Master Index of Archived Threads


Vets' Committee passes again

Frayed Knot Feb 27 2007 04:10 PM

No vets reach the mandatory 75% level: Ron Santo fell just short Hodges next, followed by Kaat

sharpie Feb 27 2007 04:12 PM

I'm ok wit' dat.

Frayed Knot Feb 27 2007 04:17 PM

So am I actually. But things like this are usually spun as (and this is exactly how I heard it); the committee failed to elect anyone ... as if a 'No' vote is, by definition, the same as no action at all.

Frayed Knot Feb 27 2007 04:32 PM

Santo - 57 votes (of 82 -- 60 votes needed) - 70% Kaat - 52 votes -- 63% Umpire Doug Harvey - also 52 votes Marvin Miller - 51 votes -- 62% Hodges - 50 votes -- 61% Tony Oliva - 49 votes -- 60%

Yancy Street Gang Feb 27 2007 04:36 PM

I would have liked to see Gil Hodges get in. I'm not going to argue that he deserves it. Maybe he doesn't, but I don't care. There are so many non-deserving players in the Hall that Gil Hodges might as well be among them.

SteveJRogers Feb 27 2007 05:24 PM

="Frayed Knot"]So am I actually. But things like this are usually spun as (and this is exactly how I heard it); the committee failed to elect anyone ... as if a 'No' vote is, by definition, the same as no action at all. Hey at least it beats the cronism, the "Old Tales"ism (Glory of Their Times era players, Tinkers to Evers To Chance and other pre-1920's standouts who got in based more on word-of-mouth rather than actual study of stats and research) and other strange ways the old Veterans Committees used to use to get lesser players elected

MFS62 Feb 28 2007 12:11 PM

I had read that Walter O'Malley was also on this year's ballot. To borrow an expression from Edgy, if he had made it to the Hall of Fame, I would have "pukied". Later

metirish Feb 28 2007 12:23 PM

People like O'Malley and Marvin Miller should have gotten more consideration though. I wonder in years to come if Bud Selig will get in.

Yancy Street Gang Feb 28 2007 12:47 PM

Or George Steinbrenner.

Nymr83 Feb 28 2007 12:57 PM

imo owners have no place in the hall unless they did monumental things for hte game, which no present-day owner has. Selig for all his faults has expanded the playoffs which has been very successful and he's presided over the longest labor-peace since free agency began. i still dont think he needs to be in the hall, though. i'm glad the veteran's committee didn't put anyone in, the hall is diluted enough already. the committee should be abolishd, if you can't get in with the ballot you don't belong in. the committee has long passed its originally useful function of inducting pre-hof old-timers and negro-leaguers who were originally passed up.

Frayed Knot Feb 28 2007 02:24 PM

[url=http://www.sny.tv/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070228&content_id=1422757&oid=36018&vkey=9]Seaver miffed at Miller Omission[/url] The shock was audible from 3,000 miles away. Tom Seaver answered his phone, listened and was aghast. Marvin Miller had been rejected again by the Hall of Famers. Seaver, convinced the former executive director of the players union, is worthy of the honor, was surprised, a tad miffed and even embarrassed. "I can't believe we did that again," he said. Seaver had considered Miller a "no brainer the other time he was eligible [four years ago]" and almost assumed Miller would gain the 75 percent of the vote required for election — 61 votes in his case. And though Miller received 15 more votes than he did in 2003, he was named on only 51 ballots (63 percent) and finished second. "The Hall of Fame, to me," Seaver said from California, "is a repository for people who have had historical impact on the game. On that ballot, I can't see anyone who has done more for the game. Even if you disliked him, you can't deny him. Look at the value of franchises now. He helped more than the players." I heard some comments attributed to Joe Morgan suggesting that some of the players weren't comfortable passing judgement on non-players. I think giving the HoFers a say in this new vets committee was a good idea but perhaps for the non-playing possibilities they need to come up with a different idea.

Yancy Street Gang Feb 28 2007 02:26 PM

Bill Madden was arguing in the Daily News that the Veterans Committee should be comprised of sportswriters, because the players aren't well informed enough about the game's past. He's partially right, but I don't think sportswriters are really the answer. I think a panel of baseball historians would make more sense.

Nymr83 Feb 28 2007 02:54 PM

thats a self-serving argument if i ever heard one. besides, the intial balloting is done by writers, what the heck would be the point of then passing the failures onto another group of writers? if anything, the veterans committee serves the purpose of letting the players put into the hall those guys who they consider hall-worthy that for whatever reason arent in the thought process of a writer.

Edgy DC Feb 28 2007 03:00 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: I heard some comments attributed to Joe Morgan suggesting that some of the players weren't comfortable passing judgement on non-players. Morgan shouldn't feel comfortable passing judgment on players either.

Vic Sage Feb 28 2007 03:12 PM

Nymr83 wrote: thats a self-serving argument if i ever heard one. besides, the intial balloting is done by writers, what the heck would be the point of then passing the failures onto another group of writers? if anything, the veterans committee serves the purpose of letting the players put into the hall those guys who they consider hall-worthy that for whatever reason arent in the thought process of a writer. Madden wasn't arguing that the writers would be able to vote on players again. Only that the "composite ballot" (the umps, owners, managers, etc) be considered by the writers, since they were never considered by them to begin with. as an example, he sighted Dick Williams, one of only 2 managers to take 3 different franchises to the WS (winning 2 out of 4). But Williams was widely hated by his players, some of whom are HOFers sitting on that committee, and so are unlikely to ever vote for him.