Pretty good list of HoVG prospects.

actually, it's a VERY good list of HoVG's

Which of the candidates made the HOM?
Santo, I assume.
Did Allen and Torre make it?

Joe Morgan's no-brainer picks....

Cubs broadcaster Ron Santo isn't ready to believe this will finally be his year, but if Joe Morgan is right, Santo could be celebrating his greatest personal baseball moment just a few weeks after he hopes to be witnessing his greatest team moment.

That's because changes in this year's veterans committee process might finally lead to Santo's long-awaited call from the Hall.

''I played against him, and when you look at third basemen, he was the best third baseman of his era,'' said Morgan, the Hall of Fame second baseman and ESPN broadcaster. ''I thought that's the way you judged it. Every year I voted for Maury Wills and Ron Santo. Those are my first two guys. To me, they were both a no-brainer.''

I'm sorry to have to ask this, as it exposes my ignorance, but is only a player's active career taken into account in this election, or can managerial accomplishments also be considered?

I'm smelling another goose egg.

Santo is basically going to have to wait until he is dead and buried and some 12 panel group of historians, writers, and old players get together to consider him.

actually, it's a VERY good list of HoVG's

Which means none of them will get in, right?

This is a players ballot to be voted on by the living HOF players. From TFA: "Managers, umpires and executives will next be considered by the Veterans Committee in 2009." I'm not sure who will get to vote on those guys.

Are they bringing them all together to vote or is it a mail-in ballot thingy. I'm assuming the latter, in which case I suspect nobody gets in though Santo seems to have picked up a couple votes since his last go. If they brought the voters together, then I think you get Banks, Williams, Jenkins, Morgan, Schmidt standing up, saying "Santo's an HOFer" and the others will go along -- of course, you might well get the same thing for Wills or Oliva.

''I played against him, and when you look at third basemen, he was the best third baseman of his era,'' said Morgan, the Hall of Fame second baseman and ESPN broadcaster. ''I thought that's the way you judged it. Every year I voted for Maury Wills and Ron Santo. Those are my first two guys. To me, they were both a no-brainer.''

#3 Davey Concepcion.

Schmidt won't be standing up to say Santo's a HOFer. IIRC he refuses to vote for anyone as part of the vet committee cause he doesn't feel guys should get a 2nd chance after being denied their first time around.

I'm sorry to have to ask this, as it exposes my ignorance, but is only a player's active career taken into account in this election, or can managerial accomplishments also be considered?

Player and manager careers are supposed to be separate. I'd assume you were meaning Torre, and while people will say its separate, I think he'll probably get a bit of a boost from it. I don't think it'll matter though, getting in via the VC is almost impossible now, so I'd think Santo's probably the only one who has a legitimate shot.

Every year I voted for Maury Wills and Ron Santo.... To me, they were both a no-brainer.

Touting Wills as a HOF-er is LITERALLY a no-brainer. Seriously, a Maranvillean career OPS+ of 88? At least Rabbit scored almost 200 more runs and "clubbed" 500 more hits than Bump, Sr. Sheesh, talk about torpedoing your own credibility.

Schmidt won't be standing up to say Santo's a HOFer

I heard that Joe Biden is asking Santo to stand up and take a bow.

What? Diabetes? Oh, lets have the crowd stand up for Ron Santo.

Does anyone know the maximum number of candidates a VC member can vote for?

In the past I think it was 10, but now there's only ten names on the ballot.

The relative lack of candidates gets Santo a slight chance.

Here ya go, Dag.

Scroll down to rule #10. Electors can vote for 0-4 candidates.

None of these guys spent much time playing in the fifties, oddly enough. Let's put them all in and remove ten imposters......Joe Morgan commenting on 'no brainers' is a good one.

Schmidt won't be standing up to say Santo's a HOFer. IIRC he refuses to vote for anyone as part of the vet committee cause he doesn't feel guys should get a 2nd chance after being denied their first time around.

Schmidt changed his tune after the first year or two:

I didn't always feel this way. The first few years as a member, I felt very special and deep down, didn't want anyone who was borderline to infiltrate the fraternity.

I came to the philosophy above based on a personal experience. My answer to the big question on Hall membership? It's a reward for being a great player for a long time.

The only one of these guys that I talked to this past week was El Tiante.

Touting Wills as a HOF-er is LITERALLY a no-brainer. Seriously, a Maranvillean career OPS+ of 88? At least Rabbit scored almost 200 more runs and "clubbed" 500 more hits than Bump, Sr. Sheesh, talk about torpedoing your own credibility.

Ok, I am not a fan of Will's HOF chances either, but using OPS to evaluate a shortstop whose primary contribution was running is just plain wrongheaded.

I'm sorry to have to ask this, as it exposes my ignorance, but is only a player's active career taken into account in this election, or can managerial accomplishments also be considered?

Player and manager careers are supposed to be separate. I'd assume you were meaning Torre, and while people will say its separate, I think he'll probably get a bit of a boost from it. I don't think it'll matter though, getting in via the VC is almost impossible now, so I'd think Santo's probably the only one who has a legitimate shot.

Doesn't Rule 6(b) mean that player/managers are evaluated on overall contribution?

Doesn't Rule 6(b) mean that player/managers are evaluated on overall contribution?

Yes. And yet, they split up the balloting. Torre's not eligible for consideration as a manager until he retires from managing. In the meantime, I suspect that the people voting on the players ballot will consider him as a player only, no matter what rule 6(b) says.

IIRC, the last time they did this, they didn't elect anyone -- for the second straight time. At that point, either they said (or I just speculated) that they would have to reexamine the methodology yet again.

Did they, or is this the same method they used last time when they elected no one?

Hall of Merit easily elected Torre, Santo, and Dick Allen - with no credit for managing, announcing, etc
Tiant gets respectable support, Oliva a little, the other have gotten occasional or no votes

pre-1943, we elected Bill Dahlen, Wes Ferrell, Joe Gordon, Sherry Magee, and Deacon White. Walters is close.

We loved DWhite, Dahlen, and also Torre-Santo-DAllen, or at least strong like

Magee 1st ballot in a bad year

Ok, I am not a fan of Will's HOF chances either, but using OPS to evaluate a shortstop whose primary contribution was running is just plain wrongheaded.

I don't want to turn this into a Wills hijack, but what's his case boil down to, really? One 104-for-117 season on the basepaths? I've never heard him described as a top glove man. (He won only two Gold Gloves, for however little that's worth.) And as far as his running goes, if you subtract his stellar 1962 season, his career success rate was just north of 71%. So, to sum up: not much with the bat, not much with the glove, one tremendous season on the basepaths, but otherwise a borderline contributor with his legs. And that's Joe's no-brainer?

Did they, or is this the same method they used last time when they elected no one?

Yes. They changed the methodology considerably. See the HOF site for all the details, but the big changes are: 1) splitting the players into pre- and post-war ballots, 2) having different voters for the two groups, 3) having a screening committee pare the list of eligible players down to 10 for the voters to consider.

Yes. They changed the methodology considerably. See the HOF site for all the details, but the big changes are: 1) splitting the players into pre- and post-war ballots, 2) having different voters for the two groups, 3) having a screening committee pare the list of eligible players down to 10 for the voters to consider.

Did they reduce the voter pile also? I remember that they initially had 90 voters -- all living HoFers, plus writers and announcers honored by Cooperstown. Even assuming the grim reaper has made the rouns, either my memory is off or they've shrunk the voters somehow.

Thanks for the link PH, pretty thoughtful piece by Schmidt.

They can only vote for up to 4 but there are only 4 worthy players on the list. Also, they left off Bobby Grich somehow. He's the best guy eligible in this group.

(Grich)
1) Santo
(Darrell Evans, Billy Pierce)
2) Torre
(Ted Simmons, Graig Nettles, Bill Freehan)
3) Allen
(Minnie Minoso)
4) Tiant
(Ken Boyer, Jimmy Wynn)
(Rick Reuschel, Reggie Smith, Norm Cash)
------
(about 25 other guys they could have picked)
5) Pinson (93rd best player not in the HoM
6) Hodges (121st best player not in the HoM)
7) Oliva (128)
8) Oliver (158)
9) Kaat (159)
10) Maury Wills (NR >200)

My guess is Santo and Kaat make it. This will help Blyleven out.

