Is Reggie right?

[JACKIE42]

BASEBALL


Reggie Elects To Pass
Unimpressed With Hall List

February 27, 2003
By JACK O'CONNELL, Courant Staff Writer

TAMPA, Fla. -- The Hall of Fame Veterans Committee election went just the way Reggie Jackson had hoped.

Nobody got elected.

That was fine with Jackson, one of the 58 Hall of Fame players who along with Frick Award winners for broadcasting and Spink Award winners for writing now make up the Veterans Committee, the result of a reform movement that took the matter out of the hands of 15 men in a room swapping tall stories and votes.

"I feel that it has been getting too easy for people to get into the Hall of Fame," Jackson said Wednesday at Legends Field, where he is working as a spring training instructor and consultant for the Yankees. "When it comes to the Hall of Fame, I'm a little tougher voter."

A little tough? Jackson is so strict a voter that he didn't return a ballot. Of the 85 Hall of Fame members eligible to vote on the Veterans Committee, Jackson was one of four who didn't submit a ballot. Two other former players and a former manager also declined to participate. Two other committee members sent in players ballots, but not composite ballots for managers, executives and umpires.

"I looked at those ballots, and there was no one to put in," Jackson said.

With the same 75 percent plurality required for election in the annual voting by the Baseball Writers' Association of America, 61 votes were needed on the players ballot and 60 on the composite ballot to make the Hall. Gil Hodges, the leading vote getter among former players, was 11 shy of the total required. Umpire Doug Harvey, the top vote getter on the composite ballot, was 12 short. Veterans Committee voting is every two years for players and every four for the composite ballot.

Jackson didn't need more than a quick glance at the 26 players on one ballot and 15 managers, execs and umpires on the other ballot to decide that he didn't want to participate.

"I don't see how guys who had 15 years to get into the Hall and didn't make it suddenly qualify as Hall of Fame material," Jackson said, referring to the duration players can stay on the BBWAA ballot. "If you couldn't get in on the writers ballot, why should we put you in now? Look at Tony Oliva, who by some people's standards may be a Hall of Famer. He was a great hitter but only played 12 years because of injuries and had 900-some-odd RBI [947]. Then you look at Hank Aaron, who had over 2,000 RBI [2,297]."

Jackson, who was elected to the Hall in 1993 in his first year of eligibilty, clearly took a keeper of the flame position regarding Cooperstown.

"I probably shouldn't have gotten in until my third or fourth year [of eligibility]," said Jackson, whose .263 batting average is among the lowest of position players but whose 563 home runs rank eighth, and whose postseason heroics combined to make him a first-ballot choice by the writers. "How can Willie Mays or Hank Aaron not get 100 percent of the vote and other guys are getting in that probably shouldn't get in. Do we want to get like football and basketball and put 10 guys in every year? If we keep this up, we'll have to put Aaron and Mays in a separate Hall of Fame. If things keep going the way they are, some guy from Hollywood will be voted into the Hall of Fame."

As far as Jackson is concerned, there shouldn't even be a composite ballot for non-players. Former union leader Marvin Miller helped create a system that made millionaires of many players in Jackson's time, yet a plaque in Cooperstown was denied Miller, who received 35 votes (44 percent).

"Marvin Miller was a great figure in the game's history who deserves some honor," Jackson said, "but the Hall of Fame should be for players only."

By deciding not to take part in the Veterans Committee process, Jackson also cost Yankees manager Joe Torre a possible extra vote. Torre, who was on the players ballot, received 29 votes (35.8 percent).

"I couldn't be a hypocrite," Jackson said. "Joe Torre's credentials are as good as some people who are in the Hall of Fame. You look at the dominant hitters of that era. Aaron. Mays. [Mickey] Mantle. [Roberto] Clemente. [Willie] Stargell. Frank Robinson. Stan the Man [Musial] was nearing the end. Torre was pretty darned good in that era, but in making a case for him you have to ask, why did the writers leave him out?"

Oddly, Torre concurred.

"It should be hard to get into the Hall of Fame," he said. "It's a special place for the deserving. Those on the committee knew how hard it was to get there. If it ever happens, I'll consider it a tremendous honor."
























--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[CardFanNV]

He shouldn't be in the hall, either.

[yellowdog]

I basically agree with everything he said. It takes someone as out spoken as Reggie to have the guts to say what a lot of people are thinking.

And I certainly believe he belongs!

[The Commissioner]

I'm not saying that Jackson doesn't bring up some valid points, however here are a couple of things for Reggie to ponder:

-while it's true that Oliva's 947 RBI fall 754 short of those tallied by Mr. October he also amassed 1952 less strikeouts over his career

-if Tony Oliva had gone 0 for his next 1000 at bats, he would have still wound up his career with a higher BA than Reggie did.

[Bobby N]

Arrogant and rude! If there's an outpatient clinic for the chronically wrong Reggie Jackson would be the first nominated!How dare he flagrantly violate the rules and then excuse his egregious behavior as maintaining high standards.!

Perhaps this old schoolteacher should suggest that Mr. October do his homework before he shoots his mouth off to the press.

