Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Sunday, February 11, 2007

2007 Veterans Committee Discussion - Players

We’ll have one week of discussion and then the ballot thread will be posted next Monday (the election will end on Feb. 26).

Eligible candidates: Dick Allen, Bobby Bonds, Ken Boyer, Rocky Colavito, Wes Ferrell, Curt Flood, Joe Gordon, Gil Hodges, Jim Kaat, Mickey Lolich, Sparky Lyle, Marty Marion, Roger Maris, Carl Mays, Minnie Minoso, Thurman Munson, Don Newcombe, Lefty O’Doul, Tony Oliva, Al Oliver, Vada Pinson, Ron Santo, Luis Tiant, Joe Torre, Cecil Travis, Mickey Vernon and Maury Wills

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 11, 2007 at 09:58 PM | 61 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

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.

   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 12, 2007 at 01:29 PM (#2295902)
hot topics
   2. Howie Menckel Posted: February 12, 2007 at 01:54 PM (#2295906)
We've elected Allen, Boyer, Ferrell, Gordon, Minoso, Santo, and Torre - that's 7.
Interesting that no one else on that ballot is getting significant support at all here.

With them factoring in Torre's managing career (we didn't), he ought to be a no-brainer for them.
   3. rawagman Posted: February 12, 2007 at 02:10 PM (#2295909)
In addition to what Howie said, we should also make some attempt to look at contributions from some of these guys outside the lines. Flood (also pertinent as we look atMarvin Miller's achievements as a completely non-player), O'Doul (I think - I'll have to look into him more), Hodges (a huge case). Anyone else?
   4. BDC Posted: February 12, 2007 at 02:47 PM (#2295923)
This is like the BBTF HOF, right -- we attempt to mirror the actual voting by the real VC ...

Ron Santo seems overdue. The real VC will probably wait until Torre retires to elect him, whereupon he would seem to be as certain as anyone who's ever managed. Given that this is the Internet and who cares whether Torre has retired, I would vote for him now.
   5. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 12, 2007 at 03:52 PM (#2295943)
This is like the BBTF HOF, right -- we attempt to mirror the actual voting by the real VC ...

Correct.

In addition to what Howie said, we should also make some attempt to look at contributions from some of these guys outside the lines. Flood (also pertinent as we look atMarvin Miller's achievements as a completely non-player), O'Doul (I think - I'll have to look into him more), Hodges (a huge case). Anyone else?

While we can vote for the sum total of a candidate's career, we don't have to, either. IOW, if O'Doul, Hodges or Flood have a case, it personally needs to be in one specific area.
   6. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: February 12, 2007 at 03:59 PM (#2295945)
I would vote for six of the seven that we have elected, I have never been a big Minoso fan.

John,

You post confused me, can we take playing AND managing or playing AND standing up for player's rights into consideration?
   7. rawagman Posted: February 12, 2007 at 04:09 PM (#2295949)
I will interpret John's comments to mean our vote is open ended in hat we can take into consideration. I believe that's what the VC tries todo as well.
   8. DavidFoss Posted: February 12, 2007 at 04:10 PM (#2295950)
With them factoring in Torre's managing career (we didn't), he ought to be a no-brainer for them.

Are they allowed to do this yet? I mean, they'll factor that in eventually and at that point he'll be a shoo-in, but I figured they would wait until he quit managing to induct him.
   9. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: February 12, 2007 at 04:19 PM (#2295958)
I know everyone's seen stuff like this before, but I recently looked through my notes again for a SABR presentation proposal on starter pitcher leveraging . . .

Here's how Wes Ferrell was used in his 110 GS while pitching in Boston -- his starts vs. the other teams in the league, ranked by where they stood in the standings:

Best opposing team - 10
2nd best - 14
3rd best - 16
4th best - 11
5th best - 18
6th best - 20
Worst opposing team - 21


There was one tie - the Sox and Senators both had a .536 Winning Percentage. He faced Chicago 6 times, and Wash twice. I gave Ferrell the benefit here and posted the Sox as the third place team and Wash as the fourth place team. Flip it and it's: 10-14-12-15-18-20-21.

