No one in again this year.

[Ubiquitous]

No one was elected to the Hall again this year.

Here is the link (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/news/2007/07027b.htm)

[dgarza]

I guess the only dim star is that votes for Santo have gone up each time. Now he just needs a hand full of votes.

[KCGHOST]

I just sent an email to the HoF:

"The VC has established its bona fides as hopelessly inept. You may as well do away with it.

To argue that this group is validating the work of the BBWAA is simply a lie at worst and misleading at best. This group is simply incompetent at recognizing a HoFer other than those that have already been elected."

[DODGER DEB]

I just sent an email to the HoF:

"The VC has established its bona fides as hopelessly inept. You may as well do away with it.

To argue that this group is validating the work of the BBWAA is simply a lie at worst and misleading at best. This group is simply incompetent at recognizing a HoFer other than those that have already been elected."

GREAT, KCGHOST!

I sent one right behind you!

That committee is a disgrace to Baseball, and something should be done about it.

c.

[DoubleX]

This reconfigured VC has become ridiculous and pointless. There is aboslutely no point to having a VC if it is continually incapable of putting in anyone. If there is to exist a VC, serious changes need to be made. Having the elected players comprise the vast majority of the electorate is a joke. Of course they will be reluctant to let anyone else is, and players, on the whole, have not been known to be great students of the game's history (and students of the game's history is what we need when we're talking about the VC elections).

I'd propose reconfiguring the VC into an enlightened committee and have a process similar to the football Hall of Fame election process in which the electors meet at length and debate to some consensus. Under the current format, the VC looks nothing like a committee, as part of being a committee is to meet and deliberate, IMO, and not just sending in ballot and being done with it. So I'd propose that a new committee be an amalgmation of two to three dozen individuals consisting of noted baseball historians, writers, players, and others at one point associated with the game (such as former commissioners, managers, general managers, owners, umpires, and so forth). I'd also propose that it meet annually as opposed to this two year period in futility.

[dgarza]

I bet there are people here on Baseball Fever who were born after the VC's last inductee!

[KCGHOST]

It seems like that is the case, but they did elect Bill Mazeroskie and Hilton Smith in 2001. That was before the re-organization of the VC to include all living HoFers.

The Negro League Committee seemingly inducted everyone ever associated with the Negro Leagues in 2006. Everyone but Buck O'Neill.

[DoubleX]

I just sent the Hall of Fame's VC page an email as well. I urge everyone, who is even remotely close to being as annoyed and exasperated with the futility that is the current VC as I am, to email the Hall of Fame's VC page at this address:

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/veterans/contact.htm

I can't get over two things:

1) What's the point of having the VC if it doesn't do anything?! Many of us lament the poor choices of VCs past, but at least it was doing its job, and on occasion actually did a good job (Johnny Mize and Arky Vaughan for example).

2) The Veteran's Committee is supposed to be a committee, not an electorate that gets a form, checks some names off, and mails it in.

This is just disgusting, IMO. Three elections and six years of futility is more than enough to indicate that change is necessary. So please, if you're dissatisfied with the current configuration of the VC, please send the Hall an email and let them know. I really believe that we can cause real change here instead of just trying to recreate the past through our own little elections.

[KCGHOST]

It seems like that is the case, but they did elect Bill Mazeroskie and Hilton Smith in 2001. That was before the re-organization of the VC to include all living HoFers.

The Negro League Committee seemingly inducted everyone ever associated with the Negro Leagues in 2006. Everyone but Buck O'Neill.

[Dodgerfan1]

Isn't it just possible that the candidates the VC has had to vote on are not Hall-worthy? I know that Santo and Hodges have their supporters (I have supported Hodges), but I can also relate to those who don't believe they are worthy, as they are borderline for the HOF, in my opinion. It doesn't seem like a travesty to me if neither of those two make the Hall.

Who have the VC NOT voted in the HOF that should obviously be there, in your opinion? Guys that are no-brainers for the HOF? I don't see Santo or Hodges as no-brainers.

[dgarza]

It seems like that is the case, but they did elect Bill Mazeroskie and Hilton Smith in 2001. That's my point. I bet there are 6 year olds on here somewhere.

[dgarza]

Who have the VC NOT voted in the HOF that should obviously be there, in your opinion? Guys that are no-brainers for the HOF? Dick Allen is not too far off being a mid-level HOFer. I don't know if that counts as No Brainer or not.

[DoubleX]

Isn't it just possible that the candidates the VC has had to vote on are not Hall-worthy? I know that Santo and Hodges have their supporters (I have supported Hodges), but I can also relate to those who don't believe they are worthy, as they are borderline for the HOF, in my opinion. It doesn't seem like a travesty to me if neither of those two make the Hall.

Who have the VC NOT voted in the HOF that should obviously be there, in your opinion? Guys that are no-brainers for the HOF? I don't see Santo or Hodges as no-brainers.

I see Santo as a no-brainer, and judging by our Mock Hall of Fame elections, I'm not close to being alone in that as Santo was elected in his first year of eligibility. I believe Santo has a strong case for being as high as fifth best 3Bman of all time and no worse than 7th, and that's well inside the realm of being a Hall of Famer in my book.

Hodges is a different story. I wouldn't begrudge Hodges' election (at least it would mean that someone was elected), but I have him in the top 30 all time at 1B, which puts him pretty clearly out of the Hall of Fame, but there have been worse selections and Hodges does have subjective things going for him, such as a diehard and very loyal fanbase that is pretty unique among players trying to get in.

[Dodgerfan1]

Dick Allen is not too far off being a mid-level HOFer. I don't know if that counts as No Brainer or not.