And sadly, because of people like him, the best candidate not in the HOF still isn't there -- Gil Hodges. And people like me who remember Gil as the Quiet Man who hit 370 home runs, was a leader on the great Brooklyn Dodger teams, and might have been the best fielding right handed first baseman of all time; we'll just shed a few more tears and quietly wait till next year.Okay, now its two years)i

[Mattingly]

"I don't see how guys who had 15 years to get into the Hall and didn't make it suddenly qualify as Hall of Fame material," Jackson said, referring to the duration players can stay on the BBWAA ballot. "If you couldn't get in on the writers ballot, why should we put you in now? Look at Tony Oliva, who by some people's standards may be a Hall of Famer. He was a great hitter but only played 12 years because of injuries and had 900-some-odd RBI [947]. Then you look at Hank Aaron, who had over 2,000 RBI [2,297]."I'm not overly crazy about the first sentence, since it would appear that he's saying that the Veteran's Committee doesn't really serve a purpose other than some last chance entrance into the HOF. Technically, that may be so, but I'd say it was a place where players whose careers were overlooked but should still be in.

I strongly agree that only those players whose careers were outstanding should be in. I wouldn't hold the standards so high that you have to be a Mays, Ruth or Ted Williams to get in, but someone like Bonds, Maddux, Randy Johnson, I feel would all get in.

I wish he'd have discussed more why he didn't feel that Gil Hodges wasn't worthy. He seemed to have his best offensive numbers from 1949-57, and I'd preferred to have read whether Reggie thought he had enough HOF years to warrant his inclusion.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hodgegi01.shtml

I remember hearing discusions that even curveball master Sandy Koufax only had 6 HOF years, even though few questioned his inclusion.

[Mattingly]

Originally posted by The Commissioner
I'm not saying that Jackson doesn't bring up some valid points, however here are a couple of things for Reggie to ponder:

-while it's true that Oliva's 947 RBI fall 754 short of those tallied by Mr. October he also amassed 1952 less strikeouts over his career

-if Tony Oliva had gone 0 for his next 1000 at bats, he would have still wound up his career with a higher BA than Reggie did. I would never question Oliva's skills. Do you think that it was Oliva's lack of WS titles that might've influenced Reggie? I just looked and saw that Tony Oliva played from 1962-76 for the Twins, which had last won the WS in 1924 before him, and 1987 afterwards.

Several people have said that slick-fielding but weak-hitting Bill Mazeroski only got in because of a 9th inning blast in the 1960 WS.

[The Commissioner]

I think Reggie, and perhaps quite a few others, were more influenced by the fact that they'd rather remain part of a highly elite class than metaphorically share the wealth. Reggie's been allowed in this elite fratenrnity, why should he want to admit more members? It's not in Reggie's self interest, and let's face it, no one has ever accused Reggie of being a team player. I can fully appreciate the arguments against any of those ballots being admitted to Cooperstown. Although, I don't agree with a lot of them, I don't mind hearing them when they are well thought out and sincere. However, does Reggie truly think no one on that list deserves to be in the same category with him?

[jhwinfrey]

I think Reggie's a good example of what might be wrong with having HOF members on the veteran's committee.
Retired players aren't always the best students of baseball history, stats, etc.

Jackson didn't need more than a quick glance at the 26 players on one ballot and 15 managers, execs and umpires on the other ballot to decide that he didn't want to participate.
I think Ron Santo and Dick Allen deserve more than a "quick glance" whether you eventually vote for them or not.

[CardFanNV]

Reggie shouldn't be in the main hall ..................

much less on a committee ...........................

[Brad Harris]

The Hall of Fame graciously bestowed voting privileges on all living members of the Hall (and the Spink and Frick Award recipients).

The rules state quite clearly that submission of a blank ballot would count in the voting. If you don't feel anyone is worthy, Reggie, why didn't you just mail in a blank ballot? By not submitting a ballot at all, your voice wasn't heard one way or another. So you can sermonize all you want about being a guardian of high standards, but the fact is your dance card is empty because you were too dumb to show up for the ball. If Jackson had used his brains, he'd have turned in a blank ballot, thus making it more difficult for anyone to get elected. He acted both stupidly and lazily (go figure) and then spouts off about what a great guy he is for protecting the Hall from idiots who think someone besides him should be elected.

Furthermore (and I feel very strongly about this), any voters who choose not to participate (as Reggie and several others did), should have their voting privileges permanently revoked. It's insulting enough to be made to feel that Reggie Jackson (or whomever) is somehow more competant to judge the qualifications of Ken Williams, Marty Marion, Allie Reynolds, etc. (yet alone Tony Oliva, Bobby Bonds and Joe Torre) and we are not. Just because Jackson could hit a home run 500+ times at the major league level? That makes him smarter than us? Or more concerned about the Hall than us? He obviously isn't willing to do any research whereas I'd wager almost every single poster here at Baseball Fever has spent at least some amount of time researching candidates. But refusing to turn in a ballot (for any reason) is ridiculously poor behavior. (I should have suspected Reggie.) It's a slap in the face to the Hall and its rules. It's a slap in the face to the history of this great game and the great men who played it. It's a slap in the face to us, who are willing, but unable to vote.

