December 8 Veterans Committee HOF elections

[philliesfiend55]

Do you guys (and gals) out there think that they'll finally be some players elected to the Hall Of Fame by the Veterans Committee this coming Monday, for the first time since Bill Mazeroski was elected nearly eight years ago in February 2001?
I would think so. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the pre-1943 MLB debut group is being elected by a committee of 10 to 12 experts/writers/researchers and not the 60 plus living Hall Of Famers who elected no one in three recent player elections.
Also the field of candidates for the more recent players (debuting from 1943 onward) has been streamlined from 25 to 10, after study by a committee of these same living Hall Of Famers. Having some HOFers involved in the study of player qualifications and in the selection of final candidates is bound to produce some favorable results (toward some candidates with the best qualifications). Having less final candidates will also create less confusion among voters and will produce a stronger field of candidates.
Some managers and executives were elected a year ago, a result that can be attributed to revisions in the HOF election procedures. Let's see if these more liberal standards will apply to former players as well.
-philliesfiend55-

[Paul Wendt]

One downside is that cmte members have only four votes each. They will need some good judgment or good policy in order to coordinate support.

Another downside is that this committee does not meet to vote, although they were invited in Cooperstown during induction weekend.

Do you guys (and gals) out there think that they'll finally be some players elected to the Hall Of Fame by the Veterans Committee this coming Monday, for the first time since Bill Mazeroski was elected in nearly eight years ago in March 2001?

I would think so. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the pre-1943 MLB debut group is being elected by a committee of 10 to 12 experts/writers/researchers and not the 60 plus living Hall Of Famers who elected no one in three recent player elections.
wrong,
the electorate has been 80+ living Hall of Famers and honored writers and broadcasters
Also the field of candidates for the more recent players (debuting from 1943 onward) has been streamlined from 25 to 10, after study by a committee of these same living Hall Of Famers.
wrong.

The focus on recent players is new, although most of the 25+ players on the previous all-time ballot were recent, so 10 is a reduced number of recent nominees.

The living Hall of Famers still do the voting, and now it is Hall of Famers alone without any participation by honored writers and broadcasters, so the HOF players have a greater share of the votes.

? The ten recent players were nominated by the Historical Overview Cmte, the same 11 writers who nominated 200 all-time players for 2007 and earlier consideration, and who nominated managers and umpires for 2008, and who nominated pre-1943 players for 2009.

[yanks0714]

Post - 1942 Nominees

Dick Allen, Gil Hodges, Jim Kaat, Tony Oliva, Al Oliver, Vada Pinson, Ron Santo, Luis Tiant, Joe Torre, and Maury Wills.

Pre-1843 Nominees:
Bill Dahlen, Wes Ferrell, Joe Gordon, Sherry Magee, Carl Mays, Allie Reynolds, Vern Stephens, Mickey Vernon, Bucky Walters, and Deacon White.

Of those listed I would vote for Dick Allen, Ron Santo, Joe Torre, Bill Dahlen, Wes Ferrell, and Sherry Magee.

Good selection of nominees. Arguments can be made for each of them in some shape, manner, or form.

[Paul Wendt]

? The ten recent players were nominated by the Historical Overview Cmte, the same 11 writers who nominated 200 all-time players for 2007 and earlier consideration, and who nominated managers and umpires for 2008, and who nominated pre-1943 players for 2009.

confirmed.
For three cycles 2003 to 2007, the HOC had been a committee of 10 writers, with tiny variation in membership. Seven of the 11 current members have served for all four cycles.

--
For the 2009 election, for recent players (mlb debuts after 1942),
"the HOC named the leading incumbents from the unfruitful 2007 election, with emphasis on the more recent. In particular, among the 15 strongest 2007 candidates who remain eligible after the latest reforms, they renominated the oldest (Gil Hodges), passed over the next five (Minoso, Newcombe, Boyer, Flood, Maris), and renominated the nine youngest."
: quoting myself, immediate source
Historical Overview Committee, post #9 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1314135&postcount=9)

--
That linked BaseBall-Fever thread is one of several that I have made available at once from the directory, history of Hall of Fame elections (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77960).

The directory covers some BBF Hall of Fame forum discussion threads, including discussions of the two slates of players for the "2009" veterans committee elections.

The threads covered by the directory include many links to sources such as National Baseball Hall of Fame press releases.

[philliesfiend55]

The living Hall of Famers still do the voting, and now it is Hall of Famers alone without any participation by honored writers and broadcasters, so the HOF players have a greater share of the votes.

.

With the elimination of Writers and Broadcasters from the voting process a total of about 60 -65 people will be eligible to vote not 80 to 85.
(as I stated when starting this thread).

Living HOF Players/Execs/Managers will only be voting on the modern players (1943 MLB debut or later).

A small committee of writers and historians will vote on the players from the distant past, similar to the way the class of 2008 for managers and executives was determined in Dec. '07. Last year I believe either nine of 12 votes or 12 of 16 votes would have got a candidate elected.

The death of Mickey Vernon this summer, at age 90, means that all candidates in the Pre-1943 MLB debut field of candidates are now deceased.

Your point is well taken that the refusal of living Hall Of Famers to meet about this year's Hall Of Fame Veterans Committee candidates is not in the candidates favor. With election ballots either being sent in by computer or by mail from all around the country, without the electors having a formal discussion on candidate qualifications, or an exchange of views on these players does not bode well for tomorrow's candidates.

Aside from everything else, isn't it a bit ridiculous to compare a Deacon White, who played in the
19th Century, and Bill Dahlen, whose 20-year career was split roughly into equal 19th and 20th centuries portions, and comparing them with Sherry Magee, whose career ended about 1920, and further comparing those players with Joe Gordon and Bucky Walters, both 30's and
40s stars, and further comparing all of the above with Post World War Two stars, Allie Reynolds, who played until 1954, and Mickey Vernon, who played until 1960, and lumping all these players from diverse eras into one enormous catch-all category, that spans about 85 years.

-philliesfiend55-

[Paul Wendt]

The number of players nominated by the Historical Overview Committee is down from 200 for all three cycles 2003 to 2007 to twenty for the 2009 cycle, ten pre-1943 players and ten recent players. That precipitous decrease reflects some trimming of the final ballot at the same time it was divided in two, a cut from 27 to 20=10+10. For the most part it represents the elimination of a second nominating stage; the Historical Overview Committee merely provided stage one nominees for the three cycles 2003 to 2007.


Composition of HOC nominees, four cycles 2003 to 2009

by 2009 VC jurisdiction
, 91, 99, 99, 10 : mlb debuts after 1942, "recent players"
109 101 101 10 : mlb debut before 1943

finer analysis of mlb debut years
28 32 43 4 : post-1960
63 67 56 6 : 1943 to 1960 \
65 55 55 6 : 1918 to 1942 / (1918 to 1960 debuts: 128 122 111 12)
29 31 32 2 : 1893 to 1917
15 15 14 2 : pre-1893


Composition of VC player ballots, four cycles 2003 to 2009

by 2009 VC jurisdiction
, 91, 99, 99, 10 : mlb debuts after 1942, "recent players"
109 101 101 10 : mlb debut before 1943

finer analysis of mlb debut years
26 25 27 20 : all players on final ballot(s)

, 6, 7, 8, 4 : post-1960
13 13 12 6 : 1943 to 1960 \
, 5, 3, 6, 6 : 1918 to 1942 / (two-line sum, 1918 to 1960 debuts: 128 122 111 12)
, 2, 2, 1, 2 : 1893 to 1917
, 0, 0, 0, 2 : pre-1893

The only primarily-deadball era player on the final ballots 2003 to 2007 was Joe Wood for 2005.
Here are the specific debut dates before 1918 by cycle(blue):

2: 1915, 1915 (Mays, K.Williams)
2: 1908 1915 (Wood, Mays)
1: 1915 (Mays)
4: 1871 1891 1904 1915 (White, Dahlen, Magee, Mays)

[Paul Wendt]

I don't know anything about the Hall of Famers refusing to meet in Cooperstown. I have supposed that some of them did meet.

. . . isn't it a bit ridiculous to compare a Deacon White, who played in the
19th Century, and Bill Dahlen, whose 20-year career was split roughly into equal 19th and 20th centuries portions, and comparing them with Sherry Magee, whose career ended about 1920, and further comparing those players with Joe Gordon and Bucky Walters, both 30's and
40s stars, and further comparing all of the above with Post World War Two stars, Allie Reynolds, who played until 1954, and Mickey Vernon, who played until 1960, and lumping all these players from diverse eras into one enormous catch-all category, that spans about 85 years.
I think it's called "progress".

The famous Veterans Committee and its precursors and successors including nominating committees considered all white players from the 1860s to the 1900s (during the 1930s and 1940s), all whites from the 1860s to the 1920s or so (during the 1950s), all whites from the 1870s to the 1940s or so (during the 1970s); all players white and black from the 1870s to the 1960s or so (during the 1980s and 1990s), and finally all players from the 1870s to the 1970s during the last few years.

Realistically the 1870s to 1940s may simply represent the biggest chunk of baseball history that the Board of Directors could partly take back from the Hall of Famers last summer. In exchange they gave Joe & Co. exclusive final vote on the recent players. It's a rough historical match in that the oldest candidates such as Gil Hodges, debut 1943, played in the major leagues when the oldest surviving Hall of Fame players were there (Bobby Doerr, Stan Musial, etc).

[philliesfiend55]

[QUOTE=Paul Wendt;1371336]confirmed.
In particular, among the 15 strongest 2007 candidates who remain eligible after the latest reforms, they renominated the oldest (Gil Hodges), passed over the next five (Minoso, Newcombe, Boyer, Flood, Maris), and renominated the nine youngest."



Paul:
According to my understanding of this quote, you are saying that this group of five players(Minoso.....Maris) are still eligible, despite not being nominated for the HOF Class Of 2009. As others get elected any of the five players from this group could be placed on the next ballot to replace an elected candidate. Is that correct?
-philliesfiend55-

FYI (all readers & posters): If not elected this year by the Baseball Writers Association of America on January 12, Jim Rice and Tommy John will become first-time eligible candidates for the next scheduled Veterans Committee Election in December 2010 for the Class of 2011. Each would be a serious candidate for election. Darrell Evans (just over 400 home runs) and Craig Nettles (just under 400 home runs, but both only .250 hitters) will also qualify as first-time eligible Veterans Committee candidates for that election two years from now. While not as serious candidates as Rice or John would be, cases could definitely be made for Nettles and Evans. All four retired after the 1989 season. HOF rules state that there must be a 21 year inactive gap between a player's final season and his first year as a Veterans Committee candidate. In other words they become eligible 22 years after their final playing season. (In this case, 1989+22=2011).

[brett]

Allen, Santo and Dahlen are clearly among the top 100 position players of all time. If one of them gets left off then there is a problem. The veteran's committee has by FAR made most of the hall of fame mistakes. The writers have been about 95% while the VC has been perhaps only around 60/40, with 40% of their selections being guys who should not be in. The VC is really solely responsible for messing up the HOF.

[Paul Wendt]

Hi,
Is there something I should know about player number 55 on the Phillies? Was that Joe Hoerner? I don't think so.
But I doubt that the 1955 Phillies have many phiendly phanatics.
confirmed.
In particular, among the 15 strongest 2007 candidates who remain eligible after the latest reforms, they renominated the oldest (Gil Hodges), passed over the next five (Minoso, Newcombe, Boyer, Flood, Maris), and renominated the nine youngest."

Paul:
According to my understanding of this quote, you are saying that this group of five players are still eligible, despite not being nominated for the HOF Class Of 2009. As others get elected any of the five players from this group could be placed on the next ballot to replace an elected candidate. Is that correct?
-philliesfiend55-
What you say is true, yes. The HOC or its successor will need to replenish the ballot to full size, which is now 10, and they will be permitted to replace nominees who are not elected, too. Whether they merely replenish by replacing winners, or they replace some who fare poorly this weekend, they will be able to select from older players such as Minnie Minoso as well as from newcomers such as Bobby Grich.

I doubt that the 1943 threshold defining "recent players" will roll forward with every cycle (that would be a rule change) and if/when it is revised forward, then Minoso & co. will be among the strongest candidates for the "early players" election, I presume.

However, my point in specifying "remain eligible after the latest reforms" was that these players remain eligible for consideration by the living Hall of Famers in what is now the election of recent players, whereas the other "strongest 2007 candidates" have been removed to a pre-1943 election.


"strongest 2007 candidates"
:= leaders in the 2007 election results

"15 strongest candidates from 2007 who remain eligible after the latest reforms"
:= top fifteen in 2007 election with debuts after 1942

In that election the fifteen ranked 1-10, 12, 14-15, 18, 20.
The candidates who ranked 11, 13, 16-17, and 19 debuted before 1943 so they may be called the 5 strongest candidates from 2007 who are no longer eligible "as recent players" or "for consideration by living Hall of Famers".
: Lefty O'Doul, Mickey Vernon, Cecil Travis, Marty Marion, Joe Gordon
Only two of five are now on the early players ballot, along with two also-rans from 2007
: Wes Ferrell, Carl Mays
and six who were not on the final 2007 ballot.
: White, Dahlen, Magee, Walters, Stephens, Reynolds

[philliesfiend55]

Summarizing previous quote from Mr. Wendt.: "Five players not nominated in the 2009 VC HOF election - Minnie Minoso, Don Newcombe, Ken Boyer, Curt Flood,and Roger Maris remain eligible to be nominated for future elections". - Paul Wendt.
Paul:
That's quite a bit of detailed information about Hall Of Fame voting procedures that you furnished. Some of it is quite obscure and hard to get a hold of.
Thanks!
It seems that the decision to split the Veterans Committe vote into two eras really helped some candidates, such as Mickey Vernon who ranked only 13th in 2007 and Joe Gordon, who ranked only 19th that year. Even previously unnominated players like Deacon White from the 19th Century and Sherry Magee, from the early 20th Century were largely forgotten, but now have a spotlight shown on their careers and now have at least a fighting chance to be elected.
As a Phillies fan, I'd like to see Lave Cross nominated in future elections. He had a longer career than Sherry Magee, and while he and Magee's hitting stats are similar, Cross' stats are actually a little better than Magee's.

I think, however, that a better crop of candidates could have been picked in the Pre-1943 category. There are plenty of batters with 2,000 games played and 2,000 hits, and more hits than games played (or better than a hit per game average) that were overlooked. That probably should be the minimum qualification for hitters, with a few exceptions made for home run hitters or stolen base champions.

2,000 strikeouts or 200 wins should probably be the cutoff as far as pitcher qualifications go. After they've exhausted these candidates, then they could go to guys who had less than 200 wins, like Allie Reynholds, who had high win percentages, but relatively short careers.

The announcment of the Veterans Committee Hall Of Fame electees is only about two hours away, so we will know very soon if the latest revisions to candidate selection and voting procedures wil have had any impact.

As far as my board moniker goes, while I started following the Phillies at the end of the '53 season, largely due to the influence of my classmates when I began elementaty school for the first time in Sept. 1953, I didn't attend a Phillies game until 1955. That's probably why I incorporated '55 into my screen name. Besides, the alliteration is Cool!

-phillies fiend55-

[KCGHOST]

I suspect the pre-1943 group will get somepeople elected. Dahlen is the leader of that pack and White wouldn't be a bad selection.

I would prefer the post-1943 not elect anybody since the odds are they will screw up and pick Hodges rather than Santo.

[BlueBlood]

MLB.com reported that Santo, Torre & Allen are the front runners from their group along with Hodges (tolerable) and Kaat (!!!!)

No word on the other group or any shred of information as to how the votes are leaning. We should know within the hour how the elections turned out...

[metfan13]

According to the Baseball HoF site only Joe Gordon was elected. he from the pre-1943 group.

Santo received the most votes form the post-1943 group elected by the HoF members. He receive 60% (39 votes) but needed 48 to be elected.

Doesn't look like anyone's ever going to get elected by the players.

[BlueBlood]

Well, Gordon's a great inductee, but it's absolutely odd that he of all people was the one they chose. He has an easy case for a 2B, but some of the others have easy cases for their own positions.

[bambambaseball]

It's an absolute joke that Ron Santo and Bill Dahlen werent elected. Proof that the VC are even bigger idiots then the old VC was.

[BlueBlood]

Ugh. They were one vote away from inducting Allie Reynolds of all people. I guess we know how many SABR-metrically undisciplined people are on the committee. :evil

Results of the 2008 Pre-1943 Players Ballot (nine votes needed for election): Gordon (10 votes, 83.3 percent), Allie Reynolds (eight, 66.7 percent), Wes Ferrell (six, 50.0 percent), Mickey Vernon (five, 41.7 percent), Deacon White (five, 41.7 percent), Bucky Walters (4, 33.3 percent), Sherry Magee (three, 25.0 percent), Bill Dahlen, Carl Mays and Vern Stephens (fewer than three).

Results of the 2008 Post-1942 Players Ballot (48 votes needed for election): Santo (39 votes, 60.9 percent), Jim Kaat (38, 59.4 percent), Tony Oliva (33, 51.6 percent), Gil Hodges (28, 43.8 percent), Joe Torre (19, 29.7 percent), Maury Wills (15, 23.4 percent), Luis Tiant (13, 20.3 percent), Vada Pinson (12, 18.8 percent), Al Oliver (nine, 14.1 percent), Dick Allen (seven, 10.9 percent).

[OleMissCub]

Just disband the freaking Vets committee.

I'm so disgusted that Santo didn't get in, I literally feel ill.

[BlueBlood]

For the record, the first was a committee of twelve.

The latter voting (post-1943 players) was solely done by living Hall of Famers, probably the last people that should have a say in such matters. I can't believe so many of them disregarded Dick Allen's superficial stats alone and opted not to vote for him because of "personality issues" since there's no other excuse.

[BSmile]

Just disband the freaking Vets committee.

I'm so disgusted that Santo didn't get in, I literally feel ill.

Agreed. What a letdown...although I don't have a problem with Joe Gordon getting in. 7 Votes for Allen! Wheh, old grudges die hard I guess.

[philliesfiend55]

It's time to take away the voting privileges for living Hall Of Famers. For the fourth consecutive time they failed to elect a single candidate. It's an exclusive little club and they want to keep it that way. Only a small percentage of living Hall Of Famers were elected by the Veterans Committee. Those Vets Committee electees, who are probably more liberal in their voting than those who were elected by the writers, have had their influence and votes overpowered by the conservative HOFers who were elected by writers every single time.
This experiment should be brought to an end. The living HOFers couldn't elect anyone three times under the previous system or elect anyone under this new revamped system. It's a clear pattern. They won't elect anyone under any circumstance. It's time to remove this privilege from them.

philliesfiemd55-

[rockin500]

man what a crock of you know what. Its obviously time to scrap this version of the Veteran's committee since its CLEAR that no one is ever going to get in since they are behaving like its a club no one else can get in.

[J W]

I'm happy that they did elect one player and that it was a player who makes sense in "Flash" Gordon. He is better than a number of second basemen already in the Hall and now we can finally put him behind us.

Allie Reynolds, I just don't get. Well ok, I do, and he's better than Rube Marquard or Jesse Haines... but that's not saying much.

I have always been in the camp where I'd rather have no snubs and a few mistakes than vice versa. So I'm not surprised at the results, and somewhat sad, but it's still IMO the best setup the VC has yet come up with.

[philliesfiend55]

Having just gotten a look at the voting totals two things stick out.
In post-1942 MLB debut vote the best candidates from previous elections either remained static in their vote total percentages or actually lost ground.
The restriction of only allowing each voter only four votes might
have something to do with this.

In the other category concerning the more distant past , I don't understand the Pro-Yankees bias. The top two vote getters spent the majority of their careers with the Yankees.
The #1 vote getter, Joe Gordon got elected and the #2 vote getter Allie Reynolds missed election by one vote.
At least Gordon had some very successful years after he left the Yankees and helped lead the Cleveland Indians to the 1948 World's Championship. Reynolds however, was a .500 pitcher before he came to the Yankees. He had a very high winning percentage as a Yankee but he had great run
support from them also and played on a team that would win five consecutive World's Titles (1949-1953). In his favor, Reynolds was a very good pitcher after he reached about age 31 or 32 and he might have pitched well into his 40s and reached 200 wins, if not for an injury that ended his career after the '54 season.

[jjpm74]

The NBHoFM needs to put together an oversight committee of 12 historians to research all pre-1943 candidates and determine which ones fall into the standards of the museum then scrap the VC once and for all for the pre-1943 guys. The fact that White, Dahlen, Magee and Mays got almost no support shows a complete lack of understanding of the era on the part of the existing committee.

As for the post-1943 group, have a one time deal fan ballot and anyone who musters 60%+ support gets elected. After that, no more VC. Period. They don't know what they are doing and this election and the fact that Ron Santo is still not a HOFer is proof positive of that fact.

[metfan13]

It'll be harder to take away voting privileges from this group. After all they DO want them to show up each summer. Can't be dissing the already elected.

I suppose at some point the Old-old timer committee's date will move to pre-1953 or something and then some new players will actually have a chance.

Or maybe, those on the outside just aren't HoFers. The writers didn't vote for them 15 times either.

[Paul Wendt]

phiphty-phive!
That went right over my head.
Paul:
That's quite a bit of detailed information about Hall Of Fame voting procedures that you furnished. Some of it is quite obscure and hard to get a hold of.
Thanks!
One more: The Veterans Committee was invented in 1953, only a few months before the worldly kids you met at school made you a phan.

(There is a lot of obscure, hard to get information here in the forum, available to anyone who follows the links that I posted. Unfortunately I was not able to find a list of veterans committee members, or voters, for every year. This month I will try to put together a list of missing years and "newspapers consulted".)
It seems that the decision to split the Veterans Committe vote into two eras really helped some candidates, such as Mickey Vernon who ranked only 13th in 2007 and Joe Gordon, who ranked only 19th that year. Even previously unnominated players like Deacon White from the 19th Century and Sherry Magee, from the early 20th Century were largely forgotten, but now have a spotlight shown on their careers and now have at least a fighting chance to be elected.
Regarding the old-timers, yes, absolutely, there is a new spotlight, which "helps" in a way even if it merely amplifies the probability of election from zero to zero.

Yes, that split helped "everyone" who played before 1943!
Of course, I think you will agree if you think about it, those helped most are the most recent players who were placed on the early side of the new demarcation, the Centre Left in European English:
Mickey Vernon, Allie Reynolds, Joe Gordon, Vern Stephens.

[metfan13]

The NBHoFM needs to put together an oversight committee of 12 historians to research all pre-1943 candidates and determine which ones fall into the standards of the museum then scrap the VC once and for all for the pre-1943 guys. The fact that White, Dahlen, Magee and Mays got almost no support shows a complete lack of understanding of the era on the part of the existing committee.

As for the post-1943 group, have a one time deal fan ballot and anyone who musters 60%+ support gets elected. After that, no more VC. Period. They don't know what they are doing and this election and the fact that Ron Santo is still not a HOFer is proof positive of that fact.


And what if Santo gets 58% of the fan vote? A special election of Cubs fans?

believe me, I support Santo's election, but if he can't meet the standards of the various voting blocks, then he falls short.

And why should VC voting stop after this special vote you want? What about the next Ron Santo? How does he get in?

[jjpm74]

Or maybe, those on the outside just aren't HoFers. The writers didn't vote for them 15 times either.

That's not true for any of the pre-1943 candidates.

[jjpm74]

And what if Santo gets 58% of the fan vote? A special election of Cubs fans?

believe me, I support Santo's election, but if he can't meet the standards of the various voting blocks, then he falls short.

And why should VC voting stop after this special vote you want? What about the next Ron Santo? How does he get in?

Then he doesn't get elected. Constantly revising the same approach with the same people placing the ballots is a complete waste of time. Also, why can't the NBHoFM have a fan election every year? They're the ones coming to the museum and spending the money. Not those already in the NBHoFM.

[metfan13]

That's not true for any of the pre-1943 candidates.

I was talking about the post-1943 candidates voted on by the living HoFers.

The pre-1943 players were voted on by a small committee.

[metfan13]

Then he doesn't get elected. Constantly revising the same approach with the same people placing the ballots is a complete waste of time. Also, why can't the NBHoFM have a fan election every year? They're the ones coming to the museum and spending the money. Not those already in the NBHoFM.

Personally, I hate fan elections. Any of these "awards" I see on the MLB site that are fan votes are instantly discounted in my mind. Ballot stuffing, over emphasis on a couple of larger cities, etc make them worthless in my mind.

[jjpm74]

Personally, I hate fan elections. Any of these "awards" I see on the MLB site that are fan votes are instantly discounted in my mind. Ballot stuffing, over emphasis on a couple of larger cities, etc make them worthless in my mind.

They have more merit than the current VC election. One of the people voting stated on a local talk show yesterday that he planned to vote for his teammates. That's a great approach to voting. :rolleyes:

[Extra Innings]

Personally, I hate fan elections. Ballot stuffing, over emphasis on a couple of larger cities, etc make them worthless in my mind.

Like, All-Star voting?

[Cougar]

Allie Reynolds being the second best vote getter on the pre-1943 ballot is puzzling. He wouldn't be the worst pitcher in the Hall of Fame, but he'd be in the worst quartile pretty comfortably, and Mays, Ferrell, and even Bucky Walters have stronger cases IMHO.

Then again, he's one of the few players on this ballot who played in living memory (or even of people's parents -- White, Dahlen, Magee). The Yankee thing appears to have helped, which is somewhat regrettable...Gordon belongs in on his merits, but so do the players who didn't play on the McCarthy-Stengel Yankees.

And everyone seems to forget that Carl Mays was a Yankee for a good chunk of his career.

[Cougar]

Gordon was arguably the most deserving player on the oldest-timers ballot (some might argue for Dahlen, Magee, Vernon, Mays, or Ferrell). Hence, despite the fact that it would have been nice to get more than one off this ballot, the pre-1943 committee (of historians, scholars, and wise men) did a fairly commendable job.

The post-1942 committee of living Hall of Famers again failed to pick anyone. This continues their execrable record of barring the door, and reiterates the folly of having an electorate in this position with no real means to deliberate and a vested interest in keeping their membership exclusive. Appalling.

[metfan13]

They have more merit than the current VC election. One of the people voting stated on a local talk show yesterday that he planned to vote for his teammates. That's a great approach to voting. :rolleyes:

Like fans who vote for their home town guys, deserving or not?

[metfan13]

Like, All-Star voting?


yes, just like that.

[metfan13]

Gordon was arguably the most deserving player on the oldest-timers ballot (some might argue for Dahlen, Magee, Vernon, Mays, or Ferrell). Hence, despite the fact that it would have been nice to get more than one off this ballot, the pre-1943 committee (of historians, scholars, and wise men) did a fairly commendable job.

The post-1942 committee of living Hall of Famers again failed to pick anyone. This continues their execrable record of barring the door, and reiterates the folly of having an electorate in this position with no real means to deliberate and a vested interest in keeping their membership exclusive. Appalling.


Or maybe, they just fall short of HoF worthiness. SOMEONE has to be the best play not in the HoF.

[philliesfiend55]

The NBHoFM needs to put together an oversight committee of 12 historians to research all pre-1943 candidates and determine which ones fall into the standards of the museum then scrap the VC once and for all for the pre-1943 guys. The fact that White, Dahlen, Magee and Mays got almost no support shows a complete lack of understanding of the era on the part of the existing committee.

As for the post-1943 group, have a one time deal fan ballot and anyone who musters 60%+ support gets elected. After that, no more VC. Period. They don't know what they are doing and this election and the fact that Ron Santo is still not a HOFer is proof positive of that fact.

You might be onto something there. The National Hockey League ended all debate on marginal Hall Of Fame candidates about five years ago by simply ending its Veterans Committee. The logic for guys who hadn't played in 30 years or more was simply that, "If you haven't made the Hall by now, then you don't deserve it", which to some extent may be true about HOF candidates in any sport.

[Cougar]

Or maybe, they just fall short of HoF worthiness. SOMEONE has to be the best play not in the HoF.

To take just one example, Ron Santo is better than over half of the 3rd basemen currently enshrined.

Someone has to be the best person not in the Hall...that much is true. But that person ought not be better than the preponderance of the people in the Hall.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Or maybe, they just fall short of HoF worthiness. SOMEONE has to be the best play not in the HoF.

Would you advocate the abolition of the VC? If it has truly become a futile exercise, regardless of whether you believe players worthy or not, don't you think its time has passed?

Baseball is the only major sport that has an entirely separate vote beyond the regular writer's ballot. If they're not serving their purpose, or if they've served their purpose in its entirety and there are no worthy players left, maybe it's time for this to end.

[metfan13]

Would you advocate the abolition of the VC? If it has truly become a futile exercise, regardless of whether you believe players worthy or not, don't you think its time has passed?

Baseball is the only major sport that has an entirely separate vote beyond the regular writer's ballot. If they're not serving their purpose, or if they've served their purpose in its entirety and there are no worthy players left, maybe it's time for this to end.

To make enough people satisfied, amybe there needs to be a one last chance on everyone no longer eligible by the writers. But at some poit it should be too late.

[philliesfiend55]

I think you will agree if you think about it, those helped most are the most recent players who were placed on the early side of the new demarcation, the Centre Left in European English:
Mickey Vernon, Allie Reynolds, Joe Gordon, Vern Stephens.

Don't understand Vernon only receiving 5 of 12 votes. One of the greatest first basemen ever, especially on defense. He could "pick it" as well as a middle infielder and unlike most first basemen he had a good, accurate arm. He could field bunts well and he could stop the hard one hopper and turn it into a double play. This is born out by the fact that:
He's the record holder in lifetime fielding stats in double plays for first basemen and he's top five all-time at the position in career assists. Two batting titles also.
Reynolds support in missing being elected by just one vote surprises me. After his trade to the Yankees, he had the greatest team in the world giving him run and fielding support. He wasn't all that great before he was traded to the Yankees.
I'm off on a tangent here, but the answer is yes, the more recent players from the Pre-1942 candidate group may have gotten a small boost.

To further clarify my personal background: I had immigrant parents living just inside Philadelphia city limits, who didn't emphasize baseball or sports in general all that much when I was of pre-school age. That was quickly "corrected" by my peers/classmates once I got to public school, including the area of interest/fandom in Philadelphia professional sports teams, particularly the Phillies.

-philliesfiend55-

[parlo]

Personally, I hate fan elections. Any of these "awards" I see on the MLB site that are fan votes are instantly discounted in my mind. Ballot stuffing, over emphasis on a couple of larger cities, etc make them worthless in my mind.I agree. If that happens, players like Munson, Garvey, Dawson, Mattingly, Keith Hernandez, etc would all be elected.
Even some lesser stars like Dykstra or Kirk Gibson would get elected.

[philliesfiend55]

Would you advocate the abolition of the VC? If it has truly become a futile exercise, regardless of whether you believe players worthy or not, don't you think its time has passed?



It's only become a Futile exercise because the right people are not voting. The living Hall Of Famers seem to want to keep everybody out who wasn't elected by the Writers (even though 20 per cent of them were Veterans Committee electees). It sometimes seems that it is the Living Hall Of Famers ultimate goal to destroy the Veterans Committee. In their thinking, " if the VC is never used to elect a candidate and it becomes a worthless joke, then it will eventually be discontinued". Talk about an exclusive club keeping out the riff-raff.

Dictionary definition of recalcitrant: Not complying, obstinant, rebellious.

The (Living HOFers) are certainly non-compliant in the duties and responsibilities that the Hall placed upon them regarding the VC field of candidates.
Recalcitrant is a big word, but it most closely defines the attitude of the Living Hall Of Famers towards giving an even break to Veterans Committe candidates and giving them a fair chance at election. (See definition above).

To summarize: It will be a futile exercise if living Hall Of Famers don't have their voting privileges revoked.
A committee of 12 to 16 open-minded individuals who are experts in baseball history should be enough to make the Veterans Committee work the way it was designed to.

-philliesfiend55-

[Captain Cold Nose]

It's only become a Futile exercise because the right people are not voting. The living Hall Of Famers seem to want to keep everybody out who wasn't elected by the Writers (even though 20 per cent of them were Veterans Committee electees). It sometimes seems that it is the Living Hall Of Famers ultimate goal to destroy the Veterans Committee. In their thinking, " if the VC is never used to elect a candidate and it becomes a worthless joke, then it will eventually be discontinued". Talk about an exclusive club keeping out the riff-raff.

Dictionary definition of recalcitrant: Not complying, obstinant, rebellious.

The (Living HOFers) are certainly non-compliant in the duties and responsibilities that the Hall placed upon them regarding the VC field of candidates.
Recalcitrant is a big word, but it most closely defines the attitude of the Living Hall Of Famers towards giving an even break to Veterans Committe candidates and giving them a fair chance at election. (See definition above).

To summarize: It will be a futile exercise if living Hall Of Famers don't have their voting privileges revoked.
A committee of 12 to 16 open-minded individuals who are experts in baseball history should be enough to make the Veterans Committee work the way it was designed to.

-philliesfiend55-


Isn't that what forced their hand to begin with? A committee of 12 to 16 open-minded individuals who were experts in baseball history? Players, writers and executives who met behind closed doors and were subject to a couple voices controlling things?

That already hasn't worked. What's to prevent it from reverting back to what it was? If the comittee was a few times larger but widespread amongst players, writers (historians), executives and a broadcaster and beat writer or six, I'd be more comfortable. But the small committee approach isn't a step ahead unless very carefully chosen in a manner that is acceptable to all.

[OleMissCub]

Santo will get in the HOF in 40 years when there is a 12 person pre-1972 committee.

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/OleMissCub17/santotrue.gif

[KCGHOST]

Trying to reform the VC process is a Quixotic effort. Give it up. Permanently terminate the process and accept that some deserving candidates will go wanting. I am tired of lesser and even undeserving candidates being elected.

The HoF has revised the VC process on half dozen or more occasions and still can't get it right.

[J W]

I like the newest version of the Pro Football Old-Timer's committee the best. A group gets together and nominates two senior players, who automatically join the 15 modern-day finalists on the ballot that is deliberated on. At that point, they're all treated equally.

Why not have this VC nominate a couple players to make the BBWAA ballot? Someone like Santo has to be stumped by the writers and a good portion of them readily admit the BBWAA goofed on him.

I know for the VC abolitionists they don't want to hear yet another suggestion -- but honestly I think Canton does a better job than Cooperstown. And I don't want to hear "they elect too many people" because there are twice as many relevant people on a football field.

[PVNICK]

Is it possible that Santo's .256 avg, .342 OBP, and .402 Spct with 126 HR on the road vs. .296 avg . 522 Spct 212 HR (Wrigley) at home have turned voters off. You hear this raised against Jim Rice and it seems perfectly valid, but here Santo seems to be presupposed as being automatic. For all I know his road numbers are not as good as Ken Boyer's (143 home HR and 123 road is all I could get) an there are almost no Boyer supporters that I am aware of.

[OleMissCub]

I wouldn't want this to assist him in getting elected because I think his numbers alone for his era and position are sufficient, but it should be remembered that Ron Santo was playing with a disability. He had juvenile diabetes (hid it from the public and other players) during a time when treating it was very difficult, especially on the road. There are several stories out there about him going into diabetic shock while playing and trying to not have it be noticeable by others.

He never used his disability as a crutch or excuse for anything and his story about battling that disability while playing is inspiring.

[OleMissCub]

Is it possible that Santo's .256 avg, .342 OBP, and .402 Spct with 126 HR on the road vs. .296 avg . 522 Spct 212 HR (Wrigley) at home have turned voters off.

I have a hard time seeing veterans actually caring about splits.

Jim Rice is still on the writers ballot, and there are certainly many among them that care about splits and things of that sort. Thus why you hear a lot about splits hurting Rice.

[bambambaseball]

Is it possible that Santo's .256 avg, .342 OBP, and .402 Spct with 126 HR on the road vs. .296 avg . 522 Spct 212 HR (Wrigley) at home have turned voters off. You hear this raised against Jim Rice and it seems perfectly valid, but here Santo seems to be presupposed as being automatic. For all I know his road numbers are not as good as Ken Boyer's (143 home HR and 123 road is all I could get) an there are almost no Boyer supporters that I am aware of.

:?

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1014935&postcount=3

Ken Boyer is in the BBFHOF!

[Captain Cold Nose]

:?

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1014935&postcount=3

Ken Boyer is in the BBFHOF!

Right, but outside of that you don't hear too many calling for his actual Cooperstown election. It's not even close compared to a lot of players in our HOF who haven't been elected.

[Cougar]

I like the newest version of the Pro Football Old-Timer's committee the best. A group gets together and nominates two senior players, who automatically join the 15 modern-day finalists on the ballot that is deliberated on. At that point, they're all treated equally.

Why not have this VC nominate a couple players to make the BBWAA ballot? Someone like Santo has to be stumped by the writers and a good portion of them readily admit the BBWAA goofed on him.

I know for the VC abolitionists they don't want to hear yet another suggestion -- but honestly I think Canton does a better job than Cooperstown. And I don't want to hear "they elect too many people" because there are twice as many relevant people on a football field.

This is worth thinking about.

[Paul Wendt]

Would you advocate the abolition of the VC? If it has truly become a futile exercise, regardless of whether you believe players worthy or not, don't you think its time has passed?
"The VC" has been many different committees with different rules. With exception of 1995-2001, when the VC elected seven from the Negro Leagues and five from the 19th Century in seven years (at maximum one per year in each category), they haven't yet so much as permitted scholars to determine the candidates.

With an election by mail every 24 months, and only four votes permitted, I don't believe they have yet given the living Hall of Fame members much of a trial, either.

Isn't that what forced their hand to begin with? A committee of 12 to 16 open-minded individuals who were experts in baseball history? Players, writers and executives who met behind closed doors and were subject to a couple voices controlling things?
experts in baseball history?

Scholars don't have cronies.
They may have pets.

Unless you presume concerning the "writers" that everyone who writes also reads, there is no evidence that they ever cared even to have readers play a role.
(except a nominating role for 1995-2001 and
except the Committee on African-American Baseball in 2006/2007)

Landis, early, and the NBHOFM Board, after his death, appointed people whom they hoped would "vote right" based on personal experience. It is essentially a baseball industry museum and before 1995 it delegated power only within the baseball industry.

When they invented the famous Veterans Committee, they made Charlie Gehringer a member. 1953 would have been the sixth year for Charlie Gehringer on a modern 15-year BBWAA ballot. He debuted in 1924(?), retired in 1942, the writers elected him in 1949, and the Board made him a founding member of the veterans committee in 1953!
(I hope to read from someone who knows the facts that Charlie Gehringer was that exceptional mlb player who follows the history of the game seriously. In retirement, at least, he was a serious reader . . .)

--
Next door under the title "New hall of fame voting" someone asks about the type of reforms that Bill James suggested in The Politics of Glory (1994).
That was something radically different, empowering specified constituencies separately.