools that always win, this is again a pretty good list. Petersen was spectacular at both Boise State and Washington, while Briles, Pinkel, Monken and Patterson all won big at schools that hadn’t won big in quite a while. (Monken, in fact, is still winning big.) Blake Anderson’s presence surprised me, but most of the names here are extremely well regarded. And Saban’s presence at No. 4, despite coaching at one of the bluest of blue-blood programs, is a pretty good indicator of just how special his reign at Alabama was.
Still, looking only at performance against expectations obviously sells coaches like Saban and Smart short. Saban is probably the best head coach in the sport’s history but ranks only fourth on the above list. Meanwhile, Smart has overachieved by only 6.0 points above the historic baseline in his nine seasons at Georgia thanks to the high bar predecessor Mark Richt set. But he has also won two national titles, overcoming Georgia’s history of falling just short and at least briefly surpassing Saban as well. If our goal is to measure coaching prowess, we need to account for raw quality too.
The best coaches of the past 20 years
If we combine raw SP+ averages with this performance versus baseline average, we can come up with a pretty decent overall coach rating. We can debate the weights involved, but here’s what an overall rating looks like if we use 60% performance versus baseline and 40% SP+ average:
I always like to say that numbers make great starting points for a conversation, and this is a pretty good starting point. Anyone reading this would probably tweak this list to suit their own preferences, and while it probably isn’t surprising that Pinkel is in the top 20, seeing him fourth, ahead of Meyer, Harbaugh and others, is a bit jarring. (I promise that this Mizzou alum didn’t put his finger on the scales.) Regardless, this is a fun mix of guys who won big at big schools and guys who won pretty big at pretty big schools. That was the goal of the exercise.
Maybe the most confusing coach in this top 20 is Dabo Swinney. Clemson had enjoyed just one AP top-five finish in its history before he took over 16 years ago, and he has led the Tigers to 2 national titles, 6 top-five finishes and 7 CFP appearances. And while they haven’t had a true, title-caliber team in a few years, they’ve still won two of the past three ACC crowns. How is he only 10th?
The main culprit for Swinney’s lower-than-expected ranking is his recent performance — it has been inferior to both national title standards and his standards. Since we’re using a team’s performance against 20-year averages, a lot of this rating is basically comparing Swinney to himself, and he hasn’t quite measured up of late.
From 2012 to 2020, Swinney’s average rating was an incredible 17.0, which would have ranked second to only Saban on the list above. But his average over the past four seasons is only 3.6.
Part of what made Saban so impressive was how long he managed to clear the bar he himself was setting in Tuscaloosa. Per SP+, his best team was his 14th — the 2020 team that won his sixth and final title at Bama. While Swinney was basically matching Saban’s standard 12 years into their respective tenures, Saban continued at a particularly high level for at least three more years while Swinney fell off the pace.
Comparing Saban, Swinney and Smart year by year, we see that Smart was hitting Saban-esque levels seven seasons into his tenure, but his rating has fallen off each of the past two seasons. Even Saban slipped starting in Year 15, even though he still had nearly the best program in the sport for a couple more years.
The best coaches of 2025
Six of the top seven coaches on the list above are either retired or coaching in the NFL now, so let’s focus our gaze specifically on the guys who will be leading college teams out onto the field in 2025. Using the same 20-year sample as above — which cuts off the tenure of Iowa’s Kirk Ferentz but includes everything else — here’s how the current crop of FBS head coaches has performed at the FBS level. We’ll break this into two samples: the guys who have coached for at least four years in this sample and the guys who have coached between one and three years.
Our May top 10 list featured eight guys who have been head coaches for at least four years; all eight are represented on this list, including four of the top five. (Sarkisian has averaged a 13.8 rating over the past two seasons, which is a top-five level, but his overall run as head coach at Washington, USC and Texas has featured a number of ups and downs.)