Lastly, Reggie (accidentally) touches on a poignant topic. There should be a Hall of Famer for the Aarons, Cobbs, Mantles of the world. There should be some demarcation line - something to separate Bill Mazeroski from Rogers Hornsby, to separate Drysdale from Sandy Koufax, etc. An "inner circle," if you will. Because the fact is that, far from maintaining a high standard all these years, the Hall of Fame's standards for admission have been all over God's green earth and there's such a large gray area that it is difficult to distinguish who is and who is not a Hall of Famer sometimes.

Of course, I guess in Reggie Jackson's ideal world, Cooperstown's Hall of Fame would have just one plaque. His. There wouldn't be room for any more than "the magnitude of [Reggie]."

[Mattingly]

Originally posted by Chancellor
Lastly, Reggie (accidentally) touches on a poignant topic. There should be a Hall of Famer for the Aarons, Cobbs, Mantles of the world. There should be some demarcation line - something to separate Bill Mazeroski from Rogers Hornsby, to separate Drysdale from Sandy Koufax, etc. An "inner circle," if you will. Because the fact is that, far from maintaining a high standard all these years, the Hall of Fame's standards for admission have been all over God's green earth and there's such a large gray area that it is difficult to distinguish who is and who is not a Hall of Famer sometimes.I get the impression that whoever is elected to this "secondary HOF" if you will, would feel like it's a backhanded compliment. Sort of like an asterisk had been placed onto their plaque, the way that Maris' 61 HRs had this.

[The Commissioner]

Does anyone know who the other people were besides Mr. Goodbar that didn't turn in a ballot?

[seaphil]

That is weird that he didn't even submit a ballot. I actually would have voted for Ron Santo, but I don't think there were any other HOFers on that ballot, and I would rather submit an empty ballot if I felt strongly about none of them getting in, as it would lower their %.

I think that this new system will result in more years with nobody getting elected by the VC. We'll see how long the powers that be in Cooperstown allow that to continue, but I think it's great if it becomes a little harder to get in the "back door". The VC has been responsible for far too many low-quality picks over the years, a little discretion will be nice.

And, as far as Oliva, I think that he was a Hall of Fame talent that didn't have a Hall of Fame career. I'd say the same thing about Dick Allen.

[scott4_Dallas]

To not return the ballot?

No.

To not vote for any of the candidates?

Yes

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by seaphil
...And, as far as Oliva, I think that he was a Hall of Fame talent that didn't have a Hall of Fame career. I'd say the same thing about Dick Allen.

Great line. Although I disagree about Allen (and, to an extent, Oliva), I'm of the same opinion about Ted Kluszewski, who was also on the ballot - "a Hall of Fame talent that didn't have a Hall of Fame career."

Great line! :)

[Mattingly]

Originally posted by The Commissioner
Does anyone know who the other people were besides Mr. Goodbar that didn't turn in a ballot? If you need to know, you can contact them.

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/contact/index.htm

[YankeeMan]

We do not need seperate "levels" at the HoF. A fan knows the difference between Maz and Yaz, Reggie and Ruth, Maris and Mantle. We do not need to make that distinction. The fans will do that all by themsleves. We do need to remember that the HoF is not for the players -- It is for the fans! And if the fans, by conseus, agree that someone should be admitted, they (the voters) should listen. Like Santo and Hodges, and, maybe someday, Munson.

[scott4_Dallas]

Originally posted by YankeeMan
We do not need seperate "levels" at the HoF. A fan knows the difference between Maz and Yaz, Reggie and Ruth, Maris and Mantle. We do not need to make that distinction. The fans will do that all by themsleves. We do need to remember that the HoF is not for the players -- It is for the fans! And if the fans, by conseus, agree that someone should be admitted, they (the voters) should listen. Like Santo and Hodges, and, maybe someday, Munson. --------------

I'd just like to say that as long as I have a say (in terms of being a fan) you'll never have consensus on Santo, Hodges, or Munson - perhaps a majority - perhaps a great big majority but not consensus. I don't consent to any of them joining the HOF. Santos is the closest but no cigar.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by scott4_Dallas
--------------

I'd just like to say that as long as I have a say (in terms of being a fan) you'll never have consensus on Santo, Hodges, or Munson - perhaps a majority - perhaps a great big majority but not consensus. I don't consent to any of them joining the HOF. Santos is the closest but no cigar.

That's great, but the Hall of Fame disagrees with you. If they thought that there were no players who deserved election, they would not have the committee voting on players. In fact, most of the voters think that Hodges, Oliva and Santo should be in the Hall.

Consensus doesn't necessarily mean unanimity. Obviously, unanimity is not a requirement for election. No player has ever received 100% from the BBWAA.

An overwhelming consensus of fans, writers and leaders of the HOF think there are players the BBWAA overlooked that deserve to be enshrined. They have given the VC the mission of identifying and electing these worthies. Hopefully, this recent election will serve to bring focus to the leading candidates, leading to the required 75% for someone in 2005.


DanG

[scott4_Dallas]

Originally posted by Freakshow
That's great, but the Hall of Fame disagrees with you. If they thought that there were no players who deserved election, they would not have the committee voting on players. In fact, most of the voters think that Hodges, Oliva and Santo should be in the Hall.

Consensus doesn't necessarily mean unanimity. Obviously, unanimity is not a requirement for election. No player has ever received 100% from the BBWAA.

