Veterans Committee selects nobody
jimtb
Posts: 704 ✭✭
COOPERSTOWN -- None of the 25 candidates eligible for election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame by the Committee on Baseball Veterans were named on the required 75% of ballots cast, it was announced today. Wade Boggs and Ryne Sandberg, the Baseball Writers' Association of America 2005 electees, will be enshrined during the Induction Ceremony in Cooperstown on Sunday, July 31, beginning at 1:30 pm., as a part of Hall of Fame Weekend, at which time Peter Gammons will be honored with the 2004 J.G. Taylor Spink Award and Jerry Coleman with the 2005 Ford C. Frick Award.
The Veterans Committee featured 83 voting-eligible members. Eighty members (96%) cast paper ballots during January and February, as 458 total votes were cast, an average of 5.7 votes per ballot. Sixty votes were necessary for election and the top two recipients - Gil Hodges and Ron Santo - each missed by eight votes. The final results, in order of voting percentage (total votes, percentage):
Players' Ballot: Gil Hodges (52, 65.0%); Ron Santo (52, 65.0%); Tony Oliva (45, 56.3%); Jim Kaat (43, 53.8%); Joe Torre (36, 45.0%); Maury Wills (26, 32.5%); Vada Pinson (23, 28.8%); Luis Tiant (20, 25%); Roger Maris (19, 23.8%); Marty Marion (16, 20.0%); Ken Boyer (15, 18.8%); Joe Gordon (14, 17.5%); Carl Mays (12, 15.0%); Minnie Minoso (12, 15.0%); Dick Allen (12, 15.0%); Curt Flood (10, 12.5%); Wes Ferrell (9, 11.3%); Mickey Lolich (9, 11.3%); Don Newcombe (8, 10.0%); Sparky Lyle (7, 8.8%); Elston Howard (6, 7.5%); Bobby Bonds (4, 5.0%); Rocky Colavito (4, 5.0%); Thurman Munson (2, 2.5%); Smoky Joe Wood (2, 2.5%).
The Veterans Committee featured 83 voting-eligible members. Eighty members (96%) cast paper ballots during January and February, as 458 total votes were cast, an average of 5.7 votes per ballot. Sixty votes were necessary for election and the top two recipients - Gil Hodges and Ron Santo - each missed by eight votes. The final results, in order of voting percentage (total votes, percentage):
Players' Ballot: Gil Hodges (52, 65.0%); Ron Santo (52, 65.0%); Tony Oliva (45, 56.3%); Jim Kaat (43, 53.8%); Joe Torre (36, 45.0%); Maury Wills (26, 32.5%); Vada Pinson (23, 28.8%); Luis Tiant (20, 25%); Roger Maris (19, 23.8%); Marty Marion (16, 20.0%); Ken Boyer (15, 18.8%); Joe Gordon (14, 17.5%); Carl Mays (12, 15.0%); Minnie Minoso (12, 15.0%); Dick Allen (12, 15.0%); Curt Flood (10, 12.5%); Wes Ferrell (9, 11.3%); Mickey Lolich (9, 11.3%); Don Newcombe (8, 10.0%); Sparky Lyle (7, 8.8%); Elston Howard (6, 7.5%); Bobby Bonds (4, 5.0%); Rocky Colavito (4, 5.0%); Thurman Munson (2, 2.5%); Smoky Joe Wood (2, 2.5%).
Collecting all graded Alan Trammell graded cards as well as graded 1984 Topps, Donruss, and Fleer Detroit Tigers
0
Comments
1955 Bowman Raw complete with 90% Ex-NR or better
Now seeking 1949 Eureka Sportstamps...NM condition
Working on '78 Autographed set now 99.9% complete -
Working on '89 Topps autoed set now complete
He and Hodges will eventually make it. I expect Oliva and Kaat will as well. Torre will make it as a manager.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
GG
I'm not so sure. That's two Veterans Committee elections in a row that have produced almost identical results. Hodges, Santo and Oliva while leading the way again don't seem to be getting significantly closer. Mind you in two years time (next election?) presumably Santo will have one more vote in fellow Cub Sandberg.
Topps Baseball 1967
Mike Payne's 300 Great Cards
MVPs in their MVP years
and T206???
bill mazeroski
From 1961 through 1970, Santo hit 270 HR with 1007 RBI. This included some of the most hitter-unfriendly seasons of the modern era.
In 1964, when Ken Boyer won the MVP Award, each man had 185 hits, although Boyer batted .295 with 24 HR to Santo's .312 with 30 HR, and Boyer's on-base plus slugging percentage was .854 to Santo's .962 (Santo was 2nd to Mays in OBP that year) Both men had 3 SB. Boyer led in RBI, 119 to 114, and in runs, 100 to 94, but Santo had more doubles, 33 to 30, more triples, 13 (which led the NL) to 10, and total bases, 334 to 307. It was Santo who won the Gold Glove Award too (ending Boyer's streak). It wasn't that the ballpark inflated Santo's numbers; Sportsman's Park was actually a better hitter's park than Wrigley. Boyer probably wasn't even the most valuable Cardinal - Lou Brock, who sparked the team after he came over in trade for Ernie Broglio, and scored 81 runs with 146 hits (and 33 SB) for a .348 batting average and a .914 on-base plus slugging percentage in his 103 games with the Cardinals, deserves that honor. Santo didn't necessarily have the best season - Clemente, Mays, and Richie Allen could all lay claim to that, but take away Boyer's undeserved MVP award and he's not considered at all in Santo's class, and give it to the more deserving Santo, and he would have already been elected.
I do give extra HOF credit for people who had a prominent role in the game of baseball after their career, and Santo's years as a Cubs broadcaster qualify.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Wrong! Right-handed Hall of Famer Jimmy Foxx hit 534 home runs in a career that ended in 1945. All were hit before Gil Hodges socked his first homer in 1947. Hodges finished his career with 370 home runs.
<< <i>One simple statistic - going into the '60s, there were plenty of right handed homerun hitters - but nobody had more homeruns, all time, than Gil Hodges.
Wrong! Right-handed Hall of Famer Jimmy Foxx hit 534 home runs in a career that ended in 1945. All were hit before Gil Hodges socked his first homer in 1947. Hodges finished his career with 370 home runs. >>
Correct - sorry; I left out that he was the Nat'l League leader.
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
<< <i>One simple statistic - going into the '60s, there were plenty of right handed homerun hitters - ut bnobody had more homeruns, all time, than Gil Hodges. Not enshrining him is a crime. I have a feeling he would have been in 10 years ago if he was still alive. >>
I hate to pick, but "going into the '60s", meaning through the 1959 season, Ralph Kiner had more NL homers than Hodges.
Gil Hodges was a very good player, but if he played for any team other than the Yankees or Dodgers we wouldn't even be talking about him. Bill James rates him as the 30th best first baseman, right below Cecil Cooper and Dolph Camilli, way below Keith Hernandez and Norm Cash and miles below Will Clark, although he does edge out Bob Watson.
The Hall has let in a handful of people with batting averages as lowly as Hodges' (.273), but they were 500 homer guys or left-side infielders with a dozen gold gloves. Hodges would define a new bottom rung and the bottom rung is low enough already.
edited to add: Boyer is borderline but it makes a mockery of the selection process that Santo didn't get in in his first or second year of eligibity. He played for the wrong team and what team you were lucky enough to play for is about half of what it takes to get in the HOF.
<< <i>i will start the unshrining
bill mazeroski >>
I'll add Koufax to that list. Career was just far too short to be worthy.
<< <i>It is ultra important for the HOF to be tough to get in. Santo is borderline. He should not get charity points because of his failing health. We cannot let the baseball HOF turn into the football HOF, where it seems everyone and their brother who has a couple good years gets in. >>
If one looks at the average length of career in the NFL to MLB that is why some guys (Namath, Sayers, Swan) make it in with only a few solid years. The average length for an NFL player is less than 4 years. Baseball does not require the wear and tear that football does on every player except the Kicker and Punter. Plus those baseball "Pureists" are out there screwing with the game anyway.
Regarding Santo. I say he should be in.
I know this is going to stir up some serious faults but I don't think goudeygold knows what he is talking about.
<< <i>We cannot let the baseball HOF turn into the football HOF, where it seems everyone and their brother who has a couple good years gets in. >>
Art Monk defies this statement. Why he's not in the hall is absurd.
<< <i>
<< <i>One simple statistic - going into the '60s, there were plenty of right handed homerun hitters - ut bnobody had more homeruns, all time, than Gil Hodges. Not enshrining him is a crime. I have a feeling he would have been in 10 years ago if he was still alive. >>
I hate to pick, but "going into the '60s", meaning through the 1959 season, Ralph Kiner had more NL homers than Hodges.
>>
After 1959, Kiner had 5 more NL homers than Hodges. Hodges broke that record in 1960.
I still think he'd be in, given the calibre of enshrined players, if he were alive and kicking.
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
I'll add Koufax to that list. Career was just far too short to be worthy.
Pretty funny comment. Koufax won 18,14,25,19,26, and 27 games over a 6 year span. Won 3 Cy Young awards at a time when only one award was given out for both leagues (or he may have one a fourth in 1964 when Dean Chance of the AL won the award). Career ERA over 12 years of 2.76. Pitched 57 innings in 4 different World Series with an ERA under 1.00. Forced to retire at age 30 due to arm problems. If Hall-of-Fame is about dominance, few pitchers have dominated a six year period like Koufax. Hardly a flash-in-the pan. I'm guessing you are too young to have witnessed his career, and only know that he only won 165 games in a shortened career.
Rick
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
now i'm ready to vote for players who only had a good year or two. Oh wait, that's called an MVP award.
From prior posts I know Axtell likes to stir up the pot. I was even laughing when I responded.
<< <i>I'll add Koufax to that list. Career was just far too short to be worthy.
Pretty funny comment. Koufax won 18,14,25,19,26, and 27 games over a 6 year span. Won 3 Cy Young awards at a time when only one award was given out for both leagues (or he may have one a fourth in 1964 when Dean Chance of the AL won the award). Career ERA over 12 years of 2.76. Pitched 57 innings in 4 different World Series with an ERA under 1.00. Forced to retire at age 30 due to arm problems. If Hall-of-Fame is about dominance, few pitchers have dominated a six year period like Koufax. Hardly a flash-in-the pan. I'm guessing you are too young to have witnessed his career, and only know that he only won 165 games in a shortened career.
Rick >>
Yes I was too young to witness his career. And no, I went way beyond the lackluster 165 wins. Do we allow in anyone who dominates for a short period of time? The underlying knock against Thuman Munson has been his career being too short.
For reference, let me give you some stats of a pitcher who dominated for a similar period of time:
16-7, 2.82 ERA, 176 K's, 65 BBs, over 210 IPs.
25-3, 1.74 ERA, 248 K's, 72 BBs, 273 IPs.
18-8, 2.78 ERA, 201 K's, 71 BBs, 236 IPs.
17-10, 3.56 ERA, 166 K's, 80 BBs, 219 IPs.
11-5, 2.76 ERA, 104 K's, 26 BBs, 127 IPs (strike year)
14-8, 3.81 ERA, 162 K's, 69 BBs, 222 IPs.
and 2 other 20+ win seasons after. The league adjusted ERA differentials between Koufax and this mystery player are nearly identical (Koufax's career ERA was 0.87 under the league average, and our mystery player's was 0.64). Career winning percentages for Koufax was .655, mystery player .651. Koufax's K/BB ratio: 2.93, mystery man was 2.82. Koufax averaged 222 innings pitched per year for his career, our mystery man was over 235.
These careers are nearly identical. Yes, koufax admittedly has a slight edge in several areas, but my main point of contention is 6 years shouldn't be enough to qualify for HoF. Why doesn't anyone bring up the 6 years prior to this run?
After his rookie year (with under 100 innings pitched), Koufax never even sniffed a 3.00 ERA!. In fact, he didn't even break the 3.00 barrier until 1962, his 8th year in the bigs. He was 36-40 before his 6 year ran began, and his KO/BB ratio was 1.68. Hardly Hall of Fame worthy numbers. If you want to throw all that baggage out, and focus on his dominance of that 6 year run (yes, he did dominate), then you can honestly admit in your heart that someone with a 6 year career is Hall of Fame worthy!
Oh, for those interested, our mystery man is Ron Guidry.
again, you are too young to know this, but in the good old days, a "bonus baby" (anyone paid a signing bonus of >$10,000 I believe) had to be kept on the major league roster for two years. As a result, Koufax couldn't get the seasoning he needed pitching in the minors. Today, while there are exceptions, most pitchers don't see much major league action until they are at least 24 or so. Koufax was forced to stay on the roster when he was only 19 because of the bonus baby rule, and the Dodgers wouldn't send him down after the two years expired for reasons they have never disclosed. Finally, at the ripe old age of 25, he began to show his dominance. This is why most people ignore his stats prior to 1961. An entirely different situation that Guidry, who did have some remarkable years, but also some mediocre years mixed in.
Rick
With all due respect to Axtell (and your analysis was clearly well researched), comparing Guidry to Koufax through statistics alone is a very good reason for considering the player, not the stats.
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
<< <i>
With all due respect to Axtell (and your analysis was clearly well researched), comparing Guidry to Koufax through statistics alone is a very good reason for considering the player, not the stats. >>
Aren't statistics the basis of what we judge players HoF credentials? 6 years is a long enough career to merit induction in the Hall?
You can't compare statistics across eras. Koufax absolutely DOMINATED the game for five years - unlike anyone else at the time. Yes, his career was short. Yes, he is a HALL of FAMER
<< <i>Axtell:
You can't compare statistics across eras. Koufax absolutely DOMINATED the game for five years - unlike anyone else at the time. Yes, his career was short. Yes, he is a HALL of FAMER >>
Yes, you can compare statistics across eras, especially things as quantifiable as ERA. Notice I included their relevance to league ERAs, so you can get a picture of how much better than the league average when they were pitching.
I know Koufax is one of those 'great' old timers who's fans may or may not see their heroes on a subjective playing field. I know my facts (and yes, these are facts) which I feel support my argument that he's not worthy of the hall will not sway anyone's opinions one way or the other; I simply post them for supporting my stance on why I feel he is *not* HoF worthy, is all.
<< <i>Aren't statistics the basis of what we judge players HoF credentials? >>
Excellent question, Axtell - it really is an excellent question. Of course, the short answer is "No", but there is a deeper question in there. If there was a statistical criteria by which a player could "qualify" for the Hall, there'd be no selection committee or voting association. There's much more to greatness than stats. I'm glad there is a selection committee - I just wish there were less politics involved.
Stats ain't THE facts, they're just stats. Thankfully, there is much more to the game than that.
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Apparently, some of the old-timers that actually saw him play agreed with you since he only received about 85% of the HOF vote in his first year of eligibility. I believe only five or six others had been elected in their first year prior to 1972. Statistics don't tell the whole story, which is why I think the way the HOF now handles the "Veterans" voting is doomed to failure.
In 6 consecutive seasons this pitcher's stats include:
ERA below league average by 0.75
1652 Strikeouts
6.6 hits allowed per nine innings
80 complete games
He's a contemporary of Koufax so we don't have an apples/oranges problem
In one season he led the league in strikeouts and ERA, was 4th in games won and did not win the Cy Young Award that year (didn't even make the top 10)
Threw his last complete season before he turned 30.
With the exception of the indignity he suffered in the Cy Young voting (and I would sure love to hear from the folks who voted that year for a guy who threw 142 K's and had an ERA of 3.3, well over a run higher than Mr. ?), this 6-year span is pretty damn close to Koufax's.
So, why isn't Mr. ? in the Hall?
1. Like Koufax, he doesn't deserve it, and
2. Unlike Koufax, he played for the wrong team
Switch the teams of Mr. ? and Koufax, and how many of you would be willing to bet, and how much, that Koufax would still have made the Hall and Mr. ? would not? Obviously, there's no way to know, but if there were, my money would be on Mr. ? pitching for the Dodgers going in the Hall and Koufax not.
For you younger folks, Mr. ? is Sam McDowell of the Indians, the best pitcher in the American League for the years 1964 to 1970 (stats above are for 1965-1970).
Sam led the league once in ERA, Koufax led in all 6 years.
Sam led the league in K's once, Koufax 4 times, second once.
Sam threw 80 complete games, Koufax 115.
Sam threw 17 shutouts, Koufax 35.
How many no-hitters did Sam throw? Koufax threw 4.
I admit there is 1 category Sam bested Koufax, as he led the league in walks allowed 4 years, while Koufax never led the league in this category.
Sam was a very good pitcher, but dominant? When fans went to a Dodger game when Koufax was pitching, 50,000 people would let out a collective sigh when he gave up the first hit of the game because it meant they wouldn't see a no-hitter that day. How many pitchers had such high expectations from their fans?
You do make a good point about Sam playing on poor teams, which definately hurt his HOF chances. Players on winning teams always stand a better chance of getting the votes. But Koufax did win a ton of 1-0 and 2-1 games, because the Dodger teams of that era certainly weren't scoring machines.
And yes, HOF voting is subjective.
Rick
Koufax's won-lost was 129-47; McDowell's was 92-74.
That averages to about 15-12 per year for Sam; over 21-7 for Sandy.
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
<< <i>Regarding Sudden Sam McDowell, lets look at some more comparative stats (as some people like to do) with Koufax:
Sam led the league once in ERA, Koufax led in all 6 years.
Sam led the league in K's once, Koufax 4 times, second once.
Sam threw 80 complete games, Koufax 115.
Sam threw 17 shutouts, Koufax 35.
How many no-hitters did Sam throw? Koufax threw 4.
I admit there is 1 category Sam bested Koufax, as he led the league in walks allowed 4 years, while Koufax never led the league in this category. >>
Well, sure, if you want to look at ALL the stats.
But please give credit where credit is due - Sam led the leaugue in K's not once but 5 times. While not as dominant as Koufax (OK, I admit it), he was the best pitcher in the AL for a pretty long stretch.
But I stand by my larger point - switch the teams around and how sure are you that who goes in and who stays out of the HOF doesn't switch around, too?
OOOPS. Not sure what I was looking at, I knew Sam was a power pitcher. Regarding your main point, sure, take any player and put him on another team, and everything changes, but I think this is more applicable to hitters than pitchers. An average hitter surrounded by superstars becomes more deadly. Like I said, Koufax had to win a lot of low-scoring games because the Dodger hitting, particularly after 1963, was anemic. However, I'm sure the glamour of L.A., plus playing in 4 World Series in 8 years, doesn't hurt Koufax's legacy.
Rick
The dominance factor is huge with Hall of Fame voters. Steve Carlton and Don Sutton have very similar career statistics, yet Carlton is considered an "elite" Hall of Famer and Don Sutton is considered a Hall of Famer based on his consistency and longevity. Why? Because Carlton had the big years.
<< <i>Further comparing those 6 year blocks for both players:
Koufax's won-lost was 129-47; McDowell's was 92-74.
That averages to about 15-12 per year for Sam; over 21-7 for Sandy. >>
Cy Young voters have always focused on W/L, as have HOF voters. The absurdity of doing this reached it's highest level in 1965 when Mudcat Grant won 21 games for an awesome Twins team despite, at best, mediocre pitching skills and took home the CY. Sam McDowell dominated the AL that year, leading the league in K's, ERA, and a host of other categories.
And who can forget 1987, the year Nolan Ryan led the NL in ERA and K's? In that year, at that time a record I'm not sure has since been duplicated, in every game Ryan pitched he had a "quality start" - 6 or more innings pitched and 3 or fewer runs allowed. EVERY GAME! His W/L that year? 8 - 16.
Bottom line, W/L records tell you nothing about how good a pitcher is that you can not already see by looking at the other stats. Frequently, W/L is worse than meaningless - it is deceptive.
<< <i>And who can forget 1987, the year Nolan Ryan led the NL in ERA and K's? In that year, at that time a record I'm not sure has since been duplicated, in every game Ryan pitched he had a "quality start" - 6 or more innings pitched and 3 or fewer runs allowed. EVERY GAME! His W/L that year? 8 - 16.
Bottom line, W/L records tell you nothing about how good a pitcher is that you can not already see by looking at the other stats. Frequently, W/L is worse than meaningless - it is deceptive. >>
WADR (with all due respect), a statistical exception does not disprove the rule; nor, in this case, does the rule stand alone. Basing a player evaluation on any statistic is not only deceptive but folly. I don't think anybody disagrees with you on that. HSE (howsomever
"All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Ozzie Smith and Jack Morris are perfect examples. Ozzie was a great, great defensive shortstop, but a below average hitter. He's in the Hall because of his back flips and personality. Jack Morris was the winningest pitcher of the 1980's - dominant - yet is not in because he was such a jerk to the press and they are paying him back.
Jim
The personality factor always bugged me too. I think it has hindered Jim Rice and helped Kirby Puckett as well. Its too bad.
<< <i>WADR (with all due respect), a statistical exception does not disprove the rule; nor, in this case, does the rule stand alone. Basing a player evaluation on any statistic is not only deceptive but folly. I don't think anybody disagrees with you on that. HSE (howsomever
I wouldn't argue with that. In fact, as a general rule I always avoid arguments with people who not only know the word howsomever, but can use it correctly.
<< <i>300 wins, 3000 hits and 500 HR's are locks for induction. >>
You'd think 3,000 strikeouts would be one of those "lock" criteria. And it is ... for everyone who's ever done it except Blyleven. If the argument is that 3,000 K in some cases is more a measure of longevity than dominance, then some others shouldn't be in the HOF either.
Koufax will be in the HOF forever.
Guidry will always have to buy a ticket to gain admitance and wait in line to see Koufax's plaque.
<< <i>Comparing Koufax to Guidry is like comparing Picasso to a house painter.
Koufax will be in the HOF forever.
Guidry will always have to buy a ticket to gain admitance and wait in line to see Koufax's plaque. >>
No, it's nothing like that.
Guidry had a great career, several great years, but had more productive years than did Koufax. People make excuses why Koufax only had 6 great years (had to start while he was 19, etc. etc.)
I'll say it again-6 great (even dominating) years should NOT merit HoF induction.
The last time I checked, there was 1 Cy Young Award given in 1965, and Koufax received it.
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
<< <i>Koufax not only belongs in the Hall, he epitomizes it. >>
Since when do 6 year runs of greatness epitomize the hall? I don't care how dominating a 6 year run it was (and it truly was), 6 years simply isn't long enough a career of greatness to tell me he's worthy.
<< <i>The last time I checked, there was 1 Cy Young Award given in 1965, and Koufax received it. >>
You are, of course, correct. I plead brain fart. Grant won the AL Pitcher of the Year in 1965, so my derision should have been direted at TSN, not the CY voters.