Maybe the name that jumps out the most above is Josh Heupel. I think anyone would consider him a very good coach (he’s 37-15 overall), but he doesn’t exactly draw any “best in the game?” hype. He benefited from a positive situation at UCF, where he inherited a rising program from Scott Frost in 2019 and produced big ratings in his first couple of years on the job. But his average rating at Tennessee has been a solid 14.0 as well; the Volunteers had been up and down for years, but he has produced four top-20 SP+ ratings in a row and two top-10s in the past three years. He might not be getting the credit he deserves for that.
All in all, I enjoy this list. We’ve got mostly predictable names at the top, we’ve got some oldies but (mostly) goodies spread throughout, and we’ve got room for up-and-comers like Jeff Traylor too. This 60-40 approach probably doesn’t give enough respect to the Chris Creightons of the world — the Eastern Michigan coach has overachieved against EMU’s baseline by 7.2 points per season, which is a fantastic average, but at such a hard job, his Eagles have still averaged only a minus-14.4 SP+ rating during his tenure. Still, this is a mostly solid approach.
Now let’s talk about some small-sample all-stars.
Four of the top six of this list coached in the College Football Playoff last season, and while the guys ranked fifth and sixth made our May top 10 list, the guys who won big at SMU and Indiana, not Oregon and Notre Dame, take priority here. I was honestly floored that Curt Cignetti didn’t make our top 10 list; he led James Madison to one of the best FBS debuts ever, going 19-4 in 2022-23, then he moved to Bloomington and led Indiana — INDIANA! — to 11 wins in his first season there.
On this list, however, Rhett Lashlee tops even Cignetti. I’m not sure we’ve talked enough about the job he has done at SMU. He, too, inherited a rising program, as Sonny Dykes had done some of the nitty-gritty work in getting the Mustangs back on their feet (with help from an offensive coordinator named Rhett Lashlee). SMU hadn’t produced a top-50 ranking since 1985 before Dykes did so for three straight seasons (2019-21). But after holding steady in his first year replacing Dykes, Lashlee’s program has ignited: 12-2 and 24th in SP+ in 2023, then 11-3 and 12th in 2024. Looking specifically at the 2021-24 range, as the game has undergone so much change, Lashlee’s 16.8 average rating ranks second overall, behind only Smart (18.0) and ahead of Kiffin (15.1), Cignetti (15.0), Odom (15.0), Heupel (14.0) and Day (13.9).
Along with quite a few others here, Lashlee made my 2024 list of 30 coaches who would define the next decade; he’d definitely still be on the list — along with new additions like GJ Kinne and perhaps Fran Brown — if I remade that list today.
It’s 2025 MLB All-Star Home Run Derby day in Atlanta!
Some of the most dynamic home run hitters in baseball will be taking aim at the Truist Park stands on Monday (8 p.m. ET on ESPN) in one of the most anticipated events of the summer.
While the prospect of a back-to-back champion is out of the picture — 2024 winner Teoscar Hernandez is not a part of this year’s field — a number of exciting stars will be taking the field, including Atlanta’s own Matt Olson, who replaced Ronald Acuna Jr. just three days before the event. Will Olson make a run in front of his home crowd? Will Cal Raleigh show off the power that led to 38 home runs in the first half? Or will one of the younger participants take the title?
We have your one-stop shop for everything Derby related, from predictions to live updates once we get underway to analysis and takeaways at the night’s end.
MLB Home Run Derby field
Cal Raleigh, Seattle Mariners (38 home runs in 2025)
James Wood, Washington Nationals (24)
Junior Caminero, Tampa Bay Rays (23)
Byron Buxton, Minnesota Twins (21)
Brent Rooker, Athletics (20)
Matt Olson, Atlanta Braves (17)
Jazz Chisholm Jr., New York Yankees (17)
Oneil Cruz, Pittsburgh Pirates (16)
Live updates
Who is going to win the Derby and who will be the runner-up?
Jeff Passan: Raleigh. His swing is perfect for the Derby: He leads MLB this season in both pull percentage and fly ball percentage, so it’s not as if he needs to recalibrate it to succeed. He has also become a prolific hitter from the right side this season — 16 home runs in 102 at-bats — and his ability to switch between right- and left-handed pitching offers a potential advantage. No switch-hitter (or catcher for that matter) has won a Home Run Derby. The Big Dumper is primed to be the first, beating Buxton in the finals.
