No One Elected Again

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Well, that's what is so frustrating about the HOF standards: Santo made the AS team 9 times, Hodges and Oliva 8 times each (and Hodges won a WS as a manager). Forget their numbers -- how do you keep these three guys out of the HOF based simply on the fact that for nearly a decade they dominated baseball at their position? What more should be asked of you? Comparing numbers from different generations of ball players just does not provide justice.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Good for you Joe Morgan. The Hall of Fame is not just for the very very good but the greats of the game.

We should not be compounding mistakes made previously in letting in the likes of Maz and Scooter to justify the current crop of vets not deemed good enough the first time around.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I agree with that. The players who just missed were very good indeed, but were they greats? Borderline perhaps.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Barry,

So are you saying that Gil Hodges should never get in.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Good question Peter. No doubt he was a fine player, and he is as good as others who are already in. But was he a great player...perhaps not. Obviously, there is some reason he misses every year. Was he not a likable sort?

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Barry,

Happy to agree with you on this one. Guys like Hodges, Santo, Oliva and Vic Davalillo should not be in the HOF.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Barry,

See your starting to vacillate already...they loved Gil Hodges in Brooklyn. People were praying that he would end his notoriously weak hitting in the World Series...and he did.

The only point I'm trying to make is that each of us has a ballplayer or two that we think should absolutely be in the Hall of Fame but has been passed over for whatever reason.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I have tremendous admiration for Gil Hodges. I also admire Bill Mazeroski...but I don't think he should be in the HOF.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Barry,

Your telling me the best fielding 2nd baseball history does not belong in the Hall of Fame. Bill Mazeroski epitomized the old baseball axiom that it is fielding strength up the middle that wins ballgames and championships.

Evidently, the baseball gods also thought that Maz did not belong so they pulled together this new Veteran's Committee to slam the door shut.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I guess my preference is for the guys that put up big numbers...and fielding percentage is a bit of a yawner. I know Maz was a fine player, but Hank Aaron is a little more my type!

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Barry,

So does Eddie Murray belong in the HOF. He's got all the numbers.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

With 500 HRs, 3000 hits, and those huge RBI numbers, yes. Of course he is not the best player in there. But a worthy addition.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Barry,

Let's say that a bunch of baseball writers got together and spread the rumour that he was nothing more than a journeyman ballplayer. As a consequence he never got the requisite 75% from the baseball writers. Is this somebody the Veteran's Committee should subsequently vote in?

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Yeah, I think Murray would still qualify.

I was just thinking of another HOFer, Orlando Cepeda. If you saw him play in his prime (I did) he was a fearsome player. But when you look at his career stats, is he HOF worthy? Maybe not.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Barry,

Well...the Baby Bull didn't get the required 75% from the baseball writers. The old veteran's committee let him in.

His stats were comparable to Gil Hodges.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I agree with Jeff...there are players from my youth like Rice, Dawson and Garvey who dominated the game and don't even get much recognition. I would even place Dale Murphy on that list. It seems as though they may have just hit baseball at a time right before the steroid era 1987-present which makes their stats look a little weak in comparison to the anabolic monsters.

I would also suggest that Jack Morris is not getting enough attention either.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

There's no doubt there are dozens of candidates out there worthy of consideration...but they just can't all get in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark L

Whenever I sit back and reflect on the injustices of the baseball world in general and of the Hall of Fame in particular, I console myself by remembering that I can still distinguish a higher echelon of Hall of Famers, like Ruth and Wagner and Aaron, from lesser figures such as Maz and Harry Hooper and Cepeda, by the fact that the truly great were elected by the Baseball Writers and the less great, by the Veterans. There is, or ought to be, a first class cabin for the ones who were elected by the writers.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Mark,

Well I agree with there should be a first class cabin...but you've already done that by distinguishing HOFs that came in through the baseball writers vote and those that came in through special admissions (Veteran's Committee). Isn't that a sufficient class distinction. Actually, the hobby also draws a similar distinction because the collectibles of first tier hall of famers bring in more money.

I don't think it's necessary to have a separate corridor for the best of the best.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

The Hall of Fame is first and foremost a museum dedicated to baseball's rich and complex history. If you study the history of any subject, you'' will see it is constantly being revised as those who study it gain a perspective that is only possible after a lengthy passage of time. Baseball history, in this sense, is no different than art history, political history or the history of the Civil War. With a greater access to information (thank you Bill James!), statistics and personal accounts, baseball historians have a better perspective now than they ever had before. Plus, there are more people than ever with access to this information.

In the early days of the HOF, one writer's opinion of a player like Roger Bresnahan was enough to carry the day. Frankie Frisch, as leader of the vets committee, played kingmaker for nearly a dozen of his cronies.

Now the pendulum has swung the other way, and the gatekeepers are saying enough is enough. Under the circumstances (Mazeroski, Rizzuto, etc.), such sendiment is admirable, but I doubt many of the voters are even considering players they didn't play against. Since inductees need 75% of the voters to vote for them — and the ex-players voting now played in seven different decades — we now have a system where it's impossible to get elected. Which is too bad, because guys like Tony Oliva, Ron Santo and Minnie Minoso were truly great players who deserve to have plaques in Cooperstown ...

By the way, Joe Morgan was also a truly great player ... but if someone ducktaped his mouth shut until the end of time, I would not shed a tear ...

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Guys,

The new committee has lifetime appointments. So what they have effectively done is created a situation in which a former player must be elected by the Baseball Writers.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

Peter,

What do you mean by "lifetime" appointments? I thought the current system was going to be reviewed because there have been so many complaints ...

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Chris,

I suppose the Hall of Fame can review their own procedures and change the structure of the New Veterans Committee. They've done this so many times in the past. I'm just saying that the current Veteran's Committee members (excluding individuals from prior committee) have lifetime appointments because the HOF thought that individuals would be less likely to be politically influenced.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Jason L,

Would you mind explaining this quote from an earlier post you made?:

"Cal Ripken is in because he is immensely popular with the media and the national fan base because he evoked Gehrig, much the same way that all presidents and candidates attempt to evoke Lincoln...(not sure if I am actually using the word evoke correctly, here, but I think you get my meaning). Now, that popularity is fed by the fact that he is last white star to play his entire career with one team, which evokes the concepts of familiarity and loyalty, which are also important to many people."

The part I'm specifically asking about is: "that popularity is fed by the fact that he is last white star to play his entire career with one team, which evokes the concepts of familiarity and loyalty, which are also important to many people."

I apologize for coming to this thread so late, but I didn't read that until today. Maybe someone else already asked you about it and I missed that post when I scanned the thread, but my question is: WHAT THE HELL IS THAT???

Tony Gwynn, who will be inducted alongside the great white Ripken, who also played his entire career with one team, who was also known for his relentless work ethic and honorable character, does not evoke the concepts of familiarity and loyalty because he is black???

I know there are many varying opinions on this board regarding race, but that's some crap right there.

I guess Tony Gwynn lacked the necessities to be popular.

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

Although poorly expressed I think that jason L. was just giving his opinion of the perception of Ripken among sports writers and fans, not making a statement about his own feelings. I think he overstates the case but, like it or not, many folks root for people of their own race and the majority of fans in this country are white.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt Goebel

Who roots for athletes based on race?

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Guys,

We all root for winners and sometimes lovable losers and this cuts across all racial lines.

I'd also like to get rid of the entire Veteran's Committee and start over again. Actually there's a rumor that there might be some changes to the committee. Does anybody know whether there are any changes in the works.

If there is no actual rumor, then I'll start it now.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Matt,

I root for athletes based on race... I mean, why would I root for a sprinter in a marathon?

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

Peter,

I think I already started the rumor a few posts ago. Personally, I'd like to see this forum do its own Hall of Fame. We're definitely better qualified to rate players from all eras ...

[Archive]

Posted By: Ken McMillan

I actually talked to Santo at spring training. He was still up, but you could tell he was disappointed. What is wrong with the veterins committee? Santo is a quality person and was one of the best third basemen of his time. Maybe the committe needs to meet annually since they seem to have such a short memory as to not electing anyone!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Chris,

So your the source of the rumor, is there any truth to whether their going to revamp the Veteran's Committee. If the Hall of Fame is going to do anything, then I'm with you, let's elect our own ballplayers to the Hall.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

Peter,

I thought I read it somewhere, but it might have been wishful thinking. At the very least, I think it would be great to create an online baseball card museum dedicated to all the players that got the short end of the stick from Cooperstown, from Joe Jackson to Ron Santo and beyond ...