User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 1.1869 seconds
82 querie(s) executed
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Monday, December 08, 2008
Joe Gordon Elected To Hall of Fame
Nine-time All-Star and five-time World Series champion Joe Gordon was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame today by the Veterans Committee.
Gordon, who played second base for the New York Yankees and the Cleveland Indians from 1938-43 and 1946-50, received 10 of a possible 12 votes from the Veterans Committee members who voted on the pre-1943 ballot. That ballot featured players who began their big league careers before 1943. Gordon received votes on 83.3 percent of ballots cast, with 75 percent necessary for election. He will be enshrined July 26 at the Induction Ceremony in Cooperstown with any players elected in the Baseball Writers’ Association of America vote, results of which will be announced Jan. 12.
“We are thrilled and proud to welcome Joe Gordon to the Hall of Fame family,” said Hall of Fame Chairman of the Board Jane Forbes Clark. “The Veterans Committee for this ballot had the challenge of considering players who retired long ago, but the Hall of Famers and historians on the Committee did their homework with diligence and effort, and we thank them.”
Repoz
Posted: December 08, 2008 at 01:48 PM | 265 comment(s)
Related News: General, History, Hall of Fame
Related News: General, History, Hall of Fame
My Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Hardball Talk: Gleeman: Lenny Dykstra is back with some more can't miss investment advice
(106 - 6:57pm, Feb 09)
Last: Swoboda is freedom
(106 - 6:57pm, Feb 09)
Last: Swoboda is freedom
Newsblog: Kansas City Kansan: Sloan: It's time to trade Greinke, Soria
(51 - 6:41pm, Feb 09)
Last: the Tuque of Flatbush
(51 - 6:41pm, Feb 09)
Last: the Tuque of Flatbush
Newsblog: MLB: Mays' life and legend transcend statistics
(72 - 6:21pm, Feb 09)
Last: Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Marching Through Georgia
(72 - 6:21pm, Feb 09)
Last: Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Marching Through Georgia
Newsblog: Former Lotte Giants catcher dies (after 10 years in a coma after collapsing during a game)
(6 - 6:18pm, Feb 09)
Last: mashimaro
(6 - 6:18pm, Feb 09)
Last: mashimaro
Newsblog: NYBD: Silva: Bill James Accused Elias of Being “About Money”
(55 - 6:09pm, Feb 09)
Last: cardsfanboy
(55 - 6:09pm, Feb 09)
Last: cardsfanboy
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2008 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
edit: I mean that Gordon got in as I've long felt he deserved it. I don't know why baseball hates Ron Santo.
EDIT: guess not.
They hate Dick Allen.
You mean George Kell :-)
But Gordon's a worthy choice, if not the best available. Better than several Yankees already in there.
Santo is also stumped OH NO I DIDN'T
Seriously. Is the committee stocked with Steinbrenner's or something?
1. Bill Dahlen
2. Deacon White
3. Paul Hines
4. Jack Glasscock
5. George Gore
6. Joe Start
7. Ezra Sutton
8. Heinie Groh
9. Hardy Richardson
10. Bob Caruthers
11. Charlie Bennett
12. Sherry Magee
13. Stan Hack
14. Gordon
Some of these people were on the ballot but it looks like only White got serious support. And Allie Reynolds got far more support than he should have.
Probably not, though it suggests the recent spate of Dick Allen as well-respected clubhouse guy arguments may be overstated.
Although, one more good reason to gratify the Hall of Merit's process, which elected the following men who were easily deserving of enshrinment, and once again, bypassed by the Hall of Fame:
Wes Ferrell
Deacon White
Sherry Magee
Bill Dahlen
Ron Santo
Dick Allen
Joe Torre is a tough one to place, and will make the HOF as manager, so not the end of the world for Joe.
Mmm-hmm.
So if somebody wanted to vote for six guys, but could only vote for four, the two he had to leave off his ballot essentially would count as a "no" vote for them. So if Santo, for example, were the sixth choice, by not voting for him the voter, even if he actually supported Santo's candidacy, would be voting against him.
Next time I want Allen wrench ads.
The HOF website is STILL trying to process my comment, I suspect most of the North Side of Chicago is jamming their site right now.
Of course, if you have too many voters and too many candidates, you get today's other result, where no one gets elected ever.
It's a mess, huh? But anyway, Gordon deserves it, so good for him. (Or his successors. Or however this works.)
24.Gabby Hartnett (971)
25.Ernie Banks (956)
26.Yogi Berra (947)
27.Yogi Berra (959)
28.Yogi Berra (933)
-WWII-
31.Jeff Kent (949)
32.Carlton Fisk (928)
33.Jeff Kent (925)
34.Bret Boone (927)
35.Bret Boone (919)
Still, I don't understand why they continue to torture Ron Santo. WHY!?! WHY!?!?!
Oh, and I have to say again (okay, I may never have said it before): The fact that neither Pete Browning or Tony Mullane were even on the pre-1942 list is a travesty. And Deacon White should be in. The HOF should make a "19th Century" panel to put in some guys that 20th/21st century people have never heard of. Although they'd still probably screw it up like how the HOF Negro League panel didn't put in Buck O'Neil.
Roger that.
But anyway, Gordon deserves it, so good for him.
That too.
If Mr. Treder is still here, I want to thank you for your Rule 5 articles. I brought them to my dad and he loved seeing those names from his youth.
2003: 56.8%
2005: 65.0%
2007: 69.5%
2009: 60.9%
I feel good for Gordon but bad for baseball -- since the Vets Committee FINALLY bothered to elect someone, they probably will keep the same format in place for another election or two.
That means Allie Reynolds enters Cooperstown in 2011 (gack) and all post-WWII vets get jobbed yet again.
Uh, and Santo was a great clubhouse guy? Believe me, the list of guys that have less-than-raving endorsements about Santo is much longer than the list for Allen. I think that Santo should be in the HOF, but where's the love for Kenny Boyer (yes, I know that he wasn't on the ballot and has been dead for almost thirty years). Boyer's stats are just as good as Santo's (it's not Boyer's fault that he refused to quit at age 34). He was helped by his park to the same extent. He was at least as good a fielder as Santo and maybe better. He won an MVP (and has more MVP shares) and led his team to a World Championship. I've never understood how one can be considered so great and the other not considered at all.
I remember seeing a picture of Babe Ruth in a Santa suit once, complete with beard. That is immediately what I thought of when I saw that line.
Because Santo was disliked by a huge percentage of his peers when he was playing.
What does Santo's reputation have to do with how accurate the "Dick Allen as widely respected pro" argument is?
Not that I don't appreciate Boyer, but career OPS+ is 116 vs. 125, and Santo had 4 seasons better than Boyer's 144 career high... Boyer probably deserves to enter the conversation, but it sure seems to me like Santo is a notch better.
And a year in CF!
No, under the new setup the pre-43 ers only get voted on once every five years.
You didn't say "well respected pro." You said "well-respected clubhouse guy." I was just responding to what you said, not what you meant to say. If you want to make this a case of "who took more batting practice" then, you win.
Santo may well have been annoying as hell in the clubhouse, but there are a couple of relevant facts here:
1) Santo was traded once in his career, Allen five times
2) Though he's still not in, Santo has garnered a metric ton more support from the VC here than Allen
where's the love for Kenny Boyer
Fully with you there. Not sure whether he belongs in or not, but any discussion of the best 3Bmen not in the HOF that doesn't prominently include Boyer is lacking big time.
The cybernanny allows "Lasorda"?
Have you seen the numbers for Boyer's year in CF? I know that it's a very small sample size, but those stats are tremendous.
I don't a HOF election should be a conduit for the continuation of old feuds and personal vendettas.
Ha! I laughed!
Ha! I laughed!
I snorted!
Again, what does Santo's reputation, good or bad, have to do with whether the idea that Allen was well respected (as a clubhouse guy, professional, ballroom dancer - it doesn't matter) is accurate?
I never said anythign about Santo. You dragged him into the conversation.
Ha! I laughed!
I snorted!
I shitbagged!
I don't know how one can plausibly interpret Allen's lack of support from his "peers" in this vote, in light of his obviously tremendous on-field performance, as anything but a referendum on his off-field baggage, whether one agrees with the verdict or not.
Ha! I laughed!
I snorted!
I shitbagged!
I lost seven pounds!
That Allen and Santo didn't is disappointing, although, with these VC votes on guys I never saw play it's hard for me to get worked up. Maybe someday it'll happen with Albert Belle.
I have made this point multiple times. It falls on deaf ears.
Look, when you stick a microphone in someone's face they will say something. But it's what folks DO, without prompting, that a a bit more telling.
Can anyone point to a "Dick Allen for the HOF" effort NOT found in the blogosphere?
No. You draw the line at 1943 to put Gil Hodges in the post-war group.
Bummer for Deacon White, Sherry Magee and Bill Dahlen though. Hopefully they get their day in the sun soon as well.
Short career (only 15 seasons, 1749 games). Lots of injuries (only cleared 130 games 6 times). Low career totals (1099 runs, 351 HR, 1119 RBI) and average ("Only" .292). No use of advanced metrics - do you really think that these guys are going to be using VORP, Win Shares, EQA, or even OPS+? There are a lot of reasons as to why his fellow players may not have voted for him, without getting into his (real or perceived) off-field baggage.
Good to know. By then, they might schlump Gil Hodges back in that group. And it increases the odds the VC will need some restructuring soon.
Is this really why? This is even more nonsensical.
Sorry, but in the real world, not buying it. Somehow I doubt "only cleared 130 games 6 times" and "only 15 seasons" were terms that came up real often in this actual consideration, either.
I'm in full agreement with Harvey on this question: to imagine that Allen's baggage wasn't a major issue, if not the only issue, in the decision process of most "no" voters is naive.
Schmidt
Morgan
Koufax
F.Robby
Gibson
Roberts
Bunning-?
But Boyer had 1200 more at bats than Santo in the decline phase of their careers. Penalizing Boyer for this because Santo had a lucrative Torco Oil job and Boyer wanted to keep playing at a better than average rate is not fair to the comparison.
Ultimately, I have a HUGE problem with Santo's home/road splits. My argument with him is the same as it is for Rice. A normal home/road split .257/.342/.406 away from the very hitting-friendly confines of Wrigley (where he posted .296/.383/.525 stats). That's an immense 160 point difference, far beyond any semblance of chance. At home he hit like Killebrew on the road like Pete Ward. That's a problem for me.
And from the "who cares" file, between 1960-1975 Dick Allen (who played 650 games at 3B) had a 30 point higher OPS than any other player who played at least 500 games at 3B (Killebrew - 790 games at 3B) and 90 points higher than the third place guy (Doggie Perez - 760 games at 3B) and a 100 points better than Santo, Torre (515) and DaEvans.
In Politics of Glory (I think) Bill James said that as an active player no one really thought of him as a Hall of Famer, the Vets Committee votes look like they confirm that.
Personally, I think he would be a good choice, but is by no means a slam dunk. The OPS+ is flashy, but he only play 100 games 11 years, only played 135 or more 6 times.
I'm not saying it's the only reason, but the actual stats of his career do play a part - just looking at the raw numbers, there are a lot of things to not like about Allen's playing record, when considering him for the Hall of Fame. After all, not every player on the committee was a teammate or even leaguemate of Dick Allen, and yet the massive majority of them still elected not to vote for him. It can't all be because of his off-field baggage.
Santo was a slam dunk first ballot electee.
Don't be deliberately dense. You implied that this should be seen as a referendum on Allen's clubhouse leadership. I suggested that this was clearly not the case since Santo had a mediocre clubhouse reputation and got tons of support.
I just don't see, if that is the rule, how or why the vast majority of voters would ignore it. I know award voters do dopey things sometimes, but this isn't like voting for the wrong guy for MVP... it'd be more like not thinking infielders were eligible. How is this possible?
Is this really why? This is even more nonsensical.
Gil Hodges MLB debut: 10/3/43.
Allie Reynolds debuted in 1942. So they separated them.
That's the big advantage Reynolds has - he's the most recent guy on the ballot.
And this means, what exactly? Are you free from bias? Aren't you the product of conventional wisdom of the group that you ciruclate with? Or are you unsullied by groupthink. Knowing you as well as I do, I would dispute that. Isn't it possible that you didn't look at their home/road splits and put them in context? The Hall of Merit as an institution reinforces the beliefs and biases of its participants at least as much as the Hall of Fame does. It's only the dogmas that's different.
I seem to recall Gossage speaking very favorably of Allen as helping him when he broke in with the White Sox. I'd probably go with him instead of either Roberts (wasn't he gone from Philly by the time Allen arrived?) or Bunning.
I said the idea that Allen got less HOF support from his peers than Maury Willis is an indication that the revised presentation of the Dick Allen story may be overstated. You added the rest.
The fact that another deserving HOFer (in the eyes of statheads) with clubhouse issues still didn't get elected to the HOF doesn't hurt my assessement of Allen's paltry vote total.
Edit: And as Steve mentions in 72, I never meant to imply that it was the only reason he finished so poorly, though that would have been an understandable inference.
Well, it doesn't need to be "all" to be highly significant.
When he was active, I assure you, Allen's off-field baggage was 95% of the story about him. In every discussion we have about him here, in every essay Bill James or Craig Wright or Bill Kashatus or anyone else has written about him, Allen's off-field baggage plays at center stage. I see utterly no reason to imagine it hasn't done so in the considerations of this voting body.
EDIT: Removed double negative from final sentence.
The biggest advantage though is that most of the 60-year old and younger Hall of Famers only remember Reynolds as one the best of the three great pitchers on those great Yankees teams from when they were little kids. Joe Morgan is 65 and was only 9 years old when Reynolds mowed down Brooklyn in the 1952 series. This group has been a mirror image of the Frankie Frisch VC -- it has shown a pronounced bias against players it played against. So, Gordon and Reynolds, whom virtually none of the VC remember well get a lot of support.
This is a sharp insight and a key point. This group of veterans is undoubtedly aware of what the Frisch cabal did in the 1970s, because they've been constituted with fairly explicit instructions to "don't do something like that." I think they may be self-consciously erring in the opposite direction.
Just last week, by a guy older than you. :) On second reading, it isn't necessarily a rousing endorsement but Hochman gets on Bill James for dissing Allen in years past.
Morgan ain't on the comittee. Back when the Joe Morgan Super Friends Committee was in its glory, they kept putting players from the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s (when they played) near the top of their vote tallies, but that's all. Santo, Oliva, Kaat, and Hodges were their favorites every time. As noted already, Joe Gordon got 12.2% of the vote in 2007.
Pre-Gil Hodges committee:
Bobby Doerr
Ralph Kiner
Robin Roberts
Duke Snider
Dick Williams
Phil Niekro
Don Sutton
Furman Bisher
Roland Hemond
Steve Hirdt
Bill Madden
Claire Smith
The Veterans Committee for the pre-1943 ballot consisted of Hall of Famers Bobby Doerr, Ralph Kiner, Phil Niekro, Robin Roberts, Duke Snider, Don Sutton and Dick Williams and historians Furman Bisher, Roland Hemond, Steve Hirdt, Bill Madden and Claire Smith.
OK, so 4 of the 6 players played against Reynolds, although for Roberts and Snider it was only the World Series, and Kiner didn't play for long in the AL. I forget the details of Dick Williams' playing career.
Steve,
Save your breath.
For some reason, this board likes to say people who have well-known and well-earned reputations as jerks weren't really bad guys and weren't really disliked (Bonds, Allen, etc.). We also like to take people with sterling reputations and try to show that they were really selfish (Ripken, Jeter). If I had to guess, I think we are biased towards saying everyone's character is basically the same, allowing us to ignore character altogehter and base our evaluations entirely on statistics. Or maybe we just love to "prove" that conventional wisdom is wrong. The only exception is if a player held a belief that is not politically correct. Then we are allowed to say these players are worthless jerks who belong in hell, regardless of how their teammates feel about them (see Smoltz and Todd Jones, for instance).
I agree with you on Allen, and I learn a lot from reading what you and HW say about older players' reputations. But on this board, if you say, "But Allen was a jerk", the natural reaction is for people to say, "Allen wasn't really a jerk. Player X and Y liked him".
You're looking at his raw road stats, without adjusting for the fact that he didn't get to play in Wrigley on the road?
I think I misread your post -- yea, the Morgan committee that looks at currents do think their #### smells sweeter than everyone else's.
Another key issue distinguishes them from the boys of Frisch-dom: this is a mail-in vote, not a backroom meeting. If they did Frisch era VC votes by mail in, there is no way Fred Lindstrom or Chick Hafey get in.
Actually - let's think. This year, they were limited to 4 names per ballot. They averaged 3.3 names per. At the very least, 21 of the 64 members maxxed out on the names they could put on. If a few only listed one or two, then maybe half maxxed out.
Well, Reynolds _did_ have a long string of 100 walk seasons... :-)
Granted the league walk rates were pretty high during some of those years, but I think it's safe to say that control wasn't his strong suit; he was routinely among the league leaders in walks allowed.
Ah, right. I forgot about the two committees thing. I guess my argument would only pertain to Niekro, Sutton, Hirdt and Bill Madden.
We have 50 people who do for the most part try to remove bias and put a lot of effort into our ballots, yes.
When we ranked the 3B in the Hall of Merit from 1-18, Santo came in 7th, with one vote as high as 4th, and most of his votes clustered from 5-8.
Boyer got twelve 18th place votes from the group of 23 that voted in that one.
Boyer has one 14th place vote, that was the best he did. Santo's worst vote was a 14th place vote.
The burden of proof is on you on this one. You mention OPS+. Santo ended his career 9400 PA and a 125 OPS+. Boyer has 8300 PA and a 116. After 1964, Boyer's last year as an above average hitter, he had a 121 OPS+ through 6450 PA.
The two were not on the same planet as hitters Tony. I don't care what Santo's splits were.
I assumed they split MLB's time line down the middle
1876-1942 (66)
1942-2008 (66)
This is the first time I've heard this stuff, after following umpteen Santo threads over the years here. What are the exact nature of the quibbles? He played almost every day during his prime-is it the kind of crap the Wade Boggs used to get for like loving and caressing his batting title trophies?
I really would have sworn that Santo was a mortal lock this year. Did the cutting down on the allowed maximum votes/voter offset the greatly reduced list of final candidates? Otherwise the math doesn't add up.
Not to mention as was said earlier, that the road stats of every non-Cub in the 1962-68 NL were compiled 11% in Wrigley Field?
So is the solution (if putting guys in the HOF is the solution, which I think it is) reducing the list of final candidates from 10 to 8 or 6? Because it doesn't look like the committee members were treating this as an exclusive club that these interlopers aren't worthy of.
I would say let them vote for 5 instead of 4. That would probably do the trick.
I mean in theory you wouldn't have these elections if you didn't ever want to elect anyone, right? So they should be pushing things towards electing someone.
Another way would be to say the highest vote getter, or anyone who hits 75% gets in.
Or, have them rank everyone from 1-10, 10 for a first place vote, one for a 10th, and elect the guy that scores highest. That force the electors to do some work, and not just dismiss certain people out of hand.
I don't think it was necessarily a matter of teammates disliking him (though - there was the relatively famous incident in '69 when he jumped all over an OFer whose name I forget for dropping a key fly as the team fell apart later in the year).
I suspect most of the 'quibbles' against Santo come from opponents, as I think he was considered... well... let's say brash. For instance, Santo used to jump and click his heels after Cub wins - and I think opponents felt he was 'showing them up'.
Yeah, let's see if it's different. So, eliminating both Wrigley and Sportsmans/Busch we get career road numbers of:
Santo .258/.340/.355
Boyer .279/.339/.392
Santo played in the harder hitters era during his prime (although Boyer was still accumulating more than 1500 at bats after 1964), so he probably comes out a little ahead of Boyer overall (due almost entirely to more walk despite less power). But, it seems like a foolishly thin hook to hang one's case upon.
Wow.
Santo had 1100 more PAs overall so WTF are you talking about?
If Santo hung it up a year before he did his career OPS+ would have been 127, 2 years before 129
If Boyer hung it up at 33 he'd be at 121
Santo top 5: 164, 161, 153, 139, 131
Boyer: 144, 130, 130, 124, 123
Well, when you include the WW2 bonus (didn't start til '42, when he was 25), the count-the-rings bonus (six) and the cool nickname bonus (Superchief!), Reynolds...still falls way short.
I didn't mention OPS+ because I think that it can be horribly misleading when it comes to evaluating park factors. You mentioned it. OPS+ is one of those Holy Grail numbers that a lot of people want to use as prima facie evidence for their case. OPS+ is great as a thumbnail measurement but it misses just as much as it points out.
Seriously? You don't care about what more than 5200 plate appearances might tell us about Santo? There have been only 350 players since 1960 with more than 5200 plate appearances. Saying you don't care about Santo's splits because they don't help you evaluate him is like saying that you don't think Lonnie Smith's entire career can help you evaluate him. It's just foolishness.
Quick! Someone tell the Giants to stop negotiations with Santo for next year!
What about the no-hitters...surely that's the sign of a Hall of Famer.
Oh and congrats to Joe Gordon (or his remaining family I guess), I've always thought it a little odd that he didn't get elected sooner.
It's a shame Dahlen, White, Magee, and Allen didn't get more love.
This is my favorite line of reasoning from people who say that you can't use home road splits. Basically, the argument is my player's great hitting environment doesn't matter but you should still take into account the 10% of your player's stats that he played in my teams park because its such a great hitting park. Somehow, the 10% of the games that Boyer played in Wrigley are a strike against him but the 50% of the games that Santo played in Wrigley should be disregarded.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main