Never, in the entire history of baseball has a starting pitcher of this caliber been leveraged so poorly while still in his prime. Jesse Haines was leveraged worse over the course of his career, but that's only because at the end of his career when he was a spot starter his manager (Frankie Frisch) used him almost exclusively against the league's dogs. Wes Ferrell was still starting 38 games a year and even won 20 for the Sox.
   10. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 12, 2007 at 04:20 PM (#2295960)
Early, off-the-cuff impressions of the ballot.

IN (for me)
Dick Allen
Wes Ferrell
Ron Santo
Joe Torre

IN WITH CONSIDERATION OF OFF-FIELD STUFF
Curt Flood

OUT
Ken Boyer
Rocky Colavito
Jim Kaat
Mickey Lolich
Sparky Lyle
Marty Marion
Roger Maris
Tony Oliva
Al Oliver
Vada Pinson
Luis Tiant
Cecil Travis
Mickey Vernon
Maury Wills

NEED CLOSER SCRUTINY (INCLUDING FOR OFF-FIELD CONSIDERATION)
Bobby Bonds
Joe Gordon
Gil Hodges
Carl Mays
Minnie Minoso
Thurman Munson
Don Newcombe
Lefty O’Doul
   11. BDC Posted: February 12, 2007 at 04:20 PM (#2295961)
There's no rule preventing the induction of an active manager (Frank Robinson went in while active), but for candidates being inducted mostly or wholly as managers, the convention has been to wait till retirement. Actually it's interesting to see when various managers were inducted; Earl Weaver went in ten years after retiring, Sparky Anderson five. Tommy LaSorda was elected right away: whether because they felt he was so splendiferous, or whether they wanted to drive a stake through his heart so he would never manage again, is unclear.
   12. rawagman Posted: February 12, 2007 at 04:29 PM (#2295972)
I have inducted Allen, Santo, Torreand Minoso in my PHOM, so I will also support their claims here. I am very close to electing Boyer and Al Oliver to my PHOM as well, so they probably get by for me here, too. Oliva and Tiant are near my in/out line.
Ferrell was elected here before I joined, so I never the numbers for him. I wasn't a big supporter of Gordon. Hodges may make my cut. Kaat will, only if I can include his broadcasting work - that's a hell of a contribution to the game, all told.
   13. DL from MN Posted: February 12, 2007 at 04:29 PM (#2295973)
I'd drop Ferrell from the list of electees and add Tiant for my ballot.
   14. sunnyday2 Posted: February 12, 2007 at 04:30 PM (#2295976)
Allen, Gordon, Santo, Minoso. A few others wouldn't be terrible selections relative to what is in Coop already, but none of them is even remotely close to my top 25 non-HoF players. It's hard to get excited about Torre and Ferrell as long as Grich and Trammell and Bill Dahlen et al remain on the outside. I may come up with a ten man ballot (is that the limit here, too?) just as a protest against Cooperstown's sudden and irrational exclusivity, but it will be without any enthusiasm after the top 4.
   15. DanG Posted: February 12, 2007 at 06:28 PM (#2296060)
While we can vote for the sum total of a candidate's career, we don't have to, either.


No, we have to consider it. Rule 6.(C) of the Committee on Baseball Veterans begins: "Those whose careers entailed involvement as both players and managers/executives/umpires will be considered for their overall contribution to the game of Baseball...."

John should probably copy the complete rules to the top of this thread so we're all on the same page as regards our mock election.
   16. Archie Posted: February 12, 2007 at 06:42 PM (#2296070)
Found this on another site:




Mack only failed to use Grove much against NY in 1930 and 1931, coinciding exactly with his greatest statistical seasons.

I have posted the following on another site. I was pointing out that Grove pitched very well against NY in his Boston years, much better than his years with the A's.

