Baseball Hall of Fame voting winners and losers: Three stars are headed to Cooperstown — who else got good (or bad) news?
The 2025 Baseball Writers’ Association of America vote is in — and Ichiro Suzuki (one vote shy of being a unanimous selection), CC Sabathia and Billy Wagner are the newest members of the Baseball Hall of Fame. Carlos Beltran fell 19 votes short of the 75% threshold for enshrinement. The new Hall of Famers will join Dick Allen and Dave Parker, who were elected in December by the classic baseball era committee, in Cooperstown in July.
ESPN MLB experts Buster Olney, Bradford Doolittle, Jesse Rogers and Jorge Castillo break down what the 2025 vote means and look ahead to what the future holds for this year’s candidates — and those joining the ballot in 2026.
Let’s get into it.
Besides those elected, who is the biggest winner on this year’s ballot?
Olney: The case for a lot of starting pitchers was strengthened by the first-ballot election of CC Sabathia, following his excellent career. In the past, 300 wins was a benchmark that seemed to be important to Hall voters, but that is shifting; Sabathia, with 251 wins, gets in on his first try, overwhelmingly. Sabathia has a career WAR of 61.8, and think about some of the starters who are in the same neighborhood: Zack Greinke (72.8), Luis Tiant (65.6), Tommy John (62.1), David Cone (61.6), Andy Pettitte (60.7) and Mark Buehrle (60.0). There should be a whole lot of starting pitchers making speeches on the Cooperstown stage in the years ahead.
Rogers: Andruw Jones is inching closer and closer to being elected. That’s good news considering he has only two years left on the ballot. At this rate, it’ll be a surprise if he doesn’t get in next year — or at the very least by the time his 10th year of eligibility comes around.
Castillo: I agree with Buster and Jesse on future starting pitchers on the ballot and Andruw Jones. But what about closers? Namely Francisco Rodriguez, who was on for the third time, and Kenley Jansen and Craig Kimbrel, who both remain active. It took Billy Wagner all 10 years on the ballot, but he’s a Hall of Famer. He ranks eighth all time in saves. Jansen and Kimbrel rank fourth and fifth, respectively, with more perhaps coming. Rodriguez is sixth. He polled at just 10.2% this year, but Wagner polled at just 10% in his first two years. Wagner was more dominant over the course of his career than them and posted a higher career WAR but, given the increased importance of relievers in the sport, Wagner’s induction is good news for closers in the future.
Doolittle: Even though he came up short, Carlos Beltran getting to 70.3% in his third year makes him a good bet to get in next year. Guess he’s got one more year of penance to serve in the mind of some of the voters. He’s a no-brainer.
Who is the biggest loser from this year’s voting results?
Olney: Manny Ramirez, who now has just one more year left on the ballot with his percentage of voter support barely moving. In 2020, the Baseball Writers’ Association of America removed Kenesaw Mountain Landis’ name from the MVP award that it bestows because of his long history of racism, and yet a huge portion of voters continue to apply Landis’ character clause for steroid-era candidates. As far as the ballot is concerned, Ramirez is in good standing just like anyone else, but a lot of writers won’t let him into the Hall despite some evidence that PED users have already been inducted.
Rogers: There doesn’t seem to be a ton of softening for known PED users as Ramirez and Alex Rodriguez are making very little progress toward the 75% threshold. Ramirez, in particular, is a huge long shot to make the Hall of Fame with just one year left on the ballot. A-Rod still has plenty of time, but minds will have to change significantly for him to get in.
Castillo: Anybody known to have used PEDs. Whether you agree with it or not, the likes of Ramirez and Rodriguez will probably need the Eras Committees to be more lenient for induction.
Doolittle: Fans of historic achievements and a coherent Hall of Fame. I just don’t see Ramirez and A-Rod getting over the line, not if Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens didn’t. Nothing in this year’s number indicated any kind of a shift. To me, it’s absurd.
What is one thing that stands out to you from this year’s voting totals?
Olney: Advanced metrics help the case for some players who don’t have gaudy counting stats, and after two years of voting, it’s pretty clear that Chase Utley is going to be one of those guys. After getting 28.8% in his first year of eligibility, Utley took a significant step forward, advancing to 39.8%. That’s also good news for Buster Posey, another star player who was dominant at his position for a chunk of years but also didn’t necessarily compile gaudy counting stats.
Rogers: Well, that Ichiro did not get in unanimously. Some players simply deserve to be on everyone’s ballot. We really can’t agree on the few that come along every so often that are among the very best of all time — not just their generation? In a sport that creates debate on a daily basis, sometimes debate isn’t needed.