Dgarza,

I think Dick Allen is also a borderline guy. Just my opinion, of course, but then I have always held the ideal of the HOF as a shrine for the immortals, which it was set up to be. If that was the case, though, there probably wouldn't be more than a few dozen players currently enshrined. Just like the Academy Awards, the Pulitzer Prize, the Nobel Peace Prize and public schools, it seems to have hit a point somewhere along the way where it was decided to dumb down the prize in order to please more people.

I would have no probelm with Dick Allen in the Hall, but neither would I have one if he never got enshrined. I just don't see him as a baseball immortal. I know that's a fanciful, Utopian view of the HOF, but it's one I have always embraced. Yes, Allen has superior numbers to many currently enshrined, but there's that old story about two wrongs not making a right again....

[DoubleX]

One thing that I found pretty encouraging about this year's election (if anything can be seen as encouraging), is Jim Kaat's high support. I don't really see Kaat as a Hall of Famer, but wouldn't argue really if he made it. But if Kaat could do so well in his first year with the VC, makes me think that Bert Blyleven will have a strong chance when his time comes for the VC, assuming the VC remains in its current form and Blyleven isn't elected by the writers before then.

[DoubleX]

I would have no probelm with Dick Allen in the Hall, but neither would I have one if he never got enshrined. I just don't see him as a baseball immortal. I know that's a fanciful, Utopian view of the HOF, but it's one I have always embraced. Yes, Allen has superior numbers to many currently enshrined, but there's that old story about two wrongs not making a right again....

A lot of people have this view, and I can't certainly understand it, but it's not reality. The reality of the Hall of Fame is that its not relegated just for the Ruths, Mays, Cobbs, Gehrigs, and players of that elite ilk, but it also has tons of players not on that level. Of course there are plenty of mistakes, and I would not argue that the Hall of Fame's minimum boundary should be defined by its mistakes, but I would argue that given the overall composition of the Hall, there are a number of players on the outside who have a strong case for being well within the overall standard. Of course, none of the players I am thinking of are among the truly elite, but they are akin (if not superior) to many of the dozens and dozens of players in the Hall who are also not among the truly elite. Take Dick Allen for example - of course he's not on a level with the likes of Ruth and Cobb and Gehrig and them, but he's well within the standards the Hall has erected, IMO, which is much more than just the very elite.

Basically, I'm not for a super large Hall of Fame, but I am for putting in players on the outside who do meet the Hall's actual standards as defined by its actual composition.

[Dodgerfan1]

A lot of people have this view, and I can't certainly understand it, but it's not reality. The reality of the Hall of Fame is that its not relegated just for the Ruths, Mays, Cobbs, Gehrigs, and players of that elite ilk, but it also has tons of players not on that level. Of course there are plenty of mistakes, and I would not argue that the Hall of Fame's minimum boundary should be defined by its mistakes, but I would argue that given the overall composition of the Hall, there are a number of players on the outside who have a strong case for being well within the overall standard. Of course, none of the players I am thinking of are among the truly elite, but they are akin (if not superior) to many of the dozens and dozens of players in the Hall who are also not among the truly elite. Take Dick Allen for example - of course he's not on a level with the likes of Ruth and Cobb and Gehrig and them, but he's well within the standards the Hall has erected, IMO, which is much more than just the very elite.

Basically, I'm not for a super large Hall of Fame, but I am for putting in players on the outside who do meet the Hall's actual standards as defined by its actual composition.

Oh yes, I am very aware my ideal HOF has little to do with reality. At least not with today's reality. At one time, my ideal was reality, but those days are long gone. I know that. It really has become a Hall of Very Good, and that's just what I have had to struggle to accept, at times. I can dream, can't I? :rolleyes:

[dgarza]

Just my opinion, of course, but then I have always held the ideal of the HOF as a shrine for the immortals, which it was set up to be. If that was the case, though, there probably wouldn't be more than a few dozen players currently enshrined. Just like the Academy Awards, the Pulitzer Prize, the Nobel Peace Prize and public schools, it seems to have hit a point somewhere along the way where it was decided to dumb down the prize in order to please more people.

You do realized that this type of Hall, that of the immortals, fell in 1937?...the year Morgan Bulkeley became a member.

[Dodgerfan1]

You do realized that this type of Hall, that of the immortals, fell in 1937?...the year Morgan Bulkeley became a member.

Ha ha!! He's always the name I come up with whenever the question arises about who the LEAST deserving member of the HOF is. Yep, I realize that and everything else you can throw at me. A dream doesn't have to die just because the idea did.

[dgarza]

Ha ha!! He's always the name I come up with whenever the question arises about who the LEAST deserving member of the HOF is. Yep, I realize that and everything else you can throw at me. A dream doesn't have to die just because the idea did.
I was always under the assumption that Bulkeley came in during the 80s or some time later like that. I didn't realize he came in as part of the 2nd class.

[Yankwood]

I still don't understand everyone's anger and frustration. Why can't we just accept that we have players that were very good but not worthy of Hall of Fame status?
As far as I'm concerned, I think they should bring a giant broom to Cooperstown and sweep half the place away so we can have a real Hall of Fame.
I would like for the next election to be nominations for who to kick out. So many players have been added on the basis of "so and so is in, so he should be in". It would never happen, but too bad we couldn't just start from scratch and do it all over again from the start and get it right.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I was always under the assumption that Bulkeley came in during the 80s or some time later like that. I didn't realize he came in as part of the 2nd class.
Bulkeley was selected because they also ushered in the first A.L. President, Ban Johnson. Matching bookends, if you will. They did well for a couple more years, then stopped voting annually for a couple more. It was trying to catch up in the mid-40's that really started the problems.

[Dodgerfan1]

I still don't understand everyone's anger and frustration. Why can't we just accept that we have players that were very good but not worthy of Hall of Fame status?
As far as I'm concerned, I think they should bring a giant broom to Cooperstown and sweep half the place away so we can have a real Hall of Fame.
I would like for the next election to be nominations for who to kick out. So many players have been added on the basis of "so and so is in, so he should be in". It would never happen, but too bad we couldn't just start from scratch and do it all over again from the start and get it right.