Grove pitched very poorly against the Browns in '35 and '36, causing Cronin to alter his rotation so that Grove did not face them.

My point in this argument was: Did Earnshaw, Walberg and Wes Ferrell actually suffer statistically by being Grove's teammate? Did Ferrell and Earnshaw - great pitchers in their own right - flame out prematurely because Grove was something of nutcase?

Walberg took in on the chin in 1930, as did Earnshaw who started consecutive game (not both ends of a DH) on five different occasions in 1930.

Thought Grove was healthy in '35 and '36, Ferrell started eight more games each year and worked about a total of 100 more innings than Grove over those two seasons.

Would Bobby Cox have started Glavine eight more times in a season than Maddux if both were healthy? Did Brenley start Schilling eight more times than Johnson in the championship season?

In 1936, when Grove was in a snit after losing a game, Cronin announced that Ferrell would start every third game (two days of rest) while Grove rested up for a big game with NY - more than a week away.

Ferrell got hammered in that pattern.


*************************************

Here is Grove in 1935 and 1936:

1. 2.61 ERA in 100.0 innings vs Detroit.
2. 3.18 ERA in 87.2 innings vs Cleveland.
3. 2.39 ERA in 86.2 innings vs NY.
4. 2.59 ERA in 76.1 innings vs Washington.
5. 2.14 ERA in 75.2 innings vs Philadelphia.
6. 2.11 ERA in 59.2 innings vs Chicago.
7. 5.13 ERA in 40.1 innings vs StL.

I have no idea how often this holds true, but I would imagine throughout history pitchers who played on the best teams in the league had several advantages over the pitchers on middle-of-the-pack teams. (Besides the obvious ones like better run support and defensive support.)

In the 1929-31 years, Mack could -- for whatever the reason -- pick and chose spots for Grove. On the other hand, Cronin had to rely on Grove to face the better teams -- Detroit and NY -- more often in order to make up ground in the standings.

A guy like Wes Ferrell -- always on a middle of the road team -- was more often at this disadvantage than Grove, Gomez, Hubbell or Dean. A desperate manager is more likely to hurl his ace against a better team, maybe even on short rest.

While Ferrell worked a higher percentage of his innings against weaker teams in '35 and '36 than Grove, it was because he pitched about 50 more innings each season. He didn't pitch any less against NY or Detroit than Grove did, but did work harder against the lesser teams.
   17. DavidFoss Posted: February 12, 2007 at 06:50 PM (#2296080)
There's tons of WFerrell stuff in the HOM discussion archives -- and much of it ends up comparing him to Lefty Grove for some odd reason. I never figured that one out. :-)
   18. DL from MN Posted: February 12, 2007 at 06:59 PM (#2296087)
If they're supposed to consider the extras, I don't know how Joe Torre doesn't make his way to the top. He seems to be qualified as a player AND as a manager. Put both credentials together and he's a shoo-in.
   19. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 12, 2007 at 08:03 PM (#2296164)
I will interpret John's comments to mean our vote is open ended in hat we can take into consideration. I believe that's what the VC tries todo as well.

Correct, Ryan.

No, we have to consider it. Rule 6.(C) of the Committee on Baseball Veterans begins: "Those whose careers entailed involvement as both players and managers/executives/umpires will be considered for their overall contribution to the game of Baseball...."

Right, David. I'm going to consider multi-career candidates, but then reject them. :-)

John should probably copy the complete rules to the top of this thread so we're all on the same page as regards our mock election.

As I did with the BBWAA election, the rules will be posted on the ballot thread.
   20. rico vanian Posted: February 12, 2007 at 08:08 PM (#2296165)
Gil Hodges
Ron Santo


They won't elect Torre until he retires.
   21. Chris Fluit Posted: February 12, 2007 at 10:48 PM (#2296289)
11. Bob Dernier Cri Posted: February 12, 2007 at 10:20 AM (#2295961)
There's no rule preventing the induction of an active manager (Frank Robinson went in while active), but for candidates being inducted mostly or wholly as managers, the convention has been to wait till retirement. Actually it's interesting to see when various managers were inducted; Earl Weaver went in ten years after retiring, Sparky Anderson five. Tommy LaSorda was elected right away: whether because they felt he was so splendiferous, or whether they wanted to drive a stake through his heart so he would never manage again, is unclear.

