HOF Veterans' Committee: Our Poll

liffeystynx · February 22, 2007 8:12AM

My own vote goes to Gil Hodges - his accomplishments as a player have nearly put him over the top twice. If you add in his achievement as manager of the '69 Mets - for me, he's in.

As to who might actually succeed, keep your eye on Marvin Miller. Anyone who has played the game in the last 40 years (i.e.: most of the living HOF members) is keenly aware of his transformation of the lot of the professional baseball player.

Jonathan

Griffins · February 22, 2007 8:34AM

Tough voting for just one, I think there are at least 2 deserving candidates, and while I think Torre is also deserving based on a combination of playing and managerial records, wouldn't vote for him until he's finished his career.
How can anyone in their right mind put Bowie Kuhn up for consideration?

baseballfan · February 22, 2007 8:39AM

hodges
but i also think martin and santo deserve to be in
thanks for the poll

liffeystynx · February 22, 2007 8:41AM

Just wanted to point out that the restriction to one vote comes from the mechanism by which these polls work, rather than any strictures on my part

Jonathan

jimtb · February 22, 2007 8:42AM

None! If you can't in by the regular vote, you shouldn't be allowed in through a "back door".

liffeystynx · February 22, 2007 8:48AM

Jim,

While I respect your point of view, I guess I should point out that 15 of the 42 above are on the "composite" ballot - i.e.: they are being considered for their achievements other than as players (e.g.: managers, owners, umpires, officials etc.). So strictly speaking, this is their first opportunity to be elected for these contributions to the game.

Jonathan

mikeschmidt · February 22, 2007 9:11AM

This poll should include a choice of "None -- many great players, but none that were so extraordinary and dominant that their neglect from the Hall of Fame should be considered a travesty"

ArnyVee · February 22, 2007 10:14AM

For personal reasons, I would want Luis Tiant, Roger Maris, Tony Oliva and Minnie Minoso.

KalineFan · February 22, 2007 10:38AM

WOW! One is tough.....I think Tony Oliva, Gil Hodges, Curt Flood, Thurman Munson, Ron Santo and Vada Pinson.

I don't agree this is ....." Getting in the back door "....although I understand the thought process.

If you consider, however, that it is mostly a political process (and who's kidding who here?), then there should
be more than one way to get to the hall. After all, if the vets of the hall think you deserved it they must have seen
something. Now, the argument would be that some would be "your friends" and some your teammates, but,
it is all the same as far as I am concerned.

Just my 3 cents worth.

Tony
KalineFan

yankeeno7 · February 22, 2007 10:41AM

How can you NOT vote for Jim Kaat? Nearly 300 wins and all those gold gloves!

MeteoriteGuy · February 22, 2007 10:51AM

I voted Thurman Munson. I would most like to see Billy Martin make it. Billy Martin is almost as much baseball as Pete Rose is. (Had to bring up Rose since this is a HOF discussion...;^)

Mark

Griffins · February 22, 2007 11:09AM

I"d like to hear the arguement for Bavasi and Dalton.
My opposition to Jim Kaat is that he was never dominating, and his biggest asset (beside the fact that he was an excellent fielding pitcher) is that he lasted so long. This same could be said of Sutton and Niekro, neither of which I believe would've made it in if not for their 300 win totals.

shagrotn77 · February 22, 2007 11:12AM

My vote went to Santo. If I had 3, the other 2 would go to Olivo and Hodges.

jimtb · February 22, 2007 11:28AM

Jonathan, You're correct and I should have been more clear. I was referring to players. There was an interesting interview with Joe Morgan in a recent SCD. He was bemoaning the new system saying that there were too many choices on the ballot, causing votes to be split and nobody would get in for the 2nd time in a row. He's really for letting lots of people in, and he cannot believe that Marvin Miller was not elected the first time. It was also mentined how bad the good ole boy system used to be with Ted Williams campaigning and strong arming voters to get his buddies in through the former process.
My point is simple; is the Hall for the best of the best, or not? If it is, players should get in on their merits through the regular process. If they can't make it that way, too bad. I'm ok with a different process for managers, umps, and execs. My two cents.

DirtyHarry · February 22, 2007 11:41AM

That was tough to vote for one candidate. I admire Gil Hodges from his playing days and coaching career. Tony Oliva would be a close second - he was the premier hitter in the AL for a number of years. Maury Wills would be next - solid player and the master of stealing bases during his era. Katt is next basis his longevity. Colavito next.

cravetopps · February 22, 2007 12:22PM

munson is a sentimental choice. tough one.

torre will easily make it as a manager eventually. slam dunk.

love santo but don't think he will make it.

kaat and hodges are the only ones I think have a shot here. I think kaat may have a chance with hodges barely missing.

Downtown1974 · February 22, 2007 1:00PM

<< How can you NOT vote for Jim Kaat? Nearly 300 wins and all those gold gloves! >>

He was the first name that came to my mind also.

Elemenopeo · February 22, 2007 1:06PM

I finally get to vote for Santo. Cool.

liffeystynx · February 22, 2007 5:21PM

Just a point on the old-buddies-network argument -

This is the third time that this system has been used for veteran players who were "passed over" at the time of their original eligibility. In the previous two ballots the total number of players elected by the living members of the HOF is ...

... zero.

Uncbob · February 23, 2007 1:15AM

I always thought the HOF should have TWO TIERS

No way Slaughter--Schoendienst =Ashburn----etc should be on the same level as Ruth Cobb Johnson Williams Musial Alexander Gehrig etc etc etc

NickM · February 23, 2007 3:55AM

I voted for Walter O'Malley.

Few owners ever have had the sort of impact on the game that he did - leading West Coast expansion, breaking the color barrier (lots of owners would have never stood for bringing in the first black player), changing how farm systems and spring training were run, building a stadium that became the model for modern stadiums. Oh yeah, and his teams were pretty good, too.

Nick

MorrellMan · February 23, 2007 4:03AM

Gil Hodges, if I had to pick.
I've always liked Lefty O'Doul as well, but he didn't play long enough.

Griffins · February 23, 2007 6:18AM

Lefty O' Douls credentials are strictly from his playing record- he was very instrumental in spreading baseball beyond the US borders, having a lot to do with promoting the sport in Japan. He was also had a significant career in the PCL, both as a manager and player.

Nick, what was the ownership breakdown of the Dodgers in '47? I thought Branch Rickey effectively controlled the franchise, even though O'Malley was consolodating his stake after 1940. Either way there will still be a strong argument against him based on his shady dealings with the City of LA to steal Chavez Ravine.

MorrellMan · February 23, 2007 9:06AM

<< ....on his shady dealings with the City of LA to steal Chavez Ravine. >>

Anthony....ssshhhhh!

NickM · February 23, 2007 9:29AM

O'Malley didn't have a stake until '44, when he partnered with Rickey and one other man to buy 25% of the club - they bought another 50% with a different partner the next year, and bought out their original partner at the same time.
He bought out Rickey's 25% in 1950, and he and Jim Mulvey bought out the remaining owner's share later that year, leaving O'Malley with 66 2/3% and Mulvey with the rest.

He let Rickey handle player personnel decisions.

As far as the Chavez Ravine giveaway, this is the Baseball Hall of Fame, not the Taxpayers Hall of Fame. Baseball considers getting a city to evict thousands of poor people to give you land for a stadium to be a positive.

Nick

Writer11 · February 23, 2007 11:31AM

I'd love to see Santo get in. But with the voting process, I'm not convinced anyone will ever get in.

perkdog · February 23, 2007 11:47AM

I voted for Bobby Bonds, 300 + Hr's and 400 + SB's are pretty good #'s especially for the era that he played in, a real dual-threat IMO

Griffins · February 23, 2007 2:10PM

With the veterans committee consisting of former players, I think Bobby Bonds off the field issues would prevent him from being voted in.

jgarci11 · February 23, 2007 5:01PM

I think Bobby Bonds Should be allowed.

fiveniner · February 23, 2007 6:32PM

Hodges/Minoso!

Davalillo · February 23, 2007 7:58PM

None.

The Hall of Fame should not be for the very very good but should be reserved for the great.

The fact that some non-greats are in there should not mean that these mistakes should be repeated.

Wabittwax · February 23, 2007 8:33PM

If you take the words "Hall of Fame" literally, then Roger Maris should definately be in there. Nearly every person in America knows who he is. So he is "famous".

Griffins · February 23, 2007 11:35PM

But Jim's right. Mark Fidrych was famous, Bo Belinsky was famous as well, in his time.Fernando too. The Hall gets more and more mediocre with the argument that "well if he's in, then he should be too" and with every marginal hall of famer the standard gets lowered. I think baseball realized this as well, when they redid the veterans committee when Maz got in.

MorrellMan · February 24, 2007 12:55AM

Essentially, the Hall Of Fame was created to honor these players who, after a supposed century of history, epitomized the best in the game:

Hall of Fame Members
Induction Year List

Name
Year Method Ballots Votes % Position
Ty Cobb
1936 BBWAA 226 222 98.23% CF
Walter Johnson
1936 BBWAA 226 189 83.63% P
Christy Mathewson
1936 BBWAA 226 205 90.71% P
Babe Ruth
1936 BBWAA 226 215 95.13% RF
Honus Wagner
1936 BBWAA 226 215 95.13% SS
Morgan Bulkeley
1937 Veterans Executive
Ban Johnson
1937 Veterans Executive
Nap Lajoie
1937 BBWAA 201 168 83.58% 2B
Connie Mack
1937 Veterans M
John McGraw
1937 Veterans M
Tris Speaker
1937 BBWAA 201 165 82.09% CF
George Wright
1937 Veterans Executive
Cy Young
1937 BBWAA 201 153 76.12% P
Grover Alexander (bio)
1938 BBWAA 262 212 80.92% P
Alexander Cartwright
1938 Veterans Executive
Henry Chadwick
1938 Veterans Executive
Cap Anson (bio)
1939 Veterans 1B
Eddie Collins
1939 BBWAA 274 213 77.74% 2B
Charlie Comiskey
1939 Veterans Executive
Candy Cummings
1939 Veterans Executive
Buck Ewing
1939 Veterans C
Willie Keeler
1939 BBWAA 274 207 75.55% RF
Old Hoss Radbourn
1939 Veterans P
George Sisler
1939 BBWAA 274 235 85.77% 1B
Al Spalding
1939 Veterans Executive
Lou Gehrig
1939 BBWAA 1B

When you exclude the executives, you've got less than 20 ballplayers for a period of 50 actual playing years.

I'm with the concensus that believes the HOF is flooded with players that don't belong. So when the question is asked, who should be inducted, it is actually a two-fold question. #1 - is the player in the league of the original inductees? #2 - is the player on at least a par with other inductees who certainly fall short of the original and yet unofficial criteria for induction?

Although I staunchly support the inclusion of Hodges to the HOF, it is not because I think he measures up to the original inductees; but I do think he surpasses a number of the marginal superstars already inducted.

pebblyjack · February 24, 2007 1:17AM

Ron Santo, like Bert Blyleven on the BBWAA ballot, is actually overqualified for the Hall of Fame. He was a better player than 2/3 of the players already enshrined. Additionally, third base is grossly underrepresented in the Hall. Only 11 3B have been enshrined. Among 3B all time, Santo ranks 7th: only Schmidt, Mathews, Brett, Boggs, Molitor, and Robinson were better and Santo ranks fairly close to Robinson. Also, Santo was a much better player than "Hall of Famers" Pie Traynor, Jimmy Collins, George Kell, Home Run Baker, and Freddie Lindstrom. Santo was a 9-time All-Star and won 5 Gold Gloves. He hit 342 lifetime homers and led the NL in walks for four years. He has one of the highest peaks of any player in history, period. Jay Jaffe of Baseball Prospectus ranks his "peak" as 7th all time behind slouches like Ruth, Mays, Hornbsy, and Mantle. His WARP3 is 116.5. Discounting the really horrible HOF picks, the average HOFer is slightly above 100. His JAWS (which accounts for peak and career value and estimates Hall-worthiness) is 86.5. The averge HOFer has a JAWS of 72. The only thing going against him (other than the fact that the writers completely blew it) is the fact that he never played in the post-season. Of course, that didn't hurt his teammates, Ernie Banks, Ferguson Jenkins, or Billy Williams. And, Santo was actually better than both Jenkins and Williams. Among hitters that are eligible for the Hall of Fame and that are not in, Santo was the best of the lot. And, it should not be forgotten that he played while being a severe diabetic that also contributed to the premature end of his career at age 34 (he has since lost one or both of his legs). While he may not be an inner ring Hall of Famer, he is not border-line either. I think that it's a travesty that Santo has not already been enshrined.

Also, with arguments in favor of enshrinement, although I see them as much closer calls, are, in no particular order: Joe Torre, Ken Boyer, Minnie Minoso, and Dick Allen.

Torre is a lock once you add his managerial record to his playing record.

Minoso is a special case. If he was indeed 28 as a rookie (which may be the case), then he is a shoo-in. He put up post-28 numbers that rival anyone in history and the fact that he was kept out of baseball until then because of the color line should not be held against him. However, if he was 23 when he was a rookie (as also may be the case), then he's a borderline HOFer.