Castillo: While most voters have taken an unyielding tough stance against PED users, they have not viewed Beltran’s transgressions nearly as negatively. That doesn’t mean he hasn’t faced a penalty. Beltran was suspended for a year for his role in the Astros’ sign-stealing scheme and was accordingly fired as manager of the Mets before managing a game. Without that, he’s a Hall of Famer by now. Instead, he polled at 70.3% this year, his third on the ballot. He should reach the 75% threshold next year, which bodes well for other players connected to the Astros’ scandal on future ballots.
Doolittle: Russell Martin and Brian McCann both had supporters. For both of them, it seems like those who voted for them must have bought in fully to the FanGraphs’ version of WAR, which goes all-in with pitch-framing metrics. That’s especially true in Martin’s case, but both of them had fWAR totals heavily tilted toward the defensive side of the ball. Obviously, most voters aren’t there yet. For me, I remain uncertain about the measures of that skill, at least the scale of credit that is doled out for it. And “uncertain” isn’t a euphemism but a precise description, as I may yet be convinced in the future. For now, I don’t think we have a full grasp on how to rate 21st-century catchers, and I hate for anyone at that position who *might* be worthy to drop off the ballot.
Which one player’s vote total is most surprising to you?
Olney: Early in Andruw Jones’s candidacy, when he was barely clearing 7% of the vote, he looked like a long shot for election; the question was whether he would remain on the ballot. But now he’s positioned to get in next year, and if not, he’ll definitely get in the following year.
Rogers: Brian McCann. The fact that he and Russell Martin have similar totals just isn’t right — and the fact that he’s falling off the ballot is downright wrong. He’s eighth all time in home runs by catchers, and six of the seven players ahead of him are in the Hall of Fame. And he has a career .262 batting average and was considered good behind the plate. He deserved more than one year of consideration.
Castillo: Ichiro getting all but one vote. Not because he doesn’t deserve all of those votes but because he should’ve been unanimous — like so many other players in the past. For now, Mariano Rivera remains the only player inducted unanimously.
Doolittle: Chase Utley’s numbers tumbled between the last publicly tracked numbers and the release of the final results. I don’t get it. He’s only gone around twice now and should be fine eventually but until I saw the final count, I would have thought he was a good bet to get in next time. Now I doubt it. Guess his supporters have some stumping to do.
Based on this year’s results, who do you think will get in on next year’s ballot?
Olney: Andruw Jones, and Carlos Beltran (as some voters stop applying the sign-stealing demerit). And Utley will be in play. Ramirez will have too far to go in his last year on the ballot, and it’s clear that PED-related suspensions are worthy of a lifetime ban for a lot of voters.
Rogers: Jones, Beltran, who both seem like near-locks, and perhaps Utley — who is in line to make a big leap close to the 75% requirement.
Castillo: Andruw Jones, Carlos Beltran and Chase Utley. Next year’s group of first-time candidates won’t be nearly as strong, surely giving Jones and Beltran the bump they need for induction. Utley should be a close call.
Doolittle: Jones and Beltran. Hopefully Utley will get a fresh look, and, among first-timers, Cole Hamels will have support. But it might be a long slog for the cases of both former Phillies.
The opening weekend of the 2025 MLB season was taken over by a surprise star — torpedo bats.
The bowling pin-shaped bats became the talk of the sport after the Yankees’ home run onslaught on the first Saturday of the season put it in the spotlight and the buzz hasn’t slowed since.
What exactly is a torpedo bat? How does it help hitters? And how is it legal? Let’s dig in.
Read: An MIT-educated professor, the Yankees and the bat that could be changing baseball
What is a torpedo bat and why is it different from a traditional MLB bat?
The idea of the torpedo bat is to take a size format — say, 34 inches and 32 ounces — and distribute the wood in a different geometric shape than the traditional form to ensure the fattest part of the bat is located where the player makes the most contact. Standard bats taper toward an end cap that is as thick diametrically as the sweet spot of the barrel. The torpedo bat moves some of the mass on the end of the bat about 6 to 7 inches lower, giving it a bowling-pin shape, with a much thinner end.
How does it help hitters?
The benefits for those who like swinging with it — and not everyone who has swung it likes it — are two-fold. Both are rooted in logic and physics. The first is that distributing more mass to the area of most frequent contact aligns with players’ swing patterns and provides greater impact when bat strikes ball. Players are perpetually seeking ways to barrel more balls, and while swings that connect on the end of the bat and toward the handle probably will have worse performance than with a traditional bat, that’s a tradeoff they’re willing to make for the additional slug. And as hitters know, slug is what pays.