An overwhelming consensus of fans, writers and leaders of the HOF think there are players the BBWAA overlooked that deserve to be enshrined. They have given the VC the mission of identifying and electing these worthies. Hopefully, this recent election will serve to bring focus to the leading candidates, leading to the required 75% for someone in 2005.
--------------

I disagree - a majority of baseball fans don't agree that Hodges, Oliva and Santo are HOFer's - a majority of some small minority (those of us who spend their time debating this) is in favor. The majority of baseball fans couldn't tell you what team Oliva played for.



DanG

[Freakshow]

scott4_dallas wrote:
"I disagree - a majority of baseball fans don't agree that Hodges, Oliva and Santo are HOFer's"

And I didn't say they did. I said "An overwhelming consensus of fans...think there are players the BBWAA overlooked that deserve to be enshrined." We disagree on exactly who they may be.


"- a majority of some small minority (those of us who spend their time debating this) is in favor. The majority of baseball fans couldn't tell you what team Oliva played for."

Probably true. But then, a majority of fans have no idea what the Hall's real standards are, either.

[J W]

If you left it up to the fans, you'd get NOBODY elected. No one. In general, the top candidates, no matter who they would be (Barry Bonds, Greg Maddux, Tony Gwynn) would get, oh, 70% of the vote. It's just speculation but I'm using the results I've seen from this year.

Five years after the spotlight, people would either:

- Not vote for a guy because he was on a rival team
- Not vote for a guy because they didn't like him
- Just forget the guy existed

Well, maybe I'm being a little pessimistic... a guy like Cal Ripken or Mark McGwire (a.k.a. popular) might eek out enough of a vote. I think if left up to the fans, because of the HUGE sample size, a simple majority vote would be sufficient. But then you might get a REAL wacky lookin' Hall of Fame.

As far as Reggie, well, that's Reggie for ya.

I'm actually glad to hear only four of the ballots were not returned. That's not a whole heck of a lot of percent (though it's meaningful). I can respect a blank ballot but not an absent one.

Side note: Where did the Zucker brothers find all these personalities for their Naked Gun franchise? I mean, O.J.? Reggie? Anna Nicole? Gimme a break! :laugh

[Mattingly]

Originally posted by Mattingly
If you need to know, you can contact them.

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/contact/index.htm Commissioner, re who other than Reggie declined to fill in a ballot, I got this reply back from email:

Dear Friend:

Thank you for your message.

As in any American election, it is up to each potential elector to determine
whether or not he wishes to say if and how he or she voted. Some
individuals have chosen to share if and how they voted.

Yours in Baseball,
The Hall of Fame
Baseball Hall of Fame [info@baseballhalloffame.org]

[Chinmusic 44]

I strongly disagree that only players should be in the HOF. There are countless individuals who have contributed more to the game without ever playing than Reggie Jackson did throughout his career (ie. Branch Rickey, Alexander Cartwright, Ban Johnson, etc). What about managerial legends like Connie Mack and John McGraw? I think Reggie needs to think before he talks.

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by Chinmusic 44
I strongly disagree that only players should be in the HOF. There are countless individuals who have contributed more to the game without ever playing than Reggie Jackson did throughout his career (ie. Branch Rickey, Alexander Cartwright, Ban Johnson, etc). What about managerial legends like Connie Mack and John McGraw? I think Reggie needs to think before he talks.

Well I would agree wholeheartedly with absolutely everything said here, I must point out one (minor) exception.

The number of persons who have contributed more to the game than most Hall of Fame players are few and finite and most are already in the Hall of Fame. There are not "countless" numbers of such people. ;)

But Chinmusic44 is right and he makes a great point.

[The Commissioner]

Thanks for sharing your reply to the Hall email Mattingly. I actually wouldn't have expected, nor really have wanted, them to divulge the names.

[Chinmusic 44]

Maybe I got carried away :)

[BabeSox]

I was checking HoF members by positions here at baseball-almanac and counting'em by positions

po-#
c-13
p-59
lf-18
cf-17
rf-22
1b-18
2b-16
3b-10
ss-21
managers-17
Total players (without managers) - 194


I guess that if Hall of Fame members were to play among them sometime they'd find they don't have to many 3rd basemen and catchers, I wonder if Reggie's team lacks of someone to cover those hard positions.

Any relation with the absence of Santo and Munson?


Till now there are about 15600 players who have arrived to the Mayors, 194 represents about 1.25%, it doesn't have to be I guess a strict 1 %. Is there's someone who deserves then he must be elected.

[trosmok]

It is obvious that there is less consistency in HOF selection than an Angel Hernandez strike zone. BBWAA have always had enormous bias in their voting, and now the revamped VC is exhibiting the same myopic lack of vision.

Mr. Whiffer Jackson, all 2597 strikeouts and little else, has been nothing but a bag of hot gas since he left Oakland. How dare he open his mouth about Cooperstown, he should be banned from voting in the future. The HOF selection has been little better than a dog and pony show for years, and now the biggest north end of a southbound horse is pontificating on the unworthiness of any candidates. A pox on Reggie! :grouchy

[Mattingly]

Originally posted by The Commissioner
Thnaks for sharing your reply to the Hall email Mattingly. I actually wouldn't have expected, nor really have wanted, them to divulge the names. You're welcome. Hopefully, I didn't violate any unspoken protocol with them by asking who declined to vote.