Thanks

Randy

Griffins · February 24, 2007 1:23AM

But Santo and Blyleven have never been selected by the HOF committee, and since they were passed over by the BBWAA have not added one hit, win or WS ring to their totals. If they can't make it in with 15 years on the ballot, why do they deserve to get in now?
I think the veterans committee should stick to voting on those that never appeared on the BBWAA ballot- executive, pioneers, managers, players that were before the HOF voting started, and players like O'Doul and Minoso who contributed on many levels.

Griffins · February 24, 2007 1:27AM

<< Few owners ever have had the sort of impact on the game that he did - leading West Coast expansion >>

Nick- technically, didn't Horace Stoneham lead the expansion by deciding to leave for SF first and then O'Malley agreed later to go?
From a purely business standpoint Stoneham made a huge mistake by having first choice and taking SF- nothing against the city (one of my favorites in the world) but look at the attendance the Dodgers always have.
All of this argument was almost moot though. Bill Veeck was expected to get approval to move to LA for the '42 season, but the vote was to have taken place on Dec 8 1941. Events of the morning before held expansion up 16 years, but Veeck got in the hall anyway, deservedly so.

pebblyjack · February 24, 2007 1:33AM

Mark

Regarding the "first 20 players as a yardstick" theory, the problem is that Keller, Sisler, and Cummings were really nothing special. Santo, Torre, and Boyer were all better than Keeler. Virtually everyone else on the ballot was better than George Sisler, and everyone on the ballot was better than 5' 4" 120 lb. Candy Cummings (and his dubious distinction as the inventor of the curve-ball).

And, if you use the other original enshrinees as the yardstick, then there would be like 40 guys in the Hall of Fame, total. While that may be valid configuration for the Hall of Fame, it is not one that I endorse.

Thanks

Randy

pebblyjack · February 24, 2007 1:34AM

Griffins

Are you suggesting that sportswriters are infallible?

Randy

dallasactuary · February 24, 2007 1:37AM

<< I'm with the concensus that believes the HOF is flooded with players that don't belong. So when the question is asked, who should be inducted, it is actually a two-fold question. #1 - is the player in the league of the original inductees? #2 - is the player on at least a par with other inductees who certainly fall short of the original and yet unofficial criteria for induction?

Although I staunchly support the inclusion of Hodges to the HOF, it is not because I think he measures up to the original inductees; but I do think he surpasses a number of the marginal superstars already inducted. >>

Mark, I'm with you that the HOF is indeed flooded with players who don't belong, but whether or not they measure up to the original inductees is too high a standard and one which nobody ever intended to apply. Also, please note how quickly George Sisler got in - with his induction only three years down the road, there was an enormous gap from the top to the bottom. We can certainly disagree about just how low the bottom should be allowed to fall, but I think it's clear that the HOF was never intended to remain at the Ruth-Wagner-Johnson level.

And I think you're exactly right that Hodges is better than a number of players in the HOF. They are all players that are way below the bottom that I would prefer to see on the HOF - as is Hodges - but that's admittedly strictly a matter of opinion. But to use mikeschmidt's phrase, there is one player on that list - Ron Santo - who was "so extraordinary and dominant that their neglect from the Hall of Fame should be considered a travesty". Yes, the VC has probably done more harm than good, but they are the only option left to correct the Hall's biggest travesty and I hope they know a whole lot more about baseball than the sportswriters who passed on Santo originally.

grote15 · February 24, 2007 3:17AM

Great thread! I'd vote for Santo or Hodges, Santo as the player, Hodges as the player and manager, but Kaat and Allen deserve consideration, too, IMO.

NickM · February 24, 2007 6:30AM

Davalillo - the ballot includes a commissioner, owners, executives, managers, and other contributors. None of them were eligible for BBWAA voting for their off-the-field contributions to the game.
Are you categorically refusing to induct any non-player contributors, or just the ones from the current BBWAA list?

Griffins - the various sources I've read indicate that O'Malley pulled Stoneham along, not vice versa.

Nick

MorrellMan · February 24, 2007 7:12AM

Dallas - I obviously must rethink my position if you agree with me.

Just kiddding; we do disagree on Sisler, and I think my primary concern regarding Sisler is that I cannot compare him to anybody because I never saw him play. I'll never besmirch a player I've never seen play. Clearly, somebody thought he belonged in the Ruth-Cobb-Wagner group; moreso than Hornsby, Cochran and Waddell, who all placed in the top ten votegetters in the first elections, but were no inducted until the '40s.

wolfbear · February 24, 2007 7:24AM

Why isn't Dave Kingman on your list?

grote15 · February 24, 2007 7:53AM

Why isn't Dave Kingman on your list?

Griffins · February 24, 2007 9:12AM

<< Why isn't Dave Kingman on your list? >>

Stick to football Wolfie

Davalillo · February 24, 2007 9:27PM

Nick,

It would have to be something truly extraordinary--noone on this list qualifies.

Certainly managers who have won a few division titles and a couple of world series because their owner outspends everyone else are not worthy of consideration.

Dav

fandango · February 24, 2007 10:21PM

<< Nick,

It would have to be something truly extraordinary--noone on this list qualifies.

Certainly managers who have won a few division titles and a couple of world series because their owner outspends everyone else are not worthy of consideration.

Dav >>

You dont think Joe Torre is Hall of Fame worthy?

Then let me tell you about Miller Huggins......

Although as St. Louis's manager until 1917 he didn't find any substantial success (they never finished higher than 3rd), he was able to build on his experience as the manager of a budding New York Yankee team beginning in 1918.

As the Yankees skipper until his death in 1929, and with one of the finest offenses ever assembled as his disposal (including Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Bob Meusel), Huggins presided over six American League championships (1921 - 1923, 1926 - 1928) and three World Series championships (1923, 1927 and 1928). He finished his managerial career with a 1413-1134 record. His 1413 wins as a manager ranks 20th all-time.

Now read it again.......

Although as St. Louis's manager until 1995 he didn't find any substantial success (they never finished higher than 3rd)*, he was able to build on his experience as the manager of a budding New York Yankee team beginning in 1996. As the Yankees skipper until his death in 20--, and with one of the finest offenses ever assembled as his disposal (including Arod, Jeter and Rivera), Torre presided over five American League championships (1996 1998 1999 2000 2001) and four World Series championships (1996, 1998 1999 and 2000). He finished his managerial career with a 1413-1134 record. His 1413 wins as a manager ranks 20th all-time.

*In 1990, Torre was hired to manage the Cardinals. There he posted a mediocre 351-354 record, and the team was unable to reach the playoffs, and Torre was fired in mid-1995

What makes the 1920's Miller Huggins(HOF) Yankees any different than the Joe Torre Era Yankees....Both had highest payrolls and had thebiggest stars of the era.....

You cant fault the Man for the Chances He has been given, you must Recogonize His Accomplishments.....

Joe Torre is Miller Huggins(HOF) reincarnation.....

Dav, i do believe Torre is a Hall of Famer....

jaxxr · February 24, 2007 10:22PM

Always interesting to debate the baseball HOF, its members existing and proposed.

I feel the hall is diluted enough already, and needs none of the players already passed over by the voters.

Hodges and Santo get the most support here, they were both very good, and do compare favorably with some members, however if comparison to current members is the only criteria, then possibly every ballplayer a bit above average might eventually be included.

While there is no absolute formular or perfect method for induction, some which might be easy to base an evaluation upon are;
Did he get 3000 hits in a career, was he a lifetime .300 hitter, did he garnish at least 400 HRS, was his career OB% .400 or better, was his SLG% at least .500 ?
Maybe single season accomplishments might prevail, did he ever lead his league in HRs, BA, RBIs, perhaps Stolen Bases, ever hit .400, get 50 HRs in a year, did he ever win a MVP award ?
Did he ever hold any all-time records, either single season or career or post-season ?

Most, not all, HOFers have done/accumulated at least one or more of the aforementioned feats. Hodges and Santo have not.

shagrotn77 · February 24, 2007 11:23PM

For those who are advocating Jim Kaat for the Hall, I gotta disagree...100%. Kitty played 25 years. Yes 25 YEARS. Yet he made only 3 All Star Teams. Now I know All Star appearances, or lack thereof, do not define a player, so let's delve a little further into the stats.

A career 3.45 ERA vs. a 3.69 ERA for the era he played. Not so great. 283 wins is good, but he also lost 237 games. He played for some pretty bad teams though, so maybe we can give him a pass here. He only finished in the top 10 in ERA 3 times (which has nothing to do with the team he plays on), and never finished higher than 6th. Led the league in wins a grand total of one time.

The most telling stat though, is that Kitty only finished in the top 10 in Cy Young voting ONCE (fourth). Longevity does not = greatness, so I'd vote a resounding no for Kitty. Tommy John as well. The only argument I could see being made for Kitty is that he won a boatload of gold gloves, and that certainly helped Ozzie Smith and Brooks Robinson get in.

gaspipe26 · February 25, 2007 1:43AM

Maris,Kaat,Santo,Hodges and where is Blyleven? Is he in?

HOF Veterans' Committee: Our Poll

Comments