Alden Gonzalez: Cruz. He might be wildly inconsistent at this point in his career, but he is perfect for the Derby — young enough to possess the stamina required for a taxing event that could become exhausting in the Atlanta heat; left-handed, in a ballpark where the ball carries out better to right field; and, most importantly, capable of hitting balls at incomprehensible velocities. Raleigh will put on a good show from both sides of the plate but will come in second.
Buster Olney: Olson. He is effectively pinch-hitting for Acuna, and because he received word in the past 72 hours of his participation, he hasn’t had the practice rounds that the other competitors have been going through. But he’s the only person in this group who has done the Derby before, which means he has experienced the accelerated pace, adrenaline and push of the crowd.
His pitcher, Eddie Perez, knows something about performing in a full stadium in Atlanta. And, as Olson acknowledged in a conversation Sunday, the park generally favors left-handed hitters because of the larger distances that right-handed hitters must cover in left field.
Jesse Rogers: Olson. Home-field advantage will mean something this year as hitting in 90-plus degree heat and humidity will be an extra challenge in Atlanta. Olson understands that and can pace himself accordingly. Plus, he was a late addition. He has got nothing to lose. He’ll outlast the young bucks in the field. And I’m not putting Raleigh any lower than second — his first half screams that he’ll be in the finals against Olson.
Jorge Castillo: Wood. His mammoth power isn’t disputed — he can jack baseballs to all fields. But the slight defect in his power package is that he doesn’t hit the ball in the air nearly as often as a typical slugger. Wood ranks 126th out of 155 qualified hitters across the majors in fly ball percentage. And he still has swatted 24 home runs this season. So, in an event where he’s going to do everything he can to lift baseballs, hitting fly balls won’t be an issue, and Wood is going to show off that gigantic power en route to a victory over Cruz in the finals.
Who will hit the longest home run of the night — and how far?
Passan: Cruz hits the ball harder than anyone in baseball history. He’s the choice here, at 493 feet.
Gonzalez: If you exclude the Coors Field version, there have been just six Statcast-era Derby home runs that have traveled 497-plus feet. They were compiled by two men: Aaron Judge and Giancarlo Stanton. James Wood — all 6-foot-7, 234 pounds of him — will become the third.
Olney: James Wood has the easy Stanton- and Judge-type power, and he will clear the Chophouse with the longest homer. Let’s say 497 feet.
Rogers: Hopefully he doesn’t injure himself doing it, but Buxton will break out his massive strength and crush a ball at least 505 feet. I don’t see him advancing far in the event, but for one swing, he’ll own the night.
Castillo: Cruz hits baseballs hard and far. He’ll crush a few bombs, and one will reach an even 500 feet.
Who is the one slugger fans will know much better after the Derby?
Passan: Buxton capped his first half with a cycle on Saturday, and he’ll carry that into the Derby, where he will remind the world why he was baseball’s No. 1 prospect in 2015. Buxton’s talent has never been in question, just his health. And with his body feeling right, he has the opportunity to put on a show fans won’t soon forget.
Olney: Caminero isn’t a big name and wasn’t a high-end prospect like Wood was earlier in his career. Just 3½ years ago, Caminero was dealt to the Rays by the Cleveland Guardians in a relatively minor November trade for pitcher Tobias Myers. But since then, he has refined his ability to cover inside pitches and is blossoming this year into a player with ridiculous power. He won’t win the Derby, but he’ll open some eyes.
What’s the one moment we’ll all be talking about long after this Derby ends?
Gonzalez: The incredible distances and velocities that will be reached, particularly by Wood, Cruz, Caminero, Raleigh and Buxton. The hot, humid weather at Truist Park will only aid the mind-blowing power that will be on display Monday night.
Rogers: The exhaustion on the hitter’s faces, swinging for home run after home run in the heat and humidity of Hot-lanta!
Castillo: Cruz’s 500-foot blast and a bunch of other lasers he hits in the first two rounds before running out of gas in the finals.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike