Vets committee elect NO ONE post 1942

[OleMissCub]

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).

what a joke

[Paul Wendt]

48 needed for election?
That implies very high "turnout" of eligible voters.

The results imply that Santo, Kaat, and Hodges, at least, were strong candidates with the honored writers and broadcasters who were disenfranchised last year.

what a joke

Does anyone have a precise count of the living Hall of Famers now, and the living Hall of Famers plus honored writers and broadcasters two years ago (inducted 2006 or earlier)?

Or complete list of the HOF members plus honored writers and broadcasters who died in the last two years?

Or, simply, complete lists of eligible voters in both elections?
-- both meaning players for 2007, retired players for 2009!

[Extra Innings]

Does this completely diminish Santo's chances of making the HOF? Could he up for election again by the Veterans Committee in 2010?

[BlueBlood]

The Hall of Fame website, I believe, listed everyone of the Hall of Famers that cast a ballot. Otherwise, I'm not sure what the point of posting that big table with the results was all about...

[Extra Innings]

48 needed for election?
That implies very high "turnout" of eligible voters.

The results imply that Santo, Kaat, and Hodges, at least, were strong candidates with the honored writers and broadcasters who were disenfranchised last year.



Does anyone have a precise count of the living Hall of Famers now, and the living Hall of Famers plus honored writers and broadcasters two years ago (inducted 2006 or earlier)?

Or complete list of the HOF members plus honored writers and broadcasters who died in the last two years?

Or, simply, complete lists of eligible voters in both elections?


Their are 64 living HOFs and the results stated a 100% voter turnout so, everyone voted. What I thought was interesting was that each HOF'er could make up to 4 votes and the average vote per ballot was 3.33 votes. So, not everyone used all their votes.

[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.

[OleMissCub]

In the past 40 years, the vets committee system has shifted from cronyism to elitism.

[philliesfiend55]

Does this completely diminish Santo's chances of making the HOF? Could he up for election again by the Veterans Committee in 2010?
Actually (according to poster Paul Wendt) 15 candidates were eligible for election. The Hall took the top 10 vote getters from the Dec. 2006 and put them on this year's ballot. Five more who ranked 11 through 15 in the 2006 election remain eligible and while they didn't make it onto this year's ballot they could be placed on future ballots. (M. Minoso, K. Boyer, C. Flood, R. Maris, & D.Newcombe).
Santo will remain on the ballot and there will not be a "time limit" on him.
Really however, the system is in need of yet another overhaul. They'll have to go back to a panel of writers, historians, statisticans and other experts to do the voting at some point, since living Hall Of Famers continue to elect no one.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I really don't understand Santo's lack of support. A good majority of living HoFers were Santo's contemporaries. Do they not feel Santo was a HoF caliber player or is there some dislike for Santo by his peers? Was Santo a unpopular player in his playing days?

[BlueBlood]

It's just morons that look at his basic stats with no reverence towards the era in which he played either/or his position. That's all.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Actually (according to poster Paul Wendt) 15 candidates were eligible for election. The Hall took the top 10 vote getters from the Dec. 2006 and put them on this year's ballot. Five more who ranked 11 through 15 in the 2006 election remain eligible and while they didn't make it onto this year's ballot they could be placed on future ballots. (M. Minoso, K. Boyer, C. Flood, R. Maris).
Santo will remain on the ballot and there will not be a "time limit" on him.
Really however, the system is in need of yet another overhaul. They'll have to go back to a panel of writers, historians, statisticans and other experts to do the voting at some point, since living Hall Of Famers continue to elect no one.

I could endorse that if they have more than 18 or so members. Which brought about the cronyism before it was HOFers and HOF award-winning writers and broadcasters only.

At this point I'm not against baseball following other HOFs by having one or two senior candidates per year as opposed to separate elections. Because all these "committees" being set up to ultimately do nothing are just a big tease.

[Captain Cold Nose]

It's just morons that look at his basic stats with no reverence towards the era in which he played either/or his position. That's all.

Many of them played in that era. Kind of hard for them not to notice.

[Paul Wendt]

Does this completely diminish Santo's chances of making the HOF? Could he up for election again by the Veterans Committee in 2010?
"completely diminish"?

Almost certainly he will be nominated again and again until he is elected. As long as there is a nominating committee at all, it will return the leaders to the ballot. In my book that covers Santo, Kaat, Oliva, Hodges: they will be on the ballot until there is a change in eligibility; Hodges, mlb debut 1943, may be the only one who will get the boot as soon as eligiblity is revised.

Actually (according to poster Paul Wendt) 15 candidates were eligible for election.
I prefer "postor". A postor is the opposite of an impostor.
A poster hangs on the wall, a pastor expresses reverence, whatever.

That isn't quite right. There were thousands of players eligible --everyone who played in parts of at least ten seasons, entirely 1943-1985. My point was that after splitting the election, 15 of the candidates whom I called "leaders" two years ago were eligible for this election and 5 of them were eligible for the pre-1943 election. I presume that those 15 (ten on the 2009 ballot plus five named by ph'55) will fill almost all of the ballot slots next time, with one or two for the Bobby Griches of the world, who were active in 1986 and perhaps briefly afterward, 1987 if they do this in 2011.
For more, related information, see the directory, history of Hall of Fame elections (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=77960).

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.
Yep.

By the way, was there a meeting in Cooperstown during induction weekend? When the rules were changed it was my understanding that that would be simply be one item on the list of induction weekend events. It would be scheduled in some timeslot at the NBHOFM and some of the living HOFers would show up. The NBHOFM would learn from the turnout whether to book a smaller room next time. :-)

==
Quoting from the "December 8" thread.
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.
Yes, maybe so. Looking at the patterns of 2007 and 2009 support, we should keep in mind that they represent slightly different conditions as well as different electorate. Ron Santo, Jim Kaat, and Gil Hodges slumped badly which shows that either
- (a) the voters changed their minds against S, K, and H; or
- (b) many voters ranked S, K, and H only sixth or eighth best among deserving candidates, and did not appreciate that they must elevate the 2006/2007 leaders past some less-popular personal favorites in order to make progress; or
- (c) the honored writers and broadcasters were very strong in their support of S, K, and H but the realio trulio Hall of Fame members were about evenly split about admitting them.

I think (c) is the most likely but we cannot be sure unless/until many of the living writers and broadcasters reveal their 2006/2007 votes. Because this "committee" does not meet, (b) is a plausible alternative or supplementary explanation --as ph'55 and cougar are right to remind us.

[KCGHOST]

There is no way the living HoFers are ever going to elect someone so we should just disband that portion of the VC.

Selecting Joe Gordon is okay until you put it in context. There is no way you can seriously propose the idea that he was by any measure better than Dahlen or White. If you are going to elect a guy don't pass on players whose careers were just as good, if not better. Having said that you can disband this part of the VC, too.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Many of them played in that era. Kind of hard for them not to notice.

That's what I don't get. Many of the voters played with or against Santo. Was Santo not regarded as a star player by his peers? Just off the top of my head all these National Leaguers HoFers were contemporaries of Santo.

Willie Mays
Willie McCovey
Sandy Koufax
Juan Marichal
Bob Gibson
Billy Williams
Ernie Banks
Steve Carlton
Tom Seaver
Frank Robinson
Hank Aaron
Ferguson Jenkins
Nolan Ryan
Jim Bunning
Joe Morgan
Gaylord Perry
Willie Stargell

[Freakshow]

Indeed, the system is junk. Reynolds coming close is just scary. We discussed him (http://208.84.112.223/showthread.php?p=1297308) after the ballot was announced. Lopat was actually a better pitcher.

[OleMissCub]

Some quotes from some of his contemporaries (assuming they are being honest):

"I always enjoyed playing against him, and he's still underrated in that he did things day in and day out, and year in and year out...and I will say this, he will get my vote!" - Joe Morgan

"Well, Ron was a player who could do everything, he drove in runs, he hit home runs...he dominated his position for a good decade and a half...and you can take Ron's statistics and put 'em up against any other third baseman in the Hall of Fame. He's the first guy I voted for....if anyone deserves the Hall of Fame it's Ron." - Brooks Robinson

"Ron belongs in the Hall of Fame with all the rest of us. Ya know, I played against him all of his career and most of my career, and, Ron Santo was as good a third baseman as we've ever had in the National League." - Willie McCovey

"He was truly, truly, a fine competitor, he was the kind of player that any manager would have loved to have had playing for him...I'll tell you one thing..he belongs in the Hall of Fame...I voted for him!" - Tommy Lasorda.

"He was a true competitor, and you talk about Ronnie, and you are talking about a guy who plays everyday for you, and I think he should be in the Hall of Fame because I myself know what kind of player he was. I think he should be in." - Willie Mays

[metfan13]

That's what I don't get. Many of the voters played with or against Santo. Was Santo not regarded as a star player by his peers? Just off the top of my head all these National Leaguers HoFers were contemporaries of Santo.

Willie Mays
Willie McCovey
Sandy Koufax
Juan Marichal
Bob Gibson
Billy Williams
Ernie Banks
Steve Carlton
Tom Seaver
Frank Robinson
Hank Aaron
Ferguson Jenkins
Nolan Ryan
Jim Bunning
Joe Morgan
Gaylord Perry
Willie Stargell


Can you honestly say that Santo is as good as the hitters on that list?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Can you honestly say that Santo is as good as the hitters on that list?

Yes. some of them. But that's not the point. He was also a great defensive third basman. But that's the point either. It is obvious Santo's peers didn't heod him in high esteem. But he question is why? Santo is one of the 7-8 greatest third basemen in history.

[OleMissCub]

Can you honestly say that Santo is as good as the hitters on that list?

The numbers say yes.

Top 10 Win Shares of the 1960's:

Hank Aaron - 340
Willie Mays - 337
Frank Robinson - 307
Roberto Clemente - 260
Harmon Killebrew - 257
Ron Santo - 247
Mickey Mantle - 247
Willie McCovey - 237
Brooks Robinson - 233
Carl Yastrzemski - 230

From National Sports Review:

Using TPR, Santo was the best player in baseball from 1964-1968, with a TPR of about 32.5. That is an average of about 6.5 a season and there were only three other seasons in this span that reached 6.5 or more. Santo went a little above 7 a couple of times, which no one else did. Aaron is probably second in this time period with about 22. Santo was in the top 5 in the NL each of these years and first three times. In WS, Santo had 164. Only Allen (170), Mays (169) and Aaron (167) had more in MLB over the years 1964-68. Santo was 6th in WS (with 249) for the whole decade despite not playing in 1960 and getting off to a somewhat slow start in 1961-3. The top six in the decade were

Aaron 340
Mays 337
Robinson 307
Clemente 262
Killebrew 257
Santo 249

Pete Palmer has Santo as the 4th best player in TPR in all of MLB from 1961-72:

1- Mays (84.6)
2 - Aaron (81.3)
3 - Robinson (64.3)
4 - Santo (45.3)

[OleMissCub]

Yes. some of them. But that's not the point. He was also a great defensive third basman. But that's the point either. It is obvious Santo's peers didn't heod him in high esteem. But he question is why? Santo is one of the 7-8 greatest third basemen in history.

The problem is that we don't know if it is his peers or not who hold him in high esteem. He got the most votes of anyone out there. Perhaps a good many of his peers were the ones who gave him those votes. Perhaps not. The quotes from guys like McCovey saying "he belongs with us" makes me think that many of his peers vote for him.

Now, the writers CERTAINLY had a problem with him. He supposedly wasn't very available or pleasant to the media after ballgames (I suspect his diabetes might be some contributing factor to his post-game unpleasantness). At the time of his retirement, he was ranked second all-time in most offensive categories at third base, yet he only got like 15 votes his first time on the ballot and subsequently dropped off.

[Paul Wendt]

That's what I don't get. Many of the voters played with or against Santo. Was Santo not regarded as a star player by his peers? Just off the top of my head all these National Leaguers HoFers were contemporaries of Santo. . . .
. . . It is obvious Santo's peers didn't heod him in high esteem. But he question is why? Santo is one of the 7-8 greatest third basemen in history.

We can't be sure, I believe.
Suppose that every living Hall of Fame player with three years in the National League 1961-1973 voted for Santo. How many votes would that be?

Perhaps those who played in his day do vote for him but those who played earlier scoff at his batting average.
Simplistic,yes, but how many votes would that be, against him?

Now, the writers CERTAINLY had a problem with him. . . . he only got like 15 votes his first time on the ballot and subsequently dropped off.
But it seems likely that the honored writers and broadcasters voted for him in 2006/2007.

[OleMissCub]

But it seems likely that the honored writers and broadcasters voted for him in 2006/2007.

This is true. Perhaps they were among the 15 that actually voted for him on the original ballot 30 years ago.

[J W]

It is obvious Santo's peers didn't hold him in high esteem.

His actual peers appear to hold him in high esteem. Morgan, Robinson, McCovey, and Mays were all stars in the 1960s. I would guess a lot of others from that era, especially National Leaguers (Aaron, Koufax, Gibson, and certainly Banks) gave their vote to Santo. But there are also living HOFers from other years or from the AL that just weren't there to see him play--and they chose other names instead.

Remember we had an average of 3.33 votes on each ballot with a maximum of 4 allowed. These guys ARE voting for people, but the list was apparently too tough a crowd and people took votes from each other. While Santo is a no-brainer for us, that IS a darn good list of ten.

The biggest surprise to me was that Dick Allen finished last with just seven votes. I would have easily given him one of my four spots. Looks like he may have been a headache for his fellow players too...

[Paul Wendt]

quoting myself,
But it seems likely that the honored writers and broadcasters voted for him in 2006/2007.
OldMissCub replied,
> This is true. Perhaps they were among the 15 that actually voted for him on the original ballot 30 years ago.

Here is the raw decrease in support, the difference between numbers of votes cast for the player in 2006/2007 by 82 voters and in 2008/2009 by 64 voters.

Numbers of votes, 2007 minus 2009
22 Gil Hodges
18 Maury Wills
18 Ron Santo (-18 votes matches the decrease in number of voters from 82 to 64)
14 Tony Oliva
14 Jim Kaat
7 Joe Torre
5 Al Oliver
4 Dick Allen
4 Vada Pinson
2 Luis Tiant

Can anyone do something intelligent with this?
beside Luis Tiant with his new "Give it up and Vote for El Tiante" campaign.

[philliesfiend55]

I could endorse that if they have more than 18 or so members.

I think a committee of 16 or 20 would be ideal. Each is divisible by 4 so it makes determining who made the Hall Of Fame's 75 per cent requirement simple and almost automatic.
12 voters as used today in the Pre-1943 election might be too small of a sample to be meaningful. A slightly bigger panel of 16 or 20 experts would leave less to chance.

Previous Veterans Committes in the early '90s sometimes included as many as 18 voters, so there would be a precedent for a larger committee.

[ol' aches and pains]

It's just morons that look at his basic stats with no reverence towards the era in which he played either/or his position. That's all.

Some of his basic stats are 342 home runs, 1331 RBI (only 26 fewer than Brooks Robinson, who played 8 more seasons than Santo), 5 gold gloves, 9 all-star teams, 250 more walks than Robinson, a 362 OBP. Santo should have been in years ago, it's a crime that he continues to be turned away from the Hall.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I think a committee of 16 or 20 would be ideal. Each is divisible by 4 so it makes determining who made the Hall Of Fame's 75 per cent requirement simple and almost automatic.
12 voters as used today in the Pre-1943 election might be too small of a sample to be meaningful. A slightly bigger panel of 16 or 20 experts would leave less to chance.

Previous Veterans Committes in the early '90s sometimes included as many as 18 voters, so there would be a precedent for a larger committee.

So the rife cronyism that caused them to revamp it to HOFers only does not bother you? They changed it from the 90s for a reason.

A step backward in my opinion.

[Freakshow]

That isn't quite right. There were thousands of players eligible --everyone who played in parts of at least ten seasons, entirely 1943-1985. My point was that after splitting the election, 15 of the candidates whom I called "leaders" two years ago were eligible for this election and 5 of them were eligible for the pre-1943 election. I presume that those 15 (ten on the 2009 ballot plus five named by ph'55) will fill almost all of the ballot slots next time, with one or two for the Bobby Griches of the world, who were active in 1986 and perhaps briefly afterward, 1987 if they do this in 2011.A slight correction. For this election, they did consider players active up to 1987. The list of 21 semifinalists included these 11 players cut before the ballot:

Ken Boyer
Bert Campaneris
Rocky Colavito
Mike Cuellar
Steve Garvey
Ted Kluszewski
Mickey Lolich
Roger Maris
Lee May
Minnie Minoso
Thurman Munson

[Paul Wendt]

A slight correction. For this election, they did consider players active up to 1987. The list of 21 semifinalists included these 11 players cut before the ballot:

Ken Boyer (15)
Bert Campaneris
Rocky Colavito (19)
Mike Cuellar
Steve Garvey
Ted Kluszewski
Mickey Lolich (16)
Roger Maris (9t)
Lee May
Minnie Minoso (13)
Thurman Munson (18)
(my emphasis)
Were the 21 semifinalists announced to the public?

This report means that the HOC passed over Don Newcombe (rank 7 among post-1942 players two years ago) and Curt Flood (11t) at this preliminary stage, in favor of all the 11 listed players:
six from the final ballot two years ago (bold). Parentheses give their rank in that election among twenty post-1942 players on that ballot.
four more preliminary nominees from two years ago (among 200 in all): Campaneris, Cuellar, Kluszewski, May. Among them Kluszewski fared poorly on the final ballot in 2003.
one newcomer who retired 1886-1887: Steve Garvey. (So it appears that they passed over Bobby Grich in favor of all these players.)

At the same time the HOC passed over Sparky Lyle (17) and Bobby Bonds (20), who fared poorly on the final ballot two years ago.

[Freakshow]

(my emphasis)
Were the 21 semifinalists announced to the public?Yes. I wasn't paying much attention at the time, but I found the list today at the HOF website. It's in an issue of "Around The Horn" from a month ago.

http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/news/download/AroundtheHornVeteransDay08.pdf