Oh well, you live and learn if unfortunately I did. :o

[YankeeMan]

I don't think the voting should be hidden from the public. In fact, I think it should be a public record like congressional votes. Because baseball is a monopoly (see Federal Baseball (http://www.ipwatchdog.com/BaseballExemptionCase.htm)) the Federal goverment should place some restrictions and regulations on it. This should be one of them. If the voters knew that thier votes were a public record, maybe they'd be a lil' more diligent.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by YankeeMan
If the voters knew that thier votes were a public record, maybe they'd be a lil' more diligent.
Amen, amen! If this veil of secrecy were removed, if this iron curtain of silence were toppled, there would be better results all around.
If voters had a little accountability, if their vote was open to question, you bet we'd see more responsible and defensible ballots cast. Some of the worst offenders would object, of course, and not vote anymore...YES!

[scott4_Dallas]

Or we'll just have more public campaigns focussed on the voters that don't vote for a particular candidate. The idea that voters that don't vote for anyone are somehow derilic in their duties is misplaced. I don't like the fact that 6 voters didn't return their ballots. But there is no reason that voters should be voting for candidates that they don't feel meet the threshold. The reason that they changed the voting setup for the veteran's committee is that there was too much horsetrading going on and we kept seeing suspect candidates getting elected. It SHOULD be a rare occurance that the veterans committee is electing someone to the HOF - especially given the number of chances that candidates get with the writers.

[Freakshow]

What does scott4_Dallas think about these ideas for improving the BBWAA election process:

1) Remove the 10-player ceiling. He said "there is no reason that voters should be voting for candidates that they don't feel meet the threshold." By the same token, there is no reason that voters should be restricted from voting for players they feel DO meet the threshhold.

2) Allow players up to 50 years on the BBWAA ballot, rather than 15. There is no question that our historical view of players is ever-changing. The way a player ranks five years after he retires is often very different than how he looks 25 years after, or 55 years after retirement. If +5% of the esteemed BBWAA electorate continue to vote for a player, why are we throwing him over to the VC so soon? Since this court of second opinion has enshrined all of the Hall's lesser players, why not give the BBWAA a larger window in which to consider players' candidacies?

[scott4_Dallas]

I have no problem with voters voting for more than ten candidates in a given year. I don't personally think this is a major constraint for voters.

I agree that historical perspectives can change. That would be the true reason for having a veteran's committee. So I wouldn't change the 15 year rule - if anything I might shorten it and then turn it over to the veteran's committee.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by scott4_Dallas
I agree that historical perspectives can change. That would be the true reason for having a veteran's committee. So I wouldn't change the 15 year rule - if anything I might shorten it and then turn it over to the veteran's committee.
The logical extension of this line of thinking is to eliminate the BBWAA electorate entirely. If you think that it's better to "turn it over to the veteran's committee" sooner, well why wait?

OK, how about a compromise. Give the BBWAA one shot for every player. Most of their selections are first ballot as it is now. If they reject a player, fine. Let some other group consider his candidacy.

Thinking about it even more, you might even assemble a third or fourth or fifth electorate and rotate the candidates among them year-to-year. Say, a committee of fans gets their year. How about a committee of ALL former players? How about a committee of baseball authors? Give each group a crack at electing whom they like. Each group brings a unique brand of expertise to the debate. Maybe you would rather set it up so that three of the five groups have to elect a guy before he's in the HOF.

Some ideas.

[scott4_Dallas]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Freakshow
[B]The logical extension of this line of thinking is to eliminate the BBWAA electorate entirely. If you think that it's better to "turn it over to the veteran's committee" sooner, well why wait?
-------------------------

I don't think that is the logical extension of my statement.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by scott4_Dallas
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Freakshow
[B]I don't think that is the logical extension of my statement.
Then why did you say "if anything I might shorten it and then turn it over to the veteran's committee"? How does this improve the process?

[scott4_Dallas]

Because I agree that historical perspectives change over time. When a player retires and is put on the ballot 5 years later they are being judged by writers that covered them during their playing days. 15 years later they are still being judged largely by writers who covered them during their playing days. Writers have careers that last 30-40 years, players only have 15-20. So the historical perspective doesn't come into play until the writers have enough turnover that the player is being judged by those that didn't cover them during their playing career.

Additionally, in the 15th and last year of eligibility each player is given more consideration by the writers - this would still be true if the last year of eligibility were the 12th year of the 10th year.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by scott4_Dallas
Because I agree that historical perspectives change over time. When a player retires and is put on the ballot 5 years later they are being judged by writers that covered them during their playing days. 15 years later they are still being judged largely by writers who covered them during their playing days. Writers have careers that last 30-40 years, players only have 15-20. So the historical perspective doesn't come into play until the writers have enough turnover that the player is being judged by those that didn't cover them during their playing career.

The issue, then, is who should judge these players retired beyond 40 years, the BBWAA or the HOFers? You seem to think the latter group is better qualified. Why? You know, writers can still vote after they are retired.