Ah, a kindred soul! Thank you, Yankwood.

[dgarza]

. They did well for a couple more years, then stopped voting annually for a couple more.
1939 saw Keeler and Ewing get in, not really 2 of the "immortals".

[Captain Cold Nose]

1939 saw Keeler and Ewing get in, not really 2 of the "immortals".
For their era, they were. If 19th-century representation was the motivation, they did well with Anson, Keeler and Ewing, giants of their day. In terms of modern analysis, there were undoubtedly better players. I'll let Bill Burgess speak of Ewing. Anson was absolutely revered, and Keeler was regarded as a dangerous hitter from accounts I've seen.

[AlecBoy006]

I sent my own:


*sarcastic manner* Hey, I just wanted to say GREAT job on keeping Ron Santo, Dick Allen, and Tony Oliva out of the hall of fame AGAIN. I mean, there's no WAY a guy like Allen should be in! He has an OPS+ of 156. That's no good. And there's no way you can elect Oliva. He has 1917 hits, 220 homers, 3 batting titles, and 8 All Stars in 15 seasons. NO! Bad. And Santo- he's the worst of them all- he played the same length as Oliva. And even better stats. Plus he had 5 gold gloves, and 9 all stars. Just terrible. Bobby Doerr had 9 all stars too. Good for you guys!


.....NOT! What is with you? Those three should all be in in my opinion. And, not on the ballot- Roy Face, and Bobby Grich are both deserving of election. Good going. You just lost my respect.

[Yankwood]

Oliva was a really good hitter but there are a lot of players with more hits and more home runs who aren't in either that don't deserve it.

[AlecBoy006]

Yes, but did they do all of that in just 15 seasons?

[John Shoemaker]

I'm not a lage hall person but IMO it's a pretty small HOF that can't find room for Dick Allen, Ron Santo, and Gil Hodges.

[AlecBoy006]

All I could think of with Hodges is because of his decline, AND that his OPS+ of 120 is TERRIBLE.

[Yankwood]

Yes, but did they do all of that in just 15 seasons?If you divide that 1900 hits and 220 HR's by 15 you get......uh.......let's see 220 divided by 15 is....uh....well, I can't figure it out but it ain't really a lot. And then take those 1900 hits and divide those by 15 and you get,....um,....actually not even 130 hits per year. Those aren't GREAT numbers, seriously. They're not. Now, granted Oliva was hurt a lot but isn't that part of what it takes to be great. You can't do great things if you're not on the field.

[csh19792001]

Dgarza,
I think Dick Allen is also a borderline guy.

I have absolutely no love for the guy as a person whatsoever, but Allen is as sure a lock as there is outside The Hall among players who are eligible, period. He's not a true alltime great player as a few over-the-top pundits on this site have suggested, but he's a Hall of Famer. His talent for hitting and production were incredible, and his top notch avg/power combination given the extreme pitching era it was carried out in makes him an egregious ommision, along with Santo, Blyleven, and the guy represented in my avatar, who is possibly the greatest fielder in baseball history and never gets a single vote because the HOF has become largely a popularity contest.

My Dahlen Thread (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=36518)

Another Thread (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=55815&highlight=bill+dahlen)

Also, if you're interested in the story behind the numbers, here's a link to his new biography, which was outstanding:

Bad Bill Dahlen: The Rollicking Life and Times of an Early Baseball Star (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0786419784/104-6984381-9916700?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance)

[AlecBoy006]

Tony Oliva was easily one of the best hitters of his time, and Boog Powell has Tony Oliva's 1970 AL MVP.

[Solair Wright]

Veteran's Committee should be renamed The Very Clueless committee, because that's what they are. Very Clueless allegedly left former Kansas City Monarch manager Buck O'Neil on purpose. I think it was intentional, and now the stupid policy they added 6 years ago means you'll have to wait 20 years before being elected again if you get less than the required vote.

It doesn't make any sense, in my opinion.

[Sockeye]

Good to hear it. Glad to know the veteran's committee is finally starting to wise up and not adding more mistakes to the HOF.

[DTF955]

I have been starting to look at some of the players, especially 3rd basemen like Santo. I mean, there are so few 3rd basemen in there compared to toher positions, and in the era he played in, well, I think I could see Santo and Allen in. I like the idea of a discussion type like in the NFL, they can always concclude nobody should get in.

Speaking of which, at least you can have a litle fun with it here - I put it in Between Innings since it's really seprate, because...well, you'll see. :-) http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=58127

[DoubleX]

I have been starting to look at some of the players, especially 3rd basemen like Santo. I mean, there are so few 3rd basemen in there compared to toher positions, and in the era he played in, well, I think I could see Santo and Allen in. I like the idea of a discussion type like in the NFL, they can always concclude nobody should get in.

The NFL system has its flaws, but what I like about it is that it actually operates like a committee. The baseball Veteran's Committee is hardly a committee.

[vasprtsfn]

I am not old enough to seen any of the Vets ballot players play, so I dont know enough about them to know if any of them are Hall worthy. (The Class of 1999, with Yount, Ryan, and Brett were the first players elected to the Hall that I saw play.) But it seems to me that there is no point in even having a Veterans Committee vote anymore. Furthermore, the next several years will feature thin writers ballots. What happens one year if no one is elected by the writers AND the veterans committee?

[DoubleX]

I am not old enough to seen any of the Vets ballot players play, so I dont know enough about them to know if any of them are Hall worthy. (The Class of 1999, with Yount, Ryan, and Brett were the first players elected to the Hall that I saw play.) But it seems to me that there is no point in even having a Veterans Committee vote anymore. Furthermore, the next several years will feature thin writers ballots. What happens one year if no one is elected by the writers AND the veterans committee?

