Veterans Committee 12 finalists

[mr2686]

I haven't seen anything about this so if this is a duplicate, sorry. Looks like the Veterans Committee will be voting on 12 finalists for the Hall of Fame for players with post 1972 contributions with an announcement on Dec 6th. The Finalists are:


Vida Blue
Dave Concepción
Steve Garvey
Pat Gillick
Ron Guidry
Tommy John
Billy Martin
Marvin Miller
Al Oliver
Ted Simmons
Rusty Staub
George Steinbrenner

Any thoughts on the list, either who's on it or who's missing?

[Big Six]

Steinbrenner, Martin, Miller and Simmons in that order. With the exception of Simmons, most folks either L.O.V.E. or H.A.T.E. these guys making it really tough for them to get in. As for Simmons, no one realizes how good he was so he may not get the votes for the opposite reason...A.P.A.T.H.Y. Should be interesting to see final vote, though...

[Chris Counts]

I really hope Steinbrenner doesn't get in. If he wasn't ridiculously rich, would his name even be in the discussion? Miller certainly deserves it for his dramatic impact on the game, and I have a soft spot for Billy Martin, but he's definitely a borderline case. There are better candidates (Minnie Minoso, Tony Oliva, Bert Blyleven, Ron Santo, etc.) who have been waiting far longer than these guys, but the Hall of Fame's illogical system puts them another ballot ...

[bigtrain]

I think Miller, Steinbrenner, Martin and Gillick will all be in eventually. I am sure that Reinsdorf and McPhail will argue against Miller but obviously his influence on the sport was substantial. Of the players, I like Simmons because there are not many catchers in. His defense wasn't great but he was a heck of a hitter. I would not favor Concepcion but with Perez and Bench on the committee he might have a shot.

[bigtrain]

I agree with Chris in not liking this new system of voting, mainly because Santo and others have to wait two more years. Having Ted Simmons on this years ballot raises a question for me because I have always felt that Joe Torre should have gotten in as a player. That's because I had a Torre catcher's mitt as a kid and think of him as primarily a catcher even though he played less than half his games at that position.

[barrysloate]

Marvin Miller is 93 and won't be around forever. I hope MLB has enough class to vote him in while he is alive to enjoy it. But I'm not holding my breath.

[Chris Counts]

What's really sad about Miller's situation is that Bowie Kuhn has already been inducted. A very good case could be made that Kuhn's ineptitude helped Miller successfully establish the concept of free agency. Miller clearly ran circles around Kuhn. But baseball seems to have a tradition of putting commissioners in the Hall of Fame, regardless of their competence. I'm afraid it's only a matter of time before there is a call for Bud's induction, which would truly be a shame. There are already too many suits, and not enough flannels, in Cooperstown ...

[D. Bergin]

Of the players I'd have no problem with Ted Simmons, Steve Garvey or Al Oliver getting in.

I'll leave it to others to decide about the suits.

[mr2686]

I was going to ask if anyone had an opinion on Garvey. I'm a little partial having been born and raised in Los Angeles. When I think of Garvey it's natural for me to compare him to Perez and Cepeda. Perez and Cepeda had more homeruns, Perez had more RBI's, but Garvey compares to Cepeda in BA, both have an MVP, Garvey let the league in hits a couple of times, All star MVP twice (for what it's worth) and Garvey has 4 gold gloves and much better post season numbers.

[bigtrain]

I was never a big Garvey fan but he got quite a lot of support from the baseball writers, over 40% a few times. I don't think that Rusty Staub would be a good choice but Garvey and most of the others are borderline guys. It wouldn't offend me if they got in. After all, its the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Immortals. It hasn't been that since the 1940s. No point raising the standards now.

[D. Bergin]

Garvey was a Superstar during his heyday, probably the most important player on a solid run of Dodgers teams, and if you were around during his prime you would have thought this guy was a solid 1st ballot HOF'er.

He became a victim of the stat guys after he retired. His sin was that he didn't walk enough. Didn't really matter what kind of a leader he was, how tough a ballplayer he was, how important he was to his team, that he had 6 200 hit seasons, an MVP under his belt, 4 Gold Gloves and was a beast in the Post-season.

Nope. Just tell us what his OBP was.

[Frank A]

Screw Miller, he should never be in the hall of fame. Martin shoud get in though. Frank

[autograf]

Miller, Steinbrenner have to go in. Regardless of how you feel about them, they changed the game. Maybe not for the better in some people's eyes but they are huge BB figures. Seems like Gillick will get in based on his record too. Didn't know much about him. As for the others, Simmons has good numbers but I dont' think of a dominating player when I think of him. I think more of that of Garvey than Simmons and I'm not sure Garvey's got the stuff. Don't know about them. I like Concepcion but he'd be one of those people 5 years from now we'd be talking about shouldn't have gotten in. I'm a HUGE Big Red Machine fan from my childhood so remember him fondly but who's next.....Santo Alcala? I go with Miller, Steinbrenner & Gillick...............

I didn't think Billy Martin till I saw his record stacked against Herzog........maybe him too.......the new name..........

The Hall of Marginally Better than Average
or
The Hall of Coulda Been Worse

[murphusa]

they've watered down the HOF to the point of "who cares". No one on the list deserves to be in the Hall. And there are about 70 people in the Hall who don't belong

[HRBAKER]

IMO Simmons would already be in if he hadn't played at the same time as Bench. Wondering why folks feel George is such a lock? I don't really get too concerned about the non-players, who's in and who's out.

[Exhibitman]

I don't really think any modern owner should be in--they weren't really involved in league-building, creating the game, etc. Executives, definitely, if they made a contribution in one of those areas. Miller is the most important baseball non-player since Branch Rickey, so he should be in any HOF worth a crap.

As for the players listed, the only one I see as even worthy of consideration is Garvey. He was a hell of a player for several years in the 1970s, right there as the #1 or #2 in the league if not the entire game. Does that make him a HOFer? Probably not, but the hall has done worse.

[perezfan]

Well, I do think that Concepcion deserves induction. I know I'm in the minority, but he was a crucial factor in ALL of the Reds' Championship seasons, and was an absolute staple at shortstop throughout the '70s and '80s.

He was easily the best shortstop in baseball during the entire decade of the '70s and was a perennial All-Star. He did his job quietly day-in and day-out, and didn't seek publicity... largely because he did not speak English well. He was not a media darling and played in a small market his entire career. I hope he geats in.

As for Garvey, I despised him... my least favorite player in the '70s. But that's because he was so damned good. He should probably be in as well. There weren't many better first basemen during that era (if any). His peak years were better than Concepcion's, but he did not have the longevity.

Also... I watched hundreds of Dodger/Padre games in the '70s, and can't remember him ever making a physical or mental error. He scooped every bad throw that came his way, and there were a lot. He saved tons of "would be" errors by his teammates, and I don't think there's any stat for that. But those of us who watched him forever won't forget it.

[bigtrain]

From 1974 to 1980, Garvey averaged over .300 with over 20 HRs, 100 RBI and 200 hits per year. For those seven years, he was a hitting machine. True he didn't walk much but he didn't strike out a lot either.

[HRBAKER]

I will give Garvey his props for inspiring one of my favorite bumper stickers of all time; Steve Garvey es not mi Padre.

[mjkm90]

Garvey was the best player at his position for years. He was a force on very strong teams, consistent on offence and defence. Kieth Hernandez was the only 1st baseman in his class during the years he played. Garvey should be in there. If Perez had the same numbers he had on the Rangers you wouldn't remember him. Garvey was much stronger on teh eyeball test.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

I will give Garvey his props for inspiring one of my favorite bumper stickers of all time; Steve Garvey es not mi Padre.

Jeff,
That's a good one!! A true classic...
My all time favorite bumper stickers (not sports related though)- both from Newport Beach, CA in the 1970's:

On a psychedelic painted old van:
"Who am I, where am I, and am I having a good time?"

On a hammered, rusted out beach bomb cruiser car (simply spray painted on the side):
"Rust never sleeps"

LOL

[Griffins]

I find it a travesty that Marvin Miller isn't in yet.
Steinbrenner has no place in the Hall, which means he'll probably be elected.

[prewarsports]

I am sure Steinbrenner and Miller will get in, but when I finally make it back there for a visit and see Steinbrenners plaque, I will point to it and tell my son about what is WRONG with baseball.

[ramram]

Tommy John's gotta get in. Thanks to a surgeon, and maybe a deal with the devil, his name is more famous than all the other guys put together.

Rob M.

[bobbvc]

Miller should be in already and every modern player should have a Buddha style statue of Marv, and rub his belly every time he cashes his paycheck. If any of the others make it, have a hall of really good players and then open a Hall of Fame with 50 players. And to get in, someone else must come out.

[D. Bergin]

I still don't quite get the exclusion attitude.

A good number of the guys on this list are better then many players already in the HOF. Players that have been in the HOF for decades.

It's not like this would be a sudden watering down. It's seems a lot of people want to impose their own strict criteria to an establishment that never held to that criteria to begin with.

Pretty ridiculous calling ballplayers who were Top 5 in their League at their position for the better part of a decade or more as "Just Better Then Average" or "Very Good".

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by Griffins

I find it a travesty that Marvin Miller isn't in yet.
Steinbrenner has no place in the Hall, which means he'll probably be elected.

Plus 1

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I still don't quite get the exclusion attitude.

A good number of the guys on this list are better then many players already in the HOF. Players that have been in the HOF for decades.

It's not like this would be a sudden watering down. It's seems a lot of people want to impose their own strict criteria to an establishment that never held to that criteria to begin with.

Pretty ridiculous calling ballplayers who were Top 5 in their League at their position for the better part of a decade or more as "Just Better Then Average" or "Very Good".

See, now I don't get that idea. To me it is a logical fallacy--the equivalent of telling the traffic cop you should be allowed to speed because everyone else was speeding too. The Veterans' Committee made some highly political, piss poor selections over the years and enshrined some players who were probably not really worthy of the honor. I don't see the logic of making more crappy choices because the VC made crappy choices before. Heck, at this point I would abolish the VC entirely. The idea of the VC was to clear the players from 75 years of baseball history when the HOF started. It's been long enough to clear the backlog of worthy players. All of the guys on this VC list as players had their chances in the regular eligibility votes.

[sayhey24]

Good arguments on both sides.
You can't put every player who's better than Rick Ferrell or Dave Bancroft in the Hall, but you absolutely should give strong consideration to players who are as good or better than a number of other HOFers at their position, and to players who dominated their league at their position for a decade or more.
I grew up watching baseball in the 60s and 70s -- Ron Santo was THE NL third baseman of the era (no offense to the Boyers), just as Brooks was in the AL. Brooks was a little better, but Santo absolutely should be in the Hall (and hopefully will be when they consider his era in the new balloting).
I agree with the previous poster about Garvey being a dominant player during his era -- it's hard to ignore that. Al Oliver on the other hand, had some nice numbers, but was never on the same level as Garvey.
Ted Simmons has hitting stats as a catcher that compare favorably with most other HOF catchers -- if he made it, it certainly wouldn't be watering down the Hall.
Much of this come downs to what each of us believes the HOF should be -- some think it's only for Ruth, Wagner, Hornsby, Dimaggio, Mays, etc. But it's clearly not that. My very unscientific view has always been that if a player was the dominant force at his position in his league for 10-15 years, racking up batting titles, MVPs, All-Star nods and Gold Gloves, he is most likely a Hall of Famer (Gil Hodges, Tony Oliva, Santo, Dale Murphy).

One thing is absolutely certain -- this sure is fun to talk about.

Greg
http://www.baseballbasement.com

[Griffins]

Any opinions on whether Steinbrenners felony convictions should factor into his selection?

[mr2686]

I didn't realize that they've actually changed the format for the veterans committee, breaking it up in to three:
Candidates will be classified by the era in which they made their greatest contributions, as follows:
Pre-Integration (1871–1946)
Golden (1947–1972)
Expansion (1973 and later)
Candidates from each era will be considered every third year, starting with the Expansion Era in the 2011 election, followed by the Golden Era and then by the Pre-Integration Era.
So, next year I assume players like Ron Santo will be voted on.

[sayhey24]

Just for fun I put together a group photo of the game bats of the players being voted on this year. I don't have a Vida or Ron Guidry, but I do have a Billy Martin from the '76 Yankees.

Greg

More bats and memorabilia at:
http://www.baseballbasement.com

[mr2686]

Griffins, I think it was only one Felony conviction for Steinbrenner (The Winfield stuff was turned in to an "agreement" that he would not participate in day to day operations of the team while still being owner. That, of course, was lifted a couple of years later). The felony conviction for illegal campaign contributions to Nixon was later pardoned by President Regan.
Let's face it, if the reason for keeping him out of the HOF is because of the moral character clause, then you better take out Ruth, Cobb, Speaker and several others. Like the guy or hate the guy (there doesn't seem to be much middle ground) it's still fun to talk about and probably hasn't stirred this much debate since "who's better, Willie, Mickey or the Duke".

[19cbb]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Well, I do think that Concepcion deserves induction. I know I'm in the minority, but he was a crucial factor in ALL of the Reds' Championship seasons, and was an absolute staple at shortstop throughout the '70s and '80s.

He was easily the best shortstop in baseball during the entire decade of the '70s and was a perennial All-Star. He did his job quietly day-in and day-out, and didn't seek publicity... largely because he did not speak English well. He was not a media darling and played in a small market his entire career. I hope he geats in.

Another vote for Concepcion

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by sayhey24

Just for fun I put together a group photo of the game bats of the players being voted on this year. I don't have a Vida or Ron Guidry, but I do have a Billy Martin from the '76 Yankees.

Greg

More bats and memorabilia at:
http://www.baseballbasement.com

QUOTE=bcbgcbrcb;848327]Matt:

I saw the Paterson, NJ (Wagner) photo in person at the National in Baltimore and it is definitely not a Type I. Not sure about the other two that you mentioned but my guess is that many are and many are not in this auction. It would be nice if Legendary could identify them in their description (unless they don't want to take the responsibility and then end up with return requests after the auction if they are wrong).[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Matt

So, at the moment, someone is paying $125 + BP for a photo that might have been printed 10 years ago...

Terrific run of bats Greg!

[packs]

I was taking a look at Garvey's statistics. I'm having trouble understanding why he fared so well in HOF voting when he first retired while Mattingly has received considerably less votes since his retirement. In five extra seasons, Garvey's numbers (hits, home runs, and rbis) aren't all that much higher than Mattingly's.

[mr2686]

Packs, If you're confused by that, take a look at Mattingly's stats next to Kirby Puckett's.