Additionally, in the 15th and last year of eligibility each player is given more consideration by the writers - this would still be true if the last year of eligibility were the 12th year of the 10th year. This is a weak generalization, true as often as not. Even when true, the effect is seldom significant.

Anyway, so what? Are you saying this last year sometimes boost is something good or something to eliminate? IMO, this tendency is another indictment of the current process.

[NOMAR22]

Reggie should talk!
He shouldn't be in the hall, either.

WTF,are you crazy?

[Captain Cold Nose]

WTF,are you crazy?
You do realize he posted that over three years ago, right?

[538280]

Mr. Whiffer Jackson, all 2597 strikeouts and little else, has been nothing but a bag of hot gas since he left Oakland. How dare he open his mouth about Cooperstown, he should be banned from voting in the future. The HOF selection has been little better than a dog and pony show for years, and now the biggest north end of a southbound horse is pontificating on the unworthiness of any candidates. A pox on Reggie! :grouchy

All right, I know this was posted 3 years ago but it gets me so mad. Reggie...a "bag of hot gas since he left Oakland"? Uh...should I even reply to that? Might want to check the stats on that one. He even hit .300 with the Yankees.

How dare he open his mouth about the Hall of Fame? He has every right that you do. As a member of the VC, he had the right and should be able to speak out about the HOF. You don't have to agree with his views, but how can you scold him for speaking out?

[trosmok]

... You don't have to agree with his views, but how can you scold him for speaking out?

Because he speaks as if his words are more than drivel from a man who hurt the game. His irascible behavior, his inability to understand a team sport as more than a stage for his personal self-aggrandizement, his abject laziness during the games he was paid the same to play in as the post-season, his lack of plate discipline that has helped to ruin another generation of young people from really learning the game, (except, perhaps to make of training film of "What not to do in baseball!") and his phony air of authority when criticizing others. I think he has really no business in the HOF, except as a fan like me that pays an admission fee to visit. No one has been worse for the game than Reginald Martinez Jackson until Bud and Barry took the limelight. If he hadn't played for the Yankees, he would have been back to Buffalo (AAA), and wouldn't have cracked the roster for any MLB club until he improved his work ethic. Buck O'Neil is far more worthy of enshrinement and you haven't heard a peep from bag o' hot gas about that, have we?

[538280]

All right, one at a time.

Reggie was not a bad clubhouse influence. He was popular in the clubhouse in Oakland, and was great friends with Sal Bando, Rollie Fingers, Joe Rudi, Campaneris, and pretty much everyone on the team. He got along well with Earl Weaver, Brooks Robinson, and the Orioles in his one year there. He was know as a man who liked to speak his mind, but completely harmless. People point to two problems he had in Oakland, 1.His feuds with the owner, Charlie Finley, and 2.His fight with Billy North. To adress those:

1.Finley was a great baseball mind and he knew how to run a team, but he was a cheapskate, he never paid more than he absolutely had to on anything. It wasn't just Reggie who fought with him over salaries, the whole team constantly was, even guys who have reps as great clubhouse influences like Bando. If you need more proof, have you ever seen pictures of how the stadium looked in that era? It was ugly, and so were the locker rooms. Finley wouldn't pay money on anything, and Reggie was one of the best players in the game. Reggie was trying to bring justice to the situation, get paid what he deserved to be paid. He still wasn't able to really get justice anyway. He was the best player in the game in those years and although he had a decent salary, wasn't getting paid like one.

Finally, when Finley refused to pay Reggie hardly any more than an average player would get, he held out (like he should have), and was traded to Baltimore.

2.The fight with Billy North. As I'm sure you know, the A's were always known for fighting. It was what they did, and it wasn't indicative that they hated each other rather than they were just a gang of rowdy and young people having the best time of their lives. Their fights were more playful than anything else. Reggie and North's fight was of bigger proportions than the other ones that happened daily because it involved Reggie, basically. North and Reggie were friends at the time and remained so afterward. Reggie was NOT being a bad clubhouse influence by doing that.

It's not until Reggie signed with the New York Yankees that people really started to view him as a problem. But it wasn't his fault. Reggie came into a team that had just made the World Series, and was divided by cliques. The main clique (and one favored by the manager, Billy Martin) was the Munson/Nettles/Lyle one. They were the stars of the team (that just made the World Series, by the way), and they couldn't accept the new star coming aboard. They didn't speak to Reggie when he came in, gave him the cold shoulder. After playing with the playful environment with the A's and after being welcomed with open arms by the Orioles, he was startled at the way manager Billy Martin and the Yankee stars were treating him.

Munson, Nettles, and Lyle treated Reggie horribly, and supposedly even made racist remarks towards him. Reggie, of course, wasn't going to take this lightly. He may have acted a little bit out of line by saying "Munson can only stir it bad", and all that, but in reality what he did was fight against racsim and awful, unfair treatment. I wouldn't necessarily call his actions honorable, but they weren't the selfish, cruel, SOB type remarks they've been made out to be.

Then there's Billy Martin. Reggie never could get along with Billy, but the question, in my mind, is, is that really a good thing? Billy Martin was a drunk, and not really a very good person. He was a good manager for one year. If you wanted to win RIGHT NOW he may have been the best manager who ever lived, but he'd kill you down the road.