Could be next year, though Gossage looks to be in good shape to get elected.

[vasprtsfn]

Could be next year, though Gossage looks to be in good shape to get elected.

But there will be no Vets Comm vote again until 2009.

[AlecBoy006]

As far as football, when Art Monk didn't make it, I wanted to riot.

For baseball- well, they do it worse with the VC. Atleast they got it right in 99 with Cepeda.

[DoubleX]

But there will be no Vets Comm vote again until 2009.

Exactly, so if the BBWAA doesn't elect anyone next year, neither the BBWAA or VC will have anyone to put in next year.

[John Shoemaker]

I was very disappointed that the VC did not elect any players this year.

When the final list of 200 players came out I looked them over and found 14 that I think should be in the HOF. 9 of those didn't even make the final list of 27 to be voted on. Here are the 14 I supported (in aplhabetical order) and their result in this election.

Joe Adcock - didn't make the final list of 27
Dick Allen - received 11 votes or 13.4%
Bobby Bonds - received 1 vote or 1.2%
Norm Cash - didn't make the final list of 27
Rocky Colavito - received 5 votes or 6.1%
Gil Hodges - received 50 votes or 61%
Willie Horton - didn't make the final list of 27
Frank Howard - didn't make the final list of 27
Greg Luzinski - didn't make the final list of 27
Lee May - didn't make the final list of 27
Boog Powell - didn't make the final list of 27
Ron Santo - received 57 votes or 69.5%
Roy Sievers - didn't make the final list of 27
Reggie Smith - didn't make the final list of 27

The VC does get things right once in a while -

in 1980 they elected Chuck Klein
in 1891 they elected Johnny Mize
in 1999 they elected Orlando Cepeda

but this year I can't believe they couldn't find even 1 candidate to elect.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I was very disappointed that the VC did not elect any players this year.

When the final list of 200 players came out I looked them over and found 14 that I think should be in the HOF. 9 of those didn't even make the final list of 27 to be voted on. Here are the 14 I supported (in aplhabetical order) and their result in this election.

Joe Adcock - didn't make the final list of 27
Dick Allen - received 11 votes or 13.4%
Bobby Bonds - received 1 vote or 1.2%
Norm Cash - didn't make the final list of 27
Rocky Colavito - received 5 votes or 6.1%
Gil Hodges - received 50 votes or 61%
Willie Horton - didn't make the final list of 27
Frank Howard - didn't make the final list of 27
Greg Luzinski - didn't make the final list of 27
Lee May - didn't make the final list of 27
Boog Powell - didn't make the final list of 27
Ron Santo - received 57 votes or 69.5%
Roy Sievers - didn't make the final list of 27
Reggie Smith - didn't make the final list of 27

The VC does get things right once in a while -

in 1980 they elected Chuck Klein
in 1891 they elected Johnny Mize
in 1999 they elected Orlando Cepeda

but this year I can't believe they couldn't find even 1 candidate to elect.
It's pretty much the same candidates since this current version of the VC took over the voting. At least players are making ground.
It just may be time to abolish the VC all together. Other HOF's do not have this, and the whole "Hope springs eternal" thing about a player not losing his eligibility after dropping off the writer's ballot is a joke. The separate committee has run its course.

[bluezebra]

Isn't it just possible that the candidates the VC has had to vote on are not Hall-worthy? I know that Santo and Hodges have their supporters (I have supported Hodges), but I can also relate to those who don't believe they are worthy, as they are borderline for the HOF, in my opinion. It doesn't seem like a travesty to me if neither of those two make the Hall.

Who have the VC NOT voted in the HOF that should obviously be there, in your opinion? Guys that are no-brainers for the HOF? I don't see Santo or Hodges as no-brainers.


I saw Santo, Oliva and Hodges play. Their Hall-worthiness goes beyond their stats, which are good enough. Oliva hit .304 lifetime, 6 years over .300, 3batting titles, 8 times All-Star. I also saw Doug Harvey umpire on many occassions. He also belongs. The Veterans' Committee (committee in name only) should be revamped.

Bob

[Westlake]

I saw Santo, Oliva and Hodges play. Their Hall-worthiness goes beyond their stats, which are good enough. Oliva hit .304 lifetime, 6 years over .300, 3batting titles, 8 times All-Star. I also saw Doug Harvey umpire on many occassions. He also belongs. The Veterans' Committee (committee in name only) should be revamped.

Bob

Since you were an umpire, I'd like to know your opinion on what makes an umpire worthy of the HOF above their contemporaries.

[J W]

It's pretty much the same candidates since this current version of the VC took over the voting. At least players are making ground.

The players are making ground... Santo made up half his ground this year, and is only 5 votes away as the HOF stands. And, I suspect that as we elect more "modern day" HOFers his numbers will continue to go up. Ripken and Gwynn I'm certain would vote for Santo--they're historians of the game. And Ryne Sandberg wove the banner at his induction speech.

It all really starts with Santo. I think once he's elected (dead or alive, unfortunately), things will be ok. Remember what some posters have said; with this system there won't be any "mistakes"... it'll take a lot to elect anyone.

I really don't understand why the players are voting for the Contributor's Ballot. Other than managers and umpires, it doesn't make sense to me.


It just may be time to abolish the VC all together. Other HOF's do not have this, and the whole "Hope springs eternal" thing about a player not losing his eligibility after dropping off the writer's ballot is a joke. The separate committee has run its course.

Not true; the second-most famous HOF in Canton has a VC that puts through 2 candidates per year who are almost locks to be elected (only one player, Bob Hayes, has not made it since they changed format to 2 VC candidates). It is much easier to get into the PFHOF past your initial term of eligibility.

And, I don't want to abolish the VC. I am firmly in the camp where it's better to fix a hole in the wall than expand it's edges.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Not true; the second-most famous HOF in Canton has a VC that puts through 2 candidates per year who are almost locks to be elected (only one player, Bob Hayes, has not made it since they changed format to 2 VC candidates). It is much easier to get into the PFHOF past your initial term of eligibility.

And, I don't want to abolish the VC. I am firmly in the camp where it's better to fix a hole in the wall than expand it's edges.
The two candidates are only recent, while they had one Senior candidate for quite a while. A core of the voters select who the candidates will be then vote on them along with everyone else, so it's not really a separate process. The thing is, the mandated numbers for election each year went down with the addition of another Seniors candidate. That's kind of strange.

To baseball, though, it'll be eight years and counting for a VC-elected player when the VC meets next go around. Having an election every two years only lessens the importance of these elections and also draws an even stronger line between those elected by the writers and those elected by the VC. (Which I'm sure the tiered-hall advocates have little issue with, but I digress.) If the purpose of this committee is to ultimately elect those qualified but unfortunately passed over, not electing anyone defeats the purpose. If they do elect Santo or whomever else in 2009, great. But if they don't, what's the point?

[milladrive]

I saw Santo, Oliva and Hodges play. Their Hall-worthiness goes beyond their stats, which are good enough. Oliva hit .304 lifetime, 6 years over .300, 3batting titles, 8 times All-Star. I also saw Doug Harvey umpire on many occassions. He also belongs. The Veterans' Committee (committee in name only) should be revamped.

Bob

Perhaps I'm just having a weird day, but this is the second post by Bob I've agreed with today. :p ...Seriously, though, I totally agree with that post.

[mtortolero]

This VC is not doing their job because their members does not act as a colegiate corp and keeps each voter isolated.
How Dick Allen has been losing one vote each time ( 13 in 2003. 12 in 2005 and 11 in 2007) with guys as Willie McCovey, Willie Stargell, Hank Aaron, Jim Bunning, Orlando Cepeda or Joe Morgan, who were comtemporaries of Allen and knows what kind of hitter he was.
I suspect that some HOF members, specially those who were voted by writers feels that they can be lossing "majesty" choosing someone who was not elected in 15 years by the writers as them.
In the other hand I can not imagine a former VC elected, George Kell, not voting by Ron Santo, by example, but probably guys as Schmidt o Boggs feels he is not at their level.

[plask_stirlac]

Wait, the Veteran's Committee can elect players into the Hall of Fame? Huh.

Think about this: Frankie Frisch got his friends elected, and Ron Santo can't even get in himself.

Can we get some retired GMs to vote? At some point performance needs its say, not a popularity contest. WHY is Ron Santo not qualified? Dick Allen? Who is their induction going to adversely affect? Put it out publicly before their windows expire or they pass away. Do voters have illusions they were all better than these guys were?

[Captain Cold Nose]

In yesterday's USA Today, there was a small article saying they will reconsider the present VC sometime this month. At least, that's what the headline said. I don't think there was an actual quote in the article actually saying that would happen.

[Freakshow]

This is the note I sent to the HOF:

There is obviously growing dissatisfaction with the inability of the Veterans Committee to elect anyone. Jane Forbes Clark said: “we are disappointed that no one has been elected in three voting cycles...Perhaps the process hasn't worked as well as some board members thought it would. There may need to be some changes." The plan appears to be to revise the election procedures for the Veterans Committee, in order to get some people elected.

First, to my understanding, these are some givens and assumptions:
1. The desire is not for an overhaul, but a tweaking of the process.
2. The hall of famers themselves will still be a part of the process.
3. The 75% super-majority requirement is untouchable.
4. There is a desire to avoid a mass meeting to conduct the vote, as was done until 2001.

Ideas to enhance the chances for election:
1. Vote more often. Hold elections every year for players, every other year for non-players. Currently, it’s very hard for candidates to build momentum.
2. Shorten the final ballot to ten; 25+ is too many, it works against efforts to come to consensus on the best candidates. From the 25-man ballot, have a different committee (25-year BBWAA members, perhaps?) reduce it to a final ten.
3. Guarantee that the top runners-up (maybe 5?) from this year’s election will be on next year’s final ballot. In other words, ensure the continuity of the top candidates. While this does tend to happen already, I believe it should somehow be formalized in the rules. Then, the Hall should publicize, and even stump for, “candidates nearing possible election”.
4. Acknowledge the limitations of the electorate and limit their jurisdiction to players they may have actually seen play in their primes. I would say they should only consider anyone retired less than 50 (maybe 60) years – there is no chance of them electing anyone before this anyway. Candidates before this time should be considered by a Historical Committee; they’re simply a distraction for this Veterans Committee.
5. Awareness of top candidates must be promoted to the electorate. Every voter must be made keenly aware of those candidates that are supported by a majority of their peers.
6. Say it: We’re here to elect someone. Maintain high standards? Yes, of course. But the multiple screening committees ensure this – it’s not just a small group favoring their cronies anymore. So, when announcing the changes to the VC procedures, include something like this: “The continued functioning of the Veterans Committee expresses our belief that there are players that deserve the honor of joining the rolls of the Hall of Fame. Changes are being made to better enable the electorate to come to a consensus and elect the most deserving persons.” If you really want to put teeth into this, make it required that voters list at least five names on their ballot.

Yours for a better Hall of Fame,

[Yankwood]

Most of the support I read here is for Santo, and that's fine, but wasn't Gil Hodges th best 1st baseman in the NL for an entire decade? I'm sure that's debatable, but what isn't? I think his supporters case is as good as anyone's and better than most.

[Dodgerfan1]

This is the note I sent to the HOF:

There is obviously growing dissatisfaction with the inability of the Veterans Committee to elect anyone. Jane Forbes Clark said: “we are disappointed that no one has been elected in three voting cycles...Perhaps the process hasn't worked as well as some board members thought it would. There may need to be some changes." The plan appears to be to revise the election procedures for the Veterans Committee, in order to get some people elected.