Bob, a lot of this has to do with age. Managers and executives, like players, are eligible five years after they've retired from that particular position (someone could be inducted as a manager while still working as a GM, just as Frank Robinson was elected as a player while still working as a manager). However, there is a recognition that managers and executives are somewhat older when they retire. So they're eligible five years after they've retired or at a certain age (I think it's 65, but it could be 70; I'd have to look it up to be sure) whichever comes first. That means that some managers have to wait while others are eligible as soon as they've retired. And the Hall of Fame hasn't always remembered its own rules so some guys waited the mandatory five years even though they were eligible earlier due to age.
   22. Chris Fluit Posted: February 12, 2007 at 10:50 PM (#2296292)
I could practically fill out a ballot simply by listing players for whom I've voted to induct into the Hall of Merit: Allen, Boyer, Gordon, Minoso, Newcombe, Santo and Torre.
   23. BDC Posted: February 12, 2007 at 11:01 PM (#2296301)
Very interesting, Chris, yes: the age is 65, according to the VC website. Of course, nothing would prevent a HOF manager from returning to the bench, just as nothing was standing in the way of Jim Palmer trying to come back and pitch ...
   24. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 12, 2007 at 11:02 PM (#2296303)
What is Gil Hodges' argument as a manager. He's not all that close in to my 'in' line, so he'd have to have some seriously good credentials. 1969 is by itself not enough.
   25. Andrew M Posted: February 12, 2007 at 11:27 PM (#2296333)
The sad thing is that this list omits probably 50-75 guys who were every bit as good as this group, and yet none of these guys would be close to the worst player in the Hall of Fame. In fact, you could probably pick any of them, including they guys I would put near the bottom like Lolich or Wills (assuming Flood and O'Doul are special cases), and find a current HoF member who was clearly inferior. From a personal standpoint, I'd love to see 89 year old Marty Marion get elected. Being an All-Star and reaching 89 years of age seems as good a reason as any to induct someone.

It is my recollection that there is a 10 player maximum on any ballot. If that's so, I will probably vote for the full 10 for the reason listed above. Off the top of my head, those 10 would be: Allen, Boyer, Ferrell, Gordon, Mays, Minoso, Santo, Tiant, Torre, and either Flood or Oliva or Newcombe.
   26. Archie Posted: February 13, 2007 at 01:33 AM (#2296413)
I looked at retrosheet for the '35 Red Sox to see if maybe Ferrell was held back against New York. I was suprised at how many short series that Boston and New York played. I wonder if because it was such a short trip between the two cites?

Series 1: Single games on three consecutive games. Boston starters were Ferrell, Rhodes and Ostermueller.

Series 2: Single games on two consecutive games. Boston starters were Ostermueller and Rhodes.

Series 3: A doubleheader and then a single game, on two consecutive games. Boston starters were Grove and Hockette, and then Pipgras.

Series 4: A single game and then a doubleheader, on two consecutive games. Boston starters were Welch, and then Ferrell and Ostermueller.

Series 5. A doubleheader. Boston daters were Grove and Cascarella.

Series 6. A single game, an off day, then a doubleheader. Boston starters were Ostermueller, then Grove and Ferrell.

Series 7. A single game and then a doubleheader, on two consecutive days. Boston starters were Wilson, and then Ferrell and Ostermueller.

Series 8. A doubleheader. Boston starters were Wilson and Bowers.


So the Boston starters versus New York were:

Ostermueller with 5
Ferrell with 4
Grove with 3
Rhodes and Wilson with 2.
Pipgras, Bowers, Cascarella, Welch and Hockette with 1.

I don't see any pattern here. With so many short series (and doubleheaders) I can't imagine Cronin has much choice but to use so many different pitchers.
   27. Archie Posted: February 13, 2007 at 01:35 AM (#2296414)
Excuse my many typos. :)

"Consecutive games" = consecutive days.
   28. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: February 13, 2007 at 03:20 AM (#2296509)
I agree with all 7 of the already HoMered - none of the others are in my PHoM yet. Going by my current rankings, the next 3 are Tiant, Bonds and Newcombe. Munson is pretty close as well. And I could see giving extra credit to Flood and O'Doul, although I'd be happier if I knew that it would be credited that way (especially for O'Doul - nobody really argues Flood is deserving just on his playing record.)
   29. Jim Sp Posted: February 13, 2007 at 10:53 PM (#2297103)
Prelim:

Santo
Gordon
Allen
Boyer

Minoso
Ferrell
Torre
Bobby Bonds
Munson
Travis--unlike the others, a real soldier during the war. Lost 4 prime years to the war. 13.2 warp3 in 1941, other seasons 9.4, 9.3, 8.5, 7.3. Died December 2006.
   30. vortex of dissipation Posted: February 13, 2007 at 11:02 PM (#2297111)
In this recent thread, Bob Feller says that he feels Riggs Stephenson might make it:

Bob Feller thread

I noticed he's not listed in the candidates at the head of the thread. Is he on the ballot, or is Feller confused?

(I want to make it clear that I'm not endorsing Stephenson - he'd be a terrible choice. I'm just trying to figure out who's eligible.)
   31. Chris Fluit Posted: February 13, 2007 at 11:53 PM (#2297152)
Stephenson was on the first list of 200 players. He did not make the shorter list of 27 players that will actually be voted on.
   32. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 14, 2007 at 04:06 AM (#2297355)
Candidates definitely on my ballot:

Dick Allen
Joe Gordon
Minnie Minoso
Ron Santo
Joe Torre
   33. DL from MN Posted: February 14, 2007 at 03:53 PM (#2297541)
Since this is Hall of FAME voting it is fair game to assassinate Dick Allen's character. I still think he was a good enough hitter to be a big-time jerk and get in.
   34. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 14, 2007 at 04:05 PM (#2297551)
The Current Fantasy

IN
Dick Allen
Wes Ferrell
Ron Santo
Joe Torre
Bobby Bonds
Curt Flood

The main player I'm not sure about is Don Newcombe. I'm not entirely certain where he'll land once I recalibrate him with NgL credit. But I think it's far enough off the pace that I don't have to worry about being that exact.

So now I've just got to figure out Williams versus Martin over on the composite ballot, and I should be set.
   35. rawagman Posted: February 14, 2007 at 05:42 PM (#2297654)
Question - what is the maximum number we can vote for and is this maximum just for players, or is that a maximum for all concerned?
   36. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 14, 2007 at 10:51 PM (#2297911)
Question - what is the maximum number we can vote for and is this maximum just for players, or is that a maximum for all concerned?

10 for each ballot, Ryan.
   37. vortex of dissipation Posted: February 14, 2007 at 11:29 PM (#2297938)
Assuming that this is like the BBWAA poll from last month, and non-HOM voters are allowed to participate, I'm leaning towards:

Wes Ferrell
Joe Gordon
Minnie Minoso
Ron Santo
Joe Torre (especially with combo credit)

No Dick Allen. Absolutely no Dick Allen. I'm in the Bill James camp on this one.

"As time passes, the evaluation of a player comes to rest more and more on his statistics. There is a simple reason for this which is that everything else tends to be forgotten. His statistics remain exactly the same, and eventually the statistics become the central part of the player's image...

"...The 'other stuff', the stuff that is gradually being forgotten and revised and rewritten out of existence, is that Allen never did anything to help his teams win, and in fact spent his entire career doing everything he possibly could to keep his teams from winning. And what he could do was considerable.

"...He did more to keep his teams from winning than anybody else who ever played major league baseball. And if that's a Hall of Famer, I'm a lug nut."

- from The Politics of Glory.

I don't know if that last charge is true - I'm pretty sure that Hal Chase did more to keep his teams from winning than Dick Allen. But Allen is certainly up there. And unlike the HOM, which deals mainly in cold, hard numbers, character and integrity do come into play in HOF balloting. Which is why a player like Tony Perez, who didn't have anywhere close to Allen's numbers, but was the anti-Dick Allen in terms of leadership and character, is a worthy Hall of Famer, while Allen is not. I'm completely comfortable with Allen being in the HOM and Perez not (Allen's stats, taken by themselves, warrant it), but the HOF is entirely different. There's a reason that Dick Allen spent his Octobers at the race track, and Tony Perez spent his hitting Bill Lee blooper pitchers onto Lansdowne...
   38. Mark Donelson Posted: February 15, 2007 at 12:36 AM (#2298001)
Here's my prelim:

Dick Allen (we've been through it before; I think James overstates the case against him by quite a bit)
Wes Ferrell
Curt Flood (the usual caveat: largely due to consideration of off-the-field contributions)
Joe Gordon
Minnie Minoso
Ron Santo
Luis Tiant
Joe Torre
   39. vortex of dissipation Posted: February 15, 2007 at 12:37 AM (#2298002)
Oops - "blooper pitch" not "blooper pitchers". Bill was a Spaceman, but not literally...
   40. HowardMegdal Posted: February 15, 2007 at 05:44 PM (#2298309)
"What is Gil Hodges' argument as a manager. He's not all that close in to my 'in' line, so he'd have to have some seriously good credentials. 1969 is by itself not enough."

It's not particularly clear to me why he isn't close to your in line, let alone over it, but his managerial record, improving the Senators for each of the five years he managed there, then leading the Mets out of last place and to the World Series in two years is certainly impressive to give him additional credit. He's not an HOF manager by record- he's an HOF player who also has on his record worthwhile accomplishment as a manager.

We may not be able to properly evaluate managers as well as we can, say, Player A's offensive contribution. But available tools show him to be a terrific manager, and his rep at the time - two organizations traded players for the chance to have him as manager - supports that notion as well.
   41. rawagman Posted: February 18, 2007 at 05:10 PM (#2299652)
Anybody with a grip as to the external reasons why one should give string consideration to Lefty O'Doul as a candidate for Cooperstown?
   42. BDC Posted: February 18, 2007 at 05:31 PM (#2299658)
O'Doul's plaque in the Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame reads (well, presumably, translated, it reads):

"From the first time he came to Japan in 1931, he helped improve baseball in Japan. He was an incentive to the birth of current pro baseball (1936)and in 1949 he took his S.F. Seals to the war-torn Japan as goodwill ambassador."
   43. sunnyday2 Posted: February 18, 2007 at 07:18 PM (#2299691)
He (O'Doul) and Buck O'Neill would go into the same wing--and I don't mean the O wing. I mean "good" players (not even HoVG as players) who became great ambassadors. The ambassadorial wing, if there was one. There was yet another gratuitous swipe at the HoF in a travel article in the Minneapolis Tribune this morning for not inducting Buck with the 17 last summer, just showing again the confusion over what the HoF is up to at any given time.
   44. rawagman Posted: February 19, 2007 at 01:45 PM (#2299931)
It wasn't so hard to make a preliminary ballot here, as all of these players (except Wes Ferrell who was elected to the HOM before I joined the project) have already been run through my system, so I didn't need much number crunching. This prelim tries to add factors external to the playing career when and if applicable.

1) Dick Allen - PHOM'ed on playing alone. A NB
2) Minnie Minoso - ditto.
3) Ron Santo - Ditto.
4) Joe Torre - Ditto (caveat - I would understand him not being elected now as he is still an active manager. It makes some sense to wait until he's through with that.)
5) Ken Boyer - High in my personal backlog. More people elected this year will raise the number in the hall as a whole and lower my in-out line. Not a bad thing for a self-admitted big-hall guy.
6) Jim Kaat - Long, very good career as a player and commentator. Adds up.
7) Gil Hodges - Long and very good career as a player and a tragically short and very sweet career as a manager. Adds up.
8) Tony Oliva - More people in the hall would lower the in/out bar just enough to get him over mine.
9) Al Oliver - Ditto.
   45. AJMcCringleberry Posted: February 19, 2007 at 06:09 PM (#2300045)
Does Kaat's work as an announcer count as "contribution to the game"?
   46. Paul Wendt Posted: February 19, 2007 at 06:31 PM (#2300052)
Does anyone give Newcombe three years of war credit, attributing poor work in 1954 to the '52-53 layoff?
   47. Brent Posted: February 19, 2007 at 06:52 PM (#2300062)
I don't boost his actual 1954 results, but I do downweight '54 in figuring his credit for '52 and '53. I do the same with Rizzuto's 1946, which may be a factor in why I rate these two players higher than consensus (Rizzuto near the top of my HoM ballot and Newcombe just off).
   48. rawagman Posted: February 19, 2007 at 07:02 PM (#2300068)
AJM - The hall has a broadcaster's wing, so why shouldn't that work count in his favour?
   49. AJMcCringleberry Posted: February 19, 2007 at 07:42 PM (#2300089)
Since the voting isn't for broadcasters I'm not sure if we are supposed to count it.
   50. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 19, 2007 at 07:55 PM (#2300093)
AJM - The hall has a broadcaster's wing

The museum is where they spotlight the Fork Frick honorees. The Hall doesn't.
   51. rawagman Posted: February 20, 2007 at 10:03 AM (#2300380)
I realize that there is a technical difference between the broadcasters' wing and the players' one, but I will stick with my reasoning. It does not seem fair to penalize the guy because the two areas he contributed in (on field and the broadcast booth) are technically separated in the hall. Both wings are in Cooperstown and it doesn't take much thinking outside the box to find a space for this combo. Doing so would also greatly enhance Ron Santo's case as well.
   52. DL from MN Posted: February 20, 2007 at 03:40 PM (#2300412)
> Doing so would also greatly enhance Ron Santo's case as well.

I've heard Santo announce and I disagree that it helps his case.
   53. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 20, 2007 at 06:09 PM (#2300488)
would announcing help the following's cases?

Bill White
Billy Martin
Joe Torre

Does playing help these cases?

Bill White
Paul Richards
Whitey Herzog
Billy Martin
Dick Williams

Does managing help these cases?

Gil Hodges
Maury Wills

Does GMing help these cases?

Finley
Herzog
   54. DL from MN Posted: February 20, 2007 at 06:34 PM (#2300517)
Announcing doesn't really help too many people. Kaat is the best bet for extra credit.

Playing is essential to Bill White's case. Playing helps out Martin (all-star once) and Williams (decent OF) but not Herzog (platoon OF) so much and not Richards at all.

Managing helps Hodges but not enough. Managing doesn't help Maury Wills.
   55. Dr. Chaleeko Posted: February 20, 2007 at 06:53 PM (#2300538)
Announcing doesn't really help too many people. Kaat is the best bet for extra credit.

Why Kaat and not White?
   56. rico vanian Posted: February 20, 2007 at 08:00 PM (#2300600)
Ken Boyer
Joe Gordon
Gil Hodges
Ron Santo
   57. rawagman Posted: February 20, 2007 at 08:31 PM (#2300623)
Eric, if you looked at both my composite and players ballot, I support the combo careers of Kaat, White and Hodges. I think their combined careers should get them plaques honoring contributions to professional (AKA MLB) baseball.
   58. Rocco's Not-so Malfunctioning Mitochondria Posted: February 23, 2007 at 10:16 PM (#2302513)
This was going to be my actual ballot, but it was getting way too long, so I'll put the full explanation here.

Presuming (a) HOF rules, not HOM rules (so I can get away with going on my gut if I don't have time to look beyond readily available stats) and (b) that non HOM voters will be counted, but separately (similar to the non-vet's vote), I'll list my ballot. Long-time lurker on the HOM (originally discovered pre-BBTF, but been following it regularly for a few years now), just have never had the time (or the experience with spreadsheets) to properly get something together, so I've abstained for fear that I'd miss too many deserving folks. If I can get my act together, I'll try voting for a few years towards the end, just so I can be a part of some other things moving forward (would really like to be a part of any future pro-yakyu project).

In any case, since I haven't explained it in an HOM thread, my basic system (not that I'm going through the full rigamarole here) would be looking at how well a player performed above average during their prime. No credit nor discount for periods at the beginning of a career when the player was up too early, or towards the end when they are just hanging on. Some general credit for longevity and being average (average against other players in their position from their general time period), but not a ton. I realize there are some major flaws in that general system, but it helps correct for some other potential flaws.

Easily in:

Dick Allen
Joe Gordon (War credit would make it a true no-brainer)
Ron Santo
Minnie Minoso

In with help from other accomplishments:

Lefty O'Doul - More as a contributor as anything else, and it's an attenuated thought process to put him into the National Hall of Fame, but we're starting to reap the rewards of what he started now. Did have a few good years as a hitter, many good years as a manager, but really gets there by helping to start up Japanese pro baseball, and more so, by popularizing it by getting friendly with the country's sportswriters. Almost more appropriate to be in on the composite list than the player's list, but I'll vote for him on this side anyway.

Joe Torre - maybe would get in anyway (would have to look more closely at the catchers from his early career), but is a no-brainer with the manager's credit

Curt Flood - not really an "accomplishment", but I'm inclined to think his stand had a bigger effect on the shortness of his career than his alcoholism, so between crediting him with another 3 above-average years for what he was and being the prominent player who was needed to get proper negotiation standing, he's in. Either way, he's plenty good when compared to other CFs from his era.

In with thought:

Wes Ferrell - helped immensely by his hitting and the conditions he pitched under

Ken Boyer - Works well under my system; I can see how he'd be out in many others.

Out, who were considered:

Gil Hodges - Not really good enough as a player, and I really think he wasn't a good manager. He just happened to have a lucky year with a lot of good young players, but there's nothing elsewhere on his managerial record to indicate that he had much of a hand in it, except that he beat Pythagorean by 8 games that year. Seems like a fluke to me, considering Pythagorean beat his teams' actual records every other year of his managerial career.

Carl Mays - Not dominant enough early, not enough innings late. If he hadn't been such a royal a**hole, he might have gotten more p/t as an older player and might have been able to make it under a system like mine.

Bobby Bonds - too close to average for a RF

Luis Tiant - Same with starting pitchers
   59. Paul Wendt Posted: February 24, 2007 at 12:32 AM (#2302563)
Paul Wendt and Eric Chalek hemmed about Don Newcombe
Brent:
I don't boost his actual 1954 results, but I do downweight '54 in figuring his credit for '52 and '53. I do the same with Rizzuto's 1946, which may be a factor in why I rate these two players higher than consensus (Rizzuto near the top of my HoM ballot and Newcombe just off).

Thanks. I suppose no one who gives Newcombe war credit for '52-'53 uses straightline interpolation between '51 and '54 :-)
   60. Paul Wendt Posted: February 24, 2007 at 12:36 AM (#2302565)
Earl Weaver went in ten years after retiring, Sparky Anderson five. Tommy LaSorda was elected right away: whether because they felt he was so splendiferous, or whether they wanted to drive a stake through his heart so he would never manage again, is unclear.

LaSorda was elected right away because of his age.
   61. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 24, 2007 at 09:28 PM (#2302846)
This was going to be my actual ballot, but it was getting way too long, so I'll put the full explanation here.

Brickhaus, post #55 is not your actual ballot then?

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Traderdave
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.6063 seconds
49 querie(s) executed