Your judgement on whether or not Reggie loafed on the ball hit by Jim Rice, but either way it was pure stupidity to sub him out of the game in the middle of an inning. Reggie was not a player known to loaf in field, either, despite what seems to have been said about him. He was known for having good range and a cannon arm in Oakland, and statistical studies have documented this.

"Abject laziness during the games"? Reggie I led his league in putouts and assists multiple times, I don't see how a lazy player could do that. Lack of plate discipline? Reggie walked 45% more than the average player during his time, a very good mark. Would a player with bad plate discipline do that?

He has prevented younger generations from learning the game? Pure silliness. Reggie Jackson was a great slugger, and a good contact hitter until his horrible BA decline (the Colussium was a horrible BA park, and the early 70s were a horrible BA era. In Oakland, his road BAs were consistently around .290, and the people at Baseball Prospectus in their Translated stats also have him as a consistent .290 hitter in his prime).

So, really, how has Reggie "prvented younger generations from learning the game"? He sponsors the hit-a-way, which I myself acutally own and find to be a pretty useful hitting instruction tool. He works for the Yankees scouting deparment I believe, and has always been a sucessful businessman (he owns a successful seller of sports memerobilia, Reggie Jackson.com)

[ElHalo]

Maybe aprapos of nothing, but Billy Martin is BY FAR my favorite Yankee ever. It's so strange that you'd talk down at him... he's pretty much the perfect guy as far as I'm concerned. If he'd been any good at all as a player, he'd be my favorite ever. I guess we really just look for different things in ballplayers.

[538280]

Maybe aprapos of nothing, but Billy Martin is BY FAR my favorite Yankee ever. It's so strange that you'd talk down at him... he's pretty much the perfect guy as far as I'm concerned. If he'd been any good at all as a player, he'd be my favorite ever. I guess we really just look for different things in ballplayers.

Go tell that to guys like Rick Langford and Mike Norris.

Billy Martin ruined pitchers careers. He was horrible at handling the pitchers. If you wanted to win for one year, he was probably the best manager in baseball history. If you wanted to build a team, he may have been one of the worst.

He did that with Oakland in the early 80s. He took an okay team, made them contend for one year, and sabotauged them for the next five.

[NOMAR22]

You do realize he posted that over three years ago, right?

Yeah, but im a big fan of Reggie Jackson. It was exciting see him go up to bat.

[iPod]

Nomar, you're killing me, man. You gotta stop dragging these 3 year old threads to the front of the line. It's confusing.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Yeah, but im a big fan of Reggie Jackson. It was exciting see him go up to bat.
I'm not a huge reggie fan but it was exciting to see him bat. I remember him breaking up a Nolan Ryan no-hitter in the late seventies.

[trosmok]

..... How? What horrible influence did he have on the game?
.......Reggie's just doing his job.

After he arrived in the big apple, he was constantly loafing in ST, on the basepaths once the season began, and started swinging from the heels for the fences, while ignoring the situation like a runner at first, try to get him to third, bunt, take, and hit-and-run signs. It drove everyone on the Yankees that wanted to win as a team absolutely crazy. Couple that with 2597 strikeouts, and you have the answer to your question. In this day and age of all or nothing swinging that he instigated, yeah, that's Reggie "swinganamiss" just doing his job.:p

[Chisox]

Nomar, you're killing me, man. You gotta stop dragging these 3 year old threads to the front of the line. It's confusing.

I've brought this up in the mod forum. I count at least 8 that he's done. I don't know if anything "with the rules" can be done, though. Might have to be "for the good of the forums" clause.

[leecemark]

--Trosmok, I don't understand how Jackson was keeping the Yankees from winning? If memory serves they were world champs his first 2 years with the clubs and were division champs every year but one he was with the club. They hadn't won one for 15 years before he got there and didn't win another one for as long after he left. Jackson won everywhere he played (his teams - 3 different ones - won 10 of 12 division titles and 5 championships from 1971-82). Do you believe those teams all won in spite of Reggie? He was the best player on most of them and probably had at least a little something to do with their success.

[vasprtsfn]

I think he has some good points. That is why a player has 15 years on the writers ballot, to be given every opportunity. But the HOF being for players only? I think that is part right. The Baseball HOF is about telling the history of the game, so managers should be honored as well as media.

[538280]

After he arrived in the big apple, he was constantly loafing in ST, on the basepaths once the season began, and started swinging from the heels for the fences, while ignoring the situation like a runner at first, try to get him to third, bunt, take, and hit-and-run signs. It drove everyone on the Yankees that wanted to win as a team absolutely crazy. Couple that with 2597 strikeouts, and you have the answer to your question. In this day and age of all or nothing swinging that he instigated, yeah, that's Reggie "swinganamiss" just doing his job.:p

Reggie did not instigate this new era of higher strikeouts. He did nothing of that kind. The game has become more of a home run fest (and thus stikeout fest) due to smaller parks, probably juiced up balls, usage of too many pitchers (though this isn't nearly as large a factor as some believe it to be), and steroids have to at least have some impact. Reggie has nothing to do with it.