First, to my understanding, these are some givens and assumptions:
1. The desire is not for an overhaul, but a tweaking of the process.
2. The hall of famers themselves will still be a part of the process.
3. The 75% super-majority requirement is untouchable.
4. There is a desire to avoid a mass meeting to conduct the vote, as was done until 2001.

Ideas to enhance the chances for election:
1. Vote more often. Hold elections every year for players, every other year for non-players. Currently, it’s very hard for candidates to build momentum.
2. Shorten the final ballot to ten; 25+ is too many, it works against efforts to come to consensus on the best candidates. From the 25-man ballot, have a different committee (25-year BBWAA members, perhaps?) reduce it to a final ten.
3. Guarantee that the top runners-up (maybe 5?) from this year’s election will be on next year’s final ballot. In other words, ensure the continuity of the top candidates. While this does tend to happen already, I believe it should somehow be formalized in the rules. Then, the Hall should publicize, and even stump for, “candidates nearing possible election”.
4. Acknowledge the limitations of the electorate and limit their jurisdiction to players they may have actually seen play in their primes. I would say they should only consider anyone retired less than 50 (maybe 60) years – there is no chance of them electing anyone before this anyway. Candidates before this time should be considered by a Historical Committee; they’re simply a distraction for this Veterans Committee.
5. Awareness of top candidates must be promoted to the electorate. Every voter must be made keenly aware of those candidates that are supported by a majority of their peers.
6. Say it: We’re here to elect someone. Maintain high standards? Yes, of course. But the multiple screening committees ensure this – it’s not just a small group favoring their cronies anymore. So, when announcing the changes to the VC procedures, include something like this: “The continued functioning of the Veterans Committee expresses our belief that there are players that deserve the honor of joining the rolls of the Hall of Fame. Changes are being made to better enable the electorate to come to a consensus and elect the most deserving persons.” If you really want to put teeth into this, make it required that voters list at least five names on their ballot.

Yours for a better Hall of Fame,

Freakshow,

This is a lucid, practical and well-thought-out list of improvements! Bravo! There is just one I would add:

7. If, through the adoption and implementation of the above criteria, there is STILL nobody elected, the names of the top three finalists are to be placed in a hat, drawn by three appointed VC members, and one winner selected via rock/paper/scissors. In this manner, there can be no possible grounds for dispute. :clapping

[Ubiquitous]

But why should the VC elect a player? The problem with the VC is that people expect there to be a player selected every time, but why?

I personally think the VS should move away from the players and not even vote on players anymore. I think they should concentrate on the non-players for awhile.

[John Shoemaker]

Most of the support I read here is for Santo, and that's fine, but wasn't Gil Hodges th best 1st baseman in the NL for an entire decade? I'm sure that's debatable, but what isn't? I think his supporters case is as good as anyone's and better than most.

I agree. And another reason for the veterans committee to support Gil Hodges is that until Jim Rice broke it this last year Hodges held the record for the most votes by the BBWAA (over 3000) of any player not elected to the HOF. The bottom line is if the VC had done their job this year both Gil Hodges and Ron Santo would have been elected to the HOF.

[Freakshow]

But why should the VC elect a player?
Because this isn't the Ubiquitous Hall of Fame. Your personal bar is set higher than the actual one.

Under the standards established through seven decades of elections by the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in Cooperstown, New York, there are many deserving players who are not being elected.

[Ubiquitous]

This isn't the Freakshow Hall of Fame either. So again where does it say that the VC must elect a player? We have gotten to a point now where all the eligible candidates on the ballot have gotten a look-see by the real voters of the HoF, and they have been found wanting. You say the bar is set lower except that for the most part the writers have elected the right people, the old VC elected almost all of the wrong people, and now it looks as though the VC is going to emulate the writers and only elect the "right" people. SO if anythin the VC has corrected the flaws in its own procedures that allowed mistakes in.


People complain all the time about this guy being in the hall or that guy being in the hall so why is my guy not in. Well do you think that is going to get better if we force the VC to elect somebody every time?

"Well we got to elect somebody and Jimmy Wynn is the best candidate so goes in"

"Okay Steve Garvey goes in now"

"Jack Clark step right up you are next ine line"

[dgarza]

SO if anythin the VC has corrected the flaws in its own procedures that allowed mistakes in.

It has corrected this flaw, but in the meantime it has developed another flaw, one of not letting legits in.

[Freakshow]

This isn't the Freakshow Hall of Fame either.
Which is why, unlike others, I don't let my personal feelings of who should be elected affect my opinions.

So again where does it say that the VC must elect a player?
Um, it doesn't.

We have gotten to a point now where all the eligible candidates on the ballot have gotten a look-see by the real voters of the HoF, and they have been found wanting.
You're lauding the job done by the BBWAA? Ya know, you point up the main fault of that electorate: they aren't studying or analyzing the candidates, they're just giving them a "look-see".

You say the bar is set lower except that for the most part the writers have elected the right people, the old VC elected almost all of the wrong people, and now it looks as though the VC is going to emulate the writers and only elect the "right" people. SO if anythin the VC has corrected the flaws in its own procedures that allowed mistakes in.
Well, yeah, the new VC procedures are a big improvement over the old. Now they just have to tweak it so they can actually elect someone.



People complain all the time about this guy being in the hall or that guy being in the hall so why is my guy not in. Well do you think that is going to get better if we force the VC to elect somebody every time?

"Well we got to elect somebody and Jimmy Wynn is the best candidate so goes in"

"Okay Steve Garvey goes in now"

"Jack Clark step right up you are next ine line"
We've done the Wynn debate recently, he's easily the best of the three you mention. Still, he isn't one of the first ones I'd elect.