Wait, if Joe Torre were to be elected in this, would he be put in as JUST a player, or would it be as a "Baseball Man"?

None of these guys spent much time playing in the fifties, oddly enough.

Hodges played the entire decade.

The rules: "Those whose careers entailed involvement as both players and managers/executives/umpires will be considered for their overall contribution to the game of Baseball"

Which means Torre should be an easy pick.

Also, they left off Bobby Grich somehow. He's the best guy eligible in this group.

I don't think he's eligible (for the VC) yet.

It used to be:

retire after year X
wait five years
on the BBWAA ballot on year X + 6
stay on the BBWAA ballot for 15 years until elected or fail to get 5%
no longer eligible for BBWAA on year X + 21
wait 5 years
eligible for VC on year X + 26

IOW, if you get booted from the BBWAA ballot early, you don't automatically start your 5 year VC wait time. You become eligible for the VC the same year everyone else who retired the same year you did, regardless of whether they spent 1, 5 or 15 years on the BBWAA ballot.

If that is still the case, Grich won't be eligible for the VC until 2012.

From Wikipedia:

The final players ballot is sent to all living Hall of Famers, who can vote for as many as four individuals.

This was narrowed down from a larger population:

Voting for the players ballot is now restricted to Hall of Fame members. Winners of the Frick and Spink Awards are considered "honorees" and are thus ineligible to vote on the main players ballot.

I'm not sure how this would affect the candidates. My gut feeling is the HOF wouldn't have done this if the Frick and Spink award winners were casting more votes for the players. Indications are the HOF is trying to improve the odds of players getting in via the VC.

The rules: "Those whose careers entailed involvement as both players and managers/executives/umpires will be considered for their overall contribution to the game of Baseball"

Is this a recent addition? If so, it would help Torre tremendously and Santo quite a bit due to his broadcasting career (not that it really compares to Torre's managing career as an "overall contribution" but it helps).

Also from the VC's website:

All candidates receiving votes on at least 75% of ballots cast will earn election.

This is potentially significant. The HOF will use "ballots cast" as the denominator - rather than requiring 75% of all living HOFers to support a candidate. Is this a recent change?

EDIT: It looks like it has been "ballots cast" for some time now.

Changes to VC Procedures

It appears most of the differences (excepting the exclusion of Frick and Spink winners from the voting) deal with creating the list of 10 player list of eligibles.

Of course that list is incomplete:

"Eligible candidates: All players with 10 or more years experience, whose careers began in 1943 or later. Any candidate on Major League Baseball’s ineligible list is not eligible for consideration"

They certainly don't mean that Lee Smith, Barry Bonds, and Greg Maddux are eligible, do they?

My hunch is that Santo will do better with players voting than he did with the writers, now that the process has been significantly streamlined.

My hunch is that Santo will do better with players voting than he did with the writers, now that the process has been significantly streamlined.

I could see the writers as being more regionally biased than the players.

[Back] After checking 2007's ballot, Santo's a near-mortal lock. I forgot that he got 69% of the vote-with a ballot crowded with like 3 dozen other names. If we assume the "close but no cigar" boost which operates in the BBWAA ballot is at work here at all, and that only having 9 competitors greatly improves his odds, well, he's finally getting in folks no real doubt about it.

Dunno where Minoso is tho-is he in limbo caught between the two ballots or something? His candidacy basically hinges on what his actual birthday is-even with the later date he still has a pretty good argument.

I don't want to turn this into a Wills hijack, but what's his case boil down to, really? One 104-for-117 season on the basepaths? I've never heard him described as a top glove man. (He won only two Gold Gloves, for however little that's worth.) And as far as his running goes, if you subtract his stellar 1962 season, his career success rate was just north of 71%. So, to sum up: not much with the bat, not much with the glove, one tremendous season on the basepaths, but otherwise a borderline contributor with his legs. And that's Joe's no-brainer?


As I said, I am not a fan of Wills, just saying that OPS is a lously tool for assessing players of his type. Thanks again for missing the point entirely.

According to the latest HOF voting rules, Veterans Committee eligibles must be retired for at least 21 seasons before being in a position to be placed on the ballot. Grich retired in 1986, 22 years ago. So Grich is currently eligible, but somehow they bypassed him. Ted Simmons retired in 1988, so he'll first be eligible the next time around, which is 2010 for this group of players. Ditto for Graig Nettles, who also retired in '88. Darrell Evans, who retired in '89, should be eligible the next time around.

Voters can consider a candidate's full career as both a player and manager, so Torre's managing career can be considered in this year's vote, at least in theory. In reality, most of the voters will not vote for him until he retires.

Of the ten players that made the final ballot, it seems pretty clear that Maury Wills is the "worst" of the bunch. He was certainly a fine player, but I recall him as mostly an average defensive shortstop with pretty good range but iffy hands. I wonder how much the Gold Gloves were influenced by the writers' infatuation with his speed and slash-style hitting. And since I've always emphasized the combined player-manager resume for eligible candidates, I guess I should subtract points from Wills for what he did as a manager. Wills is the absolute worst manager of the last 30 years, possibly longer. As just one example, M's broadcaster Dave Niehaus says that Wills once approached him and asked HIM to make out the Mariners' lineup for one game. Gracefully, Niehaus declined the offer.

I can see Tiant getting in -- he had very decent stats, the Latin angle doesn't hurt, plus he was UNQUESTIONABLY one of the stars of the 1975 Series: Perez, Morgan, Bench, Sparky, Yaz, Fisk... the Hall loves honoring anybody big who was in that Fall Classic.

The version on the HOF website includes the list of the other players considered by the screening committee.

The guys who didn't make it through that round were Ken Boyer, Bert Campaneris, Rocky Colavito, Mike Cuellar, Steve Garvey*, Ted Kluszewski, Mickey Lolich, Roger Maris, Lee May, Minnie Minoso, and Thurman Munson.

*(Who at this point may have moved to the so-overrated-he's-underrated list. How many Dodger fans think Wills is a better HOF candidate than Garvey?)

I don't know how Grich didn't even make it to the screening committee. Perhaps nobody realized he was eligible. Thanks for the clarification that Nettles, Simmons and Evans aren't quite eligible yet. Boyer and Munson would have been decent choices to make the final 10.

I don't think Santo gets extra credit for broadcasting. It says manager/executive/umpire. Only Torre and Hodges would get extra credit. Oliva has been a hitting coach. Maury Wills should get demerits for his managing.

"The ballot for the 2009 Veterans Committee election of players whose careers began in 1943 or later was devised by Hall of Fame members, who served as the Screening Committee in narrowing the list from 21 to 10 names during the month of August. Earlier this year, the Historical Overview Committee of the Baseball Writers' Association of America, comprised of 11 veteran baseball writers and historians, selected 20 finalists from a list of all eligible players, those whose careers spanned at least 10 Major League seasons and started in 1943 or later. Concurrently, a screening committee comprised of six Hall of Famers selected five names for the ballot, and the two lists were merged for a total of 21 candidates."

I wonder who the one guy who only got in from the players' list is.

The whole article is here, they also tell you who's going to be voting for the pre-1943 players, if you want to lobby them.

As I said, I am not a fan of Wills, just saying that OPS is a lously tool for assessing players of his type. Thanks again for missing the point entirely.

Reading comprehension not your strong point, Eric? While I may have quoted your statement as a means to amplify my earlier observation that Wills is a mystifyingly undeserving "no-brainer" HOF candidate, there was nothing in my follow-up post that was designed to respond or which actually responded to yours. It's not all about you, big guy.

If Santo can't get in as a player, at least that hairpiece of his that ignited due to a heater attached to the low ceiling in the Shea Stadium radio booth should be sent to Cooperstown as part of what I presume will be a History-of-Shea exhibit.