Why would you ever want Reggie Jackson to bunt? If anyone's asking him to bunt, he has a right to be upset, because that's going to do nothing but hurt the team. In fact, looking at this statistically, you could make the argument Reggie was being a good team player by refusing to bunt. The run expectancy of having Reggie drop down the sacrifice I'm sure if much lower than letting him swing away, so by refusing to bunt he's increasing their chances of scoring, thus increasing their chances of winning, and helping his team more than he would have if he listened to the manager.

"It drove everyone on the Yankees who wanted to win crazy." Reggie didn't want to win? The Yankees won the World Series two years immediately when the got Reggie, Reggie won three WS in Oakland, the Angels immediately became a playoff team when they got him.

After Reggie left Oakland, they were mediocre for the rest of the 1970s decade. After he left New York, the Yankees had a real tough time winning the World Series for a long time, and didn't win again for about 20 years (an eternity for them). When Reggie left the Angels they went from 92-70 and division champions to 75-87.

Reggie won while he was there, and when he left his teams always fell down right afterward. If he was really such a negative influence that wouldn't have happened.

Who were those Yankee teammates who wanted to win? Nettles, Munson, and Lyle? The guys who wouldn't embrace a great player like Reggie, and instead would never talk to him or welcome him, and even supposedly made racist comments towards him? You'd think if the first thing on those guys' minds was winning they'd embrace the new star and try to make him a part of the team. Even if they didn't like him they should have realized he was a great player and they could go places with him. They did go places anyway, but those three (who were the leaders of the team) acted as if Reggie didn't even exist. They should have acted better.

[KHenry14]

Go tell that to guys like Rick Langford and Mike Norris.


Don't forget Steve McCatty, Matt Keough and Brian Kingman, Billy didn't do them any favors either.

But Norris was the one with the HOF potential who didn't live up to it. Sure his drug problems didn't help, but boy, that guy could pitch when he was right. And Billy pitched him right into the ground.

KH14

[BlairRosen]

I was never a fan of Reggie Jackson the player or his Reggie candy bar.

He has a right as he was voted in by his peers to now vote as he sees fit as their peer.

[538280]

Don't forget Steve McCatty, Matt Keough and Brian Kingman, Billy didn't do them any favors either.

But Norris was the one with the HOF potential who didn't live up to it. Sure his drug problems didn't help, but boy, that guy could pitch when he was right. And Billy pitched him right into the ground.

KH14

Yeah, like I said Billy would probably be best suited to take over a veteran team for a few years, and try to lead them for a good World Series run. Just

A)Don't keep him for too long, and
B)Don't let him handle any up and coming pitchers.

And that's exactly how he was used by the teams in the Major Leagues, for the most part (except Oakland). Try to bring him in for one year and you might be going to the promised land, but generally don't keep him very long. He wore out his welcome real fast wherever he went.

Personally, I have no use for Billy Martin. I can understand how some people like him, but keep him away from me.

[NOMAR22]

Reggie did not instigate this new era of higher strikeouts. He did nothing of that kind. The game has become more of a home run fest (and thus stikeout fest) due to smaller parks, probably juiced up balls, usage of too many pitchers (though this isn't nearly as large a factor as some believe it to be), and steroids have to at least have some impact. Reggie has nothing to do with it.

Why would you ever want Reggie Jackson to bunt? If anyone's asking him to bunt, he has a right to be upset, because that's going to do nothing but hurt the team. In fact, looking at this statistically, you could make the argument Reggie was being a good team player by refusing to bunt. The run expectancy of having Reggie drop down the sacrifice I'm sure if much lower than letting him swing away, so by refusing to bunt he's increasing their chances of scoring, thus increasing their chances of winning, and helping his team more than he would have if he listened to the manager.

"It drove everyone on the Yankees who wanted to win crazy." Reggie didn't want to win? The Yankees won the World Series two years immediately when the got Reggie, Reggie won three WS in Oakland, the Angels immediately became a playoff team when they got him.

After Reggie left Oakland, they were mediocre for the rest of the 1970s decade. After he left New York, the Yankees had a real tough time winning the World Series for a long time, and didn't win again for about 20 years (an eternity for them). When Reggie left the Angels they went from 92-70 and division champions to 75-87.

Reggie won while he was there, and when he left his teams always fell down right afterward. If he was really such a negative influence that wouldn't have happened.

Who were those Yankee teammates who wanted to win? Nettles, Munson, and Lyle? The guys who wouldn't embrace a great player like Reggie, and instead would never talk to him or welcome him, and even supposedly made racist comments towards him? You'd think if the first thing on those guys' minds was winning they'd embrace the new star and try to make him a part of the team. Even if they didn't like him they should have realized he was a great player and they could go places with him. They did go places anyway, but those three (who were the leaders of the team) acted as if Reggie didn't even exist. They should have acted better.

Reggie Jackson was a proven winner ,were ever he went.

[runningshoes]

Reggie Jackson was a proven winner ,were ever he went.

And nowhere did that happen more often than in front of a mirror. ;)

[ElHalo]

I've never been able to get the straight story on what happened exactly with Billy Martin in the Copacabana fight. I've never read more than a paragraph or so description of the actual events themselves. That's something I'd really love to have been there for... Mickey Mantle, Billy Martin, Whitey Ford, Yogi Berra, Hank Bauer, and Johnny Kucks in a bar fight? What could possibly be more entertaining than that?