In the past 21 years, since lower limits were placed on VC inductions, the VC has elected 13 players; the BBWAA elected 34 at the same time. This total of 47 is less than the historical rate of 2.5 players per year. With expansion it's often argued that the Hall should be inducting a few more players per decade than the established level. Instead it's gotten stricter. This means there is a growing backlog of deserving candidates for the VC to choose from.

[Ubiquitous]

Which is why, unlike others, I don't let my personal feelings of who should be elected affect my opinions

Where is my personal feelings coming into play? If I had a vote I would vote for Santo, but if my fellow writers or voters did not feel he was worthy should I yell loud that the system is broke? Entrance to the hall is through 75% of the vote. If Santo go no votes at all it should raise alarm bells, or if nobody got any votes it should raise alarm bells. But that didn't happen.




Um, it doesn't

Okay so why are you for automatic forced amount of players on a ballot? You want to drop the ballot to 10 names and force the voters to always vote for 5 names. That is going to put a huge amount of people into the hall.




You're lauding the job done by the BBWAA? Ya know, you point up the main fault of that electorate: they aren't studying or analyzing the candidates, they're just giving them a "look-see".

Yes I am. They have gotten things much much more right then the VC. There are very very few head scratchers in the writers picks, you can't even come close to saying that for the VC picks.



Well, yeah, the new VC procedures are a big improvement over the old. Now they just have to tweak it so they can actually elect someone.



Again why should they have to elect somebody? Every player had a huge amount of chances with the writers. They didn't get in. Now after at least 3 elections with a large group of VC voters they are not in again.

A backlog assumes that come hell or high water there is always a great amount of Hall of Famer level players. The guys the VC are voting on right now are not "locks". They are at best borderline Hall of Famers and they are for the most part borderline because of the incredibly bad picks of the VC of old.

[dgarza]

The guys the VC are voting on right now are not "locks". They are at best borderline Hall of Famers and they are for the most part borderline because of the incredibly bad picks of the VC of old.
Some of the players look good partly because the VC had some bad picks, but I think a player like Dick Allen is better than a good portion of BBWAA picks only, VC choices aside.

[Ubiquitous]

And yet the writers and now Dick's fellow players have never gone crazy for him. The writers had him on the ballot for 15 years. The highest he ever got was 19%. For VC vote he got 13.4%, 15%, and 16%. The people who decide very clearly do not think Dick Allen should be a hall of famer.

You would vote for Dick and that would be your right, but he still wouldn't get in. So does that mean the system is broken? If you vote for Mondale and Reagan wins is that fair? Should the election be changed so that Mondale wins?

[Freakshow]

A backlog assumes that come hell or high water there is always a great amount of Hall of Famer level players.
BINGO!!!:clapping

The guys the VC are voting on right now are not "locks".
Duh.:rolleyes:

They are at best borderline Hall of Famers and they are for the most part borderline because of the incredibly bad picks of the VC of old.
Non sequitur. Many current candidates are WELL ABOVE the borderline "because of the incredibly bad picks of the VC of old."

Maybe what you're not seeing is that, in actuality, it is the VC that has been assigned the job of defining the HOF standards. In recent decades the BBWAA elections have been little more than on honorarium, getting to wave in the no-brainers. The VC has to make the tough calls near the in/out line. Sometimes they've gotten it wrong, so one should ignore the worst 20-25% in the Hall when analyzing whether someone belongs.

[Ubiquitous]

Maybe what you're not seeing is that, in actuality, it is the VC that has been assigned the job of defining the HOF standards. In recent decades the BBWAA elections have been little more than on honorarium, getting to wave in the no-brainers. The VC has to make the tough calls near the in/out line. Sometimes they've gotten it wrong, so one should ignore the worst 20-25% in the Hall when analyzing whether someone belongs.


No they are not. The VC was about cronyism. They didn't define the HoF they are the ones that tried to create a good old boys club. The HoF is now taking steps to remove that. The ones who defined the HoF were always the writers. When people think of the HoF I can practically guarantee you that most people think of the players that the writers elected. How many people think of the hall of fame and think Freddie Lindstrom? The original old times job was to elect the 19th century guys and then elect guys that nobody knew much in terms of their era and their accomplishments. We are now well past that point. It is one thing to ask writers in 1946 to decide on Joe Tinker it is another thing to ask a writer to decide on Ron Santo in 1985. It is one thing to ask a 1955 writer to decide on Billy Hamilton it is another thing to ask a 1970 writer to decide on Gil Hodges. The need for a VC has been greatly diminished and in all probability the need for a VC for players is over. Unless they drastically alter the rules of the VC, basically forcing them to elect somebody no matter what, you will probably see next to no one getting in through the VC. There just isn't those type of candidates left. 30 years ago you could probably build a case for at least 10 guys no longer on the ballot for writers that should be in the hall. Those days are over.

[dgarza]

And yet the writers and now Dick's fellow players have never gone crazy for him. The writers had him on the ballot for 15 years. The highest he ever got was 19%. For VC vote he got 13.4%, 15%, and 16%. The people who decide very clearly do not think Dick Allen should be a hall of famer.
It would be one thing if these writers and players were the same ones who have ALWAYS voted historically and thus are holding true to their own self-made voting patterns, but they're not the same.



You would vote for Dick and that would be your right, but he still wouldn't get in. So does that mean the system is broken? If you vote for Mondale and Reagan wins is that fair? Should the election be changed so that Mondale wins?
This not the same kind of voting. Hall voting is who belongs based on past baseball related issues and more than one can "win". In presidential voting, only an incumbent has a presidential past (their have been times when more than one candidate has had presidential experience, but sometime none of the candidates have experince). So presidential past is only sometimes a factor. And presidential voting isn't really a "who was best" vote, it's a "who do you want in" or "who might be best" vote. And only 1 "wins" even if there is a "tie".