The second benefit, in theory, is increased bat speed. Imagine a sledgehammer and a broomstick that both weigh 32 ounces. The sledgehammer’s weight is almost all at the end, whereas the broomstick’s is distributed evenly. Which is easier to swing fast? The broomstick, of course, because shape of the sledgehammer takes more strength and effort to move. By shedding some of the weight off the end of the torpedo bat and moving it toward the middle, hitters have found it swings very similarly to a traditional model but with slightly faster bat velocity.
Why did it become such a big story so early in the 2025 MLB season?
Because the New York Yankees hit nine home runs in a game Saturday and Michael Kay, their play-by-play announcer, pointed out that some of them came from hitters using a new bat shape. The fascination was immediate. While baseball, as an industry, has implemented forward-thinking rules in recent seasons, the modification to something so fundamental and known as the shape of a bat registered as bizarre. The initial response from many who saw it: How is this legal?
OK. How is this legal?
Major League Baseball’s bat regulations are relatively permissive. Currently, the rules allow for a maximum barrel diameter of 2.61 inches, a maximum length of 42 inches and a smooth and round shape. The lack of restrictions allows MLB’s authorized bat manufacturers to toy with bat geometry and for the results to still fall within the regulations.
Who came up with the idea of using them?
The notion of a bowling-pin-style bat has kicked around baseball for years. Some bat manufacturers made smaller versions as training tools. But the version that’s now infiltrating baseball goes back two years when a then-Yankees coach named Aaron Leanhardt started asking hitters how they should counteract the giant leaps in recent years made by pitchers.
When Yankees players responded that bigger barrels would help, Leanhardt — an MIT-educated former Michigan physics professor who left academia to work in the sports industry — recognized that as long as bats stayed within MLB parameters, he could change their geometry to make them a reality. Leanhardt, who left the Yankees to serve as major league field coordinator for the Miami Marlins over the winter, worked with bat manufacturers throughout the 2023 and 2024 seasons to make that a reality.
When did it first appear in MLB games?
It’s unclear specifically when. But Yankees slugger Giancarlo Stanton used a torpedo bat last year and went on a home run-hitting rampage in October that helped send the Yankees to the World Series. New York Mets star Francisco Lindor also used a torpedo-style bat last year and went on to finish second in National League MVP voting.
Who are some of the other notable early users of torpedo bats?
In addition to Stanton and Lindor, Yankees hitters Anthony Volpe, Austin Wells, Jazz Chisholm Jr., Cody Bellinger and Paul Goldschmidt have used torpedoes to great success. Others who have used them in games include Tampa Bay’s Junior Caminero, Minnesota’s Ryan Jeffers and Toronto’s Davis Schneider. And that’s just the beginning. Hundreds more players are expected to test out torpedoes — and perhaps use them in games — in the coming weeks.
How is this different from a corked bat?
Corking bats involves drilling a hole at the end of the bat, filling it in and capping it. The use of altered bats allows players to swing faster because the material with which they replace the wood — whether it’s cork, superballs or another material — is lighter. Any sort of bat adulteration is illegal and, if found, results in suspension.
Could a rule be changed to ban them?
Could it happen? Sure. Leagues and governing bodies have put restrictions on equipment they believe fundamentally altered fairness. Stick curvature is limited in hockey. Full-body swimsuits made of polyurethane and neoprene are banned by World Aquatics. But officials at MLB have acknowledged that the game’s pendulum has swung significantly toward pitching in recent years, and if an offensive revolution comes about because of torpedo bats — and that is far from a guarantee — it could bring about more balance to the game. If that pendulum swings too far, MLB could alter its bat regulations, something it has done multiple times already this century.
So the torpedo bat is here to stay?
Absolutely. Bat manufacturers are cranking them out and shipping them to interested players with great urgency. Just how widely the torpedo bat is adopted is the question that will play out over the rest of the season. But it has piqued the curiosity of nearly every hitter in the big leagues, and just as pitchers toy with new pitches to see if they can marginally improve themselves, hitters will do the same with bats.
Comfort is paramount with a bat, so hitters will test them during batting practice and in cage sessions before unleashing them during the game. As time goes on, players will find specific shapes that are most comfortable to them and best suit their swing during bat-fitting sessions — similar to how golfers seek custom clubs. But make no mistake: This is an almost-overnight alteration of the game, and “traditional or torpedo” is a question every big leaguer going forward will ask himself.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports12 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year 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
-
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
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway