No One Elected Again

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/news/2007/07027b.htm

Hodges fell in the voting.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

What an embarrassment ... Buzzie Bavasi had more than twice the number of votes as Minnie Minoso ... the HOF is a joke ...

Veterans Committee election results for 2007

Living Hall of Famers, Frick and Spink winners, voted on 42 candidates

February 27, 2007 | Jack O'Connell

(COOPERSTOWN, NY): The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum’s Committee for Baseball Veterans announced balloting results Tuesday for its 2007 election of players, managers, executives and umpires. Two ballots – one featuring 27 players and another featuring 15 managers, umpires and executives – were considered by the 84-voting member Committee, comprised of all living Hall of Famers, Ford C. Frick Award and J.G. Taylor Spink Award winners.

Former Cubs third baseman Ron Santo led all candidates on the Player Ballot with 57 votes, totaling 69.5 percent of all ballots cast. Umpire Doug Harvey led all Composite Ballot nominees with 52 votes, 64.2 percent of the tally.

With 82 of 84 (97.6%) ballots cast for the Player Ballot, 62 votes were necessary to meet the 75% standard for election. Eighty-one of 84 (96.4%) ballots were cast for the Composite Ballot (managers, executives and umpires), with 61 needed to earn Hall of Fame election. An average of 5.96 votes were cast per Player Ballot, an all-time high in three elections (5.72 in 2005, 5.34 in 2003), while an average of 4.17 votes were cast per ballot for the Composite Ballot.

Results of the 2007 Player Ballot (62 needed for election): Santo (57 votes, 69.5%), Jim Kaat (52, 63.4%), Gil Hodges (50, 61%), Tony Oliva (47, 57.3%), Maury Wills (33, 40.2%), Joe Torre (26, 31.7%), Don Newcombe (17, 20.7%), Vada Pinson (16, 19.5%), Roger Maris (15, 18.3%), Lefty O’Doul (15, 18.3%), Luis Tiant (15, 18.3%), Curt Flood (14, 17.1%), Al Oliver (14, 17.1%), Mickey Vernon (14, 17.1%), Minnie Minoso (12, 14.6%), Cecil Travis (12, 14.6%), Dick Allen (11, 13.4%), Marty Marion (11, 13.4%), Joe Gordon (10, 12.2%), Ken Boyer (9, 11%), Mickey Lolich (8, 9.8%), Wes Ferrell (7, 8.5%), Sparky Lyle (6, 7.3%), Carl Mays (6, 7.3%), Thurman Munson (6, 7.3%), Rocky Colavito (5, 6.1%) and Bobby Bonds (1, 1.2%).

Results of the 2007 Composite Ballot (61 needed for election): Harvey (52 votes, 64.2%), Marvin Miller (51, 63%), Walter O’Malley (36, 44.4%), Buzzie Bavasi (30, 37%), Dick Williams (30, 37%), Whitey Herzog (29, 35.8%), Bill White (24, 29.6%), Bowie Kuhn (14, 17.3%), August Busch Jr. (13, 16%), Billy Martin (12, 14.8%), Charley O. Finley (10, 12.3%), Gabe Paul (10, 12.3%), Paul Richards (10, 12.3%), Phil Wrigley (9, 11.1%) and Harry Dalton (8, 9.9%).

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

for not electing Marvin Miller.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

my autographed ball of him would be more valuable........

Joe Torre is a lock once he retires.....as a Manager of course.

Odd that more votes were cast per ballot than ever yet no one was elected....

Think Doug Harvey should be elected.......

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I don't think Hodges will ever make it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

It has become mind-boggling to try to understand the HOF selection process these past few year's.
Especially, after last year's debacle of not selecting Buck O'Neil and now this year's non-selection of
Gil Hodges.

Every year since 1985, I have been in Cooperstown on HOF weekend. In recent years there have been
complaints by many up there that the crowds are diminishing every year. Well, it doesn't take a genius
to figure out why....induct the right ballplayers and "the people will come".

Could you imagine the New York crowd in Cooperstown this July, if Gil Hodges had been inducted ?

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Shame on the committee for not voting in Tony Oliva. You let in Billy Williams and Kirby Puckett and keep out the best hitter in the American League during the 1960's? Unbelievable.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

Do you think they argued about this stuff with passion like we do now, back in the 30's, 40s and 50s?
(obviously not on message boards...)

I would love to learn more about the campaigning and politics that go on regarding these ballots...or be a fly on the wall for some of the HOFers' phone conversations while they debate these with their HOFer and non-HOFer buddies...cuz you know they are talking about it before they submit them!

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

I don't think they put THAT much effort into it. They have no regard for the 19th century and don't seem to really study too much any of the people. I think they're 80+ people living in vaccuum's that just vote.....I'd bet that some of them know little to nothing about the potential candidates other than those that they actually played against.....

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

The fact is, Santo and Hodges and Oliva deserve to be in (at the very least), as does Marvin Miller. It will only happen on a year when no one else is elected.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Barry,

I'm going to blame this on you. Your the one that keeps saying there are too many players in the Hall already. I'm just kidding...I'm sure the Veteran's Committee can mess up without your help.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Hey Peter, Hodges was a fellow Brooklynite and led the Mets to the 1969 Series. If all the other guys are in, he can come and play, too.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Dawson

They need to do away with the whole damned committee. They're a complete waste of everyone's (including their own) time and energy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

When I was working at Sotheby's during the week that the public could come and see the Halper Collection, one of the viewers was Marvin Miller. I introduced myself to him and the first thing I said was "you should already be in the Hall of Fame." He was extremely thankful, and very soft spoken and polite.

Hope I didn't jinx him

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

that's probably it...but try not to be too hard on yourself!

Steve,
agreed. I envision the entire process resembling the popularity voting that goes on in high school on the yearbook committee when folks vote for most likely to ____, etc...or Homecoming royalty and such...but instead of vacant, Type-A teenage girls, we have crusty old ballplayers, drinking and driving on America's golfcourses

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

guys-

as we debated a week ago...the HALL needs to be the absolute best of the best...i DO NOT think a player should get in, just because he is compared to others who are in, but who are "marginal" HOFers...like: "well, this person belongs in because so-and-so is in there already"...that is B.S...the player has to be one of the most dominating players of his era...the door for the HALL must be a very tight one in order to truly honor and solidify the reputation of the hall and its deserving members for future generations.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

MVSNYC
i think we all agree but the fact is it isn't.so until we start throwing some guys out, why not let a few truely deserving in?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

I'll start by trading you Bill Maseroski for Ron Santo

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Curt Flood should go as a pioneer of the game for opening up free agency.

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

the fact is the hall of fame is not for only the greastest players: this is the mission statement for those who can be elected: "Honoring, by enshrinement, those individuals who had exceptional careers, and recognizing others for their significant achievements."

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Thank God. As Mike said the Hall of Fame deserves to be the best of the best and not just for the very very good. Just because some mistakes were made in the past does not mean they should be compounded and overall standards lowered.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy

Jay,

You are absolutely correct about Flood. And Miller should be right next to him when they get in.

Andy

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

Actually, Curt Flood was unsuccessful in opening up free agency. He took his case all the way to the Supreme Court and lost (in a decision that was an embarrassment for the Supreme Court).

I'm a little fuzzy on exactly how free agency came about, but I believe that an arbitrator ruled that a player who sat out for a year was relieved of the reserve clause and thus a free agent. Shortly thereafter, the concept of free agency became a part of the collective bargaining agreement and the one year holdout period was eliminated.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Dawson

Paul,

If I'm thinking correctly, I seem to remember it being Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally who were the first to successfully challenge the reserve clause and become free agents. Then when Messersmith was signed by Atlanta, Ted Turner gave him #17 and had him wear "Channel" as his name on the back of his jersey (Channel 17 was WTBS in Atlanta). Bowie Kuhn then interceded and ruled that was unauthorized advertising and ordered Messersmith to wear his real name.


Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

They were fighting the reserve clause back in the late 1800's...

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy

Paul,

While Flood didn't actually break down the walls and open up free agency, his case was the first major blow to the owner's reserve clause and brought the union to a more powerful position than it had previously been. It wasn't a knock out blow, but it was a staggering hit. Flood should be celebrated for his courage and honored for it as well. IMHO.

Andy

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I agree that Flood should be praised for his courageous attempt to challenge the reserve clause. But I don't think it's accurate to say that he made any kind of a dent in the reserve clause. He filed a lawsuit and lost. The courts said nothing that in any way suggested that the owners needed to modify the reserve clause.

I do think he probably inspired other players -- like Dave McNally and Andy Messersmith (thanks Steve for remembering them) -- to come up with other ways to get around the reserve clause. And it's possible (I don't know for sure) that Congress reacted to the Curt Flood lawsuit by threatening to overturn the Supreme Court decision as a way to put pressure on the owners. This, in turn, may have caused the owners to accept free agency as a part of a collective bargaining agreement. So in these very indirect ways, Flood certainly may have made a difference.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Unless I missed something, not one single player who played from 1887 until 1929 received a single vote. Those of us believing Ed Reulbach, Bill Dahlen, Tommy Leach, Mike Donlin, and other star prewar players of that era might someday get in should not hold our collective breath.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

I don't understand the voters for the Hall of Fame. For instance, how do you explain Cal Ripken being a first ballot HOFer? He was an average fielder with an average arm who had a decent batting average of .276 lifetime, not a great batting average. He was no Ozzie Smith or Luis Aparicio in the field who could get in because of his defense. He got in because of his longevity (the streak) and his national popularity, i.e the media loved him. Is longevity now the benchmark for inclusion in the Hall? Would you deny Sandy Koufax his place? I don't mean to pick on Ripken but his stats are very similar to those of Craig Biggio. I just don't understand.....

[Archive]

Posted By: Danny

What about Dummy Hoy???

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

"Every year since 1985, I have been in Cooperstown on HOF weekend. In recent years there have been complaints by many up there that the crowds are diminishing every year. Well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out why....induct the right ballplayers and "the people will come ..."

You're right on Ted ... fans want to see their heroes in the Hall. And as long as there's guys sitting on the outside (Minoso, Santo, Oliva, etc.) who are significantly better than the guys on the inside (Mazeroski, Bancroft, Lindstrom, etc.), there will be fans like me who question the credibility of Cooperstown ... When Santo does go in (he will, mark my words), and if he's still alive when that day comes, you will see an ocean of blue cubs caps in front of the Cooperstown podium. You also won't see a dry eye in the house, and that will be a beautiful thing ... that's what the HOF should be about ...

"Just because some mistakes were made in the past does not mean they should be compounded and overall standards lowered ..."

Jim, the standards of the HOF have already been set by 70 years of voting. Mistakes have been made since as early as 1945 and as late a couple years ago when Mazeroski got in. The HOF voters are consistent in their inconsistency. Raising the bar now is simply selfishness and elitism on the part of the voters ...

"Unless I missed something, not one single player who played from 1887 until 1929 received a single vote ..."

Bob, I'd love to see the ballots ... I have this funny feeling the current HOFers are only voting for players they played against. So if Feller only votes for Travis, and Morgan only votes for Santo, neither gets in ... As for O'Doul and other pre-1930 players, they're out of luck since everybody who ever played against them is dead. Only a panel of historians would ever vote Reulbach in because they're the only ones who know his true impact on the game ...

Jason L ... I'll give you a Mazeroski and a Kell for your Santo ...

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

Chris, that's a deal...we both get Santo in and two marginals out!

TBob,
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. He was not dominant in any way at any time that I can recall, and I was never interested in seeing him play. You know how there are certain ballplayers that you want to be able to say you saw play in-person? The HOFer should have had that quality at least for a short time in their careers, and I never felt that way about Ripken. He got 3,000, so he should be in...but, agreed, there was really nothing special about his play - except for the simple fact that he always played...and to celebrate that, well...that kind of makes me wonder why I'm not being elected into a Hall of Fame somewheres for attending and graduating from High School, College, MBA, and trying to support a family every day.
Crap, so he showed up at the ballpark and did his job every day. whatever!
Now I need to shell out a $100 for his signature on a ball because I made the decision to collect those things. I'm an idiot.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

Ripken has all the qualifications. He provided offensive numbers at a position that historically lacked them--only Ernie Banks was comparable. He was an all-star 19 years, all in row. He won 2 MVP awards--that has to show some dominance. More than 3000 hits and 400 HRs, sprinkle in a couple gold gloves and a World Series ring, and I wonder what more you would want.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

I believe Cal is a legit HOFer, but mostly because he played shortstop and third base. If he was a first baseman or an outfielder, he'd be a tough sell, even with the record. The same goes for Santo.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

let's compare him to one of my all time favorites, outfielder Dave Winfield.

HRs: Dave 465, Cal 431
RBI: Dave 1833, Cal 1695
Runs: Dave 1669, Cal 1647
Avg: Dave .283, Cal .276
Hits: Dave 3110, Cal 3184

Those seem pretty comparable to me, and yes, Ripken did play the tougher defensive position.

now let's compare him to HOF first sacker Willie Stargell.

HRs: Willie 475, Cal 431
RBI: Willie 1540, Cal 1695
Runs: Willie 1195, Cal 1647
Avg: Willie .282, Cal .276
Hits: Willie 2232, Cal 3184

Again, Cal's numbers are at least as good. So without even getting in to the rigors of playing a tougher position and the famous streak, it seems clear to me he'e a first ballot HOFer.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

Good points all, and I do think he's got the credentials, I was just saying, "Where's the excitement factor?" Where's the "Oh, I have to make sure I catch the game tonight because Cal is playing some solid SS and hitting .276!"

I actually think the disproportionate attention paid to his streak has done him a disservice...because to be honest, I can't recall any other darn thing he's done...I have no memorable moments of him...I'm sure there were some, but for me, there's "The Streak", the lack of hair, and the Billy Ripken FF card-which makes me say, "Oh yeah, he's Cal's brother!"

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Jason L.,

Your right Cal is not flamboyant...he's a machine that just goes out and does his job day in and day out. But that is pricisely the reason I follow him, he's just like us (or me), we just go out and do our job day in and day out.

Nowadays, guys like Cal don't get enough recognition, so there's nothing wrong with Cal getting a little bit more glory than he should. In a modest way it helps balance the fact that the steady ballplayers really don't grab the attention of the HOF like they used to.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

That is a very good point, and you turned my words around on me very nicely ...but then why don't you and I get into a HOF?

I feel like the Ray Kinsella character in Field of Dreams, when he answers James Earl Jones' character by saying, "I'm saying what's in it for me?!"

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Well Jason,

If David Eckstein can be MVP for the World Champion Cardinals then we can get...nah it ain't going to happen, but it's nice dreaming once in a while.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Ricky Y

I thought Santo, Harvey and Miller had good shots getting in. Too bad.

[Archive]

Posted By: BcD

?

BcD

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Guys,

Joe Morgan from the Veteran's Committee sounded pretty arrogant when he said he didn't want HOF standards to be lowered. He's probably just pissed that Pete Rose is banned from the Hall and doesn't want others to get in.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: peter ullman

joe morgan IS arrogant! he has always been an arrogant announcer...and I therefore don't really care for him.

pete in mn

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

...that has always been plainly visible.

He campaigned against Sandberg's HOF election...he doesn't think anyone else comes close to him...almost as though he thinks he should be the last 2B enshrined!

Funny too, is that I have never heard of a Joe Morgan fan...(as a player or an announcer. So do we have any on the Board?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I have to tell you he was a great player. In 1975-76 I think he was the best in the game.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

were you a FAN?

I'm just innocently saying that I haven't met anyone that likes the guy, that's all...wonder if his arrogance has become more pronounced since his playing days, ...maybe he's become more outspoken or arrogant in an effort to be more interesting to viewers?

(full disclosure: I just bought his rookie card this week for the HOFer rookie collection)

edited for "fat-finger typos"

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

My belief is that a guy should be elected if he was a dominant player from his era. Otherwise, it is too difficult to compare players from different eras because of the difference in the circumstances. Why should a deadball player be penalized for not hitting homeruns when during that period Ty Cobb led the league once in HRs with 9 and was second another year with 5? I believe that for a pitcher the statistic that is most important to me is his performance compared with the rest of the league during his career -- the size of the disparity between his ERA and that of the league average, wins, wins plus hits per nine innings, etc. Same with hitters. In that vein, it seems hard for me to imagine a HOF without Jim Rice, Andre Dawson and maybe even Steve Garvey. These were the players that ruled baseball in my youth. Can anyone really say with a straight face that Joe Morgan or Ryne Sandberg or Cal Ripkin dominated during their eras anymore than Jim Rice did? Or Dawson? With that in mind, Gil Hodges, Ron Santo and Tony Oliva belong in the Hall. Anytime a guy gets voted to the All Star team 7, 8, 9 times -- he is clearly dominating his league and deserves HOF entry.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I can't really say I like him or dislike him. Enjoyed watching him play, he could do it all, but never formed a personal opinion. I actually don't mind his announcing either, but do I like it or dislike it? Never gave it much thought.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

You make a very interesting point at the end of your comments, and maybe that would be a neat exercise...to somehow construct a question about the avg number of times that the HOFers have made the All-Star game, vs the avg number of times a non-HOFer has made the All-Star Game (from a population of players that have made at least one A-S game)?

Obviously, it's not relevant for players with most of their careers played prior to 1933, and such...but perhaps some fun to be had there...

then you could come up with a stat that would suggest that you need to be in at least x number of All-Star games to be a HOFer!!! excellent...I like black and white rules!

This would be an attempt to use the All-Star game appearance total as a proxy for dominance...very simplistic and unsophisticated - just like me!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark L

I watched Morgan play in lots of key games between 72 and 79 and it seemed to me at the time that he was often the toughest out in that Reds lineup. You couldn't keep him off base, he could hit for extra bases, and he was as fast as anyone. My youthful impression was that it was he who pushed the Reds to a higher level in 72 and 75, at least. Does that mean dominant? When I've listened to him on tv he seemed pretty solid to me.