[Freakshow]

No they are not. The VC was about cronyism. They didn't define the HoF they are the ones that tried to create a good old boys club. The HoF is now taking steps to remove that. The ones who defined the HoF were always the writers. When people think of the HoF I can practically guarantee you that most people think of the players that the writers elected. How many people think of the hall of fame and think Freddie Lindstrom? The original old times job was to elect the 19th century guys and then elect guys that nobody knew much in terms of their era and their accomplishments. We are now well past that point. It is one thing to ask writers in 1946 to decide on Joe Tinker it is another thing to ask a writer to decide on Ron Santo in 1985. It is one thing to ask a 1955 writer to decide on Billy Hamilton it is another thing to ask a 1970 writer to decide on Gil Hodges. The need for a VC has been greatly diminished and in all probability the need for a VC for players is over. Unless they drastically alter the rules of the VC, basically forcing them to elect somebody no matter what, you will probably see next to no one getting in through the VC. There just isn't those type of candidates left. 30 years ago you could probably build a case for at least 10 guys no longer on the ballot for writers that should be in the hall. Those days are over.
While I agree it's unfortunate the VC was allowed to lower HOF standards, it's patently unjust to hold more recent players to a higher, artificial standard. No, I don't think the Hall should lower its standards just to induct some guys. By applying the existing standards there are at least two dozen deserving candidates the VC could elect.

And your latter part here is just wrong. Have you even looked at who the VC had to consider 30 years ago? Then, as now, there were some obvious guys they were overlooking, it's very similar. (In fact, a lot of them are the same guys still being overlooked!)

[Ubiquitous]

While I agree it's unfortunate the VC was allowed to lower HOF standards, it's patently unjust to hold more recent players to a higher, artificial standard. No, I don't think the Hall should lower its standards just to induct some guys. By applying the existing standards there are at least two dozen deserving candidates the VC could elect.
If a cop misses one speeder but catches you is that patently unfair? Should that be allowed. If the writers don't elect a guy but the VC does isn't that patently unfair? If 30 years ago people thought player A was not a hall of famer but nowadays peoples mood has changed and they decide to let him in isn't that unfair?

Standards are never written in stone. Standards always change, sometimes much more tight, some times much looser. It is the people in the here and now that decide who is a hall of famer. Are we to lock ourselves into the belief that Jim Creighton is the greatest ballplayer of all time simply because they believed that in 1872?



And your latter part here is just wrong. Have you even looked at who the VC had to consider 30 years ago? Then, as now, there were some obvious guys they were overlooking, it's very similar. (In fact, a lot of them are the same guys still being overlooked!)

I don't think you understand my point. What I said was that there was a point to having the VC in years past because there were a lot of players that probably could be HoF'ers. That probably has dwindled to such a low level that there is probably no real point to having it. If you truly believe that the VC is overlooking some very obvious guys 30 years ago and are still overlooking them today then I do think you are letting your own personal bias get in the way on this one. I mean that is a lot of voters missing it for a lot of years. That is incredibly hard to do, especially for something that should be "obvious". Either it is obvious and they all missed it or your standards for the hall of fame are the ones that do not match up with the actual hall of fame standards.

[Fuzzy Bear]

A lot of people have this view, and I can't certainly understand it, but it's not reality. The reality of the Hall of Fame is that its not relegated just for the Ruths, Mays, Cobbs, Gehrigs, and players of that elite ilk, but it also has tons of players not on that level. Of course there are plenty of mistakes, and I would not argue that the Hall of Fame's minimum boundary should be defined by its mistakes, but I would argue that given the overall composition of the Hall, there are a number of players on the outside who have a strong case for being well within the overall standard. Of course, none of the players I am thinking of are among the truly elite, but they are akin (if not superior) to many of the dozens and dozens of players in the Hall who are also not among the truly elite. Take Dick Allen for example - of course he's not on a level with the likes of Ruth and Cobb and Gehrig and them, but he's well within the standards the Hall has erected, IMO, which is much more than just the very elite.

Basically, I'm not for a super large Hall of Fame, but I am for putting in players on the outside who do meet the Hall's actual standards as defined by its actual composition.

I highlighted the key phrase of the above-referenced post. This statement is not just true, it has been true ever since the mid-1940s, minimum. Guys that do what Ron Santo did have ALWAYS been HOFers.

I realize, though, that one of the consequences of the HOF being not just for the "greatest of the great", but the Elmer Flicks and the Billy Hermans is that it inevitably creates gray areas where Players A, B, and C will be inducted, while Players D, E, and F, players of comparable, even superior quality, will be denied. Second base has the biggest gray area, and there is a big gray area amongst pitchers, but it's true at every position.

One of the purposes of the VC is to eliminate that gray area somewhat. The VC, in its way, has made the gray area bigger, first by being too liberal, then by not inducting anyone at all.

[RuthMayBond]

Are we to lock ourselves into the belief that Jim Creighton is the greatest ballplayer of all time simply because they believed that in 1872?Whaddya say, Burgess?

<I don't think you understand my point. What I said was that there was a point to having the VC in years past because there were a lot of players that probably could be HoF'ers. That probably has dwindled to such a low level that there is probably no real point to having it. If you truly believe that the VC is overlooking some very obvious guys 30 years ago and are still overlooking them today then I do think you are letting your own personal bias get in the way on this one. I mean that is a lot of voters missing it for a lot of years. That is incredibly hard to do, especially for something that should be "obvious". Either it is obvious and they all missed it or your standards for the hall of fame are the ones that do not match up with the actual hall of fame standards.>

Not a lot of players, but Bill Dahlen, Jim McCormick, Dick Allen, Sherry Magee, maybe Torre/Ted Simmons, just some of the older ones ...